Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

A comparative, crossover study of the efficacy and safety of sildenafil and apomorphine in men with evidence of arteriogenic erectile dysfunction

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 16, pages 2–7 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

The aim of the study was to establish and compare the efficacy and safety of sildenafil and apomorphine in men with arteriogenic erectile dysfunction (ED). In all, 43 men with ED and postinjection max penile systolic velocity <25 cm/s in repeated Doppler ultrasonography were included. Of these, 24 men started on apomorphine 2 mg and 19 on sildenafil 50 mg, the doses titrated up to 3 and 100 mg according to effectiveness and tolerability. Safety was evaluated according to adverse events (AEs) and patient withdrawal. Efficacy was the percentage of attempts resulting in erections firm enough for intercourse, based on event log data. The incidence of AEs with apomorphine 3 mg was higher than with sildenafil 100 mg. Two men on apomorphine 3 mg discontinued treatment due to AEs. The overall success rate of sildenafil was 63.7% compared to 32.1% of apomorphine (Pearson χ2, P<0.01). Of all men, 25 (58.1%) responded to sildenafil 50 mg without the need for dose increase, while only one responded to apomorphine 2 mg. The response to sildenafil 50 mg was age related (analysis of variance, p=0.04). Satisfaction was reported by 76.75 and 13.95% of patients for sildenafil and apomorphine, respectively, but 20.9% were not satisfied with any of the two drugs. In conclusion, this study provides clear evidence that sildenafil, even at 50 mg dose, is more effective than apomorphine 3 mg in men with arteriogenic ED. The fact that one out of five patients is not satisfied with the above-studied drugs shows that new oral agents need to be evaluated for the treatment of this disorder.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Impotence. Impotence. JAMA 1993; 270: 83–90.

  2. Feldman HA et al. Impotence and its medical and psychological correlates: results of the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. J Urol 1994; 151: 54–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaizer FE et al. Impotence and aging: clinical and hormonal factors. J Am Geriatr Soc 1988; 36: 511–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee WH, Kim YC, Choi HK . Psychogenic versus primary organic impotence. Int J Impot Res 1994; 6: 93–97.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nicolosi A et al. Diabetes and sexual function in older adults: results of an international survey. Br J Diabetes Vasc Dis 2002; 2: 336–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Nehra A et al. Cavernosal expandability is an erectile tissue mechanical property which predicts trabecular histology in an animal model of vasculogenic erectile dysfunction. J Urol 1998; 159: 2229–2236.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Marks LS, Duda C, Dorey FJ . Treatment of erectile dysfunction with sildenafil. Urology 1999; 53: 19–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Montorsi F et al. Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction of various etiologies. Urology 1999; 53: 1011–1018.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Goldstein I et al. Oral sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Sildenafil Study Group. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1397–1404.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Padma-Nathan H, Steers WD, Wicker PA, for the Sildenafil Study Group. Efficacy and safety of oral sildenafil in the treat-ment of erectile dysfunction: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 329 patients. Int J Clin Pract 1998; 52: 375–379.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Boulton AJM et al. Sildenafil citrate for the treatment of erectile dysfunction in men with Type II diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 2001; 44: 1269–1301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hatzichristou D, Saenz de Tejada I, Sleep DJ, Perdok R . Time to erection with Uprim® (apomorphine SL) 2 and 3 mg in men with erectile dysfunction (ED). Int J Impot Res 2002; 13 (Suppl 4): S50.A140.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Stief C, Padley RJ, Perdok RJ, Sleep DJ . Cross-study review of the clinical efficacy of apomorphine 2 and 3 mg: pooled data from three placebo-controlled, fixed-dose crossover studies. Eur Urol 2002; (Suppl 1): 12–20.

  14. Ralph DJ, Sleep DJ, Perdok RJ, Padley RJ . Adverse events and patient tolerability of apomorphine SL 2 and 3 mg: a cross-study analysis of phase II and phase III studies. Eur Urol 2002; (Suppl 1): 21–27.

  15. Rosen RC et al. Development and evaluation of a bridged, 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 1999; 11: 319–326.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lue TF . Impotence: a patient's goal-directed approach to treatment. World J Urol 1990; 8: 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mirone VG, Stief CG . Efficacy of apomorphine SL in erectile dysfunction. Br J Urol Int 2001; 88 (Suppl 3): 25–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Carson CC et al. The efficacy of sildenafil citrate (Viagra) in clinical populations: an update. Urology 2002; 60 (Suppl): 12–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jarow JP, Burnett AL, Geringer AM . Clinical efficacy of sildenafil citrate based on etiology and response to prior treatment. J Urol 1999; 162: 722–725.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Martinez-Jabaloyas JM et al. Prognostic factors for response to sildenafil in patients with erectile dysfunction. Eur Urol 2001; 40: 641–647.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dula E, Bukofzer S, Perdok R, George M, The Apomorphine Study Group. Double-blind, crossover comparison of 3 mg apomorphine SL with placebo and with 4 mg apomorphine SL in male erectile dysfunction. Eur Urol 2001; 39: 558–564.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Jarow JP, Patrick NS, Sabbagh M, Eskew A . Outcome analysis of goal-directed therapy for impotence. J Urol 1996; 155: 1609–1612.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lue TF, Hricak H, Marich KW, Tanago EA . Vasculogenic impotence evaluated by high-resolution ultrasonography and pulsed Doppler spectrum analysis. Radiology 1985; 155: 777–781.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Broderick GA . Evidence based assessment of erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 1998; 10 (Suppl 2): S64–S73.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Meuleman EJH et al. Penile pharmacological duplex ultrasonography: a dose-effect study comparing papaverine, papaverine/phentolamine and prostaglandin E1. J Urol 1992; 148: 63–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Akkus E et al. Repetition of color Doppler ultrasonography: is it necessary? Int J Impot Res 1998; 10: 51–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rampin O . Mode of action of a new oral treatment for erectile dysfunction: apomorphine. Br J Urol Int 2001; 88 (Suppl 3): 22–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Wespes E et al. Guidelines on erectile dysfunction. Eur Urol 2002; 41: 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cheithlin MD et al. Use of sildenafil (Viagra) in patients with cardiovascular disease. Circulation 1999; 99: 168–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Managing sexual dysfunction: using sildenafil for patients with cardiovascular disease. Can Fam Phys 2000; 46: 393.

  31. Heaton JPW, Hackett G, Savage D, Padley RJ . Patient choice is critical in managing erectile dysfunction. Eur Urol 2002; (Suppl 1): 33–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Adams MA, Perdok RJ, Padley RJ, Sleep DJ . Safety and tolerability of apomorphine SL in men with cardiovascular disorders. Eur Urol 2002; (Suppl 1): 28–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bukofzer S, Livesey N . Safety and tolerability of apomorphine SL (Uprima®). Int J Impot Res 2001; 13 (Suppl 3): S40–S44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Padma-Nathan H et al. A 4-year update on the safety of silde-nafil citrate (Viagra®). Urology 2002; 60 (Suppl 2B): 67–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Urology, University of Patras, Patras, Greece

    P Perimenis, K Gyftopoulos, K Giannitsas, S A Markou, A Athanasopoulos & G Barbalias

  2. Radiology, Medical School, University of Patras, Patras, Greece

    I Tsota & A Chrysanthopoulou

Authors
  1. P Perimenis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K Gyftopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K Giannitsas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S A Markou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. I Tsota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A Chrysanthopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A Athanasopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. G Barbalias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P Perimenis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Perimenis, P., Gyftopoulos, K., Giannitsas, K. et al. A comparative, crossover study of the efficacy and safety of sildenafil and apomorphine in men with evidence of arteriogenic erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 16, 2–7 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901119

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901119

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links