Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract Context Glucocorticoids (GCs) are commonly prescribed, but their use is associated with adverse metabolic effects. 5α-reductase inhibitors (5α-RI) are also frequently prescribed, mainly to inhibit testosterone conversion to dihydrotestosterone. However, they also prevent the inactivation of GCs. Objective We hypothesized that 5α-RI may worsen the adverse effects of GCs. Design Prospective, randomized study. Patients A total of 19 healthy male volunteers (age 45 ± 2 years; body mass index 27.1 ± 0.7kg/m2). Interventions Participants underwent metabolic assessments; 2-step hyperinsulinemic, euglycemic clamp incorporating stable isotopes, adipose tissue microdialysis, and biopsy. Participants were then randomized to either prednisolone (10 mg daily) or prednisolone (10 mg daily) plus a 5α-RI (finasteride 5 mg daily or dutasteride 0.5 mg daily) for 7 days; metabolic assessments were then repeated. Main Outcome Measures Ra glucose, glucose utilization (M-value), glucose oxidation, and nonesterified fatty acids (NEFA) levels. Results Co-administration of prednisolone with a 5α-RI increased circulating prednisolone levels (482 ± 96 vs 761 ± 57 nmol/L, P = 0.029). Prednisolone alone did not alter Ra glucose (2.55 ± 0.34 vs 2.62 ± 0.19 mg/kg/minute, P = 0.86), M-value (3.2 ± 0.5 vs 2.7 ± 0.7 mg/kg/minute, P = 0.37), or glucose oxidation (0.042 ± 0.007 vs 0.040 ± 0.004 mmol/hr/kg/minute, P = 0.79). However, co-administration with a 5α-RI increased Ra glucose (2.67 ± 0.16 vs 3.05 ± 0.18 mg/kg/minute, P < 0.05) and decreased M-value (4.0 ± 0.5 vs 2.6 ± 0.4 mg/kg/minute, P < 0.05), and oxidation (0.043 ± 0.003 vs 0.036 ± 0.002 mmol/hr/kg, P < 0.01). Similarly, prednisolone did not impair insulin-mediated suppression of circulating NEFA (43.1 ± 28.9 vs 36.8 ± 14.3 μmol/L, P = 0.81), unless co-administered with a 5α-RI (49.8 ± 8.6 vs 88.5 ± 13.5 μmol/L, P < 0.01). Conclusions We have demonstrated that 5α-RIs exacerbate the adverse effects of prednisolone. This study has significant translational implications, including the need to consider GC dose adjustments, but also the necessity for increased vigilance for the development of adverse effects.

Current FDA-approved treatments for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) are oral finasteride and topical minoxidil. Topical finasteride offers a potential alternative with similar efficacy and fewer systemic side effects. This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of combining topical finasteride and minoxidil for male AGA. This 12-week randomized controlled trial divided subjects into two groups which are topical finasteride 0.1%-minoxidil 5% (treatment) and topical minoxidil 5% (control) (NCT05990400, registered 2023-08-04). Hair density, hair diameter, terminal hair rate, and vellus hair rate (assessed using phototrichogram), and the occurrence of side effects (SE) was monitored at four-week intervals. Out of 40 subjects, 2 dropped out in the treatment group. Significant increases in hair density, diameter, and terminal hair rate; and decrease of vellus hair rate were observed at each visit compared to baseline, yet no differences between groups. Systemic SEs included libido reduction (control), mild erectile dysfunction, and chest pain (treatment). Common local SEs (itching, shedding, and dandruff) were similar between groups. One patient (treatment) experienced contact dermatitis. Combining topical finasteride 0.1% with topical minoxidil 5% has similar safety and effectiveness for increasing hair density and diameter in male AGA patients compared to topical minoxidil 5% after 12 weeks of observation.

In this long-term trial, the combination of an alpha-blocker (doxazosin) and a 5α-reductase inhibitor (finasteride) was superior to either drug alone in retarding the clinical progression of benign prostatic hyperplasia. This long-term trial may change the management of prostate disease. Benign prostatic hyperplasia is the main cause of lower urinary tract symptoms in older men. 1 These symptoms may adversely affect the quality of life and interfere with activities of daily living. 2 – 4 Less commonly, benign prostatic hyperplasia causes acute urinary retention, a need for surgery, urinary incontinence, recurrent urinary tract infection, or obstructive uropathy. 4 , 5 The preferred medical treatment for many men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia is either an alpha-adrenergic–receptor antagonist (alpha-blocker), which reduces smooth-muscle tone in the prostate and bladder neck, or a 5α-reductase inhibitor, which reduces prostate volume by inducing epithelial atrophy. 6 – 9 Short-to-moderate-term clinical trials have . . .

This randomized trial tested the idea that finasteride, which inhibits the production of androgens within the prostate, can prevent prostate cancer. The participants were to receive finasteride or a placebo daily for seven years. Prostate cancer was found in 18.4 percent of the men in the finasteride group and in 24.4 percent of those in the placebo group. Higher-grade cancers (Gleason score, 7, 8, 9, or 10) were more common in the finasteride group than in the placebo group. Sexual dysfunction was more common in the finasteride group, and urinary difficulties were more common in the placebo group. A test of the idea that finasteride can prevent prostate cancer. To date, the management of prostate cancer, the most common nondermatologic neoplasm in men in the United States, has focused on early diagnosis and treatment. Given that the development of prostate cancer is a long-term process involving multiple steps, however, prevention may be a more effective approach. There is abundant evidence that androgens influence the development of prostate cancer. 1 – 3 The development of finasteride, an inhibitor of steroid 5α-reductase, the enzyme that converts testosterone to the more potent androgen dihydrotestosterone, created an opportunity to test the possibility that lowering the androgen levels in the prostate would reduce the risk of . . .

Background: Finasteride and dutasteride are inhibitors of the enzyme 5-alpha-reductase which inhibits the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone. Dutasteride inhibits both type I and type II 5-alpha-reductase while finasteride inhibits only the type II enzyme. As both isoenzymes are present in hair follicles, it is likely that dutasteride is more effective than finasteride. Aims: To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of dutasteride and finasteride in men with androgenetic alopecia. Methods: Men with androgenetic alopecia between 18 and 40 years of age were randomized to receive 0.5 mg dutasteride or 1 mg finasteride daily for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy variables were hair counts (thick and thin) in the target area from modified phototrichograms and global photography evaluation by blinded and non-blinded investigators. The secondary efficacy variable was subjective assessment using a preset questionnaire. Patients were assessed monthly for side effects. Results: Ninety men with androgenetic alopecia were recruited. The increase in total hair count per cm[2] representing new growth was significantly higher in dutasteride group (baseline- 223 hair; at 24 weeks- 246 hair) compared to finasteride group (baseline- 227 hair; at 24 weeks- 231 hair). The decrease in thin hair count per cm[2] suggestive of reversal of miniaturization was significantly higher in dutasteride group (baseline- 65 hair; at 24 weeks- 57 hair) compared to finasteride group (baseline- 67 hair; at 24 weeks- 66 hair). Both the groups showed a similar side effect profile with sexual dysfunction being the most common and reversible side effect. Limitations: Limitations include the short duration of the study (6 months), the small sample size and the fact that it was an open-label study. Conclusions: Dutasteride was shown to be more efficacious than finasteride and the side-effect profiles were comparable.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in older men can cause lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), which are increasingly managed with medications. Frailty may contribute to both symptom progression and serious adverse events (SAEs), shifting the balance of benefits and harms of drug therapy. To assess the association between a deficit accumulation frailty index and clinical BPH progression or SAE. This cohort study used data from the Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms trial, which compared placebo, doxazosin, finasteride, and combination therapy in men with moderate-to-severe LUTS, reduced urinary flow rate, and no prior BPH interventions, hypotension, or elevated prostate-specific antigen. Enrollment was from 1995 to 1998, and follow-up was through 2001. Data were assessed in February 2021. A frailty index (score range, 0-1) using 68 potential deficits collected at baseline was used to categorized men as robust (score ≤0.1), prefrail (score 0.1 to <0.25), or frail (score ≥0.25). Primary outcomes were time to clinical BPH progression and time to SAE, as defined in the parent trial. Adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regressions adjusted for demographic variables, treatment group, measures of obstruction, and comorbidities. Among 3047 men (mean [SD] age, 62.6 [7.3] years; range, 50-89 years) in this analysis, 745 (24%) were robust, 1824 (60%) were prefrail, and 478 (16%) were frail at baseline. Compared with robust men, frail men were older (age ≥75 years, 12 men [2%] vs 62 men [13%]), less likely to be White (646 men [87%] vs 344 men [72%]), less likely to be married (599 men [80%] vs 342 men [72%]), and less likely to have 16 years or more of education (471 men [63%] vs 150 men [31%]). During mean (SD) follow-up of 4.0 (1.5) years, the incidence rate of clinical BPH progression was 2.2 events per 100 person-years among robust men, 2.9 events per 100 person-years among prefrail men (AHR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02-1.83), and 4.0 events per 100 person-years among frail men (AHR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.24-2.67; linear P = .005). Larger point estimates were seen among men who received doxazosin or combination therapy, although the test for interaction between frailty index and treatment group did not reach statistical significance (P for interaction = .06). Risk of SAE was higher among prefrail and frail men (prefrail vs robust AHR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.48-2.23; frail vs robust AHR, 2.86; 95% CI, 2.21-3.69; linear P < .001); this association was similar across treatment groups (P for interaction = .76). These findings suggest that frailty is independently associated with greater risk of both clinical BPH progression and SAEs. Older frail men with BPH considering initiation of drug therapy should be counseled regarding their higher risk of progression despite combination therapy and their likelihood of experiencing SAEs regardless of treatment choice.

The effects on scalp and serum dihydrotestosterone (DHT) of different doses of a novel topical solution of 0.25% finasteride (P-3074), a type 2 5α-reductase, were investigated in men with androgenetic alopecia. Two randomized, parallel-group studies were conducted. Study I: 18 men received 1 mL (2.275 mg) P-3074, applied to the scalp once a day (o.d.) or twice a day (b.i.d), or 1 mg oral tablet o.d. for 1 week. Study II: 32 men received P-3074 at the dose of 100 (0.2275 mg), 200 (0.455 mg), 300 (0.6285 mg), or 400 (0.91 mg) μL or the vehicle o.d. for 1 week. Scalp and serum DHT and serum testosterone were evaluated at baseline and treatment end. Change from baseline in scalp DHT was -70% for P-3074 o.d. and approx. -50% for P-3074 b.i.d. and the tablet. Serum DHT decreased by 60 - 70%. The doses of 100 and 200 μL P-3074 resulted in a -47/-52% scalp DHT reduction, similar to the 300 and 400 μL doses (i.e., -37/-54%). A -5.6% inhibition was observed for the vehicle. Serum DHT was reduced by only -24/-26% with 100 and 200 μL P-3074 and by -44/-48% with 300 and 400 μL P-3074. No relevant changes occurred for serum testosterone. The novel finasteride 0.25% solution applied o.d. at the doses of 100 and 200 μL results in an appropriate inhibition of scalp DHT potentially minimizing the untoward sexual side-effects linked to a systemic DHT reduction.

Objective Treatment of frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is complicated and challenging. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of combining topical tacrolimus with isotretinoin versus finasteride in patients with FFA. Methodology Thirty‐one patients with FFA were divided randomly into two groups. Therapeutic regimen of the first group (group A, n = 16) was isotretinoin and tacrolimus (Capsule isotretinoin 20 mg daily and topical tacrolimus 0.1% BD). The second group (group B, n = 15) was given finasteride and tacrolimus (Tablet finasteride 2.5 mg daily and topical tacrolimus 0.1% BD). Patients were treated and followed up periodically for 12 weeks. Evaluation of the treatment efficacy was based on Patient Global Assessment and Physician Global Assessment scales. Objective evaluation was based on improving the severity of skin lesions by viewing serial images taken from the affected areas. Results Physician Global Assessment (PGA) was significantly better in the group A as compared with the group B at 4 weeks (p = 0.038). Physician satisfaction in the group A was better than the group B at 12 weeks, but this was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Patient Global Assessment and patient satisfaction in the group A was better than the group B at 8 and 12 weeks, but it was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Conclusion Although both therapeutic regimens were effective in the treatment of FFA, treatment with tacrolimus and isotretinoin is significantly more effective than tacrolimus and finasteride.

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether there was clinically significant pharmacokinetic (PK) interaction between finasteride and tamsulosin in healthy Chinese male subjects. This was an open-label, randomized, 3-period, crossover study. Subjects received single and multiple doses of 5 mg finasteride alone, single and multiple doses of 0.2 mg tamsulosin hydrochloride sustained-release capsule alone, and single and multiple doses of 5 mg finasteride with 0.2 mg tamsulosin hydrochloride, in an order determined by a computerized randomization schedule. Blood samples were collected up to 48 hours after dosing on study day 1 and up to 24 hours after dosing on study day 9 for determination of plasma concentrations with a validated LC-MS/MS method. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated via noncompartmental methods. Tolerability was evaluated by monitoring adverse events, laboratory assays, vital signs, and 12-lead ECG. Fifteen subjects were enrolled, and 14 completed the study. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) (90% CIs) of AUCτ,ss and Cmax,ss values of finasteride at steady state between coadministration of finasteride and tamsulosin hydrochloride and finasteride alone were 1.14 (1.05–1.23) and 1.06 (0.99–1.14), respectively. The GMRs (90% CIs) for AUC0–t and Cmax values of finasteride for a single dose of coadministration of finasteride and tamsulosin hydrochloride and finasteride alone were 1.02 (0.94–1.11) and 1.06 (1.01–1.11), respectively. The GMRs (90% CIs) for AUCτ,ss and Cmax,ss values of tamsulosin at steady-state for coadministration of finasteride and tamsulosin hydrochloride and tamsulosin hydrochloride alone were 1.18 (1.05–1.33) and 1.23 (1.06–1.43), respectively. The GMRs (90% CIs) for AUC0–t and Cmax values of tamsulosin for a single dose of coadministration of finasteride and tamsulosin hydrochloride and tamsulosin hydrochloride alone were 1.04 (0.97–1.10) and 1.04 (0.98–1.11), respectively. Statistical analyses confirmed that the 90% CIs for these PK parameters were within the predefined not clinically significant PK drug-drug interaction effect boundaries (0.5–2.0) in this study. If comparing the findings with narrower boundaries (0.8–1.25), the conclusion may not be supportive for tamsulosin hydrochloride. During the study, a total of 4 adverse events were reported in 3 subjects including allergic reaction, abnormal findings on an ECG, a slight increase in alanine aminotransferase, and a positive result on glucose urine test. Both finasteride and tamsulosin hydrochloride were well tolerated. Coadministration of finasteride and tamulosin hydrochloride seems unlikely to lead to a clinically significant PK drug-drug interaction, after a single dose and at steady state.

GABA(A) receptors are involved in the subjective effects of alcohol. Endogenous neuroactive steroids interact with GABA(A) receptors to mediate several behavioral effects of alcohol in rodents. Based on a haplotypic association of alcohol dependence with the gene encoding the GABA(A) receptor alpha-2 subunit (GABRA2), we examined whether GABRA2 alleles are associated with the subjective response to alcohol. We also examined whether finasteride (a 5-alpha steroid reductase inhibitor), which blocks the synthesis of some neuroactive steroids, reduces the subjective response to alcohol. In all, 27 healthy social drinkers (15 males) completed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of high-dose finasteride. After being pretreated with study drug, subjects consumed three alcoholic drinks. Subjective effects were measured repeatedly over the ascending blood alcohol curve. To examine the moderating role of genetic variation in GABRA2, a single-nucleotide polymorphism that was informative in association studies was included as a factor in the analysis. Subjects homozygous for the more common A-allele (n=7) showed more subjective effects of alcohol than did individuals with one or two copies of the alcohol dependence-associated G-allele (n=20, including two homozygotes). Among the A-allele homozygotes, there was a greater reduction in several subjective effects during the finasteride session compared to the placebo session. These findings provide preliminary evidence that the risk of alcoholism associated with GABRA2 alleles may be related to differences in the subjective response to alcohol. The effects of finasteride provide indirect evidence for a mediating role of neuroactive steroids in some of the subjective effects of alcohol.