Prostatilen
Samprost, Prostatilen AC — a bovine prostate polypeptide extract, suppository or injection
Prostatilen (Samprost, Prostatilen AC — a bovine prostate polypeptide extract, suppository or injection) is a hormonal & sexual research compound. A polypeptide extract of bovine prostate, from the Khavinson cytomedine school, whose position is that an organ extract carries short peptides acting preferentially on the tissue they came from. The 1991 papers additionally assert antibacterial and immunomodulating effects. No constituent responsible for any of that is named, assayed or characterized anywhere in the literature. The suppository route is not arbitrary: the prostate sits directly anterior to the rectum and the two share venous drainage, so rectal absorption gives a short, partly non-portal path to prostatic tissue — which is a coherent reason to choose it and has never been measured.
Prostatilen quick facts
| Route | Either |
| Frequency | Once daily in the published series · Not established |
| Half-life | No analyte, no plasma or tissue concentration, no half-life, for either presentation |
| Forms | Injectable |
| Evidence level | Six studies across thirty-five years and not one placebo arm. Every trial is either uncontrolled before-and-after or a comparison of the product against a modified version of itself. |
Thirty-five years of published studies and not one placebo-controlled trial. The headline number is 96.7% of 307 men improving on a 5-to-10-day course — from a design with no control group, in a fluctuating condition, which cannot separate the drug from natural history. The most recent study reports IIEF-5 rising from 12.8 to 17.8 in 50 men, open-label, on a scale that expectation moves reliably. The one comparative trial randomized 98 men between the product and the product plus zinc, so both arms got it. Every endpoint that would settle this — IPSS, uroflow, IIEF-5 against a sham suppository, a semen analysis timed to a full spermatogenic cycle — is validated, cheap, and has never been run with a control.
How Prostatilen works
A polypeptide extract of bovine prostate, from the Khavinson cytomedine school, whose position is that an organ extract carries short peptides acting preferentially on the tissue they came from. The 1991 papers additionally assert antibacterial and immunomodulating effects. No constituent responsible for any of that is named, assayed or characterized anywhere in the literature. The suppository route is not arbitrary: the prostate sits directly anterior to the rectum and the two share venous drainage, so rectal absorption gives a short, partly non-portal path to prostatic tissue — which is a coherent reason to choose it and has never been measured.
Proposed benefits
Researched for libido, hormonal signaling and reproductive / sexual function.
Where to get Prostatilen
Buy Prostatilen at RUPharma →Bacteriostatic water is the diluent — sterile water with 0.9% benzyl alcohol, which is what lets a vial be drawn from more than once. It does not come with the vial, and unlike the compound it is bought again every time.
Need bacteriostatic water? Get it at AminoWell USA (my company) → Code CAMERON.
The evidence for Prostatilen
Graded by what exists behind each claim.
✅ Clinically validated
- Thirty-five years of published studies and not one placebo arm. The headline result is 307 men with chronic prostatitis given 5-10 mg intramuscularly daily for 5-10 days, with symptoms disappearing or attenuating in 96.7% (Tkachuk 1991) — a large, carefully described series with no control group, in a condition that fluctuates and remits on its own.
- The most recent study reports IIEF-5 rising from 12.8 to 17.8 (p<0.05) in 50 men over 10 days of suppositories, with Doppler evidence of improved penile blood flow (Borovets 2026). Open-label, on a scale that expectation moves reliably.
📊 Correlative data
- A second 1991 series in 37 men with chronic prostatitis and 15 with adenoma reports reduced pain and dysuria, improved copulative function and spermatogenesis, a risen uroflow index and reduced residual urine and prostatic-secretion leukocyte count (Vozianov 1991). Uroflow and residual urine are instrument readings rather than impressions, which is a genuine strength — and both move with hydration and effort.
- The one comparative trial compares the product against itself. 98 men randomized between Prostatilen AC and plain Prostatilen: motile spermatozoa up 14.3% against 4.1%, abnormal forms down 12.4% against 6.5% (Rybalov 2022). Both arms received it, so it answers whether adding zinc helps and nothing else. A related prostate peptide in 35 men over 60 days is the same uncontrolled pattern (Neymark 2015).
- Animal work exists for the suppository form in experimental prostatitis (Savateeva-Liubimova 2012).
🧪 Theoretical / extrapolated
- A bovine prostate polypeptide extract from the Khavinson cytomedine school, whose position is that an organ extract carries short peptides acting preferentially on the tissue they came from. No constituent responsible for any claimed effect is named, assayed or characterized anywhere in this literature.
- The rectal route is not arbitrary. The prostate sits directly anterior to the rectum and the two share venous drainage, so a suppository has a short, partly non-portal path to prostatic tissue and bypasses much of hepatic first-pass metabolism. Nobody has measured whether it actually delivers more than an intramuscular injection does.
- A claim that would be remarkable if true and has never been checked: the 1991 papers assert antibacterial activity for an undefined mammalian tissue extract (Vozianov 1991). A minimum inhibitory concentration assay would settle it in an afternoon and none has been published.
How to read these tiers: they say how much human evidence exists, not how well something works — and ✗ flags harm, never a disappointing trial. How the evidence tiers work →
What Prostatilen actually does
Thirty-five years of published studies, and not one of them has a placebo arm. That is the finding this page is built on, and it is checkable against every source below. The literature contains uncontrolled before-and-after series Tkachuk 1991 Vozianov 1991 Borovets 2026 Neymark 2015, one head-to-head against a modified version of the same product Rybalov 2022, and an animal model Savateeva-Liubimova 2012. A placebo-controlled trial of this preparation does not appear in a PubTator3 search run 9 September 2026.
What the product is, and it is two products. A polypeptide extract of bovine prostate, sold as a rectal suppository at $34 and, under the name Samprost, as an injectable lyophilisate at $42 to $72. Same active material, two routes, and no published study has ever compared them. This page covers both because a reader choosing between them has no other source that does.
The mechanism claim, at the level the papers actually make it. This belongs to the Khavinson cytomedine school — Khavinson is an author on the 1991 chronic prostatitis series Tkachuk 1991 and on the prostatic disease series Vozianov 1991 — whose position is that an organ extract carries short peptides that act preferentially on the tissue they came from. Applied to the prostate, the 1991 papers additionally report antibacterial and immunomodulating effects Vozianov 1991. No constituent responsible for any of those is named, assayed or characterized anywhere in this literature.
The one claim in this record that would be remarkable if true. An antibacterial effect from an undefined mammalian tissue extract is a big statement — it would mean the preparation contains something with direct antimicrobial activity, which is measurable in an afternoon with a minimum inhibitory concentration assay. It was asserted in 1991 Vozianov 1991 and, so far as the searchable record shows, never followed up.
Cell, rodent, human — and where it stops
The headline number, and why the design cannot support it. Tkachuk 1991 treated 307 patients aged 18 to 74 with chronic prostatitis of 4 months to 36 years' duration, at 5 to 10 mg once daily intramuscularly for 5 to 10 days, and reports that symptoms disappeared or attenuated in 96.7%. That is a large series, carefully described, with a clinical effect appearing after 2 to 3 injections. It also has no control group. Chronic prostatitis is a fluctuating condition that improves and relapses on its own, and a 96.7% response rate measured without a comparator cannot distinguish the drug from the natural history, the injections, or the attention.
The second 1991 paper is smaller and reports objective measures, which helps. Vozianov 1991 studied 37 men with chronic prostatitis and 15 with prostatic adenoma and reports reduced pain and dysuria, improved copulative function and spermatogenesis, a risen uroflowmetric index, and reduced residual urine and prostatic-secretion leukocyte count. Uroflow and residual urine are instrument measurements rather than impressions, which is a genuine strength. There is still no control arm, and both of those measures move with hydration, position and effort.
The most recent study is the clearest illustration of the problem. Borovets 2026 gave Prostatilen-AC suppositories for 10 days to 50 men aged 25 to 64 with chronic prostatitis and erectile dysfunction, and reports the IIEF-5 score rising from 12.8 ± 5.1 to 17.8 ± 4.3 (p < 0.05) with Doppler evidence of improved penile blood flow. A five-point move on a 25-point validated scale is a large change. It is also a before-and-after measurement in a condition where expectation is a well-documented driver of exactly that scale, and the study has no placebo arm to remove it.
The one comparative trial compares the product against itself. Rybalov 2022 randomized 98 men aged 25 to 45 with chronic abacterial prostatitis between Prostatilen AC — the version with zinc arginyl-glycinate added — and plain Prostatilen, reporting motile spermatozoa up 14.3% against 4.1% and abnormal forms down 12.4% against 6.5%. That is a real comparative design and it answers a narrow question: whether adding zinc helps. Both arms received the product, so it cannot say whether the product does anything. Neymark 2015 is the same pattern for a related prostate peptide preparation in 35 men over 60 days, uncontrolled, reporting sperm count up 28.8% and motility up 17%.
Prostatilen pharmacokinetics — how much of it actually gets in
Two routes rest on two different arguments, and neither has been measured. The injectable form was given intramuscularly at 5 to 10 mg daily in the 1991 series Tkachuk 1991, which is systemic delivery: the peptide mixture enters the general circulation and reaches the prostate as whatever fraction of cardiac output that gland receives. The suppository is a local-delivery argument, and it is a better one than it first sounds.
Why a rectal route is not an arbitrary choice for this organ. The prostate sits directly anterior to the rectum, separated by a thin fascial plane, and the two share drainage through the surrounding venous plexuses. A drug absorbed across rectal mucosa therefore has a short, partly non-portal path to prostatic tissue before general dilution, and rectal absorption also bypasses a large part of hepatic first-pass metabolism. For a peptide mixture that would not survive the stomach, that is a coherent reason to choose the route — and it is why no oral version of this product exists.
What is missing is every number. No published study reports an analyte, a plasma or tissue concentration, a half-life or a bioavailability figure for either presentation Tkachuk 1991 Vozianov 1991 Rybalov 2022 Borovets 2026. The local-delivery argument above is therefore an anatomical inference, not a measurement, and nobody has shown that a suppository puts more of anything into prostate tissue than an intramuscular injection does.
The two timescales in the literature disagree, which is its own signal. The 1991 injection series reports clinical effect after 2 to 3 doses and maximal effect after 5 to 6 Tkachuk 1991; the 2026 suppository study ran 10 days Borovets 2026; the sperm-parameter studies ran 60 days or longer Neymark 2015, which is roughly one spermatogenic cycle and is the correct duration for that endpoint. A product whose claimed onset is three days for symptoms and sixty for sperm is making two different mechanistic claims, and only the second has a biological timescale behind it.
What would have to be true, and how you would know it was not
Four predictions, and this is the rare page where every endpoint is validated and cheap.
1. IPSS and uroflow, before and after a course. The International Prostate Symptom Score is a validated questionnaire and uroflowmetry is an instrument reading. Vozianov 1991 reported the uroflow index rising and residual urine falling, uncontrolled. Prediction under blinding: the symptom score improves and the flow rate does not, because the questionnaire is responsive to expectation and the flow meter is not.
2. IIEF-5, with a sham suppository arm. The 2026 study reports a rise from 12.8 to 17.8 in an open design Borovets 2026. Prediction: a sham-controlled repeat halves that difference or removes it. This is the single most informative experiment anybody could run on this product, it needs about a hundred men and eight weeks, and in thirty-five years nobody has run it.
3. A semen analysis at 0 and 90 days. Count, motility and morphology, timed to a full spermatogenic cycle rather than to a ten-day course. Two studies report improvements of this kind Rybalov 2022 Neymark 2015 and neither had a placebo arm. Semen parameters have large within-person variability between samples, which is precisely why an uncontrolled percentage change is uninterpretable and why two baseline samples are worth more than one.
4. Against the product: prostate-specific antigen, unchanged. Nothing in this literature claims PSA moves and no study reports it. Prediction: no change. It is worth drawing anyway, because a man over 50 buying a prostate product without knowing his own PSA has skipped the measurement that actually matters, and because a rising PSA during a course is a reason to see a urologist rather than to finish the box.
What nobody has tested yet
Nobody has run a placebo-controlled trial in thirty-five years. Six studies, hundreds of men, two routes, and not one sham or placebo arm Tkachuk 1991 Vozianov 1991 Rybalov 2022 Borovets 2026 Neymark 2015. Chronic pelvic pain and erectile function are two of the outcome domains most responsive to expectation in all of medicine, which makes the omission consequential rather than academic.
Nobody has compared the suppository against the injection. The vendor sells both, at different prices, on different delivery arguments, and no study in this record randomizes between them. A reader choosing a route is choosing on anatomy and price, because there is nothing else to choose on.
Nobody has tested the antibacterial claim. Vozianov 1991 asserts antibacterial activity for the preparation. A minimum inhibitory concentration assay against common urogenital organisms is an undergraduate experiment. Thirty-five years later there is no published attempt, which is the ordinary fate of a claim nobody expected to be checked.
Extrapolation, labeled as such. If the tissue-specificity premise holds, three consequences follow that nobody has looked for: a prostate extract should outperform a non-prostate extract on a prostate endpoint, which is a clean two-arm comparison; the effect should be larger where prostatic inflammation is measurable, which the leukocyte count in prostatic secretion already quantifies Vozianov 1991; and the sperm-parameter effect should track the spermatogenic cycle rather than the dosing course, which is testable simply by measuring at 30, 60 and 90 days.
Prostatilen — its own safety story, not its class's
Three things this product owns rather than inherits from its class.
The reported safety record is clean and it was collected by studies not designed to find harm. Vozianov 1991 reports no adverse reactions and Tkachuk 1991 describes the drug as tolerable with no side effects, in a series of 307 men. Those are real observations. They are also open-label, of 5 to 10 days' duration, with no systematic adverse-event collection described, in an era whose reporting standards were not today's. The honest reading is that nothing alarming was seen by people who were not systematically looking.
It is bovine tissue, and one of the two routes is injection. An extract of animal prostate injected intramuscularly raises the sourcing questions every organ extract raises — donor herd, screening, transmissible agents — and none of the studies here describes the manufacturing. The suppository shares the sourcing question and not the injection risk, which is a real difference between the two presentations and one no vendor mentions.
The most likely harm from this product is delay. Prostate symptoms in a man over 50 have a differential that includes benign enlargement, infection and cancer, and the first thing that separates them is an examination, a PSA and sometimes imaging — not a course of suppositories. Nothing on this page is a diagnosis or a treatment recommendation, and the specific outcome it exists to prevent is somebody treating an undiagnosed prostate for ten days and counting the improvement as an answer.
Sources read for this page
- Tkachuk VN, Gorbachev AG, Khavinson VKh. [The use of prostatilen in treating patients with chronic prostatitis]. Urologiia i Nefrologiia (Moskva) 1991 [Russian] · PMID 1823682
- Vozianov AF, Gorpinchenko II, Boiko NI, Drannik GN, Khavinson VKh. [The use of prostatilen in treating patients with prostatic diseases]. Urologiia i Nefrologiia (Moskva) 1991 [Russian] · PMID 1823683
- Rybalov M, Borovets S, Petlenko S, Krasnov A, Apryatina V. Influence of adding zinc arginyl-glycinate to improve efficacy of bioregulatory peptides of the prostate gland in treatment of patients with impaired sperm parameters. Georgian Medical News 2022 · PMID 36318852
- Borovets S Y. Effect of prostate-derived complex peptide preparations on erectile function in patients with chronic prostatitis. Urologiia 2026 [Russian] · PMID 42417303
- Savateeva-Liubimova TN, Sivak KV, Malinin VV. [Effect of prostatilen AC suppositories on the course of experimental prostatitis]. Urologiia 2012 [Russian] · PMID 23116023
- Neymark BA, Neymark AI, Davydov AV, Klepikova II, Nozdrachev NA, Razdorskaya MV. [Role of cytomedines in the treatment of patients with chronic prostatitis associated with impaired spermatogenesis]. Urologiia 2015 [Russian] · PMID 26859942
Prostatilen — interference & stacking
Predicted from mechanism, not from an interaction study. How mechanism-predicted claims are made →
What Prostatilen moves on your bloodwork
Expected direction, not a measured one.
- Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP) — ◆ worth watching
These are short peptide fragments given in microgram amounts and there is no mechanism predicting a specific marker shift. Listing markers here would be padding.
What to do: Test the organ system the bioregulator is aimed at, not a generic panel — that is the only measurement that would tell you anything.
The evidence base here is almost entirely one research group's, largely in Russian, and rarely replicated independently. That is the single most important thing to know before running a course, and it is more useful than any interaction list.
- Dose range and how to work up to it
- When to take it, and why that window
- Cycle length
- Time off between cycles
- Fasted or fed, and when in the day
- Coach Cam's personal notes
- Which compounds push the same lever, and why the dose adds up faster than people count
- What blunts it — the stacks that waste your money
- What compounds the risk, so a side effect arrives sooner than any one of them suggests
- Coach Cam's read on running it alongside the rest of your protocol
Everything above is free and stays free. Skool is where it becomes a plan — Prostatilen in an order, with the rest of what you're running.
Unlock in Skool — $10/mo →Bloodwork to run alongside Prostatilen
Baseline first, then again at 8–12 weeks.
| Marker | What it’s watching for |
|---|---|
| Total Testosterone | The baseline you can't reconstruct later |
| Free Testosterone | The fraction that does anything — total alone misleads |
| SHBG (Sex Hormone-Binding Globulin) | Explains a normal total sitting on top of a low free |
| Estradiol, Sensitive (LC/MS-MS) | The other half of the ratio, and the source of most symptoms |
| LH & FSH | Separates a testicular problem from a pituitary one |
The “Low T? Rule Out the Reversible Causes First” panel covers these in one order — 11 markers, $211.50 with the discount applied.
Check results you already have → · All 103 markers A–Z
Prostatilen — frequently asked questions
What is Prostatilen?
Prostatilen (Samprost, Prostatilen AC — a bovine prostate polypeptide extract, suppository or injection) is a hormonal & sexual research compound. A polypeptide extract of bovine prostate, from the Khavinson cytomedine school, whose position is that an organ extract carries short peptides acting preferentially on the tissue they came from. The 1991 papers additionally assert antibacterial and immunomodulating effects. No constituent responsible for any of that is named, assayed or characterized anywhere in the literature. The suppository route is not arbitrary: the prostate sits directly anterior to the rectum and the two share venous drainage, so rectal absorption gives a short, partly non-portal path to prostatic tissue — which is a coherent reason to choose it and has never been measured.
Where can I find Prostatilen dosing and protocols?
Dosing, the reconstitution calculator and Coach Cam's full Prostatilen protocol are available to members inside Skool. This public page covers what Prostatilen is, how it works and the evidence.
What is the half-life of Prostatilen?
Prostatilen has an approximate half-life of No analyte, no plasma or tissue concentration, no half-life, for either presentation, which is part of what determines how often it's dosed.
What's the evidence behind Prostatilen?
Current evidence level: Six studies across thirty-five years and not one placebo arm. Every trial is either uncontrolled before-and-after or a comparison of the product against a modified version of itself.. Prostatilen is offered for research purposes only and is not an approved medicine.
What Prostatilen is used for
Prostatilen appears under 1 goal in the goal router.
Related Hormonal & Sexual compounds
Where this goes next
The pages here are the frameworks. The protocols — the dosing, the order to correct things in, the week-by-week schedule and what to retest — are inside Skool.