An updated meta-analysis of head-to-head trials comparing the efficacy, safety, and adherence of mirabegron and vibegron in overactive bladder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This updated meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and treatment adherence of mirabegron and vibegron in patients with overactive bladder with head-to-head trials. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 2016 to July 6, 2025. Comparative studies evaluating mirabegron versus vibegron were included. Study selection followed the PICOS framework, and quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Handbook for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-RCTs. Outcomes included changes in voiding diary parameters, urodynamic measures, overactive bladder symptom scores, adverse events, and treatment adherence. Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Vibegron was associated with a greater reduction in daily urgency episodes (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.37, P = .0006) and urinary urge incontinence (UUI) episodes (SMD = 0.33, P = .006) compared to mirabegron. However, no significant differences were found in other efficacy parameters or overall safety profiles. Vibegron demonstrated better adherence, with a higher continuation rate and lower discontinuation rate. CONCLUSION: Recent data indicated that vibegron demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing urgency and UUI episodes while maintaining a safety profile comparable to mirabegron. Furthermore, vibegron is associated with improved treatment adherence. However, additional RCTs are necessary to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.021 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.058 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".