Evidence Hub

Patient characteristics and treatment patterns for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia, erectile dysfunction or co-occurring benign prostatic hyperplasia and erectile dysfunction in general practices in the UK: a retrospective observational study

Ilo D, Raluy-Callado M, Graham-Clarke P, Sadasivan R, Birt J, Donaldson R, Zhu E, Kirby MG et al.

International journal of clinical practice, 2015

11,501 participants

Abstract

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess patient characteristics, medication treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization among men with existing erectile dysfunction (ED) or benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), who are newly diagnosed with the second condition (BPH or ED) compared with those with only one condition.

METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Males, aged 40 years or older, newly diagnosed with ED or symptomatic BPH between 1 June 2010 and 31 May 2011, were selected. Patient demographics, existing comorbidities and baseline medication use were analysed. Treatments initiated for the incident condition and treatment patterns were reported at 6, 12, 18 and 24-months postdiagnosis. Referrals to urologists and visits to general practitioners were reported around diagnosis and during follow-up.

RESULTS: This study included 11,501 incident patients with BPH, of which 23% had a prior ED diagnosis and 9,734 incident patients with ED, of which 17% had a prior BPH diagnosis. The average age at diagnosis of BPH was similar across both cohorts. Among incident patients with ED, those with prior diagnosis of BPH were diagnosed at an older average age (65 ± 9.2 years) compared to those without BPH (57 ± 9.1 years). The majority of patients in both incident BPH cohorts (62.9-65.5%) were prescribed alpha-blockers as initial treatment. The majority of patients in both incident ED cohorts (49.6-51.6%) were prescribed…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 11,501 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free