Evidence Hub

Comparative safety of antimuscarinics versus mirabegron for overactive bladder in Parkinson disease

Danielle S. Abraham, Thanh Phuong Pham Nguyen, Craig W. Newcomb, Shelly L. Gray, Sean Hennessy, Charles E. Leonard, Qing Liu, Daniel A. Weintraub et al.

Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, 2023

27,091 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

Background: Overactive bladder (OAB) is a common non-motor symptom of Parkinson disease (PD), often treated with antimuscarinics or beta-3 agonists. There is lack of evidence to guide OAB management in PD.

Objectives: To assess the comparative safety of antimuscarinics versus beta-3 agonists for OAB treatment in PD.

Methods: We employed a new-user, active-comparator cohort study design. We included Medicare beneficiaries age ≥65 years with PD who were new users of either antimuscarinic or beta-3 agonist. The primary outcome was any acute care encounter (i.e., non-elective hospitalization or emergency department visit) within 90 days of OAB drug initiation. The main secondary outcome was a composite measure of acute care encounters for anticholinergic related adverse events (AEs). Matching on high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS) was used to address potential confounding. We used Cox proportional hazards models to examine the association between OAB drug category and outcomes. We repeated analyses for 30- and 180-day follow-up periods.

Results: We identified 27,091 individuals meeting inclusion criteria (mean age: 77.8 years). After hdPS matching, antimuscarinic users had increased risks for any acute care encounter (hazard ratio [HR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.37) and encounters for anticholinergic related AEs (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04-1.34) compared to beta-3 agonist users. Similar associations were observed for sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: Among persons…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, 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: 27,091 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