4.2 Article

Diagnosis and management of acromegaly: the patient's perspective

期刊

PITUITARY
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 268-276

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11102-015-0702-1

关键词

Acromegaly; Diagnosis; Treatment; Impairment; Patient's perspective

资金

  1. Ipsen, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Early diagnosis is a success factor for the prevention of long-term comorbidity and premature death in patients with acromegaly, but large-scale data on the diagnostic process and disease management are scarce. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic process, implementation of treatment and changes in life situation in patients with acromegaly, focusing on sex-specific differences. Methods Non-interventional patient-reported outcome study. 165 patients with clinically and biochemically proven acromegaly were questioned about the diagnostic process and utilization of health care by means of a self-developed standardized postal survey including questions on acromegaly symptoms experienced before diagnosis, number and specialty of consulted doctors, time to diagnosis and aftercare. Results The diagnostic process took 2.9 (SD 4.53) years, during which 3.4 (SD 2.99) physicians were consulted. Women waited longer [4.1 (SD 5.53) years] than men [1.6 (SD 2.69) years; p = 0.001] for the correct diagnosis, and consulted more doctors in the process [4.0 (SD 2.99) vs. 2.7 (SD 2.84) doctors, p < 0.001, respectively]. In 48.5 % of patients, acromegaly was diagnosed by an endocrinologist (men: 45.1 %; women: 52.4 %). Overall disease duration from symptom onset until last surgery was 5.5 (SD 6.85) years, with no sex differences. A change in employment status was the most commonly reported event after diagnosis and a quarter of the patients stated that the illness had changed their lives. Conclusions Our findings confirm the urgent need to increase awareness of the clinical manifestation of acromegaly to facilitate an earlier diagnosis of the disease and to provide diagnostic equality across the sexes.

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

4.2
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