No abstract

ObjectivesTo improve awareness and recognition of chronic bacterial prostatitis (CBP) and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) among non-specialists and patients. To provide guidance to healthcare professionals treating patients with CBP and CP/CPPS, in both non-specialist and specialist settings. To promote efficient referral of care between nonspecialists and specialists and the involvement of the multidisciplinary team (MDT). Patients and MethodsThe guideline population were men with CBP or CP/CPPS (persistent or recurrent symptoms and no other urogenital pathology for ≥3 of the previous 6 months). Consensus recommendations for the guidelines were based on a search to identify literature on the diagnosis and management of CBP and CP/CPPS (published between 1999 and February 2014). A Delphi panel process was used where high-quality, published evidence was lacking. ResultsCBP and CP/CPPS can present with a wide range of clinical manifestations. The four main symptom domains are urogenital pain, lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTSvoiding or storage symptoms), psychological issues and sexual dysfunction. Patients should be managed according to their individual symptom pattern. Options for first-line treatment include antibiotics, a-adrenergic antagonists (if voiding LUTS are present) and simple analgesics. Repeated use of antibiotics, such as quinolones, should be avoided if there is no obvious symptomatic benefit from infection control or cultures do not support an infectious cause. Early use of treatments targeting neuropathic pain and/or referral to specialist services should be considered for patients who do not respond to initial measures. An MDT approach (urologists, pain specialists, nurse specialists, specialist physiotherapists, general practitioners, cognitive behavioural therapists/psychologists, and sexual health specialists) is recommended. Patients should be fully informed about the possible underlying causes and treatment options, including an explanation of the chronic pain cycle. ConclusionChronic prostatitis can present with a wide variety of signs and symptoms. Identification of individual symptom patterns and a symptom-based treatment approach are recommended. Further research is required to evaluate management options for CBP and CP/CPPS.

No abstract

management strategies based on this evidence are to be implemented cost effectively, there is a need to introduce shared care between the primary and secondary care sectors to optimise use of resources and expertise. KEYWORDS BPH, combined therapy, risk stratificationWhat's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Patients with BPH have traditionally been managed with 'sequential monotherapy' or effectively an intent to treat to failure. Thus watchful waiting strategies, α -blockers, 5 α -reductase inhibitors and surgical intervention have been seen as a stepwise progression based on failure of symptom control at each level. This paper reviews the evidence from large randomized trials which suggest a new approach of risk stratification, allowing the identification of higher risk patients for whom medical management can be optimised at an early stage. If this can be done at a primary care level, this could lead to a dramatic improvement in outcomes in men with BPH.

No abstract

BackgroundWhile the European Union is striving to become the ‘Innovation Union’, there remains a lack of quantifiable indicators to compare and benchmark regional innovation clusters. To address this issue, a HealthTIES (Healthcare, Technology and Innovation for Economic Success) consortium was funded by the European Union’s Regions of Knowledge initiative, research and innovation funding programme FP7. HealthTIES examined whether the health technology innovation cycle was functioning differently in five European regional innovation clusters and proposed regional and joint actions to improve their performance. The clusters included BioCat (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain), Medical Delta (Leiden, Rotterdam and Delft, South Holland, Netherlands), Oxford and Thames Valley (United Kingdom), Life Science Zürich (Switzerland), and Innova Észak-Alföld (Debrecen, Hungary).MethodsAppreciation of the ‘triple helix’ of university–industry–government innovation provided the impetus for the development of two quantifiable innovation indexes and related indicators. The HealthTIES H-index is calculated for disease and technology platforms based on the h-index proposed by Hirsch. The HealthTIES Innovation Index is calculated for regions based on 32 relevant quantitative and discriminative indicators grouped into 12 categories and 3 innovation phases, namely ‘Input’ (n = 12), ‘Innovation System’ (n = 9) and ‘Output’ (n = 11).ResultsThe HealthTIES regions had developed relatively similar disease and technology platform profiles, yet with distinctive strengths and weaknesses. The regional profiles of the innovation cycle in each of the three phases were surprisingly divergent. Comparative assessments based on the indicators and indexes helped identify and share best practice and inform regional and joint action plans to strengthen the competitiveness of the HealthTIES regions.ConclusionThe HealthTIES indicators and indexes provide useful practical tools for the measurement and benchmarking of university–industry–government innovation in European medical and life science clusters. They are validated internally within the HealthTIES consortium and appear to have a degree of external prima facie validity. Potentially, the tools and accompanying analyses can be used beyond the HealthTIES consortium to inform other regional governments, researchers and, possibly, large companies searching for their next location, analyse and benchmark ‘triple helix’ dynamics within their own networks over time, and to develop integrated public–private and cross-regional research and innovation strategies in Europe and beyond.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-019-0414-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract