Premium
Botulinum toxin type A for the treatment of non‐neurogenic overactive bladder: does using onabotulinumtoxin A ( B otox ® ) or abobotulinumtoxin A ( D ysport ® ) make a difference?
Author(s) -
Ravindra Pravisha,
Jackson Benjamin L.,
Parkinson Richard J.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/bju.12028
Subject(s) - overactive bladder , nocturia , medicine , cohort , botulinum toxin , urinary incontinence , urology , urinary system , anesthesia , pathology , alternative medicine
Objective To compare the clinical effects of two different commercially available botulinum toxin type A products, onabotulinumtoxin A ( B otox ® ; A llergan I nc., I rvine, CA , USA ) and abobotulinumtoxin A ( D ysport ® ; I psen L td, S lough, UK ), on non‐neurogenic overactive bladder ( OAB ).Patients and Methods We included 207 patients, who underwent treatment with botulinum toxin type A for non‐neurogenic OAB from J anuary 2009 to J une 2012 at our institution, in a prospective database that recorded details of their presentation, treatment and outcomes. In D ecember 2009, our institution switched from using onabotulinumtoxin A to using abobotulinumtoxin A .Results Results from the onabotulinumtoxin A cohort (n = 101) and the abobotulinumtoxin A cohort (n = 106) were compared. Similar reductions in daytime frequency, nocturia and incontinence episodes were observed after treatment, with no difference in duration of effect. The abobotulinumtoxin A cohort had almost twice the rate of symptomatic urinary retention (23 vs 42%) requiring intermittent self‐catheterisation ( ISC ).Conclusions A bobotulinumtoxinA use was complicated by a significantly higher risk of requiring ISC . The study suggests that these two toxins are not interchangeable at the doses used.