Considerations for new dual-acting bronchodilator treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Umeclidinium plus vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

PURPOSE

Umeclidinium plus vilanterol (UMEC/VI) is an inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting beta2-agonist (LAMA/LABA), recently approved as once-daily maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of UMEC/VI compared with fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol (FP/SAL).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted by a trained medical research librarian across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) for randomized controlled trials comparing UMEC/VI with FP/SAL in COPD patients. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcome was 0-24 h weighted mean (wm) forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), trough FEV1. The secondary outcomes were other lung functions, symptoms, quality of life, and safety.

RESULTS

Three studies with 2119 patients were included in the meta-analysis. UMEC/VI showed improvement in 0-24 h wm FEV1 (mean difference (MD) 0.08 L, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.10, P < 0.01, moderate quality) and trough FEV1 (MD 0.09 L, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.11, P < 0.01, moderate quality) in comparison with FP/SAL. UMEC/VI statistically significantly improved all other lung functions compared with FP/SAL. However, there were no significant differences between UMEC/VI and FP/SAL in rescue-medication use, symptomatic endpoints, and health outcomes. UMEC/VI also demonstrated fewer drug-related adverse effects (risk ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.82, P = 0.01, low quality).

CONCLUSIONS

UMEC/VI, when compared with FP/SAL, demonstrated significant improvements in lung functions with fewer drug-related adverse effects. However, the conclusion was limited by the scarcity of studies and long-term trials.

Inhaled corticosteroids with combination inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly involves a combination of long-acting bronchodilators including beta2-agonists (LABA) and muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). LABA and LAMA bronchodilators are now available in single-combination inhalers. In individuals with persistent symptoms or frequent exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are also used with combination LABA and LAMA inhalers. However, the benefits and risks of adding ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers as a triple therapy remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of adding an ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase up to 30 November 2022. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP up to 30 November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials of three weeks' duration or longer that compared the treatment of stable COPD with ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers against combination LABA/LAMA inhalers alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were acute exacerbations of COPD, respiratory health-related quality of life, pneumonia and other serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were symptom scores, lung function, physical capacity, and mortality. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for studies that contributed data to our prespecified outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies with a total of 15,412 participants met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of study participants ranged from 64.4 to 65.3 years; the proportion of female participants ranged from 28% to 40%. Most participants had symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test Score ≥ 10) with severe to very severe airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) < 50% predicted) and one or more moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations in the last 12 months. Trial medications differed amongst studies. The duration of follow-up was 52 weeks in three studies and 24 weeks in one study. We assessed the risk of selection, performance, and detection bias to be low in the included studies; one study was at high risk of attrition bias, and one study was at high risk of reporting bias. Triple therapy may reduce rates of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (rate ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.81; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis stratifying by blood eosinophil counts showed there may be a greater reduction in rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations with triple therapy in participants with high-eosinophils (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.75) compared to low-eosinophils (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.93) (test for subgroup differences: P < 0.01) (high/low cut-offs: 150 eosinophils/µL in three studies; 200 eosinophils/µL in one study). However, moderate-to-substantial heterogeneity was observed in both high- and low-eosinophil subgroups. These subgroup analyses are observational by nature and thus results should be interpreted with caution. Triple therapy may be associated with reduced rates of severe COPD exacerbations (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84; n = 14,131; low-certainty evidence). Triple therapy improved health-related quality of life assessed using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold (4-point decrease) (35.3% versus 42.4%, odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.45; n = 14,070; high-certainty evidence). Triple therapy may result in fewer symptoms measured using the Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57; n = 3044; moderate-certainty evidence) and improved lung function as measured by change in trough FEV1 (mean difference 38.68 mL, 95% CI 22.58 to 54.77; n = 11,352; low-certainty evidence). However, these benefits fell below MCID thresholds for TDI (1-unit decrease) and trough FEV1 (100 mL), respectively. Triple therapy is probably associated with a higher risk of pneumonia as a serious adverse event compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (3.3% versus 1.9%, OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.18; n = 15,412; moderate-certainty evidence). In contrast, all-cause serious adverse events may be similar between groups (19.7% versus 19.7%, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; n = 15,412; low-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality may be lower with triple therapy (1.4% versus 2.0%, OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that triple therapy may reduce rates of COPD exacerbations (low-certainty evidence) and results in an improvement in health-related quality of life (high-certainty evidence) compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers, but probably confers an increased pneumonia risk as a serious adverse event (moderate-certainty evidence). Triple therapy probably improves respiratory symptoms and may improve lung function (moderate- and low-certainty evidence, respectively); however, these benefits do not appear to be clinically significant. Triple therapy may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded most frequently for inconsistency or indirectness. Across the four included studies, there were important differences in inclusion criteria, trial medications, and duration of follow-up. Investigation of heterogeneity was limited due to the small number of included studies. We found limited data on the effects of triple therapy compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers in patients with mild-moderate COPD and those without a recent exacerbation history.

Investigational Treatments in Phase I and II Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review in Asthma

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) remain the mainstay of asthma treatment, along with bronchodilators serving as control agents in combination with ICS or reliever therapy. Although current pharmacological treatments improve symptom control, health status, and the frequency and severity of exacerbations, they do not really change the natural course of asthma, including disease remission. Considering the highly heterogeneous nature of asthma, there is a strong need for innovative medications that selectively target components of the inflammatory cascade. The aim of this review was to systematically assess current investigational agents in Phase I and II randomised controlled trials (RCTs) over the last five years. Sixteen classes of novel therapeutic options were identified from 19 RCTs. Drugs belonging to different classes, such as the anti-interleukin (IL)-4Rα inhibitors, anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), anti-IL-17A mAbs, anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) mAbs, epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) inhibitors, bifunctional M₃ receptor muscarinic antagonists/β₂-adrenoceptor agonists (MABAs), and anti-Fel d 1 mAbs, were found to be effective in the treatment of asthma, with lung function being the main assessed outcome across the RCTs. Several novel investigational molecules, particularly biologics, seem promising as future disease-modifying agents; nevertheless, further larger studies are required to confirm positive results from Phase I and II RCTs.

The role of long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β agonist fixed-dose combination treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in China: a narrative review

Objective

To provide an overview of the existing international and Chinese evidence regarding dual bronchodilator inhalation therapy and to make recommendations for the further improvement of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management in clinical practice in China.

Background

COPD is a progressive lung disease that is characterized by persistent airflow limitation and is a major contributor to the disease burden in China. Symptoms in Chinese patients are relatively more severe. Currently, many Chinese COPD patients are undertreated. Dual bronchodilator therapy consisting of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting β agonist (LABA) is considered a good choice for COPD patients due to the increased bronchodilation without an increase in adverse events; these combinations can fill in the gap in currently available COPD treatments and provide new pharmacotherapy options for Chinese patients. LAMA/LABA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) have become more important in clinical practice and guidelines in China regarding their therapeutic effects and safety.

Methods

Clinical trials on LAMA/LABA in COPD were retrieved in ClinicalTrials.gov, while important COPD guidelines published in English or Chinese were found in PubMed and Wanfang Database.

Conclusions

We recommend the adoption of a clinical pathway in China that includes an assessment and management algorithm that considers the clinical characteristics in China and classifies the phenotypic characteristics of COPD according to a suitable system. Based on the current information, we can conclude that LAMA/LABA FDCs are a suitable and economically viable choice to reduce symptoms and improve the quality of life (QoL) of patients.

Navafenterol (AZD8871) in patients with mild asthma: a randomised placebo-controlled phase I study evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of single ascending doses of this novel inhaled long-acting dual-pharmacology bronchodilator

Background

Navafenterol (AZD8871) is an inhaled long-acting dual-pharmacology muscarinic antagonist/β₂-adrenoceptor agonist (MABA) in development for the treatment of obstructive airways diseases. The safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of navafenterol were investigated in patients with mild asthma.

Methods

This was a randomised, single-blind, placebo-controlled, single-ascending-dose study. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two cohorts which evaluated escalating doses of navafenterol (50–2100 μg) in an alternating manner over three treatment periods. The primary pharmacodynamic endpoint was the change from pre-dose baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) for each treatment period.

Results

Sixteen patients were randomised; 15 completed treatment. Data from all 16 patients were analysed. The maximum tolerated dose was not identified, and all doses of navafenterol were well tolerated. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were headache (n = 10, 62.5%) and nasopharyngitis (n = 7, 43.8%). No TEAEs were serious, fatal, or led to discontinuation, and no dose dependency was identified. Navafenterol demonstrated a dose-ordered bronchodilatory response with a rapid onset of action (within 5 min post-dose). Doses ≥200 μg resulted in improvements in trough FEV₁ (mean change from baseline range 0.186–0.463 L) with sustained bronchodilation for 24–36 h. Plasma concentrations increased in a dose-proportional manner, peaking ~ 1 h post-dose, with a derived terminal elimination half-life of 15.96–23.10 h.

Conclusions

In this study navafenterol was generally well tolerated with a rapid onset of action which was sustained over 36 h.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02573155

Pharmacological Profile of AZD8871 (LAS191351), a Novel Inhaled Dual M3 Receptor Antagonist/β 2-Adrenoceptor Agonist Molecule with Long-Lasting Effects and Favorable Safety Profile

AZD8871 is a novel muscarinic antagonist and β ₂-adrenoceptor agonist in development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This study describes the pharmacological profile of AZD8871 in in vitro and in vivo assays. AZD8871 is potent at the human M₃ receptor (pIC₅₀ in binding assays: 9.5) and shows kinetic selectivity for the M₃ (half-life: 4.97 hours) over the M₂ receptor (half-life: 0.46 hour). It is selective for the β ₂-adrenoceptor over the β ₁ and β ₃ subtypes (3- and 6-fold, respectively) and shows dual antimuscarinic and β ₂-adrenoceptor functional activity in isolated guinea pig tissue (pIC₅₀ in electrically stimulated trachea: 8.6; pEC₅₀ in spontaneous tone isolated trachea: 8.8, respectively), which are sustained over time. AZD8871 exhibits a higher muscarinic component than batefenterol in human bronchi, with a shift in potency under propranolol blockade of 2- and 6-fold, respectively, together with a persisting relaxation (5.3% recovery at 8 hours). Nebulized AZD8871 prevents acetylcholine-induced bronchoconstriction in both guinea pig and dog with minimal effects on salivation and heart rate at doses with bronchoprotective activity. Moreover, AZD8871 shows long-lasting effects in dog, with a bronchoprotective half-life longer than 24 hours. In conclusion, these studies demonstrate that AZD8871 is a dual-acting molecule with a high muscarinic component and a long residence time at the M₃ receptor; moreover, its preclinical profile in animal models suggests a once-daily dosing in humans and a favorable safety profile. Thus, AZD8871 has the potential to be a next generation of inhaled bronchodilators in respiratory diseases.

Dose Determination for a Fixed-Dose Drug Combination: A Phase II Randomized Controlled Trial for Tiotropium/Olodaterol Versus Tiotropium in Patients with COPD

Introduction

During the clinical development of a fixed-dose combination of drugs, it is best practice to conduct dose-finding studies to determine the optimal dose of each component. The aims of this phase II dose-finding study were to confirm the lung function benefit of adding olodaterol to tiotropium, describe the dose–response relationship of olodaterol in combination with tiotropium 5 μg, and compare it with the dose response of olodaterol monotherapy.

Methods

In this double-blind, parallel-group trial, patients were randomized to receive either tiotropium 5 μg or a fixed-dose combination of tiotropium 5 μg with olodaterol 2 μg, 5 μg, or 10 μg, delivered once daily via the Respimat^® for 4 weeks (NCT00696020). Patients had a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) ≥ 30 and < 80% of predicted normal. The primary endpoint was trough FEV₁ response (change from baseline) after 4 weeks. Secondary endpoints included FEV₁ and forced vital capacity (FVC) over 6 h after dosing.

Results

Compared with tiotropium 5 μg, mean (standard error) trough FEV₁ increased with the addition of olodaterol 2 μg by 0.024 L (0.027), olodaterol 5 μg by 0.033 L (0.027), and olodaterol 10 μg by 0.057 L (0.027). Statistically significant improvements in FEV₁ versus tiotropium were seen across all timepoints up to 6 h with all doses of tiotropium/olodaterol. Similar results were observed for FVC.

Conclusion

There was a benefit of tiotropium/olodaterol compared with tiotropium monotherapy in FEV₁ and FVC. There was a dose–response relationship for olodaterol on top of tiotropium for FEV₁ and FVC similar to the dose response previously seen for olodaterol monotherapy. These results, together with the results of a study investigating the dose response of tiotropium on top of olodaterol, helped to inform the dose selection for the phase III studies.

Funding

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH.

Comparative Efficacy of Budesonide/Formoterol with Budesonide, Formoterol or Placebo for Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Background

The 2018 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease publication suggested that the combination of bronchodilator therapy of inhaled glucocorticoid/long-acting β₂ adrenoceptor agonist is more effective in improving pulmonary function and health status in the treatment of patients with acute exacerbations than the individual components; however, it is not known whether this also the case for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol in the maintenance and relief therapy of patients with stable COPD.

Material/Methods

An electronic search of the literature in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was undertaken to identify published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ≥12 weeks duration comparing the budesonide/formoterol, with budesonide, formoterol, or placebo in the treatment of patients with stable COPD. The identified RCTs were reviewed. The mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to pool the results.

Results

Seven high quality studies with RCTs met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Compared with budesonide alone, the combination therapy of budesonide/formoterol showed significant improvement in the following spirometric indices: pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) (SMD: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.18, 0.34; P=0.000). In addition, versus formoterol alone, budesonide/formoterol was associated with a significant increase in pre-dose FEV₁ (SMD: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.17; P=0.000). A similar pattern was also evident in the comparison to placebo, where budesonide/formoterol yielded greater increase in pre-dose FEV₁ (SMD: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.18, 0.30; P=0.000). Moreover, compared with other controls, the combination of budesonide-formoterol significantly improved morning peak expiratory flow and evening peak expiratory flow, significantly reduced the total score of St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire.

Conclusions

For stable COPD patients, compared with controls (monocomponents or placebo), budesonide/formoterol improved pulmonary function and health status. Future larger long-term RCTs are warranted to assess the beneficial clinical efficacy of budesonide/formoterol in COPD patients.

Combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta2-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Several dual bronchodilator combinations of long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) have been approved for treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The current GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) recommendations suggest the use of LABA/LAMA combinations in people with group B COPD with persistent symptoms, group C COPD with further exacerbations on LAMA therapy alone and group D COPD with or without inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Fixed-dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium/formoterol is one of the approved LABA/LAMA therapies for people with stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta₂-agonists in stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and manufacturers' websites as well as the reference list of published trials up to 12 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing combined aclidinium bromide and LABAs in people with stable COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data collection and analysis. The primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring a short course of an oral steroid or antibiotic, or both; quality of life measured by a validated scale and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs). Where the outcome or study details were not reported, we contacted the study investigators or pharmaceutical company trial co-ordinators (or both) for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified RCTs comparing aclidinium/formoterol FDC versus aclidinium, formoterol or placebo only. We included seven multicentre trials of four to 52 weeks' duration conducted in outpatient settings. There were 5921 participants, whose mean age ranged from 60.7 to 64.7 years, mostly men with a mean smoking pack-years of 46.4 to 61.3 of which 43.9% to 63.4% were current smokers. They had a moderate-to-severe degree of COPD with a mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) between 50.5% and 61% of predicted normal and the baseline mean FEV₁ of 1.23 L to 1.43 L. We assessed performance and detection biases as low for all studies whereas selection, attrition and reporting biases were either low or unclear.FDC versus aclidiniumThere was no evidence of a difference between FDC and aclidinium for exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); quality of life measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -0.92, 95% CI -2.15 to 0.30); participants with significant improvement in SGRQ score (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41; 2 trials, 2002 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); non-fatal SAE (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.80; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.29; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or adverse events (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with aclidinium, FDC improved symptoms (Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score: MD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.68; 2 trials, 2013 participants) with a higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of at least one unit improvement (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.62; high-certainty evidence); the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) being 14 (95% CI 9 to 39).FDC versus formoterolWhen compared to formoterol, combination therapy reduced exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99; 3 trials, 2694 participants; high-certainty evidence); may decrease SGRQ total score (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.10 to -0.65; 2 trials, 2002 participants; low-certainty evidence; MCID for SGRQ is 4 units); increased TDI focal score (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; 2 trials, 2010 participants) with more participants attaining an MCID (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56; high-certainty evidence) and an NNTB of 16 (95% CI 10 to 60). FDC lowered the risk of adverse events compared to formoterol (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.93; 5 trials, 3140 participants; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 22). However, there was no difference between FDC and formoterol for hospital admissions, all-cause mortality and non-fatal SAEs.FDC versus placeboCompared with placebo, FDC demonstrated no evidence of a difference in exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.18; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although estimates were uncertain. Quality of life measure by SGRQ total score was significantly better with FDC compared to placebo (MD -2.91, 95% CI -4.33 to -1.50; 2 trials, 1823 participants) resulting in a corresponding increase in SGRQ responders who achieved at least four units decrease in SGRQ total score (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.13; high-certainty evidence) with an NNTB of 7 (95% CI 5 to 12). FDC also improved symptoms measured by TDI focal score (MD 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.69; 2 studies, 1832 participants) with more participants attaining at least one unit improvement in TDI focal score (OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.11; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 4). There were no differences in non-fatal SAEs, adverse events and all-cause mortality between FDC and placebo.Combination therapy significantly improved trough FEV₁ compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

FDC improved dyspnoea and lung function compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo, and this translated into an increase in the number of responders on combination treatment. Quality of life was better with combination compared to formoterol or placebo. There was no evidence of a difference between FDC and monotherapy or placebo for exacerbations, hospital admissions, mortality, non-fatal SAEs or adverse events. Studies reported a lower risk of moderate exacerbations and adverse events with FDC compared to formoterol; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

Exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization among COPD patients in a Swedish registry-based nation-wide study

BACKGROUND

Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are an important measure of disease severity in terms of impaired disease progression, increased recovery time, healthcare resource utilization, overall morbidity and mortality. We aimed to quantify exacerbation and healthcare resource utilization rates among COPD patients in Sweden with respect to baseline treatments, exacerbation history, and comorbidities.

METHODS

Patients with a COPD or chronic bronchitis (CB) diagnosis in secondary care at age of ≥40 years on 1.7.2009 were identified and followed until 1.7.2010 or death. Severe exacerbations were defined as hospitalizations due to respiratory disease, and healthcare resource utilization was measured by all-cause hospitalizations and secondary care visits. Poisson regression was used adjusting for age, gender, time since COPD/CB diagnosis, and Charlson comorbidity index.

RESULTS

In 88,548 patients (54% females, mean age 72 years), previous respiratory hospitalizations and current high use of COPD medication (double or triple therapy) predicted an 8.3-fold increase in severe exacerbation rates and 1.8-fold increase in healthcare resource utilization rates in the following year, compared to patients without combination treatment and/or history of severe exacerbations.

CONCLUSIONS

COPD/CB patients with history of severe exacerbations and high use of COPD medication experienced a significantly increased rate of severe exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization during the one-year follow-up.

Inhaled corticosteroids with combination inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly involves long-acting bronchodilators including beta-agonists (LABA) and muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). In individuals with persistent symptoms or frequent exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are also used. LABA and LAMA bronchodilators are now available in single combination inhalers. However, the benefits and risks of adding ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of adding an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to combination long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out searches using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (searched 20 September 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 December 2015) and MEDLINE (searched 15 December 2015). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organisation (WHO) trials portal and pharmaceutical company clinical trials' databases up to 7 Janurary 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of three weeks' duration or longer which compared treatment of stable COPD with ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers against combination LABA/LAMA inhalers alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of 586 records in our search. Following removal of duplicates, 386 abstracts were assessed for inclusion. Six studies were identified as potentially relevant; however, all failed to meet the inclusion criteria on full-text assessment or after contacting the corresponding author to clarify study characteristics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are currently no studies published assessing the effect of ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD. As combination LABA/LAMA inhalers are now widely available, there is a need for well-designed RCTs to investigate whether ICS provides any added therapeutic benefit.

COPD: A stepwise or a hit hard approach?

Current guidelines differ slightly on the recommendations for treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients, and although there are some undisputed recommendations, there is still debate regarding the management of COPD. One of the hindrances to deciding which therapeutic approach to choose is late diagnosis or misdiagnosis of COPD. After a proper diagnosis is achieved and severity assessed, the choice between a stepwise or "hit hard" approach has to be made. For GOLD A patients the stepwise approach is recommended, whilst for B, C and D patients this remains debatable. Moreover, in patients for whom inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended, a step-up or "hit hard" approach with triple therapy will depend on the patient's characteristics and, for patients who are being over-treated with ICS, ICS withdrawal should be performed, in order to optimize therapy and reduce excessive medications. This paper discusses and proposes stepwise, "hit hard", step-up and ICS withdrawal therapeutic approaches for COPD patients based on their GOLD group. We conclude that all approaches have benefits, and only a careful patient selection will determine which approach is better, and which patients will benefit the most from each approach.

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.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Dose-Finding Study for Tiotropium when Added to Olodaterol, Administered via the Respimat® Inhaler in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Introduction

Combining long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) is beneficial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), as the two classes of bronchodilator have complementary modes of action. The optimal dose for the fixed-dose combination of the LAMA tiotropium and the LABA olodaterol needed to be determined. In this phase II trial, the dose response of tiotropium on top of olodaterol was investigated in a free-dose combination, while other phase II studies have explored different doses of olodaterol on top of tiotropium, with both drugs delivered using the Respimat^® inhaler.

Methods

This was a double-blind incomplete crossover trial in which 233 patients with moderate or severe COPD were randomized to receive four out of eight free-dose combinations of olodaterol (5 or 10 µg) and tiotropium (1.25, 2.5, or 5 µg) or placebo for 4 weeks each. Primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) change from baseline (response) after 4 weeks.

Results

Addition of tiotropium 1.25, 2.5, and 5 µg to olodaterol 5 µg increased mean trough FEV₁ response by 0.054, 0.065, and 0.084 L, respectively; addition of tiotropium 1.25, 2.5, and 5 µg to olodaterol 10 µg increased mean trough FEV₁ response by 0.051, 0.083, and 0.080 L, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated and incidence of adverse events was similar with all treatments.

Conclusions

Overall, a dose response for tiotropium on top of both doses of olodaterol was observed, with increasing improvements in trough FEV₁ compared to olodaterol alone as the tiotropium dose was increased.

Funding

Boehringer Ingelheim.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01040403.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0239-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.