Importance of distinguishing between asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To facilitate distinction between asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in day-to-day primary care practice, and provide practical treatment strategies using spirometric cases to outline how to recognize the clinical and spirometric overlap between asthma and COPD. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: The approaches described here were developed using evidence-based guidelines and the expertise of the authors, including research findings by the authors in the areas of asthma, COPD management, and spirometric testing in primary care. MAIN MESSAGE: There are patients with clinical or spirometric features of both asthma and COPD. Both asthma and COPD are associated with some degree of inflammation of the respiratory tract, mediated by the increased expression of inflammatory proteins. However, there are clear differences between asthma and COPD in the pattern of inflammation that occurs in the lungs. Diagnostic confusion between COPD and asthma is most likely to arise in older patients with respiratory complaints, particularly against a background that includes cigarette smoke or workplace exposure. Both asthma and COPD are clinical diagnoses based on patient history, symptoms, physical examination findings, and objective measures of lung function. Postbronchodilator spirometry is always needed to confirm a new diagnosis of COPD and should also be performed prebronchodilator for the diagnosis of asthma. However, in many cases, the interpretation of spirometry results is not straightforward. CONCLUSION: Understanding the nature and extent of the spirometric overlap between asthma and COPD is critical for tailoring a therapeutic strategy that is based on factors that include medical and family history, signs and symptoms, and a clear interpretation of spirometry data. This information will be leveraged differently for individual patients to arrive at the correct clinical diagnosis and to select the most appropriate therapy.

Airway hyperresponsiveness in patients with normal spirometry results and symptoms compatible with asthma: Primary care retrospective chart review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the proportion of patients with symptoms suggestive of asthma and normal lung function who exhibit airway hyperreactivity with methacholine challenge testing (MCT) in primary care. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Primary care lung clinic in Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 69 patients presenting to the lung clinic who had symptoms compatible with asthma, normal spirometry test results, and were referred for MCT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive statistics, frequency counts, independent t tests, and 2 tests were used to examine differences in the proportion of clinical and demographic variables identified in patients with or without a positive MCT result. Effect size was determined between MCT-positive and MCT-negative patients for both categorical ( coefficient) and continuous (Hedges g) data. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (30.4%) had positive MCT results, and 48 patients (69.6%) had negative MCT results. Family history of asthma and reduced baseline and postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second were associated with a positive MCT result. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study provide insight into the utility of simple spirometry for asthma diagnosis and the need to further clarify the role of MCT in the primary care setting.

Weighing the evidence for pharmacological treatment interventions in mild COPD; a narrative perspective.

There is increasing focus on understanding the nature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during the earlier stages. Mild COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 1 or the now-withdrawn GOLD stage 0) represents an early stage of COPD that may progress to more severe disease. This review summarises the disease burden of patients with mild COPD and discusses the evidence for treatment intervention in this subgroup.Overall, patients with mild COPD suffer a substantial disease burden that includes persistent or potentially debilitating symptoms, increased risk of exacerbations, increased healthcare utilisation, reduced exercise tolerance and physical activity, and a higher rate of lung function decline versus controls. However, the evidence for treatment efficacy in these patients is limited due to their frequent exclusion from clinical trials. Careful assessment of disease burden and the rate of disease progression in individual patients, rather than a reliance on spirometry data, may identify patients who could benefit from earlier treatment intervention.

Reduction in clinically important deterioration in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with aclidinium/formoterol.

BACKGROUND: 'Clinically important deterioration' (CID) is a composite endpoint measuring worsening of the key clinical features of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), namely lung function, patient-reported outcomes, and exacerbations. ACLIFORM and AUGMENT were two 24-week, randomized, double-blind, phase III studies assessing twice-daily (BID) aclidinium bromide (AB) 400 µg/formoterol fumarate (FF) 12 µg. This pooled post-hoc analysis assessed the effects of AB/FF 400/12 µg on both first and sustained CID events versus placebo and monotherapies in patients with moderate to severe COPD. METHODS: A first CID event was defined as the occurrence of a moderate/severe exacerbation or the worsening from baseline in ≥1 of the following: trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; ≥100 mL), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score (≥1 unit), or St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (≥4 units). A 'sustained' CID was defined as a worsening maintained at all subsequent visits from appearance to week 24 or a moderate/severe exacerbation at any time. CID events were assessed at three visits (weeks 4, 12, and 24); trough FEV1 was also measured at weeks 1 and 18. RESULTS: AB/FF 400/12 µg reduced the risk of a first CID event by 45% versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, p < 0.001), 18% versus FF 12 µg (HR 0.82, p < 0.01), and 15% versus AB 400 µg (HR 0.85, p < 0.05). Similarly, AB/FF 400/12 µg reduced the risk of a sustained CID event by 48% versus placebo (HR 0.52, p < 0.001) and 22% versus FF 12 µg (HR 0.78, p < 0.01). AB/FF 400/12 µg reduced the risk of a first or sustained CID event for all four components versus placebo (trough FEV1 and TDI, first and sustained CID, all p < 0.001; SGRQ first CID p < 0.001; SGRQ sustained CID, p < 0.01; exacerbations first and sustained CID, both p < 0.05) and TDI and SGRQ versus FF 12 µg (TDI, first and sustained CID both p < 0.05; SGRQ first CID p < 0.01), and SGRQ versus AB 400 µg (first CID, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: AB/FF 400/12 µg BID may provide greater airway stability and fewer exacerbations or deteriorations in lung function, health status, or dyspnea compared with placebo or monotherapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01462942 (ACLIFORM); registered 26 October 2011. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01437397 (AUGMENT); registered 19 September 2011.

Pharmacological strategies to reduce exacerbation risk in COPD: a narrative review.

Identifying patients at risk of exacerbations and managing them appropriately to reduce this risk represents an important clinical challenge. Numerous treatments have been assessed for the prevention of exacerbations and their efficacy may differ by patient phenotype. Given their centrality in the treatment of COPD, there is strong rationale for maximizing bronchodilation as an initial strategy to reduce exacerbation risk irrespective of patient phenotype. Therefore, in patients assessed as frequent exacerbators (>1 exacerbation/year) we propose initial bronchodilator treatment with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/ long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA). For those patients who continue to experience >1 exacerbation/year despite maximal bronchodilation, we advocate treating according to patient phenotype. Based on currently available data on adding inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to a LABA, ICS might be added to a LABA/LAMA combination in exacerbating patients who have an asthma-COPD overlap syndrome or high blood eosinophil counts, while in exacerbators with chronic bronchitis, consideration should be given to treating with a phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitor (roflumilast) or high-dose mucolytic agents. For those patients who experience frequent bacterial exacerbations and/or bronchiectasis, addition of mucolytic agents or a macrolide antibiotic (e.g. azithromycin) should be considered. In all patients at risk of exacerbations, pulmonary rehabilitation should be included as part of a comprehensive management plan.

Importance de distinguer l'asthme de la maladie pulmonaire obstructive chronique en première ligne.

OBJECTIF: Faciliter la distinction entre l'asthme et la maladie pulmonaire obstructive chronique (MPOC) en pratique de première ligne de tous les jours, et fournir des stratégies thérapeutiques pratiques à l'aide de cas de spirométrie pour illustrer comment reconnaître le chevauchement clinique et spirométrique entre l'asthme et la MPOC. SOURCES D'INFORMATION: Les approches décrites ici s'appuient sur les lignes directrices factuelles et sur l'expertise des auteurs, y compris des observations de recherches menées par les auteurs dans les domaines de l'asthme, de la prise en charge de la MPOC et des examens de spirométrie en première ligne. MESSAGE PRINCIPAL: Certains patients présentent des caractéristiques cliniques communes à l'asthme et à la MPOC. Ces deux maladies sont associées à un certain degré d'inflammation des voies respiratoires, médiée par l'expression accrue de protéines inflammatoires. Il existe toutefois des différences évidentes entre l'asthme et la MPOC pour ce qui est de l'inflammation présente dans les poumons. La confusion diagnostique entre la MPOC et l'asthme survient le plus souvent chez les patients âgés qui se plaignent de symptômes respiratoires, surtout en contexte de tabagisme ou d'exposition professionnelle. Les diagnostics cliniques d'asthme et de MPOC sont fondés sur les antécédents du patient, les symptômes, l'examen physique et les mesures objectives de la fonction respiratoire. La spirométrie après bronchodilatation est toujours nécessaire pour confirmer un nouveau diagnostic de MPOC et elle doit également être réalisée avant la bronchodilatation pour poser un diagnostic d'asthme. Dans de nombreux cas, toutefois, il n'est pas évident d'interpréter les résultats de la spirométrie. CONCLUSION: Il est essentiel de bien comprendre la nature et la portée du chevauchement spirométrique entre l'asthme et la MPOC afin de concevoir une stratégie thérapeutique qui s'appuie sur des facteurs qui incluent les antécédents médicaux et familiaux, les signes et les symptômes, et l'interprétation claire des données de spirométrie. Cette information sera utilisée différemment auprès de chaque patient pour arriver au bon diagnostic clinique et sélectionner le traitement le plus approprié.

Aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate as a fixed-dose combination in COPD: pooled analysis of symptoms and exacerbations from two six-month, multicentre, randomised studies (ACLIFORM and AUGMENT).

BACKGROUND: The combination of aclidinium bromide, a long-acting anticholinergic, and formoterol fumarate, a long-acting beta2-agonist (400/12 µg twice daily) achieves improvements in lung function greater than either monotherapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and is approved in the European Union as a maintenance treatment. The effect of this combination on symptoms of COPD and exacerbations is less well established. We examined these outcomes in a pre-specified analysis of pooled data from two 24-week, double-blind, parallel-group, active- and placebo-controlled, multicentre, randomised Phase III studies (ACLIFORM and AUGMENT). METHODS: Patients ≥40 years with moderate to severe COPD (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]/forced vital capacity <70 % and FEV1 ≥30 % but <80 % predicted normal) were randomised (ACLIFORM: 2:2:2:2:1; AUGMENT: 1:1:1:1:1) to twice-daily aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg or 400/6 µg, aclidinium 400 µg, formoterol 12 µg or placebo via Genuair™/Pressair®. Dyspnoea (Transition Dyspnoea Index; TDI), daily symptoms (EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool [EXACT]-Respiratory Symptoms [E-RS] questionnaire), night-time and early-morning symptoms, exacerbations (Healthcare Resource Utilisation [HCRU] and EXACT definitions) and relief-medication use were assessed. RESULTS: The pooled intent-to-treat population included 3394 patients. Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg significantly improved TDI focal score versus placebo and both monotherapies at Week 24 (all p < 0.05). Over 24 weeks, significant improvements in E-RS total score, overall night-time and early-morning symptom severity and limitation of early-morning activities were observed with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg versus placebo and both monotherapies (all p < 0.05). The rate of moderate or severe HCRU exacerbations was significantly reduced with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg compared with placebo (p < 0.05) but not monotherapies; the rate of EXACT-defined exacerbations was significantly reduced with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg versus placebo (p < 0.01) and aclidinium (p < 0.05). Time to first HCRU or EXACT exacerbation was longer with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg compared with placebo (all p < 0.05) but not the monotherapies. Relief-medication use was reduced with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg versus placebo and aclidinium (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg significantly improves 24-hour symptom control compared with placebo, aclidinium and formoterol in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Furthermore, aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg reduces the frequency of exacerbations compared with placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01462942 and NCT01437397 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Dual bronchodilation with QVA149 reduces patient-reported dyspnoea in COPD: the BLAZE study.

We evaluated the effect of QVA149, a dual bronchodilator combining indacaterol and glycopyrronium, on direct patient-reported dyspnoea in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In this multicentre, blinded, double-dummy, three-period crossover study, 247 patients were randomised to once-daily QVA149 110/50 µg, placebo or tiotropium 18 µg. Superiority of QVA149 versus placebo (primary objective) and tiotropium (secondary objective) was assessed for improvement in dyspnoea via the self-administered computerised (SAC) version of the Baseline and Transition Dyspnoea Index after 6 weeks. Secondary end-points included lung function, rescue medication use and safety. After 6 weeks, the SAC Transition Dyspnoea Index total score was significantly higher with QVA149 versus placebo (least squares mean (LSM) treatment difference 1.37, p<0.001) and tiotropium (LSM treatment difference 0.49, p=0.021). QVA149 provided significant improvements in lung function, with higher forced expiratory volume in 1 s area under the curve from 0-4 h post-dose versus placebo and tiotropium at day 1 and week 6 (all p<0.001). Rescue medication use was significantly lower with QVA149 versus placebo (p<0.001) and tiotropium (p=0.002). All treatments were well tolerated. Once-daily QVA149 provided superior improvements in patient-reported dyspnoea and lung function versus placebo and tiotropium. These benefits were associated with improvements in other symptoms and reduced use of rescue medication.

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 ß2-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 NCT01437397.

A blinded evaluation of the efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium, a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist, versus tiotropium, in patients with COPD: the GLOW5 study.

BACKGROUND: Two once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are currently available for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) - tiotropium and glycopyrronium. Previous studies have compared glycopyrronium with open-label tiotropium. In the GLOW5 study, we compare glycopyrronium with blinded tiotropium. METHODS: In this blinded, double-dummy, parallel group, 12-week study, patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized 1:1 to glycopyrronium 50 µg once daily or tiotropium 18 µg once daily. The primary objective was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of glycopyrronium versus blinded tiotropium with respect to trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) following 12 weeks of treatment (non-inferiority margin: -50 mL). Secondary objectives were to evaluate glycopyrronium versus tiotropium for other spirometric outcomes, breathlessness (Transition Dyspnea Index; TDI), health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire; SGRQ), daily rescue medication use, COPD exacerbations and COPD symptoms over 12 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: 657 patients were randomized (glycopyrronium: 327; tiotropium: 330); 96% (630 patients) completed the study. Least squares mean trough FEV1 for both glycopyrronium and tiotropium was 1.405 L at Week 12, meeting the criterion for non-inferiority (mean treatment difference: 0 mL, 95% CI: -32, 31 mL). Glycopyrronium demonstrated rapid bronchodilation following first dose on Day 1, with significantly higher FEV1 at all time points from 0-4 h post-dose versus tiotropium (all p < 0.001). FEV1 area under the curve from 0-4 h (AUC0-4h) post-dose with glycopyrronium was significantly superior to tiotropium on Day 1 (p < 0.001) and was comparable to tiotropium at Week 12. Glycopyrronium demonstrated comparable improvements to tiotropium in TDI focal score, SGRQ total score, rescue medication use and the rate of COPD exacerbations (all p = not significant). Patients on glycopyrronium also had a significantly lower total COPD symptom score versus patients on tiotropium after 12 weeks (p = 0.035). Adverse events were reported by a similar percentage of patients receiving glycopyrronium (40.4%) and tiotropium (40.6%). CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, 12-week blinded treatment with once-daily glycopyrronium 50 µg or tiotropium 18 µg, provided similar efficacy and safety, with glycopyrronium having a faster onset of action on Day 1 versus tiotropium.

One-year extension study of ACCORD COPD I: safety and efficacy of two doses of twice-daily aclidinium bromide in patients with COPD.

This was a 52-week, double-blind, extension study in which COPD patients previously treated with twice-daily (BID) aclidinium bromide 200 µg or 400 µg during a 12-week lead-in study (ACCORD COPD I) continued the same treatment, while patients previously receiving placebo were rerandomized (1:1) to aclidinium 200 µg or 400 µg BID. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of aclidinium treatment. Efficacy outcomes included bronchodilation, health status, and rescue medication use. A total of 467 patients completed the lead-in study and 291 patients consented to participate in the extension. At study end, the percentages of patients who reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) were similar for both treatments (200 µg, 77.4%; 400 µg, 73.7%). Incidence of anticholinergic TEAEs was low and similar for both treatments, with dry mouth reported in only 1 patient (400 µg). Cardiac TEAEs were reported by a similarly low percentage of patients (<5% for any event in any group) with no apparent dose dependence. Improvements from baseline in lung function were greatest for patients who received continuous aclidinium treatment and those who were rerandomized from placebo to aclidinium 400 µg; these improvements were generally sustained throughout the study. Health status and overall rescue medication use was improved from baseline for both treatments. The safety profile of twice-daily aclidinium and sustained improvements in lung function and health status throughout the 52-week extension study support its use as a long-term maintenance treatment for patients with COPD. (Clinical trial registration number NCT00970268).

2023 Canadian Thoracic Society Guideline on Pharmacotherapy in Patients With Stable COPD.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patient care must include confirming a diagnosis with postbronchodilator spirometry. Because of the clinical heterogeneity and the reality that airflow obstruction assessed by spirometry only partially reflects disease severity, a thorough clinical evaluation of the patient should include assessment of symptom burden and risk of exacerbations that permits the implementation of evidence-informed pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions. This guideline provides recommendations from a comprehensive systematic review with a meta-analysis and expert-informed clinical remarks to optimize maintenance pharmacologic therapy for individuals with stable COPD, and a revised and practical treatment pathway based on new evidence since the 2019 update of the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) Guideline. The key clinical questions were developed using the Patients/Population (P), Intervention(s) (I), Comparison/Comparator (C), and Outcome (O) model for three questions that focuses on the outcomes of symptoms (dyspnea)/health status, acute exacerbations, and mortality. The evidence from this systematic review and meta-analysis leads to the recommendation that all symptomatic patients with spirometry-confirmed COPD should receive long-acting bronchodilator maintenance therapy. Those with moderate to severe dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council ≥ 2) and/or impaired health status (COPD Assessment Test ≥ 10) and a low risk of exacerbations should receive combination therapy with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ẞ2-agonist (LAMA/LABA). For those with a moderate/severe dyspnea and/or impaired health status and a high risk of exacerbations should be prescribed triple combination therapy (LAMA/LABA/inhaled corticosteroids) azithromycin, roflumilast or N-acetylcysteine is recommended for specific populations; a recommendation against the use of theophylline, maintenance systemic oral corticosteroids such as prednisone and inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy is made for all COPD patients.

Concurrent use of indacaterol plus tiotropium in patients with COPD provides superior bronchodilation compared with tiotropium alone: a randomised, double-blind comparison.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend treatment with one or more long-acting bronchodilators for patients with moderate or more severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The authors investigated the approach of dual bronchodilation using indacaterol, a once-daily long-acting ß(2) agonist, and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium, compared with tiotropium alone. METHODS: In two identically designed, double-blind, 12-week studies, patients with moderate to severe COPD were randomised to indacaterol 150 µg once daily or matching placebo. All patients concurrently received open-label tiotropium 18 µg once daily. The primary outcome was standardised area under the curve of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) from 5 min to 8 h post dose at week 12. The key secondary outcome was 24 h post-dose ('trough') FEV(1) at week 12. Resting inspiratory capacity (IC) was measured in a subgroup. RESULTS: 1134 and 1142 patients were randomised in studies 1 and 2; 94% and 94% completed. Compared with monotherapy, concurrent therapy increased FEV(1) (area under the curve by 130 and 120 ml, trough by 80 and 70 ml; all p<0.001) and trough IC (by 130 and 100 ml, p<0.01). Cough was more common with indacaterol plus tiotropium (10% and 9%) than with tiotropium alone (4% and 4%). Most cases (∼90%) of cough were mild. Other adverse events were similar for the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with tiotropium monotherapy, indacaterol plus tiotropium provided greater bronchodilation and lung deflation (reflected by increased resting IC). Adverse events were similar between treatments apart from mild cough being more common with indacaterol plus tiotropium. These results support COPD guideline recommendations to combine bronchodilators with different mechanisms of action. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT00846586 and NCT00877383.

Safety and efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy in adolescent and adult patients with mild-to-moderate asthma: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of a new asthma therapy combining fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; flutiform®), administered twice daily (b.i.d.) via a single aerosol inhaler, compared with its individual components administered separately and placebo, in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma. METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 12 years were evenly randomised to 12 weeks of treatment with fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 µg b.i.d.), fluticasone (100 µg b.i.d.), formoterol (10 µg b.i.d.), or placebo, in this double-blind, parallel group, multicentre study. The three co-primary endpoints were: a) change in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV(1)) from morning pre-dose at baseline to pre-dose at week 12 for the comparison with formoterol; b) change in FEV(1) from morning pre-dose at baseline to 2 hours post-dose at week 12 for the comparison with fluticasone, and c) time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy from baseline to week 12 for the comparison with placebo. Safety was assessed based on adverse events, clinical laboratory tests and vital sign evaluations. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were demonstrated for all the three co-primary endpoints. Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy showed significantly greater improvements from baseline to end of study in the change in pre-dose FEV(1) compared with formoterol (Least Squares (LS) mean treatment difference: 0.101 L; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.002, 0.199; p = 0.045) and the change in pre-dose compared with 2 hours post-dose FEV(1) versus fluticasone (LS mean treatment difference: 0.200 L; 95% CI: 0.109, 0.292; p < 0.001). The time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy was significantly longer for patients in the combination therapy group compared with those receiving placebo (p = 0.015). Overall, the results from multiple secondary endpoints assessing lung function, asthma symptoms, and rescue medication use supported the superior efficacy of the combination product compared with fluticasone, formoterol, and placebo. The fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy had a good safety and tolerability profile over the 12 week treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: Fluticasone/formoterol had a good safety and tolerability profile and showed statistically superior efficacy for the three co-primary endpoints compared to fluticasone, formoterol, and placebo, in adolescents and adults with mild-to-moderate asthma. EudraCT number: 2007-002866-36; US NCT number: NCT00393991.

Efficacy and safety of a 12-week treatment with twice-daily aclidinium bromide in COPD patients (ACCORD COPD I).

BACKGROUND: This Phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg versus placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS: In this 12-week, double-blind, multicenter trial, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to inhaled twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg, aclidinium 400 µg, or placebo. Primary and secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in trough FEV1 and peak FEV1 at Week 12, respectively. Health status (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]), COPD symptoms (Transitional Dyspnea Index [TDI], night and early morning symptoms), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 561 patients (mean age, 64 ± 9 years) with a mean baseline FEV1 of 1.36 ± 0.54 L (47.2% of predicted value) were randomized. At Week 12, aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg showed significant improvements from baseline in mean (95% CI) trough FEV1 compared with placebo by 86 (45, 127) mL and 124 (83,164) mL, respectively, and in peak FEV1 by 146 (101, 190) mL and 192 (148, 236) mL, respectively (p ≤ 0.0001 for all). Both aclidinium doses also provided significant improvements in SGRQ, TDI and almost all COPD symptom scores compared with placebo (p < 0.05 for all). Incidences of adverse events (AEs) were similar across treatment groups. The incidence of anticholinergic AEs was low and similar across groups (dry mouth: 0.5%-1.6%; constipation: 0%-1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD patients with twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg was associated with significant improvements in bronchodilation, health status, and COPD symptoms. Both doses were well tolerated and had safety profiles similar to placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This ACCORD I study (AClidinium in Chronic Obstructive Respiratory Disease I) was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00891462) as "Efficacy and Safety of Aclidinium Bromide for Treatment of Moderate to Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)".

Primary Care Severe Asthma Registry and Education Project (PCSAR-EDU): Phase 1 - an e-Delphi for registry definitions and indices of clinician behaviour.

INTRODUCTION: Although most asthma is mild to moderate, severe asthma accounts for disproportionate personal and societal costs. Poor co-ordination of care between primary care and specialist settings is recognised as a barrier to achieving optimal outcomes. The Primary Care Severe Asthma Registry and Education (PCSAR-EDU) project aims to address these gaps through the interdisciplinary development and evaluation of both a 'real-world' severe asthma registry and an educational programme for primary care providers. This manuscript describes phase 1 of PCSAR-EDU which involves establishing interdisciplinary consensus on criteria for the: (1) definition of severe asthma; (2) generation of a severe asthma registry and (3) definition of an electronic-medical record data-based Clinician Behaviour Index (CBI). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In phase 1, a modified e-Delphi activity will be conducted. Delphi panellists (n≥13) will be invited to complete a 30 min online survey on three separate occasions (i.e., three separate e-Delphi 'rounds') over a 3-month period. Expert opinion will be collected via an open-ended survey ('Open' round 1) and 5-point Likert scale and ranking surveys ('Closed' round 2 and 3). A fourth and final Delphi round will occur via synchronous meeting, whereby panellists approve a finalised ideal 'core criteria list', CBI and corresponding item weighting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained for the activities involved in phase 1 from the University of Toronto's Human Research Ethics Programme (approval number 39695). Future ethics approvals will depend on information gathered in the proceeding phase; thus, ethical approval for phase 2 and 3 of this study will be sought sequentially. Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and knowledge translation tools.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily NVA237 in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: the GLOW1 trial.

BACKGROUND: NVA237 is a once-daily dry-powder formulation of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium bromide in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The glycopyrronium bromide in COPD airways clinical study 1 (GLOW1) evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of NVA237 in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS: Patients with COPD with a smoking history of ≥ 10 pack-years, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) < 80% and ≥ 30% predicted normal and FEV1/forced vital capacity < 0.70 were enrolled. Patients were randomized to double-blind treatment with NVA237 50 µg once daily or placebo for 26 weeks with inhaled/intranasal corticosteroids or H1 antagonists permitted in patients stabilized on them prior to study entry. The primary outcome measure was trough FEV1 at Week 12. RESULTS: A total of 822 patients were randomized to NVA237 (n = 552) or placebo (n = 270). Least squares mean (± standard error) trough FEV1 at Week 12 was significantly higher in patients receiving NVA237 (1.408 ± 0.0105 L), versus placebo (1.301 ± 0.0137 L; treatment difference 108 ± 14.8 mL, p < 0.001). Significant improvements in trough FEV1 were apparent at the end of Day 1 and sustained through Week 26. FEV1 was significantly improved in the NVA237 group versus placebo throughout the 24-hour periods on Day 1 and at Weeks 12 and 26, and at all other visits and timepoints. Transition dyspnoea index focal scores and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores were significantly improved with NVA237 versus placebo at Week 26, with treatment differences of 1.04 (p < 0.001) and -2.81 (p = 0.004), respectively. NVA237 significantly reduced the risk of first moderate/severe COPD exacerbation by 31% (p = 0.023) and use of rescue medication by 0.46 puffs per day (p = 0.005), versus placebo. NVA237 was well tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile, with a low frequency of cardiac and typical antimuscarinic adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily NVA237 was safe and well tolerated and provided rapid, sustained improvements in lung function, improvements in dyspnoea, and health-related quality of life, and reduced the risk of exacerbations and the use of rescue medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01005901.