Safety and Tolerability Results from the PILLAR Study: A Phase IV, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Mirabegron in Patients ≥ 65 years with Overactive Bladder-Wet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: -adrenoreceptor agonist, represents an alternative treatment that may have a favorable risk-benefit profile. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to further examine the safety and tolerability of mirabegron versus placebo treatment in patients aged ≥ 65 years with OAB-wet. METHODS: We conducted a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase IV study to compare mirabegron with placebo. Community-dwelling patients aged ≥ 65 years with OAB-wet (one or more incontinence episode and three or more urgency episodes, and an average of eight or more micturitions/24 h over a 3-day diary) were randomized to receive placebo or mirabegron 25 mg/day (optional dose escalation to 50 mg/day at week 4 or 8). Safety analyses were performed for adverse events (AEs) and vital signs on all randomized patients who received one or more dose of study drug. RESULTS: Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs), the majority mild or moderate in severity, were reported in 39.4% of placebo patients and 44.2 and 49.8% of those who received mirabegron 25 mg or 50 mg, respectively. The most common TEAEs in mirabegron-treated patients were urinary tract infection, headache, and diarrhea. The incidence of TEAEs was slightly higher in mirabegron patients aged ≥ 75 years than in those aged < 75 years. There were no clinically meaningful differences in changes in vital signs from baseline to end of treatment for any treatment group, and no differences were observed between mirabegron and placebo treatment groups. TEAEs tended to occur early post exposure and were not dose related. CONCLUSIONS: Mirabegron treatment was well-tolerated in older adults with OAB-wet. Safety and tolerability were consistent with the known mirabegron safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02216214.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".