A Randomized, Multicenter, Prospective, Crossover, Open-Label Study of Factors Associated With Patient Preferences for Naloxegol or PEG 3350 for Opioid-Induced Constipation.

OBJECTIVES: To determine patient preference for treating opioid-induced constipation (OIC) using naloxegol or polyethylene glycol (PEG) 3350 in patients receiving opioids for noncancer pain. METHODS: This crossover study included two 2-week active treatment periods, each preceded by a 1-week washout period (NCT03060512). Individuals with baseline Bowel Function Index scores ≥30 were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment sequences (naloxegol/PEG 3350 or PEG 3350/naloxegol). Patient preference (primary end point) was measured at the end of the second treatment period. RESULTS: Of 276 patients randomized, 246 completed both treatment periods and reported preference (per protocol). Similar proportions of patients reported overall preference for naloxegol (50.4%) or PEG 3350 (48.0%; P = 0.92); 1.6% reported no preference. Medication characteristics influencing preference were similar for both treatments, except convenience and working quickly, which were strong influences of preference for higher proportions of patients preferring naloxegol (69.9% and 39.0%, respectively) vs those preferring PEG 3350 (29.9% and 27.4%, respectively). Patients aged <50 years or receiving laxatives within the previous 2 weeks generally preferred naloxegol. Changes from baseline in overall Bowel Function Index and Patient Global Impression of Change scores were similar between treatments, but analyses according to treatment preference revealed clinical improvement aligned with reported preference. Safety profiles were generally consistent with known medication profiles. CONCLUSIONS: Almost equal proportions of patients with OIC reported similar preference for daily naloxegol or PEG 3350 treatment, and their preference was generally supported by clinically relevant and measurable improvements in OIC symptoms.

Efficacy and Safety of Sildenafil by Age in Men With Erectile Dysfunction.

INTRODUCTION: Sildenafil, an oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, has been extensively investigated for the treatment of erectile dysfunction in randomized controlled trials. AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of sildenafil vs placebo according to age subgroups (<65, 65-74, and ≥75 years) in 11,364 men with erectile dysfunction using pooled data from 48 randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, flexible-dose trials. METHODS: Most trials had a 12-week treatment duration. The starting sildenafil dose was 50 mg, taken 1 hour before sexual activity, with subsequent adjustment to 100 or 25 mg based on efficacy and safety. Men taking nitrate therapy or nitric oxide donors and men with severe cardiac failure, unstable angina, or recent stroke or myocardial infarction were excluded. Efficacy analyses included all subjects with baseline and at least one postrandomization evaluation. Safety analyses included subjects who received study medication. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The International Index of Erectile Function and a global assessment question ("Did the treatment improve your erections?"). RESULTS: Mean International Index of Erectile Function scores for question 3 (frequency of penetration), question 4 (maintenance of erections after penetration), and the erectile function domain were statistically significantly improved with sildenafil vs placebo for each age subgroup; orgasmic function, intercourse satisfaction, sexual desire, and overall satisfaction domain scores also were statistically significantly improved with sildenafil vs placebo. The percentage of men reporting improved erections on the global assessment question was statistically significantly higher with sildenafil vs placebo for all age subgroups; the percentage with sildenafil tended to decrease with increasing age (<65 years, 80%; 65-74 years, 69%; ≥75 years, 59%). The most common adverse events with sildenafil were headache and flushing in each age subgroup. CONCLUSION: Sildenafil is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for erectile dysfunction regardless of patient age, including men at least 75 years old.

Acute nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy and exposure to phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION), a rare visual disorder, has been reported in men using phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) for erectile dysfunction. AIM: We examined whether intermittent use of PDE5i is associated with acute NAION onset within approximately five half-lives following drug ingestion. METHODS: One hundred two ophthalmology centers in the United States and Europe identified potential cases of NAION. An expert adjudication committee conducted a blind review of the records of those with recent PDE5i use to classify cases as Definite, Possible, or not NAION. Subjects provided information on PDEi use via telephone interview. Each NAION case's PDE5i exposure immediately prior to onset was compared against his recent patterns of use in an observational case-crossover design. A sample size of 40 cases with intermittent PDE5i exposure in the 30 days prior to NAION onset was needed to detect an odds ratio (OR) of 3.0 with 80% power. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The daily relative risk for acute NAION on days within five half-lives of PDE5i use vs. other days was estimated via an OR obtained from conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 43 Definite NAION cases with PDE5i exposure in the prior 30 days, the OR was 2.15 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06, 4.34). When 21 Possible NAION cases were included (n = 64), the OR was 2.36 (95% CI: 1.33, 4.19). CONCLUSIONS: We found an approximately twofold increased risk of acute NAION within five half-lives of PDE5i use compared with use in a more prior time period. Bias from inaccurate recall of exposure was unlikely to have substantially affected the results. Based on our results, we estimate that weekly use of PDE5i adds three NAION cases per 100,000 men 50 years and older annually.

Improvement in erection hardness and intercourse success with first dose of sildenafil citrate 100 mg.

PURPOSE: To determine, in men with erectile dysfunction (ED), the extent of improvement in erection hardness and in the rate of successful sexual intercourse (SSI) during the final intercourse attempt using sildenafil 50 mg compared with the subsequent initial attempt after a dose increase to 100 mg. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of flexible-dose sildenafil for the treatment of men with ED, who were given sildenafil 50 mg or matching placebo, to be taken as needed before sexual intercourse. After 2 weeks, those with no tolerability concerns were titrated up to 100 mg, forming the subgroup of this analysis. The main outcome measures were event log data, including an Erection Hardness Score (EHS) and a question on SSI ("Did your erection last long enough for you to have successful sexual intercourse?"), for each attempt at sexual intercourse, analyzed by study and treatment group (sildenafil or placebo). Statistical comparisons were conducted by using the Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: In both studies, the sildenafil group had a larger proportion of EHS4 (completely hard and fully rigid) erections (P < 0.001) and SSI (P < 0.005) compared with the placebo group, both before and after the dose increase. Between the final 50 mg sildenafil dose and the initial 100 mg sildenafil dose, the outcomes improved and significantly so in the larger study. CONCLUSION: The improved efficacy with sildenafil 100 mg versus 50 mg, which occurs rapidly, suggests that patients should be encouraged to use 100 mg if they are unable to achieve completely hard and fully rigid erections or SSI with the 50 mg dose.

Efficacy of fesoterodine compared with extended-release tolterodine in men and women with overactive bladder.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of fesoterodine 8 mg vs extended-release (ER) tolterodine 4 mg for overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms in terms of patient-reported outcomes in women and in men. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Pooled data from two 12-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy studies were analysed. Participants eligible for the studies were ≥18 years old, had self-reported OAB symptoms for ≥3 months in 3-day baseline diaries and had ≥8 micturitions and ≥1 urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) episode per 24 h. Individuals were randomized to fesoterodine (4 mg for 1 week then 8 mg for 11 weeks), ER tolterodine (4 mg), or placebo. Changes from baseline in 3-day bladder diary variables and scores from the Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC), Urgency Perception Scale (UPS), and Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q), were assessed, as was the 'diary-dry' rate (the proportion of subjects with >0 UUI episodes according to baseline diary and no UUI episodes according to post-baseline diary). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 12 in UUI episodes. RESULTS: At week 12, women showed significantly greater improvement with fesoterodine 8 mg (n = 1374) than with ER tolterodine 4 mg (n = 1382) and placebo (n = 679) in UUI episodes (primary endpoint), micturition frequency, urgency episodes, and all other diary endpoints (except nocturnal micturitions versus ER tolterodine), and also in scores on the PPBC, UPS, and all OAB-q scales and domains (all P < 0.005). Diary-dry rates in women were significantly greater with fesoterodine (63%) than with tolterodine (57%; P = 0.002) or placebo (48%; P < 0.0001). In men, there were no significant differences in improvement in UUI episodes between any treatment groups at week 12. Improvements in men were significantly greater with fesoterodine 8 mg (n = 265) than with ER tolterodine (n = 275) for severe urgency and the OAB-q Symptom Bother domain and were also significantly greater with fesoterodine than with placebo (n = 133) for micturition frequency, urgency episodes, severe urgency episodes, PPBC responses and scores on all OAB-q scales and domains at week 12 (all P < 0.04). The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events in both genders were dry mouth (women: fesoterodine, 29%; ER tolterodine, 15%; placebo, 6%; men: fesoterodine, 21%; ER tolterodine, 13%; placebo, 5%) and constipation (women: fesoterodine, 5%; ER tolterodine, 4%; placebo, 2%; men: fesoterodine, 5%; ER tolterodine, 3%; placebo, 1%). Urinary retention rates were low in women (fesoterodine, <1%; ER tolterodine, <1%; placebo, 0%) and men (fesoterodine, 2%; ER tolterodine <1%; placebo, 2%). CONCLUSION: This analysis supports the superiority of fesoterodine 8 mg over ER tolterodine 4 mg on diary endpoints, including UUI, symptom bother and health-related quality of life in women. In men, fesoterodine 8 mg was superior to ER tolterodine 4 mg for improving severe urgency and symptom bother.

Efficacy and tolerability of fesoterodine versus tolterodine in older and younger subjects with overactive bladder: a post hoc, pooled analysis from two placebo-controlled trials.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of fesoterodine 8 mg versus tolterodine extended release (ER) 4 mg in subjects with overactive bladder (OAB) stratified by age (<65, 65-74, and ≥75 years). METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of data from two double-blind trials. Subjects reporting ≥1 urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) episode and ≥8 micturitions/24 hr at baseline were randomized to fesoterodine (4 mg for 1 week, 8 mg for 11 weeks), tolterodine ER 4 mg, or placebo. Subjects completed 3-day bladder diaries, Urgency Perception Scale (UPS), Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC), and OAB questionnaire (OAB-q) at baseline and week 12. The primary endpoint in both studies was change from baseline to week 12 in UUI episodes. RESULTS: Among subjects <65 years (n = 2,670), improvements in UUI episodes, micturitions, urgency episodes, severe urgency episodes, frequency-urgency sum, UPS, PPBC, and all OAB-q scales and domains were significantly greater with fesoterodine versus tolterodine ER, and diary-dry rates were significantly higher. Among subjects 65-74 years (n = 990), improvements in mean voided volume per void, PPBC, and OAB-q Symptom Bother and Coping were significantly greater with fesoterodine versus tolterodine ER. Among subjects aged ≥75 years (n = 448), improvements in urgency episodes, severe urgency episodes, frequency-urgency sum, UPS, and OAB-q Symptom Bother were significantly greater with fesoterodine versus tolterodine ER. Both active treatments produced significant improvements in most outcomes versus placebo across age groups. Adverse event rates were similar among age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Fesoterodine 8 mg consistently improved several OAB-related variables versus tolterodine ER 4 mg in subjects aged <65, 65-74, and ≥75 years, with some differences reaching statistical significance, and was generally well tolerated.

Correlations with satisfaction measures in men treated with phosphodiesterase inhibitors for erectile dysfunction.

This literature review examined the relationship of erectile function to patient satisfaction. Published correlation coefficients (r values) were sought between patient-reported outcomes (PROs; i.e., instruments/questionnaires) assessing erection or erectile function and PROs assessing individual sexual satisfaction, satisfaction in the context of the couple or relationship, or satisfaction with erection. The U.S. National Library of Medicine's PubMed database was searched for English-language, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of treatment with a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor in men with erectile dysfunction (ED) who were not selected for any concomitant disease. Trials that reported correlations between an ED-specific and psychometrically validated PRO for an erection/erectile function concept and for a selected satisfaction concept were included. All correlations were positive, with almost all r values >.50. The positive relationship between results on erection/erectile function PROs and results on satisfaction PROs is probably reinforced bidirectionally such that improved erection/erectile function improves satisfaction, which further improves erection and/or erectile function.

Lack of awareness of erectile dysfunction in many men with risk factors for erectile dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Men with erectile dysfunction often have concurrent medical conditions. Conversely, men with these conditions may also have underlying erectile dysfunction. The prevalence of unrecognized erectile dysfunction in men with comorbidities commonly associated with erectile dysfunction was determined in men invited to participate in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of sildenafil citrate. METHODS: Men ≥30 years old presenting with ≥1 erectile dysfunction risk factor (controlled hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, smoking, metabolic syndrome, stable coronary artery disease, diabetes, depression, lower urinary tract symptoms, obesity [body mass index ≥30 kg/m2] or waist circumference ≥40 inches), and not previously diagnosed with erectile dysfunction were evaluated. The screening question, "Do you have erectile dysfunction?," with responses of "no," "yes," and "unsure," and the Erectile Function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) were administered. RESULTS: Of 1084 men screened, 1053 answered the screening question and also had IIEF-EF scores. IIEF-EF scores indicating erectile dysfunction occurred in 71% (744/1053), of whom 54% (399/744) had moderate or severe erectile dysfunction. Of 139 answering "yes," 526 answering "unsure," and 388 answering "no," 96%, 90%, and 36%, respectively, had some degree of erectile dysfunction. The mean±SD (range) number of risk factors was 2.9 ± 1.7 (3-8) in the "yes" group, 3.2 ± 1.7 (3-9) in the "unsure" group, and 2.6 ± 1.5 (2-8) in the "no" group. CONCLUSION: Although awareness of having erectile dysfunction was low, most men with risk factors had IIEF-EF scores indicating erectile dysfunction. Erectile dysfunction should be suspected and assessed in men with risk factors, regardless of their apparent level of awareness of erectile dysfunction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00343200.

A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of sildenafil citrate in men with unrecognized erectile dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: Erectile dysfunction (ED) may be present but unrecognized in men with other comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, or lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The efficacy of sildenafil citrate treatment for ED in men who did not self-identify with or were unsure about whether they had ED, but had ED based on International Index of Erectile Function Erectile Function domain (IIEF-EF) scores, was evaluated. METHODS: Men with an ED-associated comorbidity were asked, "Do you have ED?" Those who answered "no" or "unsure" and were diagnosed with ED (score of or=30 kg/m(2)), and waist circumference >or=40 inches were the most frequently reported risk factors. Sildenafil-treated men had improved scores on both functional and psychosocial measures. Most adverse events were mild to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Many men do not recognize that they have ED; sildenafil treatment improved sexual function and satisfaction in these men. Because ED affects quality of life, it should be suspected and assessed in men with risk factors for ED.

A meta-analysis of the placebo response in antimuscarinic drug trials for overactive bladder.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this analysis was to characterize the placebo response in antimuscarinic drug trials for OAB, based on changes in commonly-used efficacy endpoints. METHODS: Placebo arm data for incontinence episodes, micturitions, voided volume and study characteristics were extracted from randomized placebo controlled antimuscarinic drug trials in OAB, from studies identified in a prior meta-analysis, and from a systematic review of more recently published studies. Relationships between variables were examined using linear regression, and changes in endpoints were analyzed by a meta-analysis approach. The effect of placebo arm size and magnitude of placebo response on probability of successful study outcome was analyzed using an ANOVA model. RESULTS: Changes in the placebo arms for all 3 endpoints were substantial and statistically significant, and highly heterogeneous. There were significant associations between baseline and change scores for some but not all of the endpoints. More recent studies tended to have more subjects than earlier studies, and there were positive associations between probability of achieving statistically significant results and size of the placebo arm. The magnitude of changes in placebo arms did not appear to influence the likelihood of the study to be statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This analysis confirms earlier observation that the placebo response in OAB trials is substantial and highly heterogeneous. There are multiple potential reasons for this; however, these could not be explored in this analysis of study-level data. Two approaches may be used in clinical trials to manage high placebo effect: recruitment of 1) greater numbers of patients and/or 2) more severely affected patients; however, only the former approach is associated with increased probability of successful study outcome.

Efficacy and tolerability of fesoterodine in women with overactive bladder.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We assessed fesoterodine efficacy and tolerability in women with overactive bladder (OAB). METHODS: This post hoc analysis of pooled data from two clinical trials included 1,548 women with OAB randomized to placebo, fesoterodine 4 or 8 mg, or tolterodine extended release (ER) 4 mg (in 1 trial) for 12 weeks. Subjects completed 3-day bladder diaries at baseline and weeks 2 and 12 and rated Treatment Response at weeks 2 and 12. RESULTS: By weeks 2 and 12, all active-treatment groups showed significant improvements in all five bladder diary variables assessed and greater Treatment Response rates vs placebo. Fesoterodine 8 mg was significantly more efficacious than fesoterodine 4 mg and tolterodine ER in improving urgency urinary incontinence episodes and continent days per week. The most common adverse events were dry mouth and constipation, which were predominately mild or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Fesoterodine is efficacious and well tolerated in women with OAB.

Clinical efficacy of drug-eluting stents in diabetic patients: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare estimates for revascularization and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization) in diabetic patients treated with paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents (PES and SES). BACKGROUND: Outcomes in diabetic patients treated with PES and SES have not been adequately evaluated. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE/EMBASE from January 2002 to February 2007 and identified abstracts/presentations from this period at major cardiology conferences. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and registries were included if data for diabetic patients treated with PES or SES were available. Point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed as summary statistics. RESULTS: In RCTs (13 trials; n = 2,422) similar point estimates for target lesion revascularization (TLR) (PES: 8.6%, 95% CI 6.5% to 11.3%; SES: 7.6%, 95% CI 5.8% to 9.9%) and MACE (PES: 15.4%, 95% CI 12.4% to 19.1%; SES: 12.9%, 95% CI 8.5% to 19.2%) were observed. In head-to-head trials (4 RCTs), no difference in the likelihood of TLR (PES vs. SES) was observed (odds ratio [OR] 1.37, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.9, p = 0.42). In registries (16 registries; n = 10,156), point estimates for target vessel revascularization (TVR) (PES: 5.8%, 95% CI 3.9% to 8.5%; SES: 7.2%, 95% CI 4.6% to 11.2%) and MACE (PES: 10.1%, 95% CI 7.3% to 13.8%; SES: 11.9%, 95% CI 8.6% to 16.4%) were also similar. In registries reporting outcomes with both stents (8 registries for TVR and 7 registries for MACE), the likelihood of TVR (PES vs. SES) (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.10, p = 0.15) and MACE (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.01, p = 0.056) were nonsignificantly lower with PES. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of over 11,000 diabetic patients treated with drug-eluting stents demonstrates single-digit revascularization rates. Furthermore, revascularization and MACE estimates are similar with both PES and SES.