Search results for: Tamsulosin

Authors: Firas Rashad Al-Samarai

Abstract:

Introduction: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition as men get older. An enlarged prostate gland can cause uncomfortable urinary symptoms, such as blocking the flow of urine out of the bladder. It can also cause bladder, urinary tract, or kidney problems. Objective: to evaluate the efficacy and interaction of tamsulosin with finasteride treatment on induced benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) in mice. Methods: BPH was induced by subcutaneous injection of testosterone propionate (20 mg/kg) for 30 days. Eighty-five mice were divided into five groups. The first group (G1): twenty-five mice induced BPH treated with tamsulosin orally and divided into five equal subgroups with doses (0.017, 0.052, 0.087, 0. 123, and 0.158) mg/kg, the second group (G2): twenty-five mice induced BPH treated with finasteride orally and divided into five equal subgroups with doses (0.175, 0.527, 0.878, 1.23, and 1.580) mg/kg. the third group (G3): twenty-five mice induced BPH treated with a combination of tamsulosin with finasteride orally, and divided into five equal subgroups with doses (0.0085, 0.0875), (0.026, 0.2635), (0.0435, 0.439) , (0.0615, 0.615) and ( 0.079 , 0.790 ) mg/kg respectively. Fourth group (G4): five mice induced BPH and treated distilled water. Fifth group (G5): five mice were not inducing BPH and without any treatment. Results: The results showed a gradual significant increase in prostate weight % and prostate index % Inhibitions until reached saturation in the last two doses of tamsulosin, finasteride, and combination groups, the maximum effective dose of tamsulosin and finasteride were (0.156) and (1.495) mg/kg respectively. Moreover, the effective dose of the combination (tamsulosin and finasteride) was estimated (0.06876, 0.6876) mg/kg, respectively, as well as the type of interaction was synergism and the value of the combination index was 0.046. Conclusions: We concluded that the combination of tamsulosin with finasteride showed a synergistic effect in BPH treatment by minimizing the side effect of each drug as s result of decreasing the dose of each one.

Keywords: Tamsulosin, Finasteride, combination, BPH

Procedia PDF Downloads 42

Authors: Briohny H. Spencer, Russ Chess-Williams, Catherine McDermott, Shailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie, David Christie

Abstract:

Background: Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in men worldwide and the most prevalent in Australian men. In 2015, it was estimated that approximately 18,000 new cases of prostate cancer were diagnosed in Australia. Currently, for localised disease, androgen depravation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy are a major part of the curative management of prostate cancer. ADT acts to reduce the levels of circulating androgens, primarily testosterone and the locally produced androgen, dihydrotestosterone (DHT), or by preventing the subsequent activation of the androgen receptor. Thus, the growth of the cancerous cells can be reduced or ceased. Radiation techniques such as brachytherapy (radiation delivered directly to the prostate by transperineal implant) or external beam radiation therapy (exposure to a sufficient dose of radiation aimed at eradicating malignant cells) are also common techniques used in the treatment of this condition. Radiotherapy (RT) has significant limitations, including reduced effectiveness in treating malignant cells present in hypoxic microenvironments leading to radio-resistance and poor clinical outcomes and also the significant side effects for the patients. Alpha1-adrenoceptor antagonists are used for many prostate cancer patients to control lower urinary tract symptoms, due to the progression of the disease itself or may arise as an adverse effect of the radiotherapy treatment. In Australia, a significant number (not a majority) of patients receive a α1-ADR antagonist and four drugs are available including prazosin, terazosin, alfuzosin and tamsulosin. There is currently limited published data on the effects of α1-ADR antagonists during radiotherapy, but it suggests these medications may improve patient outcomes by enhancing the effect of radiotherapy. Aim: To determine the impact of α1-ADR antagonists treatments on time to biochemical relapse following radiotherapy. Methods: A retrospective study of male patients receiving radiotherapy for biopsy-proven localised prostate cancer was undertaken to compare cancer outcomes for drug-naïve patients and those receiving α1-ADR antagonist treatments. Ethical approval for the collection of data at Genesis CancerCare QLD was obtained and biochemical relapse (defined by a PSA rise of >2ng/mL above the nadir) was recorded in months. Rates of biochemical relapse, prostate specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were also compared. Treatment groups were those receiving α1-ADR antagonists treatment before or concurrent with their radiotherapy. Data was statistically analysed using One-way ANOVA and results expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Major findings: The mean time to biochemical relapse for tamsulosin, prazosin, alfuzosin and controls were 45.3±17.4 (n=36), 41.5±19.6 (n=11), 29.3±6.02 (n=6) and 36.5±17.6 (n=16) months respectively. Tamsulosin, prazosin but not alfuzosin delayed time to biochemical relapse although the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Preliminary data for the prior and/or concurrent use of tamsulosin and prazosin showed a positive trend in delaying time to biochemical relapse although no statistical significance was shown. Larger clinical studies are indicated and with thousands of patient records yet to be analysed, it may determine if there is a significant effect of these drugs on control of prostate cancer.

Keywords: alpha1-adrenoceptor antagonists, biochemical relapse, prostate cancer, radiotherapy

Procedia PDF Downloads 340

Authors: Sameer A. Pathan, Biswadev Mitra, Zain A. Bhutta, Isma Qureshi, Elle Spencer, Asmaa A. Hameed, Sana Nadeem, Ramsha Tahir, Shahzad Anjum, Peter A. Cameron

Abstract:

Background: This study aimed to compare epidemiology, clinical presentations, management and outcomes of renal colic presentations in two major academic centers and discuss potential implications of these results for the applicability of current evidence in the management of renal colic. Methods: We undertook a retrospective cohort study of patients with renal colic who presented to the Hamad General Hospital Emergency Department (HGH-ED), Qatar, and The Alfred ED, Melbourne, Australia, during a period of one year from August 1, 2012, to July 3, 2013. Cases were identified using ICD-9-CM codes, and an electronic template was used to record the data on predefined clinical variables. Results: A total of 12,223 from the HGH-ED and 384 from The Alfred ED were identified as renal colic presentations during the study period. The rate of renal colic presentations at the HGH-ED was 27.9 per 1000 ED visits compared to 6.7 per 1000 ED visits at The Alfred ED. Patients presenting to the HGH-ED were significantly younger [34.9 years (29.0- 43.4) than The Alfred ED [48 years (37-60); P < 0.001]. The median stone size was larger in the HGH-ED group [6 (4-8) mm] versus The Alfred ED group [4 (3-6) mm, P < 0.001]. The intervention rate in the stone-positive population was significantly higher in the HGH-ED group as opposed to The Alfred ED group (38.7% versus 11.9%, p<0.001). At the time of discharge, The Alfred ED group received less analgesic prescriptions (55.8% versus 83.5%, P < 0.001) and more tamsulosin prescriptions (25.3% versus 11.7%, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Renal colic presentations to the HGH-ED, Qatar, were younger, with larger stone size, compared to The Alfred ED, whereas, medical expulsion therapy use was higher at the Alfred ED. Differences in epidemiology should be considered while tailoring strategies for effective management of patients with renal colic in the given setting.

Keywords: kidney stones, urolithiasis, nephrolithiasis, renal colic, epidemiology

Procedia PDF Downloads 201

Authors: Ali Kamal M. Sami, Safa Almukhtar, Alaa Al-Krush, Ismael Hama-Amin Akha Weas, Ruqaya Ahmed Alqais

Abstract:

Introduction and Objectives Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are common among men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The combination of 5 alpha-reductase inhibitors and alpha-blockers has been used as a conservative treatment of male LUTS secondary to BPH. Nanotechnology structured water magnalife is a type of water that is produced by modulators and specific frequency and energy fields that transform ordinary water into this Nanowater. In this study, we evaluated the use of Nano-water with the conservative treatment and to see if it improves the outcome and gives better results in those patients with LUTS/BPH. Material and methods For a period of 3 months, 200 men with International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS)≥13, maximum flow rate (Qmax)≤ 15ml/s, and prostate volume > 30 and <80 ccs were randomly divided into two groups. Group A 100 men were given Nano-water with the (tamsulosindutasteride) and group B 100 men were given ordinary bottled water with the (tamsulosindutasteride). The water bottles were unlabeled and were given in a daily dose of 20ml/kg body weight. Dutasteride 0.5mg and tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily doses. Both groups were evaluated for the IPSS, Qmax, Residual Urine (RU), International Index of Erectile Function–Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) domain at the beginning (baseline data), and at the end of the 3 months. Results Of the 200 men with LUTS who were included in this study, 193 men were followed, and 7 men dropped out of the study for different reasons. In group A which included 97 men with LUTS, IPSS decreased by 16.82 (from 20.47 to 6.65) (P<0.00001) and Qmax increased by 5.73 ml/s (from 11.71 to 17.44) (P<0.00001) and RU <50 ml in 88% of patients (P<0.00001) and IIEF-EF increased to 26.65 (from 16.85) (P<0.00001). While in group B, 96 men with LUTS, IPSS decreased by 8.74(from 19.59 to 10.85)(P<0.00001) and Qmax increased by 4.67 ml/s(from 10.74 to 15.41)(P<0.00001), RU<50 ml in 75% of patients (P<0.00001), and IIEF-EF increased to 21(from 15.87)(P<0.00001). Group A had better results than group B. IPSS in group A decreased to 6.65 vs 10.85 in group B(P<0.00001), also Qmax increased to 17.44 in group A vs 15.41 in group B(P<0.00001), group A had RU <50 ml in 88% of patients vs 75% of patients in group B(P<0.00001).Group A had better IIEF-EF which increased to 26.65 vs 21 in group B(P<0.00001). While the differences between the baseline data of both groups were statistically not significant. Conclusion The use of nanotechnology structured water magnalife gives a better result in terms of LUTS and scores in patients with BPH. This combination is showing improvements in IPSS and even in erectile function in those men after 3 months.

Keywords: nano water, lower urinary tract symptoms, benign prostatic hypertrophy, erectile dysfunction

Procedia PDF Downloads 45