Comparisons of the therapeutic safety of seven oral antimuscarinic drugs in patients with overactive bladder: a network meta-analysis

3Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objectives: This network meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety profiles of seven commonly used oral antimuscarinic drugs (darifenacin, fesoterodine, imidafenacin, oxybutynin, propiverine, solifenacin, and tolterodine) in patients with overactive bladder (OAB). Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies comparing one or more antimuscarinic drugs for treating OAB with reported adverse effects (AEs) were eligible. Data were extracted, and a network meta-analysis was performed by two authors independently. Results: Forty-five RCTs and 124,587 patients were included. The results demonstrated that tolterodine had better safety outcomes for 7 out of 12 major AEs, including dry mouth, constipation, urinary retention, dizziness, urinary tract infection, dry eyes, and dry skin. Darifenacin, fesoterodine, imidafenacin, oxybutynin, and solifenacin presented comparable safety profiles. Conclusions: Tolterodine may be preferable as it showed a reduced association with important AEs. Darifenacin, fesoterodine, imidafenacin, oxybutynin, and solifenacin have similar safety profiles in treating patients with OAB. Taken together, this analysis provides a valuable overview of the therapeutic safety for oral antimuscarinic drugs and is useful for personalized medicine in patients with OAB. Trial registration: This trial was retrospectively registered at INPLASY (https://inplasy.com/) with the registration number 202170095.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yang, N., Wu, Q., Xu, F., & Zhang, X. (2021). Comparisons of the therapeutic safety of seven oral antimuscarinic drugs in patients with overactive bladder: a network meta-analysis. Journal of International Medical Research, 49(9). https://doi.org/10.1177/03000605211042994

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free