Efficacy and Safety of Vibegron Add-on Therapy in Men With Persistent Storage Symptoms After Receiving Alpha 1-Blocker or Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitor: A Preliminary Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of vibegron add-on therapy in men with persistent storage symptoms receiving α-1 blockers or PDE5 inhibitor for benign prostatic hyperplasia and then determine the independent factors affecting the efficacy of vibegron. METHODS: Vibegron 50 mg was administered for 12 weeks to 42 patients (72.0 ± 8.2 years) with persistent storage symptoms who had taken α-1 blockers (22 patients) or PDE5 inhibitor (20 patients). The primary endpoint was change in the overactive Bladder (OAB) Symptom Score from baseline to end of treatment. The secondary endpoints were changes in each question of several questionnaires, maximum flow rate and residual urine volume. Finally, independent factors affecting the efficacy of vibegron were investigated. RESULTS: Total OAB Symptom Score was significantly decreased (6.21 ± 3.12 vs 4.38 ± 2.46; P < .001). Although each score of several questionnaires, especially for storage symptoms, improved significantly, no significant improvement was found in stress incontinence, straining, bladder pain and urethral pain in the Core Lower Urinary Tract Symptom score. Maximum flow rate and residual urine volume did not change, and no patient discontinued vibegron because of adverse events. Multiple regression analysis showed that OAB Symptom Score, Core Lower Urinary Tract Symptom score, prostate volume and monotherapy with α-1 blocker were independent factors affecting the efficacy of vibegron. CONCLUSION: Add-on therapy of vibegron to monotherapy with α-1 blockers or PDE5 inhibitor for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and persistent storage symptoms was effective and safe.

Tadalafil is sufficiently effective for severe chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy of tadalafil for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome. METHODS: Tadalafil 5 mg was given each morning for 12 weeks to patients diagnosed as having either moderate or severe lower urinary tract symptoms. Voiding symptoms were compared between patients with a high (≥4; high group) and low (<4; low group) pain subscore of the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index before and after tadalafil administration. The correlation between changes in the Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index and the International Prostate Symptom Score during treatment was also investigated. RESULTS: At baseline, the pain subscore of the Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index was high (≥4) in 24 of 74 (32.4%) patients. The International Prostate Symptom Score in the group with a high pain subscore was significantly higher than that in the group with a low pain subscore. International Prostate Symptom Score, National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index total score and pain subscore were all significantly improved after treatment. The change in the Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index total score correlated positively with the change in the International Prostate Symptom Score. The decrease in the International Prostate Symptom Score was significantly greater in the group with high versus low pain subscore. CONCLUSIONS: Tadalafil is sufficiently effective in the treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and severe chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome.

Long-term treatment and prognostic factors of alpha 1-blockers for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a pilot study comparing naftopidil and tamsulosin hydrochloride.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the 5-year failure rate of naftopidil (NAF) or tamsulosin hydrochloride (TAM) in lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH/LUTS) and compared the prognostic factor of two alpha(1)-blockers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 131 patients with International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) >or= 8 or IPSS quality of life (IPSS-QOL) >or= 3 with BPH/LUTS receiving treatment with alpha(1)-blockers had been administered NAF or TAM, and failure rates were calculated for 5 years. Age, prostate volume (PV), acute urinary retention (AUR), overactive bladder (OAB), IPSS, IPSS-QOL and postvoiding residual volume (PVR) were evaluated as prognostic factors. RESULTS: No significant differences in failure rate were observed between the drugs. The failure rate was significantly high for patients with a PV >or= 35 ml, PVR >or= 30 ml, a history of AUR or complications of OAB symptoms. The failure rate for patients with a history of AUR was significantly higher than in those without AUR in the NAF group. By contrast, in the TAM group, it was significantly higher in patients who had OAB symptoms than in those without OAB. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed between the drugs for the failure rate. Each treatment had a unique factor for prognosis, such as history of AUR for NAF and complications of OAB for TAM. Therefore, it will be necessary to use the two alpha(1)-blockers properly, considering the patient's background.

Naftopidil monotherapy vs naftopidil and an anticholinergic agent combined therapy for storage symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: A prospective randomized controlled study.

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of alpha1-adrenoceptor (alpha1-AR) antagonist monotherapy with combination therapy using alpha1-AR antagonist and anticholinergic agent for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with storage symptoms as the chief complaint. METHODS: In this prospective comparative study, either 25-75 mg/day of naftopidil monotherapy (monotherapy group) or combination therapy using 25-75 mg/day of naftopidil and an anticholinergic agent (10-20 mg/day of propiverine hydrochloride or 2-6 mg/day of oxybutynin hydrochloride; cotherapy group) were administered for 12 weeks to 101 BPH patients with storage symptoms. RESULTS: International prostate symptom score (IPSS) and quality of life (QOL) index improved significantly in both groups, with no marked differences between groups. Maximum flow rate (Qmax) and residual urine volume (RUV) tended to improve in both groups, again with no marked differences between groups. However, median post-therapeutic RUV was significantly worse for the cotherapy group (45.0 mL) than for the monotherapy group (13.5 mL; P = 0.0210). Ratio of patients with increased RUV was also significantly worse for cotherapy (22.9%) than for monotherapy (5.0%; P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Although the anticholinergic dosage was low, the present results suggest that naftopidil monotherapy was as useful as combination therapy of naftopidil and an anticholinergic agent. Therefore, naftopidil is a useful agent as the first choice in BPH patients with storage symptoms.