Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Tobias Page
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
© 2019 European Association of Urology Background: Clinical evaluation of male lower urinary tract symptoms (MLUTS) in secondary care uses a range of assessments. It is unknown how MLUTS evaluation influences outcome of therapy recommendations and choice, notably urodynamics (UDS; filling cystometry and pressure flow studies). Objective: To report participants’ sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and initial diagnostic findings of the Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods (UPSTREAM). UPSTREAM is a randomised controlled trial evaluating whether symptoms are noninferior and surgery rates are lower if UDS is included. Design, setting, and participants: A total of 820 men (≥18 yr of age) seeking treatment for bothersome LUTS were recruited from 26 National Health Service hospital urology departments. Intervention: Care pathway based on routine, noninvasive tests (control) or routine care plus UDS (intervention arm). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary outcome is International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the key secondary outcome is surgery rates 18 mo after randomisation. International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaires were captured for MLUTS, sexual function, and UDS satisfaction. Baseline clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and UDS findings were informally compared between arms. Trends across age groups for urinary and sexual PROMs were evaluated with a Cuzick's test, and questionnaire items were compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results and limitations: Storage LUTS, notably nocturia, and impaired sexual function are prominent in men being assessed for surgery. Sociodemographic and clinical evaluations were similar between arms. Overall mean IPSS and quality of life scores were 18.94 and 4.13, respectively. Trends were found across age groups, with older men suffering from higher rates of incontinence, nocturia, and erectile dysfunction, and younger men suffering from increased daytime frequency and voiding symptoms. Men undergoing UDS testing expressed high satisfaction with the procedure. Conclusions: Men being considered for surgery have additional clinical features that may affect treatment decision making and outcomes, notably storage LUTS and impaired sexual function. Patient summary: We describe initial assessment findings from a large clinical study of the treatment pathway for men suffering with bothersome urinary symptoms who were referred to hospital for further treatment, potentially including surgery. We report the patient characteristics and diagnostic test results, including symptom questionnaires, bladder diaries, flow rate tests, and urodynamics. Men being considered for surgery have additional clinical features that may affect treatment decision making and outcomes, notably storage lower urinary tract symptoms and impaired sexual function. Sociodemographic and clinical evaluations were similar between arms. The overall mean International Prostate Symptom Score and quality of life score were 18.94 and 4.13, respectively. Men undergoing urodynamic evaluation expressed high satisfaction with the procedure.
Author(s): Lewis AL, Young GJ, Abrams P, Blair PS, Chapple C, Glazener CMA, Horwood J, McGrath JS, Noble S, Taylor GT, Ito H, Belal M, Davies MC, Dickinson AJ, Foley CL, Foley S, Fulford S, Gammal MM, Garthwaite M, Harris MRE, Ilie PC, Jones R, Sabbagh S, Mason RG, McLarty E, Mishra V, Mom J, Morley R, Natale S, Nitkunan T, Page T, Payne D, Rashid TG, Saeb-Parsy K, Sandhu SS, Simoes A, Singh G, Sullivan M, Tempest HV, Viswanath S, Walker RMH, Lane JA, Drake MJ
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: European Urology Focus
Year: 2019
Volume: 5
Issue: 3
Pages: 340-350
Print publication date: 01/05/2019
Online publication date: 30/04/2019
Acceptance date: 10/04/2019
ISSN (electronic): 2405-4569
Publisher: Elsevier B.V.
URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.04.006
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.04.006
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
