Feasibility of mirabegron in the treatment of overactive bladder in patients affected by Parkinson’s disease: A pilot stud
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We investigated the effectiveness and safety of mirabegron oral treatment in a group of patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) and overactive bladder (OAB), refractory to antimuscarinics. Materials and methods: Thirty patients with PD and refractory OAB were prospectively included in the study. At baseline, motor symptoms, severity of disease and cognitive status were assessed with the Hoehn–Yahr Scale, the Unified Parkinson’s disease Rating Scale, the Mini Mental State examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. At baseline, urinary symptoms, satisfaction with treatment and the impact of urinary incontinence on quality of life (QoL) were assessed with the 3-day voiding diary, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Incontinence–QoL questionnaire and urodynamics. Patients started assuming mirabegron 50 mg tablets once daily. Evaluation of urinary symptoms and related questionnaires, motor symptoms, severity of PD and uroflowmetry with postvoid residual volume measurement were then repeated at the 3- and 6-month follow up. Side effects were also noted. Results: At baseline, the most frequently reported urinary symptoms were: urinary urgency (present in all the patients), urge urinary incontinence in 28/30 (93.3%) and increased daytime urinary frequency in 25 (83.3%) patients. At the 3-month follow up, 7 out of the 30 patients achieved a complete urinary continence. Significant improvements in VAS and Incontinence– QoL scores were observed in 24 patients. These benefits were maintained for the whole observation period. Four patients discontinued treatment due to poor efficacy, and two due to the cost of the drug. Conclusions: Mirabegron is a safe and effective treatment in patients with PD and OAB refractory to anticholinergics in the short-term follow up.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".