Search

Naoya Masumori,1 Taiji Tsukamoto,1 Akihiko Shibuya,2 Noriomi Miyao,3 Yasuharu Kunishima,4 Akihiko Iwasawa5 1Department of Urology, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, 2Kaguraoka Urological Clinic, Asahikawa, 3Division of Urology, Muroran City General Hospital, Muroran, 4Hokkaido Social Work Association Obihiro Hospital, Obihiro, 5Iwasawa Clinic, Sapporo, Japan Purpose: Our aim was to prospectively analyze the 3-year outcomes of naftopidil treatment for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), including those who dropped out during follow-up and had retreatment for BPH after termination of the drug within 3 years.Patients and methods: Naftopidil, 50 mg/d or 75 mg/d, was given to 117 patients having BPH aged 50 years and older who had international prostate symptom scores (IPSS) ≥8. They were prospectively followed for 3 years with periodic evaluation. If naftopidil was terminated, the reason was determined. For patients with termination, an outcome survey was done to evaluate the status of retreatment for BPH at 3 years.Results: Twenty-five patients (21.4%) continued the same medication for 3 years. The total IPSS, quality of life index, BPH problem index, and maximum flow rate were significantly improved during 3 years. Treatment failure defined as symptomatic progression (an increase in the IPSS of ≥4 points compared to the baseline value), development of acute urinary retention, conversion to other α1-blockers, add-on of a 5α-reductase inhibitor, or conversion to surgery was observed in 41 patients (35.0%). In the univariate analysis, age, prostate volume, and serum prostate-specific antigen were predictors of treatment failure. Of the 50 patients who discontinued naftopidil during the follow-up, only 13 (26%) patients reported that they needed retreatment with α1-blockers and/or surgery within 3 years.Conclusion: Long-term efficacy of naftopidil was observed, although older age, increased prostate volume, and elevated prostate-specific antigen at baseline were highly likely to result in treatment failure. Even after termination for various reasons, only a small portion of the patients needed retreatment for BPH within 3 years. Keywords: benign prostatic hyperplasia, alpha 1-blocker, naftopidil, long-term outcome, treatment failure, retreatment

Naoya MasumoriDepartment of Urology, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, JapanAbstract: Imidafenacin is an antimuscarinic agent with high affinity for the M3 and M1 muscarinic receptor subtypes and low affinity for the M2 subtype, and is used to treat overactive bladder. Several animal studies have demonstrated that imidafenacin has organ selectivity for the bladder over the salivary glands, colon, heart, and brain. In Phase I studies in humans, the approximately 2.9-hour elimination half-life of imidafenacin was shorter than that of other antimuscarinics such as tolterodine and solifenacin. Imidafenacin was approved for clinical use in overactive bladder in Japan in 2007 after a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II study and a propiverine-controlled Phase III study conducted in Japanese patients demonstrated that imidafenacin 0.1 mg twice daily was clinically effective for treating overactive bladder and was not inferior to propiverine for reduction of episodes of incontinence, with a better safety profile than propiverine. Several short-term clinical studies have demonstrated that imidafenacin also improves sleep disorders, nocturia, and nocturia-related quality of life. In addition, it is speculated that addon therapy with imidafenacin is beneficial for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia whose overactive bladder symptoms are not controlled by alpha-1 adrenoceptor antagonists. No cognitive impairment or influence of imidafenacin on the QTc interval has been observed. Although there have been very few relevant long-term clinical studies, the available information suggests the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of imidafenacin, with less frequent severe adverse events, such as dry mouth and constipation. In addition, imidafenacin can be used safely for a long time even for cognitively vulnerable elderly patients with symptoms of overactive bladder. Thus, it is highly likely that imidafenacin is safe, efficacious, and tolerable to control symptoms of overactive bladder even over the long term. However, it remains unknown if the practical effectiveness of imidafenacin is applicable to ethnic groups other than Japanese.Keywords: overactive bladder, antimuscarinics, imidafenacin, long-term efficacy

Naoya MasumoriDepartment of Urology, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, JapanAbstract: Naftopidil, approved only in Japan, is an α1-adrenergic receptor antagonist (α1-blocker) used to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Different from tamsulosin hydrochloride and silodosin, in that it has higher and extremely higher affinity respectively, for the α1A-adrenergic receptor subtype than for the α1D type, naftopidil has distinct characteristics because it has a three times greater affinity for the α1D-adrenergic receptor subtype than for the α1A subtype. Although well-designed large-scale randomized controlled studies are lacking and the optimal dosage of naftopidil is not always completely determined, previous reports from Japan have shown that naftopidil has superior efficacy to a placebo and comparable efficacy to other α1-blockers such as tamsulosin. On the other hand, the incidences of ejaculatory disorders and intraoperative floppy iris syndrome induced by naftopidil may be lower than for tamsulosin and silodosin having high affinity for the α1A-adrenergic receptor subtype. However, it remains unknown if the efficacy and safety of naftopidil in Japanese is applicable to white, black and Hispanic men having LUTS/BPH in western countries.Keywords: benign prostatic hyperplasia, lower urinary tract symptoms, α1-blocker, naftopidil

Objectives: To investigate the impact on intravesical recurrence and prognosis according to the ureteral ligation timing during radical nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Methods: We carried out a retrospective chart review of 664 patients with non‐metastatic upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma who underwent radical nephroureterectomy with ureteral ligation (supplementary analysis of JCOG1110A). We excluded patients with previous and/or synchronous bladder cancer, clinically node‐positive disease, no ureteral ligation data, those without ureteral ligation and those with any missing data. We investigated the cumulative incidence of intravesical recurrence and cancer‐specific mortality, and overall survival between patients with ureteral ligation before renovascular ligation (early ureteral ligation), or ureteral ligation after renovascular ligation (late ureteral ligation). Results: Early and late ureteral ligation was carried out in 243 patients (36.6%) and 421 patients (63.4%), respectively. Intravesical recurrence occurred in 218 patients (32.8%) during follow up (median 3.9 years). No significant difference in the intravesical recurrence was found between early and late ureteral ligation groups. Meanwhile, survival in the early ureteral ligation group was significantly worse compared with the late ureteral ligation group. Multivariable analysis showed that early ureteral ligation was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (hazard ratio 1.88, 95% confidence interval 1.24–2.85, P = 0.003) and cancer‐specific mortality (hazard ratio 1.93, 95% confidence interval 1.14–3.25, P = 0.014). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the incidence of intravesical recurrence is not affected by the timing of ureteral ligation during radical nephroureterectomy. However, early ureteral ligation might have a negative impact on survival outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]