Search

To identify factors associated with sexual interest and activity among adults with spina bifida and to describe the sexual profile of those who were sexually active. Sexual health of adults with spina bifida is often neglected and current knowledge on the topic is limited. An anonymous web-based survey was advertised and administered between March 2018 and September 2018 and participants 16 years and older with spina bifida were included in this study. Respondents were asked about sexual interest, activity, and function using the validated Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Sexual Function Profile. Bivariate and multivariable models with ordinal logistic regression were fitted to evaluate predictors of sexual interest and sexual function. Of the 261 respondents with a self-reported diagnosis of spina bifida (mean age of 38.5 years), 73.2% noted at least a little bit of interest in sexual activity. In multivariate analysis, women were less likely to report higher sexual interest than men (odds ratio (OR) = 0.53, 95% CI 0.31-0.92, P =.03) whereas those with higher physical functioning were more likely to have higher sexual interest (OR = 1.04, confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.07, P =.03). Just less than half of respondents (46.4%) were sexually active in the past 30 days, and those with a ventriculoperitoneal shunt were less likely to engage in sexual activity compared to those without (OR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.19-0.68; P <.01). The mismatch between sexual interest and sexual activity highlights the importance of exploring issues related to sexual health when counseling adult patients with spina bifida. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To contextualize the challenges that persons with congenital genitourinary conditions (CGC) may encounter in adulthood, we examined health care access, readiness for self-management, and health care utilization of adults with spina bifida (SB). Through surveys distributed via social media, persons with SB were asked about access and barriers to care, readiness for self-management, and health care utilization (ie, medical visits, missed visits, emergency room [ER] visits, hospital admissions) within the past year. Multivariable models were fitted to examine determinants of utilization. Of the 270 eligible respondents (mean age 39), 24.5% had not received care from a urologist in the past year. The odds of missing any medical visits were increased among those with more prior urologic surgeries (odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95%confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.78) and those with ER visits for urologic condition within the past year (OR 2.65, 95%CI 1.22-6.01). Those with private insurance had lower odds of having ER visits for urologic condition (OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.22-0.84). The odds of hospital admission related to urologic condition were increased among female (OR 2.35, 95%CI 1.01-6.64), those with more prior urologic surgeries (OR 1.18, 95%CI 1.09-1.51), and those with a urologist (OR 2.98, 95%CI 1.15-14.47). A substantial proportion of adults with CGC lack routine urologic care. Considering the significant barriers to care and lapses in care, efforts to improve access and optimize health care services utilization for this population with high medical complexity are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are the most common oral agents for the treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer. To understand their safety profiles in real-world settings, we examined the association between the use of abiraterone or enzalutamide and the risk of metabolic or cardiovascular adverse events while on treatment.Methods: Men with advanced prostate cancer and their use of abiraterone or enzalutamide were identified in a 20% sample of the 2010-2017 national Medicare claims. The primary composite outcome was the occurrence of a major metabolic or cardiovascular adverse event, defined as an emergency room visit or hospitalization associated with a primary diagnosis of diabetes, hypertension, or cardiovascular disease. The secondary composite outcome was the occurrence of a minor metabolic or cardiovascular adverse event, defined as an outpatient visit associated with a primary diagnosis of the aforementioned conditions. Risks were assessed separately for abiraterone and enzalutamide using Cox regression. All statistical tests were 2-sided.Results: Compared with men not receiving abiraterone, men receiving abiraterone were at increased risk of both a major composite adverse event (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.53 to 2.05; P < .001) and a minor composite adverse event (HR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.47; P = .01). Compared with men not receiving enzalutamide, men receiving enzalutamide were at an increased risk of a major composite adverse event (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.48; P = .04) but not a minor composite adverse event (HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.83 to 1.30; P = .75).Conclusion: Careful monitoring and management of men on abiraterone or enzalutamide through team-based approaches are critical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To understand the influence of drug manufacturers on the prescribing patterns of medical oncologists and urologists, we examined the relationship between promotional payments from the manufacturers of abiraterone and enzalutamide and prescriptions for either drug by medical oncologists and urologists.Methods: Promotional payments for abiraterone or enzalutamide made to medical oncologists and urologists between January 2014 and December 2017 reported through the Open Payments Program were categorized as $0, $1$999, and $1000 or more. Prescriptions filled between January 2013 and December 2017 were identified in the Medicare Part D File. Associations between promotional payments and prescribing were assessed using generalized linear models.Results: From 2013 through 2017, the number of medical oncologists and urologists prescribing abiraterone or enzalutamide increased by 38% - 298%, respectively. The odds of prescribing among medical oncologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more were 1.69 (95%CI:1.59--1.79) and 2.61 (95% CI: 2.14--3.18) times that of medical oncologists receiving no payments. Among urologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more, the odds of prescribing were 4.04 (95%CI: 3.59--4.54) and 13.57 (95%CI: 9.69--19.0) times that of urologists receiving no payments.Conclusion: Increasing promotional payments were associated with prescribing among medical oncologists and urologists, with a stronger relationship evident for urologists. Prescribing patterns for abiraterone and enzalutamide, particularly among urologists, may be influenced by payments from drug manufacturers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We assessed national trends in management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer across risk groups of noncancer mortality. We found use of treatment has been increasing among men with very-high risk of noncancer mortality within 10 years. It will be important for further work to assess the appropriateness of these trends in the context of existing evidence. Background: Deciding whether to treat or conservatively manage patients with prostate cancer is challenging. Recent changes in guidelines, advances in treatment technologies, and policy can influence decision making surrounding management, particularly for those for whom the decision to treat is discretionar y. Contemporar y trends in management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer are unclear. Methods: Using national Medicare data, men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were identified between 2014 and 2019. Patients were classified by 5- and 10-year noncancer mortality risk. Multinomial logistic regression models were fit to assess adjusted trends in management over time. The primary outcome was management of prostate cancer: local treatment (inclusive of surgery, radiation, brachytherapy, or cryotherapy), hormone therapy, or observation. Results: Local treatment was the most common form of management and stable across years (68%). Use of observation increased (21%-23%, P < .001) and use of hormone therapy decreased (11%- 8%, P < 0.001). After stratifying by 10-year non-cancer mortality risk, observation increased among men with low (22.3%-26.1%, P < .001) and moderate (19.9%-23.5%, P < .001) mortality risk. Conversely, use of treatment increased among those with high (62.8%-68.0%, P = .004) and very high (45.5%-54.1%, P < .001) risk of noncancer mortality. These trends were similar across groups when stratified by 5-year noncancer mortality risk. Conclusion: Nationally, use of local treatment remains common and was stable throughout the study period. However, while local treatment declined among men with a lower risk of noncancer mortality, it increased among men with a higher risk of non-cancer mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine the effect of urology practice market competition on use of treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. We performed a retrospective national cohort study of 48,067 Medicare beneficiaries with newly diagnosed prostate cancer between 2014 and 2018. The primary exposure was urology practice-level market competition. Markets were established by the flow of patients to a practice using a variable radius approach. Practice level competition was measured annually using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. The primary outcome was use of treatment for prostate cancer (ie, surgery, radiation, or cryotherapy) stratified by 10-year risk of noncancer mortality. Between 2014 and 2018, there was a decrease in the total percent of urologists practicing in small single-specialty groups (49%-41%) with an increase in multispecialty practices (38%-47%). After adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, a lower percentage of men underwent treatment in practices with low competition relative to those managed in practices with high competition (70% vs 67.0%, P <.001). Among men with the highest risk of noncancer mortality, those managed in practices in the least competitive markets were less likely to receive treatment relative to men managed by practices in the most competitive markets (48% vs 60%, P- value<.001). Reduction in competition between urology practices is not associated with greater use of treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, particularly in those with a high risk of noncancer mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the implications of the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) for urology practices. MIPS is a Medicare payment model that determines whether a physician is financially penalized or receives bonus payment based on performance in four categories: quality, practice improvement, promotion of interoperability, and spending.Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of urologist performance in MIPS for 2017 and 2019 using Medicare data. Urologist practice organization was categorized as single-specialty (small, medium, large) or multispecialty groups. MIPS scores were estimated by practice organization. Logistic regression models were used to examine the association between urology practice characteristics, including proportion of dual eligible beneficiaries, and bonus payment adjustment as defined by Medicare methodology. Rates of consolidation (movement from smaller to larger practices) between 2017 and 2019 were compared between those who were and those who were not penalized in 2017.Results: Urologists in small practices performed worse in MIPS and had a significantly lower adjusted odds ratio of receiving bonus payments in both 2017 and 2019 compared to larger group practices (odds ratio [OR] 0.04, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.03-0.05 in 2017 and OR 0.37, 95%CI 0.30-0.47 in 2019). Increasing percent of dual eligible beneficiaries within a patient panel was associated with decreased odds of receiving bonus payment in both performance years. Urologists penalized in 2017 had higher rates of consolidation by 2019 compared to those who were not (14% vs 5%, P <.05).Conclusion: Small urology practices and those caring for a higher proportion of dual eligible beneficiaries tended to perform worse in MIPS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]