Daily variation in lung function in COPD patients with combined albuterol and ipratropium: results from a 4-week, randomized, crossover study

Functional respiratory imaging assessment of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate and glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhalers in patients with COPD: the value of inhaled corticosteroids

Background

For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), greater improvements in lung function have been demonstrated for triple versus dual inhaled therapies in traditional spirometry studies. This study was the first to use functional respiratory imaging (FRI), known for increased sensitivity to airway changes versus spirometry, to assess the effect of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) component (budesonide) on lung function in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and a blood eosinophil count > 150 cells/mm³.

Methods

Patients in this Phase IIIb (NCT03836677), randomized, double-blind, crossover study received twice-daily budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) 320/18/9.6 μg fixed-dose triple therapy and glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) 18/9.6 μg fixed-dose dual therapy over 4 weeks, each delivered via a single metered dose Aerosphere inhaler. Primary endpoints were the improvements from baseline for each treatment in specific (i.e. corrected for lobar volume) image-based airway volume (siVaw) and resistance (siRaw) measured via FRI taken at total lung capacity (Day 29). Secondary outcomes included spirometry and body plethysmography. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study.

Results

A total of 23 patients were randomized and included in the intent-to-treat analysis (mean age 64.9 years, 78.3% males, 43.5% current smokers, mean predicted post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV₁] 63.6%). BGF and GFF both statistically significantly increased siVaw from baseline at Day 29 (geometric mean ratio [GM], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.72 [1.38, 2.13] and 1.53 [1.28, 1.83], respectively, both p < 0.0001), with a greater increase observed for BGF versus GFF (GM, 95% CI 1.09 [1.03, 1.16], p = 0.0061). Statistically significant reductions in siRaw were also observed with both BGF and GFF (GM, 95% CI 0.50 [0.39, 0.63] and 0.52 [0.40, 0.67], respectively, both p < 0.0001). Additionally, significant improvements from baseline in post-dose FEV₁ were observed with BGF and GFF (mean 346 mL, p = 0.0003 and 273 mL, p = 0.0004, respectively). Safety findings were consistent with the known profiles of BGF and GFF.

Conclusions

As observed using FRI, triple therapy with BGF resulted in greater increases in airway volume, and reductions in airway resistance versus long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy with GFF, reflecting the ICS component’s contribution in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03836677. Registered 11 February 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03836677

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12931-021-01772-2.

Approaches to drug therapy for COPD in Russia: a proposed therapeutic algorithm

Until recently, there have been few clinical algorithms for the management of patients with COPD. Current evidence-based clinical management guidelines can appear to be complex, and they lack clear step-by-step instructions. For these reasons, we chose to create a simple and practical clinical algorithm for the management of patients with COPD, which would be applicable to real-world clinical practice, and which was based on clinical symptoms and spirometric parameters that would take into account the pathophysiological heterogeneity of COPD. This optimized algorithm has two main fields, one for nonspecialist treatment by primary care and general physicians and the other for treatment by specialized pulmonologists. Patients with COPD are treated with long-acting bronchodilators and short-acting drugs on a demand basis. If the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) is ≥50% of predicted and symptoms are mild, treatment with a single long-acting muscarinic antagonist or long-acting beta-agonist is proposed. When FEV₁ is <50% of predicted and/or the COPD assessment test score is ≥10, the use of combined bronchodilators is advised. If there is no response to treatment after three months, referral to a pulmonary specialist is recommended for pathophysiological endotyping: 1) eosinophilic endotype with peripheral blood or sputum eosinophilia >3%; 2) neutrophilic endotype with peripheral blood neutrophilia >60% or green sputum; or 3) pauci-granulocytic endotype. It is hoped that this simple, optimized, step-by-step algorithm will help to individualize the treatment of COPD in real-world clinical practice. This algorithm has yet to be evaluated prospectively or by comparison with other COPD management algorithms, including its effects on patient treatment outcomes. However, it is hoped that this algorithm may be useful in daily clinical practice for physicians treating patients with COPD in Russia.

Bronchodilator reversibility in patients with COPD revisited: short-term reproducibility

Categorization of patients with COPD as reversible or nonreversible to a bronchodilator may change over time. This post hoc analysis aimed to determine if an individual's reversibility, when treated as a continuous variable, could predict his/her future response to two short-acting bronchodilators: albuterol and ipratropium. The analysis was completed using data from a 4-week, randomized, open-label, two-period crossover study (NCT01691482; GSK study DB2114956). Patients received albuterol (doses: UK =4×100 μg/puff; US =4×90 μg/puff) followed 1 hour later by ipratropium (4×20 μg/puff) or vice versa during treatment Period 1. The order of treatments was reversed during Period 2. Predefined efficacy end points included pre- and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second. The correlation coefficient between bronchodilator response on Days 1 and 10 was investigated, as well as the correlation between treatment response on Day 1 and the mean treatment response on Days 5-10, for each individual patient. Bronchodilator response to albuterol on Day 1 was strongly correlated with that on Day 10 (r=0.64; n=53). The correlation coefficient of bronchodilator treatment response on Day 1 and Days 5-10 was 0.78 (P<0.001; n=53) and 0.76 (P<0.001; n=54) for albuterol and ipratropium, respectively. A single measurement of the initial bronchodilator response to albuterol or ipratropium was, therefore, highly correlated with the subsequent mean bronchodilator response over 5-10 days, demonstrating its potential usefulness for future treatment decisions.

Prevention of clinically important deteriorations in COPD with umeclidinium/vilanterol

Background

Minimizing the risk of disease progression and exacerbations is the key goal of COPD management, as these are well-established indicators of poor COPD prognosis. We developed a novel composite end point assessing three important aspects (lung function, health status, and exacerbations) of worsening in COPD. The objective was to determine whether dual bronchodilation with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) reduces clinically important deteriorations (CIDs) in COPD versus placebo or bronchodilator monotherapy.

Methods

This study is a post hoc analysis of two 24-week trials comparing UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg with UMEC 62.5 µg, VI 25 µg, or placebo (Study A; NCT01313650), or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg with tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg (Study B; NCT01777334) in patients with symptomatic COPD, without a history of frequent exacerbations. Deterioration was assessed as the time to a first CID, a composite measure defined as a decrease of ≥100 mL in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second or ≥4-unit increase in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score or an on-treatment moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation.

Results

In Study A, fewer patients experienced a first CID with UMEC/VI (44%) versus UMEC (50%), VI (56%), and placebo (75%). The risk of a first CID was reduced with UMEC/VI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.37 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.30, 0.45]), UMEC (HR: 0.46 [95% CI: 0.38, 0.56]), and VI (HR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.45, 0.66]; all P<0.001) versus placebo, and with UMEC/VI versus UMEC (HR: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.65, 0.97]; P<0.05) and versus VI (HR: 0.67 [95% CI: 0.55, 0.81]; P<0.001). In Study B, fewer patients experienced a first CID with UMEC/VI (41%) versus TIO (59%). UMEC/VI reduced the risk of a first composite CID by 43% versus TIO (HR: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.47, 0.69]; P<0.001).

Conclusion

This exploratory analysis, using a new assessment of clinical deterioration in COPD, revealed that a majority of symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk experienced a deterioration during the 24-week study periods. UMEC/VI reduces the risk of a first CID versus placebo or bronchodilator monotherapy.