Sender Herschorn1, Alfred Kohan2, Philip Aliotta3, Kurt McCammon4, Rajagopalan Sriram5, Steven Abrams6, Wayne Lam6, Karel Everaert7. 1. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: s.herschorn@utoronto.ca. 2. Advanced Urology Centers of New York, Bethpage, New York. 3. Western New York Urology Associates, Williamsville, New York. 4. Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia. 5. University Hospital Coventry, Coventry, United Kingdom. 6. Allergan plc, Irvine, California. 7. Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this double-blind, randomized study we compared the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA or solifenacin vs placebo in patients with overactive bladder who had urinary incontinence and an inadequate response to or were intolerant of an anticholinergic. Post hoc analysis was done to compare the effects of onabotulinumtoxinA vs solifenacin. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Solifenacin naïve patients were randomized to onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U, solifenacin 5 mg, (which could escalate to 10 mg at week 6 according to predefined criteria) or placebo. Patients could request treatment 2 (open label onabotulinumtoxinA) after fulfilling prespecified criteria. End points included a change from baseline in the number of urinary incontinence episodes per day and the proportion of patients with a 100% reduction (dry) in the number of incontinence episodes per day as co-primaries, other urinary symptoms and quality of life, all at week 12, and adverse events. RESULTS: The change from baseline in incontinence episodes per day was significantly greater with onabotulinumtoxinA or solifenacin vs placebo (-3.19 or -2.56, respectively, vs -1.33, both p <0.001). The incontinence reduction was significantly greater for onabotulinumtoxinA vs solifenacin (p = 0.022). At week 12, 33.8% (vs placebo p <0.001), 24.5% (vs placebo p = 0.028) and 11.7% of patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA, solifenacin and placebo, respectively, were dry. After treatment 2, which was open label onabotulinumtoxinA, 43.2%, 37.6% and 41.9% of patients in the onabotulinumtoxinA, solifenacin and placebo groups, respectively, were dry. Significant improvements in other urinary symptoms and quality of life were observed for both active treatments. Urinary tract infection in 25.5% of cases and urinary retention in 6.9% were more common with onabotulinumtoxinA. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA and solifenacin was significantly higher than that of placebo. However, onabotulinumtoxinA showed significantly greater decreases in urinary incontinence than solifenacin with a third of patients achieving a 100% incontinence reduction. No unexpected safety signals were observed.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: In this double-blind, randomized study we compared the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA or solifenacin vs placebo in patients with overactive bladder who had urinary incontinence and an inadequate response to or were intolerant of an anticholinergic. Post hoc analysis was done to compare the effects of onabotulinumtoxinA vs solifenacin. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Solifenacin naïve patients were randomized to onabotulinumtoxinA 100 U, solifenacin 5 mg, (which could escalate to 10 mg at week 6 according to predefined criteria) or placebo. Patients could request treatment 2 (open label onabotulinumtoxinA) after fulfilling prespecified criteria. End points included a change from baseline in the number of urinary incontinence episodes per day and the proportion of patients with a 100% reduction (dry) in the number of incontinence episodes per day as co-primaries, other urinary symptoms and quality of life, all at week 12, and adverse events. RESULTS: The change from baseline in incontinence episodes per day was significantly greater with onabotulinumtoxinA or solifenacin vs placebo (-3.19 or -2.56, respectively, vs -1.33, both p <0.001). The incontinence reduction was significantly greater for onabotulinumtoxinA vs solifenacin (p = 0.022). At week 12, 33.8% (vs placebo p <0.001), 24.5% (vs placebo p = 0.028) and 11.7% of patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA, solifenacin and placebo, respectively, were dry. After treatment 2, which was open label onabotulinumtoxinA, 43.2%, 37.6% and 41.9% of patients in the onabotulinumtoxinA, solifenacin and placebo groups, respectively, were dry. Significant improvements in other urinary symptoms and quality of life were observed for both active treatments. Urinary tract infection in 25.5% of cases and urinary retention in 6.9% were more common with onabotulinumtoxinA. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA and solifenacin was significantly higher than that of placebo. However, onabotulinumtoxinA showed significantly greater decreases in urinary incontinence than solifenacin with a third of patients achieving a 100% incontinence reduction. No unexpected safety signals were observed.
Authors: Caroline G Elmer-Lyon; Judy A Streit; Elizabeth B Takacs; Patrick P Ten Eyck; Catherine S Bradley Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Stephen R Kraus; Aki Shiozawa; Shelagh M Szabo; Christina Qian; Basia Rogula; John Hairston Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2020-08-22 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Kurt McCammon; Angelo Gousse; Alfred Kohan; David Glazier; Jennifer Gruenenfelder; Zhanying Bai; Anand Patel; Douglass Hale Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 1.913