50
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy and safety of once-daily aclidinium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

      research-article

      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

          The long-term efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide, a novel, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, were investigated in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

          Methods

          In two double-blind, 52-week studies, ACCLAIM/COPD I (n = 843) and II (n = 804), patients were randomised to inhaled aclidinium 200 μg or placebo once-daily. Patients were required to have a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1)/forced vital capacity ratio of ≤70% and FEV 1 <80% of the predicted value. The primary endpoint was trough FEV 1 at 12 and 28 weeks. Secondary endpoints were health status measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and time to first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation.

          Results

          At 12 and 28 weeks, aclidinium improved trough FEV 1 versus placebo in ACCLAIM/COPD I (by 61 and 67 mL; both p < 0.001) and ACCLAIM/COPD II (by 63 and 59 mL; both p < 0.001). More patients had a SGRQ improvement ≥4 units at 52 weeks with aclidinium versus placebo in ACCLAIM/COPD I (48.1% versus 39.5%; p = 0.025) and ACCLAIM/COPD II (39.0% versus 32.8%; p = 0.074). The time to first exacerbation was significantly delayed by aclidinium in ACCLAIM/COPD II (hazard ratio [HR] 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.01), but not ACCLAIM/COPD I (HR 1.0; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.33; p = 0.9). Adverse events were minor in both studies.

          Conclusion

          Aclidinium is effective and well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe COPD.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00363896 (ACCLAIM/COPD I) and NCT00358436 (ACCLAIM/COPD II).

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • 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

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

              Minimal clinically important differences in COPD lung function.

              The FEV1 is widely used by physicians in the diagnosis, staging, treatment, monitoring, and establishing prognosis for patients with COPD. The MCID is the smallest difference which patients perceive as beneficial and which would mandate a change in patient management. A precise MCID for FEV1 has not been established. In attempt to establish a MCID for predose or trough FEV1, several limitations need to be addressed. There are issues such as reproducibility, repeatability, acceptability, variability, placebo effect, and equipment effects. Patient factors, such as baseline level of FEV1, albuterol reversibility, diurnal variation, influence the results. Nonetheless, using anchoring techniques, a change in pre dose FEV1 of about 100 mL can be perceived by patients, correlates with fewer relapses following exacerbations and is in the range usually achieved with bronchodilators approved for COPD. In the future, consistent reporting of spirometric variables, such as a predose FEV1 and other outcomes, can be incorporated into a more quantitative effort to establish the MCID. Also distributional/statistical methods may be useful in determining the MCID FEV1.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Respir Res
                Respiratory Research
                BioMed Central
                1465-9921
                1465-993X
                2011
                26 April 2011
                : 12
                : 1
                : 55
                Affiliations
                [1 ]St George's, University of London, London, UK
                [2 ]Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
                [3 ]Thorax Institute, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, and CIBER Enfermedades Respiratorias and Fundació Caubet-Cimera, Spain
                [4 ]Département des Maladies Respiratoires, Université de la Mediterranée AP-HM, Marseille, France
                [5 ]Pulmonary Research Institute at Hospital Grosshansdorf, Center for Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery, Grosshansdorf, Germany
                [6 ]Department of Oncology, Haematology and Respiratory Diseases, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
                [7 ]Division of Pulmonary Disease and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
                [8 ]Division of Pulmonology, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
                [9 ]Stritch-Loyola School of Medicine, Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
                [10 ]Almirall, R&D Centre, Barcelona, Spain
                [11 ]Forest Research Institute, New Jersey, USA
                Article
                1465-9921-12-55
                10.1186/1465-9921-12-55
                3098801
                21518460
                a595f05f-949a-49c5-a56b-4465f67de271
                Copyright ©2011 Jones 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.

                History
                : 22 December 2010
                : 26 April 2011
                Categories
                Research

                Respiratory medicine
                chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,aclidinium bromide,long-acting muscarinic antagonist,anticholinergic

                Comments

                Comment on this article