Efficacy and safety of formoterol for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Phosphite-imidazole catalyzed N-formylation and N-acylation of amines

A novel and convenient method for the N-formylation reaction of amines with DMF as a formylating agent has been developed, utilizing a catalytic amount of diethyl phosphite/imidazole. Diethyl phosphite, as a nucleophilic catalyst, plays a significant role in this conversion. The presented method has a broad substrate scope, and various N-formyl products were obtained in good to excellent yields. Moreover, by using DMA instead of DMF, the N-acetylation reaction was also successful. The reaction of o-phenylenediamines with DMF afforded the corresponding benzimidazoles. Furthermore, N-sulfonyl amidines were obtained in good to excellent yields by the reaction of sulfonamides with DMF under similar conditions.

Efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium/formoterol delivered via a dry powder inhaler in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Results from a multi-centre, open-label, randomised study

Background

We designed this randomised, open-label, parallel group, multi-centre study to investigate the efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium/formoterol, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist fixed dose combination, delivered through a dry powder inhaler (DPI) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Material and Methods

We randomised (1:1) patients with moderate to severe COPD (N = 356) to receive glycopyrronium 25 μg/formoterol 12 μg via DPI twice daily (GF-DPI) or glycopyrronium 50 μg monotherapy via DPI once daily (G-DPI). The primary study endpoint was the mean change from the baseline in pre-dose trough-forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at 12 weeks.

Results

At week 12, the mean increase from the baseline in pre-dose trough FEV1 was higher in the GF-DPI group (120 ml) than in the G-DPI (60 ml) group. The mean difference (MD) between treatment groups was 0.06 L (95% CI: 0.00-0.12 L, P < 0.0001 for non-inferiority). At week 12, the mean pre-dose forced vital capacity (FVC), 1 hour post-dose FEV1, and post-dose FVC increased significantly from the baseline only in the GF-DPI group (p < 0.0001). The reduction in the COPD assessment test score was greater in the GF-DPI group (p = 0.0379). The average daily number of puffs of rescue medication and the reduction in mean modified Medical Research Council scale, COPD, and Asthma Sleep Impact Scale score at week 12 were similar between groups (p > 0.05). Overall, 35 adverse events and two serious adverse events unrelated to study drugs were reported. Both groups had similar results for overall drug safety.

Conclusion

The results demonstrate efficacy and safety of GF-DPI in Indian patients with moderate to severe COPD. Treatment with GF-DPI significantly improved the lung function and quality of life and was well tolerated.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety of inhaled long-acting anti-muscarinic agents in COPD

Evidence-based guidelines recommend inhaled long-acting anti-muscarinic agents (LAMAs) as first-line maintenance therapy for symptomatic patients with COPD. Several LAMAs are now available for use either as monotherapy or in combination with other COPD medications, including long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) or inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The efficacy and long-term safety of these medications have been evaluated in multiple clinical trials and real-life studies. This review evaluates the evidence available on the safety of existing LAMAs alone or in combination with LABAs and ICS in patients with COPD.

Differentiation of human bronchial epithelial cells: role of hydrocortisone in development of ion transport pathways involved in mucociliary clearance

Glucocorticoids strongly influence the mucosal-defense functions performed by the bronchial epithelium, and inhaled corticosteroids are critical in the treatment of patients with inflammatory airway diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cystic fibrosis. A common pathology associated with these diseases is reduced mucociliary clearance, a defense mechanism involving the coordinated transport of salt, water, and mucus by the bronchial epithelium, ultimately leading to retention of pathogens and particles in the airways and to further disease progression. In the present study we investigated the role of hydrocortisone (HC) in differentiation and development of the ion transport phenotype of normal human bronchial epithelial cells under air-liquid interface conditions. Normal human bronchial epithelial cells differentiated in the absence of HC (HC0) showed significantly less benzamil-sensitive short-circuit current than controls, as well as a reduced response after stimulation with the selective β2-adrenergic receptor agonist salbutamol. Apical membrane localization of epithelial Na(+) channel α-subunits was similarly reduced in HC0 cells compared with controls, supporting a role of HC in the trafficking and density of Na(+) channels in the plasma membrane. Additionally, glucocorticoid exposure during differentiation regulated the transcription of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator and β2-adrenergic receptor mRNAs and appeared to be necessary for the expression of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator-dependent anion secretion in response to β2-agonists. HC had no significant effect on surface cell differentiation but did modulate the expression of mucin mRNAs. These findings indicate that glucocorticoids support mucosal defense by regulating critical transport pathways essential for effective mucociliary clearance.

Long-term safety of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combination: Results of a randomized 1-year trial in patients with COPD

TRIAL DESIGN

This was a one-year, Phase III randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-control study investigating the long-term safety and tolerability of twice-daily aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg versus formoterol 12 μg.

METHODS

Eligible patients were male or female, current or ex-smokers (history of ≥10 pack-years) aged ≥40 years with a diagnosis of moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio <70%, and post-bronchodilator FEV1≥30% and <80% predicted. Patients were randomized 2:1 to twice-daily aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg or formoterol 12 μg, administered via a multidose dry powder inhaler (Genuair™/Pressair(®))(1). The objective was to evaluate the one-year safety of aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg versus formoterol 12 μg.

RESULTS

All 590 patients were included in the safety population; 392 patients received aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg and 198 patients received formoterol 12 μg. Of these, 581 patients were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (385 patients received aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg; 196 patients received formoterol 12 μg). In the safety population, the percentage of patients with ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event was similar between aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg (71.4%) and formoterol 12 μg (65.7%). Mean baseline post-bronchodilator FEV1 was 51.3% of predicted (ITT population). Aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg significantly improved morning pre-dose (trough) FEV1 and trough FVC versus formoterol 12 μg at each assessment, with improvements at Week 1 (least squares mean difference [LSMD]: 87.4 mL and 157.8 mL, respectively) maintained at study end (LSMD: 81.5 mL and 185.4 mL, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to formoterol 12 μg and consistent with that seen in two Phase III studies. Additionally, aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg improved lung function versus formoterol 12 μg, with a sustained effect over one year.

Exacerbations, health services utilization, and costs in commercially-insured COPD patients treated with nebulized long-acting β2-agonists

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective cohort study compared exacerbations, health services utilization, and costs among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients who received nebulized arformoterol or nebulized formoterol therapy.

METHODS

Using PharMetrics Plus health plan claims, 417 nebulized long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) users meeting the study inclusion criteria were identified: had ≥2 fills of nebulized arformoterol or nebulized formoterol from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2011, adhered to using their index drug ≥60% of the days during 1 year post-index, were ≥35 years old and continuously enrolled 180 days pre- and 1 year post-index, and did not use a nebulized LABA or have an asthma diagnosis during the pre-index period. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 274 nebulized arformoterol users and 143 nebulized formoterol users were identified with comparable demographic characteristics. However, significant differences were observed between the two groups in some clinical characteristics at index including comorbidities and use of antibiotics. At 1 year post-index, a lower proportion of nebulized arformoterol users had ≥1 exacerbation compared to nebulized formoterol users (70.4% vs 80.4%; p = 0.028). Among patients with ≥1 hospital admission, COPD-related costs per inpatient stay were significantly lower for nebulized arformoterol users than nebulized formoterol users (median = $9542 vs $14,025; p = 0.009). After controlling for confounders, nebulized arformoterol users had 19% marginally lower risk of exacerbations than nebulized formoterol users (hazard ratio = 0.81, 95% confidence interval = 0.64-1.03; p < 0.084) and 14.4% marginally lower COPD-related total costs at 1 year post-index (p = 0.062), primarily related to fewer hospital readmissions (7.6% vs 12.2%) and lower average costs per readmission stay (median = $7392 vs $18 081; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the choice of nebulized LABA may influence COPD-related exacerbation occurrence and costs. Future studies with larger and more closely matched nebulized arformoterol and nebulized formoterol users are needed to confirm these findings.

Long-acting beta2-agonist in addition to tiotropium versus either tiotropium or long-acting beta2-agonist alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators, comprising long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and long-acting anti-muscarinic agents (LAMA, principally tiotropium), are commonly used for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than the individual components. However, the benefits and risks of combining tiotropium and LABAs for the treatment of COPD are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative effects on markers of quality of life, exacerbations, symptoms, lung function and serious adverse events in people with COPD randomised to LABA plus tiotropium versus tiotropium alone; or LABA plus tiotropium versus LABA alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and ClinicalTrials.gov up to July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing treatment with tiotropium in addition to LABA against tiotropium or LABA alone for people with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 10 trials on 10,894 participants, mostly recruiting participants with moderate or severe COPD. All of the trials compared tiotropium in addition to LABA to tiotropium alone, and four trials additionally compared LAMA plus LABA with LABA alone. Four studies used the LABA olodaterol, three used indacaterol, two used formoterol, and one used salmeterol.Compared to tiotropium alone, treatment with tiotropium plus LABA resulted in a slightly larger improvement in mean health-related quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) (mean difference (MD) -1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.87 to -0.80; 6709 participants; 5 studies). The MD was smaller than the four units that is considered clinically important, but a responder analysis indicated that 7% more participants receiving tiotropium plus LABA had a noticeable benefit (greater than four units) from treatment in comparison to tiotropium alone. In the control arm in one study, which was tiotropium alone, the SGRQ improved by falling 4.5 units from baseline and with tiotropium plus LABA the improvement was a fall of a further 1.3 units (on average). Most of the data came from studies using olodaterol. High withdrawal rates in the trials increased the uncertainty in this result, and the GRADE assessment for this outcome was therefore moderate. There were no significant differences in the other primary outcomes (hospital admission or mortality).The secondary outcome of pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) showed a small mean increase with the addition of LABA over the control arm (MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.07; 9573 participants; 10 studies), which showed a change from baseline ranging from 0.03 L to 0.13 L with tiotropium alone. None of the other secondary outcomes (exacerbations, symptom scores, serious adverse events, and withdrawals) showed any statistically significant differences between the groups. There was moderate heterogeneity for both exacerbations and withdrawals.This review included data on four LABAs: two administered twice daily (salmeterol, formoterol) and two once daily (indacaterol, olodaterol). The results were largely from studies of olodaterol and there was insufficient information to assess whether the other LABAs were equivalent to olodaterol or each other.Comparing LABA plus tiotropium treatment with LABA alone, there was a small but significant improvement in SGRQ (MD -1.25, 95% CI -2.14 to -0.37; 3378 participants; 4 studies). The data came mostly from studies using olodaterol and, although the difference was smaller than four units, this still represented an increase of 10 people with a clinically important improvement for 100 treated. There was also an improvement in FEV1 (MD 0.07, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.09; 3513 participants; 4 studies), and in addition an improvement in exacerbation rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93; 3514 participants; 3 studies).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results from this review indicated a small mean improvement in health-related quality of life and FEV1 for participants on a combination of tiotropium and LABA compared to either agent alone, and this translated into a small increase in the number of responders on combination treatment. In addition, adding tiotropium to LABA reduced exacerbations, although adding LABA to tiotropium did not. Hospital admission and mortality were not altered by adding LABA to tiotropium, although there may not be enough data. While it is possible that this is affected by higher attrition in the tiotropium group, one would expect that participants withdrawn from the study would have had less favourable outcomes; this means that the expected direction of attrition bias would be to reduce the estimated benefit of the combination treatment. The results were largely from studies of olodaterol and there was insufficient information to assess whether the other LABAs were equivalent to olodaterol or each other.

Pharmacokinetics of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combination compared with individual components: A phase 1, open-label, single-dose study

Inhaled, long-acting bronchodilators represent a cornerstone of maintenance treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate 400/12 μg fixed-dose combination (FDC) has recently been licensed for use in adults with COPD in the European Union. This phase 1, randomized, open-label, 3-way, complete crossover, single-dose study assessed the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of an FDC, aclidinium bromide 400 μg, and formoterol fumarate 12 μg, all administered via Genuair™ to 30 healthy subjects. The rate and extent of absorption were comparable for aclidinium/formoterol FDC and individual monotherapies; aclidinium/formoterol FDC and aclidinium alone: Cmax , 270 and 215 pg/mL, respectively; AUC0-t , 229 and 222 pg · h/mL, respectively; aclidinium/formoterol FDC and formoterol alone: Cmax , 11 and 9.3 pg/mL, respectively; AUC, 36 and 32.4 pg · h/mL, respectively. There were no major differences in relative bioavailability between the combination and monotherapies: the aclidinium Cmax and AUC0-t were 26% and 3% higher, respectively, with aclidinium/formoterol FDC compared with aclidinium alone, and 18% and 11% higher, respectively, compared with formoterol alone. Aclidinium/formoterol FDC was well tolerated; the incidence of adverse events was low and similar to the monotherapies. Aclidinium/formoterol FDC was not associated with any major differences in rate and extent of absorption or relative bioavailability compared with monotherapies.

Long-acting inhaled therapy (beta-agonists, anticholinergics and steroids) for COPD: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is aimed at relieving symptoms, improving quality of life and preventing or treating exacerbations.Treatment tends to begin with one inhaler, and additional therapies are introduced as necessary. For persistent or worsening symptoms, long-acting inhaled therapies taken once or twice daily are preferred over short-acting inhalers. Several Cochrane reviews have looked at the risks and benefits of specific long-acting inhaled therapies compared with placebo or other treatments. However for patients and clinicians, it is important to understand the merits of these treatments relative to each other, and whether a particular class of inhaled therapies is more beneficial than the others.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of treatment options for patients whose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cannot be controlled by short-acting therapies alone. The review will not look at combination therapies usually considered later in the course of the disease.As part of this network meta-analysis, we will address the following issues.1. How does long-term efficacy compare between different pharmacological treatments for COPD?2. Are there limitations in the current evidence base that may compromise the conclusions drawn by this network meta-analysis? If so, what are the implications for future research?

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in existing Cochrane reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). In addition, we ran a comprehensive citation search on the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials (CAGR) and checked manufacturer websites and reference lists of other reviews. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group RCTs of at least 6 months' duration recruiting people with COPD. Studies were included if they compared any of the following treatments versus any other: long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs; formoterol, indacaterol, salmeterol); long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs; aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium); inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs; budesonide, fluticasone, mometasone); combination long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) (formoterol/budesonide, formoterol/mometasone, salmeterol/fluticasone); and placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a network meta-analysis using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for two efficacy outcomes: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (placebo). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within treatment classes (LAMA, LABA, ICS, LABA/ICS). We present estimates of class effects, variability between treatments within each class and individual treatment effects compared with every other.To justify the analyses, we assessed the trials for clinical and methodological transitivity across comparisons. We tested the robustness of our analyses by performing sensitivity analyses for lack of blinding and by considering six- and 12-month data separately.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 71 RCTs randomly assigning 73,062 people with COPD to 184 treatment arms of interest. Trials were similar with regards to methodology, inclusion and exclusion criteria and key baseline characteristics. Participants were more often male, aged in their mid sixties, with FEV1 predicted normal between 40% and 50% and with substantial smoking histories (40+ pack-years). The risk of bias was generally low, although missing information made it hard to judge risk of selection bias and selective outcome reporting. Fixed effects were used for SGRQ analyses, and random effects for Trough FEV1 analyses, based on model fit statistics and deviance information criteria (DIC). SGRQ SGRQ data were available in 42 studies (n = 54,613). At six months, 39 pairwise comparisons were made between 18 treatments in 25 studies (n = 27,024). Combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked intervention, with a mean improvement over placebo of -3.89 units at six months (95% credible interval (CrI) -4.70 to -2.97) and -3.60 at 12 months (95% CrI -4.63 to -2.34). LAMAs and LABAs were ranked second and third at six months, with mean differences of -2.63 (95% CrI -3.53 to -1.97) and -2.29 (95% CrI -3.18 to -1.53), respectively. Inhaled corticosteroids were ranked fourth (MD -2.00, 95% CrI -3.06 to -0.87). Class differences between LABA, LAMA and ICS were less prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and aclidinium were ranked somewhat higher than other members of their classes, and formoterol 12 mcg, budesonide 400 mcg and formoterol/mometasone combination were ranked lower within their classes. There was considerable overlap in credible intervals and rankings for both classes and individual treatments. Trough FEV1 Trough FEV1 data were available in 46 studies (n = 47,409). At six months, 41 pairwise comparisons were made between 20 treatments in 31 studies (n = 29,271). As for SGRQ, combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked class, with a mean improvement over placebo of 133.3 mL at six months (95% CrI 100.6 to 164.0) and slightly less at 12 months (mean difference (MD) 100, 95% CrI 55.5 to 140.1). LAMAs (MD 103.5, 95% CrI 81.8 to 124.9) and LABAs (MD 99.4, 95% CrI 72.0 to 127.8) showed roughly equivalent results at six months, and ICSs were the fourth ranked class (MD 65.4, 95% CrI 33.1 to 96.9). As with SGRQ, initial differences between classes were not so prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and salmeterol/fluticasone were ranked slightly better than others in their class, and formoterol 12, aclidinium, budesonide and formoterol/budesonide combination were ranked lower within their classes. All credible intervals for individual rankings were wide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis compares four different classes of long-acting inhalers for people with COPD who need more than short-acting bronchodilators. Quality of life and lung function were improved most on combination inhalers (LABA and ICS) and least on ICS alone at 6 and at 12 months. Overall LAMA and LABA inhalers had similar effects, particularly at 12 months. The network has demonstrated the benefit of ICS when added to LABA for these outcomes in participants who largely had an FEV1 that was less than 50% predicted, but the additional expense of combination inhalers and any potential for increased adverse events (which has been established by other reviews) require consideration. Our findings are in keeping with current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.

Long-acting beta2-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory disease that causes progressive symptoms of breathlessness, cough and mucus build-up. It is the fourth or fifth most common cause of death worldwide and is associated with significant healthcare costs.Inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs) are widely prescribed to manage the symptoms of COPD when short-acting agents alone are no longer sufficient. Twice-daily treatment with an inhaled LABA is aimed at relieving symptoms, improving exercise tolerance and quality of life, slowing decline and even improving lung function and preventing and treating exacerbations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of twice-daily long-acting beta2-agonists compared with placebo for patients with COPD on the basis of clinically important endpoints, primarily quality of life and COPD exacerbations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register, ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' websites in June 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting populations of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Studies were required to be at least 12 weeks in duration and designed to assess the safety and efficacy of a long-acting beta2-agonist against placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data and characteristics were extracted independently by two review authors, and each study was assessed for potential sources of bias. Data for all outcomes were pooled and subgrouped by LABA agent (formoterol 12 μg, formoterol 24 μg and salmeterol 50 μg) and then were separately analysed by LABA agent and subgrouped by trial duration. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for the proportion of participants taking inhaled corticosteroids and for studies with high or uneven rates of attrition.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six RCTs met the inclusion criteria, randomly assigning 14,939 people with COPD to receive twice-daily LABA or placebo. Study duration ranged from three months to three years; the median duration was six months. Participants were more often male with moderate to severe symptoms at randomisation; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was between 33% and 55% predicted normal in the studies, and mean St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (SGRQ) ranged from 44 to 55 when reported.Moderate-quality evidence showed that LABA treatment improved quality of life on the SGRQ (mean difference (MD) -2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.09 to -1.54; I(2) = 50%; 17 trials including 11,397 people) and reduced the number of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation (odds ratio (OR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; I(2) = 10%; seven trials including 3804 people). In absolute terms, 18 fewer people per 1000 were hospitalised as the result of an exacerbation while receiving LABA therapy over a weighted mean of 7 months (95% CI 3 to 31 fewer). Scores were also improved on the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ), and more people receiving LABA treatment showed clinically important improvement of at least four points on the SGRQ.The number of people who had exacerbations requiring a course of oral steroids or antibiotics was also lower among those taking LABA (52 fewer per 1000 treated over 8 months; 95% CI 24 to 78 fewer, moderate quality evidence).Mortality was low, and combined findings of all studies showed that LABA therapy did not significantly affect mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08; I(2) = 21%; 23 trials including 14,079 people, moderate quality evidence). LABA therapy did not affect the rate of serious adverse events (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; I(2) = 34%, moderate quality evidence), although there was significant unexplained heterogeneity, especially between the two formoterol doses.LABA therapy improved predose FEV1 by 73 mL more than placebo (95% CI 48 to 98; I(2) = 71%, low quality evidence), and people were more likely to withdraw from placebo than from LABA therapy (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80; I(2) = 0%). Higher rates of withdrawal in the placebo arm may reduce our confidence in some results, but the disparity is more likely to reduce the magnitude of difference between LABA and placebo than inflate the true effect; removing studies at highest risk of bias on the basis of high and unbalanced attrition did not change conclusions for the primary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence from 26 studies showed that inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists are effective over the medium and long term for patients with moderate to severe COPD. Their use is associated with improved quality of life and reduced exacerbations, including those requiring hospitalisation. Overall, findings showed that inhaled LABAs did not significantly reduce mortality or serious adverse events.

Tiotropium versus long-acting beta-agonists for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are both accepted in the routine management for people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There are new studies which have compared tiotropium with LABAs, including some that have evaluated recently introduced LABAs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative clinical effects of tiotropium bromide alone versus LABA alone, upon measures of quality of life, exacerbations, lung function and serious adverse events, in people with stable COPD.To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness associated with tiotropium compared to LABA in people with COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and economic evaluations from searching NHS EED and HEED (date of last search February 2012). We found additional trials from web-based clinical trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and full economic evaluations if they compared effects of tiotropium alone with LABAs alone in people with COPD. We allowed co-administration of standard COPD therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, then extracted data on study quality and outcomes. We contacted study authors and trial sponsors for additional information. We analysed data using the Cochrane Review Manager(RevMan 5.1) software.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven clinical studies totalling 12,223 participants with COPD were included in the review. The studies used similar designs and were generally of good methodological quality. Inclusion criteria for RCTs were similar across the included studies, although studies varied in terms of smoking history and COPD severity of participants. They compared tiotropium (which was delivered by HandiHaler in all studies) with salmeterol (four studies, 8936 participants), formoterol (one study, 431 participants) and indacaterol (two studies, 2856 participants). All participants were instructed to discontinue anticholinergic or long-acting beta(2)-agonist bronchodilators during treatment, but could receive inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at a stable dose. Study duration ranged from 3 to 12 months. We extracted data for 11,223 participants. In general, the treatment groups were well matched at baseline. Overall, the risk of bias across the included RCTs was low.In the analysis of the primary outcomes in this review, a high level of heterogeneity amongst studies meant that we did not pool data for St George's Respiratory Questionnaire quality of life score. Subgroup analyses based on the type of LABA found statistically significant differences among effects on quality of life depending on whether tiotropium was compared with salmeterol, formoterol or indacaterol. Tiotropium reduced the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbations compared with LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 0.93). For this outcome, there was no difference seen among the different types of LABA. There was no statistical difference in mortality observed between the treatment groups.For secondary outcomes, tiotropium was associated with a reduction in the number of COPD exacerbations leading to hospitalisation compared with LABA treatment (OR 0.87; 95% 0.77 to 0.99), but not in the overall rate of all-cause hospitalisations. There was no statistically significant difference in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) or symptom score between tiotropium and LABA-treated participants. There was a lower rate of non-fatal serious adverse events recorded with tiotropium compared with LABA (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99). The tiotropium group was also associated with a lower rate of study withdrawals (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99).We identified six full economic evaluations assessing the cost and cost-effectiveness of tiotropium and salmeterol. The studies were based on an economic model or empirical analysis of clinical data from RCTs. They all looked at maintenance costs and the costs for COPD exacerbations, including respiratory medications and hospitalisations. The setting for the evaluations was primary and secondary care in the UK, Greece, Netherlands, Spain and USA. All the studies estimated tiotropium to be superior to salmeterol based on better clinical outcomes (exacerbations or quality of life) and/or lower total costs. However, the authors of all evaluations reported there was substantial uncertainty around the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with COPD, the evidence is equivocal as to whether or not tiotropium offers greater benefit than LABAs in improving quality of life; however, this is complicated by differences in effect among the LABA types. Tiotropium was more effective than LABAs as a group in preventing COPD exacerbations and disease-related hospitalisations, although there were no statistical differences between groups in overall hospitalisation rates or mortality during the study periods. There were fewer serious adverse events and study withdrawals recorded with tiotropium compared with LABAs. Symptom improvement and changes in lung function were similar between the treatment groups. Given the small number of studies to date, with high levels of heterogeneity among them, one approach may be to give a COPD patient a substantial trial of tiotropium, followed by a LABA (or vice versa), then to continue prescribing the long-acting bronchodilator that the patient prefers. Further studies are needed to compare tiotropium with different LABAs, which are currently ongoing. The available economic evidence indicates that tiotropium may be cost-effective compared with salmeterol in several specific settings, but there is considerable uncertainty around this finding.

Long-acting beta(2)-agonist in addition to tiotropium versus either tiotropium or long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators comprising long-acting beta(2)-agonists and the anticholinergic agent tiotropium are commonly used for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than the individual components. However, the benefits and risks of combining tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary (COPD) disease are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of treatment with tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta(2)-agonist compared to tiotropium or long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and clinicaltrials.gov up to January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing treatment with tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta(2)-agonist against tiotropium or long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials were included in this review, mostly recruiting participants with moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All of them compared tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta(2)-agonist to tiotropium alone, but only one trial additionally compared a combination of the two types of bronchodilator with long-acting beta(2)-agonist (formoterol) alone. Two studies used the long-acting beta(2)-agonist indacaterol, two used formoterol and one used salmeterol.Compared to tiotropium alone (3263 patients), treatment with tiotropium plus long-acting beta(2)-agonist resulted in a slightly larger improvement in the mean health-related quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) MD -1.61; 95% CI -2.93 to -0.29). In the control arm, tiotropium alone, the SGRQ improved by falling 4.5 units from baseline and with both treatments the improvement was a fall of 6.1 units from baseline (on average). High withdrawal rates in the trials increased the uncertainty in this result, and the GRADE assessment for this outcome was therefore moderate. There were no significant differences in the other primary outcomes (hospital admission or mortality).The secondary outcome of pre-bronchodilator FEV(1) showed a small mean increase with the addition of long-acting beta(2)-agonist (MD 0.07 L; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.09) over the control arm, which showed a change from baseline ranging from 0.03 L to 0.13 L on tiotropium alone. None of the other secondary outcomes (exacerbations, symptom scores, serious adverse events, and withdrawals) showed any statistically significant differences between the groups. There were wide confidence intervals around these outcomes and moderate heterogeneity for both exacerbations and withdrawals.The results from the one trial comparing the combination of tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonist to long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone (417 participants) were insufficient to draw firm conclusions for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results from this review indicate a small mean improvement in health-related quality of life for patients on a combination of tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonist compared to tiotropium alone, but it is not clear how clinically important this mean difference may be. Hospital admission and mortality have not been shown to be altered by adding long-acting beta(2)-agonists to tiotropium. There were not enough data to determine the relative efficacy and safety of tiotropium plus long-acting beta(2)-agonist compared to long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone. There were insufficient data to make comparisons between the different long-acting beta(2)-agonists when used in addition to tiotropium.

The effect of adding inhaled corticosteroids to tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators comprising long-acting beta(2)-agonists and the anticholinergic agent tiotropium are commonly used, either on their own or in combination, for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who are symptomatic and who suffer repeated exacerbations are recommended to add inhaled corticosteroids to their bronchodilator treatment. However, the benefits and risks of adding inhaled corticosteroid to tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of adding inhaled corticosteroids to tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (February 2011) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy in addition to inhaled tiotropium against tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonist treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

One trial (293 patients) was identified comparing tiotropium in addition to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy to tiotropium plus long-acting beta(2)-agonist. The study was of good methodological quality, however it suffered from high and uneven withdrawal rates between the treatment arms. There is currently insufficient evidence to know how much difference the addition of inhaled corticosteroids makes to people who are taking tiotropium and a long-acting beta(2)-agonist for COPD.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The relative efficacy and safety of adding inhaled corticosteroid to tiotropium and a long-acting beta(2)-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients remains uncertain and additional trials are required to answer this question.

Bibliography. Current world literature

This bibliography is compiled by clinicians from the journals listed at the end of this publication. It is based on literature entered into our database between 1 November 2007 and 31 October 2008 (articles are generally added to the database about two and a half months after publication). In addition, the bibliography contains every paper annotated by reviewers; these references were obtained from a variety of bibliographic databases and published between the beginning of the review period and the time of going to press. The bibliography has been grouped into topics that relate to the reviews in this issue.

In vitro deposition properties of nebulized formoterol fumarate: effect of nebulization time, airflow, volume of fill and nebulizer type

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate in vitro the delivery of a new long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) drug formoterol fumarate inhalation solution (20 microg/2 mL) nebulized with and without ipratropium bromide (0.5 mg/2.5 mL) at different administration times (2.5-22.5 min), airflows (5-28.3 L/min), nebulizer fill volumes (2-6 mL),and nebulizer brands (Pari LC+, Ventstream and DeVilbiss).

METHOD

Formoterol fumarate with and without ipratropium bromide was aerosolized at different administration times, airflows, nebulizer fill volumes, and nebulizer brands. The drug deposited on the throat, filter and stage plates was collected and analyzed by HPLC to determine the aerodynamic profiles of the nebulized drugs under each variable.

RESULTS

In addition to altering the aerosol characteristics,increasing the nebulizer fill volume including the addition of ipratropium bromide produced a significant(p50.05) increase in the drug output. As expected, sputtering time was significantly longer at low airflows, and vice versa at higher airflows but with a significant loss of drug delivered presumably due to greater solvent evaporation at higher airflows. Airflows between 10 and 28.3 L/min and a nebulization time of approximately 10 min appear sufficient for producing aerosols within the respirable range (1-5 mm MMAD) with the nebulizer/compressor combination used.While the drug output varied significantly (p50.05) among the three brands of nebulizers tested, the LC+ nebulizer appears to produce aerosols (2.7 0.1 microm MMAD) capable of penetrating more deeply into the lung than the other nebulizers evaluated under the current test conditions. This study did not attempt to evaluate different nebulizer/compressor combinations. Also, the cascade impaction data may not necessarily reflect aerosol deposition in the airways in vivo, which may be different depending on the health status of the patient.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrated that administration of nebulized formoterol fumarate require proper selection of a delivery system/method for safe and effective therapy of the medication with and without ipratropium bromide.

Nebulized formoterol effect on bronchodilation and satisfaction in COPD patients compared to QID ipratropium/albuterol MDI

OBJECTIVE

Bronchodilator maintenance treatment improves pulmonary function and health-related quality of life in COPD patients. Pulmonary function and patient preference/satisfaction were compared before and after treatment with a short-acting ipratropium/albuterol combination and long-acting nebulized formoterol.

METHODS

A randomized, open-label, crossover trial was conducted at 16 centers in the US. COPD subjects (n=109, 52.8% predicted FEV1) received nebulized formoterol fumarate inhalation solution (Perforomist**, FFIS 20g BID) or ipratropium and albuterol combined in a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) (Combiventy, IPR-ALB, QID) for 2 weeks. After a 1-week washout, subjects were crossed over to the other treatment. Efficacy was assessed with 6-h pulmonary function tests and the transition dyspnea index (TDI). Treatment satisfaction and preference were assessed after treatment. Post-hoc subgroup analyses were conducted by age, gender and COPD severity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Morning pre-dose FEV1 (trough) after 2 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

FFIS significantly increased morning pre-dose FEV1 relative to IPR-ALB (p = 0.0015). FFIS also improved pre-dose FEV1 beyond that of IPR-ALB in subjects who were older (65 years), male, and with both moderate and severe/very severe COPD. Post-dose efficacy at 6 h was maintained in the FFIS group compared with IPR-ALB (p<or= 0.0001). Patient satisfaction and the perception of disease control were significantly greater with FFIS in the older, male, and severe subgroups. Severe subjects preferred FFIS to IPR-ALB. Both FFIS and IPR-ALB treatments resulted in clinically meaningful changes in dyspnea, but no significant differences were observed between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Following a 2-week treatment period, twice-daily nebulized FFIS was significantly more effective in improving lung function than the IPR-ALB combination MDI delivered four times daily. Although the open-label design may limit interpretation of pulmonary function, the crossover design enabled demonstration of greater treatment satisfaction and perception of disease control following nebulized FFIS treatment.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00462540.

Compatibility and aerosol characteristics of formoterol fumarate mixed with other nebulizing solutions

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are often given admixtures of nebulizable drugs to minimize the time of administration in treatment regimens.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the physicochemical compatibility and aerodynamic characteristics of formoterol fumarate 20 microg/2 mL when mixed or sequentially nebulized with budesonide inhalation suspension 0.5 mg/2 mL, ipratropium bromide 0.5 mg/2.5 mL, cromolyn sodium 20 mg/2 mL, or acetylcysteine 10% (100 mg/mL).

METHODS

The admixtures were prepared in triplicate and analyzed for physicochemical compatibility at 0, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after mixing at room temperature. Physical compatibility was determined by visual examination and measurements of pH, osmolality, and turbidity. Chemical stability was evaluated using compendial or in-house-validated high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) assay methods. The aerodynamic characteristics of the admixtures or sequentially nebulized drugs were determined from aerosols generated from a Pari LC Plus nebulizer, using an 8-stage cascade impactor followed by HPLC analysis of the deposited drug.

RESULTS

The admixtures remained clear, colorless solutions with no precipitation, except for cloudiness observed in the formoterol/budesonide combination due to budesonide suspension. The pH, osmolality, and turbidity for all admixtures were within the initial values (< or = 3%), and there were no significant changes (< or = 2%) in potency of the active components throughout the 1-hour study period. Due to increased drug volume or reconcentration in the nebulizer cup, the respirable fraction/delivered dose increased significantly (p < 0.05) for the mixed or sequentially nebulized drug. However, the fine particle fraction (FPF), mass median aerodynamic diameter, and geometric standard deviation generally remained unchanged for all admixtures, with the exception of FPF for the formoterol/budesonide combination.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that admixtures of formoterol with budesonide, ipratropium, cromolyn, or acetylcysteine are physically and chemically compatible. However, admixing or sequential nebulization significantly increased the amount of drug delivered compared with single drug nebulization. The clinical implications of the in vitro data in patients with COPD have not been determined.

Long-term safety of nebulized formoterol: Results of a twelve-month open-label clinical trial

Formoterol fumarate is a long-acting β2-agonist that is an effective bronchodilator for the maintenance management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The safety profile of the newly developed nebulized formoterol was evaluated over a twelve-month period in an open-label, active-control study. After completing a twelve-week double-blind double-dummy period, 569 subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease entered an open-label extension study and received twice-daily 20 µg formoterol fumarate inhalation solution for nebulization (FFIS) or 12 µg formoterol fumarate dry powder inhalation (FA) for 52 weeks. Most of the FFIS-treated subjects (86%) completed at least six months of open-label treatment with over 90% compliance, comparable to the FA group (88%). Results of safety monitoring for adverse events, laboratory values, and cardiac changes were similar between treatment groups. Three hundred forty (73%) of FFIS-treated subjects and 83 (78%) of FA-treated subjects experienced an adverse event over the course of the study, the majority of which were mild to moderate and considered unrelated to treatment. COPD exacerbation occurred in 15.8% of FFIS-treated and 17.9% of FA-treated subjects. Deaths, serious adverse events, and discontinuations for adverse events occurred in 1.3, 16.2, and 5.4% of the nebulized group versus 1.9, 17.9, and 7.5% of the inhaled group, respectively. There were no clinically important changes from baseline in laboratory tests, including serum potassium and glucose, or vital signs and no treatment-related increases in cardiac arrhythmias, heart rate, or QTc prolongation. We conclude that nebulized formoterol fumarate twice daily is well tolerated over long-term treatment in moderate-to-severe COPD subjects and has a similar safety profile to the DPI formulation.

Role of arformoterol in the management of COPD

Formoterol is a beta2-agonist that has both short and long acting bronchodilator effects. Beta2-agonists used as bronchodilators have been synthesized as racemates that comprise (R,R) and (S,S)-enantiomers. Compounds that are beta2-selective derive their bronchodilator effect from an interaction between the (R,R)-enantiomer and the beta2-adrenoceptor. Arformoterol is the (R,R)-enantiomer and is distinguished from the more commonly used racemic (RR/S,S)-diasteriomer of formoterol. Overall literature on the use of arformoterol in COPD is very preliminary. There is some in vitro data that demonstrate significant bronchodilation and inhibition of inflammation with arformoterol, and these effects may be more pronounced than those caused by racemic formoterol. There are limited clinical trial data that demonstrate that arformoterol produces significant improvement in lung function in COPD; however, many of the subjects involved had marked baseline airway reversibility. Arformoterol has been very well tolerated in clinical trials and could potentially be used only once every 24 hours (due to its prolonged effect). It can only be given in nebulized form. Arformoterol can potentially be given with other inhaled medications.