Indacaterol for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Inhaled bronchodilators are the first-line therapy for COPD. Indacaterol is a novel addition to existing long-acting bronchodilators.

Objectives

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) on efficacy and safety of indacaterol as compared: 1) with placebo at different dosages, 2) with existing bronchodilators; (3) as add-on treatment to tiotropium.

Methods

We searched 13 electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL, and contacted the manufacturer for unpublished data. Primary outcome was mean FEV1 change at 12^th week, secondary outcomes included changes in SGRQ, TDI and BODE index at 6 months, exacerbation at 1 year, and worsening of symptoms.

Results

Twelve eligible RCTs of moderate risk of bias included data from 10,977 patients. Compared to placebo, indacaterol improved FEV1 by a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.16 L (95%CI: 0.15, 0.18 L, p<0.001), homogeneously above the minimally important difference of 0.10 L. It offered clinically relevant improvement in all secondary outcomes except exacerbation. Magnitude of benefit did not differ significantly by dosage, but one treatment related death was reported at 300 ug. Efficacy of Indacaterol was similar to formoterol and salmeterol (FEV1 WMD = 0.04L, 95%CI: 0.01L, 0.07 L, p = 0.02); and tiotropium (FEV1 WMD = 0.01L, 95%CI: −0.01, 0.03L, p = 0.61). The use of indacaterol on top of tiotropium yielded additional improvement on FEV1 (WMD = 0.07 L, 95%CI: 0.05L, 0.10 L, p<0.001).

Conclusion

Indacaterol is safe and beneficial for patients with COPD at dosage ≤150 ug. It may serve as a good alternative to existing bronchodilators, or as an add-on to tiotropium for unresponsive patients. Use of higher dosage requires further justification.     

The effect of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy on the risk of severe asthma exacerbations following episodes of high reliever use: an exploratory analysis of two randomised,controlled studies with comparisons to standard therapy

Background

Divergent strategies have emerged for the management of severe asthma. One strategy utilises high and fixed doses of maintenance treatment, usually inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist (ICS/LABA), supplemented by a short-acting β₂-agonist (SABA) as needed. Alternatively, budesonide/formoterol is used as both maintenance and reliever therapy. The latter is superior to fixed-dose treatment in reducing severe exacerbations while achieving similar or better asthma control in other regards. Exacerbations may be reduced by the use of budesonide/formoterol as reliever medication during periods of unstable asthma. We examined the risk of a severe exacerbation in the period after a single day with high reliever use.

Methods

Episodes of high reliever use were quantified and exacerbations occurring post-index day with these episodes were examined post hoc in two double-blind studies comparing the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART™, Turbuhaler®) 160/4.5 μg twice daily plus as needed with similar or higher maintenance doses of ICS/LABA plus SABA or formoterol.

Results

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy significantly reduced the risk of episodes of high reliever use (>6 inhalations/day) vs. all alternative ICS/LABA regimens. With conventional fixed-dose treatment the need for exacerbation treatment within 21 days ranged from 6.0–10.1% of days post-index for all regimens compared with 2.5–3.4% of days with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy.

Conclusions

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy reduces the incidence of high reliever episodes and the exacerbation burden immediately following these episodes vs. alternative ICS/LABA plus SABA regimens at up to double the maintenance dose of ICS.

Trial registration

These studies do not have registration numbers as they were conducted before clinical trial registration was required     

Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids can be safe in COPD patients at low risk of exacerbation: a real-life study on the appropriateness of treatment in moderate COPD patients (OPTIMO)

Background

It has been suggested that withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in COPD patients on maintenance treatment results in deterioration of symptoms, lung function and exacerbations. The aim of this real-life, prospective, multicentric study was to investigate whether withdrawal of ICS in COPD patients at low risk of exacerbation is linked to a deterioration in lung function and symptoms and to a higher frequency of exacerbations.

Methods

914 COPD patients, on maintenance therapy with bronchodilators and ICS, FEV₁>50% predicted, and <2 exacerbations/year were recruited. Upon decision of the primary physicians, 59% of patients continued their ICS treatment whereas in 41% of patients ICS were withdrawn and regular therapy was continued with long-acting bronchodilators mostly (91% of patients). FEV₁, CAT (COPD Assessment Test), and occurrence of exacerbations were measured at the beginning (T0) and at the end (T6) of the 6 months observational period.

Results

816 patients (89.3%) concluded the study. FEV₁, CAT and exacerbations history were similar in the two groups (ICS and no ICS) at T0 and at T6. We did not observe any deterioration of lung function symptoms, and exacerbation rate between the two groups at T0 and T6.

Conclusions

We conclude that the withdrawal of ICS, in COPD patients at low risk of exacerbation, can be safe provided that patients are left on maintenance treatment with long-acting bronchodilators.     

Inhaled Long-Acting β2-Agonists Do Not Increase Fatal Cardiovascular Adverse Events in COPD: A Meta-Analysis

Background

The cardiovascular safety of inhaled long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a controversial problem. Certain studies have suggested that inhaled LABAs lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients with COPD. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the cardiovascular safety of inhaled LABAs in COPD.

Methods

A meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials for LABA treatment of COPD with at least 3 months of follow-up was performed. The fixed-effects model was used to evaluate the effects of LABAs on fatal cardiovascular adverse events. Adverse events were collected for each trial, and the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for LABA/placebo were estimated.

Results

There were 24 trials included in this meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, inhaled LABAs significantly decreased fatal cardiovascular adverse events in COPD patients (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.86, P = 0.002). In sensitivity analysis, there was still no increased risk of fatal cardiovascular events (RR 0.68, 95%CI 0.46 to 1.01, P = 0.06) after excluding the trial with the largest weight. Among the different types of LABAs, only salmeterol had a significant effect (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.90). In subgroup analyses, inhaled LABAs were able to significantly decrease fatal cardiovascular events in long-term trials (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.87) and in trials with severe COPD patients (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96).

Conclusion

Inhaled LABAs do not increase the risk of fatal cardiovascular events in COPD patients.     

Risk of Pneumonia with Inhaled Corticosteroid versus Long-Acting Bronchodilator Regimens in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A New-User Cohort Study

Introduction

Observational studies using case-control designs have showed an increased risk of pneumonia associated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing medications in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). New-user observational cohort designs may minimize biases associated with previous case-control designs.

Objective

To estimate the association between ICS and pneumonia among new users of ICS relative to inhaled long-acting bronchodilator (LABD) monotherapy.

Methods

Pneumonia events in COPD patients ≥45 years old were compared among new users of ICS medications (n = 11,555; ICS, ICS/long-acting β₂-agonist [LABA] combination) and inhaled LABD monotherapies (n = 6,492; LABA, long-acting muscarinic antagonists) using Cox proportional hazards models, with propensity scores to adjust for confounding. Setting: United Kingdom electronic medical records with linked hospitalization and mortality data (2002–2010). New users were censored at earliest of: pneumonia event, death, changing/discontinuing treatment, or end of follow-up. Outcomes: severe pneumonia (primary) and any pneumonia (secondary).

Results

Following adjustment, new use of ICS-containing medications was associated with an increased risk of pneumonia hospitalization (n = 322 events; HR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.14, 2.10) and any pneumonia (n = 702 events; HR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.22, 1.83). Crude incidence rates of any pneumonia were 48.7 and 30.9 per 1000 person years among the ICS-containing and LABD cohorts, respectively. Excess risk of pneumonia with ICS was reduced when requiring ≥1 month or ≥ 6 months of new use. There was an apparent dose-related effect, with greater risk at higher daily doses of ICS. There was evidence of channeling bias, with more severe patients prescribed ICS, for which the analysis may not have completely adjusted.

Conclusions

The results of this new-user cohort study are consistent with published findings; ICS were associated with a 20–50% increased risk of pneumonia in COPD, which reduced with exposure time. This risk must be weighed against the benefits when prescribing ICS to patients with COPD.     

Once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 mcg versus twice daily combination therapies in COPD – mixed treatment comparisons of clinical efficacy

Background

Fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 mcg is a once-daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) treatment approved in the United States, Canada and Europe for the long-term maintenance therapy of COPD. We report data from mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) of once-daily FF/VI against established twice-daily ICS/LABA combination therapies on clinical efficacy outcomes.

Methods

Data from 33 parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ICS/LABAs, of ≥8 weeks’ duration in patients ≥12 years of age with COPD, identified by systematic review, were analysed using covariate-adjusted Bayesian hierarchical models for three efficacy outcomes. Lung function, assessed by change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁), was the outcome of primary interest (n = 28 studies). Secondary objectives were assessment of annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations (n = 15) and patient-reported health status, measured by change from baseline in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total score (n = 20). Overall, 25 different treatments were included in the MTC; we report findings, including probabilities of non-inferiority, for comparisons of once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg with twice-daily fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol (SAL) 500/50 mcg and budesonide (BUD)/formoterol (FORM) 400/12 mcg.

Results

For FEV₁, FF/VI 100/25 mcg demonstrated >99% probability of non-inferiority to FP/SAL 500/50 mcg and BUD/FORM 400/12 mcg using a 50 mL margin. For annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, FF/VI 100/25 mcg demonstrated 73% and 77% probability of non-inferiority to FP/SAL 500/50 mcg and BUD/FORM 400/12 mcg, respectively, using a 10% rate ratio margin. For SGRQ Total score, the corresponding probabilities of non-inferiority were 99% and 98%, respectively, on a 2-unit margin. Significant covariate effects were identified: increased age was associated with deterioration in FEV₁ and reduced exacerbation frequency; shorter study duration was associated with reduced exacerbation frequency.

Conclusions

FF/VI 100/25 mcg was comparable with corresponding doses of FP/SAL and BUD/FORM on lung function and health status outcomes. Non-inferiority on moderate/severe exacerbation rate was not demonstrated to the same degree of confidence, though observed rates were similar. Model limitations include a weak treatment network for the exacerbation analysis and variability across the included studies. Our data support previous RCT findings suggesting that the efficacy of FF/VI 100/25 mcg on lung function and health status in COPD is comparable with twice-daily ICS/LABAs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-015-0184-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Combination bronchodilator therapy in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) represents a significant cause of global morbidity and mortality, with a substantial economic impact. Recent changes in the Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidance refined the classification of patients for treatment using a combination of spirometry, assessment of symptoms, and/or frequency of exacerbations. The aim of treatment remains to reduce existing symptoms while decreasing the risk of future adverse health events. Long-acting bronchodilators are the mainstay of therapy due to their proven efficacy. GOLD guidelines recommend combining long-acting bronchodilators with differing mechanisms of action if the control of COPD is insufficient with monotherapy, and recent years have seen growing interest in the additional benefits that combination of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), typified by tiotropium, with long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs), such as formoterol and salmeterol. Most studies have examined free combinations of currently available LAMAs and LABAs, broadly showing a benefit in terms of lung function and other patient-reported outcomes, although evidence is limited at present. Several once- or twice-daily fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations are under development, most involving newly developed monotherapy components. This review outlines the existing data for LAMA/LABA combinations in the treatment of COPD, summarizes the ongoing trials, and considers the evidence required to inform the role of LAMA/LABA combinations in treatment of this disease.     

Overall asthma control achieved with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy for patients on different treatment steps

Background

Adjusting medication for uncontrolled asthma involves selecting one of several options from the same or a higher treatment step outlined in asthma guidelines. We examined the relative benefit of introducing budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART^® Turbuhaler^®) in patients previously prescribed treatments from Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Steps 2, 3 or 4.

Methods

This is a post hoc analysis of the results of five large clinical trials (>12000 patients) comparing BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy with other treatments categorised by treatment step at study entry. Both current clinical asthma control during the last week of treatment and exacerbations during the study were examined.

Results

At each GINA treatment step, the proportion of patients achieving target levels of current clinical control were similar or higher with BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy compared with the same or a higher fixed maintenance dose of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist (ICS/LABA) (plus short-acting β₂-agonist [SABA] as reliever), and rates of exacerbations were lower at all treatment steps in BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy versus same maintenance dose ICS/LABA (P < 0.01) and at treatment Step 4 versus higher maintenance dose ICS/LABA (P < 0.001). BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy also achieved significantly higher rates of current clinical control and significantly lower exacerbation rates at most treatment steps compared with a higher maintenance dose ICS + SABA (Steps 2-4 for control and Steps 3 and 4 for exacerbations). With all treatments, the proportion of patients achieving current clinical control was lower with increasing treatment steps.

Conclusions

BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy may be a preferable option for patients on Steps 2 to 4 of asthma guidelines requiring a more effective treatment and, compared with other fixed dose alternatives, is most effective in the higher treatment steps.     

Effect of β2-adrenergic receptor gene (ADRB2) 3′ untranslated region polymorphisms on inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-adrenergic agonist response

Background

Evidence suggests that variation in the length of the poly-C repeat in the 3′ untranslated region (3′UTR) of the β₂-adrenergic receptor gene (ADRB2) may contribute to interindividual variation in β-agonist response. However, methodology in previous studies limited the assessment of the effect of sequence variation in the context of poly-C repeat length. The objectives of this study were to design a novel genotyping method to fully characterize sequence variation in the ADRB2 3′UTR poly-C repeat in asthma patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting β₂-adrenergic agonist (ICS/LABA) combination therapy, and to analyze the effect of the poly-C repeat polymorphism on clinical response.

Methods

In 2,250 asthma patients randomized to treatment with budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol in a six-month study (AstraZeneca study code: SD-039-0735), sequence diversity in the ADRB2 poly-C repeat region was determined using a novel sequencing-based genotyping method. The relationship between the poly-C repeat polymorphism and the incidence of severe asthma exacerbations, and changes in pulmonary function and asthma symptoms from baseline to the average during the treatment period, were analyzed.

Results

Poly-C repeat genotypes were assigned in 97% (2,192/2,250) of patients. Of the 13 different poly-C repeat alleles identified, six alleles occurred at a frequency of >5% in one or more population in this study. The repeat length of these six common alleles ranged from 10 to 14 nucleotides. Twelve poly-C repeat genotypes were observed at a frequency of >1%. No evidence of an association between poly-C repeat genotype and the incidence of severe asthma exacerbations was observed. Patients’ pulmonary function measurements improved and asthma symptoms declined when treated with ICS/LABA combination therapy regardless of poly-C repeat genotype.

Conclusions

The extensive sequence diversity present in the poly-C repeat region of the ADRB2 3′UTR did not predict therapeutic response to ICS/LABA therapy.     

The bioavailability and airway clearance of the steroid component of budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone after inhaled administration in patients with COPD and healthy subjects: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Airway absorption and bioavailability of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) may be influenced by differences in pharmacokinetic properties such as lipophilicity and patient characteristics such as lung function. This study aimed to further investigate and clarify the distribution of budesonide and fluticasone in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by measuring the systemic availability and sputum concentration of budesonide and fluticasone, administered via combination inhalers with the respective long-acting β₂-agonists, formoterol and salmeterol.

Methods

This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, two-way crossover, multicenter study. Following a run-in period, 28 patients with severe COPD (mean age 65 years, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁] 37.5% predicted normal) and 27 healthy subjects (mean age 31 years, FEV₁ 103.3% predicted normal) received two single-dose treatments of budesonide/formoterol (400/12 μg) and salmeterol/fluticasone (50/500 μg), separated by a 4–14-day washout period. ICS concentrations were measured over 10 hours post-inhalation in plasma in all subjects, and over 6 hours in spontaneously expectorated sputum in COPD patients. The primary end point was the area under the curve (AUC) of budesonide and fluticasone plasma concentrations in COPD patients relative to healthy subjects.

Results

Mean plasma AUC values were lower in COPD patients versus healthy subjects for budesonide (3.07 μM·hr versus 6.21 μM·hr) and fluticasone (0.84 μM·hr versus 1.50 μM·hr), and the dose-adjusted AUC (geometric mean) ratios in healthy subjects and patients with severe COPD for plasma budesonide and fluticasone were similar (2.02 versus 1.80; primary end point). In COPD patients, the T_max and the mean residence time in the systemic circulation were shorter for budesonide versus fluticasone (15.5 min versus 50.8 min and 4.41 hrs versus 12.78 hrs, respectively) and C_max was higher (1.08 μM versus 0.09 μM). The amount of expectorated fluticasone (percentage of estimated lung-deposited dose) in sputum over 6 hours was significantly higher versus budesonide (ratio 5.21; p = 0.006). Both treatments were well tolerated.

Conclusion

The relative systemic availabilities of budesonide and fluticasone between patients with severe COPD and healthy subjects were similar. In patients with COPD, a larger fraction of fluticasone was expectorated in the sputum as compared with budesonide.

Trial registration

Trial registration number {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00379028","term_id":"NCT00379028"}}NCT00379028     

Comparative efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators for COPD - a network meta-analysis

Background

Clinicians are faced with an increasingly difficult choice regarding the optimal bronchodilator for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) given the number of new treatments. The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative efficacy of indacaterol 75/150/300 μg once daily (OD), glycopyrronium bromide 50 μg OD, tiotropium bromide 18 μg/5 μg OD, salmeterol 50 μg twice daily (BID), formoterol 12 μg BID, and placebo for moderate to severe COPD.

Methods

Forty randomized controlled trials were combined in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest were trough and post-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and responders (≥4 points), and Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) score and responders (≥1 point) at 6 months.

Results

Indacaterol was associated with a higher trough FEV₁ than other active treatments (difference for indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg versus placebo: 152 mL (95% credible interval (CrI): 126, 179); 160 mL (95% CrI: 133, 187)) and the greatest improvement in SGRQ score (difference for indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg versus placebo: -3.9 (95% CrI -5.2, -2.6); -3.6 (95% CrI -4.8, -2.3)). Glycopyrronium and tiotropium 18 μg resulted in the next best estimates for both outcomes with minor differences (difference for glycopyrronium versus tiotropium for trough FEV₁ and SGRQ: 18 mL (95% CrI: -16, 51); -0.55 (95% CrI: -2.04, 0.92).

Conclusion

In terms of trough FEV₁ and SGRQ score indacaterol, glycopyrronium, and tiotropium are expected to be the most effective bronchodilators.     

Tiotropium might improve survival in subjects with COPD at high risk of mortality

Background

Inhaled therapies reduce risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, but their effect on mortality is less well established. We hypothesized that heterogeneity in baseline mortality risk influenced the results of drug trials assessing mortality in COPD.

Methods

The 5706 patients with COPD from the Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT®) study that had complete clinical information for variables associated with mortality (age, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, pack-years and body mass index) were classified by cluster analysis. Baseline risk of mortality between clusters, and impact of tiotropium were evaluated during the 4-yr follow up.

Results

Four clusters were identified, including low-risk (low mortality rate) patients (n = 2339; 41%; cluster 2), and high-risk patients (n = 1022; 18%; cluster 3), who had a 2.6- and a six-fold increase in all-cause and respiratory mortality compared with cluster 2, respectively. Tiotropium reduced exacerbations in all clusters, and reduced hospitalizations in high-risk patients (p < 0.05). The beneficial effect of tiotropium on all-cause mortality in the overall population (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.75–1.00, p = 0.054) was explained by a 21% reduction in cluster 3 (p = 0.07), with no effect in other clusters.

Conclusions

Large variations in baseline risks of mortality existed among patients in the UPLIFT® study. Inclusion of numerous low-risk patients may have reduced the ability to show beneficial effect on mortality. Future clinical trials should consider selective inclusion of high-risk patients.     

Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate: the 24-week,randomized, placebo-controlled AUGMENT COPD study

Background

Combining two long-acting bronchodilators with complementary mechanisms of action may provide treatment benefits to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that are greater than those derived from either treatment alone. The efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium bromide, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and formoterol fumarate, a long-acting β₂-agonist, in patients with moderate to severe COPD are presented.

Methods

In this 24-week double-blind study, 1692 patients with stable COPD were equally randomized to twice-daily treatment with FDC aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg (ACL400/FOR12 FDC), FDC aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 6 μg (ACL400/FOR6 FDC), aclidinium 400 μg, formoterol 12 μg, or placebo administered by a multidose dry powder inhaler (Genuair^®/Pressair^®)*. Coprimary endpoints were change from baseline to week 24 in 1-hour morning postdose FEV₁ (FDCs versus aclidinium) and change from baseline to week 24 in morning predose (trough) FEV₁ (FDCs versus formoterol). Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and improvement in Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score at week 24. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

Results

At study end, improvements from baseline in 1-hour postdose FEV₁ were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC or ACL400/FOR6 FDC compared with aclidinium (108 mL and 87 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001). Improvements in trough FEV₁ were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC versus formoterol (45 mL; p = 0.0102), a numerical improvement of 26 mL in trough FEV₁ over formoterol was observed with ACL400/FOR6 FDC. Significant improvements in both SGRQ total and TDI focal scores were observed in the ACL400/FOR12 FDC group at study end (p < 0.0001), with differences over placebo exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of ≥4 points and ≥1 unit, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated, with safety profiles of the FDCs similar to those of the monotherapies.

Conclusions

Treatment with twice-daily aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg FDC provided rapid and sustained bronchodilation that was greater than either monotherapy; clinically significant improvements in dyspnea and health status were evident compared with placebo. Aclidinium/formoterol FDC may be an effective and well tolerated new treatment option for patients with COPD.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01437397","term_id":"NCT01437397"}}NCT01437397.*Registered trademarks of Almirall S.A., Barcelona, Spain; for use within the US as Pressair^® and Genuair^® within all other licensed territories.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-014-0123-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Long-Term Once-Daily Tiotropium Respimat? Is Well Tolerated and Maintains Efficacy over 52 Weeks in Patients with Symptomatic Asthma in Japan: A Randomised,Placebo-Controlled Study

Background

This study assessed the long-term safety and efficacy of tiotropium Respimat, a long-acting inhaled anticholinergic bronchodilator, in asthma, added on to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with or without long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA).

Methods

285 patients with symptomatic asthma, despite treatment with ICS±LABA, were randomised 2:2:1 to once-daily tiotropium 5 μg, tiotropium 2.5 μg or placebo for 52 weeks (via the Respimat SoftMist inhaler) added on to ICS±LABA, in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study (NCT01340209). Primary objective: to describe the long-term safety profile of tiotropium. Secondary end points included: trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) response; peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) response; seven-question Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-7) score.

Results

At Week 52, adverse-event (AE) rates with tiotropium 5 μg, 2.5 μg and placebo were 88.6%, 86.8% and 89.5%, respectively. Commonly reported AEs with tiotropium 5 μg, 2.5 μg and placebo were nasopharyngitis (48.2%, 44.7%, 42.1%), asthma (28.9%, 29.8%, 38.6%), decreased PEFR (15.8%, 7.9%, 21.1%), bronchitis (9.6%, 13.2%, 7.0%), pharyngitis (7.9%, 13.2%, 3.5%) and gastroenteritis (10.5%, 3.5%, 5.3%). In the tiotropium 5 μg, 2.5 μg and placebo groups, 8.8%, 5.3% and 5.3% of patients reported drug-related AEs; 3.5%, 3.5% and 15.8% reported serious AEs. Asthma worsening was the only serious AE reported in more than one patient. At Week 52, adjusted mean trough FEV₁ and trough PEFR responses were significantly higher with tiotropium 5 μg (but not 2.5 μg) versus placebo. ACQ-7 responder rates were higher with tiotropium 5 μg and 2.5 μg versus placebo at Week 24.

Conclusions

The long-term tiotropium Respimat safety profile was comparable with that of placebo Respimat, and associated with mild to moderate, non-serious AEs in patients with symptomatic asthma despite ICS±LABA therapy. Compared with placebo, tiotropium 5 μg, but not 2.5 μg, significantly improved lung function and symptoms, supporting the long-term efficacy of the 5 μg dose.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01340209