Vardenafil Improves Erectile Function in Men with Erectile Dysfunction and Associated Underlying Conditions, Irrespective of the Use of Concomitant Medications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Men with erectile dysfunction (ED) are also likely to have associated underlying conditions. AIM: This retrospective analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of vardenafil in men with ED and underlying conditions, including those taking concomitant medications. METHODS: A total of 13 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies were included. Vardenafil was administered at a starting dose of 10 mg, adjustable to 5 or 20 mg after 4 weeks. Efficacy analyses were performed on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, using a last observation carried forward approach. Efficacy was assessed for subgroups of patients with diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or metabolic syndrome (as defined by International Diabetes Federation criteria). Incidence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were analyzed overall and by subgroup for patients in the safety population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary efficacy measures were the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF), and Sexual Encounter Profile questions 2 and 3 (SEP2, SEP3). RESULTS: In total, 4,326 patients were randomized to treatment; the ITT population included 4,143 patients, with 4,266 patients valid for safety. At 12 weeks, vardenafil therapy was associated with statistically significant improvements from baseline in IIEF-EF scores, and SEP2 and SEP3 success rates, including patients with ED and diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or metabolic syndrome. These improvements were irrespective of level of glycemic control, or use of concomitant medications for the treatment of diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia. Across all subgroups, the number and type of treatment-emergent adverse events were consistent with results from previous studies of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors in men with ED and underlying conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Vardenafil demonstrated favorable efficacy and tolerability in this large pool of patients with ED and underlying conditions. Importantly, the use of concomitant medications was not associated with any noteworthy changes in the efficacy or safety profile of vardenafil.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".