EP2 and EP3 receptors as therapeutic targets for underactive bladder/detrusor underactivity due to diabetic cystopathy in a type 1 diabetic rat model. Issue 3 (14th May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sekido, Noritoshi; Otsuki, Takeya; Kida, Jun; Mashimo, Hiroko; Wakamatsu, Daisuke; Okada, Hiroki; Matsuya, Hidekazu
• Is Part Of: LUTS. Volume 12:Issue 3(2020)
• Page Start: 285
• Page End: 291
• Publication Date: 2020-05-14
• Subjects: diabetes mellitus -- prostaglandin E2 -- urinary bladder, neurogenic -- urinary bladder, underactive; Urology -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- Periodicals; Urinary Tract Physiological Phenomena -- Periodicals; 616.62
• DOI: 10.1111/luts.12317
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1757-5664

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: Diabetic cystopathy (DC) is recognized as one of the major etiologies of underactive bladder (UAB)/detrusor underactivity (DU). Although DC was first reported about three decades ago, there is a distinct lack of effective pharmacological management methods for UAB/DU due to DC with a robust certainty of evidence. In this study, we investigated whether EP2 and EP3 receptors are promising targets of pharmacological management of UAB/DU due to DC. Methods: We used streptozotocin (STZ)‐induced diabetic Sprague‐Dawley rats with postvoid residual urine (PVR) greater than 0.1 mL. Sixteen weeks after induction of diabetes, we performed awake single cystometry after oral administration of the vehicle, an α‐blocker (tamsulosin [TAM], 0.1 and 0.3 mg/kg), a cholinesterase inhibitor (distigmine [DIS], 0.3 and 1.0 mg/kg), or an EP2/3 dual agonist (ONO‐8055, 0.01 and 0.03 mg/kg). We compared cystometric parameters after administration of the vehicle and drugs using a paired t test. P < .05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: Compared with the vehicle, TAM significantly decreased maximum intravesical pressure during voiding (Pmax), while DIS significantly increased it. However, neither drug significantly affected PVR or the residual urine rate (RUR). On the other hand, ONO‐8055 significantly decreased PVR and tended to decrease RUR, although it did not significantly affect Pmax. Conclusion: The present study was unable to demonstrate that stimulation of EP2 and EP3 receptors caused major improvements in UAB/DU due to DC. However, this equivocal result could arise from inherent limitations of the STZ‐induced diabetic rat as a UAB/DU model.