ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2013
Observational study on safety and tolerability of duloxetine in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence in German routine practice.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adverse Events Associated with Nonsurgical Treatments for Urinary Incontinence in Women: a Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Opportunities and Challenges for Drug Development: Public-Private Partnerships, Adaptive Designs and Big Data.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate the safety and tolerability of duloxetine during routine clinical care in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in Germany, and in particular, to identify previously unrecognized safety issues as uncommon adverse reactions, and the influence of confounding factors present in clinical practice on the safety profile of duloxetine.
methodsOffice-based urologists, gynaecologists and primary care physicians were asked to document women newly started on treatment for moderate to severe symptoms of SUI. Six thousand eight hundred and fifty-four patients from urologist/gynaecologist practices and 5879 primary care patients were assessed. In a two-armed, observational study with parallel 12 week (urologists and gynaecologists) or 24 week (primary care physicians) design, patients were treated with duloxetine or other conservative treatment. The main outcome measure was the occurrence of adverse events (AEs).
resultsBaseline characteristics differed slightly between patient groups and studies. Duloxetine doses in most patients were lower than recommended. Overall, AE frequency with duloxetine was lower than in controlled studies (15.9% (95% CI 14.9, 16.9) and 9.1% (95% CI 8.2, 10.0) in the 12 and 24 week treatment groups, respectively), but exhibited a similar qualitative spectrum. In the logistic regression models, the following factors were associated with greater AE risk: investigator specialization (gynaecologist vs. urologist and primary care physician), initial duloxetine dose (80 vs. 20 mg day(-1) ) and use of any concomitant medication. Within the 24 week study, a positive screen for depressive disorder was surprisingly common, but no case of attempted suicide was reported in either study.
conclusionsOur results from German clinical practice show that women with SUI were often treated with duloxetine doses lower than recommended. This was associated with a low incidence of AEs. Suicide attempts were not reported.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.