MedElevator
Войти в исследования The Canadian journal of urology · 2015
Heparin and alkalinized lidocaine versus alkalinized lidocaine for treatment of interstitial cystitis symptoms.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Parsons C Lowell, Koziol James A, Proctor Jeffrey G, Zupkas Paul, Argade Sulabha
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Interstitial cystitis (IC), sometimes referred to as IC/bladder pain syndrome, is a substantial health care problem. Once considered a rare, orphan disease, it is now believed to be relatively common. This pilot study was undertaken to determine if the combination of heparin and alkalinized lidocaine (heparin-lidocaine) was more efficacious than alkalinized lidocaine at relieving pain and urgency symptoms associated with IC and also capable of yielding higher lidocaine absorption.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single blind study was conducted on 14 IC patients with a heparin-lidocaine combination versus alkalinized lidocaine instilled intravesically. In a separate study serum lidocaine levels for heparin-alkalinized lidocaine combination versus USP lidocaine only were determined by high performance liquid chromatography.
RESULTS: Alkalinized lidocaine and heparin have been reported to provide relief from pain and urgency symptoms associated with IC. The heparin-lidocaine combination significantly reduced the % of bladder pain (38% versus 13%, p = 0.029) and urgency (42% versus 8% p = 0.003) compared to lidocaine. In addition the GAR was significantly better for the heparin-lidocaine combination at both 1 hr % improved (77% versus 50%, p = 0.04) and 24 hrs (57% versus 23%, p = 0.002) after study drug treatment. Serum lidocaine levels for the heparin-lidocaine combination were significantly higher compared to USP lidocaine (unalkalinized). The mean +/- SEM was 0.45 +/- 0.09 µg/mL and 0.20 +/- 0.05 µg/mL, respectively (p = 0.019).
CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study the heparin-lidocaine combination results in significantly better relief of IC symptoms compared to alkalinized lidocaine and the combination yields higher lidocaine absorption than USP lidocaine.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single blind study was conducted on 14 IC patients with a heparin-lidocaine combination versus alkalinized lidocaine instilled intravesically. In a separate study serum lidocaine levels for heparin-alkalinized lidocaine combination versus USP lidocaine only were determined by high performance liquid chromatography.
RESULTS: Alkalinized lidocaine and heparin have been reported to provide relief from pain and urgency symptoms associated with IC. The heparin-lidocaine combination significantly reduced the % of bladder pain (38% versus 13%, p = 0.029) and urgency (42% versus 8% p = 0.003) compared to lidocaine. In addition the GAR was significantly better for the heparin-lidocaine combination at both 1 hr % improved (77% versus 50%, p = 0.04) and 24 hrs (57% versus 23%, p = 0.002) after study drug treatment. Serum lidocaine levels for the heparin-lidocaine combination were significantly higher compared to USP lidocaine (unalkalinized). The mean +/- SEM was 0.45 +/- 0.09 µg/mL and 0.20 +/- 0.05 µg/mL, respectively (p = 0.019).
CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study the heparin-lidocaine combination results in significantly better relief of IC symptoms compared to alkalinized lidocaine and the combination yields higher lidocaine absorption than USP lidocaine.