Urgent PC Versus a Generic Posterior Tibial Neurostimulator for Overactive Bladder: A Retrospective Noninferiority Study

Objective The aim of the study was to determine whether a generic posterior tibial neurostimulator was noninferior to Urgent PC in the treatment of nonneurogenic OAB, urgency urinary incontinence, and mixed urinary incontinence. Secondary outcomes include rates of starting and completing 3 months of maintenance therapy, treatment success after 3 months, and adverse events. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of women whose nonneurogenic OAB, urgency urinary incontinence, or mixed urinary incontinence was treated with either Urgent PC or a generic posterior tibial neurostimulator. Previous research shows a 55% treatment success rate for posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). To demonstrate noninferiority with a limit of 14% and 80% power, our analysis required 157 patients per group. Results We included 267 Urgent PC and 234 generic patients and excluded 51 patients from analysis. A per-protocol analysis demonstrated treatment success in 55.3% (121 of 219) of the Urgent PC and 48.6% (85 of 175) of the generic cohort (P = 0.187). An intention-to-treat analysis showed treatment success in 45.3% (121 of 267) of the Urgent PC and 36.3% (85 of 234) of the generic cohort (P = 0.690). There were no significant differences in rates of starting (82.2% vs 78.2%, P = 0.409) or completing (79.9% vs 70.9%, P = 0.129) 3 months of maintenance therapy, treatment success after 3 months (78.5% vs 73.8%, P = 0.485), and adverse events (0.37% vs 0.85%, P = 1.000) in the Urgent PC versus generic group, respectively. Conclusions In this cohort of women undergoing PTNS for nonneurogenic OAB, urgency urinary incontinence, or mixed urinary incontinence, the generic neurostimulator demonstrated noninferior rates of treatment success compared with Urgent PC.