Long-term general and cardiovascular safety of tiotropium/olodaterol in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Combination therapy with long-acting bronchodilators and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Accumulated high-quality data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) combination therapy significantly improves clinical symptoms and health status in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and reduces exacerbation risk. However, there is a growing concern that LAMA/LABA therapy may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD. The aim of this paper is to determine whether the use of LAMA/LABA combination therapy modifies the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library to identify relevant RCTs of LAMA/LABA or LABA/LAMA/inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for the management of patients with COPD that reported on cardiovascular end-points. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 51 RCTs enrolling 91 021 subjects were analysed. Both dual LAMA/LABA (1.6% versus 1.3%; relative risk 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.81) and triple therapy (1.6% versus 1.4%; relative risk 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.61) significantly increased the risk of MACE compared with ICS/LABA. The excess risk was most evident in RCTs in which the average underlying baseline risk for MACE was >1% per year. Compared with LAMA only, LABA only or placebo, dual LAMA/LABA therapy did not significantly increase the risk of MACE, though these comparisons may have lacked sufficient statistical power.

CONCLUSION

Compared with ICS/LABA, dual LAMA/LABA or triple therapy increases cardiovascular risk in patients with COPD. This should be considered in the context of the incremental benefits of these therapies for symptoms and exacerbation rates in patients with COPD, especially in those with a MACE risk of >1% per year.

Inhalation therapies in COPD - adverse drug reactions impact on emergency department presentations

PURPOSE

Inhaled drugs have been cornerstones in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) for decades and show a high prescription volume. Due to the local application, drug safety issues of these therapies are often underestimated by professionals and patients. Data about adverse drug reactions (ADRs) caused by inhaled therapy in patients with COPD and polypharmacy are rare. We aimed to analyze the use and relevance of inhaled therapies in those patients in relation to ADR complaints, which were severe enough to warrant presentation to the emergency department.

METHODS

Emergency department cases due to suspected ADRs of the ADRED database (n = 2939, "Adverse Drug Reactions in Emergency Departments"; DRKS-ID: DRKS00008979, registration date 01/11/2017) were analyzed for inhaled drugs in patients with COPD. ADRs in cases with overdosed inhaled drugs were compared to non-overdosed cases. ADRs, potentially caused by inhaled drugs, were evaluated, clustered into complexes, and assessed for association with inhaled drug classes.

RESULTS

Of the 269 included COPD cases, 67% (n = 180) received inhaled therapy. In 16% (n = 28), these therapies were overdosed. Overdosed cases presented the complexes of malaise and local symptoms more frequently. Related to the use of inhaled anticholinergics, local (dysphagia-like) and related to inhaled beta-2 agonists, local (dysphagia-like) and sympathomimetic-like ADRs presented more frequently.

CONCLUSION

Overdosed inhaled therapies in patients with COPD lead to relevant ADRs and impact on emergency room presentations. These are rarely associated to inhaled therapy by healthcare professionals or patients. Due to the high volume of inhaled drug prescriptions, pharmacovigilance and patient education should be more focused in patients with COPD. German Clinical Trial Register: DRKS-ID: DRKS00008979.

Is the use of two versus one long-acting bronchodilator by patients with COPD associated with a higher risk of acute coronary syndrome in real-world clinical practice?

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular comorbidity is common among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and there is concern that long-acting bronchodilators (long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta₂ agonists (LABAs)) may further increase the risk of acute coronary events. Information about the impact of treatment intensification on acute coronary syndrome (ACS) risk in real-world settings is limited. We undertook a nationwide nested case-control study to estimate the risk of ACS in users of both a LAMA and a LABA relative to users of a LAMA.

METHODS

We used routinely collected national health and pharmaceutical dispensing data to establish a cohort of patients aged >45 years who initiated long-acting bronchodilator therapy for COPD between 1 February 2006 and 30 December 2013. Fatal and non-fatal ACS events during follow-up were identified using hospital discharge and mortality records. For each case we used risk set sampling to randomly select up to 10 controls, matched by date of birth, sex, date of cohort entry (first LAMA and/or LABA dispensing), and COPD severity.

RESULTS

From the cohort (n=83 417), we identified 5399 ACS cases during 281 292 person-years of follow-up. Compared with current use of LAMA therapy, current use of LAMA and LABA dual therapy was associated with a higher risk of ACS (OR 1.28 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.44)). The OR in an analysis restricted to fatal cases was 1.46 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.91).

CONCLUSION

In real-world clinical practice, use of two versus one long-acting bronchodilator by people with COPD is associated with a higher risk of ACS.

Long-term safety of tiotropium/olodaterol in older patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD in the TONADO® studies

Older patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be at increased risk of adverse events (AEs) due to decreased protective organ function and increased comorbidities. TONADO® 1 + 2 were replicate, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 52-week, Phase III trials comparing the efficacy and safety of tiotropium/olodaterol (5/5 µg) versus the monocomponents via the Respimat® inhaler in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD. In this prespecified safety analysis, patients were grouped by age. Of 3100 patients, 1585 (51.1%) were aged <65 years, 1198 (38.7%) 65-<75 years, 309 (10.0%) 75-<85 years, and eight (0.3%) ≥85 years. At baseline, 23.4% had a pre-existing cardiac disorder, 45.6% had hypertension, and 13.3% had glucose metabolism disorders, including diagnosed diabetes. Overall, there was no increase in major adverse cardiac events, other AEs, or serious AEs with tiotropium/olodaterol versus the monocomponents in any age group, supporting the safety of tiotropium/olodaterol in older patients with COPD.

Dual– Versus Mono–Bronchodilator Therapy in Moderate to Severe COPD: A Meta-analysis

Background:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines recommend both long-acting and dual bronchodilator therapy. It is unclear if there are differences in efficacy and safety.

Objective:

This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of dual therapy with long-acting β-agonist (LABA) + long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) compared with monotherapy with LAMA for COPD.

Methods:

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases from inception through March 2020 to identify English-language, prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared dual therapy with monotherapy in adult patients with COPD. Risk of bias was assessed using the Jadad score. Overall analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Treatment effect was determined with the random-effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel method and was reported as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.

Results:

A total of 18 RCTs were included (n = 6086; median Jadad score 5/5) that compared LAMA + LABA with LAMA. There was a greater improvement in forced expiratory volume at 1 s (FEV1) with dual therapy compared with LAMA: MD = 0.08; 95% CI = [0.05, 0.11]. There was no difference in St George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores between groups: OR = −0.85; 95% CI = [−1.83, 0.13]. There were no differences in overall adverse events (OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.92, 1.09), serious adverse events (OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.86, 1.18), or cardiovascular events (OR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.58, 1.34).

Conclusion and Relevance:

Dual therapy improves FEV1 and is as safe as LAMA. Dual therapy does not improve SGRQ scores more than LAMA.

No Influence on Cardiac Arrhythmia or Heart Rate from Long-Term Treatment with Tiotropium/Olodaterol versus Monocomponents by Holter ECG Analysis in Patients with Moderate-to-Very-Severe COPD

Background

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular comorbidities may have an increased risk of medication-related cardiac arrhythmias. We therefore performed an analysis of Holter electrocardiogram (ECG) data from two large, long-term, controlled clinical COPD trials to investigate whether tiotropium/olodaterol increased the risk of cardiac arrhythmia and mean heart rate.

Methods

We analyzed Holter ECG data from a representative subset of patients (N=506) from the two pooled replicate studies (TONADO 1 and 2) assessing tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg therapy versus tiotropium 5 µg or olodaterol 5 µg monotherapy, inhaled once daily (two single inhalations) using the Respimat® Soft Mist™ inhaler device. Additionally, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) with tiotropium/olodaterol were assessed versus the respective monotherapies.

Results

After 12 weeks of treatment, there was no difference in the number of patients who had an increase or decrease from baseline in 24-hour supraventricular premature beats or ventricular premature beats between tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg combination therapy and its monocomponents. Compared with baseline, a small but statistically significant increase in adjusted mean heart rate was observed for tiotropium 5 µg (+1.6 beats per minute [bpm]; P=0.0010), but no difference was observed for olodaterol 5 µg (+0.3 bpm; P=0.2778) or tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg (-0.1 bpm; P=0.4607). MACE and fatal MACE were limited to 1 to 3 patients across treatment groups.

Conclusion

Compared with the compounds given as monotherapy, treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol fixed-dose combination therapy is not associated with medically relevant or statistically significant effects on arrhythmia as assessed by Holter ECG. Based on these findings, there is no evidence to assume a clinically relevant impact on cardiac function from dual tiotropium/olodaterol treatment.

Trial Registration

TONADO 1 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01431274); TONADO 2 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01431287).

Absence of Adverse Effects of Tiotropium/Olodaterol Compared with the Monocomponents on Long-Term Heart Rate and Blood Pressure in Patients with Moderate-to-Very-Severe COPD

Introduction

Long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are established maintenance bronchodilator treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with the potential to increase heart rate (HR) and impact blood pressure (BP). While previous studies indicate that HR and BP are not negatively influenced by tiotropium or olodaterol monotherapy, the effect of tiotropium/olodaterol has not been evaluated. We report a post hoc analysis of the effect of dual bronchodilation with tiotropium/olodaterol versus monocomponents on HR and BP in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD included in the large TONADO® study.

Methods

The TONADO® trials (1237.5 [NCT01431274] and 1237.6 [NCT01431287]) were two replicate, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 52-week, Phase III trials that compared tiotropium/olodaterol (5/5 μg and 2.5/5 μg) with tiotropium (5 μg and 2.5 μg) and olodaterol (5 μg) in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD. Patients with cardiovascular comorbidities were included. Changes in HR and systolic/diastolic BP were measured before and after dosing with the study medication at each visit (baseline, Week 12, Week 24 and Week 52).

Results

Overall, 3,100 patients were included in this analysis. Over 52 weeks, small changes from baseline in mean HR (<2 beats per minute [bpm]) and small changes from pre- to post-dose (<1 bpm) were evident at different time points. There was a non-significant increase from baseline in mean diastolic and systolic BP (<2 mmHg) observed over 52 weeks of treatment. The short-term (1 hour pre- to 1 hour post-dose) mean changes in systolic and diastolic BP over 52 weeks in the tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg group were comparable with those observed for the monocomponents at all time points.

Conclusion

There were no differences in HR or BP among patients on tiotropium/olodaterol when compared with monocomponents. This supports the already demonstrated cardiovascular safety profile of tiotropium/olodaterol as long-acting maintenance bronchodilator treatment for COPD, including patients with cardiovascular comorbidities.

LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations versus LAMA monotherapy in the prevention of COPD exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy is recommended for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with high risk of exacerbations. It is unclear whether long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/LAMA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) are more effective than LAMAs alone in preventing exacerbations. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to investigate whether LABA/LAMA FDCs are more effective than LAMA monotherapy in preventing exacerbations.

Methods:

We searched several databases and manufacturers’ websites to identify relevant randomized clinical trials comparing LABA/LAMA FDC treatment with LAMAs alone ⩾24 weeks. Outcomes of interest were time to first exacerbation and rates of moderate to severe, severe and all exacerbations.

Results:

We included 10 trials in 9 articles from 2013 to 2018 with a total of 19,369 patients for analysis in this study. Compared with LAMA monotherapy, LABA/LAMA FDCs demonstrated similar efficacy in terms of time to first exacerbation [hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79–1.18; p = 0.71], moderate to severe exacerbations [risk ratio (RR), 0.96; 95% CI 0.90–1.03; p = 0.28], severe exacerbations (RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.81–1.03; p = 0.15), and a marginal superiority in terms of all exacerbations (RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.86–1.00; p = 0.04). The incidence of all exacerbation events was lower in the LABA/LAMA FDC group for the COPD patients with a history of previous exacerbations and those with a longer treatment period (52–64 weeks).

Conclusion:

This study provides evidence that LABA/LAMA FDCs are marginally superior in the prevention of all exacerbations compared with LAMA monotherapy in patients with COPD.

The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Current evidence for COPD management with dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist bronchodilators

Long-acting inhaled bronchodilator medications are recommended as initial maintenance therapy for many patients with COPD. These medications include long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA). Combinations of long-acting bronchodilator agents (LAMA/LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids combined with LABA (ICS/LABA) are also used as initial or follow-up therapy in patients with more severe symptoms or at risk of COPD exacerbations. This review summarizes the position of LAMA/LABA combinations in treatment recommendations, and the evidence supporting their placement relative to LAMA monotherapy and ICS/LABA combination therapy, as well as differences within the LAMA/LABA class. Most studies show that LAMA/LABA treatment leads to greater improvements in lung function and symptoms than LAMA monotherapy or ICS/LABA treatment. There are fewer studies comparing the impact of different medication classes on patients' risk of exacerbations; however, the available evidence suggests that LAMA/LABA treatment and LAMA monotherapy lead to a similar reduction in exacerbation risk, while the effect of LAMA/LABA compared with ICS/LABA remains unclear. The incidence of adverse events is similar with LAMA/LABA and LAMA alone. There is a lower risk of pneumonia with LAMA/LABA compared with ICS/LABA. This evidence supports the use of LAMA/LABA combinations as an initial maintenance therapy option for symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk and severe breathlessness or patients with severe symptoms who are at risk of exacerbations, and as follow-up treatment in patients with uncontrolled symptoms or exacerbations on bronchodilator monotherapy.

Tiotropium/Olodaterol: A Review in COPD

Tiotropium/olodaterol (Stiolto® Respimat®; Spiolto® Respimat®) is an inhaled fixed-dose combination of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium bromide (hereafter referred to as tiotropium) and the long-acting β2-adrenergic agonist olodaterol. It is available in several countries, including the USA, Japan, China and those of the EU, where it is indicated for the long-term maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 μg/day in patients with COPD was evaluated in phase III or IV trials of 6-52 weeks' duration. Tiotropium/olodaterol improved lung function to a greater extent than each of its individual components or placebo in 12- and 52-week trials. In 6-week trials, tiotropium/olodaterol provided greater lung function benefits over 24 h than the individual components, placebo or twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol. Tiotropium/olodaterol also demonstrated beneficial effects on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL), dyspnoea, inspiratory capacity, exercise endurance and the need for rescue medication. In an 8-week open-label trial, umeclidinium/vilanterol was superior to tiotropium/olodaterol for the primary endpoint of trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s. The tolerability profile of tiotropium/olodaterol was generally similar to that of the individual components. In conclusion, tiotropium/olodaterol provides a useful option for the maintenance treatment of COPD, with the convenience of once-daily administration via a single inhaler.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Dual bronchodilation with tiotropium/olodaterol further reduces activity-related breathlessness versus tiotropium alone in COPD

The 3-min constant speed shuttle test (CSST) was used to examine the effect of tiotropium/olodaterol compared with tiotropium at reducing activity-related breathlessness in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).This was a randomised, double-blind, two-period crossover study including COPD patients with moderate to severe pulmonary impairment, lung hyperinflation at rest and a Mahler Baseline Dyspnoea Index <8. Patients received 6 weeks of tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg and tiotropium 5 µg in a randomised order with a 3-week washout period. The speed for the 3-min CSST was determined for each patient such that an intensity of breathing discomfort ≥4 ("somewhat severe") on the modified Borg scale was reached at the end of a completed 3-min CSST.After 6 weeks, there was a decrease in the intensity of breathlessness (Borg dyspnoea score) at the end of the 3-min CSST from baseline with both tiotropium (mean -0.968, 95% CI -1.238- -0.698; n=100) and tiotropium/olodaterol (mean -1.325, 95% CI -1.594- -1.056; n=101). The decrease in breathlessness was statistically significantly greater with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium (treatment difference -0.357, 95% CI -0.661- -0.053; p=0.0217).Tiotropium/olodaterol reduced activity-related breathlessness more than tiotropium in dyspnoeic patients with moderate to severe COPD exhibiting lung hyperinflation.

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

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

Inhaled therapies and cardiovascular risk in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapy includes a multi-dimensional approach, taking into account both symptoms of the patient and the number of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs). There are three main pharmaceutical classes currently available including long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). COPD is a major risk factor for most cardiovascular diseases, and cardiac comorbidities are very common in COPD patients. Both LAMA and LABA have a considerable impact on cardiac function by stimulating cardiac β2-adrenergic receptors or inhibiting the heart M₂ muscarinic receptors. ICS alone or in combination has never been associated with a real cardiovascular risk.

AREAS COVERED

This review explores the data published on the safety of COPD therapy and the implications for current pharmacotherapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Several studies have confirmed the good safety profile of bronchodilators available both in monotherapy and in association with other bronchodilators of different classes or with ICS despite the device used. Cardiovascular events in clinical trials are generally low and balanced between groups. The actual cardiovascular risk of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in an unselected COPD population will need to be investigated through post-marketing surveillance studies and observational studies.

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.

Safety of tiotropium/olodaterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: pooled analysis of three large, 52-week, randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

An extensive clinical trial program supports the efficacy and safety of tiotropium/olodaterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We examined the safety of tiotropium/olodaterol compared with tiotropium in a large population of patients, focusing on cardiovascular and respiratory events.

METHODS

Patients (n = 9942) who received once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 μg or tiotropium 5 μg (via Respimat^®) in TONADO 1 & 2 and DYNAGITO were included. The number of patients and exposure-adjusted rate of events are presented for adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), AEs leading to discontinuation, and cardiovascular and respiratory events.

FINDINGS

Fewer patients discontinued due to AEs with tiotropium/olodaterol (5.9%) versus tiotropium (7.9%; rate ratio [RR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.84). There was no significant difference in the incidence of AEs, SAEs, cardiovascular AEs or central nervous system vascular AEs between treatments. Incidences of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were 2.11 per 100 patient-years with tiotropium/olodaterol and 2.22 with tiotropium (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.72-1.25), and incidences of fatal MACE (including death with undetermined cause) were 0.91 and 1.00 per 100 patient-years with tiotropium/olodaterol and tiotropium, respectively (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.60-1.37). Respiratory AEs were generally balanced between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide robust evidence that the benefits of tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium are not at the expense of an increased risk of safety events. The combination is a suitable option for patients with COPD, even in the presence of cardiovascular risk factors.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials. gov (TONADO 1 and 2: NCT01431274, NCT01431287; DYNAGITO: NCT02296138).

The Role of Fixed-Dose Dual Bronchodilator Therapy in Treating COPD

The incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is rising in the United States, and the disease represents a significant source of morbidity and mortality. Primary care providers face many challenges in COPD diagnosis and treatment, as different clinical phenotypes require personalized treatment approaches. Patient adherence and inhaler technique also contribute to treatment outcomes. Around 48% of primary care providers are unaware of guidelines and recommendations for COPD diagnosis and treatment, which may lead to misdiagnosis or undertreatment of COPD symptoms. Inadequately treated COPD can impair patients' quality of life and ability to perform everyday activities. Long-acting bronchodilator therapy is the cornerstone treatment for patients with COPD; combinations of bronchodilators of different pharmacological classes have shown improved efficacy vs monotherapy. We review the rationale behind fixed-dose dual bronchodilator therapy, evidence for the 4 currently Food and Drug Administration-approved long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilators/long-acting β₂-agonists fixed combinations, patient suitability for the available inhaler devices, and practical guidance to optimize personalized care for patients with COPD.

Long-term safety of tiotropium/olodaterol Respimat® in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and renal impairment in the TONADO® studies

Introduction

The safety, lung function efficacy, and symptomatic benefits of combined tiotropium and olodaterol in patients with COPD were established in the 1-year TONADO^® studies (NCT01431274; NCT01431287). As tiotropium is predominantly excreted by the kidneys, the long-term safety profile of tiotropium/olodaterol was investigated in patients with renal impairment in a prespecified safety analysis of the TONADO studies.

Methods

These were 2 replicate, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 52-week Phase III studies that assessed tiotropium/olodaterol compared with tiotropium or olodaterol alone (all via Respimat^®) in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. In this analysis, renal impairment was defined as mild (creatinine clearance [CLcr] 60–89 mL/min), moderate (CLcr 30–59 mL/min) or severe (CLcr 15–29 mL/min). Adverse events (AEs) were pooled from both studies.

Results

Of 3,041 patients included in this analysis, 1,333 (43.8%) had mild, 404 (13.3%) had moderate, and 5 (0.2%) had severe renal impairment; these were distributed equally between treatment groups. Almost one-quarter of all treated patients (23.4%) had a history of cardiac disorder, 45.6% had hypertension, and 13.3% had glucose metabolism disorders, including diabetes. AEs with olodaterol, tiotropium, and tiotropium/olodaterol occurred in 75.1%, 70.8%, and 72.0% of patients with no renal impairment, 75.7%, 74.0%, and 73.3% with mild renal impairment, and 84.3%, 79.5%, and 79.7% with moderate renal impairment, respectively. There was no notable effect of renal impairment on the proportion of patients with an AE, and no differences were observed between tiotropium/olodaterol versus the monocomponents. There was no difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events, renal and urinary tract AEs, or potential anticholinergic effects with increasing severity of renal impairment.

Conclusion

Over half the patients enrolled in the TONADO studies had renal impairment, and there was a high level of pre-existing cardiovascular comorbidity. The safety and tolerability of tiotropium/olodaterol is comparable to the monocomponents, irrespective of the level of renal impairment.

Efficacy and safety of tiotropium and olodaterol in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Long-acting bronchodilators are the cornerstone of pharmacologic treatment of COPD. The new combination of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) tiotropium (TIO) and long acting beta-agonists (LABA) olodaterol (OLO) has been introduced as fist line therapy for COPD. This article analyses the evidence of efficacy and safety of the TIO/OLO combination.

Methods

A systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) with a period of treatment of at least 6 weeks, in patients with COPD confirmed by spirometry, comparing combined treatment with TIO/OLO (approved doses only), with any of the mono-components or any other active comparator administered as an inhalator.

Results

A total of 10 Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were identified (N = 10,918). TIO/OLO significantly improved trough FEV₁ from baseline to week 12 versus TIO, OLO and LABA/ICS (0.06 L, 0.09 L and between 0.04 and 0.05 L, respectively). TIO/OLO improved transitional dyspnea index (TDI) and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) compared with mono-components, with patients more likely to achieve clinically important improvements in TDI (risk ratio [RR]: 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.07, 1.28] versus TIO and RR: 1.14, 95%CI: [1.01, 1.28] versus OLO) and in SGRQ (RR: 1.21, 95%CI: [1.12, 1.30] versus TIO and RR: 1.28, 95%CI: [1.18, 1.40] versus OLO). Patients treated with TIO/OLO showed a significant reduction in the use of rescue medication and no significant differences in frequency of general and serious adverse events were observed between TIO/OLO and mono-components.

Conclusions

Treatment with TIO/OLO provided significant improvements in lung function versus mono-components and LABA/ICS with more patients achieving significant improvements in dyspnea and health status. No differences in adverse events were observed compared with other active treatments.

Clinical trial registration

PROSPERO register of systematic reviews (CRD42016040162).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-017-0683-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.