Tiotropium reduces clinically important deterioration in patients with mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A post hoc analysis of the Tie-COPD study.

BACKGROUND: Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a composite endpoint used to holistically assess the complex progression of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Tiotropium improves lung function and reduces the rate of COPD exacerbations in patients with COPD of Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage 1 (mild) or 2 (moderate). However, whether tiotropium reduces CID risk in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD remains unclear. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the 24-month Tie-COPD study comparing 18 µg tiotropium with placebo in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD. CID was defined as a decrease of ≥100 mL in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, an increase of ≥2 unit in COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, or moderate-to-severe exacerbation. The time to the first occurrence of one of these events was recorded as the time to the first CID. Subgroup analyses were conducted among patients stratified by CAT score, modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score, and GOLD stage at baseline. RESULTS: Of the 841 randomized patients, 771 were included in the full analysis set. Overall, 643 patients (83.4 %) experienced at least one CID event. Tiotropium significantly reduced the CID risk and delayed the time to first CID compared with placebo (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.58, 95 % confidence interval = 0.49-0.68, P < 0.001). Significant reductions in CID risk were also observed in various subgroups, including patients with a CAT score <10, mMRC score <2, and mild COPD. CONCLUSIONS: Tiotropium reduced CID risk in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD, even in patients with fewer respiratory symptoms or mild disease, which highlights tiotropium's effectiveness in treating COPD patients with mild disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Tie-COPD, NCT01455129).

The Role of Long-Acting Antimuscarinic Agents in the Treatment of Asthma.

The journey of using anticholinergics in the treatment of asthma started with anticholinergic-containing plants such as Datura stramonium and Atropa belladonna, followed by ipratropium bromide and continued with tiotropium, glycopyrronium, and umeclidinium. Although antimuscarinics were used in the maintenance treatment of asthma over a century ago, after a long time (since 2014), it has been recommended to be used as an add-on long-acting antimuscarinic agent (LAMA) therapy in the maintenance treatment of asthma. The airway tone controlled by the vagus nerve is increased in asthma. Allergens, toxins, or viruses cause airway inflammation and inflammation-related epithelial damage, increased sensory nerve stimulation, ganglionic and postganglionic acetylcholine (ACh) release by inflammatory mediators, intensification of ACh signaling at M1 and M3 muscarinic ACh receptors (mAChRs), and dysfunction of M2 mAChR. Optimal anticholinergic drug for asthma should effectively block M3 and M1 receptors, but have minimal effect on M2 receptors. Tiotropium, umeclidinium, and glycopyrronium are anticholinergic agents with this feature. Tiotropium has been used in a separate inhaler as an add-on treatment to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), and glycopyrronium and umeclidinium have been used in a single inhaler as a combination of ICS/LABA/LAMA in asthma in recent years. Guidelines recommend this regimen as an optimization step for patients with severe asthma before initiating any biologic or systemic corticosteroid therapy. In this review, the history of antimuscarinic agents, their effectiveness and safety in line with randomized controlled trials, and real-life studies in asthma treatment will be discussed according to the current data.

Clinical and economic outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease initiating maintenance therapy with tiotropium bromide/olodaterol or fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend dual long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs)/long-acting ß2agonists (LABAs) as maintenance therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and dyspnea or exercise intolerance. Escalation to triple therapy (TT) (LAMA/LABA/inhaled corticosteroid) is conditionally recommended for patients with continued exacerbations on dual LAMA/LABA therapy. Despite this guidance, TT use is widespread across COPD severities, which could impact clinical and economic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare COPD exacerbations, pneumonia events, and disease-related and all-cause health care resource utilization and costs (in 2020 US dollars) in patients initiating fixed-dose combinations of either LAMA/LABA (tiotropium/olodaterol [TIO + OLO]) or TT (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF + UMEC + VI]). METHODS: This retrospective observational study of administrative claims included patients with COPD aged 40 years or older initiating TIO + OLO or FF + UMEC + VI from June 2015 to November 2019. TIO + OLO and FF + UMEC + VI cohorts in the overall and maintenance-naive populations were 1:1 propensity score matched on baseline demographics, comorbidities, COPD medications, health care resource utilization, and costs. Multivariable regression compared clinical and economic outcomes up to 12 months in FF + UMEC + VI vs TIO + OLO postmatched cohorts. RESULTS: After matching, there were 5,658 and 3,025 pairs in the overall and maintenance-naive populations, respectively. In the overall population, the risk of any (moderate or severe) exacerbation was 7% lower in FF + UMEC + VI vs TIO + OLO initiators (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.86-1.0; P = 0.047). There was no difference in the adjusted risk of any exacerbation in the maintenance-naive population (aHR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.88-1.10). Pneumonia risk was not statistically different between cohorts in the overall (aHR = 1.12; 95% CI = 0.98-1.27) and maintenance-naive (aHR = 1.13; 95% CI = 0.95-1.36) populations. COPD- and/or pneumonia-related adjusted total annualized costs (95% CI) were significantly greater for FF + UMEC + VI vs TIO + OLO in the overall ($17,633 [16,661-18,604] vs $14,558 [13,709-15,407]; P < 0.001; differences [% of relative increase] = $3,075 [21.1%]) and maintenancenaive ($19,032 [17,466-20,598] vs $15,004 [13,786-16,223]; P < 0.001; $4,028 [26.8%]) populations, with significantly higher pharmacy costs with FF + UMEC + VI (overall: $6,567 [6,503-6,632] vs $4,729 [4,676-4,783]; P < 0.001; $1,838 [38.9%]; maintenance-naive: $6,642 [6,560-6,724] vs $4,750 [4,676-4,825]; P < 0.001; $1,892 [39.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: A lower risk of exacerbation was observed with FF + UMEC + VI vs TIO + OLO in the overall population but not among the maintenance-naive population. Patients with COPD initiating TIO + OLO had lower annualized costs than FF + UMEC + VI initiators in the overall and maintenance-naive populations. Thus, in the maintenance-naive population, initiation with dual LAMA/LABA therapy per practice guidelines can improve real-world economic outcomes. Study registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT05127304). DISCLOSURES: The study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc (BIPI). To ensure independent interpretation of clinical study results and enable authors to fulfill their role and obligations under the ICMJE criteria, BIPI grants all external authors access to relevant clinical study data. In adherence with the BIPI Policy on Transparency and Publication of Clinical Study Data, scientific and medical researchers can request access to clinical study data after publication of the primary manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal, regulatory activities are complete and other criteria are met. Dr Sethi has received honoraria/fees for consulting/speaking from Astra-Zeneca, BIPI, and GlaxoSmithKline. He has received consulting fees for serving on data safety monitoring boards from Nuvaira and Pulmotect. He has received consulting fees from Apellis and Aerogen. His institution has received research funds for his participation in clinical trials from Regeneron and AstraZeneca. Ms Palli was an employee of BIPI at the time the study was conducted. Drs Clark and Shaikh are employees of BIPI. Ms Buysman and Mr Sargent are employees and Dr Bengtson was an employee of Optum, which was contracted by BIPI to conduct this study. Dr Ferguson reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim during the conduct of the study; grants from Novartis, Altavant, and Knopp; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Verona, Theravance, Teva, and GlaxoSmithKline; and personal fees from Galderma, Orpheris, Dev.Pro, Syneos, and Ionis outside the submitted work. He was a paid consultant for BIPI for this study. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. BIPI was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations.

Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD. METHODS: A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented. RESULTS: The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV1 versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 µg, glycopyrronium 50 µg, glycopyrronium 18 µg, tiotropium 18 µg and salmeterol 50 µg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV1 at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.

Bronchodilators are medicines that open the airways, allowing patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to breathe more easily. There are two different types of bronchodilators, namely long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting ß₂-agonists (LABAs), which can be used on their own or combined (LAMA/LABAs). Only a few clinical trials have compared different LAMA/LABA combinations with each other, so it is unclear which LAMA/LABA combination provides the greatest benefits for patients.In this study, we used network meta-analysis to compare a LAMA/LABA combination medicine called umeclidinium and vilanterol (UMEC/VI) with other LAMAs and LABAs used alone or in combination to treat patients with COPD. Network meta-analysis is a way of comparing two or more medicines by analysing data from many studies. We systematically searched for evidence from clinical trials in adult patients with COPD that were at least 8 weeks long and that compared LAMA/LABA combinations with a LAMA, a LABA, or another LAMA/LABA combination. We analysed data from 49 clinical trials that met these criteria.We found that patients treated with UMEC/VI had better lung function than patients treated with alternative LAMA/LABA combinations or bronchodilators used on their own. Patients treated with UMEC/VI had better quality of life than those receiving some other treatments, but not all. All the medicines we compared had similar side effects.Our results suggest that treating patients with COPD with UMEC/VI might improve their lung function and quality of life more than alternative bronchodilators.

Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Tiotropium/Olodaterol, Umeclidinium/Vilanterol, and Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium Fixed-Dose Combination Therapy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Taiwan: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Background: Long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) combination therapy improved lung function and health-related quality-of-life and reduced exacerbation rates and dyspnea in symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. We compared the real-world effects of three fixed-dose LABA/LAMA combinations for COPD in Taiwan. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study evaluated 1-year outcomes after LABA/LAMA combination therapy in patients with symptomatic COPD. Exacerbations and symptoms of COPD, lung functions, and therapy escalation were compared among patients using tiotropium/olodaterol, umeclidinium/vilanterol and indacaterol/glycopyrronium. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance the baseline characteristics. Results: Data of 1,617 patients were collected. After PSM, time to first moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation was comparable among three groups, while the annualized rates of the exacerbation (episodes/patient/year) in patients receiving tiotropium/olodaterol (0.19) or umeclidinium/vilanterol (0.17) were significantly lower than those receiving indacaterol/glycopyrronium (0.38). COPD-related symptoms were stable over the treatment period, and there was no significant difference in the changes of symptom scores including CAT and mMRC among three groups at the end of the study period. Conclusion: This study presented valuable real-world outcome in terms of exacerbation and treatment response of COPD patients treated with fixed-dose LABA/LAMA regimens in Taiwan. The annualized rates of moderate-to-severe exacerbation in patients receiving tiotropium/olodaterol or umeclidinium/vilanterol were significantly lower than those receiving indacaterol/glycopyrronium, though the time to first moderate-to-severe exacerbation was similar among different fixed-dose LABA/LAMA combinations.

Treatment efficacy of LAMA versus placebo for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Four long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), tiotropium, glycopyrronium, aclidinium, and umeclidinium, are currently available for the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, no integrated analysis has sought to determine the effectiveness of these LAMAs. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LAMA versus placebo in patients with stable COPD. METHODS: A literature search of relevant randomized control trials that administered LAMA to stable COPD patients was conducted, and the exacerbations, quality of life (QoL), dyspnea score, lung function, and adverse event of patients were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 33 studies were included in this meta-analysis. LAMA significantly decreased the frequency of exacerbations compared to the placebo (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85; P < 0.001). The mean changes in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (mean difference, -3.61; 95% CI, -4.27 to -2.95; P < 0.00001), transitional dyspnea index score (mean difference 1.00; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.17; P < 0.00001), and trough FEV1 (mean difference 0.12; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.13; P < 0.0001) indicated significantly greater improvement in the LAMA group than the placebo group. The number of withdrawals due to adverse events in the LAMA group was significantly fewer than that in the placebo group (OR -0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: LAMA is superior to placebo due to lower frequency of exacerbations and adverse events, as well as higher trough FEV1, QoL, and dyspnea score for stable COPD.

Mortality and Exacerbation Risk by Body Mass Index in Patients with COPD in TIOSPIR and UPLIFT.

Rationale: There is an association between body mass index (BMI) and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with underweight individuals having higher mortality risk. Mortality and exacerbation risks among individuals with higher BMI are unclear. Objectives: To examine the relationship between BMI and adverse outcomes in COPD. Methods: This post hoc analysis included data from TIOSPIR (Tiotropium Safety and Performance in Respimat) (N = 17,116) and tiotropium-treated patients in UPLIFT (Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium) (N = 2,986). BMI classes (underweight [BMI < 20 kg/m2], normal weight [BMI 20 to <25 kg/m2], overweight [BMI 25 to <30 kg/m2], obesity class I [BMI 30 to <35 kg/m2], obesity class II [BMI 35 to <40 kg/m2], and obesity class III [BMI ⩾ 40 kg/m2]) were examined for adjusted associations with mortality, exacerbation, and nonfatal cardiovascular event risk using over 50,000 patient-years of cumulative follow-up data. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Cox regression models. Results: In TIOSPIR, obesity prevalence was 22%, overweight 32%, and underweight 12%. The proportion of females was highest in obesity classes II and III. Overweight and obese participants had better baseline lung function versus other BMI classes; underweight participants were more likely to be current smokers. Underweight participants had a significantly higher risk of death (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.62-2.20; P < 0.0001) and severe exacerbations (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.16-1.47; P < 0.0001) versus normal-weight participants; however, overweight and obese participants were at lower to no additional risk. Results from UPLIFT were similar to TIOSPIR. Conclusions: These results suggest that there is a strong association between body weight, COPD events, and risk of death. A holistic management approach taking into account respiratory and cardiovascular risk factors and nutritional status is needed to improve the general well-being of patients with COPD.

Time-to-first exacerbation, adherence, and medical costs among US patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol or tiotropium as initial maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) maintenance medication is important for managing symptoms and exacerbation risk, and is associated with reduced mortality, hospitalizations, and costs. This study compared on-treatment exacerbations, medical costs, and medication adherence in patients with COPD initiating treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) or tiotropium (TIO). METHODS: This retrospective matched cohort study selected patients from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated maintenance treatment with UMEC/VI or TIO between 01/01/2014 and 12/31/2017 (index date defined as the first dispensing). Eligible patients were ≥ 40 years of age and had ≥ 12 months continuous health plan coverage pre- and post-index; ≥ 1 medical claim for COPD pre-index or on the index date; no moderate/severe COPD-related exacerbations on the index date; no asthma diagnosis pre- or post-index; no maintenance medication fills containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting ß2-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists pre-index or on the index date; and no fills for both UMEC/VI and TIO on the index date. Outcomes included time-to-first (Kaplan-Meier analysis) and rates of on-treatment COPD-related moderate/severe exacerbations, medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] and proportion of adherent patients [PDC ≥ 0.8]), and COPD-related medical costs per patient per month (PPPM). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: Each cohort included 3929 matched patients. Kaplan-Meier rates of on-treatment COPD-related exacerbations were similar between cohorts (hazard ratio at 12 months; overall: 0.93, moderate: 0.92, severe: 1.07; all p > 0.05). UMEC/VI versus TIO initiators had significantly higher adherence (mean PDC: 0.44 vs 0.37; p < 0.001; proportion with PDC ≥ 0.8: 22.0% vs 16.4%; p< 0.001) and significantly lower mean on-treatment COPD-related total medical costs ($867 vs $1095 PPPM; p = 0.028), driven by lower outpatient visit costs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide valuable information for physicians considering UMEC/VI or TIO as initial maintenance therapy options for patients with COPD.

Current long-acting muscarinic antagonists for the treatment of asthma.

INTRODUCTION: The role of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) is well established in uncontrolled asthma, but not in milder stages. AREAS COVERED: This review examines the main randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have investigated LAMAs administered as monotherapy or in combination to asthmatic patients, according to the different phenotypes. It offers an overview of the role of LAMAs or their fixed dose combinations (FDCs) in the treatment across all the different stages of asthma. EXPERT OPINION: Tiotropium is now widely recognized as treatment for moderate to severe uncontrolled asthma (step 4-5) in adults and children. The most recent new evidence is: a) in adults, three different LAMA/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) FDCs have been recently approved, extending the treatment options for these patients; b) therapy with LAMAs does not depend on patient's Th2 status and justifies the indication regardless of patient's phenotyping; c) in the milder stages, the high variability of response to LAMAs and the lack of a good phenotyping of patients represents the main obstacle in prescribing LAMAs. A better characterization of parasympathetic tone activity could improve LAMAs prescription.

Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Compared with Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol, Budesonide/Formoterol, and Tiotropium as Initial Maintenance Therapy in Patients with COPD Who Have High Costs and Comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are associated with increased medical costs and risk of exacerbations. This study compared COPD-related medical costs and exacerbations in high-cost, high-comorbidity patients with COPD receiving initial maintenance treatment (IMT) with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL), budesonide/formoterol (B/F), or tiotropium (TIO). METHODS: This retrospective, matched cohort study identified patients from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated UMEC/VI, FP/SAL, B/F, or TIO between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 (index date defined as date of the first fill). Eligibility criteria included age ≥40 years at index, ≥1 pre-index COPD diagnosis, no pre-index asthma diagnosis, 12 months of continuous insurance coverage pre-index, and high pre-index costs (≥80th percentile of IMT population) and comorbidities (Quan-Charlson comorbidity index ≥3). Propensity score matching was used to control for potential confounders. On-treatment COPD-related medical costs (primary endpoint) and exacerbations were evaluated. RESULTS: Matched cohorts were well balanced on baseline characteristics (UMEC/VI vs FP/SAL: n=1194 each; UMEC/VI vs B/F: n=1441 each; UMEC/VI vs TIO: n=1277 each). Patients receiving UMEC/VI had significantly lower COPD-related medical costs versus FP/SAL (difference: $6587 per patient per year; P=0.048), and numerically lower costs versus B/F and TIO. Patients initiating UMEC/VI had significantly lower risk of COPD-related severe exacerbation versus FP/SAL (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.78 [0.62, 0.98]; P=0.032), B/F (0.77 [0.63, 0.95]; P=0.016), and TIO (0.79 [0.64, 0.98]; P=0.028). The rate of COPD-related severe exacerbations was significantly lower with UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.73 [0.59, 0.91]; P=0.008) and B/F (0.73 [0.59, 0.93]; P=0.012), and numerically lower versus TIO (0.83 [0.68, 1.04]; P=0.080). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that high-cost, high-comorbidity patients with COPD receiving UMEC/VI compared with FP/SAL, B/F, and TIO as IMT may have lower medical costs and exacerbation risk.

Comparison of COPD health care utilization and associated costs across patients treated with LAMA+LABA fixed-dose therapies.

BACKGROUND: There is limited clinical trial and/or real-world evidence comparing differences among currently approved fixed-dose combination (FDC) long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) treatments. OBJECTIVE: To compare chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related and all-cause health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between COPD patients initiating tiotropium (TIO) + olodaterol (OLO) versus (a) other LAMA + LABA FDCs and (b) umeclidinium (UMEC) + vilanterol (VI), specifically. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, patients initiating fixed-dose LAMA + LABA therapy (earliest fill date = index date) between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2018, were identified using administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Patients were followed post-index for 1-12 months. Follow-up was censored at the earliest occurrence of index therapy discontinuation or switch, health plan disenrollment, study end date, or reaching the maximum 12-month allowed duration. Propensity score matching of 1:2 was used to balance differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts for each of the 2 comparisons. Annualized population averages of HCRU and costs were calculated for each cohort as [sum of visits (or costs) for all individuals during the follow-up period] ÷ [sum of follow-up on-treatment time for all individuals] × 365 days. RESULTS: After matching, compared with patients who initiated other LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI, patients who initiated TIO + OLO had 14.29% and 16.95% fewer mean annualized per-patient COPD-related emergency department (ED) visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 0.49 vs. 0.59, P = 0.005; vs. UMEC + VI: 0.48 vs. 0.56, P = 0.026) and 3.07% and 3.14% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 12.66 vs. 13.07, P = 0.016; vs. UMEC + VI: 12.62 vs. 13.02, P = 0.022), leading to 17.39% and 21.47% lower mean annualized per-patient COPD-related ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $289 vs. $368, P = 0.003; vs. UMEC + VI: $285 vs. $345, P = 0.027) and 4.56% and 5.67% lower mean annualized per-patient pharmacy spending (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $3,570 vs. $3,741, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $3,556 vs. $3,770, P < 0.001) in the follow-up period. Similarly, patients in the TIO + OLO cohort had 15.63% and 21.17% fewer mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 1.08 vs. 1.37, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: 1.08 vs. 1.28, P = 0.001), 8.29% fewer mean annualized per-patient outpatient visits (vs. UMEC + VI: 13.28 vs. 14.48, P = 0.031), 3.41% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 56.92 vs. 58.93, P = 0.028), 19.48% and 22.28% lower mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $755 vs. $971, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $749 vs. $930, P < 0.001), and 10.86% lower mean annualized per-patient outpatient setting costs (vs. UMEC + VI: $3,348 vs. $3,756, P = 0.050). There were no statistically significant differences for the other outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, differences in HCRU and costs were observed between FDC LAMA + LABAs, with patients initiating TIO + OLO having lower ED visits/costs, COPD-related pharmacy fills/costs, and all-cause pharmacy use and outpatient visits/costs than those initiating other FDC LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI specifically. The remaining HCRU and cost measures were not significantly different. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI; Ridgefield, CT). BIPI was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy, as well as intellectual property considerations. Palli is an employee of BIPI. Xie, Chastek, Elliott, and Bengtson are employees of Optum, which was contracted by BIPI to conduct this study. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. Part of the results of this study were accepted and presented at the 30th European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress (September 7-9, 2020; virtual).

Effectiveness and Safety of COPD Maintenance Therapy with Tiotropium/Olodaterol versus LABA/ICS in a US Claims Database.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy significantly improves lung function versus LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). To investigate whether LAMA/LABA could provide better clinical outcomes than LABA/ICS, this non-interventional database study assessed the risk of COPD exacerbations, pneumonia, and escalation to triple therapy in patients with COPD initiating maintenance therapy with tiotropium/olodaterol versus any LABA/ICS combination. METHODS: Administrative healthcare claims and laboratory results data from the US HealthCore Integrated Research Databasesm were evaluated for patients with COPD initiating tiotropium/olodaterol versus LABA/ICS treatment (January 2013-March 2019). Patients were aged at least 40 years with a diagnosis of COPD (but not asthma) at cohort entry. A Cox proportional hazard regression model was used (as-treated analysis) to assess risk of COPD exacerbation, community-acquired pneumonia, and escalation to triple therapy, both individually and as a combined risk of any one of these events. Potential imbalance of confounding factors between cohorts was handled using fine stratification, reweighting, and trimming by exposure propensity score (high-dimensional); subgroup analyses were conducted on the basis of blood eosinophil levels and exacerbation history. RESULTS: The total population consisted of 61,985 patients (tiotropium/olodaterol n = 2684; LABA/ICS n = 59,301); after reweighting, the total was 42,953 patients (tiotropium/olodaterol n = 2600; LABA/ICS n = 40,353; mean age 65 years; female 54.5%). Patients treated with tiotropium/olodaterol versus LABA/ICS experienced a reduction in the risk of COPD exacerbations (adjusted hazard ratio 0.76 [95% confidence interval 0.68, 0.85]), pneumonia (0.74 [0.57, 0.97]), escalation to triple therapy (0.22 [0.19, 0.26]), and any one of these events (0.45 [0.41, 0.49]); the combined risk was similar irrespective of baseline eosinophils and exacerbation history. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COPD, tiotropium/olodaterol was associated with a lower risk of COPD exacerbations, pneumonia, and escalation to triple therapy versus LABA/ICS, both individually and in combination; the combined risk was reduced irrespective of baseline eosinophils or exacerbation history. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04138758 (registered 23 October 2019).

Therapeutic Success of Tiotropium/Olodaterol, Measured Using the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), in Routine Clinical Practice: A Multinational Non-Interventional Study.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) is a simple patient-reported tool to measure clinical control of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVE: This open-label, single-arm, non-interventional study (NCT03663569) investigated changes in CCQ score during treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol in clinical practice. METHODS: Data were included from consenting COPD patients, enrolled in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Switzerland and Ukraine, who were receiving a new prescription for tiotropium/olodaterol according to the treating physician in a real-world environment. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of therapeutic success, defined as a 0.4-point decrease in CCQ score after treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol for approximately 6 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 4819 patients were treated; baseline and Week 6 CCQ scores were available for 4700 patients, mostly classified as Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) B (51.6%) or D (42.7%). After 6 weeks' treatment, 81.4% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 80.24-82.49) of patients achieved therapeutic success; mean improvement in overall CCQ score was 1.02 points (95% CI 1.00-1.05). Improved CCQ score was seen in 92.2% of patients (95% CI 91.43-92.98), 2.5% had no change and 5.3% showed a worsening. When stratified by prior treatment, the greatest benefit was seen in treatment-naïve patients, with 85.7% achieving therapeutic success, compared with 79.5% of those pretreated with long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and 74.2% of those pretreated with LABA or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy. Overall, rescue medication decreased by 1.25 puffs/day (95% CI 1.19-1.31) versus baseline. In total, 29 patients (0.6%) reported drug-related adverse events and 7 patients reported serious adverse events (0.15%). CONCLUSION: In 4700 COPD patients, 6 weeks' treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol, as initial treatment or follow-up to LAMA or LABA monotherapy or LABA/ICS, improved CCQ and decreased rescue medication use. The adverse event profile was consistent with the known safety profile of tiotropium/olodaterol.

Tiotropium in asthma - perspectives for the primary care physician.

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease characterized by airway inflammation resulting from complex interactions between multiple hosts as well as environmental factors. As a chronic respiratory condition, asthma exerts a significant impact on patients and the healthcare system. Per the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with/without long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs) should be used as the preferred controllers for the management of asthma. Despite a range of therapeutic options, many patients with asthma remain uncontrolled, resulting in an increased risk of hospitalization and emergency room visits and a worsened quality of life. Tiotropium (Spiriva®, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc; 1.25 µg, two puffs, once daily), delivered via the Respimat® inhaler (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), was the first long-acting muscarinic antagonist to be approved as an add-on maintenance treatment option for patients with asthma aged ≥6 years at GINA steps 4 and 5. By binding to the muscarinic receptors M1 and M3 in the bronchial airways, tiotropium antagonizes the action of acetylcholine, leading to smooth muscle relaxation and reduced mucus secretion.The efficacy and safety of tiotropium add-on to ICS±LABA maintenance treatment have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with a range of asthma severities (mild, moderate, and severe) and across age groups (children, adolescents, and adults). Add-on tiotropium was found to be well tolerated and efficacious in all RCTs. Moreover, the findings from real-world studies complement results from RCTs, showing beneficial effects of tiotropium in reducing exacerbations, hospitalization, emergency room visits, and asthma worsening.In this review article, we discuss the pathophysiology of asthma and the role of tiotropium in the management of asthma from the perspective of a primary care physician.

Tiotropium/Olodaterol Delays Clinically Important Deterioration Compared with Tiotropium Monotherapy in Patients with Early COPD: a Post Hoc Analysis of the TONADO® Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Since chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous condition, a composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration (CID) may provide a more holistic assessment of treatment efficacy. We compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist combination therapy with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium alone using a composite endpoint for CID. CID was evaluated overall and in patients with low exacerbation history (at most one moderate exacerbation in the past year [not leading to hospitalisation]), Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2 patients and maintenance-naïve patients with COPD. We assessed whether early treatment optimisation is more effective with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium in delaying and reducing the risk of CID. METHODS: Data were analysed from 2055 patients treated with either tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg or tiotropium 5 µg (delivered via Respimat®) in two replicate, 52-week, parallel-group, double-blind studies (TONADO® 1/2). CID was defined as a decline of at least 0.1 L from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, increase from baseline of at least 4 units in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, or moderate/severe exacerbation. Time to first occurrence of one of these events was recorded as time to first CID. RESULTS: Overall, treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol significantly increased the time to, and reduced the risk of, CID versus tiotropium (median time to CID 226 versus 169 days; hazard ratio [HR] 0.76 [95% confidence interval 0.68, 0.85]; P < 0.0001). Significant reductions were also observed in patients with low exacerbation history (241 versus 170; HR 0.73 [0.64, 0.83]; P < 0.0001), GOLD 2 patients (241 versus 169; 0.72 [0.61, 0.84]; P < 0.0001) and maintenance-naïve patients (233 versus 171; 0.75 [0.62, 0.91]; P = 0.0030). CONCLUSION: In patients with COPD, including patients with low exacerbation history, GOLD 2 patients and maintenance-naïve patients, tiotropium/olodaterol reduced the risk of CID versus tiotropium. These results demonstrate the advantages of treatment optimisation with tiotropium/olodaterol over tiotropium monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: TONADO® 1 and 2 (NCT01431274 and NCT01431287, registered 8 September 2011).

COPD is a complicated disease that deteriorates over time. Worsening of COPD is associated with the lungs working less effectively, a fall in quality of life and a rise in sudden flare-ups of the disease. In this study, we looked at lung function, quality of life and flare-ups together using a measure called "clinically important deterioration" (CID). We looked at 2055 people with COPD to compare the effects of taking two bronchodilators (tiotropium and olodaterol) against taking one bronchodilator (tiotropium alone). Bronchodilators are a type of inhaled medication that relax the muscles in the lungs and widen airways, making it easier to breathe. They have also been shown to reduce sudden flare-ups of COPD. Across a wide range of people with COPD, we found that treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol reduced the risk of a CID compared with tiotropium alone. This includes in those patients at an early stage of disease, who may benefit from finding the best treatment option for them as early as possible.

Effects of Tiotropium/Olodaterol on Activity-Related Breathlessness, Exercise Endurance and Physical Activity in Patients with COPD: Narrative Review with Meta-/Pooled Analyses.

One of the most debilitating symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is breathlessness, which leads to avoidance of physical activities in daily living and hastens clinical deterioration. Treatment of patients with COPD with inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) combination therapy improves airflow limitation, reduces breathlessness compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and improves health status and quality of life. A large clinical trial programme focusing on the effects of tiotropium/olodaterol combination therapy demonstrated that this LAMA/LABA combination improves lung function and reduces hyperinflation (assessed by serial inspiratory capacity measurements) compared with either tiotropium alone or placebo in patients with COPD. Tiotropium/olodaterol also increases exercise endurance capacity and improves patient perception of the intensity of breathlessness compared with placebo. In this narrative review, we focus on the relationship between improving symptoms during activity, the ability to remain active in daily life and how this may impact quality of life. We consider the benefits of therapy optimisation by means of dual bronchodilation with tiotropium/olodaterol, and present new data from meta-analyses/pooled analyses showing that tiotropium/olodaterol improves inspiratory capacity compared with placebo and tiotropium and improves exercise endurance time compared with placebo after 6 weeks of treatment. We also discuss the importance of taking a holistic approach to improving physical activity, including pulmonary rehabilitation and exercise programmes in parallel with bronchodilator therapy and psychological programmes to support behaviour change.

[Systematic review and Meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of Buzhong Yiqi Decoction for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].

To systematically review the efficacy and safety of Buzhong Yiqi Decoction in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(COPD) at the stable stage. Three English databases and four Chinese databases were systematically searched from the database establishment to August 1, 2020. Randomized controlled trials(RCTs) were screened according to the pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then the data were extracted. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed based on Cochrane bias risk tool, and RevMan 5.3 was used for data analysis. A total of 389 articles were retrieved and finally 18 RCTs were included in this study, involving 1 566 patients, and the overall quality of the included studies was not high. Meta-analysis showed that, in terms of improving 6-minute walk distance(6 MWD), and delaying the decline of forced expiratory volume in one second(FEV_1) or its % in the expected value as well as the decline in ratio of FEV_1 to forced vital capacity(FVC), Buzhong Yiqi Decoction alone or in combination with conventional Western medicine was superior to conventional therapy Western medicine alone. Subgroup analysis showed that, in terms of reducing traditional Chinese medicine symptom scores, Buzhong Yiqi Decoction combined with conventional treatment was superior to conventional treatment. In terms of reducing the grade of modified medical research council(mMRC), Buzhong Yiqi Decoction combined with conventional treatment was superior to conventional treatment. In terms of improving 6 MWD, Buzhong Yiqi Decoction combined with conventional treatment or Tiotropium Bromide Powder for Inhalation was superior to conventional treatment alone or Tiotropium Bromide Powder for Inhalation alone. In terms of delaying the decline of FEV_1 or its % in the expected value, Buzhong Yiqi Decoction combined with conventional treatment or Salmeterol Xinafoate and Fluticasone Propionate Powder for Inhalation or Tiotropium Bromide Powder for Inhalation was superior to conventional treatment or Salmeterol Xinafoate and Fluticasone Propionate Powder for Inhalation or Tiotropium Bromide Powder for Inhalation alone, and Buzhong Yiqi Decoction alone was superior to Theophylline alone. In terms of delaying the decline in FEV_1/FVC, Buzhong Yiqi Decoction combined with conventional treatment was superior to conventional treatment, and Buzhong Yiqi Decoction alone was superior to Theophylline alone. Meta-analysis of other outcome measures was not available and no conclusion can be drawn due to the inclusion of only one study. As some studies did not mention the adverse reactions, no safety comments can be made for Buzhong Yiqi Decoction alone or combined with conventional Western medicine. Due to the limitations of the quality and quantity of included studies, the conclusions of this research should be treated with caution. The efficacy of Buzhong Yiqi Decoction for stable COPD still needs more high-quality studies for confirmation, and its safety needs to be further verified.

Comparing LAMA with LABA and LTRA as add-on therapies in primary care asthma management.

The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends a stepwise approach to adjust asthma treatment to the needs of individual patients; inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) remain the core pharmacological treatment. However, many patients remain poorly controlled, and evidence-based algorithms to decide on the best order and rationale for add-on therapies are lacking. We explore the challenges of asthma management in primary care and review outcomes from randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) tiotropium with long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) or leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) as add-on to ICS in patients with asthma. In adults, LAMAs and LABAs provide a greater improvement in lung function than LTRAs as add-on to ICS. In children, results were positive and comparable between therapies, but data are scarce. This information could aid decision-making in primary care, supporting the use of add-on therapy to ICS to help improve lung function, control asthma symptoms and prevent exacerbations.

Randomized controlled trial of triple versus dual inhaler therapy on small airways in smoking asthmatics.

BACKGROUND: Smoking worsens underlying asthma inflammation and also induces resistance to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Small airways dysfunction measured by impulse oscillometry (IOS) is associated with worse control. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effects on small airways of adding long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) alone or with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to ICS in asthmatic smokers. METHODS: Sixteen current smokers were enrolled: mean age 44 year, FEV1 84%, FEF25-75 47%, R5 158%, ACQ 1.69, 20 pack year . Patients were converted to a reference ICS as HFA-BDP during initial run-in at median dose of 800 µg/day. Open label olodaterol 5 µg od (OLO) or olodaterol 5 µg/tiotropium 5 µg od (OLO/TIO) was added to HFA-BDP for median duration of 3 weeks in a randomized cross over design, including run-in and washout periods on HFA-BDP. IOS and spirometry were measured after each treatment (BDP/OLO/TIO or BDP/OLO) and at baseline after run-in and washout (BDP). RESULTS: After chronic dosing, IOS outcomes at trough except for R20 were all significantly improved with OLO/TIO compared to OLO. For the primary end-point of total airway resistance (as R5), the mean difference (95%CI) at trough was 0.06 (0.015-0.10) kPa/l/s, peripheral airways resistance (as R5-R20) 0.03 (0.003-0.06) kPa/l/s, peripheral lung reactance area (as AX) 0.38 (0.08-0.68) kPa/l and resonant frequency (as RF) 2.28 (0.45-4.12) Hz. FEF25-75 at trough was also better with OLO/TIO vs TIO: 0.93 (0.86 - 0.95) l/s while FEV1 was not different. CONCLUSIONS: ICS/LABA/LAMA was superior to ICS/LABA on trough small airway outcomes in asthma patients who smoke.

A Non-Interventional Study of Tiotropium/Olodaterol versus Any Triple Combination Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: The EVELUT® Study Protocol.

Background: The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2020 report recommends that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) suffering from persistent dyspnea, despite long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapy, are switched to either a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/LABA combination regimen or LAMA/LABA/ICS triple therapy. However, to date, no studies have investigated the direct switch from LABA/ICS to LAMA/LABA therapy-instead of switching to triple therapy-in a prospective, real-world, non-interventional setting. Methods: EVELUT® (NCT03954132) is an ongoing, prospective, open-label, multicenter, non-interventional study comparing the once-daily fixed-dose combination of tiotropium and olodaterol (tio/olo) versus any triple therapy (LAMA/LABA/ICS) in patients with COPD who are symptomatic despite LABA/ICS maintenance therapy. Patients with acute or frequent COPD exacerbations are excluded from the study. Participants will receive LABA/ICS maintenance treatment until Visit 1, followed by switching of treatment to tio/olo or LAMA/LABA/ICS. The primary endpoints are changes in modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) and COPD Assessment Test (CAT®) scores after approximately 12 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints are change in the patients' general condition according to the Physician's Global Evaluation score, the proportion of responders with a change in mMRC score of ≥1 and in CAT® score of ≥2, and patient satisfaction with the inhaler and therapy. The study is expected to enroll approximately 900 patients. Conclusion: EVELUT results are expected to add to the current real-world evidence informing therapeutic decisions for COPD in everyday clinical practice. Trial Registration: The European Union electronic Register of Post-authorisation Studies (EU PAS Register): EUPAS29784; the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM): NIS Study No 7305; Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03954132.