Treatment effectiveness in interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome: Do patient perceptions align with efficacy-based guidelines?
Introduction: We sought to determine if patients’ perceptions of success or failure of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/ BPS) therapies proposed in treatment guidelines align with the evidence from available clinical trial treatment data.
Methods: A total of 1628 adult females with a self-reported diagnosis of IC completed a web-based survey in which patients described their perceived outcomes with the therapies they were exposed to. Previously published literature, used in part to develop IC/ BPS guidelines, provided the clinical trial data outcomes. Patientreported outcomes were compared to available clinical trial outcomes and published treatment guidelines.
Results: Based on patient perceived outcomes (benefit:risk ratio), the most effective treatments were opioids, phenazopyridine, and alkalizing agents, with amitriptyline and antihistamines reported as moderately effective. The only surgical procedure with any effectiveness was electrocautery of Hunner’s lesions. In order of efficacy reported in the literature, the therapies for IC/BPS with predicted superior outcomes should be: cyclosporine A, amitriptyline, hyperbaric oxygen, pentosan polysulfate plus subcutaneous heparin, botulinum toxin A plus hydrodistension, and L-arginine. While some of the guideline recommendations aligned with patientreported effectiveness data, there was a general disconnect between guidelines and effectiveness reported in clinical practice.
Conclusions: There is a disconnect between real-world patient perceived effectiveness of IC/BPS treatments compared to the efficacy reported from clinical trial data and subsequent guidelines developed from this efficacy data. Optimal therapy must include the best evidence from clinical research, but should also include real-life clinical practice implementation and effectiveness.
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.