International urogynecology journal · 2020
Current status of oral pentosan polysulphate in bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Taneja Rajesh
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Oral pentosan polysulphate (PPS) has been used in the treatment of bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (BPS/IC) for almost 35 years. However, in some recent studies, questions have been raised about its efficacy in treating this condition. We aimed to evaluate the published medical literature and discuss the clinical utility of oral PPS in the treatment of BPS/IC.
METHODS: PUBMED was searched for BPS/IC, treatment and PPS. Of the initial 398 articles screened, 7 randomized controlled trials, 3 systematic reviews and 3 meta-analyses were finally included in this study (Fig. 1). Other relevant literature such as observational studies and various clinical guidelines was also reviewed. The inclusion criteria, intervention methodology and end points of the studies were examined.
RESULTS: Of the seven RCTs, five found a clear beneficial role of oral PPS in IC/BPS. The only study which did not have cystoscopy as a diagnostic and inclusion criterion failed to show any benefit of oral PPS compared to placebo. Two out of three meta-analyses clearly concluded that oral PPS had a positive role to play in the treatment of BPS/IC. Various open-label studies did conclude in favour of oral PPS as a treatment modality for these patients.
CONCLUSION: Oral PPS remains a useful pharmacological agent for treatment of BPS/IC, even though it may be effective only in a subgroup of patients.
METHODS: PUBMED was searched for BPS/IC, treatment and PPS. Of the initial 398 articles screened, 7 randomized controlled trials, 3 systematic reviews and 3 meta-analyses were finally included in this study (Fig. 1). Other relevant literature such as observational studies and various clinical guidelines was also reviewed. The inclusion criteria, intervention methodology and end points of the studies were examined.
RESULTS: Of the seven RCTs, five found a clear beneficial role of oral PPS in IC/BPS. The only study which did not have cystoscopy as a diagnostic and inclusion criterion failed to show any benefit of oral PPS compared to placebo. Two out of three meta-analyses clearly concluded that oral PPS had a positive role to play in the treatment of BPS/IC. Various open-label studies did conclude in favour of oral PPS as a treatment modality for these patients.
CONCLUSION: Oral PPS remains a useful pharmacological agent for treatment of BPS/IC, even though it may be effective only in a subgroup of patients.