Department of Urology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Eur Urol. 2011 Mar;59(3):342-52. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.046. Epub 2010 Nov 10.
BACKGROUND: Silodosin is a new selective therapy with a high pharmacologic selectivity for the α(1A)-adrenoreceptor. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to test silodosin's superiority to placebo and noninferiority to tamsulosin and discuss the findings in the context of a comprehensive literature review of the new compound silodosin. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a multicenter double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled parallel group study. A total of 1228 men ≥50 yr of age with an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) ≥13 and a urine maximum flow rate (Q(max)) >4 and ≤15 ml/s were selected at 72 sites in 11 European countries. The patients were entered into a 2-wk wash-out and a 4-wk placebo run-in period. A total of 955 patients were randomized (2:2:1) to silodosin 8 mg (n=381), tamsulosin 0.4 mg (n=384), or placebo (n=190) once daily for 12 wk. MEASUREMENTS: We calculated the change from baseline in IPSS total score (primary), storage and voiding subscores, quality of life (QoL) due to urinary symptoms, and Q(max). Responders were defined on the basis of IPSS and Q(max) by a decrease of ≥25% and an increase of ≥30% from baseline, respectively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The change from baseline in the IPSS total score with silodosin and tamsulosin was significantly superior to that with placebo (p<0.001): difference active placebo of -2.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.2, -1.4) with silodosin and -2.0 (95% CI,-2.9, -1.1) with tamsulosin. Responder rates according to total IPSS were significantly higher (p<0.001) with silodosin (66.8%) and tamsulosin (65.4%) than with placebo (50.8%). Active treatments were also superior to placebo in the IPSS storage and voiding subscore analyses, as well as in QoL due to urinary symptoms. Of note, only silodosin significantly reduced nocturia versus placebo (the change from baseline was -0.9, -0.8, and -0.7 for silodosin, tamsulosin, and placebo, respectively; p=0.013 for silodosin vs placebo). An increase in Q(max) was observed in all groups. The adjusted mean change from baseline to end point was 3.77 ml/s for silodosin, 3.53 ml/s for tamsulosin, and 2.93 ml/s for placebo, but the change for silodosin and tamsulosin was not statistically significant versus placebo because of a particularly high placebo response (silodosin vs placebo: p=0.089; tamsulosin vs placebo: p=0.221). At end point, the percentage of responders by Q(max) was 46.6%, 46.5%, and 40.5% in the silodosin, tamsulosin, and placebo treatment groups, respectively. This difference was not statistically significantly (p=0.155 silodosin vs placebo and p=0.141 tamsulosin vs placebo). Active treatments were well tolerated, and discontinuation rates due to adverse events were low in all groups (2.1%, 1.0%, and 1.6% with silodosin, tamsulosin, and placebo, respectively). The most frequent adverse event with silodosin was a reduced or absent ejaculation during orgasm (14%), a reversible effect as a consequence of the potent and selective α(1A)-adrenoreceptor antagonism of the drug. The incidence was higher than that observed with tamsulosin (2%); however, only 1.3% of silodosin-treated patients discontinued treatment due to this adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Silodosin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for the relief of both voiding and storage symptoms in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of bladder outlet obstruction thought to be associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Its overall efficacy is not inferior to tamsulosin. Only silodosin showed a significant effect on nocturia over placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00359905.
背景:西洛多辛是一种新型选择性α1A-肾上腺素能受体阻滞剂,具有很高的药理选择性。
目的:我们旨在测试西洛多辛相对于安慰剂和非劣效于坦索罗辛的优势,并在对新型西洛多辛化合物进行全面文献综述的背景下讨论研究结果。
设计、地点和参与者:我们进行了一项多中心、双盲、安慰剂和阳性对照平行组研究。在欧洲的 11 个国家的 72 个地点,选择了 1228 名年龄≥50 岁、国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)≥13 和最大尿流率(Qmax)>4 且≤15ml/s 的男性。患者进入为期 2 周的洗脱期和 4 周的安慰剂导入期。共有 955 名患者被随机分为西洛多辛 8mg(n=381)、坦索罗辛 0.4mg(n=384)或安慰剂(n=190),每日 1 次,持续 12 周。
测量:我们计算了 IPSS 总评分(主要)、存储和排空亚评分、因尿症状导致的生活质量(QoL)和 Qmax 的基线变化。根据 IPSS 和 Qmax 的变化,应答者定义为分别从基线下降≥25%和增加≥30%。
结果和局限性:西洛多辛和坦索罗辛与安慰剂相比,IPSS 总评分的变化具有显著优势(p<0.001):西洛多辛的差值为-2.3(95%置信区间[CI],-3.2,-1.4),坦索罗辛的差值为-2.0(95% CI,-2.9,-1.1)。根据总 IPSS,西洛多辛(66.8%)和坦索罗辛(65.4%)的应答率显著高于安慰剂(50.8%)(p<0.001)。与安慰剂相比,活性治疗在 IPSS 存储和排空亚评分分析以及因尿症状导致的 QoL 方面也具有优势。值得注意的是,只有西洛多辛能显著减少夜间尿频(从基线的变化分别为-0.9、-0.8 和-0.7,西洛多辛、坦索罗辛和安慰剂组;西洛多辛与安慰剂相比,p=0.013)。所有组的 Qmax 均有增加。调整后的平均变化从基线到终点为西洛多辛 3.77ml/s,坦索罗辛 3.53ml/s,安慰剂 2.93ml/s,但由于安慰剂反应特别高,西洛多辛和坦索罗辛的变化与安慰剂相比没有统计学意义(西洛多辛与安慰剂相比:p=0.089;坦索罗辛与安慰剂相比:p=0.221)。在终点时,西洛多辛、坦索罗辛和安慰剂组的 Qmax 应答率分别为 46.6%、46.5%和 40.5%。这种差异没有统计学意义(西洛多辛与安慰剂相比,p=0.155;坦索罗辛与安慰剂相比,p=0.141)。活性治疗耐受性良好,所有组的不良反应停药率均较低(西洛多辛、坦索罗辛和安慰剂组分别为 2.1%、1.0%和 1.6%)。西洛多辛最常见的不良反应是射精减少或缺失(14%),这是由于药物对α1A-肾上腺素能受体的强而选择性拮抗作用所致的可逆效应。其发生率高于坦索罗辛(2%),但只有 1.3%的西洛多辛治疗患者因该不良反应停药。
结论:西洛多辛是一种有效且耐受性良好的治疗药物,可缓解下尿路症状患者的排尿和储尿症状,这些患者被认为与良性前列腺增生相关的膀胱出口梗阻有关。其总体疗效不劣于坦索罗辛。只有西洛多辛在夜间尿频方面显示出比安慰剂更显著的效果。
试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符 NCT00359905。
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2012-9-18
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2024-12-9
Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2024
Drug Des Devel Ther. 2022
Nat Rev Urol. 2022-11