Factors associated with dose escalation of fesoterodine for treatment of overactive bladder in people >65 years of age: A post hoc analysis of data from the SOFIA study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate factors which may influence dose escalation of antimuscarinics for overactive bladder (OAB) in older patients and how dose escalation affects treatment efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A post hoc analysis of data from the 12-week randomized, placebo controlled phase of the SOFIA study investigating treatment with fesoterodine in older people with OAB. Predictors and outcomes in patients aged ≥65 years with OAB who did or did not choose to escalate from fesoterodine 4 to 8 mg before the first dose-escalation choice point (week 4) and at the end of the study (week 12) were assessed. RESULTS: Variables which significantly increased likelihood of dose escalation were, at baseline, body mass index (OR: 1.06, 95% CI 1.01, 1.12; P = 0.0222), and male gender (OR: 2.06, 95% CI 1.28, 3.32; P = 0.0028) and at week 4, change from baseline in urgency episodes (OR: 1.12, 95% CI 1.05, 1.20; P = 0.0008), patient perception of bladder control (PPBC) (OR: 1.44, 95% CI 1.12, 1.84; P = 0.004). At week 12, dose escalation was associated with slightly reduced treatment outcomes compared to week 4 non-escalators. CONCLUSIONS: No baseline disease related factor associated with dose escalation was identified. Magnitude of change in urgency episodes and reduction in PPBC at 4 weeks were associated with dose escalation. These data may be of use to healthcare providers as they allow judgement to be made in individual patients, allowing treatment decisions to be made. At end of treatment, improvements in efficacy and quality of life were achieved in both escalators and non-escalators.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".