Abstract
The 3-minute constant speed shuttle test (3-min CSST) was used to examine the effect of tiotropium/olodaterol compared with tiotropium at reducing activity-related breathlessness in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This was a randomised, double-blind, two-period crossover study including COPD patients with moderate to severe pulmonary impairment, lung hyperinflation at rest and a Mahler Baseline Dyspnoea Index <8. Patients received 6 weeks of tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg and tiotropium 5 µg in a randomised order with a 3-week washout period. The speed for the 3-min CSST was determined for each patient such that an intensity of breathing discomfort ≥4 (“somewhat severe”) on the Modified Borg Scale was reached at the end of a completed 3-min CSST.
After 6 weeks, there was a decrease in the intensity of breathlessness at the end of the 3-min CSST from baseline with both tiotropium (mean –0.968; 95% confidence interval [CI] −1.238 to −0.698; n=100) and tiotropium/olodaterol (mean −1.325; 95% CI −1.594 to −1.056; n=101). The decrease in breathlessness was statistically significantly greater with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium (treatment difference −0.357; 95% CI −0.661 to −0.053) (p=0.0217).
Tiotropium/olodaterol reduced activity-related breathlessness more than tiotropium in dyspnoeic patients with moderate to severe COPD exhibiting lung hyperinflation.
Footnotes
This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the European Respiratory Journal. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJ online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.
Conflict of interest: F.M. reports research support from Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Grifols and Novartis, advisory board participation for Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline, and speaking engagements for Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols and Novartis.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Aumann has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Kirsten reports other from Boehringer Ingelheim, during the conduct of the study; other from Boehringer Ingelheim, other from Astra Zeneca, other from Berlin Chemie, other from Astra Zeneca, other from Boehringer Inhgelheim, other from Roche, other from GSK, other from Novartis, other from Chiesi, other from Bayer Healthcare, other from Sanofi, outside the submitted work.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Nadreau has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr Macesic is an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Jin is an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Hamilton is an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim.
Conflict of interest: Dr. O'Donnell reports grants from Astra Zeneca and grants from Boehringer Ingelheim during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work.
- Copyright ©ERS 2019