Respiratory medicine · 2009
Tiotropium 5microg via Respimat and 18microg via HandiHaler; efficacy and safety in Japanese COPD patients.
Клиническое исследование II фазыСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ichinose M, Fujimoto T, Fukuchi Y
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of tiotropium inhaled via Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler, a multidose propellant-free inhaler and HandiHaler, a single-dose dry powder inhaler, in a phase 2 study of Japanese COPD patients.
METHODS: Patients with FEV(1)<or=70% predicted, FEV(1)/FVC<or=70% and a smoking history of >10 pack-years received tiotropium once daily via Respimat (5microg) and HandiHaler (18microg) for 4 weeks each in a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, two-way crossover study. Lung function, adverse events, pharmacokinetics and safety were assessed.
RESULTS: Of 184 patients screened, 134 were evaluable. The trough FEV(1) response on Day 29 showed Respimat to be non-inferior to HandiHaler (mean treatment difference, 0.008L; 95% CI, -0.009 to +0.024L; p<0.001). Peak and average FEV(1) and FVC responses on Day 1 and Day 29 were very similar for the two treatments. Tiotropium plasma levels and excretion kinetics showed a similar profile of systemic exposure for the two formulations of tiotropium. Adverse events were reported by similar numbers of patients on each treatment, i.e. 27.9 and 30.6% in the Respimat and HandiHaler groups, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese patients with COPD, tiotropium Respimat 5microg and tiotropium HandiHaler 18microg showed a similar profile of efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics.
METHODS: Patients with FEV(1)<or=70% predicted, FEV(1)/FVC<or=70% and a smoking history of >10 pack-years received tiotropium once daily via Respimat (5microg) and HandiHaler (18microg) for 4 weeks each in a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, two-way crossover study. Lung function, adverse events, pharmacokinetics and safety were assessed.
RESULTS: Of 184 patients screened, 134 were evaluable. The trough FEV(1) response on Day 29 showed Respimat to be non-inferior to HandiHaler (mean treatment difference, 0.008L; 95% CI, -0.009 to +0.024L; p<0.001). Peak and average FEV(1) and FVC responses on Day 1 and Day 29 were very similar for the two treatments. Tiotropium plasma levels and excretion kinetics showed a similar profile of systemic exposure for the two formulations of tiotropium. Adverse events were reported by similar numbers of patients on each treatment, i.e. 27.9 and 30.6% in the Respimat and HandiHaler groups, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese patients with COPD, tiotropium Respimat 5microg and tiotropium HandiHaler 18microg showed a similar profile of efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Administration, InhalationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBronchodilator AgentsCross-Over StudiesDouble-Blind MethodDrug Administration ScheduleFemaleForced Expiratory VolumeHumansMaleMetered Dose InhalersMiddle AgedPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRespiratory Function TestsScopolamine DerivativesTiotropium BromideTreatment Outcome