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 .
Safety and tolerability of solifenacin add-on therapy to alpha-blocker treated men with residual urgency and frequency.
PURPOSE VICTOR was a 12-week , double-blind , placebo controlled trial assessing the safety and tolerability of solifenacin plus tamsulosin in men with residual overactive bladder symptoms after tamsulosin monotherapy .  Efficacy of solifenacin plus tamsulosin vs placebo plus tamsulosin was also evaluated . MATERIAL S AND METHODS A total of 398 men 45 years old or older were r and omized to 12 weeks of solifenacin plus tamsulosin or placebo plus tamsulosin once daily . The study population had 8 or more micturitions per 24 hours and 1 or more urgency episode per 24 hours after taking tamsulosin for 4 or more weeks , a total International Prostate Symptom Score of 13 or greater , a Patient Perception of Bladder Condition score of 3 or greater , a post-void residual of 200 ml or less and a peak flow rate of 5 ml per second or greater . Adverse events were monitored throughout the study . The primary efficacy end point was mean change from baseline to week 12 in micturitions per 24 hours . Secondary measures included mean change in urgency episodes per 24 hours , and changes in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition , Urgency Perception Scale and total International Prostate Symptom Scores . RESULTS The most frequent adverse events in the solifenacin plus tamsulosin and placebo plus tamsulosin groups were dry mouth ( 7 % and 3 % , respectively ) and dizziness ( 3 % and 2 % , respectively ) . Of the patients on solifenacin plus tamsulosin 7 ( 3 % ) reported retention and 3 required catheterization . No patients on placebo plus tamsulosin reported retention . Patients on solifenacin plus tamsulosin vs placebo plus tamsulosin showed larger reductions in frequency but not of statistical significance ( -1.05 vs -0.67 , p = 0.135 ) . However , patients on solifenacin plus tamsulosin vs placebo plus tamsulosin did show statistically significant reductions in urgency ( -2.18 vs -1.10 , p < 0.001 ) . Patient reported outcome measures showed no significant between group differences . CONCLUSIONS Solifenacin plus tamsulosin was well tolerated . There was a low incidence of urinary retention requiring catheterization . At week 12 solifenacin plus tamsulosin decreased daily micturitions and urgency episodes . Only urgency reached statistical significance vs placebo plus tamsulosin
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 .