Dataset Information

Direct Switch from Tiotropium to Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients in Korea.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Many chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients receiving monotherapy continue to experience symptoms, exacerbations and poor quality of life. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of direct switch from once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg to indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) 110/50 μg once-daily in COPD patients in Korea.

Methods

This was a randomized, open-label, parallel group, 12-week trial in mild-to-moderate COPD patients who received TIO 18 μg once-daily for ≥12 weeks prior to study initiation. Patients aged ≥40 years, with predicted postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≥50%, post-bronchodilator FEV1/forced vital capacity <0.7 and smoking history of ≥10 pack-years were included. Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either IND/GLY or TIO. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of IND/GLY over TIO in pre-dose trough FEV1 at week 12. Secondary endpoints included transition dyspnea index (TDI) focal score, COPD assessment test (CAT) total score, and rescue medication use following the 12-week treatment, and safety assessment.

Results

Of the 442 patients screened, 379 were randomized and 347 completed the study. IND/GLY demonstrated superiority in pre-dose trough FEV1 versus TIO at week 12 (least squares mean treatment difference [Δ], 50 mL; p=0.013). Also, numerical improvements were observed with IND/GLY in the TDI focal score (Δ, 0.31), CAT total score (Δ, -0.81), and rescue medication use (Δ, -0.09 puffs/day). Both treatments were well tolerated by patients.

Conclusion

A direct switch from TIO to IND/GLY provided improvements in lung function and other patient-reported outcomes with an acceptable safety profile in patients with mild-to-moderate airflow limitation.

SUBMITTER: Lee SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8010420 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe fixed-dose, long-acting bronchodilator combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) has not previously been compared with a combination of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting β2-agonist in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).MethodsThis 12-week, randomized, blinded, triple-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study compared once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18 mcg + indacaterol (IND) 150 mcg in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD. The primary endpoint was the trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 85 (predefined non-inferiority margin -50 mL), and the secondary endpoint was the 0- to 6-h weighted mean (WM) FEV1 on day 84. Other efficacy endpoints [including rescue medication use, the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score, and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score] and safety endpoints [adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and COPD exacerbations] were also assessed.ResultsTrough FEV1 improvements were comparable between treatment groups [least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline to day 85: UMEC/VI 172 mL; TIO + IND 171 mL; treatment difference 1 mL; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -29 to 30 mL], demonstrating non-inferiority between UMEC/VI and TIO + IND. The treatments produced similar improvements in the trough FEV1 at other study visits and the 0- to 6-h WM FEV1 (LS mean changes at day 84: UMEC/VI 235 mL; TIO + IND 258 mL; treatment difference -23 mL; 95 % CI -54 to 8 mL). The results for patient-reported measures (rescue medication use, TDI focal score, and SGRQ score) were comparable; both treatments produced clinically meaningful improvements in TDI and SGRQ scores. The incidence of AEs and COPD exacerbations, and changes in vital signs were similar for the two treatments.ConclusionUMEC/VI and TIO + IND, given once daily, provided similar improvements in lung function and patient-reported outcomes over 12 weeks in patients with COPD, with comparable tolerability and safety profiles.Trial numbersClinicalTrials.gov study ID NCT02257385; GSK study no. 116961.

Project description:Background:Cost-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. Methods:A 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. Results:Over 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. Conclusions:For 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.

Project description:BackgroundTiotropium (TIO) is a well-established bronchodilator, LAMA (long-acting anticholinergic), for the treatment of moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Clinical evidence suggests that tiotropium is superior to usual non-LAMA care (UC) but may also have benefits compared to other LAMAs in preventing and limiting the effects of severe exacerbations. The primary objective of this study was to undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis of adding tiotropium to usual care versus usual care alone. A secondary objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium compared to glycopyrronium (GLY), another LAMA. The study was conducted with a Swedish setting in mind.MethodsA Markov cohort model, incorporating the effects of exacerbations, was populated with efficacy data from the UPLIFT and SPARK trials and epidemiological data relevant for a Swedish patient population. Treatment efficacy of tiotropium was modelled as a lowering of the risk of exacerbations and as a slow-down of overall disease progression. The model followed patients over their remaining life-time.ResultsThe base case analysis showed that patients treated with tiotropium gained 0.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to usual care alone at an incremental cost of SEK 15,041, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of SEK 224,850. Compared to glycopyrronium the QALY gained was estimated to 0.23 QALYs in favour of tiotropium at an incremental cost of SEK 2423, yielding a cost per QALY gained of SEK 10,456. The results were mainly driven by differences in the risk of severe exacerbations.ConclusionAt the current implicit willingness-to-pay (WTP) per QALY threshold in Sweden, the results from this study indicate that tiotropium is a highly cost-effective intervention when added to usual non-LAMA care in the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD in Sweden. In addition, tiotropium is a highly cost-effective intervention when compared to glycopyrronium monotherapy.