Treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia with drugs may be risky a new article says


Many men over the age of 50 will have benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and the risk of having this chronic disease increases as men get older. Thus, up to 90 percent of men older than 80 have an enlarged prostate. However, prostate enlargement or BPH is a non-cancerous condition, so men should use safe therapy for its treatment.

Therefore, researches investigating the side effects of common BPH drugs. The article “Use of 5α-reductase inhibitors for benign prostate hypertrophy and risk of high-grade prostate cancer” was investigated 963 patients with BPH who received 5α-reductase inhibitors (5-ARI). The results indicated an increased risk of high grade and a decreased risk of low-grade prostate cancer associated with 5-ARI use.

Therefore, the conclusion of this article was that patients treated with 5α-reductase inhibitors should be informed about the increased risk of development of high-grade prostate cancer. This fact should be taken seriously as 5α-reductase inhibitors for BPH, such as finasteride (Proscar), dutasteride (Avodart), are prescribed as separate drug therapy or as a combination therapy with alpha-blockers.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia cause and possible therapy

The cause of prostate enlargement is hidden inside the prostate gland. There is a theory that in aging men the testosterone level decrease causes the prostate gland growth. Low testosterone level as a cause of BPH in the blood is questionable, as castrated boys do not develop BPH as they grow older.

BPH is caused by the pathological activity of blood vessels inside the prostate gland that develops the constant irritating focus of hypothermia. Therefore, the only way to treat this problem is to improve blood circulation inside the prostate by eliminating hypothermia that stops prostate enlargement. Dr. Allen’s device by enabling Thermobalancing therapy spreads natural energy to the prostate improving blood circulation in it. Thus, the therapy treats the cause of BPH.

Dr. Allen’s Device is efficient and safe for anyone to use

In accordance with FDA Dr. Allen’s Device is a Class I (general controls) medical device. The device is registered with Medical-Healthcare Agency from 2010. Therefore, it does not require the involvement of a notified body. This means that every man with chronic pelvic pain syndrome can use it day and night without worrying since is safe. Thermobalancing therapy with Dr. Allen’s Device was patented by the USPTO.

Fine Treatment is a healthcare company, a manufacturer and distributor of wearable therapeutic Dr. Allen’s Devices. Fine Treatment is a UK Department for International Trade (DIT) registered supplier to international buyers. The price of the device with guaranteed delivery is less than $200 worldwide.

The device for prostate treatment has been successfully used by thousands of men with chronic prostatitis and BPH in over 100 countries. The clinical study on Thermobalancing therapy has confirmed its efficacy for men with chronic pelvic pain syndrome, and many scientific articles were published, Thus, Thermobalancing therapy treats enlarged prostate effectively and without complications.

BPH surgeries

Various minimally invasive surgeries ate offered for men with BPH. They include transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT), transurethral laser ablation, transurethral electrovaporization, UroLift, etc. All these procedures may have complications, which make people suffer from other health problems and depression. Therefore, it is difficult for men to choose the best of them.

For many years medical science articles discuss the problems after surgeries in men with BPH. Firstly, they discussed the risk of prostate cancer metastases associated with transurethral resection. However, health problems after minimal invasive prostate surgery are mainly associated with sexual dysfunction, which can cause depression in almost 25% of patients.

Overall, safety outcomes favored minimally invasive surgical techniques over TURP. Evidence from one RCT suggested that for up to six months, men who were treated with ablation had a lower mean incidence of complications compared to those who had TURP. Evidence from two systematic reviews favored both prostatic artery PAE and PUL over TURP up to 12 months after treatment.

Caution must be taken in interpreting the evidence presented in this report due to potential conflicts of interest due to sponsorship by the manufacturers of two of the minimally invasive surgical technologies, substantial overlap in study populations, and apparent patient selection bias. In addition to the uncertainty in the findings that are introduced by these biases, none of the data was collected in Canada, thereby precluding generalizability of the evidence to the Canadian context. While contemplating the lack of robust findings in the literature and the various limitations, decision-makers and policymakers may need to consider the impact of lack of training among surgeons in the use of the devices and the paucity of competition among manufacturers. Furthermore, the various minimally invasive techniques are based on vastly different technologies, making blinded comparisons challenging if not impossible. Additional research involving surgeons with comparable training, using approved technologies on unselected patients who are consecutively enrolled in a blinded fashion may help to produce evidence that will be useful in informing public health policies that are relevant to the Canadian population.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *