A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Research Trial of Three Treatments for COPD Patients

COPD affects millions worldwide. The high prevalence, morbidity, mortality and economic burdens of COPD are increasing steadily. Although many therapies exist and are being developed to relieve symptoms and reduce mortality in COPD, most have only been studied in placebo-controlled efficacy studies in highly selected populations. There are few clinical trials to compare therapeutic alternatives in real world. Much of the comparative research evidence in COPD has been based on observational studies. Furthermore, studies in real world populations of COPD that received different therapies that do have efficacy evidence was found wide variations in care delivery. These considerations highlight the need to identify the most effective therapies in real world COPD patients and to design and test efforts to translate this evidence into healthcare for the millions of COPD patients. In short, there is a need for comparative effectiveness research (CER) in COPD. CER has received growing attention worldwide. The direct comparisons of treatment alternatives provided by CER can help patients and providers make best informed treatment decisions where such evidence was previously lacking. Some randomized controlled trials on comprehensive Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) interventions, especially based on the TCM patterns, have been the certain evidence for showing definite effect for stable COPD patients. When facing many treatment approaches, how to choose the most suitable treatment is difficult to identify. Hence, the aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and economic evaluation of three treatments for COPD patients and then determine which treatment is the most suitable for COPD patients. conventional medicine, TCM treatment and Combination of both conventional medicine and TCM treatment. This is a multi-center, pragmatic, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of three treatments in COPD subjects. Following a 14 day run-in period, approximately 360 subjects will be randomly assigned to one of the three treatments (conventional medicine, Traditional Chinese medicine, and combination of both conventional medicine and TCM treatment) for 26 weeks. After the 26 weeks treatment period, subjects in three treatments arms will follow-up 26 weeks. The primary outcome measure is the frequency of exacerbations. and. Secondary efficacy measures include FEV1, Dyspnea (MMRC), Exercise Capacity( 6MWD), Quality of life (CAT) and economic evaluation(CEA, CUA). Safety will be assessed through the collection of adverse events. There will be a total of 5 study visits (baseline, the 13, 26 weeks of the treatment, 13 and 26 weeks of follow-up). A follow-up contact for collection of effect and economic evaluation will be conducted approximately 26 weeks following the last study visit.