4.4 Article

Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose and dose-optimization regimens of sublingual apomorphine versus placebo in men with erectile dysfunction

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 56, 期 1, 页码 130-135

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00575-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. A sublingual (SL) formulation of apomorphine has been developed and found effective in penile erectile dysfunction (ED). This study assessed the efficacy and safety of several doses of apomorphine SL in a dose-optimization schedule compared with placebo. Methods. In this 8-week, multicenter, double-blind clinical trial, 569 patients were randomized to four groups: a dose-optimization group in which patients began with 2 mg, increased or decreased the dosage as needed for 4 weeks, and thereafter maintained an optimal dose for 4 weeks; two fixed-dose groups of either 5 or 6 mg; and a placebo group. Efficacy was assessed by patient and partner responses to home-use questionnaires about sexual function and activity and by responses to the International Index of Erectile Function and the Brief Sexual Function Inventory. Results. In all apomorphine SL groups, a significantly higher percentage of patients compared with the placebo group achieved and maintained an erection firm enough for intercourse (48% to 53% versus 35% for placebo, P less than or equal to 0.001) and a significantly higher percentage of attempts resulted in intercourse (45% to 51% versus 33%, P less than or equal to 0.001). The responses to the questionnaires completed by the patients and partners were similar. Apomorphine SL was well tolerated; nausea, the most common side effect, was dose related and diminished substantially during the second 4-week period at all doses. The dose-optimization schedule resulted in fewer adverse events without impacting efficacy. Conclusions. Apomorphine SL is an effective and safe treatment for ED, with 2 and 4 mg providing the most acceptable therapeutic index. UROLOGY 56: 130-135, 2000, (C) 2000, Elsevier Science Inc.

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

4.4
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