ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Testosterone Replacement, Low T, HCG, & Beyond
Blood Test Discussion
Is high DHT a good or bad thing and why?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Nelson Vergel" data-source="post: 18275" data-attributes="member: 3"><p>HarryCat</p><p></p><p>Good find!</p><p></p><p>I like studies that are clear about their limitations:</p><p></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]1383[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p><strong>Limitations</strong></p><p></p><p>Reporting of AEs may be open to interpretation and so may vary somewhat among trials. Using the most serious CV events (stroke, myocardial infarction, and CV-related death) might be more unambiguous. Because of very long follow-up periods, such events are common enough to assess in observational studies [<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR16" target="_blank">16</a>,<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR22" target="_blank">22</a>,<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR23" target="_blank">23</a>]. However, due to shorter study duration, serious CV events are not common enough to study in clinical trials of TRT. As a result, our analyses are based on all CV events, serious or not.</p><p>The data on oral TRT must be interpreted with caution, since only four studies met the inclusion criteria. Of those, two had very low rates of CV events in both the treated and placebo groups [<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR61" target="_blank">61</a>,<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR64" target="_blank">64</a>] and one study had very high post-treatment serum T concentrations [<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR32" target="_blank">32</a>], possibly due to the presence of liver disease in the study subjects. The latter study was not included in the analysis of TRT-induced elevations of T/DHT because DHT was not measured. However, among the four studies analyzed for T/DHT, there was considerable variation in serum concentrations. Variation may result from the fact that serum T concentrations are not sustained following oral TRT and the time of blood acquisition is therefore critical.</p><p>Two studies included in the analysis of CV risk were stopped early. One study of oral TRT was stopped because of lack of evidence for efficacy unrelated to CV [<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR32" target="_blank">32</a>] and one study of gel TRT was stopped early for excess CV events in the group receiving testosterone [<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR7" target="_blank">7</a>]. The first study, whose stopping was uninfluenced by CV has no bias associated with early stopping. The second, may actually be associated with a slight bias estimate away from the null, actually strengthening the null conclusion. There is no way to adjust for this without serial patient level data and the exact stopping rules used.</p><p>Interpretation of the data on TRT-induced elevations of T and DHT may be limited by the fact that DHT was assayed by several methods in the included studies. The latter include mass spectroscopy (MS) based methods and various radioimmunoassays (RIAs). MS-based assays provide highly accurate measurements of DHT. RIAs are specific for DHT [<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR90" target="_blank">90</a>] but the values are somewhat higher than those obtained with MS-based assays [<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR91" target="_blank">91</a>]. The enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay (EIA) for DHT is not valid as we have recently shown [<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR24" target="_blank">24</a>] and studies using this method were excluded. The current analysis is based on clinical trials that have a high rate of compliance. An additional limitation in extending our findings to a clinical setting is that compliance may be lower. Schoenfeld <em>et al</em>. have shown that TRT gel adherence is only 37.4% at six months [<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR92" target="_blank">92</a>]. Similarly, Donatucci <em>et al</em>. [<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR93" target="_blank">93</a>] reported that at three months, adherence to transdermal TRT was 52% and adherence to injected TRT was 32%.</p><p>[ATTACH]1382[/ATTACH]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Nelson Vergel, post: 18275, member: 3"] HarryCat Good find! I like studies that are clear about their limitations: [ATTACH=CONFIG]1383[/ATTACH] [B]Limitations[/B] Reporting of AEs may be open to interpretation and so may vary somewhat among trials. Using the most serious CV events (stroke, myocardial infarction, and CV-related death) might be more unambiguous. Because of very long follow-up periods, such events are common enough to assess in observational studies [[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR16"]16[/URL],[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR22"]22[/URL],[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR23"]23[/URL]]. However, due to shorter study duration, serious CV events are not common enough to study in clinical trials of TRT. As a result, our analyses are based on all CV events, serious or not. The data on oral TRT must be interpreted with caution, since only four studies met the inclusion criteria. Of those, two had very low rates of CV events in both the treated and placebo groups [[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR61"]61[/URL],[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR64"]64[/URL]] and one study had very high post-treatment serum T concentrations [[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR32"]32[/URL]], possibly due to the presence of liver disease in the study subjects. The latter study was not included in the analysis of TRT-induced elevations of T/DHT because DHT was not measured. However, among the four studies analyzed for T/DHT, there was considerable variation in serum concentrations. Variation may result from the fact that serum T concentrations are not sustained following oral TRT and the time of blood acquisition is therefore critical. Two studies included in the analysis of CV risk were stopped early. One study of oral TRT was stopped because of lack of evidence for efficacy unrelated to CV [[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR32"]32[/URL]] and one study of gel TRT was stopped early for excess CV events in the group receiving testosterone [[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR7"]7[/URL]]. The first study, whose stopping was uninfluenced by CV has no bias associated with early stopping. The second, may actually be associated with a slight bias estimate away from the null, actually strengthening the null conclusion. There is no way to adjust for this without serial patient level data and the exact stopping rules used. Interpretation of the data on TRT-induced elevations of T and DHT may be limited by the fact that DHT was assayed by several methods in the included studies. The latter include mass spectroscopy (MS) based methods and various radioimmunoassays (RIAs). MS-based assays provide highly accurate measurements of DHT. RIAs are specific for DHT [[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR90"]90[/URL]] but the values are somewhat higher than those obtained with MS-based assays [[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR91"]91[/URL]]. The enzyme-linked immunosorbant assay (EIA) for DHT is not valid as we have recently shown [[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR24"]24[/URL]] and studies using this method were excluded. The current analysis is based on clinical trials that have a high rate of compliance. An additional limitation in extending our findings to a clinical setting is that compliance may be lower. Schoenfeld [I]et al[/I]. have shown that TRT gel adherence is only 37.4% at six months [[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR92"]92[/URL]]. Similarly, Donatucci [I]et al[/I]. [[URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245724/#CR93"]93[/URL]] reported that at three months, adherence to transdermal TRT was 52% and adherence to injected TRT was 32%. [ATTACH=CONFIG]1382[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Testosterone Replacement, Low T, HCG, & Beyond
Blood Test Discussion
Is high DHT a good or bad thing and why?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top