Vardenafil is effective and well‐tolerated for treating erectile dysfunction in a broad population of men, irrespective of age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of vardenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) in men of different age groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective pooled subgroup analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, men from the general population with ED received either placebo or vardenafil 5, 10 or 20 mg over 12 weeks. Efficacy variables included the erectile function (EF) domain score from The International Index of Erectile Function, diary response rates to questions on vaginal penetration and maintenance of erection, and positive responses to the Global Assessment Question (GAQ) "Has the treatment you have been taking over the past 4 weeks improved your erections?'. The 1385 men were grouped by age (< 45, 45-64 and > or =65 years). RESULTS: At 12 weeks the EF domain scores approached 20 with vardenafil and 14 with placebo in men aged > or = 65 years (P < 0.03 vardenafil 5 mg vs placebo, P < 0.001 vardenafil 10 and 20 mg vs placebo). The corresponding scores were 22 and 14 in men aged 45-64 years and up to 24 and 16 in those aged <45 years (P < 0.03 vardenafil 5 mg vs placebo, P < 0.001 vardenafil 10 and 20 mg vs placebo). Vardenafil generated positive GAQ responses in approximately 71%, 76% and 85% of men aged <45, 45-64 and > or = 65 years (P < or = 0.001 vardenafil vs placebo). The corresponding placebo rates were 23%, 25% and 34%. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were headache, rhinitis, flushing and dyspepsia, which were mild to moderate, transient and unrelated to age. CONCLUSION: Vardenafil is an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment for ED, irrespective of age.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".