MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033817897 · doi:10.1111/ijcp.12194

Mirabegron for the treatment of overactive bladder: a prespecified pooled efficacy analysis and pooled safety analysis of three randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase <scp>III</scp> studies

2013· article· en· W2033817897 on OpenAlexaff
Victor W. Νitti, V. Khullar, Philip E.V. van Kerrebroeck, Sender Herschorn, J. Cambronero, J.C. Angulo, Mary Beth Blauwet, Caroline A. Dorrepaal, Emad Siddiqui, Nancy Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAstellas Foundation for Research on Metabolic DisordersAstellas Pharma
KeywordsMedicineMirabegronOveractive bladderPlaceboTolterodineAdverse effectUrologyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: To examine pooled efficacy data from three, large phase III studies comparing mirabegron (50 and 100 mg) with placebo, and pooled safety data including additional mirabegron 25 mg and tolterodine extended release (ER) 4 mg results. METHODS: This prespecified pooled analysis of three randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week studies, evaluated efficacy and safety of once-daily mirabegron 25 mg (safety analysis), 50 or 100 mg (efficacy and safety analyses) and tolterodine ER 4 mg (safety analysis) for the treatment of symptoms of overactive bladder (OAB). Co-primary efficacy measures were change from baseline to Final Visit in the mean number of incontinence episodes/24 h and mean number of micturitions/24 h. Key secondary efficacy end-points included mean number of urgency episodes/24 h and mean volume voided/micturitions, while other end-points included patient-reported outcomes according to the Treatment Satisfaction-Visual Analogue Scale (TS-VAS) and responder analyses [dry rate (posttreatment), ≥ 50% reduction in incontinence episodes/24 h, ≤ 8 micturitions/24 h (post hoc analysis)]. The safety analysis included adverse event (AE) reporting, laboratory assessments, ECG, postvoid residual volume and vital signs (blood pressure, pulse rate). RESULTS: Mirabegron (50 and 100 mg once daily) demonstrated statistically significant improvements compared with placebo for the co-primary end-points, key secondary efficacy variables, TS-VAS and responder analyses (all comparisons p < 0.05). Mirabegron is well tolerated and demonstrates a good safety profile. The most common AEs (≥ 3%) included hypertension, nasopharyngitis and urinary tract infection (UTI); the incidence of hypertensive events and UTIs decreased with increasing dose. For mirabegron, the incidence of the bothersome antimuscarinic AE, dry mouth, was at placebo level and of a lesser magnitude than tolterodine. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of mirabegron are demonstrated in this large pooled clinical trial dataset in patients with OAB.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.023
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations211
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical PracticeSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207