Table 18Intra-urethral Treatment: Improvement in Erections*

StudyED etiologyTreatment Group % (n/N)Control Group % (n/N)Relative Risk [95% CI]
Alprostadil vs. Placebo
Padma-Nathan 1997Physiologic: 100%65.9 (996/1511)**
Dosing phase
NA-
Williams 1998Physiologic: 100%63.9 (159/249)**
Dosing phase
NA-
Alprostadil vs. Prazosin (IU)
Peterson 1998Physiologic: 100% Range for % response (dose)

14.1 (125 mcg) – 31.0 (500 mcg)
% Response (dose)

3.0 (2000 mcg)
-
Alprostadil + Prazosin (IU) vs. Placebo
Peterson 1998Physiologic: 100% Range for % response (Alprostadil dose/Prazosin dose)

30.4 (125 mcg/500 mcg) – 35.7 (500 mcg/2000 mcg)
0.4-
Alprostadil (IU) vs. Alprostadil (ICI)
Shabsigh 2000NR21.1 (20/95)
In-office titration phase, Positive buckling test

61.8 (42/68)
At-home phase, ≥ 1 erection sufficient for intercourse
61.1 (58/95)
In-office titration phase, Positive buckling test

92.6 (63/68)
At-home phase, ≥ 1 erection sufficient for intercourse
0.34 [0.23–0.53]


0.67 [0.55–0.81]
Shokeir 1999Physiologic: 100%60.0 (18/30)90.0 (27/30)0.67 [0.49–0.91]
Alprostadil (starting dose 250 μg) vs. Alprostadil (starting dose 500 μg)
Ekman 2000NR

Vascular: 43%–47%
Diabetes: 21%
Psychogenic: 7%–12%


73.5 (122/166)


-
Prazosin (IU) vs. Placebo
Peterson 1998Physiologic: 100% % Response (dose)

3.0 (2000 mcg)
% Response

0.4


-
*

Defined as full erection or “positive response,” Grade 4/5 erections, erections sufficient for intercourse, or Rigiscan assessment ≥ 70% rigidity base or tip lasting ≥ 10 minutes

**

Patients achieving an adequate erectile response were then randomized in the double blind placebo controlled home phase

From: 3, Results

Cover of Diagnosis and Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction
Diagnosis and Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction.
Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 171.
Tsertsvadze A, Yazdi F, Fink HA, et al.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.