The Application of Uro-vaxom(R), Urinary Tract Immunostimulator in the Treatment of Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome.
- Author:
Sung Jae PARK
1
;
Dong One BYUN
;
Bong Suk SHIM
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea. bonstone@ewha.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Prostatitis;
Uro-vaxom(R);
Immunostimulator
- MeSH:
Academies and Institutes;
Anti-Bacterial Agents;
Breakfast;
Humans;
Immune System;
Levofloxacin;
Pelvic Pain*;
Prostatitis;
Urinary Tract Infections;
Urinary Tract*
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
2005;46(8):810-814
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
Purpose: There are a variety of techniques for treating chronic prostatitis. Regardless of the presence of infections, antibiotics were arbitrarily prescribed for 4-12 weeks, but there seemed to be ongoing debate of their effectiveness and side effects. Uro-vaxom(R) is known as an effective treatment for urinary tract infection due to its initiation the urothelial immune system activity. This study was performed to investigate for the possibility of Uro-vaxom(R) as a drug for use in non-inflammatory chronic prostatitis. Materials and Methods: 95 patients, diagnosed as chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) (National Institutes of Health (NIH)-category IIIB), were divided into three groups: group A, 35 patients were given levofloxacin 100mg TID and Uro-vaxom(R) 60mg OD for the first 4 weeks, followed by only Uro-vaxom(R) 60mg OD for the next 8 weeks; group B, 30 patients were given only Uro-vaxom(R) 60mg OD before breakfast for 12 weeks; group C, the patients were treated with levofloxacin 100mg TID for 4 weeks. All the patients were reevaluated 4 weeks and 12 weeks later. Results: The initial diagnostic stati, the NIH-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (CPSI) were 25.1+/-2.7, 24.4+/-3.2 and 24.7+/-2.2 for groups A, B and C, respectively. In groups A and B, the NIH-CPSI after 12 weeks were 13.5 2.3 and 13.9+/-2.7, respectively, and showed noticeable improvements (p<0.05). In group C, the NIH-CPSI was 15.7+/-3.4, which was less improved compared to groups A and B (p>0.05). No patients experienced any adverse symptoms due to Uro-vaxom(R) intake. Conclusions: Uro-vaxom(R) could be appointed as an alternative method for the treatment of chronic prostatitis.
