Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Mirabegron and Solifenacin in Combination Compared with Monotherapy in Patients with Overactive Bladder: A Randomised, Multicentre Phase 3 Study (SYNERGY II).

BACKGROUND: The long-term potential of solifenacin and mirabegron combination treatment for patients with overactive bladder (OAB) has not been previously assessed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of solifenacin succinate 5mg plus mirabegron 50mg tablets (combination treatment) versus solifenacin or mirabegron monotherapy in patients with OAB over 12 mo. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial (SYNERGY II) of patients with "wet" OAB symptoms (urinary frequency and urgency with incontinence) for ≥3 mo. The study was conducted from March 2014 to September 2016; with 1829 patients randomised. The full analysis set was comprised of 1794 patients. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary objective was safety, measured as treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy was measured as the change from baseline to the end of treatment in the mean number of incontinence episodes/24h and micturitions/24h. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The median age was 60 yr (range 19-86 yr) and 1434 patients (80%) were female. Overall, 856 patients (47%) experienced ≥1 TEAE. TEAE frequency was slightly higher in the combination group (596 patients, 49%; mirabegron 126 patients, 41%; solifenacin 134 patients, 44%). Serious TEAEs were reported by 67 patients (3.7%); one was considered possibly treatment-related (mirabegron group, atrial fibrillation). Dry mouth was the most common TEAE (combination 74 patients, 6.1%; solifenacin 18 patients, 5.9%; mirabegron 12 patients, 3.9%). Combination therapy was statistically superior to mirabegron and solifenacin for the number of incontinence episodes (vs mirabegron: adjusted mean difference [AMD] -0.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.7 to -0.2, p<0.001; vs solifenacin: AMD -0.1, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.1, p=0.002) and micturitions (vs mirabegron: AMD -0.5, 95% CI -0.8 to -0.2, p<0.001; vs solifenacin: AMD -0.4, 95% CI -0.7 to -0.1, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Mirabegron and solifenacin combination treatment for OAB symptoms was well tolerated over 12 mo and led to efficacy improvements over each monotherapy. This innovative combination is a treatment option that could become widely used in the clinic. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study looked at the safety and efficacy of a combination of solifenacin succinate 5mg plus mirabegron 50mg tablets over 12 mo in patients with the overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms of increased urination frequency, heightened urgency to urinate, and unintentional passing of urine. We compared this treatment with solifenacin succinate 5mg or mirabegron 50mg alone, and found that the combination treatment was well tolerated by patients and led to greater improvements in symptoms. This novel combination could be an improved treatment option in the clinical setting for patients with OAB. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02045862.

Cardiovascular Safety of the ß3 -Adrenoceptor Agonist Mirabegron and the Antimuscarinic Agent Solifenacin in the SYNERGY Trial.

There have been concerns that treatment of overactive bladder with ß3 -adrenoceptor agonists may potentially have detrimental cardiovascular (CV) side effects. We evaluated the CV safety of mirabegron, a ß3 -adrenoceptor agonist, alone and in combination therapy with the antimuscarinic agent solifenacin. The SYNERGY trial was a multinational, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo and active-controlled phase 3 trial. Patients were randomized to receive solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg (combination 5 + 50 mg), solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg (combination 5 + 25 mg), solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy, mirabegron 25 mg monotherapy, mirabegron 50 mg monotherapy, or placebo for a 12-week double-blind treatment period. A total of 3398 patients were included in the study. Mean changes from baseline to the end of therapy in ECG parameters were similar across treatment groups, although there was an increase in heart rate of 1 beat/minute in the mirabegron treatment groups. There were no clinically meaningful differences in change from baseline in QTcF between monotherapies and placebo and between monotherapies and combination therapy. There were very few major CV events: 1 of 853 (0.1%) with a nonfatal myocardial infarction in the combination 5 + 25 mg group, 2 of 848 (0.2%) with a nonfatal stroke in the combination 5 + 50 mg group, and no events in the other groups. This CV safety analysis of the combination of mirabegron and solifenacin showed rates of CV events comparable with those for monotherapy treatments based on assessments of vital signs, electrocardiograms, and adjudicated CV events.

A strategy utilizing ambulatory monitoring and home and clinic blood pressure measurements to optimize the safety evaluation of noncardiovascular drugs with potential for hemodynamic effects: a report from the SYNERGY trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform a blood pressure (BP) safety evaluation in patients with an overactive bladder receiving solifenacin (an antimuscarinic agent), mirabegron (a ß3-adrenoceptor agonist), or both compared with placebo in the SYNERGY trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive solifenacin 5 mg+mirabegron 50 mg (combination 5+50 mg); solifenacin 5 mg+mirabegron 25 mg (combination 5+25 mg); solifenacin 5 mg; mirabegron 50 mg; mirabegron 25 mg; or placebo for a double-blind 12-week treatment period. Systolic BP, diastolic BP, and heart rate were measured by ambulatory BP monitoring, and in the clinic or home. RESULTS: A total of 715 patients were analyzed in an ambulatory BP monitoring substudy. At the end of treatment, ambulatory BP monitoring measurements showed no consistent increases from baseline in the mean 24-h systolic BP or diastolic BP for combination versus monotherapy groups or for monotherapy groups versus placebo. Analysis of 1-h BP averages during the 6 h range that included the Tmax values of both study drugs showed no significant BP effects. Shift analysis (switch between different normotension/hypertension stages) did not show differences among the active and placebo groups, nor did outlier analysis of major BP changes differ between placebo and active treatment. Similarly, there were no significant signals in the 24-h heart rate. Office and home measurements were consistent with ambulatory BP monitoring findings. CONCLUSIONS: A paradigm of ambulatory BP monitoring analysis designed to test BP safety of noncardiovascular drugs showed that solifenacin plus mirabegron combination therapy during 12 weeks produced no meaningful changes in BP or heart rate.

Patient-reported outcomes from SYNERGY, a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study evaluating combinations of mirabegron and solifenacin compared with monotherapy and placebo in OAB patients.

AIMS: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of combinations of solifenacin and mirabegron compared with solifenacin and mirabegron monotherapy and with placebo in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from the SYNERGY trial. METHODS: Following a 4-week placebo run-in, period patients (≥18 years) with OAB were randomized 2:2:1:1:1:1 to receive solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg (combination 5 + 25 mg), solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg, (combination 5 + 50 mg), solifenacin 5 mg, mirabegron 25 mg, mirabegron 50 mg or placebo for 12 weeks, followed by a 2-week washout period. At each visit, PROs related to quality of life, symptom bother, and treatment satisfaction were assessed, including OAB-q Symptom Bother score, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) Total score, treatment satisfaction-visual analogue scale (TS-VAS), and patient perception of bladder condition (PPBC) questionnaires. RESULTS: Overall, 3527 patients were randomized into the study, with 3494 receiving double-blind treatment. At end of treatment (EoT), both combination groups showed greater improvements in OAB-q Symptom Bother score compared with the monotherapy groups (nominal P < 0.001). Statistically significant improvements in HRQOL Total scores were observed in the combination groups versus monotherapy groups (P ≤ 0.002). For both combination groups, the OAB-q Symptom Bother score responder rates at EoT were statistically significantly higher versus mirabegron monotherapy (P < 0.05). The mean adjusted changes from baseline to EoT for PPBC were greater in the combination groups compared with monotherapy groups. CONCLUSIONS: PROs showed that combination therapy provided clear improvements and an additive effect for many HRQOL parameters, including OAB-q Symptom Bother score, HRQOL Total score, and PPBC.

Efficacy and safety of combinations of mirabegron and solifenacin compared with monotherapy and placebo in patients with overactive bladder (SYNERGY study).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential of solifenacin 5 mg combined with mirabegron 25 or 50 mg to deliver superior efficacy compared with monotherapy, with acceptable tolerability, in the general overactive bladder (OAB) population with urinary incontinence (UI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: After a 4-week placebo run-in, patients aged ≥18 years with wet OAB (urgency, urinary frequency and UI) for ≥3 months who recorded on average ≥8 micturitions/24 h, ≥1 urgency episode/24 h, and ≥3 UI episodes over the 7-day micturition diary, were eligible for randomisation to double-blind treatment [2:2:1:1:1:1 ratio, solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg (combined S5 + M25 group); solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg (combined S5 + M50 group); solifenacin 5 mg; mirabegron 25 mg; mirabegron 50 mg; or placebo for 12 weeks], and 2-weeks' single-blind, placebo run-out. Co-primary efficacy variables were change from baseline to end of treatment (EoT) in the mean number of UI episodes/24 h and micturitions/24 h, assessed using a 7-day electronic micturition diary. Secondary efficacy variables included change from baseline to EoT in the mean volume voided/micturition, change from baseline at weeks 4, 8, 12 and EoT in mean number of UI episodes/24 h, micturitions/24 h, urgency episodes/24 h, urgency UI (UUI) episodes/24 h and nocturia episodes/24 h; the percentage of patients (responders) achieving zero UI episodes/24 h at EoT in the last 7 days prior to each visit, micturition frequency normalisation (<8 episodes/24 h) at weeks 4, 8, 12 and EoT; and the number of UUI episodes and nocturia episodes in the 7-day diary. Safety assessments included incidence and frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), post-void residual (PVR) urine volume, and changes from baseline in laboratory parameters. RESULTS: Whilst the combined S5 + M50 group was superior to solifenacin 5 mg for UI, with a mean (standard error) adjusted difference of -0.20 (0.12) UI episodes/24 h (95% confidence interval -0.44, 0.04, P = 0.033), there was no statistical superiority vs mirabegron 50 mg [-0.23 (0.12) UI episodes/24 h; P = 0.052]. In secondary analyses, all active treatment groups had greater improvements in UI episodes/24 h vs placebo, with effect sizes for the combined therapy groups (combined S5 + M25 group: -0.70 episodes/24 h; combined S5 + M50 group: -0.65 episodes/24 h) that were substantially higher than those obtained with monotherapy (range -0.37 episodes/24 h for mirabegron 25 mg to -0.45 episodes/24 h for solifenacin 5 mg). For micturitions/24 h, adjusted change from baseline to EoT was greater in the combined therapy groups vs monotherapies (combined S5 + M50 group, nominal P values 0.006 and <0.001 vs solifenacin 5 mg and mirabegron 50 mg, respectively; combined S5 + M25 group, nominal P values 0.040 and 0.001 vs solifenacin 5 mg and mirabegron 25 mg, respectively). All active treatment groups had greater improvements in the mean numbers of micturitions/24 h vs placebo, with effect sizes for the combined therapy groups (combined S5 + M25 group: -0.85 micturitions/24 h; combined S5 + M50 group: -0.95 micturitions/24 h) higher than with mirabegron monotherapy (25 mg: -0.36; 50 mg: -0.39 micturitions/24 h) and solifenacin 5 mg (-0.56 micturitions/24 h). The combined S5 + M50 group was statistically significantly superior to both monotherapies at EoT for UUI episodes, urgency episodes and nocturia, with effect sizes that appeared to be additive. The combined S5 + M25 group was statistically significantly superior to mirabegron 25 mg for the same variables, except for nocturia. In responder analyses at the EoT, odds ratios in favour of both combined therapies vs monotherapies were shown for the proportion of patients with zero UI episodes and those achieving micturition frequency normalisation. There was a slightly increased frequency of TEAEs in the combined therapy groups vs monotherapies and placebo. Most of the TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. Events indicative of urinary retention were reported slightly more frequently in the combined therapy groups vs monotherapy and placebo. PVR volume was slightly increased in the combined therapy groups vs solifenacin 5 mg, mirabegron monotherapy, and placebo groups. There were slightly higher frequencies of dry mouth, constipation, and dyspepsia in the combined therapy groups vs monotherapies. There were no concerns regarding electrocardiograms and laboratory data. CONCLUSION: In the largest OAB study to date, combined therapy with solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 25 mg and solifenacin 5 mg + mirabegron 50 mg provided consistent improvements in efficacy compared with the respective monotherapies across most of the outcome parameters, with effect sizes generally consistent with an additive effect. Although the combined S5 + M50 group did not achieve a statistically significant effect vs mirabegron 50 mg in the primary analysis of one of the co-primary endpoints (change from baseline in mean number of UI episodes/24 h), it approached statistical significance (P = 0.052), and the nominal P values for the other co-primary endpoint (micturitions/24 h) were <0.05. Most effects of combined therapy vs monotherapy were observable by week 4. The clinical relevance of the improvements seen with combined therapy for several objective OAB outcome measures was also supported by the improvements of combined therapy vs monotherapy in the responder analyses.

Electronic bladder diaries of differing duration versus a paper diary for data collection in overactive bladder.

AIMS: This observational study compared data values, reliability, consistency and compliance collected by electronic and paper diaries of differing durations. METHODS: Subjects ≥18 years with overactive bladder (OAB) on stable antimuscarinic treatment for ≥12 weeks were assigned to one of five, 15-week diary schedules in this randomized, parallel-group observational study. Sample size was sufficient to assess reliability and consistency of diary data with adequate precision. Reliability was assessed via intraclass correlation coefficients, variability with ANCOVAs, and consistency using Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics of randomized subjects were representative of OAB trial populations. For mean volume voided, reliability was comparable across diary groups. For incontinence, reliability improved with increasing diary duration. For micturition frequency, electronic 7-day diary results had highest reliability and lowest variability. Lowest overall reliability was observed in the 3-day paper diary. Consistency was highest in the electronic continuous groups; Cont A (daily measurements throughout the study period [fully Continuous]) and Cont B (daily measurements for some but not all endpoints of interest [Partially Continuous]). Compliance was generally high; across groups ≥90% of diaries had at least one entry per day. There was no significant change in average micturition frequency with diary duration, suggesting no diary fatigue. One-third of subjects in the electronic Cont B group also reported micturitions as incontinence when they only needed to report incontinence; they also reported lowest satisfaction with the study. The electronic 7-day and electronic Cont A schedules (who reported incontinence and micturitions throughout the study) had lowest residual errors. CONCLUSIONS: For future OAB trials, 7-day or continuous electronic diaries may improve accuracy and reliability of micturition and incontinence frequency data compared with shorter collection periods and paper diaries. Neurourol. Urodynam. 35:743-749, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Combination treatment with mirabegron and solifenacin in patients with overactive bladder: efficacy and safety results from a randomised, double-blind, dose-ranging, phase 2 study (Symphony).

BACKGROUND: Combining the ß3-adrenoceptor agonist mirabegron and the antimuscarinic (AM) agent solifenacin may improve efficacy in the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB) while reducing the AM side effects. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of combinations of solifenacin/mirabegron compared with solifenacin 5mg monotherapy. The secondary objective was to explore the dose-response relationship and the safety/tolerability compared with placebo and monotherapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A phase 2, factorial design, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo- and monotherapy-controlled trial, conducted at 141 sites in 20 European countries. Male and female patients were aged ≥18 yr with symptoms of OAB for ≥3 mo. INTERVENTION: A total of 1306 patients (66.4% female) were randomised to 12 wk of treatment in 1 of 12 groups: 6 combination groups (solifenacin 2.5, 5, or 10 mg plus mirabegron 25 or 50 mg), 5 monotherapy groups (solifenacin 2.5, 5, or 10 mg, or mirabegron 25 or 50 mg), or placebo. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Change from baseline to end of treatment in mean volume voided per micturition (MVV) (primary end point) and mean numbers of micturitions per 24 h, incontinence episodes per 24 h, and urgency episodes per 24 h were analysed using an analysis of covariance model. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), blood pressure, pulse rate, postvoid residual (PVR) volume, and laboratory and electrocardiography (ECG) parameters. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Compared with solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy, all combinations with solifenacin 5 or 10 mg significantly improved MVV, with adjusted differences ranging from 18.0 ml (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-30.0) to 26.3 ml (95% CI, 12.0-41.0). Three combination groups significantly reduced micturition frequency compared with solifenacin 5 mg, ranging from -0.80 (95% CI, -1.39 to -0.22) to -0.98 (95% CI, -1.68 to -0.27). Five of six combinations significantly reduced urgency episodes compared with solifenacin 5 mg, ranging from -0.98 (95% CI, -1.78, to -0.18) to -1.37 (95% CI, -2.03 to -0.70). No dose-related trends in TEAEs, blood pressure, pulse rate, PVR volume, or laboratory or ECG parameters were observed between combination and monotherapy groups, although the incidence of constipation was slightly increased with combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with solifenacin/mirabegron significantly improved MVV, micturition frequency, and urgency compared with solifenacin 5 mg monotherapy. All combinations were well tolerated, with no important additional safety findings compared with monotherapy or placebo. PATIENT SUMMARY: To improve treatment of overactive bladder (OAB), mirabegron/solifenacin in combination was compared with each drug alone and placebo. Combination therapy improved OAB symptoms and had similar safety and acceptability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials.gov: NCT01340027.