@Article{,
AUTHOR = {John Roger Bell, Kristina L. Penniston, Sara L. Best, Stephen Y. Nakada},
TITLE = {A survey of patient preferences regarding medical expulsive therapy following the SUSPEND trial},
JOURNAL = {Canadian Journal of Urology},
VOLUME = {24},
YEAR = {2017},
NUMBER = {3},
PAGES = {8827--8831},
URL = {http://www.techscience.com/CJU/v24n3/60952},
ISSN = {1488-5581},
ABSTRACT = {Introduction: Several recent trials have reported limited
benefit for medical expulsive therapy (MET) in terms of
stone passage rates, analgesic requirements, or need for
intervention. We evaluated patient attitudes regarding
MET after explaining these new findings.
Materials and methods: Over a 12 week period, an
investigator-designed survey was offered to sequential
patients during routine appointments in our urologic
clinic. A brief summary of the conflicting data for MET
was provided. Patients then answered questions about
their attitudes toward using MET.
Results: Patients (n = 200; 103 M, 97 F) were 56 ± 14
years old (range 20-103 years) and were mostly being
seen for management of kidney stones (88%). Forty-nine
percent reported they would try tamsulosin despite the new data; 26% said they would not, and 25% were unsure.
Of patients indicating they would take tamsulosin, 35%
stated they would also be willing to take steroids. Thirty-five percent of patients said they were willing to pay the
full price of tamsulosin if needed. Seventy-one percent
said they would prefer to try medical therapy prior to
pursuing surgical therapy, again, despite new evidence
regarding the efficacy of MET.
Conclusion: In this initial report of patient attitudes
about MET after SUSPEND trial results, we found that
nearly half of patients would still try MET and that the
vast majority of patients prioritize medical over surgical
therapy when possible. As new research emerges, ways to
translate this information to patients and to assess their
attitudes and perceptions should be developed.},
DOI = {}
}