Silodosin is effective for treatment of LUTS in men wii BPH： a systematic review

The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence on the efficacy and safety of silodosin treatments on lower urinary tract symptoms （LUTS） in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH） from randomized controlled trials. We searched PubMed （1966- December 2011）, Embase （1974-December 2011） and the Cochrane Library Database （2011, Issue 12）. The assessed outcome measures were the change from baseline for the International Prostate Symptom Score （IPSS）, quality of life （QoL） score, peak urine maximum flow rate （Qmax）, QoL related to urinary symptoms and adverse effects. Two authors independently assessed the study quality and extracted data. All data were analysed using RevMan 5.1. The meta-analysis included four randomized controlled trials with a total of 2504 patients. The study durations were each 12 weeks. At the follow-up end points, the pooled results showed that the change from baseline for the silodosin group was significantly higher than the placebo group for the IPSS, QoL score and Qmax（mean difference （MD）=-2.78, P〈O.O0001; MD=-O.42, P--O.O04; MD= 1.17, P〈O.OOOOl,respectively） and patients felt more satisfied with QoL related to urinary symptoms in the silodosin group than the placebo group. Ejaculation disorder was the most commonly reported adverse effect. The pooled results also showed that the silodosin group was superior to the 0.2 mg tamsulosin group with respect to the IPSS and QoL score （IPSS： MD=- 1.14, P=O.02; QoL score： MD=-0.26, P=O.02） and inferior to the 0.2 mg tamsulosin group with respect to Qmax （MD=-0.85, P=O.01）. In contrast, there was no significant difference in the incidence of ejaculation disorder and dizziness between the silodosin and 0.2 mg tamsulosin groups. The current meta-analysis suggested that silodosin is an effective therapy for LUTS in men with BPH and is not inferior to 0.2 mg tamsulosin.

Photoselective green-light laser vaporisation vs. TURP for BPH. meta-analysis

This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of photoselective vaporisation （PVP） vs. transurethral resection of the prostate （TURP） for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia （BPH）. Eligible studies were identified from electronic databases （Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE）. The database search, quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Efficacy （primary outcomes： maximum urinary flow rate （Qmax）, international prostate symptom score （IPSS）, postvoid residual urine （PVR） and quality of life （QoL）; secondary outcomes： operative time, hospital time and catheter removal time） and safety （complications, such as transfusion and capsular perforation） were explored by using Review Manager 5.0. Six randomized controlled trials （RCTs） and five case-controlled studies of 1398 patients met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of the extractable data showed that there were no differences in I PSS, Qmax, QoL or PVR between PVP and TU RP （mean difference （MD）： prostate sizes 〈 70 ml, Qmax at 24 months, MD=0.01, P=0.97; IPSS at 12 months, MD=0.18, P=0.64; QoL at 12 months, MD=-0.00, P=0.96; PVR at 12 months, MD=0.52, P=0.43; prostate sizes 〉70 ml, Qmax at 6 months, MD=-3.46, P=0.33; IPSS at 6 months, MD=3.11, P=0o36; PVR at 6 months, MD=25.50,P=-0.39）. PVP was associated with a shorter hospital time and catheter removal time than TURP, whereas PVP resulted in a longer operative time than TURP. For prostate sizes 〈70 ml, there were fewer transfusions, capsular perforations, incidences of TUR syndrome and clot retentions following PVP compared with TURP. These results indicate that PVP is as effective and safe as TURP for BPH at the mid-term patient follow-up, in particular for prostate sizes 〈70 ml. Due to the different energy settings available for green-light laser sources and the higher efficiency and performance of higher-quality lasers, large-sample, long-term RCTs are required to verify whether different energy settings affect outcomes.