Beste apotheek van Nederland

patients had angina pectoris. In the second trial, 250 no serious adverse events had occurred. The
other three trials did not report whether or not patients had experienced any serious adverse
events. 249, 252,253 In two trials, 248,253 the proportion of patients who withdrew due to adverse
events was numerically higher in the apomorphine arms compared with placebo arms (5–10
percent versus 1 percent); in the other trial, 249 none of the patients withdrew due to adverse
events. Other trials 250,252 failed to report whether any patients withdrew due to adverse events.
The most common adverse event reported across trials was nausea 148,248,249,252,253 ranging from
7.0 percent 252 to 44 percent 253 in the apomorphine arms and from 0.4 percent 248 to 5.0 percent 249
in the placebo arms. Other commonly reported adverse events were headache, dizziness, and
yawning. In general, these events had occurred numerically more frequently in apomorphine
arms than in placebo arms. 248,252,253
Efficacy. The three trials 248,252,253 that measured the mean percentage of successful
intercourse attempts found that this parameter was higher among patients who received
apomorphine compared with those who received placebo; this finding was statistically
significant. The mean percentage of successful intercourse attempts observed in apomorphine
groups in these trials ranged from 38 percent 248 to 51 percent, 253 whereas the corresponding
treatment response observed in the placebo groups ranged from 28 percent 248 to 34 percent. 252
The difference for each comparison between apomorphine and placebo groups in the three trials
was statistically significant (p ≤ 0.01). The results for the above-mentioned endpoint, whether
based on responses obtained from patients or from their partners, did not differ. 252,253
Two trials 252,253 showed that patients who received apomorphine had a statistically significant
higher percentage of attempts resulting in erections firm enough for intercourse than those in
placebo group. For example, in one trial 252 the percentages of attempts resulting in erections firm
enough for intercourse in the apomorphine (3 mg) and placebo groups were 46.9 percent and
32.3 percent respectively (p < 0.001). In the other trial, 253 the corresponding percentages were
53.1 (apomorphine 5 mg) and 34.5 (placebo), respectively (p ≤ 0.01).
The mean IIEF score for the “Erectile Function (EF) domain” obtained from two trials 249,253
were not consistent. For example, in the first trial, 249 differences in mean IIEF “EF” domain
scores between patients receiving apomorphine and placebo were not statistically significant
(13.81 versus 13.24; p = 0.52). In contrast, the authors of the other trial 253 observed a statistically
significantly greater mean IIEF score (“erectile function” domain) in the apomorphine group
compared with placebo (actual mean IIEF values were not provided; p ≤ 0.01).
There was no statistically significant difference between apomorphine and placebo groups in
the proportion of patients who answered “yes” to the GEQ (“Has the treatment you have been
taking over the past two or four weeks improved your erections?”) combined with an
improvement of ≥ 5 points in the IIEF “EF” domain (22.92 percent versus 17.31 percent, p =
0.48). 249
The proportion of patients with positive response on rigidity (≥ 40 percent) was numerically
greater in the apomorphine compared with the placebo group (4/6 versus 0/6). 250
Apomorphine mono (dose/dosing 1) versus apomorphine mono (dose/dosing 2). In total,
two trials compared different doses/dosing of apomorphine in patients with ED. 252,253
Harms. The incidence of several adverse events such as nausea, yawning, and dizziness
across trials was numerically greater in patients receiving higher doses (4–6 mg) than lower
doses of apomorphine (2–3 mg). 252,253 In one trial, 253 a dose-optimization schedule (2–6 mg) was
associated with fewer events of nausea (30 percent of patients) than the fixed doses of
69