Trial reportDrugs in R&D2016
Dual Bronchodilator Therapy with Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Tiotropium plus Indacaterol in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Drugs in R&D, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02257385 (Study DB2116961, A Multicentre, Randomised, Blinded, Parallel Group Study to Compare UMEC/VI), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
Study DB2116961, A Multicentre, Randomised, Blinded, Parallel Group Study to Compare UMEC/VI (Umeclidinium/Vilanterol) in a Fixed Dose Combination With Indacaterol Plus Tiotropium in Symptomatic Subjects With Moderate to Very Severe COPD
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of comparative efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus other bronchodilators in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.Advances in therapy · 2022Pooled it
- Comparisons of exacerbations and mortality among LAMA/LABA combinations in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Respiratory research · 2020Pooled it
- Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and network meta-analysis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Double bronchodilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a crude analysis from a systematic review.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2017Pooled it
- Quantitative analysis of efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations in the treatment of stable COPD.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseasePooled it
- Trial
- Ultra Long-Acting β-Agonists in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Journal of experimental pharmacology · 2020Review
- Evidence-based review of data on the combination inhaler umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2019Review
- Single Inhaler LABA/LAMA for COPD.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Article
- A Network Meta-Analysis of Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist (LAMA) and Long-Acting βPulmonary therapy · 2017Article
- Umeclidinium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: latest evidence and place in therapy.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe fixed-dose, long-acting bronchodilator combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) has not previously been compared with a combination of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting β2-agonist in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
methodsThis 12-week, randomized, blinded, triple-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study compared once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18 mcg + indacaterol (IND) 150 mcg in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD. The primary endpoint was the trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 85 (predefined non-inferiority margin -50 mL), and the secondary endpoint was the 0- to 6-h weighted mean (WM) FEV1 on day 84. Other efficacy endpoints [including rescue medication use, the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score, and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score] and safety endpoints [adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and COPD exacerbations] were also assessed.
resultsTrough FEV1 improvements were comparable between treatment groups [least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline to day 85: UMEC/VI 172 mL; TIO + IND 171 mL; treatment difference 1 mL; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -29 to 30 mL], demonstrating non-inferiority between UMEC/VI and TIO + IND. The treatments produced similar improvements in the trough FEV1 at other study visits and the 0- to 6-h WM FEV1 (LS mean changes at day 84: UMEC/VI 235 mL; TIO + IND 258 mL; treatment difference -23 mL; 95 % CI -54 to 8 mL). The results for patient-reported measures (rescue medication use, TDI focal score, and SGRQ score) were comparable; both treatments produced clinically meaningful improvements in TDI and SGRQ scores. The incidence of AEs and COPD exacerbations, and changes in vital signs were similar for the two treatments.
conclusionUMEC/VI and TIO + IND, given once daily, provided similar improvements in lung function and patient-reported outcomes over 12 weeks in patients with COPD, with comparable tolerability and safety profiles. TRIAL NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov study ID NCT02257385; GSK study no. 116961.
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.