Persistence with mirabegron or antimuscarinic treatment for overactive bladder syndrome: Findings from the <scp>PERSPECTIVE</scp> registry study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This analysis from the PERSPECTIVE (a Prospective, Non-interventional Registry Study of Patients Initiating a Course of Drug Therapy for Overactive Bladder) study evaluated treatment persistence with mirabegron or antimuscarinics over a 12-month period. METHODS: Participants were adults diagnosed with overactive bladder (OAB) by their health care provider (HCP), who were initiating mirabegron or antimuscarinic treatment. The HCP made all treatment decisions, and patients were followed for 12 months with no mandatory scheduled visits. Information requests were sent to patients at baseline and months 1, 3, 6, and 12. Patients were nonpersistent if they switched, discontinued, or added OAB medications/therapies to their initial treatment. Reasons for discontinuation and switching patterns were investigated. RESULTS: Overall, 1514 patients were included (613 mirabegron and 901 antimuscarinic initiators). Persistence rates decreased steadily over time in both groups. A low proportion of patients added or switched medication at each time point. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis showed similar persistence rates for both groups. When the data were adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, and OAB treatment status), mirabegron initiators had higher persistence rates. No significant differences were noted in unadjusted median time to end of persistence. However, end of treatment persistence by any cause was longer with mirabegron (median: 9.5 vs 6.7 months for antimuscarinics). HCPs stated that the most common reasons for nonpersistence were no symptomatic improvement and side effect aversion. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment persistence was longer for mirabegron compared with antimuscarinic initiators after controlling for patient characteristics. End of treatment persistence by any cause was also longer with mirabegron.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".