Effect of severe renal impairment on umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol pharmacokinetics and safety: a single-blind, nonrandomized study

Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Fluticasone Furoate, Umeclidinium Bromide, and Vilanterol in Patients with Asthma, Using Data from a Phase IIIA Study (CAPTAIN)

BACKGROUND

This analysis aimed to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone furoate (FF), the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC), and the long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) vilanterol (VI), administered as dual (FF/VI) or triple (FF/UMEC/VI) single-inhaler therapy to patients with asthma, and to identify covariates that may influence the PK of each analyte.

METHODS

Blood samples were obtained from the phase IIIA CAPTAIN study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02924688), which evaluated the efficacy and safety of once-daily FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI in patients with uncontrolled asthma taking ICS/LABA. Samples were collected at trough (defined as ≥ 20 h after the last dose) from all subjects randomized to the six treatment groups (FF/UMEC/VI 100/31.25/25 μg, 100/62.5/25 μg, 200/31.25/25 μg, 200/62.5/25 μg; FF/VI 100/25 μg, 200/25 μg) at week 24 or the early withdrawal visit. In a subset of patients, PK samples were obtained predose at week 12, and at 5-30 min, 45-90 min, and 2-3 h postdose. For each analyte, a population PK model was developed using non-linear mixed-effects modeling. The maximum likelihood method was utilized to incorporate data below the quantifiable limit (BQL). Final models were used to derive the area under the plasma concentration-time curve and maximum observed concentration at steady-state for each analyte.

RESULTS

We obtained 4018, 2695, and 4032 samples from 1891, 1258, and 1891 patients, for FF, UMEC, and VI, respectively; 48%, 49%, and 50% of samples were reported as BQL for each analyte, respectively. The PK were adequately described by a two-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination for FF, a two-compartment model with intravenous bolus input and first-order elimination for UMEC, and a three-compartment model with zero-order input and first-order elimination for VI. Statistically significant covariates were body weight on apparent inhaled clearance of FF, creatinine clearance on apparent clearance and body weight on apparent inhaled volume of distribution of the central compartment for UMEC, and race (East Asian, Japanese, and South East Asian heritage) on inhaled apparent volume of distribution of the central compartment for VI. However, the overall effects of covariates were marginal and thus do not warrant dose adjustment. Systemic exposures of FF or VI did not differ when administered as a single-inhaler triple (FF/UMEC/VI) or dual combination (FF/VI), and were similar to those reported for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

CONCLUSION

Only marginal covariate effects were observed, and thus no dose adjustments are deemed necessary for FF, UMEC, or VI. There was no difference in FF or VI systemic exposure in patients with asthma when administered as either triple (FF/UMEC/VI) or dual therapy (FF/VI). Together with efficacy findings from the CAPTAIN study, our data support the use of single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy for patients with uncontrolled asthma currently receiving ICS/LABA.

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.

Population Pharmacokinetics Modeling of Inhaled Umeclidinium for Adult Patients with Asthma

BACKGROUND

Umeclidinium (UMEC; a long-acting anti-muscarinic) in combination with fluticasone furoate (an inhaled corticosteroid) is in development for asthma treatment. This secondary analysis aimed to develop a population pharmacokinetic model characterizing UMEC in adults with asthma, and evaluated the impact of covariates on pharmacokinetic parameters.

METHODS

Plasma concentration data from study NCT01641692 (assessing once-daily UMEC 15.6, 31.25, 62.5, 125, and 250 mcg, twice daily UMEC 15.6 and 31.25 mcg, and placebo) were analyzed using non-linear mixed-effect modeling in NONMEM^®. Full likelihood, including observed data and data below the quantification limit (treated as censored), was maximized. Study endpoints were population pharmacokinetics (including apparent inhaled clearance [CL/F] and apparent distribution volume in the central compartment [V _c/F]) and derived pharmacokinetic parameters (area under the concentration-time curve [AUC] and maximum concentration [C _max] at steady-state).

RESULTS

In total, 128 patients provided 3757 data points. The pharmacokinetics of UMEC were best described using a two-compartment model with intravenous bolus input, due to fast absorption following inhalation. CL/F was 257 L/h and V _c/F was 804 L. Creatinine clearance was a significant covariate for CL/F, as were age and body weight for V _c/F. AUC and C _max increased with increasing UMEC dose (once-daily 15.6-250 mcg: AUC_0-24 median: 64.7-863 pg h/mL; C _max median: 10.6-256 pg/mL).

CONCLUSION

The final population pharmacokinetic model adequately described the data, demonstrating minimal creatinine clearance, age, and body weight effects on overall plasma UMEC pharmacokinetics and systemic exposure.

Umeclidinium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: latest evidence and place in therapy

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity, mortality and health care expenditure throughout the world. COPD guidelines recommend the use of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) either alone or in combination with a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA). For over 10 years, tiotropium was the only LAMA that was used in the management of COPD. Over the past few years, various new drugs have been identified that act on the muscarinic receptors and β2 receptors. Umeclidinium (Umec) is a new LAMA currently approved for use in patients with COPD either as monotherapy or in combination with vilanterol (Vil). Both Umec alone and in combination with Vil delivered through a multi-dose dry powder Ellipta™ device have shown improvement in lung function, health-related quality of life and exacerbation frequency in patients with COPD. This review provides an overview of the pharmacology, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of Umec, and evaluates the clinical efficacy and safety studies in patients with COPD.

Inhaled Umeclidinium in COPD Patients: A Review and Meta-Analysis

A number of new agents for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at different stages of development, including several inhaled long-acting antimuscarinics (LAMA). Long-acting bronchodilators are considered to be central to the management of COPD due to the evidence supporting their efficacy and safety. Umeclidinium, a LAMA, has recently been approved for the maintenance treatment of moderate to very severe COPD in a number of countries. This comprehensive review and pooled meta-analysis provides detailed information about the efficacy and safety of this agent. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of umeclidinium observed in phase I and II studies support its once-daily administration. Umeclidinium is rapidly cleared from blood, and renal or hepatic impairment do not lead to significant changes in drug disposition. A pooled analysis of phase III and comparative studies of umeclidinium in patients with moderate to very severe COPD showed significant improvement in lung function measures, including trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), as well as in acute exacerbations of COPD, dyspnea, and quality of life. Adverse effects, including known anticholinergic effects, were uncommon with umeclidinium. Limited data suggest the efficacy of umeclidinium is similar to that of tiotropium. Umeclidinium is administered as a dry powder inhaler, provides adequate lung delivery in patients with moderate to very severe airflow obstruction, and appears to be easily used by patients. Umeclidinium provides a safe and effective option as an inhaled LAMA for the management of COPD.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. Inhaled bronchodilators are the mainstay of COPD pharmacological treatment. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are a major class of inhaled bronchodilators. Some LAMA/device systems with different characteristics and dosing schedules are currently approved for maintenance therapy of COPD and a range of other products are being developed. They improve lung function and patient-reported outcomes and reduce acute bronchial exacerbations with good safety. LAMAs are used either alone or associated with long-acting β₂-agonists, eventually in fixed dose combinations. Long-acting β₂-agonist/LAMA combinations assure additional benefits over the individual components alone. The reader will obtain a view of the safety and efficacy of the different LAMA/device systems in COPD patients.

Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of inhaled umeclidinium and vilanterol alone and in combination in healthy Chinese subjects: a randomized, open-label, crossover trial

Inhaled umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of inhaled UMEC with vilanterol (UMEC/VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the US and EU. This was a randomized, open-label, three-period crossover, single- and repeat-dose study to assess the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and tolerability of inhaled UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg (delivering 55/22 μg) and UMEC/VI 125/25 μg (delivering 113/22 μg) compared with their monotherapy components (UMEC 62.5 μg, UMEC 125 μg and, VI 25 μg [delivering 55, 113, and 22 μg, respectively]) in healthy Chinese subjects (n=20). UMEC and VI were rapidly absorbed following single and repeat dosing (time to maximum plasma concentration [t_max]: UMEC = 5 min; VI = 5 min). The median t_last was 2–4 h for UMEC and 1–2 h for VI following single doses of UMEC/VI and UMEC monotherapy (both doses). UMEC reached steady-state prior to Day 10; steady-state for VI could not be assessed. UMEC accumulation following repeat dosing was 11–34% based on C_max and 19–59% based on area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 2 h (AUC_(0-2)). VI accumulation following repeat dosing was 25–66% based on C_max and 17–43% based on AUC_(0-2). The evidence was not sufficient to suggest that systemic exposure was substantially different between UMEC/VI combination therapy and the constituent monotherapies following single or repeat dosing. Following both single- and repeat-dose administration, the inter-subject coefficient of variation for all UMEC PK parameter estimates ranged from 12% to 165% for all treatments, indicating a wide range of variability in inhaled PK parameters. Twelve subjects experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE). Six subjects experienced ≥1 treatment-related AE; the most commonly reported treatment-related AE was chest discomfort (n=3 [15%]). No clinically important changes in vital signs or electrocardiogram parameters were reported. These data suggest that single- and repeat-dose administration of UMEC/VI combination therapy in healthy Chinese subjects did not result in substantial differences in systemic exposure compared with UMEC and VI as monotherapies.