4.6 Article

Trends in adverse events of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in the USA, 1998 to 2008

Journal

BJU INTERNATIONAL
Volume 109, Issue 1, Pages 84-87

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10250.x

Keywords

benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH); epidemiology; Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS); outcomes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE To determine if the adverse events (AEs) of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) have declined in tandem with increased use of oral therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a 20% sample of USA community hospitals, weighted to estimate national numbers to characterize the prevalence of AEs of BPH from 1998 to 2008. We calculated the age- adjusted prevalence of BPH and associated conditions and analyzed prevalence trends with regression modelling. RESULTS Of 134 million estimated eligible discharges during the study period, 7 464 730 (5.6%) had either a primary or secondary diagnosis of BPH. The age-adjusted prevalence of BPH among all hospitalizations, irrespective of primary diagnosis, increased from 4.3% to 8% (P < 0.001) during the study period. The age-adjusted prevalence of BPH as a primary diagnosis decreased from 0.88% to 0.48% (P < 0.001). Discharges for BPH surgery decreased 51% (odds ratio [ OR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [ CI] 0.45-0.54, P -trend < 0.001) over time. Discharges for primary BPH with acute renal failure increased > 400% (OR 4.28, 95% CI 3.22-5.71, P -trend < 0.001). There were no significant changes in discharges for primary BPH with urinary retention (P -trend = 0.636), bladder stones (P -trend = 0.117), or urinary infection (P trend = 0.101) over time. CONCLUSIONS Increased hospitalizations for BPH with acute renal failure and stable hospitalizations for other AEs of BPH indicate that severe AEs of BPH persist despite widespread use of oral therapies in the USA. Further studies are needed to explain these trends.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available