Safety of inhaled glycopyrronium in patients with COPD: a comprehensive analysis of clinical studies and post-marketing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic use of inhaled anticholinergics by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has raised long-term safety concerns, particularly cardiovascular. Glycopyrronium is a once-daily anticholinergic with greater receptor selectivity than previously available agents. METHODS: We assessed the safety of inhaled glycopyrronium using data pooled from two analysis sets, involving six clinical studies and over 4,000 patients with COPD who received one of the following treatments: glycopyrronium 50 μg, placebo (both delivered via the Breezhaler device), or tiotropium 18 μg (delivered via the HandiHaler device). Data were pooled from studies that varied in their duration and severity of COPD of the patients (ie, ≤12 weeks duration with patients having moderate or severe COPD; and >1 year duration with patients having severe and very severe COPD). Safety comparisons were made for glycopyrronium vs tiotropium or placebo. Poisson regression was used to assess the relative risk for either active drug or placebo (and between drugs where placebo was not available) for assessing the incidence of safety events. During post-marketing surveillance (PMS), safety was assessed by obtaining reports from various sources, and disproportionality scores were computed using EMPIRICA. In particular, the cardiac safety of glycopyrronium during the post-marketing phase was evaluated. RESULTS: The overall incidence of adverse events and deaths was similar across groups, while the incidence of serious adverse events was numerically higher in placebo. Furthermore, glycopyrronium did not result in an increased risk of cerebro-cardiovascular events vs placebo. There were no new safety reports during the PMS phase that suggested an increased risk compared to results from the clinical studies. Moreover, the cardiac safety of glycopyrronium during the PMS phase was also consistent with the clinical data. CONCLUSION: The overall safety profile of glycopyrronium was similar to its comparators indicating no increase in the overall risk for any of the investigated safety end points.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.069 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".