Objective: This study aimed to evaluate retrospectively the outcomes of Abobotulinumtoxin-A (Dysport®) intravesical injection in refractory interstitial cystitis/ bladder pain syndrome patients to first- and second-line treatment.
Materials and Methods: From March 2016 to 2021, 44 adult patients with bladder pain syndrome who were refractory to first- and second-line treatment were enrolled in our study. The Bladder Pain/Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Score questionnaire was filled out for every patient before and 1-3 months after intervention in addition to urodynamic evaluation. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using a scoring system that was defined as high or >80% improvement (highly satisfied), intermediate 40%-79% (intermediate satisfaction), and poor 0%-39% improvement.
Results: The mean age of our study population was 57 years, including 41 females and 3 males. The mean follow-up time was 9 months. According to the results of urodynamics, 68% of cases had low capacity, and detrusor overactivity, while 18% had only low capacity. In terms of the endpoint outcome, half of the patients (52%) had intermediate satisfaction, whereas 41% reported a good response. Only 3 cases had no response or felt (7%) any improvement after the intervention (poor response). The paired t-test analysis revealed that the mean Bladder Pain/Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Score was reduced after injection (P = .001).
Conclusion: Our results showed the efficacy and safety of intravesical injections with Abobotulinumtoxin-A (Dysport®) in patients with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome. Further randomized controlled trials are recommended to investigate its superiority over placebo considering the need for anesthesia, the occurrence of local complications, risks of urinary retention, and a large post-void residual (PVR) volume.
Cite this article as: Rahnama’i M, Salehi-Pourmehr H, Saeedi S, Tayebi S, Hajebrahimi S. Intravesical injection of abobotulinumtoxin-A in patients with bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis. Urol Res Pract. 2023;49(3):205-210