Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

A blinded evaluation of the efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium, a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist, versus tiotropium, in patients with COPD: the GLOW5 study

Read this article at

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

      Two once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are currently available for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) – tiotropium and glycopyrronium. Previous studies have compared glycopyrronium with open-label tiotropium. In the GLOW5 study, we compare glycopyrronium with blinded tiotropium.

      Methods

      In this blinded, double-dummy, parallel group, 12-week study, patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized 1:1 to glycopyrronium 50 μg once daily or tiotropium 18 μg once daily. The primary objective was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of glycopyrronium versus blinded tiotropium with respect to trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1) following 12 weeks of treatment (non-inferiority margin: –50 mL). Secondary objectives were to evaluate glycopyrronium versus tiotropium for other spirometric outcomes, breathlessness (Transition Dyspnea Index; TDI), health status (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire; SGRQ), daily rescue medication use, COPD exacerbations and COPD symptoms over 12 weeks of treatment.

      Results

      657 patients were randomized (glycopyrronium: 327; tiotropium: 330); 96% (630 patients) completed the study. Least squares mean trough FEV 1 for both glycopyrronium and tiotropium was 1.405 L at Week 12, meeting the criterion for non-inferiority (mean treatment difference: 0 mL, 95% CI: –32, 31 mL). Glycopyrronium demonstrated rapid bronchodilation following first dose on Day 1, with significantly higher FEV 1 at all time points from 0–4 h post-dose versus tiotropium (all p < 0.001). FEV 1 area under the curve from 0–4 h (AUC 0–4h) post-dose with glycopyrronium was significantly superior to tiotropium on Day 1 (p < 0.001) and was comparable to tiotropium at Week 12. Glycopyrronium demonstrated comparable improvements to tiotropium in TDI focal score, SGRQ total score, rescue medication use and the rate of COPD exacerbations (all p = not significant). Patients on glycopyrronium also had a significantly lower total COPD symptom score versus patients on tiotropium after 12 weeks (p = 0.035). Adverse events were reported by a similar percentage of patients receiving glycopyrronium (40.4%) and tiotropium (40.6%).

      Conclusion

      In patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, 12-week blinded treatment with once-daily glycopyrronium 50 μg or tiotropium 18 μg, provided similar efficacy and safety, with glycopyrronium having a faster onset of action on Day 1 versus tiotropium.

      Trial registration

      ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT01613326

      Related collections

      Most cited references 17

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

      A 4-year trial of tiotropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

      Previous studies showing that tiotropium improves multiple end points in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) led us to examine the long-term effects of tiotropium therapy. In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared 4 years of therapy with either tiotropium or placebo in patients with COPD who were permitted to use all respiratory medications except inhaled anticholinergic drugs. The patients were at least 40 years of age, with a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) of 70% or less after bronchodilation and a ratio of FEV(1) to forced vital capacity (FVC) of 70% or less. Coprimary end points were the rate of decline in the mean FEV(1) before and after bronchodilation beginning on day 30. Secondary end points included measures of FVC, changes in response on St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), exacerbations of COPD, and mortality. Of a total of 5993 patients (mean age, 65+/-8 years) with a mean FEV(1) of 1.32+/-0.44 liters after bronchodilation (48% of predicted value), we randomly assigned 2987 to the tiotropium group and 3006 to the placebo group. Mean absolute improvements in FEV(1) in the tiotropium group were maintained throughout the trial (ranging from 87 to 103 ml before bronchodilation and from 47 to 65 ml after bronchodilation), as compared with the placebo group (P<0.001). After day 30, the differences between the two groups in the rate of decline in the mean FEV(1) before and after bronchodilation were not significant. The mean absolute total score on the SGRQ was improved (lower) in the tiotropium group, as compared with the placebo group, at each time point throughout the 4-year period (ranging from 2.3 to 3.3 units, P<0.001). At 4 years and 30 days, tiotropium was associated with a reduction in the risks of exacerbations, related hospitalizations, and respiratory failure. In patients with COPD, therapy with tiotropium was associated with improvements in lung function, quality of life, and exacerbations during a 4-year period but did not significantly reduce the rate of decline in FEV(1). (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00144339.) 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society
        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: not found
        • Article: not found

        General considerations for lung function testing.

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

          St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire: MCID.

          The SGRQ is a disease-specific measure of health status for use in COPD. A number of methods have been used for estimating its minimum clinically important difference (MCID). These include both expert and patient preference-based estimates. Anchor-based methods have also been used. The calculated MCID from those studies was consistently around 4 units, regardless of assessment method. By contrast, the MCID calculated using distribution-based methods varied across studies and permitted no consistent estimate. All measurements of clinical significance contain sample and measurement error. They also require value judgements, if not about the calculation of the MCID itself then about the anchors used to estimate it. Under these circumstances, greater weight should be placed upon the overall body of evidence for an MCID, rather than one single method. For that reason, estimates of MCID should be used as indicative values. Methods of analysing clinical trial results should reflect this, and use appropriate statistical tests for comparison with the MCID. Treatments for COPD that produced an improvement in SGRQ of the order of 4 units in clinical trials have subsequently found wide acceptance once in clinical practice, so it seems reasonable to expect any new treatment proposed for COPD to produce an advantage over placebo that is not significantly inferior to a 4-unit difference.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            [1 ]Asthma and Airway Centre, University Health Network, Toronto Western Hospital, Rm 7-451 East Wing, 399 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON, Canada
            [2 ]Insaf Respiratory Research Institute, Wiesbaden, Germany
            [3 ]University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
            [4 ]Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto ON, Canada
            [5 ]Novartis Horsham Research Centre, West Sussex, UK
            [6 ]Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA
            Contributors
            Journal
            BMC Pulm Med
            BMC Pulm Med
            BMC Pulmonary Medicine
            BioMed Central
            1471-2466
            2014
            17 January 2014
            : 14
            : 4
            24438744
            3907130
            1471-2466-14-4
            10.1186/1471-2466-14-4
            Copyright © 2014 Chapman et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

            This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

            Categories
            Research Article

            Comments

            Comment on this article