Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Urology and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

Sildenafil (Viagra) for male erectile dysfunction: a meta-analysis of clinical trial reports

RA Moore2*, JE Edwards1 and HJ McQuay1

Author Affiliations

1 Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Anaesthetics, University of Oxford, Oxford Radcliffe Hospital, The Churchill, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LJ, UK

2 Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Anaesthetics, University of Oxford, The Churchill, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LJ

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Urology 2002, 2:6  doi:10.1186/1471-2490-2-6

Published: 22 May 2002

Abstract

Background

Evaluation of company clinical trial reports could provide information for meta-analysis at the commercial introduction of a new technology.

Methods

Clinical trial reports of sildenafil for erectile dysfunction from September 1997 were used for meta-analysis of randomised trials (at least four weeks duration) and using fixed or dose optimisation regimens. The main outcome sought was an erection, sufficiently rigid for penetration, followed by successful intercourse, and conducted at home.

Results

Ten randomised controlled trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (2123 men given sildenafil and 1131 placebo). NNT or NNH were calculated for important efficacy, adverse event and discontinuation outcomes. Dose optimisation led to at least 60% of attempts at sexual intercourse being successful in 49% of men, compared with 11% with placebo; the NNT was 2.7 (95% confidence interval 2.3 to 3.3). For global improvement in erections the NNT was 1.7 (1.6 to 1.9). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 30% of men on dose optimised sildenafil compared with 11% on placebo; the NNH was 5.4 (4.3 to 7.3). All cause discontinuations were less frequent with sildenafil (10%) than with placebo (20%). Sildenafil dose optimisation gave efficacy equivalent to the highest fixed doses, and adverse events equivalent to the lowest fixed doses.

Conclusion

This review of clinical trial reports available at the time of licensing agreed with later reviews that had many more trials and patients. Making reports submitted for marketing approval available publicly would provide better information when it was most needed, and would improve evidence-based introduction of new technologies.