Clinical comparision of intravesical hyaluronic acid and hyaluronic acid-chondroitin sulphate therapy for patients with bladder pain syndrome/interstitital cystitis

Authors

  • Ömer Gülpınar Ankara University
  • Aytaç Kayış Ankara University
  • Evren Süer Ankara University
  • Mehmet İlker Gökçe Ankara University
  • Adil Güçal Güçlü Ankara University
  • Nihat Arıkan Ankara University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2036

Keywords:

interstitial cystitis, bladder pain syndrome, hyaluronic acid, chondroitin sulphate

Abstract

Introduction: Patients with a history of bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (BPS/IC) and who responded poorly or unsatisfactorily with previous treatment were compared taking intravesical hyaluronic acid (HA) or hyaluronic acid-chondroitin sulphate (HA-CS).

Methods: Patients were treated with intravesical instillation with 50 mL sterile sodium hyalurinic acid (Hyacyst, Syner-Med, Surrey, UK) (n = 32) and sodium hyaluronate 1.6% sodium chondroitin sulphate 2% (Ialuril, Aspire Pharma, UK) (n = 33). Intravesical instillations were performed weekly in first month, every 15 days in the second month and monthly in third and fourth months, for a total of 8 doses. Patients were evaluated using a visual analog pain scale (VAS), interstitial cystitis symptom index (ICSI), interstitial cystitis problem index (ICPI), voiding diary for frequency/nocturia, cystometric bladder capacity and voided volume at the beginning and at 6 months. All patients had a potassium sensitivity test (PST) initially. Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analysis.

Results: In total, 53 patients met the study criteria. There were 30 patients in the HA-CS group (mean age: 48.47) and 23 patients in the HA group (mean age: 49.61) (p > 0.05). The initial PST was positive in 71.7% patients (38/53) overall with no difference between groups (p > 0.05). Responses for VAS, ICCS, ICPS, 24-hour frequency/nocturia statistically improved in both groups at 6 months. There was no significant difference in symptomatic improvement (p > 0.05). Eight patients had mild adverse events.

Conclusion: HA and HA/CS instillation can be effective in BPS/IC patients who do not respond to conservative treatment. An important limitation of our study is that the HA dosage of the 2 treatment arms were different. It would be more appropriate with same HA dosage in both groups; however, there was no commercially available glycosaminoglycan (GAG) substance with same HA dosage for single and combination therapy. Large, long-term randomized studies are required to determine if there is a difference between these treatments.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2014-09-09

How to Cite

Gülpınar, Ömer, Kayış, A., Süer, E., Gökçe, M. İlker, Güçlü, A. G., & Arıkan, N. (2014). Clinical comparision of intravesical hyaluronic acid and hyaluronic acid-chondroitin sulphate therapy for patients with bladder pain syndrome/interstitital cystitis. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 8(9-10), e610–4. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2036

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 9-10 (2014): CUAJ September

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.