Skip to content

A Study Of Efficacy And Safety Of Fesoterodine In Vulnerable Elderly Subjects With Overactive Bladder

A 12-Week, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group, Multicenter Trial To Evaluate The Efficacy And Safety Of Fesoterodine Flexible Dose Regimen In Vulnerable Elderly Patients With Overactive Bladder.

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00928070
Enrollment
566
Registered
2009-06-25
Start date
2009-09-30
Completion date
2011-09-30
Last updated
2013-01-17

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Overactive Bladder

Keywords

Urgency Urinary Incontinence OAB

Brief summary

This study is designed to assess the efficacy and safety of a flexible dose regimen of fesoterodine on urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) episodes in vulnerable elderly subjects with overactive bladder (OAB).

Interventions

DRUGFesoterodine

Fesoterodine 4 mg and 8 mg

DRUGPlacebo

Placebo sham 4 mg and 8 mg

Sponsors

Pfizer
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
65 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* male or female subjects 65 years of age or older * OAB symptoms for at least 3 months * score 3 or greater on Vulnerable Elderly Survey (VES-13) * adequate mobility for independent toileting * mean number of at least 2 UUI episodes per 24 hours * mean urinary frequency of 8 or more micturitions per 24 hours * able to independently complete the bladder diaries

Exclusion criteria

* PVR urinary volume greater than 200 ml * MMSE score less than 20 * greater than 15 UUI episodes per 24 hours * creatinine clearance less than 30 ml/min * an average resting heart rate of greater than or equal to 90 beats per minute

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Mean Number of Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 HoursBaselineUUI episodes were defined as those with the Urinary Sensation Scale (USS) rating of 5 in the diary. USS total range 1 to 5: 1. No feeling of urgency, 2. Mild feeling of urgency, 3. Moderate feeling of urgency, 4. Severe feeling of urgency, 5. Unable to hold; leak urine.
Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 12Baseline, Week 12UUI episodes were defined as those with the USS rating of 5 in the diary. USS total range 1 to 5: 1. No feeling of urgency, 2. Mild feeling of urgency, 3. Moderate feeling of urgency, 4. Severe feeling of urgency, 5. Unable to hold; leak urine.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percent Change From Baseline in Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline, Week 4, 12Percent change of UUI episodes per 24 hours was calculated as change in 24-hour mean at that visit divided by the baseline 24-hour mean multiplied by 100 (i.e., 100\*(Week 4 or 12 - baseline)/baseline).
Mean Number of Micturitions Per 24 HoursBaselineMicturitions include episodes of voluntary micturition and episodes of UUI. UUI episodes were defined as those micturitions with USS rating of 5 in the diary in participants with UUI at baseline. USS rating 5: Unable to hold; leak urine.
Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Micturitions Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline, Week 4, 12Micturitions include episodes of voluntary micturition and episodes of UUI. UUI episodes were defined as those micturitions with USS rating of 5 in the diary in participants with UUI at baseline. USS rating 5: Unable to hold; leak urine.
Mean Number of Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 HoursBaselineThe mean number of micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours was calculated as the total number of micturitions with USS rating of greater than or equal to (\>=) 3 divided by the total number of days that diary data was collected at that visit. USS total range 1 to 5: 1. No feeling of urgency, 2. Mild feeling of urgency, 3. Moderate feeling of urgency, 4. Severe feeling of urgency, 5. Unable to hold; leak urine.
Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline, Week 4, 12The mean number of micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours was calculated as the total number of micturitions with USS rating of greater than or equal to (\>=) 3 divided by the total number of days that diary data was collected at that visit. USS total range 1 to 5: 1. No feeling of urgency, 2. Mild feeling of urgency, 3. Moderate feeling of urgency, 4. Severe feeling of urgency, 5. Unable to hold; leak urine.
Percent Change From Baseline in Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline, Week 4, 12Percent change of micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours was calculated as change in 24-hour mean at that visit divided by the baseline 24-hour mean multiplied by 100 (i.e., 100\*(Week 4 or 12 - baseline)/baseline).
Mean Number of Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 HoursBaselineNocturnal micturition-related urgency episodes had USS rating of 3 or more that occurred between time participant went to bed and time he or she arose to start next day. Number of nocturnal micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours was calculated as sum of all nocturnal micturition-related urgency episodes divided by total number of diary days collected at that visit.
Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline, Week 4, 12Nocturnal micturition-related urgency episodes had USS rating of 3 or more that occurred between time participant went to bed and time he or she arose to start next day. Number of nocturnal micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours was calculated as sum of all nocturnal micturition-related urgency episodes divided by total number of diary days collected at that visit.
Percent Change From Baseline in Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline, Week 4, 12Percent change of nocturnal micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours was calculated as change in 24-hour mean at that visit divided by the baseline 24-hour mean multiplied by 100 (i.e., 100\*(Week 4 or 12 - baseline)/baseline).
Frequency-Urgency Sum Rating Per 24 HoursBaselineFrequency-urgency sum is total USS ratings recorded for all micturitions in 24-hour day. Number of USS ratings per 24 hours is sum of all USS ratings divided by the total diary days collected at that visit. USS scale: 1=No feeling of urgency to 5=Unable to hold: leak urine.
Change From Baseline in Frequency-Urgency Sum Rating Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline, Week 4, 12Frequency-urgency sum is total USS ratings recorded for all micturitions in 24-hour day. Number of USS ratings per 24 hours is sum of all USS ratings divided by the total diary days collected at that visit. USS scale: 1=No feeling of urgency to 5=Unable to hold: leak urine. Numerical decrease indicates improvement.
Percent Change From Baseline in Micturitions Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline, Week 4, 12Percent change of micturitions per 24 hours was calculated as change in 24-hour mean at that visit divided by the baseline 24-hour mean multiplied by 100 (i.e., 100\*(Week 4 or 12 - baseline)/baseline).
Percentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Screening, Week 4, 12PPBC: a self-administered, single-item, questionnaire that asks participants to describe their perception of their bladder-related problems. The PPBC assessment is rated on a 6-point scale: 1=no problems at all, 2=some very minor problems, 3=some minor problems, 4=moderate problems, 5=severe problems, 6=many severe problems. Deterioration=score difference is greater than 0; no change=score difference is 0; minor improvement=score difference is -1; major difference=score difference is less than or equal to -2.
Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) Symptom Bother ScoreBaselineOAB-q: a self-administered, 33-item, questionnaire that assesses how much the participant has been bothered by selected bladder symptoms. Each item rated by participant on Likert scale 1 (least symptom bother) to 6 (most symptom bother). Symptom bother score derived as sum of scores for questions 1-8; lowest possible raw score: 8; highest possible score: 48. Data analyzed based on transformation of the score to a 0 to 100 scale \[(Actual total raw score - lowest possible value of raw score)/range\]\*100. Higher scores values indicative of greater symptom bother.
Change From Baseline in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) Symptom Bother Score at Week 4 and 12Baseline, Week 4, 12OAB-q: a self-administered, 33-item, questionnaire that assesses how much the participant has been bothered by selected bladder symptoms. Each item rated by participant on Likert scale 1 (least symptom bother) to 6 (most symptom bother). Symptom bother score derived as sum of scores for questions 1-8; lowest possible raw score: 8; highest possible score: 48. Data analyzed based on transformation of the score to a 0 to 100 scale \[(Actual total raw score - lowest possible value of raw score)/range\]\*100. Higher scores values indicative of greater symptom bother.
Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q)BaselineOAB-q: self-administered, 33-item, questionnaire, assesses how much participant has been bothered by selected bladder symptoms. Each item rated on Likert scale 1 (least symptom bother) to 6 (most symptom bother). Questions 9 to 33 constitute HRQL, includes domains: concern, coping, sleep, and social function. HRQL domain and total raw score derived as sum of scores. Transformed score range 0 to 100 (Total HRQL or domain) = \[(Highest possible raw score-Actual total raw score)/Raw score range\]\*100. Higher transformed scores indicative of better HRQL.
Change From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Baseline, Week 4, 12OAB-q: self-administered, 33-item, questionnaire, assesses how much participant has been bothered by selected bladder symptoms. Each item rated on Likert scale 1 (least symptom bother) to 6 (most symptom bother). Questions 9 to 33 constitute HRQL, includes domains: concern, coping, sleep, and social function. HRQL domain and total raw score derived as sum of scores. Transformed score range 0 to 100 (Total HRQL or domain) = \[(Highest possible raw score-Actual total raw score)/Raw score range\]\*100. Higher transformed scores indicative of better HRQL.
Overactive Bladder Satisfaction Questionnaire (OAB-S) Total Score on Satisfaction With OAB ControlWeek 12OAB-S: a validated self-administered instrument that evaluates OAB medication expectations, daily life with AB, and satisfaction with OAB medication and includes 3 stand-alone items that assess overall expectation, satisfaction, and willingness to continue treatment. Satisfaction coded on scale of 1 to 5: (1=very satisfied to 5=very dissatisfied). Coding reversed algorithmically and results transformed: total score range 0 to100. Higher final response value associated with better satisfaction.
Percentage of Participants With Overactive Bladder Satisfaction Questionnaire (OAB-S) Global Medication Satisfaction Question ResponseWeek 12Participant's response to question, overall, how satisfied are you with your OAB medication? was obtained on a 5 point scale, 1- very satisfied, 2- somewhat satisfied, 3- neither dissatisfied nor satisfied, 4- somewhat dissatisfied and 5- very dissatisfied. Response values 1 and 2 were combined into satisfied, and 4 and 5 were combined into dissatisfied.
Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE)ScreeningMMSE measured general cognitive functioning: orientation, memory, attention, calculation, language, visuospatial functions. Total score derived from sub-scores; total ranges from 0 to 30, higher score indicates better cognitive state.
Change From Screening in Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) Score at Week 12Screening, Week 12MMSE measured general cognitive functioning: orientation, memory, attention, calculation, language, visuospatial functions. Total score derived from sub-scores; total ranges from 0 to 30, higher score indicates better cognitive state. Change: mean score at Week X minus mean score at baseline
Change From Baseline in Post Void Residual (PVR) Volume at Week 4 and 12Baseline, Week 4, 12PVR volume is defined as volume of urine remaining in the bladder immediately after urination.
Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline, Week 4, 12Protective Undergarments included pads, protective padding, protective underwear (pull up), and briefs (diaper). The mean number of undergarments changed per 24 hours was calculated as the total number of undergarments changed divided by the total number of diary days collected at that visit. Change from baseline values were reported at week 4 for subsets of population with baseline values less than or equal to (=\<) 3.5 and more than (\>) 3.5 undergarments/day and at Week 12 for subsets of population with baseline values =\< 2.5 and \> 2.5 undergarments/day.
Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4Baseline, Week 4UUI episodes were defined as those with the USS rating of 5 in the diary. USS total range 1 to 5: 1. No feeling of urgency, 2. Mild feeling of urgency, 3. Moderate feeling of urgency, 4. Severe feeling of urgency, 5. Unable to hold; leak urine.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Placebo
Participants who received placebo matched to fesoterodine 4 milligram (mg) oral tablet once daily for 4 weeks followed by placebo matched to fesoterodine 8 mg once daily as part of optional dose escalation at investigator's discretion for remaining 8 weeks.
281
Fesoterodine
Participants who received fesoterodine 4 mg oral tablet once daily for 4 weeks followed by an optional dose-escalation to 8 mg once daily at investigator's discretion for remaining 8 weeks.
281
Total562

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyAdverse Event1426
Overall StudyDid not meet entrance criteria169
Overall StudyLack of Efficacy95
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up12
Overall StudyOther55
Overall StudyProtocol Violation65
Overall StudyRandomized but not treated22
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject103

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicPlaceboFesoterodineTotal
Age, Customized
65 to 74 years
134 participants145 participants279 participants
Age, Customized
75 to 84 years
118 participants106 participants224 participants
Age, Customized
At least 85 years
29 participants30 participants59 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
236 Participants225 Participants461 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
45 Participants56 Participants101 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
120 / 281155 / 281
serious
Total, serious adverse events
6 / 2818 / 281

Outcome results

Primary

Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 12

UUI episodes were defined as those with the USS rating of 5 in the diary. USS total range 1 to 5: 1. No feeling of urgency, 2. Mild feeling of urgency, 3. Moderate feeling of urgency, 4. Severe feeling of urgency, 5. Unable to hold; leak urine.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: FAS population. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was used to impute only Week 12 missing data but not Week 4 missing data. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had baseline UUI episodes greater than 0 per 24 hours and non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 12-2.20 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.15
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 12-2.84 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.15
Comparison: Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with terms for treatment, center, centered baseline, and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.001895% CI: [-1.05, -0.24]ANCOVA
Primary

Mean Number of Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours

UUI episodes were defined as those with the Urinary Sensation Scale (USS) rating of 5 in the diary. USS total range 1 to 5: 1. No feeling of urgency, 2. Mild feeling of urgency, 3. Moderate feeling of urgency, 4. Severe feeling of urgency, 5. Unable to hold; leak urine.

Time frame: Baseline

Population: Full analysis set (FAS) population included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug and had at least 1 baseline or post-baseline efficacy assessment. 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had baseline UUI episodes greater than 0 per 24 hours and non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboMean Number of Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours3.93 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Deviation 2.16
FesoterodineMean Number of Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours4.07 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Deviation 2.33
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Frequency-Urgency Sum Rating Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12

Frequency-urgency sum is total USS ratings recorded for all micturitions in 24-hour day. Number of USS ratings per 24 hours is sum of all USS ratings divided by the total diary days collected at that visit. USS scale: 1=No feeling of urgency to 5=Unable to hold: leak urine. Numerical decrease indicates improvement.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 12

Population: FAS population. LOCF method was used to impute only Week 12 missing data but not Week 4 missing data. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had baseline frequency urgency sum rating greater than 0 per 24 hours and non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Frequency-Urgency Sum Rating Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-6.95 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.86
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Frequency-Urgency Sum Rating Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-11.53 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.84
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Frequency-Urgency Sum Rating Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-11.62 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.86
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Frequency-Urgency Sum Rating Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-16.50 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.84
Comparison: Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.000195% CI: [-7.04, -2.3]ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-7.27, -2.66]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12

OAB-q: self-administered, 33-item, questionnaire, assesses how much participant has been bothered by selected bladder symptoms. Each item rated on Likert scale 1 (least symptom bother) to 6 (most symptom bother). Questions 9 to 33 constitute HRQL, includes domains: concern, coping, sleep, and social function. HRQL domain and total raw score derived as sum of scores. Transformed score range 0 to 100 (Total HRQL or domain) = \[(Highest possible raw score-Actual total raw score)/Raw score range\]\*100. Higher transformed scores indicative of better HRQL.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 12

Population: FAS population included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug and had at least 1 baseline or post-baseline efficacy assessment. LOCF method was used to impute Week 12 missing data. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had non-missing change from baseline value at both Week 4 and 12.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: concern domain12.35 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.61
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: coping domain12.90 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.65
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: sleeping domain13.33 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.56
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: social interaction domain8.77 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.19
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: total12.00 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.37
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: concern domain17.20 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.7
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: coping domain20.34 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.72
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: sleeping domain19.05 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.63
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: social interaction domain12.12 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.26
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: total17.55 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.46
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: sleeping domain23.10 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.63
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: concern domain20.51 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.61
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: concern domain26.24 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.7
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: coping domain19.86 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.66
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: total23.08 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.46
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: sleeping domain17.33 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.56
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: coping domain25.66 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.72
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: social interaction domain11.22 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.19
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: social interaction domain14.47 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.26
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: total17.80 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.38
Comparison: Change at Week 4: concern domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [4.09, 12.25]ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 4: coping domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.001295% CI: [2.77, 11.15]ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 4: sleep domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.047295% CI: [0.05, 7.95]ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 4: social interaction domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.108795% CI: [-0.55, 5.46]ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 4: total- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.001295% CI: [2.31, 9.28]ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 12: concern domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [4.75, 13.33]ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 12: coping domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.016995% CI: [0.96, 9.67]ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 12: sleep domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.054695% CI: [-0.08, 8.17]ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 12: social interaction domain- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.149795% CI: [-0.85, 5.55]ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 12: total- ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.003495% CI: [1.84, 9.23]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12

The mean number of micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours was calculated as the total number of micturitions with USS rating of greater than or equal to (\>=) 3 divided by the total number of days that diary data was collected at that visit. USS total range 1 to 5: 1. No feeling of urgency, 2. Mild feeling of urgency, 3. Moderate feeling of urgency, 4. Severe feeling of urgency, 5. Unable to hold; leak urine.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 12

Population: FAS population. LOCF method was used to impute only Week 12 missing data but not Week 4 missing data. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had baseline urgency episodes greater than 0 per 24 hours and non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-1.64 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-2.75 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.25
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-2.74 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.24
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-4.15 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.25
Comparison: Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.001495% CI: [-1.77, -0.43]ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-2.1, -0.7]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Micturitions Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12

Micturitions include episodes of voluntary micturition and episodes of UUI. UUI episodes were defined as those micturitions with USS rating of 5 in the diary in participants with UUI at baseline. USS rating 5: Unable to hold; leak urine.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 12

Population: FAS population. LOCF method was used to impute only Week 12 missing data but not Week 4 missing data. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had baseline micturition frequency greater than 0 per 24 hours and non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Micturitions Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-0.77 micturitions per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.17
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Micturitions Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-1.50 micturitions per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.16
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Micturitions Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-1.64 micturitions per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.17
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Micturitions Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-2.34 micturitions per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.16
Comparison: Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.000395% CI: [-1.35, -0.4]ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.000395% CI: [-1.29, -0.39]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12

Nocturnal micturition-related urgency episodes had USS rating of 3 or more that occurred between time participant went to bed and time he or she arose to start next day. Number of nocturnal micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours was calculated as sum of all nocturnal micturition-related urgency episodes divided by total number of diary days collected at that visit.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 12

Population: FAS population. LOCF method was used to impute only Week 12 missing data but not Week 4 missing data. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had baseline nocturnal urgency episodes greater than 0 per 24 hours and non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-0.44 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.09
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-0.68 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.09
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-0.58 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.09
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-0.97 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.09
Comparison: Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered Baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.251195% CI: [-0.39, 0.1]ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered Baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.018995% CI: [-0.53, -0.05]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12

Protective Undergarments included pads, protective padding, protective underwear (pull up), and briefs (diaper). The mean number of undergarments changed per 24 hours was calculated as the total number of undergarments changed divided by the total number of diary days collected at that visit. Change from baseline values were reported at week 4 for subsets of population with baseline values less than or equal to (=\<) 3.5 and more than (\>) 3.5 undergarments/day and at Week 12 for subsets of population with baseline values =\< 2.5 and \> 2.5 undergarments/day.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 12

Population: FAS population. LOCF method was used to impute only Week 12 missing data but not Week 4 missing data. Here, 'n' is signifying those participants of the population subsets who were evaluated for this measure at the time point for each group respectively.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline: =<3.5 undergarments (n=193,184)1.41 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 0.84
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline: >3.5 undergarments (n=12,19)4.97 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 1.84
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline: =<2.5 undergarments (n=172,169)1.21 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 0.63
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline: >2.5 undergarments (n=35,35)3.71 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 1.42
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: =<3.5 undergarments(n=193,184)-0.27 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 1.13
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: >3.5 undergarments(n=12,19)-2.56 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 3.07
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: =<2.5 undergarments(n=172,169)-0.31 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 1.06
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: >2.5 undergarments(n=35,35)-2.14 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 2.06
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: >2.5 undergarments(n=35,35)-1.98 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 1.86
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline: =<3.5 undergarments (n=193,184)1.49 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 0.74
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: =<3.5 undergarments(n=193,184)-0.61 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 1.09
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline: >3.5 undergarments (n=12,19)4.81 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 0.92
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: =<2.5 undergarments(n=172,169)-0.72 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 0.82
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline: =<2.5 undergarments (n=172,169)1.35 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 0.62
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: >3.5 undergarments(n=12,19)-2.11 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 3.38
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Protective Undergarments Changed Due to Urinary Leakage Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Baseline: >2.5 undergarments (n=35,35)3.94 undergarmentsStandard Deviation 1.18
Comparison: Change at Week 4: =\<3.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<3.5/day and \>3.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.p-value: 0.003595% CI: [-0.56, -0.11]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change at Week 4: \>3.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<3.5/day and \>3.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.p-value: 0.708995% CI: [-2.01, 2.92]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change at Week 12: =\<2.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<2.5/day and \>2.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-0.61, -0.21]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change at Week 12: \>2.5 undergarments- Protective undergarment usage was analyzed to compare treatments on separate subsets, based on baseline protective undergarment use (=\<2.5/day and \>2.5/day), using a 2 sample t-test. This method was applied because there was a statistically significant qualitative baseline by treatment interaction.p-value: 0.743795% CI: [-0.78, 1.09]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4

UUI episodes were defined as those with the USS rating of 5 in the diary. USS total range 1 to 5: 1. No feeling of urgency, 2. Mild feeling of urgency, 3. Moderate feeling of urgency, 4. Severe feeling of urgency, 5. Unable to hold; leak urine.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4

Population: FAS population included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug and had at least 1 baseline or post-baseline efficacy assessment. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had baseline UUI episodes greater than 0 per 24 hours and non-missing change from baseline value at Week 4.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4-1.54 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.16
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Mean Number of Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4-2.36 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Error 0.16
Comparison: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, center, centered baseline, and centered baseline by treatment interaction was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.000395% CI: [-1.27, -0.38]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) Symptom Bother Score at Week 4 and 12

OAB-q: a self-administered, 33-item, questionnaire that assesses how much the participant has been bothered by selected bladder symptoms. Each item rated by participant on Likert scale 1 (least symptom bother) to 6 (most symptom bother). Symptom bother score derived as sum of scores for questions 1-8; lowest possible raw score: 8; highest possible score: 48. Data analyzed based on transformation of the score to a 0 to 100 scale \[(Actual total raw score - lowest possible value of raw score)/range\]\*100. Higher scores values indicative of greater symptom bother.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 12

Population: FAS population. LOCF method was used to impute only Week 12 missing data but not Week 4 missing data. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had non-missing change from baseline value at both Weeks 4 and 12.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) Symptom Bother Score at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-13.81 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.46
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) Symptom Bother Score at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-20.48 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.58
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) Symptom Bother Score at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-22.96 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.46
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) Symptom Bother Score at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-28.08 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.58
Comparison: Change at Week 4: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-12.85, -5.45]ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 12: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with centered baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.000295% CI: [-11.6, -3.61]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Post Void Residual (PVR) Volume at Week 4 and 12

PVR volume is defined as volume of urine remaining in the bladder immediately after urination.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 12

Population: FAS population. LOCF method was used to impute only Week 12 missing data but not Week 4 missing data. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Post Void Residual (PVR) Volume at Week 4 and 12Baseline26.51 mLStandard Deviation 35.36
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Post Void Residual (PVR) Volume at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 41.83 mLStandard Deviation 41.3
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Post Void Residual (PVR) Volume at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-2.98 mLStandard Deviation 35.95
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Post Void Residual (PVR) Volume at Week 4 and 12Baseline25.69 mLStandard Deviation 34.28
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Post Void Residual (PVR) Volume at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 413.43 mLStandard Deviation 57.7
FesoterodineChange From Baseline in Post Void Residual (PVR) Volume at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 1213.58 mLStandard Deviation 60.22
Comparison: Change at Week 4: Van Elteren's test adjusted by baseline PVR quartile was used to calculate p-value. The median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate.p-value: 0.002195% CI: [0, 8]Van Elteren's test
Comparison: Change at Week 12: Van Elteren's test adjusted by baseline PVR quartile was used to calculate p-value. The median difference was based on Hodges-Lehmann estimate.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [3, 11]Van Elteren's test
Secondary

Change From Screening in Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) Score at Week 12

MMSE measured general cognitive functioning: orientation, memory, attention, calculation, language, visuospatial functions. Total score derived from sub-scores; total ranges from 0 to 30, higher score indicates better cognitive state. Change: mean score at Week X minus mean score at baseline

Time frame: Screening, Week 12

Population: FAS population included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug and had at least 1 baseline or post-baseline efficacy assessment. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Screening in Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) Score at Week 120.33 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
FesoterodineChange From Screening in Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) Score at Week 120.15 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
Comparison: ANCOVA model with terms for treatment, center, centered baseline value, and centered baseline by treatment interaction.p-value: 0.278895% CI: [-0.51, 0.15]ANCOVA
Secondary

Frequency-Urgency Sum Rating Per 24 Hours

Frequency-urgency sum is total USS ratings recorded for all micturitions in 24-hour day. Number of USS ratings per 24 hours is sum of all USS ratings divided by the total diary days collected at that visit. USS scale: 1=No feeling of urgency to 5=Unable to hold: leak urine.

Time frame: Baseline

Population: FAS population. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had baseline frequency urgency sum rating greater than 0 per 24 hours and non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboFrequency-Urgency Sum Rating Per 24 Hours45.33 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.2
FesoterodineFrequency-Urgency Sum Rating Per 24 Hours44.92 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.45
Secondary

Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q)

OAB-q: self-administered, 33-item, questionnaire, assesses how much participant has been bothered by selected bladder symptoms. Each item rated on Likert scale 1 (least symptom bother) to 6 (most symptom bother). Questions 9 to 33 constitute HRQL, includes domains: concern, coping, sleep, and social function. HRQL domain and total raw score derived as sum of scores. Transformed score range 0 to 100 (Total HRQL or domain) = \[(Highest possible raw score-Actual total raw score)/Raw score range\]\*100. Higher transformed scores indicative of better HRQL.

Time frame: Baseline

Population: FAS population included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug and had at least 1 baseline or post-baseline efficacy assessment. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had non-missing change from baseline value at both Week 4 and 12.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboHealth Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q)Coping domain44.72 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 26.12
PlaceboHealth Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q)Social interaction domain72.05 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 25.35
PlaceboHealth Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q)Sleep domain40.19 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 26.51
PlaceboHealth Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q)Total49.61 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.35
PlaceboHealth Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q)Concern domain45.89 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 25.38
FesoterodineHealth Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q)Total50.58 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 22.87
FesoterodineHealth Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q)Concern domain46.57 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 25.88
FesoterodineHealth Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q)Coping domain44.74 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 26.76
FesoterodineHealth Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q)Sleep domain43.41 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 25.76
FesoterodineHealth Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Domain and Total Score of Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q)Social interaction domain72.70 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 25.45
Secondary

Mean Number of Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours

The mean number of micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours was calculated as the total number of micturitions with USS rating of greater than or equal to (\>=) 3 divided by the total number of days that diary data was collected at that visit. USS total range 1 to 5: 1. No feeling of urgency, 2. Mild feeling of urgency, 3. Moderate feeling of urgency, 4. Severe feeling of urgency, 5. Unable to hold; leak urine.

Time frame: Baseline

Population: FAS population included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug and had at least 1 baseline or post-baseline efficacy assessment. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had baseline urgency episodes greater than 0 per 24 hours and non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboMean Number of Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours10.30 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Deviation 3.67
FesoterodineMean Number of Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours10.02 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Deviation 3.54
Secondary

Mean Number of Micturitions Per 24 Hours

Micturitions include episodes of voluntary micturition and episodes of UUI. UUI episodes were defined as those micturitions with USS rating of 5 in the diary in participants with UUI at baseline. USS rating 5: Unable to hold; leak urine.

Time frame: Baseline

Population: FAS population included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug and had at least 1 baseline or post-baseline efficacy assessment. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had baseline micturition frequency greater than 0 per 24 hours and non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboMean Number of Micturitions Per 24 Hours12.22 micturitions per 24 hoursStandard Deviation 3.21
FesoterodineMean Number of Micturitions Per 24 Hours12.11 micturitions per 24 hoursStandard Deviation 3.06
Secondary

Mean Number of Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours

Nocturnal micturition-related urgency episodes had USS rating of 3 or more that occurred between time participant went to bed and time he or she arose to start next day. Number of nocturnal micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours was calculated as sum of all nocturnal micturition-related urgency episodes divided by total number of diary days collected at that visit.

Time frame: Baseline

Population: FAS population included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug and had at least 1 baseline or post-baseline efficacy assessment. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had baseline nocturnal urgency episodes greater than 0 per 24 hours and non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboMean Number of Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours2.87 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Deviation 1.51
FesoterodineMean Number of Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours2.69 episodes per 24 hoursStandard Deviation 1.38
Secondary

Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE)

MMSE measured general cognitive functioning: orientation, memory, attention, calculation, language, visuospatial functions. Total score derived from sub-scores; total ranges from 0 to 30, higher score indicates better cognitive state.

Time frame: Screening

Population: FAS population included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug and had at least 1 baseline or post-baseline efficacy assessment. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboMini Mental State Examination (MMSE)28.04 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.05
FesoterodineMini Mental State Examination (MMSE)28.16 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.8
Secondary

Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) Symptom Bother Score

OAB-q: a self-administered, 33-item, questionnaire that assesses how much the participant has been bothered by selected bladder symptoms. Each item rated by participant on Likert scale 1 (least symptom bother) to 6 (most symptom bother). Symptom bother score derived as sum of scores for questions 1-8; lowest possible raw score: 8; highest possible score: 48. Data analyzed based on transformation of the score to a 0 to 100 scale \[(Actual total raw score - lowest possible value of raw score)/range\]\*100. Higher scores values indicative of greater symptom bother.

Time frame: Baseline

Population: FAS population included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug and had at least 1 baseline or post-baseline efficacy assessment. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had non-missing change from baseline value at both Weeks 4 and 12.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboOveractive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) Symptom Bother Score67.67 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.59
FesoterodineOveractive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q) Symptom Bother Score67.25 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.04
Secondary

Overactive Bladder Satisfaction Questionnaire (OAB-S) Total Score on Satisfaction With OAB Control

OAB-S: a validated self-administered instrument that evaluates OAB medication expectations, daily life with AB, and satisfaction with OAB medication and includes 3 stand-alone items that assess overall expectation, satisfaction, and willingness to continue treatment. Satisfaction coded on scale of 1 to 5: (1=very satisfied to 5=very dissatisfied). Coding reversed algorithmically and results transformed: total score range 0 to100. Higher final response value associated with better satisfaction.

Time frame: Week 12

Population: FAS population included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug and had at least 1 baseline or post-baseline efficacy assessment. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had non-missing value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboOveractive Bladder Satisfaction Questionnaire (OAB-S) Total Score on Satisfaction With OAB Control52.98 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 33.82
FesoterodineOveractive Bladder Satisfaction Questionnaire (OAB-S) Total Score on Satisfaction With OAB Control68.89 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 28.89
Comparison: ANOVA model with treatment and center as factors was used to calculate p-value.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [10.43, 22.08]ANOVA
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12

PPBC: a self-administered, single-item, questionnaire that asks participants to describe their perception of their bladder-related problems. The PPBC assessment is rated on a 6-point scale: 1=no problems at all, 2=some very minor problems, 3=some minor problems, 4=moderate problems, 5=severe problems, 6=many severe problems. Deterioration=score difference is greater than 0; no change=score difference is 0; minor improvement=score difference is -1; major difference=score difference is less than or equal to -2.

Time frame: Screening, Week 4, 12

Population: FAS population. LOCF method was used to impute only Week 12 missing data but not Week 4 missing data. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Baseline: No problems at all0.0 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Baseline: Some very minor problems0.0 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Baseline: Some minor problems0.0 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Baseline: Moderate problems44.7 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Baseline: Severe problems43.9 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Baseline: Many severe problems11.4 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: Deterioration12.3 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: No change42.5 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: Minor improvement25.3 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: Major improvement19.9 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: Deterioration12.1 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: No change33.7 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: Minor improvement25.0 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: Major improvement29.2 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: Deterioration7.2 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Baseline: No problems at all0.0 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: No change29.8 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Baseline: Some very minor problems0.0 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: Minor improvement26.8 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Baseline: Some minor problems0.0 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: Minor improvement27.5 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Baseline: Moderate problems44.5 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: No change27.2 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Baseline: Severe problems44.2 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: Major improvement33.2 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Baseline: Many severe problems11.3 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12: Major improvement38.9 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Change From Screening in Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4: Deterioration9.5 percentage of participants
Comparison: Change at Week 4- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test with modified ridit scoring controlling for center was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.0009Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Change at Week 12- deterioration, no change, minor improvement and major improvement: CMH test with modified ridit scoring controlling for center was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.0021Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Overactive Bladder Satisfaction Questionnaire (OAB-S) Global Medication Satisfaction Question Response

Participant's response to question, overall, how satisfied are you with your OAB medication? was obtained on a 5 point scale, 1- very satisfied, 2- somewhat satisfied, 3- neither dissatisfied nor satisfied, 4- somewhat dissatisfied and 5- very dissatisfied. Response values 1 and 2 were combined into satisfied, and 4 and 5 were combined into dissatisfied.

Time frame: Week 12

Population: FAS population included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug and had at least 1 baseline or post-baseline efficacy assessment. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had non-missing value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Overactive Bladder Satisfaction Questionnaire (OAB-S) Global Medication Satisfaction Question ResponseNot satisfied37.5 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Overactive Bladder Satisfaction Questionnaire (OAB-S) Global Medication Satisfaction Question ResponseNeither dissatisfied nor satisfied15.2 percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Overactive Bladder Satisfaction Questionnaire (OAB-S) Global Medication Satisfaction Question ResponseSatisfied47.3 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Overactive Bladder Satisfaction Questionnaire (OAB-S) Global Medication Satisfaction Question ResponseNot satisfied18.9 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Overactive Bladder Satisfaction Questionnaire (OAB-S) Global Medication Satisfaction Question ResponseNeither dissatisfied nor satisfied9.3 percentage of participants
FesoterodinePercentage of Participants With Overactive Bladder Satisfaction Questionnaire (OAB-S) Global Medication Satisfaction Question ResponseSatisfied71.8 percentage of participants
Comparison: Not satisfied, neither dissatisfied nor satisfied, satisfied: CMH test with modified ridit scoring controlling for center was used.p-value: <0.0001Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Percent Change From Baseline in Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12

Percent change of micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours was calculated as change in 24-hour mean at that visit divided by the baseline 24-hour mean multiplied by 100 (i.e., 100\*(Week 4 or 12 - baseline)/baseline).

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 12

Population: FAS population. LOCF method was used to impute only Week 12 missing data but not Week 4 missing data. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had baseline urgency episodes greater than 0 per 24 hours and non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboPercent Change From Baseline in Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-12.7 percent changeStandard Deviation 45
PlaceboPercent Change From Baseline in Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-23.9 percent changeStandard Deviation 46.4
FesoterodinePercent Change From Baseline in Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-26.2 percent changeStandard Deviation 39.4
FesoterodinePercent Change From Baseline in Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-39.7 percent changeStandard Deviation 45
Comparison: Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.0002Ranked ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: <0.0001Ranked ANCOVA
Secondary

Percent Change From Baseline in Micturitions Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12

Percent change of micturitions per 24 hours was calculated as change in 24-hour mean at that visit divided by the baseline 24-hour mean multiplied by 100 (i.e., 100\*(Week 4 or 12 - baseline)/baseline).

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 12

Population: FAS population. LOCF method was used to impute only Week 12 missing data but not Week 4 missing data. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had baseline micturition frequency greater than 0 per 24 hours and non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboPercent Change From Baseline in Micturitions Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-5.1 percent changeStandard Deviation 24.4
PlaceboPercent Change From Baseline in Micturitions Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-10.4 percent changeStandard Deviation 22.4
FesoterodinePercent Change From Baseline in Micturitions Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-12.7 percent changeStandard Deviation 19.1
FesoterodinePercent Change From Baseline in Micturitions Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-17.8 percent changeStandard Deviation 19.6
Comparison: Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: <0.0001Ranked ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: <0.0001Ranked ANCOVA
Secondary

Percent Change From Baseline in Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12

Percent change of nocturnal micturition-related urgency episodes per 24 hours was calculated as change in 24-hour mean at that visit divided by the baseline 24-hour mean multiplied by 100 (i.e., 100\*(Week 4 or 12 - baseline)/baseline).

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 12

Population: FAS population. LOCF method was used to impute only Week 12 missing data but not Week 4 missing data. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had baseline nocturnal urgency episodes greater than 0 per 24 hours and non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboPercent Change From Baseline in Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-4.9 percent changeStandard Deviation 68.2
PlaceboPercent Change From Baseline in Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-15.5 percent changeStandard Deviation 63.6
FesoterodinePercent Change From Baseline in Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-18.0 percent changeStandard Deviation 62.6
FesoterodinePercent Change From Baseline in Nocturnal Micturition-related Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-31.2 percent changeStandard Deviation 59.5
Comparison: Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.001Ranked ANCOVA
Secondary

Percent Change From Baseline in Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12

Percent change of UUI episodes per 24 hours was calculated as change in 24-hour mean at that visit divided by the baseline 24-hour mean multiplied by 100 (i.e., 100\*(Week 4 or 12 - baseline)/baseline).

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 12

Population: FAS population. LOCF method was used to impute only Week 12 missing data but not Week 4 missing data. Here, 'N' (number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who had baseline UUI episodes greater than 0 per 24 hours and non-missing change from baseline value at Week 12.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboPercent Change From Baseline in Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-39.2 percent changeStandard Deviation 65.7
PlaceboPercent Change From Baseline in Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-55.4 percent changeStandard Deviation 63.1
FesoterodinePercent Change From Baseline in Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 4-57.2 percent changeStandard Deviation 54.4
FesoterodinePercent Change From Baseline in Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI) Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 4 and 12Change at Week 12-71.2 percent changeStandard Deviation 51.4
Comparison: Change at Week 4: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: <0.0001Ranked ANCOVA
Comparison: Change at Week 12: Ranked ANCOVA model with terms for treatment and center with ranked baseline value as a covariate was used to calculate p-value.p-value: 0.0001Ranked ANCOVA

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026