Undertreatment of overactive bladder among men with lower urinary tract symptoms in the United States: A retrospective observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To characterize the epidemiology and treatment patterns of adult men (≥40 years) diagnosed with, or treated for, overactive bladder (OAB) and/or benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: This retrospective observational study used data extracted from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database and the Medicare Supplemental Coordination of Benefits database. Men with BPH and/or OAB were identified and observed to assess treatment and diagnostic patterns. RESULTS: Within the entire study sample (N = 462 400), BPH diagnosis (61.5%) and BPH treatment (73.7%) were more common than the corresponding values for OAB (25.8% and 7.0%, respectively). Notably, among diagnosed individuals, the dispensation of a corresponding treatment was more likely in individuals diagnosed with BPH (183 672 out of 284 416 = 64.6%) compared with OAB (16 468 out of 119 236 = 13.8%). Among newly diagnosed and/or treated patients (n = 196 576), only 60.3% received treatment. Among treated patients, most experienced only a single type of treatment (93.4%), 6.6% went on to receive a secondary treatment and 3.5% a tertiary. The most common primary treatment was alpha-blocker monotherapy (76.9%) followed by tadalafil monotherapy (16.4%). Among those untreated at first diagnosis, the median time between diagnosis and treatment initiation was 128 days. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis and management of OAB among males are challenging given the inherent overlap in symptoms observed with BPH. Unsurprisingly, we found that BPH is diagnosed and treated more frequently than OAB; but the differences between diagnosis and treatment patterns for the two conditions highlight the potential undertreatment of OAB and misdirection of therapy for men with a combination of voiding and storage symptoms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".