Long-acting antimuscarinic therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease receiving beta-blockers.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blocker therapies for cardiovascular comorbidities are often withheld in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) due to potential adverse effects on airway obstruction. We carried out a post hoc analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of aclidinium in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and increased cardiovascular risk receiving beta-blockers at baseline versus non-users. METHODS: ASCENT-COPD was a Phase 4, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to aclidinium or placebo twice-daily for up to 3 years. Outcomes included risk of (time to first) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, and lung function over 3 years, and exacerbations over 1 year. RESULTS: Of 3589 patients, 1269 (35.4%) used beta-blockers and 2320 (64.6%) were non-users at baseline. Aclidinium did not statistically increase the risk of MACE (beta-blocker user: hazard ratio 1.01 [95% CI 0.62-1.64]; non-user: 0.80 [0.51-1.24]; interaction P = 0.48) or all-cause mortality (beta-blocker user: 1.13 [0.78-1.64]; non-user: 0.89 [0.62-1.26]; interaction P = 0.35), in patients using beta-blockers. Aclidinium reduced annualized rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation (beta-blocker user: rate ratio 0.75 [95% CI 0.60-0.94, P = 0.013]; non-user: 0.79 [0.67-0.93, P = 0.005]), delayed time to first exacerbation, and improved lung function versus placebo. There was greater trough FEV1 benefit in beta-blocker users versus non-users (least squares mean difference at 52 weeks: 111 mL [95% CI 74 mL-147 mL] versus 69 mL [42 mL-97 mL]; interaction P = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis supports long-acting anti-muscarinic use with concomitant beta-blockers in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and cardiovascular comorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01966107, Registered 16 October 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01966107 .

The Impact of Exacerbation History on the Safety and Efficacy of Aclidinium in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Increased Cardiovascular Risk: ASCENT-COPD Trial.

PURPOSE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality. Here, we investigate whether the safety and efficacy of aclidinium bromide differ due to exacerbation history in patients with COPD and increased cardiovascular risk. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ASCENT-COPD was a Phase 4, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and increased cardiovascular risk. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive aclidinium or placebo twice daily for up to 3 years. Outcomes included time to first MACE and all-cause mortality over 3 years, exacerbation rate during the first year on-treatment, and change in baseline pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) over 3 years. This pre-specified subgroup analysis compared outcomes in patients receiving aclidinium vs placebo. The comparison of patients with vs without an exacerbation history was added following a protocol amendment to increase enrollment in the primary study. RESULTS: Of 3589 patients, 2156 (60.1%) had ≥1 moderate or severe exacerbations in the prior year, compared with 1433 (39.9%) without prior exacerbations. Although patients with an exacerbation history had numerically higher rates of MACE and mortality regardless of treatment, aclidinium did not increase risk of MACE (≥1: hazard ratio [HR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-1.16; none: HR 1.27, 95% CI: 0.65-2.47; interaction P=0.233) or all-cause mortality (≥1: HR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.81-1.43; none: HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.36-1.22; interaction P=0.154), regardless of exacerbation history. Aclidinium reduced the exacerbation rate vs placebo irrespective of exacerbation history (≥1: rate ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68-0.94; none: RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.54-0.89; interaction P=0.340) and improved FEV1 (interaction P=0.633). CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and increased cardiovascular risk, aclidinium did not increase risk of MACE or mortality and reduced exacerbation rate vs placebo, regardless of exacerbation history. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01966107.

Unreported and Overlooked: A Post Hoc Analysis of COPD Symptom-Related Attacks from the RISE Study.

Purpose: Moderate and severe COPD exacerbations are a significant health-care burden, but patients also experience "mild" exacerbations, or COPD symptom-related attacks, which often go unreported. We aimed to define and then determine the incidence of COPD symptom-related attacks and their impact on future risk of moderate/severe exacerbations, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and lung function. The effect of COPD maintenance therapy on the attack definition was then evaluated by comparing budesonide/formoterol with formoterol alone. Patients and Methods: This post hoc analysis of the RISE study defined COPD symptom-related attacks as ≥2 consecutive days of both worsening symptoms and increased daily rescue medication use based upon thresholds of >2 and >4 short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) inhalations/day above baseline. The impact of these events on subsequent moderate/severe exacerbation risk was estimated using a time-varying Cox proportional hazards model. The effects of COPD symptom-related attacks on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) were evaluated as average changes from baseline to first post-attack measurement. Rates of attacks were compared between treatment groups using negative binomial regression models. Results: COPD symptom-related attacks elevated the risk of subsequent moderate/severe exacerbations at both >2 and >4 inhalations/day above baseline (HR 1.86 and 2.21, respectively; p<0.0001), with a cumulative increase in risk with increasing attacks. HRQoL and lung function were reduced for patients with ≥1 versus no COPD symptom-related attacks at both rescue medication thresholds. There were fewer COPD symptom-related attacks with budesonide/formoterol versus formoterol alone, with no increased risk of pneumonia and lower respiratory tract infections. Conclusion: COPD symptom-related attacks are common and typically unreported. Importantly, these attacks can account for considerable morbidity and should not be regarded as "mild". Detection of such exacerbations may be valuable in identifying patients at greater risk and guiding preventive therapeutic interventions.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in adolescent patients with asthma.

Asthma control is often suboptimal in adolescents, but few studies have evaluated asthma treatments in this population.This post hoc analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) for treatment of persistent asthma in adolescent (age 12-17 years) subgroups within six randomised, double-blind trials. The primary end-point was time to first severe exacerbation. Secondary end-points included number of severe exacerbations, asthma-related symptoms, night-time awakenings, morning peak expiratory flow, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, as-needed medication use and five-item asthma control questionnaire scores.In adolescents (n=1847), BUD/FORM MART was similar to or more effective than comparators across each of the studies in reducing the risk of a first severe exacerbation (hazard ratios (HR) BUD/FORM MART versus comparators 0.15-1.01; pooled HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34-0.70), with comparable outcomes to the adult subgroups (n=12 197). Similar treatment benefits for BUD/FORM MART were observed for secondary end-points. As-needed medication use was lower with BUD/FORM MART than comparators, and BUD/FORM as-needed use was lower in adolescents than adults. Treatment was well tolerated.This analysis supports the use of BUD/FORM MART in adolescents with persistent asthma, its efficacy and safety being consistent with that reported for adults.

Risk of pneumonia with budesonide-containing treatments in COPD: an individual patient-level pooled analysis of interventional studies.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised that treatment of COPD with inhaled corticosteroids may increase pneumonia risk. Responding to a request from the European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, a pooled analysis of interventional studies compared pneumonia risk with inhaled budesonide-containing versus non-budesonide-containing treatments and the impact of other clinically relevant factors. METHODS: AstraZeneca-sponsored, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trials meeting the following criteria were included: >8 weeks' duration; ≥60 patients with COPD; inhaled budesonide treatment arm (budesonide/formoterol or budesonide); and non-budesonide-containing comparator arm (formoterol or placebo). Primary and secondary outcomes were time to first pneumonia treatment-emergent serious adverse event (TESAE) and treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAEs), respectively, analyzed using Cox regression models stratified by study. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified; 10,570 out of 10,574 randomized patients receiving ≥1 dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (budesonide-containing, n=5,750; non-budesonide-containing, n=4,820). Maximum exposure to treatment was 48 months. The overall pooled hazard ratio (HR), comparing budesonide versus non-budesonide-containing treatments, was 1.15 for pneumonia TESAEs (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83, 1.57) and 1.13 for pneumonia TEAEs (95% CI: 0.94, 1.36). The annual incidence of pneumonia TESAEs was 1.9% and 1.5% for budesonide-containing and non-budesonide-containing treatments, respectively. Comparing budesonide/formoterol with non-budesonide-containing treatment, the HRs for pneumonia TESAEs and TEAEs were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.69, 1.44) and 1.21 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.57), respectively. For budesonide versus placebo, HRs were 1.57 for pneumonia TESAEs (95% CI: 0.90, 2.74) and 1.07 for pneumonia TEAEs (95% CI: 0.83, 1.38). CONCLUSION: This pooled analysis found no statistically significant increase in overall risk for pneumonia TESAEs or TEAEs with budesonide-containing versus non-budesonide-containing treatments. However, a small increase in risk with budesonide-containing treatment cannot be ruled out; there is considerable heterogeneity in study designs and patient characteristics, particularly in the early budesonide studies, and each study contributes <40 pneumonia TESAEs.

Should recommendations about starting inhaled corticosteroid treatment for mild asthma be based on symptom frequency: a post-hoc efficacy analysis of the START study.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are highly effective for reducing asthma exacerbations and mortality. Conventionally, ICS treatment is recommended for patients with symptoms on more than 2 days per week, but this criterion has scant evidence. We aimed to assess the validity of the previous symptom-based cutoff for starting ICS by establishing whether there was a differential response to budesonide versus placebo for severe asthma exacerbations, lung function, and asthma symptom control across subgroups identified by baseline asthma symptom frequency. METHODS: We did a post-hoc analysis of the 3 year inhaled Steroid Treatment As Regular Therapy (START) study, done in 32 countries, with clinic visits every 3 months. Patients (aged 4-66 years) with mild asthma diagnosed within the previous 2 years and no previous regular corticosteroids were randomised to receive once daily, inhaled budesonide 400 µg (those aged <11 years 200 µg) or placebo. Coprimary outcomes for this analysis were time to first severe asthma-related event (SARE; hospital admission, emergency treatment, or death) and change from baseline in lung function after bronchodilator. Interaction with baseline symptom frequency was investigated, with patients grouped by more than two symptom days per week and two or fewer symptom days per week (divided into no days to 1 day, and more than 1 day to 2 days). Analysis was done by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Of 7138 patients (n=3577 budesonide; n=3561 placebo), baseline symptom frequency was 0-1 days per week for 2184 (31%) participants, more than 1 and less than or equal to 2 symptom days per week for 1914 (27%) participants, and more than 2 symptom days per week for 3040 (43%) participants. For budesonide versus placebo, time to first SARE was longer across symptom frequency subgroups (hazard ratios 0·54 [95% CI 0·34-0·86] for 0-1 symptom days per week, 0·60 [0·39-0·93] for >1 to ≤2 symptom days per week, 0·57 [0·41-0·79] >2 symptom days per week, pinteraction=0·94), and the decline in postbronchodilator lung function was less at 3 years' follow-up (pinteraction=0·32). For budesonide versus placebo, severe exacerbations requiring oral or systemic corticosteroids were reduced (rate ratio 0·48 [0·38-0·61] 0-1 symptom days per week, 0·56 [0·44-0·71] >1 to ≤2 symptom days per week, and 0·66 [0·55-0·80] >2 symptom days per week, pinteraction=0·11), prebronchodilator lung function was higher, and symptom-free days were more frequent (p<0·0001 for all three subgroups), with no interaction by symptom frequency (prebronchodilator pinteraction=0·43; symptom-free days pinteraction=0·53). Similar results were noted when participants were classified by any guidelines criterion as so-called persistent versus so-called intermittent asthma. INTERPRETATION: In mild recent-onset asthma, once daily, low-dose budesonide decreases SARE risk, reduces lung function decline, and improves symptom control similarly across all symptom subgroups. The results do not support restriction of inhaled corticosteroids to patients with symptoms on more than 2 days per week and suggest that treatment recommendations for mild asthma should consider both risk reduction and symptoms. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.