IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0317550.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of efficacy and safety of mirabegron and vibegron in the treatment of Overactive Bladder (OAB) in older women: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Jiankun Zhang
  • Junpeng Chi
  • Keyuan Lou
  • Junjie Zhao
  • Feng Gao
  • Yuanshan Cui

Abstract

Background: After the introduction of anticholinergic drugs for the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB), the discovery of β-adrenergic agonists has helped reduce the side effects associated with the former. Currently, the two available medications, mirabegron and vibegron, are β-adrenergic agonists. However, clinical practitioners are still faced with the dilemma of which drug to choose. Objective: To analyze and compare the efficacy and adverse effects of the two medications. Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials using mirabegron and vibegron for the treatment of OAB. Databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched. The search cutoff date was July 25 2024. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using standardized methods. A meta-analysis was then conducted using RevMan software and a random-effects model, with studies weighted according to sample size and variance. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan, and results were presented as effect sizes (e.g., mean difference or risk ratio). Results: Three randomized controlled trials compared the safety and efficacy of mirabegron and vibegron head-to-head, involving 368 patients. The trials, each lasting 8 or 12 weeks. The trials compared the changes in various indices of the OABSS (Overactive Bladder Symptom Score) between the two drugs. The statistical methods used in the analysis included Mean Difference (MD), 95% Confidence Interval (CI), p-value, and I² statistic. For OABSS: MD = 0.38, 95% CI = − 0.19 to 0.95, p = 0.28, I² = 21%; for Q1: MD = 0.08, 95% CI = − 0.01 to 0.26, p = 0.31, I² = 4%; for Q2: MD = 0.08, 95% CI = − 0.21 to 0.37, p = 0.67, I² = 0%; for Q3: MD = 0.05, 95% CI = − 0.45 to 0.56, p = 0.90, I² = 0%; for Q4: MD = − 0.21, 95% CI = − 0.68 to 0.27, p = 0.35, I² = 0%. The relative risk (RR) of adverse effects between the two drugs was: RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.57 to 1.34, p = 0.27, I² = 25%; for constipation: RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.37 to 1.43, p = 0.27, I² = 25%; and for dry mouth: RR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.42 to 2.30, p = 0.78, I² = 0%. Conclusion: There appears to be no statistically significant difference in efficacy and safety between mirabegron and vibegron for OAB patients. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm these results.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiankun Zhang & Junpeng Chi & Keyuan Lou & Junjie Zhao & Feng Gao & Yuanshan Cui, 2025. "Comparison of efficacy and safety of mirabegron and vibegron in the treatment of Overactive Bladder (OAB) in older women: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(4), pages 1-12, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0317550
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317550
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0317550
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0317550&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0317550?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0317550. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.