4.6 Article

Efficacy and safety of tadalafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction: Results of integrated analyses

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 168, 期 4, 页码 1332-1336

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64442-4

关键词

penis; penile erection; impotence; drug therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We conducted integrated analyses of the efficacy and safety of tadalafil, a potent, selective phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor, for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Materials and Methods: A total of 1, 112 men with a mean age of 59 years (range 22 to 82) and mild to severe erectile dysfunction of various etiologies were randomized to placebo or tadalafil, taken as needed without food or alcohol restrictions, at fixed daily doses of 2.5 mg., 5 mg., 10 mg., or 20 mg. in 5 randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trials lasting 12 weeks. The 3 co-primary outcomes were changes from baseline in the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function and the proportion of yes responses to questions 2 and 3 of the Sexual Encounter Profile. Additional efficacy instruments included a Global Assessment Question. Results: Compared with placebo, tadalafil significantly enhanced all efficacy outcomes. Patients receiving 20 mg. tadalafil experienced a significant mean improvement of 7.9 in International Index of Erectile Function erectile function domain score from baseline (p <0.001 versus placebo), 75% of intercourse attempts (Sexual Encounter Profile question 3, a secondary efficacy outcome) were successfully completed (p <0.001 versus placebo) and 81% reported improved erections at end point compared with 35% in the control group (p <0.001). Tadalafil was consistently efficacious across disease severities and etiologies, as well as in patients of all ages. Tadalafil was well tolerated, and headache and dyspepsia were the most frequent adverse events. Conclusions: Tadalafil was effective and well tolerated in this patient population.

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

4.6
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