Profiling the effects of indacaterol on dyspnoea and health status in patients with COPD

Efficacy of Aclidinium Bromide According to Baseline Therapy: Post-Hoc Analysis of ASCENT-COPD Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs), inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and their combinations, are recommended for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to determine whether the safety and efficacy of aclidinium bromide differs by baseline maintenance LABA and ICS therapies.

METHODS

ASCENT-COPD was a phase 4, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and increased cardiovascular risk. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive aclidinium 400 μg or placebo twice daily, via a multidose dry-powder inhaler for up to 3 years. Outcomes included time to first major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), and COPD assessment test (CAT) total score over 3 years, and annual moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation rate in patients receiving aclidinium or placebo with maintenance LABA monotherapy, ICS monotherapy, LABA + ICS (fixed/free), or no maintenance therapy (neither LABA nor ICS) at baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 3589 patients were included (LABA, n = 227; ICS, n = 290; LABA + ICS, n = 2058; no maintenance, n = 1130). Aclidinium did not increase the risk of MACE or all-cause mortality versus placebo, regardless of baseline maintenance treatment. Reductions in moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates were observed with aclidinium versus placebo in all subgroups [LABA 43% (P = 0.046); ICS 25% (P = 0.202); LABA + ICS 22% (P = 0.003); no maintenance 18% (P = 0.130)]. Aclidinium improved morning trough FEV₁ irrespective of baseline therapy and CAT total scores, except for LABA and ICS subgroups, versus placebo at several time points.

CONCLUSION

In patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and CV risk factors, the addition of aclidinium to maintenance therapy with LABA or LABA + ICS provided further benefit.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01966107.

Comparison of Characteristics Between ICS-Treated COPD Patients and ICS-Treated COPD Patients with Concomitant Asthma: A Study in Primary Care

Background and Objective

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for COPD has been much debated. Our aim was to identify characteristics associated with prescribing ICS for patients with COPD alone compared to those with concomitant asthma in general practice.

Patients and Methods

Participating general practitioners (GPs) (n=144) recruited patients with COPD (ICPC 2nd ed. code R95) currently prescribed ICS (ACT code R03AK and R03BA). Data, if available, on demographics, smoking habits, spirometry, COPD medication, dyspnea score, and exacerbation history were retrieved from the medical records. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify possible differences in characteristics between patients with COPD alone compared to those having a concomitant diagnosis of asthma.

Results

A total of 2.289 (45% males) COPD patients on ICS were recruited. Compared to patients with COPD alone (n=1.749), those with COPD and concomitant asthma (n=540) were younger (p<0.001), had higher BMI, higher FEV1/FVC ratio, higher blood eosinophil count and less life-time tobacco exposure (36 and 26 pack-years, respectively). Compared to COPD alone, logistic regression analysis showed that COPD with concomitant asthma was significantly associated to age (OR 0.94; CI 0.92 to 0.97; p<0.001), pack-years of smoking (OR 0.98; CI 0.97 to 0.99; p<0.001), %pred (OR 1.02; CI 1.00 to 1.03; p=0.005), and doctor-diagnosed depression (OR 2.59; CI 1.20 to 5.58; p=0.015).

Conclusion

In COPD patients currently prescribed ICS, the presence of concomitant asthma was associated with being younger, having less tobacco exposure, more preserved lung function and a higher likelihood of doctor-diagnosed depression compared to COPD alone.

Cathelicidin LL-37 restoring glucocorticoid function in smoking and lipopolysaccharide-induced airway inflammation in rats

Background

Glucocorticoids have been widely used to treat patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Nevertheless, corticosteroid insensitivity is a major barrier to the effective treatment of COPD and its mechanism remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of cathelicidin LL-37 on corticosteroid insensitivity in COPD rat model, and to explore the involved mechanisms.

Methods

COPD model was established by exposing male Wistar rats to cigarette smoke combined with intratracheal instillation of lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Inhaled budesonide and LL-37 were consequently applied to COPD models separately or collectively to confirm the effects on inflammatory cytokines (tumor necrosis factor [TNF]-α and transforming growth factor [TGF]-β) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and lung tissue histopathological morphology. Expression of histone deacetylase-2 (HDAC2) and phosphorylation of Akt (p-AKT) in lung were also measured.

Results

Briefly, COPD model rats showed an increased basal release of inflammatory cytokines (lung TNF-α: 45.7 ± 6.1 vs. 20.1 ± 3.8 pg/mL, P < 0.01; serum TNF-α: 8.9 ± 1.2 vs. 6.7 ± 0.5 pg/mL, P = 0.01; lung TGF-β: 122.4 ± 20.8 vs. 81.9 ± 10.8 pg/mL, P < 0.01; serum TGF-β: 38.9 ± 8.5 vs. 20.6 ± 2.3 pg/mL, P < 0.01) and COPD related lung tissue histopathological changes, as well as corticosteroid resistance molecular profile characterized by an increase in phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt (0.5 ± 0.1 fold of control vs. 0.2 ± 0.1 fold of control, P = 0.04) and a decrease in HDAC2 expression and activity (expression: 13.1 ± 0.4 μmol/μg vs. 17.4 ± 1.1 μmol/μg, P < 0.01; activity: 1.1 ± 0.1 unit vs. 1.4 ± 0.1 unit, P < 0.01), compared with control group. In addition, LL-37 enhanced the anti-inflammatory effect of budesonide in an additive manner. Treatment with combination of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and LL-37 led to a significant increase of HDAC2 expression and activity (expression: 15.7 ± 0.4 μmol/μg vs. 14.1 ± 0.9 μmol/μg, P < 0.01; activity: 1.3 ± 0.1 unit vs. 1.0 ± 0.1 unit, P < 0.01), along with decrease of p-AKT compared to budesonide monotherapy (0.1 ± 0.0 fold of control vs. 0.3 ± 0.1 fold of control, P < 0.01).

Conclusions

This study suggested that LL-37 could improve the anti-inflammatory activity of budesonide in cigarette smoke and LPS-induced COPD rat model by enhancing the expression and activity of HDAC2. The mechanism of this function of LL-37 might involve the inhibition of PI3K/Akt pathway.

Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators such as long-acting β-agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations have been used in people with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to control symptoms such as dyspnoea and cough, and prevent exacerbations. A number of LABA/LAMA combinations are now available for clinical use in COPD. However, it is not clear which group of above mentioned inhalers is most effective or if any specific formulation works better than the others within the same group or class.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of available formulations from four different groups of inhalers (i.e. LABA/LAMA combination, LABA/ICS combination, LAMA and LABA) in people with moderate to severe COPD. The review will update previous systematic reviews on dual combination inhalers and long-acting bronchodilators to answer the questions described above using the strength of a network meta-analysis (NMA).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register, which contains several databases. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' websites. The most recent searches were conducted on 6 April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people aged 35 years or older with a diagnosis of COPD and a baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of less than 80% of predicted. We included studies of at least 12 weeks' duration including at least two active comparators from one of the four inhaler groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted NMAs using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method. We considered a study as high risk if recruited participants had at least one COPD exacerbation within the 12 months before study entry and as low risk otherwise. Primary outcomes were COPD exacerbations (moderate to severe and severe), and secondary outcomes included symptom and quality-of-life scores, safety outcomes, and lung function. We collected data only for active comparators and did not consider placebo was not considered. We assumed a class/group effect when a fixed-class model fitted well. Otherwise we used a random-class model to assess intraclass/group differences. We supplemented the NMAs with pairwise meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 101,311 participants from 99 studies (26 studies with 32,265 participants in the high-risk population and 73 studies with 69,046 participants in the low-risk population) in our systematic review. The median duration of studies was 52 weeks in the high-risk population and 26 weeks in the low-risk population (range 12 to 156 for both populations). We considered the quality of included studies generally to be good.The NMAs suggested that the LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations followed by LAMA in the both populations.There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination, LAMA, and LABA in the high-risk population (network hazard ratios (HRs) 0.86 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.76 to 0.99), 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.99), and 0.70 (95% CrI 0.61 to 0.8) respectively), and that LAMA decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA in the high- and low-risk populations (network HR 0.80 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.88) and 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.97), respectively). There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination reduces severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination and LABA in the high-risk population (network HR 0.78 (95% CrI 0.64 to 0.93) and 0.64 (95% CrI 0.51 to 0.81), respectively).There was a general trend towards a greater improvement in symptom and quality-of-life scores with the combination therapies compared to monotherapies, and the combination therapies were generally ranked higher than monotherapies.The LABA/ICS combination was the lowest ranked in pneumonia serious adverse events (SAEs) in both populations. There is evidence that the LABA/ICS combination increases the odds of pneumonia compared to LAMA/LABA combination, LAMA and LABA (network ORs: 1.69 (95% CrI 1.20 to 2.44), 1.78 (95% CrI 1.33 to 2.39), and 1.50 (95% CrI 1.17 to 1.92) in the high-risk population and network or pairwise OR: 2.33 (95% CI 1.03 to 5.26), 2.02 (95% CrI 1.16 to 3.72), and 1.93 (95% CrI 1.29 to 3.22) in the low-risk population respectively). There were significant overlaps in the rank statistics in the other safety outcomes including mortality, total, COPD, and cardiac SAEs, and dropouts due to adverse events.None of the differences in lung function met a minimal clinically important difference criterion except for LABA/LAMA combination versus LABA in the high-risk population (network mean difference 0.13 L (95% CrI 0.10 to 0.15). The results of pairwise meta-analyses generally agreed with those of the NMAs. There is no evidence to suggest intraclass/group differences except for lung function at 12 months in the high-risk population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations although there was some uncertainty in the results. LAMA containing inhalers may have an advantage over those without a LAMA for preventing COPD exacerbations based on the rank statistics. Combination therapies appear more effective than monotherapies for improving symptom and quality-of-life scores. ICS-containing inhalers are associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.Our most comprehensive review including intraclass/group comparisons, free combination therapies, 99 studies, and 20 outcomes for each high- and low-risk population summarises the current literature and could help with updating existing COPD guidelines.

Differential changes in quality of life components over 5 years in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to examine the longitudinal change in quality of life components of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

In the Hokkaido COPD Cohort Study, 261 subjects were appropriately treated and followed over 5 years with a 74% follow-up rate at the end. The longitudinal changes in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores were annually evaluated with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). The subjects were classified into the rapid decliners, slow decliners, and sustainers based on ΔFEV1/year.

RESULTS

The activity component of SGRQ generally deteriorated over time, and its annual decline was the greatest in the rapid decliners (<25th percentile). In contrast, the symptom component improved significantly year by year in the sustainers (>75 percentile), and it did not deteriorate even in the rapid decliners. Of the baseline data, predictors for worsening of the activity component were older age and lower body mass index. Larger reversibility was related to symptom component improvement. Of the follow-up data, ΔFEV1/year was the best predictor for worsening of the components of SGRQ. Continuous smoking was another factor for worsening of the activity component. For the symptom component, a history of exacerbation by admission definition was the determinant of its deterioration, whereas use of beta agonists was related to improvement.

CONCLUSION

The longitudinal changes of quality of life and their determinants are markedly different and independent between its components. The activity component of SGRQ generally deteriorated over years, while the symptom component rather improved in some patients with COPD under appropriate treatment.

Prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society Guideline

BACKGROUND

COPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States as well as throughout the rest of the world. An exacerbation of COPD (periodic escalations of symptoms of cough, dyspnea, and sputum production) is a major contributor to worsening lung function, impairment in quality of life, need for urgent care or hospitalization, and cost of care in COPD. Research conducted over the past decade has contributed much to our current understanding of the pathogenesis and treatment of COPD. Additionally, an evolving literature has accumulated about the prevention of acute exacerbations.

METHODS

In recognition of the importance of preventing exacerbations in patients with COPD, the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) joint evidence-based guideline (AECOPD Guideline) was developed to provide a practical, clinically useful document to describe the current state of knowledge regarding the prevention of acute exacerbations according to major categories of prevention therapies. Three key clinical questions developed using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format addressed the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: nonpharmacologic therapies, inhaled therapies, and oral therapies. We used recognized document evaluation tools to assess and choose the most appropriate studies and to extract meaningful data and grade the level of evidence to support the recommendations in each PICO question in a balanced and unbiased fashion.

RESULTS

The AECOPD Guideline is unique not only for its topic, the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD, but also for the first-in-kind partnership between two of the largest thoracic societies in North America. The CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee in partnership with the CTS COPD Clinical Assembly launched this project with the objective that a systematic review and critical evaluation of the published literature by clinical experts and researchers in the field of COPD would lead to a series of recommendations to assist clinicians in their management of the patient with COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline is unique because it provides an up-to-date, rigorous, evidence-based analysis of current randomized controlled trial data regarding the prevention of COPD exacerbations.

Indacaterol, a once-daily beta2-agonist, versus twice-daily beta₂-agonists or placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Indacaterol is an inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist that is administered once daily and has been investigated as a treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Four different doses have been investigated (75 mcg, 150 mcg, 300 mcg and 600 mcg). The relative effects of different doses of once-daily indacaterol in the management of patients with COPD are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of indacaterol versus placebo and alternative twice-daily long-acting beta2-agonists for the treatment of patients with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts and searched the Novartis trials registry and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the most recent search was 8 November 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing indacaterol at any dose versus placebo or alternative long-acting beta2-agonists. Trials were required to be of at least 12 weeks' duration and had to include adults older than 18 years with a confirmed spirometric diagnosis of COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JBG, EJD) independently assessed for possible inclusion all citations identified as a result of the search. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or, if required, through resolution by a third review author (RWB). One review author (JBG) extracted data from trials identified by the search and entered these data into Review Manager 5.1 for statistical analysis. Data entry was cross-checked by a second review author (EJD, CJC).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 13 trials with 9961 participants were included in the review. Ten trials with a total of 8562 participants involved an indacaterol versus placebo comparison. Five trials with a total of 4133 participants involved an indacaterol versus twice-daily beta2-agonist comparison. The comparator beta2-agonists were salmeterol, formoterol and eformoterol. One of these trials, with a total of 90 participants, provided no data that could be used in this review. Two trials included both indacaterol versus placebo and indacaterol versus twice-daily beta2-agonist comparisons. Trials were between 12 weeks and 52 weeks in duration. Overall the quality of the evidence was strong, and risk of significant bias was minimal in most of the included studies. Enrolled participants had stable COPD across a range of spirometric severities. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was generally between 30% and 80% predicted, and a mean FEV1 of approximately 50% was predicted in most studies. Patients with concurrent respiratory disease, including asthma, were excluded. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was permitted.The primary objectives were to compare trough FEV1 at the end of dosing, exacerbation rates and quality of life. Significant adverse events, mortality and dyspnoea were included as secondary outcomes. Compared with placebo, a significant and clinically relevant improvement in trough FEV1 was noted with indacaterol (mean difference (MD) 149.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 137.09 to 161.12). In addition, compared with placebo, a significant improvement in mean St George Respiratory Questionaire (SGRQ) score (MD -3.60, 95% CI -4.36 to -2.83) was reported, and the proportion of participants experiencing clinically relevant improvement in SGRQ score was significantly greater (odds ratio (OR) 1.63, 95% CI 1.46 to 1.84). Compared with twice-daily beta2-agonists, a small but statistically significant increase in trough FEV1 was seen with indacaterol (MD 61.71 mL, 95% CI 41.24 to 82.17). Differences between indacaterol and twice-daily beta2-agonists in mean SGRQ scores (MD -0.81, 95% CI -2.28 to 0.66) and in the proportions of participants achieving clinically relevant improvements in SGRQ scores (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.32) were not statistically significant, but the confidence intervals are too wide to permit the conclusion that the treatments were equivalent. Data were insufficient for analysis of differences in exacerbation rates for both placebo and twice-daily beta2-agonist comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For patients with stable COPD, use of indacaterol versus placebo results in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in lung function and quality of life. The clinical benefit for lung function is at least as good as that seen with twice-daily long-acting beta2-agonists. The comparative effect on quality of life remains uncertain, as important differences cannot be excluded.

COPD: maximization of bronchodilation

The most recent guidelines define COPD in a multidimensional way, nevertheless the diagnosis is still linked to the limitation of airflow, usually measured by the reduction in the FEV1/FVC ratio below 70%. However, the severity of obstruction is not directly correlated to symptoms or to invalidity determined by COPD. Thus, besides respiratory function, COPD should be evaluated based on symptoms, frequency and severity of exacerbations, patient's functional status and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Therapy is mainly aimed at increasing exercise tolerance and reducing dyspnea, with improvement of daily activities and HRQoL. This can be accomplished by a drug-induced reduction of pulmonary hyperinflation and exacerbations frequency and severity. All guidelines recommend bronchodilators as baseline therapy for all stages of COPD, and long-acting inhaled bronchodilators, both beta-2 agonist (LABA) and antimuscarinic (LAMA) drugs, are the most effective in regular treatment in the clinically stable phase. The effectiveness of bronchodilators should be evaluated in terms of functional (relief of bronchial obstruction and pulmonary hyperinflation), symptomatic (exercise tolerance and HRQoL), and clinical improvement (reduction in number or severity of exacerbations), while the absence of a spirometric response is not a reason for interrupting treatment, if there is subjective improvement in symptoms. Because LABA and LAMA act via different mechanisms of action, when administered in combination they can exert additional effects, thus optimizing (i.e. maximizing) sustained bronchodilation in COPD patients with severe airflow limitation, who cannot benefit (or can get only partial benefit) by therapy with a single bronchodilator. Recently, a fixed combination of ultra LABA/LAMA (indacaterol/glycopyrronium) has shown that it is possible to get a stable and persistent bronchodilation, which can help in avoiding undesirable fluctuations of bronchial calibre.

Epigenetic change (GATA-4 gene methylation) is associated with health status in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Gene methylation is an epigenetic change that involves a heritable modification of chromatin structure that alters gene expression without a change in DNA sequence. It has previously been shown that methylation of the GATA-4 gene promoter region in sputum DNA is associated with low lung function and increased odds of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) among smokers. Given these findings, we hypothesized that GATA-4 gene methylation in sputum DNA would be associated with low health status, as measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), in subjects with COPD. Self-reported SGRQ, spirometry, and induced sputum samples were obtained from 168 COPD subjects from the Lovelace Smokers Cohort. GATA-4 gene methylation was evaluated in sputum DNA using nested methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays. Using general linear model with Poisson regression, we found that GATA-4 gene methylation was significantly associated with overall lower SGRQ health status (parameter estimate = .296, p < .001). This finding remained significant even after controlling for age, lung function, and other covariates. In an additional analysis using logistic regression and comparing extreme tertiles of overall SGRQ score, we confirmed that GATA-4 gene methylation was associated with a 3-fold increase in risk of poor health status (OR 2.95 and p = .028). The unexplored links between epigenetic changes and psychosocial factors such as health status are critical gaps in the literature. This study is the first to suggest that airway GATA-4 gene methylation status may independently predict health status in individuals with COPD.

Roflumilast and dyspnea in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pooled analysis of four clinical trials

Purpose

Breathlessness is a predominant symptom of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), making it a valuable outcome in addition to lung function to assess treatment benefit. The phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor roflumilast has been shown to provide small but significant improvements in dyspnea, as measured by the transition dyspnea index (TDI), in two 1-year studies in patients with severe to very severe COPD.

Patients and methods

To provide a more comprehensive assessment of the impact of roflumilast on dyspnea, post hoc analyses of four 1-year roflumilast studies (M2-111, M2-112, M2-124, and M2-125) in patients with moderate to very severe COPD were conducted.

Results

In this pooled analysis (N=5,595), roflumilast significantly improved TDI focal scores versus placebo at week 52 (treatment difference, 0.327; P<0.0001). Roflumilast was associated with significantly greater TDI responders and significantly fewer TDI deteriorators (≥1-unit increase or decrease from baseline, respectively) versus placebo at week 52 (P<0.01, both); these significant differences were apparent by week 8 and maintained until study end (P<0.05, all). At study end, the postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second improvement in TDI responders was significantly greater with roflumilast versus placebo (P<0.05). Similar to the overall population, improvements in TDI focal scores at week 52 were small but consistently significant over placebo in patients with chronic bronchitis, regardless of exacerbation history, concomitant treatment with short-acting muscarinic antagonists or long-acting β₂-agonists, or pretreatment with inhaled corticosteroids.

Conclusion

This analysis shows that patients treated with roflumilast to reduce exacerbation risk may also experience small but significant improvements in dyspnea, with accompanying improvements in lung function.

Determinants of 1-year changes in disease-specific health status in patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A 1-year observational study

We aimed to identify baseline and longitudinal determinants of change in disease-specific health status in patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Demographic and clinical characteristics as well as disease-specific health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, SGRQ) were assessed in 105 outpatients with advanced COPD at baseline and at 4, 8 and 12 months. Eighty-five patients (81.0%) had complete SGRQ data at baseline and 12 months and were included in analyses. Stepwise multiple regression analysis revealed that lower SGRQ total score, higher depression scores and longer time needed to complete the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test at baseline, as well as increase in time needed to complete the TUG test and increase in dyspnoea during the 1-year follow-up period, were predictors of deterioration in disease-specific health status. The current study reinforces the stimulation of physical mobility and the targeting of dyspnoea as components for treatment programs to optimize disease-specific health status in patients with advanced COPD.

Long-acting inhaled therapy (beta-agonists, anticholinergics and steroids) for COPD: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is aimed at relieving symptoms, improving quality of life and preventing or treating exacerbations.Treatment tends to begin with one inhaler, and additional therapies are introduced as necessary. For persistent or worsening symptoms, long-acting inhaled therapies taken once or twice daily are preferred over short-acting inhalers. Several Cochrane reviews have looked at the risks and benefits of specific long-acting inhaled therapies compared with placebo or other treatments. However for patients and clinicians, it is important to understand the merits of these treatments relative to each other, and whether a particular class of inhaled therapies is more beneficial than the others.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of treatment options for patients whose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cannot be controlled by short-acting therapies alone. The review will not look at combination therapies usually considered later in the course of the disease.As part of this network meta-analysis, we will address the following issues.1. How does long-term efficacy compare between different pharmacological treatments for COPD?2. Are there limitations in the current evidence base that may compromise the conclusions drawn by this network meta-analysis? If so, what are the implications for future research?

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in existing Cochrane reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). In addition, we ran a comprehensive citation search on the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials (CAGR) and checked manufacturer websites and reference lists of other reviews. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group RCTs of at least 6 months' duration recruiting people with COPD. Studies were included if they compared any of the following treatments versus any other: long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs; formoterol, indacaterol, salmeterol); long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs; aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium); inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs; budesonide, fluticasone, mometasone); combination long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) (formoterol/budesonide, formoterol/mometasone, salmeterol/fluticasone); and placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a network meta-analysis using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for two efficacy outcomes: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (placebo). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within treatment classes (LAMA, LABA, ICS, LABA/ICS). We present estimates of class effects, variability between treatments within each class and individual treatment effects compared with every other.To justify the analyses, we assessed the trials for clinical and methodological transitivity across comparisons. We tested the robustness of our analyses by performing sensitivity analyses for lack of blinding and by considering six- and 12-month data separately.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 71 RCTs randomly assigning 73,062 people with COPD to 184 treatment arms of interest. Trials were similar with regards to methodology, inclusion and exclusion criteria and key baseline characteristics. Participants were more often male, aged in their mid sixties, with FEV1 predicted normal between 40% and 50% and with substantial smoking histories (40+ pack-years). The risk of bias was generally low, although missing information made it hard to judge risk of selection bias and selective outcome reporting. Fixed effects were used for SGRQ analyses, and random effects for Trough FEV1 analyses, based on model fit statistics and deviance information criteria (DIC). SGRQ SGRQ data were available in 42 studies (n = 54,613). At six months, 39 pairwise comparisons were made between 18 treatments in 25 studies (n = 27,024). Combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked intervention, with a mean improvement over placebo of -3.89 units at six months (95% credible interval (CrI) -4.70 to -2.97) and -3.60 at 12 months (95% CrI -4.63 to -2.34). LAMAs and LABAs were ranked second and third at six months, with mean differences of -2.63 (95% CrI -3.53 to -1.97) and -2.29 (95% CrI -3.18 to -1.53), respectively. Inhaled corticosteroids were ranked fourth (MD -2.00, 95% CrI -3.06 to -0.87). Class differences between LABA, LAMA and ICS were less prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and aclidinium were ranked somewhat higher than other members of their classes, and formoterol 12 mcg, budesonide 400 mcg and formoterol/mometasone combination were ranked lower within their classes. There was considerable overlap in credible intervals and rankings for both classes and individual treatments. Trough FEV1 Trough FEV1 data were available in 46 studies (n = 47,409). At six months, 41 pairwise comparisons were made between 20 treatments in 31 studies (n = 29,271). As for SGRQ, combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked class, with a mean improvement over placebo of 133.3 mL at six months (95% CrI 100.6 to 164.0) and slightly less at 12 months (mean difference (MD) 100, 95% CrI 55.5 to 140.1). LAMAs (MD 103.5, 95% CrI 81.8 to 124.9) and LABAs (MD 99.4, 95% CrI 72.0 to 127.8) showed roughly equivalent results at six months, and ICSs were the fourth ranked class (MD 65.4, 95% CrI 33.1 to 96.9). As with SGRQ, initial differences between classes were not so prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and salmeterol/fluticasone were ranked slightly better than others in their class, and formoterol 12, aclidinium, budesonide and formoterol/budesonide combination were ranked lower within their classes. All credible intervals for individual rankings were wide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis compares four different classes of long-acting inhalers for people with COPD who need more than short-acting bronchodilators. Quality of life and lung function were improved most on combination inhalers (LABA and ICS) and least on ICS alone at 6 and at 12 months. Overall LAMA and LABA inhalers had similar effects, particularly at 12 months. The network has demonstrated the benefit of ICS when added to LABA for these outcomes in participants who largely had an FEV1 that was less than 50% predicted, but the additional expense of combination inhalers and any potential for increased adverse events (which has been established by other reviews) require consideration. Our findings are in keeping with current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.

Long-acting beta2-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory disease that causes progressive symptoms of breathlessness, cough and mucus build-up. It is the fourth or fifth most common cause of death worldwide and is associated with significant healthcare costs.Inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs) are widely prescribed to manage the symptoms of COPD when short-acting agents alone are no longer sufficient. Twice-daily treatment with an inhaled LABA is aimed at relieving symptoms, improving exercise tolerance and quality of life, slowing decline and even improving lung function and preventing and treating exacerbations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of twice-daily long-acting beta2-agonists compared with placebo for patients with COPD on the basis of clinically important endpoints, primarily quality of life and COPD exacerbations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register, ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' websites in June 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting populations of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Studies were required to be at least 12 weeks in duration and designed to assess the safety and efficacy of a long-acting beta2-agonist against placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data and characteristics were extracted independently by two review authors, and each study was assessed for potential sources of bias. Data for all outcomes were pooled and subgrouped by LABA agent (formoterol 12 μg, formoterol 24 μg and salmeterol 50 μg) and then were separately analysed by LABA agent and subgrouped by trial duration. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for the proportion of participants taking inhaled corticosteroids and for studies with high or uneven rates of attrition.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six RCTs met the inclusion criteria, randomly assigning 14,939 people with COPD to receive twice-daily LABA or placebo. Study duration ranged from three months to three years; the median duration was six months. Participants were more often male with moderate to severe symptoms at randomisation; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was between 33% and 55% predicted normal in the studies, and mean St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (SGRQ) ranged from 44 to 55 when reported.Moderate-quality evidence showed that LABA treatment improved quality of life on the SGRQ (mean difference (MD) -2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.09 to -1.54; I(2) = 50%; 17 trials including 11,397 people) and reduced the number of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation (odds ratio (OR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; I(2) = 10%; seven trials including 3804 people). In absolute terms, 18 fewer people per 1000 were hospitalised as the result of an exacerbation while receiving LABA therapy over a weighted mean of 7 months (95% CI 3 to 31 fewer). Scores were also improved on the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ), and more people receiving LABA treatment showed clinically important improvement of at least four points on the SGRQ.The number of people who had exacerbations requiring a course of oral steroids or antibiotics was also lower among those taking LABA (52 fewer per 1000 treated over 8 months; 95% CI 24 to 78 fewer, moderate quality evidence).Mortality was low, and combined findings of all studies showed that LABA therapy did not significantly affect mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08; I(2) = 21%; 23 trials including 14,079 people, moderate quality evidence). LABA therapy did not affect the rate of serious adverse events (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; I(2) = 34%, moderate quality evidence), although there was significant unexplained heterogeneity, especially between the two formoterol doses.LABA therapy improved predose FEV1 by 73 mL more than placebo (95% CI 48 to 98; I(2) = 71%, low quality evidence), and people were more likely to withdraw from placebo than from LABA therapy (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80; I(2) = 0%). Higher rates of withdrawal in the placebo arm may reduce our confidence in some results, but the disparity is more likely to reduce the magnitude of difference between LABA and placebo than inflate the true effect; removing studies at highest risk of bias on the basis of high and unbalanced attrition did not change conclusions for the primary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence from 26 studies showed that inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists are effective over the medium and long term for patients with moderate to severe COPD. Their use is associated with improved quality of life and reduced exacerbations, including those requiring hospitalisation. Overall, findings showed that inhaled LABAs did not significantly reduce mortality or serious adverse events.

Indacaterol for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled bronchodilators are the first-line therapy for COPD. Indacaterol is a novel addition to existing long-acting bronchodilators.

OBJECTIVES

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) ON efficacy and safety of indacaterol as compared: 1) with placebo at different dosages, 2) with existing bronchodilators; (3) as add-on treatment to tiotropium.

METHODS

We searched 13 electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL, and contacted the manufacturer for unpublished data. Primary outcome was mean FEV1 change at 12(th) week, secondary outcomes included changes in SGRQ, TDI and BODE index at 6 months, exacerbation at 1 year, and worsening of symptoms.

RESULTS

Twelve eligible RCTs of moderate risk of bias included data from 10,977 patients. Compared to placebo, indacaterol improved FEV1 by a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.16 L (95%CI: 0.15, 0.18 L, p<0.001), homogeneously above the minimally important difference of 0.10 L. It offered clinically relevant improvement in all secondary outcomes except exacerbation. Magnitude of benefit did not differ significantly by dosage, but one treatment related death was reported at 300 ug. Efficacy of Indacaterol was similar to formoterol and salmeterol (FEV1 WMD = 0.04 L, 95%CI: 0.01 L, 0.07 L, p = 0.02); and tiotropium (FEV1 WMD = 0.01 L, 95%CI: -0.01, 0.03 L, p = 0.61). The use of indacaterol on top of tiotropium yielded additional improvement on FEV1 (WMD = 0.07 L, 95%CI: 0.05 L, 0.10 L, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Indacaterol is safe and beneficial for patients with COPD at dosage ≤150 ug. It may serve as a good alternative to existing bronchodilators, or as an add-on to tiotropium for unresponsive patients. Use of higher dosage requires further justification.

COPD: Overview and survey of NP knowledge

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is quickly becoming one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this article is to review the clinical presentation, spirometry, and pharmacologic management of COPD, as well as the results of a survey examining nurse practitioners' (NPs) knowledge about COPD and its management.

Risk-to-benefit ratio of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COPD

While the pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has evolved from the drugs used to treat asthma, the treatment models are different and the two diseases require clear differential diagnosis in order to determine the correct therapeutic strategy. In contrast to the almost universal requirement for anti-inflammatory treatment of persistent asthma, the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is less well established in COPD and their role in treatment is limited. There is some evidence of a preventive effect of ICS on exacerbations in patients with COPD, but there is little evidence for an effect on mortality or lung function decline. As a result, treatment guidelines recommend the use of ICS in patients with severe or very severe disease (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted) and repeated exacerbations. Patients with frequent exacerbations - a phenotype that is stable over time - are likely to be less common among those with moderate COPD (many of whom are managed in primary care) than in those with more severe disease. The indiscriminate use of ICS in COPD may expose patients to an unnecessary increase in the risk of side-effects such as pneumonia, osteoporosis, diabetes and cataracts, while wasting healthcare spending and potentially diverting attention from other more appropriate forms of management such as pulmonary rehabilitation and maximal bronchodilator use. Physicians should carefully weigh the likely benefits of ICS use against the potential risk of side-effects and costs in individual patients with COPD.

Safety and efficacy of 12-week or longer indacaterol treatment in moderate-to-severe COPD patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

This is a meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of indacaterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with treatment duration of ≥12 weeks.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were eligible. Five involved indacaterol, two salmeterol, one formoterol, and one tiotropium. Four studies had placebos. Using trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s 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 600 μg daily and a duration of 52 weeks (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.

CONCLUSIONS

Indacaterol is effective and well-tolerated as a bronchodilator for the maintenance of moderate to severe COPD.

Indacaterol 75 μg once daily for the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a North American perspective

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive disease in which patients become increasingly disabled by their symptoms and limited in their activities. Health-related quality of life may be profoundly impaired even in the early stages of the disease. Treatment with long-acting inhaled bronchodilators can improve lung function, symptoms and health status and reduce exacerbations of COPD. This review profiles the efficacy, safety and tolerability of indacaterol, an inhaled β(2)-agonist bronchodilator for once-daily maintenance treatment of patients with COPD. After 12 weeks of treatment with a once-daily dose of 75 µg (the dose approved in the USA and Canada) in patients with moderate to severe COPD, compared with placebo, indacaterol provided significant and clinically relevant levels of bronchodilation [difference in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s: 131 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI) 104-159; p < 0.001], together with significant reductions in symptom scores (difference in transition dyspnea index total score: 0.84 points; 95% CI 0.37-1.31; p < 0.001) and improvements in health status (difference in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score: -3.8 units; 95% CI -5.6 to -2.0; p < 0.001). The overall safety and tolerability of once-daily treatment with indacaterol 75 µg for 12 weeks did not differ in any substantial aspect from placebo treatment. Indirect comparisons analyzing pooled clinical data and meta-analyses suggest that treatment with indacaterol 75 µg once daily may be effective in reducing exacerbations of COPD, and that its effects on lung function and health status will be comparable with other currently available inhaled long-acting bronchodilators used for COPD. Treatment with indacaterol 75 µg once daily provides effective bronchodilation, improves dyspnea and health status, and has a well characterized profile of safety and tolerability.

Tiotropium versus long-acting beta-agonists for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are both accepted in the routine management for people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There are new studies which have compared tiotropium with LABAs, including some that have evaluated recently introduced LABAs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative clinical effects of tiotropium bromide alone versus LABA alone, upon measures of quality of life, exacerbations, lung function and serious adverse events, in people with stable COPD.To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness associated with tiotropium compared to LABA in people with COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and economic evaluations from searching NHS EED and HEED (date of last search February 2012). We found additional trials from web-based clinical trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and full economic evaluations if they compared effects of tiotropium alone with LABAs alone in people with COPD. We allowed co-administration of standard COPD therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, then extracted data on study quality and outcomes. We contacted study authors and trial sponsors for additional information. We analysed data using the Cochrane Review Manager(RevMan 5.1) software.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven clinical studies totalling 12,223 participants with COPD were included in the review. The studies used similar designs and were generally of good methodological quality. Inclusion criteria for RCTs were similar across the included studies, although studies varied in terms of smoking history and COPD severity of participants. They compared tiotropium (which was delivered by HandiHaler in all studies) with salmeterol (four studies, 8936 participants), formoterol (one study, 431 participants) and indacaterol (two studies, 2856 participants). All participants were instructed to discontinue anticholinergic or long-acting beta(2)-agonist bronchodilators during treatment, but could receive inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at a stable dose. Study duration ranged from 3 to 12 months. We extracted data for 11,223 participants. In general, the treatment groups were well matched at baseline. Overall, the risk of bias across the included RCTs was low.In the analysis of the primary outcomes in this review, a high level of heterogeneity amongst studies meant that we did not pool data for St George's Respiratory Questionnaire quality of life score. Subgroup analyses based on the type of LABA found statistically significant differences among effects on quality of life depending on whether tiotropium was compared with salmeterol, formoterol or indacaterol. Tiotropium reduced the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbations compared with LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 0.93). For this outcome, there was no difference seen among the different types of LABA. There was no statistical difference in mortality observed between the treatment groups.For secondary outcomes, tiotropium was associated with a reduction in the number of COPD exacerbations leading to hospitalisation compared with LABA treatment (OR 0.87; 95% 0.77 to 0.99), but not in the overall rate of all-cause hospitalisations. There was no statistically significant difference in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) or symptom score between tiotropium and LABA-treated participants. There was a lower rate of non-fatal serious adverse events recorded with tiotropium compared with LABA (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99). The tiotropium group was also associated with a lower rate of study withdrawals (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99).We identified six full economic evaluations assessing the cost and cost-effectiveness of tiotropium and salmeterol. The studies were based on an economic model or empirical analysis of clinical data from RCTs. They all looked at maintenance costs and the costs for COPD exacerbations, including respiratory medications and hospitalisations. The setting for the evaluations was primary and secondary care in the UK, Greece, Netherlands, Spain and USA. All the studies estimated tiotropium to be superior to salmeterol based on better clinical outcomes (exacerbations or quality of life) and/or lower total costs. However, the authors of all evaluations reported there was substantial uncertainty around the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with COPD, the evidence is equivocal as to whether or not tiotropium offers greater benefit than LABAs in improving quality of life; however, this is complicated by differences in effect among the LABA types. Tiotropium was more effective than LABAs as a group in preventing COPD exacerbations and disease-related hospitalisations, although there were no statistical differences between groups in overall hospitalisation rates or mortality during the study periods. There were fewer serious adverse events and study withdrawals recorded with tiotropium compared with LABAs. Symptom improvement and changes in lung function were similar between the treatment groups. Given the small number of studies to date, with high levels of heterogeneity among them, one approach may be to give a COPD patient a substantial trial of tiotropium, followed by a LABA (or vice versa), then to continue prescribing the long-acting bronchodilator that the patient prefers. Further studies are needed to compare tiotropium with different LABAs, which are currently ongoing. The available economic evidence indicates that tiotropium may be cost-effective compared with salmeterol in several specific settings, but there is considerable uncertainty around this finding.

Indacaterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an update for clinicians

Bronchodilation is the cornerstone of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management and is based on regular treatment with one or more long-acting β(2) agonists (LABAs). A novel bronchodilator, indacaterol, satisfies the requirements of an efficacious LABA: it has a relatively longer duration of action compared with existing LABAs and a fast onset of action. This review is a presentation of data on indacaterol with respect to its molecular characteristics as well as comparisons with other long-acting bronchodilators. Data from 12 relevant trials show that once-daily indacaterol provides significant, consistent and clinically important improvements in lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second), significant improvements in breathlessness and health status at least as good as or better than tiotropium, salmeterol and formoterol, and reduction in requirement for relief medication compared with tiotropium, salmeterol and formoterol.

Profiling the bronchodilator effects of the novel ultra-long-acting β2-agonist indacaterol against established treatments in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Indacaterol is a novel, inhaled, ultra-long-acting β(2)-agonist providing 24-h bronchodilation with once-daily (od) dosing for maintenance use in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This article reviews the bronchodilator properties of indacaterol compared with other treatments used in COPD. Data from five published placebo-controlled studies were reviewed. Two 14-day crossover studies, the first comparing indacaterol 300 µg od with salmeterol 50 µg twice daily (bid), the second comparing indacaterol 150 µg and 300 µg od with tiotropium 18 µg od, assessed forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) at 24 h postdose (trough). Third, a 14-day crossover study evaluated trough FEV(1) following indacaterol 300 µg dosed morning or evening compared with salmeterol 50 µg bid. Fourth, a single-dose study of indacaterol 150 and 300 µg measured FEV(1) at 5 min postdose compared with salmeterol/fluticasone 50/500 µg and salbutamol 200 µg. Finally, data from a 1-year study with indacaterol 300 µg and formoterol 12 µg bid were examined to determine whether bronchodilation was maintained long term. In the first two studies, indacaterol increased trough FEV(1) after 14 days by a statistically significant and clinically relevant margin over placebo; indacaterol had a greater effect than salmeterol and a similar effect to tiotropium. In the third study, indacaterol had the same effect on trough FEV(1) whether dosed in the morning or evening. In the fourth study, the onset of the bronchodilator effect of indacaterol was similar to that of salbutamol. In the fifth study, the bronchodilator effect of indacaterol on trough FEV(1) was maintained at a significant and clinically relevant level over 52 weeks, whereas the bronchodilator effect of formoterol diminished over time. To conclude, indacaterol is a highly effective bronchodilator that is superior to or at least as effective as other available long-acting bronchodilators for COPD.