Urology
Volume 68, Issue 3, Supplement , Pages 17-25, September 2006

Erection hardness: A unifying factor for defining response in the treatment of erectile dysfunction

  • John P. Mulhall

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA, and Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
    • John P. Mulhall receives research support from Pfizer Inc.
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: John P. Mulhall, MD, Department of Urology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York Presbyterian Hospital and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 525 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021.
  • ,
  • Laurence A. Levine

      Affiliations

    • Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
    • Laurence A. Levine is a paid consultant to, member of the Speakers’ Bureau for, and member of the medical advisory board for, Pfizer Inc.
  • ,
  • Klaus-Peter Jünemann

      Affiliations

    • Klinikum der Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel, Germany.

Abstract 

The extensive sildenafil citrate erectile dysfunction (ED) database of double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials was examined to determine the relation between erection hardness graded on the Erectile Hardness Grading Scale (EHGS) and (1) erectile function (EF), as assessed by the EF domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF); (2) frequency of erections hard enough for penetration, as assessed by IIEF Q2; and (3) the percentage of successful sexual intercourse attempts according to patient event logs. Pooled data from 6549 men with ED provided strong proof and improved characterization of the response to sildenafil. Almost half of men with ED and a baseline IIEF EF domain score classified as “severe ED” (≤10) shifted to a score classified as “no ED” (≥26). Sildenafil recipients showed greater mean improvement from baseline to end point in IIEF Q2 scores versus placebo, regardless of baseline ED severity, and a higher mean percentage of successful sexual intercourse attempts occurred during the last 4 weeks of treatment versus placebo (5.4-fold vs 2.0-fold increase from baseline). At end point, 95% of men who scored “no ED” on the IIEF EF domain and 92% of men who reported “almost always/always” achieving an erection hard enough for penetration (IIEF Q2) had graded their erections hard (rigid) enough for penetration (grade 3) or completely hard and fully rigid (grade 4) during the last 4 weeks of treatment, suggesting that the IIEF EF domain and IIEF Q2 may be good surrogate end points for erection hardness. Furthermore, during the last 4 weeks of treatment, the percentage of grade 3 and/or 4 erections correlated positively with the percentage of successful sexual intercourse attempts. Hence, hard erections may be considered a unifying factor that defines response to ED treatment. Completely hard and fully rigid erections (grade 4) should be recognized as the optimal goal of an ED therapy. Evidence presented here demonstrates that sildenafil significantly improved EF as assessed by the IIEF EF domain and assessments of erection hardness in patients with ED; a dose–response relation was observed in the proportions of men with ED who graded their erections hard (rigid) enough for sexual penetration or completely hard and fully rigid.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0090-4295(06)00767-9

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2006.05.041

Urology
Volume 68, Issue 3, Supplement , Pages 17-25, September 2006