4.6 Article

A placebo-controlled comparison of the efficiency of triple- and monotherapy in category IIIB chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS)

期刊

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
卷 51, 期 4, 页码 1113-1118

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.09.036

关键词

chronic prostatitis; chronic pelvic pain syndrome; alpha-blocker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To perform a prospective, placebo-controlled study to examine the efficacy of alpha-blocker compared with triple therapy (ot-blocker, anti-inflammatory, and muscle relaxant) in the treatment of Category IIIB chronic pelvic pain syndrome (Category IIIB CPPS). Materials and methods: The study was conducted between September 2004 and December 2005, and included 90 treatment naive patients, aged 22-42 yr (mean age: 29.1 +/- 5.2) with Category IIIB CPPS, who were randomized into three groups: group 1, alpha-blocker; group 2, combination of alpha-blocker, anti-inflammatory, and muscle relaxant; group 3, placebo once daily. The patients were treated for 6 mo and were followed up for a further 6 mo. Changes from baseline in the total and domain scores of the NIH Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) were evaluated. The primary criterion for response was scoring <= 2 on the NIH-CPSI quality of life item. The secondary criterion for response was > 50% reduction in NIH-CPSI pain score. Results: The NIH-CPSI initial and sixth-month total scores were 23.1 and 10.7, respectively, in group 1, and 21.9 and 9.2, respectively, in group 2. The initial and sixth-month scores remained stable in group 3 (22.9 and 21.9, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between two treatment arms with respect to efficiency of treatment (p > 0.05). The responses in groups 1 and 2 were found durable at the end of 12 mo. Conclusions: We found that a-blocker monotherapy was as effective and safe as triple therapy in the treatment of Category IIIB CPPS. (c) 2006 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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