Dataset Information

A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The long-acting muscarinic antagonists umeclidinium (UMEC) and tiotropium (TIO) are approved once-daily maintenance therapies for COPD. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of UMEC versus TIO in COPD.

Methods

This was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to UMEC 62.5 μg plus placebo or TIO 18 μg plus placebo. The primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at day 85 (non-inferiority margin -50 mL; per-protocol [PP] population). Other end points included weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 and 12-24 hours post-dose. Patient-reported outcomes comprised Transition Dyspnea Index score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and COPD Assessment Test score. Adverse events were also assessed.

Results

In total, 1,017 patients were randomized to treatment. In the PP population, 489 and 487 patients received UMEC and TIO, respectively. In the PP population, change from baseline in trough FEV1 was greater with UMEC versus TIO at day 85, meeting non-inferiority and superiority margins (difference: 59 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 29-88; P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat analysis of trough FEV1 at day 85 (53 mL, 95% CI: 25-81; P<0.001). Improvements in weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 hours post-dose at day 84 were similar with UMEC and TIO but significantly greater with UMEC versus TIO over 12-24 hours post-dose (70 mL; P=0.015). Clinically meaningful improvements in Transition Dyspnea Index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire were observed with both treatments at all time points. No differences were observed between UMEC and TIO in patient-reported outcomes. Overall incidences of adverse events were similar for UMEC and TIO.

Conclusion

UMEC 62.5 μg demonstrated superior efficacy to TIO 18 μg on the primary end point of trough FEV1 at day 85. Safety profiles were similar for both treatments.

SUBMITTER: Feldman G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4827908 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD.

Feldman Gregory G Maltais François F Khindri Sanjeev S Vahdati-Bolouri Mitra M Church Alison A Fahy William A WA Trivedi Roopa R

International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 20160407

<h4>Background</h4>The long-acting muscarinic antagonists umeclidinium (UMEC) and tiotropium (TIO) are approved once-daily maintenance therapies for COPD. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of UMEC versus TIO in COPD.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to UMEC 62.5 μg plus placebo or TIO 18 μg plus placebo. The primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 ...[more]

PMID: 27103795

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe combination of the inhaled muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) with the long-acting β2-agonist vilanterol (VI) has been shown to provide significant improvements in lung function compared with UMEC, VI, or placebo (PBO) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study was specifically designed to support these findings by assessing health-related quality of life and symptomatic outcomes in a similar population.MethodsThis was a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg (via ELLIPTA(®) dry powder inhaler) or PBO for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at day 84. Secondary efficacy endpoints included rescue albuterol use (puffs/day) over weeks 1-12 and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second on day 84. Adverse events were also assessed.ResultsA total of 496 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population in the UMEC/VI (n=248) and PBO (n=248) treatment groups. UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in SGRQ total score at day 84 versus PBO (difference between treatments in SGRQ total score change from baseline: -4.03 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -6.28, -1.79]; P<0.001). UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg resulted in a statistically significant reduction in rescue albuterol use versus PBO (-0.7 puffs/day [95% CI: -1.1, -0.4]; P<0.001). UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second on day 84 versus PBO (122 mL [95% CI: 71, 172]; P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments (32% and 30% of patients in the UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg and PBO groups, respectively).ConclusionThe results of this study demonstrate that treatment with UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg provides clinically important improvements in SGRQ and rescue medication use versus PBO in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD.

Project description:BackgroundLong-acting bronchodilators are the cornerstone of pharmacologic treatment of COPD. The new combination of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) tiotropium (TIO) and long acting beta-agonists (LABA) olodaterol (OLO) has been introduced as fist line therapy for COPD. This article analyses the evidence of efficacy and safety of the TIO/OLO combination.MethodsA systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) with a period of treatment of at least 6 weeks, in patients with COPD confirmed by spirometry, comparing combined treatment with TIO/OLO (approved doses only), with any of the mono-components or any other active comparator administered as an inhalator.ResultsA total of 10 Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were identified (N = 10,918). TIO/OLO significantly improved trough FEV1 from baseline to week 12 versus TIO, OLO and LABA/ICS (0.06 L, 0.09 L and between 0.04 and 0.05 L, respectively). TIO/OLO improved transitional dyspnea index (TDI) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) compared with mono-components, with patients more likely to achieve clinically important improvements in TDI (risk ratio [RR]: 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.07, 1.28] versus TIO and RR: 1.14, 95%CI: [1.01, 1.28] versus OLO) and in SGRQ (RR: 1.21, 95%CI: [1.12, 1.30] versus TIO and RR: 1.28, 95%CI: [1.18, 1.40] versus OLO). Patients treated with TIO/OLO showed a significant reduction in the use of rescue medication and no significant differences in frequency of general and serious adverse events were observed between TIO/OLO and mono-components.ConclusionsTreatment with TIO/OLO provided significant improvements in lung function versus mono-components and LABA/ICS with more patients achieving significant improvements in dyspnea and health status. No differences in adverse events were observed compared with other active treatments.Clinical trial registrationPROSPERO register of systematic reviews ( CRD42016040162 ).

Project description:BackgroundTwo once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are currently available for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) - tiotropium and glycopyrronium. Previous studies have compared glycopyrronium with open-label tiotropium. In the GLOW5 study, we compare glycopyrronium with blinded tiotropium.MethodsIn this blinded, double-dummy, parallel group, 12-week study, patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized 1:1 to glycopyrronium 50 μg once daily or tiotropium 18 μg once daily. The primary objective was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of glycopyrronium versus blinded tiotropium with respect to trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) following 12 weeks of treatment (non-inferiority margin: -50 mL). Secondary objectives were to evaluate glycopyrronium versus tiotropium for other spirometric outcomes, breathlessness (Transition Dyspnea Index; TDI), health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire; SGRQ), daily rescue medication use, COPD exacerbations and COPD symptoms over 12 weeks of treatment.Results657 patients were randomized (glycopyrronium: 327; tiotropium: 330); 96% (630 patients) completed the study. Least squares mean trough FEV1 for both glycopyrronium and tiotropium was 1.405 L at Week 12, meeting the criterion for non-inferiority (mean treatment difference: 0 mL, 95% CI: -32, 31 mL). Glycopyrronium demonstrated rapid bronchodilation following first dose on Day 1, with significantly higher FEV1 at all time points from 0-4 h post-dose versus tiotropium (all p < 0.001). FEV1 area under the curve from 0-4 h (AUC0-4h) post-dose with glycopyrronium was significantly superior to tiotropium on Day 1 (p < 0.001) and was comparable to tiotropium at Week 12. Glycopyrronium demonstrated comparable improvements to tiotropium in TDI focal score, SGRQ total score, rescue medication use and the rate of COPD exacerbations (all p = not significant). Patients on glycopyrronium also had a significantly lower total COPD symptom score versus patients on tiotropium after 12 weeks (p = 0.035). Adverse events were reported by a similar percentage of patients receiving glycopyrronium (40.4%) and tiotropium (40.6%).ConclusionIn patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, 12-week blinded treatment with once-daily glycopyrronium 50 μg or tiotropium 18 μg, provided similar efficacy and safety, with glycopyrronium having a faster onset of action on Day 1 versus tiotropium.

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: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:BackgroundCost-effectiveness of once-daily umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) was compared with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) and once-daily glycopyrronium (GLY) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.MethodsA linked-equation model was implemented to estimate COPD progression, associated healthcare costs, exacerbations rates, life years (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALYs). Statistical risk equations for endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively. Treatment effects [mean (standard error)] at 12 weeks on forced expiratory volume in 1 s and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score were obtained from the intention-to-treat populations of two head-to-head studies [GSK study identifiers 201316 (NCT02207829) and 201315 (NCT02236611)] which compared UMEC 62.5 mcg with TIO 18 mcg and UMEC 62.5 mcg with GLY 50 mcg, respectively. Treatment costs reflect UK list prices (2016) and NHS unit costs; UMEC and GLY prices being equal and less than TIO. A lifetime horizon, discounted costs and effects at 3.5% were used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of variations in input parameters and assumptions in the model.ResultsOver a lifetime horizon, UMEC was predicted to increase LYs (+ 0.195; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.069, 0.356) and QALYs (+ 0.118; 95% CI: 0.055, 0.191) and reduce the number of annual exacerbations (- 0.053; 95% CI: - 0.171, 0.028) compared with TIO, with incremental cost savings of £460/patient (95% CI: - £645, - £240). Compared with GLY, UMEC increased LYs (+ 0.124; 95% CI: 0.015, 0.281) and QALYs (+ 0.101; 95% CI: 0.043, 0.179) and reduced annual exacerbation (- 0.033; 95% CI: - 0.135, 0.017) at an additional cost of £132/patient (95% CI: £12, £330), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1310/QALY (95% CI: £284, £2060). Similar results were observed in alternative time horizons and additional sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsFor treatment of patients with COPD in the UK over a lifetime horizon, treatment with UMEC dominates treatment with TIO, providing both improved health outcomes and cost savings. In comparison with GLY, treatment with UMEC achieved improved health outcomes but was associated with a higher cost.Trial registration 201316, NCT02207829; 201315, NCT02236611.

Dataset Information

A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets