Mirodenafil,
does it really help with Improvement of IIEF, erectile function, and intercourse success in men with erectile dysfunction?
research showsMirodenafil is rated C because it improved IIEF and self-reported intercourse success versus placebo in Korean men with erectile dysfunction. In a 223-participant multicenter double-blind trial, both 50 mg and 100 mg improved IIEF Questions 3 and 4 plus SEP2 and SEP3. In 112 men with diabetic erectile dysfunction, the IIEF-EF change was 9.3 versus 1.4 and successful-intercourse SEP3 was 68.9% versus 22.3%. A meta-analysis of three trials involving 374 participants found an 8.13-point IIEF-EF mean difference. Results are consistent but concentrated in small, 12-week Korean trials using IIEF and SEP self-report, so the specified subjective-only ceiling supports C with 58 points.
ads claimKorean development may be expanded into claims of greater potency, greater safety, or guaranteed intercourse success for everyone. Verified evidence concerns short-term placebo-controlled self-report in Korean men; clinical superiority over sildenafil or tadalafil is separate.
Useful facts when choosing a product
- Mirodenafil is a prescription PDE5 inhibitor that supports an erectile response when sexual stimulation is present; product-specific dose, timing, and maximum daily frequency should follow the prescription and label.
- Combining it with nitrates or nitric-oxide donors can cause dangerous hypotension and is contraindicated, while alpha blockers and antihypertensives also require review.
- Headache, flushing, dyspepsia, nasal congestion, and dizziness can occur; an erection lasting four hours or sudden visual or hearing change requires urgent care.
- It does not raise libido or create an erection without stimulation, and placebo-controlled trials do not establish superiority over other PDE5 inhibitors.
What the research actually shows
Paick 2008 assigned 223 Korean men with erectile dysfunction of varied causes to mirodenafil 50 mg, 100 mg, or placebo for 12 weeks; both doses improved IIEF Questions 3 and 4, SEP2, SEP3, and life satisfaction. Park 2010 compared as-needed 100 mg with placebo in 112 men with diabetic erectile dysfunction and reported IIEF-EF change of 9.3 versus 1.4, SEP2 of 82.0% versus 55.2%, and SEP3 of 68.9% versus 22.3%. Du 2014 pooled three multicenter trials with 374 participants and calculated an 8.13-point higher IIEF-EF score versus placebo, but evidence size and geographic generalizability remained limited.
Why this is classified as C (58)
Multiple placebo-controlled trials and a 374-participant meta-analysis consistently improved IIEF-EF and SEP intercourse success. Evidence is nevertheless concentrated in small Korean populations, 12-week follow-up, and self-reported scales, without a large independent long-term or strong active-comparator trial, so the subjective-only ceiling supports C with 58 points. Nitrate contraindication and blood-pressure, sensory, and priapism risks remain separate safety issues.
Counterpoint. Erectile dysfunction can signal diabetes, vascular disease, medication effects, hormonal problems, or psychological factors. Cardiovascular risk and underlying causes should be evaluated alongside drug response.
Rejudgment record. New verdict — Accepted positive IIEF and SEP findings from multicenter placebo-controlled trials and meta-analysis, but applied the rule ① ceiling of C because evidence is concentrated in small 12-week Korean studies with self-reported outcomes
Sub-claim grades by effect
This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.
| Effect (sub-claim) | Grade | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Improvement of IIEF, erectile function, and intercourse success in men with erectile dysfunction | C | Several placebo-controlled trials are positive, but evidence is concentrated in small short Korean studies and subjective outcomes. |
| Efficacy and safety confirmed in large independent long-term trials | ? | No trial with that scale, independence, and duration was found in the verified pivotal literature. |
| Superiority over other PDE5 inhibitors such as sildenafil or tadalafil | ? | Pivotal evidence is placebo-controlled and does not establish head-to-head superiority. |
Cross-check — Codex and Claude
Evidence Table
| Study | Design | Sample | Funding | Endpoint | Result | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paick JS et al. 2008 | Multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled fixed-dose parallel trial | 223 | Korean drug-development and product-evaluation context; detailed funding unclear in the abstract | Week-12 IIEF Questions 3 and 4, IIEF domains, SEP2, SEP3, and global assessment | Both 50 mg and 100 mg significantly improved IIEF Questions 3 and 4, SEP2, SEP3, and global assessment versus placebo. | Key direct functional self-report evidence |
| Du W et al. 2014 | Meta-analysis of multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials | 374 | Chinese academic review team; possible product sponsorship in source trials | IIEF-EF, SEP2, SEP3, and global assessment | IIEF-EF with 100 mg was 8.13 points higher than placebo, with a change-score mean difference of 7.32 points. | Synthesis of small trials |
Receipt — 3 References
All 3 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-07-20).
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-07-20 · Corrections: none
Cite this verdict
[Chamgap] Mirodenafil x improved IIEF and intercourse success in erectile dysfunction — Evidence Grade C·58. 3 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/mens/mirodenafil-erectile-dysfunction-iief-intercourse-success/ · CC BY 4.0CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.
What this document does and does not do
Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.