Transition Dyspnea Index Research Articles

Umeclidinium in patients with COPD: a randomised, placebo-controlled study

Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium administered in a dry power inhaler were evaluated in moderate-to-very-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. This was a randomised, placebo-controlled study assessing once-daily umeclidinium 62.5 and 125 μg over 12 weeks. The primary end-point was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 85. Secondary end-points were 0-6-h weighted mean and serial forced expiratory volume in 1 s. Other end-points were transitional dyspnoea index, health outcomes (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire), pharmacokinetics and safety. 246 patients were enrolled; 168 completed the study. On day 85, umeclidinium 62.5 and 125 μg significantly improved least squares mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 (127 and 152 mL, respectively; p<0.001) compared with placebo. On day 84, umeclidinium 62.5 and 125 μg significantly improved least squares mean change from baseline in 0-6-h weighted mean (166 and 191 mL, respectively; p<0.001) and serial FEV1 at each time point (p≤0.003). Significant improvements in least squares mean transitional dyspnoea index focal score for UMEC 125 mg(1.3 units; p,0.05) and change from baseline St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score for both UMEC doses (-7.9 and -10.87 units, for UMEC 62.5 mg and 125 mg, respectively; both p,0.001) were noted compared with placebo at week 12 [DOSAGE ERROR CORRECTED].The incidence of adverse events was low and similar across treatments. Umeclidinium 62.5 and 125 μg significantly improved lung function, dyspnoea and health status compared with placebo, and were well tolerated in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients over 12 weeks.

Respiratory Effects of Insulin Sensitisation with Metformin: A Prospective Observational Study

The mechanism for the association between diabetes mellitus and lung function impairment is unknown, as are any respiratory effects of antidiabetic agents. We aimed to assess whether treatment with metformin, an oral insulin-sensitising agent, improved lung function or symptoms in individuals with COPD and glucose intolerance. A prospective open-label observational study was conducted. Participants with moderate or severe COPD, BMI > 25 kg/m2, and type 2 diabetes mellitus or impaired glucose tolerance took metformin twice daily for 6 months. Clinical outcomes included St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), transition dyspnoea index, and incremental shuttle walk test. Physiological outcomes including pulmonary function tests, exhaled nitric oxide, respiratory mouth pressures and handgrip strength. In total, 17 participants completed the study. SGRQ score improved by a median of 5 points, and TDI scores improved by 2 points. Inspiratory mouth pressures increased by 7.5 cmH2O. There were trends to improvements in hyperinflation, gas trapping and shuttle walk distance. Spirometry and exhaled nitric oxide were unchanged. In this proof-of-concept study, metformin was associated with improved dyspnoea and health status in COPD, possibly related to increased inspiratory muscle strength. These and other endpoints should be examined in a definitive study.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg in COPD

To examine the efficacy and safety of the once-daily, inhaled, long-acting muscarinic antagonist/β2-agonist combination umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) compared with UMEC and VI monotherapies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01313650) eligible patients were randomised 3:3:3:2 to treatment with UMEC/VI 62.5/25mcg, UMEC 62.5mcg, VI 25mcg or placebo administered once daily via dry powder inhaler (N=1532; intent-to-treat population). Primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) on Day 169 (23-24h post-dose). Additional lung-function, symptomatic, and health-related quality-of-life endpoints were assessed, including 0-6h weighted-mean FEV1, rescue salbutamol use, Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI), Shortness Of Breath With Daily Activity (SOBDA) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores. Safety evaluations included adverse events (AEs), vital signs, 12-lead/24-h Holter electrocardiography parameters and clinical laboratory/haematology measurements. All active treatments produced statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 compared with placebo on Day 169 (0.072-0.167L, all p<0.001); increases with UMEC/VI 62.5/25mcg were significantly greater than monotherapies (0.052-0.095L, p≤0.004). Improvements were observed for UMEC/VI 62.5/25mcg vs placebo for weighted-mean FEV1 on Day 168 (0.242L, p<0.001), rescue salbutamol use during Weeks 1-24 (-0.8 puffs/day, p=0.001), TDI (1.2 units, p<0.001), SOBDA (-0.17 units, p<0.001) and SGRQ (-5.51 units, p<0.001) scores. No clinically-significant changes in vital signs, electrocardiography, or laboratory parameters were observed. Once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25mcg was well tolerated and provided clinically-significant improvements in lung function and symptoms in patients with COPD.

Efficacy and safety of the oral p38 inhibitor PH-797804 in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised clinical trial

RationaleChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common lung disease leading to progressive decline in lung function. Inhibition of release of inflammatory mediators by p38 inhibitors may be a useful...

Safety and efficacy of the once-daily anticholinergic BEA2180 compared with tiotropium in patients with COPD

To determine the safety and efficacy of BEA2180, an anticholinergic agent in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Smokers or ex-smokers ≥40 years with COPD and a postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) <80% predicted and FEV1/forced vital capacity ≤70% participated in this multinational, randomised, double-blind, parallel study. Patients received BEA2180 (50, 100 or 200 μg), tiotropium (5 μg) or placebo once daily via Respimat Soft Mist™. The primary endpoint was trough FEV1 after 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints included Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, exacerbations and adverse events. Patients (n = 2080, 64.5% male) had a mean age of 64.2 years and a baseline FEV1 of 1.2 L. Trough FEV1 at 24 weeks with all BEA2180 doses (0.044-0.087 L) and tiotropium 5 μg (0.092 L) was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) than placebo (-0.034 L) and BEA2180 (200 μg) was noninferior to tiotropium. Mean TDI focal scores were higher with BEA2180 (1.43-1.48) or tiotropium (1.46) versus placebo (0.94; p ≤ 0.01 for all). Mean SGRQ total scores also improved with BEA2180 (40.1-40.7) or tiotropium (39.5) compared with placebo (43.0, p < 0.01 for all). COPD exacerbation rates were reduced for all active treatments, reaching statistical significance for BEA2180 (50 and 200 μg) (p < 0.05, for both). All study doses of BEA2180 improved lung function, reduced symptoms and exacerbations, and improved health status in COPD; all treatments were well tolerated. Clinical trial identifier: NCT00528996.

Efficacy and safety of indacaterol and tiotropium in COPD patients according to dyspnoea severity

BackgroundGuidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend that treatment choices be based partly on symptoms. MethodsA post-hoc analysis of pooled data from clinical studies compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily inhaled bronchodilators indacaterol (150 and 300 μg) and open-label tiotropium (18 μg) according to baseline dyspnoea severity on the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale in patients with COPD (mMRC scores <2 = ‘less dyspnoea’; scores ≥2 = ‘more dyspnoea’). Outcomes were assessed after 26 weeks. ResultsThe analysis included 3177 patients. In patients with less dyspnoea: indacaterol (both doses) improved 24-h post-dose (‘trough’) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), transition dyspnoea index (TDI) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores at week 26 and reduced the risk of COPD exacerbations vs placebo; and open-label tiotropium improved trough FEV1 and TDI total score vs placebo at week 26. In patients with more dyspnoea: indacaterol (both doses) improved trough FEV1, TDI and SGRQ total scores at week 26; indacaterol 300 μg was the only treatment to improve the TDI total score by more than the minimum clinically important difference (≥1 point) vs placebo; and open-label tiotropium improved trough FEV1, TDI total score at week 26 and decreased the risk of COPD exacerbations vs placebo. In both subgroups, all treatments were well tolerated. ConclusionsIn patients with less dyspnoea, all treatments had similar effects. Indacaterol 300 μg may be a useful treatment option for patients with COPD who experience more severe breathlessness.

Safety and Efficacy of 12-Week or Longer Indacaterol Treatment in Moderate-to-Severe COPD Patients: A Systematic Review

This is a meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of indacaterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with treatment duration of ≥12weeks. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in English (to September 30, 2012) were identified from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, websites, reference lists, and manual searches. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the trials and extracted information. Five RCTs were eligible. Five involved indacaterol, two salmeterol, one formoterol, and one tiotropium. Four studies had placebos. Using trough forced expiratory volume in 1s as a measure of therapeutic effect, indacaterol was superior to the other β2-agonists, tiotropium, and placebo at weeks 12, 26, and 52. Indacaterol had a greater effect on the transition dyspnoea index compared with placebo, formoterol, and salmeterol, but not open-label tiotropium. In reducing the as-needed use of salbutamol, indacaterol were superior to placebo, tiotropium, and formoterol, but not salmeterol (5, 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.15, 12.15). Indacaterol improved St George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores more than placebo and open-label tiotropium, but not formoterol. Indacaterol seemed to cause more adverse events than placebo only at a dose of 600μg daily and a duration of 52weeks (risk ratio 1.15; 95% CI, 1.04, 1.26). The total and serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation were comparable with open-label tiotropium and the β2-agonists. Indacaterol is effective and well-tolerated as a bronchodilator for the maintenance of moderate to severe COPD.

Comparative efficacy of aclidinium versus glycopyrronium and tiotropium, as maintenance treatment of moderate to severe COPD patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BackgroundAclidinium bromide is a new long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) indicated for maintenance bronchodilator treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy of aclidinium was compared with tiotropium and glycopyrronium, using a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in moderate-to-severe COPD patients.MethodsA systematic review was performed to identify RCTs evaluating aclidinium 400 μg twice daily (BID), glycopyrronium 50 μg once daily (OD), tiotropium 18 μg OD, or tiotropium 5 μg OD in adults with moderate-to-severe COPD. The outcomes of interest were: trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1); St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and proportion of patients achieving ≥4 unit change; Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score and proportion of patients achieving ≥1 point change. The results were synthesized by means of a Bayesian NMA.ResultsTwenty-one studies (22,542 patients) were included: aclidinium 400 μg BID (three studies); tiotropium 5 μg OD (three studies); tiotropium 18 μg OD (13 studies); and glycopyrronium 50 μg OD (two studies). Regarding trough FEV1 at 24 weeks, aclidinium demonstrated comparable efficacy to tiotropium 5 μg (difference in change from baseline [CFB]), (0.02 L [95% credible interval CrI −0.05, 0.09]); tiotropium 18 μg (0.02 L [95% CrI −0.05, 0.08]); and glycopyrronium (0.00 L [95% CrI −0.07, 0.07]). Aclidinium resulted in higher improvement in SGRQ score at 24 weeks, compared to tiotropium 5 μg (difference in CFB, −2.44 [95% CrI −4.82, −0.05]); and comparable results to tiotropium 18 μg (−1.80 [95% CrI −4.52, 0.14]) and glycopyrronium (−1.52 [95% CrI −4.08, 1.03]). Improvements in TDI score were comparable for all treatments.ConclusionMaintenance treatment with aclidinium 400 μg BID is expected to produce similar improvements in lung function, health-related quality of life, and dyspnea compared to tiotropium 5 μg OD; tiotropium 18 μg OD; and glycopyrronium 50 μg OD.

Indacaterol and salmeterol in COPD patients: a comparative study of efficacy and safety

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an airway disorder characterized by airflow limitation that is not fully reversible. Indacaterol is a novel, inhaled, once-daily, ultra-long-acting β2-agonist bronchodilator recently approved in India for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of indacaterol compared to twice-daily β2-agonist, salmeterol, as an active control. Methods: The present study was open, randomized parallel group comparison of two active treatment groups over a 12 week period. A total of 60 patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomised to treatment either with indacaterol (150 μg once daily) or with salmeterol (50 μg twice daily) and 51 (85%) patients completed the study. The efficacy parameters were change in FEV1, health related quality of life by measuring St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and severity of dyspnoea as measured by Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) score which were assessed at baseline first and at weeks 4, 8 and 12. Results: Indacaterol increased FEV1 at week 4 by 50 ml, at week 8 and at week 12 by 60 ml over salmeterol and the increase was highly significant (p

Effects of long-acting bronchodilators in COPD patients according to COPD severity and ICS use

Indacaterol is a once-daily, long-acting β(2)-agonist bronchodilator that improves dyspnoea and health status in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. While its bronchodilator effects have been shown to be maintained in different patient subgroups, effects on clinical outcomes in certain subgroups are not yet defined. Post-hoc analysis of pooled clinical study data to investigate efficacy and safety of indacaterol compared with placebo and other long-acting bronchodilators (formoterol, salmeterol, open-label tiotropium) in patient subgroups defined by COPD severity (GOLD stage II or III; n=4082) and ICS use at baseline (no/yes; n=4088). Efficacy outcomes were trough (24-h post-dose) FEV(1), dyspnoea (transition dyspnoea index; TDI) and health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire; SGRQ) after 26 weeks. All active treatments significantly improved trough FEV(1) and dyspnoea compared with placebo, and all apart from open-label tiotropium improved health status compared with placebo. Among active treatments, indacaterol 150μg had the best overall efficacy profile in the GOLD II and no-ICS subgroups. In the GOLD III and ICS subgroups, indacaterol 300μg had the best overall efficacy, including a marked effect on dyspnoea (1.4-point improvement in TDI total score vs. placebo; p<0.001). Within subgroups, the incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments. Indacaterol maintained its efficacy regardless of disease severity or use of concurrent ICS. Indacaterol 150μg had the best overall efficacy profile in the GOLD stage II patients while, in patients with more severe disease, indacaterol 300μg provided useful improvements in dyspnoea.

Comparison of Indacaterol With Tiotropium or Twice-Daily Long-Acting β-Agonists for Stable COPD: A Systematic Review

Bronchodilators are central to the symptomatic management of patients with COPD.Previous data have shown that inhaled indacaterol improved numerous clinical outcomes over placebo. This systematic review explored the efficacy and safety of indacaterol in comparison with tiotropium or bid long-acting β 2 -agonists (TD-LABAs) for treatment of moderate to severe COPD. Randomized controlled trials were identified after a search of different databases of published and unpublished trials. Five trials (5,920 participants) were included. Compared with tiotropium, indacaterol showed statistically and clinically significant reductions in the use of rescue medication and dyspnea(43% greater likelihood of achieving a minimal clinically important difference [MCID] in the transitional dyspnea index [TDI]; number needed to treat for benefit [NNTB] 5 10). Additionally,the MCID in health status was more likely to be achieved with indacaterol than with tiotropium (OR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.22–1.68; P = .00001; [NNTB ]= 10). Trough FEV 1 was significantly higher at the end of treatment with indacaterol than with TD-LABAs (80 mL, P = .00001). Similarly, indacaterol signifi cantly improved dyspnea (61% greater likelihood of achieving an MCID in TDI, P = .008) and health status (21% greater likelihood of achieving an MCID in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, P 5 .04) than TD-LABA. Indacaterol showed similar levels of safety and tolerability to both comparators. Available evidence suggests that indacaterol may prove useful as an alternative to tiotropium or TD-LABA due to its effects on health status, dyspnea, and pulmonary function.

Assessing efficacy of indacaterol in moderate and severe COPD patients: A 12-week study in an Asian population

This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of indacaterol, a novel inhaled once-daily long-acting β(2)-agonist, by disease severity (GOLD 2005) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD from six Asian countries/areas (Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan). Data from a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in patients randomized to indacaterol 150μg, indacaterol 300μg or placebo once daily were analyzed based on baseline disease severity (moderate or severe). Endpoints were: trough FEV(1) (average of 23h 10min and 23h 45min post-dose values), transition dyspnoea index (TDI) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) at Week 12. Safety data were collected. Of 347 patients randomized, 59.7% had moderate, and 40.3% had severe COPD. Least squares means (LSMs) indacaterol-placebo differences in trough FEV(1) at Week 12 exceeded the pre-specified minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.12L and were statistically superior (p<0.001) for indacaterol (150μg, 300μg) versus placebo in the two subgroups [0.19L, 0.20L (moderate); 0.15L, 0.19L (severe) respectively]. LSM TDI scores for both indacaterol doses versus placebo in both subgroups were statistically superior (p<0.05) and clinically meaningful (≥1 unit). Both indacaterol doses showed improvements in LSM SGRQ total scores at Week 12 which exceeded the MCID (4 units) versus placebo in both subgroups, with indacaterol 300μg-placebo difference in the severe subgroup being statistically significant (p<0.01). Overall incidence of adverse events was lower with indacaterol than with placebo across both subgroups. Indacaterol demonstrated clinically relevant improvements versus placebo in lung function, dyspnea and health status in Asian COPD patients irrespective of disease severity. NCT00794157.

Indacaterol therapy in patients with COPD not receiving other maintenance treatment

Recent findings of rapid lung function decline in younger patients with moderate COPD severity suggest the need for effective early treatment. To evaluate the effectiveness of indacaterol as maintenance therapy in COPD patients not receiving other maintenance treatments. Pooled data from three randomised, placebo-controlled studies provided a population of patients with moderate-to-severe COPD not receiving maintenance treatment at baseline and who received once-daily, double-blind treatment with indacaterol 150 μg, indacaterol 300 μg or placebo. Data from an open-label tiotropium treatment arm in one study were available for comparison. Efficacy evaluations included trough FEV₁, dyspnoea (transition dyspnoea index, TDI) and health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, SGRQ) at 6 months and risk of COPD exacerbations. The maintenance-naïve population comprised 232 (indacaterol 150 μg), 220 (indacaterol 300 μg) and 325 (placebo) patients, plus 156 (tiotropium) (30% of overall study population). Patients treated with indacaterol 150 and 300 μg had statistically significant improvements relative to placebo (p < 0.05) in trough FEV₁ (170 and 180 mL), TDI total score (1.27 and 1.04 points), rescue use and SGRQ total score (-6.1 and -2.5 units) at 6 months. Patients receiving tiotropium had statistically significant improvements versus placebo (p < 0.05) in trough FEV₁ (130 mL) and TDI total score (0.69 points). Exacerbations were rare and not significantly reduced by any treatment. Treatments were well tolerated. Indacaterol, given to patients with moderate-to-severe COPD not receiving other maintenance treatments, provided effective bronchodilation with significant, clinically relevant improvements in dyspnoea and health status compared with placebo.

Efficacy of Indacaterol 75 μg Once-Daily on Dyspnea and Health Status: Results of Two Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled 12-Week Studies

Indacaterol is an inhaled, once-daily, long-acting ®2-agonist for the treatment of COPD. Most previous studies were conducted with doses of 150 and/or 300 μg once-daily, and data with the 75 μg dose are limited. Two identically designed studies were, therefore, conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the 75 μg once-daily dose. In two double-blind studies conducted in the USA, patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized to treatment with indacaterol 75 μg once-daily (n = 163 and 159) or matching placebo (n = 160 and 159) for 12 weeks. The primary variable was forced expiratory volume in 1 s measured 24 h post-dose after 12 weeks (reported elsewhere). This report describes secondary efficacy endpoints, including transition dyspnea index (TDI) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores, and the percentages of patients with improvements of or above the minimal clinically important difference (MCID; ≥1 in TDI score and ≥4 in SGRQ score). Differences between indacaterol and placebo for TDI total score at week 12 were 1.23 (p < 0.001) and 0.45 (p = 0.16), with odds ratios for achieving the MCID of 2.19 (p = 0.002) and 1.58 (p = 0.065). SGRQ total score decreased (improved) from baseline by 5.8 and 4.9 units with indacaterol at week 12 (2.0 and 0.9 with placebo), with odds ratios for achieving the MCID of 1.80 (p = 0.024) and 1.71 (p = 0.031). Patients receiving indacaterol had statistically significant or numerical improvements in diary-derived symptom variables compared with placebo. Treatment with indacaterol 75 μg may provide useful improvements in patient-reported outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Longitudinal Changes in Patient-reported Dyspnea in Patients with COPD

Background: Although guidelines recommend monitoring symptoms in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), there is limited information on the longitudinal changes in patient-reported dyspnea (PRD) related to activities of daily living. The hypothesis was that PRD scores on the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) scale, the self-administered computerized (SAC) transition dyspnea index (TDI), and the University of California San Diego Shortness of Breath questionnaire (UCSD SOBQ) would demonstrate progression over two years. Methods: Observational cohort study of symptomatic patients with stable COPD evaluated every 6 months for 2 years. Patients rated the impact of activities of daily living on dyspnea using three patient-reported instruments presented in random order, and then performed post-bronchodilator (pBD) spirometry. Results: Seventy patients (37 female/33 male; age: 66 ± 9 years; and pBD forced expiratory volume in one second [(FEV1): 51 ± 16% predicted] participated. Using fixed effects regression modeling, there was significant worsening in the PRD scores with the SAC TDI (–0.9 ± 2.7; p = 0.03) and UCSD SOBQ (+5.7 ± 18.3; p = 0.001), but not with the mMRC scale (p = 0.52). Both pBD FEV1 (p = 0.19) and pBD forced vital capacity (p = 0.65) were unchanged. Conclusions: Multidimensional instruments (SAC TDI and UCSD SOBQ) demonstrated the frequently observed decline in PRD experienced by patients with COPD. The progression in PRD occurred despite stable lung function. Monitoring PRD provides unique clinical information and should be considered along with measuring lung function to assess patient status over time.

Efficacy and safety of NVA237 versus placebo and tiotropium in patients with COPD: the GLOW2 study.

NVA237 (glycopyrronium bromide) is a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The GLycopyrronium bromide in COPD airWays clinical Study 2 (GLOW2) evaluated the efficacy and safety of NVA237 in moderate-to-severe COPD over 52 weeks.Patients were randomised 2:1:1 to NVA237 50 μg, placebo or open-label tiotropium 18 μg for 52 weeks. Primary end-point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at 12 weeks.1,066 patients were randomised, 810 completed the study. At week 12, trough FEV1 increased significantly by 97 mL with NVA237 (95% CI 64.6–130.2; p<0.001) and 83 mL with tiotropium (95% CI 45.6–121.4; p<0.001). Compared with placebo, NVA237 produced significant improvements in dyspnoea (Transition Dyspnoea Index at week 26; p=0.002) and health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire at week 52; p<0.001). NVA237 significantly reduced the risk of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations by 34% (p=0.001) and the use of rescue medication (p=0.039), versus placebo. NVA237-placebo and tiotropium-placebo differences were comparable for all outcomes. Safety profiles were similar across groups.NVA237 50 μg provided significant improvements in lung function, dyspnoea, health status, exacerbations and rescue medication use, versus placebo, and was comparable to tiotropium. NVA237 can potentially be an alternative choice of LAMA for COPD patients.

Long-Term Efficacy of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients with Occupational Respiratory Diseases

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation is a well-recognized treatment option in chronic obstructive lung disease improving exercise performance, respiratory symptoms and quality of life. In occupational respiratory diseases, which can be rather cost-intensive due to the compensation needs, very little information is available. Objectives: This study aims at the evaluation of the usefulness of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with occupational respiratory diseases, partly involving complex alterations of lung function and of the sustainability of effects. Methods: We studied 263 patients with occupational respiratory diseases (asthma, silicosis, asbestosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) using a 4-week inpatient rehabilitation program and follow-up examinations 3 and 12 months later. The outcomes evaluated were lung function, 6-min walking distance (6MWD), maximum exercise capacity (Wmax), skeletal muscle strength, respiratory symptoms, exacerbations and associated medical consultations, quality of life (SF-36, SGRQ), anxiety/depression (HADS) and Medical Research Council and Baseline and Transition Dyspnea Index scores. Results: Compared to baseline, there were significant (p < 0.05) improvements in 6MWD, Wmax and muscle strength immediately after rehabilitation, and these were maintained over 12 months (p < 0.05). Effects were less pronounced in asbestosis. Overall, a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations by 35%, antibiotic therapy by 27% and use of health care services by 17% occurred within 12 months after rehabilitation. No changes were seen in the questionnaire outcomes. Conclusions: Pulmonary rehabilitation is effective even in the complex settings of occupational respiratory diseases, providing sustained improvement of functional capacity and reducing health care utilization.

Efficacy of Once-Daily Indacaterol Relative to Alternative Bronchodilators in COPD: A Patient-Level Mixed Treatment Comparison

ObjectiveIndacaterol was evaluated versus placebo, formoterol, and salmeterol in randomized controlled trials. No direct comparisons, however, are available for indacaterol 150 μg with formoterol or indacaterol 300 μg with salmeterol. Indacaterol trial evidence was synthesized to provide coherent estimates of indacaterol 150 μg and indacaterol 300 μg relative to formoterol, salmeterol, and tiotropium. MethodsFour randomized controlled trials were combined with Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons by using individual patient-level data. End points of interest were trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and response (≥4 points), and Transition Dyspnea Index total score and response (≥1 point). ResultsIndacaterol 150 μg demonstrated a higher FEV1 than did formoterol at 12 weeks and 6 months (0.10 L difference; 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.06–0.14), as did indacaterol 300 μg versus salmeterol (0.06 L difference at 12 weeks; CrI = 0.02–0.10; 0.06 L at 6 months; CrI = 0.02–0.11). Regarding SGRQ, indacaterol 150 μg demonstrated a comparable proportion of responders versus formoterol, as did indacaterol 300 μg versus salmeterol. In comparison to tiotropium, indacaterol 150 μg demonstrated a greater proportion of responders (odds ratio = 1.52 at 12 weeks; CrI 1.15–2.00). For Transition Dyspnea Index, indacaterol 150 μg and formoterol showed a similar response. Indacaterol 300 μg was more efficacious than salmeterol (odds ratio = 1.65 at 12 weeks; CrI 1.16–2.34). Overall, indacaterol 150 μg showed the greatest efficacy for SGRQ and indacaterol 300 μg for FEV1 and Transition Dyspnea Index. ConclusionIndacaterol is expected to be comparable to formoterol, salmeterol, and tiotropium, providing higher FEV1 than formoterol and salmeterol and greater improvement in the SGRQ total score than tiotropium. Indacaterol 150 μg provided comparable improvement in dyspnea, while indacaterol 300 μg demonstrated the greatest response overall.

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium bromide in COPD patients: the ATTAIN study

The efficacy and safety of two doses of aclidinium bromide were evaluated in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this 24-week, double-blind trial, patients were randomised to twice-daily aclidinium (200 μg or 400 μg) or placebo. The primary efficacy end-point was change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) at week 24. Other end-points included peak FEV(1), health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire; SGRQ) and dyspnoea (Transitional Dyspnoea Index; TDI). Overall, 828 patients were randomised. At week 24, significant improvements from baseline were observed with aclidinium 200 μg and 400 μg versus placebo for trough FEV(1) (99 and 128 mL; both p<0.0001) and peak FEV(1) (185 and 209 mL; both p<0.0001). Peak FEV(1) improvements on day 1 were comparable with week 24. Aclidinium 200 μg and 400 μg produced significant improvements over placebo in baseline-adjusted mean SGRQ total score (-3.8 and -4.6 units; p<0.001 and p<0.0001) and TDI focal score (0.6 and 1.0 units; p<0.05 and p<0.001) at week 24. With both aclidinium doses, the incidence of anticholinergic adverse events was low, and similar to placebo. Twice-daily aclidinium significantly improved bronchodilation, health status and dyspnoea, and was well tolerated in patients with COPD.

Efficacy and Safety of a 12-week Treatment with Twice-daily Aclidinium Bromide in COPD Patients (ACCORD COPD I)

Background: This Phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium 200 μg and 400 μg versus placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD. Methods: In this 12-week, double-blind, multicenter trial, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to inhaled twice-daily aclidinium 200 μg, aclidinium 400 μg, or placebo. Primary and secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in trough FEV1 and peak FEV1 at Week 12, respectively. Health status (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]), COPD symptoms (Transitional Dyspnea Index [TDI], night and early morning symptoms), and safety were also assessed. Results: A total of 561 patients (mean age, 64 ± 9 years) with a mean baseline FEV1 of 1.36 ± 0.54 L (47.2% of predicted value) were randomized. At Week 12, aclidinium 200 μg and 400 μg showed significant improvements from baseline in mean (95% CI) trough FEV1 compared with placebo by 86 (45, 127) mL and 124 (83,164) mL, respectively, and in peak FEV1 by 146 (101, 190) mL and 192 (148, 236) mL, respectively (p ≤ 0.0001 for all). Both aclidinium doses also provided significant improvements in SGRQ, TDI and almost all COPD symptom scores compared with placebo (p < 0.05 for all). Incidences of adverse events (AEs) were similar across treatment groups. The incidence of anticholinergic AEs was low and similar across groups (dry mouth: 0.5%–1.6%; constipation: 0%-1.1%). Conclusions: Treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD patients with twice-daily aclidinium 200 μg and 400 μg was associated with significant improvements in bronchodilation, health status, and COPD symptoms. Both doses were well tolerated and had safety profiles similar to placebo.Trial Registration: This ACCORD I study (AClidinium in Chronic Obstructive Respiratory Disease I) was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00891462) as “Efficacy and Safety of Aclidinium Bromide for Treatment of Moderate to Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)”.