Treatment benefit of dapoxetine for premature ejaculation: results from a placebo‐controlled phase III trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the overall treatment benefit of dapoxetine for premature ejaculation (PE), with specific emphasis on improvements in personal distress and interpersonal difficulty related to ejaculation. Although these factors are key elements of numerous sets of diagnostic criteria for PE, they have rarely been evaluated as outcome measures in clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial we enrolled men aged > or =18 years, from the USA and Canada, who had a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, text revision, diagnosis of PE (1238 men). Men were randomized to receive placebo or dapoxetine 60 mg as needed or once daily for 9 weeks. The once-daily treatment arm was included for analysis of withdrawal symptoms (primary endpoint; presented elsewhere). Patients completed the Premature Ejaculation Profile (PEP) on day 1 (before dosing), and on days 28 and 63 (or study endpoint), which comprised the outcome measures for perceived control over ejaculation, satisfaction with sexual intercourse, and personal distress and interpersonal difficulty related to ejaculation. The patient-reported global impression of change in PE was reported on day 63 (or study endpoint). Treatment benefit measures included the composite criteria of at least a two-category increase in perceived control over ejaculation and at least a one-category decrease in personal distress related to ejaculation from baseline at study endpoint. RESULTS: At baseline, approximately 5% of patients in any treatment group reported 'not at all' or 'a little bit' of personal distress related to ejaculation, which increased to 54.3% of those receiving dapoxetine (vs 35.3% with placebo; P < 0.001). Similarly, 43.0% and 40.9% of men in the placebo and dapoxetine groups, respectively, reported 'not at all' or 'a little bit' of interpersonal difficulty related to ejaculation at baseline, which increased to 76.8% and 64.2% of those with dapoxetine and placebo, respectively (P < 0.001). The percentage of men who achieved the composite criteria with dapoxetine 'as needed' was 47.6%, vs 21.7% with placebo (difference from placebo, 25.9%; P < 0.001). The distribution of responses for the PEP among men who achieved the composite criteria was similar to that reported for men without PE in a previous observational study in the USA. The most common adverse events were nausea, dizziness, headache, diarrhoea and insomnia, which were more common with dapoxetine than with placebo. CONCLUSION: Dapoxetine reduced the personal distress and interpersonal difficulty associated with PE, and was associated with patient-reported improvements in their condition. The percentage of patients who achieved a composite of a two-category or greater increase in perceived control over ejaculation and a one-category or greater decrease in personal distress related to ejaculation was substantially greater than with placebo, as were all outcome measures.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».