scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol versus salmeterol/fluticasone: a phase 3 COPD study

2016 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 1030-1039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claus Vogelmeier ◽  
Pier Luigi Paggiaro ◽  
Jordi Dorca ◽  
Pawel Sliwinski ◽  
Marcel Mallet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Forced Expiratory Volume ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
St George's Respiratory Questionnaire ◽  
Exacerbation Risk

The efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate was compared with that of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in patients with stable, moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).AFFIRM COPD (Aclidinium and Formoterol Findings in Respiratory Medicine COPD) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled study. Patients were randomised (1:1) to aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg twice-daily via Genuair/Pressair or salmeterol/fluticasone 50/500 µg twice-daily via Accuhaler. The primary end-point was peak forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at week 24. Other end-points included Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score at week 24, TDI and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders, COPD Assessment Test and SGRQ scores, assessment of COPD symptoms and exacerbations, use of reliever medication, and device preference. Adverse events were monitored throughout.In total, 933 patients were eligible (mean age 63.4 years, 65.1% male). Aclidinium/formoterol was superior to salmeterol/fluticasone in peak FEV1 and noninferior in TDI. Health status and reduction in exacerbation risk were similar in both groups. While both treatments were well tolerated, pneumonia occurred less frequently with aclidinium/formoterol than salmeterol/fluticasone.In stable COPD, aclidinium/formoterol significantly improved bronchodilation versus salmeterol/fluticasone, with equivalent benefits in symptom control and reduction in exacerbation risk. Both treatments were well tolerated and treatment-related adverse events were less common with aclidinium/formoterol.

scholarly journals Tiotropium and olodaterol fixed-dose combinationversusmono-components in COPD (GOLD 2–4)

2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 969-979 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Buhl ◽  
François Maltais ◽  
Roger Abrahams ◽  
Leif Bjermer ◽  
Eric Derom ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Forced Expiratory Volume ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Multicentre Phase ◽  
St George's Respiratory Questionnaire

Efficacy and safety of tiotropium+olodaterol fixed-dose combination (FDC) compared with the mono-components was evaluated in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in two replicate, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre, phase III trials.Patients received tiotropium+olodaterol FDC 2.5/5 μg or 5/5 μg, tiotropium 2.5 μg or 5 μg, or olodaterol 5 μg delivered once-dailyviaRespimat inhaler over 52 weeks. Primary end points were forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 3 h (AUC0–3) response, trough FEV1 response and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at 24 weeks.In total, 5162 patients (2624 in Study 1237.5 and 2538 in Study 1237.6) received treatment. Both FDCs significantly improved FEV1 AUC0–3 and trough FEV1 responseversusthe mono-components in both studies. Statistically significant improvements in SGRQ total scoreversusthe mono-components were only seen for tiotropium+olodaterol FDC 5/5 μg. Incidence of adverse events was comparable between the FDCs and the mono-components.These studies demonstrated significant improvements in lung function and health-related quality of life with once-daily tiotropium+olodaterol FDCversusmono-components over 1 year in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

scholarly journals Validation of Clinical Characteristics and Effectiveness of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in a COPD Population with Discrepancy between Exercise Tolerance and FEV1

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Jun Horie ◽  
Koichiro Takahashi ◽  
Shuuichi Shiranita ◽  
Kunihiko Anami ◽  
Shinichiro Hayashi
Keyword(s):  
Gait Speed ◽  
Pulmonary Rehabilitation ◽  
Exercise Tolerance ◽  
Respiratory Illness ◽  
Forced Expiratory Volume ◽  
Walking Distance ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
St George's Respiratory Questionnaire ◽  
History Of

This study’s objective was to examine the characteristics of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presenting with various exercise tolerance levels. A total of 235 patients with stable COPD were classified into 4 groups: (1) LoFlo + HiEx—patients with a six-minute walking distance (6MWD) ≥350 m and percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (%FEV1.0) <50%; (2) HiFlo + HiEx—patients with a 6MWD ≥350 m and a %FEV1.0 ≥50%; (3) LoFlo + LoEx—patients with a 6MWD < 350 m and %FEV1.0 < 50%; and (4) HiFlo + LoEx—patients with a 6MWD <350 m and %FEV1.0 ≥ 50%. Aspects of physical ability in the HiFlo + LoEx group were significantly lower than those in the HiFlo + HiEx group. The HiFlo + LoEx group was characterized by a history of hospitalization for respiratory illness within the past year, treatment with at-home oxygen therapy, and lacking daily exercise habits. Following three months of pulmonary rehabilitation, the LoFlo + HiEx group significantly improved in the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score, maximum gait speed, and 6MWD, while the HiFlo + LoEx group significantly improved in the percentage of maximal expiratory pressure, maximum gait speed, 6MWD, incremental shuttle walking distance, and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score. The HiFlo + LoEx group had the greatest effect of three-month pulmonary rehabilitation compared to other groups.

scholarly journals Effects of umeclidinium/vilanterol on exercise endurance in COPD: a randomised study

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 00073-2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Riley ◽  
Chris J. Kalberg ◽  
Alison Donald ◽  
David A. Lipson ◽  
Muhammad Shoaib ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Forced Expiratory Volume ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Post Dose ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Endurance Time ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Randomised Study ◽  
Residual Capacity ◽  
Exercise Endurance

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period crossover study assessed the effect of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) on exercise capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using the endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT).Patients were randomised 1:1 to one of two treatment sequences: 1) UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg followed by placebo or 2) placebo followed by UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg. Each treatment was taken once daily for 12 weeks. The primary end-point was 3-h post-dose exercise endurance time (EET) at week 12. Secondary end-points included trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and 3-h post-dose functional residual capacity (FRC), both at week 12. COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score at week 12 was also assessed.UMEC/VI treatment did not result in a statistically significant improvement in EET change from baseline at week 12 versus placebo (p=0.790). However, improvements were observed in trough FEV1 (206 mL, 95% CI 167–246), 3-h post-dose FRC (−346 mL, 95% CI −487 to −204) and CAT score (−1.07 units, 95% CI −2.09 to −0.05) versus placebo at week 12.UMEC/VI did not result in improvements in EET at week 12 versus placebo, despite improvements in measures of lung function, hyperinflation and health status.

scholarly journals Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapies in symptomatic patients with COPD not receiving inhaled corticosteroids: the EMAX randomised trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
François Maltais ◽  
Leif Bjermer ◽  
Edward M. Kerwin ◽  
Paul W. Jones ◽  
Michael L. Watkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Forced Expiratory Volume ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Clinically Important Deterioration ◽  
Exacerbation Risk

Abstract Background Prospective evidence is lacking regarding incremental benefits of long-acting dual- versus mono-bronchodilation in improving symptoms and preventing short-term disease worsening/treatment failure in low exacerbation risk patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Methods The 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised patients at low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5 μg once-daily or salmeterol 50 μg twice-daily. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The study was also powered for the secondary endpoint of Transition Dyspnoea Index at Week 24. Other efficacy assessments included spirometry, symptoms, heath status and short-term disease worsening measured by the composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration using three definitions. Results Change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 66 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43, 89) and 141 mL (95% CI: 118, 164) greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, respectively (both p < 0.001). Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated consistent improvements in Transition Dyspnoea Index versus both monotherapies at Week 24 (vs umeclidinium: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.68], p = 0.018; vs salmeterol: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.15, 0.76], p = 0.004) and all other symptom measures at all time points. Regardless of the clinically important deterioration definition considered, umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly reduced the risk of a first clinically important deterioration compared with umeclidinium (by 16–25% [p < 0.01]) and salmeterol (by 26–41% [p < 0.001]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments. Conclusions Umeclidinium/vilanterol consistently provides early and sustained improvements in lung function and symptoms and reduces the risk of deterioration/treatment failure versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. These findings suggest a potential for early use of dual bronchodilators to help optimise therapy in this patient group.

scholarly journals Maintained therapeutic effect of revefenacin over 52 weeks in moderate to very severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
James F. Donohue ◽  
Edward Kerwin ◽  
Sanjay Sethi ◽  
Brett Haumann ◽  
Srikanth Pendyala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Forced Expiratory Volume ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Long Acting

Abstract Background Revefenacin is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist that was recently approved for the nebulized treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although shorter duration studies have documented the efficacy of revefenacin in COPD, longer-term efficacy has not been described. In a recent 52-week safety trial, revefenacin was well tolerated and had a favorable benefit-risk profile. Here we report exploratory efficacy and health outcomes in patients receiving revefenacin 175 μg or 88 μg daily during the 52-week trial. Methods In this randomized, parallel-group, 52-week trial (NCT02518139), 1055 participants with moderate to very severe COPD received revefenacin 175 μg or 88 μg in a double-blind manner, or open-label active control tiotropium. Results Over the 52-week treatment period, both doses of revefenacin, as well as tiotropium, elicited significant (all p < 0.0003) improvements from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). The trough FEV1 profile (least squares mean change from baseline) for revefenacin 175 μg ranged from 52.3–124.3 mL and the trough FEV1 profile for tiotropium ranged from 79.7–112.8 mL. In subgroup comparisons, the effect of revefenacin on trough FEV1 was comparable in patients taking concomitant long-acting β-agonists, with or without inhaled corticosteroids, with patients who were not taking these medications. There were statistically significant (p < 0.05) improvements in all measured health status outcomes (evaluated using St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, Clinical COPD Questionnaire and Baseline and Transition Dyspnea Index) from 3 months onward, in all treatment arms. Conclusions Significant sustained improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 and respiratory health outcomes were demonstrated for 175-μg revefenacin over 52 weeks, further supporting its use as a once-daily bronchodilator for the nebulized treatment of patients with COPD. Trial registration NCT02518139; Registered 5 August 2015.

scholarly journals 167 Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled Study of Starting Aripiprazole Lauroxil with 1-Day Initiation in Acutely Ill Patients with Schizophrenia

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 306-307
Author(s):  
Peter J. Weiden ◽  
Amy Claxton ◽  
Yangchun Du ◽  
Sergey Yagoda ◽  
David Walling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Outpatient Setting ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Injection Site Pain ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Secondary Analyses ◽  
Site Pain ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Funding Acknowledgements

Abstract:Objective:Evaluate efficacy and safety of a 2-month dose of aripiprazole lauroxil (AL) with a 1-day initiation regimen during hospitalization for an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.Methods:In the phase 3b double-blind ALPINE study, adults with schizophrenia were randomized to AL (AL NanoCrystal® Dispersion + oral aripiprazole 30 mg day 1; AL 1064 mg day 8 and every 8 weeks) or paliperidone palmitate (PP 234 mg day 1; PP 156 mg day 8 and every 4 weeks). Patients were discharged after 2 weeks of hospitalization and followed through week 25. Primary endpoint was within-group changes in PANSS total score from baseline to week 4 (observed cases). Secondary analyses included within-group changes at weeks 9 and 25 (observed) and between-group comparisons at weeks 4, 9, and 25 (MMRM). Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout the study.Results:200 patients were randomized (AL, n=99; PP, n=101); 56.6% and 42.6%, respectively, completed the study. Within-group changes from baseline in PANSS were −17.4 for AL and −20.1 for PP at week 4 (both groups, P<0.001) and continued to decline at weeks 9 (AL, −19.8; PP, −22.5) and 25 (AL, −23.3; PP, −21.7). The change in PANSS over time was similar between groups. AEs occurring in ≥10% of patients in either group were injection site pain (AL, 17.2%; PP, 24.8%), akathisia (AL, 9.1%; PP, 10.9%), and weight increased (AL, 9.1%; PP, 16.8%).Conclusions:AL and PP were effective and well-tolerated for initiating treatment of schizophrenia in the hospital and continuing in the outpatient setting.Funding Acknowledgements:This study was funded by Alkermes, Inc.

scholarly journals Triple therapy for COPD: a crude analysis from a systematic review of the evidence

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175346661988552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Luis Lopez-Campos ◽  
Laura Carrasco-Hernandez ◽  
Esther Quintana-Gallego ◽  
Carmen Calero-Acuña ◽  
Eduardo Márquez-Martín ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Triple Therapy ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Forced Expiratory Volume ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
St George's Respiratory Questionnaire ◽  
Supplementary Material ◽  
Crude Analysis

We systematically reviewed the current knowledge on fixed-dose triple therapies for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with a specific focus on its efficacy versus single bronchodilation, double fixed dose combinations, and open triple therapies. Articles were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Scopus up to 3 August 2018. We selected articles with randomized controlled or crossover design conducted in patients with COPD and published as full-length articles or scientific letters, evaluating triple therapy combinations in a single or different inhaler, and with efficacy data versus monocomponents, double combinations, or open triple therapies. Our systematic search reported 108 articles, of which 24 trials were finally selected for the analysis. A total of 7 studies with fixed dose triple therapy combinations, and 17 studies with open triple therapies combinations. Triple therapy showed improvements in lung function [trough forced expiratory volume (FEV1) ranging from not significant (NS) to 147 ml], health status using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire [(SGRQ) from NS to 8.8 points], and exacerbations [risk ratio (RR) from NS to 0.59 for all exacerbations] versus single or double therapies with a variability in the response, depending the specific combination, and the comparison group. The proportion of adverse effects was similar between study groups, the exception being the increase in pneumonia for some inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) containing groups. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplementary material section.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document