English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Objectives  Patients with overactive bladder (OAB) often have trouble perceiving urgency because of difficulties in distinguishing between urgency and desire to void. Empirical antimuscarinic treatment of patients with frequency only may be reasonable if conservative management has failed. We compared the efficacy of solifenacin in patients with frequency with or without urgency.    Materials and Methods  This multicenter, 12-week, open-label, comparative, non-inferiority clinical trial assessed whether the solifenacin efficacy for frequency without urgency is non-inferior to its efficacy for frequency with urgency. All patients had micturition frequency ≥8 voids/day with or without urgency. Primary efficacy variable: daily frequency change at 12 weeks relative to baseline. Secondary efficacy variables: change at 12 weeks relative to baseline in Patients' Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC), OAB Symptom Score (OABSS), and Benefit, Satisfaction, Willingness to continue (BSW) questionnaire.    Results  Of the 286 enrolled patients, 240 (83.9%) completed the study (without urgency n = 115; with urgency n = 125). Full dataset analysis revealed that the groups without and with urgency exhibited significant reductions in daily micturition frequency of −2.49±0.35 (mean ± standard error) and −2.63±0.37, respectively. The lower limit of the 95% two-sided CI of the comparison of the two group means was −1.14, which is smaller than the −0.8 margin of clinical equivalence. The two groups did not differ in improvement in PPBC, OABSS, or BSW scores. Both tolerated the treatment well.    Conclusions  It was not possible to verify that the solifenacin efficacy for frequency alone was non-inferior to its efficacy for OAB. Nevertheless, solifenacin tended to be effective for frequency regardless of urgency.    Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov  NCT00979472

A Comparative Study on the Efficacy of Solifenacin Succinate in Patients with Urinary Frequency with or without Urgency