Profile of aclidinium bromide in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Romanian clinical guideline for diagnosis and treatment of COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a disease with increasing prevalence and burden for health systems worldwide. Every country collects its own epidemiological data regarding COPD prevalence, morbidity and mortality while taking steps to educate the population and medical community to improve early detection and treatment. The rising COPD prevalence creates a need for comprehensive guidelines. In 2012 and 2017–2018, the Romanian Society of Pneumology (SRP) organised national inquiries for COPD, while lung physicians in Romania began receiving education regarding the correct algorithms for COPD diagnosis and therapy. During 2019, a Romanian clinical guideline for diagnosis and treatment of COPD was published, and a condensed version of key points from this guideline are presented herein. COPD is diagnosed based on the presence of three major components: relevant exposure history, respiratory symptoms, and airway limitation that is not fully reversible. Clinical evaluation of patients diagnosed with COPD should include the level of symptoms, exacerbation rate, the presence of comorbidities and determination of phenotypes. The present abridged guideline is designed to be accessible and practical for assessing and managing patients with COPD. The application of up-to-date COPD guidelines may enhance the optimism of physicians and patients in managing this disease.

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.

Diagnosis and pharmacotherapy of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the finnish guidelines

The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim initiated and managed the update of the Finnish national guideline for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Finnish COPD guideline was revised to acknowledge the progress in diagnosis and management of COPD. This Finnish COPD guideline in English language is a part of the original guideline and focuses on the diagnosis, assessment and pharmacotherapy of stable COPD. It is intended to be used mainly in primary health care but not forgetting respiratory specialists and other healthcare workers. The new recommendations and statements are based on the best evidence available from the medical literature, other published national guidelines and the GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) report. This guideline introduces the diagnostic approach, differential diagnostics towards asthma, assessment and treatment strategy to control symptoms and to prevent exacerbations. The pharmacotherapy is based on the symptoms and a clinical phenotype of the individual patient. The guideline defines three clinically relevant phenotypes including the low and high exacerbation risk phenotypes and the neglected asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS). These clinical phenotypes can help clinicians to identify patients that respond to specific pharmacological interventions. For the low exacerbation risk phenotype, pharmacotherapy with short-acting β2 -agonists (salbutamol, terbutaline) or anticholinergics (ipratropium) or their combination (fenoterol-ipratropium) is recommended in patients with less symptoms. If short-acting bronchodilators are not enough to control symptoms, a long-acting β2 -agonist (formoterol, indacaterol, olodaterol or salmeterol) or a long-acting anticholinergic (muscarinic receptor antagonists; aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, umeclidinium) or their combination is recommended. For the high exacerbation risk phenotype, pharmacotherapy with a long-acting anticholinergic or a fixed combination of an inhaled glucocorticoid and a long-acting β2 -agonist (budesonide-formoterol, beclomethasone dipropionate-formoterol, fluticasone propionate-salmeterol or fluticasone furoate-vilanterol) is recommended as a first choice. Other treatment options for this phenotype include combination of long-acting bronchodilators given from separate inhalers or as a fixed combination (glycopyrronium-indacaterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol) or a triple combination of an inhaled glucocorticoid, a long-acting β2 -agonist and a long-acting anticholinergic. If the patient has severe-to-very severe COPD (FEV1  < 50% predicted), chronic bronchitis and frequent exacerbations despite long-acting bronchodilators, the pharmacotherapy may include also roflumilast. ACOS is a phenotype of COPD in which there are features that comply with both asthma and COPD. Patients belonging to this phenotype have usually been excluded from studies evaluating the effects of drugs both in asthma and in COPD. Thus, evidence-based recommendation of treatment cannot be given. The treatment should cover both diseases. Generally, the therapy should include at least inhaled glucocorticoids (beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone furoate, fluticasone propionate or mometasone) combined with a long-acting bronchodilator (β2 -agonist or anticholinergic or both).

Clinicopharmacological profile of the fixed-dose combination of aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

The recent Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines consider symptoms and exacerbation history in addition to the degree of airflow obstruction for classifying patients. The improvement of symptoms is principally provided by bronchodilators, using β2 agonists and antimuscarinic agents. Aclidinium bromide is a novel long-acting antimuscarinic agent licensed for use in patients with COPD. Novel fixed-dose combinations that are either licensed or in their late phase of development include vilanterol/umeclidinium, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, olodaterol/tiotropium and formoterol/aclidinium. Fixed-dose combinations of aclidinium/formoterol have been evaluated in COPD patients and evidence suggests that this is efficacious, safe, has a quick onset of action and is well tolerated. This review provides a clinico-pharmacological profile of this compound.

The role of aclidinium bromide in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled bronchodilators remain a cornerstone of treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); current guidelines recommend initiating inhaled bronchodilators as either monotherapy or combination therapy depending on disease severity and exacerbation risk to improve air flow and reduce breathlessness. Aclidinium bromide is a twice-daily, long-acting muscarinic antagonist recently approved in the United States and Europe and carries significant promise as an alternative long-acting inhaled antimuscarinic agent for the treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD.

OBJECTIVE

This review describes the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and adverse effects of aclidinium bromide.

DISCUSSION

Clinical trials have demonstrated improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, nighttime symptom control, disease-related quality of life, and delay in time to first COPD exacerbation with aclidinium use compared with placebo. Commonly reported adverse effects include headache, nasopharyngitis, and cough. One trial reported narrow-angle glaucoma; however, no other serious adverse events have been reported to date.

CONCLUSION

Overall, aclidinium bromide has been found to be safe and effective for the treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD. Further clinical trials comparing aclidinium bromide to standard therapies are needed to fully elucidate its role in the treatment of COPD.

Aclidinium bromide for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Bronchodilators are the mainstay for symptom relief in the management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Aclidinium bromide is a new long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) that differs from tiotropium by its higher selectivity for M3 muscarinic receptors with a faster onset of action. However, the duration of action of aclidinium is shorter than for tiotropium. It has been approved as maintenance therapy for stable, moderate to severe COPD, but its efficacy and safety in the management of COPD is uncertain compared to other bronchodilators.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide in stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCT) from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), as well as www.clinicaltrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website and Almirall Clinical Trials Registry and Results. We contacted Forest Laboratories for any unpublished trials and checked the reference lists of identified articles for additional information. The last search was performed on 7 April 2014 for CAGR and 11 April 2014 for other sources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel-group RCTs of aclidinium bromide compared with placebo, long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) or LAMA in adults with stable COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We sought missing data from the trial authors as well as manufacturers of aclidinium. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and reported both with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 12 multicentre RCTs randomly assigning 9547 participants with stable COPD. All the studies were industry-sponsored and had similar inclusion criteria with relatively good methodological quality. All but one study included in the meta-analysis were double-blind and scored low risk of bias. The study duration ranged from four weeks to 52 weeks. Participants were more often males, mainly Caucasians, mean age ranging from 61.7 to 65.6 years, and with a smoking history of 10 or more pack years. They had moderate to severe symptoms at randomisation; the mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was between 46% and 57.6% of the predicted normal value, and the mean St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (SGRQ) ranged from 45.1 to 50.4 when reported.There was no difference between aclidinium and placebo in all-cause mortality (low quality) and number of patients with exacerbations requiring a short course of oral steroids or antibiotics, or both (moderate quality). Aclidinium improved quality of life by lowering the SGRQ total score with a mean difference of -2.34 (95% CI -3.18 to -1.51; I(2) = 48%, 7 trials, 4442 participants) when compared to placebo. More patients on aclidinium achieved a clinically meaningful improvement of at least four units decrease in SGRQ total score (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.31 to 1.70; I(2) = 34%; number needed to treat (NNT) = 10, 95% CI 8 to 15, high quality evidence) over 12 to 52 weeks than on placebo. Aclidinium also resulted in a significantly greater improvement in pre-dose FEV1 than placebo with a mean difference of 0.09 L (95% CI 0.08 to 0.10; I(2) = 39%, 9 trials, 4963 participants). No trials assessed functional capacity. Aclidinium reduced the number of patients with exacerbations requiring hospitalisation by 4 to 20 fewer per 1000 over 4 to 52 weeks (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.88; I(2) = 0%, 10 trials, 5624 people; NNT = 77, 95% CI 51 to 233, high quality evidence) compared to placebo. There was no difference in non-fatal serious adverse events (moderate quality evidence) between aclidinium and placebo.Compared to tiotropium, aclidinium did not demonstrate significant differences for exacerbations requiring oral steroids or antibiotics, or both, exacerbation-related hospitalisations and non-fatal serious adverse events (very low quality evidence). Inadequate data prevented the comparison of aclidinium to formoterol or other LABAs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Aclidinium is associated with improved quality of life and reduced hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe stable COPD compared to placebo. Overall, aclidinium did not significantly reduce mortality, serious adverse events or exacerbations requiring oral steroids or antibiotics, or both.Currently, the available data are insufficient and of very low quality in comparisons of the efficacy of aclidinium versus tiotropium. The efficacy of aclidinium versus LABAs cannot be assessed due to inaccurate data. Thus additional trials are recommended to assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium compared to other LAMAs or LABAs.

Emerging Therapeutic Options for the Management of COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the fourth leading cause of death worldwide and is projected to be the third by 2020. COPD is characterized by chronic airflow limitation caused by airway inflammation and parenchymal destruction that is usually progressive. Inhaled bronchodilators continue to be the mainstay of the current management of COPD. Safety and efficacy data of the recently approved medications including aclidinium, glycopyrronium, roflumilast, and indacaterol are reviewed here.

Safety and tolerability of inhalational anticholinergics in COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. With the significant toll of the disease, more resources have been invested in developing new treatment modalities. Among these medications, inhalational anticholinergics are widely used for the management of stable COPD. The newer agents, with longer half-lives and better safety profiles, have emerged and helped to improve management of COPD patients. The available data from randomized clinical trials support use of these agents. Multiple randomized clinical trials show safety and efficacy of the newer long-acting inhaled anticholinergics, including tiotropium and aclidinium. A recent meta-analysis of tiotropium delivered with Respimat(®) raised some safety concerns. A large trial, comparing different doses and delivery methods of inhaled tiotropium, is ongoing to determine the effect on mortality. As clinical trials may not comprehensively represent the entire COPD population, caution should be exercised when these agents are used in higher-risk populations, like individuals with cardiac arrhythmias or urinary obstruction. In this publication, we review the safety of inhalational anticholinergics.

Profile of glycopyrronium for once-daily treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD

Bronchodilators are central in the symptomatic management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β(2)-agonists (LABAs) are the main classes of long-acting bronchodilators. To date, tiotropium is the only once-daily LAMA available for the treatment of COPD. Glycopyrronium is a novel LAMA, currently in development for COPD. Phase II studies have shown that glycopyrronium 50 μg once daily provides clinically significant 24-hour bronchodilation with a rapid onset of action, which is faster than that of tiotropium, and a favorable safety and tolerability profile. The Phase III GLycopyrronium bromide in COPD airWays (GLOW) program has now confirmed the long-term efficacy and tolerability of glycopyrronium 50 μg once daily. The three studies included in this program have further shown that the effect of glycopyrronium versus placebo is similar to that of tiotropium in reducing dyspnea and the risk of exacerbations, as well as improving lung function, exercise tolerance, and health status in patients with COPD. The safety profile of glycopyrronium is also similar to that of tiotropium in terms of overall incidence of adverse events and muscarinic side effects. Glycopyrronium could be an alternative choice to tiotropium, and like tiotropium, has the potential to be used as a monotherapy or combination therapy. Phase II studies have shown that a fixed-dose combination of glycopyrronium and the 24-hour LABA indacaterol, produces rapid and sustained bronchodilation compared with indacaterol monotherapy in patients with COPD. Phase III studies are currently ongoing to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of this combination.

Bronchodilation of umeclidinium, a new long-acting muscarinic antagonist, in COPD patients

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the dose-response of the new long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (GSK573719) in patients with COPD.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study evaluated three once-daily doses of umeclidinium (125, 250 and 500 μg) for 28 days in 285 patients with COPD having FEV(1) of 35-70% predicted (mean (SD) age=61.4 (8.41); mean (SD) post-bronchodilator FEV(1)=1.577 (0.450)). The primary endpoint was morning trough FEV(1) at Day 29. Secondary endpoints included 0-6h weighted mean FEV(1) and serial FEV(1) measured over 6h post-dose and at trough. Safety and pharmacokinetics were also assessed.

RESULTS

All doses of umeclidinium significantly increased trough FEV(1) over placebo from 150 to 168 mL (p<0.001), 0-6h weighted mean FEV(1) from 113 to 211 mL (p<0.001), and serial FEV(1) at each point in time over 24h. Reductions in salbutamol use and improvements in FVC were noted for all doses. Umeclidinium was well tolerated with no apparent treatment-related changes in vital signs.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily umeclidinium provides clinically significant, sustained improvement in lung function and is well tolerated.

New bronchodilators

Bronchodilators are central in the treatment of airway diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Bronchodilators in COPD aim to improve lung function, reduce symptoms, prevent exacerbation, and enhance quality of life. The majority of programs in development for novel bronchodilators are focused on enhancing existing targets to once daily dosing and improving their safety profiles. However, just as important are other programs that aim to discover novel pharmacologic targets such as EP4 receptor agonists, bitter taste receptors, and selective PDE inhibitors. Furthermore, existing and novel bronchodilators have become vital components of multiple combination therapies targeting COPD. This review will discuss emerging bronchodilators highlighting preclinical data and available clinical trials.