Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled Clinical Trial with Propiverine Extended Release 30 Mg in Patients with Overactive Bladder.

Jing Leng,Limin Liao,Ben Wan,Chuanjun Du,Wei Li,Keji Xie,Zhoujun Shen,Zhuoqun Xu,Shiliang Wu,Zujun Fang,Lulin Ma,Shaomei Han,Cornelia Feustel,Yong Yang,Helmut Madersbacher
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13500
2016-01-01
BJU International
Abstract:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of the 30 mg extended release (ER) formulation of propiverine hydrochloride with the 4 mg ER formulation of tolterodine tartrate in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) in a non-inferiority trial.Patients and MethodsEligible patients, aged 18-75 years and with symptoms of OAB, were enrolled in this multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled study. After a 2-week screening period, patients were randomized at a 1: 1 ratio to receive either propiverine ER 30 mg or tolterodine ER 4 mg daily during the 8-week treatment period. Efficacy was assessed using a 3-day voiding diary and patient's self-reported assessment of treatment effect. Safety assessment included recording of adverse events, laboratory test results, measurement of post-void residual urine and electrocardiograms.ResultsA total of 324 patients (244 female and 80 male) were included in the study. Both active treatments improved the variables included in the voiding diary and in the patient's self-reported assessment. The change from baseline in the number of voidings per 24 h was significantly greater in the propiverine ER 30 mg group compared with the tolterodine ER 4 mg group after 8 weeks of treatment (full analysis set [FAS] -4.6 +/- 4.1 vs -3.8 +/- 5.1; P = 0.005). Significant improvements were also observed for the change of urgency incontinence episodes after 2 weeks (P = 0.026) and 8 weeks (P = 0.028) of treatment when comparing propiverine ER 30 mg with tolterodine ER 4 mg. Both treatments were well tolerated, with a similar frequency of adverse drug reactions in both the propiverine ER 30 mg and tolterodine ER 4 mg groups (FAS 40.7 vs 39.5%; P = 0.8). More patients treated with tolterodine ER 4 mg discontinued the treatment because of adverse drug reactions compared with propiverine ER 30 mg (7.4 vs 3.1%).ConclusionsPropiverine ER 30 mg was confirmed to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with OAB symptoms. This first head-to-head study showed non-inferiority of propiverine ER 30 mg compared with tolterodine ER 4 mg.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?