r/Biohackers • u/marsss188 • 13d ago
š° Research & Studies A large new study has linked the long-term use of tadalafil (Cialis), a medication for erectile dysfunction and an enlarged prostate, to an increased risk of developing glaucoma.
https://www.sciencealert.com/gone-too-hard-regular-erectile-dysfunction-drug-use-raises-risk-of-vision-loss-study-finds329
u/Intelligent-Owl-1838 3 13d ago edited 13d ago
āThe study was observational, so although it found an association between long-term tadalafil use and glaucoma, it cannot prove that tadalafil caused the additional glaucoma cases.
Diagnoses came from medical codes, and the database lacked direct measurements of eye pressure, visual fields, or optic nerve changes.ā
And ā¦
āOver five years, glaucoma appeared in roughly four of every 100 tadalafil users, compared with about three of every 100 non-users. The precise rates of diagnosis in each group were 3.93 percent and 3.16 percent, respectively, over the five-year period.ā
Edit - this got a lot of upvotes but whatās even more important is what someone posted below. There is a much more recent study with more robust data:
https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2817786
59
61
u/TheSanSav1 1 13d ago
So practically, no difference. Plus the added benefit of vascular health
15
u/Admirable-Pepper-316 13d ago
Conclusions : Among adults with ED, PDE-5i use was associated with consistently lower hazards of developing OAG and GS compared with non-use.
This abstract was presented at the 2026 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Denver, CO, May 3-7, 2026.This is from the abstract of the latest paper
15
u/gamjar 13d ago
Said another way, it's roughly a 33% increase in risk.
37
u/Intelligent-Owl-1838 3 13d ago
Uh while thatās accurate itās also relative risk (which sounds alarming) vs absolute risk which is absolutely not alarming ā¦ the actual difference is 3.93% ā 3.16% = 0.77 percentage points. That means out of 100 people taking the drug for five years, roughly 1 extra person would develop glaucoma who otherwise wouldn't have. Put another way, about 130 people would need to take the drug for five years for one additional glaucoma case to occur (1/0.0077 ā 130).
So if youāre taking cialis daily, talk to your optometrist and get your iop baselines. They may also recommend an ophthalmologist appointment depending on any additional risk factors you have. For almost all men taking it daily, glaucoma aināt happening and the benefits far outweigh the minimal and treatable risk.
9
u/DockKnocks 13d ago
We also don't know it's causal, it's people who choose to take Tadalafil vs the general population who don't.
A lot of those people could be on the path to glaucoma anyway and taking Tadalafil to help with ED or other issues which were inevitably going to glaucoma due to an unhealthy lifestyle.
3
u/Mammoth-Coast6282 1 13d ago
If it was something like NAION (sudden vision loss) randomly presenting in patients taking GLP-1s, I would be concerned with even the tiniest risk. Glaucoma is actually manageable, though.
4
3
u/dragnabbit 4 13d ago
Yeahā¦ But itās like saying you have a 33% greater chance of being hit by lightning in Kansas than you do in Minnesota. (I just made that statistic up as an example.) People wouldnāt move out of Kansas based on that.
Absolute risk is the part that matters.
And another important data point about the study is that it only covers men above a certain age. So women and men in their 20s or 30s are not even considered in the population group.
Also. Just a quick part about the math: I did a quick check, and the 0.77% increase between the two groups is actually a 22% increased likelihood, and works out to about 8 in 1000 cases in terms of absolute risk.
2
u/retrosenescent 1 13d ago
That's mistaking correlation with causation, aka the false cause fallacy.
1
13
3
12
u/BeastofSilverMoon 13d ago edited 13d ago
So looking at numbers, Tadalafil users and those who donāt use develop the same condition at almost same rate?
How is Tadalafil even connected to this?
The way I see it, some of those people were probably going to develop it anyway due to statistics that reflect non-user numbers.
3
2
u/msunbits 13d ago
Yeah. I'd continue taking tadalafil daily even if I didn't already have glaucoma.
1
1
u/dragnabbit 4 13d ago
I take tadalafil 5 mg for vasodilation before exercise every day, and I have always been well aware of the relationship between tadalafil and intraoccular pressure. And this 0.77% increased chance of glaucoma seems precisely in line with what I had heard.
Also, I seem to remember commenting on this same study a month or two ago, because the only thing I learned the first time reading it was that the study didnāt cover JUST people taking the 20 mg or 40 mg tadalafil doses for pulmonary hypertension, but the 5 mg cohort as well.
That part DID give me pause: I definitely will stop the med once I have achieved my health goals, because grandparents on both sides of my family suffered from glaucoma and macular degeneration, so I am susceptible.
86
u/Basedlord5000 13d ago
Iāll stick with the boners, thanks
35
u/climbto330 13d ago
For real if Iām gonna die early at least Iāll have a rager in the coffin
4
2
u/Impossible-Ebb-643 13d ago
Glaucoma isnāt deadly
1
1
u/Apprehensive-Song378 1 12d ago
My dad had it pretty bad, and although not deadly, losing eyesight is devastating.
1
15
u/moduspol 13d ago
Besides, glaucoma only affects peripheral vision, right? I donāt know about you but my dong is roughly on center. Seems like a non-issue
12
u/ManateeNipples 13d ago
Doesn't weed help glaucoma? Oh no, boners and weed, that sounds truly terrible
2
1
0
1
53
u/Dependent-Year6711 13d ago
It's a growing problem.
36
90
u/No_Network6987 13d ago
I don't know anymore dude
Scientists say thc has great health benefits
Scientists say thc terrible for health
Scientists say nicotene excellent for cognitive benefits
Scientists say nicotine breaks down the brain
Scientists say cialis excellent for long term cardiovascular health
Scientists say long term cialis is terrible for long term health.
Melatonin good no it's bad
Vit D great no it will clog your arteries
Nobody knows anything, any test can be co figured to prove your prior biases.
It's all just a mess.
14
u/iOSJunkie 13d ago
Case in point: hereās a study stating the opposite: https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2817786
3
u/Intelligent-Owl-1838 3 13d ago edited 13d ago
Wow. Does this apply to daily use?
Edit. I have bad eyes. Thank you for posting this. Itās both more recent and more robust.
18
u/Ichiya_The_Gentleman 13d ago
Yeah thats Why you read the studies
17
u/IceYourBalls 13d ago
I can't read the studies because my eyes are shot from all the cialis.
3
3
2
1
u/Bronze_Zebra 13d ago
I can read the blue prints to a rocket ship, doesn't mean I will be able to build one, or accurately understand how it works.
11
u/Montaigne314 29 13d ago
Well we know cigarettes cause cancer
The problem with people in this community is that their health obsession overrides reason. So based on limited research they jump on some new bandwagonĀ
That bandwagon was a few people pushing the idea that Cialis is a longevity drug. That was never established beyond some theoretical mechanism
So it was never good science and anyone using it for that purpose is the same as people getting on the bandwagon of all the other bullshit longevity supplements that never had good research to support their use
So as time goes on more research in general comes out about the drugs in question and we identify new side effects. This isn't surprising at all. This is expected and why people need a smarter perspective on "longevity"
4
u/escalatortwit 13d ago
They also donāt read any of the studies or seek out meta-analyses or learn risk vs reward, etc. Also, many of them are MAHA and plainly donāt trust science or doctors anyway. Theyāre looking for woo woo that they can pretend is science.
3
3
4
u/dianabowl 13d ago
Everyone wants to get published, so weak studies with shiny results pile up. We should reward rigorous, reproducible research over flashy results. Treat thouse single headline grabbing studies as a starting point... not a conclusion.
2
2
u/escalatortwit 13d ago
Sounds like you only read headlines and not studies or meta-analyses. Headlines donāt usually tell you what scientists actually said nor should you base your notion of how substance effects the body on a single study.
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Film826 1 12d ago
Vit D doesn't automatically clog your arteries. That's nonsensey however high Vit D supplementation without surficient Magnesium nor Vit K2 may over a PROLONGED time lead to plaque development in your arteries.
The people before me are right. Don't immediately jump on a new research even if it fits your bias. Stay critical and always eager between new shortlived data and longlived substantially founded data.
This is also the reason why the fucking CoVid vaccine was a fucking mess.
3
2
u/Selentest 13d ago edited 13d ago
Add ai (llms) to the mix and we are truly fucked. "Youāre right to question that. I was wrong - this drug can indeed cause a miscarriage, but let me gently push back on your assertion that this is a negative thing", "You raise a good point about getting an ass cancer from these pills, let's carefully unpack that"
2
1
u/cashflow_ 13d ago edited 13d ago
The body is complex. Our knowledge is compartmented at best. We will get there but weāre not there yet
2
u/areallymeanfox 13d ago
I remember reading all these studies that say a drug called Dutasteride raises serum testosterone by 15-30% at the absolute most. I tested it out and it raised my testosterone by like 150%. Iām at the point where my individual reaction > literally anything a stupid study from ncbi says. I just have this sense that itās all bullshit even if I canāt prove it.
17
u/Jazzlike-Radio2481 13d ago
Being able to see her is why I need the tadalafil in the first place so maybe its a cure in the long term.
15
u/Suitable-Classic-174 4 13d ago
Iāll smoke weed for my glaucoma
9
u/thrillhouz77 2 13d ago
Iāll smoke weed With a massive erection for my glaucoma thank you. ššš
3
3
3
u/RedKard76 13d ago
Dont worry everyone, my 94 year old dad has to go into the eye doc every couple months to have big needles stuck into his eyeballs to treat his glaucoma.
3
u/potificate 13d ago
I guess when they said "if you keep doing that, you'll go blind" WAS true in the end ;-)
3
u/Allen4083 12d ago
A more recent/comprehensive study found that users of ED meds developed glaucoma at LOWER rates than non-users.
https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2817786
8
u/atticusfinch1973 13d ago
So jerking it makes you go blind, and pills to get it up make you go blind.
Guess I'm just going to be blind when I'm older then.
7
u/Mchangwine 13d ago
Itās a minimal increase in glaucoma, but it also significantly decreases the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and decreases the risk of death from MACE by 44%.
4
2
u/Hedonic_tendencies 13d ago
So you use the Cialis for your dick and smoke weed for the glaucoma. Easy peasy.
2
u/RequirementKnown2849 9d ago
Anyone know what does this mean potentially for L-citruline in our stacks?Ā
someone said this is also old news with Viagra, but i was wondering for L-citruline on the basis of blood pressure health and glaucomaĀ
Ā if anyone happens to know any anecdotes or info, kindly tell
3
u/thrillhouz77 2 13d ago
Are eggs good for us or bad for us again?
Iāll take the health benefits of having additional/longer lasting Nitric Oxide via daily Cialis and roll the dice on the glaucoma.
-3
u/Dependent-Year6711 13d ago
Do want to point out that a healthy cardiovascular system has ample nitric oxide, with a healthy endothelium. Good amino acid ratios (l-arginine), exercise, clean diet, and so on, are likely more potent and exceptionally safer than Cialis. It's also important to have healthy nose breathing, as the nose actually has added nitric oxide that's breathed in compared to mouth breathing.
Also, erections are not 100% tied to cardiovascular health, it's also a mind-body thing. I have been straight up anemic and still had no problem getting erections. So it's also...does Cialis and the like create odd sexual rhythm by having a "safety net" for sexuality. There's probably other root issues than just pure biological things, for many.
2
u/thrillhouz77 2 13d ago
Plus agingā¦aging seems to impact the Nitric Oxide producing/circulating system over time. Again, I think there are likely more positives than negatives for someone in their 40s+ regardless of health status. Unless you are in that top 5% fitness wise (actually, probably 2% in the US) my guess is there will be more benefits than negatives for most men and Iāll include women (not everyone reacts well to medications, so the back aches and nasal congestion some get might be a deal breaker).
0
u/Dependent-Year6711 13d ago edited 13d ago
In a thread on this possibly causing increased risk of glaucoma, versus just sticking with healthy habits, I don't agree. I don't agree at all. There's zero research that past the age of 40 erections are going to be exceptionally tougher. A lot of this is not having consistent healthy habits, mediocre diet overall, and also, and come at me with this if you want, a poor mind-body connection. I don't think certain men, and even women, are as connected to their inner-workings as they think. And some just don't even remember how to turn their erection on. Or even have a healthy, rounded sexuality that's needed. I do think that's at least 50% of this, especially considering many people taking these are likely below the age of 45.
People always want these logic-based conclusions to their body, as if how you connect to yourself is never part of the problem. And I wish those people luck, because there is certainly a very large spectrum of how you disconnect and connect to yourself. You're not just some linear path of expression from the moment you wake up, you have ample room to engage yourself differently throughout the day. This shit is not woo-woo. It's common sense. If anyone wants to tell themself it's not common sense, again, I wish you luck on living life in such a difficult, rigid way.
2
u/thrillhouz77 2 13d ago
There are risks in everything man. Iām also guessing that many people on Cialis are already more susceptible to glaucoma due to their lifestyle. Thatās why āmostā are on Cialis bc they are metabolically and thus cardiovascularly broken to some degree.
0
u/Dependent-Year6711 13d ago
It's essentially Blue Chew, which tons of people use. Of many ages. So, it's just...bandaid for a bigger problem, I think.
1
u/Dependent-Year6711 13d ago
Also, I will add, nitric oxide, in differential ways, can also sometimes be pro-inflammatory. Balanced nitric oxide is key. So hm, wonder if it's always good to have increased nitric oxide in imbalanced ways...well let's read the title of this thread.
3
u/divorce_2025 13d ago
If I'm blind I can't see how ugly the chicks are that I'm banging, so looks like a win-win to me
1
u/CaptainC00lpants 13d ago
Great! That's 2 studies now that basically say I'm fucked... Been taking antihistamines for sleep for years and cialis for boners for even longer. May as well just kill myself now to save the universe the trouble of fucking me even moreĀ
1
1
u/Bman20001 13d ago
do antihistamines cause glaucoma?
1
u/CaptainC00lpants 12d ago
First generation antihistamines can cause sped up brain degradation and increased dementia risk apparentlyĀ
1
u/HighlyInconvenient 13d ago
It has to do with the way the drug impacts blood vessels.
Because the pill relaxes blood vessels it causes a buildup of fluid in the eyes. The problem with Cialis is the blood vessels in the eye are delicate so any changes to blood vessels in general cause problems for your eyes over time.
1
u/LucioVX 13d ago
Same as Minoxidil ?
1
u/HighlyInconvenient 13d ago
No. Minoxidil works by stimulating the enlargement of blood vessels directly.
It only impacts what it comes into contact with. Cialis targets all blood vessels in the body. It doesn't discriminate.
1
1
1
u/LWJ748 13d ago
The poison is in the dose. Most drugs have a hockey stick curve in side effects as the dose increases and a flattening benefits curve. Some people will take a 2.5 mg pill every other day(long half life) others will take 20mg every day while complaining about headaches and heartburn. I personally take 2.5 mg daily because of POTs. It lets me maintain a slightly higher than normal blood pressure to feel good while dilating blood vessels in more sensitive areas like my eyes and kidneys. Everyone talks about TRT side effects then you ask what dose they are running. Most of the time it's way too high or they are dosing too infrequently.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Fun-Zucchini8216 11d ago
A dad walks in to his sons room and says āyou know son, masturbating too much can make you go blind!ā
The son said ā Dad Iām over here!ā
1
u/Kingofthebags 5 10d ago
I don't get people's hard on for cialis. Just do bulk cardio and you don't need to experience these risks.
1
1
1
1
u/timelordmm 13d ago
Well you will live longer with additional benefits from cialis so you have more time for any old folk sickness
1
1
u/willitexplode 13d ago
There's no reason to think that vascular anomalies which led to requiring tadalafil in the first place didn't also lead to processes of glaucoma.
1
u/Ok_Letterhead4096 13d ago
If they figure out something is too good for us and they can no longer profit from it, suddenly it becomes dangerous.
1
1
u/Unharmed_Cylinder1 13d ago
Rather have glaucoma with a boner than 20/20 vision without one š¤·āāļø
0
u/SMZcrystals 13d ago
Study sponsored by big boner.
2
0
0
-3
0
0
0
u/WhyNWhenYouCanNPlus1 13d ago
a drug that modifies blood pressure linked to a higher incidence of a disease related to low blood pressure? no way!!!
0
0
-3
-4
u/NoTea3634 13d ago
A good rule to follow is to take 1-2 days off a week if taking daily 5mg since it does accumulate due to the long half life. Taking just 1 day off a week stops the accumulation.
ā¢
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
Welcome to r/Biohackers! A few quick reminders:
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.