Superiority of fesoterodine 8 mg vs 4 mg in reducing urgency urinary incontinence episodes in patients with overactive bladder: results of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled EIGHT trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the superiority of fesoterodine 8 mg vs 4 mg for improvement in urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) episodes and other diary variables, diary-dry rate (proportion of patients with >0 UUI episodes on baseline diary and 0 UUI episodes on post-baseline diary), and improvements in measures of symptom bother, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a 12-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational trial of men and women aged ≥18 years with overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms including UUI (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01302067). Patients were randomised (2:2:1) to receive fesoterodine 8 mg, fesoterodine 4 mg, or placebo once daily; those randomised to fesoterodine 8 mg started with fesoterodine 4 mg once daily for 1 week, then 8 mg once daily for the remaining 11 weeks. Patients completed bladder diaries at baseline and weeks 4 and 12 and the Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC), Urgency Perception Scale (UPS), and Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at baseline and week 12. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 12 in UUI episodes per 24 h. RESULTS: At week 12, patients receiving fesoterodine 8 mg (779 patients) had significantly greater reductions from baseline in UUI episodes, micturitions, and urgency episodes than patients receiving fesoterodine 4 mg (790) or placebo (386); diary-dry rate was significantly higher in the fesoterodine 8-mg group vs the fesoterodine 4-mg and placebo groups (all P < 0.05). At week 12, patients receiving fesoterodine 8 mg also had significantly greater improvements in scores on the PPBC, UPS, and all OAB-q scales and domains than patients receiving fesoterodine 4 mg or placebo (all P < 0.01). Patients receiving fesoterodine 4 mg had significantly greater improvements in UUI episodes, urgency episodes, and micturitions; significantly higher diary-dry rates; and significantly greater improvement in PPBC scores and OAB-q scores than patients receiving placebo (all P < 0.05). Dry mouth was the most commonly reported adverse event (AE) in the fesoterodine groups (placebo group, 3.4%; fesoterodine 4-mg group, 12.9%; fesoterodine 8-mg group, 26.1%); most cases were mild or moderate in all treatment groups. Rates of serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were low in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a 12-week, prospectively designed, superiority trial, fesoterodine 8 mg showed statistically significantly superior efficacy vs fesoterodine 4 mg and placebo, as measured by reductions in UUI episodes and other diary variables, diary-dry dry rate, and improvements in measures of symptom bother, HRQL, and other PROs; clear evidence of dose-dependent efficacy is unique to fesoterodine among antimuscarinics and other oral agents for the treatment of OAB. Fesoterodine 4 mg was significantly more effective than placebo on all outcomes except for improvements in UPS scores. These data support the benefit of having two doses of fesoterodine in clinical practice, with the recommended starting dose of 4 mg for all patients and the fesoterodine 8-mg dose available for patients who require a higher dose to achieve optimal symptom relief.

Effect of fesoterodine on urethral closure function in women with stress urinary incontinence assessed by urethral pressure reflectometry.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim was to evaluate, using urethral pressure reflectometry (UPR), the effect of fesoterodine on urethral function in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). METHODS: Women aged 18 to 65 years were eligible for this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study if they had had clinically significant SUI or SUI-predominant mixed urinary incontinence for >3 months. Each participant received fesoterodine 4 mg, fesoterodine 8 mg, and placebo once daily for 7 days, with a 7- to 10-day washout between treatments. UPR was performed at baseline and 4 to 8 h after the last dose in each treatment period. Participants completed a 3-day bladder diary before randomisation and during the last 3 days of each treatment period. RESULTS: Of the 22 women randomly assigned and treated, 17 met the criteria for the primary efficacy analyses. No statistically significant differences were seen between fesoterodine 4 mg or fesoterodine 8 mg and placebo in opening urethral pressure (primary endpoint) or other UPR endpoints. No statistically significant differences were seen between either fesoterodine dose and placebo in the change from baseline in the bladder diary variables (total urinary incontinence, SUI, or urgency urinary incontinence episodes per 24 h). Adverse events were reported by 8 participants taking fesoterodine 4 mg, 17 taking fesoterodine 8 mg, and 8 taking placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Fesoterodine did not affect urethral pressure or significantly decrease the number of incontinence episodes in women with SUI. The UPR parameters showed no placebo effect, while there was a placebo effect of 60 % based on the bladder diary.

Evaluation of cognitive function in healthy older subjects treated with fesoterodine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cognitive effects of fesoterodine 4 and 8 mg versus placebo in healthy older adults. METHODS: This was an active- and placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy crossover study conducted using healthy volunteers (aged 65-85 years) with baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥ 26. The study comprised 4 treatment periods: fesoterodine 4 mg for 6 days; fesoterodine 4 mg for 3 days followed by fesoterodine 8 mg for 3 days; placebo for 6 days; and placebo for 6 days with alprazolam 1 mg on day 6. The treatment sequence was randomized, with a 3- to 6-day washout between periods. Subjects completed computer-based cognitive assessments and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test on day 1 (before dosing) and day 6 (after dosing) of each period. The primary endpoint was the Detection task; secondary endpoints were the Identification task, 1-card learning task, Continuous Paired Associate Learning task, Groton Maze Learning Task, and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test. RESULTS: Among 18 subjects in the per protocol set, changes from baseline to day 6 with fesoterodine 4 and 8 mg were not significantly different from placebo for any endpoint (P > 0.05); alprazolam produced significant impairment in all endpoints versus placebo (P < 0.05). No serious adverse events were reported; the most common adverse events were dry mouth for fesoterodine and sedation for alprazolam. No sedation was reported with fesoterodine. CONCLUSION: In healthy older adults, fesoterodine 4 and 8 mg once daily had no statistically significant effects versus placebo on any cognitive function assessed, including memory; alprazolam 1 mg produced statistically significant deterioration.

An international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of pregabalin monotherapy in treatment of patients with fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin monotherapy versus placebo for symptomatic pain relief and improvement of patient global assessment in patients with fibromyalgia (FM) enrolled from countries outside the United States. METHODS: This international, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned 747 patients with FM to placebo or 300, 450, or 600 mg/day pregabalin twice daily for 14 weeks. Primary efficacy measures were endpoint mean pain scores and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Secondary outcomes included assessments of sleep and function. RESULTS: Patients in the 450 mg/day pregabalin group showed significant improvements versus placebo in endpoint mean pain score (-0.56; p = 0.0132), PGIC (73% improved vs 56% placebo; p = 0.0017), and function [Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) total score -5.85; p = 0.0012]. PGIC was also significant for 600 mg/day pregabalin (69% improved; p = 0.0227). Results for these endpoints were nonsignificant for pregabalin at 300 mg/day and for pain and FIQ score at 600 mg/day. Early onset of pain relief was seen, with separation from placebo detected by Week 1 in all pregabalin groups. All pregabalin doses demonstrated superiority to placebo on the Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep Scale Sleep Disturbance subscale and the Sleep Quality diary. Dizziness and somnolence were the most frequently reported adverse events. CONCLUSION: Pregabalin demonstrated modest efficacy in pain, global assessment, and function in FM at 450 mg/day, and improved sleep across all dose levels, but it did not provide consistent evidence of benefit at 300 and 600 mg/day in this study. Pregabalin was generally well tolerated for the treatment of FM. (Clinical trial registry NCT00333866).