Although additional well design ed , worldwide , placebo-controlled and r and omized studies are necessary to confirm the long-term outcomes of naftopidil pharmacotherapy , current data suggest that naftopidil administration in BPH patients provides comparable improvements in total IPSS , QoL , and urinary symptoms from baseline relative to 0.2 mg/d tamsulosin and 8 mg/d silodosin .
However , improvements in Qmax are generally less with naftopidil than with tamsulosin .
Reported adverse effects related to naftopidil administration are negligible and usually mild .
OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to systematic ally review the effects of the adrenoreceptor A1D antagonist naftopidil in the management of  lower urinary tract symptoms ( LUTS ) .
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 prospect i ve 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
Although additional well design ed , worldwide , placebo-controlled and r and omized studies are necessary to confirm the long-term outcomes of naftopidil pharmacotherapy , current data suggest that naftopidil administration in BPH patients provides comparable improvements in total IPSS , QoL , and urinary symptoms from baseline relative to 0.2 mg/d tamsulosin and 8 mg/d silodosin .
However , improvements in Qmax are generally less with naftopidil than with tamsulosin .
Reported adverse effects related to naftopidil administration are negligible and usually mild .
OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to systematic ally review the effects of the adrenoreceptor A1D antagonist naftopidil in the management of  lower urinary tract symptoms ( LUTS ) .