Once-daily long-acting beta-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an indirect comparison of olodaterol and indacaterol.

This international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal by Dove Medical Press focuses on pathophysiological processes underlying Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) interventions, patient focused education, and self-management protocols. Sign up for email alerts here.

39,063 Monthly downloads/views I 2.893 Impact Factor I 5.2 CiteScore I 1.16 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) I 0.804 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Once-daily long-acting beta-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an indirect comparison of olodaterol and indacaterol.

Author(s): Neil S Roskell ¹ , Antonio Anzueto ² , Alan Hamilton ³ , Bernd Disse ⁴ , Karin Becker ⁵

Publication date (Electronic): 2014

Journal: International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Publisher: Informa UK Limited

Keywords: COPD, LABA, indacaterol, meta-analysis, olodaterol, systematic review

Read this article at

ScienceOpenPublisher PMC

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials comparing the once-daily, long-acting beta2-agonists olodaterol and indacaterol for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an indirect treatment comparison by systematic review and synthesis of the available clinical evidence was conducted.

Most cited references 38

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

H. C. Bucher, G H Guyatt, L Griffith … (1997)

When little or no data directly comparing two treatments are available, investigators often rely on indirect comparisons from studies testing the treatments against a control or placebo. One approach to indirect comparison is to pool findings from the active treatment arms of the original controlled trials. This approach offers no advantage over a comparison of observational study data and is prone to bias. We present an alternative model that evaluates the differences between treatment and placebo in two sets of clinical trials, and preserves the randomization of the originally assigned patient groups. We apply the method to data on sulphamethoxazole-trimethoprim or dapsone/pyrimethamine as prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii in HIV infected patients. The indirect comparison showed substantial increased benefit from the former (odds ratio 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.65), while direct comparisons from randomized trials suggests a much smaller difference (risk ratio 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.90; p-value for difference of effect = 0.11). Direct comparisons of treatments should be sought. When direct comparisons are unavailable, indirect comparison meta-analysis should evaluate the magnitude of treatment effects across studies, recognizing the limited strength of inference.

0 comments Cited 331 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Effect of tiotropium on outcomes in patients with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (UPLIFT): a prespecified subgroup analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

Marc DeCramer, Bartolome R Celli, Steven Kesten … (2009)

The beneficial effects of pharmacotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are well established. However, there are few data for treatment in the early stages of the disease. We examined the effect of tiotropium on outcomes in a large subgroup of patients with moderate COPD. The Understanding Potential Long-Term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT) study was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial undertaken in 487 centres in 37 countries. 5993 patients aged 40 years or more with COPD were randomly assigned to receive 4 years of treatment with either once daily tiotropium (18 microg; n=2987) or matching placebo (n=3006), delivered by an inhalation device. Randomisation was by computer-generated blocks of four, with stratification according to study site. In a prespecified subgroup analysis, we investigated the effects of tiotropium in patients with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage II disease. Primary endpoints were the yearly rates of decline in prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) and in postbronchodilator FEV(1), beginning on day 30 until completion of double-blind treatment. The analysis included all patients who had at least three measurements of pulmonary function. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00144339. 2739 participants (mean age 64 years [SD 9]) had GOLD stage II disease at randomisation (tiotropium, n=1384; control, n=1355), with a mean postbronchodilator FEV(1) of 1.63 L (SD 0.37; 59% of predicted value). 1218 patients in the tiotropium group and 1157 in the control group had three or more measurements of postbronchodilator pulmonary function after day 30 and were included in the analysis. The rate of decline of mean postbronchodilator FEV(1) was lower in the tiotropium group than in the control group (43 mL per year [SE 2] vs 49 mL per year [SE 2], p=0.024). For prebronchodilator pulmonary function, 1221 patients in the tiotropium group and 1158 in the control group had three or more measurements and were included in the analysis. The rate of decline of mean prebronchodilator FEV(1) did not differ between groups (35 mL per year [SE 2] vs 37 mL per year [SE 2]; p=0.38). Health status, measured with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, was better at all timepoints in the tiotropium group than in the control group (p

0 comments Cited 159 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Once-daily bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: indacaterol versus tiotropium.

James Donohue, Charles Fogarty, Jan Lötvall … (2010)

Indacaterol is the first once-daily, long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonist bronchodilator studied in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To demonstrate greater efficacy of indacaterol versus placebo on FEV(1) at 24 hours post dose (trough) after 12 weeks, to compare efficacy with placebo and tiotropium, and to evaluate safety and tolerability over 26 weeks. Patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized to double-blind indacaterol 150 or 300 microg or placebo, or open-label tiotropium 18 microg, all once daily, for 26 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was trough FEV(1) at 12 weeks. Additional analyses (not adjusted for multiplicity) included transition dyspnea index (TDI), health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]), and exacerbations. Serum potassium, blood glucose, and QTc interval were measured. A total of 1,683 patients (age, 63.3 yr; post-bronchodilator FEV(1), 56% predicted; FEV(1)/FVC, 0.53) were randomized to the four treatment arms. Trough FEV(1) at Week 12 increased versus placebo by 180 ml with both indacaterol doses and by 140 ml with tiotropium (all P < 0.001 vs. placebo). At Week 26, for indacaterol 150/300 microg, respectively, versus placebo, TDI increased (1.00/1.18, P < 0.001) and SGRQ total score decreased (-3.3/-2.4, P < 0.01); corresponding results with tiotropium were 0.87 (P < 0.001) for TDI and (-1.0, P = not significant) for SGRQ total score. The incidence of adverse events, low serum potassium, high blood glucose, and prolonged QTc interval was similar across treatments. Indacaterol was an effective once-daily bronchodilator and was at least as effective as tiotropium in improving clinical outcomes for patients with COPD. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00463567).