Cargando…
Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety between Indacaterol and Tiotropium in COPD: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Two once-daily inhaled bronchodilators, indacaterol and tiotropium, are widely used as first-line therapy in stable COPD patients. This study was performed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Co...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4370711/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25799171 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119948 |
_version_ | 1782362922876403712 |
---|---|
author | Kim, Jung Soo Park, Jinkyeong Lim, Seong Yong Oh, Yeon-Mok Yoo, Kwang Ha Park, Yong Bum Sheen, Seung Soo Kim, Min-Ji Carriere, K. C. Jung, Ji Ye Park, Hye Yun |
author_facet | Kim, Jung Soo Park, Jinkyeong Lim, Seong Yong Oh, Yeon-Mok Yoo, Kwang Ha Park, Yong Bum Sheen, Seung Soo Kim, Min-Ji Carriere, K. C. Jung, Ji Ye Park, Hye Yun |
author_sort | Kim, Jung Soo |
collection | PubMed |
description | Two once-daily inhaled bronchodilators, indacaterol and tiotropium, are widely used as first-line therapy in stable COPD patients. This study was performed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) at week 12. Four RCTs were eligible for inclusion (three RCTs with moderate-to-severe COPD patients and one RCT with only severe COPD patients). Trough FEV(1) at weeks 12 and 26 were not significantly different between indacaterol and tiotropium by the standardized mean difference with 0.014 (95% CI, -0.036, 0.063, I(2)= 23.5%) and with 0.037 (95% CI, -0.059 to 0.133, I(2)= 0%) along with differences in means of 0.003L and 0.014L, respectively. Indacaterol and tiotropium also showed similar St. George`s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores and percentages of patients with SGRQ improvement (≥ 4 units) at week 26. The incidences of nasopharyngitis, serious cardiovascular events, and serious adverse events were not different between indacaterol and tiotropium, while those of cough (OR = 1.68, P < 0.001, and RR = 1.63) and COPD worsening (OR = 1.18, P = 0.003, and RR = 1.12) were higher for indacaterol than tiotropium. However, when one study with only severe COPD patients was removed from the meta-analysis, the difference in the incidence of COPD worsening between indacaterol and tiotropium became non-significant (OR = 1.13, P = 0.204, and RR = 1.09). The clinical efficacy and serious adverse events between indacaterol and tiotropium were equivocal in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Cough is a common complaint associated with indacaterol, and COPD worsening needs to be carefully monitored in severe COPD patients when treated with indacaterol. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4370711 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43707112015-04-04 Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety between Indacaterol and Tiotropium in COPD: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Kim, Jung Soo Park, Jinkyeong Lim, Seong Yong Oh, Yeon-Mok Yoo, Kwang Ha Park, Yong Bum Sheen, Seung Soo Kim, Min-Ji Carriere, K. C. Jung, Ji Ye Park, Hye Yun PLoS One Research Article Two once-daily inhaled bronchodilators, indacaterol and tiotropium, are widely used as first-line therapy in stable COPD patients. This study was performed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) at week 12. Four RCTs were eligible for inclusion (three RCTs with moderate-to-severe COPD patients and one RCT with only severe COPD patients). Trough FEV(1) at weeks 12 and 26 were not significantly different between indacaterol and tiotropium by the standardized mean difference with 0.014 (95% CI, -0.036, 0.063, I(2)= 23.5%) and with 0.037 (95% CI, -0.059 to 0.133, I(2)= 0%) along with differences in means of 0.003L and 0.014L, respectively. Indacaterol and tiotropium also showed similar St. George`s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores and percentages of patients with SGRQ improvement (≥ 4 units) at week 26. The incidences of nasopharyngitis, serious cardiovascular events, and serious adverse events were not different between indacaterol and tiotropium, while those of cough (OR = 1.68, P < 0.001, and RR = 1.63) and COPD worsening (OR = 1.18, P = 0.003, and RR = 1.12) were higher for indacaterol than tiotropium. However, when one study with only severe COPD patients was removed from the meta-analysis, the difference in the incidence of COPD worsening between indacaterol and tiotropium became non-significant (OR = 1.13, P = 0.204, and RR = 1.09). The clinical efficacy and serious adverse events between indacaterol and tiotropium were equivocal in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Cough is a common complaint associated with indacaterol, and COPD worsening needs to be carefully monitored in severe COPD patients when treated with indacaterol. Public Library of Science 2015-03-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4370711/ /pubmed/25799171 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119948 Text en © 2015 Kim et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Kim, Jung Soo Park, Jinkyeong Lim, Seong Yong Oh, Yeon-Mok Yoo, Kwang Ha Park, Yong Bum Sheen, Seung Soo Kim, Min-Ji Carriere, K. C. Jung, Ji Ye Park, Hye Yun Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety between Indacaterol and Tiotropium in COPD: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials |
title | Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety between Indacaterol and Tiotropium in COPD: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials |
title_full | Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety between Indacaterol and Tiotropium in COPD: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety between Indacaterol and Tiotropium in COPD: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety between Indacaterol and Tiotropium in COPD: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials |
title_short | Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety between Indacaterol and Tiotropium in COPD: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials |
title_sort | comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in copd: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4370711/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25799171 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119948 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kimjungsoo comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsafetybetweenindacaterolandtiotropiumincopdmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT parkjinkyeong comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsafetybetweenindacaterolandtiotropiumincopdmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT limseongyong comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsafetybetweenindacaterolandtiotropiumincopdmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT ohyeonmok comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsafetybetweenindacaterolandtiotropiumincopdmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT yookwangha comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsafetybetweenindacaterolandtiotropiumincopdmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT parkyongbum comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsafetybetweenindacaterolandtiotropiumincopdmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT sheenseungsoo comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsafetybetweenindacaterolandtiotropiumincopdmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT kimminji comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsafetybetweenindacaterolandtiotropiumincopdmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT carrierekc comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsafetybetweenindacaterolandtiotropiumincopdmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT jungjiye comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsafetybetweenindacaterolandtiotropiumincopdmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT parkhyeyun comparisonofclinicalefficacyandsafetybetweenindacaterolandtiotropiumincopdmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials |