Background: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common age-related condition that often results in lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), reduced quality of life, and sexual dysfunction. Conventional pharmacotherapies, while effective, are frequently associated with adverse effects on sexual and ejaculatory function. This study evaluated the sexual safety and clinical efficacy of a dietary supplement containing pollen extract and teupolioside, in men with BPH. Methods: In this prospective, single-arm observational study, 25 men with moderate LUTS due to BPH received daily pollen extract and teupolioside supplementation for 90 days. The primary endpoints were sexual function (International Index of Erectile Function, IIEF-5), ejaculatory function (Male Sexual Health Questionnaire–Ejaculatory Dysfunction, MSHQ-EjD), quality of life (IPSS-QoL), and patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I). Secondary endpoints included changes in urinary flow (Qmax) and LUTS severity (International Prostate Symptom Score, IPSS). Assessments were conducted at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months. Results: Sexual and ejaculatory functions remained stable over the treatment period, with no statistically significant deterioration observed. QoL improved significantly by the 3-month mark (IPSS-QoL median score reduced from 3 to 2; p<0.008), and PGI-I scores reflected high patient satisfaction (median 2, IQR 1). Qmax significantly increased from 12.4 mL/s at baseline to 15.5 mL/s at 3 months (p<0.001), and IPSS scores significantly declined from 11 to 8 (p<0.008), indicating improved urinary function. Conclusions: The pollen extract and teupolioside supplementation was well tolerated and associated with improved QoL and urinary outcomes, without compromising sexual or ejaculatory function. These findings support its potential as a non-pharmacologic adjunct in the management of BPH, particularly in patients concerned about sexual side effects. Further randomized controlled studies are warranted to confirm these results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vittori et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: