Abstract
Background
Overactive bladder (OAB) affects the lives of millions of people worldwide and antimuscarinics are the pharmacological treatment of choice. Meta-analyses of all currently used antimuscarinics for treating OAB found similar efficacy, making the choice dependent on their adverse event profiles. However, conventional meta-analyses often fail to quantify and compare adverse events across different drugs, dosages, formulations, and routes of administration. In addition, the assessment of the broad variety of adverse events is dissatisfying. Our aim was to compare adverse events of antimuscarinics using a network meta-analytic approach that overcomes shortcomings of conventional analyses.
Methods
Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialized Trials Register, previous systematic reviews, conference abstracts, book chapters, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing at least one antimuscarinic for treating OAB with placebo or with another antimuscarinic, and adverse events as outcome measures. Two authors independently extracted data. A network meta-analytic approach was applied allowing for joint assessment of all adverse events of all currently used antimuscarinics while fully maintaining randomization.
Results
69 trials enrolling 26′229 patients were included. Similar overall adverse event profiles were found for darifenacin, fesoterodine, transdermal oxybutynin, propiverine, solifenacin, tolterodine, and trospium chloride but not for oxybutynin orally administered when currently used starting dosages were compared.
Conclusions
The proposed generally applicable transparent network meta-analytic approach summarizes adverse events in an easy to grasp way allowing straightforward benchmarking of antimuscarinics for treating OAB in clinical practice. Most currently used antimuscarinics seem to be equivalent first choice drugs to start the treatment of OAB except for oral oxybutynin dosages of ≥10 mg/d which may have more unfavorable adverse event profiles.
Introduction
Overactive bladder (OAB) is a widespread chronic illness that affects the lives of millions of people worldwide at all ages but is more common in the elderly with a prevalence of up to 31% in women and 42% in men aged over 75 years [1]. OAB has a major impact on quality of life, affecting emotional, social, sexual, occupational, and physical aspects of daily life [2]–[4], and it is associated with a greater risk of falls and injuries, including fractures [5], which may even lead to death. Besides the debilitating manifestations for patients, OAB also imposes substantial economic burden as direct annual costs are comparable to those of other chronic diseases such as dementia and diabetes mellitus [6].
Non-surgical treatment is the mainstay of therapy for OAB including lifestyle modifications, behavioral therapy, biofeedback, bladder training, medication and a combination of these options. Antimuscarinics are the pharmacological treatment of choice for OAB. Seven antimuscarincs (darifenacin, fesoterodine, oxybutynin, propiverine, solifenacin, tolterodine, and trospium chloride) with different dosages, formulations, and routes of administration are currently used for treating OAB and all have well-established and similar efficacy (figure S1) shown in systematic reviews [7]–[13], so that the selection of the most appropriate depends on their adverse event profiles. However, over 30 different adverse events were described and only a few of them were compared systematically. Moreover, joint assessment of all reported adverse events of the currently used antimuscarinics is lacking.
In 2004 [14], the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group highlighted the importance to interpret quality of evidence in view of trade-offs between effect and side effects, or desirable and undesirable consequences of management strategies. However, conventional meta-analyses often fail to quantify and compare adverse events across different drugs, dosages, formulations, and routes of administration, because summaries usually do not use all available information on reported comparisons and assessment of the broad variety of adverse events. This is seen as a major impediment when examining the trade-offs the GRADE working group is calling for.
Recently, new meta-analytic methods – network meta-analysis – have become available which allow complete assessments across different drugs. While these methods gained some popularity in the assessment of treatment effects, their application in side effect assessment is novel. In view that all antimuscarinics show similar efficacy, the assessment of side effects alone suffices to provide the required information for decision-making and evidence grading. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis summarizing data from all randomized comparative clinical trials assessing adverse events of all currently used antimuscarinics. Moreover we propose a way to aggregate the broad variety of reported adverse events and finally provide adverse event charts for all assessed medications and dosages allowing straightforward benchmarking of antimuscarinics for treating OAB in clinical practice.
Methods
Search strategy and selection criteria
This systematic review was done according to the PRISMA statement [15]. A review protocol was elaborated, which is available on file with the authors. To identify randomized controlled trials of antimuscarinics versus placebo (Figure S2), we started with the recent Cochrane review by Nabi et al. [10] and a literature search update from June 2005 to November 2007 kindly provided by the Cochrane Incontinence Review Group according to their previously published search strategy [10]. Head-to-head comparative trials without a placebo arm were identified from the two recent meta-analysis by Chapple et al. [12] and by Novara et al. [13]. In addition, we searched reference lists and conference abstracts by hand, checked relevant reviews, book chapters, and contacted manufacturers and trialists. The search strategies are available on request.
Two investigators (TMK, DL) independently assessed reports for eligibility. To be included, studies had to be randomized controlled trials comparing at least one antimuscarinic for treating OAB with placebo or with another antimuscarinic. All currently used antimuscarinics were included, i.e. darifenacin, fesoterodine, oxybutynin, propiverine, solifenacin, tolterodine, and trospium chloride. Trials with intravesical antimuscarinic administration, drugs with less direct antimuscarinic effects (such as smooth muscle relaxants, flavoxate hydrochloride, calcium channel blockers, potassium channel openers, beta-adrenoceptor agonists, alpha-adrenoceptor antagonists, prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants), and drugs no longer used in clinical practice (such as emepronium bromide or carrageenate, dicyclomine chloride, penthienate, propantheline bromide, and terodiline) were excluded. In the case of multiple publications on the same patients, the most complete report was chosen for each trial.
Data collection
We extracted data in duplicate (TMK, DL) and a third reviewer (LMB) resolved any discrepancies if the two reviewers disagreed. We contacted authors of eligible trials that reported insufficient data and asked them for additional information (Data S1). Dichotomous data were abstracted into 2×2 tables. For continuous data, summary estimates per group (means, changes in means) with measures of variability (standard deviation [SD], 95% confidence interval [CI]) as available were extracted.
Outcome measures were adverse events. After extraction, adverse events were classified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 (CTCAE) [16] into 7 categories (gastrointestinal, ocular/visual, urinary tract related, neurological, cardiac, respiratory tract related, dermatological adverse events) and then graded using a visual analogue scale (0 = minimum severity, 10 = maximum severity) based on the consensus of 10 independent experts (Table 1). Summarizing different formulations and routes of administration, antimuscarinics were categorized based on the daily dose used into the following groups: darifenacin 3.75 mg/d, 7.5 mg/d, 15 mg/d, 30 mg/d; fesoterodine 4 mg/d, 8 mg/d, 12 mg/d; oxybutynin 5 mg/d, 7.5 mg/d, 9 mg/d, 10 mg/d, 15 mg/d, 20 mg/d; oxybutynin transdermal system (TDS) 1.3 mg/d, 2.6 mg/d, 3.9 mg/d; propiverine 20 mg/d, 30 mg/d, 45 mg/d; solifenacin 2.5, 5 mg/d, 10 mg/d, 20 mg/d; tolterodine 1 mg/d, 2 mg/d, 4 mg/d, 8 mg/d; trospium chloride 40 mg/d, 45 mg/d, 60 mg/d.
Table 1. Categorization and grading of adverse events.
| Type of adverse events | Grading using VAS |
| Gastrointestinal adverse events | |
| Dry mouth | 4 |
| Dry throat | 4 |
| Dysgeusia | 4 |
| Constipation | 4 |
| Diarrhoe | 4 |
| Abdominal pain | 5 |
| Gastritis | 5 |
| Dyspepsia | 4 |
| Nausea | 5 |
| Vomitus | 6 |
| Unspecified gastrointestinal adverse events | 5 |
| Ocular/visual adverse events | |
| Dry eye | 4 |
| Blurred vision | 6 |
| Urinary tract related adverse events | |
| Urinary retention | 7 |
| Voiding difficulty | 5 |
| Dysuria | 5 |
| Urinary tract infection | 6 |
| Unspecified urinary tract related adverse events | 6 |
| Neurological adverse events | |
| Fatigue | 5 |
| Somnolence | 8 |
| Sedation | 7 |
| Insomnia | 6 |
| Confusion | 7 |
| Cognitive impairment | 7 |
| Depression/lethargy | 7 |
| Dizziness/vertigo | 5 |
| Headache | 5 |
| Cardiac adverse events | |
| Palpitation/tachycardia | 5 |
| Hypertension | 6 |
| Orthostatic disturbance | 6 |
| Fall | 8 |
| Respiratory tract related adverse events | |
| Dry nose | 3 |
| Cough | 4 |
| Nasopharyngitis | 4 |
| Sinusitis | 4 |
| Upper respiratory tract infection | 6 |
| Influenza | 6 |
| Dermatological adverse events | |
| Dry skin | 2 |
| Erythema/exanthema | 4 |
| Pruritus | 5 |
VAS: visual analogue scale (0 = minimum severity, 10 = maximum severity).
Statistical analysis
We aimed to produce a descriptive model allowing us summarizing data on adverse events statistically. For each of the 7 adverse event categories and each of the treatment arms, the number of adverse events, weighted according to the grading provided in Table 1, were added up and divided by the total number of patients in the corresponding treatment arm. In this way, the weighted adverse events per patient in each of the trials given a specific treatment and dosage were determined. The total score of adverse events was calculated by adding up these estimates of the 7 adverse event categories.
For all of the 8 adverse event outcomes (7 adverse event categories and the total score of adverse events), a linear regression analysis was performed with drug and dosage as covariates and using a similar concept as Berlin et al. [17] and as Hasselblad [18], the event outcome for each single treatment arm as the dependent variable. To preserve randomization within each trial, we included a dummy variable for each of the studies. This dummy variable adjusted for differences in risk profiles and study setup between trials. The drugs were entered as indicator variables and the dosages were transformed to a uniform format by giving value 1 to the currently used starting dosage and the other dosages the multiplication factor as compared with this dosage. Thus, when the currently used starting dosage was 7.5 mg/d and dosages of 3.75 mg/d, 7.5 mg/d, 15 mg/d, and 30 mg/d were investigated, these values were recoded as 0.5, 1, 2, and 4, respectively. Because every drug has its own specific dose-adverse event relation, interaction terms between drug and dosage were added. Furthermore, the analysis was weighted with the total number of patients in each treatment arm as a substitute for the inverse of the variance, and the cluster option was used to take into account that results within one trial will be correlated. We investigated the influence of several trial characteristics such as age, gender, and duration of treatment. This was done by entering them as an interaction term with treatment into the model. From this regression model we estimated the difference between adverse events of the placebo and the dosages applied in standard clinical practice (i.e. darifenacin 7.5 mg/d, 15 mg/d; fesoterodine 4 mg/d, 8 mg/d; oxybutynin 10 mg/d, 15 mg/d, 20 mg/d; oxybutynin TDS 3.9 mg/d; propiverine 30 mg/d, 45 mg/d; solifenacin 5 mg/d, 10 mg/d; tolterodine 4 mg/d; trospium chloride 40 mg/d, 60 mg/d).
All analyses were performed with Stata SE 10.1 (Copyright 1996–2010 StataCorp LP, 4905 Lakeway Drive, College Station, TX 77845 USA).
Results
We identified 82 reports (Figure S2). Three articles [19]–[21] not specifying adverse events, one article [22] not differentiating adverse events between antimuscarinic and placebo, six articles [23]–[28] not discriminating adverse events between different fixed dosages, and three articles [29]–[31] only comparing different releases within the same antimuscarinic and dosage were excluded. Thus, we finally included 69 trials [32]–[100] including one report [66] with two different age strata (Table 2, Data S2). Most trials had a parallel design (58, 84%) and were placebo-controlled (57, 83%). Overall, the included trials enrolled 26229 patients. The mean age was 59 years (range 30 to 82), the proportion of women was 76% (range 0% to 100%) and the mean duration of treatment was 8 weeks (range 1 to 52 weeks).
Table 2. Characteristics of trials included in the network meta-analysis.
| Author | Year | No. of patients | % of females | Mean age in years | Treatment duration in weeks | Placebo | Darifenacin in mg | Fesoterodine in mg | Oxybutynin in mg | Propiverine in mg | Solifenacin in mg | Tolterodine in mg | Trospium chloride in mg |
| Bono [32] | 1982 | 16* | NA | NA | 1.4 | + | − | − | IR 5 3 | − | − | − | − |
| Murray [33] | 1984 | 25* | NA | NA | 4 | + | − | − | IR 5 3 | − | − | − | − |
| Riva [34] | 1984 | 30* | 100% | 51.5 | 3 | + | − | − | IR 5 3 | − | − | − | − |
| Zorzitto [35] | 1989 | 18* | 25% | 73.9 | 1.1 | + | − | − | IR 5 2 | − | − | − | − |
| Moore [36] | 1990 | 48* | 100% | 46.2 | 4 | + | − | − | IR 3 3 | − | − | − | − |
| Takayasu [37] | 1990 | 131 | NA | NA | 2 | + | − | − | − | IR 20 1 | − | − | − |
| Tapp [38] | 1990 | 31* | 100% | 61 | 2 | + | − | − | IR 5 4 | − | − | − | − |
| Stöhrer [39] | 1991 | 55 | 45% | 33.3 | 3 | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | IR 20 2 |
| Thüroff [40] | 1991 | 115 | 96% | 48.5 | 4 | + | − | − | IR 5 3 | − | − | − | − |
| Wehnert [41] | 1992 | 10* | NA | NA | 3 | + | − | − | IR 5 3 | IR 15 3 | − | − | − |
| Szonyi [42] | 1995 | 57 | 93% | 82 | 6 | + | − | − | IR 2.5 2 | − | − | − | − |
| Mazur [43] | 1995 | 185 | 98% | 47.9 | 3 | − | − | − | − | IR 15 1, 2, 3, 4 | − | − | − |
| Abrams [44] | 1996 | 67 | NA | NA | 2 | + | − | − | − | − | − | IR 0.5, 1, 2, 4 2 | − |
| Jonas [45] | 1997 | 241 | 75% | 57.8 | 4 | + | − | − | − | − | − | IR 1, 2 2 | − |
| Van Kerrebroeck [46] | 1997 | 240 | NA | NA | 12 | − | − | − | IR 5 3 | − | − | IR 2 2 | − |
| Abrams [47] | 1998 | 293 | 76% | 56.8 | 12 | + | − | − | IR 5 3 | − | − | IR 2 2 | − |
| Alloussi [48] | 1998 | 309 | 72% | 56.6 | 3 | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | IR 20 2 |
| Rentzhog [49] | 1998 | 80 | 76% | 57.3 | 2 | + | − | − | − | − | − | IR 0.5, 1, 2, 4 2 | − |
| Van Kerrebroeck [50] | 1998 | 90 | 47% | 42 | 2 | + | − | − | − | − | − | IR 0.5, 1, 2, 4 2 | − |
| Drutz [51] | 1999 | 277 | 77% | 64.2 | 12 | + | − | − | IR 5 3 | − | − | IR 2 2 | − |
| Madersbacher [52] | 1999 | 366 | 93% | 49.5 | 4 | + | − | − | IR 5 2 | IR 15 3 | − | − | − |
| Millard [53] | 1999 | 311 | 75% | 60.2 | 12 | + | − | − | − | − | − | IR 1, 2 2 | − |
| Stöhrer [54] | 1999 | 113 | 39% | 29.8 | 2 | + | − | − | − | IR 15 3 | − | − | − |
| Cardozo [55] | 2000 | 208 | 62% | 46.7 | 3 | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | IR 20 2 |
| Dorschner [56] | 2000 | 98 | 79% | 67.5 | 4 | + | − | − | − | IR 15 3 | − | − | − |
| Jünemann [57] | 2000 | 232 | NA | NA | 3 | + | − | − | − | − | − | IR 2 2 | IR 20 2 |
| Serrano Brambila [58] | 2000 | 37* | 100% | 51.7 | 6 | + | − | − | IR 5 3 | − | − | − | − |
| Jacquetin [59] | 2001 | 251 | 79% | 55.7 | 4 | + | − | − | − | − | − | IR 1, 2 2 | − |
| Malone-Lee [60] | 2001 | 177 | 65% | 75 | 4 | + | − | − | − | − | − | IR 1, 2 2 | − |
| Ulshofer [61] | 2001 | 45 | 92% | 51.2 | 4 | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | IR 15 3 |
| Van Kerrebroeck [62] | 2001 | 1524 | 81% | 60.3 | 12 | + | − | − | − | − | − | IR 2 2, ER 4 1 | − |
| Appell [63] | 2001 | 378 | 83% | 59.1 | 12 | − | − | − | ER 10 1 | − | − | IR 2 2 | − |
| Malone-Lee [64] | 2001 | 378 | 67% | 65.1 | 10 | − | − | − | IR 5 2 | − | − | IR 2 2 | − |
| Dmochowski [65] | 2002 | 520 | 92% | 61.4 | 12 | + | − | − | TDS 1.3, 2.6, 3.9 1 | − | − | − | − |
| Zinner [66] | 2002 | 576 | 87% | 51 | 12 | + | − | − | − | − | − | ER 4 1 | − |
| 436 | 74% | 74 | 12 | + | − | − | − | − | − | ER 4 1 | − | ||
| Lee [67] | 2002 | 227 | 77% | 53 | 8 | − | − | IR 5 2 | − | − | IR 2 2 | − | |
| Dmochowski [68] | 2003 | 361 | 93% | 63.5 | 12 | + | − | − | TDS 3.9 1 | − | − | ER 4 1 | − |
| Homma [69] | 2003 | 605 | 70% | 59.3 | 12 | + | − | − | IR 3 3 | − | − | ER 4 1 | − |
| Diokno [70] | 2003 | 790 | 100% | 60 | 10 | − | − | − | ER 10 1 | − | − | ER 4 1 | − |
| Halaska [71] | 2003 | 357 | 86% | 53.7 | 52 | − | − | − | IR 5 2 | − | − | − | IR 20 2 |
| Cardozo [72] | 2004 | 910 | 82% | 55.8 | 12 | + | − | − | − | − | 5, 10 1 | − | − |
| Chapple [73] | 2004 | 225 | 60% | 56 | 4 | + | − | − | − | − | 2.5, 5, 10, 20 1 | IR 2 2 | − |
| Chapple [74] | 2004 | 1077 | 75% | 57.5 | 12 | + | − | − | − | − | 5, 10 1 | IR 2 2 | − |
| Haab [75] | 2004 | 561 | 85% | 57 | 12 | + | 3.75, 7.5, 15 1 | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Khullar [76] | 2004 | 854 | 100% | 58.2 | 8 | + | − | − | − | − | − | ER 4 1 | − |
| Zinner [77] | 2004 | 523 | 74% | 62.3 | 12 | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | IR 20 2 |
| Giannitsas [78] | 2004 | 128* | 100% | 56 | 6 | − | − | − | IR 5 3 | − | − | IR 2 2 | − |
| Abrams [79] | 2005 | 745 | 0% | 64 | 12 | + | − | − | − | − | − | ER 4 1 | − |
| Abrams [80] | 2005 | 848 | 61% | 61 | 12 | + | − | − | − | − | − | ER 4 1 | − |
| Cardozo [81] | 2005 | 72 | 71% | 54 | 2 | + | 30 1 | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Nitti [82] | 2005 | 171 | NA | NA | 8 | + | − | 4, 8, 12 1 | − | − | − | − | − |
| Romanzi [83] | 2005 | 450 | NA | NA | 12 | + | 15 1 | − | − | − | − | IR 2 2 | − |
| Zinner [84] | 2005 | 61* | 93% | 59.9 | 2 | + | 15, 30 1 | − | IR 5 3 | − | − | − | − |
| Altan-Yaycioglu [85] | 2005 | 52 | 100% | 41.1 | 4 | − | − | − | IR 5 3 | − | − | IR 2 2 | − |
| Jünemann [86] | 2005 | 202 | 78% | 56.3 | 4 | − | − | − | − | IR 15 2 | − | IR 2 2 | − |
| Abrams [87] | 2006 | 222 | 0% | 63.6 | 12 | + | − | − | − | − | − | IR 2 2 | − |
| Abrams [88] | 2006 | 42* | 77% | NA | 2 | + | − | − | IR 5 3 | IR 20 1, 15 3 | − | − | − |
| Hill [89] | 2006 | 439 | 85% | 54.7 | 12 | + | 7.5, 15, 30 1 | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Jünemann [90] | 2006 | 988 | 89% | 56.1 | 4.6 | + | − | − | − | IR 15 2, ER 30 1 | − | − | − |
| Kaplan [91] | 2006 | 436 | 0% | 62.3 | 12 | + | − | − | − | − | − | ER 4 1 | − |
| Rackley [92] | 2006 | 850 | 51% | 58.5 | 12 | + | − | − | − | − | − | ER 4 1 | − |
| Rudy [93] | 2006 | 658 | 81% | 61.1 | 12 | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | IR 20 2 |
| Zinner [94] | 2006 | 439 | 87% | 59.1 | 12 | + | 15 1 | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Corcos [95] | 2006 | 237 | 85% | 60.9 | 4 | − | − | − | ER 5, 10, 15 1 | − | − | − | − |
| Chapple [96] | 2007 | 1132 | 80% | 56.6 | 12 | + | − | 4, 8 1 | − | − | − | ER 4 1 | − |
| Yamaguchi [97] | 2007 | 1582 | 84% | 60.2 | 12 | + | − | − | − | IR 20 1 | 5, 10 1 | − | − |
| Nitti [98] | 2007 | 832 | 76% | 59 | 12 | + | − | 4, 8 1 | − | − | − | − | − |
| Staskin [99] | 2007 | 601 | 85% | 59.4 | 12 | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | ER 60 1 |
| Chapple [100] | 2007 | 584 | 87% | 56.7 | 12 | − | − | − | − | − | 5 1 | ER 4 1 | − |
IR: immediate release.
ER: extended release.
TDS: transdermal system.
NA: not available.
once daily.
twice daily.
three times daily.
four times daily.
*crossover design.
We found similar overall adverse event profiles for darifenacin, fesoterodine, transdermal oxybutynin, propiverine, solifenacin, tolterodine, and trospium chloride but not for oxybutynin orally administered when currently used starting dosages were compared (Figure 1). Orally administered oxybutynin dosages of ≥10 mg/d demonstrated the worst adverse event profiles. Darifenacin, fesoterodine, oxybutynin orally administered, propiverine, and solifenacin showed a positive and significant dose-adverse event relation.
Figure 1. Overall adverse event profiles (from 69 trials) of different antimuscarinic treatments and dosages per day compared with placebo (reference line through 0).
The orange lines represent the currently used starting dosages (oxybutynin 15 mg/d and trospium chloride 60 mg/d may also be used as starting dosages).○ mean, 95% confidence interval, TDS transdermal system, VAS visual analogue scale.
Among adverse events, gastrointestinal side effects were most frequently reported. Only transdermal oxybutynin 3.9 mg/d showed similar gastrointestinal profiles to placebo (Figure 2). Ocular/visual adverse events were similar across the various antimuscarinics when starting dosages were used (Figure S3). This was also observed for urinary tract related (Figure S4), neurological (Figure S5), cardiac (Figure S6), and respiratory tract related (Figure S7) adverse event profiles. Dermatological adverse events were insignificant with oral drug administration but a worse profile was found with transdermal application (Figure S8).
Figure 2. Gastrointestinal adverse events profiles (from 69 trials) of different antimuscarinic treatments with currently used starting dosages per day compared with placebo (reference line through 0).
○ mean, 95% confidence interval, TDS transdermal system, VAS visual analogue scale.
Age, gender, and duration of treatment had no significant influence on adverse events.
Discussion
Main findings
Our network meta-analysis, which applies a transparent method, allows direct and indirect comparison of all currently used antimuscarinics, dosages, formulations and routes of administration. Moreover, our method provides an easy to grasp overview of side effects which is important since antimuscarinics for treating OAB are selected in clinical practice based on the trade off between drugs' efficacy and adverse events. The results of this analysis can be a valuable input for decision analytic models. Our approach also contributes to a recent call of the GRADE working group that the strength of evidence should be assessed considering trade-offs between effect and side effects. Overall adverse event profiles were similar for all antimuscarinics except for oxybutynin orally administered when comparing currently used starting dosages. In addition, except for trospium chloride, we found a positive and significant dose-adverse event relation for the antimuscarinics.
Findings in the context of existing evidence
In respect to reported adverse events, our data confirm results of various previous systematic reviews [7]–[13]. Dry mouth was consistently the most common complaint [7], [8], [10], [12], [13], and this is in line with our findings that gastrointestinal adverse events were most frequently reported. In our study, most antimuscarinics had similar ocular/visual adverse events to placebo when their lower available dosage was used. This confirms the results of Chapple et al. [12] regarding blurred vision. Although the inhibitory effect of antimuscarinics on detrusor muscle contraction could theoretically cause or aggravate voiding difficulty and urinary retention, urinary tract related adverse events were not different between antimuscarinics and placebo. This is supported by a randomised, placebo-controlled trial in men with bladder outlet obstruction showing that antimuscarinic treatment did not adversely affect urinary function in this high risk group of patients [87]. Central nervous system (CNS) adverse events are of particular concern as muscarinic receptors are prominent in the CNS and play an important role in memory, vigilance, problem solving, stimulus and response processing [101]. Perry et al. [102] found an increased occurrence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) related to a prolonged antimuscarinic exposure in patients with Parkinson's disease raising the concern that chronic antimuscarinic treatment may increase the risk of AD or accelerate AD pathogenesis. Notwithstanding the fact that cognitive impairment traditionally has not been evaluated in antimuscarinics' trials, CNS adverse events were rare and we found an overall neurological adverse event profile for most antimuscarinics similar to placebo in our study. Cardiac adverse events, particularly the increase of heart rate and prolongation of the QT interval associated with polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (or torsade de pointes), can be serious, and the antimuscarinic agent terodiline was withdrawn from the market because of an association with QT prolongation [103]. However, there is no evidence from our data to suggest that the currently used antimuscarinics increase the risk of cardiac adverse events when administered at the recommended therapeutic dosages. Respiratory tract related adverse events were negligible. Dermatological adverse events were insignificant with oral drug administration but in accordance with previous meta-analyses [12], [13] a worse profile was found with transdermal application.
Strength and weaknesses
Our network meta-analytic approach provides valuable additional information to conventional systematic reviews [7]–[13]. We performed a joint assessment of all reported adverse events of all currently prescribed antimuscarinics while by including a dummy variable, we maintained the comparison of two treatments for each of the studies. That the overall adverse event profiles of each antimuscarinic can be summarized in one simple graph (Figure 1) providing all relevant information at a glance is another strength of our approach. We believe that this information is useful for health authorities, policy makers, physicians, and patients alike. As estimates of the within study variance of the adverse event scores were not available, a customary network analysis investigating heterogeneity was not possible. In fact, we assumed heterogeneity by allowing the outcome parameter to have a variance comprising the between as well as the within study variance. Eleven studies used a crossover design. Dependent on the within-subject correlation, the variance of the within-subject comparison of the adverse event score will be lower than the between-subject comparison [104]. As the weights are inversely proportional with the variance, this would mean that the weights of the crossover studies should be increased. We performed a sensitivity analysis increasing the weights of studies with a crossover design with a factor two, showing only minimal differences with the presented results. Although our figures summarize the adverse event profiles of the antimuscarinics, it is unclear how predictive the mean values are for an individual patient.
We categorized the antimuscarinics based on the daily dosage used in clinical practice, but differences in medication frequency and formulations were not considered. Only for tolterodine a reasonable number of studies with both immediate and extended release formulations were available. However, using our meta-analytic approach, the influence of the release on the occurrence of adverse events could easily be investigated by entering an interaction term with treatment into the regression model. Almost all studies published are fixed dose trials and we excluded the few studies that did not clearly specify the dose regarding adverse events. This is an important limitation since in clinical practice the dose of a drug is often titrated and flexible dose studies tend to report fewer adverse events. Duration of treatment had no significant influence on the adverse event profiles but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. None of the trials reported whether and how many patients had two or more adverse events. Therefore, we had to assume that the occurrence of an adverse event was independent of the presence of another, although this might be more complex in clinical reality. Moreover, policy and completeness of adverse event reporting changed during the last 20 years and differ between the trials. The impact of this variability on the results is difficult to determine, but under-reporting of adverse events, particularly in earlier trials, is likely. It might be argued, that the grading of adverse events should be based on patients' opinion, taking into account that patients' and physicians' values and preferences can differ widely [105]. Basing the grading system on patients' preferences would imply an interview in a representative and extensive sample. However, this would require an additional study that certainly should be performed to include patients' grading in this analysis. As the decision for a specific antimuscarinic treatment is usually taken by the physician who is supposed to have a deliberate overview of the manifestations of a specific adverse event, we decided to base our grading of adverse events on the consensus of 10 independent experts.
To grade the strength of recommendation, the quality of the evidence should be assessed. Although only randomized trials are included (i.e. the highest grade) the quality of evidence should be downgraded because in most studies the reporting of adverse events will be imprecise and the probability of reporting bias is presumable.
Implications for research
We believe that our method provides a useful overview of benefits and downsides of various medications prescribed in a particular clinical area. To us, the method is of most value for researchers commissioned to provide comprehensive summaries and decision-analytic models to guide decisions of health authorities such as the Centres of Reviews and Disseminations (CRDs) in the UK or similar institutions in Germany and the United States of America. We would like to point out that this approach is equally applicable to the assessment of treatment effects. From a decision-making point of view there are new opportunities that could be explored. For example, adding the patients' perspective regarding the burden of adverse events and the minimum expected beneficial effect could be used as benchmark criteria against which the optimal regimen could be selected. Finally, data of the form provided in this article are an ideal starting point for various cost-effectiveness analyses.
Implications for practice
Although antimuscarinics are generally regarded to be well tolerated, non-adherence to medication represents a major challenge. In a community setting, up to 40% of patients may discontinue antimuscarinic treatment due to adverse events [106]. As shown in previous systematic reviews [7]–[13], all currently used antimuscarinics have similar efficacy for the usually prescribed starting dosages (Figure S1) and this view is also supported by the NICE guideline [107]. Thus, differences in adverse event profiles should guide the choice for treatment. We showed that darifenacin 7.5 mg/d, fesoterodine 4 mg/d, transdermal oxybutynin 3.9 mg/d, propiverine 30 mg/d, solifenacin 5 mg/d, tolterodine 4 mg/d, and trospium chloride 40 mg/d (or 60 mg/d) had similar overall adverse event profiles and seem to be equivalent first choice drugs to start the treatment of OAB. In case these first choices are ineffective, dose escalation or changing to another antimuscarinic appears to be reasonable. Oxybutynin dosages of ≥10 mg/d are of questionable value in the current treatment of OAB because of unfavorable adverse event profiles.
Conclusions
We propose a generally applicable method that summarizes adverse events in an easy to grasp way using a transparent network meta-analysis which incorporates all available information from clinical trials while fully maintaining randomization. Darifenacin 7.5 mg/d, fesoterodine 4 mg/d, transdermal oxybutynin 3.9 mg/d, propiverine 30 mg/d, solifenacin 5 mg/d, tolterodine 4 mg/d, and trospium chloride 40 mg/d (or 60 mg/d) seem to be equivalent first choice drugs to start the treatment of OAB, whereas oral oxybutynin dosages of ≥10 mg/d have less favorable adverse event profiles.
Supporting Information
Efficacy of different antimuscarinics (starting dosages) compared to placebo (reference line through 0) according to Chapple et al, Eur Urol 2008;54:543‐62 and Staskin et al, Eur Urol 2009;55:e49‐50.
(TIF)
Flow diagram of literature searches and results.
(TIF)
Ocular/visual adverse event profiles (from 45 trials) of different antimuscarinic treatments with currently used starting dosages per day compared with placebo (reference line through 0). ○ mean, 95% confidence interval, TDS transdermal system, VAS visual analogue scale.
(TIF)
Urinary tract related adverse event profiles (from 37 trials) of different antimuscarinic treatments with currently used starting dosages per day compared with placebo (reference line through 0). ○ mean, 95% confidence interval, TDS transdermal system, VAS visual analogue scale.
(TIF)
Neurological adverse event profiles (from 52 trials) of different antimuscarinic treatments with currently used starting dosages per day compared with placebo (reference line through 0). ○ mean, 95% confidence interval, TDS transdermal system, VAS visual analogue scale.
(TIF)
Cardiac adverse event profiles (from 22 trials) of different antimuscarinic treatments with currently used starting dosages per day compared with placebo (reference line through 0). ○ mean, 95% confidence interval, TDS transdermal system, VAS visual analogue scale.
(TIF)
Respiratory tract related adverse event profiles (from 20 trials) of different antimuscarinic treatments with currently used starting dosages per day compared with placebo (reference line through 0). ○ mean, 95% confidence interval, TDS transdermal system, VAS visual analogue scale.
(TIF)
Dermatological adverse event profiles (from 21 trials) of different antimuscarinic treatments with currently used starting dosages per day compared with placebo (reference line through 0). ○ mean, 95% confidence interval, TDS transdermal system, VAS visual analogue scale.
(TIF)
Additional information kindly provided by authors of eligible trials that reported insufficient data.
(DOC)
Database of included trials.
(XLS)
Acknowledgments
The valuable help of Sheila A. Wallace, MSc, Cochrane Incontinence Review Group, Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK, in performing the literature search of this manuscript is gratefully acknowledged.
Footnotes
Competing Interests: Dr. Kessler has acted as consultant for Allergan and Medtronic, but the other authors have no conflicts of interest. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all the PLoS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Funding: Dr. Kessler (grant no. PBBEB-121068) and Dr. Bachmann (grants no. 3233B0-103182 and 3200B0-103183) have been supported by grants of the Swiss National Science Foundation. However, the Swiss National Science Foundation had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
References
- 1.Milsom I, Abrams P, Cardozo L, Roberts RG, Thüroff J, et al. How widespread are the symptoms of an overactive bladder and how are they managed? A population-based prevalence study. BJU Int. 2001;87:760–766. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.02228.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Abrams P, Kelleher CJ, Kerr LA, Rogers RG. Overactive bladder significantly affects quality of life. Am J Manag Care. 2000;6:S580–590. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Stewart WF, Van Rooyen JB, Cundiff GW, Abrams P, Herzog AR, et al. Prevalence and burden of overactive bladder in the United States. World J Urol. 2003;20:327–336. doi: 10.1007/s00345-002-0301-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Coyne KS, Margolis MK, Jumadilova Z, Bavendam T, Mueller E, et al. Overactive bladder and women's sexual health: what is the impact? J Sex Med. 2007;4:656–666. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00493.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Brown JS, Vittinghoff E, Wyman JF, Stone KL, Nevitt MC, et al. Urinary incontinence: does it increase risk for falls and fractures? Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48:721–725. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb04744.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Klotz T, Bruggenjurgen B, Burkart M, Resch A. The economic costs of overactive bladder in Germany. Eur Urol. 2007;51:1654–1662; discussion 1662-1653. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.11.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Ellis G, Moore K. Effectiveness of anticholinergic drugs compared with placebo in the treatment of overactive bladder: systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326:841–844. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7394.841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Chapple C, Khullar V, Gabriel Z, Dooley JA. The effects of antimuscarinic treatments in overactive bladder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2005;48:5–26. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.02.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hay-Smith J, Herbison P, Ellis G, Morris A. Which anticholinergic drug for overactive bladder symptoms in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005:CD005429. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Nabi G, Cody JD, Ellis G, Herbison P, Hay-Smith J. Anticholinergic drugs versus placebo for overactive bladder syndrome in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006:CD003781. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003781.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Khullar V, Chapple C, Gabriel Z, Dooley JA. The effects of antimuscarinics on health-related quality of life in overactive bladder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urology. 2006;68:38–48. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2006.05.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Chapple CR, Khullar V, Gabriel Z, Muston D, Bitoun CE, et al. The effects of antimuscarinic treatments in overactive bladder: an update of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2008;54:543–562. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Novara G, Galfano A, Secco S, D'Elia C, Cavalleri S, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with antimuscarinic drugs for overactive bladder. Eur Urol. 2008;54:740–764. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–269, W264. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.2006. National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0 (CTCAE). Available: http://ctep.cancer.gov/forms/CTCAEv3.pdf.
- 17.Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, Szczech LA, Feldman HI. Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat Med. 2002;21:371–387. doi: 10.1002/sim.1023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hasselblad V. Meta-analysis of multitreatment studies. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:37–43. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9801800110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Zeegers AGM, Kiesswetter H, Kramer AEJL, Jonas U. Conservative therapie of frequency, urgency and urge incontinence: a double-blind clinical trial of flavoxate hydrochloride, oxybutynin chloride, emepronium bromide and placebo. World J Urol. 1987;5:57–61. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Jünemann KP, Fusgen I. Placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial on the efficacy and tolerability of 1×40 mg and 2×40 mg trospium chloride (Spasmo-lyt) daily for 3 weeks in patients with urge incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 1999;18:375–376. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Gittelman M, Kaufmann J. Solifenacin succinate 10 mg once daily significantly improves symptoms of overactive bladder. 2003. 17th International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics World Congress, Santiago, Chile.
- 22.Moisey CU, Stephenson TP, Brendler CB. The urodynamic and subjective results of treatment of detrusor instability with oxybutynin chloride. Br J Urol. 1980;52:472–475. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1980.tb03093.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Burgio KL, Locher JL, Goode PS, Hardin JM, McDowell BJ, et al. Behavioral vs drug treatment for urge urinary incontinence in older women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:1995–2000. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.23.1995. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Anderson RU, Mobley D, Blank B, Saltzstein D, Susset J, et al. Once daily controlled versus immediate release oxybutynin chloride for urge urinary incontinence. OROS Oxybutynin Study Group. J Urol. 1999;161:1809–1812. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Versi E, Appell R, Mobley D, Patton W, Saltzstein D. Dry mouth with conventional and controlled-release oxybutynin in urinary incontinence. The Ditropan XL Study Group. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:718–721. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00661-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Davila GW, Daugherty CA, Sanders SW. A short-term, multicenter, randomized double-blind dose titration study of the efficacy and anticholinergic side effects of transdermal compared to immediate release oral oxybutynin treatment of patients with urge urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2001;166:140–145. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Steers W, Corcos J, Foote J, Kralidis G. An investigation of dose titration with darifenacin, an M3-selective receptor antagonist. BJU Int. 2005;95:580–586. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05343.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Chapple C, Dubeau C, Ebinger U, Rekeda L, Viegas A. Darifenacin treatment of patients >/ = 65 years with overactive bladder: results of a randomized, controlled, 12-week trial. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:2347–2358. doi: 10.1185/03007X226294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Nilsson CG, Lukkari E, Haarala M, Kivela A, Hakonen T, et al. Comparison of a 10-mg controlled release oxybutynin tablet with a 5-mg oxybutynin tablet in urge incontinent patients. Neurourol Urodyn. 1997;16:533–542. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1520-6777(1997)16:6<533::aid-nau3>3.0.co;2-f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Birns J, Lukkari E, Malone-Lee JG. A randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of controlled-release oxybutynin tablets (10 mg once daily) with conventional oxybutynin tablets (5 mg twice daily) in patients whose symptoms were stabilized on 5 mg twice daily of oxybutynin. BJU Int. 2000;85:793–798. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00623.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Barkin J, Corcos J, Radomski S, Jammal MP, Miceli PC, et al. A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of controlled- and immediate-release oxybutynin chloride in urge urinary incontinence. Clin Ther. 2004;26:1026–1036. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(04)90174-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Bono AV, Marconi AM, Gianneo E. Oxybutynin for unstable bladder. A preliminary placebo controlled trial [L'ossibutinina cloridrato nella vescica instabile pura (Italian)]. Urologia. 1982;49:764–768. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Murray KHA, Patterson JR, Stephenson TP. A double-blind three way cross over placebo controlled trial of cystrin and cetiprin novum. 1984. 454 Proceedings of the 14th annual Meeting of the International Continence Society.
- 34.Riva D, Casolati E. Oxybutynin chloride in the treatment of female idiopathic bladder instability. Results from double blind treatment. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 1984;11:37–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Zorzitto ML, Holliday PJ, Jewett MA, Herschorn S, Fernie GR. Oxybutynin chloride for geriatric urinary dysfunction: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Age Ageing. 1989;18:195–200. doi: 10.1093/ageing/18.3.195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Moore KH, Hay DM, Imrie AE, Watson A, Goldstein M. Oxybutynin hydrochloride (3 mg) in the treatment of women with idiopathic detrusor instability. Br J Urol. 1990;66:479–485. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1990.tb14992.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Takayasu H, Ueno A, Tsutida S, Koiso K, Kurita K, et al. Clinical effects of propiverine hydrochloride in the treatment of urinary frequency and incontinence associated with detrusor overactivity: a double blind, parallel, placebo controlled multicenter study. Igaku No Ayumi (Progress in Medicine) 1990;153:459–471. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Tapp AJ, Cardozo LD, Versi E, Cooper D. The treatment of detrusor instability in post-menopausal women with oxybutynin chloride: a double blind placebo controlled study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97:521–526. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02523.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Stöhrer M, Bauer P, Giannetti BM, Richter R, Burgdorfer H, et al. Effect of trospium chloride on urodynamic parameters in patients with detrusor hyperreflexia due to spinal cord injuries. A multicentre placebo-controlled double-blind trial. Urol Int. 1991;47:138–143. doi: 10.1159/000282207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Thüroff JW, Bunke B, Ebner A, Faber P, de Geeter P, et al. Randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial on treatment of frequency, urgency and incontinence related to detrusor hyperactivity: oxybutynin versus propantheline versus placebo. J Urol. 1991;145:813–816; discussion 816-817. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)38459-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Wehnert J, Sage S. Treatment of bladder unstability and urge incontinence with Propiverine hydrochloride (Mictonormâ) and Oxybutynin chloride (Dridaseâ), a randomised crossover study [Therapie der Blaseninstabilität und Urge-inkontinenz mit Propiverin hydrochlorid (Mictonormâ) und Oxybutynin chlorid (Dridaseâ) - eine randomisierte cross-over-vergleichsstudie (German)] Aktuel Urol. 1992;23:7–11. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Szonyi G, Collas DM, Ding YY, Malone-Lee JG. Oxybutynin with bladder retraining for detrusor instability in elderly people: a randomized controlled trial. Age Ageing. 1995;24:287–291. doi: 10.1093/ageing/24.4.287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Mazur D, Wehnert J, Dorschner W, Schubert G, Herfurth G, et al. Clinical and urodynamic effects of propiverine in patients suffering from urgency and urge incontinence. A multicentre dose-optimizing study. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1995;29:289–294. doi: 10.3109/00365599509180578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Abrams P, Jackson S, Mattiasson A, Krishnan K, Haendler L. A randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled, dose ranging study of the safety and efficacy of tolterodine in patients with hyperreflexia. 1996. pp. 276–277. Proceedings of the International Continence Society 26th Annual Meeting.
- 45.Jonas U, Hofner K, Madersbacher H, Holmdahl TH. Efficacy and safety of two doses of tolterodine versus placebo in patients with detrusor overactivity and symptoms of frequency, urge incontinence, and urgency: urodynamic evaluation. The International Study Group. World J Urol. 1997;15:144–151. doi: 10.1007/BF02201987. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Van Kerrebroeck PE, Serment G, Dreher E. Clinical efficacy and safety of tolterodine compared to oxybutynin in patients with overactive bladder. Neurourol Urodyn. 1997;16:478–479. [abstract 491] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Abrams P, Freeman R, Anderstrom C, Mattiasson A. Tolterodine, a new antimuscarinic agent: as effective but better tolerated than oxybutynin in patients with an overactive bladder. Br J Urol. 1998;81:801–810. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1998.00717.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Alloussi S, Laval KU, Ballering-Bruhl B, Grobe-Freese M, Bulitta M, et al. Trospium chloride (Spasmo-lyt) in patients with motor urge syndrome (detrusor instability): a double-blind, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled study. Journal of Clinical Research. 1998;1:439–451. [Google Scholar]
- 49.Rentzhog L, Stanton SL, Cardozo L, Nelson E, Fall M, et al. Efficacy and safety of tolterodine in patients with detrusor instability: a dose-ranging study. Br J Urol. 1998;81:42–48. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1998.00501.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Van Kerrebroeck PE, Amarenco G, Thüroff JW, Madersbacher HG, Lock MT, et al. Dose-ranging study of tolterodine in patients with detrusor hyperreflexia. Neurourol Urodyn. 1998;17:499–512. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1520-6777(1998)17:5<499::aid-nau6>3.0.co;2-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Drutz HP, Appell RA, Gleason D, Klimberg I, Radomski S. Clinical efficacy and safety of tolterodine compared to oxybutynin and placebo in patients with overactive bladder. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 1999;10:283–289. doi: 10.1007/s001929970003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Madersbacher H, Halaska M, Voigt R, Alloussi S, Hofner K. A placebo-controlled, multicentre study comparing the tolerability and efficacy of propiverine and oxybutynin in patients with urgency and urge incontinence. BJU Int. 1999;84:646–651. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00251.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Millard R, Tuttle J, Moore K, Susset J, Clarke B, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of tolterodine compared to placebo in detrusor overactivity. J Urol. 1999;161:1551–1555. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Stöhrer M, Madersbacher H, Richter R, Wehnert J, Dreikorn K. Efficacy and safety of propiverine in SCI-patients suffering from detrusor hyperreflexia—a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Spinal Cord. 1999;37:196–200. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3100750. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Cardozo L, Chapple CR, Toozs-Hobson P, Grosse-Freese M, Bulitta M, et al. Efficacy of trospium chloride in patients with detrusor instability: a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, multicentre clinical trial. BJU Int. 2000;85:659–664. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00575.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Dorschner W, Stolzenburg JU, Griebenow R, Halaska M, Schubert G, et al. Efficacy and cardiac safety of propiverine in elderly patients - a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study. Eur Urol. 2000;37:702–708. doi: 10.1159/000020221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Jünemann KP, Al-Shukri S. Efficacy and tolerability of trospium chloride and tolterodine in 234 patients with urge-syndrome: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial. Neurourol Urodyn. 2000;19:488–490. [Google Scholar]
- 58.Serrano Brambila EA, Quiroga Avila RG, Lorenzo Monterrubio JL, Moreno Aranda J. Assessment of effectiveness of and tolerance to oxybutynin in the treatment of unstable bladder in women [Evaluacion de la efectividad y tolerancia de la oxibutinina en el tratamiento de la vejiga inestable en la mujer (Spanish)]. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2000;68:174–181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Jacquetin B, Wyndaele J. Tolterodine reduces the number of urge incontinence episodes in patients with an overactive bladder. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;98:97–102. doi: 10.1016/s0301-2115(00)00561-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Malone-Lee JG, Walsh JB, Maugourd MF. Tolterodine: a safe and effective treatment for older patients with overactive bladder. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49:700–705. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2001.49144.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Ulshofer B, Bihr AM, Bodeker RH, Schwantes U, Jahn HP. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the efficacy and tolerance of trospium chloride in patients with motor urge incontinence. Clin Drug Invest. 2001;21:563–569. [Google Scholar]
- 62.Van Kerrebroeck P, Kreder K, Jonas U, Zinner N, Wein A. Tolterodine once-daily: superior efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of the overactive bladder. Urology. 2001;57:414–421. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)01113-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Appell RA, Sand P, Dmochowski R, Anderson R, Zinner N, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial of extended-release oxybutynin chloride and tolterodine tartrate in the treatment of overactive bladder: results of the OBJECT Study. Mayo Clin Proc. 2001;76:358–363. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Malone-Lee J, Shaffu B, Anand C, Powell C. Tolterodine: superior tolerability than and comparable efficacy to oxybutynin in individuals 50 years old or older with overactive bladder: a randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2001;165:1452–1456. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Dmochowski RR, Davila GW, Zinner NR, Gittelman MC, Saltzstein DR, et al. Efficacy and safety of transdermal oxybutynin in patients with urge and mixed urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2002;168:580–586. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Zinner NR, Mattiasson A, Stanton SL. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of extended-release once-daily tolterodine treatment for overactive bladder in older versus younger patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50:799–807. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50203.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Lee JG, Hong JY, Choo MS, Kwon HY, Chung DY, et al. Tolterodine: as effective but better tolerated than oxybutynin in Asian patients with symptoms of overactive bladder. Int J Urol. 2002;9:247–252. doi: 10.1046/j.1442-2042.2002.00460.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Dmochowski RR, Sand PK, Zinner NR, Gittelman MC, Davila GW, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of transdermal oxybutynin and oral tolterodine versus placebo in previously treated patients with urge and mixed urinary incontinence. Urology. 2003;62:237–242. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(03)00356-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Homma Y, Paick JS, Lee JG, Kawabe K. Clinical efficacy and tolerability of extended-release tolterodine and immediate-release oxybutynin in Japanese and Korean patients with an overactive bladder: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. BJU Int. 2003;92:741–747. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2003.04468.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Diokno AC, Appell RA, Sand PK, Dmochowski RR, Gburek BM, et al. Prospective, randomized, double-blind study of the efficacy and tolerability of the extended-release formulations of oxybutynin and tolterodine for overactive bladder: results of the OPERA trial. Mayo Clin Proc. 2003;78:687–695. doi: 10.4065/78.6.687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Halaska M, Ralph G, Wiedemann A, Primus G, Ballering-Bruhl B, et al. Controlled, double-blind, multicentre clinical trial to investigate long-term tolerability and efficacy of trospium chloride in patients with detrusor instability. World J Urol. 2003;20:392–399. doi: 10.1007/s00345-003-0321-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Cardozo L, Lisec M, Millard R, van Vierssen Trip O, Kuzmin I, et al. Randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trial of the once daily antimuscarinic agent solifenacin succinate in patients with overactive bladder. J Urol. 2004;172:1919–1924. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000140729.07840.16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Chapple CR, Arano P, Bosch JL, De Ridder D, Kramer AE, et al. Solifenacin appears effective and well tolerated in patients with symptomatic idiopathic detrusor overactivity in a placebo- and tolterodine-controlled phase 2 dose-finding study. BJU Int. 2004;93:71–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2004.04561.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Chapple CR, Rechberger T, Al-Shukri S, Meffan P, Everaert K, et al. Randomized, double-blind placebo- and tolterodine-controlled trial of the once-daily antimuscarinic agent solifenacin in patients with symptomatic overactive bladder. BJU Int. 2004;93:303–310. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2004.04606.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Haab F, Stewart L, Dwyer P. Darifenacin, an M3 selective receptor antagonist, is an effective and well-tolerated once-daily treatment for overactive bladder. Eur Urol. 2004;45:420–429; discussion. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.01.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Khullar V, Hill S, Laval KU, Schiotz HA, Jonas U, et al. Treatment of urge-predominant mixed urinary incontinence with tolterodine extended release: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Urology. 2004;64:269–274; discussion 274-265. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.02.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Zinner N, Gittelman M, Harris R, Susset J, Kanelos A, et al. Trospium chloride improves overactive bladder symptoms: a multicenter phase III trial. J Urol. 2004;171:2311–2315, quiz 2435. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000127742.73136.0c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Giannitsas K, Perimenis P, Athanasopoulos A, Gyftopoulos K, Nikiforidis G, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of tolterodine and oxybutynin in different urodynamic severity grades of idiopathic detrusor overactivity. Eur Urol : - 2004;46:776–782; discussion 782-773. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.07.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Abrams P, Kaplan S, Guan Z, Wang J, Roehrborn CG. Efficacy and safety of tolterodine in a predominantly continent population of male patients with overactive bladder and nocturia (Abstract). Neurourol Urodyn. 2005;24:495–496. [Google Scholar]
- 80.Abrams P, Nordling J, Guan Z, Wang JT, Hussain I. Nighttime dosing of tolterodine reduces overactive bladder-related nocturnal frequency in patients with overacitve bladder and nocturia. Eur Urol Suppl 4. 2005;3:62. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.10.061. [abstract 240] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Cardozo L, Dixon A. Increased warning time with darifenacin: a new concept in the management of urinary urgency. J Urol. 2005;173:1214–1218. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000155798.78911.57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Nitti V, Wiatrak M, Kreitman L, Lipsitz D. Fesoterodine is an effective antimuscarinic for patients with overactive bladder (OAB): results of a phase 2 trial. Proceedings of the 35th Annual International Continence Society (ICS): abstract number. 2005;306 [Google Scholar]
- 83.Romanzi L, Delconte A, Kralidis G. Impact of darifenacin compared with tolterodine on incontinence episodes in patients with overactive bladder. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:88. [Google Scholar]
- 84.Zinner N, Tuttle J, Marks L. Efficacy and tolerability of darifenacin, a muscarinic M3 selective receptor antagonist (M3 SRA), compared with oxybutynin in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder. World J Urol. 2005;23:248–252. doi: 10.1007/s00345-005-0507-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Altan-Yaycioglu R, Yaycioglu O, Aydin Akova Y, Guvel S, Ozkardes H. Ocular side-effects of tolterodine and oxybutynin, a single-blind prospective randomized trial. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;59:588–592. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2005.02356.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Jünemann KP, Halaska M, Rittstein T, Murtz G, Schnabel F, et al. Propiverine versus tolterodine: efficacy and tolerability in patients with overactive bladder. Eur Urol. 2005;48:478–482. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.04.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Abrams P, Kaplan S, De Koning Gans HJ, Millard R. Safety and tolerability of tolterodine for the treatment of overactive bladder in men with bladder outlet obstruction. J Urol. 2006;175:999–1004; discussion 1004. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00483-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Abrams P, Cardozo L, Chapple C, Serdarevic D, Hargreaves K, et al. Comparison of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of propiverine and oxybutynin for the treatment of overactive bladder syndrome. Int J Urol. 2006;13:692–698. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01387.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Hill S, Khullar V, Wyndaele JJ, Lheritier K. Dose response with darifenacin, a novel once-daily M3 selective receptor antagonist for the treatment of overactive bladder: results of a fixed dose study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17:239–247. doi: 10.1007/s00192-005-1340-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Jünemann KP, Hessdorfer E, Unamba-Oparah I, Berse M, Brunjes R, et al. Propiverine hydrochloride immediate and extended release: comparison of efficacy and tolerability in patients with overactive bladder. Urol Int. 2006;77:334–339. doi: 10.1159/000096338. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Kaplan SA, Roehrborn CG, Rovner ES, Carlsson M, Bavendam T, et al. Tolterodine and tamsulosin for treatment of men with lower urinary tract symptoms and overactive bladder: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2006;296:2319–2328. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.19.2319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Rackley R, Weiss JP, Rovner ES, Wang JT, Guan Z. Nighttime dosing with tolterodine reduces overactive bladder-related nocturnal micturitions in patients with overactive bladder and nocturia. Urology. 2006;67:731–736; discussion 736. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.10.061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Rudy D, Cline K, Harris R, Goldberg K, Dmochowski R. Time to onset of improvement in symptoms of overactive bladder using antimuscarinic treatment. BJU Int. 2006;97:540–546. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06035.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Zinner N, Susset J, Gittelman M, Arguinzoniz M, Rekeda L, et al. Efficacy, tolerability and safety of darifenacin, an M(3) selective receptor antagonist: an investigation of warning time in patients with OAB. Int J Clin Pract. 2006;60:119–126. doi: 10.1111/j.1368-5031.2005.00770.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Corcos J, Casey R, Patrick A, Andreou C, Miceli PC, et al. A double-blind randomized dose-response study comparing daily doses of 5, 10 and 15 mg controlled-release oxybutynin: balancing efficacy with severity of dry mouth. BJU Int. 2006;97:520–527. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.06031.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Chapple C, Van Kerrebroeck P, Tubaro A, Haag-Molkenteller C, Forst HT, et al. Clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of once-daily fesoterodine in subjects with overactive bladder. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1204–1212. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.07.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Yamaguchi O, Marui E, Kakizaki H, Itoh N, Yokota T, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo- and propiverine-controlled trial of the once-daily antimuscarinic agent solifenacin in Japanese patients with overactive bladder. BJU Int. 2007;100:579–587. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07031.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Nitti V, Dmochowski R, Sand P, Forst HT, Haag-Molkenteller C, et al. Efficacy, safety and tolerability of fesoterodine for overactive bladder syndrome. J Urol. 2007;178:2488–2494. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Staskin D, Sand P, Zinner N, Dmochowski R. Once daily trospium chloride is effective and well tolerated for the treatment of overactive bladder: results from a multicenter phase III trial. J Urol. 2007;178:978–983; discussion 983-974. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Chapple CR, Fianu-Jonsson A, Indig M, Khullar V, Rosa J, et al. Treatment outcomes in the STAR study: a subanalysis of solifenacin 5 mg and tolterodine ER 4 mg. Eur Urol. 2007;52:1195–1203. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.05.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Callaway E, Halliday R, Naylor H. Cholinergic activity and constraints on information processing. Biol Psychol. 1992;33:1–22. doi: 10.1016/0301-0511(92)90002-c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Perry EK, Kilford L, Lees AJ, Burn DJ, Perry RH. Increased Alzheimer pathology in Parkinson's disease related to antimuscarinic drugs. Ann Neurol. 2003;54:235–238. doi: 10.1002/ana.10639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Roden DM. Drug-induced prolongation of the QT interval. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1013–1022. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra032426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Curtin F, Altman DG, Elbourne D. Meta-analysis combining parallel and cross-over clinical trials. I: Continuous outcomes. Stat Med. 2002;21:2131–2144. doi: 10.1002/sim.1205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Kessler TM, Fisch M, Heitz M, Olianas R, Schreiter F. Patient satisfaction with the outcome of surgery for urethral stricture. J Urol. 2002;167:2507–2511. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Khullar V, Salvatore S. A medium-term analysis of the subjective efficacy of treatment for women with detrusor instability and low bladder compliance. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:988–993. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb12054.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.2006. Urinary incontinence: the management of urinary incontinence in women. Available: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG40fullguideline.pdf.
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Efficacy of different antimuscarinics (starting dosages) compared to placebo (reference line through 0) according to Chapple et al, Eur Urol 2008;54:543‐62 and Staskin et al, Eur Urol 2009;55:e49‐50.
(TIF)
Flow diagram of literature searches and results.
(TIF)
Ocular/visual adverse event profiles (from 45 trials) of different antimuscarinic treatments with currently used starting dosages per day compared with placebo (reference line through 0). ○ mean, 95% confidence interval, TDS transdermal system, VAS visual analogue scale.
(TIF)
Urinary tract related adverse event profiles (from 37 trials) of different antimuscarinic treatments with currently used starting dosages per day compared with placebo (reference line through 0). ○ mean, 95% confidence interval, TDS transdermal system, VAS visual analogue scale.
(TIF)
Neurological adverse event profiles (from 52 trials) of different antimuscarinic treatments with currently used starting dosages per day compared with placebo (reference line through 0). ○ mean, 95% confidence interval, TDS transdermal system, VAS visual analogue scale.
(TIF)
Cardiac adverse event profiles (from 22 trials) of different antimuscarinic treatments with currently used starting dosages per day compared with placebo (reference line through 0). ○ mean, 95% confidence interval, TDS transdermal system, VAS visual analogue scale.
(TIF)
Respiratory tract related adverse event profiles (from 20 trials) of different antimuscarinic treatments with currently used starting dosages per day compared with placebo (reference line through 0). ○ mean, 95% confidence interval, TDS transdermal system, VAS visual analogue scale.
(TIF)
Dermatological adverse event profiles (from 21 trials) of different antimuscarinic treatments with currently used starting dosages per day compared with placebo (reference line through 0). ○ mean, 95% confidence interval, TDS transdermal system, VAS visual analogue scale.
(TIF)
Additional information kindly provided by authors of eligible trials that reported insufficient data.
(DOC)
Database of included trials.
(XLS)