Non-inferiority of silodosin 4 mg once daily to twice daily for storage symptoms score evaluated by the International Prostate Symptom Score in Japanese patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study

Comparative efficacy and safety of alpha-blockers as monotherapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Despite the availability of various drugs for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), alpha(α)-blockers are the preferred first-line treatment. However, there remains a scarcity of direct comparisons among various α-blockers. Therefore, this network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of α-blockers in the management of BPH. A comprehensive electronic search covered PubMed, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library until August 2023. The primary endpoints comprised international prostate symptom score (IPSS), maximum flow rate (Qmax), quality of life (QoL), and post-void residual volume (PVR), while treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were considered as secondary endpoints. This NMA synthesized evidence from 22 studies covering 3371 patients with six kinds of α-blockers with 12 dose categories. IPSS has been considerably improved by tamsulosin 0.4 mg, naftopidil 50 mg and silodosin 8 mg as compared to the placebo. Based on the p-score, tamsulosin 0.4 mg had the highest probability of ranking for IPSS, PVR, and Qmax, whereas doxazosin 8 mg had the highest probability of improving QoL. A total of 297 adverse events were reported among all the α-blockers, silodosin has reported a notable number of TEAEs. Current evidence supports α-blockers are effective in IPSS reduction and are considered safer. Larger sample size with long-term studies are needed to refine estimates of IPSS, QoL, PVR, and Qmax outcomes in α-blocker users.

Evolving Role of Silodosin for the Treatment of Urological Disorders – A Narrative Review

Use of α-androgenic receptor blockers remains a mainstay therapeutic approach for the treatment of urological diseases. Silodosin is recommended over other α-blockers for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), due to its high α_1A uroselectivity. Current research data suggest that silodosin is efficacious in the management of various urological diseases. Thus, we herein review the current evidence of silodosin related to its efficacy and tolerability and appraise the available literature that might ultimately aid in management of various urological conditions at routine clinical practice. Literature reveals that silodosin is beneficial in improving nocturia events related to LUTS/BPH. Silodosin exerts effect on relaxing muscles involved in detrusor obstruction, therefore prolonging the need for patients undergoing invasive surgery. Silodosin treatment, either as a monotherapy or combination, significantly improves International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) including both storage and voiding symptoms in patients with BPH/LUTS. Patients on other treatment therapies such as phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors or other α-blockers are well managed with this drug. Steadily, silodosin has proved beneficial in the treatment of other urological disorders such as chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS), overactive bladder/acute urinary retention (AUR), premature ejaculation (PE), and prostate cancer post brachytherapy-induced progression. In patients with distal ureteral stones, silodosin treatment is beneficial in decreasing stone expulsion time without affecting stone expulsion rate or analgesic need. Moreover, there were significant improvements in intravaginal ejaculation latency time, quality of life scores, and decrease in PE profile among patients with PE. Silodosin has also demonstrated promising results in increasing the likelihood of successful trial without catheter in patients with AUR and those taking antihypertensive drugs. Reports from Phase II studies have shown promising role of silodosin in the treatment of CP/CPPS as well as facilitating ureteral stone passage. From the robust data in this review, further silodosin treatment strategies in the management of different urological conditions need to be focused on.

Effect of alpha-adrenoceptor antagonists on sexual function. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Alpha-adrenoreceptor antagonists or alpha-blockers are used in the treatment of hypertension, in the therapy of benign prostatic hyperplasia and in medical expulsive treatment of ureteral stones. These agents may affect the sexual function, with differences between drugs within the same class, depending on their selectivity for receptor subtypes. The aim of this review was to analyze the effects of alpha-blockers on sexual function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE and other databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting sexual adverse effects in patients treated with alpha-blockers. Odds ratios for sexual dysfunction were calculated using random effects Mantel-Haenszel statistics.

RESULTS

Out of 608 records retrieved, 75 eligible RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, alphablockers were associated with increased odds of ejaculatory disorders both in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (OR: 7.53, 95% CI: 3.77-15.02, Z = 5.73, p < 0.00001, I2 = 55%) and in patients with ureteral stones (OR: 2.88, 95% CI: 1.50-5.44, Z = 3.19, p < 0.001, I2 = 31%). Uroselective alpha-blockers showed higher odds of ejaculatory disorders. Conversely, nonselective alpha-blockers were not associated with higher odds of ejaculatory dysfunction. Silodosin was associated with increased odds of ejaculatory dysfunction compared with tamsulosin (OR: 3.52, 95% CI: 2.18-5.68, 15 series, 1512 participants, Z = 5.15, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Naftopidil and alfuzosin showed lower odds of ejaculatory dysfunction compared to uroselective alpha-blockers.No statistically significant differences in the odds of erectile dysfunction were observed when alpha-blockers were compared to placebo.

Comparative efficacy and safety profile of 4 vs 8 mg of silodosin once daily usage in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia-related lower urinary tract symptoms divided into subgroups according to International Prostate Symptom Score severity

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare once daily (QD) usage of 4 and 8 mg of silodosin in patients divided as those with moderate and with severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSs) according to International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) categories in terms of effectiveness and adverse events.

Methods

A total of 234 patients aged ≥ 40 years were evaluated prospectively. All participants were divided firstly into two groups according to their IPSS severity as moderate and severe. They were further allocated to receive 4 mg of silodosin and 8 mg of silodosin QD. Demographic features and laboratory tests were recorded. The patients were questioned with International Index of Erectile Function-5 and IPSS along with quality of life index. Uroflowmetric measurements were applied to the patients. All tests and measurements were repeated at the 3rd month, and changes from pretreatment to posttreatment were analyzed by SPSS 21.0 Program. The statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Both treatments provided benefit in patients with both moderate and severe LUTSs. While results did not differ among 4 mg and 8 mg of silodosin in patients with moderate LUTSs, 8 mg of silodosin was significantly better than 4mg in those with severe LUTSs in terms of improvement of the total IPSS, IPSS voiding subtotal score, and quality of life score (p = 0.015, 0.030, <0.001, respectively). Both treatments did not affect erectile functions. Adverse events were seen more frequently in patients receiving 8 mg of silodosin than those treated with 4 mg of silodosin (p = 0.024).

Conclusion

Our study revealed that 4 mg of silodosin QD was as effective as 8 mg of silodosin QD in patients with moderate LUTSs but not with severe LUTSs. It can be inferred from this study that prescription of 4 and 8 mg of silodosin may be chosen to treat the patients with moderate and severe LUTSs due to benign prostatic heperplasia, respectively.

Progresses in pharmaceutical and surgical management of premature ejaculation

OBJECTIVE

Premature ejaculation (PE) is regarded as one of the most common male sexual dysfunctions. This review introduced several pharmaceutical and surgical methods for the management of PE. The definition, etiology, behavioral, and psychological therapy of PE were also discussed.

DATA SOURCES

"Premature," "ejaculation," or "sexual dysfuction" were used as the medical subject headings (MeSH) to obtain relevant articles before June 2019 on Pubmed, Google Scholar and CNKI. Most articles used were written in English and several Chinese articles were also cited.

STUDY SELECTION

Full-text articles of retrospective/prospective/randomized controlled trials were analyzed. Animal experiments and letters were excluded.

RESULTS

There are four PE sub-types: lifelong PE, acquired PE, natural variable PE, and subjective PE. Behavioral therapy, psychotherapy, medication, topical anesthetics, and surgery are currently used for the treatment of PE. However, all the above treatments have limitations. Therefore, novel ways should be investigated to more efficiently control PE.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmaceutical therapy that is currently being used in clinical practice for the management of PE is still the main choice globally due to its good efficacy. Surgery may be a choice for patients who are resistant to medication. However, it should be performed cautiously.

Silodosin for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

A variety of alpha-blockers are used for treating lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Silodosin is a novel, more selective alpha-blocker, which is specific to the lower urinary tract and may have fewer side effects than other alpha-blockers.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of silodosin for the treatment of LUTS in men with BPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status up until 13 June 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all parallel, randomized controlled trials. We also included cross-over designs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the quality of evidence according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 unique studies with 4295 randomized participants across four comparisons for short-term follow-up. The mean age, prostate volume, and International Prostate Symptom Score were 66.5 years, 38.2 mL, and 19.1, respectively. Silodosin versus placeboBased on four studies with a total of 1968 randomized participants, silodosin may reduce urologic symptom scores in an appreciable number of men (mean difference (MD) -2.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.23 to -2.08; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely does not result in a clinically important reduction in quality of life (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.13; moderate-quality evidence). It may not increase rates of treatment withdrawal for any reason (relative risk (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.66; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of silodosin on cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.45; very low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 26.07, 95% CI 12.36 to 54.97; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 180 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 82 more to 388 more). Silodosin versus tamsulosinBased on 13 studies with a total of 2129 randomized participants, silodosin may result in little to no difference in urologic symptom scores (MD -0.04, 95% CI -1.31 to 1.24; low-quality evidence) and quality of life (MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.22; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about treatment withdrawals for any reason (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.69; very low-quality evidence). Silodosin may result in little to no difference in cardiovascular adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.12; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 6.05, 95% CI 3.55 to 10.31; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 141 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 71 more to 261 more). Silodosin versus naftopidilBased on five studies with a total of 763 randomized participants, silodosin may result in little to no differences in urologic symptom scores (MD -0.85, 95% CI -2.57 to 0.87; low-quality evidence), quality of life (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.27; low-quality evidence), treatment withdrawal for any reason (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.93; low-quality evidence), and cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.56; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 5.93, 95% CI 2.16 to 16.29; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 74 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 17 more to 231 more). Silodosin versus alfuzosinBased on two studies with a total of 155 randomized participants, silodosin may or may not result in a clinically important increase in urologic symptom scores (MD 3.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 7.54; low-quality evidence). Silodosin likely results in little to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.74; moderate-quality evidence). We found no event of treatment withdrawal for any reason. Silodosin may not reduce cardiovascular adverse events (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.24; low-quality evidence) but likely increases sexual adverse events (RR 37.21, 95% CI 5.32 to 260.07; moderate-quality evidence); this would result in 217 more sexual adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 26 more to 1000 more).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Silodosin may reduce urologic symptom scores in an appreciable number of men compared to placebo. Quality of life and treatment withdrawals for any reason appears similar. Its efficacy appears similar to that of other alpha blockers (tamsulosin, naftopidil and alfuzosin) but the rate of sexual side effects is likely higher. Our certainty in the estimates of effect was lowered due to study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision.

Randomized Crossover Comparison of the Short-Term Efficacy and Safety of Single Half-Dose Silodosin and Tamsulosin Hydrochoride in Men With Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of single half-dose silodosin and single full-dose tamsulosin in Japanese men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH).

METHODS

Japanese men aged ≥50 years with LUTS/BPH and an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of ≥8 were enrolled in the randomized crossover study and divided into silodosin-preceding (S-T) and tamsulosin-preceding (T-S) groups. The S-T group received 4 mg silodosin once daily for 4 weeks followed by 0.2 mg tamsulosin once daily for 4 weeks. The T-S group received the reverse treatment sequence. A washout period prior to drug crossover was not included. Subjective and objective efficacy parameters including IPSS, quality of life (QOL) index, uroflowmetry, and safety were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Thirty of 34 men (S-T group n = 16; T-S group n = 14) completed the study. Both drugs significantly improved all IPSS items and QOL index in the first treatment period. Subjective improvement in nocturia by silodosin was observed in both the first and crossover treatment periods. Objective improvement in maximum flow rate by silodosin was only observed in the first treatment period. Adverse events occurred more frequently with silodosin than with tamsulosin; however, none of the adverse events required treatment discontinuation. Ejaculation disorders occurred in three participants (10%) and were associated with silodosin use.

CONCLUSION

Single half-dose silodosin has a similar efficacy to full-dose tamsulosin in Japanese men with LUTS/BPH and thus, may represent an effective, safe, and affordable treatment option.