Safety and efficacy of an α1 -blocker plus mirabegron compared with an α1 -blocker plus antimuscarinic in men with lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia and overactive bladder: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM: Antimuscarinics and the ß3-adrenoreceptor agonist, mirabegron, are commonly used for treating patients with overactive bladder (OAB) and α1 -adrenoreceptor antagonists (α1 -blockers) are the main pharmacological agents used for treating lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). As these conditions commonly occur together, the aim of this systematic review was to identify publications that compared the use of an α1 -blocker plus mirabegron with an α1 -blocker plus antimuscarinic in men with LUTS secondary to BPH and OAB. A meta-analysis was subsequently conducted to explore the safety and efficacy of these combinations. METHODS: Included records had to be from a parallel-group, randomized clinical trial that was ≥8 weeks in duration. Participants were male with LUTS secondary to BPH and OAB. The indirect analyses that were identified compared an α1 -blocker plus OAB agent with an α1 -blocker plus placebo. The PubMed/Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, the Excerpta Medica Database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were searched for relevant records up until March 5, 2020. Safety outcomes included incidences of overall treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and urinary retention, postvoid residual volume, and maximum urinary flow (Qmax ). Primary efficacy outcomes were micturitions/day, incontinence episodes/day, and urgency episodes/day, and secondary outcomes were Overactive Bladder Symptom Score and International Prostate Symptom Score. A Bayesian network meta-analysis approach was used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Out of a total of 1039 records identified, 24 were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between the α1 -blocker plus mirabegron and α1 -blocker plus antimuscarinic groups in terms of the comparisons identified for all the safety and efficacy analyses conducted. Numerically superior results were frequently observed for the α1 -blocker plus mirabegron group compared with the α1 -blocker plus antimuscarinic group for the safety parameters, including TEAEs, urinary retention, and Qmax . For some of the efficacy parameters, most notably micturitions/day, numerically superior results were noted for the α1 -blocker plus antimuscarinic group. Inconsistency in reporting and study variability were noted in the included records, which hindered data interpretation. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that an α1 -blocker plus mirabegron and an α1 -blocker plus antimuscarinic have similar safety and efficacy profiles in male patients with LUTS secondary to BPH and OAB. Patients may, therefore, benefit from the use of either combination within the clinical setting.

Treatment Patterns with Mirabegron and Antimuscarinics for Overactive Bladder: A Prospective, Registry Study in Taiwan and South Korea (FAITH).

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess overactive bladder (OAB) treatment patterns and factors associated with effectiveness and persistence. METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal, observational registry study of adults starting OAB therapy with mirabegron or antimuscarinics was undertaken. Primary endpoints were time from treatment initiation to discontinuation/switching; proportion who discontinued/switched; and reasons for discontinuation/switching. Secondary endpoints included OAB Symptom Score (OABSS), OAB Questionnaire: Short Form, and OAB Bladder Assessment Tool scores; factors associated with effectiveness and persistence; and safety. RESULTS: In total, 556 patients initiating mirabegron and 250 initiating antimuscarinics were enrolled. There was no treatment switch, change, or discontinuation in 68.5% of the mirabegron initiator group and median time to treatment change was not reached. Mean initial treatment duration was 130.8 days. In multivariable models, baseline OABSS was the only variable significantly associated with change from baseline in OABSS, and patients with mild and moderate OAB had significantly better persistence with mirabegron than those with severe OAB. Urinary tract infection was the most common adverse event with mirabegron. There was no treatment switch, change, or discontinuation in 60.4% of the antimuscarinics initiator group and median time to treatment change was not reached. Solifenacin was the most frequent initial treatment (66.0%). Mean treatment duration was 122.2 days. In multivariable models, baseline OABSS was the only variable significantly associated with change from baseline in OABSS, while patients with OAB medication in the 12 months before enrollment had significantly better persistence with antimuscarinics than those with no previous OAB medication. Dry mouth was the most common adverse event with antimuscarinics. CONCLUSIONS: Mirabegron and solifenacin were commonly prescribed as first-line OAB medications. There was no treatment switch, change, or discontinuation in more than 60% of the mirabegron initiator and antimuscarinics initiator groups. Mean initial treatment duration was 130.8 days and 122.2 days for mirabegron and antimuscarinics, respectively. Graphical Abstract available for this article. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03572231.