Back to Journals » International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease » Volume 10 » Issue 1

LANTERN: a randomized study of QVA149 versus salmeterol/fluticasone combination in patients with COPD

Authors Zhong N, Wang C, Zhou X, Zhang N, Humphries M, Wang L, Thach C, Patalano F, Banerji D

Received 11 March 2015

Accepted for publication 22 April 2015

Published 5 June 2015 Volume 2015:10(1) Pages 1015—1026

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S84436

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 6

Editor who approved publication: Dr Richard Russell

Nanshan Zhong,1 Changzheng Wang,2 Xiangdong Zhou,3 Nuofu Zhang,1 Michael Humphries,4 Linda Wang,4 Chau Thach,5 Francesco Patalano,6 Donald Banerji5

On behalf of the LANTERN Investigators

1State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases, First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 2Institute of Respiratory Disease, Xin Qiao Hospital, 3Department of Respiratory Medicine, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing City, Chongqing, 4Beijing Novartis Pharma Co. Ltd., Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 5Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; 6Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland

Background: The current Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) treatment strategy recommends the use of one or more bronchodilators according to the patient’s airflow limitation, their history of exacerbations, and symptoms. The LANTERN study evaluated the effect of the long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) dual bronchodilator, QVA149 (indacaterol/glycopyrronium), as compared with the LABA/inhaled corticosteroid, salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC), in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with a history of ≤1 exacerbation in the previous year.
Methods: In this double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, 744 patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with a history of ≤1 exacerbations in the previous year were randomized (1:1) to QVA149 110/50 µg once daily or SFC 50/500 µg twice daily for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was noninferiority of QVA149 versus SFC for trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at week 26.
Results: Overall, 676 patients completed the study. The primary objective of noninferiority between QVA149 and SFC in trough FEV1 at week 26 was met. QVA149 demonstrated statistically significant superiority to SFC for trough FEV1 (treatment difference [βˆ†]=75 mL; P<0.001). QVA149 demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in standardized area under the curve (AUC) from 0 hours to 4 hours for FEV1 (FEV1 AUC0–4h) at week 26 versus SFC (βˆ†=122 mL; P<0.001). QVA149 and SFC had similar improvements in transition dyspnea index focal score, St George Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and rescue medication use. However, QVA149 significantly reduced the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations by 31% (P=0.048) over SFC. Overall, the incidence of adverse events was comparable between QVA149 (40.1%) and SFC (47.4%). The incidence of pneumonia was threefold lower with QVA149 (0.8%) versus SFC (2.7%).
Conclusion: These findings support the use of the LABA/LAMA, QVA149 as an alternative treatment, over LABA/inhaled corticosteroid, in the management of moderate-to-severe COPD patients (GOLD B and GOLD D) with a history of ≤1 exacerbation in the previous year.

Keywords: COPD, long-acting β2-agonists, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, clinical trial

Creative Commons License 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]

 

Other articles by this author:

Readers of this article also read:

The MEDD myth: the impact of pseudoscience on pain research and prescribing-guideline development

Fudin J, Pratt Cleary J, Schatman ME

Journal of Pain Research 2016, 9:153-156

Published Date: 23 March 2016

Interprofessional team management in pediatric critical care: some challenges and possible solutions

Stocker M, Pilgrim SB, Burmester M, Allen ML, Gijselaers WH

Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 2016, 9:47-58

Published Date: 24 February 2016

Bronchial hyperresponsiveness, airway inflammation, and reversibility in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Zanini A, Cherubino F, Zampogna E, Croce S, Pignatti P, Spanevello A

International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 2015, 10:1155-1161

Published Date: 17 June 2015

The reasons for triple therapy in stable COPD patients in Japanese clinical practice

Miyazaki M, Nakamura H, Takahashi S, Chubachi S, Sasaki M, Haraguchi M, Terai H, Ishii M, Fukunaga K, Tasaka S, Soejima K, Asano K, Betsuyaku T

International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 2015, 10:1053-1059

Published Date: 4 June 2015