Urologic Symptom Scores Research Articles

Prostate Artery Embolization as Minimally Invasive Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: An Updated Systematic Review.

Background/Objectives: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) has a significant impact on the quality of life of symptomatic patients. In patients manifesting lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) has become a topic of interest in recent years. The purpose of this systematic review is to analyze and review techniques and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent endovascular treatment of BPH, with a special focus on the comparison of surgical and endovascular procedures. Methods: Through the major scientific databases, 1225 articles were selected from the initial research utilizing specific keywords and medical subject headings. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria established for selecting relevant studies for our purposes, the systematic analysis of the literature was conducted on a total of seven articles. Results: We collected data on 718 male patients (408 patients underwent PAE and 310 received TURP). The technical success rate varied from 86% to 100% for TAE and was 100% for TURP. During a 12-month follow-up period, both PAE and TURP were comparable on the reduction in IPSS and QoL questionnaire, while TURP showed significant improvements in Qmax and in the reduction in prostate volume. Length and cost of hospitalization were lower for PAE. Complication and adverse events rates were higher in the TURP group rather than in the PAE group (60.6% vs. 35.5%). Conclusions: Prostatic artery embolization represents an emerging minimally invasive procedure for BPH. According to previously released clinical studies, quality-of-life and urological symptom scores of the PAE group were comparable to those of the TURP group. Our research strengthens the evidence supporting the effectiveness and safety of PAE as a therapy for LUTS related to BPH.

Serenoa repens for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a non-malignant enlargement of the prostate, which can lead to obstructive and irritative lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The pharmacologic use of plants and herbs (phytotherapy) for the treatment of LUTS associated with BPH is common. The extract of the berry of the American saw palmetto or dwarf palm plant, Serenoa repens (SR), which is also known by its botanical name of Sabal serrulatum, is one of several phytotherapeutic agents available for the treatment of BPH. To assess the effects of Serenoa repens in the treatment of men with LUTS consistent with BPH. We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings published up to 16 September 2022, with no restrictions on language or publication status. We included randomized controlled trials of participants with BPH who were treated with Serenoa repens or placebo/no treatment. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. We considered review outcomes measured up to 12 months after randomization as short term, and beyond 12 months as long term. Our main outcomes included urologic symptom scores, quality of life, and adverse events. For this update, we narrowed the review question to only comparisons with placebo. We included 27 studies (of which 9 were new) involving a total of 4656 participants, 19 studies comparing Serenoa repens with placebo, and 8 studies comparing Serenoa repens in combination with other phytotherapeutic agents versus placebo. Most studies included men aged > 50 (mean age range 52 to 68) with moderate urologic symptoms (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS] range 8 to 19). Ten studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry; two studies were funded by government agencies; and the remaining studies did not specify funding sources. Serenoa repens versus placebo or no intervention Results for this comparison are based on predefined sensitivity analyses limited to studies at low risk of bias. Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in urologic symptoms at short-term follow-up (3 to 6 months; IPSS score range 0 to 35, higher scores indicate worse symptoms; mean difference (MD) -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.74 to -0.07; I2 = 68%; 9 studies, 1681 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in the quality of life at short-term follow-up (3 to 6 months; IPSS quality of life domain range 0 to 6, higher scores indicate worse quality of life; MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.00; I2 = 39%; 5 studies, 1001 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serenoa repens probably results in little to no difference in adverse events (1 to 17 months; risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.31; I2 = 18%; 12 studies, 2399 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on 164 cases per 1000 men in the placebo group, this corresponds to 2 more (38 fewer to 51 more) per 1000 men in the Serenoa repens group. Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in urologic symptoms at long-term follow-up (12 to 17 months, IPSS score, MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.88; I2 = 34%; 3 studies, 898 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in quality of life at long-term follow-up (12 to 17 months, IPSS quality of life, MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.19; I2 = 65%; 3 studies, 882 participants; high-certainty evidence). There were no data on long-term adverse events for this comparison. Serenoa repens in combination with other phytotherapy versus placebo or no intervention Different phytotherapeutic agents that include Serenoa repens may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms compared to placebo at short-term follow-up (12 to 24 weeks, IPSS score, MD -2.41, 95% CI -4.54 to -0.29; I2 = 67%; 4 studies, 460 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of these agents on quality of life (very low-certainty evidence). These agents may result in little to no difference in the occurrence of adverse events; however, the CIs included substantial benefits and harms (12 to 48 weeks, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 481 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 132 cases per 1000 men in the placebo group, this corresponds to 12 fewer (55 fewer to 54 more) per 1000 men in the combined phytotherapeutic agents with Serenoa repens group. Serenoa repens alone provides little to no benefits for men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement. There is more uncertainty about the role of Serenoa repens in combination with other phytotherapeutic agents.

Prostatic arterial embolisation for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a Cochrane review.

To assess the effects of prostatic arterial embolisation (PAE) compared to other procedures for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomised studies (NRSs) enrolling men with BPH undergoing PAE vs other surgical interventions via a comprehensive search up until 8 November 2021. Two independent reviewers screened the literature, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model, and rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) of RCTs and NRSs. We found data to inform two comparisons: PAE vs transurethral resection of prostate (TURP; six RCTs and two NRSs), and PAE vs sham (one RCT). This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes in a comparison of PAE vs TURP. Short-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, there may be little to no difference in urological symptom score improvement (mean difference [MD] 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.37 to 3.81; low CoE) and quality of life (QoL; MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.84; low CoE) measured by International Prostatic Symptom Score. We are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on major adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.19-2.97; very low CoE). Long-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, PAE may result in little to no difference in urological symptom scores (MD 2.58, 95% CI -1.54 to 6.71; low CoE) and QoL (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.03 to 1.04; low CoE). We are very uncertain about major adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.20-4.05; very low CoE). Compared to TURP, the impact on urological symptoms and QoL improvement as perceived by patients appears to be similar. This review did reveal major uncertainty as to how major adverse events compare.

Prostatic arterial embolization for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

A variety of minimally invasive surgical approaches are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) is a relatively new, minimally invasive treatment approach. To assess the effects of PAE compared to other procedures for treatment of LUTS in men with BPH. We performed a comprehensive search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on language of publication or publication status, up to 8 November 2021. We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomized studies (NRS, limited to prospective cohort studies with concurrent comparison groups) enrolling men over the age of 40 years with LUTSattributed to BPH undergoing PAE versusTURP or other surgical interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion or exclusion and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidanceto rate the certainty of evidence of RCTs and NRSs. MAIN RESULTS: We found data to inform two comparisons: PAE versus TURP (six RCTs and two NRSs), and PAE versus sham (one RCT).Mean age was 66 years, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 22.8, and prostate volume of participants was 72.8 mL. This abstract focuses on the comparison of PAE versus TURP as the primary topic of interest. Prostatic arterial embolization versus transurethral resection of the prostate We included sixRCTs and two NRSs with short-term (up to 12 months) follow-up, and two RCTs and one NRS with long-term follow-up (13 to 24 months). Short-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, there may be little to no difference in urologic symptom score improvement measured by the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) on a scale from 0 to 35, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms (mean difference [MD] 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.37 to 3.81; 6 RCTs, 360 participants; I² = 78%; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in quality of life as measured by the IPSS-quality of life question on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating worse quality of life between PAE and TURP, respectively (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.84; 5 RCTs, 300 participants; I² = 63%; low-certainty evidence). While we are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on major adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.97; 4 RCTs, 250 participants; I² = 24%; very low-certainty evidence), PAE likely increases retreatments (RR 3.20, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.27; 4 RCTs, 303 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). PAE may make little to no difference in erectile function measured by the International Index of Erectile Function-5 on a scale from 1 to 25, with higher scores indicating better function (MD -0.50 points, 95% CI -5.88 to 4.88; 2 RCTs, 120 participants; I²= 68%; low-certainty evidence). Based on NRS evidence, PAE may reduce the occurrence of ejaculatory disorders (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.73; 1 NRS, 260 participants; low-certainty evidence). Long-term follow-up:based on RCT evidence, PAE may result in little to no difference in urologic symptom scores (MD 2.58 points, 95% CI -1.54 to 6.71; 2 RCTs, 176 participants; I² = 73%; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (MD 0.50 points, 95% CI -0.03 to 1.04; 2 RCTs, 176 participants; I² = 29%; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about major adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.20 to 4.05; 2 RCTs, 206 participants; I² = 72%; very low-certainty evidence). PAE likely increases retreatments (RR 3.80, 95% CI 1.32 to 10.93; 1 RCT, 81 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). While PAE may result in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 3.09 points, 95% CI -0.76 to 6.94; 1 RCT, 81 participants; low-certainty evidence), PAE may reduce the occurrence of ejaculatory disorders (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.98; 1 RCT, 50 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to TURP, PAE may provide similar improvement inurologic symptom scores and quality of life. While we are very uncertain about major adverse events, PAE likely increases retreatment rates. While erectile function may be similar, PAE may reduce ejaculatory disorders. Certainty of evidence for the outcomes of this review was low or very low except for retreatment (moderate-certainty evidence), signaling that our confidence in the reported effect size is limited or very limited, and that this topic should be better informed by future research.

Effects of warm needling therapy on symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background:Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is the term for a type of non-malignant prostate enlargement that is most often diagnosed in men of middle age and older. Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are commonly observed in men afflicted with BPH. Evidence suggests that warm needling therapy could be applied clinically to relieve the LUTS associated with BPH, particularly in China, where experienced practitioners are readily available. In this review, the safety and effects of warm needling therapy are assessed in the context of treatment for LUTS associated with BPH.Methods:First, data for relevant randomised controlled trials and the initial periods of randomised cross-over trials will be obtained from four English databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database) and six Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, SinoMed, Chongqing VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, China Master's Theses Full-text Database and China Doctoral Dissertations Full-text Database). The primary outcomes analysed in this protocol are improvements in urological symptoms as measured by recognized urological symptom scores, while secondary outcomes include improvement of urine flow rate measures, residual urine volume, nocturia, prostate size, and quality-of-life score. In addition, safety outcomes will be analysed by assessing incidences of adverse events. Two reviewers will independently assess and select studies, extract data and assess the risk of bias. Data synthesis and risk bias assessment will be performed with Review Manager software (version 5.3).Results:This systematic review provides a synthesis to assess the therapeutic efficacy of warm needling therapy for LUTS associated with BPH.Conclusion:The present study will provide a clinically relevant evaluation of the current state of evidence regarding the therapeutic efficacy of warm needling therapy for LUTS associated with BPH.Ethics and dissemination:Ethical approval is not required for this review, because private information will not be collected from the included participants. The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Registration number:PROSPERO CRD42020198360.

Beta 3 Adrenoreceptor Agonist for the Management of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Men With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review.

Beta-3 adrenoceptor (B3AR) agonist which mediate detrusor relaxation has been tried as a new treatment modality for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). However, it remains unclear whether the B3AR agonist has more clinical benefits and fewer adverse effects in men with BPH than in women. We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases, trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings regardless of language or publication status and included randomized controlled trials. 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 them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Primary outcomes were urologic symptom scores, quality of life (QoL), and overall adverse events. We found 4 randomized controlled trials with 1,105 participants in 3 comparisons. All studies reported short-term outcomes (ranged from 8 weeks to 12 weeks). Mirabegron, tamsulosin, silodosin, fesoterodine, and tadalafil were administrated as intervention. While B3AR agonist can improve the patient-important outcomes within group (before and after treatment), B3AR agonist combination therapy with current standard BPH treatment such as alpha blocker or anticholinergic may not have additional effects on urological symptom scores and QoL compared to alpha blocker or anticholinergic monotherapy. B3AR agonist therapy with phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor (PDE5I) showed statistical improvement on urological symptom scores or QoL compared to PDE5I monotherapy. For safety profile, B3AR agonist in all 3 comparisons may not increase adverse event rate. While B3AR agonists may be used for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with BPH if storage symptoms with standard BPH treatment are insufficient, B3AR agonists appear to have trivial or similar effects compared to current standard BPH treatment.

Transurethral microwave thermotherapy for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Transurethral microwave thermotherapy for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

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

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. Anticholinergicsused 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 on252adverse events per 1000 participants in the placebo group, this corresponds to 61more adverse events (95% CI 10 more to 119more) 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 on228adverse events per 1000 participants in the alpha-blocker group, this corresponds to 23more adverse events (95% CI 23 fewerto 78more) 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 likelyresults in little to no difference in adverse events (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.95; moderate-certainty evidence);based on 115adverse events per 1000 participants in the anticholinergic alone group, this corresponds to 4 feweradverse events (95% CI 7fewerto 13more) per 1000 participants treated with combination therapy. 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.

Effect of the symptom-based alpha-blocker treatment on lower urinary tract symptoms in women: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aims:The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of alpha blockers in women with lower urinary tract symptoms.Methods:We conducted systematic review and meta-analysis on published a priori protocols. We searched multiple data sources for published and unpublished randomized controlled trials in any language. Primary outcomes included urologic symptom scores, quality of life, and overall adverse events. We performed meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 and rated the certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.Results:Alpha blockers likely reduced urological symptom score (mean difference: −1.50, 95% confidence interval: −2.91 to −0.09; moderate certainty of evidence). Alpha blockers may improve quality of life (standardized mean difference: −0.35, 95% confidence interval: −0.85 to 0.15; low certainty of evidence) and have little to no difference in overall adverse events (risk ratio: 1.09, 95% confidence interval: 0.55 to 2.15; low certainty of evidence). Based on five studies comparing combination therapy with alpha blockers and anticholinergics to anticholinergic monotherapy, combination therapy likely results in little to no difference in urological symptom score (mean difference: −0.35, 95% confidence interval: −1.98 to 1.27; moderate certainty of evidence) and quality of life (mean difference: −0.11, 95% confidence interval: −0.48 to 0.27; moderate certainty of evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of combination therapy on overall adverse events (risk ratio: 1.07, 95% confidence interval: 0.40 to 2.84; very low certainty of evidence).Conclusion:Alpha blocker monotherapy for the women with lower urinary tract symptoms regardless of the underlying cause likely has satisfactory efficacy compared with placebo. However, combination therapy with anticholinergics likely has no additional effect on urologic symptom score and quality of life compared with anticholinergic monotherapy.

Transurethral Microwave Thermotherapy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: An Updated Cochrane Review.

PurposeTo assess the effects of transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).Materials and MethodsWe performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases up to May 2021, with no language or publication status restrictions. We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials of participants with BPH who underwent TUMT. We used standard Cochrane methods, including a GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence (CoE).ResultsIn this update of a previous Cochrane review, we included 16 trials with 1,919 participants. TUMT probably results in little to no difference in urologic symptom scores at short-term follow-up compared to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). There is likely to be little to no difference in the quality of life. TUMT likely results in fewer major adverse events. TUMT, however, probably results in a large increase in the need for retreatment. There may be little to no difference in erectile function between these interventions. However, TUMT may result in fewer cases of ejaculatory dysfunction compared to TURP. The overall CoE was moderate to low.ConclusionsTUMT provides a similar reduction in urinary symptoms compared to TURP, with fewer major adverse events and fewer cases of ejaculatory dysfunction at short-term follow-up. However, TUMT probably results in a large increase in retreatment rates. Study limitations and imprecision reduced the confidence we can place in these results.

Prostatic arterial embolization for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Prostatic arterial embolization for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

New minimal invasive surgeries have been suggested as alternative options to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy is a new technology that uses targeted, controlled water vapour energy (steam) to create necrotic tissue in the prostate. To assess the effects of convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and the Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings published up to 18 February 2020, with no restriction on the language or status of publication. We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and non-randomised observational prospective studies with concurrent comparison groups, in which men with BPH underwent convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy, another active therapy, or a sham procedure. Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We had planned to perform statistical analyses using a random-effects model, and interpret them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach. We included asingle, industry-sponsored RCT, with 197 randomised men, that compared convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy to a sham procedure. The mean age 62.9 years, the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) was 21.97, and the mean prostate volume was 45.4 mL. We only found short-term data, measured up to three months. Primary outcomes Convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy may improve urologic symptom scores more than a sham procedure, measured on a IPSSscale (0 to 35; higher score represents worse urological symptoms) by a mean difference (MD) of -6.9 (95% confidence interval (CI) -9.06 to -4.74; 195 men; low-certainty evidence), and likely improves quality of life (QoL), measured on a IPSS-QoL scale (0 to 6; higher score represents worse QoL), by a MD of -1.2 (95% CI -1.66 to -0.74; 195 men; moderate-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy on major adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 6.79, 95% CI 0.39 to 117.00; 197 men; very low-certainty evidence) assessed by the Clavien-Dindo classification system of III, IV, and V complications. Secondary outcomes We are very uncertain about the effects of convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy on retreatment (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 32.86; 197 men; very low-certainty evidence). Convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy may have little to no effect on erectile function (MD 0.4, 95% CI -1.91 to 2.71; 130 men; low-certainty evidence) and ejaculatory function (MD 0.5, 95% CI -0.83 to 1.83; 130 men; low-certainty evidence). Convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy may increase minor adverse events assessed by the Clavien-Dindo classification system of Grade I and II complications (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.11; 197 men; low-certainty evidence). This would correspond to 434 minor adverse events per 1000 men (95% CI 264 more to 714 more). We are very uncertain about the effects of convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy on acute urinary retention (RR 4.98, 95% CI 0.28 to 86.63; 197 men; very low-certainty evidence). It likely greatly increases the rate of men requiring indwelling urinary catheters (RR 35.58, 95% CI 15.37 to 82.36; 197 men; moderate-certainty evidence). We were unable to perform any of the predefined secondary analyses. We found no evidence for other comparisons, such as convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy versus TURP or other minimal invasive procedures. Compared to a sham procedure, urologic symptom scores and quality of life appear to improve with convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy, but we are very uncertain about major adverse events. The certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to very low, with study limitations and imprecision being the most common reasons for rating down. These findings are based on a single industry-sponsored study, with three-month short-term follow-up. We did not find any studies comparing convective radiofrequency water vapour thermal therapy to any other active treatment form, such as TURP.

Prostatic urethral lift for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

A variety of minimally invasive surgical approaches are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). A recent addition to these is prostatic urethral lift (PUL). To assess the effects of PUL for the treatment of LUTS in men with BPH. We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status up until 31 January 2019. We included parallel group randomized controlled trials (RCTs). While we planned to include non-RCTs if RCTs had provided low-certainty evidence for a given outcome and comparison, we could not find any non-RCTs. 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 them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned subgroup analyses by age, prostate volume, and severity of baseline symptoms. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence. We included two RCTs with 297 participants comparing PUL to sham surgery or TURP. The mean age was 65.6 years and mean International Prostate Symptom Score was 22.7. Mean prostate volume was 42.2 mL. We considered review outcomes measured up to and including 12 months after randomization as short-term and later than 12 months as long-term. For patient-reported outcomes, lower scores indicate more urological symptom improvement and higher quality of life. In contrast, higher scores refers to better erectile and ejaculatory function.PUL versus sham: based on one study of 206 randomized participants with short follow-up (up to three months), PUL may lead to a clinically important improvement in urological symptom scores (mean difference (MD) -5.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.44 to -2.96; low-certainty evidence) and likely improves quality of life (MD -1.20, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether PUL increases major adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). There were no retreatments reported in either study group by three months. PUL likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD -1.40, 95% CI -3.24 to 0.44; moderate-certainty evidence) and ejaculatory function (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.38 to 1.38; moderate-certainty evidence).PUL versus TURP: based on one study of 91 randomized participants with a short follow-up (up to 12 months), PUL may result in a substantially lesser improvement in urological symptom scores than TURP (MD 4.50, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.90; low-certainty evidence). PUL may result in a slightly reduced or similar quality of life (MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.49 to 1.09; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether PUL may cause fewer major adverse events but increased retreatments (both very low-certainty evidence). PUL probably results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 0.80, 95% CI -1.50 to 3.10; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably results in substantially better ejaculatory function (MD 5.00, 95% CI 3.08 to 6.92; moderate-certainty evidence).With regards to longer term follow-up (up to 24 months) based on one study of 91 randomized participants, PUL may result in a substantially lesser improvement in urological symptom score (MD 6.10, 95% CI 2.16 to 10.04; low-certainty evidence) and result in little worse to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report on major adverse events. We are very uncertain whether PUL increases retreatment (very low-certainty evidence). PUL likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.80 to 4.00; moderate-certainty evidence), but may result in substantially better ejaculatory function (MD 4.30, 95% CI 2.17 to 6.43; low-certainty evidence).We were unable to perform any of the predefined secondary analyses for either comparison.We found no evidence for other comparisons such as PUL versus laser ablation or enucleation. PUL appears less effective than TURP in improving urological symptoms both short-term and long term, while quality of life outcomes may be similar. The effect on erectile function appears similar but ejaculatory function may be better. We are uncertain about major adverse events short-term and found no long-term information. We are very uncertain about retreatment rates both short-term and long-term. We were unable to assess the effects of PUL in subgroups based on age, prostate size, or symptom severity and also could not assess how PUL compared to other surgical management approaches. Given the large numbers of alternative treatment modalities to treat men with LUTS secondary to BPH, this represents important information that should be shared with men considering surgical treatment.

Five-Year Outcomes of a Single-Institution Prospective Trial of 19-Gy Single-Fraction High-Dose-Rate Brachytherapy for Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer

To update outcome and toxicity results of a prospective trial of 19-Gy single-fraction high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy for men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Patients were treated on a prospective study of single-fraction HDR brachytherapy. All patients had low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Patients with prostate volumes >50cm3, taking alpha-blockers for urinary symptoms, or with baseline American Urologic Association symptom scores >12 were ineligible. Patients underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided interstitial implant of the prostate followed by single-fraction HDR brachytherapy to a prescription dose of 19Gy. Sixty-eight patients were enrolled with a median follow-up of 3.9years. Median age was 62years. Median gland volume at the time of treatment was 35cm3, 92.6% of patients had T1 disease, 63.2% had a Gleason score of 6, and median pretreatment prostate-specific antigen was 5.0ng/mL. Chronic grade 2 genitourinary toxicity was 14.7%. No grade 3 urinary toxicity occurred. A single patient experienced grade 2+rectal toxicity (grade 3 diarrhea) that was transient and resolved with medical management. The 5-year estimated disease-free survival was 77.2% with no significant difference between low- and intermediate-risk patients. A single patient developed distant metastases during the follow-up period. Biopsy-proven local failure at 5years was 18.8%, occurring at a median interval of 4.0years posttreatment. No deaths occurred during follow-up. With extended follow-up, toxicity rates after single-fraction 19-Gy HDR brachytherapy remain low. Higher-than-expected rates of biochemical and local failure, however, raise concerns regarding the adequacy of this dose. Additional investigation to define the optimal single-fraction HDR brachytherapy dose is warranted, and single-fraction treatment currently should not be offered outside the context of a clinical trial.

Aquablation of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

New, minimally invasive surgeries have emerged as alternatives to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Aquablation is a novel, minimally invasive, water-based therapy, combining image guidance and robotics for the removal of prostatic tissue. To assess the effects of Aquablation for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings published up to 11 February 2019, with no restrictions on the language or status of publication. We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs, as well as non-randomised observational prospective studies with concurrent comparison groups in which participants with BPH who underwent Aquablation. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage, and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' and GRADE assessments of the certainty of the evidence. We considered review outcomes measured up to and including 12 months after randomisation as short-term and beyond 12 months as long-term. We included one RCT with 184 participants comparing Aquablation to TURP. The mean age and International Prostate Symptom Score were 65.9 years and 22.6, respectively. The mean prostate volume was 53.2 mL. We only found short-term data for all outcomes based on a single randomised trial.Primary outcomesUp to 12 months, Aquablation likely results in a similar improvement in urologic symptom scores to TURP (mean difference (MD) -0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.51 to 2.39; participants = 174; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence certainty by one level due to study limitations. Aquablation may also result in similar quality of life when compared to TURP (MD 0.27, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.78; participants = 174, low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence certainty by two levels due to study limitations and imprecision. Aquablation may result in little to no difference in major adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.26; participants = 181, very low-certainty evidence) but we are very uncertain of this finding. This would correspond to 15 fewer major adverse events per 1000 participants (95% CI 64 fewer to 116 more). We downgraded the evidence certainty by one level for study limitations and two levels for imprecision.Secondary outcomesUp to 12 months, Aquablation may result in little to no difference in retreatments (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.18 to 15.83; participants = 181, very low-certainty evidence) but we are very uncertain of this finding. This would correspond to 10 more retreatments per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 fewer to 228 more). We downgraded the evidence certainty by one level due to study limitations and two levels for imprecision.Aquablation may result in little to no difference in erectile function as measured by International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire Erectile Function domain compared to TURP (MD 2.31, 95% CI -0.63 to 5.25; participants = 64, very low-certainty evidence), and may cause slightly less ejaculatory dysfunction than TURP, as measured by Male Sexual Health Questionnaire for Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MD 2.57, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.53; participants = 121, very low-certainty evidence). However, we are very uncertain of both findings. We downgraded the evidence certainty by two levels due to study limitations and one level for imprecision for both outcomes.We did not find other prospective, comparative studies comparing Aquablation to TURP or other procedures such as laser ablation, enucleation, or other minimally invasive therapies. Based on short-term (up to 12 months) follow-up, the effect of Aquablation on urological symptoms is probably similar to that of TURP (moderate-certainty evidence). The effect on quality of life may also be similar (low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether patients undergoing Aquablation are at higher or lower risk for major adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether Aquablation may result in little to no difference in erectile function but offer a small improvement in preservation of ejaculatory function (both very low-certainty evidence). These conclusions are based on a single study of men with a prostate volume up to 80 mL in size. Longer-term data and comparisons with other modalities appear critical to a more thorough assessment of the role of Aquablation for the treatment of LUTS in men with BPH.

Naftopidil for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms compatible with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition in ageing men that may cause lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Treatment aims are to relieve symptoms and prevent disease-related complications. Naftopidil is an alpha-blocker (AB) that has a high affinity for the A1d receptor that may have advantages in treating LUTS in this setting. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2009. Since that time, several large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported, making this update relevant. To evaluate the effects of naftopidil for the treatment of LUTS associated with BPH. We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, LILAC, 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 to 31 May 2018 SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all parallel RCTs. We also included cross-over design trials. Two review authors independently classified 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. Primary outcomes were urological symptom scores, quality of life (QoL) and treatment withdrawals for any reason; secondary outcomes were treatment withdrawals due to adverse events, acute urinary retention, surgical intervention for BPH, and cardiovascular and sexual adverse events. We considered outcomes measured up to 12 months after randomisation as short term, and later than 12 months as long term. We rated the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach. We included 22 RCTs with 2223 randomised participants across four comparisons for short-term follow-up. This abstract focuses on only two of four comparisons for which we found data since two comparators (i.e. propiverine and Eviprostat (phytotherapy)) are rarely used. One study comparing naftopidil to placebo did not report any relevant outcomes and was therefore excluded. There were no trials that compared to combination therapy with naftopidil or any 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) to combination therapy with other ABs and any 5-ARIs.All included studies were conducted in Asian countries. Study duration ranged from four to 12 weeks. Mean age was 67.8 years, prostate volume was 35.4 mL, and International Prostate Symptom Score was 18.3. We were unable to perform any of the preplanned subgroup analyses based on age and baseline symptom score.Naftopidil versus tamsulosinBased on 12 studies with 965 randomised participants, naftopidil may have resulted in little or no difference in urological symptom score (mean difference (MD) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 1.04 measured on a scale from 0 to 35 with higher score representing increased symptoms), QoL (MD 0.11, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.30; measured on a scale from 0 to 6 with higher scores representing worse QoL), and treatment withdrawals for any reason (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.34; corresponding to 7 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 32 fewer to 31 more). Naftopidil may have resulted in little to no difference in sexual adverse events (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.22); this would result in 26 fewer sexual adverse events per 1000 participants (95% CI 43 fewer to 13 more). We rated the certainty of evidence as moderate for urological symptom score and low for the other outcomes.Naftopidil versus silodosinBased on five studies with 652 randomised participants, naftopidil may have resulted in little or no difference in the urological symptom scores (MD 1.04, 95% CI -0.78 to 2.85), QoL (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.66), and treatment withdrawals for any reason (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.23; corresponding to 26 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 62 fewer to 32 more). We rated the certainty of evidence as low for all these outcomes. Naftopidil likely reduced sexual adverse events (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; corresponding to 126 fewer sexual adverse events per 1000 participants, 95% CI 139 fewer to 86 fewer). We rated the certainty of evidence as moderate for sexual adverse events. Naftopidil appears to have similar effects in the urological symptom scores and QoL compared to tamsulosin and silodosin. Naftopidil has similar sexual adverse events compared to tamsulosin but has fewer compared to silodosin.

Silodosin for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

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. To assess the effects of silodosin for the treatment of LUTS in men with BPH. 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. We included all parallel, randomized controlled trials. We also included cross-over designs. 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. 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). 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.

Prostatic arterial embolization for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Prostatic arterial embolization for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Prostatic urethral lift for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Background A variety of minimally invasive surgical approaches are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) for the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). A recent addition to these is prostatic urethral lift (PUL). Objectives To assess the effects of PUL for the treatment of LUTS in men with BPH. Search methods We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status up until 31 January 2019. Selection criteria We included parallel group randomized controlled trials (RCTs). While we planned to include non-RCTs if RCTs had provided low-certainty evidence for a given outcome and comparison, we could not find any non-RCTs. 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 them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned subgroup analyses by age, prostate volume, and severity of baseline symptoms. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence. Main results We included two RCTs with 297 participants comparing PUL to sham surgery or TURP. The mean age was 65.6 years and mean International Prostate Symptom Score was 22.7. Mean prostate volume was 42.2 mL. We considered review outcomes measured up to and including 12 months after randomization as short-term and later than 12 months as long-term. For patient-reported outcomes, lower scores indicate more urological symptom improvement and higher quality of life. In contrast, higher scores refers to better erectile and ejaculatory function.PUL versus sham: based on one study of 206 randomized participants with short follow-up (up to three months), PUL may lead to a clinically important improvement in urological symptom scores (mean difference (MD) -5.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.44 to -2.96; low-certainty evidence) and likely improves quality of life (MD -1.20, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.73; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether PUL increases major adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). There were no retreatments reported in either study group by three months. PUL likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD -1.40, 95% CI -3.24 to 0.44; moderate-certainty evidence) and ejaculatory function (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.38 to 1.38; moderate-certainty evidence).PUL versus TURP: based on one study of 91 randomized participants with a short follow-up (up to 12 months), PUL may result in a substantially lesser improvement in urological symptom scores than TURP (MD 4.50, 95% CI 1.10 to 7.90; low-certainty evidence). PUL may result in a slightly reduced or similar quality of life (MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.49 to 1.09; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether PUL may cause fewer major adverse events but increased retreatments (both very low-certainty evidence). PUL probably results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 0.80, 95% CI -1.50 to 3.10; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably results in substantially better ejaculatory function (MD 5.00, 95% CI 3.08 to 6.92; moderate-certainty evidence).With regards to longer term follow-up (up to 24 months) based on one study of 91 randomized participants, PUL may result in a substantially lesser improvement in urological symptom score (MD 6.10, 95% CI 2.16 to 10.04; low-certainty evidence) and result in little worse to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.80, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence). The study did not report on major adverse events. We are very uncertain whether PUL increases retreatment (very low-certainty evidence). PUL likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.80 to 4.00; moderate-certainty evidence), but may result in substantially better ejaculatory function (MD 4.30, 95% CI 2.17 to 6.43; low-certainty evidence).We were unable to perform any of the predefined secondary analyses for either comparison.We found no evidence for other comparisons such as PUL versus laser ablation or enucleation. Authors' conclusions PUL appears less effective than TURP in improving urological symptoms both short-term and long term, while quality of life outcomes may be similar. The effect on erectile function appears similar but ejaculatory function may be better. We are uncertain about major adverse events short-term and found no long-term information. We are very uncertain about retreatment rates both short-term and long-term. We were unable to assess the effects of PUL in subgroups based on age, prostate size, or symptom severity and also could not assess how PUL compared to other surgical management approaches. Given the large numbers of alternative treatment modalities to treat men with LUTS secondary to BPH, this represents important information that should be shared with men considering surgical treatment.

MP09-16 5-ALPHA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS FOR MALE LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOMS: A COCHRANE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Medical & Non-surgical Therapy1 Apr 2017MP09-16 5-ALPHA REDUCTASE INHIBITORS FOR MALE LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOMS: A COCHRANE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS Herney Garcia-Perdomo, Hugo Lopez, and Philipp Dahm Herney Garcia-PerdomoHerney Garcia-Perdomo More articles by this author , Hugo LopezHugo Lopez More articles by this author , and Philipp DahmPhilipp Dahm More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.324AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) are being promoted as an integral part of the armamentarium to treat male LUTS attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). To establish the benefits and harms in the least biased manner, we conducted a rigorous Cochrane review. METHODS Based on an a priori, protocol we searched the published and unpublished literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language. Primary outcomes were: Mean change in urologic symptom scores using validated questionnaires, mean change in quality of life and the number of participants who experienced a major adverse effect; secondary outcomes included episodes of urinary retention and need for surgical intervention. We performed meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 and rated the quality of evidence using GRADE. All steps were performed independently and in duplicate. RESULTS Among 2604 screened records identified from multiple database, 28 unique studies ultimately met inclusion criteria. Based on 18 studies with 16,142 patients, 5ARIs resulted in a small reduction of symptom score with a mean difference (MD) of -1.5 (95% CI -1.9 to -1.1; low quality evidence) compared to placebo (Table 1). The rate of major adverse events was similar with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.9 (95 CI 0.8 to 1.1; low quality evidence). Compared to alpha blockers (ABs) based on 9 trials with 7954 participants (Table 2), symptoms scores were higher with a MD of +1.1 (95 CI 0.5 to -1.7; moderate quality evidence) and was associated possible reduction in the absolute risk of acute urinary retention (23 fewer per 1,000; 95% CI 35 fewer to 5 more; low quality evidence) and a small reduction in the need for surgical intervention (32 fewer per 1,000; 95% CI 38 fewer to 23 fewer; moderate quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS 5ARIs alone may reduce urological symptom scores and the absolute risk of acute urinary retention slightly compared to placebo. Compared to ABs, they probably reduce the need for surgical intervention slightly and may reduce the risk of acute urinary retention slightly. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e106 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Herney Garcia-Perdomo More articles by this author Hugo Lopez More articles by this author Philipp Dahm More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...