Tiotropium versus Salmeterol for the Prevention of Exacerbations of COPD

BACKGROUND Treatment guidelines recommend the use of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators to alleviate symptoms and reduce the risk of exacerbations in patients with moderate-tovery-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but do not specify whether a long-acting anticholinergic drug or a β2-agonist is the preferred agent. We investigated whether the anticholinergic drug tiotropium is superior to the β2-agonist salmeterol in preventing exacerbations of COPD. METHODS In a 1-year, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial, we compared the effect of treatment with 18 μg of tiotropium once daily with that of 50 μg of salmeterol twice daily on the incidence of moderate or severe exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD and a history of exacerbations in the preceding year. RESULTS A total of 7376 patients were randomly assigned to and treated with tiotropium (3707 patients) or salmeterol (3669 patients). Tiotropium, as compared with salmeterol, increased the time to the first exacerbation (187 days vs. 145 days), with a 17% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.90; P<0.001). Tiotropium also increased the time to the first severe exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.85; P<0.001), reduced the annual number of moderate or severe exacerbations (0.64 vs. 0.72; rate ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.96; P=0.002), and reduced the annual number of severe exacerbations (0.09 vs. 0.13; rate ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.82; P<0.001). Overall, the incidence of serious adverse events and of adverse events leading to the discontinuation of treatment was similar in the two study groups. There were 64 deaths (1.7%) in the tiotropium group and 78 (2.1%) in the salmeterol group. CONCLUSIONS These results show that, in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, tiotropium is more effective than salmeterol in preventing exacerbations. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00563381.

The role of centralized reading of endoscopy in a randomized controlled trial of mesalamine for ulcerative colitis

Background & Aims: Interobserver differences in endoscopic assessments contribute to variations in rates of response to placebo in ulcerative colitis (UC) trials. We investigated whether centralized review of images could reduce these variations. Methods: We performed a 10-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 281 patients with mildly to moderately active UC, defined by an Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) sigmoidoscopy score ≥2, that evaluated the efficacy of delayed-release mesalamine (Asacol 800-mg tablet) 4.8 g/day. Endoscopic images were reviewed by a single expert central reader. The primary outcome was clinical remission (UCDAI, stool frequency and bleeding scores of 0, and no fecal urgency) at week 6. Results: The primary outcome was achieved by 30.0% of patients treated with mesalamine and 20.6% of those given placebo, a difference of 9.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7% to 19.4%; P =.069). Significant differences in results from secondary analyses indicated the efficacy of mesalamine. Thirty-one percent of participants, all of whom had a UCDAI sigmoidoscopy score ≥2 as read by the site investigator, were considered ineligible by the central reader. After exclusion of these patients, the remission rates were 29.0% and 13.8% in the mesalamine and placebo groups, respectively (difference of 15%; 95% CI, 3.5%-26.0%; P =.011). Conclusions: Although mesalamine 4.8 g/day was not statistically different from placebo for induction of remission in patients with mildly to moderately active UC, based on an intent-to-treat analysis, the totality of the data supports a benefit of treatment. Central review of endoscopic images is critical to the conduct of induction studies in UC; ClinicalTrials.gov Number, NCT01059344. © 2013 by the AGA Institute