World Journal of Urology

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 665–671 | Cite as

The effects of dutasteride and finasteride on BPH-related hospitalization, surgery and prostate cancer diagnosis: a record-linkage analysis

  • Luca Cindolo
  • Caterina Fanizza
  • Marilena Romero
  • Luisella Pirozzi
  • Riccardo Autorino
  • Francesco Berardinelli
  • Luigi Schips
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate differences in the risk of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-related hospitalization, for surgical and non-surgical reasons, and of new prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis between patients using finasteride or dutasteride.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from record linkage of administrative databases (pharmaceutical prescription data, hospital discharge records, Italian population registry). Men aged ≥40 years old who had received a prescription for at least 10 packs/year between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2004 were included and followed for 5 years.

The association of the outcomes was assessed using a multiple Cox proportional hazard model. Propensity score-matched analysis and a 5–1, greedy 1:1 matching algorithm were performed.

Results

8,132 patients were identified. Overall incidence rates of BPH hospitalization and BPH-related surgery were 21.05 (95 % CI 19.52–22.71) and 20.97 (95 % CI 19.45–22.61) per 1,000 person-years, respectively. In the dutasteride group compared with finasteride group, the incidence rate of both events was statistically significant lower: 16.07 versus 21.76 for BPH hospitalization and 15.91 versus 21.69 for BPH-related surgery. The incidence rate of new PCa was also lower for the dutasteride group [8.34 (95 % CI 5.96–11.68) vs. 10.25 (95 % CI 9.15–11.49)]. Dutasteride was associated with a reduction in BPH-related hospitalizations (HR 0.75, 95 % CI 0.58–0.98 and 0.58–0.98 for surgical and non-surgical reasons). The matched analysis confirmed the risk reduction with dutasteride for BPH-related surgery.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that the clinical effects of dutasteride and finasteride might be different. Patients treated with dutasteride seem to be less likely to experience BPH-related hospitalization. Comparative studies are needed to confirm these results.

Keywords

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) Dutasteride Finasteride Epidemiology Medical record linkage 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was financially supported by an unconditional grant from GlaxoSmithKline.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Emberton M, Fitzpatrick JM, Garcia-Losa M, Qizilbash N, Djavan B (2008) Progression of benign prostatic hyperplasia: systematic review of the placebo arms of clinical trials. BJU Int 102:981–986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oelke M, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A,et al. Guidelines on Management of Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS), incl. Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO) Uroweb 2012. Accessed 21 June 2012 at http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/12_Male_LUTS_LR%20May%209th%202012.pdf
  3. 3.
    Boyle P, Roehrborn C, Harkaway R, Logie J, de la Rosette J, Emberton M (2004) 5-alpha reductase inhibition provides superior benefits to alpha blockade by preventing AUR and BPH-related surgery. Eur Urol 45:620–626PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McConnell JD, Roehrborn CG, Bautista O et al (2003) Medical therapy of prostatic symptoms (MTOPS) research group. The long-term effect of doxazosin, finasteride, and combination therapy on the clinical progression of benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med 349:2387–2398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roehrborn CG, Siami P, Barkin J et al (2010) The effects of combination therapy with dutasteride and tamsulosin on clinical outcomes in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: 4-year results from the CombAT study. Eur Urol 57:123–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Robert G, Descazeaud A, de la Taille A (2011) Lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia: who are the high-risk patients and what are the best treatment options? Curr Opin Urol 21:42–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark RV, Hermann DJ, Cunningham GR, Wilson TH, Morrill BB, Hobbs S (2004) Marked suppression of dihydrotestosterone in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia by dutasteride, a dual 5alpha-reductase inhibitor. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89:2179–2184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Naslund M, Black L, Eaddy M, Batiste LR (2007) Differences in alpha blocker usage among enlarged prostate patients receiving combination therapy with 5 ARIs. Am J Manag Care 13:S17–S22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Naslund M, Regan TS, Ong C, Hogue SL (2008) 5-Alpha reductase inhibitors in men with an enlarged prostate: an evaluation of outcomes and therapeutic alternatives. Am J Manag Care 14:S148–S153PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Issa MM, Runken MC, Grogg AL, Shah MB (2007) A large retrospective analysis of acute urinary retention and prostate-related surgery in BPH patients treated with 5-alpha reductase inhibitors: dutasteride versus finasteride. Am J Manag Care 13:S10–S16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nickel JC, Gilling P, Tammela TL, Morrill B, Wilson TH, Rittmaster RS (2011) Comparison of dutasteride and finasteride for treating benign prostatic hyperplasia: enlarged Prostate International Comparator Study (EPICS). BJU Int 108:388–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thompson IM, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM et al (2003) The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 349:215–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andriole GL, Bostwick DG, Brawley OW et al (2010) Effect of dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 362:1192–1202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Theoret MR, Ning YM, Zhang JJ, Justice R, Keegan P, Pazdur R (2011) The risks and benefits of 5α-reductase inhibitors for prostate-cancer prevention. N Engl J Med 365:97–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Margel D, Fleshner N (2012) The role of 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors in active surveillance. Curr Opin Urol 22:243–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cohen SA, Parsons JK (2012) Combination pharmacological therapies for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Drugs Aging 29:275–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (2003) ATC Index with DDDs. WHO, Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd9cm.htm. Accessibility verified 14 May 2012
  19. 19.
    Monte S, Macchia A, Pellegrini F et al (2006) Antithrombotic treatment is strongly underused despite reducing overall mortality among high-risk elderly patients hospitalized with atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 27:2217–2223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Macchia A, Monte S, Romero M, D’Ettorre A, Tognoni G (2007) The prognostic influence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in patients hospitalized for chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 9:942–948PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Macchia A, Monte S, Pellegrini F et al (2008) Depression worsens outcomes in elderly patients with heart failure: an analysis of 48,117 patients in a community setting. Eur J Heart Fail 10:714–721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 40:373–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Romano PS, Roos LL, Jollis JG (1993) Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. J Clin Epidemiol 46:1075–1079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    D’Agostino RB Jr (1998) Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 17:2265–2281PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yanovitzky I, Zanutto E, Hornik R (2005) Estimating causal effects of public health education campaigns using propensity score methodology. Eval Program Plann 28:209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parsons LS (2004) Reducing bias in a propensity score matched pair sample using greedy matching techniques. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, InGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM (2007) A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 26:734–753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lin DY, Psaty BM, Krommal RA (1998) Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies. Biometrics 54:948–963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McConnell JD, Bruskewitz R, Walsh P et al (1998) The effect of finasteride on the risk of acute urinary retention and the need for surgical treatment among men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. finasteride long-term efficacy and safety study group. N Engl J Med 338:557–563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fenter TC, Runken MC, Black L, Eaddy M (2007) Finasteride versus dutasteride: a real-world economic evaluation. Am J Manag Care 13:S23–S28PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Cindolo
    • 1
    • 4
  • Caterina Fanizza
    • 2
  • Marilena Romero
    • 2
  • Luisella Pirozzi
    • 2
  • Riccardo Autorino
    • 3
  • Francesco Berardinelli
    • 4
  • Luigi Schips
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of UrologyS.Pio Da Pietrelcina HospitalVastoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Clinical Pharmacology and EpidemiologyConsorzio Mario Negri SudSanta Maria ImbaroItaly
  3. 3.Urology UnitSecond University of NaplesNaplesItaly
  4. 4.Department of UrologyS.Pio Da Pietrelcina HospitalVastoItaly

Personalised recommendations