A randomized, double-blind dose-ranging study of the novel LAMA GSK573719 in patients with COPD

Real-world effects of once-daily inhaled steroid (fluticasone furoate) combined with long-acting beta-2 agonist (vilanterol) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (umeclidinium) on lung function tests of asthma patients in Japan

Background: The Japanese drug use system allowed the once-daily use of inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate (FF) combined with a long-acting beta-2 agonist vilanterol (VI) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) against asthma on 18 February 2021. We investigated the real-world effects of these drugs (FF/UMEC/VI) mainly on lung function tests. Methods: This was an open-label, uncontrolled, within-group time-series (before-after) study. Prior asthma treatment (inhaled corticosteroid with/without a long-acting beta-2 agonist with/without a long-acting muscarinic antagonist) was switched to FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 μg. Subjects were evaluated by lung function tests prior to, and 1-2 months after, initiation of FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 μg. Patients were asked questions regarding the asthma control test and preference for drugs. Results: Overall, 114 asthma outpatients (97% Japanese) were enrolled from February 2021 to April 2022: 104 subjects completed the study. Forced expiratory volume in 1 s, peak flow, and asthma control test score of FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 μg-treated subjects were significantly increased (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.01, respectively). In contrast with FF/VI 200/25 μg, instantaneous flow at 25% of the forced vital capacity and expiratory reserve volume were significantly increased by FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 μg (p < 0.01, p < 0.05, respectively). Sixty-six percent of subjects declared they wanted to continue FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 μg in the future. Adverse effects, mainly local, were seen in 30% of patients, but no serious adverse effects were seen. Conclusion: Once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 μg was effective against asthma without serious adverse events. This is the first report that demonstrated FF/UMEC/VI dilated peripheral airways using lung function tests. This evidence on drug effects may improve our understanding of pulmonary physiology and the pathophysiology of asthma.

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Inhaled Umeclidinium in Asian Patients with COPD: Results from a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study

Purpose

Previous studies demonstrating efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium (UMEC) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have included few Asian patients. This study evaluated efficacy and safety of UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo in Asian patients with COPD.

Patients and Methods

A Phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Patients (aged ≥40 years with COPD, pre-, and post-albuterol forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]/forced vital capacity ratio <0.70 and low risk of exacerbations) were randomized 2:1 to once-daily UMEC 62.5 mcg or placebo via the ELLIPTA inhaler for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was change from baseline (CFB) in trough FEV1 on Day 169. Secondary endpoints were weighted mean FEV1 over 0-6 hrs post-dose on Day 1 and CFB in Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score on Day 168.

Results

A total of 306 patients were included in the modified intent-to-treat population (UMEC: 205; placebo: 101). UMEC versus placebo provided a statistically significant improvement in least squares (LS) mean trough FEV1 between baseline and Day 169 (154 mL [95% confidence interval (CI): 113, 194]; p<0.001). A clinically meaningful difference of 125 mL in favor of UMEC (95% CI: 103, 147; p<0.001) was also seen in LS weighted mean FEV1 0-6 hrs post-dose on Day 1. A LS mean treatment difference in TDI focal score of 0.9 units in favor of UMEC was seen on Day 168 (95% CI: 0.3, 1.5; p=0.004). Incidence of on-treatment adverse events (AEs) was lower in the placebo (55%) versus UMEC arm (60%); non-fatal serious AEs, drug-related AEs, and AEs leading to withdrawal were similar with UMEC and placebo.

Conclusion

Once-daily UMEC 62.5 mcg resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in lung function and dyspnea, compared with placebo, in Asian patients with COPD, with no new safety concerns observed.

Evidence-based review of data on the combination inhaler umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD

The use of inhaled, fixed-dose, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) combined with long-acting, beta2-adrenergic receptor agonists (LABA) has become a mainstay in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One of the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations is the dry powder inhaler (DPI) of umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) (62.5 µg/25 µg) approved for once-a-day maintenance treatment of COPD. This paper reviews the use of fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA agents focusing on the UMEC/VI DPI inhaler in the maintenance treatment of COPD. The fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA inhaler offers a step beyond a single inhaled maintenance agent but is still a single device for the COPD patient having frequent COPD exacerbations and persistent symptoms not well controlled on one agent. Currently available clinical trials suggest that the once-a-day DPI of UMEC/VI is well-tolerated, safe and non-inferior or better than other currently available inhaled fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations for COPD.

Efficacy and Tolerability of an Inhaled Selective Glucocorticoid Receptor Modulator - AZD5423 - in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: Phase II Study Results

AZD5423 is a novel, inhaled, selective glucocorticoid receptor modulator (SGRM), which in an allergen challenge model in asthma patients improved lung function and airway hyper-reactivity. In the current trial, AZD5423 was for the first time tested in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this double-blind, randomized and parallel group study, we examined airway and systemic effects of two doses of AZD5423, inhaled via Turbuhaler for 12 weeks, in 353 symptomatic patients with COPD (average pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one-second (FEV1) at screening was 50-52% of predicted normal). Pre-bronchodilator FEV1 was primary variable, with other lung function parameters plus symptoms and 24-hr plasma cortisol being secondary variables. Plasma concentrations of AZD5423 were also measured. Effects were compared against placebo and a reference glucocorticoid receptor agonist control. Neither AZD5423, at doses which have shown to be efficacious in allergen-induced asthma, nor the reference control, at double the approved dose, had any clinically meaningful effect in the patient population studied in regard to lung function or markers of inflammation. Both GR modulators were well tolerated and did suppress 24-hr cortisol. This study suggests that the selected population of patients with COPD does not respond to treatment with AZD5423 as regards lung function, while showing the expected systemic effects. It cannot be ruled out that a favourable lung function response of AZD5423 can be evoked using another experimental setting and/or within a different population of patients with COPD.

Umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have poor quality of life, reduced survival, and accelerated decline in lung function, especially associated with acute exacerbations, leading to high healthcare costs. Long-acting bronchodilators are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic improvement, and umeclidinium is one of the new long-acting muscarinic antagonists approved for treatment of patients with stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, and the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Clinical Study Register, using prespecified terms, as well as the reference lists of all identified studies. Searches are current to April 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing umeclidinium bromide versus placebo in people with COPD, for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. If we noted significant heterogeneity in the meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies by umeclidinium dose.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies of 12 to 52 weeks' duration, involving 3798 participants with COPD. Mean age of participants ranged from 60.1 to 64.6 years; most were males with baseline mean smoking pack-years of 39.2 to 52.3. They had moderate to severe COPD and baseline mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) ranging from 44.5% to 55.1% of predicted normal. As all studies were systematically conducted according to prespecified protocols, we assessed risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases as low.Compared with those given placebo, participants in the umeclidinium group had a lesser likelihood of developing moderate exacerbations requiring a short course of steroids, antibiotics, or both (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.80; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: high), but not specifically requiring hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.92; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: low). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent an acute exacerbation requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both was 18 (95% CI 13 to 37). Quality of life was better in the umeclidinium group (mean difference (MD) -4.79, 95% CI -8.84 to -0.75; three studies, N = 1119), and these participants had a significantly higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least four units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score compared with those in the placebo group (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.82; three studies, N = 1397; GRADE: moderate). The NNTB to achieve one person with a clinically meaningful improvement was 11 (95% CI 7 to 29). The likelihood of all-cause mortality, non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: moderate), and adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: moderate) did not differ between umeclidinium and placebo groups. The umeclidinium group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in change from baseline in trough FEV₁ compared with the placebo group (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.17; four studies, N = 1381; GRADE: high). Symptomatic improvement was more likely in the umeclidinium group than in the placebo group, as determined by Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.09; three studies, N = 1193), and the chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least one unit improvement was significantly higher with umeclidinium than with placebo (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; three studies, N = 1141; GRADE: high). The NNTB to attain one person with clinically important symptomatic improvement was 8 (95% CI 5 to 14). The likelihood of rescue medication usage (change from baseline in the number of puffs per day) was significantly less for the umeclidinium group than for the placebo group (MD -0.45, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14; four studies, N = 1531).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Umeclidinium reduced acute exacerbations requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both, although no evidence suggests that it decreased the risk of hospital admission due to exacerbations. Moreover, umeclidinium demonstrated significant improvement in quality of life, lung function, and symptoms, along with lesser use of rescue medications. Studies reported no differences in adverse events, non-fatal serious adverse events, or mortality between umeclidinium and placebo groups; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

Umeclidinium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: latest evidence and place in therapy

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity, mortality and health care expenditure throughout the world. COPD guidelines recommend the use of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) either alone or in combination with a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA). For over 10 years, tiotropium was the only LAMA that was used in the management of COPD. Over the past few years, various new drugs have been identified that act on the muscarinic receptors and β2 receptors. Umeclidinium (Umec) is a new LAMA currently approved for use in patients with COPD either as monotherapy or in combination with vilanterol (Vil). Both Umec alone and in combination with Vil delivered through a multi-dose dry powder Ellipta™ device have shown improvement in lung function, health-related quality of life and exacerbation frequency in patients with COPD. This review provides an overview of the pharmacology, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of Umec, and evaluates the clinical efficacy and safety studies in patients with COPD.

Inhaled Umeclidinium in COPD Patients: A Review and Meta-Analysis

A number of new agents for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at different stages of development, including several inhaled long-acting antimuscarinics (LAMA). Long-acting bronchodilators are considered to be central to the management of COPD due to the evidence supporting their efficacy and safety. Umeclidinium, a LAMA, has recently been approved for the maintenance treatment of moderate to very severe COPD in a number of countries. This comprehensive review and pooled meta-analysis provides detailed information about the efficacy and safety of this agent. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of umeclidinium observed in phase I and II studies support its once-daily administration. Umeclidinium is rapidly cleared from blood, and renal or hepatic impairment do not lead to significant changes in drug disposition. A pooled analysis of phase III and comparative studies of umeclidinium in patients with moderate to very severe COPD showed significant improvement in lung function measures, including trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), as well as in acute exacerbations of COPD, dyspnea, and quality of life. Adverse effects, including known anticholinergic effects, were uncommon with umeclidinium. Limited data suggest the efficacy of umeclidinium is similar to that of tiotropium. Umeclidinium is administered as a dry powder inhaler, provides adequate lung delivery in patients with moderate to very severe airflow obstruction, and appears to be easily used by patients. Umeclidinium provides a safe and effective option as an inhaled LAMA for the management of COPD.

Inhaled treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: what's new and how does it fit?

Since chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by progressive airflow obstruction, inhaled bronchodilators form the mainstay of treatment. A variety of new inhaled drugs and inhaler devices have recently been licensed and approved for prescribing to patients with COPD; many such drugs have been formulated in devices to deliver two different drugs at the same time. The evidence based review article highlights all of the drugs now licensed, describes some of the evidence surrounding their use and highlights practical steps in helping decide when these drugs should be considered in the context of guidelines.

Long-term (52 weeks) safety and tolerability of umeclidinium in Japanese patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Objective Umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) 62.5 μg is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) that is administered once daily via inhalation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of long-term treatment with UMEC 125 μg in Japanese patients with COPD. Methods This was a 52 week, multicenter, open-label study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of UMEC 125 μg once daily delivered via a novel dry powder inhaler (nDPI) in Japanese patients with COPD. The primary endpoint was the incidence and severity of all adverse events (AEs) throughout the 52 week treatment period. Clinical trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT01702363. Results A total of 153 patients were enrolled in the study. Of these, 131 patients started treatment with UMEC 125 μg, and 111 patients (85%) completed the study. AEs did not differ greatly in incidence over the various time periods (Weeks 0 to 12, 13 to 24, 25 to 36, and 37 to 52 of treatment) and did not increase with continued treatment. The incidence of drug-related AEs associated with the pharmacological effects of LAMAs (including constipation, blurred vision, and thirst) was low. Serious adverse events (SAEs) during the treatment period were reported in 17 patients (13%). SAEs reported in more than one patient were COPD exacerbation and pneumonia (3 patients each, 2%). One SAE of angina pectoris was considered to be drug related. No fatalities were reported during this study. Conclusions No new AEs were identified beyond those attributable to the pharmacological effects of LAMAs. UMEC 125 μg was well tolerated over 52 weeks of treatment in Japanese patients with COPD.

A randomised, open-label study of umeclidinium versus glycopyrronium in patients with COPD

This study compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium 62.5 µg with once-daily glycopyrronium 50 µg in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This was a 12-week, multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02236611). Patients were randomised 1:1 to umeclidinium 62.5 µg or glycopyrronium 50 µg administered via Ellipta or Breezhaler dry powder inhaler, respectively. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at day 85 in the per-protocol population. Other endpoints included: weighted mean FEV₁ over 0-24 h and patient-reported outcomes (transition dyspnoea index score and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score). Adverse events were also assessed. A total of 1037 patients were randomised to treatment. Umeclidinium was non-inferior (margin: -50 mL) to glycopyrronium (trough FEV₁ at day 85 treatment difference: 24 mL, 95% confidence intervals: -5-54). Improvements in other endpoints were similar between treatments. Adverse event incidences were similar for umeclidinium (37%) and glycopyrronium (36%). Once-daily umeclidinium was non-inferior to once-daily glycopyrronium in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in trough FEV₁ at day 85. Patient-reported outcomes and safety profiles were similar for both treatments.

Dual therapy strategies for COPD: the scientific rationale for LAMA + LABA

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity, mortality, and health care expenditure worldwide. Relaxation of airway smooth muscle with inhaled bronchodilators is the cornerstone of treatment for stable COPD, with inhaled corticosteroids reserved for those with a history of exacerbations. Tiotropium has occupied center stage in COPD treatment for over 10 years and improves lung function, quality of life, exercise endurance, and reduces the risk of COPD exacerbation. Long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) improve lung function, reduce dynamic hyperinflation, increase exercise tolerance, health-related quality of life, and reduce acute exacerbation of COPD. The combination of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and LABAs is thought to leverage different pathways to induce bronchodilation using submaximal drug doses, increasing the benefits and minimizing receptor-specific side effects. Umeclidinium/vilanterol is the first combination of LAMA/LABA to be approved for use in stable COPD in USA and Europe. Additionally, indacaterol/glycopyrronium and aclidinium/formoterol have been approved in Europe and in numerous locations outside USA. Several other agents are in the late stages of development, most of which offer once-daily dosing. The benefits of new LAMA/LABA combinations include improved pulmonary function, dyspnea, and health-related quality of life, and in some cases, reduced exacerbations. These evolving treatments will provide new opportunities and challenges in the management of COPD.

A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD

BACKGROUND

The long-acting muscarinic antagonists umeclidinium (UMEC) and tiotropium (TIO) are approved once-daily maintenance therapies for COPD. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of UMEC versus TIO in COPD.

METHODS

This was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to UMEC 62.5 μg plus placebo or TIO 18 μg plus placebo. The primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at day 85 (non-inferiority margin -50 mL; per-protocol [PP] population). Other end points included weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 and 12-24 hours post-dose. Patient-reported outcomes comprised Transition Dyspnea Index score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and COPD Assessment Test score. Adverse events were also assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 1,017 patients were randomized to treatment. In the PP population, 489 and 487 patients received UMEC and TIO, respectively. In the PP population, change from baseline in trough FEV1 was greater with UMEC versus TIO at day 85, meeting non-inferiority and superiority margins (difference: 59 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 29-88; P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat analysis of trough FEV1 at day 85 (53 mL, 95% CI: 25-81; P<0.001). Improvements in weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 hours post-dose at day 84 were similar with UMEC and TIO but significantly greater with UMEC versus TIO over 12-24 hours post-dose (70 mL; P=0.015). Clinically meaningful improvements in Transition Dyspnea Index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire were observed with both treatments at all time points. No differences were observed between UMEC and TIO in patient-reported outcomes. Overall incidences of adverse events were similar for UMEC and TIO.

CONCLUSION

UMEC 62.5 μg demonstrated superior efficacy to TIO 18 μg on the primary end point of trough FEV1 at day 85. Safety profiles were similar for both treatments.

Genetic effects on treatment response of umeclidinium/vilanterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Treatment with long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is standard, but response varies. We investigated genetic association with treatment response to umeclidinium (UMEC, a LAMA), vilanterol (VI, a LABA), and combination therapy.

METHODS

Data from 17 clinical trials (N = 6075) in patients with COPD receiving once-daily UMEC/VI (125/25mcg or 62.5/25mcg), UMEC (125 or 62.5mcg), VI (25mcg) or placebo were used. Genetic association with change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ∼24 h post-dosing was assessed for: (i) 3 β2-adrenoceptor (ADRB2) gene variants; (ii) 298 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with prior evidence of associations; (iii) human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles and (iv) genome-wide association study (GWAS) SNPs. Other endpoints were (i) reversibility at screening; and at baseline: (ii) FEV1; (iii) forced vital capacity (FVC), and (iv) FEV1/FVC ratio. Using linear regression, the inverse normal transformed residuals were pooled together, first across treatment group, then across studies for each monotherapy, then combination therapy and finally for every treated patient.

RESULTS

Of 6075 patients, 1849 received UMEC/VI, 1390 received UMEC, 1795 received VI, and 1041 received placebo. None of the ADRB2 variants, HLA alleles or GWAS variants tested were associated with treatment response or baseline endpoints. Four SNPs in FAM13A (rs7671167, rs2869967, rs1964516, rs1903003) were significantly associated with baseline FEV1/FVC ratio (p < 3 × 10(-5)) after adjusting for multiple testing.

CONCLUSIONS

No genetic association was found with treatment response to UMEC or VI when administered as monotherapies or in combination.

Once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 mcg in COPD: a randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Combination long-acting bronchodilator therapy may be more effective than long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 125/25 mcg with placebo and UMEC or VI monotherapy in COPD.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. A total of 1493 patients were randomized (3:3:3:2) to 24 weeks of treatment with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg, UMEC 125 mcg, VI 25 mcg, or placebo once-daily via dry powder inhaler.

RESULTS

Primary efficacy endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) on Day 169 (23-24 h post-dose). Additional lung-function, symptomatic and health-related quality of life endpoints were also assessed. Safety evaluations included: adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiography and clinical laboratory measurements. All active treatments significantly improved trough FEV1 vs placebo (0.124-0.238 L, all p<0.001). Improvements with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg were significantly greater than for UMEC 125 mcg or VI 25 mcg (0.079 L and 0.114 L; both p≤0.001). Improvements for UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg vs placebo were observed for the transition dyspnea index (1.0 unit; p<0.001), rescue albuterol use at Weeks 1-24 (-1.5 puffs/day) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (-3.60 units, p<0.001). No safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg was well tolerated and provided greater improvements in lung function, health status, and dyspnea scores compared with monotherapy components and placebo over 24 weeks. This study supports the use of UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg for the maintenance treatment of COPD.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

protocol number: DB2113361; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01313637.

Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium Added to Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol in Patients with COPD: Results of Two Randomized, Double-Blind Studies

Combinations of drugs with distinct and complementary mechanisms of action may offer improved efficacy in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In two 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group studies, patients with COPD were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily umeclidinium (UMEC; 62.5 μg and 125 μg) or placebo (PBO), added to twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL; 250/50 μg). In both studies, the primary efficacy measure was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at Day 85. Secondary endpoints were weighted-mean (WM) FEV1 over 0-6 hours post-dose (Day 84) and rescue albuterol use. Health-related quality of life outcomes (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] and COPD assessment test [CAT]) were also examined. Safety was assessed throughout. Both UMEC+FP/SAL doses provided statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 (Day 85: 0.127-0.148 L) versus PBO+FP/SAL. Similarly, both UMEC+FP/SAL doses provided statistically-significant improvements in 0-6 hours post-dose WM FEV1 versus PBO+FP/SAL (Day 84: 0.144-0.165 L). Rescue use over Weeks 1-12 decreased with UMEC+FP/SAL in both studies versus PBO+FP/SAL (Study 1, 0.3 puffs/day [both doses]; Study 2, 0.5 puffs/day [UMEC 125+FP/SAL]). Decreases from baseline in CAT score were generally larger for both doses of UMEC+FP/SAL versus PBO+FP/SAL (except for Day 84 Study 2). In Study 1, no differences in SGRQ score were observed between UMEC+FP/SAL and PBO+FP/SAL; however, in Study 2, statistically significant improvements were observed with UMEC 62.5+FP/SAL (Day 28) and UMEC 125+FP/SAL (Days 28 and 84) versus PBO+FP/SAL. The incidence of on-treatment adverse events across all treatment groups was 37-41% in Study 1 and 36-38% in Study 2. Overall, these data indicate that the combination of UMEC+FP/SAL can provide additional benefits over FP/SAL alone in patients with COPD.

The safety of anticholinergic bronchodilators for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Poorly absorbable quaternary ammonium-inhaled muscarinic antagonists both as the short-acting ipratropium and as long-acting (12 - 24 h) agents (tiotropium, glycopyrronium, aclidinium and umeclidinium) have all demonstrated statistically and clinically significant efficacy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compared with placebo. However, controversy has arisen concerning the safety of this class of agents principally regarding their association with both fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular toxicity.

AREAS COVERED

The safety of both ipratropium and the long-acting muscarinic antagonists is reviewed with a major emphasis on potential cardiovascular toxicity, based on published clinical trials data and results of analyses of pooled data, meta-analyses, and observational studies. Since glycopyrronium, aclidinium, and umeclidinium have become available only relatively recently, more emphasis will be placed on the more extensive literature concerning the safety of the older anticholinergic compounds, the short-acting ipratropium, and the long-acting tiotropium in its dry powder formulation, as well as its newer soft mist inhaler delivery device.

EXPERT OPINION

Pooled analyses and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of tiotropium in both its dry powder and soft mist formulations, as well as some observational studies, have implicated this agent as increasing the risk of nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events. However, the most robust evidence based on large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of relatively long duration specifically designed to evaluate the cardiovascular safety of tiotropium have not confirmed these safety concerns. Because of the relatively limited amount of safety data for the newer long-acting muscarinic antagonists compared to the far more extensive experience with tiotropium, it will be important to accumulate additional safety information from post-marketing pharmacovigilance for these newer agents.

The ELLIPTA® Dry Powder Inhaler: Design, Functionality, In Vitro Dosing Performance and Critical Task Compliance by Patients and Caregivers

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are commonly used for the delivery of inhaled medications, and should provide consistent, efficient dosing, be easy to use correctly, and be liked by patients; these attributes can all affect patient compliance and therefore treatment efficacy. The ELLIPTA^® DPI was developed for the delivery of once-daily therapies for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It has moderate resistance to airflow and can hold one or two blister strips, with each blister containing a sealed single dose of medication. Monotherapies can be delivered by the single-strip configuration and, in the two-strip configuration, one dose from each strip can be aerosolized simultaneously to allow combination therapies to be delivered, which enables the formulations for each product to be developed individually, since they are stored separately until the point of administration. There are three principal operating steps to administer a dose: open, inhale, close. This article summarizes the design, functionality, and in vitro dose-delivery characteristics of the ELLIPTA inhaler, and describes the results of human factors validation tests, designed to assess the performance of critical tasks required to use the inhaler. Results from the in vitro studies indicate that the ELLIPTA inhaler performs consistently with respect to in vitro dose delivery characteristics at a range of flow rates that can be achieved by the target population (≥30 L/min) and over its 30-day in-use life. Data from the human factors validation tests demonstrated that almost all participants (≥97%) were able to complete each of the steps required to prepare a dose for inhalation without error. Overall, the ELLIPTA inhaler has a versatile single- or two-strip design that allows it to be used for the delivery of a range of treatment options. It also improves patient ease-of-use when compared with the DISKUS^® DPI.

Umeclidinium/vilanterol combination inhaler efficacy and potential impact on current chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Umeclidinium bromide (UM) with vilanterol (VI) is the first once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2 agonist (LAMA/LABA) combination approved for use in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the USA. Prior to this, only combinations of short-acting bronchodilators and short-acting muscarinic antagonists were available in the USA as a single inhaler and they required frequent dosing. LAMA or LABA therapy is the recommended first choice for moderate-to-very severe COPD with combination therapy added if monotherapy fails to control patients' symptoms. This allows lower dosing of individual medications, which may limit adverse effects. It could also have the additional benefit of improving patient compliance by making medication regimens less laboring.

AREAS COVERED

A comprehensive literature search of journal articles and abstracts looking for trials that evaluated both the efficacy and the safety of UM/VI revealed that UM/VI improves patients' lung function and overall health status, while maintaining excellent safety and tolerability profiles compared to placebo and other bronchodilators.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the clinical efficacy, favorable safety profile and ease of use, clinicians may recommend UM/VI to patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD - a shift that could have significant impact on the management of COPD.

Dose-response modelling of umeclidinium and fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium in asthma

PURPOSE

In two dose-ranging crossover studies, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) was assessed as monotherapy in patients with asthma not treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (NCT01641692 [study 1]) and combined with the ICS fluticasone furoate (FF) in patients with asthma symptomatic on ICS (NCT01573624 [study 2]). The present study aimed to further characterise the UMEC dose-response relationship with change from baseline trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (day 15).

METHODS

A model-based approach using non-linear mixed-effects analyses was used to assess data from studies 1 and 2.

RESULTS

Within the Study 1 dose range, no significant dose-response was demonstrated. In study 2, the slope-intercept on log-dose model showed a mild dose-response, with a 10 % probability of a 0.075-L FEV1 improvement with FF/UMEC 100/250 mcg; period 1 data (with an absent carryover effect) indicated an 88 % probability of a 0.075-L FEV1 improvement.

CONCLUSION

The model-based approach in study 2 identified FF/UMEC doses warranting further investigation.

▼Umeclidinium: another LAMA for COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects around 64 million people worldwide and is the fourth leading cause of death.(1) It is thought that 3 million people have COPD in the UK, with about 900,000 having been diagnosed and an estimated 2.1 million with disease that remains undiagnosed.(2) In addition, premature mortality from COPD in the UK is almost double the European average and as a result there has been considerable focus on improving outcomes for patients.(3)One of the options for maintenance pharmacological treatment of COPD is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA).(4) DTB has previously reviewed three inhaled LAMAs licensed in the UK for use by people with COPD: tiotropium and ▼glycopyrronium (both administered once daily), and ▼aclidinium bromide (administered twice daily).(5-8) ▼Umeclidinium bromide (Incruse) is another once daily LAMA, delivered using the Ellipta inhaler device, and is indicated as maintenance bronchodilator treatment to relieve symptoms in adult patients with COPD.(9) Here we review the evidence for its use in the management of COPD.

Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of inhaled umeclidinium and vilanterol alone and in combination in healthy Chinese subjects: a randomized, open-label, crossover trial

Inhaled umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of inhaled UMEC with vilanterol (UMEC/VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the US and EU. This was a randomized, open-label, three-period crossover, single- and repeat-dose study to assess the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and tolerability of inhaled UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg (delivering 55/22 μg) and UMEC/VI 125/25 μg (delivering 113/22 μg) compared with their monotherapy components (UMEC 62.5 μg, UMEC 125 μg and, VI 25 μg [delivering 55, 113, and 22 μg, respectively]) in healthy Chinese subjects (n=20). UMEC and VI were rapidly absorbed following single and repeat dosing (time to maximum plasma concentration [t_max]: UMEC = 5 min; VI = 5 min). The median t_last was 2–4 h for UMEC and 1–2 h for VI following single doses of UMEC/VI and UMEC monotherapy (both doses). UMEC reached steady-state prior to Day 10; steady-state for VI could not be assessed. UMEC accumulation following repeat dosing was 11–34% based on C_max and 19–59% based on area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 2 h (AUC_(0-2)). VI accumulation following repeat dosing was 25–66% based on C_max and 17–43% based on AUC_(0-2). The evidence was not sufficient to suggest that systemic exposure was substantially different between UMEC/VI combination therapy and the constituent monotherapies following single or repeat dosing. Following both single- and repeat-dose administration, the inter-subject coefficient of variation for all UMEC PK parameter estimates ranged from 12% to 165% for all treatments, indicating a wide range of variability in inhaled PK parameters. Twelve subjects experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE). Six subjects experienced ≥1 treatment-related AE; the most commonly reported treatment-related AE was chest discomfort (n=3 [15%]). No clinically important changes in vital signs or electrocardiogram parameters were reported. These data suggest that single- and repeat-dose administration of UMEC/VI combination therapy in healthy Chinese subjects did not result in substantial differences in systemic exposure compared with UMEC and VI as monotherapies.

Pharmacology of novel treatments for COPD: are fixed dose combination LABA/LAMA synergistic?

Bronchodilators are mainstay for the symptomatic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and the introduction of long-acting bronchodilators has led to an improvement in the maintenance treatment of this disease. Various clinical trials have evaluated the effects of fixed dose long-acting β2-agonists (LABA)/long-acting anti-muscarinics (LAMA) combinations and documented greater improvements in spirometry but such improvements do not always translate to greater improvements in symptom scores or reduction in the rates of exacerbation compared with a single component drug. An analysis of whether this significantly greater change in spirometry with combination therapy is additive or synergistic was undertaken and is the subject of this review. Bronchodilators are not disease modifiers and whilst glucocorticosteroids have been shown to reduce rates of exacerbation in moderate to severe COPD, the increase risk of pneumonia and bone fractures is a motivation enough to warrant developing novel anti-inflammatory and disease-modifying drugs and with the expectation of positive outcomes.

A randomized, crossover study to investigate the pharmacokinetics and safety of inhaled fluticasone furoate and umeclidinium, administered separately and in combination via dry powder inhaler in healthy adult volunteers

INTRODUCTION

A combination of fluticasone furoate (FF) and umeclidinium (UMEC) has been considered for development for the treatment of asthma. The primary objectives were to investigate the plasma and urine pharmacokinetics (PK) of FF/UMEC in combination compared with FF and UMEC monotherapies.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, three-period crossover, single-center study in healthy volunteers assessed the PK of FF 400 mcg and UMEC 500 mcg administered separately and in combination (four inhalations of FF/UMEC 100/125 mcg, FF 100 mcg, or UMEC 125 mcg) via dual-strip dry powder inhaler. Subjects were randomized based on codes generated using a validated computerized system (Randall, GlaxoSmithKline).

RESULTS

Eighteen subjects were enrolled; 17 received all three scheduled doses of study medication. Plasma FF and UMEC concentrations peaked at 0.5 and 0.08 h post-dose, respectively, for FF/UMEC and the monotherapies. FF and UMEC co-administration resulted in slightly lower or similar systemic exposure for both drugs versus the monotherapies. In post hoc sensitivity analyses (performed because two subjects administered inhalations incorrectly), the ratio of adjusted geometric means (maximum plasma concentration and area under the curve) was closer to unity than in the planned analyses. Cumulative urinary UMEC excretion (Ae) was similar for FF/UMEC and UMEC. Post hoc sensitivity analyses on Ae(0-24) suggested a small carryover effect but results were similar to those of the population as a whole. Urinary UMEC excretion following FF/UMEC was low (~1.5% over 24 h) and unlikely to have impacted upon PK comparisons. Three adverse events were reported; none were severe or led to withdrawal. There were no clinically significant effects on electrocardiogram, vital sign, or laboratory parameters.

CONCLUSION

Fluticasone furoate and umeclidinium co-administration was well tolerated and was not associated with meaningful changes in systemic or urinary PK versus the monotherapies.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline.

Patient considerations in the treatment of COPD: focus on the new combination inhaler umeclidinium/vilanterol

Medication adherence among patients with chronic diseases, such as COPD, may be suboptimal, and many factors contribute to this poor adherence. One major factor is the frequency of medication dosing. Once-daily dosing has been shown to be an important variable in medication adherence in chronic diseases, such as COPD. New inhalers that only require once-daily dosing are becoming more widely available. Combination once-daily inhalers that combine any two of the following three agents are now available: 1) a long-acting muscarinic antagonist; 2) a long acting beta2 agonist; and 3) an inhaled corticosteroid. A new once-daily inhaler with both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, umeclidinium bromide, and a long acting beta2 agonist, vilanterol trifenatate, is now available worldwide for COPD treatment. It provides COPD patients convenience, efficacy, and a very favorable adverse-effects profile. Additional once-daily combination inhalers are available or will soon be available for COPD patients worldwide. The use of once-daily combination inhalers will likely become the standard maintenance management approach in the treatment of COPD because they improve medication adherence.

[Current optimization of combined therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]

Testing the new combined bronchodilator Anoro Ellipta in different clinical trials gives to its high clinical efficacy and safety in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The drug contains the molecules of sustained-release selective β2-adrenergic receptor agonist (vilanterol) and a muscarinic cholinergic receptor antagonist (umeclidinium bromide). The bronchodilating mechanisms of umeclidinium bromide are in the competitive inhibition of the binding of acetylcholine with muscarinic acetylcholine receptors of airway smooth muscles whereas in those of vilanterol are in that with the stimulation of intracellular adenylate cyclase. On days 1 and 24 after inhalation of the first dose of vilanterol and umeclidinium bromide, there was a significant increase in the forced expiratory volume in one second as compared to placebo. No clinical effects on QT interval on an electrocardiogram and cardiac rhythm were found. The benefits of an inhalation device (Ellipta) are its innovation design ensuring the effective delivery of an aerosol dose into the airway, convenience, and simplicity.

Effect of severe renal impairment on umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol pharmacokinetics and safety: a single-blind, nonrandomized study

Background

Umeclidinium and vilanterol, long-acting bronchodilators for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are primarily eliminated via the hepatic route; however, severe renal impairment may adversely affect some elimination pathways other than the kidney.

Objectives

To evaluate the effect of severe renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol.

Methods

Nine patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance <30 mL/min) and nine matched healthy volunteers received a single dose of umeclidinium 125 μg; and after a 7- to 14-day washout, a single dose of umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 μg.

Results

No clinically relevant increases in plasma umeclidinium or vilanterol systemic exposure (area under the curve or maximum observed plasma concentration) were observed following umeclidinium 125 μg or umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 μg administration. On average, the amount of umeclidinium excreted in 24 hours in urine (90% confidence interval) was 88% (81%–93%) and 89% (81%–93%) lower in patients with severe renal impairment compared with healthy volunteers following umeclidinium 125 μg and umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 μg administration, respectively. Treatments were well tolerated in both populations.

Conclusion

Umeclidinium 125 μg or umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 μg administration to patients with severe renal impairment did not demonstrate clinically relevant increases in systemic exposure compared with healthy volunteers. No dose adjustment for umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol is warranted in patients with severe renal impairment.

A randomized, three-period crossover study of umeclidinium as monotherapy in adult patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

To our knowledge, no studies in patients with asthma have assessed a long-acting muscarinic antagonist in the absence of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the dose-response, efficacy, and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC) in patients with asthma not receiving ICS.

METHODS

In this double-blind, three-period crossover study, 350 subjects were randomized to a sequence of three of eight inhaled treatments: UMEC 15.6, 31.25, 62.5, 125, or 250 mcg once daily (OD), UMEC 15.6 or 31.25 mcg twice daily (BID), or placebo, administered for 14 days (12-14-day washout). Trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), 0-24-h weighted mean (WM) FEV1, and safety were assessed. Serial spirometry and pharmacokinetic assessments were performed in a subgroup.

RESULTS

Subjects had a mean baseline pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1 of 71% and 88% predicted, respectively. Significant improvements in change from baseline trough FEV1 were observed for UMEC 15.6 OD (0.066 L; p = 0.036) and UMEC 125 OD (0.088 L; p = 0.005) versus placebo, but not other OD or BID doses. UMEC increased 0-24-h WM FEV1 versus placebo (0.068-0.121 L [p ≤ 0.017] with no clear dose-response). Treatment differences were similar for corresponding OD and BID doses in serial assessments. UMEC was rapidly absorbed, with evidence of some accumulation. The incidence of on-treatment adverse events was 9-21% for UMEC and 12% for placebo. There were no treatment-related effects on laboratory parameters.

CONCLUSION

The modest trough FEV1 improvements did not conclusively support a therapeutic benefit of UMEC in non-ICS treated patients with asthma.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV

NCT01641692.

Umeclidinium for treating COPD: an evaluation of pharmacologic properties, safety and clinical use

INTRODUCTION

Umeclidinium (UMEC) is a long-acting inhaled antagonist of muscarinic cholinergic receptors. The FDA approved UMEC for maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 2013 and it became available for commercial use as a single agent in 2014. After tiotropium, this is the only other once daily LAMA available for COPD patients.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we have comprehensively reviewed the pharmacokinetic properties and analyzed the currently available randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and safety profile of UMEC. We have discussed the current clinical application of UMEC and its future implication.

EXPERT OPINION

UMEC is the newer long-acting antimuscarinic agent (LAMA) that has demonstrated significant improvement in lung function and improved the quality of life in moderate-to-severe COPD patients. It is suitable for once daily dosing, has low anticholinergic side effects and is well tolerated. Overall, it is a safe, effective and convenient LAMA for maintenance therapy in COPD patients.

The effect of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium in adult patients with asthma: a randomized, dose-ranging study

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the dose-response of umeclidinium (UMEC; a long-acting muscarinic antagonist) combined with fluticasone furoate (FF; an inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]) in patients with asthma.

METHODS

In a double-blind, three-period crossover study, 421 subjects (symptomatic on ICS), were randomized to a sequence of three of seven treatments: FF 100 mcg alone, FF 100 mcg combined with UMEC (15.6, 31.25, 62.5, 125, or 250 mcg), or vilanterol 25 mcg (a long-acting β-agonist), inhaled once-daily for 14 days (12-14-day washout). Trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), peak expiratory flow (PEF), and safety were assessed.

RESULTS

Period baseline was a significant covariate, indicating a potential carryover effect between treatment periods. Across all treatment periods, trough FEV1 improved with FF/UMEC 125 and 250 versus FF (treatment difference 0.055 L [both doses]; p = 0.018). FF/UMEC increased morning (15.9-22.9 L/min) and evening (16.2-28.8 L/min) PEF versus FF. As intended assessments were confounded, post hoc Period 1 data analyses were performed, demonstrating significant increases in trough FEV1 with FF/UMEC 31.25, 62.5, and 250 versus FF. Trough FEV1 improvements with FF/UMEC were greater in subjects with fixed (0.095-0.304 L) versus non-fixed (-0.084 to 0.041 L) obstruction. The incidence of on-treatment adverse events was 13-25% across groups. No treatment-related effects on laboratory parameters were reported.

CONCLUSION

FF/UMEC may be a viable treatment for patients with asthma symptomatic on ICS; benefit may be most prominent in those with fixed obstruction. The carryover effect suggests future UMEC studies should use an alternative design. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01573624.

A randomized, placebo- and moxifloxacin-controlled thorough QT study of umeclidinium monotherapy and umeclidinium/vilanterol combination in healthy subjects

INTRODUCTION

The long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of UMEC with the long-acting beta2 agonist vilanterol (VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the US and EU.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the effect of UMEC and UMEC/VI on the QT interval corrected using Fridericia's correction (QTcF) following a 10-day treatment period.

METHODS

Randomized, placebo- and moxifloxacin-controlled, 4-period incomplete block crossover study of healthy non-smokers (n = 103). All treatments were double blind, except for moxifloxacin/moxifloxacin placebo controls which were single blinded. Subjects were randomized to a treatment sequence which consisted of 4 of 5 regimens. Each regimen consisted of once-daily doses on Days 1-10 via the ELLIPTA™ dry powder inhaler and a single tablet on Day 10 of the following: placebo + placebo; placebo + moxifloxacin; UMEC 500 μg + placebo; UMEC/VI 125/25 μg (delivered dose: 113/22 μg) + placebo; UMEC/VI 500/100 μg + placebo. QT interval, additional cardiac parameters, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety were assessed.

RESULTS

No clinically significant changes from baseline in QTcF occurred with UMEC 500 μg and UMEC/VI 125/25 μg compared with placebo, however, there was a change in QTcF from baseline of 6.4 ms (90% confidence interval [CI]: 4.3, 8.5) at 10 min and 8.2 ms (90%: 6.2, 10.2) at 30 min post dose following UMEC/VI 500/100 μg compared with placebo. On Day 10, categorical analysis demonstrated absolute QTcF values >450-480 ms for UMEC/VI 125/25 μg (1 subject) and moxifloxacin (3 subjects), and a change from baseline QTcF of >30-60 ms for UMEC/VI 125/25 μg, UMEC 500/100 μg and placebo (1 subject each) and moxifloxacin (2 subjects). On Day 10, the mean change from baseline in heart rate was increased with UMEC/VI 125/25 μg and UMEC 500/100 μg compared with placebo with the maximum increase occurring at 10 min post dose (8.4 bpm [90% CI: 7.0, 9.8] for UMEC/VI 125/25 μg; 20.3 bpm [90% CI: 18.9, 21.7] for UMEC/VI 500/100 μg); after this timepoint, heart rate rapidly returned to normal levels. UMEC and VI systemic exposures following UMEC/VI 500/100 μg were >4-fold higher than those following UMEC/VI 125/25 μg. All treatments were generally well tolerated in terms of adverse events, laboratory, vital signs and electrocardiogram data; the proportion of subjects with any adverse event was similar across treatments arms (39-59%)..

CONCLUSION

There was no clinically significant effect on QTcF observed following 10-days' treatment with inhaled UMEC/VI 125/25 μg or UMEC 500 μg compared with placebo. The supratherapeutic dose of UMEC/VI 500/100 μg prolonged QTcF by 6.4 ms (90% CI: 4.3, 8.5) at 10 min and 8.2 ms (90% CI: 6.2, 10.2) at 30 min compared with placebo, following which QTcF interval difference from placebo declined rapidly..

Safety and tolerability of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 mcg and umeclidinium 125 mcg in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

The long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of UMEC with the long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) vilanterol (UMEC/VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the US and EU. They are not indicated for the treatment of asthma.

METHODS

In this 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group safety study (GSK study DB2113359; NCT01316887), patients were randomized 2:2:1 to UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg, UMEC 125 mcg, or placebo. Study endpoints included adverse events (AEs), clinical chemistry and hematology parameters, vital signs, 12-lead, and 24-hour Holter electrocardiograms. COPD exacerbations and rescue medication use were assessed as safety parameters; lung function was also evaluated.

RESULTS

The incidence of on-treatment AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), and drug-related AEs was similar between treatment groups (AEs: 52-58%; SAEs: 6-7%; drug-related AEs: 12-13%). Headache was the most common AE in each treatment group (8-11%). AEs associated with the LAMA and LABA pharmacologic classes occurred at a low incidence across treatment groups. No clinically meaningful effects on vital signs or laboratory assessments were reported for active treatments versus placebo. The incidences of atrial arrhythmias with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg were similar to placebo; for UMEC 125 mcg, the incidences of ectopic supraventricular beats, sustained supraventricular tachycardia, and ectopic supraventricular rhythm were ≥2% greater than placebo. With active treatments, COPD exacerbations were fewer (13-15% of patients reporting ≥1 exacerbation) and on average less rescue medication was required (1.6-2.2 puffs/day) versus placebo (24% reporting ≥1 exacerbation, 2.6 puffs/day). Both active treatments improved lung function versus placebo.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg and UMEC 125 mcg were well tolerated over 12 months in patients with COPD.

Dose response of umeclidinium administered once or twice daily in patients with COPD: a pooled analysis of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies

Umeclidinium (UMEC) is an inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist approved in the US and EU for the once-daily (QD) treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); it is not indicated for the treatment of asthma. To fully characterize the dose-response relationship of UMEC in patients with COPD, a pooled analysis of data from two randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over, dose-ranging studies was performed, evaluating UMEC at doses of 15.6-1000 mcg QD and 15.6-250 mcg twice daily (BID). The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) at the end of each study's treatment period (Day 8/Day 15). A population model-based analysis using total daily UMEC dose was used for the primary analysis comparing QD and BID dosing. A physiological effect (E(max)) model was optimal in defining the relationship between UMEC dose and the primary endpoint, demonstrating a clear monotonic dose response over QD and BID dosing regimens. UMEC doses ≥62.5 mcg QD were differentiated from lower doses and BID dosing did not provide benefit over QD dosing. The potency (ED(50)) estimate was 33 mcg with QD dosing. These data indicate that UMEC 62.5 mcg and 125 mcg QD provide lung function benefits that warrant further investigation for the treatment of COPD.

Umeclidinium bromide and vilanterol trifenatate inhalation powder

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent in print and are also available on-line. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. A drug class review is now published monthly with The Formulary Monograph Service. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The June 2014 monograph topics are apremilast, metreleptin, five pollen allergen extract, evolocumab, and miltefosine. The DUE/MUE is on apremilast.

Effects of moderate hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetic properties and tolerability of umeclidinium and vilanterol in inhalational umeclidinium monotherapy and umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy: an open-label, nonrandomized study

BACKGROUND

The long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) is approved as a monotherapy, and in combination with the long-acting β2-agonist vilanterol (VI), as a once-daily inhaled maintenance bronchodilator therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the US and EU; they are not indicated for the treatment of asthma. Preclinical and clinical data suggest that UMEC and VI are predominantly eliminated by the liver.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study were to evaluate the effects of moderate hepatic impairment on the plasma and urinary pharmacokinetic properties of each drug, and on the tolerability of inhalational UMEC/VI 125/25 µg and UMEC 125 µg.

METHODS

This open-label, nonrandomized study was conducted in patients with moderate hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh score, 7-9) and in healthy volunteers (control). Patients and volunteers were administered a single dose of UMEC/VI 125/25 µg, and, after a 7- to 14-day washout period, repeat-dose UMEC 125 µg once daily for 7 days. Primary end points were the plasma pharmacokinetic properties of single- and repeat-dose UMEC and VI. Secondary end points were the urinary pharmacokinetic properties of UMEC, and the tolerability of each treatment.

RESULTS

All 18 enrolled patients and volunteers (12 men, 6 women; mean age, 53.6 years) completed the study. Mean systemic exposures of UMEC and VI were similar or numerically lower in patients with moderate hepatic impairment compared with those in healthy volunteers, but the differences were not clinically significant. UMEC accumulations with 7-day dosing of UMEC were similar between patients with moderate hepatic impairment and healthy volunteers. UMEC/VI 125/25 µg and UMEC 125 µg were well-tolerated, with no safety concerns identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of UMEC/VI 125/25 µg or UMEC 125 µg in patients with moderate hepatic impairment did not result in clinically relevant increases in UMEC or VI exposures compared with those in healthy volunteers. Based on these findings, no dose adjustment for UMEC/VI or UMEC is warranted in patients with moderate hepatic impairment.

Umeclidinium bromide and vilanterol in combination for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Drugs from the two major classes of bronchodilator; umeclidinium, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and vilanterol, a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA), have been combined in a single inhaler device for once-daily use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These drugs have been proven safe and well tolerated in patients with COPD and show an enhanced improvement in FEV1 when compared to either drug in isolation and when compared with an established LAMA drug. In this article, we discuss the data supporting this combination inhaler and also review alternative combined LAMA/LABA options. We discuss where these agents are likely to find a place in the current therapy of COPD and where the future is likely to lead with these and other therapies.

Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium plus vilanterol versus tiotropium, vilanterol, or umeclidinium monotherapies over 24 weeks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from two multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Combination long-acting bronchodilator treatment might be more effective than long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC) plus vilanterol (VI) with tiotropium (TIO) monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, or VI monotherapy in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

METHODS

In two multicentre, randomised, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, active-controlled trials, eligible patients (current or former smokers aged 40 years or older with an established clinical history of COPD) were randomly assigned in 1:1:1:1 ratio to UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, TIO 18 μg, and either VI 25 μg (study 1) or UMEC 125 μg (study 2). All study drugs were used once daily for 24 weeks. TIO was delivered via the HandiHaler inhaler and all other active treatments were delivered via the ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler. Random assignment (by a validated computer-based system) was done by centre and was not stratified. All patients and physicians were masked to assigned treatment during the studies. The primary efficacy endpoint of both studies was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 169, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Both studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01316900 (study 1) and NCT01316913 (study 2).

FINDINGS

1141 participants were recruited in study 1, and 1191 in study 2. For study 1, after exclusions, 208, 209, 214, and 212 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, VI monotherapy, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, and UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, respectively. For study 2, 215, 222, 215, and 217 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, and UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, respectively. In both studies, we noted improvements in trough FEV1 on day 169 for both doses of UMEC plus VI compared with TIO monotherapy (study 1, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·088 L [95% CI 0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; study 1, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·141; p=0·0006]; study 2, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·074 L [0·025 to 0·123; p=0·0031]; study 2, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·060 L [0·010 to 0·109; nominal p=0·0182]). Both doses of UMEC plus VI also improved trough FEV1 compared with VI monotherapy (UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·088 L [0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·142; p=0·0006], but not compared with UMEC 125 μg monotherapy (UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·037 L [-0·012 to 0·087; p=0·14]; UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·022 L [-0·027 to 0·072; p=0·38]). All treatments produced improvements in dyspnoea and health-related quality of life; we noted no significant differences in symptoms, health status, or risk of exacerbation between UMEC plus VI and TIO. The most common on-treatment, severe-intensity adverse event in both studies was acute exacerbation of COPD (1-4 [<1-2%] patients across treatment groups in study 1 and 1-6 [<1-3%] patients in study 2). We recorded five to 15 (2-7%) on-treatment serious adverse events across treatment groups in study 1, and nine to 22 (4-10%) in study 2. We noted no substantial changes from baseline in vital signs, clinical laboratory findings, or electrocardiography findings in any of the treatment groups.

INTERPRETATION

Combination treatment with once-daily UMEC plus VI improved lung function compared with VI monotherapy and TIO monotherapy in patients with COPD. Overall our results suggest that the combination of UMEC plus VI could be beneficial for the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline.

A blinded evaluation of the efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium, a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist, versus tiotropium, in patients with COPD: the GLOW5 study

BACKGROUND

Two once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are currently available for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) - tiotropium and glycopyrronium. Previous studies have compared glycopyrronium with open-label tiotropium. In the GLOW5 study, we compare glycopyrronium with blinded tiotropium.

METHODS

In this blinded, double-dummy, parallel group, 12-week study, patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized 1:1 to glycopyrronium 50 μg once daily or tiotropium 18 μg once daily. The primary objective was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of glycopyrronium versus blinded tiotropium with respect to trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) following 12 weeks of treatment (non-inferiority margin: -50 mL). Secondary objectives were to evaluate glycopyrronium versus tiotropium for other spirometric outcomes, breathlessness (Transition Dyspnea Index; TDI), health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire; SGRQ), daily rescue medication use, COPD exacerbations and COPD symptoms over 12 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

657 patients were randomized (glycopyrronium: 327; tiotropium: 330); 96% (630 patients) completed the study. Least squares mean trough FEV1 for both glycopyrronium and tiotropium was 1.405 L at Week 12, meeting the criterion for non-inferiority (mean treatment difference: 0 mL, 95% CI: -32, 31 mL). Glycopyrronium demonstrated rapid bronchodilation following first dose on Day 1, with significantly higher FEV1 at all time points from 0-4 h post-dose versus tiotropium (all p < 0.001). FEV1 area under the curve from 0-4 h (AUC0-4h) post-dose with glycopyrronium was significantly superior to tiotropium on Day 1 (p < 0.001) and was comparable to tiotropium at Week 12. Glycopyrronium demonstrated comparable improvements to tiotropium in TDI focal score, SGRQ total score, rescue medication use and the rate of COPD exacerbations (all p = not significant). Patients on glycopyrronium also had a significantly lower total COPD symptom score versus patients on tiotropium after 12 weeks (p = 0.035). Adverse events were reported by a similar percentage of patients receiving glycopyrronium (40.4%) and tiotropium (40.6%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, 12-week blinded treatment with once-daily glycopyrronium 50 μg or tiotropium 18 μg, provided similar efficacy and safety, with glycopyrronium having a faster onset of action on Day 1 versus tiotropium.

Dose response of umeclidinium administered once or twice daily in patients with COPD: a randomised cross-over study

BACKGROUND

Umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) is an inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist in development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

This was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-way cross-over, incomplete block study to evaluate UMEC 15.6, 31.25, 62.5, and 125 μg administered once daily (QD), and UMEC 15.6 μg and 31.25 μg administered twice daily (BID), over 7 days in patients with COPD. Tiotropium was included as an open-label treatment arm. The primary efficacy endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) on Day 8. Secondary efficacy endpoints included weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 hours after morning dosing on Day 7, and serial FEV1 at each time point over 24 hours after morning dosing on Day 7. Safety and pharmacokinetics were also examined.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-three patients (mean age 59.5 years, 52% female) were randomised. Based on the population dose-response model of trough FEV1 data, the geometric mean potency (ED50) of UMEC was 37 μg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18, 57) with a predicted maximum intrinsic efficacy (Emax) at trough of 0.185 L (95% CI: 0.153, 0.218) after QD dosing. UMEC 125 μg QD demonstrated the greatest improvements in measure of lung function compared with doses of 62.5 μg and below. UMEC 125 μg QD exhibited more consistent increases in FEV1 from baseline across serial time points over 24 hours compared with other UMEC doses and tiotropium. Increases in FEV1 over 0-12 hours were similar to those observed over 12-24 hours after the second dose of UMEC was administered. UMEC was rapidly absorbed following inhaled dosing and eliminated from plasma. Adverse events, generally mild, were highest with UMEC 125 μg QD (18%) compared with placebo (8%), tiotropium (4%) and other UMEC doses (5-12%).

CONCLUSIONS

UMEC is a potent QD bronchodilator with geometric mean ED50 of 37 μg. A dose ordering over the range of UMEC 15.6-125 μg QD doses was observed, with UMEC 125 μg showing the greatest improvement in trough FEV1.

Determination of the pharmacokinetics of glycopyrronium in the lung using a population pharmacokinetic modelling approach

AIMS

Glycopyrronium bromide (NVA237) is a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist recently approved for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In this study, we used population pharmacokinetic (PK) modelling to provide insights into the impact of the lung PK of glycopyrronium on its systemic PK profile and, in turn, to understand the impact of lung bioavailability and residence time on the choice of dosage regimen.

METHODS

We developed and validated a population PK model to characterize the lung absorption of glycopyrronium using plasma PK data derived from studies in which this drug was administered by different routes to healthy volunteers. The model was also used to carry out simulations of once-daily and twice-daily regimens and to characterize amounts of glycopyrronium in systemic compartments and lungs.

RESULTS

The model-derived PK parameters were comparable to those obtained with noncompartmental analysis, confirming the usefulness of our model. The model suggested that the lung absorption of glycopyrronium was dominated by slow-phase absorption with a half-life of about 3.5 days, which accounted for 79% of drug absorbed through the lungs into the bloodstream, from where glycopyrronium was quickly eliminated. Simulations of once-daily and twice-daily administration generated similar PK profiles in the lung compartments.

CONCLUSIONS

The slow absorption from the lungs, together with the rapid elimination from the systemic circulation, could explain how once-daily glycopyrronium provides sustained bronchodilatation with a low incidence of adverse effects in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Its extended intrapulmonary residence time also provides pharmacokinetic evidence that glycopyrronium has the profile of a once-daily drug.

New developments in the combination treatment of COPD: focus on umeclidinium/vilanterol

An increasing body of evidence suggests that the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination appears to play an important role in maximizing bronchodilation, with studies to date indicating that combining different classes of bronchodilators may result in significantly greater improvements in lung function compared to the use of a single drug, and that these combinations are well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). An inhaled, fixed-dose combination of two 24-hour bronchodilators, the LAMA umeclidinium and the LABA vilanterol, is under development as a once-daily treatment for COPD. The efficacy of both mono-components has already been demonstrated. The information currently available suggests that umeclidinium/vilanterol is an effective once-daily dual bronchodilator fixed-dose combination in the treatment of COPD. However, it remains to be seen if it compares favorably with current therapies. Moreover, the question remains whether umeclidinium/vilanterol fixed-dose combination, which significantly improves FEV1, is also associated with improvements in other outcome measures that are important to COPD patients.