Improved health outcomes in patients with COPD during 1 yr's treatment with tiotropium. Probabilistic Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of bronchodilator therapy in COPD patients in different countries. Tiotropium versus salmeterol for the prevention of exacerbations of COPD. Absence of electrocardiographic findings and improved function with once-daily tiotropium in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Tiotropium in combination with placebo, salmeterol, or fluticasone-salmeterol for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized trial. Health outcomes following treatment for six months with once daily tiotropium compared with twice daily salmeterol in patients with COPD. Prevention of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with tiotropium, a once-daily inhaled anticholinergic bronchodilator: a randomized trial. Economic analyses comparing tiotropium with ipratropium or salmeterol in UK patients with COPD. The Canadian Optimal Therapy of COPD Trial: design, organization and patient recruitment. Modelling the 5-year cost effectiveness of tiotropium, salmeterol and ipratropium for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Spain.
Tiotropium, a novel once-daily inhaled anticholinergic, has been shown to improve lung function over a 24-h period. In order to extend these findings, health-outcomes were evaluated over 1 yr in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Spirometric results, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), salbutamol use and effects on dyspnoea, health-related quality of life and COPD exacerbations were assessed in two identical 1-yr randomized double-blind double-dummy studies of tiotropium 18 microg once daily (n=356) compared with ipratropium 40 microg q.i.d. (n=179). Screening forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) were 1.25+/-0.43 L (41.9+/-12.7% of the predicted value) (tiotropium) and 1.18+/-0.37 L (39.4+/-10.7% pred) (ipratropium). Trough FEV1 at 1 yr improved by 0.12+/-0.01 L with tiotropium and declined by 0.03+/-0.02 L with ipratropium (p<0.001). Significant improvement in PEFR, salbutamol use, Transition Dyspnea Index focal score, and the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total and impact scores were seen with tiotropium (p<0.01). Tiotropium reduced the number of exacerbations (by 24%, p<0.01), and increased time to first exacerbation (p<0.01) and time to first hospitalization for a COPD exacerbation (p<0.05) compared with ipratropium. Apart from an increased incidence of dry mouth in the tiotropium group, adverse events were similar between treatments. Tiotropium was effective in improving dyspnoea, exacerbations, health-related quality of life and lung function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and exceeds the benefits seen with ipratropium. The data support the use of tiotropium once-daily as first-line maintenance treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The development of a probabilistic Markov model with a time horizon of 1 year to compare the cost-effectiveness of three bronchodilators: 1) the new long-acting anticholinergic tiotropium; 2) the short-acting anticholinergic ipratropium; and 3) the long-acting beta 2-agonist salmeterol, for the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in different countries. In this article we compare The Netherlands and Canada.
                The Markov model was structured along disease severity states and exacerbations. Transition probabilities between disease states and exacerbation probabilities were derived from patient-level data from six randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of tiotropium. Resource utilization during exacerbations and maintenance treatment for The Netherlands were derived from two clinical trials, whereas for Canada these data were obtained from a countrywide observational study that used similar inclusion criteria as the trials. Second-order Monte Carlo simulations were undertaken in which values were randomly drawn from distributions of these parameters. Outcomes of the model are yearly treatment costs, exacerbations, and quality-adjusted life months.
                The mean difference in the number of exacerbations was 0.17 (95% uncertainty interval: -0.02-0.37) in favor of tiotropium when compared with salmeterol and the difference between salmeterol and ipratropium was 0.12 (-0.17-0.44) in favor of salmeterol. The number of quality-adjusted life months did not substantially differ between treatment groups and varied from 8.42 (SE 0.41) in the tiotropium group to 8.17 (0.46) in the salmeterol group and 8.11 (0.50) in the ipratropium group. In The Netherlands, costs in the tiotropium group were 42 Euros (-484-353) lower than in the salmeterol group, whereas costs in the salmeterol group were 128 Euros (-795-457) lower than in the ipratropium group. In Canada, costs were consistently lower than in The Netherlands and nearly the same in all treatment groups. Differences between the two countries were primarily a result of a higher length of hospital stay in case of an exacerbation in The Netherlands. The cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier of exacerbations showed that tiotropium was associated with the maximum expected net benefit for all values of the ceiling ratio above 0 Euros (The Netherlands) and 10 Euros (Canada) in the base case analysis.
                This probabilistic model-based economic evaluation demonstrates how clinical trial data can be combined and integrated with country-specific information about resource utilization and unit cost to assess the cost-effectiveness of bronchodilators in COPD patients. Quality-adjusted life months did not substantially differ between treatment groups. In terms of exacerbations, tiotropium was associated with maximum expected net benefit for plausible values of the ceiling ratio. In sensitivity analyses, this outcome was most sensitive to changes in exacerbation rates. Treatment guidelines recommend the use of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators to alleviate symptoms and reduce the risk of exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but do not specify whether a long-acting anticholinergic drug or a β(2)-agonist is the preferred agent. We investigated whether the anticholinergic drug tiotropium is superior to the β(2)-agonist salmeterol in preventing exacerbations of COPD.
                In a 1-year, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial, we compared the effect of treatment with 18 μg of tiotropium once daily with that of 50 μg of salmeterol twice daily on the incidence of moderate or severe exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD and a history of exacerbations in the preceding year.
                A total of 7376 patients were randomly assigned to and treated with tiotropium (3707 patients) or salmeterol (3669 patients). Tiotropium, as compared with salmeterol, increased the time to the first exacerbation (187 days vs. 145 days), with a 17% reduction in risk (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.90; P<0.001). Tiotropium also increased the time to the first severe exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.85; P<0.001), reduced the annual number of moderate or severe exacerbations (0.64 vs. 0.72; rate ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.96; P=0.002), and reduced the annual number of severe exacerbations (0.09 vs. 0.13; rate ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.82; P<0.001). Overall, the incidence of serious adverse events and of adverse events leading to the discontinuation of treatment was similar in the two study groups. There were 64 deaths (1.7%) in the tiotropium group and 78 (2.1%) in the salmeterol group.
                These results show that, in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, tiotropium is more effective than salmeterol in preventing exacerbations. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00563381.). To examine electrocardiographic findings after short- and long-term tiotropium therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and to establish previously reported symptomatic efficacy.
                Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study.
                Twelve outpatient investigational centers in the United States.
                One hundred ninety-six patients with COPD.
                Patients received either tiotropium 18 mug once/day or placebo, delivered by the HandiHaler device.
                Electrocardiography (predose and 5 min postdose) and 24-hour Holter monitoring were performed at baseline and after 8 and 12 weeks of treatment with tiotropium 18 microg once/day or placebo. Efficacy measures (spirometry, global COPD ratings, scores on the EuroQol Health Questionnaire [EQ-5D], albuterol inhaler as needed) were included to demonstrate that the study population exhibited the characteristic improvements observed in previous tiotropium studies. Mean baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 1.03 L. Mean changes in heart rate from baseline were similar in both groups. No differences were noted in the percentage of patients developing rhythm or conduction abnormalities detected with electrocardiography or Holter monitoring. Frequency of premature beats and mean maximal changes in PR, QRS, QT, QTcB, and QTcF intervals were similar in both groups. No patients developed new-onset QT or QTc intervals greater than 500 msec, and no differences were noted in the percentage of patients developing new QT prolongation less than 30 msec, 30-60 msec, or greater than 60 msec. At 12 weeks, predose and postdose improvements in FEV1 were 184 and 265 ml, respectively, with tiotropium versus placebo (p<0.001). Physician and patient global COPD ratings and the EQ-5D visual analog scale scores were improved with tiotropium (p<0.05); as-needed albuterol was reduced by 25% relative to placebo (p<0.05).
                Tiotropium provided spirometric and symptomatic benefits in patients with COPD and was not associated with evidence of electrocardiographic changes in heart rate, rhythm, QT intervals, or conduction. Treatment of moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with combinations of inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting beta-agonists, and long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilators is common but unstudied.
                To determine whether combining tiotropium with salmeterol or fluticasone-salmeterol improves clinical outcomes in adults with moderate to severe COPD compared with tiotropium alone.
                Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from October 2003 to January 2006.
                27 academic and community medical centers in Canada.
                449 patients with moderate or severe COPD.
                1 year of treatment with tiotropium plus placebo, tiotropium plus salmeterol, or tiotropium plus fluticasone-salmeterol.
                The primary end point was the proportion of patients who experienced an exacerbation of COPD that required treatment with systemic steroids or antibiotics.
                The proportion of patients in the tiotropium plus placebo group who experienced an exacerbation (62.8%) did not differ from that in the tiotropium plus salmeterol group (64.8%; difference, -2.0 percentage points [95% CI, -12.8 to 8.8 percentage points]) or in the tiotropium plus fluticasone-salmeterol group (60.0%; difference, 2.8 percentage points [CI, -8.2 to 13.8 percentage points]). In sensitivity analyses, the point estimates and 95% confidence bounds shifted in the direction favoring tiotropium plus salmeterol and tiotropium plus fluticasone-salmeterol. Tiotropium plus fluticasone-salmeterol improved lung function (P = 0.049) and disease-specific quality of life (P = 0.01) and reduced the number of hospitalizations for COPD exacerbation (incidence rate ratio, 0.53 [CI, 0.33 to 0.86]) and all-cause hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio, 0.67 [CI, 0.45 to 0.99]) compared with tiotropium plus placebo. In contrast, tiotropium plus salmeterol did not statistically improve lung function or hospitalization rates compared with tiotropium plus placebo.
                More than 40% of patients who received tiotropium plus placebo and tiotropium plus salmeterol discontinued therapy prematurely, and many crossed over to treatment with open-label inhaled steroids or long-acting beta-agonists.
                Addition of fluticasone-salmeterol to tiotropium therapy did not statistically influence rates of COPD exacerbation but did improve lung function, quality of life, and hospitalization rates in patients with moderate to severe COPD. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registration number: ISRCTN29870041. A study was undertaken to record exacerbations and health resource use in patients with COPD during 6 months of treatment with tiotropium, salmeterol, or matching placebos.
                Patients with COPD were enrolled in two 6-month randomised, placebo controlled, double blind, double dummy studies of tiotropium 18 micro g once daily via HandiHaler or salmeterol 50 micro g twice daily via a metered dose inhaler. The two trials were combined for analysis of heath outcomes consisting of exacerbations, health resource use, dyspnoea (assessed by the transitional dyspnoea index, TDI), health related quality of life (assessed by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, SGRQ), and spirometry.
                1207 patients participated in the study (tiotropium 402, salmeterol 405, placebo 400). Compared with placebo, tiotropium but not salmeterol was associated with a significant delay in the time to onset of the first exacerbation. Fewer COPD exacerbations/patient year occurred in the tiotropium group (1.07) than in the placebo group (1.49, p<0.05); the salmeterol group (1.23 events/year) did not differ from placebo. The tiotropium group had 0.10 hospital admissions per patient year for COPD exacerbations compared with 0.17 for salmeterol and 0.15 for placebo (not statistically different). For all causes (respiratory and non-respiratory) tiotropium, but not salmeterol, was associated with fewer hospital admissions while both groups had fewer days in hospital than the placebo group. The number of days during which patients were unable to perform their usual daily activities was lowest in the tiotropium group (tiotropium 8.3 (0.8), salmeterol 11.1 (0.8), placebo 10.9 (0.8), p<0.05). SGRQ total score improved by 4.2 (0.7), 2.8 (0.7) and 1.5 (0.7) units during the 6 month trial for the tiotropium, salmeterol and placebo groups, respectively (p<0.01 tiotropium v placebo). Compared with placebo, TDI focal score improved in both the tiotropium group (1.1 (0.3) units, p<0.001) and the salmeterol group (0.7 (0.3) units, p<0.05). Evaluation of morning pre-dose FEV(1), peak FEV(1) and mean FEV(1) (0-3 hours) showed that tiotropium was superior to salmeterol while both active drugs were more effective than placebo.
                Exacerbations of COPD and health resource usage were positively affected by daily treatment with tiotropium. With the exception of the number of hospital days associated with all causes, salmeterol twice daily resulted in no significant changes compared with placebo. Tiotropium also improved health related quality of life, dyspnoea, and lung function in patients with COPD. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) frequently develop exacerbations, leading to major clinical and health resource use ramifications.
                To prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of a long-acting inhaled anticholinergic bronchodilator, tiotropium, in reducing COPD exacerbations and exacerbation-related health care utilization.
                Randomized, double-blind study.
                26 Veterans Affairs medical centers.
                1829 patients with moderate to severe COPD (mean baseline FEV(1), 36% predicted).
                Once-daily tiotropium (18 microg) or placebo for 6 months. Patients otherwise received usual care, except for other anticholinergic bronchodilators.
                The coprimary end points were the percentage of patients with a COPD exacerbation and the percentage of patients with a COPD-related hospitalization.
                Tiotropium significantly reduced the percentage of patients experiencing 1 or more exacerbations compared with placebo (27.9% vs. 32.3%, respectively; difference, -5.7 percentage points [95% CI, -10.4 to -1.0 percentage points]; P = 0.037). Fewer tiotropium patients were hospitalized because of COPD exacerbation (7.0% vs. 9.5%, respectively; difference, -3.0 percentage points [CI, -5.9 to -0.1 percentage points]; P = 0.056), although this difference was of borderline statistical significance. Analysis of secondary outcomes indicates that tiotropium may lengthen the time to first COPD exacerbation (P = 0.028) and reduce health care utilization for exacerbations, including the frequency of hospitalizations (P = 0.047), unscheduled clinic visits (P = 0.019), and days of antibiotic treatment (P = 0.015). Tiotropium did not statistically significantly reduce all-cause hospitalization rates.
                Trial participants were enrolled from 1 health care system, and 99% were men. The follow-up period extended for only 6 months.
                Tiotropium reduces COPD exacerbations and may reduce related health care utilization in patients with moderate to severe COPD. This study presents a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis comparing cost and outcomes for UK patients with COPD treated with either tiotropium, ipratropium or salmeterol.
                A previously-published COPD cost-effectiveness model was adapted for the UK, then used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium compared to salmeterol and ipratropium. Additional epidemiological data were used to estimate the budget impact of switching patients from ipratropium or salmeterol to tiotropium.
                In England, the estimated annual cost per patient on tiotropium was pound1350, on salmeterol was pound1404, and on ipratropium was pound1427; in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland (S/W/NI) these costs were pound1439, pound1565, and pound1631, respectively. Tiotropium patients experienced better quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) across all comparisons, and this option was therefore dominant compared to salmeterol and ipratropium. The probability of tiotropium being dominant ranged from 72% to 87% across comparisons. At a willingness to pay threshold of pound20,000 per QALY, tiotropium had at least a 97% chance of being cost-effective. The estimated annual saving per primary care trust (PCT) of switching patients from salmeterol and ipratropium to tiotropium in England was pound230,000 and in S/W/NI was pound160,000.
                Tiotropium is a cost-effective alternative to ipratropium and salmeterol, and switching COPD patients from ipratropium and salmeterol to tiotropium could result in considerable cost savings for PCTs along with improvements in quality-of-life. There are no published studies that have assessed whether adding long-acting beta 2-agonist bronchodilators and/or inhaled steroids to chronic therapy with tiotropium would provide additional clinical benefit to patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
                The Canadian Optimal Therapy of COPD Trial is a randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research that has been designed to determine which combination of inhaled medications will most effectively prevent exacerbations and optimize disease-specific quality of life in patients with COPD. The trial is the first to evolve from the Canadian Thoracic Society Clinical Trials Group. The study will randomize 432 patients with moderate to severe COPD to one of three parallel treatment arms for 52 weeks: tiotropium and fluticasone/salmeterol; tiotropium and salmeterol; or tiotropium and placebo inhaler. The participants will be allowed to use salbutamol as required throughout the trial period.
                The primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients in the three treatment groups who experienced a respiratory exacerbation within 52 weeks of randomization. Other outcomes that will be assessed over the 52-week trial period will include: changes in disease-specific quality of life and changes in dyspnea, health care use and changes in lung function. A pharmacoeconomic analysis will also be performed to evaluate the cost of these therapies.
                The study commenced recruitment in October 2003. It is currently operating at 22 centres across Canada and has randomized 137 patients during the first four months of recruitment. Recruitment is scheduled to continue until April 2005 or until 432 patients have been randomized.
                The present randomized, placebo-controlled trial offers a unique opportunity to answer the question, what is the best combination of inhaled medications to use for COPD patients? It is hoped that optimal use of inhaled medications will improve patient health and quality of life, reduce patient respiratory exacerbations, and ultimately, reduce health care resource use. Our objective was to assess the 5-year cost effectiveness of bronchodilator therapy with tiotropium, salmeterol or ipratropium for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS). A probabilistic Markov model was designed wherein patients moved between moderate, severe or very severe COPD and had the risk of exacerbation and death. Probabilities were derived from clinical trials. Spanish healthcare utilisation, costs and utilities were estimated for each COPD and exacerbation state. Outcomes were exacerbations, exacerbation-free months, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost(-effectiveness). The mean (SE) 5-year number of exacerbations was 3.50 (0.14) for tiotropium, 4.16 (0.40) for salmeterol and 4.71 (0.54) for ipratropium. The mean (SE) number of QALYs was 3.15 (0.08), 3.02 (0.15) and 3.00 (0.20), respectively. Mean (SE) 5-year costs were 6,424 euro (305 euro) for tiotropium, 5,869 euro (505 euro) for salmeterol, and 5,181 euro (682 euro) for ipratropium (2005 values). Ipratropium and tiotropium formed the cost-effectiveness frontier, with tiotropium being preferred when willingness to pay (WTP) exceeded 639 euro per exacerbation-free month and 8,157 euro per QALY. In Spain, tiotropium demonstrated the highest expected net benefit for ratios of the willingness to pay per QALY, well within accepted limits.
In people with COPD, the evidence is equivocal as to whether or not tiotropium offers greater benefit than LABAs in improving quality of life; however, this is complicated by differences in effect among the LABA types. Tiotropium was more effective than LABAs as a group in preventing COPD exacerbations and disease-related hospitalisations, although there were no statistical differences between groups in overall hospitalisation rates or mortality during the study periods. There were fewer serious adverse events and study withdrawals recorded with tiotropium compared with LABAs. Symptom improvement and changes in lung function were similar between the treatment groups. Given the small number of studies to date, with high levels of heterogeneity among them, one approach may be to give a COPD patient a substantial trial of tiotropium, followed by a LABA (or vice versa), then to continue prescribing the long-acting bronchodilator that the patient prefers. Further studies are needed to compare tiotropium with different LABAs, which are currently ongoing. The available economic evidence indicates that tiotropium may be cost-effective compared with salmeterol in several specific settings, but there is considerable uncertainty around this finding.