A randomised, open-label study of umeclidinium versus glycopyrronium in patients with COPD

Joint longitudinal model-based meta-analysis of FEV1 and exacerbation rate in randomized COPD trials

Model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) is an approach that integrates relevant summary level data from heterogeneously designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study not only evaluated the predictability of a published MBMA for forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) and its link to annual exacerbation rate in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but also included data from new RCTs. A comparative effectiveness analysis across all drugs was also performed. Aggregated level data were collected from RCTs published between July 2013 and November 2020 (n = 132 references comprising 156 studies) and combined with data used in the legacy MBMA (published RCTs up to July 2013 - n = 142). The augmented data (n = 298) were used to evaluate the predictive performance of the published MBMA using goodness-of-fit plots for assessment. Furthermore, the model was extended including drugs that were not available before July 2013, estimating a new set of parameters. The legacy MBMA model predicted the post-2013 FEV₁ data well, and new estimated parameters were similar to those of drugs in the same class. However, the exacerbation model overpredicted the post-2013 mean annual exacerbation rate data. Inclusion of year when the study started on the pre-treatment placebo rate improved the model predictive performance perhaps explaining potential improvements in the disease management over time. The addition of new data to the legacy COPD MBMA enabled a more robust model with increased predictability performance for both endpoints FEV₁ and mean annual exacerbation rate.

Fixed-dose combination of umeclidinium and vilanterol for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common respiratory disease that is predicted to be one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Pharmacologic treatment options of COPD are bronchodilators, using either long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs), or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), or a combination of two. Anoro Ellipta (umeclidinium + vilanterol) dry powder inhaler, a fixed-dose combination of LAMA and LABA, was Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in 2013 for COPD. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once daily umeclidinium/vilanterol (62.5 mcg/25 mcg) in COPD patients, focusing on pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics, efficacy and safety in clinical studies and cost. Literature search was done through PubMed (2004-2017) using the terms umeclidinium, vilanterol, COPD, LABA and LAMA. Recent and significant clinical trials about the monocomponents and their combination were identified, in addition to reviews, guidelines for COPD, data from manufacturer and FDA product labels. The search was limited to English language studies on human subjects. Clinical data published on the combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD have shown greater improvements in lung function compared to monotherapies. However, further studies comparing umeclidinium/vilanterol FDC (ANORO) to other LABA/LAMA combinations are needed.

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.

Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators such as long-acting β-agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations have been used in people with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to control symptoms such as dyspnoea and cough, and prevent exacerbations. A number of LABA/LAMA combinations are now available for clinical use in COPD. However, it is not clear which group of above mentioned inhalers is most effective or if any specific formulation works better than the others within the same group or class.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of available formulations from four different groups of inhalers (i.e. LABA/LAMA combination, LABA/ICS combination, LAMA and LABA) in people with moderate to severe COPD. The review will update previous systematic reviews on dual combination inhalers and long-acting bronchodilators to answer the questions described above using the strength of a network meta-analysis (NMA).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register, which contains several databases. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' websites. The most recent searches were conducted on 6 April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people aged 35 years or older with a diagnosis of COPD and a baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of less than 80% of predicted. We included studies of at least 12 weeks' duration including at least two active comparators from one of the four inhaler groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted NMAs using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method. We considered a study as high risk if recruited participants had at least one COPD exacerbation within the 12 months before study entry and as low risk otherwise. Primary outcomes were COPD exacerbations (moderate to severe and severe), and secondary outcomes included symptom and quality-of-life scores, safety outcomes, and lung function. We collected data only for active comparators and did not consider placebo was not considered. We assumed a class/group effect when a fixed-class model fitted well. Otherwise we used a random-class model to assess intraclass/group differences. We supplemented the NMAs with pairwise meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 101,311 participants from 99 studies (26 studies with 32,265 participants in the high-risk population and 73 studies with 69,046 participants in the low-risk population) in our systematic review. The median duration of studies was 52 weeks in the high-risk population and 26 weeks in the low-risk population (range 12 to 156 for both populations). We considered the quality of included studies generally to be good.The NMAs suggested that the LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations followed by LAMA in the both populations.There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination, LAMA, and LABA in the high-risk population (network hazard ratios (HRs) 0.86 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.76 to 0.99), 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.99), and 0.70 (95% CrI 0.61 to 0.8) respectively), and that LAMA decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA in the high- and low-risk populations (network HR 0.80 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.88) and 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.97), respectively). There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination reduces severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination and LABA in the high-risk population (network HR 0.78 (95% CrI 0.64 to 0.93) and 0.64 (95% CrI 0.51 to 0.81), respectively).There was a general trend towards a greater improvement in symptom and quality-of-life scores with the combination therapies compared to monotherapies, and the combination therapies were generally ranked higher than monotherapies.The LABA/ICS combination was the lowest ranked in pneumonia serious adverse events (SAEs) in both populations. There is evidence that the LABA/ICS combination increases the odds of pneumonia compared to LAMA/LABA combination, LAMA and LABA (network ORs: 1.69 (95% CrI 1.20 to 2.44), 1.78 (95% CrI 1.33 to 2.39), and 1.50 (95% CrI 1.17 to 1.92) in the high-risk population and network or pairwise OR: 2.33 (95% CI 1.03 to 5.26), 2.02 (95% CrI 1.16 to 3.72), and 1.93 (95% CrI 1.29 to 3.22) in the low-risk population respectively). There were significant overlaps in the rank statistics in the other safety outcomes including mortality, total, COPD, and cardiac SAEs, and dropouts due to adverse events.None of the differences in lung function met a minimal clinically important difference criterion except for LABA/LAMA combination versus LABA in the high-risk population (network mean difference 0.13 L (95% CrI 0.10 to 0.15). The results of pairwise meta-analyses generally agreed with those of the NMAs. There is no evidence to suggest intraclass/group differences except for lung function at 12 months in the high-risk population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations although there was some uncertainty in the results. LAMA containing inhalers may have an advantage over those without a LAMA for preventing COPD exacerbations based on the rank statistics. Combination therapies appear more effective than monotherapies for improving symptom and quality-of-life scores. ICS-containing inhalers are associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.Our most comprehensive review including intraclass/group comparisons, free combination therapies, 99 studies, and 20 outcomes for each high- and low-risk population summarises the current literature and could help with updating existing COPD guidelines.

Comparative efficacy of inhaled medications (ICS/LABA, LAMA, LAMA/LABA and SAMA) for COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the comparative efficacy of short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMAs), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), LAMA in combination with long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs; LAMA/LABAs) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in combination with LABA (ICS/LABAs) for the maintenance treatment of COPD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed 74 randomized controlled trials (74,832 participants) published up to 15 November 2017, which compared any of the interventions (SAMA [ipratropium], LAMA [aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, umeclidinium], LAMA/LABA [aclidinium/formoterol, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, tiotropium/olodaterol, umeclidinium/vilanterol] and ICS/LABA [fluticasone/vilanterol, budesonide/formoterol, salmeterol/fluticasone]) with each other or with placebo. A random-effects network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence was conducted to examine the change from baseline in trough FEV1, transition dyspnea index, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and frequency of adverse events at weeks 12 and 24.

RESULTS

Inconsistency models were not statistically significant for all outcomes. LAMAs, LAMA/LABAs and ICS/LABAs led to a significantly greater improvement in trough FEV1 compared with placebo and SAMA monotherapy at weeks 12 and 24. All LAMA/LABAs, except aclidinium/formoterol, were statistically significantly better than LAMA monotherapy and ICS/LABAs in improving trough FEV1. Among the LAMAs, umeclidinium showed statistically significant improvement in trough FEV1 at week 12 compared to tiotropium and glycopyrronium, but the results were not clinically significant. LAMA/LABAs had the highest probabilities of being ranked the best agents in FEV1 improvement. Similar trends were observed for the transition dyspnea index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire outcomes. There were no significant differences in the incidences of adverse events among all treatment options.

CONCLUSION

LAMA/LABA showed the greatest improvement in trough FEV1 at weeks 12 and 24 compared with the other inhaled drug classes, while SAMA showed the least improvement. There were no significant differences among the LAMAs and LAMA/LABAs within their respective classes.

Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium compared with tiotropium and glycopyrronium as monotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a UK perspective

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness of once-daily umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) was compared with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) and once-daily glycopyrronium (GLY) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

A linked-equation model was implemented to estimate COPD progression, associated healthcare costs, exacerbations rates, life years (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALYs). Statistical risk equations for endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively. Treatment effects [mean (standard error)] at 12 weeks on forced expiratory volume in 1 s and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score were obtained from the intention-to-treat populations of two head-to-head studies [GSK study identifiers 201316 (NCT02207829) and 201315 (NCT02236611)] which compared UMEC 62.5 mcg with TIO 18 mcg and UMEC 62.5 mcg with GLY 50 mcg, respectively. Treatment costs reflect UK list prices (2016) and NHS unit costs; UMEC and GLY prices being equal and less than TIO. A lifetime horizon, discounted costs and effects at 3.5% were used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of variations in input parameters and assumptions in the model.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, UMEC was predicted to increase LYs (+ 0.195; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.069, 0.356) and QALYs (+ 0.118; 95% CI: 0.055, 0.191) and reduce the number of annual exacerbations (- 0.053; 95% CI: - 0.171, 0.028) compared with TIO, with incremental cost savings of £460/patient (95% CI: - £645, - £240). Compared with GLY, UMEC increased LYs (+ 0.124; 95% CI: 0.015, 0.281) and QALYs (+ 0.101; 95% CI: 0.043, 0.179) and reduced annual exacerbation (- 0.033; 95% CI: - 0.135, 0.017) at an additional cost of £132/patient (95% CI: £12, £330), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1310/QALY (95% CI: £284, £2060). Similar results were observed in alternative time horizons and additional sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

For treatment of patients with COPD in the UK over a lifetime horizon, treatment with UMEC dominates treatment with TIO, providing both improved health outcomes and cost savings. In comparison with GLY, treatment with UMEC achieved improved health outcomes but was associated with a higher cost.Trial registration 201316, NCT02207829; 201315, NCT02236611.

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.

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.

Umeclidinium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: latest evidence and place in therapy

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity, mortality and health care expenditure throughout the world. COPD guidelines recommend the use of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) either alone or in combination with a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA). For over 10 years, tiotropium was the only LAMA that was used in the management of COPD. Over the past few years, various new drugs have been identified that act on the muscarinic receptors and β2 receptors. Umeclidinium (Umec) is a new LAMA currently approved for use in patients with COPD either as monotherapy or in combination with vilanterol (Vil). Both Umec alone and in combination with Vil delivered through a multi-dose dry powder Ellipta™ device have shown improvement in lung function, health-related quality of life and exacerbation frequency in patients with COPD. This review provides an overview of the pharmacology, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of Umec, and evaluates the clinical efficacy and safety studies in patients with COPD.