[Practical use of Adenoprosin in combination therapy in men with lower urinary tract symptoms].

Autor:	Kasyan G R; Department of Urology of FGBOU VO Russian University of Medicine, Moscow, Russia.; Moscow Urologic Center, S.P. Botkins State Clinical Hospital, Moscow, Russia., Khodyreva L A; Department of Urology of FGBOU VO Russian University of Medicine, Moscow, Russia.; Moscow Urologic Center, S.P. Botkins State Clinical Hospital, Moscow, Russia., Grigoryan B L; Department of Urology of FGBOU VO Russian University of Medicine, Moscow, Russia.; Moscow Urologic Center, S.P. Botkins State Clinical Hospital, Moscow, Russia., Dyakov V V; Department of Urology of FGBOU VO Russian University of Medicine, Moscow, Russia.; Moscow Urologic Center, S.P. Botkins State Clinical Hospital, Moscow, Russia.
Jazyk:	ruština
Zdroj:	Urologiia (Moscow, Russia : 1999) [Urologiia] 2024 Mar (1), pp. 61-70.
Abstrakt:	Aim: The aim of the observational cohort study is to study and evaluate the efficiency of the drug Adenoprosin in combination with other drugs in comparison with monotherapy. Materials and Methods: Data from 6,442 patients at 221 medical institutions in 39 cities from November 2020 to December 2022 were analyzed. The drug Adenoprosin in the form of rectal suppositories was prescribed as monotherapy in group I, while patients in group II received Adenoprosin in a combination with other drugs. The efficacy of treatment was assessed using uroflowmetry data, prostate volume, postvoid residual volume and validated scales (NIH-CPSI, IIEF-5, IPSS, QoL). Results: The diagnosis was validated in 6375 cases, including BPH (n=1498), chronic prostatitis (CP; n=3060), and in combination of both disorders (n=1817). A total of 3580 patients received Adenoprosin as monotherapy, while 2761 received combination therapy. In most cases, a combination therapy was prescribed in case of more severe disease. In patients with BPH, positive changes after treatment were noted in favor of group I according to change in postvoid residual volume (p<0.001) and prostate volume (p<0.001). Combination therapy demonstrated significant positive changes compared with monotherapy when assessing NIH-CPSI scores (p=0.005), IPSS scores (p<0.001) and the mean maximum urine flow rate (Qmax; p<0.001). Qmax increased significantly in both groups (from 14 ml/s to 17 ml/s in group I and from 12 ml/s to 14 ml/s in group II). Conclusion: Treatment of BPH, CP and their combination is a complex clinical task. The multiple nature of complaints often dictates the need for simultaneous administration of two or more drugs. Combination therapy involves the use of multiple therapeutic strategies to treat different aspects of BPH and CP. In patients with BPH, a combination therapy has been shown to be more effective than monotherapy with either class of drugs, as it reduces the risk of disease progression, acute urinary retention, and the need for surgery. However, combination therapy should be considered on an individual basis, taking into account symptoms, prostate size and overall health. There is no universal treatment method for BPH suitable for any patient. The treatment strategy should be chosen individually, considering all medical and social factors. All of the above applies to a large extent to the treatment of CP and CP + BPH. According to our results, Adenoprosin demonstrated efficacy both as monotherapy and in combination with other traditional drugs in the treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu