(Medical and Mechanical) Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction

Transcription

130
SOP Conservative (Medical and Mechanical) Treatment of
Erectile Dysfunction
jsm_12023
130..171
Hartmut Porst, MD,* Arthur Burnett, MD, MBA, FACS,† Gerald Brock, MD, FRCSC,‡
Hussein Ghanem, MD,§ Francois Giuliano, MD,¶ Sidney Glina, MD,** Wayne Hellstrom, MD, FACS,††
Antonio Martin-Morales, MD,‡‡ Andrea Salonia, MD,§§ Ira Sharlip, MD,¶¶ and the ISSM Standards
Committee for Sexual Medicine
*Private Urological/Andrological Practice, Hamburg, Germany; †The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The
Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA; ‡Division of Urology, University of Western, ON, Canada; §Sexology &
STDs, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt; ¶Neuro-Urology-Andrology Unit, Department of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, Raymond Poincaré Hospital, Garches, France; **Instituto H.Ellis, São Paulo, Brazil; ††Department of
Urology, Section of Andrology and Male Infertility, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA;
‡‡
Unidad Andrología, Servicio Urología Hospital, Regional Universitario Carlos Haya, Málaga, Spain; §§Department of
Urology & Urological Reseach Institute (URI), Universiti Vita Saluta San Raffaele, Milan, Italy; ¶¶University of California at
San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
DOI: 10.1111/jsm.12023
ABSTRACT
Introduction. Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the most frequently treated male sexual dysfunction worldwide. ED is a
chronic condition that exerts a negative impact on male self-esteem and nearly all life domains including interpersonal, family, and business relationships.
Aim. The aim of this study is to provide an updated overview on currently used and available conservative treatment
options for ED with a special focus on their efficacy, tolerability, safety, merits, and limitations including the role of
combination therapies for monotherapy failures.
Methods. The methods used were PubMed and MEDLINE searches using the following keywords: ED, phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors, oral drug therapy, intracavernosal injection therapy, transurethral therapy,
topical therapy, and vacuum-erection therapy/constriction devices. Additionally, expert opinions by the authors of
this article are included.
Results. Level 1 evidence exists that changes in sedentary lifestyle with weight loss and optimal treatment of
concomitant diseases/risk factors (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia) can either improve ED or add to the
efficacy of ED-specific therapies, e.g., PDE5 inhibitors. Level 1 evidence also exists that treatment of hypogonadism
with total testosterone < 300 ng/dL (10.4 nmol/L) can either improve ED or add to the efficacy of PDE5 inhibitors.
There is level 1 evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of the following monotherapies in a spectrum-wide range
of ED populations: PDE5 inhibitors, intracavernosal injection therapy with prostaglandin E1 (PGE1, synonymous
alprostadil) or vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP)/phentolamine, and transurethral PGE1 therapy. There is level 2
evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of the following ED treatments: vacuum-erection therapy in a wide range
of ED populations, oral L-arginine (3–5 g), topical PGE1 in special ED populations, intracavernosal injection
therapy with papaverine/phentolamine (bimix), or papaverine/phentolamine/PGE1 (trimix) combination mixtures.
There is level 3 evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of oral yohimbine in nonorganic ED. There is level 3
evidence that combination therapies of PDE5 inhibitors + either transurethral or intracavernosal injection therapy
generate better efficacy rates than either monotherapy alone. There is level 4 evidence showing enhanced efficacy
with the combination of vacuum-erection therapy + either PDE5 inhibitor or transurethral PGE1 or intracavernosal
injection therapy. There is level 5 evidence (expert opinion) that combination therapy of PDE5 inhibitors + Larginine or daily dosing of tadalafil + short-acting PDE5 inhibitors pro re nata may rescue PDE5 inhibitor monotherapy failures. There is level 5 evidence (expert opinion) that adding either PDE5 inhibitors or transurethralPGE1
may improve outcome of penile prosthetic surgery regarding soft (cold) glans syndrome. There is level 5 evidence
(expert opinion) that the combination of PDE5 inhibitors and dapoxetine is effective and safe in patients suffering
ISSM Standards Committee for Sexual Medicine
Sub-Committee Male Sexual Dysfunction
Chapter: Medical/Conservative Treatment in ED, Priapism, and Peyronie’s Disease
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
© 2013 International Society for Sexual Medicine
131
Conservative Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction
from both ED and premature ejaculation. Porst H, Burnett A, Brock G, Ghanem H, Giuliano F, Glina S,
Hellstrom W, Martin-Morales A, Salonia A, Sharlip I, and the ISSM Standards Committee for Sexual
Medicine. SOP conservative (medical and mechanical) treatment of erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med
2013;10:130–171.
Key Words. Erectile Dysfunction; Oral Drug Treatment; Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors; Intracavernous SelfInjection Therapy; Transurethral Alprostadil Therapy; Combination Therapies; Vacuum Device Therapy
Introduction
Table 2 Age-dependent frequency of sexual activities in
Germany and Japan [2,3]
S
exuality is a key domain in the lives of humans.
In the majority of partnerships, sexuality
remains the most important or at least a very
important bonding factor regardless of an individual’s homosexual or heterosexual orientation.
Until recently, sex (which in this context refers
both to an active sex life and interest in sexual
activities) is commonly associated in the public
domain with younger age groups, whereas sexual
activities in elderly individuals (>70 or even 80
years) are considered in many cultures to be somewhat uncommon or even strange. Therefore, in
the scientific literature, few representative data
exist regarding the importance of sex life in the
elderly population. In a population-based cohort
study from Perth, Australia of 3,274 men, aged
75–95 years, sexual life and activities were explored
via questionnaires from 1996 to 1999, from 2001
to 2004, and from 2008 to 2009 [1].
A total of 2,783 (85%) provided data on their
sexual activity (Table 1).
In two previous studies from Germany and
Japan investigating sexual activities in age groups
between 30 and 80 years of age, the frequency of
sexual activity (coitus, masturbation, erotic
movies, etc.) over the months prior to the study
was between 70% and 96% (Table 2).
These three large studies from three different
cultures provide convincing evidence that for the
Table 1 Results of a population-based cohort study from
Perth, Australia, with 2,783 (85%) of 3,274 men, aged
75–95 years, providing data on sexual life and activities
from 1996–1999, 2001–2004, and 2008–2009 [1]
Item
Yes
responses
Sex at least somewhat important
At least one sexual encounter in the past 12 months
Satisfied with frequency of sexual activity
Sex less often than preferred
48.8%
30.8%
56.5%
43%
German (Cologne) study
Japanese study
Age
(years)
No. of
patients
Sexually
active
No. of
patients
Sexually
active
Total
30–39
40–49
50–59
60–69
70–79
>80
4.489
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not evaluated
96%
92%
89%
84%
71%
9.880
679
1.010
883
3.552
2.308
220
96%
96%
92–95%
80–88%
55–70%
44%
majority of older men, sexual activities play an
important role as a bonding factor for partnerships.
Alternatively, many studies suggest that sexual
health is not maintained in many elderly men.
Declining sexual health is a process that usually
starts in the fifth decade and increases progressively
with age. This statement applies generally for all
male sexual functions including sexual desire,
sexual arousal, erectile function, and ejaculatory/
orgasmic capacity, as has been shown in a Norwegian epidemiologic study (see Figure 1).
From a clinical standpoint, erectile dysfunction
(ED) is categorized in two major subtypes: (i)
primary ED defined as ED that occurs from the
beginning of sexual activities and (ii) secondary or
acquired ED defined as ED that occurs after a
period of normal sexual life in which erectile function is intact.
Many men experience erectile problems that
are clearly related to temporary life circumstances
or problems. These erectile problems disappear
once the temporary circumstances are resolved. In
these cases, consultation with a physician is not
needed.
In contrast to these temporary erectile problems, a man experiencing longer-lasting ED of
greater than 3–6 months should seek professional
help and undergo a thorough medical evaluation
both because of the increasing risk of partnership
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
132
Table 3
Porst et al.
Prevalence of male sexual disorders in the elderly U.S. population [4]
Sexual disorder
57–64 years
65–74 years
75–85 years
Premature ejaculation
Delayed/absent ejaculation/orgasm
Erectile dysfunction
29.5% (23.4–35.7%)
16.2% (11.9–20.5%)
30.7% (25.3–36.9%
28.1% (23.4–32.9%)
22.7% (17.5–27.9%)
44.6% (38.7–50.5%)
21.3% (13.2–29.3%)
33.2% (25.0–41.5%)
43.5% (34.5–52.4%)
problems and the likelihood of underlying and
principally treatable medical risk factors/diseases
contributing to the onset or progression of
ED.
Epidemiology
ED and premature ejaculation (PE) are the most
common male sexual disorders (Table 3). The
prevalence of these disorders is similar. In contrast
to PE, ED is clearly age dependent with a steep
increase beyond the fifth decade. In age
groups < 50 years, the reported prevalence rates
for ED range between 9% and 39% (<20% in
most series). In men > 70 years of age, the prevalence of ED increases to between 40% and 80%
depending on the populations investigated [6].
For standardization of clinical trials, categorization of ED severity was based on the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) using a
scoring system from 1 to 30 in the erectile function domain (EF) of the IIEF [7]. ED is subdivided into mild (IIEF-EF score 17–25), moderate
(IIEF-EF score 11–16), and severe ED (IIEF-EF
score 1–10) with an IIEF-EF score of between 26
and 30, indicating a normal erectile function.
The IIEF has been tested only for heterosexual
activities over the prior 4 weeks. It has not been
tested in sexually inactive men or in homosexual
men.
Risk Factors for ED
In patients > 40 years of age, ED is significantly
associated with cardiovascular risk factors such as
diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease
(CAD), dyslipidemia, atherosclerosis, and metabolic syndrome [8–11; Table 4]. In addition many
epidemiological studies have provided convincing
evidence that men with BPH and LUTS show an
significantly increased risk of both simultaneous
erectile dysfunction and ejaculatory disorders
[12]. The increased risk of cardiovascular risks/
events in men with ED compared with agematched men without ED has been demonstrated
repeatedly, most notably, in a meta-analysis
reviewing 12 prospective cohort studies with a
total of 36,744 participants [9]. The overall combined relative risks for men with ED compared
with the reference group were the following: 1.48
(95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25–1.74) for cardiovascular disease (CVD); 1.46 (95% CI: 1.31–
1.63) for coronary heart disease; 1.35 (95% CI:
1.19–1.54) for stroke, and 1.19 (95% CI: 1.05–
1.34) for all-cause mortality. Sensitivity analysis
restricted to studies with control for conventional
cardiovascular risk factors yielded similar results.
No evidence of publication bias was observed.
Therefore, the manifestation of ED must absolutely be considered a marker (warning sign) for
occult CAD with a significant likelihood of later
Figure 1 Decline of male sexual function related to age as evaluated by the
Brief Sexual Function Inventory.
Results of a Norwegian epidemiological study (reprinted with permission
from [5])
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
133
Table 4
Etiology and risk factors of erectile dysfunction (ED)
Psychogenic factors
Psychosexual development in childhood/adolescence (special negative experiences, etc.)
Sexual orientation problems?
Partnership problems?
Lifestyle factors and individual health conditions
Permanent stress factors? (private/business life)
Sedentary lifestyle?
Nicotine?
Alcohol abuse?
Drug addictions?
Cardiovascular risk factors
Hypertension (including antihypertensive medications with potential negative impact on erectile function)
Dyslipidemia
Coronary artery disease
Peripheral arterial occlusive disease
Diabetes mellitus (types 1 and 2)
Endocrine factors
Hypogonadism (primary/secondary)
Hyperprolactinemia (microprolactinoma/macroprolactinoma or drug induced)
Thyroid disorders (hypothyroidism/hyperthyroidism)
Iatrogenic ED
Drug induced (drugs with a negative impact on central and peripheral erectile functions including hormones—hyperprolactinemia and
hypogonadism)
Postoperative (pelvic, perineal, urethral, and penile surgery → radical prostatectomy, cystectomy rectum resection/amputation, aorto-iliac
vascular surgery (aneurysms)
Postradiation (prostate cancer, bladder cancer, and rectum cancer)
Medical/metabolic disorders
Renal insufficiency
Hepatic insufficiency
Dyslipidemia
Urological disorders
Benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)
Chronic prostatitis
Respiratory disorders
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Sleep apnea
Neurologic disorders
Cerebral, spinal, and peripheral affections: central (brain) diseases such as multiple sclerosis, cerebrovascular atherosclerosis,
Parkinson’s disease, dementia, etc.
Somatic and autonomic polyneuropathy
Pudendal nerve lesions (“vulnerable perineum”)
Penile/cavernous factors
Cavernous myopathy and fibrosis (veno-occlusive dysfunction)
Peyronie’s disease or penile fracture
Posttraumatic ED
Brain/spinal cord injuries
Pelvic fractures, urethral ruptures, straddle traumas, and penile injuries
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
134
Porst et al.
Patientpresenting
presentingwith
withaasexual
sexualproblem
problem
Patient
Clinical Investigations
No/low risk
Moderate risk
Immediate
treatment
of
the sexual
problem
Cardiovascular
assessment and
risk restratification
High risk
Stabilization/
treatment
of the
cardiovascular
situation
Because of the proven link between ED and CAD periodical cardiovascular
risk evaluation and management for all ED patients strongly recommended
major cardiovascular events [10,11]. In the Italian
Cobra study, comprising 162 men with CAD,
documented by catheter angiography, the onset of
ED occurred in 71% of the study population with
a mean interval of 25 months before myocardial
infarction or angina symptoms occurred [11].
In summary, there is level 1a evidence that ED
in men > 40 years is associated with an increased
all-cause mortality primarily due to increased cardiovascular mortality (fatal myocardial infarction
or cerebral insult). Therefore, each man > 40 years
with chronic ED should be considered a potential
cardiovascular risk patient and investigated
accordingly.
The Princeton II Consensus Conference on the
cardiovascular risk management of any ED patient
is shown as an algorithm in Figure 2 [10].
ED and Hypogonadism
The incidence of hypogonadism in men with ED
depends both on age and the total testosterone (T)
cutoff values, which are used for the definition of
hypogonadism. As a rule, between 20% and 40%
of men > 40 years and suffering from ED have
hypogonadal T values (see Figure 3).
Treatment of Hypogonadism in Patients with ED
Hypogonadal men with ED should be offered
T-replacement therapy because it is well established that ED-specific medications are less effective if applied to men with untreated T deficiency.
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
Figure 2 Princeton II Consensus
Conference Algorithm for the cardiovascular risk management of the
ED patient (modified after [10]).
Dysfunction in dependence of Tcutoff levels (N = 2.794 [13]). CAD =
coronary artery disease; ED = erectile
dysfunction
Several well-designed studies provide convincing
evidence that in untreated hypogonadal men,
responsiveness to phosphodiesterase type 5
(PDE5) inhibitors is substantially impaired and
can be significantly increased by testosterone.
Adding T-replacement therapy to PDE5 inhibitor
therapy can convert PDE5 inhibitor nonresponders to PDE5 inhibitor responders especially
in men with T levels < 300 ng/dL or 10.4 nmol/L
[14–16].
In a subset of untreated hypogonadal men with
ED, T substitution alone may restore impaired
sexual functions, especially libido and erection
[16–18]. According to several well-designed
studies, the threshold T value below which ED
becomes evident is <300 ng/dL [19] (see Figure 4).
For low libido disorder, the T-threshold values
were 15 nmol/L (432 ng/dL).
In conclusions on ED and simultaneous hypogonadism, testosterone plays a key role in the maintenance of men’s sexual functions and sexual
health. Depending on the plasma T levels,
hypogonadal men develop libido, erectile, or
ejaculatory/orgasmic disorders. The respective
threshold levels below which sexual symptoms
become evident are about 15 nmol/L (432 ng/dL)
for libido and 8–10.4 nmol/L (230–300 ng/dL) for
ED. T-replacement therapy in hypogonadal men
with sexual disorders should start first followed by
specific ED medications such as PDE5 inhibitors.
Recovery of sexual functions takes usually 4–12
weeks depending on the sexual symptoms in ques-
135
Figure 3 Prevalence of androgen
deficiency in men with erectile dysfunction in dependence of T-cutoff
levels (N = 2.794 [13]). ED = erectile
dysfunction
tion. Responsiveness to specific ED medications is
substantially disturbed in untreated hypogonadal
men if T values are <300 ng/dL (10.4 nmol/L).
There is level 1b evidence that T-replacement
therapy in hypogonadal men can convert nonresponders to PDE5 inhibitors to responders.
Medical Treatment of ED
Oral Drug Therapy of ED
PDE5 Inhibitors
Mechanism of Action. PDE5 inhibitors are widely
considered as first-line therapy for ED [20,21]. All
Figure 4 Threshold values for the manifestation of different
clinical symptom (N = 434 [19]). BMI = body mass index
approved PDE5 inhibitors have the same mode/
site of action: they inhibit the enzyme PDE5 competitively, thereby blocking the cleavage of its
physiological target substance 3′5′-cGMP (cycloguanosine monophosphate). The PDE5 enzyme is
found in high concentrations in the entire urogenital system and especially in the cavernous
bodies [22] (Figure 5).
In general, above a certain threshold concentration of the key mediator for erection—3′5′cGMP—the physiological cascade of erection is
triggered and erection occurs. The formation of
3′5′-cGMP in the cavernous tissue is triggered
after parasympathetic nerve stimulation resulting
in nitric oxide (NO) release and guanylate cyclase
activation. The enzyme PDE5 regulates hydrolysis
of 3′5′-cGMP. By lowering its concentration, erection subsides.
It is believed that in men with erectile problems,
regardless of whether their underlying etiology is
psychogenic or organic, intracavernous 3′5′-cGMP
concentrations are principally below the threshold
level above which erection occurs. By inhibiting the
enzyme PDE5 via a PDE5 inhibitor, 3′5′-cGMP
cannot be further hydrolyzed, resulting in achievement of the threshold concentration above which
erection is triggered [23] (see Figure 6).
Regarding the mechanism of action of PDE5
inhibition, it is logical that PDE5 inhibitors need
the substrate 3′5′-cGMP to exert any efficacy
regarding erectile function. As 3′5′-cGMP is only
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
136
Porst et al.
generated after adequate sexual stimulation, it is
obvious that PDE5 inhibitors need prior sexual
stimulation to develop clinical efficacy and to
support the onset and maintenance of a rigid
erection.
PDE5 inhibitors prevent breakdown of 3′5′cGMP resulting both in achieving the 3′5′-cGMP
threshold concentration despite impairment of
3′5′-cGMP formation and in achieving suprathreshold 3′5′-cGMP concentrations with subsequent maintenance of a rigid erection.
In summary, after adequate sexual stimulation,
PDE5 inhibitors elevate the concentrations of the
mediator 3′5′-cGMP above the threshold level
that is needed to trigger erection. This mechanism
works in the majority of ED etiologies except
those in which severe damage/injury of the parasympathetic cavernous nerves prevents NO
release, guanylate cyclase activation, and 3′5′cGMP formation, such as after major pelvic cancer
surgery with resection of the cavernous nerves at
both sides or diseases with severe autonomic neuropathy such as diabetes.
Pharmacokinetics
The pharmacokinetic profile of a drug is determined by many steps between the drug’s entry
into the body and its elimination. Two key pharmacokinetic parameters related to the speed of
absorption are TMax, which is defined as the time
needed to reach CMax (the maximum plasma concentration), and T1/2 (half-life time), which is
defined as the time it takes for the fall of the
plasma concentrations of a drug to half of its CMax
values. In the clinical setting, the TMax corresponds
quite well with the speed of clinical efficacy (onset of
Figure 5 Quantitative expression, by real-time RT-PCR, of
PDE5 mRNA in (A) human and (B) rat male urogenital
tissues. (A) Data are expressed as PDE5 mRNA
molecules/mg total RNA ⫾ SEM obtained according to a
standard curve method for absolute quantitation. (B) Data
are expressed as mean ⫾ SEM of arbitrary units (a.u.) calculated according to the comparative Ct method and using
the b2-microglobulin as reference gene for normalization. n,
number of analyzed samples. *P < 0.05 vs. human kidney;
°P < 0.001 vs. human corpus cavernosum (CC); **P < 0.01
vs. rat CC (reprinted with permission from [22]).
mRNA = messenger RNA; PDE5 = phosphodiesterase type
5; RT-PCR = real-time polymerase chain reaction;
SEM = standard error of mean
Cerebral
Sex Centers
Erotic stimuli
Stimulatory Neurotransmitters
(Visual, tactile, imaginary)
+
Dopamine, NO, Oxytocin
NE (partly), Serotonin (partly)
alpha-MSH, Vasopressin, ACTH
+
+
+
+
Parasympathetic
nerves
ACH
O2 + L - Arginine eNOS
NO + Citrulline
+
G -Protein
Guanylate cyclase
GTP
5-GMP
3´5’-cGMP
-
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
NANC
Nerve
NO VIP
+
Adenylate cyclase
ATP
3´5’-cAMP
Phosphodiesterase V-Inhibitors:
Sildenafil, Tadalafil, Vardenafil, other
Figure 6 Physiology of erection and
impact of PDE5 inhibitors on erection
(from
[23]). ACH = Acetylcholine;
ACTH = Adrenocorticotropic hormone;
ATP = Adenosine triphosphate; 3′5′cAMP = cyclic adenosine monophosphate; 3′5′-cGMP = cyclic guanosine
monophosphate; eNOS = endothelial
nitric
oxide
synthase;
GTP =
Guanosine triphphosphate; MSH =
Melanocyte stimulating hormone;
NANC = non adrenergic, non cholinergic; NE = Norepinephrine; NO =
Nitric oxide; VIP = Vasoactive intestinal polypeptide
137
Table 5 Pharmacokinetics of the three phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors: sildenafil, tadalafil, and vardenafil (Cialis®,
Levitra®, and Viagra® labels)
Onset of action (minutes)
Drug
TMax (minutes)
Earliest
>50% patient
response
Sildenafil 100 mg
Tadalafil 20 mg
Vardenafil 20 mg
70 (30–120)
120 (30–720)
40 (15–180)
14
16
11
20
30
25
T1/2 (hour)
Duration of efficacy
(hour) (% succesf.
coitus)
CMax (ng/mL)
3.82 ⫾ 0.84
17.5
3.94 ⫾ 1.31
8 (85%)
36 (59% and 62%)
8 ⫾ 2 (69%)
327 ⫾ 236
378
20.9 ⫾ 1.83
erection) and the T1/2, with the duration of clinical
efficacy.
As illustrated in Table 5, all three drugs show
similar earliest onset of action times with vardenafil being slightly most rapid. The Tmax and CMax of
sildenafil and vardenafil are clearly dependent on food
intake. After intake of a high-fat (59% fat) meal, a
delay in TMax of 60 minutes and a reduction in CMax
of 29% was observed with sildenafil (Viagra® U.S.
label; Pfizer Corp, New York, NY, USA). Similar
data apply for vardenafil ([24], Levitra® U.S. label;
Bayer Healthcare, Leverkusen, Germany). On the
other hand, no food interaction has been reported
for tadalafil, even with a high-fat meal [25,26].
sure, heart rate, and vision). The pharmacodynamic interactions of any drug are influenced by
the number of molecules available in the target
organ and the affinity of the compound for the
target molecule in question. For example, it has
been reported that the proportion of high-affinity
components for the PDE5 catalytic site of vardenafil is 85% compared with 50% for sildenafil
and 60% for tadalafil [27]. High-affinity components of a PDE5 inhibitor show a considerably
longer dissociation time from the target molecule.
This explains why vardenafil showed in clinical use
a clearly longer duration of efficacy than it would
be suspected by its half-life time [28].
Pharmacodynamics
The term pharmacodynamics covers all actions of
a drug on the different body organs/tissues and in
turn on their functions (for example, blood pres-
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors
Renal and Hepatic Insufficiency. Special dose adjustments must be made in patients with renal and
hepatic insufficiency (see Table 6).
Table 6 Pharmacodynamic characteristics of the three PDE5 inhibitors (source: U.S. labels for Cialis®, Levitra®, and
Viagra® as of July 2005)
Parameter/condition
Sildenafil
Tadalafil
Vardenafil
CYP 3A4 inhibitors*
CYP 3A4 inhibitors†
Start dose 25 mg
Start dose 25 mg
Max. dose 25 mg/day
Start dose 25 mg
Start dose 25 mg
Max. dose 10 mg/72 hours
Max dose 10 mg/72 hours
Max. 2.5 mg/day
Max. dose: 2.5 mg/72 hours
No dose adjustment
Max. dose 5 mg
Start dose 5 mg
No dose adjustment
Start dose 25 mg
Max. dose 10 mg
8.4/5.5 mm Hg
Interval of 4 hours
recommended
1.6/0.8 mm Hg
Stable alpha-blocker therapy
recommended. Start dose
5 mg
No interactions of clinical
relevance
No additional hypotensive effect
Nitrates and NO donors
48 hours
Start dose 5 mg
Max. dose 10 mg
7/8 mm Hg
Stable alpha-blocker therapy
recommend. Start dose
10 mg
relevance
Nitrates and NO donors
24 hours
Age > 65 years
Severe renal failure (creat.
clearance < 30 mL/minutes)
Mild/mod. hepatic failure (Child
Pugh A/B)
Blood pressure drop syst./diast.
Alpha blockers
Antihypertensives (all drug
classes)
Alcohol intake (0.5–0.6 g/kg)
Contraindications
Safe interval for nitrate
medication in emergencies
relevance
Nitrates and NO donors‡
24 hours
*CYP 3A4 inhibitors: erythromycin, ketoconazole, itraconazole: up to 3- to 10-fold increases of the plasma concentrations of the respective PDE5 inhibitors,
cimetidine (56% increase of sildenafil plasma concentrations, not valid for vardenafil, tadalafil not reported)
†CYP 3A4 inhibitors: protease inhibitors ritonavir, indinavir, saquinavir: increase of plasma concentrations of the respective PDE5 inhibitors between onefold and
fivefold for tadalafil and 16-fold for vardenafil
CYP 3A4 inducers: rifampin: decrease of PDE5 inhibitor plasma levels up to 88% (reported for tadalafil)
‡
Nitrates and NO donors: All short- and long-acting nitrates containing drugs including recreational drugs such as “poppers” as well as molsidomine and
nitroprusside natrium containing medications
NO = nitric oxide; PDE5 = phosphodiesterase type 5
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
138
Bleeding Time. Both with aspirin 150 mg and warfarin, no increase in bleeding time was observed
with the PDE5 inhibitors. After heparin, sildenafil
showed an additive effect on bleeding time in
rabbits, but this interaction trial was not conducted in humans.
CVD. Patients with CVD can be particularly sensitive to the systemic actions of PDE5 inhibitors
and may need reduced doses. This includes patients
with left ventricular outflow obstruction (aortic and
subaortic stenosis), recent (<6 months) myocardial
infarction, stroke, life-threatening arrhythmias,
and hypotensive (blood pressure < 90/50 mm Hg)
and
hypertensive
(blood
pressure > 170/
110 mm Hg) blood pressure values.
Priapism. In conditions/drugs with a known risk of
priapism such as sickle cell disease, leukemia, and
multiple myeloma, PDE5 inhibitors must be used
with special precautions because of the concern
that the drugs may heighten this risk.
Drug Interactions
Alpha Blockers. Both sildenafil 25 mg and tadalafil
20 mg used simultaneously with doxazosin 4 mg
resulted in symptomatic postural hypotension
(Viagra® U.S. label; Cialis® U.S. label; Eli Lilly
Comp., Indianapolis, IN, USA). Tamsulosin
0.4 mg with either tadalafil 20 mg or vardenafil
5 mg did not show any clinically relevant influence
on the blood pressure. Vardenafil 5 mg used simultaneously with terazosin 10 mg resulted in symptomatic hypotension. This effect was not observed
when both drugs were taken 6 hours apart ([29],
Cialis® U.S. label; Levitra® U.S. label). Tadalafil
20 mg used with alfuzosin 10 mg did not result in
clinically significant hemodynamic interactions
[30].
Nitrate-/NO-Donor Interactions. All three PDE5
inhibitors showed clinically relevant interactions
with nitrates. The most threatening of these interactions is severe hypotension, which can be lethal
if not recognized and managed properly ([31,32],
Cialis®, Levitra®, and Viagra® U.S. labels).
Therefore, all three PDE5 inhibitors are absolutely contraindicated for patients using nitrate
medications.
The time interval considered to be safe between
the administration of a PDE5 inhibitor and a
nitrate medication is 24 hours for the shorteracting sildenafil and vardenafil and 48 hours for
the longer-acting tadalafil (Cialis®, Levitra®, and
Viagra® U.S. labels).
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
Porst et al.
CYP 3A4 Inhibitors. Erythromycin, ketoconazole,
and itroconazole have been reported to cause up
to 3- to 10-fold increases of the plasma concentrations of PDE5 inhibitors. Cimetidine has been
reported to cause a 56% increase of sildenafil
plasma concentrations, but this effect has
not been found with vardenafil (interaction
between cimetidine and tadalafil has not been
reported).
Protease inhibitors ritonavir, indinavir, and
saquinavir have been reported to cause an increase
of plasma concentrations of onefold to fivefold for
tadalafil and 16-fold for vardenafil.
CYP 3A4 Inducers. Rifampin has been reported to
decrease tadalafil plasma levels up to 88%.
Efficacy of PDE5 Inhibitors
General Considerations on PDE5 Inhibitors
For a better understanding of differences among
and comparisons between the three widely available PDE5 inhibitors, some terms have to be
explained:
IC50: IC50 (Inhibitory concentration) is defined as
the concentration of a PDE5 inhibitor, which is
required to reduce the activity of PDE5 by
50%. The IC50 value provides an overview of
the clinical efficacy of a PDE5 inhibitor. Generally speaking, the lower the IC50 value, the
more potent and therefore more effective a
compound is for inhibiting this enzyme. The
IC50 values vary greatly among the available
PDE5 inhibitors as is illustrated in Table 7 [33].
In the clinical setting, the IC50 translates to the
dose used to reach the same clinical efficacy.
The higher the IC50, the higher the dose needed
to reach the same clinical efficacy as compared
with a competitive PDE5 inhibitor with a lower
IC50.
Clinical efficacy: Regarding the clinical efficacy of a
PDE5 inhibitor, several tools are used in clinical
trials:
General Assessment Question: “Has the treatment
you have been taking improved your erections?” Although this efficacy tool does not
really tell whether the patient is able to attain
an erection sufficient for sexual intercourse,
this relatively weak efficacy measure has been
widely used especially by pharmaceutical
companies because usually it yields the
highest success rates.
IIEF: The International Index of Erectile
Function (IIEF) was originally developed to
evaluate the clinical efficacy of sildenafil
139
Table 7 Selectivity profile and IC50 values of the three PDE5 inhibitors: sildenafil, tadalafil, and vardenafil. Adapted from
Gbekor et al. [33]
Selectivity ratio of the PDE5 inhibitors for some clinically important phosphodiesterases
PDE
isoform
PDE5
PDE1
PDE3
PDE6
PDE11
IC50 values (mmol)
Ratio to PDE5
Sildenafil
Tadalafil
Vardenafil
Sildenafil
Tadalafil
Vardenafil
0.0035
0.281
16.2
0.037
2.73
0.0067
>30
>100
1.26
0.037
0.00014
0.07
>1.0
0.0035
0.162
1
80
4.63
11
780
1
>4.450
>14.800
187
5
1
500
>7.140
25
1.16
PDE5 potency: vardenafil > sildenafil > tadalafil
PDE selectivity
For PDE6: tadalafil > vardenafil > sildenafil
For PDE11: vardenafil > sildenafil > tadalafil
IC50 = Inhibitory concentration of a drug that inhibits the target enzyme, here PDE5, by 50%; PDE = phosphodiesterase
(Viagra®). It became the most accepted and
used efficacy tool worldwide for ED drugs. It
comprises 15 questions, which cover five
domains of sexual function. These domains are
erectile function, orgasmic function, sexual
desire, sexual satisfaction, and overall satisfaction. Each question has six possible response
options with scoring between 0 (worst) and 5
(best result) [7]. Questions 1–5 have six
response options from score 0 if there was no
sexual activity over the last 4 weeks to score 5
if erection/sexual intercourse was always
successful.
IIEF-EF: For the evaluation of the erectile efficacy of a drug, the IIEF-EF domain, comprising questions 1–5 and 15 of the IIEF,
represents the strongest efficacy tool. A
score > 25 indicates normal erectile function.
Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP): The SEP is a fivequestion patient diary, which is completed by
the patient after each sexual encounter. The
SEP comprises the following questions:
Question 1: Were you able to achieve at least
some erection (some enlargement of the
penis)?
Question 2: Were you able to insert your penis
into your partner’s vagina?
Question 3: Did your erection last long enough
for you to have successful intercourse?
Question 4: Were you satisfied with the hardness of your erection?
Question 5: Were you satisfied overall with
this sexual experience?
SEP question 3 (ability to complete sexual
intercourse) is considered the most rigorous and
most frequently used efficacy measure in clinical
ED trials.
On-Demand (Pro Re Nate [P.R.N.]) Therapy with
PDE5 Inhibitors
The efficacy of the on-demand or p.r.n. use of PDE5
inhibitors was investigated in large scale trials
worldwide both in mixed ED populations and in
subpopulations such as patients with diabetes and
after nerve sparing radical prostatectomy (see
Table 8). To interpret Table 8 correctly, it has to be
emphasized that SEP 2 and 3 diary data were only
available in the tadalafil and vardenafil trials,
whereas in the early sildenafil trials SEP 2 and 3
were not yet used. All three PDE5 inhibitors provided impressive efficacy data in a variety of ED
subpopulations including patients with diabetes,
patients with neurological disorders such as spinal
cord injuries and multiple sclerosis, patients after
radical prostatectomy (provided they have undergone a nerve sparing procedure), patients with
hypertension or CAD, and patients with renal
insufficiency or after kidney transplantation.
The efficacy of all PDE5 inhibitors is clearly
less in special ED subpopulations such as after
radical prostatectomy and diabetes mellitus in
which either the autonomic parasympathetic
innervation (cavernous nerves) to the penis or the
functional capacity of the cavernous bodies (venoocclusive dysfunction in diabetes or untreated
hypogonadism) is clearly impaired (Table 8).
Long-Term Efficacy/Satisfaction
Long-term studies (2 years) have shown that efficacy is maintained over a long period and that
there is no loss of efficacy, i.e., no tachyphylaxis,
among the three PDE5 inhibitors: sildenafil, tadalafil, and vardenafil [42–44]. In addition, in
experimental research studies, no upregulation of
PDE5 in the penis was observed with the longacting PDE5 inhibitor tadalafil [45]. Chronic
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
140
Table 8
Porst et al.
Efficacy of the three PDE5 inhibitors in a variety of ED populations
Sildenafil/placebo (50/100 mg)
Tadalafil/placebo (10/20 mg)
ED population
GAQ (%)
GAQ (%)
Mixed
82/24
66/20
(N = 1,600–1,787)*
Diabetes
BNSP RRP
SEP 2/3 (%)
56/10
48/12
(N = 268)*,¶
No controlled multicenter
studies
SEP 2 (%)
81/35
Not reported
(N = 1,112)†
64/25
57/30
(N = 216)**
62/23
54/32
(N = 303)‡‡
*Viagra® (sildenafil citrate) U.S. label (LAB-0221-2.4, July 2005)
†
Brock et al. [34]
‡Porst et al. [35]
§Hellstrom et al. [36]
¶
Rendell et al. [37]
**Saenz de Tejada et al. [38]
††
Goldstein et al. [39]
‡‡Montorsi et al. [40]
§§
Brock et al. [41]
BNSP RRP = bilateral nerve sparing retropubic radical prostatectomy;
PDE5 = phosphodiesterase type 5; SEP 2/3 = Sexual Encounter Profile 2/3
PDE5 inhibitor therapy also improved other
sexual domains such as orgasmic function and
overall satisfaction with the sexual experience and
quality of life [46]. In addition, improvement of
depressive symptoms [46] and increases in
partner satisfaction with sexual life were repeatedly reported with the use of PDE5 inhibitors
[47–49].
First-Dose Success
Large cohort studies were able to show that even
with the very first dose of a PDE5 inhibitor, the
overwhelming majority of patients could be successfully treated, e.g., 87% SEP 2 rates (successful
vaginal penetration) for vardenafil 10 mg [50] and
79% SEP 2 rates for tadalafil 20 mg [51].
However, it has also been shown in clinical trials
that it takes the majority of couples between three
to eight attempts (2–8 weeks) before the maximum
efficacy of either PDE5 inhibitor is reached
[35,52].
Treatment Adherence/Discontinuation Rates
The advent of PDE5 inhibitors has revolutionized
the management of ED. Many experts expected
that with easy oral administration of a small pill,
the high discontinuation rates previously observed
with intracavernosal injection therapy would disappear. However, against all expectations, this was
not the case. Even with the ease of oral drug
therapy, unexpectedly high drop-out rates were
reported ranging between 45% and 78% after
6–24 months, depending on the population being
treated and the specialization of the physicians
prescribing the pill [53–55].
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
Vardenafil/placebo (10/20 mg)
SEP 3 (%)
GAQ (%)
SEP 2 (%)
SEP 3 (%)
75/32
80/30
(N = 601)‡
85/28
(N = 804)§
72/13
(N = 452)††
65/13
(N = 427)§§
Not reported
75/39
81/52
67/33
64/36
54/23
48/22
37/10
48/20
41/19
ED = erectile
dysfunction;
GAQ = General
Assessment
Question;
Reasons frequently mentioned for early discontinuation of PDE5 inhibitor therapy are listed in
Table 9.
Nonresponders to PDE5 Inhibitors
Considering all the data of clinical trials with
PDE5 inhibitors, between 30% and 40% of a
mixed ED population of patients do not sufficiently respond to the maximum dose of the PDE5
inhibitor. As mentioned above, responsiveness to
PDE5 inhibitors depends on the underlying etiology of ED and is clearly less favorable in all ED
etiologies, which are associated with either
damage to the penile autonomic nerve supply or
linked to veno-occlusive dysfunction.
Real nonresponders mostly have severe end-organ
failure, which means that the cavernosal tissue has
lost a considerable portion of its functional smooth
musculature [56]. In the clinical setting, these
PDE5 inhibitor nonresponders show severe veno-
Table 9 Reasons for early discontinuation of sildenafil
therapy (N = 726, response rate to sildenafil = 67%,
discontinuation rate of sildenafil responders = 53%;
source: Jiann et al. [54])
Reasons for dropout (several options possible)
N (%)
Efficacy below expectations
High cost
Loss of interest in sex
Inconvenience in obtaining sildenafil
Recovery of erectile ability
Partner reluctance
Side effects
Other reasons
104
93
75
71
37
36
29
59
(42.3)
(37)
(30.5)
(28.9)
(15)
(14.6)
(11.8)
(24)
141
occlusive dysfunction with many of them also
failing to respond to intracavernosal injection of
vasoactive drugs such as alprostadil or trimix combination. This veno-occlusive dysfunction, also
known as venous leak or cavernous insufficiency, is
frequently associated with severe impairment of
the penile arterial blood supply, also known as
“arteriogenic” ED.
According to an international expert panel, the
definition of a nonresponder to oral pharmacotherapy for ED is as follows [57]:
differences of PDE5 inhibitors: Onset of action
and maximum efficacy of sildenafil and vardenafil are clearly dependent on food intake
and content.
Maximal efficacy, i.e., time to maximal plasma
concentrations of tadalafil, shows a broad
individual range between 30 and 720 minutes.
In rare individuals, best efficacy may not occur
until 12 hours after dosing.
Optimal treatment of concomitant diseases:
Optimal diabetes control mirrored by gycosylated hemoglobin [61] or treatment of hypertension with more erection protective drugs
such as angiotensin receptor blockers, sartans,
or the beta-blocker nebivolol [8] may improve
responsiveness to PDE5 inhibitor therapy. In
addition, treatment of hypercholesterolemia
with statins such as atorvastatin may improve
erectile function per se due to the fact that
statins decrease low-density lipoprotein
(LDL) levels and subsequently reduce the
negative effect of oxidized LDL on endothelial function [62] or may increase the efficacy
of PDE5 inhibitors if given simultaneously
[63].
Treatment of concomitant hypogonadism: It has
been shown that testosterone regulates the
expression of PDE5. Hypogonadal men have
a poorer response to PDE5 inhibitors [64] and
also other erectogenic drugs. Several studies
have provided evidence that many hypogonadal ED patients, originally unresponsive to
PDE5 inhibitors, can be rescued by adding
T-replacement therapy [14–17,65,66]. These
findings especially apply to patients with total
T values of <300 ng/dL (<10.4 nmol/L) [14].
“High-dose” (overdosing) PDE5 inhibitor
therapy: High-dose PDE5 inhibitor therapy,
i.e., doubling the maximal dose, resulted in a
24% salvage rate of ED patients (N = 54) previously unresponsive to 100 mg of sildenafil
[67]. According to the principal author’s personal experience, this may also apply to vardenafil and tadalafil in some individual patients
especially in unresponsive diabetics.
Shifting patients to another PDE5 inhibitor:
Shifting of real nonresponders from sildenafil
to vardenafil resulted in a rescue/success rate
of 12% [68]. According to the principal
author’s personal experience with more than
7,000 patients on PDE5 inhibitors, only a
small minority (5–8%) of real nonresponders
to one PDE5 inhibitor are satisfactorily
rescued by another one.
2.
“Any patient who, after four successive or closely timed
trials of the maximum tolerated dose of the medication,
in accordance with the regulatory agency’s guidelines
with respect to timing relative to meals, alcohol ingestion, use of concomitant medications and adequate
sexual stimulation, is unable to achieve or sustain
adequate penile rigidity until completion of sexual
performance.”
“Pseudo-nonresponders”
Many so-called nonresponders may be rescued
through appropriate counseling regarding specific
drug-related pharmacokinetics/dynamics, change
of sedentary lifestyle, adequate treatment of concomitant diseases, and/or exchange of concomitant medications in favor of more erection
protective drugs (see antihypertensives). The definition of a real nonresponder is justified if no
success is seen under the following conditions:
The use of at least four tablets with the highest
dose of any PDE5 inhibitor at four different occasions under optimal conditions (appropriate sexual
stimulation and appropriate interval between
tablet intake and sexual activity, with sildenafil and
vardenafil under fasting conditions for 2 hours and
with tadalafil keeping an interval of at least 2 hours
between intake and sexual activity to guarantee
maximal plasma concentrations and maximal efficacy). In individual cases according to literature
reports, it has been observed that after PDE5
inhibitor administration the following measures/
actions were able to salvage “pseudononresponders” to PDE5 inhibitors and convert
them to responders.
3.
4.
5.
Measures to Improve Responsiveness to
PDE5 Inhibitors
1a. Recounseling of the patients/couples in the appropriate use of PDE5 inhibitors [58–60]: Early
adjustment of dosing to the highest doses
resulted in salvage rates of up to 60%.
1b. Reeducation regarding the pharmacokinetic/
dynamic characteristics and the individual
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
142
Figure 7 Nonresponders to the highest dose of tadalafil
20 mg on demand could be converted to responders by
once a day tadalafil 10 mg (reprinted with permission from
[69]). SEP 3 = Sexual Encounter Profile 3
6. Daily dosing of PDE5 inhibitors: Daily dosing of
tadalafil [69] or sildenafil [70] for several
months in patients previously unresponsive to
on-demand therapy at maximum doses salvaged more than 50% of failures. Although
salvage was proven in these preliminary small
series for tadalafil and sildenafil, it can be
assumed that this concept may apply also for
other PDE5 inhibitors, in particular in
patients with severe organic ED (Figure 7).
Preference Studies Between Marketed
PDE5 Inhibitors
Several sponsored and independent nonsponsored
studies have investigated whether patients/couples
prefer one PDE5 inhibitor over others after
patients tried sildenafil, vardenafil, and/or tadalafil
over a reasonably long period of time. A recent
review of the literature from 2000 to 2010 on this
topic concluded that preferences of the patients/
couples were the following [71]:
Vardenafil: 12–20%
Sildenafil: 8–30%
Tadalafil: 52–65%
The reasons for preference of tadalafil were
mainly because of the longer duration of action
that increased patients’ freedom and spontaneity
in sexual life. In general, the authors found a consistency in patients’ preference for tadalafil over
sildenafil or vardenafil across the studies reviewed.
Safety and Drug-Related Adverse Events of
PDE5 Inhibitors
The side-effect profile of the PDE5 inhibitors is
mainly related to its mechanism of action, i.e.,
inhibition of the PDE5 enzyme and their lack of
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
Porst et al.
precise specificity. All currently available PDE5
inhibitors have some inhibitory effects on other
PDE enzymes as well. Because these enzymes are
widely distributed in our body, the inhibition of
PDE5 and other isotypes cause special organ-/
tissue-related undesired effects. The typical sideeffect profiles of sildenafil, tadalafil, and vardenafil
are shown in Table 10.
Whereas headache, flushing, dyspepsia, and
rhinitis are typical side effects for all three PDE5
inhibitors, back pain and myalgia are more commonly reported with tadalafil. In contrast, color
vision disturbances are nearly exclusively observed
with sildenafil because of its partial inhibition of
PDE6, an enzyme located in the retina, and
responsible for brightness sensitivity and color
discrimination.
The side-effect profiles of sildenafil, vardenafil,
and tadalafil as reported in the most recent U.S.
label revisions are shown in Tables 11–13.
Cardiovascular Safety of PDE5 Inhibitors in
Clinical Trials
Shortly after gaining regulatory approval of the
PDE5 inhibitor sildenafil in the United States,
Table 10 Frequent (>2%) side effects of the three
phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors: sildenafil, tadalafil,
and vardenafil (sources: Padma-Nathan et al. [72], Kloner
et al. [73], and Brock et al. [34])
Side effects
Headache
Flush
Dyspepsia
Rhinitis
Back pain
Color visual
disturbances
Sildenafil [72]
(N = 5,918)
Vardenafil [73]
(N = 2,203)
Tadalafil [34]
(N = 804)
14.6%
14.1%
6.2%
2.6%
0%
5.2%
14.5%
11.1%
3.7%
9.2%
0%
0%
14%
4%
10%
5%
6%
0%
Table 11 Side-effect profile of sildenafil (Viagra®)
(source: Viagra®, U.S. label LAB-0221-11.1, revised
January 2011): adverse events reported by ⱖ2% of
patients treated with Viagra® and more frequent on drug
than placebo in Pro Re Nate (PRN) flexible dose phase
II/III studies
Adverse event
Viagra®
(N = 734)
Placebo
(N = 725)
Headache
Flushing
Dyspepsia
Nasal congestion
Urinary tract infection
Abnormal vision
Diarrhea
Dizziness
Rash
16%
10%
7%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
4%
1%
2%
2%
2%
0%
1%
1%
1%
143
Table 12 Side-effect profile of tadalafil (Cialis®): treatment-emergent adverse events reported by ⱖ2% of patients
treated with tadalafil (10 or 20 mg) and more frequent on drug than placebo in the eight primary placebo-controlled
phase III studies (including a study in patients with diabetes) (source: U.S. label 2007)
Percentage of patients reporting event
Adverse event
Placebo
(N = 476)
Tadalafil 5 mg
(N = 151)
Tadalafil 10 mg
(N = 394)
Tadalafil 20 mg
(N = 635)
Headache
Dyspepsia
Back pain
Myalgia
Nasal congestion
Flushing*
Pain in limb
5%
1%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
11%
4%
3%
1%
2%
2%
1%
11%
8%
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
15%
10%
6%
3%
3%
3%
3%
*The term flushing includes facial flushing and flushing.
concerns about its cardiovascular safety profile
were expressed in the mass media, after some
unexpected deaths were linked to its use. The generally negative perception in the public domain
Table 13 Adverse events reported by ⱖ2% of patients
treated with vardenafil (Levitra®) and more frequent on
drug than placebo in fixed and flexible dose randomized
controlled trials of 5, 10, or 20 mg of vardenafil (Levitra®)
(source: U.S. label 2007)
Percentage of patients reporting event
Adverse event*
Placebo
(N = 1,169)
Vardenafil
(Levitra®)
(N = 2,203)
Headache
Flushing
Rhinitis
Dyspepsia
Accidental injury
Sinusitis
Flu syndrome
Dizziness
Increased creatine kinase
Nausea
4%
1%
3%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
15%
11%
9%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
*All the events listed in the table above were deemed to be adverse drug
reactions with the exception of accidental injury.
Table 14
and mass media regarding the cardiovascular
safety of these agents prompted their manufacturers to invest in a comprehensive clinical research
program evaluating safety.
As shown in Table 14, all trials demonstrate the
risk for myocardial infarction and death per 100
patient years among those exposed to PDE5
inhibitors was not greater than that associated with
placebo. In addition, several trials in patients with
CAD were able to confirm that PDE5 inhibitors
do not have any detrimental effect on cardiovascular safety, a finding that also applied to patients
using antihypertensive agents. Moreover, many
patients currently receiving nitrates can stop their
use on the recommendation of a cardiologist,
without experiencing adverse cardiovascular consequences, allowing subsequent use of a PDE5
inhibitor [77].
In this context, it once more should be emphasized that concomitant use of any nitrates or NO
donors (molsidomine and others) containing
medications and PDE5 inhibitors is absolutely
contraindicated because of the potential danger of
life-threatening hypotension.
Cardiovascular safety of the three PDE5 inhibitors: sildenafil, tadalafil, and vardenafil)
Demographics
Sildenafil*
Study drug
No. of patients
Mean age (years)
Hypertension
Diabetes
CAD
Dyslipidemia
MI/insult rate per 100 patient years
Cardiac death per 100 patient years
Placebo
3.627
54
28%
26%
10%
12%
0.84
0.19
Vardenafil†,‡
Active
5.148
54
26%
22%
11%
13%
0.80
0.23
Placebo
793
57
35%
30%
7%
24%
0.4
0%
Active
1.812
57
0.05
Tadalafil (controlled trials)§
Tadalafil treated
patients in all trials§
Placebo
2.118
55
26%
20%
Not reported
16%
0.41
Not reported
Active
10.480
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
0.33
0.12
Active
5.228
55
27%
20%
15%
0.26
*Mittelman et al. [74]
†
Kloner et al. [73]
‡
Reffelmann et al. [75]
§Kloner et al. [76]
CAD = coronary artery disease; MI = myocardial infarction; PDE5 = phosphodiesterase type 5
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
144
Special Safety Issues with PDE5 Inhibitor Use
Ocular Safety
In recent years, reports in the lay press that
PDE5 inhibitors may cause blindness due to the
so-called nonarteric anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) made patients and physicians
unsure about the safety of these medications.
Interestingly, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports that no causal connection
between the cases reported and the use of PDE5
inhibitors exists; the PDE5 manufacturers were
requested to include in their new label warnings
about a higher likelihood for developing NAION
among the following: age > 50 years, heart
disease, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol,
nicotine use, and certain eye problems. Several
recent review articles based on the analyses of
databases pertaining safety came to the conclusion that there is no causal link between sildenafil
and cardiovascular events nor are there any new
safety risks relating to cardiovascular events, priapism, NAION, hearing loss, or drug interactions [78]. However, basic recommendations were
given that despite the absence of a proven link
between PDE5 inhibitor use and serious ocular
disorders, physicians should continue to advise
patients to stop the use of a PDE5 inhibitor and
seek immediate medical attention in the event
of a sudden loss of vision as a safety measure
[79].
Hearing Safety
Because some cases of sudden hearing loss were
linked to the use of PDE5 inhibitors, although no
causal relationship has been demonstrated, the
FDA requested a label revision stating that
patients taking sildenafil, tadalafil, or vardenafil
and experiencing a sudden hearing loss should
immediately stop taking the drug and seek prompt
medical attention.
Reproductive Safety
Because tadalafil may have an inhibitory effect on
PDE11, an enzyme related in part to spermatogenesis, concerns have been raised about the
reproductive safety of this drug. In this context,
two 6-month studies with 10 and 20 mg of tadalafil once a day (OAD) given to 421 healthy men
for 6 months [80] and a 9-month placebocontrolled study with 20 mg of tadalafil covering
three spermatogenesis cycles and conducted in
253 healthy men were performed. They did not
show any adverse effects on spermatogenesis
[80,81].
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
Porst et al.
Table 15 Efficacy results of vardenafil ODT trials: mean
scores, differences between placebo and vardenafil ODT
[82]
POTENT I study
POTENT II study
Efficacy
Placebo
Vardenafil
ODT
Placebo
Vardenafil
ODT
IIEF-EF
SEP 2
SEP 3
14.4
46.7
26.7
21.5
73.7
64.9
15.0
48.8
30.7
22.9
76.1
69.6
POTENT I: study conducted in Europe and South Africa
POTENT II: study conducted in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and
Australia
IIEF-EF = International Index of Erectile Function-erectile function domain;
ODT = orodispersible tablet; SEP 2/3 = Sexual Encounter Profile 2/3
Vardenafil Orodispersible Formulation
Just recently, a new formulation of vardenafil was
introduced in the market called vardenafil orodispersible tablet (ODT) 10 mg. This vardenafil
ODT is applied on the tongue without the need
of water or any other fluid and provides a rapid
disintegration within the mouth before swallowing [82]. The two international studies conducted
with that new ODT formation showed a similar
efficacy and safety profile as compared with the
oral vardenafil film-coated tablets 10 mg with
SEP 3 data (completion of sexual intercourse)
success at 65% and 70% (Table 15, [82]). The key
pharmacokinetics of vardenafil ODT 10 mg as
compared with the film-coated tablets are summarized in Table 16 and showed longer TMax and
lower CMax data for the ODT formulation but
20–44% higher area under the curve, indicating a
higher bioavailability [83]. Whether this higher
Table 16 Pharmacokinetic parameters of vardenafil and
its N-desethyl metabolite (M-1) after single or multiple
doses of vardenafil orodispersible tablet (ODT) (without
water) or a single dose of vardenafil film-coated tablet
(FCT) 10 mg in fasting patients with erectile (after Heinig
et al. [83])
Men aged < 65 years
Single dose (N = 20)
AUC (mg ¥ hour/L)
CMax (mg/L)
T1/2 (hour)
TMax (hour, median range)
Men aged ⱖ 65 years
Single dose (N = 14)
AUC (mg ¥ hour/L)
CMax (mg/L)
T1/2 (hour)
TMax (hour, median range)
AUC = area under the curve
Vardenafil
10 mg ODT
Vardenafil
10 mg FCT
Day 4
29.97/48.1
7.187/52.9
4.361/38.1
1.25 (0.75–2.50)
Day 1
23.52/57.6
8.167/75.2
4.471/29.8
0.75 (0.50–1.50)
Day 4
42.16/42.6
8.891/60.2
5.952/27.5
0.875 (0.50–3.00)
Day 1
34.88/32.1
11.00/54.6
6.179/28.3
0.75 (0.50–3.00)
145
Figure 8 Historical comparison: SEP
3 question tadalafil once a day and on
demand [84]. ED = erectile dysfunction; SEP 3 = Sexual Encounter
Profile 3
bioavailability of the vardenafil ODT formulation
translates into any clinical advantage (longer
duration of efficacy) over the existing oral vardenafil formulation remains to be shown in clinical
studies.
Daily Dosing of PDE5 Inhibitors
Tadalafil OAD
Since 2009, tadalafil (Cialis®) has been approved
for daily application (OAD) in doses of 2.5 and
5 mg as an alternative treatment regimen to
on-demand or p.r.n. dosing. In many countries
worldwide, including most countries of the European Union, only 5 mg of tadalafil OAD is marketed. In the most recent “EAU Guidelines on
Male Sexual Dysfunctions,” OAD tadalafil has
been officially listed as a first-line treatment of ED
together with on-demand treatment with PDE5
inhibitors [21]. Because of its long half-life with
17.5 hours as compared with PDE5 inhibitors with
a half-life of about only 4 hours (i.e., sildenafil and
vardenafil), tadalafil is at present the only PDE5
inhibitor that has been approved worldwide for
daily dosing therapy.
Several studies have evaluated both the efficacy
and safety of OAD tadalafil in doses between
2.5 and 20 mg and in different ED populations
(broad spectrum, diabetes, and lower urinary tract
symptoms [LUTS]/benign prostatic hyperplasia
[BPH]). Both in short-term (3 months) and longterm trials up to 2 years, tadalafil OAD was effective in the treatment of ED of various etiologies
even at the 2.5-mg dose without signs of tachyphylaxis or increased drug-related adverse events
[84–87].
As illustrated in Figure 8, a historical comparison of data from 16 placebo-controlled trials with
tadalafil taken on demand for the treatment of ED
and the results of the first large multicenter trial
with tadalafil OAD shows that 5 mg of OAD tadalafil provides comparable efficacy to 20 mg of tadalafil taken on demand ([84], data on file with Lilly
Corp.).
In pharmacokinetic studies with OAD tadalafil,
steady state was attained by day 5, and accumulation (1.6-fold) was consistent with the T1/2. From
day 5 of OAD tadalafil, plasma levels are 1.6
higher as compared with the respective single dose
[25]:
OAD tadalafil 2.5 mg ª 4–5 mg single-dose on
demand
OAD tadalafil 5 mg ª 8 mg single-dose on
demand
OAD tadalafil 10 mg ª 16 mg single-dose on
demand
First-Dose Success with Tadalafil OAD
Pharmacokinetic studies have proven that with
daily dosing of tadalafil after 5 days, a steady state
of plasma concentrations is reached equal to 1.6
times a single dose [25]. In this context, a recent
clinical study was able to show that from day 2,
tadalafil OAD resulted in significant efficacy that
increased over the next 5 days ([88], Figure 9).
Safety of Tadalafil OAD
As shown in Table 13, the side-effect profile of
tadalafil OAD 5 mg is comparable to that of tadalafil 20 mg p.r.n. Tadalafil OAD may have an
improved side-effect profile compared with
on-demand use, although this tendency did not
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
146
Porst et al.
Figure 9 Cumulative dose response
with tadalafil OAD 2.5 and 5 mg in a
prospective study [88]. OAD = once a
day
show statistical significance with historical comparisons from pooled data of tadalafil on-demand
trials (Table 17).
Udenafil Once Daily Dosing
In August 2011, the results of the first daily dosing
trial with udenafil, a new PDE5 inhibitor with a
half-life time of about 13 hours, were published,
showing a 73% change rate from baseline regarding SEP 3 data and a 44% shift rate to normal
erectile function (IIEF-EF < 25) for the highest
udenafil dose (75 mg) investigated ([89], Table 18).
Side-effect rates with daily dosing of udenafil were
low with flushing (6.8%), headache (3.4%), and
nasal congestion (1.7%) at the highest udenafil
dose.
Table 17 Historical comparison of treatment-emergent adverse events: once a day tadalafil vs. on-demand tadalafil
(Porst et al. [84])
Once a day
On demand
Events occurring in ⱖ3% of any
treatment group
Placebo
N = 54
Tadalafil 5 mg
N = 109
Tadalafil 10 mg
N = 105
Tadalafil 10 mg
N = 441
Tadalafil 20 mg
N = 1,730
Headache
Dyspepsia
Back pain
Upper abdominal pain
Myalgia
Pain in limb
Flushing
Nasopharyngitis
Discontinuations due to adverse events
7%
4%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
2%
6%
6%
4%
3%
3%
4%
3%
3%
3%
11%
11%
10%
9%
7%
3%
3%
1%
6%
10%
6%
5%
1%
3%
2%
3%
6%
2%
15%
7%
5%
1%
3%
3%
3%
2%
3%
PCT PRN = pooled data from 16 placebo-controlled studies (data on file with Lilly Corp.)
Table 18
Changes of secondary efficacy outcome variables after 12 weeks in the first udenafil daily dosing trial [89]
SEP 2 (%)
SEP 3 (%)
GAQ (%)
Shift to normal IIEF-EF
Placebo
(N = 59)
Udenafil 25 mg
(N = 59)
Udenafil 50 mg
(N = 60)
Udenafil 75 mg
(N = 59)
11.95
23.46
35.60
13.60
22.10
42.09*
69.50*
30.50*
27.90*
51.41*
75.00*
40.00*
39.11*
73.50*
88.10*
44.10*
Values are changes of percentage of positive responses from baseline after 12-week treatment.
P values were calculated using chi square or Fisher exact tests for comparison of subject numbers and analysis of variance for comparison of mean values.
*P < 0.001
GAQ = General Assessment Question; IIEF-EF = International Index of Erectile Function-erectile function domain; SEP 2/3 = Sexual Encounter Profile 2/3
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
147
Table 19 Prostatic and plasma concentrations of
phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors in patients with lower
urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic
hyperplasia [97]
In summary, all currently marketed PDE5
inhibitors have shown in randomized placebocontrolled trials significant efficacy improving
LUTS symptoms as assessed by the IPSS [90–94],
comparable to that of alpha blockers (Level of
Evidence 1). In addition, daily dosing of tadalafil
was able to improve both ED and LUTS given
that both diseases are frequently present in the
same patient ([93]; Figure 10). In the United States
and the countries of the European Union, tadalafil
OAD is approved for the treatment of both
conditions—ED and/or BPH.
Udenafil
Tadalafil
Plasma
concentration
(ng/mL)
Prostate
concentration
(ng/g)
Prostate/
plasma
ratio
436.7 ⫾ 39.1
305.8 ⫾ 41.1
2,028.6 ⫾ 360.8
385.7 ⫾ 83.8
4.4
1.3
Men with ED and Simultaneous LUTS/BPH
In the past years, several placebo-controlled
studies with daily dosing of both short-acting
PDE5 inhibitors (i.e., sildenafil and vardenafil) and
long-acting PDE5 inhibitors (tadalafil and udenafil) provided convincing evidence that daily dosing
of PDE5 inhibitors results in relief of LUTS
symptoms due to BPH, as assessed by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) score.
Improvements in the IPSS score after PDE5
inhibitors were found to the same extent in terms
of IPSS improvement as has been reported with
uroselective and nonselective alpha blockers
[90–96].
In this context, it has been demonstrated that
after oral administration, both tadalafil and udenafil concentrations were significantly higher in the
prostatic tissue as compared with the maximum
plasma levels and that both PDE5 inhibitors
significantly increased cyclo adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and cyclo guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) concentrations ([97], Table 19).
On October 7, 2011, the U.S. FDA approved
tadalafil (Cialis®) OAD for the treatment of men
who have both ED and the signs and symptoms of
BPH. In addition, the FDA also approved tadalafil
OAD for the separate indication for the treatment
of the signs and symptoms of BPH (Figure 10).
Selectively Marketed PDE5 Inhibitors
Several PDE5 inhibitors have been investigated in
randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and have
shown similar efficacy and safety profiles to
sildenafil, tadalafil, and vardenafil.
Avanafil (VIVUS, Inc., Mountain View, CA,
USA) is a very short-acting PDE5 inhibitor with a
TMax of between 0.5 and 1 hour and a T1/2 of <1.5
hours [98]. In a large multicenter trial with a total
of 646 patients allocated to either placebo or
avanafil 50, 100, or 200 mg, respectively, all doses
of avanafil were significantly superior (P ⱕ 0.001)
in all main end points being investigated such as
SEP 2, SEP 3, and IIEF-EF domain score [99]. In
addition, the authors evaluated the window of efficacy and reported that avanafil in as early as 15
minutes and >6 hours after dosing is effective [99].
Side effects were the same as established for other
PDE5 inhibitors.
Similar results were found in a recently published multicenter, randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled, fix-dosed phase III clinical
trial with 100 and 200 mg of avanafil involving 200
patients with ED from South Korea [100].
Figure 10 Tadalafil once a day significantly improves ED and LUTS/BPH
symptoms in men suffering from both
conditions [93]. ANCOVA = analysis of
covariance; BPH = benign prostatic
hyperplasia; ED = erectile dysfunction; IIEF-EF = International Index of
Erectile Function-erectile function
domain; IPSS = International Prostate
Symptom
Score;
LUTS = lower
urinary tract symptoms
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
148
Porst et al.
Table 20 Pharmacokinetics of new phosphodiesterase
type 5 inhibitors
TMax (hour)
T1/2 (hour)
Avanafil*
100 mg
Mirodenafil†
10 mg
Lodenafil‡
160 mg
Udenafil§
100 mg
0.5–1.5
<1.5
1.25
2.5
1.2
2.4
1–1.5
11–13
*Limin et al. [98]
†Paick et al. [101]
‡Glina et al. [102]
§Kim et al. [103]
Considering the TMax of avanafil that is distinctly shorter than the other PDE5 inhibitors on
the market and the available data from clinical
trials in terms of onset of action, it seems that
avanafil reports the quickest onset of action (see
Table 20). Avanafil has been recently (April 27,
2012) approved by the FDA as Stendra® in the
United States.
Lodenafil (Helleva; Cristalia Pharmaceuticals
Ltd., Itapira, Brazil), also a short-acting PDE5
inhibitor with TMax of 1.2 hours and T1/2 of 2.4
hours, is approved for the treatment of ED in
Brazil. Two multicenter trials in a broad-spectrum
ED population have provided SEP 3 data as shown
in Table 21 [102,104].
The lodenafil data show both efficacy and safety
profiles comparable to sildenafil, tadalafil, and
vardenafil [102,104].
Mirodenafil (SK Chemicals, Seoul, South
Korea), a short-acting PDE5 inhibitor with TMax of
1.25 hours and T1/2 of 2.5 hours, is available in
South Korea and has shown impressive efficacy
data in a variety of clinical trials with SEP 3 results
of 68.9% after mirodenafil 100 mg vs. 22.3% after
placebo (P < 0.0001) in a Korean diabetic ED
population [101,105].
Udenafil (Dong-A PharmTech Co. Ltd, Seoul,
South Korea) is the only long-acting drug among
the new PDE5 inhibitors with TMax of 1–1.5 hours
and T1/2 of 11–13 hours. The drug is licensed as
Zydena® in South Korea, Russia, and other countries of the previous Russian Federation. In a
variety of clinical trials, efficacy and safety data
Table 21
similar to sildenafil, vardenafil, and tadalafil with
SEP 3 data in diabetics of 53% (udenafil 100 mg),
and 63% (udenafil 200 mg) vs. 22% after placebo
[103,106] have been reported.
In a published review of available udenafil, data
from five RCTs totaling 1,109 patients [107]
showed that udenafil had greater efficacy than
placebo in the change from baseline for the
IIEF-EF score (mean difference 5.65, 95% CI
4.41–6.89, P < 0.00001). Most adverse events
were either mild or moderate in severity, and no
serious adverse events were observed in these
trials. The most common drug-related adverse
events were flushing and headache (udenafil vs.
placebo, 5.6% vs. 1.8% and 3.1% vs. 0%, respectively) [107].
Udenafil was recently investigated in a daily
dosing trial using doses of 25, 50, and 75 mg or
placebo, respectively [89]. Patients taking 50 or
75 mg of udenafil reported better IIEF domain
scores than placebo (Figure 11).
In conclusions on PDE5 inhibitors, at present, all
PDE5 inhibitors represent a first-line choice for
the majority of all ED patients and their partners,
regardless of the underlying ED etiology, and are
recommended in all guidelines of urological societies as first-line therapy (Level of Evidence 1).
Their use in more than 100 million men worldwide
has shown convincing evidence of their acceptance,
efficacy, and safety profile. In general, all PDE5
inhibitors are successfully used on an on-demand
(p.r.n.) basis. Tadalafil OAD low-dose use has been
approved in some markets for up to 3 years and has
provided similar efficacy and safety as compared
with the on-demand use of all other available PDE5
inhibitors. (Level of Evidence 1) Tadalafil OAD
represents an effective, safe, and attractive alternative to the p.r.n. dosing, taking away the need to
schedule sexual activities and thus allowing a spontaneous and natural sex life. Udenafil has also
shown both efficacy and safety in a daily dosing
regimen but is not yet approved for chronic dosing.
In addition in men suffering from both ED and
LUTS, tadalafil OAD is able to treat both condi-
Results of two different randomized, placebo-controlled, and double-blind lodenafil trials
Placebo
Lodenafil 20 mg
Lodenafil 40 mg
Lodenafil 80 mg
*SEP 3 baseline
*SEP 3 after
†
23.3 ⫾ 27.6%
32.3 ⫾ 38.9%
39.7 ⫾ 44.7%
17.2 ⫾ 29.5%
33.6 ⫾ 42.3%
51.2 ⫾ 41.7%
46.7 ⫾ 41.1%
74.3 ⫾ 36.3%
20.2 ⫾ 32.3%
Not tested
19.6 ⫾ 34.3%
20.8 ⫾ 33.2%
*Glina et al. [102] (P < 0.05 for difference to placebo)
†Glina et al. [104] (P < 0.01 for difference to placebo)
SEP 3 = Sexual Encounter Profile 3
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
SEP 3 baseline
†
SEP 3 after
29.7 ⫾ 38.1%
Not tested
50.8 ⫾ 44.4%
66.0 ⫾ 39.3%
149
Figure 11 Results of the various IIEF
domains in the randomized, placebocontrolled, double-blind once daily
dosing trial with udenafil 25, 50, and
75 mg [89]. IIEF = International Index
of Erectile Function
tions successfully with one pill (Level of Evidence
1) and has recently received the official approval for
both indications in several markets worldwide.
Oral Therapies Other than PDE5 Inhibitors
Yohimbine
Yohimbine is the main alkaloid from the bark of the
tree called Coryanthe johimbe K. Schum (yohimbehe
tree), particularly growing in Central Africa. The
alkaloid was first isolated from the bark of the
yohimbehe tree (hence the name) by L. Spiegel in
1896. The bark of this tree is still used today as the
raw material for the various yohimbine preparations. First information on its use combined with
papaverine to treat ED was published in 1923 [108].
Until the launch of sildenafil and the other PDE5
inhibitors, yohimbine was the most prescribed substance worldwide for the treatment of ED.
Pharmacological Profile
The sites of action of yohimbine are the following:
Central: Unlike alpha1 adrenoceptors, cerebral
alpha2 adrenoceptors mediate erectioninhibiting impulses. Yohimbine facilitates erection in part through a central level.
Peripheral: Yohimbine directly blocks alpha2
adrenoceptors that dominate in the penile arteries. It is believed to counteract the vasoconstriction induced by norepinephrine/epinephrine
release and in turn the reduction in blood flow.
Endothelium and androgen-dependent NO formation: Experimental studies aimed at exploring
yohimbine-induced relaxation in human and
rabbit corpora cavernosa (CC) have provided
evidence that yohimbine interferes with NO
release from the endothelium: yohimbine-
induced CC relaxation was inhibited by
mechanical removing of the endothelium and by
blocking NO synthesis or signaling via guanylate
cyclase and cGMP formation [109]. In contrast,
inhibition of cGMP degradation strongly
increased yohimbine activity. In an experimental
chemical castration model, conducted in rabbits
by chronic treatment with a long-lasting Gonadotropine Releasing Hormone (GnRH) agonist,
the relaxant yohimbine activity was also
decreased but completely restored by androgen
supplementation [109]. These experimental data
indicate that yohimbine’s efficacy in ED is not
only due to its inhibitory effects on the
presynapticalpha1-adrenoceptor activity in the
cavernous smooth muscle cells but also includes
an impact on NO and cGMP formation involving endothelium and endothelial nitric oxide
synthase (eNOS) activity which again is testosterone dependent.
Pharmacokinetics and Dosage
Yohimbine hydrochloride is orally well absorbed
and has a plasma half-life of between 0.25 and 2.5
hours. However, the effects triggered by yohimbine, which can be traced back to an increase in
plasma norepinephrine, may last for more than 13
hours. Only about 1% of yohimbine appears in the
urine, indicating a predominantly hepatic clearance [110].
Doses described both in trials and in the literature ranged commonly from 5 to 15 mg three
times a day [111].
Efficacy
The efficacy and safety of yohimbine have been
analyzed in numerous studies, some of them with
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
150
a placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective
design. The efficacy rates ranged from no effect to
71% as compared with 40% for placebo in nonorganic impotence. A meta-analysis of seven large
yohimbine studies, which met strict quality criteria, showed a superiority of yohimbine vs. placebo.
Based on these data, the authors concluded that
there is a rationale for the use of yohimbine in
suitable ED patients [111]. The Clinical Guidelines Panel on Erectile Dysfunction of the American Urological Association (AUA) concluded that
the data currently available on yohimbine do not
allow it to be recommended as standard treatment
in ED, particularly not in organic etiologies, and
this statement of the AUA ED Guideline Panel
was not changed with the 2005 update [112].
Apart from its use in ED yohimbine has also
been reported effective in orgasmic disorders, i.e.,
delayed ejaculation or orgasm [113].
Side Effects and Contraindications
The common side effects observed with yohimbine can mostly be traced back to its partially
increased sympathetic activity: anxiety, nausea,
restlessness, agitation, sleeplessness tachycardia,
palpitations, diarrhea, and manic symptoms. In
addition, yohimbine is reported to either increase
or more infrequently decrease blood pressure,
which may be clinically relevant if hypertensive
patients are taking this medication. In cases of
severe CVD such as unstable angina or recent
myocardial infarction, difficult to treat hypertension and severe psychiatric diseases, as well as
severe hepatic impairment, should be considered
contraindications for yohimbine use.
In conclusions on yohimbine, if yohimbine has any
potential indications for use in ED management, it
would be among nonorganic ED. In these
patients, yohimbine may be used for a maximum of
2 months either as a regular regimen (3 ¥ 5–
10 mg/day) and has shown in a review a superiority
to placebo (Level of Evidence 1b). Apart from ED,
yohimbine has shown a limited efficacy in the
medical treatment of delayed ejaculation.
L-Arginine
L-arginine is the precursor of NO synthesis
(Figure 6). Zorgniotti and Lizza conducted a
placebo-controlled study with 2,800 mg of
L-arginine per day in 20 impotent men for 2
weeks. Of the 15 men who completed the study, six
reported an improvement in their ability to
achieve an erection and nine experienced no
improvement [114].
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
Porst et al.
A high-dose, prospective, randomized, doubleblind, and placebo-controlled study with 5 g of
L-arginine per day for 6 weeks was conducted in
50 patients (aged 55–75 years) with organic, complete ED (unable to perform coitus) for at least 6
months [115]. This study resulted in a success rate
(sexual intercourse possible) of 31% in the
L-arginine group compared with 12% in the
placebo arm. It was interesting to note that significantly higher urine concentrations of the stable
NO metabolites NO2 and NO3 were measured in
the L-arginine responders than in the nonresponders, although the responders had lower urine
concentrations of NO3 prior to treatment. Thus,
the question arises as to whether supraphysiologic
doses of L-arginine given over a long period of
time can lead to a permanent improvement in cavernous function in some ED patients. No side
effects were observed except a fall in maximal
blood pressure of 10% in some patients, which did
not result in clinical symptoms.
Just recently, the results of a double-blind,
placebo-controlled study with Prelox® (Horphag
Research Ltd, Geneva, Switzerland; commercially
available L-arginine product in some European
countries) in 124 patients (aged 30–50 years) with
moderate ED over an investigational period of 6
months were published [116]. The IIEF-EF
improved after Prelox® from a baseline mean
(standard deviation) score of 15.2 (6.6) to 25.2
(2.1) after 3 months and to 27.1 (2.1) after 6
months of treatment.
The corresponding figures in the placebo
group were from baseline 15.1 (7.0) to 19.1 (3.0)
and 19.0 (3.1) after 3 and 6 months, respectively.
The effects with Prelox® were statistically significant compared with placebo (P < 0.05). It is
notable that these efficacy data for Prelox® show
an increase of mean IIEF-EF score of 11.9. This
exceeds the improvements in IIEF-EF score of
about 8–10, which were achieved in clinical trials
with the highest doses of PDE5 inhibitors. These
exceptional results with Prelox® must of course
be reproduced in other large multicenter
RCT studies in order for L-arginine (here
Prelox®) to be accepted as first-line therapy for
ED.
In conclusions on L-arginine, at present, no representative and reliable data from multicenter
well-designed randomized trials are available providing evidence of significant efficacy of
L-arginine in a broad-spectrum ED population.
The trials published on L-arginine and its effects
in ED are at best a Level of Evidence 2b that
151
The Impact of PGE1 (Alprostadil) on Erectile Function
PGE1
NANC-Nerve
-
+
EP
Rec.
-
Endothelial cell
stimulation
+
converting
enzyme
Ang I
+
EP-receptor
Inhibition NA-release
alpha1-receptor
Figure 12 Sites of action of PGE1
[23]. AT1 = Angiotensin 1; AT2 =
Angiotensin 2; 3’5’-cAMP = cyclo
adenosine monophosphate; EP = EProstaglandin;
NA = Noradrenaline;
NANC = non adrenergic non cholinergic; PGE1 = Prostaglandin E1
AT1-receptor
Gs -Protein
+
+
Ang II
+
AT2-receptor
Adenylate Zyklase
L- type
Ca++ channel
Ca++
ATP
3´5-cAMP
L-arginine may work in ED patients of not closely
specified ED etiology.
Apomorphine SL
With Apomorphine SL, a central dopaminereceptor agonist, a comprehensive clinical phase
I–III developmental program was conducted,
finally resulting in the official approval of Apomorphine sublingual tablets 2 and 3 mg (Ixense®,
Tokyo, Takeda Pharma, Japan; and Uprima®,
Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA) in
Europe 10 years ago. Because of its significantly
inferior efficacy as compared with that of PDE5
inhibitors, the drug was withdrawn from the European market. Because Apomorphine SL is, to the
knowledge of the authors, at present not marketed
and therefore not officially available in pharmacies
in any major regions of the world such as America,
Asia, and Europe, no further details on Apomorphine are provided in this standard operation procedures (SOP) on ED.
Topical Therapy
Several drugs have been investigated in the past for
topical application such as ointment/gel either on
the glans penis or the penis shaft skin. The challenge with topical therapy is to reach the level of
the CC, i.e., agents applied on penile skin have to
permeate fascial layers and the tunica albuginea,
which means thick layers of collagen. In view of
the proven existence of venous communications
between CC and glans penis, some studies have
-
-
Ca++
Contraction
+
Ca++
Relaxation
Contraction
investigated the efficacy of topical application on
the glans penis to reach the corpus cavernosum
[117].
Drugs used in small trials with very limited
number of patients were minoxidil solution, nitroglycerin ointment, and papaverine gel. None of
these drugs was neither investigated in larger trials
nor reached market approval mainly because of
limited efficacy.
Topical Therapy with Prostaglandin E1 (PGE1,
Synonymous Alprostadil)
Sites of Action of PGE1
PGE1 induces relaxation of corpus cavernosum
smooth musculature through binding at
E-prostaglandin receptors and activating the
membrane bound adenylate cyclase, resulting in
an increase of intracellular concentrations of
cAMP in the cavernous tissue [118]. Further consequences of the PGE1-mediated relaxation of
human corpus cavernosum are the activation of
Maxi K channels, resulting in hyperpolarization
and changes in transmembrane Ca2+ flux [119].
These effects are complemented by PGE1induced inhibition of the release of noradrenaline
from sympathetic nerve endings [120] and the suppression of angiotensin II secretion in the cavernosal tissues [121] (Figure 12).
Topical Alprostadil (Synonymous PGE1)
With a special topical PGE1 preparation, two
large randomized placebo-controlled double-blind
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
152
Porst et al.
Figure 13 Integrated analysis of two phase III trials with
topical alprostadil (PGE1): SEP 3 data [122]. PGE1 =
prostaglandin E1; SEP 3 = Sexual Encounter Profile 3
trials with doses of 100, 200, and 300 mg of alprostadil were conducted and the integrated results
were published some years ago [122]: a total of
1,732 patients (21% diabetes, 44% hypertension,
12% radical retropubic prostatectomy [RRP],
21% CAD, and 16% nitrate- or alpha-blocker
medication) received either placebo (N = 434) or
topical alprostadil cream at 100 (N = 434), 200
(N = 430), or 300 mg (N = 434). The mean
changes of the IIEF-EF domain scores from baseline to end point were -0.7, 1.6, 2.5, and 2.4 points
for each group, respectively (P < 0.001). Scores on
SEP questions 2 and 3 improved slightly but significantly for all drug treatment groups compared
with placebo (P < 0.001, Figure 13, Table 22).
Adverse events were mainly limited locally to the
application site with penile edema (1.4%), genital
pain (17.5%), penile burning (23%), and penile
Table 22 Efficacy end points of alprostadil topical cream
studies: results of an integrated analysis of two
multicenter trials in 1,732 patients [122]
Alprostadil
100 mg
(N = 418)
Topical
200 mg
(N = 410)
Cream
300 mg
(N = 410)
14.0
13.3
-0.7
13.6
15.3
1.7
0.001
13.6
16.1
2.5
<0.001
13.6
16.1
2.5
<0.001
55.9
51.2
-4.7
53.4
56.6
3.2
0.001
52.9
58.2
5.3
<0.001
49.9
57.5
7.6
<0.001
29.4
30.3
0.8
31.3
38.9
7.6
0.001
27.6
41.9
14.3
<0.001
28.7
38.5
9.8
<0.001
Placebo
(N = 411)
IIEF-EF
Baseline
End point
Mean change
P value*
SEP 2
Baseline
End point
Mean change
P value*
SEP 3
Baseline
End point
Mean change
P value*
*Least square difference relative to placebo from ANCOVA
ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; IIEF-EF = International Index of Erectile
Function-erectile function domain; SEP 2/3 = Sexual Encounter Profile 2/3
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
erythema (11.3%) and resolved in the majority
within 2 hours. Partners complained in 4.4% of
vaginal burning and in 2.1% of vaginitis.
In conclusions on topical PGE1, compared with
oral PDE5 inhibitor therapy with IIEF-EF
changes between four and nine depending on dose
and study population, topical alprostadil cannot be
considered an effective monotherapy for ED
(Level of Evidence 1b). Topical PGE1 may be
useful in combination therapy with oral drugs if
they show limited efficacy; however, data on combination therapies with topical PGE1 (Vitaros,
Apricus Bio, San Diego, CA, USA) are not available. Topical PGE1 is produced by the U.S.-based
NexMed Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Apricus Biosciences, with its special NexACT®
drug delivery technology and has recently been
filed for approval in some countries. It is approved
in Canada.
Transurethral Alprostadil (PGE1) with Medicated
Urethral System for Erection (MUSE®)
A new alprostadil preparation using a transurethral
application with a small applicator for single use
was introduced in 1994 and later on after succesful
phase II/III clinical development program marketed as MUSE® (MEDA Pharma GmbH,
Wangen-Brüttisellen, Switzerland). Although the
transurethral application route seemed at first
glance to be preferable to intracavernosal selfinjection therapy, this new medical therapy provided limited efficacy data especially in direct
comparative trials with intracavernously injected
alprostadil (e.g., Caverject®, Edex®, and Viridal®), as is shown in Table 23. MUSE® is applied
into the moistened urethra through the external
orifice directly after emptying the bladder
(Figure 14).
Typical frequent side effects of MUSE® are
penile/urethral pain between 25% and 43% and
Table 23 Review of the literature: efficacy rates of
transurethral alprostadil (MUSE®) vs. self-injection
therapy with alprostadil (Caverject®, Viridal®, and Edex®)
(from Porst and Adaikan [123])
Author
Ghazi, 1998 [124]
Werthman, 1997 [125]
Porst, 1997 [126]
Shabsigh, 1998 [127]
Shabsigh, 2000 [128]
Flynn, 1998 [129]
No. of
patients
125
100
103
106
68
Literature
review
MUSE®
i.c. alprostadil
48% (61) 79%
37%
89%
43% (44) 70%
27%
66%
53%
83%
45%
>70%
MUSE = Medicated Urethral System for Erection
(98)
(72)
(buckling test)
(at home use)
153
Figure 14 Technique of transurethral
PGE1 application with MUSE®.
PGE1 = prostaglandin E1
urethral bleeding (around 5%). Infrequent adverse
events are dizziness because of blood pressure fall
(1–5%) and even the occurrence of syncope
between 0.4% and 3% [123].
Of importance, in order to achieve the best efficacy with MUSE® and to avoid transurethral
bleeding, a correct technical application is essential, i.e., to insert MUSE® directly upon micturition with the urethra still being moist.
The efficacy of MUSE® may be enhanced by
simultaneous application of a constriction band
on the penis’ base to avoid fast drainage of the
medication through the penile veins.
Successful salvage of nonresponders to monotherapy either with sildenafil or MUSE® by combination of both methods was reported by several
authors [130,131].
Successful use of transurethral alprostadil in
men with the so-called soft (cold) glans was reported
in 23 out of 28 men after insertion of a penile
implant [132].
In conclusions on transurethral PGE1 (MUSE®),
transurethral alprostadil therapy with MUSE®
has shown significant efficacy in a variety of ED
populations as compared with placebo (Level of
Evidence 1a), but because of its inferior efficacy
both with regard to PDE5 inhibitors and intracavernosal self-injection therapy, transurethral
alprostadil therapy with MUSE® must be considered a niche therapy in ED. The main indications
for MUSE® are patients who are nonresponsive
to PDE5 inhibitors due to damage of the autonomic penile nerve supply (radical prostatectomy,
cystectomy, and trauma) or in combination with
PDE5 inhibitors in the so-called poor responders
to oral therapy. Another rare indication for transurethral PGE1 are those patients complaining
about a soft (cold) glans syndrome, which sometimes occurs after insertion of a penile implant or
as a clinical entity.
Vasoactive Drugs Used for Intracavernosal
Self-Injection Therapy
In general worldwide, the following vasoactive
drugs are/were used both for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in the management of ED:
PGE1 (synonymous alprostadil) (trade names:
Caverject®, Edex®, and Viridal®) [127–129]
Papaverine (several generics available worldwide)
Combination of papaverine/phentolamine—bimix
(trade name: Androskat®: only in some European countries available)
Trimix (synonymous triple drug): mixture of PGE1/
papaverine/phentolamine (worldwide, no commercial product available; this combination is
often reconstituded by pharmacists on an individual prescription basis)
Combination of vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP)
and phentolamine (trade name: Invicorp®, only
available in Europe on patient named prescription basis)
PGE1 (Synonymous Alprostadil), Papaverine,
Combination of Papaverine/Phentolamine
Diagnostic Use
The above-mentioned vasoactive drugs are used
for diagnostic purposes to investigate cavernosal
relaxation capacity and in combination with penile
Doppler/duplex to investigate the penile vascular
system. When used for diagnostic purposes (only
marketed drugs considered), the response rates
(complete erection) were highest for PGE1 with
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
154
Porst et al.
Table 24 Efficacy of vasoactive substances in the diagnosis of ED. Literature review of evaluable publications (from
Porst [133])
No. of
patients
Substance
Dose (min/max)
Publications
Papaverine
Papaverine/phentolamine
30–110 mg
15 mg/1.25 mg
60 mg/2 mg
5 mg–40 mg
19
13
2,161
3,016
61% (987 out of 1,616)
68.5% (2,065 out of 3,016)
27
10,353
72.6% (7,519 out of 10,353)
PGE1 (alprostadil)
Responders
ED = erectile dysfunction; PGE1 = prostaglandin E1
about 73% efficacy and lowest for papaverine with
about 61% efficacy ([133], Table 24).
Therapeutic Use
Depending on both the availability and the physician’s personal preference/experience, the
outcome of self-injection therapy in a representative number of patients was reported in the literature with papaverine, the mixture of papaverine/
phentolamine, or with PGE1.
In this context, only with PGE1 two welldesigned prospective long-term trials with
follow-up of 4 and 5 years, respectively, were published in the literature [135,136].
PGE1 (Alprostadil—Caverject®, Viridal®, and
Edex®)
The common doses used with PGE1 depend on
the underlying ED etiology and the residual relaxant capacity of the cavernous bodies. In this
context in a longitudinal study (N = 1.687), it has
been shown that men with a poor response to
intracavernosal PGE1 testing had both a higher
prevalence of hypogonadism-related symptoms
and signs along with lower T levels and a higher
incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events,
with a hazard ratio of 2.745 (P < 0.05) [134]. Both
prevalences of diabetes and metabolic syndrome
were inversely related to intracavernosal injection
(ICI) test response [134]. Doses used in ED usually
range between 5 and 40 mg, with the most
commonly used doses between 10 and 20 mg
[135–138].
In patients after pelvic surgery (RRP and cystectomy), the initial dose should be chosen at 5 mg
because of the higher risk of priapism and in
patients after cavernous nerve injury the use of
PGE1 is associated with pain, which occurs less
often with papaverine/phentolamine combinations
or trimix solutions.
As shown in Table 25, the individual long-term
success rates in the European prospective trial with
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
alprostadil sterile powder (Viridal®/Edex®) were
very high, ranging between 91% and 96%, once a
patient was successfully introduced to intracavernosal self-injection therapy [135].
The injection frequency in various PGE1 selfinjection studies ranged between two and four per
month [135–138].
The satisfaction rates with intracavernosal selfinjection therapy with PGE1 compared with that of
oral drug therapy were evaluated in a study among
previous PDE5 inhibitor failures. In an analysis
comprising 596 patients with a mean age of 62.1
years, mean duration of ED of 61 months, and mean
duration of PGE1 ICI treatment of 35 months, the
authors reported the following results [138]:
Before introduction to intracavernosal selfinjection therapy, 43% of patients had taken at
least one PDE5 inhibitor and 81% discontinued
this therapy because of treatment inefficacy. The
overall satisfaction rate with ICI was 78.3% and
ICI met expectations each time in 78.6% of
patients and at least half the time in 90% of
patients; 86% of the patients would recommend
ICI to friends. Patients reported improvements in
their sex life (70.1%), relationship with their
partner (50%), quality of life (44.8%), and confidence in attempting sexual intercourse (80.3%).
The mean number of injections was 4.4 per
month. Most patients (81.1%) found the injections
easy to use. The mean score for pain on injection
was 2.09/10 and for pain on erection was 2.15/10.
Three-quarters of patients (73.1%) thought that
their partners were satisfied with ICI [138].
Table 25 Number of successful injections resulting in
sexual intercourse in the prospective European trial with
alprostadil sterile powder (source: Porst et al. [135])
Year follow-up
No. of total
injections
No. of successful
injections
Percentage
First year
Second year
Third year
Fourth year
Total
6,935
3,937
3,233
2,781
16.886
3,937
3,691
3,050
2,679
15.713
91
94
94
96
93
155
4% (18 out of 452)
11.6% (141 out of 1,215)
7.2% (40 out of 558)
5.7% (60 out of 1,056)
12.4% (288 out of 1,843)
0.8% (18 out of 2,180)
7.1% (92 out of 1,300)
7.8% (122 out of 1,561)
0.36% (10 out of 2,745)
15
22
10
Priapism > 6 hours
No. of
publications
N
ED = erectile dysfunction; PGE1 = prostaglandin E1
Priapism often occurs with papaverine and the
combination of papaverine/phentolamine rather
than with PGE1 monotherapy. It is more often
observed in cases of neurogenic ED, especially
Substance
1. the drug itself,
2. the dose used,
3. the underlying ED etiology.
Side effects of vasoactive drugs in ED. Review of the literature (Porst [133])
Side Effects of Injectable Vasoactive Drugs
A review of the side-effect profile of intracavernosal vasoactive drugs is provided in Table 26.
Priapism may occur with any vasoactive drug
and usually in the early initiation phase when the
appropriate dose for intracavernosal self-injection
therapy is being determined.
The occurrence of priapism depends on the
following:
Table 26
The mixture of papaverine/phentolamine also
often referred to as bimix is commercially available
and approved as Androskat® in several countries
worldwide, especially in Europe. Androskat® is
marketed in 2-mL ampoules containing 15 mg of
papaverine and 0.5 mg of phentolamine per 1 mL,
i.e., a total content of 30 mg of papaverine + 1 mg
of phentolamine per ampoule. As a rule of thumb,
the efficacy of one ampoule of Androskat® is comparable to 10 mg of alprostadil and two ampoules
of Androskat® to 20 mg of alprostadil ([133],
Table 24).
Fibrosis
Papaverine/Phentolamine Combination
(Androskat®)
1,527
2,263
2,745
Pain
Return of Spontaneous Erections
A return or improvement of spontaneous erections
while on intracavernosal self-injection therapy
with PGE1 demonstrates a wide range with studies
reporting between 37.3% and 85% [137,140].
Although many patients on intracavernosal selfinjection therapy report an improvement of spontaneous erections, only a minority of patients can
give up this therapy because they are considered
cured [141].
Papaverine
Papaverine/phentolamine
PGE1 (alprostadil)
Elevated liver enzymes
In another study, patients’ satisfaction rates with
PGE1-induced erections at home were 67.3%
[137].
In both multicenter long-term trials with PGE1
(alprostadil sterile powder and Alprostadil
Alfadex), patients’ self-esteem as well as patients’
and partners’ satisfaction with sex life increased
significantly [135,136,139].
1.6% (5 out of 314)
5.4% (43 out of 799)
0%
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
156
Porst et al.
Table 27 Penile fibroses in prospective long-term intracavernosal self-injection trials with alprostadil (prostaglandin E1)
[135,136]
Alprostadil St. Powder (Caverject®-USA)
Alprostadil St. Powder (Caverject®-Europe)
Alprostadil Alfadex (Viridal®-Europe)
No.
Pts.
Follow-up
(months)
Fibrosis
total
Nodules
Plaques
683
848
511
162
18
6
18
48
7.5%
4%
5.1%
11.7%
22
after spinal cord injury or pelvic surgery. In such
patients, lower initiation doses should be used.
Fibrosis manifests as palpable penile nodules/
plaques or in severe cases as cavernousal fibrosis. It
occurs much more often after the use of papaverine containing injectables such as the combination
of papaverine/phentolamine, and trimix than after
PGE1 monotherapy.
In the majority of cases, fibrotic changes manifest as nodules/plaques and in 25–60% penile
curvature is present. The follow-up of fibrotic
changes, occurring both in the 4-year European
multicenter study with Alprostadil Alfadex
(Viridal®/Edex®) and in the 5-year U.S. trial
with alprostadil sterile powder (Caverject®),
showed that between 33% and 47% of these
nodules/plaques heal spontaneously ([135,136],
Table 27).
Penile pain depends on the following:
1. the drug itself,
2. the underlying ED etiology,
3. the injection technique.
Pain occurs more frequently after PGE1 and in
neurogenic patients, especially after pelvic surgery.
Elevated liver enzymes have only been reported
in papaverine-containing preparations.
Drop-Out Rates
Reviewing both prospective long-term selfinjection trials with PGE1, the drop-out rates
were 55% after 18 months in the alprostadil
sterile powder (Caverject®) trial [136] and 54%
after 2 years and 67% after 4 years in the Alprostadil Alfadex (Viridal®/Edex®) trial [135]. Dropout rates were less than in the prospective
multicenter transurethral PGE1 (MUSE®) trial,
with 57% after 3 months and 75% after 15
months [142].
In a smaller study, with 86 patients, who had
been on self-injection therapy for at least 3
months, 69 patients (80%) continued and 17
(20%) discontinued the treatment. After interviewing the patients in this study, the authors came
to the conclusion that dropouts from self-injection
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
(51)
(34)
(26)
(19)
10
Deviations
8
Not published
6
Severe
fibros.
21
3
therapy are not based on objective side effects and
discomfort. Patients leaving the program were
usually less motivated, less satisfied with the
quality of pharmaco-induced sexuality, consider
the effort to inject to be too substantial, and had
not achieved improved self-esteem [143].
Combination of Papaverine/Phentolamine/PGE1
(Triple Drug, Synonymous Trimix)
In 1990, Goldstein et al. first reported the tripledrug combination of papaverine/phentolamine/
PGE1 [144]. Since this publication, a variety of
reports on the efficacy of this drug combination
has been published using a wide range of doses (see
Table 24 and 28). The trimix combination is recommended for patients unsuitable for PGE1 injection due to poor response, pain, or cost. A direct
comparative study investigated the efficacy of
equivalent doses of alprostadil monotherapy to the
triple-drug combination [152] (Table 29). In this
trial, more patients expressed a preference for the
trimix combination as compared with PGE1
(alprostadil) monotherapy (Table 30).
The major disadvantage of the trimix drug combination is that up to now no marketed preparation
exists worldwide; patients or pharmacists need to
reconstitute this combination on an individual
basis, which can be somewhat complicated and
cumbersome.
According to personal reports, the trimix combination is superior to alprostadil monodrug efficacy in patients with veno-occlusive dysfunction
(the so-called venous leak) and in patients after
pelvic surgery for reducing penile pain, which is
common in patients using alprostadil monotherapy. The most common high-dose trimix prescribed contains 40 mg of alprostadil + 30 mg of
papaverine + 1 mg of phentolamine, which can
easily be reconstituted from two ampoules of
Caverject® and one ampoule of Androskat®.
Because the application of trimix has a higher
risk for priapism than alprostadil monotherapy,
the initiation dose of trimix should be accordingly
lower with stepwise up-titration.
157
Table 28 Various dose combinations with trimix combinations have been reported in the literature (from Porst and
Adaikan [123])
Trimix stock solution
Reference
Papaverine per mL
PGE1 per mL
Phentolamine per mL
Injection
volume (mL)
Bennett et al., 1991 [145]
Govier et al., 1993 [146]
Israilov et al., 2002 [147]
Marshall et al., 1994 [148]
Shenfeld et al. 1995 [149]
Mulhall et al., 1999 [150]
17.6 mg
22.5 mg
19.4 mg
12 mg
4.5 mg/0.5 mL
30 mg
30 mg
150 mg
300 mg
300 mg
5.9 mg
8.3 mg
16.4 mg
9 mg
5 mg/0.5 mL
10 mg
25 mg
30 mg
100 mg
200 mg
0.59 mg
0.83 mg
1.6 mg
1 mg
0.25 mg/0.5 mL
1 mg
2 mg
5 mg
10 mg
20 mg
0.25
0.36
NA
0.1–0.8
0.5
NA
NA
0.18–0.21
0.18–0.21
0.18–0.21
Montorsi et al., 2002 [151]
NA = not applicable; PGE1 = prostaglandin E1
Some patients may experience clinically symptomatic blood pressure decreases when taking
high-dose trimix (20–40 mg of PGE1/20–40 mg of
papaverine/1–2 mg of phentolamine).
In conclusion on PGE1/papaverine/phentolamine
(trimix), the trimix combination is a very effective
alternative to PGE1 monotherapy. It is indicated in
patients with cavernous insufficiency (venous leak)
and postradical pelvic surgery, and in patients who
often experience penile pain with alprostadil mono-
therapy. Trimix is associated with a much higher
risk of priapism, especially at higher doses, and has
a higher rate of cavernousal fibrotic changes with
mid- and long-term use, compared with alprostadil
monotherapy (Level of Evidence 2a). A major disadvantage of trimix is the lack of a marketed preparation and the need for reconstitution, which can be
especially cumbersome for some patients.
Combination of VIP and Phentolamine (Invicorp®)
Table 29 Equivalent efficacy doses of alprostadil powder
(Caverject®) and papaverine/phentolamine/PGE1
combination (triple-drug solution) in 68 patients [152]
Alprostadil powder
(PGE1 [mg])
Papaverine (mg)/
phentolamine
(mg)/PGE1 (mg)
4
8
12
16
20
1.47/0.05/0.49
3.2/0.1/1.1
4.6/0.15/1.55
6.8/0.22/2.27
7.6/0.25/2.5
Table 30 Intraindividual comparative study of alprostadil
powder (Caverject®) and papaverine/phentolamine/PGE1
(triple-drug solution) [152]
Overall assessment
better
Improved rigidity
Erection maintenance
better
Reproducibility better
Orgasm/ejaculation
better
Alprostadil
powder
(PGE1
Caverject®)
Papaverine/
phentolamine/
PGE1
(triple-drug
solution)
23%
46%
31%
22%
19%
37%
37%
41%
44%
15%
0
35%
0
50%
100%
No
preference
(both the
same)
The combination of vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP) and phentolamine in a larger series of
patients with ED was first published in 1992 [153].
Thereafter, the mixture of VIP/phentolamine, in
doses of 25 mg/1 mg or 25 mg/2 mg, was introduced commercially as Invicorp®. It was available
with a very user-friendly automatic injection
device for single use (Senetek, Napa, CA, USA)
and approved in some countries (Denmark, UK,
and New Zealand) [154,155] (Table 31). Although
the VIP/phentolamine combination had promise,
due to its former self-injection prototype device
and relatively high efficacy, it was never marketed
globally after the successful introduction of PDE5
inhibitors.
Table 31 Response rates to VIP/phentolamine
(Invicorp®) with in-office testing in combination with visual
sexual stimulation [155]
ED etiology
N
289 (Ø
58,5 years)
Responder
VIP 25 mg/
phentol 1 mg
Responder
VIP 25 mg/
phentol 2 mg
Arteriogenic
Diabetes
Neurogenic
Mixed
Total
72
62
3
152
289
59.7%
64.5%
100%
63.8%
63.3%
80.6%
85.5%
82.9%
83.1%
ED = erectile dysfunction; VIP = vasoactive intestinal polypeptide
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
158
Porst et al.
Figure 15 Correct technique of selfinjection therapy (original source:
Pharmacia Upjohn, former Caverject®
manufacturer, now Pfizer Corp., New
York, NY, USA)
A comparative study of PGE1 (Caverject®) and
VIP/phentolamine (Invicorp® autoinjection
device) was conducted over a longer interval in
over 40 men who were performing self-injection
therapy with PGE1 (Caverject®). At that time,
over 80% of the patients preferred Invicorp®
because of its convenient delivery mode (at that
time a single use autoinjection device was provided
with Invicorp®) and the more natural sensation of
the erection as compared with PGE1 (Porst,
unpublished data).
In 2004, Senetec/USA outlicensed Invicorp®
to Ardana, a small pharmaceutical company based
in Edinburgh/Scotland.
To date, Invicorp® still has not been officially
marketed but can be prescribed in Europe on a
patient named basis as an injectable ampoule.
However, it is no longer offered with the patientfriendly autoinjection device, which was dropped
due to cost.
Other Vasoactive Drugs Tried or Used for
Several other vasoactive drugs have been used for
intracavernosal self-injection therapy but received
little or no marketing support:
Moxisylyte (thymoxamine) (Viatris, Mérignac,
France) is an alpha-adrenoceptor blocker with a
preference for alpha1 adrenoceptors. The drug
was marketed as Icavex® with moderate success
for intracavernous self-injection therapy in
France but withdrawn some years later because
of small market share [156].
Linsidomine (SIN-1), the biologically active
metabolite of the NO-donor molsidomine.
Nitroprusside-natrium, also belonging to the class
of NO donors.
Potassium-channel openers: PNU 83757, a new
potassium channel opener.
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
Forskolin, a direct activator of adenylate cyclase.
Chlorpromazine, an alpha1-adrenergic receptor
blocker, is used in some countries in combination with papaverine (bimix) instead of phentolamine. In a comparator trial with 50 patients,
the efficacy of the combination of papaverine
and chlorpromazine, as compared with the
combination of papaverine and phentolamine,
yielded similar efficacy responses [157].
Technique and Complications of
In order to overcome patients’ resistance and to
decrease potential complications from selfinjection therapy, a thorough education on the
proper injection technique with the use of
ultrathin needles is mandatory (Figure 14).
According to personal experience, it takes at least
two instruction sessions before the patient gains
enough confidence to administer the technique
correctly and to avoid potential injection complications (see Figures 15 and 16).
Spring-Loaded Injector for Intracavernous
Spring-loaded self-injection devices are available,
which insert the needle into the corpus cavernosum with a touch of a button. Some patients,
especially those who are needle phobic, find the
use of this “automatic” injector much more
acceptable than inserting the needle manually.
Whether the needle is inserted into the corpus
cavernosum manually or “automatically,” the
patient still must push the plunger of the needle
down to inject the liquid solution into the corpus
cavernosum.
The most frequent side effects encountered
with self-injection therapy are the following:
159
Potential of Malinjection in
Self-Injection Technique
Correct Intra
sinusoidal Injection
1.subcutaneous
injection
2.intratunical
injection
3.intratrabecular
injection
Figure 16 Correct technique
malinjection possibilities of
injection therapy [123]
4.intraseptal
injection
5.intraurethrale
injection
and
self-
Prolonged erections/priapism—the frequency of this
complication has been shown to be clearly
drug-and-dose dependent (see Table 26). Priapism episodes lasting longer than 6 hours
must be treated by intracavernosal injection of
a sympathomimetic agent (e.g., etilefrine, phenylephrine, or adrenaline) and/or evacuation of
the entrapped blood with a butterfly needle.
This is especially required if the patient presents with erections longer than 6 hours. The
6-hour time limit has been established in order
to prevent irreversible ischemic damage to the
cavernosal tissues (see also manuscript SOP on
priapism).
Fibrosis of the cavernosal tissue is dependent on the
drug used and on the patients’ ability to correctly inject (see Table 26). On follow-up of
fibrotic changes occurring in the 4-year European multicenter study with alprostadil
(Viridal®/Edex®) and in the 5-year U.S. trial
(Caverject®), it was demonstrated that between
33% and 47% of these nodules/plaques healed
spontaneously ([135,136], Table 27).
In another study, on the outcome of fibrotic
changes related to self-injection therapy in 44
patients, 52% (N = 23) of the patients showed
spontaneous improvement despite the majority
(91%) continuing with intracavernosal selfinjection therapy [158]. The tendency for spontaneous disappearance of fibrotic changes can
be augmented by temporary discontinuation of
self-injection therapy for 2–4 months, followed
by reeducation of the patient as to the correct
self-injection technique (see Figure 16). In
about half of the patients, fibrotic changes are
followed by the development of penile curvatures that may require surgical correction.
Penile hematoma/bruising is the most often reported
side effect with intracavernosal self-injection
therapy and occurred between 33% and 47% of
the time in the 4-year European long-term trial
[135]. Hematomas occurred more frequently in
those patients who developed fibrotic changes,
pointing to the role of postinjection technique.
In some patients, a dark coloring of the penile
skin due to hemosiderin deposits may follow
repeated hematoma occurrence.
Rare complications reported with self-injection
therapy include the occurrence of infections/
abscesses, needle breakage requiring surgical
removal, and the development of cavernous
thrombosis with involvement of the pelvic veins
and subsequent fatal pulmonary embolism
[159].
Special Populations/Features Regarding
Patients on Anticoagulants
According to the literature, intracavernosal selfinjection therapy can be performed in men
on warfarin-containing anticoagulants without
increasing the risk of bleeding/ecchymosis [160].
Transplant Patients
The literature has not indicated any increased
risk with self-injection therapy in patients
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
160
having received kidney or heart transplants
[161].
Diabetics
Observations in the literature indicate that ED
patients with diabetes are at increased risk to
develop fibrosis and pain with self-injection
therapy [162].
In conclusions on intracavernosal self-injection
therapy with vasoactive drugs, since the successful
introduction of effective oral drug therapy with
PDE5 inhibitors, intracavernosal self-injection
therapy with vasoactive drugs has diminished in
popularity for the management of ED and is not
even considered a viable option by the majority of
physicians treating patients with ED at present. To
date, intracavernosal self-injection therapy is the
most effective and reliable medical therapy we can
offer to our ED patients. Major obstacles to acceptance of intracavernosal self-injection therapy are
the procedure itself and needle phobia. Keys to
success of self-injection therapy are a careful and
sensitive approach to the patient/couple on the
correct application technique and the use of
ultrathin needles (27–30 g), which contributes to
reduction of pain and injection-related complications and which translates to higher acceptance
rates.
PGE1 (alprostadil) monotherapy is considered
the standard vasoactive agent with three different
marketed products (Caverject®, Edex®, and Viridal®) available worldwide in relative patientfriendly dual-chamber injection devices.
The efficacy and safety of PGE1 (alprostadil)
monotherapy have been proven in two international long-term (4 and 5 year) trials (Level of
Evidence 2b).
Two alternatives to PGE1 monotherapy, the
VIP/phentolamine (Invicorp®) combination,
which can be prescribed on an individual patient
basis in some European countries, and the combination of papaverine/phentolamine (bimix—
available in some European countries, as
Androskat®), may be effective for those patients
experiencing pain after PGE1. Both combinations
were effective and safe in midterm trials (6–12
months) (Level of Evidence 3a). The trimix combination
(PGE1/papaverine/phentolamine)—
no trade marketed product available worldwide
must be reconstituted individually by a
pharmacist—may be considered as a reserve medication for those patients in whom PGE1 monotherapy (up to 40 mg) is either ineffective or too
painful (which occurs in patients after pelvic
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
Porst et al.
surgery). The trimix combination is highly effective, usually higher than PGE1 monotherapy, but
is burdened by a higher rate of priapism and penile
fibrotic, Peyronie’s like changes (Level of Evidence 3a).
Papaverine monotherapy is not recommended
because of high toxicity (liver and cell toxicity with
subsequent cavernosal fibrosis) and greater risk of
priapism and fibrotic changes (Level of Evidence
3a).
The major risk of self-injection therapy occurs
at the initiation phase, with the chance of priapism
and fibrotic changes developing over time. Priapism occurs more frequently in papaverinecontaining combinations compared with PGE1
monotherapy or VIP/phentolamine. Priapism
must be treated by at least 6 hours after administration, by intracavernosal injection of an alphaadrenoceptor agonist, such as epinephrine (must
be diluted accordingly!) and phenylephrine or
etilefrine, depending on what drug is more available in that part of the world.
Fibrotic changes are treated by temporary suspension of self-injection therapy for 3–4 months,
followed by a thorough reeducation on the correct
self-injection technique, with a chance for spontaneous recovery of 30–50%.
Intracavernosal self-injection therapy may be
also considered in combination with oral drug
therapy (PDE5 inhibitors) for patients where
monotherapy fails to produce satisfying erections
(Level of Evidence 3b).
Vacuum-Erection Devices (VEDs)/Vacuum
Constriction Devices (VCDs)
The concept of vacuum device therapy in the
treatment of ED dates back to the American physician John King, who described in 1874 a method
of improving erections by a small vacuum pump.
After being granted various patents for vacuum
device therapy both in Germany and in the United
States, the American entrepreneur Geddings
Osbon obtained permission from the FDA to
produce a vacuum device that was subsequently
named Erec-Aid® in 1982. In that same year,
Nadig et al. published the first report on efficacy
and safety of VEDs [163].
General Indications for VEDs
One of the major advantages of VED is that it can
be successfully applied to men with nearly all etiologies of ED. Therefore, VED is considered a
first-line therapy option for ED populations in
161
Figure 17 Technique of vacuum
device therapy with the conventional
“two-piece” Osbon Erec-Aid® system
[169]
most current recommendations/guidelines for the
management of ED [21,164].
Although a VED can be offered to every ED
patient, the acceptance for mechanical ED therapy
is somewhat poor. It is especially successful in
elderly patients in long-term partnerships with
occasional intercourse attempts.
Vacuum therapy can also be used in combination with other ED therapies such as oral drug
therapy (e.g., PDE5 inhibitors), transurethral or
intracavernosal injection therapy, or even with sex
therapy if the patient/couple is dissatisfied with
another monotherapy [165,166].
Special Indications for VEDs
Besides common ED, special indications in which
VEDs have been successfully used are in men after
Peyronie’s disease surgery. The VEDs stretch the
shortened penis after reconstructive surgery [167]
to avoid postoperative, severe penile fibrosis and
shortening, similarly after removal of an infected
penile prosthesis [168].
Technique of VED
VEDs share a common mechanism of action: a
plastic cylinder, whose lower rim is made airtight
by application of a lubricant gel, is applied over the
penis in a standing position and then firmly
pressed against the pubic bone (Figure 17). Afterward, a vacuum is created manually, via a pump,
which is either separately connected to the cylinder with a tube or is directly integrated and battery
operated on the top of the cylinder (Figure 18).
A major disadvantage of VED therapy is that
induced erections are not natural by look or feel.
First, the rigid erection achieved by creating a
Figure 18 Modern vacuum device
(Osbon-Esteem®) with cylinder integrated pump either mechanically or
battery operated
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
162
Table 32
Porst et al.
Outcome of VCD therapy—overviews of the literature (source: Glina and Porst [169])
Author
Device
N
Evaluable
Mean age
(years)
Follow-up
(months)
Satisfaction
Nadig, 1987 [170]
Witherington, 1989 [171]
Blackard, 1993 [172]
Derouet, 1993 [173]
Baltaci, 1995 [174]
Lewis, 1997 [175]
Meinhardt, 1993 [176]
Fedel, 1995 [177]
Cookson, 1993 [178]
Graham, 1998 [179]
Droupy, 1998 [180]
Opsomer, 1998 [181]
Osbon Erec-Aid®
Osbon Erec-Aid®
Osbon Erec-Aid®
Osbon Erec-Aid®
Osbon Erec-Aid®
Osbon Erec-Aid®
Post-T VED
Innovital
?
?
?
?
302
15,000
47
90
61
34,777
74
100
216
323
53 (RRP)
170
81%
10%
96%
100%
80%
17%
100%
40%
53%
100%
55%
?
?
64
?
32–75
?
?
55
52.4
65
61
66.5
66
up to 72
8.6
?
?
12.8
1974–1992
3 weeks
6
29
2 weeks
27
48
83%
92% good erections
42%
37%
67%
65–83%
30%
90%
84%
23%
52%
55%
(244)
(1,517)
(45)
(49)
(5,847)
(115)
(29)
Post-T VED = post-testosterone vacuum-erection device; RRP = radical retropubic prostatectomy; VCD = vacuum constriction device
vacuum within the cylinder can only be maintained by a rubber constriction ring, which of
course cannot be concealed. The rubber constriction ring must be rolled onto the cylinder prior to
the vacuum maneuver and is then rolled onto the
base of the penis after creating the vacuum and
erection to prevent venous drainage and detumescence. Generally, the application duration of the
constriction ring is limited to 30 minutes by the
VED manufacturers to avoid ischemic damages of
the cavernosal tissue. Sometimes, two constriction
rings need to be applied to maintain a rigid erection if one ring is insufficient.
Compared with naturally occurring erections,
VED-induced erections are perceived as different
by the couple because the constriction ring applied
to the base of the penis, the proximal third of the
cavernous bodies, i.e., the crura, is uninvolved in
the VED-induced erection. This noninvolvement
of the crura in the penis in VED-induced erections
causes some degree of instability at the penis’ base,
occasionally requiring manual assistance while
inserting the penis into the vagina.
The VED-erect penis appears more cyanotic in
color and is perceptibly cooler by the partner
because the cavernous bodies are filled with low
oxygenated blood. This is in contrast to natural
erections occurring through arterialized and
highly oxygenated blood, and thus makes the erect
penis feel warmer.
Worldwide, a variety of manufacturers has marketed VED, with the Osbon VED being the
market leader.
Therefore, among the relatively sparse literature on VED, most deal with the outcome of the
Osbon VCD devices (Osbon Erec-Aid® and
Osbon Esteem®). Only a few smaller series have
been published with devices of other manufacturJ Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
ers, such as the Innovital System, Post-T, VED,
and the Synergist System (Table 32).
When analyzing the data of VED therapy, there
is a striking discrepancy between sold VEDs and
eligible patients for follow-up. So, for example, in
the large series published by Witherington and
Lewis, only 10–17% of all VED buyers were considered or eligible, which is in sharp contrast to all
other ED therapies [171,175].
In those series, in which a majority of the
patients were eligible for follow-up, 40–60% discontinued VED therapy. The generally low acceptance of VED therapy was also shown in the series
by Graham et al. among 1,236 new ED patients
who were subjected to full diagnostic workup and
to whom all available therapeutic modalities were
offered only 323 (27%) requested a 2-week trial of
VED, with only 74 (6% of the total population)
opting for a VED prescription [179].
In a German VED series, it was obvious that the
acceptance rate of VED was markedly higher in
nonresponders to pharmacotherapy compared
with responders (45% vs. 22%) [173,182].
The role and importance of VED in penile
rehabilitation therapy after radical prostatectomy
was recently discussed in detail [183]. The authors
pointed to the fact that VED may be successfully
used in combination therapy with PDE5 inhibitors, injection therapy, and transurethral therapy.
It could also be used to prevent penile shrinking
after RRP or reconstructive penile surgery for
Peyronie’s disease.
Contraindications to VED
Provided the Princeton II Consensus Conference
Algorithm (see Figure 2) is considered, the only
real contraindications to VED are patients with a
history of recurrent prolonged erections/priapism
163
and those with severe bleeding disorders. For
patients on anticoagulants such as coumadin and
warfarin, a prospective trial demonstrated that
bleeding complications, such as hematoma and
petechiae, in patients using VED did not exceed
those observed in the general urological population [160]. VED therapy is also contraindicated in
patients with severe penile curvature, either congenital or acquired (Peyronie’s disease), because of
the potential risk of penile fracture while establishing the vacuum in the cylinder.
acceptance- and long-term use rates are relatively
low (Level of Evidence 2b). Major reasons for
these low acceptance and usage rates are both the
very mechanical procedure linked to VEDinduced erections and their unnatural feeling due
to the filling of the cavernous bodies with poorly
oxygenated blood, making the penis appear cyanotic and feel cooler than natural erections. Because
the discharge of the seminal fluid is restricted in
many patients due to the constriction ring, which
is necessary to maintain the erection, VEDs are
not an option for those couples desiring to conceive by natural means. Relatively frequent side
effects linked to VED are penile bruising/
hematoma, which often occur in the initiation
phase but are not more commonly found in
patients using anticoagulants. In special situations,
VED may be used in combination with oral drug
therapy and transurethral or intracavernosal injection therapy to increase efficacy (Level of Evidence
3b). Successful application of VED has been suggested for penile stretching after surgical reconstruction for Peyronie’s disease to avoid penile
scarring/fibrosis and shortening and after removal
of an infected penile implant.
Side Effects of VED
Relatively frequent side effects of VED therapy
are penile bruising, petechiae, and extensive
hematoma or pain.
A common side effect of VED is the blockade of
seminal fluid discharge while the constriction ring
is applied, which may cause ejaculatory discomfort
in some patients [171,175].
Rare or anecdotal complications with the use of
VED are the onset of Peyronie’s disease, skin
necrosis, and urethral bleeding [169].
Occasionally, chronic use of VED may result in
hyperpigmentation of the penile skin due to
repeated skin bruising with subsequent hemosiderin deposition. In this regard, it is important to
advise patients to use only prescription devices.
Other devices may have no pressure control or
safety valves to release the pressure.
Acceptance and Discontinuation Rates of VED
Although VED therapy must be considered very
effective in producing erections sufficient for
vaginal penetration, many couples discontinue
vacuum-erection therapy over the long term. The
main reasons pertain to the very mechanical and
therefore “unsexy” procedure to create an erection, which finally results in an unnatural perceived erection and subsequent lack of acceptance
for both the patients and their partners [184].
Once the couples have adapted their sex life to
the use of VEDs, a significant increase in frequency of intercourse, sexual arousal, coital
orgasm, and sexual satisfaction has been reported
[185].
A minority of patients (8–16%) reported on the
return of spontaneous erections with the longterm use of VED [174,175,178,180].
In conclusions on VED, among all options, VED
can be considered as the safest and most inexpensive form of ED treatment. Although VED efficacy rates are comparable to both PDE5 inhibitors
and intracavernosal self-injection therapy, the
Combination Therapies
Combination therapies have been reported in the
literature for patients who fail monotherapy to
produce a satisfactory erection.
PDE5 Inhibitors + Self-Injection Therapy
Successful salvage therapy in nonresponders
(N = 93, mean 53.5 years, range 24–77) to monotherapy (here either high-dose alprostadil or
trimix, respectively) was reported with the combination of sildenafil (100 mg) and trimix [186]. Of
these 93 patients failing successful injection
therapy at home, 32 (34%) successfully responded
to sildenafil monotherapy 100 mg. Of the remaining 61 patients, 29 (47%) responded to combination therapy with sildenafil 100 mg and trimix.
Thirty-two (53%) did not and were defined as
nonresponders, even with combination therapy.
PDE5 Inhibitors + Transurethral PGE1
Of 214 patients treated for ED, with transurethral
PGE1 (MUSE®) or sildenafil up to 100 mg, 65
(30%) were not fully satisfied was reported with the
firmness of their erections using either monotherapy. Sixty (92%) out of the 65 patients claimed
satisfaction with combination therapy. Questionnaire scores for erectile function were 23.1 ⫾ 2.0
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
164
(114%) for combination therapy vs. 19.2 ⫾ 1.8
(77%) and 15.2 ⫾ 1.6 (41%) for sildenafil and
alprostadil monotherapies, respectively (P < 0.05).
There were no significant differences in responses
between the two groups. The men also reported
improvement in intercourse and overall satisfaction
[130].
Sixteen patients (mean 56 years, 11 post-RRP
and 5 with other organic ED) failing both 100 mg
of sildenafil and 1,000 mg of MUSE® monotherapies underwent combination therapy with 100 mg
of sildenafil and 500 mg of MUSE®. Using this
combination treatment, all patients were able to
have successful intercourse after 3 months [131].
Vacuum Device Combination Therapies
Successful augmentation of the erectile response
after self-injection of a papaverine 30 mg/
phentolamine 1 mg combination (bimix) with
VED was observed in a pilot study with 22 men
[166]. In a similar study including 10 men who did
not show satisfactory response to either intracavernosal injection of a combination of 60 mg of
papaverine + 30 mg of PGE1 or after application of
a VED, the combination of both modalities
resulted in a significantly (P < 0.0001) better
response, measured by penile buckle pressure,
than either monotherapy alone [165].
In conclusion on combination therapies for ED,
although the literature lacks data from prospective
and well-designed studies in a representative
number of patients, combination therapies in ED
patients must be considered routine practice in the
management of ED. It is documented that between
20% and 40% do not respond to either monotherapy. A variety of combination strategies exists,
which may fit couples’ needs for a satisfying sex life.
According to their own experiences, the limiting
element of combination therapies is not lack of
efficacy or safety, but expense. All the previous
listed treatments in combination therapies may cost
the patients up to US $100–$200 per month,
depending on the choice of therapy and frequency
of sexual intercourse. Nevertheless, physicians
should be aware of these combination options in
order to counsel patients appropriately (Figure 19).
Disclosures
H. Porst: Investigator, speaker, and consultant for
Bayer Healthcare, Eli Lilly, VIVUS; investigator and advisor for Auxilium.
A.L. Burnett: Consultant/medical advisor or
research support for Endo Pharmaceuticals,
Abbott, Auxilium Inc., Pfizer Inc., VIVUS,
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
Porst et al.
American Medical Systems, Coloplast, Timm
Medical, Shionogi Pharma, and Reflexonic
LLC.
G. Brock: Advisory board and speaker bureau for
Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer Healthcare, J&J, GSK,
Coloplast, and AMS; stock holdings for Lilly,
J&J, and Pfizer.
H. Ghanem: Speaker for Elli Lilly, Pfizer, and
Bayer Healthcare.
F. Giuliano: Consultant and speaker for Lilly, consultant and investigator for Bayer Healthcare.
S. Glina: Speaker for Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer Healthcare, and Cristalia; investigator for Lilly and
AmGen; consultatnt for Lilly.
W. Hellstrom: American Medical Systems—
consultant or advisor; Auxilium—meeting
participant or lecturer, consultant or advisor,
investigator; Coloplast—consultant or advisor,
investigator; Cook—consultant or advisor,
lecturer; Endo—consultant or advisor, investigator, lecturer; Johnson & Johnson—consultant
or advisor, meeting participant or lecturer,
investigator; Lilly, USA—consultant or advisor,
lecturer; Medtronic—consultant or advisor,
investigator, meeting participant or lecturer;
NIH—board member, officer, trustee; Slate
Pharmaceutical—lecturer, advisor, investigator; Theralogix—board member, officer,
trustee; VIVUS—advisor/consultant, investigator, lecturer.
A. Martin-Morales: Investigator, speaker, and
consultant for Bayer, Lilly, AMS, and Coloplast.
A. Salonia: Speaker and consultant for Bayer
Healthcare.
I. Sharlip: Speaker and consultant to Pfizer and
Lilly; speaker for Endo.
Corresponding Author: Hartmut Porst, MD, Private
Urological/Andrological Practice, Neuer Jungfernstieg
6a, 20354 Hamburg, Germany. Tel: +49-40-34-61-84;
Fax: +49-40-35-11-17; E-mail: [email protected]
Statement of Authorship
Category 1
(a) Conception and Design
Hartmut Porst; Arthur Burnett; Ira Sharlip
(b) Acquisition of Data
(c) Analysis and Interpretation of Data
Hartmut Porst; Arthur Burnett; Gerald Brock;
Hussein Ghanem; Francois Giuliano; Sidney Glina;
Wayne Hellstrom; Antonio Martin-Morales;
165
Figure 19 Therapeutic algorithm of ED based on history and diagnostic findings and considering cardiac health status
according to Princeton II. ED = erectile dysfunction; PDE5 = phosphodiesterase type 5
Andrea Salonia; Ira Sharlip; the ISSM Standards
Category 2
Category 3
(a) Drafting the Article
(b) Revising It for Intellectual Content
(a) Final Approval of the Completed Article
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
166
References
1 Hyde Z, Flicker L, Hankey GJ, Almeida OP, McCaul KA,
Chubb SA, Yeap BB. Prevalence of sexual activity and associated factors in men aged 75 to 95 years: A cohort study. Ann
Intern Med 2010;153:693–702.
2 Braun M, Wassmer G, Klotz T, Reifenrath B, Mathers M,
Engelmann U. Epidemiology of erectile dysfunction: Results
of the “Cologne Male Survey”. Int J Impot Res 2000;12:305–
11.
3 Kumamoto Y, Tsukamoto T, Satoh T, Horita H. Epidemiological study on aging changes of sexual activity in Japanese
men and women. Aging Male 2000;3(suppl 1):9. Abstr. O 18.
4 Lindau ST, Schumm LP, Laumann EO, Levinson W,
O’Muircheartaigh CA, Waite LJ. A study of sexuality and
health among older adults in the United States. N Engl J Med
2007;357:762–74.
5 Mykletun A, Dahl AA, O’Leary MP, Fosså SD. Assessment of
male sexual function by the Brief Sexual Function Inventory.
BJU Int 2006;97:316–23.
6 Porst H, Sharlip I. History and epidemiology of male sexual
dysfunction. In: Porst H, Buvat J, eds. Standard Practice in
Sexual Medicine. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing;
2006:43–8.
7 Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J,
Mishra A. The international index of erectile function (IIEF):
A multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 1997;49:822–30.
8 Baumhäkel M, Schlimmer N, Kratz M, Hacket G, Jackson G,
Böhm M. Cardiovascular risk, drugs and erectile function—A
systematic analysis. Int J Clin Pract 2011;65:289–98.
9 Dong J-Y, Zhang Y-H, Qin L-Q. Erectile dysfunction and
risk of cardiovascular disease: Meta-analysis of prospective
cohort studies. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:1378–85.
10 Jackson G, Boon N, Eardley I, Kirby M, Dean J, Hackett G,
Montorsi P, Montorsi M, Vlachopoulos C, Kloner R, Sharlip
I, Miner M. Erectile dysfunction and coronary artery disease
prediction: Evidence-based guidance and consensus. Int J
Clin Pract 2010;64:848–57.
11 Montorsi P, Ravagnani PM, Galli S, Rotatori F, Veglia F,
Briganti A, Salonia A, Dehò F, Rigatti P, Montorsi F, Fiorentini C. Association between erectile dysfunction and coronary
artery disease. Role of coronary clinical presentation and
extent of coronary vessels involvement: The COBRA trial.
Eur Heart J 2006;27:2632–9.
12 Gacci M, Eardley I, Giuliano F, Hatzichristou D, Kaplan S,
Maggi M, McVary K, Mirone V, Porst H, Roehrborn C.
Critical analysis of the relationship between sexual dysfunctions and lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic
hyperplasia. Eur Urol 2011;60:809–25.
13 Köhler TS, Kim J, Feia K, Bodie J, Johnson N, Makhlouf A,
Monga M. Prevalence of androgen deficiency in men with
erectile dysfunction. Urology 2008;71:693–7.
14 Buvat J, Montorsi F, Maggi M, Porst H, Kaipia A, Colson
MH, Cuzin B, Moncada I, Martin-Morales A, Yassin A,
Meuleman E, Eardley I, Dean JD, Shabsigh R. Hypogonadal
men nonresponders to the PDE5 inhibitor tadalafil benefit
from normalization of testosterone levels with a 1% hydroalcoholic testosterone gel in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (TADTEST study). J Sex Med 2011;8:284–93.
15 Hwang TI, Chen HE, Tsai TF, Lin YC. Combined use
of androgen and sildenafil for hypogonadal patients
unresponsive to sildenafil alone. Int J Impot Res 2006;18:
400–4.
16 Shamloul R, Ghanem H, Fahmy I, El-Meleigy A, Ashoor S,
Elnashaar A, Kamel I. Testosterone therapy can enhance
erectile function response to sildenafil in patients with
PADAM: A pilot study. J Sex Med 2005;2:559–64.
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
Porst et al.
17 Corona G, Maggi M. The role of testosterone in erectile
dysfunction. Nat Rev Urol 2010;7:46–56.
18 Chiang HS, Cho SL, Lin YC, Hwang TI. Testosterone gel
monotherapy improves sexual function of hypogonadal men
mainly through restoring erection: Evaluation by IIEF score.
Urology 2009;73:762–6.
19 Zitzmann M, Faber S, Nieschlag E. Association of specific
symptoms and metabolic risks with serum testosterone in
older men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006;91:4335–43.
20 Eardley I, Donatucci C, Corbin J, El-Meliegy A, Hatzimouratidis K, McVary K, Munarriz R, Lee SW. Pharmacotherapy
for erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med 2010;7:524–40.
21 Hatzimouratidis K, Amar E, Eardley I, Giuliano F, Hatzichristou D, Montorsi F, Vardi Y, Wespes E. Guidelines on
male sexual dysfunction: Erectile dysfunction and premature
ejaculation. Eur Urol 2010;57:804–14.
22 Filippi S, Morelli A, Sandner P, Fibbi B, Mancina R, Marini
M, Gacci M, Vignozzi L, Vanelli GB, Carini M, Forti G,
Maggi M. Characterization and functional role of androgendependent PDE5 activity in the bladder. Endocrinology
2007;148:1019–29.
23 Porst H. Oral pharmacotherapy of erectile dysfunction. In:
Porst H, Buvat J, eds. Standard Practice in Sexual Medicine.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2006:75–93.
24 Bischoff E. Vardenafil preclinical trial data: Potency, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and adverse events. Int J
Impot Res 2004;16:S34–7.
25 Forgue ST, Patterson BE, Bedding AW, Payne CD, Phillips
DL, Wrishko RE, Mitchell MI. Tadalafil pharmacokinetics in
healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006;61:280–8.
26 Gupta M, Kovar A, Meibohm B. Review: The clinical pharmacokinetics of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors for erectile
dysfunction. J Clin Pharmacol 2005;45:987–1003.
27 Blount MA, Beasley A, Zoraghi R, Sekhar KR, Bessay EP,
Francis SH, Corbin JD. Binding of tritiated sildenafil, tadlafil,
or vardenafil to thephosphodiesterase-5 catalytic site displays
potency, specifity, heterogenity, and cGMP stimulation. Mol
Pharmacol 2004;66:144–52.
28 Porst H, Sharlip ID, Hatzichristou D, Rubio-Aurioles E,
Gittelman M, Stancil BN, Smith PM, Wilkins HJ, Pommerville P; Vardenafil Study Group. Extended duration of efficacy of vardenafil when taken 8 hours before intercourse: A
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Eur
Urol 2006;50:1086–94.
29 Kloner R, Jackson G, Emmick JT, Mitchell MI, Bedding A,
Warner MR, Pereira A. Interaction between the phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor, tadalafil and 2 alpha-blockers doxazosin
and tamsulosin in healthy normotensive men. J Urol
2004;171,No.4,Suppl:315. Abstr. 1195.
30 Giuliano F, Kaplan S, Fournier P, Cabanis MJ, Astruc B.
Tadalafil shows no clinically significant hemodynamic interaction with alfuzosin. Eur Urol 2005;3(Suppl 4):137. Abstr.
537.
31 Kloner RA, Hutter AM, Emmick JT, Mitchell MI, Denne J,
Jackson G. Time course of the interaction between tadalafil
and nitrates. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;42:1855–60.
32 Webb DJ, Freestone S, Allen MJ, Muirhead GJ. Sildenafil
citrate and blood pressure lowering drugs: Results of drug
interaction studies with an organic nitrate and a calcium
antagonist. Am J Cardiol 1999;83:21C–8C.
33 Gbekor E, Bethell S, Fawcett L, Mount N, Phillips S.
Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor profiles against all human
phosphodiesterase families: Implications for use as pharmacological tools. J Urol 2002;167(4 suppl):246. Abstr. 967.
34 Brock GB, McMahon CG, Chen KK, Costigan T, Shen W,
Watkins V, Anglin G, Whitaker S. Efficacy and safety of
tadalafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction: Results of
integrated analyses. J Urol 2002;168:1332–6.
167
35 Porst H, Rosen R, Padma-Nathan H, Goldstein I, Giuliano
F, Ulbrich E, Bandel T. The efficacy and tolerability of vardenafil, a new, oral, selective phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, in patients with erectile dysfunction: The first at-home
clinical trial. Int J Impot Res 2001;13:192–9.
36 Hellstrom WJG, Gittelman M, Karling G, Segerson T, Thibonnier M, Taylor T, Padma-Nathan H. Vardenafil for treatment of men with erectile dysfunction: Efficacy and safety in
a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J
Androl 2002;23:763–71.
37 Rendell MS, Rajfer J, Wicker PA, Smith MD. Sildenafil for
treatment of erectile dysfunction in men with diabetes. JAMA
1999;281:421–6.
38 Saenz de Tejada I, Anglin G, Knight JR, Emmick JT. Effects
of tadalafil on erectile dysfunction in men with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2002;25:2159–64.
39 Goldstein I, Young JM, Fischer J, Bangerter K, Segerson T,
Taylor T; Vardenafil Diabetes Study Group. Vardenafil, a
new phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, in the treatment of
erectile dysfunction in men with diabetes. Diabetes Care
2003;26:1–7.
40 Montorsi F, Padma-Nathan H, McCullough AM, Brock GB,
Broderick G, Ahuja S, Whitaker S, Hoover A, Novack D,
Murphy A, Varanese L. Tadalafil in the treatment of erectile
dysfunction following bilateral nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy: A randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled trial. J Urol 2004;172:1036–41.
41 Brock G, Mehra A, Lipschultz LL, Karlin GS, Gleave M,
Seger M, Padma-Nathan H. Safety and efficacy of vardenafil
for the treatment of men with erectile dysfunction after
radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2003;170:1278–83.
42 Fink HA, Mac Donald R, Rutks IR, Nelson DB, Wilt TJ.
Sildenafil for male erectile dysfunction. A systematic review
and metaanalysis. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:1349–60.
43 Montorsi F, Verheyden B, Meuleman E, Jünemann KP,
Moncada I, Valiquette L, Casabé A, Pacheco C, Denne J,
Knight J. Long-term safety and tolerability of tadalafil in the
treatment of erectile dysfunction. Eur Urol 2004;45:339–45.
44 Stief C, Porst H, Saenz de Tejada I, Ulbrich E, Beneke M;
Vardenafil Study Group. Sustained efficacy and tolerability
with vardenafil over 2 years of treatment in men with erectile
dysfunction. Int J Clin Pract 2004;58:230–9.
45 Vernet D, Magee TR, Qian A, Nolazco G, Rajfer J,
Gonzalez-Cadavid NF. Tadalafil does not upregulate the
expression and activity of phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) in the
penis. J Urol 2005;173,No.4,Suppl 4:287. Abstr. 1060.
46 Donatucci C, Taylor T, Thibonnier M, Bangerter K, Gittelman M, Casey R; Vardenafil Study Group. Vardenafil
improves patient satisfaction with erection hardness, orgasmic function, and overall sexual experience, while improving
quality of life in men with erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med
2004;1:185–92.
47 Fisher WA, Rosen RC, Mollen M, Brock G, Karlin G, Pommerville P, Goldstein I, Bangerter K, Bandel TJ, Derogatis
LR, Sand M. Improving the sexual quality of life of couples
affected by erectile dysfunction: A double-blind, randomized,
placebo-controlled trial of vardenafil. J Sex Med 2005;2:699–
708.
48 Montorsi F, Althof SE. Partner responses to sildenafil citrate
(Viagra) treatment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 2004;
63:762–7.
49 Rubio-Aurioles E, Kim ED, Rosen RC, Porst H, Burns P,
Zeigler H, Wong DG. Impact on erectile function and sexual
quality of life of couples: A double-blind, randomized,
placebo-controlled trial of tadalafil taken once daily. J Sex
Med 2009;6:1314–23.
50 Valiquette L, Montorsi F, Auerbach S; Vardenafil Study
Group. First-dose success with vardenafil in men with erectile
dysfunction and associated comorbidities: RELY-I. Int J Clin
Pract 2006;60:1378–85.
Schulman CC, Shen W, Stothard DR, Schmitt H. Integrated
analysis examining first-dose success, success by dose, and
maintenance of success among men taking tadlafil for erectile
dysfunction. Urology 2004;64:783–8.
McCullough AR. Four-year review of sildenafil citrate. Rev
Urol 2002;4(Suppl 3):S26–38.
Casabe A, Cobreros C, Bechara A, Roletto L, Cheliz G,
Hochman S, Fredotovich N. Drop out reason in responders
to sildenafil. Int J Impot Res 2001;13(Suppl 2):S5. Abstr. 9.
Jiann BP, Yu CC, Su CC, Tsai JY. Compliance of sildenafil
treatment for erectile dysfunction and factors affecting it. Int
J Impot Res 2006;18:146–9.
Souverein PC, Egberts AC, Meuleman EJ, Urquhart J,
Leufkens HG. Incidence and determinants of sildenafil
(dys)continuation: The Dutch cohort of sildenafil users. Int J
Impot Res 2004;14:259–65.
Wespes E, Rammal A, Garbar C. Sildenafil non-reponders:
Hemodynamic and morphometric studies. Eur Urol 2005;48:
136–9.
Carson CC, Giuliano F, Goldstein I, Hatzichristou D, Hellstrom W, Lue T, Montorsi F, Munarriz R, Nehra A, Porst H,
Rosen R. Review the “effectiveness” scale—Therapeutic
outcome of pharmacologic therapies for ED: An international
consensus panel report. Int J Impot Res 2004;16:207–13.
Atiemo HO, Szostak MJ, Sklar GN. Salvage of sildenafil
failures referred from primary care physicians. J Urol 2003;
170:2356–8.
Jiann B-P, Yu C-C, Huang J-K. Rechallenge prior sildenafil
non-responders. Int J Impot Res 2004;16:64–8.
Hatzimouratidis K, Moysidis K, Bekos A, Tsimtsiou Z, Ioannidis E, Hatzichristou D. Treatment strategy for “nonresponders” to tadalafil and vardenafil: a real-life study. Eur
Urol 2006;50:126–32; discussion 132–3.
Awad H, Salem A, Gadalla A, Abou N, El Wafa NA,
Mohamed OA. Erectile function in men with diabetes type 2:
Correlation with glycemic control. Int J Impot Res
2010;22:36–9.
Saltzman EA, Guay AT, Jacobson J. Improvement in erectile
function in men with organic erectile dysfunction by correction of elevated cholesterol levels: A clinical observation. J
Urol 2004;172:255–8.
Gokkaya SC, Ozden C, Levent Ozdal O, Hakan Koyuncu H,
Guzel O, Memis A. Effect of correcting serum cholesterol
levels on erectile function in patients with vasculogenic
erectile dysfunction. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2008;42:437–40.
Zhang XH, Morelli A, Luconi M, Vignozzi L, Filippi S,
Marini M, Vannelli GB, Mancina R, Forti G, Maggi M.
Testosterone regulates PDE5 expression and in vivo responsiveness to tadalafil in rat corpus cavernosum. Eur Urol
2005;47:409–16; discussion 416.
Zhang XH, Filippi S, Morelli A, Vignozzi L, Luconi M,
Donati S, Forti G, Maggi M. Testosterone restores diabetesinduced erectile dysfunction and sildenafil responsiveness in
two distinct animal models of chemical diabetes. J Sex Med
2006;3:253–64; discussion 264–5, author reply 265–6.
Kalinchenko SY, Kozlov GL, Gontcharov NP, Katsiya GV.
Oral testosterone undecanoate reverses erectile dysfunction
associated with diabetes mellitus in patients failing sildenafil
citrate alone. Aging Male 2003;6:94–9.
McMahon CG. High dose sildenafil citrate as a salvage
therapy for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 2002;14
(suppl 3):S89. Abstr. P5.11.
Brisson TE, Broderick GA, Pinkstaff DM. Can patients
failing a PDE 5 inhibitor be rescued by another tablet?: An
objective assessment of 351 patients with erectile dysfunction.
J Urol 2005;173,No.4,Suppl:236. Abstr. 871.
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
168
69 McMahon C. Efficacy and safety of daily tadalafil in men with
erectile dysfunction previously unresponsive to on demand
tadalafil. J Sex Med 2004;1:292–300.
70 Porst H. Salvage therapie mit täglicher dosierung von
sildenafil bei non-respondern auf on-demand therapie mit
100 mg sildenafil. Urologe A 2003;42(suppl 1):S93. (in
German).
71 Morales AM, Casillas M, Turbi C. Patients’ preference in the
treatment of erectile dysfunction: A critical review of the
literature. Int J Impot Res 2011;23:1–8.
72 Padma-Nathan H, Eardley I, Kloner RA, Laties AM, Montorsi F. Review: A 4-year update on the safety of sildenafil
citrate (Viagra). Urology 2002;60(suppl 2):67–90.
73 Porst H, Kloner R, Mohan P, Norenberg C, Pomerantz K,
Segerson T, Glasser S. Cardiovascular safety of the selective
PDE 5 inihibitor vardenafil in patients with erectile dysfunction; an analysis of five placebo-controlled clinical trials. Int J
Impot Res 2002;14(suppl 4):S22. Abstr. P-092.
74 Mittelman MA, Glasser DB, Orezam J. Clinical trials of
sildenafil citrate (Viagra®) demonstrate no increase in risk of
myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death. Int J Clin
Pract 2003;57:597–600.
75 Reffelmann T, Kloner RA. Vardenafil: A selective inhibitor of
phosphodiesterase 5 for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.
Expert Opin Pharmacother 2007;8:965–74.
76 Kloner RA, Jackson G, Hutter AM, Mittleman MA, Chan M,
Warner MR, Costigan TM, Vail GM. Cardiovascular safety
update of tadalafil: Retrospective analysis of data from
placebo-controlled and open-label clinical trials of tadalafil
with as needed, three times-per-week or once-a-day dosing.
Am J Cardiol 2006;97:1778–84.
77 Jackson G, Martin E, McGing E, Cooper A. Successful
withdrawal of oral long-acting nitrates to facilitate
phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor use in stable coronary
disease patients with erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med
2005;2:513–6.
78 Giuliano F, Jackson G, Montorsi F, Martin-Morales A, Raillard P. Safety of sildenafil citrate: Review of 67 double-blind
placebo-controlled trials and the postmarketing safety database. Int J Clin Pract 2010;64:240–55.
79 Laties AM. Vision disorders and phosphodiesterase type 5
inhibitors: A review of the evidence to date. Drug Saf
2009;32:1–18.
80 Hellstrom WJ, Overstreet JW, Yu A, Saikali K, Shen W,
Beasley CM Jr, Watkins VS. Tadalafil has no detrimental
effect on human spermatogenesis or reproductive hormones.
J Urol 2003;170:887–91.
81 Hellstrom WJ, Gittelman M, Jarow J, Steidle C, McMurray J,
Talley D, Watts S, Mitchell CL, McGill JM. An evaluation of
semen characteristics in men 45 years of age or older after
daily dosing with tadalafil 20 mg: Results of a multicenter,
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 9-month
study. Eur Urol 2008;53:1058–65.
82 Green R, Hicks W. Review: Orally disintegrating vardenafil
tablets for the treatment of erectile dysfunction: Efficacy,
safety and patient acceptibility. Patient Prefer Adherence
2011;5:181–5.
83 Heinig R, Weimann B, Dietrich H, Böttcher M-H. Pharmacokinetics of a new orodispersible tablet formulation of
vardenafil. Clin Drug Investig 2011;31:27–41.
84 Porst H, Giuliano F, Glina S, Ralph D, Casabé AR, ElionMboussa A, Shen W, Whitaker JS. Evaluation of the efficacy
and safety of daily dosing tadalafil 5 mg and 10 mg in the
treatment of erectile dysfunction: Results of a multicenter,
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Eur Urol
2006;50:351–9.
85 Porst H, Rajfer J, Casabé A, Feldman R, Ralph D, Vieiralves
LF, Esler A, Wolka AM, Klise SR. Long-term safety and
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
Porst et al.
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
efficacy of tadalafil 5 mg dosed once daily in men with erectile
dysfunction. J Sex Med 2008;5:2160–9.
Rajfer J, Aliotta PJ, Steidle CP, Fitch WP 3rd, Zhao Y, Yu A.
Tadalafil dosed once a day in men with erectile dysfunction: A
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in the
US. Int J Impot Res 2007;19:95–103.
Hatzichristou D, Gambla M, Rubio-Aurioles E, Buvat J,
Brock GB, Spera G, Rose L, Lording D, Liang S. Efficacy of
tadalafil once daily in men with diabetes mellitus and erectile
dysfunction. Diabet Med 2008;25:138–46.
Seftel A, Goldfischer E, Kim ED, Dula E, Zeigler H, Burns
P. Onset of efficacy of tadalafil once daily in men with erectile
dysfunction: A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled
trial. J Urol 2011;185:243–8.
Zhao C, Kim SW, Yang DY, Kim JJ, Park NC, Lee SW, Paick
JS, Ahn TY, Min KS, Park K, Park JK. Efficacy and safety of
once-daily dosing of udenafil in the treatment of erectile
dysfunction: Results of a multicenter, randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled trial. Eur Urol 2011;60:380–7.
McVary KT, Monnig W, Camps JL Jr, Young JM, Tseng LJ,
van den Ende G. Sildenafil citrate improves erectile function
and urinary symptoms in men with erectile dysfunction and
lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: A randomized, double-blind trial. J Urol
2007;177:1071–7.
Roehrborn CG, McVary KT, Elion-Mboussa A, Viktrup L.
Tadalafil administered once daily for lower urinary tract
symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: A dose
finding study. J Urol 2008;180:1228–34.
Stief CG, Porst H, Neuser D, Beneke M, Ulbrich E. A
randomised, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of
twice-daily vardenafil in the treatment of lower urinary tract
symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur
Urol 2008;53:1236–44.
Porst H, McVary KT, Montorsi F, Sutherland P, ElionMboussa A, Wolka AM, Viktrup L. Effects of once-daily
tadalafil on erectile function in men with erectile dysfunction
and signs and symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Eur
Urol 2009;56:727–36.
Broderick GA, Brock GB, Roehrborn CG, Watts SD, ElionMboussa A, Viktrup L. Effects of tadalafil on lower urinary
tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia in
men with or without erectile dysfunction. Urology 2010;75:
1452–8.
Chung BH, Lee JY, Lee SH, Yoo SJ, Lee SW, Oh CY. Safety
and efficacy of the simultaneous administration of udenafil
and an alpha-blocker in men with erectile dysfunction concomitant with BPH/LUTS. Int J Impot Res 2009;21:122–8.
Porst H, Kim ED, Casabé AR, Mirone V, Secrest RJ, Xu L,
Sundin DP, Viktrup L; for the LVHJ study team. Efficacy
and safety of tadalafil once daily in the treatment of men
with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia: Results of an international randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Eur Urol 2011;60:
1105–13.
Zhao C, Kim SH, Lee SW, Jeon JH, Kang KK, Choi SB,
Park JK. Activity of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors in
patients with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign
prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int 2011;107:1943–7.
Limin M, Johnsen N, Hellstrom WJ. Avanafil, a new rapidonset phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor for the treatment of
erectile dysfunction. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2010;19:
1427–37.
Goldstein I, McCullough AR, Jones LA, Hellstrom WJ,
Bowden CH, Didonato K, Trask B, Day WW. A randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of the safety and
efficacy of avanafil in subjects with erectile dysfunction. J Sex
Med 2012;9:1122–33.
169
100 Zhao C, Kim SW, Yang DY, Kim JJ, Park NC, Lee SW, Paick
JS, Ahn TY, Moon KH, Chung WS, Min KS, Suh JK, Hyun
JS, Park K, Park JK. Efficacy and safety of avanafil for treating
erectile dysfunction: Results of a multicentre, randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BJU Int 2012;110(11):
1801–6.
101 Paick JS, Ahn TY, Choi HK, Chung WS, Kim JJ, Kim SC,
Kim SW, Lee SW, Min KS, Moon KH, Park JK, Park K,
Park NC, Suh JK, Yang DY, Jung HG. Efficacy and safety of
mirodenafil, a new oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor,
for treatment of erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med 2008;5:2672–
80.
102 Glina S, Toscano I, Gomatzky C, de Goes PM, Junior AN,
Claro JF, Pagani E. Efficacy and tolerability of lodenafil carbonate for oral therapy in erectile dysfunction: A phase II
clinical trial. J Sex Med 2009;6:553–7.
103 Kim B, Lim H, Chung J, Kim J, Lim KS, Sohn D, Cho J,
Yu S, Shin S, Paick J, Jang I. Safety, tolerability, and phamacokinetics of udenafil, a novel PDE-5 inhibitor in healthy
young Korean subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008;65:848–
54.
104 Glina S, Fonseca GN, Bertero EB, Damião R, Rocha LC,
Jardim CR, Cairoli CE, Teloken C, Torres LO, Faria GE, da
Silva MB, Pagani E. Efficacy and tolerability of lodenafil
carbonate for oral therapy of erectile dysfunction: A phase III
clinical trial. J Sex Med 2010;7:1928–36.
105 Park HJ, Choi HK, Ahn TY, Park JK, Chung WS, Lee SW,
Kim SW, Hyun JS, Park NC. Efficacy and safety of oral
mirodenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction in diabetic
men in Korea: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Sex Med 2010;7:2842–
50.
106 Moon DG, Yang DY, Lee CH, Ahn TY, Min KS, Park K,
Park JK, Kim JJ. A therapeutic confirmatory study to assess
the safety and efficacy of Zydena(®) (udenafil) for the treatment of erectile dysfunction in male patients with diabetes
mellitus. J Sex Med 2011;8:2048–61.
107 Ding H, Du W, Wang H, Zhang L, Wang Z, Du C, Tao Y.
Efficacy and safety of udenafil for erectile dysfunction: A
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Urology
2012;80:134–9.
108 Fleischer K, Hirsch-Tabor O. Zur Potenzierung der
Yohimbin Wirkung (in German). Munch Med Wochenschr
1923;51:1506–8.
109 Filippi S, Luconi M, Granchi S, Natali A, Tozzi P, Forti G,
Ledda F, Maggi M. Endothelium-dependency of yohimbineinduced corpus cavernosum relaxation. Int J Impot Res
2002;14:295–307.
110 Hedner T, Edgar B, Edvinsson L, Hedner J, Persson B,
Pettersson A. Yohimbine pharmacokinetics and interaction
with the sympathetic nervous system in normal volunteers.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1992;43:651–6.
111 Ernst E, Pittler MH. Yohimbin for erectile dysfunction: A
systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical
trials. J Urol 1998;159:433–6.
112 Montague D, Jarow JJ, Broderick GA, Dmochowski RR,
Heaton JP, Lue TF, Milbank AJ, Nehra A, Sharlip ID; Erectile Dysfunction Guideline Update Panel. Chapter 1: The
management of erectile dysfunction: An AUA update. J Urol
2005;174:230–9.
113 Adeniyi AA, Andrews HD, Helal MA, Palumbo F, Pryor JP,
Brindley GS, Ralph DJ. Yohimbine in orgasmic dysfunction.
Int J Impot Res 2000;12(suppl 5):S7:26.
114 Zorgniotti AW, Lizza EF. Effect of large doses of the nitric
oxide precursor L-arginine on erectile dysfunction. Int J
Impot Res 1994;6:33–6.
115 Chen J, Wollman Y, Chernichovsky T, Iaina A, Sofer M,
Matzkin H. Effect of administration of high-dose nitric oxide
donor L-arginine in men with organic erectile dysfunction:
Results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled
study. BJU Int 1999;83:269–73.
Ledda A, Belcaro G, Cesarone MR, Dugall M, Schönlau F.
Investigation of a complex plant extract for mild to moderate
erectile dysfunction in a randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled, parallel-arm study. BJU Int 2010;106:1030–3.
McVary KT, Polepalle S, Riggi S, Pelham RW. Topical
prostaglandin E1 SEPA gel for the treatment of erectile
dysfunction. J Urol 1999;162(3 Pt 1):726–30.
Lin JS, Lin YM, Jou YC, Cheng JT. Role of cyclic adenosine
monophosphate in prostaglandin E1-induced penile erection
in rabbits. Eur Urol 1995;28:259–65.
Lee SW, Wang HZ, Zhao W, Ney P, Brink PR, Christ GJ.
Prostaglandin E1 activates the large-conductance KCa
channel in human corporal smooth muscle cells. Int J Impot
Res 1999;11:189–99.
Molderings GJ, van Ahlen H, Gothert M, Porst H. Modulation of noradrenaline release in human corpus cavernosum by
presynaptic prostaglandin receptors. Int J Impot Res 1992;4:
19–25.
Kifor I, Williams GH, Vickers MA, Sullivan MP, Jodbert P,
Dluhy RG. Tissue angiotensin II as a modulator of erectile
function. I. Angiotensin peptide content, secretion and effects
in the corpus cavernosum. J Urol 1997;157:1920–5.
Padma-Nathan H, Yeager JL. An integrated analysis of
alprostadil topical cream for the treatment of erectile dysfunction in 1732 patients. Urology 2006;68:386–91.
Porst H, Adaikan G. Self-injection, transurethral and topical
therapy in erectile dysfunction. In: Porst H, Buvat J, eds.
Standard Practice in Sexual Medicine. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2006:94–108.
Ghazi SA, AlMeligy A. Transurethral Alprostadil and the
Prostaglandin E1 intra corporal injection in treatment of
erectile dysfunction: A comparative study. Int J Impotence
Res 1998;10(Suppl 3):S13.
Werthman P, Rajfer J. MUSE-therapy: Preliminary clinical
observations. Urology 1997;50:809–11.
Porst H. Transurethral Alprostadil with MUSETM (Medicated Urethral System for Erection) vs. intracavernous
Alprostadil – a comparative study in 103 patients with erectile
dysfunction. Int J Impotence Res 1997;9:187–92.
Shabsigh R, Padma-Nathan H, Gittelman M, McMurray J,
Kaufman J, Goldstein I, Schmitt L, and the EDEX/
VIRIDAL Study Group. Comparative results of efficacy and
safety of intracavernous Alprostadil Alfadex (EDEX®/
VIRIDAL®) and intraurethral Alprostadil (MUSE®) plus
ACTIS®. Int J Impotence Res 1998;10(Suppl):S51.
Shabsigh R, Padma-Nathan H, Gitteman M, McMurray J,
Kaufman J, Goldstein I. Intracavernous Alprostadil Alfadex is
more efficacious, better tolerated and preferred over intraurethral Alprostadil plus optional Actis: A comparative, randomized, crossover, multicenter study. Urology 2000;55:
109–13.
Flynn TN, Guest JF. Intracorporeal and transurethral
application of Alprostadil: A review of the literature. Int J
Impotence Res 1998;10(Suppl 3):S47.
Mydlo JH, Volpe MA, Maccia RJ. Inital results utilizing combination therapy for patients with a suboptimal response to
either alprostadil or sildenafil monotherapy. Eur Urol
2000;38:30–4.
Nehra A, Jones WR, Hakim L, Moreland RB. Effectiveness
of combination therapy of MUSE and Viagra in the salvage of
erectile dysfunction patients desiring noninvasive therapy. J
Urol 1999;161(4 suppl):213.
Benevides MD, Carson CC. Intraurethral application of
alprostadil in patients with failed inflatable penile prosthesis.
J Urol 2000;163:785–7.
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
170
133 Porst H. Review article. The rationale for prostaglandin E1 in
erectile failure: A survey of world-wide experience. J Urol
1996;155:802–15.
134 Rastrelli G, Corona G, Monami M, Melani C, Balzi D, Sforza
A, Forti G, Mannucci E, Maggi M. Poor response to alprostadil ICI test is associated with arteriogenic erectile dysfunction and higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. J
Sex Med 2011;8:3433–45.
135 Porst H, Buvat J, Meuleman E, Michal V, Wagner G.
Intracavernous Alprostadil Alfadex—An effective and well
tolerated treatment for erectile dysfunction. Results of a
long-term European study. Int J Impot Res 1998;10:225–
31.
136 Linet OI, Ogrinc FG. Efficacy and safety of intracavernosal
alprostadil in men with erectile dysfunction. The Alprostadil
Study Group. N Engl J Med 1996;334:873–7.
137 Kunelius P, Lukkarinen O. Intracavernous self-injection of
prostaglandin E1 in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Int
J Impot Res 1999;11:21–4.
138 Alexandre B, Lemaire A, Desvaux P, Amar E. Intracavernous
injections of prostaglandin E1 for erectile dysfunction:
Patient satisfaction and quality of sex life on long-term treatment. J Sex Med 2007;4:426–31.
139 Willke RJ, Yen W, Parkerson GR Jr, Linet OI, Erder MH,
Glick HA. Quality of life effects of alprostadil therapy for
erectile dysfunction: Results of a trial in Europe and South
Africa. Int J Impot Res 1998;10:239–46.
140 Brock G, Tu LM, Linet OI. Return of spontaneous erection
during long-term intracavernosal alprostadil (Caverject)
treatment. Urology 2001;57:536–41.
141 Sharlip ID. Can self-injection therapy cure impotence? Adv
Exp Med Biol 1997;433:83–6.
142 Padma-Nathan H, Hellstrom WJ, Kaiser FE, Labasky RF,
Lue TF, Nolten WE, Norwood PC, Peterson CA, Shabsigh
R, Tam PY, Place VA, Gesundheit N. Treatment of men with
erectile dysfunction with transurethral alprostadil. Medicated
Urethral System for Erection (MUSE) Study Group. N Engl
J Med 1997;336:1–7.
143 Lehmann K, Casella R, Blöchlinger A, Gasser TC. Reasons
for discontinuing intracavernous injection therapy with prostaglandin E1 (alprostadil). Urology 1999;53:397–400.
144 Goldstein I, Borges FD, Fitch WP, Kaufmen J, Damron K,
Moreno J, Payton T, Yingft J, Krane RJ. Rescuing the failed
papaverine/phentolamine erection: A proposed synergistic
action of papaverine, phentolamine and prostaglandin E1. J
Urol 1990;143(4 suppl):304A.
145 Bennett AH, Carpenter AJ, Barada JH. An improved vasoactive drug combination for a pharmacological erection
program. J Urol 1991;146:1564–5.
146 Govier FE, McClure RD, Weissman RM, Gibbons RP,
Pritchett TR, Kramer-Levien D. Experience with triple-drug
therapy in a pharmacological erection program. J Urol
1993;150:1822–4.
147 Israilov S, Niv E, Livne PM, Shmueli J, Engelstein D, Segenreich E, Baniel J. Intracavernous injections for erectile dysfunction in patients with cardiovascular diseases and failure or
contraindications for sildenafil citrate. Int J Impot Res
2002;14:38–43.
148 Marshall GA, Breza J, Lue TF. Improved hemodynamic
response after long-term intracavernous injection for impotence. Urology 1994;43:844–8.
149 Shenfeld O, Hanani J, Shalhav A, Vardi Y, Goldwasser B.
Papaverine-phentolamine and prostaglandin E1 versus
papaverine-phentolamine alone for intracorporeal injection
therapy: A clinical double-blind study. J Urol 1995;154:
1017–9.
150 Mulhall JP, Jahoda AE, Cairney M, Goldstein B, Leitzes R,
Woods J, Payton T, Krane RJ, Goldstein I. The causes of
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171
Porst et al.
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
patient dropout from penile self-injection therapy for impotence. J Urol 1999;162:1291–4.
Montorsi F, Salonia A, Zanoni M, Pompa P, Cestari A, Guazzoni G, Barbieri L, Rigatti P. Current status of local penile
therapy. Int J Impot Res 2002;14(Suppl):S70–81.
Kulaksizoglu H, Hakim LS, Nehra A, Goldstein I. Comparison of alprostadil sterile powder (Caverject®) with trimix.
Nomogram and patient satisfaction. J Urol 1997;157(4
suppl):180. Abstr. 699.
Gerstenberg TC, Metz P, Ottesen B, Fahrenkrug J. Intracavernous self-injection with vasoactive intestinal polypeptide
and phentolamine in the management of erectile failure. J
Urol 1992;47:1277–9.
Hackett G; The UK-Group of Investigators. A 12 month
multicenter placebo-controlled study of Invicorp® in the
treatment of non-psychogenic erectile dysfunction. Int J
Impot Res 1998;10(suppl 3):S21.
Sandhu D, Curless E, Dean J, Hackett G, Liu S, Savage D,
Oakes R, Frentz G. A double blind, placebo-controlled study
of intracavernosal vasoactive intestinal polypeptide and phentolamine mesylate in a novel autoinjector for the treatment of
non-psychogenic erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res
1999;11:91–7.
Buvat J, Costa P, Morlier D, Lecocq B, Stegmann B,
Albrecht D. Double-blind multicenter study comparing
alprostadil alpha cyclodextrin with moxisylyte chlorhydrate in
patients with chronic erectile dysfunction. J Urol
1998;159:116–9.
Shamloul R, El-Dakhly M, Ghanem H, Gadallah A, Mokhtar
H. Intracavernous chlorpromazine versus phentolamine: A
double-blind clinical comparative study. J Sex Med 2004;1:
310–3.
Chew KK, Stuckey BGA. Clinical course of penile fibrosis in
intracavernosal prostaglandin E 1 injection therapy: A
follow-up of 44 patients. Int J Impot Res 2003;15:94–8.
Hashmat AJ, Abrahams J, Fani K, Nostrand I. A lethal
complication of papaverine-induced priapism. J Urol
1991;145:146–7.
Limoge JP, Olins E, Henderson D, Donatucci CF. Minimally
invasive therapies in the treatment of erectile dysfuction in
anticoagulated cases: A study of satisfaction and safety. J Urol
1996;155:1277–9.
Mansi MF, Ackhudair WK, Huraib S. Treatment of erectile
dysfunction after kidney transplantation with intracavernosal
self-injection of prostaglandin E1. J Urol 1998;159:1927–
30.
Plekhanov AY, Zhivovo AV, Goryachew LA. Comparative
complications rate after alprostadil intracavernous pharmacotherapy for erectile dysfunction in diabetes mellitus vs. nondiabetic patients. Int J Impot Res 1998;10(suppl 3):S50.
Nadig PW, Ware JC, Blummof R. Noninvasive device to
produce and maintain an erection-like state. Urology
1986;27:126–31.
Montorsi F, Adaikan G, Becher E, Giuliano F, Khoury S, Lue
TF, Sharlip I, Althof SE, Andersson K-E, Brock G, Broderick
G, Burnett A, Buvat J, Dean J, Donatucci C, Eardley I, FuglMeyer KS, Goldstein I, Hackett G, Hatzichristou D, Hellstrom W, Incrocci L, Jackson G, Kadioglu A, Levine L,
Lewis RW, Maggi M, McCabe M, McMahon CG, Montague
D, Montorsi P, Mulhall J, Pfaus J, Porst H, Ralph D.
Summary of the recommendations on sexual dysfunctions in
men. J Sex Med 2010;7:3572–88.
Chen J, Godschalk MF, Katz PG, Mulligan T. Combining
intracavernous injection and external vacuum as treatment for
erectile dysfunction. J Urol 1995;153:1476–7.
Marmar JL, DeBenedictis TJ, Praiss DE. The use of vacuum
constrictor device to augment a partial erection following an
intracavernous injection. J Urol 1988;140:975–9.
171
167 Lue TF, El-Sakka AI. Lengthening shortened penis caused
by Peyronie’s disease using circular venous grafting and daily
stretching with a vacuum erection device. J Urol 1999;161:
1141–4.
168 Moul JW, McLeod DG. Negative pressure devices in the
explanted penile prosthesis population. J Urol 1985;142:729–
31.
169 Glina S, Porst H. Vacuum constriction devices. In: Porst H,
Buvat J, eds. Standard Practice in Sexual Medicine. Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2006:121–5.
170 Nadig PW. Osbon ErecAid. Letters to the Editor. J Urol
1987;138,630.
171 Witherington R. Vacuum constriction device for management of erectile impotence. J Urol 1989;141:320–2.
172 Blackard E, Borkon WD, Lima JS, Nelson J. Use of vacuum
tumescence device for impotence secondary to venous
leakage. Urology 1993;41:225–30.
173 Derouet H, Zehl U. Die Behandlung der Erektilen Dysfunktion mittels Vakuumsaugpumpen (EHS). Urologe A
1993;32:312–5 (in German).
174 Baltaci S, Aydos K, Kosar A, Anafarta K. Treating erectile
dysfunction with a vacuum tumescence device: A retrospective analysis of acceptance and satisfaction. Br J Urol
1995;76:757–60.
175 Lewis RW, Witherington R. External vacuum therapy for
erectile dysfunction: Use and results. World J Urol
1997;15:78–82.
176 Meinhardt W, Lycklama á Nijeholt AAB, Kropman RF,
Zwartendijk J. The negative pressure device for erectile
disorders: When does it fail? J Urol 1993;149:1285–7.
177 Fedel M, Sudhoff F, Andreeßen R. VakuumErektionshilfesysteme in der Behandlung der erektilen
Dysfunktion. Akt Urol 1995;26:339–43 (in German).
178 Cookson MS, Nadig PW. Long-term results with vacuum
constriction device. J Urol 1993;149:290–4.
179 Graham P, Collins JP, Thijssen AM. Popularity of the
vacuum erection device in male sexual dysfunction. Int J
Impotence Res 1998;10(Suppl 3):S6. Abstr. 58.
180 Droupy S, Amar E, Thiounn N, Hammoudi Y, Cantar C,
Benoit G, Jardin A, Giuliano F. Acceptance and efficacy
of vacuum constriction device for the treatment of erectile
dysfunction after radical prostatectomy. Int J Impot Res
1998;10(suppl 3):S24. Abstr. 191.
181 Opsomer RJ, Wese FX, van Langh PJ. Long-term results
with vacuum constriction device. Int J Impotence Res
1998;10:S49. Abstr. 369.
182 Derouet H, Caspari D, Rohde V, Rommel G, Ziegler M.
Treatment of erectile dysfunction with external vacuum
devices. Andrologia 1999;31(suppl 1):89–94.
183 Pahlajani G, Raina R, Jones S, Ali M, Zippe C.
Vacuum erection devices revisited: Its emerging role in the
treatment of erectile dysfunction and early penile rehabilitation following prostate cancer therapy. J Sex Med 2012;9:
1182–9.
184 Meuleman EJ. Experiences with a vacuum apparatus in the
treatment of erection disorders. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd
1993;137:412–6.
185 Althof SE, Turner LA, Levine SB, Bodner D, Kursh
ED, Resnick MI. Through the eyes of women: The sexual
and psychological responses of women to their partner’s
treatment with self-injection or external vacuum therapy.
J Urol 1992;147:1024–7.
186 McMahon CG, Samali R, Johnson H. Treatment of
intracorporeal non-response with sildenafil alone or in combination with triple agent intracorporeal injection therapy.
J Urol 1999;162:1992–8.
J Sex Med 2013;10:130–171

(Medical and Mechanical) Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction

Transcription

Similar documents

Erectile Dysfunction - Andrology Australia

Men`s Health

affiporeTM - Provital Group

Sacro-iliac Dysfunction

Improving the Therapeutic Benefits of Ipilimumab

Medical Management for Overactive Bladder

Endo-PAT2000 - Arterial Health

Concealed penis: surgical management

Women`s orgasm. In: Sexual Medicine: Sexual

European Pharmaceuticals

EAU Guidelines Chronic Pelvic Pain 2014