Addition of Antimuscarinics to Alpha-blockers for Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Men: A Meta-analysis

[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.

Anticholinergics combined with alpha-blockers for treating lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic obstruction

BACKGROUND

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) represent one of the most common clinical complaints in men. Alpha-blockers are widely used as first-line therapy for men with LUTS secondary to BPO, but up to one third of men report no improvement in their LUTS after taking alpha-blockers. Anticholinergics used in addition to alpha-blockers may help improve symptoms but it is uncertain how effective they are.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of combination therapy with anticholinergics and alpha-blockers in men with LUTS related to BPO.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search of medical literature, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registries, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. The date of the latest search was 7 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with LUTS secondary to BPO, ages 40 years or older, and a total International Prostate Symptom Score of 8 or greater. We excluded trials of men with a known neurogenic bladder due to spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, or central nervous system disease, and those examining medical therapy for men who were treated with surgery for BPO. We performed three comparisons: combination therapy versus placebo, combination therapy versus alpha-blockers monotherapy, and combination therapy versus anticholinergics monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted data according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 studies with 6285 randomized men across three comparisons. The mean age of participants ranged from 54.4 years to 73.9 years (overall mean age 65.7 years). Of the included studies, 12 were conducted with a single-center setting, while 11 used a multi-center setting. We only found short-term effect (12 weeks to 12 months) of combination therapy based on available evidence. Combination therapy versus placebo: based on five studies with 2369 randomized participants, combination therapy may result in little or no difference in urologic symptom scores (mean difference (MD) -2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.55 to 0.08; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of combination therapy on quality of life (QoL) (MD -0.97, 95% CI -2.11 to 0.16; very low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy likely increases adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.47; moderate-certainty evidence); based on 252 adverse events per 1000 participants in the placebo group, this corresponds to 61 more adverse events (95% CI 10 more  to 119 more) per 1000 participants treated with combination therapy. Combination therapy versus alpha-blockers alone: based on 22 studies with 4904 randomized participants, we are very uncertain about the effect of combination therapy on urologic symptom scores (MD -2.04, 95% CI -3.56 to -0.52; very low-certainty evidence) and QoL (MD -0.71, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.38; very low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy may result in little or no difference in adverse events rate (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; low-certainty evidence); based on 228 adverse events per 1000 participants in the alpha-blocker group, this corresponds to 23 more adverse events (95% CI 23 fewer to 78 more) per 1000 participants treated with combination therapy. Combination therapy compared to anticholinergics alone: based on three studies with 1218 randomized participants, we are very uncertain about the effect of combination therapy on urologic symptom scores (MD -3.71, 95% CI -9.41 to 1.98; very low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy may result in an improvement in QoL (MD -1.49, 95% CI -1.88 to -1.11; low-certainty evidence). Combination therapy likely results in little to no difference in adverse events (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.95; moderate-certainty evidence); based on 115 adverse events per 1000 participants in the anticholinergic alone group, this corresponds to 4 fewer adverse events (95% CI 7 fewer to 13 more) per 1000 participants treated with combination therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of the review, combination therapy with anticholinergics and alpha-blockers are associated with little or uncertain effects on urologic symptom scores compared to placebo, alpha-blockers, or anticholinergics monotherapy. However, combination therapy may result in an improvement in quality of life compared to anticholinergics monotherapy, but an uncertain effect compared to placebo, or alpha-blockers. Combination therapy likely increases adverse events compared to placebo, but not compared to alpha-blockers or anticholinergics monotherapy. The findings of this review were limited by study limitations, inconsistency, and imprecision. We were unable to conduct any of the predefined subgroup analyses.

Efficacy and safety of tamsulosin hydrochloride 0.2 mg and combination of tamsulosin hydrochloride 0.2 mg plus solifenacin succinate 5 mg after transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tamsulosin hydrochloride 0.2 mg (TAM) and its combination with solifenacin succinate 5 mg (SOL) after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

Patients and methods

The patients were randomized into three groups: TURP (group 1), TURP plus TAM (group 2), and TURP plus TAM + SOL (group 3). Patients in group 2 and group 3 received medication for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy end points were the mean change in total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and IPSS subscores. The secondary end points included quality-of-life score, Overactive Bladder Symptom Score, and short-form voiding and storage score of International Continence Society.

Results

In total, 37 men (31.8%) in group 1, 37 men (31.8%) in group 2, and 42 men (36.2%) in group 3 completed the study. In total IPSS, no significant improvement was seen from baseline to the end of treatment in groups 2 and 3 compared with group 1. However, in group 2, the decrement in the IPSS storage score was smaller than group 1 (P=0.02), and in group 3, the decrement in the IPSS voiding score was smaller than group 1 (P=0.05). In groups 2 and 3 compared with group 1, improvements in the quality of life score, total score of Overactive Bladder Symptom Score, and short-form voiding score and storage score of International Continence Society were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Treatment with TAM and combination of TAM and SOL did not have significant additional benefits for lower urinary tract symptoms during the early recovery period after TURP.