Beste apotheek van Nederland

Study/patient
Characteristics
Shabsigh 2004
75 hypogonadal
men,
non-responders
to sildenafil
therapy
Outcome
Patients with IIEF-Q3/Q4:
4-5 ** at study end
Patients who increased
functioning by at least 1
category over baseline for
either IIEF Q3 or Q4 at
week 12
Treatment
Group
51.4%
(19/37)
78.8%
(26/33)
Control
Group
Relative risk
(RR) or weighted
mean difference
(WMD)
[95% CI] or
p value
39.4%
(13/33) RR = 1.30
[0.77–2.21]
71.0%
(13/31)
RR = 1.11
[0.83–1.48]
Testosterone (oral) + Sildenafil (50 or 100mg) vs. Testosterone (oral): sildenafil nonresponder
men
Shamloul 2005
Study a
IIEF–5 to assess erectile
function, score at baseline
10.1 (1.3)
Baseline
9.9 (1.4)
Baseline
20 men with ED
associated with
PADAM (partial
androgen
deficiency in
aging men)
IIEF–5 score after
treatment
15.0 (1.4)
p <0.01
vs. baseline
11.1 (1.5)
p = 0.27
vs. baseline
WMD = 3.90
[2.63–5.17]
Testosterone (oral) + Sildenafil (50 or 100mg) vs. Sildenafil (50 or 100mg): men partially
responding to sildenafil
Shamloul 2005
Study b
IIEF–5 to assess erectile
function, score at baseline
15.3 (1.6)
Baseline
15.4 (1.2)
Baseline
–
20 men with ED
associated with
PADAM (partial
androgen
deficiency in
aging men)
IIEF–5 score after
treatment
17.5 (1.8)
p <0.01 vs.
baseline
15.9 (1.3)
p = 0.24 vs.
baseline
WMD = 1.60
[0.22–2.98]
* Derogatis Sexual performance Scale. Range 0 (not at all) to 8 (4 or more times/day)
** Question 3: “Over the past 4 weeks, when you attempted sexual intercourse, how often were you able to
penetrate your partner?” and Question 4: Over the past 4 weeks, during sexual intercourse, how often were
you able to maintain your erection after you penetrated your partner?”
170