Comparison of indacaterol with tiotropium or twice-daily long-acting β -agonists for stable COPD: a systematic review

Nemonoxacin achieved a better symptomatic improvement and a prolonged interval to next exacerbation than moxifloxacin for outpatients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Nemonoxacin is a novel non-fluorinated quinolone with strong antibacterial efficacy, but data of its effect on acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is rare. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of oral nemonoxacin with moxifloxacin in AECOPD outpatients. In this retrospective observational study, a total of 101 AECOPD outpatients initially treated with nemonoxacin or moxifloxacin from July 2021 to March 2022 were enrolled. We collected COPD assessment test (CAT), Transition Dyspnea Indices (TDI) scores, and exacerbations information during 24 weeks follow-up from the electronic medical records. Kaplan-Meier curve was used to analyze the time to the next moderate/severe exacerbation. Compared to the moxifloxacin group, changes in CAT scores and TDI scores were significantly higher in the nemonoxacin group, and the nemonoxacin group also had a greater probability to reach the minimal clinically important difference of CAT (71.40% vs. 97.80%, p < 0.01) and TDI (40.50% vs. 60.00%, p < 0.05) at week 4. Despite no significant difference in the incidence of exacerbations between two groups, patients treated with nemonoxacin had a significantly prolonged time to next moderate/severe exacerbation than those with moxifloxacin (p < 0.05). Nemonoxacin achieved a better symptomatic improvement and a prolonged interval to next moderate/severe exacerbation for AECOPD outpatients.

Reducing and managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations with tiotropium + olodaterol

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review clinical evidence supporting the use of fixed-dose combination of tiotropium and olodaterol, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA), respectively, as the initial and follow-up treatment choice in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as per Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2020 recommendations-the impact of this treatment strategy on the reduction in the risk of exacerbations-and the importance of early therapeutic interventions.

METHODS

For this narrative review, the available literature was searched to identify studies including patients with COPD receiving tiotropium and olodaterol as either monotherapy or combination therapy and studies including patients with COPD receiving inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in addition to long-acting bronchodilators. Relevant studies were included in the review.

RESULTS

Patients with COPD are often prescribed ICS therapy, which, when used over a long term, can be associated with local and systemic adverse effects. The GOLD 2020 report recommends dual bronchodilator therapy as both an initial and follow-up treatment option. A LABA + LAMA combination is mechanistically synergistic, and cumulative evidence surrounding the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination of tiotropium and olodaterol supports therapeutic advantages over monotherapy in most patients with COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

The early stages of COPD may represent a "window of therapeutic opportunity" during which initiation of tiotropium and olodaterol dual bronchodilator therapy may improve lung function and quality of life and reduce exacerbations in patients with COPD.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

(PROSPERO: CRD42019144764).

Real-world outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease initiating long-acting mono bronchodilator therapy

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials have shown long-acting mono bronchodilator therapy to be efficacious in improving lung function and dyspnea, while reducing exacerbations; however, less is known regarding the effectiveness in routine clinical practice. This study examined treatment patterns, rescue medication use, healthcare resource utilization and costs, and exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who initiated long-acting mono bronchodilator therapy in real-world settings.

METHODS

This retrospective study used US claims data from adult patients with COPD initiating long-acting mono bronchodilator therapy between 1 January 2008 and 31 January 2015. Patients were required to have continuous health plan enrollment 12 months prior to (baseline period) and 12 months following therapy initiation (follow-up period). Outcomes, including treatment patterns, rescue medication use, exacerbations, and healthcare utilization and costs, were measured until the earliest of treatment augmentation or discontinuation, death, health plan disenrollment, or the end of the study period. Results were analyzed descriptively for all measures. Baseline and follow-up measures of all-cause and COPD-related healthcare costs and exacerbations [per patient per month (PPPM)] were compared using paired t tests.

RESULTS

Among 27,394 patients with a mean follow up of 6.3 months, 18.2% augmented, 74.2% discontinued, and 7.6% continued long-acting mono bronchodilator therapy. Rescue medication use was prevalent during the follow-up period, with an average of 1.0 short-acting β agonist (SABA) fills/month and 0.8 short-acting muscarinic antagonist (SAMA) fills/month, among patients with at least one fill for the medication of interest. PPPM mean number of exacerbations was more than triple (0.17 versus 0.05, p < 0.001) and PPPM exacerbation-related costs were more than double over the follow-up period compared with baseline ($1070 versus $485). COPD-related costs accounted for 50% of all-cause costs during the follow-up period and were significantly higher compared with baseline ($1206 versus $592, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients initiating long-acting mono bronchodilator therapy had high rates of medication discontinuation or augmentation. Patients used more rescue medications and experienced significantly more COPD exacerbations with higher healthcare costs compared with baseline. Further research is warranted to determine whether more aggressive initial therapy would result in symptom improvement.

Effects of indacaterol versus tiotropium on exercise tolerance in patients with moderate COPD: a pilot randomized crossover study

Objective:

To compare a once-daily long-acting β₂ agonist (indacaterol 150 µg) with a once-daily long-acting anticholinergic (tiotropium 5 µg) in terms of their effects on exercise endurance (limit of tolerance, Tlim) in patients with moderate COPD. Secondary endpoints were their effects on lung hyperinflation, exercise-related dyspnea, and daily-life dyspnea.

Methods:

This was a randomized, single-blind, crossover pilot study involving 20 patients (mean age, 60.9 ± 10.0 years; mean FEV₁, 69 ± 7% of predicted). Spirometric parameters, Transition Dyspnea Index scores, Tlim, and exertional dyspnea were compared after three weeks of each treatment (with a one-week washout period between treatments).

Results:

Nineteen patients completed the study (one having been excluded because of COPD exacerbation). Improvement in Tlim from baseline tended to be greater after treatment with tiotropium than after treatment with indacaterol (96 ± 163 s vs. 8 ± 82 s; p = 0.06). Tlim significantly improved from baseline after treatment with tiotropium (having increased from 396 ± 319 s to 493 ± 347 s; p = 0.010) but not after treatment with indacaterol (having increased from 393 ± 246 to 401 ± 254 s; p = 0.678). There were no differences between the two treatments regarding improvements in Borg dyspnea scores and lung hyperinflation at "isotime" and peak exercise. There were also no significant differences between treatments regarding Transition Dyspnea Index scores (1.5 ± 2.1 vs. 0.9 ± 2.3; p = 0.39).

Conclusions:

In patients with moderate COPD, tiotropium tends to improve Tlim in comparison with indacaterol. No significant differences were observed between the two treatments regarding their effects on lung hyperinflation, exercise-related dyspnea, and daily-life dyspnea. Future studies, including a larger number of patients, are required in order to confirm our findings and explore mechanistic explanations. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01693003 [http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/])

Recent advances in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Novel pharmacotherapies introduce additional options to providers and patients in how to best treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Emerging data question the role of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD treatment, particularly as combination dual bronchodilator pharmacotherapies demonstrate robust results. For those maximized on pharmacotherapy with continued dyspnea or exacerbations or both, emerging bronchoscopic procedures may offer additional therapy in select patients. This review focuses on data supporting the use of novel ultra bronchodilators, particularly in combination, and on the role for inhaled corticosteroid withdrawal and new bronchoscopic procedures.

Concurrent use of long-acting bronchodilators in COPD and the risk of adverse cardiovascular events

The cardiovascular risk of concurrently using long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) and anticholinergics (LAMAs) in COPD is uncertain. We assessed the comparative cardiovascular and cerebrovascular safety of adding a second long-acting bronchodilator in patients with COPD.We identified a cohort of COPD patients, new users of LABA or the LAMA tiotropium during 2002-2012, from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Using high-dimensional propensity scores, each patient adding a second bronchodilator was matched with a patient who remained on monotherapy. Patients were followed for 1 year for the occurrence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, heart failure and arrhythmia.The cohorts included up to 31 174 patients adding a bronchodilator matched to 31 174 patients remaining on bronchodilator monotherapy. Adding a long-acting bronchodilator, compared to remaining on monotherapy, was not associated with an increased risk of AMI (hazard ratio (HR) 1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.36), stroke (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.69-1.10) or arrhythmia (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.36), but the risk was elevated for heart failure (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.30).Adding a second long-acting bronchodilator in the real-world-setting treatment of COPD does not increase the risk of most cardiovascular events. The modest increase for heart failure warrants further investigation.

LABA/LAMA combinations versus LAMA monotherapy or LABA/ICS in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting bronchodilator combinations, such as β₂-agonist (LABA)/muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), have favorable efficacy compared with commonly used COPD treatments. The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA with LAMA or LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in adults with stable moderate-to-very-severe COPD.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinical trial/manufacturer databases) included RCTs comparing ≥12 weeks’ LABA/LAMA treatment with LAMA and/or LABA/ICS (approved doses only). Eligible studies were independently selected by two authors using predefined data fields; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed.

Results

Eighteen studies (23 trials) were eligible (N=20,185). LABA/LAMA significantly improved trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) from baseline to week 12 versus both LAMA and LABA/ICS (0.07 L and 0.08 L, P<0.0001), with patients more likely to achieve clinically important improvements in FEV₁ of >100 mL (risk ratio [RR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.20, 1.46] and RR: 1.44, 95% CI: [1.33, 1.56], respectively, the number needed to treat being eight and six, respectively). LABA/LAMA improved transitional dyspnea index and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores at week 12 versus LAMA (both P<0.0001), but not versus LABA/ICS, and reduced rescue medication use versus both (P<0.0001 and P=0.001, respectively). LABA/LAMA significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rate compared with LABA/ICS (RR 0.82, 95% CI: [0.75, 0.91]). Adverse event (AE) incidence was no different for LABA/LAMA versus LAMA treatment, but it was lower versus LABA/ICS (RR 0.94, 95% CI: [0.89, 0.99]), including a lower pneumonia risk (RR 0.59, 95% CI: [0.43, 0.81]). LABA/LAMA presented a lower risk for withdrawals due to lack of efficacy versus LAMA (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: [0.51, 0.87]) and due to AEs versus LABA/ICS (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: [0.69, 0.99]).

Conclusion

The greater efficacy and comparable safety profiles observed with LABA/LAMA combinations versus LAMA or LABA/ICS support their potential role as first-line treatment options in COPD. These findings are of direct relevance to clinical practice because we included all currently available LABA/LAMAs and comparators, only at doses approved for clinical use.

Efficacy and safety of the long-acting β2-agonist olodaterol over 4 weeks in Japanese patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

Olodaterol is a novel long-acting β₂-agonist with proven ≥24-hour duration of action in preclinical and clinical studies.

Objective

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study evaluated the dose response of once-daily (QD) olodaterol based on bronchodilator efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics over 4 weeks in Japanese patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

All eligible patients were randomized to receive 2 µg, 5 µg, or 10 µg of olodaterol or placebo for 4 weeks via the Respimat^® Soft Mist™ inhaler. The primary end point was the change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) after 4 weeks of olodaterol treatment. Secondary end points included trough FEV₁ after 1 week and 2 weeks of treatment, FEV₁ area under the curve from 0 hour to 3 hours (AUC_0–3), peak FEV₁ from 0 hour to 3 hours (peak FEV₁), and corresponding forced vital capacity (FVC) responses. Rescue medication use, COPD symptoms, physician global evaluation, pharmacokinetics, and safety were also assessed.

Results

A total of 328 patients with COPD were randomized to receive treatment. All olodaterol doses assessed in the study showed statistically significant increases in trough FEV₁ compared to placebo at Day 29 (P<0.0001). Mean increases in peak FEV₁ and FEV₁ AUC_0–3 compared to placebo were also significant (P<0.0001). A clear dose–response relationship was observed across all treatment groups. FVC responses (trough and FVC AUC_0–3) supported FEV₁ outcomes. All doses of olodaterol were well tolerated, and no safety concerns were identified.

Conclusion

QD olodaterol demonstrated 24-hour bronchodilator efficacy and was well tolerated in Japanese patients with COPD.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00824382.

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study to investigate different dosing regimens of olodaterol delivered via Respimat® in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

A Phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial comparing the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) time profile after 3 weeks' treatment with once-daily (QD) or twice-daily (BID) olodaterol (at the same total daily dose) versus placebo delivered via Respimat® in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

METHODS

Patients were randomised to different sequences of olodaterol with 2-week washout, either as a total daily dose of 5 μg (5 μg QD [AM] or 2.5 μg BID) or placebo, or 10 μg (10 μg QD [AM] or 5 μg BID) or placebo. Primary end point was FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) response (defined as change from study baseline FEV1) after 3 weeks. Key secondary end points were FEV1 AUC0-12 and AUC12-24 responses.

RESULTS

Two hundred and six patients received treatment. All olodaterol treatments demonstrated statistically significant improvements in FEV1 AUC0-24 response at 3 weeks versus placebo (p < 0.0001); adjusted mean treatment difference versus placebo was 0.191 L for olodaterol 2.5 μg BID (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.152, 0.229), 0.150 L for 5 μg QD (95 % CI 0.111, 0.189), 0.228 L for 5 μg BID (95 % CI 0.190, 0.266) and 0.209 L for 10 μg QD (95 % CI 0.170, 0.247). These results were supported by the key secondary end points. Olodaterol 5 μg QD provided numerically lower mean values for 24-h bronchodilation than olodaterol 2.5 μg BID (p = 0.0465), with no statistically significant difference between treatment with olodaterol 10 μg QD and 5 μg BID. No relevant differences in morning and evening peak expiratory flow or Asthma Control Questionnaire scores at 3 weeks were observed between different doses and regimens. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate and comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

All doses and dose frequencies provided adequate 24-h bronchodilation superior to placebo. Based on the results of this study, it would be reasonable to include both posologies of 5 μg olodaterol daily (5 μg QD or 2.5 μg BID, both delivered in two puffs per dose from the Respimat® inhaler) in subsequent studies. Further studies are necessary to confirm the optimum dosing regimen in asthma. No safety concerns were identified.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01311661.

Profile of a fixed-dose combination of tiotropium/olodaterol and its potential in the treatment of COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive, debilitating disorder that results in frequent exacerbations and impacts quality of life. It represents a growing burden of health care cost, both from societal and economic perspectives. Short- and long-acting bronchodilators remain the mainstay of therapy in COPD patients. New fixed-dose combination inhalers with novel pharmacological combinations of long-acting β2-agonists and muscarinic antagonists and delivered once-daily through a variety of devices are currently being developed and licensed for the treatment of COPD. There is mounting research suggesting that combining a fixed dose of a β2-agonist and a muscarinic antagonist achieves better bronchodilation and clinical outcomes compared with either agent alone. These once-daily dosing inhalers are anticipated to impact favorably on patient preference and compliance. This review examines the fixed-dose combination of tiotropium bromide and olodaterol delivered by a Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ inhaler at doses of 2.5/5 μg and 5/5 μg in moderate-to-very-severe COPD, and its potential role in COPD compared with other long-acting β2-agonist with long-acting muscarinic antagonist combinations and delivery devices.

Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in COPD: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Two once-daily inhaled bronchodilators, indacaterol and tiotropium, are widely used as first-line therapy in stable COPD patients. This study was performed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) at week 12. Four RCTs were eligible for inclusion (three RCTs with moderate-to-severe COPD patients and one RCT with only severe COPD patients). Trough FEV₁ at weeks 12 and 26 were not significantly different between indacaterol and tiotropium by the standardized mean difference with 0.014 (95% CI, -0.036, 0.063, I²= 23.5%) and with 0.037 (95% CI, -0.059 to 0.133, I²= 0%) along with differences in means of 0.003L and 0.014L, respectively. Indacaterol and tiotropium also showed similar St. George`s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores and percentages of patients with SGRQ improvement (≥ 4 units) at week 26. The incidences of nasopharyngitis, serious cardiovascular events, and serious adverse events were not different between indacaterol and tiotropium, while those of cough (OR = 1.68, P < 0.001, and RR = 1.63) and COPD worsening (OR = 1.18, P = 0.003, and RR = 1.12) were higher for indacaterol than tiotropium. However, when one study with only severe COPD patients was removed from the meta-analysis, the difference in the incidence of COPD worsening between indacaterol and tiotropium became non-significant (OR = 1.13, P = 0.204, and RR = 1.09). The clinical efficacy and serious adverse events between indacaterol and tiotropium were equivocal in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Cough is a common complaint associated with indacaterol, and COPD worsening needs to be carefully monitored in severe COPD patients when treated with indacaterol.

Clinicopharmacological profile of the fixed-dose combination of aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

The recent Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines consider symptoms and exacerbation history in addition to the degree of airflow obstruction for classifying patients. The improvement of symptoms is principally provided by bronchodilators, using β2 agonists and antimuscarinic agents. Aclidinium bromide is a novel long-acting antimuscarinic agent licensed for use in patients with COPD. Novel fixed-dose combinations that are either licensed or in their late phase of development include vilanterol/umeclidinium, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, olodaterol/tiotropium and formoterol/aclidinium. Fixed-dose combinations of aclidinium/formoterol have been evaluated in COPD patients and evidence suggests that this is efficacious, safe, has a quick onset of action and is well tolerated. This review provides a clinico-pharmacological profile of this compound.

A randomised, double-blind, four-way, crossover trial comparing the 24-h FEV1 profile for once-daily versus twice-daily treatment with olodaterol, a novel long-acting β2-agonist, in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

This randomised, double-blind, four-way, crossover, Phase II study compared the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) profile of alternative dosing frequencies of two total daily doses of olodaterol (5 and 10 μg) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

Patients received olodaterol 2 μg twice daily (BID), 5 μg BID, 5 μg once daily (QD) and 10 μg QD in a randomised sequence over 3-week treatment periods. Co-primary end points were FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC0-12) and area under the curve from 12 to 24 h (AUC12-24) responses. Additional lung-function responses, pharmacokinetics and safety were assessed.

RESULTS

47 patients were treated. All olodaterol doses provided significant increases in FEV1 versus baseline (p < 0.001) and FEV1 time profiles were nearly identical for olodaterol 5 and 10 μg QD. Olodaterol 5 μg QD demonstrated improved FEV1 AUC0-12 and similar AUC12-24 versus 2 μg BID. Olodaterol 5 μg QD showed slightly increased FEV1 AUC0-12 but lower AUC12-24 compared to 5 μg BID. Bronchodilation over 24 h was similar for olodaterol 5 μg QD and BID. All doses were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Olodaterol 5 μg QD is efficacious in COPD, with a superior bronchodilatory profile compared to 2 μg BID, which is close to the same total daily dose, and a similar degree of bronchodilation over 24 h compared with double the daily dose (administered as 10 μg QD or 5 μg BID).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00846768.

ALAT-2014 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Clinical Practice Guidelines: questions and answers

ALAT-2014 COPD Clinical Practice Guidelines used clinical questions in PICO format to compile evidence related to risk factors, COPD screening, disease prognosis, treatment and exacerbations. Evidence reveals the existence of risk factors for COPD other than tobacco, as well as gender differences in disease presentation. It shows the benefit of screening in an at-risk population, and the predictive value use of multidimensional prognostic indexes. In stable COPD, similar benefits in dyspnea, pulmonary function and quality of life are achieved with LAMA or LABA long-acting bronchodilators, whereas LAMA is more effective in preventing exacerbations. Dual bronchodilator therapy has more benefits than monotherapy. LAMA and combination LABA/IC are similarly effective, but there is an increased risk of pneumonia with LABA/IC. Data on the efficacy and safety of triple therapy are scarce. Evidence supports influenza vaccination in all patients and anti-pneumococcal vaccination in patients <65years of age and/or with severe airflow limitation. Antibiotic prophylaxis may decrease exacerbation frequency in patients at risk. The use of systemic corticosteroids and antibiotics are justified in exacerbations requiring hospitalization and in some patients managed in an outpatient setting.

Indacaterol, a once-daily beta2-agonist, versus twice-daily beta₂-agonists or placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Indacaterol is an inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist that is administered once daily and has been investigated as a treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Four different doses have been investigated (75 mcg, 150 mcg, 300 mcg and 600 mcg). The relative effects of different doses of once-daily indacaterol in the management of patients with COPD are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of indacaterol versus placebo and alternative twice-daily long-acting beta2-agonists for the treatment of patients with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), handsearched respiratory journals and meeting abstracts and searched the Novartis trials registry and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the most recent search was 8 November 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing indacaterol at any dose versus placebo or alternative long-acting beta2-agonists. Trials were required to be of at least 12 weeks' duration and had to include adults older than 18 years with a confirmed spirometric diagnosis of COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JBG, EJD) independently assessed for possible inclusion all citations identified as a result of the search. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or, if required, through resolution by a third review author (RWB). One review author (JBG) extracted data from trials identified by the search and entered these data into Review Manager 5.1 for statistical analysis. Data entry was cross-checked by a second review author (EJD, CJC).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 13 trials with 9961 participants were included in the review. Ten trials with a total of 8562 participants involved an indacaterol versus placebo comparison. Five trials with a total of 4133 participants involved an indacaterol versus twice-daily beta2-agonist comparison. The comparator beta2-agonists were salmeterol, formoterol and eformoterol. One of these trials, with a total of 90 participants, provided no data that could be used in this review. Two trials included both indacaterol versus placebo and indacaterol versus twice-daily beta2-agonist comparisons. Trials were between 12 weeks and 52 weeks in duration. Overall the quality of the evidence was strong, and risk of significant bias was minimal in most of the included studies. Enrolled participants had stable COPD across a range of spirometric severities. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was generally between 30% and 80% predicted, and a mean FEV1 of approximately 50% was predicted in most studies. Patients with concurrent respiratory disease, including asthma, were excluded. Concomitant use of inhaled corticosteroids was permitted.The primary objectives were to compare trough FEV1 at the end of dosing, exacerbation rates and quality of life. Significant adverse events, mortality and dyspnoea were included as secondary outcomes. Compared with placebo, a significant and clinically relevant improvement in trough FEV1 was noted with indacaterol (mean difference (MD) 149.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 137.09 to 161.12). In addition, compared with placebo, a significant improvement in mean St George Respiratory Questionaire (SGRQ) score (MD -3.60, 95% CI -4.36 to -2.83) was reported, and the proportion of participants experiencing clinically relevant improvement in SGRQ score was significantly greater (odds ratio (OR) 1.63, 95% CI 1.46 to 1.84). Compared with twice-daily beta2-agonists, a small but statistically significant increase in trough FEV1 was seen with indacaterol (MD 61.71 mL, 95% CI 41.24 to 82.17). Differences between indacaterol and twice-daily beta2-agonists in mean SGRQ scores (MD -0.81, 95% CI -2.28 to 0.66) and in the proportions of participants achieving clinically relevant improvements in SGRQ scores (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.32) were not statistically significant, but the confidence intervals are too wide to permit the conclusion that the treatments were equivalent. Data were insufficient for analysis of differences in exacerbation rates for both placebo and twice-daily beta2-agonist comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For patients with stable COPD, use of indacaterol versus placebo results in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in lung function and quality of life. The clinical benefit for lung function is at least as good as that seen with twice-daily long-acting beta2-agonists. The comparative effect on quality of life remains uncertain, as important differences cannot be excluded.

Indacaterol for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

The need for a rapid onset of action and a long duration of the broncholytic effect is the likely reason for the development of new long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) that are fast acting and have true 24 h duration of action. Indacaterol is the archetype of once-daily LABAs and already marketed as a maintenance therapy in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

AREAS COVERED

Meta-analyses of published data or pooled analyses of primary data provide good insight into the clinical role of indacaterol in COPD.

EXPERT OPINION

The choice of the once-daily bronchodilator to start treatment in a patient with COPD mainly depends on the outcome of interest. Indacaterol is more effective than tiotropium if we consider symptoms or health-related quality of life as the primary outcome. Moreover, in symptomatic patient indacaterol should be preferred to tiotropium because of its rapid onset of action. By contrast, tiotropium appears to be more effective than indacaterol if exacerbations are the expected primary outcome. However, as indacaterol/glycopyrronium fixed-dose combination (QVA149) shows superior efficacy compared to glycopyrronium and tiotropium in patients with moderate to severe COPD, a fundamental question regarding the use of indacaterol that requires clarification is whether it is preferable to start immediately with QVA149 rather than using indacaterol alone.

The 24-h FEV1 time profile of olodaterol once daily via Respimat® and formoterol twice daily via Aerolizer® in patients with GOLD 2-4 COPD: results from two 6-week crossover studies

ABSTRACT

These studies evaluated the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) profile of once-daily (QD) olodaterol compared to placebo and twice-daily (BID) formoterol in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In two replicate, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, four-way crossover studies, patients received olodaterol 5 and 10 μg QD, formoterol 12 μg BID, or placebo for 6 weeks in addition to usual-care background maintenance therapy. Co-primary end points were FEV1 area under the curve from 0-12 h (AUC0-12) response (change from baseline) and FEV1 AUC from 12-24 h (AUC12-24) response after 6 weeks, with FEV1 AUC from 0-24 h response identified as a key secondary end point. Other secondary end points included FEV1 AUC from 0-3 h and trough FEV1 responses, as well as corresponding forced vital capacity responses. With both olodaterol doses, FEV1 increased to near-maximal 30 min post-morning dose, which was sustained over 24 h. FEV1 also increased within 30 min post-morning dose of formoterol and was sustained over 12 h; the second formoterol dose resulted in a further increase, sustained for an additional 12 h. FEV1 AUC0-12 and AUC12-24 responses with both QD olodaterol doses and BID formoterol were significantly greater than placebo at 6 weeks (P < .0001). Secondary end-point outcomes were consistent with those of the co-primary end points. These data, together with those from the wider phase III clinical program, provide evidence for the 24-h bronchodilator efficacy of olodaterol QD in this patient population.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT00931385 and NCT00932646.

Lung function efficacy and symptomatic benefit of olodaterol once daily delivered via Respimat® versus placebo and formoterol twice daily in patients with GOLD 2-4 COPD: results from two replicate 48-week studies

Two replicate, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, Phase III studies investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of once-daily olodaterol via Respimat® versus placebo and formoterol over 48 weeks in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receiving usual-care background therapy. Patients received once-daily olodaterol 5 or 10 μg, twice-daily formoterol 12 μg, or placebo. Co-primary end points were forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) area under the curve from 0-3 hours response, FEV1 trough response, and Mahler transition dyspnea index total score after 24 weeks; secondary end points included St George's Respiratory Questionnaire. Overall, 904 (Study 1222.13) and 934 (Study 1222.14) patients received treatment. Olodaterol significantly improved FEV1 area under the curve from 0-3 hours versus placebo in both studies (with olodaterol 5 μg, 0.151 L and 0.129 L; with olodaterol 10 μg, 0.165 L and 0.154 L; for all comparisons P<0.0001) and FEV1 trough responses versus placebo (0.053-0.085 L; P<0.01), as did formoterol. Primary analysis revealed no significant difference in transition dyspnea index focal score for any active treatment versus placebo. Post hoc analysis using pattern mixture modeling (accounting for discontinuations) demonstrated statistical significance for olodaterol versus placebo. St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score was significantly improved with olodaterol, but not formoterol, versus placebo. No safety signals were identified from adverse-event or other safety data. Once-daily olodaterol 5 μg and 10 μg is efficacious in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on usual-care maintenance therapy, with a satisfactory safety profile.

The pharmacological approach to the elderly COPD patient

The elderly patient (65 years and older) with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be a challenge to the clinician. This begins with the correct and early diagnosis, the assessment of disease severity, recognizing complicating comorbidities, determining the burden of symptoms, and monitoring the frequency of acute exacerbations. Comprehensive management of COPD in the elderly patient should improve health-related quality of life, lung function, reduce exacerbations, and promote patient compliance with treatment plans. Only smoking cessation and oxygen therapy in COPD patients with hypoxemia reduce mortality. Bronchodilators, corticosteroids, methylxanthines, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors, macrolide antibiotics, mucolytics, and pulmonary rehabilitation improve some outcome measures such as spirometry measures and the frequency of COPD exacerbations without improving mortality. International treatment guidelines to reduce symptoms and reduce the risk of acute exacerbations exist. Relief of dyspnea and control of anxiety are important. The approach to each patient is best individualized. Earlier use of palliative care should be considered when traditional pharmacotherapy fails to achieve outcome measures and before consideration of end-of-life issues.

Indacaterol therapy in moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: findings from a single-center primary care cohort

Background

Once-daily long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) are an important treatment option, either alone or in combination with other inhaled long-acting bronchodilators in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Aims/objectives

To audit the effectiveness of indacaterol as maintenance therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage II/III).

Methods

This was a single-center audit of a primary care COPD cohort comprising all patients treated with indacaterol following treatment escalation (as per National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines) or failure with other therapies. The sample was restricted to patients treated for a minimum of 12 months with indacaterol, for whom preswitching and follow-up spirometry as well as exacerbation frequency data were available (GOLD spirometry guidelines). Pulmonary function was assessed by spirometry (recorded as forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁] expressed as percentage predicted). Relevant self-reported qualitative information was recorded in descriptive terms for quality of life (QoL) assessment.

Results

A total of 15 patients met the audit inclusion criteria (66.6% male, mean age 64.9±7.7 years). COPD disease duration ranged from 1 to 22 years; 93% had GOLD stage II or III COPD. Follow-up ranged in duration from 12 to 27 months. Indacaterol was associated with a significant reduction in exacerbation frequency compared with the 12 months prior to initiation (P=0.02). In those patients who experienced three or more exacerbations/year, mean exacerbation rate fell from 5.43±1.07 to 2.43±0.2 after 12 months treatment with indacaterol (P=0.02). A reduction in dyspnea was noted in 53% of patients. Similarly, improvements in exercise tolerance and well-being were self-reported in 67% and 93%, respectively.

Conclusion

Indacaterol was found to be an effective LABA as an escalation or switch medication in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Indacaterol was effective both as monotherapy and in combination with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist. Switching to indacaterol from a LABA/inhaled corticosteroid fixed-combination inhaler significantly reduced the number of acute exacerbations and also improved self-reported QoL.

New developments in the management of COPD: clinical utility of indacaterol 75 μg

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a global health challenge and a major cause of mortality worldwide. Bronchodilators, particularly long-acting β₂-agonists and long-acting antimuscarinic agents, used singly or in combination, aim to improve lung function, reduce symptoms, prevent exacerbations, and enhance quality of life of COPD patients. Indacaterol is a novel, inhaled, long-acting β₂-agonist, with rapid onset of action and once-daily dosing providing 24-hour bronchodilation. Currently, the recommended dose differs between Europe (150 μg; maximum 300 μg) and USA (75 μg), the latter is lower than that assessed in the majority of the conducted studies. This review summarises published evidence regarding the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of indacaterol at a dose of 75 μg. Indacaterol 75 μg was found to be superior than placebo regarding lung function, dyspnea, health status, use of rescue medication, and rate of exacerbations. Furthermore, indacaterol 75 μg was well tolerated, while the most frequent adverse effect was deterioration of COPD occurring at a frequency similar to placebo, without major cardiovascular adverse effects. In conclusion, indacaterol 75 μg, administered once daily, is efficacious and has an excellent tolerability and safety profile, and is therefore a valid alternative in the treatment of COPD patients.

Role of indacaterol, a once-daily bronchodilator, in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by progressive airflow obstruction that can lead to lung destruction and dyspnea. Although there has been a slight reduction in mortality in recent decades, COPD is still a serious health problem that has enormous costs and utilizes significant medical resources. There have been a number of pharmacologic interventions that have been developed for the treatment of COPD. Current guidelines recommend the use of long-acting bronchodilators for the treatment of moderate and severe stage COPD, since they have been shown to improve lung function, respiratory symptoms, and quality of life. Indacaterol is a once-daily beta2-agonist (β2-agonist) delivered by a single-dose dry powder inhaler used for the treatment of COPD. It is currently approved at a dose of 75 μg in the United States and a dose of 150 μg with a maximal dose of 300 μg in Europe and other countries. Several studies show that indacaterol was statistically superior to both long-acting β2-agonist, formoterol and salmeterol, as well as, noninferior to tiotropium. Indacaterol is generally well tolerated and has a good safety profile. Other studies show that there is an additive bronchodilator response with the addition of indacaterol to tiotropium, which would provide a once-daily treatment option for patient with moderate to severe COPD. This review discusses the pharmacokinetic, comparative efficacy and safety data for indacaterol.

Comparative efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators for COPD: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinicians are faced with an increasingly difficult choice regarding the optimal bronchodilator for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) given the number of new treatments. The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative efficacy of indacaterol 75/150/300 μg once daily (OD), glycopyrronium bromide 50 μg OD, tiotropium bromide 18 μg/5 μg OD, salmeterol 50 μg twice daily (BID), formoterol 12 μg BID, and placebo for moderate to severe COPD.

METHODS

Forty randomized controlled trials were combined in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest were trough and post-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and responders (≥4 points), and Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) score and responders (≥1 point) at 6 months.

RESULTS

Indacaterol was associated with a higher trough FEV1 than other active treatments (difference for indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg versus placebo: 152 mL (95% credible interval (CrI): 126, 179); 160 mL (95% CrI: 133, 187)) and the greatest improvement in SGRQ score (difference for indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg versus placebo: -3.9 (95% CrI -5.2, -2.6); -3.6 (95% CrI -4.8, -2.3)). Glycopyrronium and tiotropium 18 μg resulted in the next best estimates for both outcomes with minor differences (difference for glycopyrronium versus tiotropium for trough FEV1 and SGRQ: 18 mL (95% CrI: -16, 51); -0.55 (95% CrI: -2.04, 0.92).

CONCLUSION

In terms of trough FEV1 and SGRQ score indacaterol, glycopyrronium, and tiotropium are expected to be the most effective bronchodilators.

The combination of umeclidinium bromide and vilanterol in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: current evidence and future prospects

The defining feature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is progressive airflow limitation that causes air trapping and hyperinflation. The increasing hyperinflation results in dyspnea along with associated inability to engage in the activities of daily living. The American Thoracic Society (ATS), European Respiratory Society (ERS) and Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) treatment guidelines all place bronchodilators as the foundation of pharmacological management of COPD. In patients with moderate-to-very-severe respiratory impairment, adding regular treatment with one or more long-acting bronchodilators is recommended [long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs)]. A growing body of evidence shows that LAMA and LABA co-administration is more effective than either drug class alone in managing stable COPD to improve lung function, symptoms and health status. Recently, new drug applications (NDAs) for a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of umeclidinium (UMEC), a LAMA, and vilanterol (VI), a LABA, at UMEC/VI doses of 125/25 and 62.5/25 µg have been submitted by sponsors to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Thus, UMEC/VI has become the first FDC LAMA/LABA product that has reached a regulatory approval stage. Other LAMA/LABA once-daily combinations coming through development include FDCs of tiotropium and olodaterol, glycopyrronium and indacaterol, and twice-daily aclidinium and formoterol. The aim of this review is to explore currently available data for once-daily UMEC/VI in the context of the evolving standards of COPD management.

The role of indacaterol for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

Indacaterol is the first long-acting β2-agonist (LABAs) approved for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that allows for once-daily (OD) administration. It is rapidly acting, with an onset of action in 5 minutes, like salbutamol and formoterol but with a sustained bronchodilator effect, that last for 24 hours, like tiotropium. In long-term clinical studies (12 weeks to 1 year) in patients with moderate to severe COPD, OD indacaterol 150 or 300 μg improved lung function (primary endpoint) significantly more than placebo, and improvements were significantly greater than twice-daily formoterol 12 μg or salmeterol 50 μg, and noninferior to OD tiotropium bromide 18 μg. Indacaterol was well tolerated at all doses and with a good overall safety profile. Cost-utility analyses show that indacaterol 150 μg has lower total costs and better outcomes than tiotropium and salmeterol. These findings suggest that indacaterol can be considered a first choice drug in the treatment of the patient with mild/moderate stable COPD. However, in people with COPD who remain symptomatic on treatment with indacaterol, adding a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) is the preferable option. In any case, it is advisable to combine indacaterol with a OD inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), such as mometasone furoate or ciclesonide, in patients with low FEV1, and, in those patients who have many symptoms and a high risk of exacerbations, to combine it with a LAMA and a OD ICS.

Indacaterol for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled bronchodilators are the first-line therapy for COPD. Indacaterol is a novel addition to existing long-acting bronchodilators.

OBJECTIVES

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) ON efficacy and safety of indacaterol as compared: 1) with placebo at different dosages, 2) with existing bronchodilators; (3) as add-on treatment to tiotropium.

METHODS

We searched 13 electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL, and contacted the manufacturer for unpublished data. Primary outcome was mean FEV1 change at 12(th) week, secondary outcomes included changes in SGRQ, TDI and BODE index at 6 months, exacerbation at 1 year, and worsening of symptoms.

RESULTS

Twelve eligible RCTs of moderate risk of bias included data from 10,977 patients. Compared to placebo, indacaterol improved FEV1 by a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.16 L (95%CI: 0.15, 0.18 L, p<0.001), homogeneously above the minimally important difference of 0.10 L. It offered clinically relevant improvement in all secondary outcomes except exacerbation. Magnitude of benefit did not differ significantly by dosage, but one treatment related death was reported at 300 ug. Efficacy of Indacaterol was similar to formoterol and salmeterol (FEV1 WMD = 0.04 L, 95%CI: 0.01 L, 0.07 L, p = 0.02); and tiotropium (FEV1 WMD = 0.01 L, 95%CI: -0.01, 0.03 L, p = 0.61). The use of indacaterol on top of tiotropium yielded additional improvement on FEV1 (WMD = 0.07 L, 95%CI: 0.05 L, 0.10 L, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Indacaterol is safe and beneficial for patients with COPD at dosage ≤150 ug. It may serve as a good alternative to existing bronchodilators, or as an add-on to tiotropium for unresponsive patients. Use of higher dosage requires further justification.

Indacaterol: a comprehensive review

At present there is no cure for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, some nonpharmacologic treatments, such as rehabilitation and lung volume reduction surgery, as well as pharmacologic intervention, can relieve some of the patient's symptoms and improve quality of life, while also reducing the rate of exacerbations and hospitalizations. There needs to be a paradigm shift away from the unjustified nihilistic approach to COPD towards considering it a preventable and treatable disease. After patients quit smoking and start to lead healthier lifestyles, long-acting bronchodilators, such as long-acting beta-adrenergic agents (LABA) and long-acting antimuscarinic agents (LAMA), are recommended as the cornerstone of treatment for COPD, either as monotherapy or in combination. COPD is characterized by a reduced maximum expiratory flow and slow forced emptying of the lungs, which progress over time and are not completely reversible. In this condition, gas gets trapped in the lungs and pulmonary hyperinflation occurs. LABA and LAMA improve airway patency and deflate the lungs. Indacaterol is the first once-daily LABA approved for treatment of COPD, and is administered by inhalation through the Breezhaler® device. The speed of bronchodilation is similar to that with salbutamol (ie, about five minutes) and longer (ie, 24 hours) than that with traditional LABA, with the same 12-hour effect as salmeterol and formoterol, both of which require twice-daily administration. This is why indacaterol has been called the "ultra-LABA". On the one hand, the fast onset of action provides immediate relief of symptoms, and on the other, its constant 24-hour bronchodilation provides "pharmacologic stenting" which facilitates lung emptying, thereby decreasing trapped gas and pulmonary hyperinflation. Once-daily administration of a fast and long-acting bronchodilator can improve patient adherence with therapy, which is known to be a major problem for many medical treatments. Dose-finding trials have shown that 75 μg is the minimum dose needed to achieve clinically important improvement. However, indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg achieve an even greater improvement in lung function and patient-oriented outcomes. Further, these two doses of indacaterol significantly reduce pulmonary hyperinflation, thereby improving exercise tolerance and ability to perform day-to-day activities. It is more effective on lung volumes at the 300 μg dose than formoterol, and better than salmeterol and tiotropium at the 150 μg dose, at least in the acute setting. It is noteworthy that few studies document these results in patients with COPD and moderate airflow obstruction. These are exactly the kind of patients our research should be concentrating on, in view of the accelerated decay in forced expiratory volume in one second at this stage of the disease. Finally, all the relevant studies show that indacaterol is consistently well tolerated by patients with COPD at every stage, and that it has a high safety profile.

Improving the quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: focus on indacaterol

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common disease in the general population and it places a considerable burden on patients, with the disease negatively affecting quality of life. In practice, patients with COPD generally seek medical attention because of symptoms, particularly breathlessness, and the resulting physical limitations, which affect the health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) in patients. The defining feature of COPD is airflow limitation that causes air trapping and increased hyperinflation as the ventilation rate increases during physical effort. Hyperinflation causes or worsens breathlessness as breathing becomes inefficient, with the end result being an avoidance of physical exertion and a cycle of increasing dyspnea caused by inactivity and deconditioning, with deleterious effects on HR-QOL. Current published guidelines for COPD state that the goals of pharmacologic therapy should be to control symptoms, improve health status and exercise tolerance, and reduce the frequency of COPD exacerbations. Effective and sustained bronchodilation has emerged as a key strategy for improving dyspnea and ability to exercise. As there is no cure for COPD, a major goal of treatment and of research into new therapies is to improve HR-QOL in COPD patients.

A year in review: new drugs for older adults in 2011

BACKGROUND

New drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may offer tremendous clinical advances by providing health care providers with new treatment strategies. However, additional care must be taken for safe and effective use of these new agents by older adults.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to identify FDA-approved medications in 2011 most likely to be prescribed to older adults, and to describe medication characteristics that may require special attention in this population.

METHODS

The FDA Web site was reviewed for new drug approvals from January through December 2011. Approved labeling for each drug was obtained from the manufacturer's Web site and PubMed was searched for primary literature published between 1967 and 2012.

RESULTS

Rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, is approved for once-daily use in treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis after replacement of a hip or knee. Drug interactions and renal function must be considered when prescribing this drug to older adults. Fidaxomicin is an oral anti-infective approved for the treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. It has minimal oral absorption or side effects, no relevant drug interactions, but a very high cost. It is a treatment option after failure of oral metronidazole and oral vancomycin. Roflumilast is a selective inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 4 and is approved to reduce the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations in patients with severe COPD and a history of exacerbations. It is recommended as a second or alternative choice combined with a long-acting bronchodilator in patients at high risk for hospitalization. Indacaterol is an inhaled long-acting β-agonist approved for COPD maintenance. It is administered once daily, which may improve adherence in older adults compared with currently available twice-daily agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Four new drugs approved in 2011 applicable to the geriatric population are presented. Clinicians must consider the available evidence, cost, drug-drug interactions, renal function, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic differences, and patient preferences when considering prescribing these agents to older adults.