ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 143-148

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


1 Department of Internal Medicine, Eulji University, School of Medicine, Daejeon 302 799, South Korea
2 Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University, School of Medicine, Seoul 110-746, South Korea
3 Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, College of Medicine the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul 137-701, South Korea
4 Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University of Medicine and Science Graduate, School of Medicine, Incheon 405-760, South Korea
5 Department of Internal Medicine, Eulji University, School of Medicine, Seoul 139-872, South Korea
6 Department of Endocrinology, Ewha Woman's University, School of Medicine, Seoul 158-710, South Korea
7 Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul 133-792, South Korea

Correspondence Address:
Kang Seo Park
Department of Internal Medicine, Eulji University, School of Medicine, Daejeon 302 799
South Korea
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.135983

Rights and Permissions

We compared the efficacy and safety between once-daily dosing and on-demand use of udenafil for type 2 diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction (ED). A multi-center, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, 12-week study was conducted. 161 patients who improved with on-demand 200 mg of udenafil according to Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) diary Question 2 and 3 (Q2 and Q3) were randomized into 200 mg on-demand (n = 80) or 50 mg once-daily (n = 81) dosing groups for 8 weeks. The dosing period was followed by a 4-week treatment-free period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) erectile function domain (EFD) score. The secondary efficacy endpoints included changes to the SEP diary Q2, Q3, IIEF Q3, Q4, other domains of IIEF, Global Assessment Question, and shift to the normal rate (EFD ≥ 26). Vascular endothelial markers were also assessed. The IIEF-EFD score of both groups improved after 8 weeks of treatment (P < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference between two groups. Improvement was not maintained after the treatment-free follow-up period. Similar results were observed in the secondary efficacy endpoints. There was also no significant difference in vascular endothelial markers. Daily udenafil was well-tolerated, and there was no significant difference in the adverse drug reactions and adverse events between the two groups. Flushing and headache were the most frequent adverse events. Both regimens improved ED in diabetic patients and were well-tolerated. Further studies are needed to assess the effect of daily udenafil treatment in diabetic patients.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3294    
    Printed44    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded390    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal