Skip to main content
Download PDF

Outcomes and general health-related quality of life among patients medically treated in general daily practice for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia

World Journal of Urology volume 30, pages 419–426 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

This study’s aim was to describe and evaluate outcomes of medical strategies used for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) treatment in general practice and to assess impact of LUTS on patients’ general health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

Methods

This cross-sectional observational study was conducted by French general practitioners. Eligible patients were males aged ≥50 years, diagnosed for at least one year and currently treated for LUTS due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Several validated questionnaires were documented by patients to assess severity of LUTS (IPSS), specific quality of life (IPSS-Q8), impact of LUTS (BII), LUTS evolution (VNS) and general HRQoL (EQ-5D).

Results

Among 1,098 patients included, 82.7% were treated with monotherapies and 17.3% with combinations. Mean treatment duration was 5.2 ± 3.2 years, and 47.2% of patients had at least one treatment modification since initiation. Patients reported diminished quality of life (IPSS-Q8 ≥3) (42.3%), persisting symptoms (IPSS-score ≥12) (35.5%), symptoms worsening (VNS-score ≤−1) (18.8%) and high bother (BII-score ≥9) (2.6%). Globally, 52.8% had at least one of these unsatisfactory outcomes. Regarding general HRQoL, mean EQ-5D utility significantly decreased with LUTS severity (mild: 0.90 ± 0.12; moderate: 0.81 ± 0.21; and severe symptoms: 0.73 ± 0.25; P < 0.001). As well, all five-dimensions of EQ-5D were significantly altered in patients with moderate-to-severe LUTS (<0.001), especially ‘Pain/Discomfort’ and ‘Anxiety/Depression’. In multivariate analyses including age and comorbidities, EQ-5D utility index remained negatively associated with each additional unit in the IPSS-score.

Conclusions

This study shows that around half of BPH patients medically treated report unsatisfactory outcomes, suggesting consequential unmet medical needs in general practice. Also, moderate-to-severe LUTS significantly impact on general HRQoL.

Introduction

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and its lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and complications represent a considerable health problem in men worldwide, notably in those aged over 50 years. More than half of patients (57%) reporting a history of prostatic treatment have mild LUTS, while 34 and 9% of patients suffer from moderate-to-severe symptoms, respectively [1].

Current BPH management guidelines include several therapeutic strategies [2, 3]. Pharmacological treatment is currently recommended for the treatment of men with moderate-to-severe LUTS who prefer to avoid invasive treatment. There are two principal classes of pharmacological therapies for LUTS caused by BPH: alpha1-selective adrenergic receptor antagonists (alpha-blockers) and 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs). Additionally, herbal medicines are also prescribed to treat LUTS, especially in France and Spain [4].

The increasing recognition of the importance of patient-reported outcomes in BPH diagnosis and management has led to the development of disease-specific questionnaires (i.e., International Prostate Symptom Score, IPSS; and BPH Impact Index, BII) [5]. Additionally, guidelines state that the primary consideration in making treatment decisions and disease assessments about BPH with LUTS should be the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) to measure interference with social activities and decreasing psychological well-being [2, 6]. Inadequate management of LUTS can trigger disease progression and lead to several complications [7]. As a consequence, patient treatment satisfaction and HRQOL assessment seem to be essential criteria to ensure optimal treatment outcomes [8, 9], particularly in French general practice where around nine out of ten prescriptions for LUTS are filled [10].

The main objectives of this observational study were to describe and evaluate outcomes of current medical strategies used for LUTS treatment in daily general practice and to assess impact of LUTS on patients’ general health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

Methods

Patients and study design

This observational cross-sectional study was carried out in France between October 2009 and January 2010, with the participation of general practitioners (GPs) belonging to the Longitudinal Patient Database (LPD) observatory. This is a computerized network of GPs who contribute exhaustive anonymous data on patient consultations and treatment to the centralized LPD. The LPD includes records for >1.6 million patients, routinely collected and is a reliable source of information in numerous previous studies in several disease areas [11].

The following criteria were used to recruit patients: aged 50 years or over with a clinical diagnosis of BPH, treatment with one of the following pharmacological classes or their combinations: an alpha-blocker or a 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor or a phytotherapy.

At the end of routine consultation, physicians filled out extra-computerized questionnaires detailing the comorbidities, ongoing medications and examinations. At home, the patient completed anonymous questionnaires.

Patient questionnaires

Four specific and one generic instrument were used to assess treatment outcomes.

The IPSS questionnaire is a validated seven-item urinary symptom scale (0–35) [12] to which was added an eighth disease-specific quality of life question (IPSS-Q8) [3]. The BII is a disease-specific four-item questionnaire (0–13) that measures the overall impact of LUTS on the general well-being of patients [5]. LUTS evolution was evaluated from the patient’s perspective using a visual numeric scale (VNS) which range from −5 (extreme worsening) to 5 (extreme improvement) in relation to a 12-month retrospective period.

The last questionnaire, the EuroQOL-five-dimensions (EQ-5D) index, is a well-validated comprehensive tool developed to determine general HRQOL and health states utilities (0–1; i.e., death–perfect health). Each dimension can be answered as no problem, some problem, or severe problem. Utility was calculated using French value set from EuroQOL [13].

Statistical analysis

Descriptive analyses were provided for all variables. Overall group comparisons were done by ANOVA for quantitative data, and the chi-square or Fisher’s exact test for qualitative data. All tests were two-sided and considered significant when P < 0.05.

The following four unsatisfactory outcomes were pre-identified and described in terms of patient proportion: (i) IPSS-score ≥12: persistent symptoms representing a trigger for inclusion in previous clinical trials [14–16], (ii) IPSS-Q8 ≥3: considered as a threshold for a (new) treatment [2], (iii) BII-score ≥9: level of high bother [17] and (iv) VNS-score ≤−1: worsening symptoms.

Utility derived from EQ-5D-index was treated as a quantitative variable. Three linear models of utility as the dependent variable were performed with the following three independent variables: IPSS-score (Model 1), LUTS severity (Model 2) and unsatisfactory outcomes (Model 3). The models were obtained with step-by-step backward selection where each variable with a P-value less than 0.25 in the univariate analysis was entered in the multivariate regression analysis.

Results

Patients flowchart

Overall, 247 physicians recruited patients during the study period. In total, 1,901 eligible patients were identified and 1,098 of them were finally enrolled. Reasons of non-inclusion were non-consent (n = 757) and mental/physical impairment (n = 46). Out of all the patients enrolled, 718 returned assessable questionnaires whose data were entered into the outcomes analyses. Demographics and characteristics of enrolled patients were comparable with those of the entire population of the LPD database (n = 15,137) in terms of age distribution and frequent comorbidities.

Patients’ characteristics

The mean age of the 1,098 men was 71.7 ± 8.9 years (median: 72 years; 50–101). A minority of patients was first diagnosed by urologists (12.4%), and the remaining patients were diagnosed by their current general practitioner (Table 1). To date, 4.4 and 6.1% of patients had a former history of AUR and surgery, respectively. A majority of patients had several comorbidities.

Table 1 Patients’ characteristics
Full size table

LUTS management

The mean follow-up since BPH diagnosis was 6.2 ± 5.1 years, and the mean patient’s age was 65.5 ± 8.6 years at the time of diagnosis (median: 65 years; 34–97). To date, the most frequently reported clinical assessments used for BPH diagnosis were informal questioning and digital rectal examination (Table 1). Only 11.7% of physicians used specific LUTS scores in clinical practice and among them, 9.6% stated using specifically the IPSS-score. Although not indicated in that case, both abdominal or transrectal ultrasonography and PSA measurement were commonly used at BPH diagnosis.

The mean treatment duration was 5.2 ± 3.2 years. The overview of medications prescribed is reported in Table 1. The majority of physicians prescribed combination therapies as second-line treatment of LUTS (94.8%). The main reasons of prescription were the following: monotherapy inefficiency (74.4%), LUTS severity (53.8%), preventive measures aimed to avoid complications (23.1%) or invasive treatment (29.5%).

The mean current treatment duration was 2.4 ± 2.5 years (median: 1.8 years; range: 0–10.9) for monotherapies and 1.3 ± 1.5 years (median: 8 months; range: 0–10.5) for combination therapies. Since their treatment initiation, 47.2% of patients received at least one treatment modification. In 69.3% of patients, these modifications were referred either to a switch to another pharmacological class or to a drug combination.

The mean IPSS-score was 10.3 ± 6.5 points (median: 9 points), while 52.1% and 9.8% of treated patients had moderate and severe symptoms, respectively.

Treatment outcomes

The patient-outcome data issued from questionnaires completed by 718 (65.4%) patients were analyzed globally and for three groups of patients defined by their treatment history: 434 patients (60.4%) with stable treatment (i.e., without treatment modification during last 12-month), 151 patients (21.0%) with recent initiation of treatment (treated less than 12-month) and a third group of 133 patients (18.5%), considered as being in the treatment failure, received at least one treatment modification during the last 12-month. Proportions of unsatisfactory outcomes significantly varied according to patient’s treatment history (P < 0.001) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Outcomes according to treatment history

Full size image

Among the whole sample, 42.3, 35.5, 18.5 and 2.6% of patients reported diminished quality of life (IPSS-Q8 ≥3), persisting symptoms (IPSS-score ≥12), symptoms worsening (VNS-score ≤−1) and high bother (BII-score ≥9), respectively. More than half of patients (52.8%) had at least one of those unsatisfactory outcomes.

General HRQOL

All five-dimensions of EQ-5D were significantly different between severity classes (<0.001). Patients with moderate–severe symptoms especially reported some or extreme problems in ‘Pain/Discomfort’ (66.1–79.7%) and ‘Anxiety/Depression’ (45.8–53.8%) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

EQ-5D results by dimension and according to IPSS severity classes: mild (1–7), moderate (8–19) and severe (20–35)

Full size image

The mean utility derived from EQ-5D-index results was 0.84 ± 0.19 and was significantly different among severity groups: 0.90 ± 0.12, 0.81 ± 0.21, 0.73 ± 0.25 (<0.001) for mild, moderate and severe LUTS, respectively. To determine properly the relationship between LUTS and EQ-5D utility index, an additional approach based on multivariate method was performed (Table 2). This included available variables known to have a potential impact on general HRQOL, such as socio-demographics and comorbidities. In Model 1, each incremental unit of IPSS-score represented a significant decrease in EQ-5D utility index (−0.009 [−0.012; −0.007]). Taking patients with mild LUTS as reference, Model 2 showed a significant negative impact on EQ-5D utility index for those patients suffering from moderate (−0.096 [−0.127; −0.065])-to-severe LUTS (−0.159 [−0.210; −0.107]). In Model 3, patients presenting at least one unsatisfactory outcome had an EQ-5D utility index significantly altered compared to others (−0.091 [−0.120;−0.063]).

Table 2 Variables significantly associated with general quality of life (EQ-5D utility index scores): results of three multivariate linear regressions
Full size table

Discussion

Despite medical treatment, this study’s results showed that half (52.8%) of the BPH population still had unsatisfactory outcomes. However, it is not clear whether this is due to the limited therapeutic effect of the available drugs or to their inappropriate use. IPSS-Q8 was the most frequently affected aspect (42.3% of patients). Furthermore, significant differences in those unsatisfactory outcomes were observed according to the treatment history. The highest burden was observed in the ‘recent therapeutic failure’ group, where 69.2% of patients had at least one of the described criteria.

According to current clinical guidelines, the medical needs of men with LUTS can now be met by general practitioners in a primary care setting [18]. Indeed in our study, patients were diagnosed by GPs and only a small proportion of them (12.4%) by urologists. Diagnostic approaches, mentioned in LUTS management and follow-up, include several clinical assessments as ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and PSA measurement. Guidelines for LUTS management recognize the importance of the assessment of patient health outcomes using LUTS-specific questionnaires [2, 19]. The results of our study suggest that these tools were used only by a small number of physicians who preferred the ‘usual’ informal questioning of patients.

Most patients were treated with monotherapy, frequently with alpha-blockers (58.1%) but also with 5-ARIs in particular among elderly patients. Considering the long natural history of BPH and a well-known correlation of LUTS severity and age, this may be explained by a depletion effect of alpha-blockers leading to a switch to 5-ARI. Potential sexual side effects of 5-ARI may be also more acceptable to older patients. The proportion of prescribed combination therapies was not negligible (17.3%) and may reveal the magnitude of unmet needs with monotherapies. This rate appeared to be consistent with the one previously reported among patients treated by urologists (22.0%) [20]. Differences in mechanisms of action provide additional arguments to use combination therapies (i.e., rapid improvement of symptoms with alpha-blockers and a sustained relief of symptoms with 5-ARIs) [21]. As well, a possible synergistic effect between these two pharmacological classes has been suggested in two randomized clinical trials, the MTOPS study (finasteride–doxazosin) [16] and the recent CombAT study (dutasteride–tamsulosin). Although not evidence based, the combination of phytotherapy and alpha-blockers was prescribed in nearly half of cases. An additional prescription of alpha-blockers to patients that were already treated with phytotherapy can probably explain this. However, in consistency with clinical guidelines, the combination of α-blockers and 5-ARI was also widely used (44.4%). Initial treatment was modified for 47.2% of patients also indicating unmet medical needs.

The results of this study suggest that all dimensions of patients’ HRQOL measured with EQ-5D significantly decreased with LUTS severity. However, two-dimensions appeared particularly altered: ‘Pain/Discomfort’ and ‘Anxiety/Depression’, suggesting that LUTS profoundly influences the general well-being of patients as shown in previous works [21–28]. As a generic tool, EQ-5D-index allows indirect comparisons with those in other common chronic diseases. For example, in our study, patients with moderate and severe LUTS reported EQ-5D utility index scores similar to patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (0.76 ± 0.21) [26], type-II diabetes (0.79 ± 0.22) [27] or urinary incontinence (0.79 ± 0.22) [28]. An important strength of this HRQOL analysis was its attention to the effects of potential confounders. Although patients with higher symptoms severity were older and more likely to have comorbidities, IPSS-score (Model 1), classes of severity (Model 2) and presence of unsatisfactory outcomes (Model 3) were still significant independent determinants of general HRQOL. These data clearly indicate that the negative impact of LUTS on HRQOL does not appear to be related to other factors such as comorbidities linked to age of patients.

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the results of our study. Participating GPs were firstly selected at random, but, since participation was voluntary, it is possible that participants may differ from GPs who declined to participate and, as a consequence, leading to a less representative sample. However, the strength of our study was the availability of the LPD database which allowed comparison of included and non-included patients on several characteristics. The study population was also shown to represent the entire disease population on several characteristics (e.g., age and comorbidities).

Our findings provide evidence that unmet medical needs remain high for a large proportion of patients in general practice where many of them continue to receive monotherapy or even aberrant combined treatment. The patient outcomes should be regularly reassessed during their follow-up and considered more carefully at the treatment decision making. As only a limited number of GPs followed scientific clinical directives, developments of advanced guidelines and effective strategies with GPs to optimize BPH medical management and to persuade men with LUTS to present earlier are required to improve patient outcomes.

References

  1. Robert G, Descazeaud A, Azzouzi R, Saussine C, Haillot O, Dumonceau O et al (2010) Impact of lower urinary tract symptoms on discomfort in men aged between 50 and 80 years. Urol Int 84(4):424–429

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Desgrandchamps F, de la Taille A, Azzouzi A, Fourmarier M, Haillot O, Lukacs B et al (2006) Management of non-complicated BPH: proposition of a renewed decision tree. World J Urol 24(4):367–370

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. McVary KT, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL, Barry MJ, Bruskewitz RC, Donnell RF, Foster HE Jr, Gonzalez CM, Kaplan SA, Penson DF, Ulchaker JC, Wei JT (2011) Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 185(5):1793–1803

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fourcade RO, Théret N, Taïeb C (2008) Profile and management of patients treated for the first time for lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia in four European countries. BJU Int 101(9):1111–1118

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, O’Leary MP, Bruskewitz RC, Holtgrewe HL, Mebust WK (1995) Measuring disease-specific health status in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Measurement committee of the american urological association. Med Care 33(4 Suppl):145–155

    Google Scholar 

  6. Madersbacher S, Alivizatos G, Nordling J, Sanz CR, Emberton M, de la Rosette JJ (2004) EAU 2004 guidelines on assessment, therapy and follow-up of men with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction (BPH guidelines). Eur Urol 46(5):547–554

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fine SR, Ginsberg P (2008) Alpha-adrenergic receptor antagonists in older patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: issues and potential complications. J Am Osteopath Assoc 108(7):333–337

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hong SJ, Rayford W, Valiquette L, Emberton M (2005) The importance of patient perception in the clinical assessment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and its management. BJU Int 95(1):15–19

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tanguay S, Awde M, Brock G, Casey R, Kozak J, Lee J et al (2009) Diagnosis and management of benign prostatic hyperplasia in primary care. Can Urol Assoc J 3(3 Suppl):92–100

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jouanneau L, Aout M, Hodé C, Moysan V, Fournier A, Merlière Y, Vicault E, Lukacs B (2008) Observa-Pur. Analyse des prescriptions médicamenteuses pour HBP en France en 2004. Prog Urol 18:707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cotté FE, Fardellone P, Mercier F, Gaudin AF, Roux C (2010) Adherence to monthly and weekly oral bisphosphonates in women with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 21(1):145–155

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, O’Leary MP, Bruskewitz RC, Holtgrewe HL, Mebust WK et al (1992) The American urological association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The measurement committee of the American urological association. J Urol 148(5):1549–1557

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chevalier J, De Pourville G et al. (2009) Valuing EQ-5D using time trade-off in France. In: Proceedings of the 26th plenary meeting of the EuroQol Group. Paris, France

  14. Roehrborn CG, Siami P, Barkin J, Damião R, Major-Walker K, Nandy I et al (2010) The effects of combination therapy with dutasteride and tamsulosin on clinical outcomes in men with symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia: 4-year results from the CombAT study. Eur Urol 57(1):123–131

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Roehrborn CG, Siami P, Barkin J, Damião R, Major-Walker K, Morrill B et al (2008) The effects of dutasteride, tamsulosin and combination therapy on lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatic enlargement: 2-year results from the CombAT study. J Urol 179(2):616–621

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. McConnell JD, Roehrborn CG, Bautista OM, Andriole GL, Dixon CM, Kusek JW et al (2003) The long-term effect of doxazosin, finasteride, and combination therapy on the clinical progression of benign prostatic hyperplasia. N Engl J Med 349(25):2387–2398

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Black L, Grove A, Morrill B (2009) The psychometric validation of a US English satisfaction measure for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and lower urinary tract symptoms. Health Qual Life Outcomes 7:55

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Madersbacher S, Alivizatos G, Nordling J, Sanz CR, Emberton M, de la Rosette JJMCH (2004) EAU 2004 guidelines on assessment, therapy and follow-up of men with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction (BPH guidelines). Eur Urol 46(5):547–554

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nickel JC, Méndez-Probst CE, Whelan TF, Paterson RF, Razvi H (2010) 2010 Update: guidelines for the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Can Urol Assoc J 4(5):310–316

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fourcade RO, Picot M, Gaudin AF, Texier N, Slama A (2007) Factors determining treatment strategies for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. The DUO study. Press Med 36(5 Suppl):755–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nickel JC (2006) The economics of medical therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Curr Urol Rep 7(4):282–287

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Engstrom G, Henningsohn L, Walker-Engstrom ML, Leppert J (2006) Impact on quality of life of different lower urinary tract symptoms in men measured by means of the SF 36 questionnaire. Scand J Urol Nephrol 40(6):485–494

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Engström G, Walker-Engström ML, Henningsohn L, Lööf L, Leppert J (2004) Prevalence of distress and symptom severity from the lower urinary tract in men: a population-based study with the DAN-PSS questionnaire. Fam Pract 21(6):617–622

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Engström G, Henningsohn L, Steineck G, Leppert J (2005) Self-assessed health, sadness and happiness in relation to the total burden of symptoms from the lower urinary tract. BJU Int 95(6):810–815

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Coyne KS, Wein AJ, Tubaro A, Sexton CC, Thompson CL, Kopp ZS, Aiyer LP (2009) The burden of lower urinary tract symptoms: evaluating the effect of LUTS on health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression: EpiLUTS. BJU Int 103(Suppl 3):4–11

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rutten-van Mölken MPMH, Oostenbrink JB, Tashkin DP, Burkhart D, Monz BU (2006) Does quality of life of COPD patients as measured by the generic EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire differentiate between COPD severity stages? Chest 130(4):1117–1128

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Vexiau P, Mavros P, Krishnarajah G, Lyu R, Yin D (2008) Hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with a combination of metformin and sulphonylurea therapy in France. Diabetes Obes Metab 10(1 Suppl): 16–24

    Google Scholar 

  28. Monz B, Pons ME, Hampel C, Hunskaar S, Quail D, Samsioe G et al (2005) Patient-reported impact of urinary incontinence–results from treatment seeking women in 14 European countries. Maturitas 52(2 Suppl):24–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to all the physicians who accepted to participate in the study and provided data. Editorial support for the preparation of this manuscript was provided by Olena Klimchenko and Catherine Wendling, Cegedim Strategic Data, Boulogne, France. This study was funded by GSK, purveyor of dutasteride, a molecule indicated for BPH treatment.

Conflict of interest

ROF and FL have received consultancy fees from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) with respect to their scientific and medical participation in this study concerning the treatment of BPH. MR has no conflict of interest in this project. ASl, CLF and FEC are employees of Laboratoire GSK who markets dutasteride, a molecule indicated for BPH treatment. EM and ASi received stipends from GSK for data analysis (ASi) or for coordination of the study (EM).

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Auxerre, Auxerre, France

    Richard-Olivier Fourcade

  2. General Practice, Albens, France

    François Lacoin

  3. Department of Urology, Hôpital La Pitié Salpêtrière, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France

    Morgan Rouprêt

  4. Health Outcomes Studies, Laboratoire GlaxoSmithKline, Marly le Roi, France

    Alain Slama, Camille Le Fur & François-Emery Cotté

  5. Cegedim Strategic Data, Boulogne, France

    Emilie Michel & Axel Sitbon

Authors
  1. Richard-Olivier Fourcade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. François Lacoin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Morgan Rouprêt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alain Slama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Camille Le Fur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emilie Michel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Axel Sitbon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. François-Emery Cotté
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to François-Emery Cotté.

Additional information

Article in Memoriam of Richard Olivier Fourcade (1944–2010) who spent a creative life, leaving after himself a great scientific heritage in urology, as well as disciples and followers.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fourcade, RO., Lacoin, F., Rouprêt, M. et al. Outcomes and general health-related quality of life among patients medically treated in general daily practice for lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. World J Urol 30, 419–426 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0756-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0756-2

Keywords

  • Benign prostatic hyperplasia
  • Lower urinary tract symptoms
  • Quality of life
  • Utility
  • 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor
  • Alpha-blocker
  • Phytotherapy
  • Combination therapy