Blog
About

5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD

      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

          Background

          The long-acting muscarinic antagonists umeclidinium (UMEC) and tiotropium (TIO) are approved once-daily maintenance therapies for COPD. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of UMEC versus TIO in COPD.

          Methods

          This was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to UMEC 62.5 μg plus placebo or TIO 18 μg plus placebo. The primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1) at day 85 (non-inferiority margin −50 mL; per-protocol [PP] population). Other end points included weighted mean FEV 1 over 0–24 and 12–24 hours post-dose. Patient-reported outcomes comprised Transition Dyspnea Index score, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and COPD Assessment Test score. Adverse events were also assessed.

          Results

          In total, 1,017 patients were randomized to treatment. In the PP population, 489 and 487 patients received UMEC and TIO, respectively. In the PP population, change from baseline in trough FEV 1 was greater with UMEC versus TIO at day 85, meeting non-inferiority and superiority margins (difference: 59 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 29–88; P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat analysis of trough FEV 1 at day 85 (53 mL, 95% CI: 25–81; P<0.001). Improvements in weighted mean FEV 1 over 0–24 hours post-dose at day 84 were similar with UMEC and TIO but significantly greater with UMEC versus TIO over 12–24 hours post-dose (70 mL; P=0.015). Clinically meaningful improvements in Transition Dyspnea Index and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire were observed with both treatments at all time points. No differences were observed between UMEC and TIO in patient-reported outcomes. Overall incidences of adverse events were similar for UMEC and TIO.

          Conclusion

          UMEC 62.5 μg demonstrated superior efficacy to TIO 18 μg on the primary end point of trough FEV 1 at day 85. Safety profiles were similar for both treatments.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 26

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

          Standards for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with COPD: a summary of the ATS/ERS position paper.

           W MacNee,  ,  B Celli (2004)
            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

              Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium plus vilanterol versus tiotropium, vilanterol, or umeclidinium monotherapies over 24 weeks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from two multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trials.

              Combination long-acting bronchodilator treatment might be more effective than long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC) plus vilanterol (VI) with tiotropium (TIO) monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, or VI monotherapy in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. In two multicentre, randomised, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, active-controlled trials, eligible patients (current or former smokers aged 40 years or older with an established clinical history of COPD) were randomly assigned in 1:1:1:1 ratio to UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, TIO 18 μg, and either VI 25 μg (study 1) or UMEC 125 μg (study 2). All study drugs were used once daily for 24 weeks. TIO was delivered via the HandiHaler inhaler and all other active treatments were delivered via the ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler. Random assignment (by a validated computer-based system) was done by centre and was not stratified. All patients and physicians were masked to assigned treatment during the studies. The primary efficacy endpoint of both studies was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 169, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Both studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01316900 (study 1) and NCT01316913 (study 2). 1141 participants were recruited in study 1, and 1191 in study 2. For study 1, after exclusions, 208, 209, 214, and 212 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, VI monotherapy, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, and UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, respectively. For study 2, 215, 222, 215, and 217 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, and UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, respectively. In both studies, we noted improvements in trough FEV1 on day 169 for both doses of UMEC plus VI compared with TIO monotherapy (study 1, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·088 L [95% CI 0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; study 1, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·141; p=0·0006]; study 2, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·074 L [0·025 to 0·123; p=0·0031]; study 2, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·060 L [0·010 to 0·109; nominal p=0·0182]). Both doses of UMEC plus VI also improved trough FEV1 compared with VI monotherapy (UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·088 L [0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·142; p=0·0006], but not compared with UMEC 125 μg monotherapy (UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·037 L [-0·012 to 0·087; p=0·14]; UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·022 L [-0·027 to 0·072; p=0·38]). All treatments produced improvements in dyspnoea and health-related quality of life; we noted no significant differences in symptoms, health status, or risk of exacerbation between UMEC plus VI and TIO. The most common on-treatment, severe-intensity adverse event in both studies was acute exacerbation of COPD (1-4 [<1-2%] patients across treatment groups in study 1 and 1-6 [<1-3%] patients in study 2). We recorded five to 15 (2-7%) on-treatment serious adverse events across treatment groups in study 1, and nine to 22 (4-10%) in study 2. We noted no substantial changes from baseline in vital signs, clinical laboratory findings, or electrocardiography findings in any of the treatment groups. Combination treatment with once-daily UMEC plus VI improved lung function compared with VI monotherapy and TIO monotherapy in patients with COPD. Overall our results suggest that the combination of UMEC plus VI could be beneficial for the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD. GlaxoSmithKline. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                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
                07 April 2016
                : 11
                : 719-730
                Affiliations
                [1 ]S. Carolina Pharmaceutical Research, Spartanburg, SC, USA
                [2 ]Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec, Quebec, QC, Canada
                [3 ]GSK, Respiratory Research and Development, Middlesex, UK
                [4 ]GSK, Respiratory and Immuno-Inflammation Research, Triangle Park, NC, USA
                [5 ]Pearl Therapeutics Inc., Durham, NC, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Gregory Feldman, S. Carolina Pharmaceutical Research, 151 Harold Fleming Court, Spartanburg, SC 29303, USA, Tel +1 864 515 0092, Fax +1 864 515 0094, Email gfeld3232@ 123456aol.com
                Article
                copd-11-719
                10.2147/COPD.S102494
                4827908
                27103795
                © 2016 Feldman 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