Comparing Clinical and Economic Outcomes Associated with Early Initiation of Combination Therapy of an Alpha Blocker and Dutasteride or Finasteride in Men with Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in the United States
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common disease in men that is characterized by lower urinary tract symptoms. Pharmacologic treatment with alpha blockers (ABs) and 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) is recommended to alleviate symptoms, prevent disease progression that can lead to complications, and reduce health care costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical, economic, and health care resource utilization outcomes among BPH patients treated with early continuous combination AB and 5ARI therapy (dutasteride vs. finasteride) using administrative claims data from the United States. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from 2003-2013 was conducted to compare outcomes between patients with claims for early combination therapy with dutasteride + AB and patients with claims for early finasteride + AB. The study population included males aged older than 50 years with at least 1 medical claim with a diagnosis of BPH and pharmacy dispensing for AB and 5ARI therapies. Outcomes included acute urinary retention (AUR), prostate-related surgery, clinical progression, medical and pharmacy costs, and health care resource utilization. Inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighted Cox proportional hazards, linear, and Poisson regression models were used to assess the association between outcomes and early combination therapy as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 2,778 patients were included in the early finasteride + AB treatment cohort, and 4,125 patients were included in the early dutasteride + AB cohort. Dutasteride users were younger than finasteride users (mean age: 64.8 vs. 67.5 years, P < 0.001) and had a greater mean number of urologist visits (10.7 vs. 7.9, P < 0.001) during baseline. After adjusting for confounding using IPT weighting, no statistically significant difference was observed between dutasteride and finasteride for AUR (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.845, 95% CI = 0.660-1.070, P = 0.1643), prostate-related surgery (HR = 0.806, 95% CI = 0.568-1.171, P = 0.2525), and clinical progression (HR = 0.834, 95% CI = 0.663-1.043, P = 0.1122). While dutasteride was associated with higher pharmacy costs per month (adjusted monthly cost difference = $79, 95% CI = $45-$105), total all-cause medical costs were not significantly different between the 2 cohorts (adjusted monthly cost difference = -$44, 95% CI = -$110-$22). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and economic outcomes were similar between the early dutasteride + AB and early finasteride + AB cohorts, with no statistically significant differences detected. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was provided by GlaxoSmithKline (HO-14-15325 and AVO110072). Bell and Swensen are employees of GlaxoSmithKline. DerSarkissian, Xiao, Duh, and Lefebvre are employed by Analysis Group, a consulting company that received research grants from GlaxoSmithKline to conduct this study. Study concept and design were contributed by Bell, Swensen, Lefebvre, and Duh. Bell and Duh acquired the data. DerSarkissian and Xiao performed the statistical analysis and interpreted the data along with Lefebvre, Duh, and Bell. DerSarkissian and Bell drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed equally to critically revising the manuscript and providing final approval of the submitted manuscript.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».