4.7 Review

Evidence for benefits and risks of tadalafil as a non-prescription medicine: review and evaluation using the Group Delphi technique to achieve consensus amongst clinical experts

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1254706

关键词

erectile dysfunction; non-prescription; phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5 inhibitor); reclassification; tadalafil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the benefits and risks of reclassifying tadalafil, a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, as an over-the-counter medication. The expert panel concluded that the benefits outweighed the risks and considered the risk mitigation strategies of packaging label and patient information leaflet to be sufficient.
An evidence-based consensus meeting was held with urologists, a pharmacist and a cardiologist to perform a structured benefit-risk analysis of reclassifying tadalafil, a phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor for treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED), to be available without prescription in Germany. As per the Brass process endorsed by regulatory authorities, an evidence-based Brass value tree was developed, which identified the incremental benefits and risks that should be considered above the safety and efficacy evidence required for prescription medicines. During the Group Delphi consensus meeting, the expert panel rated the likelihood and clinical impact of each benefit and risk on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (high). Overall attribute scores were calculated from the product of the mean likelihood and mean clinical impact scores giving a possible score of 0-9. The overall benefit attribute scores ranged from 2.8 to 5.4. The overall risk attribute scores ranged from 0.2 to 2.2 though most were 1.0 or less (3 or more is generally considered to be of concern). On balance, the independent meeting scored the benefits of reclassification of tadalafil higher than the risks and considered the risk mitigation strategies of the packaging label and patient information leaflet (PIL) sufficient.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据