Comparative analysis of benign prostatic hyperplasia management by urologists and nonurologists: A Korean nationwide health insurance database study.
10.4111/kju.2015.56.3.233
- Author:
Juhyun PARK
1
;
Young Ju LEE
;
Jeong Woo LEE
;
Tag Keun YOO
;
Jae Il CHUNG
;
Seok Joong YUN
;
Jun Hyuk HONG
;
Seong Il SEO
;
Sung Yong CHO
;
Hwancheol SON
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. volley@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Comparative Study ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- Keywords:
Epidemiology;
Insurance claim review;
Prostatic hyperplasia
- MeSH:
5-alpha Reductase Inhibitors/therapeutic use;
Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists/therapeutic use;
Adult;
Age Distribution;
Aged;
Aged, 80 and over;
Databases, Factual;
*Disease Management;
Humans;
Insurance, Health;
Linear Models;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Physicians;
Prostatic Hyperplasia/*diagnosis/*therapy;
Republic of Korea;
Urology/*methods;
Young Adult
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
2015;56(3):233-239
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
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.
