Efficacy and safety of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (100/25 mcg) versus twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (250/50 mcg) in COPD patients

The Impact of a Forced Non-Medical Switch of Inhaled Respiratory Medication Among Patients with Asthma or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Patient Survey on Experience with Switch, Therapy Satisfaction, and Disease Control

PURPOSE

Budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) was removed from a Medicare Part D formulary, and patients switched to fluticasone-based dry powder inhaler (DPI) therapies. This study describes the experience, satisfaction, and disease control among patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who switched due to removal from the formulary.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A patient survey was conducted among adults with asthma or COPD who used budesonide/formoterol pMDI for ≥3 months prior to the formulary block and the new medication for ≥3 weeks after switching, recruited by providers in a research panel. Survey comprised both validated instruments (PASAPQ, OEQ, ACQ-6, and CAT) and stand-alone questions. Patient characteristics, switch experience, device and treatment satisfaction, onset of effect, and disease control were compared between disease (asthma and COPD) and medication (once and twice daily) cohorts. Minimal significance for group differences: P≤0.05.

RESULTS

Among 100 patients, 93% received communication from their doctor or nurse about the switch and 73% received training on using the new inhaler. Patients used their new treatment for an average of 7 months prior to completing the survey. Patient satisfaction with the new therapy was high (PASAPQ; mean overall satisfaction: 6.2 for asthma; 6.0 for COPD; P=0.338). However, asthma was not well controlled (ACQ-6) in 62% of patients with asthma, and 56% of patients with COPD reported high/very high impact of their illness on their lives (CAT). Sixty-eight percent and 70% of patients with asthma and COPD, respectively, required reliever medication (≥3 puffs) most days during the week prior to the survey. There were no significant differences in disease control (ACQ-6, CAT) between once-daily and twice-daily treatments (P>0.05 for both asthma and COPD).

CONCLUSION

Even when reporting satisfaction with their new medication, objective measures showed substantial morbidity, regardless of DPI device or dosing regimen.

HPLC-UV and spectrofluorimetric methods for simultaneous estimation of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol in rabbit plasma: A pharmacokinetic study

Fluticasone furoate (FF) and vilanterol trifenatate (VT) is a widely prescribed combination in the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In the present study, two quantitative methods based on HPLC-UV and spectrofluorimetric analysis had been developed and validated for simultaneous estimation of FF and VT in rabbit plasma using baclomethasone as internal standard (ISTD). Analytes and ISTD were separated from plasma using simple step of protein precipitation with acetonitrile. Chromatographic separation was achieved on Spherisorb S5 ODS2 (250 mm × 4.6 mm, 5.0 µm) column using mobile phase that constitute acetonitrile-0.01% glacial acetic acid in water (70:30, v/v) and then detected on a UV detector at 235 nm wavelength. Spectrofluorimetric detection was performed using absorption/emission wavelength (λ_abs/em) of 286/352 nm and 362/407 nm for FF and VT, respectively. For both analytes, linearity ranged from 4-200 ng/mL to 10-200 ng/mL using HPLC-UV and spectrofluorimetric method, respectively. Methods were validated as per FDA recommendations. Statistical analysis revealed that these detection methods are statistically insignificant difference and can be used interchangeably without any bias. Further, these methods were applied in pharmacokinetic study for simultaneous estimation of FF and VT in rabbit plasma.

Evaluating fluticasone furoate + vilanterol for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β-2 agonists (ICS/LABA) combination inhalers have been a lifeline for a generation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma patients. Fluticasone furoate and Vilanterol (FF/VI) as a once-daily ICS/LABA combination have an extensive clinical trial and real-world data to support its use in COPD patients. Areas covered: The authors provide pharmacological profiles of fluticasone furoate, vilanterol and the FF/VI fixed dose combination. Salient clinical trials evaluating efficacy and safety of the FF/VI combination, and studies demonstrating the impact on COPD exacerbation risk and mortality are also discussed. Expert opinion: ICS/LABA combinations provide bronchodilation and decrease the frequency of COPD exacerbations. Individualizing treatment of each COPD patient based on unique phenotypes will maximize chances of therapeutic responsiveness. Asthma-COPD overlap (ACO), patients with sputum and/or blood eosinophilia, patients with a brisk bronchodilator response, and patients with frequent exacerbations are more likely to show a therapeutic response to ICS than populations who have none of these features. FF/VI will likely remain a popular ICS/LBA combination to treat COPD, as a once-daily inhaled therapy delivered via the Ellipta device popular with COPD patients, with extensive clinical trial and real-world data to support its use.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of twice-daily indacaterol/glycopyrrolate inhalation powder for the treatment of moderate to severe COPD in the US

Background

Indacaterol 27.5 µg/glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg (IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg) inhalation powder, a twice-daily, fixed-dose combination of a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting antimuscarinic antagonist (LAMA), is indicated in the US for long-term maintenance treatment of airflow obstruction in patients with COPD. The safety and efficacy of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg have been established, but cost-effectiveness is not yet known. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg with other long-acting COPD maintenance therapies.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed from the US payer perspective. Health states were defined as mild (post-bronchodilator FEV₁ ≥80% of predicted), moderate (50% ≤FEV₁ <80% of predicted), severe (30% ≤FEV₁ <50% of predicted), and very severe (FEV₁ <30% of predicted) COPD. Patients entering the model transitioned through health states based on placebo-adjusted change from baseline in trough FEV₁ for each comparator at week 12. Comparators included other US Food and Drug Administration-approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations as well as commonly prescribed LAMA and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid agents. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model assumptions and the overall robustness of the results.

Results

Using the model, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg treatment for 12 weeks resulted in total costs of US $23,375 vs US $9,365 for placebo. Compared with placebo, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 treatment resulted in the highest improvement in FEV₁ across all comparators and the lowest cost per decline in 100 mL FEV₁. IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg was also among the most cost-effective treatment option as measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire response rate, at US $3,518 per additional responder at 12 weeks compared with placebo. In addition, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg had the lowest cost per severe exacerbation avoided vs placebo across all comparators (US $87,686).

Conclusion

This model, developed from the US payer perspective with a 5-year time horizon, found IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with moderate to severe COPD.

Comparative efficacy of inhaled medications (ICS/LABA, LAMA, LAMA/LABA and SAMA) for COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the comparative efficacy of short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMAs), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), LAMA in combination with long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs; LAMA/LABAs) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in combination with LABA (ICS/LABAs) for the maintenance treatment of COPD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed 74 randomized controlled trials (74,832 participants) published up to 15 November 2017, which compared any of the interventions (SAMA [ipratropium], LAMA [aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, umeclidinium], LAMA/LABA [aclidinium/formoterol, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, tiotropium/olodaterol, umeclidinium/vilanterol] and ICS/LABA [fluticasone/vilanterol, budesonide/formoterol, salmeterol/fluticasone]) with each other or with placebo. A random-effects network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence was conducted to examine the change from baseline in trough FEV1, transition dyspnea index, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and frequency of adverse events at weeks 12 and 24.

RESULTS

Inconsistency models were not statistically significant for all outcomes. LAMAs, LAMA/LABAs and ICS/LABAs led to a significantly greater improvement in trough FEV1 compared with placebo and SAMA monotherapy at weeks 12 and 24. All LAMA/LABAs, except aclidinium/formoterol, were statistically significantly better than LAMA monotherapy and ICS/LABAs in improving trough FEV1. Among the LAMAs, umeclidinium showed statistically significant improvement in trough FEV1 at week 12 compared to tiotropium and glycopyrronium, but the results were not clinically significant. LAMA/LABAs had the highest probabilities of being ranked the best agents in FEV1 improvement. Similar trends were observed for the transition dyspnea index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire outcomes. There were no significant differences in the incidences of adverse events among all treatment options.

CONCLUSION

LAMA/LABA showed the greatest improvement in trough FEV1 at weeks 12 and 24 compared with the other inhaled drug classes, while SAMA showed the least improvement. There were no significant differences among the LAMAs and LAMA/LABAs within their respective classes.

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over single dose study of the bronchodilator duration of action of combination fluticasone furoate/vilanterol inhaler in adult asthma

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) is a once-daily maintenance treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The duration of bronchodilation beyond 24 h has not been determined previously.

METHODS

Adults aged 18-65 (n = 32), with asthma and reversibility to salbutamol (≥15% and ≥200 mL increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV₁]) participated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Patients were admitted to a clinical trials unit for 72 h, and inhaled, in random order, placebo or FF/VI 100/25 mcg via ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler on two occasions 7-14 days apart. FEV₁ was measured at baseline, 15 and 30 min, 1, 2, 4, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 h. The differences in change in FEV₁ from baseline between treatments and corresponding two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated at each time point.

FINDINGS

FF/VI produced a rapid onset of bronchodilation (adjusted mean difference in change from baseline in FEV₁ versus placebo at 15 min, 252 mL [95% CI 182-322]). Maximum bronchodilation was observed at 12 h (adjusted mean difference in the change from baseline in FEV₁, 383 mL [95% CI 285-481]). Bronchodilation was maintained throughout the 72-h assessment period (adjusted mean difference in the change in FEV₁ from baseline at 72 h, 108 mL (95% CI 15-200]). FF/VI was well tolerated and no serious side effects were reported.

INTERPRETATION

A single dose of FF/VI 100/25 mcg showed evidence of a 72-h bronchodilator duration of action in adults with asthma.

Indacaterol-Glycopyrronium versus Salmeterol-Fluticasone for COPD

BACKGROUND

Most guidelines recommend either a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) plus an inhaled glucocorticoid or a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) as the first-choice treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who have a high risk of exacerbations. The role of treatment with a LABA-LAMA regimen in these patients is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial. Patients who had COPD with a history of at least one exacerbation during the previous year were randomly assigned to receive, by inhalation, either the LABA indacaterol (110 μg) plus the LAMA glycopyrronium (50 μg) once daily or the LABA salmeterol (50 μg) plus the inhaled glucocorticoid fluticasone (500 μg) twice daily. The primary outcome was the annual rate of all COPD exacerbations.

RESULTS

A total of 1680 patients were assigned to the indacaterol-glycopyrronium group, and 1682 to the salmeterol-fluticasone group. Indacaterol-glycopyrronium showed not only noninferiority but also superiority to salmeterol-fluticasone in reducing the annual rate of all COPD exacerbations; the rate was 11% lower in the indacaterol-glycopyrronium group than in the salmeterol-fluticasone group (3.59 vs. 4.03; rate ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 0.96; P=0.003). The indacaterol-glycopyrronium group had a longer time to the first exacerbation than did the salmeterol-fluticasone group (71 days [95% CI, 60 to 82] vs. 51 days [95% CI, 46 to 57]; hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.91], representing a 16% lower risk; P<0.001). The annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was lower in the indacaterol-glycopyrronium group than in the salmeterol-fluticasone group (0.98 vs. 1.19; rate ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.91; P<0.001), and the time to the first moderate or severe exacerbation was longer in the indacaterol-glycopyrronium group than in the salmeterol-fluticasone group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.86; P<0.001), as was the time to the first severe exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.00; P=0.046). The effect of indacaterol-glycopyrronium versus salmeterol-fluticasone on the rate of COPD exacerbations was independent of the baseline blood eosinophil count. The incidence of adverse events and deaths was similar in the two groups. The incidence of pneumonia was 3.2% in the indacaterol-glycopyrronium group and 4.8% in the salmeterol-fluticasone group (P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Indacaterol-glycopyrronium was more effective than salmeterol-fluticasone in preventing COPD exacerbations in patients with a history of exacerbation during the previous year. (Funded by Novartis; FLAME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01782326.).

Vilanterol trifenatate for the treatment of COPD

INTRODUCTION

Currently the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has limited effectiveness and there is a need to develop new drugs. International guidelines recommend the use of long-acting bronchodilators (β2 agonists and anti-cholinergics/muscarinics), inhaled steroids and associations between these drugs in the maintenance treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD.

AREA COVERED

Vilanterol trifenate is a new once-daily highly selective β2-agonist available in USA and Europe in association with umeclidinium bromide (a long-acting anti-muscarnic agent) and fluticasone furoate (an inhaled corticosteroid) for the once-daily maintenance treatment of COPD. Vilanterol combined in fixed-dose treatments has been tested in numerous clinical trials involving thousands of patients. Expert commentary: These new once-daily formulations have the potential to improve compliance to long-term inhaled therapy. This paper will review the clinical and experimental data regarding vilanterol use in the regular treatment of COPD as well as provide a critical discussion of possible future treatment settings.

Treatment options for moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

The appropriate drug management of COPD is still based on the use of bronchodilators, possibly associated with an anti-inflammatory agent. However, there are still fundamental questions that require clarification to optimise their use and major unmet clinical needs that must be addressed.

AREAS COVERED

The advances obtained with the pharmacological options currently consolidated and the different approaches that are often used in an attempt to respond to unmet therapeutic needs are reviewed Expert opinion: In view of the unsatisfactory status of current treatments for COPD, there is an urgent need for alternative and more effective therapeutic approaches that will help to relieve patient symptoms and affect the natural course of COPD, inhibiting chronic inflammation and reversing the disease process or preventing its progression. However, new pharmacologic options have proved difficult to develop. Therefore, it is mandatory to optimize the use of the treatment options at our disposal. However, there are still fundamental questions regarding their use, including the step-up and step-down pharmacological approach, that require clarification to optimise the use of these drugs. It is likely that phenotyping COPD patients would help in identifying the right treatment for each COPD patient and improve the effectiveness of therapies.

The combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol trifenatate in the management of asthma: clinical trial evidence and experience

The treatment of persistent asthma has been aided by the recent approval of new medications. The combined inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) powder inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol trifenatate (VI) is one of these new agents, which was recently approved as a maintenance therapy for persistent asthma. This once-daily ICS/LABA inhaler has previously been approved and used in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a maintenance therapy. Both FF and VI individually have been shown to have efficacy in the treatment of persistent asthma; the combination of FF/VI at the dose of 100/25 μg daily improves trough peak expiratory flows and forced expiratory volume in 1 s. It also reduces the frequency of asthma exacerbations in patients with persistent asthma. The once-daily dosing is well tolerated, with limited clinically significant adverse events; the once-daily inhaled dosing regimen should also improve medication adherence. The data supporting the use of the FF/VI inhaler in persistent asthma are reviewed. The dry powder inhaler of FF/VI (100/25 μg) is an effective and well tolerated once-daily maintenance treatment for patients with persistent asthma.

[The place of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD]

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trials have provided some evidence of a favorable effect of inhaled corticosteroids on the frequency of exacerbations and on the quality of life of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In contrast, ICS have little or no impact on lung function decline and on mortality.

STATE OF THE ART

Inhaled corticosteroids are recommended only in a minority of COPD patients, those with severe disease and repeated exacerbations and probably those with the COPD and asthma overlap syndrome. However, surveys indicate that these drugs are inappropriately prescribed in a large population of patients with COPD. Overtreatment with inhaled corticosteroids exposes these patients to an increased risk of potentially severe side-effects such as pneumonia, osteoporosis, and oropharyngeal candidiasis. Moreover, it represents a major waste of health-care spending.

CONCLUSION

Primary care physicians as well as pulmonologists should be better aware of the benefits as well as the side-effects and costs of inhaled corticosteroids.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol or tiotropium in subjects with COPD at cardiovascular risk

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) is a novel, once-daily, inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination approved for the treatment of COPD and asthma. We compared the safety and efficacy of FF/VI and tiotropium (TIO) in subjects with moderate-to-severe COPD with greater risk for comorbid cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS

This randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group study compared a once-daily morning dose of FF/VI 100/25 mcg delivered via ELLIPTA™ with TIO 18 mcg via HandiHaler(®) for 12 weeks in subjects with diagnosed COPD, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 30%-70% predicted, and CVD or CVD risk. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24-hour weighted mean FEV1 on Day 84. Other efficacy endpoints included time to onset of bronchodilation, trough FEV1, other spirometry measures, rescue medication use, symptoms, quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire-COPD [SGRQ-C]), and health status (COPD Assessment Tests [CAT]) measures. Safety endpoints included cardiovascular monitoring, cortisol excretion, COPD exacerbations, and adverse events, including prespecified drug effects.

RESULTS

Both FF/VI and TIO improved the 24-hour weighted mean FEV1 from baseline after 12 weeks with no significant difference between treatments. Other endpoints favored FF/VI for time to onset of bronchodilation, rescue medication use, dyspnea, SGRQ-C and CAT scores, or favored TIO for change from baseline in forced vital capacity and inspiratory capacity. Pneumonia occurred more frequently in the FF/VI group, and two TIO-treated subjects died following cardiovascular events. Other safety measures were similar between groups, and cardiovascular monitoring did not reveal increased CVD risk.

CONCLUSION

Both FF/VI and TIO were efficacious in improving lung function in subjects with COPD and comorbid CVD or CVD risk factors, with minor differences in efficacy and safety profiles.

A comparison of the efficacy of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterole with twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in asthma-COPD overlap syndrome

BACKGROUND

Asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome (ACOS) is important because patients with ACOS have significantly worse outcomes compared with those with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) alone. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), together with a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA), are recommended, but no therapeutic studies for ACOS have been conducted. Recently, fluticasone furoate/vilanterole (FF/VI) has been approved as the first once-daily ICS/LABA combination therapy for asthma and COPD.

METHODS

A 12-week, randomized, open-label cross-over study was conducted in 16 patients with ACOS to compare the effectiveness of once-daily FF/VI 200/25 μg vs. twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) 500/50 μg. The study period included a 4-week run-in, the first 4-week treatment, and the second 4-week treatment. Respiratory functions, including forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and respiratory impedance using the forced oscillation technique (FOT), were measured, as was fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO). A COPD assessment test (CAT) scores and asthma control test (ACT) scores were recorded 0, 4, and 8 weeks after randomization.

RESULTS

The mean values for the FEV1 were 1.33 (±0.29) L in the run-in period, 1.38 (±0.39) L after the FP/SAL treatment period, and 1.47 (±0.38) L after the FF/VI treatment period. The FEV1 value after the FF/VI treatment was significantly greater than the value after the run-in period (p < 0.01). FOT parameters, FeNO levels, CAT scores, ACT scores, and other blood tests were not significantly different during the run-in period, the FP/SAL treatment period, and the FF/VI treatment period.

CONCLUSIONS

FF/VI, the first once-daily ICS/LABA, can provide substantial improvement in lung functions, indicating that FF/VI should be considered for the regular treatment of ACOS.

New developments in inhaler devices within pharmaceutical companies: A systematic review of the impact on clinical outcomes and patient preferences

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceutical companies offer an increasing number of inhaler devices, whether or not together with new substances, for maintenance treatment of patients with COPD or asthma. However, well-designed studies to support these developments are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this research was to evaluate how far new developments of inhaler devices are scientifically supported and translate into improvements of patient preferences and/or clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to retrieve randomised controlled trials in patients with COPD or asthma that studied the in-company evolution of inhaler devices. Results were tabulated and discussed.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies were found comparing Respimat(®) vs. HandiHaler(®), Diskus(®)(Accuhaler(®)) vs. Diskhaler(®)(Rotadisk(®)) or pMDI, Ellipta(®) vs. Diskus(®)(Accuhaler(®)), Nexthaler(®) vs. pMDI, or Breezhaler(®) vs. Aerolizer(®). These studies show that developments of inhaler devices may improve patient satisfaction but do not lead to demonstrable improvements in clinical efficacy. Current changes of devices are most commonly parallelled by changes in administration frequency towards once daily treatment. The only well-documented effect was found for the Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ Inhaler, which realises a more than 3-fold lowering of the once-daily tiotropium dose through increased performance of the inhaler device. There are however, no data on clinical efficacy or safety comparing the two devices at the same dosage.

CONCLUSIONS

Future developments of inhaler devices should all require well-designed studies to demonstrate patient benefit.

Positioning new pharmacotherapies for COPD

COPD imposes considerable worldwide burden in terms of morbidity and mortality. In recognition of this, there is now extensive focus on early diagnosis, secondary prevention, and optimizing medical management of the disease. While established guidelines recognize different grades of disease severity and offer a structured basis for disease management based on symptoms and risk, it is becoming increasingly evident that COPD is a condition characterized by many phenotypes and its control in a single patient may require clinicians to have access to a broader spectrum of pharmacotherapies. This review summarizes recent developments in COPD management and compares established pharmacotherapy with new and emerging pharmacotherapies including long-acting muscarinic antagonists, long-acting β-2 sympathomimetic agonists, and fixed-dose combinations of long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting β-2 sympathomimetic agonists as well as inhaled cortiocosteroids, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, and targeted anti-inflammatory drugs. We also review the available oral medications and new agents with novel mechanisms of action in early stages of development. With several new pharmacological agents intended for the management of COPD, it is our goal to familiarize potential prescribers with evidence relating to the efficacy and safety of new medications and to suggest circumstances in which these therapies could be most useful.

Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in healthy Chinese subjects

Study Objective

To investigate the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles of fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) – a fixed‐dose combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long‐acting β₂‐agonist for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – after single and repeat administration in healthy Chinese subjects.

Design

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, single‐site, randomized, four‐way crossover study.

Setting

The Clinical Pharmacological Research Centre at Peking Union Medical College Hospital [PUMCH]) in Beijing, China.

Subjects

Sixteen healthy, nonsmoking Chinese adults.

Intervention

Subjects were randomized to receive FF/VI 50/25, 100/25, or 200/25 μg, or placebo once/daily in the morning, delivered by the Ellipta dry powder inhaler, for 7 consecutive days. The subjects then received the other three treatments, with each treatment period separated by a 7‐day washout period.

Measurements and Main Results

The co‐primary outcome measures reflected pharmacodynamic responses relating to recognized class effects of the two drug classes: reduced serum cortisol level (ICSs), and increased Fridericia's corrected QT interval (QTcF) and reduced serum potassium level (long‐acting β₂‐agonists). Co‐primary pharmacodynamic endpoints were 0–24‐hour weighted mean serum cortisol level on day 7 (cortisol_{0–24 hr, Day 7}), and 0–4‐hour weighted mean and maximum QTcF and weighted mean and minimum serum potassium level on days 1 and 7. Fluticasone furoate and VI plasma concentrations, derived pharmacokinetic parameters, and safety were also assessed. Of the 16 subjects randomized, 15 completed the study. Reductions in cortisol_{0–24 hour, Day 7} of 15% and 25% were observed with FF/VI 100/25 and 200/25 μg, respectively, versus placebo. Minor increases (< 10 msec) in maximum QTcF on day 7 were seen with FF/VI 50/25 and 100/25 μg but not with 200/25 μg. Slight decreases in serum potassium level were only observed in subjects receiving FF/VI 50/25 μg on day 1 and FF/VI 50/25 and 200/25 μg on day 7. Fluticasone furoate accumulation (day 7 vs day 1) for FF/VI 50/25–200/25 μg ranged from 38 to 54% for maximum observed concentration and 63–71% for area under the concentration‐time curve from 0 to 4 hours. Fluticasone furoate pharmacokinetics were less than dose proportional. The VI pharmacokinetic profiles were similar for all three FF/VI doses. Adverse events were all mild in intensity and were reported by 13 (81%) of the 16 subjects.

Conclusion

In healthy Chinese subjects, minimal and non–clinically relevant β‐adrenergic pharmacodynamic effects were observed with FF/VI doses ranging from 50/25 to 200/25 μg. FF dose‐dependent reductions in serum cortisol levels of 15–25% were seen after administration of FF/VI 100/25 and 200/25 μg. FF/VI was safe and well tolerated in these subjects at doses ranging from 50/25 to 200/25 μg.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (50/25 mcg; 100/25 mcg; 200/25 mcg) in Asian patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Three strengths of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) were previously evaluated for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a program of global Phase 3 studies that included only a small subgroup of Asian patients. This study further evaluated the efficacy and safety of the same three strengths of FF/VI exclusively in Asian patients.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study. Patients with post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC ≤0.70, FEV1 ≤70% predicted and modified Medical Research Council score ≥2 were randomized (1:1:1:1) to placebo, FF/VI 50/25 mcg, 100/25 mcg or 200/25 mcg once daily via the ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24.

RESULTS

The intent-to-treat population comprised 643 patients. Statistically significant (p < 0.001) improvements in trough FEV1 were observed with all strengths of FF/VI versus placebo at Week 24 (0.14-0.19 L). Reduction of supplemental albuterol use was observed with all strengths of FF/VI versus placebo. The incidence of on-treatment adverse events (AEs) was 48% with FF/VI 200/25 mcg and 37-40% with other treatments. The incidence of on-treatment serious AEs was 4-9% with FF/VI treatments versus 9% with placebo; however, the study only covered a 6 month treatment period and was not powered to assess effects on exacerbations. No clinically significant treatment effects versus placebo were identified for electrocardiogram, vital signs, 24 hour urinary cortisol excretion and pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

All strengths of FF/VI improved lung function with an acceptable safety profile. There is no evidence to suggest that dose adjustment may be required in Asian patients using FF/VI 100/25 mcg for the treatment of COPD.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01376245.

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol: a review of its use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (Relvar(®), Breo(®), Revinty(®)) is a fixed combination of a corticosteroid and a long-acting β2-adrenergic agonist (LABA) for once-daily use via a dry powder inhaler (Ellipta(®)). Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 µg is approved for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in several countries. This article reviews the clinical use of the combination in COPD and summarises pharmacological properties. Fluticasone furoate has enhanced affinity for the glucocorticoid receptor compared with other clinically used inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and longer lung retention than fluticasone propionate. Vilanterol is highly selective for β2-adrenoreceptors and provides a rapid and prolonged duration of action. In phase 3 trials in patients with moderate to very severe COPD, overall, once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 µg improved pulmonary function more than placebo and fluticasone furoate alone and improved exacerbation rates more than vilanterol alone. With regard to pulmonary function, once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 μg was more effective than twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 µg and similarly effective as twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 500/50 μg. In 12-month trials, fluticasone furoate/vilanterol was generally well tolerated, and in 12- and 24-week trials, the incidence of adverse events was similar overall to that associated with the individual components or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol. However, as with the long-term use of all ICS agents, 12-month data indicate an increase in the risk of pneumonia with fluticasone furoate/vilanterol. In conclusion, fluticasone furoate/vilanterol is an effective and generally well tolerated additional LABA/ICS agent for the treatment of COPD with the added convenience of once-daily administration, which may improve treatment adherence in some patients.

Once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 mcg versus twice daily combination therapies in COPD - mixed treatment comparisons of clinical efficacy

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 mcg is a once-daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta2 agonist (LABA) treatment approved in the United States, Canada and Europe for the long-term maintenance therapy of COPD. We report data from mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) of once-daily FF/VI against established twice-daily ICS/LABA combination therapies on clinical efficacy outcomes.

METHODS

Data from 33 parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ICS/LABAs, of ≥8 weeks' duration in patients ≥12 years of age with COPD, identified by systematic review, were analysed using covariate-adjusted Bayesian hierarchical models for three efficacy outcomes. Lung function, assessed by change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), was the outcome of primary interest (n = 28 studies). Secondary objectives were assessment of annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations (n = 15) and patient-reported health status, measured by change from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total score (n = 20). Overall, 25 different treatments were included in the MTC; we report findings, including probabilities of non-inferiority, for comparisons of once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg with twice-daily fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol (SAL) 500/50 mcg and budesonide (BUD)/formoterol (FORM) 400/12 mcg.

RESULTS

For FEV1, FF/VI 100/25 mcg demonstrated >99% probability of non-inferiority to FP/SAL 500/50 mcg and BUD/FORM 400/12 mcg using a 50 mL margin. For annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, FF/VI 100/25 mcg demonstrated 73% and 77% probability of non-inferiority to FP/SAL 500/50 mcg and BUD/FORM 400/12 mcg, respectively, using a 10% rate ratio margin. For SGRQ Total score, the corresponding probabilities of non-inferiority were 99% and 98%, respectively, on a 2-unit margin. Significant covariate effects were identified: increased age was associated with deterioration in FEV1 and reduced exacerbation frequency; shorter study duration was associated with reduced exacerbation frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

FF/VI 100/25 mcg was comparable with corresponding doses of FP/SAL and BUD/FORM on lung function and health status outcomes. Non-inferiority on moderate/severe exacerbation rate was not demonstrated to the same degree of confidence, though observed rates were similar. Model limitations include a weak treatment network for the exacerbation analysis and variability across the included studies. Our data support previous RCT findings suggesting that the efficacy of FF/VI 100/25 mcg on lung function and health status in COPD is comparable with twice-daily ICS/LABAs.

Differences in the efficacy and safety among inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) combinations in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): Role of ICS

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are frequently recommended for the treatment of asthma and COPD, often in combination with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA), depending on the severity of the disease and/or on the specific phenotype. Several ICS/LABA combinations are currently available that differ in their pharmacokinetic characteristics and dose of both components. Thus, this review assesses differences in the efficacy and the safety profiles of the ICS components in the two more frequently used ICS/LABA combinations (budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol) for the management of COPD. Whereas the basic mechanism of action is similar for all ICS (binding with the intracellular glucocorticoid receptor, which mediates both genomic and non genomic effects), the pharmacokinetic and characteristics of ICS are quite different in terms of receptor affinity, bioavailability, lipophilicity and drug persistence in the airways. Fluticasone persists longer in airway mucus and requires more time to dissolve in the lining fluid and then enter the airway wall, whereas budesonide is cleared more quickly from the airways. Comparative efficacy of the two major ICS/LABA combinations recommended for the treatment of COPD show similar efficacy in terms of reduction of exacerbations, improvement in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and quality of life. One retrospective cohort study suggested a greater efficacy for the budesonide/formoterol combination on hospital or emergency department admissions, oral corticosteroid courses, and addition of tiotropium, and an observational real-life study reported a greater reduction of COPD exacerbations with budesonide/formoterol than with fluticasom/salmeterol combination. Among the potential side effects of chronic ICS treatment in patients with COPD, recently the use of fluticasone or fluticasone/salmeterol combination has been associated with a higher prevalence of pneumonia in the major long-term studies. On the other hand, no similar increased risk of pneumonia has been reported in patients with COPD treated with the budesonide/formoterol combination. A recent population-based cohort study from the Quebec database showed that the adjusted odds ratio for having severe pneumonia was higher for fluticasone (2.1) than for budesonide (1.17) or other ICS (1.41). Of the ICS studied, only fluticasone demonstrated a dose-related increase in risk of pneumonia in patients with COPD. This difference between fluticasone and budesonide may be explained by the longer retention of fluticasone in the airways, with potentially greater inhibition of type-1 innate immunity. Therefore, the risk:benefit ratio should be evaluated thoroughly when choosing an ICS/LABA combination for patients with COPD.