First North American experience of propiverine use in children with overactive bladder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2017, propiverine was approved in Canada for overactive bladder (OAB) in adults and children. There is, however, scarce data on its efficacy and tolerability in the pediatric population. Our primary objective was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of propiverine as a treatment for pediatric OAB. Our secondary objective was to compare propiverine to molecules already investigated in historical cohorts. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database and reviewed 58 patients who received propiverine since 2017. Efficacy and tolerability were assessed through voiding diaries, postvoid residuals (PVR), changes in the number of incontinence and urgency episodes (grade 1 to 3), and on reported adverse events. RESULTS: In total, 58 patients (37 boys) initiated treatment at a mean age of 9.5±3.2 years. Patients were on propiverine for an average of 15.9±12.4 months. Mean bladder capacity increased from 120 ml to 216 ml, and % expected bladder capacity (%EBC) increased from 37% to 59%. The average increased rate of %EBC was 0.5% per month (p<0.001). Of the 58 patients, eight stopped the medication completely without symptom recurrence, 21 were still on medication, and six were on dose-tapering. Due to side effects, seven interrupted their treatment. Compared to molecules used in our service, propiverine offered comparable efficacy and tolerability. Our study had limitations, including the absence of a placebo group and its retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Propiverine appears to be an efficient and safe option for treating OAB in children and is approved as such.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".