A study of cancer occurrence in users of mirabegron and antimuscarinic treatments for overactive bladder

References

• Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, et al. The standardisation of terminology in lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Urology. 2003;61(1):37–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, International Continence Society, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(1):4–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahnama’i S. Overactive bladder. Current Definition. 2018. [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from: https://www.ics.org/committees/standardisation/terminologydiscussions/overactivebladder.
   Google Scholar
• Drake MJ. Do we need a new definition of the overactive bladder syndrome? ICI-RS 2013. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33(5):622–624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willis-Gray MG, Dieter AA, Geller EJ. Evaluation and management of overactive bladder: strategies for optimizing care. Res Rep Urol. 2016;8:113–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Maher C, et al. Surgery for women with pelvic organ prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;8:CD013108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamada S, Ito Y, Nishijima S, et al. Basic and clinical aspects of antimuscarinic agents used to treat overactive bladder. Pharmacol Ther. 2018;189:130–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Astellas Pharma US I. MYRBETRIQ prescribing information. 2018. [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from: https://www.us.astellas.com/docs/Myrbetriq_WPI.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Chapple CR, Kaplan SA, Mitcheson D, et al. Randomized double-blind, active-controlled phase 3 study to assess 12-month safety and efficacy of mirabegron, a β(3)-adrenoceptor agonist, in overactive bladder. Eur Urol. 2013;63(2):296–305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nitti VW, Auerbach S, Martin N, et al. Results of a randomized phase III trial of mirabegron in patients with overactive bladder. J Urol. 2013;189(4):1388–1395.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapple CR, Dvorak V, Radziszewski P, et al. A phase II dose-ranging study of mirabegron in patients with overactive bladder. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(9):1447–1458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamaguchi O, Marui E, Igawa Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of the selective beta3-adrenoceptor agonist mirabegron in Japanese patients with overactive bladder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study. Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms. 2015;7(2):84–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamaguchi O, Marui E, Kakizaki H, et al. Phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the beta3-adrenoceptor agonist mirabegron, 50 mg once daily, in Japanese patients with overactive bladder. BJU Int. 2014;113(6):951–960.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herschorn S, Barkin J, Castro-Diaz D, et al. A phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, multicentre study to assess the efficacy and safety of the β3 adrenoceptor agonist, mirabegron, in patients with symptoms of overactive bladder. Urology. 2013;82(2):313–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khullar V, Amarenco G, Angulo JC, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of mirabegron, a beta(3)-adrenoceptor agonist, in patients with overactive bladder: results from a randomised European-Australian phase 3 trial. Eur Urol. 2013;63(2):283–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Public Policy Committee. International Society of Pharmacoepidemiology. Guidelines for good pharmacoepidemiology practice (GPP). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25(1):2–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP). Guide on Methodological Standards in Pharmacoepidemiology (Revision 5). 2020. [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from: http://www.encepp.eu/standards_and_guidances.
   Google Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9). 2020. [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd9.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM). [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd10cm.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM). 2020. [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd9cm.htm.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition (ICD-O-3). 2020. [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from: https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/adaptations/oncology/en/.
   Google Scholar
• Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results. SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975–2009 (vintage 2009 populations). Table 1.4. Age-adjusted SEER incidence and US death rates and 5-year relative survival (percent) by primary cancer site, sex, and time period. [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2009_pops09/browse_csr.php.
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat. Statistics Explained. Cancer statistics – specific cancers. 2019. [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/pdfscache/39738.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons LS. Reducing bias in a propensity score matched-pair sample using greedy matching techniques (paper 214–26). Paper presented at: SUGI 26 Proceedings (Proceedings of the 26th annual SAS users group international conference), Long Beach, CA, April 22–25, 2001. 2001. [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from: https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings/proceedings/sugi26/p214-26.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009;28(25):3083–3107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothman KJ. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Wolters Kluwer Health; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) Software. [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Available from: https://www.meta-analysis.com/.
   Google Scholar
• Lofling L, Sundstrom A, Kieler H, et al. Exposure to antimuscarinic medications for treatment of overactive bladder and risk of lung cancer and colon cancer. CLEP. 2019;11:133–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallas J, Margulis AV, Pottegard A, et al. Incidence of common cancers in users of antimuscarinic medications for overactive bladder: A Danish nationwide cohort study. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2018;122(6):612–619.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaye JA, Margulis AV, Fortuny J, et al. Cancer incidence after initiation of antimuscarinic medications for overactive bladder in the United Kingdom: evidence for protopathic bias. Pharmacotherapy. 2017;37(6):673–683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorin SS. Multilevel approaches to reducing diagnostic and treatment delay in colorectal cancer. Ann Fam Med. 2019;17(5):386–389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar