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:  1928
 
Copyright 1999-2017  Shanghai Materia Medica, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.  All rights reserved