Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Blinded 12-week comparison of once-daily indacaterol and tiotropium in COPD

R. Buhl, L.J. Dunn, C. Disdier, C. Lassen, C. Amos, M. Henley, B. Kramer on behalf of the INTENSITY study investigators
European Respiratory Journal 2011 38: 797-803; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00191810
R. Buhl
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Roland.Buhl@unimedizin-mainz.de
L.J. Dunn
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C. Disdier
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C. Lassen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C. Amos
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Henley
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
B. Kramer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Two, once daily (q.d.) inhaled bronchodilators are available for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): the β2-agonist indacaterol and the anticholinergic tiotropium. This blinded study compared the efficacy of these two agents and assessed their safety and tolerability.

Patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomised to treatment with indacaterol 150 μg q.d. (n=797) or tiotropium 18 μg q.d. (n=801) for 12 weeks.

After 12 weeks, the two treatments had similar overall effects on “trough” (24 h post-dose) forced expiratory volume in 1 s. Indacaterol-treated patients had greater improvements in transition dyspnoea index (TDI) total score (least squares means 2.01 versus 1.43; p<0.001) and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (least squares means 37.1 versus 39.2; p<0.001; raw mean change from baseline -5.1 versus -3.0), and were significantly more likely to achieve clinically relevant improvements in these end-points (indacaterol versus tiotropium odds ratios of 1.49 for TDI and 1.43 for SGRQ, both p<0.001). Adverse events were recorded for 39.7% and 37.2% of patients in the indacaterol and tiotropium treatment groups, respectively. The most frequent adverse events were COPD worsening, cough and nasopharyngitis.

Both bronchodilators demonstrated spirometric efficacy. The two treatments were well tolerated with similar adverse event profiles. Compared with tiotropium, indacaterol provided significantly greater improvements in clinical outcomes.

  • Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
  • indacaterol
  • tiotropium

Footnotes

  • Support Statement

    This study was sponsored by Novartis.

  • Clinical Trial

    This study is registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT00900731).

  • Statement of Interest

    Statements of interest for all authors and the study itself can be found at www.erj.ersjournals.com/site/misc/statements.xhtml

  • Received December 13, 2010.
  • Accepted April 24, 2011.
  • ©ERS 2011
View Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 38 Issue 4 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 38 (4)
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Blinded 12-week comparison of once-daily indacaterol and tiotropium in COPD
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Blinded 12-week comparison of once-daily indacaterol and tiotropium in COPD
R. Buhl, L.J. Dunn, C. Disdier, C. Lassen, C. Amos, M. Henley, B. Kramer
European Respiratory Journal Oct 2011, 38 (4) 797-803; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00191810

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Blinded 12-week comparison of once-daily indacaterol and tiotropium in COPD
R. Buhl, L.J. Dunn, C. Disdier, C. Lassen, C. Amos, M. Henley, B. Kramer
European Respiratory Journal Oct 2011, 38 (4) 797-803; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00191810
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • COPD and smoking
  • Pulmonary pharmacology and therapeutics
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Original Article

  • Lung volumes and survival in chronic lung allograft dysfunction
  • Social consequences of sleep disordered breathing
  • Diagnosing airflow obstruction in COPD
Show more Original Article

COPD

  • Long-acting bronchodilator combination therapy and cardiovascular events in COPD
  • Sensitisation to recombinant A. fumigatus allergens and outcomes in COPD
  • Detection of COPD in the SUMMIT lung cancer screening cohort
Show more COPD

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society