Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29578880›Full record

Trial reportBlood pressure monitoring2018

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.

Michael A Weber, Christopher R Chapple, Christian Gratzke, Sender Herschorn, Dudley Robinson, Jeffrey M Frankel, Arwin M Ridder, Matthias Stoelzel, Asha Paireddy, Robert van Maanen and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Blood pressure monitoring, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Mirabegron in the Management of Overactive Bladder Syndrome.International journal of women's health · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Michael A WeberDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, State University of New York, Brooklyn, New York.
Christopher R ChappleDepartment of Urology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
Christian GratzkeDepartment of Urology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sender HerschornDivision of Urology, University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Dudley RobinsonDepartment of Urogynaecology, Kings College Hospital, London, UK.
Jeffrey M FrankelSeattle Urology Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Arwin M RidderAstellas Pharma Global Development, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Matthias StoelzelAstellas Pharma Global Development, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Asha PaireddyAstellas Pharma Global Development, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Robert van MaanenAstellas Pharma Global Development, Leiden, The Netherlands.
William B WhiteCalhoun Cardiology Center, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
Astellas Pharma (Netherlands) · NLGTx (United States) · USKing's College Hospital · GBLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DERoyal Hallamshire Hospital · GBSeattle University · USSunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversity of Connecticut · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe 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 β3-adrenoceptor agonist), or both compared with placebo in the SYNERGY trial. PATIENTS AND

methodsPatients 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.

resultsA 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.

conclusionsA 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.

Indexed as

Blood Pressure Monitoring, AmbulatoryAcetanilidesAgedBlood PressureDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHeart RateHumansMaleMiddle AgedSolifenacin SuccinateThiazolesAcetanilidesmirabegronSolifenacin SuccinateThiazoles

Identifiers

PMID29578880
PMCPMC5959217
OpenAlexW2790848779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.