Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol combination for the treatment of COPD and asthma

Improving the risk-to-benefit ratio of inhaled corticosteroids through delivery and dose: current progress and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are known to increase the risk of systemic and local adverse effects, especially with high doses and long-term use. Hence, considerable resources are invested to improve pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) properties of ICS, effective delivery systems and novel combination therapies to enhance the risk-to-benefit ratio of ICS.

AREAS COVERED

There is an unmet need for new solutions to achieve optimal clinical outcomes with minimal dose of ICS. This paper gives an overview of novel treatment strategies regarding the safety of ICS therapy on the basis of the three most recent molecules introduced to our everyday clinical practice - ciclesonide, mometasone furoate, and fluticasone furoate. Advances in aerosol devices and new areas of inhalation therapy are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Current progress in improving the risk-to-benefit ratio of ICS through dose and delivery probably established pathways for further developments. This applies both to the improvement of the PK/PD properties of ICS molecules but also includes technical aspects that lead to simplified applicability of the device with simultaneous optimal drug deposition in the lungs. Indubitably, the future of medicine lies not only in the development of new molecules but also in technology and digital revolution.

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 92/22 µg once a day: a 12-month study on outcomes in mild to moderate asthma

Background:

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/V) is an effective long-acting β2 agonist/inhaled corticosteroid combination for managing persistent bronchial asthma. The aim of the study was to assess the outcomes achievable in patients with mild to moderate asthma receiving FF/V 92/22 µg once daily for 12 months.

Methods:

Data were automatically and anonymously obtained from the institutional database: forced expiratory volume in 1 s predicted values; the exacerbation and hospitalization rates; days of hospitalization; general practitioner (GP) or specialist visits; days of inactivity; courses of systemic steroids or antibiotics were recorded at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months of treatment. The overall adherence to treatment was also calculated. Analysis of variance was used for checking the trends of variables. The improvement in lung function was significant (p < 0.001) and time dependent. The mean (±standard error) exacerbation rate per patient changed from 1.05 (±0.16) at baseline to 0.28 (±0.07) after 3 months, 0.33 (±0.08) after 6 months and 0.18 (±0.08) after 12 months (p < 0.001). The mean hospitalization rate per patient changed from 0.30 (±0.07) at baseline to 0.08 (±0.04) after 3 months, 0.10 (±0.05) after 6 months and 0.03 (±0.03) after 12 months (p < 0.001). Also mean duration of hospitalization and days of inactivity were reduced over time (p < 0.001). GP visits were also reduced, together with specialist visits (both p < 0.001). Steroid and antibiotic courses dropped significantly (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Moreover, changes in all outcomes considered proved time dependent, particularly over the second semester. Finally, over time, adherence to treatment was high.

Conclusions:

The once-daily inhalation of combined FF/V 92/22 µg optimized systematically the exacerbation and hospitalization rates in mild to moderate asthma, together with all other outcomes over time. The effectiveness of FF/V 92/22 µg once daily proved to be time dependent over the period of the study.

Fluticasone furoate/Vilanterol 92/22 μg once-a-day vs Beclomethasone dipropionate/Formoterol 100/6 μg b.I.D.: a 12-month comparison of outcomes in mild-to-moderate asthma

Background

Bronchial asthma is an inflammatory disease of the airways. Beclomethasone dipropionate/Formoterol (BDP/F) and Fluticasone furoate/Vilanterol (FF/V) are two of the most effective LABA/ICS combinations for managing persistent bronchial asthma. Aim of the study was to compare the outcomes achieved in mild-to-moderate asthma patients assuming BDP/F 100/6 μg b.i.d. (Group A) or FF/V 92/22 μg once-daily (Group B) for 12-months. No head-to-head long-term comparison is available at present.

Methods

Data were automatically and anonymously obtained from the institutional database: FEV₁% predicted values; the exacerbation and hospitalization rates; days of hospitalization; GP and/or specialist visits; days of inactivity; courses of systemic steroids and/or antibiotics were recorded at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months of both treatments. The overall adherence to treatments was also calculated. The propensity score method was used for matching and comparing the two cohorts of patients; Anova and Wilcoxon tests were used for checking the trends and time-to-time comparisons over the period; statistical significance was accepted for p < 0.05.

Results

The PS-matching process returned a cohort of 40 group A patients matched with 40 patients of group B, fully comparable for demographics, clinical characteristics, and comorbidities. The improvement in lung function was significant in both groups (p < 0.001), even if it was significantly higher and time-dependent in group B. The mean (±SE) exacerbation rate/patient changed from 0.63 (±0.13) at baseline to 0.53 (±0.12) after three; to 0.58 (±0.13) after six, and to 0.60 (±0.18) after twelve months in group A (p = ns), while from of 1.05 (±0.16) at baseline, to 0.28 (±0.07) after three; to 0.33 (±0.08) after six, and to 0.18 (±0.08) after twelve months in group B (p < 0.001), respectively. The mean hospitalization rate/patient changed from 0.25 ± 0.07 at baseline to 0.15 (±0.06) after three; to 0.08 (±0.04) after six, and to 0.13 (±0.05) after twelve months in group A (p = ns), while from 0.30 (±0.07) at baseline to 0.08 (±0.04) after three; to 0.10 (±0.05) after six, and to 0.03 (±0.03) after twelve months in group B (p < 0.001), respectively. Also mean duration of hospitalization and days of inactivity were in favour of FF/V treatment over time (in both cases p < 0.001). GP’s visits were reduced by both treatments (p < 0.007 in group A and p < 0.001 in group B, respectively, while Specialist’s visits only dropped during FF/V (p < 0.001). Steroid and antibiotic courses were significantly reduced by both treatments, even if more systematically in group B (p < 0.001 vs p < 0.007, and p < 0.001 vs p < 0.044, respectively). Moreover, changes in all outcomes considered proved time-dependent during the FF/V treatment only, particularly over the second semester. Finally, the overtime adherence to treatment was higher by 22 days during FF/V .

Conclusions

Both the ICS/LABA combinations proved effective, even if characterized by different patterns of effectiveness either in terms of lung function and of long-term clinical outcomes. Only the once-daily inhalation of combined FF/V 92/22 μg once-daily optimized systematically the exacerbation and hospitalization rates in mild-to-moderate asthma, together with all other outcomes over time. The effectiveness of FF/V 92/22 once-daily μg proved progressive and time-dependent over the twelve-month period of the study, and associated to a higher adherence to treatment.

Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic assessment of fluticasone furoate + vilanterol for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

The pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of long-acting β2-agonists and mostly inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) shape the efficacy and safety of these agents in the treatment of asthma. In fact, the PK and PD characteristics of the drug largely determine the degree of pulmonary targeting Areas covered. In this review, we summarize the PK and PD properties of inhaled fluticasone furoate (FF) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) and their fixed-dose combination (FDC) for the treatment of asthma Expert opinion. It is difficult to interpret the data that we have described because the preclinical and clinical development of FF/VI FDC was not really based on solid information on quantitative PK/PD approach. Unfortunately, for both FF and VI we only know concentrations in systemic blood, a compartment that is downstream of both target and non-target respiratory tissue. This lack of information does not allow us to understand the temporal relationship between the delivered dose and the drug concentration at the sites of action within the lungs. In addition, all studies performed with FF and VI did not address the fundamental issue that asthma can significantly alter lung deposition, absorption and also clearance of inhaled medicines.

Fluticasone furoate/Vilanterol 92/22 μg once-a-day vs Beclomethasone dipropionate/ Formoterol 100/6 μg b.i.d.: a 12-week cost analysis in mild-to-moderate asthma

Background

Asthma is a disease with high cost for the National Health Service. Two of the most recent LABA/ICS combinations for persistent bronchial asthma are Beclomethasone dipropionate/Formoterol (B/F) delivered via the Nexthaler device and Fluticasone furoate/Vilanterol (F/V) delivered via the Ellipta device. No comparison has been carried out yet in terms of cost analysis in asthma, to our knowledge. Aim of the present monocentric, observational, retrospective study was to calculate and compare the costs of mild-to-moderate asthma patients assuming B/F 100/6 μg b.i.d. to those of patients assuming F/V 92/22 μg once-a-day over a 12-week treatment period from the Italian National Health Service perspective.

Methods

Data were obtained automatically and anonymously from the institutional database of the Lung Unit of the Specialist Medical Centre (CEMS), Verona, Italy, UNI EN ISO 9001-2008 validated. FEV₁ values, number of relapses, healthcare resources as hospitalizations due to asthma relapses, days of hospitalization, general practitioner (GP), specialist visits, and days of inactivity, were recorded over the study period together with the use of extra medications (systemic steroids and antibiotics). In order to compare the outcomes achieved in both groups, the propensity score matching method was used in STATA, and statistical significance was accepted for p < 0.05.

Results

Clinical data of 77 patients treated with B/F b.i.d (Group A) and of 40 patients treated with F/V 92/22 μg once-a-day (Group B) were selected. The PS-matching process, designed as matching on the baseline covariates, gender, age, FEV₁ and comorbidities, returned a cohort of 40 group A patients of the entire cohort matched with 40 patients of group B, fully comparable for demographics and clinical characteristics. In the PS-matched cohort, the mean (±SE) number of relapses per patient during the follow-up was 0.53 (±0.12) in group A and 0.28 (±0.07) in group B. In group A, n = 25 (62.50 %), n = 9 (22.50 %), and n = 6 (15 %) patients had 0, 1, 2 relapses, respectively. In group B, n = 29 (72.50 %), and n = 11 (27.50 %) had 0 and 1 relapse, respectively. Over the study period, the average number of hospitalizations per patient was 0.15 (±0.06), with 0.28 (±0.12) days of hospitalization in group A, and 0.08 (±0.04) with 0.08 (±0.04) days of hospitalization in group B, respectively. The difference between the two groups in terms of FEV₁(L) improvement vs baseline was 0.11 in favour of group B (p = 0.007). When results were compared, the improvement in lung function obtained in group B proved significantly higher both in terms of absolute FEV₁ and of FEV₁ % predicted.

The mean (±SE) cost of hospitalizations per patient was € 345.30 (±133.23) in group A and € 172.65 (±98.18) in group B, respectively, with a mean not significant difference of - € 172.65 in favour of group B (p = 0.9). In particular, the mean (±SE) cost for visits per patient was € 26.82 (±3.73) in group A and € 11.36 (±2.30) in group B (p = 0.002), and the mean cost for rescue medications per patient was € 35.24 (±6.93) in group A, and € 18.73 (±3.38) in group B, respectively (p = 0.05).

Conclusions

Even if both ICS/LABA combinations were checked over a limited period of time, they seem characterized by a different profile in terms of effect on lung function and economic impact on mild-to-moderate asthma. The once-daily inhalation of combined Fluticasone furoate/Vilanterol 92/22 μg showed the potential for enhanced clinical outcomes and reduced costs when compared to Beclomethasone dipropionate/Formoterol 100/6 μg b.i.d.

Treatment options for moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

The appropriate drug management of COPD is still based on the use of bronchodilators, possibly associated with an anti-inflammatory agent. However, there are still fundamental questions that require clarification to optimise their use and major unmet clinical needs that must be addressed.

AREAS COVERED

The advances obtained with the pharmacological options currently consolidated and the different approaches that are often used in an attempt to respond to unmet therapeutic needs are reviewed Expert opinion: In view of the unsatisfactory status of current treatments for COPD, there is an urgent need for alternative and more effective therapeutic approaches that will help to relieve patient symptoms and affect the natural course of COPD, inhibiting chronic inflammation and reversing the disease process or preventing its progression. However, new pharmacologic options have proved difficult to develop. Therefore, it is mandatory to optimize the use of the treatment options at our disposal. However, there are still fundamental questions regarding their use, including the step-up and step-down pharmacological approach, that require clarification to optimise the use of these drugs. It is likely that phenotyping COPD patients would help in identifying the right treatment for each COPD patient and improve the effectiveness of therapies.