BackgroundNVA237 is a once-daily dry-powder formulation of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium bromide in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The glycopyrronium bromide in COPD airways clinical study 1 (GLOW1) evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of NVA237 in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.MethodsPatients with COPD with a smoking history of ≥ 10 pack-years, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) < 80% and ≥ 30% predicted normal and FEV1/forced vital capacity < 0.70 were enrolled. Patients were randomized to double-blind treatment with NVA237 50 μg once daily or placebo for 26 weeks with inhaled/intranasal corticosteroids or H1 antagonists permitted in patients stabilized on them prior to study entry. The primary outcome measure was trough FEV1 at Week 12.ResultsA total of 822 patients were randomized to NVA237 (n = 552) or placebo (n = 270). Least squares mean (± standard error) trough FEV1 at Week 12 was significantly higher in patients receiving NVA237 (1.408 ± 0.0105 L), versus placebo (1.301 ± 0.0137 L; treatment difference 108 ± 14.8 mL, p < 0.001). Significant improvements in trough FEV1 were apparent at the end of Day 1 and sustained through Week 26. FEV1 was significantly improved in the NVA237 group versus placebo throughout the 24-hour periods on Day 1 and at Weeks 12 and 26, and at all other visits and timepoints. Transition dyspnoea index focal scores and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores were significantly improved with NVA237 versus placebo at Week 26, with treatment differences of 1.04 (p < 0.001) and-2.81 (p = 0.004), respectively. NVA237 significantly reduced the risk of first moderate/severe COPD exacerbation by 31% (p = 0.023) and use of rescue medication by 0.46 puffs per day (p = 0.005), versus placebo. NVA237 was well tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile, with a low frequency of cardiac and typical antimuscarinic adverse effects.ConclusionsOnce-daily NVA237 was safe and well tolerated and provided rapid, sustained improvements in lung function, improvements in dyspnoea, and health-related quality of life, and reduced the risk of exacerbations and the use of rescue medication.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01005901

This study assessed the cardiovascular safety of QVA149, an inhaled, once daily, bronchodilator combination containing two 24-hour bronchodilators, the long-acting β(2)-agonist indacaterol and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium (NVA237). In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, 257 patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were randomised to receive QVA149 (indacaterol/NVA237) 600/100 microg, 300/100 microg or 150/100 microg, indacaterol 300 μg or placebo, once daily for 14 days. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24-h mean heart rate versus placebo on Day 14. 255 patients were included in the safety analysis (mean age 63.8 years, 76.5% male, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV(1)] 53.2% predicted, FEV(1)/FVC [forced vital capacity] 50.0%, mean 24-h heart rate 79.6 bpm). There were no clinically significant differences in the 24-h mean heart rate on Day 14 between the three doses of QVA149 and placebo or indacaterol. The confidence intervals of these treatment differences (contrasts) were within the pre-specified equivalence limit (-5 to 5 bpm). No clinically relevant differences in QTc interval (Fridericia's) were observed between groups on Days 1, 7 and 14. Once-daily QVA149 was well tolerated in COPD patients with a cardiovascular safety profile and overall adverse event rates similar to placebo.

P251 Figure 1 Consistency between doctors when reporting CXRs in the context of possible CAP (k with 95% CI). ConclusionsIn the context of possible pneumonia, the CXR was not consistently reported by any group. Junior doctors were more consistent than attending consultants and radiologists were most consistent. A possible explanation for these differences is that junior doctors, by necessity, have developed similar ideas of what they will consider pneumonic where as consultants who less frequently make the initial diagnostic decision vary in their criteria for diagnosing pneumonia. This study does not present a "gold standard" interpretation and therefore does not address the issue of accuracy but it does raise questions about to what extent the CXR ever be regarded as a "reliable" diagnostic test.

No abstract

No abstract