Distribution of the positive UPOINT domain in patients with chronic prostatitis or chronic pelvic pain syndrome: A multicenter observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the UPOINT-positive domain numbers and evaluate the significance of the sexual dysfunction domain in patients with chronic prostatitis or chronic pelvic pain (CP/CPPS) in Japan. METHODS: A total of 58 patients with CP/CPPS with moderate or greater symptoms were included. Symptom severity was determined by > 14 on the chronic prostatitis symptom index (CPSI). The main outcome was to confirm the number and distribution of the positive UPOINT domains in this group. As secondary outcomes, the correlation between positive domain numbers and CPSI scores was evaluated. We also examined whether the sexual dysfunction subdomain, as determined by the five-item international index of erectile function, could improve the correlation with symptom severity. RESULTS: The mean age was 48.6 ± 15.4 years, CPSI score 24.3 ± 6.1, and positive UPOINT domain number 2.4 ± 0.9. The distribution of each positive domain was 67.2% for urinary, 15.5% for psychosocial, 75.8% for organ-specific, 3.4% for infection, 5.1% for neurological/systemic conditions, and 75.8% for tenderness. Although the mean CPSI total scores tended to increase with an increasing number of positive UPOINT domains, a significant correlation was not observed (r = 0.134, p = 0.312). The sexual dysfunction domain was positive in 62.0% of the cases, but the correlation could not be improved. CONCLUSIONS: Urinary, organ specific, and tenderness domains were mainly observed in patients with CP/CPPS. When patients with moderate or grater CPSI scores are clinically evaluated, clinicians should recognize that the UPOINT-positive domain and CPSI score are clinically and pathologically different concepts. (250 words).

The predictive factors of α1-D/A adrenoceptor antagonist, naftopidil, dose increase therapy for male lower urinary tract symptoms caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia: INFORM study.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the predictive factors which affect the efficacy of naftopidil 50 mg/day therapy and dose increase therapy to administration of 75 mg/day after an initial dose of 50 mg/day. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 92 patients with male lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia were administrated naftopidil 50 mg/day for 4 weeks (50 mg therapy). At week 4, the patients were divided into an effective and an ineffective group (Group E and Group I, respectively). For further 4 weeks, the dosage of naftopidil was increased to 75 mg/day in all patients. At week 8, the patients of Group E and Group I were divided into an effective and an ineffective group (Group EE, Group EI, Group IE, and Group II, respectively). RESULTS: Postvoid residual (PVR) urine volume at baseline was a predictive factor for efficacy of 50 mg therapy. In Group E, change in International Prostate Symptom Score storage symptoms subscore from baseline to week 4 was a predictive factor for efficacy of this dose increase therapy. In Group I, change in maximum flow rate from baseline to week 4 was a predictive factor for efficacy of this dose increase therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The short term of naftopidil 50 mg therapy was ineffective for the patients who had large PVR. The predictive factor of this dose increase therapy might be a dynamic variable in 50 mg/day of dose period, but not a baseline variable at the time of 75 mg/day dosage starts.

Does prostate volume affect the efficacy of α1D/A: Adrenoceptor antagonist naftopidil?

INTRODUCTION: There have been reports that one of the factors affecting the efficacy of α1-adrenoceptor antagonists (α1-blocker; α1-B) was prostate volume (PV). However, there are few reports of short-term prospective trials comparing the efficacy of α1-B by PV. We examined the influence of PV on the short-term efficacy of naftopidil dose increase therapy to administration of 75 mg/day after an initial dose of 50 mg/day. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 85 patients with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) received 50 mg/day of naftopidil for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, the dosage of naftopidil was increased to 75 mg/day for a further 4 weeks. We divided the patients into two groups of PV ≥40 mL at baseline (Group L) and PV <40 mL at baseline (Group S). RESULTS: International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS storage symptoms, and IPSS quality-of-life score were significantly improved at 4 and 8 weeks compared with baseline in both Groups. IPSS voiding symptoms (IPSS-VS) were significantly improved at 4 and 8 weeks compared with baseline in Group S. IPSS and IPSS-VS were significantly improved at 8 weeks compared with 4 weeks only in Group L. IPSS-VS and intermittency at 4 weeks were significantly decreased in Group S compared with Group L. Maximum flow rate was significantly improved at 8 weeks compared with baseline in Group L. CONCLUSIONS: PV is a predictive factor affecting the efficacy of naftopidil 50 mg/day for IPSS-VS, and the dose increase to 75 mg/day effective for IPSS-VS. A total of 50 mg/day of naftopidil is the maintenance dose for LUTS/BPH patients with a small PV, and 75 mg/day of dose increase therapy should be chosen for patients with a large PV.