IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0176276.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cardiovascular safety of tiotropium Respimat vs HandiHaler in the routine clinical practice: A population-based cohort study

Author

Listed:
  • Francesco Trotta
  • Stefania Spila-Alegiani
  • Roberto Da Cas
  • Maja Rajevic
  • Valentino Conti
  • Mauro Venegoni
  • Mariangela Rossi
  • Giuseppe Traversa

Abstract

The cardiovascular safety of tiotropium Respimat formulation in the routine clinical practice is still an open issue. Our aim was to compare the risk of acute myocardial infarction and heart rhythm disorders in incident users of either tiotropium Respimat or HandiHaler. The study population comprises patients aged ≥45 years, resident in two Italian regions with a first prescription of tiotropium (HandiHaler or Respimat) between 01/07/2011-30/11/2013. The cohort was identified through the database of prescriptions reimbursed by the Italian National Health Service. Comorbidities and clinical outcomes were obtained from hospital records. The primary outcome was the first hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction and/or for heart rhythm disorders during the exposure period. Hazard ratios were estimated in the propensity score-matched groups through Cox regression. After matching, 31,334 patients with incident prescription of tiotropium were included. The two groups were balanced with regard to baseline characteristics. Similar incidence rates of the primary outcome between Respimat and HandiHaler users were identified (adjusted hazard ratio 1.02, 95% CI 0.82–1.28). No risk difference between Respimat and HandiHaler emerged when considering clinical events separately. This large cohort study showed a comparable acute cardiovascular safety profile of the two tiotropium formulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesco Trotta & Stefania Spila-Alegiani & Roberto Da Cas & Maja Rajevic & Valentino Conti & Mauro Venegoni & Mariangela Rossi & Giuseppe Traversa, 2017. "Cardiovascular safety of tiotropium Respimat vs HandiHaler in the routine clinical practice: A population-based cohort study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-12, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0176276
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176276
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176276&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0176276?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:pone00:0176276. 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.