Efficacy and Safety of Aclidinium/Formoterol versus Tiotropium in COPD: Results of an Indirect Treatment Comparison

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab and Benralizumab in Patients with Inadequately Controlled Asthma: A Systematic Review

No head-to-head trials have compared the efficacy and safety between the licensed dosage and administration dosage of dupilumab and benralizumab for inadequately controlled asthma. We conducted an indirect treatment comparison to estimate differences in the efficacy and safety between dupilumab and benralizumab for inadequately controlled asthma using the Bayesian approach. The primary efficacy endpoint was annual exacerbation rate (AER). A subgroup analysis by blood eosinophil count was also performed. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of any adverse events (AAEs). The results demonstrate that there was no significant difference in the AER between dupilumab and benralizumab in overall patients and the subgroup with the blood eosinophil count of <150. However, the AER was significantly lower in the dupilumab group than in the benralizumab group in the subgroup with a blood eosinophil count of ≥150 but <300, and ≥300 with the rate ratio and 95% credible interval of 0.51 (0.29–0.92) and 0.58 (0.39–0.84), respectively. There was no significant difference in the AAEs between the dupilumab and benralizumab groups. This indirect treatment comparison indicates that dupilumab is superior to benralizumab in patients with inadequately controlled asthma having higher blood eosinophil counts. A direct comparison is required to provide definitive evidence. Systematic Review Registration: UMIN-CTR no. UMIN000036256.

New opportunities of dual bronchodilation therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Currently, combinations of long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting anticholinergics are considered as the basic therapy for majority of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These combinations have different pharmacological characteristics and delivery devices that provides different clinical effects and new opportunities for personalized treatment of COPD. Aclidinium/formoterol fixed combination differs from other dual bronchodilators by twice-daily dosing regimen, good safety profile and a specific delivery system. Recent information on clinical efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol combination in COPD patients is given in this article.

Inhaled therapies and cardiovascular risk in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapy includes a multi-dimensional approach, taking into account both symptoms of the patient and the number of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs). There are three main pharmaceutical classes currently available including long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). COPD is a major risk factor for most cardiovascular diseases, and cardiac comorbidities are very common in COPD patients. Both LAMA and LABA have a considerable impact on cardiac function by stimulating cardiac β2-adrenergic receptors or inhibiting the heart M₂ muscarinic receptors. ICS alone or in combination has never been associated with a real cardiovascular risk.

AREAS COVERED

This review explores the data published on the safety of COPD therapy and the implications for current pharmacotherapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Several studies have confirmed the good safety profile of bronchodilators available both in monotherapy and in association with other bronchodilators of different classes or with ICS despite the device used. Cardiovascular events in clinical trials are generally low and balanced between groups. The actual cardiovascular risk of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in an unselected COPD population will need to be investigated through post-marketing surveillance studies and observational studies.

Combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta2-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Several dual bronchodilator combinations of long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) have been approved for treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The current GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) recommendations suggest the use of LABA/LAMA combinations in people with group B COPD with persistent symptoms, group C COPD with further exacerbations on LAMA therapy alone and group D COPD with or without inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Fixed-dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium/formoterol is one of the approved LABA/LAMA therapies for people with stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta2-agonists in stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and manufacturers' websites as well as the reference list of published trials up to 12 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing combined aclidinium bromide and LABAs in people with stable COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data collection and analysis. The primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring a short course of an oral steroid or antibiotic, or both; quality of life measured by a validated scale and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs). Where the outcome or study details were not reported, we contacted the study investigators or pharmaceutical company trial co-ordinators (or both) for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified RCTs comparing aclidinium/formoterol FDC versus aclidinium, formoterol or placebo only. We included seven multicentre trials of four to 52 weeks' duration conducted in outpatient settings. There were 5921 participants, whose mean age ranged from 60.7 to 64.7 years, mostly men with a mean smoking pack-years of 46.4 to 61.3 of which 43.9% to 63.4% were current smokers. They had a moderate-to-severe degree of COPD with a mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) between 50.5% and 61% of predicted normal and the baseline mean FEV1 of 1.23 L to 1.43 L. We assessed performance and detection biases as low for all studies whereas selection, attrition and reporting biases were either low or unclear.FDC versus aclidiniumThere was no evidence of a difference between FDC and aclidinium for exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); quality of life measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -0.92, 95% CI -2.15 to 0.30); participants with significant improvement in SGRQ score (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41; 2 trials, 2002 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); non-fatal SAE (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.80; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.29; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or adverse events (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with aclidinium, FDC improved symptoms (Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score: MD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.68; 2 trials, 2013 participants) with a higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of at least one unit improvement (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.62; high-certainty evidence); the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) being 14 (95% CI 9 to 39).FDC versus formoterolWhen compared to formoterol, combination therapy reduced exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99; 3 trials, 2694 participants; high-certainty evidence); may decrease SGRQ total score (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.10 to -0.65; 2 trials, 2002 participants; low-certainty evidence; MCID for SGRQ is 4 units); increased TDI focal score (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; 2 trials, 2010 participants) with more participants attaining an MCID (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56; high-certainty evidence) and an NNTB of 16 (95% CI 10 to 60). FDC lowered the risk of adverse events compared to formoterol (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.93; 5 trials, 3140 participants; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 22). However, there was no difference between FDC and formoterol for hospital admissions, all-cause mortality and non-fatal SAEs.FDC versus placeboCompared with placebo, FDC demonstrated no evidence of a difference in exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.18; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although estimates were uncertain. Quality of life measure by SGRQ total score was significantly better with FDC compared to placebo (MD -2.91, 95% CI -4.33 to -1.50; 2 trials, 1823 participants) resulting in a corresponding increase in SGRQ responders who achieved at least four units decrease in SGRQ total score (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.13; high-certainty evidence) with an NNTB of 7 (95% CI 5 to 12). FDC also improved symptoms measured by TDI focal score (MD 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.69; 2 studies, 1832 participants) with more participants attaining at least one unit improvement in TDI focal score (OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.11; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 4). There were no differences in non-fatal SAEs, adverse events and all-cause mortality between FDC and placebo.Combination therapy significantly improved trough FEV1 compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

FDC improved dyspnoea and lung function compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo, and this translated into an increase in the number of responders on combination treatment. Quality of life was better with combination compared to formoterol or placebo. There was no evidence of a difference between FDC and monotherapy or placebo for exacerbations, hospital admissions, mortality, non-fatal SAEs or adverse events. Studies reported a lower risk of moderate exacerbations and adverse events with FDC compared to formoterol; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

Efficacy of tiotropium-olodaterol fixed-dose combination in COPD

Tiotropium-olodaterol, formulated in the Respimat soft-mist inhaler, is an inhaled fixed-dose combination (FDC) of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), commercialized under the name of Spiolto or Stiolto. The efficacy of tiotropium-olodaterol 5-5 μg once daily in adult patients with COPD was documented in eleven large, multicenter trials of up to 52 weeks duration. Tiotropium-olodaterol 5-5 μg not only improved spirometric values to a significantly greater extent than placebo but also resulted in statistically significant beneficial effects on dyspnea, markers of hyperinflation, use of rescue medication, health-related quality of life, and exercise endurance. Improvements exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), dyspnea, and quality of life. Differences between tiotropium-olodaterol 5-5 μg and the respective monocomponents were statistically significant for FEV1, dyspnea, markers of hyperinflation, use of rescue medication, and health-related quality of life, but did not reach the MCID. However, dual bronchodilatation significantly increased the number of patients who exceeded the MCID for dyspnea and quality of life. Moreover, tiotropium-olodaterol 5-5 μg was significantly more effective than salmeterol-fluticasone (FDC) twice daily at improving pulmonary function. Differences between tiotropium-olodaterol and other LAMA/LABA FDCs were not observed for FEV1 or other efficacy markers. Therefore, tiotropium-olodaterol is a valuable option in the treatment of COPD patients who remain symptomatic under monotherapy.