Effects of a combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol on exercise endurance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: two randomized, double-blind clinical trials

Systemic Manifestations of COPD and the Impact of Dual Bronchodilation with Tiotropium/Olodaterol on Cardiac Function and Autonomic Integrity

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has significant systemic manifestations, including cardiovascular morbidity. The main aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of short-term COPD treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 μg on cardiac function and autonomic integrity. Methods: Twenty-nine patients with newly diagnosed moderate-to-severe COPD were enrolled. We performed pulmonary function tests, cardiac magnetic resonance, cardiac 123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (123I-MIBG) imaging and analysis of blood biomarkers on our study subjects. The correlations between the tests' results were evaluated at baseline. The changes in pulmonary and cardiac parameters from baseline through 12 weeks were assessed. Results: Significant associations between pulmonary function tests' results and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), as well as interleukin-22 (IL-22), were observed at baseline. Treatment with TIO/OLO significantly improved lung function as measured by spirometry and body plethysmography. Moreover, we found that the cardiac index increased from 2.89 (interquartile range (IQR) 1.09) to 3.21 L/min/m2 (IQR 0.78) (p = 0.013; N = 18) and the late heart-to-mediastinum ratio improved from 1.88 (IQR 0.37) to 2 (IQR 0.41) (p = 0.026; N = 16) after 12 weeks of treatment. Conclusions: Treatment with TIO/OLO improves lung function and positively impacts cardiac function and autonomic integrity, suggesting that dual bronchodilation might have a potential in decreasing the risk for cardiac events in COPD. Hs-CRP and IL-22 might be beneficial in determining the intensity of systemic inflammation in COPD. Further research with a larger cohort is needed to enhance the initial results of this study.

Network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies and traditional conventional dichotomous agents for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Introduction

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against cytokines and chemokines or their receptors promise to be a potential therapeutic option to address chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aim to provide a comprehensive literature review of the improvement in FEV1 and safety when comparing mAbs with conventional dichotomous agents.

Methods

We systematically searched 3 electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) up to August 1, 2023 to collect eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A frequentist network meta-analysis using a random-effects model was deployed to calculate mean differences (MD) for FEV1, relative risk (RR) of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and estimate the surface under cumulative rankings (SUCRA). A higher SUCRA indicates a better outcome.

Results

This study included 23 RCTs involving a total of 20,853 patients. Overall, except for Dupilumab, mAbs did not significantly improve FEV1 compared to traditional conventional dichotomous agents. Among all the interventions included, Aclidinium bromide/Formoterol (AB/FF) (SUCRA 97.7%) ranked highest, followed by Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) (SUCRA 93.5%), and Glycopyrrolate Formoterol Fumarate (GFF) (SUCRA 84.7%). Dupilumab (SUCRA 66.9%) ranked the fourth among all interventions but ranked the first among all the mAbs. Importantly, all mAbs demonstrated a good safety profile compared with placebo.

Conclusion

Considering the improvement in FEV1 and its safety, the development of mAbs for COPD still holds significant clinical potential.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, CRD42023452714.

Real-world effects of once-daily inhaled steroid (fluticasone furoate) combined with long-acting beta-2 agonist (vilanterol) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (umeclidinium) on lung function tests of asthma patients in Japan

Background: The Japanese drug use system allowed the once-daily use of inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate (FF) combined with a long-acting beta-2 agonist vilanterol (VI) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) against asthma on 18 February 2021. We investigated the real-world effects of these drugs (FF/UMEC/VI) mainly on lung function tests. Methods: This was an open-label, uncontrolled, within-group time-series (before-after) study. Prior asthma treatment (inhaled corticosteroid with/without a long-acting beta-2 agonist with/without a long-acting muscarinic antagonist) was switched to FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 μg. Subjects were evaluated by lung function tests prior to, and 1-2 months after, initiation of FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 μg. Patients were asked questions regarding the asthma control test and preference for drugs. Results: Overall, 114 asthma outpatients (97% Japanese) were enrolled from February 2021 to April 2022: 104 subjects completed the study. Forced expiratory volume in 1 s, peak flow, and asthma control test score of FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 μg-treated subjects were significantly increased (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.01, respectively). In contrast with FF/VI 200/25 μg, instantaneous flow at 25% of the forced vital capacity and expiratory reserve volume were significantly increased by FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 μg (p < 0.01, p < 0.05, respectively). Sixty-six percent of subjects declared they wanted to continue FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 μg in the future. Adverse effects, mainly local, were seen in 30% of patients, but no serious adverse effects were seen. Conclusion: Once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 μg was effective against asthma without serious adverse events. This is the first report that demonstrated FF/UMEC/VI dilated peripheral airways using lung function tests. This evidence on drug effects may improve our understanding of pulmonary physiology and the pathophysiology of asthma.

A reappraisal of inspiratory capacity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: clinical correlates and role of long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting β2 agonists

INTRODUCTION

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), static and dynamic hyperinflation, together with expiratory flow limitation and gas exchange abnormalities, is one of the major causes of dyspnea, decreased exercise performance and ventilatory failure. An increase in functional residual capacity (FRC) is accompanied by a decrease in inspiratory capacity (IC), which is a volume readily available, repeatable, and simple to measure with any spirometer. Changes in IC and FRC after bronchodilation, contrary to changes in FEV₁, have been closely associated with improvements in dyspnea and exercise performance. We systematically searched PubMed and Embase databases for clinical trials that assessed the effects of dual bronchodilation on inspiratory capacity in patients with COPD.

AREAS COVERED

Despite their pivotal role in COPD, IC and static volumes have rarely been considered as primary outcomes in randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy of bronchodilators. Available studies on dual bronchodilation have shown a significant and persistent positive impact on IC focusing mainly on patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, whereas dynamic hyperinflation is also present at milder disease stages.

EXPERT OPINION

This narrative review discusses the pathophysiological and clinical importance of measuring IC in patients with COPD and how IC can be modified by maximizing bronchodilation combining long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting β2 agonists.

Exercise capacity and physical activity in COPD patients treated with a LAMA/LABA combination: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Persistent airflow limitation and dyspnoea may reduce chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients exercise capacity and physical activity, undermining their physical status and quality of life. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting beta-2 agonists (LAMA/LABA) combinations are amongst moderate-to-severe COPD recommended treatments. This article analyses LAMA/LABA combinations effect on COPD patients exercise capacity and physical activity outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials comparing LAMA/LABA combinations against monotherapy or placebo was conducted.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles were identified (N = 4041 patients). In endurance shuttle walk test and constant work rate cycle ergometry, LAMA/LABA combinations obtained better results than placebo, but not monotherapy, whereas in 6-min walking test, results favoured LAMA/LABA over monotherapy (four studies), but not over placebo (one study). Moreover, LAMA/LABA combinations obtained better results than placebo in number of steps per day, reduction in percentage of inactive patients and daily activity-related energy expenditure, and better than monotherapy when measuring time spent on ≥ 1.0-1.5, ≥ 2.0 and ≥ 3.0 metabolic equivalents of task activities.

CONCLUSIONS

LAMA/LABA combinations in COPD patients provided better results than monotherapy or placebo in most exercise capacity and physical activity outcomes.

A new protocol for exercise testing in COPD; improved prediction algorithm for WMAX and validation of the endurance test in a placebo-controlled double bronchodilator study

Background:

Two new protocols have been developed for bicycle exercise testing in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with an individualized cardiopulmonary exercise test (ICPET) and subsequent customized endurance test (CET), which generate less interindividual spread in endurance time compared with the standard endurance test. Main objectives of this study were to improve the prediction algorithm for W_MAX for the ICPET and validate the CET by examining treatment effects on exercise performance of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) compared with placebo.

Methods:

COPD patients, with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) 40–80% predicted, were recruited. Pooled baseline data from two previous studies (n = 38) were used for the development of an improved W_MAX prediction algorithm. Additional COPD patients (n = 14) were recruited and performed the ICPET, using the new prediction formula at visit 1. Prior to the CET at visits 2 and 3, they were randomized to a single dose of IND/GLY (110/50 µg) or placebo.

Results:

The improved multiple regression algorithm for W_MAX includes diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO), FEV₁, sex, age and height and correlated to measured W_MAX (R² = 0.89 and slope = 0.89). Treatment with IND/GLY showed improvement in endurance time versus placebo, mean 113 s [95% confidence interval (CI): 6–220], p = 0.037, with more prominent effect in patients with FEV₁ < 70% predicted.

Conclusion:

The two new protocols for ICPET (including the new improved algorithm) and CET were retested with consistent results. In addition, the CET showed a significant and clinically relevant prolongation of endurance time for IND/GLY versus placebo in a small number of patients.

Effect of Adding Inhaled Corticosteroid to Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist/Long-Acting Beta-Agonist Therapy Among Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background The role of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unclear. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ICS as an add-on to long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta 2 agonist (LABA), which was assessed using the impulse oscillation system (IOS), in patients with COPD. Methodology We included patients with COPD whose treatment was changed from LAMA/LABA (≥four weeks) to ICS/LAMA/LABA between April 2019 and March 2021. To gain insight into the effect and safety of ICS-containing triple therapy for COPD, pulmonary function; Short-Form 36, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, and modified Medical Research Council scores; and airway resistance assessed using the IOS from one week before LAMA/LABA was switched to ICS/LAMA/LABA therapy until more than eight but less than twelve weeks after switching were evaluated. Results In total, 46 patients with COPD (mean age: 72.28 ± 7.81 years) were included in the study. None of the pulmonary function test parameters significantly changed from baseline values (mean difference in forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV1.0]: +0.032, P = 0.12; percentage FEV1.0 [FEV1.0%]/forced vital capacity [FVC]: -0.58, P = 0.42; and FVC: +0.087, P = 0.058). Meanwhile, the IOS showed that resonant frequency (mean difference from baseline: -2.12, P < 0.0001) and bodily pain scores in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (mean difference: -7.03, P = 0.031) significantly decreased. Conclusions Switching from LAMA/LABA to ICS/LAMA/LABA therapy reduces airway elasticity-to-inertial resistance ratios, which may lead to structural airway improvements in patients with COPD.

Targeting exertional breathlessness to improve physical activity: the role of primary care

Primary care physicians (PCPs) play a crucial role in the diagnosis and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). By working together with patients to target exertional breathlessness and increase physical activity, PCPs have an important role to play, early in the disease course, in improving patient outcomes in both the short and long term. In this article, we consider how physical activity affects disease progression from the PCP perspective. We discuss the role of pharmacological therapy, the importance of an holistic approach and the role of PCPs in assessing and promoting physical activity. The complexity and heterogeneity of COPD make it a challenging disease to treat. Patients' avoidance of activity, and subsequent decline in capacity to perform it, further impacts the management of the disease. Improving patient tolerance of physical activity, increasing participation in daily activities and helping patients to remain active are clear goals of COPD management. These may require an holistic approach to management, including pulmonary rehabilitation and psychological programmes in parallel with bronchodilation therapy, in order to address both physiological and behavioural factors. PCPs have an important role to optimise therapy, set goals and communicate the importance of maintaining physical activity to their patients. In addition, optimal treatment that addresses activity-related breathlessness can help prevent the downward spiral of inactivity and get patients moving again, to improve their overall health and long-term prognosis.

Dual LABA/LAMA Therapy versus LABA or LAMA Monotherapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Support of the American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Rationale: There is uncertainty on the optimal first-line therapy for symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Long-acting β₂-receptor agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) have long been mainstays of treatment, though it is still not clear if dual therapy with LABA/LAMA is superior to monotherapy for symptomatic COPD.Objectives: To clarify the evidence landscape, we conducted a systematic review to answer the following question: in patients with COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance, is LABA/LAMA combination therapy more effective and equally safe compared with LABA or LAMA monotherapy?Methods: A search of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted by a medical librarian for randomized controlled trials enrolling patients with COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance that compare LABA/LAMA combination therapy to LABA or LAMA monotherapy. A systematic approach was used to screen, abstract, and critically appraise the emerging study evidence. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method was applied to rate the certainty and quality of the evidence.Results: A total of 24 studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 45,441). Pairwise random-effects meta-analysis revealed reductions in hospital admissions (11% reduction; P < 0.01) and acute exacerbations of COPD (20% reduction; P < 0.002), all in favor of LABA/LAMA dual therapy. Although there is reduced dyspnea (0.10 standardized mean difference; P < 0.001) and improved health-related quality of life (-0.13 standardized mean difference; P < 0.001), both values did not meet a clinical meaningful difference threshold. LABA/LAMA combination therapy showed no difference in treatment-emergent adverse effects (risk ratio, 0.99; P = 0.34) when compared with either LAMA or LABA monotherapy.Conclusions: Based on the reviewed evidence, in patients with symptomatic COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance, dual LABA/LAMA therapy is superior to either LABA or LAMA monotherapy based on the reduced risk of exacerbations and hospitalizations.

Long-Acting Bronchodilators for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Which One(S), How, and When?

Long-acting bronchodilators represent the mainstay of maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This state-of-the-art review summarizes currently available data on the safety, efficacy, and clinical effectiveness of long-acting bronchodilators and describes their role in the management of COPD, as defined by current national and international guidelines. Data from extensive clinical trials and real-life studies have demonstrated that long-acting beta-2 agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists can safely reduce the frequency of exacerbations, alleviate symptoms, and improve quality of life, exercise tolerance, and lung function of patients with COPD. They are recommended as first-line maintenance treatment of COPD.

Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: This document provides clinical recommendations for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It represents a collaborative effort on the part of a panel of expert COPD clinicians and researchers along with a team of methodologists under the guidance of the American Thoracic Society.

Methods: Comprehensive evidence syntheses were performed on all relevant studies that addressed the clinical questions and critical patient-centered outcomes agreed upon by the panel of experts. The evidence was appraised, rated, and graded, and recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Results: After weighing the quality of evidence and balancing the desirable and undesirable effects, the guideline panel made the following recommendations: 1) a strong recommendation for the use of long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) combination therapy over LABA or LAMA monotherapy in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance; 2) a conditional recommendation for the use of triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/LABA/LAMA over dual therapy with LABA/LAMA in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance who have experienced one or more exacerbations in the past year; 3) a conditional recommendation for ICS withdrawal for patients with COPD receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) if the patient has had no exacerbations in the past year; 4) no recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to long-acting bronchodilators in patients with COPD and blood eosinophilia, except for those patients with a history of one or more exacerbations in the past year requiring antibiotics or oral steroids or hospitalization, for whom ICS is conditionally recommended as an additive therapy; 5) a conditional recommendation against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroids in patients with COPD and a history of severe and frequent exacerbations; and 6) a conditional recommendation for opioid-based therapy in patients with COPD who experience advanced refractory dyspnea despite otherwise optimal therapy.

Conclusions: The task force made recommendations regarding the pharmacologic treatment of COPD based on currently available evidence. Additional research in populations that are underrepresented in clinical trials is needed, including studies in patients with COPD 80 years of age and older, those with multiple chronic health conditions, and those with a codiagnosis of COPD and asthma.

Relieving exertional dyspnea during the 3-min constant speed shuttle test in patients with COPD with indacaterol/glycopyrronium versus tiotropium: the RED trial

Background:

Exertional dyspnea is a cardinal feature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a major cause of activity limitation. Although dual bronchodilation is more effective than bronchodilator monotherapy at improving resting pulmonary function, it is unclear to which extent this translates into superior relief of exertional dyspnea.

Methods:

We conducted a randomized controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial comparing indacaterol 110 µg/glycopyrronium 50 µg once daily (OD) with tiotropium 50 µg OD in patients with moderate to severe COPD and resting hyperinflation (functional residual capacity >120% of predicted value). The primary outcome was Borg dyspnea score at the end of a 3-min constant speed shuttle test after 3 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included changes in Borg dyspnea score after the first dose of study medication, expiratory flows and lung volumes. Statistical analysis was conducted using a cross-over analysis of variance model with repeated measurements.

Results:

A total of 50 patients with COPD and a mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s of 54 ± 11% (mean ± SEM) predicted participated in the cross-over phase of the trial. Compared with baseline, there was a decrease in dyspnea after the first dose of medication with indacaterol/glycopyrronium [mean −1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.49 to −0.52] but not with tiotropium alone (mean −0.36, 95% CI −0.81 to 0.08). The reduction in dyspnea after the first dose was statistically significant between the two treatments (mean difference of −0.64, 95% CI −1.11 to −0.17). Despite indacaterol/glycopyrronium providing further bronchodilation and lung deflation throughout the trial, the reduction in dyspnea was not sustained at 3 weeks of treatment (mean between-treatment difference at 3 weeks of 0.09, 95% CI −0.44 to 0.61).

Conclusion:

In comparison with bronchodilator monotherapy, indacaterol/glycopyrronium provided greater immediate exertional dyspnea relief, although this difference was not sustained after 3 weeks of therapy despite evidence of further bronchodilation and lung deflation.

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

Treatment with LABA versus LAMA for stable COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled bronchodilators including long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) play a central role in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it is still unclear whether LABA or LAMA should be used for the initial treatment. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LABA versus LAMA in patients with stable COPD.

METHODS

We searched relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) with a period of treatment of at least 12 weeks and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life, dyspnea score, lung function and adverse events as the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

We carefully excluded unblinded data and identified a total of 19 RCTs (N = 28,211). LAMA significantly decreased the exacerbations compared to LABA (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; P = 0.02). In St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and transitional dyspnoea index score, there were no differences between LABA and LAMA treatment. Compared to LABA, there was a small but significant increase in the trough FEV1 after LAMA treatment (Mean difference 0.02, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.0006). In the safety components, there was no difference in the serious adverse events between LABA and LAMA. However, LAMA showed a significantly lower incidence of total adverse events compared to LABA (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.98; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with LAMA in stable COPD provided a significantly lower incidence of exacerbation and non-serious adverse events, and a higher trough FEV1 compared to LABA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

(PROSPERO: CRD42019144764).

Comparative measurement properties of constant work rate cycling and the endurance shuttle walking test in COPD: the TORRACTO® clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Exercise tolerance is an important endpoint in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical trials. Little is known about the comparative measurement properties of constant work rate cycle ergometry (CWRCE) and the endurance shuttle walking test (ESWT). The objective of this sub-analysis of the TORRACTO® study was to directly compare the endurance measurement properties of CWRCE and ESWT in patients with COPD in a multicentre, multinational setting. We predicted that both tests would be similarly reliable, but that the ESWT would be more responsive to bronchodilation than CWRCE.

METHODS

This analysis included 151 patients who performed CWRCE and ESWT at baseline and week 6 after receiving once-daily placebo, tiotropium/olodaterol (T/O) 2.5/5 μg or T/O 5/5 μg. Reproducibility was assessed by comparing their respective performance at baseline and week 6 in the placebo group. Responsiveness to bronchodilation was assessed by comparing endurance time at week 6 with T/O with baseline values and placebo. The locus of symptom limitation and end-exercise Borg scales for breathing and leg discomfort for both tests were also analysed.

RESULTS

The intraclass correlation coefficients for CWRCE and ESWT were 0.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-0.71] and 0.75 (95% CI 0.63-0.84). More patients were limited by breathing discomfort during the ESWT than during CWRCE, whereas more patients were limited by leg discomfort or breathing/leg discomfort during CWRCE than the ESWT (p <0.0001). Both tests were responsive to bronchodilator treatment: there was a 19% increase in endurance time from baseline at week 6 (p = 0.0006) assessed with CWRCE, and a 20% increase in endurance time assessed with ESWT (p = 0.0013).

CONCLUSIONS

Both exercise tests performed well in a multicentre clinical trial. Although the locus of symptom limitation differed between the two tests, both were reliable and responsive to bronchodilation. For future clinical trials, the choice of test should depend on the study requirements.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT01525615. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Evidence-based review of data on the combination inhaler umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD

The use of inhaled, fixed-dose, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) combined with long-acting, beta2-adrenergic receptor agonists (LABA) has become a mainstay in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One of the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations is the dry powder inhaler (DPI) of umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) (62.5 µg/25 µg) approved for once-a-day maintenance treatment of COPD. This paper reviews the use of fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA agents focusing on the UMEC/VI DPI inhaler in the maintenance treatment of COPD. The fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA inhaler offers a step beyond a single inhaled maintenance agent but is still a single device for the COPD patient having frequent COPD exacerbations and persistent symptoms not well controlled on one agent. Currently available clinical trials suggest that the once-a-day DPI of UMEC/VI is well-tolerated, safe and non-inferior or better than other currently available inhaled fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations for COPD.

New opportunities of dual bronchodilation therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Currently, combinations of long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting anticholinergics are considered as the basic therapy for majority of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These combinations have different pharmacological characteristics and delivery devices that provides different clinical effects and new opportunities for personalized treatment of COPD. Aclidinium/formoterol fixed combination differs from other dual bronchodilators by twice-daily dosing regimen, good safety profile and a specific delivery system. Recent information on clinical efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol combination in COPD patients is given in this article.

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 bronchodilator therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: evidence for the efficacy and Safety of fixed dose combination treatments in the setting of recent guideline updates

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent updates to the GOLD guidelines emphasize the use of combination LABA and LAMA bronchodilators for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with persistent dyspnea despite monotherapy or frequent exacerbations despite LAMA monotherapy. There are several commercially available LABA/LAMA fixed dose combination inhalers, which are likely to become the principle therapy for many patients with COPD.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the last 4 years, there have been a number of large clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of combined LAMA and LABA bronchodilators. LAMA/LABA fixed dose combination therapies have consistently demonstrated clinically significant improvements to airway obstruction, dyspnea, and quality of life whenever compared with placebo, and more modest improvements compared with bronchodilator monotherapies and combined bronchodilator/inhaled corticosteroid therapy.

SUMMARY

New guidelines emphasize combination bronchodilators as a mainstay of therapy for many patients with symptomatic COPD and there are several new combination bronchodilator therapies available to patients. It is important for physicians and patients to understand the range and degree of expected clinical effects and the safety profiles of these new medications.

Effect of 12 weeks of once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol on exercise endurance during constant work-rate cycling and endurance shuttle walking in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background:

The TORRACTO^® study evaluated the effects of tiotropium/olodaterol versus placebo on endurance time during constant work-rate cycling and constant speed shuttle walking in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) after 12 weeks of treatment.

Methods:

The effects of once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol (2.5/5 and 5/5 μg) on endurance time during constant work-rate cycle ergometry (CWRCE) after 6 and 12 weeks of treatment were compared with placebo in patients with COPD in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial. Endurance time during the endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT) after 6 and 12 weeks of treatment was also evaluated in a subset of patients.

Results:

A total of 404 patients received treatment, with 165 participating in the ESWT substudy. A statistically significant improvement in endurance time during CWRCE was observed after 12 weeks (primary endpoint) with tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg [14% (p = 0.02)] but not with tiotropium/olodaterol 2.5/5 µg [9% (p = 0.14)] versus placebo. In the ESWT substudy, a trend to improvement in endurance time during ESWT after 12 weeks (key secondary endpoint) was observed with tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg [21% (p = 0.055)] and tiotropium/olodaterol 2.5/5 µg [21% (p = 0.056)] versus placebo.

Conclusion:

Tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg improved endurance time during cycle ergometry versus placebo, with a strong tendency to also improve walking endurance time.

[ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01525615.]

The once-daily fixed-dose combination of olodaterol and tiotropium in the management of COPD: current evidence and future prospects

Long-acting bronchodilators are the cornerstone of pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Spiolto® or Stiolto® is a fixed-dose combination (FDC) containing two long-acting bronchodilators, the long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist tiotropium (TIO) and the long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonist olodaterol (OLO), formulated in the Respimat® Soft Mist™ inhaler. A total of 13 large, multicentre studies of up to 52 weeks' duration have documented its efficacy in more than 15,000 patients with COPD. TIO/OLO 5/5 µg FDC significantly increases pulmonary function compared with placebo and its respective constituent mono-components TIO 5 µg and OLO 5 µg. TIO/OLO 5/5 µg also results in statistically and clinically significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes, such as dyspnoea, use of rescue medication, and health status. Addition of OLO 5 µg to TIO 5 µg reduces the rate of moderate-to-severe exacerbations by approximately 10%. Compared with placebo and TIO 5 µg, TIO/OLO 5/5 µg significantly improves exercise capacity (e.g. endurance time) and physical activity, the latter increase being reached by a unique combination behavioural modification intervention, dual bronchodilatation and exercise training. Overall, the likelihood for patients to experience a clinically significant benefit is higher with TIO/OLO 5/5 µg than with its constituent mono-components, which usually yield smaller improvements which do not always reach statistical significance, compared with baseline or placebo. This supports the early introduction of TIO/OLO 5/5 µg in the management of patients with symptomatic COPD.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg versus tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective

BACKGROUND

A head-to-head study demonstrated the superiority of once-daily umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) versus once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO from a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective, using data from this study and Spanish literature.

METHODS

This analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System with a 3-year horizon as base case. A disease progression model using a linked risk equation approach was used to estimate disease progression and associated healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study was used to develop the statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints, and costs were calculated using a health state approach (by dyspnea severity). Utilities for QALY calculation were estimated using patient baseline characteristics within a regression fit to Spanish observational data. Treatment effect, expressed as change from baseline in FEV1 was obtained from the head-to-head study and used in the model (UMEC/VI minus TIO/OLO difference: + 52 mL [95% confidence interval: 28, 77]). Baseline patient characteristics were sourced from Spanish literature or the head-to-head study if unavailable. A scenario analysis using only the intent-to-treat (ITT) population from the head-to-head study, and sensitivity analyses (including probabilistic sensitivity analyses), were conducted. Direct healthcare costs (2017 Euro) were obtained from Spanish sources and costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum.

RESULTS

UMEC/VI was associated with small improvements in QALYs (+ 0.029) over a 3-year time horizon, compared with TIO/OLO, alongside cost savings of €393/patient. The ITT scenario analysis and sensitivity analyses had similar results. All probabilistic simulations resulted in UMEC/VI being less costly and more effective than TIO/OLO.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI dominated TIO/OLO (more effective and less expensive). These results may aid payers and decision-makers in Spain when making judgements on which long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) treatments can be considered cost effective in Spain.

LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations in patients with COPD: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the current evidence for long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in the treatment of COPD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials published in English up to September 2017 of LABA/LAMA FDCs vs LABA or LAMA or LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) FDCs in COPD patients was performed using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Outcomes including forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) scores, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores, exacerbations, exercise tolerance (endurance time [ET]), inspiratory capacity (IC), and rescue medication use were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 27 studies were included in the review. LABA/LAMA FDCs significantly improved lung function (FEV1) at 12 weeks compared with LABA or LAMA or LABA/ICS. These effects were maintained over time. Significant improvements with LABA/LAMA FDCs vs each evaluated comparator were also observed in TDI and SGRQ scores, even if significant differences between different LABA/LAMA FDCs were detected. Only the LABA/LAMA FDC indacaterol/glycopyrronium has shown superiority vs LAMA and LABA/ICS for reducing exacerbation rates, while olodaterol/tiotropium and indacaterol/glycopyrronium have been shown to improve ET and IC vs the active comparators. Rescue medication use was significantly reduced by LABA/LAMA FDCs vs the evaluated comparators. LABA/LAMA FDCs were safe, with no increase in the risk of adverse events with LABA/LAMA FDCs vs the monocomponents.

CONCLUSION

Evidence supporting the efficacy of LABA/LAMA FDCs for COPD is heterogeneous, particularly for TDI and SGRQ scores, exacerbation rates, ET, and IC. So far, indacaterol/glycopyrronium is the LABA/LAMA FDC that has the strongest evidence for superiority vs LABA, LAMA, and LABA/ICS FDCs across the evaluated outcomes. LABA/LAMA FDCs were safe; however, more data should be collected in a real-world setting to confirm their safety.

Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Elderly Patients with COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this pooled analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 µg dual bronchodilation versus placebo in elderly symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

We conducted a post hoc pooled analysis of data from 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Change from baseline (CFB) in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), proportion of FEV1 responders (≥ 100-mL increase from baseline), and safety were analyzed in patients aged < 65, ≥ 65, and ≥ 75 years on Days 28, 56, and 84 (12-week analysis of parallel-group design studies), Days 28, 56, 84, 112, 140, 168, and 169 (24-week analysis of parallel-group design studies), and Days 2, 42, and 84 (12-week analysis of crossover design studies).

RESULTS

The UMEC/VI intent-to-treat (ITT) populations comprised 2246, 1296, and 472 patients in the 12-week parallel-group, 24-week parallel-group, and 12-week crossover analysis, respectively (≥ 65 years: 36-44%; ≥ 75 years: 7-11%). The placebo ITT populations comprised 528, 280, and 505 patients, respectively (≥ 65 years: 37-41%; ≥ 75 years: 5-11%). Significant improvements in trough FEV1 and significantly greater proportions of FEV1 responders were seen with UMEC/VI compared with placebo in all analyses regardless of patient age or timepoint considered (p ≤ 0.023), except Day 84 trough FEV1 CFB in the 12-week crossover analysis in patients aged ≥ 75 years (p = 0.064). UMEC/VI safety profile was similar to placebo in all age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pooled analysis of RCT data, once-daily UMEC/VI was well tolerated and provided clinically significant lung function benefits compared with placebo in younger and older patients with COPD.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline (study 208125).

The Link between Reduced Inspiratory Capacity and Exercise Intolerance in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Low inspiratory capacity (IC), chronic dyspnea, and reduced exercise capacity are inextricably linked and are independent predictors of increased mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It is no surprise, therefore, that a major goal of management is to improve IC by reducing lung hyperinflation to improve respiratory symptoms and health-related quality of life. The negative effects of lung hyperinflation on respiratory muscle and cardiocirculatory function during exercise are now well established. Moreover, there is growing appreciation that a key mechanism of exertional dyspnea in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is critical mechanical constraints on tidal volume expansion during exercise when resting IC is reduced. Further evidence for the importance of lung hyperinflation comes from multiple studies, which have reported the clinical benefits of therapeutic interventions that reduce lung hyperinflation and increase IC. A reduced IC in obstructive pulmonary disease is further eroded by exercise and contributes to ventilatory limitation and dyspnea. It is an important outcome for both clinical and research studies.

Efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol on lung volume, exercise capacity, and physical activity

Purpose

This study evaluated the efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol vs tiotropium on lung function, exercise capacity, and physical activity in patients with COPD.

Patients and methods

A total of 184 patients aged ≥40 years with COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stage II-IV) received tiotropium/olodaterol for 6 weeks, then tiotropium for 6 weeks, or vice versa. The primary endpoint was inspiratory capacity (IC) at peak post-dose.

Results

Adjusted mean IC after 6-week treatment was 1.990 L with tiotropium/olodaterol vs 1.875 L with tiotropium (difference: 115 mL; 95% CI: 77, 153; p<0.0001). Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (difference: 105 mL; 95% CI: 88, 123), forced vital capacity (difference: 163 mL; 95% CI: 130, 197), and slow vital capacity (difference: 134 mL; 95% CI: 91, 176) improved with tiotropium/olodaterol (all p<0.0001). Adjusted mean 6-min walk distance was similar between treatments in the overall population but was significantly increased with tiotropium/olodaterol in the subgroup with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stage III/IV at baseline (difference: 18.1 m; 95% CI: 2.3, 33.9; p=0.0254). In a post hoc analysis, tiotropium/olodaterol improved the values for ≥2.0 metabolic equivalents (difference: 5.0 min; 95% CI: 0.4, 9.7; p=0.0337).

Conclusion

Tiotropium/olodaterol significantly improved IC compared with tiotropium and potentially enhanced the exercise capacity in COPD patients. A slight improvement in physical activity of relatively more than moderate intensity was also seen with tiotropium/olodaterol.

Long-acting bronchodilators improve exercise capacity in COPD patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim to evaluate the efficacy of longacting bronchodilators on exercise capacity in COPD patients.

Methods

The endpoints were the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators (altogether, and by single classes) vs. placebo in modifying endurance time (ET), inspiratory capacity (IC) and dyspnea during exercise, taking into consideration the outcomes according to different patients’ inclusion criteria and exercise methodology.

Results

Twenty-two studies were deemed eligible for analysis. Weighted mean increase in ET resulted of 67 s (95% CI ranges from 55 to 79). For isotime IC and dyspnea during exercise, weighted improvements were 195 ml (162–229), and − 0.41 units (− 0.56 to − 0.27), respectively. The increase in trough IC was 157 ml (138–175). We found a trend in favour of LAMA compared to LABA in terms of ET. In the 11 studies which reported a value of functional residual capacity > 120% as inclusion criterion, weighted mean increase in endurance time was 94 s (65 to 123); however we did not find any significant correlation between ET and mean trough IC (P: 0.593). The improvement of ET in the 5 studies using walking as exercise methodology resulted of 58 s (− 4 to 121).

Conclusions

Long-acting bronchodilators improve exercise capacity in COPD. The main effect of long-acting bronchodilators seems to be a increase of basal IC rather than a modification of dynamic hyperinflation during exercise. The efficacy in terms of endurance time seems higher in studies which enrolled patients with hyperinflation, with a similar efficacy on walking or cycling.

Relationship between exercise endurance and static hyperinflation in a post hoc analysis of two clinical trials in patients with COPD

Background

Lung hyperinflation and exercise intolerance are hallmarks of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, their relationship remains uncertain. A combined analysis of two placebo-controlled, randomized studies examined the effects of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) and long-acting β₂-agonist vilanterol (VI) separately and in combination on static hyperinflation, exercise endurance time (EET), and their relationship in patients with COPD.

Methods

Patients with moderate-to-severe stable COPD and resting functional residual capacity >120% predicted were randomized to UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg, UMEC 62.5 μg, VI 25 μg, or placebo for 12 weeks. Inspiratory capacity (IC), residual volume (RV), total lung capacity (TLC), and EET in an endurance shuttle-walk test were measured. In this post hoc analysis, IC/TLC, RV/TLC, and IC were used as hyperinflation markers.

Results

After 12 weeks, UMEC/VI and UMEC and VI showed significant improvements in hyperinflation versus placebo when measured by absolute change from baseline in IC/TLC (trough and 3 hours postdose [P≤0.011]). UMEC/VI showed significant improvements versus UMEC and VI in absolute changes in IC/TLC (trough and 3 hours postdose [P≤0.001]). Statistical significance for comparisons with placebo and between treatments for absolute changes in IC and percentage changes in RV/TLC followed similar patterns to those for absolute changes in IC/TLC. UMEC/VI showed significant improvements in EET versus placebo at day 2 and week 12, measured as change from baseline in seconds (P≤0.002) and as a percentage from baseline (P≤0.005). There was a lack of evidence to suggest a correlation between improvements in static hyperinflation and EET at any time point.

Conclusion

Although the dual bronchodilator UMEC/VI demonstrated greater improvements in static hyperinflation markers than UMEC or VI and significant improvements in exercise endurance, no direct relationship was observed between static hyperinflation and exercise endurance.

Effects of umeclidinium/vilanterol on exercise endurance in COPD: a randomised study

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period crossover study assessed the effect of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) on exercise capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using the endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT). Patients were randomised 1:1 to one of two treatment sequences: 1) UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg followed by placebo or 2) placebo followed by UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg. Each treatment was taken once daily for 12 weeks. The primary end-point was 3-h post-dose exercise endurance time (EET) at week 12. Secondary end-points included trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) and 3-h post-dose functional residual capacity (FRC), both at week 12. COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score at week 12 was also assessed. UMEC/VI treatment did not result in a statistically significant improvement in EET change from baseline at week 12 versus placebo (p=0.790). However, improvements were observed in trough FEV₁ (206 mL, 95% CI 167-246), 3-h post-dose FRC (-346 mL, 95% CI -487 to -204) and CAT score (-1.07 units, 95% CI -2.09 to -0.05) versus placebo at week 12. UMEC/VI did not result in improvements in EET at week 12 versus placebo, despite improvements in measures of lung function, hyperinflation and health status.

The impact of dual bronchodilation on cardiovascular serious adverse events and mortality in COPD: a quantitative synthesis

Objective

Long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are burdened by the potential risk of inducing cardiovascular serious adverse events (SAEs) in COPD patients. Since the risk of combining a LABA with a LAMA could be greater, we have carried out a quantitative synthesis to investigate the cardiovascular safety profile of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs).

Methods

A pair-wise and network meta-analysis was performed by using the data of the repository database ClinicalTrials.gov concerning the impact of approved LABA/LAMA FDCs versus monocomponents and/or placebo on cardiovascular SAEs in COPD.

Results

Overall, LABA/LAMA FDCs did not significantly (P>0.05) modulate the risk of cardiovascular SAEs versus monocomponents. However, the network meta-analysis indicated that aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg and tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg were the safest FDCs, followed by umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg which was as safe as placebo, whereas glycopyrronium/formoterol 14.9/9.6, glycopyrronium/indacaterol 15.6/27.5 µg, and glycopyrronium/indacaterol 50/110 µg were the least safe FDCs. No impact on mortality was detected for each specific FDC.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis indicates that LABA/LAMA FDC therapy is characterized by an excellent cardiovascular safety profile in COPD patients. However, the findings of this quantitative synthesis have been obtained from populations that participated in randomized clinical trials, and were devoid of major cardiovascular diseases. Thus, post-marketing surveillance and observational studies may help to better define the real impact of specific FDCs with regard to the cardiovascular risk.

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.

Sensory-mechanical effects of a dual bronchodilator and its anticholinergic component in COPD

This randomized, double-blind, crossover study examined the physiological rationale for using a dual long-acting bronchodilator (umeclidinium/vilanterol (UME/VIL)) versus its muscarinic-antagonist component (UME) as treatment for dyspnea and exercise intolerance in moderate COPD. After each 4-week treatment period, subjects performed pulmonary function and symptom-limited constant-work rate cycling tests with diaphragm electromyogram (EMGdi), esophageal (Pes), gastric (Pga) and transdiaphragmatic (Pdi) pressure measurements. Fourteen subjects completed the study. Both treatments improved spirometry and airway resistance. UME/VIL had larger increases in FEV₁ (+0.14±0.23L, p<0.05) but no added reduction in lung hyperinflation compared with UME. Isotime during exercise after UME/VIL versus UME (p<0.05): "unpleasantness of breathing" fell 0.8±1.3 Borg units; mean expiratory flow and ventilation increased; Pdi and Pga decreased. There were no treatment differences in endurance time, breathing pattern, operating lung volumes, inspiratory neural drive (EMGdi) or respiratory muscle effort (Pes swings) during exercise. UME/VIL compared with UME was associated with reduced breathing unpleasantness reflecting improved airway and respiratory muscle function during exercise.

When is dual bronchodilation indicated in COPD?

Inhaled bronchodilator medications are central to the management of COPD and are frequently given on a regular basis to prevent or reduce symptoms. While short-acting bronchodilators are a treatment option for people with relatively few COPD symptoms and at low risk of exacerbations, for the majority of patients with significant breathlessness at the time of diagnosis, long-acting bronchodilators may be required. Dual bronchodilation with a long-acting β2-agonist and long-acting muscarinic antagonist may be more effective treatment for some of these patients, with the aim of improving symptoms. This combination may also reduce the rate of exacerbations compared with a bronchodilator-inhaled corticosteroid combination in those with a history of exacerbations. However, there is currently a lack of guidance on clinical indicators suggesting which patients should step up from mono- to dual bronchodilation. In this article, we discuss a number of clinical indicators that could prompt a patient and physician to consider treatment escalation, while being mindful of the need to avoid unnecessary polypharmacy. These indicators include insufficient symptomatic response, a sustained increased requirement for rescue medication, suboptimal 24-hour symptom control, deteriorating symptoms, the occurrence of exacerbations, COPD-related hospitalization, and reductions in lung function. Future research is required to provide a better understanding of the optimal timing and benefits of treatment escalation and to identify the appropriate tools to inform this decision.

Bronchodilator efficacy of extrafine glycopyrronium bromide: the Glyco 2 study

An extrafine formulation of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium bromide (GB) is in development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), in combination with beclometasone dipropionate and formoterol fumarate - a "fixed triple". This two-part study was randomized, double blind, placebo controlled in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: Part 1: single-dose escalation, GB 12.5, 25, 50, 100 or 200 μg versus placebo; Part 2: repeat-dose (7-day), four-period crossover, GB 12.5, 25 or 50 μg twice daily (BID) versus placebo, with an open-label extension in which all patients received tiotropium 18 μg once daily. On the morning of Day 8 in all five periods, patients also received formoterol 12 μg. In study Part 1, 27 patients were recruited. All GB doses significantly increased from baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) area under the curve (AUC0-12h) and peak FEV1, with a trend toward greater efficacy with higher GB dose. All adverse events were mild-moderate in severity, with a lower incidence with GB than placebo and no evidence of a dose-response relationship. In study Part 2, of 38 patients recruited, 34 completed the study. Adjusted mean differences from placebo in 12 h trough FEV1 on Day 7 (primary) were 115, 142 and 136 mL for GB 12.5, 25 and 50 μg BID, respectively (all P<0.001). GB 25 and 50 μg BID were superior (P<0.05) to GB 12.5 μg BID for pre-dose morning FEV1 on Day 8. For this endpoint, GB 25 and 50 μg BID were also superior to tiotropium. Compared with Day 7, addition of formoterol significantly increased Day 8 FEV1 peak and AUC0-12h with all GB doses and placebo (all P<0.001). All adverse events were mild-moderate in severity and there was no indication of a dose-related relationship. This study provides initial evidence on bronchodilation, safety and pharmacokinetics of extrafine GB BID. Overall, the results suggest that GB 25 μg BID is the optimal dose in patients with COPD.

Umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have poor quality of life, reduced survival, and accelerated decline in lung function, especially associated with acute exacerbations, leading to high healthcare costs. Long-acting bronchodilators are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic improvement, and umeclidinium is one of the new long-acting muscarinic antagonists approved for treatment of patients with stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, and the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Clinical Study Register, using prespecified terms, as well as the reference lists of all identified studies. Searches are current to April 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing umeclidinium bromide versus placebo in people with COPD, for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. If we noted significant heterogeneity in the meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies by umeclidinium dose.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies of 12 to 52 weeks' duration, involving 3798 participants with COPD. Mean age of participants ranged from 60.1 to 64.6 years; most were males with baseline mean smoking pack-years of 39.2 to 52.3. They had moderate to severe COPD and baseline mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) ranging from 44.5% to 55.1% of predicted normal. As all studies were systematically conducted according to prespecified protocols, we assessed risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases as low.Compared with those given placebo, participants in the umeclidinium group had a lesser likelihood of developing moderate exacerbations requiring a short course of steroids, antibiotics, or both (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.80; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: high), but not specifically requiring hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.92; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: low). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent an acute exacerbation requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both was 18 (95% CI 13 to 37). Quality of life was better in the umeclidinium group (mean difference (MD) -4.79, 95% CI -8.84 to -0.75; three studies, N = 1119), and these participants had a significantly higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least four units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score compared with those in the placebo group (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.82; three studies, N = 1397; GRADE: moderate). The NNTB to achieve one person with a clinically meaningful improvement was 11 (95% CI 7 to 29). The likelihood of all-cause mortality, non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: moderate), and adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: moderate) did not differ between umeclidinium and placebo groups. The umeclidinium group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in change from baseline in trough FEV₁ compared with the placebo group (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.17; four studies, N = 1381; GRADE: high). Symptomatic improvement was more likely in the umeclidinium group than in the placebo group, as determined by Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.09; three studies, N = 1193), and the chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least one unit improvement was significantly higher with umeclidinium than with placebo (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; three studies, N = 1141; GRADE: high). The NNTB to attain one person with clinically important symptomatic improvement was 8 (95% CI 5 to 14). The likelihood of rescue medication usage (change from baseline in the number of puffs per day) was significantly less for the umeclidinium group than for the placebo group (MD -0.45, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14; four studies, N = 1531).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Umeclidinium reduced acute exacerbations requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both, although no evidence suggests that it decreased the risk of hospital admission due to exacerbations. Moreover, umeclidinium demonstrated significant improvement in quality of life, lung function, and symptoms, along with lesser use of rescue medications. Studies reported no differences in adverse events, non-fatal serious adverse events, or mortality between umeclidinium and placebo groups; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

Why choose tiotropium for my patient? A comprehensive review of actions and outcomes versus other bronchodilators

PURPOSE

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma are leading causes of morbidity and mortality. This narrative review provides an appraisal of the pharmacological and clinical characteristics of tiotropium in COPD and asthma, and examines how these compare with other long-acting bronchodilators. The evidence base is placed into context by relating it to factors affecting clinicians' choice of therapy.

MAIN FINDINGS

Desirable attributes of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) maintenance therapy include effective pharmacological bronchodilation, improved lung function, exacerbation efficacy, and positive effects on symptom control, exercise capacity and quality of life across a broad patient population. Tolerability and convenience of use are also important for patient well-being and treatment adherence. Tiotropium shows higher affinity for muscarinic receptors than ipratropium, and prolonged binding to the M₃ receptor compared with other LAMAs. In COPD, tiotropium has demonstrated improved lung function and exacerbation prevention compared with placebo or long-acting β₂-agonists, similar exacerbation efficacy to other LAMAs, and enhanced symptom control and health status versus placebo. UniTinA-asthma^® showed the benefits of add-on tiotropium in patients with uncontrolled mild to moderate and severe asthma. Tiotropium is well tolerated, with an incidence of adverse events similar to placebo, except for known infrequent side effects of anticholinergics. Tiotropium HandiHaler^® and Respimat^® augment inhaler choice in COPD.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS

With over 10 years' prescribing history and 50 million patient-years of use, tiotropium has the benefit of a more extensive clinical evidence base than other long-acting bronchodilators, with demonstrated efficacy and safety in COPD and symptomatic asthma.

Bringing Stability to the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patient: Clinical and Pharmacological Considerations for Frequent Exacerbators

Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are critical events associated with an accelerated loss of lung function, increased morbidity, and excess mortality. AECOPD are heterogeneous in nature and this may directly impact clinical decision making, specifically in patients with frequent exacerbations. A 'frequent exacerbator' is a sub-phenotype of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and is defined as an individual who experiences two or more moderate-to-severe exacerbations per year. This distinct subgroup has higher mortality and accounts for more than half of COPD-related hospitalizations annually. Thus, it is imperative to identify individuals at risk for frequent exacerbations and choose optimal strategies to minimize risk for these events. New paradigms for using combination inhalers and the introduction of novel oral compounds provide expanded treatment options to reduce the risk and frequency of exacerbations. The goals of managing frequent exacerbators or patients at risk for AECOPD are: (1) maximizing bronchodilation; (2) reducing inflammation; and (3) targeting specific molecular pathways implicated in COPD and AECOPD pathogenesis. Novel inhaler therapies including combination long-acting muscarinic agents plus long-acting beta agonists show promising results compared with monotherapy or a long-acting beta agonist inhaled corticosteroid combination in reducing exacerbation risk among individuals at risk for exacerbations and among frequent exacerbators. Likewise, oral medications including macrolides and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors reduce the risk for AECOPD in select groups of individuals at high risk for exacerbation. Future direction in COPD management is based on the identification of various subtypes or 'endotypes' and targeting therapies based on their pathophysiology. This review describes the impact of AECOPD and the challenges posed by frequent exacerbators, and explores the rationale for different pharmacologic approaches to preventing AECOPD in these individuals.

Effects of combined tiotropium/olodaterol on inspiratory capacity and exercise endurance in COPD

Two replicate, double-blind, 6-week, incomplete-crossover studies (MORACTO 1 and 2) assessed the effects of tiotropium/olodaterol on inspiratory capacity and exercise endurance time in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.For each patient, four of five treatments were administered once daily for 6 weeks, with a 21-day washout between treatments: tiotropium/olodaterol 2.5/5 µg or 5/5 µg, tiotropium 5 µg, olodaterol 5 µg or placebo, all via the Respimat inhaler. Primary outcomes were inspiratory capacity prior to exercise and exercise endurance time during constant work-rate cycle ergometry to symptom limitation at 75% of peak incremental work rate after 6 weeks (2 h post-dose).295 and 291 patients were treated in MORACTO 1 and 2, respectively. Tiotropium/olodaterol 2.5/5 and 5/5 µg provided significant improvements in inspiratory capacity versus placebo and monotherapies (p<0.0001), and significant improvements in exercise endurance time versus placebo (p<0.0001). Intensity of breathing discomfort was reduced following both doses of tiotropium/olodaterol versus placebo (p<0.0001).Once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol yielded improvements in lung hyperinflation versus placebo and statistically significant improvements versus monotherapies. Tiotropium/olodaterol also showed improvements in dyspnoea and exercise tolerance versus placebo but not consistently versus monotherapies.

Comparative efficacy of long-acting β2-agonists as monotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) have demonstrated efficacy in patients with COPD in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to assess the comparative efficacy of all available dosages of all LABA monotherapies using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified 33 randomized controlled trials of LABA monotherapies (salmeterol 50 μg twice daily [BID]; formoterol 12 μg BID; indacaterol 75, 150, and 300 μg once daily [OD]; olodaterol 5 and 10 μg OD, and vilanterol 25 μg OD). Clinical efficacy was evaluated at 12 and 24 weeks in terms of trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), transition dyspnea index focal score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and rate of COPD exacerbations. The relative effectiveness of all LABA monotherapies was estimated by Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

At 12 and 24 weeks, indacaterol 300 and 150 μg OD were associated with statistically significant improvement in trough FEV₁ compared to all other LABA monotherapies; vilanterol 25 μg OD was superior to formoterol 12 μg BID. At 12 weeks, indacaterol 75 μg OD was associated with significant improvement in trough FEV₁ compared to formoterol 12 μg BID and olodaterol (5 and 10 μg OD); salmeterol 50 μg BID was superior to formoterol 12 μg BID and olodaterol 5 μg OD. Indacaterol 300 μg OD was also associated with significant improvement in transition dyspnea index focal score compared to all other LABAs at 12 or 24 weeks. Indacaterol 150 μg OD had significantly better results in exacerbation rates than olodaterol 5 μg and olodaterol 10 μg OD.

CONCLUSION

Indacaterol 300 μg, followed by 150 and 75 μg, were the most effective LABA monotherapies for moderate to severe COPD.

LABA/LAMA combination in COPD: a meta-analysis on the duration of treatment

When there are no randomised clinical trials directly comparing all relevant treatment options, an indirect treatment comparison via meta-analysis of the available clinical evidence is an acceptable alternative. However, meta-analyses may be very misleading if not adequately performed. Here, we propose and validate a simple and effective approach to meta-analysis for exploring the effectiveness of long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

14 articles with 20 329 patients (combinations n=9292; monocomponents n=11 037) were included in this study. LABA/LAMA combinations were always more effective than the monocomponents in terms of the improvement in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, transition dyspnoea index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores after 3, 6 and 12 months of treatment. No significant publication bias was identified. Significant discrepancies with previous network meta-analyses have been found, with overall differences ranging from 26.7% to 43.3%.

Results from previous network meta-analyses were misleading because no adequate attention was given to formulating the review question, specifying eligibility criteria, correctly identifying studies, collecting appropriate information and deciding what it would be pharmacologically relevant to analyse. The real gradient of effectiveness of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations remains an unmet medical need; however, it can be investigated indirectly using a high-quality meta-analytic approach.

Dual bronchodilation in COPD: lung function and patient-reported outcomes - a review

Several fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of long-acting bronchodilators (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA] plus a long-acting β2-agonist [LABA]) are available for the treatment of COPD. Studies of these FDCs have demonstrated substantial improvements in lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) in comparison with their respective constituent monocomponents. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms and health status, as well as exacerbation rates, have been reported compared with a LABA or LAMA alone, but results are less consistent. The inconsistencies may in part be owing to differences in study design, methods used to assess study end points, and patient populations. Nevertheless, these observations tend to support an association between improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and improvements in symptom-based outcomes. In order to assess the effects of FDCs on PROs and evaluate relationships between PROs and changes in lung function, we performed a systematic literature search of publications reporting randomized controlled trials of FDCs. Results of this literature search were independently assessed by two reviewers, with a third reviewer resolving any conflicting results. In total, 22 Phase III randomized controlled trials of FDC bronchodilators in COPD were identified, with an additional study including a post-literature search (ten for indacaterol-glycopyrronium once daily, eight for umeclidinium-vilanterol once daily, three for tiotropium-olodaterol once daily, and two for aclidinium-formoterol twice daily). Results from these studies demonstrated that the LAMA-LABA FDCs significantly improved lung function compared with their component monotherapies or other single-agent treatments. Furthermore, LABA-LAMA combinations also generally improved symptoms and health status versus monotherapies, although some discrepancies between lung function and PROs were observed. Overall, the safety profiles of the FDCs were similar to placebo. Further research is required to examine more closely any relationship between lung function and PROs in patients receiving LABA-LAMA combinations.

Inhaled Umeclidinium in COPD Patients: A Review and Meta-Analysis

A number of new agents for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at different stages of development, including several inhaled long-acting antimuscarinics (LAMA). Long-acting bronchodilators are considered to be central to the management of COPD due to the evidence supporting their efficacy and safety. Umeclidinium, a LAMA, has recently been approved for the maintenance treatment of moderate to very severe COPD in a number of countries. This comprehensive review and pooled meta-analysis provides detailed information about the efficacy and safety of this agent. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of umeclidinium observed in phase I and II studies support its once-daily administration. Umeclidinium is rapidly cleared from blood, and renal or hepatic impairment do not lead to significant changes in drug disposition. A pooled analysis of phase III and comparative studies of umeclidinium in patients with moderate to very severe COPD showed significant improvement in lung function measures, including trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), as well as in acute exacerbations of COPD, dyspnea, and quality of life. Adverse effects, including known anticholinergic effects, were uncommon with umeclidinium. Limited data suggest the efficacy of umeclidinium is similar to that of tiotropium. Umeclidinium is administered as a dry powder inhaler, provides adequate lung delivery in patients with moderate to very severe airflow obstruction, and appears to be easily used by patients. Umeclidinium provides a safe and effective option as an inhaled LAMA for the management of COPD.

Efficacy of tiotropium-olodaterol fixed-dose combination in COPD

Tiotropium-olodaterol, formulated in the Respimat soft-mist inhaler, is an inhaled fixed-dose combination (FDC) of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), commercialized under the name of Spiolto or Stiolto. The efficacy of tiotropium-olodaterol 5-5 μg once daily in adult patients with COPD was documented in eleven large, multicenter trials of up to 52 weeks duration. Tiotropium-olodaterol 5-5 μg not only improved spirometric values to a significantly greater extent than placebo but also resulted in statistically significant beneficial effects on dyspnea, markers of hyperinflation, use of rescue medication, health-related quality of life, and exercise endurance. Improvements exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), dyspnea, and quality of life. Differences between tiotropium-olodaterol 5-5 μg and the respective monocomponents were statistically significant for FEV1, dyspnea, markers of hyperinflation, use of rescue medication, and health-related quality of life, but did not reach the MCID. However, dual bronchodilatation significantly increased the number of patients who exceeded the MCID for dyspnea and quality of life. Moreover, tiotropium-olodaterol 5-5 μg was significantly more effective than salmeterol-fluticasone (FDC) twice daily at improving pulmonary function. Differences between tiotropium-olodaterol and other LAMA/LABA FDCs were not observed for FEV1 or other efficacy markers. Therefore, tiotropium-olodaterol is a valuable option in the treatment of COPD patients who remain symptomatic under monotherapy.

Randomized controlled trials and real-world observational studies in evaluating cardiovascular safety of inhaled bronchodilator therapy in COPD

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) bronchodilators and their combination are recommended for the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although the efficacy of LAMAs and LABAs has been well established through randomized controlled trials (RCTs), questions remain regarding their cardiovascular (CV) safety. Furthermore, while the safety of LAMA and LABA monotherapy has been extensively studied, data are lacking for LAMA/LABA combination therapy, and the majority of the studies that have reported on the CV safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy were not specifically designed to assess this. Evaluation of CV safety for COPD treatments is important because many patients with COPD have underlying CV comorbidities. However, severe CV and other comorbidities are often exclusion criteria for RCTs, contributing to a lack in external validity and generalizability. Real-world observational studies are another important tool to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COPD therapies in a broader population of patients and can improve upon the external validity limitations of RCTs. We examine what is already known regarding the CV and cerebrovascular safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy from RCTs and real-world observational studies, and explore the advantages and limitations of data derived from each study type. We also describe an ongoing prospective, observational, comparative post-authorization safety study of a LAMA/LABA combination therapy (umeclidinium/vilanterol) and LAMA monotherapy (umeclidinium) versus tiotropium, with a focus on the relative merits of the study design.

Correct usage, ease of use, and preference of two dry powder inhalers in patients with COPD: analysis of five phase III, randomized trials

Background

Handheld inhalers are used to deliver treatment for COPD. Incorrect usage leads to suboptimal disease control. Complex treatment regimens and use of multiple inhalers may reduce patient compliance. The Anoro Ellipta™ dry powder inhaler (DPI) simultaneously delivers umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and vilanterol (VI) without coformulation being required.

Aim

To assess the correct usage and ease of use of the Ellipta™ DPI administering UMEC/VI and to compare patient preference for Ellipta™ with the HandiHaler^® through exploratory analyses of patient and observer questionnaires in five Phase III studies.

Methods

Two Phase III, 3-month double-blind, placebo-controlled studies assessed the correct usage of the Ellipta™ DPI at Day 1 and after 6 weeks, and ease of use of the Ellipta™ DPI using a nonvalidated patient questionnaire after 6 weeks or early withdrawal. In three 6-month, blinded double-dummy, active comparator studies (two Phase IIIa and one Phase IIIb), patients completed a COPD device preference questionnaire between the Ellipta™ DPI and the Handi-Haler^® at Day 168 (Week 24) or early withdrawal.

Results

In the 3-month placebo-controlled studies, ≥98% of patients used the Ellipta™ DPI correctly and 99% of patients found the inhaler easy/very easy-to-use and the dose counter easy/very easy to read. Across the two Phase IIIa active comparator studies, patients consistently stated a preference for the Ellipta™ DPI over HandiHaler^® regarding the number of steps to use (59% vs 17%), time taken to use (62% vs 14%), and ease of use (63% vs 15%) regardless of which inhaler contained active drug. Results were consistent in the Phase IIIb active comparator study.

Conclusion

Delivery of UMEC/VI via the Ellipta™ DPI was considered easy-to-use, and patients with COPD demonstrated clear preference for this inhaler compared with HandiHaler^®.