Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
Interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome (IC/PBS) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the submucosal and muscular layers of the bladder. So far, there is no effective and targeted treatment strategy for IC/PBS. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intravesical instillation treatment in IC/PBS patients.
Methods
We searched various databases up to October 2015. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare global response assessment (GRA) for different treatment strategies, including botulinum toxin A (BoNTA), bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG), resiniferatoxin (RTX), lidocaine, chondroitin sulfate (CS), oxybutynin, and pentosan polysulfate (PPS). A traditional meta-analysis was also performed.
Results
Sixteen trials evaluating 905 patients were included. Network meta-analysis indicated that BoNTA had the highest probability of being the best treatment course according to GRA assessment results (probability 81.7 %). BCG or BoNTA therapy yielded significant improvement in GRA incidence according to traditional meta-analysis. Patients who received PPS showed higher urinary frequency results compared with the placebo groups. BCG- and PPS-treated patients had elevated urinary urgency treatment effects compared with placebo groups. Bladder capacity restoration results also showed significant improvements in patients who received BoNTA compared with placebo-treated individuals.
Conclusions
These findings indicate that BoNTA therapy has the highest probability of being the best therapy according to GRA, and significantly improves bladder capacity in IC/PBS patients. BCG treatment also significantly increases the incidence of GRA and improves the symptoms of urinary urgency. PPS can significantly improve urinary frequency and urgency symptoms in IC/PBS patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome (IC/PBS) is characterized by a constellation of bladder symptoms, including urinary frequency, urgency, increased nocturia, and bladder and pelvic pain [1]. The incidence of IC/PBS is variable, with morbidity rates of 3–4 per 10 million in Japan, 18 per 10 million in Europe, and 60–70 per 10 million in the USA [2]. Epidemiological studies demonstrated that IC/PBS morbidity is related to race, age, and gender, further suggesting that the disease most likely affects 30- to 50-year-old women [1, 2]. Furthermore, diagnostic criteria are variable in different countries [3]. The pathogenesis of IC/PBS remains unclear; possible pathogenic factors include infection, autoimmune disease, mast cell infiltration, neurogenic mechanism, change in mucosal epithelial permeability, and glycosaminoglycan metabolism defect [4, 5].
To date, the main purpose of IC/PBS treatment is to restore bladder function, prevent recurrence, and improve the quality of life. There are numerous treatments for IC/PBS, including diet therapy, behavior adjustment training (BAT), oral medication, intravesical instillation, and surgical intervention [6]. Treatment strategies for IC/PBS are given priority based on empirical evidence, as the mechanism of this ailment remains unclear. Intravesical perfusion, considered a relatively better treatment tool, is a technique in which the drug is spread directly on the inner surface of the bladder to increase its local concentration and active time while reducing the rate of side effects. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing intravesical treatment are scarce for every single drug researched, and comparison of the efficacy of drugs remains controversial.
Current intravesical IC/PBS treatment strategies include botulinum toxin A (BoNTA), bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG), resiniferatoxin (RTX), lidocaine, chondroitin sulfate (CS), oxybutynin, and pentosan polysulfate (PPS) [7–11]. Previous studies demonstrated that these interventions can relieve the clinical symptoms of IC/PBS and restore bladder function; however, comparative efficacy among these drugs remains undetermined. Although several systematic reviews have been previously published, no clear comparisons of treatment effects obtained with intravesical medicines are available [2, 12–15]. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of intravesical medicines in IC/PBS patients using both direct and indirect evidence, and to discuss their future use for IC/PBS patients.
Materials and methods
Search strategy and selection criteria
This review was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Statement [16] issued in 2009. Any RCTs evaluating intravesical instillation in IC/PBS patients were eligible for inclusion, and no restrictions were placed on language or publication status (published or in press). The Medline, EmBase, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched for articles published through October 2015, with “interstitial cystitis” OR “painful bladder syndrome” OR “Hunner’s ulcer” AND “intravesical” AND “clinical trials” as the search terms. We also conducted manual searches of reference lists from all relevant original articles and reviews to identify additional eligible studies.
The literature search was undertaken independently by two authors and any inconsistencies were settled by group discussion until a consensus was reached. A study was included if the following criteria were met:
-
1.
RCT design
-
2.
Assessment of intravesical treatment for IC/PBS patients
-
3.
Outcomes included global response assessment (GRA) and one of the following: pain, urinary frequency, urinary urgency, or bladder capacity restoration
Cohort, case–control, and case series studies, in addition to reviews and editorials, were excluded owing to uncontrolled confounders.
Data collection and quality assessment
Two reviewers independently extracted all data, with disagreements resolved in consultation with third-party investigators. The following items were extracted from the articles included: first author name, publication year, country, patient number, patient gender, age, disease type, interventions, controls, additional treatment regimens, and duration of the follow-up period. The primary outcome was GRA; secondary outcomes included pain assessment, urinary frequency, urinary urgency, and bladder capacity. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the studies included according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool in the following six domains: selection, performance, detection, attrition, reporting, and other bias [17].
Statistical analysis
For traditional meta-analysis, the inverse variance method was used to pool continuous data; the Mantel–Haenszel method was utilized for dichotomous data. Results were presented as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) and odds ratio (OR) with 95 % CIs. In the network meta-analysis, a random-effects network meta-analysis was used for mixed multiple treatment comparisons, fully preserving the within-trial randomized treatment comparison of each trial [18].
The I2 index was calculated to evaluate the extent of variability attributable to statistical heterogeneity between trials. In the absence of statistical heterogeneity (I2 < 50 %), a fixed-effect model was used in traditional meta-analysis; otherwise, we used a random-effects model [19, 20]. Consistency within every closed triangle or quadratic loop was investigated using a loop-specific approach in the network meta-analysis. During analysis, inconsistency factors and 95 % CIs were used to determine their compatibility with zero [21]. Predictive intervals (PIs) provide an interval in which future observations will fall [22]. 95 % PIs were examined to capture the uncertainty and magnitude of heterogeneity in the network meta-analysis [23]. To rank the treatments for an outcome, surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities was used [24]. A “comparison-adjusted” funnel plot was used to assess the presence of small-study effects in the network meta-analysis [25]. Two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Review Manager (version 5.3) and STATA (version 12.0) were used for data analysis.
Results
The literature research returned 229 hits after removing duplications; of these, 16 trials were included in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1). After a full-text review, the reasons for excluding reports were non-RCTs [4, 26], other intervention interference [27, 28], other similar diseases [9, 29, 30], and lack of desired outcome assessment [31]. The general characteristics of the studies included are presented in Table 1.
Of the trials included, 4 reported BCG compared with placebo [32–35], 3 evaluated BoNTA in comparison with placebo [8, 36, 37], 2 reported RTX compared with placebo [38, 39], 2 comparatively assessed chondroitin sulfate and placebo [7, 40], 2 reported PPS compared with placebo [5, 41], 1 evaluated lidocaine compared with placebo [42], 1 reported oxybutynin compared with placebo [43], and 1 assessed BCG in comparison with BoNTA [44]. The studies included assessed 905 patients in all. Female patients accounted for at least 77 % of all subjects, who were all 18 years or older, excluding one study that did not mention patient age [35]. One study had a three-arm design, and included 0.05 μM RTX, 0.1 μM RTX, and placebo control groups [38]; another study had a four-arm design, and included 0.01 μM RTX, 0.05 μM RTX, 0.1 μM RTX, and placebo control groups [39]. Five studies identified additional treatments in both groups, including hydrodistention [8, 37], oral PPS [5, 41], and antibiotics [45]. The shortest and longest follow-up times were 29 days and 24 months respectively (Table 1). All the studies included were RCTs. A summary graph of bias risks for each study is shown in Fig. 2.
Eligible comparisons for overall treatment response in the network meta-analysis are presented in Fig. 3, showing predominantly pairwise comparisons of various drug treatments for IC/PBS. This figure weights the nodes according to the number of patients who received each treatment, and the edges according to the mean control group risk for all comparisons versus placebo. The contribution plot for this network meta-analysis is shown in Fig. 4; BCG versus placebo had the highest contribution for the entire network meta-analysis (14.8 %). The inconsistency plot was produced with an assumed loop-specific heterogeneity estimate, and the exp(IF) (RORs of direct and indirect estimates) shows no significant inconsistency in the network meta-analysis (ROR = 1.534; 95 % CI 1.00–16.53; ζ2 = 0.117; p = 0.725; Fig. 5).
The traditional meta-analysis for BCG versus placebo had similar results with network meta-analysis data (traditional [OR = 2.58, 95 % CI 1.50–4.42; p = 0.001]; network [OR = 2.50, 95 % CI 1.47–4.25; p = 0.001]), BoNTA vs control (traditional [OR = 6.12, 95 % CI 2.11–17.79; p = 0.001]; network [OR = 6.49, 95 % CI 2.53–16.63; p < 0.001]). In addition, the current network meta-analysis showed significant comparisons between BCG vs RTX (OR = 3.74, 95 % CI 1.53–9.15; p = 0.004) and BoNTA vs RTX (OR = 9.69, 95 % CI 2.96–31.71; p < 0.001; Fig. 6). We also ranked the comparative effects of all treatments for IC/PBS with SUCRA probabilities (%). Interestingly, BoNTA had the most likely chance of being the best therapy (probability of 81.7 %); the cumulative ranking plots based on our estimates are shown in Fig. 7. The comparison-adjusted funnel plot for assessing publication bias of small-study effects within a network of interventions is depicted in Fig. 8.
In the traditional meta-analysis, GRA results indicated that BCG had a significantly better treatment effect than placebo control (OR = 2.58, 95 % CI 1.50–4.42; p = 0.001); BoNTA treatment also had significantly superior effect to placebo control (OR = 6.12, 95 % CI 2.11-17.79; p = 0.001), while other results showed no significant differences (Figure S1). Pain data revealed that BoNTA had a significant decrease in pain compared with BCG (SMD = 1.39, 95 % CI 0.61–2.61; p < 0.001). However, these results are of very low reliability as they were reported by only one study (Figure S2).
Urinary frequency data showed that the treatment effect of PPS was significantly lower than that of placebo control (SMD = 1.91, 95 % CI 1.17–2.66; p < 0.001); BoNTA treatment was significantly superior to BCG intervention (SMD = 3.49; 95 % CI 2.37-4.62; p < 0.001), whereas no other significant comparisons were possible (Figure S3). Urinary urgency data showed that BCG treatment was significantly superior to that of placebo control (SMD = −0.59, 95 % CI −1.09–0.08; p = 0.024); PPS treatment was also superior to placebo control (SMD = −0.78, 95 % CI −1.42–0.14; p = 0.016). Additionally, BoNTA had a better treatment effect compared with BCG intervention (SMD = 2.40, 95 % CI 1.48–3.32; p < 0.001; Figure S4). Bladder capacity restoration results showed that the BoNTA group showed significant improvement compared with placebo-treated control patients (SMD = 0.53, 95 % CI 0.14–0.92; p = 0.007; Figure S5).
Discussion
This updated network meta-analysis included 16 RCTs evaluating intravesical interventions in adult patients with IC/PBS. The findings of the current meta-analysis suggested that:
-
1.
BoNTA has the highest probability of being the best therapy for improving GRA assessment and significantly ameliorates bladder capacity in IC/PBS patients
-
2.
BCG treatment significantly improves GRA results and symptoms of urinary urgency
-
3.
PPS significantly improves urinary frequency and urgency symptoms in IC/PBS patients
In this research, network meta-analysis was used to assess the therapeutic effects of different medicines in IC/PBS patients for the first time.
In a previous meta-analysis, Dawson and Jamison considered BCG and oxybutynin to be well-tolerated and promising for the intravesical treatment of IC/PBS, whereas RTX, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), and PPS showed no evident effects for most outcomes [2]. Tirumuru et al. suggested that BoNTA might show a trend toward short-term benefit on urodynamic parameters based on RCTs [6]. Giannantoni et al. proposed a comprehensive IC/PBS treatment strategy, such as oral medication, intravesical instillations, and combined treatment, but the results obtained had high heterogeneity, with uncertain conclusions [14]. Matsuoka et al. suggested that BCG therapy could improve most symptoms, but not 24-h urinary frequency [12]. Moreover, Guo et al. considered that RTX could significantly reduce bladder pain, but not improve urinary frequency [13]. According to Dawson and Jamison, DMSO instillations show a non-increase in cystometric capacity, with limited evidence [2]. A recent systematic review based on RCTs still did not clearly indicate the best approach for IC/PBS treatment [43]. Overall, the greatest obstacle in improving IC/PBS treatment stems from the various interventions and diverse outcome assessments, which make results inconsistent. Therefore, an update of these systematic reviews is needed to define the comparison among intravesical treatments.
In this study, the intervention method of the RCTs included was restricted to intravesical instillation treatment because it is widely used as the first line of treatment in IC/PBS patients [44]. We excluded non-RCTs with a high design bias, to increase the reliability of our research, because the treatment and outcome records of IC/PBS are subject to high subjectivity, especially pain and urgency records. We also updated the trials included to incorporate the most recently published review [8], and comparatively analyzed various intravesical treatments by network meta-analysis. However, Peeker et al.’s RCT comparing DMSO and BCG was finally excluded from both network and traditional meta-analyses in this study. Indeed, inclusion criteria in the network meta-analysis mainly focused on overall response, whereas outcome data in the above study were unavailable. Meanwhile, in the traditional meta-analysis, only one high-quality RCT was available, and it could not be taken into account. Moreover, DMSO through intravesical instillation was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the treatment of IC [46], indicating that there is less controversy over this compound.
This review did not assess oral medications for IC/PBS treatment, mainly because oral medicines include analgesics, hormones, and antidepressants. These drugs can alleviate symptoms; for example, oral PPS showed a relatively positive response in treating pain and urgency symptoms [14]. However, oral medications have limited efficiency, and are usually associated with high rates of side effects, especially oral antidepressants and hormones [13]. Surgery is another option in the treatment of IC/PBS, but is generally utilized when more conservative treatments are not effective. The empirical medicines used in intravesical treatment include local anesthetics (e.g., lidocaine), bladder glycosaminoglycan (GAG) layer repair agent (e.g., heparin, sodium hyaluronate, and CS), anti-inflammatory agents and free radical scavengers (e.g., DMSO), substance P agonists (e.g., RTX), and acetylcholine release inhibitors (e.g., BoNTA). Despite the variety of medicines for IC/PBS treatment, no widely accepted effective treatment is available. In the current network meta-analysis, BoNTA was relatively the best intravesical medicine for IC/PBS with regard to overall treatment response. PPS ranked second highest in the probability of being the best therapy (8.7 %) in this network meta-analysis and lidocaine had the third highest possibility (6.8 %).
In the above traditional meta-analysis, BoNTA, which is extracted from botulinum toxin, significantly improved the GRA of IC/PBS patients compared with placebo. Because of its high molecular weight, BoNTA is limited in the ability to cross the urothelium and reach the suburothelial nervous plexus and bladder smooth muscles; therefore, intravesical instillation has not been applied for routine delivery of BoNTA [47]. According to Gao and Liao [48], combination therapy with intravesical BoNTA injection and hydrodistention plus Cystistat instillation is effective for treating IC/PBS. Additionally, significant improvements in VAS, interstitial cystitis symptom indexes, and frequency were previously reported [49]. Therefore, the intravesical injection of BoNTA is the most effective known treatment for IC/PBS. Bladder capacity was also significantly improved after BoNTA treatment. However, BoNTA showed no treatment advantages with regard to pain, urinary frequency, and urgency results. In one trial, BoNTA showed a significant treatment effect on pain, urinary frequency, and urgency compared with BCG, but these findings require further research for confirmation [45]. The mechanism of BCG in IC/PBS treatment remains unclear though it may be related to local immune system impairment [28]. As shown above, BCG significantly improved GRA and urinary urgency in IC/PBS patients. Other intravesical instillation medicines showed no improvements in GRA. PPS, a heparin-like sulfated polysaccharide, was also approved by the FDA as an oral medicine in IC/PBS treatment [22]. However, PPS by intravesical instillation only showed a therapeutic effect on urinary urgency in this study.
The limitations of this study should be mentioned. First, we had no specific data regarding individuals for any of the trials included; thus, statistical analysis could only be performed for each study. Second, the number of RCTs using a single medicine was limited, which may reduce the reliability of the meta-analysis. Third, heterogeneity in pain outcome was found among the studies included, which may be attributed to the non-standardization of pain assessment. Finally, we were not able to use subgroup analysis and meta-regression to reduce the observed heterogeneity because of the limited number of RCTs assessing single medicines. Therefore, unifying outcome standards is very important in further research.
In conclusion, BoNTA has the highest probability of being the best therapy for IC/PBS according GRA assessment results, and can significantly improve bladder capacity recovery. BCG treatment can also significantly improve GRA incidence and urinary urgency, and PPS can significantly improve urinary frequency and urgency symptoms in IC/PBS patients. Further research would benefit not only from more well-designed RCTs, but also from studies focusing on the pathogenesis and therapeutic mechanisms of IC/PBS to further improve understanding of the disease and its treatments.
References
Lee CL, Kuo HC (2015) Long-term efficacy and safety of repeated intravesical onabotulinumtoxinA injections plus hydrodistention in the treatment of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome. Toxins (Basel) 7(10):4283–4293. doi:10.3390/toxins7104283
Dawson TE, Jamison J (2007) Intravesical treatments for painful bladder syndrome/interstitial cystitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD006113. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006113.pub2
Offiah I, McMahon SB, O’Reilly BA (2013) Interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome: diagnosis and management. Int Urogynecol J 24(8):1243–1256. doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2057-3
Lv YS, Zhou HL, Mao HP, Gao R, Wang YD, Xue XY (2012) Intravesical hyaluronic acid and alkalinized lidocaine for the treatment of severe painful bladder syndrome/interstitial cystitis. Int Urogynecol J 23(12):1715–1720. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-1802-3
Davis EL, El Khoudary SR, Talbott EO, Davis J, Regan LJ (2008) Safety and efficacy of the use of intravesical and oral pentosan polysulfate sodium for interstitial cystitis: a randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Urol 179(1):177–185. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.170
Tirumuru S, Al-Kurdi D, Latthe P (2010) Intravesical botulinum toxin A injections in the treatment of painful bladder syndrome/interstitial cystitis: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J 21(10):1285–1300. doi:10.1007/s00192-010-1162-9
Nickel JC, Hanno P, Kumar K, Thomas H (2012) Second multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group evaluation of effectiveness and safety of intravesical sodium chondroitin sulfate compared with inactive vehicle control in subjects with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome. Urology 79(6):1220–1224. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2012.01.059
Kuo HC, Jiang YH, Tsai YC, Kuo YC (2015) Intravesical botulinum toxin-A injections reduce bladder pain of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome refractory to conventional treatment—a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Neurourol Urodyn 35(5):609–614. doi:10.1002/nau.22760
Kuo HC, Liu HT, Yang WC (2006) Therapeutic effect of multiple resiniferatoxin intravesical instillations in patients with refractory detrusor overactivity: a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study. J Urol 176(2):641–645. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.03.087
Ham BK, Kim JH, Oh MM, Lee JG, Bae JH (2012) Effects of combination treatment of intravesical resiniferatoxin instillation and hydrodistention in patients with refractory painful bladder syndrome/interstitial cystitis: a pilot study. Int Neurourol J 16(1):41–46. doi:10.5213/inj.2012.16.1.41
Martin E, Sheaves C, Childers K (2015) Underlying mechanisms and optimal treatment for interstitial cystitis: a brief overview. Urol Nurs 35(3):111–116
Matsuoka PK, Haddad JM, Pacetta AM, Baracat EC (2012) Intravesical treatment of painful bladder syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J 23(9):1147–1153. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-1686-2
Guo C, Yang B, Gu W, Peng B, Xia S, Yang F, Wen D, Geng J, Zhang Y, Zheng J (2013) Intravesical resiniferatoxin for the treatment of storage lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with either interstitial cystitis or detrusor overactivity: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 8(12):e82591. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082591
Giannantoni A, Bini V, Dmochowski R, Hanno P, Nickel JC, Proietti S, Wyndaele JJ (2012) Contemporary management of the painful bladder: a systematic review. Eur Urol 61(1):29–53. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.07.069
Barua JM, Arance I, Angulo JC, Riedl CR (2015) A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of intravesical therapy for bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis. Int Urogynecol J. doi:10.1007/s00192-015-2890-7
Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S (2013) Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One 8(12):e83138. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083138
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928
White IR, Barrett JK, Jackson D, Higgins JP (2012) Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. Res Synth Method 3(2):111–125. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1045
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Xu S, Liu H, Xie Y, Sang L, Liu J, Chen B (2015) Effect of mesenchymal stromal cells for articular cartilage degeneration treatment: a meta-analysis. Cytotherapy 17(10):1342–1352. doi:10.1016/j.jcyt.2015.05.005
Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD (1997) The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 50(6):683–691
Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ (2011) Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ 342:d549. doi:10.1136/bmj.d549
Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G (2013) Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One 8(10):e76654. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076654
Li D, Wang T, Shen S, Cheng S, Yu J, Zhang Y, Zhang C, Tang H (2015) Effects of fluroquinolones in newly diagnosed, sputum-positive tuberculosis therapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS One 10(12):e0145066. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0145066
Trinquart L, Chatellier G, Ravaud P (2012) Adjustment for reporting bias in network meta-analysis of antidepressant trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 12:150. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-150
Kuo HC, Chancellor MB (2009) Comparison of intravesical botulinum toxin type A injections plus hydrodistention with hydrodistention alone for the treatment of refractory interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome. BJU Int 104(5):657–661. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08495.x
Parsons CL, Zupkas P, Proctor J, Koziol J, Franklin A, Giesing D, Davis E, Lakin CM, Kahn BS, Garner WJ (2012) Alkalinized lidocaine and heparin provide immediate relief of pain and urgency in patients with interstitial cystitis. J Sex Med 9(1):207–212. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02542.x
Peeker R, Haghsheno MA, Holmang S, Fall M (2000) Intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin and dimethyl sulfoxide for treatment of classic and nonulcer interstitial cystitis: a prospective, randomized double-blind study. J Urol 164(6):1912–1916
Lazzeri M, Beneforti P, Spinelli M, Zanollo A, Barbagli G, Turini D (2000) Intravesical resiniferatoxin for the treatment of hypersensitive disorder: a randomized placebo controlled study. J Urol 164(3 Pt 1):676–679
Rios LA, Panhoca R, Mattos D Jr, Srugi M, Bruschini H (2007) Intravesical resiniferatoxin for the treatment of women with idiopathic detrusor overactivity and urgency incontinence: a single dose, 4 weeks, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial. Neurourol Urodyn 26(6):773–778. doi:10.1002/nau.20300
Barbalias GA, Liatsikos EN, Athanasopoulos A, Nikiforidis G (2000) Interstitial cystitis: bladder training with intravesical oxybutynin. J Urol 163(6):1818–1822
Peters K, Diokno A, Steinert B, Yuhico M, Mitchell B, Krohta S, Gillette B, Gonzalez J (1997) The efficacy of intravesical Tice strain bacillus Calmette-Guerin in the treatment of interstitial cystitis: a double-blind, prospective, placebo controlled trial. J Urol 157(6):2090–2094
Mayer R, Propert KJ, Peters KM et al (2005) A randomized controlled trial of intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin for treatment refractory interstitial cystitis. J Urol 173(4):1186–1191. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000152337.82806.e8
Irani D, Heidari M, Khezri AA (2004) The efficacy and safety of intravesical Bacillus-Calmette-Guerin in the treatment of female patients with interstitial cystitis: a double-blinded prospective placebo controlled study. Urol J 1(2):90–93
Propert KJ, Mayer R, Nickel JC et al (2008) Followup of patients with interstitial cystitis responsive to treatment with intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guerin or placebo. J Urol 179(2):552–555. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.035
Gottsch HP, Miller JL, Yang CC, Berger RE (2011) A pilot study of botulinum toxin for interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome. Neurourol Urodyn 30(1):93–96. doi:10.1002/nau.20946
Manning J, Dwyer P, Rosamilia A, Colyvas K, Murray C, Fitzgerald E (2014) A multicentre, prospective, randomised, double-blind study to measure the treatment effectiveness of abobotulinum A (AboBTXA) among women with refractory interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome. Int Urogynecol J 25(5):593–599. doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2267-8
Chen TY, Corcos J, Camel M, Ponsot Y, le Tu M (2005) Prospective, randomized, double-blind study of safety and tolerability of intravesical resiniferatoxin (RTX) in interstitial cystitis (IC). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16(4):293–297. doi:10.1007/s00192-005-1307-4
Payne CK, Mosbaugh PG, Forrest JB et al (2005) Intravesical resiniferatoxin for the treatment of interstitial cystitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. J Urol 173(5):1590–1594. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000154631.92150.ef
Nickel JC, Egerdie RB, Steinhoff G, Palmer B, Hanno P (2010) A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group pilot evaluation of the efficacy and safety of intravesical sodium chondroitin sulfate versus vehicle control in patients with interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome. Urology 76(4):804–809. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.03.016
Bade JJ, Laseur M, Nieuwenburg A, van der Weele LT, Mensink HJ (1997) A placebo-controlled study of intravesical pentosanpolysulphate for the treatment of interstitial cystitis. Br J Urol 79(2):168–171
Nickel JC, Moldwin R, Lee S, Davis EL, Henry RA, Wyllie MG (2009) Intravesical alkalinized lidocaine (PSD597) offers sustained relief from symptoms of interstitial cystitis and painful bladder syndrome. BJU Int 103(7):910–918. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08162.x
Pazin C, de Souza Mitidieri AM, Silva AP, Gurian MB, Poli-Neto OB, Rosa-E-Silva JC (2016) Treatment of bladder pain syndrome and interstitial cystitis: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J 27(5):697–708. doi:10.1007/s00192-015-2815-5
Toft BR, Nordling J (2006) Recent developments of intravesical therapy of painful bladder syndrome/interstitial cystitis: a review. Curr Opin Urol 16(4):268–272. doi:10.1097/01.mou.0000232048.81965.16
El-Bahnasy A, Farahat Y, El-Bendary M, Taha M, El-Damhogy M, Mourad S (2009) A randomized controlled trial of bacillus Calmette-Guerin and botulinum toxin-A for the treatment of refractory interstitial cystitis. UroToday Int J. doi:10.3834/uij.1944-5784.2008.12.06
Parkin J, Shea C, Sant GR (1997) Intravesical dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) for interstitial cystitis—a practical approach. Urology 49(5):105–107. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00181-7
Krhut J, Zvara P (2011) Intravesical instillation of botulinum toxin A: an in vivo murine study and pilot clinical trial. Int Urol Nephrol 43(2):337–343. doi:10.1007/s11255-010-9790-z
Gao Y, Liao L (2015) Intravesical injection of botulinum toxin A for treatment of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome: 10 years of experience at a single center in China. Int Urogynecol J 26(7):1021–1026. doi:10.1007/s00192-015-2631-y
Shim SR, Cho YJ, Shin IS et al (2016) Efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin injection for interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol. doi:10.1007/s11255-016-1295-y
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
None.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(PDF 718 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, W., Deng, X., Liu, C. et al. Intravesical treatment for interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome: a network meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J 28, 515–525 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3079-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3079-4