World Journal of Urology

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 139–146 | Cite as

Long-term efficacy and safety of a combination of sabal and urtica extract for lower urinary tract symptoms—a placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial

  • N. Lopatkin
  • A. Sivkov
  • C. Walther
  • S. Schläfke
  • A. Medvedev
  • J. Avdeichuk
  • G. Golubev
  • K. Melnik
  • N. Elenberger
  • U. Engelmann
Free Paper

Abstract

The efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of 160 mg sabal fruit extract WS 1473 and 120 mg urtica root extract WS 1031 per capsule (PRO 160/120) was investigated in elderly, male patients suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) caused by benign prostatic hyperplasia in a prospective multicenter trial. A total of 257 patients (129 and 128, respectively) were randomized to treatment with PRO 160/120 or placebo (127 and 126 were evaluable for efficacy). Following a single-blind placebo run-in phase of 2 weeks, the patients received 2×1 capsule/day of the study medication under double-blind conditions over a period of 24 weeks. Double-blind treatment was followed by an open control period of 24 weeks during which all patients were administered PRO 160/120. Outcome measures for treatment efficacy included the assessment of the patients’ LUTS by means of the I-PSS self-rating questionnaire and a quality of life index as well as uroflow and sonographic parameters. Using the International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS), patients treated with PRO 160/120 exhibited a substantially higher total score reduction after 24 weeks of double-blind treatment than patients of the placebo group (6 points vs 4 points; P=0.003, one tailed) with a tendency in the same direction after 16 weeks. This applied to obstructive as well as to irritative symptoms, and to patients with moderate or severe symptoms at baseline. Patients randomized to placebo showed a marked improvement in LUTS (as measured by the I-PSS) after being switched to PRO 160/120 during the control period (P=0.01, one tailed, in comparison to those who had been treated with PRO 160/120 in the double-blind phase). The tolerability of PRO 160/120 was comparable to the placebo. In conclusion, PRO 160/120 was clearly superior to the placebo for the amelioration of LUTS as measured by the I-PSS. PRO 160/120 is advantageous in obstructive and irritative urinary symptoms and in patients with moderate and severe symptoms. The tolerability of the herbal extract was excellent.

Keywords

LUTS Sabal extract Urtica extract Clinical trial I-PSS Efficacy 

References

  1. 1.
    Alken CE (1973) Leitfaden der Urologie. Thieme, Stuttgart, pp 180–182Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aso Y, Abbou C, Abrams P et al. (1996) Clinical research criteria. In: Cockett ATC et al. (eds) Third International Consultation on BPH. Monaco, 26–28 June 1995, Proceedings. Scientific Communication International, Channel Islands, pp 453–466Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bach D (2000) Placebokontrollierte Langzeittherapiestudie mit Kürbissamenextrakt bei BPH-bedingten Miktionsbeschwerden. Interdisziplinärer Arbeitskreis Prostata. Urologe B 40:437–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berges RR, Pientka L, Höfner K, Senge T, Jonas U (2001) Male lower urinary tract symptoms and related health care seeking in Germany. Eur Urol 39:682–687Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cockett ATK, Khoury S, Aso Y, Chatelain C Denis L, Griffiths K, Murphy G (eds) (1994) The 2nd International Consultation on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH). Paris, 27–30 June 1993Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dathe G, Schmid H (1987) Phytotherapie der benignen Prostatahyperplasie (BPH). Doppelblindstudie mit Extractum Radicis urticae (ERU). Urologe B 27:223–226Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Djavan B, Marberger M (1999) A meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of α1-adrenoceptor antagonists in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol 36:1–13Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Düker E-M, Kopanski L, Schweikert HU (1989) Inhibition of 5α-reductase activity by extracts from Sabal serrulata. Planta Med 55:587Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gabrič V, Miskič H (1987) Behandlung des benignen Prostataadenoms und der chronischen Prostatitis. Placebokontrollierte randomisierte Doppelblindstudie mit Prostagutt®. Therapiewoche 37:1775–1788Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goepel M, Hecker U, Krege S, Rübben H, Michel MC (1999) Saw palmetto extracts potently and noncompetitively inhibit human α1-adrenoceptors in vitro. Prostate 38:208–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Golomb J, Lindner A, Siegel Y, Korczak D (1992) Variability and circadian changes in home uroflowmetry in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia compared to normal controls. J Urol 147:1044–1047PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hansen BJ, Meyhoff HH, Nordling J, Mensink HJ, Mogensen P, Larsen EH (1996) Placebo effects in the pharmacological treatment of uncomplicated benign prostatic hyperplasia. The ALFECH Study Group. Scand J Urol Nephrol 30:373–377PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hirano T, Homma M, Oka K (1994) Effects of stinging nettle root extracts and their steroidal components on the Na+,K+-ATPase of the benign prostatic hyperplasia. Planta Med 60:30–33Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Isaacs JT, Brendler CB, Walsh PC (1983) Changes in the metabolism of dihydrotestosterone in the hyperplastic human prostate. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 56:139–146Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koch E (2001) Extracts from fruits of saw palmetto (Sabal serrulata) and roots of stinging nettle (Urtica dioica): viable alternatives in the medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and associated lower urinary tracts symptoms. Planta Med 67:489–500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koch E, Biber A (1994) Pharmakologische Wirkungen von Sabal- und Urtikaextrakten als Grundlage für eine rationale medikamentöse Therapie der benignen Prostatahyperplasie. Urologe B 34:95–100Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lichius JJ, Lenz C, Lindemann P, Müller H-H, Aumüller G, Konrad L (1999) Antiproliferative effect of a polysaccharide fraction of a 20% methanolic extract of stinging nettle roots upon epithelial cells of the human prostate (LNCaP). Pharmazie 54:768–771PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maurer W, Hothorn LA, Lehmacher W (1995) Multiple comparisons in drug clinical trials and preclinical assays: a-priori ordered hypotheses. In: Vollmar J (ed) Testprinzipien in klinischen und präklinischen Studien. Biometrie in der chemisch-pharmazeutischen Industrie, vol 6. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart, pp 3–18Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McConnell JD, Bruskewitz R, Walsh P et al. (1998) The effect of finasteride on the risk of acute urinary retention and the need for surgical treatment among men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. New Engl J Med 338:557–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Metzker H, Kieser M, Hölscher U (1996) Wirksamkeit eines Sabal-Urtica-Kombinationspräparats bei der Behandlung der benignen Prostatahyperplasie (BPH). Urologe B 36:292–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nickel JC (1998) Placebo therapy of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a 25-month study. Canadian PROSPECT Study Group. Br J Urol 81:383–387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Roehrborn CG, Abbou CC, Akaza H et al. (2001) Clinical research criteria for studies of: lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), enlarged prostate gland (EPG) bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In: Chatelain C et al. (eds) Benign prostatic hyperplasia. 5th International Consultation on Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH), 25–28 June 2000, Paris. Health Publication, Plymouth, pp 317–395Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roehrborn CG, Abbou CC, Allona-Almagro A et al. (1998) BPH: clinical research criteria. In: Denis L et al. (eds) Fourth International Consultation on BPH. Paris, 2–5 July 1997, Proceedings. Scientific Communication International, Channel Islands, pp 439–491Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sökeland J (2000) Combined sabal and urtica extract compared with finasteride in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia: analysis of prostate volume and therapeutic outcome. Br J Urol 86:439–442Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sökeland J, Albrecht J (1997) Kombination aus Sabal- und Urticaextrakt vs. Finasterid bei BPH (Stad. I bis II nach Alken). Vergleich der therapeutischen Wirksamkeit in einer einjährigen Doppelblindstudie. Urologe A 36:327–333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Treagust J, Morkane T, Speakman M (2001) Estimating a population’s needs for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men: what is the extent of unmet need? J Public Health Med 23:141–147CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vontobel HP, Herzog R, Rutishauser G, Kres H (1985) Ergebnisse einer Doppelblindstudie über die Wirksamkeit von ERU-Kapseln in der konservativen Behandlung der benignen Prostatahyperplasie. Urologe A 24:49–51Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wilt TJ, Ishani A, Rutks I, MacDonald R (2000) Phytotherapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Public Health Nutr 3:459–472PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wilt TJ, Ishani A, Stark G, MacDonald R, Lau J, Mulrow C (1998) Saw palmetto extracts for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. A systematic review. JAMA 280:1604–1609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Lopatkin
    • 1
  • A. Sivkov
    • 1
  • C. Walther
    • 2
  • S. Schläfke
    • 2
  • A. Medvedev
    • 1
  • J. Avdeichuk
    • 3
  • G. Golubev
    • 4
  • K. Melnik
    • 3
  • N. Elenberger
    • 4
  • U. Engelmann
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute of Urology3rd Parkovaya Street 51
  2. 2.Clinical Research DepartmentDr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH and Co. KG
  3. 3.Central Hospital of AviationMoscow
  4. 4.Moscow Regional Veterans HospitalMoscow
  5. 5.Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital of Cologne

Personalised recommendations