A Small Group Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of Daily Pentoxifylline in the Management of Patients With Erectile Dysfunction with Suboptimal Treatment Response to Sildenafil

Conservative Non-surgical Options for Erectile Dysfunction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This study aimed to review recent evidence on conservative non-surgical options for erectile dysfunction (ED) in men. A narrative review of the literature was performed. A comprehensive search in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases was done. Papers in English language, published from May 2017 until May 2022, were included. Papers reporting basic research or animal research were excluded, as long as reviews or meta-analyses. Congress reports, clinical cases, or clinical trials protocols with no results were also excluded.

RECENT FINDINGS

We found a multitude of different treatment modalities for ED. We must take into account the type of patient, their comorbidities, the origin of their ED, and its severity in order to reproduce effective results using these therapies. Some of the treatments show good results with a good level of evidence (new IPDE5 formulations, intracavernous injections, shock wave therapy, hormonal theraphy, psycho-sexual theraphy). However, others (some new molecules, stem cell theraphy, platelet-rich plasma injections, oxygenation-based therapy, nutraceuticals), although some of them present promising results, require randomized studies with a larger number of patients and a longer follow-up time to be able to establish firm recommendations. Regarding the conservative treatment of erectile dysfunction, in recent years, some therapies have been consolidated as effective and safe for certain types of patients. On the other hand, other treatment modalities, although promising, still lack the evidence and the necessary follow-up to be recommended in daily practice.

A raising dawn of pentoxifylline in management of inflammatory disorders in Covid-19

The existing pandemic viral infection caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) leads to coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). SARS-CoV-2 exploits angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) as an entry-point into affected cells and down-regulation of ACE2 by this virus triggers the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines and up-regulation of angiotensin II. These changes may lead to hypercytokinemia and the development of cytokine storm with the development of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Different repurposed had been in use in the management of Covid-19, one of these agents is pentoxifylline (PTX) which has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Therefore, the objective of the present mini-review is to highlight the potential role of PTX in Covid-19 regarding its anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects. PTX is a non-selective phosphodiesterase inhibitor that increases intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate which stimulates protein kinase A and inhibits leukotriene and tumor necrosis factor. PTX has antiviral, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects, thus it may attenuate SARS-CoV-2-induced hyperinflammation and related complications. As well, PTX can reduce hyper-viscosity and coagulopathy in Covid-19 through increasing red blood cell deformability and inhibition of platelet aggregations. In conclusion, PTX is a non-selective phosphodiesterase drug, that has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects thereby can reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection-hyperinflammation and oxidative stress. Besides, PTX improves red blood cells (RBCs) deformability and reduces blood viscosity so can mitigate Covid-19-induced hyper-viscosity and RBCs hyper-aggregation which is linked with the development of coagulopathy. Taken together, PTX seems to be an effective agent against Covid-19 severity.

A Potential Role of Ethosuximide and Pentoxifylline in Relieving Abdominal Pain in Irritable Bowel Syndrome Patients Treated with Mebeverine: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background and Purpose

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is defined as an association of chronic abdominal pain with bowel habit abnormalities, without clear organic dysfunction. T-type calcium channels and low-grade mucosal inflammation are linked to abdominal pain; however, medical treatments for IBS abdominal pain are largely ineffective. In this study, we investigated if pentoxifylline (PTX) and ethosuximide could potentially alleviate abdominal pain in patients with IBS treated with mebeverine.

Methods

We recruited 150 patients from Tanta University Hospital to this randomized, prospective, and double blinded study. Patients were randomly allocated to three groups (n = 50). Group 1 (mebeverine) received 135 mg mebeverine three times/day (t.i.d). Group 2 (ethosuximide group) received 135 mg mebeverine t.i.d plus 250 mg ethosuximide twice daily (b.i.d) and group 3 (PTX group) received 135 mg mebeverine t.i.d plus 400 mg PTX b.i.d. Patients were assessed by a gastroenterologist at baseline and 6 months after therapy. Serum interleukin-8 (IL-8), IL-6, tumor necrosis-α (TNF-α), fecal myeloperoxidase, and fecal neutrophil gelatinase associated lipocalin (NGAL) levels were measured before and after therapy. The numeric pain rating scale (NRS) was also assessed before and after therapy.

Primary Outcomes

Reduced NRS scores and abdominal pain relief.

Secondary Outcomes

Decreased inflammatory biomarkers.

Results

After 6 months, groups 2 and 3 showed a significantly greater reduction in serum IL-8, IL-6, TNF-α, fecal myeloperoxidase, and fecal NGAL levels when compared to group 1 after therapy. Both groups 2 and 3 showed significant reductions in NRS scores when compared to the group 1.

Conclusion

Ethosuximide and PTX may be promising, novel adjunct drugs to antispasmodics for relieving abdominal pain in patients with IBS.

Trial Registration

Identifier: NCT04217733.

Treatment of Poor Sperm Quality and Erectile Dysfunction With Oral Pentoxifylline: A Systematic Review

Background: Pentoxifylline (PTX) is a member of methylxanthine chemicals and a type of non-selective phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, which has been used in male infertility treatment to improve sperm quality and erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment. Mutually tight associations existed between ED and male infertility. Using PTX might kill two birds with one stone by improving sperm quality and erectile function in infertile men with ED. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched by October 2021. Based on available evidence from observational studies and randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), we conducted a systematic review to summarize the efficacy and safety of PTX in treating ED and male infertility. The protocol of the article was registered and updated in PROSPERO (CRD42021291396). Results: From 202 records, eight studies (7 RCTs) evaluating the role of PTX in ED and three studies (2 RCTs) assessing the efficacy of PTX in male infertility were included in the systematic review. Three studies (100.00%) and two studies (100.00%) reported the beneficial role of PTX in improving sperm progressive motility and normal sperm morphology rate, respectively. In contrast, only one study (33.33%) indicated the favorable role of PTX in enhancing sperm concentration. As for ED, three (60.00%) studies supported the treatment role of PTX alone in ED, and two studies (66.67%) favored the combination use of PTX and selective PDE5Is compared with selective PDE5Is alone. Safety analysis showed that PTX was a well-tolerated drug in ED and male infertility treatment. Conclusion: Given the association between ED and male infertility and satisfying findings from available evidence, PTX administration for the simultaneous treatment of poor sperm quality and mild ED in infertile men will highly enhance the treatment compliance. However, the finding should be treated carefully until validated by further studies.

Assessment of Combination Therapies vs Monotherapy for Erectile Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and 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.