Concurrent use of indacaterol plus tiotropium in patients with COPD provides superior bronchodilation compared with tiotropium alone: a randomised, double-blind comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend treatment with one or more long-acting bronchodilators for patients with moderate or more severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The authors investigated the approach of dual bronchodilation using indacaterol, a once-daily long-acting β(2) agonist, and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium, compared with tiotropium alone. METHODS: In two identically designed, double-blind, 12-week studies, patients with moderate to severe COPD were randomised to indacaterol 150 μg once daily or matching placebo. All patients concurrently received open-label tiotropium 18 μg once daily. The primary outcome was standardised area under the curve of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) from 5 min to 8 h post dose at week 12. The key secondary outcome was 24 h post-dose ('trough') FEV(1) at week 12. Resting inspiratory capacity (IC) was measured in a subgroup. RESULTS: 1134 and 1142 patients were randomised in studies 1 and 2; 94% and 94% completed. Compared with monotherapy, concurrent therapy increased FEV(1) (area under the curve by 130 and 120 ml, trough by 80 and 70 ml; all p<0.001) and trough IC (by 130 and 100 ml, p<0.01). Cough was more common with indacaterol plus tiotropium (10% and 9%) than with tiotropium alone (4% and 4%). Most cases (∼90%) of cough were mild. Other adverse events were similar for the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with tiotropium monotherapy, indacaterol plus tiotropium provided greater bronchodilation and lung deflation (reflected by increased resting IC). Adverse events were similar between treatments apart from mild cough being more common with indacaterol plus tiotropium. These results support COPD guideline recommendations to combine bronchodilators with different mechanisms of action. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT00846586 and NCT00877383.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".