Trial reportChest2020
Re-evaluation of the Uplift Clinical Trial Using Age-Appropriate Spirometric Criteria.
Trial report in Chest, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical trial of tiotropium in COPD, UPLIFT, enrolled adults with a mean age of 65 years and moderate-to-severe airflow obstruction, based on criteria from the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). For the UPLIFT cohort, however, GOLD-based criteria are not age-appropriate. RESEARCH QUESTION: Will the use of more age-appropriate criteria for airflow obstruction from the Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) modify the spirometric classification of the UPLIFT cohort and, in turn, the mortality effect of tiotropium in COPD? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsBaseline spirometric classifications were first cross-tabulated by GLI- and GOLD-based criteria. Next, in GLI- and GOLD-based airflow obstruction, modified intention-to-treat analyses evaluated differences in time to death over 4 years, comparing tiotropium vs placebo. Because treatment response may differ by COPD severity, the mortality effect also was evaluated within stratum defined by GLI- and GOLD-based moderate and severe airflow obstruction.
resultsOf 5,898 participants with GOLD-based airflow-obstruction, staged as moderate in 2,739 (46.4%) and severe in 3,156 (53.5%), GLI-based criteria established airflow obstruction in 5,750 (97.5%), staged as moderate in 795 (13.5%) and severe in 4,947 (83.9%). Relative to placebo, tiotropium yielded statistically nonsignificant adjusted hazard ratios (adjHRs) (95% CI) for death of 0.91 (0.80-1.04) and 0.91 (0.79-1.03) in GLI- and GOLD-based airflow obstruction, respectively. However, statistically significant effect modification was observed, but only in GLI-based moderate and severe airflow-obstruction, with tiotropium yielding adjHRs for death of 0.53 (0.34-0.81) and 0.99 (0.86-1.13), respectively. The P value for interaction was .007.
interpretationMortality reduction by tiotropium was only statistically significant in GLI-based moderate airflow-obstruction, a group that was underrepresented in UPLIFT because of severity misclassification by the original GOLD-based enrollment criteria.
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.