Paola Irene Ornaghi1, Angelo Porreca2, Marco Sandri3, Alessandro Sciarra4, Mario Falsaperla5, Giuseppe Mario Ludovico6, Maria Angela Cerruto1, Alessandro Antonelli7. 1. Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Aristide Stefani, 1, 37126, Verona, VR, Italy. 2. Department of Urology, Polyclinic of Abano Terme, Piazza Cristoforo Colombo, 1, 35031, Abano Terme, PD, Italy. 3. Big & Open Data Innovation Laboratory (BODaI-Lab), University of Brescia, Via S. Faustino 74/B, 25122, Brescia, BS, Italy. 4. Department of Maternal and Child Health and Urological Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I, Viale Regina Elena, 328, 00161, Roma, RM, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliera di Rilievo Nazionale e di Alta Specializzazione Garibaldi, piazza Santa Maria di Gesù, 5, 95124, Catania, CT, Italy. 6. Department of Urology, Regional General Hospital Francesco Miulli, Strada Prov. 127 Acquaviva - Santeramo Km. 4, 70021, Acquaviva delle Fonti, BA, Italy. 7. Department of Urology, University of Verona, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Piazzale Aristide Stefani, 1, 37126, Verona, VR, Italy. alessandro.antonelli@aovr.veneto.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence on clinical presentation of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is scarce, and studies involving outpatients are lacking. We aimed to provide an insight into the contemporary Italian scenario of BPH-affected outpatients using symptom scores (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS], BPH Impact Index [BII]), and to compare characteristics of patients with known BPH and those first-diagnosed at the visit. METHODS: "IMPROVING THE PATH" project working group designed a questionary prospectively administered to BPH-affected outpatients by urologists. A cross-sectional study was performed. Data were adjusted for patient age as a potential confounding factor. RESULTS: Of 5815 patients enrolled, BPH was already diagnosed in 4144 (71.3%), and not in 1671 (28.7%). Patients with known BPH, compared to newly diagnosed, were older (median 68 versus [vs] 55), had more frequent smoking (smoker 27.2 vs 22.6%, and ex-smoker 16.4 vs 12.5%) and drinking habits (55.4 vs 45.1%), were more frequently affected by hypertension (60.0 vs 42.4%), obesity (15.3 vs 9.6%), diabetes (17.9 vs 12.5%), and cardiovascular diseases (14.2 vs 9.5%), p < 0.001. At IPSS, moderate and severe symptoms correlated with already known BPH (56.1 vs 47.3% and 24.8 vs 7.8%), whereas newly diagnosed patients showed milder symptoms (44.9 vs 19.1%), all p < 0.001. At BII, concern for one's health and time lost due to urinary problems were higher in patients with known BPH (p < 0.001). For these patients, the urologist changes at least one of the ongoing medications in 63.5%. For patients newly diagnosed, supplements/phytotherapeutics, alpha-blockers, and 5-alfa reductase inhibitors were prescribed in 54.6%, 21.6%, and 7.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite medical treatment, natural history of BPH leads to a progressive deterioration of symptoms. This may reflect the difference between newly diagnosed patients and those with known BPH in lifestyle and associated comorbidities. A healthy lifestyle and treatments including local anti-inflammatory agents may delay worsening of symptoms and improve quality of life.
BACKGROUND: Evidence on clinical presentation of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is scarce, and studies involving outpatients are lacking. We aimed to provide an insight into the contemporary Italian scenario of BPH-affected outpatients using symptom scores (International Prostate Symptom Score [IPSS], BPH Impact Index [BII]), and to compare characteristics of patients with known BPH and those first-diagnosed at the visit. METHODS: "IMPROVING THE PATH" project working group designed a questionary prospectively administered to BPH-affected outpatients by urologists. A cross-sectional study was performed. Data were adjusted for patient age as a potential confounding factor. RESULTS: Of 5815 patients enrolled, BPH was already diagnosed in 4144 (71.3%), and not in 1671 (28.7%). Patients with known BPH, compared to newly diagnosed, were older (median 68 versus [vs] 55), had more frequent smoking (smoker 27.2 vs 22.6%, and ex-smoker 16.4 vs 12.5%) and drinking habits (55.4 vs 45.1%), were more frequently affected by hypertension (60.0 vs 42.4%), obesity (15.3 vs 9.6%), diabetes (17.9 vs 12.5%), and cardiovascular diseases (14.2 vs 9.5%), p < 0.001. At IPSS, moderate and severe symptoms correlated with already known BPH (56.1 vs 47.3% and 24.8 vs 7.8%), whereas newly diagnosed patients showed milder symptoms (44.9 vs 19.1%), all p < 0.001. At BII, concern for one's health and time lost due to urinary problems were higher in patients with known BPH (p < 0.001). For these patients, the urologist changes at least one of the ongoing medications in 63.5%. For patients newly diagnosed, supplements/phytotherapeutics, alpha-blockers, and 5-alfa reductase inhibitors were prescribed in 54.6%, 21.6%, and 7.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite medical treatment, natural history of BPH leads to a progressive deterioration of symptoms. This may reflect the difference between newly diagnosed patients and those with known BPH in lifestyle and associated comorbidities. A healthy lifestyle and treatments including local anti-inflammatory agents may delay worsening of symptoms and improve quality of life.