Table 2 Studies on COPD

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 %