Efficacy and Safety of Tadalafil in Men with Erectile Dysfunction with a High Prevalence of Comorbid Conditions: Results from MOMENTUS: Multiple Observations in Men with Erectile Dysfunction in National Tadalafil Study in the US
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Limited efficacy and safety data exist from open-label clinical trials of phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors in men with erectile dysfunction (ED) and multiple comorbid (MCM) conditions, historically a difficult group to treat. AIM: A multicenter study (Multiple Observations in Men with Erectile Dysfunction in National Tadalafil Study in the US) assessed efficacy and safety of tadalafil in men with ED and MCM conditions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was change from baseline in the erectile function (EF) domain of the International Index of Erectile Function. Secondary end points included the Sexual Encounter Profile, Global Assessment Questions, and Sexual Self-Confidence and Spontaneity Domains of the Psychological and Interpersonal Relationship Scales. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicenter study in men with ED. Tadalafil 20 mg was administered as needed prior to sexual activity, up to once/day, for 12 weeks following a 4-week ED-treatment-free period. The MCM group was 155 of 1,911 men enrolled in this study. Men in the MCM group met eligibility criteria but could not be included in other predefined groups: (i) Caucasian; (ii) Black American; (iii) Hispanic (groups 1-3, 65 years, no diabetes or depression; and (vii) ED subsequent to traumatic spinal cord injury. RESULTS: Mean baseline EF domain score in MCM (mean age 65 +/- 9 years) was 12.2 +/- 6.5; 52% of subjects had severe ED; 72% diabetes mellitus; 67% cardiovascular disease (including…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,911 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.