Effect of Amitriptyline on Symptoms in Treatment Naïve Patients With Interstitial Cystitis/Painful Bladder Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Amitriptyline is frequently used to treat patients with interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome. The evidence to support this practice is derived mainly from a small, single site clinical trial and case reports. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial of amitriptyline in subjects with interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome who were naïve to therapy. Study participants in both treatment arms received a standardized education and behavioral modification program. The drug dose was increased during a 6-week period from 10 up to 75 mg once daily. The primary outcome was a patient reported global response assessment of symptom improvement evaluated after 12 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 271 subjects were randomized and 231 (85%) provided a global response assessment at 12 weeks of followup. Study participants were primarily women (83%) and white (74%), with a median age of 38 years. In an intent to treat analysis (271) the rate of response of subjects reporting moderate or marked improvement from baseline in the amitriptyline and placebo groups was 55% and 45%, respectively (p = 0.12). Of the subgroup of subjects (207) who achieved a drug dose of at least 50 mg, a significantly higher response rate was observed in the amitriptyline group (66%) compared to placebo (47%) (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: When all randomized subjects were considered, amitriptyline plus an education and behavioral modification program did not significantly improve symptoms in treatment naïve patients with interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome. However, amitriptyline may be beneficial in persons who can achieve a daily dose of 50 mg or greater, although this subgroup comparison was not specified in advance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".