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,...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |