Silodosin for men with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: results of a phase II multicenter, double-blind, placebo controlled study

Chronic Primary Pelvic Pain Syndrome in Men

BACKGROUND

Chronic primary pelvic pain syndrome in men (CPPPSm) can be associated with urogenital pain, urinary symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and emotional disturbance. Its clinical heterogeneity and incompletely understood pathogenesis make it more difficult to treat. This article is intended to familiarize the reader with basic aspects of the manifestations, pathophysiology, diagnostic evaluation, differential diagnosis, and treatment of this condition.

METHODS

This article is based on relevant publications retrieved by a selective search of the literature, including the current guidelines of the European Association of Urology. The features of this disease pertaining to urology, psychosomatic medicine, and pain medicine are illuminated from an interdisciplinary perspective.

RESULTS

Chronic pelvic pain appears to arise through a complex interaction of inflammatory, infectious, neurological, musculoskeletal, and psychosomatic factors. A comprehensive diagnostic work-up should be carried out to evaluate and exclude the numerous differential diagnoses. Treatment strategies are based on the clinical phenotype. Randomized controlled trials have shown that significant relief can be achieved with a variety of drugs and non-pharmacological treatments, selected according to the manifestations of the condition in the individual case. Attention must be paid to treatment-specific adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

The management of patients with CPPPSm should consist of a comprehensive differential diagnostic evaluation and an individually oriented treatment strategy.

Prostatitis: A Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pathologies of the prostate in men are one of the most prevalent clinical conditions today [1]. Specifically, pelvic inflammatory disease such as prostatitis can cause symptoms and syndromes different from urological ones, such as bowel or nervous system manifestations. This has a largely negative impact on the quality of life of patients. Therefore, it is convenient to know and update the information about the therapeutic approach to prostatitis, which is a challenge that involves different medical specialties. The aim of this article is to provide summarized and focused evidence to help in the therapeutic approach of patients with prostatitis. A computer-based search of the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases was used to perform a comprehensive literature review on prostatitis, with special interest in recent findings and latest therapeutic guideline recommendations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent discoveries about the epidemiology and clinical classifications of prostatitis seem to incur in an increasingly individualized and directed management, with the aim of covering all the confluent factors in prostatic inflammatory pathology. In addition, the role of new drugs and combination with phytotherapy open up a range of new treatment possibilities, although future randomized studies will be necessary to better understand how to use all treatment modalities. Despite all the knowledge acquired about the pathophysiology of prostate diseases, and due to their interrelation with other pelvic systems and organs, there are still gaps that make it difficult for us to provide an optimal and standardized treatment in many of our patients. Being aware of the influence of all the factors potentially involved in prostate symptoms is crucial for a correct diagnosis and establishing an effective treatment plan.

Evolving Role of Silodosin for the Treatment of Urological Disorders – A Narrative Review

Use of α-androgenic receptor blockers remains a mainstay therapeutic approach for the treatment of urological diseases. Silodosin is recommended over other α-blockers for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH), due to its high α_1A uroselectivity. Current research data suggest that silodosin is efficacious in the management of various urological diseases. Thus, we herein review the current evidence of silodosin related to its efficacy and tolerability and appraise the available literature that might ultimately aid in management of various urological conditions at routine clinical practice. Literature reveals that silodosin is beneficial in improving nocturia events related to LUTS/BPH. Silodosin exerts effect on relaxing muscles involved in detrusor obstruction, therefore prolonging the need for patients undergoing invasive surgery. Silodosin treatment, either as a monotherapy or combination, significantly improves International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) including both storage and voiding symptoms in patients with BPH/LUTS. Patients on other treatment therapies such as phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors or other α-blockers are well managed with this drug. Steadily, silodosin has proved beneficial in the treatment of other urological disorders such as chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS), overactive bladder/acute urinary retention (AUR), premature ejaculation (PE), and prostate cancer post brachytherapy-induced progression. In patients with distal ureteral stones, silodosin treatment is beneficial in decreasing stone expulsion time without affecting stone expulsion rate or analgesic need. Moreover, there were significant improvements in intravaginal ejaculation latency time, quality of life scores, and decrease in PE profile among patients with PE. Silodosin has also demonstrated promising results in increasing the likelihood of successful trial without catheter in patients with AUR and those taking antihypertensive drugs. Reports from Phase II studies have shown promising role of silodosin in the treatment of CP/CPPS as well as facilitating ureteral stone passage. From the robust data in this review, further silodosin treatment strategies in the management of different urological conditions need to be focused on.

Oral pharmacological treatments for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological treatments for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) are empirically used. However, the quantitative comparative effectiveness and safety of multiple pharmacological treatments is lacking.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 22, 2022. Randomised controlled trials comparing two or more oral pharmacological treatments for patients with CP/CPPS were included. Title, abstract, and full-text screening were independently screened by four reviewers. Primary outcomes were efficacy (the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index [NIH-CPSI] total score, pain score, urinary score, and quality of life score [QoL]) and safety (adverse events). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020184106.

FINDINGS

25 studies (3514 patients) assessed 26 treatments. Low to very low quality evidence indicated that doxazosin (Mean difference [MD], -11.4, 95% Credible interval [CrI], -17.5 to -5.1) and the doxazosin, ibuprofen, and thiocolchicoside combination (MD, -11.6, CrI, -18.1 to -5.3) were significantly more effective than placebo in the NIH-CPSI total score. Other NIH-CPSI relative outcomes (pain, urinary, and QoL scores) showed a similar pattern. Low and very low quality evidence suggested that combination treatment including doxazosin, ibuprofen, and thiocolchicoside (odds ratios [OR], 3.2, CrI, 0.5 to 19.3) and the tamsulosin and dapoxetine combination (OR, 6.0, CrI, 0.7 to 67.3) caused more adverse events. In half of all comparisons regarding NIH-CPSI pain scores and quality of life scores, heterogeneity was minimal or low. Heterogeneity was high in both NIH-CPSI total symptom scores (I²  = 78.0%) and pain scores (I²  = 87. 0%) for tamsulosin versus placebo. There was also high heterogeneity in NIH-CPSI urine scores for the combination of tamsulosin and ciprofloxacin versus tamsulosin (I²  = 66.8%), tamsulosin and levofloxacin versus tamsulosin (I²  = 93.3%), and tamsulosin versus placebo (I²  = 83%).

INTERPRETATION

Pharmacological treatments have little evidence supporting efficacy in CP/CPPS. Future studies could personalise therapy for individuals according to specific symptoms and identify non-pharmacological targets for CP/CPPS.

FUNDING

Dr Jiani Wu received funding for this project from the China Association for Science and Technology (2017QNRC001), the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences (ZZ13-YQ-027), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82105037).

Jiedu Huoxue decoction improves chronic abacterial prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome through activating Wnt/GSKβ/β-catenin signaling pathway and alleviating apoptosis

BACKGROUND

Chronic abacterial prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) accounts for 90% of clinical prostatitis, and there is no specific and effective treatment for it. Jiedu Huoxue decoction (JDHXD) has been believed to be an effective agent for CP/CPPS, but the specific mechanism remains unclear.

METHODS

Carrageenan and LPS were used to established the animal and cell models of CP/CPPS, respectively. The prostate index, urine volume, lumen area, epithelial thickness, and pain response time were investigated. TUNEL staining and flow cytometry were applied to measure apoptosis levels in vivo and in vitro.

RESULTS

JDHXD improved CP/CPPS recovery in a dose-dependent manner. JDHXD restrained apoptosis and activated Wnt/GSK-3β/β-catenin signaling pathway in the CP/CPPS animal model. Inhibition of Wnt/GSK-3β/β-catenin signaling pathway remarkably aggravated apoptosis and suppressed the improvement of CP/CPPS by JDHXD. XAX939 markedly reversed the suppression of cell apoptosis and ROS level caused by JDHXD in vitro.

CONCLUSION

Jiedu Huoxue decoction improved CP/CPPS through activating Wnt/GSKβ/β-catenin signaling pathway and inhibiting apoptosis. This study might provide a novel insight for the prevention and treatment of CP/CPPS through activating Wnt/GSK-3β/β-catenin signaling pathway.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo effect in clinical trials on chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

BACKGROUND

It is a common practice to control efficacy of pharmacological treatment with a placebo group. However, placebo itself may affect subjective and even objective results. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the placebo effect on symptoms of CP/CPPS to improve future clinical trials.

METHODS

A search at three databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, and Web of Science) was conducted to identify double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials on the treatment of CP/CPPS published until April 2021. The primary outcome - National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Qmax, PVR, IPSS, and prostate volume.

RESULTS

A total of 3502 studies were identified. Placebo arms of 42 articles (5512 patients, median 31 patients) were included in the systematic review. Systematic review identified positive changes in the primary endpoint, meta-analysis of 10 articles found that NIH-CPSI total score results were significantly influenced by placebo, mean difference -4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -6.31, -2.09). Mean difference of NIH-CPSI pain domain was -2.31 (95% CI: -3.4, -1.21), urinary domain -1.12 (95% CI: -1.62, -0.62), quality of life domain -1.67 (95% CI: -2.38, -0.96); p < 0.001 for all. In case of the objective indicator - Qmax, there were three articles included in the meta-analysis. Qmax mean change from baseline was 0.68 (95% CI: -0.85, 2.22, p = 0.38). Systematic review showed no significant changes in pain, measured by VAS or other scores, IPSS and PVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Placebo significantly affected the subjective parameters (NIH-CPSI) and limitedly affected various other measurements of pain (visual analog scale, McGill pain questionnaire). There was no long-term effect on IPSS and objective measurements (Qmax, PVR). This study can be used in further clinical trials to develop general rules of CPPS treatment assessment.

Diagnostic and Management Strategies for Patients with Chronic Prostatitis and Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common and often heterogenous condition that can have severe consequences on patient quality of life. In this review, we describe the pathophysiology, diagnostic work-up, and treatment of patients with CP/CPPS incorporating the most recent literature. Studies have demonstrated that CP/CPPS involves a complex pathophysiology, including infectious, immunologic, neurologic, endocrinologic, and psychologic etiologies, with frequent intersections between the different entities. Despite robust research assessing a variety of therapeutics targeting these etiologies, clinical trials have failed to identify an empiric treatment strategy applicable specifically to older adult male patients with CP/CPPS. As such, it can be challenging to manage older male patients with this condition. The advent of clinical phenotyping of patients with CP/CPPS has led to advances in tailored management strategies. Monomodal therapy has been largely unsuccessful because of the unclear and complex etiology of CPPS. As a result, CP/CPPS therapy has transitioned to a multimodal approach, including both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapies. The best studied pharmacologic therapies include antibiotics, alpha-blockers, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory agents, phytotherapies, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, hormonal agents, neuromodulatory agents, and antidepressants. The best studied non-pharmacological therapies include pelvic floor physical therapy, myofascial trigger point release, acupuncture and electroacupuncture, psychological support and biofeedback, and electrocorporeal shockwave therapy and local thermotherapy.

The Anti-Inflammatory and Antioxidative Effects of Ningmitai Capsule in the Experimental Autoimmune Prostatitis Rat Model

Objective

Ningmitai (NMT) capsule has been widely prescribed for the treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS), but the mechanism remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the therapeutic effects of the NMT capsule in the experimental autoimmune prostatitis (EAP) rat models and explore its possible mechanisms.

Methods

A total of fifty male Sprague Dawley rats were used in this study. Prostate extract was obtained for the induction of EAP rat models. The EAP rats were randomly divided into the model group, NMT low-dose group (0.45 g/kg/d), NMT medium-dose group (0.90 g/kg/d), and NMT high-dose group (1.80 g/kg/d), with six rats per group. Three NMT treatment groups were administered with the NMT capsule by gavage for 30 days. HE staining was used for histopathological analyses of prostate tissues. Western blotting was used to measure the expression of proinflammatory factors IL-1β and TNF-α. The MDA level was detected to reflect the level of oxidative stress. The bilateral dorsal root ganglia of T3/L1 to S4 were dissected to measure the substance P expression.

Results

EAP rat models were successfully constructed, in which extensive infiltration of inflammatory cells was found. Treatment of NMT capsule for 30 days and the infiltration of inflammatory cells were significantly mitigated (P < 0.05), especially in the NMT medium-dose group and NMT high-dose group. Moreover, the expression of IL-1β and the level of MDA were significantly decreased (P < 0.05). In addition, NMT treatment could significantly alleviate substance P expression in dorsal root ganglia.

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrate that the NMT capsule can alleviate inflammatory response and oxidative stress and reduce the production of substance P in EAP rats. This provides a theoretical basis for the clinical application of NMT capsule for CP/CPPS treatment.

Pharmacological interventions for treating chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

BACKGROUND

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common disorder in which the two main clinical features are pelvic pain and lower urinary tract symptoms. There are currently many approaches for its management, using both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. The National Institute of Health - Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score is a validated measure commonly used to measure CP/CPPS symptoms. We considered a 25% decrease of NIH-CPSI baseline score or a six-point reduction as MCID.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological therapies for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, trial registries, grey literature and conference proceedings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. The date of the latest search of all databases was July 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with a diagnosis of CP/CPPS. We included all available pharmacological interventions compared to placebo or in head-to-head comparisons.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risks of bias of included studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence (QoE) using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 99 unique studies in 9119 men with CP/CPPS, with assessments of 16 types of pharmacological interventions. Unless stated otherwise, our comparisons were based on short-term follow-up (less than 12 months). Most studies did not specify their funding sources; 21 studies reported funding from pharmaceutical companies.1. Alpha blockers: (24 studies, 2061 participants). We are uncertain about the effects of these drugs on prostatitis symptoms when compared to placebo at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) in total NIH-CPSI score -5.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.41 to -2.61; 18 studies, 1524 participants, very low QoE) and at long-term follow-up (MD -5.60, 95% CI -10.89 to -0.32; 4 studies, 235 participants, very low QoE). Alpha blockers may be associated with an increased incidence of adverse events, such as dizziness and postural hypotension (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.34; 19 studies, 1588 participants; low QoE). Alpha blockers probably result in little to no difference in sexual dysfunction, quality of life and anxiety and depression (moderate to low QoE).2. 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARI): (2 studies, 177 participants). Finasteride probably reduces prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI score MD -4.60, 95% CI -5.43 to -3.77; 1 study, 64 participants; moderate QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence of adverse events (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.3. Antibiotics: (6 studies, 693 participants). Antibiotics (quinolones) may reduce prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.43, 95% CI -4.72 to -0.15; 5 studies, 372 participants; low QoE) and are probably not associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (moderate QoE). Antibiotics probably result in little to no difference in sexual dysfunction and quality of life (moderate QoE). There was no information on anxiety or depression.4. Anti-inflammatories: (7 studies, 585 participants). Anti-inflammatories may reduce prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI scores MD -2.50, 95% CI -3.74 to -1.26; 7 studies, 585 participants; low QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.5. Phytotherapy: (7 studies, 551 participants). Phytotherapy may reduce prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI scores MD -5.02, 95% CI -6.81 to -3.23; 5 studies, 320 participants; low QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). Phytotherapy may not improve sexual dysfunction (low QoE). There was no information on quality of life or anxiety and depression.6. Botulinum toxin A (BTA): Intraprostatic BTA injection (1 study, 60 participants) may cause a large reduction in prostatitis symptom (NIH-CPSI scores MD -25.80, 95% CI -30.15 to -21.45), whereas pelvic floor muscle BTA injection (1 study, 29 participants) may not reduce prostatitis symptoms (low QoE). Both comparisons used a placebo injection. These interventions may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.7. Allopurinol: (2 studies, 110 participants). Allopurinol may result in little to no difference in prostatitis symptoms and adverse events when compared to placebo (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.8. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM): (7 studies, 835 participants); TCM may reduce prostatitis symptoms (NIH-CPSI score, MD -3.13, 95% CI -4.99 to -1.28; low QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). TCM probably does not improve sexual dysfunction (moderate QoE) and may not improve symptoms of anxiety and depression (low QoE). There was no information on quality of life.The most frequent reasons for downgrading the QoE were study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. We found few trials with active comparators.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-quality evidence that alpha blockers, antibiotics, 5-ARI, anti-inflammatories, phytotherapy, intraprostatic BTA injection, and traditional Chinese medicine may cause a reduction in prostatitis symptoms without an increased incidence of adverse events in the short term, except for alpha blockers which may be associated with an increase in mild adverse events. We found few trials with active comparators and little evidence of the effects of these drugs on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression. Future clinical trials should include a full report of their methods, including adequate masking, consistent assessment of all patient-important outcomes, including potential treatment-related adverse events, and appropriate sample sizes.

Tamsulosin dispensation patterns in the United States: a real-world, longitudinal, population claims database analysis

Background

Tamsulosin remains the single most popular uroselective alpha adrenoceptor antagonist approved for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) attributable to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Over the last 3 decades, the utilization of tamsulosin has extended to conditions beyond its original indication. To identify potential changes to prescribing patterns and the extent of tamsulosin use for conditions beyond its original indication, we evaluated tamsulosin dispensing patterns in the United States using a large, multi-payer claims database.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis using IMS PharMetrics Plus™. Patients with a tamsulosin dispensation/BPH diagnosis code (index dates), identified during a 12-month selection period (October 2012-September 2013), were included if continuously enrolled in a health plan during the 18-month analysis period (12 months pre-index-6 months post-index). Patient and provider characteristics were evaluated using descriptive statistics and were contrasted with previously reported data from the literature.

Results

Of 133,977 patients dispensed tamsulosin during the analysis period, 72,583 (54.2%) were new users [59,197 (81.6%) men; 13,386 (18.4%) women]. Tamsulosin was newly initiated in men and women mostly by primary care physicians (PCPs; 31.6%) and emergency medicine physicians (21.6%). During the analysis period, 35,071 (59.2%) male new tamsulosin users did not receive a BPH diagnosis code during the analysis period. Of 199,468 men with a BPH diagnosis code, 143,444 (71.9%) were newly diagnosed, mostly [70,412 (49.1%)] by urologists. Few men received hypotension diagnosis: 252 (0.4%) new tamsulosin users within 1 month of starting tamsulosin and 640 (0.4%) within 1 month of a new BPH diagnosis.

Conclusions

Tamsulosin was prescribed in patients without a recorded diagnosis of BPH and in women. Physicians were comfortable prescribing tamsulosin in the presence of comorbidity and polypharmacy, and PCPs and emergency medicine physicians were the primary prescribers. These results have important implications for future retrospective research for tamsulosin.

Chronic prostatitis: current treatment options

Male chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is represented by a heterogeneous group of symptoms that can cause an important impairment of daily quality of life for patients. Diagnosis of CP/CPPS is often not clear and treatment can be challenging, as it varies according to the different causative factors and derived symptoms. Differently from approaches used in the past, the diagnosis and subsequent treatment rely on separating this entity from chronic bacterial prostatitis and considering it as a multifactorial disease. Autoimmunity and inflammation, myofascial tenderness, neuroinflammation, and psychological causes have been clearly related to this disease, and therefore CPPS should not only be considered as related to benign prostatic enlargement. A multitude of different symptoms related to urinary, genital, rectal, and perineal areas can be attributed to this condition and therefore should be routinely investigated in patients, as well as possible differential diagnoses which can cause the same symptoms, such as pudendal nerve entrapment syndrome. The aim of this narrative review is to focus on CPPS after an infectious cause has been excluded.

Interventions to chronic prostatitis/Chronic pelvic pain syndrome treatment. Where are we standing and what's next?

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a frustrating syndrome. The pathogenesis and state of the art treatment of CP/CPPS are not known. A wide variety of therapies including anti-inflammatories, antibiotics, alpha-blockers, neuropathic pain modulators, and 5α-reductase inhibitors are in practice. These treatment strategies focus on alleviating symptoms in specific domains without treating root-cause and therapeutic outcome is far from satisfactory. We review the literature on current pharmacological treatments for CP/CPPS in detail and suggest future perspectives to modify the treatment strategies. We suggest that introducing novel treatment strategies such as gene editing, and T_regs expressing chimeric receptors may improve the treatment outcomes by inducing immune tolerance and controlling expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines.

Silodosin: An Update on Efficacy, Safety and Clinical Indications in Urology

INTRODUCTION

Silodosin determines smooth muscle relaxation in bladder and prostate tissues, increases bladder blood flow in conditions of chronic bladder ischemia and regulates the activity of transcriptional factors responsible for stromal growth and prostate hyperplasia. Phase III trials have already demonstrated the efficacy and safety of silodosin in the treatment of patients bothered by lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe the rationality for the use of silodosin and to summarize the current literature on the use of Silodosin for the treatment of LUTS.

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science were queried with the terms: 'silodosin' in combination (AND) with the terms 'lower urinary tract symptoms', 'LUTS', 'pathophysiology', 'symptoms' OR 'therapy'. Studies published in the last 10 years (2007-2017) in adults and core clinical journals in English were included.

RESULTS

Silodosin 8 mg once-daily was superior to placebo in improving IPSS total score, voiding subscore, storage subscore and QoL score, and at least as effective as tamsulosin 0.4 mg once-daily in all the efficacy analyses. In addition, studies assessing the effect on urodynamic parameters showed that silodosin determined a higher improvement in the bladder outlet obstruction index compared to other alpha1 adrenergic receptor antagonists. Concerning the safety profile, long-term data (after 9 months of treatment) confirmed the limited effect of silodosin on the cardiovascular and gastrointestinal systems. Although ejaculatory disorders represented the main complaint of patients taking silodosin, the discontinuation rate due to this condition remained low even in a long-term follow-up study (7.5%). Encouraging findings showed that silodosin may be administered as a medical expulsive therapy for promoting spontaneous stone passage of distal ureteral stones < 10 mm, to relieve LUTS in patients who underwent prostate cancer brachytherapy and to increase the likelihood of successful trials without a catheter in patients experiencing acute urinary retention.

CONCLUSION

Silodosin is one of the drugs approved for the treatment of BPH, being highly effective in improving not only LUTS but also urodynamic parameter impairments secondary to BPH. Moreover, it has shown efficacy as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones in previous prospective randomized trials.

FUNDING

Sponsorship for this study and article processing charges were funded by Recordati.

Psychosocial co-morbidities in Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain syndrome (IC/BPS): A systematic review

AIMS

Psychosocial factors amplify symptoms of Interstitial Cystitis (IC/BPS). While psychosocial self-management is efficacious in other pain conditions, its impact on an IC/BPS population has rarely been studied. The objective of this review is to learn the prevalence and impact of psychosocial factors on IC/BPS, assess baseline psychosocial characteristics, and offer recommendations for assessment and treatment.

METHOD

Following PRISMA guidelines, primary information sources were PubMed including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and GoogleScholar. Inclusion criteria included: (i) a clearly defined cohort with IC/BPS or with Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome provided the IC/BPS cohort was delineated with quantitative results from the main cohort; (ii) all genders and regions; (iii) studies written in English from 1995 to April 14, 2017; (iv) quantitative report of psychosocial factors as outcome measures or at minimum as baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Thirty-four of an initial 642 articles were reviewed. Quantitative analyses demonstrate the magnitude of psychosocial difficulties in IC/BPS, which are worse than average on all measures, and fall into areas of clinical concern for 7 out of 10 measures. Meta-analyses shows mean Mental Component Score of the Short-Form 12 Health Survey (MCS) of 40.80 (SD 6.25, N = 2912), where <36 is consistent with severe psychological impairment. Averaged across studies, the population scored in the range seen in clinical depression (CES-D 19.89, SD 13.12, N = 564) and generalized anxiety disorder (HADS-A 8.15, SD 4.85, N = 465).

CONCLUSION

The psychological impact of IC/BPS is pervasive and severe. Existing evidence of treatment is lacking and suggests self-management intervention may be helpful.

Recent advances in managing chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome is a common disorder seen in men under the age of 50 and has a considerable negative impact on quality of life; it is a complex and difficult condition to treat, owing to its wide symptomatology. In order to effectively treat this condition, the UPOINT system was developed: it allows clinical profiling of a patient's symptoms into six broad categories (urinary symptoms, psychological dysfunction, organ-specific symptoms, infectious causes, neurologic dysfunction, and tenderness of the pelvic floor muscles) to allow individualized and multimodal therapy. In this review, we present the most recent advancements in the treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome from the past few years.

The water avoidance stress induces bladder pain due to a prolonged alpha1A adrenoceptor stimulation

Bladder Pain Syndrome/Interstitial Cystitis (BPS/IC) remains an elusive disease with the cause for the pain unclear. BPS/IC patients present increased sympathetic activity and high levels of urinary noradrenaline. At the experimental level, it has been shown that chronic adrenergic stimulation produces pain and bladder changes through an alpha 1A adrenoceptor mediated mechanism. Water avoidance stress (WAS) in rodents reproduces signs of nociception and bladder changes seen in BPS/IC patients. In this study, we explore the possible role of alpha 1A adrenoceptor in bladder pain and morphological changes. WAS was induced in a group of female Wistar rats. A separate WAS group received 0.2 mg/kg day silodosin (WAS + S). Lower abdominal pain was determined by performing sensitivity to Von Frey filaments. Bladder reflex activity was determined by cystometry in anaesthetised animals. Urine was collected for noradrenaline quantification by HPLC. Bladders were harvested and stained with Haematoxylin-eosin (to analyse urothelial morphology and to determine the disruption of surface umbrella cells) or with Toluidine Blue 0.1% to analyse mast cell infiltration. WAS increased urinary noradrenaline level and bladder frequency and decreased mechanical pain threshold, which was reversed by silodosin. WAS induced lymphocytic and mast cells infiltration in the mucosa and mild urothelial disruption, which was absent in WAS + S group. Alpha 1A adrenoceptor stimulation has an important role in the appearance of bladder pain in rats. Since BPS/IC patients present high levels of noradrenaline, alpha 1A stimulation may be an additional trigger for bladder dysfunction presented by these patients. Further studies will determine the clinical relevance of this finding in the treatment of BPS/IC patients.

Network Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Acupuncture, Alpha-blockers and Antibiotics on Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome

Alpha-blockers and antibiotics are most commonly used to treat chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) in clinical practice. Currently, increasing evidence also suggests acupuncture as an effective strategy. This network meta-analysis intended to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of acupuncture, alpha-blockers and antibiotics for CP/CPPS. Twelve trials involving 1203 participants were included. Based on decreases in the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score, a network meta-analysis indicated that electro-acupuncture (standard mean difference [SMD]: 4.29; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.96-6.65), acupuncture (SMD: 3.69; 95% CrI, 0.27-7.17), alpha-blockers (SMD: 1.85; 95% CrI, 1.07-2.64), antibiotics (SMD: 2.66; 95% CrI, 1.57-3.76), and dual therapy (SMD: 3.20; 95% CrI, 1.95-4.42) are superior to placebo in decreasing this score. Additionally, electro-acupuncture (SMD: 2.44; 95% CrI, 0.08-4.83) and dual therapy (SMD: 1.35; 95% CrI, 0.07-2.62) were more effective than alpha-blockers in decreasing the total NIH-CPSI total score. Other network meta-analyses did not show significant differences between interventions other placebo. The incidence of adverse events of acupuncture was relatively rare (5.4%) compared with placebo (17.1%), alpha-blockers (24.9%), antibiotics (31%) and dual therapy (48.6%). Overall, rank tests and safety analyses indicate that electro-acupuncture/acupuncture may be recommended for the treatment of CP/CPPS.

Male chronic pelvic pain: An update

INTRODUCTION

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) and interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome collectively referred to as urologic CPPS (UCPPS) is defined by the absence of identifiable bacterial infection as a cause for the chronic pain and urinary symptoms.

METHODS

A PubMed search of all recent relevant articles using the keywords/phrases: CPPS, CPPS, and male pelvic pain, was conducted.

RESULTS

CPPS has a high worldwide prevalence and its negative impact on quality of life compares with or exceeds common chronic morbidities. Triggers include certain comestibles as well as psychosocial factors that promote catastrophizing and illness focused behavior. Several validated tools are currently available to help diagnose and direct targeted therapy. Treatment should begin with the most simple and least invasive based on the presenting clinical phenotype.

CONCLUSIONS

Although no gold-standard treatment exists, a multidisciplinary approach with multimodal therapy gives the UCPPS patient the best chance of symptom relief.

Contemporary Management of Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome

CONTEXT

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common condition that causes severe symptoms, bother, and quality-of-life impact in the 8.2% of men who are believed to be affected. Research suggests a complex pathophysiology underlying this syndrome that is mirrored by its heterogeneous clinical presentation. Management of patients diagnosed with CP/CPPS has always been a formidable task in clinical practice. Due to its enigmatic etiology, a plethora of clinical trials failed to identify an efficient monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

A comprehensive review of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of CP/CPPS and practical best evidence recommendations for management.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Medline and the Cochrane database were screened for RCTs on the treatment of CP/CPPS from 1998 to December 2014, using the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index as an objective outcome measure. Published data in concert with expert opinion were used to formulate a practical best evidence statement for the management of CP/CPPS.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-eight RCTs identified were eligible for this review and presented. Trials evaluating antibiotics, α-blockers, anti-inflammatory and immune-modulating substances, hormonal agents, phytotherapeutics, neuromodulatory drugs, agents that modify bladder function, and physical treatment options failed to reveal a clear therapeutic benefit. With its multifactorial pathophysiology and its various clinical presentations, the management of CP/CPPS demands a phenotypic-directed approach addressing the individual clinical profile of each patient. Different categorization algorithms have been proposed. First studies applying the UPOINTs classification system provided promising results. Introducing three index patients with CP/CPPS, we present practical best evidence recommendations for management.

CONCLUSIONS

Our current understanding of the pathophysiology underlying CP/CPPS resulting in this highly variable syndrome does not speak in favor of a monotherapy for management. No efficient monotherapeutic option is available. The best evidence-based management of CP/CPPS strongly suggests a multimodal therapeutic approach addressing the individual clinical phenotypic profile.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome presents a variable syndrome. Successful management of this condition is challenging. It appears that a tailored treatment strategy addressing individual patient characteristics is more effective than one single therapy.

Diagnosis and treatment of chronic bacterial prostatitis and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a consensus guideline

Objectives

To improve awareness and recognition of chronic bacterial prostatitis (CBP) and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) among non‐specialists and patients. To provide guidance to healthcare professionals treating patients with CBP and CP/CPPS, in both non‐specialist and specialist settings. To promote efficient referral of care between non‐specialists and specialists and the involvement of the multidisciplinary team (MDT).

Patients and Methods

The guideline population were men with CBP or CP/CPPS (persistent or recurrent symptoms and no other urogenital pathology for ≥3 of the previous 6 months). Consensus recommendations for the guidelines were based on a search to identify literature on the diagnosis and management of CBP and CP/CPPS (published between 1999 and February 2014). A Delphi panel process was used where high‐quality, published evidence was lacking.

Results

CBP and CP/CPPS can present with a wide range of clinical manifestations. The four main symptom domains are urogenital pain, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS – voiding or storage symptoms), psychological issues and sexual dysfunction. Patients should be managed according to their individual symptom pattern. Options for first‐line treatment include antibiotics, α‐adrenergic antagonists (if voiding LUTS are present) and simple analgesics. Repeated use of antibiotics, such as quinolones, should be avoided if there is no obvious symptomatic benefit from infection control or cultures do not support an infectious cause. Early use of treatments targeting neuropathic pain and/or referral to specialist services should be considered for patients who do not respond to initial measures. An MDT approach (urologists, pain specialists, nurse specialists, specialist physiotherapists, general practitioners, cognitive behavioural therapists/psychologists, and sexual health specialists) is recommended. Patients should be fully informed about the possible underlying causes and treatment options, including an explanation of the chronic pain cycle.

Conclusion

Chronic prostatitis can present with a wide variety of signs and symptoms. Identification of individual symptom patterns and a symptom‐based treatment approach are recommended. Further research is required to evaluate management options for CBP and CP/CPPS.

Updates on therapies for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

Prostatitis comprises of a group of syndromes that affect almost 50% of men at least once in their lifetime and makeup the majority of visits to the Urology Clinics. After much debate, it has been divided into four distinct categories by National Institutes of Health namely (1) acute bacterial prostatitis; (2) chronic bacterial prostatitis; (3) chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) which is further divided into inflammatory and non-inflammatory CP/CPPS; and (4) asymptomatic inflammatory prostatitis. CP/CPPS has been a cause of great concern for both patients and physicians because of the lack of presence of thorough information about the etiological factors along with the difficult-to-treat nature of the syndrome. For the presented manuscript an extensive search on PubMed was conducted for CP/CPPS aimed to present an updated review on the evaluation and treatment options available for patients with CP/CPPS. Several diagnostic criteria’s have been established to diagnose CP/CPPS, with prostatic/pelvic pain for at least 3 mo being the major classifying symptom along with the presence of lower urinary tract symptoms and/or ejaculatory pain. Diagnostic tests can help differentiate CP/CPPS from other syndromes that come under the heading of prostatitis by ruling out active urinary tract infection and/or prostatic infection with uropathogen by performing urine cultures, Meares-Stamey Four Glass Test, Pre- and Post-Massage Two Glass Test. Asymptomatic inflammatory prostatitis is confirmed through prostate biopsy done for elevated serum prostate-specific antigen levels or abnormal digital rectal examination. Researchers have been unable to link a single etiological factor to the pathogenesis of CP/CPPS, instead a cluster of potential etiologies including atypical bacterial or nanobacterial infection, autoimmunity, neurological dysfunction and pelvic floor muscle dysfunction are most commonly implicated. Initially monotherapy with anti-biotics and alpha adrenergic-blockers can be tried, but its success has only been observed in treatment naïve population. Other pharmacotherapies including phytotherapy, neuromodulatory drugs and anti-inflammatories achieved limited success in trials. Complementary and interventional therapies including acupuncture, myofascial trigger point release and pelvic floor biofeedback have been employed. This review points towards the fact that treatment should be tailored individually for patients based on their symptoms. Patients can be stratified phenotypically based on the UPOINT system constituting of Urinary, Psychosocial, Organ-specific, Infectious, Neurologic/Systemic and symptoms of muscular Tenderness and the treatment algorithm should be proposed accordingly. Treatment of CP/CPPS should be aimed towards treating local as well as central factors causing the symptoms. Surgical intervention can cause significant morbidity and should only be reserved for treatment-refractory patients that have previously failed to respond to multiple drug therapies.

Assessing psychological factors, social aspects and psychiatric co-morbidity associated with Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (CP/CPPS) in men -- a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a chronic pain disease with high prevalence rates and substantial health care costs. An interdisciplinary classification system is commonly used (UPOINT) which includes psychosocial factors. Nevertheless, psychosocial influences on CP/CPPS only recently became a research focus. Therefore, we aimed to synthesize the existing data and to identify further research topics. Then, based on our results, diagnosis and treatment can be improved.

METHODS

In a systematic review conducted according to the PRISMA reporting guidelines we searched different databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO) using the broad search terms "chronic pelvic pain syndrome AND men". Two raters independently screened the literature and assessed the risk of bias.

RESULTS

We included 69 original research articles which considered psychosocial variables. We found studies investigating different psychosocial factors (pain catastrophizing, stress, personality factors, social aspects), co-morbid psychiatric disorders (depression, anxiety and trauma-related disorders, somatization disorder, substance abuse) and Quality of Life (QoL). In addition, there is a high risk of bias in most studies e.g. concerning the study design or the measures.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence suggesting that psychological factors are important in understanding CP/CPPS. However, research concentrated on a few aspects while the others were not covered adequately. We found evidence of a higher number of psychosocial factors and psychiatric co-morbidities than is currently included in the UPOINT system. More high quality research is needed to understand the interplay of psychosocial factors in CP/CPPS. Furthermore, these factors should be incorporated into treatment approaches.

New developments in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe new developments in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS).

RECENT FINDINGS

Symptoms in men with chronic prostatitis/CPPS appear to cluster into a group with primarily pelvic or localized disease, and a group with more systemic symptoms. Several other chronic pain conditions can be associated with chronic prostatitis/CPPS, including irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue syndrome. Markers of neurologic inflammation and autoimmune disease parallel changes in symptoms after treatment. Treatment options include new alpha-blockers, psychological intervention, and prostate-directed therapy. The areas of acupuncture and pelvic floor physical therapy/myofascial release have received increased recent attention and appear to be good options in these patients. Future therapy may include antibodies to mediators of neurogenic inflammation and even treatment of bacteria in the bowel.

SUMMARY

The diagnosis of chronic prostatitis/CPPS must include conditions traditionally outside the scope of urologic practice but important for the care of men with chronic pelvic pain. The treatment is best done using multiple simultaneous therapies aimed at the different aspects of the condition.

Immunostimulation in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS): a one-year prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

PURPOSE

Inflammation/immunological dysfunction are discussed etiological causes of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). OM-89 is an orally immunostimulating agent. We performed a phase three multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, long-term (12 months) study with OM-89 produced with a different lysis process in patients with moderate-to-severe CP/CPPS type III.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to OM-89 or placebo. Primary efficacy variable was difference of responders at the end of treatment (month 9) in patients receiving OM-89 versus placebo.

RESULTS

Two hundred and three patients were screened, 185 patients (47.8 ± 8.4 years) (90 % of CP/CPPS type IIIb) were enrolled in 30 centers and included in the safety set. Ninety-four were randomized to OM-89, 91 to placebo. One hundred and seventy-six patients were subjected to the full analysis (FAS), 150 to the per protocol set (PPS). Baseline NIH-CPSI score in FAS was 21.8 ± 3.8 (OM-89) and 23.0 ± 5.6 (placebo). At primary efficacy endpoint (month 9), in the OM-89 group, 67.0 % in FAS (PPS 72.7 %) and in the placebo group, 64.3 % in FAS (PPS 64.4 %) were responders [FAS: OR 1.19, p = 0.59; PPS: p = 0.19]. Mean relative decrease in NIH-CPSI was 40.5 and 44.0 % in the FAS. Treatment-related adverse events were low: 8.5 % with OM-89 and 5.5 % with placebo. Because of small numbers, no conclusion could be drawn regarding the potential benefit of OM-89 in CP/CPPS IIIa.

CONCLUSIONS

This placebo-controlled study evaluating OM-89 in patients with CP/CPPS showed a significant and long-lasting (12 months) favorable response with OM-89, but also with placebo. OM-89 was safe and well tolerated.

EUDRACT

2007-004609-85.

Silodosin in the management of lower urinary tract symptoms as a result of benign prostatic hyperplasia: who are the best candidates

BACKGROUND

As the clinical effects of the available α1-adrenoceptors (ARs) blockers are usually considered comparable for treatment in patients suffering from lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to prostatic enlargement, officially recognised guidelines do not make specific recommendations regarding the choice of which agent should be considered according to the patient's characteristics.

AIM

To analyse data supporting the use of silodosin, a highly selective once-daily dosing α1-ARs blocker, in different daily clinical practice scenarios.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A structured literature review was performed using data retrieved from articles assessing the role of silodosin in the management of LUTS secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). A literature search of English language publications was performed using MEDLINE(®) and Web of Science from 2000 to 2012 using the terms LUTS; BPH; silodosin; α1-ARs blockers. The papers with the highest level of evidence were identified and represent the basis of the present review.

RESULTS

Available data coming from basic research analyses, randomised trials and prospective studies showed that silodosin is efficacious for the initial management of patients with LUTS. Clinical developmental safety data from patients receiving silodosin with concomitant antihypertensive therapy do not indicate an increase in risk of orthostatic hypotension. In this context, a recent study demonstrated that silodosin can be safely administered to patients who are consensually assuming phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. A recent randomised crossover study comparing the efficacy of silodosin and tamsulosin in patients with LUTS showed that further significant improvement was observed after switching to silodosin treatment, while worsening or little improvement was observed after switching to tamsulosin treatment. Preliminary results seem to demonstrate a potential role of silodosin in the treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome and to facilitate ureteral stone passage, as well.

DISCUSSION

When considering the above cited pharmacological and clinical characteristics of the drug, silodosin can be considered in the following clinical scenario: patients suffering from moderate-severe nocturia, patients with low normal blood pressure levels and patients concomitantly treated with antihypertensive medications, patients concomitantly treated with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, patients not satisfied (for efficacy or tolerability) with previous treatment with other α1-ARs blockers.

CONCLUSION

Silodosin is efficacious for the initial management of patients with LUTS. Silodosin has a good cardiovascular safety profile and can be considered an option in patients with cardiovascular co-morbidities. It seems to be especially beneficial in patients with nocturia alone or presenting with the symptomatic trial nocturia-frequency-incomplete emptying. Patients on phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors treatment can be safely managed with silodosin.

Classification and treatment of men with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome using the UPOINT system

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common condition; however, many of the traditional therapies used in clinical practice fail to show efficacy when subjected to large randomized placebo-controlled trials. This may be because CP/CPPS is a heterogeneous syndrome rather than a specific disease which would explain the failure of "one size fits all" therapy. In order to direct appropriate therapy, we have developed a six-point clinical phenotyping system to evaluate patients with chronic urologic pelvic pain. The clinical domains are urinary symptoms, psychosocial dysfunction, organ-specific findings, infection, neurologic/systemic, and tenderness of muscles, which produces the acronym UPOINT. Each domain is diagnosed clinically and is associated with specific therapies. This approach is simple and has proven effective in our hands for patients even after many years of failed therapies.

Management of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS): the studies, the evidence, and the impact

INTRODUCTION

The development of an accepted clinical definition, classification system and validated outcome questionnaire for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) has led to a flurry of clinical trial activity over the last 15 years.

METHODS

Twenty-four of these studies enrolled a homogeneous population of CP/CPPS patients, were prospective randomized placebo or sham controlled, and employed the National Institutes of Health chronic prostatitis symptom index (CPSI) as an outcome parameter.

RESULTS

This review of the evidence and clinical impact from these studies suggests that physician's strict adherence to a rigid evidence-based approach for the treatment of a CP/CPPS patient will result in disappointed patients as well as disappointed physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no one particular treatment that shows significant clinical efficacy to be recommended as a mono-therapy for CP/CPPS. Therefore, the physician must adapt his knowledge and interpretation of the evidence from randomized placebo- and sham-controlled trials to determine what therapy or therapies are best indicated for each individual patient.

[Update of the usefulness of α-blockers in the treatment of different urologic pathologies]

OBJECTIVE

To review the role of α-blockers in various urological conditions such as benign prostatic hyperplasia, overactive bladder, chronic prostatitis, and erectile dysfunction and as expulsive treatment of distal ureteral stones.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed the latest scientific evidence in all the fields mentioned above, performing a critical analysis.

CONCLUSION

α-blockers are now considered first-line treatment in lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia, but the indications go beyond, and are able to improve, alone or in combination with other drugs, the previously mentioned pathologies. The uroselective properties of some α-blockers make them a highly safe medication.

Therapeutic intervention for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS): a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) has been treated with several different interventions with limited success. This meta-analysis aims to review all trials reporting on therapeutic intervention for CP/CPPS using the National Institutes of Health-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI).

METHODS

We searched Medline, PubMed, the Cochrane Pain, Palliative & Supportive Care Trials, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the NIDDK website between 1947 and December 31, 2011 without language or study type restrictions. All RCTs for CP/CPPS lasting at least 6 weeks, with a minimum of 10 participants per arm, and using the NIH-CPSI score, the criterion standard for CP/CPPS, as an outcome measure were included. Data was extracted from each study by two independent reviewers. Gillbraith and I-squared plots were used for heterogeneity testing and Eggers and Peters methods for publication bias. Quality was assessed using a component approach and meta-regression was used to analyze sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Mepartricin, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), and triple therapy comprised of doxazosin + ibuprofen + thiocolchicoside (DIT) resulted in clinically and statistically significant reduction in NIH-CPSI total score. The same agents and aerobic exercise resulted in clinically and statistically significant NIH-CPSI pain domain score reduction. Acupuncture, DIT, and PTNS were found to produce statistically and clinically significant reductions in the NIH-CPSI voiding domain. A statistically significant placebo effect was found for all outcomes and time analysis showed that efficacy of all treatments increased over time. Alpha-blockers, antibiotics, and combinations of the two failed to show statistically or clinically significant NIH-CPSI reductions.

CONCLUSION

Results from this meta-analysis reflect our current inability to effectively manage CP/CPPS. Clinicians and researchers must consider placebo effect and treatment efficacy over time and design studies creatively so we can more fully elucidate the etiology and role of therapeutic intervention in CP/CPPS.

α-blockers, antibiotics and anti-inflammatories have a role in the management of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

Study Type - Therapy (systematic review) Level of Evidence 1a. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Individual clinical trials evaluating antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and α-blockers for the treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome have shown only modest or even no benefits for patients compared with placebo, yet we continue to use these agents in selected patients with some success in clinical practice. This network meta-analysis of current evidence from all available randomized placebo-controlled trials with similar inclusion criteria and outcome measures shows that these '3-As' of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome treatment (antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and α-blockers) do offer benefits to some patients, particularly if we use them strategically in selected individuals.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an updated network meta-analysis mapping α-blockers, antibiotics and anti-inflammatories (the 3-As) in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). • To use the results of this meta-analysis to comment on the role of the 3-As in clinical practice.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We updated a previous review including only randomized controlled studies employing the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) as one of the outcomes to compare treatment effects in CP/CPPS patients. • A longitudinal mixed regression model (network meta-analysis) was applied to indirectly assess multiple treatment comparisons (i.e. α-blockers, antibiotics, anti-inflammatory/immune modulation therapies, α-blockers plus antibiotics, and placebo).

RESULTS

Nineteen studies (1669 subjects) were eligible for analysis. • α-blockers, antibiotics and anti-inflammatory/immune modulation therapies were associated with significant improvement in symptoms when compared with placebo, with mean differences of total CPSI of -10.8 (95% CI -13.2 to -8.3; P < 0.001), -9.7 (95% CI -14.2 to -5.3; P < 0.001) and -1.7 (95% CI -3.2 to -0.2; P= 0.032) respectively, while α-blockers plus antibiotics resulted in the greatest CPSI difference (-13.6, 95% CI -16.7 to -10.6; P < 0.001). • With respect to responder analysis compared with placebo, anti-inflammatories showed the greatest response rates (risk ratio 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-2.1; P < 0.001) followed by α-blockers (risk ratio 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.8; P= 0.013) and antibiotics (risk ratio 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.9; P= 0.527).

CONCLUSIONS

α-blockers, antibiotics and/or anti-inflammatory/immune modulation therapy appear to be beneficial for some patients with CP/CPPS. • The magnitude of effect and the disconnect between mean CPSI decrease and response rates compared with placebo suggest that directed multimodal therapy, rather than mono-therapy, with these agents should be considered for optimal management of CP/CPPS.