Cited by 71Sexual function and dysfunction studiesPhosphodiesterase function and regulationUrological Disorders and Treatments

The safety and efficacy of Avanafil, a new 2 nd generation PDE5i: comprehensive review and meta-analysis

Open access
Corona, Giovanni, Rastrelli, Giulia, Burri, Andrea, Jannini, Emmanuele A., Maggi, Mario·2016·Expert Opinion on Drug Safety

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The discontinuation rate with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) remains very high. Recently, a new PDE5ì, avanafil, has become available worldwide. AREAS COVERED: All placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the effect of avanafil in patients with ED were reviewed and meta-analyzed. So far, 5 different RCTs on avanafil have been published, including 1379 and 605 patients in active and placebo groups, respectively. Avanafil was up to 3-fold superior to placebo in determining successful sexual intercourse. Although head-to-head comparative studies are still lacking, re-analyses of available data, showed that avanafil had comparable efficacy, but lower incidence of drug-related side effects, compared to first-generation PDE5is. EXPERT OPINION: Avanafil specific and peculiar pharmacological profile, addresses several problems that have been documented with first-generation PDE5is. Avanafil should theoretically guarantee a low dropout incidence by ensuring a natural profile of action and a low incidence of side effects. Longer studies and head-to-heard trials are advisable to clarify these issues.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1517/14740338.2016.1130126

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The most recent phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor on the market, avanafil, increases IIEF-EFD by 5 points in meta-analysis.

    “They found that on average physical activity increased IIEF-EFD by almost 4 points, an effect that is not very far from the 5 point increase - as evaluated in the meta-analysis - by the most recent phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) on the market, avanafil [59].”
  • On average, physical activity increased IIEF-EFD by almost 4 points in randomized controlled trials of ED patients.

    “They found that on average physical activity increased IIEF-EFD by almost 4 points, an effect that is not very far from the 5 point increase - as evaluated in the meta-analysis - by the most recent phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) on the market, avanafil [59].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Smith WB 2nd, McCaslin IR, Gokce A, et al. PDE5 inhibi- tors: considerations for preference and long-term adher- ence. Int J Clin Pract. 2013;67:768-780.
  2. Kyle JA, Brown DA, Hill JK. Avanafil for erectile dysfunc- tion. Ann Pharmacother. 2013;47:1312-1320. •• An excellent review on Avanafil.
  3. • An internet online survey on patients and partner sexual treatment expectations. · DOI
  4. • An excellent review on ED-related cardiovascular risk.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Corona, G., Rastrelli, G., Burri, A., Jannini, E. A., & Maggi, M.
Affiliations
  • Azienda USL di Bologna (IT)
  • University of Florence (IT)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • University of Rome Tor Vergata (IT)
Corresponding author
Corona, Giovanni
Venue
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety
Published
2016-01-20
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
237-247
ISSN
  • 1474-0338 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-764X
OpenAlex
W2194710343
Cited by
71
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8
FWCI
4.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Expert Opinion on Drug Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Phosphodiesterase function and regulation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urological Disorders and Treatments
Keywords
avanafil, phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, erectile dysfunction, drug efficacy, drug safety, adverse drug reactions, treatment discontinuation
MeSH terms
Humans, Erectile Dysfunction, Male, Pyrimidines, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review