Long‐term therapy with the dual 5α‐reductase inhibitor dutasteride is well tolerated in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the long-term (4-year) safety and tolerability of dutasteride in the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who completed the double-blind phase of three dutasteride Phase III studies were eligible to enter a 2-year open-label extension, during which all patients received dutasteride 0.5 mg. Safety was assessed, including adverse-event reporting, clinical laboratory assessments, yearly physical examinations, and vital sign assessments. RESULTS: In all, 2340 patients entered the open-label phase, 1188 of whom previously received dutasteride during the double-blind phase of the study. The most common drug-related adverse events (occurring in > or = 1%) were effects on sexual function, which decreased with a longer duration of therapy. Gynaecomastia was reported in a small percentage of men throughout the 4-year study period. The incidence of individual sexual functional adverse events that led to withdrawal was < or = 1% (0.3-1.0%) during the 4-year study period. Dutasteride had no relevant effects on vital signs or clinical laboratory variables. CONCLUSION: These data show that dutasteride is well tolerated during long-term use for the treatment of symptomatic BPH.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".