Trial reportAdvances in therapy2021
Efficacy of Aclidinium Bromide According to Baseline Therapy: Post-Hoc Analysis of ASCENT-COPD Randomized Trial.
Trial report in Advances in therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01966107 (Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Phase IV Study to Evaluate the Effect of Aclidinium Bromide on Long-term Cardiovascular Safety and COPD Exacerbations in Patients With Moderate to Very Severe COPD), which is not on this 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.
Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Phase IV Study to Evaluate the Effect of Aclidinium Bromide on Long-term Cardiovascular Safety and COPD Exacerbations in Patients With Moderate to Very Severe COPD (ASCENT COPD)
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLong-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), long-acting β
methodsASCENT-COPD was a phase 4, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and increased cardiovascular risk. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive aclidinium 400 μg or placebo twice daily, via a multidose dry-powder inhaler for up to 3 years. Outcomes included time to first major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV
resultsA total of 3589 patients were included (LABA, n = 227; ICS, n = 290; LABA + ICS, n = 2058; no maintenance, n = 1130). Aclidinium did not increase the risk of MACE or all-cause mortality versus placebo, regardless of baseline maintenance treatment. Reductions in moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates were observed with aclidinium versus placebo in all subgroups [LABA 43% (P = 0.046); ICS 25% (P = 0.202); LABA + ICS 22% (P = 0.003); no maintenance 18% (P = 0.130)]. Aclidinium improved morning trough FEV
conclusionIn patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and CV risk factors, the addition of aclidinium to maintenance therapy with LABA or LABA + ICS provided further benefit.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01966107.
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.