Blog
About

10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of tiotropium + olodaterol on physical functioning in COPD: results of an open-label observational study

      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

          Maintaining and improving physical functioning is key to mitigating the cycle of deconditioning associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated the impact of free combination of the long-acting anticholinergic tiotropium plus the long-acting β 2-agonist olodaterol on physical functioning in a real-world clinical setting.

          Methods

          In this open-label noninterventional study, Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) B–D patients with COPD aged ≥40 years were treated for 4–6 weeks with either tiotropium 5 μg + olodaterol 5 μg (both via Respimat ® inhaler) or tiotropium 18 μg (HandiHaler ®) + olodaterol 5 μg (Respimat ®) once daily. Physical functioning was assessed by the self-reported 10-item Physical Functioning Questionnaire (PF-10). The primary end point was the percentage of patients achieving therapeutic success, defined as a 10-point increase in the PF-10 between baseline (visit 1) and weeks 4–6 (visit 2). Secondary end points included absolute PF-10 scores, Physicians’ Global Evaluation, satisfaction with Respimat ® and adverse events.

          Results

          A total of 1,858 patients were treated: 1,298 (69.9%) with tiotropium 5 μg + olodaterol 5 μg and 560 (30.1%) with tiotropium 18 μg + olodaterol 5 μg. At study end, 1,683 (92.6%) and 1,556 patients (85.6%) continued using tiotropium and olodaterol, respectively; 48.9% (95% confidence interval: 46.5, 51.3) achieved the primary end point. Therapeutic success rates were significantly higher for maintenance-naïve patients compared to those who had received prior therapy (59.1% vs 44.5%; P<0.0001), largely driven by maintenance-treatment-naïve GOLD B (59.8%) and C (63.0%) patients. Absolute physical functioning scores increased from an average baseline of 44.0 (standard deviation: 25.2) to 54.2 (standard deviation: 26.9) at visit 2. Patients’ general condition improved from baseline to visit 2, and patients were largely satisfied with the Respimat ® inhaler. Adverse events were reported by 7.5% of patients; the most common were respiratory in nature.

          Conclusion

          Tiotropium + olodaterol improved physical functioning within 4–6 weeks in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. GOLD B and C patients with no prior maintenance treatment demonstrated the greatest benefit.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 23

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

          Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs.

          In the hierarchy of research designs, the results of randomized, controlled trials are considered to be evidence of the highest grade, whereas observational studies are viewed as having less validity because they reportedly overestimate treatment effects. We used published meta-analyses to identify randomized clinical trials and observational studies that examined the same clinical topics. We then compared the results of the original reports according to the type of research design. A search of the Medline data base for articles published in five major medical journals from 1991 to 1995 identified meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials and meta-analyses of either cohort or case-control studies that assessed the same intervention. For each of five topics, summary estimates and 95 percent confidence intervals were calculated on the basis of data from the individual randomized, controlled trials and the individual observational studies. For the five clinical topics and 99 reports evaluated, the average results of the observational studies were remarkably similar to those of the randomized, controlled trials. For example, analysis of 13 randomized, controlled trials of the effectiveness of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine in preventing active tuberculosis yielded a relative risk of 0.49 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.70) among vaccinated patients, as compared with an odds ratio of 0.50 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.65) from 10 case-control studies. In addition, the range of the point estimates for the effect of vaccination was wider for the randomized, controlled trials (0.20 to 1.56) than for the observational studies (0.17 to 0.84). The results of well-designed observational studies (with either a cohort or a case-control design) do not systematically overestimate the magnitude of the effects of treatment as compared with those in randomized, controlled trials on the same topic.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Tiotropium versus salmeterol for the prevention of exacerbations of COPD.

            Treatment guidelines recommend the use of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators to alleviate symptoms and reduce the risk of exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but do not specify whether a long-acting anticholinergic drug or a β(2)-agonist is the preferred agent. We investigated whether the anticholinergic drug tiotropium is superior to the β(2)-agonist salmeterol in preventing exacerbations of COPD. In a 1-year, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial, we compared the effect of treatment with 18 μg of tiotropium once daily with that of 50 μg of salmeterol twice daily on the incidence of moderate or severe exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD and a history of exacerbations in the preceding year. A total of 7376 patients were randomly assigned to and treated with tiotropium (3707 patients) or salmeterol (3669 patients). Tiotropium, as compared with salmeterol, increased the time to the first exacerbation (187 days vs. 145 days), with a 17% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.90; P<0.001). Tiotropium also increased the time to the first severe exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.85; P<0.001), reduced the annual number of moderate or severe exacerbations (0.64 vs. 0.72; rate ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.96; P=0.002), and reduced the annual number of severe exacerbations (0.09 vs. 0.13; rate ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.82; P<0.001). Overall, the incidence of serious adverse events and of adverse events leading to the discontinuation of treatment was similar in the two study groups. There were 64 deaths (1.7%) in the tiotropium group and 78 (2.1%) in the salmeterol group. These results show that, in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, tiotropium is more effective than salmeterol in preventing exacerbations. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00563381.).
              Bookmark
              • 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

                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
                2016
                27 April 2016
                : 11
                : 891-898
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Lung Centre Ulm, Ulm, Germany
                [2 ]Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Ingelheim, Germany
                [3 ]Pulmonary Department, Mainz University Hospital, Mainz, Germany
                [4 ]Pulmonary Specialist Practice, Wiesbaden, Germany
                [5 ]Biometrics, Alcedis GmbH, Gießen, Germany
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Thomas Glaab, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Medical Affairs Germany, Respiratory Medicine, Binger Strasse 173, D-55216 Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany, Tel +49 6132 77 3344, Fax +49 6132 72 3344, Email thomas.glaab@ 123456boehringer-ingelheim.com
                Article
                copd-11-891
                10.2147/COPD.S103023
                4853152
                27217742
                © 2016 Sauer et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article