OnabotulinumtoxinA vs Sacral Neuromodulation on Refractory Urgency Urinary Incontinence in Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial.


Importance: Women with refractory urgency urinary incontinence are treated with sacral neuromodulation and onabotulinumtoxinA with limited comparative information. Objective: To assess whether onabotulinumtoxinA is superior to sacral neuromodulation in controlling refractory episodes of urgency urinary incontinence. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter open-label randomized trial (February 2012-January 2015) at 9 US medical centers involving 381 women with refractory urgency urinary incontinence. Interventions: Cystoscopic intradetrusor injection of 200 U of onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 192) or sacral neuromodulation (n = 189). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome, change from baseline mean number of daily urgency urinary incontinence episodes over 6 months, was measured with monthly 3-day diaries. Secondary outcomes included change from baseline in urinary symptom scores in the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire Short Form (SF); range, 0-100, higher scores indicating worse symptoms; Overactive Bladder Satisfaction questionnaire; range, 0-100; includes 5 subscales, higher scores indicating better satisfaction; and adverse events. Results: Of the 364 women (mean [SD] age, 63.0 [11.6] years) in the intention-to-treat population, 190 women in the onabotulinumtoxinA group had a greater reduction in 6-month mean number of episodes of urgency incontinence per day than did the 174 in the sacral neuromodulation group (-3.9 vs -3.3 episodes per day; mean difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.13 to 1.14; P = .01). Participants treated with onabotulinumtoxinA showed greater improvement in the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire SF for symptom bother (-46.7 vs -38.6; mean difference, 8.1; 95% CI, 3.0 to 13.3; P = .002); treatment satisfaction (67.7 vs 59.8; mean difference, 7.8; 95% CI, 1.6 to 14.1; P = .01) and treatment endorsement (78.1 vs 67.6; mean difference; 10.4, 95% CI, 4.3 to 16.5; P < .001) than treatment with sacral neuromodulation. There were no differences in convenience (67.6 vs 70.2; mean difference, -2.5; 95% CI, -8.1 to 3.0; P = .36), adverse effects (88.4 vs 85.1; mean difference, 3.3; 95% CI, -1.9 to 8.5; P = .22), and treatment preference (92.% vs 89%; risk difference, -3%; 95% CI, -16% to 10%; P = .49). Urinary tract infections were more frequent in the onabotulinumtoxinA group (35% vs 11%; risk difference, -23%; 95% CI, -33% to -13%; P < .001). The need for self-catheterization was 8% and 2% at 1 and 6 months in the onabotulinumtoxinA group. Neuromodulation device revisions and removals occurred in 3%. Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with refractory urgency urinary incontinence, treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA compared with sacral neuromodulation resulted in a small daily improvement in episodes that although statistically significant is of uncertain clinical importance. In addition, it resulted in a higher risk of urinary tract infections and need for transient self-catheterizations.





Published Version (Please cite this version)


Publication Info

Amundsen, Cindy L, Holly E Richter, Shawn A Menefee, Yuko M Komesu, Lily A Arya, W Thomas Gregory, Deborah L Myers, Halina M Zyczynski, et al. (2016). OnabotulinumtoxinA vs Sacral Neuromodulation on Refractory Urgency Urinary Incontinence in Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 316(13). pp. 1366–1374. 10.1001/jama.2016.14617 Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/15567.

This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.

Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.