Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate: the 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled AUGMENT COPD study

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Japan: The REMIND Study

INTRODUCTION

Symptom status and treatment changes among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using inhaler treatment in real-world clinical settings are not well understood, particularly according to class of treatment. We investigated the proportion of symptomatic patients among those with COPD using inhaler treatment, based on COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores in clinical practice, and changes in inhaler treatments and symptoms at 1-year follow-up.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of data from a multicenter, prospective cohort study conducted at medical institutions with respiratory specialists in Japan. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with CAT scores ≥ 10 or < 10 in each inhaler treatment group at registration.

RESULTS

Of 414 patients in the full analysis set, 76 (18.4%), 261 (63.0%), and 77 (18.6%) were using long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), LAMA + long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) + LABA, respectively, at registration. The proportions of patients with CAT scores ≥ 10 or < 10 per inhaler treatment group at registration, respectively, were 32.9% and 67.1% in the LAMA group, 55.0% and 45.0% in the LAMA + LABA group, and 50.0% and 50.0% in the ICS + LABA group. Most patients (> 75%) in each inhaler treatment group showed no change in inhaler treatment at 1 year, regardless of their CAT score at registration. Approximately 70-80% of patients with CAT scores ≥ 10 at registration still had CAT scores ≥ 10 at 1 year; 10-30% of patients with CAT scores < 10 at registration had CAT scores ≥ 10 at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

In real-world Japanese clinical practice, a considerable proportion of patients have persistent symptoms (CAT score ≥ 10) despite using mono or dual inhaler treatment; > 75% of symptomatic patients with COPD using inhaler treatment did not undergo treatment escalation at 1-year follow-up and remained symptomatic.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT05903989.

Benefit-Harm Analysis of Earlier Initiation of Triple Therapy for Prevention of Acute Exacerbation in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Rationale: Reducing the risk of exacerbation is a fundamental goal in managing stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Guidelines recommend triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting muscarinic antagonists, and long-acting β-agonists) only as a stepup from dual therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting β-agonists) for patients at continued high risk of exacerbation, because of the trade-off of an increased risk of pneumonia associated with inhaled corticosteroid-containing therapies. However, there is little evidence on the optimum timing of initiating triple therapy. Objectives: To perform a benefit-harm analysis to evaluate the net benefit of earlier initiation of triple therapy for the prevention of acute exacerbations in patients with COPD compared with standard timing recommended in current guidelines. Methods: We used a validated whole-disease microsimulation model of COPD in the Canadian general population aged ⩾40 years to determine the benefit versus harm of earlier initiation of triple therapy over a 20-year time horizon compared with standard care. We assessed net change in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from the reduction in risk of acute exacerbations and the increased risk of treatment-related pneumonia in subgroups of patients with COPD defined by exacerbation history, symptoms, and disease severity. Model parameters were determined from clinical trials and other published literature. Key parameters were varied in one-way sensitivity analysis. Results: In patients at high risk of acute exacerbation (54.7% female; mean age, 74.0 yr; 68% Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease grades I and II), earlier initiation of triple therapy was associated with a net QALY gain of 4.8 per 100 patients with COPD over 20 years compared with standard care. The net QALY gain increased to 5.9 per 100 patients in the subgroup of patients with a high symptom burden (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score, >1). Earlier initiation remained net beneficial in all subgroup and sensitivity analysis scenarios. Conclusions: Modeling suggests that earlier initiation of triple therapy is likely to be net beneficial for patients at high risk of acute exacerbation, with an even greater benefit to patients with a high symptom burden. Further clinical research is needed to verify these findings in empirical studies.

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

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

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting β2-agonist combination for the treatment of maintenance therapy-naïve patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a narrative review

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Faster lung function impairment occurs earlier in the disease, particularly in mild-to-moderate COPD, highlighting the need for early and effective targeted interventions. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2024 report recommends initial pharmacologic treatment with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination in group B (0 or 1 moderate exacerbation not leading to hospitalization, modified Medical Research Council score of ⩾2, and COPD Assessment Test™ score of ⩾10) and E (⩾2 moderate exacerbations or ⩾1 exacerbation leading to hospitalization and blood eosinophil count <300 cells/µL) patients. In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), LAMA/LABA combination therapy improved lung function, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and Transitional Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score and reduced the use of rescue medications, exacerbation risk, and risk of first clinically important deterioration (CID), compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapy. However, there is limited evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy versus LAMA or LABA monotherapy in maintenance therapy-naïve patients. This review discusses the rationale for the early initiation of LAMA/LABA combination therapy in maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD. In post hoc analyses of pooled data from RCTs, compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapy, LAMA/LABA combination therapy improved lung function and quality of life and reduced COPD symptoms, risk of first moderate/severe exacerbation, risk of first CID, and use of rescue medication, with no new safety signals. In a real-world study, patients initiating LAMA/LABA had significantly reduced risk of COPD-related inpatient admissions and rate of on-treatment COPD-related inpatient admissions over 12 months than those initiating LAMA. Consequently, LAMA/LABA combination therapy could be considered the treatment of choice in maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD, as recommended by the GOLD 2024 report.

Combination therapy with long-acting bronchodilators and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Accumulated high-quality data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) combination therapy significantly improves clinical symptoms and health status in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and reduces exacerbation risk. However, there is a growing concern that LAMA/LABA therapy may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD. The aim of this paper is to determine whether the use of LAMA/LABA combination therapy modifies the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library to identify relevant RCTs of LAMA/LABA or LABA/LAMA/inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for the management of patients with COPD that reported on cardiovascular end-points. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 51 RCTs enrolling 91 021 subjects were analysed. Both dual LAMA/LABA (1.6% versus 1.3%; relative risk 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.81) and triple therapy (1.6% versus 1.4%; relative risk 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.61) significantly increased the risk of MACE compared with ICS/LABA. The excess risk was most evident in RCTs in which the average underlying baseline risk for MACE was >1% per year. Compared with LAMA only, LABA only or placebo, dual LAMA/LABA therapy did not significantly increase the risk of MACE, though these comparisons may have lacked sufficient statistical power.

CONCLUSION

Compared with ICS/LABA, dual LAMA/LABA or triple therapy increases cardiovascular risk in patients with COPD. This should be considered in the context of the incremental benefits of these therapies for symptoms and exacerbation rates in patients with COPD, especially in those with a MACE risk of >1% per year.

A Real-World Study on the Day and Night-Time Symptoms Among Greek COPD Patients Who Recently Initiated Treatment with Dual Bronchodilation: The DANICO Study

Purpose

The rationale of this study was to investigate the prevalence of daily and night symptoms and quality of sleep in Greek COPD patients as a means to evaluate their response to treatment with the fixed dose combination of aclidinium/formoterol (administered through the Genuair^® device).

Patients and Methods

This study was a multicenter, nationwide, non-interventional, observational study in 2105 patients suffering from COPD, who have recently started treatment with aclidinium/formoterol. Patients were attending to two visits, one baseline and a final visit, 3 months later. Different variables have been collected on either the baseline or the final visit or both: demographics, vital sign measurements, COPD-related medical history parameters, comorbidities, COPD assessment test (CAT), COPD severity based on spirometry measurements, COPD stage based on the ABCD assessment approach proposed by the 2019 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD), COPD treatment report, and severity of early-morning, daytime and night-time COPD-related symptoms. Reasons for prescribing aclidinium/formoterol, satisfaction of patients to the treatment, as well as their compliance have also been recorded.

Results

After 3 months on aclidinium/formoterol, 50.1% of the patients experienced an improvement in their early-morning symptoms. Furthermore, 49.9% of them experienced an improvement in their daily symptoms, 44.9% improved their night-time symptoms and 43.2% reduced the frequency of overnight sleep disruptions due to COPD symptoms. These favorable outcomes apply mainly to GOLD Groups B–D. Treatment with aclidinium/formoterol improved on average the pre-bronchodilation FEV1% pred by 3.18%, the post-bronchodilation FEV1% pred by 2.78% and reduced CAT score by 5.22 points. Satisfaction with using aclidinium/formoterol across patients was high, as well as compliance to therapy.

Conclusion

Aclidinium/formoterol provided significant benefits on the quality of life of COPD patients by reducing the morning, daytime and the night-time symptoms and symptom burden in GOLD Groups B–D, and activity impairment under real-life conditions in all GOLD ABCD groups.

The impact of long-acting muscarinic antagonists on mucus hypersecretion and cough in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review

Patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinically manifest airway mucus hypersecretion as sputum expectoration and cough. Evidence accumulated in the past decade has shown that the cholinergic system not only regulates airway smooth muscle contraction but also the activity of inflammatory and airway epithelial cells, including goblet cells, and submucosal gland activity. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) with the most favourable M₃/M₂ muscarinic acetylcholine (ACh) receptors residency properties are not only excellent bronchodilators but potentially also mucus-modifying agents, able to positively impact on mucus hypersecretion and cough. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the impact of LAMAs on mucus hypersecretion and cough in COPD patients. The evidence confirmed that LAMAs, mainly tiotropium and aclidinium, improved sputum production and cough in moderate to severe COPD. Thus, LAMAs not only antagonise the ACh-induced bronchoconstriction of the airways but also appear to limit the production of mucus secreted in response to ACh by airway goblet cells and/or submucosal glands. Further clinical studies are necessary to evaluate the impact of LAMAs exclusively on sputum symptoms and cough as primary end-points and to investigate whether LAMAs have a modulatory action on the rheological properties of mucus.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

An Evaluation of the Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Aclidinium/Formoterol Fixed-Dose Combination Administered in Chinese Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background and Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate in patients from China with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

In this open-label, repeat-dose, 5-day pharmacokinetic study (NCT03276078) of inhaled aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate 400/12 µg twice daily, plasma concentrations of aclidinium, formoterol, and two aclidinium metabolites (LAS34823, LAS34850) were assessed (days 1 and 5). Adverse event (AE) data were collected.

Results

Twenty patients (15 [75%] males) with a mean age of 59.2 years were included. Median (range) time to maximum concentration on days 1 and 5 was 0.08 (0.08–0.50) and 0.08 (0.08–0.50) h, respectively, for aclidinium; and 1.00 (0.08–3.00) and 0.08 (0.08–1.50) h, respectively, for formoterol. Mean elimination half-life and accumulation ratio for area under the concentration–time curve during a dosage interval (AUC_τ) was 19.42 h and 2.0, respectively, for aclidinium; and 14.06 h and 1.4, respectively, for formoterol. Steady-state maximum concentration (C_max,ss) and AUC_τ on day 5 were 60.86 pg/mL and 168.80 h·pg/mL, respectively, for aclidinium; and 6.47 pg/mL and 31.98 h·pg/mL, respectively, for formoterol. Aclidinium produced high coefficients of variation (day 1: AUC_τ 79.0%, C_max 84.5%; day 5: AUC_τ 82.2%, C_max 150.0%). Few AEs were reported, typically one per patient. One patient discontinued due to a serious AE (considered possibly unrelated to treatment).

Conclusions

Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg twice daily was well-tolerated in patients from China with moderate-to-severe COPD. Safety findings were consistent with the known safety profile.

Clinical Trial Identifier

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03276078.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40268-021-00374-z.

Quantitative analysis of efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations in the treatment of stable COPD

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to quantitatively compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) for the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), especially in terms of their loss of efficacy in lung function.

METHODS

Randomized controlled clinical trials of LABA/LAMA FDCs for the treatment of stable COPD were comprehensively searched for in public databases. Pharmacodynamic models were established to describe the time course of the primary outcome [trough forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1)]. Secondary outcomes [COPD exacerbations, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI), and rescue medication use] and safety outcomes [mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), and withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs)] were also compared via a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies involving 16,486 participants were included in this study. The results showed that in terms of primary outcome (change from baseline in trough FEV1), the efficacy of vilanterol/umeclidinium was the highest, while the efficacy of formoterol/aclidinium was the lowest, with a maximum effect value (Emax) of 0.185 L [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.173-0.197 L] and 0.119 L (95% CI: 0.103-0.135 L), respectively. The efficacy of other drugs, such as formoterol/glycopyrronium, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, and olodaterol/tiotropium, were comparable, and their Emax values were 0.150-0.177 L. Except for vilanterol/umeclidinium, the other four LABA/LAMA FDCs showed a certain degree of loss of efficacy. Compared with the efficacy at 2 days, the trough FEV1 (L) relative to baseline at 24 weeks decreased by 0.029-0.041 L. In terms of secondary outcomes, the efficacy of different LABA/LAMA FDCs was similar in TDI and rescue medication use. However, formoterol/aclidinium was better in preventing the COPD exacerbations, while vilanterol/umeclidinium was the best in terms of SGRQ. In addition, different LABA/LAMA FDCs and placebo had similar safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The present findings may provide necessary quantitative information for COPD medication guidelines.

Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.

RESULTS

The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV₁ versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV₁ at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.

Comparison of efficacy and side effects of fixed-dose combination of Aclidinium/Formoterol and Monotherapy of Aclidinium or Formoterol in COPD: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Fixed-dose combination (FDC) of Aclidinium (ACL) and Formoterol (FOR) is a maintenance therapy for patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although the effect of combination of long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) is less compared with the statistical sum of the effects of LABA and LAMA alone, the effect of combination of LABA and LAMA is significantly higher than that of either of the two. Thus, the resulting therapeutic effect in pulmonary function, improvement of dyspnea, quality of life, and incidence of adverse events was analyzed to explore the efficacy of FDC and monotherapy of either ACL or FOR in stable COPD patients.

METHODS

Methods Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), aclidinium or LAMA, formoterol or LABA, randomized controlled trials, or RCT were used as keywords in the search for studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Reference List, and Clinicaltrails.gov databases. Studies that evaluated efficacy and side effects of Fixed-dose combination of Aclidinium/Formoterol and Monotherapy of Aclidinium or Formoterol in COPD published between the establishment period of the database and June 2020 were retrieved. Two independent reviewers extracted the data; Revman 5.3 software was used for data analysis with dose efficacy and side effects were presented as mean difference at 95% confidence interval. Notably, ACL 400 mg / FOR 12ug and ACL 400 mg / 6ug were used as subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies with 7,081 patients were enrolled for analysis. The trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) mean difference (MD) for FDC was 0.01 (95% CI, - 0.01 to 0.03); St George's respiratory COPD specific questionnaire (SGRQ) MD for FDC was - 0.76 (95% CI, - 1.81 to 0.29); transitional dyspnea index (TDI) MD for FDC was 0.33 (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.60) compared to that of ACL. Furthermore, trough FEV1 MD for FDC was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.06); SGRQ MD for FDC was - 1.52 (95% CI, - 2.57 to-0.47); TDI MD for FDC was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.70) compared to that of the FOR. The evidence for each result was accurate and the results were unaffected by the duration of the study.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study showed that, unlike monotherapies, FDC significantly improves lung function, dyspnea, and quality of life. In addition, FDC significantly improves dyspnea compared to ACL alone.

Future concepts in bronchodilation for COPD: dual- versus monotherapy

Most patients with COPD are recommended to initiate maintenance therapy with a single long-acting bronchodilator, such as a long-acting muscarinic antagonist or long-acting β₂-agonist. However, many patients receiving mono-bronchodilation continue to experience high symptom burden, suggesting that patients are frequently not receiving optimal treatment. Treatment goals for COPD are often broad and not individually tailored, making initial treatment response assessments difficult. A personalised approach to initial maintenance therapy, based upon an individual's symptom burden and exacerbation risk, may be more appropriate.An alternative approach would be to maximise bronchodilation early in the disease course of all patients with COPD. Evidence suggests that dual bronchodilation has greater and consistent efficacy for lung function and symptoms than mono-bronchodilation, whilst potentially reducing the risk of exacerbations and disease deterioration, with a similar safety profile to mono-bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and symptoms between dual- and mono-bronchodilation have also been demonstrated in maintenance-naïve patients, who are most likely to resemble those at first presentation in a clinical setting. Despite promising results, there are several evidence gaps that need to be addressed to allow decision makers to evaluate the merits of a widespread earlier introduction of dual bronchodilation.

Aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate as a treatment for COPD: an update

Introduction: Aclidinium/formoterol is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) dual bronchodilator used as a maintenance treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy of aclidinium/formoterol has been demonstrated consistently in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD versus placebo and monocomponents, with a comparable safety profile.Areas covered: This review examines recent research findings that expand our understanding of the impact of aclidinium/formoterol on the burden of COPD. Reviewed outcomes include improvements in lung function, respiratory symptoms, health-related quality of life, exercise tolerance, exacerbation rates, and clinically important deteriorations. In addition, the reported cardiovascular safety of aclidinium and current LAMA/LABA treatment recommendations are discussed.Expert opinion: Aclidinium/formoterol reduces disease burden in patients with COPD, including those that are treatment-naïve, without a significant increase in safety risk compared with monotherapies. Furthermore, evidence supports an improvement in lung function over a 24-hour period with aclidinium/formoterol treatment versus monotherapy and placebo, which may offer an advantage over some once-daily LAMA/LABA combinations. In summary, the recent evidence discussed in this review adds weight to the use of LAMA/LABA combinations as an initial therapy for certain patients newly diagnosed with COPD.

Formoterol for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Bronchodilators, including long-acting β2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists, are the mainstay for treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to prevent exacerbations or reduce symptoms. Formoterol is a highly selective and potent β2-agonist that relaxes airway smooth muscle to significantly improve lung function. Inhaled formoterol works within 5 minutes of administration and provides improvements in spirometry measurements over 12 hours. The lipophilicity of formoterol allows it to form a depot within the smooth muscle to provide a prolonged duration of action. Following therapeutic doses, plasma concentrations are very low or undetectable. Determination of the pharmacokinetics of formoterol following high-dose administration to healthy volunteers revealed that the drug was rapidly absorbed and excreted unchanged in the urine with a half-life of 10 hours. Inhaled formoterol, as monotherapy or in combination with other agents, is an effective and safe treatment option for patients with moderate to severe COPD. Clinical studies have demonstrated improvements in lung function and COPD symptoms, particularly dyspnea; reductions in the risk of exacerbations; and improvement in patients' health status. The adverse event profile of inhaled formoterol is similar to that of placebo, with few adverse cardiovascular events. Formoterol is a valuable bronchodilator used in the maintenance treatment of COPD. This review describes the mechanism of action, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of inhaled formoterol. It also reviews the results of large, randomized, controlled clinical trials that evaluated the use of formoterol as monotherapy and in combination with inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting muscarinic antagonists, and triple therapy regimens in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe COPD.

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

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

Efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler delivered using co-suspension delivery technology in Japanese patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

PINNACLE-4 evaluated the efficacy and safety of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist fixed-dose combination glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI) in patients from Asia, Europe, and the USA with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This pre-specified analysis included Japanese patients in PINNACLE-4.

METHODS

In this double-blind randomized study (NCT02343458), patients received GFF MDI (18/9.6 μg), glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI (18 μg), formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI (9.6 μg), or placebo MDI twice daily for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) over Weeks 12-24. Secondary lung function endpoints, patient-reported outcomes, and safety were assessed. The Japanese subpopulation (n = 150) analyses were exploratory.

RESULTS

GFF MDI improved change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ over Weeks 12-24 versus GP MDI, FF MDI, and placebo MDI (least squares mean [LSM] differences [95% confidence interval]: 69 [8-131], 60 [-1 to 121], and 275 [180-370] mL, respectively). GFF MDI numerically improved Transition Dyspnea Index focal score and change from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score versus placebo MDI (LSM differences 0.19 and -3.78, respectively). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in ≤4.5% of patients in any treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

GFF MDI improved lung function versus monocomponents and placebo MDI in the Japan subpopulation of PINNACLE-4. The efficacy and safety results were generally consistent with those of the global study population, supporting the use of GFF MDI in Japanese patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of LABA/LAMA Fixed-Dose Combinations Aclidinium/Formoterol, Glycopyrronium/Indacaterol and Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in the Treatment of COPD in Daily Practice - Results of the Non-Interventional DETECT Study

Background

LABA (long-acting β2-agonists) and/or LAMA (long-acting muscarinic antagonists) represent the first treatment options for patients with symptomatic COPD. Although both display different mechanisms of activity, in combination they have a stronger broncho-dilating effect than monotherapy; hence, a combination of both LABA and LAMA is particularly recommended for patients whose symptoms cannot be sufficiently improved by a single active ingredient. To date, only few data have been collected regarding the therapeutic outcomes of approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) under everyday (real-life) conditions in non-clinical trial settings.

Objective and Methods

The main objective of the DETECT study was to investigate the impact of aclidinium/formoterol (AB/FF, b.i.d.), glycopyrronium/indacaterol (GLY/IND, q.d.) and umeclidinium/vilanterol (UME/VL, q.d.) in patients with COPD in daily clinical practice. Therefore, a prospective, non-randomized, 12-month, observational study was implemented to assess the effectiveness of these treatments in patients who had been switched to FDC within the last 3 months or for whom such a changeover was intended. Changes in lung function were analyzed by the forced expiratory volume (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) measures. Quality of life and well-being were evaluated by the COPD Assessment Test (CAT™). Furthermore, a number of exacerbations and early morning COPD symptoms were documented.

Results

In total, 3653 patients were enrolled. FEV1 and FVC values significantly improved during the study with AB/FF (increase by 0.09 ± 0.40 L and 0.10 ± 0.57 L, respectively; p<0.0001), GLY/IND (0.06±0.38/0.05±0.51 L; p<0.0001 and p=0.0025) and UME/VL (0.12±0.39/0.10±0.52 L; p<0.0001). CAT scores decreased indicating improved COPD (AB/FF, 4.17±8.30; GLY/IND, 3.66±7.88; UME/VL, 4.06±7.96; p<0.0001). Moreover, the number of exacerbations as well as early morning COPD symptoms similarly diminished in all treatment groups. A comparable proportion of patients with adverse drug reactions was recorded: AB/FF, 4.07% of patients; GLY/IND, 3.52%; UME/VL, 3.64%.

Conclusion

In summary, AB/FF, GLY/IND and UME/VL provided clinical benefits in lung function, quality of life and early morning COPD symptoms in a broad cohort of COPD patients under routine medical practice conditions. All three treatments were well tolerated.

Benefits of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI) in improving lung function and reducing exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD: a pooled analysis of the PINNACLE studies

Background

The Phase III PINNACLE studies assessed the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI), a dual long-acting bronchodilator for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here we present a pre-specified pooled analysis of PINNACLE-1, PINNACLE-2, and PINNACLE-4.

Methods

PINNACLE-1, -2, and -4 were multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, with no requirement for exacerbation history or a high symptom burden. Patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 μg, glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 18 μg, formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 μg, or placebo MDI, twice-daily for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint of the pooled analysis was the change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at week 24. Secondary endpoints included COPD exacerbations and clinically important deterioration (CID). Adverse events were also assessed.

Results

The pooled intent-to-treat population included 4983 patients; of these, 61.9% had a COPD assessment test (CAT) score ≥15, and 25.0% had experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the past year. At week 24, GFF MDI improved morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ versus GP MDI (least squares mean [LSM] difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 59 mL [43, 75]), FF MDI (65 mL [48, 81]), and placebo MDI (146 mL [125, 166]); all p < 0.0001. GFF MDI reduced the risk of a moderate/severe exacerbation by 18% (p = 0.0168), 15% (p = 0.0628), and 28% (p = 0.0012) compared with GP MDI, FF MDI, and placebo MDI, respectively. In general, exacerbation risk reduction with GFF MDI versus comparators was greater in subgroups of symptomatic patients (CAT ≥15) and those who had an exacerbation history, than in the pooled intent-to-treat population. The risk of CID was also lower with GFF MDI versus GP MDI (23% decrease), FF MDI (17%), and placebo MDI (49%); all p < 0.0001. All treatments were well tolerated, with no unexpected safety signals.

Conclusions

This pooled analysis of the PINNACLE studies demonstrated that GFF MDI improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations compared with monocomponents and placebo in patients with COPD. Exacerbation reductions with GFF MDI versus comparators were generally greater in patients with higher symptom burden and those with exacerbation history.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01854645, NCT01854658, and NCT02343458. Registered 13 May 2013 (NCT01854645, NCT01854658) and 6 January 2015 (NCT02343458).

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

(PROSPERO: CRD42019144764).

A Real-World Observational Study Examining the Impact of Aclidinium Bromide Therapy on the Quality of Life, Symptoms, and Activity Impairment of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: The Greek ON-AIR Study

Purpose

This multicenter, prospective, observational study aimed to supplement real-world evidence on the effects of aclidinium bromide on the quality of life (QoL), symptoms, and activity impairment of patients with COPD.

Patients and Methods

Eligible patients were ≥40 years of age, newly initiated on aclidinium bromide as monotherapy or add-on therapy according to the product's approved label. Patient-reported COPD assessment test (CAT), the severity of symptoms and their impact on daily activities, and the features of the Genuair® inhaler device were assessed at enrollment and at 12 weeks post-treatment onset.

Results

Between 13 March 2015 and 29 January 2016, 285 eligible consenting patients (76.3% males; median age: 69.0 years; 26.0% newly diagnosed with COPD) were enrolled by 15 hospital-based respiratory medicine specialists in Greece. Aclidinium bromide was initiated as add-on therapy to other inhaled maintenance medications in 73.1% of evaluable patients. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) baseline CAT score decreased from 14.0 (9.0-20.0) to 10.0 (6.0-15.0) points (p<0.001) after 12 weeks of treatment, with 76.5% of the patients achieving a ≥2-point decrease. The severity of night-time and early-morning symptoms, assessed using a 5-point Likert-type scale, decreased from a median (IQR) of 1.0 (0.0-2.0) to 0.0 (0.0-1.0), and from 2.0 (1.0-2.0) to 1.0 (1.0-2.0), respectively (p<0.001 for both). In patients with paired data, the prevalence of at least moderate night-time symptoms, early-morning symptoms, and daily activity impairment decreased from 28.2% to 19.1%, from 63.6% to 34.2%, and from 59.5% to 38.7%, respectively (p<0.001 for all). Inhaler device features were assessed as "very good"/"good" by more than 90% of the patients. The adverse drug reaction rate was 1.4%.

Conclusion

The study provides real-world evidence on the beneficial effects of aclidinium bromide on the patients' QoL, symptom severity, and daily activity impairment, which are complemented by a favorable safety profile and high patient satisfaction with the inhaler device.

Multimorbidity in COPD, does sleep matter?

A good night's sleep is a prerequisite for sustainable mental and physical health. Sleep disorders, including sleep disordered breathing, insomnia and sleep related motor dysfunction (e.g., restless legs syndrome), are common in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), especially in more severe disease. COPD is commonly associated with multimorbidity, and sleep disorders as a component of this multimorbidity spectrum have a further negative impact on COPD-related comorbidities. Indeed, concomitant diseases in COPD and in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) are similar, suggesting that the combination of COPD and OSA, the so called OSA-COPD overlap syndrome (OVS), affects patient outcomes. Potential clinically important interactions of OVS exist in cardiovascular and metabolic disease, arthritis, anxiety, depression, neurocognitive disorder and the fatigue syndrome. Correct diagnosis for recognition and treatment of sleep-related disorders in COPD is recommended. However, surprisingly limited information is available and further research and improved diagnostic tools are needed. In the absence of clear evidence, we agree with the recommendation of the Global Initiative on Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease that sleep disorders should be actively searched for and treated in patients with COPD. We believe that both aspects are important components of the holistic approach required in patients with chronic multimorbid conditions.

Daytime symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review

There is no single source of compiled data on symptoms experienced by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) when awake and active throughout the day. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the prevalence, variability, and burden (i.e., bothersomeness and/or intensity), and the impact of daytime COPD symptoms on other outcomes. The review also evaluated the impact of interventions and the measures/tools used to assess daytime COPD symptoms in patients. A systematic literature search was conducted using the primary search terms "COPD", "symptoms", and "daytime" in EMBASE®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® In-Process, and CENTRAL in 2016, followed by an additional search in 2018 to capture any new literature that was published since the last search. Fifty-six articles were included in the review. The accumulated evidence indicated that the symptomatic burden of COPD appears greatest in the morning, particularly upon waking, and that these morning symptoms have a substantial impact on patients' ability to function normally through the day; they also worsen quality of life. A wide variety of tools were used to evaluate symptoms across the studies. The literature also confirmed the importance of pharmacotherapy in the management of daytime COPD symptoms, and in helping normalize daily functioning. More research is needed to better understand how COPD symptoms impact daily functioning and to evaluate COPD symptoms at well-defined periods throughout the day, using validated and uniform measures/tools. This will help clinicians to better define patients' needs and take appropriate action.

Triple Therapy in COPD

:

Triple inhaled therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) includes an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), a long-acting b2-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) taken in combination. Triple therapy is recommended by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) for patients who experience recurrent exacerbations despite treatment with either a dual bronchodilator or LABA/ICS combination. There is consistent evidence that the LABA/LAMA/ICS combination has significantly greater effects on trough FEV1, symptoms, quality of life, and exercise performance compared to comparator treatments.

:

The role of triple therapy in reducing exacerbations in COPD patients is debatable, but recent trials have revealed some intriguing insights.

:

Three pivotal studies, namely TRILOGY, TRINITY and TRIBUTE have been conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of extrafine Beclomethasone/Formoterol Fumarate/Glycopyrronium Bromide (BDP/FF/GB) versus different treatment options for COPD. Extrafine BDP/FF/GB has been compared to an ICS/LABA (BDP/FF) combination in the TRILOGY study, to a LAMA monotherapy (Tiotropium-TIO) and an extemporary triple combination of ICS/LABA + LAMA (BDP/FF + TIO) in the TRINITY study, and to one inhalation of LABA/LAMA per day (Indacaterol/ Glycopyrronium - IND/GLY) in the TRIBUTE study.

:

Another triple therapy with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) was recently tested in two further studies that included patients with COPD. The FULFIL study compared the efficacy of the triple FF/UMEC/VI therapy to the ICS/LABA association budesonide/formoterol, while the IMPACT study compared the rate of moderate and severe exacerbations between singleinhaler FF/UMEC/VI and single-inhaler FF/VI or UMEC/VI.

An Evaluation Of Single And Dual Long-Acting Bronchodilator Therapy As Effective Interventions In Maintenance Therapy-Naïve Patients With COPD

Background

Ideally, treatment recommendations for maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD should be based on studies conducted specifically in this population. We have reviewed evidence from previous studies of pharmacological treatments in maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD and performed a new post-hoc analysis of dual bronchodilator treatment in this population, aiming to assess the effectiveness of these interventions.

Materials and methods

A literature review identified clinical trials that included analyses of patients with COPD who were maintenance therapy-naïve with long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). Additionally, a post-hoc subgroup analysis was conducted for maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD in two large phase III, randomized, double-blind, 24-week trials investigating the efficacy of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) fixed-dose combination versus monotherapy or placebo (ACLIFORM [NCT01462942] and AUGMENT [NCT01437397]).

Results

Treatment-naïve patients with COPD often represent a population of patients at the earliest stage at which most patients seek treatment. Of nine relevant studies identified, all reported positive findings for efficacy of LABA, LAMA, or LABA/LAMA treatment in maintenance therapy-naïve populations. Improvements were observed in lung function, symptoms, and health status versus monotherapy or placebo. Post-hoc analysis of ACLIFORM and AUGMENT demonstrated that AB/FF was effective in improving lung function in patients who had received no prior maintenance therapy. AB/FF showed improvements in 1 hr post-dose FEV1, trough FEV1, and patient-reported outcomes versus placebo and monotherapies. Combined with reviews of previous studies in maintenance therapy-naïve patients, these findings suggest that earlier intervention with a dual bronchodilator maintenance therapy, such as AB/FF, may provide significantly greater benefits than LAMA or LABA mono-bronchodilator therapy as a first maintenance treatment for COPD.

Conclusion

These data show that therapeutic intervention is effective in treatment-naïve patients. Intervention with dual bronchodilator therapy as a first maintenance treatment for COPD may provide greater benefits than LAMA or LABA monotherapy.

The Impact of Twice-Daily Indacaterol/Glycopyrrolate on the Components of Health-Related Quality of Life and Dyspnea in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background

Chronic cough, dyspnea, and excessive sputum production, the characteristic symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), can negatively affect patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The fixed-dose combination of a long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA/LAMA) have been shown to improve HRQoL and COPD symptoms as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) total scores. However, the impact of a LABA/LAMA on the individual components of HRQoL and dyspnea with daily activities is unknown.

Methods

Secondary analysis of pooled data from 2 replicate, phase 3, 12-week, randomized, placebo, and active-controlled trials of twice-daily indacaterol/glycopyrrolate (IND/GLY) were analyzed. Change from baseline in HRQoL and dyspnea was measured by SGRQ and TDI, respectively. Total and component scores were evaluated using linear mixed models. Logistic regression was used to analyze the proportion of patients achieving minimum clinically important difference. Study outcomes were further explored in patient subgroups.

Results

A total of 2038 patients from FLIGHT1/FLIGHT2 studies were evaluated. IND/GLY significantly improved SGRQ component scores (symptoms [-7.3], activity [-3.6], and impacts [-5.0]); all P < 0.001 compared with placebo. IND/GLY also significantly improved symptoms scores compared with IND and GLY (-3.5 and -3.7, respectively; both P < 0.001). Patients treated with IND/GLY also had significant improvements in TDI component scores compared with placebo: functional impairment (0.48), magnitude of task (0.61), and magnitude of effort (0.54); all P < 0.001. All component scores were significantly higher for IND/GLY compared with IND and GLY (P ≤ 0.002 for all).

Conclusions

Twice-daily IND/GLY significantly improved total scores as well as components of HRQoL and dyspnea in patients with COPD. These data demonstrate multiple clinical benefits of LABA/LAMA maintenance therapy in the COPD population. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01727141 and NCT01712516.

Second M3 muscarinic receptor binding site contributes to bronchoprotection by tiotropium

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The bronchodilator tiotropium binds not only to its main binding site on the M₃ muscarinic receptor but also to an allosteric site. Here, we have investigated the functional relevance of this allosteric binding and the potential contribution of this behaviour to interactions with long-acting β-adrenoceptor agonists, as combination therapy with anticholinergic agents and β-adrenoceptor agonists improves lung function in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

ACh, tiotropium, and atropine binding to M₃ receptors were modelled using molecular dynamics simulations. Contractions of bovine and human tracheal smooth muscle strips were studied.

KEY RESULTS

Molecular dynamics simulation revealed extracellular vestibule binding of tiotropium, and not atropine, to M₃ receptors as a secondary low affinity binding site, preventing ACh entry into the orthosteric binding pocket. This resulted in a low (allosteric binding) and high (orthosteric binding) functional affinity of tiotropium in protecting against methacholine-induced contractions of airway smooth muscle, which was not observed for atropine and glycopyrrolate. Moreover, antagonism by tiotropium was insurmountable in nature. This behaviour facilitated functional interactions of tiotropium with the β-agonist olodaterol, which synergistically enhanced bronchoprotective effects of tiotropium. This was not seen for glycopyrrolate and olodaterol or indacaterol but was mimicked by the interaction of tiotropium and forskolin, indicating no direct β-adrenoceptor-M₃ receptor crosstalk in this effect.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

We propose that tiotropium has two binding sites at the M₃ receptor that prevent ACh action, which, together with slow dissociation kinetics, may contribute to insurmountable antagonism and enhanced functional interactions with β-adrenoceptor agonists.

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of E-RS:COPD in patients with spirometric asthma-COPD overlap

BACKGROUND

The Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (E-RS:COPD) is a patient-reported diary that assesses respiratory symptoms in stable COPD.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm trial (GSK ID: 200699; NCT02164539) assessed the structure, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the E-RS, and a separate wheeze item, for use in patients with a primary diagnosis of asthma or COPD, but with spirometric characteristics of both (fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility to salbutamol; a subset of patients referred to as spirometric asthma-COPD overlap [ACO]; N = 338).

RESULTS

Factor analysis demonstrated that E-RS included Cough and Sputum, Chest Symptoms, and Breathlessness domains, with a Total score suitable for quantifying overall respiratory symptoms (comparative fit index: 0.9), consistent with the structure shown in COPD. The wheeze item did not fit the model. Total and domain scores were internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha: 0.7-0.9) and reproducible (intra-class correlations > 0.7). Moderate correlations between RS-Total and RS-Breathlessness scores were observed with St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total and Activity domain scores at baseline (r = 0.43 and r = 0.48, respectively). E-RS scores were sensitive to change when a patient global impression of change and SGRQ change scores were used to define responders, with changes of ≥ - 1.4 in RS-Total score interpreted as clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSIONS

E-RS:COPD scores were reliable, valid and responsive in this sample, suggesting the measure may be suitable for evaluating the severity of respiratory symptoms and the effects of treatment in patients with asthma and COPD that exhibit spirometric characteristics of both fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility. Further study of this instrument and wheeze in new samples of patients with ACO is warranted.

Single Inhaler LABA/LAMA for COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common disabling disease characterized by progressive airflow obstruction. Great efforts were spent in the development of drugs able to improve symptoms, quality of life, reduce exacerbations, hospitalizations and the frequency of death of patients with COPD. The cornerstones of treatment are bronchodilator drugs of two different classes: beta agonists and muscarinic antagonists. Currently the Global initiative for COPD suggests the use of long acting beta agonists (LABAs) and long acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) in combination for the majority of COPD patients, thus great interest is associated with the developing of LAMA/LABA fixed combination in the maintenance treatment of stable COPD. Many LAMA/LABA fixed dose combinations have been licensed in different countries and the clinical use of these drugs stimulated the performance of many clinical trials. The purpose of this review is a complete criticism of pharmacological and clinical aspects related to the use of LAMA/LABA single inhalers for the maintenance treatment of stable COPD, with particular mention to the most debated topics and future prospects in the field.

Relationship of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators with cardiovascular outcomes among patients with stable COPD: a meta-analysis and systematic review of 43 randomized trials

Background: Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2–agonists (LABAs) are the mainstay of maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although previous studies have supported inhaled long-acting bronchodilators (ILABs) for overall cardiovascular safety, the risk of specific cardiovascular outcomes such as arrhythmia, heart failure and stroke is still unknown.

Materials and methods: We systematically searched from PubMed, the Embase database and the Cochrane Library for published studies on ILABs and COPD, from its inception to November 10, 2018, with no language restrictions. The RRs and corresponding 95% CIs were pooled to evaluate ILAB/placebo.

Results: Finally, 43 randomized controlled trials were included. Compared with placebo, ILABs do not increase the risk of overall and specific cardiovascular adverse events (AEs); on the contrary, they can reduce the incidence of hypertension (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.98;I²19.9%; P= 0.221). However, when stratified according to the specific agents of ILABs, olodaterol might reduce the risk of overall cardiovascular adverse events (OCAEs) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49–0.88;I²27.5%; P= 0.000), and the protective effect of lowing blood pressure disappeared. Similarly, the use of inhaled LABA might increase the risk of cardiac failure (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.04–2.84;I²0%; P= 0.538), but this risk disappeared when stratified according to the specific agents of LABA. Besides, formoterol might decrease the risk of cardiac ischemia (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32–0.91; I²0%; P= 0.676).

Conclusions: Overall, the use of ILABs was not associated with overall cardiovascular AEs in patients with stable COPD. When stratified according to the specific agents of LABA, olodaterol might reduce the risk of OCAE; and formoterol might decrease the risk of cardiac ischemia. LABA might reduce the incidence of hypertension, but might increase the risk of heart failure. Therefore, COPD patients with a history of heart failure should use it with caution.

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

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

AMPLIFY: a randomized, Phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol vs monocomponents and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD

Background

AMPLIFY assessed the efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) vs its monocomponents and tiotropium (TIO) in patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD (NCT02796677).

Methods

In this 24-week, Phase III, double-dummy, active-controlled study, symptomatic patients (COPD Assessment Test score ≥10) were randomized to twice-daily AB/FF 400/12 µg, AB 400 µg, or FF 12 µg, or once-daily TIO 18 µg. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline at week 24 in 1-hour morning post-dose FEV1 (AB/FF vs AB) and in pre-dose (trough) FEV1 (AB/FF vs FF). Non-inferiority of AB vs TIO in pre-dose FEV1 was also an objective. Normalized area under the curve (AUC)0-3/3 h FEV1 and nighttime and early morning symptoms were also assessed. A subgroup participated in a 24-hour serial spirometry sub-study.

Results

A total of 1,594 patients were randomized; 566 entered the sub-study. At week 24, 1-hour post-dose FEV1 significantly improved with AB/FF vs AB, FF, and TIO (84, 84, and 92 mL; all P<0.0001). AB/FF significantly improved trough FEV1 vs FF (55 mL, P<0.001) and AB was non-inferior to TIO. AB/FF significantly improved AUC0-3/3 h FEV1 vs all comparators (P<0.0001) and provided significant improvements in early morning symptoms vs TIO. The 24-hour spirometry demonstrated significantly greater improvements with AB/FF in AUC12-24/12 h vs all comparators, and in AUC0-24/24 h vs FF or TIO at week 24.

Conclusion

In patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD, twice-daily AB/FF significantly improved lung function vs monocomponents and TIO, and early morning symptom control vs TIO.

Once daily long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists in a combined inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory condition causing accumulation of mucus in the airways, cough, and breathlessness; the disease is progressive and is the fourth most common cause of death worldwide. Current treatment strategies for COPD are multi-modal and aim to reduce morbidity and mortality and increase patients' quality of life by slowing disease progression and preventing exacerbations. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of a long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) delivered via a single inhaler are approved by regulatory authorities in the USA, Europe, and Japan for the treatment of COPD. Several LABA/LAMA FDCs are available and recent meta-analyses have clarified their utility versus their mono-components in COPD. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs versus placebo will facilitate the comparison of different FDCs in future network meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the evidence for once-daily LABA/LAMA combinations (delivered in a single inhaler) versus placebo on clinically meaningful outcomes in patients with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from Cochrane Airways' Specialised Register (CASR) and also conducted a search of the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch). We searched CASR and trial registries from their inception to 3 December 2018; we imposed no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC versus placebo. We included studies reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. We excluded very short-term trials with a duration of less than 3 weeks. We included adults (≥ 40 years old) with a diagnosis of stable COPD. We included studies that allowed participants to continue using their ICS during the trial as long as the ICS was not part of the randomised treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results to determine included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Where possible, we used a random-effects model to meta-analyse extracted data. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified and included 22 RCTs randomly assigning 8641 people with COPD to either once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC (6252 participants) or placebo (3819 participants); nine studies had a cross-over design. Studies had a duration of between three and 52 weeks (median 12 weeks). The mean age of participants across the included studies ranged from 59 to 65 years and in 21 of 22 studies, participants had GOLD stage II or III COPD. Concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use was permitted in all of the included studies (where stated); across the included studies, between 28% to 58% of participants were using ICS at baseline. Six studies evaluated the once-daily combination of IND/GLY (110/50 μg), seven studies evaluated TIO/OLO (2.5/5 or 5/5 μg), eight studies evaluated UMEC/VI (62.5/5, 125/25 or 500/25 μg) and one study evaluated ACD/FOR (200/6, 200/12 or 200/18 μg); all LABA/LAMA combinations were compared with placebo.The risk of bias was generally considered to be low or unknown (insufficient detail provided), with only one study per domain considered to have a high risk of bias except for the domain 'other bias' which was determined to be at high risk of bias in four studies (in three studies, disease severity was greater at baseline in participants receiving LABA/LAMA compared with participants receiving placebo, which would be expected to shift the treatment effect in favour of placebo).Compared to the placebo, the pooled results for the primary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: all-cause mortality, OR 1.88 (95% CI 0.81 to 4.36, low-certainty evidence); all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs), OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.28, high-certainty evidence); acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.78, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, MD -4.08 (95% CI -4.80 to -3.36, high-certainty evidence); proportion of SGRQ responders, OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.54 to 1.99). Compared with placebo, the pooled results for the secondary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: adjusted trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), MD 0.20 L (95% CI 0.19 to 0.21, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted peak FEV1, MD 0.31 L (95% CI 0.29 to 0.32, moderate-certainty evidence); and all-cause AEs, OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.04; high-certainty evidence). No studies reported data for the 6-minute walk test. The results were generally consistent across subgroups for different LABA/LAMA combinations and doses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, once-daily LABA/LAMA (either IND/GLY, UMEC/VI or TIO/OLO) via a combination inhaler is associated with a clinically significant improvement in lung function and health-related quality of life in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD; UMEC/VI appears to reduce the rate of exacerbations in this population. These conclusions are supported by moderate or high certainty evidence based on studies with an observation period of up to one year.

Fixed-Dose Combinations of Long-Acting Bronchodilators for the Management of COPD: Global and Asian Perspectives

Maintenance bronchodilator therapy with long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) is the cornerstone treatment for patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of LABA/LAMA are recommended for the majority of symptomatic COPD patients by global guidelines; regional guidelines such as the Japanese and Korean guidelines also provide similar recommendations for the use of LABA/LAMA FDCs. This review comprehensively describes the latest clinical evidence from key studies on the efficacy and safety of four approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations: indacaterol/glycopyrronium, vilanterol/umeclidinium, formoterol/aclidinium, and olodaterol/tiotropium. Additionally, in this review we describe the rationale behind the use of LABA/LAMA FDC therapy, key findings from the preclinical and clinical trial evaluation of respective LABA and LAMA monocomponents, and the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA FDCs. Special emphasis is placed on the clinical evidence for the monocomponents and LABA/LAMA FDCs from the Asian population. This detailed overview of the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA FDCs in global and Asian COPD patients is envisaged to provide a better understanding of the benefits of these therapies and to inform healthcare providers and patients on their appropriate use.Funding: Novartis Pharma K.K.

Efficacy of aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg, analyzed by airflow obstruction severity, age, sex, and exacerbation history: pooled analysis of ACLIFORM and AUGMENT

BACKGROUND

Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg is a twice-daily maintenance bronchodilator for COPD. This post hoc study evaluated aclidinium/formoterol vs aclidinium 400 µg, formoterol 12 µg, or placebo in patient subgroups.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were pooled from two 24-week Phase III clinical trials (ACLIFORM and AUGMENT). Patients (N=3,394) were analyzed by baseline airflow obstruction severity (moderate/severe), age (<65/≥65 years), sex, and exacerbation history (0/≥1 exacerbation in the previous 12 months). Changes from baseline vs placebo and mono-therapies were evaluated: morning pre-dose (trough) and morning 1-hour post-dose FEV1, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), and moderate/severe exacerbation rates (healthcare resource utilization [HCRU] and EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool [EXACT] criteria).

RESULTS

Aclidinium/formoterol improved the post-dose FEV1 vs placebo and monotherapy in all subgroups (all P<0.01) and trough FEV1 vs placebo (P<0.001) and formoterol (P<0.05) across all subgroups. Improvements in trough FEV1 were observed vs aclidinium in patients with severe airflow obstruction, patients aged <65 years, males, and patients with exacerbation history (P<0.05). Improvements in TDI were observed vs placebo in all subgroups (all P<0.001), monotherapies for patients with moderate (formoterol P<0.05) or severe airflow obstruction (aclidinium P<0.05), patients aged <65 years (aclidinium P<0.01, formoterol P<0.05), males (formoterol P<0.05), and patients with no exacerbation history (formoterol P<0.05). HCRU exacerbation rates were lower for aclidinium/formoterol vs placebo in patients with no exacerbation history (P<0.01). EXACT exacerbation rates were lower for aclidinium/formoterol in patients with moderate airflow obstruction vs placebo and aclidinium, patients aged <65 years vs placebo and ≥65 years vs formoterol, males vs placebo, and patients with no exacerbation history vs placebo (all P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Aclidinium/formoterol significantly improved post-dose FEV1, trough FEV1, and TDI vs placebo across all subgroups and vs monotherapy in many subgroups. These findings further support the benefits of aclidinium/formoterol for all patients with COPD.

Inhaled therapies and cardiovascular risk in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapy includes a multi-dimensional approach, taking into account both symptoms of the patient and the number of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs). There are three main pharmaceutical classes currently available including long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). COPD is a major risk factor for most cardiovascular diseases, and cardiac comorbidities are very common in COPD patients. Both LAMA and LABA have a considerable impact on cardiac function by stimulating cardiac β2-adrenergic receptors or inhibiting the heart M₂ muscarinic receptors. ICS alone or in combination has never been associated with a real cardiovascular risk.

AREAS COVERED

This review explores the data published on the safety of COPD therapy and the implications for current pharmacotherapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Several studies have confirmed the good safety profile of bronchodilators available both in monotherapy and in association with other bronchodilators of different classes or with ICS despite the device used. Cardiovascular events in clinical trials are generally low and balanced between groups. The actual cardiovascular risk of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in an unselected COPD population will need to be investigated through post-marketing surveillance studies and observational studies.

Aclidinium bromide in fixed-dose combination with formoterol fumarate in the management of COPD: an update on the evidence base

Aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) 400/12 µg is a twice-daily long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist and long-acting β2 agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual-bronchodilator maintenance therapy used to relieve symptoms and reduce future risk of exacerbations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To date, there have been several clinical studies and post hoc analyses of AB/FF, assessing treatment outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. These studies have looked at a range of outcomes, including lung function parameters, patient-reported symptom scores, quality-of-life measures assessing impaired health and perceived well-being, and the frequency, duration, and severity of exacerbations. In light of the major 2017 revision to the Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommendations, and the subsequent updates, we present an update on the latest evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of AB/FF. This review discusses the clinical relevance of the improvements in lung function, symptoms, quality of life, and exacerbations in patients with COPD reported in the phase III and IV trials of AB/FF. Given the current concerns over unnecessary inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use in COPD, we also touch briefly on the use of blood eosinophils as a biomarker for identifying those patients with COPD already using LAMA/LABA therapy for whom the addition of ICS might be of benefit.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler in comparison with other long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist fixed-dose combinations in COPD

BACKGROUND

Dual bronchodilation with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) fixed-dose combination (FDC) is an established treatment strategy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The relative efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI 18/9.6 μg) in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, compared with other licensed LAMA/LABA FDCs, was investigated using an integrated Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review and subsequent screening process identified randomized controlled trials of ⩾10 weeks' duration that enrolled patients aged ⩾40 years with moderate-to-very severe COPD and included at least one LAMA/LABA FDC or open LAMA + LABA treatment arm. NMAs were conducted for outcomes including change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and transition dyspnea index (TDI) parameters, annualized rate of exacerbations, use of rescue medication, adverse events, and all-cause withdrawals. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses accounted for heterogeneity across studies.

RESULTS

In total, 29 studies including 34,617 patients contributed to the NMA for efficacy or safety outcomes at week 24 or exacerbations. For all LAMA/LABA FDCs with data available, significantly greater improvements in FEV1 [trough, peak, and area under the curve (AUC)0-4], SGRQ total score and TDI focal score at week 24, and annualized rate of moderate-to-severe exacerbations, were observed versus placebo. Where indirect comparisons were possible, differences between GFF MDI and other LAMA/LABA FDCs were small relative to established margins of clinical relevance, and not statistically significant. The safety and tolerability profile of GFF MDI was consistent with other LAMA/LABA FDCs and placebo. The results of the meta-regression were generally similar to the base case.

CONCLUSIONS

GFF MDI demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety outcomes to other LAMA/LABA FDCs. Personalization of treatment choice within the class on the basis of other factors such as patient preference may be appropriate.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-effectiveness of twice-daily indacaterol/glycopyrrolate inhalation powder for the treatment of moderate to severe COPD in the US

Background

Indacaterol 27.5 µg/glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg (IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg) inhalation powder, a twice-daily, fixed-dose combination of a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting antimuscarinic antagonist (LAMA), is indicated in the US for long-term maintenance treatment of airflow obstruction in patients with COPD. The safety and efficacy of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg have been established, but cost-effectiveness is not yet known. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg with other long-acting COPD maintenance therapies.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed from the US payer perspective. Health states were defined as mild (post-bronchodilator FEV₁ ≥80% of predicted), moderate (50% ≤FEV₁ <80% of predicted), severe (30% ≤FEV₁ <50% of predicted), and very severe (FEV₁ <30% of predicted) COPD. Patients entering the model transitioned through health states based on placebo-adjusted change from baseline in trough FEV₁ for each comparator at week 12. Comparators included other US Food and Drug Administration-approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations as well as commonly prescribed LAMA and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid agents. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model assumptions and the overall robustness of the results.

Results

Using the model, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg treatment for 12 weeks resulted in total costs of US $23,375 vs US $9,365 for placebo. Compared with placebo, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 treatment resulted in the highest improvement in FEV₁ across all comparators and the lowest cost per decline in 100 mL FEV₁. IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg was also among the most cost-effective treatment option as measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire response rate, at US $3,518 per additional responder at 12 weeks compared with placebo. In addition, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg had the lowest cost per severe exacerbation avoided vs placebo across all comparators (US $87,686).

Conclusion

This model, developed from the US payer perspective with a 5-year time horizon, found IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with moderate to severe COPD.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Improved lung function and patient-reported outcomes with co-suspension delivery technology glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler in COPD: a randomized Phase III study conducted in Asia, Europe, and the USA

Background

COPD is a major global cause of mortality and morbidity. PINNACLE-4 evaluated the efficacy and safety of GFF MDI (glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler) in patients from Asia, Europe, and the USA with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Methods

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study, patients were randomized to treatment with GFF MDI 18/9.6 μg, glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 18 μg, formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 μg, or placebo MDI (all twice daily) for 24 weeks. Lung function, patient-reported outcomes (symptoms and health-related quality of life), and safety were assessed.

Results

Of the 1,756 patients randomized, 1,740 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population (mean age 64.2 years, 74.1% male, and 40.2% Asian). GFF MDI significantly improved morning predose trough FEV₁ at Week 24 (primary endpoint) vs placebo MDI, GP MDI, and FF MDI (least squares mean differences: 165, 59, and 72 mL, respectively; all P<0.0001). GFF MDI also significantly improved other lung function endpoints vs placebo MDI, GP MDI, and FF MDI and patient-reported outcomes vs placebo MDI and GP MDI. A larger proportion of patients treated with GFF MDI achieved the minimum clinically important difference in Transition Dyspnea Index score vs GP MDI and placebo MDI and in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score vs placebo MDI. Adverse event rates were similar across treatment groups.

Conclusion

These results demonstrated the efficacy of GFF MDI in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. GFF MDI was well tolerated, with a safety profile commensurate with long-acting bronchodilators.