4.6 Article

Intravesical resiniferatoxin for the treatment of interstitial cystitis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 173, 期 5, 页码 1590-1594

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000154631.92150.ef

关键词

cystitis; interstitial; capsicum; bladder diseases; administration; intravesical; clinical trial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Interstitial cystitis is a painful bladder condition of unknown etiology and poorly understood pathophysiology. Current therapies have met with limited success. Vanilloid receptor agonists such as resiniferatoxin (RTX) desensitize C-fibers that transmit pain; it is hypothesized that such drugs will be effective in the treatment of interstitial cystitis and painful bladder syndrome by decreasing the pain that leads to urinary frequency and urgency. Materials and Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study was conducted in 163 patients with interstitial cystitis. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single intravesical dose of 50 ml of either RTX 0.01 mu M, 0.05 mu M, 0.10 mu M, or placebo. Safety and efficacy was evaluated over 1.2 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the Global Response Assessment, a 7-point scale rating overall change in symptoms of interstitial cystitis after 4 weeks. Secondary efficacy endpoints included reduction in pain, urgency, frequency, nocturia, average void volume, and the O'Leary-Sant Symptom and Problem Indexes. Results: RTX did not improve overall symptoms, pain, urgency, frequency, nocturia, or average void volume during 12 weeks followup. RTX resulted in a dose-dependent increase in the incidence of instillation pain, but was otherwise generally well tolerated. Conclusions: In the largest prospective, randomized clinical trial reported to date with intravesical vanilloid therapy, single administration of RTX at doses of 0.01 mu M to 0.10 mu M was not effective in patients with interstitial cystitis.

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