|
Asian Journal of Andrology (2013) 15, 121–128; doi:10.1038/aja.2012.102; published online 10 December 2012
Silodosin is effective for treatment of LUTS in men with BPH: a systematic review
Hui Ding1, Wan Du2, Zi-Zhen Hou1, Han-Zhang Wang3 and Zhi-Ping Wang1
1 Institute of Urology, Key Laboratory of Diseases of Urological System Gansu Province, Gansu Nephro-Urological Clinical Center, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
2 Otolaryngological Department, The Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
3 The Medical College of Shandong University, Jinan, China
Correspondence: Dr ZP Wang, (erywzp@lzu.edu.cn)
Received 17 May 2012; Revised 3 July 2012; Accepted 10 August 2012
Advance online publication 10 December 2012
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence on the efficacy and safety of silodosin treatments on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) from randomized controlled trials. We searched PubMed (1966–December 2011), Embase (1974–December 2011) and the Cochrane Library Database (2011, Issue 12). The assessed outcome measures were the change from baseline for the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QoL) score, peak urine maximum flow rate (Qmax), QoL related to urinary symptoms and adverse effects. Two authors independently assessed the study quality and extracted data. All data were analysed using RevMan 5.1. The meta-analysis included four randomized controlled trials with a total of 2504 patients. The study durations were each 12 weeks. At the follow-up end points, the pooled results showed that the change from baseline for the silodosin group was significantly higher than the placebo group for the IPSS, QoL score and Qmax(mean difference (MD)=−2.78, P<0.00001; MD=−0.42, P=0.004; MD=1.17, P<0.00001,respectively) and patients felt more satisfied with QoL related to urinary symptoms in the silodosin group than the placebo group. Ejaculation disorder was the most commonly reported adverse effect. The pooled results also showed that the silodosin group was superior to the 0.2 mg tamsulosin group with respect to the IPSS and QoL score (IPSS: MD=−1.14, P=0.02; QoL score: MD=−0.26, P=0.02) and inferior to the 0.2 mg tamsulosin group with respect to Qmax (MD=−0.85, P=0.01). In contrast, there was no significant difference in the incidence of ejaculation disorder and dizziness between the silodosin and 0.2 mg tamsulosin groups. The current meta-analysis suggested that silodosin is an effective therapy for LUTS in men with BPH and is not inferior to 0.2 mg tamsulosin.
Keywords: benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH); KMD-3213; lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS); silodosin; tamsulosin; systematic review; meta-analysis |
|
