Persistence and adherence with the new beta-3 receptor agonist, mirabegron, versus antimuscarinics in overactive bladder: Early experience in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Antimuscarinics are the principal pharmacological treatment for overactive bladder (OAB), but frequently give rise to anticholinergic side effects, such as dry mouth, a factor leading to poor persistence. The β3-adrenoceptor agonist mirabegron is devoid of significant anticholinergic activity, while being effective in OAB. We evaluated persistence and adherence with mirabegron versus antimuscarinics over 12 months. METHODS: We obtained retrospective claims from a Canadian Private Drug Plan database for patients 18 years old and over, with a first claim for mirabegron or antimuscarinics during a 6-month index period (April-September 2013). A 6-month look-back identified those with no prior claims for OAB medication (treatment-naïve) or ≥1 prior OAB drug (treatment-experienced). Time to end of persistence (≥30 day therapy gap or switch of therapy) was evaluated over 12 months; adherence with medication (medication possession ratio) was also measured. RESULTS: Persistence data from 19 485 patients (74% female, 92% naïve, 19.9% aged ≥65 years) showed that for experienced patients the median number of days on mirabegron was 299 days, compared with a range of 96 to 242 days for the different antimuscarinics; for naïve patients, it was 196 versus 70 to 100 days, respectively. Persistence at 12 months was for mirabegron 39% versus 14% to 35% for antimuscarinics, (experienced) and 30% mirabegron versus 14% to 21% antimuscarinics, (naïve). Patients taking mirabegron demonstrated statistically significantly greater adherence than those taking antimuscarinics. CONCLUSION: Patients who received mirabegron remained longer on treatment than those treated with antimuscarinics, and had higher 12-month persistence and adherence rates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".