Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

Are 5 AR inhibitors safe?


#1

J Urol. 2008 Jun;179(6):2333-8. Epub 2008 Apr 18

The effect of 5alpha-reductase inhibition with dutasteride and finasteride on bone mineral density, serum lipoproteins, hemoglobin, prostate specific antigen and sexual function in healthy young men

PURPOSE:
Dutasteride and finasteride are 5alpha-reductase inhibitors that dramatically decrease serum levels of dihydrotestosterone. Because androgens affect bone, lipids, hematopoiesis, prostate and sexual function, we determined the impact of 5alpha-reductase inhibitors on these end points.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:
We conducted a randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled trial of 99 men 18 to 55 years old randomly assigned to receive 0.5 mg dutasteride (33), 5 mg finasteride (34) or placebo (32) daily for 1 year. Bone mineral density was measured at baseline, after 1 year of treatment and 6 months after drug discontinuation.
In addition, markers of bone turnover, fasting serum lipoprotein concentrations, hemoglobin and prostate specific antigen were measured at baseline, after 26 and 52 weeks of treatment, and again 24 weeks after drug discontinuation. Sexual function was assessed at these points by a validated questionnaire.

RESULTS:
Significant suppression of circulating dihydrotestosterone levels with the administration of dutasteride or finasteride did not significantly affect bone mineral density or markers of bone metabolism. Similarly serum lipoproteins and hemoglobin were unaffected. Serum prostate specific antigen and self-assessed sexual function decreased slightly during treatment with both 5alpha-reductase inhibitors but returned to baseline during followup.

CONCLUSIONS: Profound suppression of circulating serum dihydrotestosterone induced by 5alpha-reductase inhibitors during 1 year does not adversely impact bone, serum lipoproteins or hemoglobin, and has a minimal, reversible effect on serum prostate specific antigen and sexual function in normal men. Circulating dihydrotestosterone does not appear to have a clinically significant role in modulating bone mass, hematopoiesis or lipid metabolism in normal men.


#2

OK, so I must be an abnormal man. Which is not completely untrue due to the impairment of my sexual function from these drugs.


#3

Fin doesn’t impair sexual function in any more than 2% users just like cigarette smoke doesn’t cause cancer.


#4

» Fin doesn’t impair sexual function in any more than 2% users just like
» cigarette smoke doesn’t cause cancer.

Yeah, and Iraq’s got WMD.


#5

» » Fin doesn’t impair sexual function in any more than 2% users just like
» » cigarette smoke doesn’t cause cancer.
»
» Yeah, and Iraq’s got WMD.

Didnt you catch the last part of his post…just like cigarrette smoke doesnt cause cancer


#6

t’was not that obvious. Many people argue that cigarette smoke can cause lung cancer. They always pick particular examples of their own (“my Grandfather smoked 2packs a day and died at 96”…)


#7

Whatever.

I just mean to say that the 1-2% figure is crazy.

(And the tobacco industry’s insistence that cigarette smoke doesn’t really cause cancer is crazy too.)


#8

» t’was not that obvious. Many people argue that cigarette smoke can cause
» lung cancer. They always pick particular examples of their own (“my
» Grandfather smoked 2packs a day and died at 96”…)

there are exceptions to every rule but cigarrette smoking does cause cancer , smokers are 500 percent more likely to get lung cancer than non smokers


#9

» Whatever.
»
»
» I just mean to say that the 1-2% figure is crazy.
»
» (And the tobacco industry’s insistence that cigarette smoke doesn’t really
» cause cancer is crazy too.)

wat do you think the accurate figure is for libido problems with Fin or Prop


#10

Honestly I don’t know.

It seems clear that the sexual handicap is not some fluke thing. I think the DHT#2 is necessary for sexual function in everyone, at least to some small extent. So we’re just looking at a wide disparity in the degree of the problem from user-to-user.

My seat-of-the-pants gut feeling says that probably half the users of Fin or Dut ultimately get at least SOMETHING to complain about if they stay on the stuff for years.

It’s not P.C. to quote a number as large as 50%, but just look at the situation.

If I go to any MPB message board, and post up a vague one-sentence question asking for advice about managing my Finasteride dosage, there won’t even be a discussion about what the problem is. People won’t ask if I’m having problems affording it. People won’t ask if I’m getting more benefit from it than I need. People won’t ask if I want to quit it for natural/dietary reasons. It will be a 100% FOREGONE CONCLUSION that the “problem” I’m referring to is sexual sides.

It’s insane to act like the sexual sides are a single-digit percentage. Maybe it’s 15% or maybe it’s 50% . . . but either way I’m convinced that it’s greater than Merck’s figures by at least an entire decimal point.


#11

» Honestly I don’t know.
»
» It seems clear that the sexual handicap is not some fluke thing. I think
» the DHT#2 is necessary for sexual function in everyone, at least to some
» small extent. So we’re just looking at a wide disparity in the degree of
» the problem from user-to-user.
»
»
» My seat-of-the-pants gut feeling says that probably half the users of Fin
» or Dut ultimately get at least SOMETHING to complain about if they stay on
» the stuff for years.
»
»
»
»
»
» It’s not P.C. to quote a number as large as 50%, but just look at the
» situation.
»
» If I go to any MPB message board, and post up a vague one-sentence
» question asking for advice about managing my Finasteride dosage, there
» won’t even be a discussion about what the problem is. People won’t ask if
» I’m having problems affording it. People won’t ask if I’m getting more
» benefit from it than I need. People won’t ask if I want to quit it for
» natural/dietary reasons. It will be a 100% FOREGONE CONCLUSION that
» the “problem” I’m referring to is sexual sides.
»
» It’s insane to act like the sexual sides are a single-digit percentage.
» Maybe it’s 15% or maybe it’s 50% . . . but either way I’m convinced that
» it’s greater than Merck’s figures by at least an entire decimal point.

whateve the figure is, I am convinced that this problem is almost non existent for natural users including myself