Comparative efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators for COPD: a network meta-analysis

Multidimensional outcome assessment of pulmonary rehabilitation in traits-based clusters of COPD patients

Background

Clusters of COPD patients have been reported in order to individualize the treatment program. Neither co-morbidity clusters, nor integrated respiratory physiomics clusters contributed to a better prediction of outcomes. Based on a thoroughly assessed set of pulmonary and extra-pulmonary traits at the start of a pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) program, we recently described seven clusters of COPD patients. The aims of this study are to confirm multidimensional differential response and to assess the potential of pulmonary and extra-pulmonary traits-based clusters to predict this multidimensional response to PR pulmonary in COPD patients.

Methods

Outcomes of a 40-session PR program for COPD patients, referred by a chest physician, were evaluated based on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), cycle endurance time, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure performance and satisfaction scores, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety and depression scores, MRC dyspnea grade and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire. The aforementioned response indicators were used to calculate the overall multidimensional response and patients were grouped in very good, good, moderate and poor responders. In the same way, responses to pulmonary rehabilitation were compared based on seven previously identified pulmonary and extra-pulmonary traits-based clusters.

Results

Of the whole sample, drop out was 19% and 419 patients (55.4% males, age: 64.3 ± 8.8, FEV₁% of predicted: 48.9 ± 20) completed the pulmonary rehabilitation program. Very good responders had significantly worse baseline characteristics with a higher burden of disease, a higher proportion of rollator-users, higher body mass index (BMI), more limitations of activities in daily life, emotional dysfunction, higher symptoms of dyspnea and worse quality of life. Of the seven pre-identified clusters, ‘the overall best functioning cluster’ and ‘the low disease burden cluster’ both including the best 6MWD, the lowest dyspnea score and the overall best health status, demonstrated attenuated outcomes, while in ‘the cluster of disabled patients’, 76% of the patients improved health status with at least 2 times MCID. This ‘cluster of disabled patients’ as well as ‘the multimorbid cluster’, ‘the emotionally dysfunctioning cluster’, ‘the overall worst-functioning cluster’ and ‘the physically dysfunctioning cluster’ all demonstrated improvements in performance and satisfaction for occupational activities (more than 65% of patients improved with > 1MCID), emotional functioning (more than 50% of patients improved with > 1 MCID) and overall health status (more than 58%).

Conclusion

The current study confirms the differential response to pulmonary rehabilitation based on multidimensional response profiling. Cluster analysis of baseline traits illustrates that non-linear, clinically important differences can be achieved in the most functionally and emotionally impaired clusters and that ‘the overall best functional cluster’ as well as ‘the low disease burden cluster’ had an attenuated outcome.

The effect of long-acting dual bronchodilator therapy on exercise tolerance, dynamic hyperinflation, and dead space during constant work rate exercise in COPD

We investigated whether dual bronchodilator therapy (glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate; GFF; Bevespi Aerosphere) would increase exercise tolerance during a high-intensity constant work rate exercise test (CWRET) and the relative contributions of dead space ventilation (V_D/V_T) and dynamic hyperinflation (change in inspiratory capacity) to exercise limitation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In all, 48 patients with COPD (62.9 ± 7.6 yrs; 33 male; GOLD spirometry stage 1/2/3/4, n = 2/35/11/0) performed a randomized, double blind, placebo (PL) controlled, two-period crossover, single-center trial. Gas exchange and inspiratory capacity (IC) were assessed during cycle ergometry at 80% incremental exercise peak work rate. Transcutaneous [Formula: see text] (Tc[Formula: see text]) measurement was used for V_D/V_T estimation. Baseline postalbuterol forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) was 1.86 ± 0.58 L (63.6% ± 13.9 predicted). GFF increased FEV₁ by 0.18 ± 0.21 L relative to placebo (PL; P < 0.001). CWRET endurance time was greater after GFF vs. PL (383 ± 184 s vs. 328 ± 115 s; difference 55 ± 125 s; P = 0.013; confidence interval: 20-90 s), a 17% increase. IC on GFF was above placebo IC at all time points and fell less with GFF vs. PL (P ≤ 0.0001). Isotime tidal volume (1.54 ± 0.50 vs. 1.47 ± 0.45 L; P = 0.022) and ventilation (52.9 ± 19.9 vs. 51.0 ± 18.9 L/min; P = 0.011) were greater, and respiratory rate was unchanged (34.9 ± 9.2 vs. 35.1 ± 8.0 br/min, P = 0.865). Isotime V_D/V_T did not differ between groups (GFF 0.28 ± 0.08 vs. PL 0.27 ± 0.09; P = 0.926). GFF increased exercise tolerance in patients with COPD, and the increase was accompanied by attenuated dynamic hyperinflation without altering V_D/V_T.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study was a randomized clinical trial (NCT03081156) that collected detailed physiology data to investigate the effect of dual bronchodilator therapy on exercise tolerance in COPD, and additionally to determine the relative contributions of changes in dead space ventilation (V_D/V_T) and dynamic hyperinflation to alterations in exercise limitation. We utilized a unique noninvasive method to assess V_D/V_T (transcutaneous carbon dioxide, Tc[Formula: see text]) and found that dual bronchodilators yielded a moderate improvement in exercise tolerance. Importantly, attenuation of dynamic hyperinflation rather than change in dead space ventilation was the most important contributor to exercise tolerance improvement.

Insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed-ratio combination (iGlarLixi) compared with premix or addition of meal-time insulin to basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide, relative to premix insulin and other insulin options through network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing iGlarLixi, premix insulin or basal insulin (BI) in combination with meal-time insulin, in people inadequately controlled with BI. Eligible RCTs were compared using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, some open-label, involving 3538 participants, with a study duration of 24-30 weeks were included. The estimated difference in HbA1c reduction with iGlarLixi compared with premix insulin was -0.50%-units (95% credible interval: -0.93 to -0.06) with 98% probability of iGlarLixi being superior to premix. Estimates for iGlarLixi versus meal-time + BI (thrice-daily meal-time insulin + basal) and basal-plus (once-daily meal-time insulin + BI) were -0.35 (-0.89 to +0.13)%-units and -0.68 (-1.18 to -0.17)%-units with probabilities of real difference of 94% and 99%, respectively. Safety outcome analysis suggested that iGlarLixi had lower rates of both confirmed and documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia compared with premix insulin (probabilities of 85% and 93%, respectively) and lower weight gain (probability 98%).

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi showed similar or improved efficacy and safety versus other intensification choices from BI included in this study, providing a clinically relevant treatment option in people with type 2 diabetes not well controlled on BI.

Comparative effectiveness of six Chinese herb formulas for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Six Chinese herb formulas, namely, the Weijing decoction (WJ), the Maxingshigan decoction (MXSG), the Yuebijiabanxia decoction (YBBX), the Qingqihuatan decoction (QQHT), the Dingchuan decoction (DC) and the Sangbaipi decoction (SBP), are commonly used, along with routine pharmacotherapy, to manage the acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). In this study, we conducted a systematic review to summarize the efficacy of these six formulas, and we also conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to rank these formulas.

Methods

We searched five English databases and four Chinese databases, with dates ranging from the starting dates of these databases to December 2016. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated any of the six Chinese herb formulas combined with the use of pharmacotherapy for AECOPD were identified.

Results

Fifty-five studies involving 4560 participants were included. The pairwise meta-analyses showed that WJ and QQHT had superior effects on the improvement of lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 seconds; FEV1) (mean difference (MD): 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19–0.30 and 0.34, 95%CI: 0.10–0.58). MXSG, WJ and QQHT were found to be more effective for improving arterial blood gases (PaO2 and PaCO2). In terms of effective rates, all of these formulas had additional favourable effects compared to routine pharmacotherapy. The results of the NMA analyses indicated that only MXSG showed superior add-on effects for the improvement of FEV1 (MD: 0.37, 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.03–0.72). Most of the formulas combined with routine pharmacotherapy were superior to pharmacotherapy alone for the improvement of arterial blood gases and effective rates. The ranking tests suggested that QQHT and MXSG combined with routine pharmacotherapy might be optimal options for the treatment of AECOPD.

Conclusions

This NMA indicated that QQHT and MXSG might be more effective treatment regimens for AECOPD. Further well-designed studies that specifically examine the direct comparisons of these formulas are needed to support our conclusions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12906-019-2633-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Decline of COPD exacerbations in clinical trials over two decades - a systematic review and meta-regression

Background

An important goal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment is to reduce the frequency of exacerbations. Some observations suggest a decline in exacerbation rates in clinical trials over time. A more systematic understanding would help to improve the design and interpretation of COPD trials.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-regression of the placebo groups in published randomized controlled trials reporting exacerbations as an outcome. A Bayesian negative binomial model was developed to accommodate results that are reported in different formats; results are reported with credible intervals (CI) and posterior tail probabilities (p_B).

Results

Of 1114 studies identified by our search, 55 were ultimately included. Exacerbation rates decreased by 6.7% (95% CI (4.4, 9.0); p_B <  0.001) per year, or 50% (95% CI (36, 61)) per decade. Adjusting for available study and baseline characteristics such as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) did not alter the observed trend considerably. Two subsets of studies, one using a true placebo group and the other allowing inhaled corticosteroids in the “placebo” group, also yielded consistent results.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this meta-regression indicates that the rate of COPD exacerbations decreased over the past two decades to a clinically relevant extent independent of important prognostic factors. This suggests that care is needed in the design of new trials or when comparing results from older trials with more recent ones. Also a considerable effect of adjunct therapy on COPD exacerbations can be assumed.

Registration

PROSPERO 2018 CRD4218118823.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-019-1163-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Healthcare costs of the SATisfaction and adherence to COPD treatment (SAT) study follow-up

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterised by recurring exacerbations. We estimated the costs of healthcare resources for COPD management funded by the Italian National Healthcare Service (INHS) for one year.

METHODS

We examined the demographic, clinical, and economic variables at enrolment and follow-up visits (at 6 and 12 months) of COPD patients participating in the SAT study and referred to 20 Italian pulmonary centres with different institutional characteristics. Costs were expressed in Euro (€) 2018. A random effects log-linear panel regression model was performed to predict the average cost per patient.

RESULTS

Most of the centres were public institutions (90%; public university hospital: 30%). The total average cost of COPD was €2647.38/patient and ICS/LABA/LAMA therapy contributed the most (€1541.45). The average cost was €6206.19/patient for severe COPD (+139.67% vs the cost/patient with mild or moderate COPD). The regression model showed that, others things being equal, increases in the predicted average logged cost per patient were due to liquid oxygen therapy (+468.31%), three COPD exacerbations during the follow-up (+254.54%), and ICS/LABA or ICS/LABA/LAMA associated therapy (+59.26%). Moreover, a 1.19% increment was observed for each additional score of the CAT questionnaire. Conversely, a 36.52% reduction in the predicted average logged cost was reported for hospitals managed by local healthcare authorities.

CONCLUSIONS

The health econometric approach is innovative in the management of COPD patients in Italy. The results of the random effects log-linear panel data regression model may help clinicians estimate INHS costs when managing COPD patients. Clinicaltrials.gov ID# NCT02689492.

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.

Dual bronchodilation vs triple therapy in the "real-life" COPD DACCORD study

Background

No observational studies have evaluated the "real-world" effectiveness of dual bronchodilation comprising a long-acting β₂-agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist vs that of triple therapy (long-acting β₂-agonist plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist plus inhaled corticosteroid) in COPD.

Materials and methods

DACCORD is a non-interventional, observational clinical study that recruited patients following COPD maintenance therapy initiation or change in maintenance therapy between or within therapeutic class. Given the non-interventional nature of the study, the decision to initiate or change medication had to be made by the patients' physicians prior to inclusion in DACCORD. We used a matched-pairs analysis to compare disease progression in two patient groups: those receiving dual bronchodilation vs those receiving triple therapy (each group n=1,046).

Results

In two subgroups of patients matched according to a broad range of demographic and disease characteristics, over 1 year, fewer patients receiving dual bronchodilation exacerbated than those receiving triple therapy (15.5% vs 26.6%; P<0.001), with a greater improvement from baseline in COPD Assessment Test total score at 1 year (mean±SD -2.9±5.8 vs -1.4±5.5;P<0.001). When analyzed according to prior therapy, the highest rate of exacerbations was in patients on triple therapy prior to the study who remained on triple therapy. Those changing from mono-bronchodilator to dual bronchodilation had the greatest COPD Assessment Test total score improvement.

Conclusion

In this "real-life" cohort of patients with COPD, most of whom had not exacerbated in the 6 months prior to entry, triple therapy did not seem to improve outcomes compared with dual bronchodilation in terms of either exacerbations or health status. Our analyses clearly demonstrate the potential impact of prior medication on study results, something that should be taken into account when interpreting the results even of controlled clinical trials.

Antimicrobials for the treatment of drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii pneumonia in critically ill patients: a systemic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

An optimal therapy for the treatment of pneumonia caused by drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii remains unclear. This study aims to compare various antimicrobial strategies and to determine the most effective therapy for pneumonia using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Systematic search and quality assessment were performed to select eligible studies reporting one of the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, clinical cure, and microbiological eradication. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. A network meta-analysis was conducted with a Bayesian approach. Antimicrobial treatments were ranked based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value along with estimated median outcome rate and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Two treatments were considered significantly different if a posterior probability of superiority (P) was greater than 97.5%.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies evaluating 15 antimicrobial treatments were included. Intravenous colistin monotherapy (IV COL) was selected as a common comparator, serving as a bridge for developing the network. Five treatments ranked higher than IV COL (SUCRA, 57.1%; median all-cause mortality 0.45, 95% CrI 0.41-0.48) for reducing all-cause mortality: sulbactam monotherapy (SUL, 100.0%; 0.18, 0.04-0.42), high-dose SUL (HD SUL, 85.7%; 0.31, 0.07-0.71), fosfomycin plus IV COL (FOS + IV COL, 78.6%; 0.34, 0.19-0.54), inhaled COL plus IV COL (IH COL + IV COL, 71.4%; 0.39, 0.32-0.46), and high-dose tigecycline (HD TIG, 71.4%; 0.39, 0.16-0.67). Those five treatments also ranked higher than IV COL (SUCRA, 45.5%) for improving clinical cure (72.7%, 72.7%, 63.6%, 81.8%, and 90.9%, respectively). Among the five treatments, SUL (P = 98.1%) and IH COL + IV COL (P = 99.9%) were significantly superior to IV COL for patient survival and clinical cure, respectively. In terms of microbiological eradication, FOS + IV COL (P = 99.8%) and SUL (P = 98.9%) were significantly superior to IV COL.

CONCLUSIONS

This Bayesian network meta-analysis demonstrated the comparative effectiveness of fifteen antimicrobial treatments for drug-resistant A. baumannii pneumonia in critically ill patients. For survival benefit, SUL appears to be the best treatment followed by HD SUL, FOS + IV COL, IH COL + IV COL, HD TIG, and IV COL therapy, in numerical order.

Correlations between FEV1 and patient-reported outcomes: A pooled analysis of 23 clinical trials in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

In clinical trials of inhaled bronchodilators, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines recommend that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are assessed alongside lung function. How these endpoints are related is unclear.

METHODS

Pooled longitudinal data from 23 randomised controlled COPD studies were analyzed (N = 23,213). Treatments included long-acting β₂ agonists, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LABAs or LAMAs) and the LABA/LAMA combination QVA149. Outcome measures were Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores, COPD exacerbation frequency and rescue medication use. Relationships between changes in trough forced expiratory volume in one second (ΔFEV₁) and outcomes following treatment were assessed using correlations of data summaries and model-based analysis: generalized linear mixed-effect regression modelling to determine if ΔFEV₁ could predict patient outcomes with different treatments.

RESULTS

Mean age was 64 years, 73% were male, and most had moderate (45%) or severe (52%) disease. Statistically significant correlations were observed between ΔFEV₁ and each outcome measure (exacerbations Rs = 0.05; rescue medication, SGRQ, TDI, r = 0.11-0.16; all p < .001). Patients with greater improvements in trough FEV₁ had on average better SGRQ and TDI scores, fewer exacerbations, and used less rescue medication. For SGRQ and TDI scores, minimal clinically important differences were observed over the range of pooled ΔFEV₁ values. Model-based predictions confirmed the treatment effect was partly explained by changes in FEV₁ from baseline with improvements in PROs observed across all treatments when trough FEV₁ improved. Across all endpoints active treatments were better than placebo (p < .0001), and LABA/LAMA treatment resulted in numerically better treatment outcomes than either monocomponent.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that FEV₁ improvements post-bronchodilation correlate with PRO improvements. Further improvements in patient outcomes may be expected by maximizing lung function improvements.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration details for the 23 randomised controlled studies used in this pooled analysis are supplied in Additional File 4.

A Network Meta-Analysis of Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist (LAMA) and Long-Acting β2-Agonist (LABA) Combinations in COPD

INTRODUCTION

Comparative data on the efficacies of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combinations for the treatment of moderate-to-very-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. The aim of this Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) is to assess the relative efficacies of available open combinations (delivered via separate inhalers) and fixed-dose combinations (FDCs, delivered via a single inhaler).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ≥8-week duration in adults aged ≥40 years with COPD that compared LAMA + LABA combinations with each other, with tiotropium (TIO), or with placebo. Data on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score, and rescue medication use at 12 and 24 weeks were extracted from these RCTs and analyzed using a NMA in a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

Data from 44 RCTs were included in the NMA. All FDCs showed improvements relative to placebo in terms of trough FEV1, SGRQ total score, and TDI focal score above clinically relevant thresholds, with the exception of TIO/olodaterol and aclidinium/formoterol, both of which failed to show clinically relevant improvements in SGRQ score at 24 weeks. All FDCs demonstrated reduced rescue medication use versus placebo. Open combinations demonstrated improved efficacy in all outcomes versus placebo, but these improvements did not consistently exceed clinically relevant thresholds for SGRQ and TDI scores. All once-daily FDCs showed improved efficacy versus TIO, but improvements were less consistently observed versus TIO with open dual combinations and combinations containing formoterol or salmeterol administered twice daily. Relative probabilities of improvement between FDCs highlighted potential between-class differences for trough FEV1 but suggested little potential for differences in patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSION

LAMA + LABA combinations generally showed improved outcomes versus placebo and TIO. FDCs appeared to perform better than open dual combinations. A potential effectiveness gradient was observed between FDCs for objectively assessed functional outcomes, although further prospective trials are required to confirm these findings.

FUNDING

GSK.

Muscarinic Receptor Antagonists

Parasympathetic activity is increased in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma and appears to be the major reversible component of airway obstruction. Therefore, treatment with muscarinic receptor antagonists is an effective bronchodilator therapy in COPD and also in asthmatic patients. In recent years, the accumulating evidence that the cholinergic system controls not only contraction by airway smooth muscle but also the functions of inflammatory cells and airway epithelial cells has suggested that muscarinic receptor antagonists could exert other effects that may be of clinical relevance when we must treat a patient suffering from COPD or asthma. There are currently six muscarinic receptor antagonists licenced for use in the treatment of COPD, the short-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (SAMAs) ipratropium bromide and oxitropium bromide and the long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMAs) aclidinium bromide, tiotropium bromide, glycopyrronium bromide and umeclidinium bromide. Concerns have been raised about possible associations of muscarinic receptor antagonists with cardiovascular safety, but the most advanced compounds seem to have an improved safety profile. Further beneficial effects of SAMAs and LAMAs are seen when added to existing treatments, including LABAs, inhaled corticosteroids and phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors. The importance of tiotropium bromide in the maintenance treatment of COPD, and likely in asthma, has spurred further research to identify new LAMAs. There are a number of molecules that are being identified, but only few have reached the clinical development.

Recent advances in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Novel pharmacotherapies introduce additional options to providers and patients in how to best treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Emerging data question the role of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD treatment, particularly as combination dual bronchodilator pharmacotherapies demonstrate robust results. For those maximized on pharmacotherapy with continued dyspnea or exacerbations or both, emerging bronchoscopic procedures may offer additional therapy in select patients. This review focuses on data supporting the use of novel ultra bronchodilators, particularly in combination, and on the role for inhaled corticosteroid withdrawal and new bronchoscopic procedures.

Inhaled indacaterol for the treatment of COPD patients with destroyed lung by tuberculosis and moderate-to-severe airflow limitation: results from the randomized INFINITY study

Background and objective

Pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) is a risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, few clinical studies have investigated treatment effectiveness in COPD patients with destroyed lung by TB. The Indacaterol effectiveness in COPD patients with Tuberculosis history (INFINITY) study assessed the efficacy and safety of once-daily inhaled indacaterol 150 µg for the treatment of Korean COPD patients with destroyed lung by TB and moderate-to-severe airflow limitation.

Methods

This was a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, in which eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either once-daily indacaterol 150 µg or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s at Week 8; the secondary endpoints included changes in transition dyspnea index score and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD score at Week 8. Safety was evaluated over 8 weeks.

Results

Of the 136 patients randomized, 119 (87.5%) completed the study treatment. At Week 8, indacaterol significantly improved trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s versus placebo (treatment difference [TD] 140 mL, P<0.001). Statistically significant improvement in transition dyspnea index score (TD =0.78, P<0.05) and numerical improvement in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD score (TD =−2.36, P=0.3563) were observed with indacaterol versus placebo at Week 8. Incidence of adverse events was comparable between the treatment groups.

Conclusion

Indacaterol provided significantly superior bronchodilation, significant improvement in breathlessness and improved health status with comparable safety versus placebo in Korean COPD patients with destroyed lung by TB and moderate-to-severe airflow limitation.

Efficacy and safety of diclofenac in osteoarthritis: Results of a network meta-analysis of unpublished legacy studies

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Diclofenac is widely prescribed for the treatment of pain. Several network meta-analyses (NMA), largely of published trials have evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The present NMA extends these analyses to unpublished older (legacy) diclofenac trials.

METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of diclofenac with planned study duration of at least 4 weeks for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) from 'legacy' studies conducted by Novartis but not published in a peer reviewed journal or included in any previous pooled analyses. All studies reporting efficacy and/or safety of treatment with diclofenac or other active therapies or placebo were included. We used a Bayesian NMA model, and estimated relative treatment effects between pairwise treatments. Main outcomes included pain relief measured using visual analogue scale at 2, 4 and 12 weeks and patient global assessment (PGA) at 4 and 12 weeks for efficacy, all-cause withdrawals, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 19 RCTs (5030 patients) were included; 18 of which were double-blind and one single-blind. All studies were conducted before cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors (COXIBs) became commercially available. Data permitted robust efficacy comparison between diclofenac and ibuprofen, but the amount of data for other comparators was limited. Diclofenac 150mg/day was more efficacious than ibuprofen 1200mg/day and had likely favourable outcomes for pain relief compared to ibuprofen 2400mg/day. Diclofenac 100mg/day had likely favourable outcomes compared to ibuprofen 1200mg/day in alleviating pain. Based on PGA, diclofenac 150mg/day was more efficacious and likely to be favourable than ibuprofen 1200mg/day and 2400mg/day, respectively. Risk of withdrawal due to all causes with diclofenac and ibuprofen were comparable. Diclofenac 150mg/day was likely to have favourable efficacy and comparable tolerability with diclofenac 100mg/day. Results comparing diclofenac and ibuprofen were similar to those from NMAs of published trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from these unpublished 'legacy' studies were similar to those from NMAs of published trials. The favourable efficacy results of diclofenac compared to ibuprofen expand the amount of available evidence comparing these two NSAIDs. The overall benefit-risk profile of diclofenac was comparable to that of ibuprofen in OA.

IMPLICATIONS

The present NMA results reassures that the older unpublished blinded trials have similar results compared to more recently published trials and also contributes to increase the transparency of clinical trials performed with diclofenac further back in the past.

Efficacy of mepolizumab add-on therapy on health-related quality of life and markers of asthma control in severe eosinophilic asthma (MUSCA): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3b trial

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody approved as add-on therapy to standard of care for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, has been shown in previous studies to reduce exacerbations and dependency on oral corticosteroids compared with placebo. We aimed to further assess mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma by examining its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

METHODS

We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3b trial (MUSCA) in 146 hospitals or research centres in 19 countries worldwide. Eligible participants were patients aged 12 years or older with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of at least two exacerbations requiring treatment in the previous 12 months before screening despite regular use of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus other controller medicines. Exclusion criteria included current smokers or former smokers with a history of at least ten pack-years. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) by country to receive a subcutaneous injection of either mepolizumab 100 mg or placebo, plus standard of care, every 4 weeks for 24 weeks (the final dose was given at week 20). We did the randomisation using an interactive voice response system and a centralised, computer-generated, permuted-block design of block size six. The two treatments were identical in appearance and administered in a masked manner; patients, investigators, other site staff and the entire study team including those assessing outcomes data were also masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the mean change from baseline in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at week 24 in the modified intention-to-treat (modified ITT) population (analysed according to their randomly assigned treatment). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of trial medication (analysed according to the actual treatment received). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02281318.

FINDINGS

We recruited patients between Dec 11, 2014, and Nov 20, 2015, and the study was undertaken between Dec 11, 2014, and June 10, 2016. The modified ITT population comprised 274 patients assigned to mepolizumab 100 mg and 277 assigned to placebo. Mepolizumab versus placebo showed significant improvements at week 24 from baseline in SGRQ total score (least squares mean [SE] change from baseline -15·6 (1·0) vs -7·9 (1·0), a treatment difference of -7·7 (95% CI -10·5 to -4·9; p<0·0001). No deaths occurred during the study. 192 (70%) of 273 patients who received mepolizumab and 207 (74%) of 278 who received placebo reported at least one on-treatment adverse event, the most common of which were headache (in 45 [16%] given mepolizumab vs 59 [21%] given placebo) and nasopharyngitis (in 31 [11%] given mepolizumab vs 46 [17%] given placebo). 15 (5%) and 22 (8%) patients had an on-treatment serious adverse event in the mepolizumab and placebo groups, respectively; the most common was asthma in both groups (in three [1%] given mepolizumab vs nine [3%] given placebo).

INTERPRETATION

Mepolizumab was associated with significant improvements in HRQOL in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, and had a safety profile similar to that of placebo. These results add to and support the use of mepolizumab as a favourable add-on treatment option to standard of care in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline.

LABA/LAMA combinations versus LAMA monotherapy or LABA/ICS in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting bronchodilator combinations, such as β₂-agonist (LABA)/muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), have favorable efficacy compared with commonly used COPD treatments. The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA with LAMA or LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in adults with stable moderate-to-very-severe COPD.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinical trial/manufacturer databases) included RCTs comparing ≥12 weeks’ LABA/LAMA treatment with LAMA and/or LABA/ICS (approved doses only). Eligible studies were independently selected by two authors using predefined data fields; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed.

Results

Eighteen studies (23 trials) were eligible (N=20,185). LABA/LAMA significantly improved trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) from baseline to week 12 versus both LAMA and LABA/ICS (0.07 L and 0.08 L, P<0.0001), with patients more likely to achieve clinically important improvements in FEV₁ of >100 mL (risk ratio [RR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.20, 1.46] and RR: 1.44, 95% CI: [1.33, 1.56], respectively, the number needed to treat being eight and six, respectively). LABA/LAMA improved transitional dyspnea index and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores at week 12 versus LAMA (both P<0.0001), but not versus LABA/ICS, and reduced rescue medication use versus both (P<0.0001 and P=0.001, respectively). LABA/LAMA significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rate compared with LABA/ICS (RR 0.82, 95% CI: [0.75, 0.91]). Adverse event (AE) incidence was no different for LABA/LAMA versus LAMA treatment, but it was lower versus LABA/ICS (RR 0.94, 95% CI: [0.89, 0.99]), including a lower pneumonia risk (RR 0.59, 95% CI: [0.43, 0.81]). LABA/LAMA presented a lower risk for withdrawals due to lack of efficacy versus LAMA (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: [0.51, 0.87]) and due to AEs versus LABA/ICS (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: [0.69, 0.99]).

Conclusion

The greater efficacy and comparable safety profiles observed with LABA/LAMA combinations versus LAMA or LABA/ICS support their potential role as first-line treatment options in COPD. These findings are of direct relevance to clinical practice because we included all currently available LABA/LAMAs and comparators, only at doses approved for clinical use.

Umeclidinium/vilanterol as step-up therapy from tiotropium in patients with moderate COPD: a randomized, parallel-group, 12-week study

Introduction

Patients with COPD who remain symptomatic on long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy may benefit from step-up therapy to a long-acting bronchodilator combination. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) in patients with moderate COPD who remained symptomatic on tiotropium (TIO).

Methods

In this randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group study (NCT01899742), patients (N=494) who were prescribed TIO for ≥3 months at screening (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV₁]: 50%–70% of predicted; modified Medical Research Council [mMRC] score ≥1) and completed a 4-week run-in with TIO were randomized to UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg or TIO 18 µg for 12 weeks. Efficacy assessments included trough FEV₁ at Day 85 (primary end point), 0–3 h serial FEV₁, rescue medication use, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and COPD Assessment Test (CAT). Safety evaluations included adverse events (AEs).

Results

Compared with TIO, UMEC/VI produced greater improvements in trough FEV₁ (least squares [LS] mean difference: 88 mL at Day 85 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 45–131]; P<0.001) and FEV₁ after 5 min on Day 1 (50 mL [95% CI: 27–72]; P<0.001). Reductions in rescue medication use over 12 weeks were greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO (LS mean change: −0.1 puffs/d [95% CI: −0.2–0.0]; P≤0.05). More patients achieved clinically meaningful improvements in TDI score (≥1 unit) with UMEC/VI (63%) versus TIO (49%; odds ratio at Day 84=1.78 [95% CI: 1.21–2.64]; P≤0.01). Improvements in SGRQ and CAT scores were similar between treatments. The incidence of AEs was similar with UMEC/VI (30%) and TIO (31%).

Conclusion

UMEC/VI step-up therapy provides clinical benefit over TIO monotherapy in patients with moderate COPD who are symptomatic on TIO alone.

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.

Interpreting patient-reported outcomes from clinical trials in COPD: a discussion

One of the challenges faced by the practising physician is the interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials and the relevance of such data to their patients. This is especially true when caring for patients with progressive diseases such as COPD. In an attempt to incorporate the patient perspective, many clinical trials now include assessments of PROs. These are formalized methods of capturing patient-centered information. Given the importance of PROs in evaluating the potential utility of an intervention for a patient with COPD, it is important that physicians are able to critically interpret (and critique) the results derived from them. Therefore, in this paper, a series of questions is posed for the practising physician to consider when reviewing the treatment effectiveness as assessed by PROs. The focus is on the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for worked examples, but the principles apply equally to other symptom-based questionnaires. A number of different ways of presenting PRO data are discussed, including the concept of the minimum clinically important difference, whether there is a ceiling effect to PRO results, and the strengths and weaknesses of responder analyses. Using a worked example, the value of including a placebo arm in a study is illustrated, and the influence of the study on PRO results is considered, in terms of the design, patient withdrawal, and the selection of the study population. For the practising clinician, the most important consideration is the importance of individualization of treatment (and of treatment goals). To inform such treatment, clinicians need to critically review PRO data. The hope is that the questions posed here will help to build a framework for this critical review.

Cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus glycopyrronium in moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Canada, Spain, Sweden, and the UK

OBJECTIVES

Tiotropium (TIO), Spiriva® Handihaler®, is a well-established bronchodilator, LAMA (long acting muscarinic antagonist), for the treatment of moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Clinical evidence from the SPARK trial suggests that TIO is superior to glycopyrronium (GLY), Seebri® Breezhaler®, in terms of severe exacerbations. This modeling study assessed the cost-effectiveness of TIO versus GLY for Canada (CAN), Spain (ESP), Sweden (SWE), and the UK, making use of this new clinical evidence.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model, with moderate to very severe (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease II-IV) COPD patients, was populated with efficacy data from the Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT) and SPARK trials as well as costs, utilities, and epidemiological data relevant for each country. Treatment efficacy was modeled as improvements in lung function, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and as a lowering of the risk of exacerbations (rate of exacerbations). Risks of exacerbations differed between cohorts based on data from SPARK. Health and cost outcomes were simulated over an approximate lifetime horizon, starting from the age of 65 years. Robustness of results was validated in deterministic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Over the lifetime horizon, patients treated with TIO accumulated -623 (CAN), 1,066 (ESP), 1,137 (SWE), and -169 (UK), respectively, in incremental costs (€2014). TIO generated better health outcomes compared to GLY in all countries, 0.21 (CAN), 0.25 (ESP), 0.23 (SWE), and 0.23 (UK) in incremental QALYs. The cost per QALY gained was found to be €4,281 and €1,137 for ESP and SWE, respectively, while TIO was found to be cost saving in CAN and the UK. The results were mainly driven by the relative risk of severe exacerbations found in SPARK (GLY/TIO relative risk: 1.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.97, P=0.025).

CONCLUSION

The results from this study show that TIO is a cost-effective treatment compared to GLY in moderate to very severe COPD. The cost per QALY is well below the existing implicit and explicit willingness-to-pay thresholds.

A randomized, parallel-group study to evaluate the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD

BACKGROUND

The combination of the inhaled muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) with the long-acting β2-agonist vilanterol (VI) has been shown to provide significant improvements in lung function compared with UMEC, VI, or placebo (PBO) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study was specifically designed to support these findings by assessing health-related quality of life and symptomatic outcomes in a similar population.

METHODS

This was a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg (via ELLIPTA(®) dry powder inhaler) or PBO for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at day 84. Secondary efficacy endpoints included rescue albuterol use (puffs/day) over weeks 1-12 and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second on day 84. Adverse events were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 496 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population in the UMEC/VI (n=248) and PBO (n=248) treatment groups. UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in SGRQ total score at day 84 versus PBO (difference between treatments in SGRQ total score change from baseline: -4.03 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -6.28, -1.79]; P<0.001). UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg resulted in a statistically significant reduction in rescue albuterol use versus PBO (-0.7 puffs/day [95% CI: -1.1, -0.4]; P<0.001). UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second on day 84 versus PBO (122 mL [95% CI: 71, 172]; P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments (32% and 30% of patients in the UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg and PBO groups, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate that treatment with UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg provides clinically important improvements in SGRQ and rescue medication use versus PBO in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD.

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

This study compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium 62.5 µg with once-daily glycopyrronium 50 µg in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This was a 12-week, multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02236611). Patients were randomised 1:1 to umeclidinium 62.5 µg or glycopyrronium 50 µg administered via Ellipta or Breezhaler dry powder inhaler, respectively. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at day 85 in the per-protocol population. Other endpoints included: weighted mean FEV₁ over 0-24 h and patient-reported outcomes (transition dyspnoea index score and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score). Adverse events were also assessed. A total of 1037 patients were randomised to treatment. Umeclidinium was non-inferior (margin: -50 mL) to glycopyrronium (trough FEV₁ at day 85 treatment difference: 24 mL, 95% confidence intervals: -5-54). Improvements in other endpoints were similar between treatments. Adverse event incidences were similar for umeclidinium (37%) and glycopyrronium (36%). Once-daily umeclidinium was non-inferior to once-daily glycopyrronium in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in trough FEV₁ at day 85. Patient-reported outcomes and safety profiles were similar for both treatments.

Aclidinium bromide inhalation powder for the long-term, maintenance treatment of bronchospasm associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease including chronic bronchitis and emphysema

Aclidinium is a twice-daily long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA) with an interesting pharmacological profile. Recent evidence indicates that this LAMA, in addition to causing a significant improvement in lung function and other important supportive outcomes, such as health related quality of life, dyspnea and nighttime/early morning symptoms in patients suffering from COPD, is also able to significantly reduce the rate of exacerbations of any severity, is extremely effective in controlling the COPD symptoms, is able to reduce lung hyperinflation, and has an excellent cardiovascular safety profile. Consequently, aclidinium should be considered a first-line approach at least for the symptomatic treatment of COPD although there are still few head-to-head studies comparing this LAMA with other bronchodilators. In any case, aclidinium can be taken into account in the treatment of different COPD phenotypes (emphysema, chronic bronchitis, exacerbators and patients with overlap COPD asthma).

Cost-Effectiveness of Glycopyrronium Bromide Compared with Tiotropium in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Sweden

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of once-daily Seebri Breezhaler(®) (glycopyrronium bromide) 50 µg with Spiriva(®) (tiotropium bromide) 18 µg in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the Swedish setting.

METHODS

A previously published COPD Markov model accounting for disease progression and treatment discontinuation was used. Disease progression included the annual decline in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and occurrence of any exacerbations. Efficacy in the model consisted of FEV1 improvement between baseline and 12 weeks and the annual risk ratio of having an exacerbation compared to placebo. These clinical efficacy inputs were derived from a 1-year head-to-head trial comparing glycopyrronium 50 µg to tiotropium 18 µg. Utility values and cost estimates were obtained from the literature. The base-case analysis was performed for a 3-year time horizon. Cost and effects were discounted with 3% in accordance to Swedish guidelines. Uncertainty was assessed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Glycopyrronium was found to be less costly and more effective than tiotropium in moderate to severe COPD patients with cost savings of 5197 Swedish kronor (€570, US$725) per patient over a 3-year time horizon. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that over 99% of the iterations produced dominant results for glycopyrronium.

CONCLUSION

Glycopyrronium bromide 50 µg once daily can be considered a cost effective alternative to tiotropium bromide 18 µg once daily in the maintenance treatment of COPD patients in Sweden.

Comparative efficacy of long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapies in COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Randomized, controlled trials comparing long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) efficacy in COPD are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the relative efficacy of tiotropium 18 µg once-daily (OD) and newer agents (aclidinium 400 µg twice-daily, glycopyrronium 50 µg OD, and umeclidinium 62.5 µg OD).

Methods

A systematic literature review identified randomized, controlled trials of adult COPD patients receiving LAMAs. A NMA within a Bayesian framework examined change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), transitional dyspnea index focal score, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score, and rescue medication use.

Results

Twenty-four studies (n=21,311) compared LAMAs with placebo/each other. Aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, and umeclidinium, respectively, demonstrated favorable results versus placebo, for change from baseline (95% credible interval) in 12-week trough FEV₁ (primary endpoint: 101.40 mL [77.06–125.60]; 117.20 mL [104.50–129.90]; 114.10 mL [103.10–125.20]; 136.70 mL [104.20–169.20]); 24-week trough FEV₁ (128.10 mL [84.10–172.00]; 135.80 mL [123.10–148.30]; 106.40 mL [95.45–117.30]; 115.00 mL [74.51–155.30]); 24-week St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score (−4.60 [−6.76 to −2.54]; −3.14 [−3.83 to −2.45]; −2.43 [−2.92 to −1.93]; −4.69 [−7.05 to −2.31]); 24-week transitional dyspnea index score (1.00 [0.41–1.59]; 1.01 [0.79–1.22]; 0.82 [0.62–1.02]; 1.00 [0.49–1.51]); and 24-week rescue medication use (data not available; −0.41 puffs/day [−0.62 to −0.20]; −0.52 puffs/day [−0.74 to −0.30]; −0.30 puffs/day [−0.81 to 0.21]). For 12-week trough FEV₁, differences in change from baseline (95% credible interval) were −12.8 mL (−39.39 to 13.93), aclidinium versus tiotropium; 3.08 mL (−7.58 to 13.69), glycopyrronium versus tiotropium; 22.58 mL (−11.58 to 56.97), umeclidinium versus tiotropium; 15.90 mL (−11.60 to 43.15), glycopyrronium versus aclidinium; 35.40 mL (−5.06 to 76.07), umeclidinium versus aclidinium; and 19.50 mL (−15.30 to 54.38), umeclidinium versus glycopyrronium. Limitations included inhaler-related factors and safety; longer-term outcomes were not considered.

Conclusion

The new LAMAs studied had at least comparable efficacy to tiotropium, the established class standard. Choice should depend on physician’s and patient’s preference.

Comparative safety and effectiveness of long-acting inhaled agents for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of long-acting β-antagonists (LABA), long-acting antimuscarinic agents (LAMA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

SETTING

Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

PARTICIPANTS

208 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) including 134,692 adults with COPD.

INTERVENTIONS

LABA, LAMA and/or ICS, alone or in combination, versus each other or placebo.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

The proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe exacerbations. The number of patients experiencing mortality, pneumonia, serious arrhythmia and cardiovascular-related mortality (CVM) were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

NMA was conducted including 20 RCTs for moderate-to-severe exacerbations for 26,141 patients with an exacerbation in the past year. 32 treatments were effective versus placebo including: tiotropium, budesonide/formoterol, salmeterol, indacaterol, fluticasone/salmeterol, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, tiotropium/fluticasone/salmeterol and tiotropium/budesonide/formoterol. Tiotropium/budesonide/formoterol was most effective (99.2% probability of being the most effective according to the Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking (SUCRA) curve). NMA was conducted on mortality (88 RCTs, 97 526 patients); fluticasone/salmeterol was more effective in reducing mortality than placebo, formoterol and fluticasone alone, and was the most effective (SUCRA=71%). NMA was conducted on CVM (37 RCTs, 55,156 patients) and the following were safest: salmeterol versus each OF placebo, tiotropium and tiotropium (Soft Mist Inhaler (SMR)); fluticasone versus tiotropium (SMR); and salmeterol/fluticasone versus tiotropium and tiotropium (SMR). Triamcinolone acetonide was the most harmful (SUCRA=81%). NMA was conducted on pneumonia occurrence (54 RCTs, 61 551 patients). 24 treatments were more harmful, including 2 that increased risk of pneumonia versus placebo; fluticasone and fluticasone/salmeterol. The most harmful agent was fluticasone/salmeterol (SUCRA=89%). NMA was conducted for arrhythmia; no statistically significant differences between agents were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Many inhaled agents are available for COPD, some are safer and more effective than others. Our results can be used by patients and physicians to tailor administration of these agents.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO # CRD42013006725.

Comparative efficacy of combination bronchodilator therapies in COPD: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several new fixed-dose combination bronchodilators have been recently launched, and assessing their efficacy relative to each other, and with open dual combinations is desirable. This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of umeclidinium and vilanterol (UMEC/VI) with that of available dual bronchodilators in single/separate inhalers.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials of ≥10 weeks among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients (≥40 years), assessing the efficacy of combination bronchodilators in single or separate inhalers. Comparative assessment was conducted on change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores, transitional dyspnea index (TDI) focal scores, and rescue medication use at 12 weeks and 24 weeks using an NMA within a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

A systematic literature review identified 77 articles of 26 trials comparing UMEC/VI, indacaterol/glycopyrronium (QVA149), formoterol plus tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg, salmeterol plus TIO, or indacaterol plus TIO, with TIO and placebo as common comparators at 12 weeks and approximately 24 weeks. The NMA showed that at 24 weeks, efficacy of UMEC/VI was not significantly different compared with QVA149 on trough FEV1 (14.1 mL [95% credible interval: -14.2, 42.3]), SGRQ total score (0.18 [-1.28, 1.63]), TDI focal score (-0.30 [-0.73, 0.13]), and rescue medication use (0.02 [-0.27, 0.32]); compared with salmeterol plus TIO on trough FEV1 (67.4 mL [-25.3, 159.4]), SGRQ total score (-0.11 [-1.84, 1.61]), and TDI focal score (0.58 [-0.33, 1.50]); and compared with formoterol plus TIO 18 μg on SGRQ total score (-0.68 [-1.77, 0.39]). Results at week 12 were consistent with week 24 outcomes. Due to lack of availability of evidence, no comparison was made with formoterol plus TIO on FEV1 or TDI at 24 weeks.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI has comparable efficacy to other dual-bronchodilator combinations on available efficacy endpoints.

Cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus usual care and glycopyrronium in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Sweden

Background

Tiotropium (TIO) is a well-established bronchodilator, LAMA (long-acting anticholinergic), for the treatment of moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Clinical evidence suggests that tiotropium is superior to usual non-LAMA care (UC) but may also have benefits compared to other LAMAs in preventing and limiting the effects of severe exacerbations. The primary objective of this study was to undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis of adding tiotropium to usual care versus usual care alone. A secondary objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium compared to glycopyrronium (GLY), another LAMA. The study was conducted with a Swedish setting in mind.

Methods

A Markov cohort model, incorporating the effects of exacerbations, was populated with efficacy data from the UPLIFT and SPARK trials and epidemiological data relevant for a Swedish patient population. Treatment efficacy of tiotropium was modelled as a lowering of the risk of exacerbations and as a slow-down of overall disease progression. The model followed patients over their remaining life-time.

Results

The base case analysis showed that patients treated with tiotropium gained 0.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to usual care alone at an incremental cost of SEK 15,041, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of SEK 224,850. Compared to glycopyrronium the QALY gained was estimated to 0.23 QALYs in favour of tiotropium at an incremental cost of SEK 2423, yielding a cost per QALY gained of SEK 10,456. The results were mainly driven by differences in the risk of severe exacerbations.

Conclusion

At the current implicit willingness-to-pay (WTP) per QALY threshold in Sweden, the results from this study indicate that tiotropium is a highly cost-effective intervention when added to usual non-LAMA care in the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD in Sweden. In addition, tiotropium is a highly cost-effective intervention when compared to glycopyrronium monotherapy.

Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons: Part II - Certainty

In the previous article (Network Meta-analysis: Users' Guide for Surgeons-Part I, Credibility), we presented an approach to evaluating the credibility or methodologic rigor of network meta-analyses (NMA), an innovative approach to simultaneously addressing the relative effectiveness of three or more treatment options for a given medical condition or disease state. In the second part of the Users' Guide for Surgeons, we discuss and demonstrate the application of criteria for determining the certainty in effect sizes and directions associated with a given treatment option through an example pertinent to clinical orthopaedics.

Why use long acting bronchodilators in chronic obstructive lung diseases? An extensive review on formoterol and salmeterol

Long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonists, formoterol and salmeterol, represent a milestone in the treatments of chronic obstructive lung diseases. Although no specific indications concerning the choice of one molecule rather than another are provided by asthma and COPD guidelines, they present different pharmacological properties resulting in distinct clinical employment possibilities. In particular, salmeterol has a low intrinsic efficacy working as a partial receptor agonist, while formoterol is a full agonist with high intrinsic efficacy. From a clinical perspective, in the presence of low β2-adrenoceptors availability, like in inflamed airways, a full agonist can maintain its bronchodilatory and non-smooth muscle activities while a partial agonist may be less effective. Furthermore, formoterol presents a faster onset of action than salmeterol. This phenomenon, combined with the molecule safety profile, leads to a prompt amelioration of the symptoms, and allows using this drug in asthma as an "as needed" treatment in patients already on regular treatment. The fast onset of action and the full agonism of formoterol need to be considered in order to select the best pharmacological treatment of asthma and COPD.

Effects of indacaterol versus tiotropium on respiratory mechanics assessed by the forced oscillation technique in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

The forced oscillation technique (FOT) can measure respiratory mechanics and has attracted attention in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to evaluate the effects of only indacaterol and tiotropium monotherapies on airflow limitation and respiratory impedance. Pulmonary function tests, COPD assessment test (CAT), and multifrequency FOT with MostGraph-01 were performed at the beginning and after 8 weeks of treatment with indacaterol or tiotropium. The resistance index, resistance at 5 Hz (R5), resistance at 20 Hz (R20), reactance index, reactance at 5 Hz (X5), resonant frequency (Fres), and low-frequency reactance area (ALX) were determined at whole-breath, inspiratory, and expiratory phases. Eighty-two patients (mean age: 73 years; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1): 61.6%±19.0% predicted) were randomized to indacaterol or tiotropium treatment. Both bronchodilators improved airflow limitation, with mean trough improvements in FEV1 of 165 mL and 80 mL in the indacaterol and tiotropium groups, respectively. The CAT score decreased in the indacaterol group (P<0.001; 11.2±6.6 to 7.5±5.6). Compared with tiotropium, indacaterol significantly improved FEV1, percent predicted FEV1, and CAT score (P=0.042, P=0.008, and P=0.027, respectively). For respiratory impedance, indacaterol and tiotropium changed R5, X5, Fres, and ALX at whole-breath, inspiratory, and expiratory phases. In the indacaterol group, the changes in R5, R5-R20, X5, Fres, and ALX were significantly correlated with the changes in FEV1. The use of the FOT may enable the evaluation of the effects of bronchodilators in addition to FEV1-indicated therapeutic effects in COPD.

V0162 a new long-acting bronchodilator for treatment of chronic obstructive lung diseases: preclinical and clinical results

Background

Long acting bronchodilators are the standard of care in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of V0162, a novel anticholinergic agent with bronchodilator properties, in preclinical models and in patients with COPD.

Methods

Guinea pigs were used to evaluate the impact of V0162 on the acetylcholine or histamine-induced bronchoconstriction. V0162 was also investigated in an allergic asthma model on ovalbumin-sensitized guinea pig. For clinical investigations, healthy volunteers were included in a dose-escalation, randomized, placebo-controlled phase I study to determine the maximal tolerated dose, followed by a randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over phase II study in patients with COPD. V0162 was given via inhalation route. The objectives of the phase I/II study were to assess the safety and efficacy of V0162, in terms of bronchodilation and reduction in hyperinflation.

Results

Preclinical results showed that V0162 was able to prevent bronchoconstriction induced either by acetylcholine or histamine. V0162 reversed the bronchoconstriction and airway inflammation caused by ovalbumin challenge in sensitized guinea pigs. In the healthy volunteers study, 88 subjects were enrolled: 66 received V0162 and 22 received placebo. No particular safety concerns were raised. The maximal tolerated dose was not reached and the dose escalation was stopped at 2400 μg. A total of 20 patients with COPD were then enrolled. All patients received a single-dose of V0162 1600 μg and of placebo in two alternating periods. In COPD patients, V0162 demonstrated a significant increase in FEV₁ compared with placebo (148 ± 137 ml vs. 36 ± 151 ml, p = 0.003). This bronchodilatory effect was corroborated by a reduction in hyperinflation. There was a trend toward dyspnea relief (change in visual analog scale at 22 h, −15.1 ± 26.0 mm vs.- 5.3 ± 28.8 mm with placebo, p = 0.054). No serious adverse events (AEs) were reported. Most common AEs were productive and non-productive cough, dyspnea and pruritus.

Conclusions

V0162 improved pulmonary function and tended to improve dyspnea in patients with COPD over more than 24 h. The slight plasmatic exposure observed might support the good safety profile.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01348555

Turning a molecule into a medicine: the development of indacaterol as a novel once-daily bronchodilator treatment for patients with COPD

Indacaterol is the first once-daily, long-acting β2-adrenergic agonist (LABA) approved for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Indacaterol was developed using a combination of informed drug design and molecular chemistry to generate a β2-adrenergic agonist with a fast onset and long duration of action, enabling once-daily dosing with an acceptable safety profile. Early preclinical studies with indacaterol demonstrated these characteristics, and this promising molecule was taken into clinical development, originally for asthma treatment. Subsequent safety concerns over LABA monotherapy in patients with asthma redirected indacaterol's development to centre on COPD, where a good evidence base and guideline recommendations for bronchodilator monotherapy existed. Clinical development was initially complicated by different inhaler devices and differing doses of indacaterol. Using a phase III innovative adaptive-design clinical trial (INHANCE), indacaterol 150 and 300 μg once-daily doses were selected to be taken forward into the phase III INERGIZE programme. This programme delivered placebo-controlled and active-comparator data, including comparisons with formoterol, tiotropium and salmeterol/fluticasone, as well as the use of indacaterol in combination with tiotropium. Together, these studies provided a comprehensive assessment of the benefit-risk profile of indacaterol, allowing for regulatory submission. Indacaterol was first approved at once-daily doses of 150 and 300 μg in the European Union in 2009, followed by 150 µg in Japan (2011) and China (2012), and 75 μg in the United States (2011). To date, indacaterol is approved and marketed in more than 100 countries worldwide for once-daily maintenance treatment of COPD.

Diagnosis and pharmacotherapy of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the finnish guidelines

The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim initiated and managed the update of the Finnish national guideline for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Finnish COPD guideline was revised to acknowledge the progress in diagnosis and management of COPD. This Finnish COPD guideline in English language is a part of the original guideline and focuses on the diagnosis, assessment and pharmacotherapy of stable COPD. It is intended to be used mainly in primary health care but not forgetting respiratory specialists and other healthcare workers. The new recommendations and statements are based on the best evidence available from the medical literature, other published national guidelines and the GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) report. This guideline introduces the diagnostic approach, differential diagnostics towards asthma, assessment and treatment strategy to control symptoms and to prevent exacerbations. The pharmacotherapy is based on the symptoms and a clinical phenotype of the individual patient. The guideline defines three clinically relevant phenotypes including the low and high exacerbation risk phenotypes and the neglected asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS). These clinical phenotypes can help clinicians to identify patients that respond to specific pharmacological interventions. For the low exacerbation risk phenotype, pharmacotherapy with short-acting β2 -agonists (salbutamol, terbutaline) or anticholinergics (ipratropium) or their combination (fenoterol-ipratropium) is recommended in patients with less symptoms. If short-acting bronchodilators are not enough to control symptoms, a long-acting β2 -agonist (formoterol, indacaterol, olodaterol or salmeterol) or a long-acting anticholinergic (muscarinic receptor antagonists; aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, umeclidinium) or their combination is recommended. For the high exacerbation risk phenotype, pharmacotherapy with a long-acting anticholinergic or a fixed combination of an inhaled glucocorticoid and a long-acting β2 -agonist (budesonide-formoterol, beclomethasone dipropionate-formoterol, fluticasone propionate-salmeterol or fluticasone furoate-vilanterol) is recommended as a first choice. Other treatment options for this phenotype include combination of long-acting bronchodilators given from separate inhalers or as a fixed combination (glycopyrronium-indacaterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol) or a triple combination of an inhaled glucocorticoid, a long-acting β2 -agonist and a long-acting anticholinergic. If the patient has severe-to-very severe COPD (FEV1  < 50% predicted), chronic bronchitis and frequent exacerbations despite long-acting bronchodilators, the pharmacotherapy may include also roflumilast. ACOS is a phenotype of COPD in which there are features that comply with both asthma and COPD. Patients belonging to this phenotype have usually been excluded from studies evaluating the effects of drugs both in asthma and in COPD. Thus, evidence-based recommendation of treatment cannot be given. The treatment should cover both diseases. Generally, the therapy should include at least inhaled glucocorticoids (beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone furoate, fluticasone propionate or mometasone) combined with a long-acting bronchodilator (β2 -agonist or anticholinergic or both).

Umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol combination in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a review

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common disease among the elderly that could be prevented by smoking cessation. As it is characterized by airflow limitation that is not fully reversible, bronchodilator therapy is the first choice of treatment. Symptomatic COPD patients with or without risk for future exacerbations have a strong indication for the permanent use of long- and ultralong-acting β2-agonists and/or long-acting muscarinic antagonists. Combining bronchodilators is an effective approach, as they demonstrate synergic action at a cellular level and have additive clinical benefits and fewer adverse events compared with increased doses of the monocomponents. Novel fixed-dose combinations of long-acting β2-agonists/long-acting muscarinic antagonists in one inhaler have been approved for clinical use by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. This review focuses on published clinical trials about the fixed-dose combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol trifenatate in patients with COPD. Results from six studies (five of them of 12 weeks' duration and one that lasted 1 year, including more than 6,000 patients in total) showed that umeclidinium/vilanterol trifenatate improved lung function, dyspnea, and health-related quality of life and decreased the exacerbation rate with no serious adverse events. More longstanding trials are needed to evaluate the effect of the drug on disease progression and compare it directly with other fixed-dose combinations.

Relative benefit-risk comparing diclofenac to other traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is argument over the benefits and risks of drugs for treating chronic musculoskeletal pain. This study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, and etoricoxib for patients with pain caused by osteoarthritis (OA) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review used Medline and EMBASE to identify randomised controlled trials. Efficacy outcomes assessed included: pain relief measured by visual analogue scale (VAS); Western Ontario McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) VAS or WOMAC Likert scale; physical functioning measured by WOMAC VAS or Likert scale; and patient global assessment (PGA) of disease severity measured on VAS or 5-point Likert scale. Safety outcomes included: Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration (APTC), major cardiovascular (CV) and major upper gastrointestinal (GI) events, and withdrawals. Data for each outcome were synthesized by a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). For efficacy assessments, labelled doses for OA treatment were used for the base case while labelled doses for RA treatment were also included in the sensitivity analysis. Pooled data across dose ranges were used for safety.

RESULTS

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability data were found for 146,524 patients in 176 studies included in the NMA. Diclofenac (150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective in alleviating pain than celecoxib (200 mg/day), naproxen (1000 mg/day), and ibuprofen (2400 mg/day), and similar to etoricoxib (60 mg/day); a lower dose of diclofenac (100 mg/day) was comparable to all other treatments in alleviating pain. Improved physical function with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was mostly comparable to all other treatments. PGA with diclofenac (100 and 150 mg/day) was likely to be more effective or comparable to all other treatments. All active treatments were similar for APTC and major CV events. Major upper GI events with diclofenac were lower compared to naproxen and ibuprofen, comparable to celecoxib, and higher than etoricoxib. Risk of withdrawal with diclofenac was lower compared to ibuprofen, similar to celecoxib and naproxen, and higher than etoricoxib.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefit-risk profile of diclofenac was comparable to other treatments used for pain relief in OA and RA; benefits and risks vary in individuals and need consideration when making treatment decisions.

Pharmacology of novel treatments for COPD: are fixed dose combination LABA/LAMA synergistic?

Bronchodilators are mainstay for the symptomatic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and the introduction of long-acting bronchodilators has led to an improvement in the maintenance treatment of this disease. Various clinical trials have evaluated the effects of fixed dose long-acting β2-agonists (LABA)/long-acting anti-muscarinics (LAMA) combinations and documented greater improvements in spirometry but such improvements do not always translate to greater improvements in symptom scores or reduction in the rates of exacerbation compared with a single component drug. An analysis of whether this significantly greater change in spirometry with combination therapy is additive or synergistic was undertaken and is the subject of this review. Bronchodilators are not disease modifiers and whilst glucocorticosteroids have been shown to reduce rates of exacerbation in moderate to severe COPD, the increase risk of pneumonia and bone fractures is a motivation enough to warrant developing novel anti-inflammatory and disease-modifying drugs and with the expectation of positive outcomes.

Clinicopharmacological profile of the fixed-dose combination of aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

The recent Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines consider symptoms and exacerbation history in addition to the degree of airflow obstruction for classifying patients. The improvement of symptoms is principally provided by bronchodilators, using β2 agonists and antimuscarinic agents. Aclidinium bromide is a novel long-acting antimuscarinic agent licensed for use in patients with COPD. Novel fixed-dose combinations that are either licensed or in their late phase of development include vilanterol/umeclidinium, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, olodaterol/tiotropium and formoterol/aclidinium. Fixed-dose combinations of aclidinium/formoterol have been evaluated in COPD patients and evidence suggests that this is efficacious, safe, has a quick onset of action and is well tolerated. This review provides a clinico-pharmacological profile of this compound.

The impact of treatment with indacaterol in patients with COPD: A post-hoc analysis according to GOLD 2011 categories A to D

BACKGROUND

Indacaterol is an inhaled, once-daily, ultra-long-acting β2-agonist for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We report on the effectiveness of indacaterol and other bronchodilators compared with placebo in patients across the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2011 categories A to D.

METHODS

A post-hoc, subgroup pooled analysis of 6-month efficacy data from three randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies involving 3862 patients was performed across GOLD 2011 categories A to D, according to baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) % predicted, modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale, and exacerbation history in the 12 months prior to entry. Efficacy of once-daily indacaterol 150 and 300 μg, open-label tiotropium 18 μg, twice-daily salmeterol 50 μg, and formoterol 12 μg was compared with placebo. End points analysed were trough FEV1, transition dyspnea index (TDI), and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, all at Week 26, and mean rescue medication use over 26 weeks.

RESULTS

Indacaterol 150 and 300 μg significantly improved FEV1, compared with placebo across all GOLD groups. Indacaterol 150 and 300 μg also significantly improved TDI, SGRQ total score, and mean rescue medication use compared with placebo across most GOLD subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment selection according to patient's symptoms as well as lung function is an important consideration in maintenance treatment of COPD. Indacaterol 150 and 300 μg effectively improved lung function and symptoms in patients across all GOLD 2011 categories.

A network meta-analysis to compare simeprevir with boceprevir and telaprevir in combination with peginterferon-α and ribavirin in patients infected with genotype 1 Hepatitis C virus

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the relative efficacy and safety of simeprevir, a second generation oral protease inhibitor (PI), compared to telaprevir and boceprevir in combination with pegylated interferon-α and ribavirin (PR) in patients with chronic hepatitis C.

METHODS

A systematic literature review and NMA of randomized controlled trials involving anti-virals added to PR were conducted. Electronic database searches and hand searches were conducted to identify relevant publications. Outcomes of interest included sustained virologic response (SVR), incidence of adverse events (AEs), and discontinuation due to AEs. Networks were based on treatment-, dose-, and duration-specific nodes. Sub-group analyses were conducted to investigate heterogeneity, based on Metavir scores, sub-genotypes 1a/1b, and prior response.

RESULTS

A total of 15 publications were considered for the base case of the meta-analysis. Simeprevir was associated with higher SVR rates than PR alone. Compared to telaprevir and boceprevir, SVR rates tended to be higher for simeprevir, with odds ratios ranging from 1.27 [0.81-2.00] to 2.61 [1.44-4.74] in treatment-naïve and from 1.04 [0.78-1.38] to 1.74 [0.84-3.61] in treatment-experienced patients, respectively. In terms of safety, the risks of anemia and discontinuations due to AEs were lower for simeprevir compared to PR alone, telaprevir, and boceprevir. The risk of rash was lower for simeprevir compared to telaprevir, and similar compared to PR alone and boceprevir.

CONCLUSION

This NMA in genotype 1 HCV patients suggests a similar or better efficacy and tolerability profile for simeprevir compared to telaprevir and boceprevir.

Indacaterol for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

The need for a rapid onset of action and a long duration of the broncholytic effect is the likely reason for the development of new long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) that are fast acting and have true 24 h duration of action. Indacaterol is the archetype of once-daily LABAs and already marketed as a maintenance therapy in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

AREAS COVERED

Meta-analyses of published data or pooled analyses of primary data provide good insight into the clinical role of indacaterol in COPD.

EXPERT OPINION

The choice of the once-daily bronchodilator to start treatment in a patient with COPD mainly depends on the outcome of interest. Indacaterol is more effective than tiotropium if we consider symptoms or health-related quality of life as the primary outcome. Moreover, in symptomatic patient indacaterol should be preferred to tiotropium because of its rapid onset of action. By contrast, tiotropium appears to be more effective than indacaterol if exacerbations are the expected primary outcome. However, as indacaterol/glycopyrronium fixed-dose combination (QVA149) shows superior efficacy compared to glycopyrronium and tiotropium in patients with moderate to severe COPD, a fundamental question regarding the use of indacaterol that requires clarification is whether it is preferable to start immediately with QVA149 rather than using indacaterol alone.

Update on ultra-long-acting β agonists in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

For the last two decades, long-acting β agonists (LABAs) have been a cornerstone in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). They relax airway smooth muscle and augment expiratory airflow, which reduces hyperinflation and improves dyspnea, functional capacity and quality of life. In recent years, Indacaterol, a LABA with an ultra-long duration of action (ultra-LABA), which only requires once-daily dosing, was approved by the FDA. The clinical efficacy of indacaterol is comparable, and, in some aspects better, than the currently available LABAs.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the pharmacological properties, clinical efficacy, safety and potential role of the ultra-LABAs in COPD management.

EXPERT OPINION

Ultra-LABAs are effective bronchodilators with a prolonged duration of action. By decreasing dosing frequency, ultra-LABAs potentially may improve respiratory medication adherence, which is associated with better survival and less healthcare utilization. In addition to their salubrious benefits, β agonists may produce untoward effects. Increased mortality and hospitalizations among patients with left ventricular heart failure, who were treated with β agonists, has caused concern about their use in patients with COPD and heart disease. Further experience and testing will determine the optimal role of ultra-LABAs in the management of COPD.

Long-acting inhaled therapy (beta-agonists, anticholinergics and steroids) for COPD: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is aimed at relieving symptoms, improving quality of life and preventing or treating exacerbations.Treatment tends to begin with one inhaler, and additional therapies are introduced as necessary. For persistent or worsening symptoms, long-acting inhaled therapies taken once or twice daily are preferred over short-acting inhalers. Several Cochrane reviews have looked at the risks and benefits of specific long-acting inhaled therapies compared with placebo or other treatments. However for patients and clinicians, it is important to understand the merits of these treatments relative to each other, and whether a particular class of inhaled therapies is more beneficial than the others.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of treatment options for patients whose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cannot be controlled by short-acting therapies alone. The review will not look at combination therapies usually considered later in the course of the disease.As part of this network meta-analysis, we will address the following issues.1. How does long-term efficacy compare between different pharmacological treatments for COPD?2. Are there limitations in the current evidence base that may compromise the conclusions drawn by this network meta-analysis? If so, what are the implications for future research?

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in existing Cochrane reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). In addition, we ran a comprehensive citation search on the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials (CAGR) and checked manufacturer websites and reference lists of other reviews. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group RCTs of at least 6 months' duration recruiting people with COPD. Studies were included if they compared any of the following treatments versus any other: long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs; formoterol, indacaterol, salmeterol); long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs; aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium); inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs; budesonide, fluticasone, mometasone); combination long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) (formoterol/budesonide, formoterol/mometasone, salmeterol/fluticasone); and placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a network meta-analysis using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for two efficacy outcomes: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (placebo). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within treatment classes (LAMA, LABA, ICS, LABA/ICS). We present estimates of class effects, variability between treatments within each class and individual treatment effects compared with every other.To justify the analyses, we assessed the trials for clinical and methodological transitivity across comparisons. We tested the robustness of our analyses by performing sensitivity analyses for lack of blinding and by considering six- and 12-month data separately.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 71 RCTs randomly assigning 73,062 people with COPD to 184 treatment arms of interest. Trials were similar with regards to methodology, inclusion and exclusion criteria and key baseline characteristics. Participants were more often male, aged in their mid sixties, with FEV1 predicted normal between 40% and 50% and with substantial smoking histories (40+ pack-years). The risk of bias was generally low, although missing information made it hard to judge risk of selection bias and selective outcome reporting. Fixed effects were used for SGRQ analyses, and random effects for Trough FEV1 analyses, based on model fit statistics and deviance information criteria (DIC). SGRQ SGRQ data were available in 42 studies (n = 54,613). At six months, 39 pairwise comparisons were made between 18 treatments in 25 studies (n = 27,024). Combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked intervention, with a mean improvement over placebo of -3.89 units at six months (95% credible interval (CrI) -4.70 to -2.97) and -3.60 at 12 months (95% CrI -4.63 to -2.34). LAMAs and LABAs were ranked second and third at six months, with mean differences of -2.63 (95% CrI -3.53 to -1.97) and -2.29 (95% CrI -3.18 to -1.53), respectively. Inhaled corticosteroids were ranked fourth (MD -2.00, 95% CrI -3.06 to -0.87). Class differences between LABA, LAMA and ICS were less prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and aclidinium were ranked somewhat higher than other members of their classes, and formoterol 12 mcg, budesonide 400 mcg and formoterol/mometasone combination were ranked lower within their classes. There was considerable overlap in credible intervals and rankings for both classes and individual treatments. Trough FEV1 Trough FEV1 data were available in 46 studies (n = 47,409). At six months, 41 pairwise comparisons were made between 20 treatments in 31 studies (n = 29,271). As for SGRQ, combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked class, with a mean improvement over placebo of 133.3 mL at six months (95% CrI 100.6 to 164.0) and slightly less at 12 months (mean difference (MD) 100, 95% CrI 55.5 to 140.1). LAMAs (MD 103.5, 95% CrI 81.8 to 124.9) and LABAs (MD 99.4, 95% CrI 72.0 to 127.8) showed roughly equivalent results at six months, and ICSs were the fourth ranked class (MD 65.4, 95% CrI 33.1 to 96.9). As with SGRQ, initial differences between classes were not so prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and salmeterol/fluticasone were ranked slightly better than others in their class, and formoterol 12, aclidinium, budesonide and formoterol/budesonide combination were ranked lower within their classes. All credible intervals for individual rankings were wide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis compares four different classes of long-acting inhalers for people with COPD who need more than short-acting bronchodilators. Quality of life and lung function were improved most on combination inhalers (LABA and ICS) and least on ICS alone at 6 and at 12 months. Overall LAMA and LABA inhalers had similar effects, particularly at 12 months. The network has demonstrated the benefit of ICS when added to LABA for these outcomes in participants who largely had an FEV1 that was less than 50% predicted, but the additional expense of combination inhalers and any potential for increased adverse events (which has been established by other reviews) require consideration. Our findings are in keeping with current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.