Efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate in patients with COPD by reversibility: pooled analysis of GEM1 and GEM2 12-week studies

Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol according to the degree of reversibility of airflow limitation at screening: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX trial

Background

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the relationship between short-term bronchodilator reversibility and longer-term response to bronchodilators is unclear. Here, we investigated whether the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators is associated with reversibility of airflow limitation in patients with COPD with a low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids.

Methods

The double-blind, double-dummy EMAX trial randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once daily, or salmeterol 50 µg twice daily. Bronchodilator reversibility to salbutamol was measured once at screening and defined as an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL 10−30 min post salbutamol. Post hoc, fractional polynomial (FP) modelling was conducted using the degree of reversibility (mL) at screening as a continuous variable to investigate its relationship to mean change from baseline in trough FEV₁ and self-administered computerised-Transition Dyspnoea Index (SAC-TDI) at Week 24, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD (E-RS) at Weeks 21–24, and rescue medication use (puffs/day) over Weeks 1–24. Analyses were conducted across the full range of reversibility (−850–896 mL); however, results are presented for the range −100–400 mL because there were few participants with values outside this range.

Results

The mean (standard deviation) reversibility was 130 mL (156) and the median was 113 mL; 625/2425 (26%) patients were reversible. There was a trend towards greater improvements in trough FEV₁, SAC-TDI, E-RS and rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol with higher reversibility. Improvements in trough FEV₁ and reductions in rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol compared with either monotherapy across the range of reversibility. Greater improvements in SAC-TDI and E-RS total scores were observed with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in the middle of the reversibility range.

Conclusions

FP analyses suggest that patients with higher levels of reversibility have greater improvements in lung function and symptoms in response to bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy across the full range of reversibility, suggesting that the dual bronchodilator umeclidinium/vilanterol may be an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of their level of reversibility.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12931-021-01859-w.

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.