Efficacy of Continuous Dosing of Tadalafil Once Daily vs Tadalafil On Demand in Clinical Subgroups of Men with Erectile Dysfunction: A Descriptive Comparison Using the Integrated Tadalafil Databases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Various factors play a role in the development of erectile dysfunction (ED). AIM: To provide a descriptive comparison of erectile function response for tadalafil on-demand (PRN) and once-daily (OAD) dosing regimens in patients with common comorbid conditions, treatments, or risk factors that can be considered when treating ED. METHODS: In total, 17 PRN and 4 OAD placebo-controlled studies were included in the integrated database in these pooled analyses. Data were analyzed from patients treated with placebo, tadalafil 10 mg (low dose), and 20 mg (high dose) for the PRN studies and placebo, tadalafil 2.5 mg (low dose), and 5 mg (high dose) for the OAD studies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The effects of tadalafil were measured using the International Index of Erectile Function administered from baseline to week 12. A descriptive comparison of the efficacy of tadalafil PRN vs OAD was examined in the clinical populations. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of 4,354 men were comparable between the PRN and OAD groups, with differences seen only in the variables of race, body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m(2), and alcohol use. Tadalafil was efficacious at improving erectile function for all clinical populations, except for the low-dose OAD group, which demonstrated a weaker effect vs placebo than the high-dose OAD group, and the low- and high-dose PRN groups vs placebo for patients with BMI of at least 30 kg/m(2) for patients without a cardiovascular disorder, smokers, patients with ED duration shorter than 1 year, and patients without previous phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor use. Tadalafil was efficacious for patients with or without diabetes mellitus, arterial hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and alcohol use at baseline. CONCLUSION: Tadalafil OAD and PRN regimens showed efficacy in patients with ED. No clinical populations of patients with ED seemed to benefit overwhelmingly from one dose regimen over the other.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".