Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Effectiveness and patient satisfaction with the new sildenafil oral suspension formulation compared to sildenafil oro-dispersible film: a real-life study

International Journal of Impotence Research (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Sildenafil is one of the most used phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) in clinical practice. A new oral suspension formulation (OSF) of sildenafil has been introduced to overcome the drawbacks of previous formulations. We assess the efficacy and patients’ experience with sildenafil 50 mg OSF in men with ED who were taking the sildenafil oro-dispersible film (ODF). Demographics and clinical data from 70 consecutive men with mild-moderate ED were analysed. Patients were treated with sildenafil 50 mg ODF for 12 weeks (follow-up 1), then, after 2-week washout, were administered sildenafil 50 mg OSF for 12 weeks (follow-up 2). At each follow-up, patients completed the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and the Psychological and Interpersonal Relationship Scales-Short Form (PAIRS-SF) questionnaires. Descriptive statistics described the whole cohort. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test assessed potential differences in psychometric scores at different follow-up assessments. Logistic regression analyses tested the associations between study variables and satisfaction after sildenafil OSF treatment. Overall, median age was 56 (51–62) years, and median IIEF-EF score was 14 (12–17). Compared to baseline, IIEF-EF scores significantly improved after sildenafil ODF and OSF treatment (all p < 0.01) with no differences between the two formulations. IIEF-overall satisfaction (OS) was higher after sildenafil OSF than ODF (p < 0.001). Similarly, median PGI-I score were better after sildenafil OSF than ODF (p < 0.001). The PAIRS-SF spontaneity scores were significantly higher after OSF than ODF (p < 0.01). At multivariable logistic regression analysis, younger age (p = 0.02) and lower baseline IIEF-EF scores (p = 0.01) were independent predictors of improved satisfaction with OSF compared to ODF. The sildenafil OSF and ODF had similar efficacy, however the new OSF provides higher satisfaction and spontaneity scores compared to the oro-dispersible film.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Study protocol.
Fig. 2: Median IIEF scores of the study cohort at different follow-up evaluation.
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Nehra A, Kulaksizoglu H. Global perspectives and controversies in the epidemiology of male erectile dysfunction. Curr Opin Urol. 2002;12:493–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00042307-200211000-00009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Capogrosso P, Colicchia M, Ventimiglia E, Castagna G, Clementi MC, Suardi N, et al. One patient out of four with newly diagnosed erectile dysfunction is a young man-worrisome picture from the everyday clinical practice. J Sex Med. 2013;10:1833–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pozzi E, Capogrosso P, Chierigo F, Pederzoli F, Ventimiglia E, Boeri L, et al. Clinical profile of young patients with erectile dysfunction: preliminary findings of a real-life cross-sectional study. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6:184–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.10.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Latini DM, Penson DF, Colwell HH, Lubeck DP, Mehta SS, Henning JM, et al. Psychological impact of erectile dysfunction: validation of a new health related quality of life measure for patients with erectile dysfunction. J Urol. 2002;168:2086–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64302-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Althof SE. Quality of life and erectile dysfunction. Urology. 2002;59:803–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01606-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Capogrosso P, Ventimiglia E, Boeri L, Capitanio U, Gandaglia G, Dehò F, et al. Sexual functioning mirrors overall men’s health status, even irrespective of cardiovascular risk factors. Andrology. 2017;5:63–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.12299

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Salonia A, Bettocchi C, Boeri L, Capogrosso P, Carvalho J, Cilesiz NC, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Sexual and Reproductive Health-2021 update: male sexual dysfunction. Eur Urol. 2021;80:333–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.06.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pozzi E, Capogrosso P, Boeri L, Belladelli F, Baudo A, Schifano N, et al. Longitudinal risk of developing cardiovascular diseases in patients with erectile dysfunction-which patients deserve more attention? J Sex Med. 2020;17:1489–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.03.012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen L, Staubli SEL, Schneider MP, Kessels AG, Ivic S, Bachmann LM, et al. Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors for the treatment of erectile dysfunction: a trade-off network meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68:674–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.03.031

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Radicioni M, Castiglioni C, Giori A, Cupone I, Frangione V, Rovati S. Bioequivalence study of a new sildenafil 100 mg orodispersible film compared to the conventional film-coated 100 mg tablet administered to healthy male volunteers. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2017;11:1183–92. https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S124034

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Cocci A, Capece M, Cito G, Russo GI, Falcone M, Timpano M, et al. Effectiveness and safety of oro-dispersible sildenafil in a new film formulation for the treatment of erectile dysfunction: comparison between sildenafil 100-mg film-coated tablet and 75-mg oro-dispersible film. J Sex Med. 2017;14:1606–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.10.066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Manfredi C, Franco A, Ditonno F, Mathur R, Franco G, Lombardo R, et al. Treatment preferences of patients with erectile dysfunction: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2024;76:42–51. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.23.05552-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Corona G, Rastrelli G, Burri A, Serra E, Gianfrilli D, Mannucci E, et al. First-generation phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors dropout: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Andrology. 2016;4:1002–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.12255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Peinado Ibarra F, García Gómez B, Luján Marco S, Segura Paños AM. Study UNICO: Perception of urologists and andrologists, in spain, about the use of sildenafil oral suspension in patients with erectile dysfunction. Arch Esp Urol. 2023;76:139–44. https://doi.org/10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20237602.15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The physicians’ guide to helping patients with alcohol problems. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Washington, DC. 1995. http://mpcmh.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NIAAA_Clinicians_Guide_AandD_Screening.pdf. Accessed July 03, 2024.

  17. Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A. The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology. 1997;49:822–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(97)00238-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. D’Elia C, Cerruto MA, Cavicchioli FM, Cardarelli S, Molinari A, Artibani W. Critical points in understanding the Italian version of the IIEF 5 questionnaire. Arch Ital Urol Androl Organo Uff Soc Ital Ecogr Urol E Nefrol. 2012;84:197–201.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cappelleri JC, Rosen RC, Smith MD, Mishra A, Osterloh IH. Diagnostic evaluation of the erectile function domain of the international index of erectile function. Urology. 1999;54:346–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(99)00099-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Boeri L, Capogrosso P, Ventimiglia E, Cazzaniga W, Pederzoli F, Moretti D, et al. Does calculated free testosterone overcome total testosterone in protecting from sexual symptom impairment? findings of a cross-sectional study. J Sex Med. 2017;14:1549–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2017.10.070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gill TM, Feinstein AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA. 1994;272:619–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Swindle R, Cameron A, Rosen R. A 15-item short form of the psychological and interpersonal relationship scales. Int J Impot Res. 2006;18:82–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3901381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jiann B-P, Nakajima K, Dighe S, Harshman-Smith CD, Hassan TA. Degree of planning of sexual intercourse among men from China, Japan, and Taiwan taking medication for erectile dysfunction: findings of an observational, cross-sectional survey. Sex Med. 2019;7:54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esxm.2018.10.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cai Z, Song X, Zhang J, Yang B, Li H. Practical approaches to treat ED in PDE5i nonresponders. Aging Dis. 2020;11:1202–18. https://doi.org/10.14336/AD.2019.1028

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Pozzi E, Fallara G, Capogrosso P, Boeri L, Belladelli F, Corsini C, et al. Primary organic versus primary psychogenic erectile dysfunction: findings from a real-life cross-sectional study. Andrology. 2022;10:1302–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.13212

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Madeira CR, Tonin FS, Fachi MM, Borba HH, Ferreira VL, Leonart LP, et al. Efficacy and safety of oral phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors for erectile dysfunction: a network meta-analysis and multicriteria decision analysis. World J Urol. 2021;39:953–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03233-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rosen RC, Allen KR, Ni X, Araujo AB. Minimal clinically important differences in the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function scale. Eur Urol. 2011;60:1010–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.07.053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Carvalheira A, Forjaz V, Pereira NM. Adherence to phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors in the treatment of erectile dysfunction in long-term users: how do men use the inhibitors? Sex Med. 2014;2:96–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/sm2.31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Tsujimura A, Kiuchi H, Soda T, Takezawa K, Okuda H, Fukuhara S, et al. Sexual life of Japanese patients with erectile dysfunction taking phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors: an Internet survey using the psychological and interpersonal relationship scales-short form questionnaire. Int J Urol Off J Jpn Urol Assoc. 2014;21:821–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12429

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy

    Luca Boeri, Giorgio Graps, Ester Zino, Agnese Zago, Andrea Li Puma, Fabio Ciamarra, Antonio Cimmino, Valentina Parolin, Michela Piccoli, Franco Gadda, Emanuele Montanari & Giancarlo Albo

  2. Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Emanuele Montanari & Giancarlo Albo

Authors
  1. Luca Boeri
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giorgio Graps
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ester Zino
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Agnese Zago
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrea Li Puma
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fabio Ciamarra
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Antonio Cimmino
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Valentina Parolin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Michela Piccoli
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Franco Gadda
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Emanuele Montanari
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Giancarlo Albo
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LB wrote the paper, GG, EZ, AZ, ALP, FC, AC, VP, MP, collected data; FG, EM and GA supervised the paper, approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Boeri.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations; all patients signed an informed consent agreeing to share their own anonymous information for other future studies. The study was approved by the Hospital Ethical Committee (Prot. 060182 – SilOros).

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boeri, L., Graps, G., Zino, E. et al. Effectiveness and patient satisfaction with the new sildenafil oral suspension formulation compared to sildenafil oro-dispersible film: a real-life study. Int J Impot Res (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01019-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01019-4

Search

Advanced search

Quick links