Manejo asistencial del paciente con hiperplasia benigna de próstata en España / Clinical Management of Patient With Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia in Spain

Objetivos: Conocer el manejo asistencial de la hiperplasia benigna de próstata (HBP) en España y el uso de recursos sanitarios asociado. Material y métodos: Estudio descriptivo transversal mediante entrevistas telefónicas a médicos de atención primaria (MAP) y urólogos. Se recogió información acerca del diagnóstico, tratamiento y seguimiento. Los resultados se agruparon por patrones asistenciales, definidos a partir de las variables: diagnóstico, clasificación según sintomatología, inicio de tratamiento farmacológico y seguimiento. Resultados: Participaron 153 MAP y 154 urólogos. Se identificaron 7 patrones asistenciales en atención primaria (AP). El uso de recursos sanitarios en el diagnóstico presenta cierta homogeneidad, empleando de 2,0 a 2,6 visitas, siendo las pruebas diagnósticas más habituales el análisis de PSA y de orina. En el seguimiento se observa heterogeneidad en el uso de recursos. Las visitas de seguimiento oscilan entre 3,2 y 7,0 visitas/ paciente/ año y el tipo de pruebas realizadas varía entre patrones y dentro del mismo patrón. En Urología se identificaron tres patrones asistenciales. Existe homogeneidad en el uso de recursos en el diagnóstico y en el seguimiento. La frecuencia de visitas es de 2 para el diagnóstico y entre 2,1 y 3,2 visitas/paciente/año en el seguimiento. Las pruebas más comúnmente realizadas en el diagnóstico y en el seguimiento son el análisis de PSA y el tacto rectal. Conclusiones: En AP la asistencia prestada al paciente con HBP está sujeta a variabilidad, encontrándose 7 patrones asistenciales diferentes con un seguimiento heterogéneo entre patrones y dentro del mismo patrón. Esta situación podría justificar la necesidad de difusión e implantación de protocolos asistenciales (AU)

Objectives: To identify clinical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in Spain and its associated health care resources. Material and methods: A qualitative cross-sectional study was conducted through telephone interviews to general practitioners (GP) and urologists. Information about diagnosis, pharmacologic treatment and follow-up was collected. Results were clustered according to the key variables considered as drivers of clinical practice patterns: BPH diagnosis, severity classification, treatment initiation and follow up of patients. Results: 153 GP and 154 urologists participated in the study. 7 different clinical patterns were identified in primary care (PC). Resource use during diagnosis is relatively homogeneous, reporting a range of 2.0 to 2.6 visits employed and being the most frequent test performed PSA and urine test. Follow-up is heterogeneous; frequency of follow-up visits oscillates from 3.2 to 7.0 visits/patient/year and type of tests performed is different among patterns and within the same pattern. In Urology, 3 clinical patterns were identified. Resource use is homogeneous in the diagnosis and in the follow-up; urologists employed 2 visits in diagnosis and a range of 2.1 to 3.2 visits/patient/year in the follow-up. The most frequent tests both in diagnosis and follow-up are PSA and digital test. Conclusions: BPH management shows variability in PC, identifying 7 different clinical practice patterns with different resource use during the follow-up among patterns and within the same pattern. The implementation of clinical guidelines could be justified to reduce heterogeneity (AU)

[Clinical management of patient with benign prostatic hyperplasia in Spain]. / Manejo asistencial del paciente con hiperplasia benigna de próstata en España.

OBJECTIVES: To identify clinical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in Spain and its associated health care resources. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A qualitative cross-sectional study was conducted through telephone interviews to general practitioners (GP) and urologists. Information about diagnosis, pharmacologic treatment and follow-up was collected. Results were clustered according to the key variables considered as drivers of clinical practice patterns: BPH diagnosis, severity classification, treatment initiation and follow up of patients. RESULTS: 153 GP and 154 urologists participated in the study. 7 different clinical patterns were identified in primary care (PC). Resource use during diagnosis is relatively homogeneous, reporting a range of 2.0 to 2.6 visits employed and being the most frequent test performed PSA and urine test. Follow-up is heterogeneous; frequency of follow-up visits oscillates from 3.2 to 7.0 visits/patient/year and type of tests performed is different among patterns and within the same pattern. In Urology, 3 clinical patterns were identified. Resource use is homogeneous in the diagnosis and in the follow-up; urologists employed 2 visits in diagnosis and a range of 2.1 to 3.2 visits/patient/year in the follow-up. The most frequent tests both in diagnosis and follow-up are PSA and digital test. CONCLUSIONS: BPH management shows variability in PC, identifying 7 different clinical practice patterns with different resource use during the follow-up among patterns and within the same pattern. The implementation of clinical guidelines could be justified to reduce heterogeneity.

Morbilidad, mortalidad y costes sanitarios evitables medianteuna estrategia de tratamiento del tabaquismo en España / The effects of implementing a smoking cessation intervention in Spain on morbidity, mortality and health care costs

Objetivo: Se valoran los efectos que tendría una intervención destinada a reducir el uso de tabaco en la población española de fumadores sobre la morbilidad, la mortalidad y los costes asociados al consumo de tabaco. Método: Se ha adaptado el modelo Health and Economic Consequences of Smoking patrocinado por la OMS y desarrollado por The Lewin Group. La intervención propuesta incluye el acceso a asistencia farmacológica de un 35% de los fumadores que intentan dejar de fumar, y obtienen una tasa global de cesación al año del 7,2%. Las enfermedades estudiadas son: cáncer de pulmón, enfermedad coronaria, enfermedad cerebrovascular, EPOC, asma y bajo peso al nacer. Se estiman los casos de enfermedad y muerte atribuibles al consumo de tabaco evitados y la reducción en el coste sanitario debidos a la intervención, proyectados a 20 años. Resultados: Sin intervención, en el año 1 del modelo 2.136.094 fumadores padecen alguna de las condiciones clínicas atribuibles al consumo de tabaco, el coste asistencial es de 4.286 millones de euros y las muertes atribuibles son 26.537. La intervención propuesta evita 2.613, 9.192, 17.415 y 23.837 casos de enfermedad atribuible al consumo de tabaco en los años 2, 5, 10 y 20 del modelo, respectivamente. Los costes asistenciales acumulados evitados son 3,5 millones de euros en el año 2 y 386 millones de (..) (AU)

Objective: We estimated the effect that a smoking cessation intervention in the Spanish population of smokers would have on smoking-related morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Methods: We adopted the model Health and Economic Consequences of Smoking sponsored by the WHO Health Organization and developed by the The Lewin Group. The smoking cessation intervention proposed incluides pharmacological treatment to 35% of smokers who are trying to quit smoking and obtains a quit rate of 7.2%. The diseases studied are: lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma exacerbation, and low birth weight. The smoking-related cases of disease and of averted death and the reduction in healthcare expenditure due to the intervention were estimated. Results: Without intervention, at year 1 of the model, 2,136,094 smokers would be affected by some smoking-related disease; healthcare expenditure would be 4,286 million € and deaths attributable to smoking would total 26,537. The proposed intervention (..) (AU)

[The effects of implementing a smoking cessation intervention in Spain on morbidity, mortality and health care costs]. / Morbilidad, mortalidad y costes sanitarios evitables mediante una estrategia de tratamiento del tabaquismo en España.

OBJECTIVE: We estimated the effect that a smoking cessation intervention in the Spanish population of smokers would have on smoking-related morbidity, mortality and health care costs. METHODS: We adopted the model Health and Economic Consequences of Smoking sponsored by the WHO Health Organization and developed by the The Lewin Group. The smoking cessation intervention proposed includes pharmacological treatment to 35% of smokers who are trying to quit smoking and obtains a quit rate of 7.2%. The diseases studied are: lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma exacerbation, and low birth weight. The smoking-related cases of disease and of averted death and the reduction in health care expenditure due to the intervention were estimated. RESULTS: Without intervention, at year 1 of the model, 2,136,094 smokers would be affected by some smoking-related disease; health care expenditure would be 4,286 million e and deaths attributable to smoking would total 26,537. The proposed intervention would prevent 2,613, 9,192, 17,415 and 23,837 cases of smoking-related disease at years 2, 5, 10 and 20 of the model, respectively. The saving in accumulated health care costs would amount to 3.5 million e at year 2 and 386 million e over 20 years. The accumulated prevented deaths are 284 at year 2 and 9,205 over 20 years. The intervention would save a total of 78,173 life-years by the end of the period considered. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of new effective smoking cessation interventions and the increase in accessibility to such interventions may contribute significantly to reducing morbidity, mortality and health care costs associated with smoking in Spain.