Cargando…
Comparative analysis of benign prostatic hyperplasia management by urologists and nonurologists: A Korean nationwide health insurance database study
PURPOSE: To compare the current management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) by urologists and nonurologists by use of Korean nationwide health insurance data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We obtained patient data from the national health insurance system. New patients diagnosed with BPH in 2009 were...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Urological Association
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4355435/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25763128 http://dx.doi.org/10.4111/kju.2015.56.3.233 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: To compare the current management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) by urologists and nonurologists by use of Korean nationwide health insurance data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We obtained patient data from the national health insurance system. New patients diagnosed with BPH in 2009 were divided into two groups depending on whether they were diagnosed by a urologist (U group) or by a nonurologist (NU group). RESULTS: A total of 390,767 individuals were newly diagnosed with BPH in 2009. Of these, 240,907 patients (61.7%) were in the U group and 149,860 patients (38.3%) were in the NU group. The rate of all initial evaluation tests, except serum creatinine, was significantly lower in the NU group. The initial prescription rate was higher in the U group, whereas the prescription period was longer in the NU group. Regarding the initial drugs prescribed, the use of alpha-blockers was common in both groups. However, the U group was prescribed combination therapy of an alpha-blocker and 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor as the second choice, whereas the NU group received monotherapy with a 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor. During the 1-year follow-up, the incidence of surgery was significantly different between the U group and the NU group. CONCLUSIONS: There are distinct differences in the diagnosis and treatment of BPH by urologists and nonurologists in Korea. These differences may have adverse consequences for BPH patients. Urological societies should take a leadership role in the management of BPH and play an educational role for nonurologists as well as urologists. |
---|