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

Pharmacokinetic considerations surrounding triple therapy for uncontrolled asthma

INTRODUCTION

Solid pharmacological rationale and clinical evidence support the use of a combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), a long-acting β2-agonist, and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist in severe asthma, which clinically results in increased lung function, improved symptoms, and decreased exacerbation rates.

AREAS COVERED

We examined the pharmacokinetic issues associated with triple therapy for uncontrolled asthma. We considered the pharmacokinetic characteristics of the three drug classes, the role of inhalers in influencing their pharmacokinetic behavior, and the impact of severe asthma on the pharmacokinetics of inhaled drugs.

EXPERT OPINION

The pharmacokinetics of ICSs and bronchodilators are not affected to a great extent by severe asthma, according to a detailed review of the currently accessible literature. Compared to healthy people, patients with severe asthma show only minor variations in a few pharmacokinetic characteristics, which are unlikely to have therapeutic significance and do not require particular attention. However, the difficulty of obtaining pharmacokinetic profiles of the three drugs included in a triple therapy suggests that the clinical response should be followed over time, which can be considered a good surrogate indicator of whether the drugs have reached sufficient concentrations in the lung to exert a valid pharmacological action.

Single inhaler triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with COPD: subgroup analysis of the China cohort in the IMPACT trial

OBJECTIVES

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is becoming a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in China. In the IMPACT trial, fluticasone furoate[FF]/umeclidinium[UMEC]/vilanterol[VI] single-inhaler triple therapy demonstrated lower rates of moderate/severe exacerbations than dual therapy with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations. This analysis investigates the China cohort and its consistency with the overall ITT population.

METHODS

10,355 patients were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg for 52 weeks. Endpoints included: annual rates of exacerbations, time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation and change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at Week-52. Clinical trial registration is NCT02164513 (CTT116855).

RESULTS

535 patients (5.2%) were from China. Annual on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rate was 0.81 with FF/UMEC/VI versus 0.96 with FF/VI (rate ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64, 1.11; p = .227) and 0.80 with UMEC/VI (rate ratio: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.44; p = .929). Hazard ratio for time-to-first moderate/severe exacerbation was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.11; p = .218) for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.27; p = .516) versus UMEC/VI. Significant improvements in mean change from baseline in trough FEV₁ were observed for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI (treatment difference 137 mL; 95% CI: 86, 188; p < .001) and UMEC/VI (63 mL; 0, 125; p = .050). Health status was improved with FF/UMEC/VI versus both dual therapies. Results were similar to the overall ITT population. No new safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-inhaler triple therapy with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI reduced the rate and risk of exacerbations, and improved lung function and health status in the China cohort similar to the overall ITT population. No new safety signals were identified.

A review of the pharmacokinetics of M3 muscarinic receptor antagonists used for the treatment of asthma

Introduction: There is solid evidence that in patients with poorly controlled severe asthma despite the use of ICS and LABA, the addition of LAMAs, such as tiotropium, significantly increases the time to the first severe exacerbation and provides a modest but sustained bronchodilation. However, only a very limited number of pharmacokinetic studies with these agents have been performed in asthmatic patients.Areas covered: The pharmacokinetic profile of inhaled tiotropium, umeclidinium and glycopyrronium in healthy volunteers and that of inhaled tiotropium and umeclidinium in asthmatic patients have been reviewed.Expert opinion: In asthmatic patients, LAMAs are rapidly absorbed into the systemic compartment and demonstrate bi-exponential elimination (rapidly declining plasma concentrations followed by slow apparent terminal elimination). Apparently, the severity of asthma does not change the pharmacokinetics of LAMAs. The limited information available is focused on the plasma pharmacokinetic profile of these drugs and, consequently, although suitable for establishing a systemic safety profile, it does not tell us much about possible therapeutic efficacy of LAMAs in asthmatics because quantification of systemic plasma values is neither at the airways, which are their site of action nor representative of their transport to this site.

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.

Pharmacokinetics of Single and Repeat Doses of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Healthy Chinese Adults

The pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) after single and repeat dosing in healthy Chinese adults were assessed. In this open-label study (NCT02837380), subjects received once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg on day 1 and repeat doses on days 2-7. PK parameters (days 1 and 7) included maximum observed concentration (C_max ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero (predose) to last time of quantifiable concentration (AUC_0-t ). Terminal phase half-life (t_½ ) on day 1 was estimated. The primary objective was to assess systemic exposure of FF 100 µg, UMEC 62.5 µg, and VI 25 µg following single-inhaler triple therapy on days 1 and 7. On day 1, geometric mean t_½ of UMEC and VI was 0.36 and 0.52 hours, respectively; t_½ of FF was not representative because of nonquantifiable concentration data. On days 1 and 7, geometric mean C_max of FF was 10.46 and 27.32 pg/mL, respectively; C_max of UMEC was 144.14 and 241.35 pg/mL, respectively; and C_max of VI was 120.42 and 196.78 pg/mL, respectively. AUC_0-t of FF was 1.77 and 276.96 pg·h/mL, respectively; AUC_0-t of UMEC was 28.44 and 117.19 pg·h/mL, respectively; and AUC_0-t of VI, 42.46 and 101.12 pg·h/mL, respectively. The PK of FF/UMEC/VI was as expected for the individual-component PK previously reported in healthy Chinese adults. No new safety signals were observed.

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.

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.

Randomized controlled trials and real-world observational studies in evaluating cardiovascular safety of inhaled bronchodilator therapy in COPD

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) bronchodilators and their combination are recommended for the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although the efficacy of LAMAs and LABAs has been well established through randomized controlled trials (RCTs), questions remain regarding their cardiovascular (CV) safety. Furthermore, while the safety of LAMA and LABA monotherapy has been extensively studied, data are lacking for LAMA/LABA combination therapy, and the majority of the studies that have reported on the CV safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy were not specifically designed to assess this. Evaluation of CV safety for COPD treatments is important because many patients with COPD have underlying CV comorbidities. However, severe CV and other comorbidities are often exclusion criteria for RCTs, contributing to a lack in external validity and generalizability. Real-world observational studies are another important tool to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COPD therapies in a broader population of patients and can improve upon the external validity limitations of RCTs. We examine what is already known regarding the CV and cerebrovascular safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy from RCTs and real-world observational studies, and explore the advantages and limitations of data derived from each study type. We also describe an ongoing prospective, observational, comparative post-authorization safety study of a LAMA/LABA combination therapy (umeclidinium/vilanterol) and LAMA monotherapy (umeclidinium) versus tiotropium, with a focus on the relative merits of the study design.

Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic assessment of fluticasone furoate + vilanterol for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

The pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of long-acting β2-agonists and mostly inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) shape the efficacy and safety of these agents in the treatment of asthma. In fact, the PK and PD characteristics of the drug largely determine the degree of pulmonary targeting Areas covered. In this review, we summarize the PK and PD properties of inhaled fluticasone furoate (FF) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) and their fixed-dose combination (FDC) for the treatment of asthma Expert opinion. It is difficult to interpret the data that we have described because the preclinical and clinical development of FF/VI FDC was not really based on solid information on quantitative PK/PD approach. Unfortunately, for both FF and VI we only know concentrations in systemic blood, a compartment that is downstream of both target and non-target respiratory tissue. This lack of information does not allow us to understand the temporal relationship between the delivered dose and the drug concentration at the sites of action within the lungs. In addition, all studies performed with FF and VI did not address the fundamental issue that asthma can significantly alter lung deposition, absorption and also clearance of inhaled medicines.

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.

Randomised trial of once-daily vilanterol in children with asthma on inhaled corticosteroid therapy

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are effective maintenance treatments for childhood asthma; however, many children remain uncontrolled. Vilanterol (VI) is an inhaled long-acting beta-2 agonist which, in combination with the ICS fluticasone furoate, is being explored as a once-daily treatment for asthma in children. We evaluated the dose-response, efficacy, and safety of once-daily VI (6.25 μg, 12.5 μg and 25 μg) administered in the evening over 4 weeks, on background fluticasone propionate (FP) in children with asthma inadequately controlled on ICS.

METHODS

This was a Phase IIb, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study in children ages 5-11 years with persistent asthma on ICS and as-needed short-acting beta-agonist. The study comprised a 4-week run-in, 4-week treatment period, and 1-week follow-up. From study start, children replaced their current ICS with open-label FP 100 μg twice daily. Children were randomised to receive placebo, VI 6.25 μg, VI 12.5 μg or VI 25 μg once daily. Primary endpoint was treatment difference between VI 25 and placebo groups in mean change from baseline in evening peak expiratory flow averaged over the 4-week treatment. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at Week 4 and change from baseline in percentage of rescue-free and symptom-free 24-h periods. Safety assessments included incidence of adverse events (AEs) and asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

In total, 456 children comprised the intention-to-treat population. The adjusted treatment difference between VI 25 and placebo groups for the primary endpoint was not statistically significant (p = 0.227) so no statistical inference was made for other VI dose comparisons or other endpoints. No difference in change from baseline in trough FEV1 was observed for any VI treatments versus placebo; however, VI 25 resulted in an additional 0.6 rescue-free days and 0.7 symptom-free days per week versus placebo. The incidence of AEs was slightly higher in the VI groups (28-33 %) versus placebo (22 %). Nine children experienced asthma exacerbations during the treatment period.

CONCLUSION

VI plus FP did not result in significant improvements in lung function versus placebo plus FP, but was well tolerated at all doses assessed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01573767 (ClinicalTrials.gov).