Pharmacological treatment of overactive bladder: report from the International Consultation on Incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Treatment options for the overactive bladder were recently discussed at the 4th International Consultation on Incontinence (ICI) held in Paris, 5-8 July 2008. This article will overview current thoughts on the pharmacological and clinical basis for the different classes of drugs currently used for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms/overactive bladder syndrome/and detrusor overactivity. Individual drugs are not discussed in detail; particular consideration is given to therapeutic aspects of the management of the elderly patient. RECENT FINDINGS: An extensive literature review confirms the rationale for using antimuscarinic drugs, and that the currently used drugs are efficacius with an acceptable tolerability and safety. In patients resistant to antimuscarinics, botulinum toxin may be an alternative--the vanilloids resiniferatoxin and capsaicin have very limited use. New therapeutic options with positive proof-of-concept studies, but with limited clinical experience, are beta3 adrenoceptor agonists and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. Positive signals have been found for other classes of drugs (e.g., gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists, neurokinin receptor-1 antagonists), but available information is not sufficient for proper assessment. SUMMARY: Antimuscarinic drugs remain the first-line treatment of the overactive bladder and a favorable efficacy/tolerability-safety ratio can be confirmed. Promising new alternatives are emerging and future controlled studies will decide their place in the therapeutic arsenal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".