A comparison of the efficacy and safety of combined aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

Electronic databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, WanFang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database were searched for studies on the use of combined aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate in the treatment of COPD. Two independent researchers performed literature screening, data extraction, and assessment of quality of studies. The strength of the association of the efficacy and safety of combined aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate in the treatment of COPD was evaluated according to the odds ratio (OR), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical analysis was carried out via using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

The results of the present study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion of the present study will provide evidence to judge whether combined aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate is an effective and safety intervention in the treatment of COPD.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY202070063.

Combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta2-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Several dual bronchodilator combinations of long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) have been approved for treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The current GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) recommendations suggest the use of LABA/LAMA combinations in people with group B COPD with persistent symptoms, group C COPD with further exacerbations on LAMA therapy alone and group D COPD with or without inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Fixed-dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium/formoterol is one of the approved LABA/LAMA therapies for people with stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta₂-agonists in stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and manufacturers' websites as well as the reference list of published trials up to 12 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing combined aclidinium bromide and LABAs in people with stable COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data collection and analysis. The primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring a short course of an oral steroid or antibiotic, or both; quality of life measured by a validated scale and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs). Where the outcome or study details were not reported, we contacted the study investigators or pharmaceutical company trial co-ordinators (or both) for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified RCTs comparing aclidinium/formoterol FDC versus aclidinium, formoterol or placebo only. We included seven multicentre trials of four to 52 weeks' duration conducted in outpatient settings. There were 5921 participants, whose mean age ranged from 60.7 to 64.7 years, mostly men with a mean smoking pack-years of 46.4 to 61.3 of which 43.9% to 63.4% were current smokers. They had a moderate-to-severe degree of COPD with a mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) between 50.5% and 61% of predicted normal and the baseline mean FEV₁ of 1.23 L to 1.43 L. We assessed performance and detection biases as low for all studies whereas selection, attrition and reporting biases were either low or unclear.FDC versus aclidiniumThere was no evidence of a difference between FDC and aclidinium for exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); quality of life measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -0.92, 95% CI -2.15 to 0.30); participants with significant improvement in SGRQ score (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41; 2 trials, 2002 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); non-fatal SAE (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.80; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.29; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or adverse events (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with aclidinium, FDC improved symptoms (Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score: MD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.68; 2 trials, 2013 participants) with a higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of at least one unit improvement (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.62; high-certainty evidence); the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) being 14 (95% CI 9 to 39).FDC versus formoterolWhen compared to formoterol, combination therapy reduced exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99; 3 trials, 2694 participants; high-certainty evidence); may decrease SGRQ total score (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.10 to -0.65; 2 trials, 2002 participants; low-certainty evidence; MCID for SGRQ is 4 units); increased TDI focal score (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; 2 trials, 2010 participants) with more participants attaining an MCID (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56; high-certainty evidence) and an NNTB of 16 (95% CI 10 to 60). FDC lowered the risk of adverse events compared to formoterol (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.93; 5 trials, 3140 participants; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 22). However, there was no difference between FDC and formoterol for hospital admissions, all-cause mortality and non-fatal SAEs.FDC versus placeboCompared with placebo, FDC demonstrated no evidence of a difference in exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.18; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although estimates were uncertain. Quality of life measure by SGRQ total score was significantly better with FDC compared to placebo (MD -2.91, 95% CI -4.33 to -1.50; 2 trials, 1823 participants) resulting in a corresponding increase in SGRQ responders who achieved at least four units decrease in SGRQ total score (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.13; high-certainty evidence) with an NNTB of 7 (95% CI 5 to 12). FDC also improved symptoms measured by TDI focal score (MD 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.69; 2 studies, 1832 participants) with more participants attaining at least one unit improvement in TDI focal score (OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.11; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 4). There were no differences in non-fatal SAEs, adverse events and all-cause mortality between FDC and placebo.Combination therapy significantly improved trough FEV₁ compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

FDC improved dyspnoea and lung function compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo, and this translated into an increase in the number of responders on combination treatment. Quality of life was better with combination compared to formoterol or placebo. There was no evidence of a difference between FDC and monotherapy or placebo for exacerbations, hospital admissions, mortality, non-fatal SAEs or adverse events. Studies reported a lower risk of moderate exacerbations and adverse events with FDC compared to formoterol; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

Safety of inhaled long-acting anti-muscarinic agents in COPD

Evidence-based guidelines recommend inhaled long-acting anti-muscarinic agents (LAMAs) as first-line maintenance therapy for symptomatic patients with COPD. Several LAMAs are now available for use either as monotherapy or in combination with other COPD medications, including long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) or inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The efficacy and long-term safety of these medications have been evaluated in multiple clinical trials and real-life studies. This review evaluates the evidence available on the safety of existing LAMAs alone or in combination with LABAs and ICS in patients with COPD.

Evaluation of COPD Treatments: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis of Aclidinium and Tiotropium in the United States

BACKGROUND

Comparisons of the use of aclidinium bromide and tiotropium bromide for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease often concentrate on key end points (exacerbations) at the expense of other benefits and risks. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) can help overcome this by using stakeholder preferences to combine multiple end points into an overall value estimate.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the use of aclidinium bromide twice daily via Pressair™ (AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Wilmington, DE) and of tiotropium once daily via HandiHaler^® (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ridgefield, CT) from the perspective of patients using MCDA.

METHODS

Literature reviews and clinician engagement were used to identify value criteria. Performance of criteria was estimated from a clinical trial and clinician opinion. Scores and swing weights came from six clinicians who, during a 2-day workshop, reflected their patients' preferences. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were used to explore uncertainty in model designs and inputs.

RESULTS

Fourteen criteria, covering clinical effectiveness, safety, and convenience of the treatments of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were identified. Exacerbations and device preloading were identified as the most important to patients; the least important was rescue medication use. Tiotropium's higher overall clinical effectiveness score was offset by aclidinium's better performance on safety and convenience outcomes. The MCDA generated a -42 (worst performance) to 100 (best performance) scale. The net impact of benefits over risks of aclidinium (38.5) exceeded that of tiotropium (13.2), and patients preferred aclidinium 79.7% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

When considering clinical benefits and risks, aclidinium and tiotropium generate similar value to patients, but when convenience criteria are considered, aclidinium may be preferred. Further work is required to replicate these results, including eliciting preferences directly from patients.

Therapeutic novelties of inhaled corticosteroids and bronchodilators in asthma

Orally inhaled agents are a key therapeutic class for treatment of asthma. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the most effective anti-inflammatory treatment for asthma thus representing the first-line therapy and bronchodilators complement the effects of ICSs. A significant body of evidence indicates that addition of a β2-agonist to ICS therapy is more effective than increasing the dose of ICS monotherapy. In this paper, pharmacological features of available ICSs and bronchodilators will be reviewed with a focus on fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate combination which represents the one of the most powerful ICS acting together with the most rapid active LABA.

Aclidinium bromide plus formoterol for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Drugs that target dynamic hyperinflation such as long-acting β-2 agonists and long-acting antimuscarinic antagonists form a cornerstone of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management. The idea of combining these two medications in a single formulation, which may potentially improve patient compliance, is novel and attractive.

AREAS COVERED

The pharmacologic profiles of aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate are discussed. However, studies to define drug interactions and alterations in the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the fixed dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate in large populations remain unpublished. Results of Phase II and two Phase III pivotal trials, ACLIFORM/COPD and AUGMENT COPD, evaluating the FDC are discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Initial data for the aclidinium/formoterol inhaler appears to be promising for impacting the lung function. To define if this benefit translates into improved long-term outcomes of decreased exacerbation frequency, improved quality of life and decreased disease-specific mortality are important. The introduction of this combination will likely have a significant impact on the prescribing habits of physicians across the world.

Aclidinium bromide for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Bronchodilators are the mainstay for symptom relief in the management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Aclidinium bromide is a new long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) that differs from tiotropium by its higher selectivity for M3 muscarinic receptors with a faster onset of action. However, the duration of action of aclidinium is shorter than for tiotropium. It has been approved as maintenance therapy for stable, moderate to severe COPD, but its efficacy and safety in the management of COPD is uncertain compared to other bronchodilators.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide in stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCT) from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), as well as www.clinicaltrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website and Almirall Clinical Trials Registry and Results. We contacted Forest Laboratories for any unpublished trials and checked the reference lists of identified articles for additional information. The last search was performed on 7 April 2014 for CAGR and 11 April 2014 for other sources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel-group RCTs of aclidinium bromide compared with placebo, long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) or LAMA in adults with stable COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We sought missing data from the trial authors as well as manufacturers of aclidinium. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and reported both with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 12 multicentre RCTs randomly assigning 9547 participants with stable COPD. All the studies were industry-sponsored and had similar inclusion criteria with relatively good methodological quality. All but one study included in the meta-analysis were double-blind and scored low risk of bias. The study duration ranged from four weeks to 52 weeks. Participants were more often males, mainly Caucasians, mean age ranging from 61.7 to 65.6 years, and with a smoking history of 10 or more pack years. They had moderate to severe symptoms at randomisation; the mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was between 46% and 57.6% of the predicted normal value, and the mean St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (SGRQ) ranged from 45.1 to 50.4 when reported.There was no difference between aclidinium and placebo in all-cause mortality (low quality) and number of patients with exacerbations requiring a short course of oral steroids or antibiotics, or both (moderate quality). Aclidinium improved quality of life by lowering the SGRQ total score with a mean difference of -2.34 (95% CI -3.18 to -1.51; I(2) = 48%, 7 trials, 4442 participants) when compared to placebo. More patients on aclidinium achieved a clinically meaningful improvement of at least four units decrease in SGRQ total score (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.31 to 1.70; I(2) = 34%; number needed to treat (NNT) = 10, 95% CI 8 to 15, high quality evidence) over 12 to 52 weeks than on placebo. Aclidinium also resulted in a significantly greater improvement in pre-dose FEV1 than placebo with a mean difference of 0.09 L (95% CI 0.08 to 0.10; I(2) = 39%, 9 trials, 4963 participants). No trials assessed functional capacity. Aclidinium reduced the number of patients with exacerbations requiring hospitalisation by 4 to 20 fewer per 1000 over 4 to 52 weeks (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.88; I(2) = 0%, 10 trials, 5624 people; NNT = 77, 95% CI 51 to 233, high quality evidence) compared to placebo. There was no difference in non-fatal serious adverse events (moderate quality evidence) between aclidinium and placebo.Compared to tiotropium, aclidinium did not demonstrate significant differences for exacerbations requiring oral steroids or antibiotics, or both, exacerbation-related hospitalisations and non-fatal serious adverse events (very low quality evidence). Inadequate data prevented the comparison of aclidinium to formoterol or other LABAs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aclidinium is associated with improved quality of life and reduced hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe stable COPD compared to placebo. Overall, aclidinium did not significantly reduce mortality, serious adverse events or exacerbations requiring oral steroids or antibiotics, or both.Currently, the available data are insufficient and of very low quality in comparisons of the efficacy of aclidinium versus tiotropium. The efficacy of aclidinium versus LABAs cannot be assessed due to inaccurate data. Thus additional trials are recommended to assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium compared to other LAMAs or LABAs.

The pharmacological approach to the elderly COPD patient

The elderly patient (65 years and older) with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be a challenge to the clinician. This begins with the correct and early diagnosis, the assessment of disease severity, recognizing complicating comorbidities, determining the burden of symptoms, and monitoring the frequency of acute exacerbations. Comprehensive management of COPD in the elderly patient should improve health-related quality of life, lung function, reduce exacerbations, and promote patient compliance with treatment plans. Only smoking cessation and oxygen therapy in COPD patients with hypoxemia reduce mortality. Bronchodilators, corticosteroids, methylxanthines, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, macrolide antibiotics, mucolytics, and pulmonary rehabilitation improve some outcome measures such as spirometry measures and the frequency of COPD exacerbations without improving mortality. International treatment guidelines to reduce symptoms and reduce the risk of acute exacerbations exist. Relief of dyspnea and control of anxiety are important. The approach to each patient is best individualized. Earlier use of palliative care should be considered when traditional pharmacotherapy fails to achieve outcome measures and before consideration of end-of-life issues.