Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Urology

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Tadalafil 5 mg once daily for the treatment of erectile dysfunction during a 6-month observational study (EDATE): impact of patient characteristics and comorbidities

  • Dimitrios Hatzichristou1,
  • Gianluca d’Anzeo2Email author,
  • Hartmut Porst3,
  • Jacques Buvat4,
  • Carsten Henneges5,
  • Andrea Rossi2,
  • Karim Hamidi6 and
  • Hartwig Büttner5
BMC Urology201515:111

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-015-0107-5

Received: 1 June 2015

Accepted: 28 October 2015

Published: 12 November 2015

Abstract

Background

To explore the impact of patient-characteristics and relevant comorbidities on treatment continuation rates, effectiveness, and satisfaction in patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) who started or switched to tadalafil 5 mg once daily (TAD-OaD) at baseline.

Methods

In the EDATE observational study, phosphodiesterase-type-5 (PDE5)-inhibitor pretreated or naïve ED patients who started or switched to TAD-OaD were prospectively followed for 6 months. Time to discontinuation of TAD-OaD was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method at Months 2, 4, and 6 in subgroups stratified by age (18 − 65 years and >65 years), PDE5-inhibitor pretreatment, ED-severity (mild, moderate, severe), and presence or absence of relevant comorbidities (BPH, diabetes, CVD, hypertension, dyslipidemia). LSmean change from baseline in International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) scores and associated 95 % CIs were assessed using a mixed-model for repeated measures. Visit, ED etiology, and subgroups were included as fixed-effects.

Results

Overall, 778 patients received prescriptions for initiating or switching to TAD-OaD at baseline. At Month 2, >90 % of patients remained on TAD-OaD, except those aged >65 years (86.7 %) and patients with severe ED (89.0 %). More than 80 % of patients in all subgroups, except those aged >65 years (75.0 %), continued TAD-OaD at Month 6. There was a significant LSmean negative effect on IIEF- EF domain-score improvement for BPH (LSmean effect [95 % CI]: −2.77 [−4.98, −0.55], p = 0.014), previous PDE5-inhibitor treatment (−2.13 [−3.33,-0.94], p < 0.001), and mild vs moderate ED (-2.00 [−3.54,-0.46], p = 0.011); the latter possibly linked with a bigger treatment-effect in those with more severe ED at baseline. The LSmean effect on change in IIEF-EF was significantly positive for diabetes (2.28 [0.64,3.92], p = 0.007), most likely because those with diabetes had more severe ED at baseline. For all other parameters, no statistically significant LSmean effects in IIEF-EF changes were observed. No comorbidity or baseline-characteristic except age (18 − 65 years vs >65 years: 11.25 [2.96,19.54], p = 0.008) affected changes in EDITS.

Conclusions

Under routine clinical conditions, treatment continuation rate or satisfaction does not seem to be significantly affected by the presence of comorbidities in men who choose ED-treatment with TAD-OaD. The magnitude of treatment effectiveness was affected by certain baseline characteristics and comorbid conditions.

Trial Registration

The study (H6D-EW-LVIU) is registered in the German VfA Registry of Non-Interventional Studies (Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller) since 06 December 2011; available at: http://www.vfa.de/de/arzneimittel-forschung/datenbanken-zu-arzneimitteln/nisdb/nis-details/_741.

Keywords

TadalafilOnce daily useErectile dysfunctionComorbiditiesObservational studyEDATE

Background

Men with erectile dysfunction (ED) have several comorbid conditions such as cardiovascular disease (CVD) and associated risk factors including diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and others such as depression, premature ejaculation, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), and overactive bladder [14]. In the Men’s Attitudes to Life Events and Sexuality (MALES) study, 64 % of the men reported having at least 1 comorbid condition including hypertension (36 %), dyslipidemia (29 %), depression (25 %), CVD (17 %), and diabetes (14 %) [1].

Given these prevalence rates of comorbidities in men with ED, it is important to choose an appropriate treatment that maintains its efficacy and tolerability in the presence of the comorbidities [5]. Oral phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors including avanafil, sildenafil, tadalafil, and vardenafil are proven to be safe and effective for managing ED [614]. Furthermore, these drugs have demonstrated efficacy in men with ED who have comorbid cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension, dyslipidemia, and/or diabetes [5], and tadalafil once daily (OaD) has shown efficacy in the treatment of BPH/LUTS [1517].

It has been suggested that appropriate treatment of concomitant ED may help in improving the adherence and management of associated comorbidities, which may eventually decrease healthcare costs and improve the overall health of the affected men [18]. However, some pharmacological drugs used for treating these comorbid conditions have sexual side effects. For example, antihypertensive drugs such as thiazide diuretics increase the risk of ED; 5α-reductase inhibitors, used for treating LUTS linked to symptomatic BPH, are associated with sexual disorders; and α-blockers tamsusolin and silodosin, used for treating BPH, are frequently responsible for ejaculatory disorders like anejaculation and reduced ejaculate volume [19]. This further underscores the significance of choosing an efficacious medication for treating ED in these subpopulations, if required.

The EDATE study was the first multinational, observational study in patients with ED, with or without previous exposure to PDE5 inhibitors, that documented the effectiveness and tolerability of tadalafil 5 mg OaD under routine conditions. The study highlighted that more than 85 % of men who choose to be treated with tadalafil OaD maintained the treatment in the next 6 months [20]. In this article, we present results of secondary analyses for the impact of patient characteristics and relevant comorbidities on treatment continuation rates as well as treatment effectiveness and satisfaction in patients with ED who had started with or switched to tadalafil OaD and were followed for a period of 6 months.

Methods

Patients and study design

EDATE was a prospective, longitudinal, observational study conducted in 59 centres across Germany, France, Italy, and Greece, enrolling patients from November 2011 through June 2012 [20]. Adult male patients who met the investigator’s criteria for ED and presented within the normal course of care were eligible to participate if they had decided, in consultation with their physician, to either initiate PDE5 inhibitor treatment for the first time (treatment-naïve) or switch from any previous PDE5 inhibitor taken on-demand. Patients with previous experience with tadalafil OaD were excluded. The study was approved by the Comité de protection des personnes “Nord-Ouest IV”, centre hospitalier universitaire, faculté de médecine, pôle recherche, 59045 Lille Cedex, and additional ethical review boards as per individual study site and country requirements (full list provided as Additional file 1). Patients provided written informed consent for data collection, storage, and release of anonymised data.

Assessment and treatment of patients were performed as per routine investigator practice for managing ED. In this article, data from patients who initiated or switched to treatment with tadalafil OaD at baseline (Visit 1) and were followed up longitudinally for up to 6 months (tadalafil OaD cohort) are reported. Post-baseline data were collected at routine visits (Visit 2, Visit 3) within 1 to 3 months and 4 to 6 months after initiation of therapy. Patients who switched or discontinued tadalafil OaD treatment during the observation were followed until the end of the 6-month observation period. A follow-up phone call was made to patients who did not visit within 4 to 6 months after baseline.

Outcome measures

The primary results on the time to treatment discontinuation of tadalafil OaD in men who had initiated or switched to tadalafil OaD at baseline have already been published [20]. The current article includes secondary outcome results on the impact of patients characteristics and comorbidities on time to treatment discontinuation, and on mean changes from baseline to end of observation in the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) domain scores [21], and Erectile Dysfunction Inventory for Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) total score [22].

Statistical analysis

Sample size

A sample size of 250 patients initiating or switching to tadalafil OaD at baseline was planned, based on the primary outcome (continuation rate on tadalafil OaD, estimated to be 50 − 80 % after 6 months of treatment) [20]. Consecutive enrollment was planned to be stopped as soon as either 3,000 patients were enrolled overall, or 600 patients were enrolled in the tadalafil OaD cohort.

Primary analysis

All patients prescribed tadalafil OaD treatment at baseline were included in the analysis. The distribution of time to discontinuation of tadalafil OaD was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method. The Kaplan-Meier proportions and associated 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) of patients on tadalafil OaD at Months 2, 4, and 6 were reported for the tadalafil OaD cohort (primary analysis) as well as subgroups stratified by age (18–65 years and >65 years), pretreatment with PDE5 inhibitors, ED severity (mild, moderate, severe), and presence or absence of BPH, diabetes, CVD, hypertension, and dyslipidemia (prespecified subgroup analyses, reported in this manuscript).

An additional, prespecified exploratory analysis was performed to investigate the association between time to discontinuation of tadalafil OaD and selected baseline factors using a Cox proportional hazards model; hazard ratios (HRs) and the corresponding 95 %CIs were reported. The final model included factors associated with treatment discontinuation identified by backward selection (removing those with p > 0.1). These included presence of relevant comorbidities, type of physician who initially diagnosed the ED, country, duration of living arrangement, age, ED etiology, ED severity, and work status [20].

Secondary analyses

All patients prescribed tadalafil OaD at baseline were included in the longitudinal analyses. Least-square (LS) mean effects in IIEF domain scores and EDITS total score from baseline to Month 6 were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), including the following prespecified variables as fixed effects: visit, age (18–65 vs >65 years), pretreatment with PDE5 inhibitors (yes vs no), etiology of ED, ED severity, BPH (yes vs no), diabetes (yes vs no), CVD (yes vs no), hypertension (yes vs no), and dyslipidemia (yes vs no). p-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant and 95 % CIs were produced. Data were analyzed using the SAS 9.2 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Patient characteristics

Overall, 778 patients received prescriptions for initiating or switching to tadalafil OaD at baseline. The majority of patients were aged 18 to 65 years (76.9 %), had suffered from ED for at least 1 year (63.1 %), and presented with mild to moderate disease at baseline (73.7 %) (Table 1). Most patients (65.6 %) were naïve to PDE5 inhibitor treatment. Baseline IIEF domain scores were similar in PDE5 inhibitor-naïve and pretreated patients (Additional file 2). Over half of the patients (58.4 %) reported having at least 1 comorbid condition. The most commonly reported comorbidities included CVD (34.5 %), hypertension (33.4 %), dyslipidemia (18.5 %), and diabetes (15.9 %). A small proportion of patients reported BPH (6.3 %) and hypogonadism (1.5 %). Approximately 57.1 % of the patients were on at least 1 concomitant medication (Table 1).
Table 1

Baseline characteristics of patients starting tadalafil 5 mg OaD (N = 778)

Variable

N with data

 

Age, years

778

 

 Median (IQR)

 

57 (47–65)

 18 − 65 years, n (%)

 

598 (76.9)

Smoking habits, n (%)

775

 

 Current smoker

 

148 (19.0)

 Former smoker

 

159 (20.4)

 Never smoker

 

468 (60.2)

Currently drink alcohol, n (%)

775

456 (58.8)

ED severity, n (%)

775

 

 Mild

 

160 (20.6)

 Moderate

 

411 (53.0)

 Severe

 

204 (26.3)

Duration of ED symptoms, n (%)

776

 

  < 3 months

 

55 (7.1)

 3 to <12 months

 

231 (29.7)

  ≥ 12 months

 

490 (63.1)

ED etiology, n (%)

776

 

 Mixed

 

343 (44.2)

 Organic

 

240 (30.9)

 Psychogenic

 

145 (18.7)

 Unknown

 

48 (6.2)

With penile defects, n (%)

776

24 (3.1)

With former invasive diagnostic procedure for ED, n (%)

776

150 (19.3)

Non-coital erections, n (%)

771

422 (54.7)

Decreased libido, n (%)

775

310 (40.0)

IIEF-EF at baseline, mean (SD)

776

14.5 (7.06)

EDITS total score at baseline, mean (SD)

178a

59.6 (21.27)

Previous treatment, n (%)

777

 

 PDE5 inhibitor pretreated

 

267 (34.3)

 PDE5 inhibitor-naïve

 

510 (65.6)

Relevant categories of comorbidities, n (%)

778

 

 At least 1 comorbidity

 

454 (58.4)

  Cardiovascular disorder

 

268 (34.5)

  Hypertension

 

260 (33.4)

  Dyslipidemia

 

144 (18.5)

  Diabetes

 

124 (15.9)

  Pelvic surgery

 

89 (11.4)

  Benign prostatic hyperplasia

 

49 (6.3)

  Hypogonadism

 

12 (1.5)

Concomitant medication, n (%)

778

 

 At least 1 concomitant medication

 

444 (57.1)

  Antihypertensive medication

 

260 (33.4)

  Lipid lowering medication

 

152 (19.5)

  Oral antidiabetic medication

 

102 (13.1)

  Cardiovascular medication

 

94 (12.1)

  α-blockers

 

58 (7.5)

  5α-reductase inhibitors

 

14 (1.8)

ED, erectile dysfunction, EDITS Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction, IIEF-EF International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function, IQR inter quartile range, N number of patients with data, n number of patients, OaD once a day, PDE5 phosphodiesterase type 5, SD standard deviation

aEDITS scores at baseline were collected only in patients pretreated with PDE5 inhibitors

Impact of baseline characteristics and comorbidities on continuation rates of tadalafil OaD

At Month 2, Kaplan-Meier estimation revealed that more than 90 % of patients were still on tadalafil OaD, except those aged >65 years (86.7 %) and men with severe ED (89.0 %) (Table 2). More than 80 % of patients in all subgroups, except those aged >65 years (75.0 %) continued tadalafil OaD at Month 6 (Table 2; Additional file 3). Reasons for discontinuation did not differ notably between the older (>65 years) and younger age group (Table 3).
Table 2

Impact of patient characteristics and comorbidities on the continuation of treatment with tadalafil 5 mg OaD (N = 778)

Population

Number of patients with

Patients without events (%), KM estimate [95 % CI]

 

Data

Events

Month 2

Month 4

Month 6

Overall (primary analysis)

773

107

94.0 [92.3,95.7]

88.3 [85.9,90.6]

86.3 [83.7,88.9]

By age

    

 Age ≤65 years

593

61

96.2 [94.7,97.8]

91.7 [89.4,93.9]

89.8 [87.1,92.4]

 Age >65 years

180

46

86.7 [81.7,91.6]

77.3 [71.1,83.5]

75.0 [68.5, 81.5]

By PDE5-I treatment

    

 PDE5-I naïve

507

71

93.9 [91.8,96.0]

88.5 [85.7,91.4]

86.1 [82.9,89.4]

 PDE5-I pretreated

265

36

94.2 [91.4,97.1]

87.6 [83.6,91.7]

86.6 [82.3,90.9]

By disease severity

    

 Mild ED

160

16

98.1 [96.0,1.00]

94.1 [90.3,97.8]

89.8 [84.4,95.3]

 Moderate ED

407

55

94.8 [92.7,97.0]

88.6 [85.5,91.8]

87.3 [83.9,90.8]

 Severe ED

203

36

89.0 [84.6,93.3]

82.8 [77.4,88.2]

80.8 [75.1,86.5]

By presence of BPH

    

 BPH present

49

10

91.8 [84.2,99.5]

87.8 [78.6,96.9]

84.9 [74.5,95.3]

 BPH absent

724

97

94.1 [92.4,95.9]

88.3 [85.9,90.7]

86.4 [83.7,89.1]

By presence of diabetes

    

 Diabetes present

123

19

93.4 [88.9,97.8]

85.3 [78.9,91.8]

84.0 [77.2,90.9]

 Diabetes absent

650

88

94.1 [92.3,95.9]

88.8 [86.3,91.3]

86.7 [83.9, 89.5]

By presence of CVD

    

 CVD present

266

41

90.9 [87.4,94.4]

86.8 [82.7,91.0]

84.6 [80.1,89.2]

 CVD absent

507

66

95.6 [93.8,97.4]

89.0 [86.2,91.8]

87.2 [84.0,90.3]

By presence of hypertension

    

 Hypertension present

258

40

91.0 [87.5,94.5]

86.8 [82.6,91.0]

84.6 [79.9,89.2]

 Hypertension absent

515

67

95.5 [93.7,97.3]

89.0 [86.2,91.8]

87.2 [84.0,90.3]

By presence of dyslipidemia

    

 Dyslipidemia present

144

24

91.6 [87.0,96.1]

86.3 [80.6,92.1]

83.5 [77.2,89.9]

 Dyslipidemia absent

629

83

94.5 [92.8,96.3]

88.7 [86.2,91.2]

87.0 [84.2,89.8]

Event = Discontinuation of tadalafil OaD

Note: KM estimates for subgroups with non-overlapping CIs at given time points are marked in bold

BPH benign prostatic hyperplasia, CI confidence interval, CVD cardiovascular diseases, ED erectile dysfunction, KM Kaplan-Meier, N number of patients, OaD once a day, PDE5-I phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor

Table 3

Reasons for discontinuation of tadalafil OaD treatment by age group

 

Number (%) of patients

 

Age ≤65 years N = 598

Age >65 years N = 180

Overall N = 778

Discontinued tadalafil OaDa

61 (100.0)

46 (100.0)

107 (100.0)

 Reasons

   

  Lack of efficacy (hardness of erection)

17 (27.9)

16 (34.4)

33 (30.8)

  Adverse event

10 (22.5)

12 (26.1)

22 (20.6)

  Cost of medication

11 (18.0)

5 (10.9)

16 (15.0)

  Didn’t want to take a pill every day

7 (11.0)

5 (10.9)

12 (11.2)

  Patient discontinued study

7 (11.5)

2 (4.3)

9 (8.4)

  Partner’s request

2 (3.3)

3 (6.5)

5 (4.7)

  Felt that medication controlled his sexual life

2 (4.2)

1 (2.2)

3 (2.8)

  Slow onset of action

2 (3.3)

1 (2.2)

3 (2.8)

  Lack of efficacy (duration of erection)

1 (1.6)

1 (2.2)

2 (1.9)

  Lack of confidence in medication

1 (1.6)

0

1 (0.9)

  Non-desired spontaneous erections

1 (1.6)

0

1 (0.9)

N number of patients, OaD once a day

aIncludes all patients with documented end date of tadalafil OaD treatment, irrespective if the patient completed or discontinued the study

As the majority of patients remained on tadalafil OaD at Month 6, the median time to discontinuation could not be estimated in any of the subgroups. Patients with severe ED had lower treatment continuation rates than those with mild ED or moderate ED, but these were still >80 % at all time points (Additional file 4). The Kaplan-Meier analysis did not suggest any influence of individual comorbidities on treatment continuation rates (Table 2).

These findings were consistent with those from the Cox proportional hazard model evaluating factors associated with time to discontinuation of tadalafil OaD. The risk of discontinuation was significantly decreased among younger vs older patients (HR [95 % CI]: 18–65 vs >65 years: 0.54 [0.30, 0.96], p = 0.038). There was no significant effect of disease severity (mild vs moderate ED: 1.26 [0.68, 2.32], p = 0.462; severe vs moderate ED: 1.51 [0.95, 2.39], p = 0.077), or the presence of relevant comorbidities (presence vs absence of relevant comorbidities, namely, BPH, diabetes, CVD, hypertension, dyslipidemia: 1.27 [0.82, 1.94], p = 0.287) in this model.

Impact of patient characteristics and comorbidities on erectile function and treatment satisfaction during treatment with tadalafil OaD

Overall, treatment with tadalafil OaD for 6 months was associated with significant improvement at Visit 2 (1–3 months) and Visit 3 (4–6 months) in all IIEF domain scores, including the IIEF-erectile function (EF) domain (p < 0.001 for both visits), as well as the EDITS total score (p = 0.035 and p = 0.028 for Visits 2 and 3, respectively) (Table 4). Improvements in the mean (standard deviation [SD]) IIEF domain scores and EDITS total score are given in Additional file 5.
Table 4

Impact of patient-characteristics and comorbidities on EF and treatment-satisfaction during tadalafil OaD treatment (N = 778; MMRM)

 

IIEF domain scores (n = 646)

EDITS total score (n = 165)a

 

Erectile function

Orgasmic function

Sexual desire

Intercourse satisfaction

Overall satisfaction

Change from baseline at Visit 2

 

 LS mean

+6.17*

+1.06*

+0.38*

+2.70*

+2.26*

+14.17*

 95 % CI

+4.82 to +7.51

+0.54 to +1.57

+0.03 to +0.74

+2.02 to +3.38

+1.77 to +2.75

+1.00 to +27.34

p-value

<0.001

<0.001

0.034

<0.001

<0.001

0.035

Change from baseline at Visit 3

 LS mean

+7.11*

+1.36*

+0.48*

+3.18*

+2.56*

+14.83*

 95 % CI

+5.76 to +8.47

+0.83 to +1.88

+0.12 to +0.84

+2.48 to +3.87

+2.06 to +3.06

+1.64 to +28.02

p-value

<0.001

<0.001

0.010

<0.001

<0.001

0.028

Fixed effects

      

 Age group (18–65 vs >65 years)

  LS mean effect

+0.45

−0.11

+0.15

+0.20

+0.04

+11.25*

  95 % CI

−0.98 to +1.88

−0.66 to +0.44

−0.23 to +0.53

−0.53 to +0.92

−0.49 to +0.56

+2.96 to +19.54

  p-value

0.539

0.707

0.444

0.592

0.896

0.008

PDE5-I pretreatment (yes vs no)

     

 LS mean effect

−2.13*

−0.69*

−0.10

−0.93*

−0.74*

+7.11

 95 % CI

−3.33 to −0.94

−1.15 to −0.23

−0.41 to +0.22

−1.54 to −0.33

−1.17 to −0.30

−12.5 to +26.74

p-value

<0.001

0.003

0.548

0.003

0.001

0.475

ED etiology

     

 Psychogenic vs mixed

     

  LS mean effect

−0.25

+0.17

+0.04

−0.03

+0.06

−4.69

  95 % CI

−1.75 to +1.26

−0.41 to +0.75

−0.35 to +0.44

−0.79 to +0.74

−0.49 to +0.62

−15.2 to +5.79

  p-value

0.747

0.558

0.825

0.944

0.817

0.378

 Organic vs mixed

     

  LS mean effect

−0.63

−0.17

−0.13

−0.44

−0.39

−1.70

  95 % CI

−1.97 to +0.71

−0.69 to +0.34

−0.48 to +0.23

−1.12 to +0.24

−0.88 to +0.10

−9.31 to +5.92

  p-value

0.359

0.507

0.479

0.205

0.116

0.661

ED severity (investigator assessment)

    

 Mild vs moderate

     

  LS mean effect

−2.00*

−0.06

−0.45*

−0.56

−0.97*

−4.52

  95 % CI

−3.54 to −0.46

−0.66 to +0.53

−0.86 to −0.05

−1.35 to +0.22

−1.53 to −0.41

−16.4 to +7.35

  p-value

0.011

0.833

0.029

0.156

<0.001

0.453

Severe vs moderate

     

 LS mean effect

+0.99

+0.93*

−0.21

+0.30

+0.30

+3.99

 95 % CI

−0.37 to +2.34

+0.41 to +1.45

−0.57 to +0.15

−0.39 to +0.99

−0.20 to +0.80

−3.37 to +11.35

p-value

0.154

<0.001

0.260

0.395

0.237

0.285

Comorbidities

     

 BPH (yes vs no)

      

  LS mean effect

−2.77*

−0.87*

−0.72*

−1.08

−0.52

+5.78

  95 % CI

−4.98 to −0.55

−1.73 to −0.02

−1.30 to −0.13

−2.21 to +0.04

−1.34 to +0.29

−8.38 to +19.94

  p-value

0.014

0.044

0.017

0.058

0.206

0.421

 Diabetes (yes vs no)

     

  LS mean effect

+2.28*

+0.81*

+0.06

+0.92*

+0.81*

+5.62

  95 % CI

+0.64 to +3.92

+0.17 to +1.44

−0.38 to +0.50

+0.09 to +1.76

+0.20 to +1.41

−3.62 to +14.71

  p-value

0.007

0.013

0.787

0.030

0.009

0.223

 CVD (yes vs no)

      

  LS mean effect

−1.78

−1.93

0

−0.97

−0.49

+3.48

  95 % CI

−7.53 to +3.96

−4.14 to +0.29

−1.52 to +1.52

−3.88 to +1.95

−2.60 to +1.62

−2.70 to +33.97

  p-value

0.542

0.088

0.997

0.515

0.648

0.822

 Hypertension (yes vs no)

     

  LS mean effect

+1.62

+1.91

+0.29

+0.77

−0.04

−1.33

  95 % CI

−4.14 to +7.39

−0.31 to +4.13

−1.24 to +1.81

−2.16 to +3.69

−2.15 to +2.07

−31.7 to +29.00

  p-value

0.580

0.091

0.711

0.606

0.969

0.931

 Dyslipidemia (yes vs no)

     

  LS mean effect

−0.05

−0.19

−0.31

+0.02

−0.17

−4.26

  95 % CI

−1.61 to +1.51

−0.79 to +0.41

−0.72 to +0.11

−0.78 to +0.81

−0.74 to +0.41

−13.1 to +4.60

  p-value

0.946

0.528

0.145

0.966

0.568

0.343

BPH benign prostatic hyperplasia, CI confidence interval, CVD cardiovascular disease, ED erectile dysfunction, EDITS Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction, IIEF International Index of Erectile Function, LS mean least-square mean, MMRM Mixed Model for Repeated Measures, N number of patients, n number of patients included in the model, OaD once a day, PDE5-I phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor

a EDITS scores at baseline were collected only in patients pretreated with PDE5-I

*95 % confidence interval does not include zero and p-value statistically significant (<0.05)

MMRM analysis showed that PDE5 pretreatment had a significantly smaller LS mean effect on IIEF-EF (p < 0.001), orgasmic function (p = 0.003), intercourse satisfaction (p = 0.003), and overall satisfaction (p = 0.001) domain scores vs no previous PDE5 inhibitor treatment. Mild ED had a significantly smaller LS mean effect on IIEF-EF (p = 0.011), sexual desire (p = 0.029), and overall satisfaction (p < 0.001) domain scores, while severe ED had a significantly increased LS mean effect on the IIEF orgasmic function (p < 0.001) domain score relative to moderate ED. The negative effect of BPH on change in IIEF-EF (p = 0.014), orgasmic function (p = 0.044), and sexual desire (p = 0.017) domain scores was statistically significant. Furthermore, diabetes showed a significant positive effect on changes in IIEF-EF (p = 0.007), orgasmic function (p = 0.013), intercourse satisfaction (p = 0.030), and overall satisfaction (p = 0.009) domain scores (Table 4).

There were no significant effects for age, ED etiology, CVD, hypertension, or dyslipidemia (p > 0.05 for all comparisons) on IIEF domain scores over 6 months of tadalafil OaD treatment. LS mean effects in EDITS total score were not affected by any comorbidity or baseline characteristic except age (p = 0.008) (Table 4).

Safety

No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported during the study. The most frequently reported adverse events included headache (1.3 %), dyspepsia (0.5 %), and a new diagnosis of BPH (0.5 %); no new or unexpected safety signals were observed [20].

Discussion

Currently, there are few observational studies in patients with ED that assess the impact of baseline characteristics and presence of comorbid conditions on PDE5 inhibitor treatment continuation rates. In particular, few existing studies assess treatment satisfaction and effectiveness beyond the IIEF-EF domain. The primary analysis of the EDATE observational study demonstrated high treatment continuation rates (86.3 %) over a period of 6 months in 778 patients with ED who initiated or switched to PDE5 inhibitor treatment with tadalafil OaD at baseline (Additional file 6) [20].

Here in this cohort with high frequency of comorbidities and use of concomitant medications, we found that continuation rates over 6 months of treatment with tadalafil OaD were comparable across subgroups. Furthermore, continuation rates were over 80 % regardless of the presence of comorbidities, pretreatment with PDE5 inhibitors, or ED severity. Even in the subgroup of older patients (>65 years), the continuation rate was 75 % at Month 6. IIEF was affected by some baseline characteristics including ED severity, pretreatment with PDE5 inhibitors, and the presence or absence of diabetes and BPH. However, treatment satisfaction remained predominantly unaffected by any comorbid condition or baseline characteristic except for age, with patients aged 18–65 years reporting significantly higher satisfaction scores vs those aged >65 years.

In our study, younger patients (18–65 years) had higher chances of continuing tadalafil OaD vs older patients. This finding resonates with that from the DETECT observational study in which age less than 60 years was one of the factors associated with continuation of tadalafil on-demand treatment at 12 months [23]. Similarly, an observational study in Latin America found that persistence and adherence rates for PDE5 inhibitor treatment at 6 months were generally higher in younger men with ED (mean age, 52.3 years vs 54.9 years for non-persistent patients and 52.1 years vs 55.5 years for non-adherent patients) [24]. In a Korean study, the most common reason for discontinuing PDE5 inhibitor treatment given by older men (>70 years) with ED was concerns about the side effects, possibly due to higher prevalence of comorbidities in this subgroup [25].

We observed significant improvement from baseline in all the IIEF domain scores and EDITS total score at the second (1–3 months) and third (4–6 months) visits in the overall tadalafil OaD cohort. In particular, the LS mean IIEF-EF domain score increased by 7.1 points from baseline to 4 to 6 months after initiation of tadalafil OaD, exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 4 points [26]; this observation aligns with the 9.4-point increase observed with tadalafil OaD in a previous randomised controlled trial [27].

We found that PDE5 inhibitor pretreatment had a significant impact on IIEF scores, i.e. pretreated patients showed less improvement during tadalafil OaD treatment compared with treatment-naïve patients, in the domains of EF, orgasmic function, intercourse satisfaction, and overall satisfaction. In the EDATE cohort, 36.7 % of patients switched to tadalafil OaD due to lack of efficacy of previous PDE5 inhibitor treatment [20]. Thus, we believe that some of the patients in the tadalafil OaD cohort who were pretreated with PDE5 inhibitors may have been insufficient responders to any PDE5 inhibitor treatment, leading to a negative effect on their IIEF domain scores. In real-life clinical practice, men with inadequate response to ED treatment will usually keep seeking for a better treatment option to improve their erection. A large observational study in Middle Eastern countries among men with ED receiving tadalafil on-demand (N = 1,080) also found significantly higher mean IIEF-EF domain scores in treatment-naïve patients vs those who were pretreated (13.26 vs 9.28; p < 0.0001) [28].

ED etiology had no significant effect on IIEF in our study. This is in keeping with findings from an integrated analysis of 6 randomised studies which showed that tadalafil OaD was consistently efficacious across disease etiologies in men with ED [29].

In this study, there were significant effects of ED severity on the IIEF-EF, orgasmic function, sexual desire, and overall satisfaction domains. Mild ED reduced the change from baseline for IIEF-EF, sexual desire, and overall satisfaction, while severe ED meant an increased change in orgasmic function relative to moderate ED. This aligns with findings from an analysis of 6 randomised studies of tadalafil 2.5 and 5 mg OaD in patients with ED. Placebo-adjusted LS mean changes in IIEF-EF from baseline for both doses of tadalafil were numerically higher in patients with severe ED (4.6 and 5.8) vs those in patients with mild (2.3 and 4.5) and moderate (4.4 and 5.5) ED [29]. This may be explained by the possibility of greater changes from baseline in patients with more severe disease compared with those with mild or moderate disease. Furthermore, Rosen and colleagues have demonstrated that the MCID in the IIEF-EF domain increases significantly with higher baseline severity of ED (p < 0.0001) [26].

We observed a significant impact of reported BPH on IIEF-EF, orgasmic function, and sexual desire domain scores, i.e., the presence of BPH reduced improvement during tadalafil OaD treatment. However, BPH can be accompanied by other comorbidities and the estimated reduction in efficacy from our model is unlikely to define the differences between BPH and non-BPH patients alone. It is worth noting that patients with BPH in our study did show improvement from baseline to Month 6 in unadjusted mean (SD) IIEF-EF domain score (5.7 [6.7]); Additional file 5). However, self-reported prevalence of BPH was small (6.3 %), and a full baseline assessment of LUTS/BPH was not actively performed. Thus, our findings in the small number of patients with BPH should be interpreted with caution.

In our study, diabetes significantly impacted the changes in IIEF domains of EF, orgasmic function, intercourse satisfaction, and overall satisfaction, i.e., patients with diabetes showed more improvement than patients without diabetes. This may have occurred because patients with diabetes had more severe ED at baseline. According to the MALES study, men with diabetes were more likely to perceive their ED to be severe and permanent vs those without diabetes [30]. The efficacy of tadalafil OaD for ED treatment in males with diabetes has been previously evaluated in a placebo controlled, randomised multicentre study, showing statistically significant improvements in the IIEF-EF (p ≤ 0.005), intercourse satisfaction (p = 0.033), and overall satisfaction (p < 0.001) domain scores vs placebo [31].

There was no significant effect of CVD, dyslipidemia, and hypertension on any of the IIEF domain scores, similar to results from previous studies. In an integrated analysis of data from 6 randomised controlled trials, patients with ED receiving tadalafil 2.5 and 5 mg OaD experienced IIEF-EF LS mean improvements reaching or exceeding the MCID (≥4) regardless of CVD, diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia [29]. Furthermore, in an analysis of 11 placebo-controlled randomised studies, tadalafil on-demand significantly improved IIEF-EF domain score from baseline (p < 0.005 vs placebo) in all subpopulations regardless of age, disease etiology, severity and duration, and presence of comorbid conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, CVD, hyperlipidemia, depression, and BPH [32].

Treatment satisfaction, as assessed by EDITS, was not affected by pretreatment with PDE5 inhibitors, ED etiology, ED severity, or presence of relevant comorbidities in this study. This is consistent with data from a previous randomised study in which patients receiving fixed-dose tadalafil on-demand were significantly more satisfied with their treatment vs placebo (p < 0.001) despite high incidence of severe, organic ED and presence of comorbid conditions [33].

Large overall sample size, longitudinal nature, real life setting, and including patients with ED from several countries were important strengths of this study. In addition, to increase the external validity of the study, study sites were selected randomly from a list of investigators who expressed interest in participation and by asking sites to enroll patients consecutively. However, results may still be biased as only sites and investigators with interest were selected. As patients had to pay for their treatment, the study may also be biased towards those with higher education and economic status. The prevalence of comorbidities was based on patient-reported data, and was not confirmed by active baseline assessment by investigators. Thus, results may have been biased by false positive or missed diagnoses, and should be interpreted with caution.

Being an observational study, the patient population within subgroups was not well-defined. The small number of discontinuation events additionally limits the subgroup analysis of time to discontinuation. Nevertheless, this study provides valuable data on the impact of baseline characteristics and presence of comorbidities on continuation rates, and effectiveness and satisfaction of treatment with tadalafil OaD in a naturalistic setting and therefore has implications for everyday clinical practice. Furthermore, ED and CVD have common pathogenic pathways mediated via endothelial dysfunction [34], and it is suggested that tadalafil may potentially provide beneficial effects in patients with coronary artery disease, hypertension, heart failure, pulmonary arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and Raynaud’s phenomenon [35].

Conclusions

This observational study found that under routine clinical conditions, the presence of comorbidities did not have any significant impact on treatment continuation rates and treatment satisfaction among men with ED who choose treatment with tadalafil OaD. Continuation rates and treatment satisfaction were comparatively lower in men older than 65 years. Pretreatment with PDE5 inhibitors, ED severity, and presence or absence of diabetes and BPH had an impact on treatment effectiveness; however, age and presence of hypertension, CVD, dyslipidemia, or ED etiology did not affect IIEF in this cohort. These findings have clinical implications for counseling patients with ED, particularly for discussing expectations after PDE5 inhibitor treatment, as comorbidities are common in these patients, especially in older men.

Abbreviations

BPH: 

benign prostate hyperplasia

CI: 

confidence interval

CVD: 

cardiovascular disease

ED: 

erectile dysfunction

EDITS: 

Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction

EF: 

erectile function

HR: 

hazard ratio

IIEF: 

International Index of Erectile Function

LS mean: 

least squares mean

LUTS: 

lower urinary tract symptoms

MCID: 

minimal clinically important difference

MMRM: 

mixed model for repeated measures

OaD: 

once daily

PDE5-inhibitor: 

phosphodiesterase-type-5 inhibitor

SD: 

standard deviation

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank all patients who volunteered to participate in this trial and all study investigators for their contribution to data acquisition and patient care. We thank Frank G. Boess, Eli Lilly and Company, for contributing to the design of the study and data interpretation. We thank Julia Branicka, Eli Lilly and Company, for supporting the conduct of the study. We thank Kraig Kinchen for medical advice. We thank Clare Barker, Bruce Basson, Ann Gibb, and Xiao Ni, all from Eli Lilly and Company, for statistical support and for their contributions to the statistical analysis plan. Statistical analyses were programmed by PSI CRO LTD, St. Petersburg, Russia. We thank Karin Helsberg, Ph.D., and Dr Pradnya Kulkarni from Trilogy Writing and Consulting GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany, for providing medical writing services on behalf of Eli Lilly and Company.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centre for Sexual and Reproductive Health and 1st Department of Urology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
(2)
Medical Advisor Urology, Eli Lilly Italy S.p.A.
(3)
Private Practice of Urology and Andrology
(4)
Centre d’Etude et de Traitement de la Pathologie de l’Appa reil Reproducteur et de la Psychosomatique (CETPARP)
(5)
Lilly Deutschland GmbH
(6)
Eli Lilly and Company

References

  1. Rosen RC, Fisher WA, Eardley I, Niederberger C, Nadel A, Sand M. Men’s Attitudes to Life Events and Sexuality (MALES) Study. The multinational Men’s Attitudes to Life Events and Sexuality (MALES) study: I. Prevalence of erectile dysfunction and related health concerns in the general population. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20:607–17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Grover SA, Lowensteyn I, Kaouache M, Marchand S, Coupal L, DeCarolis E, et al. The prevalence of erectile dysfunction in the primary care setting: importance of risk factors for diabetes and vascular disease. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:213–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Nehra A. Erectile dysfunction and cardiovascular disease: efficacy and safety of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors in men with both conditions. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84:139–48.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Zaman Huri H, Lian Choo T, Sulaiman CZ, Mark R, Abdul Razack AH. Oral drug treatments in patients with erectile dysfunction and multiple comorbidities: a retrospective observational study. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e005381.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Axilrod AC. Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor therapy: identifying and exploring what attributes matter more to clinicians and patients in the management of erectile dysfunction. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:3189–98.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Mulhall JP, Burnett AL, Wang R, McVary KT, Moul JW, Bowden CH, et al. A phase 3, placebo controlled study of the safety and efficacy of avanafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction after nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2013;189:2229–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Wang H, Yuan J, Hu X, Tao K, Liu J, Hu D. The effectiveness and safety of avanafil for erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30:1565–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldstein I, Lue TF, Padma-Nathan H, Rosen RC, Steers WD, Wicker PA. Oral sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Sildenafil Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:1397–404.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brock GB, McMahon CG, Chen KK, Costigan T, Shen W, Watkins V, et al. Efficacy and safety of tadalafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction: results of integrated analyses. J Urol. 2002;168:1332–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Porst H, Giuliano F, Glina S, Ralph D, Casabé AR, Elion-Mboussa A, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of once-a-day dosing of tadalafil 5mg and 10mg in the treatment of erectile dysfunction: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Eur Urol. 2006;50:351–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Montorsi F, Aversa A, Moncada I, Perimenis P, Porst H, Barker C, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel study to assess the efficacy and safety of once-a-day tadalafil in men with erectile dysfunction who are naïve to PDE5 inhibitors. J Sex Med. 2011;8:2617–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hellstrom WJ, Gittelman M, Karlin G, Segerson T, Thibonnier M, Taylor T, et al. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Tsertsvadze A, Fink HA, Yazdi F, MacDonald R, Bella AJ, Ansari MT, et al. Oral phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors and hormonal treatments for erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:650–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Yuan J, Zhang R, Yang Z, Lee J, Liu Y, Tian J, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2013;63:902–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Giuliano F, Oelke M, Jungwirth A, Hatzimouratidis K, Watts S, Cox D, et al. Tadalafil once daily improves ejaculatory function, erectile function, and sexual satisfaction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia and erectile dysfunction: results from a randomized, placebo- and tamsulosin-controlled, 12-week double-blind study. J Sex Med. 2013;10:857–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Porst H, Roehrborn CG, Secrest RJ, Esler A, Viktrup L. Effects of tadalafil on lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia and on erectile dysfunction in sexually active men with both conditions: analyses of pooled data from four randomized, placebo-controlled tadalafil clinical studies. J Sex Med. 2013;10:2044–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Donatucci CF, Brock GB, Goldfischer ER, Pommerville PJ, Elion-Mboussa A, Kissel JD, et al. Tadalafil administered once daily for lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a 1-year, open-label extension study. BJU Int. 2011;107:1110–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Scranton RE, Goldstein I, Stecher VJ. Erectile dysfunction diagnosis and treatment as a means to improve medication adherence and optimize comorbidity management. J Sex Med. 2013;10:551–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Descazeaud A, de La Taille A, Giuliano F, Desgrandchamps F, Doridot G. Negative effects on sexual function of medications for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Prog Urol. 2015;25:115–27.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Buvat J, Hatzichristou D, Boess FG, Büttner H, Gehchan N, Henneges C, et al. Continuation and effectiveness of tadalafil once daily during a 6-month observational study in erectile dysfunction: the EDATE study. Int J Clin Pract. 2014;68:1087–99.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Althof SE, Corty EW, Levine SB, Levine F, Burnett AL, McVary K, et al. EDITS: development of questionnaires for evaluating satisfaction with treatments for erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1999;53:793–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Roumeguère T, Verheyden B, Arver S, Bitton A, Belger M, Schmitt H. DETECT study investigators. Therapeutic response after first month of tadalafil treatment predicts 12 months treatment continuation in patients with erectile dysfunction: results from the DETECT study. J Sex Med. 2008;5:1708–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rubio-Aurioles E, Reyes LA, Borregales L, Cairoli C, Sorsaburu S. A 6 month, prospective, observational study of PDE5 inhibitor treatment persistence and adherence in Latin American men with erectile dysfunction. Curr Med Res Opin. 2013;29:695–706.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim SC, Lee YS, Seo KK, Jung GW, Kim TH. Reasons and predictive factors for discontinuation of PDE-5 inhibitors despite successful intercourse in erectile dysfunction patients. Int J Impot Res. 2014;26:87–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosen RC, Allen KR, Ni X, Araujo AB. Minimal clinically important differences in the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function scale. Eur Urol. 2011;60:1010–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Buvat J, Büttner H, Hatzimouratidis K, Vendeira PA, Moncada I, Boehmer M, et al. Adherence to initial PDE-5 inhibitor treatment: randomized open-label study comparing tadalafil once a day, tadalafil on demand, and sildenafil on demand in patients with erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2013;10:1592–602.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. El Khiat Y, Ghazi S, Allam A, Khawaja M, Belger M, Tamer M, et al. Psychosocial impact and effectiveness of tadalafil among treatment-naïve and previously-treated men with erectile dysfunction in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf-region countries. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24:1965–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Porst H, Gacci M, Büttner H, Henneges C, Boess F. Tadalafil once daily in men with erectile dysfunction: an integrated analysis of data obtained from 1913 patients from six randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical studies. Eur Urol. 2014;65:455–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Eardley I, Fisher W, Rosen RC, Niederberger C, Nadel A, Sand M. The multinational Men’s Attitudes to Life Events and Sexuality study: the influence of diabetes on self-reported erectile function, attitudes and treatment-seeking patterns in men with erectile dysfunction. Int J Clin Pract. 2007;61:1446–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hatzichristou D, Gambla M, Rubio-Aurioles E, Buvat J, Brock GB, Spera G, et al. Efficacy of tadalafil once daily in men with diabetes mellitus and erectile dysfunction. Diabet Med. 2008;25:138–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewis RW, Sadovsky R, Eardley I, O’Leary M, Seftel A, Wang WC, et al. The efficacy of tadalafil in clinical populations. J Sex Med. 2005;2:517–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Carson C, Shabsigh R, Segal S, Murphy A, Fredlund P, Kuepfer C. Trial Evaluating the Activity of Tadalafil for Erectile Dysfunction-United States (TREATED-US) Study Group. Efficacy, safety, and treatment satisfaction of tadalafil versus placebo in patients with erectile dysfunction evaluated at tertiary-care academic centers. Urology. 2005;65:353–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Jackson G, Rosen RC, Kloner RA, Kostis JB. The second Princeton consensus on sexual dysfunction and cardiac risk: new guidelines for sexual medicine. J Sex Med. 2006;3:28–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Chrysant SG. Effectiveness and safety of phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors in patients with cardiovascular disease and hypertension. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2013;15:475–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Hatzichristou et al. 2015

Advertisement