Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2018 Oct 11;10(10):CD007360.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007360.pub3.

Naftopidil for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms compatible with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Eu Chang Hwang  1 , Shreyas Gandhi, Jae Hung Jung, Mari Imamura, Myung Ha Kim, Ran Pang, Philipp Dahm
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Naftopidil for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms compatible with benign prostatic hyperplasia

Eu Chang Hwang et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition in ageing men that may cause lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Treatment aims are to relieve symptoms and prevent disease-related complications. Naftopidil is an alpha-blocker (AB) that has a high affinity for the A1d receptor that may have advantages in treating LUTS in this setting. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2009. Since that time, several large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported, making this update relevant.

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of naftopidil for the treatment of LUTS associated with BPH.

Search methods: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, LILAC, and Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status up to 31 May 2018 SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all parallel RCTs. We also included cross-over design trials.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently classified and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Primary outcomes were urological symptom scores, quality of life (QoL) and treatment withdrawals for any reason; secondary outcomes were treatment withdrawals due to adverse events, acute urinary retention, surgical intervention for BPH, and cardiovascular and sexual adverse events. We considered outcomes measured up to 12 months after randomisation as short term, and later than 12 months as long term. We rated the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach.

Main results: We included 22 RCTs with 2223 randomised participants across four comparisons for short-term follow-up. This abstract focuses on only two of four comparisons for which we found data since two comparators (i.e. propiverine and Eviprostat (phytotherapy)) are rarely used. One study comparing naftopidil to placebo did not report any relevant outcomes and was therefore excluded. There were no trials that compared to combination therapy with naftopidil or any 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) to combination therapy with other ABs and any 5-ARIs.All included studies were conducted in Asian countries. Study duration ranged from four to 12 weeks. Mean age was 67.8 years, prostate volume was 35.4 mL, and International Prostate Symptom Score was 18.3. We were unable to perform any of the preplanned subgroup analyses based on age and baseline symptom score.Naftopidil versus tamsulosinBased on 12 studies with 965 randomised participants, naftopidil may have resulted in little or no difference in urological symptom score (mean difference (MD) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 1.04 measured on a scale from 0 to 35 with higher score representing increased symptoms), QoL (MD 0.11, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.30; measured on a scale from 0 to 6 with higher scores representing worse QoL), and treatment withdrawals for any reason (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.34; corresponding to 7 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 32 fewer to 31 more). Naftopidil may have resulted in little to no difference in sexual adverse events (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.22); this would result in 26 fewer sexual adverse events per 1000 participants (95% CI 43 fewer to 13 more). We rated the certainty of evidence as moderate for urological symptom score and low for the other outcomes.Naftopidil versus silodosinBased on five studies with 652 randomised participants, naftopidil may have resulted in little or no difference in the urological symptom scores (MD 1.04, 95% CI -0.78 to 2.85), QoL (MD 0.21, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.66), and treatment withdrawals for any reason (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.23; corresponding to 26 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% CI 62 fewer to 32 more). We rated the certainty of evidence as low for all these outcomes. Naftopidil likely reduced sexual adverse events (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.42; corresponding to 126 fewer sexual adverse events per 1000 participants, 95% CI 139 fewer to 86 fewer). We rated the certainty of evidence as moderate for sexual adverse events.

Authors' conclusions: Naftopidil appears to have similar effects in the urological symptom scores and QoL compared to tamsulosin and silodosin. Naftopidil has similar sexual adverse events compared to tamsulosin but has fewer compared to silodosin.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

ECH: none known.

SG: none known.

JHJ: none known.

MI: none known.

MHK: none known.

RP: none known.

PD: serves as Co‐ordinating Editor of Cochrane Urology. However, he was not involved in the editorial processing or decision‐making for this review. Other editors of Cochrane Urology managed the editorial process, including final sign‐off for this review.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram.
2
2
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
4
4
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Naftopidil versus tamsulosin, outcome: 1.1 International Prostate Symptom Score.
5
5
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Naftopidil versus tamsulosin, outcome: 1.2 International Prostate Symptom Score‐Quality of Life.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Fujihara 2010 {published data only}
    1. Fujihara A, Ukimura O, Iwata T, Ushijima S, Toiyama D, Suzuki K, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of tamsulosin and naftopidil on the quality of life specific to each symptom of the international prostate symptom score: a randomized controlled trial in elderly men with overactive bladder. International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 2010;21:S152‐4.
Gotoh 2005 {published data only}
    1. Gotoh M, Kamihira O, Kinukawa T, Ono Y, Ohshima S. Comparison between alpha1A dominant adrenergic receptor antagonist tamsulosin and alpha1D dominant adrenergic receptor antagonist naftopidil for the efficacy and safety in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized controlled study (Abstract 271). Joint Meeting of the International Continence Society (ICS) (34th Annual Meeting) and the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA); 2004 August 23‐27; Paris. 2004.
    1. Gotoh M, Kamihira O, Kinukawa T, Ono Y, Ohshima S, Origasa H. Comparison of tamsulosin and naftopidil for efficacy and safety in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized controlled trial. British Journal of Urology International 2005;96(4):581‐6. - PubMed
    1. Matsukawa Y, Gotoh M, Kamihira S, Ono Y, Ohshima S. Do two alpha 1 adrenergic receptor antagonists with different affinity to alpha 1 subtypes of alpha 1a and alpha 1d make any difference in clinical efficacy in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia? Randomized controlled trials of naftopidil and tamsulosin. Journal of Urology 2005;173(4):461‐2.
Griwan 2014 {published data only}
    1. Griwan MS, Karthikeyan YR, Kumar M, Singh BJ, Singh SK. Comparative evaluation of naftopidil and tamsulosin in the treatment of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology Annals 2014;6(3):181‐6. - PMC - PubMed
Hanyu 2010 {published data only}
    1. Hanyu S, Hatano A, Nishiyama T, Obara K, Takahashi K. A randomized controlled study comparing clinical effects of naftopidil and tamsulosin on benign prostatic hyperplasia. Hinyokika Kiyo. Acta Urologica Japonica 2010;56(9):489‐94. - PubMed
Ikemoto 2003 {published data only}
    1. Ikemoto I, Kiyota H, Ohishi Y, Abe K, Goto H, Kishimoto K, et al. Usefulness of tamsulosin hydrochloride and naftopidil in patients with urinary disturbances caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia: a comparative, randomized, two‐drug crossover study. International Journal of Urology 2003;10(11):587‐94. - PubMed
Ju 2002 {published data only}
    1. Ju XB, Wu HF, Su JT. The clinical efficacy of Naftopidil tablet in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue [National Journal of Andrology] 2002;8(4):286‐8. - PubMed
Kwon 2018 {published data only}
    1. Kwon SY, Lee KS, Yoo TK, Chung JI, Lee JY, Hong JH, et al. Comparison of the effect of naftopidil 75 mg and tamsulosin 0.2 mg on the bladder storage symptom with benign prostatic hyperplasia: prospective, multi‐institutional study. Urology 2018;111:145‐50. - PubMed
    1. Kwon SY, Seo YJ, Lee KS. Comparison of the effects of naftopidil and tamsulosin on bladder storage symptoms in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a prospective, multi‐institutional study. International Journal of Urology 2017;24(Suppl 1):4‐149. - PubMed
Li 2007 {published data only}
    1. Li N‐C, Wu S‐L, Jin J, Qiu S‐P, Kong C‐Z, Song Y‐S, et al. Comparison of different drugs on the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia. Zhonghua Wai Ke za Zhi [Chinese Journal of Surgery] 2007;45(14):947‐50. - PubMed
Masuda 2012 {published data only}
    1. Masuda M, Jinza S, Masuko H, Asakura T, Hashiba T. Comparison of naftopidil and silodosin in the treatment of male lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized, crossover study. Hinyokika Kiyo. Acta Urologica Japonica 2012;58(12):671‐8. - PubMed
Masumori 2009 {published data only}
    1. Masumori N, Tsukamoto T, Iwasawa A, Furuya R, Sonoda T, Mori M, et al. Ejaculatory disorders caused by alpha‐1 blockers for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia: comparison of naftopidil and tamsulosin in a randomized multicenter study. Urologia Internationalis 2009;83(1):49‐54. - PubMed
Matsukawa 2017 {published data only}
    1. Matsukawa Y, Funahashi Y, Takai S, Majima T, Ogawa T, Narita H, et al. Comparison of silodosin and naftopidil for efficacy in the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement complicated by overactive bladder: a randomized, prospective study (SNIPER Study). Journal of Urology 2017; Vol. 197, issue 2:452‐8. - PubMed
Momose 2007 {published data only}
    1. Momose H, Hosokawa Y, Kishino T, Ono T, Oyama N. Crossover comparison study on the therapeutic effects of tamsulosin hydrochloride and naftopidil in lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Drugs of Today (Barcelona, Spain : 1998) 2007;43:1‐10. - PubMed
Nishino 2006 {published data only}
    1. Nishino Y, Masue T, Miwa K, Takahashi Y, Ishihara S, Deguchi T. Comparison of two alpha1‐adrenoceptor antagonists, naftopidil and tamsulosin hydrochloride, in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized crossover study. British Journal of Urology International 2006;97(4):747‐51, discussion 751. - PubMed
Perumal 2015 {published data only}
    1. Perumal C, Chowdhury PS, Ananthakrishnan N, Nayak P, Gurumurthy S. A comparison of the efficacy of naftopidil and tamsulosin hydrochloride in medical treatment of benign prostatic enlargement. Urology Annals 2015;7(1):74‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Shirakawa 2013 {published data only}
    1. Shirakawa T, Haraguchi T, Matsumoto M, Morishita S, Minayoshi K, Miyazaki J, et al. A comparative study on the clinical effects of silodosin and naftopidil in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 2010;76(3):S106.
    1. Shirakawa T, Haraguchi T, Matsumoto Y, Takeda M, Morishita S, Minayoshi K, et al. A comparative study on the clinical effects of silodosin and naftopidil in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 2011;22:S1209.
    1. Shirakawa T, Haraguchi T, Shigemura K, Morishita S, Minayoshi K, Miyazaki J, et al. Silodosin versus naftopidil in Japanese patients with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized multicenter study. International Journal of Urology 2013;20(9):903‐10. - PubMed
Singh 2013 {published data only}
    1. Singh I, Gupta A, Agrawal V, Joshi M. A randomized clinical study to compare the efficacy and safety of naftopidil versus tamsulosin in symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. UroToday International Journal 2013;6(2):art 17.
Ub 2016 {published data only}
    1. Ub H, Utsunomiya N, Matsumoto K, Tsunemori H, Muguruma K, Kawakita M, et al. A crossover comparison study on lower urinary tract symptoms with overactive bladder secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia: naftopidil versus tamsulosin with solifenacin. Hinyokika Kiyo. Acta Urologica Japonica 2016;62(7):341‐7. - PubMed
Ukimura 2008 {published data only}
    1. Ukimura O, Kanazawa M, Fujihara A, Kamoi K, Okihara K, Miki T. Naftopidil versus tamsulosin hydrochloride for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia with special reference to the storage symptom: a prospective randomized controlled study. International Journal of Urology 2008;15(12):1049‐54. - PubMed
Yamaguchi 2013 {published data only}
    1. Igarashi T, Ito A, Okawa M, Ashikari D, Obinata D, Sakuma T, et al. Clinical efficacies and impacts on sexual function of alpha‐1a/d selective blockers in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Neurourology and Urodynamics 2011;30(6):1148‐9.
    1. Takahashi S, Yamaguchi K, Sakura Clinical Study Grp. Treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and aging: impacts of alpha‐1 blockers on sexual function. Journal of Mens Health 2011;8:S25‐8.
    1. Yamaguchi K, Aoki Y, Yoshikawa T, Hachiya T, Saito T, Takahashi S. Silodosin versus naftopidil for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a multicenter randomized trial. International Journal of Urology 2013;20(12):1234‐8. - PubMed
Yamanishi 2004 {published data only}
    1. Yamanishi T, Yasuda K, Kamai T, Tsujii T, Sakakibara R, Uchiyama T, et al. Single‐blind, randomized controlled study of the clinical and urodynamic effects of an alpha‐blocker (naftopidil) and phytotherapy (Eviprostat) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. International Journal of Urology 2004;11(7):501‐9. - PubMed
Yokoyama 2009 {published data only}
    1. Yokoyama T, Hara R, Kondo N, Fujii T, Jo Y, Miyaji Y. Naftopidil and propiverine hydrochloride for treatment of male lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia and concomitant overactive bladder: a prospective randomized controlled study (abstract number 1581). Journal of Urology 2009;181(4):568.
    1. Yokoyama T, Uematsu K, Watanabe T, Sasaki K, Kumon H, Nagai A, et al. Naftopidil and propiverine hydrochloride for treatment of male lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia and concomitant overactive bladder: a prospective randomized controlled study. Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology 2009;43(4):307‐14. - PubMed
Yokoyama 2011 {published data only}
    1. Yokoyama T, Hara R, Fukumoto K, Fujii T, Jo Y, Miyaji Y, et al. Effects of three types of alpha‐1 adrenoceptor blocker on lower urinary tract symptoms and sexual function in males with benign prostatic hyperplasia. International Journal of Urology 2011;18(3):225‐30. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Carson 2017 {published data only}
    1. Carson CC. Comparison of silodosin and naftopidil for efficacy in the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement complicated by overactive bladder: a randomized, prospective study (SNIPER Study). Journal of Urology 2017;197(2):458. - PubMed
Hayashi 2002 {published data only}
    1. Hayashi T, Sakai Y, Saito K, Arai G, Hyochi N, Suzuki M, et al. A comparative study assessing clinical effects of naftopidil and tamsulosin hydrochloride on benign prostatic hyperplasia. Hinyokika Kiyo. Acta Urologica Japonica 2002;48(1):7‐11. - PubMed
Hiroshi 2011 {published data only}
    1. Hiroshi T, Takahiko M, Kimihiko M, Kastuya N. Comparison of different doses of naftopidil for overactive bladder associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a prospective, randomized controlled study. International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 2011;22:S1207.
Ikemoto 2010 {published data only}
    1. Ikemoto I. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: its pathophysiologic characteristics analysed with symptom scores. Tokyo Jikeikai Medical Journal 2010;125(4):95‐108.
Maruyama 2006 {published data only}
    1. Maruyama O, Kawachi Y, Hanazawa K, Koizumi K, Yamashita R, Sugimura S, et al. Naftopidil monotherapy vs naftopidil and an anticholinergic agent combined therapy for storage symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a prospective randomized controlled study. International Journal of Urology 2006;13(10):1280‐5. - PubMed
Sakai 2011 {published data only}
    1. Sakai H, Igawa T, Onita T, Furukawa M, Hakariya T, Hayashi M, et al. Efficacy of naftopidil in patients with overactive bladder associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: prospective randomized controlled study to compare differences in efficacy between morning and evening medication. Hinyokika Kiyo. Acta Urologica Japonica 2011;57(1):7‐13. - PubMed
Tsuritani 2010 {published data only}
    1. Tsuritani S, Nozaki T, Okumura A, Kimura H, Kazama T. A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study of naftopidil for treatment of male lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: 75 mg once daily in the evening compared to 25 mg thrice daily. Urologia Internationalis 2010;85(1):80‐7. - PubMed
Yamaguchi 1992 {published data only}
    1. Yamaguchi O, Fukaya Y, Shiraiwa Y, Kaneko S, Yachiku S, Yasuda K, et al. Clinical evaluation of naftopidil (KT‐611) on urinary obstruction caused by benign prostatic hypertrophy: double‐blind comparative study compared with prazosin hydrochloride. Rinsho Iyaku (Journal of Clinical Therapeutics and Medicines) 1992;8(3):699‐722.
Yamaguchi 1997 {published data only}
    1. Yamaguchi O, Fukaya Y, Shiraiwa Y, Kaneko S, Yachiku S, Honma Y, et al. Dose‐dependent effects and clinical usefulness of naftopidil (KT‐611) on urinary obstruction caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia – double‐blind comparative study compared with placebo. Kiso to Rinsho (The Clinical Report) 1997;31:1315‐60.
Yokoyama 2006 {published data only}
    1. Yokoyama T, Kumon H, Nasu Y, Takamoto H, Watanabe T. Comparison of 25 and 75 mg/day naftopidil for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a prospective, randomized controlled study. International Journal of Urology 2006;13(7):932‐8. - PubMed

References to studies awaiting assessment

NCT01203371 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT01203371. Efficacy and safety study of naftopidil to patients treatment with LUTS. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01203371 Date first received: 16 September 2010.
NCT01922375 {unpublished data only}
    1. NCT01922375. Clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of naftopidil in male patients with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01922375 Date first received: 11 February 2013.

Additional references

Agarwal 2014
    1. Agarwal A, Eryuzlu LN, Cartwright R, Thorlund K, Tammela TL, Guyatt GH, et al. What is the most bothersome lower urinary tract symptom? Individual‐ and population‐level perspectives for both men and women. European Urology 2014;65(6):1211‐7. - PMC - PubMed
Andersson 2007
    1. Andersson KE. LUTS treatment: future treatment options. Neurourology and Urodynamics 2007;26(6 Suppl):934‐47. - PubMed
AUA Practice Guidelines Committee 2003
    1. AUA Practice Guidelines Committee. AUA guideline on management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (2003). Chapter 1: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. Journal of Urology 2003;170(2 Pt 1):530‐47. - PubMed
Barry 1992
    1. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ Jr, O'Leary MP, Bruskewitz RC, Holtgrewe HL, Mebust WK, et al. The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. Journal of Urology 1992;148(5):1549‐57. - PubMed
Barry 1995
    1. Barry MJ, Williford WO, Chang Y, Machi M, Jones K, Walker‐Corkery E, et al. Benign prostatic hyperplasia specific health status measures in clinical research: how much change in the American Urological Association symptom index and the benign prostatic hyperplasia impact index is perceptible to patients?. Journal of Urology 1995;154(5):1770‐4. - PubMed
Barry 1997
    1. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ Jr, Bin L, Pitts JC 3rd, Harris CJ, Mulley AG Jr. The natural history of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia as diagnosed by North American urologists. Journal of Urology 1997;157(1):10‐4; discussion 14‐5. - PubMed
Brasure 2016
    1. Brasure M, MacDonald R, Dahm P, Olson CM, Nelson VA, Fink HA, et al. AHRQ comparative effectiveness reviews. Newer Medications for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Attributed to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: a Review. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2016:6. - PubMed
Castiglione 2014
    1. Castiglione F, Benigni F, Briganti A, Salonia A, Villa L, Nini A, et al. Naftopidil for the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia: a systematic review. Current Medical Research and Opinion 2014;30(4):719‐32. - PubMed
Chapple 2017
    1. Chapple C, Castro‐Diaz D, Chuang YC, Lee KS, Liao L, Liu SP, et al. Prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms in China, Taiwan, and South Korea: results from a cross‐sectional, population‐based study. Advances in Therapy 2017;34(8):1953‐65. - PMC - PubMed
Cornu 2010
    1. Cornu JN, Cussenot O, Haab F, Lukacs B. A widespread population study of actual medical management of lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic hyperplasia across Europe and beyond official clinical guidelines. European Urology 2010;58(3):450‐6. - PubMed
Covidence [Computer program]
    1. Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence. Version accessed 17 November 2017. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation, 2013.
Crawford 2006
    1. Crawford ED, Wilson SS, McConnell JD, Slawin KM, Lieber MC, Smith JA, et al. Baseline factors as predictors of clinical progression of benign prostatic hyperplasia in men treated with placebo. Journal of Urology 2006;175(4):1422‐6; discussion 1426‐7. - PubMed
Dahm 2017
    1. Dahm P, Brasure M, MacDonald R, Olson CM, Nelson VA, Fink HA. Comparative effectiveness of newer medications for lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. European Urology 2017;71(4):570‐81. - PMC - PubMed
Deeks 2011
    1. Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Djavan 1999
    1. Djavan B, Marberger M. A meta‐analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of alpha1‐adrenoceptor antagonists in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction. European Urology 1999;36(1):1‐13. - PubMed
EAU 2017
    1. European Association of Urology. Treatment of non‐neurogenic male LUTS. uroweb.org/guideline/treatment‐of‐non‐neurogenic‐male‐luts/ (accessed 17 August 2017).
Egan 2016
    1. Egan KB. The epidemiology of benign prostatic hyperplasia associated with lower urinary tract symptoms: prevalence and incident rates. Urologic Clinics of North America 2016;43(3):289‐97. - PubMed
EndNote [Computer program]
    1. Clarivate Analytics. EndNote. Version 7.5. Philadelphia (PA): Clarivate Analytics, 2016.
Fusco 2016
    1. Fusco F, Palmieri A, Ficarra V, Giannarini G, Novara G, Longo N, et al. α1‐Blockers improve benign prostatic obstruction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of urodynamic studies. European Urology 2016;69(6):1091‐101. - PubMed
Gacci 2014
    1. Gacci M, Ficarra V, Sebastianelli A, Corona G, Serni S, Shariat SF, et al. Impact of medical treatments for male lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia on ejaculatory function: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Sexual Medicine 2014;11(6):1554‐66. - PubMed
GRADEpro GDT 2015 [Computer program]
    1. McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime). GRADEpro GDT 2015. Version accessed 17 November 2017. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime), 2015.
Guyatt 2008
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck‐Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ, GRADE Working Group. GRADE: what is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians?. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 2008;336(7651):995‐8. - PMC - PubMed
Guyatt 2011a
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso‐Coello P, Rind D, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence – imprecision. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(12):1283‐93. - PubMed
Guyatt 2011b
    1. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction – GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(4):383‐94. - PubMed
Hampel 2002
    1. Hampel C, Dolber PC, Smith MP, Savic SL, Th roff JW, Thor KB, et al. Modulation of bladder alpha1‐adrenergic receptor subtype expression by bladder outlet obstruction. Journal of Urology 2002;167(3):1513‐21. - PubMed
Higgins 2002
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002;21(11):1539‐58. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 2003;327(7414):557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2011a
    1. Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Higgins 2011b
    1. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Higgins 2011c
    1. Higgins JP, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Jaeschke 1989
    1. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials 1989;10(4):407‐15. - PubMed
Johnston 2013
    1. Johnston BC, Patrick DL, Thorlund K, Busse JW, Costa BR, Schünemann HJ, et al. Patient‐reported outcomes in meta‐analyses ‐ part 2: methods for improving interpretability for decision‐makers. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2013;11:211. - PMC - PubMed
Jung 2017
    1. Jung JH, Kim J, MacDonald R, Reddy B, Kim MH, Dahm P. Silodosin for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 11. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012615.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Kaplan 2015
    1. Kaplan AL, Agarwal N, Setlur NP, Tan HJ, Niedzwiecki D, McLaughlin N, et al. Measuring the cost of care in benign prostatic hyperplasia using time‐driven activity‐based costing (TDABC). Healthcare 2015;3(1):43‐8. - PubMed
Keehn 2016
    1. Keehn A, Taylor J, Lowe FC. Phytotherapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Current Urology Reports 2016;17(7):53. - PubMed
Kozminski 2015
    1. Kozminski MA, Wei JT, Nelson J, Kent DM. Baseline characteristics predict risk of progression and response to combined medical therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). BJU International 2015;115(2):308‐16. - PMC - PubMed
Lepor 2007
    1. Lepor H. Alpha blockers for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Reviews in Urology 2007;9(4):181‐90. - PMC - PubMed
Lepor 2016
    1. Lepor H. Alpha‐blockers for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urologic Clinics of North America 2016;43(3):311‐23. - PubMed
Liberati 2009
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine 2009;6(7):e1000100. - PMC - PubMed
MacDonald 2005
    1. MacDonald R, Wilt TJ. Alfuzosin for treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms compatible with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review of efficacy and adverse effects. Urology 2005;66(4):780‐8. - PubMed
Martin 2014
    1. Martin S, Lange K, Haren MT, Taylor AW, Wittert G. Risk factors for progression or improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms in a prospective cohort of men. Journal of Urology 2014;191(1):130‐7. - PubMed
Masumori 2011
    1. Masumori N. Naftopidil for the treatment of urinary symptoms in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2011;7:227‐38. - PMC - PubMed
McConnell 2003
    1. McConnell JD, Roehrborn CG, Bautista OM, Andriole GL Jr, Dixon CM, Kusek JW, et al. Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms (MTOPS) Research Group. The long‐term effect of doxazosin, finasteride, and combination therapy on the clinical progression of benign prostatic hyperplasia. New England Journal of Medicine 2003;349(25):2387‐98. - PubMed
McVary 2011
    1. McVary KT, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL, Barry MJ, Bruskewitz RC, Donnell RF, et al. Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Journal of Urology 2011;185(5):1793‐803. - PubMed
Michel 2000
    1. Michel M, Schafers R, Goepel M. Alpha‐blockers and lower urinary tract function: more than smooth muscle relaxation?. BJU international 2000;86 Suppl 2:23‐8; discussion 28‐30. - PubMed
Milani 2005
    1. Milani S, Djavan B. Lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia: latest update on alpha‐adrenoceptor antagonists. BJU International 2005;95 Suppl 4:29‐36. - PubMed
Netto 1999
    1. Netto NR Jr, Lima ML, Netto MR, D'Ancona CA. Evaluation of patients with bladder outlet obstruction and mild international prostate symptom score followed up by watchful waiting. Urology 1999;53(2):314‐6. - PubMed
Oelke 2012
    1. Oelke M, Giuliano F, Mirone V, Xu L, Cox D, Viktrup L. Monotherapy with tadalafil or tamsulosin similarly improved lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia in an international, randomised, parallel, placebo‐controlled clinical trial. European Urology 2012;61(5):917‐25. - PubMed
Rees 2015
    1. Rees J. Patients not P values. BJU International 2015;115(5):678‐9. - PubMed
Review Manager 2014 [Computer program]
    1. Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
Roehrborn 2008
    1. Roehrborn CG. Pathology of benign prostatic hyperplasia. International Journal of Impotence Research 2008;20 Suppl 3:S11‐8. - PubMed
Russo 2015
    1. Russo GI, Castelli T, Urzì D, Privitera S, Vignera S, Condorelli RA, et al. Emerging links between non‐neurogenic lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction, metabolic syndrome and its components: a systematic review. International Journal of Urology 2015;22(11):982‐90. - PubMed
Schulman 2003
    1. Schulman CC. Lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia: minimizing morbidity caused by treatment. Urology 2003;62(3 Suppl 1):24‐33. - PubMed
Schwinn 2008
    1. Schwinn DA, Roehrborn CG. Alpha1‐adrenoceptor subtypes and lower urinary tract symptoms. International Journal of Urology 2008;15(3):193‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Schünemann 2011
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 11: Presenting results and 'Summary of findings' tables. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Sterne 2011
    1. Sterne JA, Egger M, Moher D. Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.
Takei 1999
    1. Takei R, Ikegaki I, Shibata K, Tsujimoto G, Asano T. Naftopidil, a novel alpha1‐adrenoceptor antagonist, displays selective inhibition of canine prostatic pressure and high affinity binding to cloned human alpha1‐adrenoceptors. Japanese Journal of Pharmacology 1999;79(4):447‐54. - PubMed
Wilt 2006
    1. Wilt TJ, MacDonald R. Doxazosin in the treatment of benign prostatic hypertrophy: an update. Clinical Interventions in Aging 2006;1(4):389‐401. - PMC - PubMed
Yap 2009
    1. Yap TL, Brown C, Cromwell DA, Meulen J, Emberton M. The impact of self‐management of lower urinary tract symptoms on frequency‐volume chart measures. BJU International 2009;104(8):1104‐8. - PubMed
Yoo 2012
    1. Yoo TK, Cho HJ. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: from bench to clinic. Korean Journal of Urology 2012;53(3):139‐48. - PMC - PubMed
Yuan 2015
    1. Yuan JQ, Mao C, Wong SY, Yang ZY, Fu XH, Dai XY, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of monodrug therapies for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a network meta‐analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94(27):e974. - PMC - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Garimella 2009
    1. Garimella PS, Fink HA, Macdonald R, Wilt TJ. Naftopidil for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms compatible with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 4. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007360.pub2] - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms