Cargando…

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

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,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Feldman, Gregory, Maltais, François, Khindri, Sanjeev, Vahdati-Bolouri, Mitra, Church, Alison, Fahy, William A, Trivedi, Roopa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4827908/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27103795
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S102494
_version_ 1782426533822988288
author Feldman, Gregory
Maltais, François
Khindri, Sanjeev
Vahdati-Bolouri, Mitra
Church, Alison
Fahy, William A
Trivedi, Roopa
author_facet Feldman, Gregory
Maltais, François
Khindri, Sanjeev
Vahdati-Bolouri, Mitra
Church, Alison
Fahy, William A
Trivedi, Roopa
author_sort Feldman, Gregory
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4827908
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48279082016-04-21 A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD Feldman, Gregory Maltais, François Khindri, Sanjeev Vahdati-Bolouri, Mitra Church, Alison Fahy, William A Trivedi, Roopa Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis Original Research 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. Dove Medical Press 2016-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4827908/ /pubmed/27103795 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S102494 Text en © 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.
spellingShingle Original Research
Feldman, Gregory
Maltais, François
Khindri, Sanjeev
Vahdati-Bolouri, Mitra
Church, Alison
Fahy, William A
Trivedi, Roopa
A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD
title A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD
title_full A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD
title_fullStr A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD
title_full_unstemmed A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD
title_short A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD
title_sort randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with copd
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4827908/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27103795
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S102494
work_keys_str_mv AT feldmangregory arandomizedblindedstudytoevaluatetheefficacyandsafetyofumeclidinium625mgcomparedwithtiotropium18mginpatientswithcopd
AT maltaisfrancois arandomizedblindedstudytoevaluatetheefficacyandsafetyofumeclidinium625mgcomparedwithtiotropium18mginpatientswithcopd
AT khindrisanjeev arandomizedblindedstudytoevaluatetheefficacyandsafetyofumeclidinium625mgcomparedwithtiotropium18mginpatientswithcopd
AT vahdatibolourimitra arandomizedblindedstudytoevaluatetheefficacyandsafetyofumeclidinium625mgcomparedwithtiotropium18mginpatientswithcopd
AT churchalison arandomizedblindedstudytoevaluatetheefficacyandsafetyofumeclidinium625mgcomparedwithtiotropium18mginpatientswithcopd
AT fahywilliama arandomizedblindedstudytoevaluatetheefficacyandsafetyofumeclidinium625mgcomparedwithtiotropium18mginpatientswithcopd
AT trivediroopa arandomizedblindedstudytoevaluatetheefficacyandsafetyofumeclidinium625mgcomparedwithtiotropium18mginpatientswithcopd
AT feldmangregory randomizedblindedstudytoevaluatetheefficacyandsafetyofumeclidinium625mgcomparedwithtiotropium18mginpatientswithcopd
AT maltaisfrancois randomizedblindedstudytoevaluatetheefficacyandsafetyofumeclidinium625mgcomparedwithtiotropium18mginpatientswithcopd
AT khindrisanjeev randomizedblindedstudytoevaluatetheefficacyandsafetyofumeclidinium625mgcomparedwithtiotropium18mginpatientswithcopd
AT vahdatibolourimitra randomizedblindedstudytoevaluatetheefficacyandsafetyofumeclidinium625mgcomparedwithtiotropium18mginpatientswithcopd
AT churchalison randomizedblindedstudytoevaluatetheefficacyandsafetyofumeclidinium625mgcomparedwithtiotropium18mginpatientswithcopd
AT fahywilliama randomizedblindedstudytoevaluatetheefficacyandsafetyofumeclidinium625mgcomparedwithtiotropium18mginpatientswithcopd
AT trivediroopa randomizedblindedstudytoevaluatetheefficacyandsafetyofumeclidinium625mgcomparedwithtiotropium18mginpatientswithcopd