IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0106195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing Two Different Doses of Tiotropium Respimat® in Cystic Fibrosis: Phase 2 Randomized Trial Results

Author

Listed:
  • Judy M Bradley
  • Paul Koker
  • Qiqi Deng
  • Petra Moroni-Zentgraf
  • Felix Ratjen
  • David E Geller
  • J Stuart Elborn
  • on behalf of the Tiotropium Cystic Fibrosis Study Group

Abstract

Background: Tiotropium is a once-daily, long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilator with the potential to alleviate airway obstruction in cystic fibrosis. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2.5 and 5 µg once-daily tiotropium delivered via the Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler vs. placebo in people with cystic fibrosis. Methods: This phase 2, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group study of tiotropium Respimat as add-on to usual cystic fibrosis maintenance therapy included people with cystic fibrosis with pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≥25% predicted. Co-primary efficacy end points were change from baseline in percent-predicted FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 4 hours (FEV1 AUC0–4h), and trough FEV1 at the end of week 12. Findings: A total of 510 subjects with cystic fibrosis aged 5–69 years were randomized. Both doses of tiotropium resulted in significant improvement compared with placebo in the co-primary efficacy end points at the end of week 12 (change from baseline in percent-predicted FEV1 AUC0–4h: 2.5 µg: 2.94%, 95% confidence interval 1.19–4.70, p = 0.001; 5 µg: 3.39%, 95% confidence interval 1.67–5.12, p = 0.0001; in percent-predicted trough FEV1∶2.5 µg: 2.24%, p = 0.2; 5 µg: 2.22%, p = 0.02). There was a greater benefit with tiotropium 5 vs. 2.5 µg. No treatment-related adverse events or unexpected safety findings were observed in patients taking tiotropium. Conclusions: Tiotropium significantly improved lung function in people with cystic fibrosis. The improvement was greater with the higher dose than the lower dose, with no difference in adverse events. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00737100 EudraCT 2008-001156-43.

Suggested Citation

  • Judy M Bradley & Paul Koker & Qiqi Deng & Petra Moroni-Zentgraf & Felix Ratjen & David E Geller & J Stuart Elborn & on behalf of the Tiotropium Cystic Fibrosis Study Group, 2014. "Testing Two Different Doses of Tiotropium Respimat® in Cystic Fibrosis: Phase 2 Randomized Trial Results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-9, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0106195
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106195
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106195
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0106195&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0106195?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0106195. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.