Long‐term safety, tolerability and efficacy of flexible‐dose fesoterodine in elderly patients with overactive bladder: Open‐label extension of the SOFIA trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of flexible-dose fesoterodine in elderly patients with OAB. METHODS: Patients aged ≥65 years who completed a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were eligible for the 12-week, open-label (OL) extension phase. Patients who received double-blind placebo started on fesoterodine 4 mg and could increase to 8 mg after 4 or 8 weeks of OL treatment, while fesoterodine-treated patients continued on their double-blind dose; only one dose escalation or de-escalation was permitted. Discontinuations and adverse events (AEs) were monitored, and patients completed 3-day bladder diaries and patient-reported outcomes at the beginning and end of the 12-week OL phase. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-four patients entered the 12-week OL extension (mean age 72 years; 52% women). AEs were reported by 30.7% and 48.1% of patients who had received double-blind fesoterodine and placebo, respectively; 1.9% and 9.4%, discontinued due to AEs, respectively. Patients who received double-blind fesoterodine maintained their efficacy response. After 12 weeks of OL treatment, efficacy outcomes in patients who received double-blind placebo were similar to those who had received double-blind fesoterodine. On average, the efficacy response was maintained for the duration of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Fesoterodine was well tolerated and improvements in OAB symptoms and quality of life measures were not diminished with longer-term treatment of patients aged ≥65 years.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".