Trial reportNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2015
Safety and efficacy of tiotropium Respimat versus HandiHaler in patients naive to treatment with inhaled anticholinergics: a post hoc analysis of the TIOSPIR trial.
Trial report in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Particle size and gastrointestinal absorption influence tiotropium pharmacokinetics: a pilot bioequivalence study of PUR0200 and Spiriva HandiHaler.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Trial
- Performance-Enhancing Effects of Inhaled Medications: Implications for Heart, Muscle Function, and Doping Detection in Athletes.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Review
- Cardiovascular diseases or type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic airway diseases: mutual pharmacological interferences.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2023Review
- Healthcare Resource Utilization, Exacerbations, and Readmissions Among Medicare Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease After Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Therapy Initiation with Soft Mist versus Dry Powder Inhalers.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2020Article
- Cardiovascular safety of tiotropium Respimat vs HandiHaler in the routine clinical practice: A population-based cohort study.PloS one · 2017Article
- Tiotropium formulations and safety: a network meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2017Article
- Response to Wise et al. (Tiotropium safety in real life populations).British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
- Tiotropium safety in 'real-world' populations: Response to Schmiedl, et al. in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who were naive to anticholinergics before the TIOtropium Safety and Performance In Respimat (TIOSPIR) trial may reflect patients seen in practice, in particular in primary care. In addition, investigating safety in these patients avoids the potential bias in patients who previously received anticholinergics and may be tolerant of their effects.
aimsThe aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients naive to anticholinergic therapy who were treated with tiotropium Respimat 2.5 or 5 μg had different safety and efficacy outcomes than patients treated with tiotropium HandiHaler 18 μg.
methodsA post hoc analysis of patients who were not receiving anticholinergics before TIOSPIR (N=6,966/17,135) was conducted. Primary end points were risk of death from any cause and risk of COPD exacerbation. Secondary outcomes included severe exacerbation and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Additional analysis of exacerbations was carried out in anticholinergic-naive patients with moderate (GOLD II) disease.
resultsAnticholinergic-naive patients had less severe disease than the total TIOSPIR population. Discontinuations because of anticholinergic side effects were infrequent (0.9% overall). Similar to the primary study, patients in the tiotropium Respimat groups had no difference in the risk of death or risk of any or severe exacerbation than patients treated with tiotropium HandiHaler. Risk of MACE was similar across the Respimat and HandiHaler groups. Rates of exacerbations in the subgroup of patients with moderate disease were similar across the Respimat and HandiHaler groups.
conclusionsTiotropium Respimat and HandiHaler have similar safety and efficacy profiles in patients who are naive to anticholinergic therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.