Skip to main content
Canadian Urological Association Journal logoLink to Canadian Urological Association Journal
. 2011 Apr;5(2):113–118. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.10095

Long-term efficacy and tolerability of pentosan polysulphate sodium in the treatment of bladder pain syndrome

Ali A Al-Zahrani 1, Jerzy B Gajewski 1,
PMCID: PMC3104432  PMID: 21470538

Abstract

Objective:

The primary objective of this study is to report on the long-term efficacy and tolerability of pentosan polysulphate sodium (PPS) in patients with bladder pain syndrome (BPS). The secondary objective is to find the predictors of the long-term outcome.

Methods:

This is a single institution, retrospective study. The study period was from 1994 to 2008. All patients fulfilled the clinical criteria of BPS, as suggested by European Society for the Study of Interstitial Cystitis. We included only patients with de novo BPS diagnosis and no previous PPS or other treatment. The efficacy of PPS was measured with the global response assessment scale (GRA). Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on the duration of the treatment. Group 1 took the drug for less than 12 months. Group 2 took the drug for more than 12 months.

Results:

There were 271 patients eligible for the study. Most of the patients were female (90%), with the mean age at presentation of 45.5 years. The average duration of symptoms was 28.5 months. The mean follow-up was 22 months (range 3–130). Out of all the patients, 147 patients (54.2%) reported over 50% improvement using the GRA. The reported efficacy was higher in Group 2 (60%). Ninety-three patients (34.3%) decided to stop taking the medication for various reasons. The most common reasons to stop the medication were poor outcome (16.6% of patients) and side effects (11.1% of patients). Poor outcome was associated with nocturia, smoking and detrusor overactivity. Good outcome was associated with longer PPS intake (>12 months) and severe cystoscopic findings of glomerulation.

Conclusion:

Pentosan polysulphate sodium is an effective oral therapy to control the symptoms of BPS with good long-term efficacy and tolerability.

Introduction

Bladder pain syndrome (BPS) is a chronic debilitating clinical syndrome of pain or discomfort in the pelvic area perceived to be related to the bladder. The patient should have at least one or more urinary tract symptom.1 Bladder pain syndrome mainly affects women and is much more prevalent than previously thought. In a population-based study, Curhan and colleagues estimated that 0.5% of women are affected by BPS.2 These symptoms have a profound effect on patients’ quality of life.3

The etiology of BPS is still unclear, although several theories have been proposed, including autoimmune responses, neurogenic causes and increased permeability of the bladder epithelium.4 The bladder urothelium is naturally coated with a layer of glycosaminoglycan (GAG) that has been shown to be defective in BPS patients.5 The malfunction of this layer may allow migration of urine solute transepithelially and provoke symptoms.6 Some reports, however, did not find a difference in the GAG layer between BPS and control patients.78

Oral pentosan polysulphate sodium (PPS) is approved by Health Canada and the FDA for symptoms associated with BPS. The widely accepted theory for the mechanism of action PPS is that it substitutes the deficiency in the GAG layer.9 The short-term safety and efficacy of PPS have been demonstrated by several randomized clinical trials.1011 However, long-term data are still limited. We report the long-term results and the factors that may predict the outcome of PPS in the treatment of BPS.

Methods

The study was approved by our institutional review board. This is a retrospective study for patients with a diagnosis of BPS and who took PPS from 1994 to 2008. The clinical criteria for BPS were based on International Society for the Study of Bladder Pain Syndrome (ESSIC) proposal.1

Patients were evaluated by medical history, physical examination, urine culture, urodynamic study and cystoscopic examination. Patients were interviewed at the clinic and their symptoms were recorded before starting the therapy. All patients had pelvic pain or pressure perceived to be related to bladder filling. All patients had cystoscopic examination with hydrodistention under general anaesthesia to exclude confusable disease and to grade the severity of the disease.1 Nordling and colleagues described the cystoscopic classification of the disease severity.12 Grades I and II were considered mild in severity, while grades III and IV were labelled as severe disease.

The criteria for bladder outlet obstruction during the urodynamic study were based on the obstruction coefficient value above 0.35 in females13 and the bladder outlet obstruction index above 40 in males.14

In this study, only patients with de novo PPS prescription were enrolled. All patients were followed at 3, 6 and 12 months after the diagnosis and yearly thereafter except if clinically indicated. Only patients with a minimum follow-up of 3 months were included. All patients were instructed to follow the BPS diet.15

The criteria of clinical success were based on the global response assessment (GRA) scale of 6 items: worsening of symptoms (less than 0%), no change (0%), mild improvement (less than 50%), moderate improvement (50%–75%), marked improvement (more than 75%) and completely cured (100%).10 Adverse events during follow-up were recorded.

Patients with urinary tract malignancy, urinary tract infection, pelvic radiation therapy, chemotherapy, urogenital prolapse, urethral diverticulum, endometriosis, obstetric malignancy or urinary retention were excluded from the study.1

Information on patients’ demographic factors, symptoms at presentation, urodynamic results and cystoscopic findings was included. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the duration of PPS intake: Group 1 took the drug for more than 3 months but less than 12 months; Group 2 took the drug for more than 12 months.

Statistical analysis was carried out using the commercially available software (SPSS v17, SPSS Inc., Somers, NY). Unpaired t-test for parametric variable and Mann-Whitney test for non-parametric variables were used. The categorical variables were analyzed with Chi Square test. Statistical significance was two-sided and set at p < 0.05.

Results

Based on the inclusion criteria, 271 patients were eligible for the study. Most patients were female (90%) and the mean age at presentation was 45.5 years (standard deviation [SD] ± 13.9). The average duration of symptoms was 28.5 months (range 6–120) (Table 1).

Table 1.

Patients’ demographic data

Variable Mean/number Standard deviation/percentage
Age 45.55 years ±13.9

Gender Female 244 (90%)
Male 27 (10%)

Symptoms duration 28.49 months ±25.4

All patients had chronic suprapubic pain or discomfort perceived to be related to the bladder. At least 1 other storage urinary symptom was present in the enrolled patients (Fig 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Patients presenting symptoms.

Cystoscopic examination under general anesthesia was done in all patients. Mild to moderate disease was found in 216 patients (79.7%), while the severe form was found in 55 patients (21.3%). The average maximum anesthetic bladder capacity was 659.1 mL (SD ± 147.4) (Table 2). There were no anatomical causes for the bladder outlet obstruction in the obstructed patients during the cystoscopic examination.

Table 2.

Urodynamic versus cystoscopic findings

Urodynamic variable Overall Cystoscopic findings
Glomerulation
Hunner’s lesion
N = 216 (79.7%) N = 55 (21.3%)
Maximum flow rate 13.6 mL/s (±8) 14.2 (±8.1) 11.1 (±7.8)
Voided volume 191.7 mL (147±) 207.1 (±149.7) 128.9 (±119.7)
Post void residual 60.1 mL (±92.1) 62.6 (±94.7) 50.1 (±80.9)
First sensation of bladder filling 137.5 mL (±104.7) 140.6 (±108.6) 124.7 (±86.7)
Maximum cystometric capacity 250.2 mL (±134.4) 259.4 (±134.2) 212.4 (±129.8)
Detrusor overactivity 38 (14%) 33 (15.3%) 5 (9.1%)
Bladder outlet obstruction 72 (54.9%) 59 (57.1%) 13 (51.2%)
Detrusor pressure at maximum flow rate (Pdet.Qmax.) 30.5 cm H2O (±19.4) 30.9 (±19.8) 28.63 (±17.4)
Maximum cystoscopic bladder capacity (general anesthesia) 659.1 mL (±147.4) 664.1 (±143.9) 639.7 (±159.9)

Urodynamics were available in 259 patients (95.5%). The mean free voiding volume was 191.7 mL (SD ± 147), while the mean maximum cystometric bladder capacity was 250.2 mL (SD ± 134.4). Detrusor overactivity on filling cystometry study was found in 38 patients (14%). Pressure flow study was attempted for all patients, however only 131 patients (50.5%) could void during the test. Mild to moderate bladder outlet obstruction were present in 72 patients (54.9%).

With a mean follow-up of 22 months (range 3–131), 147 patients (54.2%) reported more than 50% improvement in the GRA with PPS. There was mild improvement in additional 55 patients (20.2%). The degree of improvement was higher in patients with more than 12 months of PPS intake (60% vs. 40%); however, it was not statistically significant (p = 0.09) (Fig. 2). Ninety-three patients (34.3%) decided to stop taking the medication for various reasons (Fig. 3). The most common reason patients stopped the medication was poor response in 45 patients (16.6%). Other reasons included side effects in 30 patients (11.1%), resolution of the BPS symptoms in 11 patients (4.1%) and financial reasons in 6 patients (2.2%) (Table 3).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Grade of improvement with pentosan polysulphate sodium.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Kaplan-Meier Curve for the pentosan polysulphate sodium continuation rate.

Table 3.

Causes of pentosan polysulphate sodium discontinuation

Causes No. patients Percentage
No efficacy 45 16.6%
Side effect 30 11.1%
Remission 11 4.1%
Too Expensive 6 2.2%
Other 2 0.7%

The side effects that resulted in PPS discontinuation included stomach upset in 23 patients (8.5%), headache in 6 patients (2.2%), hair loss in 3 patients (1.1%), hypersensitivity in 3 patients (1.1%) and increase in liver enzymes in 2 patients (0.7%) (Table 4).

Table 4.

The reported side effects of pentosan polysulphate sodium therapy

Side effect No. patients Percentage
Stomach upset 22 8.1%
Headache 5 1.8%
Hair loss 3 1.1%
Hypersensitivity 3 1.1%
Elevated liver enzymes 2 0.7%
Nausea 1 0.4%
Dizziness 1 0.4%

Patients with detrusor overactivity had poorer outcome with p values of 0.037. In group 2, patients with severe disease at cystoscopy had better outcomes (p = 0.013), while patients with higher grade of nocturia had poorer outcomes (p = 0.01) (Table 5). A history of smoking affected the overall discontinuation rate. In group 1, 34.8% of patients who discontinued the PPS had a history of smoking compared to 16.1% of patients who had continued to take PPS (p = 0.01).

Table 5:

Variable Analysis of the PPS Therapy Outcome

Factor Overall (n=271)
Less than 12 months of follow up (n=160)
More than 12 months of follow up (n=111)
Good outcome Poor outcome p value Good outcome Poor outcome p value Good outcome Poor outcome p value
Symptoms
• Suprapubic pain£ 0.52 0.35 0.99
  – Mild 43 (29.3%) 31 (25%) 29 (36.3%) 22 (27.5%) 14 (20.9%) 9 (20.5%)
  – Moderate 85 (57.8%) 80 (64.5%) 43 (53.8%) 52 (65%) 42 (62.7%) 28 (63.6%)
  – Severe 19 (12.9%) 13 (10.5%) 8 (10%) 6 (7.5%) 11 (16.4%) 7 (15.9%)
• Frequency£ 0,24 0.18 0.15
  – Mild 40 (28.8%) 23 (19.5%) 22 (27.5%) 16 (20%) 18 (26.9%) 7 (15.9%)
  – Moderate 64 (46%) 48 (40.7%) 34 (42.5%) 29 (36.3%) 30 (44.8%) 19 (43.2%)
  – Severe 35 (25.2%) 47 (39.8%) 20 (25%) 30 (37.5%) 15 (22.4%) 17 (38.6%)
• Urgency£ 0.12 0.10 0.73
  – Mild 40 (29.6%) 26 (24.3%) 23 (28.8%) 15 (19.2%) 17 (25.4%) 11 (25.6%)
  – Moderate 78 (57.8%) 57 (53.3%) 43 (53.8%) 37 (47.4%) 35 (52.2%) 20 (46.5%)
  – Severe 17 (12.6%) 24 (22.4%) 8 (10.8%) 16 (20.5%) 9 (13.4%) 8 (18.6%)
• Nocturia£ 0.09 0.82 0.01
  – Mild 57 (48.7%) 40 (39.2%) 30 (37.5%) 28 (35.4%) 27 (40.3%) 12 (27.3%)
  – Moderate 38 (32.5%) 30 (29.4%) 19 (23.8%) 21 (26.6%) 19 (28.4%) 9 (20.5%)
  – Severe 22 (18.8%) 32 (31.4%) 14 (17.5%) 17 (21.5%) 8 (11.9%) 15 (34.1%)

Urodynamic Findings
• Maximum flow rate* 14.2 12.8 0.21 15.77 12.62 0.07 12.6 13.2 0.79
• Voided volume* 200.1 181.6 0.30 213.3 179.3 0.16 185.9 185.7 0.90
• Maximum cystometric capacity 262 236.2 0.31 273.75 219.9 0.06 248.1 264.1 0.58
• Detrusor overactivity 0.033 0.046 0.16
  – Present 15 (11.5%) 23 (21.7%) 5 (6.9%) 12 (17.6%) 10 (16.9%) 11 (28.9%)
  – Absent 116 (88.5%) 83 (78.3%) 67 (93.1%) 56 (82.4%) 49 (83.1%) 27 (71.1%)
• Bladder outlet obstruction£ 0.9 0.31 0.28
  – Present 37 (52.1%) 35 (52.2%) 16 (40%) 21 (51.2%) 21 (67.7%) 14 (53.8%)
  – Absent 34 (47.9%) 32 (47.8%) 24 (60%) 20 (48.8%) 10 (32.3%) 21 (46.2%)

Cystoscopic finding£ 0.11 0.85 0.01
  – Glomerulation 112 (76.2%) 104 (83.9%) 62 (77.5%) 63 (78.8%) 50 (74.6%) 41 (93.2%)
  – Hunner’s lesions 35 (23.8%) 20 (16.1%) 18 (22.5%) 17 (21.3%) 17 (25.4%) 3 (6.8%)

Cystoscopic capacity¥ 657.9 660.5 0.89 646.1 647.5 0.95 672.4 684.1 0.66
£

Chi Square test,

¥

Unpaired t-Test,

*

Mann-Whitney test,

**

Statistically Significant at p ≤ 0.05.

Discussion

The Interstitial Cystitis Database considers PPS one of the most frequently prescribed oral drugs for BPS in United States.16 The FDA approved PPS for the treatment of BPS in 1996. There is, however, a limited long-term report on its efficacy and tolerability.17

The clinical efficacy of PPS has been reported in several short-term, randomized, controlled studies. Improvement in these studies ranged from 28% to 45% in PPS group versus 13% to 18% in the placebo group.1011,18 The clinical response usually observed after 4 to 8 weeks of PPS.19 Parsons and Mulholland reported the reappearance of symptoms after stopping PPS within 3 to 12 weeks.18 The severity of BPS symptoms is well known to fluctuate. Held and colleagues reported that 30% to 46% of BPS patients can go into remission for an average of 8 months.20 This symptom fluctuation is important in reporting the long-term efficacy of PPS.

Our study showed that 50% of patients reported at least moderate improvement during the first 12 months of follow-up. This rate had increased to 60% for patients with longer than 12 months of follow-up. Up to 66% of patients were still taking the medication at the end of the study, with an average follow up of 22 months (range 3–131). Most patients had to pay for their medication and only a few of them had medical insurance. Jepsen and colleagues reported the long-term results in 97 patients with a follow-up of up to 16 months.21 They noticed that initially, 50% of patients had good outcomes, but at the end only 18.7% had maintained their response rate. Most patients in their series discontinued treatment due to relapse or side effects. A more recent series of 380 patients, with longer follow-up, was reported by Nickel and colleagues. Their study demonstrated that 17% to 23% of patients were responders by 4 weeks and the rate increased to 59% to 67% at the 32-week mark of the study.22 Hanno and colleagues reported that 42% to 62% of patients reached moderate improvement and over the GRA with follow-up up to 35 months. They found that the efficacy reached the maximum by 6 to 11 months of therapy, with no further change or deterioration with continued therapy.23

Pentosan polysulphate sodium is generally well-tolerated with few toxicities and adverse events.11,19 In our series, the overall discontinuation rate due to adverse events was 11.1%. The most common adverse event was gastrointestinal upset and abdominal pain (8.5%), followed by headache (2.2%). Alopecia was rare (1.1%) and it was reversible. Discontinuation due to adverse events in the Hanno report was 4% and it was mainly reversible alopecia (3.91%).23 The most common adverse events in the Nickel long-term report were diarrhea (25.3%), headache (18.2%), nausea (15.0%), pelvic pain (12.9%), abdominal pain (12.6%) and alopecia (5.5%). Diarrhea and abdominal pain were dose-related. Nickel and colleagues concluded that 22.4% of patients discontinued treatment because of dose-related adverse effects.22

Nocturia was the only symptom of BPS that showed a correlation with PPS outcome. Patients with nocturia and more than 12 months of follow-up showed a trend toward less efficacy of the treatment (p = 0.01). Holm-Bentzen and colleagues followed 106 patients for 3 months. Patients had improvement with PPS therapy regarding pain, frequency and urgency, but not the nocturia.24

Detrusor overactivity was associated with a poor response to treatment in our study. This finding was more prominent during the first 12 months of follow-up. More than 50% of the patients who did have the pressure flow study showed evidence of bladder outlet obstruction. A similar finding was reported by Cameron and Gajewski in 231 patients with BPS.25 A possible mechanism of this finding is external sphincter26 or pelvic floor27 spasticity due to the pain. The severity of the disease during cystoscopy was another prognostic finding in the study. However, the difference was evident only in Group 2 who was followed for more than 12 months. Hanno and colleagues noticed that the maximum responder percentages were not reached until after 23 months of follow-up.23 Patients with severe symptoms had better response to the increase of PPS dose to 600 mg in Nickel’s dose-ranging study.22 Jepsen and colleagues found that better responses were seen in patients with less constant pain at baseline and not related to the cystoscopic finding.21

A history of current smoking during the PPS therapy correlated with the overall discontinuation rate, and it was statistically significant during the first 12 months of follow-up (34.8% vs. 16.1%) (p = 0.009). The correlation between BPS and smoking is controversial. Leppilahti and colleagues did not find any association.28 However, 2 recent studies have shown that smoking increases the risk of bladder pain in BPS patients by at least 2.3-fold.29,30 Tobacco may alter the permeability of bladder epithelial cells, allowing the penetration of allergens, chemicals, drugs or toxins into the bladder wall and aggravate the BPS symptoms.

Our study has some obvious limitations. First, the study is retrospective in nature. Second, the outcome was measured only with the GRA. However, the median follow-up in our study was 22 months. We have reported detailed adverse events and the reasons for discontinuation.

Conclusion

Pentosan polysulphate sodium is an effective oral therapy to control the symptoms of BPS with good long-term efficacy and tolerability. Severe nocturia, a history of smoking and the presence of detrusor overactivity might predict poor outcomes. Longer PPS therapy in patients with severe cystoscopic findings of BPS might be necessary to achieve better outcomes.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Greg Bailly from the Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, for his support and help in reviewing the manuscript.

Footnotes

Competing interests: None declared.

This paper has been peer-reviewed.

References

  • 1.Van De Merwe J, Nordling J, Bouchelouche K, et al. Diagnostic criteria, classification, and nomenclature for painful bladder syndrome/interstitial cystitis: an ESSIC proposal. Eur Urol. 2008;53:60–7. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Curhan GC, Speizer FE, Hunter DJ, et al. Epidemiology of interstitial cystitis: a population based study. J Urol. 1999;161:549–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Michael YL, Kawachi I, Stampfer MJ, et al. Quality of life among women with interstitial cystitis. J Urol. 2000;164:423–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hanno PM. Interstitial cystitis and related disorders. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED Jr, Wein AJ, editors. Campbell’s Urology. 8th edition. Vol. 1. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 2002. pp. 631–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Parsons CL, Parsons JK. Interstitial cystitis. In: Raz S, editor. Female Urology. 2nd edition. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1996. pp. 167–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Parsons CL, Rosenberg MT, Sassani P, et al. Quantifying symptoms in men with interstitial cystitis/prostatitis, and its correlation with potassium- sensitivity testing. BJU Int. 2005;95:86–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.05256.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dixon JS, Holm-Bentzen M, Gilpin CJ, et al. Electron microscopic investigation of the bladder urothelium and glycocalyx in patients with interstitial cystitis. J Urol. 1986;135:621–5. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)45763-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Nickel JC, Emerson L, Comish J. The bladder mucus(glycosaminoglycan) layer in interstitial cystitis. J Urol. 1993;149:716–8. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)36191-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Anderson VR, Perry CM. Pentosan polysulfate: a review of its use in the relief of bladder pain or discomfort in interstitial cystitis. Drugs. 2006;66:821–35. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200666060-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Parsons CL, Benson G, Childs SJ, et al. A quantitatively controlled method to study prospectively interstitial cystitis and demonstrate the efficacy of pentosanpolysulfate. J Urol. 1993;150:845–8. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35629-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mulholland SG, Hanno P, Parsons CL, et al. Pentosan polysulfate sodium for therapy of interstitial cystitis: a double-blind placebocontrolled clinical study. Urology. 1990;35:552–8. doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(90)80116-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nordling J, Anjum FH, Bade JJ, et al. Primary evaluation of patients suspected of having interstitial cystitis (IC) Eur Urol. 2004;45:662–9. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2003.11.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Schaefer W, Chen Y, Tadic S, et al. Urodynamic grading of bladder outflow conditions in females. Abstract, International Continence Society Meeting; San Francisco, CA. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Griffiths D, Hofner K, van Mastrigt R, et al. Standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function: pressure-flow studies of voiding, urethral resistance, and urethral obstruction. Neurourol Urodyn. 1997;16:1–18. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1520-6777(1997)16:1<1::aid-nau1>3.0.co;2-i. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Gajewski J. The patient presenting with painful bladder syndrome. In: Norman Richard W, Currow David C., editors. Supportive Care for the Urology Patient. Oxford University Press; UK: 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Rovner E, Propert KJ, Brensinger C, et al. Treatments used in women with interstitial cystitis: the interstitial cystitis data base (ICDB) study experience The Interstitial Cystitis Data Base Study Group. Urology. 2000;56:940–5. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00845-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.U.S. Food and Drug Administration http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/ Accessed February 18, 2011.
  • 18.Parsons CL, Mulholland SG. Successful therapy of interstitial cystitis with pentosan polysulfate. J Urol. 1987;138:513–6. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)43243-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fritjofsson A, Fall M, Fuhlin R, et al. Treatment of ulcer and nonulcer interstitial cystitis with sodium pentosanpolysulfate: a multicenter trial. J Urol. 1987;138:508–12. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)43242-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Held PJ, Hanno PM, Wein AJ, et al. Epidemiology of interstitial cystitis: 2. In: Hanno PM, Staskin DR, Krane RJ, Wein AJ, editors. Interstitial Cystitis. London: Springer-Verlag; 1990. pp. 29–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Jepsen JV, Sall M, Rhodes PR, et al. Long-term experience with pentosanpolysulfate in interstitial cystitis. Urology. 1998;51:381–7. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(97)00714-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Nickel JC, Barkin J, Forrest J, et al. Randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging study of pentosan polysulfate sodium for interstitial cystitis. Urology. 2005;65:654–8. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.10.071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hanno PM. Analysis of long-term Elmiron therapy for interstitial cystitis. Urology. 1997;49(5A Suppl):93–9. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(97)00179-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Holm-Bentzen M, Jacobsen F, Nerstrøm B, et al. A prospective double-blind clinically controlled multicenter trial of sodium pentosanpolysulfate in the treatment of interstitial cystitis and related painful bladder disease. J Urol. 1987;138:503–7. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)43241-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cameron AP, Gajewski JB. Bladder outlet obstruction in painful bladder syndrome/interstitial cystitis. Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28:944–8. doi: 10.1002/nau.20729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Dmochowski RR. Bladder outlet obstruction: etiology and evaluation. Rev Urol. 2005;7(Suppl 6):S3–S13. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Schmidt RA, Vapnek JM. Pelvic floor behavior and interstitial cystitis. Semin Urol. 1991;9:154–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Leppilahti M, Tammela TL, Huhtala H, et al. Prevalence of symptoms related to interstitial cystitis in women: A population based study in Finland. J Urol. 2002;168:139–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Song Y, Zhang W, Xu B, et al. Prevalence and correlates of painful bladder syndrome symptoms in Fuzhou Chinese women. Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28:22–5. doi: 10.1002/nau.20513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kennedy CM, Bradley CS, Galask RP, et al. Risk factors for painful bladder syndrome in women seeking gynaecologic care. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17:73–8. doi: 10.1007/s00192-005-1348-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Urological Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Urological Association

RESOURCES