Dataset Information

AMPLIFY: a randomized, Phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol vs monocomponents and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD.

ABSTRACT:

Background

AMPLIFY assessed the efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) vs its monocomponents and tiotropium (TIO) in patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD (NCT02796677).

Methods

In this 24-week, Phase III, double-dummy, active-controlled study, symptomatic patients (COPD Assessment Test score ≥10) were randomized to twice-daily AB/FF 400/12 µg, AB 400 µg, or FF 12 µg, or once-daily TIO 18 µg. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline at week 24 in 1-hour morning post-dose FEV₁ (AB/FF vs AB) and in pre-dose (trough) FEV₁ (AB/FF vs FF). Non-inferiority of AB vs TIO in pre-dose FEV₁ was also an objective. Normalized area under the curve (AUC)_{0-3/3 h} FEV₁ and nighttime and early morning symptoms were also assessed. A subgroup participated in a 24-hour serial spirometry sub-study.

Results

A total of 1,594 patients were randomized; 566 entered the sub-study. At week 24, 1-hour post-dose FEV₁ significantly improved with AB/FF vs AB, FF, and TIO (84, 84, and 92 mL; all P<0.0001). AB/FF significantly improved trough FEV₁ vs FF (55 mL, P<0.001) and AB was non-inferior to TIO. AB/FF significantly improved AUC_{0-3/3 h} FEV₁ vs all comparators (P<0.0001) and provided significant improvements in early morning symptoms vs TIO. The 24-hour spirometry demonstrated significantly greater improvements with AB/FF in AUC_{12-24/12 h} vs all comparators, and in AUC_{0-24/24 h} vs FF or TIO at week 24.

Conclusion

In patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD, twice-daily AB/FF significantly improved lung function vs monocomponents and TIO, and early morning symptom control vs TIO.

SUBMITTER: Sethi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6435124 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

AMPLIFY: a randomized, Phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol vs monocomponents and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD.

Sethi Sanjay S Kerwin Edward E Watz Henrik H Ferguson Gary T GT Mroz Robert M RM Segarra Rosa R Molins Eduard E Jarreta Diana D Garcia Gil Esther E

International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 20190322

<h4>Background</h4>AMPLIFY assessed the efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) vs its monocomponents and tiotropium (TIO) in patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD (NCT02796677).<h4>Methods</h4>In this 24-week, Phase III, double-dummy, active-controlled study, symptomatic patients (COPD Assessment Test score ≥10) were randomized to twice-daily AB/FF 400/12 µg, AB 400 µg, or FF 12 µg, or once-daily TIO 18 µg. Co-primary endpoints were change from bas ...[more]

PMID: 30962681

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg twice daily compared to tiotropium 18 μg once daily in adult patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).MethodsA systematic literature review performed in March 2014, using a predefined search strategy in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, identified 17 randomized placebo-controlled trials, (tiotropium n = 15; aclidinium/formoterol n = 2). Outcomes of interest were: bronchodilation (peak and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)), COPD symptoms [Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score and % of responders (>1 unit improvement)] and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) [St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and % responders (>4 unit improvement)], % of patients with ≥1 exacerbations, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), hospitalization and mortality, all at 24 weeks. In the absence of head-to-head trials between aclidinium/formoterol and tiotropium, a Bayesian indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was used with placebo as common control.ResultsRegarding bronchodilation, aclidinium/formoterol was found to be more efficacious than tiotropium at peak FEV1, with mean difference in change from baseline (DCFB) 143 mL [95% credible interval (CrI): 112, 174] and at trough FEV1 [DCFB 26 mL (95% CrI -2, 55)]. Aclidinium/formoterol is expected to be more efficacious than tiotropium in improving dyspnea symptoms measured by TDI [DCFB 0.54 points (95% CrI 0.09, 0.99); odds ratio (OR) of responders 1.51 (95% CrI 1.11, 2.06)]. SGRQ results are comparable for aclidinium/formoterol versus tiotropium [DCFB -0.52 (95% CrI -2.21, 1.17); OR of responders 1.16 (95% CrI 0.47, 2.87)]. The ITC results suggest similar safety profiles regarding AEs, SAEs and hospitalization.ConclusionBased on the ITC, aclidinium/formoterol is expected to be more efficacious than tiotropium in terms of lung function and symptom control while providing comparable HRQoL results and safety profile.FundingAstraZeneca.

Project description:IntroductionLong-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are established maintenance bronchodilator treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with the potential to increase heart rate (HR) and impact blood pressure (BP). While previous studies indicate that HR and BP are not negatively influenced by tiotropium or olodaterol monotherapy, the effect of tiotropium/olodaterol has not been evaluated. We report a post hoc analysis of the effect of dual bronchodilation with tiotropium/olodaterol versus monocomponents on HR and BP in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD included in the large TONADO® study.MethodsThe TONADO® trials (1237.5 [NCT01431274] and 1237.6 [NCT01431287]) were two replicate, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 52-week, Phase III trials that compared tiotropium/olodaterol (5/5 μg and 2.5/5 μg) with tiotropium (5 μg and 2.5 μg) and olodaterol (5 μg) in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD. Patients with cardiovascular comorbidities were included. Changes in HR and systolic/diastolic BP were measured before and after dosing with the study medication at each visit (baseline, Week 12, Week 24 and Week 52).ResultsOverall, 3,100 patients were included in this analysis. Over 52 weeks, small changes from baseline in mean HR (<2 beats per minute [bpm]) and small changes from pre- to post-dose (<1 bpm) were evident at different time points. There was a non-significant increase from baseline in mean diastolic and systolic BP (<2 mmHg) observed over 52 weeks of treatment. The short-term (1 hour pre- to 1 hour post-dose) mean changes in systolic and diastolic BP over 52 weeks in the tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg group were comparable with those observed for the monocomponents at all time points.ConclusionThere were no differences in HR or BP among patients on tiotropium/olodaterol when compared with monocomponents. This supports the already demonstrated cardiovascular safety profile of tiotropium/olodaterol as long-acting maintenance bronchodilator treatment for COPD, including patients with cardiovascular comorbidities.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular comorbidities may have an increased risk of medication-related cardiac arrhythmias. We therefore performed an analysis of Holter electrocardiogram (ECG) data from two large, long-term, controlled clinical COPD trials to investigate whether tiotropium/olodaterol increased the risk of cardiac arrhythmia and mean heart rate.MethodsWe analyzed Holter ECG data from a representative subset of patients (N=506) from the two pooled replicate studies (TONADO 1 and 2) assessing tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg therapy versus tiotropium 5 µg or olodaterol 5 µg monotherapy, inhaled once daily (two single inhalations) using the Respimat® Soft Mist™ inhaler device. Additionally, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) with tiotropium/olodaterol were assessed versus the respective monotherapies.ResultsAfter 12 weeks of treatment, there was no difference in the number of patients who had an increase or decrease from baseline in 24-hour supraventricular premature beats or ventricular premature beats between tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg combination therapy and its monocomponents. Compared with baseline, a small but statistically significant increase in adjusted mean heart rate was observed for tiotropium 5 µg (+1.6 beats per minute [bpm]; P=0.0010), but no difference was observed for olodaterol 5 µg (+0.3 bpm; P=0.2778) or tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg (-0.1 bpm; P=0.4607). MACE and fatal MACE were limited to 1 to 3 patients across treatment groups.ConclusionCompared with the compounds given as monotherapy, treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol fixed-dose combination therapy is not associated with medically relevant or statistically significant effects on arrhythmia as assessed by Holter ECG. Based on these findings, there is no evidence to assume a clinically relevant impact on cardiac function from dual tiotropium/olodaterol treatment.Trial registrationTONADO 1 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01431274); TONADO 2 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01431287).

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.

Project description:Aclidinium bromide is a new long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) indicated for maintenance bronchodilator treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy of aclidinium was compared with tiotropium and glycopyrronium, using a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in moderate-to-severe COPD patients.A systematic review was performed to identify RCTs evaluating aclidinium 400 ?g twice daily (BID), glycopyrronium 50 ?g once daily (OD), tiotropium 18 ?g OD, or tiotropium 5 ?g OD in adults with moderate-to-severe COPD. The outcomes of interest were: trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1); St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and proportion of patients achieving ?4 unit change; Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score and proportion of patients achieving ?1 point change. The results were synthesized by means of a Bayesian NMA.Twenty-one studies (22,542 patients) were included: aclidinium 400 ?g BID (three studies); tiotropium 5 ?g OD (three studies); tiotropium 18 ?g OD (13 studies); and glycopyrronium 50 ?g OD (two studies). Regarding trough FEV1 at 24 weeks, aclidinium demonstrated comparable efficacy to tiotropium 5 ?g (difference in change from baseline [CFB]), (0.02 L [95% credible interval CrI -0.05, 0.09]); tiotropium 18 ?g (0.02 L [95% CrI -0.05, 0.08]); and glycopyrronium (0.00 L [95% CrI -0.07, 0.07]). Aclidinium resulted in higher improvement in SGRQ score at 24 weeks, compared to tiotropium 5 ?g (difference in CFB, -2.44 [95% CrI -4.82, -0.05]); and comparable results to tiotropium 18 ?g (-1.80 [95% CrI -4.52, 0.14]) and glycopyrronium (-1.52 [95% CrI -4.08, 1.03]). Improvements in TDI score were comparable for all treatments.Maintenance treatment with aclidinium 400 ?g BID is expected to produce similar improvements in lung function, health-related quality of life, and dyspnea compared to tiotropium 5 ?g OD; tiotropium 18 ?g OD; and glycopyrronium 50 ?g OD.

Dataset Information

AMPLIFY: a randomized, Phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol vs monocomponents and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

AMPLIFY: a randomized, Phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol vs monocomponents and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets