School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2013 Mar;29(3):279-87. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2013.766594. Epub 2013 Jan 29.
A great number of clinical trials and systematic reviews have evaluated the efficacy and safety of α(1) blockers for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). We carried out an overview of reviews to provide an up-to-date summary of evidence regarding the efficacy and safety between different α(1) blockers for BPH.
PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database and VIP were searched for eligible studies. Direct evidence was analyzed narratively. We used a random-effects model within a Bayesian framework to calculate indirect estimates if no direct evidence existed. The GRADE approach was used in summarizing conclusions.
A total of 15 systematic reviews involving five α(1) blockers met the inclusion criteria. Direct evidence demonstrated that α(1) blockers were superior to placebo in reducing urinary symptom scores and improving peak urinary flow PUF. Doxazosin could significantly reduce urinary symptom scores compared with tamsulosin mean difference (MD -1.60, 95% CI -1.80 to -1.40) and alfuzosin (MD1.7, 95% CI 0.76-1.64). Indirect evidence suggested that the urinary symptom score and PUF at endpoint in men treated with naftopidil were similar to those treated with other α(1) blockers. α(1) Blockers generally lead to more adverse effects compared with placebo, and those caused by terazosin were more frequent than others.
α(1) Blockers are more effective than placebo for BPH, doxazosin and tamsulosin seem to be more effective than other α(1) blockers. The adverse effects caused by α(1) blockers are generally mild and well-tolerated.
大量的临床试验和系统评价已经评估了α(1)受体阻滞剂治疗良性前列腺增生(BPH)的疗效和安全性。我们进行了综述,以提供关于不同α(1)受体阻滞剂治疗 BPH 的疗效和安全性的最新证据总结。
我们检索了 PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane 图书馆、中国国家知识基础设施、中国生物医学文献数据库和 VIP,以寻找符合条件的研究。直接证据以叙述性方式进行分析。如果不存在直接证据,则使用贝叶斯框架内的随机效应模型计算间接估计。使用 GRADE 方法总结结论。
共有 15 项系统评价纳入了 5 种α(1)受体阻滞剂,符合纳入标准。直接证据表明,α(1)受体阻滞剂在降低尿症状评分和改善最大尿流率(PUF)方面优于安慰剂。与坦索罗辛相比,多沙唑嗪可显著降低尿症状评分(平均差[MD] -1.60,95%置信区间[CI] -1.80 至-1.40)和阿夫唑嗪(MD1.7,95%CI 0.76-1.64)。间接证据表明,接受萘哌地尔治疗的男性在终点时的尿症状评分和 PUF 与接受其他α(1)受体阻滞剂治疗的患者相似。α(1)受体阻滞剂通常比安慰剂引起更多的不良反应,特拉唑嗪引起的不良反应比其他药物更频繁。
α(1)受体阻滞剂治疗 BPH 比安慰剂更有效,多沙唑嗪和坦索罗辛似乎比其他α(1)受体阻滞剂更有效。α(1)受体阻滞剂引起的不良反应通常较轻且耐受良好。