Long-acting beta(2)-agonist in addition to tiotropium versus either tiotropium or long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BackgroundLong-acting bronchodilators comprising long-acting beta(2)-agonists and the anticholinergic agent tiotropium are commonly used for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than the individual components. However, the benefits and risks of combining tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonists for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary (COPD) disease are unclear.ObjectivesTo assess the relative effects of treatment with tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta(2)-agonist compared to tiotropium or long-acting beta2-agonist alone in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and clinicaltrials.gov up to January 2012.Selection criteriaWe included parallel group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing treatment with tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta2-agonist against tiotropium or long-acting beta2-agonist alone for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials.Main resultsFive trials were included in this review, mostly recruiting participants with moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All of them compared tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta(2)-agonist to tiotropium alone, but only one trial additionally compared a combination of the two types of bronchodilator with long-acting beta2-agonist (formoterol) alone. Two studies used the long-acting beta2-agonist indacaterol, two used formoterol and one used salmeterol.Compared to tiotropium alone (3263 patients), treatment with tiotropium plus long-acting beta2-agonist resulted in a slightly larger improvement in the mean health-related quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) MD -1.61; 95% CI -2.93 to -0.29). In the control arm, tiotropium alone, the SGRQ improved by falling 4.5 units from baseline and with both treatments the improvement was a fall of 6.1 units from baseline (on average). High withdrawal rates in the trials increased the uncertainty in this result, and the GRADE assessment for this outcome was therefore moderate. There were no significant differences in the other primary outcomes (hospital admission or mortality).The secondary outcome of pre-bronchodilator FEV1 showed a small mean increase with the addition of long-acting beta2-agonist (MD 0.07 L; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.09) over the control arm, which showed a change from baseline ranging from 0.03 L to 0.13 L on tiotropium alone. None of the other secondary outcomes (exacerbations, symptom scores, serious adverse events, and withdrawals) showed any statistically significant differences between the groups. There were wide confidence intervals around these outcomes and moderate heterogeneity for both exacerbations and withdrawals.The results from the one trial comparing the combination of tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonist to long-acting beta2-agonist alone (417 participants) were insufficient to draw firm conclusions for this comparison.Authors' conclusionsThe results from this review indicate a small mean improvement in health-related quality of life for patients on a combination of tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonist compared to tiotropium alone, but it is not clear how clinically important this mean difference may be. Hospital admission and mortality have not been shown to be altered by adding long-acting beta(2)-agonists to tiotropium. There were not enough data to determine the relative efficacy and safety of tiotropium plus long-acting beta2-agonist compared to long-acting beta2-agonist alone. There were insufficient data to make comparisons between the different long-acting beta2-agonists when used in addition to tiotropium

The 24-h lung-function profile of once-daily tiotropium and olodaterol fixed-dose combination in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background: This study investigated the effects on 24-h lung function and lung volume of a once-daily fixed-dose combination (FDC) of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium and the long-acting beta(2)-agonist olodaterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Methods: This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial with an incomplete crossover design. Patients received four of the following six treatment options for 6 weeks each: placebo, olodaterol 5 mu g, tiotropium 2.5 mu g, tiotropium 5 mu g, tiotropium + olodaterol FDC 2.5/5 mu g and tiotropium + olodaterol FDC 5/5 mu g, all delivered via the Respimat (R) inhaler. The primary end point was forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC(0-24)) response after 6 weeks of treatment; key secondary end points were FEV1 AUC from 0 to 12 h and AUC from 12 to 24 h, and further end points included lung-volume parameters measured using body plethysmography (subset of patients), measures of peak and trough FEV1, and incidence of adverse events. Results: A significant improvement in FEV1 AUC(0-24) response was observed with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 mu g and 2.5/5 mu g versus placebo and monotherapies after 6 weeks of treatment; mean response with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 mu g versus placebo was 0.280 L (p < 0.0001). Differences to monotherapies with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 mu g were 0.115 L versus olodaterol 5 mu g, 0.127 L versus tiotropium 2.5 mu g and 0.110 L versus tiotropium 5 mu g (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Secondary end points supported these data. No safety concerns were identified. Conclusions: Overall, this study demonstrated improvements in lung function over 24 h with an FDC of tiotropium + olodaterol over tiotropium or olodaterol alone, with no observed difference in tolerability. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01559116

Cardiac safety of tiotropium in patients with cardiac events: a retrospective analysis of the UPLIFT® trial.

BackgroundTiotropium is an anticholinergic bronchodilator for symptom relief and reducing exacerbations with an established safety profile in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Using data from the 4-year Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT®) study, we re-evaluated the safety of tiotropium HandiHaler® in patients who experienced recent myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure or unstable rhythm disorder during the study.MethodsA post-hoc analysis of all-cause mortality and serious cardiac adverse events (cardiac SAEs), including cardiac deaths and death unknown, was conducted in patients who had experienced cardiac arrhythmia, MI or cardiac failure during UPLIFT® and who completed the study. Descriptive analyses were performed.ResultsMost patients experiencing cardiac events, for which they would have been excluded at baseline, remained in the trial. Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed a trend to later occurrence of cardiac SAEs with tiotropium HandiHaler® versus placebo. Patients who experienced a cardiac event and continued in UPLIFT® were not found to be at subsequently increased risk of all-cause mortality or cardiac SAEs with tiotropium treatment. Evaluation of deaths by major adverse cardiac events composite endpoints also showed that patients treated with tiotropium were not at increased risk of mortality or cardiac SAEs compared with placebo.ConclusionsRisk of cardiac events, mortality or SAEs was not increased by tiotropium in patients experiencing cardiac events for which they would have been excluded at study baseline. The findings support the cardiac safety of tiotropium HandiHaler® in patients with COPD

Combination inhaled steroid and long-acting beta2-agonist versus tiotropium for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background Combination therapy (inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta(2)-agonists) and tiotropium are both used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There is uncertainty about the relative benefits and harms of these treatments. Objectives To assess the relative effects of inhaled combination therapy and tiotropium on patients with COPD. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (March 2010) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted authors of the studies.Selection criteriaWe included only parallel, randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled combination corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist against inhaled tiotropium bromide. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Main results One large two year trial (INSPIRE) and two smaller, shorter trials (Dawber 2005; SCO40034) were found. The results from these trials were not pooled. The number of withdrawals from each arm of the INSPIRE trial was large and imbalanced and outcome data was not collected for patients who withdrew, raising concerns about the reliability of data from this study.In INSPIRE, there were more deaths on tiotropium than on fluticasone/salmeterol (Peto OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.93). This was a statistically significant difference, however the number of withdrawals from each of the arms was eleven times larger than the observed number of deaths for participants on fluticasone/salmeterol and seven times larger for participants on tiotropium. There were more all cause hospital admissions in patents on fluticasone/salmeterol than those on tiotropium in INSPIRE (Peto OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.67). There was no statistically significant difference in hospital admissions due to exacerbations, the primary outcome of INSPIRE. There was no significant difference in exacerbations in patients on fluticasone/salmeterol compared to tiotropium. Exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids were less frequent in patients on fluticasone/salmeterol (Rate Ratio 0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.99). Conversely exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics were more frequent in patients treated with fluticasone/salmeterol (Rate Ratio 1.19; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.38). There were more cases of pneumonia in patients on fluticasone/salmeterol than those on tiotropium (Peto OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.33 to 3.40). Confidence intervals for these outcomes do not reflect the additional uncertainty arising from unknown outcome data for patients who withdrew. Authors' conclusions Since the proportion of missing outcome data compared to the observed outcome data is enough to induce a clinically relevant bias in the intervention effect, the relative efficacy and safety of combined inhalers and tiotropium remains uncertain. Further large, long-term randomised controlled trials comparing combination therapy to tiotropium are required, including adequate follow-up of all participants randomised (similar to the procedures undertaken in TORCH and UPLIFT). Additional studies comparing alternative inhaled LABA/steroid combination therapies with tiotropium are also required

The effect of adding inhaled corticosteroids to tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Review)

BackgroundLong-acting bronchodilators comprising long-acting beta(2)-agonists and the anticholinergic agent tiotropiumare commonly used, either on their own or in combination, for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who are symptomatic and who suffer repeated exacerbations are recommended to add inhaled corticosteroids to their bronchodilator treatment. However, the benefits and risks of adding inhaled corticosteroid to tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonists for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are unclear.ObjectivesTo assess the relative effects of adding inhaled corticosteroids to tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonists treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (February 2011) and reference lists of articles.Selection criteriaWe included parallel group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy in addition to inhaled tiotropium against tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonist treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials.Main resultsOne trial (293 patients) was identified comparing tiotropium in addition to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy to tiotropium plus long-acting beta2-agonist. The study was of good methodological quality, however it suffered from high and uneven withdrawal rates between the treatment arms. There is currently insufficient evidence to know how much difference the addition of inhaled corticosteroids makes to people who are taking tiotropium and a long-acting beta(2)-agonist for COPD.Authors' conclusionsThe relative efficacy and safety of adding inhaled corticosteroid to tiotropium and a long-acting beta(2)-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients remains uncertain and additional trials are required to answer this question

New and developing non-adrenoreceptor small molecule drugs for the treatment of asthma

Introduction: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone or in combination with an inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) are the preferred long-term treatment for adults and adolescents with symptomatic asthma. Additional drugs include leukotriene-receptor antagonists, slow-release theophylline and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) tiotropium (approved in 2015). There is a need for more effective therapies, as many patients continue to have poorly controlled asthma. Areas covered: New and developing long-acting non-adrenoreceptor synthetic drugs for the treatment of symptomatic chronic asthma despite treatment with an ICS alone or combined with a LABA. Data was reviewed from studies published up until November 2016. Expert opinion: Tiotropium improves lung function and has a modest effect in reducing exacerbations when added to ICS alone or ICS and LABA. The LAMAs umeclidinium and glycopyrronium are under development in fixed dose combination with ICS and LABA. Novel small molecule drugs, such as CRTH2 receptor antagonists, PDE4 inhibitors, protein kinase inhibitors and nonsteroidal glucocorticoid receptor agonists and ‘off-label’ use of licensed drugs, such as macrolides and statins are under investigation for asthma, although their effectiveness in clinical practice is not established. To better achieve the goal of developing effective novel small molecule drugs for asthma will require greater understanding of mechanisms of disease and the different phenotypes and endotypes of asthma

Comorbidities of patients in tiotropium clinical trials : comparison with observational studies of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Acknowledgments The authors are fully responsible for all content and editorial decisions made, were involved at all stages of manuscript development, and have approved the final version for publication. Editorial assistance, supported financially by Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer, was provided by Godfrey Lisk of PAREXEL International during the preparation of this manuscript. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The lung function profile of once-daily tiotropium and olodaterol via Respimat® is superior to that of twice-daily salmeterol and fluticasone propionate via Accuhaler® (ENERGITO® study)

Background: Tiotropium + olodaterol has demonstrated improvements beyond lung function benefits in a large Phase III clinical program as a once-daily maintenance treatment for COPD and may be a potential option for the initiation of maintenance treatment in COPD. Despite guideline recommendations that combined long-acting beta(2)-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids should only be used in individuals at high risk of exacerbation, there is substantial use in individuals at lower risk. This raises the question of the comparative effectiveness of this combination as maintenance treatment in this group compared to other combination regimens. Objective: The study aimed to assess the effect on lung function of once-daily tiotropium + olodaterol versus twice-daily salmeterol + fluticasone propionate in all participants with Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2 or 3 (moderate to severe) COPD. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, four-treatment, complete crossover study in which participants received once-daily tiotropium + olodaterol (5/5 mu g and 2.5/5 mu g) via Respimat (R) and twice-daily salmeterol + fluticasone propionate (50/500 mu g and 50/250 mu g) via Accuhaler (R) for 6 weeks. The primary end point was change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 hour to 12 hours (AUC(0-12)) relative to the baseline after 6 weeks. Results: Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 mu g and 2.5/5 mu g demonstrated statistically significant improvements in FEV1 AUC(0-12) compared to salmeterol + fluticasone propionate (improvements from baseline were 317 mL and 295 mL with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 mu g and 2.5/5 mu g, and 188 mL and 192 mL with salmeterol + fluticasone propionate 50/500 mu g and 50/250 mu g, respectively). Tiotropium + olodaterol was superior to salmeterol + fluticasone propionate in lung function secondary end points, including FEV1 area under the curve from 0 hour to 24 hours (AUC(0-24)). Conclusion: Once-daily tiotropium + olodaterol in participants with moderate-to-severe COPD provided superior lung function improvements to twice-daily salmeterol + fluticasone propionate. Dual bronchodilation can be considered to optimize lung function in individuals requiring maintenance treatment for COPD