Search

Objective: To assess the effects of 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 July 2019. We included randomised controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with a diagnosis of CP/CPPS. We included all available pharmacological interventions. Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies, performed statistical analyses and rated quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) 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 99 unique studies in 9119 men with CP/CPPS, with assessments of 16 types of pharmacological interventions. Most of our comparisons included short-term follow-up information. The median age of the participants was 38 years. Most studies did not specify their funding sources; 21 studies reported funding from pharmaceutical companies. We found low- to very low-quality evidence that α-blockers may reduce prostatitis symptoms based on a reduction in National Institutes of Health - Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) scores of >2 (but <8) with an increased incidence of minor adverse events such as dizziness and hypotension. Moderate- to low-quality evidence indicates that 5α-reductase inhibitors, antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, and phytotherapy probably cause a small decrease in prostatitis symptoms and may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events. Intraprostatic botulinum toxin A (BTA) injection may cause a large reduction in prostatitis symptoms with procedure-related adverse events (haematuria), but pelvic floor muscle BTA injection may not have the same effects (low-quality evidence). Allopurinol may also be ineffective for reducing prostatitis symptoms (low-quality evidence). We assessed a wide range of interventions involving traditional Chinese medicine; low-quality evidence showed they may reduce prostatitis symptoms without an increased incidence in adverse events. Moderate- to high-quality evidence indicates that the following interventions may be ineffective for the reduction of prostatitis symptoms: anticholinergics, Escherichia coli lysate (OM-89), pentosan, and pregabalin. Low- to very low-quality evidence indicates that antidepressants and tanezumab may be ineffective for the reduction of prostatitis symptoms. Low-quality evidence indicates that mepartricin and phosphodiesterase inhibitors may reduce prostatitis symptoms, without an increased incidence in adverse events., Conclusions: Based on the findings of low- to very low-quality evidence, this review found that some pharmacological interventions such as α-blockers may reduce prostatitis symptoms with an increased incidence of minor adverse events such as dizziness and hypotension. Other interventions may cause a reduction in prostatitis symptoms without an increased incidence of adverse events while others were found to be ineffective., (© 2020 The Authors BJU International © 2020 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (© 2018 The Authors BJU International © 2018 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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.