Mike Herdman1, Jameel Nazir2, Zalmai Hakimi3, Emad Siddiqui2, Moses Huang2, Marco Pavesi4, Scott MacDiarmid5, Marcus J Drake6, Nancy Devlin7. 1. The Office of Health Economics, Southside, 7th Floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK. mherdman@ohe.org. 2. Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd., Astellas Medical Affairs, EMEA, HEOR, Chertsey, UK. 3. Astellas Pharma Europe B.V., Astellas Medical Affairs, Global, HEOR, Leiden, Netherlands. 4. Data Management Centre, European Foundation for the study of Chronic LIver Failure (EF-CLIF), Barcelona, Spain. 5. Alliance Urology Specialists, Greensboro, USA. 6. University of Bristol and Bristol Urological Institute, Bristol, UK. 7. The Office of Health Economics, Southside, 7th Floor, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes using two preference-based measures of health status (EQ-5D-5L and OAB-5D) in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) treated withsolifenacin plus mirabegron or solifenacin monotherapy in the BESIDE trial. METHODS:Patients with OAB who remained incontinent after 4 weeks' treatment withsolifenacin 5 mg were randomized 1:1:1 to combination treatment (solifenacin 5 mg plus mirabegron [25 mg for the first 4 weeks/50 mg for the last 8 weeks]), solifenacin 5 mg, or solifenacin 10 mg. EQ-5D-5L and OAB-q were administered at baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, and end of treatment (EoT). OAB-5D scores were derived from OAB-q results. Responder analysis was carried out using several definitions of minimally important difference. RESULTS: A total of 2054 patients received one or more doses of study treatment (combination, n = 694; solifenacin 5 mg, n = 684; solifenacin 10 mg, n = 676). EQ-5D-5L Index mean score changes (from baseline to EoT) were greater with combination (0.059) than with solifenacin 5 mg (0.040) and 10 mg (0.044) monotherapy, but the differences were not statistically significant. A significantly greater improvement was observed for combination on OAB-5D (0.107 vs 0.085 for 5 mg, and 0.087 for 10 mg; p ≤ 0.01). The dimensions most improved overall were anxiety/depression, pain/discomfort, and usual activities on EQ-5D-5L, and urge, urine loss, and coping on OAB-5D. The proportion of responders was significantly greater with combination compared with monotherapy using OAB-5D only. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements were observed in all study arms on both the EQ-5D-5L and OAB-5D, although only the OAB-5D showed a statistically significant benefit for combination versus solifenacin monotherapy. Combining generic and condition-specific preference-based health status measures allowed for assessment of dimensions that were particularly relevant to this patient population, while permitting comparison with outcomes from other studies, treatments, and populations via EQ-5D.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes using two preference-based measures of health status (EQ-5D-5L and OAB-5D) in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) treated with solifenacin plus mirabegron or solifenacin monotherapy in the BESIDE trial. METHODS:Patients with OAB who remained incontinent after 4 weeks' treatment with solifenacin 5 mg were randomized 1:1:1 to combination treatment (solifenacin 5 mg plus mirabegron [25 mg for the first 4 weeks/50 mg for the last 8 weeks]), solifenacin 5 mg, or solifenacin 10 mg. EQ-5D-5L and OAB-q were administered at baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, and end of treatment (EoT). OAB-5D scores were derived from OAB-q results. Responder analysis was carried out using several definitions of minimally important difference. RESULTS: A total of 2054 patients received one or more doses of study treatment (combination, n = 694; solifenacin 5 mg, n = 684; solifenacin 10 mg, n = 676). EQ-5D-5L Index mean score changes (from baseline to EoT) were greater with combination (0.059) than with solifenacin 5 mg (0.040) and 10 mg (0.044) monotherapy, but the differences were not statistically significant. A significantly greater improvement was observed for combination on OAB-5D (0.107 vs 0.085 for 5 mg, and 0.087 for 10 mg; p ≤ 0.01). The dimensions most improved overall were anxiety/depression, pain/discomfort, and usual activities on EQ-5D-5L, and urge, urine loss, and coping on OAB-5D. The proportion of responders was significantly greater with combination compared with monotherapy using OAB-5D only. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements were observed in all study arms on both the EQ-5D-5L and OAB-5D, although only the OAB-5D showed a statistically significant benefit for combination versus solifenacin monotherapy. Combining generic and condition-specific preference-based health status measures allowed for assessment of dimensions that were particularly relevant to this patient population, while permitting comparison with outcomes from other studies, treatments, and populations via EQ-5D.
Authors: Paul Abrams; Linda Cardozo; Magnus Fall; Derek Griffiths; Peter Rosier; Ulf Ulmsten; Philip van Kerrebroeck; Arne Victor; Alan Wein Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: M Heisen; S A Baeten; B G Verheggen; M Stoelzel; Z Hakimi; A Ridder; R van Maanen; E A Stolk Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Derek H Tang; Danielle C Colayco; Kristin M Khalaf; James Piercy; Vaishali Patel; Denise Globe; David Ginsberg Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: W F Stewart; J B Van Rooyen; G W Cundiff; P Abrams; A R Herzog; R Corey; T L Hunt; A J Wein Journal: World J Urol Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Christopher R Chapple; Steven A Kaplan; David Mitcheson; Jiri Klecka; Jana Cummings; Ted Drogendijk; Caroline Dorrepaal; Nancy Martin Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-11-06 Impact factor: 20.096