4.4 Review

Etiology, pathophysiology and biomarkers of interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome

Journal

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
Volume 295, Issue 6, Pages 1341-1359

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-017-4364-2

Keywords

Interstitial cystitis; Painful bladder syndrome; Diagnostic biomarkers; Treatment strategies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome (IC/PBS) is a chronic pain syndrome and a chronic inflammatory condition prevalent in women that leads to urgency, sleep disruption, nocturia and pain in the pelvic area, to the detriment of the sufferer's quality of life. The aim of this review is to highlight the newest diagnostic strategies and potential therapeutic techniques. A comprehensive literature review was performed on MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases gathering all literature about Interstitial cystitis and Painful Bladder Syndrome. Visual analogue scales, epidemiological strategies, pain questionnaires and similar techniques were not included in this literature survey. The etiology, exact diagnosis and epidemiology of IC/PBS are still not clearly understood. To date, its prevalence is estimated to be in the range of 45 per 100,000 women and 8 per 100,000 men, whereas joint prevalence in both sexes is 10.6 cases per 100,000. There are no gold standards in the diagnosis or detection of IC/PBS, therefore, several etiological theories were investigated, such as permeability, glycosaminoglycans, mast cell, infection and neuroendocrine theory to find new diagnostic strategies and potential biomarkers. Due to the fact that this disease is of an intricate nature, and that many of its symptoms overlap with other concomitant diseases, it could be suggested to classify the patients with emphasis on the phenotype, as well as their symptom clusters, to tailor the diagnostic and management choices according to the observed biomarkers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available