Search

In some countries plant extracts have belonged to the most popular drugs for the treatment of the benign prostatic syndrome (BPS) for decades; however, only few of the large number of published studies meet the criteria of the WHO benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) consensus conference. The few placebo-controlled long-term (study period >6 months) studies suggest a positive effect of some extracts (saw palmetto fruit, β-sitosterol, urtica, rye grass and a saw palmetto/urtica combination) on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), urinary flow rate, post-void residual volume but effects on prostate volume or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were only inconsistently demonstrable. To date no study has proven an effect on disease progression, such as acute urinary retention or need for surgical interventions. Due to the controversial data various extraction techniques and compositions of various products, neither American, European, British nor German BPH guidelines recommend plant extracts for the indication BPS although some placebo-controlled trials provided encouraging data. Further prospective studies according to WHO standards are required to determine the role of plant extracts for the management of BPS. For the indication of prostate cancer (PCa) plant extracts have been evaluated for disease prevention and management of several tumor stages but none of these studies have provided convincing evidence that plant extracts are superior to placebo and none of the Pica guidelines have recommended their use.Based on current knowledge plant extracts can never supplement evidence-based PCa management and should be used only in addition to the standard treatment. There is no scientific evidence for the use of dietary supplementation with high doses of vitamins or selenium-containing products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medicine has changed dramatically in the past ten decades thanks to the introduction of innovative diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. However, besides the unmistakable advances achieved in medicine, the costs of all health care systems have risen dramatically. In contrast to the escalation in expenditures, only moderate gains in proceeds have been accomplished. This situation requires that future financial resources be judiciously expended. The field of health economics has set as its goal the analysis of medical measures in terms of costs and benefits to be able to provide information on these parameters to those involved in the public health sector. The emerging problems are diverse and extend from assessment of effects and side effects to difficulties in standardizing analytical procedures and comparing results between different health care systems.In the context of this manuscript an attempt has been made to illustrate the methodological approaches to health economics based on current issues in the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. This contribution intends to motivate stakeholders to view health economics as a tool to promote improvements in medical care and not as a means to regulating and rationing medical measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]