4.4 Article

Characteristics of Men Undergoing Testosterone Replacement Therapy and Adherence to Follow-up Recommendations in Metropolitan Multicenter Health Care System

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 85, 期 6, 页码 1382-1388

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.01.027

关键词

-

资金

  1. Division of Urology
  2. John and Carol Walter Center for Urological Health, NorthShore University HealthSystem

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To identify the frequencies of treatment and recommended laboratory follow-up for men with low serum testosterone levels. METHODS The Electronic Data Warehouse was queried to identify men of ages 18-85 years, who obtained a testing for serum total testosterone level from 2009 to 2012. The frequency of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT), patient demographics, and clinical characteristics were collected. The frequency of follow-up with serum total testosterone and complete blood count levels was documented. RESULTS Among 9176 men who underwent testing for low testosterone levels, 3320 (36%) of them were hypogonadal with a mean serum total testosterone level of 194.3 +/- 64.9 ng/dL. Of them, 17.7% men were treated with TRTs. The treatment frequency significantly increased from 8.3% in 2009 to 24% in 2012. A total of 4.8% of men of reproductive ages (age, 18-35 years) were placed on TRTs. Within 180 days of initial testing, only 40% of treated men received follow-up with liver function tests and/or complete blood count, and only 49% had a follow-up serum testosterone level. CONCLUSION Although the frequency of TRT is increasing, only a small percentage of hypogonadal men are actively undergoing treatment. A significant proportion of men of reproductive age are being treated with significant impacts on potential fertility. Less than half of the patients treated are being monitored appropriately after testosterone replacement. This highlights the importance of further education for providers prescribing testosterone replacement. 2015. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据