Evidence Hub

Intralesional collagenase Clostridium histolyticum vs. verapamil injections in males with Peyronie's Disease: A prospective, matched-pair, non-blinded, randomised clinical study comparing clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction rates

Chung E, Wang J

Investigative and clinical urology, 2022

25 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction rates between intralesional verapamil (ILV) and collagenase Clostridium histolyticum (CCH) injections in males with Peyronie's disease (PD).

Materials and methods: Following 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.

Results: A 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).

Conclusions: CCH therapy is more effective than ILV to treat…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 25 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free