Background: We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of mirabegron on overactive bladder (OAB) induced by benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in men receiving tamsulosin therapy. Methods: We performed the analysis by using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were retrieved to get information regarding randomized controlled trials of mirabegron on OAB induced by BPH in men receiving tamsulosin therapy. We also searched the references of included literatures. Results: Three randomized controlled trials containing a total of 1317 BPH patients were included in the analysis. Co-primary efficacy end points: the mean number of micturitions per day [the mean difference (MD) = –0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI): –0.46 to –0.09, P = .004], the urgency episodes per day (the MD = –0.50, 95% CI: –0.77 to –0.22, P = .0004), the total OAB symptom score (the MD = –0.69, 95% CI: –1.00 to –0.38, P < .0001), and mean volume voided (the MD = 10.76, 95% CI: 4.87–16.64, P = .0003) indicated that mirabegron was effective in treating OAB induced by BPH in men receiving tamsulosin therapy. Safety assessments that included treatment-emergent adverse events (odds ratio = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.68–1.13, P = .31) indicated that mirabegron was well tolerated with the exception of post-void residual urine volume (MD = 12.02, 95% CI: 6.01–18.04, P < .0001). Conclusions: This analysis demonstrates that mirabegron is an effective and safe treatment for OAB symptoms induced by BPH in men receiving tamsulosin therapy with a low occurrence of side effects. Besides, we should be aware that the administration of mirabegron might have the risk of increasing post-void residual urine volume.

Background: Vibegron is a new β3-adrenergic receptor agonist which has been demonstrated for the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB). We carried out meta-analysis to evaluate the efficiency of vibegron vs antimuscarinic monotherapy for treating OAB. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Vibegron vs antimuscarinic monotherapy for OAB were searched systematically by using EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. The RevMan version 5.3.0. was used to analysis the data. Results: Three RCTs involving a total of 1751 patients were studied in the Systematic review and Meta-analysis. Efficacy end points: the mean number of micturitions episodes/d ( P = .16); the mean number of urgency episodes/d ( P = .05); mean number of urgency incontinence episodes/d ( P = .11) and mean number of incontinence episodes/d ( P = .14) indicated that vibegron and antimuscarinic had no significant differences in terms of OAB treatment. Mean volume voided/micturition showed a distinct difference in the two groups ( P = .009). With regard to dry mouth and drug related treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), vibegron showed better tolerance than antimuscarinic. Serious adverse event (SAE) and discontinuations due to adverse event (AE) did not show a significant difference between the two groups. Conclusions: The therapeutic effect of vibegron is similar to that of antimuscarinic, but vibegron does not increase the risk of AE.