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

Asthma with Fixed Airflow Obstruction: From Fixed to Personalized Approach

Asthma is generally characterized by variable symptoms such as dyspnea and wheezing and variable airflow obstruction. This review focuses on a subset of patients suffering from asthma with persistent airflow limitation that is not fully reversible (asthma with fixed airflow obstruction, FAO). The pathophysiology, the risk factors and the clinical outcomes associated with FAO are presented, as well as the distinct clinical entity of severe asthma and its inflammatory subtypes (T2 and non-T2). The current strategies for the treatment of these endotypes and treatment of the distinct Asthma/COPD overlap (ACO) phenotype are described. Management and medical interventions in FAO and/or ACO patients demand a holistic approach, which is not yet clearly established in guidelines worldwide. Finally, a treatment algorithm that includes FAO/ACO management based on pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment, guideline-based management for specific co-morbidities, and modification of the risk factors is proposed.

Pathogenesis of COPD at the cellular and molecular level

Chronic inflammatory responses in the lung of patients with stable mild-to severe forms of COPD play a central role in the definition, comprehension and monitoring of the disease state. A better understanding of the COPD pathogenesis can't avoid a detailed knowledge of these inflammatory changes altering the functional health of the lung during the disease progression. We here summarize and discuss the role and principal functions of the inflammatory cells populating the large, small airways and lung parenchyma of patients with COPD of increasing severity in comparison with healthy control subjects: T and B lymphocytes, NK and Innate Lymphoid cells, macrophages, and neutrophils. The differential inflammatory distribution in large and small airways of patients is also discussed. Furthermore, relevant cellular mechanisms controlling the homeostasis and the "normal" balance of these inflammatory cells and of structural cells in the lung, such as autophagy, apoptosis, necroptosis and pyroptosis are as well presented and discussed in the context of the COPD severity.

Step-Up and Step-Down Treatment Approaches for COPD: A Holistic View of Progressive Therapies

Recent advances in inhaled drugs and a clearer definition of the disease have made the task of managing COPD more complex. Different proposals have been put forward which combine all the available treatments and the different clinical presentations in an effort to select the best therapeutic options for each clinical context. As COPD is a chronic progressive disease, the escalation of therapy has traditionally been considered the most natural way to tackle it. However, the notion of COPD as a constantly progressing disease has recently been challenged and, in specific areas, this points to the possibility of a de-escalation in treatment. In this context, the clinician requires simple, specific recommendations to guide these changes in treatment in their daily clinical practice. To accomplish this, the first step must be a correct evaluation and an accurate initial preliminary diagnosis of the patient's condition. Thereafter, the first escalation in therapy must be introduced with caution as the disease progresses, since clinical trials are not designed with clinical decision-making in mind. During this escalation, three possibilities are open to change the current treatment for a different one within the same family, to increase non-pharmacological interventions or to increase the pharmacological therapies. Beyond that point, a patient with persistent symptoms represents a complex clinical scenario which requires a specialized approach, including the evaluation of different respiratory and non-respiratory comorbidities. Unfortunately, there are few de-escalation studies available, and these are mainly observational in nature. The debate on de-escalation in pharmacological treatment, therefore, involves two main discussion points: the withdrawal of bronchodilators and the withdrawal of inhaled steroids. Altogether, the scheme for modifying treatment must be more personalized than just adding molecules, and the therapeutic response and its conditioning factors should be evaluated at each step before proceeding further.

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.

Investigational treatments in phase I and II clinical trials: a systematic review in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

Introduction. The current pharmacological treatments for the management of stable COPD permit the reduction of symptoms and frequency and severity of exacerbations, and the improvement of exercise tolerance and health status. However, they do not modify the long-term decline in lung function and patient health. Consequently, there is the strong need for 'highly innovative' medications that are focused on new targets and/or mechanisms for the treatment of COPD. Areas covered. This systematic review assesses investigational agents in Phase I and II clinical trials over the last six years. It offers insights on whether drugs and/or formulations in clinical development offer future effective treatments of COPD. Expert opinion. There is no evidence to suggest that current investigational agents can reduce lung function decline and cure COPD. However, looking forward, investigational, innovative treatments in combination with the therapies already recommended by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) may provide future suitable tools to counteract the progression of COPD.

New perspectives on the role of muscarinic antagonists in asthma therapy

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing evidence that tiotropium, a long-acting muscarinic agent (LAMA), is useful in the presence of severe-uncontrolled asthma despite the optimization of therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting β₂ agonists (LABAs) as recommended by the current guidelines. Furthermore, in recent years there have been several  preclinical and clinical studies on the pharmacological and therapeutic impact of other LAMAs in asthma.

AREAS COVERED

We have conducted an extensive search on muscarinic antagonists in asthma therapy throughout several sources and discuss what has emerged in the last 3 years (January 2017-March 2020).

EXPERT OPINION

New evidence indicates that the effectiveness of adding a LAMA, at least tiotropium, is independent of the degree of the type 2 inflammation and age of patient. Therefore, tiotropium can be administered without the need for patient phenotyping. Umeclidinium and glycopyrronium also appear effective in asthma. Initial treatment with LAMA+ICS for those with mild asthma may be an equally effective therapeutic option as LABA+ICS but this hypothesis should be confirmed by statistically powered trials.

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of E-RS:COPD in patients with spirometric asthma-COPD overlap

BACKGROUND

The Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (E-RS:COPD) is a patient-reported diary that assesses respiratory symptoms in stable COPD.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm trial (GSK ID: 200699; NCT02164539) assessed the structure, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the E-RS, and a separate wheeze item, for use in patients with a primary diagnosis of asthma or COPD, but with spirometric characteristics of both (fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility to salbutamol; a subset of patients referred to as spirometric asthma-COPD overlap [ACO]; N = 338).

RESULTS

Factor analysis demonstrated that E-RS included Cough and Sputum, Chest Symptoms, and Breathlessness domains, with a Total score suitable for quantifying overall respiratory symptoms (comparative fit index: 0.9), consistent with the structure shown in COPD. The wheeze item did not fit the model. Total and domain scores were internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha: 0.7-0.9) and reproducible (intra-class correlations > 0.7). Moderate correlations between RS-Total and RS-Breathlessness scores were observed with St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total and Activity domain scores at baseline (r = 0.43 and r = 0.48, respectively). E-RS scores were sensitive to change when a patient global impression of change and SGRQ change scores were used to define responders, with changes of ≥ - 1.4 in RS-Total score interpreted as clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSIONS

E-RS:COPD scores were reliable, valid and responsive in this sample, suggesting the measure may be suitable for evaluating the severity of respiratory symptoms and the effects of treatment in patients with asthma and COPD that exhibit spirometric characteristics of both fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility. Further study of this instrument and wheeze in new samples of patients with ACO is warranted.

Endotypes in allergic diseases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The precision medicine concept is both appealing and challenging. We review here the recent findings in the endotype-driven approach for major allergic diseases.

RECENT FINDINGS

Stratified medicine for different allergic diseases can identify patients who are more likely to benefit or experience an adverse reaction in response to a given therapy and anticipate their long-term outcome and vital risk. In addition, this approach potentially facilitates drug development and prevention strategies.

SUMMARY

The endotype-driven approach in allergic diseases has tremendous potential, but there are notable barriers in reaching the new world of precision medicine. Multidimensional endotyping integrating visible properties with multiple biomarkers is recommended for both type 2 and nontype 2 allergic diseases to provide evidence that a certain pathway is the key driver for a given patient. Significant healthcare system changes are required to achieve the expected targets.

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.