Alpha blocker monotherapy versus combination therapy with antimuscarinics in men with persistent LUTS refractory to alpha-adrenergic treatment: patterns of persistence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) often present with voiding and storage symptoms, which may require combination therapy with an alpha blocker and an antimuscarinic (AM). This study compared treatment persistence in LUTS/BPH patients on alpha blocker monotherapy with those using combination alpha blocker and AM therapy (AB/AM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of anonymized patient longitudinal prescription reimbursement claims data. All patients who had claims for any of four alpha blocker medications and six AM agents during an index period from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012 were included. For the combination therapy group, the effect of adherence with the AM medication on persistence to the alpha blocker was examined. RESULTS: Patients on AB/AM combination therapy remained on alpha blockers for longer than those on alpha blocker monotherapy (p = 0.04); 92.4% were persistent at 3 months versus 89.0%, and at 1 year 50.8% were persistent versus 49.6%, respectively. The highest number of days on therapy was reported for tamsulosin plus solifenacin. As confirmed by multivariate analysis, patients with the highest adherence to AM medication (= 80%) persisted on alpha blockers for longer than those with the lowest (< 50%) adherence (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients taking an AM in combination with an alpha blocker showed greater persistence with alpha blocker treatment over a 1 year period. When an AM is combined with an alpha blocker in patients with LUTS/BPH, the additional medication burden does not have a negative impact on persistence and may even improve it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".