Search

Background: Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors and α-adrenergic blocking agents (α-blockers) are widely used for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)., Aims: To assess the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of tamsulosin and tadalafil compared with tadalafil monotherapy in patients with comorbid BPH-associated LUTS and ED., Methods: A randomized, double-blinded, active-controlled trial was conducted of 510 men with BPH-associated LUTS and ED. Patients were treated with FDCs of tamsulosin 0.4 mg plus tadalafil 5 mg (FDC 0.4/5 mg), tamsulosin 0.2 mg plus tadalafil 5 mg (FDC 0.2/5 mg), or tadalafil 5 mg for a 12-week treatment period. For a subsequent 12-week extension period, the patients were administered FDC 0.4/5 mg., Outcomes: The primary outcomes were changes from baseline in total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function erectile function domain (IIEF-EF) score at week 12 to prove superiority and non-inferiority of FDCs compared with tadalafil 5 mg. The safety assessments were adverse reactions, laboratory test results, and vital signs at week 24., Results: The mean changes in total IPSS and IIEF-EF scores were -9.46 and 9.17 for FDC 0.4/5 mg and -8.14 and 9.49 for tadalafil 5 mg, respectively, which indicated superiority in LUTS improvement (P = .0320) and non-inferiority in ED treatment with FDC 0.4/5 mg compared with tadalafil 5 mg. However, the results from FDC 0.2/5 mg failed to demonstrate superiority in LUTS improvement. No clinically significant adverse events regarding the investigational products were observed during the 24-week period., Clinical Implications: The FDC 0.4/5 mg is the first combined formulation of an α-blocker and a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor that offers benefits in patient compliance and as add-on therapy in patients with comorbid BPH-associated LUTS and ED., Strengths and Limitations: The study clearly demonstrated the advantage of FDC 0.4/5 mg. The main advantage of FDC 0.4/5 mg was the enhanced efficacy on BPH-associated LUTS comorbidity with ED, the lower incidence of side effects, and the simplification and convenience of therapy, which led to better overall patient compliance. However, the lack of a tamsulosin monotherapy control group was a limitation of this study., Conclusion: The FDC 0.4/5 mg therapy was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious, indicating that combination therapy could provide clinical benefits for patients with BPH-associated LUTS complaints and ameliorate the comorbidity of ED. Kim SW, Park NC, Lee SW, et al. Efficacy and Safety of a Fixed-Dose Combination Therapy of Tamsulosin and Tadalafil for Patients With Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Erectile Dysfunction: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blinded, Active-Controlled Trial. J Sex Med 2017;14:1018-1027., (Copyright © 2017 International Society for Sexual Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Once-daily administration of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors has been shown to correct erectile dysfunction (ED)., Aim: To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety after once-daily oral administration of udenafil 75 mg in men with ED., Methods: This clinical trial was an open-label, fixed-dose, 24-week extension study (DA8159&#95;EDDL&#95;III) of a 24-week double-blinded efficacy and safety study of once-daily udenafil (parent study: DA8159&#95;EDD&#95;III). Subjects received udenafil 75 mg once daily for 24 weeks during this extension study, and the follow-up visit occurred during the 4-week ED treatment-free period., Main Outcome Measures: Subjects were asked to complete the International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire and the Global Assessment Questionnaire at the 24-week extension and after the 4-week ED treatment-free period, and the development of adverse drug reactions was investigated., Results: In total, 302 subjects were enrolled in this extension study. Improvement was shown with an increased erectile function (EF) domain score compared with baseline (14.60 ± 4.57) at extension week 48 (23.98 ± 5.44) and a slight increase in EF domain score compared with the last time point (week 24) of the parent study (P < .001). The Global Assessment Questionnaire showed a high improvement rate of 95.4% at the extension 48-week time point. For shift to normal, almost half the subjects (45.1%) recovered "normal" EF, and 14.2% of subjects reported normal erections after the 4-week ED treatment-free period. The occurrence rate of adverse drug reactions was 8%, which consisted mainly of flushing and headache., Conclusion: Once-daily dosing of udenafil 75 mg showed excellent efficacy and safety with long-term administration and allowed a more spontaneous sexual life., (Copyright © 2016 International Society for Sexual Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A once-daily dosing regimen with a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor is needed for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED), in part because of the behavioral complexities associated with sexual intimacy. Many patients prefer spontaneous rather than scheduled sexual activities or they anticipate frequent sexual encounters. The pharmacokinetic profiles of udenafil with a time of maximal concentration of 1.0-1.5h and a terminal half-life of 11-13 h make udenafil a good candidate for once-daily dosing., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of udenafil in the treatment of ED., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, fix-dosed clinical trial involved 237 patients with ED. The subjects, who were treated with placebo or udenafil (25mg, 50mg, or 75 mg) once daily for 12 wk, were asked to complete the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), the Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) diary, and the Global Assessment Questionnaire (GAQ) during the study., Measurements: The primary outcome parameter was the change from baseline for the IIEF erectile function domain (EFD) score. The secondary outcome parameters were SEP questions 2 and 3, the shift to normal rate (EFD ≥ 26), and the response to the GAQ., Results and Limitations: Compared with placebo, patients who took 50mg or 75 mg of udenafil had a significantly improved IIEF-EFD score. Similar results were observed in comparing questions 2 and 3 in the SEP diary and the GAQ. Flushing was the most common treatment-related adverse event, which was transient and mild to moderate in severity., Conclusions: Udenafil significantly improved erectile function among ED patients when administered in doses of 50mg or 75 mg once daily for 12 wk. Daily administration of udenafil (50mg) may be another treatment option for ED., (Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are reported to experience more severe erectile dysfunction (ED) symptoms and respond less to ED treatments compared with patients with ED of other etiologies., Aim: This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of udenafil for the treatment of ED in a larger number of patients with DM., Methods: A placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group design multicenter study, fixed-dose trial was conducted. The trial involved seven study sites in Korea, with 174 ED patients with DM. The subjects, treated with placebo, 100 mg, or 200 mg of udenafil for 12 weeks, were asked to complete the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), the Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) diary, and the Global Assessment Question (GAQ) during the study period., Main Outcome Measures: The primary efficacy parameter was the change in the erectile function domain (EFD) score of IIEF from baseline. Secondary parameters were IIEF questions 3 (Q3) and Q4, SEP Q2 and Q3, rate of achieving normal erectile function (EFD ≥ 26), and the response to GAQ., Results: Compared with the placebo, patients receiving both doses of udenafil showed statistically significant improvements in the IIEF-EFD score, respectively. However, statistically significant difference was not observed between the udenafil 100 mg and the udenafil 200 mg groups. Similar results were observed in the comparison of Q3 and Q4 of IIEF, SEP diary, and GAQ. The percentages of subjects experiencing at least one adverse event related to the study drugs were 3.6%, 15.8%, and 22.4% for the placebo, udenafil 100 mg, and udenafil 200 mg groups, respectively. However, these events were all mild in severity. Major adverse events were flushing, headache, nausea, and conjunctival hyperemia., Conclusion: Udenafil was significantly effective for the treatment of ED, demonstrating statistically significant improvement in erectile function in patients with DM. The incidence of adverse events was relatively low and well tolerated in patients with DM., (© 2011 International Society for Sexual Medicine.)

Introduction: Mirodenafil is a newly developed selective phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED)., Aim: To evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of mirodenafil in the treatment of ED in Korean men with diabetes., Methods: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, fixed-dose study was conducted with 112 subjects who were randomized to either placebo or mirodenafil 100 mg on demand for 12 weeks., Main Outcome Measures: Primary efficacy variable was the erectile function (EF) domain scores of the International Index of Erectile Dysfunction (IIEF) questionnaire. Secondary efficacy variables included change in the scores of IIEF question 3 and 4 (IIEF Q3 and Q4) from baseline, change in all domain scores in the IIEF from baseline, Sexual Encounter Profile questions 2 and 3 (SEP2 and SEP3), the Global Assessment Question (GAQ) and the Life Satisfaction Checklist (LSC)., Results: After 12 weeks of treatment, mirodenafil group showed significantly greater change in the IIEF-EF domain score from baseline compared with the placebo group (9.3 vs. 1.4, P < 0.0001). The changes from baseline in the mirodenafil group in IIEF Q3 (1.7 vs. 0.4, P < 0.0001) and Q4 (1.7 vs. 0.3, P < 0.0001) were higher compared with the placebo group. Differences between the mirodenafil and placebo groups were significant in the SEP2 (82.0% vs. 55.2%, P = 0.0003), SEP3 (68.9% vs. 22.3%, P < 0.0001). Difference in GAQ "YES" responses was also significant (76.9% vs. 19.1%, P < 0.0001). Normal EF domain scores (≥ 26) at study end were achieved by 32.7% and 9.4% in the mirodeniafl and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.0031). As for the LSC scores, the mirodenafil group showed significantly greater improvements in sexual life and partner relationship than the placebo group. Most treatment-associated AEs were mild that resolved spontaneously., Conclusions: Mirodenafil is an effective and well-tolerated agent for the treatment of diabetic patients with ED in Korea., (© 2010 International Society for Sexual Medicine.)