Dataset Information

Ultra Long-Acting ?-Agonists in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Inhaled ?-agonists have been foundational medications for maintenance COPD management for decades. Through activation of cyclic adenosine monophosphate pathways, these agents relax airway smooth muscle and improve expiratory airflow by relieving bronchospasm and alleviating air trapping and dynamic hyperinflation improving breathlessness, exertional capabilities, and quality of life. ?-agonist drug development has discovered drugs with increasing longer durations of action: short acting (SABA) (4-6 h), long acting (LABA) (6-12 h), and ultra-long acting (ULABA) (24 h). Three ULABAs, indacaterol, olodaterol, and vilanterol, are approved for clinical treatment of COPD.

Purpose

This article reviews both clinically approved ULABAs and ULABAs in development.

Conclusion

Indacaterol and olodaterol were originally approved for clinical use as monotherapies for COPD. Vilanterol is the first ULABA to be approved only in combination with other respiratory medications. Although there are many other ULABA's in various stages of development, most clinical testing of these novel agents is suspended or proceeding slowly. The three approved ULABAs are being combined with antimuscarinic agents and corticosteroids as dual and triple agent treatments that are being tested for clinical use and efficacy. Increasingly, these clinical trials are using specific COPD clinical characteristics to define study populations and to begin to develop therapies that are trait-specific.

SUBMITTER: Burkes RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7751789 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ultra Long-Acting β-Agonists in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Burkes Robert M RM Panos Ralph J RJ

Journal of experimental pharmacology 20201214

<h4>Introduction</h4>Inhaled β-agonists have been foundational medications for maintenance COPD management for decades. Through activation of cyclic adenosine monophosphate pathways, these agents relax airway smooth muscle and improve expiratory airflow by relieving bronchospasm and alleviating air trapping and dynamic hyperinflation improving breathlessness, exertional capabilities, and quality of life. β-agonist drug development has discovered drugs with increasing longer durations of action: ...[more]

PMID: 33364854

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeIn the absence of head-to-head clinical trials comparing the once-daily, long-acting beta2-agonists olodaterol and indacaterol for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an indirect treatment comparison by systematic review and synthesis of the available clinical evidence was conducted.MethodsA systematic literature review of randomized, controlled clinical trials in patients with COPD was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olodaterol and indacaterol. Network meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison methods were employed to evaluate treatment efficacy, using outcomes based on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Transition Dyspnea Index, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score and response, rescue medication use, and proportion of patients with exacerbations.ResultsEighteen trials were identified for meta-analysis (eight, olodaterol; ten, indacaterol). Olodaterol trials included patients of all severities, whilst indacaterol trials excluded patients with very severe COPD. Concomitant maintenance bronchodilator use was allowed in most olodaterol trials, but not in indacaterol trials. When similarly designed trials/data were analyzed for change from baseline in trough FEV1 (liters), the following mean differences (95% confidence interval) were observed: trials excluding concomitant bronchodilator: indacaterol 75 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, -0.005 (-0.077 to 0.067), and indacaterol 150 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, 0.020 (-0.036 to 0.077); trials with concomitant tiotropium: indacaterol 150 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, 0.000 (-0.043 to 0.042). In sensitivity analyses of the full network, results for change from baseline in trough FEV1 favored indacaterol, but this dataset suffered from trial design heterogeneity. For the other endpoints investigated, no statistically significant differences were found when analyzed in the full network.ConclusionWhen compared under similar trial conditions, olodaterol and indacaterol have similar efficacy in patients with COPD. This research highlights the importance of considering the concomitant COPD medication when evaluating treatment effects in COPD.

Project description:BackgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a condition associated with high morbidity, mortality and cost to the community. Patients often report symptomatic improvement with short-acting beta-2 agonists (SABA) and anticholinergic bronchodilator medications, and both are recommended in COPD guidelines. These medications have different mechanisms of action and therefore could have an additive effect when combined.ObjectivesTo compare the relative efficacy and safety of regular long term use (at least four weeks) of ipratropium bromide and short- acting beta-2 agonist therapy in patients with stable COPD.Search strategyThe Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials was searched. Bibliographies were checked to identify relevant cross-references. Drug companies were contacted for relevant trial data. The searches are current to August 2005.Selection criteriaAll randomised controlled trials comparing at least 4 weeks of treatment with an anticholinergic agent (ipratropium bromide) alone or in combination with a beta-2 agonist (short acting) versus the beta-2 agonist alone, delivered via metered dose inhaler or nebuliser, in non-asthmatic adult subjects with stable COPD.Data collection and analysisData extraction and study quality assessment was performed independently by three reviewers. Authors of studies and relevant manufacturers were contacted if data were missing.Main resultsEleven studies (3912 participants) met the inclusion criteria of the review. Small benefits of ipratropium over a short-acting beta-2 agonist were demonstrated on lung function outcomes. There were small benefits in favour of ipratropium on quality of life (HRQL), as well as a reduction in the requirement for oral steroids. Combination therapy with ipratropium plus a short-acting beta-2 agonist conferred benefits over a short-acting beta-2 agonist alone in terms of post-bronchodilator lung function. There was no significant benefit of combination therapy in subjective improvements in HRQL, but again there was a reduction in the requirement for oral steroids.Authors' conclusionsThe available data from the trials included in this review suggest that the advantage of regular long term use of ipratropium alone or in combination with a short-acting beta-2 agonist or over a beta-2 agonist alone are small, if the aim is to improve lung function, symptoms and exercise tolerance. Until further data are available, the strategy of providing a short-acting beta-2 agonist on a PRN basis, and then either continuing with the short-acting beta-2 agonist regularly or conducting an "n of 1" trial of regular beta-2 agonist or regular anticholinergic to determine the treatment that gives the best relief of symptoms (and continuing with it), would seem cost effective. This strategy does need formal evaluation. Patient preference is also important, as is the relative importance of avoiding the use of systemic corticosteroids.

Project description:BackgroundBeta-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.MethodsASCENT-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.ResultsOf 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).ConclusionsThis 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01966107, Registered 16 October 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01966107 .

Project description:BackgroundThe long acting beta2-agonists, salmeterol and formoterol, have been recommended, by some, as first line treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We reviewed evidence of efficacy and safety when compared with placebo or anticholinergic agents in patients with poorly reversible COPD.MethodsAfter searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, BIOSIS Previews, PASCAL, ToxFile, SciSearch, the Cochrane Library, and PubMed, as well as Web sites, selected journals, reference lists, and contacting drug manufacturers, two reviewers independently screened reports of randomised controlled trials of parallel or crossover design lasting four weeks or longer and including patients with a forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) < or = 75% of predicted, a ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity (FVC) < or = 88% of predicted, and < 15% improvement from baseline FEV1 after a dose of a beta2 agonist. We included trials comparing salmeterol or formoterol with placebo or with ipratropium bromide and reporting one of these outcomes: lung function; exercise capacity; quality of life scores; dyspnea; exacerbations; rescue inhaler use; incidence of tachycardia, hypokalemia, or dry mouth. Two reviewers assessed the quality of included reports using the Jadad scale and allocation concealment, and abstracted data.ResultsTwelve trials satisfied our inclusion criteria; eight were high quality (Jadad score >2) and four were low quality (< or = 2). The adequacy of allocation concealment was unclear in all of them. We did not perform a meta-analysis due to differences in trial design and how outcomes were reported.Two trials comparing salmeterol with ipratropium did not detect differences; one trial comparing formoterol and ipratropium described greater improvement with formoterol in morning PEFR (15.3 versus 7.1 l/min, p = 0.040). Of twelve trials comparing long acting beta2 agonists with placebo, six reported no improvement in exercise capacity, eleven reported improvements in FEV1 lung function (one reported no improvement), six reported less rescue inhaler usage (one reported no difference) and five reported improved dyspnea scores (two reported no improvement). Differences in quality of life were detected in one salmeterol trial; however, two salmeterol, and one formoterol trial reported no differences. Adverse effects of interest were not reported.ConclusionIn terms of clinical outcomes and safety, we could not find convincing evidence that salmeterol and formoterol have demonstrated advantages to ipratropium, a less expensive drug, for patients with stable COPD and poor reversibility. Compared to placebo, we found evidence of reduced rescue inhaler usage and improved spirometric outcomes without a significant impact on quality of life or exercise capacity.