Efficacy and safety of combinations of mirabegron and solifenacin compared with monotherapy and placebo in patients with overactive bladder (SYNERGY study)

被引:128
|
作者
Herschorn, Sender [1 ]
Chapple, Christopher R. [2 ]
Abrams, Paul [3 ]
Arlandis, Salvador [4 ]
Mitcheson, David [5 ]
Lee, Kyu-Sung [6 ]
Ridder, Arwin [7 ]
Stoelzel, Matthias [7 ]
Paireddy, Asha [7 ]
van Maanen, Rob [7 ]
Robinson, Dudley [8 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Sunnybrook Hlth Sci Ctr, Dept Surg Urol, Toronto, ON, Canada
[2] Royal Hallamshire Hosp, Dept Urol, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England
[3] Southmead Hosp, Bristol Urol Inst, Bristol, Avon, England
[4] Hosp Univ La Fe, Valencia, Spain
[5] St Elizabeths Med Ctr, Brighton, MA USA
[6] Sungkyunkwan Univ, Samsung Med Ctr, Sch Med, Seoul, South Korea
[7] Astellas Pharma Global Dev, Leiden, Netherlands
[8] Kings Coll Hosp London, London, England
关键词
QUALITY-OF-LIFE; URINARY-INCONTINENCE; PERSISTENCE; EXPERIENCE; ADHERENCE; THERAPY; AGONIST; BURDEN; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1111/bju.13882
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective To evaluate the potential of solifenacin 5 mg combined with mirabegron 25 or 50 mg to deliver superior efficacy compared with monotherapy, with acceptable tolerability, in the general overactive bladder (OAB) population with urinary incontinence (UI). Patients and Methods After a 4-week placebo run-in, patients aged 18 years with wet OAB (urgency, urinary frequency and UI) for 3 months who recorded on average 8 micturitions/24 h, 1 urgency episode/24 h, and 3 UI episodes over the 7-day micturition diary, were eligible for randomisation to double-blind treatment [2:2:1:1:1:1 ratio, solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg (combined S5 + M25 group); solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg (combined S5 + M50 group); solifenacin 5 mg; mirabegron 25 mg; mirabegron 50 mg; or placebo for 12 weeks], and 2-weeks' single-blind, placebo run-out. Co-primary efficacy variables were change from baseline to end of treatment (EoT) in the mean number of UI episodes/24 h and micturitions/24 h, assessed using a 7-day electronic micturition diary. Secondary efficacy variables included change from baseline to EoT in the mean volume voided/micturition, change from baseline at weeks 4, 8, 12 and EoT in mean number of UI episodes/24 h, micturitions/24 h, urgency episodes/24 h, urgency UI (UUI) episodes/24 h and nocturia episodes/24 h; the percentage of patients (responders) achieving zero UI episodes/24 h at EoT in the last 7 days prior to each visit, micturition frequency normalisation (<8 episodes/24 h) at weeks 4, 8, 12 and EoT; and the number of UUI episodes and nocturia episodes in the 7-day diary. Safety assessments included incidence and frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), post-void residual (PVR) urine volume, and changes from baseline in laboratory parameters. Results Whilst the combined S5 + M50 group was superior to solifenacin 5 mg for UI, with a mean (standard error) adjusted difference of -0.20 (0.12) UI episodes/24 h (95% confidence interval -0.44, 0.04, P = 0.033), there was no statistical superiority vs mirabegron 50 mg [-0.23 (0.12) UI episodes/24 h; P = 0.052]. In secondary analyses, all active treatment groups had greater improvements in UI episodes/24 h vs placebo, with effect sizes for the combined therapy groups (combined S5 + M25 group: -0.70 episodes/24 h; combined S5 + M50 group: -0.65 episodes/24 h) that were substantially higher than those obtained with monotherapy (range -0.37 episodes/24 h for mirabegron 25 mg to -0.45 episodes/24 h for solifenacin 5 mg). For micturitions/24 h, adjusted change from baseline to EoT was greater in the combined therapy groups vs monotherapies (combined S5 + M50 group, nominal P values 0.006 and <0.001 vs solifenacin 5 mg and mirabegron 50 mg, respectively; combined S5 + M25 group, nominal P values 0.040 and 0.001 vs solifenacin 5 mg and mirabegron 25 mg, respectively). All active treatment groups had greater improvements in the mean numbers of micturitions/24 h vs placebo, with effect sizes for the combined therapy groups (combined S5 + M25 group: -0.85 micturitions/24 h; combined S5 + M50 group: -0.95 micturitions/24 h) higher than with mirabegron monotherapy (25 mg: -0.36; 50 mg: -0.39 micturitions/24 h) and solifenacin 5 mg (-0.56 micturitions/24 h). The combined S5 + M50 group was statistically significantly superior to both monotherapies at EoT for UUI episodes, urgency episodes and nocturia, with effect sizes that appeared to be additive. The combined S5 + M25 group was statistically significantly superior to mirabegron 25 mg for the same variables, except for nocturia. In responder analyses at the EoT, odds ratios in favour of both combined therapies vs monotherapies were shown for the proportion of patients with zero UI episodes and those achieving micturition frequency normalisation. There was a slightly increased frequency of TEAEs in the combined therapy groups vs monotherapies and placebo. Most of the TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Events indicative of urinary retention were reported slightly more frequently in the combined therapy groups vs monotherapy and placebo. PVR volume was slightly increased in the combined therapy groups vs solifenacin 5 mg, mirabegron monotherapy, and placebo groups. There were slightly higher frequencies of dry mouth, constipation, and dyspepsia in the combined therapy groups vs monotherapies. There were no concerns regarding electrocardiograms and laboratory data. Conclusion In the largest OAB study to date, combined therapy with solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg and solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg provided consistent improvements in efficacy compared with the respective monotherapies across most of the outcome parameters, with effect sizes generally consistent with an additive effect. Although the combined S5 + M50 group did not achieve a statistically significant effect vs mirabegron 50 mg in the primary analysis of one of the co-primary endpoints (change from baseline in mean number of UI episodes/24 h), it approached statistical significance (P = 0.052), and the nominal P values for the other co-primary endpoint (micturitions/24 h) were <0.05. Most effects of combined therapy vs monotherapy were observable by week 4. The clinical relevance of the improvements seen with combined therapy for several objective OAB outcome measures was also supported by the improvements of combined therapy vs monotherapy in the responder analyses.
引用
收藏
页码:562 / 575
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [2] Long-term safety and efficacy of mirabegron and solifenacin in combination compared with monotherapy in patients with overactive bladder: SYNERGY II study
    Alcantara Montero, A.
    ACTAS UROLOGICAS ESPANOLAS, 2019, 43 (01): : 51 - 52
  • [3] Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of mirabegron and solifenacin monotherapy for overactive bladder
    Wang, Jipeng
    Zhou, Zhongbao
    Cui, Yuanshan
    Li, Yongwei
    Yuan, Hejia
    Gao, Zhenli
    Zhu, Zhe
    Wu, Jitao
    NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS, 2019, 38 (01) : 22 - 30
  • [4] Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Mirabegron and Solifenacin in Combination Compared with Monotherapy in Patients with Overactive Bladder: A Randomised, Multicentre Phase 3 Study (SYNERGY II)
    Gratzke, Christian
    van Maanen, Rob
    Chapple, Christopher
    Abrams, Paul
    Herschorn, Sender
    Robinson, Dudley
    Ridder, Arwin
    Stoelzel, Matthias
    Paireddy, Asha
    Yoon, Sang Jin
    Al-Shukri, Salman
    Rechberger, Tomasz
    Mueller, Elizabeth R.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2018, 74 (04) : 501 - 509
  • [5] RE: Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of mirabegron and solifenacin monotherapy for overactive bladder
    Zhou, Zhongbao
    Gao, Zhenli
    NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS, 2019, 38 (06) : 1792 - 1792
  • [6] Efficacy and safety of combinations of mirabegron and solifenacin in patients with overactive bladder: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Peng, Liao
    Zeng, Xiao
    Shen, Hong
    Luo, De-Yi
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2019, 12 (02): : 1355 - 1365
  • [7] Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of Mirabegron plus Solifenacin combination therapy in comparison with Solifenacin monotherapy in overactive bladder
    Warudkar, S.
    Jain, A. B.
    Dave, N. S.
    Chaturvedi, A. R.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2022, 81 : S662 - S663
  • [8] Efficacy and tolerability of mirabegron compared with solifenacin for children with idiopathic overactive bladder: A preliminary study
    Kim, Seong Cheol
    Park, Myungchan
    Chae, Chongsok
    Yoon, Ji Hyung
    Kwon, Taekmin
    Park, Sejun
    Moon, Kyung Hyun
    Cheon, Sang Hyeon
    Park, Sungchan
    INVESTIGATIVE AND CLINICAL UROLOGY, 2021, 62 (03) : 317 - 323
  • [9] New data on the combined treatment of solifenacin and mirabegron in patients with overactive bladder: SYNERGY study
    Alcantara Montero, A.
    ACTAS UROLOGICAS ESPANOLAS, 2018, 42 (01): : 70 - 71
  • [10] PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES FROM SYNERGY, A RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, MULTICENTER STUDY EVALUATING COMBINATIONS OF MIRABEGRON AND SOLIFENACIN COMPARED WITH MIRABEGRON AND SOLIFENACIN MONOTHERAPY
    Mueller, Elizabeth R.
    Robinson, Dudley
    Kelleher, Con
    Staskin, David R.
    Falconer, Christian
    Wang, Jianye
    Ridder, Arwin
    Stoelzel, Matthias
    Paireddy, Asha
    van Maanen, Rob
    Hakimi, Zalmai
    Herschorn, Sender
    NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS, 2017, 36 : S151 - S152