MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2389936360 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v70i2.1643

5α-Reductase Inhibitors for Treatment of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017· review· en· W2389936360 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jennifer Jun, Angus Kinkade, Anthony Tung, Aaron M Tejani

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsCollege of Pharmacists of British ColumbiaSurrey Memorial HospitalResearch CanadaProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisHyperplasiaMedicineGynecology5 Alpha-Reductase InhibitorBenign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)Systematic reviewUrologyMEDLINEFinasterideInternal medicineProstateChemistryBiochemistryCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p><strong>ABSTRACT</strong></p><p><strong>Background:</strong> Finasteride and dutasteride are competitive inhibitors of 5a-reductase enzymes and are commonly used to treat symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).</p><p><strong>Objective:</strong> To compare the efficacy and safety of finasteride and dutasteride in terms of clinically important outcomes.</p><p><strong>Data Sources:</strong> A literature search was performed using the search terms “prostatic hyperplasia”, “prostatic hypertrophy”, “dutasteride”, “finasteride”, “quality of life”, “adverse drug reaction”, and “mortality”. The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases were searched from inception to December 2015.</p><p><strong>Study Selection and Data Extraction:</strong> Randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized trials, and systematic reviews comparing finasteride with dutasteride, either as monotherapy or in combination with a-blockers, for treatment of men with BPH were included. The outcomes of interest included need for prostate-related surgery, episodes of acute urinary retention, withdrawals due to adverse events, number of patients experiencing serious adverse events, mortality, and sexual dysfunction.</p><p><strong>Data Synthesis:</strong> Four studies involving a total of 1879 patients were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in any of the clinically important outcomes examined: for prostate-related surgery, odds ratio (OR) 2.01 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18–22.24); for episodes of acute urinary retention, OR 1.47 (95% CI 0.68–3.19); for number of withdrawals due to adverse events, OR 1.10 (95% CI 0.68–1.75); for total number of patients experiencing adverse events, OR 0.94 (95% CI 0.78–1.14); for number of patients experiencing serious adverse events, OR 1.31 (95% CI 0.87–1.97); and for sexual dysfunction, OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.64–1.08).</p><p><strong>Conclusion:</strong> There is insufficient evidence to suggest that either finasteride or dutasteride offers an advantage in efficacy or safety over the other, in terms of clinically important outcomes.</p><p><strong>RÉSUMÉ</strong></p><p><strong>Contexte :</strong> Le finastéride et le dutastéride sont des inhibiteurs compétitifs de l’enzyme 5 alpha-réductase. Ils sont fréquemment employés comme traitement symptomatique de l’hyperplasie bénigne de la prostate (HBP).</p><p><strong>Objectif :</strong> Comparer l’efficacité et l’innocuité du finastéride et du dutastéride en ce qui concerne les résultats thérapeutiques cliniquement importants.</p><p><strong>Sources des données :</strong> Une recherche documentaire a été effectuée à l’aide des termes « hyperplasie de la prostate », « hypertrophie de la prostate », « dutastéride », « finastéride », « qualité de vie », « réaction indésirable aux médicaments » et « mortalité ». Les bases de données Embase, PubMed, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature et Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature ainsi que le Registre central Cochrane des essais comparatifs ont été interrogées pour la période allant de leur création à décembre 2015.</p><p><strong>Sélection des études et extraction des données :</strong> Les essais comparatifs à répartition aléatoire, les essais quasi-aléatoires et les analyses systématiques qui comparent le finastéride et le dutastéride, en monothérapie ou en association avec des a-bloquants, pour le traitement de la HBP chez l’homme, ont été retenus. Parmi les résultats d’intérêt, on comptait : la nécessité de recourir à une chirurgie de la prostate, les épisodes de rétention urinaire aiguë, les retraits de l’étude pour cause d’événements indésirables, le nombre total de patients ayant subi des événements indésirables graves, la mortalité et le dysfonctionnement sexuel.</p><p><strong>Synthèse des données :</strong> Quatre études comptant au total 1879 patients ont été retenues pour l’analyse. Aucune différence significative n’a été relevée en ce qui touche les résultats thérapeutiques cliniquement importants : la nécessité de recourir à une chirurgie de la prostate (risque relatif approché [RRA] de 2,01, intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % de 0,18 à 22,24), les épisodes de rétention urinaire aiguë (RRA de 1,47, IC à 95 % de 0,68 à 3,19), le nombre de retraits de l’étude pour cause d’événements indésirables (RRA de 1,10, IC à 95 % de 0,68 à 1,75), le nombre total de patients ayant subi des événements indésirables (RRA de 0,94, IC à 95 % de 0,78 à 1,14); le nombre de patients ayant subi des événements indésirables graves (RRA de 1,31, IC à 95 % de 0,87 à 1,97) et le dysfonctionnement sexuel (RRA de 0,83, IC à 95 % de 0,64 à 1,08).</p><p><strong>Conclusion :</strong> Il n’y a pas suffisamment de données probantes pour croire que le finastéride ou le dutastéride offrent, l’un par rapport à l’autre, un avantage quant à l’efficacité ou à l’innocuité, en ce qui concerne les résultats thérapeutiques cliniquement importants.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.910

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.249
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207