Phosphodiesterase inhibitors for lower urinary tract symptoms consistent with benign prostatic hyperplasia

[Conservative and pharmacological treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia : The German S2e-guideline 2023-part2]

BACKGROUND

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH, in German guidelines: benign prostatic syndrome [BPS]) is considered the most common disease of the lower urinary tract in men and can have a tremendous impact on the quality-of-life of affected patients. Conservative and pharmacological therapy of this disease are of great importance, both in improving LUTS and reducing progression-related complications.

OBJECTIVES

Presentation of the conservative and pharmacological treatment options according to the current German S2e guideline on BPS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Summary and overview of chapters 9 and 10 of the current German S2e guideline on BPS.

RESULTS

In addition to a controlled watchful waiting for BPS patients without an absolute indication for prostate surgery, a variety of phytopharmacological formulations and synthetic drugs according to the symptomatology and clinical progress are available. Phytotherapy should, due to inconsistent study data, only be considered for mild to moderate symptoms. Synthetic drugs include alpha-blockers, 5α-reductase inhibitors, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, antimuscarinics and, more recently, the β3-agonist mirabegron in the current guideline. In addition, various combination therapies are listed and evaluated according to their indications, effects and side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The current German S2e guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of BPS provides an evidence-based foundation for finding the best possible and most effective medication.

Overview of current pharmacotherapeutic options in benign prostatic hyperplasia

INTRODUCTION

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) represents the histological entity of prostate cell proliferation, which inflicts a gradually increasing obstruction of the bladder outlet and is accompanied by a progressing manifestation of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). BPH management algorithm includes conservative measures, pharmaceutical agents, and surgical procedures.

AREAS COVERED

A comprehensive literature review was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases to identify publications written in English, analyzing BPH pharmaceutical treatment. The search was conducted from January 2000 to January 2023. Six main drug classes can be administered, either as monotherapy or in combination. Furthermore, the authors provide current direction of research on future medications, which focuses on a more etiological interference to the BPH pathophysiological mechanism.

EXPERT OPINION

The available medications represent an effective first-line step of BPH/LUTS therapy. Currently, the administration of BPH medications is tailored to patient/disease characteristics and entails long-time adherence to therapy. The emergence of new surgical modalities, which combine significantly lower morbidity compared to standard procedures and more durable effects than the available medications, seems to challenge the current treatment algorithm. More direct comparisons and the increasing experience with these surgical modalities will delineate the switch points between various therapy levels along the BPH management sequence.

Inhibition of growth and contraction in human prostate stromal cells by silencing of NUAK1 and -2, and by the presumed NUAK inhibitors HTH01-015 and WZ4003

Background: NUAKs promote myosin light chain phosphorlyation, actin organization, proliferation and suppression of cell death in non-muscle cells, which are critical for smooth muscle contraction and growth. In benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), contraction and growth in the prostate drive urethral obstruction and voiding symptoms. However, a role of NUAKs in smooth muscle contraction or prostate functions are unknown. Here, we examined effects of NUAK silencing and the presumed NUAK inhibitors, HTH01-015 and WZ4003 on contraction and growth-related functions in prostate stromal cells (WPMY-1) and in human prostate tissues. Methods: Effects of NUAK1 and -2 silencing, HTH01-015 and WZ4003 on matrix plug contraction, proliferation (EdU assay, Ki-67 mRNA), apoptosis and cell death (flowcytometry), viability (CCK-8) and actin organization (phalloidin staining) were examined in cultured WPMY-1 cells. Effects of HTH01-015 and WZ4003 on smooth muscle contraction were assessed in organ bath experirments with human prostate tissues. Results: Effects of silencing were most pronounced on proliferation and cell death, resulting in decreases of proliferation rate by 60% and 70% by silencing of NUAK1 and NUAK2 (compared to scramble siRNA-transfected controls), decreases in Ki-67 by 75% and 77%, while numbers of dead cells after silencing of NUAK1 and NUAK2 amounted to 2.8 and 4.9 fold of scramble-transfected controls. Silencing of each isoform was paralleled by reduced viability, breakdown in actin polymerization, and partial decreases in contractility (maximally 45% by NUAK1 silencing, 58% by NUAK2 silencing). Effects of silencing were mimicked by HTH01-015 and WZ4003, with numbers of dead cells amounting up to 16.1 fold or 7.8 fold with HTH01-015 or WZ4003, compared to solvent-treated controls. Using concentrations of 500 nM, neurogenic contractions of prostate tissues were inhibited partly by HTH01-015 and U46619-induced contractions were inhibited partly by HTH01-015 and WZ4003, while α1-adrenergic and endothelin-1-induced contractions remained unaffected. Using 10 μM, inhibition of endothelin-1-induced contractions by both inhibitors and inhibition of α1-adrenergic contractions by HTH01-015 added to effects seen by 500 nM. Conclusion: NUAK1 and -2 suppress cell death and promote proliferation in prostate stromal cells. A role in stromal hyperplasia appears possible in BPH. Effects of NUAK silencing are mimicked by HTH01-015 and WZ4003.

How Would You Manage This Patient With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are common in older patients assigned male sex at birth, regardless of gender identity, and treatment of these symptoms is therefore common in primary care practice. In 2021, the American Urological Association published guidelines for management of BPH. They recommend using a standardized scoring system such as the International Prostate Symptom Score to help establish a diagnosis and to monitor the efficacy of interventions, α-blockers as the first-choice pharmacotherapy option, and 5α-reductase inhibitors for patients with prostate size estimated to be at least 30 cc. Tadalafil is another option regardless of erectile dysfunction. Combination therapies with α-blockers and 5α-reductase inhibitors, anticholinergic agents, or β3-agonists are effective options. A surgical referral is warranted if the BPH results in chronic kidney disease, refractory urinary retention, or recurrent urinary tract infections; if there is concern for bladder or prostate cancer; or if symptoms do not respond to medical therapy. In this article, a general internal medicine physician and a urologist discuss the treatment options and how they would apply their recommendations to a patient who wishes to learn more about his options.

Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia by Natural Drugs

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most common urinary diseases affecting men, generally after the age of 50. The prevalence of this multifactorial disease increases with age. With aging, the plasma level of testosterone decreases, as well as the testosterone/estrogen ratio, resulting in increased estrogen activity, which may facilitate the hyperplasia of the prostate cells. Another theory focuses on dihydrotestosterone (DHT) and the activity of the enzyme 5α-reductase, which converts testosterone to DHT. In older men, the activity of this enzyme increases, leading to a decreased testosterone/DHT ratio. DHT may promote prostate cell growth, resulting in hyperplasia. Some medicinal plants and their compounds act by modulating this enzyme, and have the above-mentioned targets. This review focuses on herbal drugs that are most widely used in the treatment of BPH, including pumpkin seed, willow herb, tomato, maritime pine bark, Pygeum africanum bark, rye pollen, saw palmetto fruit, and nettle root, highlighting the latest results of preclinical and clinical studies, as well as safety issues. In addition, the pharmaceutical care and other therapeutic options of BPH, including pharmacotherapy and surgical options, are discussed, summarizing and comparing the advantages and disadvantages of each therapy.

Current Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is characterized by the occurrence of.disorders of urine storage and bladder emptying. Most men over the age of 60 years are affected to some degree.

METHODS

A selective literature search with additional scrutiny of guidelines and meta-analyses.

RESULTS

The management of patients with BPH is complex. Emptying and retention disorders can be treated by various pharmacological and surgical means. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has long been considered the gold standard for operative treatment. Transurethral enucleation procedures show a better risk profile in some uses, however, and have, above all, largely displaced suprapubic prostatectomy. Numerous innovative treatment options have been developed in recent years, but their long-term effects remain to be determined. These treatment techniques can nevertheless be used in individual cases after thorough discussion with the patient.

CONCLUSION

The care of patients with BPH should be interdisciplinary. The efficacy and safety of many new developments in the area of pharmacological and minimally invasive treatment remain to be demonstrated in randomized trials.

Purinergic smooth muscle contractions in the human prostate: estimation of relevance and characterization of different agonists

Non-adrenergic prostate smooth muscle contractions may account for the limited effectiveness of α₁-adrenoceptor antagonists, which are the first-line option for medical treatment of voiding symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia. In non-human prostates, purinergic agonists induce contractions reaching similar magnitudes as α₁-adrenergic contractions. However, evidence for the human prostate is highly limited, and pointed to much weaker purinergic contractions. Here, we examined contractions of different purinergic agonists in human prostate tissues. Tissues were obtained from radical prostatectomy. Contractions were studied in an organ bath, and expression of purinergic receptors was studied by RT-PCR. Electric field stimulation (EFS)–induced contractions amounted to 104% of KCl-induced contractions (95% CI: 84–124%). From all tested agonists, only ATP induced concentration-dependent contractions, reaching an average maximum of 18% (12–24%) of KCl. Maximum tensions following application of other agonists averaged to 7.1% of KCl for α,β-methylene-ATP (1.8–12.4%), 3.9% for β,γ-methylene-ATP (2.0–5.4%), 3.1% for 2-methylthio-ATP (− 0.1–6.3%), and 5.1% for ATPγS (1.0–9.2%). Responses were not affected by the P2X antagonist NF023 or the P2Y antagonist PPADS. mRNA expression of P2X1-4 correlated with expression of a marker for catecholaminergic nerves, although neither ATP, NF023, nor PPADS changed EFS-induced contractions. Correlation between expression of receptors and the smooth muscle marker calponin was not observed. Our findings point to a low relevance of purinergic contractions in the human prostate, compared to other contractile stimuli in the human prostate and compared to purinergic contractions in non-human prostates. Purinergic contractions in the human prostate are not sensitive to NF023 or PPADS.

Phosphodiesterase inhibitors for lower urinary tract symptoms consistent with benign prostatic hyperplasia

BACKGROUND

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) refers to non-malignant enlargement of the prostate gland that may cause bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Alpha-blockers (ABs) and 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) are the mainstay of medical treatment. Recently, phosphodiesterase inhibitors (PDEIs) that so far have been used mainly to treat erectile dysfunction were introduced to treat male LUTS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PDEIs compared to placebo and other standard of care drugs (ABs and 5-ARIs) in men with LUTS consistent with BPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and clinical trials registries of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (updated 2 August 2018). We performed citation tracking and handsearching of abstracts and conference proceedings. We also contacted study authors to ask for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion in this systematic review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PDEIs versus placebo, ABs, or 5-ARIs for at least four weeks in men with BPH-LUTS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently screened the literature and extracted data. Primary outcomes were effects on urinary symptoms as assessed by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS-total; score ranging from 0 to 35, with higher values reflecting more symptoms), urinary bother as assessed by the Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Impact Index (BPHII; score ranging from 0 to 13, with higher values reflecting more bother), and adverse events (AEs). We used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence. We considered short-term (up to 12 weeks) and long-term (12 weeks or longer) results separately.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 16 randomised trials in this review. The results for primary outcomes are as follows.PDEI versus placebo: PDEIs may result in a small improvement in IPSS-total score (mean difference (MD) 1.89 lower, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.27 lower to 1.50 lower; n = 4293; low-quality evidence) compared to placebo, and may reduce the BPHII score slightly (MD 0.52 lower, 95% CI 0.71 lower to 0.33 lower; n = 3646; low-quality evidence). Rates of AEs may be increased (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.67; n = 4386; low-quality evidence). This corresponds to 95 more AEs per 1000 participants (95% CI 47 more to 151 more per 1000). Study results were limited to a treatment duration of six to 12 weeks.PDEI versus AB: PDEIs and ABs probably provide similar improvement in IPSS-total score (MD 0.22 higher, 95% CI 0.49 lower to 0.93 higher; n = 933; moderate-quality evidence) and may have a similar effect on BPHII score (MD 0.03 higher, 95% CI 1.10 lower to 1.16 higher; n = 550; low-quality evidence) and AEs (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.30; n = 936; low-quality evidence). This corresponds to 71 more AEs per 1000 participants (95% CI 41 fewer to 264 more per 1000). Study results were limited to a treatment duration of six to 12 weeks.PDEI and AB versus AB alone: the combination of PDEI and AB may provide a small improvement in IPSS-total score (MD 2.56 lower, 95% CI 3.92 lower to 1.19 lower; n = 193; low-quality evidence) compared to AB alone. We found no evidence for BPHII scores. AEs may be increased (RR 2.81, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.17; n = 194; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to 235 more AEs per 1000 participants (95% CI 69 more to 542 more per 1000). Study results were limited to treatment duration of four to 12 weeks.PDEI and AB versus PDEI alone: the combination of PDEI and AB may provide a small improvement in IPSS-total (MD 2.4 lower, 95% CI 6.47 lower to 1.67 higher; n = 40; low-quality evidence) compared to PDEI alone. We found no data on BPHII or AEs. Study results were limited to a treatment duration of four weeks.PDEI and 5-ARI versus 5-ARI alone: in the short term (up to 12 weeks), the combination of PDEI and 5-ARI probably results in a small improvement in IPSS-total score (MD 1.40 lower, 95% CI 2.24 lower to 0.56 lower; n = 695; moderate-quality evidence) compared to 5-ARI alone. We found no evidence on BPHII scores or AEs. In the long term (13 to 26 weeks), the combination of PDEI and 5-ARI likely results in a small reduction in IPSS-total score (MD 1.00 less, 95% CI 1.83 lower to 0.17 lower; n = 695; moderate-quality evidence). We found no evidence about effects on BPHII scores. There may be no difference in rates of AEs (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.36; n = 695; low-quality evidence). This corresponds to 19 more AEs per 1000 participants (95% CI 43 fewer to 98 more per 1000).We found no trials comparing other combinations of treatments or comparing different PDEI agents.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, PDEI likely leads to a small reduction in IPSS-total and BPHII sores, with a possible increase in AEs. There may be no differences between PDEI and AB with regards to improvement in IPSS-total, BPHII, and incidence of AEs. There appears to be no added benefit of PDEI combined with AB compared to PDEI or AB alone or PDEI combined with 5-ARI compared to ARI alone with regards to urinary symptoms. Most evidence was limited to short-term treatment up to 12 weeks and of moderate or low certainty.