Use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors and risk of melanoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies

An overview of conventional and investigational phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors for treating erectile dysfunction and other conditions

INTRODUCTION

There is a rising concern about developing innovative, efficacious PDE5I molecules that provide better safety, efficacy, and tolerability with less adverse effects. Innovative PDE5I with dual targets have also been defined in the literature. Additionally, some of PDE5I are able to selectively inhibit other enzymes such as histone deacetylase, acetylcholine esterase, and cyclooxygenase or act as nitric oxide donors. This review presents knowledge concerning the advanced trends and perspectives in using PDE5I in treatment of ED and other conditions.

AREAS COVERED

Pre-clinical and early clinical trials that investigated the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of novel PDE5I such as Udenafil, Mirodenafil, Lodenafil, Youkenafil, Celecoxib, and TPN729 in treatment of ED and other conditions.

EXPERT OPINION

Preclinical and limited early clinical studies of the new molecules of PDE5I have demonstrated encouraging results; however, safety, efficacy, and tolerability are still issues that necessitate further long-term multicenter clinical studies to ensure justification of their uses in treatment of ED and other conditions. Progress in molecular delivery techniques and tailored patient-specific management and additional therapeutic technology will dramatically improve care for ED and other conditions. The dream of ED and many other conditions becoming more effectively managed may be feasible in the near future.

Multifaceted approach toward mapping out the anticancer properties of small molecules via in vitro evaluation on melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer cells, and in silico target fishing

Melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers are among the most prevalent and most lethal forms of skin cancers. To identify new lead compounds with potential anticancer properties for further optimization, in vitro assays combined with in-silico target fishing and docking have been used to identify and further map out the antiproliferative and potential mode of action of molecules from a small library of compounds previously prepared in our laboratory. From screening these compounds in vitro against A375, SK-MEL-28, A431, and SCC-12 skin cancer cell lines, 35 displayed antiproliferative activities at the micromolar level, with the majority being primarily potent against the A431 and SCC-12 squamous carcinoma cell lines. The most active compounds 11 (A431: IC50  = 5.0 μM, SCC-12: IC50  = 2.9 μM, SKMEL-28: IC50  = 4.9 μM, A375: IC50  = 6.7 μM) and 13 (A431: IC50  = 5.0 μM, SCC-12: IC50  = 3.3 μM, SKMEL-28: IC50  = 13.8 μM, A375: IC50  = 17.1 μM), significantly and dose-dependently induced apoptosis of SCC-12 and SK-MEL-28 cells, as evidenced by the suppression of Bcl-2 and upregulation of Bax, cleaved caspase-3, caspase-9, and PARP protein expression levels. Both agents significantly reduced scratch wound healing, colony formation, and expression levels of deregulated cancer molecular targets including RSK/Akt/ERK1/2 and S6K1. In silico target prediction and docking studies using the SwissTargetPrediction web-based tool suggested that CDK8, CLK4, nuclear receptor ROR, tyrosine protein-kinase Fyn/LCK, ROCK1/2, and PARP, all of which are dysregulated in skin cancers, might be prospective targets for the two most active compounds. Further validation of these targets by western blot analyses, revealed that ROCK/Fyn and its associated Hedgehog (Hh) pathways were downregulated or modulated by the two lead compounds. In aggregate, these results provide a strong framework for further validation of the observed activities and the development of a more comprehensive structure-activity relationship through the preparation and biological evaluation of analogs.

Adverse reactions of PDE5 inhibitors: An analysis of the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database

BACKGROUND

Despite their efficacy and general safety, rare but devastating adverse drug reactions have been associated with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety profile of oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors with a particular focus on priapism and malignant melanoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this case-non-case study, we queried the individual case safety reports for phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors within the World Health Organization global database of individual case safety reports (VigiBase) between 1983 and 2021. We included all individual case safety reports for sildenafil, tadalafil, vardenafil, and avanafil in men. For comparison, we also extracted the safety data from the Food and Drug Administration trials for these drugs. We assessed the safety profile of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors by disproportionality analysis by measuring reporting odds ratio for their most commonly reported adverse drug reactions, once for all phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor reports and once for reports of oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor use in adult men (≥18 years old) with sexual dysfunction.

RESULTS

A total of 94,713 individual case safety reports for phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors were extracted. A total of 31,827 individual case safety reports were identified relating to adult men taking oral sildenafil, tadalafil, vardenafil, or avanafil for sexual dysfunction. The most common adverse drug reactions included poor drug efficacy (42.5%), headache (10.4% vs. 8.5%-27.6% [Food and Drug Administration]), abnormal vision (8.4% vs. ≤4.6% [Food and Drug Administration]), flushing (5.2% vs. 5.1%-16.5% [Food and Drug Administration]), and dyspepsia (4.2% vs. 3.4%-11.1% [Food and Drug Administration]). Priapism showed significant signals for sildenafil (reporting odds ratio = 13.81, 95% confidence interval: 11.75-16.24), tadalafil (reporting odds ratio = 14.54, 95% confidence interval: 11.56-18.06), and vardenafil (reporting odds ratio = 14.12, 95% confidence interval: 8.36-22.35). Comparing with other medications in VigiBase, sildenafil (reporting odds ratio = 8.73, 95% confidence interval: 7.63-9.99) and tadalafil (reporting odds ratio = 4.25, 95% confidence interval: 3.19-5.55) had significantly higher reporting odds ratios for malignant melanoma.

CONCLUSION

Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors show significant signals correlating with priapism among a large international cohort. Further clinical study is needed to elucidate whether this is from proper or inappropriate use or other confounding conditions, as analysis of pharmacovigilance data does not allow for quantifying the clinical risk. Also, there appears to be a relationship between phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor use and malignant melanoma, which warrants additional study to better understand causation.

Function of sildenafil on diseases other than urogenital system: An umbrella review

Background: To investigate the function of sildenafil on diseases other than urogenital system, an umbrella review was conducted. Methods: Meta-analysis and systematic reviews on this topic were comprehensively evaluated in this umbrella review. Quality of evidence was evaluated through AMSTAR and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system to generate a reliable and valid conclusion. Results: 77 out of 1164 meta-analysis were enrolled. 33 significant outcomes and 41 non-significant outcomes were extracted from all eligible articles. We found sildenafil did significant help in reducing arterial systolic pressure, mean pulmonary arterial pressure, pulmonary arterial pressure, systolic pulmonary arterial pressure in patients with pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases. Besides, sildenafil also improved exercise capacity or performance in patients with pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases. Other than these patients, this drug contributed great help in pregnant women with fetal growth restriction and preeclampsia by increasing the weight of newborns and lowering uterine and umbilical pulsatility indices. Additionally, it was reported that utilization of sildenafil has brought increased risk of melanoma. Conclusion: We can conclude from our study that sildenafil played an important role in many fields, especially in vascular protection. This finding provides a strong evidence for further expansion of sildenafil utilization in other diseases.

How do phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors affect cancer? A focus on glioblastoma multiforme

Since the discovery of phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) enzyme overexpression in the central nervous system (CNS) malignancies, investigations have explored the potential capacity of current PDE5 inhibitor drugs for repositioning in the treatment of brain tumors, notably glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). It has now been recognized that these drugs increase brain tumors permeability and enhance standard chemotherapeutics effectiveness. More importantly, studies have highlighted the promising antitumor functions of PDE5 inhibitors, e.g., triggering apoptosis, suppressing tumor cell growth and invasion, and reversing tumor microenvironment (TME) immunosuppression in the brain. However, contradictory reports have suggested a pro-oncogenic role for neuronal cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), indicating the beneficial function of PDE5 in the brain of GBM patients. Unfortunately, due to the inconsistent preclinical findings, only a few clinical trials are evaluating the therapeutic value of PDE5 inhibitors in GBM treatment. Accordingly, additional studies should be conducted to shed light on the precise effect of PDE5 inhibitors in GBM biology regarding the existing molecular heterogeneities among individuals. Here, we highlighted and discussed the previously investigated mechanisms underlying the impacts of PDE5 inhibitors in cancers, focusing on GBM to provide an overview of current knowledge necessary for future studies.

Phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5): Structure-function regulation and therapeutic applications of inhibitors

Phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) is one of the most well-studied phosphodiesterases (PDEs) that specifically targets cGMP typically generated by nitric oxide (NO)-mediated activation of the soluble guanylyl cyclase. Given the crucial role of cGMP generated through the activation of this cellular signaling pathway in a variety of physiologically processes, pharmacological inhibition of PDE5 has been demonstrated to have several therapeutic applications including erectile dysfunction and pulmonary arterial hypertension. While they are designed to inhibit PDE5, the inhibitors show different affinities and specificities against all PDE subtypes. Additionally, they have been shown to induce allosteric structural changes in the protein. These are mostly attributed to their chemical structure and, therefore, binding interactions with PDE catalytic domains. Therefore, understanding how these inhibitors interact with PDE5 and the structural basis of their selectivity is critically important for the design of novel, highly selective PDE5 inhibitors. Here, we review the structure of PDE5, how its function is regulated, and discuss the clinically available inhibitors that target phosphodiesterase 5, aiming to better understand the structural bases of their affinity and specificity. We also discuss the therapeutic indications of these inhibitors and the potential of repurposing for a wider range of clinical applications.

Phosphodiesterase inhibitors for lower urinary tract symptoms consistent with benign prostatic hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) refers to non-malignant enlargement of the prostate gland that may cause bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Alpha-blockers (ABs) and 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) are the mainstay of medical treatment. Recently, phosphodiesterase inhibitors (PDEIs) that so far have been used mainly to treat erectile dysfunction were introduced to treat male LUTS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PDEIs compared to placebo and other standard of care drugs (ABs and 5-ARIs) in men with LUTS consistent with BPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and clinical trials registries of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (updated 2 August 2018). We performed citation tracking and handsearching of abstracts and conference proceedings. We also contacted study authors to ask for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in this systematic review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PDEIs versus placebo, ABs, or 5-ARIs for at least four weeks in men with BPH-LUTS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently screened the literature and extracted data. Primary outcomes were effects on urinary symptoms as assessed by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS-total; score ranging from 0 to 35, with higher values reflecting more symptoms), urinary bother as assessed by the Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Impact Index (BPHII; score ranging from 0 to 13, with higher values reflecting more bother), and adverse events (AEs). We used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence. We considered short-term (up to 12 weeks) and long-term (12 weeks or longer) results separately.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 16 randomised trials in this review. The results for primary outcomes are as follows.PDEI versus placebo: PDEIs may result in a small improvement in IPSS-total score (mean difference (MD) 1.89 lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.27 lower to 1.50 lower; n = 4293; low-quality evidence) compared to placebo, and may reduce the BPHII score slightly (MD 0.52 lower, 95% CI 0.71 lower to 0.33 lower; n = 3646; low-quality evidence). Rates of AEs may be increased (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.67; n = 4386; low-quality evidence). This corresponds to 95 more AEs per 1000 participants (95% CI 47 more to 151 more per 1000). Study results were limited to a treatment duration of six to 12 weeks.PDEI versus AB: PDEIs and ABs probably provide similar improvement in IPSS-total score (MD 0.22 higher, 95% CI 0.49 lower to 0.93 higher; n = 933; moderate-quality evidence) and may have a similar effect on BPHII score (MD 0.03 higher, 95% CI 1.10 lower to 1.16 higher; n = 550; low-quality evidence) and AEs (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.30; n = 936; low-quality evidence). This corresponds to 71 more AEs per 1000 participants (95% CI 41 fewer to 264 more per 1000). Study results were limited to a treatment duration of six to 12 weeks.PDEI and AB versus AB alone: the combination of PDEI and AB may provide a small improvement in IPSS-total score (MD 2.56 lower, 95% CI 3.92 lower to 1.19 lower; n = 193; low-quality evidence) compared to AB alone. We found no evidence for BPHII scores. AEs may be increased (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.17; n = 194; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to 235 more AEs per 1000 participants (95% CI 69 more to 542 more per 1000). Study results were limited to treatment duration of four to 12 weeks.PDEI and AB versus PDEI alone: the combination of PDEI and AB may provide a small improvement in IPSS-total (MD 2.4 lower, 95% CI 6.47 lower to 1.67 higher; n = 40; low-quality evidence) compared to PDEI alone. We found no data on BPHII or AEs. Study results were limited to a treatment duration of four weeks.PDEI and 5-ARI versus 5-ARI alone: in the short term (up to 12 weeks), the combination of PDEI and 5-ARI probably results in a small improvement in IPSS-total score (MD 1.40 lower, 95% CI 2.24 lower to 0.56 lower; n = 695; moderate-quality evidence) compared to 5-ARI alone. We found no evidence on BPHII scores or AEs. In the long term (13 to 26 weeks), the combination of PDEI and 5-ARI likely results in a small reduction in IPSS-total score (MD 1.00 less, 95% CI 1.83 lower to 0.17 lower; n = 695; moderate-quality evidence). We found no evidence about effects on BPHII scores. There may be no difference in rates of AEs (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.36; n = 695; low-quality evidence). This corresponds to 19 more AEs per 1000 participants (95% CI 43 fewer to 98 more per 1000).We found no trials comparing other combinations of treatments or comparing different PDEI agents.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, PDEI likely leads to a small reduction in IPSS-total and BPHII sores, with a possible increase in AEs. There may be no differences between PDEI and AB with regards to improvement in IPSS-total, BPHII, and incidence of AEs. There appears to be no added benefit of PDEI combined with AB compared to PDEI or AB alone or PDEI combined with 5-ARI compared to ARI alone with regards to urinary symptoms. Most evidence was limited to short-term treatment up to 12 weeks and of moderate or low certainty.