Cardiovascular Safety of Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors After Nearly 2 Decades on the Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) inhibitors that have been available for nearly 20 years are highly effective in treating erectile dysfunction and have been consistently shown to be safe when used according to package insert instructions. AIM: To review the cardiovascular (CV) safety of PDE5 inhibitors used to treat erectile dysfunction. METHODS: PubMed, the Derwent Drug File, and Embase were searched to identify papers published from 1990-2016 presenting CV safety data for PDE5 inhibitors. OUTCOMES: This narrative review focuses mainly on papers published in the last 10 years with CV safety data for sildenafil, tadalafil, or vardenafil. RESULTS: Similar to earlier studies, newer studies demonstrate that PDE5 inhibitors do not show an increased incidence of serious CV adverse events such as cardiac death or myocardial infarction. There are drug-drug interactions with PDE5 inhibitors that for the most part are now commonly known, and PDE5 inhibitors are generally safe to use with other commonly used drugs including antihypertensive agents. CONCLUSION: PDE5 inhibitors are a class of drugs that when used appropriately demonstrate a favorable CV safety profile and present some encouraging signals for new CV indications, which will require additional study. Kloner RA, Goldstein I, Kirby MG, et al. Cardiovascular Safety of Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors After Nearly 2 Decades on the Market. Sex Med Rev 2018;6:583-594.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".