Trial reportInvestigative and clinical urology2022
Intralesional collagenase
Trial report in Investigative and clinical urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction rates between intralesional verapamil (ILV) and collagenase MATERIALS AND
methodsFollowing ethics approval, PD patients were prospectively enrolled in this open-label non-blinded study. Patients were randomised to receive ILV or CCH injections with penile remodelling every fortnightly for 6 courses. Patient demographics, change in penile curvature, International Index of Erectile Function-15 and Peyronie's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ) scores as well as overall patient satisfaction and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scores were recorded at pre-treatment and 6-, 12- and 24-month post-treatment.
resultsA total of 50 males were recruited and divided into ILV (n=25) and CCH (n=25) groups. The mean changes in penile curvature were -16.8 (standard deviation [SD] 7.65) degrees in ILV and -28.2 (SD 11.5) degrees in CCH groups (p<0.01). Patients in the CCH group scored better than the ILV group on the PDQ psychosexual symptoms (-2.14 vs. -2.9; p<0.01) and symptom bother score (-3.88 vs. -4.16; p=0.08). Minor treatment-related adverse events were more common in the CCH group. The overall satisfaction rate on a 5-point scale was 4.1 in ILV and 4.5 in CCH groups, and there was no statistically significant difference in the PGI-I scores between the 2 groups (p=0.14).
conclusionsCCH therapy is more effective than ILV to treat a carefully selected group of males with PD, with a reasonable safety profile and a higher high level of patient satisfaction rate in the short term.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.