| Literature DB >> 28954464 |
Yankai Xu1,2, Ruihua Liu3, Chu Liu4, Yuanshan Cui4, Zhenli Gao4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mirabegron add-on therapy to solifenacin for patients with overactive bladder (OAB).Entities:
Keywords: Meta-analysis; Mirabegron; Randomized Controlled Trials; Solifenacin; Urinary Bladder, Overactive
Year: 2017 PMID: 28954464 PMCID: PMC5636960 DOI: 10.5213/inj.1734934.467
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Neurourol J ISSN: 2093-4777 Impact factor: 2.835
Fig. 1.Flow diagram of the study selection process. RCT, randomized controlled trial; OAB, overactive bladder.
Study and patient characteristics
| Study | Therapy in experimental group | Therapy in control group | Country | Sample size | Administration method | Treatment duration (wk) | Dosage (mg) | Inclusion population | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Control | ||||||||
| Drake et al. (2016) [ | M+S | S | UK, Turkey, Greece, Spain, USA, Canada, The Netherlands | 725 | 728 | Oral | 12 | 50 mg+5 mg/5 mg | Aged ≥18 yr with OAB symptoms for ≥3 mo. After 4 wk of single-blind daily solifenacin 5 mg, patients remaining incontinent at baseline. |
| Abrams et al. (2013) [ | M+S | S | UK, USA, Poland, The Netherlands | 234 | 234 | Oral | 12 | 50 mg+5 mg/5 mg & 50 mg+10 mg/10 mg | Aged ≥18 yr with OAB symptoms for≥ 3 mo with eight or more micturitions per 24 hr and one urgency episode or more per 24 hr |
| Kosilov et al. (2015) [ | M+S | S | Russian | 65 | 52 | Oral | 6 | 50 mg+10 mg/10 mg | Aged ≥65 yr, with severe symptoms of OAB. |
| Herschorn et al. (2017) [ | M+S | S | 435 Sites in 42 countries | 848 | 423 | Oral | 12 | 50 mg+5 mg/5 mg | Patients aged ≥18 yr with wet OAB who recorded on average ≥8 micturitions/24 hr, ≥1 urgency episode/24 hr and ≥3 incontinence episodes over the 7-day micturition diary |
M, mirabegron; S, solifenacin; OAB, overactive bladder.
Quality assessment of individual study
| Study | Allocation sequence generation | Allocation concealment | Blinding | Loss to follow-up | Calculation of sample size | Statistical analysis | ITT analysis | Level of quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drake et al. (2016) [ | A | A | A | 6 | Yes | ANCOVA | No | A |
| Abrams et al. (2013) [ | A | A | A | 2 | Yes | ANCOVA | No | A |
| Kosilov et al. (2015) [ | A | A | A | 0 | Yes | ANCOVA | No | A |
| Herschorn et al. (2017) [ | A | A | A | 5 | Yes | ANCOVA | No | A |
A, all quality criteria met (adequate): low risk of bias; ITT, intention-to-treat; ANCOVA, analysis of covariance.
Fig. 2.Funnel plot of the studies included in our meta-analysis. MD, mean difference; SE, standard error.
Fig. 3.Forest plots showing changes in the mean number of micturitions per 24 hours (A) and the number of episodes of incontinence per 24 hours (B). SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.
Fig. 4.Forest plots showing changes in the mean volume voided per micturition (A) and the mean number of urgency episodes per 24 hours (B). SD, standard deviation; IV, inverse variance; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.
Fig. 5.Forest plots showing changes in treatment-emergent adverse events (A) and discontinuation due to adverse events (B). M-H, Mantel-Haenszel; CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom.