OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy of indacaterol to that of fixed-dose combination (FDC) formoterol and budesonide (FOR/BUD) and FDC salmeterol and fluticasone (SAL/FP) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on the available randomized clinical trials (RCTs). METHODS: Fifteen placebo-controlled RCTs were included that evaluated: indacaterol 150 μg (n = 5 studies), indacaterol 300 μg (n = 4), FOR/BUD 9/160 μg (n = 2), FOR/BUD 9/320 μg (n = 3), SAL/FP 50/500 μg (n = 5), and SAL/FP 50/250 μg (n = 1). Outcomes of interest were trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), total scores for St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and transition dyspnea index (TDI). All trials were analyzed simultaneously using a Bayesian network meta-analysis and relative treatment effects between all regimens were obtained. Treatment-by-covariate interactions were included where possible to improve the similarity of the trials. RESULTS: Indacaterol 150 μg resulted in a higher change from baseline (CFB) in FEV(1) at 12 weeks compared to FOR/BUD 9/160 μg (difference in CFB 0.11 L [95% credible intervals: 0.08, 0.13]) and FOR/BUD 9/320 μg (0.09 L [0.06, 0.11]) and was comparable to SAL/FP 50/250 μg (0.02 L [-0.04, 0.08]) and SAL/FP 50/500 μg (0.03 L [0.00, 0.06]). Similar results were observed for indacaterol 300 μg at 12 weeks and indacaterol 150/300 μg at 6 months. Indacaterol 150 μg demonstrated comparable improvement in SGRQ total score at 6 months versus FOR/BUD (both doses), and SAL/FP 50/500 μg (-2.16 point improvement [-4.96, 0.95]). Indacaterol 150 and 300 μg demonstrated comparable TDI scores versus SAL/FP 50/250 μg (0.21 points (-0.57, 0.99); 0.39 [-0.39, 1.17], respectively) and SAL/FP 50/500 μg at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Indacaterol monotherapy is expected to be at least as good as FOR/BUD (9/320 and 9/160 μg) and comparable to SAL/FP (50/250 and 50/500 μg) in terms of lung function. Indacaterol is also expected to be comparable to FOR/BUD (9/320 and 9/160 μg) and SAL/FP 50/500 μg in terms of health status and to SAL/FP (50/250 and 50/500 μg) in terms of breathlessness.
OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy of indacaterol to that of fixed-dose combination (FDC) formoterol and budesonide (FOR/BUD) and FDCsalmeterol and fluticasone (SAL/FP) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on the available randomized clinical trials (RCTs). METHODS: Fifteen placebo-controlled RCTs were included that evaluated: indacaterol 150 μg (n = 5 studies), indacaterol 300 μg (n = 4), FOR/BUD 9/160 μg (n = 2), FOR/BUD 9/320 μg (n = 3), SAL/FP 50/500 μg (n = 5), and SAL/FP 50/250 μg (n = 1). Outcomes of interest were trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), total scores for St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and transition dyspnea index (TDI). All trials were analyzed simultaneously using a Bayesian network meta-analysis and relative treatment effects between all regimens were obtained. Treatment-by-covariate interactions were included where possible to improve the similarity of the trials. RESULTS:Indacaterol 150 μg resulted in a higher change from baseline (CFB) in FEV(1) at 12 weeks compared to FOR/BUD 9/160 μg (difference in CFB 0.11 L [95% credible intervals: 0.08, 0.13]) and FOR/BUD 9/320 μg (0.09 L [0.06, 0.11]) and was comparable to SAL/FP 50/250 μg (0.02 L [-0.04, 0.08]) and SAL/FP 50/500 μg (0.03 L [0.00, 0.06]). Similar results were observed for indacaterol 300 μg at 12 weeks and indacaterol 150/300 μg at 6 months. Indacaterol 150 μg demonstrated comparable improvement in SGRQ total score at 6 months versus FOR/BUD (both doses), and SAL/FP 50/500 μg (-2.16 point improvement [-4.96, 0.95]). Indacaterol 150 and 300 μg demonstrated comparable TDI scores versus SAL/FP 50/250 μg (0.21 points (-0.57, 0.99); 0.39 [-0.39, 1.17], respectively) and SAL/FP 50/500 μg at 6 months. CONCLUSION:Indacaterol monotherapy is expected to be at least as good as FOR/BUD (9/320 and 9/160 μg) and comparable to SAL/FP (50/250 and 50/500 μg) in terms of lung function. Indacaterol is also expected to be comparable to FOR/BUD (9/320 and 9/160 μg) and SAL/FP 50/500 μg in terms of health status and to SAL/FP (50/250 and 50/500 μg) in terms of breathlessness.
Authors: Donald A Mahler; Patrick Wire; Donald Horstman; Chai-Ni Chang; Julie Yates; Tracy Fischer; Tushar Shah Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2002-10-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Neil C Barnes; Yu-Sheng Qiu; Ian D Pavord; Debbie Parker; Peter A Davis; Jie Zhu; Malcolm Johnson; Neil C Thomson; Peter K Jeffery Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2006-01-19 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Peter M A Calverley; Julie A Anderson; Bartolome Celli; Gary T Ferguson; Christine Jenkins; Paul W Jones; Julie C Yates; Jørgen Vestbo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-02-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nicola A Hanania; Patrick Darken; Donald Horstman; Colin Reisner; Benjamin Lee; Suzanne Davis; Tushar Shah Journal: Chest Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Shannon Cope; James F Donohue; Jeroen P Jansen; Matthias Kraemer; Gorana Capkun-Niggli; Michael Baldwin; Felicity Buckley; Alexandra Ellis; Paul Jones Journal: Respir Res Date: 2013-10-07