Active clinical trials for "Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive"

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by pulmonary and systemic inflammation. The effect of inhaled corticosteroids (IC) on inflammation in COPD is controversial.

This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the addition of UMEC (62.5 microgram[mcg]) when administered once-daily via dry powder inhaler (DPI) to Inhaled corticosteroid/ Long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA) twice-daily compared with placebo via DPI added to the ICS/LABA therapy over a treatment period of 12 weeks in subjects with COPD. This study is designed to investigate the addition of UMEC to ICS/LABA combinations at approved doses and frequencies for the treatment of COPD including SERETIDE™ 500/50 mcg twice daily, Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Combination (FSC) 500/50 twice daily generic products such as AIRFLUSAL FORSPIRO inhaler 500/50 mcg twice daily or ROLENIUM ELPENHALER inhaler 500/50 mcg twice daily and SYMBICORT TURBUHALER inhaler at doses of 200/6 mcg twice daily and 400/12 mcg twice daily, over 12 weeks in subjects with COPD. Albuterol/salbutamol metered-dose-inhaler (MDI) or nebules will be issued throughout the study for use as-needed (prn). Subjects who meet the eligibility criteria will be randomly assigned to one of the following blinded study treatment regimens in equal proportion (1:1): UMEC 62.5 mcg once-daily and Placebo once-daily. Approximately 230 subjects (115 subjects per treatment) will be randomized in order to complete at least 206 evaluable subjects. The total duration of the study will be approximately 14 weeks for each subject. UMEC is a Long-acting Muscarinic Antagonist (LAMA) currently under development as a monotherapy, as a combination product with a LABA, vilanterol (VI), for the treatment of COPD, and as a combination product with an ICS, fluticasone furoate (FF), for the treatment of asthma. The UMEC/VI combination 62.5/25 .mcg once-daily has been approved in the United States (U.S.) and Canada for COPD under the trade name ANORO™ ELLIPTA™ and is under regulatory review in other countries. SERETIDE, ANORO, and ELLIPTA are trade marks of the GlaxoSmithKline Group of Companies. Other company or product names mentioned herein may be the property of their respective owners.

This is a Phase IIIb multicentre, randomised, blinded, triple dummy, parallel group study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UMEC/VI inhalation powder (62.5/25 microgram [mcg] Once daily [QD]) when administered via ELLIPTA® Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) compared to indacaterol plus tiotropium (150 mcg/18 mcg respectively QD) administered via individual inhalers over a treatment period of 12 weeks in participants with moderate to very severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that UMEC/VI (delivered via ELLIPTA DPI), when used in symptomatic moderate to very severe COPD participants, is non-inferior to the combination of indacaterol (delivered via BREEZHALER® inhaler) plus tiotropium (delivered via HANDIHALER® inhaler) on measures of trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) after 12 weeks of treatment. Participants who met the eligibility criteria at screening (Visit 1) will complete a 5 to 7 day run in period prior to randomisation at Visit 2. Clinic visits will follow at day 2, week 2, week 4, week 8 and week 12 of treatment, plus week 12 + 1 day (Visits 3 to 8). The total duration of study participation will be approximately 14 weeks. ELLIPTA is a registered trademark of the GSK group of companies. HANDIHALER is a registered trademark of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG. BREEZHALER is a registered trademark of Novartis AG.

The coexistence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in the same patient has been termed overlap syndrome, affecting 1% of the U.S. population.The investigators propose to conduct this study that aims: (1) to compare right and left ventricular hemodynamic parameters using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in overlap syndrome vs. COPD only and OSA only; (2) to compare the effects of bi-level positive airway pressure (BPAP) vs. nocturnal oxygen therapy (NOT) on right ventricular (RV) hemodynamics in overlap syndrome. This study will allow us to test the hypothesis: (1) Patients with overlap syndrome have more RV dysfunction than those with COPD only or OSA only; (2) treatment of both hypoxemia and hypercapnia during sleep will improve RV hemodynamics compared with treatment of hypoxemia alone in patients with overlap syndrome.

Study to compare the effects of nebulised salbutamol or ipratropium alone in patients with COPD with those of combined salbutamol and ipratropium nebuliser solution on arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) and to characterise patients with COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) at risk of significant arterial oxygen desaturation following nebulised salbutamol.

To demonstrate that at least one of the two doses of Berodual® (50 µg fenoterol hydrobromide/20 µg ipratropium bromide and 25 µg fenoterol hydrobromide/10 µg ipratropium bromide, 1 puff q.i.d) administered via the Respimat® gives a bronchodilator response which is not inferior to that obtained from one dose of Berodual® (50 µg fenoterol hydrobromide/21 µg ipratropium bromide, 2 puffs q.i.d) administered via the MDI and that the safety profile is at least as good when COPD patients are treated for 12 weeks.

The objective of this study is to investigate the long-term safety of Ba 79 BR (tiotropium) powder inhalation in patients with COPD using oxitropium bromide (Tersigan) as a comparator. Secondarily, the long-term efficacy of Ba 679 BR is also investigated

The objective of this study is to confirm that chronic dosing of 20 mcg and 40 mcg of ipratropium bromide, administered via the RESPIMAT device, demonstrates clinical comparability and similar safety profiles to the 36 mcg dose of ATROVENT® Inhalation Aerosol (containing chlorinated fluorocarbons (CFC)) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy and safety profiles of the two doses administered via the RESPIMAT device will also be compared to their respective placebo groups

This pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic dose-ranging study aims to determine the optimal dose of tiotropium inhaled as a solution from a Respimat device once a day for three weeks in patients with COPD.

Rationale: The PneumRx RePneu Lung Volume Reduction Coil (RePneu LVR-coil) is a bronchoscopic lung volume reduction treatment designed to compress the areas of lung parenchyma most damaged by emphysema. The LVRC treatment was found to be feasible, safe and effective in previous studies. However, patient-based outcomes besides quality of life questionnaires are hardly measured after intervention treatments for COPD. Furthermore, the exact underlying physiological mechanism of the LVR-coil treatment is unknown. Another aspect of the treatment which we to date do not fully understand is which group of patients benefit of the treatment and which group of patients do not, this knowing that the responder rate is already about 60%. Objective: The objectives of the study are to gain more knowledge on 1) the effect of the LVRC treatment on patient-based outcomes like physical activity, 2) the underlying physiological mechanism of the treatment, 3) the predictors of response to the treatment at baseline, and 4) on a targetted treatment number of coils to be placed per lung using lung compliance. Study design: This study is a non-randomised open label multi-center intervention study. Study population: The study population exists of adult patients with severe emphysema with no other treatment options left besides surgical procedures. Intervention: Bilateral bronchoscopic lung volume reduction treatment with RePneu coils. Main study parameters/endpoints: The main study endpoint is the change in physical activity between baseline and 3 months follow-up after the second treatment. The secondary endpoints are the changes between baseline and 3 months follow-up after the second treatment in: patient reported outcomes of the treatment, dynamic lung hyperinflation, static lung volumes, lung compliance, diaphragm function, lung perfusion, systemic inflammation and small airways function. Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness: The LVR Coil has been designed to be as safe as possible. It was shown that the risks associated with the LVRC system are largely attributable to the bronchoscopic procedure itself rather than to the device per se. Therefore, it appears that the LVRC device itself does not appreciably increase the risk of serious adverse events beyond the risk of undergoing a bronchoscopy procedure or simply having emphysema. Currently, this treatment is not commercially available in the Netherlands and study participants will have to visit the hospital multiple times. Previous studies have shown that the treatment has beneficial effect for the patient, however not all patients respond. Part of this new study is to try to identify which group of patients respond to the treatment and which patients do not. Therefore, it is possible that a patient will not receive any benefits from the treatment.