Factors Associated with Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcomes During Mirabegron or Antimuscarinic Treatment of Overactive Bladder Syndrome: A Registry Study (PERSPECTIVE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide valuable insights about the effectiveness of overactive bladder (OAB) treatments. The aim of PERSPECTIVE (a Prospective, non-intErventional Registry Study of PatiEnts initiating a Course of drug Therapy for overactIVE bladder) was to provide real-world evidence from the USA and Canada on patient-perceived effectiveness and safety of mirabegron and antimuscarinics for treating OAB symptoms. METHODS: This prospective, non-interventional registry followed adult patients with OAB who were starting treatment with mirabegron or antimuscarinics. All treatment decisions were made at the discretion of the treating healthcare provider with no mandatory visits after enrollment. The primary objective was to identify factors associated with improved treatment effectiveness from a patient perspective mainly using the OAB Questionnaire Short-Form (OAB-q SF). The form was sent to patients via email link at baseline and months 1, 3, 6, and 12. Treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) data were collated from investigator reports. RESULTS: Overall, 1514 patients were included (female 73.5%, mean age 62.2 years). Mirabegron was initiated by 613 patients and antimuscarinics by 901 patients. A PRO response rate of approximately 60% was achieved (575 patients did not complete baseline PROs). Similar improvements in OAB-q SF symptom bother score and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) total score were observed for mirabegron and antimuscarinic initiators. Covariate-adjusted models demonstrated that worse baseline PRO score, Hispanic ethnicity, being treatment naïve, and use of complementary/supportive OAB therapies at baseline were significantly associated with greater improvements in both scores. The most frequent TEAEs were gastrointestinal disorders (dry mouth, constipation, and nausea) and nervous system disorders (headache, somnolence, and dizziness). CONCLUSION: There are no differences between mirabegron and antimuscarinics in terms of patient-reported OAB symptom bother and HRQoL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02386072. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc. Plain language summary available for this article.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".