Tiotropium Respimat(®) vs. HandiHaler(®): real-life usage and TIOSPIR trial generalizability

Risk Assessment of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Stroke Associated with Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists, Alone or in Combination, versus Long-Acting beta2-Agonists

Background

The long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) aclidinium was approved in Europe in 2012 to relieve symptoms in adult patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A post-authorization safety study was initiated to assess potential cardiovascular risks associated with LAMAs versus long-acting beta2-agonists.

Purpose

To estimate incidence rates and adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in new users of aclidinium, aclidinium/formoterol, tiotropium, other LAMA, long-acting beta-agonists/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS), and LAMA/LABA compared with initiators of LABA.

Patients and Methods

This population-based cohort study included patients with COPD aged ≥40 years initiating COPD medications in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum database from 2012 to 2019. Poisson regression models were used to estimate the IRR for AMI, stroke, and MACE in users of COPD medications versus LABA, adjusting for clinically relevant covariables.

Results

The study included 11,121 new users of aclidinium, 4804 of aclidinium/formoterol, 56,198 of tiotropium, 23,856 of other LAMA, 17,450 of LAMA/LABA, 70,289 of LABA/ICS, and 13,716 of LABA. During periods of continuous medication use after initiation (current use), crude incidence rates per 1000 person-years for AMI ranged from 8.7 (aclidinium/formoterol) to 12.4 (LAMA/LABA), for stroke ranged from 4.8 (aclidinium/formoterol) to 7.2 (LAMA/LABA), and for MACE ranged from 13.5 (aclidinium/formoterol) to 19.3 (LAMA/LABA). Using LABA as reference, adjusted IRRs [95% confidence intervals] were close to 1 for all study drugs for AMI (lowest for aclidinium/formoterol, 0.95 [0.60–1.52], and highest for LAMA/LABA, 1.23 [0.91–1.67]), stroke (lowest for aclidinium/formoterol, 0.64 [0.39–1.06], and highest for tiotropium, 1.02 [0.81–1.27] for tiotropium) and for MACE (lowest for aclidinium, 0.93 [0.75–1.16], and highest for LAMA/LABA, 1.24 [0.97–1.59]).

Conclusion

Risks of AMI, stroke, and MACE in current users of aclidinium, aclidinium/formoterol, tiotropium, other LAMA, LAMA/LABA, or LABA/ICS were similar to the risks among current users of LABA.

Efficacy and cardiovascular safety of LAMA in patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is at present the third leading cause of death in the world. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) is widely used as a bronchodilator in patients with COPD. However, there is controversy concerning their cardiovascular safety. This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and cardiovascular safety of LAMAs versus placebo in patients with COPD. We searched Pub Med, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify studies that compared LAMA with placebo in patients with COPD. Twenty-one studies involving 24,987 participants were finally included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the incidence of all adverse events (risk ratio (RR)=1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02, I2=15.2%) and cardiovascular events (RR=0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09, I2=4.9%) in patients treated with LAMAs versus placebo. LAMAs significantly improved trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (weighted mean difference (WMD)=0.12, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.14, I2=86.6%), Transitional Dyspnea Index (WMD=0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.94, I2=0%), and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (WMD=‒2.50, 95% CI ‒3.32 to ‒1.69, I2=39.8%). Moreover, LAMAs significantly reduced the incidence of exacerbation in patients with COPD (RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.91, I2=69.9%). LAMAs are safe therapy and play a pivotal role in improving lung function, dyspnea, and health status, and reducing the exacerbation in patients with COPD.

Healthcare Resource Utilization, Exacerbations, and Readmissions Among Medicare Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease After Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Therapy Initiation with Soft Mist versus Dry Powder Inhalers

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is often managed with inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), yet real-world data on healthcare resource utilization (HRU) by inhaler type are lacking. This study compared HRU after LAMA initiation with a soft mist inhaler (SMI) versus a dry powder inhaler (DPI).

Patients and Methods

Inclusion criteria were COPD diagnosis, age ≥40 years, LAMA initiation (index date = first LAMA SMI or DPI claim 9/1/14—6/30/18), and Medicare Advantage enrollment 1 year pre-index (baseline) to ≥30 days post-index (follow-up). Patients were followed to the earliest of discontinuation, switch, disenrollment, 1 year, or study end (7/31/18). Exclusion criteria were asthma, cystic fibrosis, or lung cancer diagnoses, unavailable demographics, multiple index LAMAs, or baseline LAMA use. Cohorts (SMI or DPI) were balanced on baseline characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Outcomes included per patient per month (PPPM) COPD-related HRU encounters, and exacerbations (defined as moderate [ambulatory visit with corticosteroid or antibiotic within ±7 days] or severe [emergency visit or inpatient admission]); and 30-day readmissions following COPD-related hospitalizations.

Results

After weighting, cohorts (SMI [n=5360] and DPI [n=22,880]) were similar in age (72 and 73 years, respectively), gender (both 52% female), and COPD severity score (31.3 and 31.5, respectively). Cohorts had similar counts of follow-up HRU encounters. However, the SMI cohort had fewer (mean ± standard deviation) COPD-related exacerbations (0.054±0.082 vs DPI cohort 0.059±0.088 PPPM, p<0.001) overall. Moreover, the SMI cohort had fewer severe exacerbations (0.030±0.058 vs DPI: 0.034±0.065 PPPM, p<0.001). Hospitalizations among SMI patients had a lower adjusted odds of readmission versus hospitalizations among DPI patients (odds ratio: 0.656, 95% confidence interval= 0.460, 0.937; p=0.020).

Conclusion

SMI initiators had significantly fewer COPD-related exacerbations than DPI initiators. In addition, lower odds of readmissions were observed following COPD-related hospitalizations among the SMI cohort, as compared with the DPI cohort.

The Respimat® Soft Mist Inhaler: Implications of Drug Delivery Characteristics for Patients

Successful treatment for respiratory diseases relies on effective delivery of medication to the lungs using an inhalation device. Different inhalers have distinct characteristics affecting drug administration and patient adherence, which can impact clinical outcomes. We report on the development of the Respimat^® soft mist inhaler (SMI) and compare key attributes with metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) and dry powder inhalers (DPIs). The Respimat SMI, a pocket-sized device generating a single-breath, inhalable aerosol, was designed to enhance drug delivery to the lungs, reduce the requirements for patient coordination and inspiratory effort, and improve the patients’ experience and ease of use. The drug deposition profile with Respimat SMI is favorable compared with MDIs and DPIs, with higher drug deposition to the lung and peripheral airways. The slow velocity and long spray duration of the Respimat SMI aerosol also aid patient coordination. Clinical equivalence has been demonstrated for maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using once-daily tiotropium between Respimat SMI (5 µg) and HandiHaler DPI (18 µg). In comparative studies, patients preferred Respimat SMI to MDIs and DPIs; they reported that Respimat SMI was easy to use and felt the inhaled dose was delivered. The Respimat SMI, designed to generate a slow-moving and fine mist, is easy to use and effectively delivers drug treatment to the lungs. The patient-centered design of Respimat SMI improved patient satisfaction, and may help to promote long-term adherence and improve clinical outcomes with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Comparative Effectiveness of Two Tiotropium Formulations: A Retrospective Cohort Study

The effectiveness of the tiotropium Respimat^® formulation in routine clinical practice is still an open issue due to concern about the generalizability of the Tiotropium Safety and Performance in Respimat^® (TIOSPIR) trial findings. Our aim was to compare the incidence of acute respiratory events between new users of tiotropium Respimat^® and HandiHaler^®. The study population comprised patients aged ≥45 years resident in two Italian regions who received a first tiotropium prescription (HandiHaler^® or Respimat^®) between 1 July 2011 and 30 November 2013. The cohort was identified within the database of drug prescriptions reimbursed by the Italian National Health Service. Clinical outcomes were obtained from hospital records. The primary outcome was the first hospitalization for respiratory events, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation, respiratory failure, hypoxemia/hyperventilation and pneumonia, during the exposure period. The hazard ratios were estimated for the propensity score matched groups with Cox regression. After matching, 31,334 patients with incident tiotropium prescriptions were included. Similar incidence rates of the primary outcome between the Respimat^® and HandiHaler^® users were identified (adjusted hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.84-1.07). No differences emerged in the subgroup analyses conducted according to the baseline characteristics of the tiotropium users. This study confirms the findings observed in the TIOSPIR trial in a more heterogeneous population that included patient subgroups with severe respiratory disease and unstable COPD.

Effect of Aclidinium Bromide on Major Cardiovascular Events and Exacerbations in High-Risk Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: The ASCENT-COPD Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

There is concern that long-acting muscarinic antagonists increase cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Objective

To determine the cardiovascular safety (noninferiority) and efficacy (superiority) of aclidinium bromide, 400 μg twice daily, in patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease or risk factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-design study conducted at 522 sites in North America. A total of 3630 patients with moderate to very severe COPD and either a history of cardiovascular disease or at least 2 atherothrombotic risk factors were randomized; follow-up occurred for up to 3 years until at least 122 major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) occurred. The first patient was enrolled on October 16, 2013 and the last on August 22, 2016. The final patient completed follow-up on September 21, 2017.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to receive aclidinium (n = 1812) or placebo (n = 1818) by dry-powder inhaler, twice daily for up to 3 years.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary safety end point was time to first MACE over up to 3 years (hazard ratio [HR] 1-sided 97.5% CI noninferiority margin = 1.8). The primary efficacy end point was the annual COPD exacerbation rate during the first year of treatment. Secondary outcomes included an expanded MACE definition (time to first MACE or serious cardiovascular event of interest) and annual rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalization.

Results

Among 3589 patients analyzed (mean age, 67.2 years; 58.7% male), 2537 (70.7%) completed the study. Of these, 69 (3.9%) aclidinium and 76 (4.2%) placebo patients had a MACE (HR, 0.89; 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0-1.23); the expanded MACE definition included 168 (9.4%) aclidinium vs 160 (8.9%) placebo patients with events (HR, 1.03; 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0-1.28). Annual moderate to severe exacerbation rates (aclidinium, 0.44; placebo, 0.57; rate ratio, 0.78; 2-sided 95% CI, 0.68-0.89; P < .001) and rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalization (aclidinium, 0.07; placebo, 0.10; rate ratio, 0.65; 2-sided 95% CI, 0.48-0.89; P = .006) decreased significantly with aclidinium vs placebo. The most common adverse events were pneumonia (aclidinium, 109 events [6.1%]; placebo, 105 events [5.8%]), urinary tract infection (aclidinium, 93 events [5.2%]; placebo, 89 events [5.0%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (aclidinium, 86 events [4.8%]; placebo, 101 events [5.6%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients with COPD and increased cardiovascular risk, aclidinium was noninferior to placebo for risk of MACE over 3 years. The rate of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations was reduced over the first year.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01966107.

Effectiveness and Safety of Non-vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants for Atrial Fibrillation and Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses

PURPOSE

The findings from the observational studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are inconsistent. We conducted separate meta-analyses examining the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of NOACs versus VKAs by disease (AF vs VTE), study design (randomized controlled trials [RCTs] vs observational studies), and NOAC (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban).

METHODS

The main data sources included PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus from January 1, 2005, to February 15, 2016. We searched for Phase III RCTs and observational studies comparing NOACs versus VKAs. The primary outcomes were stroke/systemic embolism (SE) for AF; recurrent VTE/fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) for VTE; and major bleeding for both conditions. Secondary outcomes included stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) for AF, recurrent deep vein thrombosis (DVT)/PE for VTE, and mortality, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and gastrointestinal bleeding for both conditions. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) were reported by using inverse variance-weighted random effects models.

FINDINGS

A total of 13 RCTs and 27 observational studies (AF, n = 32; VTE, n = 8) were included. For AF, dabigatran and VKAs were comparable for stroke/SE risk in 1 RCT (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.57-1.03]) and 6 observational studies (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.83-1.27]). Rivaroxaban had a 20% decreased risk of stroke/SE in 3 RCTs (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]) compared with VKA, but the effect was nonsignificant in 3 observational studies (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.59-1.04]). Apixaban decreased stroke/systemic embolism risk (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.66-0.95]) compared with VKA in 1 RCT, but edoxaban was comparable to VKA (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.77-1.28]) in 1 RCT (no observational studies available for apixaban/edoxaban). Dabigatran, apixaban, and edoxaban decreased the risk of hemorrhagic stroke, mortality, major bleeding, and ICH by 10% to 71% compared with VKAs but not rivaroxaban. For VTE, NOACs and VKAs were comparable for recurrent VTE/fatal PE/DVT/PE risk in 7 RCTs and 1 observational study. The 7 RCTs demonstrated a 32% to 69% decreased risk of major bleeding for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban compared with VKAs. No difference was shown in 1 rivaroxaban observational study (HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.40-1.49]) and 1 edoxaban RCT (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.59-1.20]). Except for dabigatran, the NOACs had a 61% to 86% decreased risk of ICH and gastrointestinal bleeding.

IMPLICATIONS

Overall, NOACs were comparable or superior to VKAs. Although no observational studies are currently available for apixaban/edoxaban, a few notable inconsistencies exist for dabigatran (ischemic stroke, MI) and rivaroxaban (stroke/SE, major bleeding in VTE) between RCTs and observational studies. Individualizing NOAC/VKA therapy based on benefit/safety profiles and patient characteristics is suggested.

Cardiovascular safety of tiotropium Respimat vs HandiHaler in the routine clinical practice: A population-based cohort study

The cardiovascular safety of tiotropium Respimat formulation in the routine clinical practice is still an open issue. Our aim was to compare the risk of acute myocardial infarction and heart rhythm disorders in incident users of either tiotropium Respimat or HandiHaler. The study population comprises patients aged ≥45 years, resident in two Italian regions with a first prescription of tiotropium (HandiHaler or Respimat) between 01/07/2011-30/11/2013. The cohort was identified through the database of prescriptions reimbursed by the Italian National Health Service. Comorbidities and clinical outcomes were obtained from hospital records. The primary outcome was the first hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction and/or for heart rhythm disorders during the exposure period. Hazard ratios were estimated in the propensity score-matched groups through Cox regression. After matching, 31,334 patients with incident prescription of tiotropium were included. The two groups were balanced with regard to baseline characteristics. Similar incidence rates of the primary outcome between Respimat and HandiHaler users were identified (adjusted hazard ratio 1.02, 95% CI 0.82–1.28). No risk difference between Respimat and HandiHaler emerged when considering clinical events separately. This large cohort study showed a comparable acute cardiovascular safety profile of the two tiotropium formulations.

Tiotropium Respimat(®) vs. HandiHaler(®): real-life usage and TIOSPIR trial generalizability

AIM

Two inhaler devices (Respimat® and HandiHaler®) are available for tiotropium, a long acting anticholinergic agent. We aimed to analyze drug utilization, off-label usage and generalizability of the TIOSPIR trial results for both devices.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years exhibiting at least one documented prescription of tiotropium in the database of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Bavaria, Germany, were included (years 2004-2008). Annual period prevalence rates (PPRs) were calculated stratified by age, gender and inhaler devices. Off-label usage (patients lacking a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) diagnosis) and the proportion of patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the TIOSPIR trial were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between 2004 and 2008, PPRs increased and varied between 49.2 and 74.5 per 10 000 persons for HandiHaler® and between 1.5 and 9.3 per 10 000 persons for Respimat®. Small differences regarding patient characteristics existed between the two inhaler devices. Only about 30% (HandiHaler® 32.1%, Respimat® 30.0%) of the database patients receiving tiotropium could be theoretically included in the TIOSPIR trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparing the two tiotropium devices, no clinically relevant differences regarding patient and prescribing characteristics were revealed. Results of the TIOSPIR trial were generalizable only to a minority of our study patients, underlining the need for real-life data.