Comparison of tiotropium plus formoterol to tiotropium alone in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis

Background and objective: It is not clear whether combination therapy with tiotropium plus formoterol has greater efficacy, without increasing the burden of adverse events, compared with tiotropium alone. This meta‐analysis was performed to evaluate the differences in efficacy and adverse events associated with combination therapy compared with tiotropium alone, in patients with stable COPD. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane trials database were searched for this analysis. Randomized controlled trials of 2 or more weeks of treatment with tiotropium plus formoterol or arformoterol, compared with tiotropium alone, were reviewed. Studies were pooled to yield odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD), with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Eight trials, involving 1868 randomized patients, met the inclusion criteria. Treatment with tiotropium plus formoterol significantly improved the average FEV₁ (WMD 105 mL, 95% CI: 69–142), average FVC (WMD 135 mL, 95% CI: 96–174) and trough FEV₁ (WMD 53 mL, 95% CI: 30–76), compared with tiotropium alone, although the difference was not statistically significant for trough FVC. The mean change in transitional dyspnoea index (TDI) was markedly greater with tiotropium plus formoterol (WMD 1.50, 95% CI: 1.01–1.99) than with tiotropium alone, and there was a similar difference in the proportion of patients with a clinically significant change in TDI (OR 2.34, 95% CI: 1.58–3.46). There tended to be fewer adverse events and COPD exacerbations with tiotropium plus formoterol, compared with tiotropium alone, but the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Tiotropium plus formoterol significantly improved lung function and symptom scores compared with tiotropium alone. There was a trend towards a reduction in adverse events, although the difference was not statistically significant. Long‐term trials are necessary to evaluate the effects of tiotropium plus formoterol and to clarify the role of combination therapy, compared with tiotropium alone.     

Role of tiotropium in the treatment of COPD

Tiotropium is a potent, long-acting, selective anticholinergic bronchodilator. Treatment with tiotropium produces sustained improvements in lung function, particularly FEV₁ (peak, trough, average, and area under the curve) compared with either placebo or ipratropium in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Preliminary evidence suggests that treatment with tiotropium may slow the rate of decline in FEV₁, but this finding awaits confirmation. Tiotropium reduces lung hyperinflation, with associated improvements in exercise capacity. Tiotropium, compared with either placebo or ipratropium, improves a variety of patient-centered outcomes, including subjective dyspnea ratings and HRQL scores. Tiotropium reduces the frequency of COPD exacerbations and of hospitalizations due to exacerbations, but has not been shown to reduce all-cause mortality. Compared with the long-acting bronchodilators, tiotropium provides incrementally better bronchodilation, but it is not clearly superior in terms of patient-centered outcomes. Tiotropium has a good safety profile; however patients with severe cardiac disease, bladder outlet obstruction, or narrow angle glaucoma were excluded from all studies. Medico economic analyses suggest that treatment with tiotropium may also be cost-effective, primarily by reducing costs associated with hospitalizations.     

Efficacy of tiotropium in COPD patients from Asia: a subgroup analysis from the UPLIFT trial

Background and objective: Studies in respiratory diseases other than chronic obstructive pulmonary disease suggest potentially differing responses to medications among patients from different regions. We report a subgroup analysis of patients recruited to Asian centres from a previously reported 4‐year COPD trial. Methods: Subgroup analysis from a randomized, double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled trial of tiotropium 18 µg daily in COPD. Primary end‐point was rate of decline in FEV₁. Secondary end‐points included spirometry at individual time points, health‐related quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire), exacerbations and mortality. Results: Of 5992 patients, 362 were from Asian centres (100 from Japan). Mean age 66 years, 95% men, 13% current smokers, BMI: 21 kg/m²; post‐bronchodilator FEV₁: 44% predicted; St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score: 44 units. No treatment effect was observed for rate of decline in FEV₁ although annual decline was less in Asian patients. Morning pre‐bronchodilator FEV₁ and forced vital capacity improved in Asian patients (P < 0.05). Tiotropium reduced number of exacerbations (rate ratio (95% confidence interval (CI)): 0.73 (0.57–0.94)). Hazard ratios (95%CI) for exacerbations and hospitalized exacerbations (tiotropium/control) were 0.81 (0.62–1.05) and 0.85 (0.61–1.19), respectively. St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score improved by 1.5–6.1 units (P < 0.05 for months 18, 24, 30 and 36) with tiotropium. Fatal events occurred in 34 tiotropium (18.5%) and 42 control (23.6%) patients. Conclusions: In COPD patients from Asia, tiotropium improves lung function, improves health‐related quality of life and reduces exacerbations over 4 years of treatment.     

Tiotropium for the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend the use of inhaled tiotropium in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, this statement is based on a relatively small number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and related systematic reviews. This review was undertaken to incorporate the more recent evidence available about the effectiveness of tiotropium bromide compared with placebo, iptratropium bromide or long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs), for the treatment of stable COPD patients. DATA SOURCE: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (to February 2006) were searched to identify all published RCTs. We also searched bibliographies of relevant articles. RESULTS: Data from 13 RCT (6078 subjects, 80% male) showed that tiotropium reduced COPD-related exacerbations (OR=0.76; 95% CI: 0.68-0.87) and hospital admissions (OR=0.59; 95% CI: 0.47-0.73) compared with placebo. Also, tiotropium showed statistically significant improvement in lung function, including trough, average, and peak FEV(1) and FVC from baseline, compared with placebo and ipratropium. The administration of inhaled tiotropium lead to 30% reduction in COPD-related admissions (OR= 0.67; 95% CI: 0.46-0.98) compared with LABAs. Finally, increases in FEV(1) and FVC from baseline were significantly larger with tiotropium than with LABAs. CONCLUSIONS: This review clearly supports the beneficial effects of the use of tiotropium in stable moderate-to-severe COPD patients, and increases the evidence in favor of the superiority of tiotropium on LABAs.     

Long‐acting beta2‐agonists versus long‐acting muscarinic antagonists in patients with stable COPD: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Several long‐acting bronchodilators have been developed and are widely used as first‐line treatment in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the initial choice of therapy is still uncertain. The aim of this study was to examine the clinical efficacy and safety of long‐acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long‐acting beta2‐agonist (LABA) in patients with stable COPD. We searched several databases and manufacturers’ websites to identify relevant randomized clinical trials for meta‐analysis. Outcomes of interest were trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), acute exacerbations, transitional dyspnoea index (TDI) score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and adverse events. Sixteen trials with a total of 22 872 patients were included in this study. Compared with LABA, LAMA were associated with a greater reduction in acute exacerbations (OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74–0.94, P = 0.003) and fewer adverse events (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.86–0.97, P = 0.005). There were no significant differences in trough FEV₁, TDI and SGRQ scores. In patients with stable COPD, LAMA were associated with a greater reduction in acute exacerbations and fewer adverse effects compared with LABA.     

Comparison of tiotropium bromide and combined ipratropium/salbutamol for the treatment of COPD: a UK General Practice Research Database 12-month follow-up study.

AIMS: To compare the effectiveness of the long-acting anticholinergic, tiotropium with ipratropium/salbutamol in reducing the risk of exacerbations and COPD-related referrals in patients with COPD. METHODS: Data were obtained from the General Practice Research Database (GPRD). Propensity score matching was used to balance prognostic covariates between treatment groups. Incidence rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals during a 12-month follow-up period were estimated. RESULTS: 4193 patients (3385, tiotropium; 808, ipratropium/salbutamol) in the GPRD met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Patients treated with tiotropium had more severe COPD than patients treated with ipratropium/salbutamol. Following propensity score matching, 1222 tiotropium-treated patients and 633 ipratropium/salbutamol-treated patients were included in the final analysis. Incidence rate ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 0.74 (0.64-0.85; p=0.0086) for exacerbations and 0.57 (0.46-0.70; p=0.004) for COPD-related referrals/hospitalisations. CONCLUSIONS: Tiotropium is associated with a reduced risk of exacerbations and COPD-related referrals and hospitalisation compared to combined ipratropium/salbutamol in patients with COPD.     

Free and fixed‐ratio combinations of basal insulin and GLP‐1 receptor agonists versus basal insulin intensification in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

A meta‐analysis is presented of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing free or fixed combinations of a glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist plus basal insulin versus insulin intensification on metabolic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Electronic databases were searched for RCTs assessing changes in HbA1c, proportion of patients at HbA1c target of <7% (53 mmol/mol), hypoglycaemia and body weight. A random‐effect model was used to calculate the weighted mean difference (WMD) or relative risk (RR) with 95% CI. Eleven RCTs were identified, lasting 24–30 weeks and involving 6176 patients. In the overall analysis, the combination therapy led to a mean HbA1c decrease significantly greater than insulin up‐titration (WMD ?0.53%, 95% CI, ?0.66, ?0.40%, P < 0.001), more patients at HbA1c target (RR 1.69, 95% CI, 1.42, 2.00, P < 0.001), similar hypoglycaemic events (RR 0.97, 95% CI, 0.84, 1.12, P = 0.114), and reduction in body weight (WMD ?1.9, 95% CI ?2.3, ?1.4, P < 0.001), with heterogeneity (I² > 71%, P < 0.001). Results did not differ in either the free or fixed combination subgroups. Combination strategies, either free or fixed, represent a good option for intensifying basal insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes who need amelioration of glycaemic control.     

Safety of long-acting beta-agonists in stable COPD: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Some studies have suggested that use of long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) leads to an increased risk for adverse events in patients with stable COPD. The purpose of this review was to assess the safety, and secondarily the efficacy of LABAs. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic review with metaanalysis of randomized clinical trials (> or = 1 month in duration) in the published literature that have compared LABAs with placebo or anticholinergics in stable poorly reversible and reversible COPD. RESULTS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched to identify 27 studies. LABAs reduced severe exacerbations compared with placebo (relative risk [RR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 0.91). There was no significant difference between LABA and placebo groups in terms of respiratory deaths (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.64). Use of LABAs with inhaled corticosteroids reduced the risk of respiratory death compared with LABAs alone (RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.93). Patients receiving LABAs showed significant benefits in airflow limitation measures, health-related quality of life, and use of rescue medication. Finally, tiotropium decreased the incidence of severe COPD exacerbations compared with LABAs (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.87). CONCLUSION: This review supports the beneficial effects of the use of LABAs in patients with stable moderate-to-severe COPD, and did not confirm previous data about an increased risk for respiratory deaths. Also, our analysis suggests the superiority of tiotropium over LABAs for the treatment of stable COPD patients.     

Therapeutic effects of hyaluronate injections in patients with chronic painful shoulder: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective

To elucidate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of injection of hyaluronate (HA) for chronic painful shoulder.

Methods

The meta‐analysis comprised randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of HA injections with that of a placebo. Articles were retrieved through systematic searches of databases, including Medline, EMBase, and Japana Centra Revuo Medicina. The outcome end points were classified into 5 categories: pain, shoulder range of motion (ROM), total functional score, comparison between HA and steroid injections, and HA safety. The primary outcome measures of the efficacy of HA injections were the standardized mean differences (SMDs) and the relative risk (RR) or odds ratio (OR) between HA and placebo groups.

Results

Nineteen RCTs (2,120 participants) were pooled for the meta‐analysis. Injection of HA can decrease symptoms of chronic painful shoulder. An improvement was found in pain outcomes (SMD 0.39; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.26, 0.53 and OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.49, 2.26) and total functional scores (SMD 0.36; 95% CI 0.01, 0.71), with few adverse events (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.57, 1.77). Improvement in shoulder ROM was not effectively achieved. HA injection was modestly more effective than steroid injection, as estimated by the total functional score (SMD 0.36; 95% CI 0.02, 0.70), which indicated a likely benefit of injection of HA over steroid injection.

Conclusion

This meta‐analysis confirms that HA injection is effective in relief of pain and is a safe alternative therapy for chronic painful shoulder.     

Comparison of three combined pharmacological approaches with tiotropium monotherapy in stable moderate to severe COPD: a systematic review

BackgroundGuidelines recommend the use of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and their combinations for maintenance treatment of moderate to severe COPD. However, there are limited data supporting combination therapy.MethodsThis systematic review assessed the efficacy of three therapeutic approaches: tiotropium plus long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) (“dual” therapy), LABA/ICS (“combined” therapy), and tiotropium plus LABA/ICS (“triple” therapy), all compared with tiotropium monotherapy. Randomized controlled trials were identified after a search of different databases of published and unpublished trials.ResultsTwenty trials (6803 participants) were included. “Dual” therapy showed significant improvements in forced volume in the first second (FEV₁), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and dyspnea. However, it failed to reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations. Compared with tiotropium, “combined” therapy presented modest but significant effects on FEV₁, HRQoL, and dyspnea. Again, there was no significant difference in exacerbations, but it was associated with a significant increase of serious adverse effects (SAE) (number need to treat for harm [NNTH] = 20; 95% CI: 11–119). Finally, “triple therapy” increased FEV₁, improved HRQoL (both benefits exceeded minimal important differences) and decrease COPD exacerbations in anon-significant way. (Odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.37, p = 0.21).Conclusions“Dual” and “triple” therapy seem like the most promising for patients with moderate to very severe COPD. However, data are still scarce and studies too short to generate a strong recommendation. Future studies should examine long-term efficacy and safety.     

Enhanced persistence with tiotropium compared with other respiratory drugs in COPD

BACKGROUND: Tiotropium is a once-daily inhaled anticholinergic maintenance treatment with demonstrated effectiveness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVE: To compare persistence of tiotropium-use with other inhaled respiratory drugs in COPD in current clinical practice. METHODS: The PHARMO database includes, among others, drug-dispensing and hospital discharge records for 2> or = million subjects in the Netherlands. All probable COPD-patients were identified by new respiratory drug use (age >54 years) or COPD-hospitalisations. New users of tiotropium, ipratropium, long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs), or fixed combination of LABA and inhaled corticosteroids (LABA+ICS), in 1998-2003, were included in the study. Persistence was assessed quarterly during the first year of follow-up. Patients with a proportion of days covered (PDC) > or =80% were considered persistent. Persistence was analysed using generalised estimating equations model. RESULTS: About 37% of new users of tiotropium continued treatment for 1 year, compared with 14% for ipratropium, 13% for LABA, and 17% for LABA+ICS. Multivariate analyses showed that tiotropium-users were 2-3 times more persistent with their therapy than patients using ipratropium (relative risk [RR]: 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8-2.3), LABA (RR: 2.9; 95% CI: 2.4-3.6), or LABA+ICS (RR: 2.4; 95% CI: 2.1-2.8), respectively. Sub-analyses in patients with a prior hospitalisation for COPD showed that 1-year persistence rates were increased for all treatments (varying from 33% for patients using LABA+ICS to 61% for patients using tiotropium), while persistence with tiotropium was again 2-3 times higher compared with other treatments. CONCLUSION: Persistence with tiotropium was higher compared to other inhaled respiratory drugs in COPD in clinical practice.     

Improved health outcomes in patients with COPD during 1 yr's treatment with tiotropium.

Tiotropium, a novel once-daily inhaled anticholinergic, has been shown to improve lung function over a 24-h period. In order to extend these findings, health-outcomes were evaluated over 1 yr in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Spirometric results, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), salbutamol use and effects on dyspnoea, health-related quality of life and COPD exacerbations were assessed in two identical 1-yr randomized double-blind double-dummy studies of tiotropium 18 microg once daily (n=356) compared with ipratropium 40 microg q.i.d. (n=179). Screening forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) were 1.25+/-0.43 L (41.9+/-12.7% of the predicted value) (tiotropium) and 1.18+/-0.37 L (39.4+/-10.7% pred) (ipratropium). Trough FEV1 at 1 yr improved by 0.12+/-0.01 L with tiotropium and declined by 0.03+/-0.02 L with ipratropium (p<0.001). Significant improvement in PEFR, salbutamol use, Transition Dyspnea Index focal score, and the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total and impact scores were seen with tiotropium (p<0.01). Tiotropium reduced the number of exacerbations (by 24%, p<0.01), and increased time to first exacerbation (p<0.01) and time to first hospitalization for a COPD exacerbation (p<0.05) compared with ipratropium. Apart from an increased incidence of dry mouth in the tiotropium group, adverse events were similar between treatments. Tiotropium was effective in improving dyspnoea, exacerbations, health-related quality of life and lung function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and exceeds the benefits seen with ipratropium. The data support the use of tiotropium once-daily as first-line maintenance treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.     

Efficacy and safety of endobronchial valves for advanced emphysema: a meta analysis

Objective

A meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with endobronchial valves (EBV) for advanced emphysema.

Methods

A systematic search was performed from PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, Cochrane Library database. Randomized control clinical trials on treatment of emphysema for 3-12 months with the EBV compared with standard medications and sham EBV were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were applied to select patients with advanced emphysema treated with EBV. The primary outcome was the percentage of the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁%). Secondary outcomes included St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, the distance of the 6-minute walk (6MWD) test, the Modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) dyspnoea score, cycle ergometry workload, and the rate of the six major complications at 3 or 12 months. Fixed- or random-effects models were used and weighted mean differences (WMD), relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

Results

Three trials (565 patients) were considered in the meta-analysis. EBV patients yielded greater increases in FEV₁% than standard medications (WMD =6.71; 95% CI, 3.31 to 10.10; P=0.0001), EBV patients also demonstrated a significant change for SGRQ score (WMD =−3.64; 95% CI, −5.93 to −1.34; P=0.002), MMRC dyspnoea score (WMD =−0.26; 95% CI, −0.44 to -0.08; P=0.004), and cycle ergometry workload (WMD =4.18; 95% CI, 2.14 to 6.22; P<0.0001). A similar level was evident for 6MWD (WMD =11.66; 95% CI, −3.31 to 26.64; P=0.13). EBV may increase the rate of hemoptysis (RR =5.15; 95% CI, 1.16 to 22.86; P=0.03), but didn’t increase the adverse events including mortality, respiratory failure, empyema, pneumonia, pneumothrax. The overall rates for complications compared EBV with standard medications and sham EBV was not significant (RR =2.03; 95% CI, 0.98 to 4.21; P=0.06).

Conclusions

EBV lung volume reduction for advanced emphysema showed superior efficacy and a good safety and tolerability compared with standard medications and sham EBV, further more randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies are needed to pay more attention to the long-term efficacy and safety of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with EBV in advanced emphysema.     

Benefits of adding fluticasone propionate/salmeterol to tiotropium in COPD: A meta-analysis

ObjectiveThis meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FSC) to tiotropium (Tio) in COPD patients.MethodsA systematic search was made of MEDLINE, Cochrane, ISI Web of Science and SCOPUS databases, and a hand search of leading respiratory journals. Randomized clinical trials on treatment of stable COPD with the addition of FSC, compared with tiotropium alone, were reviewed. Studies were pooled to odds ratio (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD), with 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsSix trials met the inclusion criteria. Compared with tiotropium, addition of FSC presented significant effects on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) (WMD 54.64 mL; 95% CI 51.76 to 57.52 mL; P < 0.001), COPD exacerbations (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.96; p = 0.03), and health-related quality of life (WMD 4.63; 95% CI 4.26 to 5.01; P < 0.001). No significant increase was noticed in adverse events in the Tio + FSC group (OR 1.24; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.57; p = 0.07).ConclusionsThe addition of FSC to subjects with COPD treated with tiotropium significantly improves lung function, quality of life and COPD exacerbations without increasing the risk of adverse events.     

A randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy of tiotropium in Canadian patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND:

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who smoke have a greater annual rate of decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) than those patients who have stopped smoking.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the effect of tiotropium on pre-dose (trough) FEV₁ in patients with COPD followed in Canada.

METHODS:

A total of 913 patients were randomly assigned to receive either tiotropium 18 μg once daily (n=608) or placebo (usual care minus inhaled anticholinergics) (n=305) for 48 weeks in the present randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. The effect of tiotropium on measurements of lung function (FEV₁, FEV₆ and forced vital capacity), symptoms, health-related quality of life (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire) and exacerbations were examined.

RESULTS:

Tiotropium improved trough FEV₁ in both current and ex-smokers compared with placebo. Baseline FEV₁ in smokers and ex-smokers was 1.03 L and 0.93 L, respectively (P<0.001). At week 48, the mean difference between the tiotropium and placebo groups was 0.14±0.04 L (P<0.001) in the smoker group and 0.08±0.02 L (P<0.0001) in the ex-smoker group. Tiotropium also significantly improved trough forced vital capacity and FEV₆ compared with placebo throughout the treatment period (P<0.05, for all). Furthermore, tiotropium significantly improved the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score compared with placebo at week 48 (40.9 versus 43.7 units, P<0.005).

CONCLUSIONS:

Compared with the placebo group, tiotropium provides sustained improvements in lung function in patients with COPD, with improvements for smokers and ex-smokers.     

Saxagliptin and sitagliptin in adult patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and saxagliptin with placebo and other hypoglycaemic medications in adults with type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE®, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the International Pharmaceuticals from their inception through 3 February 2011. Studies were included of adults with type 2 diabetes that were 12 weeks or more in duration. Meta‐analyses were conducted when included studies were homogenous enough to justify combining their results. A total of 32 articles met inclusion criteria. Sitagliptin 100 mg monotherapy and saxagliptin 5 mg resulted in greater HbA1c reduction compared to placebo [weighted mean difference (WMD) ?0.82%, 95% CI ?0.95 to ?0.70 and WMD ?0.70, 95% CI ?0.84 to ?0.56, respectively]. Sitagliptin was similar to sulfonylureas for HbA1c reduction (WMD 0.08%, 95% CI 0–0.16, 3 trials) and to saxagliptin in one head‐to‐head trial. There was no statistically significant difference in hypoglycaemia between sitagliptin (pooled RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.55–4.36) or saxagliptin (pooled RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.28–3.81) and placebo. Sitagliptin and saxagliptin result in similar modest HbA1c reductions and do not increase the risk of hypoglycaemia unless combined with other therapies. Their role in the long‐term treatment of type 2 diabetes remains unclear given the lack of long‐term data on efficacy, harms and health outcomes.     

Treatment efficacy of LAMA versus placebo for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundFour long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), tiotropium, glycopyrronium, aclidinium, and umeclidinium, are currently available for the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, no integrated analysis has sought to determine the effectiveness of these LAMAs. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LAMA versus placebo in patients with stable COPD.MethodsA literature search of relevant randomized control trials that administered LAMA to stable COPD patients was conducted, and the exacerbations, quality of life (QoL), dyspnea score, lung function, and adverse event of patients were evaluated.ResultsA total of 33 studies were included in this meta-analysis. LAMA significantly decreased the frequency of exacerbations compared to the placebo (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85; P < 0.001). The mean changes in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (mean difference, ?3.61; 95% CI, ?4.27 to ?2.95; P < 0.00001), transitional dyspnea index score (mean difference 1.00; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.17; P < 0.00001), and trough FEV₁ (mean difference 0.12; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.13; P < 0.0001) indicated significantly greater improvement in the LAMA group than the placebo group. The number of withdrawals due to adverse events in the LAMA group was significantly fewer than that in the placebo group (OR -0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to ?0.01; P = 0.002).ConclusionLAMA is superior to placebo due to lower frequency of exacerbations and adverse events, as well as higher trough FEV₁, QoL, and dyspnea score for stable COPD.     

Effect of tiotropium on health-related quality of life as a primary efficacy endpoint in COPD

Clinical manifestations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), including airflow limitation, dyspnea, and activity limitation, ultimately lead to impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This 9-month, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study compared the effect of once-daily tiotropium 18 μg and placebo on HRQoL, spirometric parameters, and exacerbations in 554 patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. HRQoL was assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and the new 8-item Visual Simplified Respiratory Questionnaire (VSRQ), which is currently being validated. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a reduction of at least 4 units in the SGRQ total score at study end (Month 9). Mean ± SD baseline SGRQ total score was 47.4 ± 18.1. Significantly more tiotropium-treated patients achieved a reduction of at least 4 units in the SGRQ score vs placebo at study end (59.1% vs 48.2%, respectively; p = 0.029). Tiotropium significantly improved spirometric parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁]: 0.11 ± 0.02 L vs 0.01 ± 0.02 L; between-group difference: 0.10 ± 0.03 L, p = 0.0001) and reduced exacerbations vs placebo. Maintenance treatment with tiotropium provided significant and clinically relevant improvements in HRQoL, as measured by the SGRQ.     

Tiotropium Bromide

Tiotropium bromide (Spiriva) is a long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilator that maintains bronchodilation for at least 24 hours, allowing once-daily administration. The active moiety is the tiotropium cation (tiotropium); tiotropium bromide 22.5 micrograms is equivalent to 18 micrograms of tiotropium cation. Greater improvements in lung function from baseline (primary endpoint mean trough FEV(1)) were observed with inhaled tiotropium 18 micrograms once daily than with placebo in 6-month and 1-year randomized, double-blind trials in patients with COPD. Tiotropium improved lung function (trough FEV(1) response) more effectively than ipratropium bromide (ipratropium) 40 micrograms four times daily in 1-year clinical trials, and was at least as effective as salmeterol 50 micrograms 12-hourly in 6-month trials. Preliminary data suggest that tiotropium alone or in combination with once-daily formoterol has a greater bronchodilator effect than twice-daily formoterol in patients with COPD. Improvements in patients' perception of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) or dyspnea were greater with tiotropium than with placebo or ipratropium, and were similar to those with salmeterol. Reductions in the frequency and severity of acute exacerbations and in the use of rescue medication were also greater with tiotropium than with ipratropium or placebo. There was no evidence of tachyphylaxis with tiotropium during 1-year clinical trials. Inhaled tiotropium was generally well tolerated in clinical trials. Apart from dry mouth, the type and incidence of adverse events with tiotropium were similar to those with ipratropium, salmeterol or placebo in patients with COPD. In conclusion, inhaled tiotropium 18 micrograms once daily improved lung function, dyspnea, and HR-QOL, and decreased the incidence of acute COPD exacerbations and the use of rescue medication relative to placebo or ipratropium in clinical trials in patients with COPD. Tiotropium was at least as effective as salmeterol in terms of bronchodilator efficacy and improvements in dyspnea or HR-QOL. With the exception of dry mouth, the tolerability profile of tiotropium was similar to that with placebo, ipratropium, or salmeterol. Consequently, inhaled tiotropium is likely to be a valuable option for first-line, long-term maintenance therapy in the management of bronchoconstriction in patients with symptomatic COPD. Tiotropium bromide has a quaternary ammonium structure and acts as an anticholinergic bronchodilator; the active moiety is the tiotropium cation (tiotropium). A 22.5 micrograms dose of tiotropium bromide provides 18 micrograms of tiotropium. Orally inhaled tiotropium bromide antagonizes the muscarinic M(1), M(2), and M(3) receptors located in airway smooth muscle, reversing vagally mediated bronchoconstriction. Receptor binding assays and in vitro tests indicate that tiotropium bromide is kinetically selective for M(1) and M(3) receptors over the M(2) receptor, unlike ipratropium bromide, which is nonselective. Animal and in vitro studies showed that tiotropium bromide was more potent ( approximate, equals 20-fold) than ipratropium bromide in displacing [(3)H]N-methylscopolamine (NMS) from muscarinic receptors, and had a more sustained protective effect (>70% inhibition) against NMS binding. Tiotropium bromide was a more potent inhibitor of bronchial contraction than atropine ( approximate, equals 23-fold), and had a slower onset and markedly longer duration of action than atropine or an equipotent dose of ipratropium bromide. Aerosol particle penetration is improved with tiotropium, without delaying mucus clearance from the lungs. Tiotropium 4.5-36 micrograms once daily for 4 weeks increased mean trough and average FEV(1) and FVC and mean PEFR values from baseline compared with placebo, with no evidence of tachyphylaxis. Improvements in trough FEV(1) from baseline with tiotropium 4.5-36 micrograms were not dose dependent. Based on a lack of dose response, the optimal once-daily tiotropium dosage is 18 micrograms. Steady-state trough FEV(1) values are achieved within 48 hours of commencing tiotrochodilation (for >/=24 hours) and an attenuation of the nocturnal decline in FEV(1) that were unaffected by timing of the daily tiotropium dose were seen in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in patients with stable COPD. The drug improved static and dynamic lung hyperinflation (evidenced by reduced trapped air volume and increased tidal volume and end-of-exercise inspiratory capacity), and improved exertional dyspnea (during activities of daily living and exertion) and exercise tolerance compared with placebo in randomized, double-blind studies. In patients with stable COPD, improved sleep-related oxygen desaturation that was unaffected by the timing of the daily dose was seen with tiotropium but not with placebo. Clinically significant treatment-related disorders of conduction or rhythm, or changes in heart rate were not observed with tiotropium in this patient group. Mean maximal plasma concentrations (C(max)) were observed within 5 minutes of inhalation of a single dose of tiotropium 18 micrograms in patients with COPD. Plasma drug levels declined to minimum concentrations (C(min)) within 1 hour of treatment in healthy volunteers. Mean steady-state C(max) concentrations (16 ng/L) were achieved after 2-3 weeks of once-daily inhaled tiotropium 18 micrograms in elderly patients with COPD; tiotropium does not appear to accumulate once steady-state has been achieved.The estimated absolute bioavailability of tiotropium at steady state in healthy volunteers was approximately 20-25%, and approximately 72% of the drug is bound to plasma proteins. Excretion of tiotropium is predominantly renal (through active secretion by the kidneys), although in vitro studies suggest that cytochrome P450 (CYP) oxidation (possibly involving CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 enzymes) may have a minor role. In patients with COPD, renal excretion of the unchanged drug at 24 hours (Ae(24)) was approximately 7%. The mean plasma elimination half-life after single or multiple doses in healthy volunteers and elderly patients with COPD was approximately 5-6 days. The renal clearance and urinary excretion of tiotropium decrease with increasing age; however, these changes are not considered to be clinically significant. Because of altered steady-state C(max), C(min), area under the concentration-time curve, and Ae(24) values, caution is required with tiotropium administration in patients with moderate-to-severe renal impairment. The pharmacokinetics of tiotropium in patients with severe renal or hepatic impairment have not been studied. Tiotropium does not interact with drugs such as cimetidine or ranitidine, which are also eliminated by active renal secretion. Orally inhaled tiotropium bromide has been evaluated as a bronchodilator for the management of patients with COPD in randomized, double-blind 6-month and 1-year trials, and in several shorter studies. In clinical trials, COPD was diagnosed according to the American Thoracic Society guidelines. The bronchodilator effect was expressed as the trough FEV(1) response (the mean change in FEV(1) from baseline measured 1 hour prior to and immediately before a scheduled dose), and was the primary endpoint in all but two clinical trials. The bronchodilator effect with tiotropium 18 micrograms once daily was superior to that with placebo in several well designed trials in patients with COPD. Moreover, greater improvements in mean peak and average FEV(1) responses occurred with tiotropium but not with placebo. Mean trough, peak, and average FVC responses, and weekly mean morning and evening PEFR values were also improved to a greater extent with tiotropium than with placebo. Tiotropium demonstrated a greater bronchodilator effect than ipratropium bromide (hereafter referred to as ipratropium when used at approved dosages) 40 micrograms four times daily in two 1-year trials in patients with COPD. Mean peak and average FEV(1), mean trough FVC responses, and weekly mean morning and evening PEFR values were also increased to a greater extent with tiotropium than with ipratropium. In one of the two 6-month trials that compared the efficacy of tiotropium with that of inhaled salmeterol 50 micrograms twice daily, greater improvements from baseline in mean trough, peak, and average FEV(1) and FVC responses were seen with tiotropium than with salmeterol. Increases in weekly mean evening, but not morning, PEFR values were generally greater with tiotropium than salmeterol. In the second trial, improvement in the primary endpoint (mean trough FEV(1) response from baseline) with tiotropium or salmeterol was similar, although peak and average responses were superior with tiotropium. Preliminary results from a 6-week crossover study in patients with COPD suggested that tiotropium alone or in combination with once-daily formoterol improved mean trough and average FEV(1) and trough FVC values from baseline to a greater extent than twice-daily formoterol. More patients achieved a clinically important improvement (increase of >/=1 unit) in the transitional dyspnea index focal score (a measure of dyspnea-related impairment) with tiotropium than with placebo in the 1-year trials. Tiotropium was superior to ipratropium in 1-year trials, and was at least as effective as salmeterol in 6-month trials, in achieving a clinically important improvement in focal scores. Tiotropium recipients experienced fewer COPD exacerbations than placebo or ipratropium recipients and had fewer and shorter COPD-related hospitalizations compared with placebo recipients. Unlike salmeterol, tiotropium lengthened the time to onset of the first exacerbation and decreased the number of exacerbations compared with placebo in two 6-month trials. Similar proportions of tiotropium, salmeterol, and placebo recipients required COPD-related hospitalizations. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)