A randomised, open-label study of umeclidinium versus glycopyrronium in patients with COPD

13Citations
Citations of this article
46Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This study compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium 62.5 μg with oncedaily glycopyrronium 50 μg in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This was a 12-week, multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02236611). Patients were randomised 1:1 to umeclidinium 62.5 μg or glycopyrronium 50 μg administered via Ellipta or Breezhaler dry powder inhaler, respectively. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at day 85 in the per-protocol population. Other endpoints included: weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 h and patient-reported outcomes (transition dyspnoea index score and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score). Adverse events were also assessed. A total of 1037 patients were randomised to treatment. Umeclidinium was non-inferior (margin: −50 mL) to glycopyrronium (trough FEV1 at day 85 treatment difference: 24 mL, 95% confidence intervals: −5-54). Improvements in other endpoints were similar between treatments. Adverse event incidences were similar for umeclidinium (37%) and glycopyrronium (36%). Once-daily umeclidinium was non-inferior to once-daily glycopyrronium in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in trough FEV1 at day 85. Patient-reported outcomes and safety profiles were similar for both treatments.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rheault, T., Khindri, S., Vahdati-Bolouri, M., Church, A., & Fahy, W. A. (2016). A randomised, open-label study of umeclidinium versus glycopyrronium in patients with COPD. ERJ Open Research, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00101-2015

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free