Back to Journals » International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease » Volume 9 » Issue 1

Once-daily long-acting beta-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an indirect comparison of olodaterol and indacaterol

Authors Roskell N, Anzueto A, Hamilton A, Disse B, Becker K

Received 24 December 2013

Accepted for publication 27 May 2014

Published 31 July 2014 Volume 2014:9(1) Pages 813—824


Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 5

Neil S Roskell,1 Antonio Anzueto,2 Alan Hamilton,3 Bernd Disse,4 Karin Becker5

1Statistics, Bresmed Health Solutions Ltd, Sheffield, UK; 2School of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA; 3Medical Department, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd, Burlington, ON, Canada; 4Medical Department, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany; 5Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany

Purpose: In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials comparing the once-daily, long-acting beta2-agonists olodaterol and indacaterol for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an indirect treatment comparison by systematic review and synthesis of the available clinical evidence was conducted.
Methods: A systematic literature review of randomized, controlled clinical trials in patients with COPD was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olodaterol and indacaterol. Network meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison methods were employed to evaluate treatment efficacy, using outcomes based on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Transition Dyspnea Index, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score and response, rescue medication use, and proportion of patients with exacerbations.
Results: Eighteen trials were identified for meta-analysis (eight, olodaterol; ten, indacaterol). Olodaterol trials included patients of all severities, whilst indacaterol trials excluded patients with very severe COPD. Concomitant maintenance bronchodilator use was allowed in most olodaterol trials, but not in indacaterol trials. When similarly designed trials/data were analyzed for change from baseline in trough FEV1 (liters), the following mean differences (95% confidence interval) were observed: trials excluding concomitant bronchodilator: indacaterol 75 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, –0.005 (–0.077 to 0.067), and indacaterol 150 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, 0.020 (–0.036 to 0.077); trials with concomitant tiotropium: indacaterol 150 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, 0.000 (–0.043 to 0.042). In sensitivity analyses of the full network, results for change from baseline in trough FEV1 favored indacaterol, but this dataset suffered from trial design heterogeneity. For the other endpoints investigated, no statistically significant differences were found when analyzed in the full network.
Conclusion: When compared under similar trial conditions, olodaterol and indacaterol have similar efficacy in patients with COPD. This research highlights the importance of considering the concomitant COPD medication when evaluating treatment effects in COPD.

Keywords: COPD, olodaterol, indacaterol, meta-analysis, systematic review, LABA

Letter to the editor for this article has been published

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at 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]