MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293202443 · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.030

Efficacy and Safety of Mirabegron Add-on Therapy to Solifenacin in Incontinent Overactive Bladder Patients with an Inadequate Response to Initial 4-Week Solifenacin Monotherapy: A Randomised Double-blind Multicentre Phase 3B Study (BESIDE)

2016· article· en· W2293202443 on OpenAlexaff
Marcus J. Drake, Christopher R. Chapple, Adil Esen, Stavros Athanasiou, J. Cambronero, David Mitcheson, Sender Herschorn, Tahir Saleem, Moses Huang, Emad Siddiqui, Matthias Stölzel, Claire Herholdt, Scott MacDiarmid

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolifenacinMedicineMirabegronOveractive bladderUrologyTolterodineUrinary urgency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Incontinence has a greater detrimental effect on quality of life than other symptoms of overactive bladder (OAB) and is often difficult to treat with antimuscarinic monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and the safety and tolerability of combination (solifenacin 5mg and mirabegron 50mg) versus solifenacin 5 or 10mg in OAB patients remaining incontinent after 4 wk of solifenacin 5mg. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: OAB patients remaining incontinent despite daily solifenacin 5mg during 4-wk single-blind run-in were randomised 1:1:1 to double-blind daily combination or solifenacin 5 or 10mg for 12 wk. Patients receiving the combination were initiated on mirabegron 25mg increasing to 50mg after week 4. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary end point was a change from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) in the mean number of incontinence episodes per 24h (stratified rank analysis of covariance [ANCOVA]). Key secondary end points were a change from baseline to EOT in the mean number of micturitions per 24h (ANCOVA) and number of incontinence episodes noted in a 3-d diary at EOT (mixed-effects Poisson regression). A trial (BESIDE) comparing combination treatment (solifenacin plus mirabegron) with one treatment alone (solifenacin) tested the superiority of combination versus solifenacin 5mg, noninferiority (and potential superiority) of combination versus solifenacin 10mg (key secondary end points), and the safety and tolerability of combination therapy versus solifenacin monotherapy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 2174 patients were randomised to combination (n=727), solifenacin 5mg (n=728), or solifenacin 10mg (n=719). At EOT, combination was superior to solifenacin 5mg, with significant improvements in daily incontinence (p=0.001), daily micturitions (p<0.001), and incontinence noted in a 3-d diary (p=0.014). Combination was noninferior to solifenacin 10mg for key secondary end points and superior to solifenacin 10mg for improving daily micturitions. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Adding mirabegron 50mg to solifenacin 5mg further improved OAB symptoms versus solifenacin 5 or 10mg, and it was well tolerated in OAB patients remaining incontinent after initial solifenacin 5mg. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this 12-wk study, overactive bladder patients who remained incontinent despite initial solifenacin 5mg treatment received additional treatment with mirabegron 50mg. Combining mirabegron 50mg with solifenacin 5mg was superior to solifenacin 5mg alone in improving symptoms of incontinence and frequent urination, and it was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01908829.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.358
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations183
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean UrologySame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207