Table of Contents  
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 854

Commentary on - "Comparison of the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing and on-demand use of udenafil for type 2 diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction"


Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China

Date of Submission08-Nov-2014
Date of Acceptance09-Dec-2014
Date of Web Publication16-Jan-2015

Correspondence Address:
Qiang Wei
Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.148069

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Cao DH, Liu LR, Wei Q. Commentary on - "Comparison of the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing and on-demand use of udenafil for type 2 diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction". Asian J Androl 2015;17:854

How to cite this URL:
Cao DH, Liu LR, Wei Q. Commentary on - "Comparison of the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing and on-demand use of udenafil for type 2 diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction". Asian J Androl [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 Nov 14];17:854. Available from: http://www.ajandrology.com/text.asp?2015/17/5/854/148069 - DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.148069

Dear Editor,

We read with interest of the article written by Park et al.[1] They performed a randomized controlled trial to compare efficacy and safety between 50 mg once-daily and 200 mg on-demand dosing use of udenafil for the treatment of type 2 diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction (ED). Their findings indicated that the most common drug-related adverse events (AEs) were flushing (8.9% vs 2.5%) and headache (3.8% vs 1.3%) between the on-demand group and the daily-dosed group. Although the authors believed that the udenafil was well-tolerated in both groups, unfortunately, they failed report the total incidence of AEs to assess the safety of the two groups.

We agree with their view that both the 50 mg once-daily group and 200 mg on-demand group of udenafil for type 2 diabetic patients with ED were well tolerated. Furthermore, Moon du et al. [2] performed a randomized, double-blind controlled trial to assess the safety of udenafil for treatment of ED in patients with diabetes mellitus. They found that the total rate of AEs related to the 200 mg udenafil on-demand was 22.4%, and the most frequent drug-related AEs were flushing and headache with incidences of 10% and 5%, respectively. In addition, other major AEs were nausea and conjunctival hyperemia. Paick et al. [3] performed a multicenter, double-blind and parallel-group trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 200 mg udenafil therapy in patients with ED. However, they found that the higher of incidence of treatment-related AEs was 37.5%, and flushing rate was 23.2%, nasal congestion and ocular hyperemia rate were 7.1% independently, headache rate was 8.9%, chest discomfort rate 5.4%, withdrawal due to AEs was 3.6%. Zhao et al. [4] performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of udenafil in the treatment of ED. They found the incidence of AEs using udenafil 50 mg once-daily for ED patients was 10%.

There are some differences in incidence rates of AEs among the studies. [2],[3],[4],[5],[6] Thus, we believe that the AEs rate may be an important parameter to assess the drug safety. Meanwhile, we consider it is better to report the rate and classify of AEs contributed to objectively and fairly evaluate the safety between 50 mg once-daily and 200 mg on-demand dosing use of udenafil for the treatment of type 2 diabetic patients with ED, although most studies indicated AEs of udenafil for ED were safe. [5],[6]


  Conflicts of Interest Top


There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

 
  References Top

1.
Park SH, Park SW, Cha BY, Park IB, Min KW, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing and on-demand use of udenafil for type 2 diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction. Asian J Androl 2015; 17: 143-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Moon du G, Yang DY, Lee CH, Ahn TY, Min KS, et al. A therapeutic confirmatory study to assess the safety and efficacy of Zydena (udenafil) for the treatment of erectile dysfunction in male patients with diabetes mellitus. J Sex Med 2011; 8: 2048-61.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Paick JS, Kim SW, Park YK, Hyun JS, Park NC, et al. The efficacy and safety of udenafil [Zydena] for the treatment of erectile dysfunction in hypertensive men taking concomitant antihypertensive agents. J Sex Med 2009; 6: 3166-76.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Zhao C, Kim SW, Yang DY, Kim JJ, Park NC, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-daily dosing of udenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction: results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 380-7.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Cho MC, Paick JS. Udenafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2014; 10: 341-54.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Ortaç M, Çayan S, Çaliskan MK, Yaman MÖ, Okutucu TM, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of udenafil in Turkish men with erectile dysfunction of psychogenic and organic aetiology: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Andrology 2013; 1: 549-55.  Back to cited text no. 6
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Conflicts of Int...
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1368    
    Printed23    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded141    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]