Phytomedicines in Pharmacotherapy of LUTS/BPH - What Do Patients Think?

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Patient preference and adherence Pub Date : 2024-12-09 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/PPA.S484632
Alexander Tamalunas, Richard Paktiaval, Philipp Lenau, Leo Federico Stadelmeier, Alexander Buchner, Thomas Kolben, Giuseppe Magistro, Christian G Stief, Martin Hennenberg
{"title":"Phytomedicines in Pharmacotherapy of LUTS/BPH - What Do Patients Think?","authors":"Alexander Tamalunas, Richard Paktiaval, Philipp Lenau, Leo Federico Stadelmeier, Alexander Buchner, Thomas Kolben, Giuseppe Magistro, Christian G Stief, Martin Hennenberg","doi":"10.2147/PPA.S484632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) consist of voiding and storage symptoms. While the therapeutic efficacy of current LUTS medications is limited, and with more than 20% of patients suffering from mixed symptoms, current guidelines offer nothing more than combining monotherapies. An individualized approach is urgently warranted, and phytomedicines have become an integral part of patient-empowerment in therapeutic shared-decision making processes. Therefore, we aimed to investigate patients' preference of phytomedicines and treatment adherence at the dawn of an era leaving α<sub>1</sub>-blocker monotherapies behind.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A questionnaire was prepared, and patients at our tertiary referral center were given the opportunity to voluntarily participate in our survey. We collected questionnaires from 300 patients during their visits from January 2022 to December 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>With 73% (218/300), most of our study cohort had either taken one or more or were currently on prescription medication for LUTS/BPH. Patients were prescribed α<sub>1</sub>-blockers (72%), followed by 5α-reductase inhibitors (21%), and phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitor (5%), while antimuscarinics and β<sub>3</sub>-agonists were rarely prescribed. However, 41% (89/218) of our patients, who were taking medication for LUTS, had taken or were currently taking phytomedicines, making this the second most common drug class in our patient cohort. Patients scored the efficacy of phytomedicines at a mean in the lower third, but 87% of patients attributed excellent tolerability, and only 9% experienced side effects. While 43% of patients recommended phytomedicines for other patients, two-thirds of patients thought phytomedicines should be covered by statutory health insurance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found that phytomedicines were the second most common drug class taken by LUTS patients at our hospital. Reasons may be easy availability as over the counter medication and a superior safety profile with less bothersome side effects than commonly prescribed drug classes. Taken together, phytomedicines may be able to bridge an important gap in LUTS pharmacotherapy to provide sufficient treatment adherence where prescription drug classes fail, and ultimately, adequate improvement of symptoms. However, patients need to be counseled on potentially limited efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":19972,"journal":{"name":"Patient preference and adherence","volume":"18 ","pages":"2507-2518"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11645467/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient preference and adherence","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S484632","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) consist of voiding and storage symptoms. While the therapeutic efficacy of current LUTS medications is limited, and with more than 20% of patients suffering from mixed symptoms, current guidelines offer nothing more than combining monotherapies. An individualized approach is urgently warranted, and phytomedicines have become an integral part of patient-empowerment in therapeutic shared-decision making processes. Therefore, we aimed to investigate patients' preference of phytomedicines and treatment adherence at the dawn of an era leaving α1-blocker monotherapies behind.

Patients and methods: A questionnaire was prepared, and patients at our tertiary referral center were given the opportunity to voluntarily participate in our survey. We collected questionnaires from 300 patients during their visits from January 2022 to December 2022.

Results: With 73% (218/300), most of our study cohort had either taken one or more or were currently on prescription medication for LUTS/BPH. Patients were prescribed α1-blockers (72%), followed by 5α-reductase inhibitors (21%), and phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitor (5%), while antimuscarinics and β3-agonists were rarely prescribed. However, 41% (89/218) of our patients, who were taking medication for LUTS, had taken or were currently taking phytomedicines, making this the second most common drug class in our patient cohort. Patients scored the efficacy of phytomedicines at a mean in the lower third, but 87% of patients attributed excellent tolerability, and only 9% experienced side effects. While 43% of patients recommended phytomedicines for other patients, two-thirds of patients thought phytomedicines should be covered by statutory health insurance.

Conclusion: We found that phytomedicines were the second most common drug class taken by LUTS patients at our hospital. Reasons may be easy availability as over the counter medication and a superior safety profile with less bothersome side effects than commonly prescribed drug classes. Taken together, phytomedicines may be able to bridge an important gap in LUTS pharmacotherapy to provide sufficient treatment adherence where prescription drug classes fail, and ultimately, adequate improvement of symptoms. However, patients need to be counseled on potentially limited efficacy.

植物药物在LUTS/BPH药物治疗中的应用——患者怎么看?
目的:下尿路症状(LUTS)包括排尿症状和储尿症状。虽然目前LUTS药物的治疗效果有限,并且超过20%的患者患有混合症状,但目前的指南除了提供联合单一疗法之外什么也没有。一种个体化的方法是迫切需要的,植物药物已经成为患者在治疗共享决策过程中赋权的一个组成部分。因此,我们的目的是调查在α1受体阻滞剂单一疗法被抛弃的时代到来之际,患者对植物药物的偏好和治疗依从性。患者和方法:我们准备了一份调查问卷,并让我们三级转诊中心的患者有机会自愿参与我们的调查。我们收集了300名患者在2022年1月至2022年12月期间就诊的问卷。结果:73%(218/300)的研究队列患者已经服用了一种或多种LUTS/BPH药物,或者目前正在服用处方药。患者使用α1受体阻滞剂(72%),其次是5α-还原酶抑制剂(21%)和磷酸二酯酶-5抑制剂(5%),而抗毒蕈素和β3激动剂很少使用。然而,41%(89/218)正在接受LUTS药物治疗的患者已经或正在服用植物药物,使其成为我们患者队列中第二大常见药物类别。患者对植物药物的疗效评分平均在较低的三分之一,但87%的患者认为耐受性很好,只有9%的患者出现了副作用。虽然43%的患者向其他患者推荐植物药物,但三分之二的患者认为植物药物应纳入法定健康保险。结论:我们发现植物药是我院LUTS患者第二大常用药物类别。原因可能是作为非处方药物很容易获得,而且比普通处方药更安全,副作用更少。综上所述,植物药物可能能够弥补LUTS药物治疗的一个重要空白,在处方药类药物失败的情况下提供足够的治疗依从性,并最终充分改善症状。然而,需要告知患者可能有限的疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Patient preference and adherence
Patient preference and adherence MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
354
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Patient Preference and Adherence is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal that focuses on the growing importance of patient preference and adherence throughout the therapeutic continuum. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of reviews, original research, modeling and clinical studies across all therapeutic areas. Patient satisfaction, acceptability, quality of life, compliance, persistence and their role in developing new therapeutic modalities and compounds to optimize clinical outcomes for existing disease states are major areas of interest for the journal. As of 1st April 2019, Patient Preference and Adherence will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信