Evidence Hub

Comparisons of regular and on-demand regimen of PED5-Is in the treatment of ED after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer

Qiu S, Tang Z, Deng L, Liu L, Han P, Yang L, Wei Q

Scientific reports, 2016

3,175 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors (PDE5-Is) have been recommended as first line therapy for erectile dysfunction for patients received nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. We examed the efficiency of PDE5-Is and considered the optimal application. Systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify all the studies. We identified 103 studies including 3175 patients, of which 14 were recruited for systematic review. Compared with placebo, PDE5-Is significantly ameliorated the International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function domain score (IIEF) scores (MD 4.89, 95% CI 4.25-5.53, p < 0.001). By network meta-analysis, sildenafil seems to be the most efficiency with a slightly higher rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEATs), whereas tadalafil had the lowest TEATs. In terms of IIEF scores, regular regimen was remarkably better than on-demand (MD 3.28, 95% CI 1.67-4.89, p < 0.001). Regular use was not associated with higher proportion of patients suffering TEATs compared with on-demand (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90-1.16, p = 0.72). Compared with placebo, PDE5-Is manifested significantly improved treatment outcomes. Overall, regular regimen demonstrated statistically pronounced better potency than on-demand. Coupled with the comparable rate of side effects, these findings support the regular delivery procedure to be a cost-effective option for patients.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 3,175 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

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.

Open this study Sign up free