Rural vs. urban disparities in association with lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic hyperplasia in ageing men, NHANES 2001-2008.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate rural/urban and socio-demographic disparities in lower urinary tract symptoms and benign prostatic hyperplasia (LUTS/BPH) in a nationally representative population of men. METHODS: Data on men age ≥40 years (N = 4,492) in the 2001-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys were analysed. Self-report of physician-diagnosed enlarged prostate and/or BPH medication use defined recognised LUTS/BPH. Urinary symptoms without BPH diagnosis/medications defined unrecognised LUTS/BPH. Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes assessed urbanisation. Unadjusted and multivariable associations (odds ratios (OR)) between LUTS/BPH and covariates were calculated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Recognised and unrecognised LUTS/BPH weighted-prevalence estimates were 16.5% and 9.6%. There were no significant associations between LUTS/BPH and rural/urban status. Significant predisposing factors for increased adjusted odds of recognised and unrecognised LUTS/BPH included age, hypertension (OR=1.4;1.4), analgesic use (OR=1.4;1.4) and PSA level >4 ng/mL (OR=2.3;1.9) when adjusted for rural/urban status, race, education, income, alcohol, health insurance, health care and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use (all p ≤ 0.1). Restricting to urban men only (N = 3,371), healthcare use (≥4visits/year) and PPI's increased adjusted odds of recognised LUTS/BPH (OR=2.0;1.6); no health insurance and

Modern utilization of penile prosthesis surgery: a national claim registry analysis.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the modern utilization of penile prosthesis surgery based on data derived from national claim databases and contrast to an analysis of patients similarly treated at an academic center during a contemporaneous period. A retrospective claim analysis utilizing a national database (MarketScan, Thomson Reuters) was performed for Commercial insurer and Medicare databases between January 2000 and March 2011. A retrospective analysis of contemporaneous penile prosthesis implantation at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH) was done. Population demographics, comorbidities, previous (ED) therapies and time from ED diagnosis to surgery were assessed. Median ages for patients undergoing penile prosthesis implantation were 58, 70 and 63 years for the Commercial, Medicare and JHH cohorts, respectively. For the claim databases (Commercial, Medicare, respectively), hypertension (72%, 78%), dyslipidemia (71%, 56%) and diabetes mellitus (45%, 40%) were predominant comorbidities, whereas for the JHH database prostate cancer (51%) and its management by prostatectomy (45%) or radiation (12%) were predominant. Previous use of PDE5 inhibitors was similar across databases (60, 58 and 69% for Commercial, Medicare and JHH cohorts, respectively), although previous use of non-oral ED therapies was greater in the JHH database. Median time to surgery from initial ED diagnosis was 2, 2 and 4 years for the Commercial, Medicare and JHH patients, respectively. Demographic variables and ED risk factors associated with penile prosthesis surgery at a national population-based level over a contemporary period were defined. Some differences in utilization trends of penile prosthesis surgery exist at a single institutional level.

The assessment of vascular risk in men with erectile dysfunction: the role of the cardiologist and general physician.

Erectile dysfunction (ED) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) share risk factors and frequently coexist, with endothelial dysfunction believed to be the pathophysiologic link. ED is common, affecting more than 70% of men with known CVD. In addition, clinical studies have demonstrated that ED in men with no known CVD often precedes a CVD event by 2-5 years. ED severity has been correlated with increasing plaque burden in patients with coronary artery disease. ED is an independent marker of increased CVD risk including all-cause and especially CVD mortality, particularly in men aged 30-60 years. Thus, ED identifies a window of opportunity for CVD risk mitigation. We recommend that a thorough history, physical exam (including visceral adiposity), assessment of ED severity and duration and evaluation including fasting plasma glucose, lipids, resting electrocardiogram, family history, lifestyle factors, serum creatinine (estimated glomerular filtration rate) and albumin:creatinine ratio, and determination of the presence or absence of the metabolic syndrome be performed to characterise cardiovascular risk in all men with ED. Assessment of testosterone levels should also be considered and biomarkers may help to further quantify risk, even though their roles in development of CVD have not been firmly established. Finally, we recommend that a question about ED be included in assessment of CVD risk in all men and be added to CVD risk assessment guidelines.