4.4 Article

Do gender, age or lifestyle factors affect responses to antimuscarinic treatment in overactive bladder patients?

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 64, Issue 9, Pages 1287-1293

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02442.x

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Bayer Vital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Aims: Gender, age, obesity, smoking and alcohol or caffeine intake have been shown or proposed to be risk factors for the prevalence and/or severity of the overactive bladder symptom complex (OAB) or related parameters. We have explored whether any of these factors affect the therapeutic response to a muscarinic receptor antagonist during routine clinical use. Methods: Data were analysed from 3766 OAB patients (77.1% woman, age 62.6 +/- 12.8 years) participating in an observational, open-label postmarketing surveillance study of the safety and efficacy of darifenacin. Multiple logistic regression models were applied to explore the effect of potential OAB risk factors on the darifenacin treatment-associated improvement of OAB symptoms, patient's subjective rating of bladder problems and global efficacy and tolerability. Results: Age and (less consistently) gender were statistically significantly correlated with efficacy parameters, but the extent of their impact was judged to be too small to be clinically relevant. Except for a very small effect of body mass index on urgency episode improvement, none of the lifestyle-associated factors had significant effects on the efficacy of darifenacin. Except for a very small age effect, none of the potential risk factors had significant effects on global tolerability. Discussion and conclusions: We conclude that the efficacy and tolerability of a muscarinic receptor antagonist, such as darifenacin is largely independent of potential OAB risk factors, such as gender, age, obesity, smoking and alcohol or caffeine intake.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available