Dataset Information

Efficacy of Aclidinium Bromide According to Baseline Therapy: Post-Hoc Analysis of ASCENT-COPD Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs), inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and their combinations, are recommended for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to determine whether the safety and efficacy of aclidinium bromide differs by baseline maintenance LABA and ICS therapies.

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 400 μg or placebo twice daily, via a multidose dry-powder inhaler for up to 3 years. Outcomes included time to first major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), and COPD assessment test (CAT) total score over 3 years, and annual moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation rate in patients receiving aclidinium or placebo with maintenance LABA monotherapy, ICS monotherapy, LABA + ICS (fixed/free), or no maintenance therapy (neither LABA nor ICS) at baseline.

Results

A total of 3589 patients were included (LABA, n = 227; ICS, n = 290; LABA + ICS, n = 2058; no maintenance, n = 1130). Aclidinium did not increase the risk of MACE or all-cause mortality versus placebo, regardless of baseline maintenance treatment. Reductions in moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates were observed with aclidinium versus placebo in all subgroups [LABA 43% (P = 0.046); ICS 25% (P = 0.202); LABA + ICS 22% (P = 0.003); no maintenance 18% (P = 0.130)]. Aclidinium improved morning trough FEV₁ irrespective of baseline therapy and CAT total scores, except for LABA and ICS subgroups, versus placebo at several time points.

Conclusion

In patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and CV risk factors, the addition of aclidinium to maintenance therapy with LABA or LABA + ICS provided further benefit.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01966107.

SUBMITTER: Wise RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8478777 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThere is concern that long-acting muscarinic antagonists increase cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).ObjectiveTo determine the cardiovascular safety (noninferiority) and efficacy (superiority) of aclidinium bromide, 400 μg twice daily, in patients with COPD and cardiovascular disease or risk factors.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-design study conducted at 522 sites in North America. A total of 3630 patients with moderate to very severe COPD and either a history of cardiovascular disease or at least 2 atherothrombotic risk factors were randomized; follow-up occurred for up to 3 years until at least 122 major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) occurred. The first patient was enrolled on October 16, 2013 and the last on August 22, 2016. The final patient completed follow-up on September 21, 2017.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive aclidinium (n = 1812) or placebo (n = 1818) by dry-powder inhaler, twice daily for up to 3 years.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary safety end point was time to first MACE over up to 3 years (hazard ratio [HR] 1-sided 97.5% CI noninferiority margin = 1.8). The primary efficacy end point was the annual COPD exacerbation rate during the first year of treatment. Secondary outcomes included an expanded MACE definition (time to first MACE or serious cardiovascular event of interest) and annual rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalization.ResultsAmong 3589 patients analyzed (mean age, 67.2 years; 58.7% male), 2537 (70.7%) completed the study. Of these, 69 (3.9%) aclidinium and 76 (4.2%) placebo patients had a MACE (HR, 0.89; 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0-1.23); the expanded MACE definition included 168 (9.4%) aclidinium vs 160 (8.9%) placebo patients with events (HR, 1.03; 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0-1.28). Annual moderate to severe exacerbation rates (aclidinium, 0.44; placebo, 0.57; rate ratio, 0.78; 2-sided 95% CI, 0.68-0.89; P < .001) and rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalization (aclidinium, 0.07; placebo, 0.10; rate ratio, 0.65; 2-sided 95% CI, 0.48-0.89; P = .006) decreased significantly with aclidinium vs placebo. The most common adverse events were pneumonia (aclidinium, 109 events [6.1%]; placebo, 105 events [5.8%]), urinary tract infection (aclidinium, 93 events [5.2%]; placebo, 89 events [5.0%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (aclidinium, 86 events [4.8%]; placebo, 101 events [5.6%]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with COPD and increased cardiovascular risk, aclidinium was noninferior to placebo for risk of MACE over 3 years. The rate of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations was reduced over the first year.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01966107.

Project description:A previous Phase IIIb study (NCT01462929) in patients with moderate to severe COPD demonstrated that 6 weeks of treatment with aclidinium led to improvements in 24-hour bronchodilation comparable to those with tiotropium, and improvement of symptoms versus placebo. This post hoc analysis was performed to assess the effect of treatment in the symptomatic patient group participating in the study.Symptomatic patients (defined as those with Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms [E-RS™] in COPD baseline score ?10 units) received aclidinium bromide 400 ?g twice daily (BID), tiotropium 18 ?g once daily (QD), or placebo, for 6 weeks. Lung function, COPD respiratory symptoms, and incidence of adverse events (AEs) were assessed.In all, 277 symptomatic patients were included in this post hoc analysis. Aclidinium and tiotropium treatment improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline to week 6 at all time points over 24 hours versus placebo. In addition, improvements in FEV1 from baseline during the nighttime period were observed for aclidinium versus tiotropium on day 1 (aclidinium 157 mL, tiotropium 67 mL; P<0.001) and week 6 (aclidinium 153 mL, tiotropium 90 mL; P<0.05). Aclidinium improved trough FEV1 from baseline versus placebo and tiotropium at day 1 (aclidinium 136 mL, tiotropium 68 mL; P<0.05) and week 6 (aclidinium 137 mL, tiotropium 71 mL; P<0.05). Aclidinium also improved early-morning and nighttime symptom severity, limitation of early-morning activities, and E-RS Total and domain scores versus tiotropium (except E-RS Chest Symptoms) and placebo over 6 weeks. Tolerability showed similar incidence of AEs in each arm.In this post hoc analysis of symptomatic patients with moderate to severe COPD, aclidinium 400 ?g BID provided additional improvements compared with tiotropium 18 ?g QD in: 1) bronchodilation, particularly during the nighttime, 2) daily COPD symptoms (E-RS), 3) early-morning and nighttime symptoms, and 4) early-morning limitation of activity.

Project description:BackgroundCombining two long-acting bronchodilators with complementary mechanisms of action may provide treatment benefits to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that are greater than those derived from either treatment alone. The efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium bromide, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and formoterol fumarate, a long-acting β2-agonist, in patients with moderate to severe COPD are presented.MethodsIn this 24-week double-blind study, 1692 patients with stable COPD were equally randomized to twice-daily treatment with FDC aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg (ACL400/FOR12 FDC), FDC aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 6 μg (ACL400/FOR6 FDC), aclidinium 400 μg, formoterol 12 μg, or placebo administered by a multidose dry powder inhaler (Genuair®/Pressair®)*. Coprimary endpoints were change from baseline to week 24 in 1-hour morning postdose FEV1 (FDCs versus aclidinium) and change from baseline to week 24 in morning predose (trough) FEV1 (FDCs versus formoterol). Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and improvement in Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score at week 24. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.ResultsAt study end, improvements from baseline in 1-hour postdose FEV1 were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC or ACL400/FOR6 FDC compared with aclidinium (108 mL and 87 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001). Improvements in trough FEV1 were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC versus formoterol (45 mL; p = 0.0102), a numerical improvement of 26 mL in trough FEV1 over formoterol was observed with ACL400/FOR6 FDC. Significant improvements in both SGRQ total and TDI focal scores were observed in the ACL400/FOR12 FDC group at study end (p < 0.0001), with differences over placebo exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of ≥4 points and ≥1 unit, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated, with safety profiles of the FDCs similar to those of the monotherapies.ConclusionsTreatment with twice-daily aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg FDC provided rapid and sustained bronchodilation that was greater than either monotherapy; clinically significant improvements in dyspnea and health status were evident compared with placebo. Aclidinium/formoterol FDC may be an effective and well tolerated new treatment option for patients with COPD.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01437397.

Project description:PurposeChronic 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 methodsASCENT-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.ResultsOf 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).ConclusionIn 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01966107.

Project description:Aclidinium-formoterol 400/12 µg is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting ?2-agonist in a fixed-dose combination used in the management of patients with COPD. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of aclidinium-formoterol 400/12 µg against the long-acting muscarinic antagonist aclidinium bromide 400 µg.A five-health-state Markov transition model with monthly cycles was developed using MS Excel to simulate patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and their initial lung-function improvement following treatment with aclidinium-formoterol 400/12 µg or aclidinium 400 µg. Health states were based on severity levels defined by Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2010 criteria. The analysis was a head-to-head comparison without step-up therapy, from the NHS Scotland perspective, over a 5-year time horizon. Clinical data on initial lung-function improvement were provided by a pooled analysis of the ACLIFORM and AUGMENT trials. Management, event costs, and utilities were health state-specific. Costs and effects were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%. The outcome of the analysis was expressed as cost (UK£) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The analysis included one way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to investigate the impact of parameter uncertainty on model outputs.Aclidinium-formoterol 400/12 µg provided marginally higher costs (£41) and more QALYs (0.014), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,976/QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were robust to key parameter variations, and the main drivers were: mean baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), risk of exacerbation, FEV1 improvement from aclidinium-formoterol 400/12 µg, and lung-function decline. The probability of aclidinium-formoterol 400/12 µg being cost-effective (using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY) versus aclidinium 400 µg was 79%.In Scotland, aclidinium-formoterol 400/12 µg can be considered a cost-effective treatment option compared to aclidinium 400 µg alone in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.