Effect of background long-acting beta2-agonist therapy on the efficacy and safety of a novel, nebulized glycopyrrolate in subjects with moderate-to-very-severe COPD

Post Hoc Analysis of Lung Function Improvement and Patient-Reported Outcomes With Revefenacin in Adults With Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD and Comorbid Anxiety or Depression

Background

Revefenacin, a once-daily, nebulized, long-acting muscarinic antagonist approved in the United States for the maintenance of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), significantly improves lung function and quality of life versus placebo in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Comorbid anxiety and/or depression may alter patients' symptom perception and response to bronchodilators. The impact of revefenacin in patients with COPD with comorbid anxiety and/or depression has not been previously investigated.

Methods

This post hoc subgroup analysis examined data from two 12-week, randomized, phase 3 trials in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD with the following self-reported subgroups: anxiety only (A), depression only (D), anxiety and depression (+A/+D), and neither anxiety nor depression (-A/-D). We assessed change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at Day 85 and health status by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and COPD Assessment Test (CAT).

Results

Of 812 patients, 90 (11%), 110 (14%), 141 (17%), and 471 (58%) had A, D, +A/+D, and -A/-D respectively. In revefenacin versus placebo, trough FEV1 significantly improved from baseline at Day 85 across all subgroups as well as the SGRQ and CAT scores in patients with A, +A/+D, and -A/-D. Revefenacin was well tolerated regardless of A/D status, with a minimal incidence of treatment-emergent antimuscarinic adverse events across subgroups.

Conclusion

In this analysis, revefenacin versus placebo significantly improved health outcomes in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD with A, +A/+D, and -A/-D, but not in patients with D. The safety profile of revefenacin was not affected by comorbid anxiety/depression status.

Impact of baseline clinical features on outcomes of nebulized glycopyrrolate therapy in COPD

Inhaled bronchodilators are central for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), as they can provide symptom relief and reduce the frequency and severity of exacerbations while improving health status and exercise tolerance. In 2017, glycopyrrolate (GLY) delivered via the eFlow® closed system (CS) nebulizer (nebulized GLY; 25 µg twice daily), was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for maintenance treatment of moderate-to-very-severe COPD. This approval was based largely on results from the replicate, placebo-controlled, Phase III clinical trials- GOLDEN 3 and 4. In this review, we summarize key findings from secondary analyses of the GOLDEN 3 and 4 studies, and provide a comprehensive overview that may assist both pulmonologists and primary-care providers in their treatment decisions. Comorbidities are common among patients with COPD in clinical practice and may impact bronchodilator efficacy. This review highlights outcomes among subpopulations of patients with comorbidities (e.g., anxiety/depression, cardiovascular disease), and their impact on the efficacy of nebulized GLY. In addition, the efficacy and safety of nebulized GLY across various demographics (e.g., age, gender) and baseline disease characteristics (e.g., disease severity, rescue medication use) are discussed. Real-world outcomes with nebulized GLY, including device satisfaction, healthcare resource utilization, and exacerbations, are also presented. These secondary analyses and real-world data complement the primary results with nebulized GLY from Phase III studies and support the need for the inclusion of patients representative of real-world clinical practice in RCTs. In addition, these data suggest that RCTs for COPD therapies should be complemented with real-world observational studies.

Efficacy and safety of revefenacin for nebulization in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease taking concomitant ICS/LABA or LABA: subgroup analysis from phase III trials

Background:

Combinations of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA), long-acting β-agonist (LABA), and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) are used for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations on bronchodilator monotherapy. In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of the LAMA revefenacin in patients with COPD taking concomitant LABA, including ICS/LABA (LABA subgroup).

Methods:

Efficacy data were obtained from two 12-week, replicate, placebo-controlled trials and safety data were pooled from the 12-week and a 52-week tiotropium-controlled trial. Patients received revefenacin 175 µg or placebo in the 12-week or tiotropium 18 µg in the 52-week studies. The efficacy endpoint was least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁). Clinical health outcomes were assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ).

Results:

Revefenacin produced similar improvements from baseline in trough FEV₁ in the non-LABA and LABA subgroups [placebo-adjusted LS mean change (95% confidence interval) in day 85 trough FEV₁, 150.9 (110.3−191.6) ml and 139.2 (82.9−195.5) ml; p < 0.0001 versus placebo]. Similar improvements were observed in SGRQ scores in the non-LABA and LABA subgroups [−3.3 (−5.4 to −1.2) and −3.4 (−6.3 to −0.6)]. Improvements in lung function and health outcomes were observed regardless of airflow obstruction severity. Revefenacin was well tolerated with more adverse events reported in the LABA than the non-LABA subgroup.

Conclusions:

Once daily revefenacin for nebulization can be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients who require concomitant use of LABA with or without ICS.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers:

NCT02512510, NCT02459080, NCT02518139

The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Improvement in Lung Function and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with COPD with Comorbid Anxiety and Depression Receiving Nebulized Glycopyrrolate in the GOLDEN 3 and 4 Studies

Background

Anxiety and depression (A/D) are common in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and are often associated with lower adherence to treatment and worse patient-related outcomes. However, studies on the impact of comorbid A/D on responses to bronchodilators are limited.

Methods

This post hoc analysis of pooled data (N=861) from the GOLDEN 3 and 4 studies compared the efficacy and safety of nebulized glycopyrrolate (GLY) 25 µg in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, grouped by self-reported A/D. Changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and health-related quality of life determined by St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores in patients with or without comorbid A/D (A/D [+] or A/D [–]) were examined following 12 weeks of GLY 25 µg twice-daily (BID) or placebo treatment.

Results

A/D (+) patients were predominantly female, younger, included a higher proportion of current smokers, and had higher baseline SGRQ scores compared with the A/D (–) group. At 12 weeks, GLY resulted in placebo-adjusted improvements from baseline in FEV₁ of 46.9 mL (p=0.19; not significant) and 106.7 mL (p<0.0001), in the A/D (+) and A/D (–) groups, respectively. Improvements were observed with GLY compared to placebo in SGRQ scores, regardless of baseline A/D status; the placebo-adjusted least squares mean change from baseline in SGRQ total scores was –3.16 (p>0.05) and –3.34 (p<0.001), for the A/D (+) and A/D (–) groups, respectively. Despite numerical improvements in SGRQ scores with GLY in the A/D (+) group, a higher response to placebo was observed. GLY was generally well tolerated throughout 12 weeks of treatment; incidence of adverse events was higher in the A/D (+) group compared with the A/D (–) group in both treatment arms.

Conclusion

GLY 25 µg BID resulted in numerical improvements in FEV₁, SGRQ total scores and SGRQ responder rates in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, regardless of A/D status at baseline; significant improvements were noted only in the A/D (+) group. The results emphasize the importance of considering underlying comorbidities including A/D when evaluating the efficacy of COPD treatments.

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.

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.