PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 24, 2026European Respiratory Journal0 citations

Mixed treatment analysis comparing tiotropium HandiHaler ® and Respimat ®

View Full Paper
RDRonald DahlHSHendrik SchmidtMKMichael Könen-Bergmann

Key Points

  • This analysis aims to compare the survival and exacerbation rates of two tiotropium formulations, HandiHaler and Respimat, in patients with COPD.
  • Post-hoc analysis of trials with follow-up on vital status and duration ≥1 year.
  • Frequentist mixed treatment comparison (MTC) was employed to gather direct and indirect evidence.
  • ODs ratios were calculated for mortality and exacerbations using random and fixed effects models.
  • Odds ratios for deaths between HH and R5 were similar (OR 1.01).
  • Exacerbation odds ratios showed R5 to be numerically more effective (OR 0.90) compared to HH.
  • Both formulations demonstrated a lower risk of exacerbation compared to placebo, with R5 showing better efficacy.

Abstract

Background: Tiotropium is available in the once-daily formulations HandiHaler ® 18 µg (HH) and Respimat ® 5 µg (R5) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Both formulations have been compared to placebo (PBO) in Phase III trials and directly compared in a recent Phase IIIb trial (TIOSPIR™). Methods: This post-hoc analysis of HH vs R5 identified all trials with vital status follow up (analyzed for death) and those with a duration ≥1 year (analyzed for exacerbations). A frequentist mixed treatment comparison (MTC) was used to collate direct and indirect evidence for HH, R5 and PBO. Results: In the six trials that were analyzed for deaths, 8680 patients were treated with HH, 8760 with R5 and 6053 with PBO. Five trials were included in the exacerbations analysis: 8673 patients were treated with HH, 8314 with R5 and 5612 with PBO. Using a random-effects model of MTC for HH vs R5, odds ratios (ORs) were 1.01 (95% confidence interval CI: 0.89-1.15) for deaths and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81-1.01) for exacerbations; fixed-effects model measures were similar with a smaller CI for exacerbations: deaths, 1.01 (95% CI: 0.89-1.15); exacerbations, 0.92 (95% CI: 0.86-0.98). ORs versus PBO (random-effects model) for deaths were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.80-1.04) for HH and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.77-1.10) for R5; for exacerbations 0.87 (95% CI: 0.78-0.98) for HH and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70-0.88) for R5. Conclusions: When compared, HH and R5 showed similar effects on survival and exacerbations in this meta-analysis. Prolongation of survival was not statistically significant vs PBO, while risk of exacerbation was lower for both formulations with a numerically higher efficacy for R5. Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Dahl et al. (2014) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69c229b2aeb5a845df0d4840https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003/erj.44.suppl_58.p925
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper