Dose response of umeclidinium administered once or twice daily in patients with COPD: a randomised cross-over study

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

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

Current long-acting muscarinic antagonists for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

The role of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) is well established in uncontrolled asthma, but not in milder stages.

AREAS COVERED

This review examines the main randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have investigated LAMAs administered as monotherapy or in combination to asthmatic patients, according to the different phenotypes. It offers an overview of the role of LAMAs or their fixed dose combinations (FDCs) in the treatment across all the different stages of asthma.

EXPERT OPINION

Tiotropium is now widely recognized as treatment for moderate to severe uncontrolled asthma (step 4-5) in adults and children. The most recent new evidence is: a) in adults, three different LAMA/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) FDCs have been recently approved, extending the treatment options for these patients; b) therapy with LAMAs does not depend on patient's Th2 status and justifies the indication regardless of patient's phenotyping; c) in the milder stages, the high variability of response to LAMAs and the lack of a good phenotyping of patients represents the main obstacle in prescribing LAMAs. A better characterization of parasympathetic tone activity could improve LAMAs prescription.

Randomized clinical trials with run-in periods: frequency, characteristics and reporting

Background

Run-in periods are occasionally used in randomized clinical trials to exclude patients after inclusion, but before randomization. In theory, run-in periods increase the probability of detecting a potential treatment effect, at the cost of possibly affecting external and internal validity. Adequate reporting of exclusions during the run-in period is a prerequisite for judging the risk of compromised validity. Our study aims were to assess the proportion of randomized clinical trials with run-in periods, to characterize such trials and the types of run-in periods and to assess their reporting.

Materials and methods

This was an observational study of 470 PubMed-indexed randomized controlled trial publications from 2014. We compared trials with and without run-in periods, described the types of run-in periods and evaluated the completeness of their reporting by noting whether publications stated the number of excluded patients, reasons for exclusion and baseline characteristics of the excluded patients.

Results

Twenty-five trials reported a run-in period (5%). These were larger than other trials (median number of randomized patients 217 vs 90, P=0.01) and more commonly industry trials (11% vs 3%, P<0.01). The run-in procedures varied in design and purpose. In 23 out of 25 trials (88%), the run-in period was incompletely reported, mostly due to missing baseline characteristics.

Conclusion

Approximately 1 in 20 trials used run-in periods, though much more frequently in industry trials. Reporting of the run-in period was often incomplete, precluding a meaningful assessment of the impact of the run-in period on the validity of trial results. We suggest that current trials with run-in periods are interpreted with caution and that updates of reporting guidelines for randomized trials address the issue.

Comparison of the in vitro pharmacological profiles of long-acting muscarinic antagonists in human bronchus

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) have been recommended for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and (more recently) asthma. However, the in vitro pharmacological profiles of the four LAMAs currently marketed (tiotropium, umeclidinium, aclidinium and glycopyrronium) have not yet been compared (relative to ipratropium) by using the same experimental approach.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

With a total of 560 human bronchial rings, we investigated the antagonists' potency, onset and duration of action for inhibition of the contractile response evoked by electrical field stimulation. We also evaluated the antagonists' potency for inhibiting cumulative concentration-contraction curves for acetylcholine and carbachol.

KEY RESULTS

The onset and duration of action were concentration-dependent. At submaximal, equipotent concentrations, the antagonists' onsets of action were within the same order of magnitude. However, the durations of action differed markedly. After washout, ipratropium's inhibitory activity decreased rapidly (within 30-90 min) but those of tiotropium and umeclidinium remained stable (at above 70%) for at least 9 h. Aclidinium and glycopyrronium displayed less stable inhibitory effects, with a progressive loss of inhibition at submaximal concentrations. In contrast to ipratropium, all the LAMAs behaved as insurmountable antagonists by decreasing the maximum responses to both acetylcholine and carbachol.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The observed differences in the LAMAs' in vitro pharmacological profiles in the human bronchus provide a compelling pharmacological rationale for the differences in the drugs' respective recommended daily doses and frequencies of administration.

The effect of umeclidinium on lung function and symptoms in patients with fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility to salbutamol: A randomised, 3-phase study

INTRODUCTION

The long-acting muscarinic antagonist, umeclidinium (UMEC), combined with the inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone furoate (FF), improves lung function in symptomatic patients with asthma. We assessed FF/UMEC in patients with a primary diagnosis of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but physiological characteristics of both (fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility to salbutamol).

METHODS

This double-blind, parallel-arm, 3-phase study randomised 338 patients (1:1:1:1:2:2) to FF 100 mcg alone or combined with UMEC (15.6, 62.5, 125, or 250 mcg) or vilanterol 25 mcg (Phase A, 4 weeks). Primary endpoint: change from baseline in clinic trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) (end of Phase A). Secondary endpoints: morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue medication use and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS™: COPD) scores. Safety was assessed.

RESULTS

In the intent-to-treat population, the increase in trough FEV₁ over FF was significant for FF/UMEC 62.5 (0.140 L [p = 0.019]) and 125 mcg (0.120 L [p = 0.039]), with similar changes for patients with a primary diagnosis of asthma or COPD. Changes from baseline in morning PEF and E-RS total score were greater for all FF/UMEC doses vs FF (p ≤ 0.05). Change from baseline in rescue medication use was statistically or clinically significant for all FF/UMEC doses vs FF. The incidence of on-treatment adverse events was 15%-32% (Phase A), with no dose-related effects.

CONCLUSIONS

FF/UMEC 62.5 mcg produced clinically meaningful improvements in FEV₁, morning PEF, E-RS total score and rescue medication use. FF/UMEC may benefit patients with features of both asthma and COPD. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT02164539; GSK: 200699.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Spotlight on fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol in COPD: design, development, and potential place in therapy

COPD is characterized by persistent airflow obstruction caused by exposure to irritants including cigarette smoke, dust, and fumes. According to the latest GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) guidelines, a combination of inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β₂ agonists, and long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists can be used for group D COPD patients who are at high risk for exacerbations. Umeclidinium/fluticasone furoate/vilanterol is one such triple-combination therapy currently under development with some completed and several ongoing clinical trials. This review paper summarizes the pharmacologic profiles of these medications and highlights findings from clinical trials, including safety and efficacy data, while speculating on the role of this therapy in current treatment for COPD.

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

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

Long-term (52 weeks) safety and tolerability of umeclidinium in Japanese patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Objective Umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) 62.5 μg is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) that is administered once daily via inhalation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of long-term treatment with UMEC 125 μg in Japanese patients with COPD. Methods This was a 52 week, multicenter, open-label study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of UMEC 125 μg once daily delivered via a novel dry powder inhaler (nDPI) in Japanese patients with COPD. The primary endpoint was the incidence and severity of all adverse events (AEs) throughout the 52 week treatment period. Clinical trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT01702363. Results A total of 153 patients were enrolled in the study. Of these, 131 patients started treatment with UMEC 125 μg, and 111 patients (85%) completed the study. AEs did not differ greatly in incidence over the various time periods (Weeks 0 to 12, 13 to 24, 25 to 36, and 37 to 52 of treatment) and did not increase with continued treatment. The incidence of drug-related AEs associated with the pharmacological effects of LAMAs (including constipation, blurred vision, and thirst) was low. Serious adverse events (SAEs) during the treatment period were reported in 17 patients (13%). SAEs reported in more than one patient were COPD exacerbation and pneumonia (3 patients each, 2%). One SAE of angina pectoris was considered to be drug related. No fatalities were reported during this study. Conclusions No new AEs were identified beyond those attributable to the pharmacological effects of LAMAs. UMEC 125 μg was well tolerated over 52 weeks of treatment in Japanese patients with COPD.

A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD

BACKGROUND

The long-acting muscarinic antagonists umeclidinium (UMEC) and tiotropium (TIO) are approved once-daily maintenance therapies for COPD. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of UMEC versus TIO in COPD.

METHODS

This was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to UMEC 62.5 μg plus placebo or TIO 18 μg plus placebo. The primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at day 85 (non-inferiority margin -50 mL; per-protocol [PP] population). Other end points included weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 and 12-24 hours post-dose. Patient-reported outcomes comprised Transition Dyspnea Index score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and COPD Assessment Test score. Adverse events were also assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 1,017 patients were randomized to treatment. In the PP population, 489 and 487 patients received UMEC and TIO, respectively. In the PP population, change from baseline in trough FEV1 was greater with UMEC versus TIO at day 85, meeting non-inferiority and superiority margins (difference: 59 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 29-88; P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat analysis of trough FEV1 at day 85 (53 mL, 95% CI: 25-81; P<0.001). Improvements in weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 hours post-dose at day 84 were similar with UMEC and TIO but significantly greater with UMEC versus TIO over 12-24 hours post-dose (70 mL; P=0.015). Clinically meaningful improvements in Transition Dyspnea Index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire were observed with both treatments at all time points. No differences were observed between UMEC and TIO in patient-reported outcomes. Overall incidences of adverse events were similar for UMEC and TIO.

CONCLUSION

UMEC 62.5 μg demonstrated superior efficacy to TIO 18 μg on the primary end point of trough FEV1 at day 85. Safety profiles were similar for both treatments.

Genetic effects on treatment response of umeclidinium/vilanterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Treatment with long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is standard, but response varies. We investigated genetic association with treatment response to umeclidinium (UMEC, a LAMA), vilanterol (VI, a LABA), and combination therapy.

METHODS

Data from 17 clinical trials (N = 6075) in patients with COPD receiving once-daily UMEC/VI (125/25mcg or 62.5/25mcg), UMEC (125 or 62.5mcg), VI (25mcg) or placebo were used. Genetic association with change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ∼24 h post-dosing was assessed for: (i) 3 β2-adrenoceptor (ADRB2) gene variants; (ii) 298 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with prior evidence of associations; (iii) human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles and (iv) genome-wide association study (GWAS) SNPs. Other endpoints were (i) reversibility at screening; and at baseline: (ii) FEV1; (iii) forced vital capacity (FVC), and (iv) FEV1/FVC ratio. Using linear regression, the inverse normal transformed residuals were pooled together, first across treatment group, then across studies for each monotherapy, then combination therapy and finally for every treated patient.

RESULTS

Of 6075 patients, 1849 received UMEC/VI, 1390 received UMEC, 1795 received VI, and 1041 received placebo. None of the ADRB2 variants, HLA alleles or GWAS variants tested were associated with treatment response or baseline endpoints. Four SNPs in FAM13A (rs7671167, rs2869967, rs1964516, rs1903003) were significantly associated with baseline FEV1/FVC ratio (p < 3 × 10(-5)) after adjusting for multiple testing.

CONCLUSIONS

No genetic association was found with treatment response to UMEC or VI when administered as monotherapies or in combination.

Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium Added to Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol in Patients with COPD: Results of Two Randomized, Double-Blind Studies

Combinations of drugs with distinct and complementary mechanisms of action may offer improved efficacy in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In two 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group studies, patients with COPD were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily umeclidinium (UMEC; 62.5 μg and 125 μg) or placebo (PBO), added to twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL; 250/50 μg). In both studies, the primary efficacy measure was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at Day 85. Secondary endpoints were weighted-mean (WM) FEV1 over 0-6 hours post-dose (Day 84) and rescue albuterol use. Health-related quality of life outcomes (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] and COPD assessment test [CAT]) were also examined. Safety was assessed throughout. Both UMEC+FP/SAL doses provided statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 (Day 85: 0.127-0.148 L) versus PBO+FP/SAL. Similarly, both UMEC+FP/SAL doses provided statistically-significant improvements in 0-6 hours post-dose WM FEV1 versus PBO+FP/SAL (Day 84: 0.144-0.165 L). Rescue use over Weeks 1-12 decreased with UMEC+FP/SAL in both studies versus PBO+FP/SAL (Study 1, 0.3 puffs/day [both doses]; Study 2, 0.5 puffs/day [UMEC 125+FP/SAL]). Decreases from baseline in CAT score were generally larger for both doses of UMEC+FP/SAL versus PBO+FP/SAL (except for Day 84 Study 2). In Study 1, no differences in SGRQ score were observed between UMEC+FP/SAL and PBO+FP/SAL; however, in Study 2, statistically significant improvements were observed with UMEC 62.5+FP/SAL (Day 28) and UMEC 125+FP/SAL (Days 28 and 84) versus PBO+FP/SAL. The incidence of on-treatment adverse events across all treatment groups was 37-41% in Study 1 and 36-38% in Study 2. Overall, these data indicate that the combination of UMEC+FP/SAL can provide additional benefits over FP/SAL alone in patients with COPD.

The ELLIPTA® Dry Powder Inhaler: Design, Functionality, In Vitro Dosing Performance and Critical Task Compliance by Patients and Caregivers

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are commonly used for the delivery of inhaled medications, and should provide consistent, efficient dosing, be easy to use correctly, and be liked by patients; these attributes can all affect patient compliance and therefore treatment efficacy. The ELLIPTA^® DPI was developed for the delivery of once-daily therapies for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It has moderate resistance to airflow and can hold one or two blister strips, with each blister containing a sealed single dose of medication. Monotherapies can be delivered by the single-strip configuration and, in the two-strip configuration, one dose from each strip can be aerosolized simultaneously to allow combination therapies to be delivered, which enables the formulations for each product to be developed individually, since they are stored separately until the point of administration. There are three principal operating steps to administer a dose: open, inhale, close. This article summarizes the design, functionality, and in vitro dose-delivery characteristics of the ELLIPTA inhaler, and describes the results of human factors validation tests, designed to assess the performance of critical tasks required to use the inhaler. Results from the in vitro studies indicate that the ELLIPTA inhaler performs consistently with respect to in vitro dose delivery characteristics at a range of flow rates that can be achieved by the target population (≥30 L/min) and over its 30-day in-use life. Data from the human factors validation tests demonstrated that almost all participants (≥97%) were able to complete each of the steps required to prepare a dose for inhalation without error. Overall, the ELLIPTA inhaler has a versatile single- or two-strip design that allows it to be used for the delivery of a range of treatment options. It also improves patient ease-of-use when compared with the DISKUS^® DPI.

Dose-response modelling of umeclidinium and fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium in asthma

PURPOSE

In two dose-ranging crossover studies, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) was assessed as monotherapy in patients with asthma not treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (NCT01641692 [study 1]) and combined with the ICS fluticasone furoate (FF) in patients with asthma symptomatic on ICS (NCT01573624 [study 2]). The present study aimed to further characterise the UMEC dose-response relationship with change from baseline trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (day 15).

METHODS

A model-based approach using non-linear mixed-effects analyses was used to assess data from studies 1 and 2.

RESULTS

Within the Study 1 dose range, no significant dose-response was demonstrated. In study 2, the slope-intercept on log-dose model showed a mild dose-response, with a 10 % probability of a 0.075-L FEV1 improvement with FF/UMEC 100/250 mcg; period 1 data (with an absent carryover effect) indicated an 88 % probability of a 0.075-L FEV1 improvement.

CONCLUSION

The model-based approach in study 2 identified FF/UMEC doses warranting further investigation.

▼Umeclidinium: another LAMA for COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects around 64 million people worldwide and is the fourth leading cause of death.(1) It is thought that 3 million people have COPD in the UK, with about 900,000 having been diagnosed and an estimated 2.1 million with disease that remains undiagnosed.(2) In addition, premature mortality from COPD in the UK is almost double the European average and as a result there has been considerable focus on improving outcomes for patients.(3)One of the options for maintenance pharmacological treatment of COPD is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA).(4) DTB has previously reviewed three inhaled LAMAs licensed in the UK for use by people with COPD: tiotropium and ▼glycopyrronium (both administered once daily), and ▼aclidinium bromide (administered twice daily).(5-8) ▼Umeclidinium bromide (Incruse) is another once daily LAMA, delivered using the Ellipta inhaler device, and is indicated as maintenance bronchodilator treatment to relieve symptoms in adult patients with COPD.(9) Here we review the evidence for its use in the management of COPD.

Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of inhaled umeclidinium and vilanterol alone and in combination in healthy Chinese subjects: a randomized, open-label, crossover trial

Inhaled umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of inhaled UMEC with vilanterol (UMEC/VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the US and EU. This was a randomized, open-label, three-period crossover, single- and repeat-dose study to assess the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and tolerability of inhaled UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg (delivering 55/22 μg) and UMEC/VI 125/25 μg (delivering 113/22 μg) compared with their monotherapy components (UMEC 62.5 μg, UMEC 125 μg and, VI 25 μg [delivering 55, 113, and 22 μg, respectively]) in healthy Chinese subjects (n=20). UMEC and VI were rapidly absorbed following single and repeat dosing (time to maximum plasma concentration [t_max]: UMEC = 5 min; VI = 5 min). The median t_last was 2–4 h for UMEC and 1–2 h for VI following single doses of UMEC/VI and UMEC monotherapy (both doses). UMEC reached steady-state prior to Day 10; steady-state for VI could not be assessed. UMEC accumulation following repeat dosing was 11–34% based on C_max and 19–59% based on area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 2 h (AUC_(0-2)). VI accumulation following repeat dosing was 25–66% based on C_max and 17–43% based on AUC_(0-2). The evidence was not sufficient to suggest that systemic exposure was substantially different between UMEC/VI combination therapy and the constituent monotherapies following single or repeat dosing. Following both single- and repeat-dose administration, the inter-subject coefficient of variation for all UMEC PK parameter estimates ranged from 12% to 165% for all treatments, indicating a wide range of variability in inhaled PK parameters. Twelve subjects experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE). Six subjects experienced ≥1 treatment-related AE; the most commonly reported treatment-related AE was chest discomfort (n=3 [15%]). No clinically important changes in vital signs or electrocardiogram parameters were reported. These data suggest that single- and repeat-dose administration of UMEC/VI combination therapy in healthy Chinese subjects did not result in substantial differences in systemic exposure compared with UMEC and VI as monotherapies.

Tiotropium HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) in COPD: a pooled safety analysis

INTRODUCTION

Tiotropium is prescribed for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and delivered via HandiHaler(®) (18 μg once daily) or Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ inhaler (5 μg once daily). The recent TIOtropium Safety and Performance In Respimat(®) (TIOSPIR™) study demonstrated that both exhibit similar safety profiles. This analysis provides an updated comprehensive safety evaluation of tiotropium(®) using data from placebo-controlled HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) trials.

METHODS

Pooled analysis of adverse event (AE) data from tiotropium HandiHaler(®) 18 μg and Respimat(®) 5 μg randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, clinical trials in patients with COPD (treatment duration ≥4 weeks). Incidence rates, rate ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined for HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) trials, both together and separately.

RESULTS

In the 28 HandiHaler(®) and 7 Respimat(®) trials included in this analysis, 11,626 patients were treated with placebo and 12,929 with tiotropium, totaling 14,909 (12,469 with HandiHaler(®); 2,440 with Respimat(®)) patient-years of tiotropium exposure. Mean age was 65 years, and mean prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 1.16 L (41% predicted). The risk (RR [95% CI]) of AEs (0.90 [0.87, 0.93]) and of serious AEs (SAEs) (0.94 [0.89, 0.99]) was significantly lower in the tiotropium than in the placebo group (HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) pooled results), and there was a numerically lower risk of fatal AEs (FAEs) (0.90 [0.79, 1.01]). The risk of cardiac AEs (0.93 [0.85, 1.02]) was numerically lower in the tiotropium group. Incidences of typical anticholinergic AEs, but not SAEs, were higher with tiotropium. Analyzed separately by inhaler, the risks of AE and SAE in the tiotropium groups remained lower than in placebo and similarly for FAEs.

CONCLUSION

This analysis indicates that tiotropium is associated with lower rates of AEs, SAEs, and similar rates of FAEs than placebo when delivered via HandiHaler(®) or Respimat(®) (overall and separately) in patients with COPD.

Effect of severe renal impairment on umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol pharmacokinetics and safety: a single-blind, nonrandomized study

Background

Umeclidinium and vilanterol, long-acting bronchodilators for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are primarily eliminated via the hepatic route; however, severe renal impairment may adversely affect some elimination pathways other than the kidney.

Objectives

To evaluate the effect of severe renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol.

Methods

Nine patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance <30 mL/min) and nine matched healthy volunteers received a single dose of umeclidinium 125 μg; and after a 7- to 14-day washout, a single dose of umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 μg.

Results

No clinically relevant increases in plasma umeclidinium or vilanterol systemic exposure (area under the curve or maximum observed plasma concentration) were observed following umeclidinium 125 μg or umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 μg administration. On average, the amount of umeclidinium excreted in 24 hours in urine (90% confidence interval) was 88% (81%–93%) and 89% (81%–93%) lower in patients with severe renal impairment compared with healthy volunteers following umeclidinium 125 μg and umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 μg administration, respectively. Treatments were well tolerated in both populations.

Conclusion

Umeclidinium 125 μg or umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 μg administration to patients with severe renal impairment did not demonstrate clinically relevant increases in systemic exposure compared with healthy volunteers. No dose adjustment for umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol is warranted in patients with severe renal impairment.

A randomized, three-period crossover study of umeclidinium as monotherapy in adult patients with asthma

BACKGROUND

To our knowledge, no studies in patients with asthma have assessed a long-acting muscarinic antagonist in the absence of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the dose-response, efficacy, and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC) in patients with asthma not receiving ICS.

METHODS

In this double-blind, three-period crossover study, 350 subjects were randomized to a sequence of three of eight inhaled treatments: UMEC 15.6, 31.25, 62.5, 125, or 250 mcg once daily (OD), UMEC 15.6 or 31.25 mcg twice daily (BID), or placebo, administered for 14 days (12-14-day washout). Trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), 0-24-h weighted mean (WM) FEV1, and safety were assessed. Serial spirometry and pharmacokinetic assessments were performed in a subgroup.

RESULTS

Subjects had a mean baseline pre- and post-bronchodilator FEV1 of 71% and 88% predicted, respectively. Significant improvements in change from baseline trough FEV1 were observed for UMEC 15.6 OD (0.066 L; p = 0.036) and UMEC 125 OD (0.088 L; p = 0.005) versus placebo, but not other OD or BID doses. UMEC increased 0-24-h WM FEV1 versus placebo (0.068-0.121 L [p ≤ 0.017] with no clear dose-response). Treatment differences were similar for corresponding OD and BID doses in serial assessments. UMEC was rapidly absorbed, with evidence of some accumulation. The incidence of on-treatment adverse events was 9-21% for UMEC and 12% for placebo. There were no treatment-related effects on laboratory parameters.

CONCLUSION

The modest trough FEV1 improvements did not conclusively support a therapeutic benefit of UMEC in non-ICS treated patients with asthma.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV

NCT01641692.

Umeclidinium for treating COPD: an evaluation of pharmacologic properties, safety and clinical use

INTRODUCTION

Umeclidinium (UMEC) is a long-acting inhaled antagonist of muscarinic cholinergic receptors. The FDA approved UMEC for maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 2013 and it became available for commercial use as a single agent in 2014. After tiotropium, this is the only other once daily LAMA available for COPD patients.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, we have comprehensively reviewed the pharmacokinetic properties and analyzed the currently available randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and safety profile of UMEC. We have discussed the current clinical application of UMEC and its future implication.

EXPERT OPINION

UMEC is the newer long-acting antimuscarinic agent (LAMA) that has demonstrated significant improvement in lung function and improved the quality of life in moderate-to-severe COPD patients. It is suitable for once daily dosing, has low anticholinergic side effects and is well tolerated. Overall, it is a safe, effective and convenient LAMA for maintenance therapy in COPD patients.

The effect of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium in adult patients with asthma: a randomized, dose-ranging study

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the dose-response of umeclidinium (UMEC; a long-acting muscarinic antagonist) combined with fluticasone furoate (FF; an inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]) in patients with asthma.

METHODS

In a double-blind, three-period crossover study, 421 subjects (symptomatic on ICS), were randomized to a sequence of three of seven treatments: FF 100 mcg alone, FF 100 mcg combined with UMEC (15.6, 31.25, 62.5, 125, or 250 mcg), or vilanterol 25 mcg (a long-acting β-agonist), inhaled once-daily for 14 days (12-14-day washout). Trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), peak expiratory flow (PEF), and safety were assessed.

RESULTS

Period baseline was a significant covariate, indicating a potential carryover effect between treatment periods. Across all treatment periods, trough FEV1 improved with FF/UMEC 125 and 250 versus FF (treatment difference 0.055 L [both doses]; p = 0.018). FF/UMEC increased morning (15.9-22.9 L/min) and evening (16.2-28.8 L/min) PEF versus FF. As intended assessments were confounded, post hoc Period 1 data analyses were performed, demonstrating significant increases in trough FEV1 with FF/UMEC 31.25, 62.5, and 250 versus FF. Trough FEV1 improvements with FF/UMEC were greater in subjects with fixed (0.095-0.304 L) versus non-fixed (-0.084 to 0.041 L) obstruction. The incidence of on-treatment adverse events was 13-25% across groups. No treatment-related effects on laboratory parameters were reported.

CONCLUSION

FF/UMEC may be a viable treatment for patients with asthma symptomatic on ICS; benefit may be most prominent in those with fixed obstruction. The carryover effect suggests future UMEC studies should use an alternative design. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01573624.

A randomized, placebo- and moxifloxacin-controlled thorough QT study of umeclidinium monotherapy and umeclidinium/vilanterol combination in healthy subjects

INTRODUCTION

The long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of UMEC with the long-acting beta2 agonist vilanterol (VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the US and EU.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the effect of UMEC and UMEC/VI on the QT interval corrected using Fridericia's correction (QTcF) following a 10-day treatment period.

METHODS

Randomized, placebo- and moxifloxacin-controlled, 4-period incomplete block crossover study of healthy non-smokers (n = 103). All treatments were double blind, except for moxifloxacin/moxifloxacin placebo controls which were single blinded. Subjects were randomized to a treatment sequence which consisted of 4 of 5 regimens. Each regimen consisted of once-daily doses on Days 1-10 via the ELLIPTA™ dry powder inhaler and a single tablet on Day 10 of the following: placebo + placebo; placebo + moxifloxacin; UMEC 500 μg + placebo; UMEC/VI 125/25 μg (delivered dose: 113/22 μg) + placebo; UMEC/VI 500/100 μg + placebo. QT interval, additional cardiac parameters, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety were assessed.

RESULTS

No clinically significant changes from baseline in QTcF occurred with UMEC 500 μg and UMEC/VI 125/25 μg compared with placebo, however, there was a change in QTcF from baseline of 6.4 ms (90% confidence interval [CI]: 4.3, 8.5) at 10 min and 8.2 ms (90%: 6.2, 10.2) at 30 min post dose following UMEC/VI 500/100 μg compared with placebo. On Day 10, categorical analysis demonstrated absolute QTcF values >450-480 ms for UMEC/VI 125/25 μg (1 subject) and moxifloxacin (3 subjects), and a change from baseline QTcF of >30-60 ms for UMEC/VI 125/25 μg, UMEC 500/100 μg and placebo (1 subject each) and moxifloxacin (2 subjects). On Day 10, the mean change from baseline in heart rate was increased with UMEC/VI 125/25 μg and UMEC 500/100 μg compared with placebo with the maximum increase occurring at 10 min post dose (8.4 bpm [90% CI: 7.0, 9.8] for UMEC/VI 125/25 μg; 20.3 bpm [90% CI: 18.9, 21.7] for UMEC/VI 500/100 μg); after this timepoint, heart rate rapidly returned to normal levels. UMEC and VI systemic exposures following UMEC/VI 500/100 μg were >4-fold higher than those following UMEC/VI 125/25 μg. All treatments were generally well tolerated in terms of adverse events, laboratory, vital signs and electrocardiogram data; the proportion of subjects with any adverse event was similar across treatments arms (39-59%)..

CONCLUSION

There was no clinically significant effect on QTcF observed following 10-days' treatment with inhaled UMEC/VI 125/25 μg or UMEC 500 μg compared with placebo. The supratherapeutic dose of UMEC/VI 500/100 μg prolonged QTcF by 6.4 ms (90% CI: 4.3, 8.5) at 10 min and 8.2 ms (90% CI: 6.2, 10.2) at 30 min compared with placebo, following which QTcF interval difference from placebo declined rapidly..

Effects of moderate hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetic properties and tolerability of umeclidinium and vilanterol in inhalational umeclidinium monotherapy and umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy: an open-label, nonrandomized study

BACKGROUND

The long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) is approved as a monotherapy, and in combination with the long-acting β2-agonist vilanterol (VI), as a once-daily inhaled maintenance bronchodilator therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the US and EU; they are not indicated for the treatment of asthma. Preclinical and clinical data suggest that UMEC and VI are predominantly eliminated by the liver.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study were to evaluate the effects of moderate hepatic impairment on the plasma and urinary pharmacokinetic properties of each drug, and on the tolerability of inhalational UMEC/VI 125/25 µg and UMEC 125 µg.

METHODS

This open-label, nonrandomized study was conducted in patients with moderate hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh score, 7-9) and in healthy volunteers (control). Patients and volunteers were administered a single dose of UMEC/VI 125/25 µg, and, after a 7- to 14-day washout period, repeat-dose UMEC 125 µg once daily for 7 days. Primary end points were the plasma pharmacokinetic properties of single- and repeat-dose UMEC and VI. Secondary end points were the urinary pharmacokinetic properties of UMEC, and the tolerability of each treatment.

RESULTS

All 18 enrolled patients and volunteers (12 men, 6 women; mean age, 53.6 years) completed the study. Mean systemic exposures of UMEC and VI were similar or numerically lower in patients with moderate hepatic impairment compared with those in healthy volunteers, but the differences were not clinically significant. UMEC accumulations with 7-day dosing of UMEC were similar between patients with moderate hepatic impairment and healthy volunteers. UMEC/VI 125/25 µg and UMEC 125 µg were well-tolerated, with no safety concerns identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of UMEC/VI 125/25 µg or UMEC 125 µg in patients with moderate hepatic impairment did not result in clinically relevant increases in UMEC or VI exposures compared with those in healthy volunteers. Based on these findings, no dose adjustment for UMEC/VI or UMEC is warranted in patients with moderate hepatic impairment.

Umeclidinium bromide and vilanterol in combination for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Drugs from the two major classes of bronchodilator; umeclidinium, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and vilanterol, a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA), have been combined in a single inhaler device for once-daily use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These drugs have been proven safe and well tolerated in patients with COPD and show an enhanced improvement in FEV1 when compared to either drug in isolation and when compared with an established LAMA drug. In this article, we discuss the data supporting this combination inhaler and also review alternative combined LAMA/LABA options. We discuss where these agents are likely to find a place in the current therapy of COPD and where the future is likely to lead with these and other therapies.