Presentation Authors: Karis Buford*, Allison Polland, Jacob Khurgin, Brooklyn, NY, Bilal Chughtai, New York, NY, Ervin Teper, David Silver, Ariel Schulman, Brooklyn, NY
Introduction: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) affects more than half of men over age 50 and up to 90% of men over age 80. The estimated economic burden of BPH in the United States is $4 billion annually. Currently accepted treatments include watchful waiting, pharmacotherapy, and procedural interventions. The purpose of this study is to identify the focus of current research in the field and assess for correlation with funding sources for potential scientific advances in the treatment of BPH.
Methods: We investigated clinicaltrials.gov, the online registry of national and international clinical research studies provided by the United States National Library of Medicine. The site was queried for benign prostatic hyperplasia and benign prostatic hypertrophy. Trials with recruiting, active, and enrolling status were stratified by intervention, primary investigator sub-specialty, and source of funding.
Results: A total of sixty-five unique studies were identified. Primary investigators included forty-two (64.6%) urologists, eighteen (27.7%) radiologists and five (7.7%) others. Twenty-nine (44.6%) studies evaluated urology procedures including more than 15 distinct tools to endoscopically treat BPH. Twenty-one (32.3%) studies evaluated radiology-guided procedures, primarily related to prostate artery embolization. Eight (12.3%) trials examined drug therapies and seven (10.8%) were non-interventional. Of the trials examining drug therapies, one examined a novel drug. Funding sources included industry in twenty-three (35.4%) trials, a United States Federal Agency in one (1.5%) trial and other sources (such as educational institutions, hospital, and private funding) in 45 (69.2%) trials.
Conclusions: More than 75% of contemporary active clinical trials in BPH are focused on procedural interventions, with sparse investigation of novel drug classes. This indicates the need for increased investigation into novel drug therapies. One trial received federal funding, highlighting a disparity between disease prevalence and federal research support.