Management of Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in a Simulated, Over-the-Counter Setting: An Exploratory Study of Tamsulosin

A Detailed Analysis of the Past 20 Years of US FDA-Approved Prescription to Over-the-Counter Switches

OBJECTIVES

This evaluation assesses the quantity, uniqueness, and innovative nature of the past 20 years of Rx-to-OTC (RTO) switches, where a current prescription (Rx) product is reclassified for over-the-counter (OTC) status. Broadening access to more OTC drugs with well-established safety and efficacy could help to reduce healthcare expenditure and address public health challenges.

METHODS

The FDA-maintained RTO switch list website was accessed to generate the primary dataset. Each product listed was assessed for the current OTC availability in the United States of its active ingredient, pharmacological class, and indication to determine its innovative quality. Descriptive statistics were employed in this study.

RESULTS

From January 2002 through August 2022 there were 45 RTO switches. Among these, 51.1% involved a new to OTC active ingredient, 22.2% involved a new pharmacological class, 6.6% involved a new indication, and 82.2% were considered follow-on products that introduced a new to OTC active ingredient or new dosage form of an already marketed active ingredient to treat an existing OTC indication. A small minority (6.6%) were considered an exceptional innovation that would offer US consumers a genuinely novel OTC product, providing a new to OTC active pharmaceutical ingredient, pharmacological class, and indication. Overall, there was 1 exceptional innovation every 6.7 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Over 40 RTO switches have come to the OTC market in the past 20 years; however, exceptional innovations that expand access to new to OTC active ingredients for new indications are rare. Policies and strategies that result in more innovative switches that can benefit consumers and public health should be evaluated.

Is Dipstick Urinalysis Screening Beneficial in Men with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms?

INTRODUCTION

Dipstick urinalysis is a widely used screening tool in the evaluation of men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). As limited data support the use of dipstick urinalysis, we have used data from three recently published studies to assess clinical outcomes in those who had dipstick urinalysis findings for blood, glucose, and/or leukocytes.

METHODS

We analyzed data from three observational studies involving men interested in using over-the-counter tamsulosin: a self-selection study (SSS) and two actual-use studies of 8-week (AUS8) and 24-week (AUS24) durations. Subgroup analyses focused on pooled data from participants not using α-blockers or other prescription medication for LUTS suggestive of BPH (nonRx users) and who had urine dipstick findings. Data from participants using α-blockers (AUS8) or any prescription BPH medications (SSS and AUS24) are presented as reference.

RESULTS

Overall, 2488 nonRx users underwent dipstick urinalysis and 680 (27.3%) had positive findings including traces of blood (332; 13.3%), glucose (259; 10.4%), and/or leukocytes (245; 9.8%). Among users of prescription medicines, 21.6% (37/171) in SSS, 27.4% (23/84) in AUS8, and 31.1% (47/151) in AUS24 had urine dipstick findings. The 200 dipstick-positive nonRx users in SSS underwent per protocol urological assessment: 26 (13.0%) had a newly diagnosed condition causing/contributing to urinary symptoms of which 2.9% were identified as medically important conditions. Among nonRx users with or without a dipstick finding, medically important conditions reported included prostate cancer (1.0% vs. 1.0%, respectively) and urolithiasis (1.0% vs. 0.3%, respectively). The proportion of men with dipstick urinalysis findings was similar between men who regularly visited their physician and those who did not.

CONCLUSION

Dipstick urinalysis did not markedly increase the detection of undiagnosed medically important conditions that cause/contribute to urinary symptoms, suggesting that this test may not be a very effective screening tool for men with LUTS.

FUNDING

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.