MP28-16 THE ASSOCIATION OF NEW ONSET DIABETES AND MEDICAL THERAPY FOR BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyBenign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Epidemiology & Evaluation (MP28)1 Sep 2021MP28-16 THE ASSOCIATION OF NEW ONSET DIABETES AND MEDICAL THERAPY FOR BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA Jeannette Johnstone, Avril Lusty, D. Robert Siemens, J. Curtis Nickel, Mina Tohidi, Marlo Whitehead, and Joan Tranmer Jeannette JohnstoneJeannette Johnstone More articles by this author , Avril LustyAvril Lusty More articles by this author , D. Robert SiemensD. Robert Siemens More articles by this author , J. Curtis NickelJ. Curtis Nickel More articles by this author , Mina TohidiMina Tohidi More articles by this author , Marlo WhiteheadMarlo Whitehead More articles by this author , and Joan TranmerJoan Tranmer More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002025.16AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Long-term medical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) includes use of 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARI) and alpha-blockers (AB). Studies have demonstrated an increased risk of comorbidities, including cardiac failure and diabetes mellitus with use of these medications, raising safety concerns. This study aims to determine the risk of developing diabetes with the use of AB and 5ARI in combination as well as monotherapy. METHODS: This population-based study used administrative databases to look at men over the age of 66 with a diagnosis of BPH between 2005 and 2015. Men were categorized based on exposure to 5ARI or AB. Primary outcome was new cardiac failure and new diagnosis of diabetes. Variables examined included exposure time to medication, age, and comorbidities and logistic regression was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There was a total 129 223 men with a BPH diagnosis and no prior history of diabetes mellitus. Of these, 6 390 were exposed to 5ARI, 39 592 exposed to AB, and 30 545 exposed to combination therapy. There was a statistically significant association with new onset of diabetes mellitus with these medication regimens compared to no medication use. Men treated with combination therapy of 5ARI and AB (OR 1.276; 95% CI 1.226-1.329), 5ARI monotherapy (OR 1.254; 95% CI 1.168-1.345), or AB monotherapy (OR 1.171; 95% CI 1.127-1.217) all showed increased association. When calculating risk of new diagnosis of diabetes measured from start of therapy, AB had a decreased risk in comparison to 5ARI monotherapy (OR 0.887; 95% CI 0.816-0.966). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, men with a BPH diagnosis and exposed to both 5ARI and AB therapy had an increased association of developing new onset diabetes mellitus when compared to no medication use. In a direct comparison of those that initiated monotherapy, 5ARI was shown to have an increased risk compared to AB. Source of Funding: This study was supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC). Parts of this material are based on data and information compiled and provided by CIHI. The opinions, results, and conclusions reported in this paper are those of the authors and are independent from the funding sources and CIHI. No endorsement by ICES or the Ontario MOHLTC is intended or should be inferred © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e487-e487 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jeannette Johnstone More articles by this author Avril Lusty More articles by this author D. Robert Siemens More articles by this author J. Curtis Nickel More articles by this author Mina Tohidi More articles by this author Marlo Whitehead More articles by this author Joan Tranmer More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.017 |
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".