Section for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
BJU Int. 2012 Oct;110(7):1014-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11088.x. Epub 2012 Apr 3.
Study Type - Therapy (systematic review) Level of Evidence 1a. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Individual clinical trials evaluating antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and α-blockers for the treatment of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome have shown only modest or even no benefits for patients compared with placebo, yet we continue to use these agents in selected patients with some success in clinical practice. This network meta-analysis of current evidence from all available randomized placebo-controlled trials with similar inclusion criteria and outcome measures shows that these '3-As' of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome treatment (antibiotics, anti-inflammatories and α-blockers) do offer benefits to some patients, particularly if we use them strategically in selected individuals.
To provide an updated network meta-analysis mapping α-blockers, antibiotics and anti-inflammatories (the 3-As) in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). • To use the results of this meta-analysis to comment on the role of the 3-As in clinical practice.
We updated a previous review including only randomized controlled studies employing the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) as one of the outcomes to compare treatment effects in CP/CPPS patients. • A longitudinal mixed regression model (network meta-analysis) was applied to indirectly assess multiple treatment comparisons (i.e. α-blockers, antibiotics, anti-inflammatory/immune modulation therapies, α-blockers plus antibiotics, and placebo).
Nineteen studies (1669 subjects) were eligible for analysis. • α-blockers, antibiotics and anti-inflammatory/immune modulation therapies were associated with significant improvement in symptoms when compared with placebo, with mean differences of total CPSI of -10.8 (95% CI -13.2 to -8.3; P < 0.001), -9.7 (95% CI -14.2 to -5.3; P < 0.001) and -1.7 (95% CI -3.2 to -0.2; P= 0.032) respectively, while α-blockers plus antibiotics resulted in the greatest CPSI difference (-13.6, 95% CI -16.7 to -10.6; P < 0.001). • With respect to responder analysis compared with placebo, anti-inflammatories showed the greatest response rates (risk ratio 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-2.1; P < 0.001) followed by α-blockers (risk ratio 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.8; P= 0.013) and antibiotics (risk ratio 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.9; P= 0.527).
α-blockers, antibiotics and/or anti-inflammatory/immune modulation therapy appear to be beneficial for some patients with CP/CPPS. • The magnitude of effect and the disconnect between mean CPSI decrease and response rates compared with placebo suggest that directed multimodal therapy, rather than mono-therapy, with these agents should be considered for optimal management of CP/CPPS.
研究类型 - 治疗(系统评价)证据水平 1a。本领域已知的情况是什么?本研究有何补充?评估抗生素、抗炎药和 α-阻滞剂治疗慢性前列腺炎/慢性盆腔疼痛综合征的单独临床试验表明,与安慰剂相比,这些药物对患者的益处仅适度,甚至没有益处,但我们继续在一些成功的临床实践中选择患者使用这些药物。本研究使用当前所有符合相似纳入标准和结局测量的随机安慰剂对照试验的网络荟萃分析显示,这些慢性前列腺炎/慢性盆腔疼痛综合征治疗的“3-A”(抗生素、抗炎药和 α-阻滞剂)对一些患者确实有帮助,特别是如果我们在选择的个体中策略性地使用它们。
提供慢性前列腺炎/慢性盆腔疼痛综合征(CP/CPPS)中 α-阻滞剂、抗生素和抗炎药(3-A)的更新网络荟萃分析。• 利用该荟萃分析的结果来评论 3-A 在临床实践中的作用。
我们更新了之前的综述,仅纳入了使用国家卫生研究院慢性前列腺炎症状指数(NIH-CPSI)作为结局之一的随机对照研究,以比较 CP/CPPS 患者的治疗效果。• 应用纵向混合回归模型(网络荟萃分析)间接评估多种治疗比较(即 α-阻滞剂、抗生素、抗炎/免疫调节治疗、α-阻滞剂加抗生素和安慰剂)。
19 项研究(1669 名患者)符合分析条件。• α-阻滞剂、抗生素和抗炎/免疫调节治疗与安慰剂相比,症状明显改善,总 CPSI 差异分别为-10.8(95%CI-13.2 至-8.3;P<0.001)、-9.7(95%CI-14.2 至-5.3;P<0.001)和-1.7(95%CI-3.2 至-0.2;P=0.032),而 α-阻滞剂加抗生素的 CPSI 差异最大(-13.6,95%CI-16.7 至-10.6;P<0.001)。• 与安慰剂相比,在应答分析方面,抗炎药显示出最大的应答率(风险比 1.7,95%CI 1.4-2.1;P<0.001),其次是 α-阻滞剂(风险比 1.4,95%CI 1.1-1.8;P=0.013)和抗生素(风险比 1.2,95%CI 0.7-1.9;P=0.527)。
α-阻滞剂、抗生素和/或抗炎/免疫调节治疗似乎对一些 CP/CPPS 患者有益。• 与安慰剂相比,平均 CPSI 下降和应答率之间的效应大小和脱节表明,应考虑针对这些药物的靶向多模式治疗,而不是单一药物治疗,以实现 CP/CPPS 的最佳管理。