39 replies to this topic

[samiamm]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/19741313/

Here's the creatine study being referenced, pretty clear what the results were, I will upload full text if needed for others

[nowayout]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/19741313/

Here's the creatine study being referenced, pretty clear what the results were, I will upload full text if needed for others

 

This study was discussed at length in another thread here a couple of years ago. 

[nowayout]

The drug company's own product literature at http://www.rxlist.co...teractions.htm cites the PLESS study and the MTOPS study.  In both of these studies, incidence of sexual side effects compared to placebo was much larger than the 2% someone claimed above. 

 

For example, MTOPS found abnormal ejaculation to be 5% higher than placebo, and impotence 6% higher than placebo.   

 

Here are the results of a number of other placebo-controlled studies, discussed at http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC4064044/

 

 

 

 

Nickel et al. [42], evaluated the efficacy and safety of 2 years treatment of moderate BPH with finasteride. In the safety analysis, the incidence of adverse events related to sexual dysfunction were significantly higher in the finasteride group than in the placebo group (ejaculation disorder, 7.7% vs. 1.7%; erectile dysfunction (ED), 15.8% vs. 6.3%, respectively; p<0.01 or p=0.01 for both parameters). Tenover et al. [43] also showed that the overall sexual adverse events were greater with finasteride (12.3%) compared with placebo (6%). Finasteride increased the incidence of ED by 7.4% compared to 3.3% in the placebo arm. Similarly, finasteride resulted in loss of libido (4.9%) compared to 2.9% in the placebo arm. In a follow-up to the phase III North American Study, Hudson et al. [44] reported that all patients who completed a 12-month period with 5-mg finasteride were invited for an open-label extension of 4 years. The open-label results showed that ejaculation disorder for years 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively, were 3.2%, 2.2%, 1.9%, 2.7%, respectively; ED 10.4%, 6.7%, 7.3%, 9.6%, respectively, and decreased libido was 4.8%, 2.7%, 3.9%, 3.7%, respectively. The AUA BPH guideline committee meta-analysis, reported that sexual adverse events due to finasteride and placebo were as follows: libido, 5%, 3%; erectile problems, 8%, 4%; and ejaculation, 4%, 1%, respectively. The PLESS trial [45] enrolled 3,040 men with BPH. Overall maintenance of erection diminished in both groups, but was greater in the finasteride treatment group. In an observational cohort of 14,772 men taking finasteride, ED was the most common adverse event leading to withdrawal from the trial [46]. The AUA clinical practice guideline reported erectile problems in 8% and 4% of patients taking finasteride and placebo, respectively [47].

Edwards and Moore [48] reviewed several clinical trials, three of these trials contained active controls, and 19 trials with placebo groups and reported significantly more men with sexual dysfunction (14%) with finasteride than with placebo at 12 months of treatment (Reduced libido, 5%; ED, 8%; ejaculation disorder, 2%). Incidence rates of sexual dysfunction ranged between 2%-14% with finasteride and 0.6%-7% with placebo.

 

FInasteride may increase risk of aggressive prostate cancer:  This unexpectedly negative result led to strong and overwhelming disapproval of these drugs for chemoprevention of prostate cancer by the panel of scientists and medical experts: http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC4141537/

 

In the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT), finasteride significantly reduced the risk of prostate cancer but was associated with an increased risk of high-grade disease.

 

 

Long term Finasteride treatment causes structural and functional damage to penile erectile tissues (corpus cavernosum) in animal models:
 

The in vivo erectile response to electrical stimulation of the cavernous nerve had decreased significantly in the 5ARI-treatment group (P <.001). Masson's staining, immunohistochemistry, and Western blot all demonstrated decreased smooth muscle and increased collagen deposition and decreased endothelial nitric oxide synthase and LC3-II protein expression in the corpus cavernosum of the 5ARI-treatment group. Using transmission electron microscopy and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate nick end labeling, decreased autophagy, aggravated ultrastructural injury of mitochondria, and increased apoptosis were observed in the cavernous smooth muscle cells from the rats in the 5ARI-treatment group.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC4064044/

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....4044/figure/F3/

Edited by nowayout, 30 March 2015 - 06:29 PM.

[Heyman]

This went through the FDA and was found plausible enough by experts on the relevant committees to merit a required warning on the pamphlet.  The FDA doesn't just do this for every hypochondria people may pull out of their ass - in fact the FDA is known to err on the side of drug companies, if anything.  So I am not going not have the discussion with you.

 

You didn't read the FDA's own position, did you? I posted a link to their own website showing they admit their 'evidence' is based on a small sample anecdotal evidence.

 

 

The drug company's own product literature at http://www.rxlist.co...teractions.htm cites the PLESS study and the MTOPS study.  In both of these studies, incidence of sexual side effects compared to placebo was much larger than the 2% someone claimed above. 

 

For example, MTOPS found abnormal ejaculation to be 5% higher than placebo, and impotence 6% higher than placebo.   

 

Here are the results of a number of other placebo-controlled studies, discussed at http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC4064044/

 

 

 

Did you actually for once look at what you post in a neutral light? First you cite the PLESS study. A study showing that after the second year, except for decreased ejaculation in 1%, there was 0 difference in any sexual parameters, libido, ED etc. There were ONLY differences in the first year, and these were small. The MTOPS study showed sides that are higher than 2%. So what? 4% or 6% is still low. You claimed that sexual sides affect "a high percentage" of men. Not even 6% is high. This means 94% of men are not affected. And if you look at the table of studies you quoted below, you will see that studies are quite heterogenous and most studies show differences <6%. If you were neutral, you would not quote the highest number you can find out of all the studies you could scramble together. You would quote an average. And I'm not even talking about the highest quality and largest trial which you did not quote.

 

 

In the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT), finasteride significantly reduced the risk of prostate cancer but was associated with an increased risk of high-grade disease.

 

 

Adding to that: Survival between groups was the same

 

 

Long term Finasteride treatment causes structural and functional damage to penile erectile tissues (corpus cavernosum) in animal models:
 

The in vivo erectile response to electrical stimulation of the cavernous nerve had decreased significantly in the 5ARI-treatment group (P <.001). Masson's staining, immunohistochemistry, and Western blot all demonstrated decreased smooth muscle and increased collagen deposition and decreased endothelial nitric oxide synthase and LC3-II protein expression in the corpus cavernosum of the 5ARI-treatment group. Using transmission electron microscopy and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate nick end labeling, decreased autophagy, aggravated ultrastructural injury of mitochondria, and increased apoptosis were observed in the cavernous smooth muscle cells from the rats in the 5ARI-treatment group.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC4064044/

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....4044/figure/F3/

 

You are talking about animal models. These can't be compared. The prostate of some rodents shrinks by 90% or so, certainly finasteride works differently in certain animals. You are talking out of your ass again as soon as you try to scramble for something you can apply to humans. What do you care about? Rats or humans? If you care and want to know about the effects in humans, look on research in humans. It exists. http://www.jurology....1625-4/abstract Tests were done on people claiming they had the PFS. And guess what? They had perfectly fine penises, no evidence at all of any tissue damage. (more info here) The same goes for the neurosteroid issue. There is some evidence that some neurosteroids change, and a hypothesis of what might happen due to that. And then there is evidence in humans with >18k people showing that what happens is absolutely nothing.

 

You claim sexual side-effects affect a high percentage of men. You quote research showing it is not a high percentage at all. How does that help your point? You use some animal research to make your point, because human research has invalidated these points. Or because you are not aware of the human research on the topic.

Edited by Heyman, 31 March 2015 - 05:56 AM.

[Adamzski]

I used proscar at up to 5mg for over 10yrs. Less morning wood well pretty much non existent morning wood. Wateryish semen, slightly reduced libido, some ball ache when overdoing it, erections still there but down a few notches.

I know that everyone is different but there really are some chronic victims who if it was not finastriside it would be some other outlet that their ocd or mental issues manifest.

I really do not think that 10-15 years of using this stuff is that harmful. People can try it and if it does not agree with them they can just stop it. It kept my hair from my early to mid 20s a very important time to have some hair.. who knows I may have developed chronic depression if not for finastriside and jumped off a building or some shite.

There is no way that i believe these people who say they took it for 3 months and it ruined their life.

[nowayout]

I used proscar at up to 5mg for over 10yrs. Less morning wood well pretty much non existent morning wood. Wateryish semen, slightly reduced libido, some ball ache when overdoing it, erections still there but down a few notches.

 

Well, that sounds quite depressing in and of itself. 

 

Also, since nocturnal erections are important in maintaining the long term health of erectile tissues, losing them may spell trouble for sexual health later in life. 

[nowayout]

 

 

The drug company's own product literature at http://www.rxlist.co...teractions.htm cites the PLESS study and the MTOPS study.  In both of these studies, incidence of sexual side effects compared to placebo was much larger than the 2% someone claimed above. 

 

For example, MTOPS found abnormal ejaculation to be 5% higher than placebo, and impotence 6% higher than placebo.   

 

Here are the results of a number of other placebo-controlled studies, discussed at http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC4064044/

 

 

 

Did you actually for once look at what you post in a neutral light? First you cite the PLESS study. A study showing that after the second year, except for decreased ejaculation in 1%, there was 0 difference in any sexual parameters, libido, ED etc.

 

As far as I recall, it was no NEW side effects after one year.  That doesn't mean the initial side effects necessarily abated.  The product literature says for the one study

 

NEW reports of drug-related side effects decreased with duration of therapy. 

 

...in other words, for this particular study they are tailoring the question to make it look as if sides decreased unless you read it carefully, which is, in my opinion a very biased (i.e., crooked) way of stating the result on the part of the drug company. 

 

But even in cases where they abate, even a couple of months of sexual side effects can be quite devastating in certain situations.   (Failed dates, devastating breakups, etc., etc.)

 

By the way, you do know any side effects affecting more than 1% are considered "common side effects" in the pharmacological literature?   6% well exceeds that.  You can call it low.  I call it high.

 

That means I disagree with you regarding the seriousness of the same numbers, which are not my numbers pulled out of my ass.  It is a disagreement, and I am posting the numbers and studies for people to make up their own minds, so please stop acting as if I am lying.  We generally try to have a civil discourse here, and you are bringing down the tone and poisoning the well for the rest of us.  The parts that are my opinion are clearly labeled as such, and animal studies are clearly labeled as well, and you can certainly disagree with it, but insults are not necessary. 

 

The studies you criticize me most for singling out most were the ones cited in the drug company's actual product literature, which is why I singled them out in the first place. 

Edited by nowayout, 06 April 2015 - 02:00 PM.

[Heyman]

By the way, you do know any side effects affecting more than 1% are considered "common side effects" in the pharmacological literature?   6% well exceeds that.  You can call it low.  I call it high.

 

To me it sounds different to claim 'a high percentage of users' is affected or '2-6%' is affected by something. But fine, I will just use the number from now on. Everyone can make up his mind if they think that number is high or not.

 

I'm not sure about new vs old reports. Maybe they asked them once per year and any report was mentioned as a new report, as otherwise if you would continue counting the previous reports the number could not ever drop below the initial number. It would at least mean that people who are fine in the first year don't have to worry about suddenly getting sides later on. As other research has suggested many people who develop sides and continue to take fin improve anyway I'm really not sure.

 

Sorry if the tone got a bit harsh.

[kurdishfella]

IDK why or how but reducing blood flow to areas has deceased hair loss. More blood flow overall lead to hair loss for me.

[TheFountain]

A mixture of Rosemary oil and pumpkin seed oil for prevention.