Comparison of fesoterodine and tolterodine extended release for the treatment of overactive bladder: a head-to-head placebo-controlled trial
Version of Record online: 16 DEC 2009
© 2009 THE AUTHORS. JOURNAL COMPILATION © 2009 BJU INTERNATIONAL
Volume 105, Issue 1, pages 58–66, January 2010
How to Cite
Herschorn, S., Swift, S., Guan, Z., Carlsson, M., Morrow, J. D., Brodsky, M. and Gong, J. (2010), Comparison of fesoterodine and tolterodine extended release for the treatment of overactive bladder: a head-to-head placebo-controlled trial. BJU International, 105: 58–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09086.x
- Issue online: 16 DEC 2009
- Version of Record online: 16 DEC 2009
- Accepted for publication 7 October 2009
- patient-reported outcomes;
- quality of life
Study Type – Therapy (RCT) Level of Evidence 1b
To compare the efficacy and tolerability of fesoterodine 8 mg with tolterodine extended-release (ER) 4 mg and placebo in a randomized clinical trial of patients with an overactive bladder (OAB).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
In this 12-week double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, eligible patients reported OAB symptoms for ≥3 months and recorded ≥8 voids and ≥1 urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) episode per 24 h in 3-day bladder diaries at baseline. Patients were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to fesoterodine (4 mg for 1 week then 8 mg for 11 weeks); tolterodine ER 4 mg; or placebo (with sham dose escalation for tolterodine ER and placebo). Endpoints were changes from baseline to week 12 in UUI episodes (primary endpoint), total and nocturnal voids, urgency episodes, severe urgency episodes, and frequency-urgency sum per 24 h; mean voided volume per void (MVV); and the OAB questionnaire (OAB-q), Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC), and Urgency Perception Scale (UPS). Safety and tolerability were assessed and summarized over the 12-week study period.
Fesoterodine (636 patients) significantly improved UUI episodes at week 12 (primary endpoint) compared with tolterodine ER (641 patients; P = 0.017) and placebo (313 patients; P < 0.001). Fesoterodine also produced significantly greater improvements than tolterodine ER in MVV (P = 0.005). Fesoterodine significantly improved all diary endpoints compared with placebo (P < 0.001), except for nocturnal voids (P = 0.327). Tolterodine ER significantly improved all diary endpoints vs placebo (P < 0.001), except for nocturnal voids (P = 0.506) and MVV (P = 0.103). Diary dry rates (the proportion of patients reporting no UUI episodes at endpoint among those with one or more UUI episodes at baseline) were significantly higher with fesoterodine (64%) than with tolterodine ER (57%; P = 0.015) and placebo (45%; P < 0.001). Improvements in PPBC, UPS and OAB-q scale and domain scores at week 12 were all significantly better with fesoterodine than placebo (all P < 0.001) and tolterodine ER (all P < 0.05) except for the OAB-q Sleep domain vs tolterodine ER (P = 0.081). Dry mouth and constipation rates were 28% and 5% in the fesoterodine group, 16% and 4% in the tolterodine ER group, and 6% and 3% with placebo, respectively. Discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events were 6%, 4% and 2% in the fesoterodine, tolterodine ER, and placebo groups, respectively.
In patients with OAB, fesoterodine 8 mg showed superior efficacy over tolterodine ER 4 mg and placebo in reducing UUI episodes (primary endpoint) and in improving most patient-reported outcome measures. Both active treatments were well tolerated.