Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Clostridium difficile Infection: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The role of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is not well-known. PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and harms of FMT for CDI. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1980 to January 2015), Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov, followed by hand-searching references from systematic reviews and identified studies. STUDY SELECTION: Any study of FMT to treat adult patients with CDI; case reports were only used to report harms. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by 1 author and verified by another; 2 authors independently assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two randomized, controlled trials (RCTs); 28 case-series studies; and 5 case reports were included. Two RCTs and 21 case-series studies (516 patients receiving FMT) reported using FMT for patients with recurrent CDI. A high proportion of treated patients had symptom resolution; however, the role of previous antimicrobials is unclear. One RCT comparing FMT with 2 control groups (n = 43) reported resolution of symptoms in 81%, 31%, and 23% of the FMT, vancomycin, or vancomycin-plus-bowel lavage groups, respectively (P < 0.001 for both control groups vs. FMT). An RCT comparing FMT route (n = 20) reported no difference between groups (60% in the nasogastric tube group and 80% in the colonoscopy group; P = 0.63). Across all studies for recurrent CDI, symptom resolution was seen in 85% of cases. In 7 case-series studies of patients with refractory CDI, symptom resolution ranged from 0% to 100%. Among 7 patients treated with FMT for initial CDI, results were mixed. LIMITATION: Most studies were uncontrolled case-series studies; only 2 RCTs were available for analysis. CONCLUSION: Fecal microbiota transplantation may have a substantial effect with few short-term adverse events for recurrent CDI. Evidence is insufficient on FMT for refractory or initial CDI treatment and on whether effects vary by donor, preparation, or delivery method. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Serenoa repens for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a nonmalignant 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. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to assess the effects and harms of Serenoa repens in the treatment of men with LUTS consistent with BPH. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for trials in general and in specialized databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE®, EMBASE, CINAHL®, Web of Science, SCOPUS, BIOSIS Previews®, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, Controlled-Trials.com, World Health Organization (WHO), and Google Scholar. We also handsearched systematic reviews, references, and clinical practice guidelines. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were eligible if they randomized men with symptomatic BPH to receive preparations of SR (alone or in combination) for at least four weeks in comparison with placebo or other interventions, and included clinical outcomes, such as urologic symptom scales, symptoms, and urodynamic measurements. Eligibility was assessed by at least two independent observers (JT, RM). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author (JT) extracted Information on patients, interventions, and outcomes which was then checked by another review author (RM). The main outcome measure for comparing the effectiveness of SR with active or inert controls was change in urologic symptom-scale scores, with validated scores taking precedence over non validated ones. Secondary outcomes included changes in nocturia and urodynamic measures. The main outcome measure for harms was the number of men reporting side effects. MAIN RESULTS: In a meta-analysis of two high quality long-term trials (n = 582), Serenoa repens therapy was not superior to placebo in reducing LUTS based on the AUA (mean difference (MD) 0.25 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.58 to 1.07). A 72 week trial with high quality evidence, using the American Urological Association Symptom Score Index, reported that SR was not superior to placebo at double and triple doses. In the same trial the proportions of clinical responders (≥ three-point improvement) were nearly identical (42.6% and 44.2% for SR and placebo, respectively), and not significant (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.22).This update, which did not change our previous conclusions, included two new trials with 444 additional men, an 8.5% (5666/5222) increase from our 2009 updated review, and a 28.8% (1988/1544) increase for our main comparison, SR monotherapy versus placebo control (17 trials). Overall, 5666 men were assessed from 32 randomized, controlled trials, with trial lengths from four to 72 weeks. Twenty-seven trials were double blinded and treatment allocation concealment was adequate in 14.In a trial of high quality evidence (N = 369), versus placebo, SR did not significantly decrease nightly urination on the AUA Nocturia scale (range zero to five) at 72 weeks follow-up (one-sided P = 0.19).The three high quality, moderate-to-long term trials found peak urine flow was not improved with Serenoa repens compared with placebo (MD 0.40 mL/s, 95% CI -0.30 to 1.09).Comparing prostate size (mean change from baseline), one high quality 12-month trial (N = 225) reported no significant difference between SR and placebo (MD -1.22 cc, 95% CI -3.91 to 1.47). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Serenoa repens, at double and triple doses, did not improve urinary flow measures or prostate size in men with lower urinary tract symptoms consistent with BPH.

WITHDRAWN: Tamsulosin for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a nonmalignant enlargement of the prostate which can result in bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms. The treatment goal for men with BPH is to relieve these bothersome symptoms. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review assessed the effects of tamsulosin in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compatible with BPH. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were searched in computerized general and specialized databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library), by checking bibliographies, and by contacting manufacturers and researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were eligible if they (1) randomized men with BPH to receive tamsulosin in comparison with placebo, other BPH medications or surgical interventions and (2) included clinical outcomes such as urologic symptom scales, symptoms, or urodynamic measurements, and (3) had a treatment duration of 30 days or longer. Eligibility was assessed by at least two independent observers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information on patients, interventions, and outcomes were extracted by at least two independent reviewers using a standard form. The main outcome measure for comparing the effectiveness of tamsulosin with placebo, medical or surgical interventions was the change in urologic symptom scale scores. Secondary outcomes included changes in urinary flow measures (peak urine flow rate). The main outcome measure for adverse effects was the number of men reporting adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies involving 4122 subjects met inclusion criteria. Study duration ranged from 4 to 26 weeks, and no placebo-controlled study lasted longer than 13 weeks. The mean age of subjects was 64 years. Baseline symptom scores and urine flow rates demonstrated that men had moderate LUTS. Tamsulosin improved symptoms and peak urine flow relative to placebo. The weighted mean differences (WMD) for mean change from baseline for the Boyarsky symptom score for 0.4 mg and 0.8 mg doses of tamsulosin relative to placebo were -1.1 points (95% CI = -1.49 to -0.72; 12% improvement) and -1.6 points (95% CI = -2.3 to -1.0; 16% improvement), respectively. The WMD for mean change from baseline in peak urine flow were 1.1 mL/sec (95% CI = 0.59 to 1.51) and 1.1 mL/sec (95% CI= 0.65 to 1.48) for 0.4 mg and 0.8 mg, respectively. Tamsulosin (0.2 mg to 0.4 mg) was as effective as other alpha antagonists and the phytotherapeutic agent Permixon® in improving symptoms and flow rates though the doses of all alpha-antagonists studied may not have been optimal. Discontinuations from treatment for any reason and discontinuations "due to adverse events" were similar in the low dose tamsulosin (0.2 mg) and placebo groups but increased to 16% in trials utilizing a 0.8 mg dose of tamsulosin. Low dose tamsulosin was generally well tolerated although not all the trials reported specific adverse events. The most frequently reported adverse events that were significantly greater than placebo included dizziness, rhinitis and abnormal ejaculation. Adverse effects increased markedly as tamsulosin dosing increased, and were reported in 75% of men receiving the 0.8 mg dose. Men receiving a 0.2 mg dose tamsulosin were less likely to discontinue treatment compared to men receiving terazosin. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tamsulosin provided a small to moderate improvement in urinary symptoms and flow compared to men receiving placebo in men with BPH. Effectiveness was similar to other alpha antagonists and increased only slightly with higher doses. Long term effectiveness and ability to reduce complications due to BPH progression could not be determined. Adverse effects were generally mild but their frequency, including withdrawals, increased substantially with the higher doses that are generally available for treatment.

WITHDRAWN: Terazosin for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) occur in up to 70% of men over the age of 60 years. To relieve these bothersome symptoms, treatment options include alpha-antagonists, also know as alpha-blockers. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of the alpha-blocker, terazosin, for treatment of urinary symptoms associated with BPO. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were searched in computerized general and specialized databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library), by checking bibliographies, and by contacting manufacturers and researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they (1) were randomized trials of at least 1 month duration, and (2) included men with symptomatic BPO and compared terazosin with placebo or active controls. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study, patient characteristics and outcomes data were extracted in duplicate onto standardized forms utilizing a prospectively developed protocol. The main outcome measure for comparing the effectiveness of terazosin with placebo or other BPO medications was change in urological symptoms as measured by validated symptom scores. Secondary outcomes included urodynamic measures. The main outcome measure for adverse effects was the number of men reporting side effects. We also evaluated the number of men withdrawing from treatment and the number withdrawing due to adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen studies involving 5151 subjects met inclusion criteria (placebo-controlled (n = 10); alpha-blockers (n = 7); finasteride alone or in combination with terazosin as well as placebo (1); microwave therapy (TUMT) (1). Study duration ranged from 4 to 52 weeks. Mean age was 65 years and 82% of men were white. Baseline urologic symptom scale scores and flow rates demonstrated that men had moderate BPO. Efficacy outcomes were rarely reported in a fashion that allowed for data pooling but indicated that terazosin improved symptom scores and flow rates more than placebo or finasteride and similarly to other alpha antagonists. The pooled mean percentage improvements for the Boyarsky symptom score was 37% for terazosin versus 15% for placebo (n = 4 studies). The mean percentage improvement for the American Urological Association symptom score (AUA) was 38% compared to 17% and 20% for placebo and finasteride, respectively (n = 2 studies). The pooled mean improvement in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (40%) was similar to tamsulosin (43%). Peak urine flow rates improved greater with terazosin (22%), than placebo (11%) and finasteride (15%) but did not differ significantly from the other alpha-blockers. The percentage of men discontinuing terazosin was comparable to men receiving placebo and finasteride but was greater then with other alpha-antagonists. Adverse effects were greater than placebo and included dizziness, asthenia, headache, and postural hypotension. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that terazosin improves urinary symptoms and flow measures associated with BPO. Effectiveness is superior to placebo or finasteride, similar to other alpha-blockers but less than TUMT. Adverse effects were generally mild but more frequent than other alpha-blockers and associated with between a two-to-four fold increase in treatment discontinuation.

WITHDRAWN: Cernilton for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), nonmalignant enlargement of the prostate, 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 has been growing steadily. Cernilton, prepared from the rye-grass pollen Secale cereale, is one of the several phytotherapeutic agents available for the treatment of BPH. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aims to assess the effects of Cernilton on urinary symptoms and flow measures in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were searched in computerized general and specialized databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Phytodok), by checking bibliographies, and by contacting manufacturers and researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were eligible if they were: (1) randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing Cernilton with placebo or other BPH medications in men with BPH; and (2) included clinical outcomes such as urologic symptom scales, symptoms, or urodynamic measurements. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information on patients, interventions, and outcomes was extracted by at least two independent reviewers using a standard form. Main outcome measure for comparing the effects of Cernilton with placebo and standard BPH medications were the change in urologic symptoms scales. Secondary outcomes included changes in nocturia as well as urodynamic measures (peak and mean urine flow, residual volume, prostate size). Main outcome measure for side effects was the number of men reporting side effects. MAIN RESULTS: Four hundred forty-four men were enrolled in two placebo-controlled and two comparative trials lasting from 12 to 24 weeks. Three studies used a double-blind method although treatment allocation concealment was unclear in all. Cernilton improved "self rated urinary symptoms" (percent reporting satisfactory or improving symptoms) versus placebo and Tadenan. The weighted risk ratio (RR) for self-rated improvement versus placebo was 2.40 (95% CI = 1.21 to 4.75), and the weighted RR versus Tadenan was 1.42 (95% CI = 1.21 to 4.75). Cernilton reduced nocturia compared with placebo and Paraprost. Versus placebo, the weighted RR was 2.05 (95% CI = 1.41 to 3.00), and versus Paraprost, the WMD was -0.40 times per evening (95% CI = -0.73 to -0.07). Cernilton was not more effective than placebo or the comparative study agents in improving urinary flow rates, residual volume or prostate size. Adverse events were rare and mild. The withdrawal rate for Cernilton was 4.8% compared to 2.7% for placebo and 5.2% for Paraprost. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The Cernilton trials analyzed were limited by short duration, limited number of enrollees, gaps in reported outcomes, and unknown quality of the preparations utilized. The comparative trials lacked a proven active control. The available evidence suggests Cernilton is well tolerated and modestly improves overall urologic symptoms including nocturia. Additional randomized placebo and active-controlled trials are needed to evaluate the long-term clinical effectiveness and safety of Cernilton.

Finasteride for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), a non-malignant enlargement of the prostate in aging men, can cause bothersome urinary symptoms (intermittency, weak stream, straining, urgency, frequency, incomplete emptying). Finasteride, a five-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI), blocks the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, reduces prostate size, and is commonly used to treat symptoms associated with BPH. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and harms of finasteride versus placebo and active controls in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library (which includes CDSR (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), HTA (Heath Technology Assessments), and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and which includes EMBASE and MEDLINE), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information) and Google Scholar for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). We also handsearched systematic reviews, references, and clinical-practice guidelines. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials in the English language with placebo and/or active arms with a duration of at least 6 months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: JT extracted the data, which included patient characteristics, outcomes, and harms. Our primary outcome was change in a validated, urinary symptom-scale score, such as the AUA/IPSS. A clinically meaningful change was defined as 4 points. We also categorized outcomes by trial lengths of ≤ 1 year (short term) and > 1 year (long term). MAIN RESULTS: Finasteride consistently improved urinary symptom scores more than placebo in trials of > 1 year duration, and significantly lowered the risk of BPH progression (acute urinary retention, risk of surgical intervention, ≥ 4 point increase in the AUASI/IPSS). In comparison to alpha-blocker monotherapy, finasteride was less effective than either doxazosin or terazosin, but equally effective compared to tamsulosin. Both doxazosin and terazosin were significantly more likely than finasteride to improve peak urine flow and nocturia, versus finasteride. Versus tamsulosin, peak urine flow and QoL improved equally well versus finasteride. However, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of surgical intervention compared to doxazosin, but not to terazosin, while finasteride and doxazosin were no different for risk of acute urinary retention. Two small trials reported no difference in urinary symptom scores between finasteride and tamsulosin. Finasteride + doxazosin and doxazosin monotherapy improved urinary symptoms equally well (≥ 4 point improvement).For finasteride, there was an increased risk of ejaculation disorder, impotence, and lowered libido, versus placebo. Versus doxazosin, finasteride had a lower risk of asthenia, dizziness, and postural hypotension, and versus terazosin, finasteride had a significant, lower risk of asthenia, dizziness, and postural hypotension. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Finasteride improves long-term urinary symptoms versus placebo, but is less effective than doxazosin. Long-term combination therapy with alpha blockers (doxazosin, terazosin) improves symptoms significantly better than finasteride monotherapy. Finasteride + doxazosin improves symptoms equally - and clinically - to doxazosin alone. In comparison to doxazosin, finasteride + doxazosin appears to improve urinary symptoms only in men with medium (25 to < 40 mL) or large prostates (≥ 40 mL), but not in men with small prostates (25 mL).Comparing short to long-term therapy, finasteride does not improve symptoms significantly better than placebo at the short term, but in the long term it does, although the magnitude of differences was very small (from < 1.0 point to 2.2 points). Doxazosin improves symptoms better than finasteride both short and long term, with the magnitude of differences ∼2.0 points and 1.0 point, respectively. Finasteride + doxazosin improves scores versus finasteride alone at both short and long term, with mean differences ∼2.0 points for both time points. Finasteride + doxazosin versus doxazosin improves scores equally for short and long term.Drug-related adverse effects for finasteride are rare; nevertheless, men taking finasteride are at increased risk for impotence, erectile dysfunction, decreased libido, and ejaculation disorder, versus placebo. Versus doxazosin, which has higher rates of dizziness, postural hypotension, and asthenia, men taking finasteride are at increased risk for impotence, erectile dysfunction, decreased libido, and ejaculation disorder. Finasteride significantly reduces asthenia, postural hypotension, and dizziness versus terazosin. Finasteride significantly lowers the risk of asthenia, dizziness, ejaculation disorder, and postural hypotension, versus finasteride + terazosin.

Serenoa repens for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), a nonmalignant enlargement of the prostate, 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 (also known by its botanical name of Sabal serrulatum), is one of several phytotherapeutic agents available for the treatment of BPH. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of Serenoa repens in the treatment of LUTS consistent with BPH. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were searched in computerized general and specialized databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library), by checking bibliographies, and by handsearching the relevant literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were eligible if they (1) randomized men with symptomatic BPH to receive preparations of Serenoa repens (alone or in combination) for at least four weeks in comparison with placebo or other interventions, and (2) included clinical outcomes such as urologic symptom scales, symptoms, and urodynamic measurements. Eligibility was assessed by at least two independent observers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information on patients, interventions, and outcomes was extracted by at least two independent reviewers using a standard form. The main outcome measure for comparing the effectiveness of Serenoa repens with placebo or other interventions was the change in urologic symptom-scale scores. Secondary outcomes included changes in nocturia and urodynamic measures. The main outcome measure for side effects or adverse events was the number of men reporting side effects. MAIN RESULTS: In this update 9 new trials involving 2053 additional men (a 64.8% increase) have been included. For the main comparison - Serenoa repens versus placebo - 3 trials were added with 419 subjects and 3 endpoints (IPSS, peak urine flow, prostate size). Overall, 5222 subjects from 30 randomized trials lasting from 4 to 60 weeks were assessed. Twenty-six trials were double blinded and treatment allocation concealment was adequate in eighteen studies.Serenoa repens was not superior to placebo in improving IPSS urinary symptom scores, (WMD (weighted mean difference) -0.77 points, 95% CI -2.88 to 1.34, P > 0.05; 2 trials), finasteride (MD (mean difference) 0.40 points, 95% CI -0.57 to 1.37, P > 0.05; 1 trial), or tamsulosin (WMD -0.52 points, 95% CI -1.91 to 0.88, P > 0.05; 2 trials).For nocturia, Serenoa repens was significantly better than placebo (WMD -0.78 nocturnal visits, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.22, P < 0.05; 9 trials), but with the caveat of significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 66%). A sensitivity analysis, utilizing higher quality, larger trials (>/= 40 subjects), demonstrated no significant difference (WMD -0.31 nocturnal visits, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.08, P > 0.05; 5 trials) (I(2) = 11%). Serenoa repens was not superior to finasteride (MD -0.05 nocturnal visits, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.39, P > 0.05; 1 trial), or to tamsulosin (per cent improvement) (RR) (risk ratio) 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.27, P > 0.05; 1 trial).Comparing peak urine flow, Serenoa repens was not superior to placebo at trial endpoint (WMD 1.02 mL/s, 95% CI -0.14 to 2.19, P > 0.05; 10 trials), or by comparing mean change (WMD 0.31 mL/s, 95% CI -0.56 to 1.17, P > 0.05; 2 trials).Comparing prostate size at endpoint, there was no significant difference between Serenoa repens and placebo (MD -1.05 cc, 95% CI -8.84 to 6.75, P > 0.05; 2 trials), or by comparing mean change (MD -1.22 cc, 95% CI -3.91 to 1.47, P > 0.05; 1 trial). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Serenoa repens was not more effective than placebo for treatment of urinary symptoms consistent with BPH.