4.7 Article

Comparisons of regular and on-demand regimen of PED5-Is in the treatment of ED after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep32853

关键词

-

资金

  1. Prostate Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81370855, 81200551, 81300627, 81500522]
  3. Programs from Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province [2014JY0219, 2013SZ0006, 2015SZ0230]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors (PDE5-Is) have been recommended as first line therapy for erectile dysfunction for patients received nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. We examed the efficiency of PDE5-Is and considered the optimal application. Systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify all the studies. We identified 103 studies including 3175 patients, of which 14 were recruited for systematic review. Compared with placebo, PDE5-Is significantly ameliorated the International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function domain score (IIEF) scores (MD 4.89, 95% CI 4.25-5.53, p < 0.001). By network meta-analysis, sildenafil seems to be the most efficiency with a slightly higher rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEATs), whereas tadalafil had the lowest TEATs. In terms of IIEF scores, regular regimen was remarkably better than on-demand (MD 3.28, 95% CI 1.67-4.89, p < 0.001). Regular use was not associated with higher proportion of patients suffering TEATs compared with on-demand (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90-1.16, p = 0.72). Compared with placebo, PDE5-Is manifested significantly improved treatment outcomes. Overall, regular regimen demonstrated statistically pronounced better potency than on-demand. Coupled with the comparable rate of side effects, these findings support the regular delivery procedure to be a cost-effective option for patients.

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