Formoterol mono- and combination therapy with tiotropium in patients with COPD: a 6-month study

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.

Dual LABA/LAMA Therapy versus LABA or LAMA Monotherapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Support of the American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Rationale: There is uncertainty on the optimal first-line therapy for symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Long-acting β₂-receptor agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) have long been mainstays of treatment, though it is still not clear if dual therapy with LABA/LAMA is superior to monotherapy for symptomatic COPD.Objectives: To clarify the evidence landscape, we conducted a systematic review to answer the following question: in patients with COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance, is LABA/LAMA combination therapy more effective and equally safe compared with LABA or LAMA monotherapy?Methods: A search of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted by a medical librarian for randomized controlled trials enrolling patients with COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance that compare LABA/LAMA combination therapy to LABA or LAMA monotherapy. A systematic approach was used to screen, abstract, and critically appraise the emerging study evidence. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method was applied to rate the certainty and quality of the evidence.Results: A total of 24 studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 45,441). Pairwise random-effects meta-analysis revealed reductions in hospital admissions (11% reduction; P < 0.01) and acute exacerbations of COPD (20% reduction; P < 0.002), all in favor of LABA/LAMA dual therapy. Although there is reduced dyspnea (0.10 standardized mean difference; P < 0.001) and improved health-related quality of life (-0.13 standardized mean difference; P < 0.001), both values did not meet a clinical meaningful difference threshold. LABA/LAMA combination therapy showed no difference in treatment-emergent adverse effects (risk ratio, 0.99; P = 0.34) when compared with either LAMA or LABA monotherapy.Conclusions: Based on the reviewed evidence, in patients with symptomatic COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance, dual LABA/LAMA therapy is superior to either LABA or LAMA monotherapy based on the reduced risk of exacerbations and hospitalizations.

Tiotropium/Olodaterol Decreases Exacerbation Rates Compared with Tiotropium in a Range of Patients with COPD: Pooled Analysis of the TONADO®/DYNAGITO® Trials

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies demonstrated that tiotropium/olodaterol reduced rates of exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, this should be examined in a wider population.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis pooled data from TONADO^® 1 + 2 and DYNAGITO^®, three 52-week, parallel-group, randomised, double-blind, phase III trials investigating patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, with and without previous exacerbations, who received tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg or tiotropium 5 µg. Subgroup analyses were conducted on patients stratified by exacerbation history, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage 2-4 disease severity and baseline inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use.

RESULTS

In 9942 patients, tiotropium/olodaterol was associated with lower rates of moderate/severe exacerbations (0.68 vs. 0.77 per patient-year; rate ratio (RR) vs. tiotropium 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84, 0.95; P = 0.0003) and exacerbations requiring hospitalisation (0.11 vs. 0.13 per patient-year; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75, 0.99; P = 0.0380) versus tiotropium. Lower rates of moderate/severe exacerbations with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium were evident in patients with 0-1 moderate exacerbation in the previous year (0.54 vs. 0.60 per patient-year; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82, 0.98; P = 0.0187) and at least two moderate or at least one severe exacerbation(s) in the previous year (0.97 vs. 1.09 per patient-year; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82, 0.97; P = 0.0096). In patients with GOLD 2 and GOLD 3 COPD, moderate/severe exacerbation rates were lower with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium; GOLD 4 patients showed negligible difference between treatments. When evaluating patients by baseline ICS use, there was a significantly lower rate of moderate/severe exacerbations with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium in patients receiving ICS.

CONCLUSIONS

Tiotropium/olodaterol decreased the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations and exacerbations leading to hospitalisation versus tiotropium. Results from this large, pooled, post hoc analysis support the use of dual bronchodilation with tiotropium/olodaterol in a broad range of patients, reflective of patients with COPD in clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TONADO^® 1 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01431274); TONADO^® 2 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01431287); DYNAGITO^® (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02296138). People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may have times when their symptoms worsen, known as exacerbations. This may mean that they need to take additional medications, such as antibiotics or oral steroids. Studies have shown that a combination of two types of inhaled medicine-tiotropium and olodaterol-can help to reduce exacerbations in some people. To see if this is also the case across a larger and more diverse range of people, we combined the results from three studies (TONADO^® 1 + 2 and DYNAGITO^®) that looked at people who were taking tiotropium and olodaterol together and people who were taking tiotropium alone. We showed that, across a wide range of people, treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol was generally better at reducing exacerbations than tiotropium. Tiotropium/olodaterol also decreased the number of exacerbations that led to hospitalisation compared with tiotropium. Overall, our results support the use of combined tiotropium/olodaterol in people at different stages of COPD.

Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: This document provides clinical recommendations for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It represents a collaborative effort on the part of a panel of expert COPD clinicians and researchers along with a team of methodologists under the guidance of the American Thoracic Society.

Methods: Comprehensive evidence syntheses were performed on all relevant studies that addressed the clinical questions and critical patient-centered outcomes agreed upon by the panel of experts. The evidence was appraised, rated, and graded, and recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Results: After weighing the quality of evidence and balancing the desirable and undesirable effects, the guideline panel made the following recommendations: 1) a strong recommendation for the use of long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) combination therapy over LABA or LAMA monotherapy in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance; 2) a conditional recommendation for the use of triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/LABA/LAMA over dual therapy with LABA/LAMA in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance who have experienced one or more exacerbations in the past year; 3) a conditional recommendation for ICS withdrawal for patients with COPD receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) if the patient has had no exacerbations in the past year; 4) no recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to long-acting bronchodilators in patients with COPD and blood eosinophilia, except for those patients with a history of one or more exacerbations in the past year requiring antibiotics or oral steroids or hospitalization, for whom ICS is conditionally recommended as an additive therapy; 5) a conditional recommendation against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroids in patients with COPD and a history of severe and frequent exacerbations; and 6) a conditional recommendation for opioid-based therapy in patients with COPD who experience advanced refractory dyspnea despite otherwise optimal therapy.

Conclusions: The task force made recommendations regarding the pharmacologic treatment of COPD based on currently available evidence. Additional research in populations that are underrepresented in clinical trials is needed, including studies in patients with COPD 80 years of age and older, those with multiple chronic health conditions, and those with a codiagnosis of COPD and asthma.

Correlation of Inhaled Long-Acting Bronchodilators With Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Stable COPD: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

A majority of existing studies have focused on the efficacy of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators (ILABs), such as long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs), and LABAs combined with LAMAs in treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The current meta-analysis aimed to investigate the correlation of ILABs with specific cardiovascular adverse events (CAEs). Five electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically retrieved. Finally, 16 randomized controlled trials were enrolled into the current meta-analysis. Typically, the efficacy of 3 major classes of drugs (LABAs, LAMAs, and LABAs combined with LAMAs), and 7 specific drugs (including formoterol, glycopyrrolate, indacaterol, olodaterol, Salmeterol, tiotropium, and vilanterol) for 4 CAEs, including myocardial infarction, cardiac failure (CF), ischemic heart disease (IHD), and stroke in stable COPD patients, was examined. All the pooled results were analyzed through the odds ratios (ORs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The direct meta-analysis results suggested that LABAs could increase the risk of CF in patients with stable COPD compared with placebo controls (OR 1.70, 95% CI, 1.00-2.90). In addition, network meta-analysis results indicated that LAMAs combined with LABAs would result in an increased risk of CF in patients with stable COPD (OR 2.31, 95% CI, 1.10-5.09). According to the ILABs specific drug analysis, formoterol may potentially have protective effects on IHD compared with placebo controls (OR 0.45, 95% CI, 0.18-1.00). In conclusion, among these 3 kinds of ILABs, including LAMAs, LABAs, and LABAs/LAMAs, for stable COPD patients, LAMAs and LABAs are associated with the least possibility to induce myocardial infarction and stroke, respectively. However, the application of LABAs will probably increase the risk of CF; they should be used with caution for stable COPD patients with CF. In addition, in specific-drug analysis, the use of formoterol can reduce the risk of treatment-related IHD. Nevertheless, more studies on different drug doses are needed in the future to further validate this conclusion.

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)

Bronchodilator efficacy of tiotropium/formoterol (18/12 µg once daily via a Discair inhaler), tiotropium alone (18 µg by Handihaler) or combined with formoterol (12 µg twice daily by Aerolizer) in adults with moderate-to-severe stable COPD

Objectives: The bronchodilator efficacy of a once-daily fixed-dose combination of tiotropium/formoterol (18/12 µg administered via a dry-powder inhaler, Discair) [TIO/FORM_fixed group] vs a single-dose of tiotropium (18 µg) by Handihaler¹ alone [TIO_mono group], or combined with formoterol 12 µg twice-daily by Aerolizer² [TIO/FORM_bid group] was compared in patients with moderate-to-severe stable COPD.Methods: COPD patients were randomized (28 patients/group) to receive TIO/FORM_fixed, TIO_mono, or TIO/FORM_bid. AUC for the changes in FEV₁ and FVC over a 24-h period; bronchodilator response (100 ml improvement in FEV₁) in the first 30 min; maximum changes in FEV₁ and FVC; and safety data were recorded. The primary endpoint was to confirm the non-inferiority of TIO/FORM_fixed vs TIO/FORM_bid in terms of the AUC for the changes in FEV₁ over a 24-h period.Results: Changes in AUC_0-24h for FEV₁ and FVC were similar for TIO/FORM_fixed and TIO/FORM_bid, and were superior to TIO_mono (p < 0.001). A positive bronchodilator response at 30 min was demonstrated in 50%, 64%, and 71% of patients in the TIO_mono, TIO/FORM_bid, and TIO/FORM_fixed groups, respectively (NS). Maximum FEV₁ and FVC changes were measured as 0.25/0.41 L, 0.32/0.49 L, and 0.37/0.53 L, for TIO_mono, TIO/FORM_bid, and TIO/FORM_fixed, respectively (FEV₁: TIO/FORM_fixed vs TIO_mono, p = 0.0017 and TIO/FORM_fixed vs TIO/FORM_bid, p = 0.4846); no differences were recorded between the combination groups.Conclusions: The 24-h bronchodilator efficacy of TIO/FORM_fixed 18/12 µg once-daily by Discair³ was non-inferior to a combination of tiotropium 18 µg by Handihaler plus formoterol 12 µg twice-daily by Aerolizer, and superior to tiotropium 18 µg monotherapy by Handihaler.

Single Inhaler LABA/LAMA for COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common disabling disease characterized by progressive airflow obstruction. Great efforts were spent in the development of drugs able to improve symptoms, quality of life, reduce exacerbations, hospitalizations and the frequency of death of patients with COPD. The cornerstones of treatment are bronchodilator drugs of two different classes: beta agonists and muscarinic antagonists. Currently the Global initiative for COPD suggests the use of long acting beta agonists (LABAs) and long acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) in combination for the majority of COPD patients, thus great interest is associated with the developing of LAMA/LABA fixed combination in the maintenance treatment of stable COPD. Many LAMA/LABA fixed dose combinations have been licensed in different countries and the clinical use of these drugs stimulated the performance of many clinical trials. The purpose of this review is a complete criticism of pharmacological and clinical aspects related to the use of LAMA/LABA single inhalers for the maintenance treatment of stable COPD, with particular mention to the most debated topics and future prospects in the field.

Once daily long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists in a combined inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory condition causing accumulation of mucus in the airways, cough, and breathlessness; the disease is progressive and is the fourth most common cause of death worldwide. Current treatment strategies for COPD are multi-modal and aim to reduce morbidity and mortality and increase patients' quality of life by slowing disease progression and preventing exacerbations. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of a long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) delivered via a single inhaler are approved by regulatory authorities in the USA, Europe, and Japan for the treatment of COPD. Several LABA/LAMA FDCs are available and recent meta-analyses have clarified their utility versus their mono-components in COPD. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs versus placebo will facilitate the comparison of different FDCs in future network meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the evidence for once-daily LABA/LAMA combinations (delivered in a single inhaler) versus placebo on clinically meaningful outcomes in patients with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from Cochrane Airways' Specialised Register (CASR) and also conducted a search of the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch). We searched CASR and trial registries from their inception to 3 December 2018; we imposed no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC versus placebo. We included studies reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. We excluded very short-term trials with a duration of less than 3 weeks. We included adults (≥ 40 years old) with a diagnosis of stable COPD. We included studies that allowed participants to continue using their ICS during the trial as long as the ICS was not part of the randomised treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results to determine included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Where possible, we used a random-effects model to meta-analyse extracted data. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified and included 22 RCTs randomly assigning 8641 people with COPD to either once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC (6252 participants) or placebo (3819 participants); nine studies had a cross-over design. Studies had a duration of between three and 52 weeks (median 12 weeks). The mean age of participants across the included studies ranged from 59 to 65 years and in 21 of 22 studies, participants had GOLD stage II or III COPD. Concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use was permitted in all of the included studies (where stated); across the included studies, between 28% to 58% of participants were using ICS at baseline. Six studies evaluated the once-daily combination of IND/GLY (110/50 μg), seven studies evaluated TIO/OLO (2.5/5 or 5/5 μg), eight studies evaluated UMEC/VI (62.5/5, 125/25 or 500/25 μg) and one study evaluated ACD/FOR (200/6, 200/12 or 200/18 μg); all LABA/LAMA combinations were compared with placebo.The risk of bias was generally considered to be low or unknown (insufficient detail provided), with only one study per domain considered to have a high risk of bias except for the domain 'other bias' which was determined to be at high risk of bias in four studies (in three studies, disease severity was greater at baseline in participants receiving LABA/LAMA compared with participants receiving placebo, which would be expected to shift the treatment effect in favour of placebo).Compared to the placebo, the pooled results for the primary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: all-cause mortality, OR 1.88 (95% CI 0.81 to 4.36, low-certainty evidence); all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs), OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.28, high-certainty evidence); acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.78, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, MD -4.08 (95% CI -4.80 to -3.36, high-certainty evidence); proportion of SGRQ responders, OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.54 to 1.99). Compared with placebo, the pooled results for the secondary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: adjusted trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), MD 0.20 L (95% CI 0.19 to 0.21, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted peak FEV1, MD 0.31 L (95% CI 0.29 to 0.32, moderate-certainty evidence); and all-cause AEs, OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.04; high-certainty evidence). No studies reported data for the 6-minute walk test. The results were generally consistent across subgroups for different LABA/LAMA combinations and doses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, once-daily LABA/LAMA (either IND/GLY, UMEC/VI or TIO/OLO) via a combination inhaler is associated with a clinically significant improvement in lung function and health-related quality of life in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD; UMEC/VI appears to reduce the rate of exacerbations in this population. These conclusions are supported by moderate or high certainty evidence based on studies with an observation period of up to one year.

Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators such as long-acting β-agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations have been used in people with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to control symptoms such as dyspnoea and cough, and prevent exacerbations. A number of LABA/LAMA combinations are now available for clinical use in COPD. However, it is not clear which group of above mentioned inhalers is most effective or if any specific formulation works better than the others within the same group or class.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of available formulations from four different groups of inhalers (i.e. LABA/LAMA combination, LABA/ICS combination, LAMA and LABA) in people with moderate to severe COPD. The review will update previous systematic reviews on dual combination inhalers and long-acting bronchodilators to answer the questions described above using the strength of a network meta-analysis (NMA).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register, which contains several databases. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' websites. The most recent searches were conducted on 6 April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people aged 35 years or older with a diagnosis of COPD and a baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of less than 80% of predicted. We included studies of at least 12 weeks' duration including at least two active comparators from one of the four inhaler groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted NMAs using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method. We considered a study as high risk if recruited participants had at least one COPD exacerbation within the 12 months before study entry and as low risk otherwise. Primary outcomes were COPD exacerbations (moderate to severe and severe), and secondary outcomes included symptom and quality-of-life scores, safety outcomes, and lung function. We collected data only for active comparators and did not consider placebo was not considered. We assumed a class/group effect when a fixed-class model fitted well. Otherwise we used a random-class model to assess intraclass/group differences. We supplemented the NMAs with pairwise meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 101,311 participants from 99 studies (26 studies with 32,265 participants in the high-risk population and 73 studies with 69,046 participants in the low-risk population) in our systematic review. The median duration of studies was 52 weeks in the high-risk population and 26 weeks in the low-risk population (range 12 to 156 for both populations). We considered the quality of included studies generally to be good.The NMAs suggested that the LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations followed by LAMA in the both populations.There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination, LAMA, and LABA in the high-risk population (network hazard ratios (HRs) 0.86 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.76 to 0.99), 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.99), and 0.70 (95% CrI 0.61 to 0.8) respectively), and that LAMA decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA in the high- and low-risk populations (network HR 0.80 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.88) and 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.97), respectively). There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination reduces severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination and LABA in the high-risk population (network HR 0.78 (95% CrI 0.64 to 0.93) and 0.64 (95% CrI 0.51 to 0.81), respectively).There was a general trend towards a greater improvement in symptom and quality-of-life scores with the combination therapies compared to monotherapies, and the combination therapies were generally ranked higher than monotherapies.The LABA/ICS combination was the lowest ranked in pneumonia serious adverse events (SAEs) in both populations. There is evidence that the LABA/ICS combination increases the odds of pneumonia compared to LAMA/LABA combination, LAMA and LABA (network ORs: 1.69 (95% CrI 1.20 to 2.44), 1.78 (95% CrI 1.33 to 2.39), and 1.50 (95% CrI 1.17 to 1.92) in the high-risk population and network or pairwise OR: 2.33 (95% CI 1.03 to 5.26), 2.02 (95% CrI 1.16 to 3.72), and 1.93 (95% CrI 1.29 to 3.22) in the low-risk population respectively). There were significant overlaps in the rank statistics in the other safety outcomes including mortality, total, COPD, and cardiac SAEs, and dropouts due to adverse events.None of the differences in lung function met a minimal clinically important difference criterion except for LABA/LAMA combination versus LABA in the high-risk population (network mean difference 0.13 L (95% CrI 0.10 to 0.15). The results of pairwise meta-analyses generally agreed with those of the NMAs. There is no evidence to suggest intraclass/group differences except for lung function at 12 months in the high-risk population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations although there was some uncertainty in the results. LAMA containing inhalers may have an advantage over those without a LAMA for preventing COPD exacerbations based on the rank statistics. Combination therapies appear more effective than monotherapies for improving symptom and quality-of-life scores. ICS-containing inhalers are associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.Our most comprehensive review including intraclass/group comparisons, free combination therapies, 99 studies, and 20 outcomes for each high- and low-risk population summarises the current literature and could help with updating existing COPD guidelines.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting β2-agonist therapy to optimize chronic obstructive pulmonary disease prior to lung cancer surgery

Bronchodilators are essential for the perioperative management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) undergoing surgery for lung cancer. The objective of the present study was to examine whether the usage of a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) could optimize preoperative lung function and reduce the risk for postoperative pulmonary complications. Thirty-two consecutive patients with moderate-to-severe COPD who underwent a lobectomy for lung cancer and received preoperative LAMA (n=19) or LAMA/LABA (n=13) therapy between January 2005 and December 2015 were enrolled in this retrospective study. The improvement of preoperative pulmonary function and the postoperative morbidity were compared between the patients with preoperative LAMA, and LAMA/LABA therapy. Increases in the forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) were significantly larger in the LAMA/LABA group than in the LAMA group (0.26±0.05 l vs. 0.07±0.05 l; P=0.0145). More patients in the LAMA/LABA group than in the LAMA group showed a marked improvement of >10% in %FEV₁ after bronchodilators (85 vs. 32%; P=0.0046). The incidence of postoperative pneumonia was significantly lower in the LAMA/LABA group than in the LAMA group (0 vs. 26%; P=0.044). In conclusion, the present study showed that preoperative LAMA/LABA therapy was associated with larger improvements in preoperative pulmonary function and less postoperative pneumonia than LAMA therapy. These results may lead to greater improvements in FEV₁ and less postoperative pneumonia by encouraging preoperative LAMA/LABA therapy in this patient population.

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

BACKGROUND

In clinical trials of inhaled bronchodilators, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines recommend that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are assessed alongside lung function. How these endpoints are related is unclear.

METHODS

Pooled longitudinal data from 23 randomised controlled COPD studies were analyzed (N = 23,213). Treatments included long-acting β₂ agonists, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LABAs or LAMAs) and the LABA/LAMA combination QVA149. Outcome measures were Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores, COPD exacerbation frequency and rescue medication use. Relationships between changes in trough forced expiratory volume in one second (ΔFEV₁) and outcomes following treatment were assessed using correlations of data summaries and model-based analysis: generalized linear mixed-effect regression modelling to determine if ΔFEV₁ could predict patient outcomes with different treatments.

RESULTS

Mean age was 64 years, 73% were male, and most had moderate (45%) or severe (52%) disease. Statistically significant correlations were observed between ΔFEV₁ and each outcome measure (exacerbations Rs = 0.05; rescue medication, SGRQ, TDI, r = 0.11-0.16; all p < .001). Patients with greater improvements in trough FEV₁ had on average better SGRQ and TDI scores, fewer exacerbations, and used less rescue medication. For SGRQ and TDI scores, minimal clinically important differences were observed over the range of pooled ΔFEV₁ values. Model-based predictions confirmed the treatment effect was partly explained by changes in FEV₁ from baseline with improvements in PROs observed across all treatments when trough FEV₁ improved. Across all endpoints active treatments were better than placebo (p < .0001), and LABA/LAMA treatment resulted in numerically better treatment outcomes than either monocomponent.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that FEV₁ improvements post-bronchodilation correlate with PRO improvements. Further improvements in patient outcomes may be expected by maximizing lung function improvements.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration details for the 23 randomised controlled studies used in this pooled analysis are supplied in Additional File 4.

Indacaterol/glycopyrronium: a dual bronchodilator for COPD

Indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) 110/50mcg was the first once-daily, long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combination (FDC) approved in Europe for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Development of IND/GLY was driven by the need to improve the standard of care for patients with this disease, in terms of symptom control and exacerbation frequency. IGNITE, an adaptive, comprehensive, and innovative Phase 3 development program, demonstrated the efficacy of IND/GLY in optimising bronchodilation, reducing symptoms, and reducing exacerbations in patients with COPD. IGNITE challenged contemporary thinking about the pharmacological treatment and management of patients with this disease.

When is dual bronchodilation indicated in COPD?

Inhaled bronchodilator medications are central to the management of COPD and are frequently given on a regular basis to prevent or reduce symptoms. While short-acting bronchodilators are a treatment option for people with relatively few COPD symptoms and at low risk of exacerbations, for the majority of patients with significant breathlessness at the time of diagnosis, long-acting bronchodilators may be required. Dual bronchodilation with a long-acting β2-agonist and long-acting muscarinic antagonist may be more effective treatment for some of these patients, with the aim of improving symptoms. This combination may also reduce the rate of exacerbations compared with a bronchodilator-inhaled corticosteroid combination in those with a history of exacerbations. However, there is currently a lack of guidance on clinical indicators suggesting which patients should step up from mono- to dual bronchodilation. In this article, we discuss a number of clinical indicators that could prompt a patient and physician to consider treatment escalation, while being mindful of the need to avoid unnecessary polypharmacy. These indicators include insufficient symptomatic response, a sustained increased requirement for rescue medication, suboptimal 24-hour symptom control, deteriorating symptoms, the occurrence of exacerbations, COPD-related hospitalization, and reductions in lung function. Future research is required to provide a better understanding of the optimal timing and benefits of treatment escalation and to identify the appropriate tools to inform this decision.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists vs. long-acting β 2 agonists in COPD exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) provide superior therapeutic effects over long-acting β2 agonists (LABAs) for preventing COPD exacerbations.

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials involving patients with stable, moderate to severe COPD according to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease criteria, treated with a LAMA (i.e., tiotropium bromide, aclidinium, or glycopyrronium), followed for at least 12 weeks and compared with controls using a LABA in isolation or in combination with a corticosteroid.

RESULTS

A total of 2,622 studies were analyzed for possible inclusion on the basis of their title and abstract; 9 studies (17,120 participants) were included in the analysis. In comparison with LABAs, LAMAs led to a greater decrease in the exacerbation rate ratio (relative risk [RR] = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84-0.93]; a lower proportion of patients who experienced at least one exacerbation (RR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.87-0.94; p < 0.00001); a lower risk of exacerbation-related hospitalizations (RR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.69-0.87; p < 0.0001); and a lower number of serious adverse events (RR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.67-0.96; p = 0.0002). The overall quality of evidence was moderate for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The major findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis were that LAMAs significantly reduced the exacerbation rate (exacerbation episodes/year), as well as the number of exacerbation episodes, of hospitalizations, and of serious adverse events.

Symptom variability and control in COPD: Advantages of dual bronchodilation therapy

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous disorder characterized by usually progressive development of airflow obstruction that is not fully reversible. While most patients will experience symptoms throughout the day or in the morning upon awakening, many patients do not experience their symptoms as constant but report variability in symptoms during the course of the day or over time. Symptom variability adversely affects patients' health status and increases the risk of COPD exacerbations.

METHODS

We examined data from the literature on symptom variability and control in patients with COPD, with focus on the use of inhaled bronchodilator therapy with long-acting muscarinic antagonist agents (LAMA) plus long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA); in particular twice-daily fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA therapy with aclidinium/formoterol.

RESULTS

Correct diagnosis and assessment of COPD requires comprehensive clinical and functional evaluation and consideration of individual needs to support the clinical decisions necessary for effective long-term management. Combining bronchodilators from different and complementary pharmacological classes with distinct mechanisms of action can increase the magnitude of bronchodilation as opposed to increasing the dose of a single bronchodilator.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of inhaled bronchodilator therapy with LAMA/LABA fixed-dose combinations in patients with stable COPD is supported by current evidence. This treatment approach provides robust effects on lung function and symptom control and may improve patients' adherence to treatment. Administration of the long-acting bronchodilators aclidinium and formoterol as twice daily fixed-dose aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg has the potential to control symptoms throughout the 24 h in patients with stable moderate-to-severe COPD.

LABA/LAMA combination in COPD: a meta-analysis on the duration of treatment

When there are no randomised clinical trials directly comparing all relevant treatment options, an indirect treatment comparison via meta-analysis of the available clinical evidence is an acceptable alternative. However, meta-analyses may be very misleading if not adequately performed. Here, we propose and validate a simple and effective approach to meta-analysis for exploring the effectiveness of long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

14 articles with 20 329 patients (combinations n=9292; monocomponents n=11 037) were included in this study. LABA/LAMA combinations were always more effective than the monocomponents in terms of the improvement in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, transition dyspnoea index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores after 3, 6 and 12 months of treatment. No significant publication bias was identified. Significant discrepancies with previous network meta-analyses have been found, with overall differences ranging from 26.7% to 43.3%.

Results from previous network meta-analyses were misleading because no adequate attention was given to formulating the review question, specifying eligibility criteria, correctly identifying studies, collecting appropriate information and deciding what it would be pharmacologically relevant to analyse. The real gradient of effectiveness of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations remains an unmet medical need; however, it can be investigated indirectly using a high-quality meta-analytic approach.

Dual bronchodilation in COPD: lung function and patient-reported outcomes - a review

Several fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of long-acting bronchodilators (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA] plus a long-acting β2-agonist [LABA]) are available for the treatment of COPD. Studies of these FDCs have demonstrated substantial improvements in lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) in comparison with their respective constituent monocomponents. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms and health status, as well as exacerbation rates, have been reported compared with a LABA or LAMA alone, but results are less consistent. The inconsistencies may in part be owing to differences in study design, methods used to assess study end points, and patient populations. Nevertheless, these observations tend to support an association between improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and improvements in symptom-based outcomes. In order to assess the effects of FDCs on PROs and evaluate relationships between PROs and changes in lung function, we performed a systematic literature search of publications reporting randomized controlled trials of FDCs. Results of this literature search were independently assessed by two reviewers, with a third reviewer resolving any conflicting results. In total, 22 Phase III randomized controlled trials of FDC bronchodilators in COPD were identified, with an additional study including a post-literature search (ten for indacaterol-glycopyrronium once daily, eight for umeclidinium-vilanterol once daily, three for tiotropium-olodaterol once daily, and two for aclidinium-formoterol twice daily). Results from these studies demonstrated that the LAMA-LABA FDCs significantly improved lung function compared with their component monotherapies or other single-agent treatments. Furthermore, LABA-LAMA combinations also generally improved symptoms and health status versus monotherapies, although some discrepancies between lung function and PROs were observed. Overall, the safety profiles of the FDCs were similar to placebo. Further research is required to examine more closely any relationship between lung function and PROs in patients receiving LABA-LAMA combinations.

Eligibility of real-life patients with COPD for inclusion in trials of inhaled long-acting bronchodilator therapy

Background

Management guidelines of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are mainly based on results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), but some authors have suggested limited representativeness of patients included in these trials. No previous studies have applied the full range of selection criteria to a broad COPD patient population in a real-life setting.

Methods

We identified all RCTs of inhaled long-acting bronchodilator therapy, during 1999–2013, at ClinicalTrials.gov and translated trial selection criteria into definitions compatible with electronic medical records. Eligibility was calculated for each RCT by applying these criteria to a uniquely representative, well-characterised population of patients with COPD from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD).

Results

Median eligibility of 36 893 patients with COPD for participation in 31 RCTs was 23 % (interquartile range 12–38). Two studies of olodaterol showed the highest eligibility of 55 and 58 %. Conversely, the lowest eligibility was observed in two studies that required a history of exacerbations in the past year (3.5 and 3.9 %). For the patient subgroup with modified Medical Research Council score ≥2, the overall median eligibility was 27 %.

Conclusions

By applying an extensive range of RCT selection criteria to a large, representative COPD patient population, this study highlights that the interpretation of results from RCTs must take into account that RCT participants are variably, but generally more representative of patients in the community than previously believed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-016-0433-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficacy and safety of indacaterol/glycopyrronium in Japanese patients with COPD: Pooled analysis of SHINE and ARISE

BACKGROUND

To better evaluate the efficacy and safety of the indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) fixed-dose combination versus tiotropium in Japanese patients, a pooled data analysis was conducted from the SHINE and ARISE studies, which were part of the IND/GLY clinical trial program.

METHODS

Japanese patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were included in the analysis. Efficacy in terms of pre-dose forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) at Week 12 and Week 24/26 (ARISE/SHINE) and FEV₁ at 30min and 60min post-dose at Day 1, Week 12, and Week 24/26 was evaluated. Health status using the St. George׳s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, rescue medication use (number of puffs/day), safety, and tolerability were also assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 340 patients (IND/GLY, n=161; IND, n=41; GLY, n=40; tiotropium, n=79; and placebo, n=19) were included in the analysis that focused on comparing IND/GLY versus tiotropium since they were included in both studies. At Week 12 and Week 24/26, pre-dose FEV₁ was significantly improved with IND/GLY compared with tiotropium (treatment differences=70mL and 80mL, respectively; both P≤0.001). FEV₁ at 30min and 60min post-dose, the SGRQ total score, and rescue medication use were more statistically significant with IND/GLY than with tiotropium for all assessed time-points. The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs was similar between the IND/GLY- and tiotropium-treated groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to tiotropium, IND/GLY provided significant improvements in lung function, health status, and rescue medication use, while having a good safety profile in Japanese patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Long-Term Maintenance Bronchodilation With Indacaterol/Glycopyrrolate Versus Indacaterol in Moderate-to-Severe COPD Patients: The FLIGHT 3 Study

Background: The objective of the FLIGHT3 study was to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of indacaterol/glycopyrrolate* (IND/GLY) versus an active comparator, IND, in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) over 52 weeks. Method: FLIGHT3 was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 52-week study. Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to IND/GLY (27.5/15.6 or 27.5/31.2 µg twice daily [b.i.d.]) or IND (75 µg once daily [o.d.]), delivered via the Neohaler^® device. The primary objective was to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of IND/GLY versus IND in terms of adverse event (AE)-reporting rates in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD over 52 weeks. The secondary objective was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of IND/GLY versus IND in terms of pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and post-dose 1-h FEV₁ over 52 weeks. Results: A total of 85.2% patients completed the study treatment. The overall incidence of AEs (and SAEs) was similar between treatments. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and/or cardiovascular (CV) events were comparable between treatment groups. The rate of discontinuation of the study treatment due to AEs was lower for IND/GLY than IND. Improvements in pre-dose trough FEV₁ and post-dose 1-h FEV₁ were consistently superior with IND/GLY than with IND over 52 weeks, demonstrating long-term maintenance of lung function. Conclusions: IND/GLY demonstrated a favorable long-term safety and tolerability profile and provided effective bronchodilation, with maintenance of lung function over 52 weeks in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. These data support the safety and efficacy of IND/GLY as a treatment option for COPD. Trial registration: ClinTrials.gov identifier NCT01682863 *Glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg (excluding the bromide salt) is equivalent to 12.5 µg glycopyrronium.

Preventing Hospitalizations From Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Chronic obstructive lung disease is among the leading causes of adult hospital admissions and readmissions in the United States. Preventing acute exacerbations is the primary approach in therapy. Combinations of smoking cessation, pulmonary rehabilitation, vaccinations and inhaled and oral medications may all reduce the overall risk of acute exacerbations. When prevention is unsuccessful, treatment of exacerbations often does not require hospitalization but can be safely executed in the outpatient setting. In the patient who does not require mechanical ventilation or who manifests respiratory acidosis, oxygen supplementation, frequent short-acting inhaled bronchodilators, oral corticosteroids and often antibiotics can abort the decompensation and sometimes return the patient to his or her pre-attack baseline lung function. Several models exist for delivering this care in the ambulatory setting. Follow-up care after an exacerbation has resolved is important, though there are few hard data suggesting which approach is best in this setting.

A randomized, parallel-group study to evaluate the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD

BACKGROUND

The combination of the inhaled muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) with the long-acting β2-agonist vilanterol (VI) has been shown to provide significant improvements in lung function compared with UMEC, VI, or placebo (PBO) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study was specifically designed to support these findings by assessing health-related quality of life and symptomatic outcomes in a similar population.

METHODS

This was a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg (via ELLIPTA(®) dry powder inhaler) or PBO for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at day 84. Secondary efficacy endpoints included rescue albuterol use (puffs/day) over weeks 1-12 and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second on day 84. Adverse events were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 496 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population in the UMEC/VI (n=248) and PBO (n=248) treatment groups. UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in SGRQ total score at day 84 versus PBO (difference between treatments in SGRQ total score change from baseline: -4.03 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -6.28, -1.79]; P<0.001). UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg resulted in a statistically significant reduction in rescue albuterol use versus PBO (-0.7 puffs/day [95% CI: -1.1, -0.4]; P<0.001). UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second on day 84 versus PBO (122 mL [95% CI: 71, 172]; P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments (32% and 30% of patients in the UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg and PBO groups, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate that treatment with UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg provides clinically important improvements in SGRQ and rescue medication use versus PBO in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD.

FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2: Efficacy and Safety of QVA149 (Indacaterol/Glycopyrrolate) versus Its Monocomponents and Placebo in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

RATIONALE

Current Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy recommends the combination of two long-acting bronchodilators of different pharmacologic classes for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) if symptoms are not adequately controlled by a single bronchodilator.

OBJECTIVES

The FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2 studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of QVA149 (indacaterol/glycopyrrolate), a fixed-dose combination of a long-acting β2-agonist (indacaterol) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (glycopyrrolate), compared with its monocomponents and placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

METHODS

FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2 were 12-week, identical, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo- and active-controlled studies. Patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to indacaterol/glycopyrrolate (27.5/15.6 μg twice daily), indacaterol (27.5 μg twice daily), glycopyrrolate (15.6 μg twice daily), or placebo, all delivered via the Neohaler device. The primary objective was to demonstrate the superiority of indacaterol/glycopyrrolate versus its monocomponents for standardized area under the curve from 0-12 hours for FEV1 at Week 12. Secondary objectives included St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score and transition dyspnea index total score and reduction in daily rescue medication use with indacaterol/glycopyrrolate versus placebo.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In total, 2,038 patients were included in the pooled analysis. Indacaterol/glycopyrrolate was statistically superior in terms of FEV1 area under the curve from 0-12 hours compared with its monocomponents (P < 0.001). Statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, transition dyspnea index total score, and reduction in rescue medication use were observed with indacaterol/glycopyrrolate compared with placebo (P < 0.001). The safety profile was comparable across the treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Indacaterol/glycopyrrolate twice daily can be an alternative treatment option for the management of symptomatic patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01727141 and NCT 0171251).

Comparative efficacy of fixed-dose combinations of long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting β2-agonists: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A number of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) for treatment of moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have recently become available, but none have been directly compared in head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The purpose of this study was to assess the relative clinical benefit of all currently available LAMA/LABA FDCs using a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified RCTs investigating the efficacy, safety and quality of life associated with licensed LAMA/LABA FDCs for the treatment of moderate-to-very severe COPD. RCTs were screened for inclusion in the NMA using prespecified eligibility criteria. Data were extracted for outcomes of interest, including change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (tFEV1) from baseline, St. George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) percentage of responders, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) percentage of responders, change in SGRQ score from baseline, change in TDI focal score from baseline, moderate-to-severe exacerbations, all-cause discontinuation, and discontinuation due to adverse events.

RESULTS

Following screening, a total of 27 trials from 26 publications with 30,361 subjects were eligible for inclusion in the NMA. Nonsignificant results were seen in most analyses comparing efficacy, exacerbations and discontinuation rates of included LAMA/LABA FDCs (i.e. aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg, glycopyrronium/indacaterol 110/50 µg, tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 µg, umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg). Meta-regression controlling for post-bronchodilator percentage of tFEV1 predicted at baseline as well as meta-regression adjusting for concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids at baseline was performed to assess the magnitude of effect modification and produced similar results as observed in the base case analysis.

CONCLUSION

All LAMA/LABA FDCs were found to have similar efficacy and safety. Definitive assessment of the relative efficacy of different treatments can only be performed through direct comparison in head-to-head RCTs. In the absence of such data, this indirect comparison may be of value in clinical and health economic decision-making.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. Inhaled bronchodilators are the mainstay of COPD pharmacological treatment. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are a major class of inhaled bronchodilators. Some LAMA/device systems with different characteristics and dosing schedules are currently approved for maintenance therapy of COPD and a range of other products are being developed. They improve lung function and patient-reported outcomes and reduce acute bronchial exacerbations with good safety. LAMAs are used either alone or associated with long-acting β₂-agonists, eventually in fixed dose combinations. Long-acting β₂-agonist/LAMA combinations assure additional benefits over the individual components alone. The reader will obtain a view of the safety and efficacy of the different LAMA/device systems in COPD patients.

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

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg twice daily compared to tiotropium 18 μg once daily in adult patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

A systematic literature review performed in March 2014, using a predefined search strategy in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, identified 17 randomized placebo-controlled trials, (tiotropium n = 15; aclidinium/formoterol n = 2). Outcomes of interest were: bronchodilation (peak and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)), COPD symptoms [Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score and % of responders (>1 unit improvement)] and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) [St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and % responders (>4 unit improvement)], % of patients with ≥1 exacerbations, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), hospitalization and mortality, all at 24 weeks. In the absence of head-to-head trials between aclidinium/formoterol and tiotropium, a Bayesian indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was used with placebo as common control.

RESULTS

Regarding bronchodilation, aclidinium/formoterol was found to be more efficacious than tiotropium at peak FEV1, with mean difference in change from baseline (DCFB) 143 mL [95% credible interval (CrI): 112, 174] and at trough FEV1 [DCFB 26 mL (95% CrI -2, 55)]. Aclidinium/formoterol is expected to be more efficacious than tiotropium in improving dyspnea symptoms measured by TDI [DCFB 0.54 points (95% CrI 0.09, 0.99); odds ratio (OR) of responders 1.51 (95% CrI 1.11, 2.06)]. SGRQ results are comparable for aclidinium/formoterol versus tiotropium [DCFB -0.52 (95% CrI -2.21, 1.17); OR of responders 1.16 (95% CrI 0.47, 2.87)]. The ITC results suggest similar safety profiles regarding AEs, SAEs and hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Based on the ITC, aclidinium/formoterol is expected to be more efficacious than tiotropium in terms of lung function and symptom control while providing comparable HRQoL results and safety profile.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Comparative efficacy of long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapies in COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Randomized, controlled trials comparing long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) efficacy in COPD are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the relative efficacy of tiotropium 18 µg once-daily (OD) and newer agents (aclidinium 400 µg twice-daily, glycopyrronium 50 µg OD, and umeclidinium 62.5 µg OD).

Methods

A systematic literature review identified randomized, controlled trials of adult COPD patients receiving LAMAs. A NMA within a Bayesian framework examined change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), transitional dyspnea index focal score, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score, and rescue medication use.

Results

Twenty-four studies (n=21,311) compared LAMAs with placebo/each other. Aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, and umeclidinium, respectively, demonstrated favorable results versus placebo, for change from baseline (95% credible interval) in 12-week trough FEV₁ (primary endpoint: 101.40 mL [77.06–125.60]; 117.20 mL [104.50–129.90]; 114.10 mL [103.10–125.20]; 136.70 mL [104.20–169.20]); 24-week trough FEV₁ (128.10 mL [84.10–172.00]; 135.80 mL [123.10–148.30]; 106.40 mL [95.45–117.30]; 115.00 mL [74.51–155.30]); 24-week St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score (−4.60 [−6.76 to −2.54]; −3.14 [−3.83 to −2.45]; −2.43 [−2.92 to −1.93]; −4.69 [−7.05 to −2.31]); 24-week transitional dyspnea index score (1.00 [0.41–1.59]; 1.01 [0.79–1.22]; 0.82 [0.62–1.02]; 1.00 [0.49–1.51]); and 24-week rescue medication use (data not available; −0.41 puffs/day [−0.62 to −0.20]; −0.52 puffs/day [−0.74 to −0.30]; −0.30 puffs/day [−0.81 to 0.21]). For 12-week trough FEV₁, differences in change from baseline (95% credible interval) were −12.8 mL (−39.39 to 13.93), aclidinium versus tiotropium; 3.08 mL (−7.58 to 13.69), glycopyrronium versus tiotropium; 22.58 mL (−11.58 to 56.97), umeclidinium versus tiotropium; 15.90 mL (−11.60 to 43.15), glycopyrronium versus aclidinium; 35.40 mL (−5.06 to 76.07), umeclidinium versus aclidinium; and 19.50 mL (−15.30 to 54.38), umeclidinium versus glycopyrronium. Limitations included inhaler-related factors and safety; longer-term outcomes were not considered.

Conclusion

The new LAMAs studied had at least comparable efficacy to tiotropium, the established class standard. Choice should depend on physician’s and patient’s preference.

Mortality and drug therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence suggests pharmacological treatments may impact on overall survival in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients. Individual clinical trials are rarely powered to detect mortality differences between treatments and may not include all treatment options relevant to healthcare decision makers.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify RCTs of COPD treatments reporting mortality; evidence was synthesised using network meta-analysis (NMA). The analysis included 40 RCTs; a quantitative indirect comparison between 14 treatments using data from 55,220 patients was conducted.

RESULTS

The analysis reported two treatments reducing all-cause mortality; salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) was associated with a reduction in mortality versus placebo in the fixed effects (HR 0.79; 95 % Crl 0.67, 0.94) but not the random effects model (0.79; 0.56, 1.09). Indacaterol was associated with a reduction in mortality versus placebo in fixed (0.28; 0.08 to 0.85) and random effects (0.29; 0.08, 0.89) models. Mean estimates and credible intervals for hazard ratios for indacaterol versus placebo are based on a small number of events; estimates may change when the results of future studies are included. These results were maintained across a variety of assumptions and provide evidence that SFC and indacaterol may lead to improved survival in COPD patients.

CONCLUSION

Results of an NMA of COPD treatments suggest that SFC and indacaterol may reduce mortality. Further research is warranted to strengthen this conclusion.

The efficacy and safety of triple inhaled treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis using Bayesian methods

PURPOSE

Although tiotropium (TIO) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β-agonists are frequently prescribed together, the efficacy of "triple therapy" has not been scientifically demonstrated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using Bayesian methods to compare triple therapy and TIO monotherapy.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of triple therapy and TIO monotherapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of triple therapy and TIO monotherapy using Bayesian random effects models.

RESULTS

Seven trials were included, and the risk of bias in the majority of the studies was acceptable. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of death and acute exacerbation of disease in the triple therapy and TIO monotherapy groups. Triple therapy improved the prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (mean difference [MD], 63.68 mL; 95% credible interval [CrI], 45.29-82.73), and patients receiving triple therapy showed more improvement in St George Respiratory Questionnaire scores (MD, -3.11 points; 95% CrI, -6.00 to -0.80) than patients receiving TIO monotherapy. However, both of these differences were lower than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). No excessive adverse effects were reported in triple therapy group.

CONCLUSION

Triple therapy with TIO and ICSs/long-acting β-agonists was only slightly more efficacious than TIO monotherapy in treating patients with COPD. Further investigations into the efficacy of new inhaled drugs are needed.

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.

Comparative efficacy of combination bronchodilator therapies in COPD: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several new fixed-dose combination bronchodilators have been recently launched, and assessing their efficacy relative to each other, and with open dual combinations is desirable. This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of umeclidinium and vilanterol (UMEC/VI) with that of available dual bronchodilators in single/separate inhalers.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials of ≥10 weeks among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients (≥40 years), assessing the efficacy of combination bronchodilators in single or separate inhalers. Comparative assessment was conducted on change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores, transitional dyspnea index (TDI) focal scores, and rescue medication use at 12 weeks and 24 weeks using an NMA within a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

A systematic literature review identified 77 articles of 26 trials comparing UMEC/VI, indacaterol/glycopyrronium (QVA149), formoterol plus tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg, salmeterol plus TIO, or indacaterol plus TIO, with TIO and placebo as common comparators at 12 weeks and approximately 24 weeks. The NMA showed that at 24 weeks, efficacy of UMEC/VI was not significantly different compared with QVA149 on trough FEV1 (14.1 mL [95% credible interval: -14.2, 42.3]), SGRQ total score (0.18 [-1.28, 1.63]), TDI focal score (-0.30 [-0.73, 0.13]), and rescue medication use (0.02 [-0.27, 0.32]); compared with salmeterol plus TIO on trough FEV1 (67.4 mL [-25.3, 159.4]), SGRQ total score (-0.11 [-1.84, 1.61]), and TDI focal score (0.58 [-0.33, 1.50]); and compared with formoterol plus TIO 18 μg on SGRQ total score (-0.68 [-1.77, 0.39]). Results at week 12 were consistent with week 24 outcomes. Due to lack of availability of evidence, no comparison was made with formoterol plus TIO on FEV1 or TDI at 24 weeks.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI has comparable efficacy to other dual-bronchodilator combinations on available efficacy endpoints.

Profile of a fixed-dose combination of tiotropium/olodaterol and its potential in the treatment of COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive, debilitating disorder that results in frequent exacerbations and impacts quality of life. It represents a growing burden of health care cost, both from societal and economic perspectives. Short- and long-acting bronchodilators remain the mainstay of therapy in COPD patients. New fixed-dose combination inhalers with novel pharmacological combinations of long-acting β2-agonists and muscarinic antagonists and delivered once-daily through a variety of devices are currently being developed and licensed for the treatment of COPD. There is mounting research suggesting that combining a fixed dose of a β2-agonist and a muscarinic antagonist achieves better bronchodilation and clinical outcomes compared with either agent alone. These once-daily dosing inhalers are anticipated to impact favorably on patient preference and compliance. This review examines the fixed-dose combination of tiotropium bromide and olodaterol delivered by a Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ inhaler at doses of 2.5/5 μg and 5/5 μg in moderate-to-very-severe COPD, and its potential role in COPD compared with other long-acting β2-agonist with long-acting muscarinic antagonist combinations and delivery devices.

LANTERN: a randomized study of QVA149 versus salmeterol/fluticasone combination in patients with COPD

BACKGROUND

The current Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) treatment strategy recommends the use of one or more bronchodilators according to the patient's airflow limitation, their history of exacerbations, and symptoms. The LANTERN study evaluated the effect of the long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) dual bronchodilator, QVA149 (indacaterol/glycopyrronium), as compared with the LABA/inhaled corticosteroid, salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC), in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with a history of ≤1 exacerbation in the previous year.

METHODS

In this double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, 744 patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with a history of ≤1 exacerbations in the previous year were randomized (1:1) to QVA149 110/50 μg once daily or SFC 50/500 μg twice daily for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was noninferiority of QVA149 versus SFC for trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at week 26.

RESULTS

Overall, 676 patients completed the study. The primary objective of noninferiority between QVA149 and SFC in trough FEV1 at week 26 was met. QVA149 demonstrated statistically significant superiority to SFC for trough FEV1 (treatment difference [Δ]=75 mL; P<0.001). QVA149 demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in standardized area under the curve (AUC) from 0 hours to 4 hours for FEV1 (FEV1 AUC0-4h) at week 26 versus SFC (Δ=122 mL; P<0.001). QVA149 and SFC had similar improvements in transition dyspnea index focal score, St George Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and rescue medication use. However, QVA149 significantly reduced the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations by 31% (P=0.048) over SFC. Overall, the incidence of adverse events was comparable between QVA149 (40.1%) and SFC (47.4%). The incidence of pneumonia was threefold lower with QVA149 (0.8%) versus SFC (2.7%).

CONCLUSION

These findings support the use of the LABA/LAMA, QVA149 as an alternative treatment, over LABA/inhaled corticosteroid, in the management of moderate-to-severe COPD patients (GOLD B and GOLD D) with a history of ≤1 exacerbation in the previous year.

New combination bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: current evidence and future perspectives

Fixed dose combination (FDC) dual bronchodilators that co-administer a long acting β2 -adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) and a long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) are a new class of inhaled treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This review focuses on the clinical evidence for the benefit of LABA/LAMA FDCs compared with monocomponent treatments, and also compared with active comparators that are widely used for the treatment of COPD, namely tiotropium and salmeterol-fluticasone. Novel FDC dual bronchodilators include QVA149 and umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI). Long term clinical trials show that QVA149 and UMEC/VI are superior to monocomponent therapy in terms of trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), although the FEV1 improvement was limited to approximately 80-90% of the added monocomponent values. This suggests that the effect of combining a LABA and a LAMA is not fully additive. LABA/LAMA FDC were associated with the largest mean changes in symptoms and health status that were above the minimal clinically important difference, in contrast to the monocomponents. Furthermore, these LABA/LAMA FDCs demonstrated superiority over the active comparators tiotropium and salmeterol-fluticasone in terms of trough FEV1 and patient-reported outcomes. LABA/LAMA FDCs offer a simplified means of maximizing bronchodilation for COPD patients, with the improvements in lung function being mirrored by benefits in terms of symptoms and exacerbations. The use of LABA/LAMA FDCs in clinical practice is set to grow and further studies are needed to define their optimal place in treatment guidelines.

Aclidinium bromide/formoterol fixed-dose combination therapy for COPD: the evidence to date

The quest for the right combination of bronchodilators with different mechanisms of action such as long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting β-agonists in the management of stable moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a topic of intense research activity currently, given the rising morbidity and mortality due to this disease. The fixed-dose combination of aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate in a single inhaler seems to offer superior advantages over either drugs given alone or as separate inhalers concurrently. Since the fixed-dose combination needs to be given twice daily, it is likely to achieve control of symptoms most crucial to the quality of life in COPD, namely, the morning hours. This is reflected in significant trough FEV₁ (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) improvements after the dose. This paper reviews the various studies related to this combination put in the perspective of its safety and efficacy and potential benefits over other therapeutic options. However, there is a dearth of data on the long-term safety and efficacy in terms of improvement in lung function. This combination could emerge as an excellent option in the management of stable COPD if data on exacerbation rates and patient-reported outcomes become available from longer-term studies. Moreover, we need some more studies to define the ideal phenotype of COPD best suited for the use of this combination.

Combination therapy with indacaterol and glycopyrronium bromide in the management of COPD: an update on the evidence for efficacy and safety

The international guidelines on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend inhaled bronchodilators for maintenance treatment of the disease. These drugs include β2-agonists and muscarinic antagonists, which are both available as short-acting agents (to be used as needed for dyspnea) and long-acting agents. To the latter belong salmeterol and formoterol (long-acting β2-agonists) and indacaterol, vilanterol and olodaterol (very long-acting β2-agonist) as β2-agonists, and tiotropium, aclidinium and glycopyrronium bromide as long-acting muscarinic antagonists. The efficacy and safety of indacaterol and glycopyrronium as monotherapies has been demonstrated in several controlled trials. However, in some patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, symptoms are poorly controlled by bronchodilator monotherapy; in these cases the addition of a second bronchodilator from a different pharmacological class may be beneficial. Here we review the evidence from published randomized trials concerning the efficacy and safety of the once-daily fixed-dose dual bronchodilator combining indacaterol and glycopyrronium.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily QVA149 compared with the free combination of once-daily tiotropium plus twice-daily formoterol in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD (QUANTIFY): a randomised, non-inferiority study

Background

QVA149 is a once-daily (o.d.) inhaled dual bronchodilator containing a fixed-dose combination of the long-acting β₂-agonist indacaterol and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium for the treatment of COPD. The QUANTIFY study compared QVA149 with a free-dose bronchodilator combination of tiotropium plus formoterol (TIO+FOR) in improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with COPD.

Methods

This multicentre, blinded, triple-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study randomised patients aged ≥40 years with moderate-to-severe COPD (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) ≥30% to <80% predicted) to QVA149 110/50 µg o.d. or TIO 18 µg o.d.+ FOR 12 µg twice daily (1:1) for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate non-inferiority in HRQoL assessed using St George's Respiratory Questionnaire-COPD (SGRQ-C). The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 4 units. Secondary endpoints included Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) score, pre-dose FEV₁, forced vital capacity (FVC) and safety.

Results

Of the 934 patients randomised (QVA149=476 and TIO+FOR=458), 87.9% completed the study. At week 26, non-inferiority was met for SGRQ-C (QVA149 vs TIO+FOR; difference: –0.69 units; 95% CI −2.31 to 0.92; p=0.399). A significantly higher percentage of patients achieved a clinically relevant ≥1 point improvement in TDI total score with QVA149 (49.6%) versus TIO+FOR (42.4%; p=0.033). QVA149 significantly increased pre-dose FEV₁ (+68 mL, 95% CI 37 mL to 100 mL; p<0.001) and FVC (+74 mL, 95% CI 24 mL to 125 mL; p=0.004) compared with TIO+FOR at week 26. The incidence of adverse events was comparable between both treatments (QVA149=43.7% and TIO+FOR=42.6%).

Conclusions

QVA149 is non-inferior to TIO+FOR in improving HRQoL, with clinically meaningful and significant improvements in breathlessness and lung function in patients with COPD.

Trial registration number

NCT01120717.

Comparative efficacy of long-acting muscarinic antagonists in preventing COPD exacerbations: a network meta-analysis and meta-regression

Background:

We hypothesized a class effect of currently available long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs; i.e. tiotropium as a dry powder inhaler or a soft mist inhaler, aclidinium bromide, and glycopyrronium) in preventing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations. The hypothesis was tested with a network meta-analysis.

Methods:

Several databases and manufacturer’s websites were searched for relevant clinical trials. Randomized, controlled trials, of at least 12 weeks duration, comparing a LAMA with placebo or another LAMA were included. Moderate-to-severe and severe exacerbations were chosen as the outcome assessment criteria. The data were pooled using network meta-analysis.

Results:

A total of 27 studies with 48,140 subjects were included. All LAMAs reduced moderate-to-severe exacerbations compared with placebo. However, there were no statistically significant differences in preventing moderate-to-severe or severe exacerbations among LABAs. In a subgroup analysis restricting studies to those that had a minimum of 6 months of treatment, glycopyrronium was associated with the least-effective strategy and aclidinium was associated with the greatest probability of being the best therapy in preventing severe exacerbations. Our meta-regression analysis suggested that the prevention of COPD exacerbations were less effective in studies which allowed concomitant use of a long-acting beta agonist (LABA).

Conclusion:

All LAMAs were equally effective in preventing moderate-to-severe exacerbations. Aclidinium was associated with the lowest risk for severe exacerbations when treatment duration was 6 months or longer. The concomitant use of LABA may not enhance the efficacy of LAMAs in preventing COPD exacerbations. More studies are needed to further examine above findings.

QVA149 Improves Lung Function, Dyspnea, and Health Status Independent of Previously Prescribed Medications and COPD Severity: A Subgroup Analysis from the SHINE and ILLUMINATE Studies

Background: QVA149 is a dual bronchodilator combining the long-acting β2-agonist(LABA) indacaterol and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) glycopyrronium, for maintenance treatment of COPD. This post hoc analysis evaluated the improvements in lung function, dyspnea, and health status in subgroups of patients based on prior medication use, disease severities, baseline cough score, and baseline rescue medication use, achieved with QVA149 compared with placebo and other active comparators in 2 phase III clinical studies. Methods: In both the SHINE (NCT01202188) and ILLUMINATE (NCT01315249) studies, symptomatic patients aged ≥40 years with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized to once-daily QVA149 (110/50 µg), indacaterol (150 µg), glycopyrronium (50 µg), tiotropium (18 μg), or placebo (2:2:2:2:1) and once-daily QVA149 (110/50 µg) or twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone ([SFC]; 50/500 µg), respectively for 26 weeks. Here, we present the improvements in lung function, transition dyspnea index (TDI) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score by prior medication use and COPD disease severity separately from both studies. Results: In total, 2144 and 523 patients were randomized in the SHINE and ILLUMINATE studies; 89.1% and 82.6%, respectively, completed the study. QVA149 showed significant improvements in lung function compared with placebo (SHINE study) and SFC (ILLUMINATE study) regardless of prior medication, disease severity, baseline cough score, and rescue medication use. TDI and SGRQ total scores were also improved with QVA149 compared with placebo and SFC in most of the analyzed subgroups. Conclusion: QVA149 showed improvements in lung function, dyspnea, and health status in both moderate and severe COPD patients independent of previous medication use and baseline cough score.