Clinical and economic outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease initiating maintenance therapy with tiotropium bromide/olodaterol or fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend dual long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs)/long-acting β₂agonists (LABAs) as maintenance therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and dyspnea or exercise intolerance. Escalation to triple therapy (TT) (LAMA/LABA/inhaled corticosteroid) is conditionally recommended for patients with continued exacerbations on dual LAMA/ LABA therapy. Despite this guidance, TT use is widespread across COPD severities, which could impact clinical and economic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare COPD exacerbations, pneumonia events, and disease-related and all-cause health care resource utilization and costs (in 2020 US dollars) in patients initiating fixed-dose combinations of either LAMA/ LABA (tiotropium/olodaterol [TIO + OLO]) or TT (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF + UMEC + VI]). METHODS: This retrospective observational study of administrative claims included patients with COPD aged 40 years or older initiating TIO + OLO or FF + UMEC + VI from June 2015 to November 2019. TIO + OLO and FF + UMEC + VI cohorts in the overall and maintenance-naive populations were 1:1 propensity score matched on baseline demographics, comorbidities, COPD medications, health care resource utilization, and costs. Multivariable regression compared clinical and economic outcomes up to 12 months in FF + UMEC + VI vs TIO + OLO postmatched cohorts. RESULTS: After matching, there were 5,658 and 3,025 pairs in the overall and maintenance-naive populations, respectively. In the overall population, the risk of any (moderate or severe) exacerbation was 7% lower in FF + UMEC + VI vs TIO + OLO initiators (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.86-1.0; P = 0.047). There was no difference in the adjusted risk of any exacerbation in the maintenance-naive population (aHR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.88-1.10). Pneumonia risk was not statistically different between cohorts in the overall (aHR = 1.12; 95% CI = 0.98-1.27) and maintenance-naive (aHR = 1.13; 95% CI = 0.95-1.36) populations. COPD- and/or pneumonia-related adjusted total annualized costs (95% CI) were significantly greater for FF + UMEC + VI vs TIO + OLO in the overall ($17,633 [16,661-18,604] vs $14,558 [13,709-15,407]; P < 0.001; differences [% of relative increase] = $3,075 [21.1%]) and maintenancenaive ($19,032 [17,466-20,598] vs $15,004 [13,786-16,223]; P < 0.001; $4,028 [26.8%]) populations, with significantly higher pharmacy costs with FF + UMEC + VI (overall: $6,567 [6,503-6,632] vs $4,729 [4,676-4,783]; P < 0.001; $1,838 [38.9%]; maintenance-naive: $6,642 [6,560-6,724] vs $4,750 [4,676-4,825]; P < 0.001; $1,892 [39.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: A lower risk of exacerbation was observed with FF + UMEC + VI vs TIO + OLO in the overall population but not among the maintenance-naive population. Patients with COPD initiating TIO + OLO had lower annualized costs than FF + UMEC + VI initiators in the overall and maintenance-naive populations. Thus, in the maintenance-naive population, initiation with dual LAMA/LABA therapy per practice guidelines can improve real-world economic outcomes. Study registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT05127304). DISCLOSURES: The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc (BIPI). To ensure independent interpretation of clinical study results and enable authors to fulfill their role and obligations under the ICMJE criteria, BIPI grants all external authors access to relevant clinical study data. In adherence with the BIPI Policy on Transparency and Publication of Clinical Study Data, scientific and medical researchers can request access to clinical study data after publication of the primary manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal, regulatory activities are complete and other criteria are met. Dr Sethi has received honoraria/ fees for consulting/speaking from Astra-Zeneca, BIPI, and GlaxoSmithKline. He has received consulting fees for serving on data safety monitoring boards from Nuvaira and Pulmotect. He has received consulting fees from Apellis and Aerogen. His institution has received research funds for his participation in clinical trials from Regeneron and AstraZeneca. Ms Palli was an employee of BIPI at the time the study was conducted. Drs Clark and Shaikh are employees of BIPI. Ms Buysman and Mr Sargent are employees and Dr Bengtson was an employee of Optum, which was contracted by BIPI to conduct this study. Dr Ferguson reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim during the conduct of the study; grants from Novartis, Altavant, and Knopp; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Verona, Theravance, Teva, and GlaxoSmithKline; and personal fees from Galderma, Orpheris, Dev.Pro, Syneos, and Ionis outside the submitted work. He was a paid consultant for BIPI for this study. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. BIPI was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations.

Improvements in health status with revefenacin, a once-daily, nebulized, long-acting muscarinic antagonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Replicate, 12-week, phase 3 trials (0126 and 0127) of once-daily nebulized revefenacin 175 μg vs placebo demonstrated significant bronchodilation and improvements in health status in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This post hoc analysis evaluated improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) in both women and men.

METHODS

Participants were pooled from the two 12-week studies (411 [51%] women and 401 [49%] men). Changes in PROs were assessed overall and separately in men and women.

RESULTS

Revefenacin improved SGRQ and CAT total scores from baseline in both studies; improvement in CCQ total score reached significance only in 0126. In pooled data, a greater proportion of patients achieved clinically meaningful response in SGRQ score (≥4-unit decrease from baseline) with revefenacin vs placebo (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.1; P = 0.012). Clinically meaningful responses were also seen in CAT (≥2-unit decrease from baseline) and CCQ (≥0.4-unit decrease from baseline) scores with revefenacin vs placebo. When stratified by sex, improvements from baseline in SGRQ, CAT, and CCQ scores following revefenacin vs placebo reached statistical significance only in women.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance treatment with revefenacin improved health status in patients with moderate to very severe COPD; however, the effect was more pronounced for women than men.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV: NCT02459080; NCT02512510.

Healthcare Resource Utilization, Cost and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Diagnosed with COPD Initiating Tiotropium Bromide/Olodaterol versus Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Based on Exacerbation History

Background

ATS and GOLD guidelines recommend treating low-exacerbation risk COPD patients with dual (LAMA/LABA) agents and reserving triple therapy (TT; LAMA/LABA and inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]) for severe cases with higher-exacerbation risk. However, TT often is prescribed across the COPD spectrum. This study compared COPD exacerbations, pneumonia diagnosis, healthcare resource utilization, and costs for patients initiating tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) and a TT, fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI), stratified by exacerbation history.

Methods

COPD patients who initiated TIO/OLO or FF/UMEC/VI between 06/01/2015-11/30/2019 (index date=first pharmacy fill-date with ≥30 consecutive treatment days) were identified from the Optum Research Database. Patients were ≥40 years old and continuously enrolled for 12 months during the baseline period and ≥30 days during follow-up. Patients were stratified into GOLD A/B (0-1 baseline non-hospitalized exacerbation), No exacerbation (subset of GOLD A/B), and GOLD C/D (≥2 non-hospitalized and/or ≥1 hospitalized baseline exacerbation). Baseline characteristics were balanced with propensity score matching (1:1). Adjusted risks of exacerbation, pneumonia diagnosis, and COPD and/or pneumonia-related utilization and costs were evaluated.

Results

Adjusted exacerbation risk was similar in GOLD A/B and No exacerbation subgroups, and lower in GOLD C/D for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators (hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.98, p=0.020). Adjusted pneumonia risk was similar between cohorts across the GOLD subgroups. Adjusted COPD and/or pneumonia-related population annualized pharmacy costs were significantly higher for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators across subgroups, p<0.001. Adjusted COPD and/or pneumonia-related population annualized total healthcare costs were significantly higher for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators in the GOLD A/B and No exacerbation, subgroups, p<0.001 (cost ratio [95% CI]: 1.25 [1.13, 1.38] and 1.21 [1.09, 1.36], respectively), but similar in the GOLD C/D subgroup.

Conclusion

These real-world results support ATS and GOLD recommendations for treating low-exacerbation risk COPD patients with dual bronchodilators and TT for more severe, higher-exacerbation risk COPD patients.

Measuring Peak Inspiratory Flow in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are breath actuated, and patients using DPIs need to generate an optimal inspiratory flow during the inhalation maneuver for effective drug delivery to the lungs. However, practical and standardized recommendations for measuring peak inspiratory flow (PIF)—a potential indicator for effective DPI use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)—are lacking. To evaluate recommended PIF assessment approaches, we reviewed the Instructions for Use of the In-Check™ DIAL and the prescribing information for eight DPIs approved for use in the treatment of COPD in the United States. To evaluate applied PIF assessment approaches, we conducted a PubMed search from inception to August 31, 2021, for reports of clinical and real-life studies where PIF was measured using the In-Check™ DIAL or through a DPI in patients with COPD. Evaluation of collective sources, including 47 applicable studies, showed that instructions related to the positioning of the patient with their DPI, instructions for exhalation before the inhalation maneuver, the inhalation maneuver itself, and post-inhalation breath-hold times varied, and in many instances, appeared vague and/or incomplete. We observed considerable variation in how PIF was measured in clinical and real-life studies, underscoring the need for a standardized method of PIF measurement. Standardization of technique will facilitate comparisons among studies. Based on these findings and our clinical and research experience, we propose specific recommendations for PIF measurement to standardize the process and better ensure accurate and reliable PIF values in clinical trials and in daily clinical practice.

TRONARTO: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Tiotropium/Olodaterol Delivered via Soft Mist Inhaler in COPD Patients Stratified by Peak Inspiratory Flow

Background

Inhaled bronchodilator therapy is currently the mainstay of treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Some inhalers require patients to achieve certain inhalation efforts either to activate the device or to deliver medication to the site of action. For dry powder inhalers, low peak inspiratory flow (PIF) can result in poor medication delivery but the clinical significance of this is not well understood.

Methods

TRONARTO was a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group study which stratified patients with moderate-to-severe COPD according to their PIF against medium-low resistance at screening. Patients were randomized to receive tiotropium/olodaterol (5 μg/5 μg) or matched placebo delivered via the Respimat^® Soft Mist™ inhaler (SMI). After 4 weeks of treatment, we assessed change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) area under the curve 0–3 hours (FEV₁ AUC_0–3h) and trough FEV₁.

Results

Overall, 213 patients were randomized, of whom 106 received tiotropium/olodaterol (PIF <60 L/min, 55; PIF ≥60 L/min, 51) and 107 received placebo (PIF <60 L/min, 55; PIF ≥60 L/min, 52). For FEV₁ AUC_0–3h, the adjusted mean change from baseline versus placebo was 336 mL (95% confidence interval [CI] 246–425 mL; P<0.0001) in the PIF <60 L/min group and 321 mL (95% CI 233–409 mL; P<0.0001) in the PIF ≥60 L/min group. For trough FEV₁, the adjusted mean change from baseline versus placebo was 201 mL (95% CI 117–286 mL; P<0.0001) in the PIF <60 L/min group and 217 mL (95% CI 135–299 mL; P<0.0001) in the PIF ≥60 L/min group.

Conclusion

In the TRONARTO study, which included patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and varying inspiratory flow abilities, treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol resulted in significant lung function improvements versus placebo. This SMI can be used irrespective of the PIF that a patient can generate.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Budesonide/Glycopyrronium/Formoterol Fumarate versus Other Triple Combinations in COPD: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience further exacerbations or symptoms, despite being prescribed dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) or inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA therapies, triple ICS/LAMA/LABA therapy is recommended. A previous network meta-analysis showed comparable efficacy of the ICS/LAMA/LABA, budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR) 320/18/9.6 µg, to other fixed-dose and open combination triple therapies at 24 weeks in COPD. Subsequently, the ETHOS study was published, including data for 8509 patients, assessing the efficacy and safety of BUD/GLY/FOR over 52 weeks. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the relative efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BUD/GLY/FOR 320/18/9.6 µg with other fixed-dose and open combination triple therapies in COPD over 52 weeks, including data from ETHOS. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify ≥ 10-week randomized controlled trials, including ≥ 1 fixed-dose or open combination triple-therapy arm, in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. The methodologic quality and risk of bias of included studies were assessed. Study results were combined using a three-level hierarchical Bayesian NMA model to assess efficacy and safety outcomes at or over 24 and 52 weeks. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were used to assess heterogeneity across studies. Nineteen studies (n = 37,741 patients) met the inclusion criteria of the review; 15 contributed to the base case network. LAMA/LABA dual combinations were combined as a single treatment group to create a connected network. Across all outcomes for exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, health-related quality of life, safety, and tolerability, the efficacy and safety of BUD/GLY/FOR were comparable to those of other triple ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol and beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate) and open combinations at or over 24 and 52 weeks. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regression results for exacerbation outcomes were broadly in line with the base case NMA. In this NMA, BUD/GLY/FOR 320/18/9.6 μg showed comparable efficacy versus other ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose or open combination therapies in terms of reducing exacerbation rates and improving lung function, symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, in line with previously published meta-analysis results of triple combinations in COPD. The safety and tolerability profile of BUD/GLY/FOR was also found to be comparable to other triple combination therapies.

A Dose-Ranging Study of the Novel Inhaled Dual PDE 3 and 4 Inhibitor Ensifentrine in Patients with COPD Receiving Maintenance Tiotropium Therapy

PURPOSE

Ensifentrine is an inhaled dual inhibitor of phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and 4 that has shown bronchodilatory effects and symptom improvement in clinical studies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and anti-inflammatory effects in healthy volunteers in a model of COPD-like inflammation. This manuscript reports on the results of the clinical study examining if ensifentrine provides meaningful improvements in lung function when added on to tiotropium over 4 weeks in patients with COPD who have impaired lung function and symptoms despite treatment with tiotropium.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study recruited patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Patients were randomized to open-label tiotropium once daily (QD) plus (+) blinded escalating doses of ensifentrine or placebo twice daily (BID). Effects on lung function, symptoms and quality of life (QoL) were assessed over 4 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 416 COPD patients were randomized and 413 received at least one dose of blinded study medication + tiotropium. All ensifentrine doses produced a significant and dose-dependent increase in peak forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline to Week 4, with placebo-corrected differences of 77.5 mL when added to tiotropium (0.375 mg; 95% CI: 4.8, 150.1 mL; p=0.037) to 124.2 mL (3 mg; 95% CI: 51.0, 196.8 mL; p<0.001). A significant increase in average FEV1 (0-12h) was shown at Week 4 with the 3 mg dose (87.3 mL; 95% CI: 20.0, 154.5 mL; p=0.011). Clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire - COPD (SGRQ-C) additive to tiotropium were observed at Week 4, exceeding the minimally clinically important difference of 4 units with the 1.5 and 3 mg doses. Adverse events were similar in frequency between the ensifentrine and placebo arms.

CONCLUSION

This clinical study demonstrated that nebulized ensifentrine added on to tiotropium produced clinically important improvements in lung function and QoL over 4 weeks in COPD patients receiving tiotropium who demonstrated symptoms and lung function impairment, with a safety profile similar to placebo.

Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate in COPD: An Analysis of Clinical Trial and Real-World Data

Background

The influence of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) on dose delivery from dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and association with treatment efficacy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been fully determined. In vitro studies have demonstrated adequate dose delivery through ELLIPTA DPI at PIF ≥30 L/min. This analysis of two clinical trials and a real-world population of COPD patients determined spirometric PIF distribution, and explored the relationship between PIF and outcomes in the trials.

Methods

The replicate Phase IV, 12-week, randomized, double-blind 207608/207609 (NCT03478683/NCT03478696) trials evaluated fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol via ELLIPTA DPI versus budesonide/formoterol+tiotropium in COPD patients. This post hoc analysis assessed spirometric PIF distribution at screening and relationship between PIF and lung function outcomes in the pooled 207608/207609 population. Spirometric PIF distributions in a real-world population of COPD patients were evaluated by retrospective analysis of the Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) database to assess similarities between clinical trial and real-world populations.

Results

A total of 1460 (207608/207609) and 3282 (KPNW) patients were included. There was considerable overlap between spirometric PIF distributions for both populations. Overall, 99.7% and 99.8% of the 207608/207609 and KPNW populations, respectively, reported spirometric PIF ≥50 L/min, estimated as equivalent to ELLIPTA PIFR ≥30 L/min. In the 207608/207609 combined analysis, there was no significant interaction between spirometric PIF and treatment for lung function endpoints, indicating treatment effect is independent of PIF.

Conclusion

Nearly all COPD patients in the 207608/207609 and KPNW populations achieved spirometric PIF values estimated as equivalent to PIFR of ≥30 L/min through the ELLIPTA DPI. Lack of correlation between spirometric PIF at screening and treatment efficacy aligns with consistent dose performance from the ELLIPTA DPI across a wide range of PIFs, achieved by patients with COPD of all severities.

Reduced All-Cause Mortality in the ETHOS Trial of Budesonide/Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Parallel-Group Study

Rationale: In the phase III, 52-week ETHOS (Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease) trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02465567), triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) significantly reduced all-cause mortality compared with glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF). However, 384 of 8,509 patients were missing vital status at Week 52 in the original analyses.Objectives: To assess the robustness of the ETHOS mortality findings after additional data retrieval for patients missing Week 52 vital status in the original analyses.Methods: Patients with moderate to very severe COPD and prior history of exacerbation received twice-daily dosing with 320/18/9.6 μg of BGF (BGF 320), 160/18/9.6 μg of BGF (BGF 160), 18/9.6 μg of GFF, or 320/9.6 μg of budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) (all delivered via a single metered-dose Aerosphere inhaler). Time to death (all-cause) was a prespecified secondary endpoint.Measurements and Main Results: In the final retrieved dataset, which included Week 52 vital status for 99.6% of the intent-to-treat population, risk of death with BGF 320 was significantly lower than GFF (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.80; unadjusted P = 0.0035). There were no significant differences in mortality when comparing BGF 320 with BFF (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.16; P = 0.1721), nor were significant differences observed when comparing BGF 160 against either dual comparator. Results were similar when the first 30, 60, or 90 days of treatment were excluded from the analysis. Deaths from cardiovascular causes occurred in 0.5%, 0.8%, 1.4%, and 0.5% of patients in the BGF 320, BGF 160, GFF, and BFF groups, respectively.Conclusions: Using final retrieved vital status data, triple therapy with BGF 320 reduced the risk of death compared with GFF, but was not shown to significantly reduce the risk of death compared with BFF, in patients with COPD. Triple therapy containing a lower dose of inhaled corticosteroid (BGF 160) was not shown to significantly reduce the risk of death compared with the dual therapy comparators.

Real-World Evidence: Bridging Gaps in Evidence to Guide Payer Decisions

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are preferred by payers for health technology assessments and coverage decisions. However, the inclusion of a highly selective patient population and the rigorously controlled conditions in RCTs may not be reflective of real-world clinical practice. Real-world evidence (RWE) obtained from an analysis of real-world data (RWD) from observational studies can bridge gaps in evidence not addressed by RCTs and is thus valuable to public and private payers for decision-making. Through a broad literature search to obtain insights into payers' experience, we found that payers have concerns about real-world studies with respect to data quality, poor internal validity, potential bias, and lack of meaningful endpoints. However, they valued RWE to fill evidence gaps not addressed by RCTs, such as high-quality, real-world, long-term effectiveness and safety data; head-to-head drug comparisons; cost analyses for tiering formulary placement; medication use and adherence patterns; identification of relevant responder and non-responder patient subpopulations; and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RWE can be used to assess clinically meaningful endpoints and gauge the impact of interventions on the quality of healthcare. Here, we review how payers use or can use RWD on the comparative effectiveness and safety of treatments, PROs, medication adherence and persistence, prescribing patterns, healthcare resource utilization, and patient characteristics and/or biomarkers associated with treatment response when making health technology assessments and payer coverage decisions across therapeutic areas.

Benralizumab for adolescent patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma: Safety and efficacy after 3 years of treatment

BACKGROUND

Adults and adolescents with severe asthma who completed the 48-week SIROCCO and 56-week CALIMA phase III benralizumab trials entered the safety extension study BORA (NCT02258542). The continued safety and efficacy of benralizumab in the first year of BORA (year 2 of treatment) have been reported.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to report outcomes for adolescents during years 2 and 3 of treatment in BORA.

METHODS

Patients on benralizumab 30 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W) in SIROCCO/CALIMA continued their regimens in BORA (Q4W/Q4W and Q8W/Q8W, respectively), whereas placebo patients were rerandomized 1:1 to benralizumab (placebo/Q4W and placebo/Q8W, respectively) for 108 weeks. The primary outcome was safety; secondary outcomes included reduction in annual asthma exacerbation rate and change from baseline in prebronchodilator FEV₁.

RESULTS

Adolescents (N = 86) were treated with benralizumab Q8W (n = 61) or Q4W (n = 25); 69 completed treatment (Q8W: n = 51; Q4W: n = 18). For Q4W and Q8W regimens, rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 68% (17 of 25) and 74% (45 of 61), respectively, rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 68% (17/25) and 74% (45/61), TEAEs leading to discontinuation were 4% (1/25) and 0%, serious AEs were 8% (2/25) and 7% (4/61), and no deaths occurred. In efficacy analyses, 69% (42 of 61) Q8W patients were exacerbation-free (placebo/Q8W: 62% [18 of 29], Q8W/Q8W: 75% [24 of 32]). Mean ± SD change in FEV₁ at week 108 versus BORA baseline was 0.327 ± 0.452 L (placebo/Q8W) and 0.323 ± 0.558 L (Q8W/Q8W).

CONCLUSIONS

Safety and efficacy profiles in this 2-year extension study (up to 3 years of benralizumab treatment in adolescents) were consistent with previous findings.

Budesonide/Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler Improves Exacerbation Outcomes in Patients with COPD without a Recent Exacerbation History: A Subgroup Analysis of KRONOS

Purpose

In the Phase III, 24-week KRONOS study (NCT02497001), triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI) reduced exacerbation rates versus glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) MDI in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and no requirement for a history of exacerbations. We report a post hoc analysis investigating whether the benefits observed were driven by patients with ≥1 exacerbation in the 12 months prior to the study.

Patients and Methods

Patients received BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 µg, GFF MDI 18/9.6 µg, budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) MDI 320/9.6 µg, or budesonide/formoterol fumarate dry powder inhaler (BUD/FORM DPI) 400/12 µg twice-daily. Post hoc analyses were conducted on exacerbation and lung function results from patients with and without a documented exacerbation in the 12 months prior to the study.

Results

Overall, 74% (1411/1896) of the modified-intent-to-treat (mITT) population had no moderate/severe exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the study. BGF MDI reduced exacerbation rates versus GFF MDI in the prior (58%; unadjusted p=0.0003) and no prior (48%; unadjusted p=0.0001) exacerbations subgroups. The magnitude of reduction in exacerbation rates was generally similar within subgroups for BGF MDI versus BFF MDI and BUD/FORM DPI. In the prior exacerbations subgroup, risk during treatment for time to first exacerbation was lower with BGF MDI versus GFF MDI (p=0.0022) and BFF MDI (p=0.0110); excluding the first 30 days of data yielded similar results. The magnitude of reduction in exacerbation rates for BGF MDI compared with GFF MDI increased with eosinophil count.

Conclusion

In patients with or without a history of exacerbations in the 12 months prior to the study, BGF MDI reduced exacerbation rates versus GFF MDI, suggesting results observed in the overall population were not driven by the small subgroup with a prior history of exacerbations.

Unreported and Overlooked: A Post Hoc Analysis of COPD Symptom-Related Attacks from the RISE Study

Purpose

Moderate and severe COPD exacerbations are a significant health-care burden, but patients also experience "mild" exacerbations, or COPD symptom-related attacks, which often go unreported. We aimed to define and then determine the incidence of COPD symptom-related attacks and their impact on future risk of moderate/severe exacerbations, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and lung function. The effect of COPD maintenance therapy on the attack definition was then evaluated by comparing budesonide/formoterol with formoterol alone.

Patients and Methods

This post hoc analysis of the RISE study defined COPD symptom-related attacks as ≥2 consecutive days of both worsening symptoms and increased daily rescue medication use based upon thresholds of >2 and >4 short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) inhalations/day above baseline. The impact of these events on subsequent moderate/severe exacerbation risk was estimated using a time-varying Cox proportional hazards model. The effects of COPD symptom-related attacks on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) were evaluated as average changes from baseline to first post-attack measurement. Rates of attacks were compared between treatment groups using negative binomial regression models.

Results

COPD symptom-related attacks elevated the risk of subsequent moderate/severe exacerbations at both >2 and >4 inhalations/day above baseline (HR 1.86 and 2.21, respectively; p<0.0001), with a cumulative increase in risk with increasing attacks. HRQoL and lung function were reduced for patients with ≥1 versus no COPD symptom-related attacks at both rescue medication thresholds. There were fewer COPD symptom-related attacks with budesonide/formoterol versus formoterol alone, with no increased risk of pneumonia and lower respiratory tract infections.

Conclusion

COPD symptom-related attacks are common and typically unreported. Importantly, these attacks can account for considerable morbidity and should not be regarded as "mild". Detection of such exacerbations may be valuable in identifying patients at greater risk and guiding preventive therapeutic interventions.

Effect of Inhaled Corticosteroid Withdrawal on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations in Patients Taking Triple Therapy at Baseline

Purpose

In the Withdrawal of Inhaled Steroids during Optimized Bronchodilator Management (WISDOM) trial, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) withdrawal in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receiving triple therapy (long-acting β₂-agonist+long-acting muscarinic antagonist+ICS) did not change moderate/severe exacerbation risk. However, many patients were not taking triple therapy before study participation. This analysis was conducted to eliminate the impact of non-ICS users on WISDOM results by re-analyzing the data using only the subset of patients who were taking triple therapy at screening.

Patients and Methods

The effect of ICS withdrawal on moderate/severe exacerbation risk in the subgroup of WISDOM patients taking triple therapy before enrolling in the study was evaluated in this post hoc analysis. Additionally, the effect of ICS withdrawal in patients with a history of ≥2 exacerbations in the previous year and various blood eosinophil counts was assessed.

Results

Overall, 39.0% (n=970: ICS continuation, 479; ICS withdrawal, 491) of the WISDOM trial population were taking triple therapy at screening. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between groups. Moderate/severe exacerbation risk between the ICS withdrawal and continuation groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89–1.25) was not increased in patients taking triple therapy at screening versus the overall trial population (HR [95% CI]: 1.06 [0.94–1.19]). However, in patients with a history of ≥2 exacerbations, exacerbation risk (HR [95% CI]) increased nominally with blood eosinophil count from 1.07 [0.81–1.41] (≥100 cells/μL) to 1.45 [0.58–3.60] (≥400 cells/μL).

Conclusion

Consistent with results from the overall WISDOM trial population, ICS withdrawal did not increase exacerbation risk in patients taking triple therapy at screening. Patients with a history of frequent exacerbations and higher blood eosinophil counts could benefit from continuation of ICS-based therapy.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/q_gF6ypMYJw

Efficacy of Tiotropium/Olodaterol Compared with Tiotropium as a First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Patients with COPD Who Are Naïve to LAMA, LABA and ICS: Pooled Analysis of Four Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol compared with tiotropium in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been demonstrated in a large clinical programme. Currently, randomised controlled trial (RCT) data on dual bronchodilation as first-line maintenance therapy are limited. In this post hoc analysis of pooled data from four RCTs, we compared the efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium as maintenance therapy in patients with COPD who were not receiving maintenance treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) or inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) ("maintenance naïve") at study entry.

METHODS

TONADO^® 1/2 (52 weeks) and OTEMTO^® 1/2 (12 weeks) were phase III RCTs in patients with COPD. TONADO 1/2 and OTEMTO 1/2 enrolled patients with post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) < 80% predicted (lower limit FEV₁ ≥ 30% in OTEMTO 1/2 only). We examined the effect of tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg versus tiotropium 5 µg on trough FEV₁ response, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score at 12 weeks in four pooled studies.

RESULTS

The pooled analysis included 1078 maintenance-naïve patients. There were significant improvements with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium in trough FEV₁ [0.056 L; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.033, 0.079; P < 0.0001], SGRQ score (- 1.780; 95% CI - 3.126 to - 0.434; P = 0.0096) and TDI score (0.409; 95% CI 0.077, 0.741; P = 0.0158) at week 12. For patients receiving tiotropium/olodaterol, the odds of achieving a minimal clinically important difference from baseline in any of the analysed outcomes (FEV₁ ≥ 0.1 L, SGRQ ≥ 4.0 points or TDI ≥ 1.0 point) were higher versus tiotropium.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who were maintenance naïve at baseline, treatment initiation with tiotropium/olodaterol resulted in greater improvements in lung function, health status and dyspnoea severity compared with tiotropium alone, without compromising patient safety. These results support the use of dual bronchodilation with tiotropium/olodaterol as first-line maintenance treatment in patients with COPD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: TONADO^® 1 and 2 (NCT01431274 and NCT01431287, registered 8 September 2011) and OTEMTO^® 1 and 2 (NCT01964352 and NCT02006732, registered 14 October 2013).

COPD Maintenance Therapy with Tiotropium/Olodaterol Compared with Tiotropium: An Analysis in the Absence of Additional ICS Therapy

The American Thoracic Society guidelines recommend long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) dual bronchodilation over LAMA or LABA monotherapy as maintenance therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease suffering from dyspnea or exercise intolerance. Previous studies, which included patients receiving background inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have shown the benefits of dual bronchodilation over monotherapy. This analysis aimed to confirm the benefits of LAMA/LABA over LAMA alone, without any confounding effects from ICS use. This pooled post hoc analysis compared the efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol with tiotropium alone in patients from the TONADO^® and OTEMTO^® clinical trials who were not receiving ICS at study entry or during the studies. We analyzed change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) score in all patients, by Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage, baseline SGRQ score, and Baseline Dyspnea Index score. In this analysis of 1596 patients, tiotropium/olodaterol improved trough FEV₁, SGRQ and TDI compared with tiotropium alone. The observed mean differences were: trough FEV₁, 0.054 L (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.036, 0.073; p < 0.001); SGRQ, -1.918 (95% CI -2.994, -0.843; p < 0.001); and TDI, 0.575 (95% CI 0.301, 0.848; p < 0.001). Similar improvements were seen in each of the subgroup analyses. Tiotropium/olodaterol therapy significantly improved lung function, symptoms and health status compared with tiotropium alone. In a population free from ICS treatment, these data confirm the benefits of dual bronchodilation versus monotherapy.

Benefits of Tiotropium/Olodaterol Compared with Tiotropium in Patients with COPD Receiving only LAMA at Baseline: Pooled Analysis of the TONADO® and OTEMTO® Studies

INTRODUCTION

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy report recommends long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) or long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA) as first-line treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but many patients remain symptomatic on monotherapy and escalation to dual-bronchodilator therapy may be warranted.

METHODS

TONADO^® 1&2 and OTEMTO^® 1&2 assessed lung function and patient-reported outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe (OTEMTO) or moderate-to-very-severe (TONADO) COPD. This pooled post hoc analysis included patients treated with LAMA monotherapy at baseline who were randomised to receive either 5 µg tiotropium (LAMA) or 5/5 µg tiotropium/olodaterol (LAMA/LABA). We assessed changes from baseline and responder rates for trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and the Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI).

RESULTS

Overall, 151 patients received tiotropium; 148 received tiotropium/olodaterol. Mean differences from baseline with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium were + 0.074 l (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.033, 0.115; P = 0.0004) for trough FEV₁, - 2.675 (95% CI - 5.060, - 0.291; P = 0.0280) for SGRQ and 1.148 (95% CI 0.564, 1.732; P = 0.0001) for TDI. Patients were more likely to respond when treated with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium for trough FEV₁ (odds ratio [OR] 3.14, 95% CI 1.94, 5.06; P < 0.0001), SGRQ (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.93, 2.40; P = 0.0980) and TDI (OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.71, 4.60; P < 0.0001). Minimum clinically important difference from baseline in any of the analysed outcomes (FEV₁ ≥ 0.1 l, SGRQ ≥ 4.0 points or TDI ≥ 1.0 point) was more likely in patients treated with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.32, 4.51; P = 0.0046).

CONCLUSION

In patients with COPD receiving only LAMA monotherapy, treatment escalation to tiotropium/olodaterol resulted in statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in lung function, health status and breathlessness. These results support early therapy optimisation to dual bronchodilation with tiotropium/olodaterol in patients receiving tiotropium alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TONADO^® 1 was registered in the US National Library of Medicine on 9 September 2011 (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01431274). TONADO^® 2 was registered in the US National Library of Medicine on 9 September 2011 (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01431287). OTEMTO^® 1 was registered in the US National Library of Medicine on 17 October 2013 (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01964352). OTEMTO^® 2 was registered in the US National Library of Medicine on 10 December 2013 (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02006732).

Spontaneous Pneumomediastinum/Pneumothorax in Patients With COVID-19

No spontaneous air leak case series have been described in the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) patient population thus far. We described seven spontaneous air leak cases we found in our coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive 976-patient cohort. Five out of seven patients eventually required mechanical ventilation, and one of these patients died. All of our patients who demonstrated radiological air leaks after intubation died. No other precipitating factors offered in the literature thus far played a role in our patient population. We presume that acute lung injury leading to SARS-CoV-2 with associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) predisposes patients to this rare complication.

Triple Inhaled Therapy at Two Glucocorticoid Doses in Moderate-to-Very-Severe COPD

BACKGROUND

Triple fixed-dose regimens of an inhaled glucocorticoid, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been studied at single dose levels of inhaled glucocorticoid, but studies at two dose levels are lacking.

METHODS

In a 52-week, phase 3, randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy at two dose levels of inhaled glucocorticoid in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD and at least one exacerbation in the past year, we assigned patients in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive twice-daily inhaled doses of triple therapy (inhaled glucocorticoid [320 μg or 160 μg of budesonide], a LAMA [18 μg of glycopyrrolate], and a LABA [9.6 μg of formoterol]) or one of two dual therapies (18 μg of glycopyrrolate plus 9.6 μg of formoterol or 320 μg of budesonide plus 9.6 μg of formoterol). The primary end point was the annual rate (the estimated mean number per patient per year) of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations, as analyzed in the modified intention-to-treat population with the use of on-treatment data only.

RESULTS

The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 8509 patients. The annual rates of moderate or severe exacerbations were 1.08 in the 320-μg-budesonide triple-therapy group (2137 patients), 1.07 in the 160-μg-budesonide triple-therapy group (2121 patients), 1.42 in the glycopyrrolate-formoterol group (2120 patients), and 1.24 in the budesonide-formoterol group (2131 patients). The rate was significantly lower with 320-μg-budesonide triple therapy than with glycopyrrolate-formoterol (24% lower: rate ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.83; P<0.001) or budesonide-formoterol (13% lower: rate ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.95; P = 0.003). Similarly, the rate was significantly lower with 160-μg-budesonide triple therapy than with glycopyrrolate-formoterol (25% lower: rate ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.83; P<0.001) or budesonide-formoterol (14% lower: rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.95; P = 0.002). The incidence of any adverse event was similar across the treatment groups (range, 61.7 to 64.5%); the incidence of confirmed pneumonia ranged from 3.5 to 4.5% in the groups that included inhaled glucocorticoid use and was 2.3% in the glycopyrrolate-formoterol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Triple therapy with twice-daily budesonide (at either the 160-μg or 320-μg dose), glycopyrrolate, and formoterol resulted in a lower rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations than glycopyrrolate-formoterol or budesonide-formoterol. (Funded by AstraZeneca, ETHOS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02465567.).

Once-daily single-inhaler versus twice-daily multiple-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD: lung function and health status results from two replicate randomized controlled trials

Background

The comparative efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) triple therapy administered via single or multiple inhalers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been evaluated comprehensively. We conducted two replicate trials comparing single- with multiple-inhaler ICS/LAMA/LABA combination in COPD.

Methods

207608 and 207609 were Phase IV, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, triple-dummy non-inferiority trials comparing once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 μg via Ellipta inhaler, with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400/12 μg via metered-dose inhaler plus once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg via HandiHaler. Patients had symptomatic COPD and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) < 50% predicted, or FEV₁ < 80% predicted and ≥ 2 moderate or 1 severe exacerbations in the prior year. The primary endpoint in both trials was weighted mean change from baseline (wmCFB) in 0–24-h FEV₁ at Week 12. Secondary endpoints included CFB in trough FEV₁ at Day 84 and 85. Other endpoints included serial FEV₁ and health status outcomes at Week 12. Safety was evaluated descriptively.

Results

The modified per-protocol population included 720 and 711 patients in studies 207608 and 207609 (intent-to-treat population: 728 and 732). FF/UMEC/VI was non-inferior to BUD/FOR+TIO for wmCFB in 0–24-h FEV₁ at Week 12 (Study 207608 treatment difference [95% confidence interval]: 15 mL [− 13, 43]; Study 207609: 11 mL [− 20, 41]). FF/UMEC/VI improved trough FEV₁ CFB versus BUD/FOR+TIO at Day 84 and 85 (Day 85 treatment difference: Study 207608: 38 mL [10, 66]; Study 207609: 51 mL [21, 82]) and FEV₁ at 12 and 24 h post-morning dose at Week 12 in both studies. No treatment differences were seen in health status outcomes. Safety profiles were similar between treatments; pneumonia occurred in 7 (< 1%) patients with FF/UMEC/VI and 9 (1%) patients with BUD/FOR+TIO, across both studies.

Conclusions

FF/UMEC/VI was non-inferior to BUD/FOR+TIO for wmCFB in 0–24-h FEV₁ at Week 12 in patients with COPD. Greater improvements in trough and serial FEV₁ measurements at Week 12 with FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR+TIO, together with similar health status improvements and safety outcomes including the incidence of pneumonia, suggest that once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy is a viable option for patients looking to simplify their treatment regimen.

Trial registration

GSK (207608/207609; NCT03478683/NCT03478696).

Benefits of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI) in improving lung function and reducing exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD: a pooled analysis of the PINNACLE studies

Background

The Phase III PINNACLE studies assessed the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI), a dual long-acting bronchodilator for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here we present a pre-specified pooled analysis of PINNACLE-1, PINNACLE-2, and PINNACLE-4.

Methods

PINNACLE-1, -2, and -4 were multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, with no requirement for exacerbation history or a high symptom burden. Patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 μg, glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 18 μg, formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 μg, or placebo MDI, twice-daily for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint of the pooled analysis was the change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at week 24. Secondary endpoints included COPD exacerbations and clinically important deterioration (CID). Adverse events were also assessed.

Results

The pooled intent-to-treat population included 4983 patients; of these, 61.9% had a COPD assessment test (CAT) score ≥15, and 25.0% had experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the past year. At week 24, GFF MDI improved morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ versus GP MDI (least squares mean [LSM] difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 59 mL [43, 75]), FF MDI (65 mL [48, 81]), and placebo MDI (146 mL [125, 166]); all p < 0.0001. GFF MDI reduced the risk of a moderate/severe exacerbation by 18% (p = 0.0168), 15% (p = 0.0628), and 28% (p = 0.0012) compared with GP MDI, FF MDI, and placebo MDI, respectively. In general, exacerbation risk reduction with GFF MDI versus comparators was greater in subgroups of symptomatic patients (CAT ≥15) and those who had an exacerbation history, than in the pooled intent-to-treat population. The risk of CID was also lower with GFF MDI versus GP MDI (23% decrease), FF MDI (17%), and placebo MDI (49%); all p < 0.0001. All treatments were well tolerated, with no unexpected safety signals.

Conclusions

This pooled analysis of the PINNACLE studies demonstrated that GFF MDI improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations compared with monocomponents and placebo in patients with COPD. Exacerbation reductions with GFF MDI versus comparators were generally greater in patients with higher symptom burden and those with exacerbation history.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01854645, NCT01854658, and NCT02343458. Registered 13 May 2013 (NCT01854645, NCT01854658) and 6 January 2015 (NCT02343458).

Goals of COPD treatment: Focus on symptoms and exacerbations

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is currently a leading cause of death worldwide, and its burden is expected to rise in the coming years. Common COPD symptoms include dyspnea, cough and/or sputum production. Some patients may experience acute worsening of symptoms (known as an exacerbation), and therefore require additional therapy. Exacerbations are mainly triggered by respiratory infections and environmental factors. Healthcare professionals face many challenges in COPD management, including the heterogeneity of the disease and under-reporting of symptoms. The authors review these challenges and provide recommendations for the best methods to assess COPD. The goals of COPD treatment include recognising the impact that both symptoms and exacerbations have on patients' lives when considering optimal patient-focused management. The review discusses the need for COPD management strategies to include both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic approaches and provides recommendations for monitoring treatment outcomes and adjusting management strategies accordingly. Novel treatment strategies including precision medicine and point-of-care testing are also discussed.

The Effect of Metabolic Syndrome Status on Lung Function and Patient-reported Outcomes in Patients with COPD Receiving Nebulized Glycopyrrolate

Background

Concurrent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and metabolic syndrome (MetS) represent an important clinical phenotype with overlapping symptomology. The effect of MetS in COPD patients was assessed following treatment with nebulized glycopyrrolate (GLY; administered via eFlow® Closed System Nebulizer).

Methods

Posthoc analyses were performed on pooled lung function, patient-reported outcome (PRO) and safety data by MetS status from patients treated with placebo, GLY 25 and 50 mcg twice daily in two 12-week studies (GOLDEN 3 and 4; N=1293). Patients with MetS were characterized as having ≥ 3 of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m² risk factors. The results are presented for the Food and Drug Administration-approved GLY 25 mcg dose.

Results

A total of25% of patients met MetS criteria.At baseline, the MetS subgroup had higher BMIs, more ex-smokers, greater incidences of cardiovascular risk factors, and MetS-specific risk factors were 2-14 times higher than non-MetS. At 12 weeks, GLY produced significant, clinically important improvements (MetS: 0.121 L; non-MetS: 0.083 L) in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second. In the non-MetS group, significant improvements occurred in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (MetS: -2.28, p=0.157; non-MetS: -3.71) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD tool (MetS: 0.42, p=0.574; non-MetS: -1.61) total scores. Incidence of adverse events was similar with GLY versus placebo regardless of MetS status.

Conclusion

GLY was well-tolerated and significantly improved lung function regardless of MetS status, while significant PRO improvements occurred in non-MetS patients. These results highlight the importance of comorbidities on bronchodilator responses and patient symptoms in COPD patients.

Two-year integrated steroid-sparing analysis and safety of benralizumab for severe asthma

OBJECTIVE

Treatment with benralizumab significantly reduces exacerbations and improves lung function after 1 year and decreases oral corticosteroid (OCS) use after 28 weeks for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. We assessed whether these effects on OCS reduction are sustained for up to an additional year of treatment while maintaining an acceptable safety profile.

METHODS

Data on OCS maintenance dosage were collected for adult patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/μL treated with add-on benralizumab 30 mg (every 4 [Q4W] or 8 weeks [Q8W; first three doses Q4W]) from the 28-week ZONDA study and were integrated with results from the predefined 56-week adult completion phase of the BORA extension study. Efficacy and safety were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

For patients receiving benralizumab Q8W, the median daily OCS dosage reduction of 75% from baseline to end of treatment achieved in ZONDA was sustained at the end of the BORA extension period (median 67% reduction from baseline). This was estimated to result in a median cumulative OCS dosage of 2.98 g over the 1.5-year period for patients receiving benralizumab Q8W compared with 5.74 g if these patients had remained on their baseline OCS dosages prior to benralizumab initiation. All adverse event rates were similar between the BORA extension and ZONDA periods, with no new or unexpected safety findings.

CONCLUSION

This benralizumab 1.5-year integrated analysis demonstrates that OCS reductions and safety were maintained with further follow up and supports long-term use of benralizumab for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Budesonide/Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler Formulated Using Co-Suspension Delivery Technology in Japanese Patients with COPD

Background

Budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI) is a triple fixed-dose combination for COPD. The long-term safety of triple therapy for COPD has not been investigated in Japanese patients. In this 28-week extension study (NCT03262012), we investigated the long-term safety and tolerability of BGF MDI in Japanese patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD who completed the 24-week Phase III randomized, double-blind, multicenter KRONOS study (NCT02497001).

Materials and methods

Patients randomized to BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 μg, glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) MDI 18/9.6 μg, budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) MDI 320/9.6 μg, or budesonide/formoterol fumarate dry powder inhaler (BUD/FORM DPI) 400/12 μg twice-daily in KRONOS continued treatment for up to 28 additional weeks. Safety was evaluated over 52 weeks via adverse event (AE) monitoring, electrocardiograms, clinical laboratory testing, and vital sign measurements.

Results

The safety population included 416 patients who received BGF MDI (n=139), GFF MDI (n=138), BFF MDI (n=70), or BUD/FORM DPI (n=69). Treatment-emergent AE (TEAE) rates were similar across treatment groups (range: 82.6-82.9%). The most frequent TEAEs overall were nasopharyngitis (32.2%) and bronchitis (9.9%). The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was low across groups (range: 0.0-2.9%). Over 52 weeks, the incidence of confirmed pneumonia was 9.4% (BGF MDI), 3.6% (GFF MDI), 5.7% (BFF MDI), and 2.9% (BUD/FORM DPI); in the 28-week extension period, rates were comparable across groups (range: 2.9-5.7%). Six deaths were reported (0.7-2.2% per group); none were considered treatment-related. No clinically meaningful trends were observed in electrocardiograms, laboratory parameters, or vital signs over time in any of the treatment groups.

Conclusion

All treatments were well tolerated over 52 weeks, and the safety profile of BGF MDI was generally comparable to dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA therapies. These findings support the long-term tolerability of BGF MDI in Japanese patients with COPD.

Efficacy and Safety of Budesonide/Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler Formulated Using Co-Suspension Delivery Technology in Japanese Patients with COPD: A Subgroup Analysis of the KRONOS Study

Background

KRONOS, a Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study (NCT02497001) conducted in Canada, China, Japan, and the USA, assessed the efficacy and safety of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI), a triple fixed-dose combination therapy, relative to dual therapies in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Here we present findings from the Japanese subgroup of KRONOS.

Methods

Patients received BGF MDI 320/18/9.6μg, glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) MDI 18/9.6μg, budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) MDI 320/9.6μg, or budesonide/formoterol fumarate dry powder inhaler (BUD/FORM DPI) 400/12μg twice-daily for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) over Weeks 12-24. Symptoms, quality of life, exacerbations, and safety were also assessed.

Results

In total, 416 Japanese patients (21.9% of the global KRONOS population) were randomized and treated with BGF MDI (n=139), GFF MDI (n=138), BFF MDI (n=70), or BUD/FORM DPI (n=69). Nominally significant improvements in the change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough FEV1 over Weeks 12-24 were observed for BGF MDI vs GFF MDI (least squares mean [LSM] difference 37 mL, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3, 72; P=0.0337) and BFF MDI (67 mL; 95% CI 25, 109; P=0.0020). Treatment with BGF MDI led to a nominally significant reduction in the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations vs GFF MDI (rate ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.19, 0.83; P=0.0142). Compared with dual therapies, numerical improvements were observed with BGF MDI for Transition Dyspnea Index focal score and the change from baseline in Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD total score (P≤0.3899). All treatments were generally well tolerated.

Conclusion

BGF MDI nominally significantly improved lung function and numerically improved symptoms vs GFF MDI and BFF MDI. BGF MDI nominally significantly reduced exacerbations vs GFF MDI in Japanese patients with COPD. Efficacy and safety findings were generally comparable to those in the global KRONOS population.

Two-Year Integrated Efficacy And Safety Analysis Of Benralizumab In Severe Asthma

Background

Benralizumab is an interleukin-5 receptor alpha–directed cytolytic monoclonal antibody. Treatment with benralizumab significantly reduces exacerbations and improves lung function after 1 year for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.

Objective

We explored whether benralizumab efficacy was sustained after an additional year of treatment while maintaining an acceptable safety profile.

Methods

Data from the pivotal 48-week SIROCCO and 56-week CALIMA studies were integrated with data from the predefined 56-week adult phase of the BORA extension study to provide a 2-year integrated efficacy and safety analysis of benralizumab. BORA enrolled patients who had completed SIROCCO or CALIMA. Patients receiving benralizumab 30 mg subcutaneously, either every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W; first three doses Q4W), were assessed. Efficacy was evaluated based on baseline blood eosinophil counts from the pivotal studies (≥300 and <300 cells/μL).

Results

Mean treatment exposures were 24.3 (Q4W, n=518) and 24.6 (Q8W, n=512) months. Exacerbation frequency reductions observed in SIROCCO/CALIMA were maintained; 50% of the patients had no exacerbations during the 2-year study period (crude exacerbation rate, Q8W: 0.56 exacerbations/year for patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/μL). Lung function improvements with benralizumab were maintained for 2 years, as represented by increases in mean prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline of 0.343 L and 0.364 L with 1 and 2 years of benralizumab Q8W treatment, respectively, for patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/μL. Health-related quality of life improvements with benralizumab observed in the pivotal studies were also sustained. Adverse events and serious adverse event rates were similar between the BORA extension and SIROCCO/CALIMA periods, with no new or unexpected occurrence of adverse events.

Conclusion

This benralizumab 2-year integrated analysis further supports long-term use of benralizumab for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.

Single-Use Autoinjector Functionality And Reliability For At-Home Administration Of Benralizumab For Patients With Severe Asthma: GRECO Trial Results

Purpose

Accessorized prefilled syringes (APFS) have demonstrated functionality and reliability for subcutaneous (SC) delivery, including self-administration, of benralizumab 30 mg in the clinic or at home. The multicenter, open-label GRECO study (NCT02918071) assessed functionality and reliability of a single-use autoinjector (AI) for at-home benralizumab administration by patients or their caregivers.

Patients and methods

Adults with severe asthma received benralizumab SC injections at the study site at Weeks 0, 4, and 8. The first dose was administered by health care providers. Patients/caregivers had the option of administering the second dose and were required to administer the third dose under supervision. At Weeks 12 and 16, patients/caregivers administered benralizumab via AI at home. After each administration, patients/caregivers completed questionnaires concerning administration and device functioning. All AI devices used were returned for evaluation.

Results

A total of 595 AIs were used for 121 patients (mean age 48.5 years; 64% female) in the clinic and at home. Of 116 participants, 113 (97.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.63–99.46) and 112 (96.6%; 95% CI: 91.41–99.05) successfully administered benralizumab at home at Weeks 12 and 16, respectively; 108 (93.1%; 95% CI: 86.86–96.98) were successful on both occasions. Throughout the study, 10 (1.7%) AI administrations were unsuccessful: 8 (1.3%) because of user error, 1 (0.2%) with undetermined cause, and 1 (0.2%) because of a manufacturing defect. Benralizumab efficacy (assessed by Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 score) and pharmacokinetics for patients using the AI were comparable to published results for patients receiving benralizumab via syringe in a clinical setting. No new or unexpected safety findings were observed.

Conclusion

AIs were functional, reliable, and performed well in the clinic and at home. Nearly all patients and caregivers successfully administered SC benralizumab via AI. Benralizumab availability in AI and APFS could provide patients with choices for self-administration.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy Study of Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler Relative to Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Dry Powder Inhaler in COPD

INTRODUCTION

Glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, is the only approved fixed-dose combination long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) delivered via MDI. Direct comparisons of GFF MDI versus other LAMA/LABAs have not previously been performed. We assessed the efficacy and safety of GFF MDI relative to umeclidinium/vilanterol dry powder inhaler (UV DPI) in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

In this phase IIIb randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, 24-week study, patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 μg (equivalent to glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate 14.4/10 μg; two inhalations per dose, twice-daily; n = 559) or UV DPI 62.5/25 μg (one inhalation, once-daily; n = 560). Primary endpoints were change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) and peak change from baseline in FEV₁ within 2 h post-dose, both over 24 weeks. Additional lung function, symptom and safety endpoints were also assessed.

RESULTS

For the primary endpoints, GFF MDI was non-inferior to UV DPI (using a margin of - 50 mL) for peak FEV₁ (least squares mean [LSM] difference - 3.4 mL, 97.5% confidence interval [CI] - 32.8, 25.9) but not for trough FEV₁ (LSM difference - 87.2 mL; - 117.0, - 57.4). GFF MDI was nominally superior to UV DPI for onset of action (p < 0.0001) and was nominally non-inferior to UV DPI for all symptom endpoints (Transition Dyspnea Index focal score, Early Morning/Night-Time Symptoms COPD instrument scores, and COPD Assessment Test score). Exacerbation and safety findings were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Over 24 weeks of treatment, GFF MDI was non-inferior to UV DPI for peak FEV₁, but not for morning pre-dose trough FEV₁. GFF MDI had a faster onset of action versus UV DPI. There were no clinically meaningful differences between treatments in symptom endpoints. Both treatments were well tolerated with similar safety profiles.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03162055 (Clinicaltrials.gov) FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

A phase III study of triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler 320/18/9.6 μg and 160/18/9.6 μg using co-suspension delivery technology in moderate-to-very severe COPD: The ETHOS study protocol

BACKGROUND

Single inhaler triple therapies providing an inhaled corticosteroid, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and a long-acting β₂-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABAs) are an emerging treatment option for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Nevertheless, questions remain regarding the optimal patient population for triple therapy as well as the benefit:risk ratio of ICS treatment.

METHODS

ETHOS is an ongoing, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group, 52-week study in symptomatic patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and a history of exacerbation(s) in the previous year. Two doses of single inhaler triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 μg and 160/18/9.6 μg) will be compared to glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) MDI 18/9.6 μg and budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) MDI 320/9.6 μg, all formulated using co-suspension delivery technology. Outcomes include the rate of moderate/severe (primary endpoint) and severe COPD exacerbations, symptoms, quality of life, and all-cause mortality. Sub-studies will assess lung function and cardiovascular safety.

STUDY POPULATION

From June 2015-July 2018, 16,044 patients were screened and 8572 were randomized. Preliminary baseline demographics show that 55.9% of patients had experienced ≥2 moderate/severe exacerbations in the previous year, 79.1% were receiving an ICS-containing treatment at study entry, and 59.9% had blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells/mm³.

CONCLUSIONS

ETHOS will provide data on exacerbations, patient-reported outcomes, mortality, and safety in 8572 patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD receiving triple and dual fixed-dose combinations. For the first time, ICS/LAMA/LABA triple therapy with two different doses of ICS will be compared to dual ICS/LABA and LAMA/LABA therapies.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02465567.

Bone and ocular safety of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler in COPD: a 52-week randomized study

Background

Long-term use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) has been associated with increased risk of bone and ocular comorbidities. We evaluated the effects of the triple fixed-dose combination budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, on bone mineral density (BMD) and ocular safety in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

In this extension study, a subset of patients from the 24-week, phase III, randomized, double-blind KRONOS study (NCT02497001) continued treatment (BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 μg, budesonide/formoterol fumarate [BFF] MDI 320/9.6 μg or glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate [GFF] MDI 18/9.6 μg, as a non-steroidal comparator) for an additional 28 weeks. Primary endpoints were percentage change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD and change from baseline in lens opacities classification system III posterior subcapsular cataract (P) score, both at Week 52. Adverse events were also assessed.

Results

In total, 456 patients were included in the safety population (53.1% male, mean age 62.8 years). Changes from baseline in lumbar spine BMD (least squares mean [LSM] range − 0.12 to 0.38%) and P score (LSM range 0.02–0.15) were small for all treatments. Both BGF MDI and BFF MDI were non-inferior to GFF MDI using margins of −2% (BMD) and 0.5 units (P score). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs)  was generally similar among groups. Rates of confirmed pneumonia were low overall (2.4%) and highest in the GFF MDI group (3.4%), followed by BGF MDI (2.1%) and BFF MDI (1.1%). There were no cumulative adverse effects of treatment over time as the incidence and types of TEAEs, were generally similar in the first 24 weeks of the study and after Week 24.

Conclusions

In patients with COPD, both ICS-containing therapies were non-inferior to GFF MDI for the primary BMD and ophthalmological endpoints. Changes from baseline in all three treatment groups over 52 weeks were small and not clinically meaningful. All treatments were well tolerated with no new or unexpected safety findings.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02536508. Registered 27 August 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-019-1126-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Improvements in Lung Function with Nebulized Revefenacin in the Treatment of Patients with Moderate to Very Severe COPD: Results from Two Replicate Phase III Clinical Trials

Background

Revefenacin, a novel, lung-selective, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, has been developed for nebulized therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We present the results of replicate Phase III efficacy and safety studies of revefenacin in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

Methods

In 2 double-blind, parallel-group studies, (Study 0126 and Study 0127), patients ≥ 40 years old were randomized to revefenacin 88 μg, revefenacin 175 μg or placebo administered once daily by standard jet nebulizer for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was 24-hour trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) on day 85. Secondary efficacy endpoints included overall treatment effect (OTE) on trough FEV₁ and peak FEV₁ (0-2 hours after first dose). Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events.

Results

At day 85, revefenacin 88 µg and 175 µg improved trough FEV₁ versus placebo in Study 0126 (by 79 mL [p=0.0003] and 146 mL [p<0.0001]) and Study 0127 (by 160 mL and 147 mL; both p<0.0001). Compared with placebo, pooled data of revefenacin 88 µg and 175 µg increased OTE trough FEV₁ by 115 mL and 142 mL (both p<0.001) and increased peak FEV₁ by 127 mL and 129 mL (both p<0.0001). Revefenacin 175 µg demonstrated greater improvements in FEV₁ in concomitant long-acting beta2-agonist patients and in more severe patients than revefenacin 88 µg. Adverse events were minor.

Conclusion

Revefenacin, administered once daily for 12 weeks to patients with moderate to very severe COPD, demonstrated clinically significant improvements in trough FEV₁ and OTE FEV₁. Revefenacin was generally well tolerated with no major safety concerns.

AMPLIFY: a randomized, Phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol vs monocomponents and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD

Background

AMPLIFY assessed the efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) vs its monocomponents and tiotropium (TIO) in patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD (NCT02796677).

Methods

In this 24-week, Phase III, double-dummy, active-controlled study, symptomatic patients (COPD Assessment Test score ≥10) were randomized to twice-daily AB/FF 400/12 µg, AB 400 µg, or FF 12 µg, or once-daily TIO 18 µg. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline at week 24 in 1-hour morning post-dose FEV₁ (AB/FF vs AB) and in pre-dose (trough) FEV₁ (AB/FF vs FF). Non-inferiority of AB vs TIO in pre-dose FEV₁ was also an objective. Normalized area under the curve (AUC)_{0–3/3 h} FEV₁ and nighttime and early morning symptoms were also assessed. A subgroup participated in a 24-hour serial spirometry sub-study.

Results

A total of 1,594 patients were randomized; 566 entered the sub-study. At week 24, 1-hour post-dose FEV₁ significantly improved with AB/FF vs AB, FF, and TIO (84, 84, and 92 mL; all P<0.0001). AB/FF significantly improved trough FEV₁ vs FF (55 mL, P<0.001) and AB was non-inferior to TIO. AB/FF significantly improved AUC_{0–3/3 h} FEV₁ vs all comparators (P<0.0001) and provided significant improvements in early morning symptoms vs TIO. The 24-hour spirometry demonstrated significantly greater improvements with AB/FF in AUC_{12–24/12 h} vs all comparators, and in AUC_{0–24/24 h} vs FF or TIO at week 24.

Conclusion

In patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD, twice-daily AB/FF significantly improved lung function vs monocomponents and TIO, and early morning symptom control vs TIO.

Rapid onset of effect of benralizumab on morning peak expiratory flow in severe, uncontrolled asthma

BACKGROUND

Benralizumab is a unique eosinophil-depleting monoclonal antibody that significantly reduces asthma exacerbations, improves lung function and asthma symptoms, and permits the reduction of maintenance oral corticosteroid dosage for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To assess benralizumab's onset of action and efficacy by examining change in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) after initiation of treatment in the phase 3 clinical trials SIROCCO, CALIMA, and ZONDA.

METHODS

Mixed-model repeated-measures analysis was used to calculate PEF using daily least squares mean changes from baseline in morning PEF as well as differences between the benralizumab every 8 weeks (first 3 doses every 4 weeks) and placebo groups. A Bayesian nonlinear mixed-effects approach with an exponential relationship was used to model trial data to determine time to clinically meaningful improvement in morning PEF (defined as ≥25 L/min).

RESULTS

Least squares mean morning PEF improvement from baseline was numerically greater by Day 2 after initiation of benralizumab therapy in all 3 trials. The Bayesian nonlinear mixed-effects model indicated that PEF improvement reached the clinically meaningful threshold within 3 weeks in SIROCCO and CALIMA and 2 weeks in ZONDA.

CONCLUSION

In 3 phase 3 randomized clinical trials, benralizumab provided notable improvement in morning PEF 2 days after initiation and clinically meaningful improvements within 3 weeks for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. The rapid improvement in PEF demonstrated in these trials suggests that benralizumab's unique mechanism of action rapidly improves lung function for patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01928771 (SIROCCO), NCT01914757 (CALIMA), and NCT02075255 (ZONDA).

Differences in health care outcomes between postdischarge COPD patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist via dry-powder inhalers and pressurized metered-dose inhalers

Purpose

The aim of this study was to examine real-world differences in health care resource use (HRU) and costs among COPD patients in the USA treated with a dry powder inhaler (DPI) or pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) following a COPD-related hospitalization.

Methods

This retrospective analysis used the Truven MarketScan^® databases. Eligibility criteria included 1) age ≥40 years, 2) COPD diagnosis, 3) inpatient admission with a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation, 4) inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) prescription within 10 days of hospital discharge (index date), and 5) continuous enrollment for 12 months preindex and 90 days postindex. Outcomes included pre- and postindex HRU and costs. DPI and pMDI groups were compared on postindex outcomes via multivariate models controlling for demographic and baseline characteristics.

Results

The sample included 1,960 DPI and 1,086 pMDI ICS/LABA patients. During the preindex period, pMDI patients were significantly more likely to be prescribed a short-acting β-agonist, experienced more COPD exacerbation-related hospital days, and had a greater number of pulmonologist visits compared to DPI patients (P<0.05), all suggestive of greater disease severity. However, multivariate models revealed that pMDI patients incurred 10% lower all-cause postindex costs (predicted mean costs [2016 US dollars]: $2,673 vs $2,956) and 19% lower COPD-related costs (predicted mean costs: $138 vs $169; P<0.05). Additionally, pMDI patients were 28% less likely to experience a COPD exacerbation-related hospital readmission within 60 days postdischarge compared to the DPI patients (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.52–0.99, P<0.05).

Conclusion

Despite greater COPD-related HRU and costs preceding index hospitalization, US patients using a pMDI after hospital discharge incurred significantly lower all-cause and COPD-related health care costs compared with those using a DPI, in addition to a decreased likelihood of a COPD exacerbation-related hospital readmission. Results suggest that inhaler device type may influence COPD outcomes and that COPD patients may derive greater clinical benefit from treatment delivered via pMDI vs DPI.

Effects of baseline symptom burden on treatment response in COPD

Rationale

In symptomatic patients with COPD, the decision whether to initiate maintenance treatment with a single agent or a combination of long-acting bronchodilators remains unclear.

Objective

To investigate whether baseline symptomatic status influences response to tiotropium/olodaterol treatment.

Materials and methods

Post hoc analysis of the randomized OTEMTO^® studies (NCT01964352; NCT02006732), in which patients with moderate-to-severe COPD received placebo, tiotropium 5 µg, tiotropium/olodaterol 2.5/5 µg, or tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg once daily for 12 weeks via the Respimat^® inhaler (Boehringer Ingelheim, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany). Impact of baseline symptomatic status (modified Medical Research Council [mMRC] score) on response to treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg, tiotropium 5 µg, or placebo at Week 12 was assessed by St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and response rate, transition dyspnea index (TDI) focal score and response rate, and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second response.

Results

Tiotropium/olodaterol improved SGRQ total scores and response rates compared with placebo and tiotropium for patients with baseline mMRC scores 0–1 and ≥2. For tiotropium/olodaterol vs tiotropium, greater improvements were observed for patients with mMRC ≥2 (SGRQ score adjusted mean treatment difference −3.44 [95% CI: −5.43, −1.46]; P=0.0007; SGRQ response rate ORs 2.09 [95% CI: 1.41, 3.10]; P=0.0002). Dyspnea, measured by TDI score, was consistently improved with tiotropium/olodaterol vs placebo for patients with mMRC scores 0–1 and ≥2 (adjusted mean treatment difference 1.63 [95% CI: 1.06, 2.20]; P<0.0001 and 1.60 [95% CI: 1.09, 2.10]; P<0.0001, respectively). In patients with mMRC scores 0–1 and ≥2, tiotropium/olodaterol consistently improved TDI response rate and lung function vs placebo and tiotropium.

Conclusions

Patients with COPD with more severe baseline dyspnea appear to derive greater health status benefit with tiotropium/olodaterol compared with tiotropium alone.

Efficacy and Safety of Nebulized Glycopyrrolate/eFlow® Closed System in Patients with Moderate-to-Very-Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Pre-Existing Cardiovascular Risk Factors

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of pre-existing cardiovascular (CV) risk factors on the efficacy and safety of nebulized glycopyrrolate (GLY) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: A total of 2379 patients from 3 phase III studies (12-week, placebo-controlled Glycopyrrolate for Obstructive Lung Disease via Electronic Nebulizer [GOLDEN] -3 and -4, and 48-week, active-controlled GOLDEN-5) stratified by high (n=1526) or low (n=853) CV risk were randomized to placebo, GLY 25 mcg or 50 mcg twice daily, or tiotropium (TIO; 18 mcg once daily). Safety, lung function, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and exacerbations were assessed by CV risk. Results: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar across CV risk subgroups, with serious TEAEs higher in the high CV risk subgroup. In the 12-week studies, discontinuation due to TEAEs with GLY 25 mcg and 50 mcg was similar between CV risk subgroups, and lower than placebo (high risk: 6.2%, 3.6%, 9.0%; low risk: 3.2%, 4.5%, 9.9%, respectively). In the 48-week, open-label study, discontinuation rates were higher with GLY versus TIO (high risk: 10.7%, 3.7%; low risk: 8.7%, 1.2%, respectively). Rates of CV events of special interest were similar across CV risk subgroups. Regardless of CV risk, GLY led to significant improvements in efficacy and PRO assessments at 12 weeks versus placebo, whereas changes were similar between GLY and TIO at 48 weeks, except for PROs in the low risk subgroup. Exacerbation rates were similar across all treatment groups. Conclusions: Nebulized GLY had an acceptable safety profile and improved lung function and PROs in COPD patients, irrespective of CV risk status.

Long-term safety and efficacy of benralizumab in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma: 1-year results from the BORA phase 3 extension trial

BACKGROUND

Benralizumab is an interleukin-5 receptor α-directed cytolytic monoclonal antibody that has been shown to safely reduce exacerbations and improve lung function for patients with asthma. We assessed the long-term safety and efficacy of benralizumab for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 extension study at 447 sites in 24 countries. Eligible patients had to have completed the SIROCCO or CALIMA trials and remained on subcutaneous benralizumab 30 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W). Patients who had received placebo in those trials were re-randomised in a 1:1 ratio, using an interactive web-based system, to benralizumab 30 mg either Q4W or Q8W (first three doses 4 weeks apart). Treatment lasted for 56 weeks for adult patients (age ≥18 years) and 108 weeks for adolescent patients (age 12-17 years). The primary endpoint was the safety and tolerability of the two dosing regimens of benralizumab up to 68 weeks for adult patients (including the follow-up visit post-treatment) and up to 56 weeks for adolescent patients. This endpoint was assessed in the full analysis set, which included all patients from the SIROCCO and CALIMA predecessor studies who received at least one dose of study treatment in BORA and did not continue into another trial. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02258542).

FINDINGS

Between Nov 19, 2014, and July 6, 2016, we enrolled 1926 patients, of whom 633 had received benralizumab Q4W and 639 had received benralizumab Q8W in SIROCCO or CALIMA. The remaining 654 patients had received placebo in those trials and were randomly re-assigned in this trial to receive benralizumab Q4W (n=320) or Q8W (n=334). 1576 patients, including 783 who received benralizumab Q4W (265 newly assigned) and 793 who received benralizumab Q8W (281 newly assigned), were included in the full analysis set. The most common adverse events in all groups were viral upper respiratory tract infection (14-16%) and worsening asthma (7-10%). The most common serious adverse events were worsening asthma (3-4%), pneumonia (<1% to 1%), and pneumonia caused by bacterial infection (0-1%). The percentages of patients who had any on-treatment adverse event, any serious adverse event, or any adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation during BORA were similar between patients originally assigned benralizumab and those originally assigned placebo and between benralizumab treatment regimens. The percentage of patients who had any adverse event was similar between SIROCCO or CALIMA (71-75%; benralizumab group only) and BORA (65-71%), as was the percentage of patients who had an adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation (2% in SIROCCO and CALIMA vs 2-3% in BORA).

INTERPRETATION

The 2 years of safety results validate that observations observed in the first year of benralizumab continued through a second year of treatment. No new consequences of long-term eosinophil depletion occurred, and the incidence of other adverse events, including opportunistic infections, were similar during the second year.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca and Kyowa Hakko Kirin.

Budesonide/formoterol MDI with co-suspension delivery technology in COPD: the TELOS study

TELOS compared budesonide (BD)/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FF) metered dose inhaler (BFF MDI), formulated using innovative co-suspension delivery technology that enables consistent aerosol performance, with its monocomponents and budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate dry powder inhaler (DPI) in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), without a requirement for an exacerbation history.

In this phase III, double-blind, parallel-group, 24-week study (NCT02766608), patients were randomised to BFF MDI 320/10 µg (n=664), BFF MDI 160/10 µg (n=649), FF MDI 10 µg (n=648), BD MDI 320 µg (n=209) or open-label budesonide/formoterol DPI 400/12 µg (n=219). Primary end-points were change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) and FEV₁ area under the curve from 0–4 h (AUC_0–4). Time to first and rate of moderate/severe exacerbations were assessed.

BFF MDI 320/10 µg improved pre-dose trough FEV₁versus FF MDI (least squares mean (LSM) 39 mL; p=0.0018), and BFF MDI 320/10 µg and 160/10 µg improved FEV₁ AUC_0–4versus BD MDI (LSM 173 mL and 157 mL, respectively; both p<0.0001) at week 24. BFF MDI 320/10 µg and 160/10 µg improved time to first and rate of moderate/severe exacerbations versus FF MDI. Treatments were well tolerated, with pneumonia incidence ranging from 0.5–1.4%.

BFF MDI improved lung function versus monocomponents and exacerbations versus FF MDI in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

TELOS: co-suspension delivery technology budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate in a metered dose inhaler improved lung function and time to first and rate of exacerbations versus monocomponents in patients with moderate to very severe COPDhttp://ow.ly/ffWo30lrJL6

Triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate with co-suspension delivery technology versus dual therapies in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (KRONOS): a double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids have been used in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but the potential benefits of their use in triple therapy are not well known. We aimed to compare the efficacy of a triple therapy with corresponding dual therapies in symptomatic patients with moderate to very severe COPD, without a requirement for a history of exacerbations.

METHODS

In this double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre phase 3 randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients from hospitals and care centres in Canada, China, Japan, and the USA. Eligible patients were 40-80 years of age, were current or former smokers (with a smoking history of ≥10 pack-years), had an established clinical history of COPD, and were symptomatic for COPD, despite receiving two or more inhaled maintenance therapies for at least 6 weeks before screening. We randomly assigned patients (2:2:1:1) using an interactive web response system to receive budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered-dose inhaler 320/18/9·6 μg (BGF MDI), glycopyrrolate/ formoterol fumarate metered-dose inhaler 18/9·6 μg (GFF MDI), budesonide/formoterol fumarate metered-dose inhaler 320/9·6 μg (BFF MDI), or open-label budesonide/formoterol fumarate dry-powder inhaler 400/12 μg (BUD/ FORM DPI). Primary endpoints for the Europe/Canada statistical analysis approach were FEV₁ area under the curve from 0-4 h (AUC_0-4) for BGF MDI versus BFF MDI and BGF MDI versus BUD/FORM DPI over 24 weeks; and change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ for BGF MDI versus GFF MDI and non-inferiority of BFF MDI versus BUD/FORM DPI (margin of -50 mL from lower bound of 95% CI) over 24 weeks. Comparisons with BUD/FORM DPI were made for the Europe/Canada statistical analysis approach only. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02497001.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 20, 2015, and Jan 5, 2018, 3047 patients were screened from 215 sites, and 1902 were randomly assigned to receive BGF MDI (n=640), GFF MDI (n=627), BFF MDI (n=316), or BUD/FORM DPI (n=319). Over 24 weeks, BGF MDI significantly improved FEV₁ AUC_0-4 versus BFF MDI (least squares mean difference 104 mL, 95% CI 77 to 131; p<0·0001) and BUD/FORM DPI (91 mL, 64 to 117; p<0·0001). BGF MDI also significantly improved pre-dose trough FEV₁ versus GFF MDI (22 mL, 4 to 39; p=0·0139) and was non-inferior to BUD/FORM DPI (-10 mL, -36 to 16; p=0·4390). At week 24, patients in the BGF MDI group had a significantly improved FEV₁ AUC_0-4 compared with patients receiving BFF MDI (116 mL, 95% CI 80 to 152; p<0·0001); there was a non-significant improvement in the change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ at week 24 versus GFF MDI (13 mL, -9 to 36 mL; p=0·2375). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis (n=49 [8%] in the BGF MDI group; n=41 [7%] in the GFF MDI group; n=26 [8%] in the BFF MDI group; and n=30 [9%] in the BUD/FORM DPI group) and upper respiratory tract infection (n=65 [10%]; n=38 [6%]; n=18 [6%]; and n=22 [7%]). Pneumonia incidence was low (<2%) and similar across treatments. There were two treatment-related deaths, both in the GFF MDI group.

INTERPRETATION

BGF MDI was efficacious, well tolerated, and could be a more appropriate treatment than the corresponding dual therapies for symptomatic patients with moderate to very severe COPD, irrespective of exacerbation history.

FUNDING

Pearl-a member of the AstraZeneca Group.

Safety of tiotropium/olodaterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: pooled analysis of three large, 52-week, randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

An extensive clinical trial program supports the efficacy and safety of tiotropium/olodaterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We examined the safety of tiotropium/olodaterol compared with tiotropium in a large population of patients, focusing on cardiovascular and respiratory events.

METHODS

Patients (n = 9942) who received once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 μg or tiotropium 5 μg (via Respimat^®) in TONADO 1 & 2 and DYNAGITO were included. The number of patients and exposure-adjusted rate of events are presented for adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), AEs leading to discontinuation, and cardiovascular and respiratory events.

FINDINGS

Fewer patients discontinued due to AEs with tiotropium/olodaterol (5.9%) versus tiotropium (7.9%; rate ratio [RR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.84). There was no significant difference in the incidence of AEs, SAEs, cardiovascular AEs or central nervous system vascular AEs between treatments. Incidences of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were 2.11 per 100 patient-years with tiotropium/olodaterol and 2.22 with tiotropium (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.72-1.25), and incidences of fatal MACE (including death with undetermined cause) were 0.91 and 1.00 per 100 patient-years with tiotropium/olodaterol and tiotropium, respectively (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.60-1.37). Respiratory AEs were generally balanced between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide robust evidence that the benefits of tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium are not at the expense of an increased risk of safety events. The combination is a suitable option for patients with COPD, even in the presence of cardiovascular risk factors.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials. gov (TONADO 1 and 2: NCT01431274, NCT01431287; DYNAGITO: NCT02296138).

Health-Related Quality of Life Improvements in Moderate to Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients on Nebulized Glycopyrrolate: Evidence from the GOLDEN Studies

Background: Symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may diminish patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We report effects of Longhala™ Magnair™ (glycopyrrolate) Inhalation Solution, a drug/device combination of the long-acting antimuscarinic glycopyrrolate administered using the eFlow® closed system (eFlow CS) nebulizer, on HRQoL from the Glycopyrrolate for Obstructive Lung Disease Via Electronic Nebulizer (GOLDEN) clinical studies. Methods: Data consisted of a pooled analysis of 2 phase 3, 12-week efficacy studies (GOLDEN-3 and -4) of glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS (25 or 50 mcg twice daily [BID]) versus placebo, and a 48-week, open-label safety study (GOLDEN-5) of glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS 50 mcg BID versus tiotropium 18 mcg once daily in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Change from baseline in HRQoL was measured via the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Results are provided as mean changes in SGRQ Total score and as response analysis (≥4-point improvement [responder], no change, and ≥4-point worsening in Total score) using analysis of covariance or logistic regression, as applicable. Results: Atotal of 1293 patients were evaluated from GOLDEN-3 and -4 and 1086 from GOLDEN-5. Glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS significantly improved SGRQ Total and component scores. The percentage of SGRQ responders in pooled GOLDEN-3/4 was 46.8% for glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS 25 mcg, 41.7% for glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS 50 mcg, and 34.5% for placebo. SGRQ Total and component score improvements were similar between glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS and tiotropium in GOLDEN-5. Conclusions: The drug/device combination of glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS significantly improved HRQoL, as measured by the SGRQ, offering a potential maintenance treatment option in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02347761, NCT02347774, NCT02276222.

An overview of glycopyrrolate/eFlow® CS in COPD

INTRODUCTION

COPD is highly prevalent in the US and globally, requiring new treatment strategies due to the high disease burden and increase in the aging population. Here, we profile the newly FDA-approved LONHALA MAGNAIR (glycopyrrolate [GLY]/eFlow® Closed System [CS]; 25 mcg twice daily), a nebulized long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) for the long-term maintenance treatment of COPD, including chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema. Areas covered: An overview of COPD and treatment landscape, focusing on GLY/eFlow CS, reviewing the published literature pertinent to the drug/device combination is reported. Expert commentary: GLY/eFlow CS consists of glycopyrrolate delivered via a novel electronic nebulizer and is the first nebulized LAMA to be approved by the FDA. GLY/eFlow CS has been studied in an extensive clinical development program, including phase II dose-ranging studies, two 12-week phase III studies demonstrating statistically significant and clinically important improvements in pulmonary function and patient-reported outcomes with a well-tolerated safety profile, and a 48-week phase III study highlighting the long-term safety of GLY/eFlow CS, along with long-term improvements in lung function and patient-reported outcomes. Additional studies are required to assess the impact of GLY/eFlow CS on COPD exacerbations, identify alternative uses of the eFlow CS nebulizer, and direct comparisons to other LAMAs.

Assessment of an accessorized pre-filled syringe for home-administered benralizumab in severe asthma

Background

Patients prefer at-home subcutaneous administration of biologics across different diseases, yet no biologic is approved for at-home use for severe, uncontrolled asthma.

Objective

We assessed at-home functionality, reliability, and performance of an accessorized pre-filled syringe (APFS) for subcutaneous benralizumab administration, an anti-eosinophil monoclonal antibody indicated for add-on maintenance treatment of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.

Materials and methods

Patients (N=116) with severe, uncontrolled asthma despite receiving medium- or high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β₂-agonists received up to 5 APFS-administered subcutaneous doses (Weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, and 16) of benralizumab 30 mg. The first 3 doses were administered at the study sites. The patient/caregiver administered the last 2 doses at home. Endpoints included the percentage of dispensed APFS that were used successfully blood eosinophil counts, Asthma Control Questionnaire 6, and safety.

Results

Nearly all dispensed APFS were successfully used in the clinic and at home (Week 0: 116/116, 100%; Week 4: 116/117, 99%; Week 8: 115/115, 100%; Week 12: 112/114, 98%; Week 16: 108/109, 99%). Only 1 APFS malfunctioned out of 573 dispensed. Two at-home administrations were unsuccessful because of patient-use error. One unreturned APFS was recorded as nonfunctional. Mean Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 scores decreased from baseline through all post-baseline time points, and nearly complete depletion of eosinophils was observed at the end of treatment. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and sinusitis. Five patients (4%) experienced transient mild or moderate injection-site reactions.

Conclusion

The APFS was functional, reliable, and performed equally well in the clinic and at home.