In 1970, Kay Zakariasen sought treatment for a bladder infection. The resulting diagnosis (a too narrow urethra) and treatment (surgical dilation) set her on a course of pain and frustration for the next three decades.
In an article published at the National Women’s Health Network and at Myhags, Zakariasen describes what it was like living with the constellation of bladder and pelvic pain symptoms that is often referred to as interstitial cystitis. And she laments the lack of effective, evidence-based treatments:
Studies touting the effectiveness of surgeries such as hydrodistention and instillations often fail to follow basic practices of good scientific research. Almost no published reports on IC are randomized, controlled clinical studies in which both researchers and patients were “blinded” about the subjects’ conditions and the treatment being tested to ensure objectivity. Most studies also failed to include control groups, which compare a group getting the treatment being investigated with a control group receiving only a placebo. When higher quality scientific studies have been done, they often fail to support the initial positive results. As a result, experts suggest that the reported high success rates for IC treatments should be reduced by 35% to factor in the placebo effect, and by as much as 50% to address spontaneous remission of the patient’s symptoms. It’s likely that many women, if informed about these low success rates, would decide not to have invasive treatments.
Zakariasen found some relief for severe intestinal bloating — which many IC patients have, and which started for her about the same time as urological treatment with antibiotics and dilation — when a holistic internist treated her for food sensitivities and intestinal candida. But she did not get significant help for chronic bladder urgency and frequency until years later, when she was treated for “intestinal bacterial overgrowth.”
The experiences left Zackariasen frustrated by the dearth of evidence-based information about surgical outcomes and alternative treatments.
In 2003, with the help of Dr. Elizabeth Kavaler, a urologist, Zakariasen created a patient survey — — for women who had been treated for IC. Most of the respondents said surgeries either worsened or had no effect on their symptoms. Read than 1,300 patients have completed the survey, and four physicians who analyzed some of the data published an article in the January 2008 issue of the journal Urology. Myhags and the National Women’s Health Network contributed letters of support to the survey.
The survey is still open for women to share their experiences, and Zakariesen is seeking volunteer statisticians to help analyze read data.
Zakariasen is currently writing a book on her experiences and the history of treatments for interstitial cystitis. She asks readers who are willing to share their medical experiences to her at.
In the article posted at My, Zakariasen makes the case for read patient involvement in the treatment of IC, but her statement applies to all aspects of women’s health:
Despite the principle that patients should be the primary decision-makers regarding their own treatment and care, it is clear that many women are not given all of the information they need to make a truly informed decision. Patients have a right to know — for every treatment a doctor offers — the nature of the procedure, the quality of evidence supporting it, its benefits and risks, and any alternatives to that treatment.