A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD

Gregory Feldman, François Maltais, Sanjeev Khindri, Mitra Vahdati-Bolouri, Alison Church, William A Fahy, Roopa Trivedi, Gregory Feldman, François Maltais, Sanjeev Khindri, Mitra Vahdati-Bolouri, Alison Church, William A Fahy, Roopa Trivedi

Abstract

Background: The long-acting muscarinic antagonists umeclidinium (UMEC) and tiotropium (TIO) are approved once-daily maintenance therapies for COPD. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of UMEC versus TIO in COPD.

Methods: This was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to UMEC 62.5 μg plus placebo or TIO 18 μg plus placebo. The primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at day 85 (non-inferiority margin -50 mL; per-protocol [PP] population). Other end points included weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 and 12-24 hours post-dose. Patient-reported outcomes comprised Transition Dyspnea Index score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and COPD Assessment Test score. Adverse events were also assessed.

Results: In total, 1,017 patients were randomized to treatment. In the PP population, 489 and 487 patients received UMEC and TIO, respectively. In the PP population, change from baseline in trough FEV1 was greater with UMEC versus TIO at day 85, meeting non-inferiority and superiority margins (difference: 59 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 29-88; P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat analysis of trough FEV1 at day 85 (53 mL, 95% CI: 25-81; P<0.001). Improvements in weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 hours post-dose at day 84 were similar with UMEC and TIO but significantly greater with UMEC versus TIO over 12-24 hours post-dose (70 mL; P=0.015). Clinically meaningful improvements in Transition Dyspnea Index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire were observed with both treatments at all time points. No differences were observed between UMEC and TIO in patient-reported outcomes. Overall incidences of adverse events were similar for UMEC and TIO.

Conclusion: UMEC 62.5 μg demonstrated superior efficacy to TIO 18 μg on the primary end point of trough FEV1 at day 85. Safety profiles were similar for both treatments.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02207829.

Keywords: COPD; long-acting muscarinic antagonist; non-inferiority; tiotropium; umeclidinium.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient disposition. Note: *Lack of efficacy includes patients who withdrew due to COPD exacerbation. Abbreviations: ASE, all subjects enrolled; TIO, tiotropium; UMEC, umeclidinium.
Figure 2
Figure 2
LS mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 (mL) (PP population). Notes: n1, number of patients with analyzable data for ≥1 time points. n2, number of subjects with analyzable data at the current time point. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; LS, least squares; PP, per-protocol; SE, standard error; TIO, tiotropium; UMEC, umeclidinium.
Figure 3
Figure 3
LS mean change from baseline in serial FEV1 (mL) on day 1 (A) and on day 84 (B) (both days: TFH population). Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; LS, least squares; TFH, 24-hour; TIO, tiotropium; UMEC, umeclidinium.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Proportion of trough FEV1 responders. Notes: *P<0.05. Response was defined as an increase of ≥100 mL above baseline FEV1. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; TIO, tiotropium; UMEC, umeclidinium.

References

    1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) [updated 2015] [Accessed August 12, 2015]. Available from:
    1. World Health Organization–burden of COPD. 2015. [Accessed August 19, 2015]. Available from:
    1. Barr RG, Bourbeau J, Camargo CA, Ram FS. Inhaled tiotropium for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;2:CD002876.
    1. Tashkin DP, Celli B, Senn S, et al. A 4-year trial of tiotropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(15):1543–1554.
    1. O’Donnell DE, Fluge T, Gerken F, et al. Effects of tiotropium on lung hyperinflation, dyspnoea and exercise tolerance in COPD. Eur Respir J. 2004;23(6):832–840.
    1. Trivedi R, Richard N, Mehta R, Church A. Umeclidinium in patients with COPD: a randomised, placebo-controlled study. Eur Respir J. 2014;43(1):72–81.
    1. Eklira Genuair EMA assessment report. 2012. [Accessed August 12, 2015]. Available from: .
    1. Seebri Breezhaler EMA assessment report. 2012. [Accessed September 23, 2015]. Available from: .
    1. INCRUSE ELLIPTA highlights of prescribing information. 2013. [Accessed August 12, 2015]. Available from: .
    1. Summary of product characteristics: Incruse 55 micrograms inhalation powder. 2015. [Accessed August 12, 2015]. Available from: .
    1. Chapman KR, Beeh KM, Beier J, et al. A blinded evaluation of the efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium, a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist, versus tiotropium, in patients with COPD: the GLOW5 study. BMC Pulm Med. 2014;14:4.
    1. Beier J, Kirsten AM, Mroz R, et al. Efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide compared with placebo and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a 6-week, randomized, controlled Phase IIIb study. COPD. 2013;10(4):511–522.
    1. World Medical Association World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 2008. [Accessed September 29, 2015]. Available from: .
    1. Celli BR, MacNee W. Standards for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with COPD: a summary of the ATS/ERS position paper. Eur Respir J. 2004;23(6):932–946.
    1. Decramer M, Anzueto A, Kerwin E, et al. Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium plus vilanterol versus tiotropium, vilanterol, or umeclidinium monotherapies over 24 weeks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from two multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trials. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2(6):472–486.
    1. Maleki-Yazdi MR, Kaelin T, Richard N, Zvarich M, Church A. Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg and tiotropium 18 mcg in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results of a 24-week, randomized, controlled trial. Respir Med. 2014;108(12):1752–1760.
    1. Witek TJ, Jr, Mahler DA. Minimal important difference of the transition dyspnoea index in a multinational clinical trial. Eur Respir J. 2003;21(2):267–272.
    1. Jones PW. St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire: MCID. COPD. 2005;2(1):75–79.
    1. Kon SS, Canavan JL, Jones SE, et al. Minimum clinically important difference for the COPD Assessment Test: a prospective analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2(3):195–203.
    1. Ingelheim B. Spiriva® 18 microgram, inhalation powder, hard capsule – package leaflet: information for the user. 2014. [Accessed October 20, 2015]. Available from: .
    1. GSK Incruse® 55 micrograms inhalation powder, pre-dispensed – package leaflet: information for the user. 2015. [Accessed October 20, 2015]. Available from: .
    1. Donohue JF. Minimal clinically important differences in COPD lung function. COPD. 2005;2(1):111–124.
    1. Snapinn SM. Noninferiority trials. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2000;1(1):19–21.
    1. Lewis JA, Machin D. Intention to treat – who should use ITT? Br J Cancer. 1993;68(4):647–650.
    1. Church A, Beerahee M, Brooks J, Mehta R, Shah P. Dose response of umeclidinium administered once or twice daily in patients with COPD: a randomised cross-over study. BMC Pulm Med. 2014;14:2.
    1. Donohue JF, Anzueto A, Brooks J, Mehta R, Kalberg C, Crater G. A randomized, double-blind dose-ranging study of the novel LAMA GSK573719 in patients with COPD. Respir Med. 2012;106(7):970–979.
    1. Littner MR, Ilowite JS, Tashkin DP, et al. Long-acting bronchodilation with once-daily dosing of tiotropium (Spiriva) in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;161:1136–1142.
    1. Summary of Product Characteristics: Spiriva 18 microgram inhalation powder, hard capsule. [Accessed January 27, 2016]. Available from: .
    1. Salmon M, Luttmann MA, Foley JJ, et al. Pharmacological characterization of GSK573719 (umeclidinium): a novel, long-acting, inhaled antagonist of the muscarinic cholinergic receptors for treatment of pulmonary diseases. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2013;345(2):260–270.
    1. Partridge MR, Karlsson N, Small IR. Patient insight into the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the morning: an internet survey. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(8):2043–2048.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever