This study sought to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of combined oral therapy with sildenafil and doxazosin GITS compared to sildenafil monotherapy in treating Chinese patients with erectile dysfunction ...This study sought to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of combined oral therapy with sildenafil and doxazosin GITS compared to sildenafil monotherapy in treating Chinese patients with erectile dysfunction （ED） and lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH/LUTS）. The trial was conducted in hospitals in Beijing, Shanghai, Changsha, Wuhan and Guangzhou, five major cities in China. A total of 250 patients diagnosed with ED and BPH/LUTS aged 50-75 years, and who had International Index of Erection Function-5 （IIEF-5） scores ≤ 21 and International Prostate Symptom Score （IPSS） ≥ 10 points, were enrolled and randomly divided into Group A （168 cases; doxazosin GITS 4 mg once daily plus sildenafi125-100 mg on demand） and Group B （82 cases; sildenafi125-100 mg on demand）. Efficacies were evaluated by IIEF-5 and IPSS scores and a quality of life （QoL） questionnaire, and adverse effects were evaluated during the treatment period. There were no statistically significant differences in mean age, and IIEF-5, IPSS and QoL scores pre-treatment between the two groups. After treatment, IIEF-5, IPSS and QoL scores were significantly improved in Group A, while only IIEF-5 scores were significantly improved in Group B compared with pre-treatment. There were no significant differences in side effects between the two groups. The results indicated that combined therapy with sildenafil and doxazosin GITS for the treatment of ED and BPH/LUTS is safe and effective compared to sildenafil monotherapy.展开更多
AIM: To undertake a review of the evidence that nifedipine GITS and lercanidipine are therapeutically equivalent in the management of essential hypertension.METHODS: A systematic review of the published literature was...AIM: To undertake a review of the evidence that nifedipine GITS and lercanidipine are therapeutically equivalent in the management of essential hypertension.METHODS: A systematic review of the published literature was prompted by the findings of two meta-analyses which indicated that there was a lower incidence of peripheral(ankle) oedema with lercanidipine. However,neither meta-analysis gave detailed attention to comparative antihypertensive efficacy or cardiovascular protection. Accordingly,a systematic,detailed and critical review was undertaken of individual published papers. The review started with those studies incorporated into the 2 meta-analyses and then all other salient and directly relevant papers identified through the following search criteria: all randomized controlled trials in which the therapeutic profile and antihypertensive effects of lercanidipine were directly compared with those of nifedipine GITS(in hypertensive patients). The searchstrategy was focused on the reports of clinical trials of lercanidipine vs nifedipine GITS,which were identified through a systematic search of PubMed(from 1966 to October 2012),Embase(from 1980 to October 2012) and the Cochrane library(from 1 October 2008 to end October 2013). The search combined terms related to lercanidipine vs nifedipine GITS(including MeSH search using calcium antagonists,calcium channel blockers and dihydropyridines).RESULTS: With regard to blood pressure(BP) control and the consistency of BP control throughout 24-h,there is limited published evidence. However,two studies using 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring clearly identified the dose-dependency of BP lowering with lercanidipine and its variably sustained 24-h efficacy. In contrast,there is evidence of a consistent antihypertensive effect throughout 24 h with nifedipine GITS. The incidence of the most common "side effect",i.e.,peripheral(ankle) oedema can be estimated as follows. For every 100 patients treated with lercanidipine,2.5 will report oedema compared to 6 patients treated with nifedipine GITS. However,98 or 99 patients will continue treatment with nifedipine GITS,compared with 99.5 patients on lercanidipine. Finally,with regard to outcome studies of cardiovascular(CV) morbidity and mortality,there is definitive outcome evidence for nifedipine GITS but there is no evidence that treatment with lercanidipine leads to reductions in CV morbidity and mortality.CONCLUSION: There is no evidence in terms of longterm BP control and CV protection to justify the contention that lercanidipine is therapeutically equivalent to nifedipine GITS.展开更多
文摘This study sought to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of combined oral therapy with sildenafil and doxazosin GITS compared to sildenafil monotherapy in treating Chinese patients with erectile dysfunction （ED） and lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH/LUTS）. The trial was conducted in hospitals in Beijing, Shanghai, Changsha, Wuhan and Guangzhou, five major cities in China. A total of 250 patients diagnosed with ED and BPH/LUTS aged 50-75 years, and who had International Index of Erection Function-5 （IIEF-5） scores ≤ 21 and International Prostate Symptom Score （IPSS） ≥ 10 points, were enrolled and randomly divided into Group A （168 cases; doxazosin GITS 4 mg once daily plus sildenafi125-100 mg on demand） and Group B （82 cases; sildenafi125-100 mg on demand）. Efficacies were evaluated by IIEF-5 and IPSS scores and a quality of life （QoL） questionnaire, and adverse effects were evaluated during the treatment period. There were no statistically significant differences in mean age, and IIEF-5, IPSS and QoL scores pre-treatment between the two groups. After treatment, IIEF-5, IPSS and QoL scores were significantly improved in Group A, while only IIEF-5 scores were significantly improved in Group B compared with pre-treatment. There were no significant differences in side effects between the two groups. The results indicated that combined therapy with sildenafil and doxazosin GITS for the treatment of ED and BPH/LUTS is safe and effective compared to sildenafil monotherapy.
文摘AIM: To undertake a review of the evidence that nifedipine GITS and lercanidipine are therapeutically equivalent in the management of essential hypertension.METHODS: A systematic review of the published literature was prompted by the findings of two meta-analyses which indicated that there was a lower incidence of peripheral(ankle) oedema with lercanidipine. However,neither meta-analysis gave detailed attention to comparative antihypertensive efficacy or cardiovascular protection. Accordingly,a systematic,detailed and critical review was undertaken of individual published papers. The review started with those studies incorporated into the 2 meta-analyses and then all other salient and directly relevant papers identified through the following search criteria: all randomized controlled trials in which the therapeutic profile and antihypertensive effects of lercanidipine were directly compared with those of nifedipine GITS(in hypertensive patients). The searchstrategy was focused on the reports of clinical trials of lercanidipine vs nifedipine GITS,which were identified through a systematic search of PubMed(from 1966 to October 2012),Embase(from 1980 to October 2012) and the Cochrane library(from 1 October 2008 to end October 2013). The search combined terms related to lercanidipine vs nifedipine GITS(including MeSH search using calcium antagonists,calcium channel blockers and dihydropyridines).RESULTS: With regard to blood pressure(BP) control and the consistency of BP control throughout 24-h,there is limited published evidence. However,two studies using 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring clearly identified the dose-dependency of BP lowering with lercanidipine and its variably sustained 24-h efficacy. In contrast,there is evidence of a consistent antihypertensive effect throughout 24 h with nifedipine GITS. The incidence of the most common "side effect",i.e.,peripheral(ankle) oedema can be estimated as follows. For every 100 patients treated with lercanidipine,2.5 will report oedema compared to 6 patients treated with nifedipine GITS. However,98 or 99 patients will continue treatment with nifedipine GITS,compared with 99.5 patients on lercanidipine. Finally,with regard to outcome studies of cardiovascular(CV) morbidity and mortality,there is definitive outcome evidence for nifedipine GITS but there is no evidence that treatment with lercanidipine leads to reductions in CV morbidity and mortality.CONCLUSION: There is no evidence in terms of longterm BP control and CV protection to justify the contention that lercanidipine is therapeutically equivalent to nifedipine GITS.
