4.3 Article

Vardenafil restores erectile function to normal range in men with erectile dysfunction

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEXUAL MEDICINE
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 152-161

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00380.x

关键词

erectile dysfunction; vardenafil; phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors; clinical trials

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction. The ability of oral phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor therapy to restore erectile function to normal is an important attribute to men with erectile dysfunction (ED). Aim. To assess the ability of vardenafil to restore normal erectile function in men with general ED. Methods. In two fixed-dose, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, pivotal studies, patients received vardenafil (5, 10, or 20 mg) or placebo for 12/26 weeks. Main Outcome Measure. In this retrospective analysis, the percentage of patients returning to normal erectile function at week 12 (as defined by scores >= 26 on erectile function domain of International Index of Erectile Function [IIEF-EF]) was determined, with further stratification by baseline ED severity, etiology, age, and duration of ED. Results. Vardenafil 5, 10, and 20 mg returned 32%, 43%, and 49% of patients, respectively, to normal erectile function after 12 weeks, compared with 10% of patients receiving placebo (P < 0.0001). Return to normal IIEF-EF domain scores was noted irrespective of severity, etiology, age, and duration of ED, and was observed even in challenging-to-treat subgroups. With vardenafil 20 mg, 39% of men with severe ED at baseline, 45-49% of men with ED of mixed or organic etiology, 35% of men aged >= 65 years, and 43% of men with ED of >= 3 years of duration returned to normal erectile function at week 12. Mean per-patient SEP3 (question 3 on the Sexual Encounter Profile) success rates in patients achieving IIEF-EF domain scores >= 26 ranged from 87% to 95%. Conclusion. Vardenafil improves the IIEF-EF domain score to the normal range in a substantial proportion of men with ED.

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

4.3
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