4.7 Article

Treadmill Endurance During 2-Year Treatment With Tiotropium in Patients With COPD A Randomized Trial

期刊

CHEST
卷 144, 期 2, 页码 490-497

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1378/chest.12-2613

关键词

-

资金

  1. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH Co KG
  2. Pfizer, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Disease progression in COPD is associated with a decline in exercise performance over time. We assessed whether tiotropium might mitigate this by determining its effect on treadmill endurance time (ET) over 2 years. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of tiotropium, 18 mu g daily, in patients with COPD (FEV1/FVC <70%; postbronchodilator FEV1 <65%). The primary end point was ET at 90% of baseline maximum work rate at 96 weeks. Secondary end points were ET at other visits, ET by smoking status, spirometry, and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Results: A total of 519 patients were randomized (tiotropium 260, placebo 259). Mean age was 65 years, 77% were men, 34% were continuing smokers, and mean FEV1 was 1.25 L (44% predicted). Significantly more patients discontinued placebo (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.61 [0.44-0.83]). Baseline ET was 301 s (improvement tiotropium/placebo was 13% overall; P = .009; 18% at 48 weeks, P = .004; 13% at 96 weeks, P = .106). In patients with baseline ET between 2 and 10 min (n = 404), improvement at 96 weeks was 19% (P = .04). Current smokers had higher ET with tiotropium vs placebo (P = .018). FEV1/FVC improved with tiotropium (P < .01). SGRQ total score at 96 weeks improved with tiotropium vs placebo by 4.03 units (P = .007). Conclusions: Treadmill ET was numerically greater over 2 years with tiotropium vs placebo. However, the 96-week difference was not statistically significant. Spirometry and health status also improved with tiotropium over 2 years, attesting to the benefits of long-acting bronchodilator therapy. Trial registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00525512; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据