Safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of umeclidinium and vilanterol alone and in combination: a randomized crossover trial

Evidence-based review of data on the combination inhaler umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD

The use of inhaled, fixed-dose, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) combined with long-acting, beta2-adrenergic receptor agonists (LABA) has become a mainstay in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One of the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations is the dry powder inhaler (DPI) of umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) (62.5 µg/25 µg) approved for once-a-day maintenance treatment of COPD. This paper reviews the use of fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA agents focusing on the UMEC/VI DPI inhaler in the maintenance treatment of COPD. The fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA inhaler offers a step beyond a single inhaled maintenance agent but is still a single device for the COPD patient having frequent COPD exacerbations and persistent symptoms not well controlled on one agent. Currently available clinical trials suggest that the once-a-day DPI of UMEC/VI is well-tolerated, safe and non-inferior or better than other currently available inhaled fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations for COPD.

Current approaches to the discovery of novel inhaled medicines

Inhaled administration is underutilised because the drug discovery process is viewed as challenging, risky, and expensive. However, unmet medical need continues to grow, and significant opportunities exist to discover novel inhaled medicines delivering the required lung concentrations while minimising systemic exposure. This profile could be achieved by a combination of properties, including lung retention and low oral bioavailability. Property-based rules exist for orally administered compounds, but there has been limited progress defining in silico predictors to guide the discovery of novel inhaled drugs. Recently, the use of informative cell- and tissue-based screens has greatly facilitated the identification of compounds with optimal characteristics for inhaled delivery. Here, we address opportunities for novel inhaled drugs, and the key challenges and uncertainties hampering progress.

Population Pharmacokinetics Modeling of Inhaled Umeclidinium for Adult Patients with Asthma

BACKGROUND

Umeclidinium (UMEC; a long-acting anti-muscarinic) in combination with fluticasone furoate (an inhaled corticosteroid) is in development for asthma treatment. This secondary analysis aimed to develop a population pharmacokinetic model characterizing UMEC in adults with asthma, and evaluated the impact of covariates on pharmacokinetic parameters.

METHODS

Plasma concentration data from study NCT01641692 (assessing once-daily UMEC 15.6, 31.25, 62.5, 125, and 250 mcg, twice daily UMEC 15.6 and 31.25 mcg, and placebo) were analyzed using non-linear mixed-effect modeling in NONMEM^®. Full likelihood, including observed data and data below the quantification limit (treated as censored), was maximized. Study endpoints were population pharmacokinetics (including apparent inhaled clearance [CL/F] and apparent distribution volume in the central compartment [V _c/F]) and derived pharmacokinetic parameters (area under the concentration-time curve [AUC] and maximum concentration [C _max] at steady-state).

RESULTS

In total, 128 patients provided 3757 data points. The pharmacokinetics of UMEC were best described using a two-compartment model with intravenous bolus input, due to fast absorption following inhalation. CL/F was 257 L/h and V _c/F was 804 L. Creatinine clearance was a significant covariate for CL/F, as were age and body weight for V _c/F. AUC and C _max increased with increasing UMEC dose (once-daily 15.6-250 mcg: AUC_0-24 median: 64.7-863 pg h/mL; C _max median: 10.6-256 pg/mL).

CONCLUSION

The final population pharmacokinetic model adequately described the data, demonstrating minimal creatinine clearance, age, and body weight effects on overall plasma UMEC pharmacokinetics and systemic exposure.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Umeclidinium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: latest evidence and place in therapy

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity, mortality and health care expenditure throughout the world. COPD guidelines recommend the use of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) either alone or in combination with a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA). For over 10 years, tiotropium was the only LAMA that was used in the management of COPD. Over the past few years, various new drugs have been identified that act on the muscarinic receptors and β2 receptors. Umeclidinium (Umec) is a new LAMA currently approved for use in patients with COPD either as monotherapy or in combination with vilanterol (Vil). Both Umec alone and in combination with Vil delivered through a multi-dose dry powder Ellipta™ device have shown improvement in lung function, health-related quality of life and exacerbation frequency in patients with COPD. This review provides an overview of the pharmacology, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of Umec, and evaluates the clinical efficacy and safety studies in patients with COPD.

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

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

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

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

Muscarinic antagonists in early stage clinical development for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Parasympathetic neurons utilize the neurotransmitter acetylcholine to modulate and constrict airway smooth muscles at the muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. Inhaled agents that antagonize the muscarinic (M) acetylcholine receptor, particularly airway M3 receptors, have increasing data supporting use in persistent asthma. Areas covered: Use of inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) in asthma is explored. The LAMA tiotropium is approved for maintenance in symptomatic asthma patients despite the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) and/or long-acting beta₂ agonists (LABA). LAMA agents currently approved for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) include tiotropium, glycopyrrolate/glycopyrronium, umeclidinium and aclidinium. These agents are reviewed for their pharmacological differences and clinical trials in asthma. Expert opinion: Current guidelines place inhaled LAMAs as adjunctive maintenance therapy in symptomatic asthma not controlled by an ICS and/or a LTRA. LAMA agents will play an increasing role in moderate to severe symptomatic asthma patients. Additional LAMA agents are likely to seek a maintenance indication perhaps as a combined inhaler with an ICS or with an ICS and a LABA. These fixed-dose combination inhalers are being tested in COPD and asthma patients. Once-a-day dosing of inhaled LAMA agents in severe asthma patients will likely become the future standard.

Vilanterol trifenatate for the treatment of COPD

INTRODUCTION

Currently the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has limited effectiveness and there is a need to develop new drugs. International guidelines recommend the use of long-acting bronchodilators (β2 agonists and anti-cholinergics/muscarinics), inhaled steroids and associations between these drugs in the maintenance treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD.

AREA COVERED

Vilanterol trifenate is a new once-daily highly selective β2-agonist available in USA and Europe in association with umeclidinium bromide (a long-acting anti-muscarnic agent) and fluticasone furoate (an inhaled corticosteroid) for the once-daily maintenance treatment of COPD. Vilanterol combined in fixed-dose treatments has been tested in numerous clinical trials involving thousands of patients. Expert commentary: These new once-daily formulations have the potential to improve compliance to long-term inhaled therapy. This paper will review the clinical and experimental data regarding vilanterol use in the regular treatment of COPD as well as provide a critical discussion of possible future treatment settings.

The safety of anticholinergic bronchodilators for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Poorly absorbable quaternary ammonium-inhaled muscarinic antagonists both as the short-acting ipratropium and as long-acting (12 - 24 h) agents (tiotropium, glycopyrronium, aclidinium and umeclidinium) have all demonstrated statistically and clinically significant efficacy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease compared with placebo. However, controversy has arisen concerning the safety of this class of agents principally regarding their association with both fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular toxicity.

AREAS COVERED

The safety of both ipratropium and the long-acting muscarinic antagonists is reviewed with a major emphasis on potential cardiovascular toxicity, based on published clinical trials data and results of analyses of pooled data, meta-analyses, and observational studies. Since glycopyrronium, aclidinium, and umeclidinium have become available only relatively recently, more emphasis will be placed on the more extensive literature concerning the safety of the older anticholinergic compounds, the short-acting ipratropium, and the long-acting tiotropium in its dry powder formulation, as well as its newer soft mist inhaler delivery device.

EXPERT OPINION

Pooled analyses and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of tiotropium in both its dry powder and soft mist formulations, as well as some observational studies, have implicated this agent as increasing the risk of nonfatal and fatal cardiovascular events. However, the most robust evidence based on large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of relatively long duration specifically designed to evaluate the cardiovascular safety of tiotropium have not confirmed these safety concerns. Because of the relatively limited amount of safety data for the newer long-acting muscarinic antagonists compared to the far more extensive experience with tiotropium, it will be important to accumulate additional safety information from post-marketing pharmacovigilance for these newer agents.

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

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

Umeclidinium/vilanterol: a review of its use as maintenance therapy in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Umeclidinium/vilanterol (Anoro(®) Ellipta™; Laventair™) is an inhaled fixed-dose combination of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist and a long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonist. It is available in several countries, including Japan, the USA, Canada and those of the EU, where it is indicated for oral inhalation in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Umeclidinium/vilanterol is administered once daily using the Ellipta™ multi-dose dry powder inhaler, which is regarded as easy to use. Umeclidinium/vilanterol (62.5/25 µg once daily, equivalent to a delivered dose of 55/22 µg once daily) was effective and well tolerated in adult patients with COPD participating in large, multicentre trials of up to 24 weeks' duration. Umeclidinium/vilanterol improved pulmonary function to a significantly greater extent than placebo and each of the individual components. Moreover, umeclidinium/vilanterol was significantly more effective than once-daily tiotropium bromide monotherapy and a twice-daily fixed combination of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate at improving pulmonary function. Umeclidinium/vilanterol also had beneficial effects on dyspnoea, use of rescue medication, exacerbations, health-related quality of life and, in one study, exercise endurance. Umeclidinium/vilanterol is generally well tolerated in patients with COPD, with the most common adverse events in clinical trials being headache and nasopharyngitis. Umeclidinium/vilanterol was not associated with a clinically relevant increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events in patients with COPD, when data from several clinical trials were pooled. Thus, inhaled umeclidinium/vilanterol extends the treatment options currently available for the maintenance treatment of adults with COPD and has the convenience of once-daily administration.

Umeclidinium/vilanterol combination inhaler efficacy and potential impact on current chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Umeclidinium bromide (UM) with vilanterol (VI) is the first once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2 agonist (LAMA/LABA) combination approved for use in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the USA. Prior to this, only combinations of short-acting bronchodilators and short-acting muscarinic antagonists were available in the USA as a single inhaler and they required frequent dosing. LAMA or LABA therapy is the recommended first choice for moderate-to-very severe COPD with combination therapy added if monotherapy fails to control patients' symptoms. This allows lower dosing of individual medications, which may limit adverse effects. It could also have the additional benefit of improving patient compliance by making medication regimens less laboring.

AREAS COVERED

A comprehensive literature search of journal articles and abstracts looking for trials that evaluated both the efficacy and the safety of UM/VI revealed that UM/VI improves patients' lung function and overall health status, while maintaining excellent safety and tolerability profiles compared to placebo and other bronchodilators.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the clinical efficacy, favorable safety profile and ease of use, clinicians may recommend UM/VI to patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD - a shift that could have significant impact on the management of COPD.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society Guideline

BACKGROUND

COPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States as well as throughout the rest of the world. An exacerbation of COPD (periodic escalations of symptoms of cough, dyspnea, and sputum production) is a major contributor to worsening lung function, impairment in quality of life, need for urgent care or hospitalization, and cost of care in COPD. Research conducted over the past decade has contributed much to our current understanding of the pathogenesis and treatment of COPD. Additionally, an evolving literature has accumulated about the prevention of acute exacerbations.

METHODS

In recognition of the importance of preventing exacerbations in patients with COPD, the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) joint evidence-based guideline (AECOPD Guideline) was developed to provide a practical, clinically useful document to describe the current state of knowledge regarding the prevention of acute exacerbations according to major categories of prevention therapies. Three key clinical questions developed using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format addressed the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: nonpharmacologic therapies, inhaled therapies, and oral therapies. We used recognized document evaluation tools to assess and choose the most appropriate studies and to extract meaningful data and grade the level of evidence to support the recommendations in each PICO question in a balanced and unbiased fashion.

RESULTS

The AECOPD Guideline is unique not only for its topic, the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD, but also for the first-in-kind partnership between two of the largest thoracic societies in North America. The CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee in partnership with the CTS COPD Clinical Assembly launched this project with the objective that a systematic review and critical evaluation of the published literature by clinical experts and researchers in the field of COPD would lead to a series of recommendations to assist clinicians in their management of the patient with COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline is unique because it provides an up-to-date, rigorous, evidence-based analysis of current randomized controlled trial data regarding the prevention of COPD exacerbations.

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

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

A randomized, crossover study to investigate the pharmacokinetics and safety of inhaled fluticasone furoate and umeclidinium, administered separately and in combination via dry powder inhaler in healthy adult volunteers

INTRODUCTION

A combination of fluticasone furoate (FF) and umeclidinium (UMEC) has been considered for development for the treatment of asthma. The primary objectives were to investigate the plasma and urine pharmacokinetics (PK) of FF/UMEC in combination compared with FF and UMEC monotherapies.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, three-period crossover, single-center study in healthy volunteers assessed the PK of FF 400 mcg and UMEC 500 mcg administered separately and in combination (four inhalations of FF/UMEC 100/125 mcg, FF 100 mcg, or UMEC 125 mcg) via dual-strip dry powder inhaler. Subjects were randomized based on codes generated using a validated computerized system (Randall, GlaxoSmithKline).

RESULTS

Eighteen subjects were enrolled; 17 received all three scheduled doses of study medication. Plasma FF and UMEC concentrations peaked at 0.5 and 0.08 h post-dose, respectively, for FF/UMEC and the monotherapies. FF and UMEC co-administration resulted in slightly lower or similar systemic exposure for both drugs versus the monotherapies. In post hoc sensitivity analyses (performed because two subjects administered inhalations incorrectly), the ratio of adjusted geometric means (maximum plasma concentration and area under the curve) was closer to unity than in the planned analyses. Cumulative urinary UMEC excretion (Ae) was similar for FF/UMEC and UMEC. Post hoc sensitivity analyses on Ae(0-24) suggested a small carryover effect but results were similar to those of the population as a whole. Urinary UMEC excretion following FF/UMEC was low (~1.5% over 24 h) and unlikely to have impacted upon PK comparisons. Three adverse events were reported; none were severe or led to withdrawal. There were no clinically significant effects on electrocardiogram, vital sign, or laboratory parameters.

CONCLUSION

Fluticasone furoate and umeclidinium co-administration was well tolerated and was not associated with meaningful changes in systemic or urinary PK versus the monotherapies.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline.

Patient considerations in the treatment of COPD: focus on the new combination inhaler umeclidinium/vilanterol

Medication adherence among patients with chronic diseases, such as COPD, may be suboptimal, and many factors contribute to this poor adherence. One major factor is the frequency of medication dosing. Once-daily dosing has been shown to be an important variable in medication adherence in chronic diseases, such as COPD. New inhalers that only require once-daily dosing are becoming more widely available. Combination once-daily inhalers that combine any two of the following three agents are now available: 1) a long-acting muscarinic antagonist; 2) a long acting beta2 agonist; and 3) an inhaled corticosteroid. A new once-daily inhaler with both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, umeclidinium bromide, and a long acting beta2 agonist, vilanterol trifenatate, is now available worldwide for COPD treatment. It provides COPD patients convenience, efficacy, and a very favorable adverse-effects profile. Additional once-daily combination inhalers are available or will soon be available for COPD patients worldwide. The use of once-daily combination inhalers will likely become the standard maintenance management approach in the treatment of COPD because they improve medication adherence.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICALTRIALSGOV

NCT01641692.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Differential pharmacology and clinical utility of emerging combination treatments in the management of COPD--role of umeclidinium/vilanterol

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a preventable and treatable disease characterized by airflow limitation that is not fully reversible. Bronchodilator therapy is the cornerstone in COPD treatment. Bronchodilation in COPD is mainly achieved via administration of long- and ultralong-acting β₂-agonists and with long-acting muscarinic antagonists. New combinations of bronchodilators with dual-acting muscarinic antagonist and β₂-agonist properties have been licensed, and others are currently being developed with the aim of achieving once-daily dosing, and therefore may improve the likelihood of treatment compliance. These combination bronchodilators include glycopyrronium bromide/indacaterol maleate, umeclidinium (UMEC) bromide/vilanterol trifenatate (VI), aclidinium bromide/formoterol and tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (Boehringer Ingelheim, Germany). This review will focus mainly on studies and clinical trials involving the novel fixed-dose combination of UMEC/VI at doses of 125/25 μg and 62.5/25 μg in patients with COPD. Data from large clinical trials involving more than 4,500 COPD patients indicate that UMEC/VI is an effective once-daily treatment in COPD with improved pulmonary function. Future studies assessing the impact of this combination on exacerbations, delay in disease progression, and health status in patients with COPD are warranted.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Profile of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol dry powder inhaler combination therapy as a potential treatment for COPD

Currently, there is no cure for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The limited efficacy of current therapies for COPD indicates a pressing need to develop new treatments to prevent the progression of the disease, which consumes a significant amount of health care resources and is an important cause of mortality worldwide. Current national and international guidelines for the management of stable COPD patients recommend the use of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators, inhaled corticosteroids, and their combination for maintenance treatment of moderate to severe stable COPD. Once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol dry powder inhaler combination therapy has recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency as a new regular treatment for patients with stable COPD. Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol dry powder inhaler combination therapy has been shown to be effective in many controlled clinical trials involving thousands of patients in the regular treatment of stable COPD. This is the first once-daily combination of ultra-long-acting inhaled β₂-agonists and inhaled glucocorticoids that is available for the treatment of stable COPD and has great potential to improve compliance to long-term regular inhaled therapy and hence to improve the natural history and prognosis of COPD patients.

Autism traits in the RASopathies

BACKGROUND

Mutations in Ras/mitogen-activated protein kinase (Ras/MAPK) pathway genes lead to a class of disorders known as RASopathies, including neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), Noonan syndrome (NS), Costello syndrome (CS), and cardio-facio-cutaneous syndrome (CFC). Previous work has suggested potential genetic and phenotypic overlap between dysregulation of Ras/MAPK signalling and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Although the literature offers conflicting evidence for association of NF1 and autism, there has been no systematic evaluation of autism traits in the RASopathies as a class to support a role for germline Ras/MAPK activation in ASDs.

METHODS

We examined the association of autism traits with NF1, NS, CS and CFC, comparing affected probands with unaffected sibling controls and subjects with idiopathic ASDs using the qualitative Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ) and the quantitative Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS).

RESULTS

Each of the four major RASopathies showed evidence for increased qualitative and quantitative autism traits compared with sibling controls. Further, each RASopathy exhibited a distinct distribution of quantitative social impairment. Levels of social responsiveness show some evidence of correlation between sibling pairs, and autism-like impairment showed a male bias similar to idiopathic ASDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher prevalence and severity of autism traits in RASopathies compared to unaffected siblings suggests that dysregulation of Ras/MAPK signalling during development may be implicated in ASD risk. Evidence for sex bias and potential sibling correlation suggests that autism traits in the RASopathies share characteristics with autism traits in the general population and clinical ASD population and can shed light on idiopathic ASDs.

New developments in the combination treatment of COPD: focus on umeclidinium/vilanterol

An increasing body of evidence suggests that the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combination appears to play an important role in maximizing bronchodilation, with studies to date indicating that combining different classes of bronchodilators may result in significantly greater improvements in lung function compared to the use of a single drug, and that these combinations are well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). An inhaled, fixed-dose combination of two 24-hour bronchodilators, the LAMA umeclidinium and the LABA vilanterol, is under development as a once-daily treatment for COPD. The efficacy of both mono-components has already been demonstrated. The information currently available suggests that umeclidinium/vilanterol is an effective once-daily dual bronchodilator fixed-dose combination in the treatment of COPD. However, it remains to be seen if it compares favorably with current therapies. Moreover, the question remains whether umeclidinium/vilanterol fixed-dose combination, which significantly improves FEV1, is also associated with improvements in other outcome measures that are important to COPD patients.

Role of indacaterol and the newer very long-acting β2-agonists in patients with stable COPD: a review

Bronchodilators are central drugs in the management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Indacaterol was the first agent of the novel family of very long-acting β2-agonists to be used as an inhaled bronchodilator for COPD and provides 24-hour therapeutic action, thus allowing once-daily administration. Data from clinical trials show that indacaterol has a bronchodilator effect similar to that of the anticholinergic tiotropium bromide and slightly higher efficacy compared with the long-acting β2-agonists, salmeterol and formoterol. Moreover, the safety profile is excellent and comparable with that of placebo. Concerning adherence with drug treatment and real-life management in respect to long-acting β2-agonists, once-daily dosing makes indacaterol more convenient for COPD patients and is likely to enhance patient adherence. Other very long-acting β2-agonists currently in development include vilanterol, olodaterol, and carmoterol, and these have shown good characteristics for clinical use in the studies reported thus far.

Effect of verapamil on systemic exposure and safety of umeclidinium and vilanterol: a randomized and open-label study

Background

The combination of umeclidinium (UMEC), a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist, and vilanterol (VI), a selective long-acting β₂ agonist, is in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability, and pharmacodynamics of once-daily, inhaled UMEC and UMEC/VI when co-administered with oral verapamil, a moderate P-glycoprotein transporter and moderate cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) inhibitor frequently used by patients with COPD and cardiovascular comorbidities.

Methods

Subjects were randomized to one of two 13-day treatment regimens: UMEC 500 μg or UMEC 500 μg/VI 25 μg. All subjects received a single tablet containing 240 mg verapamil on each of days 9–13.

Results

Repeat doses of UMEC and UMEC/VI in combination with and without verapamil were safe and well tolerated. There was no increase in systemic exposure of UMEC when administered in combination with VI compared to UMEC alone. UMEC maximum concentration was similar with or without verapamil; a moderate increase in UMEC area under the curve (approximately 1.4-fold) was observed with verapamil. Verapamil did not increase systemic exposure to VI following administration of the UMEC/VI combination.

Conclusion

Administration of UMEC and UMEC/VI combination was well tolerated and did not show clinically relevant increases in systemic exposure for either drug. The UMEC/VI combination is unlikely to have a clinically meaningful drug–drug interaction with moderate P-glycoprotein transporter and CYP3A4 inhibitor drugs.

Lack of association of rare functional variants in TSC1/TSC2 genes with autism spectrum disorder

Background

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is reported in 30 to 60% of patients with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) but shared genetic mechanisms that exist between TSC-associated ASD and idiopathic ASD have yet to be determined. Through the small G-protein Rheb, the TSC proteins, hamartin and tuberin, negatively regulate mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) signaling. It is well established that mTORC1 plays a pivotal role in neuronal translation and connectivity, so dysregulation of mTORC1 signaling could be a common feature in many ASDs. Pam, an E3 ubiquitin ligase, binds to TSC proteins and regulates mTORC1 signaling in the CNS, and the FBXO45-Pam ubiquitin ligase complex plays an essential role in neurodevelopment by regulating synapse formation and growth. Since mounting evidence has established autism as a disorder of the synapses, we tested whether rare genetic variants in TSC1, TSC2, MYCBP2, RHEB and FBXO45, genes that regulate mTORC1 signaling and/or play a role in synapse development and function, contribute to the pathogenesis of idiopathic ASD.

Methods

Exons and splice junctions of TSC1, TSC2, MYCBP2, RHEB and FBXO45 were resequenced for 300 ASD trios from the Simons Simplex Collection (SSC) using a pooled PCR amplification and next-generation sequencing strategy, targeted to the discovery of deleterious coding variation. These detected, potentially functional, variants were confirmed by Sanger sequencing of the individual samples comprising the pools in which they were identified.

Results

We identified a total of 23 missense variants in MYCBP2, TSC1 and TSC2. These variants exhibited a near equal distribution between the proband and parental pools, with no statistical excess in ASD cases (P > 0.05). All proband variants were inherited. No putative deleterious variants were confirmed in RHEB and FBXO45. Three intronic variants, identified as potential splice defects in MYCBP2 did not show aberrant splicing upon RNA assay. Overall, we did not find an over-representation of ASD causal variants in the genes studied to support them as contributors to autism susceptibility.

Conclusions

We did not observe an enrichment of rare functional variants in TSC1 and TSC2 genes in our sample set of 300 trios.

Pharmacotherapy of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Clinical Review

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide. In addition to generating high healthcare costs, COPD imposes a significant burden in terms of disability and impaired quality of life. Unlike many leading causes of death and disability, COPD is projected to increase in many regions of the world as the frequency of smoking is rising and the population is aging. The pharmacological treatment of COPD includes bronchodilators to relax smooth muscle, such as β2-agonists (salbutamol, terbutaline, and fenoterol, short-acting β2-agonists as well as salmeterol, formoterol, and indacaterol, and long-acting β2-agonists) and anticholinergics, such as ipratropium, oxitropium (short-acting anticholinergic), and tiotropium (long-acting anticholinergic). Although airway inflammation in COPD poorly responds to steroids, several inhaled corticosteroids (fluticasone, budesonide, and beclomethasone) are in use in combination with long-acting β2-agonists. Other medications include theophylline (both a bronchodilator and a phosphodiesterase inhibitor) and the phosphodiesterase-4 antagonists, such as roflumilast. Finally, a number of novel long-acting anticholinergics and β2-agonists with once- or twice-daily profiles are in development and clinical testing.