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.

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 sildenafil as initial treatment followed by tadalafil (24.3-26.0%). At 12 months, 50% of incident patients with BPH and 80% of patients with ED had discontinued the therapy initiated. CONCLUSION: This study found that in the UK, patients with co-occurring BPH and ED when newly diagnosed with the second condition initiated the same treatments as those without prior ED or BPH. During the first year, treatment patterns including discontinuation were comparable in the groups with one of the conditions and co-occurring BPH and ED.

Resource utilization and productivity loss in persons with spina bifida­an observational study of patients in a tertiary urology clinic in Germany.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate resource use and burden associated with spina bifida (SB) in Germany. METHODS: A questionnaire was used to obtain information on SB-related healthcare resource use and assistive technologies used for the last 1 and 10 years. Individuals with SB were recruited at a tertiary specialist clinic. To participate, persons with SB required the cognitive ability to respond or a caregiver to answer questions on their behalf. They could use personal medical charts or other records to answer. The analyses included assessment of frequency and extent of resource use for both time frames. RESULTS: Data on 88 persons with a diagnosis of SB were collected (44% female). During the last year, 88.6% (N = 78) reported at least one visit to a general practitioner's (GP's) office, 77.3% (N = 68) to a urologist and 69.3% (N = 61) to a physiotherapist. The annual average number of visits was 7.6 GP, 3.6 urologist and 65.3 physiotherapist visits. Amongst those hospitalized, a single hospitalization lasted 7.3 days on average, whereas the average annual number of hospital days was 14.8 days. During the previous 10 years, 67.0% (N = 59) of responders used a wheelchair, 64.7% (N = 57) used glasses and 59.1% (N = 52) used orthopaedic shoes, with an average of 2.5, 2.8 and 6.1 new items used, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that persons with SB require a substantial amount of interaction with healthcare providers, as well as other healthcare-related resource use, both in the shorter and longer terms.

Rates and risk of hospitalisation among patients with type 2 diabetes: retrospective cohort study using the UK General Practice Research Database linked to English Hospital Episode Statistics.

AIMS: To investigate the rates and risk of hospitalisations in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) mellitus in England. METHODS: This retrospective population-based cohort study used computerised records from the General Practice Research Database linked to Hospital Episode Statistics data in England. Patients with T2D from January 2006 to December 2010 were selected. Primary outcome measures were all-cause, non-diabetes-related, diabetes-related and hypoglycaemia-related hospitalisations. Factors associated with all-cause and diabetes-related hospitalisations were investigated with Cox's proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Amongst 97,689 patients with T2D, approximately 60% had at least one hospitalisation during the 4-year study period. Rates of hospitalisation were as follows: all-cause, 33.9 per 100 patient-years (pt-yrs); non-diabetes-related, 29.1 per 100 pt-yrs; diabetes-related, 18.8 per 100 pt-yrs and hypoglycaemia, 0.3 per 100 pt-yrs. The risk of all-cause hospitalisation increased with hospitalisation in the previous year, insulin use and the presence of major comorbidities. The risk of a diabetes-related hospitalisation increased with age, female gender, insulin use, chronic renal insufficiency, hypoglycaemia (as diagnosed by a general practitioner) and diabetes-related hospitalisation in the previous year. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T2D are hospitalised at a considerably high rate for causes directly related with diabetes complications and stay longer in hospital. History of hospitalisation and complications of diabetes were found to be predictive of inpatient hospitalisations suggesting previous hospitalisation episodes could serve as points of intervention. This study highlights important areas for healthcare intervention and provides a reminder for vigilance when risk factors for hospitalisation in patients with T2D are present.