Neurological safety and efficacy of darifenacin and mirabegron for the treatment of overactive bladder in patients with history of cerebrovascular accident: A prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the neurological safety and clinical efficacy of darifenacin and mirabegron in patients with a history of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) who had overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms. METHODS: This prospective randomized study, approved by the institute's ethics committee, was carried out at a tertiary care center from December 2018 to June 2020. Treatment naïve adult patients with a past history of CVA with stable neurological status for atleast past 3 months with symptoms of OAB for 3 or more months were included. Eligible patients received either darifenacin or mirabegron for a period of 3 months and various parameters on the 3-day International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ) bladder diary, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic score (MoCA-B), and the adverse events at 3 months posttreatment were compared to that at the baseline. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included, 30 in each arm. After 3 months of treatment with darifenacin or mirabegron, the majority of the ICIQ bladder diary parameters improved and there was no deterioration in the cognitive function as noted on the MoCA-B score in either of the arms. On intergroup comparison, the mean change in bladder diary parameters and the MoCA-B scores was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Darifenacin and mirabegron, in the short term, do not adversely affect the cognitive function in patients with a history of CVA with OAB symptoms. Both are safe and effective treatment options in patients with OAB post-CVA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".