Efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol fixed-dose combination in patients with COPD, stratified by ICS use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A secondary analysis of pooled data, stratified by concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use, is presented from ACLIFORM (NCT01462942) and AUGMENT (NCT01437397), two Phase III, 24-week, randomised, double-blind studies of twice-daily (BID) aclidinium/formoterol (AB/FF) fixed-dose combination in patients (pts) with moderate to severe airflow obstruction. Methods: Pts received BID AB/FF 400/12 µg, AB/FF 400/6 µg, AB 400 µg, FF 12 µg or placebo (PB). Assessments: change from baseline in 1-hour morning post-dose and morning pre-dose (trough) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ) at Week 24, Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) score (pre-planned), exacerbation rate and adverse events (AEs). Results: Analyses included 3398 pts (mean age 63.5 years; 60.5% male; baseline ICS use range 38.7 – 40.0%). AB/FF 400/12 µg with ICS improved post-dose FEV 1 , trough FEV 1 (Table), and TDI vs. PB by 297 mL, 145 mL and 1.59 units, respectively (all p < 0.001). In addition, AB/FF 400/12 µg with ICS improved post-dose FEV 1 and trough FEV 1 (Table) by 109 mL and 71 mL, respectively, vs. FF alone (both p < 0.001) and by 151 mL and 54 mL, respectively, vs. AB alone (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05, respectively). AB/FF 400/12 µg without ICS improved post-dose FEV 1 , trough FEV 1 (Table) and TDI by 290 mL, 135 mL and 1.36 units vs. PB, respectively (all p < 0.001). Exacerbation rates were higher with ICS (0.67) vs. without (0.36); AB/FF 400/12 µg significantly reduced exacerbations vs. PB in ICS users (p < 0.05; Table). AE frequency was similar throughout (range with ICS, 54.8 – 60.7%; without, 56.0 – 60.3%). Most common AEs across pt groups were COPD exacerbation, nasopharyngitis and headache, regardless of ICS use. Conclusion: AB/FF 400/12 µg BID improved bronchodilation and dyspnoea regardless of ICS use and reduced exacerbations in pts using ICS. AE frequency was similar across pt groups, regardless of ICS use. Tab. 1: Change from baseline in morning pre-dose (trough) FEV 1 at Week 24 and rate of exacerbations by concomitant ICS use AB/FF 400/12 µg BID AB/FF 400/6 µg BID AB 400 µg BID FF 12 µg BID Placebo BID LS mean change from baseline in morning pre-dose (trough) FEV 1 at Week 24 by ICS use, mL* ICS use 98*** 47*** 44*** 27** -47 No ICS use 85*** 71*** 71*** 18*** -50 Rate of exacerbations per patient/year by ICS use b ICS use 0.40* 0.53 0.59 0.45 0.67 No ICS use 0.31 0.27 0.29 0.44 0.36 a Analysis based on the mixed model for repeated measures: treatment effects and treatment comparisons b Analysis based on the log-linear model *p < 0.05 vs. placebo; **p < 0.01 vs. placebo; ***p < 0.0001 vs. placebo AB, aclidinium bromide; BID, twice daily; FEV 1 , forced expiratory volume in 1 second; FF, formoterol fumarate; ICS, inhaled corticosteroid; LS, least squares Funding This study was funded by Almirail S.A., Barcelona, Spain, and Forest Laboratories LLC, a subsidiary of Actavis PLC, New York, USA. Medical writing support, funded by AstraZeneca PLC, Barcelona, Spain, was provided by Richard Knight of Complete Medical Communications.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".