4.4 Article

A randomised, double-blind, parallel design, multi-institutional, non-inferiority phase IV trial of imidafenacin versus fesoterodine for overactive bladder

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 67, Issue 12, Pages 1317-1326

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.12272

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. LG Life Sciences Ltd., Seoul, Korea

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimsOur objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of imidafenacin over fesoterodine in patients with overactive bladder (OAB). MethodsThis study is a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, fesoterodine-controlled study in patients with continuous OAB symptoms for 3months, daily mean voiding frequency (DMVF) 8, and daily mean urgency or urgency incontinence frequency 2. A twice-daily 0.1mg imidafenacin with placebo, or once-daily 4mg fesoterodine with placebo were administered for 12weeks. The primary efficacy end-point was the difference in DMVF at 12weeks. The secondary efficacy end-points were differences in daily mean: (i) voiding frequency at 4 and 8weeks; (ii) urgency frequency; (iii) urgency incontinence frequency; (iv) incontinence frequency; (v) nocturia frequency; and (vi) quality of life score. The variables for safety analysis were adverse events, vital signs, residual urine volume and clinical laboratory tests. An efficacy analysis was conducted in per-protocol patients and the safety analysis was conducted in all randomised patients. ResultsThe differences in DMVF at 12weeks were -3.383.63 and -2.45 +/- 3.73 in the imidafenacin and fesoterodine groups, respectively, and the difference was not significant between the two groups. Imidafenacin was non-inferior to fesoterodine, and the lower limit of 95% two-sided confidence intervals was -0.53. The other six secondary end-points and variables for safety analysis showed no difference between the two groups. ConclusionsImidafenacin was non-inferior to fesoterodine in terms of efficacy, and showed no significant difference in terms of safety.

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