MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402660558 · doi:10.14740/jocmr5255

Tamsulosin and Dutasteride Combination Therapy for Asian Men With Moderate-to-Severe Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Secondary to Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review of Clinical Considerations That Influence the Prescription

2024· review· en· W4402660558 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fan Yang, Rahab Hashim, Julia Philippou

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDutasterideTamsulosinLower urinary tract symptomsUrologyHyperplasiaMedical prescriptionUrinary systemBenign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)Internal medicineProstatePharmacologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of combination therapy for moderate-to-severe lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) is to ease both the dynamic and static symptoms by using agents that have complementary mechanisms of action. Similar to prescribing other drugs, LUTS/BPH combination therapy has been affected by multiple factors. Previous qualitative research discussed the individual perspectives that influenced combination therapy administration. Yet, until recently, there has been limited interest in clinical reasons that physicians have to consider before prescribing LUTS/BPH combination treatment. This systematic review aimed to identify the clinical considerations that influence the decision to prescribe combination therapy of tamsulosin 0.4 mg + dutasteride 0.5 mg for Asian men with LUTS/BPH. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search was performed in databases Medline, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and Embase from inception until January 2024 using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords with truncation for alternative acronyms. A citation search was performed to gather works of literature on LUTS/BPH combination treatment in addition to the "PICO" framework for search terms. Five English-language primary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the narrative analysis using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklist after critical appraisal. Several dosages of tamsulosin (0.2 mg and 0.4 mg) have been administered in LUTS/BPH combination treatment over the last few decades despite 0.2 mg tamsulosin being standardized as an effective regime in Asian countries. A remarkable correlation between prostate volume (PV) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was found in Asian men, which requires higher PSA secretion to enlarge each prostate unit and causes an increased risk of moderate-to-severe LUTS. Additionally, BPH baseline variables may lead to a different response to combination therapy, especially the PV and PSA differences. In conclusion, compared with Caucasian men, a significantly higher risk of moderate-to-severe LUTS was found in Asian men. Initiation of combination therapy, especially dutasteride, depends on a larger PV (≥ 30 mL); it is possible, therefore, that earlier PV and PSA examinations and baseline variables assessments ought to be performed by physicians before the combination therapy prescription. Alternative treatment options may be considered for a patient who prefers an active pattern of sexual activity during their BPH combined pharmacotherapy. These clinical considerations may influence the prescription of tamsulosin 0.4 mg + dutasteride 0.5 mg combination therapy for Asian men with moderate-to-severe LUTS/BPH. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024575528).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.010
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.220
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research→Same topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research→French-language works237,207→