The use of plants or plant extracts for a variety of medicinal purposes (phytotherapy), including the treatment of voiding disorders, dates from ancient times. There is currently wide variation in the use of phytotherapeutic agents in men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia in different parts of the world. In some European countries, for example France and Germany, plant extracts are among the most commonly recommended initial treatment options in men with voiding symptoms. These agents are available by prescription in many cases and patients may be reimbursed for their cost by health ministries or insurance companies. Although many Americans use phytotherapeutic products, few physicians in the United States recommend such therapy for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia, and all costs associated with such treatment are borne by the patient. Despite the lack of reimbursement by third-party payers for medicinal botanicals, it is estimated that $500 million to $1 billion is spent annually in the United States for such products. While it is widely perceived by many patients that it is advantageous to treat a variety of chronic medical conditions, such as lower urinary tract symptoms, with “natural” remedies, there is limited scientific evidence to support the use of these agents in most cases.
Phytotherapeutic agents used for treating men with lower urinary tract symptoms have not generally been subjected to the same rigorous testing standards as other more commonly accepted therapies, such as alpha-blockers and 5 a-reductase inhibitors. This situation has changed somewhat in recent years as several European companies that market phytotherapeutic products have responded to this criticism and sponsored multicenter clinical trials. In contrast, medicinal botanicals are generally categorized as food additives in the United States and are therefore not eligible for patent protection. This is a significant financial disincentive for American companies to support clinical research into these products. In addition, most European companies have elected not to pursue approval of their phytotherapeutic products in the United States due to a variety of economic and other factors.
Most medicinal botanicals contain multiple chemical components and it is generally unclear which, if any, of these ingredients are responsible for clinical activity.
There is also a lack of standardization of phytotherapeutic agents in the United States, potentially leading to marked variability in the chemical composition of natural products sold by different companies. Saw palmetto, the most popular plant extract used for treating lower urinary tract symptoms, is sold in one form or another by 30 or more companies in the United States. In some cases, these products include saw palmetto alone while others contain a mixture of herbal products, vitamins, and minerals. In Europe, saw palmetto is most commonly marketed as a prescribable agent (Permixon), which is manufactured in France. Permixon is the most extensively studied form of saw palmetto but it is not clear that similar results reported with this specific agent will be seen with other forms of saw palmetto available in the United States. Most patients are not aware of the vast potential differences that may exist between the chemical composition and efficacy of products with similar or identical names.
Proposed Mechanisms of Action of Phytotherapeutic Agents
There have been a wide variety of plant extracts recommended for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic hyperplasia. The most common components of these agents include phytosterols, fatty acids, terpenoids, and plant oils. The improvement in voiding symptoms and benign prostatic hyperplasia are most often attributed to phytosterols, a class of compounds related to cholesterol. Beta-sitosterol is felt to be the most important phytosterol, and a variety of forms are present in most plant extracts used for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia.
There have been a number of suggested mechanisms of action associated with phytosterols, including antiandrogenic effects, direct inhibition of prostatic growth, and anti-inflammatory effects, These actions have been most commonly demonstrated using in vitro studies and experimental models in which supra-physiologic doses are frequently utilized. While these studies may suggest important mechanisms, it is difficult to assess the clinical relevance of these actions in some cases. The most important example of this discrepancy concerns the evidence that saw palmetto acts as a 5 a-reductase inhibitor. Although this action has been demonstrated in a variety of in vitro studies, clinical studies performed among men receiving saw palmetto have generally failed to show significant enzyme inhibition (based on changes in prostate size and serum prostate-specific antigen levels). In addition to concerns regarding mechanisms of phytotherapeutic agents, there is limited available information concerning bioavailability, and some plant extracts have been shown to be poorly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. Finally, in many cases scant information regarding pharmacodynamics is available.
Saw Palmetto
Pygeum africanum
Phytosterols
Pollen Extract
Mepartricin
Although Mepartricin is not truly a plant extract, it is best grouped with other phytotherapeutic agents used for treating symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. Mepartricin is a semisynthetic polyene derived from a Streptomyces strain. It appears to have favorable effects in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia by selective binding activity with estrogens. This agent is produced in Italy and is marketed under the trade name Ipertrofan. Mepartricin binds to estrogen in the intestine, thus inhibiting its reabsorption. Since most estrogens are reabsorbed in the intestine after excretion into the bile, a decrease in reabsorption leads to a reduction in circulating serum levels. This leads to a decline in estrogen-induced stimulation of prostatic growth. In animal experiments, Mepartricin has been demonstrated to increase fecal excretion of estrogen and reduce blood and prostate estrogen concentrations as well as estrogen receptor levels within the ventral prostatic lobes. In patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia, treatment with Mepartricin has led to a significant decrease in the serum concentration of estrone, estradiol, and estriol.
In a multicenter trial conducted in several European countries, 198 men with untreated symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia with an IPSS of 12 to 24 were randomized to receive Mepartricin or placebo for 24 weeks. Patients also were required to have a peak urinary flow rate of 6 to 15 cc per second to be enrolled in the study. The patients treated with Mepartricin had a significantly greater reduction in symptom score and increase in urinary flow rate compared to controls as well as an improved quality-of-life measure. No significant differences were seen in the two groups with regard to changes in prostate size, prostate-specific antigen level, or postvoid residual urine volume. No serious adverse events were noted among men in either group. Mepartricin appears to be a promising treatment option, with a unique mechanism of action, for men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. Further study of this agent is planned.
Other Plant Extracts
In addition to the phytotherapeutic agents discussed above, a variety of other plant extracts have been investigated in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. Bazoton is the trade name of an extract from the plant Radix urticae and has a steroid-glycoside composition. This product has been tested in Hungary and appears to be an inhibitor of intra-cellular sex hormone-binding globulin receptors. In a limited, nonrandomized study, treatment with Bazoton led to symptomatic improvement as well as improvements in urinary flow rate and postvoid residual volume.
In Germany, extracts from the roots of Urtica dioica (stinging nettles) are widely used for treating men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. The suggested mechanisms of nettles include suppression of prostatic cell growth and metabolism, inhibition of a variety of prostatic growth factor interactions, and blockage of the attachment of sex hormone-binding globulins to prostatic membrane receptors. Although randomized, placebo-controlled trials demonstrating subjective and objective benefit using nettles have been reported in Germany, these studies have generally included small numbers of patients treated for intervals of only 1 to 3 months. The value of stinging nettles in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia therefore remains unclear.
Other studies have investigated combination products incorporating two or more phytotherapeutic agents that have been used in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.’ These trials have frequently demonstrated subjective and objective benefit in treated patients compared to controls. The value of these studies, however, has generally been limited by small numbers of patients and short treatment intervals.
Finally, therapeutic benefit has been suggested for other plant extracts such as those from pumpkin seeds, unicorn root, and rye pollen. No recognized studies using these agents in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia have been presented to date.
Summary
There is growing interest in the United States in the use of “natural remedies” to treat patients with chronic medical conditions such as benign prostatic hyperplasia. Most American physicians have limited knowledge concerning these treatments and are unable to advise patients regarding their use. Due to the proliferation of health food and vitamin stores, the growing popularity of the Internet, and aggressive direct marketing to consumers, there has been a significant increase in the overall use of medicinal botanicals. Unlike therapies such as alpha-blockers and 5 a-reductase inhibitors, there have been few properly conducted trials of plant extracts in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. One of the primary reasons for the lack of scientific study of these agents is the absence of significant financial incentive for American companies marketing phytotherapeutic products to support such research, given that such products are generally not eligible for patent protection.
Additional difficulties in assessing the efficacy of plant extracts in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia include the lack of standardization of these agents. Vast differences are likely to exist between similar products sold by different manufacturers. This issue is further confused by the widespread availability of combination products that often contain vitamins and minerals as well as a variety of plant extracts. There is a clear need for randomized, controlled trials of phytotherapeutic products in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia to ascertain the true value of these agents.