4.6 Article

Efficacy and safety of NVA237 versus placebo and tiotropium in patients with COPD: the GLOW2 study

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 40, Issue 5, Pages 1106-1114

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00040712

Keywords

Bronchodilator; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; glycopyrronium bromide; long-acting muscarinic antagonist; NVA237; tiotropium

Funding

  1. Novartis Pharma AG

Ask authors/readers for more resources

NVA237 (glycopyrronium bromide) is a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The GLycopyrronium bromide in COPD airWays clinical Study 2 (GLOW2) evaluated the efficacy and safety of NVA237 in moderate-to-severe COPD over 52 weeks. Patients were randomised 2:1:1 to NVA237 50 mu g, placebo or open-label tiotropium 18 mu g for 52 weeks. Primary end-point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at 12 weeks. 1,066 patients were randomised, 810 completed the study. At week 12, trough FEV1 increased significantly by 97 mL with NVA237 (95% CI 64.6-130.2; p < 0.001) and 83 mL with tiotropium (95% CI 45.6-121.4; p < 0.001). Compared with placebo, NVA237 produced significant improvements in dyspnoea (Transition Dyspnoea Index at week 26; p=0.002) and health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire at week 52; p < 0.001). NVA237 significantly reduced the risk of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations by 34% (p=0.001) and the use of rescue medication (p=0.039), versus placebo. NVA237-placebo and tiotropium-placebo differences were comparable for all outcomes. Safety profiles were similar across groups. NVA237 50 mu g provided significant improvements in lung function, dyspnoea, health status, exacerbations and rescue medication use, versus placebo, and was comparable to tiotropium. NVA237 can potentially be an alternative choice of LAMA for COPD patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available