-
Current Urology Reports Oct 2020Aim of our systematic review is to evaluate and summarize the efficacy and safety of tadalafil alone or in combination with tamsulosin for the management of lower... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Aim of our systematic review is to evaluate and summarize the efficacy and safety of tadalafil alone or in combination with tamsulosin for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)/benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and erectile dysfunction (ED).
RECENT FINDINGS
Daily tadalafil, in particular 5 mg, according to retrieved studies, appears to be both safe and effective in treating LUTS/BPH and ED, compared with placebo or tamsulosin. The combination of daily tadalafil 5 mg and tamsulosin 0.4 mg allows a better improvement of LUTS compared with both the monotherapies, even if with an increased, but acceptable and tolerated, adverse events rate. After discontinuation of tamsulosin or tadalafil in patients previously treated with their combination, the improvement of LUTS retains significance compared with baseline. Tadalafil 5 mg should be considered a primary treatment option for patients with LUTS/BPH and ED. Evidence highlight an excellent tolerability, safety, and effectiveness profile, both alone or in combination with tamsulosin 0.4 mg. A better efficacy on LUTS relief has been observed for combination therapy, preserving also sexual function. The further switch to monotherapy allows to preserve LUTS relief, but tadalafil only is able to retain ED improvement. Our results support the evidence for a more and more tailored and modular LUTS treatment.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tadalafil; Tamsulosin; Treatment Outcome; Urological Agents
PubMed: 33108544
DOI: 10.1007/s11934-020-01009-7 -
Urology Journal Nov 2021The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Dapoxetine, and Paroxetine as well as Dapoxetine/Tadalafil and Paroxetine/Tadalafil combinational... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Dapoxetine, and Paroxetine as well as Dapoxetine/Tadalafil and Paroxetine/Tadalafil combinational therapies, for the treatment of patients with premature ejaculation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this clinical trial study, 120 patients with premature ejaculation were randomly divided into 4 groups: The first group was treated with Paroxetine (Pa), while the second group received Dapoxetine(Da). The third group received Paroxetine combined with Tadalafil(PT) whereas the fourth group's treatment involved the use of Dapoxetine and Tadalafil(DT) for one month. In the next 2 and 4 weeks, the cases were evaluated in terms of ejaculation duration, frequency of intercourse per week, and drug side effects.
RESULTS
The mean age of the Da, Pa, PT, DT groups was 32 ± 6.9, 32.4 ± 7.2, 31.6 ± 1.9, and 32.9 ± 7.7 years, respectively. There was a significant difference between the Da and DT groups (p = .029) in the ejaculation latency in the 4-week follow-up. In the two weeks follow-up, a significant difference was observed between DA and DT (p = 0.043), Pa and PT (p = 0.006), and Pa and DT groups (p = 0.004) in terms of ejaculation latency. Four weeks after the intervention, a significant difference was detected in the intercourse frequency of Da and PT groups (p =0.033), Pa and PT groups (p = 0.043), Pa and DT groups (p = 0.02), and Da and DT groups (p = 0.016).
CONCLUSION
Combination therapy (Tadalafil plus Paroxetine or Dapoxetine) was more effective in IELT (Intra ejaculation latency time) than mono-therapy especially in younger patients despite its slightly more side effects.
Topics: Benzylamines; Ejaculation; Humans; Male; Naphthalenes; Paroxetine; Premature Ejaculation; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Tadalafil; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34773634
DOI: 10.22037/uj.v18i.6644 -
International Urology and Nephrology Oct 2017Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a major care problem worldwide. Tadalafil and sildenafil are the two most common phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors used to treat ED. This... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a major care problem worldwide. Tadalafil and sildenafil are the two most common phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors used to treat ED. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to directly compare tadalafil with sildenafil for the treatment of ED.
METHODS
We designed a strategy for searching the PubMed, Embase, EBSCO, Web of Science and Cochrane library databases; the reference lists of the retrieved studies were also investigated. A literature review was performed to identify all published randomized or non-randomized controlled trials that compared tadalafil with sildenafil for the treatment of ED and to assess the quality of the studies. Two investigators independently and blindly screened the studies for inclusion. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.0.
RESULTS
A total of 16 trials that compared tadalafil with sildenafil for the treatment of ED were included in the meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, tadalafil and sildenafil appeared to have similar efficacies and overall adverse event rates. However, compared with sildenafil, tadalafil significantly improved psychological outcomes. Furthermore, the patients and their partners preferred tadalafil over sildenafil, and no significant difference was found in the adherence and persistence rates between tadalafil and sildenafil. Additionally, the myalgia and back pain rates were higher and the flushing rate was lower with tadalafil than with sildenafil.
CONCLUSION
Tadalafil shares a similar efficacy and safety with sildenafil and significantly improves patients' sexual confidence. Furthermore, patients and their partners prefer tadalafil to sildenafil. Hence, tadalafil may be a better choice for ED treatment.
Topics: Back Pain; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Erectile Dysfunction; Flushing; Humans; Male; Myalgia; Patient Preference; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Self Efficacy; Sildenafil Citrate; Tadalafil
PubMed: 28741090
DOI: 10.1007/s11255-017-1644-5 -
Urology Journal Jul 2023To compare the efficacy and adverse events of sildenafil monotherapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with its FDA-approved counterpart, tadalafil.
PURPOSE
To compare the efficacy and adverse events of sildenafil monotherapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with its FDA-approved counterpart, tadalafil.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this single-arm self-controlled clinical trial, 33 patients were enrolled. All patients underwent a 6-week treatment with sildenafil, followed by a 4-week washout period and finally a 6-week treatment with tadalafil. Patients were examined on each appointment and post-void residual (PVR) urine, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Quality of life index (IPSS-QoL index) were recorded subsequently. Efficacy of each drug regimen was then evaluated by comparing these outcome parameters.
RESULTS
Both sildenafil and tadalafil were shown to improve PVR (both p < .001), IPSS (both p < .001) and IPSS- QoL index (both p < .001) significantly. Sildenafil was more effective than tadalafil in reducing PVR (mean difference (95%CI) = 9.91% (4.11, 15.72), p < .001) and ameliorating IPSS-QoL index (mean difference (95%CI) = 19.3% (4.47, 34.41), p = .027). Moreover, although not significant, sildenafil reduced IPSS more than tadalafil (mean difference (95%CI) = 3.33% (-0.22, 6.87), p = .065). Concurrent erectile dysfunction did not affect responsiveness to therapy with either sildenafil or tadalafil but age was inversely related to post-treatment IPSS in both sildenafil (B = 0.21 (0.04, 0.37), p = .015) and tadalafil (B = 0.14 (0.02, 0.26), p = .021) regimens with a more prominent role in responsiveness to sildenafil (β = 0.31) compared to tadalafil (β = 0.19).
CONCLUSION
Considering the significantly better improvement of PVR and IPSS-Qol index with sildenafil, this drug can be nominated as a suitable alternative for tadalafil as a BPH treatment, especially in younger patients who don't have any contraindications.
Topics: Humans; Male; Erectile Dysfunction; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Sildenafil Citrate; Tadalafil; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Retention
PubMed: 37245088
DOI: 10.22037/uj.v20i.7593 -
Journal of the American College of... Oct 2021In pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), there are no data comparing initial triple oral therapy with initial double oral therapy. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
In pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), there are no data comparing initial triple oral therapy with initial double oral therapy.
OBJECTIVES
TRITON (The Efficacy and Safety of Initial Triple Versus Initial Dual Oral Combination Therapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension; NCT02558231), a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase 3b study, evaluated initial triple (macitentan, tadalafil, and selexipag) versus initial double (macitentan, tadalafil, and placebo) oral therapy in newly diagnosed, treatment-naive patients with PAH.
METHODS
Efficacy was assessed until the last patient randomized completed week 26 (end of main observation period). The primary endpoint was change in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) at week 26.
RESULTS
Patients were assigned to initial triple (n = 123) or initial double therapy (n = 124). At week 26, both treatment strategies reduced PVR compared with baseline (by 54% and 52%), with no significant difference between groups (ratio of geometric means: 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.86-1.07; P = 0.42). Six-minute walk distance and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide improved by week 26, with no difference between groups. Risk for disease progression (to end of main observation period) was reduced with initial triple versus initial double therapy (hazard ratio: 0.59; 95% confidence interval: 0.32-1.09). Most common adverse events with initial triple therapy included headache, diarrhea, and nausea. By the end of the main observation period, 2 patients in the initial triple and 9 in the initial double therapy groups had died.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with newly diagnosed PAH, both treatment strategies markedly reduced PVR by week 26, with no significant difference between groups (primary endpoint not met). Exploratory analyses suggested a possible signal for improved long-term outcomes with initial triple versus initial double oral therapy.
Topics: Acetamides; Adult; Aged; Antihypertensive Agents; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Endothelin Receptor Antagonists; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension; Pyrazines; Pyrimidines; Sulfonamides; Tadalafil
PubMed: 34593120
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.07.057 -
Journal of the American College of... Jan 2024Endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) and phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) combination therapy is recommended for low-/intermediate-risk pulmonary arterial... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Endothelin receptor antagonist (ERA) and phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) combination therapy is recommended for low-/intermediate-risk pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients. A fixed-dose combination of the ERA macitentan and PDE5i tadalafil (M/T FDC) in a once-daily, single tablet would simplify treatment.
OBJECTIVES
The multicenter, double-blind, adaptive phase 3 A DUE study investigated the efficacy and safety of M/T FDC vs macitentan 10 mg and vs tadalafil 40 mg monotherapies in PAH patients, including treatment-naïve and prior ERA or PDE5i monotherapy-treated patients.
METHODS
World Health Organization functional class II-III patients were randomized to M/T FDC, macitentan, or tadalafil depending on their PAH treatment (treatment-naïve, ERA, or PDE5i monotherapy) at baseline. The primary endpoint was change in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) at week 16.
RESULTS
In total, 187 patients were randomized to single-tablet M/T FDC (n = 108), macitentan (n = 35), or tadalafil (n = 44). PVR reduction with M/T FDC was significantly greater vs macitentan (29%; geometric mean ratio 0.71; 95% CL: 0.61-0.82; P < 0.0001) and vs tadalafil (28%; geometric mean ratio 0.72; 95% CL: 0.64-0.80; P < 0.0001). Three patients died in the M/T FDC arm (judged unrelated to treatment). Adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation, serious AEs, and those of special interest (anemia, hypotension, and edema) were more frequent with M/T FDC.
CONCLUSIONS
Macitentan and tadalafil FDC significantly improved PVR vs monotherapies in PAH patients, with a safety and tolerability profile consistent with the individual components. The A DUE study supports M/T FDC as a once-daily, single-tablet combination for initial therapy and escalation to double combination therapy in patients with PAH. (Clinical Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Macitentan and Tadalafil Monotherapies With the Corresponding Fixed-dose Combination Therapy in Subjects With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension [PAH]) [A DUE]; NCT03904693).
Topics: Humans; Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension; Tadalafil; Combined Modality Therapy; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Endothelin Receptor Antagonists; Tablets; Pyrimidines; Sulfonamides
PubMed: 38267108
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2023.10.045 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Aug 2015Data on the effect of initial combination therapy with ambrisentan and tadalafil on long-term outcomes in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension are scarce. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Data on the effect of initial combination therapy with ambrisentan and tadalafil on long-term outcomes in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension are scarce.
METHODS
In this event-driven, double-blind study, we randomly assigned, in a 2:1:1 ratio, participants with World Health Organization functional class II or III symptoms of pulmonary arterial hypertension who had not previously received treatment to receive initial combination therapy with 10 mg of ambrisentan plus 40 mg of tadalafil (combination-therapy group), 10 mg of ambrisentan plus placebo (ambrisentan-monotherapy group), or 40 mg of tadalafil plus placebo (tadalafil-monotherapy group), all administered once daily. The primary end point in a time-to-event analysis was the first event of clinical failure, which was defined as the first occurrence of a composite of death, hospitalization for worsening pulmonary arterial hypertension, disease progression, or unsatisfactory long-term clinical response.
RESULTS
The primary analysis included 500 participants; 253 were assigned to the combination-therapy group, 126 to the ambrisentan-monotherapy group, and 121 to the tadalafil-monotherapy group. A primary end-point event occurred in 18%, 34%, and 28% of the participants in these groups, respectively, and in 31% of the pooled-monotherapy group (the two monotherapy groups combined). The hazard ratio for the primary end point in the combination-therapy group versus the pooled-monotherapy group was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.72; P<0.001). At week 24, the combination-therapy group had greater reductions from baseline in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels than did the pooled-monotherapy group (mean change, -67.2% vs. -50.4%; P<0.001), as well as a higher percentage of patients with a satisfactory clinical response (39% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 1.56 [95% CI, 1.05 to 2.32]; P=0.03) and a greater improvement in the 6-minute walk distance (median change from baseline, 48.98 m vs. 23.80 m; P<0.001). The adverse events that occurred more frequently in the combination-therapy group than in either monotherapy group included peripheral edema, headache, nasal congestion, and anemia.
CONCLUSIONS
Among participants with pulmonary arterial hypertension who had not received previous treatment, initial combination therapy with ambrisentan and tadalafil resulted in a significantly lower risk of clinical-failure events than the risk with ambrisentan or tadalafil monotherapy. (Funded by Gilead Sciences and GlaxoSmithKline; AMBITION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01178073.).
Topics: Adult; Aged; Carbolines; Disease Progression; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Hospitalization; Humans; Hypertension, Pulmonary; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Male; Middle Aged; Natriuretic Peptide, Brain; Peptide Fragments; Phenylpropionates; Pyridazines; Risk Factors; Tadalafil
PubMed: 26308684
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1413687 -
Science Translational Medicine Jan 2023Severe and prolonged lymphopenia frequently occurs in patients with glioblastoma after standard chemoradiotherapy and has been associated with worse survival, but its...
Severe and prolonged lymphopenia frequently occurs in patients with glioblastoma after standard chemoradiotherapy and has been associated with worse survival, but its underlying biological mechanism is not well understood. To address this, we performed a correlative study in which we collected and analyzed peripheral blood of patients with glioblastoma ( = 20) receiving chemoradiotherapy using genomic and immune monitoring technologies. RNA sequencing analysis of the peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) showed an elevated concentration of myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC) regulatory genes in patients with lymphopenia when compared with patients without lymphopenia after chemoradiotherapy. Additional analysis including flow cytometry and single-cell RNA sequencing further confirmed increased numbers of circulating MDSC in patients with lymphopenia when compared with patients without lymphopenia after chemoradiotherapy. Preclinical murine models were also established and demonstrated a causal relationship between radiation-induced MDSC and systemic lymphopenia using transfusion and depletion experiments. Pharmacological inhibition of MDSC using an arginase-1 inhibitor (CB1158) or phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor (tadalafil) during radiation therapy (RT) successfully abrogated radiation-induced lymphopenia and improved survival in the preclinical models. CB1158 and tadalafil are promising drugs in reducing radiation-induced lymphopenia in patients with glioblastoma. These results demonstrate the promise of using these classes of drugs to reduce treatment-related lymphopenia and immunosuppression.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Mice; Glioblastoma; Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells; Leukocytes, Mononuclear; Tadalafil; Lymphopenia; Chemoradiotherapy
PubMed: 36696484
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abn6758 -
Molecular Therapy : the Journal of the... Jul 2022Cancer cells respond to various stressful conditions through the dynamic regulation of RNA m6A modification. Doxorubicin is a widely used chemotherapeutic drug that...
Cancer cells respond to various stressful conditions through the dynamic regulation of RNA m6A modification. Doxorubicin is a widely used chemotherapeutic drug that induces DNA damage. It is interesting to know whether cancer cells regulate the DNA damage response and doxorubicin sensitivity through RNA m6A modification. Here, we found that doxorubicin treatment significantly induced RNA m6A methylation in breast cancer cells in both a dose- and a time-dependent manner. However, protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) inhibited RNA m6A modification under doxorubicin treatment by enhancing the nuclear translocation of the RNA demethylase AlkB homolog 5 (ALKBH5), which was previously believed to be exclusively localized in the nucleus. Then, ALKBH5 removed the m6A methylation of BRCA1 for mRNA stabilization and further enhanced DNA repair competency to decrease doxorubicin efficacy in breast cancer cells. Importantly, we identified the approved drug tadalafil as a novel PRMT5 inhibitor that could decrease RNA m6A methylation and increase doxorubicin sensitivity in breast cancer. The strategy of targeting PRMT5 with tadalafil is a promising approach to promote breast cancer sensitivity to doxorubicin through RNA methylation regulation.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Demethylation; Doxorubicin; Female; Humans; Protein-Arginine N-Methyltransferases; RNA; Tadalafil
PubMed: 35278676
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2022.03.003 -
JAMA Network Open Feb 2021Combining 2 first-line treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED) or initiating other modalities in addition to a first-line therapy may produce beneficial outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Combining 2 first-line treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED) or initiating other modalities in addition to a first-line therapy may produce beneficial outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether different ED combination therapies were associated with improved outcomes compared with first-line ED monotherapy in various subgroups of patients with ED.
DATA SOURCES
Studies were identified through a systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception of these databases to October 10, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials or prospective interventional studies of the outcomes of combination therapy vs recommended monotherapy in men with ED were identified. Only comparative human studies, which evaluated the change from baseline of self-reported erectile function using validated questionnaires, that were published in any language were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction and synthesis were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
A meta-analysis was conducted that included randomized clinical trials that compared outcomes of combination therapy with phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors plus another agent vs PDE5 inhibitor monotherapy. Separate analyses were performed for the mean International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score change from baseline and the number of adverse events (AEs) by different treatment modalities and subgroups of patients.
RESULTS
A total of 44 studies included 3853 men with a mean (SD) age of 55.8 (11.9) years. Combination therapy compared with monotherapy was associated with a mean IIEF score improvement of 1.76 points (95% CI, 1.27-2.24; I2 = 77%; 95% PI, -0.56 to 4.08). Adding daily tadalafil, low-intensity shockwave therapy, vacuum erectile device, folic acid, metformin hydrochloride, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors was associated with a significant IIEF score improvement, but each measure was based on only 1 study. Specifically, the weighted mean difference (WMD) in IIEF score was 1.70 (95% CI, 0.79-2.61) for the addition of daily tadalafil, 3.50 (95% CI, 0.22-6.78) for the addition of low-intensity shockwave therapy, 8.40 (95% CI, 4.90-11.90) for the addition of a vacuum erectile device, 3.46 (95% CI, 2.16-4.76) for the addition of folic acid, 4.90 (95% CI, 2.82-6.98) for the addition of metformin hydrochloride and 2.07 (95% CI, 1.37-2.77) for the addition of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The addition of α-blockers to PDE5 inhibitors was not associated with improvement in IIEF score (WMD, 0.80; 95% CI, -0.06 to 1.65; I2 = 72%). Compared with monotherapy, combination therapy was associated with improved IIEF score in patients with hypogonadism (WMD, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.99-2.23; I2 = 0%), monotherapy-resistant ED (WMD, 4.38; 95% CI, 2.37-6.40; I2 = 52%), or prostatectomy-induced ED (WMD, 5.47; 95% CI, 3.11-7.83; I2 = 53%). The treatment-related AEs did not differ between combination therapy and monotherapy (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.66-1.85; I2 = 78%). Despite multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the levels of heterogeneity remained high.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study found that combination therapy of PDE5 inhibitors and antioxidants was associated with improved ED without increasing the AEs. Treatment with PDE5 inhibitors and daily tadalafil, shockwaves, or a vacuum device was associated with additional improvement, but this result was based on limited data. These findings suggest that combination therapy is safe, associated with improved outcomes, and should be considered as a first-line therapy for refractory, complex, or difficult-to-treat cases of ED.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antioxidants; Combined Modality Therapy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Equipment and Supplies; Erectile Dysfunction; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Folic Acid; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Male; Metformin; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Sildenafil Citrate; Tadalafil; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin B Complex
PubMed: 33599772
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.36337