The Dark Side of 5a-Reductase Inhibitors' Therapy

Science Other Studies
#1

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4064044/ (free, full review article)

====


The dark side of 5α-reductase inhibitors’ therapy: sexual dysfunction, high Gleason grade prostate cancer and depression.

Traish, Mulgaonkar, Giordano.

With aging, abnormal benign growth of the prostate results in benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) with concomitant lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Because the prostate is an androgen target tissue, and transforms testosterone into 5α-dihydrotestosterone (5α-DHT), a potent androgen, via 5α-reductase (5α-R) activity, inhibiting this key metabolic reaction was identified as a target for drug development to treat symptoms of BPH. Two drugs, namely finasteride and dutasteride were developed as specific 5α-reductase inhibitors (5α-RIs) and were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of BPH symptoms. These agents have proven useful in the reducing urinary retention and minimizing surgical intervention in patients with BPH symptoms and considerable literature exists describing the benefits of these agents. In this review we highlight the adverse side effects of 5α-RIs on sexual function, high grade prostate cancer incidence, central nervous system function and on depression. 5α-Rs isoforms (types 1-3) are widely distributed in many tissues including the central nervous system and inhibition of these enzymes results in blockade of synthesis of several key hormones and neuro-active steroids leading to a host of adverse effects, including loss of or reduced libido, erectile dysfunction, orgasmic dysfunction, increased high Gleason grade prostate cancer, observed heart failure and cardiovascular events in clinical trials, and depression. Considerable evidence exists from preclinical and clinical studies, which point to significant and serious adverse effects of 5α-RIs, finasteride and dutasteride, on sexual health, vascular health, psychological health and the overall quality of life. Physicians need to be aware of such potential adverse effects and communicate such information to their patients prior to commencing 5α-RIs therapy.

#2

Sounds like the damage is permanent.

#3

Based on what? I read but didn’t form that conclusion and neither did they.

#4

Physicians need to be aware of such potential adverse effects and communicate such information to their patients prior to commencing 5α-RIs therapy.
So if somebody sells poison to someone but repeat the above warning and then put it into seller’s mouth, is that ok by law? nobody will arrest the seller? This should be banned, simple is that. If 5ARi may cause heart failure, cancers ,nervous damage etc then why should 5ARis be sold? How can you sell “Arsenic” by law if you say I am going to communicate all the warnings to the buyer.

#5

Well said spstriken

#6

The word permanent was used in the article a couple times. If its CNS related and neuropathy then its likely permanent. I have been in constant pain lately. If you got shrunken junk that’s numb, blurry vision that’s not correctable by glasses, arm pain, heart pain, digestion problems, sleep problems, cognitive decline. I doubt its going to get fixed any time soon. These fuckers are just now realizing what they have done.

#7

It AIN’T permanent. They are so far off from what the root cause is…they barely know the array of symptoms

#8

They got some of it right. Not all. The array of symptoms is really unbelievable.

#9

Another day, another study. How are these drugs still on the market?

#10

Because of the extremely rare incidence of side effects.

And I agree that the study authors in this and other studies are only getting ‘some of it right’.

The following KEY POINTS are totally avoided in this study (and others) and studies on the subject will remain incomplete unless they are addressed. They include;

•Why side effects often get worse after stopping.

•Why symptoms can get worse with TRT (dynamically worse).

•The full range of symptoms - including muscle loss. (not just ‘anxious/depressive’ symptoms)

•Why neurosteroids are low if 5a-Reductase Type 1 is actually the only (or predominant) 5a-reductase in the CNS of humans.

•Why the incidents of side effects are so rare.

•How neurosteroids can be lower - but 3aDiol is actually higher - than controls.

#11

Rare or not, if a drug can create a new disease it must recall. And when the medical comunity accept that pfs is real, this drug will be banned.

#12

In the UK and USA, ED and depression are already on the warning information for Propecia.

Unfortunately, studies like this only help to reinforce the idea that that’s all there is to it.

#13

That’s my concern with the Baylor and Harvard studies as well. Sexual function seems to be the focus. That’s the least of my concerns at this point.

#14

Sexual dysfunction comes from same root cause bro.

#15

Will you ever be positive oneday?

#16

This is not true at all, actually. In the Harvard study, they do a whole lot that seems to deal with nuerological issues, and the same may be true for the Baylor study, though I cannot say for certain as that was not the study I participated in.

There is no value in us sitting and dissecting these studies that are already done, trust me. Just get this current round of studies done. This should be everyones focus, not dissecting these studies that are already published. It is just a total waste on our parts.

Everyone, if you have not participated in the current research, please contact Harvard and Baylor as soon as possible. If you need help with funds, contact the PFS foundation.

#17

Good to know. I have already been in contact with Allen. I plan to get to the study by September.

#18

That is great news. We need more people like you so we can get these studies done. That is how we will all get our answers, not by dissecting studies which have already been published.

Lets stay focused on what really matters to our futures.

#19

I appreciate the essence of what you are saying here. – But this study is about me.

I participated in most of these studies mentioned in this review. And this kind of publication has a direct and serious impact on my health.

And they are missing out all of the most important information. That’s not ‘dissecting’ - that’s pointing out something very serious, something very obvious and something critically important.

If something this important is miscommunicated in such a fundamental way - why am I not allowed to post about it? Why am I not allowed to bring this to the attention of others? How on earth does this cause anyone to lose focus? - surely it brings into focus what the issues are, if anything?

#20

The study is not about you, it is about US.

To me, there is no sense in complaining about a particular study that did not satisfy your own questions. That is why they are doing the research now. To continue to answer our questions so we can correctly treat ourselves. Just because this one study did not answer everything for you, does not mean that future studies will not answer all of your questions. I just do not see the need in making issue with this. It is not productive, and not actually a real issue, in my opinion.

I did not say you were not allowed to post your feelings on this. I do not make those decisions.