Management of chronic nonbacterial prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

Chronic Primary Pelvic Pain Syndrome in Men

BACKGROUND

Chronic primary pelvic pain syndrome in men (CPPPSm) can be associated with urogenital pain, urinary symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and emotional disturbance. Its clinical heterogeneity and incompletely understood pathogenesis make it more difficult to treat. This article is intended to familiarize the reader with basic aspects of the manifestations, pathophysiology, diagnostic evaluation, differential diagnosis, and treatment of this condition.

METHODS

This article is based on relevant publications retrieved by a selective search of the literature, including the current guidelines of the European Association of Urology. The features of this disease pertaining to urology, psychosomatic medicine, and pain medicine are illuminated from an interdisciplinary perspective.

RESULTS

Chronic pelvic pain appears to arise through a complex interaction of inflammatory, infectious, neurological, musculoskeletal, and psychosomatic factors. A comprehensive diagnostic work-up should be carried out to evaluate and exclude the numerous differential diagnoses. Treatment strategies are based on the clinical phenotype. Randomized controlled trials have shown that significant relief can be achieved with a variety of drugs and non-pharmacological treatments, selected according to the manifestations of the condition in the individual case. Attention must be paid to treatment-specific adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

The management of patients with CPPPSm should consist of a comprehensive differential diagnostic evaluation and an individually oriented treatment strategy.

Contemporary Management of Chronic Prostatitis

Chronic prostatitis (CP) is a common condition, yet remains a challenge to treat in clinical practice due to the heterogeneity of symptoms. The aim of this article is to undertake a narrative review using key research papers in this field in order to develop a treatment algorithm and research recommendations for the management of type II and type III prostatitis taking a broader look at interventions beyond those recommended in the European Association of Urology Guidelines. A search was performed using multiple databases and trial registries with no language restrictions. Searches were completed on March 1, 2021, with a focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, and systematic reviews. However, in areas with a dearth of such studies, we included case series and observational studies, thus allowing us to assess current levels of evidence and areas of potential research. We identified and reviewed 63 studies. The level of evidence and the quality of trials were assessed and reported. Research recommendations, where applicable, were also highlighted. CP/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) is a heterogenous term referring to diverse symptomology that requires tailored treatments depending on the patients' complaints. After a review of the evidence available, we present a treatment algorithm that is based on the much-discussed UPOINT (urinary symptoms, psychosocial dysfunction, organ-specific findings, infection, neurologic/systemic, and tenderness of muscles) framework. Future studies should focus on multimodal therapy based on such frameworks and provide the future direction of this complex condition.

Diagnostic and Management Strategies for Patients with Chronic Prostatitis and Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common and often heterogenous condition that can have severe consequences on patient quality of life. In this review, we describe the pathophysiology, diagnostic work-up, and treatment of patients with CP/CPPS incorporating the most recent literature. Studies have demonstrated that CP/CPPS involves a complex pathophysiology, including infectious, immunologic, neurologic, endocrinologic, and psychologic etiologies, with frequent intersections between the different entities. Despite robust research assessing a variety of therapeutics targeting these etiologies, clinical trials have failed to identify an empiric treatment strategy applicable specifically to older adult male patients with CP/CPPS. As such, it can be challenging to manage older male patients with this condition. The advent of clinical phenotyping of patients with CP/CPPS has led to advances in tailored management strategies. Monomodal therapy has been largely unsuccessful because of the unclear and complex etiology of CPPS. As a result, CP/CPPS therapy has transitioned to a multimodal approach, including both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapies. The best studied pharmacologic therapies include antibiotics, alpha-blockers, anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory agents, phytotherapies, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, hormonal agents, neuromodulatory agents, and antidepressants. The best studied non-pharmacological therapies include pelvic floor physical therapy, myofascial trigger point release, acupuncture and electroacupuncture, psychological support and biofeedback, and electrocorporeal shockwave therapy and local thermotherapy.

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. We considered a 25% decrease of NIH-CPSI baseline score or a six-point reduction as MCID.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological therapies for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 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 July 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with a diagnosis of CP/CPPS. We included all available pharmacological interventions compared to placebo or in head-to-head comparisons.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risks of bias of included studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence (QoE) using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 99 unique studies in 9119 men with CP/CPPS, with assessments of 16 types of pharmacological interventions. Unless stated otherwise, our comparisons were based on short-term follow-up (less than 12 months). Most studies did not specify their funding sources; 21 studies reported funding from pharmaceutical companies.1. Alpha blockers: (24 studies, 2061 participants). We are uncertain about the effects of these drugs on prostatitis symptoms when compared to placebo at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) in total NIH-CPSI score -5.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.41 to -2.61; 18 studies, 1524 participants, very low QoE) and at long-term follow-up (MD -5.60, 95% CI -10.89 to -0.32; 4 studies, 235 participants, very low QoE). Alpha blockers may be associated with an increased incidence of adverse events, such as dizziness and postural hypotension (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.34; 19 studies, 1588 participants; low QoE). Alpha blockers probably result in little to no difference in sexual dysfunction, quality of life and anxiety and depression (moderate to low QoE).2. 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARI): (2 studies, 177 participants). Finasteride probably reduces prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI score MD -4.60, 95% CI -5.43 to -3.77; 1 study, 64 participants; moderate QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence of adverse events (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.3. Antibiotics: (6 studies, 693 participants). Antibiotics (quinolones) may reduce prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.43, 95% CI -4.72 to -0.15; 5 studies, 372 participants; low QoE) and are probably not associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (moderate QoE). Antibiotics probably result in little to no difference in sexual dysfunction and quality of life (moderate QoE). There was no information on anxiety or depression.4. Anti-inflammatories: (7 studies, 585 participants). Anti-inflammatories may reduce prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI scores MD -2.50, 95% CI -3.74 to -1.26; 7 studies, 585 participants; low QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.5. Phytotherapy: (7 studies, 551 participants). Phytotherapy may reduce prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI scores MD -5.02, 95% CI -6.81 to -3.23; 5 studies, 320 participants; low QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). Phytotherapy may not improve sexual dysfunction (low QoE). There was no information on quality of life or anxiety and depression.6. Botulinum toxin A (BTA): Intraprostatic BTA injection (1 study, 60 participants) may cause a large reduction in prostatitis symptom (NIH-CPSI scores MD -25.80, 95% CI -30.15 to -21.45), whereas pelvic floor muscle BTA injection (1 study, 29 participants) may not reduce prostatitis symptoms (low QoE). Both comparisons used a placebo injection. These interventions may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.7. Allopurinol: (2 studies, 110 participants). Allopurinol may result in little to no difference in prostatitis symptoms and adverse events when compared to placebo (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.8. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM): (7 studies, 835 participants); TCM may reduce prostatitis symptoms (NIH-CPSI score, MD -3.13, 95% CI -4.99 to -1.28; low QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). TCM probably does not improve sexual dysfunction (moderate QoE) and may not improve symptoms of anxiety and depression (low QoE). There was no information on quality of life.The most frequent reasons for downgrading the QoE were study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. We found few trials with active comparators.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-quality evidence that alpha blockers, antibiotics, 5-ARI, anti-inflammatories, phytotherapy, intraprostatic BTA injection, and traditional Chinese medicine may cause a reduction in prostatitis symptoms without an increased incidence of adverse events in the short term, except for alpha blockers which may be associated with an increase in mild adverse events. We found few trials with active comparators and little evidence of the effects of these drugs on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression. 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.

Diagnosis and treatment of chronic bacterial prostatitis and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: a consensus guideline

Objectives

To improve awareness and recognition of chronic bacterial prostatitis (CBP) and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) among non‐specialists and patients. To provide guidance to healthcare professionals treating patients with CBP and CP/CPPS, in both non‐specialist and specialist settings. To promote efficient referral of care between non‐specialists and specialists and the involvement of the multidisciplinary team (MDT).

Patients and Methods

The guideline population were men with CBP or CP/CPPS (persistent or recurrent symptoms and no other urogenital pathology for ≥3 of the previous 6 months). Consensus recommendations for the guidelines were based on a search to identify literature on the diagnosis and management of CBP and CP/CPPS (published between 1999 and February 2014). A Delphi panel process was used where high‐quality, published evidence was lacking.

Results

CBP and CP/CPPS can present with a wide range of clinical manifestations. The four main symptom domains are urogenital pain, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS – voiding or storage symptoms), psychological issues and sexual dysfunction. Patients should be managed according to their individual symptom pattern. Options for first‐line treatment include antibiotics, α‐adrenergic antagonists (if voiding LUTS are present) and simple analgesics. Repeated use of antibiotics, such as quinolones, should be avoided if there is no obvious symptomatic benefit from infection control or cultures do not support an infectious cause. Early use of treatments targeting neuropathic pain and/or referral to specialist services should be considered for patients who do not respond to initial measures. An MDT approach (urologists, pain specialists, nurse specialists, specialist physiotherapists, general practitioners, cognitive behavioural therapists/psychologists, and sexual health specialists) is recommended. Patients should be fully informed about the possible underlying causes and treatment options, including an explanation of the chronic pain cycle.

Conclusion

Chronic prostatitis can present with a wide variety of signs and symptoms. Identification of individual symptom patterns and a symptom‐based treatment approach are recommended. Further research is required to evaluate management options for CBP and CP/CPPS.

Long-term effect of extracorporeal shock wave therapy on the treatment of chronic pelvic pain syndrome due to non bacterial prostatitis

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence about the chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) treatment by shockwave therapy, and the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of extracorporeal shockwave therapy on CPPS due to non bacterial prostatitis in a long-term period.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a follow-up survey, 40 patients with CPPS (that were randomly distributed into the treatment or sham groups were evaluated at 16, 20, and 24 weeks. In the treatment group, patients were treated by extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) once a week for 4 weeks by a protocol of 3000 impulses, 0.25 mJ/m(2) and 3 Hz of frequency. 0.05 mJ/m(2) were added in each week. In the sham group, the same protocol was applied, but with the probe being turned off. The follow-up assessments were done by visual analog scale for pain and National Institutes of Health-developed Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI). Data were compared using independent t-test or analysis of variences.

RESULTS

Three patients did not complete the study protocol, 37 patients were evlauated (19 patients in treatment and 18 patients in the sham group). At week 24, the mean of pain score, urinary score, quality-of-life and NIH-CPSI score between two groups were not statistically different.

CONCLUSION

Although, ESWT therapy as a safe and effective therapy in CPPS in short-term follow-up has been established, its long-term efficacy was not supported by this study.

Comparison of results after fluoroquinolones and combination therapies in type IIIA chronic prostatitis

PURPOSE

We investigated retrospectively the clinical outcomes of the patients with type iii inflammatory chronic prostatitis, who were treated with fluoroquinolones with and without an α-blocker between 2009-2011.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Diagnosis was established with medical history (symptoms presented longer than 3 months within previous 6 months), physical examination, Meares-Stamey test and the questionnaire of the NIH-CPSI. The responses to the treatment were assessed with uroflowmetry test and the questionnaire of NIH-CPSI at initial and after 4 weeks of the treatment. The patients with incomplete data and treatment and who treated with α-blockers and/or antibiotics in the period 4 weeks prior to the therapy started in our clinic and had any surgery of lower urinary tract previously were excluded. The patients were classified under 6 groups; group1=ciprofloxacin, group2=ofloxacin, group3=levofloxacin, group4=ciprofloxacin+tamsulosin, group5=ofloxacin+tamsulosin, group 6=levofloxacin+tamsulosin. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks and Kruskal Wallis test were used for comparison of results. Mann Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction made was used as posthoc (P<.05).

RESULTS

The median scores of NIH-CPSI decreased significantly in all groups (P<.05). Levofloxacin reduced the median total scores of NIH-CPSI more than ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin monotherapies. The combination therapies were better than antibiotic therapies alone and best result was obtained in levofloxacin+tamsulosin combination.

CONCLUSION

Tamsulosin+fluoroquinolone (especially tamsulosin+levofloxacin) combinations yielded better results in both NIH-CPSI scores and peak flow rates.