Aclidinium bromide for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Is the use of two versus one long-acting bronchodilator by patients with COPD associated with a higher risk of acute coronary syndrome in real-world clinical practice?

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular comorbidity is common among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and there is concern that long-acting bronchodilators (long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta₂ agonists (LABAs)) may further increase the risk of acute coronary events. Information about the impact of treatment intensification on acute coronary syndrome (ACS) risk in real-world settings is limited. We undertook a nationwide nested case-control study to estimate the risk of ACS in users of both a LAMA and a LABA relative to users of a LAMA.

METHODS

We used routinely collected national health and pharmaceutical dispensing data to establish a cohort of patients aged >45 years who initiated long-acting bronchodilator therapy for COPD between 1 February 2006 and 30 December 2013. Fatal and non-fatal ACS events during follow-up were identified using hospital discharge and mortality records. For each case we used risk set sampling to randomly select up to 10 controls, matched by date of birth, sex, date of cohort entry (first LAMA and/or LABA dispensing), and COPD severity.

RESULTS

From the cohort (n=83 417), we identified 5399 ACS cases during 281 292 person-years of follow-up. Compared with current use of LAMA therapy, current use of LAMA and LABA dual therapy was associated with a higher risk of ACS (OR 1.28 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.44)). The OR in an analysis restricted to fatal cases was 1.46 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.91).

CONCLUSION

In real-world clinical practice, use of two versus one long-acting bronchodilator by people with COPD is associated with a higher risk of ACS.

Comparative Causal Analysis of the Effects of Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Versus No Long-Acting Bronchodilator Use on Readmission or Mortality After Hospitalization for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background

Retrospective observational studies may provide real-world evidence about long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA) effectiveness in reducing mortality or COPD-related readmission risk after a COPD hospitalization. Causal inference and competing risk statistical procedures aid in managing confounding and competing outcome events that complicate retrospective analyses.

Objective

To compare COPD-related readmission and mortality risk among patients receiving a LAMA versus patients receiving no long-acting bronchodilator (“no LABD”) within 30 days post-discharge.

Methods

This retrospective observational analysis of patients (aged ≥ 40 years) hospitalized for COPD used claims data (years 2004–2012). Events occurring during the period from 31 days through 12 months post-discharge were compared. The hazard ratio (HR) for the combined outcome of COPD-related readmission or mortality was estimated using Cox regression. Confounding was addressed using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). The competing risk of non-COPD-related readmission was considered.

Results

10,405 COPD patients were included (LAMA = 751, no LABD = 9654). IPTW achieved a balanced sample (10,518 LAMA, 10,405 no LABD). Unweighted HR (LAMA vs no LABD) for COPD-related readmission or death, adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline utilization, was 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84, 1.20]. Weighted (IPTW) adjusted HR was 0.94 (95% CI 0.88, 1.00). Unweighted and weighted HRs further adjusted for competing risk were 0.97 (95% CI 0.82, 1.16) and 0.91 (0.86, 0.98), respectively.

Conclusions

Bias by indication and comorbidities make the measurement of retrospective COPD treatment effectiveness difficult. Using IPTW and additionally considering the competing event risk, LAMA use was associated with a small reduction in risk for COPD-related readmission or death over the period from 31 days to 12 months post-discharge.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40801-019-00171-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

New opportunities of dual bronchodilation therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Currently, combinations of long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting anticholinergics are considered as the basic therapy for majority of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These combinations have different pharmacological characteristics and delivery devices that provides different clinical effects and new opportunities for personalized treatment of COPD. Aclidinium/formoterol fixed combination differs from other dual bronchodilators by twice-daily dosing regimen, good safety profile and a specific delivery system. Recent information on clinical efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol combination in COPD patients is given in this article.

Fixed-Dose Combinations of Long-Acting Bronchodilators for the Management of COPD: Global and Asian Perspectives

Maintenance bronchodilator therapy with long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) is the cornerstone treatment for patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of LABA/LAMA are recommended for the majority of symptomatic COPD patients by global guidelines; regional guidelines such as the Japanese and Korean guidelines also provide similar recommendations for the use of LABA/LAMA FDCs. This review comprehensively describes the latest clinical evidence from key studies on the efficacy and safety of four approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations: indacaterol/glycopyrronium, vilanterol/umeclidinium, formoterol/aclidinium, and olodaterol/tiotropium. Additionally, in this review we describe the rationale behind the use of LABA/LAMA FDC therapy, key findings from the preclinical and clinical trial evaluation of respective LABA and LAMA monocomponents, and the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA FDCs. Special emphasis is placed on the clinical evidence for the monocomponents and LABA/LAMA FDCs from the Asian population. This detailed overview of the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA FDCs in global and Asian COPD patients is envisaged to provide a better understanding of the benefits of these therapies and to inform healthcare providers and patients on their appropriate use.Funding: Novartis Pharma K.K.

Combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta2-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Several dual bronchodilator combinations of long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) have been approved for treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The current GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) recommendations suggest the use of LABA/LAMA combinations in people with group B COPD with persistent symptoms, group C COPD with further exacerbations on LAMA therapy alone and group D COPD with or without inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Fixed-dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium/formoterol is one of the approved LABA/LAMA therapies for people with stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta2-agonists in stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and manufacturers' websites as well as the reference list of published trials up to 12 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing combined aclidinium bromide and LABAs in people with stable COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data collection and analysis. The primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring a short course of an oral steroid or antibiotic, or both; quality of life measured by a validated scale and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs). Where the outcome or study details were not reported, we contacted the study investigators or pharmaceutical company trial co-ordinators (or both) for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified RCTs comparing aclidinium/formoterol FDC versus aclidinium, formoterol or placebo only. We included seven multicentre trials of four to 52 weeks' duration conducted in outpatient settings. There were 5921 participants, whose mean age ranged from 60.7 to 64.7 years, mostly men with a mean smoking pack-years of 46.4 to 61.3 of which 43.9% to 63.4% were current smokers. They had a moderate-to-severe degree of COPD with a mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) between 50.5% and 61% of predicted normal and the baseline mean FEV1 of 1.23 L to 1.43 L. We assessed performance and detection biases as low for all studies whereas selection, attrition and reporting biases were either low or unclear.FDC versus aclidiniumThere was no evidence of a difference between FDC and aclidinium for exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); quality of life measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -0.92, 95% CI -2.15 to 0.30); participants with significant improvement in SGRQ score (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41; 2 trials, 2002 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); non-fatal SAE (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.80; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.29; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or adverse events (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with aclidinium, FDC improved symptoms (Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score: MD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.68; 2 trials, 2013 participants) with a higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of at least one unit improvement (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.62; high-certainty evidence); the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) being 14 (95% CI 9 to 39).FDC versus formoterolWhen compared to formoterol, combination therapy reduced exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99; 3 trials, 2694 participants; high-certainty evidence); may decrease SGRQ total score (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.10 to -0.65; 2 trials, 2002 participants; low-certainty evidence; MCID for SGRQ is 4 units); increased TDI focal score (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; 2 trials, 2010 participants) with more participants attaining an MCID (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56; high-certainty evidence) and an NNTB of 16 (95% CI 10 to 60). FDC lowered the risk of adverse events compared to formoterol (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.93; 5 trials, 3140 participants; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 22). However, there was no difference between FDC and formoterol for hospital admissions, all-cause mortality and non-fatal SAEs.FDC versus placeboCompared with placebo, FDC demonstrated no evidence of a difference in exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.18; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although estimates were uncertain. Quality of life measure by SGRQ total score was significantly better with FDC compared to placebo (MD -2.91, 95% CI -4.33 to -1.50; 2 trials, 1823 participants) resulting in a corresponding increase in SGRQ responders who achieved at least four units decrease in SGRQ total score (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.13; high-certainty evidence) with an NNTB of 7 (95% CI 5 to 12). FDC also improved symptoms measured by TDI focal score (MD 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.69; 2 studies, 1832 participants) with more participants attaining at least one unit improvement in TDI focal score (OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.11; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 4). There were no differences in non-fatal SAEs, adverse events and all-cause mortality between FDC and placebo.Combination therapy significantly improved trough FEV1 compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

FDC improved dyspnoea and lung function compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo, and this translated into an increase in the number of responders on combination treatment. Quality of life was better with combination compared to formoterol or placebo. There was no evidence of a difference between FDC and monotherapy or placebo for exacerbations, hospital admissions, mortality, non-fatal SAEs or adverse events. Studies reported a lower risk of moderate exacerbations and adverse events with FDC compared to formoterol; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

Aclidinium inhibits proliferation and metastasis of ovarian cancer SKOV3 cells via downregulating PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway

Aclidinium, a muscarinic antagonist, is generally used to treat the respiratory system diseases whereas it is not clear whether aclidinium has therapeutic effect in ovarian cancer (OC). The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of aclidinium on OC and its potential mechanism. CCK-8 was employed to test the potential effect of aclidinium on SKOV3 cell proliferation. Transwell migration and invasion assay was performed to assess the influence of aclidinium on SKOV3 cell metastasis and invasion. Furthermore, flow cytometry apoptotic analysis was used to evaluate the effect of aclidinium on cell apoptosis. Finally, western blotting was applied to determine the changes of key proteins in apoptosis and PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway induced by aclidinium. The study showed that aclidinium had antiproliferative activity on SKOV3 cells. Simultaneously, aclidinium could significantly inhibit the number of migrated and invaded SKOV3 cells and markedly increased the SKOV3 cell apoptosis rate. Mechanistically, the expression of PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway related proteins were significantly inhibited in aclidinium treated SKOV3 cells. Our findings proposed a clue for further OC studies in preclinical and clinical treatment and aclidinium may be useful for the treatment of OC in the future.

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.

Muscarinic Receptor Antagonists

Parasympathetic activity is increased in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma and appears to be the major reversible component of airway obstruction. Therefore, treatment with muscarinic receptor antagonists is an effective bronchodilator therapy in COPD and also in asthmatic patients. In recent years, the accumulating evidence that the cholinergic system controls not only contraction by airway smooth muscle but also the functions of inflammatory cells and airway epithelial cells has suggested that muscarinic receptor antagonists could exert other effects that may be of clinical relevance when we must treat a patient suffering from COPD or asthma. There are currently six muscarinic receptor antagonists licenced for use in the treatment of COPD, the short-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (SAMAs) ipratropium bromide and oxitropium bromide and the long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMAs) aclidinium bromide, tiotropium bromide, glycopyrronium bromide and umeclidinium bromide. Concerns have been raised about possible associations of muscarinic receptor antagonists with cardiovascular safety, but the most advanced compounds seem to have an improved safety profile. Further beneficial effects of SAMAs and LAMAs are seen when added to existing treatments, including LABAs, inhaled corticosteroids and phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors. The importance of tiotropium bromide in the maintenance treatment of COPD, and likely in asthma, has spurred further research to identify new LAMAs. There are a number of molecules that are being identified, but only few have reached the clinical development.

Umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have poor quality of life, reduced survival, and accelerated decline in lung function, especially associated with acute exacerbations, leading to high healthcare costs. Long-acting bronchodilators are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic improvement, and umeclidinium is one of the new long-acting muscarinic antagonists approved for treatment of patients with stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, and the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Clinical Study Register, using prespecified terms, as well as the reference lists of all identified studies. Searches are current to April 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing umeclidinium bromide versus placebo in people with COPD, for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. If we noted significant heterogeneity in the meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies by umeclidinium dose.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies of 12 to 52 weeks' duration, involving 3798 participants with COPD. Mean age of participants ranged from 60.1 to 64.6 years; most were males with baseline mean smoking pack-years of 39.2 to 52.3. They had moderate to severe COPD and baseline mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) ranging from 44.5% to 55.1% of predicted normal. As all studies were systematically conducted according to prespecified protocols, we assessed risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases as low.Compared with those given placebo, participants in the umeclidinium group had a lesser likelihood of developing moderate exacerbations requiring a short course of steroids, antibiotics, or both (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.80; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: high), but not specifically requiring hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.92; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: low). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent an acute exacerbation requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both was 18 (95% CI 13 to 37). Quality of life was better in the umeclidinium group (mean difference (MD) -4.79, 95% CI -8.84 to -0.75; three studies, N = 1119), and these participants had a significantly higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least four units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score compared with those in the placebo group (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.82; three studies, N = 1397; GRADE: moderate). The NNTB to achieve one person with a clinically meaningful improvement was 11 (95% CI 7 to 29). The likelihood of all-cause mortality, non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: moderate), and adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: moderate) did not differ between umeclidinium and placebo groups. The umeclidinium group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in change from baseline in trough FEV₁ compared with the placebo group (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.17; four studies, N = 1381; GRADE: high). Symptomatic improvement was more likely in the umeclidinium group than in the placebo group, as determined by Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.09; three studies, N = 1193), and the chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least one unit improvement was significantly higher with umeclidinium than with placebo (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; three studies, N = 1141; GRADE: high). The NNTB to attain one person with clinically important symptomatic improvement was 8 (95% CI 5 to 14). The likelihood of rescue medication usage (change from baseline in the number of puffs per day) was significantly less for the umeclidinium group than for the placebo group (MD -0.45, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14; four studies, N = 1531).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Umeclidinium reduced acute exacerbations requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both, although no evidence suggests that it decreased the risk of hospital admission due to exacerbations. Moreover, umeclidinium demonstrated significant improvement in quality of life, lung function, and symptoms, along with lesser use of rescue medications. Studies reported no differences in adverse events, non-fatal serious adverse events, or mortality between umeclidinium and placebo groups; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

Is aclidinium alone or combined with a LABA a rational choice for symptomatic COPD patients?

BACKGROUND

As emphasized by international recommendations and largely confirmed by clinical experience, long-acting bronchodilators play a central role in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) due to their proven efficacy in reducing airflow obstruction and improving symptoms.

MAIN BODY

There are some important aspects to define with regard to inhalation therapy for COPD, particularly those concerning the selection criteria and the optimal use of long-acting bronchodilators. First of all, it needs to be determined in which patients and clinical situations monotherapy with one bronchodilator, such as a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), should be considered adequate, and in which cases the use of combination therapies, such as the "double bronchodilation" with a LAMA and a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), should be preferred. Another critical issue concerns the effect of the frequency of daily administration of inhaled agents on the control of symptoms during the 24 h. COPD symptoms are known to exhibit considerable circadian variability with worsening in the early morning, and a significant proportion of patients have disease-related sleep disorders which can adversely affect their quality of life. The worsening of symptoms in the early morning may be due, at least in part, to a reduction in airway caliber caused by an increased "cholinergic tone" at night. As such, the coverage of nighttime and early morning symptoms is a reasonable therapeutic goal, which can be achieved by many patients using LAMAs such as aclidinium bromide twice daily (BID). Therapeutic adherence is known to be a multifactorial phenomenon that is frequently affected by other aspects than dosing frequency, including the technical features and ease of use of the inhalers. To this end, it should be mentioned that certain new-generation inhalers such as Genuair® have been associated in clinical trials with higher patient preference.

CONCLUSION

In this work, in addition to presenting an overview of the main evidence on the efficacy of COPD treatment with the LAMA aclidinium bromide BID, we suggest some selection criteria for the monotherapy with one long-acting bronchodilator or the combination therapy with LAMA and LABA in COPD patients, with particular reference to specific clinical scenarios.

Effects of aclidinium on determinants of COPD severity: symptoms and quality of life

The pathophysiology of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) includes persistent airflow limitation, altered gas exchange, and enhanced chronic inflammatory response. According to disease severity in individual patients, exacerbations and comorbidities frequently occur. The overall nocturnal and daily symptoms have a strong impact on patient quality of life and clinical outcomes. Bronchodilators, by targeting two important aspects of COPD pathophysiology, ie, bronchoconstriction and lung hyperinflation, are the mainstay of therapy for COPD. Aclidinium bromide in particular is an anticholinergic molecule, approved for maintenance bronchodilator treatment of stable COPD, that combines high antimuscarinic activity with strong kinetic selectivity for the M3 receptor subtype. Moreover, the elevated plasma clearance of aclidinium has been related to low systemic bioavailability and low incidence of anticholinergic adverse events, whereas the reduced residence time at M2 receptors provides good cardiovascular safety. Altogether, these characteristics result in a high safety and tolerability profile. This review aims to reappraise the contribution of symptoms and of the level of quality of life determinants on COPD severity and to evaluate how therapeutic strategies with aclidinium may positively impact on these specific determinants of disease severity.

Inhaled treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: what's new and how does it fit?

Since chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by progressive airflow obstruction, inhaled bronchodilators form the mainstay of treatment. A variety of new inhaled drugs and inhaler devices have recently been licensed and approved for prescribing to patients with COPD; many such drugs have been formulated in devices to deliver two different drugs at the same time. The evidence based review article highlights all of the drugs now licensed, describes some of the evidence surrounding their use and highlights practical steps in helping decide when these drugs should be considered in the context of guidelines.

New combinations in the treatment of COPD: rationale for aclidinium-formoterol

The current guidelines on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend the prominent use of bronchodilators, including long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), while inhaled corticosteroids are recommended only in patients with severe disease or frequent exacerbations. LABA–LAMA combinations are indicated when single bronchodilators are insufficient to control COPD. A number of LABA–LAMA combinations are available, based on twice-daily or once-daily administration according to the 12- or 24-hour duration of action, respectively. The aclidinium–formoterol combination is based on the new LAMA aclidinium bromide, which has a high selectivity for M₃ muscarinic receptors and a fast onset of action, and the well-known LABA formoterol. Both drugs require twice-daily administration. The fixed-dose combination of aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg has shown in randomized controlled trials fast and sustained bronchodilation that was greater than either monotherapy and provided clinically significant improvements in dyspnea and health status compared with placebo, also reducing the use of rescue medications. The overall incidence of adverse events was low and comparable to placebo. These data define the aclidinium–formoterol fixed-dose combination as a new treatment option for patients with COPD. The need for twice-daily administration could be an apparent disadvantage compared to the available once-daily LABA–LAMA combinations, but the immediately perceived benefit in reducing dyspnea due to the fast onset of action, as well as reported correct patient use and satisfaction with the Genuair inhaler might prove useful in favoring adherence.

Specific role of combination aclidinium: formoterol in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Co-administration of a long-acting β2-agonist and a long acting muscarinic antagonist produces superior bronchodilation compared with their individual effects. Our preclinical data indicated that combining aclidinium bromide (ACLI) and formoterol fumarate (FORM) provides synergistic benefit on smooth muscle relaxation of both large and small human airways. Data from more than 2,000 patients in eleven clinical trials documented that ACLI/FORM, a twice-daily fixed-dose combination, produces a greater degree of bronchodilation than ACLI or FORM monotherapy alone and is safe and well tolerated. Two large key trials have shown that there is a benefit in using ACLI/FORM when the clinical target is the variability of symptoms and mainly nighttime and/or early morning symptoms. ACLI/FORM is the only long acting muscarinic antagonist/long acting β2-agonist fixed-dose combination that has been studied for this therapeutic indication.

Long-acting beta2-agonist in addition to tiotropium versus either tiotropium or long-acting beta2-agonist alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators, comprising long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and long-acting anti-muscarinic agents (LAMA, principally tiotropium), are commonly used for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than the individual components. However, the benefits and risks of combining tiotropium and LABAs for the treatment of COPD are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative effects on markers of quality of life, exacerbations, symptoms, lung function and serious adverse events in people with COPD randomised to LABA plus tiotropium versus tiotropium alone; or LABA plus tiotropium versus LABA alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and ClinicalTrials.gov up to July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing treatment with tiotropium in addition to LABA against tiotropium or LABA alone for people with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 10 trials on 10,894 participants, mostly recruiting participants with moderate or severe COPD. All of the trials compared tiotropium in addition to LABA to tiotropium alone, and four trials additionally compared LAMA plus LABA with LABA alone. Four studies used the LABA olodaterol, three used indacaterol, two used formoterol, and one used salmeterol.Compared to tiotropium alone, treatment with tiotropium plus LABA resulted in a slightly larger improvement in mean health-related quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) (mean difference (MD) -1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.87 to -0.80; 6709 participants; 5 studies). The MD was smaller than the four units that is considered clinically important, but a responder analysis indicated that 7% more participants receiving tiotropium plus LABA had a noticeable benefit (greater than four units) from treatment in comparison to tiotropium alone. In the control arm in one study, which was tiotropium alone, the SGRQ improved by falling 4.5 units from baseline and with tiotropium plus LABA the improvement was a fall of a further 1.3 units (on average). Most of the data came from studies using olodaterol. High withdrawal rates in the trials increased the uncertainty in this result, and the GRADE assessment for this outcome was therefore moderate. There were no significant differences in the other primary outcomes (hospital admission or mortality).The secondary outcome of pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) showed a small mean increase with the addition of LABA over the control arm (MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.07; 9573 participants; 10 studies), which showed a change from baseline ranging from 0.03 L to 0.13 L with tiotropium alone. None of the other secondary outcomes (exacerbations, symptom scores, serious adverse events, and withdrawals) showed any statistically significant differences between the groups. There was moderate heterogeneity for both exacerbations and withdrawals.This review included data on four LABAs: two administered twice daily (salmeterol, formoterol) and two once daily (indacaterol, olodaterol). The results were largely from studies of olodaterol and there was insufficient information to assess whether the other LABAs were equivalent to olodaterol or each other.Comparing LABA plus tiotropium treatment with LABA alone, there was a small but significant improvement in SGRQ (MD -1.25, 95% CI -2.14 to -0.37; 3378 participants; 4 studies). The data came mostly from studies using olodaterol and, although the difference was smaller than four units, this still represented an increase of 10 people with a clinically important improvement for 100 treated. There was also an improvement in FEV1 (MD 0.07, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.09; 3513 participants; 4 studies), and in addition an improvement in exacerbation rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93; 3514 participants; 3 studies).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results from this review indicated a small mean improvement in health-related quality of life and FEV1 for participants on a combination of tiotropium and LABA compared to either agent alone, and this translated into a small increase in the number of responders on combination treatment. In addition, adding tiotropium to LABA reduced exacerbations, although adding LABA to tiotropium did not. Hospital admission and mortality were not altered by adding LABA to tiotropium, although there may not be enough data. While it is possible that this is affected by higher attrition in the tiotropium group, one would expect that participants withdrawn from the study would have had less favourable outcomes; this means that the expected direction of attrition bias would be to reduce the estimated benefit of the combination treatment. The results were largely from studies of olodaterol and there was insufficient information to assess whether the other LABAs were equivalent to olodaterol or each other.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus higher dose ICS for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), a class of drugs with proven effectiveness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are being considered as an add-on option for adults with asthma whose condition is uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It is important to assess the safety and efficacy of LAMA add-on as an alternative to the prolonged use of higher doses of ICS, which are known to cause undesirable side effects in some people.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of adding a LAMA to any dose of ICS versus increasing the dose of ICS, for uncontrolled asthma in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR) from its inception in 1995 to April 2015, imposing no restriction on language of publication. We also handsearched trial registries, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, as well as manufacturers' websites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for parallel or cross-over randomised controlled trials lasting at least 12 weeks, in which adults whose asthma was not well controlled on ICS alone were randomised to treatment with LAMA add-on to ICS or with an increased dose of ICS. Trials were excluded if patients were taking long-acting beta2-agonists during the study period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the searches and extracted data from studies meeting all the inclusion criteria. We used Covidence to manage duplicate screening, data extraction and risk of bias judgements, and to form a consensus where discrepancies arose. We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.The pre-specified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring a course of oral corticosteroids (OCS), effects on quality of life and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

One cross-over randomised controlled trial met the inclusion criteria. The trial was performed in 210 patients with moderate to severe asthma and compared the use of the LAMA tiotropium bromide with double dose beclomethasone (an ICS) using a cross-over design and 14-week treatment periods.Compared with people taking a double dose of ICS, fewer people taking a LAMA add-on had an exacerbation requiring treatment with OCS (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.43) or an exacerbation resulting in emergency department admission (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.77), but the confidence intervals for both outcomes did not exclude the possibility that double dose ICS was more effective. Serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospitalisation occurred in similarly low numbers of people taking each treatment, but confidence intervals were too wide to suggest that the two treatment options were equivalent.Asthma-related quality of life was similar in both treatment groups (mean difference (MD) in change from baseline 0.10, 95% CI - 0.07 to 0.27). Those taking LAMA add-on scored slightly better on a scale measuring asthma control than those increasing their ICS dose (MD in change from baseline - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.34 to - 0.02), although the difference was clinically small. Evidence was deemed low quality for both quality of life and asthma control.There was moderate-quality evidence that participants' trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was 100 mL better when taking LAMA add-on than with increased ICS dose (MD in change from baseline 0.10, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one randomised trial was found, comparing tiotropium add-on to increased dose beclomethasone. Differences between the treatments were too small or imprecise to understand whether adding a LAMA to ICS is safer or more effective than increasing the dose of ICS, and there is a possibility of carry-over effects due to the study's cross-over design. LAMA add-on may lead to more improvement in lung function (FEV1) than an increased dose of ICS.The results of this review, alongside pending results from related reviews assessing the use of LAMA against other treatments, will help to define the role of these drugs in asthma management, and this review should be updated as results from future trials emerge. Studies assessing the role of LAMA add-on should be longer and include a double-ICS treatment arm so that the results can be interpreted in the context of the guideline-recommended treatment options that are available to physicians.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) added to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) versus addition of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Poorly controlled asthma and preventable exacerbations place a significant strain on healthcare, often requiring additional medications, hospital stays or treatment in the emergency department.Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are the preferred add-on treatment for adults with asthma whose symptoms are not well controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), but have important safety concerns in asthma. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) have confirmed efficacy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and are now being considered as an alternative add-on therapy for people with uncontrolled asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LAMA to ICS compared with adding a LABA for adults whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register (CAGR) from inception to April 2015, and imposed no restriction on language of publication. We searched additional resources to pick up unpublished studies, including ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization trials portal, reference lists of primary studies and existing reviews, and manufacturers' trial registries. The most recent search was conducted in April 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for parallel and cross-over RCTs in which adults whose asthma was not well controlled with ICS alone were randomised to receive LAMA add-on or LABA add-on for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the electronic and additional searches and extracted data from study reports. We used Covidence for duplicate screening, extraction of study characteristics and numerical data, and risk of bias ratings.The pre-specified primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS), quality of life and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria, but four double-blind, double-dummy studies of around 2000 people dominated the analyses. These four trials were between 14 and 24 weeks long, all comparing tiotropium (usually Respimat) with salmeterol on top of medium doses of ICS.Studies reporting exacerbations requiring OCS showed no difference between the two add-ons, but our confidence in the effect was low due to inconsistency between studies and because the confidence intervals (CI) included significant benefit of either treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.18; 1753 participants; 3 studies); three more people per 1000 might have an exacerbation on LAMA, but the CIs ranged from 29 fewer to 61 more. Imprecision was also an issue for serious adverse events and exacerbations requiring hospital admission, rated low (serious adverse events) and very low quality (exacerbations requiring hospital admission), because there were so few events in the analyses.People taking LAMA scored slightly worse on two scales measuring quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; AQLQ) and asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire; ACQ); the evidence was rated high quality but the effects were small and unlikely to be clinically significant (AQLQ: mean difference (MD) -0.12, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05; 1745 participants; 1745; 4 studies; ACQ: MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.13; 1483 participants; 3 studies).There was some evidence to support small benefits of LAMA over LABA on lung function, including on our pre-specified preferred measure trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) (MD 0.05 L, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; 1745 participants, 4 studies). However, the effects on other measures varied, and it is not clear whether the magnitude of the differences were clinically significant.More people had adverse events on LAMA but the difference with LABA was not statistically significant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Direct evidence of LAMA versus LABA as add-on therapy is currently limited to studies of less than six months comparing tiotropium (Respimat) to salmeterol, and we do not know how they compare in terms of exacerbations and serious adverse events. There was moderate quality evidence that LAMAs show small benefits over LABA on some measures of lung function, and high quality evidence that LABAs are slightly better for quality of life, but the differences were all small. Given the much larger evidence base for LABA versus placebo for people whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS, the current evidence is not strong enough to say that LAMA can be substituted for LABA as add-on therapy.The results of this review, alongside pending results from related reviews assessing the use of LAMA in other clinical scenarios, will help to define the role of these drugs in asthma and it is important that they be updated as results from ongoing and planned trials emerge.

Clinical potential of aclidinium bromide in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Three long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are now available in Europe, providing clinicians and patients with a choice of interventions, which is important in COPD, which is clinically a heterogeneous disease. The first LAMA, tiotropium, has been widely used over the last decade as a once-daily maintenance therapy in stable COPD to improve patients' health-related quality of life and to reduce the risk of exacerbations. Administered via the HandiHaler(®) device, it is safe and well tolerated. Another new once-daily LAMA, glycopyrronium, has also been shown to improve health status and reduce exacerbations, and is well tolerated. The subject of this review is a third LAMA, aclidinium bromide, which was approved as a twice-daily maintenance bronchodilator treatment. In the pivotal Phase III clinical trials, patients receiving aclidinium achieved significantly greater improvements in lung function, reductions in breathlessness, and improvements in health status compared with placebo, for up to 24 weeks. In continuation studies, these improvements were sustained for up to 52 weeks. Pooled data showed exacerbation frequency was significantly reduced with aclidinium versus placebo. Preclinical and pharmacological studies demonstrating low systemic bioavailability and a low propensity to induce cardiac arrhythmias were translated into a favorable tolerability profile in the clinical trial program - the adverse event profile of aclidinium was similar to placebo, with a low incidence of anticholinergic and cardiac adverse events. While additional studies are needed to evaluate its full clinical potential, aclidinium is an important part of this recent expansion of LAMA therapeutic options, providing clinicians and patients with an effective and well-tolerated COPD treatment.

Patient-reported outcomes and considerations in the management of COPD: focus on aclidinium

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a complex heterogeneous disease, in which several factors combine to give the final clinical expression. Both early and more recent studies have shown that forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), despite being an extremely important parameter to predict the progression of the disease, is a poor surrogate marker for symptoms perception. Accordingly, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have gained popularity as a measure of the impact of treatment from the patients' perspective, since they represent the individuals' perception of their health status, beyond any physiological limitations. Several such PROs, therefore, are currently included in multidimensional COPD evaluation. This multidimensional approach helps identify different patient types and individualize, up to a certain point, pharmacological treatment. In this multidimensional approach it is important to highlight the importance of long-acting bronchodilators in COPD treatment strategies. Long-acting bronchodilators are cost-effective and have been shown to achieve the greatest functional and clinical improvements in COPD. As a result, long-acting bronchodilators are now the main pharmacological treatment for COPD at all stages of the disease. Until recently, tiotropium was the leading bronchodilator for the treatment of COPD. The clinical development of this medication, unprecedented in inhaled therapy, involved tens of thousands of patients and yielded consistent outcomes in terms of lung function, symptoms, quality of life, exacerbations, and prognosis. However, new long-acting bronchodilators have recently been developed or are currently under development. In this review, we evaluate the effects of aclidinium bromide, a novel long-acting bronchodilator, on PROs in COPD. Aclidinium is a novel long-acting muscarinic antagonist with a good safety profile for the treatment of COPD, and has proven efficacy in both objective functional measurements and PROs. Comparison studies with tiotropium have shown it to have similar lung function improvement and a similar impact on PROs, including quality of life or symptom perception.

Implementing clinical guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: barriers and solutions

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a complex chronic lung disease characterised by progressive fixed airflow limitation and acute exacerbations that frequently require hospitalisation. Evidence-based clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of COPD are now widely available. However, the uptake of these COPD guidelines in clinical practice is highly variable, as is the case for many other chronic disease guidelines. Studies have identified many barriers to implementation of COPD and other guidelines, including factors such as lack of familiarity with guidelines amongst clinicians and inadequate implementation programs. Several methods for enhancing adherence to clinical practice guidelines have been evaluated, including distribution methods, professional education sessions, electronic health records (EHR), point of care reminders and computer decision support systems (CDSS). Results of these studies are mixed to date, and the most effective ways to implement clinical practice guidelines remain unclear. Given the significant resources dedicated to evidence-based medicine, effective dissemination and implementation of best practice at the patient level is an important final step in the process of guideline development. Future efforts should focus on identifying optimal methods for translating the evidence into everyday clinical practice to ensure that patients receive the best care.