↓ Skip to main content

The Efficacy and Safety of Cilomilast in COPD

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
The Efficacy and Safety of Cilomilast in COPD
Published in
Drugs, September 2012
DOI 10.2165/0003495-200868002-00002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Rennard, Katharine Knobil, Klaus F. Rabe, Andrea Morris, Neil Schachter, Nicholas Locantore, Walter G. Canonica, Yuanjue Zhu, Frank Barnhart

Abstract

The aim of this review is to present the clinical data on the efficacy and safety of cilomilast in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Over 6000 COPD patients received cilomilast during an extensive clinical development programme performed by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).Five phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group pivotal studies were conducted in poorly reversible patients (<15% or <200 mL improvement over baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) after salbutamol). Patients were randomized to receive oral cilomilast 15 mg (n = 2088) or placebo (n = 1408) twice daily for 24 weeks. The co-primary efficacy variables were changes from baseline in trough (predose) FEV(1) and in total score of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ).Additional studies were performed to investigate the anti-inflammatory actions of cilomilast by measuring inflammatory cells and mediators in biopsies and induced sputum; to assess the long-term effects of cilomilast; to assess the cardiac safety of cilomilast; and to assess the efficacy of cilomilast on hyperinflation. Results from one of the phase III and from one supportive study have been previously published.In the phase III pivotal studies, when averaged over 24 weeks, the mean change from baseline in FEV(1) in the cilomilast group showed improvement compared with placebo in all studies (range 24-44 mL treatment difference). When averaged over 24 weeks, there was a similar improvement in the mean total SGRQ score in both treatment groups with a decrease ranging from -1.8 to -4.2 units in the cilomilast group and 0.4 to -4.9 units in the placebo group. Only one study, however, showed both a statistically and clinically meaningful difference between the two treatment groups (treatment difference -4.1 units; p < 0.001). Although cilomilast was shown to reduce COPD exacerbations in some of these studies, there was no effect on the incidence of COPD exacerbations in a study specifically powered to detect a difference compared with placebo.No significant change was found in the primary endpoints of the anti-inflammatory studies, although some anti-inflammatory activity was detected, including a reduction in tissue CD8+ T lymphocytes and CD68+ macrophages in airway biopsies. In addition, studies did not demonstrate a consistent significant effect of cilomilast on hyperinflation.In all studies, adverse events associated with the gastrointestinal body system were reported more frequently in the cilomilast group than the placebo group and predominantly occurred within the first 2 weeks of initiating cilomilast therapy.During the cilomilast development programme a number of different endpoints were investigated to characterize the efficacy and safety of this second-generation phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor. Safety assessments throughout the late-phase programme did not reveal any evidence of serious safety concerns with the use of cilomilast. Previous studies in phase II and early phase III had shown improvements in efficacy endpoints and some evidence of an anti-inflammatory mechanism of action. However, subsequent phase III studies failed to definitively confirm the earlier programme results, which led to termination of the development of cilomilast.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 25%
Other 7 19%
Student > Master 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Chemistry 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2024.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#1,511
of 3,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,235
of 191,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#599
of 1,569 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 191,343 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,569 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.