Circumcision plus antibiotic, anti-inflammatory, and α-blocker therapy for the treatment for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial

Effectiveness of transurethral enucleation with bipolar for benign prostatic hyperplasia patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome - Single center retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Transurethral prostate surgery is the standard procedure for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), while the efficacy of surgical treatment for patients with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) remains unclear. This study was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of transurethral enucleation with bipolar (TUEB) of the prostate for BPH patients with CP/CPPS.

METHODS

Between February 2018 and May 2024, 53 BPH patients with CP/CPPS underwent TUEB of the prostate at our institution and were followed for more than three months. Changes in the National Institutes of Health chronic prostatitis symptom index (NIH-CPSI) score before and after surgery were retrospectively examined. Patients with bladder stones or indwelling urethral catheters before surgery were excluded.

RESULTS

Mean values for NIH-CPSI total, pain domain, urinary symptoms domain, and quality of life impact domain scores at the baseline were 21.7, 7.0, 6.4, and 8.3, respectively. Follow-up examinations showed scores of 11.1, 2.5, 3.3, and 5.3, respectively, after one month, 7.9, 1.3, 2.9, and 3.6, respectively, after three months, 4.8, 0.5, 1.7, and 2.5, respectively, after six months, and 4.5, 0.6, 1.7, and 2.3, respectively, after 12 months, with all domain scores significantly reduced as compared with the baseline (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present results suggest that TUEB of the prostate is effective for alleviating not only urinary symptoms but also pain in BPH patients with CP/CPPS.

Therapeutic interventions to urologic chronic pelvic pain syndrome and UPOINT system for clinical phenotyping: How far are we?

The assessment and management of urologic chronic pelvic pain syndrome (UCPPS), is controversial. It is classified by voiding symptoms, pelvic pain, and bladder pain, which is weekly treated, weekly understood, and bothersome. In the aspect of clinical efforts and research to help people with this syndrome have been hampered by the deficiency of a widely reliable, accepted, and a valuable tool to evaluate the patient symptoms and quality of life (QoL) impact. However, the etiology comes into sight is multifactorial, and available treatment options have been imprecise considerably in present years. We compiled the published literature on the assessment of the syndrome, a tentative role of pharmacological and non-pharmacological (conservative, alternative, and invasive therapy) interventions in eradicating the disease as well as improving symptoms. The previously published literature on animal models has established the association of immune systems in the etiology, pathogenesis, and progression of the disease. The UPOINT system for clinical phenotyping of UCPPS patients has six predefined domains that direct multimodal therapy, which would lead to significant symptom improvement in the medical field. The narrative review aims to scrutinize the fluctuating scientist's views on the evaluation of patient and multimodal treatment of the UPOINT system.

Interventions to chronic prostatitis/Chronic pelvic pain syndrome treatment. Where are we standing and what's next?

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a frustrating syndrome. The pathogenesis and state of the art treatment of CP/CPPS are not known. A wide variety of therapies including anti-inflammatories, antibiotics, alpha-blockers, neuropathic pain modulators, and 5α-reductase inhibitors are in practice. These treatment strategies focus on alleviating symptoms in specific domains without treating root-cause and therapeutic outcome is far from satisfactory. We review the literature on current pharmacological treatments for CP/CPPS in detail and suggest future perspectives to modify the treatment strategies. We suggest that introducing novel treatment strategies such as gene editing, and T_regs expressing chimeric receptors may improve the treatment outcomes by inducing immune tolerance and controlling expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines.

Long-term effects of acupuncture for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: systematic review and single-arm meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Cumulative evidences indicate that acupuncture may ameliorate the symptoms of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). However, the long-lasting effects of acupuncture on CP/CPPS has not been fully evaluated. The objective of this study is to assess the sustained effects of acupuncture on CP/CPPS.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases for studies on the use of acupuncture in patients with CP/CPPS. Studies with long-term follow-up periods were included. Single-arm meta-analyses were performed using random-effects model. The primary outcome was the response rate at the end of follow-up period; the secondary outcomes were changes of the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) scores at the end of follow-up, including total score and 3 sub-scores (pain, urinary, and quality of life).

RESULTS

Six studies with 310 patients were performed in data synthesis, among which four studies were randomized controlled trials (RCT) and two were case series studies. At the end of follow-up, the weighted "average" response rate was 68.4% (95% CI: 42.1% to 89.5%, n=226; I2=93.5%); the change of NIH-CPSI total score were -14.8 (95% CI: -17.0 to -12.6, n=310; I2=92.1%); the change of pain, urinary, and quality of life sub-scores were -6.0 (95% CI: -6.9 to -5.2, n=266; I2=83.6%), -2.6 (95% CI: -3.2 to -2.0, n=266; I2=87.9%), and -4.4 (95% CI: -6.2 to -2.6, n=266; I2=98.7%), respectively. The source of heterogeneity could not be identified owing to insufficient studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture may have clinically long-lasting benefits for CP/CPPS. However, current evidence is limited owing to insufficient data and significant heterogeneity. Further studies with larger sample size and long-term follow-up periods are warranted.

Non-pharmacological interventions for treating chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of non-pharmacological therapies for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases, 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 August 2017. We included randomized controlled trials in men with a diagnosis of CP/CPPS. We included all available non-pharmacological interventions. Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies, performed statistical analyses and rated quality of evidence (QoE) according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methods. The primary outcomes were prostatitis symptoms and adverse events. The secondary outcomes were sexual dysfunction, urinary symptoms, quality of life, anxiety and depression.

RESULTS

We included 38 unique studies in 3290 men with CP/CPPS across 23 comparisons, reporting outcomes mostly at short-term follow-up. Our analysis showed that acupuncture probably leads to clinically meaningful reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with a sham procedure (mean difference [MD] in total National Institutes of Health - Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index [NIH-CPSI] score -5.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.32 to -4.26, moderate QoE). Acupuncture may result in little or no difference in adverse events (low QoE). Acupuncture may also lead to a clinically meaningful reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with standard medical therapy (MD -6.05, 95% CI -7.87 to -4.24, two studies, 78 participants, low QoE). Lifestyle modifications may be associated with a reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with control (risk ratio for improvement in NIH-CPSI scores 3.90, 95% CI 2.20 to 6.92, very low QoE), but we found no information regarding adverse events. A physical activity programme may cause a small reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.69 to -0.31, low QoE), but we found no information regarding adverse events. It was uncertain whether prostatic massage reduces or increases prostatitis symptoms compared with control (very low QoE) and we found no information regarding adverse events. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy reduces prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -6.18, 95% CI -7.46 to -4.89, high QoE), but these results may not be sustained at medium-term follow-up (low QoE). This treatment may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events (low QoE). Transrectal thermotherapy, alone or in combination with medical therapy, may decrease prostatitis symptoms slightly when compared with medical therapy alone (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -3.82 to -1.18, low QoE). One included study reported that participants may experience transient adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings with moderate to high QoE, this review found that some non-pharmacological interventions, such as acupuncture and extracorporeal shockwave therapy, are likely to result in a decrease in prostatitis symptoms and may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events. The QoE for most other comparisons was predominantly low. 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.

Non-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.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-pharmacological therapies for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS).

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases, 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 August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with a diagnosis of CP/CPPS. We included all available non-pharmacological interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies, performed statistical analyses and rated quality of evidence (QoE) according to the GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 unique studies with 3290 men with CP/CPPS across 23 comparisons.1. Acupuncture: (three studies, 204 participants) based on short-term follow-up, acupuncture probably leads to clinically meaningful reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with sham procedure (mean difference (MD) in total NIH-CPSI score -5.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.32 to -4.26, high QoE). Acupuncture may result in little to no difference in adverse events (low QoE). Acupuncture may not reduce sexual dysfunction when compared with sham procedure (MD in the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) Scale -0.50, 95% CI -3.46 to 2.46, low QoE). Acupuncture may also lead to a clinically meaningful reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with standard medical therapy (MD -6.05, 95% CI -7.87 to -4.24, two studies, 78 participants, low QoE). We found no information regarding quality of life, depression or anxiety.2. Lifestyle modifications: (one study, 100 participants) based on short-term follow-up, lifestyle modifications may be associated with a reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with control (risk ratio (RR) for improvement in NIH-CPSI scores 3.90, 95% CI 2.20 to 6.92, very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events, sexual dysfunction, quality of life, depression or anxiety.3. Physical activity: (one study, 85 participants) based on short-term follow-up, a physical activity programme may cause a small reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.69 to -0.31, low QoE). This programme may not reduce anxiety or depression (low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events, sexual dysfunction or quality of life.4. Prostatic massage: (two studies, 115 participants) based on short-term follow-up, we are uncertain whether the prostatic massage reduces or increases prostatitis symptoms compared with control (very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events, sexual dysfunction, quality of life, depression or anxiety.5. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy: (three studies, 157 participants) based on short-term follow-up, extracorporeal shockwave therapy reduces prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -6.18, 95% CI -7.46 to -4.89, high QoE). These results may not be sustained at medium-term follow-up (low QoE). This treatment may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events (low QoE). This treatment probably improves sexual dysfunction (MD in the IIEF Scale MD 3.34, 95% CI 2.68 to 4.00, one study, 60 participants, moderate QoE). We found no information regarding quality of life, depression or anxiety.6. Transrectal thermotherapy compared to medical therapy: (two studies, 237 participants) based on short-term follow-up, transrectal thermotherapy alone or in combination with medical therapy may decrease prostatitis symptoms slightly when compared with medical therapy alone (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -3.82 to -1.18, low QoE). One included study reported that participants may experience transient adverse events. We found no information regarding sexual dysfunction, quality of life, depression or anxiety.7. Other interventions: there is uncertainty about the effects of most of the other interventions included in this review. We found no information regarding psychological support or prostatic surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of moderate quality evidence, this review found that some non-pharmacological interventions such as acupuncture and extracorporeal shockwave therapy are likely to result in a decrease in prostatitis symptoms and may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse event. The QoE for most other comparisons was predominantly low. 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.

Non-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.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-pharmacological therapies for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS).

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases, 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 August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with a diagnosis of CP/CPPS. We included all available non-pharmacological interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies, performed statistical analyses and rated quality of evidence (QoE) according to the GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 unique studies with 3290 men with CP/CPPS across 23 comparisons.1. Acupuncture: (three studies, 204 participants) based on short-term follow-up, acupuncture reduces prostatitis symptoms in an appreciable number of participants compared with sham procedure (mean difference (MD) in total NIH-CPSI score -5.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.32 to -4.26, high QoE). Acupuncture likely results in little to no difference in adverse events (moderate QoE). It probably also decreases prostatitis symptoms compared with standard medical therapy in an appreciable number of participants (MD -6.05, 95% CI -7.87 to -4.24, two studies, 78 participants, moderate QoE).2. Circumcision: (one study, 713 participants) based on short-term follow-up, early circumcision probably decreases prostatitis symptoms slightly (NIH-CPSI score MD -3.00, 95% CI -3.82 to -2.18, moderate QoE) and may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events compared with control (a waiting list to be circumcised, low QoE).3. Electromagnetic chair: (two studies, 57 participants) based on short-term follow-up, we are uncertain of the effects of the use of an electromagnetic chair on prostatitis symptoms. It may be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events compared with sham procedure (low to very low QoE).4. Lifestyle modifications: (one study, 100 participants) based on short-term follow-up, lifestyle modifications may be associated with a greater improvement in prostatitis symptoms in an appreciable number of participants compared with control (risk ratio (RR) for improvement in NIH-CPSI scores 3.90, 95% CI 2.20 to 6.92, very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events.5. Physical activity: (one study, 85 participants) based on short-term follow-up, a physical activity programme may cause a small reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.69 to -0.31, low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events.6. Prostatic massage: (two studies, 115 participants) based on short-term follow-up, we are uncertain whether the prostatic massage reduces or increases prostatitis symptoms compared with control (very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events.7. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy: (three studies, 157 participants) based on short-term follow-up, extracorporeal shockwave therapy reduces prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -6.18, 95% CI -7.46 to -4.89, high QoE). These results may not be sustained at medium-term follow-up (low QoE). This treatment may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events (low QoE).8. Transrectal thermotherapy compared to medical therapy: (two studies, 237 participants) based on short-term follow-up, transrectal thermotherapy alone or in combination with medical therapy may decrease prostatitis symptoms slightly when compared with medical therapy alone (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -3.82 to -1.18, low QoE). One included study reported that participants may experience transient adverse events.9. Other interventions: there is uncertainty about the effects of other interventions included in this review. We found no information regarding psychological support or prostatic surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some of the interventions can decrease prostatitis symptoms in an appreciable number without a greater incidence of adverse events. The QoE was mostly low. 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.