Assessing efficacy of indacaterol in moderate and severe COPD patients: a 12-week study in an Asian population

Real-world Safety and Efficacy of Indacaterol Maleate in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Evidence from the Long-term Post-marketing Surveillance in Japan

Objective Evidence concerning the safety and efficacy of indacaterol maleate in a real-life setting is limited. The objective of this post-marketing surveillance was to evaluate the real-life safety and efficacy of indacaterol maleate in Japanese patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods This was a 52-week post-marketing surveillance conducted between April 2012 and December 2018. The safety endpoints included the incidence of adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The efficacy endpoints included the physician-reported global evaluation of treatment effectiveness (GETE), change from baseline in the COPD assessment test (CAT) results, forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and %FEV1 following 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks of indacaterol administration. Results Of the 1,846 enrolled patients, 1,726 were included in the safety and efficacy analyses. The mean age of the patients was 72.5 years old. Cough, pneumonia and COPD worsening were the most common AEs reported, while pneumonia (1.04%) was the most common SAE, and cough (1.68%) was the most common ADR. GETE showed that 69.70% of patients achieved an excellent/good/moderate response following indacaterol treatment. The CAT score decreased, and lung function parameters (FVC, FEV1 and %FEV1) improved across all the COPD stages following treatment with indacaterol. Conclusion Indacaterol showed a favorable safety and tolerability profile in Japanese patients with COPD without new safety signals observed in real-life settings. These findings demonstrated that indacaterol is an effective maintenance treatment in real-life practice for Japanese patients with COPD.

Fixed-Dose Combinations of Long-Acting Bronchodilators for the Management of COPD: Global and Asian Perspectives

Maintenance bronchodilator therapy with long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) is the cornerstone treatment for patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of LABA/LAMA are recommended for the majority of symptomatic COPD patients by global guidelines; regional guidelines such as the Japanese and Korean guidelines also provide similar recommendations for the use of LABA/LAMA FDCs. This review comprehensively describes the latest clinical evidence from key studies on the efficacy and safety of four approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations: indacaterol/glycopyrronium, vilanterol/umeclidinium, formoterol/aclidinium, and olodaterol/tiotropium. Additionally, in this review we describe the rationale behind the use of LABA/LAMA FDC therapy, key findings from the preclinical and clinical trial evaluation of respective LABA and LAMA monocomponents, and the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA FDCs. Special emphasis is placed on the clinical evidence for the monocomponents and LABA/LAMA FDCs from the Asian population. This detailed overview of the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA FDCs in global and Asian COPD patients is envisaged to provide a better understanding of the benefits of these therapies and to inform healthcare providers and patients on their appropriate use.Funding: Novartis Pharma K.K.

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.

Safety and Effectiveness of Indacaterol in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients in South Korea

BACKGROUND

Inhaled indacaterol (Onbrez Breezhaler), a long-acting β₂-agonist, is approved in over 100 countries, including South Korea, as a once-daily bronchodilator for maintenance and treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here, we present an interim analysis of a post-marketing surveillance study conducted to evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of indacaterol in the Korean population.

METHODS

This was an open-label, observational, prospective study in which COPD patients, who were newly prescribed with indacaterol (150 or 300 µg), were evaluated for 12 or 24 weeks. Safety was assessed based on the incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Effectiveness was evaluated based on physician's assessment by considering changes in symptoms and lung function, if the values of forced expiratory volume in 1 second were available.

RESULTS

Safety data were analyzed in 1,016 patients of the 1,043 enrolled COPD patients receiving indacaterol, and 784 patients were included for the effectiveness analysis. AEs were reported in 228 (22.44%) patients, while 98 (9.65%) patients reported SAEs. The COPD condition improved in 348 patients (44.4%), while the condition was maintained in 396 patients (50.5%), and only 40 patients (5.1%) exhibited worsening of ailment as compared with baseline. During the treatment period, 90 patients were hospitalized while nine patients died. All deaths were assessed to be not related to the study drug by the investigator.

CONCLUSION

In real-life clinical practice in South Korea, indacaterol was well tolerated in COPD patients, and can be regarded as an effective option for their maintenance treatment.

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.

Effect of Indacaterol on Cough and Phlegm in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Five Randomized Controlled Trials

We investigated the effects of indacaterol on cough and phlegm in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We performed a meta-analysis with five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of indacaterol in stable COPD patients. The symptom severity was defined using the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). We analyzed patients treated with 150 µg (n = 945) and 300 µg (n = 832) out of 3,325 patients who completed the SGRQ from five RCTs. After a 12-week treatment of 150 µg indacaterol, cough improvement was reported in 36.5% (316/866) of patients treated with indacaterol vs. 32.2% (259/804) patients treated with placebo (Relative Ratio [RR], 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.29). Phlegm improvement was reported in 31.0% (247/798) of patients treated with indacaterol vs. 30.6% (225/736) of patients treated with placebo (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.87-1.18). Dyspnea improvement was reported in 39.5% (324/820) of patients treated with indacaterol vs. 31.5% (237/753) patients treated with placebo (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.71; P = 0.001, I(2) = 55.1%). Only dyspnea improvement was significant compared to placebo even at the 300 µg indacaterol dose. Compared to placebo, a 12-week treatment of the long-acting beta-agonist, indacaterol might not have a significant effect on cough or phlegm in stable COPD.

Influence of indacaterol on daily physical activity in patients with untreated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

Indacaterol, a once-daily, long-acting β₂-agonist, may improve not only respiratory function, dyspnea symptoms, and quality of life, but also physical activity for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of 12-week indacaterol therapy on daytime physical activity in patients with untreated COPD.

Methods

The subjects were stable and untreated COPD outpatients with a percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (%FEV₁) below 80%. Baseline assessments included clinical assessment, respiratory function testing, arterial blood gas analysis, the COPD assessment test (CAT™), and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, Japanese version 2 (SF-36v2^®). Patients underwent monitoring by uniaxial accelerometer before and after 12 weeks once-daily inhalation of indacaterol 150 μg/day.

Results

Eighteen patients were evaluable. Patient characteristics included a mean age of 74.2 years, and three patients were current smokers. Indacaterol improved mean (± standard deviation [SD]) %FEV₁ from 55.2% (±17.9%) to 61.0% (±17.3%) (P=0.003), CAT scores from 16.4 (±10.2) points to 12.4 (±8.2) points (P=0.04), some scales of the SF-36v2 (physical component summary, 41.6±9.7 points to 45.1±7.9 points, P=0.03), and number of daily steps (3,311.5±2,103.3 steps/day to 3,841.8±2,096.8 steps/day, P=0.02), but did not affect daily energy expenditure (85.0±77.2 kcal change to 90.9±56.8 kcal, P=0.29) or exercise duration of an intensity of level 1 or more (36.4±23.9 minutes increase to 40.8±21.6 minutes, P=0.12).

Conclusion

Twelve weeks of indacaterol improved respiratory function and quality of life, but did not significantly affect physical activity in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Indacaterol, a once-daily beta2-agonist, versus twice-daily beta₂-agonists or placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Indacaterol is an inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist that is administered once daily and has been investigated as a treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Four different doses have been investigated (75 mcg, 150 mcg, 300 mcg and 600 mcg). The relative effects of different doses of once-daily indacaterol in the management of patients with COPD are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of indacaterol versus placebo and alternative twice-daily long-acting beta2-agonists for the treatment of patients with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts and searched the Novartis trials registry and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the most recent search was 8 November 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing indacaterol at any dose versus placebo or alternative long-acting beta2-agonists. Trials were required to be of at least 12 weeks' duration and had to include adults older than 18 years with a confirmed spirometric diagnosis of COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JBG, EJD) independently assessed for possible inclusion all citations identified as a result of the search. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or, if required, through resolution by a third review author (RWB). One review author (JBG) extracted data from trials identified by the search and entered these data into Review Manager 5.1 for statistical analysis. Data entry was cross-checked by a second review author (EJD, CJC).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 13 trials with 9961 participants were included in the review. Ten trials with a total of 8562 participants involved an indacaterol versus placebo comparison. Five trials with a total of 4133 participants involved an indacaterol versus twice-daily beta2-agonist comparison. The comparator beta2-agonists were salmeterol, formoterol and eformoterol. One of these trials, with a total of 90 participants, provided no data that could be used in this review. Two trials included both indacaterol versus placebo and indacaterol versus twice-daily beta2-agonist comparisons. Trials were between 12 weeks and 52 weeks in duration. Overall the quality of the evidence was strong, and risk of significant bias was minimal in most of the included studies. Enrolled participants had stable COPD across a range of spirometric severities. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was generally between 30% and 80% predicted, and a mean FEV1 of approximately 50% was predicted in most studies. Patients with concurrent respiratory disease, including asthma, were excluded. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was permitted.The primary objectives were to compare trough FEV1 at the end of dosing, exacerbation rates and quality of life. Significant adverse events, mortality and dyspnoea were included as secondary outcomes. Compared with placebo, a significant and clinically relevant improvement in trough FEV1 was noted with indacaterol (mean difference (MD) 149.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 137.09 to 161.12). In addition, compared with placebo, a significant improvement in mean St George Respiratory Questionaire (SGRQ) score (MD -3.60, 95% CI -4.36 to -2.83) was reported, and the proportion of participants experiencing clinically relevant improvement in SGRQ score was significantly greater (odds ratio (OR) 1.63, 95% CI 1.46 to 1.84). Compared with twice-daily beta2-agonists, a small but statistically significant increase in trough FEV1 was seen with indacaterol (MD 61.71 mL, 95% CI 41.24 to 82.17). Differences between indacaterol and twice-daily beta2-agonists in mean SGRQ scores (MD -0.81, 95% CI -2.28 to 0.66) and in the proportions of participants achieving clinically relevant improvements in SGRQ scores (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.32) were not statistically significant, but the confidence intervals are too wide to permit the conclusion that the treatments were equivalent. Data were insufficient for analysis of differences in exacerbation rates for both placebo and twice-daily beta2-agonist comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For patients with stable COPD, use of indacaterol versus placebo results in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in lung function and quality of life. The clinical benefit for lung function is at least as good as that seen with twice-daily long-acting beta2-agonists. The comparative effect on quality of life remains uncertain, as important differences cannot be excluded.