Bladder Function and Safety of Vibegron in Men With Overactive Bladder Receiving Treatment for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Outcomes From the Phase 3 Randomized Controlled COURAGE Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose Vibegron was associated with improvements in efficacy versus placebo and was well tolerated in men with overactive bladder (OAB) on pharmacotherapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in the COURAGE trial (NCT03902080). Additional safety, bladder function, and urodynamics data are provided. Methods This 24‐week, phase 3, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial randomized men ≥ 45 years with OAB and BPH receiving α‐blocker ± 5α‐reductase inhibitors to once‐daily vibegron or placebo (1:1). From the safety analysis set (SAF), postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), maximum urinary flow rate (Uroflow‐Q max ), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) total score, and urologic‐related adverse events (AEs) were collected throughout the trial. Q max and detrusor pressure at Q max (P det Q max ) were collected at baseline and week 12 in a urodynamics substudy (urodynamics evaluable set [UES]). Results In the SAF, differences between vibegron ( n = 553) and placebo ( n = 551) in PVR and Uroflow‐Q max were minimal at baseline, week 12, and week 24. Mean (SD) change from baseline (CFB) at week 24 in IPSS total score was −7.3 (6.96) with vibegron and −5.7 (7.14) with placebo. Urinary retention was reported as an AE for 5 (0.9%) and 4 (0.7%) participants receiving vibegron and placebo, respectively. In the UES (vibegron, n = 21; placebo, n = 22), least squares mean difference (95% CI) between vibegron and placebo in CFB at week 12 was 2.75 (0.16, 5.34) mL/s in Q max and 2.86 (–13.52, 19.25) cmH 2 O in P det Q max . Conclusions There were no safety signals related to bladder function identified by urodynamics; risk of protocol‐defined AEs of urinary retention or residual urine volume increase was not increased with vibegron compared with placebo in this population. Clinical Trial Registration This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov . The registration identification number is NCT03902080.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".