Umeclidinium/vilanterol as step-up therapy from tiotropium in patients with moderate COPD: a randomized, parallel-group, 12-week study

Inpatient Admissions and Re-Admissions in Medicare Beneficiaries Initiating Umeclidinium/Vilanterol or Tiotropium Therapy

Purpose

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are hospitalized are more likely to die from their illness and have increased likelihood of re-admission than those who are not. Subsequent re-admissions further increase the burden on healthcare systems. This study compared inpatient admission rates and time-to-first COPD-related inpatient admission among Medicare beneficiaries with COPD indexed on umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium (TIO).

Patients and Methods

This retrospective study used the All-Payer Claims Database to investigate hospital admission and re-admission outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries with COPD with an initial pharmacy claim for UMEC/VI or TIO from 1 January 2015 to 28 February 2020. Inpatient admissions, baseline, and follow-up variables were assessed in patients indexed on UMEC/VI and TIO after propensity score matching (PSM), with time-to-first on-treatment COPD-related inpatient admission as the primary endpoint. Re-admissions were assessed among patients with a COPD-related inpatient admission in the 30- and 90-days post-discharge.

Results

Post-PSM, 7152 patients indexed on UMEC/VI and 7069 on TIO were eligible for admissions analysis. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) time-to-first COPD-related inpatient admission was 46.71 (87.99) days for patients indexed on UMEC/VI and 44.96 (85.90) days for those on TIO (p=0.06). The mean (SD) number of inpatient admissions per patient was 1.24 (2.92) for patients indexed on UMEC/VI and 1.26 (3.05) for those on TIO (p=0.49). Proportion of patients undergoing re-admissions was similar between treatments over both 30 and 90 days, excluding a significantly lower proportion of patients indexed on UMEC/VI than those indexed on TIO for COPD-related re-admissions for hospital stays of 4-7 days and 7-14 days, and all-cause re-admissions for stays of 4-7 days.

Conclusion

Patients with COPD using Medicare in the US and receiving UMEC/VI or TIO reported similar time-to-first inpatient admission and similar proportion of re-admissions.

Clinical and Functional Effects of Inhaled Dual Therapy Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Real-Life Study

Background

The pharmacological association umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) allows to implement a very effective dual bronchodilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), thus optimizing bronchodilating therapy.

Methods

The main purpose of our real-world observational study was to evaluate in COPD patients the effects of UMEC/VI on lung function and respiratory symptoms. Functional and clinical parameters were assessed at baseline, and after 52 weeks of treatment with this combined double inhaled therapy.

Results

We enrolled 110 subjects suffering from COPD. A 12-month UMEC/VI treatment induced significant improvements in total lung capacity (TLC) (p < 0.05), and residual volume (RV) (p < 0.0001). Pulmonary deflation was paralleled by significant increases of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) (p < 0.0001), forced vital capacity (FVC) (p < 0.01), forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of FVC (FEF_25-75) (p < 0.0001) and diffusion capacity of the lung (DLCOcSB) (p < 0.05). In addition, in the same period, we also observed significant reductions of airway resistance including total resistance (R_tot) (p < 0.0001) and specific effective resistance (sR_eff) (p < 0.0001). Other improvements were detected with regard to modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC) questionnaire score (p < 0.0001), COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score (p < 0.0001), and COPD exacerbation rate (p < 0.0001). In particular, the reported changes of mMRC/CAT scores and COPD exacerbation numbers were significantly correlated with UMEC/VI-induced modifications of TLC, RV, FVC and FEV₁.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study corroborates in a real-life context the effectiveness of UMEC/VI in COPD treatment. Indeed, our broad investigational strategy has allowed to better characterize the functional mechanisms underpinning the therapeutic properties of UMEC/VI association.

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.

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.

Time-to-first exacerbation, adherence, and medical costs among US patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol or tiotropium as initial maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Adherence to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) maintenance medication is important for managing symptoms and exacerbation risk, and is associated with reduced mortality, hospitalizations, and costs. This study compared on-treatment exacerbations, medical costs, and medication adherence in patients with COPD initiating treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) or tiotropium (TIO).

METHODS

This retrospective matched cohort study selected patients from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated maintenance treatment with UMEC/VI or TIO between 01/01/2014 and 12/31/2017 (index date defined as the first dispensing). Eligible patients were ≥ 40 years of age and had ≥ 12 months continuous health plan coverage pre- and post-index; ≥ 1 medical claim for COPD pre-index or on the index date; no moderate/severe COPD-related exacerbations on the index date; no asthma diagnosis pre- or post-index; no maintenance medication fills containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β₂-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists pre-index or on the index date; and no fills for both UMEC/VI and TIO on the index date. Outcomes included time-to-first (Kaplan-Meier analysis) and rates of on-treatment COPD-related moderate/severe exacerbations, medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] and proportion of adherent patients [PDC ≥ 0.8]), and COPD-related medical costs per patient per month (PPPM). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Each cohort included 3929 matched patients. Kaplan-Meier rates of on-treatment COPD-related exacerbations were similar between cohorts (hazard ratio at 12 months; overall: 0.93, moderate: 0.92, severe: 1.07; all p > 0.05). UMEC/VI versus TIO initiators had significantly higher adherence (mean PDC: 0.44 vs 0.37; p < 0.001; proportion with PDC ≥ 0.8: 22.0% vs 16.4%; p< 0.001) and significantly lower mean on-treatment COPD-related total medical costs ($867 vs $1095 PPPM; p = 0.028), driven by lower outpatient visit costs.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide valuable information for physicians considering UMEC/VI or TIO as initial maintenance therapy options for patients with COPD.

Dual LABA/LAMA Therapy versus LABA or LAMA Monotherapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Support of the American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Rationale: There is uncertainty on the optimal first-line therapy for symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Long-acting β₂-receptor agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) have long been mainstays of treatment, though it is still not clear if dual therapy with LABA/LAMA is superior to monotherapy for symptomatic COPD.Objectives: To clarify the evidence landscape, we conducted a systematic review to answer the following question: in patients with COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance, is LABA/LAMA combination therapy more effective and equally safe compared with LABA or LAMA monotherapy?Methods: A search of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted by a medical librarian for randomized controlled trials enrolling patients with COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance that compare LABA/LAMA combination therapy to LABA or LAMA monotherapy. A systematic approach was used to screen, abstract, and critically appraise the emerging study evidence. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method was applied to rate the certainty and quality of the evidence.Results: A total of 24 studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 45,441). Pairwise random-effects meta-analysis revealed reductions in hospital admissions (11% reduction; P < 0.01) and acute exacerbations of COPD (20% reduction; P < 0.002), all in favor of LABA/LAMA dual therapy. Although there is reduced dyspnea (0.10 standardized mean difference; P < 0.001) and improved health-related quality of life (-0.13 standardized mean difference; P < 0.001), both values did not meet a clinical meaningful difference threshold. LABA/LAMA combination therapy showed no difference in treatment-emergent adverse effects (risk ratio, 0.99; P = 0.34) when compared with either LAMA or LABA monotherapy.Conclusions: Based on the reviewed evidence, in patients with symptomatic COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance, dual LABA/LAMA therapy is superior to either LABA or LAMA monotherapy based on the reduced risk of exacerbations and hospitalizations.

Hospital Admission and Readmission Among US Patients Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol or Tiotropium as Initial Maintenance Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

INTRODUCTION

Patients hospitalized for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are at risk of further readmissions, increased treatment costs, and excess mortality. This study evaluated inpatient admissions and readmissions in patients receiving initial maintenance therapy with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium (TIO).

METHODS

This retrospective, matched cohort study identified patients with COPD who initiated maintenance therapy with UMEC/VI or TIO from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018 (index date defined as earliest dispensing). Eligibility criteria included: ≥ 1 medical claim for COPD pre-index or on the index date; ≥ 12 months of continuous eligibility pre-index; age ≥ 40 years at index; no pre- or post-index asthma diagnosis; and no pre-index claims for medications containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β2-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists. Outcomes included time to first on-treatment COPD-related inpatient admission, rate of on-treatment COPD-related admissions, and rate of all-cause and COPD-related readmissions within 30 and 90 days. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Matched UMEC/VI and TIO cohorts each included 7997 patients and were balanced on baseline characteristics (mean age 70.9 years; female 47.1-47.6%). Over 12 months, patients initiating UMEC/VI had significantly reduced risk (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.87 [0.79, 0.96]; p = 0.006) and rates (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.80 [0.72, 0.92]; p = 0.008) of COPD-related inpatient admissions compared with TIO. While all-cause readmission rates were similar between treatment cohorts, readmission rates among patients with an initial admission length of stay of 1-3 days were numerically lower for UMEC/VI versus TIO (30-day readmissions: 10.5% vs. 12.4%; 90-day readmissions: 15.5% vs. 19.8%). Similar patterns were observed for COPD-related readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the real-world benefits of dual therapy with UMEC/VI versus TIO in reducing inpatient admissions and readmissions in patients with COPD, which may translate to lower healthcare costs.

Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Compared with Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol, Budesonide/Formoterol, and Tiotropium as Initial Maintenance Therapy in Patients with COPD Who Have High Costs and Comorbidities

Background

Comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are associated with increased medical costs and risk of exacerbations. This study compared COPD-related medical costs and exacerbations in high-cost, high-comorbidity patients with COPD receiving initial maintenance treatment (IMT) with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL), budesonide/formoterol (B/F), or tiotropium (TIO).

Methods

This retrospective, matched cohort study identified patients from Optum’s de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated UMEC/VI, FP/SAL, B/F, or TIO between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 (index date defined as date of the first fill). Eligibility criteria included age ≥40 years at index, ≥1 pre-index COPD diagnosis, no pre-index asthma diagnosis, 12 months of continuous insurance coverage pre-index, and high pre-index costs (≥80th percentile of IMT population) and comorbidities (Quan-Charlson comorbidity index ≥3). Propensity score matching was used to control for potential confounders. On-treatment COPD-related medical costs (primary endpoint) and exacerbations were evaluated.

Results

Matched cohorts were well balanced on baseline characteristics (UMEC/VI vs FP/SAL: n=1194 each; UMEC/VI vs B/F: n=1441 each; UMEC/VI vs TIO: n=1277 each). Patients receiving UMEC/VI had significantly lower COPD-related medical costs versus FP/SAL (difference: $6587 per patient per year; P=0.048), and numerically lower costs versus B/F and TIO. Patients initiating UMEC/VI had significantly lower risk of COPD-related severe exacerbation versus FP/SAL (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.78 [0.62, 0.98]; P=0.032), B/F (0.77 [0.63, 0.95]; P=0.016), and TIO (0.79 [0.64, 0.98]; P=0.028). The rate of COPD-related severe exacerbations was significantly lower with UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.73 [0.59, 0.91]; P=0.008) and B/F (0.73 [0.59, 0.93]; P=0.012), and numerically lower versus TIO (0.83 [0.68, 1.04]; P=0.080).

Conclusion

These findings suggest that high-cost, high-comorbidity patients with COPD receiving UMEC/VI compared with FP/SAL, B/F, and TIO as IMT may have lower medical costs and exacerbation risk.

Dual– Versus Mono–Bronchodilator Therapy in Moderate to Severe COPD: A Meta-analysis

Background:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines recommend both long-acting and dual bronchodilator therapy. It is unclear if there are differences in efficacy and safety.

Objective:

This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of dual therapy with long-acting β-agonist (LABA) + long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) compared with monotherapy with LAMA for COPD.

Methods:

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases from inception through March 2020 to identify English-language, prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared dual therapy with monotherapy in adult patients with COPD. Risk of bias was assessed using the Jadad score. Overall analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Treatment effect was determined with the random-effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel method and was reported as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.

Results:

A total of 18 RCTs were included (n = 6086; median Jadad score 5/5) that compared LAMA + LABA with LAMA. There was a greater improvement in forced expiratory volume at 1 s (FEV1) with dual therapy compared with LAMA: MD = 0.08; 95% CI = [0.05, 0.11]. There was no difference in St George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores between groups: OR = −0.85; 95% CI = [−1.83, 0.13]. There were no differences in overall adverse events (OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.92, 1.09), serious adverse events (OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.86, 1.18), or cardiovascular events (OR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.58, 1.34).

Conclusion and Relevance:

Dual therapy improves FEV1 and is as safe as LAMA. Dual therapy does not improve SGRQ scores more than LAMA.

Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: This document provides clinical recommendations for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It represents a collaborative effort on the part of a panel of expert COPD clinicians and researchers along with a team of methodologists under the guidance of the American Thoracic Society.

Methods: Comprehensive evidence syntheses were performed on all relevant studies that addressed the clinical questions and critical patient-centered outcomes agreed upon by the panel of experts. The evidence was appraised, rated, and graded, and recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Results: After weighing the quality of evidence and balancing the desirable and undesirable effects, the guideline panel made the following recommendations: 1) a strong recommendation for the use of long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) combination therapy over LABA or LAMA monotherapy in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance; 2) a conditional recommendation for the use of triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/LABA/LAMA over dual therapy with LABA/LAMA in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance who have experienced one or more exacerbations in the past year; 3) a conditional recommendation for ICS withdrawal for patients with COPD receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) if the patient has had no exacerbations in the past year; 4) no recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to long-acting bronchodilators in patients with COPD and blood eosinophilia, except for those patients with a history of one or more exacerbations in the past year requiring antibiotics or oral steroids or hospitalization, for whom ICS is conditionally recommended as an additive therapy; 5) a conditional recommendation against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroids in patients with COPD and a history of severe and frequent exacerbations; and 6) a conditional recommendation for opioid-based therapy in patients with COPD who experience advanced refractory dyspnea despite otherwise optimal therapy.

Conclusions: The task force made recommendations regarding the pharmacologic treatment of COPD based on currently available evidence. Additional research in populations that are underrepresented in clinical trials is needed, including studies in patients with COPD 80 years of age and older, those with multiple chronic health conditions, and those with a codiagnosis of COPD and asthma.

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.

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.

Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators such as long-acting β-agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations have been used in people with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to control symptoms such as dyspnoea and cough, and prevent exacerbations. A number of LABA/LAMA combinations are now available for clinical use in COPD. However, it is not clear which group of above mentioned inhalers is most effective or if any specific formulation works better than the others within the same group or class.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of available formulations from four different groups of inhalers (i.e. LABA/LAMA combination, LABA/ICS combination, LAMA and LABA) in people with moderate to severe COPD. The review will update previous systematic reviews on dual combination inhalers and long-acting bronchodilators to answer the questions described above using the strength of a network meta-analysis (NMA).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register, which contains several databases. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' websites. The most recent searches were conducted on 6 April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people aged 35 years or older with a diagnosis of COPD and a baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of less than 80% of predicted. We included studies of at least 12 weeks' duration including at least two active comparators from one of the four inhaler groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted NMAs using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method. We considered a study as high risk if recruited participants had at least one COPD exacerbation within the 12 months before study entry and as low risk otherwise. Primary outcomes were COPD exacerbations (moderate to severe and severe), and secondary outcomes included symptom and quality-of-life scores, safety outcomes, and lung function. We collected data only for active comparators and did not consider placebo was not considered. We assumed a class/group effect when a fixed-class model fitted well. Otherwise we used a random-class model to assess intraclass/group differences. We supplemented the NMAs with pairwise meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 101,311 participants from 99 studies (26 studies with 32,265 participants in the high-risk population and 73 studies with 69,046 participants in the low-risk population) in our systematic review. The median duration of studies was 52 weeks in the high-risk population and 26 weeks in the low-risk population (range 12 to 156 for both populations). We considered the quality of included studies generally to be good.The NMAs suggested that the LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations followed by LAMA in the both populations.There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination, LAMA, and LABA in the high-risk population (network hazard ratios (HRs) 0.86 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.76 to 0.99), 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.99), and 0.70 (95% CrI 0.61 to 0.8) respectively), and that LAMA decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA in the high- and low-risk populations (network HR 0.80 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.88) and 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.97), respectively). There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination reduces severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination and LABA in the high-risk population (network HR 0.78 (95% CrI 0.64 to 0.93) and 0.64 (95% CrI 0.51 to 0.81), respectively).There was a general trend towards a greater improvement in symptom and quality-of-life scores with the combination therapies compared to monotherapies, and the combination therapies were generally ranked higher than monotherapies.The LABA/ICS combination was the lowest ranked in pneumonia serious adverse events (SAEs) in both populations. There is evidence that the LABA/ICS combination increases the odds of pneumonia compared to LAMA/LABA combination, LAMA and LABA (network ORs: 1.69 (95% CrI 1.20 to 2.44), 1.78 (95% CrI 1.33 to 2.39), and 1.50 (95% CrI 1.17 to 1.92) in the high-risk population and network or pairwise OR: 2.33 (95% CI 1.03 to 5.26), 2.02 (95% CrI 1.16 to 3.72), and 1.93 (95% CrI 1.29 to 3.22) in the low-risk population respectively). There were significant overlaps in the rank statistics in the other safety outcomes including mortality, total, COPD, and cardiac SAEs, and dropouts due to adverse events.None of the differences in lung function met a minimal clinically important difference criterion except for LABA/LAMA combination versus LABA in the high-risk population (network mean difference 0.13 L (95% CrI 0.10 to 0.15). The results of pairwise meta-analyses generally agreed with those of the NMAs. There is no evidence to suggest intraclass/group differences except for lung function at 12 months in the high-risk population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations although there was some uncertainty in the results. LAMA containing inhalers may have an advantage over those without a LAMA for preventing COPD exacerbations based on the rank statistics. Combination therapies appear more effective than monotherapies for improving symptom and quality-of-life scores. ICS-containing inhalers are associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.Our most comprehensive review including intraclass/group comparisons, free combination therapies, 99 studies, and 20 outcomes for each high- and low-risk population summarises the current literature and could help with updating existing COPD guidelines.

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.

LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations in patients with COPD: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the current evidence for long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in the treatment of COPD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials published in English up to September 2017 of LABA/LAMA FDCs vs LABA or LAMA or LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) FDCs in COPD patients was performed using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Outcomes including forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) scores, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores, exacerbations, exercise tolerance (endurance time [ET]), inspiratory capacity (IC), and rescue medication use were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 27 studies were included in the review. LABA/LAMA FDCs significantly improved lung function (FEV1) at 12 weeks compared with LABA or LAMA or LABA/ICS. These effects were maintained over time. Significant improvements with LABA/LAMA FDCs vs each evaluated comparator were also observed in TDI and SGRQ scores, even if significant differences between different LABA/LAMA FDCs were detected. Only the LABA/LAMA FDC indacaterol/glycopyrronium has shown superiority vs LAMA and LABA/ICS for reducing exacerbation rates, while olodaterol/tiotropium and indacaterol/glycopyrronium have been shown to improve ET and IC vs the active comparators. Rescue medication use was significantly reduced by LABA/LAMA FDCs vs the evaluated comparators. LABA/LAMA FDCs were safe, with no increase in the risk of adverse events with LABA/LAMA FDCs vs the monocomponents.

CONCLUSION

Evidence supporting the efficacy of LABA/LAMA FDCs for COPD is heterogeneous, particularly for TDI and SGRQ scores, exacerbation rates, ET, and IC. So far, indacaterol/glycopyrronium is the LABA/LAMA FDC that has the strongest evidence for superiority vs LABA, LAMA, and LABA/ICS FDCs across the evaluated outcomes. LABA/LAMA FDCs were safe; however, more data should be collected in a real-world setting to confirm their safety.

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of US-approved LAMA/LABA therapies versus tiotropium in moderate-to-severe COPD

Dual bronchodilator maintenance therapy may benefit patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) versus long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy. The efficacy and safety of US-approved LAMA/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) combinations versus tiotropium (TIO), a LAMA, were assessed. This systematic review and meta-analysis (GSK: 206938), conducted in MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, and EMBASE following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, identified randomized clinical trials (>8 weeks) in moderate-to-severe COPD (per Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines), receiving LAMA/LABA or TIO. Endpoints: difference in change from baseline in lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV₁]; trough, peak, area under the curve 0–3 h post-dose (AUC_0–3), St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responder rate (≥4-unit improvement), SGRQ total score, and rescue medication use at 12 and 24 weeks. Safety was also assessed. From 5683 citations, the meta-analysis included eight clinical trials. LAMA/LABA significantly improved FEV₁ trough (Week 12: 63.0 mL, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 39.2, 86.8; Week 24: 66.1 mL, 95% CI: 40.0, 92.3), peak (Week 12: 91.5 mL, 95% CI: 70.5, 112.4; Week 24: 92.4 mL, 95% CI: 72.9, 111.9), AUC_0–3 (Week 12: 126.8 mL, 95% CI: 108.1, 145.4), SGRQ responder rate at Week 12 (risk ratio: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.28), mean SGRQ total score (Week 12: −1.87, 95% CI: −2.72, −1.02; Week 24: −1.05, 95% CI: −2.02, −0.09), and rescue medication use (Week 24: −0.47 puffs/day, 95% CI: −0.64, −0.30) versus TIO (all p ≤ 0.03). The SGRQ responder rate at 24 weeks and adverse events were not significantly different between treatments. US-approved LAMA/LABA therapies improved lung function, SGR,Q and rescue medication use versus TIO, without compromising safety.

Dual maintenance therapies combining two types of long-acting bronchodilator appear to be effective and safe for treating moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Given that patients with COPD often have poor quality of life and, in the US, incur substantial healthcare costs, it is vital to provide optimal symptom management to improve lung function and limit exacerbations over time. Beth Hahn at GSK, North Carolina, and co-workers carried out a literature review and meta-analysis of 8 clinical trials, which indicates that combined long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) treatments—currently prescribed in the US—are an effective and safe way of tackling COPD symptoms. The team compared patients using LAMA/LABA for 12 weeks with those on single LAMA (tiotropium) treatment and found LAMA/LABA significantly improved lung function and reduced exacerbation risk.

Open-Label, Crossover Study to Determine the Pharmacokinetics of Fluticasone Furoate and Batefenterol When Administered Alone, in Combination, or Concurrently

The study aim was to investigate the pharmacokinetics of single high doses and repeated therapeutic doses of fluticasone furoate (FF) and batefenterol (BAT; a bifunctional muscarinic antagonist and β₂ -agonist) administered in combination (BAT/FF) or as monotherapy. In this open-label, 6-period, crossover study of 48 subjects, the treatment sequences were (1) single high-dose BAT/FF 900/300 μg followed by repeated therapeutic doses of BAT/FF 300/100 μg (once daily for 7 days); (2) single high-dose BAT 900 μg administered concurrently with FF 300 μg; (3) single high-dose BAT 900 μg followed by repeated therapeutic-dose BAT 300 μg; (4) single high-dose FF 300 μg followed by repeated therapeutic-dose FF 100 μg; (5) single high-dose FF 300 μg (magnesium stearate); and (6) single high-dose FF/vilanterol 300/75 μg. Plasma FF area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve (AUC) was reduced after single high-dose BAT/FF versus FF alone (ratio of geometric least squares means: 0.79; 90% confidence interval: 0.75-0.83). After repeat dosing, FF AUC at the lower therapeutic dosage was similar for BAT/FF and FF (primary endpoint; AUC geometric least squares means: 1.03). Adverse events were minor, the most common being cough. These data support the feasibility of developing BAT/inhaled corticosteroid triple therapy in a single inhaler.

Current controversies in the stepping up and stepping down of inhaled therapies for COPD at the patient level

The implementation of potential new step-up or step-down treatment recommendations in response to current guidelines is one of the main challenges currently faced in actual daily practice settings. In the present narrative review, we aim to discuss the relevance of these step-up and step-down proposals at the patient level in daily clinical practice. In particular, we aim to review the challenges associated with inhaled maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in four clinical scenarios. First, we discuss the step up from single to double bronchodilation, including current controversies regarding the addition of a second bronchodilator versus initial treatment with two bronchodilators. Second, we discuss the step up from double bronchodilation to triple therapy while challenging current indications for inhaled steroid therapy and discussing triple therapy designs. Third, we discuss the step down from triple therapy to double bronchodilation while evaluating the effect of this downshift in risk categories on the patient according to the new classifications. Finally, we discuss the step down from double to single bronchodilation, with a special focus on safety. We believe this review will help to highlight the most relevant discussion points regarding the treatment of COPD in a manner that will stimulate and guide related clinical research.

Rates of escalation to triple COPD therapy among incident users of LAMA and LAMA/LABA

BACKGROUND

Improved outcomes have been reported for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receiving combination long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) therapy compared with LAMA monotherapy. However, little is known about the relative characteristics of these patients and their rates of escalation to triple therapy (TT, combining a LAMA, LABA, and inhaled corticosteroid). This study aimed to characterize patients initiating treatment with the LAMA tiotropium (TIO) and the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combination therapy umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), and to compare rates of escalation to TT between patients receiving these therapies.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients with COPD enrolled in a US health insurance plan during 2013-2015 and newly initiated on TIO or UMEC/VI. Patients were ≥40 years of age at index (date of therapy initiation) with continuous enrollment for 12 months pre-index and ≥30 days post-index. LAMA users were propensity score matched 1:1 to LAMA/LABA users, with TT initiation rates reported by cohort using pharmacy claims.

RESULTS

35,357 patients initiating on TIO and 2407 patients initiating on UMEC/VI were identified. After propensity score matching, the rate of TT initiation was significantly higher in new TIO users (n = 1320) than in new UMEC/VI users (n = 1320) (0.92 vs 0.49 per 100 months of exposure, respectively; p < 0.001). Relative to the UMEC/VI cohort, the TIO cohort had an 87% higher risk of TT initiation (hazard ratio: 1.87; 95% confidence interval: 1.4-2.5; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving UMEC/VI progressed to TT more slowly, and were at lower risk of progressing to TT, than patients receiving TIO.

Once-Daily Triple Therapy in Patients with COPD: Patient-Reported Symptoms and Quality of Life

Introduction

Directly recorded patient experience of symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) can complement lung function and exacerbation rate data in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical studies. The FULFIL study recorded daily symptoms and activity limitation together with additional patient-reported outcomes of dyspnea and HRQoL, as part of the prespecified analyses. FULFIL co-primary endpoint data have been previously reported.

Methods

FULFIL was a phase III, 24-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study comparing once-daily single inhaler triple therapy [fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI)] 100 µg/62.5 µg/25 µg with twice-daily inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist therapy [budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR)] 400 µg/12 µg in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. A subset participated for 52 weeks. Patient-reported assessments were: Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD™ (E-RS: COPD), St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) for COPD, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), baseline and transitional dyspnea indices (TDI) and daily and global anchor questions for activity limitation.

Results

FF/UMEC/VI showed greater reductions from baseline in 4-weekly mean E-RS: COPD total and all subscale scores compared with BUD/FOR; differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05) at each time period. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated greater improvements from baseline at weeks 4 and 24 in SGRQ domain scores and TDI focal score compared with BUD/FOR. At weeks 4 and 24, improvements greater than the minimal clinically important difference from baseline were observed in CAT score with FF/UMEC/VI, but not BUD/FOR; differences were statistically significant (P ≤ 0.003).

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate sustained daily symptom and HRQoL benefits of FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR. The inclusion of the CAT may provide data that are readily generalizable to everyday clinical practice.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02345161.

Funding

GSK.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-017-0650-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

When is dual bronchodilation indicated in COPD?

Inhaled bronchodilator medications are central to the management of COPD and are frequently given on a regular basis to prevent or reduce symptoms. While short-acting bronchodilators are a treatment option for people with relatively few COPD symptoms and at low risk of exacerbations, for the majority of patients with significant breathlessness at the time of diagnosis, long-acting bronchodilators may be required. Dual bronchodilation with a long-acting β2-agonist and long-acting muscarinic antagonist may be more effective treatment for some of these patients, with the aim of improving symptoms. This combination may also reduce the rate of exacerbations compared with a bronchodilator-inhaled corticosteroid combination in those with a history of exacerbations. However, there is currently a lack of guidance on clinical indicators suggesting which patients should step up from mono- to dual bronchodilation. In this article, we discuss a number of clinical indicators that could prompt a patient and physician to consider treatment escalation, while being mindful of the need to avoid unnecessary polypharmacy. These indicators include insufficient symptomatic response, a sustained increased requirement for rescue medication, suboptimal 24-hour symptom control, deteriorating symptoms, the occurrence of exacerbations, COPD-related hospitalization, and reductions in lung function. Future research is required to provide a better understanding of the optimal timing and benefits of treatment escalation and to identify the appropriate tools to inform this decision.

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.