BPH: Social Impact and Patient s Perspective

european urology supplements 5 (2006) 991 996 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.europeanurology.com BPH: Social Impact and Patient s Perspective Mark Emberton a, *, Guiseppe Martorana b a Institute of Urology, University College London, London, United Kingdom b Department of Urology, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy Article info Keywords: BPH LUTS Quality of life Patients Partners Please visit www.eu-acme.org/ europeanurology to read and answer questions on-line. The EU-ACME credits will then be attributed automatically. Abstract Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition in ageing men and although not a life-threatening disease, it can affect quality of life (QOL) to differing degrees. BPH progressively decreases patient selfesteem and lower urinary tract symptoms have also been shown to affect a patient s perceived sexuality. It has been shown that the impact of BPH on QOL is comparable to other disease conditions such as epilepsy requiring surgery and asthma, but worse, in certain aspects, than chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. With regard to the effect that BPH has on the patient s partner, the morbidity reported was due to sleep disturbance, disruption of social life, psychological burden, inadequate sex life, and fear of surgery or prostate cancer. Factors that influence a patient s desire to seek treatment have been identified and include bother, interference with daily activities, symptom frequency, worry, and embarrassment; patients also have a major concern about acute urinary retention (AUR) and BPH-related surgery. The reasons patients with BPH chose one therapy over another have been studied and it appears that patients prefer rapid symptom improvement, reduction in prostate size, no side-effects, and a decrease in the risk of AUR and surgery. The strongest influence was side-effects and the most important benefit was reduction in prostate size. Physicians clearly influence the final treatment decision, but they should be aware of patient preferences and consider them when they discuss treatment options with the patient. # 2006 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. * Corresponding author. Institute of Urology, University College London, 48 Riding House Street, London W1 7EY, United Kingdom. Tel. +44 20 7 636 8333; Fax: +44 20 7 637 7076. E-mail address: memberton@dial.pipex.com (M. Emberton). 1. Prevalence of BPH Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition in ageing men and has been reported to occur in 19 30% of men older than 50 yr [1,2]. Bosch et al. suggest that the incidence of the disease depends very much on the parameters used to define the condition [1]. The prevalence of 19% was based on a definition that combines prostate volume >30 ml and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) >7, whereas a lower limit of 4.3% was derived from the definition of prostate volume >30 ml, IPSS >7, maximum flow rate (Q max ) < 10 ml/s, and postvoid residual urine >50 ml. A more recent epidemiologic 1569-9056/$ see front matter # 2006 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.eursup.2006.08.008

992 european urology supplements 5 (2006) 991 996 study by Boyle and associates examined incidence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) across four countries and found that moderate to severe symptoms (IPSS 8 35) were present in 16.2 20.7% of men [2]. They also demonstrated that the incidence of moderate to severe LUTS increased with age, rising from 10.6% in men aged 40 49 yr to 40.4% in men aged 70 79 yr. Clinical BPH is now defined as at least two of the following: moderate to severe LUTS (IPSS 8), an enlarged prostate (30 ml), and a decreased Q max (<15 ml/s) [3]. 2. Impact of BPH on quality of life Although not a life-threatening condition, BPH can affect quality of life (QOL) to differing degrees as demonstrated in several population-based studies using generic QOL questionnaires, such as the EuroQol and the Short-Form 36 (SF-36). An Italian multicentre observational study involving 802 patients, aged 50 80 yr, with LUTS/BPH found a strong association between total IPSS and the IPSS- QOL Index [4]. All patients who were mildly (IPSS < 10) or moderately (IPSS 10 15) symptomatic according to their IPSS were reported as having a good or satisfactory QOL compared with 98.3% of patients with moderate or severe LUTS (IPSS >15) who stated that their QOL was bad or even very bad. Another study showed that increasing symptom severity was associated with worsening physical role, social functioning, vitality, and mental health [5]. In addition, the increasing bothersome aspect of LUTS associated with BPH was linked to worsening of all dimensions of general health status and QOL. The SF-36 questionnaire has been used in a study of 178 men aged from 45 yr waiting to undergo a transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), with a control group consisting of the general population [6]. Results indicated that men in the group aged 45 64 yr waiting for surgery had significantly lower health-related QOL (HRQOL) in the domains of role physical, bodily pain, general health perception, social functioning, and roleemotional and mental health (Fig. 1) [3,6]. Men aged 65 yr also had significantly lower vitality (reduced social functioning and decreased mental health). Evidence exists that BPH progressively decreases patient self-esteem. A study of 16 men with LUTS or an enlarged prostate (or both) recruited from an outpatient urology clinic in the United Kingdom were assessed using an individualised repertory grid, a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale as well as the IPSS [7]. Findings from the study indicated that men were bothered by a combination of symptom severity, psychological distress, negative evaluations of BPH, and beliefs about the reaction of others. BPH was also considered a progressive disease that was associated with old age. LUTS have been shown to affect a patient s perceived sexuality. One study investigated the relative importance of sexuality and QOL in 114 patients with LUTS (IPSS >7) [8]. All patients had moderate or severe symptoms and answered an 89- item questionnaire to assess the interference of symptoms with different aspects of QOL. The scores of importance attributed to sexual activity demonstrated that many patients believed that interference of symptoms with sexuality was important, very important, or extremely important. Fig. 1 Short Form 36 mean scores: benign prostatic hyperplasia patients and the general population by age group [3,6]. Reproduced with permission from Hong et al. BJU Int 2005;95:15 9. Blackwell Publishing.

european urology supplements 5 (2006) 991 996 993 The impact of BPH on QOL is comparable to other disease conditions such as epilepsy requiring surgery and asthma [9], but worse in certain aspects than chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [10]. A comparison between the impact of BPH and epilepsy requiring surgery can be made in two studies using the EuroQol (EQ-50), which consists of a health status index instrument and a visual analogue scale (VAS) [11]. The VAS scale is calibrated from 0 to 100 with the end point of 100 equalling best imaginable health state and 0 the worst possible health state. The BPH study was a population-based, self-administered survey of 15,000 men in the United Kingdom [12] and the epilepsy study involved 145 patients, of whom 22 could be assessed before and after surgery [13]. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) EQ-50 VAS scores in the patients with BPH ranged from 63 (75.6) in patients with mild LUTS (IPSS >8 and < 19) to 54 (67.4) in patients with severe symptoms (IPSS 19). This compares with a mean EQ-50 VAS score of 61.6 (20.3) in the patients with epilepsy. In comparisons between the impact of BPH and COPD on QOL, with the exception of physical functioning, patients with BPH had a worse QOL than the patients with COPD [10,14]. Another aspect of BPH is the risk of acute urinary retention (AUR) and the effect it has on QOL. One study examined the impact of admission for AUR on patient s HRQOL (n = 43) compared with admission for elective surgery for BPH (n = 35) and emergency admission for renal colic (n = 17) [15]. Patients were assessed using a self-administered HRQOL questionnaire given at five visits: 72 h from admission, and at 1, 2, 3, and 6 mo of follow-up. Results indicated that at the screening visit interference of pain with enjoyment of life during the past 24 h was greatest in patients with AUR; however, all patient groups had a dramatic decrease in the level of interference after 1 mo. In addition, the study revealed that there was substantial economic burden on patients after an episode of AUR, with 15% of patients having to pay for extra assistance at home. There was also the burden of multiple visits to hospital accident and emergency departments and extra admissions to the hospital due to AUR. 3. Effect on the partner Any chronic disease will have an impact on the family of the person with that condition because it is the partner or family who usually cares for the individual. A number of studies have looked at the burden, psychological or otherwise, of living with someone with BPH/LUTS. Numerous methodologies have been used and it is not surprising that the findings differ among the studies. A summary of the evidence is given below. It is likely that the magnitude of burden felt and or expressed by caregivers will depend on the culture, country, socioeconomic grouping, and the health care system in which these studies were conducted. Attention has been moving towards the impact of BPH on the QOL of a patient s partner and his family. The multinational UrEpik study examined data on the impact of LUTS on QOL from 3473 couples in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, South Korea, and France [2]. The survey revealed that the presence of LUTS in a patient had an adverse effect on the QOL of the partner. Among women who thought that their partner had urinary problems, 28.7% reported that they would not be satisfied if the partner s urinary condition remained as it was; 4.5% of women who awoke indicated that this was due to their partner s nocturia. Of those women who only awoke at night for this reason, 11.8% were quite bothered by this. A study by Mitropoulos et al. [16] looked at 50 couples where the man had symptomatic BPH. The IPSS was completed by patients and the partners responded to a structured questionnaire that examined the following seven items: sleep disturbance, social disruption, performance of essential tasks, psychological impact, sex life, fear of cancer, and fear of surgery. The partner s morbidity due to the husband s condition was due to sleep disturbance (28%) caused by an increase in nocturia; disruption of social life (30%); inability to take care of essential tasks outside and inside their house (8%); psychological burden (66%), which was positively related to the wife s age; the couple s age difference and the duration of the marriage; inadequate sex life (48%); fear of surgery (82%); and fear of prostate cancer (62%). Sells et al. have developed a disease-specific questionnaire to assess the morbidity in the partners of patients with BPH who required treatment [17]. The nine-item instrument included questions related to being awakened at night by the patient and being tired as a result, the effect on the partner s social life and doing essential tasks, the distress caused by the patient s symptoms, the effect on sex life, the fear of cancer, and the need for surgery. Of 90 partners tested in phase 2 of the study, only one had no morbidity due to the patient s symptoms. The degree of morbidity in the remaining partners was related to the severity of the patient s symptoms. The authors of the study suggest that the questionnaire could be used during doctor consultations with the patient and partner.

994 european urology supplements 5 (2006) 991 996 4. Patients and treatment Factors that influence a patient s desire to seek treatment have been identified and include bother, interference with daily activities, symptom frequency, worry, and embarrassment [3]. Patients also have a major concern about AUR and BPH-related surgery. A Canadian study compared concern and opinion regarding the perceived impact of AUR or surgery on a patient s personal QOL [18]. Of the 62 patients with BPH who participated in the study, 57% were significantly concerned about the prospect of AUR and 67% were significantly concerned about the prospect of surgery. The reasons men seek treatment has also been studied in a European study (The Prostate Research on Behaviour and Education [PROBE] survey) in five countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom) [19]. A total of 502 men with BPH were surveyed; two thirds of the patients were aware of their prostate problems and one third realised they had BPH. Almost one third of patients were afraid that their symptoms might be due to prostate cancer. Regardless of their current medication type, three quarters of patients said that they would prefer a drug treatment that provided a 50% reduction in the risk of requiring surgery rather than a drug that provided more rapid symptom relief. A French survey of patients examined their expectations and perceptions of treatment with a 5areductase inhibitor [20]. Results showed that the main preoccupation of patients with BPH is that pharmacologic treatment would reduce the risk of major urologic complications and the need for surgery: 88% and 93% of patients, respectively. Decreasing symptoms and improving QOL were next in importance [21]. The reasons men choose one therapy over another have been examined in a recent study by Watson et al. [21]. The study investigated the relative importance of attributes of the 5a-reductase inhibitor dutasteride and a 1 -blockers in communitydwelling men. Results showed that when considering medical treatment for BPH, the participants in the study preferred rapid symptom improvement, reduction in prostate size, no side-effects, and a decrease in the risk of AUR and surgery. When considering medical therapy, the strongest influence on respondent choice was the drug s sideeffects. Impotence and dizziness were the least preferred side-effects. The most important benefit was considered to be reduction in prostate size. Overall, given the known attribute levels of BPH medical treatment, that is, efficacy and side-effects, community-dwelling men preferred the 5a-reductase inhibitor over a 1 -blockers. Physicians should be aware of these findings and consider them when they discuss treatment options with the patient. Ultimately, it is the patient who makes the treatment choice based on the information relayed to him by the physician. 5. Physicians attitudes Patients and physicians both clearly play a role in treatment decision-making, but studies show that the treatment choices of the urologist have an impact on the patient s choice, independent of baseline characteristics [22]. Determinants of treatment choice for BPH among urologists have been quantified focusing on urologist treatment preferences. The study group involved 670 consecutive patients 50 yr and older with BPH and recently referred to one of 39 urologists in 13 hospitals in The Netherlands. Among the patient characteristics, Q max, residual urine, and prostate volume were strongly associated with the probability of surgery and watchful waiting. However, the influence of urologist preferences on actual decisions was also significant. The preference of the urologist for a certain treatment was positively associated with the actual chance of that option being chosen. An additional independent effect was seen for the extent of the urologist s experience. Younger urologists were more likely to administer some form of active treatment, particularly medication. The proportion of patients with BPH who are not treated has been identified in studies such as the Olmsted County Study, where approximately 50% Fig. 2 Age-adjusted incidence of treatment in the United States by year in the Olmsted Study 1987 1997 [23]. Reprinted with permission from Sarma AV et al. J Urol 2005;173:2048 53 with permission from the American Urological Association.

european urology supplements 5 (2006) 991 996 995 had watchful waiting [23]. This US study also examined the trends in treatment of BPH, which showed an increase in the rate of pharmacologic therapy since 1987 to the present day and a decline in surgical intervention over the same time period (Fig. 2). A recent study in the United Kingdom indicated not only a decline in the number of TURPs being performed but also that more surgery was currently being conducted due to AUR rather than LUTS [24]. This retrospective analysis examined the files on 200 patients who underwent TURP in 1990 and the same number from the year 2000. A 31.6% decline in the number of TURPs was noted over this 10-yr period. In terms of actual procedures conducted due to AUR, the number in 1990 was 33 and in 2000 this had increased to 58. The respective numbers for LUTS were 65 and 42, respectively. 6. Conclusions BPH clearly has an impact on QOL and symptoms are crucial in causing bother. However, a patient s selfperception, his perception of the disease, and his subjective ranking of therapeutic priorities depend also on additional factors. These include embarrassment caused by the urinary symptoms and fear of AUR and surgery. In selecting the best treatment option, symptom relief, although essential, should not be considered the most important or most urgent goal and treating the underlying cause of the disease is equally if not more important. The patient s subjective expectancies should be considered and the therapeutic approach varied as a consequence. References [1] Bosch JL, Hop WCJ, Kirkels WJ, Schröder FH. Natural history of benign prostatic hyperplasia: appropriate case definition and estimation of its prevalence in the community. Urology 1995;46:34 40. [2] Boyle P, Robertsen C, Mazzetta C, et al. The prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms in men and women in four centres. The UrEpik study. BJU Int 2003;92:409 14. [3] Hong SJ, Rayford W, Valiquette L, Emberton M. The importance of patient perception in the clinical assessment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and its management. BJU Int 2005;95:15 9. [4] Tubaro A, La Vecchia C, for the Uroscreening Study Group. The relation of lower urinary tract symptoms with lifestyle factors and objective measures of benign prostatic enlargement and obstruction: an Italian survey. Eur Urol 2004;45:767 72. [5] Hunter DJW, McKee M, Black NA, Sanderson CFB. Health status and quality of life of British men with lower urinary tract symptoms: results from the SF-36. Urology 1995;45:962 71. [6] Derrett S, Paul C, Morris JM. Waiting for elective surgery: effects on health-related quality of life. Int J Qual Health Care 1999;11:47 57. [7] Gannon K, Glover L, O Neill M, Emberton M. Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: self-perceptions and the concept of bother. BJU Int 2005;96:823 7. [8] Calais Da Silva F, Marquis P, Deschaseaux P, Gineste JL, Cauquil J, Patrick DL. Relative importance of sexuality and quality of life in patients with prostatic symptoms. Results of an international study. Eur Urol 1997;31: 272 80. [9] Garratt AM, Hutchinson A, Russell I. Patient-assessed measures of health outcome in asthma: a comparison of four approaches. Respir Med 2000;94:597 606. [10] Spencer S, Calverley PMA, Burge PS, Jones PW. Health status deterioration in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001;163: 122 8. [11] The EuroQol Group. EuroQol a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199 208. [12] Trueman P, Hood SC, Nayak USL, Mrazeik MF. Prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms and self-reported diagnosed benign prostatic hyperplasia, and their effect on quality of life in a community-based survey of men in the UK. BJU Int 1999;83:410 5. [13] Selai CE, Elstner K, Trimble MR. Quality of life pre and post epilepsy surgery. Epilepsy Res 2000;38:67 74. [14] Arocho R, McMillan CA, Sutton-Wallace P. Construct validation of the USA-Spanish version of the SF-36 health survey in a Cuban-American population with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Qual Life Res 1998;7: 121 6. [15] Thomas K, Oades G, Taylor-Hay C, Kirby RS. Acute urinary retention: what is the impact on patients quality of life? BJU Int 2005;95:72 6. [16] Mitropoulos D, Anastasiou I, Giannopoulou C, et al. Symptomatic benign prostate hyperplasia: impact on partners quality of life. Eur Urol 2002;41:240 5. [17] Sells H, Donovan J, Ewings P, MacDonagh RP. The development and validation of a quality-of-life measure to assess partner morbidity in benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int 2000;85:440 5. [18] Kawakami J, Nickel JC. Acute urinary retention and surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia: the patient s perspective. Can J Urol 1999;6:819 22. [19] Emberton M. Understanding patient attitudes towards treatment: results of the PROBE survey. Eur Urol Suppl 2005;4(3):6 (abstract no. 15). [20] Teillac P. Benign prostatic hyperplasia: patients perception of medical treatment and their expectations. Results of a French survey involving patients treated with finasteride. Therapie 2002;57:473 83. [21] Watson V, Ryan M, Brown CT, Barnett G, Ellis BW, Emberton M. Eliciting preferences for drug treatment of lower

996 european urology supplements 5 (2006) 991 996 urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 2004;172:2321 5. [22] Stoevelaar HJ, van de Beek C, Casparie AF, McDonnell J, Nijs HGT. Treatment choice for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a matter of urologist preference? J Urol 1999;161:133 8. [23] Sarma AV, Jacobson DJ, McGree ME, Roberts RO, Lieber MM, Jacobsen SJ. A population based study of incidence and treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia among residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota: 1987 to 1997. J Urol 2005;173:2048 53. [24] Wilson JR, Urwin GH, Stower MJ. The changing practice of transurethral prostatectomy: a comparison of cases performed in 1990 and 2000. Ann R Coll Surg 2004;86: 428 31.