A randomized, parallel-group study to evaluate the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD

Combination therapy with long-acting bronchodilators and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Accumulated high-quality data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) combination therapy significantly improves clinical symptoms and health status in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and reduces exacerbation risk. However, there is a growing concern that LAMA/LABA therapy may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD. The aim of this paper is to determine whether the use of LAMA/LABA combination therapy modifies the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library to identify relevant RCTs of LAMA/LABA or LABA/LAMA/inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for the management of patients with COPD that reported on cardiovascular end-points. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 51 RCTs enrolling 91 021 subjects were analysed. Both dual LAMA/LABA (1.6% versus 1.3%; relative risk 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.81) and triple therapy (1.6% versus 1.4%; relative risk 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.61) significantly increased the risk of MACE compared with ICS/LABA. The excess risk was most evident in RCTs in which the average underlying baseline risk for MACE was >1% per year. Compared with LAMA only, LABA only or placebo, dual LAMA/LABA therapy did not significantly increase the risk of MACE, though these comparisons may have lacked sufficient statistical power.

CONCLUSION

Compared with ICS/LABA, dual LAMA/LABA or triple therapy increases cardiovascular risk in patients with COPD. This should be considered in the context of the incremental benefits of these therapies for symptoms and exacerbation rates in patients with COPD, especially in those with a MACE risk of >1% per year.

The Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium in Symptomatic Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background

Both long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) are widely used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A novel LAMA/LABA combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI; 62.5 μg/25 μg) is approved for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg in symptomatic patients with COPD from the perspective of the Chinese National Healthcare System.

Methods

A simple analysis included three studies in the meta-analysis that compared UMEC/VI with TIO. A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of UMEC/VI compared with TIO treatment in symptomatic patients with COPD. First, utilities, clinical efficacy, and adverse events obtained from the literature were utilized as model inputs. Costs were from Chinese average data, including local data. Costs were expressed in dollars based on 2020 prices. Then, the model outputs including drug costs, other medical costs, and total costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. Costs and outcomes were discounted at a 5% annual rate. Furthermore, incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs) were analyzed. Finally, the influences of changing parameters on the uncertainty of the results were assessed by means of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

This study revealed that UMEC/VI treatment had a higher rate of clinical efficacy in comparison with TIO, and the differences in the rate of adverse events between the two treatments were not significant. The results indicated that UMEC/VI was superior to TIO, which provided an increase in QALYs (0.002) and a total cost savings of $765.67 per patient over 3 years. In the base case, the ICER of UMEC/VI is -$397468.04/QALY compared with TIO, suggesting that UMEC/VI may be considered a dominant option over TIO. According to the Chinese medical system, the probability of UMEC/VI being cost-effective was 61.6% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $31554/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust.

Conclusion

UMEC/VI could be considered a cost-effective treatment compared with TIO in symptomatic COPD patients from the Chinese National Healthcare System perspective. These results may help decision-makers in China when making judgements on which treatments to administer.

Quantitative analysis of efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations in the treatment of stable COPD

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to quantitatively compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) for the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), especially in terms of their loss of efficacy in lung function.

METHODS

Randomized controlled clinical trials of LABA/LAMA FDCs for the treatment of stable COPD were comprehensively searched for in public databases. Pharmacodynamic models were established to describe the time course of the primary outcome [trough forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1)]. Secondary outcomes [COPD exacerbations, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI), and rescue medication use] and safety outcomes [mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), and withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs)] were also compared via a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies involving 16,486 participants were included in this study. The results showed that in terms of primary outcome (change from baseline in trough FEV1), the efficacy of vilanterol/umeclidinium was the highest, while the efficacy of formoterol/aclidinium was the lowest, with a maximum effect value (Emax) of 0.185 L [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.173-0.197 L] and 0.119 L (95% CI: 0.103-0.135 L), respectively. The efficacy of other drugs, such as formoterol/glycopyrronium, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, and olodaterol/tiotropium, were comparable, and their Emax values were 0.150-0.177 L. Except for vilanterol/umeclidinium, the other four LABA/LAMA FDCs showed a certain degree of loss of efficacy. Compared with the efficacy at 2 days, the trough FEV1 (L) relative to baseline at 24 weeks decreased by 0.029-0.041 L. In terms of secondary outcomes, the efficacy of different LABA/LAMA FDCs was similar in TDI and rescue medication use. However, formoterol/aclidinium was better in preventing the COPD exacerbations, while vilanterol/umeclidinium was the best in terms of SGRQ. In addition, different LABA/LAMA FDCs and placebo had similar safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The present findings may provide necessary quantitative information for COPD medication guidelines.

Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.

RESULTS

The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV₁ versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV₁ at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.

Longitudinal Health-related Quality of Life among Individuals Considering Treatment for Stage I Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Rationale: Because of improvements in screening, there is an increasing number of patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are making treatment decisions.Objectives: Among patients with suspected stage I NSCLC, we evaluated longitudinal patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) and the association of changes in PCOs with treatment modality, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) compared with surgical resection.Methods: We conducted a multisite, prospective, observational cohort study at seven medical institutions. We evaluated minimum clinically important differences of PCOs at four time points (during treatment, 4-6 wk after treatment, 6 mo after treatment, and 12 mo after treatment) compared with pretreatment values using validated instruments. We used adjusted linear mixed models to examine whether the association between treatment and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer global and physical quality-of-life (QOL) scales differed over time.Results: We included 127 individuals with stage I NSCLC (53 surgery, 74 SBRT). At 12 months, approximately 30% of patients remaining in each group demonstrated a clinical deterioration on global QOL from baseline. There was a significant difference in slopes between treatment groups on global QOL (-12.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.34 to -12.37) and physical QOL (-28.71; 95% CI, -29.13 to -28.29) between baseline and during treatment, with the steeper decline observed among those who underwent surgery. Differences in slopes between treatment groups were not significant at all other time points.Conclusions: Approximately 30% of patients with stage I NSCLC have a clinically significant decrease in QOL 1 year after SBRT or surgical resection. Surgical resection was associated with steeper declines in QOL immediately after treatment compared with SBRT; however, these declines were not lasting and resolved within a year for most patients. Our results may facilitate treatment option discussions for patients receiving treatment for early-stage NSCLC.

Comparison of Effectiveness Using Different Dual Bronchodilator Agents in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment

The effectiveness and safety of fixed dual long-acting bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients have been well established; however, there is a paucity of clinical effectiveness comparison in patients with COPD treatment. The aim of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of three once-daily dual bronchodilator agents in patients with COPD. Patients with diagnosed COPD and treated with a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) + long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combination therapy (UME/VIL (umeclidinium and vilanterol inhalation powder), IND/GLY (indacaterol and glycopyrronium), and TIO/OLO (tiotropium and olodaterol)) were enrolled in this retrospective study over a period of 12 months. Effectiveness assessments were evaluated using a COPD assessment test (CAT) and lung function parameters. Besides, times for acute exacerbation were also assessed. The enrolled patients’ number was 177 in IND/GLY, 176 in UME/VIL and 183 in TIO/OLO. Lung function measurements with FEV1 had significantly improved for patients using TIO/OLO (98.7 mL) compared to those of IND/GLY (65.2 mL) and UME/VIL (64.4 mL) (p < 0.001). CAT scores were also significantly decreased in patients treated with TIO/OLO (CAT down 5.6) than those with IND/GLY (3.8) and UME/VIL (3.9) (p = 0.03). Acute exacerbation was also reduced in patients using TIO/OLO (4.9%) compared with those using IND/GLY (10.2%) and UME/VIL (11.9%) (p = 0.01). Significant improvement in pulmonary function, symptoms were demonstrated after 12 months of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combination therapy with three different treatment options. TIO/OLO demonstrated higher therapeutic effects compared with UME/VIL or IND/GLY. Determining clinical relevance will require a well-designed randomized controlled trial.

Ultra Long-Acting β-Agonists in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled β-agonists have been foundational medications for maintenance COPD management for decades. Through activation of cyclic adenosine monophosphate pathways, these agents relax airway smooth muscle and improve expiratory airflow by relieving bronchospasm and alleviating air trapping and dynamic hyperinflation improving breathlessness, exertional capabilities, and quality of life. β-agonist drug development has discovered drugs with increasing longer durations of action: short acting (SABA) (4-6 h), long acting (LABA) (6-12 h), and ultra-long acting (ULABA) (24 h). Three ULABAs, indacaterol, olodaterol, and vilanterol, are approved for clinical treatment of COPD.

PURPOSE

This article reviews both clinically approved ULABAs and ULABAs in development.

CONCLUSION

Indacaterol and olodaterol were originally approved for clinical use as monotherapies for COPD. Vilanterol is the first ULABA to be approved only in combination with other respiratory medications. Although there are many other ULABA's in various stages of development, most clinical testing of these novel agents is suspended or proceeding slowly. The three approved ULABAs are being combined with antimuscarinic agents and corticosteroids as dual and triple agent treatments that are being tested for clinical use and efficacy. Increasingly, these clinical trials are using specific COPD clinical characteristics to define study populations and to begin to develop therapies that are trait-specific.

Correlation of Inhaled Long-Acting Bronchodilators With Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Stable COPD: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

A majority of existing studies have focused on the efficacy of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators (ILABs), such as long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs), and LABAs combined with LAMAs in treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The current meta-analysis aimed to investigate the correlation of ILABs with specific cardiovascular adverse events (CAEs). Five electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically retrieved. Finally, 16 randomized controlled trials were enrolled into the current meta-analysis. Typically, the efficacy of 3 major classes of drugs (LABAs, LAMAs, and LABAs combined with LAMAs), and 7 specific drugs (including formoterol, glycopyrrolate, indacaterol, olodaterol, Salmeterol, tiotropium, and vilanterol) for 4 CAEs, including myocardial infarction, cardiac failure (CF), ischemic heart disease (IHD), and stroke in stable COPD patients, was examined. All the pooled results were analyzed through the odds ratios (ORs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The direct meta-analysis results suggested that LABAs could increase the risk of CF in patients with stable COPD compared with placebo controls (OR 1.70, 95% CI, 1.00-2.90). In addition, network meta-analysis results indicated that LAMAs combined with LABAs would result in an increased risk of CF in patients with stable COPD (OR 2.31, 95% CI, 1.10-5.09). According to the ILABs specific drug analysis, formoterol may potentially have protective effects on IHD compared with placebo controls (OR 0.45, 95% CI, 0.18-1.00). In conclusion, among these 3 kinds of ILABs, including LAMAs, LABAs, and LABAs/LAMAs, for stable COPD patients, LAMAs and LABAs are associated with the least possibility to induce myocardial infarction and stroke, respectively. However, the application of LABAs will probably increase the risk of CF; they should be used with caution for stable COPD patients with CF. In addition, in specific-drug analysis, the use of formoterol can reduce the risk of treatment-related IHD. Nevertheless, more studies on different drug doses are needed in the future to further validate this conclusion.

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

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

Efficacy and safety of the dual bronchodilator combination umeclidinium/vilanterol in COPD by age and airflow limitation severity: A pooled post hoc analysis of seven clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and those with more severe airway limitation are perceived to experience reduced efficacy from inhaled bronchodilators, especially those administered in a dry powder inhaler. This study compared the efficacy and safety of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist dry powder combination in elderly patients with COPD and patients with moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation.

METHODS

This post hoc pooled analysis of seven randomized studies of ≥12 weeks' duration investigated the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 μg versus tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) 250/50 μg. Change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), a common efficacy measure in all trials, proportion of FEV₁ responders (≥100 mL increase from baseline) and safety outcomes were analyzed at Day 28, 56, and 84 in patients classified by age (<65, ≥65, and ≥75 years of age) and severity of baseline airflow limitation (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 2 [moderate] and stage 3/4 [severe/very severe]). A 24-week analysis was also conducted for the UMEC/VI versus TIO comparison.

RESULTS

The pooled intent-to-treat population comprised 3821 patients (≥65 years: 44-45%; ≥75 years: 9-10%; GOLD stage 3/4: 50-55%); 2246, 874, and 701 patients received UMEC/VI, TIO, or FP/SAL, respectively. Significant improvements in trough FEV₁ at Day 84 were observed with UMEC/VI versus TIO or FP/SAL irrespective of age (all p ≤ 0.029) or GOLD stage (all p < 0.001). The proportion of FEV₁ responders at Day 84 was significantly greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO or FP/SAL across all age groups (all p ≤ 0.016) and GOLD stages (all p < 0.001). Safety profiles were similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI consistently demonstrated improved lung function versus TIO and FP/SAL across age and airflow limitation severity subgroups, with no safety concerns, indicating that UMEC/VI provides no loss in efficacy or additional safety concerns for both elderly patients with COPD and patients with severe/very severe airway limitation.

Relationship of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators with cardiovascular outcomes among patients with stable COPD: a meta-analysis and systematic review of 43 randomized trials

Background: Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2–agonists (LABAs) are the mainstay of maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although previous studies have supported inhaled long-acting bronchodilators (ILABs) for overall cardiovascular safety, the risk of specific cardiovascular outcomes such as arrhythmia, heart failure and stroke is still unknown.

Materials and methods: We systematically searched from PubMed, the Embase database and the Cochrane Library for published studies on ILABs and COPD, from its inception to November 10, 2018, with no language restrictions. The RRs and corresponding 95% CIs were pooled to evaluate ILAB/placebo.

Results: Finally, 43 randomized controlled trials were included. Compared with placebo, ILABs do not increase the risk of overall and specific cardiovascular adverse events (AEs); on the contrary, they can reduce the incidence of hypertension (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.98;I²19.9%; P= 0.221). However, when stratified according to the specific agents of ILABs, olodaterol might reduce the risk of overall cardiovascular adverse events (OCAEs) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49–0.88;I²27.5%; P= 0.000), and the protective effect of lowing blood pressure disappeared. Similarly, the use of inhaled LABA might increase the risk of cardiac failure (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.04–2.84;I²0%; P= 0.538), but this risk disappeared when stratified according to the specific agents of LABA. Besides, formoterol might decrease the risk of cardiac ischemia (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32–0.91; I²0%; P= 0.676).

Conclusions: Overall, the use of ILABs was not associated with overall cardiovascular AEs in patients with stable COPD. When stratified according to the specific agents of LABA, olodaterol might reduce the risk of OCAE; and formoterol might decrease the risk of cardiac ischemia. LABA might reduce the incidence of hypertension, but might increase the risk of heart failure. Therefore, COPD patients with a history of heart failure should use it with caution.

Once daily long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists in a combined inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory condition causing accumulation of mucus in the airways, cough, and breathlessness; the disease is progressive and is the fourth most common cause of death worldwide. Current treatment strategies for COPD are multi-modal and aim to reduce morbidity and mortality and increase patients' quality of life by slowing disease progression and preventing exacerbations. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of a long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) delivered via a single inhaler are approved by regulatory authorities in the USA, Europe, and Japan for the treatment of COPD. Several LABA/LAMA FDCs are available and recent meta-analyses have clarified their utility versus their mono-components in COPD. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs versus placebo will facilitate the comparison of different FDCs in future network meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the evidence for once-daily LABA/LAMA combinations (delivered in a single inhaler) versus placebo on clinically meaningful outcomes in patients with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from Cochrane Airways' Specialised Register (CASR) and also conducted a search of the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch). We searched CASR and trial registries from their inception to 3 December 2018; we imposed no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC versus placebo. We included studies reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. We excluded very short-term trials with a duration of less than 3 weeks. We included adults (≥ 40 years old) with a diagnosis of stable COPD. We included studies that allowed participants to continue using their ICS during the trial as long as the ICS was not part of the randomised treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results to determine included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Where possible, we used a random-effects model to meta-analyse extracted data. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified and included 22 RCTs randomly assigning 8641 people with COPD to either once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC (6252 participants) or placebo (3819 participants); nine studies had a cross-over design. Studies had a duration of between three and 52 weeks (median 12 weeks). The mean age of participants across the included studies ranged from 59 to 65 years and in 21 of 22 studies, participants had GOLD stage II or III COPD. Concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use was permitted in all of the included studies (where stated); across the included studies, between 28% to 58% of participants were using ICS at baseline. Six studies evaluated the once-daily combination of IND/GLY (110/50 μg), seven studies evaluated TIO/OLO (2.5/5 or 5/5 μg), eight studies evaluated UMEC/VI (62.5/5, 125/25 or 500/25 μg) and one study evaluated ACD/FOR (200/6, 200/12 or 200/18 μg); all LABA/LAMA combinations were compared with placebo.The risk of bias was generally considered to be low or unknown (insufficient detail provided), with only one study per domain considered to have a high risk of bias except for the domain 'other bias' which was determined to be at high risk of bias in four studies (in three studies, disease severity was greater at baseline in participants receiving LABA/LAMA compared with participants receiving placebo, which would be expected to shift the treatment effect in favour of placebo).Compared to the placebo, the pooled results for the primary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: all-cause mortality, OR 1.88 (95% CI 0.81 to 4.36, low-certainty evidence); all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs), OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.28, high-certainty evidence); acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.78, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, MD -4.08 (95% CI -4.80 to -3.36, high-certainty evidence); proportion of SGRQ responders, OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.54 to 1.99). Compared with placebo, the pooled results for the secondary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: adjusted trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), MD 0.20 L (95% CI 0.19 to 0.21, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted peak FEV1, MD 0.31 L (95% CI 0.29 to 0.32, moderate-certainty evidence); and all-cause AEs, OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.04; high-certainty evidence). No studies reported data for the 6-minute walk test. The results were generally consistent across subgroups for different LABA/LAMA combinations and doses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, once-daily LABA/LAMA (either IND/GLY, UMEC/VI or TIO/OLO) via a combination inhaler is associated with a clinically significant improvement in lung function and health-related quality of life in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD; UMEC/VI appears to reduce the rate of exacerbations in this population. These conclusions are supported by moderate or high certainty evidence based on studies with an observation period of up to one year.

Dual bronchodilator therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: evidence for the efficacy and Safety of fixed dose combination treatments in the setting of recent guideline updates

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent updates to the GOLD guidelines emphasize the use of combination LABA and LAMA bronchodilators for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with persistent dyspnea despite monotherapy or frequent exacerbations despite LAMA monotherapy. There are several commercially available LABA/LAMA fixed dose combination inhalers, which are likely to become the principle therapy for many patients with COPD.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the last 4 years, there have been a number of large clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of combined LAMA and LABA bronchodilators. LAMA/LABA fixed dose combination therapies have consistently demonstrated clinically significant improvements to airway obstruction, dyspnea, and quality of life whenever compared with placebo, and more modest improvements compared with bronchodilator monotherapies and combined bronchodilator/inhaled corticosteroid therapy.

SUMMARY

New guidelines emphasize combination bronchodilators as a mainstay of therapy for many patients with symptomatic COPD and there are several new combination bronchodilator therapies available to patients. It is important for physicians and patients to understand the range and degree of expected clinical effects and the safety profiles of these new medications.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler in comparison with other long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist fixed-dose combinations in COPD

BACKGROUND

Dual bronchodilation with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) fixed-dose combination (FDC) is an established treatment strategy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The relative efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI 18/9.6 μg) in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, compared with other licensed LAMA/LABA FDCs, was investigated using an integrated Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review and subsequent screening process identified randomized controlled trials of ⩾10 weeks' duration that enrolled patients aged ⩾40 years with moderate-to-very severe COPD and included at least one LAMA/LABA FDC or open LAMA + LABA treatment arm. NMAs were conducted for outcomes including change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and transition dyspnea index (TDI) parameters, annualized rate of exacerbations, use of rescue medication, adverse events, and all-cause withdrawals. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses accounted for heterogeneity across studies.

RESULTS

In total, 29 studies including 34,617 patients contributed to the NMA for efficacy or safety outcomes at week 24 or exacerbations. For all LAMA/LABA FDCs with data available, significantly greater improvements in FEV1 [trough, peak, and area under the curve (AUC)0-4], SGRQ total score and TDI focal score at week 24, and annualized rate of moderate-to-severe exacerbations, were observed versus placebo. Where indirect comparisons were possible, differences between GFF MDI and other LAMA/LABA FDCs were small relative to established margins of clinical relevance, and not statistically significant. The safety and tolerability profile of GFF MDI was consistent with other LAMA/LABA FDCs and placebo. The results of the meta-regression were generally similar to the base case.

CONCLUSIONS

GFF MDI demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety outcomes to other LAMA/LABA FDCs. Personalization of treatment choice within the class on the basis of other factors such as patient preference may be appropriate.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg versus tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective

BACKGROUND

A head-to-head study demonstrated the superiority of once-daily umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) versus once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO from a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective, using data from this study and Spanish literature.

METHODS

This analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System with a 3-year horizon as base case. A disease progression model using a linked risk equation approach was used to estimate disease progression and associated healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study was used to develop the statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints, and costs were calculated using a health state approach (by dyspnea severity). Utilities for QALY calculation were estimated using patient baseline characteristics within a regression fit to Spanish observational data. Treatment effect, expressed as change from baseline in FEV1 was obtained from the head-to-head study and used in the model (UMEC/VI minus TIO/OLO difference: + 52 mL [95% confidence interval: 28, 77]). Baseline patient characteristics were sourced from Spanish literature or the head-to-head study if unavailable. A scenario analysis using only the intent-to-treat (ITT) population from the head-to-head study, and sensitivity analyses (including probabilistic sensitivity analyses), were conducted. Direct healthcare costs (2017 Euro) were obtained from Spanish sources and costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum.

RESULTS

UMEC/VI was associated with small improvements in QALYs (+ 0.029) over a 3-year time horizon, compared with TIO/OLO, alongside cost savings of €393/patient. The ITT scenario analysis and sensitivity analyses had similar results. All probabilistic simulations resulted in UMEC/VI being less costly and more effective than TIO/OLO.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI dominated TIO/OLO (more effective and less expensive). These results may aid payers and decision-makers in Spain when making judgements on which long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) treatments can be considered cost effective in Spain.

The effect of delaying initiation with umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD: an observational administrative claims database analysis using marginal structural models

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with high clinical and economic burden. Optimal pharmacological therapy for COPD aims to reduce symptoms and the frequency and severity of exacerbations. Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) is an approved combination therapy for once-daily maintenance treatment of patients with COPD. This study evaluated the impact of delaying UMEC/VI initiation on medical costs and exacerbation risk.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with COPD who initiated UMEC/VI between 4/28/2014 and 7/31/2016 was conducted using the Optum Research Database. The index date was the first COPD visit after UMEC/VI available on US formulary (Commercial 4/28/2014; Medicare Advantage 1/1/2015). Patients were followed for 12 months post-index, and categorized into 12 cohorts corresponding to month (30-day period) of UMEC/VI initiation (i.e. Months 1-12) post-index. The outcomes studied during the follow up period included COPD-related and all-cause medical costs, and risk of COPD exacerbations. Marginal structural models (MSM) were used to control for time-varying confounding due to changes in treatment and severity during follow up.

RESULTS

2,200 patients initiating UMEC/VI were included in the study sample. Patients' average age was 69.3 years, 49.9% were female and 69.7% were Medicare insured. Following MSM analysis, 12-month adjusted COPD-related medical costs increased by 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.1-5.9%; p = 0.044) for each monthly delay in UMEC/VI initiation, with a 37.4% higher adjusted cost for patients initiating UMEC/VI in Month 12 versus Month 1 ($13,087 vs. $9524). The 12-month adjusted all-cause medical costs increased by 2.8% (95% CI: 0.6-5.2%; p = 0.013) for each monthly delay, with a 36.1% higher adjusted cost for patients initiating UMEC/VI at Month 12 versus Month 1 ($22,766 vs. $16,727). The monthly risk of severe exacerbation was significantly higher in patients who had not yet initiated UMEC/VI than those who had (hazard ratio: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.35-2.23; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prompt use of UMEC/VI following a physician visit for COPD appears to result in economic and clinical benefits, with reductions in medical costs and exacerbation risk. Additional research is warranted to assess the benefits of initiating UMEC/VI as a first-line therapy compared with escalation to UMEC/VI from monotherapies.

Comparative efficacy of inhaled medications (ICS/LABA, LAMA, LAMA/LABA and SAMA) for COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the comparative efficacy of short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMAs), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), LAMA in combination with long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs; LAMA/LABAs) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in combination with LABA (ICS/LABAs) for the maintenance treatment of COPD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed 74 randomized controlled trials (74,832 participants) published up to 15 November 2017, which compared any of the interventions (SAMA [ipratropium], LAMA [aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, umeclidinium], LAMA/LABA [aclidinium/formoterol, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, tiotropium/olodaterol, umeclidinium/vilanterol] and ICS/LABA [fluticasone/vilanterol, budesonide/formoterol, salmeterol/fluticasone]) with each other or with placebo. A random-effects network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence was conducted to examine the change from baseline in trough FEV1, transition dyspnea index, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and frequency of adverse events at weeks 12 and 24.

RESULTS

Inconsistency models were not statistically significant for all outcomes. LAMAs, LAMA/LABAs and ICS/LABAs led to a significantly greater improvement in trough FEV1 compared with placebo and SAMA monotherapy at weeks 12 and 24. All LAMA/LABAs, except aclidinium/formoterol, were statistically significantly better than LAMA monotherapy and ICS/LABAs in improving trough FEV1. Among the LAMAs, umeclidinium showed statistically significant improvement in trough FEV1 at week 12 compared to tiotropium and glycopyrronium, but the results were not clinically significant. LAMA/LABAs had the highest probabilities of being ranked the best agents in FEV1 improvement. Similar trends were observed for the transition dyspnea index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire outcomes. There were no significant differences in the incidences of adverse events among all treatment options.

CONCLUSION

LAMA/LABA showed the greatest improvement in trough FEV1 at weeks 12 and 24 compared with the other inhaled drug classes, while SAMA showed the least improvement. There were no significant differences among the LAMAs and LAMA/LABAs within their respective classes.

Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Elderly Patients with COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this pooled analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 µg dual bronchodilation versus placebo in elderly symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

We conducted a post hoc pooled analysis of data from 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Change from baseline (CFB) in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), proportion of FEV1 responders (≥ 100-mL increase from baseline), and safety were analyzed in patients aged < 65, ≥ 65, and ≥ 75 years on Days 28, 56, and 84 (12-week analysis of parallel-group design studies), Days 28, 56, 84, 112, 140, 168, and 169 (24-week analysis of parallel-group design studies), and Days 2, 42, and 84 (12-week analysis of crossover design studies).

RESULTS

The UMEC/VI intent-to-treat (ITT) populations comprised 2246, 1296, and 472 patients in the 12-week parallel-group, 24-week parallel-group, and 12-week crossover analysis, respectively (≥ 65 years: 36-44%; ≥ 75 years: 7-11%). The placebo ITT populations comprised 528, 280, and 505 patients, respectively (≥ 65 years: 37-41%; ≥ 75 years: 5-11%). Significant improvements in trough FEV1 and significantly greater proportions of FEV1 responders were seen with UMEC/VI compared with placebo in all analyses regardless of patient age or timepoint considered (p ≤ 0.023), except Day 84 trough FEV1 CFB in the 12-week crossover analysis in patients aged ≥ 75 years (p = 0.064). UMEC/VI safety profile was similar to placebo in all age groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pooled analysis of RCT data, once-daily UMEC/VI was well tolerated and provided clinically significant lung function benefits compared with placebo in younger and older patients with COPD.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline (study 208125).

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

The pharmacological treatment for stable COPD is based on the use of inhaled bronchodilators (long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists and long-acting beta-2 adrenoceptor agonists) and inhaled corticosteroids. The use of triple inhaled therapy is recommended to selected patients with COPD. Among the various inhaler combinations in triple therapy, a new combination by fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol is available for COPD patients. Recently, a large clinical trial using this combination has been published, resulting in a reduction in exacerbation rate in COPD patients. Furthermore, this combination has demonstrated efficacy and safety, with a single administration a day, through a dry powder inhalator device, which has shown a good adherence and is a preference of the patient. This review focuses on the main characteristics of this inhaler combination evaluating the main clinical effects, the patients' adherence, and the safety.

The impact of dual bronchodilation on cardiovascular serious adverse events and mortality in COPD: a quantitative synthesis

Objective

Long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are burdened by the potential risk of inducing cardiovascular serious adverse events (SAEs) in COPD patients. Since the risk of combining a LABA with a LAMA could be greater, we have carried out a quantitative synthesis to investigate the cardiovascular safety profile of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs).

Methods

A pair-wise and network meta-analysis was performed by using the data of the repository database ClinicalTrials.gov concerning the impact of approved LABA/LAMA FDCs versus monocomponents and/or placebo on cardiovascular SAEs in COPD.

Results

Overall, LABA/LAMA FDCs did not significantly (P>0.05) modulate the risk of cardiovascular SAEs versus monocomponents. However, the network meta-analysis indicated that aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg and tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg were the safest FDCs, followed by umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg which was as safe as placebo, whereas glycopyrronium/formoterol 14.9/9.6, glycopyrronium/indacaterol 15.6/27.5 µg, and glycopyrronium/indacaterol 50/110 µg were the least safe FDCs. No impact on mortality was detected for each specific FDC.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis indicates that LABA/LAMA FDC therapy is characterized by an excellent cardiovascular safety profile in COPD patients. However, the findings of this quantitative synthesis have been obtained from populations that participated in randomized clinical trials, and were devoid of major cardiovascular diseases. Thus, post-marketing surveillance and observational studies may help to better define the real impact of specific FDCs with regard to the cardiovascular risk.

Efficacy and safety of tiotropium and olodaterol in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Long-acting bronchodilators are the cornerstone of pharmacologic treatment of COPD. The new combination of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) tiotropium (TIO) and long acting beta-agonists (LABA) olodaterol (OLO) has been introduced as fist line therapy for COPD. This article analyses the evidence of efficacy and safety of the TIO/OLO combination.

Methods

A systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) with a period of treatment of at least 6 weeks, in patients with COPD confirmed by spirometry, comparing combined treatment with TIO/OLO (approved doses only), with any of the mono-components or any other active comparator administered as an inhalator.

Results

A total of 10 Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were identified (N = 10,918). TIO/OLO significantly improved trough FEV₁ from baseline to week 12 versus TIO, OLO and LABA/ICS (0.06 L, 0.09 L and between 0.04 and 0.05 L, respectively). TIO/OLO improved transitional dyspnea index (TDI) and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) compared with mono-components, with patients more likely to achieve clinically important improvements in TDI (risk ratio [RR]: 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.07, 1.28] versus TIO and RR: 1.14, 95%CI: [1.01, 1.28] versus OLO) and in SGRQ (RR: 1.21, 95%CI: [1.12, 1.30] versus TIO and RR: 1.28, 95%CI: [1.18, 1.40] versus OLO). Patients treated with TIO/OLO showed a significant reduction in the use of rescue medication and no significant differences in frequency of general and serious adverse events were observed between TIO/OLO and mono-components.

Conclusions

Treatment with TIO/OLO provided significant improvements in lung function versus mono-components and LABA/ICS with more patients achieving significant improvements in dyspnea and health status. No differences in adverse events were observed compared with other active treatments.

Clinical trial registration

PROSPERO register of systematic reviews (CRD42016040162).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-017-0683-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Perceived Satisfaction With Long-Term Oxygen Delivery Devices Affects Perceived Mobility and Quality of Life of Oxygen-Dependent Individuals With COPD

BACKGROUND

Although routine physical activity for individuals with COPD is recommended, there are inherent limitations of available oxygen delivery devices that may result in hypoxemia during activity. Changes in Medicare laws have resulted in an increased use of oxygen cylinders and a reduction in the use of liquid oxygen devices. The aim of this survey was to assess the impact of perceived satisfaction with various oxygen delivery devices on perceived mobility and quality of life (QOL) of oxygen-dependent subjects with COPD.

METHODS

A survey was developed to measure perceived satisfaction with current portable oxygen delivery devices, perceived mobility, and perceived QOL. The survey was deployed via a link posted on the COPD Foundation's COPD360SOCIAL social media site for 5 weeks, which resulted in the recruitment of 529 participants, of which 417 were included in the data analysis.

RESULTS

Quantile regression analysis revealed that the median perceived device satisfaction score was significantly higher in the liquid oxygen device group (P < .001) compared with the portable oxygen cylinder and portable oxygen concentrator (POC) groups. The median perceived mobility score was significantly higher in the liquid oxygen device group (P < .001) compared with the portable oxygen cylinder group, but not the POC group. The median QOL score was significantly higher in the liquid oxygen device group (P < .001) compared with the POC and portable oxygen cylinder groups. Moreover, partial least-squares structural equation modeling regression analysis showed that perceived mobility is significantly affected by perceived satisfaction with the long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) device (adjusted R² = 0.15, P < .001), and perceived QOL is significantly affected by both perceived satisfaction with the LTOT device and perceived mobility (adjusted R² = 0.45, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

For individuals with COPD requiring LTOT, perceived satisfaction with a portable LTOT device significantly and positively affects perceived mobility and QOL.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire in patients with severe asthma

PURPOSE

Limited data exist on the quantitative validity of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) in asthma populations. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the SGRQ in patients with severe asthma.

METHODS

This was a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from MENSA (N = 576; NCT01691508) and SIRIUS (N = 135; NCT01691521), two randomized, placebo controlled trials of mepolizumab in patients with severe asthma. Patients completed the SGRQ at Baseline and Exit (MENSA Week 32; SIRIUS Week 24). Distributional characteristics, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, known-groups validity and responsiveness were assessed.

RESULTS

Internal consistency reliability was acceptable for the total and domain scores at Baseline and Exit (Cronbach's α was 0.92 and 0.94 at Baseline and Exit, respectively, for the total score). Test-retest reliability was demonstrated (intraclass correlation coefficients >0.7) for total score and the Activity and Impacts domains. Convergent and discriminant validity were demonstrated with measures associated or not associated with respiratory-related health status. Known groups validity based on baseline FEV₁% predicted, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score, exacerbations and eosinophil counts was demonstrated for the SGRQ total and domain scores. Responses to therapy based on clinician-rated response, patient-rated response, ACQ-5 change score and exacerbations generally correlated with improvements in SGRQ scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrated that the SGRQ has acceptable psychometric properties in patients with severe asthma, exceeding the thresholds for adequate reliability, validity and responsiveness. The SGRQ appears to be a good instrument for identifying response to therapy in patients with severe asthma.

Safety of inhaled long-acting anti-muscarinic agents in COPD

Evidence-based guidelines recommend inhaled long-acting anti-muscarinic agents (LAMAs) as first-line maintenance therapy for symptomatic patients with COPD. Several LAMAs are now available for use either as monotherapy or in combination with other COPD medications, including long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) or inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The efficacy and long-term safety of these medications have been evaluated in multiple clinical trials and real-life studies. This review evaluates the evidence available on the safety of existing LAMAs alone or in combination with LABAs and ICS in patients with COPD.

Efficacy of mepolizumab add-on therapy on health-related quality of life and markers of asthma control in severe eosinophilic asthma (MUSCA): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3b trial

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody approved as add-on therapy to standard of care for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, has been shown in previous studies to reduce exacerbations and dependency on oral corticosteroids compared with placebo. We aimed to further assess mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma by examining its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

METHODS

We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3b trial (MUSCA) in 146 hospitals or research centres in 19 countries worldwide. Eligible participants were patients aged 12 years or older with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of at least two exacerbations requiring treatment in the previous 12 months before screening despite regular use of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus other controller medicines. Exclusion criteria included current smokers or former smokers with a history of at least ten pack-years. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) by country to receive a subcutaneous injection of either mepolizumab 100 mg or placebo, plus standard of care, every 4 weeks for 24 weeks (the final dose was given at week 20). We did the randomisation using an interactive voice response system and a centralised, computer-generated, permuted-block design of block size six. The two treatments were identical in appearance and administered in a masked manner; patients, investigators, other site staff and the entire study team including those assessing outcomes data were also masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the mean change from baseline in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at week 24 in the modified intention-to-treat (modified ITT) population (analysed according to their randomly assigned treatment). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of trial medication (analysed according to the actual treatment received). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02281318.

FINDINGS

We recruited patients between Dec 11, 2014, and Nov 20, 2015, and the study was undertaken between Dec 11, 2014, and June 10, 2016. The modified ITT population comprised 274 patients assigned to mepolizumab 100 mg and 277 assigned to placebo. Mepolizumab versus placebo showed significant improvements at week 24 from baseline in SGRQ total score (least squares mean [SE] change from baseline -15·6 (1·0) vs -7·9 (1·0), a treatment difference of -7·7 (95% CI -10·5 to -4·9; p<0·0001). No deaths occurred during the study. 192 (70%) of 273 patients who received mepolizumab and 207 (74%) of 278 who received placebo reported at least one on-treatment adverse event, the most common of which were headache (in 45 [16%] given mepolizumab vs 59 [21%] given placebo) and nasopharyngitis (in 31 [11%] given mepolizumab vs 46 [17%] given placebo). 15 (5%) and 22 (8%) patients had an on-treatment serious adverse event in the mepolizumab and placebo groups, respectively; the most common was asthma in both groups (in three [1%] given mepolizumab vs nine [3%] given placebo).

INTERPRETATION

Mepolizumab was associated with significant improvements in HRQOL in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, and had a safety profile similar to that of placebo. These results add to and support the use of mepolizumab as a favourable add-on treatment option to standard of care in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline.