摘要
Dear Editor, We read with interest of the article written by Park et al. They performed a randomized controlled trial to compare efficacy and safety between 50 mg once-daily and 200 mg on-demand dosing use of udenafil for the treatment of type 2 diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction （ED）. Their findings indicated that the most common drug-related adverse events （AEs） were flushing （8,9% vs 2,5%） and headache （3.8% vs 1.3%） between the on-demand group and the daily-dosed group. Although the authors believed that the udenafil was well-tolerated in both groups, unfortunately, they failed report the total incidence of AEs to assess the safety of the two groups.
Dear Editor, We read with interest of the article written by Park et al. They performed a randomized controlled trial to compare efficacy and safety between 50 mg once-daily and 200 mg on-demand dosing use of udenafil for the treatment of type 2 diabetic patients with erectile dysfunction （ED）. Their findings indicated that the most common drug-related adverse events （AEs） were flushing （8,9% vs 2,5%） and headache （3.8% vs 1.3%） between the on-demand group and the daily-dosed group. Although the authors believed that the udenafil was well-tolerated in both groups, unfortunately, they failed report the total incidence of AEs to assess the safety of the two groups.
