These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Tiotropium/Olodaterol in Maintenance-Naïve Patients with Moderate Symptomatic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Post Hoc Analysis.
    Author: Alcázar Navarrete B, Boucot I, Naya I, Tombs L, Lipson DA, Compton C, Sousa AR, Feldman G.
    Journal: Pulm Ther; 2018 Dec; 4(2):171-183. PubMed ID: 32026389.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Appropriate timing for dual bronchodilator therapy initiation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management is uncertain. Combination therapy is recommended as step-up from monotherapy or first-line treatment in patients with persistent symptoms. In this setting, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) demonstrated improved lung function and reduced rescue medication use over tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO). This subgroup analysis explored efficacy differences between these combinations in patients naïve to COPD maintenance therapy before study entry. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of an 8-week, randomized, open-label, assessor-blind, two-period crossover study (204990; NCT02799784) comparing UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg and TIO/OLO 5/5 mcg, focused on maintenance-naïve (MN) patients with moderate COPD and persistent symptoms (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score ≥ 2). Change from baseline (CFB) in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), percentage of FEV1 responders (CFB ≥ 100 ml), rescue medication use and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: The MN population comprised 63% of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (148/236 patients) and had similar baseline demographics. At week 8, adjusted mean (standard error) improvements in trough FEV1 from baseline were clinically meaningful for both combinations (UMEC/VI: 167 [17] ml; TIO/OLO 110 [18] ml; adjusted mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 57 [23-92] ml; p = 0.001; %CFB: 11 vs. 8%). Proportion of FEV1 responders was greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO at week 8 (60 vs. 42%; odds ratio [95% CI] 1.90 [1.12-3.22]; p = 0.018). Reduction in rescue medication use was 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.34) puffs/day greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO over weeks 1-8 (p = 0.003). Adverse events incidence was similar (UMEC/VI: 24%; TIO/OLO: 29%). CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight that the efficacy difference between UMEC/VI and TIO/OLO demonstrated in the ITT population is maintained in MN patients. Greater lung function improvements with UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO were accompanied by symptom improvements, as reflected in a significantly lower need for supplemental rescue medication. FUNDING: GSK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02799784.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]