Rajesh Taneja1. 1. Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, Room Number 1019, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, 110070, India. rajeshtanejadr@yahoo.com.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Carolina Pazin; Andréia Moreira de Souza Mitidieri; Ana Paula Moreira Silva; Maria Beatriz Ferreira Gurian; Omero Benedicto Poli-Neto; Julio Cesar Rosa-E-Silva Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jordan Dimitrakov; Kurt Kroenke; William D Steers; Charles Berde; David Zurakowski; Michael R Freeman; Jeffrey L Jackson Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-10-08
Authors: Thaís Guimarães Dos Santos; Isabela Albuquerque Severo de Miranda; Christiana Campani Nygaard; Lucas Schreiner; Rodrigo de Aquino Castro; Jorge Milhen Haddad Journal: Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet Date: 2017-12-14