4.3 Article

A randomized, double-blind, placebo- and propiverine-controlled trial of the novel antimuscarinic agent imidafenacin in Japanese patients with overactive bladder

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 499-506

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2009.02286.x

关键词

antimuscarinic; efficacy; imidafenacin; overactive bladder; propiverine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of imidafenacin, a novel antimuscarinic agent, with propiverine and a placebo in Japanese patients with overactive bladder (OAB). Men and women having OAB symptoms were randomized to double-blind treatment with 0.1 mg of imidafenacin twice daily, 20 mg of propiverine once daily, or a placebo for 12 weeks, and assessed for efficacy and safety. Overall, 781 patients were randomized to imidafenacin (324), propiverine (310), or a placebo (147). After 12 weeks of treatment, a significantly larger reduction in the mean number of incontinence episodes was observed in the imidafenacin group than in the placebo group (P < 0.0001). The non-inferiority of imidafenacin compared with propiverine was confirmed for the reduction in using incontinence episodes (P = 0.0014, non-inferiority margin: 14.5%). Imidafenacin was well tolerated. The incidence of adverse events with imidafenacin was significantly lower than with propiverine (P = 0.0101). Dry mouth, the most common adverse event, was significantly more common in the propiverine group than in the imidafenacin group (P = 0.0302). There were no significant increases in either the imidafenacin or placebo group in the mean QTc interval, whereas there was a significant increase in the mean QTc interval in the propiverine group (P < 0.0001), but there were no clinical arrhythmia and clinical arrhythmic events in any of the treatment groups. The novel antimuscarinic agent imidafenacin at a dose of 0.1 mg twice daily was not inferior to propiverine for the reduction of incontinence episodes, and well tolerated for the treatment of OAB symptoms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据