Symptom prevalence, bother, and treatment satisfaction in men with lower urinary tract symptoms in Southeast Asia: a multinational, cross-sectional survey
- 138 Downloads
The overall objective of the survey was to systematically examine patients’ perspectives on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and their treatment in Southeast Asia.
A multinational cross-sectional survey involving adult men seeking consultation at urology outpatient clinics because of LUTS in Southeast Asia was conducted using convenience sampling. Self-reported prevalence, bother, treatment and treatment satisfaction of selected LUTS including urgency, nocturia, slow stream, and post-micturition dribble were evaluated.
In total, 1535 eligible patients were enrolled in the survey. A majority of respondents were aged 56–75 years, not employed, and had not undergone prostate operation before. Overall, the self-reported prevalence of nocturia was 88% (95% CI 86–90%), slow stream 61% (95% CI 59–63%), post micturition dribble 55% (95% CI 52–58%), and urgency 52% (95% CI 49–55%). There were marked differences in the country specific prevalence of LUTS complaints. Frequently, symptoms coexisted and were combined with nocturia. More than half of patients felt at least some degree of bother from their symptoms: 61% for urgency, 57% for nocturia, 58% for slow stream, and 60% for post-micturition dribble. Before seeing the present urologists, nearly half of patients have received some form of prescribed treatment and more than 80% of patients indicated they would like to receive treatment.
Men who sought urologist care for LUTS often presented with multiple symptoms. Nocturia emerged as the most common symptom amongst the four core symptoms studied.
KeywordsAdult Cross-sectional studies Male Prevalence Lower urinary tract symptoms Epidemiology surveys and questionnaires
Technical support in translation, data collection and analysis was provided by independent translation and research agencies (Elite Asia Interpreters and Ifop-Asia, repsectively) and was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
PA and LYH were involved in protocol/project development. All authors were involved in data collection or management. Ifop-Asia was involved in data analysis. All authors were involved in manuscript writing/editing.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 1.National Clinical Guideline Centre for Acute and Chronic Conditions (2010) Lower urinary tract symptoms. The management of lower urinary tract symptoms in men. London (UK): National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); 2010 May (Clinical guideline; no. 97)Google Scholar
- 5.Lee SH, Chung BH, Kim CS et al (2012) Survey on benign prostatic hyperplasia distribution and treatment patterns for men with lower urinary tract symptoms visiting urologists at general hospitals in Korea: a prospective, noncontrolled, observational cohort study. Urology 79:1379–1384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Members of Committees, Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence, Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee (2010) Evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 29:213–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Emberton M, Marberger M and de la Rosette J (2008) Understanding patient and physician perceptions of benign prostatic hyperplasia in Europe: the Prostate Research on Behaviour and Education (PROBE) SurveyGoogle Scholar
- 18.Weibl P, Laurinc P, Tomaškin R et al (2015) Patient’s and physician’s behavior on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia among the patients at the risk of clinical progression. A multicenter noninterventional trial in Slovakia by “Prostate and Expectations of Treatment: epidemiology Research” (PETER) study group. Wien Klin Wochenschr 127:434–439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar