Failure of a monotherapy strategy for difficult chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome.

PURPOSE: We determined the effect of a best evidence based monotherapeutic strategy for patients diagnosed with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) referred to a specialized prostatitis clinic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with CP/CPPS referred by urologists after failure of prescribed therapy for evaluation and treatment at Queen's University prostatitis research clinic were extensively evaluated, aggressively treated following a standardized treatment algorithm and followed for 1 year using a validated prostatitis specific symptom and quality of life instrument, the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI). All patients underwent a standardized protocol for CP/CPPS including a history, physical examination, standard 4-glass test, plus urethral swab and semen for microscopy and culture, uroflowmetry and residual urine determination. Treatment followed a best evidence based strategy with a standardized monotherapy based algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 100 consecutive patients with CP/CPPS (average age 42.2 years, range 20 to 70 and average symptom duration 6.5 years, range 0.5 to 39) had 1-year followup after initial evaluation. Patients were prescribed treatment based on documentation of "failed," "successful" and "never tried" therapies based on a standardized treatment algorithm. Patients treated successfully were continued on the prescribed therapy, while therapy was discontinued and new therapy instituted (based on algorithm) in those in whom the initially prescribed therapy failed. At 1 year there was a statistically significant decrease in total NIH-CPSI (23.3 to 19.5, p = 0.0004), pain (11.0 to 9.4, p = 0.03) and quality of life (7.7 to 6.1, p <0.001), but not voiding (4.6 to 4.0, p = 0.12). A perceptible 25% decrease in total NIH-CPSI symptom score was noted in 37% and the greatest improvement was in the quality of life domain (43% of patients had greater than 25% improvement in quality of life). Of the patients 35% had a significant decrease of greater than 6 points in total NIH-CPSI. A clear, clinically significant improvement in total NIH-CPSI (greater than 50% decrease) was noted in 19%. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately a third of patients with treatment refractory CP/CPPS undergoing extensive evaluation and therapy based on a sequential monotherapy treatment strategy in a specialized prostatitis clinic had at least modest improvement in symptoms during 1 year. This study confirms that a treatment strategy based on the sequential application of monotherapies for patients with a long history of severe CP/CPPS remains relatively poor.

Treatment of phimosis with topical steroids in 194 children.

PURPOSE: Topical steroids have been advocated as an effective economical alternative to circumcision in boys with phimosis. We evaluated the effectiveness of topical steroid therapy as primary treatment in 194 patients with phimosis. METHODS: Between January 1996 and November 2000, 228 boys 16 years old or younger were referred for consideration of circumcision. When intervention was determined to be necessary, a 6-week course of topical steroids was used as primary treatment. Efficacy of treatment was evaluated at 3 months from initiation of therapy. RESULTS: Of the 228 patients 15 had such a mild degree of phimosis that no intervention was believed to be necessary, 19 were scheduled directly for circumcision due to cosmetic reasons, parent wishes, or severe phimosis with associated voiding problems and the remaining 194 received topical steroids as primary treatment. Of these 194 patients 25 had coexisting balanitis and 4 had a history of urinary tract infection. Conservative treatment was successful in 87%, 88% and 75% of patients with phimosis alone, coexisting balanitis and history of urinary tract infection, respectively. Overall, circumcision was avoided in 87% of patients treated with topical steroids. CONCLUSION: Topical steroids are becoming the standard conservative measure for treating phimosis. Our study supports this trend, with an overall efficacy of 87%.

The patient with chronic epididymitis: characterization of an enigmatic syndrome.

PURPOSE: We provide a baseline description of men diagnosed with chronic epididymitis, explore relevant associations that may be important etiological factors and suggest a classification system and specific symptom assessment tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men diagnosed with chronic epididymitis, described as symptoms of discomfort or pain at least 3 months in duration in the scrotum, testicle or epididymis localized to 1 or each epididymis on clinical examination, completed an extensive specific clinical inventory questionnaire. Evaluation included demographics, preceding and concurrent clinical history, duration since diagnosis, associated and previous clinical associations, frequency and severity of prostatitis, voiding and sexual symptoms, specific and general quality of life, and history of investigation and/or treatment for the condition. Volunteers with no past or concurrent history of chronic epididymitis completed similar clinical inventory questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 50 consecutive men 21 to 83 years old (average age 46) diagnosed with chronic epididymitis who had an average symptom duration of 4.9 years (range 0.25 to 29) were enrolled in the study. The average pain score plus or minus standard deviation was 4.7 +/- 2.1 (range 0 to 10). Of the men 16% were reasonably satisfied with their quality of life. Although 66% of the patients thought about the symptoms some or a lot, in only 30% did symptoms keep them from doing the kinds of things that they would usually do. The most common previous therapies recollected by the patients were antibiotics (74%) and anti-inflammatory agents (36%). At the time of the survey 26% of the men were on some type of pain medication. There were no significant epidemiological, sexual, medical or associated factors that differentiated patients with chronic epididymitis from the 20 controls. A chronic epididymitis classification system (inflammatory, obstructive and epididymalgia) and a symptom assessment index based on assessing pain and quality of life-impact was developed. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive clinical survey of men diagnosed with chronic epididymitis is the first step for defining and characterizing this particular population. Development of a classification system and symptom assessment index may direct further studies in the etiology, epidemiology and management of chronic epididymitis.