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

Asthma management with triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination to reduce the risk of exacerbation: an umbrella review compliant with the PRIOR statement

INTRODUCTION

According to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) should be considered as add-on therapy in patients with asthma that remains uncontrolled, despite treatment with medium-dose (MD) or high-dose (HD) inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combinations. In patients ≥ 18 years, LAMA may be added in triple combination with an ICS and a LABA. To date, the precise efficacy of triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination remains uncertain concerning the impact on exacerbation risk in patients with uncontrolled asthma. Therefore, an umbrella review was performed to systematically summarize available data on the effect of triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination on the risk of asthma exacerbation.

METHODS

An umbrella review has been performed according to the PRIOR statement.

RESULTS

The overall results obtained from 5 systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination reduces the risk of asthma exacerbation. HD-ICS showed a greater effect particularly in reducing severe asthma exacerbation, especially in patients with evidence of type 2 inflammation biomarkers.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this umbrella review suggest an optimization of ICS dose in triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination, based on the severity of exacerbation and type 2 biomarkers expression.

The Role of Long-Acting Antimuscarinic Agents in the Treatment of Asthma

The journey of using anticholinergics in the treatment of asthma started with anticholinergic-containing plants such as Datura stramonium and Atropa belladonna, followed by ipratropium bromide and continued with tiotropium, glycopyrronium, and umeclidinium. Although antimuscarinics were used in the maintenance treatment of asthma over a century ago, after a long time (since 2014), it has been recommended to be used as an add-on long-acting antimuscarinic agent (LAMA) therapy in the maintenance treatment of asthma. The airway tone controlled by the vagus nerve is increased in asthma. Allergens, toxins, or viruses cause airway inflammation and inflammation-related epithelial damage, increased sensory nerve stimulation, ganglionic and postganglionic acetylcholine (ACh) release by inflammatory mediators, intensification of ACh signaling at M1 and M3 muscarinic ACh receptors (mAChRs), and dysfunction of M2 mAChR. Optimal anticholinergic drug for asthma should effectively block M3 and M1 receptors, but have minimal effect on M2 receptors. Tiotropium, umeclidinium, and glycopyrronium are anticholinergic agents with this feature. Tiotropium has been used in a separate inhaler as an add-on treatment to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), and glycopyrronium and umeclidinium have been used in a single inhaler as a combination of ICS/LABA/LAMA in asthma in recent years. Guidelines recommend this regimen as an optimization step for patients with severe asthma before initiating any biologic or systemic corticosteroid therapy. In this review, the history of antimuscarinic agents, their effectiveness and safety in line with randomized controlled trials, and real-life studies in asthma treatment will be discussed according to the current data.

Effectiveness and tolerability of dual and triple combination inhaler therapies compared with each other and varying doses of inhaled corticosteroids in adolescents and adults with asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend a higher-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) when asthma is not controlled with medium-dose (MD) ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of dual (ICS/LABA) and triple therapies (ICS/LABA/LAMA) compared with each other and with varying doses of ICS in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched multiple databases for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks of study duration from 2008 to 18 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched studies, including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with, or were eligible for, MD-ICS/LABA, comparing dual and triple therapies. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to the previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome was steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations and asthma-related hospitalisations (moderate to severe and severe exacerbations).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17,161 patients with uncontrolled asthma from 17 studies (median duration 26 weeks; mean age 49.1 years; male 40%; white 81%; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (MEF 1)1.9 litres and 61% predicted). The quality of included studies was generally good except for some outcomes in a few studies due to high attrition rates. Medium-dose (MD) and high-dose (HD) triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.71 to 0.99] and 0.69 [0.58 to 0.82], respectively) (high-certainty evidence), but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA. High-dose triple therapy likely reduces steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations compared to MD triple therapy (HR 0.83 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.996], [moderate certainty]). Subgroup analyses suggest the reduction in steroid-requiring exacerbations associated with triple therapies may be only for those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year but not for those without. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause adverse events (AEs) and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.79 [95% CrI 0.69 to 0.90], [high certainty] and 0.50 [95% CrI 0.30 to 0.84], [moderate certainty], respectively). Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to dual therapy (high certainty). The evidence suggests triple therapy results in little or no clinically important difference in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medium-dose and HD triple therapies reduce steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations, but not asthma-related hospitalisations, compared to MD-ICS/LABA especially in those with a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year. High-dose triple therapy is likely superior to MD triple therapy in reducing steroid-requiring asthma exacerbations. Triple therapy is unlikely to result in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms or quality of life compared to dual therapy considering the MCIDs. High-dose triple therapy, but not MD triple, results in a reduction in all-cause AEs and likely reduces dropouts due to AEs compared to MD-ICS/LABA. Triple therapy results in little to no difference in all-cause or asthma-related SAEs compared to dual therapy. HD-ICS/LABA is unlikely to result in any significant benefit or harm compared to MD-ICS/LABA, although long-term safety of higher rather than MD- ICS remains to be demonstrated given the median duration of included studies was six months. The above findings may assist deciding on a treatment option when asthma is not controlled with MD-ICS/LABA.

Optimizing asthma management: Role of long-acting muscarinic antagonists

Patients with asthma who are suboptimally responsive to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) are frequently exposed to oral corticosteroids and high-dose ICS, which can lead to significant side effects. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) have demonstrated efficacy and safety in a subset of these patients. This review summarizes the results of key studies using LAMAs in patients with asthma aged 12 years or older. LAMA as an add-on treatment improved lung function and asthma control in patients with uncontrolled asthma across studies. The efficacy of LAMAs as an add-on to ICS was superior to that of placebo and ICS dose escalation and comparable with that of LABAs. LAMA plus ICS plus LABA provided modest improvements in bronchodilation and increased the time to first severe exacerbation versus ICS plus LABA. Single-inhaler triple therapy was associated with decreased health care resource utilization and improved cost-effectiveness versus multiple inhalers. LAMAs were generally well tolerated; asthma exacerbations, bronchitis, and nasopharyngitis were common adverse events with LAMA in combination with ICS alone or ICS plus LABA. Thus, the overall evidence presented in this review supports the use of add-on LAMA treatment as a reasonable option in patients with asthma uncontrolled with ICS plus LABA or ICS alone.

Understanding the Updates in the Asthma Guidelines

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory lung disease that affects millions of Americans, with variable symptoms of bronchospasm and obstruction among individuals over time. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) published the 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines based on the latest research since the 2007 Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3). The following article reviews the 21 new recommendations on the six core topics in asthma: use of intermittent inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting muscarinic antagonist therapy, use of the fractional exhaled nitric oxide test in asthma diagnosis and monitoring, indoor allergen mitigation, immunotherapy, and bronchial thermoplasty. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate recommendations as strong or conditional based on the evidence. The recommendations were based on systematic reviews of the literature and focused on patient-centered critical outcomes of asthma exacerbations, asthma control, and asthma-related quality of life. Understanding the recommendations with consideration of individual values through shared decision-making may improve asthma outcomes.

The 5T approach in asthma: Triple Therapy Targeting Treatable Traits

Using a therapeutic strategy that is free from traditional diagnostic labels and based on the identification of "treatable traits" (TTs), which are influential in clinical presentations in each patient, might overcome the difficulties in identifying and validating asthma phenotypes and endotypes. Growing evidence is documenting the importance of using the triple therapy with ICS, LABA, and LAMAs in a single inhaler (SITT) in cases of asthma not controlled by ICS/LABA and in the prevention of exacerbations. The identification of TTs may overcome the possibility of using SITT without considering the specific needs of the patient. In effect, it allows a treatment strategy that is closer to the precision strategy now widely advocated for the management of patients with asthma. There are different TTs in asthma that may benefit from treatment with SITT, regardless of guideline recommendations. The airflow limitation and small airway dysfunction are key TTs that are present in different phenotypes/endotypes, do not depend on the degree of T2 inflammation, and respond better than other treatments to SITT. We suggest that the 5T (Triple Therapy Targeting Treatable Traits) approach should be applied to the full spectrum of asthma, not just severe asthma, and, consequently, SITT should begin earlier than currently recommended.

2020 NAEPP Guidelines Update and GINA 2021-Asthma Care Differences, Overlap, and Challenges

The 2020 National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group (NAEPP [2020 Focused Asthma Update]) guidelines and the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2021 strategy report are compared in this Rostrum article. The methodologies of each publication are described. Subsequently, 4 different selected pharmacological recommendations are compared in the 2 documents: step 1 for children 0 to 4 years of age with viral-induced wheezing, step 2 in ages 12 years and older with the intermittent use of inhaled corticosteroid, steps 3 and 4 with single-inhaler maintenance and reliever therapy with inhaled corticosteroids-formoterol (SMART), and steps 3, 4, and 5 with add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonist therapy. Nonpharmacological recommendations are also considered and contrasted, including for exhaled nitric oxide, environmental control, immunotherapy, and bronchial thermoplasty. Similarities and differences in these 2 documents are highlighted, and recommendations are made about harmonizing the approaches where possible.

Current long-acting muscarinic antagonists for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

The role of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) is well established in uncontrolled asthma, but not in milder stages.

AREAS COVERED

This review examines the main randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have investigated LAMAs administered as monotherapy or in combination to asthmatic patients, according to the different phenotypes. It offers an overview of the role of LAMAs or their fixed dose combinations (FDCs) in the treatment across all the different stages of asthma.

EXPERT OPINION

Tiotropium is now widely recognized as treatment for moderate to severe uncontrolled asthma (step 4-5) in adults and children. The most recent new evidence is: a) in adults, three different LAMA/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) FDCs have been recently approved, extending the treatment options for these patients; b) therapy with LAMAs does not depend on patient's Th2 status and justifies the indication regardless of patient's phenotyping; c) in the milder stages, the high variability of response to LAMAs and the lack of a good phenotyping of patients represents the main obstacle in prescribing LAMAs. A better characterization of parasympathetic tone activity could improve LAMAs prescription.

Applying personalized medicine to adult severe asthma

Background: Severe asthma is a heterogeneous disease that consists of various phenotypes driven by different pathways. Associated with significant morbidity, an important negative impact on the quality of life of patients, and increased health care costs, severe asthma represents a challenge for the clinician. With the introduction of various antibodies that target type 2 inflammation (T2) pathways, severe asthma therapy is gradually moving to a personalized medicine approach. Objective: The purpose of this review was to emphasize the important role of personalized medicine in adult severe asthma management. Methods: An extensive research was conducted in medical literature data bases by applying terms such as "severe asthma" associated with "structured approach," "comorbidities," "biomarkers," "phenotypes/endotypes," and "biologic therapies." Results: The management of severe asthma starts with a structured approach to confirm the diagnosis, assess the adherence to medications and identify confounding factors and comorbidities. The definition of phenotypes or endotypes (phenotypes defined by mechanisms and identified through biomarkers) is an important step toward the use of personalized medicine in asthma. Severe allergic and nonallergic eosinophilic asthma are two defined T2 phenotypes for which there are efficacious targeted biologic therapies currently available. Non-T2 phenotype remains to be characterized, and less efficient target therapy exists. Conclusion: Despite important progress in applying personalized medicine to severe asthma, especially in T2 inflammatory phenotypes, future research is needed to find valid biomarkers predictive for the response to available biologic therapies to develop more effective therapies in non-T2 phenotype.

Managing Asthma in Adolescents and Adults: 2020 Asthma Guideline Update From the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program

IMPORTANCE

Asthma is a major public health problem worldwide and is associated with excess morbidity, mortality, and economic costs associated with lost productivity. The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program has released the 2020 Asthma Guideline Update with updated evidence-based recommendations for treatment of patients with asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To report updated recommendations for 6 topics for clinical management of adolescents and adults with asthma: (1) intermittent inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs); (2) add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists; (3) fractional exhaled nitric oxide; (4) indoor allergen mitigation; (5) immunotherapy; and (6) bronchial thermoplasty.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council chose 6 topics to update the 2007 asthma guidelines based on results from a 2014 needs assessment. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality conducted systematic reviews of these 6 topics based on literature searches up to March-April 2017. Reviews were updated through October 2018 and used by an expert panel (n = 19) that included asthma content experts, primary care clinicians, dissemination and implementation experts, and health policy experts to develop 19 new recommendations using the GRADE method. The 17 recommendations for individuals aged 12 years or older are reported in this Special Communication.

FINDINGS

From 20 572 identified references, 475 were included in the 6 systematic reviews to form the evidence basis for these recommendations. Compared with the 2007 guideline, there was no recommended change in step 1 (intermittent asthma) therapy (as-needed short-acting β2-agonists [SABAs] for rescue therapy). In step 2 (mild persistent asthma), either daily low-dose ICS plus as-needed SABA therapy or as-needed concomitant ICS and SABA therapy are recommended. Formoterol in combination with an ICS in a single inhaler (single maintenance and reliever therapy) is recommended as the preferred therapy for moderate persistent asthma in step 3 (low-dose ICS-formoterol therapy) and step 4 (medium-dose ICS-formoterol therapy) for both daily and as-needed therapy. A short-term increase in the ICS dose alone for worsening of asthma symptoms is not recommended. Add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists are recommended in individuals whose asthma is not controlled by ICS-formoterol therapy for step 5 (moderate-severe persistent asthma). Fractional exhaled nitric oxide testing is recommended to assist in diagnosis and monitoring of symptoms, but not alone to diagnose or monitor asthma. Allergen mitigation is recommended only in individuals with exposure and relevant sensitivity or symptoms. When used, allergen mitigation should be allergen specific and include multiple allergen-specific mitigation strategies. Subcutaneous immunotherapy is recommended as an adjunct to standard pharmacotherapy for individuals with symptoms and sensitization to specific allergens. Sublingual immunotherapy is not recommended specifically for asthma. Bronchial thermoplasty is not recommended as part of standard care; if used, it should be part of an ongoing research effort.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Asthma is a common disease with substantial human and economic costs globally. Although there is no cure or established means of prevention, effective treatment is available. Use of the recommendations in the 2020 Asthma Guideline Update should improve the health of individuals with asthma.

2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group

The 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group was coordinated and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health. It is designed to improve patient care and support informed decision making about asthma management in the clinical setting. This update addresses six priority topic areas as determined by the state of the science at the time of a needs assessment, and input from multiple stakeholders:A rigorous process was undertaken to develop these evidence-based guidelines. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Evidence-Based Practice Centers conducted systematic reviews on these topics, which were used by the Expert Panel Working Group as a basis for developing recommendations and guidance. The Expert Panel used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), an internationally accepted framework, in consultation with an experienced methodology team for determining the certainty of evidence and the direction and strength of recommendations based on the evidence. Practical implementation guidance for each recommendation incorporates findings from NHLBI-led patient, caregiver, and clinician focus groups. To assist clincians in implementing these recommendations into patient care, the new recommendations have been integrated into the existing Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3) asthma management step diagram format.

Pharmacology and Therapeutics of Bronchodilators Revisited

Bronchodilators remain the cornerstone of the treatment of airway disorders such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There is therefore considerable interest in understanding how to optimize the use of our existing classes of bronchodilator and in identifying novel classes of bronchodilator drugs. However, new classes of bronchodilator have proved challenging to develop because many of these have no better efficacy than existing classes of bronchodilator and often have unacceptable safety profiles. Recent research has shown that optimization of bronchodilation occurs when both arms of the autonomic nervous system are affected through antagonism of muscarinic receptors to reduce the influence of parasympathetic innervation of the lung and through stimulation of β ₂-adrenoceptors (β ₂-ARs) on airway smooth muscle with β ₂-AR-selective agonists to mimic the sympathetic influence on the lung. This is currently achieved by use of fixed-dose combinations of inhaled long-acting β ₂-adrenoceptor agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonists (LAMAs). Due to the distinct mechanisms of action of LAMAs and LABAs, the additive/synergistic effects of using these drug classes together has been extensively investigated. More recently, so-called "triple inhalers" containing fixed-dose combinations of both classes of bronchodilator (dual bronchodilation) and an inhaled corticosteroid in the same inhaler have been developed. Furthermore, a number of so-called "bifunctional drugs" having two different primary pharmacological actions in the same molecule are under development. This review discusses recent advancements in knowledge on bronchodilators and bifunctional drugs for the treatment of asthma and COPD. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Since our last review in 2012, there has been considerable research to identify novel classes of bronchodilator drugs, to further understand how to optimize the use of the existing classes of bronchodilator, and to better understand the role of bifunctional drugs in the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The reality of LAMAs for adult asthmatic patients

INTRODUCTION

The use of tiotropium is approved for the treatment of asthma. There are several studies completed or currently ongoing with the long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) umeclidinium and glycopyrronium as an add-on asthma treatment. Adding a second bronchodilator with a different mechanism of action for the treatment of uncontrolled asthma may be a suitable therapeutic approach, although several issues still under discussion.

AREAS COVERED

The reality of LAMA plus long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) treatment for adult asthma. A systematic search was conducted on March 2020, and included 6 electronic databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Google Scholar.

EXPERT OPINION

A growing body of evidence generated from several randomized clinical trials is supporting the use of LAMA in adulthood asthma always in association with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Currently, only tiotropium has been approved and included in the guidelines. Other LAMAs are under evaluation in clinical trials. Several clinical trials are supporting the use of a triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) in uncontrolled asthmatic patients under ICS/LABA.

Emerging muscarinic receptor antagonists for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

The increased acetylcholine signaling in asthma pathophysiology offers the rationale for the use of LAMAs in the treatment of asthmatic patients. Tiotropium is still the only LAMA approved for use in asthma but there is a real interest in developing novel LAMAs for the treatment of asthma, or at least to extend this indication to other LAMAs already on the market.

AREAS COVERED

We examined and discussed trials and research that have studied or are evaluating the role of LAMAs already on the market in asthma and possible novel muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonists.

EXPERT OPINION

Glycopyrronium and umeclidinium will soon be included in the GINA strategy with the same current indications of tiotropium. It is likely that the choice of the LAMA will be influenced not so much by its pharmacological profile as by the type of triple therapy chosen. It is extremely difficult to identify a new LAMA that is more effective than tiotropium, but is it plausible that new technologies that will allow delivering the drug in a more targeted way and with a lower risk of adverse effects may represent the real progress in the use of LAMAs in asthma in the coming years.

A phase IIb, randomised, parallel-group study: the efficacy, safety and tolerability of once-daily umeclidinium in patients with asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids

BACKGROUND

Patients with asthma uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids may benefit from umeclidinium (UMEC), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist.

METHODS

This Phase IIb, double-blind study included patients with reversible, uncontrolled/partially-controlled asthma for ≥6 months, receiving ≥100 mcg/day fluticasone propionate (or equivalent) for ≥12 weeks. Following a 2-week run-in on open-label fluticasone furoate (FF) 100 mcg, patients were randomised (1:1:1) to receive UMEC 31.25 mcg, UMEC 62.5 mcg or placebo on top of FF 100 mcg once-daily for 24 weeks. As-needed salbutamol was provided. Primary and secondary endpoints were change from baseline in clinic trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) and clinic FEV₁ 3 h post-dose, respectively, at Week 24. Other endpoints included change from baseline in home daily spirometry (trough FEV₁, evening FEV₁, morning [pre-dose] and evening peak expiratory flow) over 24 weeks. Safety was assessed throughout the study.

RESULTS

The intent-to-treat population comprised 421 patients (UMEC 31.25 mcg: n =139, UMEC 62.5 mcg: n =139, placebo: n =143). UMEC 31.25 mcg and 62.5 mcg demonstrated significantly greater improvements from baseline in clinic trough FEV₁ at Week 24 (difference [95% CI]: 0.176 L [0.092, 0.260; p<0.001] and 0.184 L [0.101, 0.268; p<0.001], respectively), clinic FEV₁ 3 h post-dose at Week 24 (0.190 L [0.100, 0.279; p<0.001] and 0.198 L [0.109, 0.287; p<0.001], respectively) and mean change from baseline in daily home spirometry over 24 weeks versus placebo. No new safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

UMEC is a highly effective bronchodilator that leads to improved lung function when administered as a single bronchodilator on top of FF in subjects with fully reversible, uncontrolled/partially-controlled moderate asthma. These data support a favourable benefit/risk profile for UMEC (31.25 mcg and 62.5 mcg).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

GSK study ID: 205832; Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03012061.

Management of severe asthma: a European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society guideline

This document provides clinical recommendations for the management of severe asthma. Comprehensive evidence syntheses, including meta-analyses, were performed to summarise all available evidence relevant to the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society Task Force's questions. The evidence was appraised using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and the results were summarised in evidence profiles. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations formulated by a multidisciplinary Task Force of asthma experts, who made specific recommendations on six specific questions. After considering the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, quality of evidence, feasibility, and acceptability of various interventions, the Task Force made the following recommendations: 1) suggest using anti-interleukin (IL)-5 and anti-IL-5 receptor α for severe uncontrolled adult eosinophilic asthma phenotypes; 2) suggest using a blood eosinophil cut-point ≥150 μL^-1 to guide anti-IL-5 initiation in adult patients with severe asthma; 3) suggest considering specific eosinophil (≥260 μL^-1) and exhaled nitric oxide fraction (≥19.5 ppb) cut-offs to identify adolescents or adults with the greatest likelihood of response to anti-IgE therapy; 4) suggest using inhaled tiotropium for adolescents and adults with severe uncontrolled asthma despite Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) step 4-5 or National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) step 5 therapies; 5) suggest a trial of chronic macrolide therapy to reduce asthma exacerbations in persistently symptomatic or uncontrolled patients on GINA step 5 or NAEPP step 5 therapies, irrespective of asthma phenotype; and 6) suggest using anti-IL-4/13 for adult patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and for those with severe corticosteroid-dependent asthma regardless of blood eosinophil levels. These recommendations should be reconsidered as new evidence becomes available.

G Protein-Coupled Receptors in Asthma Therapy: Pharmacology and Drug Action

Asthma is a heterogeneous inflammatory disease of the airways that is associated with airway hyperresponsiveness and airflow limitation. Although asthma was once simply categorized as atopic or nonatopic, emerging analyses over the last few decades have revealed a variety of asthma endotypes that are attributed to numerous pathophysiological mechanisms. The classification of asthma by endotype is primarily routed in different profiles of airway inflammation that contribute to bronchoconstriction. Many asthma therapeutics target G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), which either enhance bronchodilation or prevent bronchoconstriction. Short-acting and long-acting β 2-agonists are widely used bronchodilators that signal through the activation of the β 2-adrenergic receptor. Short-acting and long-acting antagonists of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors are used to reduce bronchoconstriction by blocking the action of acetylcholine. Leukotriene antagonists that block the signaling of cysteinyl leukotriene receptor 1 are used as an add-on therapy to reduce bronchoconstriction and inflammation induced by cysteinyl leukotrienes. A number of GPCR-targeting asthma drug candidates are also in different stages of development. Among them, antagonists of prostaglandin D2 receptor 2 have advanced into phase III clinical trials. Others, including antagonists of the adenosine A2B receptor and the histamine H4 receptor, are in early stages of clinical investigation. In the past decade, significant research advancements in pharmacology, cell biology, structural biology, and molecular physiology have greatly deepened our understanding of the therapeutic roles of GPCRs in asthma and drug action on these GPCRs. This review summarizes our current understanding of GPCR signaling and pharmacology in the context of asthma treatment. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Although current treatment methods for asthma are effective for a majority of asthma patients, there are still a large number of patients with poorly controlled asthma who may experience asthma exacerbations. This review summarizes current asthma treatment methods and our understanding of signaling and pharmacology of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) in asthma therapy, and discusses controversies regarding the use of GPCR drugs and new opportunities in developing GPCR-targeting therapeutics for the treatment of asthma.

Future perspectives of anticholinergics for the treatment of asthma in adults and children

Despite major advances in therapeutic interventions and the availability of detailed treatment guidelines, a high proportion of patients with symptomatic asthma remain uncontrolled. Asthma management is largely guided by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) strategy and is based on a backbone of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy with the use of additional therapies to achieve disease control. Inhaled long-acting bronchodilators alone and in combination are the preferred add-on treatment options. Although long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are a relatively recent addition to disease management recommendations for asthma, tiotropium has been extensively studied in a large clinical trial program. In Europe and the United States, tiotropium is approved for patients aged ≥6 years and uncontrolled on medium- to high-dose ICS/long-acting β2-agonists at GINA Steps 4 and 5 with a history of exacerbations. Evidence supports the efficacy of tiotropium Respimat® in adults in terms of lung function and asthma control, with a safety profile comparable with that of placebo across a range of asthma severities. Similarly, clinical trials in patients aged 1-17 years have shown improvements in lung function and trends toward improved asthma control. Furthermore, its efficacy makes tiotropium relatively easy to incorporate into routine clinical practice, irrespective of allergic status and without the need for patient phenotyping. Tiotropium is a cost-effective treatment that may offer an important alternative to other, more expensive add-on therapies. This review discusses the potential future position of LAMAs in clinical practice by considering the continuously evolving evidence. Prominence is given to tiotropium, the only LAMA supported by a structured clinical trial program in asthma to date, while also considering other recommended treatment options for patients with uncontrolled asthma. The importance of effective patient/caregiver-clinician communication and shared decision-making in enhancing treatment adherence is also highlighted.

Clinical efficacy and safety of anticholinergic therapies in pediatric patients

The burden of uncontrolled asthma in children and adolescents is high. Treatment options for pediatric patients (aged under 18 years) with asthma are largely influenced by the Global Initiative for Asthma recommendations. Algorithms for adolescents (12-18 years) and adults are identical, but recommendations for children aged under 6 years and 6-11 years differ. Although the goals of treatment for pediatric patients with asthma are similar to those for adults, relatively few new therapies have been approved for this patient population within the last decade. Designing clinical trials involving children presents several challenges, notably that children are often less able to perform lung function tests, and traditional endpoints used in clinical trials with adults, such as forced expiratory volume in 1 second, asthma exacerbations and questionnaires, have limitations associated with their use in children. There are also ethical considerations related to the performance of longer placebo-controlled exacerbation trials. This review considers additional clinical endpoints to those traditionally reported, including forced expiratory flow at 25%-75% of forced vital capacity, which may help shed light on which treatments are most effective for use in pediatric patients with asthma. The pros and cons of specific and potentially clinically relevant endpoints are considered, along with device considerations and patient preferences that may enhance adherence and quality of life. Recent advances in the management of children and adolescents, including the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approval of tiotropium in patients with asthma aged 6 years and over, are also discussed.

The mode of action of anticholinergics in asthma

Acetylcholine binds to muscarinic receptors to play a key role in the pathophysiology of asthma, leading to bronchoconstriction, increased mucus secretion, inflammation and airway remodelling. Anticholinergics are muscarinic receptor antagonists that are used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. Recent in vivo and in vitro data have increased our understanding of how acetylcholine contributes to the disease manifestations of asthma, as well as elucidating the mechanism of action of anticholinergics. This review assesses the latest literature on acetylcholine in asthma pathophysiology, with a closer look at its role in airway inflammation and remodelling. New insights into the mechanism of action of anticholinergics, their effects on airway remodelling, and a review of the efficacy and safety of long-acting anticholinergics in asthma treatment will also be covered, including a summary of the latest clinical trial data.

Pre-clinical data suggest that anticholinergics can reduce acetylcholine-induced airway inflammation and remodellinghttp://ow.ly/xqAQ30loP8F

Association of Inhaled Corticosteroids and Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists With Asthma Control in Patients With Uncontrolled, Persistent Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are a potential adjunct therapy to inhaled corticosteroids in the management of persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects associated with LAMA vs placebo or vs other controllers as an add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids and the use of a LAMA as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists (LABAs; hereafter referred to as triple therapy) vs inhaled corticosteroids and LABA in patients with uncontrolled, persistent asthma.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and clinical trial registries (earliest date through November 28, 2017).

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers selected randomized clinical trials or observational studies evaluating a LAMA vs placebo or vs another controller as an add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids or triple therapy vs inhaled corticosteroids and LABA in patients with uncontrolled, persistent asthma reporting on an outcome of interest.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Meta-analyses using a random-effects model was conducted to calculate risk ratios (RRs), risk differences (RDs), and mean differences (MDs) with corresponding 95% CIs. Citation screening, data abstraction, risk assessment, and strength-of-evidence grading were completed by 2 independent reviewers.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

Of 1326 records identified, 15 randomized clinical trials (N = 7122 patients) were included. Most trials assessed adding LAMA vs placebo or LAMA vs LABA to inhaled corticosteroids. Adding LAMA vs placebo to inhaled corticosteroids was associated with a significantly reduced risk of exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92]; RD, -0.02 [95% CI, -0.04 to 0.00]). Compared with adding LABA, adding LAMA to inhaled corticosteroids was not associated with significant improvements in exacerbation risk (RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.53 to 1.42]; RD, 0.00 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.02]), or any other outcomes of interest. Triple therapy was not significantly associated with improved exacerbation risk vs inhaled corticosteroids and LABA (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.57 to 1.22]; RD, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.08 to 0.07]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the use of LAMA compared with placebo as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids was associated with a lower risk of asthma exacerbations; however, the association of LAMA with benefit may not be greater than that with LABA. Triple therapy was not associated with a lower risk of exacerbations.

Anticholinergic drugs in asthma therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Current guidelines recommend a stepwise approach for pharmacological therapy aimed to achieve and maintain asthma control. Despite these recommendations, at least 50% of patients continue to be uncontrolled with risk of asthma exacerbations that can often be serious and are associated with deterioration of quality of life. In recent years, the interest in anticholinergic bronchodilators, which have been primarily used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, has increased patients with uncontrolled asthma. This review analyzes the mechanisms for the proposed clinical use of anticholinergic bronchodilators as an adjunctive therapy in asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on existing and recent evidence, the use of anticholinergic bronchodilators, particularly long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), plays an important role as add-on therapy in patients uncontrolled on existing therapies. In particular, the use of anticholinergics in asthma may have a role in patients intolerant to long-acting β2 agonist, in patients with certain pharmacogenetic profiles and in those patients with asthma symptoms mostly at night.

SUMMARY

Data from clinical trials and from real-life confirm the safety and efficacy of LAMAs, especially tiotropium, in patients who remain uncontrolled despite the use of inhaled corticosteroid therapy.

Symbicort® Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART) and the evolution of asthma management within the GINA guidelines

INTRODUCTION

The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) annual report summarizes the latest evidence for asthma management. GINA recommends stepwise pharmacological treatment, advocating inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) plus rapid, long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA) delivered in a single inhaler for maintenance and relief at Steps 3 (moderate persistent asthma requiring 1-2 controllers plus as-needed reliever), 4 (severe persistent asthma requiring ≥2 controllers plus as-needed reliever), and 5 (higher level care and/or add-on treatment). Areas covered: Randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence demonstrate that flexibly dosed budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and relief (Symbicort® Maintenance And Reliever Therapy [SMART]) is associated with reductions in severe exacerbations, prolongs time to first exacerbation, and provides fast symptom relief. Expert commentary: SMART provides greater or equal levels of sustained asthma control than similar or higher fixed doses of ICS/LABA plus short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) as needed or higher ICS plus SABA as needed, with lower overall ICS doses and cost. The simplified dosing strategy may improve adherence and overall asthma control but relies on patient education. Budesonide/formoterol as needed in mild asthma (patients qualifying for regular low-dose ICS) is currently under investigation in two double-blind randomized studies, SYGMA1/2 (NCT02149199/NCT02224157), comparing budesonide/formoterol as needed with budesonide plus SABA and SABA alone.

Fixed-Dose Combination Inhalers

In asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an important step in simplifying management and improving adherence with prescribed therapy is to reduce the dose frequency to the minimum necessary to maintain disease control. Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy might enhance compliance by decreasing the number of medications and/or the number of daily doses. Furthermore, they have the potential for enhancing, sensitizing, and prolonging the effects of monocomponents. Combination therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting β-agonist (LABA) is considered an important approach for treating patients with asthma and patients with severe COPD who have frequent exacerbations. Several ICS/LABA FDCs are now commercially available or will become available within the next few years for the treatment of COPD and/or asthma. Several studies demonstrate that there are a number of added benefits in using combinations of β₂-agonists and antimuscarinic agents. In particular, LABA/long-acting antimuscarinic agent (LAMA) combination seems to play an important role in optimizing bronchodilation. Several once-daily and twice-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs have been developed or are in clinical development. LAMA/ICS FDCs seem to be useful in COPD and mainly in asthma, in patients with severe asthma and persistent airflow limitation. The rationale behind the ICS/LABA/LAMA FDCs seems logical because all three agents work via different mechanisms on different targets, potentially allowing for lower doses of the individual agents to be used, accompanied by improved side effect profiles. In effect, in clinical practice, concomitant use of all three compounds is common, especially in more severe COPD but also in the treatment of adults with poorly controlled asthma despite maintenance treatment with high-dose ICS and a LABA.

Muscarinic Receptor Antagonists

Parasympathetic activity is increased in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma and appears to be the major reversible component of airway obstruction. Therefore, treatment with muscarinic receptor antagonists is an effective bronchodilator therapy in COPD and also in asthmatic patients. In recent years, the accumulating evidence that the cholinergic system controls not only contraction by airway smooth muscle but also the functions of inflammatory cells and airway epithelial cells has suggested that muscarinic receptor antagonists could exert other effects that may be of clinical relevance when we must treat a patient suffering from COPD or asthma. There are currently six muscarinic receptor antagonists licenced for use in the treatment of COPD, the short-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (SAMAs) ipratropium bromide and oxitropium bromide and the long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMAs) aclidinium bromide, tiotropium bromide, glycopyrronium bromide and umeclidinium bromide. Concerns have been raised about possible associations of muscarinic receptor antagonists with cardiovascular safety, but the most advanced compounds seem to have an improved safety profile. Further beneficial effects of SAMAs and LAMAs are seen when added to existing treatments, including LABAs, inhaled corticosteroids and phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors. The importance of tiotropium bromide in the maintenance treatment of COPD, and likely in asthma, has spurred further research to identify new LAMAs. There are a number of molecules that are being identified, but only few have reached the clinical development.

Population Pharmacokinetics Modeling of Inhaled Umeclidinium for Adult Patients with Asthma

BACKGROUND

Umeclidinium (UMEC; a long-acting anti-muscarinic) in combination with fluticasone furoate (an inhaled corticosteroid) is in development for asthma treatment. This secondary analysis aimed to develop a population pharmacokinetic model characterizing UMEC in adults with asthma, and evaluated the impact of covariates on pharmacokinetic parameters.

METHODS

Plasma concentration data from study NCT01641692 (assessing once-daily UMEC 15.6, 31.25, 62.5, 125, and 250 mcg, twice daily UMEC 15.6 and 31.25 mcg, and placebo) were analyzed using non-linear mixed-effect modeling in NONMEM^®. Full likelihood, including observed data and data below the quantification limit (treated as censored), was maximized. Study endpoints were population pharmacokinetics (including apparent inhaled clearance [CL/F] and apparent distribution volume in the central compartment [V _c/F]) and derived pharmacokinetic parameters (area under the concentration-time curve [AUC] and maximum concentration [C _max] at steady-state).

RESULTS

In total, 128 patients provided 3757 data points. The pharmacokinetics of UMEC were best described using a two-compartment model with intravenous bolus input, due to fast absorption following inhalation. CL/F was 257 L/h and V _c/F was 804 L. Creatinine clearance was a significant covariate for CL/F, as were age and body weight for V _c/F. AUC and C _max increased with increasing UMEC dose (once-daily 15.6-250 mcg: AUC_0-24 median: 64.7-863 pg h/mL; C _max median: 10.6-256 pg/mL).

CONCLUSION

The final population pharmacokinetic model adequately described the data, demonstrating minimal creatinine clearance, age, and body weight effects on overall plasma UMEC pharmacokinetics and systemic exposure.

The effect of umeclidinium on lung function and symptoms in patients with fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility to salbutamol: A randomised, 3-phase study

INTRODUCTION

The long-acting muscarinic antagonist, umeclidinium (UMEC), combined with the inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone furoate (FF), improves lung function in symptomatic patients with asthma. We assessed FF/UMEC in patients with a primary diagnosis of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but physiological characteristics of both (fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility to salbutamol).

METHODS

This double-blind, parallel-arm, 3-phase study randomised 338 patients (1:1:1:1:2:2) to FF 100 mcg alone or combined with UMEC (15.6, 62.5, 125, or 250 mcg) or vilanterol 25 mcg (Phase A, 4 weeks). Primary endpoint: change from baseline in clinic trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) (end of Phase A). Secondary endpoints: morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue medication use and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS™: COPD) scores. Safety was assessed.

RESULTS

In the intent-to-treat population, the increase in trough FEV₁ over FF was significant for FF/UMEC 62.5 (0.140 L [p = 0.019]) and 125 mcg (0.120 L [p = 0.039]), with similar changes for patients with a primary diagnosis of asthma or COPD. Changes from baseline in morning PEF and E-RS total score were greater for all FF/UMEC doses vs FF (p ≤ 0.05). Change from baseline in rescue medication use was statistically or clinically significant for all FF/UMEC doses vs FF. The incidence of on-treatment adverse events was 15%-32% (Phase A), with no dose-related effects.

CONCLUSIONS

FF/UMEC 62.5 mcg produced clinically meaningful improvements in FEV₁, morning PEF, E-RS total score and rescue medication use. FF/UMEC may benefit patients with features of both asthma and COPD. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT02164539; GSK: 200699.

Umeclidinium for the treatment of uncontrolled asthma

INTRODUCTION

Smooth muscle cell contraction in the airways is the principal therapeutic target in asthmatic subjects and its insufficient treatment is often a cause of uncontrolled disease. For this reason, research has focused on targeting smooth muscle activity with anticholinergic agents, including umeclidinium. Areas covered: This review highlights the potential application of umeclidinium, a long acting muscarinic antagonist, as a novel therapeutic approach for patients with severe uncontrolled asthma, despite maximal therapy. Expert opinion: Umeclidinium, similarly to tiotropium, which has been recently included in guidelines, may act by contrasting cholinergic activation in airways, preventing or at least reducing smooth muscle cells contraction and the consequent bronchoconstriction. This is similar to what occurs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, for which umeclidinium has been regularly approved. However, available data is not sufficient and further studies are needed before regulatory approval can be sought, since only phase II clinical trials have been conducted at present. Both quality of life and objectifiable clinical data and parameters must be assessed, including lung function improvements, reduction of exacerbations and reduction of as required medications.

Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists for Difficult-to-Treat Asthma: Emerging Evidence and Future Directions

Asthma is a complex disease where many patients remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed therapy. This suggests an unmet need for alternative treatment approaches. Understanding the physiological role of muscarinic receptors and the parasympathetic nervous system in the respiratory tract will provide a foundation of alternative therapeutics in asthma. Currently, several long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are on the market for the treatment of respiratory diseases. Many studies have shown the effectiveness of tiotropium, a LAMA, as add-on therapy in uncontrolled asthma. These studies led to FDA approval for tiotropium use in asthma. In this review, we discuss how the neurotransmitter acetylcholine itself contributes to inflammation, bronchoconstriction, and remodeling in asthma. We further describe the current clinical studies evaluating LAMAs in adult and adolescent patients with asthma, providing a comprehensive review of the current known physiological benefits of LAMAs in respiratory disease.

Role of muscarinic antagonists in asthma therapy

INTRODUCTION

Higher parasympathetic tone has been reported in asthmatics. In general, cholinergic contractile tone is increased by airway inflammation associated with asthma. Nevertheless, the role of muscarinic antagonists for the treatment of asthma has not yet been clearly defined. Areas covered: The use of SAMAs and LAMAs in asthma has been examined and discussed according with the published evidence. Particular attention has been given to the large Phase III clinical trial program designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tiotropium respimat added to standard treatment in adults, adolescents and children with persistent asthma across the spectrum of asthma severity. Expert commentary: The current evidence is that in patients with poorly controlled severe asthma despite the use of ICS and LABA, the addition of tiotropium significantly increases the time to the first severe exacerbation and provides a modest but sustained bronchodilation. Identical results should be produced using other LAMAs. In any case, the documentation that, at least in animal or in vitro models, LAMAs show significant anti-inflammatory and anti-proliferative capacities and are able to inhibit airway remodeling induced by allergens makes a strong presumption that the use of LAMAs in asthma may go beyond the simple bronchodilator effect.

New and developing non-adrenoreceptor small molecule drugs for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone or in combination with an inhaled long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) are the preferred long-term treatment for adults and adolescents with symptomatic asthma. Additional drugs include leukotriene-receptor antagonists, slow-release theophylline and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) tiotropium (approved in 2015). There is a need for more effective therapies, as many patients continue to have poorly controlled asthma. Areas covered: New and developing long-acting non-adrenoreceptor synthetic drugs for the treatment of symptomatic chronic asthma despite treatment with an ICS alone or combined with a LABA. Data was reviewed from studies published up until November 2016. Expert opinion: Tiotropium improves lung function and has a modest effect in reducing exacerbations when added to ICS alone or ICS and LABA. The LAMAs umeclidinium and glycopyrronium are under development in fixed dose combination with ICS and LABA. Novel small molecule drugs, such as CRTH2 receptor antagonists, PDE₄ inhibitors, protein kinase inhibitors and nonsteroidal glucocorticoid receptor agonists and 'off-label' use of licensed drugs, such as macrolides and statins are under investigation for asthma, although their effectiveness in clinical practice is not established. To better achieve the goal of developing effective novel small molecule drugs for asthma will require greater understanding of mechanisms of disease and the different phenotypes and endotypes of asthma.

Positioning of Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists in the Management of Asthma

Despite a range of efficacious therapies for asthma, including inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA), a significant proportion of patients have poor asthma control and retain a risk of future worsening of their symptoms. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) bronchodilators offer a well-tolerated, efficacious, and cost-effective add-on to a patient's treatment. Of the LAMAs currently under investigation or available for the treatment of asthma, evidence from a comprehensive clinical trial program in adults and children shows that once-daily treatment with tiotropium provides benefits for patients with uncontrolled asthma despite the use of ICS and LABAs. Tiotropium is included in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) strategy document as an add-on therapy option for patients at Step 4 or 5 with a history of asthma exacerbations. Tiotropium Respimat® has demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with a range of disease severities, ages, and phenotypes. This review describes the evidence for the use of LAMA as add-on therapy for patients with asthma who remain uncontrolled despite the use of ICS and LABA treatments.

Spotlight on fluticasone furoate/vilanterol trifenatate for the once-daily treatment of asthma: design, development and place in therapy

The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plays a key role in the treatment of asthmatic patients, and international guidelines have designated ICSs as an early maintenance therapy in controlling asthma symptoms. When asthmatic patients remain symptomatic on ICSs, one common option is to add a long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) to the maintenance treatment. Fixed combination inhalers that contain both an ICS and a LABA have been popular for both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Historically, these inhalers have been dosed twice daily. However, currently, there is a once-daily combination therapy with the ICS fluticasone furoate (FF) and the LABA vilanterol trifenatate (VI) with indications for use in both COPD and asthma. This dry powder inhaler (DPI) comes in two doses of FF (100 or 200 μg) both combined with VI (25 μg). This article reviews the clinical trial data for FF, VI and FF/VI combination inhalers and documents the efficacy and safety of once-daily inhaled maintenance therapy by DPI in asthmatic patients.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists: a potential add-on therapy in the treatment of asthma?

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways that is a major global burden on both individuals and healthcare systems. Despite guideline-directed treatment, a significant proportion of patients with asthma do not achieve control. This review focuses on the potential use of long-acting anticholinergics as bronchodilators in the treatment of asthma, with results published from clinical trials of glycopyrrolate, umeclidinium and tiotropium. The tiotropium clinical trial programme is the most advanced, with data available from a number of phase II and III studies of tiotropium as an add-on to inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy, with or without a long-acting β2-agonist, in patients across asthma severities. Recent studies using the Respimat Soft Mist inhaler have identified 5 µg once daily as the preferred dosing regimen, which has shown promising results in adults, adolescents and children with asthma. Tiotropium Respimat has recently been incorporated into the Global Initiative for Asthma 2015 treatment strategy as a recommended alternative therapy at steps 4 and 5 in adult patients with a history of exacerbations. The increasing availability of evidence from ongoing and future clinical trials will be beneficial in determining where long-acting anticholinergic agents fit in future treatment guidelines across a variety of patient populations and disease severities.

Muscarinic antagonists in early stage clinical development for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Parasympathetic neurons utilize the neurotransmitter acetylcholine to modulate and constrict airway smooth muscles at the muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. Inhaled agents that antagonize the muscarinic (M) acetylcholine receptor, particularly airway M3 receptors, have increasing data supporting use in persistent asthma. Areas covered: Use of inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) in asthma is explored. The LAMA tiotropium is approved for maintenance in symptomatic asthma patients despite the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) and/or long-acting beta₂ agonists (LABA). LAMA agents currently approved for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) include tiotropium, glycopyrrolate/glycopyrronium, umeclidinium and aclidinium. These agents are reviewed for their pharmacological differences and clinical trials in asthma. Expert opinion: Current guidelines place inhaled LAMAs as adjunctive maintenance therapy in symptomatic asthma not controlled by an ICS and/or a LTRA. LAMA agents will play an increasing role in moderate to severe symptomatic asthma patients. Additional LAMA agents are likely to seek a maintenance indication perhaps as a combined inhaler with an ICS or with an ICS and a LABA. These fixed-dose combination inhalers are being tested in COPD and asthma patients. Once-a-day dosing of inhaled LAMA agents in severe asthma patients will likely become the future standard.

Tiotropium in the add-on treatment of asthma in adults: clinical trial evidence and experience

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory airway disease, and its treatment is frequently challenging despite detailed national and international guidelines. While basic anti-inflammatory therapy usually consists of inhaled corticosteroids in doses adapted to the asthma severity, add-on treatment with bronchodilators is essential in more severe asthma. Only recently, the long-acting anticholinergic tiotropium was introduced into the GINA guidelines. This review reports on the studies that have been performed with tiotropium in adult asthmatic patients. Following early proof-of-concept studies, several studies with tiotropium as an add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), with or without a long-acting beta agonist (LABA), demonstrated convincing clinical benefit for patients. Important lung function parameters and quality of life scores significantly improved shortly after onset of the add-on therapy with tiotropium, and some studies even demonstrated non-inferiority against salmeterol. All studies reported an excellent safety profile of tiotropium. The still growing body of tiotropium studies, both in adults and children, will help to identify the position of tiotropium in future asthma guidelines and might also indicate which patients benefit most from an add-on therapy with tiotropium.

Vilanterol and fluticasone furoate for asthma

BACKGROUND

Vilanterol (VI) is a long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) that binds to the beta₂-adrenoceptor on the airway smooth muscle, producing bronchodilation. LABA therapy, which is well established in adults as part of the British Thoracic Society (BTS) Guidelines for the Management of Asthma, leads to improvement in symptoms and lung function and reduction in exacerbations. At present, the commonly used LABAs licensed for use in asthma management (formoterol and salmeterol) require twice-daily administration, whereas VI is a once-daily therapy.Fluticasone furoate (FF) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and ICS therapy is recommended by the BTS asthma guidelines. ICSs, the mainstay of asthma treatment, lead to a reduction in both airway inflammation and airway hyper-responsiveness. Regular use leads to improvement in symptoms and lung function. ICSs are currently recommended as 'preventer' therapy for patients who use a 'reliever' medication (e.g. short-acting beta₂ agonist (SABA), salbutamol) three or more times per week. Most of the commonly used ICS treatments are twice-daily medications, although two once-daily products are currently licensed (ciclesonide and mometasone).At the present time, only one once-daily ICS/LABA combination (FF/VI) is available, and several other combination inhalers are recommended for twice-daily administration.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects of VI and FF in combination versus placebo, or versus other ICSs and/or LABAs, on acute exacerbations and on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adults and children with chronic asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials, clinical trial registries, manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included studies up to June 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults and children with a diagnosis of asthma. Included studies compared VI and FF combined versus placebo, or versus other ICSs and/or LABAs. Our primary outcomes were health-related quality of life, severe asthma exacerbation, as defined by hospital admissions or treatment with a course of oral corticosteroids, and serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a fixed-effect model. We used standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 14 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 6641 randomised participants, of whom 5638 completed the study. All studies lasted between two and 78 weeks and showed good methodological quality overall.We included 10 comparisons in this review, seven for which the dose of VI and FF was 100/25 mcg (VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs placebo; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs same dose of FF; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs same dose of VI; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs fluticasone propionate (FP) 500 mcg twice-daily; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) 250/50 mcg twice-daily; VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs FP/SAL 250/25 mcg twice-daily; FF/VI 100/25 vs FP/SAL500/50) and three for which the dose of VI and FF was 200/25 mcg (VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs placebo; VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs FP 500 mcg; VI/FF 200/25 mcg vs same dose of FF).We found very few opportunities to combine results from the 14 included studies in meta-analyses. We tabulated the data for our pre-specified primary outcomes. In particular, we found insufficient information to assess whether once-daily VI/FF was better or worse than twice-daily FP/SAL in terms of efficacy or safety.Only one of the 14 studies looked at health-related quality of life when comparing VI and FF 100/25 mcg versus placebo and identified a significant advantage of VI/FF 100/25 mcg (mean difference (MD) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.46; 329 participants); we recognised this as moderate-quality evidence. Only two studies compared VI/FF 100/25 mcg versus placebo with respect to exacerbations; both studies reported no exacerbations in either treatment arm. Five studies (VI/FF 100/25 mcg vs placebo) sought information on serious adverse events; all five studies reported no serious adverse events in the VI/FF 100/25 mcg or placebo arms. We found no comparison relevant to our primary outcomes for VI/FF at a higher dose (200/25 mcg) versus placebo.The small number of studies contributing to each comparison precludes the opportunity to draw robust conclusions for clinical practice. These studies were not of sufficient duration to allow conclusions about long-term side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some evidence suggests clear advantages for VI/FF, in combination, compared with placebo, particularly for forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) and peak expiratory flow; however, the variety of questions addressed in the included studies did not allow review authors to draw firm conclusions. Information was insufficient for assessment of whether once-daily VI/FF was better or worse than twice-daily FP/SAL in terms of efficacy or safety. It is clear that more research is required to reduce the uncertainties that surround interpretation of these studies. It will be necessary for these findings to be replicated in other work before more robust conclusions are revealed. Only five of the 13 included studies provided data on health-related quality of life, and only six recorded asthma exacerbations. Only one study focused on paediatric patients, so no conclusions can be drawn for the paediatric population. More research is needed, particularly in the primary outcome areas selected for this review, so that we can draw firmer conclusions in the next update of this review.

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.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to combination long-acting beta2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) versus LABA/ICS for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Maintenance treatment with long-acting beta2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) can relieve asthma symptoms and reduce the frequency of exacerbations, but there are limited treatment options for people who do not gain control on combination LABA/ICS. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) are a class of inhaled drug which have been effective for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and are now becoming available for people with asthma to take alongside their LABA/ICS inhaler.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to combination long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in adults whose asthma is not well controlled by LABA/ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR) up to January 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO trials portal, and reference lists of other reviews, and we contacted trial authors for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies met the inclusion criteria if they compared LAMA as an add-on to LABA/ICS versus LABA/ICS alone for adults with asthma. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. Primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS), validated measures of asthma control, and serious adverse events (including mortality).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened searches and independently extracted details on risk of bias and numerical data. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as mean differences (MD) using a random-effects model. We rated all outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We found four double-blind, double-dummy trials comparing LAMA to placebo, including 1197 people with asthma taking combination LABA/ICS. One of the trials was designed to study glycopyrronium bromide but was withdrawn prior to enrolment, and the other three all studied tiotropium bromide (mostly 5 µg once daily via Respimat) over 48 to 52 weeks. People in the trials had a mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of 55% of their predicted value, indicating severe asthma.People randomised to take tiotropium add-on had fewer exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids than those continuing to take LABA/ICS alone, but the confidence intervals did not rule out no difference (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; moderate quality evidence). Over 48 weeks, 328 out of 1000 people taking their usual LABA/ICS would have to take oral corticosteroids for an exacerbation compared with 271 if they took tiotropium as well (95% CI 218 to 333 per 1000). Analyses comparing the number of exacerbations per patient in each group (rate ratio) and the time until first exacerbation (hazard ratio) were in keeping with the main result. Quality of life, as measured by the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) was no better for those taking tiotropium add-on than for those taking LABA/ICS alone when considered in light of the 0.5 minimal clinically important difference on the scale (MD 0.09, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.20), and evidence for whether tiotropium increased or decreased serious adverse events in this population was inconsistent (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.47; I(2) = 76%).Within the secondary outcomes, exacerbations requiring hospital admission were too rare to tell whether tiotropium was beneficial over LABA/ICS alone. There was high quality evidence showing benefits to lung function (trough FEV1 and forced vital capacity (FVC)) and potentially small benefits to asthma control. People taking tiotropium add-on were less likely to experience non-serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tiotropium add-on may have additional benefits over LABA/ICS alone in reducing the need for rescue oral steroids in people with severe asthma. The effect was imprecise, and there was no evidence for other LAMA preparations. Possible benefits on quality of life were negligible, and evidence for the effect on serious adverse events was inconsistent. There are likely to be small added benefits for tiotropium Respimat 5 µg daily on lung function and asthma control over LABA/ICS alone and fewer non-serious adverse events. The benefit of tiotropium add-on on the frequency of hospital admission is still unknown, despite year-long trials.Ongoing and future trials should clearly describe participants' background medications to help clinicians judge how the findings relate to stepwise care. If studies test LAMAs other than tiotropium Respimat for asthma, they should be at least six months long and use accepted and validated outcomes to allow comparisons of the safety and effectiveness between different preparations.

Emerging therapeutic options for the treatment of patients with symptomatic asthma

OBJECTIVE

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways with increasing worldwide prevalence. Despite treatment according to guidelines, a considerable proportion of patients with asthma remain symptomatic. Different potential therapeutic options for the treatment of these patients are currently in development and undergoing clinical trials, and it is important to regularly review their status.

DATA SOURCES

A search of ClinicalTrials.gov was performed and supported by a PubMed literature search and restricted to the previous 10 years to ensure currency of data. The results were manually filtered to identify relevant articles.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Emerging therapies that are currently in phase 2 and 3 development include anti-interleukin agents (benralizumab, reslizumab, dupilumab, brodalumab, lebrikizumab, and mepolizumab), a chemoattractant receptor-homologous molecule expressed on a T-helper type 2 lymphocyte antagonist (OC000459), a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor (roflumilast), and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (glycopyrronium bromide, umeclidinium bromide, and tiotropium bromide).

RESULTS

The clinical trial program of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium is currently the most advanced, with data available from different phase 2 and 3 studies. Results demonstrate that it is an efficacious add-on to at least inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy across severities of symptomatic asthma.

CONCLUSION

The results of ongoing and future studies will help to determine whether these emerging therapeutic options will help address the unmet need for improvement in asthma management.

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.

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.