Tag Archive for: silodosin

Posts

The Drugs Don’t Work … Or Do They?

The Verve made millions out of the hit single “The Drugs Don’t Work” … I doubt they would have made any money if they called it “The Drugs Don’t Work … Or Do They ?” but that is where we are in 2017 with medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteric stones.

In 2015, “The Drugs Don’t Work” was the most read blog of the year and for that won the “Best Blog of the Year” award at the BJUI Social Media awards. And it was all about SUSPEND. The trial that changed everything. We had been giving MET out like smarties. We loved it. Patients loved it. But many of us had doubts. The evidence was weak. “Large randomised trials are needed to confirm” the authors of small trials said. And so we did it in British Urology and it did change practice for many people. Doubts crept in around the world. More trials confirmed this. The Furyk study … MET doesn’t work in Australia (apart from a small advantage on small subgroup analysis). It doesn’t work in America either. Silodosin … promising but little benefit. But wait … the NIH are doing a trial. This will confirm once and for all. And as I was about to debate John Hollingsworth at the Rock Society at #AUA17 – thrown into the lion’s den of believers – it was released, a late breaking abstract – The STONE study and NO BENEFIT TO MET. Game over … MET is dead. Even non-believers were convinced in another debate with John in Vancouver at #WCE17.

So imagine the surprise as this month in European Urology, the largest study ever conducted was released. 3450 patients. A good quality double-blind placebo-controlled RCT. The headline … Overall MET does work (86% vs. 79%). And this was judged on a fairly hardcore follow-up schedule of CT scans weekly for 4 weeks – how many people do that in their practice? On subgroup analysis stones >5mm show greatest benefit (87 vs. 75% stone passage). Stones ≤ 5mm showed no benefit (88% vs 87%) although there is some advantages for time to passage (148 vs.249 hours), colic episodes (1.9 vs.9.4%) and analgesia requirements (89 vs.236mg). So what do we do now? Firstly I suspect this has just cemented the current position of the 2017 #EAUGuidelines which already states “the greatest benefit might be among those with large (distal) stones”. I do also feel this trial requires greater scrutiny – does this really change everything again?

Some facts: 3296 patients included in the analysis. Only 15 patients declined entry to the study – that is amazing! Recruited in 30 centres in China over 2 years which finished in 2013. The inclusion criteria was for distal ureteric stones from 4-7mm (interestingly a fact not expressed in the abstract). Not 3mm; not 8mm; 4-7mm only. So a narrow window which probably represents the potential target benefit for MET. There are lots of exclusion criteria – diabetes, previous stone on that side, previous ureteroscopy on that side and ‘severe hydronephrosis’. So if the emergency departments are to follow this study they need to select stones of 6 or 7mm in longest diameter, only in the distal ureter and without “severe hydronephrosis” whatever that means. I’m not sure I totally know and I’m a urologist. Good luck to the ED docs with that one!

I need to ask, why has it taken 4 years for this to be published? There is no long-term follow-up required in this study. Outcomes should be known within 28 days. With such international controversy surely this should have been a priority to publish? Only the authors can answer this question but such delayed publication suggests to me some issue with the data. This was a company sponsored trial – so why weren’t they pushing for publication? Only they know. Company involvement to me automatically introduces a degree of murkiness about the outcomes in any trial – just look at the problem with oncology trials. Even more so when they are “involved with preparation of the manuscript”. That gives them a controlling interest in the publication of the outcomes and that really concerns me. It probably shouldn’t … the results are the results … but it still concerns me. It’s one thing supplying the medications for a trial but having control of the manuscript? What data is missing? For example, how many people in each group complied with the imaging protocols? We don’t know. How many patients didn’t undergo any follow-up imaging at all? We don’t know. How many patients did not attend (DNA) for follow-up at each stipulated week (as DNA rates are often high for colic patients)? We don’t know. Any small differences between the groups might explain the differences in final outcome. How many returned the analgesia and pain questionnaires? We don’t know. What were the compliance rates with medication? We don’t know. Importantly, why were the side-effects the same in both groups in such a big sample? That worries me a lot. This trial is powered to show small differences and even the most ardent MET supporters will concede that MET comes with a tolerable increase in side-effects – other studies have clearly shown that. That concerns me. Is that actually a surrogate marker of quality for this study?

Don’t get me wrong, other studies definitely have their limitations as well. Furyk – underpowered for larger stones. STONE – confounded by small stones? SUSPEND – real-life follow-up without mandated imaging. There is no doubt this trial will shift the balance in the debate. I thought MET was dead but, as per the EAU guidelines, MET may confer benefit for stones >5mm but in reality only those measuring 6 or 7mm – an absolute benefit of 12% for that specific group. It definitely doesn’t help stone passage for ≤ 5mm stones. It is interesting that whilst SUSPEND was criticised for having such high stone passage rates of ~ 80% – that is exactly what is seen in this paper and in a more select larger stone group. That is curious. Placebo did very well again. It’s a shame we can’t prescribe that!

What will I do? I might use MET a bit more for the carefully selected and counselled “larger stone” – I did anyway – but I certainly don’t feel we are back to giving this out to everyone who walks through the door.

 

Matthew Bultitude

Consultant Urologist, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital

Associate Editor, BJUI

 

RSM Urology Winter Meeting 2017, Northstar, California

rsm-2017-blogThis year’s Annual RSM Urology Section Winter Meeting, hosted by Roger Kirby and Matt Bultitude, was held in Lake Tahoe, California.

A pre-conference trip to sunny Los Angeles provided a warm-up to the meeting for a group of delegates who flew out early to visit Professor Indy Gill at the Keck School of Medicine.  We were treated to a diverse range of live open, endourological and robotic surgery; highlights included a salvage RARP with extended lymph node dissection and a robotic simple prostatectomy which was presented as an alternative option for units with a robot but no/limited HoLEP expertise.

1-1

On arrival to Northstar, Dr Stacy Loeb (NYU) officially opened the meeting by reviewing the social media urology highlights from 2016. Next up was Professor Joseph Smith (Nashville) who gave us a fascinating insight into the last 100 years of urology as seen through the Journal of Urology. Much like today, prostate cancer and BPH were areas of significant interest although, in contrast, early papers focused heavily on venereal disease, TB and the development of cystoscopy. Perhaps most interesting was a slightly hair-raising description of the management of IVC bleeding from 1927; the operating surgeon was advised to clamp as much tissue as possible, close and then return to theatre a week later in the hopes the bleeding had ceased!

1-21-3

 

 

 

 

 

With the promise of beautifully groomed pistes and stunning views of Lake Tahoe, it was hardly surprising that the meeting was attended by a record number of trainees. One of the highlights of the trainee session was the hilarious balloon debate which saw participants trying to convince the audience of how best to manage BPH in the newly inaugurated President Trump. Although strong arguments were put forward for finasteride, sildenafil, Urolift, PVP and HoLEP, TURP ultimately won the debate. A disclaimer: this was a fictional scenario and, to the best of my knowledge, Donald Trump does not have BPH.

The meeting also provided updates on prostate, renal and bladder cancer. A standout highlight was Professor Nick James’ presentation on STAMPEDE which summarized the trial’s key results and gave us a taste of the upcoming data we can expect to see in the next few years.

1-4

We were fortunate to be joined by prominent American faculty including Dr Trinity Bivalacqua (Johns Hopkins) and Dr Matt Cooperberg (UCSF) who provided state-of-the-art lectures on potential therapeutic targets and biomarkers in bladder and prostate cancer which promise to usher in a new era of personalized therapy.

1-5
1-6

A personal highlight was Tuesday’s session on learning from complications. It was great to hear some very senior and experienced surgeons speaking candidly about their worst complications. As a trainee, it served as a reminder that complications are inevitable in surgery and that it is not their absence which distinguishes a good surgeon but rather the ability to manage them well.

There was also plenty for those interested in benign disease, including topical discussions on how to best provide care to an increasingly ageing population with multiple co-morbidities. This was followed by some lively point-counterpoint sessions on robot-assisted versus open renal transplantation (Ravi Barod and Tim O’Brien), Urolift vs TURP (Tom McNicholas and Matt Bultitude) and HOLEP vs prostate artery embolization for BPH (Ben Challacombe and Rick Popert). Professor Culley Carson (University of North Carolina) concluded the session with a state-of-the art lecture on testosterone replacement.

1-71-8

In addition to the excellent academic programme, delegates enjoyed fantastic skiing with perfect weather and unparalleled views of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. For the more adventurous skiiers, there was also a trip to Squaw Valley, the home of the 1960 Winter Olympics. Another highlight was a Western-themed dinner on the shores of Lake Tahoe which culminated in almost all delegates trying their hand at line dancing to varying degrees of success! I have no doubt that next year’s meeting in Corvara, Italy will be equally successful and would especially encourage trainees to attend what promises to be another excellent week of skiing and urological education.

1-9
1-10
1-11

Miss Niyati Lobo
ST3 Urology Trainee, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust

@niyatilobo

 

Article of the Week: Evaluating Silodosin in the Treatment of LUTS Associated with BPE

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Dr. Naeem Bhojani, discussing his accompanying editorial to the Article of the Week. 

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Individual patient data from registrational trials of silodosin in the treatment of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): subgroup analyses of efficacy and safety data

Giacomo Novara, Christopher R. Chapple* and Francesco Montorsi
Department of Oncological, Surgical, and Gastroenterological Sciences, Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Padua,Italy, Deprtment of Urology, Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy, and *Department of Urology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Shefeld, UK
OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and safety of silodosin in a pooled analysis of individual patient data from three registrational randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing silodosin and placebo in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A pooled analysis of 1494 patients from three 12-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III RCTs was performed. Efficacy and safety data were assessed across patients with different baseline characteristics. Vertigo is one of the most common health problems in adults. It is a symptom, not a disease and is usually associated with a problem in the inner ear balance mechanisms (vestibular system), in the brain, or with the nerve connections between the two organs. Vertigo can also be brought on suddenly through various actions or incidents, such as sudden changes in blood pressure or as a symptom of motion sickness while sailing, on amusement rides, airplanes or in an automobile. It can be acute and severe, lasting for days, or it may be recurrent, with attacks that last for minutes to hours. Vertigo los angeles associated with panic attacks can sometimes be caused by hyperventilating.

Patients often describe balance problems, dizziness, light headedness, and motion sickness. They may also describe an intense or severe sensation of movement, tilting, or imbalance; the sensation is aggravated by movement and improved by remaining stationary. Patients may say that they are having continuous vertigo, when in reality, they are having repeated episodes (with each episode lasting less than a minute). Those with persistent vomiting or intractable vertigo may require admission for hydration and vestibular suppressant medication. These disorders are the ninth most common complaint that leads people to visit their physicians. It is important to not use general terms when describing balance problems. To put it another way, it is best to simply describe the sensation they feel without using general terms like dizziness or vertigo. The cause is often revealed by the patient’s history and physical examination. In migraine-associated vertigo for instance, the patient may report a history of acute-onset vertigo that lasts minutes, a few hours, many hours, or days.

 RESULTS

Silodosin was significantly more effective than placebo in improving all International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS)-related parameters, and maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax) regardless of patients age (P < 0.041). Comparing the efficacy of silodosin in the different age groups, there were no differences for all the IPSS-related parameters, whereas Qmax improvement was slightly higher in patients aged <65 years (P = 0.009). Silodosin was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing all IPSS-related parameters regardless of baseline IPSS (P ≤ 0.001). Similarly, silodosin was more effective than placebo in improving IPSS-related parameters regardless of baseline Qmax (P ≤ 0.02). Silodosin was associated with significantly higher adverse event (AE) rates, compared with placebo, in all patient subgroups, with retrograde ejaculation being the most common. Prevalence of dizziness, orthostatic hypotension, and discontinuation rate was similar with silodosin and placebo in most patient subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

We analysed the efficacy and safety of silodosin in several patient subgroups, showing that silodosin was more effective than placebo in improving all IPSS-related parameters in all patient subgroups, whereas AEs were similar. Notably, cardiovascular AEs were not higher in patients taking antihypertensive drugs or with mild renal function impairment. Discontinuation rates due to AEs were lower in elderly patients.

Editorial: Selecting the right α-blocker – is silodosin your best option?

A significant proportion of aging men will have bothersome LUTS and will eventually seek help for this problem. Various medical therapies are available to help aleviate these symptoms. Amongst the various treatments, α-blockers are some of the most widely used drugs. Novara et al. [1] recently published a report on the efficacy and safety of silodosin in a pooled analysis of individual patient data from three registrational randomized controlled trials comparing silodosin and placebo in patients with LUTS. Their study contributes pertinent information to aid the clinician in determining which α-blocker is best suited for specific patients with LUTS.

In the current study, patients were subdivided into groups in order to better understand which patient would benefit most from the use of silodosin [2]. In addition, the article examines the safety of silodosin in these same distinct patient groups. With regard to efficacy, silodosin was significantly more effective than placebo in improving all IPSS-related variables and maximum urinary flow rate, regardless of the patient’s age. When comparing the efficacy of silodosin in different age groups, no difference was observed for any of the IPSS variables, whereas patients aged <65 years had a statistically significantly greater maximum urinary flow rate.

With regard to safety, silodosin was associated with a significantly higher adverse event (AE) rate compared with placebo. When comparing the safety of silodosin in patients aged <65 years and >65 years, the overall AE rate, ejaculatory dysfunction and discontinuation rate attributable to AEs were all higher in the younger age group. Interestingly, in patients with concomitant use of antihypertensive drugs, the use of silodosin was not associated with a higher risk of either dizziness or orthostatic hypotension.

In a previous study by the same authors, no clinically relevant or statistically significant differences with regard to diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure or heart rate in patients taking silodosin as compared to placebo were found [3]; however, a minor statistically significant difference vs placebo was observed with tamsulosin. The present study by Novara et al. [2] further supports the belief that silodosin is a safe drug from a cardiovascular standpoint.

From a sexual standpoint, silodosin does not seem to perform as well. In the present study, patients in the silodosin group had significantly more adverse events as compared with the placebo group. Retrograde ejaculation was by far the most common side effect affecting 32.8% of patients aged <65 years vs 0.9% in the placebo group. Similarly, in a study by Chapple et al. [3], as many as 14.2% of patients in the silodosin treatment group had ejaculatory dysfunction, compared with 2.1 and 1.1% of patients in the tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups, respectively. Although the percentage of patients who discontinued treatment because of treatment-emergent AEs in the present study was small and not significantly different among all treatment groups, one might hypothesize that over a longer follow-up period, such a prevalent side effect could be responsible for a higher discontinuation rate. Consequently, it should be kept in mind that for patients desiring to maintain antegrade ejaculation, or who are bothered by treatment-onset ejaculatory dysfunction, especially younger patients, silodosin might not be the best treatment option. Furthermore, it should be recognized that some patients would potentially accept a reduction in treatment efficacy to preserve ejaculation [4].

With regard to clinical outcomes, few published papers comparing tamsulosin with silodosin are available [5, 6]. One article found no clinically significant difference between the two α-blockers [5] whereas the other, which was a post hoc analysis, found a marginal clinical benefit for silodosin over tamsulosin [4]. Unfortunately, head-to-head trials are not forthcoming, so it will not be possible to determine if one α-blocker is clinically better than the other. Furthermore, the present study, because it lacked an active control arm, did not compare silodosin with tamsulosin, which leaves something to be desired.

In conclusion, careful consideration should be given to specific patient characteristics such as age and comorbidities, along with personal preferences towards sexual function when offering patients α-blockers for treatment of LUTS.

Hugo Lavigueur-Blouin and Naeem Bhojani

 

Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier de lUniversite dMontreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

 

References

 

Video: Is silodosin your best option when selecting the right α-blocker?

A significant proportion of aging men will have bothersome LUTS and will eventually seek help for this problem. Various medical therapies are available to help aleviate these symptoms. Amongst the various treatments, α-blockers are some of the most widely used drugs. Novara et al. [1] recently published a report on the efficacy and safety of silodosin in a pooled analysis of individual patient data from three registrational randomized controlled trials comparing silodosin and placebo in patients with LUTS. Their study contributes pertinent information to aid the clinician in determining which α-blocker is best suited for specific patients with LUTS.

In the current study, patients were subdivided into groups in order to better understand which patient would benefit most from the use of silodosin [2]. In addition, the article examines the safety of silodosin in these same distinct patient groups. With regard to efficacy, silodosin was significantly more effective than placebo in improving all IPSS-related variables and maximum urinary flow rate, regardless of the patient’s age. When comparing the efficacy of silodosin in different age groups, no difference was observed for any of the IPSS variables, whereas patients aged <65 years had a statistically significantly greater maximum urinary flow rate.

With regard to safety, silodosin was associated with a significantly higher adverse event (AE) rate compared with placebo. When comparing the safety of silodosin in patients aged <65 years and >65 years, the overall AE rate, ejaculatory dysfunction and discontinuation rate attributable to AEs were all higher in the younger age group. Interestingly, in patients with concomitant use of antihypertensive drugs, the use of silodosin was not associated with a higher risk of either dizziness or orthostatic hypotension.

In a previous study by the same authors, no clinically relevant or statistically significant differences with regard to diastolic blood pressure, systolic blood pressure or heart rate in patients taking silodosin as compared to placebo were found [3]; however, a minor statistically significant difference vs placebo was observed with tamsulosin. The present study by Novara et al. [2] further supports the belief that silodosin is a safe drug from a cardiovascular standpoint.

From a sexual standpoint, silodosin does not seem to perform as well. In the present study, patients in the silodosin group had significantly more adverse events as compared with the placebo group. Retrograde ejaculation was by far the most common side effect affecting 32.8% of patients aged <65 years vs 0.9% in the placebo group. Similarly, in a study by Chapple et al. [3], as many as 14.2% of patients in the silodosin treatment group had ejaculatory dysfunction, compared with 2.1 and 1.1% of patients in the tamsulosin and placebo treatment groups, respectively. Although the percentage of patients who discontinued treatment because of treatment-emergent AEs in the present study was small and not significantly different among all treatment groups, one might hypothesize that over a longer follow-up period, such a prevalent side effect could be responsible for a higher discontinuation rate. Consequently, it should be kept in mind that for patients desiring to maintain antegrade ejaculation, or who are bothered by treatment-onset ejaculatory dysfunction, especially younger patients, silodosin might not be the best treatment option. Furthermore, it should be recognized that some patients would potentially accept a reduction in treatment efficacy to preserve ejaculation [4].

With regard to clinical outcomes, few published papers comparing tamsulosin with silodosin are available [5, 6]. One article found no clinically significant difference between the two α-blockers [5] whereas the other, which was a post hoc analysis, found a marginal clinical benefit for silodosin over tamsulosin [4]. Unfortunately, head-to-head trials are not forthcoming, so it will not be possible to determine if one α-blocker is clinically better than the other. Furthermore, the present study, because it lacked an active control arm, did not compare silodosin with tamsulosin, which leaves something to be desired.

In conclusion, careful consideration should be given to specific patient characteristics such as age and comorbidities, along with personal preferences towards sexual function when offering patients α-blockers for treatment of LUTS.

Hugo Lavigueur-Blouin and Naeem Bhojani

 

Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier de lUniversite dMontreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

 

References

 

 

© 2020 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.