AIM: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is very common in patients with renal failure, probably as a side effect of long-term treatments and dialysis, among other etiologic factors. Over the last few years, new highly effective oral treatments for ED have been introduced in the market. We designed a prospective trial in 42 dialytic patients with ED, focusing on the therapeutic effect of syldenafil and apomorphine. METHODS: Forty-two patients aged 57 years (range 34-71), [40 on hemodialysis (HD) and 2 on peritoneal dialysis (PD)] were enrolled in a prospective study comparing sildenafil with apomorphine. After a careful nephrologic anamnesis and uroandrological examination, all patients underwent, before and after each treatment, the International Index Erectile Function (IIEF) test, and the Life Satisfaction test. Expert opinion was based on grading of evidence based medical literature, widespread internal committee discussion, public presentations and debates. RESULTS: The 2 patients on PD were the only responders to 25 mg sildenafil; 25 patients on HD had a clear improvement of the IIEF score after 50 mg sildenafil administration; finally, 11 patients on HD would benefit only from 100 mg sildenafil; the nonresponders to sildenafil were only 4 patients, having to switch to PgE1. When apomorphine was tested on the same patients, a mild response was seen only in 6 patients at the 3 mg dose. No response was seen in the 2 patients on PD. CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant difference in the therapeutic role of sildenafil versus apomorphine, the first producing an overall improvement of the IIEF in 90.5% of patients, compared to 14% of the same patients receiving apomorphine (P<0.001).
AIM: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is very common in patients with renal failure, probably as a side effect of long-term treatments and dialysis, among other etiologic factors. Over the last few years, new highly effective oral treatments for ED have been introduced in the market. We designed a prospective trial in 42 dialytic patients with ED, focusing on the therapeutic effect of syldenafil and apomorphine. METHODS: Forty-two patients aged 57 years (range 34-71), [40 on hemodialysis (HD) and 2 on peritoneal dialysis (PD)] were enrolled in a prospective study comparing sildenafil with apomorphine. After a careful nephrologic anamnesis and uroandrological examination, all patients underwent, before and after each treatment, the International Index Erectile Function (IIEF) test, and the Life Satisfaction test. Expert opinion was based on grading of evidence based medical literature, widespread internal committee discussion, public presentations and debates. RESULTS: The 2 patients on PD were the only responders to 25 mg sildenafil; 25 patients on HD had a clear improvement of the IIEF score after 50 mg sildenafil administration; finally, 11 patients on HD would benefit only from 100 mg sildenafil; the nonresponders to sildenafil were only 4 patients, having to switch to PgE1. When apomorphine was tested on the same patients, a mild response was seen only in 6 patients at the 3 mg dose. No response was seen in the 2 patients on PD. CONCLUSIONS: There was a statistically significant difference in the therapeutic role of sildenafil versus apomorphine, the first producing an overall improvement of the IIEF in 90.5% of patients, compared to 14% of the same patients receiving apomorphine (P<0.001).
Authors: Sarah Zimner-Rapuch; Sabine Amet; Nicolas Janus; Gilbert Deray; Vincent Launay-Vacher Journal: Clin Drug Investig Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 2.859
Authors: Alexander M Ponizovsky; Lev Averbuch; Ira Radomislensky; Alexander Grinshpoon Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 3.390