This combination seems to be more efficacious in terms of several outcome variables in patients whose prostate volume is between 30 ml and 40 ml when treatment is maintained for > 1 yr ; when given for < 1 yr , α1-blockers alone are just as effective .
The combination of α1-blocker/5-ARI shows a slightly increased rate of adverse events .
It remains unknown whether its safety and superiority over either drug as monotherapy are sustained after > 6 yr .
The α1-blocker/muscarinic receptor antagonist ( antimuscarinic ) combination was most frequently assessed as an add-on therapy to already existing α1-blocker therapy .
Inconsistent data derive from heterogeneous study population s and different study design s. Currently , the α1-blocker/antimuscarinic combination appears to be a second-line add-on for patients with insufficient symptom relief after monotherapy .
The combination seems to be safe in men with postvoid residual < 200 ml .
The α1-blocker/phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor combination is a new treatment option with only preliminary reports .
CONCLUSIONS An α1-blocker/5-ARI combination is beneficial for patients whose prostate volume is between 30 ml and 40 ml when medical treatment is intended for > 1 yr .
Based on short-term follow-up studies , add-on of antimuscarinics to α1-blockers is an option when postvoid residual is < 200 ml
BACKGROUND Several drugs are approved for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms ( LUTS ) in men , but these are mostly used by clinicians as monotherapies .
The combination of different compounds , each of which targets a different aspect of LUTS , seems appealing .
However , only few clinical trials have evaluated the effects of combination therapies .
OBJECTIVE This systematic review analyzes the efficacy and adverse events of combination therapies for male 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
This combination seems to be more efficacious in terms of several outcome variables in patients whose prostate volume is between 30 ml and 40 ml when treatment is maintained for > 1 yr ; when given for < 1 yr , α1-blockers alone are just as effective .
The combination of α1-blocker/5-ARI shows a slightly increased rate of adverse events .
It remains unknown whether its safety and superiority over either drug as monotherapy are sustained after > 6 yr .
The α1-blocker/muscarinic receptor antagonist ( antimuscarinic ) combination was most frequently assessed as an add-on therapy to already existing α1-blocker therapy .
Inconsistent data derive from heterogeneous study population s and different study design s. Currently , the α1-blocker/antimuscarinic combination appears to be a second-line add-on for patients with insufficient symptom relief after monotherapy .
The combination seems to be safe in men with postvoid residual < 200 ml .
The α1-blocker/phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor combination is a new treatment option with only preliminary reports .
CONCLUSIONS An α1-blocker/5-ARI combination is beneficial for patients whose prostate volume is between 30 ml and 40 ml when medical treatment is intended for > 1 yr .
Based on short-term follow-up studies , add-on of antimuscarinics to α1-blockers is an option when postvoid residual is < 200 ml
BACKGROUND Several drugs are approved for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms ( LUTS ) in men , but these are mostly used by clinicians as monotherapies .
The combination of different compounds , each of which targets a different aspect of LUTS , seems appealing .
However , only few clinical trials have evaluated the effects of combination therapies .
OBJECTIVE This systematic review analyzes the efficacy and adverse events of combination therapies for male LUTS .