Vardenafil Improves Patient Satisfaction with Erection Hardness, Orgasmic Function, and Overall Sexual Experience, While Improving Quality of Life in Men with Erectile Dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The North American Pivotal Trial was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of vardenafil in males with erectile dysfunction (ED). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, fixed-dose, parallel group, 6-month study, vardenafil at three doses (5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg) was compared to placebo with the primary efficacy variables being the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) Erectile Function (EF) domain score and per patient diary response success rates for penetration and maintenance of erection through completion of intercourse. Additional efficacy variables included IIEF domain scores measuring intercourse satisfaction, orgasmic function, sexual desire, and overall satisfaction. Diary entries for overall per patient satisfaction rates for hardness and sexual experience were also measured. Improvements in quality of sexual life were assessed using the Fugl-Meyer quality of life (QoL) questionnaire. RESULTS: Compared to placebo, patients taking 10 mg and 20 mg doses of vardenafil showed statistically significantly greater improvement in IIEF domain scores measuring intercourse satisfaction (10.3 and 10.3 vs. 7.7), orgasmic function (7.1 and 6.9 vs. 5.3), overall satisfaction. (7.1 and 7.1 vs. 5.2) for vardenafil 10 mg and 20 mg vs. placebo, respectively, at last observation carried forward (LOCF). Vardenafil 5 mg was statistically significantly better than placebo for the secondary IIEF domain variables of intercourse satisfaction (8.9 vs. 7.7) and overall satisfaction (6.3 vs. 5.2) for vardenafil vs. placebo, respectively, at LOCF. Per patient satisfaction rates for the secondary diary variables measuring erection hardness (38%, 52%, 58% and 18%) and overall satisfaction (45%, 58%, 62% and 23%) were dose dependent and statistically significantly superior for vardenafil at 5 mg, 10 mg and 20 mg compared with placebo, respectively. Patients' answers to the Fugl-Meyer QoL questionnaire assessing improvement in sexual life also indicated statistically significant superiority for all doses of vardenafil vs. placebo treatment. The most frequent adverse events (AE) in the 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg of vardenafil and placebo groups, respectively, were: headache (10%, 22%, 21% and 4%), flushing (5%, 10%, 13% and 0%), dyspepsia (1%, 4%, 6% and < 1%), and rhinitis (9%, 14%, 17% and 5%). Most AEs were mild or moderate in severity and transient in nature. CONCLUSION: Vardenafil was superior to placebo for IIEF domain scores, per patient success rates for diary questions, and assessment of quality of sexual life, in a broad range of patients with ED irrespective of etiology or severity. Vardenafil was generally well tolerated, with most AEs being mild or moderate in severity and transient in nature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".