Analysis reveals underutilization of phenotype in interstitial cystitis trials, suggesting improvement areas.
Importance There is a need to understand phenotype-specific therapies for interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS) at the clinical trial level to move beyond trial-and-error treatment approaches. Objective The objective of this study was to characterize IC/BPS clinical trials that incorporate patient phenotype into the eligibility criteria in accordance with the American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines. Study Design Registered IC/BPS clinical trials were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials were included if they enrolled patients with IC/BPS and addressed pain-related outcomes. Trials were assessed for phenotype recognition and categorized by intervention type, funding source, and registration date relative to the AUA’s 2015 IC/BPS guidelines for initial phenotype recognition. Results Out of 170 trials, 37 (21.8%) included phenotype stratification. The majority focused on bladder-centric presentations. Men were underrepresented in IC/BPS clinical trials. Phenotypic stratification was more frequently reported in industry-funded trials compared with those without industry support (40.5% vs 16.5%, P =0.0031). Trials registered after the 2015 AUA guideline update showed greater phenotype inclusion, though this was not statistically significant (26.6% vs 15.8%). Therapeutic trials comprised the majority of trials. Stratification appeared more often in physical therapy and psychosocial trials at 40% and in drug studies at 34.3%. Intravesical instillation and injection trials showed lower rates at 19.6% and 13.0%, respectively. Conclusions Failure to incorporate IC/BPS phenotypes into trial design limits the ability to evaluate treatments within the context of real-world symptom variability. Bridging this methodological gap is essential to ensure that clinical research supports the development of more targeted and effective therapies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wong et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: