[Efficacy and safety of № I Empirical Prescription for Chronic Prostatitis in the treatment of type ⠢ refractory chronic prostatitis].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficiency and safety of № I Empirical Prescription for Chronic Prostatitis (№ I EPCP) in the treatment of type Ⅲ refractory chronic prostatitis. METHODS: We randomly assigned 53 cases of type Ⅲ refractory chronic prostatitis with damp-heat and blood stasis to an experimental and a control group to receive № I EPCP at 1 dose per day and saw palmetto extract at 160 mg bid), respectively, all for 8 weeks. Before and after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment, we obtained The National Institute of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) scores, Traditional Chinese Medicine Syndrome Scores (TCMSS), maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), average urinary flow rate (Qavg), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) scores and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores, and compared them between the two groups of patients. RESULTS: Totally 48 of the patients completed the medication and follow-up, 25 in the experimental and 23 in the control group. Compared with the baseline, the NIH-CPSI scores after 8 weeks of treatment were significantly decreased in the experimental (27.82 ± 7.25 vs 15.46 ± 4.77, P <0.05) and the control group (25.98 ± 6.47 vs 21.06 ± 5.74, P <0.05), and so were the TCMSSs (24.64 ± 9.82 vs 16.42 ± 6.33 and 9.15 ± 3.74, P <0.05, and 23.67 ± 8.73 vs 18.55 ± 5.92 and 13.48 ± 4.45, P <0.05); the Qmax at 8 weeks were dramatically increased in the experimental group (ï¼»18.45 ± 7.81ï¼½ vs ï¼»23.44 ± 8.73ï¼½ ml/s, P <0.05) and the control (ï¼»17.58 ± 6.92ï¼½ vs ï¼»21.26 ± 8.32ï¼½ ml/s, P <0.05), and so was the Qavg (ï¼»11.27 ± 5.33ï¼½ vs ï¼»16.51 ± 7.36ï¼½ ml/s, P <0.05 and ï¼»10.66 ± 5.82ï¼½ vs ï¼»13.44 ± 6.16ï¼½ ml/s, P <0.05); the HAMD scores were remarkably reduced in the experimental group (22.74 ± 6.37 vs 17.62 ± 5.71 and 12.54 ± 5.22, P <0.05) and the control (23.55 ± 7.14 vs 22.34 ± 6.88 and 21.62 ± 5.63, P <0.05), and so were the HAMA scores (21.37 ± 7.15 vs 18.42 ± 6.35 and 14.63 ± 7.11, P <0.05 and 20.54 ± 6.77 vs 19.87 ± 6.24 and 19.42 ± 7.04, P <0.05). No obvious adverse reactions were observed in either of the two groups during the medication. CONCLUSIONS: № I EPCP deserves promotion and clinical application for its definite effectiveness and safety in the treatment of type Ⅲ refractory chronic prostatitis with damp-heat and blood stasis.