Long‐term treatment of older patients with overactive bladder using a combination of mirabegron and solifenacin: a prespecified analysis from the randomized, phase III SYNERGY II study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: SYNERGY II was a 12-month phase III trial in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms that investigated the safety and efficacy of the combination of mirabegron and solifenacin in comparison with each monotherapy. This analysis evaluated the trial findings using four age subgroups (<65, ≥65, <75, and ≥75 years). METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥18 years with symptoms of "wet" OAB (urinary frequency and urgency with incontinence) for ≥3 months. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily solifenacin succinate and mirabegron (5 mg/50 mg; combination), solifenacin succinate, or mirabegron (4:1:1). Safety evaluations: treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, and electrocardiogram, post-void residual volume, and laboratory assessments. Primary efficacy variables: change from baseline to end of treatment in number of incontinence episodes/24 h and micturitions/24 h. RESULTS: Of 1794 patients (full analysis set), 614 (34.2%) and 168 (9.4%) were ≥65 and ≥75 years old, respectively. Overall, 856 (47.2%) patients experienced ≥1 TEAE. Higher TEAE incidences were typically observed for the combination versus both monotherapies (eg, constipation) and in the older versus younger age groups (eg, urinary tract infection). Increases in mean pulse rate from baseline of >1 bpm were noted in the combination and mirabegron younger age groups only. No clinically significant findings were observed in the other safety parameters. The efficacy variables improved with all treatments and the greatest improvements were typically observed with combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Mirabegron and solifenacin combination therapy was a well-tolerated and effective treatment for patients with OAB symptoms irrespective of their age.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".