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.
A systematic literature review of randomized, controlled clinical trials in patients with COPD was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olodaterol and indacaterol. Network meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison methods were employed to evaluate treatment efficacy, using outcomes based on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1), Transition Dyspnea Index, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score and response, rescue medication use, and proportion of patients with exacerbations.
Eighteen trials were identified for meta-analysis (eight, olodaterol; ten, indacaterol). Olodaterol trials included patients of all severities, whilst indacaterol trials excluded patients with very severe COPD. Concomitant maintenance bronchodilator use was allowed in most olodaterol trials, but not in indacaterol trials. When similarly designed trials/data were analyzed for change from baseline in trough FEV 1 (liters), the following mean differences (95% confidence interval) were observed: trials excluding concomitant bronchodilator: indacaterol 75 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, −0.005 (−0.077 to 0.067), and indacaterol 150 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, 0.020 (−0.036 to 0.077); trials with concomitant tiotropium: indacaterol 150 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, 0.000 (−0.043 to 0.042). In sensitivity analyses of the full network, results for change from baseline in trough FEV 1 favored indacaterol, but this dataset suffered from trial design heterogeneity. For the other endpoints investigated, no statistically significant differences were found when analyzed in the full network.