Literature DB >> 16266193

Treatment for erectile dysfunction based on patient-reported outcomes: to every man the PDE5 inhibitor that he finds superior.

Hans Hedelin1, Peter Ströberg.   

Abstract

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common medical condition linked both to aging and to many medical conditions such as diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. Although a common condition, treatment for ED has in the past been conducted by a few specialists, mostly urologists and sex therapists. The revolutionary introduction of oral therapy, and the massive amount of research into sexual dysfunction that followed, has led to paradigm shift in the treatment of ED. This is no longer something done by a few for a few; it involves all disciplines of medicine and more patients are being treated by a greater number of physicians. Several medications administered by different routes are available for treating ED but oral pharmacotherapy represents the first-line option. Phosphodiesterase (PDE) type 5 inhibitors are the most widely prescribed oral agents and they have a satisfactory efficacy-safety profile in patients of all categories. An alternative for men who do not respond to PDE5 inhibitors is intracavernosal injection therapy with alprostadil, a prostaglandin analogue. Other alternatives include sublingual apomorphine and intraurethral alprostadil. Both agents have a less satisfactory efficacy profile than PDE5 inhibitors and a low compliance rate. The aim of ED treatment is to restore an erection satisfactory for the sexual needs of the patient. Thus, the patient-reported outcome is the gold standard in efficacy evaluation. There are now three PDE inhibitors available, all with satisfactory efficacy-safety profiles, but with different pharmacokinetic properties. The availability of three different agents has initiated studies aiming to evaluate them regarding patient preference. However, the results are rather conflicting with some studies suggesting that tadalafil has the best patient preference, while others fail to demonstrate a clinically significant difference between the three agents. However, there is a tendency for younger men to choose tadalafil because it gives them a broader window of opportunity, while older men tend to prefer vardenafil or sildenafil. These data could be used when making a decision on which PDE5 inhibitor to prescribe, although another option is to let the patient try all three available agents and make his own choice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16266193     DOI: 10.2165/00003495-200565160-00001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drugs        ISSN: 0012-6667            Impact factor:   9.546


  29 in total

Review 1.  Erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  T F Lue
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-06-15       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Intracavernous alprostadil alfadex is more efficacious, better tolerated, and preferred over intraurethral alprostadil plus optional actis: a comparative, randomized, crossover, multicenter study.

Authors:  R Shabsigh; H Padma-Nathan; M Gittleman; J McMurray; J Kaufman; I Goldstein
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 3.  Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels.

Authors:  Richard J Willke; Laurie B Burke; Pennifer Erickson
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2004-12

4.  The efficacy of sildenafil citrate (Viagra) in clinical populations: an update.

Authors:  Culley C Carson; Arthur L Burnett; Laurence A Levine; Ajay Nehra
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  S E Althof; E W Corty; S B Levine; F Levine; A L Burnett; K McVary; V Stecher; A D Seftel
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 6.  Vardenafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction: a critical review of the literature based on personal clinical experience.

Authors:  Francesco Montorsi; Andrea Salonia; Alberto Briganti; Luigi Barbieri; Giuseppe Zanni; Nazareno Suardi; Andrea Cestari; Piero Montorsi; Patrizio Rigatti
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2005-01-26       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Prospective, randomized, crossover comparison of sublingual apomorphine (3 mg) with oral sildenafil (50 mg) for male erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  C Pavone; F Curto; G Anello; V Serretta; P L Almasio; M Pavone-Macaluso
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  The efficacy and safety of tadalafil: an update.

Authors:  C C Carson; J Rajfer; I Eardley; S Carrier; J S Denne; D J Walker; W Shen; W H Cordell
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  Development and validation of the Self-Esteem And Relationship (SEAR) questionnaire in erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  J C Cappelleri; S E Althof; R L Siegel; A Shpilsky; S S Bell; S Duttagupta
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.896

10.  Incidence and determinants of sildenafil (dis)continuation: the Dutch cohort of sildenafil users.

Authors:  P C Souverein; A C G Egberts; E J H Meuleman; J Urquhart; H G M Leufkens
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.896

View more
  1 in total

1.  Patient preference and satisfaction in erectile dysfunction therapy: a comparison of the three phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors sildenafil, vardenafil and tadalafil.

Authors:  Amr Abdel Raheem; Philip Kell
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2009-11-03       Impact factor: 2.711

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.