15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Treatment response in COPD: does FEV 1 say it all? A post hoc analysis of the CRYSTAL study

      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

          The association between clinically relevant changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has rarely been investigated.

          Using CRYSTAL, a 12-week open-label study in symptomatic, nonfrequently exacerbating patients with moderate COPD, we assessed at baseline the correlations between several PROs (Baseline Dyspnoea Index, modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale, COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ)), and between FEV 1 and PROs. Associations between clinically relevant responses in FEV 1, CAT, CCQ and Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) at week 12 were also assessed.

          Using data from 4324 patients, a strong correlation was observed between CAT and CCQ (r s=0.793) at baseline, with moderate or weak correlations between other PROs, and no correlation between FEV 1 and any PRO. At week 12, 2774 (64.2%) patients were responders regarding TDI, CAT or CCQ, with 583 (13.5%) responding using all three measures. In comparison, 3235 (74.8%) were responders regarding FEV 1, TDI, CAT or CCQ, with 307 (7.1%) responding concerning all four parameters.

          Increases in lung function were accompanied by clinically relevant improvements of PROs in a minority of patients. Our results also suggest that PROs are not interchangeable. Thus, the observed treatment success in a clinical trial may depend on the selected parameters.

          Abstract

          Assessments of both lung function and various patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials may be necessary for a more complete picture of treatment response in patients with COPD and to guide treatment decisions http://ow.ly/msoz30nmupG

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

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

          The COPD assessment test (CAT): response to pulmonary rehabilitation. A multicentre, prospective study.

          The COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) assessment test (CAT) is a recently introduced, simple to use patient-completed quality of life instrument that contains eight questions covering the impact of symptoms in COPD. It is not known how the CAT score performs in the context of clinical pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes or what the minimum clinically important difference is. The introduction of the CAT score as an outcome measure was prospectively studied by PR programmes across London. It was used alongside other measures including the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression score, the Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea score and a range of different walking tests. Patients completed a 5-point anchor question used to assess overall response to PR from 'I feel much better' to 'I feel much worse'. Data were available for 261 patients with COPD participating in seven programmes: mean (SD) age 69.0 (9.0) years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) 51.1 (18.7) % predicted, MRC score 3.2 (1.0). Mean change in CAT score after PR was 2.9 (5.6) points, improving by 3.8 (6.1) points in those scoring 'much better' (n=162), and by 1.3(4.5) in those who felt 'a little better' (n=88) (p=0.002). Only eight individuals reported no difference after PR and three reported feeling 'a little worse', so comparison with these smaller groups was not possible. The CAT score is simple to implement as an outcome measure, it improves in response to PR and can distinguish categories of response.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Efficacy and safety of once-daily QVA149 compared with twice-daily salmeterol-fluticasone in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ILLUMINATE): a randomised, double-blind, parallel group study.

            QVA149 is an inhaled fixed-dose combination therapy under development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It combines indacaterol (a longacting β2-agonist) with glycopyrronium (a longacting muscarinic antagonist) as a dual bronchodilator. We aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of QVA149 versus salmeterol-fluticasone (SFC) over 26 weeks in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. In this multicentre double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, 523 patients (age 40 years or older, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stages II-III, without exacerbations in the previous year) were randomly assigned (1:1; via automated, interactive response technology and stratified for smoking status) to once-daily QVA149 110/50 μg or twice-daily SFC 50/500 μg for 26 weeks. Efficacy was assessed in the full analysis set (randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug); safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate the superiority of QVA149 compared with SFC for the standardised area under the curve from 0 to 12 h post dose for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1 AUC0-12h) after 26 weeks of treatment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT01315249. Between March 25, 2011, and March 12, 2012, 259 patients were randomly assigned to receive QVA149 and 264 to receive SFC. At week 26, FEV1 AUC0-12h was significantly higher with QVA149 than with SFC (treatment difference 0·138 L; 95% CI 0·100-0·176; p<0·0001). Overall incidence of adverse events (including COPD exacerbations) was 55·4% (143 of 258) for the QVA149 group and 60·2% (159 of 264) for the SFC group. Incidence of serious adverse events was similar between treatment groups (QVA149, 13 of 258 [5·0%]; SFC 14 of 264 [5·3%]); COPD worsening was the most frequent serious adverse event (one of 13 [0·4%] and three of 14 [1·1%], respectively). Once-daily QVA149 provides significant, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvements in lung function versus twice-daily SFC, with significant symptomatic benefit. These results indicate the potential of dual bronchodilation as a treatment option for non-exacerbating symptomatic COPD patients. Novartis Pharma AG. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              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
                ERJ Open Res
                ERJ Open Res
                ERJOR
                erjor
                ERJ Open Research
                European Respiratory Society
                2312-0541
                February 2019
                25 February 2019
                : 5
                : 1
                : 00243-2018
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Respiratory Medicine Dept, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece
                [2 ]Dept of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Giessen, Germany
                [3 ]Airways Disease Section, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
                [4 ]Novartis Pharma GmbH, Nuremberg, Germany
                [5 ]Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland
                [6 ]TFS Develop, Barcelona, Spain
                [7 ]Dept of Cardiology and Angiology I, Heart Center Freiburg University, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
                [8 ]These two authors contributed equally to this work
                Author notes
                Konstantinos Kostikas, Respiratory Medicine Dept, University of Ioannina, Leoforos Stavrou Niarchou, Ioannina 45500, Greece. E-mail: ktkostikas@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                00243-2018
                10.1183/23120541.00243-2018
                6387992
                30815470
                cbb0d583-140b-4c94-860d-643496ae8b6c
                Copyright ©ERS 2019

                This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

                History
                : 21 December 2018
                : 21 December 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: Novartis Pharma http://doi.org/10.13039/100008792
                Categories
                Original Articles
                COPD
                1
                14

                Comments

                Comment on this article