Search

More than 30 million men are estimated to have erectile dysfunction (ED) in the United States (Feldman et al.J Urol1994;151: 54–61). Worldwide, ED is estimated to affect more than 150 million men, and that number is expected to exceed 300 million men by the year 2025 (Aytac et al.BJU Int1999;84: 50–6). The prevalence of ED ranges from 7% in men aged 18–29 years (Laumann et al.JAMA1999;281: 537–44) to 85% in men aged 76–85 years. In addition, a recent report showed that 68% of patients with ED aged 18 years and older have at least one comorbid diagnosis of hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes or depression (Seftel et al.J Urol2004;171: 2341–5), and research suggests that ED may be an early indicator of systemic vascular disease (Kaiser et al.J Am Coll Cardiol2004;43: 179–84). Viagra® (sildenafil citrate), the first-in-class phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor, was introduced in 1998 for the treatment of ED (Boolell et al.Br J Urol1996;78: 257–61; Boolell et al.Int J Impot Res1996;8: 47–52). In the 7 years since its market launch, more than 750,000 physicians have prescribed sildenafil to more than 23 million men, helping establish an excellent safety and efficacy record. Clinical studies have demonstrated that sildenafil successfully treats ED of varied organic, psychogenic or mixed aetiology, and is effective in men with ED and comorbidities such as hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes or depression. Sildenafil was a breakthrough medication that addressed a previously unfulfilled medical need. The impact of sildenafil has stimulated academic, clinical and industrial research to better understand the nature of sexual function and develop better treatment and management for sexual dysfunctions such as ED. With the advent of other erectogenic therapies for the treatment of ED, this 7-year update will focus on the unique history and development of sildenafil, its current use and applications and its future directions and indications. Special emphasis is placed on the impact of sildenafil on our understanding of sexual health and on the extensive safety and efficacy data that have been amassed from numerous clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY DESIGN:&EMSP;:This was a two-part pilot study in men with erectile dysfunction (ED) due to spinal cord injury (SCI: cord level range T6-L5). Part I was a randomised, double-blind, two-way cross-over study comparing a single dose of sildenafil 50 mg or placebo. Part II was a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group evaluation of sildenafil 50 mg or placebo, taken as required (not more than once daily) approximately 1 h prior to sexual activity, over a period of 28 days. Objectives: To assay the efficacy and safety of sildenafil 50 mg and placebo. Setting: Clinic- and home-based assessments in the United Kingdom. Methods: A total of 27 subjects who were able to achieve at least a grade 2 erection (hard, but not hard enough for penetration) in response to penile vibratory stimulation (PVS) were recruited. In Part I, the reflexogenic response of the penis to PVS was evaluated in the clinic while in Part II, the response to treatment was assessed in the home (global efficacy, questionniare, diary). Results: In Part I, 17/26 (65%) subjects had erections of >60% rigidity at the penile base (median duration 3.5 min) after sildenafil compared with 2/26 (8%) (median duration 0 min) after placebo (P=0.0003). In Part II, 9/12 (75%) subjects on sildenafil and 1/14 (7%) subjects on placebo reported that the treatment had improved their erections (P<0.005), and 8/12 (67%) and 2/13 (15%) men, respectively, indicated that they wished to continue treatment (P<0.02). An analysis of diary data showed no difference between the groups with respect to the mean number of erections hard enough for penetration (P=0.08). The mean proportion of attempts at sexual intercourse that were successful was 30 and 15%, respectively (P=0.21). Similarly, responses to the end-of-treatment questionnaire indicated that there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to the frequency of erections hard enough for sexual intercourse (P=0.47) or that lasted as long as the... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sildenafil, a selective inhibitor of phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5), is the first in a new class of orally effective treatments for erectile dysfunction. During sexual stimulation, the cavernous nerves release nitric oxide (NO), which induces cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) formation and smooth muscle relaxation in the corpus cavernosum. Sildenafil facilitates the erectile process during sexual stimulation by inhibiting PDE5 and thus blocking the breakdown of cGMP. Sildenafil alone can cause mean peak reductions in systolic/diastolic blood pressure of 10/7 mm Hg that are not dose related, whereas the heart rate is unchanged. Sildenafil and nitrates both increase cGMP levels in the systemic circulation but at different points along the NO-cGMP pathway. The combination is contraindicated because they synergistically potentiate vasodilation and may cause excessive reductions in blood pressure. Erectile dysfunction is a significant medical condition that shares numerous risk factors with ischemic heart disease, and hence a substantial overlap exists between these patient groups. From extensive clinical trials, the most commonly reported cardiovascular adverse events in patients treated with sildenafil were headache (16%), flushing (10%), and dizziness (2%). The incidences of hypotension, orthostatic hypotension, and syncope and the rate of discontinuation of treatment due to adverse events were <2% and were the same in patients taking sildenafil and those taking placebo. Retrospective analysis of the concomitant use of antihypertensive medications (beta blockers, alpha blockers, diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and calcium antagonists) in patients taking sildenafil did not indicate an increase in the reports of adverse events or significant episodes of hypotension compared with patients treated with sildenafil alone. In clinical trials, the incidence of serious cardiovascular adverse events, including stroke and myocardial infarction, was the same for patients treated with sildenafil or placebo. Concurrent disease states, such as renal or hepatic impairment, or concomitant use of inhibitors of the cytochrome P450 isozyme CYP3A4 could increase systemic exposure to sildenafil. Since the US market launch in April 1998, monitoring of spontaneous adverse event reports in association with sildenafil has demonstrated a pattern that is generally consistent with the experience observed during clinical development, with the exception of infrequent reports of priapism. In conclusion, extensive clinical testing has shown that overall treatment with sildenafil for up to 1 year is well tolerated and is associated with a low incidence of adverse events that result in discontinuation of treatment in <3% of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: H 4 receptor antagonists are potential novel treatments for inflammatory skin diseases, including atopic dermatitis (AD)., Objective: We sought to study the efficacy and safety of ZPL-3893787 (a selective H 4 receptor antagonist) in patients with moderate-to-severe AD., Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted to evaluate ZPL-3893787 (30 mg) once-daily oral therapy in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Patients were randomized (2:1) to ZPL-3893787 (n = 65) or placebo (n = 33) for 8 weeks. Patients had a history of AD for more than 12 months, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores of 12 or greater and 48 or less, Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) scores of 3 or greater, pruritus scores of 5 or greater (0- to 10-point scale), and AD on 10% or greater of body surface area. Efficacy parameters included EASI, IGA, SCORAD, and pruritus assessment., Results: Treatment with oral ZPL-3893787 showed a 50% reduction in EASI score compared with 27% for placebo. The placebo-adjusted reduction in EASI score at week 8 was 5.1 (1-sided P = .01). Clear or almost-clear IGA scores were 18.5% with ZPL-3893787 versus 9.1% with placebo. SCORAD scores exhibited 41% reduction with ZPL-3893787 versus 26% with placebo (placebo-adjusted reduction of 10.0, P = .004). There was a 3-point reduction (scale, 1-10) in pruritus with ZPL-3893787, but there was a similar reduction with placebo, resulting in a nonsignificant difference (P = .249). Patient-reported pruritus subscores obtained from SCORAD were reduced with ZPL-3893787 compared with placebo at week 8 (nonsignificant). ZPL-3893787 was well tolerated., Conclusion: For the first time, these results showed that ZPL-3893787 improved inflammatory skin lesions in patients with AD, confirming H 4 receptor antagonism as a novel therapeutic option., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Nitrates and nitrate-containing compounds are vasodilators used for the treatment of angina and heart failure. Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors used for the treatment of erectile dysfunction are also vasodilators, and when taken together with nitrates, synergistic effects that enhance hypotensive effects may occur. Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors are therefore contraindicated in patients taking organic nitrates., Methods and Results: A literature review was performed to provide a historical overview of different phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors and nitrates and their interaction. The pharmacologic characteristics of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors and nitrates are reviewed, and clinical recommendations for treating cardiovascular disease in men taking phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors are discussed. Pharmacologic and adverse drug reactions between nitrates and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors are dependent on many variables. Organic nitrates remain an absolute contraindication in men treated with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. In general, nitrates may be taken 24 hours after the last dose of short-acting phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors and 48 hours after the last dose of long-acting phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors., Conclusions: This literature review determined that the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors with nitrates is a contraindication, with the duration between the last dose of phosphodiesterase inhibitor and nitrate use generally varying between short- and long-acting phosphodiesterase type 5 formulations. Patients receiving nitrates who wish to use phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors should be educated regarding the interaction and should be evaluated to determine whether nitrate treatment can be discontinued. Further research is needed to determine how soon phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors can be restarted after a patient has taken a nitrate and the effect of high and low phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor doses on the interaction effect.

Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of repeated 12-week courses of 5 or 10 mg daily of ulipristal acetate for intermittent treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids., Design: Double-blind, randomized administration of two 12-week courses of ulipristal acetate., Setting: Gynecology centers., Patient(s): A total of 451 patients with symptomatic uterine fibroid(s) and heavy bleeding., Intervention(s): Two repeated 12-week treatment courses of daily 5 or 10 mg of ulipristal acetate., Main Outcome Measure(s): Amenorrhea, controlled bleeding, fibroid volume, quality of life (QoL), pain., Result(s): In the 5- and 10-mg treatment groups (62% and 73% of patients, respectively) achieved amenorrhea during both treatment courses. Proportions of patients achieving controlled bleeding during two treatment courses were >80%. Menstruation resumed after each treatment course and was diminished compared with baseline. After the second treatment course, median reductions from baseline in fibroid volume were 54% and 58% for the patients receiving 5 and 10 mg of ulipristal acetate, respectively. Pain and QoL improved in both groups. Ulipristal acetate was well tolerated with less than 5% of patients discontinuing treatment due to adverse events., Conclusion(s): Repeated 12-week courses of daily oral ulipristal acetate (5 and 10 mg) effectively control bleeding and pain, reduce fibroid volume, and restore QoL in patients with symptomatic fibroids., Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT01629563 (PEARL IV)., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of ulipristal acetate (UPA) for long-term treatment of symptomatic uterine fibroids., Design: Repeated intermittent open-label UPA courses, each followed by randomized double-blind norethisterone acetate (NETA) or placebo., Setting: European clinical gynecology centers., Patient(s): Two hundred and nine women with symptomatic fibroids including heavy menstrual bleeding., Intervention(s): Patients received up to four 3-month courses of UPA 10 mg daily, immediately followed by 10-day double-blind treatment with NETA (10 mg daily) or placebo., Main Outcome Measure(s): Amenorrhea, fibroid volume, endometrial histology., Result(s): After the first UPA course, amenorrhea occurred in 79% of women, with median onset (from treatment start) of 4 days (interquartile range, 2-6 days). Median fibroid volume change was -45% (interquartile range, -66%; -25%). Amenorrhea rates were 89%, 88%, and 90% for the 131, 119, and 107 women who received treatment courses 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Median times to amenorrhea were 2, 3, and 3 days for treatment courses 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Median fibroid volume changes from baseline were -63%, -67%, and -72% after treatment courses 2, 3, and 4, respectively. All endometrial biopsies showed benign histology without hyperplasia; NETA did not affect fibroid volume or endometrial histology., Conclusion(s): Repeated 3-month UPA courses effectively control bleeding and shrink fibroids in patients with symptomatic fibroids., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) registration numbers NCT01156857 (PEARL III) and NCT01252069 (PEARL III extension)., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of flexible-dose fesoterodine in elderly adults with overactive bladder (OAB)., Design: Twelve-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial., Setting: Sixty-one outpatient clinics in Europe, Israel, and Turkey., Participants: Seven hundred ninety-four individuals aged 65 and older (47% male) with OAB symptoms for 3 months or longer, mean of eight or more micturitions and three or more urgency episodes per 24 hours, at least some moderate problems on Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC), and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of 20 or greater., Interventions: Participants were randomized to fesoterodine or placebo for 12 weeks, with stratification according to age (>75 vs ≤ 75) and dosing time (morning vs evening). Participants receiving fesoterodine started on 4 mg and could increase to 8 mg at week 4 or 8 and de-escalate to 4 mg at week 8 (sham escalation for placebo)., Measurements: Changes from baseline in bladder-diary variables (primary endpoint, urgency episodes) and patient-reported outcomes including OAB Questionnaire, Treatment Benefit Scale (TBS), PPBC, Urgency Perception Scale (UPS), and OAB Satisfaction Questionnaire (OAB-S); all observed or reported adverse events., Results: By week 8, 64% of fesoterodine-treated and 71% of placebo-treated participants opted for dose escalation. At week 12, the fesoterodine group had statistically significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in urgency episodes, micturitions, nocturnal micturitions, incontinence pad use, and OAB Questionnaire scores but not urgency urinary incontinence episodes. Responder rates on TBS, PPBC, UPS, and OAB-S were statistically significantly higher with fesoterodine. Improvements in most diary variables and participant-reported outcomes were greater with fesoterodine than placebo in participants in both age groups and when administered in the morning and evening. Rates of dry mouth and constipation were 34% and 9% with fesoterodine and 5% and 3% with placebo, respectively. Rates of adverse events and discontinuations were generally similar in participants in both age groups. There was no change in MMSE score., Conclusion: Fesoterodine was associated with significantly greater improvements in most diary variables and participant-reported outcomes than placebo and was generally well tolerated in older people., (© 2013, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2013, The American Geriatrics Society.)

Objective: Ulipristal acetate is a novel selective progesterone receptor modulator for the treatment of benign gynecological conditions such as uterine myoma. As a Biopharmaceutical Classification System (BCS) II compound, it is highly soluble at low pH but has low solubility at neutral conditions. Esomeprazole, a proton pump inhibitor used widely for treatment of gastric and duodenal ulcers, efficiently increases gastric pH. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine the effects of esomeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of ulipristal acetate., Materials and Methods: This was a nonrandomized, single sequence, 2 period, open, study in 18 healthy female subjects. Subjects received oral ulipristal acetate tablets (10 mg) once on Days 1 and 13 and daily esomeprazole administrations (20 mg) from Days 9 through 14., Results: Co-administration of esomeprazole decreased geometric mean Cmax of ulipristal acetate by 65% (geometric mean ratio point estimate (90% CI): 0.35 (0.28 - 0.42)), and delayed median tmax from 0.75 to 1.00 h (Hodges-Lehmann estimate of difference (90% CI): tmax 0.63 (0.25 - 1.25)) but had minor effects on AUCs of +15% and +11% (geometric mean ratio point estimates (90% CI): AUC0-t 1.15 (1.02 - 1.31) and AUC0-∞ (1.11 (0.98 - 1.27)), respectively. A total of 6 adverse events were reported by 4 subjects, none of them being serious., Conclusions: Concomitant use of ulipristal acetate with esomeprazole at therapeutic concentrations led to a modified absorption rate while exposure in terms of AUC remained close to bioequivalence limits. In the context of chronic administration of ulipristal acetate, no clinically significant effects are expected from co-administration with drugs increasing gastric pH.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of sildenafil citrate (Viagra, Pfizer Inc., USA) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study over a period of 26 weeks in men with erectile dysfunction of a broad spectrum of aetiology., Patients and Methods: In all, 315 patients from five countries were randomized to receive treatment with placebo (156 men) or sildenafil (159 men). Significant concomitant medical conditions were hypertension (20%), a history of pelvic surgery (19%), diabetes mellitus (15%), and ischaemic heart disease (10%). Patients randomized to treatment received a starting dose of 25 mg of sildenafil or matching placebo, which could be increased to 50 mg and then to 100 mg of sildenafil, based on efficacy and tolerability. Assessments of efficacy comprised the 15-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), including question three (ability to achieve an erection) and question four (ability to maintain an erection), a partner questionnaire, an overall efficacy question, and event-log data., Results: After 12 weeks of treatment, 26%, 32% and 42% of patients were taking 25, 50 and 100 mg of sildenafil, respectively. A similar distribution of doses was reported after 26 weeks of treatment. Treatment with sildenafil significantly improved the patients' abilities to achieve and maintain an erection compared with treatment with placebo (P < 0.001). Scores for four of the five sexual function domains of the IIEF (erectile function, orgasmic function, intercourse satisfaction and overall satisfaction) also improved significantly (P < 0.001). There was a significant improvement in the mean score for the erectile function domain, regardless of the aetiology of erectile dysfunction (P < 0.001). After 12 weeks and 26 weeks of treatment, 82% and 79% of patients receiving sildenafil reported improved erections, compared with 24% and 23% of patients receiving placebo, respectively (P < 0.001). Treatment-related adverse events were mild to moderate and occurred in 27% of patients receiving sildenafil, compared with 8% of patients receiving placebo., Conclusion: Sildenafil is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for men with erectile dysfunction of a broad spectrum of aetiology.

The long-term efficacy and safety of oral Viagra (sildenafil citrate), a selective phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor, and the effect of withdrawing treatment were evaluated in men with erectile dysfunction (ED). In 233 men with ED of psychogenic or mixed organic/psychogenic aetiology, 16 weeks of open-label, flexible-dose sildenafil treatment (10-100 mg) was followed by eight weeks of double-blind, fixed-dose, randomised withdrawal to placebo or continued treatment with sildenafil. Sildenafil was taken as needed (not more than once daily) approximately 1 h prior to sexual activity. The main outcome measures were a global efficacy question, a sexual function questionnaire, an event log of erections, and adverse event recording. In the open-label phase, 200 of 216 patients (93%) reported improved erections with sildenafil; 28 patients (12%) discontinued treatment. In the double-blind phase, the significant improvements in the frequency and duration of erections were maintained in the sildenafil group but returned to pre-treatment values in patients on placebo (P values < 0.0001 versus placebo). The most frequent adverse events in the sildenafil group during the double-blind phase were flushing (7%), headache (6%), and dyspepsia (5%). Of the 192 patients enrolled in the 1-y extension, 90% completed the study; only two patients (1%) were withdrawn due to lack of efficacy. In men with ED of psychogenic or mixed aetiology, oral sildenafil is effective and well-tolerated both at the initiation of therapy and during long-term treatment. For most patients, sildenafil treatment must be continued for improvements in erectile function to be maintained.

Objectives: To evaluate the erectile function (EF) domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) as a diagnostic tool to discriminate between men with and without erectile dysfunction (ED) and to develop a clinically meaningful gradient of severity for ED., Methods: One thousand one hundred fifty-one men (1035 with and 116 without ED) who reported attempting sexual activity were evaluated using data from four clinical trials of sildenafil citrate (Viagra) and two control samples. The statistical program Classification and Regression Trees was used to determine optimal cutoff scores on the EF domain (range 6 to 30) to distinguish between men with and without ED and to determine levels of ED severity on the EF domain using the IIEF item on sexual intercourse satisfaction., Results: For a 0.5 prevalence rate of ED, the optimal cutoff score was 25, with men scoring less than or equal to 25 classified as having ED and those scoring above 25 as not having ED (sensitivity 0.97, specificity 0.88). Sensitivity analyses revealed a robust statistical solution that was well supported with different assumed prevalence rates and several cross-validations. The severity of ED was classified into five categories: no ED (EF score 26 to 30), mild (EF score 22 to 25), mild to moderate (EF score 17 to 21), moderate (EF score 11 to 16), and severe (EF score 6 to 10). Substantial agreement was shown between these predicted and "true" classes (weighted kappa 0.80)., Conclusions: The EF domain possesses favorable statistical properties as a diagnostic tool, not only in distinguishing between men with and without ED, but also in classifying levels of ED severity. Clinical validation with self-rated assessments of ED severity is warranted.

Sildenafil citrate has been shown to be effective in a wide range of patients with erectile dysfunction and has been approved in the United States for this indication. The overall clinical safety of oral sildenafil, a potent inhibitor of phosphodiesterase type 5, in the treatment of erectile dysfunction was evaluated in more than 3700 patients (with a total of 1631 years of exposure worldwide). Safety and tolerability data were analysed from a series of double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and from 10 open-label extension studies of sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. A total of 4274 patients (2722 sildenafil, 1552 placebo; age range 19-87 y) received double-blind treatment over a period of up to six months' duration, and 2199 received long-term, open-label sildenafil for up to 1 y. The most commonly reported adverse events (all causes) were headache (16% sildenafil, 4% placebo), flushing (10% sildenafil, 1% placebo), and dyspepsia (7% sildenafil, 2% placebo) and they were predominantly transient and mild or moderate in nature. These adverse events reflect the pharmacology of sildenafil as a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor. No cases of priapism were reported. The rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (all causes) was comparable for patients treated with sildenafil (2.5%) and placebo (2.3%). In open-label extension studies, 90% of patients completed long-term sildenafil treatment, with only 2% withdrawing due to adverse events. Sildenafil is a well-tolerated oral treatment for erectile dysfunction.

Sildenafil (Viagra, UK-92,480) is a novel oral agent under development for the treatment of penile erectile dysfunction. Erection is dependent on nitric oxide and its second messenger, cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP). However, the relative importance of phosphodiesterase (PDE) isozymes is not clear. We have identified both cGMP- and cyclic adenosine monophosphate-specific phosphodiesterases (PDEs) in human corpora cavernosa in vitro. The main PDE activity in this tissue was due to PDE5, with PDE2 and 3 also identified. Sildenafil is a selective inhibitor of PDE5 with a mean IC50 of 0.0039 microM. In human volunteers, we have shown sildenafil to have suitable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties (rapid absorption, relatively short half-life, no significant effect on heart rate and blood pressure) for an oral agent to be taken, as required, prior to sexual activity. Moreover, in a clinical study of 12 patients with erectile dysfunction without an established organic cause, we have shown sildenafil to enhance the erectile response (duration and rigidity of erection) to visual sexual stimulation, thus highlighting the important role of PDE5 in human penile erection. Sildenafil holds promise as a new effective oral treatment for penile erectile dysfunction.