Correlations between FEV1 and patient-reported outcomes: A pooled analysis of 23 clinical trials in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Revefenacin Area Under the Curve Spirometry in Patients with Moderate to Very Severe COPD

Purpose

Several lung function endpoints are utilized in clinical trials of inhaled bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) is a commonly reported endpoint in COPD trials and can be complemented by area under the FEV1 vs time curve (FEV1 AUC), which provides information on duration and consistency of bronchodilation over a dosing interval. Revefenacin, a once-daily bronchodilator, significantly improved lung function in patients with COPD when measured by trough FEV1 in two replicate Phase 3 trials. Here, we report an FEV1 AUC substudy using data from these trials.

Patients and Methods

This post hoc analysis examined substudy data from 12-week replicate Phase 3 trials (NCT02459080/NCT02512510); patients with moderate to very severe COPD were randomized 1:1 to revefenacin 175 μg or placebo once daily. The substudy patients had FEV1 AUC0-2h assessed on Day 1, and those who continued to Day 84 also underwent 24-hour serial spirometry postdose where FEV1 AUC0-2h, AUC0-12h, AUC12-24h, and AUC0-24h were evaluated.

Results

Fifty and 47 patients who received revefenacin and placebo underwent 24-hour serial spirometry; most baseline characteristics were aligned between groups. At Day 84 postdose, revefenacin demonstrated sustained improvements in bronchodilation over 24 hours; differences in least squares mean vs placebo were 282, 220, 205, and 212 mL for FEV1 AUC0-2h, AUC0-12h, AUC12-24h, and AUC0-24h (all P <0.001), respectively.

Conclusion

This substudy analysis supplements previous findings that revefenacin provides sustained bronchodilation over 24 hours. Assessing additional complementary COPD clinical trial endpoints can help clinicians make treatment decisions.

The novel inhaled dual PDE3 and PDE4 inhibitor ensifentrine for the treatment of COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol on trough FEV1 and exacerbation according to PRISMA statement

The investigation of ensifentrine, an inhaled dual phosphodiesterase (PDE)3 and PDE4 inhibitor, for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) maintenance therapy presents a significant clinical interest. Despite promising results from recent Phase III trials, a comprehensive synthesis of its therapeutic efficacy in COPD is lacking. This protocol outlines the first registered systematic review and meta-analysis in PROSPERO to assess the impact of ensifentrine on trough forced expiratory volume in the 1st second (FEV1) and acute exacerbations of COPD. By conducting a rigorous literature search and employing solid methodologies, this endeavour aims to provide robust evidence on the real efficacy of ensifentrine. Anticipated outcomes include a significant improvement in trough FEV1 and a reduction in AECOPD risk among ensifentrine-treated patients compared to controls, corroborating its bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory properties. The meta-analysis expects to reveal consistent results across different trials, enhancing confidence in the findings. Additionally, subgroup analyses may unveil factors influencing the efficacy of ensifentrine, guiding optimal therapeutic strategies. Overall, this protocol holds the potential to inform clinical practice and regulatory decisions, positioning ensifentrine as a valuable addition to COPD management.

An Update on Outcomes for COPD Pharmacological Trials: A COPD Investigators Report - Reassessment of the 2008 American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Statement on Outcomes for COPD Pharmacological Trials

Background: In 2008, a dedicated American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society task force published a paper on the possible use and limitations of clinical outcomes and biomarkers to evaluate the impact of pharmacological therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Since then, our scientific understanding of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has increased considerably; there has been a progressive shift from a one-size-fits-all diagnostic and therapeutic approach to a personalized approach; and many new treatments currently in development will require new endpoints to evaluate their efficacy adequately. Objectives: The emergence of several new relevant outcome measures motivated the authors to review advances in the field and highlight the need to update the content of the original report. Methods: The authors separately created search strategies for the literature, primarily based on their opinions and assessments supported by carefully chosen references. No centralized examination of the literature or uniform criteria for including or excluding evidence were used. Measurements and Main Results: Endpoints, outcomes, and biomarkers have been revisited. The limitations of some of those reported in the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society task force document have been highlighted. In addition, new tools that may be useful, especially in evaluating personalized therapy, have been described. Conclusions: Because the "label-free" treatable traits approach is becoming an important step toward precision medicine, future clinical trials should focus on highly prevalent treatable traits, and this will influence the choice of outcomes and markers to be considered. The use of the new tools, particularly combination endpoints, could help better identify the right patients to be treated with the new drugs.

Experimental drugs in clinical trials for COPD: Artificial Intelligence via Machine Learning approach to predict the successful advance from early-stage development to approval

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic advances in drug therapy of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) really effective in suppressing the pathological processes underlying the disease deterioration are still needed. Artificial Intelligence (AI) via Machine Learning (ML) may represent an effective tool to predict clinical development of investigational agents.

AREAL COVERED

Experimental drugs in Phase I and II development for COPD from early 2014 to late 2022 were identified in the ClinicalTrials.gov database. Different ML models, trained from prior knowledge on clinical trial success, were used to predict the probability that experimental drugs will successfully advance toward approval in COPD, according to Bayesian inference as follows: ≤25% low probability, >25% and ≤ 50% moderate probability, >50% and ≤ 75% high probability, and > 75% very high probability.

EXPERT OPINION

The Artificial Neural Network and Random Forest ML models indicated that, among the current experimental drugs in clinical trials for COPD, only the bifunctional muscarinic antagonist - β₂-adrenoceptor agonists (MABA) navafenterol and batefenterol, the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/MABA fluticasone furoate/batefenterol, and the bifunctional phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3/4 inhibitor ensifentrine resulted to have a moderate to very high probability of being approved in the next future, however not before 2025.

Pulmonary Function Tests as a Biomarker in Diffuse Idiopathic Pulmonary Neuroendocrine Cell Hyperplasia Patients Treated With Somatostatin Analogues

Diffuse idiopathic pulmonary neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia (DIPNECH) describes an indolent, under-recognised and poorly understood pulmonary condition with fewer than 200 reported cases across the literature. Currently, cases are diagnosed following a biopsy of the primary lesion, with treatment options centring on symptomatic benefit as opposed to targeting the underlying aetiology. Classically, DIPNECH lesions have been described as slow growing and benign, but with growing awareness of the condition, reports of metastatic disease with significant symptomatic burden have been reported. However, effectively addressing the subset of DIPNECH patients with greater metastatic potential remains an unmet clinical need. Due to the similarities between DIPNECH and carcinoid patients, several centres have considered using somatostatin analogues to not only help symptomatically but also to initiate tumour regression. However, to date, there are limited biomarkers to help evaluate the benefit of such options. In this review, we consider the use of pulmonary function tests (PFTs) to help quantify the benefit of somatostatin analogues. Although much of the evidence stems from small single-centre studies, the use of PFTs within the treatment pathway for both localised and metastatic DIPNECH represents a meaningful improvement from subjective monitoring of disease.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of surgical lung volume reduction compared with endobronchial valve treatment in patients with severe emphysema

BACKGROUND

Lung volume reduction, either by surgery or bronchoscopically by endobronchial valve treatment have been shown to be a cost-effective alternative compared with conservative therapy. However, there is no comparative analysis of lung volume reduction by surgery and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction using endobronchial valves.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this retrospective study was to provide a cost-effectiveness analysis of lung volume reduction by surgery compared with bronchoscopic lung volume reduction using endobronchial valves.

METHODS

The effectiveness of lung volume reduction was assessed using forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), residual volume (RV) and 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), measured at baseline and at 4 to 12 weeks. Cost unit accounting derived from SwissDRG was used as a surrogate of the costs from the payer's perspective.

RESULTS

In total, 67 patients (37 men and 30 women) with a mean age of 68.3 ± 7.4 years were included. Both clinical effectiveness and costs were comparable between surgical and bronchoscopic lung reduction. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for bronchoscopic compared with lung volume reduction by surgery for FEV1, RV and 6MWD were -101, 4 and 58, respectively. For RV and 6MWD, it could be shown that endobronchial valve treatment is justified as a probably cost-effective alternative to lung volume reduction by surgery. Endobronchial valve treatment resulted in an improvement of 0.25 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an ICER of € 7657 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

A robust statement on the superiority of one of the two procedures in terms of cost-effectiveness cannot be made from the present study. Therefore, the study is not suitable for resource allocation. Two upcoming trials comparing lung volume reduction surgery and endobronchial valve treatment may be able to answer this question.

Towards the elimination of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Lancet Commission

Despite substantial progress in reducing the global impact of many non-communicable diseases, including heart disease and cancer, morbidity and mortality due to chronic respiratory disease continues to increase. This increase is driven primarily by the growing burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and has occurred despite the identification of cigarette smoking as the major risk factor for the disease more than 50 years ago. Many factors have contributed to what must now be considered a public health emergency: failure to limit the sale and consumption of tobacco products, unchecked exposure to environmental pollutants across the life course, and the ageing of the global population (partly as a result of improved outcomes for other conditions). Additionally, despite the heterogeneity of COPD, diagnostic approaches have not changed in decades and rely almost exclusively on post-bronchodilator spirometry, which is insensitive for early pathological changes, underused, often misinterpreted, and not predictive of symptoms. Furthermore, guidelines recommend only simplistic disease classification strategies, resulting in the same therapeutic approach for patients with widely differing conditions that are almost certainly driven by variable pathophysiological mechanisms. And, compared with other diseases with similar or less morbidity and mortality, the investment of financial and intellectual resources from both the public and private sector to advance understanding of COPD, reduce exposure to known risks, and develop new therapeutics has been woefully inadequate.

Relationship between perceived and neuromuscular fatigue in COPD patients with chronic respiratory failure with long-term oxygen therapy: a cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

To evaluate perceived fatigue (PF) and neuromuscular fatigue (NMF) in patients with COPD and chronic respiratory failure (CRF) on long-term oxygen therapy (CRF-COPD group), and the relationships between PF, NMF, patient's characteristics, comparing severe patients with COPD to patients without CRF (COPD group).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study compared 19 CRF-COPD patients with 10 COPD patients attending a rehabilitation program. PF was determined by Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), while dyspnea by the Barthel Dyspnea Index (BDI). We assessed quadriceps NMF via electrical nerve stimulation during and following a Maximal Voluntary Contraction (MVC) detecting changes after a Constant Workload Cycling Test (CWCT) at 80% of the peak power output at exhaustion.

RESULTS

CRF-COPD patients showed higher PF (+ 1.79 of FSS score, p = 0.0052) and dyspnea (+ 21.03 of BDI score, p = 0.0023) than COPD patients. After the fatiguing task and normalization for the total work, there was a similar decrease in the MVC (CRF-COPD -1.5 ± 2.4 vs COPD -1.1 ± 1.2% baseline kJ^-1, p = 0.5819), in the potentiated resting twitch force (CRF-COPD -2.8 ± 4.7 vs COPD -2.0 ± 3.3% baseline kJ^-1, p = 0.7481) and in the maximal voluntary activation (CRF-COPD -0.1 ± 3.9 vs COPD -0.9 ± 1.2 -2.0 ± 3.3% baseline kJ^-1, p = 0.4354). FSS and BDI were closely related (R = 0.5735, p = 0.0011), while no correlation between PF and NMF was found.

CONCLUSION

Patients with CRF-COPD develop higher levels of perceived fatigue and dyspnea than patients with COPD; while neuromuscular fatigue is similar, suggesting a mismatch between symptoms and neuromuscular dysfunction.

Higher COPD Assessment Test Score Associated With Greater Exacerbations Risk: A Post Hoc Analysis of the IMPACT Trial

BACKGROUND

In the InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This post hoc analysis tested the relationship between baseline health status, risk of future exacerbations, and efficacy outcomes.

METHODS

IMPACT was a Phase 3, double-blind, 52-week trial in patients with symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test [CAT] score ≥10) and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25mcg, FF/VI 100/25mcg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25mcg. Annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations, lung function, and safety were analyzed by continuous baseline CAT score.

RESULTS

Moderate/severe exacerbation rates increased with increasing baseline CAT scores in FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI arms. There was a very small increase in on-treatment pneumonia rates at higher baseline CAT scores across all treatment arms. FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus UMEC/VI (i.e., the inhaled corticosteroid effect) consistently across the range of CAT scores. The reduction with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI (i.e., the long-acting muscarinic antagonist effect) was greatest at lower CAT scores and appeared lesser at higher CAT scores. Improvements in lung function were observed with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI, regardless of baseline CAT score.

CONCLUSIONS

The CAT score was predictive of exacerbation risk. Worse baseline health status was associated with higher moderate/severe exacerbation and pneumonia rates. Irrespective of baseline CAT score, FF/UMEC/VI improved lung function, and reduced the annual moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus dual therapy. Results indicate an overall favorable benefit-risk profile of triple versus dual therapy, irrespective of CAT score. Clinical Trial Registration:GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513).

Treatment efficacy of LAMA versus placebo for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Four long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), tiotropium, glycopyrronium, aclidinium, and umeclidinium, are currently available for the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, no integrated analysis has sought to determine the effectiveness of these LAMAs. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LAMA versus placebo in patients with stable COPD.

METHODS

A literature search of relevant randomized control trials that administered LAMA to stable COPD patients was conducted, and the exacerbations, quality of life (QoL), dyspnea score, lung function, and adverse event of patients were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies were included in this meta-analysis. LAMA significantly decreased the frequency of exacerbations compared to the placebo (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85; P < 0.001). The mean changes in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (mean difference, -3.61; 95% CI, -4.27 to -2.95; P < 0.00001), transitional dyspnea index score (mean difference 1.00; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.17; P < 0.00001), and trough FEV₁ (mean difference 0.12; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.13; P < 0.0001) indicated significantly greater improvement in the LAMA group than the placebo group. The number of withdrawals due to adverse events in the LAMA group was significantly fewer than that in the placebo group (OR -0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

LAMA is superior to placebo due to lower frequency of exacerbations and adverse events, as well as higher trough FEV₁, QoL, and dyspnea score for stable COPD.

Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.

RESULTS

The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV₁ versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV₁ at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.

Risk of all-cause mortality or hospitalization for pneumonia associated with inhaled β2-agonists in patients with asthma, COPD or asthma-COPD overlap

β2-agonists provide necessary bronchodilatory action, are recommended by existing clinical practice guidelines and are widely prescribed for patients with these conditions. We examined the risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for pneumonia associated with long-or short-acting β2-agonists (LABA or SABA) or ICS (inhaled corticosteroids)/LABA use. In a nested case-control of 185,407 patients, we found no association between β2-agonist use and the risk of pneumonia in patients with asthma, COPD, or asthma-COPD overlap. In contrast, new SABA [HR 1.82 (95% CI 1.04-3.20)] or LABA [HR 2.77 (95% CI 1.22-6.31)] use was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to ICS use in COPD patients.

Future concepts in bronchodilation for COPD: dual- versus monotherapy

Most patients with COPD are recommended to initiate maintenance therapy with a single long-acting bronchodilator, such as a long-acting muscarinic antagonist or long-acting β₂-agonist. However, many patients receiving mono-bronchodilation continue to experience high symptom burden, suggesting that patients are frequently not receiving optimal treatment. Treatment goals for COPD are often broad and not individually tailored, making initial treatment response assessments difficult. A personalised approach to initial maintenance therapy, based upon an individual's symptom burden and exacerbation risk, may be more appropriate.An alternative approach would be to maximise bronchodilation early in the disease course of all patients with COPD. Evidence suggests that dual bronchodilation has greater and consistent efficacy for lung function and symptoms than mono-bronchodilation, whilst potentially reducing the risk of exacerbations and disease deterioration, with a similar safety profile to mono-bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and symptoms between dual- and mono-bronchodilation have also been demonstrated in maintenance-naïve patients, who are most likely to resemble those at first presentation in a clinical setting. Despite promising results, there are several evidence gaps that need to be addressed to allow decision makers to evaluate the merits of a widespread earlier introduction of dual bronchodilation.

Triple versus LAMA/LABA combination therapy for patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Recently, the addition of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) combination therapy has been recommended for patients with COPD who have severe symptoms and a history of exacerbations because it reduces the exacerbations. In addition, a reducing effect on mortality has been shown by this treatment. However, the evidence is mainly based on one large randomized controlled trial IMPACT study, and it remains unclear whether the ICS add-on treatment is beneficial or not. Recently, a large new ETHOS trial has been performed to clarify the ICS add-on effects. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety including ETHOS trial.

Methods

We searched relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life (QOL), dyspnea symptom, lung function and adverse events including pneumonia and mortality, as the outcomes of interest.

Results

We identified a total of 6 RCTs in ICS add-on protocol (N = 13,579). ICS/LAMA/LABA treatment (triple therapy) significantly decreased the incidence of exacerbations (rate ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.64–0.83) and improved the QOL score and trough FEV₁ compared to LAMA/LABA. In addition, triple therapy significantly improved the dyspnea score (mean difference 0.33, 95% CI 0.18–0.48) and mortality (odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.87). However, triple therapy showed a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia (odds ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.16–2.00). In the ICS-withdrawal protocol including 2 RCTs, triple therapy also showed a significantly better QOL score and higher trough FEV₁ than LAMA/LABA. Concerning the trough FEV₁, QOL score and dyspnea score in both protocols, the differences were less than the minimal clinically important difference.

Conclusion

Triple therapy causes a higher incidence of pneumonia but is a more preferable treatment than LAMA/LABA due to the lower incidence of exacerbations, higher trough FEV₁ and better QOL score. In addition, triple therapy is also superior to LABA/LAMA due to the lower mortality and better dyspnea score. However, these results should be only applied to patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD and a history of exacerbations.

Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO; CRD42020191978.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12931-021-01777-x.

Triple versus LAMA/LABA combination therapy for Japanese patients with COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In symptomatic COPD patients with a history of exacerbations, additional treatment with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) combination therapy is recommended based on the evidence of low incidence of exacerbations but with a caution for pneumonia. However, ethnic differences may affect the response to drugs. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this treatment in the Japanese population (PROSPERO: CRD42020191978).

METHODS

We searched relevant randomized control trials and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life, lung function, and adverse events including pneumonia and mortality as the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

We identified a total of three RCTs (N = 632). Treatment with ICS/LAMA/LABA triple therapy significantly decreased the exacerbations (rate ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.85) and improved the trough FEV₁ (mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.07) compared to LAMA/LABA therapy. However, triple therapy showed a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia compared to LAMA/LABA (odds ratio, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.58 to 7.22). Concerning other adverse events including mortality, there were no significant difference between these therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

In the current meta-analysis of the Japanese population, we confirmed that triple therapy causes a higher incidence of pneumonia than LAMA/LABA treatment but is a more preferable treatment since it showed a lower incidence of exacerbations and higher trough FEV₁ in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD. However, since the sample sizes were not statistically large enough, further trials involving Japanese patients are needed.

Longitudinal FEV1 and Exacerbation Risk in COPD: Quantifying the Association Using Joint Modelling

BACKGROUND

Lung function, measured as forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and exacerbations are two endpoints evaluated in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical trials. Joint analysis of these endpoints could potentially increase statistical power and enable assessment of efficacy in shorter and smaller clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate joint modelling as a tool for analyzing treatment effects in COPD clinical trials by quantifying the association between longitudinal improvements in FEV1 and exacerbation risk reduction.

METHODS

A joint model of longitudinal FEV1 and exacerbation risk was developed based on patient-level data from a Phase III clinical study in moderate-to-severe COPD (1740 patients), evaluating efficacy of fixed-dose combinations of a long-acting bronchodilator, formoterol, and an inhaled corticosteroid, budesonide. Two additional studies (1604 and 1042 patients) were used for external model validation and parameter re-estimation.

RESULTS

A significant (p<0.0001) association between FEV1 and exacerbation risk was estimated, with an approximate 10% reduction in exacerbation risk per 100 mL improvement in FEV1, consistent across trials and treatment arms. The risk reduction associated with improvements in FEV1 was relatively small compared to the overall exacerbation risk reduction for treatment arms including budesonide (10-15% per 160 µg budesonide). High baseline breathlessness score and previous history of exacerbations also influenced the risk of exacerbation.

CONCLUSION

Joint modelling can be used to co-analyze longitudinal FEV1 and exacerbation data in COPD clinical trials. The association between the endpoints was consistent and appeared unrelated to treatment mechanism, suggesting that improved lung function is indicative of an exacerbation risk reduction. The risk reduction associated with improved FEV1 was, however, generally small and no major impact on exacerbation trial design can be expected based on FEV1 alone. Further exploration with other longitudinal endpoints should be considered to further evaluate the use of joint modelling in analyzing COPD clinical trials.

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).

Tiotropium/Olodaterol Delays Clinically Important Deterioration Compared with Tiotropium Monotherapy in Patients with Early COPD: a Post Hoc Analysis of the TONADO® Trials

Introduction

Since chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous condition, a composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration (CID) may provide a more holistic assessment of treatment efficacy. We compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist combination therapy with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium alone using a composite endpoint for CID. CID was evaluated overall and in patients with low exacerbation history (at most one moderate exacerbation in the past year [not leading to hospitalisation]), Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2 patients and maintenance-naïve patients with COPD. We assessed whether early treatment optimisation is more effective with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium in delaying and reducing the risk of CID.

Methods

Data were analysed from 2055 patients treated with either tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 μg or tiotropium 5 μg (delivered via Respimat^®) in two replicate, 52-week, parallel-group, double-blind studies (TONADO^® 1/2). CID was defined as a decline of at least 0.1 L from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, increase from baseline of at least 4 units in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score, or moderate/severe exacerbation. Time to first occurrence of one of these events was recorded as time to first CID.

Results

Overall, treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol significantly increased the time to, and reduced the risk of, CID versus tiotropium (median time to CID 226 versus 169 days; hazard ratio [HR] 0.76 [95% confidence interval 0.68, 0.85]; P < 0.0001). Significant reductions were also observed in patients with low exacerbation history (241 versus 170; HR 0.73 [0.64, 0.83]; P < 0.0001), GOLD 2 patients (241 versus 169; 0.72 [0.61, 0.84]; P < 0.0001) and maintenance-naïve patients (233 versus 171; 0.75 [0.62, 0.91]; P = 0.0030).

Conclusion

In patients with COPD, including patients with low exacerbation history, GOLD 2 patients and maintenance-naïve patients, tiotropium/olodaterol reduced the risk of CID versus tiotropium. These results demonstrate the advantages of treatment optimisation with tiotropium/olodaterol over tiotropium monotherapy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: TONADO^® 1 and 2 (NCT01431274 and NCT01431287, registered 8 September 2011).

Graphic Abstract

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01528-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

COPD is a complicated disease that deteriorates over time. Worsening of COPD is associated with the lungs working less effectively, a fall in quality of life and a rise in sudden flare-ups of the disease. In this study, we looked at lung function, quality of life and flare-ups together using a measure called “clinically important deterioration” (CID). We looked at 2055 people with COPD to compare the effects of taking two bronchodilators (tiotropium and olodaterol) against taking one bronchodilator (tiotropium alone). Bronchodilators are a type of inhaled medication that relax the muscles in the lungs and widen airways, making it easier to breathe. They have also been shown to reduce sudden flare-ups of COPD. Across a wide range of people with COPD, we found that treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol reduced the risk of a CID compared with tiotropium alone. This includes in those patients at an early stage of disease, who may benefit from finding the best treatment option for them as early as possible.

Dual– Versus Mono–Bronchodilator Therapy in Moderate to Severe COPD: A Meta-analysis

Background:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines recommend both long-acting and dual bronchodilator therapy. It is unclear if there are differences in efficacy and safety.

Objective:

This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of dual therapy with long-acting β-agonist (LABA) + long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) compared with monotherapy with LAMA for COPD.

Methods:

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases from inception through March 2020 to identify English-language, prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared dual therapy with monotherapy in adult patients with COPD. Risk of bias was assessed using the Jadad score. Overall analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Treatment effect was determined with the random-effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel method and was reported as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.

Results:

A total of 18 RCTs were included (n = 6086; median Jadad score 5/5) that compared LAMA + LABA with LAMA. There was a greater improvement in forced expiratory volume at 1 s (FEV1) with dual therapy compared with LAMA: MD = 0.08; 95% CI = [0.05, 0.11]. There was no difference in St George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores between groups: OR = −0.85; 95% CI = [−1.83, 0.13]. There were no differences in overall adverse events (OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.92, 1.09), serious adverse events (OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.86, 1.18), or cardiovascular events (OR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.58, 1.34).

Conclusion and Relevance:

Dual therapy improves FEV1 and is as safe as LAMA. Dual therapy does not improve SGRQ scores more than LAMA.

Salbutamol use in relation to maintenance bronchodilator efficacy in COPD: a prospective subgroup analysis of the EMAX trial

Background

Short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) bronchodilators help alleviate symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and may be a useful marker of symptom severity. This analysis investigated whether SABA use impacts treatment differences between maintenance dual- and mono-bronchodilators in patients with COPD.

Methods

The Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids 1:1:1 to once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg, once-daily umeclidinium 62.5 μg or twice-daily salmeterol 50 μg for 24 weeks. Pre-specified subgroup analyses stratified patients by median baseline SABA use (low, < 1.5 puffs/day; high, ≥1.5 puffs/day) to examine change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), change in symptoms (Transition Dyspnoea Index [TDI], Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD [E-RS]), daily SABA use and exacerbation risk. A post hoc analysis used fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline SABA use covariates.

Results

At baseline, patients in the high SABA use subgroup (mean: 3.91 puffs/day, n = 1212) had more severe airflow limitation, were more symptomatic and had worse health status versus patients in the low SABA use subgroup (0.39 puffs/day, n = 1206). Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium demonstrated statistically significant improvements in trough FEV₁ at Week 24 in both SABA subgroups (59–74 mL; p < 0.001); however, only low SABA users demonstrated significant improvements in TDI (high: 0.27 [p = 0.241]; low: 0.49 [p = 0.025]) and E-RS (high: 0.48 [p = 0.138]; low: 0.60 [p = 0.034]) scores. By contrast, significant reductions in mean SABA puffs/day with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium were observed only in high SABA users (high: − 0.56 [p < 0.001]; low: − 0.10 [p = 0.132]). Similar findings were observed when comparing umeclidinium/vilanterol and salmeterol. Fractional polynomial modelling showed baseline SABA use ≥4 puffs/day resulted in smaller incremental symptom improvements with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium compared with baseline SABA use < 4 puffs/day.

Conclusions

In high SABA users, there may be a smaller difference in treatment response between dual- and mono-bronchodilator therapy; the reasons for this require further investigation. SABA use may be a confounding factor in bronchodilator trials and in high SABA users; changes in SABA use may be considered a robust symptom outcome.

Funding

GlaxoSmithKline (study number 201749 [NCT03034915]).

Comorbid Conditions in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Potential Therapeutic Targets for Unmet Needs

The management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has improved significantly due to advances in therapeutic agents, but it has also become apparent that there are issues that remain difficult to solve with the current treatment algorithm. COPD patients face a number of unmet needs concerning symptoms, exacerbations, and physical inactivity. There are various risk factors and triggers for these unmet needs, which can be roughly divided into two categories. One is the usual clinical characteristics for COPD patients, and the other is specific clinical characteristics in patients with comorbid conditions, such as asthma, cardiovascular disease, and bronchiectasis. These comorbidities, which are also associated with the diversity of COPD, can cause unmet needs resistance to usual care. However, treatable conditions that are not recognized as therapeutic targets may be latent in patients with COPD. We again realized that treatable traits should be assessed and treated as early as possible. In this article, we categorize potential therapeutic targets from the viewpoint of pulmonary and systemic comorbid conditions, and address recent data concerning the pathophysiological link with COPD and the impact of intervention on comorbid conditions in order to obtain evidence that could enable us to provide personalized COPD management.

COPD Maintenance Therapy with Tiotropium/Olodaterol Compared with Tiotropium: An Analysis in the Absence of Additional ICS Therapy

The American Thoracic Society guidelines recommend long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) dual bronchodilation over LAMA or LABA monotherapy as maintenance therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease suffering from dyspnea or exercise intolerance. Previous studies, which included patients receiving background inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have shown the benefits of dual bronchodilation over monotherapy. This analysis aimed to confirm the benefits of LAMA/LABA over LAMA alone, without any confounding effects from ICS use. This pooled post hoc analysis compared the efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol with tiotropium alone in patients from the TONADO^® and OTEMTO^® clinical trials who were not receiving ICS at study entry or during the studies. We analyzed change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) score in all patients, by Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage, baseline SGRQ score, and Baseline Dyspnea Index score. In this analysis of 1596 patients, tiotropium/olodaterol improved trough FEV₁, SGRQ and TDI compared with tiotropium alone. The observed mean differences were: trough FEV₁, 0.054 L (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.036, 0.073; p < 0.001); SGRQ, -1.918 (95% CI -2.994, -0.843; p < 0.001); and TDI, 0.575 (95% CI 0.301, 0.848; p < 0.001). Similar improvements were seen in each of the subgroup analyses. Tiotropium/olodaterol therapy significantly improved lung function, symptoms and health status compared with tiotropium alone. In a population free from ICS treatment, these data confirm the benefits of dual bronchodilation versus monotherapy.

Clinical and spirometric variables are better predictors of COPD exacerbations than routine blood biomarkers

BACKGROUND

Understanding the risk factors for exacerbations of COPD may help provide a more personalised approach to exacerbation prevention.

METHOD

Observational, prospective, international, multicentre study aimed at identifying risk factors for exacerbations of COPD. Clinical variables, lung function and CAT scores were collected at baseline. In addition, routine blood biomarkers were also obtained, and patients were followed for 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 326 patients were included. Of these, 155 (47.5%) presented at least one exacerbation. The median time to the first exacerbation was 147 days. Exacerbators had more respiratory symptoms, more impairment in FEV1(%), FVC(%) and a worse CAT score. Regarding biomarkers, only C-reactive protein was significantly higher in exacerbators (2.8 (standard deviation (SD):3.8) mg/dL vs. 1.9 (SD:2.6) mg/dL; p = 0.037). In multivariate analysis, only CAT scores, FEV1(%) and previous exacerbations were significantly associated with having an exacerbation during follow-up. In the equation of risk, patients with a CAT score ≥15, FEV1(%) <55% and at least one exacerbation the previous year had a probability of 76% of having an exacerbation during the next year, compared with 17% in patients who had none of the previous variables. No biomarkers showed a significant association in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than half of the patients presented an exacerbation during the one-year follow-up. CAT scores, FEV1(%) and previous exacerbations were the only variables associated with increased risk of exacerbations. Routine biomarkers did not provide additional information to evaluate the risk of exacerbations.

Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in COPD Clinical Trials: Trends and Gaps

Key characteristics of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that significantly affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL) include chest symptoms, dyspnea, cough, sputum production, and exacerbations. Additional areas of impact are sleep, fatigue, emotional well-being, social functioning, and coping. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential to evaluate symptoms, impact of symptoms on activities of daily living, and treatment response. This review summarizes COPD-specific PRO endpoints from randomized controlled trials of approved and commonly used COPD drugs. A search conducted in "ClinicalTrials.gov" to identify COPD clinical trials (only completed Phase III and IV) incorporating PRO endpoints yielded a total of 104 clinical trials for inclusion in this analysis. Both symptom-based and HRQoL-specific PRO measures were reported. Several COPD-specific PRO measures are available; however, the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and the Baseline and Transition Dyspnea Indexes (BDI/TDI) were reported in the majority of the studies. Results reflected a gap in terms of full coverage of key impacted areas from a patient's perspective. Methodological issues identified in this review related to scoring of instruments require careful consideration, as these challenges may limit the complete assessment of drug benefits. Selection of PRO measures aligned with the expected treatment benefit of a drug in a clinical trial should reflect patients' perspective holistically.

Early Clinically Important Improvement (ECII) and Exacerbation Outcomes in COPD Patients

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are difficult outcomes to measure in clinical trials. It would be valuable to be able to predict which patients are likely to benefit in terms of exacerbation prevention based on their early response in lung function and symptoms.

Methods

This was a post-hoc analysis from the 52-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority FLAME trial. Early clinically important improvement (ECII) was defined as achievement of minimal clinically important difference in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; ≥100 mL increase) and one patient-reported outcome (PRO): either St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (≥4-unit reduction; D1), or COPD assessment test (≥2-point reduction; D2) at Week 4 or 12.

Results

Approximately 18-20% of patients achieved ECII at Week 4 or 12 post-randomization according to any of the two definitions. The rate of subsequent exacerbations was lower in patients who achieved ECII at Week 4 (D1: ratio of rates [95% CI], 0.85 [0.74 to 0.98]; D2, 0.88 [0.77 to 1.00]) or at Week 12 (D1, 0.85 [0.74 to 0.98]; D2, 0.86 [0.75 to 1.00]) versus patients not achieving ECII. Patients who achieved ECII experienced longer time-to-first exacerbation between Week 4 or 12 to end of study. More patients achieved ECII with indacaterol/glycopyrronium versus salmeterol/fluticasone according to both definitions at Week 4 (D1, odds ratio [95% CI], 1.69 [1.40 to 2.04]; D2, 1.61 [1.34 to 1.93]), and 12 (D1, 2.01 [1.66 to 2.44]; D2, 1.80 [1.48 to 2.18]).

Conclusion

ECII is a novel composite endpoint, based on clinically relevant improvement in lung function and PROs in the early phase of treatment intervention that may predict subsequent exacerbation risk and may be used in clinical trials.

Treatment with LABA versus LAMA for stable COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled bronchodilators including long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) play a central role in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it is still unclear whether LABA or LAMA should be used for the initial treatment. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LABA versus LAMA in patients with stable COPD.

METHODS

We searched relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) with a period of treatment of at least 12 weeks and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life, dyspnea score, lung function and adverse events as the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

We carefully excluded unblinded data and identified a total of 19 RCTs (N = 28,211). LAMA significantly decreased the exacerbations compared to LABA (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; P = 0.02). In St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and transitional dyspnoea index score, there were no differences between LABA and LAMA treatment. Compared to LABA, there was a small but significant increase in the trough FEV1 after LAMA treatment (Mean difference 0.02, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.0006). In the safety components, there was no difference in the serious adverse events between LABA and LAMA. However, LAMA showed a significantly lower incidence of total adverse events compared to LABA (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.98; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with LAMA in stable COPD provided a significantly lower incidence of exacerbation and non-serious adverse events, and a higher trough FEV1 compared to LABA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

(PROSPERO: CRD42019144764).

Current evidence for COPD management with dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist bronchodilators

Long-acting inhaled bronchodilator medications are recommended as initial maintenance therapy for many patients with COPD. These medications include long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA). Combinations of long-acting bronchodilator agents (LAMA/LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids combined with LABA (ICS/LABA) are also used as initial or follow-up therapy in patients with more severe symptoms or at risk of COPD exacerbations. This review summarizes the position of LAMA/LABA combinations in treatment recommendations, and the evidence supporting their placement relative to LAMA monotherapy and ICS/LABA combination therapy, as well as differences within the LAMA/LABA class. Most studies show that LAMA/LABA treatment leads to greater improvements in lung function and symptoms than LAMA monotherapy or ICS/LABA treatment. There are fewer studies comparing the impact of different medication classes on patients' risk of exacerbations; however, the available evidence suggests that LAMA/LABA treatment and LAMA monotherapy lead to a similar reduction in exacerbation risk, while the effect of LAMA/LABA compared with ICS/LABA remains unclear. The incidence of adverse events is similar with LAMA/LABA and LAMA alone. There is a lower risk of pneumonia with LAMA/LABA compared with ICS/LABA. This evidence supports the use of LAMA/LABA combinations as an initial maintenance therapy option for symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk and severe breathlessness or patients with severe symptoms who are at risk of exacerbations, and as follow-up treatment in patients with uncontrolled symptoms or exacerbations on bronchodilator monotherapy.

Impact of baseline COPD symptom severity on the benefit from dual versus mono-bronchodilators: an analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial

RATIONALE

Symptom relief is a key treatment goal in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there are limited data available on the response to bronchodilator therapy in patients at low risk of exacerbations with different levels of symptom severity. This study compared treatment responses in patients with a range of symptom severities as indicated by baseline COPD assessment test (CAT) scores.

METHODS

The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated the benefits of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. This analysis assessed lung function, symptoms, health status, and short-term deterioration outcomes in subgroups defined by a baseline CAT score [<20 (post hoc) and ⩾20 (pre-specified)]. Outcomes were also assessed using post hoc fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline CAT score covariates.

RESULTS

Of the intent-to-treat population (n = 2425), 56% and 44% had baseline CAT scores of <20 and ⩾20, respectively. Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated favourable improvements compared with umeclidinium and salmeterol for the majority of outcomes irrespective of the baseline CAT score, with the greatest improvements generally observed in patients with CAT scores <20. Fractional polynomial analyses revealed consistent improvements in lung function, symptoms and reduction in rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol across a range of CAT scores, with the largest benefits seen in patients with CAT scores of approximately 10-21.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with symptomatic COPD benefit similarly from dual bronchodilator treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol. Fractional polynomial analyses demonstrated the greatest treatment differences favouring dual therapy in patients with a CAT score <20, although benefits were seen up to scores of 30. This suggests that dual bronchodilation may be considered as initial therapy for patients across a broad range of symptom severities, not only those with severe symptoms (CAT ⩾20).Trial registration: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT number).The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Early and sustained symptom improvement with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in COPD: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both the time needed for patients to gain symptom improvement with long-acting bronchodilator therapy and whether an early response is predictive of a sustained response is unknown. This study aimed to investigate how quickly meaningful symptom responses are seen in patients with COPD with bronchodilator therapy and whether these responses are sustained.

METHODS

Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial that randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), umeclidinium or salmeterol. Daily Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS:COPD) score and rescue salbutamol use were captured via an electronic diary and analysed initially in 4-weekly periods. Post hoc analyses assessed change from baseline in daily E-RS:COPD score and rescue medication use weekly (Weeks 1-8), and association between E-RS:COPD responder status at Weeks 1-4 and later time points.

RESULTS

In the intent-to-treat population (n = 2425), reductions from baseline in E-RS:COPD scores and rescue medication use were apparent from Day 2 with all treatments. Treatment differences for UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy plateaued by Week 4-8 and were sustained at Weeks 21-24; improvements were consistently greater with UMEC/VI. For all treatments, most patients (60-85%) retained their Weeks 1-4 E-RS:COPD responder/non-responder status at Weeks 21-24. Among patients receiving UMEC/VI who were E-RS:COPD responders at Weeks 1-4, 70% were responders at Weeks 21-24.

CONCLUSION

Patients with symptomatic COPD had greater potential for early symptom improvements with UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy. This benefit was generally maintained for 24 weeks. Early monitoring of treatment response can provide clinicians with an early indication of a patient's likely longer-term response to prescribed bronchodilator treatment and will facilitate appropriate early adjustments in care.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT Number). The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapies in symptomatic patients with COPD not receiving inhaled corticosteroids: the EMAX randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Prospective evidence is lacking regarding incremental benefits of long-acting dual- versus mono-bronchodilation in improving symptoms and preventing short-term disease worsening/treatment failure in low exacerbation risk patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) not receiving inhaled corticosteroids.

METHODS

The 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised patients at low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5 μg once-daily or salmeterol 50 μg twice-daily. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The study was also powered for the secondary endpoint of Transition Dyspnoea Index at Week 24. Other efficacy assessments included spirometry, symptoms, heath status and short-term disease worsening measured by the composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration using three definitions.

RESULTS

Change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 66 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43, 89) and 141 mL (95% CI: 118, 164) greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, respectively (both p < 0.001). Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated consistent improvements in Transition Dyspnoea Index versus both monotherapies at Week 24 (vs umeclidinium: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.68], p = 0.018; vs salmeterol: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.15, 0.76], p = 0.004) and all other symptom measures at all time points. Regardless of the clinically important deterioration definition considered, umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly reduced the risk of a first clinically important deterioration compared with umeclidinium (by 16-25% [p < 0.01]) and salmeterol (by 26-41% [p < 0.001]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Umeclidinium/vilanterol consistently provides early and sustained improvements in lung function and symptoms and reduces the risk of deterioration/treatment failure versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. These findings suggest a potential for early use of dual bronchodilators to help optimise therapy in this patient group.

Pharmacogenomics of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous condition, which presents the opportunity for precision therapy based on genetics or other biomarkers. Areas covered: Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, a genetic form of emphysema, provides an example of this precision approach to diagnosis and therapy. To date, research in COPD pharmacogenomics has been limited by small sample sizes, lack of accessible target tissue, failure to consider COPD subtypes, and different outcomes relevant for various medications. There have been several published genome-wide association studies and other omics studies in COPD pharmacogenomics; however, clinical implementation remains far away. There is a growing evidence base for precision prescription of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD, based on clinical phenotypes and blood biomarkers, but not yet based on pharmacogenomics. Expert opinion: At this time, there is insufficient evidence for clinical implementation of COPD pharmacogenomics. Additional genome-wide studies will be required to discover predictors of drug response and to identify genomic biomarkers of COPD subtypes, which could be targeted with subtype-directed therapies.

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.

Efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate in patients with COPD by reversibility: pooled analysis of GEM1 and GEM2 12-week studies

Purpose

Bronchodilator reversibility has been reported in patients with COPD, although correlations between reversibility and treatment response are unclear. The effect of reversibility on lung function, health status, and dyspnea was assessed in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD receiving glycopyrrolate (GLY) 15.6 µg twice daily vs placebo in the Glycopyrrolate Effect on syMptoms and lung function 1 and 2 (GEM1 and GEM2) replicate, 12-week, placebo-controlled studies.

Patients and methods

Reversibility was defined as a post-bronchodilator increase of ≥12% and ≥0.200 L in FEV₁. FEV₁ area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12 h), trough FEV₁, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, COPD Assessment Test (CAT™) score, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score, daily symptom scores, and rescue medication use were assessed by reversibility status. Incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were also assessed.

Results

Data from 846 patients enrolled in GEM1 and GEM2 with known reversibility status were pooled for post hoc analysis. GLY significantly improved FEV₁ AUC0-12 h, trough FEV₁, SGRQ and CAT total scores, and rescue medication use compared with placebo in reversible and nonreversible patients. Significant improvements in TDI focal score and daily symptom scores with GLY over placebo were observed only among reversible patients. Improvements in FEV₁ AUC0-12 h (0.165 vs 0.078 L; P<0.001) and trough FEV₁ (0.173 vs 0.070 L; P<0.001) were clinically relevant (based on minimal clinically important differences) and significantly greater in reversible compared with nonreversible patients receiving GLY. The safety profile of GLY was not affected by reversibility status.

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis, GLY was associated with significant improvements in lung function and patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo, mostly independent of reversibility status. In patients receiving GLY, improvements in lung function were greater in reversible compared with nonreversible patients. Reversibility status did not meaningfully impact the safety profile of GLY.

Extrafine triple therapy delays COPD clinically important deterioration vs ICS/LABA, LAMA, or LABA/LAMA

Background

Current pharmacological therapies for COPD improve quality of life and symptoms and reduce exacerbations. Given the progressive nature of COPD, it is arguably more important to understand whether the available therapies are able to delay clinical deterioration; the concept of “clinically important deterioration” (CID) has therefore been developed. We evaluated the efficacy of the single-inhaler triple combination beclometasone dipropionate, formoterol fumarate, and glycopyrronium (BDP/FF/G), using data from three large 1-year studies.

Methods

The studies compared BDP/FF/G to BDP/FF (TRILOGY), tiotropium (TRINITY), and indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY; TRIBUTE). All studies recruited patients with symptomatic COPD, FEV₁ <50%, and an exacerbation history. We measured the time to first CID and to sustained CID, an endpoint combining FEV₁, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), moderate-to-severe exacerbations, and death. The time to first CID was based on the first occurrence of any of the following: a decrease of ≥100 mL from baseline in FEV₁, an increase of ≥4 units from baseline in SGRQ total score, the occurrence of a moderate/severe COPD exacerbation, or death. The time to sustained CID was defined as: a CID in FEV₁ and/or SGRQ total score maintained at all subsequent visits, an exacerbation, or death.

Results

Extrafine BDP/FF/G significantly extended the time to first CID vs BDP/FF (HR 0.61, P<0.001), tiotropium (0.72, P<0.001), and IND/GLY (0.82, P<0.001), and significantly extended the time to sustained CID vs BDP/FF (HR 0.64, P<0.001) and tiotropium (0.80, P<0.001), with a numerical extension vs IND/GLY.

Conclusion

In patients with symptomatic COPD, FEV₁ <50%, and an exacerbation history, extrafine BDP/FF/G delayed disease deterioration compared with BDP/FF, tiotropium, and IND/GLY.

Trial registration

The studies are registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: TRILOGY, NCT01917331; TRINITY, NCT01911364; TRIBUTE, NCT02579850.

Treatment response in COPD: does FEV1 say it all? A post hoc analysis of the CRYSTAL study

The association between clinically relevant changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has rarely been investigated. Using CRYSTAL, a 12-week open-label study in symptomatic, nonfrequently exacerbating patients with moderate COPD, we assessed at baseline the correlations between several PROs (Baseline Dyspnoea Index, modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale, COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ)), and between FEV1 and PROs. Associations between clinically relevant responses in FEV1, CAT, CCQ and Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) at week 12 were also assessed. Using data from 4324 patients, a strong correlation was observed between CAT and CCQ (rs=0.793) at baseline, with moderate or weak correlations between other PROs, and no correlation between FEV1 and any PRO. At week 12, 2774 (64.2%) patients were responders regarding TDI, CAT or CCQ, with 583 (13.5%) responding using all three measures. In comparison, 3235 (74.8%) were responders regarding FEV1, TDI, CAT or CCQ, with 307 (7.1%) responding concerning all four parameters. Increases in lung function were accompanied by clinically relevant improvements of PROs in a minority of patients. Our results also suggest that PROs are not interchangeable. Thus, the observed treatment success in a clinical trial may depend on the selected parameters.

Patient-reported outcomes and considerations in the management of COPD: focus on indacaterol/glycopyrronium bromide

Dual bronchodilation with long-acting beta-2 agonists and muscarinic antagonists is recommended in patients with severe to very severe COPD. Among dual bronchodilator combinations, indacaterol/glycopyrronium combination (IGC) received evidence of higher efficacy and good safety compared with monotherapy with either drug as well as with tiotropium. In randomized controlled trials, the primary outcome is usually the change in mean FEV₁ resulting from treatment. However, the functional aspects that influence the physician's choice of the type of management may not be considered important by the patient, based on his perception of the disease. To address such issue, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed in recent studies. They include patient's perception of breathlessness, physical functioning, global health status, quality of life, use of rescue medications, and patient's report of COPD exacerbations. PRO data from the studies showed a clear improvement in patients' awareness of a better control of the disease in patients treated with IGC. In addition, the latest literature on two important issues influencing patient's preference and adherence, ie, the once-daily administration and the device to be used, confirmed the effectiveness of IGC and the ability of its device (Breezhaler^®) to result in patient's satisfaction, ease of use, less handling errors, and self-assurance to have inhaled the entire dose.

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

INTRODUCTION

Appropriate timing for dual bronchodilator therapy initiation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management is uncertain. Combination therapy is recommended as step-up from monotherapy or first-line treatment in patients with persistent symptoms. In this setting, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) demonstrated improved lung function and reduced rescue medication use over tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO). This subgroup analysis explored efficacy differences between these combinations in patients naïve to COPD maintenance therapy before study entry.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of an 8-week, randomized, open-label, assessor-blind, two-period crossover study (204990; NCT02799784) comparing UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg and TIO/OLO 5/5 mcg, focused on maintenance-naïve (MN) patients with moderate COPD and persistent symptoms (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score ≥ 2). Change from baseline (CFB) in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), percentage of FEV1 responders (CFB ≥ 100 ml), rescue medication use and safety were evaluated.

RESULTS

The MN population comprised 63% of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (148/236 patients) and had similar baseline demographics. At week 8, adjusted mean (standard error) improvements in trough FEV1 from baseline were clinically meaningful for both combinations (UMEC/VI: 167 [17] ml; TIO/OLO 110 [18] ml; adjusted mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 57 [23-92] ml; p = 0.001; %CFB: 11 vs. 8%). Proportion of FEV1 responders was greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO at week 8 (60 vs. 42%; odds ratio [95% CI] 1.90 [1.12-3.22]; p = 0.018). Reduction in rescue medication use was 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.34) puffs/day greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO over weeks 1-8 (p = 0.003). Adverse events incidence was similar (UMEC/VI: 24%; TIO/OLO: 29%).

CONCLUSIONS

These results highlight that the efficacy difference between UMEC/VI and TIO/OLO demonstrated in the ITT population is maintained in MN patients. Greater lung function improvements with UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO were accompanied by symptom improvements, as reflected in a significantly lower need for supplemental rescue medication.

FUNDING

GSK.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02799784.