Skip to main content

Table 2 Studies on COPD

From: Health-related quality of life measurement in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: review of the 2009-2014 literature

Drugs Baseline SGRQ Final score Statistical significancea Clinical significance Reference
Aclid 200 μg 45.9 -4.7 vs baseline P = 0.013 vs plac. 49 %* Kerwin E.M., et al. COPD patients (ACCORD COPD I). COPD 9 90-101, 2012 [23]
Aclid 400 μg 48.3 -4.5 vs baseline P = 0.019 vs plac. 45 %
plac 45.1 - 2 vs baseline 36 %
Aclid 200 μg 46.3 ± 16.8 .-3.8 ± 1.1 vs plac P < 0.001vs plac 56.0 %** Jones P.W., et al. Eur Resp Journal 40 830-836, 2012 [11]
Aclid 400 μg 47.6 ± 17.7 -4.6 ± 1.1 P < 0.0001 vs 57.3 %**
plac 45.1 ± 15.8   plac. 41.0 %
Aclid 200 μg 48.5 -5.3 vs baseline ns 41-6 % - 46.6 % Gelb A.F., et al. Respiratory Medicine 107 1957-1965, 2013 [24]
Aclid 400 μg 49.8 -5.2 vs baseline   45.2 % - 49.1 %
Glycopyr 50 μg 46.11 39.50 P = 0.004 56.8 % D’Urzo A., et al. Respiratory Research 12 156, 2011 [25]
Plac 46.34 42.31   46.3 %
P = 0.006
Glycopyr 50 μg Not -3.32 vs placebo P < 0.001 54.3 % Kerwin E., at al. European Respiratory Journal 40 1106-1114, 2012 [26]
Tio 18 μg reported -2.84 vs placebo P = 0.014 59.4 %
Plac     50.8 %
Indac 300 μg 43 -4.7 vs placebo P < 0.001 vs plac Not reported Dahl R. et al. Thorax 65 473-479, 2010 [27]
Indac 600 μg 44 -4.6 vs placebo
Form 44 -4.0 vs placebo
Plac 43
Indac 150 μg 43 ± 18.6 -5.0 vs baseline P < 0.001 52.8 %** Kornmann O. et al. European Respiratory Journal 37 273-279, 2011 [28]
Salm 50 μg 44. ± 18.4 -4.1 vs baseline P < 0.001 48.6 %***
plac 44 ± 18.1    38.0 %
Indac 150 μg Not reported -3.3 vs placebo**** P < 0.001 vs plac - Donohue J.F. et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 182 155-162, 2010 [29]
Indac 300 μg -2.4 vs placebo P < 0.01 vs plac
Tio 18 μg -1.0 vs placebo Ns vs plac
plac
Indac 150 μg 42.3 ± 17.60 37.1 ± 0.56 P < 0.001 50.5 % Buhl R. et al. Eur Respir J 38 797-803, 2011 [30]
Tio 18 μg 42.7 ± 18.04 39.2 ± 0.55   42.5 %
p ≤ 0.001
Indac 150 μg 47.9 42.3 P = 0.73 49 % Decramer M.L. et al. Lancet Respir Med 1 524-533, 2013 [31]
Tio 18 μg 48.7 42.2   49 &
Tio 5 μg Not reported -4.7 vs baseline P < 0.0001 49.5 % Bateman E.D. et al. Respiratory Medicine 104, 1460-1472, 2010 [32]
P lac -1.8 vs baseline 41.4 %
P < 0.0001
Tio 18 μg emphysema 46.7 ± 3.0 39.4 ± 2.7 ns Not reported Fujimoto K. et al. International Journal of COPD 6, 219-227, 2011 [33]
Tio 18 μg non emphys 35.1 ± 6.4 26.9 ± 4.6
Salm 50 μg emphysema 38.6 ± 3.5 33.0 ± 3.2
Salm 50 μg nonemphys 37.5 ± 8.5 29.3 ± 7.4
Tio 18 μg 46.1 ± 19.1 -4.5 vs baseline P < 0.05 Not reported Hoshino M. et al Respirology 16 95-101, 2011 [34]
Tio + Salm/flut 50/250 μg 42.7 ± 17.0 -10.2 vs baseline
Umec 62.5 μg Not reported -3.14 vs baseline P < 0.001 both doses of umeclidinium vs placebo Not reported Trivedi R. et al. Eur Respiratory J 43 72-81, 2014 [35]
Umec 125 μg   -6.12 vs baseline
Plac   +4.75 vs baseline
Beclom/form 100/6 μg 60.4 ± 19.5 -3.75 ± 13.91 ns 25.40 % Calverley P.M.A. et al. Respiratory Medicine 104 1858-1868, 2010 [36]
Bud/form 200/6 μg 57.2 ± 18.6 -4.28 ± 11.92   21.90 %
Form 12 μg 59.5 ± 20.2 -2.90 ± 13.28   25.30 %
Tio + bud/form Not reported -3.8 vs baseline P = 0.023 49.5 % Welte T. et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 180 741-750, 2009 [37]
Tio + plac -1.5 vs baseline   40.0 %
P = 0.016
Bud/form 320/9 μg 55.9 (17.6) -7.2 (1.18) vs bas. ns   Sharafkhaneh A. et al. Respiratory Medicine 106, 2257-268 2012 [38]
Bud/form 160/9 μg 57.8 (16.7) -5.5 (1.17) vs bas.
Form 9 μg 58.6 (16.9) -5.9 (1.17) vs bas.
Indac/Glycopyr 110/50 μg 42.01 35.45 ns 55.5 % Vogelmeier C.F. et al. Lancet Respir Med 1 51-60, 2013 [39]
Salm/flut 50/500 μg 42.72 36.68   49.1 %
Indat/Glycopyr 110/50 μg 53 (18) 43.8 glycop/indacat 57 % Wedzicha J.A. et al. Lancet Respir Med 1 199-209, 2013 [40]
Glycopyr 50 μg 52 (18) 45.8 P = 0.0067 e 52 %
Tio 18 μg 52 (17) 46.0 P = 0.00037 vs competitors 51 %
Glycopir/indacat p = 0.055 e p = 0.051 vs competitors
Indac 150 μg + Glycopyr 50 μg Not reported - 6.22 (11.47) ns 56.5 % Vincken W. et al. Int Journal of COPD 9 215-228, 2014 [41]
Indac 150 μg - 4.13 (10.38) vs baseline   46.8 % ns
Beclom/form 200/12 μg 47.0 (16.7) -5.92 P = 0.08 45.0 % Singh D. et al. BMC Pulmonary Medicine 14 43 2014 [42]
Flutic/salm 500/50 μg 45.2 (16.5) -3.80 36.2 %
     ns
Umec/Vil 62.5/25 μg Not reported -8.07 (0.749) p ≤ 0.001 vs 49 % Donohue J.F. et al. Respiratory Medicine 107 1538-1546, 2013 [43]
Umec 62.5 μg -7.25 (0.753) placebo 44 %
Vil25 μg -7.75 (0.760)   48 %
Plac -2.56 (0.950) vs baseline   34 %
Umec/Vil125/25 μg Not reported 40.10 (0.665) Combination 49 % Celli B. et al Chest 145 (5) 981-991, 2014 [44]
Umec125 μg   43.38 (0.664) p ≤ 0.001 vs umec e 40 %
Vil 25 μg   42.82 (0.681) p <0.01 vs 41 %
Plac   43.69 (0.875) vilanterol 37 %
  1. aBetween groups
  2. *p < 0.005 vs placebo
  3. **p < 0.001 vs placebo
  4. ***p < 0.01
  5. ****p < 0.01 vs tiotropium