Serenoa repens for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Due to Benign Prostatic Enlargement: An Updated Cochrane Review.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of Serenoa repens in the treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) consistent with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases up to September 2022 with no language or publication status restrictions. We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials of participants with BPH who were treated with Serenoa repens or placebo/no treatment. We used standard Cochrane methods, including a GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence (CoE). RESULTS: We included 27 studies involving a total of 4,656 participants. Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in urologic symptoms at short-term follow-up (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS]: mean difference [MD] -0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.74 to -0.07; I²=68%; 9 studies, 1,681 participants; high CoE). Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in the quality of life at short-term follow-up (high CoE). Serenoa repens probably results in little to no difference in adverse events (moderate CoE). Different phytotherapeutic agents that include Serenoa repens may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms compared to placebo at short-term follow-up (IPSS: MD -2.41, 95% CI -4.54 to -0.29; I²=67%; 4 studies, 460 participants; low CoE). We are very uncertain about the effects of these agents on quality of life (very low CoE). These agents may result in little to no difference in the occurrence of adverse events (low CoE). CONCLUSIONS: Serenoa repens alone provides little to no benefits for men with LUTS due to benign prostatic enlargement. There is more uncertainty about the role of Serenoa repens in combination with other phytotherapeutic agents.

Serenoa repens for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement.

BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a non-malignant enlargement of the prostate, which can lead to obstructive and irritative lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The pharmacologic use of plants and herbs (phytotherapy) for the treatment of LUTS associated with BPH is common. The extract of the berry of the American saw palmetto or dwarf palm plant, Serenoa repens (SR), which is also known by its botanical name of Sabal serrulatum, is one of several phytotherapeutic agents available for the treatment of BPH. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of Serenoa repens in the treatment of men with LUTS consistent with BPH. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings published up to 16 September 2022, with no restrictions on language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of participants with BPH who were treated with Serenoa repens or placebo/no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. We considered review outcomes measured up to 12 months after randomization as short term, and beyond 12 months as long term. Our main outcomes included urologic symptom scores, quality of life, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: For this update, we narrowed the review question to only comparisons with placebo. We included 27 studies (of which 9 were new) involving a total of 4656 participants, 19 studies comparing Serenoa repens with placebo, and 8 studies comparing Serenoa repens in combination with other phytotherapeutic agents versus placebo. Most studies included men aged > 50 (mean age range 52 to 68) with moderate urologic symptoms (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS] range 8 to 19). Ten studies were funded by the pharmaceutical industry; two studies were funded by government agencies; and the remaining studies did not specify funding sources. Serenoa repens versus placebo or no intervention Results for this comparison are based on predefined sensitivity analyses limited to studies at low risk of bias. Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in urologic symptoms at short-term follow-up (3 to 6 months; IPSS score range 0 to 35, higher scores indicate worse symptoms; mean difference (MD) -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.74 to -0.07; I2 = 68%; 9 studies, 1681 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in the quality of life at short-term follow-up (3 to 6 months; IPSS quality of life domain range 0 to 6, higher scores indicate worse quality of life; MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.00; I2 = 39%; 5 studies, 1001 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serenoa repens probably results in little to no difference in adverse events (1 to 17 months; risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.31; I2 = 18%; 12 studies, 2399 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on 164 cases per 1000 men in the placebo group, this corresponds to 2 more (38 fewer to 51 more) per 1000 men in the Serenoa repens group. Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in urologic symptoms at long-term follow-up (12 to 17 months, IPSS score, MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.88; I2 = 34%; 3 studies, 898 participants; high-certainty evidence). Serenoa repens results in little to no difference in quality of life at long-term follow-up (12 to 17 months, IPSS quality of life, MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.19; I2 = 65%; 3 studies, 882 participants; high-certainty evidence). There were no data on long-term adverse events for this comparison. Serenoa repens in combination with other phytotherapy versus placebo or no intervention Different phytotherapeutic agents that include Serenoa repens may result in little to no difference in urologic symptoms compared to placebo at short-term follow-up (12 to 24 weeks, IPSS score, MD -2.41, 95% CI -4.54 to -0.29; I2 = 67%; 4 studies, 460 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of these agents on quality of life (very low-certainty evidence). These agents may result in little to no difference in the occurrence of adverse events; however, the CIs included substantial benefits and harms (12 to 48 weeks, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 481 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 132 cases per 1000 men in the placebo group, this corresponds to 12 fewer (55 fewer to 54 more) per 1000 men in the combined phytotherapeutic agents with Serenoa repens group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Serenoa repens alone provides little to no benefits for men with lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement. There is more uncertainty about the role of Serenoa repens in combination with other phytotherapeutic agents.

Serenoa repens for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic enlargement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of Serenoa repens alone or in combination with other phytotherapy compared to placebo in men with LUTS due to benign prostatic enlargement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following a registered protocol (CRD42021226655), we searched (December 2020) MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO-ICTRP trials platform and other sources with no restrictions on language, publication date or status. We included randomized controlled trials, and we critically appraised them using the Cochrane Tool for Risk of Bias Assessment (RoB 2). We conducted random-effects meta-analysis when appropriate. The primary outcomes included urinary symptoms score, quality of life, and adverse events. The certainty of the evidence was rated using GRADE. RESULTS: We included 27 trials with 4,853 participants. S. repens results in little to no difference in urinary symptoms, quality of life, and adverse events at short- and long-term follow-up. S. repens combined with other phytotherapy may slightly reduce urinary symptoms at short-term follow-up, but the results are uncertain. The results on quality of life and adverse events are also very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: S. repens alone may result in no clinical benefits for men with LUTS. There is greater uncertainty in the effects of S. repens in combination with other phytotherapy.

Métodos de rastreo del cáncer de colon / Colon cancer screening methods

El cáncer colorrectal presenta un problema para la salud pública a nivel mundial. En Argentina, se diagnostican aproximadamente 13.500 casos cada año. El tamizaje como medida de prevención secundaria es una medida beneficiosa para lograr un abordaje temprano con mejores resultados. Los dos métodos más utilizados para el tamizaje son la videocolonoscopía y la prueba de sangre oculta en materia fecal, sobre todo la de tipo inmunoquímico que con el paso de los años fue reemplazando a la prueba de guayaco por su mayor practicidad. El primero es un método invasivo y que requiere anestesia, mientras que el segundo no tiene un efecto adverso directo pero debe realizarse con una cadencia mayor. El objetivo de los autores de este artículo fue evaluar la evidencia sobre la sensibilidad y especificidad de ambos métodos, como también sus beneficios y daños a partir de la consulta de un paciente a su médico de familia. Ninguna prueba parecería ser inferior para el tamizaje de cáncer colorrectal en una población de riesgo promedio, y ambas pueden usarse en programas de rastreo. Sin embargo, no existen estudios que comparen ambos métodos de manera directa, y toda prueba inmunoquímica fecal positiva debe ser seguida de una colonoscopía. La elección de la prueba puede depender de los valores y preferencias de los pacientes. (AU)

Colorectal cancer presents a public health problem worldwide. In Argentina, approximately 13,500 cases appear each year. Screening as a secondary prevention measure is a beneficial measure to achieve an early approach with better results. The two most used methods for screening are video colonoscopy and faecal immunochemical test, the former being invasiveand requiring anaesthesia, while the latter does not have a direct adverse effect but must be performed at a higher rate. The objective of this article was to evaluate the evidence for the sensitivity and specificity of both methods, as well as their benefits and harms. No test would appear to be inferior for colorectal cancer screening in an average-risk population, and both can be used in screening programs. However, there are no studies comparing both methods directly, and any positive faecal immunochemical test should be evaluated with a colonoscopy. The choice of the test may depend on the values and preferences of the patients. (AU)