A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Multi-Center Therapeutic Confirmatory Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Avanafil in Korean Patients with Erectile Dysfunction

A real-world pilot study assessing treatment satisfaction with avanafil in patients with erectile dysfunction

Background

Avanafil is a second-generation phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitor, and offers a rapid onset of action (15 minutes). Its real-world data, including treatment satisfaction, are still lacking.

Aim

The study sought to investigate the treatment outcomes of avanafil and the factors impacting treatment satisfaction in a real-world setting.

Methods

Between November 2021 and February 2023, erectile dysfunction (ED) patients prescribed avanafil were consecutively enrolled in this phase 4, open-label, cross-sectional, observational study. At each follow-up visit (4-week intervals), participants completed a questionnaire for assessing the use and treatment-emergent adverse events of avanafil, ED severity, and treatment satisfaction.

Outcomes

The outcome measures included the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM), and Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction.

Results

Among 234 patients enrolled, 112 (47.9%) patients had follow-up visits and answered the questionnaire. Treatment with avanafil significantly improved the mean SHIM total score from 10.2 ± 5.6 at baseline to 17.5 ± 6.2 (P < .001). Of the patients treated with avanafil, 71.4% (n = 80 of 112) reported a >4-point improvement in the SHIM total score, and 33.1% (n = 37 of 112) reported normal erectile function. The proportion of patients satisfied with avanafil treatment (defined as Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction index score ≥60) was 87.5%. Several physical factors (younger age, lower waist circumference, and lower level of low-density lipoprotein), and sexual function factors (shorter duration of ED, higher SHIM total score at baseline, PDE5 inhibitor treatment naive, and acquired premature ejaculation) tended to contribute to satisfaction with avanafil treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 41.1% of patients, and all were mild in severity.

Clinical Implications

This study identifies the factors associated with treatment satisfaction of avanafil, which may ultimately lead to better treatment outcomes.

Strengths and Limitations

This is the first study to provide real-world evidence of avanafil for ED treatment, and validated questionnaires were used to assess erectile function and treatment satisfaction. However, the limitations of this study include single-center observational study design, small sample size, and short-term follow-up.

Conclusion

Avanafil is an effective treatment for ED, and satisfaction rate is high in an outpatient setting. The awareness of identified factors related to patient satisfaction may improve treatment outcomes.

The Efficacy and Safety of Avanafil During a Treatment of Male Erectile Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose

Erectile dysfunction (ED) contributes to a large burden and impairs the quality of life among males. Avanafil appears to be a promising treatment for ED; however, its efficacy and safety profile remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of avanafil for the treatment of ED.

Patients and Methods

An extensive search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Embase databases with 11 publications was performed, with outcomes evaluated are International Index of Erectile Function - Erectile Function (IIEF-EF), Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP), and Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAE). Statistical parameter Mean Difference (MD) and Risk Ratio (RR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were used to measure effect size.

Results

The pooled estimates demonstrated that changes in IIEF-EF function (MD=4.39, 95% CI [3.41, 5.37], p<0.001), SEP-2 (RR=3.43, 95% CI [2.79, 4.22], p<0.001), SEP-3 (RR=2.30, 95% CI [2.01, 2.62], p<0.001), and TEAE (RR=1.49, 95% CI [1.12, 1.96], p=0.005) were significantly higher in the avanafil group than in the placebo group. Moreover, 200 mg avanafil was superior to that mg 100 mg-avanafil, indicated by the IIEF-EF score (MD=-1.15, 95% CI [-1.40, -0.89], p<0.001). In contrary, there were no significant differences in SEP-2 (RR=0.90, 95% CI [0.75, 1.08], p=0.26), SEP-3 (RR=0.92, 95% CI [0.81, 1.05], p=0.21) and TEAE (RR=1.00, 95% CI [0.87, 1.15], p=0.99) for both 100 mg and 200 mg doses.

Conclusion

This review highlights the potential use of this drug in ED treatment. Further large-scale Randomized Controlled Trials investigations involving various racial groups are required to confirm these findings.

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.

Efficacy and safety of avanafil as compared with sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction: A randomized, double blind, multicenter clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of avanafil as compared with sildenafil in the management of patients with erectile dysfunction.

METHODS

It was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, two-arm, active-controlled, parallel, multicenter, non-inferiority clinical study carried out in patients with erectile dysfunction for at least 3 months and International Index of Erectile Function - Erectile Function domain score of <26 at enrolment.

RESULTS

A total of 220 patients were randomized to receive either avanafil tablets 100 mg or sildenafil tablets 50 mg in 1:1 ratio. After 4 weeks of treatment, 40.0% of patients in the avanafil group and 45.6% of patients in the sildenafil group required dose escalation to a high dose (avanafil 200 mg/sildenafil 100 mg). The difference in the mean change of International Index of Erectile Function - Erectile Function score from baseline in the two groups increased from week 4 (1.1, 95% confidence interval -0.2 to 2.5) to week 8 (1.4, 95% confidence interval 0.1-2.7) and week 12 (2.1, 95% confidence interval 0.8-3.5), showing non-inferiority at week 4, and superiority at week 8 and week 12. Avanafil showed a faster onset of action as shown by a significantly better response to modified Sexual Encounter Profile 1 in the avanafil group (84.8%) as compared with that in the sildenafil group (28.2%; P < 0.001). Both avanafil and sildenafil were well tolerated by all the patients in the study; the most common adverse event reported during the study was headache in both the groups.

CONCLUSION

Avanafil is superior to sildenafil in improving the International Index of Erectile Function - Erectile Function domain score at the end of 12 weeks of treatment with the added advantage of faster onset of action.

A Bioequivalence Study of Avanafil in Healthy Chinese Male Subjects Under Fasting and Fed Conditions: Results of a Randomized, Open-Label, Single-Dose, 2-Sequence, 2-Period Crossover Study

This bioequivalence study was conducted to determine the pharmacokinetics and safety profiles of an originator and a generic avanafil formulation in Chinese male subjects under fed and fasting conditions. Each eligible subject was initially randomly given avanafil (200 mg) in a test‐reference or reference‐test order, before being switched to another study drug sequence after 7 drug‐free days. The bioequivalence of test and reference avanafil were determined if the 90%CIs of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for the area under plasma concentration‐time curve (AUC) from time 0 to infinity (AUC_0‐∞), AUC from time 0 to the last detectable concentration (AUC_0‐t), and the maximum plasma concentration (C_max) fell within the range 80%‐125%. Under fasting/fed conditions, the 90%CIs of GMR for AUC_0‐∞, AUC_0‐t, and C_max were 98.9% to 109.5%/96.0% to 101.2%, 99.6% to 110.3%/96.6% to 102.4%, and 99.3% to 116.8%/94.3% to 106.7%, respectively, which were all within the 80%‐125% range. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 20.8% of subjects under fasting conditions and 20.7% of subjects under fed conditions, with a severity of grade 1. No significant difference was found in the rate of occurrence of AEs and drug‐related AEs in the test and reference‐avanafil groups (all P > .05). We concluded that the test and reference avanafil were bioequivalent in healthy Chinese male subjects under fasting and fed conditions.

Efficacy and Safety of Avanafil in Chinese Subjects With Erectile Dysfunction: A Multi-Center, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Clinical Trial

Introduction

The incidence of erectile dysfunction (ED) increases with age in mainland China and phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) are the major drugs used for its treatment.

Aim

To determine the efficacy and safety of Chinese developed avanafil as therapy for ED in China.

Methods

This phase III trial was carried out in 7 medical centers in China. Eligible subjects suffering from ED were allocated randomly into 3 groups (ratio 1:1:1) and orally received a placebo, 100 or 200 mg avanafil for a total of 12 weeks.

Main outcome measures

The primary endpoint was changes in erectile function (EF) domain scores according to the International Index of EF (IIEF) questionnaire from baseline to week 12 of therapy. Secondary endpoints assessments were changes in the response rates of SEP, Q2 and Q3; changes in IIEF other domain scores. Safety evaluation monitored treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious TEAEs, laboratory test results, vital signs and electrocardiographs.

Results

Of 218 randomized ED subjects, 182 (83.5%) completed the study. After 12-week therapy, alterations from baseline of the mean IIEF-EF domain scores in the 100 mg and 200 mg groups were greater than for the placebo (all P < .05) group. The changes in mean SEP Q2 response rates from baseline to week 12 in the placebo, 100 mg and 200 mg groups were 5.4%, 22.3% and 22.1%, and SEP Q3 response rate were 22.7%, 42.6% and 38.1%, respectively. Avanafil treatment (regardless of dose) improved EF vs placebo for most of other secondary efficacy endpoints studied (all P < .05). No differences were detected in efficacy endpoints between the 100 and 200 mg dosage groups (all P > .05) or in the incidence of TEAEs and drug-related TEAEs among the 3 groups (all P > .05).

Conclusion

Avanafil (100 or 200 mg) was effective and generally well tolerated in Chinese subjects with ED.

Jiang H, Lin H, Li F, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Avanafil in Chinese Subjects With Erectile Dysfunction: A Multi-Center, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Clinical Trial. Sex Med 2021;9:100337.

Placebo Responses Among Men With Erectile Dysfunction Enrolled in Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitor Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Placebo responses in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) are poorly described in the literature to date.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the association of placebo with ED outcomes among men enrolled in placebo-controlled, phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5I) trials.

DATA SOURCES

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, a database search was conducted to identify double-blind, placebo-controlled studies using PDE5Is for the treatment of ED published from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2018, within MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Only articles published in the English language were included.

STUDY SELECTION

Double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of PDE5Is for ED were included. Studies were excluded if they did not provide distribution measures for statistical analysis. Study selection review assessments were conducted by 2 independent investigators. A total of 2215 studies were identified from the database search, and after review, 63 studies that included 12 564 men were analyzed.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in abstracting data and assessing validity. Data were extracted from published reports by 2 independent reviewers. Quality assessment was performed using the Jadad scale. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was improvement in the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire in the placebo arm of the included studies. Effect size was reported as bias-corrected standardized mean difference (Hedges g). The hypothesis was formulated before data extraction.

RESULTS

A total of 63 studies that included 12 564 men (mean [SD] age, 55 [7] years; age range, 36-68 years) were included. Erectile function was significantly improved among participants in the placebo arm, with a small to moderate effect size (Hedges g [SE], 0.35 [0.03]; P < .001). Placebo effect size was larger among participants with ED associated with posttraumatic stress disorder (Hedges g [SE], 0.78 [0.32]; P = .02) compared with the overall analysis. No significant difference was found between placebo and PDE5Is for ED after prostate surgery or radiotherapy (Hedges g [SE], 0.30 [0.17]; P = .08).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, placebo was associated with improvement of ED, especially among men with ED-related posttraumatic stress disorder. No difference was found between placebo and PDE5I among men treated for ED after prostate surgery.

Avanafil for the Treatment of men With Erectile Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Previous studies have reported the clinical efficacy of avanafil for erectile dysfunction (ED), but these findings are controversial. This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of avanafil for ED. EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched extensively to obtain eligible studies. Clinical outcomes including successful vaginal penetration (SVP), successful intercourse (SI), International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function domain (IIEF-EF) score and treatment adverse events (TAEs) were compared using RevMan v.5.3. Eight RCTs involving 3,709 patients were included. The analysis demonstrated that compared with placebo, the SVP (RR = 3.20, 95% CI [2.60, 3.95], p < .001), SI (RR = 2.53, 95% CI [2.19, 2.92], p < .001), change in IIEF-EF score (MD = 4.57, 95% CI [3.68, 5.46], p < .001) and TAEs (RR = 1.78, 95% CI [1.38, 2.31], p < .0001) were significantly higher in the avanafil. In addition, avanafil 200 mg were higher than avanafil 100 mg in SI (RR = 0.86, 95% CI [0.75, 0.99], p = .03) and change in IIEF-EF score (MD = -1.34, 95% CI [-1.67, -1.01], p < .001), but there were no obvious differences in SVP (RR = 0.89; 95% CI [0.74, 1.08], p = .23) and TAEs (RR = 0.97, 95% CI [0.83, 1.14], p = .74) between the two doses. The present evidence suggests that avanafil (especially 200 mg) has the potential to be the drug of choice for ED, but more strict and larger sample size RCTs are need to validate the findings.

Effects of the Phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE-5) Inhibitors, Avanafil and Zaprinast, on Bone Remodeling and Oxidative Damage in a Rat Model of Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE-5) inhibitors, zaprinast and avanafil, on NO signalling pathway, bone mineral density (BMD), epiphyseal bone width, bone marrow angiogenesis, and parameters of oxidative stress in a rat model of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP).

Material/Methods

Twenty-four 8-month-old male rats in four groups were given a single daily treatment during a 30-day period: an (untreated) control group (n=6): a dexamethasone-treated group (120 μ/kg) (n=6); a group treated with dexamethasone (120 μ/kg) and zaprinast (10 mg/kg) (n=6): and a group treated with dexamethasone (120 μ/kg) and avanafil (10 mg/kg) (n=6). Rat whole body bone mineral density (BMD) was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), and bone histology was performed. Also, selected oxidative stress parameters by HPLC method and the other biochemical parameters by ELISA method were measured.

Results

The GIOP model rats treated with zaprinast and avanafil showed a significant increase in NO, cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP), and protein kinase G (PKG) (NO/cGMP/PKG) signaling-pathway components, and in C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX-1), bone marrow angiogenesis, BMD, and epiphyseal bone width, compared with the (untreated) control rats (p<0.05). Levels of pyridinoline (PD) and deoxypyridinoline (DPD) were significantly reduced in the dexamethasone + zaprinast, and dexamethasone + avanafil treatment groups (p<0.05). Malondialdehyde (MDA), ubiquinone-10 (CoQ10), ubiquinol CoQ10 (CoQ10H), and 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) were significantly increased in the dexamethasone-treated group, compared with the (untreated) controls (p<0.05).

Conclusions

In the GIOP rat model, markers of oxidative stress and bone atrophy were significantly reduced by treatment with the PDE-5 inhibitors, zaprinast and avanafil.