Post-Marketing Surveillance of Silodosin in Patients with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia and Poor Response to Existing Alpha-1 Blockers: The SPLASH Study.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of silodosin in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who switched to silodosin from another α1 blocker because of inadequate response. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study conducted at 715 medical facilities in Japan in patients with BPH who received an α1 blocker other than silodosin for at least 3 months but had experienced unsatisfactory treatment outcomes. Patients completed questionnaires, including the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL) score and Overactive Bladder Symptom Score (OABSS) at baseline (time of switching) and after 3 months of treatment with silodosin. RESULTS: Overall, 3355 patients were assessed for safety and 3144 patients for effectiveness. Mean ± standard deviation age was 73.1 ± 8.2 years, and most patients had been receiving tamsulosin (53.6%) or naftopidil (45.5%) before silodosin. Silodosin was well tolerated, with an overall incidence of adverse drug reactions of 8.1% and no unexpected safety signals. Significant improvements were observed after switching to silodosin in all effectiveness outcome measures, including total IPSS, all IPSS subscale scores, QOL score, total OABSS, all OABSS subscale scores and residual urine volume. Significant improvements in total IPSS were seen in patients who had been receiving tamsulosin or naftopidil before switching and in almost all other patient subgroups, with the exception of patients with mild symptoms (total IPSS ≤ 7) at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This post-marketing analysis indicates that switching to silodosin from tamsulosin or naftopidil significantly improved symptoms associated with BPH, and silodosin was well tolerated in Japanese patients.

Determinants of Bezafibrate-induced Improvements in LDL Cholesterol in Dyslipidemic Patients with Diabetes.

AIM: Our previous "J-BENEFIT (Japan BEzafibrate cliNical EFfectIveness and Tolerability)" study demonstrated that bezafibrate improves blood lipid profiles and glucose control in dyslipidemic patients with diabetes. However, bezafibrate did not significantly improve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), although some patients showed decreases while others showed increases in the LDL-C levels. Therefore, a subgroup analysis of the J-BENEFIT study was conducted to identify factors influencing the bezafibrate-induced changes in the LDL-C levels. METHODS: Of the 3,316 patients in the J-BENEFIT study, 2,116 not treated with other lipid-lowering drugs were enrolled in the current study, and the effects of 24-week treatment with bezafibrate on the LDL-C levels were analyzed. A reduction in the LDL-C level of ≥ 25% occurred in 253 patients, and a logistic-regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with this improvement. RESULTS: Among the 2,116 overall patients, bezafibrate treatment significantly increased the LDL-C levels from 123.9±36.7 to 125.7±31.3 mg/dL. The subanalysis showed that the treatment responses varied according to the baseline LDL-C level, with significant decreases in the ≥ 160 and ≥ 140-＜160 mg/dL groups, no significant decrease in the ≥ 120-＜140 mg/dL group and a significant increase in the ＜120 mg/dL group. A multivariate logistic-regression analysis of the data for the patients with an LDL-C of ≥ 25% identified a female sex, the use of anti-hypertensive and hypoglycemic agents and a high baseline LDL-C level to be significant determinants of the LDL-C response to bezafibrate. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that treatment with bezafibrate improves the LDL-C levels and lipid profiles in dyslipidemic diabetic patients, especially women, subjects co-treated with anti-hypertensive or hypoglycemic agents and those with high baseline LDL-C levels.

Safety and efficacy of long-term combination therapy with bezafibrate and ezetimibe in patients with dyslipidemia in the prospective, observational J-COMPATIBLE study.

BACKGROUND: There are numerous reports describing the efficacy of fenofibrate in combination with ezetimibe for treating dyslipidemia. In contrast, a study combining bezafibrate and ezetimibe has not yet been conducted. In this study, we examined the safety, including the risk of gallstone formation, and the efficacy of long-term combination therapy with bezafibrate and ezetimibe for treating dyslipidemia. METHODS: Dyslipidemic patients treated with 400 mg/day bezafibrate in combination with 10 mg/day ezetimibe for the first time were eligible. We selected 157 institutions in Japan and conducted a 12-month prospective observational study, with patients enrolled on the day they started combination therapy. Safety of the combination was examined in terms of the type, onset, and severity of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Efficacy was evaluated in terms of the changes in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), triglyceride (TG), and non-HDL cholesterol (non-HDL-C) levels from the start of combination therapy (baseline) to the last observation carried forward (LOCF). Lipid levels were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after starting combination therapy. RESULTS: We enrolled 665 patients in this observational study. Safety was evaluated in 659, and ADRs occurred in 42 patients (6.4%). The most frequent ADRs were blood creatine phosphokinase increase (1.5%) and myalgia (0.8%). Asymptomatic gallstones were observed in four patients (0.6%). Effectiveness was evaluated in 622 patients. LDL-C, HDL-C, TG, and non-HDL-C levels improved significantly from baseline to LOCF by -17.4%, 8.8%, -40.5%, and -21.6%, respectively (all, p < 0.001). Lipid levels also improved from baseline to each evaluation time-point. CONCLUSIONS: Bezafibrate in combination with ezetimibe is safe and effective, and is potentially useful for comprehensive management of dyslipidemia.