Abstract

Parts I and II of this three-part series indicated how a global review of both English-language and non-English language papers, plus a focus on a lipidosterolic extract of Serenoa repens (LSESr) having a standardized fatty acid profile, have together engendered new insights about the biological activity of LSESr vs. LUTS. In this last part, data from the world literature is presented that confirms that LSESr efficacy is the predominant finding in clinical trials. Despite two placebo-controlled clinical trials performed in the U.S. that failed to confirm a benefit of LSESr vs. placebo in LUTS, the global body of the peer-reviewed literature attests not only to efficacy but also to safety. Results will be presented of important trials that compare LSESr to alpha-blockers such as tamsulosin (Flomax®) as well as to 5α-reductase inhibitors such as finasteride (Proscar®) that demonstrate consistent findings of near equivalency between LSESr and these pharmacologic agents. Studies relating data indicative of an additive effect or synergy between LSESr and tamsulosin will also be presented. The heightened effectiveness of LSESr in men with severe LUTS vs. moderate LUTS expands the importance of our scrutiny of the global literature concerning LSESr. Of great consequence are the contributions of non-English language peer-reviewed publications that have consistently provided evidence of LSESr efficacy in treating LUTS/BPH. These peer-reviewed articles have shown that the effect of LSESr is not that of a placebo. Finally, a comparison of the LSESr extraction products used in the treatment of LUTS, and a discussion of the milieu factors that affect the natural history of LUTS and influence the outcome of clinical trials, complete this detailed analysis of LSESr vs. LUTS.

Highlights

  • Parts I and II of this three-part series indicated how a global review of both Englishlanguage and non-English language papers, plus a focus on a lipidosterolic extract of Serenoa repens (LSESr) having a standardized fatty acid profile, have together engendered new insights about the biological activity of LSESr vs. lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS)

  • How Can We Address the Negative Clinical Trials of LSESr vs. Placebo in Male LUTS?

  • In the course of this global analysis of LSESr vs. LUTS, we found a total of 58 peer-reviewed articles that met our criteria for evaluability; these included the Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Urological Symptoms (CAMUS) and the Derakhshani studies

Read more

Summary

LSESr and the Placebo Effect

The CAMUS study, published in 2011, was not an investigation of the efficacy of complementary medicine, as per the title, but instead of a particular ethanolic extract of Serenoa repens (EESr) having the brand name Prosta Urgenin® Uno (Rottapharm/Madaus). The results of the mean changes in IPSS, QoL and Qmax for the 55 positives of the 58 total reports indicate significant improvements in all parameters. This will be discussed in detail in the sections that follow. Prostate Symptom Score; QoL, quality of life; Qmax, peak urinary flow (mL/s); ∆, mean change; mos, months; #, number; Pt., patient; %, percent; FFA, free fatty acids. Scrutiny of all publications related to both trials does not disclose any obvious shortcomings to account for the lack of efficacy of LSESr in the study participants

HESr and EESr Are Not Inferior to Tamsulosin or to Finasteride
Fifty-five out of Fifty-Eight Evaluable Studies Indicate Efficacy
Method
Extract Quality May Affect LSESr Efficacy
The Extraction Process Does Not Correlate with the Efficacy of LSESr
Clinical Perspective
Addendum
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call