Open-label Long-term Extension Study of Fesoterodine in Japanese Subjects With Neurogenic Detrusor Overactivity.

An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received investigational product without regard to possibility of causal relationship. SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly; medically important events. A treatment emergent AE was defined as an event that emerged during the treatment period that was absent before treatment, or worsened during the treatment period relative to the pretreatment state. AEs included both serious and non-serious adverse events. TEAEs were summarized for each cohort (Cohort 1 and Cohort 2, irrespective of treatment received), each treatment group and the total of treatment groups, using the merged data of studies A0221047 and A0221109 as planned.

Visual acuity (VA) was assessed for each eye using the Snellen method, where logarithm of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) units were derived from the Snellen ratios. Participants had to read letters from the chart at a distance of 20 feet/6 meter or 4 meter. VA (Snellen ratio) = distance between the chart and participant, divided by distance at which participant was able to see/read chart without impairment; expressed as decimal. logMAR = log10 (1/decimal VA). In this outcome measure, data have been reported for right and left eye separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

VA was assessed for each eye using the Snellen method, where logMAR units were derived from the Snellen ratios. Participants had to read letters from the chart at a distance of 20 feet/6 meter or 4 meter. VA (Snellen ratio) = distance between the chart and participant, divided by distance at which participant was able to see/read chart without impairment; expressed as decimal. logMAR = log10 (1/decimal VA). In this outcome measure, data have been reported for right and left eye separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

VA was assessed for each eye using the Snellen method, where logMAR units were derived from the Snellen ratios. Participants had to read letters from the chart at a distance of 20 feet/6 meter or 4 meter. VA (Snellen ratio) = distance between the chart and participant, divided by distance at which participant was able to see/read chart without impairment; expressed as decimal. logMAR = log10 (1/decimal VA). In this outcome measure, data have been reported for right and left eye separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The visual accommodation was the minimum focusing distance for each eye at which vision became blurred - the mean of triplicate measurements. The participants focused on a single letter of the 20/40 line of an eye chart and chart was moved slowly towards the participant until letter was blurred. At this point, the distance from eye to letter was measured for each eye. In this outcome measure data have been reported for right and left eye separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The visual accommodation was the minimum focusing distance for each eye at which vision became blurred - the mean of triplicate measurements. The participants focused on a single letter of the 20/40 line of an eye chart and chart was moved slowly towards the participant until letter was blurred. At this point, the distance from eye to letter was measured for each eye. In this outcome measure data have been reported for right and left eye separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The visual accommodation was the minimum focusing distance for each eye at which vision became blurred - the mean of triplicate measurements. The participants focused on a single letter of the 20/40 line of an eye chart and chart was moved slowly towards the participant until letter was blurred. At this point, the distance from eye to letter was measured for each eye. In this outcome measure data have been reported for right and left eye separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

CBCL: assessed child's behavioral and emotional problems. Parent/caregiver of child answered 120 items, each on scale: 0=not true, 1=somewhat/sometimes true, 2=very/often true. 103 items were categorized in 8 domains: aggressive behavior, anxious/depressed, attention problems, rule-breaking behavior, social problems, somatic complaints, thought problems, withdrawn. Summary scores: Internalizing problems =anxious/depressed+withdrawn+somatic complaints; Externalizing problems =rule-breaking+aggressive behavior. Total problems =8 domains+other 17 items. Raw scores for each domain, summary and total problems =sum of scores of related items. Using ADM tool raw scores transformed/derived into standard T-scores, range: each domain=50-100, internalizing problems=34-100, externalizing problems=33-100, total problems=24-100. Lower T-score (8 domain,2 summary,total problems)=better outcomes. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

CBCL: assessed child's behavioral and emotional problems. Parent/caregiver of child answered 120 items, each on scale: 0=not true, 1=somewhat/sometimes true, 2=very/often true. 103 items were categorized in 8 domains: aggressive behavior, anxious/depressed, attention problems, rule-breaking behavior, social problems, somatic complaints, thought problems, withdrawn. Summary scores: Internalizing problems =anxious/depressed+withdrawn+somatic complaints; Externalizing problems =rule-breaking+aggressive behavior. Total problems =8 domains+other 17 items. Raw scores for each domain, summary and total problems =sum of scores of related items. Using ADM tool raw scores transformed/derived into standard T-scores, range: each domain=50-100, internalizing problems=34-100, externalizing problems=33-100, total problems=24-100. Lower T-score (8 domain,2 summary,total problems)=better outcomes. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

CBCL: assessed child's behavioral and emotional problems. Parent/caregiver of child answered 120 items, each on scale: 0=not true, 1=somewhat/sometimes true, 2=very/often true. 103 items were categorized in 8 domains: aggressive behavior, anxious/depressed, attention problems, rule-breaking behavior, social problems, somatic complaints, thought problems, withdrawn. Summary scores: Internalizing problems =anxious/depressed+withdrawn+somatic complaints; Externalizing problems =rule-breaking+aggressive behavior. Total problems =8 domains+other 17 items. Raw scores for each domain, summary and total problems =sum of scores of related items. Using ADM tool raw scores transformed/derived into standard T-scores, range: each domain=50-100, internalizing problems=34-100, externalizing problems=33-100, total problems=24-100. Lower T-score (8 domain,2 summary,total problems)=better outcomes. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

CBCL:assessed child's behavioral and emotional problems. Parent/caregiver of child answered 120 items, each on scale:0=not true, 1=somewhat/sometimes true, 2=very/often true. 103 items were classified in 8 domains: aggressive behavior, total score range (TSR) =0-36; anxious/depressed,TSR=0-26; attention problems,TSR=0-20; rule-breaking behavior, TSR=0-34; social problems, TSR=0-22; somatic complaints, TSR=0-22; thought problems, TSR=0-30; withdrawn, TSR=0-16. Summary scores: externalizing problems combined rule-breaking and aggressive behavior,TSR=0-70; internalizing problems combined anxious/depressed, withdrawn and somatic complaints, TSR=0-64. Total problems combined 8 domains and 17 remaining items,TSR=0-240. TSR for each domain, summary and total problems was sum of scores of related items respectively. Lower scores for each domain, summary, total problems = better outcomes.Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

CBCL:assessed child's behavioral and emotional problems. Parent/caregiver of child answered 120 items, each on scale:0=not true, 1=somewhat/sometimes true, 2=very/often true. 103 items were classified in 8 domains: aggressive behavior, total score range (TSR) =0-36; anxious/depressed,TSR=0-26; attention problems,TSR=0-20; rule-breaking behavior, TSR=0-34; social problems, TSR=0-22; somatic complaints, TSR=0-22; thought problems, TSR=0-30; withdrawn, TSR=0-16. Summary scores: externalizing problems combined rule-breaking and aggressive behavior,TSR=0-70; internalizing problems combined anxious/depressed, withdrawn and somatic complaints, TSR=0-64. Total problems combined 8 domains and 17 remaining items,TSR=0-240. TSR for each domain, summary and total problems was sum of scores of related items respectively. Lower scores for each domain, summary, total problems = better outcomes.Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

CBCL:assessed child's behavioral and emotional problems. Parent/caregiver of child answered 120 items, each on scale:0=not true, 1=somewhat/sometimes true, 2=very/often true. 103 items were classified in 8 domains: aggressive behavior, total score range (TSR) =0-36; anxious/depressed,TSR=0-26; attention problems,TSR=0-20; rule-breaking behavior, TSR=0-34; social problems, TSR=0-22; somatic complaints, TSR=0-22; thought problems, TSR=0-30; withdrawn, TSR=0-16. Summary scores: externalizing problems combined rule-breaking and aggressive behavior,TSR=0-70; internalizing problems combined anxious/depressed, withdrawn and somatic complaints, TSR=0-64. Total problems combined 8 domains and 17 remaining items,TSR=0-240. TSR for each domain, summary and total problems was sum of scores of related items respectively. Lower scores for each domain, summary, total problems = better outcomes.Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 10 grooved pegs into holes within the given time limit up to 300 seconds. The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Time taken to complete the test was inversely correlated to the cognitive ability. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 10-peg assessment was done on participants below age of 9 years. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 10 grooved pegs into holes within the given time limit (up to 300 seconds). The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Time taken to complete the test was inversely correlated to the cognitive ability. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 10-peg assessment was done on participants below age of 9 years. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 10 grooved pegs into holes within the given time limit up to 300 seconds. The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Time taken to complete the test was inversely correlated to the cognitive ability. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 10-peg assessment was done on participants below age of 9 years. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 25 grooved pegs into holes within the given time limit up to 300 seconds. The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Time taken to complete the test was inversely correlated to the cognitive ability. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 25-peg assessment was done on participants of age 9 years and above. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 25 grooved pegs into the holes within the given time limit (up to 300 seconds). The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Time taken to complete the test was inversely correlated to the cognitive ability. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 25-peg assessment was done on participants of age 9 years and above. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 25 grooved pegs into the holes within the given time limit up to 300 seconds. The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Time taken to complete the test was inversely correlated to the cognitive ability. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 25-peg assessment was done on participants of age 9 years and above. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 10 grooved pegs into the holes within the given time limit up to 300 seconds. The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Number of pegs dropped while putting in the holes were measured. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 10-peg assessment was done on participants below age of 9 years. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 10 grooved pegs into the holes within the given time limit up to 300 seconds. The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Number of pegs dropped while putting in the holes were measured. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 10-peg assessment was done on participants below age of 9 years. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 10 grooved pegs into the holes within the given time limit up to 300 seconds. The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Number of pegs dropped while putting in the holes were measured. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 10-peg assessment was done on participants below age of 9 years. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of Study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 25 grooved pegs into the holes within the given time limit up to 300 seconds. The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Number of pegs dropped while putting in the holes were measured. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 25-peg assessment was done on participants of age 9 years and above. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 25 grooved pegs into the holes within the given time limit up to 300 seconds. The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Number of pegs dropped while putting in the holes were measured. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 25-peg assessment was done on participants of age 9 years and above. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 25 grooved pegs into the holes within the given time limit up to 300 seconds. The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Number of pegs dropped while putting in the holes were measured. Participants were assigned to either a 10- or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 25-peg assessment was done on participants of age 9 years and above. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 10 grooved pegs into the holes within the given time limit up to 300 seconds. The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Number of pegs placed correctly in hole was measured. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 10-peg assessment was done on participants below age of 9 years. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 10 grooved pegs into the holes within the given time limit up to 300 seconds. The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Number of pegs placed correctly in hole was measured. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 10-peg assessment was done on participants below age of 9 years. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 10 grooved pegs into the holes within the given time limit (up to 300 seconds). The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Number of pegs placed correctly in hole was measured. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 10-peg assessment was done on participants below age of 9 years. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 25 grooved pegs into the holes within the given time limit up to 300 seconds. The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Number of pegs placed correctly in hole was measured. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 25-peg assessment was done on participants of age 9 years and above. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 25 grooved pegs into the holes within the given time limit (up to 300 seconds). The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Number of pegs placed correctly in hole was measured. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 25-peg assessment was done on participants of age 9 years and above. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

The grooved pegboard test was a manipulative dexterity test that assessed psychomotor speed, fine motor control, and rapid-visual motor coordination. Participants were asked to insert 25 grooved pegs into the holes within the given time limit up to 300 seconds. The task needs to be completed once for each hand; firstly, using the dominant hand followed by the non-dominant hand. Number of pegs placed correctly in hole was measured. Participants were assigned to either a 10 or 25-peg assessment based on their age. 25-peg assessment was done on participants of age 9 years and above. In this outcome measure data for dominant and non-dominant hand have been reported separately. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were evaluated for examination of vital signs. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were evaluated for examination of vital signs. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

Systolic and diastolic blood pressure were evaluated for examination of vital signs. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

Pulse rate was evaluated for examination of vital signs. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

Pulse rate was evaluated for examination of vital signs. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

Pulse rate was evaluated for examination of vital signs. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

UTI data were summarized for each cohort, each treatment group and the total of treatment groups, using the merged data of studies A0221047 and A0221109 as planned.

Hematology: hemoglobin, hematocrit, erythrocytes <0.8*lower limit of normal (LLN); platelets<0.5*LLN>1.75*upper limit of normal (ULN); leukocytes <0.6*LLN>1.5*ULN; lymphocytes, neutrophils <0.8*LLN >1.2*UL; basophils, eosinophils, monocytes >1.2*ULN. Clinical chemistry: bilirubin, direct bilirubin >1.5*ULN; aspartate aminotransferase (AT), alanine AT, gamma glutamyl transferase, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase >3.0*ULN; protein, albumin <0.8*LLN >1.2*ULN; blood urea nitrogen, creatinine >1.3*ULN; urate >1.2*ULN, sodium<0.95*LLN>1.05*ULN; potassium, chloride, bicarbonate <0.9*LLN>1.1*ULN; glucose <0.6*LLN>1.5*ULN; creatine kinase >2.0*ULN. Urinalysis: specific gravity <1.003>1.030, pH <4.5>8, glucose, ketones, protein, hemoglobin, nitrite, leukocyte esterase >=1; erythrocytes, leukocytes >=20; epithelial cells >=6, bacteria >20, hyaline casts >1. Data for this outcome was planned to be analysed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

Post-void residual volume was assessed by an ultrasound. PVR volume was assessed only in participants who did not perform clean intermittent catheterization or in any participants who had >1 UTI during the study. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

Post-void residual volume measurement was measured by an ultrasound. PVR volume was only assessed for participants who did not perform clean intermittent catheterization or in any participants who had >1 UTI during the study. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

Post-void residual volume measurement was measured by an ultrasound. PVR volume was only assessed for participants who did not perform clean intermittent catheterization or in any participants who had >1 UTI during the study. Data for this outcome measure was planned to be analyzed for each treatment group of study A0221109 only.

Maximum cystometric bladder capacity was defined as maximal tolerable cystometric capacity, until voiding or leaking begins or at a pressure of >=40 centimeter (cm) water (H2O). Maximum cystometric bladder capacity was summarized for each cohort, each treatment group and total of treatment groups, using the merged data of studies A0221047 and A0221109 as planned.

Detrusor pressure (cm H2O) at maximum urinary bladder capacity was measured using urodynamic testing. Detrusor pressure was summarized for each cohort, each treatment group and total of treatment groups, using the merged data of studies A0221047 and A0221109 as planned.

Participants with presence of IDC was summarized for each cohort, each treatment group and total of treatment groups, using the merged data of studies A0221047 and A0221109 as planned.

Bladder volume at first IDC was measured using urodynamic testing. Bladder volume at first IDC was summarized for each cohort, each treatment group and total of treatment groups, using the merged data of studies A0221047 and A0221109 as planned.

Bladder compliance was defined as change in bladder volume in milliliter (mL) divided by change in bladder pressure in cm H2O (during the same time when change in bladder volume was estimated). Bladder Compliance was summarized for each cohort, each treatment group and total of treatment groups, using the merged data of studies A0221047 and A0221109 as planned.

The mean number of micturitions per 24 hours were calculated as the total number of micturitions divided by the total number of diary days collected at the assessment time point. Number of diary days collected at the assessment time point = number of calendar days when the diary was completed on, even if it was not a full 24 hour period. This outcome measure was only calculated for participants with >0 micturitions at Baseline. Data was summarized for each cohort, each treatment group and total of treatment groups, using the merged data of studies A0221047 and A0221109 as planned.

The mean number of catheterizations per 24 hours were calculated as the total number of catheterizations divided by the total number of diary days collected at the assessment time point. Number of diary days collected at the assessment time point = number of calendar days when the diary was completed, even if it was not a full 24 hour period. This outcome measure was only calculated for participants with >0 catheterizations at Baseline. Data was summarized for each cohort, each treatment group and total of treatment groups, using the merged data of studies A0221047 and A0221109 as planned.

The mean number of micturitions and catheterizations combined per 24 hours were calculated as the total number of micturitions and catheterizations combined divided by the total number of diary days collected at the assessment point. Number of diary days collected at the assessment time point = number of calendar days when the diary was completed, even if it was not a full 24 hour (hr) period. This outcome measure was only calculated for participants with >0 micturitions or catheterizations at Baseline. Data was summarized for each cohort, each treatment group and total of treatment groups, using the merged data of studies A0221047 and A0221109 as planned.

The mean number of incontinence episodes per 24 hours were calculated as the total number of incontinence episodes divided by the total number of diary days collected at the assessment time point. Number of diary days collected at the assessment time point = number of calendar days when the diary was completed, even if it was not a full 24 hour period. This outcome measure was only calculated for participants with >0 incontinence episodes at Baseline. Data was summarized for each cohort, each treatment group and total of treatment groups, using the merged data of studies A0221047 and A0221109 as planned.

The mean number of urgency episodes per 24 hours were calculated as the total number of urgency episodes divided by the total number of diary days collected at the assessment time point. Number of diary days collected at the assessment time point = number of calendar days when the diary was completed, even if it was not a full 24 hour period. Urgency episodes were defined as urgency marked as 'yes' in the diary. This outcome measure was only calculated for sensate participants with >0 urgency episodes at Baseline. Data was summarized for each cohort, each treatment group and total of treatment groups, using the merged data of studies A0221047 and A0221109 as planned.

The mean voided volume per micturition was calculated as sum of voided volume divided by the total number of micturition episodes with a recorded voided volume >0. This outcome measure included only participants who actually had the records of volume voided per micturition. Data was summarized for each cohort, each treatment group and total of treatment groups, using the merged data of studies A0221047 and A0221109 as planned.

The mean volume per catheterization was calculated as sum of voided volume divided by the total number of catheterization, with a recorded voided volume >0. This outcome measure included only participants who actually had the records of volume voided per catherization. Data was summarized for each cohort, each treatment group and total of treatment groups, using the merged data of studies A0221047 and A0221109 as planned.

The mean voided volume per micturition or catheterization was calculated as sum of voided volume divided by the total number of micturition or catheterization episodes with a recorded voided volume >0. Data was summarized for each cohort, each treatment group and total of treatment groups, using the merged data of studies A0221047 and A0221109 as planned.