Efficacy and Safety of On-Demand Use of 2 Treatments Designed for Different Etiologies of Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder: 3 Randomized Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In women, low sexual desire and/or sexual arousal can lead to sexual dissatisfaction and emotional distress, collectively defined as female sexual interest/arousal disorder (FSIAD). Few pharmaceutical treatment options are currently available. AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety of 2 novel on-demand pharmacologic treatments that have been designed to treat 2 FSIAD subgroups (women with low sensitivity for sexual cues and women with dysfunctional over-activation of sexual inhibition) using a personalized medicine approach using an allocation formula based on genetic, hormonal, and psychological variables developed to predict drug efficacy in the subgroups. METHODS: 497 women (21-70 years old) with FSIAD were randomized to 1 of 12 8-week treatment regimens in 3 double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-finding studies conducted at 16 research sites in the United States. Efficacy and safety of the following on-demand treatments was tested: placebo, testosterone (T; 0.5 mg), sildenafil (S; 50 mg), buspirone (B; 10 mg) and combination therapies (T 0.25 mg + S 25 mg, T 0.25 mg + S 50 mg, T 0.5 mg + S 25 mg, T 0.5 mg + S 50 mg, and T 0.25 mg + B 5 mg, T 0.25 mg + B 10 mg, T 0.5 mg + B 5 mg, T 0.5 mg + B 10 mg). OUTCOMES: The primary efficacy measure was the change in satisfying sexual events (SSEs) from the 4-week baseline to the 4-week average of the 8-week active treatment period after medication intake. For the primary end points, the combination treatments were compared with placebo and the respective monotherapies on this measure. RESULTS: In women with low sensitivity for sexual cues, 0.5 mg T + 50 mg S increased the number of SSEs from baseline compared with placebo (difference in change [Δ] = 1.70, 95% CI = 0.57-2.84, P = .004) and monotherapies (S: Δ = 1.95, 95% CI = 0.44-3.45, P = .012; T: Δ = 1.69, 95% CI = 0.58-2.80, P = .003). In women with overactive inhibition, 0.5 mg T + 10 mg B increased the number of SSEs from baseline compared with placebo (Δ = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.17-1.82, P = .019) and monotherapies (B: Δ = 1.52, 95% CI = 0.57-2.46, P = .002; T: Δ = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.17-1.78, P = .018). Secondary end points followed this pattern of results. The most common drug-related side effects were flushing (T + S treatment, 3%; T + B treatment, 2%), headache (placebo treatment, 2%; T + S treatment, 9%), dizziness (T + B treatment, 3%), and nausea (T + S treatment, 3%; T + B treatment, 2%). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: T + S and T + B are promising treatments for women with FSIAD. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: The data were collected in 3 well-designed randomized clinical trials that tested multiple doses in a substantial number of women. The influence of T + S and T + B on distress and the potentially sustained improvements after medication cessation were not investigated. CONCLUSIONS: T + S and T + B are well tolerated and safe and significantly increase the number of SSEs in different FSIAD subgroups. Tuiten A, van Rooij K, Bloemers J, et al. Efficacy and Safety of On-Demand Use of 2 Treatments Designed for Different Etiologies of Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder: 3 Randomized Clinical Trials. J Sex Med 2018;15:201-216.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".