Skip to main content
. 2019 Jul 25;30(10):1603–1617. doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-04022-8

Table 4.

Relative risks of adverse events in short-duration trials (4 to 12 weeks) of pharmacotherapies for overactive bladder

WAE SAE Constipation Dry mouth
No. of studies RR (95% CI; I2) No. of studies RR (95% CI; I2) No. of studies RR (95% CI; I2) No. of studies RR (95% CI; I2)
Mirabegron 50 mg + solifenacin 5 mg vs. solifenacin 5 mg 3 1.20 (0.76, 2.21; I2 = 0%) 3 1.81 (0.94, 3.51; I2 = 0%) 3 1.65 (1.04, 2.62; I2 = 5%) 3 1.13 (0.86, 1.48; I2 = 0%)
Mirabegron 50 mg + solifenacin 5 mg vs. mirabegron 50 mg 2 0.84 (0.29, 2.42; I2 = 23%) 2 1.30 (0.40, 4.16; I2 = 29%) 2 0.88 (0.24, 3.25; I2 = 54%) 2 2.25 (1.37, 3.71; I2 = 0%)
Mirabegron 50 mg vs. solifenacin 5 mg 4 0.94 (0.53, 1.68; I2 = 14%) 3 1.34 (0.66, 2.71; I2 = 6%) 3 1.16 (0.72, 1.87; I2 = 0%) 3 0.53 (0.38, 0.75; I2 = 0%)
Mirabegron 50 mg vs. tolterodine 4 mg 5 0.91 (0.66, 1.27; I2 = 0%) 4 0.89 (0.50, 1.57; I2 = 0%) 4 0.94 (0.58, 1.53; I2 = 0%) 4 0.41 (0.25, 0.67; I2 = 68%)
Fesoterodine 4 mg vs. solifenacin 5 mg 1 13.22 (0.76, 229.47; I2 = NA) 0 NR 1 3.05 (0.33, 28.50; I2 = NA) 1 2.71 (0.76, 9.73; I2 = NA)
Fesoterodine 8 mg vs. tolterodine 4 mg 2 1.45 (1.07, 1.98; I2 = 0%)a 2 2.22 (1.21, 4.07; I2 = 0%) 2 1.41 (1.03, 1.92; I2 = 0%) 2 1.92 (1.69, 2.18; I2 = 0%)
Solifenacin 5 mg vs. tolterodine 4 mg 5 1.37 (0.84, 2.23; I2 = 0%)a 0 NR 5 2.86 (1.71, 4.78; I2 = 0%) 5 1.04 (0.89, 1.22; I2 = 74%)a
Solifenacin 5 mg vs. oxybutynin IR 15 mg 1 0.45 (0.23, 0.91; I2 = NA)a 1 6.59 (0.35, 125.20; I2 = NA) 1 2.12 (0.69, 6.54; I2 = NA) 1 0.43 (0.30, 0.60; I2 = NA)a
Tolterodine vs. oxybutynin 9 0.43 (0.27, 0.59; I2 = 33%) 7 1.02 (0.55, 1.91; I2 = 0%) 2 1.17 (0.85, 1.62; I2 = 0%) 11 0.62 (0.52, 0.74; I2 = 72%)a

Note: bold indicates statistically significant

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; ER, extended release; IR, immediate release; NR, not reported; RR, relative risk; SAE, serious adverse event; WAE, withdrawal due to adverse event

aMeta-analysis result from 2012 Cochrane Systematic Review [20]