Objectives:Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common and progressive disease affecting elderly males, often associated with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). α1-blockers are the mainstay in symptomatic therapy of BPH. Because of their greater uroselectivity and minimal hemodynamic effects, alfuzosin, tamsulosin, and silodosin are generally preferred. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of alfuzosin, tamsulosin, and silodosin in patients with BPH and LUTS.Methods:Ninety subjects with BPH and LUTS were randomized into three groups of thirty in each, to receive alfuzosin sustained release (SR) 10 mg, tamsulosin 0.4 mg, or silodosin 8 mg for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was a change in the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and the secondary outcome measures were changes in individual subjective symptom scores, quality of life score (QLS), and peak flow rate (Qmax) from baseline. The treatment response was monitored at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks.Results:IPSS improved by 88.18%, 72.12%, and 82.23% in alfuzosin SR, tamsulosin and silodosin groups (P < 0.001) at 12 weeks. Improvement in QLS was >75% in all the three groups (P < 0.001). A significant improvement in Qmax was seen with alfuzosin and tamsulosin (P = 0.025 and P < 0.001) but not with silodosin (P = 0.153). However, the intergroup differences in IPSS, QLS, and Qmax were not significant. Ejaculatory dysfunction was more common with silodosin and corrected QT (QTc) prolongation occurred only with alfuzosin (two subjects) and tamsulosin (three subjects).Conclusion:Alfuzosin, tamsulosin, and silodosin showed similar efficacy in improvement of LUTS secondary to BPH, with good tolerability, acceptability, and minimum hemodynamic adverse effects. Alfuzosin, tamsulosin, and silodosin are comparable in efficacy in symptomatic management of BPH. The occurrence of QTc prolongation in three subjects with tamsulosin in the present study is an unexpected adverse event as there are no reports of QTc prolongation with tamsulosin in any of the previous studies.
BackgroundAlcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a distressing condition, generally controlled by benzodiazepines (BZD's). Baclofen, a gamma-aminobutyric acid-B (GABAB) agonist, has also shown promising results in controlling AWS. As there are few studies comparing the efficacy and tolerability of chlordiazepoxide with baclofen, the present study was taken up. The objective of this study was to compare efficacy and tolerability of baclofen with chlordiazepoxide in uncomplicated AWS.MethodsSixty subjects with uncomplicated AWS were randomized into two groups of 30 each, to receive baclofen (30 mg) or chlordiazepoxide (75 mg) in decremented fixed dose regime for 9 days. Clinical efficacy was assessed by Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol-Revised Scale (CIWA-Ar) and tolerability by the nature and severity of adverse events. Lorazepam was used as rescue medication. Secondary efficacy parameters were Clinical Global Impression scores, symptom-free days, and subject satisfaction as assessed by visual analog scale. This study was registered with Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI/2013/04/003588), also subsequently registered with WHO's ICTRP clinical trial portal.ResultsBoth baclofen and chlordiazepoxide showed a consistent reduction in the total CIWA-Ar scores. However, chlordiazepoxide showed a faster and a more effective control of anxiety and agitation requiring lesser lorazepam supplementation, and also showed a better subject satisfaction compared to baclofen. Both the drugs showed good tolerability with mild self-limiting adverse events.ConclusionThe present study demonstrates that baclofen is not as good as chlordiazepoxide in the treatment of uncomplicated AWS. However, baclofen might be considered as an alternative.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.