Blog
About

8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Bronchodilator efficacy of 18 μg once-daily tiotropium inhalation via Discair ® versus HandiHaler ® in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label, Phase IV trial

      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

          Purpose

          To compare the bronchodilator efficacy of 18 μg once-daily tiotropium inhalation administered via Discair ® versus HandiHaler ® in adults with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

          Patients and methods

          Fifty-eight patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were enrolled in this randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, open-label, Phase IV non-inferiority trial. Patients were randomly assigned to a test group (n=29, inhalation with Discair) or a reference group (n=29, inhalation with HandiHaler). The primary efficacy parameter was the average maximum change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1, in L). Change in forced vital capacity (FVC, in L), %FEV 1 and %FVC, the standardized area under the response–time curve (AUC) for the absolute change in FEV 1 and FVC, time to onset and peak of response, and safety data were also evaluated.

          Results

          The test inhaler was non-inferior to the reference inhaler in terms of maximum change in FEV 1 at 24 h (unadjusted change: 0.0017 L [95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.0777, 0.0812]; change adjusted for time to reach maximum change in FEV 1 and smoking in pack-years: 0.0116 L [95% CI: −0.0699, 0.0931]), based on a non-inferiority margin of 0.100 L. There were also no significant differences between the two groups in maximum change in FVC value from baseline (0.3417 L vs 0.4438 L, P=0.113), percent change from baseline (22.235 vs 20.783 for FEV 1, P=0.662; 16.719 vs 20.337 for FVC, P=0.257), and AUC 0–24 h (2.949 vs 2.833 L for FEV 1, P=0.891; 2.897 vs 4.729 L for FVC, P=0.178). There were no adverse events, serious adverse events, or deaths.

          Conclusion

          Our findings show that the Discair was non-inferior to the HandiHaler. More specifically, these devices had similar clinical efficacy in terms of time-dependent response over 24 h for patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 50

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

          Diagnosis and management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a clinical practice guideline update from the American College of Physicians, American College of Chest Physicians, American Thoracic Society, and European Respiratory Society.

          This guideline is an official statement of the American College of Physicians (ACP), American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), American Thoracic Society (ATS), and European Respiratory Society (ERS). It represents an update of the 2007 ACP clinical practice guideline on diagnosis and management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and is intended for clinicians who manage patients with COPD. This guideline addresses the value of history and physical examination for predicting airflow obstruction; the value of spirometry for screening or diagnosis of COPD; and COPD management strategies, specifically evaluation of various inhaled therapies (anticholinergics, long-acting β-agonists, and corticosteroids), pulmonary rehabilitation programs, and supplemental oxygen therapy. This guideline is based on a targeted literature update from March 2007 to December 2009 to evaluate the evidence and update the 2007 ACP clinical practice guideline on diagnosis and management of stable COPD. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend that spirometry should be obtained to diagnose airflow obstruction in patients with respiratory symptoms (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). Spirometry should not be used to screen for airflow obstruction in individuals without respiratory symptoms (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: For stable COPD patients with respiratory symptoms and FEV(1) between 60% and 80% predicted, ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS suggest that treatment with inhaled bronchodilators may be used (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: For stable COPD patients with respiratory symptoms and FEV(1) 50% predicted. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 7: ACP, ACCP, ATS, and ERS recommend that clinicians should prescribe continuous oxygen therapy in patients with COPD who have severe resting hypoxemia (Pao(2) ≤55 mm Hg or Spo(2) ≤88%) (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Adherence to inhaled therapies, health outcomes and costs in patients with asthma and COPD.

            Suboptimal adherence to pharmacological treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has adverse effects on disease control and treatment costs. The reasons behind non-adherence revolve around patient knowledge/education, inhaler device convenience and satisfaction, age, adverse effects and medication costs. Age is of particular concern given the increasing prevalence of asthma in the young and increased rates of non-adherence in adolescents compared with children and adults. The correlation between adherence to inhaled pharmacological therapies for asthma and COPD and clinical efficacy is positive, with improved symptom control and lung function shown in most studies of adults, adolescents and children. Satisfaction with inhaler devices is also positively correlated with improved adherence and clinical outcomes, and reduced costs. Reductions in healthcare utilisation are consistently observed with good adherence; however, costs associated with general healthcare and lost productivity tend to be offset only in more adherent patients with severe disease, versus those with milder forms of asthma or COPD. Non-adherence is associated with higher healthcare utilisation and costs, and reductions in health-related quality of life, and remains problematic on an individual, societal and economic level. Further development of measures to improve adherence is needed to fully address these issues. Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improved health outcomes in patients with COPD during 1 yr's treatment with tiotropium.

               Wino J. Wijnen,  ,  S Kesten (2002)
              Tiotropium, a novel once-daily inhaled anticholinergic, has been shown to improve lung function over a 24-h period. In order to extend these findings, health-outcomes were evaluated over 1 yr in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Spirometric results, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), salbutamol use and effects on dyspnoea, health-related quality of life and COPD exacerbations were assessed in two identical 1-yr randomized double-blind double-dummy studies of tiotropium 18 microg once daily (n=356) compared with ipratropium 40 microg q.i.d. (n=179). Screening forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) were 1.25+/-0.43 L (41.9+/-12.7% of the predicted value) (tiotropium) and 1.18+/-0.37 L (39.4+/-10.7% pred) (ipratropium). Trough FEV1 at 1 yr improved by 0.12+/-0.01 L with tiotropium and declined by 0.03+/-0.02 L with ipratropium (p<0.001). Significant improvement in PEFR, salbutamol use, Transition Dyspnea Index focal score, and the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total and impact scores were seen with tiotropium (p<0.01). Tiotropium reduced the number of exacerbations (by 24%, p<0.01), and increased time to first exacerbation (p<0.01) and time to first hospitalization for a COPD exacerbation (p<0.05) compared with ipratropium. Apart from an increased incidence of dry mouth in the tiotropium group, adverse events were similar between treatments. Tiotropium was effective in improving dyspnoea, exacerbations, health-related quality of life and lung function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and exceeds the benefits seen with ipratropium. The data support the use of tiotropium once-daily as first-line maintenance treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
                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
                22 November 2016
                : 11
                : 2859-2867
                Affiliations
                Clinics of Chest Diseases, Yedikule Chest Diseases and Thoracic Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Pinar Yildiz, Clinics of Chest Diseases Yedikule Chest Diseases and Thoracic Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Kazlıcesme Belgrat Kapıyolu Cad. No 1, 34020 Zeytinburnu Istanbul, Turkey, Tel +90 212 409 02 00, Email pinary70@ 123456yahoo.com
                Article
                copd-11-2859
                10.2147/COPD.S119114
                5125983
                © 2016 Yildiz 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