MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of fesoterodine and tolterodine extended release for the treatment of overactive bladder: a head‐to‐head placebo‐controlled trial

2009· article· en· W1531562711 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Urology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersPfizer
KeywordsTolterodineTolerabilityOveractive bladderPlaceboMedicineUrologyClinical endpointRandomized controlled trialUrinary incontinenceInternal medicineAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of fesoterodine 8 mg with tolterodine extended-release (ER) 4 mg and placebo in a randomized clinical trial of patients with an overactive bladder (OAB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this 12-week double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, eligible patients reported OAB symptoms for > or = 3 months and recorded > or = 8 voids and > or = 1 urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) episode per 24 h in 3-day bladder diaries at baseline. Patients were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to fesoterodine (4 mg for 1 week then 8 mg for 11 weeks); tolterodine ER 4 mg; or placebo (with sham dose escalation for tolterodine ER and placebo). Endpoints were changes from baseline to week 12 in UUI episodes (primary endpoint), total and nocturnal voids, urgency episodes, severe urgency episodes, and frequency-urgency sum per 24 h; mean voided volume per void (MVV); and the OAB questionnaire (OAB-q), Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC), and Urgency Perception Scale (UPS). Safety and tolerability were assessed and summarized over the 12-week study period. RESULTS: Fesoterodine (636 patients) significantly improved UUI episodes at week 12 (primary endpoint) compared with tolterodine ER (641 patients; P = 0.017) and placebo (313 patients; P < 0.001). Fesoterodine also produced significantly greater improvements than tolterodine ER in MVV (P = 0.005). Fesoterodine significantly improved all diary endpoints compared with placebo (P < 0.001), except for nocturnal voids (P = 0.327). Tolterodine ER significantly improved all diary endpoints vs placebo (P < 0.001), except for nocturnal voids (P = 0.506) and MVV (P = 0.103). Diary dry rates (the proportion of patients reporting no UUI episodes at endpoint among those with one or more UUI episodes at baseline) were significantly higher with fesoterodine (64%) than with tolterodine ER (57%; P = 0.015) and placebo (45%; P < 0.001). Improvements in PPBC, UPS and OAB-q scale and domain scores at week 12 were all significantly better with fesoterodine than placebo (all P < 0.001) and tolterodine ER (all P < 0.05) except for the OAB-q Sleep domain vs tolterodine ER (P = 0.081). Dry mouth and constipation rates were 28% and 5% in the fesoterodine group, 16% and 4% in the tolterodine ER group, and 6% and 3% with placebo, respectively. Discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events were 6%, 4% and 2% in the fesoterodine, tolterodine ER, and placebo groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with OAB, fesoterodine 8 mg showed superior efficacy over tolterodine ER 4 mg and placebo in reducing UUI episodes (primary endpoint) and in improving most patient-reported outcome measures. Both active treatments were well tolerated.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it