Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparative Review of Apomorphine Formulations for Erectile Dysfunction

Recommendations for Use in the Elderly

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Drugs & Aging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common medical condition that affects the sexual life of millions of men worldwide. First-line oral therapy for ED includes the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (sildenafil, tadalafil and vardenafil) and sublingual apomorphine. Apomorphine is a dopamine D1 and D2 receptor agonist that has been approved for marketing in Europe.

Different apomorphine formulations have been tested, such as sublingual, subcutaneous and intranasal. However, the sublingual formulation has shown the best results in terms of efficacy, safety and tolerability, especially the 2mg and 3mg doses. Although clinical studies of the efficacy and tolerability of apomorphine sublingual (SL) have included older patients, who are more likely to have ED, no study has specifically assessed the efficacy and tolerability of different doses of apomorphine SL in aging men. Therefore, a MEDLINE search was conducted from January 1987 to November 2005 to identify studies of the efficacy, safety (in particular cardiovascular safety) and tolerability of different apomorphine formulations and doses as treatments for ED in the subcohort of aging men.

On the basis of the most recent peer-reviewed publications, the first part of this article critically evaluates data regarding the epidemiology of ED in the aging population. The second part of the article focuses on the mechanism of action and pharmacokinetics of apomorphine both in the general and the elderly population. Finally, a critical analysis of the efficacy and safety of different apomorphine formulations and doses for the treatment of ED is reported.

Apomorphine represents a first-line oral treatment for ED. Available formulations include only sublingual administration. Few studies have assessed the efficacy and safety of apomorphine in the elderly population. However, in clinical practice, older patients with multiple vascular risk factors and systematic vascular damage show poor overall response to apomorphine SL for the treatment of ED.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lunenfeld B, Gooren L. Ageing men-challenges ahead. In: Lunenfeld B, Gooren L, editors. Textbook of men’s health. New York: The Parthenon Publishing Group, 2002: 3–14

    Google Scholar 

  2. Seftel AD. Erectile dysfunction in the elderly: epidemiology, etiology and approaches to treatment. J Urol 2003; 169: 1999–2007

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pearlman CK, Kobashi LI. Frequency of intercourse in men. J Urol 1972; 107: 298–301

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Frank E, Anderson C, Rubinstein D. Frequency of sexual dysfunction in ‘normal’ couples. N Engl J Med 1978; 299: 111–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hauri D. Erectile dysfunction in the elderly man. Urol Int 2003; 70: 89–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Beutel ME, Wiltink J, Hauck EW, et al., on behalf of the Hypogonadism Investigator Group. Correlations between hormones, physical, and affective parameters in aging urologic outpatients. Eur Urol 2005; 47(6): 749–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Diokno AC, Brown MB, Herzog R. Sexual function in the elderly. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150: 197–200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Feldman HA, Goldstein I, Hatzichristou D, et al. Impotence and its medical and psychosocial correlates: results of the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. J Urol 1994; 151: 54–61

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Blanker MH, Bosch JL, Groeneveld FP, et al. Erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction in a community-based sample of men 50 to 78 years old: prevalence, concern, and relation to sexual activity. Urology 2001; 57: 763–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Braun M, Wassmer G, Klotz T, et al. Epidemiology of erectile dysfunction: results of the ‘Cologne Male Survey’. Int J Impot Res 2000; 12: 305–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Brock G, Laumann E, Glasser ADB, et al. Prevalence of sexual dysfunction among mature men and women in USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand [abstract]. J Urol 2003; 169 (4 Suppl.): A1226

    Google Scholar 

  12. Moreira Jr ED, Lisboa Lobo CF, Diament A, et al. Incidence of erectile dysfunction in men 40 to 69 years old: results from a population-based cohort study in Brazil. Urology 2003; 61: 431–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nicolosi A, Moreira Jr ED, Shirai M, et al. Epidemiology of erectile dysfunction in four countries: cross-national study of the prevalence and correlates of erectile dysfunction. Urology 2003; 61: 201–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sanchez-Cruz JJ, Cabrera-Leon A, Martin-Morales A, et al. Male erectile dysfunction and health-related quality of life. Eur Urol 2003; 44: 245–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rampin O. Mode of action of a new oral treatment for erectile dysfunction: apomorphine SL. BJU Int 2001; 88Suppl. 3: 22–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. McKenna KE. Central control of penile erection. Int J Impot Res 1998; 10Suppl. 1: S25–34

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wagner CK, Clemens LG. Projections of the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus to the sexually dimorphic lumbosacral region of the spinal cord. Brain Res 1991; 539: 254–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Chen KK, Chan SH, Chang LS, et al. Participation of paraventricular nucleus of hypothalamus in central regulation of penile erection in the rat. J Urol 1997; 158: 238–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Argiolas A, Melis MR. Central control of penile erection: role of the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus. Prog Neurobiol 2005; 76(1): 1–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Montorsi F, Salonia A, Deho’ F, et al. Pharmacological management of erectile dysfunction. BJU Int 2003; 91(5): 446–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Argiolas A, Hedlund H. The pharmacology and clinical pharmacokinetics of apomorphine SL. BJU Int 2001; 88Suppl. 3: 18–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kendirci M, Hellstrom WJ. Intranasal apomorphine. Nastech Pharmaceutical. IDrugs 2004; 7(5): 483–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lal S, Laryea E, Thavundayil JX, et al. Apomorphine-induced penile tumescence in impotent patients: preliminary findings. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 1987; 11(2–3): 235–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kiely ME, Thavundayil JX, Lal S. Effect of blood sampling on apomorphine-induced penile tumescence in erectile impotence: a case report. J Psychiatry Neurosci 1995; 20(3): 233–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lal S, Tesfaye Y, Thavundayil JX, et al. Apomorphine: clinical studies on erectile impotence and yawning. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 1989; 13(3–4): 329–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Segraves RT, Bari M, Segraves K, et al. Effect of apomorphine on penile tumescence in men with psychogenic impotence. J Urol 1991; 145(6): 1174–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Heaton JP, Morales A, Adams MA, et al. Recovery of erectile function by the oral administration of apomorphine. Urology 1995; 45(2): 200–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Mirone VG, Stief CG. Efficacy of apomorphine SL in erectile dysfunction. BJU Int 2001; 88Suppl. 3: 25–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Heaton JP. Key issues from the clinical trials of apomorphine SL. World J Urol 2001; 19(1): 25–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dula E, Bukofzer S, Perdok R, et al., on behalf of the Apomorphine SL Study Group. Double-blind, crossover comparison of 3mg apomorphine SL with placebo and with 4mg apomorphine SL in male erectile dysfunction. Eur Urol 2001; 39(5): 558–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Dula E, Keating W, Siami PF, et al. Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose and dose-optimization regimens of sublingual apomorphine versus placebo in men with erectile dysfunction. The Apomorphine Study Group. Urology 2000; 56(1): 130–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Von Keitz AT, Stroberg P, Bukofzer S, et al. A European multicentre study to evaluate the tolerability of apomorphine sublingual administered in a forced dose-escalation regimen in patients with erectile dysfunction. BJU Int 2002; 89(4): 409–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mulhall JP, Bukofzer S, Edmonds AL, et al., on behalf of the Apomorphine SL Study Group. An open-label, uncontrolled dose-optimization study of sublingual apomorphine in erectile dysfunction. Clin Ther 2001; 23(8): 1260–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Heaton JP, Dean J, Sleep DJ. Sequential administration enhances the effect of apomorphine SL in men with erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 2002; 14(1): 61–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Martinez R, Puigvert A, Pomerol JM, et al. Clinical experience with apomorphine hydrochloride: the first 107 patients. J Urol 2003; 170 (6 Pt 1): 2352–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gontero P, D’Antonio R, Pretti G, et al. Clinical efficacy of apomorphine SL in erectile dysfunction of diabetic men. Int J Impot Res 2005; 17(1): 80–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Cappelleri JC, Rosen RC, Smith MD, et al. Diagnostic evaluation of the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function. Urology 1999; 54(2): 346–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Pavone C, Curto F, Anello G, et al. Prospective, randomized, crossover comparison of sublingual apomorphine (3mg) with oral sildenafil (50mg) for male erectile dysfunction. J Urol 2004; 172 (6 Pt 1): 2347–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Eardley I, Wright P, MacDonagh R, et al. An open-label, randomized, flexible-dose, crossover study to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of sildenafil citrate and apomorphine hydrochloride in men with erectile dysfunction. BJU Int 2004; 93(9): 1271–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Perimenis P, Gyftopoulos K, Giannitsas K, et al. A comparative, crossover study of the efficacy and safety of sildenafil and apomorphine in men with evidence of arteriogenic erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 2004; 16(1): 2–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Perimenis P, Markou S, Gyftopoulos K, et al. Efficacy of apomorphine and sildenafil in men with nonarteriogenic erectile dysfunction: a comparative crossover study. Andrologia 2004; 36(3): 106–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Caruso S, Intelisano G, Farina M, et al. Efficacy and safety of daily intake of apomorphine SL in men affected by erectile dysfunction and mild hyperprolactinemia: a prospective, open-label, pilot study. Urology 2003; 62(5): 922–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC, Gendrano III N. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): a state-of-the-science review. Int J Impot Res 2002; 14(4): 226–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Buvat J, Montorsi F. Safety and tolerability of apomorphine SL in patients with erectile dysfunction. BJU Int 2001; 88Suppl. 3: 30–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Montorsi F. Tolerability and safety of apomorphine SL (Ixense (TM)). Int J Impot Res 2003; 15Suppl. 2: S7–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Fagan TC, Buttler S, Marbury T, et al., on behalf of the SL APO Study Group. Cardiovascular safety of sublingual apomorphine in patients on stable doses of oral antihypertensive agents and nitrates. Am J Cardiol 2001; (88): 178–88

    Google Scholar 

  47. Simonsen U. Interactions between drugs for erectile dysfunction and drugs for cardiovascular disease. Int J Impot Res 2002; 14(3): 178–88

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Via Olgettina 60, Milan, 20132, Italy

    Alberto Briganti, Andrea Salonia, Giuseppe Zanni, Federico Dehò, Luigi Barbieri, Patrizio Rigatti &  Francesco Montorsi

  2. Department of Urology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Felix K.-H. Chun

  3. Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Pierre I. Karakiewicz

Authors
  1. Alberto Briganti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felix K.-H. Chun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea Salonia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giuseppe Zanni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Federico Dehò
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Luigi Barbieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Pierre I. Karakiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Patrizio Rigatti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Francesco Montorsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Montorsi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Briganti, A., Chun, F.KH., Salonia, A. et al. A Comparative Review of Apomorphine Formulations for Erectile Dysfunction. Drugs Aging 23, 309–319 (2006). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002512-200623040-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002512-200623040-00004

Keywords

Search

Navigation