comparison of the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing and on-demand use of udenafil for type 2 diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction
Clicks: 176
ID: 163631
2015
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
176 views
39 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #22 of 38 articles by views in softwarex
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
We compared the efficacy and safety between once-daily dosing and on-demand use of udenafil for type 2 diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction (ED). A multi-center, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, 12-week study was conducted. 161 patients who improved with on-demand 200 mg of udenafil according to Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) diary Question 2 and 3 (Q2 and Q3) were randomized into 200 mg on-demand (n = 80) or 50 mg once-daily (n = 81) dosing groups for 8 weeks. The dosing period was followed by a 4-week treatment-free period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) erectile function domain (EFD) score. The secondary efficacy endpoints included changes to the SEP diary Q2, Q3, IIEF Q3, Q4, other domains of IIEF, Global Assessment Question, and shift to the normal rate (EFD ≥ 26). Vascular endothelial markers were also assessed. The IIEF-EFD score of both groups improved after 8 weeks of treatment (P < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference between two groups. Improvement was not maintained after the treatment-free follow-up period. Similar results were observed in the secondary efficacy endpoints. There was also no significant difference in vascular endothelial markers. Daily udenafil was well-tolerated, and there was no significant difference in the adverse drug reactions and adverse events between the two groups. Flushing and headache were the most frequent adverse events. Both regimens improved ED in diabetic patients and were well-tolerated. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of daily udenafil treatment in diabetic patients.
| Reference Key |
park2015asiancomparison
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Soon Hyun Park; Sung Woo Park;Bong Yun Cha; Ie Byung Park; Kyung Wan Min; Yeon Ah Sung; Tae Hwa Kim;Jae Min Lee;Kang Seo Park |
| Journal | softwarex |
| Year | 2015 |
| DOI |
10.4103/1008-682X.135983
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.