Tadalafil for Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction in Men on Antidepressants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this post hoc analysis was to evaluate tadalafil, a treatment indicated for erectile dysfunction (ED), in men on antidepressants. METHOD: A retrospective, pooled analysis of 19 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (N = 3864) identified 205 men with ED, mean age of 55 years (range, 27-79 years) receiving antidepressants and tadalafil 10 mg (n = 38), tadalafil 20 mg (n = 113), or placebo (n = 54). Efficacy was measured by the International Index of Erectile Function erectile function domain score, the Sexual Encounter Profile diary, and a Global Assessment Question. Tolerability was assessed via collection and analysis of treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: Patients on antidepressants who were treated with tadalafil showed significantly greater baseline-to-end point improvement on the International Index of Erectile Function score compared with placebo (end point: tadalafil 10 mg, 21.7; tadalafil 20 mg, 21.8; placebo, 14.5; both P < 0.01). The mean per-patient percent successful intercourse postbaseline was also greater with tadalafil 10 mg (54%) and tadalafil 20 mg (59%) than placebo (29%, both P < 0.05). Patients taking tadalafil 10 (72%) and 20 (76%) mg both reported significant improvement in erections on the Global Assessment Question compared with placebo (33%, both P < 0.01). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was low in all treatment groups with the most common being headache, dyspepsia, and back pain. CONCLUSION: Tadalafil was well tolerated and improved erectile function in patients taking antidepressant medications.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".