Fertility and Sterility, 67(3), 589-590, 1997
Efficacy and safety of finasteride?
Author affiliations
- Marmara University ROR
Abstract not indexed. Read at publisher
Topics
finasteride efficacy safety PCOS hirsutism treatment, finasteride polycystic ovary syndrome androgen excess, 5-alpha reductase inhibitor finasteride hyperandrogenism women, finasteride hirsutism treatment PCOS safety concerns, antiandrogen therapy finasteride women reproductive age, finasteride versus other antiandrogens PCOS management, Durmusoglu Erenus finasteride efficacy safety letter, finasteride female hyperandrogenism clinical evidence, 5-alpha reductase inhibitor women androgen-related symptoms, finasteride fertility safety reproductive endocrinology
PMID 9091357 9091357 DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(97)80100-8 10.1016/s0015-0282(97)80100-8
Cite this article
Durmuşoğlu, F., & Erenus, M. (1997). Efficacy and safety of finasteride?. Fertility and Sterility, 67(3), 589-590. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(97)80100-8
Durmuşoğlu F, Erenus M. Efficacy and safety of finasteride?. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(3):589-590. doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(97)80100-8
Durmuşoğlu, F., and M. Erenus. "Efficacy and safety of finasteride?." Fertility and Sterility, vol. 67, no. 3, 1997, pp. 589-590.
Keywords
Enzyme Inhibitors/adverse Effects/therapeutic Use, Female, Finasteride/adverse Effects/therapeutic Use, Hirsutism/blood/drug Therapy, Humans, Patient Selection, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome/diagnostic Imaging/drug Therapy, Reproducibility of Results, Testosterone/blood, Ultrasonography, Enzyme Inhibitors, Testosterone, Finasteride
Related articles
PCOSProgesterone TherapyAntiandrogen TherapyPatient-Reported Outcomes
Open Access
"SUN-109 Feasibility of Cyclic Progesterone and Spironolactone for PCOS-specific Health-Related Quality of Life—a six-month, Phase II, single arm, single center, open-label study"
Nelson K et al., 2025·J Endocr Soc
K. None. J. None. A. None. D. None. J. None. Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is an endocrine-metabolic disorder that significantly decreases health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHC) are standard-of-care for PCOS but do not mitigate the neuroendocrine cause nor women’s primary concerns. Treatment options need expansion. We hypothesized cyclic oral micronized progesterone (CyclicP4) and spironolactone (Sp) would improve HRQoL, decrease LH, and acne. This Phase II, open-label single-arm pilot study evaluated the 6-month cyclicP4 and Sp treatment feasibility and safety in androgenic PCOS. Our primary outcome was within-woman change in PCOS-HRQoL (PCOSQ). No sample size calculation was possible; 40 was considered feasible. Eligible women were 19-40 years with physician-diagnosed androgenic PCOS. Exclusion criteria included HbA1c > 6.4%, use of metformin or CHC in the last month. Participants received progesterone (300 mg/bedtime 14 days/month); spironolactone (200 mg/day) began in cycle two. Adherence was tracked daily (Menstrual Cycle Diary©) and by pill counts. Safety was assessed by post-study potassium (K+). Feasibility by women’s post-trial treatment intention. PCOSQ, serum LH, calculated bioavailable testosterone (cBAT), HbA1c, hsCRP, and AMH were measured at baseline and trial end. We also assessed perceived acne and sleep changes (-5 to +5), K+ and therapy intent at study end. Six-month change by paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank assessed P < .05 as important. Of 109 expressing interest, 41 enrolled, 36 began therapy (5 did not), and 26 provided final questionnaire data (19 with complete lab data). Completing women were mean age 29 (SD 4.9) years, BMI 30.3 (8.1), 61.5% White and 73.1% with university degrees. Total PCOSQ scores within-woman increased from 3.5±1.0 to 4.9±1.1 (95% CI 3.1-3.8, 4.6-5.3; P<.0000001). Each PCOSQ domain significantly improved (at least P<.001) as did acne and sleep. Weight was unchanged but waist circumference decreased 1.1 cm (NS). LH, cBAT, LH 10.0±5.4 to 8.5±5.2 IU/L (95% CI 7.6-12.3, 6.3-10.8; P<.4), cBAT 0.7±0.4 to 0.6±0.3 nmol/L (0.5-0.9, 0.5-0.8; P<.2), and AMH 10.5±6.5 to 9.7±5.7 ng/ml (7.4-13.7, 7.0-12.4; P<.4). hsCRP remained unchanged (2.8±3.3 to 2.7±3.6 mg/L; P<.8) as did HbA1c (5.2±0.3 to 5.2±0.3%; P<.0). K+ remained within the normal range (3.5-5.0 mmol/L) at final testing (mean 4.0). Two allergic responses to spironolactone and one frequent flow/religious practice led to discontinuation. Feasibility was confirmed and participants strongly preferred continuing therapy (median Likert score=6/7, P<.0001) CyclicP4 and Sp for 6-months was feasible and significantly improved HRQoL in a non-medicine-seeking community women cohort with androgenic PCOS. Though the small sample size limited generalizability, findings are promising. A larger randomized trial comparing CyclicP4 vs. CHC is warranted. Sunday, July 13, 2025
Research
Recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2026·Fertility and Sterility
Current strategies for the assessment and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss are discussed. This replaces the previous document, titled, "Evaluation and treatment a committee opinion," last published in 2012.
Research
Optimization of conception with intercourse for women with infertility
Boedeker D et al., 2026·Fertility and sterility
This narrative review examines the evidence for medical optimization of inflammatory conditions, vitamin deficiencies, endocrine disorders, immune dysregulation, oligo-ovulation, and luteal phase factors to improve fertility outcomes in women attempting to conceive through natural or timed intercourse. Overall, there is a paucity of data with respect to these categories among patients pursuing timed intercourse, precluding our ability to draw strong recommendations. However, there is strong evidence supporting treatment of endocrine disorders, specifically overt thyroid dysfunction and hyperprolactinemia, as well as oligo-ovulation. Conversely, treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism is not recommended. The current data are insufficient to support empiric use of antiinflammatory medications, corticosteroids, thyroid hormones, or vitamins or supplements to improve chances of pregnancy in a general infertility population.
Research
The effectiveness and safety of restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) compared to assisted reproductive technology or medically unassisted conception: a systematic review
Ganci D et al., 2026·Fertility and Sterility
Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) aims to restore fertility by diagnosing and treating the underlying causes of infertility. RRM is frequently promoted as an alternative to assisted reproductive technology (ART), despite uncertainty regarding its comparative effectiveness and safety. Where delayed childbearing and infertility are becoming more common, reliance on optimization of natural physiology alone may delay effective treatment and compromise reproductive outcomes. A systematic review of the current evidence comparing RRM to either ART or unassisted conception is, therefore, essential to inform clinical practice, guideline development, and shared decision-making for patients experiencing infertility. To assess the effectiveness and safety of RRM approaches, evaluated as a whole, rather than as individual components, compared with ART and medically unassisted conception in couples experiencing infertility. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and the Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine from inception to 28 November 2025. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized comparative studies evaluating reproductive and safety outcomes of RRM as a unified treatment, compared with either ART or expectant management (attempted medically unassisted conception). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We retrieved 724 records, of which 16 studies underwent full-text review. No RCTs or comparative observational studies were identified. All 16 full-text studies were excluded for an ineligible study design (no control group); most were cohort studies in which all participants underwent RRM. Ten studies reported reproductive outcomes; nine of these made claims regarding the benefits or effectiveness of RRM. None of these claims were supported by the study designs used, as the lack of a comparison group precludes reliable estimation of treatment effects. Consequently, these studies cannot provide valid estimates of RRM success rates, nor permit any meaningful inference about its effectiveness relative to unassisted conception or ART. Large-scale RCTs or prospective cohort studies reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes are required to inform evidence-based fertility guidelines. There are no comparative studies to support reliable estimates of the safety and effectiveness of RRM compared with ART or medically unassisted conception for couples experiencing infertility.