18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy of once-daily indacaterol 75 μg relative to alternative bronchodilators in COPD: A study level and a patient level network meta-analysis

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 2 , 1 ,
      BMC Pulmonary Medicine
      BioMed Central

      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 objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of indacaterol 75 μg once daily (OD), tiotropium 18 μg OD, salmeterol 50 μg twice daily (BID), formoterol 12 μg BID, and placebo for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on individual patient data (IPD) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the indacaterol trial program and aggregate data (AD) identified from a systematic review of RCTs.

          Methods

          22 RCTs were included in the AD analysis that evaluated: indacaterol 75 μg (n = 2 studies), indacaterol 150 μg n = 5 (i.e. salmeterol 50 μg) (n = 5), indacaterol 300 μg (n = 2), tiotropium 18 μg (n = 10), salmeterol 50 μg (n = 7), and formoterol 12 μg (n = 4). All of the studies except for one head-to-head comparison (tiotropium vs. salmeterol) were placebo controlled. Outcomes of interest were trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1) and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at week 12. The AD from all trials was analysed simultaneously using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) and relative treatment effects between all regimens were obtained. In a separate analysis, the IPD available from the 6 indacaterol RCTs was analysed in a NMA. Treatment-by-covariate interactions were included in both analyses to improve similarity of the trials.

          Results

          All interventions compared were more efficacious than placebo regarding FEV 1 at 12 weeks. Indacaterol 75 μg is expected to result in a comparable FEV 1 at 12 weeks to tiotropium and salmeterol based on both IPD and AD analyses. In comparison to formoterol, the IPD and AD results indicate indacaterol 75 μg is more efficacious (IPD = 0.07 L difference; 95%Credible Interval (CrI) 0.02 to 0.11; AD = 0.05 L difference; 95%CrI 0.01; 0.09). In terms of SGRQ total score at 12 weeks, indacaterol 75 μg and formoterol were more efficacious than placebo, whereas for tiotropium and salmeterol the credible intervals included zero for the AD results only (tiotropium: -2.99 points improvement versus placebo; 95%CrI −6.48 to 0.43; salmeterol:-2.52; 95%CrI: -5.34; 0.44). Both IPD and AD results suggest that indacaterol 75 μg is expected to be comparable to all active treatments.

          Conclusions

          Based on a synthesis of currently available AD RCT evidence as well as an IPD network meta-analysis of six RCTs, indacaterol 75 μg is expected to be at least as efficacious as formoterol and comparable to tiotropium and salmeterol regarding FEV 1. Furthermore, indacaterol 75 μg shows comparable level of improvement in health-related quality of life to tiotropium, salmeterol, and formoterol, as measured by the SGRQ.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • 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

            Once-daily bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: indacaterol versus tiotropium.

            Indacaterol is the first once-daily, long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonist bronchodilator studied in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To demonstrate greater efficacy of indacaterol versus placebo on FEV(1) at 24 hours post dose (trough) after 12 weeks, to compare efficacy with placebo and tiotropium, and to evaluate safety and tolerability over 26 weeks. Patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized to double-blind indacaterol 150 or 300 microg or placebo, or open-label tiotropium 18 microg, all once daily, for 26 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was trough FEV(1) at 12 weeks. Additional analyses (not adjusted for multiplicity) included transition dyspnea index (TDI), health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]), and exacerbations. Serum potassium, blood glucose, and QTc interval were measured. A total of 1,683 patients (age, 63.3 yr; post-bronchodilator FEV(1), 56% predicted; FEV(1)/FVC, 0.53) were randomized to the four treatment arms. Trough FEV(1) at Week 12 increased versus placebo by 180 ml with both indacaterol doses and by 140 ml with tiotropium (all P < 0.001 vs. placebo). At Week 26, for indacaterol 150/300 microg, respectively, versus placebo, TDI increased (1.00/1.18, P < 0.001) and SGRQ total score decreased (-3.3/-2.4, P < 0.01); corresponding results with tiotropium were 0.87 (P < 0.001) for TDI and (-1.0, P = not significant) for SGRQ total score. The incidence of adverse events, low serum potassium, high blood glucose, and prolonged QTc interval was similar across treatments. Indacaterol was an effective once-daily bronchodilator and was at least as effective as tiotropium in improving clinical outcomes for patients with COPD. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00463567).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effectiveness of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol combination delivered via the Diskus device in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

              This randomized controlled trial examined the benefits of combining an inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate (F), with an inhaled long-acting beta(2)-agonist, salmeterol (S), to treat the inflammatory and bronchoconstrictive components of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A total of 691 patients with COPD received the combination of F and S (FSC), S (50 mcg), F (500 mcg), or placebo twice daily via the Diskus device for 24 weeks. A significantly greater increase in predose FEV(1) at the endpoint was observed after FSC (156 ml) compared with S (107 ml, p = 0.012) and placebo (-4 ml, p < 0.0001). A significantly greater increase in 2-hour postdose FEV(1) at the endpoint was observed after treatment with FSC (261 ml) compared with F (138 ml, p < 0.001) and placebo (28 ml, p < 0.001). There were greater improvements in the Transition Dyspnea Index with FSC (2.1) compared with F (1.3, p = 0.033), S (0.9, p < 0.001), and placebo (0.4, p < 0.0001). The incidence of adverse effects (except for an increase in oral candidiasis with FSC and F) was similar among the treatment groups. We conclude that FSC improved lung function and reduced the severity of dyspnea compared with individual components and placebo.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Pulm Med
                BMC Pulm Med
                BMC Pulmonary Medicine
                BioMed Central
                1471-2466
                2012
                25 June 2012
                : 12
                : 29
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Mapi Consultancy, Boston, MA, USA
                [2 ]Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Skillman, NJ, USA
                Article
                1471-2466-12-29
                10.1186/1471-2466-12-29
                3512498
                22732017
                b1ea80ef-74cb-4084-b83a-413cabcda015
                Copyright ©2012 Cope 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
                : 8 September 2011
                : 25 June 2012
                Categories
                Research Article

                Respiratory medicine
                Respiratory medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article