Underrepresentation of functional conditions of the lower urinary tract in adults in US federal research funding

• Published in: Neurourology and urodynamics 2020-08, Vol.39 (6), p.1708-1716
• Main Authors: Souders, Colby P., Lo, Eric M., Ackerman, A. Lenore
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; benign urology; Biomedical Research - economics; Databases, Factual; female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery; Funding; Humans; incontinence; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms - diagnosis; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms - economics; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms - therapy; National Institutes of Health; National Institutes of Health (U.S.) - economics; research funding; Research Personnel; Trends; United States; Urinary tract; Urogenital system; Urology; Urology - economics; voiding dysfunction
• ISSN: 0733-2467; 1520-6777
• DOI: 10.1002/nau.24413

Aims Evaluation and treatment of functional conditions of the lower urinary tract (fcLUT), a subset of benign urinary tract conditions, is highly subjective due to overlapping symptomatology. Despite high prevalence and socioeconomic cost, there has been little improvement in their treatment and lack of progress in understanding their pathophysiology. This study investigates trends in quantity, monetary amounts, and awardees' characteristics of federally funded research awards for fcLUT compared to nonurologic benign conditions (NUBCs) and urologic malignancies. Methods Data were extracted from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and federal RePORTER databases in December 2019. We identified currently active awards in fcLUT, NUBC, and malignant urologic conditions and the associated demographic features of awardees. The authors also examined temporal funding trends for such awards. Results These database searches revealed that there are consistently fewer awards and funding dollars for the study of fcLUT compared to other benign conditions with similar prevalences. While most research topics have received increased funding in awards and overall funding dollars over time, fcLUT funding has remained relatively flat. Urologists are also underrepresented; only 11 of the 86 recipients of NIH R01 awards to study fcLUT have clinical training in urology. Conclusions Even when compared to NUBC, funding for the study of fcLUT remains low and has stagnated over time. Further, investigators who are clinicians in the field of urology are in the minority of those doing this study. Given the need for clinical perspectives in fcLUT research, the lack of urologist representation will inhibit discovery and translational advances.