Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11896479›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of impotence research2002

Combination therapy for erectile dysfunction: a randomized, double blind, unblinded active-controlled, cross-over study of the pharmacodynamics and safety of combined oral formulations of apomorphine hydrochloride, phentolamine mesylate and papaverine hydrochloride in men with moderate to severe erectile dysfunction.

P I Lammers, E Rubio-Aurioles, R Castell, J Castaneda, R Ponce de Leon, D Hurley, M Lipezker, L A Loehr, F Lowrey

Abstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of impotence research, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

P I LammersZonagen, Inc., The Woodlands, TX 77380, USA. plammers@zonagen.com
E Rubio-Aurioles
R Castell
J Castaneda
R Ponce de Leon
D Hurley
M Lipezker
L A Loehr
F Lowrey
Asociación Mexicana de Psicología y Desarrollo Comunitario · MXHospital General de México · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oral therapy has become first line treatment for patients with mild to moderate erectile dysfunction (ED). Studies have shown that sildenafil may not be effective in all patients, and has been associated with a variety of adverse effects and an adverse interaction with nitrates and inhibitors of cytochrome P450 enzymes. The objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of three different oral combinations with the highest dose of sildenafil in men with moderate to severe ED. Randomized, double blind, unblinded active-controlled, Phase II study was carried out at three sites in Mexico. After a 4-week placebo run-in period, patients received all four of the following treatments using a 4-way cross-over design: 40 mg phentolamine (PM) +6 mg apomorphine (Apo); 40 mg PM +150 mg papaverine (Pap); 40 mg PM +6 mg Apo +150 mg Pap (Tricombo); 100 mg sildenafil (SC). With the exception of sildenafil tablets, all study medication was blinded. Moderate to severe ED was defined as a less than 50% vaginal penetration success rate during the placebo run-in period. A total of 44 patients were enrolled, of whom 36 completed all four treatment periods. All treatments produced a significant effect in primary efficacy variable (Sexual Encounter Profile) compared to baseline, however, no statistically significant differences were found between treatments. A significant period effect was observed. Also, the four treatments were found not to differ significantly in five out of six secondary efficacy variables. The lowest incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AE) occurred in the 40 mg PM +6 mg Apo group (9.8%), followed by 100 mg SC (15%), and the other two combinations (16.7 and 17.5%, respectively). Nasocongestion and headache were the most frequently reported AE. An oral combination of vasoactive agents may provide an alternative approach to sildenafil. Based on these results a combination of phentolamine and apomorphine warrants further clinical investigation.

Indexed as

Adrenergic alpha-AntagonistsApomorphineCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodDrug CombinationsErectile DysfunctionHumansMalePapaverinePhentolaminePiperazinesPurinesSafetySeverity of Illness IndexSildenafil CitrateSulfonesAdrenergic alpha-AntagonistsApomorphineDrug CombinationsPapaverinePhentolaminePiperazinesPurinesSildenafil CitrateSulfonesVasodilator Agents

Identifiers

PMID11896479
OpenAlexW2039508310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.