Dataset Information

Efficacy of once-daily indacaterol 75 ?g relative to alternative bronchodilators in COPD: a study level and a patient level network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of indacaterol 75 ?g once daily (OD), tiotropium 18 ?g OD, salmeterol 50 ?g twice daily (BID), formoterol 12 ?g BID, and placebo for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on individual patient data (IPD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the indacaterol trial program and aggregate data (AD) identified from a systematic review of RCTs.

Methods

22 RCTs were included in the AD analysis that evaluated: indacaterol 75 ?g (n = 2 studies), indacaterol 150??g n = 5 (i.e. salmeterol 50 ?g) (n = 5), indacaterol 300 ?g (n = 2), tiotropium 18 ?g (n = 10), salmeterol 50 ?g (n = 7), and formoterol 12 ?g (n = 4). All of the studies except for one head-to-head comparison (tiotropium vs. salmeterol) were placebo controlled. Outcomes of interest were trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at week 12. The AD from all trials was analysed simultaneously using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) and relative treatment effects between all regimens were obtained. In a separate analysis, the IPD available from the 6 indacaterol RCTs was analysed in a NMA. Treatment-by-covariate interactions were included in both analyses to improve similarity of the trials.

Results

All interventions compared were more efficacious than placebo regarding FEV1 at 12 weeks. Indacaterol 75 ?g is expected to result in a comparable FEV1 at 12 weeks to tiotropium and salmeterol based on both IPD and AD analyses. In comparison to formoterol, the IPD and AD results indicate indacaterol 75 ?g is more efficacious (IPD = 0.07 L difference; 95%Credible Interval (CrI) 0.02 to 0.11; AD = 0.05 L difference; 95%CrI 0.01; 0.09). In terms of SGRQ total score at 12 weeks, indacaterol 75 ?g and formoterol were more efficacious than placebo, whereas for tiotropium and salmeterol the credible intervals included zero for the AD results only (tiotropium: -2.99 points improvement versus placebo; 95%CrI -6.48 to 0.43; salmeterol:-2.52; 95%CrI: -5.34; 0.44). Both IPD and AD results suggest that indacaterol 75 ?g is expected to be comparable to all active treatments.

Conclusions

Based on a synthesis of currently available AD RCT evidence as well as an IPD network meta-analysis of six RCTs, indacaterol 75 ?g is expected to be at least as efficacious as formoterol and comparable to tiotropium and salmeterol regarding FEV1. Furthermore, indacaterol 75 ?g shows comparable level of improvement in health-related quality of life to tiotropium, salmeterol, and formoterol, as measured by the SGRQ.

SUBMITTER: Cope S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3512498 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of once-daily indacaterol 75 μg relative to alternative bronchodilators in COPD: a study level and a patient level network meta-analysis.

Cope Shannon S Zhang Jie J Williams James J Jansen Jeroen P JP

BMC pulmonary medicine 20120625

<h4>Background</h4>The objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of indacaterol 75 μg once daily (OD), tiotropium 18 μg OD, salmeterol 50 μg twice daily (BID), formoterol 12 μg BID, and placebo for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on individual patient data (IPD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the indacaterol trial program and aggregate data (AD) identified from a systematic review of RCTs.<h4>Methods</h4>22 RCTs were inclu ...[more]

PMID: 22732017

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAddition of a second bronchodilator from a different pharmacological class may benefit patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) whose symptoms are insufficiently controlled by bronchodilator monotherapy. GLOW6 evaluated the efficacy and safety of once-daily coadministration of the long-acting β2-agonist indacaterol (IND) and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium (GLY) versus IND alone in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.Materials and methodsIn this randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, 12-week study, patients were randomized 1:1 to IND 150 μg and GLY 50 μg daily (IND + GLY) or IND 150 μg daily and placebo (IND + PBO) (all delivered via separate Breezhaler® devices). The primary objective was to demonstrate the superiority of IND + GLY versus IND + PBO for trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at week 12. Other end points included trough FEV1 at day 1, FEV1 area under the curve from 30 minutes to 4 hours (AUC30min-4h), peak FEV1, inspiratory capacity and trough forced vital capacity (FVC) at day 1 and week 12, and transition dyspnea index (TDI) focal score, COPD symptoms, and rescue medication use over 12 weeks.ResultsA total of 449 patients were randomized (IND + GLY, 226; IND + PBO, 223); 94% completed the study. On day 1 and at week 12, IND + GLY significantly improved trough FEV1 versus IND + PBO, with treatment differences of 74 mL (95% CI 46-101 mL) and 64 mL (95% CI 28-99 mL), respectively (both P<0.001). IND + GLY significantly improved postdose peak FEV1, FEV1 AUC30min-4h, and trough FVC at day 1 and week 12 versus IND + PBO (all P<0.01). TDI focal score and COPD symptoms (percentage of days able to perform usual daily activities and change from baseline in mean daytime respiratory score) were significantly improved with IND + GLY versus IND + PBO (P<0.05). The incidence of adverse events was similar for the two treatment groups.ConclusionIn patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, once-daily coadministration of IND and GLY provides significant and sustained improvement in bronchodilation versus IND alone from day 1, with significant improvements in patient-centered outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is more complicated in elderly patients, and multiple daily dosing, complex titration, and high incidences of adverse events can be limiting for many pharmacological treatment options.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine whether the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily gastroretentive gabapentin (G-GR) is similar between elderly patients (≥75 years) and younger patients (<75 years).MethodsData from two phase III, placebo-controlled studies of 1,800 mg G-GR once daily with dinner in patients with PHN were integrated and analyzed by age subgroups (<75 years, n = 527; ≥75 years, n = 192). Efficacy assessments at endpoint (week 10) included baseline-adjusted change in average daily pain (ADP) and average daily sleep interference (SIS) scores, the proportion of responders (≥30 % pain reduction), and the proportion of patients feeling "Much" or "Very Much" improved on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC).ResultsCompared with placebo, patients in both age subgroups treated with G-GR (placebo/G-GR) had greater reductions in mean ADP (≥75: -21.9/-34.2 %, p = 0.0348; <75: -29.9/-38.3 %, p = 0.0079) and SIS (≥75: -1.3/-2.4, p = 0.0017; <75: -1.8/-2.7, p < 0.0001), more patients were responders (≥75: 30.4/52.0 %, p = 0.0025; <75: 45.0/54.7 %, p = 0.0265), and more felt "Much" or "Very Much" improved on the PGIC (≥75: 20.7/35.0 %, p = 0.0272; <75: 33.6/44.9 %, p = 0.0077). The most common (placebo/G-GR) adverse events (AEs) were dizziness (≥75: 3.3/12.0 %; <75: 1.8/10.4 %), nausea (≥75: 1.0/5.4 %; <75: 2.9/4.2 %), and somnolence (≥75: 0/5.0 %; <75: 3.7/4.2 %). For all patients, AEs rapidly decreased to low steady levels after 4-5 weeks of treatment. The incidence of serious AEs was low and they were reported more frequently in the placebo than in the G-GR group.ConclusionsTherapy with once-daily G-GR was as effective for treating pain associated with PHN in elderly patients as it was in younger patients. G-GR was well tolerated, and the incidence of the most common AEs did not appear to be age related.

Project description:BackgroundIndacaterol acetate (IND), a long-acting β2-agonist in combination with mometasone furoate (MF), an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), is being explored as a once-daily (od) treatment for asthma in children. This study examined the efficacy, safety, and systemic exposure of IND 75 µg and IND 150 µg in children with persistent asthma.MethodsIn this Phase IIb, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, pediatric patients (aged ≥ 6 to < 12 years) with persistent asthma were randomized (1:1) to receive either IND 75 µg od or IND 150 µg od via Breezhaler® in combination with ICS background therapy. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) after two weeks of treatment.ResultsIn total, 80 patients received IND 75 µg (n = 39) or IND 150 µg (n = 41). The study met its primary endpoint; both doses demonstrated improvements in pre-dose trough FEV1 from baseline to Day 14 (mean change [Δ]: 212 mL, IND 75 µg; 171 mL, IND 150 µg). The secondary spirometry parameters (post-dose FEV1 after 1-h, post-dose forced vital capacity; morning and evening peak expiratory flow) also improved. Overall, 36.1% in IND 75 μg group and 25% patients in IND 150 μg group achieved a decrease from baseline in Pediatric Interviewer-administered Asthma Control Questionnaire score of ≥ 0.5 units. A dose-dependent increase in plasma IND concentration was noted between the two groups. Both IND doses demonstrated an acceptable safety profile.ConclusionsOnce-daily IND 75 μg and IND 150 μg via Breezhaler® in combination with background ICS therapy provided substantial bronchodilation in children with asthma and were well tolerated. Taken together, these clinical and systemic exposure findings support IND 75 μg as the most appropriate dose for evaluation in Phase III trials in combination with MF in pediatric asthma.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02892019; 08-Sep-2016).

Project description:BackgroundNVA237 is a once-daily dry-powder formulation of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium bromide in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The glycopyrronium bromide in COPD airways clinical study 1 (GLOW1) evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of NVA237 in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.MethodsPatients with COPD with a smoking history of ≥ 10 pack-years, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) < 80% and ≥ 30% predicted normal and FEV1/forced vital capacity < 0.70 were enrolled. Patients were randomized to double-blind treatment with NVA237 50 μg once daily or placebo for 26 weeks with inhaled/intranasal corticosteroids or H1 antagonists permitted in patients stabilized on them prior to study entry. The primary outcome measure was trough FEV1 at Week 12.ResultsA total of 822 patients were randomized to NVA237 (n = 552) or placebo (n = 270). Least squares mean (± standard error) trough FEV1 at Week 12 was significantly higher in patients receiving NVA237 (1.408 ± 0.0105 L), versus placebo (1.301 ± 0.0137 L; treatment difference 108 ± 14.8 mL, p < 0.001). Significant improvements in trough FEV1 were apparent at the end of Day 1 and sustained through Week 26. FEV1 was significantly improved in the NVA237 group versus placebo throughout the 24-hour periods on Day 1 and at Weeks 12 and 26, and at all other visits and timepoints. Transition dyspnoea index focal scores and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores were significantly improved with NVA237 versus placebo at Week 26, with treatment differences of 1.04 (p < 0.001) and -2.81 (p = 0.004), respectively. NVA237 significantly reduced the risk of first moderate/severe COPD exacerbation by 31% (p = 0.023) and use of rescue medication by 0.46 puffs per day (p = 0.005), versus placebo. NVA237 was well tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile, with a low frequency of cardiac and typical antimuscarinic adverse effects.ConclusionsOnce-daily NVA237 was safe and well tolerated and provided rapid, sustained improvements in lung function, improvements in dyspnoea, and health-related quality of life, and reduced the risk of exacerbations and the use of rescue medication.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01005901.

Project description:PurposeIn the absence of head-to-head clinical trials comparing the once-daily, long-acting beta2-agonists olodaterol and indacaterol for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an indirect treatment comparison by systematic review and synthesis of the available clinical evidence was conducted.MethodsA systematic literature review of randomized, controlled clinical trials in patients with COPD was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olodaterol and indacaterol. Network meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison methods were employed to evaluate treatment efficacy, using outcomes based on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Transition Dyspnea Index, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score and response, rescue medication use, and proportion of patients with exacerbations.ResultsEighteen trials were identified for meta-analysis (eight, olodaterol; ten, indacaterol). Olodaterol trials included patients of all severities, whilst indacaterol trials excluded patients with very severe COPD. Concomitant maintenance bronchodilator use was allowed in most olodaterol trials, but not in indacaterol trials. When similarly designed trials/data were analyzed for change from baseline in trough FEV1 (liters), the following mean differences (95% confidence interval) were observed: trials excluding concomitant bronchodilator: indacaterol 75 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, -0.005 (-0.077 to 0.067), and indacaterol 150 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, 0.020 (-0.036 to 0.077); trials with concomitant tiotropium: indacaterol 150 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, 0.000 (-0.043 to 0.042). In sensitivity analyses of the full network, results for change from baseline in trough FEV1 favored indacaterol, but this dataset suffered from trial design heterogeneity. For the other endpoints investigated, no statistically significant differences were found when analyzed in the full network.ConclusionWhen compared under similar trial conditions, olodaterol and indacaterol have similar efficacy in patients with COPD. This research highlights the importance of considering the concomitant COPD medication when evaluating treatment effects in COPD.

Project description:Bronchodilation with muscarinic antagonists, β2-agonists, and inhaled corticosteroids remains the foundation of pharmaceutical treatment for patients with stable COPD. These drugs are delivered from a variety of devices, including dry powder inhalers, pressurized metered-dose inhalers, soft-mist inhalers, or nebulizers. Nebulized delivery is often preferable in patients who are elderly, are cognitively impaired, are unable to generate sufficient inspiratory force to use their inhaler, have difficulty coordinating hand-breath activity, are too dyspneic to hold their breath for a sufficient time, and/or may be acutely ill. Revefenacin, a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist for nebulization recently approved by the US FDA for the treatment of patients with COPD, was discovered and developed using "duration and lung selectivity-by-design." This strategy selected a molecule with a high lung-selective index to maximize bronchodilation and limit systemic anti-muscarinic side effects. In early-phase clinical studies, revefenacin for nebulization led to a rapid onset of bronchodilation that was sustained for 24 hrs in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Revefenacin also demonstrated minimal systemic exposure and good tolerability in these studies. Statistically and clinically significant improvements in lung function (ie, peak and/or trough FEV1) relative to placebo were observed with revefenacin in Phase III clinical trials of up to 3 months in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Revefenacin was well tolerated in Phase III clinical trials with a low incidence of systemic antimuscarinic adverse events, which is consistent with its lung-selective design. There was no evidence of an increased risk of major cardiovascular events. Patient-reported outcome data from clinical trials indicated statistically significant improvements in several disease-specific measures. Revefenacin 175 μg for nebulization provides an effective once-daily treatment option for patients with moderate to very severe COPD who require or prefer nebulized therapy.