Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with early-stage COPD were assigned to usual care plus tiotropium or placebo. Tiotropium resulted in better FEV 1 values. The annual decline in the prebronchodilator FEV 1 was similar in the two groups, but a benefit from tiotropium was seen in postbronchodilator FEV 1 .

Background A considerable number of children with asthma remain symptomatic despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, resulting in significant morbidity, reduced quality of life, increased healthcare costs and lost school days. The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of once-daily tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg, 2.5 μg and 1.25 μg add-on to medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids, with or without a leukotriene modifier, in children aged 6–11 years with symptomatic asthma. Methods In this Phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled, incomplete-crossover, dose-ranging study, patients were randomised to receive three of the four treatments evaluated: once-daily tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg, 2.5 μg or 1.25 μg or placebo Respimat®, in the evening during the 12-week (three × 4-week) treatment period. Results In total, 76, 74, 75 and 76 patients aged 6–11 years received tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg, 2.5 μg, 1.25 μg and placebo Respimat®, respectively. For the primary end point (peak forced expiratory volume in 1 second measured within 3 hours post-dosing), the adjusted mean responses with tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg (272 mL), 2.5 μg (290 mL) and 1.25 μg (261 mL) were significantly greater than with placebo Respimat® (185 mL; p = 0.0002, p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0011, respectively). The safety and tolerability of all doses of tiotropium Respimat® were comparable with those of placebo Respimat®, with no serious adverse events and no events leading to discontinuation. Conclusions Tiotropium Respimat® add-on to medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids, with or without a leukotriene modifier, was efficacious in paediatric patients with symptomatic asthma and had comparable safety and tolerability with placebo Respimat®. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01383499

There are no studies on withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in patients on long-term triple therapy in the absence of frequent exacerbations. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct de-escalation from long-term triple therapy to indacaterol/glycopyrronium in nonfrequently exacerbating patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This 26-week, randomized, double-blind, triple-dummy study assessed the direct change from long-term triple therapy to indacaterol/glycopyrronium (110/50 μg once daily) or continuation of triple therapy (tiotropium [18 μg] once daily plus combination of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate [50/500 μg] twice daily) in nonfrequently exacerbating patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Primary endpoint was noninferiority on change from baseline in trough FEV . Moderate or severe exacerbations were predefined secondary endpoints. A total of 527 patients were randomized to indacaterol/glycopyrronium and 526 to triple therapy. Inhaled corticosteroids withdrawal led to a reduction in trough FEV of -26 ml (95% confidence interval, -53 to 1 ml) with confidence limits exceeding the noninferiority margin of -50 ml. The annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations did not differ between treatments (rate ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.40). Patients with ≥300 blood eosinophils/μl at baseline presented greater lung function loss and higher exacerbation risk. Adverse events were similar in the two groups. In patients with COPD without frequent exacerbations on long-term triple therapy, the direct de-escalation to indacaterol/glycopyrronium led to a small decrease in lung function, with no difference in exacerbations. The higher exacerbation risk in patients with ≥300 blood eosinophils/μl suggests that these patients are likely to benefit from triple therapy. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 02603393).

For the last three decades, the guidelines for asthma management have supported a stepwise therapeutic approach, based on the administration of controller medications (especially inhaled corticosteroids) complemented by on-demand use of rescue medication. Classically, the rescue medication recommended comprised short-acting β agonists (SABA). Some years ago, the use of Symbicort Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART) demonstrated the benefits of a combination of budesonide-formoterol, an inhaled corticosteroid, and a long-acting β agonist (ICS-LABA) as rescue medication in moderate and severe asthma. The results were enthusiastically received, and this therapeutic option was adopted in the guidelines for moderate to severe asthma patients. Recently, four trials (two randomised placebo control trials under the auspices of the SYGMA project and two real-life studies, Novel START, and the PRACTICAL trial) have explored the potential benefits of substituting SABA with budesonide-formoterol as rescue medication in mild asthma patients. The SYGMA 1 and 2 studies showed that the combination with formoterol-budesonide as rescue medication provides better asthma control than short-acting β-agonists alone in GINA step 2 patients, although the superiority was slight. Compared to budesonide maintenance therapy, the fixed combination of ICS-LABA on demand provides poorer asthma control. Regarding exacerbations, the fixed dose ICS-LABA combination on demand showed the same benefits for the prevention of exacerbations as chronic ICS treatment in mild asthma patients. The Novel START study, which assessed a population with milder symptoms, concluded that the fixed dose ICS-LABA combination used as needed was superior to SABA (albuterol) as needed for the prevention of asthma exacerbations. These results in fact show that, in undertreated GINA step 2 with only SABA as needed, ICS-LABA is more effective than SABA. The authors of PRACTICAL concluded that the study provided modest evidence that the ICS-LABA combination used as-needed for symptom relief reduces the rate of severe exacerbations compared with maintenance low-dose budesonide plus terbutaline as needed, although the study was not limited to mild asthma since according to the treatment consumed, it was evident that they had recruited some moderate asthma patients. Despite this poor evidence, and ignoring the clinical histological benefits of chronic inhaled corticosteroids (especially when administered promptly), GINA 2019 recently recommended daily low dose ICS or ICS-LABA as needed as a first option for step 2 patients. For step 1, symptom-driven or as-needed treatment with ICS-LABA is recommended rather than SABA alone (the preferred option until the last GINA update). Finally, the SIENA study showed that 73% of patients with mild asthma do not have an eosinophilic phenotype and that these patients have a similar clinical response to ICS (mometasone) and antimuscarinic drugs (tiotropium), results that challenge the indication of a drug combination that incorporates ICS as a first option. Overall, we believe there is insufficient evidence for the systematic recommendation of as-needed ICS-LABA instead of SABA on request for GINA step 1 or as a replacement for chronic ICS in GINA step 2.

In this trial involving patients with mild, persistent asthma, there was no significant difference in therapeutic effect between an inhaled glucocorticoid (mometasone) and placebo in patients with a low sputum eosinophil level (<2%), which was reported in nearly three quarters of the patients.

Objective Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a risk factor for pneumonia following esophagectomy. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of perioperative inhaled tiotropium in patients with COPD undergoing esophagectomy. Methods This open-label, randomized controlled trial randomly assigned 32 patients with COPD undergoing esophagectomy to conventional management or addition of tiotropium inhalation. The intervention group received tiotropium from two weeks before esophagectomy until the final evaluation one month after esophagectomy. The primary outcome was the incidence of pneumonia within 30 postoperative days. We also assessed the changes and the percentages from baseline in pulmonary function and walking distance of the incremental shuttle walking test to just before esophagectomy and final evaluation. Results Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to the control group ( n  = 18) and the intervention group ( n  = 14). Pneumonia was recorded in 4 (28.6%) and 5 (27.8%) patients in the intervention and control groups, respectively (risk difference: 0.8%, 95% confidence interval: − 30.6 to 32.2). The intervention group demonstrated a significant improvement in pulmonary function and walking distance preoperatively. Further, the pulmonary function test was significantly better preoperatively in the intervention group than in the control group. Postoperatively, pulmonary function deterioration was more significant in the control group than in the intervention group. Conclusions Preoperative tiotropium inhalation significantly improved pulmonary function and exercise tolerance in patients with COPD undergoing esophagectomy. The perioperative tiotropium did not reduce pneumonia after esophagectomy, but it may contribute to patient recovery by reducing postoperative pulmonary function deterioration.

Background As lung function declines rapidly in the early stages of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the effects of bronchodilators in patients with moderate disease and those who have not previously received maintenance therapy are of interest. OTEMTO ® 1 and 2 were two replicate, 12-week, Phase III studies investigating the benefit of tiotropium + olodaterol on lung function and quality of life in patients with moderate to severe disease. Post hoc analyses were performed to assess the benefits for patients according to disease severity and treatment history. Methods Four subgroup analyses were performed: Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2/3, GOLD A/B/C/D, treatment naive/not treatment naive and receiving inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at baseline/not receiving ICS at baseline. Primary end points were change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) area under the curve from 0 to 3 h response, change in trough FEV 1 and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score. Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score was a secondary end point, and SGRQ and TDI responder analyses were further end points; all were assessed at 12 weeks. Results In all subgroups, patients receiving tiotropium + olodaterol responded better overall than those receiving tiotropium monotherapy. Improvements with tiotropium + olodaterol over placebo or tiotropium monotherapy were noted across GOLD 2/3 and GOLD A/B/C/D; however, improvements in SGRQ total score were most evident in the GOLD B subgroup. Moreover, lung-function outcomes were generally greater in those patients who had been receiving previous long-acting bronchodilator and/or ICS maintenance treatment. Conclusions These data suggest that tiotropium + olodaterol should be considered as a treatment option in patients with moderate COPD who are initiating maintenance therapy, as well as those with more severe disease. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01964352 and NCT02006732 .

Combinations of long-acting bronchodilators are recommended to reduce the rate of COPD exacerbations. Evidence from the DYNAGITO trial showed that the fixed-dose combination of tiotropium + olodaterol reduced the annual rate of total exacerbations ( <0.05) compared with tiotropium monotherapy. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the fixed-dose combination of tiotropium + olodaterol vs tiotropium monotherapy in COPD patients in the French setting. A recently developed COPD patient-level simulation model was used to simulate the lifetime effects and costs for 15,000 patients receiving either tiotropium + olodaterol or tiotropium monotherapy by applying the reduction in annual exacerbation rate as observed in the DYNAGITO trial. The model was adapted to the French setting by including French unit costs for treatment medication, COPD maintenance treatment, COPD exacerbations (moderate or severe), and pneumonia. The main outcomes were the annual (severe) exacerbation rate, the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and total lifetime costs. The number of QALYs for treatment with tiotropium + olodaterol was 0.042 higher compared with tiotropium monotherapy. Using a societal perspective, tiotropium + olodaterol resulted in a cost increase of +€123 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €2,900 per QALY compared with tiotropium monotherapy. From a French National Sickness Fund perspective, total lifetime costs were reduced by €272 with tiotropium + olodaterol, resulting in tiotropium + olodaterol being the dominant treatment option, that is, more effects with less costs. Sensitivity analyses showed that reducing the cost of exacerbations by 34% increased the ICER to €15,400, which could still be considered cost-effective in the French setting. Treatment with tiotropium + olodaterol resulted in a gain in QALYs and savings in costs compared with tiotropium monotherapy using a National Sickness Fund perspective in France. From the societal perspective, tiotropium + olodaterol was found to be cost-effective with a low cost per QALY.

Background Tiotropium is an anticholinergic bronchodilator for symptom relief and reducing exacerbations with an established safety profile in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Using data from the 4-year Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT®) study, we re-evaluated the safety of tiotropium HandiHaler® in patients who experienced recent myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure or unstable rhythm disorder during the study. Methods A post-hoc analysis of all-cause mortality and serious cardiac adverse events (cardiac SAEs), including cardiac deaths and death unknown, was conducted in patients who had experienced cardiac arrhythmia, MI or cardiac failure during UPLIFT® and who completed the study. Descriptive analyses were performed. Results Most patients experiencing cardiac events, for which they would have been excluded at baseline, remained in the trial. Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed a trend to later occurrence of cardiac SAEs with tiotropium HandiHaler® versus placebo. Patients who experienced a cardiac event and continued in UPLIFT® were not found to be at subsequently increased risk of all-cause mortality or cardiac SAEs with tiotropium treatment. Evaluation of deaths by major adverse cardiac events composite endpoints also showed that patients treated with tiotropium were not at increased risk of mortality or cardiac SAEs compared with placebo. Conclusions Risk of cardiac events, mortality or SAEs was not increased by tiotropium in patients experiencing cardiac events for which they would have been excluded at study baseline. The findings support the cardiac safety of tiotropium HandiHaler® in patients with COPD.

Bronchodilation and exercise training (ExT) improve exercise tolerance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, behavior modification is required to impact daily physical activity (PA). To assess whether tiotropium/olodaterol, with or without ExT, would improve exercise endurance time (EET) and PA compared with placebo in patients participating in a self-management behavior-modification (SMBM) program. This was a 12-week, randomized, partially double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial in patients with COPD (PHYSACTO; NCT02085161). All patients were enrolled into SMBM and randomized 1:1:1:1 to once-daily placebo, tiotropium 5 μg, tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 μg, or tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 μg plus 8 weeks ExT. EET, measured by endurance shuttle walk test after 8 weeks, was the primary endpoint. Additional endpoints assessed downstream effects on PA (measured via accelerometry), and activity-related dyspnea and difficulty (using validated patient-reported questionnaires). SMBM plus tiotropium/olodaterol, with or without ExT, significantly improved EET at Week 8 versus SMBM plus placebo (treatment ratio vs. placebo: with ExT, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.78; P = 0.0002; without ExT, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.57; P = 0.0109). No significant increases in steps per day from baseline were observed over SMBM plus placebo at Week 12 (increase of 1,098) when other therapies were added. Adding tiotropium/olodaterol, with or without ExT, to SMBM reduced activity-related dyspnea versus placebo, whereas adding tiotropium/olodaterol plus ExT reduced activity-related difficulty. Tiotropium/olodaterol, with or without ExT, improved EET in patients with COPD taking part in an SMBM program. Combination bronchodilation, with or without ExT, did not provide additional increases in objective PA compared with SMBM alone but did reduce PA-related dyspnea and difficulty. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02085161).