| Literature DB >> 33834641 |
Seong Cheol Kim1, Myungchan Park1, Chongsok Chae1, Ji Hyung Yoon1, Taekmin Kwon1, Sejun Park1, Kyung Hyun Moon1, Sang Hyeon Cheon1, Sungchan Park2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of mirabegron and solifenacin in pediatric patients with idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB) and to identify factors affecting OAB symptom improvement after treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Child; Enuresis; Urinary bladder, overactive
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33834641 PMCID: PMC8100008 DOI: 10.4111/icu.20200380
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Investig Clin Urol ISSN: 2466-0493
Fig. 1Overview of the study population.
Patient characteristics
| Variable | Solifenacin 5 mg (n=29) | Mirabegron 50 mg (n=16) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | |||
| Median | 6.6 | 9.8 | |
| Range | 5.0–14.7 | 5.6–12.3 | |
| IQR | 5.6–7.1 | 8.3–11.0 | |
| Sex, male (%) | 41.4 | 62.5 | 0.175 |
| Previous drug history, n (%) | 5 (17.2) | 2 (12.5) | >0.999a |
| Incontinence, n (%) | 12 (41.4) | 3 (18.8) | 0.105 |
| Nocturnal enuresis, n (%) | 19 (65.5) | 16 (100.0) | 0.008a |
| Duration of symptom (mo) | 0.005 | ||
| Median | 6.0 | 12.0 | |
| Range | 1.0–18.0 | 1.0–36.0 | |
| IQR | 6.0–12.0 | 12.0–24.0 | |
| Duration of medication (d) | 0.570 | ||
| Median | 193 | 239 | |
| Range | 30–772 | 72–466 | |
| IQR | 158–351 | 114–328 | |
| Frequency | 0.261 | ||
| Median | 7 | 6 | |
| Range | 4–15 | 4.5–10 | |
| IQR | 5.5–8.5 | 5–7.5 | |
| aBCR (MVV/eBC) | 0.015 | ||
| Median | 0.60 | 0.56 | |
| Range | 0.37–1.43 | 0.27–0.76 | |
| IQR | 0.52–0.82 | 0.44–0.64 | |
| Decreased bladder capacity, n (%) | 15 (51.7) | 13 (81.3) | 0.051 |
| aBCR (1.25×MVVDT/eBC) | 0.072 | ||
| Median | 0.66 | 0.55 | |
| Range | 0.11–1.46 | 0.29–0.95 | |
| IQR | 0.57–0.95 | 0.49–0.69 | |
| Decreased bladder capacity, n (%) | 13 (44.8) | 12 (75.0) | 0.051 |
IQR, interquartile range; aBCR, age-adjusted bladder capacity ratio; MVV, maximal voided volume; eBC, expected bladder capacity by using age; MVVDT, maximal voided volume during daytime.
a:Fisher's exact test.
Fig. 2Differences in bladder capacity before and after treatment according to drug used. The aBCR uses (A) MVV or (B) MVVDT divided by eBC. (C) Changes in aBCRs obtained using both MVV and MVVDT before and after medication between two drugs. aBCR, age-adjusted bladder capacity ratio; MVV, maximal voided volume; MVVDT, maximal voided volume during daytime; eBC, expected bladder capacity by using age.
Fig. 3Correlation between baseline aBCR (MVVDT/eBC) and change rate after treatment. aBCR, age-adjusted bladder capacity ratio; MVVDT, maximal voided volume during daytime; eBC, expected bladder capacity by using age.
Results of multivariate binary logistic regression analysis for determining factors associated with improvement in OAB symptoms after medication
| Variable | OR | 95% CI | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Decreased bladder capacity | Yes vs. no | 7.41 | 1.05–52.18 | 0.044 |
| Medication | Mirabegron vs. solifenacin | 0.20 | 0.01–3.17 | 0.251 |
| Sex | Female vs. male | 0.41 | 0.08–2.13 | 0.287 |
| Age | Continuous variable | 0.82 | 0.45–1.51 | 0.523 |
| Duration of medication | Continuous variable | 0.99 | 0.99–1.01 | 0.385 |
| Duration of symptom | Continuous variable | 1.07 | 0.95–1.20 | 0.270 |
OAB, overactive bladder; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Fig. 4Kaplan-Meier analysis of the relationship between drug maintenance and medications (solifenacin vs. mirabegron).