Evidence Hub

P275 Comparing clinically relevant improvement with umeclidinium/vilanterol and tiotropium/olodaterol in symptomatic copd: a randomised non-inferiority crossover trial

C. Compton, G. Feldman, A. Sousa, D. Lipson, Ian Naya, Lee Tombs, Sadhana Patel, B. A. Navarrete

Thorax, 2017

236 participants

Abstract

Introduction and Objectives Here we report the Results of the first direct comparison of the once-daily fixed-dose long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) combinations umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg and tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 mcg in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods This randomised, 2-period crossover study (204990, NCT02799784) included inhaled corticosteroid-free patients with COPD, a modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea score ≥2, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity ratio of <0.70 and post-salbutamol FEV150%–70% predicted. Patients were randomised to UMEC/VI (62.5/25 mcg once daily) via an ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler followed by TIO/OLO 5/5 mcg (2 puffs once daily) via a RESPIMAT inhaler (each for 8 weeks with an interim 3 week washout period), or vice versa. The primary endpoint was change from baseline (CFB) in trough FEV1 at Week 8 with a non-inferiority (NI) margin of –50 mL in the per protocol (PP) population. Additional outcomes included inspiratory capacity (IC), rescue medication use and ease of inhaler use (assessed using a six-point questionnaire). Adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. Results 236 patients (mean age 64.4 years, 60% male) were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and 227 in the PP population. The primary endpoint of CFB in trough FEV1 at Week 8 confirmed NI of UMEC/VI vs TIO/OLO (175 mL vs 122 mL; least squares…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 236 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free