MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of dutasteride and finasteride for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia: the Enlarged Prostate International Comparator Study (EPICS)

2011· article· en· W1729580440 on OpenAlexaff
J. Curtis Nickel, Peter Gilling, Teuvo L.J. Tammela, Betsy Morrill, Timothy H. Wilson, Roger S. Rittmaster

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsDutasterideFinasterideMedicineUrology5 Alpha-Reductase InhibitorProstateAdverse effectTamsulosinHyperplasiaDihydrotestosteroneInternational Prostate Symptom ScoreInternal medicineLower urinary tract symptomsAndrogenHormoneCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations218
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of UrologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207