Open AccessReal‐world assessment and characteristics of men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in primary care and urology clinics in Spain
Author(s) -
María Molero José,
Miñana Bernardino,
PalaciosMoreno Juan Manuel,
Téllez MartínezFornes Miguel,
Lorite Mingot David,
Agra Rolán Alfonso,
Carreño Ágata,
Cuervo Pinto Rafael
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
international journal of clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.756
H-Index - 98
eISSN - 1742-1241
pISSN - 1368-5031
DOI - 10.1111/ijcp.13602
Subject(s) - medicine , lower urinary tract symptoms , international prostate symptom score , benign prostatic hyperplasia (bph) , urology , hyperplasia , clinical endpoint , prostate , gynecology , prostate specific antigen , primary care , clinical trial , cancer , family medicine
Objectives To describe the real‐world demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) as a result of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in Spain. Methodology This observational, retrospective, multicentre study conducted in primary care and urology clinics in Spain included men aged ≥50 years diagnosed (≤8 years prior to study visit) with LUTS caused by BPH. The primary endpoint was demographic and clinical characteristics; secondary endpoints included disease progression and diagnostic tests across both healthcare settings. Results A total of 670 patients were included (primary care: n = 435; urology: n = 235). Most patients had moderate/severe LUTS (74.6%) and prostate volume >30 cc (81.7%), with no differences between settings. More patients had prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) ≥1.5 ng/mL in primary care (74.5%) versus urology (67.7%). Progression criteria were prevalent (48.9%). Clinical criteria were more commonly used than the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) to evaluate LUTS at diagnosis (primary care: clinical criteria 73.0%; IPSS: 26.9%; urology: clinical criteria 76.5%; IPSS: 23.4%). Proportion of patients with moderate/severe LUTS at diagnosis was lower using clinical criteria than IPSS, and the proportion of patients with ‘worsening’ LUTS (diagnosis to study visit) was higher when using clinical criteria versus IPSS. In both healthcare settings, the most commonly used diagnostic tests were general and urological clinical history and PSA. Conclusion Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with BPH in Spain were similar in primary care and urology; however, assessment criteria to evaluate LUTS severity differ and are not completely aligned with clinical guideline recommendations. Increased use of recommended assessments may enhance optimal BPH management.