The Prevalence of Bladder Pain Syndrome/Interstitial Cystitis in Italy: The importance of a National Registry

  • Loredana NastaEmail author


In the last 30 years, Interstitial Cystitis (IC) diagnostic and etiopathogenetic criteria, as well as its taxonomy, have been strongly debated. Not only internationally, but also within the National Institute of Health (NIH) and especially the National Institute of Diabetes of the Digestive Tract of and Kidney Disease (NIDDK), many changes have occurred.

It is a common opinion that IC epidemiology data are highly inconsistent because of the lack of a shared definition and a valid diagnostic marker.

In 2001, the Italian government recognized this condition as a rare disease, thanks to hard work of Patients’ Organization (Associazione Italiana Cistite interstiziale—AICI). The Higher Institute of Health (ISS) was given the task to put in place a National Registry of Rare Diseases (NRRD) as well as the Regional Registries (RR) within the framework of a very complex network consisting of Reference Centers and experts, to collect quality data. The RR are the NRRD infrastructure, an important tool to carry out the network’s tracking, the rare diseases surveillance and the data flow analysis where patients receive diagnose and treatments. It will be analyzed the network, NRRD and the data performed in the last 15 years (Courtesy of ISS).


  1. 1.
    Forrest JB. Epidemiology and quality of life. J Reprod Med. 2006;51(3 Suppl):227–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nasta L, Montagnoli S, Avolio M. Chapter 29: Exploratory Research on the social costs and care for patients with bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis. In: Nordling J, Wyndaele JJ, van de Merwe JP, et al., editors. BPS: a guide for clinicians; 2013.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hanno PM, Landis JR, Matthews-Cook Y, et al. The diagnosis of interstitial cystitis revisited: lessons learned from the National Institutes of Health Interstitial Cystitis Database study. J Urol. 1999;161(2):553–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agarwal M, O'Reilly PH, Dixon RA. Interstitial cystitis—a time for revision of name and diagnostic criteria in the new millennium? BJU Int. 2001;88(4):348–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Held PJ, Hanno PM, Wein AJ. Epidemiology of interstitial cystitis (2). Chapter 4. Springer; 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jones CA, Nyberg L. Epidemiology of interstitial cystitis. Urology. 1997;49(5A Suppl):2–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oravisto KJ. Epidemiology of interstitial cystitis. Ann Chir Gynaecol Fenn. 1975;64(2):75–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bade JJ, Rijcken B, Mensink HJ. Interstitial cystitis in the Netherlands: prevalence, diagnostic criteria and therapeutic preferences. J Urol. 1995;154(6):2035–7, discussion 2037–8.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kusek JW, Nyberg LM. The epidemiology of interstitial cystitis: is it time to expand our definition? Urology. 2001;57(6 Suppl 1):95–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ito T, Miki M, Yamada T. Interstitial cystitis in Japan. BJU Int. 2000;86(6):634–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Choe JH, Son H, Song YS, et al. Prevalence of painful bladder syndrome/interstitial cystitis-like symptoms in women: a population-based study in Korea. World J Urol. 2011;29(1):103–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Curhan GC, Speizer FE, Hunter DJ, et al. Epidemiology of interstitial cystitis: a population based study. J Urol. 1999;161(2):549–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Italian Interstitial Cystitis AssociationRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations