Literature DB >> 11464037

Double-blind, crossover comparison of 3 mg apomorphine SL with placebo and with 4 mg apomorphine SL in male erectile dysfunction.

E Dula1, S Bukofzer, R Perdok, M George.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To establish the efficacy and safety of a fixed, 3-mg dose of apomorphine SL compared with placebo, and to compare 3 mg with 4 mg apomorphine SL in patients with erectile dysfunction.
METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, crossover study included 296 heterosexual men with ED of various etiologies and severities. Two crossover groups were evaluated separately: 3 mg apomorphine SL vs. placebo (n = 194), and 3 vs. 4 mg apomorphine SL (n = 102). The primary efficacy variable was the percentage of attempts resulting in erections firm enough for intercourse; additional variables included the percentage of attempts resulting in intercourse and time to erection. Partner assessments were also analyzed.
RESULTS: 3 mg apomorphine SL was significantly more effective than placebo (p<0.001) for the percentage of attempts resulting in erections firm enough for intercourse and resulting in intercourse, as assessed by both patients and partners. Median time to erection was 18.8 min. The 3-mg dose was not significantly different from 4 mg in the evaluation of efficacy variables, but the incidence of adverse events was higher with 4 mg. Nausea was the most common event, reported by 3.3% of patients on 3 mg vs. 14.1% on 4 mg; in the placebo comparison, nausea was reported by 7.0% of patients taking 3 mg apomorphine SL vs. 1.1% of those taking placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: 3 mg apomorphine SL was significantly more effective than placebo and comparable to 4 mg, while offering an improved risk-benefit ratio.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11464037     DOI: 10.1159/000052503

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  16 in total

1.  Pharmacologic treatment of erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  William D Steers
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2002

Review 2.  A comparative review of apomorphine formulations for erectile dysfunction : recommendations for use in the elderly.

Authors:  Alberto Briganti; Felix K-H Chun; Andrea Salonia; Giuseppe Zanni; Federico Dehò; Luigi Barbieri; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.923

Review 3.  An overview of the diagnosis and treatment of erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  Sivaprakasam Sivalingam; Hashim Hashim; Hartwig Schwaibold
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 9.546

4.  Oral pharmacotherapy and the contemporary evaluation and management of erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  Gregory A Broderick
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2003

Review 5.  Treatment of autonomic dysfunction in Parkinson disease and other synucleinopathies.

Authors:  Jose-Alberto Palma; Horacio Kaufmann
Journal:  Mov Disord       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 10.338

Review 6.  New treatment options for erectile dysfunction in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Ansu Basu; Robert E J Ryder
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 7.  A comparative review of the options for treatment of erectile dysfunction: which treatment for which patient?

Authors:  Konstantinos Hatzimouratidis; Dimitrios G Hatzichristou
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 8.  Parkinson disease: an update.

Authors:  Steven J Frucht
Journal:  Neurologist       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 1.398

Review 9.  Erectile dysfunction: management update.

Authors:  Luke Fazio; Gerald Brock
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2004-04-27       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 10.  Female sexual dysfunction: therapeutic options and experimental challenges.

Authors:  Kyan J Allahdadi; Rita C A Tostes; R Clinton Webb
Journal:  Cardiovasc Hematol Agents Med Chem       Date:  2009-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.