| Literature DB >> 27033958 |
Oriana Ciani1, Erik Arendsen2, Martin Romancik3, Richard Lunik4, Elisabetta Costantini5, Manuel Di Biase5, Giuseppe Morgia6, Eugenia Fragalà6, Tomaskin Roman7, Marian Bernat8, Giorgio Guazzoni9, Rosanna Tarricone10, Massimo Lazzeri9.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness of the intravesical administration of combined hyaluronic acid and chondroitin sulfate (HA+CS) versus current standard management in adult women with recurrent urinary tract infections (RUTIs).Entities:
Keywords: Antimicrobial Resistance; Hyaluronic acid; chondroitin sulphate
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27033958 PMCID: PMC4823394 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009669
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Flow diagram describing numbers of individuals at each stage of study. HA+CS, hyaluronic acid and chondroitin sulfate.
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristics | HA+CS (N=181) | Standard care (N=95) | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age—mean (SD) | 55.24 (17.33) | 48.84 (21.16) | 0.017 |
| Employed—n (%) | 83 (46) | 62 (65) | 0.003 |
| Partner—n (%) | 148 (82) | 72 (76) | 0.172 |
| Sexually active—n (%) | 114 (63) | 60 (63) | 0.931 |
| Menopause—n (%) | 69 (28) | 49 (51) | 0.038 |
| BMI—mean (SD) | 26.20 (6.37) | 24.56 (5.03) | 0.019 |
| Postcoital infections—n (%) | 31 (17) | 29 (31) | 0.012 |
| Dyspareunia—n (%) | 40 (22) | 5 (5) | <0.001 |
| Severity RUTI—median (IQR)* | 4 (2–5) | 4 (3–4) | 0.316 |
| Prophylaxis—n (%) | |||
| Antimicrobial prophylaxis continuous | NA | 42 (44.21) | |
| Antimicrobial prophylaxis postcoital | NA | 19 (20) | |
| Intermittent immunoactive prophylaxis | NA | 28 (29.47) | |
| On demand immunoactive therapy | NA | 1 (1.05) | |
| Others | NA | 5 (5.26) | |
| FSFI—mean (SD) | 5.35 (8.71) | 3.13 (5.43) | 0.018 |
| EQ-5D—median (IQR) | 0.69 (0.24–0.73)† | 0.69 (0.28–0.81)‡ | 0.696 |
| SF-36 PCS—median (IQR) | 60 (54.5–70)§ | 60 (53–67.5)¶ | 0.500 |
| SF-36 MCS—median (IQR) | 60 (54–70)** | 60 (53–67.5)¶ | 0.551 |
*According to the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urological Infections where 1 is low severity cystitis and 6 is extreme severity including organ failure.21
†N=90 patients.
‡N=29 patients.
§N=72 patients.
¶N=60 patients.
**N=73 patients.
BMI, body mass index; EQ-5D, Euro QoL 5D 3 level; FSFI, Female Sexual Function Index; HA+CS, hyaluronic acid and chondroitin sulfate; NA, not applicable; RUTI, recurrent urinary tract infection; SF-36 MCS, Short Form 36 mental component score; SF-36 PCS, Short Form 36 physical component score.
Bacteriologically confirmed recurrence, total number of recurrences and time to first recurrence between HA+CS versus standard of care treated patients
| Outcome | OR (95% CI) | Adjusted* OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Bacteriologically confirmed recurrence | 0.77 (0.46 to 1.28) | 0.51 (0.27 to 0.96) |
| Total number of bacteriologically confirmed recurrence | 1.73 (1.27 to 2.37) | 0.99 (0.69 to 1.43) |
| Time to first bacteriologically confirmed recurrence | 1.66 (1.09 to 2.54)† | 0.99 (0.61 to 1.61) |
*Adjusted for age, BMI, employment and menopause status, postcoital infections, dyspareunia, FSFI and severity of RUTI.
†Log-rank test p value 0.018.
BMI, body mass index; FSFI, Female Sexual Function Index; HA+CS, hyaluronic acid and chondroitin sulfate; IRR, incidence rate ratio; RUTI, recurrent urinary tract infection.
Incidence of bacteriologically confirmed recurrences during 12-month follow-up
| Incidence of bacteriologically confirmed recurrences (days) | HA+CS (%) | Standard care (%) | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–90 | 15.3 | 12.7 | 0.610 |
| 91–180 | 15.6 | 12.9 | 0.628 |
| 181–240 | 10.7 | 3.7 | 0.132 |
| 241–365 | 16.3 | 30.8 | 0.043 |
HA+CS, hyaluronic acid and chondroitin sulfate.
Sensitivity analysis—impact of number of intravesical administration of HA+CS on clinical outcomes
| Bacteriologically confirmed recurrence | OR (95% CI) | Adjusted* OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| ≥5 Instillations (n=156) vs standard of care | 0.81 (0.48 to 1.36) | 0.52 (0.27 to 0.99) |
| ≥6 Instillations (n=134) vs standard of care | 0.69 (0.40 to 1.18) | 0.47 (0.25 to 0.91) |
| ≥7 Instillations (n=82) vs standard of care | 0.63 (0.34 to 1.14) | 0.43 (0.21 to 0.88) |
| ≥5 Instillations vs standard of care | 1.82 (1.33 to 2.49) | 1.05 (0.73 to 1.52) |
| ≥6 Instillations vs standard of care | 1.64 (1.18 to 2.28) | 0.97 (0.66 to 1.40) |
| ≥7 Instillations vs standard of care | 1.46 (1 to 2.13) | 0.90 (0.60 to 1.36) |
| ≥5 Instillations vs standard of care | 1.72 (1.12 to 2.65) | 1.04 (0.64 to 1.71) |
| ≥6 Instillations vs standard of care | 1.55 (0.99 to 2.41) | 0.96 (0.58 to 1.57) |
| ≥7 Instillations vs standard of care | 1.33 (0.79 to 2.22) | 0.85 (0.49 to 1.47) |
*Adjusted for age, BMI, employment and menopause status, postcoital infections, dyspareunia, FSFI and severity of RUTI.
BMI, body mass index; FSFI, Female Sexual Function Index; HA+CS, hyaluronic acid and chondroitin sulfate; IRR, incidence rate ratio; RUTI, recurrent urinary tract infection.