The efficacy and safety of silodosin in treating BPH: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Alpha1-adrenergic blockers selectively antagonize the contractions induced by 6-nitrodopamine in the human vas deferens

6-Nitrodopamine (6-ND) is released from human vas deferens and plays a modulatory role in the male ejaculation. Therapeutical use of α1-adrenoceptor antagonists is associated with ejaculatory abnormalities. To evaluate the effect of α1-adrenoceptor antagonists on the contractions induced by 6-ND, dopamine, noradrenaline, and adrenaline in the human epididymal vas deferens (HEVD). HEVD strips were suspended in glass chambers containing heated and oxygenated Krebs-Henseleit's solution. Cumulative concentration-response curves to catecholamines (10 nM-300 μM) were constructed in HEVD strips pre-incubated (30 min) with doxazosin (0.1-1 nM), tamsulosin (1-10 nM), prazosin (10-100 nM) and/or silodosin (0.1-10 nM). The effects of these α1-adrenoceptor antagonists were also evaluated in the electric-field stimulation (EFS, 2-32 Hz)-induced contractions. Doxazosin (0.1 nM) caused significant reductions in 6-ND-induced HEVD contractions without affecting the contractions induced by dopamine, noradrenaline, and adrenaline. Similar results were observed with tamsulosin (1 nM) and prazosin (10 nM). At these concentrations, these α1-adrenoceptor antagonists largely reduced the EFS-induced contractions. Silodosin (1 nM) caused concentration-dependent rightward shifts of the concentration-response curves to 6-ND but had no effect on the contractions induced by dopamine and adrenaline. Silodosin (0.1 nM) only inhibited the contractions induced by noradrenaline. Silodosin at 1 nM, but not at 0.1 nM, caused significant reductions in the EFS-induced contractions. The results reinforce the concept that 6-ND plays a major role in the human vas deferens contractility and indicate that the ejaculation disorders caused by doxazosin, tamsulosin, prazosin and silodosin cause in man, may be due to inhibition of the contractions induced by 6-ND rather than by the classical catecholamines dopamine, noradrenaline, and adrenaline.

Evaluation of apoptosis indexes in currently used oral alpha-blockers in prostate: a pilot study

Objectives:

Apoptosis effect of oral alpha-blockers is known in the prostate. Apoptosis index of silodosin has not been proved, yet. Aims are to present apoptosis index of silodosin in prostate and to compare this with other currently used alpha-blocker's apoptosis indexes together with their clinical effects.

Materials and Methods:

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) patients were enrolled among those admitted to urology outpatient clinic between June 2014 and June 2015. Study groups were created according to randomly prescribed oral alpha-blocker drugs as silodosin 8mg (Group 1; n=24), tamsulosin 0.4mg (Group 2; n=30), alfuzosin 10mg (Group 3; n=25), doxazosin 8mg (Group 4; n=22), terazosin 5mg (Group 5; n=15). Pa- tients who refused to use any alpha-blocker drug were included into Group 6 as control group (n=16). We investigated apoptosis indexes of the drugs in prostatic tissues that were taken from patient's surgery (transurethral resection of prostate) and/or prostate biopsies. Immunochemical dyeing, light microscope, and Image Processing and Analy- sis in Java were used for evaluations. Statistical significant p was p<0.05.

Results:

There were 132 patients with mean follow-up of 4.2±2.1 months. Pathologist researched randomly selected 10 areas in each microscope set. Group 1 showed statisti- cal significant difference apoptosis index in immunochemical TUNEL dyeing and im- age software (p<0.001). Moreover, we determined superior significant development in parameters as uroflowmetry, quality of life scores, and international prostate symptom score in Group 1.

Conclusions:

Silodosin has higher apoptosis effect than other alpha-blockers in prostate. Thus, clinic improvement with silodosin was proved by histologic studies. Besides, static factor of BPH may be overcome with creating apoptosis.

Bevacizumab and wound-healing complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the risk of wound-healing complications in patients who treated with neoadjuvant-adjuvant bevacizumab in various oncological indications. We searched PUBMED, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library through June 2016 to identify randomized controlled trials of bevacizumab and wound-healing complications. Seven RCTs studies involving 5,147 participants were included in the analysis. Compared with routine therapy, bevacizumab increased the incidence of wound-healing complications for various cancers. The pooled estimate of odds ratio (OR) was 2.32, and the 95 % confidence intervals (CI) was 1.43 to 3.75. (P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed the similar result in colon carcinoma patients. In conclusion, bevacizumab increases the incidence of wound-healing complications for cancers especially for colon neoplasms patients. However, the adverse effect is not appeared in breast cancer, metastatic renal cell carcinoma, non-small-cell lung cancer and gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Due to the findings relying chiefly on data from single or two studies, hence, further research is required to assess the wound-healing complications risk of bevacizumab in each oncological indication.

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.

Tamsulosin for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Tamsulosin has been used for the off-label treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in women. Over the past few years, several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported the clinical effectiveness and safety of tamsulosin for LUTS in women. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tamsulosin in treating LUTS in women, which may resolve some of the current controversies over use of the drug and provide more reliable evidence for the use of tamsulosin. A literature review was performed to identify all published RCTs of tamsulosin for the treatment of LUTS in women. The search included the following databases: PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trail Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database (VIP) and Wanfang Database. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Six RCTs studies involving 764 female participants were included in the analysis. Four out of the six RCTs compared tamsulosin with placebo, one RCT compared tamsulosin with prazosin and the other study compared tamsulosin with tamsulosin combined with tolterodine. Two RCTs evaluated total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and improved total IPSS compared with the placebo (standardized mean difference=-4.08, 95% confidence interval=-5.93 to -2.23, P<0.00001). IPSS (storage symptom score), IPSS (voiding symptom score) and quality-of-life score also showed the similar effects. In addition, tamsulosin improved the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire score when compared with placebo in only one RCT. For urodynamic parameters, tamsulosin improved the average flow rate and the post-void residual volume when compared with prazosin and tolterodine combined with tamsulosin, respectively. Beyond that, the other parameters showed no significant difference between the treatment and control groups. On the basis of the present evidence, tamsulosin is an effective treatment for the relief of LUTS in women when compared with placebo. However, the safety of the tamsulosin remains unknown. Further, well-conducted trials that examine long-term outcomes are required.

The efficacy and safety of silodosin for the treatment of ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of silodosin as a medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of silodosin in the treatment of ureteral stones. The reference lists of retrieved studies were also investigated.

Results

Six RCTs, including 916 participants and comparing silodosin with controls, were used in the meta-analysis. Silodosin was superior to controls in terms of stone expulsion rate, the primary efficacy end point in all six RCTs (odds ratio [OR] for expulsion 2.16, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.62 to 2.86, p <0.00001). Silodosin was also more effective for secondary efficacy end points; the stone expulsion time (standardized mean difference [SMD] −3.66, 95 % CI −6.61 to −0.71; p =0.01) and analgesic requirements (SMD −0.89, 95 % CI −1.19 to −0.60; p < 0.00001) were significantly reduced compared with those of controls. Other than the incidence of abnormal ejaculation, which was higher in the silodosin groups (OR 2.84, 95 % CI 1.56 to 5.16, p =0.0006), few adverse effects were observed.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis indicates silodosin is an effective and safe treatment option for ureteral stones with a low occurrence of side effects.