Tools for Practice Outils pour la pratique


#245 Taking a hard look at the evidence: Phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors in erectile dysfunction


CLINICAL QUESTION
QUESTION CLINIQUE
What is the efficacy and safety of phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors (PDE5 inhibitors) for erectile dysfunction?


BOTTOM LINE
RÉSULTAT FINAL
PDE5 inhibitors increase the proportion of successful sexual intercourse attempts to ~65% versus ~30% for placebo. For every 3 men given a PDE5 inhibitor compared to placebo, an additional 1 will have “improved erections”.  



CFPCLearn Logo

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits

La lecture d'articles d'outils de pratique peut vous permettre de gagner des crédits MainPro+

Join Now S’inscrire maintenant

Already a CFPCLearn Member? Log in

Déjà abonné à CMFCApprendre? Ouvrir une session



EVIDENCE
DONNÉES PROBANTES
All results statistically significant unless indicated. 
  • Systematic review, 130 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of most PDE5 inhibitors (sildenafil, vardenafil, tadalafil, mirodenafiludenafil), over 30,000 patients with erectile dysfunction of any cause.1,2 After ~12 weeks: 
    • Proportion of successful sexual intercourse attempts (erection sufficiently hard and long lasting for satisfactory intercourse): 
      • ~65% versus ~30% (placebo). 
    • Proportion of patients with self-reported “improved erections” using PDE5 inhibitors: 
      • ~78% versus 31% (placebo), Number Needed to Treat (NNT)=3. 
  • Systematic review, 118 RCTs, n=31,195, all PDE5 inhibitors:3 
    • Proportion of patients with “improved erections”: ~79% versus ~29% (placebo); NNT=2. 
  • Systematic review, 8 RCTs, n=1759, men with diabetes:4 
    • Proportion of patients with “improved erections”: ~58% for PDE5 inhibitors versus ~15% placebo; NNT=3. 
  • Adverse effects: 
    • Any adverse event:1 ~44% versus ~24% (placebo), mainly headache, flushing, dyspepsia. 
    • Withdrawal due to adverse effects: Sildenafil5, vardenafil2 not different from placebo, tadalafil 1.6-3.2% versus 1.3% placebo5, number needed to harm=52-333. 
  • Limitations: 
    • Majority of RCTs unclear randomization concealment/blinding methods.1,6,7 
    • Many RCTs industry supported.1,2 
    • Other systematic reviews inadequately reported symptom scores or used scales with limited clinical meaning.5,6,8,9 
Context:  
  • Prevalence of erectile dysfunction is ~30-50% in men aged 40–70; increases with age and comorbidities.1,5  
  • Contraindicated with concurrent nitrate use.2 
  • All PDE5 inhibitors: $50-$65 for 4 tabs (or $13-$16/tablet independent of dose) and not generally covered by public drug plans.10  
    • Cost may be reduced by pill splitting. 
  • On-demand versus daily dosing of tadalafil: no clinically meaningful difference in change of erectile function and no difference in adverse event discontinuation rates.6,7 


Latest Tools for Practice
Derniers outils pour la pratique

#367 Oral Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Antagonists: A painfully long name for the acute treatment of migraines

What are the risks and benefits of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of episodic migraines?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#366 Looking for Closure: Managing simple excisions or wounds efficiently

What are some options for efficiency in wound closure?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

#365 Shrooms for Glooms: Evidence for psilocybin for depression

What are the benefits and harms of psilocybin for treatment-resistant/recurrent depression?
Read Lire 0.25 credits available Crédits disponibles

This content is certified for MainPro+ Credits, log in to access

Ce contenu est certifié pour les crédits MainPro+, Ouvrir une session


Author(s)
Auteur(s)
  • Lindsey Ziegler BSc BPharm
  • Caitlin R Finley BHSc MSc
  • Adrienne J Lindblad BSP ACPR PharmD

1. Tsertsvadze MD, Fink H, Yazdi F, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151(9):650-661.

2. Tsertsvadze A, Yazdi F, Fink H, et al. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 171 (prepared by the University of Ottawa Evidence-based Practice Centre (OU-EPC) under Contract No. 290-02-0021). AHRQ publication No. 08(09)-E016, Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. May 2009.  Available at: https://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/erectiledys/erecdys.pdf Accessed 31 May 2019.

3. Yuan J, Zhang R, Yang Z, et al. Eur Urol. 2013; 63:902-912.

4. Vardi M and Nini A. Cochrane Database System Rev. 2007; 1:CD002187.

5. Khera M and Goldstein I. BMJ Clinical Evidence. 2011; 06:1803.

6. Peng Z, Yang L, Dong, Q et al. Urol Int. 2017; 99:343-352.

7. Bansal UK, Jones C, Fuller TW et al. Urology. 2018; 112:6-11.

8. Fink H, MacDonald R, Indulis R, et al. Arch Intern Med. 2002; 162:1349-1360.

9. Berner MM, Kriston L and Harms A. Int J Impot Res. 2006; 18:229-235.

10. PEER. Price Comparison of commonly prescribed Pharmaceuticals in Alberta 2019. Available at: https://acfp.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ACFPPricingDoc2019.pdf Accessed 27 June 2019.

Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Les auteurs n’ont aucun conflit d’intérêts à déclarer.