Rescue medication use as a patient-reported outcome in COPD: a systematic review and regression analysis

Comparison of Rescue Medication Prescriptions in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium Bromide/Olodaterol in Routine Clinical Practice in England

Purpose

Routinely collected healthcare data on the comparative effectiveness of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist combination umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is limited. This study compared rescue medication prescriptions in patients with COPD in England receiving UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study used primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database linked with secondary care administrative data from Hospital Episode Statistics. Patients with a COPD diagnosis at age ≥35 years were included (indexed) following initiation of single-inhaler UMEC/VI or TIO/OLO between July 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Outcomes included the number of rescue medication prescriptions at 12-months (primary), and at 6-, 18- and 24-months (secondary), adherence at 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-months post-index, defined as proportion of days covered ≥80% (secondary), and time-to-initiation of triple therapy (exploratory). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance potential confounding baseline characteristics. Superiority of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO for the primary outcome of rescue medication prescriptions was assessed using an intention-to-treat analysis with a p-value < 0.05.

Results

In total, 8603 patients were eligible (UMEC/VI: n = 6536; TIO/OLO: n = 2067). Following IPTW, covariates were well balanced across groups. Patients initiating UMEC/VI had statistically significantly fewer (mean [standard deviation]; p-value) rescue medication prescriptions versus TIO/OLO in both the unweighted (4.84 [4.78] vs 5.68 [5.00]; p < 0.001) and weighted comparison (4.91 [4.81] vs 5.48 [5.02]; p = 0.0032) at 12 months; consistent results were seen at all timepoints. Adherence was numerically higher for TIO/OLO versus UMEC/VI at all timepoints. Time-to-triple therapy was similar between treatment groups.

Conclusion

UMEC/VI was superior to TIO/OLO in reducing rescue medication prescriptions at 12 months after treatment initiation in a primary care cohort in England, potentially suggesting improvements in symptom control with UMEC/VI compared with TIO/OLO.

High use of short-acting β2-agonists in COPD is associated with an increased risk of exacerbations and mortality

Background

Short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) overuse has been associated with an increased risk of exacerbations in asthma; however, less is known about SABA use in COPD. Our aim was to describe SABA use and investigate potential associations between high SABA use and the risk of future exacerbations and mortality in COPD.

Methods

This observational study identified COPD patients in primary care medical records in Sweden. Data were linked to the National Patient Registry, the Prescribed Drug Registry and the Cause of Death Registry. The index date was 12 months after the date of COPD diagnosis. During a 12-month prior to index baseline period, information on SABA use was collected. Patients were followed with respect to exacerbations and mortality for 12 months post index.

Results

Of the 19 794 COPD patients included (mean age 69.1 years, 53.3% females), 15.5% and 7.0% had collected ≥3 or ≥6 SABA canisters during the baseline period, respectively. A higher level of SABA use (≥6 canisters) was independently associated with a higher risk of both moderate and severe exacerbations (hazard ratio (HR) 1.28 (95% CI 1.17‒1.40) and 1.76 (95% CI 1.50‒2.06), respectively) during follow-up. In total, 673 (3.4%) patients died during the 12-month follow-up period. An independent association was found between high SABA use and overall mortality (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.07‒2.39). This association, however, was not found in patients using inhaled corticosteroids as maintenance treatment.

Conclusion

In COPD patients in Sweden, high SABA use is relatively common and associated with a higher risk of exacerbations and all-cause mortality.

How can the findings of the EMAX trial on long-acting bronchodilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease be applied in the primary care setting?

This review addresses outstanding questions regarding initial pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Optimizing initial treatment improves clinical outcomes in symptomatic patients, including those with low exacerbation risk. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy improves lung function versus LAMA or LABA monotherapy, although other treatment benefits have been less consistently observed. The benefits of dual bronchodilation in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk, and its duration of efficacy and cost effectiveness in this population, are not yet fully established. Questions remain on the impact of baseline symptom severity, prior treatment, degree of reversibility to bronchodilators, and smoking status on responses to dual bronchodilator treatment. Using evidence from EMAX (NCT03034915), a 6-month trial comparing the LAMA/LABA combination umeclidinium/vilanterol with umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapy in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk who were inhaled corticosteroid-naïve, we describe how these findings can be applied in primary care.

Comparative Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting β2-Agonist in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in a Primary Care Setting in England

Purpose

To compare adherence to once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA), and twice-daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/LABA single-inhaler dual therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a primary care cohort in England.

Patients and Methods

Active comparator, new-user, retrospective cohort study using CPRD-Aurum primary care data and linked Hospital Episode Statistics secondary care administrative data. Patients without exacerbations in the previous year were indexed on first/earliest prescription date of once-daily UMEC/VI or twice-daily ICS/LABA as initial maintenance therapy between July 2014-September 2019. Primary outcome: medication adherence at 12 months post-index, defined as proportion of days covered (PDC) ≥80%. PDC represented proportion of time over the treatment duration that the patient was theoretically in possession of the medication. Secondary outcomes: adherence at 6, 18, and 24 months post-index, time-to-triple therapy, time-to-first on-treatment COPD exacerbation, COPD-related and all-cause healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and direct health-care costs. A propensity score was generated and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance potential confounders. Superiority was defined as >0% difference between treatment groups.

Results

In total, 6815 eligible patients were included (UMEC/VI:1623; ICS/LABA:5192). At 12 months post-index, weighted odds of a patient being adherent were significantly greater with UMEC/VI versus ICS/LABA (odds ratio [95% CI]: 1.71 [1.09, 2.66]; p=0.0185), demonstrating superiority of UMEC/VI. Patients taking UMEC/VI were statistically significantly more adherent than those taking ICS/LABA at 6, 18, and 24 months post-index (p<0.05). Differences in time-to-triple therapy, time-to-moderate COPD exacerbations, HCRU, and direct medical costs were not statistically significant between treatments after IPTW was applied.

Conclusion

At 12 months post-treatment initiation, once-daily UMEC/VI was superior to twice-daily ICS/LABA in medication adherence among patients with COPD without exacerbations in the previous year, newly initiating dual maintenance therapy in England. The finding was consistent at 6, 18, and 24 months.

A systematic review and integrated analysis of biologics that target Type 2 inflammation to treat COPD with increased peripheral blood eosinophils

Background and aims

Biologics that target Type 2 inflammation are effective in reducing exacerbations of severe asthma. We conducted a systematic review and integrated analysis of the efficacy and safety of these biologics in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with increased peripheral blood eosinophils.

Methods

Clinical trials of biologics that target Type 2 inflammation in COPD were found using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We analyzed the clinical efficacy of anti-IL-5-targeted therapy at approved (benralizumab 30 mg, mepolizumab 100 mg, for severe asthma) and high (benralizumab 100 mg, mepolizumab 300 mg) doses.

Results

Approved benralizumab and mepolizumab doses tended to reduce moderate-to-severe exacerbations by 9% [risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.83, 1.00], p = 0.05], but did not reduce exacerbations requiring emergency department visits or hospitalization. High-dose benralizumab and mepolizumab reduced moderate-to-severe exacerbations by 12% (RR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.80, 0.98], p = 0.02) and exacerbations requiring emergency department visits or hospitalization by 33% (RR = 0.67, 95% CI [0.53, 0.84], p = 0.0005). Neither dose improved St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire or COPD Assessment Test scores. The safety of benralizumab and mepolizumab was comparable to placebo.

Conclusions

Benralizumab and mepolizumab have limited efficacy in reducing moderate-to-severe exacerbations in COPD patients with increased peripheral blood eosinophils and requires at least high doses.

•

This integrated analysis shows limited efficacy of anti-IL-5 therapy in COPD.

•

High doses of anti-IL-5 therapy are required to reduce moderate-to-severe exacerbations.

Impact of rescue medication in placebo-controlled trials of pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain and low back pain

ABSTRACT

Rescue medication (RM) consumption is commonly used as a secondary outcome in placebo-controlled trials of chronic pain, but its validity has yet to be established. If participants randomized to placebo take more RM than those randomized to an active drug, the difference in pain between the 2 groups may be reduced, potentially masking effects of the active drug. This study assessed proportional RM consumption in the placebo and active groups according to results of 42 randomized controlled trials of neuropathic pain (NeP), and 29 trials of low back pain, which were included in 2 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Trial results were assessed based on effect size, statistical significance, and whether the drug was recommended as first-line treatment by the systematic reviews. In trials indicating effect of the investigational drug, RM consumption was generally higher in the placebo groups than in the active groups. In trials reporting a small or a medium effect size of the investigational drug, subjects receiving placebo consumed 17% to 30% more RM than subjects receiving active drug, potentially leading to underestimation of the effects of the investigational drugs. Few trials reported a large effect size. Differences in RM consumption between participants receiving placebo and those receiving active drug were seldom taken in account by the individual trials and not at all by the systemic reviews when making treatment recommendations for NeP or low back pain. Elaboration on analytical methods to assess treatment effects in chronic pain trials using RM is warranted.

Risk of all-cause mortality or hospitalization for pneumonia associated with inhaled β2-agonists in patients with asthma, COPD or asthma-COPD overlap

β2-agonists provide necessary bronchodilatory action, are recommended by existing clinical practice guidelines and are widely prescribed for patients with these conditions. We examined the risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for pneumonia associated with long-or short-acting β2-agonists (LABA or SABA) or ICS (inhaled corticosteroids)/LABA use. In a nested case-control of 185,407 patients, we found no association between β2-agonist use and the risk of pneumonia in patients with asthma, COPD, or asthma-COPD overlap. In contrast, new SABA [HR 1.82 (95% CI 1.04-3.20)] or LABA [HR 2.77 (95% CI 1.22-6.31)] use was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to ICS use in COPD patients.

Dual Bronchodilator Therapy as First-Line Treatment in Maintenance-Naïve Patients with Symptomatic COPD: A Pre-Specified Analysis of the EMAX Trial

Introduction

Limited prospective evidence is available to guide selection of first-line maintenance therapy in patients with COPD. This pre-specified analysis of the EMAX trial explored the efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated patients.

Methods

The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms (including rescue medication use), exacerbations, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated subgroups were defined by maintenance bronchodilator use 30 days before screening.

Results

The analysis included 749 (31%) maintenance-naïve and 1676 (69%) maintenance-treated patients. For both subgroups, improvements from baseline in trough FEV₁ at Week 24 (primary endpoint) were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (mean difference [95% CI]; maintenance-naïve: 44 mL [1, 87]; maintenance-treated: 77 mL [50, 104]), and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: 128 mL [85, 171]; maintenance-treated: 145 mL [118, 172]), and in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (maintenance-naïve: −0.44 [−0.73, −0.16]; maintenance-treated: −0.28 [−0.45, −0.12]) and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: −0.37 [−0.66, −0.09]; maintenance-treated: −0.25 [−0.41, −0.08]). In maintenance-naïve patients, umeclidinium/vilanterol numerically improved scores at Week 24 for Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (0.37 [−0.21, 0.96]) and versus salmeterol (0.47 [−0.10, 1.05]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms–COPD versus umeclidinium (−0.26 [−1.04, 0.53]) and versus salmeterol (−0.58 [−1.36, 0.20]), with similar improvements seen in maintenance-treated patients. All treatments were well tolerated across both subgroups.

Conclusion

Similar to maintenance-treated patients, maintenance-naïve patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol showed greater improvements in lung function and symptoms compared with patients receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. These findings provide support for the consideration of dual bronchodilator treatment in symptomatic maintenance-naïve patients with COPD.

Early and sustained symptom improvement with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in COPD: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial

Background:

In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both the time needed for patients to gain symptom improvement with long-acting bronchodilator therapy and whether an early response is predictive of a sustained response is unknown. This study aimed to investigate how quickly meaningful symptom responses are seen in patients with COPD with bronchodilator therapy and whether these responses are sustained.

Methods:

Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial that randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), umeclidinium or salmeterol. Daily Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS:COPD) score and rescue salbutamol use were captured via an electronic diary and analysed initially in 4-weekly periods. Post hoc analyses assessed change from baseline in daily E-RS:COPD score and rescue medication use weekly (Weeks 1–8), and association between E-RS:COPD responder status at Weeks 1–4 and later time points.

Results:

In the intent-to-treat population (n = 2425), reductions from baseline in E-RS:COPD scores and rescue medication use were apparent from Day 2 with all treatments. Treatment differences for UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy plateaued by Week 4–8 and were sustained at Weeks 21–24; improvements were consistently greater with UMEC/VI. For all treatments, most patients (60–85%) retained their Weeks 1–4 E-RS:COPD responder/non-responder status at Weeks 21−24. Among patients receiving UMEC/VI who were E-RS:COPD responders at Weeks 1–4, 70% were responders at Weeks 21–24.

Conclusion:

Patients with symptomatic COPD had greater potential for early symptom improvements with UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy. This benefit was generally maintained for 24 weeks. Early monitoring of treatment response can provide clinicians with an early indication of a patient’s likely longer-term response to prescribed bronchodilator treatment and will facilitate appropriate early adjustments in care.

Clinical Trial Registration:

NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT Number).

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

Therapeutic Success of Tiotropium/Olodaterol, Measured Using the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), in Routine Clinical Practice: A Multinational Non-Interventional Study

Background

The Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) is a simple patient-reported tool to measure clinical control of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Objective

This open-label, single-arm, non-interventional study (NCT03663569) investigated changes in CCQ score during treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol in clinical practice.

Methods

Data were included from consenting COPD patients, enrolled in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Switzerland and Ukraine, who were receiving a new prescription for tiotropium/olodaterol according to the treating physician in a real-world environment. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of therapeutic success, defined as a 0.4-point decrease in CCQ score after treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol for approximately 6 weeks.

Results

Overall, 4819 patients were treated; baseline and Week 6 CCQ scores were available for 4700 patients, mostly classified as Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) B (51.6%) or D (42.7%). After 6 weeks’ treatment, 81.4% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 80.24–82.49) of patients achieved therapeutic success; mean improvement in overall CCQ score was 1.02 points (95% CI 1.00–1.05). Improved CCQ score was seen in 92.2% of patients (95% CI 91.43–92.98), 2.5% had no change and 5.3% showed a worsening. When stratified by prior treatment, the greatest benefit was seen in treatment-naïve patients, with 85.7% achieving therapeutic success, compared with 79.5% of those pretreated with long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and 74.2% of those pretreated with LABA or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy. Overall, rescue medication decreased by 1.25 puffs/day (95% CI 1.19–1.31) versus baseline. In total, 29 patients (0.6%) reported drug-related adverse events and 7 patients reported serious adverse events (0.15%).

Conclusion

In 4700 COPD patients, 6 weeks’ treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol, as initial treatment or follow-up to LAMA or LABA monotherapy or LABA/ICS, improved CCQ and decreased rescue medication use. The adverse event profile was consistent with the known safety profile of tiotropium/olodaterol.

Salbutamol use in relation to maintenance bronchodilator efficacy in COPD: a prospective subgroup analysis of the EMAX trial

Background

Short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) bronchodilators help alleviate symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and may be a useful marker of symptom severity. This analysis investigated whether SABA use impacts treatment differences between maintenance dual- and mono-bronchodilators in patients with COPD.

Methods

The Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids 1:1:1 to once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg, once-daily umeclidinium 62.5 μg or twice-daily salmeterol 50 μg for 24 weeks. Pre-specified subgroup analyses stratified patients by median baseline SABA use (low, < 1.5 puffs/day; high, ≥1.5 puffs/day) to examine change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), change in symptoms (Transition Dyspnoea Index [TDI], Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD [E-RS]), daily SABA use and exacerbation risk. A post hoc analysis used fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline SABA use covariates.

Results

At baseline, patients in the high SABA use subgroup (mean: 3.91 puffs/day, n = 1212) had more severe airflow limitation, were more symptomatic and had worse health status versus patients in the low SABA use subgroup (0.39 puffs/day, n = 1206). Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium demonstrated statistically significant improvements in trough FEV₁ at Week 24 in both SABA subgroups (59–74 mL; p < 0.001); however, only low SABA users demonstrated significant improvements in TDI (high: 0.27 [p = 0.241]; low: 0.49 [p = 0.025]) and E-RS (high: 0.48 [p = 0.138]; low: 0.60 [p = 0.034]) scores. By contrast, significant reductions in mean SABA puffs/day with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium were observed only in high SABA users (high: − 0.56 [p < 0.001]; low: − 0.10 [p = 0.132]). Similar findings were observed when comparing umeclidinium/vilanterol and salmeterol. Fractional polynomial modelling showed baseline SABA use ≥4 puffs/day resulted in smaller incremental symptom improvements with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium compared with baseline SABA use < 4 puffs/day.

Conclusions

In high SABA users, there may be a smaller difference in treatment response between dual- and mono-bronchodilator therapy; the reasons for this require further investigation. SABA use may be a confounding factor in bronchodilator trials and in high SABA users; changes in SABA use may be considered a robust symptom outcome.

Funding

GlaxoSmithKline (study number 201749 [NCT03034915]).

Evaluation of Medication Adherence and Rescue Medication Use in Non-Exacerbating Patients with COPD Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol or Budesonide/Formoterol as Initial Maintenance Therapy

Background

Adherence to inhaled maintenance therapy is critical to managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), while increasing rescue medication usage may indicate worsening symptoms. This study evaluated adherence and rescue medication use in patients with COPD without a history of exacerbation who initiated combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol (B/F) or umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI).

Methods

Retrospective observational study of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage with Part D enrollees who initiated UMEC/VI or B/F between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017 (earliest fill defined as index date). Eligibility criteria included age ≥40 years, 12 months continuous enrollment pre- and post-index, ≥1 pre-index COPD diagnosis, no pre-index asthma diagnosis, COPD-related exacerbations, or medication fills containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β₂-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance treatment groups on potential confounders. Medication adherence (primary endpoint) was evaluated by the proportion of days covered (PDC). Rescue medication use (secondary endpoint) was standardized to canister equivalents (1 metered dose inhaler [200 puffs] or ~100 nebulized doses of short-acting β₂-agonist- and/or short-acting muscarinic agonist-containing medication).

Results

After IPTW, covariates were balanced between cohorts (UMEC/VI: N=4082; B/F: N=9529). UMEC/VI initiators had a significantly greater mean PDC (UMEC/VI: 0.47 [0.33]; B/F: 0.38 [0.30]; P<0.001) and significantly higher rates of adherence (PDC≥0.80) than B/F initiators (UMEC/VI: n=1004 [25%], B/F: n=1391 [15%]; relative risk: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.57, 1.81; P<0.001). In the year following initiation, UMEC/VI initiators filled significantly fewer rescue medication canister equivalents than B/F initiators (predicted mean [95% CI]: 1.78 [1.69, 1.88] vs 2.15 [2.08, 2.23]; mean difference [95% CI]: −0.37 [−0.50, −0.24]; P<0.001), corresponding to 17% less (estimated) rescue medication use (incidence rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.83 [0.78, 0.88]).

Conclusion

Among non-exacerbating patients with COPD initiating dual therapy, UMEC/VI demonstrated improved adherence and reduced rescue medication use compared with B/F.

The Effect of Baseline Rescue Medication Use on Efficacy and Safety of Nebulized Glycopyrrolate Treatment in Patients with COPD from the GOLDEN 3 and 4 Studies

Purpose

Rescue medication use is common in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and tends to increase with symptoms and disease severity. An analysis of baseline rescue medication use was conducted to inform on patient phenotypes and subsequent effects on lung function, symptoms, and safety following 12 weeks of nebulized glycopyrrolate (GLY) 25 µg twice daily or placebo in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD.

Patients and Methods

Pooled data from the 12-week, placebo-controlled GOLDEN 3 and 4 studies (n=781) were used to assign patients into quarters based on baseline rescue medication use (ie, average puffs-per-day) during the run-in period. Placebo-adjusted trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and EXAcerbations of COPD Tool-Respiratory Symptoms (EXACT-RS) total score data were reported; safety was evaluated by reviewing the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs).

Results

Baseline rescue medication use was a proxy for disease severity, evidenced by decreased lung function, increased health status scores, symptom scores and use of background long-acting β2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids across quarters and treatment groups. Treatment with GLY led to greater improvements from baseline in trough FEV₁, SGRQ and EXACT-RS scores compared with placebo in all rescue medication use quarters. Additionally, the SGRQ and EXACT-RS exhibited greater improvement with increased baseline rescue medication use with GLY treatment. In the Q4 patients, SGRQ (≥4-unit reduction) or EXACT-RS (≥2-unit reduction) responders were significantly greater with GLY compared with placebo. AE and SAE incidences were similar across quartiles.

Conclusion

These results suggest that baseline rescue medication use assessments may be useful in the management of COPD. Treatment with nebulized GLY improved lung function and symptom scores, regardless of baseline rescue medication use. These results support the use of nebulized GLY for the treatment of COPD, independent of baseline rescue medication use.

Glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler for maintenance-naïve patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a post-hoc analysis of the randomized PINNACLE trials

BACKGROUND

Glycopyrrolate (GP)/formoterol fumarate (FF; GFF) metered dose inhaler is a fixed-dose combination dual bronchodilator for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, whether the efficacy in patients without current maintenance treatment is consistent with currently maintenance-treated patients is unclear.

METHODS

Data from patients who were not maintenance-treated at screening (NMT) (n = 1943) and patients who were maintenance-treated at screening (MT) patients (n = 3040) receiving GFF, FF, GP, or placebo were pooled from the Phase III PINNACLE studies (NCT01854645, NCT01854658, NCT02343458) for post-hoc analysis. MT patients had received long-acting bronchodilators and/or inhaled corticosteroids in the 30 days prior to screening, and/or prior to randomization. NMT patients had received short-acting bronchodilators or no treatment. Outcomes included forced expiratory volume over 1 s (FEV₁), clinically important deterioration (CID), rescue medication use, and safety.

RESULTS

GFF provided significant lung function improvements at Week 24 versus placebo, GP, and FF for NMT patients, with pre-dose trough FEV₁ treatment differences of 152 (117-188) mL, 73 (45-100) mL, and 56 (29-84) mL, respectively (least squares mean change from baseline versus comparators [95% CI]; all P < 0.0001). GFF reduced the risk of CID by 17-43% in NMT (P ≤ 0.0157) and 18-52% (P ≤ 0.0012) in MT patients compared with monotherapy and placebo, and reduced rescue medication use by 1.5 puffs/day over 24 weeks for both cohorts. Safety profiles for all cohorts were consistent with each other and the parent studies.

CONCLUSIONS

NMT patients achieved better lung function with GFF versus monotherapy and placebo, without increased safety risk. Dual bronchodilator therapy may offer better outcomes than monotherapy for COPD patients when administered as first-line treatment.

Impact of prior and concurrent medication on exacerbation risk with long-acting bronchodilators in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a post hoc analysis

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and low exacerbation risk still have disease instability, which can be improved with better bronchodilation. We evaluated two long-acting bronchodilators individually and in combination on reducing exacerbation risk and the potential impact of concurrent medication in these patients.

METHODS

Integrated post hoc intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of data from two large 24-week, randomized placebo (PBO)-controlled trials (NCT01313637, NCT01313650). Symptomatic patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD with/without an exacerbation history were randomized (2:3:3:3) to once-daily: PBO, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg [NCT01313650] or 125/25 μg [NCT01313637]), UMEC (62.5 [NCT01313650] or 125 μg [NCT01313637]) or VI (25 μg) via the ELLIPTA inhaler. Medication subgroups were segmented by treatment status at screening: a) maintenance-naïve or on maintenance medications, b) inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]-free or ICS-treated, c) low or high albuterol use based on median run-in use (< 3.6 or ≥ 3.6 puffs/day). Time to first moderate/severe exacerbation (Cox proportional hazard model) and change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1; mixed model repeated measures) were analyzed. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 3021 patients (ITT population; UMEC/VI: n = 816; UMEC: n = 825; VI: n = 825; PBO: n = 555), 36% had a recent exacerbation history, 33% were maintenance-naïve, 51% were ICS-free. Mean baseline albuterol use was 5.1 puffs/day. In the ITT population, UMEC/VI, UMEC, and VI reduced the risk of a first exacerbation versus PBO by 58, 44, and 39%, respectively (all p < 0.05). UMEC/VI provided significant risk reductions versus PBO in all subgroups. VI had no benefit versus PBO in maintenance-naïve, ICS-free, and low rescue use patients and was significantly less effective than UMEC/VI in these subgroups. UMEC had no significant benefit versus PBO in maintenance-naïve and ICS-free patients. All bronchodilators improved FEV1 versus PBO, and UMEC/VI significantly improved FEV1 versus both monotherapies across all populations studied (p < 0.05). All bronchodilators were similarly well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that UMEC/VI reduces exacerbation risk versus PBO more consistently across medication subgroups than UMEC or VI, particularly in patients with no/low concurrent medication use. Confirmed prospectively, these findings may support first-line use of dual bronchodilation therapy in symptomatic low-risk patients.

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

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

Preventing Clinically Important Deterioration of COPD with Addition of Umeclidinium to Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting β2-Agonist Therapy: An Integrated Post Hoc Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Assessing clinically important measures of disease progression is essential for evaluating therapeutic effects on disease stability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed whether providing additional bronchodilation with the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) to patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) therapy would improve disease stability compared with ICS/LABA therapy alone.

METHODS

This integrated post hoc analysis of four 12-week, randomized, double-blind trials (NCT01772134, NCT01772147, NCT01957163, NCT02119286) compared UMEC 62.5 µg with placebo added to open-label ICS/LABA in symptomatic patients with COPD (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score ≥ 2). A clinically important deterioration (CID) was defined as: a decrease from baseline of ≥ 100 mL in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), an increase from baseline of ≥ 4 units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, or a moderate/severe exacerbation. Risk of a first CID was evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients stratified by Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification, exacerbation history and type of ICS/LABA therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 1637 patients included in the ITT population received UMEC + ICS/LABA (n = 819) or placebo + ICS/LABA (n = 818). Additional bronchodilation with UMEC reduced the risk of a first CID by 45-58% in the ITT population and all subgroups analyzed compared with placebo (all p < 0.001). Improvements were observed in reducing FEV1 (69% risk reduction; p < 0.001) and exacerbation (47% risk reduction; p = 0.004) events in the ITT population. No significant reduction in risk of a SGRQ CID was observed. AE incidence was similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Symptomatic patients with COPD receiving ICS/LABA experience frequent deteriorations. Additional bronchodilation with UMEC significantly reduced the risk of CID and provided greater short-term stability versus continued ICS/LABA therapy in these patients.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline (study number: 202067). Plain language summary available for this article.

Impact of doxofylline in COPD: A pairwise meta-analysis

Doxofylline is an effective bronchodilator for relieving airway obstruction in patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and displays a better safety profile with respect to theophylline. Herein, we performed a pairwise meta-analysis of the currently available data to provide consistent and homogeneous findings on the impact of this xanthine in COPD patients. Results obtained from 820 patients were selected from 20 clinical trials. Meta-regression was performed to examine the source of heterogeneity between-studies and identify potential confounder covariates. The quality of the evidence was assessed by the GRADE system. Doxofylline induced a significant (P < 0.001) increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) of 8.20% (95%CI 4.00-12.41; I² 93%) and 317 ml (95%CI 19-439; I² 87%) compared with baseline. The total administered dose of doxofylline significantly (P < 0.001) interacted with the size of the effect estimates detected for FEV₁. Doxofylline induced a significant (P < 0.001), although moderate, increase in adverse events (AEs) frequency (proportion 0.03, 95%CI 0.02-0.04; I² 88%), but only epigastralgia, nausea, dyspepsia and headache were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The GRADE analysis indicated high quality of evidence (++++) for the impact of doxofylline on FEV₁, and moderate quality of evidence (+++) for the safety profile in COPD patients. Doxofylline is an effective and safe medicine when administered to patients with COPD and can be considered as an alternative to theophylline.

The Role of Tiotropium+Olodaterol Dual Bronchodilator Therapy in the Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Bronchodilator therapy is central to the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and are recommended as the preferred treatment by the Global Obstructive Lung Disease Initiative (GOLD). Long acting anti-muscarinics (LAMA) and long acting β₂ agonists (LABA) are both more effective than regular short-acting drugs but many patients remain symptomatic despite monotherapy with these drugs. Combination therapy with LAMA and LABA increases the therapeutic benefit while minimizing dose-dependent side effects of long-acting bronchodilator therapy. The TOviTO programme has investigated the benefits of treatment with a combination of tiotropium and olodaterol administered via a single inhaler. Tiotropium+olodaterol 5/5 μg significantly improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) area under the curve from 0 to 3 hours, trough FEV₁ health status and breathlessness versus the mono-components and placebo. Tiotropium+olodaterol 5/5 μg also increased endurance time and reduced dynamic hyperinflation during constant work rate cycle ergometry. On the basis of these and other studies the 2017 GOLD report recommends escalating to dual bronchodilator therapy in patients in groups B and C if they remain symptomatic or continue to have exacerbations and as initial therapy for patients in group D.