Literature DB >> 10559630

Who should be treated and how? Evidence-based medicine in symptomatic BPH.

M J Speakman1.   

Abstract

The management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), although based on the best available evidence, should be individualised to patients' circumstances and personal choices. Subjective symptoms (LUTS), bothersomeness and negative impact on the quality of life are the main reasons for the patient to seek treatment for BPH. Therefore, the improvement of this subjective discomfort ought to be an important treatment goal and criterion of appraisal. Although transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) remains the most effective and definite way of treatment, it is less attractive from the patients' perspective, especially after medical treatments with better tolerability have become available. For this reason, the indication for surgery is nowadays set on more stringent criteria of 'appropriateness'. Several new, less-invasive surgical techniques have been introduced, but their ultimate position is difficult to appraise because of the lack of appropriate long-term data from prospective, properly designed, controlled trials, also in terms of lack of data on cost-efficiency. Therefore, medical therapy with either finasteride or alpha(1)-blockers remains an attractive therapeutic alternative: both approaches are effective, reasonably well tolerated and in the 'shorter' term more cost-efficient than TURP. Available evidence suggests that finasteride is mainly effective on a long-term basis in patients with substantially enlarged prostates. In the shorter term, alpha(1)-blockers have consistently been shown to be more effective than finasteride, irrespective of prostate size. In addition, alpha(1)-blockers have the important advantage of a rapid alleviation of subjective discomfort. To date, the combination of an alpha(1)-blocker and finasteride seems to offer no more than an alpha(1)-blocker alone. Among the alpha(1)-blockers, tamsulosin is particularly suited because of its clinical selectivity (i.e. its low risk of safety relevant cardiovascular effects) and its ease of use (once daily administration without the need for stepwise dose increments on treatment initiation). Copyrightz1999S.KargerAG,Basel

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10559630     DOI: 10.1159/000052348

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  7 in total

Review 1.  Phytotherapeutic agents in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Authors:  K Dreikorn
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Medical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Authors:  Stephen S Connolly; John M Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.401

3.  The effectiveness of a treatment protocol for male lower urinary tract symptoms in general practice: a practical randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Roelf J C Norg; Kees van de Beek; Piet J M Portegijs; C P Onno van Schayck; J André Knottnerus
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Development of a quality of life scale specific for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

Authors:  Kamil Cam; Talha Muezzinoglu; Omer Aydemir; Recep Buyukalpelli; Gokhan Toktas; Hakan Gemalmaz
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 2.370

5.  Changes in S-PSA after transurethral resection of prostate and its correlation to postoperative outcome.

Authors:  Mrinal Pahwa; Mayank Pahwa; Archna R Pahwa; Mohit Girotra; Arun Chawla; Ajay Sharma
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2013-05-24       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 6.  Hormonal treatment of patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: pros and cons.

Authors:  G J Wise; E O Md
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.862

7.  Transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic enlargement: a quality and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Seung Wook Lee; Jong Bo Choi; Kyu-Sung Lee; Tae-Hyoung Kim; Hwancheol Son; Tae Young Jung; Seung-June Oh; Hee Jong Jeong; Jae Hyun Bae; Young-Suk Lee; Joon Chul Kim
Journal:  Int Neurourol J       Date:  2013-06-30       Impact factor: 2.835

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.