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 ) .
Silodosin versus naftopidil in Japanese patients with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized multicenter study.
OBJECTIVES Silodosin is a novel drug that is highly selective to subtype alpha 1A and , since 2006 , has been used in Japan for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia . This study aim ed to compare the clinical effects of the alpha-adrenoceptor antagonist , silodosin , with those of naftopidil in patients presenting lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia . METHODS This was a r and omized , open-label , controlled multicenter study carried out in Japan . Overall , 121 participants with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia were r and omized to receive silodosin ( 4 mg twice daily ) or naftopidil ( 50 mg once daily ) for 4 or 8 weeks . Patients were divided into four groups : the alpha-blocker-naive groups received silodosin ( 35 patients ) or naftopidil ( 33 patients ) and the drug-switching groups changed from tamsulosin to silodosin ( 26 patients ) or naftopidil ( 27 patients ) . The outcomes parameters were the International Prostate Symptom Score , quality of life , maximum urinary flow rate and post-void residual urine volume . P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank and rank-sum tests , and analysis of covariance . RESULTS In all the groups , silodosin and naftopidil significantly improved the total International Prostate Symptom Score and quality of life . However , silodosin obtained significantly better improvement in total International Prostate Symptom Score in the alpha-blocker-naive patients at 4 and 8 weeks . The maximum urinary flow rate and residual urine did not change significantly in all the treatment groups . CONCLUSIONS The present study confirms the clinical usefulness of silodosin in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia
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 ) .