Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Lessons learnt from the variation across 6741 family/general practices in England in the use of treatments for hypogonadism.
Heald, Adrian H; Stedman, Michael; Whyte, Martin; Livingston, Mark; Albanese, Marco; Ramachandran, Sud; Hackett, Geoff.
Afiliação
  • Heald AH; The School of Medicine and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
  • Stedman M; Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Salford Royal Hospital, Salford, UK.
  • Whyte M; Res Consortium, Research, Andover, UK.
  • Livingston M; Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK.
  • Albanese M; Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Black Country Pathology Services, Walsall, UK.
  • Ramachandran S; School of Medicine and Clinical Practice & Department of Biomedical Science and Physiology, Faculty of Science & Engineering, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK.
  • Hackett G; Herzzentrum Hirslanden Zentralschweiz, Luzern, Switzerland.
Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) ; 94(5): 827-836, 2021 05.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33420743
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

We have previously reported rates of diagnosis of male hypogonadism in United Kingdom (UK) general practices. We aimed to identify factors associated with testosterone prescribing in UK general practice.

METHODS:

We determined for 6741 general practices in England, the level of testosterone prescribing in men and the relation between volume of testosterone prescribing and (1) demographic characteristics of the practice, (2) % patients with specific comorbidities and (3) national GP patient survey results.

RESULTS:

The largest volume (by prescribing volume) agents were injectable preparations at a total cost in the 12-month period 2018/19 of £8,172,519 with gel preparations in second place total cost £4,795,057. Transdermal patches, once the only alternative to testosterone injections or implants, were little prescribed total cost £222,022. The analysis accounted for 0.27 of the variance in testosterone prescribing between general practices. Thus, most of this variance was not accounted for by the analysis. There was a strong univariant relation (r = .95, P < .001) between PDE5-I prescribing and testosterone prescribing. Other multivariant factors independently linked with more testosterone prescribing were as follows HIGHER proportion of men with type 2 diabetes(T2DM) on target control (HbA1c ≤ 58 mmol/mol) and HIGHER overall practice rating on the National Patient Survey for good experience, while non-white ethnicity and socio-economic deprivation were associated with less testosterone prescribing. There were a number of comorbidity factors associated with less prescribing of testosterone (such as T2DM, hypertension and stroke/TIA).

CONCLUSION:

Our analysis has indicated that variation between general practices in testosterone prescribing in a well developed health economy is only related to small degree (r2  = 0.27) to factors that we can define. This suggests that variation in amount of testosterone prescribed is largely related to general practitioner choice/other factors not studied and may be amenable to measures to increase knowledge/awareness of male hypogonadism, with implications for men's health.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 / Medicina Geral / Hipogonadismo Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 / Medicina Geral / Hipogonadismo Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article