4.2 Article

Antimuscarinic effects on current perception threshold: A prospective placebo control study

期刊

NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 75-79

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nau.21194

关键词

antimuscarinics; current perception threshold; detrusor overactivity; neurometer; sensory nerve; tolterodine

资金

  1. Pfizer Pharmaceutical Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To evaluate the effect of Tolterodine on urethral and bladder afferent nerves in women with detrusor overactivity (DO) in comparison to placebo, by studying the changes in the current perception threshold (CPT). Methods: Women with overactive bladder symptoms and idiopathic DO were recruited and randomized in a double-blind manner between placebo and tolterodine extended release. All women underwent CPT testing of the bladder and urethra using a Neurometer constant current stimulator. CPT values were determined at three frequencies, including 2,000 Hz (corresponding to Ab-fibers), 250 Hz (corresponding to Ad-fibers), and 5 Hz (corresponding to C fibers) before and 7 days on treatment. CPT values before and on treatment were compared using a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. Results: Twenty women (mean age 46 years) were studied. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of age, ethnicity, severity of symptoms and pre-treatment CPT values. Only in the tolterodine group there was a significantly increased CPT value at 5 and 250 Hz upon both urethral and bladder stimulation after 1 week of treatment. When compared with placebo, women taking tolterodine had significantly increased Bladder CPT values at 5 Hz (P-value <0.05). The electrical stimulation with 5 Hz was described as urgency. Conclusions: This is a randomized placebo control study evaluating the effect of antimuscarinics on sensory nerve function in women with DO. Our results support the animal studies that antimuscarinics have an effect on sensory function. Neurourol. Urodynam. 31:75-79, 2012. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据