The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the change from baseline in the erectile function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) scores in patients receiving 4 weekly treatments of shockwave therapy versus those receiving a sham treatment. The change will be evaluated at 3 months after the end of a sequence of 4 weekly treatments.
The secondary objectives of this study are: A. To evaluate erectile function (EF) categorical improvement in patients receiving 4 weekly treatments of shockwave therapy versus those receiving a sham treatment, at 3 months after a first sequence of treatment. B. To compare improvements in erectile function between 4 weeks of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) use and 4 weekly treatments of shockwave therapy ("within patient" effect). C. To compare improvements in erectile function between 4 weeks of PDE5 inhibitor use and 4 weekly treatments of sham shock wave therapy ("within patient" effect). D. To evaluate the effect of a 2nd sequence of 4-8 weekly shock wave treatments 3 months after this second sequence. E. To evaluate treatment effects (the same comparisons as in objectives A, B, C, D) on other validated measure of EF (question 2 of the sexual encounter profile (SEP2), question 3 of the sexual encounter profile (SEP3), Global Assessment Question (GAQ), Erection Hardness Scale (EHS)), and the remaining domains of the IIEF score (orgasmic function, sexual desire, intercourse satisfaction, overall satisfaction), as well as the total IIEF score. F. To evaluate treatment tolerance and potential adverse events. G. To compare changes in EF measures over time for a follow-up period of 12 months following the second sequence of 4 weekly shock wave treatments. H. To compare the effect of a sequence of 4 weekly shock wave treatments versus 8 biweekly shock wave treatments 3 months after the treatment ("within patient" effect).
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE
Enrollment
154
(Month -2) During this visit, the investigator will: * Validate the patient's inclusion and exclusion criteria; * Obtain informed consent from the patient; * Have the patient fill out the IIEF, SEP-2, SEP-3, EHS and GAQ questionnaires. Responses are place and sealed in a specifically provided envelope in order to respect patient confidentiality. * Prescribe 1 month of PDE5i treatment. * The next visit will be scheduled
5 mg Tadalafil per day for 1 month
(Month -1) During this visit the investigator will: * Have the patient fill out the IIEF, SEP-2, SEP-3, EHS and GAQ questionnaires. Responses are place and sealed in a specifically provided envelope in order to respect patient confidentiality. * Perform a clinical exam; particular attention is given to the recording of complications / adverse events. * Remind the patient that over the next 4 weeks he is not to take any treatments for his condition (wash-out period). * The next visit will be scheduled
CHU de Bordeax - Hôpital Pellegrin
Bordeaux, France
APHP - Hôpital Raymond-Poincaré
Garches, France
Clinique Beau Soleil
Montpellier, France
CHRU de Nîmes - Hôpital Universitaire Carémeau
Nîmes, France
Change in IIEF-EF score
Time frame: Month 0 versus Month 4
% patients with improvement
The presence/absence of improvement in erectile function as compared to baseline. Improvement in erectile function is defined as a \>2 point increase in the IIEF-EF score from baseline for mild erectile dysfunction, \>5 points for moderate erectile dysfunction and \>7 points for severe erectile dysfunction(Rosen et al. 2011)
Time frame: Month 0 versus Month 4
% patients with improvement
The presence/absence of improvement in erectile function as compared to baseline. Improvement in erectile function is defined as a \>2 point increase in the IIEF-EF score from baseline for mild erectile dysfunction, \>5 points for moderate erectile dysfunction and \>7 points for severe erectile dysfunction(Rosen et al. 2011)
Time frame: Month -2 versus Month -1
% patients with improvement
The presence/absence of improvement in erectile function as compared to baseline. Improvement in erectile function is defined as a \>2 point increase in the IIEF-EF score from baseline for mild erectile dysfunction, \>5 points for moderate erectile dysfunction and \>7 points for severe erectile dysfunction(Rosen et al. 2011)
Time frame: Month 0 versus Month 2
% patients with improvement
The presence/absence of improvement in erectile function as compared to baseline. Improvement in erectile function is defined as a \>2 point increase in the IIEF-EF score from baseline for mild erectile dysfunction, \>5 points for moderate erectile dysfunction and \>7 points for severe erectile dysfunction(Rosen et al. 2011)
Time frame: Month 0 versus Month 8
% patients with improvement
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
(Day 0) During this visit the investigator will: * Verify inclusion and exclusion criteria, and proceed with final inclusion * Have the patient fill out the IIEF, SEP-2, SEP-3, EHS and GAQ questionnaires. Responses are place and sealed in a specifically provided envelope in order to respect patient confidentiality. * Perform a clinical exam; particular attention is given to the recording of complications / adverse events. * Randomize the patient at the end of the visit * The patient will go home with a calendar specifying the time and place of the various visits. The patient should have four weekly LIESWT or sham sessions within the next month. The first session may take place the same day and immediately after the present visit.
Following final inclusion, patients will have weekly LIESWT sessions (one session per week for four weeks). Particular attention is given to the recording of complications/adverse events. At the end of each session, the patient is asked to evaluate the level of pain that occurred during the session using a visual analog scale.
Following final inclusion, patients will have weekly sham LIESWT sessions (one session per week for four weeks). Particular attention is given to the recording of complications/adverse events. At the end of each session, the patient is asked to evaluate the level of pain that occurred during the session using a visual analog scale.
(Month 2) During this visit the investigator will: * Have the patient fill out the IIEF, SEP-2, SEP-3, EHS and GAQ questionnaires. Responses are place and sealed in a specifically provided envelope. * Perform a clinical exam; particular attention is given to the recording of complications / adverse events.
(Month 4) During this visit the investigator will: * Have the patient fill out the IIEF, SEP-2, SEP-3, EHS and GAQ questionnaires. Responses are place and sealed in a specifically provided envelope. * Perform a clinical exam; particular attention is given to the recording of complications / adverse events. * The patient should have four weekly LIESWT sessions within the next month. The first session may take place the same day and immediately after the present visit.
During the 5th month following final inclusion, all patients will have bi-weekly LIESWT sessions. These will occur twice per week for four consecutive weeks. Particular attention is given to the recording of complications/adverse events. At the end of each session, the patient is asked to evaluate the level of pain that occurred during the session using a visual analog scale.
(Month 6) During this visit the investigator will: * Have the patient fill out the IIEF, SEP-2, SEP-3, EHS and GAQ questionnaires. Responses are place and sealed in a specifically provided envelope. * Perform a clinical exam; particular attention is given to the recording of complications / adverse events.
Eight, 11, and 14 months after final inclusion, corresponding to 3, 6 and 9 months following Wave 2, the IIEF, SEP2, SEP3, GAQ and EHS questionnaires will be sent to patients via postal mail.
(Month 17) During this visit the investigator will: * Have the patient fill out the IIEF, SEP-2, SEP-3, EHS and GAQ questionnaires. Responses are place and sealed in a specifically provided envelope. * Perform a clinical exam; particular attention is given to the recording of complications / adverse events.
CHU de Lyon - Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud
Pierre-Bénite, France
The presence/absence of improvement in erectile function as compared to baseline. Improvement in erectile function is defined as a \>2 point increase in the IIEF-EF score from baseline for mild erectile dysfunction, \>5 points for moderate erectile dysfunction and \>7 points for severe erectile dysfunction(Rosen et al. 2011)
Time frame: Month 4 versus Month 8
Change in IIEF-EF score
Time frame: Change between month -2 and month -1
Change in IIEF-EF score from baseline
Time frame: Change between month 0 and month 2
Change in IIEF-EF score from baseline
Time frame: Change between month 0 and month 8
Change in IIEF-EF score from baseline
Time frame: Change between month 4 and month 8
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP2
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 4
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP2
Time frame: Month -2 versus month -1
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP2
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 2
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP2
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 8
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP2
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 6
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP2
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 11
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP2
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 14
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP2
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 17
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP3
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 4
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP3
Time frame: Month -2 versus month -1
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP3
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 2
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP3
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 8
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP3
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 6
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP3
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 11
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP3
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 14
% patients answering "yes" to the SEP3
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 17
% patients answering "yes" to the GAQ
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 4
% patients answering "yes" to the GAQ
Time frame: Month -2 versus month -1
% patients answering "yes" to the GAQ
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 2
% patients answering "yes" to the GAQ
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 8
% patients answering "yes" to the GAQ
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 6
% patients answering "yes" to the GAQ
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 11
% patients answering "yes" to the GAQ
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 14
% patients answering "yes" to the GAQ
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 17
Change in EHS
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 4
Change in EHS
Time frame: Month -2 versus month -1
Change in EHS
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 2
Change in EHS
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 8
Change in EHS
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 6
Change in EHS
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 11
Change in EHS
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 14
Change in EHS
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 17
Change in IIEF score (including subscores)
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 4
Change in IIEF score (including subscores)
Time frame: Month -2 versus month -1
Change in IIEF score (including subscores)
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 2
Change in IIEF score (including subscores)
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 8
Change in IIEF score (including subscores)
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 6
Change in IIEF score (including subscores)
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 11
Change in IIEF score (including subscores)
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 14
Change in IIEF score (including subscores)
Time frame: Month 0 versus month 17
Visual analog scale for pain during treatment
Immediately after treatment session.
Time frame: Week 1
Visual analog scale for pain during treatment
Immediately after treatment session.
Time frame: Week 2
Visual analog scale for pain during treatment
Immediately after treatment session.
Time frame: Week 3
Visual analog scale for pain during treatment
Immediately after treatment session.
Time frame: Week 4
Visual analog scale for pain during treatment
Immediately after treatment session.
Time frame: Month 5, week 1
Visual analog scale for pain during treatment
Immediately after treatment session.
Time frame: Month 5, week 2
Visual analog scale for pain during treatment
Immediately after treatment session.
Time frame: Month 5, week 3
Visual analog scale for pain during treatment
Immediately after treatment session.
Time frame: Month 5, week 4
The number of patients with other complications
Any other complications that might occur throughout the study (very few are listed in the literature).
Time frame: Month 17