EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS The most studied combination therapy for the treatment of male LUTS is the α1-adrenoceptor antagonist/5α-reductase inhibitor combination .
This combination seems to be more efficacious in terms of several outcome variables , in particular in men who have moderate-to-severe LUTS and are at risk of disease progression .
Also in terms of nocturia improvements , this combination is significantly more effective than the monotherapy .
The other often studied combination treatment , in both male and female patients with LUTS , was the combination of antimuscarinics ( in particular solifenacin ) and mirabegron .
This combination seems to be more effective in comparison with the monotherapies with respect to urinary incontinence and urgency urinary incontinence episodes and several other objective and subjective parameters , without relevant increase of adverse events .
The combination of hormone therapy and antimuscarinics in women with LUTS does not seem to be useful .
For the treatment of LUTS in men and women , combination therapy appears to be a promising option to optimize the efficacy of the available drugs for those who do not experience sufficient benefit with monotherapy .
This add-on scenario offers the possibility to have a more tailored approach to the management of LUTS , always seeking the optimal balance between efficacy and tolerability for a given patient .
PATIENT SUMMARY Some combination of drugs may offer advantages over monotherapies for the treatment of voiding and storage complaints in men and women
CONTEXT Several drugs are approved and available for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms ( LUTS ) in men and women .
However , the vast majority of available data , upon which the approval and recommendation in guidelines are based , considered only the role of the monotherapies and did not evaluate possible combination therapies .
OBJECTIVE This systematic review analyzes the efficacy and adverse events of combination therapies for male and female LUTS .
Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia.
PURPOSE To revise the 2003 version of the American Urological Association 's ( AUA ) Guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia ( BPH ) . MATERIAL S AND METHODS From MEDLINE ® search es of English language publications ( January 1999 through February 2008 ) using relevant MeSH terms , articles concerning the management of the index patient , a male ≥45 years of age who is consulting a healthcare provider for lower urinary tract symptoms ( LUTS ) were identified . Qualitative analysis of the evidence was performed . Selected studies were stratified by design , comparator , follow-up interval , and intensity of intervention , and meta-analyses ( quantitative synthesis ) of outcomes of r and omized controlled trials were planned . Guideline statements were drafted by an appointed expert Panel based on the evidence . RESULTS The studies varied as to patient selection ; r and omization ; blinding mechanism ; run-in periods ; patient demographics , comorbidities , prostate characteristics and symptoms ; drug doses ; other intervention characteristics ; comparators ; rigor and intervals of follow-up ; trial duration and timing ; suspected lack of applicability to current US practice ; and techniques of outcomes measurement . These variations affected the quality of the evidence review ed making formal meta- analysis impractical or futile . Instead , the Panel and extractors review ed the data in a systematic fashion and without statistical rigor . Diagnosis and treatment algorithms were adopted from the 2005 International Consultation of Urologic Diseases . Guideline statements concerning pharmacotherapies , watchful waiting , surgical options and minimally invasive procedures were either up date d or newly drafted , peer review ed and approved by AUA Board of Directors . CONCLUSIONS New pharmacotherapies and technologies have emerged which have impacted treatment algorithms . The management of LUTS/BPH continues to evolve
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS The most studied combination therapy for the treatment of male LUTS is the α1-adrenoceptor antagonist/5α-reductase inhibitor combination .
This combination seems to be more efficacious in terms of several outcome variables , in particular in men who have moderate-to-severe LUTS and are at risk of disease progression .
Also in terms of nocturia improvements , this combination is significantly more effective than the monotherapy .
The other often studied combination treatment , in both male and female patients with LUTS , was the combination of antimuscarinics ( in particular solifenacin ) and mirabegron .
This combination seems to be more effective in comparison with the monotherapies with respect to urinary incontinence and urgency urinary incontinence episodes and several other objective and subjective parameters , without relevant increase of adverse events .
The combination of hormone therapy and antimuscarinics in women with LUTS does not seem to be useful .
For the treatment of LUTS in men and women , combination therapy appears to be a promising option to optimize the efficacy of the available drugs for those who do not experience sufficient benefit with monotherapy .
This add-on scenario offers the possibility to have a more tailored approach to the management of LUTS , always seeking the optimal balance between efficacy and tolerability for a given patient .
PATIENT SUMMARY Some combination of drugs may offer advantages over monotherapies for the treatment of voiding and storage complaints in men and women
CONTEXT Several drugs are approved and available for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms ( LUTS ) in men and women .
However , the vast majority of available data , upon which the approval and recommendation in guidelines are based , considered only the role of the monotherapies and did not evaluate possible combination therapies .
OBJECTIVE This systematic review analyzes the efficacy and adverse events of combination therapies for male and female LUTS .