Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic hyperplasia

Chronic Primary Pelvic Pain Syndrome in Men

BACKGROUND

Chronic primary pelvic pain syndrome in men (CPPPSm) can be associated with urogenital pain, urinary symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and emotional disturbance. Its clinical heterogeneity and incompletely understood pathogenesis make it more difficult to treat. This article is intended to familiarize the reader with basic aspects of the manifestations, pathophysiology, diagnostic evaluation, differential diagnosis, and treatment of this condition.

METHODS

This article is based on relevant publications retrieved by a selective search of the literature, including the current guidelines of the European Association of Urology. The features of this disease pertaining to urology, psychosomatic medicine, and pain medicine are illuminated from an interdisciplinary perspective.

RESULTS

Chronic pelvic pain appears to arise through a complex interaction of inflammatory, infectious, neurological, musculoskeletal, and psychosomatic factors. A comprehensive diagnostic work-up should be carried out to evaluate and exclude the numerous differential diagnoses. Treatment strategies are based on the clinical phenotype. Randomized controlled trials have shown that significant relief can be achieved with a variety of drugs and non-pharmacological treatments, selected according to the manifestations of the condition in the individual case. Attention must be paid to treatment-specific adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

The management of patients with CPPPSm should consist of a comprehensive differential diagnostic evaluation and an individually oriented treatment strategy.

Diagnostic and Management Strategies for Patients with Chronic Prostatitis and Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common and often heterogenous condition that can have severe consequences on patient quality of life. In this review, we describe the pathophysiology, diagnostic work-up, and treatment of patients with CP/CPPS incorporating the most recent literature. Studies have demonstrated that CP/CPPS involves a complex pathophysiology, including infectious, immunologic, neurologic, endocrinologic, and psychologic etiologies, with frequent intersections between the different entities. Despite robust research assessing a variety of therapeutics targeting these etiologies, clinical trials have failed to identify an empiric treatment strategy applicable specifically to older adult male patients with CP/CPPS. As such, it can be challenging to manage older male patients with this condition. The advent of clinical phenotyping of patients with CP/CPPS has led to advances in tailored management strategies. Monomodal therapy has been largely unsuccessful because of the unclear and complex etiology of CPPS. As a result, CP/CPPS therapy has transitioned to a multimodal approach, including both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapies. The best studied pharmacologic therapies include antibiotics, alpha-blockers, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory agents, phytotherapies, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, hormonal agents, neuromodulatory agents, and antidepressants. The best studied non-pharmacological therapies include pelvic floor physical therapy, myofascial trigger point release, acupuncture and electroacupuncture, psychological support and biofeedback, and electrocorporeal shockwave therapy and local thermotherapy.

Daily use of sildenafil 50mg at night effectively ameliorates nocturia in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: an exploratory multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of sildenafil 25 mg qd, 25 mg bid or 50 mg qd - on treating lower urinary tract symptoms with benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Men aged > 45 years with LUTS/BPH were randomly assigned to receive sildenafil 25 mg qd (n = 42), bid (n = 41), 50 mg qd (n = 38) or placebo (n = 41) for 8 weeks. Changes from baseline in International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) and postvoid residual urine volume (PVR) were assessed at week 4 and week 8.

RESULTS

Sildenafil 25 mg qd (-7.3 ± 5.8) and 25 mg bid (-7.0 ± 5.7) exhibited significant improvements of I-PSS compared to placebo (-5.2 ± 6.4) (p = 0.020, 0.025, respectively). In particular, voiding domain was more affected than storage domain. Only sildenafil 50 mg qd improved nocturia significantly (versus placebo, p = 0.027). Quality of life score was improved in all treatment groups. Q_max and PVR did not change significantly in all groups. All regimens were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Sildenafil 25 mg qd, 25 mg bid and 50 mg qd are safe and effective to improve LUTS/BPH in long term, along with coexisting ED. In particular, nocturia is most well-controlled by 50 mg qd.

The efficacy of mirodenafil for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome in middle-aged males

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of mirodenafil in middle-aged male patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-eight males with CP/CPPS were randomized to receive either levofloxacin (500 mg/d) (group L, 40 patients) or levofloxacin (500 mg/d) and mirodenafil (50 mg/d) (group ML, 48 patients) for six weeks. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI), and erectile function (EF) domain scores of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire were used to grade symptoms at baseline and 6 weeks after treatment.

RESULTS

The mean change in total IPSS from baseline was higher in group ML than that in group L (group L, -1.1 vs. group ML, -4.3; p<0.05). Significant improvements were also seen in the IPSS voiding subscore (group L, -0.7 vs. group ML, -3.0; p<0.05). Changes observed in the NIH-CPSI of group ML at six weeks were greater than those at baseline (group L, -3.2 vs. group ML, -7.2; p<0.05). Significant improvements were seen in the NIH-CPSI voiding (group L, -0.5 vs. group ML, -1.7; p<0.05) and quality of life domains (group L, -1.0 vs. group ML, -1.8; p<0.05). Group ML showed a significantly greater increase in the IIEF-EF score than did group ML (group L, +0.2 vs. group ML, +7.8; p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Mirodenafil (50 mg once daily) was well tolerated and resulted in significant symptomatic improvement in middle-aged males with CP/CPPS.

Effects of daily low-dose treatment with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor on cognition, depression, somatization and erectile function in patients with erectile dysfunction: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors have recently been shown to have cognitive-enhancing effects in animal models and in our previous pilot study. To investigate the efficacy of daily low-dose treatment with a PDE5 inhibitor on cognitive function, depression and somatization in patients with erectile dysfunction (ED), 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled 60 male patients with ED for ≥ 3 months without cognitive impairment. Forty-nine patients completed the study. Patients were randomized to receive either daily low-dose udenafil 50 mg or placebo for 2 months. The International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5), the Korean version of the Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE) for general cognitive function and the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery for comprehensive neuropsychological examination, the Physical Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression and the Physical Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) for somatization were administered at baseline and at 2 months. The change in the mean IIEF-5 was significantly higher in the udenafil group than the placebo group (6.08 ± 4.72 vs 2.20 ± 3.50, P=0.008). The changes in the PHQ-9 and PHQ-15 were -2.04 ± 3.14 and -2.17 ± 2.87 in the udenafil group, and 1.20 ± 1.63 and 0.56 ± 2.48 in the placebo group (both, P<0.001). The changes in the K-MMSE and Digit Span Forward were 1.25 ± 1.26 and 0.92 ± 1.02 in the udenafil group, and -0.52 ± 1.19 and -0.24 ± 1.13 in the placebo group (both, P<0.001). However, there were no differences in the other neuropsychological tests. Daily dosing with a PDE5 inhibitor seems to improve cognitive function, depression and somatization, as well as erectile function, in patients with ED.

Effects of repeated dosing with Udenafil (Zydena) on cognition, somatization and erection in patients with erectile dysfunction: a pilot study

The PDE5 inhibitors have recently been found to have cognitive-enhancing effects in animal models. To investigate the efficacy of repeated dosing with a PDE5 inhibitor on cognitive function and somatization in patients with erectile dysfunction, 27 patients with erectile dysfunction received udenafil (100 mg) at 3-day intervals for 2 months. The international index of erectile function-5 (IIEF-5), a cognitive battery (the Korean version of mini-mental state examination (K-MMSE), the frontal assessment battery (K-FAB), the Seoul verbal learning test) and a physical health questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15) were performed at baseline and at 2 months, following the administration of udenafil. The patients were divided on the basis of their IIEF-5 score into responders (change>7) and non-responders. The mean IIEF-5 score was significantly increased after treatment (7.92 ± 3.83 to 16.33 ± 4.75, P<0.001). The scores of K-MMSE (27.03 ± 1.58 to 28.07 ± 1.57, P=0.001), K-FAB (13.65 ± 1.96 to 15.41 ± 1.85, P<0.001) and PHQ-15 (18.92 ± 4.96 to 17.63 ± 4.75, P=0.003) were significantly improved after treatment. In addition, the responders (n=16) had more improved cognitive function (r=0.603, P=0.001) and somatization (r=-0.402, P=0.038) than non-responders (n=11). Repeated dosing with a PDE5 inhibitor seems to improve cognitive function and somatization, as well as erectile function in patients with erectile dysfunction.

Silodosin: an orally active selective α1-adrenoceptor antagonist for benign prostatic hyperplasia

α1-adrenoceptor antagonists play a central role in the treatment of uncomplicated symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia, frequently in combination with the 5-α-reductase inhibitors such as finasteride and dutasteride. Clinically useful examples include alfuzosin, doxazosin, tamsulosin and terazosin. These can be subdivided into nonselective (doxazosin and terazosin) and uroselective (alfuzosin and tamsulosin) agents. In general, these agents appear to be equieffective. However, they can be distinguished on the basis of their adverse event profiles. Such adverse events include those due to their vasodilatory effects (dizziness, orthostatic hypotension and rhinitis), genitourinary effects (ejaculatory dysfunction) and nonspecific effects (e.g., asthenia, malaise and gastrointestinal upset). A new α1A-adrenoceptor antagonist, silodosin, has recently been approved. In most ways, it is similar to tamsulosin in its pharmacodynamic effects in vitro and in vivo (in both animals and humans). Limited clinical trial data have shown silodosin to significantly improve lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia and quality of life, with effects sustainable for at least 1 year. Its adverse-event profile reflects that seen with other uroselective α-adrenoceptor antagonists with the exception of a relatively high-incidence rate of ejaculatory dysfunction (22 vs 2% with tamsulosin and 28 vs 1% with placebo). This article reviews the preclinical and clinical data concerning silodosin and introduces the reader to this new drug for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.