Tiotropium Respimat(®) Versus HandiHaler(®): Comparison of Bronchodilator Efficacy of Various Doses in Clinical Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
The long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium bromide is approved in many countries as maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Tiotropium is available as a dry-powder formulation delivered via HandiHaler(®) (18 μg once daily) and is now also approved as an aqueous solution delivered via the Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ Inhaler (5 μg once daily, 2 puffs of 2.5 µg). Several studies have compared the efficacy of tiotropium HandiHaler (18 μg once daily) with different doses of Respimat. We aimed to compare available bronchodilator efficacy data of once-daily Respimat 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, 20 µg, and HandiHaler 18 µg to investigate which dose of tiotropium delivered by Respimat is the closest match to tiotropium HandiHaler.Methods
Evaluation of six clinical trials (duration from 3 weeks to 2-3 years) that included lung function measures (trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s and trough forced vital capacity) as key outcomes.Results
In the six trials, bronchodilator efficacy of Respimat 5 μg and HandiHaler 18 μg was similar; however, reduced bronchodilator efficacy was observed with lower doses of Respimat (1.25 and 2.5 μg).Conclusion
These findings support the use of the marketed once-daily dose of Respimat 5 μg for the maintenance treatment of patients with COPD.Funding
Boehringer Ingelheim.
SUBMITTER: Calverley PM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4882367 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC4332287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIM:Two inhaler devices (Respimat® and HandiHaler®) are available for tiotropium, a long acting anticholinergic agent. We aimed to analyze drug utilization, off-label usage and generalizability of the TIOSPIR trial results for both devices. METHODS:Patients aged ?18 years exhibiting at least one documented prescription of tiotropium in the database of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Bavaria, Germany, were included (years 2004-2008). Annual period prevalence rates (PPRs) were calculated stratified by age, gender and inhaler devices. Off-label usage (patients lacking a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) diagnosis) and the proportion of patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the TIOSPIR trial were analyzed. RESULTS:Between 2004 and 2008, PPRs increased and varied between 49.2 and 74.5 per 10 000 persons for HandiHaler® and between 1.5 and 9.3 per 10 000 persons for Respimat®. Small differences regarding patient characteristics existed between the two inhaler devices. Only about 30% (HandiHaler® 32.1%, Respimat® 30.0%) of the database patients receiving tiotropium could be theoretically included in the TIOSPIR trial. CONCLUSIONS:Comparing the two tiotropium devices, no clinically relevant differences regarding patient and prescribing characteristics were revealed. Results of the TIOSPIR trial were generalizable only to a minority of our study patients, underlining the need for real-life data.
| S-EPMC4833170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In many countries worldwide, the long-acting anticholinergic drug tiotropium is available as a dry powder formulation delivered by means of the HandiHaler® inhalation device and as an aqueous solution delivered via the Respimat® Soft Mist™ Inhaler. Tiotropium HandiHaler® is a single-dose, dry powder, breath-actuated inhaler that provides delivered doses and lung deposition of tiotropium that are, over a wide range, not influenced by the severity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Tiotropium Respimat® is a propellant-free, multi-dose inhaler that delivers a metered dose of medication as a fine, slow-moving, long-lasting soft mist, independently of patient inspiratory effort. The high fine-particle fraction of droplets produced by the Respimat® inhaler optimizes the efficiency of drug delivery to the lungs.To help inform the choice of tiotropium inhaler for prescribers and patients, this systematic review summarizes the available pharmacokinetic, efficacy and safety data from comparative studies of tiotropium Respimat® and tiotropium HandiHaler® in COPD, focusing on the licensed once-daily doses of 5 and 18 ?g, respectively. Data sources reviewed include publications and abstracts identified from database searches.Published evidence from comparative studies suggests that tiotropium Respimat® 5 ?g and tiotropium HandiHaler® 18 ?g provide similar clinical outcomes in patients with COPD.The findings indicate that physicians can base their decision about an inhaler for tiotropium on factors other than efficacy or safety. These could be patient preference for a particular inhaler, ease of use and the efficiency of drug delivery, with the aim of optimizing adherence and clinical outcomes with long-term tiotropium maintenance therapy.
| S-EPMC5057252 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTiotropium is a once-daily, long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilator with the potential to alleviate airway obstruction in cystic fibrosis. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2.5 and 5 µg once-daily tiotropium delivered via the Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler vs. placebo in people with cystic fibrosis.MethodsThis phase 2, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group study of tiotropium Respimat as add-on to usual cystic fibrosis maintenance therapy included people with cystic fibrosis with pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≥ 25% predicted. Co-primary efficacy end points were change from baseline in percent-predicted FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 4 hours (FEV1 AUC0-4h), and trough FEV1 at the end of week 12.FindingsA total of 510 subjects with cystic fibrosis aged 5-69 years were randomized. Both doses of tiotropium resulted in significant improvement compared with placebo in the co-primary efficacy end points at the end of week 12 (change from baseline in percent-predicted FEV1 AUC0-4h: 2.5 µg: 2.94%, 95% confidence interval 1.19-4.70, p = 0.001; 5 µg: 3.39%, 95% confidence interval 1.67-5.12, p = 0.0001; in percent-predicted trough FEV1 ∶ 2.5 µg: 2.24%, p = 0.2; 5 µg: 2.22%, p = 0.02). There was a greater benefit with tiotropium 5 vs. 2.5 µg. No treatment-related adverse events or unexpected safety findings were observed in patients taking tiotropium.ConclusionsTiotropium significantly improved lung function in people with cystic fibrosis. The improvement was greater with the higher dose than the lower dose, with no difference in adverse events.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00737100 EudraCT 2008-001156-43.
| S-EPMC4154718 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Combining bronchodilators with different mechanisms of action may improve efficacy and reduce risk of side effects compared to increasing the dose of a single agent in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We investigated this by combining two long-acting bronchodilators: once-daily muscarinic antagonist tiotropium and once-daily ?2-agonist olodaterol.Two replicate, double-blind, randomized, 12-week studies (ANHELTO 1 [NCT01694771] and ANHELTO 2 [NCT01696058]) evaluated the efficacy and safety of olodaterol 5 ?g once daily (via Respimat(®)) combined with tiotropium 18 ?g once daily (via HandiHaler(®)) versus tiotropium 18 ?g once daily (via HandiHaler(®)) combined with placebo (via Respimat(®)) in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Primary efficacy end points were area under the curve from 0-3 hours of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1 AUC0-3) and trough FEV1 after 12 weeks (for the individual trials). A key secondary end point was health status by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (combined data set).Olodaterol + tiotropium resulted in significant improvements over tiotropium + placebo in FEV1 AUC0-3 (treatment differences: 0.117 L [P<0.001], ANHELTO 1; 0.106 L [P<0.001], ANHELTO 2) and trough FEV1 (treatment differences: 0.062 L [P<0.001], ANHELTO 1; 0.040 L [P=0.0029], ANHELTO 2); these were supported by secondary end points. These effects translated to improvements in SGRQ total scores (treatment difference -1.85; P<0.0001). The tolerability profile of olodaterol + tiotropium was similar to tiotropium monotherapy.These studies demonstrated that olodaterol (Respimat(®)) and tiotropium (HandiHaler(®)) provided bronchodilatory effects above tiotropium alone in patients with COPD. In general, both treatments were well tolerated.
| S-EPMC4206204 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:To compare the bronchodilator efficacy of 18 ?g once-daily tiotropium inhalation administered via Discair® versus HandiHaler® in adults with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). PATIENTS AND METHODS:Fifty-eight patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were enrolled in this randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label, Phase IV non-inferiority trial. Patients were randomly assigned to a test group (n=29, inhalation with Discair) or a reference group (n=29, inhalation with HandiHaler). The primary efficacy parameter was the average maximum change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1, in L). Change in forced vital capacity (FVC, in L), %FEV1 and %FVC, the standardized area under the response-time curve (AUC) for the absolute change in FEV1 and FVC, time to onset and peak of response, and safety data were also evaluated. RESULTS:The test inhaler was non-inferior to the reference inhaler in terms of maximum change in FEV1 at 24 h (unadjusted change: 0.0017 L [95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.0777, 0.0812]; change adjusted for time to reach maximum change in FEV1 and smoking in pack-years: 0.0116 L [95% CI: -0.0699, 0.0931]), based on a non-inferiority margin of 0.100 L. There were also no significant differences between the two groups in maximum change in FVC value from baseline (0.3417 L vs 0.4438 L, P=0.113), percent change from baseline (22.235 vs 20.783 for FEV1, P=0.662; 16.719 vs 20.337 for FVC, P=0.257), and AUC0-24 h (2.949 vs 2.833 L for FEV1, P=0.891; 2.897 vs 4.729 L for FVC, P=0.178). There were no adverse events, serious adverse events, or deaths. CONCLUSION:Our findings show that the Discair was non-inferior to the HandiHaler. More specifically, these devices had similar clinical efficacy in terms of time-dependent response over 24 h for patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.
| S-EPMC5125983 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:This post hoc analysis of TIOtropium Safety and Performance In Respimat (TIOSPIR) evaluated safety and exacerbation efficacy in patients with stable (? 2 months) use of tiotropium HandiHaler 18 µg (HH18) prior to study entry, to evaluate whether there was a difference in risk for patients who switched from HH18 to tiotropium Respimat 2.5 µg (R2.5) or 5 g (R5). SETTING:TIOSPIR (n=17,135) was an international, Phase IIIb/IV, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, event-driven trial. PARTICIPANTS:Patients from TIOSPIR with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and postbronchodilator ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 s to forced vital capacity ? 0.70, receiving HH18 before study entry, were analysed (n=2784). INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomised to once-daily tiotropium R2.5 (n=914), R5 (n=918) or HH18 (n=952) for 2-3 years. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: PRIMARY OUTCOMES:time to death (safety) and time to first COPD exacerbation (efficacy). SECONDARY OUTCOMES:number of exacerbations and time to first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). RESULTS:Baseline characteristics were similar in all groups. Respimat had a similar mortality risk versus HH18 (vital status follow-up, HR; 95% CI R2.5: 0.87; 0.64 to 1.17; R5: 0.79; 0.58 to 1.07) with no significant differences in the risk and rates of exacerbations and severe exacerbations across treatment groups. Risk of MACE and fatal MACE was similar for Respimat versus HH18 (HR; 95% CI MACE R2.5: 0.73; 0.47 to 1.15; R5: 0.69; 0.44 to 1.08; fatal MACE R2.5: 0.57; 0.27 to 1.19; R5: 0.67; 0.33 to 1.34). Overall risk of a fatal event (on treatment) was lower for R5 versus HH18 (HR; 95% CI R2.5: 0.78; 0.55 to 1.09; R5: 0.62; 0.43 to 0.89). CONCLUSIONS:This analysis indicates that it is safe to switch patients from tiotropium HandiHaler to tiotropium Respimat, and that the efficacy is maintained over the switch. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01126437; Post-results.
| S-EPMC4710815 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTiotropium Safety and Performance in Respimat® (TIOSPIR®) compared the safety and efficacy of tiotropium Respimat® and tiotropium HandiHaler® in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A prespecified spirometry substudy compared the lung function efficacy between treatment groups.MethodsTIOSPIR® was a large-scale, long-term (2.3-year), event-driven, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial of 17,135 patients with COPD. In the spirometry substudy, trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) were measured at baseline and every 24 weeks for the duration of the trial.ResultsThe substudy included 1370 patients who received once-daily tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg (n = 461), 2.5 μg (n = 464), or tiotropium HandiHaler® 18 μg (n = 445). Adjusted mean trough FEV1 (average 24-120 weeks) was 1.285, 1.258, and 1.295 L in the Respimat® 5 μg, 2.5 μg, and HandiHaler® 18 μg groups (difference versus HandiHaler® [95 % CI]: -10 [-38, 18] mL for Respimat® 5 μg and, -37 [-65, -9] mL for Respimat® 2.5 μg); achieving noninferiority to tiotropium HandiHaler® 18 μg for tiotropium Respimat® 5 but not for 2.5 μg (prespecified analysis). Adjusted mean trough FVC was 2.590, 2.544, and 2.593 L in the Respimat® 5 μg, 2.5 μg, and HandiHaler® 18 μg groups. The rates of FEV1 decline over 24 to 120 weeks were similar for the three treatment arms (26, 40, and 34 mL/year for the tiotropium Respimat® 5-μg, 2.5-μg, and HandiHaler® 18-μg groups). The rate of FEV1 decline in GOLD I + II patients was greater than in GOLD III + IV patients (46 vs. 23 mL/year); as well as in current versus ex-smokers, in patients receiving combination therapies at baseline versus not, and in those experiencing an exacerbation during the study versus not.ConclusionsThe TIOSPIR® spirometry substudy showed that tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg was noninferior to tiotropium HandiHaler® 18 μg for trough FEV1, but Respimat® 2.5 μg was not. Tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg provides similar bronchodilator efficacy to tiotropium HandiHaler® 18 μg with comparable rates of FEV1 decline. The rate of FEV1 decline varied based on disease severity, with a steeper rate of decline observed in patients with moderate airway obstruction.Trial registrationNCT01126437.
| S-EPMC4570597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The cardiovascular safety of tiotropium Respimat formulation in the routine clinical practice is still an open issue. Our aim was to compare the risk of acute myocardial infarction and heart rhythm disorders in incident users of either tiotropium Respimat or HandiHaler. The study population comprises patients aged ≥45 years, resident in two Italian regions with a first prescription of tiotropium (HandiHaler or Respimat) between 01/07/2011-30/11/2013. The cohort was identified through the database of prescriptions reimbursed by the Italian National Health Service. Comorbidities and clinical outcomes were obtained from hospital records. The primary outcome was the first hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction and/or for heart rhythm disorders during the exposure period. Hazard ratios were estimated in the propensity score-matched groups through Cox regression. After matching, 31,334 patients with incident prescription of tiotropium were included. The two groups were balanced with regard to baseline characteristics. Similar incidence rates of the primary outcome between Respimat and HandiHaler users were identified (adjusted hazard ratio 1.02, 95% CI 0.82-1.28). No risk difference between Respimat and HandiHaler emerged when considering clinical events separately. This large cohort study showed a comparable acute cardiovascular safety profile of the two tiotropium formulations.
| S-EPMC5400270 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who were naive to anticholinergics before the TIOtropium Safety and Performance In Respimat (TIOSPIR) trial may reflect patients seen in practice, in particular in primary care. In addition, investigating safety in these patients avoids the potential bias in patients who previously received anticholinergics and may be tolerant of their effects.AimsThe aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients naive to anticholinergic therapy who were treated with tiotropium Respimat 2.5 or 5 μg had different safety and efficacy outcomes than patients treated with tiotropium HandiHaler 18 μg.MethodsA post hoc analysis of patients who were not receiving anticholinergics before TIOSPIR (N=6,966/17,135) was conducted. Primary end points were risk of death from any cause and risk of COPD exacerbation. Secondary outcomes included severe exacerbation and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Additional analysis of exacerbations was carried out in anticholinergic-naive patients with moderate (GOLD II) disease.ResultsAnticholinergic-naive patients had less severe disease than the total TIOSPIR population. Discontinuations because of anticholinergic side effects were infrequent (0.9% overall). Similar to the primary study, patients in the tiotropium Respimat groups had no difference in the risk of death or risk of any or severe exacerbation than patients treated with tiotropium HandiHaler. Risk of MACE was similar across the Respimat and HandiHaler groups. Rates of exacerbations in the subgroup of patients with moderate disease were similar across the Respimat and HandiHaler groups.ConclusionsTiotropium Respimat and HandiHaler have similar safety and efficacy profiles in patients who are naive to anticholinergic therapy.
| S-EPMC4634206 | biostudies-literature