Udenafil,
does it really help with Improvement of erectile function and intercourse success in erectile dysfunction?
research showsUdenafil improves erectile function and intercourse success in men with erectile dysfunction but is rated C. In a 167-participant phase 3 randomized trial, the 12-week change in the IIEF erectile-function score was 0.20 with placebo, 7.52 with udenafil 100 mg, and 9.93 with 200 mg; penetration and erection-maintenance success also improved. Positive findings were repeated in a 237-participant daily-dosing trial and a 174-participant trial in men with diabetes. The studies remain relatively small, concentrated in the Korean development program, and based mainly on patient-reported IIEF and SEP outcomes, so the subjective-outcome rule caps the grade at C.
ads claimClaims of perfect erections on demand or correction of the underlying cause expand average questionnaire and success-rate improvements into a guarantee. Sexual stimulation is still required, some patients do not respond, and vascular, endocrine, or psychological assessment remains important.
Useful facts when choosing a product
- Udenafil is a prescription PDE5 inhibitor for erectile dysfunction, and a clinician should select the dose and interval under the approved as-needed or other authorized regimen.
- Combining it with nitrates or nitric-oxide donors is contraindicated because dangerous hypotension can occur, and it should not be combined casually with other erectile-dysfunction medicines.
- Headache, flushing, nasal congestion, dyspepsia, and dizziness can occur; an erection lasting more than four hours or sudden visual or hearing change requires urgent medical evaluation.
What the research actually shows
Paick 2008 randomized 167 men with erectile dysfunction of varied causes to placebo or as-needed udenafil 100 or 200 mg. At 12 weeks, changes in IIEF-EF were 0.20, 7.52, and 9.93 points, respectively, and SEP2, SEP3, and global assessment also favored udenafil. Zhao 2011 randomized 237 participants to daily dosing and found that 50 and 75 mg improved IIEF-EF and SEP outcomes. Moon 2011 studied 174 men with diabetes and erectile dysfunction and likewise found that 100 and 200 mg improved IIEF-EF versus placebo. Replication across populations is positive, but all outcomes were short-term and patient-reported.
Why this is classified as C (58)
Three placebo-controlled randomized trials repeatedly improved IIEF and intercourse-success outcomes, but samples ranged from 167 to 237, treatment lasted 12 weeks, and evidence is concentrated in a Korean development network and subjective patient reports. The rule ① ceiling and class-corpus parity yield C with 58 points. Nitrate contraindication and hypotension are separate safety issues.
Counterpoint. C means limited certainty, not no effect. Short-term symptom improvement is credible, while long-term durability, rare harms, and independent replication across broader populations are less certain.
Rejudgment record. New verdict — Accepted repeated IIEF and SEP improvements in placebo-controlled trials, but applied the rule ① ceiling of C and corpus parity with mirodenafil C58 because sample size, duration, independence, and subjective patient-reported outcomes are limiting
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 erectile function in erectile dysfunction | C | Multiple placebo-controlled trials improved IIEF-EF, but evidence is short-term, subjective, and limited in independence. |
| Improvement of penetration and intercourse success | C | SEP2 and SEP3 repeatedly improved, but they are self-reported sexual-event diary outcomes. |
| Long-term treatment of the underlying cause | D | Trials mainly studied 12-week symptom treatment and do not show correction of the underlying cause. |
Cross-check — Codex and Claude
Evidence Table
| Study | Design | Sample | Funding | Endpoint | Result | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paick JS et al. 2008 | Multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled fixed-dose phase 3 trial | 167 | Korean drug-development trial with funding details not fully reported in the public abstract | IIEF-EF, SEP2, SEP3, and global assessment at 12 weeks | IIEF-EF changed by 0.20 with placebo, 7.52 with 100 mg, and 9.93 with 200 mg, and SEP success also improved. | Pivotal short-term efficacy trial |
| Zhao C et al. 2011 | Multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled daily-dosing trial | 237 | Funding details not stated in the public abstract | IIEF-EF and SEP sexual-event diary at 12 weeks | Daily 50- and 75-mg doses improved IIEF-EF and SEP2 and SEP3 versus placebo. | Replication with a different dosing regimen |
| Moon DG et al. 2011 | Seven-center randomized double-blind placebo-controlled phase 3 trial | 174 | Confirmatory development trial explicitly naming Zydena; funding details not stated in the public abstract | IIEF-EF, SEP, and attainment of normal erectile function at 12 weeks | Both 100 and 200 mg significantly improved IIEF-EF versus placebo. | Replication in the diabetic subgroup |
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] Udenafil x improved erectile function and intercourse success in erectile dysfunction — Evidence Grade C·58. 3 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/mens/udenafil-erectile-dysfunction-erectile-function-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.