Efficacy of oral 20-hydroxyecdysone (BIO101), a MAS receptor activator, in adults with severe COVID-19 (COVA): a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 trial.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 binding to ACE2 is potentially associated with severe pneumonia due to COVID-19. The aim of the study was to test whether Mas-receptor activation by 20-hydroxyecdysone (BIO101) could restore the Renin-Angiotensin System equilibrium and limit the frequency of respiratory failure and mortality in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19. Methods: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial. Randomization: 1:1 oral BIO101 (350 mg BID) or placebo, up to 28 days or until an endpoint was reached. Primary endpoint: mortality or respiratory failure requiring high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation. Key secondary endpoint: hospital discharge following recovery (ClinicalTrials.gov Number, NCT04472728). Findings: Due to low recruitment the planned sample size of 310 was not reached and 238 patients were randomized between August 26, 2020 and March 8, 2022. In the modified ITT population (233 patients; 126 BIO101 and 107 placebo), respiratory failure or early death by day 28 was 11.4% lower in the BIO101 (13.5%) than in the placebo (24.3%) group, (p = 0.0426). At day 28, proportions of patients discharged following recovery were 80.1%, and 70.9% in the BIO101 and placebo group respectively, (adjusted difference 11.0%, 95% CI [-0.4%, 22.4%], p = 0.0586). Hazard Ratio for time to death over 90 days: 0.554 (95% CI [0.285, 1.077]), a 44.6% mortality reduction in the BIO101 group (not statistically significant). Treatment emergent adverse events of respiratory failure were more frequent in the placebo group. Interpretation: BIO101 significantly reduced the risk of death or respiratory failure supporting its use in adults hospitalized with severe respiratory symptoms due to COVID-19. Funding: Biophytis.

Novel Potential Targets for Function-Promoting Therapies: Orphan Nuclear Receptors, Anti-inflammatory Drugs, Troponin Activators, Mas Receptor Agonists, and Urolithin A.

In recent years, several new classes of therapies have been investigated with their potential for restoring or improving physical functioning in older adults. These have included Mas receptor agonists, regulators of mitophagy, skeletal muscle troponin activators, anti-inflammatory compounds, and targets of orphan nuclear receptors. The present article summarizes recent developments of the function-promoting effects of these exciting new compounds and shares relevant preclinical and clinical data related to their safety and efficacy. The development of novel compounds in this area is expanding and likely will need the advent of a new treatment paradigm for age-associated mobility loss and disability.

A randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind phase II study to explore the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of sonlicromanol in children with genetically confirmed mitochondrial disease and motor symptoms ("KHENERGYC").

BACKGROUND: METHODS: The KHENERGYC trial will be a phase II, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled (DBPC), parallel-group study in the paediatric population (birth up to and including 17 years). The study will be recruiting 24 patients suffering from motor symptoms due to genetically confirmed PMD. The trial will be divided into two phases. The first phase of the study will be an adaptive pharmacokinetic (PK) study with four days of treatment, while the second phase will include randomisation of the participants and evaluating the efficacy and safety of sonlicromanol over 6 months. DISCUSSION: Effective novel therapies for treating PMDs in children are an unmet need. This study will assess the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of sonlicromanol in children with genetically confirmed PMDs, suffering from motor symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04846036 , registered April 15, 2021. European Union Clinical Trial Register (EUDRACT number: 2020-003124-16 ), registered October 20, 2020. CCMO registration: NL75221.091.20, registered on October 7, 2020.

Community Consensus Guidelines to Support FAIR Data Standards in Clinical Research Studies in Primary Mitochondrial Disease.

Primary mitochondrial diseases (PMD) are genetic disorders with extensive clinical and molecular heterogeneity where therapeutic development efforts have faced multiple challenges. Clinical trial design, outcome measure selection, lack of reliable biomarkers, and deficiencies in long-term natural history data sets remain substantial challenges in the increasingly active PMD therapeutic development space. Developing "FAIR" (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) data standards to make data sharable and building a more transparent community data sharing paradigm to access clinical research metadata are the first steps to address these challenges. This collaborative community effort describes the current landscape of PMD clinical research data resources available for sharing, obstacles, and opportunities, including ways to incentivize and encourage data sharing among diverse stakeholders. This work highlights the importance of, and challenges to, developing a unified system that enables clinical research structured data sharing and supports harmonized data deposition standards across clinical consortia and research groups. The goal of these efforts is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of drug development and improve understanding of the natural history of PMD. This initiative aims to maximize the benefit for PMD patients, research, industry, and other stakeholders while acknowledging challenges related to differing needs and international policies on data privacy, security, management, and oversight.

The use of mono- and combination drug therapy in men and women with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in the UK: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Combination drug therapy for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) is beneficial to selected patients and recommended by guidelines. Patterns of real-world LUTS drug use, especially combination drug therapy, have not been studied extensively. Moreover, further understanding of the recent landscape is required following the introduction of the beta-3-adrenoceptor agonist mirabegron in the UK in 2013 for overactive bladder (OAB). The objective was to describe mono- and combination drug therapy use for LUTS in patients in UK clinical practice. METHODS: This was a retrospective, descriptive, observational database study using UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD and linked databases. Men and women ≥ 18 years with a first prescription for any LUTS drug from 2014 to 2016 with ≥ 12 months continuous enrollment pre- and post-index date were included. Primary endpoints were mono- or combination drug therapy use for LUTS in male and female cohorts. Secondary endpoints were description of treatment prescribed, treatment persistence and patient demographics. Data were analyzed descriptively. Sub-cohorts were defined by drugs prescribed at index date. RESULTS: 79,472 patients (61.3% male) were included, based on index treatments. Of all men, 82.5% received any benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) drug, 25.4% any OAB drug, and 7.9% any BPO drug plus any OAB drug. As either mono- or combination drug therapy, 77.1% received an alpha-blocker, 18.9% a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor, 23.9% an antimuscarinic agent, and 2.1% mirabegron. Of all women, 94.5% received any OAB drug, 6.0% duloxetine, and 0.5% any OAB drug plus duloxetine. As either mono- or combination drug therapy, 87.7% received an antimuscarinic, and 9.7% mirabegron. In men or women receiving OAB treatment, approximately 2.5% received combination drug therapy with an antimuscarinic agent and mirabegron. For OAB drug monotherapies, mirabegron had the highest persistence in both male and female cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a better understanding of the recent landscape of LUTS drug use in UK clinical practice. It highlights potential undertreatment of storage symptoms in men with LUTS and the low use of combination OAB treatments.

Safety and Efficacy of Fidaxomicin and Vancomycin in Children and Adolescents with Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile Infection: A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Single-blind Clinical Trial (SUNSHINE).

BACKGROUND: Fidaxomicin, a narrow-spectrum antibiotic approved for Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection (CDI) in adults, is associated with lower rates of recurrence than vancomycin; however, pediatric data are limited. This multicenter, investigator-blind, phase 3, parallel-group trial assessed the safety and efficacy of fidaxomicin in children. METHODS: Patients aged <18 years with confirmed CDI were randomized 2:1 to 10 days of treatment with fidaxomicin (suspension or tablets, twice daily) or vancomycin (suspension or tablets, 4 times daily). Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events. The primary efficacy end point was confirmed clinical response (CCR), 2 days after the end of treatment (EOT). Secondary end points included global cure (GC; CCR without CDI recurrence) 30 days after EOT (end of study; EOS). Plasma and stool concentrations of fidaxomicin and its active metabolite OP-1118 were measured. RESULTS: Of 148 patients randomized, 142 were treated (30 <2 years old). The proportion of participants with treatment-emergent adverse events was similar with fidaxomicin (73.5%) and vancomycin (75.0%). Of 3 deaths in the fidaxomicin arm during the study, none were CDI or treatment related. The rate of CCR at 2 days after EOT was 77.6% (76 of 98 patients) with fidaxomicin and 70.5% (31 of 44) with vancomycin, whereas the rate of GC at EOS was significantly higher in participants receiving fidaxomicin (68.4% vs 50.0%; adjusted treatment difference, 18.8%; 95% confidence interval, 1.5%-35.3%). Systemic absorption of fidaxomicin and OP-1118 was minimal, and stool concentrations were high. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with vancomycin, fidaxomicin was well tolerated and demonstrated significantly higher rates of GC in children and adolescents with CDI. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02218372.

Long-term treatment of older patients with overactive bladder using a combination of mirabegron and solifenacin: a prespecified analysis from the randomized, phase III SYNERGY II study.

AIMS: SYNERGY II was a 12-month phase III trial in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms that investigated the safety and efficacy of the combination of mirabegron and solifenacin in comparison with each monotherapy. This analysis evaluated the trial findings using four age subgroups (<65, ≥65, <75, and ≥75 years). METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥18 years with symptoms of "wet" OAB (urinary frequency and urgency with incontinence) for ≥3 months. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily solifenacin succinate and mirabegron (5 mg/50 mg; combination), solifenacin succinate, or mirabegron (4:1:1). Safety evaluations: treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, and electrocardiogram, post-void residual volume, and laboratory assessments. Primary efficacy variables: change from baseline to end of treatment in number of incontinence episodes/24 h and micturitions/24 h. RESULTS: Of 1794 patients (full analysis set), 614 (34.2%) and 168 (9.4%) were ≥65 and ≥75 years old, respectively. Overall, 856 (47.2%) patients experienced ≥1 TEAE. Higher TEAE incidences were typically observed for the combination versus both monotherapies (eg, constipation) and in the older versus younger age groups (eg, urinary tract infection). Increases in mean pulse rate from baseline of >1 bpm were noted in the combination and mirabegron younger age groups only. No clinically significant findings were observed in the other safety parameters. The efficacy variables improved with all treatments and the greatest improvements were typically observed with combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Mirabegron and solifenacin combination therapy was a well-tolerated and effective treatment for patients with OAB symptoms irrespective of their age.

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).

BACKGROUND: The long-term potential of solifenacin and mirabegron combination treatment for patients with overactive bladder (OAB) has not been previously assessed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of solifenacin succinate 5mg plus mirabegron 50mg tablets (combination treatment) versus solifenacin or mirabegron monotherapy in patients with OAB over 12 mo. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial (SYNERGY II) of patients with "wet" OAB symptoms (urinary frequency and urgency with incontinence) for ≥3 mo. The study was conducted from March 2014 to September 2016; with 1829 patients randomised. The full analysis set was comprised of 1794 patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary objective was safety, measured as treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy was measured as the change from baseline to the end of treatment in the mean number of incontinence episodes/24h and micturitions/24h. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median age was 60 yr (range 19-86 yr) and 1434 patients (80%) were female. Overall, 856 patients (47%) experienced ≥1 TEAE. TEAE frequency was slightly higher in the combination group (596 patients, 49%; mirabegron 126 patients, 41%; solifenacin 134 patients, 44%). Serious TEAEs were reported by 67 patients (3.7%); one was considered possibly treatment-related (mirabegron group, atrial fibrillation). Dry mouth was the most common TEAE (combination 74 patients, 6.1%; solifenacin 18 patients, 5.9%; mirabegron 12 patients, 3.9%). Combination therapy was statistically superior to mirabegron and solifenacin for the number of incontinence episodes (vs mirabegron: adjusted mean difference [AMD] -0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.7 to -0.2, p<0.001; vs solifenacin: AMD -0.1, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.1, p=0.002) and micturitions (vs mirabegron: AMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.8 to -0.2, p<0.001; vs solifenacin: AMD -0.4, 95% CI -0.7 to -0.1, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Mirabegron and solifenacin combination treatment for OAB symptoms was well tolerated over 12 mo and led to efficacy improvements over each monotherapy. This innovative combination is a treatment option that could become widely used in the clinic. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study looked at the safety and efficacy of a combination of solifenacin succinate 5mg plus mirabegron 50mg tablets over 12 mo in patients with the overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms of increased urination frequency, heightened urgency to urinate, and unintentional passing of urine. We compared this treatment with solifenacin succinate 5mg or mirabegron 50mg alone, and found that the combination treatment was well tolerated by patients and led to greater improvements in symptoms. This novel combination could be an improved treatment option in the clinical setting for patients with OAB. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02045862.

Patient-reported outcomes from SYNERGY, a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study evaluating combinations of mirabegron and solifenacin compared with monotherapy and placebo in OAB patients.

AIMS: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of combinations of solifenacin and mirabegron compared with solifenacin and mirabegron monotherapy and with placebo in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from the SYNERGY trial. METHODS: Following a 4-week placebo run-in, period patients (≥18 years) with OAB were randomized 2:2:1:1:1:1 to receive solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg (combination 5 + 25 mg), solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg, (combination 5 + 50 mg), solifenacin 5 mg, mirabegron 25 mg, mirabegron 50 mg or placebo for 12 weeks, followed by a 2-week washout period. At each visit, PROs related to quality of life, symptom bother, and treatment satisfaction were assessed, including OAB-q Symptom Bother score, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) Total score, treatment satisfaction-visual analogue scale (TS-VAS), and patient perception of bladder condition (PPBC) questionnaires. RESULTS: Overall, 3527 patients were randomized into the study, with 3494 receiving double-blind treatment. At end of treatment (EoT), both combination groups showed greater improvements in OAB-q Symptom Bother score compared with the monotherapy groups (nominal P < 0.001). Statistically significant improvements in HRQOL Total scores were observed in the combination groups versus monotherapy groups (P ≤ 0.002). For both combination groups, the OAB-q Symptom Bother score responder rates at EoT were statistically significantly higher versus mirabegron monotherapy (P < 0.05). The mean adjusted changes from baseline to EoT for PPBC were greater in the combination groups compared with monotherapy groups. CONCLUSIONS: PROs showed that combination therapy provided clear improvements and an additive effect for many HRQOL parameters, including OAB-q Symptom Bother score, HRQOL Total score, and PPBC.

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

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.

Electronic bladder diaries of differing duration versus a paper diary for data collection in overactive bladder.

AIMS: This observational study compared data values, reliability, consistency and compliance collected by electronic and paper diaries of differing durations. METHODS: Subjects ≥18 years with overactive bladder (OAB) on stable antimuscarinic treatment for ≥12 weeks were assigned to one of five, 15-week diary schedules in this randomized, parallel-group observational study. Sample size was sufficient to assess reliability and consistency of diary data with adequate precision. Reliability was assessed via intraclass correlation coefficients, variability with ANCOVAs, and consistency using Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics of randomized subjects were representative of OAB trial populations. For mean volume voided, reliability was comparable across diary groups. For incontinence, reliability improved with increasing diary duration. For micturition frequency, electronic 7-day diary results had highest reliability and lowest variability. Lowest overall reliability was observed in the 3-day paper diary. Consistency was highest in the electronic continuous groups; Cont A (daily measurements throughout the study period [fully Continuous]) and Cont B (daily measurements for some but not all endpoints of interest [Partially Continuous]). Compliance was generally high; across groups ≥90% of diaries had at least one entry per day. There was no significant change in average micturition frequency with diary duration, suggesting no diary fatigue. One-third of subjects in the electronic Cont B group also reported micturitions as incontinence when they only needed to report incontinence; they also reported lowest satisfaction with the study. The electronic 7-day and electronic Cont A schedules (who reported incontinence and micturitions throughout the study) had lowest residual errors. CONCLUSIONS: For future OAB trials, 7-day or continuous electronic diaries may improve accuracy and reliability of micturition and incontinence frequency data compared with shorter collection periods and paper diaries. Neurourol. Urodynam. 35:743-749, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Combination treatment with mirabegron and solifenacin in patients with overactive bladder: efficacy and safety results from a randomised, double-blind, dose-ranging, phase 2 study (Symphony).

BACKGROUND: Combining the ß3-adrenoceptor agonist mirabegron and the antimuscarinic (AM) agent solifenacin may improve efficacy in the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB) while reducing the AM side effects. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of combinations of solifenacin/mirabegron compared with solifenacin 5mg monotherapy. The secondary objective was to explore the dose-response relationship and the safety/tolerability compared with placebo and monotherapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A phase 2, factorial design, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo- and monotherapy-controlled trial, conducted at 141 sites in 20 European countries. Male and female patients were aged ≥18 yr with symptoms of OAB for ≥3 mo. INTERVENTION: A total of 1306 patients (66.4% female) were randomised to 12 wk of treatment in 1 of 12 groups: 6 combination groups (solifenacin 2.5, 5, or 10 mg plus mirabegron 25 or 50 mg), 5 monotherapy groups (solifenacin 2.5, 5, or 10 mg, or mirabegron 25 or 50 mg), or placebo. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Change from baseline to end of treatment in mean volume voided per micturition (MVV) (primary end point) and mean numbers of micturitions per 24 h, incontinence episodes per 24 h, and urgency episodes per 24 h were analysed using an analysis of covariance model. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), blood pressure, pulse rate, postvoid residual (PVR) volume, and laboratory and electrocardiography (ECG) parameters. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Compared with solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy, all combinations with solifenacin 5 or 10 mg significantly improved MVV, with adjusted differences ranging from 18.0 ml (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-30.0) to 26.3 ml (95% CI, 12.0-41.0). Three combination groups significantly reduced micturition frequency compared with solifenacin 5 mg, ranging from -0.80 (95% CI, -1.39 to -0.22) to -0.98 (95% CI, -1.68 to -0.27). Five of six combinations significantly reduced urgency episodes compared with solifenacin 5 mg, ranging from -0.98 (95% CI, -1.78, to -0.18) to -1.37 (95% CI, -2.03 to -0.70). No dose-related trends in TEAEs, blood pressure, pulse rate, PVR volume, or laboratory or ECG parameters were observed between combination and monotherapy groups, although the incidence of constipation was slightly increased with combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with solifenacin/mirabegron significantly improved MVV, micturition frequency, and urgency compared with solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy. All combinations were well tolerated, with no important additional safety findings compared with monotherapy or placebo. PATIENT SUMMARY: To improve treatment of overactive bladder (OAB), mirabegron/solifenacin in combination was compared with each drug alone and placebo. Combination therapy improved OAB symptoms and had similar safety and acceptability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials.gov: NCT01340027.