Treatment of category III A prostatitis with zafirlukast: a randomized controlled feasibility study

Epithelial cells derived exosomal miR-203a-3p facilitates stromal inflammation of type IIIA chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome by targeting DUSP5 and increasing MCP-1 generation

Increased proinflammatory cytokines and infiltration of inflammatory cells in the stroma are important pathological features of type IIIA chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS-A), and the interaction between stromal cells and other cells in the inflammatory microenvironment is closely related to the inflammatory process of CP/CPPS-A. However, the interaction between stromal and epithelial cells remains unclear. In this study, inflammatory prostate epithelial cells (PECs) released miR-203a-3p-rich exosomes and facilitated prostate stromal cells (PSCs) inflammation by upregulating MCP-1 expression. Mechanistically, DUSP5 was identified as a novel target gene of miR-203a-3p and regulated PSCs inflammation through the ERK1/2/MCP-1 signaling pathway. Meanwhile, the effect of exosomes derived from prostatic fluids of CP/CPPS-A patients was consistent with that of exosomes derived from inflammatory PECs. Importantly, we demonstrated that miR-203a-3p antagomirs-loaded exosomes derived from PECs targeted the prostate and alleviated prostatitis by inhibiting the DUSP5-ERK1/2 pathway. Collectively, our findings provide new insights into underlying the interaction between PECs and PSCs in CP/CPPS-A, providing a promising therapeutic strategy for CP/CPPS-A.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Male CP/CPPS: where do we stand?

INTRODUCTION

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS), commonly encountered in urologic practice, carries with it a stigma of poor understanding, ineffective treatment, and significant financial and quality of life burden.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This clinically practical review is based on the authors' personal clinical experience in interpretation and application of currently available evidence.

RESULTS

Significant progress has been made in terms of classification and evaluation of the disease, leading to encouraging improvements in treatment outcomes. The Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (CPSI) is a helpful tool in clinical evaluation and has proven invaluable for research purposes, while UPOINT has demonstrated the heterogeneity of the disease and provides physicians with a uniquely patient-centered approach to treatment. The importance of the microbiome in the evaluation of CP/CPPS patients has yet to be fully appreciated. While personalized, multi-modal therapy appears to be the key to treatment, the addition of pelvic floor physiotherapy (PFPT) with injection of trigger points, and psychosocial therapies to the multi-modal approach armamentarium are promising advances. Innovative interventional approaches are encouraging but require study.

CONCLUSIONS

While encouraging therapies have been added to personalized, multi-modal treatment strategies, newer innovative therapies appear promising for improved treatment of CP/CPPS patients.

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.

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.

Cysteinyl leukotriene receptor-1 antagonists as modulators of innate immune cell function

Cysteinyl leukotrienes (cysLTs) are produced predominantly by cells of the innate immune system, especially basophils, eosinophils, mast cells, and monocytes/macrophages. Notwithstanding potent bronchoconstrictor activity, cysLTs are also proinflammatory consequent to their autocrine and paracrine interactions with G-protein-coupled receptors expressed not only on the aforementioned cell types, but also on Th2 lymphocytes, as well as structural cells, and to a lesser extent neutrophils and CD8⁺ cells. Recognition of the involvement of cysLTs in the immunopathogenesis of various types of acute and chronic inflammatory disorders, especially bronchial asthma, prompted the development of selective cysLT receptor-1 (cysLTR1) antagonists, specifically montelukast, pranlukast, and zafirlukast. More recently these agents have also been reported to possess secondary anti-inflammatory activities, distinct from cysLTR1 antagonism, which appear to be particularly effective in targeting neutrophils and monocytes/macrophages. Underlying mechanisms include interference with cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases, 5′-lipoxygenase, and the proinflammatory transcription factor, nuclear factor kappa B. These and other secondary anti-inflammatory mechanisms of the commonly used cysLTR1 antagonists are the major focus of the current review, which also includes a comparison of the anti-inflammatory effects of montelukast, pranlukast, and zafirlukast on human neutrophils in vitro, as well as an overview of both the current clinical applications of these agents and potential future applications based on preclinical and early clinical studies.

Clinical phenotyping of urologic pain patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Urologic pain conditions such as chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome, interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome and chronic orchialgia are common, yet diagnosis and treatment are challenging. Current therapies often fail to show efficacy in randomized controlled studies. Lack of efficacy may be due to multifactorial causes and heterogeneity of patient presentation. Efforts have been made to map different phenotypes in patients with urologic pain conditions to tailor more effective therapies. This review will look at current literature on phenotype classification in urologic pain patients and their use in providing effective therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been validation of the 'UPOINT' system (urinary symptoms, psychosocial dysfunction, organ specific findings, infection, neurologic/systemic and tenderness of muscle) to better categorize male chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome and interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome. Refinement of domain systems and recent cluster analysis has suggested possible central processes involved in urologic pain conditions similar to systemic pain syndromes such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue and irritable bowel syndrome.

SUMMARY

Domain characterization of urologic pain conditions via phenotype mapping can be used to better understand causes of chronic pain and hopefully provide more effective, targeted and multimodal therapy.

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.

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.

Pharmacotherapy strategies in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome management

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is one of the most common diagnoses arising out of urologic office visits. It is a costly problem and sufferers compare the effect of this syndrome on quality of life as being similar to the effects of diabetes mellitus and myocardial infarction. The syndrome is variable in presentation and symptom management and efficacy will vary between inflicted men.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

CP/CPPS is not highly responsive to therapy. As such, it is often a waxing and waning illness with symptoms in multiple domains, including urinary symptoms, pain and ejaculatory dysfunction. The pharmacotherapeutic options and management strategies for CP/CPPS presented in this review are based on the published literature from September 1989 to January 2010. When available, randomized, placebo-controlled studies were reviewed to aid in making definitive recommendations for treatment strategies.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The reader will be familiarized with the commonly used classes of pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical therapies. Readers will then use the efficacy data to inform treatment decisions for patients with disparate symptomatology. This will be crystallized in the author's treatment algorithm and summary statement.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Many practitioners use antimicrobials as a first-line agent, particularly a fluoroquinolone, such as levofloxacin. Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole is another medication alternative, with comparable response rates. Many afflicted men will have significant improvement on a 4- to 6-week regimen of a fluoroquinolone antibiotic. Second-line pharmacotherapy includes alpha-blockers, 5-alpha reductase inhibitors and anti-inflammatories for men with urinary symptoms or pain as a predominant symptom domain. Other pharmacotherapy includes steroids, glycosaminoglycans and phytotherapy. Surgical options are generally not recommended for CP/CPPS. Despite the lack of curative therapies, effective symptom management can be achieved with knowledge of the classes of pharmacotherapy. Therapeutic decisions can be based on the symptoms of the patient. Pelvic floor physical therapy is a useful second-line therapy in the author's opinion, but randomized controlled trials and standardization of technique for CP/CPPS are needed before recommendations can be substantiated.

Chronic prostatitis: management strategies

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has redefined prostatitis into four distinct entities. Category I is acute bacterial prostatitis. It is an acute prostatic infection with a uropathogen, often with systemic symptoms of fever, chills and hypotension. The treatment hinges on antimicrobials and drainage of the bladder because the inflamed prostate may block urinary flow. Category II prostatitis is called chronic bacterial prostatitis. It is characterized by recurrent episodes of documented urinary tract infections with the same uropathogen and causes pelvic pain, urinary symptoms and ejaculatory pain. It is diagnosed by means of localization cultures that are 90% accurate in localizing the source of recurrent infections within the lower urinary tract. Asymptomatic inflammatory prostatitis comprises NIH category IV. This entity is, by definition, asymptomatic and is often diagnosed incidentally during the evaluation of infertility or prostate cancer. The clinical significance of category IV prostatitis is unknown and it is often left untreated. Category III prostatitis is called chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). It is characterized by pelvic pain for more than 3 of the previous 6 months, urinary symptoms and painful ejaculation, without documented urinary tract infections from uropathogens. The syndrome can be devastating, affecting 10-15% of the male population, and results in nearly 2 million outpatient visits each year. The aetiology of CP/CPPS is poorly understood, but may be the result of an infectious or inflammatory initiator that results in neurological injury and eventually results in pelvic floor dysfunction in the form of increased pelvic muscle tone. The diagnosis relies on separating this entity from chronic bacterial prostatitis. If there is no history of documented urinary tract infections with a urinary tract pathogen, then cultures should be taken when patients are symptomatic. Prostatic localization cultures, called the Meares-Stamey 4 glass test, would identify the prostate as the source for a urinary tract infection in chronic bacterial prostatitis. If there is no infection, then the patient is likely to have CP/CPPS. For healthcare providers, the focus of therapy is symptomatic relief. The first therapeutic measure is often a 4- to 6-week course of a fluoroquinolone, which provides relief in 50% of men and is more efficacious if prescribed soon after symptoms begin. Second-line pharmacotherapy involves anti-inflammatory agents for pain symptoms and alpha-adrenergic receptor antagonists (alpha-blockers) for urinary symptoms. Potentially more effective is pelvic floor training/biofeedback, but randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this. Third-line agents include 5alpha-reductase inhibitors, glycosaminoglycans, quercetin, cernilton (CN-009) and saw palmetto. For treatment refractory patients, surgical interventions can be offered. Transurethral microwave therapy to ablate prostatic tissue has shown some promise. The treatment algorithm provided in this review involves a 4- to 6-week course of antibacterials, which may be repeated if the initial course provides relief. Pain and urinary symptoms can be ameliorated with anti-inflammatories and alpha-blockers. If the relief is not significant, then patients should be referred for biofeedback. Minimally invasive surgical options should be reserved for treatment-refractory patients.

Treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

Acceptance of the National Institutes of Health definition of Category III Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome (CP/CPPS) and the development and validation of the Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index has stimulated significant research into treatment of this condition. Evidence-based suggestions for treatment include the following. (i) Antimicrobials cannot be recommended for men with longstanding, previously treated CP/CPPS. (ii) Alpha-blockers can be recommended as first-line medical therapy, particularly in alpha-blocker-naïve men with moderately severe symptoms who have relatively recent onset of symptoms. (iii) Alpha-blockers cannot be recommended in men with longstanding CP/CPPS who have tried and failed alpha-blockers in the past. And (iv) anti-inflammatory therapy, finasteride and pentosan polysulfate are not recommended as primary treatment; however, they may have a useful adjunctive role in a multimodal therapeutic regimen. Early data on herbal therapies, particularly quercetin and cernilton, are intriguing, but larger multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trials are required before a high level of evidence recommendation can be made on its use. At this time, surgery (including minimally invasive) is recommended only for definitive indications and not generally for CP/CPPS.

Pelvic pain in women and men: recent findings

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

All Pubmed-listed articles generated by the search terms 'pelvic' and 'pain' from the year 2004 (plus or minus 6 months) were examined for relevance to pain management therapeutics. An emphasis was given to clinical studies related to chronic pain disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Use of the descriptive diagnosis 'pelvic pain', traditionally limited to gynecological pains, has now been generalized to include male populations with similar symptom complexes arising from organs of reproduction and other pelvic organ systems such as the gastrointestinal tract and urological structures. Clinical studies have sought to refine or test existing 'standard' therapies for current pain groupings, and have frequently obtained frustrating results because many therapies appear to be effective in only a subset of patients. Notably, the same therapeutics appear to be effective in similar subsets of patients with other protean disorders.

SUMMARY

A commonality of symptoms suggests a commonality of pathophysiology, although this has not proved to be globally true. The success of therapeutic options appears to depend upon a stratification of previous pain groupings into overlapping subsets each with their effective treatment. Current studies are still defining these subsets and finding monotherapies to be inadequate for whole populations.