Addressing unmet needs for patients with erectile dysfunction: a narrative review of topical therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Treatment of patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) was revolutionized by the development and approval of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5is), which have been repeatedly shown to be safe and effective in men with this condition. However, some patients do not respond to these agents and others may prefer an alternative therapy. Aim: The objective of this paper is to evaluate topical therapies for ED used in clinical studies, either as single agents or in combination with a PDE5i, and consequently determine which topical therapies meet the criteria of an 'ideal medication for ED.' Methods: The PubMed database was searched to identify clinical studies of topical agents that have been evaluated in men with ED. This review was supplemented by a search of presentations at the 2024 annual meetings of the American Urological Association and Sexual Medicine Society of North America. Results: ethyl ester, nitric oxide donors, testosterone (in selected patients), and a non-medicated hydro-alcoholic gel. The studies reviewed also demonstrated a significant benefit of adding topical alprostadil to therapy in patients with inadequate responses to PDE5is. An effective topical therapy delivered to its site of action with a rapid onset could improve patients' and partners' satisfaction with and acceptance of treatment. These actions have been demonstrated by a new over-the-counter agent, MED3000, authorized by the United States Food and Drug Administration, and for topical alprostadil, which is available with a prescription in the European Union. Clinical Translation: The availability of safe and effective topical ED therapy is an important addition to current treatment options for men with this condition. Strengths and Limitations: This study provides results from a comprehensive search strategy by including a wide range of search criteria. However, the heterogeneity of studies evaluated creates difficulties in directly comparing results from different studies. Conclusion: The results of this analysis show that current topical therapies can provide statistically and clinically significant improvements in erectile function in men with ED and may provide an effective alternative to PDE5i in men who require or prefer an alternative therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".