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

Neil S. Roskell, Antonio R Anzueto, Alan Hamilton, Bernd Disse, Karin Becker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)813-824
Number of pages12
JournalInternational Journal of COPD
Volume9
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 31 2014

Fingerprint

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Forced Expiratory Volume
Bronchodilator Agents
indacaterol
olodaterol
Dyspnea
Meta-Analysis
Therapeutics
Randomized Controlled Trials
Maintenance
Clinical Trials
Confidence Intervals
Safety
Research

Keywords

  • COPD
  • Indacaterol
  • LABA
  • Meta-analysis
  • Olodaterol
  • Systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health Policy
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Once-daily long-acting beta-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease : An indirect comparison of olodaterol and indacaterol. / Roskell, Neil S.; Anzueto, Antonio R; Hamilton, Alan; Disse, Bernd; Becker, Karin.

In: International Journal of COPD, Vol. 9, 31.07.2014, p. 813-824.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e93e6796530b442b94ccba534229e576,
title = "Once-daily long-acting beta-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: An indirect comparison of olodaterol and indacaterol",
abstract = "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, Indacaterol, LABA, Meta-analysis, Olodaterol, Systematic review",
author = "Roskell, {Neil S.} and Anzueto, {Antonio R} and Alan Hamilton and Bernd Disse and Karin Becker",
year = "2014",
month = "7",
day = "31",
doi = "10.2147/COPD.S59673",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "813--824",
journal = "International Journal of COPD",
issn = "1176-9106",
publisher = "Dove Medical Press Ltd.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Once-daily long-acting beta-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

T2 - An indirect comparison of olodaterol and indacaterol

AU - Roskell, Neil S.

AU - Anzueto, Antonio R

AU - Hamilton, Alan

AU - Disse, Bernd

AU - Becker, Karin

PY - 2014/7/31

Y1 - 2014/7/31

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - COPD

KW - Indacaterol

KW - LABA

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Olodaterol

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84905450100&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84905450100&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2147/COPD.S59673

DO - 10.2147/COPD.S59673

M3 - Article

C2 - 25114521

AN - SCOPUS:84905450100

VL - 9

SP - 813

EP - 824

JO - International Journal of COPD

JF - International Journal of COPD

SN - 1176-9106

ER -