Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Tiotropium/Olodaterol in Maintenance-Naïve Patients with Moderate Symptomatic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Post Hoc Analysis

Evaluation of comparative efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus other bronchodilators in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

BACKGROUND

UMEC/VI administered via a combination inhaler is associated with a clinically significant improvement in lung function and health-related quality of life in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD. However, their efficacy compared to other bronchodilator mono or dual therapies still remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research was to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of UMEC/VI dual and UMEC/VI/FF triple therapies versus alternative bronchodilator regimens in COPD patients.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) to select publications published in peer-reviewed journals written in English. The odds ratio (OR) and risk ratio (RR) was calculated, along with their 95% confidence intervals. We assessed heterogeneity using Cochrane Q and I [2] statistics and the appropriate p-value. The analysis used RevMan 5.4.

RESULTS

The current meta-analysis includes 31,814 COPD patients from 17 RCTs. The meta-analysis results demonstrate that the combination of LABA and LAMA provides additive bronchodilation and improved lung function in COPD patients. We found that UMEC/VI dual therapy significantly improved FEV1 (OR 1.98 [95% CI 1.70-2.30]), TDI values (OR 1.97 [95% CI 1.72-2.26]), and reduced SGRQ total scores (OR 1.99 [95% CI 1.71-2.32]), with fewer drug-related adverse events (RR 0.58 [95% CI 0.53-0.64]). Similarly, UMEC/VI/FF triple therapy also showed similar benefits, with significant improvements in FEV1 (OR 1.93 [95% CI 1.73-2.15]), TDI values (OR 2.37 [95% CI 2.15-2.61]), and reduced SGRQ total scores (OR 1.83 [95% CI 1.63-2.05]), and fewer drug-related adverse events (RR 0.53 [95% CI 0.49-0.58]).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis concludes that UMEC and VI combinations are an efficacious treatment option for symptomatic COPD patients.

Comparative effectiveness of olodaterol/tiotropium and vilanterol/umeclidinium among COPD patients: a high-dimensional propensity score matched new user cohort study in a US medicare population

BACKGROUND

Two long-acting muscarinic antagonist inhaler fixed dose combinations (olodaterol/tiotropium (OLO/TIO) and vilanterol/umeclidinium (VI/UMEC)) have once-a-day dosing for managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to compare clinical effectiveness of these inhalers in terms of ability to prevent severe COPD exacerbations in a United States Medicare population.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Using nationally representative Medicare data (2013-2019), we employed a new user, active comparator design among beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with COPD. The outcome of interest was time to first occurrence of a severe COPD exacerbation. To ensure comparability between the groups, we performed 1:3 (OLO/TIO:VI/UMEC) nearest neighbor matching based on their high-dimensional propensity scores.

RESULTS

The study included 2,263 OLO/TIO new initiators matched to 6,789 VI/UMEC new initiators. The incidence rate of the first severe COPD exacerbation was 40.8 per 100 person-years among new initiators (39.9 per 100 person-years for OLO/TIO, 41.1 per 100 person-years for VI/UMEC). The adjusted hazard ratio of the time to first COPD exacerbation was 0.948 (95% Confidence interval: 0.813-1.105) for individuals initiating OLO/TIO versus VI/UMEC.

CONCLUSION

We did not find a statistically significant difference between the OLO/TIO and VI/UMEC new users in terms of time to first severe exacerbation among Medicare COPD patients aged 65 or older.

Comparison of Rescue Medication Prescriptions in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium Bromide/Olodaterol in Routine Clinical Practice in England

Purpose

Routinely collected healthcare data on the comparative effectiveness of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist combination umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is limited. This study compared rescue medication prescriptions in patients with COPD in England receiving UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study used primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database linked with secondary care administrative data from Hospital Episode Statistics. Patients with a COPD diagnosis at age ≥35 years were included (indexed) following initiation of single-inhaler UMEC/VI or TIO/OLO between July 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Outcomes included the number of rescue medication prescriptions at 12-months (primary), and at 6-, 18- and 24-months (secondary), adherence at 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-months post-index, defined as proportion of days covered ≥80% (secondary), and time-to-initiation of triple therapy (exploratory). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance potential confounding baseline characteristics. Superiority of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO for the primary outcome of rescue medication prescriptions was assessed using an intention-to-treat analysis with a p-value < 0.05.

Results

In total, 8603 patients were eligible (UMEC/VI: n = 6536; TIO/OLO: n = 2067). Following IPTW, covariates were well balanced across groups. Patients initiating UMEC/VI had statistically significantly fewer (mean [standard deviation]; p-value) rescue medication prescriptions versus TIO/OLO in both the unweighted (4.84 [4.78] vs 5.68 [5.00]; p < 0.001) and weighted comparison (4.91 [4.81] vs 5.48 [5.02]; p = 0.0032) at 12 months; consistent results were seen at all timepoints. Adherence was numerically higher for TIO/OLO versus UMEC/VI at all timepoints. Time-to-triple therapy was similar between treatment groups.

Conclusion

UMEC/VI was superior to TIO/OLO in reducing rescue medication prescriptions at 12 months after treatment initiation in a primary care cohort in England, potentially suggesting improvements in symptom control with UMEC/VI compared with TIO/OLO.

Differences in Pulmonary Function Improvement after Once-Daily LABA/LAMA Fixed-Dose Combinations in Patients with COPD

This real-world study evaluated the efficacy of once-daily long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) for improving lung function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patients with COPD who were treated with once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs for 12 months were included. We evaluated their lung function improvement after 12 months of treatment with different LABA/LAMA FDCs. A total of 198 patients with COPD who were treated with once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs were analyzed. A total of 114 patients were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VIL); 34 patients were treated with indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY); and 50 patients were treated with tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO). The forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) was significantly increased in the patients treated with all three once-daily FDCs (55.2% to 60.9%, p = 0.012 for UMEC/VIL, 58.2% to 63.6%, p = 0.023 for IND/GLY, and 54.1% to 57.7%, p = 0.009 for TIO/OLO). The treatment of COPD patients with TIO/OLO resulted in a significant improvement in both forced vital capacity (FVC%) (71.7% to 77.9%, p = 0.009) and residual volume (RV%) (180.1% to 152.5%, p < 0.01) compared with those treated with UMEC/VIL (FVC%: 75.1% to 81.5%, p < 0.001; RV%:173.8% to 165.2%, p = 0.231) or IND/GLY (FVC%: 73.9% to 79.3%, p = 0.08; RV%:176.8% to 168.3%, p = 0.589). Patients treated with UMEC/VIL or TIO/OLO showed significant improvement in FVC. In addition, those receiving TIO/OLO also showed significant improvement in RV reduction.

Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Triple Therapy Compared with Other Therapies for the Treatment of COPD: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β₂-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) investigated the comparative efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus any triple (ICS/LABA/LAMA) combinations and dual therapies in patients with COPD.

METHODS

This NMA was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR), which identified RCTs in adults aged at least 40 years with COPD. The RCTs compared different ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations or an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination with any dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA). Outcomes of interest included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), annualized rate of combined moderate and severe exacerbations, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index focal score, and rescue medication use (RMU). Analyses were conducted at 24 weeks (primary endpoint), and 12 and 52 weeks (if feasible).

RESULTS

The NMA was informed by five trials reporting FEV₁ at 24 weeks. FF/UMEC/VI was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV₁ (based on change from baseline) than all triple comparators in the network apart from UMEC + FF/VI. The NMA was informed by 17 trials reporting moderate or severe exacerbation endpoints. FF/UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus single-inhaler budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR). At 24 weeks, the NMA was informed by five trials. FF/UMEC/VI showed statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus UMEC + FF/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated improvements in mean SGRQ score versus other triple therapy comparators at 24 weeks, and a significant reduction in RMU compared with BUD/GLY/FOR (160/18/9.6).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this NMA suggest favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI. Further analysis is required as additional evidence becomes available.

Comparison of Effectiveness Using Different Dual Bronchodilator Agents in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment

The effectiveness and safety of fixed dual long-acting bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients have been well established; however, there is a paucity of clinical effectiveness comparison in patients with COPD treatment. The aim of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of three once-daily dual bronchodilator agents in patients with COPD. Patients with diagnosed COPD and treated with a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) + long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combination therapy (UME/VIL (umeclidinium and vilanterol inhalation powder), IND/GLY (indacaterol and glycopyrronium), and TIO/OLO (tiotropium and olodaterol)) were enrolled in this retrospective study over a period of 12 months. Effectiveness assessments were evaluated using a COPD assessment test (CAT) and lung function parameters. Besides, times for acute exacerbation were also assessed. The enrolled patients’ number was 177 in IND/GLY, 176 in UME/VIL and 183 in TIO/OLO. Lung function measurements with FEV1 had significantly improved for patients using TIO/OLO (98.7 mL) compared to those of IND/GLY (65.2 mL) and UME/VIL (64.4 mL) (p < 0.001). CAT scores were also significantly decreased in patients treated with TIO/OLO (CAT down 5.6) than those with IND/GLY (3.8) and UME/VIL (3.9) (p = 0.03). Acute exacerbation was also reduced in patients using TIO/OLO (4.9%) compared with those using IND/GLY (10.2%) and UME/VIL (11.9%) (p = 0.01). Significant improvement in pulmonary function, symptoms were demonstrated after 12 months of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combination therapy with three different treatment options. TIO/OLO demonstrated higher therapeutic effects compared with UME/VIL or IND/GLY. Determining clinical relevance will require a well-designed randomized controlled trial.

A randomized controlled trial of long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting β2 agonist fixed-dose combinations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, combination treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) increases forced expiratory volume in one second and reduces symptoms compared to monotherapy. In Japan, three different once-daily fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) have been prescribed since 2015, although a direct comparison of these FDCs has never been performed. The objective of the present study was to compare the effectiveness, preference, and safety of three LAMA/LABA FDCs—glycopyrronium/indacaterol (Gly/Ind), umeclidinium/vilanterol (Ume/Vil), and tiotropium/olodaterol (Tio/Olo)—in patients with COPD.

Methods

We enrolled 75 COPD outpatients (male:female ratio, 69:6; 77.4 ± 6.9 years). A prospective, randomized, crossover study was conducted on three groups using three FDCs: Gly/Ind; Ume/Vil; and Tio/Olo. Each medication was administered for 4 weeks before crossover (total 12 weeks). After each FDC administration, a respiratory function test and questionnaire survey were conducted. A comparative questionnaire survey of all three LAMA/LABA FDCs was conducted after 12 weeks (following administration of final FDC).

Results

No significant differences in COPD Assessment Test or modified Medical Research Council dyspnea questionnaire were reported in the surveys completed after each FDC administration; no significant differences in spirometric items were observed. In the final comparative questionnaire survey, patients reported better actual feeling of being able to inhale following Gly/Ind administration compared with Tio/Olo, although no significant differences in adverse events or other evaluations were reported.

Conclusions

The three LAMA/LABA FDCs administered to COPD patients show similar effects and safety, although some minor individual preference was reported.

Trial registration This study retrospectively registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (number UMIN000041342, registered on August 6, 2020).

Glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler for maintenance-naïve patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a post-hoc analysis of the randomized PINNACLE trials

BACKGROUND

Glycopyrrolate (GP)/formoterol fumarate (FF; GFF) metered dose inhaler is a fixed-dose combination dual bronchodilator for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, whether the efficacy in patients without current maintenance treatment is consistent with currently maintenance-treated patients is unclear.

METHODS

Data from patients who were not maintenance-treated at screening (NMT) (n = 1943) and patients who were maintenance-treated at screening (MT) patients (n = 3040) receiving GFF, FF, GP, or placebo were pooled from the Phase III PINNACLE studies (NCT01854645, NCT01854658, NCT02343458) for post-hoc analysis. MT patients had received long-acting bronchodilators and/or inhaled corticosteroids in the 30 days prior to screening, and/or prior to randomization. NMT patients had received short-acting bronchodilators or no treatment. Outcomes included forced expiratory volume over 1 s (FEV1), clinically important deterioration (CID), rescue medication use, and safety.

RESULTS

GFF provided significant lung function improvements at Week 24 versus placebo, GP, and FF for NMT patients, with pre-dose trough FEV1 treatment differences of 152 (117-188) mL, 73 (45-100) mL, and 56 (29-84) mL, respectively (least squares mean change from baseline versus comparators [95% CI]; all P < 0.0001). GFF reduced the risk of CID by 17-43% in NMT (P ≤ 0.0157) and 18-52% (P ≤ 0.0012) in MT patients compared with monotherapy and placebo, and reduced rescue medication use by 1.5 puffs/day over 24 weeks for both cohorts. Safety profiles for all cohorts were consistent with each other and the parent studies.

CONCLUSIONS

NMT patients achieved better lung function with GFF versus monotherapy and placebo, without increased safety risk. Dual bronchodilator therapy may offer better outcomes than monotherapy for COPD patients when administered as first-line treatment.

Impact of prior and concurrent medication on exacerbation risk with long-acting bronchodilators in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a post hoc analysis

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and low exacerbation risk still have disease instability, which can be improved with better bronchodilation. We evaluated two long-acting bronchodilators individually and in combination on reducing exacerbation risk and the potential impact of concurrent medication in these patients.

METHODS

Integrated post hoc intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of data from two large 24-week, randomized placebo (PBO)-controlled trials (NCT01313637, NCT01313650). Symptomatic patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD with/without an exacerbation history were randomized (2:3:3:3) to once-daily: PBO, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg [NCT01313650] or 125/25 μg [NCT01313637]), UMEC (62.5 [NCT01313650] or 125 μg [NCT01313637]) or VI (25 μg) via the ELLIPTA inhaler. Medication subgroups were segmented by treatment status at screening: a) maintenance-naïve or on maintenance medications, b) inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]-free or ICS-treated, c) low or high albuterol use based on median run-in use (< 3.6 or ≥ 3.6 puffs/day). Time to first moderate/severe exacerbation (Cox proportional hazard model) and change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1; mixed model repeated measures) were analyzed. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 3021 patients (ITT population; UMEC/VI: n = 816; UMEC: n = 825; VI: n = 825; PBO: n = 555), 36% had a recent exacerbation history, 33% were maintenance-naïve, 51% were ICS-free. Mean baseline albuterol use was 5.1 puffs/day. In the ITT population, UMEC/VI, UMEC, and VI reduced the risk of a first exacerbation versus PBO by 58, 44, and 39%, respectively (all p < 0.05). UMEC/VI provided significant risk reductions versus PBO in all subgroups. VI had no benefit versus PBO in maintenance-naïve, ICS-free, and low rescue use patients and was significantly less effective than UMEC/VI in these subgroups. UMEC had no significant benefit versus PBO in maintenance-naïve and ICS-free patients. All bronchodilators improved FEV1 versus PBO, and UMEC/VI significantly improved FEV1 versus both monotherapies across all populations studied (p < 0.05). All bronchodilators were similarly well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that UMEC/VI reduces exacerbation risk versus PBO more consistently across medication subgroups than UMEC or VI, particularly in patients with no/low concurrent medication use. Confirmed prospectively, these findings may support first-line use of dual bronchodilation therapy in symptomatic low-risk patients.