Benefits of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI) in improving lung function and reducing exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD: a pooled analysis of the PINNACLE studies.

BACKGROUND: The Phase III PINNACLE studies assessed the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI), a dual long-acting bronchodilator for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here we present a pre-specified pooled analysis of PINNACLE-1, PINNACLE-2, and PINNACLE-4. METHODS: PINNACLE-1, -2, and -4 were multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, with no requirement for exacerbation history or a high symptom burden. Patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 µg, glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 18 µg, formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 µg, or placebo MDI, twice-daily for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint of the pooled analysis was the change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at week 24. Secondary endpoints included COPD exacerbations and clinically important deterioration (CID). Adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: The pooled intent-to-treat population included 4983 patients; of these, 61.9% had a COPD assessment test (CAT) score ≥15, and 25.0% had experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the past year. At week 24, GFF MDI improved morning pre-dose trough FEV1 versus GP MDI (least squares mean [LSM] difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 59 mL [43, 75]), FF MDI (65 mL [48, 81]), and placebo MDI (146 mL [125, 166]); all p < 0.0001. GFF MDI reduced the risk of a moderate/severe exacerbation by 18% (p = 0.0168), 15% (p = 0.0628), and 28% (p = 0.0012) compared with GP MDI, FF MDI, and placebo MDI, respectively. In general, exacerbation risk reduction with GFF MDI versus comparators was greater in subgroups of symptomatic patients (CAT ≥15) and those who had an exacerbation history, than in the pooled intent-to-treat population. The risk of CID was also lower with GFF MDI versus GP MDI (23% decrease), FF MDI (17%), and placebo MDI (49%); all p < 0.0001. All treatments were well tolerated, with no unexpected safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis of the PINNACLE studies demonstrated that GFF MDI improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations compared with monocomponents and placebo in patients with COPD. Exacerbation reductions with GFF MDI versus comparators were generally greater in patients with higher symptom burden and those with exacerbation history. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01854645, NCT01854658, and NCT02343458. Registered 13 May 2013 (NCT01854645, NCT01854658) and 6 January 2015 (NCT02343458).

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy Study of Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler Relative to Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Dry Powder Inhaler in COPD.

INTRODUCTION: Glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, is the only approved fixed-dose combination long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) delivered via MDI. Direct comparisons of GFF MDI versus other LAMA/LABAs have not previously been performed. We assessed the efficacy and safety of GFF MDI relative to umeclidinium/vilanterol dry powder inhaler (UV DPI) in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: In this phase IIIb randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, 24-week study, patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 µg (equivalent to glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate 14.4/10 µg; two inhalations per dose, twice-daily; n = 559) or UV DPI 62.5/25 µg (one inhalation, once-daily; n = 560). Primary endpoints were change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and peak change from baseline in FEV1 within 2 h post-dose, both over 24 weeks. Additional lung function, symptom and safety endpoints were also assessed. RESULTS: For the primary endpoints, GFF MDI was non-inferior to UV DPI (using a margin of - 50 mL) for peak FEV1 (least squares mean [LSM] difference - 3.4 mL, 97.5% confidence interval [CI] - 32.8, 25.9) but not for trough FEV1 (LSM difference - 87.2 mL; - 117.0, - 57.4). GFF MDI was nominally superior to UV DPI for onset of action (p < 0.0001) and was nominally non-inferior to UV DPI for all symptom endpoints (Transition Dyspnea Index focal score, Early Morning/Night-Time Symptoms COPD instrument scores, and COPD Assessment Test score). Exacerbation and safety findings were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Over 24 weeks of treatment, GFF MDI was non-inferior to UV DPI for peak FEV1, but not for morning pre-dose trough FEV1. GFF MDI had a faster onset of action versus UV DPI. There were no clinically meaningful differences between treatments in symptom endpoints. Both treatments were well tolerated with similar safety profiles. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03162055 (Clinicaltrials.gov) FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Randomized dose-finding study of batefenterol via dry powder inhaler in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Batefenterol is a novel bifunctional muscarinic antagonist ß2-agonist in development for COPD. The primary objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active comparator, Phase IIb study was to model the dose-response of batefenterol and select a dose for Phase III development. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥40 years with COPD and FEV1 ≥30% and ≤70% predicted normal were randomized equally to batefenterol 37.5, 75, 150, 300, or 600 µg, placebo, or umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 µg once daily. The primary and secondary endpoints were weighted-mean FEV1 over 0-6 hours post-dose and trough FEV1, analyzed by Bayesian and maximum likelihood estimation Emax of dose-response modeling, respectively, on day 42. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population (N=323), all batefenterol doses demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvements from baseline vs placebo in the primary and secondary endpoints (191.1-292.8 and 182.2-244.8 mL, respectively), with a relatively flat dose-response. In the subgroup reversible to salbutamol, there were greater differences between batefenterol doses. Lung function improvements with batefenterol ≥150 µg were comparable with those with UMEC/VI. Batefenterol was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Batefenterol 300 µg may represent the optimal dose for Phase III studies.

Correct use and ease of use of a placebo dry powder inhaler in subjects with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Correct use and ease of use of a placebo dry powder inhaler was evaluated in two single-arm, United States-multicenter, phase-IV studies in adults with asthma ( n = 259) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; n = 278) who were receiving maintenance inhaler therapy. Subjects demonstrating correct placebo inhaler use within three attempts at screening were instructed to take once-daily inhalations from the inhaler for 28 ± 2 days (continuing usual maintenance), followed by randomization to complete one of two versions of an ease-of-use questionnaire and reassessment for correct inhaler use. At study end, 96% asthma/93% COPD subjects rated the placebo inhaler as "easy" or "very easy" to use while demonstrating correct use. Furthermore, 99% asthma/99% COPD subjects indicated it was "easy" or "very easy" to determine number of doses remaining, and 81%/84%, respectively, indicated they would be "likely" or "very likely" to request their current medication in the inhaler, if available. Adverse event (AE) rates were 12% asthma/15% COPD, most frequently headache (3%/3%). Treatment-related AEs were reported in one subject with asthma (cough) and four subjects with COPD (cough, n = 3; back pain, n = 1). At study end, most subjects with asthma or COPD operated the placebo inhaler correctly and found it easy to use.

Comparative Efficacy of Once-Daily Umeclidinium/Vilanterol and Tiotropium/Olodaterol Therapy in Symptomatic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Study.

INTRODUCTION: We report the results of the first direct comparison of the once-daily fixed-dose long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) combinations umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) and tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) in patients with COPD. METHODS: This was a randomized, two-period crossover open-label study in symptomatic patients with COPD [age 40 years or older, postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of 70% or less and 50% or more of predicted normal values, and modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale score of 2 or greater] not receiving inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Patients were randomized to receive UMEC/VI (62.5/25 µg once daily) via a multidose dry powder inhaler (ELLIPTA) followed by TIO/OLO (5/5 µg once daily) via a soft mist inhaler (Respimat), each for 8 weeks with an interim 3-week washout or vice versa. The primary end point was the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 8 with a noninferiority margin of - 50 mL in the per-protocol (PP) population. The incidence of adverse events was also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 236 patients (mean age 64.4 years, 60% male) were included in the intent-to-treat population and 227 were included in the PP population. UMEC/VI treatment was noninferior in the PP population and superior in the intent-to-treat population to TIO/OLO treatment with regard to trough FEV1 at week 8 [FEV1 change from baseline 180 mL vs 128 mL; difference 52 mL (95% confidence interval 28-77 mL); p < 0.001]. Patients receiving UMEC/VI had twofold increased odds of experiencing a clinically meaningful increase (100 mL or more) from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 8 compared with patients receiving TIO/OLO (odds ratio 2.05; 95% confidence interval 1.34-3.14). Adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the UMEC/VI group and in 31% of patients in the TIO/OLO group. CONCLUSION: In this first direct comparison of two once-daily fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations, superiority was observed for the primary end point of trough FEV1 at week 8 with UMEC/VI compared with TIO/OLO in patients with symptomatic COPD. Both treatments had similar safety profiles. These findings confirm the results of previous indirect LAMA/LABA comparisons, and show that an efficacy gradient exists within the LAMA/LABA class. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02799784. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Efficacy and Safety of Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Metered Dose Inhaler Formulated Using Co-Suspension Delivery Technology in Patients With COPD.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) combinations are a treatment option for patients with COPD who continue to have symptoms despite treatment with a LAMA or a LABA alone. The Efficacy and Safety of PT003, PT005, and PT001 in Subjects with Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD (PINNACLE-1) (NCT01854645) and the Multi-Center Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of PT003, PT005, and PT001 in Subjects with Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD (PINNACLE-2) (NCT01854658) trials investigated the efficacy and safety of a novel glycopyrrolate [GP]/formoterol [FF] 18/9.6-µg (GFF) metered dose inhaler (MDI) formulated using the Co-Suspension Delivery Technology in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. METHODS: These two phase III trials took place over 24 weeks and were randomized, double blind, and placebo controlled; 2,103 and 1,615 patients (40-80 years of age), respectively, were randomized. Patients received GFF MDI, GP MDI 18 µg, FF MDI 9.6 µg, or placebo MDI (all twice daily), or tiotropium 18 µg dry powder inhaler (once daily in PINNACLE-1 only [open-label active comparator]). Efficacy and safety were assessed. RESULTS: At week 24, differences in change from baseline in the morning predose trough FEV1 for GFF MDI vs placebo MDI, GP MDI, and FF MDI were 150 mL, 59 mL, and 64 mL in PINNACLE-1 (all P < .0001) and 103 mL, 54 mL, and 56 mL in PINNACLE-2 (all P < .001), respectively. There were no significant safety findings (incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment arms). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that GFF MDI 18/9.6 µg demonstrated superiority over placebo and monocomponent MDIs and was well tolerated, thus providing an additional treatment option for patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01854645 and No. NCT01854658; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

The 24-h FEV1 time profile of olodaterol once daily via Respimat® and formoterol twice daily via Aerolizer® in patients with GOLD 2-4 COPD: results from two 6-week crossover studies.

ABSTRACT: These studies evaluated the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) profile of once-daily (QD) olodaterol compared to placebo and twice-daily (BID) formoterol in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In two replicate, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, four-way crossover studies, patients received olodaterol 5 and 10 µg QD, formoterol 12 µg BID, or placebo for 6 weeks in addition to usual-care background maintenance therapy. Co-primary end points were FEV1 area under the curve from 0-12 h (AUC0-12) response (change from baseline) and FEV1 AUC from 12-24 h (AUC12-24) response after 6 weeks, with FEV1 AUC from 0-24 h response identified as a key secondary end point. Other secondary end points included FEV1 AUC from 0-3 h and trough FEV1 responses, as well as corresponding forced vital capacity responses. With both olodaterol doses, FEV1 increased to near-maximal 30 min post-morning dose, which was sustained over 24 h. FEV1 also increased within 30 min post-morning dose of formoterol and was sustained over 12 h; the second formoterol dose resulted in a further increase, sustained for an additional 12 h. FEV1 AUC0-12 and AUC12-24 responses with both QD olodaterol doses and BID formoterol were significantly greater than placebo at 6 weeks (P < .0001). Secondary end-point outcomes were consistent with those of the co-primary end points. These data, together with those from the wider phase III clinical program, provide evidence for the 24-h bronchodilator efficacy of olodaterol QD in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT00931385 and NCT00932646.

Efficacy and safety of olodaterol once daily delivered via Respimat® in patients with GOLD 2-4 COPD: results from two replicate 48-week studies.

BACKGROUND: Olodaterol is a long-acting ß2-agonist with a 24-hour bronchodilator profile. Two replicate, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, Phase III trials were performed as part of a comprehensive clinical program to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of olodaterol in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receiving usual-care background therapy. METHODS: Patients received olodaterol 5 µg or 10 µg or placebo once daily for 48 weeks. Coprimary end points were forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 3 hours (AUC0-3) response (change from baseline), and trough FEV1 response at 12 weeks. Secondary end points included additional lung function assessments, use of rescue medications, FEV1 AUC response from 0 to 12 hours, and Patient Global Rating over 48 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 624 and 642 patients were evaluated in studies 1222.11 and 1222.12, respectively. In both studies, olodaterol 5 µg and 10 µg significantly improved the FEV1 AUC0-3 response (P<0.0001) and trough FEV1 (study 1222.11, P<0.0001; study 1222.12, P<0.05, post hoc) at week 12, with an incidence of adverse events comparable with that of placebo. Secondary end points supported the efficacy of olodaterol. CONCLUSION: These studies demonstrate the long-term efficacy and safety of once-daily olodaterol 5 µg and 10 µg in patients with moderate to very severe COPD continuing with usual-care maintenance therapy.

The combination of umeclidinium bromide and vilanterol in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: current evidence and future prospects.

The defining feature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is progressive airflow limitation that causes air trapping and hyperinflation. The increasing hyperinflation results in dyspnea along with associated inability to engage in the activities of daily living. The American Thoracic Society (ATS), European Respiratory Society (ERS) and Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) treatment guidelines all place bronchodilators as the foundation of pharmacological management of COPD. In patients with moderate-to-very-severe respiratory impairment, adding regular treatment with one or more long-acting bronchodilators is recommended [long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs)]. A growing body of evidence shows that LAMA and LABA co-administration is more effective than either drug class alone in managing stable COPD to improve lung function, symptoms and health status. Recently, new drug applications (NDAs) for a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of umeclidinium (UMEC), a LAMA, and vilanterol (VI), a LABA, at UMEC/VI doses of 125/25 and 62.5/25 µg have been submitted by sponsors to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Thus, UMEC/VI has become the first FDC LAMA/LABA product that has reached a regulatory approval stage. Other LAMA/LABA once-daily combinations coming through development include FDCs of tiotropium and olodaterol, glycopyrronium and indacaterol, and twice-daily aclidinium and formoterol. The aim of this review is to explore currently available data for once-daily UMEC/VI in the context of the evolving standards of COPD management.

Improving the quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: focus on indacaterol.

UNLABELLED: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common disease in the general population and it places a considerable burden on patients, with the disease negatively affecting quality of life. In practice, patients with COPD generally seek medical attention because of symptoms, particularly breathlessness, and the resulting physical limitations, which affect the health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) in patients. The defining feature of COPD is airflow limitation that causes air trapping and increased hyperinflation as the ventilation rate increases during physical effort. Hyperinflation causes or worsens breathlessness as breathing becomes inefficient, with the end result being an avoidance of physical exertion and a cycle of increasing dyspnea caused by inactivity and deconditioning, with deleterious effects on HR-QOL. Current published guidelines for COPD state that the goals of pharmacologic therapy should be to control symptoms, improve health status and exercise tolerance, and reduce the frequency of COPD exacerbations. Effective and sustained bronchodilation has emerged as a key strategy for improving dyspnea and ability to exercise. As there is no cure for COPD, a major goal of treatment and of research into new therapies is to improve HR-QOL in COPD patients. CONCLUSION: More recently, indacaterol, an inhaled ultra-long-acting ß(2)-agonist (24-hour action), has been approved in many countries at different doses (between 75 and 300 µg once daily) for treatment of patients with stable but symptomatic COPD. The aim of this review was to explore once-daily indacaterol clinical data as related to improvement in HR-QOL in COPD. Indacaterol studies have shown significant improvements in lung function of COPD patients, and these improvements have also translated into clinically meaningful improvements in patient symptoms and HR-QOL.