Evidence mapPaperPMID 33175291Full record

Trial reportAdvances in therapy2021

Tiotropium/Olodaterol Delays Clinically Important Deterioration Compared with Tiotropium Monotherapy in Patients with Early COPD: a Post Hoc Analysis of the TONADO

Klaus F Rabe, James D Chalmers, Marc Miravitlles, Janwillem W H Kocks, Ioanna Tsiligianni, Alberto de la Hoz, Wenqiong Xue, Dave Singh, Gary T Ferguson, Jadwiga Wedzicha

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Advances in therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Twenty years of changes in the definition of early chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Chinese medical journal pulmonary and critical care medicine · 2023
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting βTherapeutic advances in respiratory disease
    Review
  8. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 9 institutions in 7 countries.

Klaus F RabeLungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Airway Research Center North, German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Grosshansdorf, Germany. k.f.rabe@lungenclinic.de.
James D ChalmersTayside Respiratory Research Group, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Marc MiravitllesPneumology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Vall d'Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain.
Janwillem W H KocksGeneral Practitioners Research Institute, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ioanna TsiligianniHealth Planning Unit, Department of Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Crete, Greece.
Alberto de la HozBoehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany.
Wenqiong XueBoehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ridgefield, CT, USA.
Dave SinghMedicines Evaluation Unit (MEU), University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Gary T FergusonPulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Jadwiga WedzichaRespiratory Division, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany) · DEBoehringer Ingelheim (United States) · USCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias · ESGeneral Practitioners Research Institute · NLGerman Center for Lung Research · DEImperial College London · GBMedicines Evaluation Unit · GBUniversity of Crete · GRUniversity of Dundee · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSince chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous condition, a composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration (CID) may provide a more holistic assessment of treatment efficacy. We compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β

methodsData were analysed from 2055 patients treated with either tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 μg or tiotropium 5 μg (delivered via Respimat

resultsOverall, treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol significantly increased the time to, and reduced the risk of, CID versus tiotropium (median time to CID 226 versus 169 days; hazard ratio [HR] 0.76 [95% confidence interval 0.68, 0.85]; P < 0.0001). Significant reductions were also observed in patients with low exacerbation history (241 versus 170; HR 0.73 [0.64, 0.83]; P < 0.0001), GOLD 2 patients (241 versus 169; 0.72 [0.61, 0.84]; P < 0.0001) and maintenance-naïve patients (233 versus 171; 0.75 [0.62, 0.91]; P = 0.0030).

conclusionIn patients with COPD, including patients with low exacerbation history, GOLD 2 patients and maintenance-naïve patients, tiotropium/olodaterol reduced the risk of CID versus tiotropium. These results demonstrate the advantages of treatment optimisation with tiotropium/olodaterol over tiotropium monotherapy.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: TONADO

Indexed as

Bronchodilator AgentsPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveAdministration, InhalationAdrenergic beta-2 Receptor AgonistsBenzoxazinesDrug CombinationsForced Expiratory VolumeHumansTiotropium BromideTreatment OutcomeAdrenergic beta-2 Receptor AgonistsBenzoxazinesBronchodilator AgentsDrug CombinationsolodaterolTiotropium BromideChronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseExacerbationsHealth statusLung functionOlodaterolTiotropium

Identifiers

PMID33175291
PMCPMC7854451
OpenAlexW3103896584

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.