A phase IIb, randomised, parallel-group study: the efficacy, safety and tolerability of once-daily umeclidinium in patients with asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids

Clinic vs Home Spirometry for Monitoring Lung Function in Patients With Asthma

BACKGROUND

Studies examining agreement between home and clinic spirometry in patients with asthma are limited, with conflicting results. Understanding the strengths and limitations of telehealth and home spirometry is particularly important considering the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How well do home and clinic measurements of trough FEV1 agree in patients with uncontrolled asthma?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This post hoc analysis used trough FEV1 data from the randomized double-anonymized parallel-group phase 3A CAPTAIN (205715; NCT02924688) and phase 2B 205832 (NCT03012061) trials in patients with uncontrolled asthma. CAPTAIN evaluated the impact of adding umeclidinium to fluticasone furoate/vilanterol via a single inhaler; the 205832 trial investigated adding umeclidinium to fluticasone furoate vs placebo. Trough FEV1 measurements were collected via home spirometry and supervised in-person spirometry in the research clinic. To compare home and clinic spirometry, we examined the time-course analyses of home and clinic trough FEV1, and generated post hoc Bland-Altman plots to assess agreement between home and clinic spirometry.

RESULTS

Data from 2,436 patients (CAPTAIN trial) and 421 patients (205832 trial) were analyzed. Treatment-related improvements in FEV1 were observed in both trials, using home and clinic spirometry. Improvements measured by home spirometry were of lower magnitude and less consistent than clinic measurements. Bland-Altman plots suggested poor agreement between home and clinic trough FEV1 at baseline and week 24.

INTERPRETATION

This post hoc comparison of home and clinic spirometry is the largest conducted in asthma. Results showed that home spirometry was less consistent than and lacked agreement with clinic spirometry, suggesting that unsupervised home readings are not interchangeable with clinic measurements. However, these findings may only be applicable to home spirometry using the specific device and coaching methods employed in these studies. Postpandemic, further research to optimize home spirometry use is needed.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; Nos.: NCT03012061 and NCT02924688; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Addition of long-acting beta2 agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists versus doubling the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma with medium dose ICS: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay treatment for persistent asthma. Escalating treatment is required when asthma is not controlled with ICS therapy alone, which would include, but is not limited to, adding a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) or a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or doubling the dose of ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LABA or LAMA to ICS therapy versus doubling the dose of ICS in adolescents and adults whose asthma is not well controlled on medium-dose (MD)-ICS using a network meta-analysis (NMA), and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization ICTRP for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from January 2008 to 19 December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for studies including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with or were eligible for MD-ICS, comparing it to high-dose (HD)-ICS, ICS/LAMA, or ICS/LABA. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs. Studies were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to a previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome is asthma exacerbations (moderate and severe).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38,276 participants from 35 studies (median duration 24 weeks (range 12 to 78); mean age 44.1; 38% male; 69% white; mean forced expiratory volume in one second 2.1 litres and 68% of predicted). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA likely reduce and MD-ICS/LAMA possibly reduces moderate to severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.59 to 0.82; moderate certainty; HR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.46 to 0.76; moderate certainty; and HR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.38 to 0.82; low certainty, respectively), whereas HD-ICS probably does not (HR 0.94, 95% CrI 0.70 to 1.24; moderate certainty). There is no clear evidence to suggest that any combination therapy or HD-ICS reduces severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (low to moderate certainty). This study suggests no clinically meaningful differences in the symptom or quality of life score between dual combinations and monotherapy (low to high certainty). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA increase or likely increase the odds of Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) responders at 6 and 12 months compared to MD-ICS (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% CrI 1.23 to 1.76; high certainty; and OR 1.59, 95% CrI 1.31 to 1.94; high certainty at 6 months; and OR 1.61, 95% CrI 1.22 to 2.13; moderate certainty and OR 1.55, 95% CrI 1.20 to 2.00; high certainty at 12 months, respectively). MD-ICS/LAMA probably increases the odds of ACQ responders at 6 months (OR 1.32, 95% CrI 1.11 to 1.57; moderate certainty). No data were available at 12 months. There is no clear evidence to suggest that HD-ICS increases the odds of ACQ responders or improves the symptom or qualify of life score compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA or ICS/LAMA reduces asthma-related or all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). HD-ICS results in or likely results in little or no difference in the included safety outcomes compared to MD-ICS as well as HD-ICS/LABA compared to MD-ICS/LABA. The pairwise meta-analysis shows that MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause adverse events (AEs) and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.96; 4 studies, 2238 participants; moderate certainty; and RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.99; 4 studies, 2239 participants; absolute risk reduction 10 fewer per 1000 participants; moderate certainty, respectively). The NMA evidence is in agreement with the pairwise evidence on treatment discontinuation due to AEs, but very uncertain on all-cause AEs, due to imprecision and heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review findings suggest that MD- or HD-ICS/LABA and MD-ICS/LAMA reduce moderate to severe asthma exacerbations and increase the odds of ACQ responders compared to MD-ICS whereas HD-ICS probably does not. The evidence is generally stronger for MD- and HD-ICS/LABA than for MD-ICS/LAMA primarily due to a larger evidence base. There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA, ICS/LAMA, or HD-ICS/LABA reduces severe asthma exacerbations or SAEs compared to MD-ICS. MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause AEs and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS. The above findings may assist in deciding on a treatment option during the stepwise approach of asthma management. Longer-term safety of higher than medium-dose ICS needs to be addressed in phase 4 or observational studies given that the median duration of included studies was six months.

The Role of Long-Acting Antimuscarinic Agents in the Treatment of Asthma

The journey of using anticholinergics in the treatment of asthma started with anticholinergic-containing plants such as Datura stramonium and Atropa belladonna, followed by ipratropium bromide and continued with tiotropium, glycopyrronium, and umeclidinium. Although antimuscarinics were used in the maintenance treatment of asthma over a century ago, after a long time (since 2014), it has been recommended to be used as an add-on long-acting antimuscarinic agent (LAMA) therapy in the maintenance treatment of asthma. The airway tone controlled by the vagus nerve is increased in asthma. Allergens, toxins, or viruses cause airway inflammation and inflammation-related epithelial damage, increased sensory nerve stimulation, ganglionic and postganglionic acetylcholine (ACh) release by inflammatory mediators, intensification of ACh signaling at M1 and M3 muscarinic ACh receptors (mAChRs), and dysfunction of M2 mAChR. Optimal anticholinergic drug for asthma should effectively block M3 and M1 receptors, but have minimal effect on M2 receptors. Tiotropium, umeclidinium, and glycopyrronium are anticholinergic agents with this feature. Tiotropium has been used in a separate inhaler as an add-on treatment to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), and glycopyrronium and umeclidinium have been used in a single inhaler as a combination of ICS/LABA/LAMA in asthma in recent years. Guidelines recommend this regimen as an optimization step for patients with severe asthma before initiating any biologic or systemic corticosteroid therapy. In this review, the history of antimuscarinic agents, their effectiveness and safety in line with randomized controlled trials, and real-life studies in asthma treatment will be discussed according to the current data.

Home Spirometry in Children with Cystic Fibrosis

We report the implementation of a pediatric home spirometry program at our institution. A respiratory therapist provided either a virtual or an in-person initiation visit that included a coached spirometry session. Families were instructed to perform daily uncoached spirometry sessions for 5 days. The program's quality assurance component was deemed not to be human research by the local IRB. In total, 52 subjects completed an initiation visit (34 with at least 3 additional uncoached spirometry sessions). The clinic spirometry and coached (same-day) sessions and uncoached (same-week) sessions were completed by 12 and 17 subjects, respectively. The median (99% CI) coefficients of variation for FEV₁% of the uncoached maneuvers were 3.5% (2.9-5.9%). The median (IQR) FEV₁% and FEV₁ (mL) absolute differences between coached and uncoached home spirometry were -2% (-4 and +3%) and -25 mL (-93 and +93 mL), respectively. The median (IQR) absolute differences in FEV₁% and FEV₁ (mL) between coached or uncoached home spirometry and clinic spirometry were -6% (-10 and -2%) and -155 mL (-275 and -88 mL), and -4% (-10 and +5%), and -110 mL (-280 and +9 mL), respectively. Differences in absolute FEV₁ (L) and FEV₁% were found among different modalities of spirometry performed by people with cystic fibrosis. Understanding the variability of uncoached home spirometry and the differences among coached and uncoached home spirometry, hospital and coached home spirometry, and hospital and uncoached home spirometry for any given individual is crucial to effectively utilize this tool in clinical care.

Optimizing asthma management: Role of long-acting muscarinic antagonists

Patients with asthma who are suboptimally responsive to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) are frequently exposed to oral corticosteroids and high-dose ICS, which can lead to significant side effects. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) have demonstrated efficacy and safety in a subset of these patients. This review summarizes the results of key studies using LAMAs in patients with asthma aged 12 years or older. LAMA as an add-on treatment improved lung function and asthma control in patients with uncontrolled asthma across studies. The efficacy of LAMAs as an add-on to ICS was superior to that of placebo and ICS dose escalation and comparable with that of LABAs. LAMA plus ICS plus LABA provided modest improvements in bronchodilation and increased the time to first severe exacerbation versus ICS plus LABA. Single-inhaler triple therapy was associated with decreased health care resource utilization and improved cost-effectiveness versus multiple inhalers. LAMAs were generally well tolerated; asthma exacerbations, bronchitis, and nasopharyngitis were common adverse events with LAMA in combination with ICS alone or ICS plus LABA. Thus, the overall evidence presented in this review supports the use of add-on LAMA treatment as a reasonable option in patients with asthma uncontrolled with ICS plus LABA or ICS alone.

Measuring respiratory symptoms in moderate/severe asthma: evaluation of a respiratory symptom tool, the E-RS®: COPD in asthma populations

BACKGROUND

Symptom constructs included in the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (E-RS®: COPD) tool may be relevant to patients with asthma. The purpose of this study was to evaluate content validity and psychometric performance of the E-RS: COPD in moderate/severe asthma patients.

METHODS

Content validity of the E-RS: COPD was evaluated in patients with moderate/severe asthma using concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews. Secondary analyses using data from two clinical trials in patients with moderate/severe asthma evaluated the factor structure of the E-RS: COPD plus two supplementary items (wheeze; shortness of breath with strenuous physical activity) and assessed psychometric properties of the tool, which will be referred to as E-RS®: Asthma when used in asthma populations.

RESULTS

Qualitative interviews (N = 25) achieved concept saturation for asthma respiratory symptoms. Concepts in the E-RS: COPD were relevant to patients and instructions were understood. Most patients (19/25; 76%) reported experiencing all concepts in the E-RS: COPD; no patients indicated missing symptoms. Secondary analyses of clinical trial data supported the original factor structure (RS-Total and three symptom-specific subscales). The two supplemental items did not fit with this factor structure and were not retained. RS-Total and subscale score reliability was high (internal consistency [α] > 0.70). Validity was demonstrated through significant (P < 0.0001) relationships with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and Asthma Symptom Severity scale. E-RS: Asthma was responsive to change when evaluated using SGRQ, Patient Global Impression of Change and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire as anchors (P < 0.0001). Clinically meaningful change thresholds were also identified (RS-Total: - 2.0 units).

CONCLUSIONS

The E-RS: Asthma is reliable and responsive for evaluating respiratory symptoms in patients with moderate/severe asthma.

Management Strategies to Reduce Exacerbations in non-T2 Asthma

There have been considerable advances in our understanding of asthmatic airway inflammation, resulting in a paradigm shift of classifying individuals on the basis of either the presence or the absence of type 2 (T2) inflammatory markers. Several novel monoclonal antibody therapies targeting T2 cytokines have demonstrated significant clinical effects including reductions in acute exacerbations and improvements in asthma-related quality of life and lung function for individuals with T2-high asthma. However, there have been fewer advancements in developing therapies for those without evidence of T2 airway inflammation (so-called non-T2 asthma). Here, we review the heterogeneity of molecular mechanisms responsible for initiation and regulation of non-T2 inflammation and discuss both current and potential future therapeutic options for individuals with non-T2 asthma.

Current long-acting muscarinic antagonists for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Safety of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Japanese Patients with Asthma: A Long-Term (52-Week) Phase III Open-Label Study

PURPOSE

The pivotal CAPTAIN study reported a favorable safety profile with once-daily inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) triple combination of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) in patients with inadequately controlled asthma, some of whom were Japanese. Here, we evaluate the long-term (52 weeks) safety of FF/UMEC/VI in Japanese patients with asthma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a Phase III, 52-week, multicenter, non-comparator, non-randomized, open-label study (NCT03184987) in Japanese adults receiving maintenance therapy with ICS/LABA, with or without LAMA. At enrollment, patients were allocated to either FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25mcg (Group 1) or 200/62.5/25mcg (Group 2). Patients in Group 1 could have their treatment stepped up to 200/62.5/25mcg at Week 24 if their Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-7 score was >0.75. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs). Secondary endpoints included vital signs, electrocardiogram measurements, and clinical laboratory tests (biochemistry, hematology, urinalysis). Efficacy was assessed as "other" endpoints.

RESULTS

A total of 111 Japanese patients were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Overall, 77 (69%) patients reported ≥1 AE (Group 1: n=30 [64%]; step-up group: n=7 [78%]; Group 2: n=40 [73%]). SAEs were reported for 1 (2.1%) and 2 (3.6%) patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. All SAEs were considered unrelated to study treatment. One AE and one SAE led to study withdrawal: oropharyngeal discomfort (Group 1); eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (Group 2). No new safety concerns were identified throughout the 52-week treatment period.

CONCLUSION

In this uncontrolled open-label study, no new safety concerns were observed with long-term (52 weeks) treatment with once-daily FF/UMEC/VI among 111 Japanese patients with asthma.