CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Intracavernous alprostadil alfadex is more efficacious, better tolerated, and preferred over intraurethral alprostadil plus optional actis: a comparative, randomized, crossover, multicenter study.

Urology 2000 January
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, and patient preference of intracavernously administered alprostadil alfadex and intraurethrally administered alprostadil.

METHODS: A crossover, randomized, open-label multicenter study of 111 patients with erectile dysfunction of at least 6 months' duration compared the efficacy, safety, and patient preference of intracavernosal alprostadil (EDEX/Viridal) with MUSE plus optional ACTIS. All patients underwent an in-office dose titration with either drug before undertaking an at-home treatment phase. The most frequently used doses during the at-home phase were 40 microg (44.1% of men) and 1000 microg (86.8% of men) for EDEX and MUSE, respectively; the mean doses were 26.1 microg and 922.5 microg for EDEX and MUSE, respectively.

RESULTS: More EDEX than MUSE administrations resulted in an erection sufficient for sexual intercourse (82.5% versus 53.0%); significantly more patients using EDEX achieved at least one erection sufficient for sexual intercourse (92.6% versus 61.8%; P <0.0001); and EDEX use resulted in a significantly greater percentage of patients attaining at least 75% of erections sufficient for sexual intercourse (75% versus 36.8%; P <0.0001). Penile pain was the most common side effect for both medications: 20.0% versus 30.5% (in-office) and 33.8% versus 25.0% (at-home) for EDEX and MUSE, respectively. Similar numbers of adverse events were reported with either treatment during the at-home phase. Patient and partner satisfaction was greater with EDEX, and more patients preferred this therapy, choosing to continue it during a patient preference period at the end of the study.

CONCLUSIONS: Since intracavernous injection therapy was more efficacious, better tolerated, and preferred by the patients and their partners, it should be offered as the first-choice treatment if oral therapy fails or is contraindicated.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app