Dataset Information

Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in COPD: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: Two once-daily inhaled bronchodilators, indacaterol and tiotropium, are widely used as first-line therapy in stable COPD patients. This study was performed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at week 12. Four RCTs were eligible for inclusion (three RCTs with moderate-to-severe COPD patients and one RCT with only severe COPD patients). Trough FEV? at weeks 12 and 26 were not significantly different between indacaterol and tiotropium by the standardized mean difference with 0.014 (95% CI, -0.036, 0.063, I²= 23.5%) and with 0.037 (95% CI, -0.059 to 0.133, I²= 0%) along with differences in means of 0.003L and 0.014L, respectively. Indacaterol and tiotropium also showed similar St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores and percentages of patients with SGRQ improvement (? 4 units) at week 26. The incidences of nasopharyngitis, serious cardiovascular events, and serious adverse events were not different between indacaterol and tiotropium, while those of cough (OR = 1.68, P < 0.001, and RR = 1.63) and COPD worsening (OR = 1.18, P = 0.003, and RR = 1.12) were higher for indacaterol than tiotropium. However, when one study with only severe COPD patients was removed from the meta-analysis, the difference in the incidence of COPD worsening between indacaterol and tiotropium became non-significant (OR = 1.13, P = 0.204, and RR = 1.09). The clinical efficacy and serious adverse events between indacaterol and tiotropium were equivocal in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Cough is a common complaint associated with indacaterol, and COPD worsening needs to be carefully monitored in severe COPD patients when treated with indacaterol.

SUBMITTER: Kim JS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4370711 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in COPD: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Kim Jung Soo JS Park Jinkyeong J Lim Seong Yong SY Oh Yeon-Mok YM Yoo Kwang Ha KH Park Yong Bum YB Sheen Seung Soo SS Kim Min-Ji MJ Carriere K C KC Jung Ji Ye JY Park Hye Yun HY

PloS one 20150323 3

Two once-daily inhaled bronchodilators, indacaterol and tiotropium, are widely used as first-line therapy in stable COPD patients. This study was performed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at ...[more]

PMID: 25799171

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIndacaterol is a novel, inhaled, once-daily, ultra-long-acting β2-agonist for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This randomized, double-blind study compared the bronchodilator efficacy of indacaterol with that of placebo and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.MethodsIn an incomplete-block, multi-dose, three-period, crossover design, patients received three of the following four treatments: indacaterol 150 μg, indacaterol 300 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and placebo, each once-daily for 14 days. Each treatment period was separated by a 14-day washout. Study drug was supplied daily by blinded, third party study personnel to maintain blinding of patients and investigators. The primary efficacy variable was trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at 24 h post-dose after 14 days. The study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of indacaterol to tiotropium for this variable.ResultsA total of 169 patients were randomized (mean age 65 years); 153 (90.5%) completed. Trough FEV1 after 14 days with indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg was statistically and clinically superior to placebo, with differences (95% CI) of 170 (120-220) and 150 (100-200) mL respectively (both p < 0.001). For this endpoint, both doses of indacaterol not only met the criterion for non-inferiority compared with tiotropium, but also achieved numerically higher values, with differences versus tiotropium of 40 and 30 mL for indacaterol 150 and 300 μg, respectively. At 5 min post-dose on Day 1, the mean FEV1 for both indacaterol doses was significantly higher than placebo (by 120 and 130 mL for indacaterol 150 and 300 μg, respectively; p < 0.001) and tiotropium (by 80 mL for both doses; p < 0.001). Adverse events were reported by similar proportions of patients: 31.4%, 29.5%, 28.3% and 28.5% for indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg, tiotropium and placebo treatments, respectively.ConclusionsOnce-daily indacaterol provided clinically and statistically significant 24-h bronchodilation. Indacaterol was at least as effective as tiotropium, with a faster onset of action (within 5 min) on the first day of dosing. Indacaterol should prove useful in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, for whom treatment with one or more classes of long-acting bronchodilator is recommended.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00615459, EudraCT number: 2007-004071-19.

Project description:IntroductionThe objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg twice daily compared to tiotropium 18 μg once daily in adult patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).MethodsA systematic literature review performed in March 2014, using a predefined search strategy in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, identified 17 randomized placebo-controlled trials, (tiotropium n = 15; aclidinium/formoterol n = 2). Outcomes of interest were: bronchodilation (peak and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)), COPD symptoms [Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score and % of responders (>1 unit improvement)] and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) [St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and % responders (>4 unit improvement)], % of patients with ≥1 exacerbations, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), hospitalization and mortality, all at 24 weeks. In the absence of head-to-head trials between aclidinium/formoterol and tiotropium, a Bayesian indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was used with placebo as common control.ResultsRegarding bronchodilation, aclidinium/formoterol was found to be more efficacious than tiotropium at peak FEV1, with mean difference in change from baseline (DCFB) 143 mL [95% credible interval (CrI): 112, 174] and at trough FEV1 [DCFB 26 mL (95% CrI -2, 55)]. Aclidinium/formoterol is expected to be more efficacious than tiotropium in improving dyspnea symptoms measured by TDI [DCFB 0.54 points (95% CrI 0.09, 0.99); odds ratio (OR) of responders 1.51 (95% CrI 1.11, 2.06)]. SGRQ results are comparable for aclidinium/formoterol versus tiotropium [DCFB -0.52 (95% CrI -2.21, 1.17); OR of responders 1.16 (95% CrI 0.47, 2.87)]. The ITC results suggest similar safety profiles regarding AEs, SAEs and hospitalization.ConclusionBased on the ITC, aclidinium/formoterol is expected to be more efficacious than tiotropium in terms of lung function and symptom control while providing comparable HRQoL results and safety profile.FundingAstraZeneca.

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:ObjectiveTotal knee replacement (TKA) is an effective way to treat teratogenic and disabling knee diseases such as advanced osteoarthritis. Tourniquets are often used in TKA to reduce bleeding and to get a better visualization of the surgical field, while it is related to safety concerns. We did this network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of various tourniquet application strategies.MethodPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and WanFang Database were systematically searched from January 1990 to May 2020. A network meta-analysis with a frequentist framework was done to assess the relative efficacy and safety by comparing seven clinical important endpoints.Results38 eligible studies that assessed 3007 participants who underwent TKA were included in this network meta-analysis. Tourniquet inflation before osteotomy then deflation after wound closure effectively reduce perioperative bleeding (WMD compared with control group -234.66, 95% CI [-409.19 to -60.13]), while shortening the operation time (WMD -8.98, 95%CI [-14.07 to -3.88]) and reducing postoperative complications, including DVT (OR -0.58, 95%CI [-1.19 to 0.03]) and minor wound complications (OR -1.38, 95%CI [-3.00 to 0.25]). No difference was found in the late postoperative knee pain and function outcomes.ConclusionsUsing tourniquets during the entire operation can effectively reduce blood loss, but it also can cause many safety problems, including DVTs, wound oozing, delayed healing, and serious wound complications. Tourniquet inflation before osteotomy then deflation after wound closure effectively can reduce perioperative bleeding while shortening the operation time and reducing postoperative complications, so it could be the ideal tourniquet application strategy in TKA.Key messagesThis is the first study that comprehensively compared different tourniquet application strategies to evaluate their impact on postoperative recovery following TKA, and five clinically important endpoints were assessed in this study: perioperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative pain and function, and complications.We conclude that tourniquet inflation before osteotomy then deflation after wound closure could be the ideal tourniquet application strategy in TKA.

Dataset Information

Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in COPD: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in COPD: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets