Comparative efficacy of long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapies in COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Received 15 July 2015
Accepted for publication 19 September 2015
Published 16 November 2015 Volume 2015:10(1) Pages 2495—2517
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Professor Hsiao-Chi Chuang
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Dr Richard Russell
Afisi Segun Ismaila,1,2 Eline L Huisman,3 Yogesh Suresh Punekar,4 Andreas Karabis3
1Value Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA; 2Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; 3Real World Strategy and Analytics, Mapi Group, Houten, the Netherlands; 4Value Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline, Uxbridge, UK
Background: Randomized, controlled trials comparing long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) efficacy in COPD are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the relative efficacy of tiotropium 18 µg once-daily (OD) and newer agents (aclidinium 400 µg twice-daily, glycopyrronium 50 µg OD, and umeclidinium 62.5 µg OD).
Methods: A systematic literature review identified randomized, controlled trials of adult COPD patients receiving LAMAs. A NMA within a Bayesian framework examined change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), transitional dyspnea index focal score, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score, and rescue medication use.
Results: Twenty-four studies (n=21,311) compared LAMAs with placebo/each other. Aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, and umeclidinium, respectively, demonstrated favorable results versus placebo, for change from baseline (95% credible interval) in 12-week trough FEV1 (primary endpoint: 101.40 mL [77.06–125.60]; 117.20 mL [104.50–129.90]; 114.10 mL [103.10–125.20]; 136.70 mL [104.20–169.20]); 24-week trough FEV1 (128.10 mL [84.10–172.00]; 135.80 mL [123.10–148.30]; 106.40 mL [95.45–117.30]; 115.00 mL [74.51–155.30]); 24-week St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score (-4.60 [-6.76 to -2.54]; -3.14 [-3.83 to -2.45]; -2.43 [-2.92 to -1.93]; -4.69 [-7.05 to -2.31]); 24-week transitional dyspnea index score (1.00 [0.41–1.59]; 1.01 [0.79–1.22]; 0.82 [0.62–1.02]; 1.00 [0.49–1.51]); and 24-week rescue medication use (data not available; -0.41 puffs/day [-0.62 to -0.20]; -0.52 puffs/day [-0.74 to -0.30]; -0.30 puffs/day [-0.81 to 0.21]). For 12-week trough FEV1, differences in change from baseline (95% credible interval) were -12.8 mL (-39.39 to 13.93), aclidinium versus tiotropium; 3.08 mL (-7.58 to 13.69), glycopyrronium versus tiotropium; 22.58 mL (-11.58 to 56.97), umeclidinium versus tiotropium; 15.90 mL (-11.60 to 43.15), glycopyrronium versus aclidinium; 35.40 mL (-5.06 to 76.07), umeclidinium versus aclidinium; and 19.50 mL (-15.30 to 54.38), umeclidinium versus glycopyrronium. Limitations included inhaler-related factors and safety; longer-term outcomes were not considered.
Conclusion: The new LAMAs studied had at least comparable efficacy to tiotropium, the established class standard. Choice should depend on physician’s and patient’s preference.
Keywords: anticholinergics, muscarinic antagonist, bronchodilator, systematic review, meta-analysis
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]