Dataset Information

Tiotropium and Salmeterol in COPD Patients at Risk of Exacerbations: A Post Hoc Analysis from POET-COPD(®).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the frequency and severity of past exacerbations potentiates future events. The impact of current therapies on exacerbation frequency and severity in patients with different exacerbation risks is not well known.

Methods

A post hoc analysis of patients at low (≤1 exacerbation [oral steroids/antibiotics requirement] and no COPD-related hospitalization in the year preceding trial entry) or high (≥2 exacerbations [oral steroids/antibiotics requirement] or ≥1 COPD-related hospitalization[s] in the year preceding trial entry) exacerbation risk, from the Prevention of Exacerbations with Tiotropium in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (POET-COPD(®)) database.

Results

Compared with salmeterol, tiotropium significantly increased time to first COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.92; p = 0.0002) and reduced the number of COPD exacerbations (rate ratio 0.90; 95% CI 0.81-0.99; p = 0.0383) in patients at high exacerbation risk. With treatment, the risk of remaining in the high-risk exacerbator subgroup was statistically lower with tiotropium versus salmeterol (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% CI 0.80-1.00; p = 0.0478). For low-risk patients, time to first COPD exacerbation and number of COPD exacerbations were numerically lower with tiotropium versus salmeterol. With treatment, the risk of transitioning from a low to a high exacerbation risk was lower with tiotropium versus salmeterol (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.71-1.07; p = 0.1968).

Discussion

This analysis confirms the higher efficacy of tiotropium versus salmeterol in prolonging time to first COPD exacerbation and reducing number of exacerbations in patients both at low and high exacerbation risk.

Funding

Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

Clinical trial registration number

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00563381.

SUBMITTER: Vogelmeier CF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4487350 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSince chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous condition, a composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration (CID) may provide a more holistic assessment of treatment efficacy. We compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist combination therapy with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium alone using a composite endpoint for CID. CID was evaluated overall and in patients with low exacerbation history (at most one moderate exacerbation in the past year [not leading to hospitalisation]), Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2 patients and maintenance-naïve patients with COPD. We assessed whether early treatment optimisation is more effective with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium in delaying and reducing the risk of CID.MethodsData were analysed from 2055 patients treated with either tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 μg or tiotropium 5 μg (delivered via Respimat®) in two replicate, 52-week, parallel-group, double-blind studies (TONADO® 1/2). CID was defined as a decline of at least 0.1 L from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, increase from baseline of at least 4 units in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, or moderate/severe exacerbation. Time to first occurrence of one of these events was recorded as time to first CID.ResultsOverall, treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol significantly increased the time to, and reduced the risk of, CID versus tiotropium (median time to CID 226 versus 169 days; hazard ratio [HR] 0.76 [95% confidence interval 0.68, 0.85]; P < 0.0001). Significant reductions were also observed in patients with low exacerbation history (241 versus 170; HR 0.73 [0.64, 0.83]; P < 0.0001), GOLD 2 patients (241 versus 169; 0.72 [0.61, 0.84]; P < 0.0001) and maintenance-naïve patients (233 versus 171; 0.75 [0.62, 0.91]; P = 0.0030).ConclusionIn patients with COPD, including patients with low exacerbation history, GOLD 2 patients and maintenance-naïve patients, tiotropium/olodaterol reduced the risk of CID versus tiotropium. These results demonstrate the advantages of treatment optimisation with tiotropium/olodaterol over tiotropium monotherapy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: TONADO® 1 and 2 (NCT01431274 and NCT01431287, registered 8 September 2011).

Project description:BackgroundIn the InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This post hoc analysis tested the relationship between baseline health status, risk of future exacerbations, and efficacy outcomes.MethodsIMPACT was a Phase 3, double-blind, 52-week trial in patients with symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test [CAT] score ≥10) and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25mcg, FF/VI 100/25mcg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25mcg. Annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations, lung function, and safety were analyzed by continuous baseline CAT score.ResultsModerate/severe exacerbation rates increased with increasing baseline CAT scores in FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI arms. There was a very small increase in on-treatment pneumonia rates at higher baseline CAT scores across all treatment arms. FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus UMEC/VI (i.e., the inhaled corticosteroid effect) consistently across the range of CAT scores. The reduction with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI (i.e., the long-acting muscarinic antagonist effect) was greatest at lower CAT scores and appeared lesser at higher CAT scores. Improvements in lung function were observed with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI, regardless of baseline CAT score.ConclusionsThe CAT score was predictive of exacerbation risk. Worse baseline health status was associated with higher moderate/severe exacerbation and pneumonia rates. Irrespective of baseline CAT score, FF/UMEC/VI improved lung function, and reduced the annual moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus dual therapy. Results indicate an overall favorable benefit-risk profile of triple versus dual therapy, irrespective of CAT score. Clinical Trial Registration:GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are associated with loss of lung function and poor outcomes for patients. However, there are limited data on the time course of changes in forced expiratory volume in 1?s (FEV1) preceding the first reported symptom and after the start of an exacerbation. METHODS:WISDOM was a multinational, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 52-week study in patients with severe-to-very severe COPD. Patients received triple therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting ?2-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]) for 6?weeks, and were randomized to continue triple therapy or stepwise withdrawal of the ICS (dual bronchodilator group). After suitable training, patients performed daily spirometry at home using a portable, battery-operated spirometer. In the present post hoc analysis, patients who continued to perform daily home spirometry and completed at least one measurement per week for a 56-day period before and after the start of a moderate or severe exacerbation were included. Missing values were imputed by linear interpolation (intermittent), backfilling (beginning) or carry forward (end). Exacerbation onset was the first day of a reported symptom of exacerbation. RESULTS:Eight hundred and eighty-eight patients in the WISDOM study had a moderate/severe exacerbation after the complete ICS withdrawal visit; 360 of them contributed at least one FEV1 measure per week for the 8?weeks before and after the event and are included in this analysis. Mean daily FEV1 began to decline from approximately 2?weeks before the onset of symptoms of an exacerbation, dropping from 0.907?L (mean Days -?56 to -?36 before the exacerbation) to 0.860?L on the first day of the exacerbation. After the exacerbation, mean FEV1 improved but did not return to pre-exacerbation levels (mean Days 36-56 after the exacerbation, 0.875?L). The pattern of FEV1 changes around exacerbations was similar in the triple therapy and dual bronchodilator groups, and a similar pattern was seen in moderate and severe exacerbations when analysed separately. CONCLUSIONS:Mean lung function starts to decline prior to the first reported symptoms of an exacerbation, and does not recover to pre-exacerbation levels 8?weeks after the event. TRIAL REGISTRATION:WISDOM (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00975195 ).

Project description:IntroductionTiotropium is prescribed for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and delivered via HandiHaler(®) (18 μg once daily) or Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ inhaler (5 μg once daily). The recent TIOtropium Safety and Performance In Respimat(®) (TIOSPIR™) study demonstrated that both exhibit similar safety profiles. This analysis provides an updated comprehensive safety evaluation of tiotropium(®) using data from placebo-controlled HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) trials.MethodsPooled analysis of adverse event (AE) data from tiotropium HandiHaler(®) 18 μg and Respimat(®) 5 μg randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, clinical trials in patients with COPD (treatment duration ≥4 weeks). Incidence rates, rate ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined for HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) trials, both together and separately.ResultsIn the 28 HandiHaler(®) and 7 Respimat(®) trials included in this analysis, 11,626 patients were treated with placebo and 12,929 with tiotropium, totaling 14,909 (12,469 with HandiHaler(®); 2,440 with Respimat(®)) patient-years of tiotropium exposure. Mean age was 65 years, and mean prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 1.16 L (41% predicted). The risk (RR [95% CI]) of AEs (0.90 [0.87, 0.93]) and of serious AEs (SAEs) (0.94 [0.89, 0.99]) was significantly lower in the tiotropium than in the placebo group (HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) pooled results), and there was a numerically lower risk of fatal AEs (FAEs) (0.90 [0.79, 1.01]). The risk of cardiac AEs (0.93 [0.85, 1.02]) was numerically lower in the tiotropium group. Incidences of typical anticholinergic AEs, but not SAEs, were higher with tiotropium. Analyzed separately by inhaler, the risks of AE and SAE in the tiotropium groups remained lower than in placebo and similarly for FAEs.ConclusionThis analysis indicates that tiotropium is associated with lower rates of AEs, SAEs, and similar rates of FAEs than placebo when delivered via HandiHaler(®) or Respimat(®) (overall and separately) in patients with COPD.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The burden of chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) is increasing in women, with recent evidence suggesting gender differences in disease characteristics and potentially in treatment outcomes. METHODS:FLAME was a 52-week randomized controlled trial in patients with severe-to-very-severe COPD and a history of exacerbations. In this post-hoc analysis, gender-based baseline differences and treatment outcomes between indacaterol/glycopyrronium 110/50??g once daily (IND/GLY) and salmeterol/fluticasone 50/500 twice daily (SFC) were assessed in terms of rate of exacerbations, time-to-first exacerbation, lung function, health status, and rescue medication use. RESULTS:This post-hoc analysis included 2557 men and 805 women. Baseline characteristics differed between genders, with women being younger, having better lung function and more often experiencing ?2 exacerbations in the previous year. Compared with SFC, IND/GLY treatment was associated with reductions in the annualized rates of moderate/severe exacerbations (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.81 [0.73-0.91], 0.89 [0.74-1.07] in men and women, respectively). Similarly, time-to-first moderate/severe exacerbation was also delayed (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.79 [0.70-0.89] and 0.76 [0.63-0.91] in men and women, respectively). Results were similar for all (mild/moderate/severe) exacerbations. Improvements in lung function, health status and rescue medication use with IND/GLY vs SFC were comparable between men and women. The smaller sample size for women may account for some observed discrepancies in treatment responses. CONCLUSIONS:Although there were gender differences in baseline characteristics, IND/GLY demonstrated similar trends for exacerbation prevention and lung function improvement in men and women with moderate-to-very-severe COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with SFC. Small differences in the effects seen between genders may be attributed to the different sizes of the two groups and need to be further evaluated in randomized trials that are appropriately powered for gender analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Post hoc analysis of the FLAME study. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01782326 . Registered 1 February 2013.