Skip to content

Value of Urodynamic Evaluation

A Randomized Trial of Urodynamic Testing Before Stress-Incontinence Surgery

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00803959
Acronym
ValUE
Enrollment
630
Registered
2008-12-08
Start date
2008-11-30
Completion date
2010-06-30
Last updated
2013-08-06

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Urinary Incontinence

Keywords

Stress urinary incontinence, Mixed, Urge

Brief summary

Although no reliable and specific figures are available for the total expenditure on UDS, UDS is commonly performed for patients with urinary incontinence (UI) regardless of gender and age. UDS is typically performed prior to incontinence surgery. Urodynamic studies are expensive, time-consuming, and uncomfortable diagnostic investigations. The 3rd ICI reported insufficient evidence with which to answer the following key research questions related to UDS: 1) Do physicians alter clinical decision-making based on results of UDS?, and 2) Do alterations in clinical decisions made in response to UDS results improve the clinical outcomes?

Interventions

OTHEROffice evaluation

Office evaluation

OTHERUDS

Urodynamics

Sponsors

University of Alabama at Birmingham
CollaboratorOTHER
University of California, San Diego
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Maryland
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Pittsburgh
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
CollaboratorOTHER
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Utah
CollaboratorOTHER
Beaumont Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Loyola University
CollaboratorOTHER
Carelon Research
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
21 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

1. Female 2. Predominant SUI as evidenced by all of the following: 1. Self-reported stress-type UI symptoms, of duration \>3 months\* 2. MESA stress symptom score (percent of total possible stress score) greater than MESA urge symptom score (percent of total possible urge score) 3. Observation of leakage by provocative stress test at any volume 4. Eligible for randomization to either treatment group 5. Eligible for SUI surgery 6. Desires non-conservative therapy for SUI 7. PVR \<150ml by any method. (May repeat once if initial measure is abnormal) 8. Negative urine dipstick (negative result = trace or less for leukocytes & nitrites) or negative UA or negative culture 9. Available to initiate SUI treatment within 6 weeks of randomization 10. Available for 12-months of follow-up and able to complete study assessments, per clinician judgment. 11. Signed consent form. * Patient can be rescreened after respective time interval has been met.

Exclusion criteria

1. Age \<21 years\* 2. Currently undergoing or has had recommended treatment of apical or anterior prolapse 3. No anterior or apical prolapse \> +1 on standing straining prolapse exam 4. Pregnant or has not completed child bearing. 5. \<12 months post-partum\*† 6. Active malignancy of cervix, uterus, fallopian tube(s) or ovary \> Stage I, or bladder of any Stage 7. History of pelvic radiation therapy 8. Previous incontinence surgery 9. Current catheter use 10. Neurological disease known to affect bladder storage (e.g. MS, Parkinsonism, CVA) 11. Previous (i.e. repaired) or current urethral diverticulum 12. Prior augmentation cystoplasty or artificial sphincter 13. Implanted nerve stimulators for urinary symptoms or previous botox bladder injections. 14. Any pelvic surgery within the last 3 months\* 15. Previous placement of synthetic mesh on a vaginal approach in the anterior compartment 16. Participation in another treatment intervention trial that might influence results of this trial. 17. A urodynamic result reviewed by the investigator in the preceding 12 months or any recollection by the investigator of urodynamic results on that subject. * Patient can be rescreened after respective time interval has been met. * Partum is defined as a delivery or other termination that occurs after 20 weeks gestation.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Self-reported Urinary Incontinence, Irritative and Obstructive Symptoms: Reduction of 70%+ in the Urogenital Distress Inventory From Baseline to 12 Mos and Very Much or Much Better on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement Measure at 12 Mos.12 MonthsTreatment success is defined as a reduction in the Urogenital Distress Inventory score from baseline to 12 months of 70% or more and a Patient Global Impression of Improvement response of very much better or much better at 12 months.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Patient Global Impression Index12 MonthsPatient Global Impression of Improvement is a patient-reported measure of perceived improvement that is obtained by asking study participants, How is your urinary tract condition now, as compared with how it was before you received treatment for your urinary leakage? Responses are on a 7-point scale from 1 meaning very much better to 7 meaning very much worse. Values of very much better (1) or much better (2) were considered to have perceived improvement according to this criteria. Values of 3 or greater were not (e.g. a little better, no change, a little worse, much worse or very much worse). This instrument correlates with the frequency of incontinence episodes, pad tests, and quality of life as it relates to incontinence.
Change in Bother as Measured by the UDIBaseline, 12 MonthsThe Urogenital Distress Inventory is a 20-item patient-reported measure that assesses the presence of urinary incontinence, urgency, frequency, and voiding dysfunction and the extent to which the patient is bothered by these symptoms. Scores range from 0 to 300, with higher scores indicating greater distress. Change was calculated as the score at 12 months minus the score at baseline. Higher scores indicate worse function, so the larger the negative value, the greater the improvement.
Change in Severity as Measured by the ISIBaseline & 12 MonthsIncontinence Severity Index has scores ranging from 1 to 12 and higher scores indicating greater severity. Change was calculated as the score at 12 months minus the score at baseline. Higher scores indicate worse function, so the larger the negative value, the greater the improvement.
Change in MESA Stress ScoreScreen & 12 MonthsThe Medical, Epidemiological, and Social Aspects of Aging (MESA) stress score was measured at baseline and the 12 month visit with a possible range from 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating worse function. The outcome measures is change from baseline to 12 mo visit in MESA stress score. Change was calculated as the score at 12 months minus the score at baseline and could range from -100 to 100. Higher raw scores indicate worse function, so the larger the negative change score value, the greater the improvement.
Change in MESA Urge ScoreScreen & 12 MonthsThe Medical, Epidemiological, and Social Aspects of Aging (MESA) urge score was measured at baseline and the 12 month visit with a possible range from 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating worse function. The outcome measures is change from baseline to 12 mo visit in MESA urge score. Change was calculated as the score at 12 months minus the score at baseline and could range from -100 to 100. Higher raw scores indicate worse function, so the larger the negative change score value, the greater the improvement.
Percentage Meeting or Exceeding 70% Decrease in UDI Score Between Baseline and 12 MonthsBaseline, 12 mosThe Urogenital Distress Inventory is a 20-item patient-reported measure that assesses the presence of urinary incontinence, urgency, frequency, and voiding dysfunction and the extent to which the patient is bothered by these symptoms. Scores range from 0 to 300, with higher scores indicating greater distress. The 70% cutoff value was selected on the basis of the previous experience of the study investigators and receiver-operating- characteristic curve analyses from a previous surgical trial.
Change in Quality of Life as Measured by the SF-12Baseline, 12 MonthsThe Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short Form Health Survey has scores ranging from 0 to 200 and higher scores indicating better health. Change was calculated as the score at 12 months minus the score at baseline and could range from -200 to 200. The larger the positive value, the greater the improvement.
Change in Severity as Measured by the PGI-SBaseline & 12 MonthsThe Patient Global Impression of Severity has scores ranging from 1 \[normal\] to 4 \[severe\]. Change was calculated as the score at 12 months minus the score at baseline and could range from -3 to 3. Higher scores indicate worse function, so the larger the negative value, the greater the improvement.
Moderate or Severe Severity as Measured by the PGI-S12 MonthsThe Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) has scores ranging from 1 \[normal\] to 4 \[severe\]. This measure is the percentage of participants responding to the PGI-S with a 3 corresponding to the moderate category or a 4 corresponding to the severe category at the 12 month visit.
Patient Satisfaction With Treatment Outcome12 MonthsA summary score for patient satisfaction was based on responses to questions developed for this study with scores ranging from 0 to 100 and higher scores indicating better satisfaction.
Stress Test at 12 MosScreen and 12 monthsA provocative stress test at a bladder volume of 300 ml was performed for direct observation of urine leakage. Observed urine loss from the urethra coincidental with the Valsalva maneuver or cough was considered a positive test. The stress test was not performed by the study surgeon but rather by an outcome assessor who was unaware of the study assignments.
Change in Quality of Life as Measured by the IIQBaseline, 12 MonthsIncontinence Impact Questionnaire has scores ranging from 0 to 400 and higher scores indicating a more negative effect on quality of life. Change was calculated as the score at 12 months minus the score at baseline and scores could range from -400 to 400. Higher scores indicate worse function, so the larger the negative value, the greater the improvement.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Between November 2008 and June 2010, a total of 630 women underwent randomization (315 in each group) at 11 participating US sites. Of the 53 participating surgeons, 38 were urogynecologists and 15 were urologists; more than 90% were fellowship-trained.

Pre-assignment details

4083 women with urinary incontinence were screened for eligibility; of these 2708 did not meet inclusion criteria, 379 declined to participate and 313 were eligible but excluded for administrative reasons. This left 683 who provided written informed consent; 40 were deemed ineligible before randomization and 13 withdrew consent with 630 randomized.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Office Evaluation Only (no UDS)
UDS is not conducted during office evaluation visit prior to surgery for women desiring surgery for diagnosed, uncomplicated predominant stress urinary incontinence.
259
Urodynamic Testing (UDS Arm)
UDS is conducted during office evaluation visit prior to surgery for women desiring surgery for diagnosed, uncomplicated predominant stress urinary incontinence.
264
Total523

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicOffice Evaluation Only (no UDS)Urodynamic Testing (UDS Arm)Total
Age Continuous51.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10
51.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.4
51.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.2
Region of Enrollment
United States
259 participants264 participants523 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
259 Participants264 Participants523 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
39 / 31549 / 315
serious
Total, serious adverse events
30 / 31521 / 315

Outcome results

Primary

Self-reported Urinary Incontinence, Irritative and Obstructive Symptoms: Reduction of 70%+ in the Urogenital Distress Inventory From Baseline to 12 Mos and Very Much or Much Better on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement Measure at 12 Mos.

Treatment success is defined as a reduction in the Urogenital Distress Inventory score from baseline to 12 months of 70% or more and a Patient Global Impression of Improvement response of very much better or much better at 12 months.

Time frame: 12 Months

Population: There were 315 women randomized to each of the arms. In the no UDS arm (and UDS arm), 49 (43) did not have primary outcome data, leaving 266 (272) included in the ITT analysis. Of these, 259 (264) were included in the PP analysis with primary outcome data. The PP analysis was the primary analysis because the outcome was a non-inferiority endpoint.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Office Evaluation Only (no UDS)Self-reported Urinary Incontinence, Irritative and Obstructive Symptoms: Reduction of 70%+ in the Urogenital Distress Inventory From Baseline to 12 Mos and Very Much or Much Better on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement Measure at 12 Mos.77.2 percentage of participants
Urodynamic Testing (UDS Arm)Self-reported Urinary Incontinence, Irritative and Obstructive Symptoms: Reduction of 70%+ in the Urogenital Distress Inventory From Baseline to 12 Mos and Very Much or Much Better on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement Measure at 12 Mos.76.9 percentage of participants
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the no UDS group was non-inferior to those in the UDS group. Assuming a significance level of 5% and a true success rate in each group of 70% with a noninferiority margin of 11 percentage points, we needed to enroll 270 women/group to have 80% power for determining whether the results in the no UDS group were non inferior to those in the UDS group. Assuming a 10% dropout rate, a sample of 300 women per group was required.95% CI: [-7.5, 6.9]Chi-squared
Secondary

Change in Bother as Measured by the UDI

The Urogenital Distress Inventory is a 20-item patient-reported measure that assesses the presence of urinary incontinence, urgency, frequency, and voiding dysfunction and the extent to which the patient is bothered by these symptoms. Scores range from 0 to 300, with higher scores indicating greater distress. Change was calculated as the score at 12 months minus the score at baseline. Higher scores indicate worse function, so the larger the negative value, the greater the improvement.

Time frame: Baseline, 12 Months

Population: There were 315 women randomized to each arm. In the UDS arm, 43 did not have primary outcome data leaving 272 in the intention-to-treat group. In the no UDS arm, 49 did not have primary outcome data leaving 266 in the ITT group. ITT analysis was used for all outcomes with the exception of the primary non-inferiority endpoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Office Evaluation Only (no UDS)Change in Bother as Measured by the UDI-98.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 51.4
Urodynamic Testing (UDS Arm)Change in Bother as Measured by the UDI-100.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 50.1
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that the two arms do not differ according to change in UDI score.p-value: 0.68t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change in MESA Stress Score

The Medical, Epidemiological, and Social Aspects of Aging (MESA) stress score was measured at baseline and the 12 month visit with a possible range from 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating worse function. The outcome measures is change from baseline to 12 mo visit in MESA stress score. Change was calculated as the score at 12 months minus the score at baseline and could range from -100 to 100. Higher raw scores indicate worse function, so the larger the negative change score value, the greater the improvement.

Time frame: Screen & 12 Months

Population: There were 315 women randomized to each arm. In the UDS arm, 43 did not have primary outcome data leaving 272 in the intention-to-treat group. In the no UDS arm, 49 did not have primary outcome data leaving 266 in the ITT group. ITT analysis was used for all outcomes with the exception of the primary non-inferiority endpoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Office Evaluation Only (no UDS)Change in MESA Stress Score-60.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.7
Urodynamic Testing (UDS Arm)Change in MESA Stress Score-61.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 22
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ in change in MESA stress score.p-value: 0.5t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change in MESA Urge Score

The Medical, Epidemiological, and Social Aspects of Aging (MESA) urge score was measured at baseline and the 12 month visit with a possible range from 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating worse function. The outcome measures is change from baseline to 12 mo visit in MESA urge score. Change was calculated as the score at 12 months minus the score at baseline and could range from -100 to 100. Higher raw scores indicate worse function, so the larger the negative change score value, the greater the improvement.

Time frame: Screen & 12 Months

Population: There were 315 women randomized to each arm. In the UDS arm, 43 did not have primary outcome data leaving 272 in the intention-to-treat group. In the no UDS arm, 49 did not have primary outcome data leaving 266 in the ITT group. ITT analysis was used for all outcomes with the exception of the primary non-inferiority endpoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Office Evaluation Only (no UDS)Change in MESA Urge Score-22.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.4
Urodynamic Testing (UDS Arm)Change in MESA Urge Score-19.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.4
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that the two arms do not differ according to change in MESA urgency score.p-value: 0.19t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change in Quality of Life as Measured by the IIQ

Incontinence Impact Questionnaire has scores ranging from 0 to 400 and higher scores indicating a more negative effect on quality of life. Change was calculated as the score at 12 months minus the score at baseline and scores could range from -400 to 400. Higher scores indicate worse function, so the larger the negative value, the greater the improvement.

Time frame: Baseline, 12 Months

Population: There were 315 women randomized to each arm. In the UDS arm, 43 did not have primary outcome data leaving 272 in the intention-to-treat group. In the no UDS arm, 49 did not have primary outcome data leaving 266 in the ITT group. ITT analysis was used for all outcomes with the exception of the primary non-inferiority endpoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Office Evaluation Only (no UDS)Change in Quality of Life as Measured by the IIQ-37.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.7
Urodynamic Testing (UDS Arm)Change in Quality of Life as Measured by the IIQ-35.9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.2
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean change in IIQ score.p-value: 0.49t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change in Quality of Life as Measured by the SF-12

The Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short Form Health Survey has scores ranging from 0 to 200 and higher scores indicating better health. Change was calculated as the score at 12 months minus the score at baseline and could range from -200 to 200. The larger the positive value, the greater the improvement.

Time frame: Baseline, 12 Months

Population: There were 315 women randomized to each arm. In the UDS arm, 43 did not have primary outcome data leaving 272 in the intention-to-treat group. In the no UDS arm, 49 did not have primary outcome data leaving 266 in the ITT group. ITT analysis was used for all outcomes with the exception of the primary non-inferiority endpoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Office Evaluation Only (no UDS)Change in Quality of Life as Measured by the SF-127.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12
Urodynamic Testing (UDS Arm)Change in Quality of Life as Measured by the SF-125.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.8
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean change in SF-12 scores.p-value: 0.02t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change in Severity as Measured by the ISI

Incontinence Severity Index has scores ranging from 1 to 12 and higher scores indicating greater severity. Change was calculated as the score at 12 months minus the score at baseline. Higher scores indicate worse function, so the larger the negative value, the greater the improvement.

Time frame: Baseline & 12 Months

Population: There were 315 women randomized to each arm. In the UDS arm, 43 did not have primary outcome data leaving 272 in the intention-to-treat group. In the no UDS arm, 49 did not have primary outcome data leaving 266 in the ITT group. ITT analysis was used for all outcomes with the exception of the primary non-inferiority endpoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Office Evaluation Only (no UDS)Change in Severity as Measured by the ISI-5.7 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.4
Urodynamic Testing (UDS Arm)Change in Severity as Measured by the ISI-6.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.3
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to change in ISI score.p-value: 0.4t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change in Severity as Measured by the PGI-S

The Patient Global Impression of Severity has scores ranging from 1 \[normal\] to 4 \[severe\]. Change was calculated as the score at 12 months minus the score at baseline and could range from -3 to 3. Higher scores indicate worse function, so the larger the negative value, the greater the improvement.

Time frame: Baseline & 12 Months

Population: There were 315 women randomized to each arm. In the UDS arm, 43 did not have primary outcome data leaving 272 in the intention-to-treat group. In the no UDS arm, 49 did not have primary outcome data leaving 266 in the ITT group. ITT analysis was used for all outcomes with the exception of the primary non-inferiority endpoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Office Evaluation Only (no UDS)Change in Severity as Measured by the PGI-S-1.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
Urodynamic Testing (UDS Arm)Change in Severity as Measured by the PGI-S-1.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean change in PGI-S score.p-value: 0.51t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Moderate or Severe Severity as Measured by the PGI-S

The Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) has scores ranging from 1 \[normal\] to 4 \[severe\]. This measure is the percentage of participants responding to the PGI-S with a 3 corresponding to the moderate category or a 4 corresponding to the severe category at the 12 month visit.

Time frame: 12 Months

Population: There were 315 women randomized to each arm. In the UDS arm, 43 did not have primary outcome data leaving 272 in the intention-to-treat group. In the no UDS arm, 49 did not have primary outcome data leaving 266 in the ITT group. One woman was missing PGI-S data in the UDS arm and was excluded leaving n=271 in the UDS arm.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Office Evaluation Only (no UDS)Moderate or Severe Severity as Measured by the PGI-S5.6 percentage of participants
Urodynamic Testing (UDS Arm)Moderate or Severe Severity as Measured by the PGI-S7.0 percentage of participants
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ in the proportion of women who score moderate or severe on the PGI-S at 12 monthsp-value: 0.51Chi-squared
Secondary

Patient Global Impression Index

Patient Global Impression of Improvement is a patient-reported measure of perceived improvement that is obtained by asking study participants, How is your urinary tract condition now, as compared with how it was before you received treatment for your urinary leakage? Responses are on a 7-point scale from 1 meaning very much better to 7 meaning very much worse. Values of very much better (1) or much better (2) were considered to have perceived improvement according to this criteria. Values of 3 or greater were not (e.g. a little better, no change, a little worse, much worse or very much worse). This instrument correlates with the frequency of incontinence episodes, pad tests, and quality of life as it relates to incontinence.

Time frame: 12 Months

Population: 315 women were randomized to each arm. In the UDS arm, 43 did not have primary outcome data leaving 272 in the intention-to-treat group. In the no UDS arm, 49 did not have primary outcome data leaving 266 in the ITT group. Two were missing PGI-I data in the UDS arm and 4 in the no UDS arm; sample size was 262 in no UDS arm and 270 in the UDS arm.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Office Evaluation Only (no UDS)Patient Global Impression Index90.8 percentage of participants
Urodynamic Testing (UDS Arm)Patient Global Impression Index91.9 percentage of participants
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the proportion responding very much better or much better on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement at the 12 month visit.p-value: 0.68Chi-squared
Secondary

Patient Satisfaction With Treatment Outcome

A summary score for patient satisfaction was based on responses to questions developed for this study with scores ranging from 0 to 100 and higher scores indicating better satisfaction.

Time frame: 12 Months

Population: There were 315 women randomized to each arm. In the UDS arm, 43 did not have primary outcome data leaving 272 in the intention-to-treat group. In the no UDS arm, 49 did not have primary outcome data leaving 266 in the ITT group. ITT analysis was used for all outcomes with the exception of the primary non-inferiority endpoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Office Evaluation Only (no UDS)Patient Satisfaction With Treatment Outcome82.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 28.6
Urodynamic Testing (UDS Arm)Patient Satisfaction With Treatment Outcome79.5 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 30.4
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that the 2 arms do not differ according to mean overall patient satisfaction score at 12 months.p-value: 0.28t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Percentage Meeting or Exceeding 70% Decrease in UDI Score Between Baseline and 12 Months

The Urogenital Distress Inventory is a 20-item patient-reported measure that assesses the presence of urinary incontinence, urgency, frequency, and voiding dysfunction and the extent to which the patient is bothered by these symptoms. Scores range from 0 to 300, with higher scores indicating greater distress. The 70% cutoff value was selected on the basis of the previous experience of the study investigators and receiver-operating- characteristic curve analyses from a previous surgical trial.

Time frame: Baseline, 12 mos

Population: There were 315 women randomized to each arm. In the UDS arm, 43 did not have primary outcome data leaving 272 in the intention-to-treat group. In the no UDS arm, 49 did not have primary outcome data leaving 266 in the ITT group. ITT analysis was used for all outcomes with the exception of the primary non-inferiority endpoint.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Office Evaluation Only (no UDS)Percentage Meeting or Exceeding 70% Decrease in UDI Score Between Baseline and 12 Months78.9 percentage of participants
Urodynamic Testing (UDS Arm)Percentage Meeting or Exceeding 70% Decrease in UDI Score Between Baseline and 12 Months77.2 percentage of participants
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that the two groups will not differ in the percent meeting 70% reduction in Urogenital Distress Inventory score.p-value: 0.63Chi-squared
Secondary

Stress Test at 12 Mos

A provocative stress test at a bladder volume of 300 ml was performed for direct observation of urine leakage. Observed urine loss from the urethra coincidental with the Valsalva maneuver or cough was considered a positive test. The stress test was not performed by the study surgeon but rather by an outcome assessor who was unaware of the study assignments.

Time frame: Screen and 12 months

Population: There were 315 women randomized to each arm. In the UDS arm, 43 did not have primary outcome data leaving 272 in the intention-to-treat group. In the no UDS arm, 49 did not have primary outcome data leaving 266 in the ITT group. Of these, only 225 in the UDS arm and 222 in the no UDS had stress test data at 12 months.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Office Evaluation Only (no UDS)Stress Test at 12 Mos11.7 percentage of participants
Urodynamic Testing (UDS Arm)Stress Test at 12 Mos16.0 percentage of participants
Comparison: Null hypothesis is that the proportion having a positive provocative stress test at 12 months was the same in both treatment arms.p-value: 0.19Chi-squared

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 26, 2026