Blog
About

7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparative efficacy of aclidinium versus glycopyrronium and tiotropium, as maintenance treatment of moderate to severe COPD patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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

          Background

          Aclidinium bromide is a new long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) indicated for maintenance bronchodilator treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy of aclidinium was compared with tiotropium and glycopyrronium, using a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in moderate-to-severe COPD patients.

          Methods

          A systematic review was performed to identify RCTs evaluating aclidinium 400 μg twice daily (BID), glycopyrronium 50 μg once daily (OD), tiotropium 18 μg OD, or tiotropium 5 μg OD in adults with moderate-to-severe COPD. The outcomes of interest were: trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1); St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and proportion of patients achieving ≥4 unit change; Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score and proportion of patients achieving ≥1 point change. The results were synthesized by means of a Bayesian NMA.

          Results

          Twenty-one studies (22,542 patients) were included: aclidinium 400 μg BID (three studies); tiotropium 5 μg OD (three studies); tiotropium 18 μg OD (13 studies); and glycopyrronium 50 μg OD (two studies). Regarding trough FEV 1 at 24 weeks, aclidinium demonstrated comparable efficacy to tiotropium 5 μg (difference in change from baseline [CFB]), (0.02 L [95% credible interval CrI −0.05, 0.09]); tiotropium 18 μg (0.02 L [95% CrI −0.05, 0.08]); and glycopyrronium (0.00 L [95% CrI −0.07, 0.07]). Aclidinium resulted in higher improvement in SGRQ score at 24 weeks, compared to tiotropium 5 μg (difference in CFB, −2.44 [95% CrI −4.82, −0.05]); and comparable results to tiotropium 18 μg (−1.80 [95% CrI −4.52, 0.14]) and glycopyrronium (−1.52 [95% CrI −4.08, 1.03]). Improvements in TDI score were comparable for all treatments.

          Conclusion

          Maintenance treatment with aclidinium 400 μg BID is expected to produce similar improvements in lung function, health-related quality of life, and dyspnea compared to tiotropium 5 μg OD; tiotropium 18 μg OD; and glycopyrronium 50 μg OD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A long-term evaluation of once-daily inhaled tiotropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

          Currently available inhaled bronchodilators used as therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) necessitate multiple daily dosing. The present study evaluates the long-term safety and efficacy of tiotropium, a new once-daily anticholinergic in COPD. Patients with stable COPD (age 65.2+/-8.7 yrs (mean+/-SD), n=921) were enrolled in two identical randomized double-blind placebo-controlled 1-yr studies. Patients inhaled tiotropium 18 microg or placebo (mean screening forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) 1.01 versus 0.99 L, 39.1 and 38.1% of the predicted value) once daily as a dry powder. The primary spirometric outcome was trough FEV1 (i.e. FEV1 prior to dosing). Changes in dyspnoea were measured using the Transition Dyspnea Index, and health status with the disease-specific St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire and the generic Short Form 36. Medication use and adverse events were recorded. Tiotropium provided significantly superior bronchodilation relative to placebo for trough FEV1 response (approximately 12% over baseline) (p<0.01) and mean response during the 3 h following dosing (approximately 22% over baseline) (p<0.001) over the 12-month period. Tiotropium recipients showed less dyspnoea (p<0.001), superior health status scores, and fewer COPD exacerbations and hospitalizations (p<0.05). Adverse events were comparable with placebo, except for dry mouth incidence (tiotropium 16.0% versus placebo 2.7%, p<0.05). Tiotropium is an effective, once-daily bronchodilator that reduces dyspnoea and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation frequency and improves health status. This suggests that tiotropium will make an important contribution to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease therapy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

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

             J Swales,  Charles Fogarty,   (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).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Health outcomes following treatment for six months with once daily tiotropium compared with twice daily salmeterol in patients with COPD.

              A study was undertaken to record exacerbations and health resource use in patients with COPD during 6 months of treatment with tiotropium, salmeterol, or matching placebos. Patients with COPD were enrolled in two 6-month randomised, placebo controlled, double blind, double dummy studies of tiotropium 18 micro g once daily via HandiHaler or salmeterol 50 micro g twice daily via a metered dose inhaler. The two trials were combined for analysis of heath outcomes consisting of exacerbations, health resource use, dyspnoea (assessed by the transitional dyspnoea index, TDI), health related quality of life (assessed by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, SGRQ), and spirometry. 1207 patients participated in the study (tiotropium 402, salmeterol 405, placebo 400). Compared with placebo, tiotropium but not salmeterol was associated with a significant delay in the time to onset of the first exacerbation. Fewer COPD exacerbations/patient year occurred in the tiotropium group (1.07) than in the placebo group (1.49, p<0.05); the salmeterol group (1.23 events/year) did not differ from placebo. The tiotropium group had 0.10 hospital admissions per patient year for COPD exacerbations compared with 0.17 for salmeterol and 0.15 for placebo (not statistically different). For all causes (respiratory and non-respiratory) tiotropium, but not salmeterol, was associated with fewer hospital admissions while both groups had fewer days in hospital than the placebo group. The number of days during which patients were unable to perform their usual daily activities was lowest in the tiotropium group (tiotropium 8.3 (0.8), salmeterol 11.1 (0.8), placebo 10.9 (0.8), p<0.05). SGRQ total score improved by 4.2 (0.7), 2.8 (0.7) and 1.5 (0.7) units during the 6 month trial for the tiotropium, salmeterol and placebo groups, respectively (p<0.01 tiotropium v placebo). Compared with placebo, TDI focal score improved in both the tiotropium group (1.1 (0.3) units, p<0.001) and the salmeterol group (0.7 (0.3) units, p<0.05). Evaluation of morning pre-dose FEV(1), peak FEV(1) and mean FEV(1) (0-3 hours) showed that tiotropium was superior to salmeterol while both active drugs were more effective than placebo. Exacerbations of COPD and health resource usage were positively affected by daily treatment with tiotropium. With the exception of the number of hospital days associated with all causes, salmeterol twice daily resulted in no significant changes compared with placebo. Tiotropium also improved health related quality of life, dyspnoea, and lung function in patients with COPD.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                International Journal of COPD
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-9106
                1178-2005
                2013
                2013
                09 September 2013
                : 8
                : 405-423
                Affiliations
                [1 ]MAPI Consultancy, AX Houten, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Almirall SA, Barcelona, Spain
                [3 ]Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Forest Research Institute, Jersey City, NJ, USA
                [4 ]University of Edinburgh, Lothian University Hospitals’ Division, Edinburgh, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Andreas Karabis, MAPI Consultancy, De Molen 84, 3995 AX Houten, The Netherlands, Tel +31 0 30 63 697 63, Fax +31 0 30 63 697 70, Email akarabis@ 123456mapigroup.com
                Article
                copd-8-405
                10.2147/COPD.S48967
                3772873
                24043936
                © 2013 Karabis et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Ltd, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License

                The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Ltd, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Respiratory medicine

                network meta-analysis, copd, aclidinium, tiotropium, glycopyrronium, systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article