The Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction study: focus on treatment satisfaction of patients and partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess patient and partner preferences for, and satisfaction with, tadalafil or sildenafil (phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors) in routine clinical practice for treating erectile dysfunction (ED), as these are important outcomes that might influence treatment adherence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicentre, prospective observational trial in Canada, patients with ED were eligible if they planned to change treatment from tadalafil to sildenafil or vice versa. Data were collected at baseline and 4-12 weeks later (endpoint). Satisfaction was assessed using patient and partner versions of the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire. EDITS index scores range from 0 (extremely low treatment satisfaction) to 100 (extremely high treatment satisfaction). RESULTS: Of 2425 patients, approximately 98% completed the study and 295 partners participated. When patients changed from sildenafil to tadalafil (1722 men) the mean EDITS index scores increased significantly for both patients (from 61.6 to 78.3) and partners (from 65.0 to 82.6; both P < 0.001). When patients changed from tadalafil to sildenafil (703 men), the mean EDITS index scores increased slightly but significantly for patients (from 68.8 to 70.2; P = 0.007) but not partners (from 76.8 to 68.9; P = 0.066). For the individual EDITS questions, mean scores increased significantly from baseline to endpoint on all questions for patients (all 11 questions; P < 0.001) and partners (all five questions; P < 0.001) in the sildenafil-to-tadalafil group, and in the tadalafil-to-sildenafil group, mean scores for patients decreased on nine of 11 questions (seven of nine significantly; P < 0.041) and mean scores for partners decreased on all five (two significantly; P < 0.049). For treatment preference, regardless of the change in treatment (i.e. sildenafil-tadalafil or tadalafil-sildenafil), a significantly higher percentage of patients and partners preferred tadalafil to sildenafil. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that patients with ED (and their partners) who changed from sildenafil to tadalafil treatment or vice versa in a routine clinical practice setting had higher treatment satisfaction when taking tadalafil than sildenafil, as assessed by most measures of EDITS. The higher treatment satisfaction with tadalafil might help to explain the greater preference for tadalafil compared with sildenafil in both patients and partners in this observational study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".