Comparison of dutasteride and finasteride for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia: the Enlarged Prostate International Comparator Study (EPICS)
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Study Type – Therapy (RCT) Level of Evidence 1b What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? Both dutasteride and finasteride inhibit type 2 5α‐reductase, the dominant form of 5α‐reductase in benign prostatic tissue, making these effective treatments for BPH. In comparison with finasteride, dutasteride has a longer half‐life and leads to a greater and more consistent suppression of serum and intraprostatic DHT. EPICS is currently the only prospective, randomized, double‐blind study of finasteride vs dutasteride for BPH endpoints conducted for longer than a few months. Over a one‐year period, treatment with dutasteride and finasteride led to similar reductions in prostate volume, and improvements in peak urine flow and urinary symptoms associated with BPH in men with an enlarged prostate. Men treated with finasteride and dutasteride also experienced similar rates of adverse events over the course of one year, which suggests that inhibition of both type 1 and type 2 5α‐reductase, resulting in greater DHT suppression than type 2 inhibition alone, does not confer an increase in adverse events. Given the long‐term, progressive nature of BPH, the one‐year duration of EPICS may limit the potential to observe major differences between dutasteride and finasteride treatment. OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy and safety of dutasteride compared with finasteride in treating men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) for 12 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS The Enlarged Prostate International Comparator Study was a multicentre, randomized, double‐blind, 12‐month, parallel‐group study. Men aged ≥50 years with a clinical diagnosis of BPH received once‐daily treatment with dutasteride 0.5 mg ( n = 813) or finasteride 5 mg ( n = 817). After a 4‐week placebo run‐in period, patients were randomized to receive dutasteride or finasteride for 48 weeks, followed by an optional 24‐month, open‐label phase, during which patients received dutasteride 0.5 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was change in prostate volume, and the secondary endpoints included improvement in American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUA‐SI) scores, improvement in maximum urinary flow rate (Q max ) and long‐term safety in the 24‐month open‐label phase. RESULTS Both dutasteride and finasteride were effective at reducing prostate volume with no significant difference between the two treatments during the study. Similar reductions in mean AUA‐SI scores and Q max were also observed for men in both treatment groups. A similar percentage of adverse events was experienced by patients of both treatment groups, and no new adverse events were reported in the open‐label phase. CONCLUSION Dutasteride and finasteride, when administered for 12 months, were similarly effective in reducing prostate volume and improving Q max and urinary symptoms associated with BPH in men with an enlarged prostate.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle