Peyronie's Disease Agents

Collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH / Xiaflex) is the only FDA-approved pharmacologic treatment for Peyronie's disease (PD). Interferon α-2b has moderate guideline support for intralesional use, while intralesional verapamil has weak and conflicting evidence. The AUA PD Guideline hierarchy places CCH as a Moderate Recommendation (Grade B), IFN α-2b as a supported option with counseling for flu-like side effects (Clinical Principle), and verapamil as having "substantial uncertainty regarding its efficacy."^[1] Multiple oral agents (vitamin E, tamoxifen, procarbazine, omega-3, vitamin E + L-carnitine) are explicitly recommended against by the AUA, while PRP and hyaluronic acid are emerging intralesional therapies under active investigation.

For broader context, see the clinical Peyronie's disease article and Intracavernosal injection agents for the injection technique context. For ED in PD, see PDE5 inhibitors.

---

Collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH / Xiaflex) — FDA-approved

Mechanism

CCH is a mixture of two bacterial collagenases — AUX-I (Class I) and AUX-II (Class II) — derived from Clostridium histolyticum. These enzymes enzymatically degrade collagen types I and III, the primary structural components of Peyronie's plaques, disrupting the fibrotic architecture and allowing mechanical remodeling of the tunica albuginea.^[2][3]

FDA-approved indication and dosing^[4]

• Indication: adult men with PD with a palpable plaque and curvature deformity ≥30° at the start of therapy
• Dose: 0.58 mg per injection into the plaque
• Treatment cycle: 2 injections, 1–3 days apart, followed by a penile modeling procedure 1–3 days after the second injection
• Maximum: up to 4 treatment cycles at ~6-week intervals (total: 8 injections, 4 modeling procedures)
• Stopping rule: stop if curvature is <15° or if any further therapy is judged clinically inappropriate
• REMS program required — available only through the XIAFLEX REMS

Injection technique^[4]

1. Induce erection (intracavernosal alprostadil 10–20 µg) to identify the point of maximum concavity
2. Mark the target area
3. Allow the penis to return to flaccid before injection
4. 27-gauge ½-inch needle inserted from the side of the plaque, advanced transversely through the width — do not advance beneath the plaque or perpendicularly toward the corpora
5. Confirm proper needle position by resistance to plunger depression
6. Slowly inject 0.25 mL of reconstituted solution

Penile modeling performed by the clinician 1–3 days after the second injection of each cycle. Patients perform home modeling 3 times daily between cycles and attempt to straighten the penis painlessly during spontaneous erections once daily.^[1]

Efficacy — IMPRESS I/II pivotal trials

Two identical Phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs (n = 832 combined):^[1][4]

Outcome	CCH	Placebo	Difference
Mean % change in curvature (Study 1 / 2)	−35.0% / −33.2%	−17.8% / −21.8%	−17.2% / −11.4% (p < 0.01)
Absolute curvature reduction	~17°	~9.3°	7.7° net benefit
PDQ Bother domain	Significantly improved	Less improvement	p < 0.05

The AUA Guideline explicitly frames this as a "modest difference of 7.7°" vs placebo, while acknowledging the absolute 17° reduction in the treated arm is clinically meaningful.^[1]

Real-world effectiveness

Hellstrom 2019 multi-institutional analysis (n = 918):^[5]

• Curvature 48.2° → 32.9° (30.1% improvement; p < 0.001)
• Confirms IMPRESS magnitude translates outside the trial population

Zhang 2022 meta-analysis (prospective studies) corroborates the ~30% curvature-reduction signal across the contemporary literature.^[6]

Incremental benefit by cycle — complete the course

Ziegelmann 2023 pooled analysis of the IMPRESS trials — each additional cycle produces incremental benefit:^[7]

Group	≥20% curvature reduction
After cycle 1 only	29.9%
Among cycle 1 non-responders, across all 4 cycles	60.8%
Among cycle 1–2 non-responders, by cycle 4	42.7%
Among cycle 1–3 non-responders, by cycle 4	23.5%

Counsel patients to complete all 4 cycles even when early response is modest.

Patient-reported outcomes

Ziegelmann 2016 clinical-practice cohort (n = 69) after 4 series:^[8]

• 57% — CCH negated the need for surgery
• 52% — restoration of penetration
• 81% — perceived treatment as meaningful
• 88% — subjective improvement

Long-term durability — 5-year data

Goldstein 2020 Phase 4 (n = 280) followed CCH-treated patients for 5 years without additional treatment:^[9][10]

• Baseline of the follow-up already reflected a mean curvature improvement of 20.9° (39.5%) from CCH therapy
• Additional 9.1% improvement occurred by year 5 (4.3° further reduction; p < 0.001)
• Durable response without retreatment

Adverse events and safety

CCH carries an FDA boxed warning for corporal rupture and serious penile injury.^[4]

Adverse event	CCH	Placebo	Notes
Any AE	92%	61%	Most mild–moderate; 79% resolved within 14 days
Penile hematoma	≥25%	—	Most common AE
Penile swelling	≥25%	—
Penile pain	≥25%	—
Severe penile hematoma	3.7% (39/1,044)	—	May require intervention
Confirmed corporal rupture	0.5% (5/1,044)	—	Surgical emergency
Corporal rupture cannot be excluded	0.9% (9/1,044)	—	"Popping" + ecchymosis + detumescence

Zucker 2024 VA study (n = 1,541) — 0.7% corporal rupture rate (11/1,541); most fractures occurred within 2 weeks of injection, associated with intercourse or spontaneous erections. Six required surgical repair; five managed conservatively.^[11]

Contraindications and precautions

• Do NOT inject into the urethra, corpora cavernosa, or penile vasculature
• Avoid sexual intercourse and vigorous penile activity for ~2 weeks after each injection
• Not studied in ventral plaques — IMPRESS enrolled only dorsal and lateral plaques^[12]

Subgroup data — who responds and who does not (Lipshultz 2015)

Pooled IMPRESS subgroup analysis identified clinically meaningful between-group differences and the patient profiles that did not benefit:^[69]

Subgroup	Response signal vs placebo
Baseline curvature 30–60°	Significant
Baseline curvature 61–90°	Significant
Disease duration > 2 years	Significant
No calcification	Significant
IIEF ≥ 17	Significant
Contiguous calcification	Not significant
IIEF 6–16	Not significant

Key implication. Calcified plaques and patients with significant ED do not show meaningful CCH curvature improvement over placebo — calcification is now widely considered the most important single negative predictor.^[70]

Predictors of response

Four well-studied predictors of favorable CCH response (Masterson 2020 review):^[70]

• Baseline curvature 30–60° > 60°.
• Longer / stable disease duration.
• IIEF ≥ 17 (intact erectile function).
• Absence of plaque calcification — emerging as the dominant negative predictor (CCH cannot degrade calcified plaques).

Cocci 2018 nomogram (c-index 0.93) — baseline curvature, basal plaque location, and low / absent calcification predict ≥ 20° curvature improvement.^[71]

Cahill & Trost 2025 J Sex Med (n = 826, largest single-center prospective series): on multivariate analysis, baseline curvature, lateral curve direction, hourglass / indentation deformity, RestoreX traction-device use, and suspected controlled penile fracture during treatment were independently associated with better outcomes. RestoreX use was associated with the largest degree of improvement. Worse outcomes in pure-lateral curvatures and decreased patient motivation.^[72]

CCH + traction combinations

Alom 2019 J Sex Med three-arm comparison — CCH alone (n = 38) vs CCH + other PTT device (n = 32) vs CCH + RestoreX (n = 43):^[91]

Outcome	CCH alone	CCH + other PTT	CCH + RestoreX
Curvature improvement	20.3° (31%)	19.2° (30%)	33.8° (49%)
Length change	−0.7 cm	−0.4 cm	+1.9 cm
Subjective improvement	44%	32%	63%
Daily PTT use	—	1.9 h	0.9 h
≥ 20° improvement	reference	NS	OR 6.9

CCH + RestoreX enhanced curvature outcomes by 71% and converted length loss to length gain vs CCH alone. CCH + other PTT devices showed no benefit over CCH alone — device design and counter-bending mechanism appear to matter, not just the addition of traction. The Ziegelmann 2017 Urology "true-to-life" Andropenis cohort (n = 51, 20.9° improvement) is consistent with the "other-device" arm — traditional strap extenders do not augment CCH outcomes.^[92]

García-Gómez 2021 prospective multicenter single-arm (n = 87) using IMPRESS protocol + penile extender ≥ 4 h/day starting 24–48 h after injection — curvature 57° → 34° (−23.3°, −41%) achieved with a mean of 2 cycles vs 4 in IMPRESS, suggesting traction may shorten the CCH course.^[93]

Hatzichristou 2026 "3 Ts" framework — daily Tadalafil + intralesional Tunneling biologics + daily Traction — reframes PD management from deformity correction to structural restoration. Awaits prospective validation.^[94]

For the dedicated PTT page see penile traction therapy.

Long-term durability — calcification subgroup (Goldstein 2020 Urology)

A subgroup analysis of the 5-yr Goldstein cohort by calcification status showed^[73]:

• Patients without calcification gained an additional 10% curvature improvement at year 5.
• Patients with stippled or non-interfering calcification maintained their initial CCH-induced improvement through year 5.

This is consistent with the Lipshultz 2015 subgroup signal — calcified plaques do not respond at baseline and do not gain durable late benefit.

Risk factors for corporal rupture (Zucker 2024)

VA database analysis (n = 1,541; 11 ruptures, 0.7%):^[11]

• Median 6 CCH injections before fracture.
• Median initial curvature 35°.
• Fracture occurred at a median of 8 days after injection.
• Most fractures secondary to spontaneous erections or sexual intercourse.
• 6 required surgical repair; 5 managed conservatively.

CCH vs surgery — head-to-head (Yafi 2018)

Multi-institutional prospective comparison (n = 57):^[74]

Treatment	Mean curvature change	% Correction
CCH	23.3°	34.4%
Tunical plication	72.0°	92.2%
Plaque excision + grafting	71.8°	94.9%

Surgery is substantially superior for curvature correction. CCH's role is for patients who decline / cannot have surgery, or who prefer a non-operative path with a smaller absolute correction.

Cost-effectiveness (Wymer 2019 Markov model)

10-year cost / patient and ≥ 20% curvature-improvement success rates:^[75]

Treatment	10-yr cost	≥ 20% curvature improvement
Penile traction (RestoreX)	$883	48%
Surgery	$11,419	96%
CCH	$33,628	66%

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 / QALY, the most cost-effective strategy was traction in 49%, surgery in 48%, and CCH in only 3% of simulations. CCH would become more cost-effective if its cost dropped to ≤ $16,726 or its success rate rose to ≥ 76%.

Impact on contemporary surgical practice

Sukumar 2020 New York State population analysis (2003–2016): since CCH FDA approval in 2013 there has been a markedly decreasing trend in surgical management as primary PD treatment. Post-CCH-era patients were 17% more likely to receive injection therapy. CCH access skewed to younger patients, higher socioeconomic status, and high-volume surgeons.^[76]

Market availability

CCH remains FDA-approved and available in the US through the REMS program. It has been discontinued in Canada and Europe due to cost and poor market uptake, shifting practice toward surgical management in those regions.^[13]

---

Interferon α-2b

Practice guideline

The AUA PD Guideline provides a Conditional Recommendation, Evidence Strength Grade C: clinicians may administer intralesional IFN α-2b for PD. The panel positioned IFN α-2b as most appropriate for stable disease (>12 mo), based on the observation that the positive placebo-controlled RCT enrolled patients with mean symptom duration of 20 months while a separate trial in early-phase PD (<6 mo) showed no benefit. Patients should be counseled about sinusitis, flu-like symptoms, and minor penile swelling, all manageable with OTC NSAIDs and lasting <48 h.^[1]

Mechanism

Antifibrotic, antiproliferative, and immunomodulatory cytokine — the triple mechanism (reduced collagen production, inhibited fibroblast proliferation, enhanced collagen breakdown) is the strongest biologic rationale among intralesional PD agents:^{[16][12][14][1]}

• Decreased fibroblast proliferation — reduces the cellular substrate for plaque formation
• Decreased collagen synthesis — targets the primary structural component of PD plaques
• Increased collagenase production — upregulates endogenous collagenase, promoting enzymatic degradation of existing collagen (distinguishes IFN α-2b from most other PD therapies)
• Myofibroblast modulation — alters in-vitro metabolic activity of the key effector cells in PD fibrosis
• Modulates TGF-β signaling

FDA status: not FDA-approved for PD — all use is off-label.

Dosing^[12][15][1]

Two regimens have been used:

• RCT protocol (Hellstrom 2006): 5 MU in 10 mL saline, biweekly × 12 weeks (6 injections total)
• Tulane / real-world protocol (Trost 2013, Stewart 2015): 2 MU, biweekly × median 12 injections (range 6–24) — the more commonly employed regimen

Efficacy

Hellstrom single-blind multicenter placebo-controlled RCT (n = 117 enrolled / 103 completed; stable PD >12 mo; curvature ≥30°; single plaque):^[1]

Outcome	IFN α-2b	Placebo
Curvature reduction	13.5°	4.5°
Plaque size reduction	2.6 cm²	0.9 cm²
Penile pain resolution	67.7%	28.1%
Plaque density	Improved	No change
Peak systolic velocity / mean resistive index	Improved	No change
IIEF erectile function	No difference	No difference

Cochrane 2023 review rated certainty of evidence as very low, downgrading for serious study limitations (single-blind), indirectness (single-plaque patients only), and imprecision (MD −10.0°; 95% CI −15.95 to −4.05; single trial, 103 participants). The review explicitly cautions that Hellstrom 2006 and Kendirci 2006 refer to the same single study — they should not be double-counted in systematic reviews.^[16]

Inal et al. trial (negative) randomized early-phase PD (<6 mo) to vitamin E vs IFN 5 MU weekly × 12 wk vs IFN + vitamin E and found no significant improvement in curvature, plaque size, or pain across any arm. The negative result in early-phase PD is the basis for the AUA stable-disease framing.^[1]

Tulane retrospective series (Trost 2013 / Stewart 2015, n = 127):^[12][15]

• Median 12 biweekly injections of 2 MU; mean pretreatment curvature 42.4°
• 54% response (≥20% curvature improvement); overall mean improvement 9.0° (p < 0.001)
• Duration of PD did not affect response
• Plaque-location independent: dorsal/lateral 54% vs ventral 52% response (p = 0.92); curvature change 8.7° vs 9.3° (p = 0.84) — a key advantage over CCH (which excludes ventral plaques)

Wegner 1995 historical series (n = 25; 1 MU × 5 weekly injections) showed clinical improvement in only 1 patient and plaque-size increase in 6 of 6 patients with calcified plaques, highlighting the importance of adequate dosing and futility of treating calcified plaques.^[77]

Comparative effectiveness

Russo 2019 network meta-analysis (8 comparisons, 1,050 patients) ranked CCH and IFN α-2b as comparable and best-in-class for curvature improvement, with hyaluronic acid and verapamil substantially worse (−6.66° and −2.30° vs CCH; −6.75° and −2.38° vs IFN). For erectile function (IIEF), HA showed greatest improvement; IFN α-2b was slightly worse than verapamil.^[78]

Jordan 2014 evidence-based classification identified IFN α-2b alongside CCH as the only two intralesional therapies with Level 1/2 evidence supporting curvature reduction in placebo-controlled studies; all other minimally invasive treatments (verapamil, nicardipine, oral therapies, ESWT, iontophoresis) showed mixed or negative results.^[42]

Hayat 2023 systematic review confirmed IFN α-2b improvements in curvature (12–13.5°), plaque size (1.67–2.2 cm²), and pain, with limited overall evidence quality.^[32] The European Urology SR (Russo 2018) reached the same CCH-and-IFN-only conclusion.^[14]

Manfredi 2025 acute-phase SR (20 studies, 1,291 patients) found acute-phase injection therapy demonstrates variable efficacy and a relatively favorable safety profile (no severe complications across acute-phase studies), but evidence quality remains low.^[79]

Adverse effects^[1]

• Flu-like symptoms (myalgias, fevers, chills) — most common; mild-to-moderate; last <48 h; ameliorated by NSAIDs taken before/after injection plus hydration
• Sinusitis — specifically called out in the AUA guideline
• Minor penile swelling at injection site
• Withdrawal for myalgia/fever in 8% (2 of 25) in Wegner 1995^[77]
• No corporal rupture risk (unlike CCH); no REMS program required
• Cochrane found no signal of increased discontinuation vs placebo (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.22–1.76; very low certainty)^[16]

Practical advantages over CCH

• Ventral plaques — IFN α-2b has demonstrated efficacy independent of plaque location;^[12] ventral plaques are excluded from the CCH IMPRESS indication
• No REMS program required
• No corporal rupture risk; no modeling procedure required
• Substantially lower cost — Xiaflex ~$33,628 per treatment course^[75]
• Broader plaque effects — reduces plaque size and density in addition to curvature

---

Intralesional verapamil

Intralesional verapamil is one of the most widely used off-label injection therapies for PD, with a 30-year clinical track record. Despite consistently favorable uncontrolled-series results, the controlled evidence is weak and conflicting, and major guidelines diverge.^[1][16]

Guideline divergence

• AUA — "The evidence for intralesional verapamil is weak; clinicians should carefully consider whether use of this treatment is appropriate given the substantial uncertainty regarding its efficacy and the availability of other treatments that are clearly more effective." No formal recommendation for or against was issued.^[1]
• EAU (Salonia 2021) — recommends against intralesional verapamil^[16]
• ISSM — sees a potential role^[16]

Mechanism

Calcium channel blocker with antifibrotic effects through multiple pathways:^[16][80]

• Inhibits ECM synthesis/secretion — decreases fibroblast production of collagen, GAGs, fibronectin
• Increases collagenase activity — promotes degradation of existing collagen deposits
• TGF-β modulation — modifies a key fibrosis mediator
• Improved penile hemodynamics in animal models — improved electrostimulated penile pressure vs saline / control^[80]
• Histological evidence (Chung 2013 rat PD model) — decreased collagen and elastin fibers; significant reduction in smooth-muscle α-actin (p < 0.05)^[80]

FDA status: not FDA-approved for PD — all use is off-label.

Dosing protocols

Multiple regimens have been used, contributing to interpretive difficulty:

Protocol	Dose	Volume	Frequency	Total injections
Levine 1994 pilot[81]	Dose-escalating	—	Biweekly × 6 mo	~12
Levine 1997[17]	10 mg	10 mL	Every 2 wk × 24 wk	12
Rehman 1998 RCT[82]	10–27 mg	10 mL	Weekly × 6 mo	~24
Levine 2002[83]	10 mg	10 mL	Every 2 wk × 24 wk	12
Wolff 2015[84]	15 mg	6 mL	Every 3 wk × ≥18 wk	≥6 (mean 12.6)

Technique. Levine described a multiple-puncture approach with a 25-gauge needle to distribute drug throughout the plaque.^[17] Wolff used a single-puncture alternative (15 mg / 6 mL).^[84] Local anesthesia (penile block or topical) is typical.

Key clinical studies

Levine 1994 pilot (n = 14) — first published series; biweekly dose-escalating × 6 mo: subjective penile-narrowing improvement 100%, curvature improvement 42%, plaque-volume decrease >50% in 30%, plaque softening in all; 83% reported EF arrested or improved; no toxicity.^[81]

Levine 1997 expanded series (n = 46 / 38 completers) — 10 mg in 10 mL biweekly × 12 injections:^[17]

• Pain resolution 97% (after mean 2.5 injections); subjective curvature decrease 76%; objective curvature decrease 54%; improved sexual function 72%; improved distal rigidity 93%
• No significant difference by disease duration or Kelami class
• No significant AEs other than transient ecchymosis

Rehman 1998 RCT (n = 14 completers) — only placebo-controlled trial, single-blind, weekly × 6 mo (7 verapamil / 7 saline):^[82]

• Plaque-volume decrease 57% (verapamil) vs 28% (saline) (p < 0.05)
• Curvature: not statistically significant difference between arms
• Authors concluded patients with curvature > 30° were more likely to benefit from surgery

Levine 2002 — largest single-center series (n = 156 / 140 completers):^[83]

• Objective curvature decrease 60%; subjective 62%; increased girth 83%; increased distal rigidity 80%; improved sexual function 71%
• Response by Kelami class: 41% (I), 68% (II), 62% (III); no difference by disease duration
• Mean follow-up 30.4 mo with no recurrence in initial responders

Wolff 2015 prospective with predictive analysis (n = 60) — 15 mg in 6 mL, single-puncture, every 3 wk × mean 12.6 injections:^[84]

• Curvature 37.3° → 21.0° (p = 0.02); Lue severity 9.4 → 4.5 (p = 0.05); global improvement 78%
• Younger age was the only significant predictor of response on univariate (OR 0.91, p = 0.04) and multivariate analysis (OR 0.87, p = 0.03)
• Most patients required ≥ 12 injections for optimal improvement

Cochrane 2023 — very low certainty

The Cochrane review included only Rehman 1998 and rated all outcomes very low certainty:^[16]

• Curvature degree: MD −1.86°, 95% CI −10.39 to 6.67 (14 participants) — "very uncertain"
• Subjective curvature change: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.27–5.44 (61 participants) — very uncertain
• Ability to have intercourse: RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.43–114.70 — very uncertain (no events in control)
• Cochrane excluded several verapamil studies for data-integrity concerns (including some Levine cohorts)

Comparative effectiveness

Russo 2019 NMA — verapamil inferior to CCH (−2.30°) and IFN α-2b (−2.38°) for curvature; for IIEF, verapamil slightly better than IFN α-2b (+1.12) but worse than HA (−0.62).^[78] Russo 2018 EU review concluded "no robust evidence is available to support the use of calcium channel blockers."^[14]

Sadagopan 2019 meta-analysis of 7 study groups — significant improvement in sexual function (p < 0.05); curvature/plaque effects not statistically significant; pain effect questionable.^[18]

Jordan 2014 evidence-based classification placed verapamil among agents with "mixed or negative results" — not the Level 1/2 evidence achieved by CCH and IFN α-2b.^[42]

Adverse effects

Favorable safety profile:^[1][17][83]

• Penile bruising/ecchymosis (most common; transient)
• Injection-site pain (managed with local anesthesia)
• Occasional dizziness; infrequent nausea
• No corporal rupture risk (unlike CCH); no systemic flu-like symptoms (unlike IFN α-2b); no REMS required
• No significant cardiovascular effects at intralesional doses

Practical positioning

Verapamil's primary advantages are low cost (inexpensive generic; substantially cheaper than CCH ~$33,628 or IFN α-2b),^[75] excellent safety, applicability to all plaque locations, and no special training/REMS. It is a reasonable option when CCH or IFN α-2b are unavailable, unaffordable, or contraindicated — particularly for noncalcified plaques and mild curvature (< 30°) in younger patients, who appear most likely to respond per Wolff 2015.^[84]

---

Oral agents

Agents the AUA recommends AGAINST^[1]

The AUA PD Guideline (Moderate Recommendation; Grade B/C) explicitly states clinicians should not offer oral therapy with:

• Vitamin E
• Tamoxifen
• Procarbazine
• Omega-3 fatty acids
• Vitamin E + L-carnitine combination

"There is no convincing evidence for the efficacy of any of the listed therapies"; using ineffective treatments delays effective therapy and constitutes a moderate risk/burden.

Vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) — DO NOT OFFER

AUA Guideline Statement #6 (Moderate Recommendation; Evidence Strength Grade B): clinicians should not offer oral vitamin E for PD. The same statement covers tamoxifen, procarbazine, omega-3, and vitamin E + L-carnitine.^[1]

Historical context. Vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) is the oldest and most widely used oral therapy for PD — first introduced by Scott and Scardino in 1948 based on uncontrolled case-series data without placebo controls and without accounting for the natural history of PD (which includes spontaneous pain resolution). For decades it remained the most commonly prescribed oral PD agent due to perceived safety, low cost, and OTC availability.^[41][42]

Mechanism (biologic rationale, weak). Lipid-soluble antioxidant; scavenges peroxyl radicals; theoretically mitigates oxidative-stress-mediated tunical injury. No preclinical studies have demonstrated meaningful anti-fibrotic activity in tunica-albuginea-derived fibroblasts — antioxidant / anti-fibrotic effects are considerably weaker than agents that directly antagonize TGF-β1 / Smad signaling (e.g., pentoxifylline).^[43]

Clinical evidence — placebo-controlled and negative.

Study	Design	Outcomes
Safarinejad 2007 J Urol RCT	Double-blind placebo-controlled n = 236, 4 arms (vitamin E 300 mg BID / propionyl-L-carnitine / both / placebo × 6 mo)	No significant difference vs placebo: pain reduction 60.4% vs 59.2% (p = 0.1); curvature 18.9% vs 18.4% (p = 0.09); plaque 11.3% vs 11.1% (p = 0.1)[44]
Inal et al. comparative trial	Vitamin E 400 IU BID × 24 wk vs IFN vs IFN + vitamin E	No statistically significant improvement in any parameter (curvature / plaque / pain)[1]
Prieto Castro 2003 non-randomized	Ibuprofen alone vs vitamin E 600 mg/d + colchicine 1 mg BID × 6 mo in early PD	No true placebo arm, small sample, mixed result[45]

The Safarinejad 2007 trial's negative result is consistent with the broader evidence base; Cochrane 2023 excluded all Safarinejad PD studies for data-integrity concerns, but the AUA cited Safarinejad 2007 in formulating the recommendation against vitamin E.^[16]

Safety signals at PD-treatment doses. High-dose vitamin E is not benign:

• Miller 2005 meta-analysis (19 trials, 135,967 participants): high-dose vitamin E (≥ 400 IU/day) associated with increased all-cause mortality (risk difference 39 / 10,000; p = 0.035); dose-response seen at > 150 IU/day.^[46]
• Hemorrhagic stroke — 22% increased risk in one meta-analysis despite a 10% reduction in ischemic stroke.^[43]
• SELECT trial — 400 IU/day significantly increased prostate-cancer risk in healthy men (relevant to the male PD population).^[47]
• HOPE trial — increased heart-failure risk and hospitalization in patients > 55 yr with diabetes or vascular disease.^[43]
• EFSA 2024 tolerable upper intake level: 300 mg / day for adults; ULs do not apply to patients on anticoagulants / antiplatelets.^[48]

Practical positioning. Despite the AUA's recommendation against, vitamin E remains commonly prescribed in clinical practice — driven by historical inertia, OTC availability, and perceived safety. Counsel against and explicitly redirect to evidence-supported options. If a patient elects to use vitamin E despite counseling, document the negative AUA recommendation, the negative RCT data, and the high-dose safety signals.

Tamoxifen — DO NOT OFFER

AUA Guideline Statement #6 (Moderate Recommendation; Evidence Strength Grade C for tamoxifen): clinicians should not offer oral tamoxifen for PD.^[1] Tamoxifen does appear in the AUA's "Other Treatments" table as part of the combination regimen intralesional verapamil + oral tamoxifen — listed without specific recommendation.

Historical context. Introduced based on Ralph 1992 uncontrolled n = 36 series at 20 mg BID × 3 mo (subjective improvement in pain 80% / curvature 35% / plaque 34%). The improvements — particularly pain — are consistent with the natural history of PD and were not separated from spontaneous resolution.^[41][49]

Mechanism (biologic rationale, strong). SERM with multiple antifibrotic effects:

Mechanism	Evidence
TGF-β1 inhibition via non-Smad ERK1/2 / FRA2	Carthy 2015 — blocks ERK1/2 MAPK and AP-1 transcription factor FRA2; inhibits TGF-β1-induced α-SMA expression[50]
Myofibroblast-transformation inhibition	Ilg 2019 phenotypic screen of 21 PD-candidate compounds — tamoxifen and PDE5i were the only two drug classes that significantly inhibited TGF-β1-induced myofibroblast transformation in TADFs[51]
Collagen-gel-contraction inhibition	Tamoxifen impairs TGF-β1-stimulated fibroblast contraction of collagen gels[50]
ECM reduction	Reduced collagen I, fibronectin, α-SMA-positive cells in fibrotic-tissue models[52]
Smad7 upregulation	Vocal-fold-fibrosis model: tamoxifen + TGF-β1 increased inhibitory Smad7; decreased Col1a1 / Acta2[53]

Critical timing limitation — prevents but does not reverse. Ilg 2020 demonstrated tamoxifen can prevent myofibroblast transformation when administered up to 36 hours after TGF-β1 exposure, but beyond this "point of no return" the targets (estrogen receptor-β) are downregulated and the drug loses efficacy.^[54] Implication: any clinical role would be limited to early / active-phase PD, not stable chronic disease.

Clinical evidence — placebo-controlled and negative.

Study	Design	Outcomes
Teloken 1999 J Urol RCT	Placebo-controlled n = 25 (tamoxifen 20 mg BID × 3 mo)	No significant improvement vs placebo: pain resolution 66.6% vs 75%; reduction in deformity 46.1% vs 41.7%; plaque-size decrease 30.7% vs 25%; objective curvature unchanged[55]
Biagiotti & Cavallini 2001	Acetyl-L-carnitine vs tamoxifen n = 48 (no placebo)	Acetyl-L-carnitine superior to tamoxifen on pain, progression, and curvature; tamoxifen induced significantly more side effects[56]

Synergy with PDE5 inhibitors (preclinical only). Ilg 2019 demonstrated that vardenafil + tamoxifen produced synergistic inhibition of myofibroblast transformation, collagen-gel contraction, and ECM production in vitro and in a rat PD model — greater than either drug alone.^[51] Ilg 2023 found that adding simvastatin to vardenafil + tamoxifen produced additive (not synergistic) effects.^[57] No clinical trials of these combinations have been published; the authors called for active-phase trials.

Dosing. 20 mg PO BID (40 mg/day) × 3 months in the published PD studies.^[55][56]

Adverse effects in men — meaningful and treatment-limiting.

AE	Rate (male breast-cancer cohorts)
Decreased libido / sexual dysfunction	22–29.2% — particularly problematic in PD where sexual difficulty is the index complaint[58][59]
Hot flashes	20.8%[58]
Weight gain	22–25%[58][59]
Mood alterations / depression	16.6–20.8%[58]
Venous thromboembolism (DVT / PE)	DVT 1.7% vs 0.4% placebo (5-yr FDA data); 4.2% in male BC; thromboembolic events caused 6.3% discontinuation[60][58][59]
Treatment discontinuation due to AEs	20.3–20.8% — substantially higher than the ~ 4% female attrition rate[58][59]

Practical positioning. Tamoxifen has a strong biologic rationale but no clinical trial validation. The only placebo-controlled RCT is negative; the meaningful AE burden in men (~ 20% discontinuation, sexual dysfunction, VTE) makes the risk–benefit unfavorable for an off-label indication with no demonstrated efficacy. Future role may be limited to active-phase combination trials with PDE5i (Ilg 2019 synergy signal) — pending clinical validation. Do not offer outside research protocols.

Potassium para-aminobenzoate (POTABA / Potaba)

POTABA sits in the AUA "Other Treatments" category — neither recommended nor recommended against — alongside colchicine, pentoxifylline, and CoQ10.^[1]

Historical context. POTABA is one of the oldest oral therapies used for PD and has a broader history in the treatment of fibrotic and connective-tissue disease. Extensively studied in scleroderma at the University of Michigan from the 1940s–1950s — retrospective analyses of 390 patients suggested skin softening at adequate dosing, but a subsequent prospective placebo-controlled RCT in 146 scleroderma patients found no significant skin-outcome difference vs placebo, with 18 KPAB vs 6 placebo withdrawing for AEs.^{[61][62][63][64]}

Mechanism

Mechanism	Evidence
Tissue serotonin-MAO stabilization	May modulate inflammatory / fibrotic cascade in PD plaques.[16]
GAG-secretion inhibition	Priestley & Brown 1979 in vitro: KPAB inhibits fibroblast glycosaminoglycan secretion at therapeutic concentrations (~ 100 µg/mL); > 50% inhibition at 5,000 µg/mL in normal, scleroderma, and rheumatoid-synovial fibroblasts.[65]
Fibroblast-proliferation inhibition	Dose-dependent from ~ 3,000 µg/mL.[65]
No direct effect on collagen synthesis	Antifibrotic mechanism operates through ECM modulation (GAGs) rather than direct collagen inhibition.[65]
Anti-inflammatory	Less well characterized than for PTX.[16]

Clinical evidence — Weidner 2005 RCT (the only PD trial)

Weidner 2005 Eur Urol multicenter, double-blind, prospective placebo-controlled RCT — n = 103 men with early PD; POTABA 12 g/day (3 g QID) × 12 months.^[66]

Endpoint	POTABA	Placebo	Significance
Overall response (≥ 30% regression in plaque or curvature)	74.3%	50.0%	p = 0.016
Plaque size	259 → 142 mm²	259 → 303 (6 mo) → 233 mm²	p = 0.042
Pre-existing curvature improvement	NS	—	p = 0.066
Curvature progression prevention	Stable	32.5% deteriorated	p < 0.05
Pain resolution	82.6%	77.3%	NS
Ability to have intercourse	RR 1.19 (0.87–1.62)	—	NS
Treatment-related AEs	RR 1.27 (0.36–4.48)	—	NS
Discontinuation	RR 1.36 (0.72–2.58)	—	NS — but 27% (28/103) overall dropout reflects pill-burden barrier

Cochrane 2023 included Weidner 2005 (it was not among the data-integrity-excluded studies) but rated outcomes as low to very low certainty: subjective curvature change RR 1.07 (0.72–1.58, very low certainty); ability-to-have-intercourse low certainty, "may result in little to no difference"; AEs and discontinuation very low certainty.^[16]

The strongest signal is prevention of curvature progression, not reversal of established deformity.

Dosing and practical considerations

• 12 g/day (3 g QID) × 12 months — the standard regimen.^[66]
• Pill burden is the dominant practical barrier — multiple large doses throughout the day, 27% trial dropout.
• Trost 2007 noted POTABA among the most commonly employed oral PD therapies despite the placebo-trial mixed signal.^[41]

Adverse effects

AE	Notes
GI intolerance (nausea, anorexia, diarrhea)	Leading cause of withdrawal in scleroderma RCT (18 vs 6).[64]
Headache	Common reason for discontinuation.[64]
Acute hepatitis (rare but reported)	Roy & Carrier 2008 case report — full biochemical recovery 4 mo after discontinuation; ~ 6 cases in the literature at that time. The Zarafonetis 1986 retrospective analysis (n = 390 scleroderma; 274 KPAB-treated) found no acute hepatic hypersensitivity attributable to KPAB; abnormal LFTs were more frequent in untreated patients. Rare if not vanishingly rare but worth disclosing.[67][68]
Hypoglycemia	Potentiates sulfonylureas — caution in diabetic patients.
Drug interactions	Competitive antagonism with sulfonamide antibiotics at the PABA binding site; do not co-administer.

Practical positioning

POTABA is most appropriate for early-phase, non-calcified PD where the goal is disease stabilization and prevention of progression rather than reversal of established deformity. The 12-g/day for 12-mo regimen demands strong adherence. The Weidner 2005 progression-prevention signal is the strongest argument for use; the absence of pre-existing-curvature improvement and the Cochrane low / very-low-certainty rating limit it. Counsel patients explicitly about the pill burden, GI tolerability, and rare hepatitis risk before initiating.

Pentoxifylline — optional adjunct, thin evidence

A synthetic methylxanthine and non-specific phosphodiesterase inhibitor with multiple effects on PD pathogenesis^{[19][26][27][28]}:

Mechanism	Evidence
Anti-fibrotic via TGF-β1 antagonism	Attenuates TGF-β1-driven collagen-I deposition and elastogenesis in tunica-albuginea-derived fibroblasts (TADFs); effect more pronounced in PD vs normal tunica cells (Shindel 2010 Part 1)[26]
cAMP elevation	As a non-specific cAMP-PDE inhibitor, increases intracellular cAMP in PD-fibroblast cultures → reduced collagen I + α-SMA; promotes fibroblast apoptosis within tunica albuginea[28]
Smad pathway interference	Decreases Smad1/5 activity; enhances inhibitory Smad6 phosphorylation; downregulates AAT1 → reduced elastogenesis (Lin 2010 Part 2)[27]
Antioxidant / anti-inflammatory	Counteracts oxidative stress, a key driver of PD pathogenesis[19]
Vasorelaxant	Improves microvascular blood flow; may aid tissue remodeling[19]

In a rat PD model, oral PTX 10 mg/kg/day for 45 days produced an 80–95% reduction in plaque size and collagen / fibroblast ratio with stimulation of fibroblast apoptosis (Valente 2003).^[28]

Clinical evidence (limited, no large RCTs)

• Smith 2011 calcified-plaque cohort — retrospective n = 71 (62 PTX-treated for ~ 1 year vs controls): 91.9% improvement or stabilization of calcium burden vs 44.4% controls (p < 0.001). The strongest niche signal for PTX is in calcified plaques.^[29]
• Abern 2012 combination therapy — n = 74 receiving intralesional verapamil + oral L-arginine (1 g BID) + oral PTX (400 mg TID) ± penile traction therapy: ~ 50% achieved ≥ 10° curvature improvement; responders mean improvement 20.9–26.9°. Adding PTT ≥ 3 h/day produced significant length gain.^[30]
• Paulis 2022 case reports (n = 3) — combined oral antioxidants + intralesional PTX: complete plaque regression on ultrasound at 29–41 mo.^[31]
• Cochrane 2023 (Rosenberg) excluded pentoxifylline studies for data-integrity concerns (single-author / withdrawn publications).^[16]
• Hayat 2023 SR of non-surgical PD management: combination therapies including PTX did not demonstrate consistent improvement on outcome measures.^[32]
• Paulis 2025 narrative review of 20 studies: clinical experience demonstrates benefit through PTX's pathogenic mechanisms, but systematic reviews do not show consistent evidence; further RCTs needed.^[19]

Guideline position

AUA 2015 PD guideline lists PTX among oral therapies and combination regimens (e.g., intralesional verapamil + oral L-arginine + oral PTX ± penile traction) under "Other Treatments" — studied but no formal recommendation. Notably, AUA explicitly recommends against vitamin E, tamoxifen, procarbazine, omega-3, and vitamin E + L-carnitine — but does not include PTX in that negative list, leaving it in a more neutral position.^[1]

Dosing and adverse effects

• Dose: 400 mg PO TID with meals (mirrors the FDA-approved dose for intermittent claudication). Smith 2011 cohort treated for mean ~ 1 year.^[29]
• Dose reduction: if GI / CNS effects emerge, reduce to 400 mg BID (800 mg/day) per FDA label; severe renal impairment also warrants reduction.
• Common AEs (dose-related): GI (nausea, dyspepsia, vomiting); CNS (dizziness, headache).
• Less common: hypotension, edema, rash, urticaria, angioedema, blurred vision, anxiety; seizures rare.

Practical positioning

PTX is most commonly used in the acute / active phase of PD, often as part of a multimodal regimen rather than as monotherapy. Strongest niche is calcified plaques (Smith 2011). Inexpensive, widely available as generic, well tolerated — making it an attractive adjunctive option despite the limited evidence base. Practical use: 400 mg PO TID as acute-phase adjunct.

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) — biologically rational, evidence compromised

A lipid-soluble antioxidant in the AUA "Other Treatments" category — neither recommended nor recommended against. Distinct from agents the AUA explicitly recommends against (vitamin E, tamoxifen, omega-3, vitamin E + L-carnitine).^[1]

Mechanism — biologic rationale

Mechanism	Evidence
Antioxidant	Lipid-soluble; scavenges ROS; reduces lipid peroxidation — addresses oxidative stress as a key driver of PD pathogenesis[33][34]
Anti-fibrotic via TGF-β1 / Smad	Preclinical models in liver, lung, silicotic fibrosis: inhibits TGF-β1 expression, downregulates Smad2/3, upregulates inhibitory Smad7, reduces collagen deposition + α-SMA[35][36][37]
Nrf2 / ARE activation	Upregulates endogenous antioxidant enzymes; suppresses TGF-β1-driven fibrogenesis[36]
Anti-inflammatory	Reduces IL-1β and TNF-α — relevant to the inflammatory phase of PD[35][38]

Clinical evidence — single RCT, severely compromised credibility

Safarinejad 2010 Int J Impot Res — double-blind placebo-controlled RCT, n = 186 men with early chronic PD randomized to CoQ10 300 mg PO daily vs placebo for 24 weeks:^[39]

Outcome	CoQ10	Placebo	p
Plaque size	↓	Slight increase	0.001
Curvature	↓	Slight increase	0.001
IIEF-5	17.8 ± 2.7	8.8 ± 1.5	0.001
Disease progression	13.6%	56.1%	0.01
Pain (VAS)	Improved	—	< 0.05

Critical caveat — data-integrity concerns.

The 2023 Cochrane SR explicitly excluded the Safarinejad CoQ10 study (along with Safarinejad's PTX, colchicine, vitamin E, propionyl-L-carnitine, omega-3, and intralesional-verapamil studies) because the same single author has had multiple publications withdrawn over data-falsification concerns. The exclusion was made after consultation with the Cochrane Urology Editorial Group and the Cochrane Cancer Network.^[16]

No independent replication of the Safarinejad CoQ10 trial has been published. The Hayat 2023 SR includes CoQ10 among oral treatments showing evidence, but the underlying source remains the same compromised study.^[32]

Combination therapy context

• Favilla 2014 prospective RCT n = 105 — intralesional verapamil ± oral antioxidants (regimen included CoQ10): combination significantly improved IIEF-15, VAS pain, and several FSFI subdomains over verapamil alone, though plaque-size and curvature improvements were similar.^[40]
• Paulis 2022 case reports n = 3 — combined oral antioxidants achieved complete plaque regression at 29–41 mo (also cited in the PTX section above).^[31]

Dosing and safety

• Dose: 300 mg PO daily × 24 weeks (Safarinejad protocol). Available OTC as a dietary supplement.^[39]
• Common AEs: mild GI (nausea, diarrhea, appetite suppression).^[33][34]
• Generally safe and well tolerated; over-the-counter availability and low cost make it an attractive adjunct despite the compromised evidence base.

Practical positioning

CoQ10 has a plausible biologic rationale as an antifibrotic / antioxidant agent, but the only dedicated RCT is excluded by Cochrane for data-integrity concerns and has not been independently replicated. Use in PD should be considered unproven. Reasonable as an adjunctive option for motivated patients with explicit counseling about the limited / compromised evidence; do not substitute for guideline-recommended therapies.

Tadalafil 5 mg daily

Spirito 2024 retrospective comparative analysis (n = 191) in acute-phase PD:^[20]

• Curvature-progression rate significantly lower on tadalafil at 12 weeks (25.9% vs 39.7%; p = 0.042)
• IIEF-5 improved significantly (19.3 vs 11.2; p < 0.001)

See PDE5 inhibitors for the broader antifibrotic-synergy and ED-management case.

---

Emerging intralesional therapies

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP)

Autologous blood product rich in growth factors; modulates inflammation and promotes tissue remodeling.

• Ledesma 2024 Phase 2 RCT (n = 41) — safe, no serious AEs; PRP-first group showed curvature 40° → 25° at 6 mo (p = 0.047), suggesting a delayed treatment effect^[21]
• Dachille 2025 prospective cohort (n = 72) — 3 injections 2 wk apart; median curvature 50° → 40° (p < 0.001) with improved sexual function^[22]
• Zugail 2024 percutaneous needle tunneling + PRP (n = 54, 6 sessions) — median −44.4% curvature correction (45° → 30°; p = 0.001)^[23]

Not yet guideline-recommended; lacks large RCTs. One of the most actively investigated emerging therapies.

Hyaluronic acid (HA)

Mechanism. Glycosaminoglycan with viscoelastic properties; proposed to mechanically disrupt plaque architecture, modulate ECM, and exert anti-inflammatory effects. Some formulations (e.g., Perovial®) are designed specifically for intraplaque injection.^[25][85]

Russo 2019 NMA — HA in head-to-head context. For curvature, HA was inferior to CCH (−6.66°) and IFN α-2b (−6.75°); for erectile function (IIEF), HA showed the greatest improvement of all four agents — outperforming CCH (+2.39), verapamil (+1.77), and IFN α-2b (+0.65). The dissociation (modest curvature, superior EF) is a distinctive feature.^[78]

Uncontrolled clinical data:

• Cilio 2024 (n = 62 stable PD; mean curvature 52.7°) — 3 injections 2 wk apart + vacuum + stretching + modeling × 6 wk → 87.1% improvement; mean final curvature 40.3° (p < 0.001).^[24]
• Falcone 2025 Perovial® (n = 16 acute-phase PD; median baseline curvature 43°) — 10 weekly sessions + daily vacuum + modeling → median curvature reduction 15° (IQR 7.5–19°); significant pain relief; no complications.^[85]

Cochrane 2023 — no eligible placebo-controlled RCTs identified for HA specifically.^[16] Russo 2018 EU SR — "no robust evidence" but performed well in single-arm / case-control studies.^[14]

Bottom line. Lacks robust placebo-controlled evidence for curvature reduction; promising uncontrolled data for erectile function and an emerging niche role in acute-phase PD as an adjunct to mechanical therapies.

Onabotulinum toxin A

Mechanism. Hypothesized to reduce scar formation by inducing paralysis of musculature adjacent to the scar, decreasing repetitive tensile forces on wound edges and the resultant fibroblastic response — extrapolated from dermatologic scar literature, not PD-specific.^[16]

Controlled evidence — essentially absent. The only placebo-controlled RCT identified by Cochrane is Antar 2019 (n = 12; 6 BoNT-A / 6 placebo) over 16 weeks in stable-phase PD:^[16]

• Curvature degree, subjective curvature change, and penile pain — no evidence reported for any of these outcomes
• IIEF — very uncertain (MD 0.67; 95% CI −1.50 to 2.84; very low certainty)

Russo 2018 EU SR — significant curvature improvements in single-arm / case-control studies only, no RCT signal.^[14]

Bottom line. Investigational only. The single RCT was underpowered (n = 12), did not report curvature, and all findings were very low certainty. Cannot be recommended outside research settings.

Nicardipine

Mechanism. Dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker with the same proposed antifibrotic mechanism as verapamil (ECM-synthesis inhibition, increased collagenase, TGF-β modulation). In vitro, nicardipine may be more potent than verapamil in inhibiting fibroblast activity.^[86]

Soh 2010 — only RCT (n = 74; 37 nicardipine / 37 saline). Nicardipine 10 mg in 10 mL biweekly × 6 injections, transition between acute and chronic phase, follow-up to 48 wk; calcified plaques, ventral curvatures, and plaques > 2 cm² excluded:^[86]

• Curvature improved significantly in BOTH groups (no superiority of nicardipine over saline) — raises the possibility that the injection procedure itself drives observed curvature effects
• Pain — significant reduction in both groups; significant difference favoring nicardipine (p = 0.019)
• IIEF-5 — significant improvement only in nicardipine group at 48 wk (p < 0.05)
• Plaque size — significant reduction only in nicardipine group at 48 wk (p = 0.0004)
• No severe AEs (no hypotension or cardiovascular events)

Cochrane 2023 — all outcomes very low certainty (serious study limitations and very serious imprecision).^[16] Jordan 2014 placed nicardipine among agents with "mixed or negative results" — not Level 1/2 evidence.^[42]

Bottom line. Failed to demonstrate significant curvature improvement over saline in the only RCT. Improvements in pain, plaque size, and EF are insufficient to support primary use. Not recommended as a primary intralesional therapy.

Intralesional corticosteroids — AUA recommends AGAINST

AUA Clinical Principle: clinicians should not use intralesional injection with steroids for the treatment of PD. Rationale: lack of demonstrated efficacy and risk of tissue atrophy — a particularly concerning AE in penile tissue.^[1]

Mechanism. Anti-inflammatory and downstream antifibrotic effects through suppression of the inflammatory cascade driving plaque formation, particularly in the acute phase.^[16]

Historical use. Among the earliest intralesional agents for PD (1950s–1970s). Winter & Khanna 1975 reported 21 patients treated with dermo-jet percutaneous dexamethasone (6–10 monthly injections) with high rates of plaque-size reduction, pain improvement, and chordee improvement — but acknowledged the natural history of spontaneous resolution and the absence of statistical power.^[87] Russell 2007 identified 6 corticosteroid PD studies — all positive but all level 4 evidence (case series / poor quality).^[88]

Controlled evidence.

• Cipollone 1998 — only placebo-controlled RCT (betamethasone vs saline; n = 30). Cochrane: very uncertain effect on subjective curvature change (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.20–2.79; very low certainty).^[16]
• Ure & Ozen 2021 — prospective non-randomized methylprednisolone 40 mg weekly × 8 wk in 48 acute-phase patients; plaque size 13.6 → 10.8 mm (p = 0.025); all PDQ subdomains improved (symptom severity p = 0.001; pain p < 0.001).^[89]
• Di Stasi 2004 — RCT of electromotive transdermal verapamil 5 mg + dexamethasone 8 mg vs lidocaine in 96 patients (73 completers); combination group plaque volume 824 → 348 mm³ and curvature 43° → 21°; control unchanged. The combination + electromotive delivery prevents isolating the steroid contribution.^[90]

Adverse effects specific to intralesional steroids:^[1][41]

• Tissue atrophy — primary concern; local thinning of tunica albuginea may worsen structural integrity
• Skin thinning at injection sites
• Local immunosuppression

Bottom line. Not recommended by the AUA. Controlled evidence is limited to one tiny RCT (n = 30) with very low certainty. Methylprednisolone may offer transient acute-phase symptom relief, but the natural-history confound and tissue-atrophy risk argue against routine use.

Comparative summary — non-CCH/non-IFN intralesional agents

Agent	RCT evidence	Curvature benefit	Unique advantage	Key limitation
Hyaluronic acid	Included in NMA (RCTs exist)	Inferior to CCH/IFN; promising uncontrolled data	Best EF improvement in NMA; acute-phase potential	No robust placebo-controlled RCT[78][24][85]
Botulinum toxin	1 RCT (n=12)	No curvature data reported	Novel scar-tension mechanism	Essentially no meaningful evidence; investigational only[16]
Nicardipine	1 RCT (n=74)	No significant benefit over saline	Pain, plaque-size, EF improvement	Failed primary curvature endpoint; saline also improved curvature[86]
Corticosteroids	1 RCT (n=30, betamethasone)	Very uncertain	Acute-phase pain/inflammation; low cost	AUA recommends against; tissue atrophy risk[1][16]

---

Comparative summary

Agent	FDA	AUA stance	Typical curvature reduction	Evidence quality	Key advantage	Key limitation
CCH (Xiaflex)	Approved	Moderate / Grade B	17° absolute; ~35%	Moderate (2 Phase III RCTs)	Only FDA-approved agent; durable 5-y data	Corporal-rupture boxed warning; REMS; high cost; not studied in ventral plaques[1][4]
IFN α-2b	Off-label	Clinical Principle	9–13.5° (RCT)	Very low (Cochrane, 1 RCT)	Effective for ventral and dorsal plaques; improves pain and hemodynamics	Flu-like symptoms; 6–24 biweekly injections[1][12]
Verapamil	Off-label	Weak evidence; use with caution	0–54% (conflicting)	Very low (Cochrane)	Inexpensive; locally well tolerated	Weak / conflicting evidence; data-integrity concerns; EAU recommends against[1][16]
PRP	Off-label	Not yet recommended	10–20° (early)	Low (Phase 2 RCT + cohorts)	Autologous; safe	Preliminary; no large RCTs; not standardized[21][22]
Hyaluronic acid	Off-label	Insufficient evidence	~12° (retrospective)	Low	Tolerable; plaque-size reduction	No RCTs; limited stable-phase data[24]
Tadalafil 5 mg daily	Approved for ED/LUTS	Emerging role in acute-phase PD	Lower progression rate	Low–moderate (retrospective)	Oral; treats concomitant ED	Disease-modifying claim exploratory[20]
Pentoxifylline	Off-label	"Other"; optional adjunct	Not quantifiable	Low / mixed	Inexpensive oral	Cochrane excluded for data integrity[19]

---

Treatment algorithm per AUA framework

Acute / active phase (pain, evolving curvature)

• Observation with counseling about natural history
• NSAIDs for pain management (Expert Opinion)
• Consider daily tadalafil 5 mg to reduce curvature progression^[20]
• Consider pentoxifylline 400 mg TID as adjunct^[19]
• Do NOT offer vitamin E, tamoxifen, procarbazine, omega-3, or vitamin E + L-carnitine^[1]

Stable phase (≥3–6 months of stability)

• First-line intralesional: CCH for curvature 30–90° with palpable plaque and intact erectile function (AUA Moderate)^[1]
• Alternative intralesional: IFN α-2b — particularly for ventral plaques (excluded from IMPRESS) or when CCH is unavailable / unaffordable^[12]
• Verapamil only after careful discussion of weak evidence and better alternatives^[1]
• Mechanical adjunct: penile traction therapy with or without intralesional therapy^[25]
• Surgery (plication, grafting, prosthesis) for injection failure, severe curvature, or concomitant ED — see the clinical Peyronie's disease article^[1]

---

Evidence Summary

Indication	Agent	Evidence level	Key source
Peyronie's plaque — FDA-approved treatment	CCH	Level 1 (2 Phase III RCTs)	IMPRESS I/II[4]; AUA 2015[1]
CCH 5-year durability	CCH	Level 3	Goldstein 2020[9]
CCH incremental benefit by cycle	CCH	Level 1 (pooled RCT)	Ziegelmann 2023[7]
CCH real-world effectiveness	CCH	Level 3	Hellstrom 2019[5]; Zhang 2022[6]
Interferon α-2b — RCT	IFN	Level 1 (single RCT; Cochrane very low)	AUA-cited Hellstrom RCT[1]; Cochrane 2023[16]
IFN α-2b — ventral-plaque effectiveness	IFN	Level 3	Stewart 2015[12]
Verapamil	Verapamil	Very low (Cochrane)	Cochrane 2023[16]
Oral therapies (vitamin E, tamoxifen, procarbazine, omega-3, vitamin E + L-carnitine)	Various	Level 1–2 (negative)	AUA 2015[1]
Daily tadalafil in acute PD	Tadalafil 5 mg	Level 3	Spirito 2024[20]
PRP	PRP	Level 2 (Phase 2 RCT + cohort)	Ledesma 2024[21]; Dachille 2025[22]

---

Clinical Positioning

• CCH is the only FDA-approved pharmacologic PD treatment — curvature 30–90°, palpable plaque, intact erectile function, REMS program, up to 4 cycles.^[1][4]
• Complete the full 4-cycle course even in early non-responders. Ziegelmann 2023 shows 60.8% of cycle-1 non-responders eventually reach ≥20% curvature reduction.^[7]
• Counsel explicitly about the 0.5–0.7% corporal-rupture risk and the mandatory 2-week sexual-activity restriction after each injection. Zucker 2024 VA data show most fractures occur in the 2 weeks after injection.^[4][11]
• CCH net benefit over placebo is modest (~7.7°); absolute reduction (~17°) is clinically meaningful. Set realistic expectations before treatment.^[1][4]
• IFN α-2b is the best option for ventral plaques and where CCH is unavailable/unaffordable. Premedicate for flu-like symptoms with NSAIDs and hydration.^[12][1]
• Verapamil is not a first-line agent. The Cochrane CI crosses the clinically meaningful threshold, the EAU recommends against, and several studies were excluded for data-integrity concerns.^[16]
• Do not offer vitamin E, tamoxifen, procarbazine, omega-3, or vitamin E + L-carnitine. The AUA recommends against these agents, and prescribing them postpones effective treatment.^[1]
• Consider daily tadalafil 5 mg in acute-phase PD — treats concomitant ED and may reduce curvature progression per Spirito 2024. Cochrane framed PDE5i primarily as ED management rather than disease-modifying, but the signal is reasonable to layer in.^[20]
• PRP is promising but not yet guideline-endorsed — reasonable in patients seeking alternatives in trial settings, with counseling that large-RCT data do not yet exist.^[21][22]
• CCH cost is a real access issue — a full 4-cycle course approaches $30,000–$40,000+ before insurance. In Europe and Canada, discontinuation has shifted practice toward surgery.^[13]
• Intralesional therapy does not treat pain or ED — address pain with NSAIDs in the acute phase; manage concomitant ED with PDE5 inhibitors or beyond.^[1]

---

See Also

• Peyronie's disease (clinical)
• Intracavernosal injection agents
• PDE5 inhibitors
• Testosterone replacement

---

References

1. Nehra A, Alterowitz R, Culkin DJ, et al. "Peyronie's disease: AUA guideline." J Urol. 2015;194(3):745–753. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.05.098

2. Dhillon S. "Collagenase clostridium histolyticum: a review in Peyronie's disease." Drugs. 2015;75(12):1405–1412. doi:10.1007/s40265-015-0441-7

3. Hoy SM. "Collagenase clostridium histolyticum: a review in Peyronie's disease." Clin Drug Investig. 2020;40(1):83–92. doi:10.1007/s40261-019-00867-5

4. US Food and Drug Administration. XIAFLEX (collagenase clostridium histolyticum) — prescribing information. Updated 2024-04-05.

5. Hellstrom WJG, Tue Nguyen HM, Alzweri L, et al. "Intralesional collagenase clostridium histolyticum causes meaningful improvement in men with Peyronie's disease: results of a multi-institutional analysis." J Urol. 2019;201(4):777–782. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000032

6. Zhang F, Xiong Y, Wang W, et al. "The efficacy and safety of intralesional injection of collagenase for Peyronie's disease: a meta-analysis of published prospective studies." Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:973394. doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.973394

7. Ziegelmann M, Hu Y, Xiang Q, et al. "Incremental treatment response by cycle with collagenase clostridium histolyticum for Peyronie's disease: a pooled analysis of two Phase 3 trials." Urology. 2023;175:126–131. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2023.02.019

8. Ziegelmann MJ, Viers BR, McAlvany KL, et al. "Restoration of penile function and patient satisfaction with intralesional collagenase clostridium histolyticum injection for Peyronie's disease." J Urol. 2016;195(4 Pt 1):1051–1056. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.10.065

9. Goldstein I, Lipshultz LI, McLane M, et al. "Long-term safety and curvature deformity characterization in patients previously treated with collagenase clostridium histolyticum for Peyronie's disease." J Urol. 2020;203(6):1191–1197. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000743

10. Goldstein I, McLane MP, Xiang Q, et al. "Long-term curvature deformity characterization in men previously treated with collagenase clostridium histolyticum for Peyronie's disease, subgrouped by penile plaque calcification." Urology. 2020;146:145–151. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.08.045

11. Zucker I, Nackeeran S, Mirza S, Masterson TA. "Risk factors for penile fracture after intralesional collagenase clostridium histolyticum in Peyronie's disease." Urology. 2024;183:117–120. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2023.10.019

12. Stewart CA, Yafi FA, Knoedler M, et al. "Intralesional injection of interferon-α2b improves penile curvature in men with Peyronie's disease independent of plaque location." J Urol. 2015;194(6):1704–1707. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.096

13. Mann U, Shiff B, Jain K, et al. "Canadian provider perspectives on collagenase clostridium histolyticum for the treatment of Peyronie's disease and the impact of its discontinuation." Int J Impot Res. 2022;34(6):599–602. doi:10.1038/s41443-021-00458-z

14. Russo GI, Milenkovic U, Hellstrom W, et al. "Clinical efficacy of injection and mechanical therapy for Peyronie's disease: a systematic review of the literature." Eur Urol. 2018;74(6):767–781. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.07.005

15. Trost LW, Ates E, Powers M, Sikka S, Hellstrom WJ. "Outcomes of intralesional interferon-α2b for the treatment of Peyronie disease." J Urol. 2013;190(6):2194–2199. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.022

16. Rosenberg JE, Ergun O, Hwang EC, et al. "Non-surgical therapies for Peyronie's disease." Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;7:CD012206. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012206.pub2

17. Levine LA. "Treatment of Peyronie's disease with intralesional verapamil injection." J Urol. 1997;158(4):1395–1399.

18. Sadagopan A. "A snapshot of intralesional verapamil injection in the treatment of Peyronie's disease today." Andrologia. 2019;51(10):e13388. doi:10.1111/and.13388

19. Paulis G, Paulis A. "Oxidative mechanism of Peyronie's disease and effectiveness of pentoxifylline in the therapeutic management: a narrative review." Antioxidants (Basel). 2025;14(2):208. doi:10.3390/antiox14020208

20. Spirito L, Manfredi C, La Rocca R, et al. "Daily low-dose tadalafil may reduce the penile-curvature progression rate in patients with acute Peyronie's disease: a retrospective comparative analysis." Int J Impot Res. 2024;36(2):129–134. doi:10.1038/s41443-022-00651-8

21. Ledesma BR, Velasquez DA, Egemba C, et al. "A Phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial to evaluate safety and efficacy of platelet-rich plasma injections for Peyronie's disease: clinical trial update." Int J Impot Res. 2024;36(8):813–817. doi:10.1038/s41443-024-00844-3

22. Dachille G, Panunzio A, Bizzotto L, et al. "Platelet-rich plasma intra-plaque injections rapidly reduce penile curvature and improve sexual function in Peyronie's disease patients: results from a prospective large-cohort study." World J Urol. 2025;43(1):306. doi:10.1007/s00345-025-05691-5

23. Zugail AS, Alshuaibi M, Lombion S, Beley S. "Safety and feasibility of percutaneous needle tunneling with platelet-rich plasma injections for Peyronie's disease in the outpatient setting: a pilot study." Int J Impot Res. 2024;36(2):140–145. doi:10.1038/s41443-023-00744-y

24. Cilio S, Rocca R, Celentano G, et al. "Intraplaque injections of hyaluronic acid for the treatment of stable-phase Peyronie's disease: a retrospective single-center experience." Asian J Androl. 2024;26(3):268–271. doi:10.4103/aja202371

25. Minore A, Cacciatore L, Presicce F, et al. "Intralesional and topical treatments for Peyronie's disease: a narrative review of current knowledge." Asian J Androl. 2025;27(2):156–165. doi:10.4103/aja202460

26. Shindel AW, Lin G, Ning H, et al. "Pentoxifylline attenuates transforming growth factor-β1-stimulated collagen deposition and elastogenesis in human tunica albuginea-derived fibroblasts. Part 1: impact on extracellular matrix." J Sex Med. 2010;7(6):2077–2085. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01790.x

27. Lin G, Shindel AW, Banie L, et al. "Pentoxifylline attenuates TGF-β1-stimulated elastogenesis in human tunica albuginea-derived fibroblasts. Part 2: interference in TGF-β1/Smad-dependent mechanism and downregulation of AAT1." J Sex Med. 2010;7(5):1787–1797. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01749.x

28. Valente EG, Vernet D, Ferrini MG, et al. "L-arginine and phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors counteract fibrosis in the Peyronie's fibrotic plaque and related fibroblast cultures." Nitric Oxide. 2003;9(4):229–244. doi:10.1016/j.niox.2003.12.002

29. Smith JF, Shindel AW, Huang YC, et al. "Pentoxifylline treatment and penile calcifications in men with Peyronie's disease." Asian J Androl. 2011;13(2):322–325. doi:10.1038/aja.2010.117

30. Abern MR, Larsen S, Levine LA. "Combination of penile traction, intralesional verapamil, and oral therapies for Peyronie's disease." J Sex Med. 2012;9(1):288–295. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02519.x

31. Paulis G, De Giorgio G. "Full regression of Peyronie's disease plaque following combined antioxidant treatment: a three-case report." Antioxidants (Basel). 2022;11(9):1661. doi:10.3390/antiox11091661

32. Hayat S, Brunckhorst O, Alnajjar HM, et al. "A systematic review of non-surgical management in Peyronie's disease." Int J Impot Res. 2023;35(6):523–532. doi:10.1038/s41443-022-00633-w

33. Saha SP, Whayne TF. "Coenzyme Q-10 in human health: supporting evidence?" South Med J. 2016;109(1):17–21. doi:10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000393

34. Gasmi A, Bjørklund G, Mujawdiya PK, et al. "Coenzyme Q10 in aging and disease." Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2024;64(12):3907–3919. doi:10.1080/10408398.2022.2137724

35. Yi J, Wang Y, Zhang H, et al. "Coenzyme Q10 alleviates silicotic fibrosis in rats through the TGF-β1/Smad pathway." Front Pharmacol. 2026;17:1821205. doi:10.3389/fphar.2026.1821205

36. Choi HK, Pokharel YR, Lim SC, et al. "Inhibition of liver fibrosis by solubilized coenzyme Q10: role of Nrf2 activation in inhibiting transforming growth factor-β1 expression." Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2009;240(3):377–384. doi:10.1016/j.taap.2009.07.030

37. Mohamed DI, Khairy E, Tawfek SS, Habib EK, Fetouh MA. "Coenzyme Q10 attenuates lung and liver fibrosis via modulation of autophagy in methotrexate treated rat." Biomed Pharmacother. 2019;109:892–901. doi:10.1016/j.biopha.2018.10.133

38. Hossain N, Shabnam S, Emran T, et al. "Coenzyme Q10 alleviates oxidative stress, inflammation and fibrosis via activation of TGF-β1/TNF-α in FCA-salt hypertensive rats." Arch Biochem Biophys. 2025;769:110444. doi:10.1016/j.abb.2025.110444

39. Safarinejad MR. "Safety and efficacy of coenzyme Q10 supplementation in early chronic Peyronie's disease: a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study." Int J Impot Res. 2010;22(5):298–309. doi:10.1038/ijir.2010.20

40. Favilla V, Russo GI, Privitera S, et al. "Combination of intralesional verapamil and oral antioxidants for Peyronie's disease: a prospective, randomised controlled study." Andrologia. 2014;46(8):936–942. doi:10.1111/and.12178

41. Trost LW, Gur S, Hellstrom WJ. "Pharmacological management of Peyronie's disease." Drugs. 2007;67(4):527–545. doi:10.2165/00003495-200767040-00004

42. Jordan GH, Carson CC, Lipshultz LI. "Minimally invasive treatment of Peyronie's disease: evidence-based progress." BJU Int. 2014;114(1):16–24. doi:10.1111/bju.12634

43. Farina N, Llewellyn D, Isaac MGEKN, Tabet N. "Vitamin E for Alzheimer's dementia and mild cognitive impairment." Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD002854. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002854.pub5

44. Safarinejad MR, Hosseini SY, Kolahi AA. "Comparison of vitamin E and propionyl-L-carnitine, separately or in combination, in patients with early chronic Peyronie's disease: a double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized study." J Urol. 2007;178(4 Pt 1):1398–1403. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.162

45. Prieto Castro RM, Leva Vallejo ME, Regueiro Lopez JC, et al. "Combined treatment with vitamin E and colchicine in the early stages of Peyronie's disease." BJU Int. 2003;91(6):522–524. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.2003.04134.x

46. Miller ER, Pastor-Barriuso R, Dalal D, et al. "Meta-analysis: high-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality." Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(1):37–46. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-142-1-200501040-00110

47. Allen LH. "Micronutrients — assessment, requirements, deficiencies, and interventions." N Engl J Med. 2025;392(10):1006–1016. doi:10.1056/NEJMra2314150

48. Turck D, Bohn T, Castenmiller J, et al. "Scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level for vitamin E." EFSA Journal. 2024;22(8):e8953. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8953

49. Schroeder-Printzen I, Hauck EW, Weidner W. "New aspects in Peyronie's disease — a mini-review." Andrologia. 1999;31(Suppl 1):31–35. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0272.1999.tb01448.x

50. Carthy JM, Sundqvist A, Heldin A, et al. "Tamoxifen inhibits TGF-β-mediated activation of myofibroblasts by blocking non-Smad signaling through ERK1/2." J Cell Physiol. 2015;230(12):3084–3092. doi:10.1002/jcp.25049

51. Ilg MM, Mateus M, Stebbeds WJ, et al. "Antifibrotic synergy between phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors and selective oestrogen receptor modulators in Peyronie's disease models." Eur Urol. 2019;75(2):329–340. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.014

52. Dellê H, Rocha JR, Cavaglieri RC, et al. "Antifibrotic effect of tamoxifen in a model of progressive renal disease." J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;23(1):37–48. doi:10.1681/ASN.2011010046

53. Matsushita H, Mukudai S, Ozawa S, et al. "Tamoxifen alters TGF-β1/Smad signaling in vocal fold injury." Laryngoscope. 2023;133(9):2248–2254. doi:10.1002/lary.30448

54. Ilg MM, Stafford SJ, Mateus M, et al. "Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors and selective estrogen receptor modulators can prevent but not reverse myofibroblast transformation in Peyronie's disease." J Sex Med. 2020;17(10):1848–1864. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.06.022

55. Teloken C, Rhoden EL, Grazziotin TM, et al. "Tamoxifen versus placebo in the treatment of Peyronie's disease." J Urol. 1999;162(6):2003–2005. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68087-1

56. Biagiotti G, Cavallini G. "Acetyl-L-carnitine vs tamoxifen in the oral therapy of Peyronie's disease: a preliminary report." BJU Int. 2001;88(1):63–67. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.02241.x

57. Ilg MM, Ralph DJ, Cellek S. "Statins synergize with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors but not with selective estrogen receptor modulators to prevent myofibroblast transformation in an in vitro model of Peyronie's disease." J Sex Med. 2023;20(7):925–934. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdad051

58. Anelli TF, Anelli A, Tran KN, Lebwohl DE, Borgen PI. "Tamoxifen administration is associated with a high rate of treatment-limiting symptoms in male breast cancer patients." Cancer. 1994;74(1):74–77. PMID: 8004587.

59. Pemmaraju N, Munsell MF, Hortobagyi GN, Giordano SH. "Retrospective review of male breast cancer patients: analysis of tamoxifen-related side-effects." Ann Oncol. 2012;23(6):1471–1474. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr459

60. US Food and Drug Administration. Tamoxifen Citrate prescribing information. Updated 2021.

61. Zarafonetis CJ, Dabich L, Skovronski JJ, et al. "Retrospective studies in scleroderma: skin response to potassium para-aminobenzoate therapy." Clin Exp Rheumatol. 1988;6(3):261–268.

62. Zarafonetis CJ, Dabich L, Negri D, et al. "Retrospective studies in scleroderma: effect of potassium para-aminobenzoate on survival." J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41(2):193–205. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(88)90094-7

63. Zarafonetis CJ, Dabich L, Devol EB, et al. "Retrospective studies in scleroderma: pulmonary findings and effect of potassium p-aminobenzoate on vital capacity." Respiration. 1989;56(1-2):22–33. doi:10.1159/000195774

64. Clegg DO, Reading JC, Mayes MD, et al. "Comparison of aminobenzoate potassium and placebo in the treatment of scleroderma." J Rheumatol. 1994;21(1):105–110.

65. Priestley GC, Brown JC. "Effects of potassium para-aminobenzoate on growth and macromolecule synthesis in fibroblasts cultured from normal and sclerodermatous human skin, and rheumatoid synovial cells." J Invest Dermatol. 1979;72(4):161–164. doi:10.1111/1523-1747.ep12676226

66. Weidner W, Hauck EW, Schnitker J, Peyronie's Disease Study Group of Andrological Group of German Urologists. "Potassium paraaminobenzoate (POTABA) in the treatment of Peyronie's disease: a prospective, placebo-controlled, randomized study." Eur Urol. 2005;47(4):530–535. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2004.12.022

67. Roy J, Carrier S. "Acute hepatitis associated with treatment of Peyronie's disease with potassium para-aminobenzoate (Potaba)." J Sex Med. 2008;5(12):2967–2969. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00918.x

68. Zarafonetis CJ, Dabich L, DeVol EB, Rossi C, Skovronski JJ. "Potassium para-aminobenzoate and liver function test findings." J Am Acad Dermatol. 1986;15(1):144–149. doi:10.1016/s0190-9622(86)70150-3

69. Lipshultz LI, Goldstein I, Seftel AD, et al. "Clinical efficacy of collagenase clostridium histolyticum in the treatment of Peyronie's disease by subgroup: results from two large, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III studies." BJU Int. 2015;116(4):650–656. doi:10.1111/bju.13096

70. Masterson TA, Rezk A, Ramasamy R. "Characteristics predictive of response to collagenase clostridium histolyticum for Peyronie's disease: a review of the literature." World J Urol. 2020;38(2):279–285. doi:10.1007/s00345-019-02850-3

71. Cocci A, Russo GI, Briganti A, et al. "Predictors of treatment success after collagenase clostridium histolyticum injection for Peyronie's disease: development of a nomogram from a multicentre single-arm, non-placebo controlled clinical study." BJU Int. 2018;122(4):680–687. doi:10.1111/bju.14410

72. Cahill EM, Trost L. "Factors associated with improved curvature outcomes with collagenase clostridium histolyticum for Peyronie's disease: results from a large prospective series." J Sex Med. 2025;qdaf213. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf213

73. Goldstein I, McLane MP, Xiang Q, et al. "Long-term curvature deformity characterization in men previously treated with collagenase clostridium histolyticum for Peyronie's disease, subgrouped by penile plaque calcification." Urology. 2020;146:145–151. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.08.045

74. Yafi FA, Diao L, DeLay KJ, et al. "Multi-institutional prospective analysis of intralesional injection of collagenase clostridium histolyticum, tunical plication, and partial plaque excision and grafting for the management of Peyronie's disease." Urology. 2018;120:138–142. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.049

75. Wymer K, Kohler T, Trost L. "Comparative cost-effectiveness of surgery, collagenase clostridium histolyticum, and penile traction therapy in men with Peyronie's disease in an era of effective clinical treatment." J Sex Med. 2019;16(9):1421–1432. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.06.010

76. Sukumar S, Pijush DB, Brandes S. "Impact of the advent of collagenase clostridium histolyticum on the surgical management of Peyronie's disease: a population-based analysis." J Sex Med. 2020;17(1):111–116. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.09.022

77. Wegner HE, Andresen R, Knipsel HH, Miller K. "Treatment of Peyronie's disease with local interferon-alpha 2b." Eur Urol. 1995;28(3):236–240. doi:10.1159/000475057

78. Russo GI, Cacciamani G, Cocci A, et al. "Comparative effectiveness of intralesional therapy for Peyronie's disease in controlled clinical studies: a systematic review and network meta-analysis." J Sex Med. 2019;16(2):289–299. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.12.011

79. Manfredi C, Russo GI, Capogrosso P, et al. "Injection therapy in the acute phase of Peyronie's disease: a systematic review of current evidence." J Sex Med. 2025;22(5):799–812. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf044

80. Chung E, Garcia F, Young LD, Solomon M, Brock GB. "A comparative study of the efficacy of intralesional verapamil versus normal saline injection in a novel Peyronie disease animal model: assessment of immunohistopathological changes and erectile function outcome." J Urol. 2013;189(1):380–384. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.191

81. Levine LA, Merrick PF, Lee RC. "Intralesional verapamil injection for the treatment of Peyronie's disease." J Urol. 1994;151(6):1522–1524. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35291-6

82. Rehman J, Benet A, Melman A. "Use of intralesional verapamil to dissolve Peyronie's disease plaque: a long-term single-blind study." Urology. 1998;51(4):620–626. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(97)00700-0

83. Levine LA, Goldman KE, Greenfield JM. "Experience with intraplaque injection of verapamil for Peyronie's disease." J Urol. 2002;168(2):621–625. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(05)64691-5

84. Wolff B, Peyronnet B, Cattarino S, et al. "Intralesional injections for early Peyronie disease: standardized assessment and analysis of predictive factors for treatment response." Urology. 2015;86(1):57–61. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2015.03.010

85. Falcone M, Cirigliano L, Preto M, Timpano M. "Targeting the acute phase of Peyronie's disease: preliminary experience with Perovial®, a novel hyaluronic acid formulation." Int J Impot Res. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01223-2

86. Soh J, Kawauchi A, Kanemitsu N, et al. "Nicardipine vs. saline injection as treatment for Peyronie's disease: a prospective, randomized, single-blind trial." J Sex Med. 2010;7(11):3743–3749. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2010.01924.x

87. Winter CC, Khanna R. "Peyronie's disease: results with dermo-jet injection of dexamethasone." J Urol. 1975;114(6):898–900. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)67169-6

88. Russell S, Steers W, McVary KT. "Systematic evidence-based analysis of plaque injection therapy for Peyronie's disease." Eur Urol. 2007;51(3):640–647. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.042

89. Ure I, Ozen A. "Intralesional low-dose methylprednisolone for the treatment of active phase Peyronie's disease: a single-centre, preliminary prospective non-randomised study." Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(3):e13754. doi:10.1111/ijcp.13754

90. Di Stasi SM, Giannantoni A, Stephen RL, et al. "A prospective, randomized study using transdermal electromotive administration of verapamil and dexamethasone for Peyronie's disease." J Urol. 2004;171(4):1605–1608. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000116450.82816.2c

91. Alom M, Sharma KL, Toussi A, Kohler T, Trost L. "Efficacy of combined collagenase clostridium histolyticum and RestoreX penile traction therapy in men with Peyronie's disease." J Sex Med. 2019;16(6):891–900. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.03.007

92. Ziegelmann MJ, Viers BR, Montgomery BD, et al. "Clinical experience with penile traction therapy among men undergoing collagenase clostridium histolyticum for Peyronie disease." Urology. 2017;104:102–109. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.01.054

93. García-Gómez B, García-Rojo E, Alonso-Isa M, et al. "Treatment of Peyronie's disease with combination of clostridium histolyticum collagenase and penile traction therapy: a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study." Int J Impot Res. 2021;33(3):325–331. doi:10.1038/s41443-020-0292-y

94. Hatzichristou D. "From fibrosis to restoration: the multimodal 3 Ts protocol for Peyronie's disease." Int J Impot Res. 2026. doi:10.1038/s41443-026-01262-3