Pregabalin for the treatment of men with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: A randomized controlled trial

Department of Urology, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19140, USA.
Archives of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 13.25). 09/2010; 170(17):1586-93. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.319
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Evidence suggests that the urogenital pain of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) may be neuropathic.
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted across 10 tertiary care centers in North America to determine whether pregabalin, which has been proved effective in other chronic pain syndromes, is effective in reducing CP/CPPS symptoms. In 2006-2007, 324 men with pelvic pain for at least 3 of the previous 6 months were enrolled in this study. Men were randomly assigned to receive pregabalin or placebo in a 2:1 ratio and were treated for 6 weeks. Pregabalin dosage was increased from 150 to 600 mg/d during the first 4 weeks. The primary outcome was a 6-point decrease in the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) total score. Multiple secondary outcomes were assessed.
Of 218 men assigned to receive pregabalin, 103 (47.2%) reported at least a 6-point decrease in the NIH-CPSI total score at 6 weeks compared with 35.8% (38 of 106 men) assigned to receive placebo (P = .07, exact Mantel-Haenszel test, adjusting for clinical sites). Compared with the placebo group, men assigned to receive pregabalin experienced reductions in the NIH-CPSI total score and subscores (P < .05), a higher Global Response Assessment response rate (31.2% and 18.9%; P = .02), and improvement in total McGill Pain Questionnaire score (P = .01). Results for the other outcomes did not differ between groups.
Pregabalin therapy for 6 weeks was not superior to placebo use in the rate of a 6-point decrease (improvement) in the NIH-CPSI total score in men with CP/CPPS. Identifier: NCT00371033.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: • Our traditional approach to managing the chronic prostatitis (CP) syndromes has not been very successful for many of our patients. • Our developing understanding of CP/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) as a heterogeneous syndrome rather than a homogenous disease has allowed us to develop treatment strategies based on individual patient characteristics. • By considering each patient as a unique individual and tailoring treatments to a specific patient's clinical 'phenotype' we improve our therapeutic outcomes.
    BJU International 11/2010; 106(9):1252-63. DOI:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09701.x · 3.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is common, but trial evidence is conflicting and therapeutic options are controversial. To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing mean symptom scores and treatment response among α-blockers, antibiotics, anti-inflammatory drugs, other active drugs (phytotherapy, glycosaminoglycans, finasteride, and neuromodulators), and placebo. We searched MEDLINE from 1949 and EMBASE from 1974 to November 16, 2010, using the PubMed and Ovid search engines. Randomized controlled trials comparing drug treatments in CP/CPPS patients. Two reviewers independently extracted mean symptom scores, quality-of-life measures, and response to treatment between treatment groups. Standardized mean difference and random-effects methods were applied for pooling continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. A longitudinal mixed regression model was used for network meta-analysis to indirectly compare treatment effects. Twenty-three of 262 studies identified were eligible. Compared with placebo, α-blockers were associated with significant improvement in symptoms with standardized mean differences in total symptom, pain, voiding, and quality-of-life scores of -1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.8 to -0.6), -1.1 (95% CI, -1.8 to -0.3), -1.4 (95% CI, -2.3 to -0.5), and -1.0 (95% CI, -1.8 to -0.2), respectively. Patients receiving α-blockers or anti-inflammatory medications had a higher chance of favorable response compared with placebo, with pooled RRs of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.1-2.3) and 1.8 (95% CI, 1.2-2.6), respectively. Contour-enhanced funnel plots suggested the presence of publication bias for smaller studies of α-blocker therapies. The network meta-analysis suggested benefits of antibiotics in decreasing total symptom scores (-9.8; 95% CI, -15.1 to -4.6), pain scores (-4.4; 95% CI, -7.0 to -1.9), voiding scores (-2.8; 95% CI, -4.1 to -1.6), and quality-of-life scores (-1.9; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.2) compared with placebo. Combining α-blockers and antibiotics yielded the greatest benefits compared with placebo, with corresponding decreases of -13.8 (95% CI, -17.5 to -10.2) for total symptom scores, -5.7 (95% CI, -7.8 to -3.6) for pain scores, -3.7 (95% CI, -5.2 to -2.1) for voiding, and -2.8 (95% CI, -4.7 to -0.9) for quality-of-life scores. α-Blockers, antibiotics, and combinations of these therapies appear to achieve the greatest improvement in clinical symptom scores compared with placebo. Anti-inflammatory therapies have a lesser but measurable benefit on selected outcomes. However, beneficial effects of α-blockers may be overestimated because of publication bias.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 01/2011; 305(1):78-86. DOI:10.1001/jama.2010.1913 · 30.39 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common male pain condition that is associated with significant discomfort and disability. Despite significant efforts, there remains no definitive etiology or treatment of the spectrum of pelvic symptoms reported by these patients. The purpose of this review is to summarize important clinical and scientific findings related to CP/CPPS from the previous 2 years, and to evaluate their impact on our understanding of, and approach to, the disease.
    Current Urology Reports 03/2011; 12(4):278-83. DOI:10.1007/s11934-011-0185-1 · 1.51 Impact Factor
Show more