Francesco Patalano

Indacaterol–Glycopyrronium versus Salmeterol–Fluticasone for COPD

BACKGROUND Most guidelines recommend either a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) plus an inhaled glucocorticoid or a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) as the first-choice treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who have a high risk of exacerbations. The role of treatment with a LABA-LAMA regimen in these patients is unclear. METHODS We conducted a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial. Patients who had COPD with a history of at least one exacerbation during the previous year were randomly assigned to receive, by inhalation, either the LABA indacaterol (110 μg) plus the LAMA glycopyrronium (50 μg) once daily or the LABA salmeterol (50 μg) plus the inhaled glucocorticoid fluticasone (500 μg) twice daily. The primary outcome was the annual rate of all COPD exacerbations. RESULTS A total of 1680 patients were assigned to the indacaterol-glycopyrronium group, and 1682 to the salmeterol-fluticasone group. Indacaterol-glycopyrronium showed not only noninferiority but also superiority to salmeterol-fluticasone in reducing the annual rate of all COPD exacerbations; the rate was 11% lower in the indacaterol-glycopyrronium group than in the salmeterol-fluticasone group (3.59 vs. 4.03; rate ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 0.96; P=0.003). The indacaterol-glycopyrronium group had a longer time to the first exacerbation than did the salmeterol-fluticasone group (71 days [95% CI, 60 to 82] vs. 51 days [95% CI, 46 to 57]; hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.91], representing a 16% lower risk; P<0.001). The annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was lower in the indacaterol-glycopyrronium group than in the salmeterol-fluticasone group (0.98 vs. 1.19; rate ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.91; P<0.001), and the time to the first moderate or severe exacerbation was longer in the indacaterol-glycopyrronium group than in the salmeterol-fluticasone group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.86; P<0.001), as was the time to the first severe exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.00; P=0.046). The effect of indacaterol-glycopyrronium versus salmeterol-fluticasone on the rate of COPD exacerbations was independent of the baseline blood eosinophil count. The incidence of adverse events and deaths was similar in the two groups. The incidence of pneumonia was 3.2% in the indacaterol-glycopyrronium group and 4.8% in the salmeterol-fluticasone group (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS Indacaterol-glycopyrronium was more effective than salmeterol-fluticasone in preventing COPD exacerbations in patients with a history of exacerbation during the previous year. (Funded by Novartis; FLAME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01782326.).

LANTERN: a randomized study of QVA149 versus salmeterol/fluticasone combination in patients with COPD

Background The current Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) treatment strategy recommends the use of one or more bronchodilators according to the patient’s airflow limitation, their history of exacerbations, and symptoms. The LANTERN study evaluated the effect of the long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) dual bronchodilator, QVA149 (indacaterol/glycopyrronium), as compared with the LABA/inhaled corticosteroid, salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC), in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with a history of ≤1 exacerbation in the previous year. Methods In this double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, 744 patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with a history of ≤1 exacerbations in the previous year were randomized (1:1) to QVA149 110/50 μg once daily or SFC 50/500 μg twice daily for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was noninferiority of QVA149 versus SFC for trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at week 26. Results Overall, 676 patients completed the study. The primary objective of noninferiority between QVA149 and SFC in trough FEV1 at week 26 was met. QVA149 demonstrated statistically significant superiority to SFC for trough FEV1 (treatment difference [Δ]=75 mL; P<0.001). QVA149 demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in standardized area under the curve (AUC) from 0 hours to 4 hours for FEV1 (FEV1 AUC0–4h) at week 26 versus SFC (Δ=122 mL; P<0.001). QVA149 and SFC had similar improvements in transition dyspnea index focal score, St George Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and rescue medication use. However, QVA149 significantly reduced the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations by 31% (P=0.048) over SFC. Overall, the incidence of adverse events was comparable between QVA149 (40.1%) and SFC (47.4%). The incidence of pneumonia was threefold lower with QVA149 (0.8%) versus SFC (2.7%). Conclusion These findings support the use of the LABA/LAMA, QVA149 as an alternative treatment, over LABA/inhaled corticosteroid, in the management of moderate-to-severe COPD patients (GOLD B and GOLD D) with a history of ≤1 exacerbation in the previous year.

Blood Eosinophils and Response to Maintenance Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment. Data from the FLAME Trial

Rationale: Post hoc analyses suggest that blood eosinophils have potential as a predictive biomarker of inhaled corticosteroid efficacy in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives: We prospectively investigated the value of blood eosinophils as a predictor of responsiveness to an inhaled corticosteroid/long‐acting &bgr;2‐agonist combination versus a long‐acting &bgr;2‐agonist/long‐acting muscarinic antagonist combination for exacerbation prevention. Methods: We conducted prespecified analyses of data from the FLAME (Effect of Indacaterol Glycopyronium vs Fluticasone Salmeterol on COPD Exacerbations) study, which compared once‐daily long‐acting &bgr;2‐agonist/long‐acting muscarinic antagonist indacaterol/glycopyrronium 110/50 &mgr;g with twice‐daily long‐acting &bgr;2‐agonist/inhaled corticosteroid salmeterol/fluticasone combination 50/500 &mgr;g in patients with one or more exacerbations in the preceding year. Subsequent post hoc analyses were conducted to address further cutoffs and endpoints. Measurements and Main Results: We compared treatment efficacy according to blood eosinophil percentage (<2% and ≥2%, <3% and ≥3%, and <5% and ≥5%) and absolute blood eosinophil count (<150 cells/&mgr;l, 150 to <300 cells/&mgr;l, and ≥300 cells/&mgr;l). Indacaterol/glycopyrronium was significantly superior to salmeterol/fluticasone for the prevention of exacerbations (all severities, or moderate or severe) in the <2%, ≥2%, <3%, <5%, and <150 cells/&mgr;l subgroups, and at no cutoff was salmeterol/fluticasone superior to indacaterol/glycopyrronium. Furthermore, the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations did not increase with increasing blood eosinophils. The incidence of pneumonia was higher in patients receiving salmeterol/fluticasone than indacaterol/glycopyrronium in both the <2% and ≥2% subgroups. Conclusions: Our prospective analyses indicate that indacaterol/glycopyrronium provides superior or similar benefits over salmeterol/fluticasone regardless of blood eosinophil levels in patients with COPD. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01782326).

FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2: Efficacy and Safety of QVA149 (Indacaterol/Glycopyrrolate) versus Its Monocomponents and Placebo in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

RATIONALE Current Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy recommends the combination of two long-acting bronchodilators of different pharmacologic classes for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) if symptoms are not adequately controlled by a single bronchodilator. OBJECTIVES The FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2 studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of QVA149 (indacaterol/glycopyrrolate), a fixed-dose combination of a long-acting β2-agonist (indacaterol) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (glycopyrrolate), compared with its monocomponents and placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2 were 12-week, identical, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo- and active-controlled studies. Patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to indacaterol/glycopyrrolate (27.5/15.6 μg twice daily), indacaterol (27.5 μg twice daily), glycopyrrolate (15.6 μg twice daily), or placebo, all delivered via the Neohaler device. The primary objective was to demonstrate the superiority of indacaterol/glycopyrrolate versus its monocomponents for standardized area under the curve from 0-12 hours for FEV1 at Week 12. Secondary objectives included St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire total score and transition dyspnea index total score and reduction in daily rescue medication use with indacaterol/glycopyrrolate versus placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS In total, 2,038 patients were included in the pooled analysis. Indacaterol/glycopyrrolate was statistically superior in terms of FEV1 area under the curve from 0-12 hours compared with its monocomponents (P < 0.001). Statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire total score, transition dyspnea index total score, and reduction in rescue medication use were observed with indacaterol/glycopyrrolate compared with placebo (P < 0.001). The safety profile was comparable across the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Indacaterol/glycopyrrolate twice daily can be an alternative treatment option for the management of symptomatic patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01727141 and NCT 0171251).

Recent advances in COPD disease management with fixed-dose long-acting combination therapies

Combinations of two long-acting bronchodilators and long-acting bronchodilators with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended therapies in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Three fixed-dose combination products have recently been approved for the treatment of COPD (the long-acting β2-agonist plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LABA/LAMA] combinations glycopyrronium/indacaterol [QVA149] and umeclidinium/vilanterol, and the LABA/ICS fluticasone furoate/vilanterol), with others currently in late-stage development. LABA/LAMA and LABA/ICS combination therapies demonstrate positive effects on both lung function and patient-reported outcomes, with significant improvements observed with LABA/LAMA combinations compared with placebo, each component alone and other comparators in current use. No new safety concerns have been observed with combinations of long-acting bronchodilators. Combinations of two long-acting bronchodilators represent a new and convenient treatment option in COPD. This review summarizes published efficacy and safety data from clinical trials of both LABA/LAMA and novel LABA/ICS combinations in patients with COPD.

LABA/LAMA combinations versus LAMA monotherapy or LABA/ICS in COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting bronchodilator combinations, such as β2-agonist (LABA)/muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), have favorable efficacy compared with commonly used COPD treatments. The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA with LAMA or LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in adults with stable moderate-to-very-severe COPD. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinical trial/manufacturer databases) included RCTs comparing ≥12 weeks’ LABA/LAMA treatment with LAMA and/or LABA/ICS (approved doses only). Eligible studies were independently selected by two authors using predefined data fields; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Results Eighteen studies (23 trials) were eligible (N=20,185). LABA/LAMA significantly improved trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline to week 12 versus both LAMA and LABA/ICS (0.07 L and 0.08 L, P<0.0001), with patients more likely to achieve clinically important improvements in FEV1 of >100 mL (risk ratio [RR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.20, 1.46] and RR: 1.44, 95% CI: [1.33, 1.56], respectively, the number needed to treat being eight and six, respectively). LABA/LAMA improved transitional dyspnea index and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores at week 12 versus LAMA (both P<0.0001), but not versus LABA/ICS, and reduced rescue medication use versus both (P<0.0001 and P=0.001, respectively). LABA/LAMA significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rate compared with LABA/ICS (RR 0.82, 95% CI: [0.75, 0.91]). Adverse event (AE) incidence was no different for LABA/LAMA versus LAMA treatment, but it was lower versus LABA/ICS (RR 0.94, 95% CI: [0.89, 0.99]), including a lower pneumonia risk (RR 0.59, 95% CI: [0.43, 0.81]). LABA/LAMA presented a lower risk for withdrawals due to lack of efficacy versus LAMA (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: [0.51, 0.87]) and due to AEs versus LABA/ICS (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: [0.69, 0.99]). Conclusion The greater efficacy and comparable safety profiles observed with LABA/LAMA combinations versus LAMA or LABA/ICS support their potential role as first-line treatment options in COPD. These findings are of direct relevance to clinical practice because we included all currently available LABA/LAMAs and comparators, only at doses approved for clinical use.

The asthma–COPD overlap syndrome: do we really need another syndrome in the already complex matrix of airway disease?

The term asthma–COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) is one of multiple terms used to describe patients with characteristics of both COPD and asthma, representing ~20% of patients with obstructive airway diseases. The recognition of both sets of morbidities in patients is important to guide practical treatment decisions. It is widely recognized that patients with COPD and coexisting asthma present with a higher disease burden, despite the conceptual expectation that the “reversible” or “treatable” component of asthma would allow for more effective management and better outcomes. However, subcategorization into terms such as ACOS is complicated by the vast spectrum of heterogeneity that is encapsulated by asthma and COPD, resulting in different clinical clusters. In this review, we discuss the possibility that these different clusters are suboptimally described by the umbrella term “ACOS”, as this additional categorization may lead to clinical confusion and potential inappropriate use of resources. We suggest that a more clinically relevant approach would be to recognize the extreme variability and the numerous phenotypes encompassed within obstructive airway diseases, with various degrees of overlapping in individual patients. In addition, we discuss some of the evidence to be considered when making practical decisions on the treatment of patients with overlapping characteristics between COPD and asthma, as well as the potential options for phenotype and biomarker-driven management of airway disease with the aim of providing more personalized treatment for patients. Finally, we highlight the need for more evidence in patients with overlapping disease characteristics and to facilitate better characterization of potential treatment responders.

Long-term triple therapy de-escalation to indacaterol/glycopyrronium in COPD patients (SUNSET): a randomized, double-blind, triple-dummy clinical trial

&NA; Rationale: There are no studies on withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in patients on long‐term triple therapy in the absence of frequent exacerbations. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct de‐escalation from long‐term triple therapy to indacaterol/glycopyrronium in nonfrequently exacerbating patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: This 26‐week, randomized, double‐blind, triple‐dummy study assessed the direct change from long‐term triple therapy to indacaterol/glycopyrronium (110/50 &mgr;g once daily) or continuation of triple therapy (tiotropium [18 &mgr;g] once daily plus combination of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate [50/500 &mgr;g] twice daily) in nonfrequently exacerbating patients with moderate‐to‐severe COPD. Primary endpoint was noninferiority on change from baseline in trough FEV1. Moderate or severe exacerbations were predefined secondary endpoints. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 527 patients were randomized to indacaterol/glycopyrronium and 526 to triple therapy. Inhaled corticosteroids withdrawal led to a reduction in trough FEV1 of −26 ml (95% confidence interval, −53 to 1 ml) with confidence limits exceeding the noninferiority margin of −50 ml. The annualized rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations did not differ between treatments (rate ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.40). Patients with ≥300 blood eosinophils/&mgr;l at baseline presented greater lung function loss and higher exacerbation risk. Adverse events were similar in the two groups. Conclusions: In patients with COPD without frequent exacerbations on long‐term triple therapy, the direct de‐escalation to indacaterol/glycopyrronium led to a small decrease in lung function, with no difference in exacerbations. The higher exacerbation risk in patients with ≥300 blood eosinophils/&mgr;l suggests that these patients are likely to benefit from triple therapy. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 02603393).

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily glycopyrrolate in patients with stable, symptomatic COPD with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation: the GEM1 study

Background The purpose of this study was to confirm the efficacy and safety of twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, in patients with stable, symptomatic, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation. Methods The GEM1 study was a 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study that randomized patients with stable, symptomatic COPD with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation to twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg or placebo (1:1) via the Neohaler® device. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of glycopyrrolate versus placebo in terms of forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve between 0 and 12 hours post morning dose at week 12. Other outcomes included additional spirometric end points, transition dyspnea index, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, rescue medication use, and symptoms reported by patients via electronic diary. Safety was also assessed during the study. Results Of the 441 patients randomized (glycopyrrolate, n=222; placebo, n=219), 96% of patients completed the planned treatment phase. Glycopyrrolate demonstrated statistically significant (P<0.001) improvements in lung function versus placebo. Glycopyrrolate showed statistically significant improvement in the transition dyspnea index focal score, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score, COPD Assessment Test score, rescue medication use, and daily total symptom score versus placebo at week 12. Safety was comparable between the treatment groups. Conclusion Significant improvement in lung function, dyspnea, COPD symptoms, health status, and rescue medication use suggests that glycopyrrolate is a safe and effective treatment option as maintenance bronchodilator in patients with stable, symptomatic COPD with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation.

Addressing unmet needs in the treatment of COPD.

The burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is considerable, both socially and economically. Central to COPD management is the use of long-acting bronchodilators, which provide patients with optimal bronchodilation and improvements in symptoms. The once-daily, long-acting &bgr;2-agonist indacaterol, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium, and the indacaterol/glycopyrronium fixed-dose combination QVA149 have all been shown to significantly improve lung function and patient-reported outcomes. The ability to take medication appropriately is important. Easy to use, low resistance devices may help patients take their medication and achieve good drug deposition. There is a need to optimise COPD management by treating the right patients with the right therapy at the right time during the course of their disease. Herein, we present a view on the current COPD management landscape and current unmet needs, and look to the future of COPD treatment and how patient care can be optimised.