The Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral NEuromodulation vs. BoTulinum Toxin Assessment: ROSETTA trial

Cindy L. Amundsen, Holly E. Richter, Shawn Menefee, Sandip Vasavada, David D. Rahn, Kim Kenton, Heidi S. Harvie, Dennis Wallace, Susie Meikle

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We present the rationale for and design of a randomized, open-label, active-control trial comparing the effectiveness of 200. units of onabotulinum toxin A (Botox A®) versus sacral neuromodulation (InterStim®) therapy for refractory urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). The Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral N. Euromodulation vs. Bo. Tulinum Toxin Assessment (ROSETTA) trial compares changes in urgency urinary incontinence episodes over 6. months, as well as other lower urinary tract symptoms, adverse events and cost effectiveness in women receiving these two therapies. Eligible participants had previously attempted treatment with at least 2 medications and behavioral therapy. We discuss the importance of evaluating two very different interventions, the challenges related to recruitment, ethical considerations for two treatments with significantly different costs, follow-up assessments and cost effectiveness. The ROSETTA trial will provide information to healthcare providers regarding the technical attributes of these interventions as well as the efficacy and safety of these two interventions on other lower urinary tract and pelvic floor symptoms. Enrollment began in March, 2012 with anticipated end to recruitment in mid 2014.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)272-283
Number of pages12
JournalContemporary Clinical Trials
Volume37
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2014

Fingerprint

Overactive Urinary Bladder
Botulinum Toxins
Urinary Incontinence
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Therapeutics
Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
Pelvic Floor
Urinary Tract
Health Personnel
Safety
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Onabotulinum toxin A
  • Sacral neuromodulation
  • Urgency urinary incontinence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

The Refractory Overactive Bladder : Sacral NEuromodulation vs. BoTulinum Toxin Assessment: ROSETTA trial. / Amundsen, Cindy L.; Richter, Holly E.; Menefee, Shawn; Vasavada, Sandip; Rahn, David D.; Kenton, Kim; Harvie, Heidi S.; Wallace, Dennis; Meikle, Susie.

In: Contemporary Clinical Trials, Vol. 37, No. 2, 03.2014, p. 272-283.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Amundsen, CL, Richter, HE, Menefee, S, Vasavada, S, Rahn, DD, Kenton, K, Harvie, HS, Wallace, D & Meikle, S 2014, 'The Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral NEuromodulation vs. BoTulinum Toxin Assessment: ROSETTA trial', Contemporary Clinical Trials, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 272-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2014.01.009
Amundsen, Cindy L. ; Richter, Holly E. ; Menefee, Shawn ; Vasavada, Sandip ; Rahn, David D. ; Kenton, Kim ; Harvie, Heidi S. ; Wallace, Dennis ; Meikle, Susie. / The Refractory Overactive Bladder : Sacral NEuromodulation vs. BoTulinum Toxin Assessment: ROSETTA trial. In: Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2014 ; Vol. 37, No. 2. pp. 272-283.
@article{fec574932c9041819f14e5fc02acbed0,
title = "The Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral NEuromodulation vs. BoTulinum Toxin Assessment: ROSETTA trial",
abstract = "We present the rationale for and design of a randomized, open-label, active-control trial comparing the effectiveness of 200. units of onabotulinum toxin A (Botox A{\circledR}) versus sacral neuromodulation (InterStim{\circledR}) therapy for refractory urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). The Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral N. Euromodulation vs. Bo. Tulinum Toxin Assessment (ROSETTA) trial compares changes in urgency urinary incontinence episodes over 6. months, as well as other lower urinary tract symptoms, adverse events and cost effectiveness in women receiving these two therapies. Eligible participants had previously attempted treatment with at least 2 medications and behavioral therapy. We discuss the importance of evaluating two very different interventions, the challenges related to recruitment, ethical considerations for two treatments with significantly different costs, follow-up assessments and cost effectiveness. The ROSETTA trial will provide information to healthcare providers regarding the technical attributes of these interventions as well as the efficacy and safety of these two interventions on other lower urinary tract and pelvic floor symptoms. Enrollment began in March, 2012 with anticipated end to recruitment in mid 2014.",
keywords = "Onabotulinum toxin A, Sacral neuromodulation, Urgency urinary incontinence",
author = "Amundsen, {Cindy L.} and Richter, {Holly E.} and Shawn Menefee and Sandip Vasavada and Rahn, {David D.} and Kim Kenton and Harvie, {Heidi S.} and Dennis Wallace and Susie Meikle",
year = "2014",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1016/j.cct.2014.01.009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "272--283",
journal = "Contemporary Clinical Trials",
issn = "1551-7144",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Refractory Overactive Bladder

T2 - Sacral NEuromodulation vs. BoTulinum Toxin Assessment: ROSETTA trial

AU - Amundsen, Cindy L.

AU - Richter, Holly E.

AU - Menefee, Shawn

AU - Vasavada, Sandip

AU - Rahn, David D.

AU - Kenton, Kim

AU - Harvie, Heidi S.

AU - Wallace, Dennis

AU - Meikle, Susie

PY - 2014/3

Y1 - 2014/3

N2 - We present the rationale for and design of a randomized, open-label, active-control trial comparing the effectiveness of 200. units of onabotulinum toxin A (Botox A®) versus sacral neuromodulation (InterStim®) therapy for refractory urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). The Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral N. Euromodulation vs. Bo. Tulinum Toxin Assessment (ROSETTA) trial compares changes in urgency urinary incontinence episodes over 6. months, as well as other lower urinary tract symptoms, adverse events and cost effectiveness in women receiving these two therapies. Eligible participants had previously attempted treatment with at least 2 medications and behavioral therapy. We discuss the importance of evaluating two very different interventions, the challenges related to recruitment, ethical considerations for two treatments with significantly different costs, follow-up assessments and cost effectiveness. The ROSETTA trial will provide information to healthcare providers regarding the technical attributes of these interventions as well as the efficacy and safety of these two interventions on other lower urinary tract and pelvic floor symptoms. Enrollment began in March, 2012 with anticipated end to recruitment in mid 2014.

AB - We present the rationale for and design of a randomized, open-label, active-control trial comparing the effectiveness of 200. units of onabotulinum toxin A (Botox A®) versus sacral neuromodulation (InterStim®) therapy for refractory urgency urinary incontinence (UUI). The Refractory Overactive Bladder: Sacral N. Euromodulation vs. Bo. Tulinum Toxin Assessment (ROSETTA) trial compares changes in urgency urinary incontinence episodes over 6. months, as well as other lower urinary tract symptoms, adverse events and cost effectiveness in women receiving these two therapies. Eligible participants had previously attempted treatment with at least 2 medications and behavioral therapy. We discuss the importance of evaluating two very different interventions, the challenges related to recruitment, ethical considerations for two treatments with significantly different costs, follow-up assessments and cost effectiveness. The ROSETTA trial will provide information to healthcare providers regarding the technical attributes of these interventions as well as the efficacy and safety of these two interventions on other lower urinary tract and pelvic floor symptoms. Enrollment began in March, 2012 with anticipated end to recruitment in mid 2014.

KW - Onabotulinum toxin A

KW - Sacral neuromodulation

KW - Urgency urinary incontinence

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84894106955&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84894106955&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.cct.2014.01.009

DO - 10.1016/j.cct.2014.01.009

M3 - Article

C2 - 24486637

AN - SCOPUS:84894106955

VL - 37

SP - 272

EP - 283

JO - Contemporary Clinical Trials

JF - Contemporary Clinical Trials

SN - 1551-7144

IS - 2

ER -