35
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate: the 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled AUGMENT COPD study

      research-article
      , , , , , , on behalf of the AUGMENT COPD study investigators
      Respiratory Research
      BioMed Central
      Aclidinium, Formoterol, COPD, Lung function, Dyspnea, Health status

      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

          Combining two long-acting bronchodilators with complementary mechanisms of action may provide treatment benefits to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that are greater than those derived from either treatment alone. The efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium bromide, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and formoterol fumarate, a long-acting β 2-agonist, in patients with moderate to severe COPD are presented.

          Methods

          In this 24-week double-blind study, 1692 patients with stable COPD were equally randomized to twice-daily treatment with FDC aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg (ACL400/FOR12 FDC), FDC aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 6 μg (ACL400/FOR6 FDC), aclidinium 400 μg, formoterol 12 μg, or placebo administered by a multidose dry powder inhaler (Genuair ®/Pressair ®)*. Coprimary endpoints were change from baseline to week 24 in 1-hour morning postdose FEV 1 (FDCs versus aclidinium) and change from baseline to week 24 in morning predose (trough) FEV 1 (FDCs versus formoterol). Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and improvement in Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score at week 24. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

          Results

          At study end, improvements from baseline in 1-hour postdose FEV 1 were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC or ACL400/FOR6 FDC compared with aclidinium (108 mL and 87 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001). Improvements in trough FEV 1 were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC versus formoterol (45 mL; p = 0.0102), a numerical improvement of 26 mL in trough FEV 1 over formoterol was observed with ACL400/FOR6 FDC. Significant improvements in both SGRQ total and TDI focal scores were observed in the ACL400/FOR12 FDC group at study end (p < 0.0001), with differences over placebo exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of ≥4 points and ≥1 unit, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated, with safety profiles of the FDCs similar to those of the monotherapies.

          Conclusions

          Treatment with twice-daily aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg FDC provided rapid and sustained bronchodilation that was greater than either monotherapy; clinically significant improvements in dyspnea and health status were evident compared with placebo. Aclidinium/formoterol FDC may be an effective and well tolerated new treatment option for patients with COPD.

          Trial registration

          Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01437397.

          *Registered trademarks of Almirall S.A., Barcelona, Spain; for use within the US as Pressair ® and Genuair ® within all other licensed territories.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-014-0123-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

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

          The measurement of dyspnea. Contents, interobserver agreement, and physiologic correlates of two new clinical indexes.

          To improve the clinical measurement of dyspnea, we developed a baseline dyspnea index that rated the severity of dyspnea at a single state and a transition dyspnea index that denoted changes from that baseline. The scores in both indexes depend on ratings for three different categories: functional impairment; magnitude of task, and magnitude of effort. At the baseline state, dyspnea was rated in five grades from 0 (severe) to 4 (unimpaired) for each category. The ratings for each of the three categories were added to form a baseline focal score (range, 0 to 12). At the transition period, changes in dyspnea were rated by seven grades, ranging from -3 (major deterioration), to +3 (major improvement). The ratings for each of the three categories were added to form a transition focal score (range, -9 to +9). In 38 patients tested with respiratory disease, interobserver agreement was highly satisfactory for both indexes. The baseline focal score had the highest correlation (r = 0.60; P less than 0.001) with the 12-minute walking distance (12 MW), while significant, but lower, correlations existed for lung function. For the transition focal score, there was a significant correlation only with the 12 MW (r = 0.33; p = 0.04). These results indicate that dyspnea can receive a direct clinical rating that provides important information not disclosed by customary physiologic tests.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Standardisation of spirometry

              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

                Contributors
                tonydurzo@sympatico.ca
                srennard@unmc.edu
                ekerwin@criresearch.com
                Victor.Mergel@frx.com
                anne.leselbaum@almirall.com
                ccaracta15@gmail.com
                Journal
                Respir Res
                Respiratory Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1465-9921
                1465-993X
                14 October 2014
                14 October 2014
                2014
                : 15
                : 1
                : 123
                Affiliations
                [ ]University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
                [ ]University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE USA
                [ ]Clinical Research Institute, Medford, OR USA
                [ ]Forest Research Institute, Jersey City, NJ USA
                [ ]R&D Centre, Almirall, Barcelona, Spain
                Article
                123
                10.1186/s12931-014-0123-0
                4213545
                25756831
                b1d4f860-0dcb-4ef1-bc02-0aacd69930df
                © D'Urzo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 3 June 2014
                : 30 September 2014
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2014

                Respiratory medicine
                aclidinium,formoterol,copd,lung function,dyspnea,health status
                Respiratory medicine
                aclidinium, formoterol, copd, lung function, dyspnea, health status

                Comments

                Comment on this article