Mirabegron for the treatment of… | 2016

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

51/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Health systems and care delivery

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

From both commercial and Medicare Advantage perspectives, mirabegron was the most clinically effective treatment, while oxybutynin was the least expensive. Tolterodine immediate release (IR) was also on the cost-effectiveness frontier. The analysis estimated costs per QALY of $59,690 and $66,347 for mirabegron from commercial health plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives, respectively, compared to tolterodine IR. Other antimuscarinics were dominated. This analysis estimated that mirabegron is a cost-effective treatment for OAB from US commercial health plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives, due to fewer projected adverse events and comorbidities, and data suggesting better persistence.

Key findings

From both commercial and Medicare Advantage perspectives, mirabegron was the most clinically effective treatment, while oxybutynin was the least expensive.
Tolterodine immediate release (IR) was also on the cost-effectiveness frontier.
The analysis estimated costs per QALY of $59,690 and $66,347 for mirabegron from commercial health plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives, respectively, compared to tolterodine IR.
This analysis estimated that mirabegron is a cost-effective treatment for OAB from US commercial health plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives, due to fewer projected adverse events and comorbidities, and data suggesting better persistence.

Why it matters

This study is about the cost-effectiveness of mirabegron for overactive bladder, not about Alzheimer's disease. It provides no information on treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

Study designmeta-analysis
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 51/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Medical Economics)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	Journal of Medical Economics: journal h-index 70 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	12 / 12	A meta-analysis pooling many studies
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
Times cited	3 / 7	Cited 32 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	1 / 5	2.7 citations a year over 12 year(s) since 2016
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 4.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 7 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	1 / 4	Last-listed author Daniel Ng: h-index 10 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	Purdue University West Lafayette: institution h-index 983 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27326725)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	51 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Wielage, R. C., Perk, S., Campbell, N. L., Klein, T. M., Posta, L. M., Yuran, T. E., et al. (2016). Mirabegron for the treatment of overactive bladder: cost-effectiveness from US commercial health-plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives. Journal of Medical Economics. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2016.1204307

Vancouver

Wielage RC, Perk S, Campbell NL, Klein TM, Posta LM, Yuran TE, et al. Mirabegron for the treatment of overactive bladder: cost-effectiveness from US commercial health-plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives. Journal of Medical Economics. 2016. doi:10.1080/13696998.2016.1204307. PMID: 27326725.

BibTeX

@article{wielage2016-27326725,
  author  = {Wielage, Ronald C. and Perk, Sinem and Campbell, Noll L. and Klein, Timothy M. and Posta, Linda M. and Yuran, Thomas E. and Klein, Robert W. and Ng, Daniel},
  title   = {{Mirabegron for the treatment of overactive bladder: cost-effectiveness from US commercial health-plan and Medicare Advantage perspectives}},
  journal = {Journal of Medical Economics},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1080/13696998.2016.1204307},
  pmid    = {27326725},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2016.1204307}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Health systems and care delivery

Also tagged “double-blind”

783 studies in the library carry the topic tag “double-blind”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 783 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Health systems and care delivery

See all studies in Health systems and care delivery →