4.4 Article

Phenotypically Directed Multimodal Therapy for Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome: A Prospective Study Using UPOINT

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 75, 期 6, 页码 1249-1253

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.01.021

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES Large, controlled trials in chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) have failed due to patient heterogeneity. To phenotype CPPS patients, we developed the UPOINT system with 6 domains (Urinary, Psychosocial, Organ-Specific, Infection, Neurologic/Systemic and Tenderness). In this study, we treated patients with multimodal therapy based on the UPOINT phenotype and measured response after at least 6 months. METHODS Patients with CPPS were offered multimodal therapy based on the UPOINT phenotype (eg, Urinary: alpha blocker or antimuscarinic; Organ-specific: quercetin; Tenderness: physical therapy). One hundred patients agreed to therapy and were reexamined after 26 weeks. Primary endpoint was a minimum 6-point drop in NIH-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (CPSI). RESULTS Mean age was 46 years, and median symptom duration was 24 months. A median of 3 UPOINT domains were positive, the most common being Organ-specific (70%), Tenderness (64%), and Urinary (59%). With a median 50-week follow-up, 84% had at least a 6-point fall in CPSI. Number of domains and initial CPSI did not predict response. Mean changes (+/- SD) for CPSI subscores were pain 11.5 +/- 3.2 to 6.1 +/- 3.9, urine 4.7 +/- 3.1 to 2.6 +/- 2.0, QOL 9.1 +/- 2.3 to 4.5 +/- 2.8, and total 25.2 +/- 6.1 to 13.2 +/- 7.2 (all P < .0001). No domain predicted outcome; however, quercetin use resulted in a greater CPSI decrease. CONCLUSIONS Multimodal therapy using UPOINT leads to significant improvement in symptoms and quality of life. Moreover, a placebo-controlled trial for every therapy combination is not feasible, and results using UPOINT compare favorably with all large trials of monotherapy. UROLOGY 75: 1249-1253, 2010. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据