Clinical study of duloxetine hydrochloride combined with doxazosin for the treatment of pain disorder in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To explore the safety and efficacy of the selective 5-serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine hydrochloride and alpha-adrenergic receptor blocker (alpha-blocker) doxazosin mesylate-controlled tablets in the treatment of pain disorder in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS).In all, 150 patients were enrolled and 126 patients completed the study (41 patients in the doxazosin group, 41 patients in the sertraline group, and 44 patients in the duloxetine group). This was an open randomized 6-month study. CP/CPPS patients who met the diagnostic criteria were randomized into 3 groups. The patients in the duloxetine group received doxazosin 4 mg + duloxetine 30 mg once a day, and the dosage of duloxetine was increased to 60 mg after a week. The patients in the doxazosin group received doxazosin 4 mg once a day. The patients in the sertraline group received doxazosin 4 mg + sertraline 50 mg once a day. National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score, the short-form McGill Pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), and the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HAD) were applied for evaluations during follow-up of 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment.There were slight positive significant correlations between NIH-CPSI scores and HAD scores, moderate positive significant correlations between the quality of life (QOL) and SF-MPQ, and slight positive significant correlations between HAD and QOL. The effective rate in the doxazosin group was 4.88%, 19.51%, and 56.10% after 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively (P < 0.05). The SF-MPQ score in the doxazosin group decreased to 1.80 ± 1.29, 2.66 ± 1.57, and 3.24 ± 1.67 after 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively (P < 0.05). The HAD score in the doxazosin group decreased to 2.24 ± 2.17, 4 ± 2.11, and 4.90 ± 2.62 after 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively (P < 0.05). The effective rate in the sertraline group was 9.76%, 36.59%, and 63.41% after 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. The SF-MPQ score in the sertraline group decreased to 1.76 ± 1.28, 3.07 ± 2, and 3.93 ± 2.53 after 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively (P < 0.05). The HAD score in the sertraline group decreased to 3.56 ± 4.11, 5.73 ± 5.26, and 7.27 ± 6.50 after 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively (P < 0.05). The effective rate in the duloxetine group was 36.36%, 88.64%, and 88.64% after 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. The SF-MPQ score in the duloxetine group decreased to 3.61 ± 2.54, 6.05 ± 3.66, and 7.41 ± 4.26 after 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively (P < 0.05). The HAD score in the duloxetine group decreased to 3.14 ± 3.28, 6.93 ± 3.90, and 9.43 ± 4.67 after 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in the reduction of the NIH-CPSI score and the SF-MPQ score between the duloxetine group and the sertraline group and between the duloxetine group and the doxazosin group (P < 0.01). There were significant differences in the reduction of the HAD score at 3 months between the duloxetine group and the doxazosin group, and there were significant differences in the reduction of the HAD score at 6 months among the groups (P < 0.05). The incidence rates of adverse reactions in the duloxetine group, the sertraline group, and the duloxetine group were 29.5%, 17%, and 7.3%, respectively, with adverse events ranging from mild to moderate.There was a clear relationship between the extent of pain and mental factors in CP/CPPS with the main symptom of pain. Doxazosin combined with duloxetine exhibited good safety and efficacy in the treatment of pain disorder in CP/CPPS.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».