Objectives: Sixty-three patients suffering from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) entered a double-blind, comparative, parallel-groups study lasting 3 weeks, carried out to compare the efficacy and safety of alfuzosin 2.5 mg tid (n = 32) vs serenoa repens 160 mg bid (n = 31) in BPH.
Methods: Efficacy was assessed both on clinical symptoms (Boyarsky's scale, visual analogue scale, clinical global impression), urinary flow rates (uroflowmetry) and residual urinary volume (transabdominal ultrasound). Events and reported signs were recorded throughout the entire study.
Results: Statistically significant and clinically relevant differences were found between the two treatments in favour of alfuzosin for Boyarsky's total score (decrease from 9.6 +/- 3.0 to 5.9 +/- 3.0, 38.8% for alfuzosin and from 9.3 +/- 2.5 to 6.8 +/- 2.8, 26.9% for serenoa repens) and obstructive score (decrease from 4.9 +/- 2.1 to 3.0 +/- 1.9, 37.8% for alfuzosin; from 4.4 +/- 1.7 to 3.4 +/- 1.8, 23.1% for Serenoa repens; p = 0.01 for both). Clinically relevant differences were found between the two treatments for visual analogue scale and overall clinical impression at the end of the study. Furthermore, the increase in quality of micturition was better with alfuzosin. The proportion of responders (increase on day 21 in peak flow rate of at least 25% relative to the baseline values) was in favour of alfuzosin (71.8% and 48.4% for alfuzosin and Serenoa repens, respectively; p = 0.057). Both treatments were well tolerated. No patient treated with alfuzosin complained of any adverse event at any time during the study. One patient in the Serenoa group complained of mild pruritus which cleared spontaneously. Systolic, diastolic blood pressure and heart rate did not show any clinically relevant change during treatment with alfuzosin.
Conclusions: The findings confirm the efficacy and safety of alfuzosin in symptomatic BPH and indicate the superiority of alfuzosin over Serenoa repens in the treatment of urinary signs and symptoms of BPH.