The POTENT II randomised trial: efficacy and safety of an orodispersible vardenafil formulation for the treatment of erectile dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of 10 mg vardenafil orodispersible tablet (ODT) vs. placebo in a general population of men with erectile dysfunction (ED). METHODS: This was a double-blind, multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study conducted at 35 centres in Australia, Canada, Mexico and the United States. Subjects aged > or =18 years, with ED for at least 6 months, were randomised to receive 12 weeks of on-demand treatment with either 10 mg vardenafil ODT or placebo. Each treatment group was stratified such that approximately half of the subjects were aged > or = 65 years. Primary efficacy variables were the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) and Sexual Encounter Profile questions 2 (SEP2) and 3 (SEP3). Secondary variables included SEP diary questions 1, 4, 5 and 6, the patient version of the Treatment Satisfaction Scale (TSS) and the Global Assessment Question (GAQ). RESULTS: Of the 473 men enrolled in the study (51.4% aged > or =65 years), 331 were included in the intent-to-treat population (vardenafil ODT, n = 169; placebo, n = 162). Vardenafil ODT therapy was statistically significantly superior to placebo for all primary (i.e. IIEF-EF, SEP2, SEP3) and secondary efficacy variables (p < 0.0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly mild to moderate in severity, and comparable in both incidence and type with those of the film-coated tablet formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with 10 mg vardenafil ODT, taken on demand, significantly improved erectile function and was effective and well tolerated in a broad population of men with ED.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".