Evidence Hub

Mirabegron Add-On Therapy to Tamsulosin in Men with Overactive Bladder: Post Hoc Analyses of Efficacy from the MATCH Study

Kakizaki H, Lee KS, Katou D, Yamamoto O, Sumarsono B, Uno S, Yamaguchi O

Advances in therapy, 2021

568 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Introduction: MATCH was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolling Japanese and Korean men aged ≥ 40 years who still had overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms while receiving tamsulosin. After a 4-week single-blind screening period in which patients received placebo and tamsulosin, patients were randomized to mirabegron 50 mg + tamsulosin or placebo + tamsulosin for 12 weeks (n = 568). This post hoc analysis investigated the proportion of treatment responders for each treatment group and for subgroups stratified by age based on voiding diaries and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Methods: Responders were defined as those achieving normalization or clinically meaningful improvements in efficacy, or clinically important differences in PROs [≥ 10-point improvement in OAB questionnaire (OAB-q) symptom bother or total health-related quality of life (HRQoL) subscales at end of treatment (EoT; minimally important difference [MID]) or OAB symptom score (OABSS) total score decreased by ≥ 3 points at EoT [minimally clinically important change (MCIC)]].

Results: At EoT, micturition frequency normalization was achieved by 30.7% of tamsulosin + mirabegron patients and 18.6% of tamsulosin + placebo patients. Normalization of urgency and incontinence was 19.1% and 60.7% for tamsulosin + mirabegron and 18.2% and 60.0% for tamsulosin + placebo. Normalization of OAB symptoms based on OABSS was 17.1% for tamsulosin + mirabegron and 14.5% for tamsulosin + placebo. Higher…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 568 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free