The efficacy of a suppository based on Phenolmicin P3 and Bosexil (Mictalase®) in control of irritative symptoms in patients undergoing thulium laser enucleation of prostate: a single-center, randomized, controlled, open label, phase III study.
BPH
Benign prostatic hyperplasia
LUTS
Laser enucleation
ThuLEP
Urinary tract infections
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Feb 2022
12 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
22
10
2021
accepted:
31
01
2022
entrez:
13
2
2022
pubmed:
14
2
2022
medline:
8
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Several studies described post-operative irritative symptoms after laser enucleation of prostate, sometimes associated with urge incontinence, probably linked to laser-induced prostatic capsule irritation, and potential for lower urinary tract infections We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a suppository based on Phenolmicin P3 and Bosexil (Mictalase®) in control of irritative symptoms in patients undergoing thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP). In this single-center, prospective, randomized, open label, phase-III study, patients with indication to ThuLEP were enrolled (Dec2019-Feb2021-Institutional ethics committee STS CE Lazio approval no.1/N-726-ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05130918). The report conformed to CONSORT 2010 guidelines. Eligible patients were 1:1 randomized. Randomization defined Group A: patients who were administered Mictalase® suppositories twice a day for 5 days, then once a day for other 10 days; Group B: patients who did not receive Mictalase® ("controls"). Study endpoints were evaluated at 15 and 30 days postoperation. Primary endpoint included evaluation of effects of the suppository on irritative symptoms by administering IPSS + QoL questionnaire. Secondary endpoint included evaluation of effects on urinary tract infections by performance of urinalysis with urine culture. 111 patients were randomized: 56 in Group A received Mictalase®. Baseline and perioperative data were comparable. At 15-days, no significant differences were found in terms of IPSS + QoL scores and urinalysis parameters. A significant difference in the rate of positive urine cultures favored Group A (p = 0.04). At 30-days follow-up, significant differences were found in median IPSS score (6 [IQR 3-11] versus 10 [5-13], Group A vs B, respectively, p = 0.02). Urinalysis parameters and rate of positive urine cultures were not significantly different. The present randomized trial investigated the efficacy of Mictalase® in control of irritative symptoms and prevention of lower urinary tract infections in patients undergoing ThuLEP. IPSS improvement 30-days postoperation was more pronounced in patients who received Mictalase®. Lower rate of positive urine culture favored Mictalase® group 15-days postoperatively. The clinical trial has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on November 23rd, 2021-Registration number NCT05130918.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Several studies described post-operative irritative symptoms after laser enucleation of prostate, sometimes associated with urge incontinence, probably linked to laser-induced prostatic capsule irritation, and potential for lower urinary tract infections We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a suppository based on Phenolmicin P3 and Bosexil (Mictalase®) in control of irritative symptoms in patients undergoing thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP).
METHODS
METHODS
In this single-center, prospective, randomized, open label, phase-III study, patients with indication to ThuLEP were enrolled (Dec2019-Feb2021-Institutional ethics committee STS CE Lazio approval no.1/N-726-ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05130918). The report conformed to CONSORT 2010 guidelines. Eligible patients were 1:1 randomized. Randomization defined Group A: patients who were administered Mictalase® suppositories twice a day for 5 days, then once a day for other 10 days; Group B: patients who did not receive Mictalase® ("controls"). Study endpoints were evaluated at 15 and 30 days postoperation. Primary endpoint included evaluation of effects of the suppository on irritative symptoms by administering IPSS + QoL questionnaire. Secondary endpoint included evaluation of effects on urinary tract infections by performance of urinalysis with urine culture.
RESULTS
RESULTS
111 patients were randomized: 56 in Group A received Mictalase®. Baseline and perioperative data were comparable. At 15-days, no significant differences were found in terms of IPSS + QoL scores and urinalysis parameters. A significant difference in the rate of positive urine cultures favored Group A (p = 0.04). At 30-days follow-up, significant differences were found in median IPSS score (6 [IQR 3-11] versus 10 [5-13], Group A vs B, respectively, p = 0.02). Urinalysis parameters and rate of positive urine cultures were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The present randomized trial investigated the efficacy of Mictalase® in control of irritative symptoms and prevention of lower urinary tract infections in patients undergoing ThuLEP. IPSS improvement 30-days postoperation was more pronounced in patients who received Mictalase®. Lower rate of positive urine culture favored Mictalase® group 15-days postoperatively.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
The clinical trial has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on November 23rd, 2021-Registration number NCT05130918.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35151280
doi: 10.1186/s12894-022-00974-0
pii: 10.1186/s12894-022-00974-0
pmc: PMC8840549
doi:
Substances chimiques
Suppositories
0
Urological Agents
0
Thulium
8RKC5ATI4P
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT05130918']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
19Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
World J Urol. 2014 Dec;32(6):1551-8
pubmed: 24531878
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Dec;97(51):e13360
pubmed: 30572440
Lancet. 1991 Aug 24;338(8765):469-71
pubmed: 1714529
Nature. 2012 Oct 11;490(7419):187-91
pubmed: 23060188
J Clin Microbiol. 1979 May;9(5):596-7
pubmed: 383746
Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 May;50(5):1790-5
pubmed: 22425940
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Urologiia. 2011 Jul-Aug;(4):55, 57-60
pubmed: 22066244
World J Urol. 2014 Feb;32(1):131-6
pubmed: 23504074
Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2017 Oct;69(5):446-458
pubmed: 28150483
JAMA. 2001 Apr 18;285(15):1987-91
pubmed: 11308435
J Urol. 2021 Jun;205(6):1748-1754
pubmed: 33560163
Rev Urol. 2005;7 Suppl 9:S3-S14
pubmed: 16985902
Br J Pharmacol. 2011 Jan;162(1):147-62
pubmed: 20840544
World J Urol. 2016 Sep;34(9):1207-19
pubmed: 26699627
Am J Med. 2008 May;121(5):444-9
pubmed: 18456041
World J Urol. 2020 Jun;38(6):1555-1562
pubmed: 31502032
Phytother Res. 2007 May;21(5):452-6
pubmed: 17262890
Curr Med Chem. 2006;13(28):3359-69
pubmed: 17168710
Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020 Jan 14;91(4):251-255
pubmed: 31937091
World J Urol. 2016 Oct;34(10):1353-5
pubmed: 27585786
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 07;11(6):e0157097
pubmed: 27272728
Eur Urol. 2013 Jul;64(1):118-40
pubmed: 23541338
Urologiia. 2013 Mar-Apr;(2):83-4, 86-7
pubmed: 23789370
Eur Urol. 2006 Sep;50(3):563-8
pubmed: 16713070
Actas Urol Esp. 2017 Jun;41(5):309-315
pubmed: 28062085
World J Urol. 2021 May 22;:
pubmed: 34021778
Eur Urol. 2008 Mar;53(3):599-604
pubmed: 17997021
J Clin Med. 2020 May 10;9(5):
pubmed: 32397634