Clinical study of duloxetine hydrochloride combined with doxazosin for the treatment of pain disorder in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".