盐酸坦索罗辛治疗良性前列腺增生症的临床疗效评估

为了评估α１Ａ受体阻断剂盐酸坦索罗辛对良性前列腺增生症的疗效和安全性，从１９９７年７月至１０月对６０例症状性ＢＰＨ给予盐酸坦索罗辛０．２ｍｇ口服，每天一次，治疗观察６周。结果表明病人主观症状明显改善，Ｉ－ＰＳＳ评分降低３９．７％；最大尿流率和平均尿流率分别提高２２．９％，３６％。     

不同剂量盐酸坦洛新缓释片治疗早泄的临床疗效

目的 探讨不同剂量盐酸坦洛新缓释片治疗早泄的临床疗效. 方法 2010年9月至2011年1月收治的早泄患者80例,随机数字表法均分为0.2和0.4 mg盐酸坦洛新缓释片组,观察临床疗效和治疗前后患者CIPE-5评分的变化,并进行组内和组间比较. 结果 两组各脱落2例,原因均为服药后出现头晕、眩晕、体位性低血压.0.2和0.4 mg组患者治疗前阴道内射精潜伏期分别为(0.98±0.47)、(0.89±0.47)min,治疗后分别为(4.40±1.86)、(6.40±5.10) min,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).在夫妻性生活满意度、性生活焦虑减轻程度及延迟射精困难减轻程度方面,0.4 mg组均优于0.2 mg组. 结论 大剂量、长周期盐酸坦洛新缓释片治疗早泄可延长射精潜伏期,提高夫妻性生活满意度.     

盐酸坦索罗辛治疗良性前列腺增生症的初步体会

1997年3月～1997年8月，我们采用盐酸坦索罗辛（商品名：哈乐，日本山之内制药有限公司生产）治疗良性前列腺增生症（BPH）62例，并与10例采用盐酸四喃唑嗪（商品名：高特灵）治疗者进行对照，现将对照观察结果报告如下。1资料与方法1.1一般资料本组72例均为门诊患者，年龄50～80岁，均根据临床症状、直肠指检、B超、尿流率测定诊断为BPH。其中服用盐酸坦索罗辛62例，服用盐酸四哺唑嗪10例。全部病例不同时服用治疗或对前列腺有影响的其他药物。预先设计临床观察表。1.2服药方法口服盐酸坦索罗辛0．2mg，每晚五次，共1个月；盐酸四哺唑嗪…     

多沙唑嗪控释片治疗良性前列腺增生症的疗效优于坦索罗辛

α-受体阻滞剂是治疗良性前列腺增生症(BPH)的一线治疗药物。Kirby RS等通过一项为期20周的随机、双盲、交叉对照研究的数据,比较了多沙唑嗪控释片(GITS)与坦索罗辛治疗BPH的疗效。结果显示,经过8周的治疗,两种药物均显著改善了国际前列腺症状总评分(IPSS)及梗阻、刺激症状评分(P<0．001)。而多沙唑嗪控释片组比坦索罗辛组改善更为明显     

盐酸坦洛新缓释片联合前列康片治疗Ⅲ型前列腺炎的疗效观察

目的观察盐酸坦洛新缓释片联合前列康片治疗Ⅲ型前列腺炎的临床疗效。方法将本院自2012年11月到2015年5月期间收治的85例Ⅲ型前列腺炎患者,按照随即数字表法随机分为对照组与治疗组,对照组42例,治疗组43例。对照组患者口服前列康片;治疗组患者在对照组基础上联合应用盐酸坦洛新缓释片。观察并比较两组患者临床疗效,治疗前后NIS-CPSI、前列腺液中白细胞、p H指标变化情况,以及治疗期间不良反应发生情况。结果治疗组患者临床有效率为86.1%,显著高于对照组患者的临床有效率66.7%,比较有统计学差异(χ~2=4.435,P0.05);两组患者治疗后疼痛、排尿症状、生活质量及NIH-CPSI评分较治疗前均降低;且治疗组患者这些评分均低于对照组,有统计差异(P0.05);治疗后两组患者前列腺液中白细胞计数及p H较治疗前均下降(P0.05);且治疗组患者下降幅度显著高于对照组(P0.05);两组患者治疗期间不良反应发生率均较低。结论盐酸坦洛新缓释片联合前列康片治疗Ⅲ型前列腺炎临床疗效现在,显著降低NIHCPSI评分,安全性好,值得在临床上进一步推广和应用。     

柏诺特治疗良性前列腺增生症临床疗效观察

良性前列腺增生(BPH)是成年男性随年龄增长过程中最常见疾病之一,51～60岁的老年男性中50％有病理性前列腺增生,并导致生活质量下降。尽管过去的50年里,TURP被认为是BPH的标准治疗方法,但对仅有轻、中度症状的BPH患者而言,药物治疗仍占据重要地位。柏诺特胶囊是治疗前列腺增生的植物性药物,在欧洲被广泛应用。我们自2002年2月～2002年7月对已确诊的30例前列腺增生患者采用柏诺特治疗2个月,对其疗效进行综合分析、评估,现报告如下。     

盐酸坦索罗辛治疗良性前列腺增生的疗效观察

目的：观察盐酸坦索罗辛治疗我国良性前列腺增生（BPH）患者的临床有效性和安全性。方法：对31例BPH患者,按国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）分成中度组和重度组,给予盐酸坦索罗辛0．2mg口服,每晚一次,连续服用3个月。记录各组患者治疗前后国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量指数评分（QOL）、最大尿流率（Qmax）、前列腺体积（V）、剩余尿量（Ru）的变化。观察治疗过程中血压的改变及不良反应的发生率。结果：服药1个月后,两组患者IPSS、QOL、Qmax、Ru均改善明显（P〈0．001）。服药3个月后两组患者的IPSS、QOL、Qmax、Ru与服药前比较有显著性差异（P〈0．001）,与服药1个月比较无显著性差异（P〉0．05）。两组间各指标改变无明显差异（P〉0．05）。治疗前后。两组患者前列腺体积、血压无明显变化（P〉0．05）。无明显不良反应发生。结论：盐酸坦索罗辛是治疗我国BPH患者安全有效的药物,且无明显副反应发生。     

灵泽片联合盐酸坦索罗辛缓释胶囊治疗良性前列腺增生症的临床疗效

目的 初步评价灵泽片联合盐酸坦索罗辛治疗良性前列腺增生症的临床疗效、安全性及有效性.方法 选择2019年12月到2021年5月就诊于北京中医药大学东方医院、北京中医药大学第三附属医院的良性前列腺增生症患者,共320例.将患者按照随机数字表法分为试验组和对照组,每组160例.试验组口服灵泽片和盐酸坦索罗辛缓释胶囊,对照组...     

坦索罗辛与非那雄胺联合治疗老年良性前列腺增生临床疗效观察

目的:观察盐酸坦索罗辛单药与非那雄胺联合治疗老年良性前列腺增生症(BPH)的疗效.方法:将101例BPH患者分为单药治疗组(对照组54例)和联合治疗组(治疗组47例),对照组予坦索罗辛胶囊0.2mg qd口服,治疗组予同时联合保列治5 mg qd口服,两组均连续用药3个月.观察治疗前后国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、最大尿流率(MFR)、经腹B超测膀胱残余尿量(PRV)、前列腺体积的变化.结果:与治疗前比较,治疗后两组患者的IPSS评分、MFR及PRV均明显改善(P＜0.05或＜0.01),前列腺体积的改变差异无统计学意义;两组治疗后比较,治疗组IPSS明显较低,而MFR明显较高,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论:坦索罗辛单药及与非那雄胺联合治疗均能改善BPH患者病情,但两药联合治疗疗效更好.     

盐酸坦索罗辛治疗血压正常前列腺增生症患者的临床观察

目的：评价应用坦索罗辛治疗血压正常的前列腺增生症患者的临床疗效。方法：对61例前列腺增生症患者给予坦索罗辛0．2mg／d,并依据治疗前后IPSS评分、QOL评分、剩余尿量、血压变化等情况进行疗效评估。结果：治疗6周后,与治疗前比较,血压变化差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,而IPSS评分、QOL评分及剩余尿量差异有统计学意义（P=0．000）。结论：坦索罗辛具有显效快、安全、经济、易接受的特点,可有效地降低尿道阻力。     

坦索罗辛联合索利那新治疗BPH伴膀胱过度活动症的临床观察

目的:探讨坦索罗辛联合索利那新治疗BPH伴膀胱过度活动症(OAB)患者的临床疗效及安全性。方法:2009年12月～2011年6月期间收集BPH伴有OAB患者262例,随机分成试验组(134例)和对照组(128例)。试验组患者口服坦索罗辛0.2mg,每天一次,同时口服索利那新5mg,每天一次;对照组患者仅口服坦索罗辛,用量用法同实验组。两组患者均药物治疗4周。观察两组患者治疗前后主观指标IPSS评分、OABSS评分及QOL评分和客观指标最大尿流率(Qmax)、24h排尿次数、尿急次数、急迫性尿失禁次数、夜尿次数、每次排尿量的变化,评估治疗后BPH患者OAB症状的改善情况及其安全性。结果:两组患者主观指标和客观指标治疗前后组内对比,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。试验组治疗前后的主观指标和客观指标变化值与对照组相比,除Qmax和每次排尿量外,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者的Qmax和每次排尿量治疗前后的变化值相比,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。试验组和对照组不良事件总发生率较低,分别为4.58%和2.47%,无严重不良事件发生。结论:坦索罗辛联合索利那新治疗BPH伴有OAB患者的疗效,较单用坦索罗辛的疗效显著,且安全性好。     

Short‐term effects of crossover treatment with silodosin and tamsulosin hydrochloride for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of silodosin and tamsulosin in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) by a randomized crossover method. Methods: BPH patients with the complaint of LUTS were included in this study, and were randomly divided into two groups: a silodosin‐preceding group (4 weeks of twice‐daily administration of silodosin at 4 mg, followed by 4 weeks of once‐daily administration of tamsulosin at 0.2 mg) or a tamsulosin‐preceding group (4 weeks' administration of tamsulosin, followed by 4 weeks' administration of silodosin). No drug withdrawal period was provided when switching the drug. Results: In the first treatment period, both drugs significantly improved the International Prostate Symptom Score total score, but the improvement by silodosin was significantly superior to that by tamsulosin. After crossover treatment, significant improvement was observed only with silodosin treatment. Moreover, intergroup comparison of changes revealed that silodosin showed significant improvement of straining and nocturia with first and crossover treatments, respectively, compared with tamsulosin. Silodosin also significantly improved quality of life (QOL) score in both treatment periods, while tamsulosin significantly improved QOL score only in the first treatment period. The most frequent adverse drug reaction was ejaculatory disorder with silodosin; however, the incidence of dizziness with silodosin was similar to that with tamsulosin. Conclusions: In BPH/LUTS patients, silodosin exhibits excellent efficacy in improving subjective symptoms in both initial and crossover treatment, and it appears to improve the QOL of patients.     

Efficacy and safety of tamsulosin hydrochloride compared to doxazosin in the treatment of Indonesian patients with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia

AIM: The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin hydrochloride and doxazosin in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: The safety and efficacy of tamsulosin (0.2 mg) and doxazosin (2 mg) was determined after once daily administration for 6 weeks in an open-label, randomized, multicenter study of 101 men with BPH. The International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS), maximal urinary flow rates (Qmax), average urinary flow rates (Qave) and residual urine were determined at baseline and again at 6 weeks as efficacy parameters. The primary parameters used for safety evaluation were vital signs (blood pressure and heart rate) and adverse events. The number of patients with a clinically significant response to treatment with tamsulosin or doxazosin was determined and defined as those with >20% improvement from the baseline Qmax or >20% decrease in total IPSS. RESULTS: The total IPSS decreased significantly in both the tamsulosin and doxazosin groups compared to baseline. There was a significant difference in the decrease in total IPSS between two groups. Qmax, Qave and residual urine significantly improved only in the tamsulosin group. There were no significant differences in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure or heart rate profile in the tamsulosin group; however, doxazosin resulted in a significant difference in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Tamsulosin was well tolerated; only three patients (6%) in the tamsulosin group reported an adverse event (dizziness) while 11 patients (22%) in the doxazosin group reported an adverse event (dizziness), one of whom withdrew from the study. CONCLUSIONS: Tamsulosin was shown to be more effective than doxazosin in the treatment of LUTS due to BPH.     

坦索罗辛对前列腺增生症患者性功能的影响

目的探索坦索罗辛对前列腺增生症患者性功能的影响。方法60例良性前列腺增生症(BPH)患者,采用IPSS评分表和IIEF-5问卷表,在服用坦索罗辛前和服药后6月各填写一次,应用t检验对治疗前后评分进行统计学分析。并观察其射精功能。结果60例BPH患者治疗前ED发生率为88．3％,其中轻度11例,中度24例,重度18例;治疗后6月ED发生率为83．3％,其中轻度13例,中度26例,重度11例。IIEF-5评分由治疗前(11．1±2．8)增加至(14．6±3．5)(P<0．05)。1例出现逆行射精,2例出现延迟射精。结论坦索罗辛在改善BPH患者下尿路症状的同时,也可改善患者的勃起功能,但对射精功能有一定的影响。     

坦索罗辛联合索利那新在治疗轻中度良性前列腺增生合并膀胱过度活动症中的疗效分析

目的:探讨坦索罗辛联合索利那新在治疗轻中度BPH合并膀胱过度活动症(OAB)中的有效性及安全性。方法:选取在我院诊治的轻中度良性BPH合并OAB患者166例,分为轻度梗阻症状组(88例)(联合用药组48例及坦索罗辛组40例)和中度梗阻症状组(78例)(联合用药组36例及坦索罗辛组42例)。坦索罗辛组均服用坦索罗辛0.2mg,每日1次。联合用药组均口服坦索罗辛0.2mg,每日1次,索利那新5mg,每日1次,共12周。比较两组治疗前后国际前列腺症状评分(IPSS)、排尿期症状评分、储尿期症状评分、最大尿流率(Qmax)、残余尿量、膀胱过度活动症症状评分(OABSS)、尿常规检查、不良事件等。结果:在轻度梗阻症状组中,联合用药组治疗后在IPSS、储尿期症状评分、Qmax、OABSS明显优于治疗前(P0.05),而残余尿无明显变化(P0.05),坦索罗辛组治疗后仅IPSS较治疗前有所改善,而其他方面无明显变化(P0.05);而治疗后联合用药组IPSS[(9.7±3.0)分vs(15.8±3.3)分]、储尿期症状评分[(8.1±1.7)分vs(12.3±3.1)分]、Qmax[(18.6±4.1)ml/s vs(14.2±2.3)ml/s]、OABSS[(5.3±1.3)分vs(9.7±2.7)分]等方面明显优于坦索罗辛组(P均0.05),而残余尿、尿常规检查及不良事件无明显差异(P0.05);在中度梗阻症状组,联合用药组治疗后IPSS、排尿期症状评分、Qmax、OABSS明显优于治疗前,而残余尿无明显差异;坦索罗辛组治疗后IPSS、排尿期症状评分、Qmax、OABSS及残余尿较治疗前改善明显;联合用药组的OABSS优于坦索罗辛组[(4.8±1.5)分vs(6.5±2.5)分,P0.05],而在IPSS、Qmax、排尿期症状评分、尿常规检查及不良事件等方面与坦索罗辛组无明显差异(P均0.05)。结论:坦索罗辛联合索利那新在治疗BPH轻中度梗阻症状合并OAB均有明显疗效,其疗效优于单用坦索罗辛,而不良反应无明显增加。     

前列腺动脉介入栓塞治疗前列腺增生症的临床评价

目的探讨前列腺动脉介入栓塞治疗良性前列腺增生症的临床疗效。方法2009年8月至2011年8月,选择确诊为前列腺增生、内科保守治疗无效、难以接受和不愿外科手术治疗的16例患者作为观察组,行放射介入法选择性前列腺动脉栓塞治疗。随机选择在我院行经尿道前列腺等离子电切术确诊前列腺增生的病例35例作为对照组。术后6个月随访。观察两组患者手术前后国际症状评分（IPSS）、生活质量评分（QOL）、最大尿流率（Qmax）、残余尿（RU）以及前列腺体积的变化。结杲16例接受PAE治疗的患者,IPSS由术前的（23．5±1．8）分降至术后的（13．1±1.7）分（P〈0.05）;QOL由术前的（4．7±0．5）分降至术后的（2．4±0．6）分（P〈0．05）;残余尿量由术前的（92．3±14．2）mL降至术后的（36．2±3．8）mL（P〈O．05）;Qmax由术前的（7．1±2．1）mL／s升至术后的（18．6±2．4）mL／s（P〈0．05）;前列腺体积由术前的（49．5±15．3）mL降至术后的（29．4±8．6）mL（P〈0．05）。结论PAE治疗前列腺增生安全、有效,且具有损伤小、出血少、手术风险低的优点,尤其适用于年老体弱、合并心肺并发症耐受力低下和拒绝接受外科治疗者,是前列腺电切术的有益补充。     

萘哌地尔与盐酸特拉唑嗪治疗良性前列腺增生的疗效与安全性评估

目的 评估蔡哌地尔（浦畅）治疗良性前列腺增生症的有效性和安全性。方法 根据随机、双盲、双模拟、多中心阳性药物平行对照法，240例BPH患者随机分为试验组120例和对照组120例，试验组给予每晚口服萘哌地尔片50mg；对照组给予每晚口服盐酸特拦唑嗪片2mg，两组疗程均为2个月。以国际前列腺症状评分（IPSS）、最大尿流率（Qmax）和临床疗效评价作为主要疗效指标，以平均尿流率（Qave）、生活质量评分（QOL）和残余尿量的变化作为次要疗效指标。结果 治疗8周后，共有236例进入统计分析。IPSS、Qmax、Qave、QOL、残余尿量治疗前后两组组内比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01），治疗前后两组组间比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）；不良反应率两组间比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05），总的不良事件较少，但对照组有3例患者出现直立性低血压，试验组没有出现。结论蔡哌地尔（浦畅）是治疗良性前列腺增生有效且安全的药物。     

Doxazosin gastrointestinal therapeutic system versus tamsulosin for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: A study in Chinese patients

AIM: The efficacy and safety profiles of two alpha1-adrenoceptor antagonists, doxazosin gastrointestinal therapeutic system, a controlled-release formulation of doxazosin, and tamsulosin, were compared in Chinese men with confirmed benign prostatic hyperplasia. METHODS: After a 2-week placebo run-in phase, 117 patients were randomized to daily treatment with doxazosin gastrointestinal therapeutic system (4 mg doxazosin) (n = 60) or 0.2 mg tamsulosin (n = 57) for 6 weeks with no titration of study medications. Efficacy was measured by the International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urinary flow rate, postvoid residual urine volume, and quality-of-life score from the International Prostate Symptom Score. Adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: Both drugs significantly improved the International Prostate Symptom Score (total, irritative subscore and obstructive subscore) and maximum urinary flow rate. Doxazosin gastrointestinal therapeutic system reduced postvoid residual urine volume significantly more than tamsulosin (-25 +/- 5 mL vs 2 +/- 5 mL, P = 0.041) in patients with residual volume >0 mL at baseline. Other differences between groups were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The doxazosin gastrointestinal therapeutic system and tamsulosin were effective and well tolerated for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia in Chinese men.     

Comparison of the response to treatment between Asian and Caucasian men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: Long‐term results from the combination of dutasteride and tamsulosin study

The Combination of Avodart and Tamsulosin study was a 4‐year, randomized, double‐blind study of the efficacy and safety of dutasteride and tamsulosin, alone or in combination, in men with moderate‐to‐severe benign prostatic hyperplasia. In this post‐hoc investigation, we analyzed primary and secondary end‐points from the Combination of Avodart and Tamsulosin study in Asian (n = 325) and Caucasian men (n = 4259). The incidence of acute urinary retention or benign prostatic hyperplasia‐related surgery did not differ significantly between treatment groups in the Asian subpopulation. In Caucasian men, the incidence of acute urinary retention/benign prostatic hyperplasia‐related surgery was significantly lower in the combination therapy group compared with the tamsulosin monotherapy group (P < 0.001), but not compared with dutasteride monotherapy. Combination therapy significantly increased the time to benign prostatic hyperplasia clinical progression and resulted in improved International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urinary flow rate, quality of life, and reduced prostate volume in Asian and Caucasian men who received combination therapy compared with tamsulosin monotherapy. Combination therapy also significantly improved (P < 0.05) time to benign prostatic hyperplasia clinical progression, International Prostate Symptom Score, maximum urinary flow rate and quality of life versus dutasteride in the Caucasian subpopulation. The adverse‐event profile was comparable between subpopulations. In conclusion, Asian and Caucasian men respond similarly to these treatments, despite apparent racial differences in 5α‐reductase activity.     

Outcomes and complications of naftopidil versus tamsulosin for elderly men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the outcomes and complications of naftopidil in treating elderly men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia and compared them with those administered with tamsulosin. A literature review was performed to identify the available randomised controlled trials concerning the comparison between naftopidil and tamsulosin for men with LUTS/BPH. We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Library Database, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Eleven publications involving 1,114 men (557 in the naf group and 557 in the tam group) were pooled in our analysis. We found no significant differences in the total IPSS, IPSS storage score, IPSS voiding score, quality of life index, peak urinary flow rate, average flow rate and post-void residual volumes. We assessed cardiovascular and sexual adverse events, acute urinary retention, surgical intervention, withdrawals due to any reason and withdrawals due to adverse events. The incidence of adverse events was similar among patients in naf and tam groups. In conclusion, naftopidil shared comparable efficacy and similar incidence of adverse events with tamsulosin and appears to be a promising agent for and alternative to tam. However, more prospective trials with high quality and long-term treatment duration are needed to verify this observation.