Single-blind, randomized controlled study of the clinical and urodynamic effects of an α-blocker (naftopidil) and phytotherapy (eviprostat) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia
Article first published online: 7 JUL 2004
International Journal of Urology
Volume 11, Issue 7, pages 501–509, July 2004
How to Cite
YAMANISHI, T., YASUDA, K., KAMAI, T., TSUJII, T., SAKAKIBARA, R., UCHIYAMA, T. and YOSHIDA, K.-I. (2004), Single-blind, randomized controlled study of the clinical and urodynamic effects of an α-blocker (naftopidil) and phytotherapy (eviprostat) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. International Journal of Urology, 11: 501–509. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2004.00844.x
- Issue published online: 7 JUL 2004
- Article first published online: 7 JUL 2004
- Received 13 June 2003; accepted 16 December.
- pressure/flow study;
Abstract Aim: The aim of our study was to examine the efficacy of naftopidil in terms of the international prostate symptom score (IPSS) and urodynamic parameters in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Eviprostat was used as a control to study the efficacy of naftopidil.
Methods: Forty-nine patients with BPH (mean age 67.9 ± 7.8 years) were involved in the study. Patients were randomly assigned either to the naftopidil group, which was treated with the α-blocker naftopidil (50–75 mg daily, 36 patients), or the eviprostat group, which was treated with phytotherapy (six tablets of eviprostat daily, 13 patients).
Results: The mean total IPSS, the total storage and voiding symptom scores, and the quality of life score decreased significantly (P < 0.0001 for each variable) in the naftopidil group, but not in the eviprostat group. In the naftopidil group, analyses showed significant increases in average and maximum flow rate and bladder capacity at first desire to void (P < 0.001, P = 0.001 and P = 0.024, respectively), and significant decreases in the postvoid residual, the percent of residual and the Abrams–Griffiths number (P = 0.009, P = 0.008 and P = 0.042, respectively). However, in the eviprostat group, no significant changes were noted in terms of these symptomatic and urodynamic parameters. In the pressure/flow study, an improvement in the International Continence Society nomogram grade was noted in 29% of the naftopidil group, but in only 16% of the eviprostat group. Among the 14 patients in the naftopidil group, detrusor overactivity disappeared in 21% and cystometric capacity increased in 36%, but no improvement in detrusor overactivity was noted in the eviprostat group.
Conclusions: Naftopidil appears to have been effective in this short-term treatment of BPH.