Home  |   Archive  |   Online Submission  |   News & Events  |   Subscribe  |   APFA  |   Society  |   Contact Us  |   中文版
Search   
 
Journal

-Ahead of print
-Authors' Accepted
    Manuscripts
new!
-Current Issue
-Archive
-Acknowledgments
-Special Issues
-Browse by Category

Manuscript Submission

-Online Submission
-Online Review
-Instruction for Authors
-Instruction for Reviewers
-English Corner new!

About AJA

-About AJA
-Editorial Board
-Contact Us
-News

Resources & Services

-Advertisement
-Subscription
-Email alert
-Proceedings
-Reprints

Download area

-Copyright licence
-EndNote style file
-Manuscript word template
-Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in English)

-Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in Chinese)

-Proof-reading for the
    authors

-AJA Club (in English)
-AJA Club (in Chinese)

 
Abstract

Volume 16, Issue 3 (May 2014) 16, 472–477; 10.4103/1008-682X.123670

Avanafil for male erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yuan-Shan Cui, Nan Li, Huan-Tao Zong, Hui-Lei Yan and Yong Zhang

Department of Urology, Beijing Tian-Tan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China.

Correspondence: Dr. Y Zhang (doctorzhy@126.com)

Received: 28 June 2013; Revised: 14 September 2013; Accepted: 02 December 2013

Abstract

Avanafil, a potent new selective phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor, has been developed for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of this drug for the treatment of ED. A literature review was performed to identify all published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of avanafil for the treatment of ED. The search included the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. The reference lists of the retrieved studies were also investigated. Four publications, involving a total of 1381 patients, were used in the analysis, including four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared avanafil with a placebo. Among the co-primary efficacy end points indicating that avanafil 100 mg was more effective than a placebo were successful vaginal penetration (SEP2) (the odds ratio (OR)=5.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) =3.29–7.78, P<0.00001) and successful intercourse (SEP3) (OR=3.99, 95% CI=2.80–5.67, P<0.00001). Men randomized to receive avanafil were less likely than those receiving the placebo to drop out due to an AE (adverse event) (OR=1.48, 95% CI=0.54–4.08, P=0.44). Specific AEs with avanafil included headache and flushing, which were significantly less likely to occur with placebo. This meta-analysis indicates that avanafil 100 mg or 200 mg is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for ED. Compared with avanafil 100 mg, patients who take avanafil 200 mg are more likely to experience headaches.

Keywords: avanafil; erectile dysfunction; meta-analysis; randomized controlled trial

Full Text | PDF | 中文摘要 |

 
Browse:  3301
 
Asian Journal of Andrology CN 31-1795/R ISSN 1008-682X  Copyright © 2023  Shanghai Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences.  All rights reserved.