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.
ABSTRACT: This randomized, double-blind, Phase IIIb study evaluated the 24-hour bronchodilatory efficacy of aclidinium bromide versus placebo and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Patients received aclidinium 400 ?g twice daily (morning and evening), tiotropium 18 ?g once daily (morning), or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve for the 24-hour period post-morning dose (FEV1 AUC0-24) at week 6. Secondary and additional endpoints included FEV1 AUC12-24, COPD symptoms (EXAcerbations of chronic pulmonary disease Tool-Respiratory Symptoms [E-RS] total score and additional symptoms questionnaire), and safety.Overall, 414 patients were randomized and treated (FEV1 1.63 L [55.8% predicted]). Compared with placebo, FEV1 AUC0-24 and FEV1 AUC12-24 were significantly increased from baseline with aclidinium (? = 150 mL and 160 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001) and tiotropium (? = 140 mL and 123 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001) at week 6. Significant improvements in E-RS total scores over 6 weeks were numerically greater with aclidinium (p < 0.0001) than tiotropium (p < 0.05) versus placebo. Only aclidinium significantly reduced the severity of early-morning cough, wheeze, shortness of breath, and phlegm, and of nighttime symptoms versus placebo (p < 0.05). Adverse-event (AE) incidence (28%) was similar between treatments. Few anticholinergic AEs (<1.5%) or serious AEs (<3%) occurred in any group.Aclidinium provided significant 24-hour bronchodilation versus placebo from day 1 with comparable efficacy to tiotropium after 6 weeks. Improvements in COPD symptoms were consistently numerically greater with aclidinium versus tiotropium. Aclidinium was generally well tolerated.
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: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 AUC0-3/3 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 AUC12-24/12 h vs all comparators, and in AUC0-24/24 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.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The combination of aclidinium bromide, a long-acting anticholinergic, and formoterol fumarate, a long-acting beta2-agonist (400/12 ?g twice daily) achieves improvements in lung function greater than either monotherapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and is approved in the European Union as a maintenance treatment. The effect of this combination on symptoms of COPD and exacerbations is less well established. We examined these outcomes in a pre-specified analysis of pooled data from two 24-week, double-blind, parallel-group, active- and placebo-controlled, multicentre, randomised Phase III studies (ACLIFORM and AUGMENT). METHODS:Patients ?40 years with moderate to severe COPD (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]/forced vital capacity <70 % and FEV1??30 % but <80 % predicted normal) were randomised (ACLIFORM: 2:2:2:2:1; AUGMENT: 1:1:1:1:1) to twice-daily aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 ?g or 400/6 ?g, aclidinium 400 ?g, formoterol 12 ?g or placebo via Genuair™/Pressair®. Dyspnoea (Transition Dyspnoea Index; TDI), daily symptoms (EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool [EXACT]-Respiratory Symptoms [E-RS] questionnaire), night-time and early-morning symptoms, exacerbations (Healthcare Resource Utilisation [HCRU] and EXACT definitions) and relief-medication use were assessed. RESULTS:The pooled intent-to-treat population included 3394 patients. Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 ?g significantly improved TDI focal score versus placebo and both monotherapies at Week 24 (all p?<?0.05). Over 24 weeks, significant improvements in E-RS total score, overall night-time and early-morning symptom severity and limitation of early-morning activities were observed with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 ?g versus placebo and both monotherapies (all p?<?0.05). The rate of moderate or severe HCRU exacerbations was significantly reduced with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 ?g compared with placebo (p?<?0.05) but not monotherapies; the rate of EXACT-defined exacerbations was significantly reduced with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 ?g versus placebo (p?<?0.01) and aclidinium (p?<?0.05). Time to first HCRU or EXACT exacerbation was longer with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 ?g compared with placebo (all p?<?0.05) but not the monotherapies. Relief-medication use was reduced with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 ?g versus placebo and aclidinium (p?<?0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 ?g significantly improves 24-hour symptom control compared with placebo, aclidinium and formoterol in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Furthermore, aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 ?g reduces the frequency of exacerbations compared with placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT01462942 and NCT01437397 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
Project description:BACKGROUND:Cough and sputum are troublesome symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and are associated with adverse outcomes. The efficacy of aclidinium bromide 400 µg twice daily in patients with stable COPD has been established in two phase III studies (ACCORD COPD I and ATTAIN) and a phase IIIb active-comparator study. This analysis evaluated cough-related symptoms across these studies. METHOD:Patients were randomised to placebo, aclidinium 200 µg or 400 µg twice daily in ACCORD (12 weeks) and ATTAIN (24 weeks), or to placebo, aclidinium 400 µg twice daily or tiotropium 18 µg once daily (6-week active-comparator study). Analysed end points included changes from baseline in Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms (E-RS; formerly known as EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool), total and cough/sputum scores and frequency/severity of morning and night-time cough and sputum symptoms. RESULTS:Data for 1792 patients were evaluated. E-RS cough/sputum domain scores were significantly reduced with aclidinium 400 µg versus placebo in ATTAIN (-0.7 vs -0.3, respectively; p<0.01) and the active-comparator study (-0.6 vs -0.2, respectively; p<0.01). In the active-comparator study, significantly greater improvements were observed with aclidinium versus placebo for severity of morning cough (-0.19 vs -0.02; p<0.01) and phlegm (-0.19 vs -0.02; p<0.05). In ACCORD, aclidinium reduced night-time cough frequency (-0.36 vs 0.1 for placebo; p<0.001) and severity (-0.24 vs -0.1 for placebo; p<0.05), and frequency of night-time sputum production (-0.37 vs 0.05 for placebo; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Aclidinium 400 µg twice daily improves cough and sputum expectoration versus placebo in stable COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS:NCT00891462; NCT01001494; NCT01462929.
Project description:Randomized, controlled trials comparing long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) efficacy in COPD are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the relative efficacy of tiotropium 18 µg once-daily (OD) and newer agents (aclidinium 400 µg twice-daily, glycopyrronium 50 µg OD, and umeclidinium 62.5 µg OD).A systematic literature review identified randomized, controlled trials of adult COPD patients receiving LAMAs. A NMA within a Bayesian framework examined change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), transitional dyspnea index focal score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, and rescue medication use.Twenty-four studies (n=21,311) compared LAMAs with placebo/each other. Aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, and umeclidinium, respectively, demonstrated favorable results versus placebo, for change from baseline (95% credible interval) in 12-week trough FEV1 (primary endpoint: 101.40 mL [77.06-125.60]; 117.20 mL [104.50-129.90]; 114.10 mL [103.10-125.20]; 136.70 mL [104.20-169.20]); 24-week trough FEV1 (128.10 mL [84.10-172.00]; 135.80 mL [123.10-148.30]; 106.40 mL [95.45-117.30]; 115.00 mL [74.51-155.30]); 24-week St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (-4.60 [-6.76 to -2.54]; -3.14 [-3.83 to -2.45]; -2.43 [-2.92 to -1.93]; -4.69 [-7.05 to -2.31]); 24-week transitional dyspnea index score (1.00 [0.41-1.59]; 1.01 [0.79-1.22]; 0.82 [0.62-1.02]; 1.00 [0.49-1.51]); and 24-week rescue medication use (data not available; -0.41 puffs/day [-0.62 to -0.20]; -0.52 puffs/day [-0.74 to -0.30]; -0.30 puffs/day [-0.81 to 0.21]). For 12-week trough FEV1, differences in change from baseline (95% credible interval) were -12.8 mL (-39.39 to 13.93), aclidinium versus tiotropium; 3.08 mL (-7.58 to 13.69), glycopyrronium versus tiotropium; 22.58 mL (-11.58 to 56.97), umeclidinium versus tiotropium; 15.90 mL (-11.60 to 43.15), glycopyrronium versus aclidinium; 35.40 mL (-5.06 to 76.07), umeclidinium versus aclidinium; and 19.50 mL (-15.30 to 54.38), umeclidinium versus glycopyrronium. Limitations included inhaler-related factors and safety; longer-term outcomes were not considered.The new LAMAs studied had at least comparable efficacy to tiotropium, the established class standard. Choice should depend on physician's and patient's preference.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 ?g twice daily compared to tiotropium 18 ?g once daily in adult patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS:A 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. RESULTS:Regarding 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. CONCLUSION:Based 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. FUNDING:AstraZeneca.
Project description:Combining 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 ?2-agonist, in patients with moderate to severe COPD are presented.In this 24-week double-blind study, 1692 patients with stable COPD were equally randomized to twice-daily treatment with FDC aclidinium 400 ?g/formoterol 12 ?g (ACL400/FOR12 FDC), FDC aclidinium 400 ?g/formoterol 6 ?g (ACL400/FOR6 FDC), aclidinium 400 ?g, formoterol 12 ?g, 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.At 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.Treatment with twice-daily aclidinium 400 ?g/formoterol 12 ?g 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.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01437397.
Project description:BACKGROUND:In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the degree of circadian variation in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and the influence of anticholinergic blockade is not known. Tiotropium is a long acting inhaled anticholinergic bronchodilator that increases daytime FEV1 in COPD. We hypothesised that tiotropium would modify the overnight change in FEV1, and this would be unaffected by the timing of drug administration. METHODS:A double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial was conducted with tiotropium 18 mg once daily in the morning (09.00 hours), evening (21.00 hours), or an identical placebo. Patients with stable COPD (n=121, FEV1=41% predicted) underwent spirometric tests every 3 hours for 24 hours at baseline and after 6 weeks of treatment. RESULTS:There were no significant differences at baseline between the groups. Tiotropium improved mean (SE) FEV1 (over 24 hours) in the morning (1.11 (0.03) l) and evening (1.06 (0.03) l) groups compared with placebo (0.90 (0.03) l), and nocturnal FEV1 (mean of 03.00 and 06.00 hours) in the morning (1.03 (0.03) l) and evening (1.04 (0.03) l) groups compared with placebo (0.82 (0.03) l) at the 6 week visit (p<0.01). FEV1 before morning or evening dosing was similar, while the peak FEV1 moved later in the day with active treatment. The mean percentage change in FEV1 from 09.00 hours to 03.00 hours (the nocturnal decline in FEV1) was -2.8% in the morning group, -1.0% in the evening group, and -12.8% in the placebo group. The magnitude of the peak to trough change in FEV1 was not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS:Tiotropium produced sustained bronchodilation throughout the 24 hour day without necessarily abolishing circadian variation in airway calibre.
Project description:Background:Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg is a twice-daily maintenance bronchodilator for COPD. This post hoc study evaluated aclidinium/formoterol vs aclidinium 400 µg, formoterol 12 µg, or placebo in patient subgroups. Patients and methods:Data were pooled from two 24-week Phase III clinical trials (ACLIFORM and AUGMENT). Patients (N=3,394) were analyzed by baseline airflow obstruction severity (moderate/severe), age (<65/?65 years), sex, and exacerbation history (0/?1 exacerbation in the previous 12 months). Changes from baseline vs placebo and mono-therapies were evaluated: morning pre-dose (trough) and morning 1-hour post-dose FEV1, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), and moderate/severe exacerbation rates (healthcare resource utilization [HCRU] and EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool [EXACT] criteria). Results:Aclidinium/formoterol improved the post-dose FEV1 vs placebo and monotherapy in all subgroups (all P<0.01) and trough FEV1 vs placebo (P<0.001) and formoterol (P<0.05) across all subgroups. Improvements in trough FEV1 were observed vs aclidinium in patients with severe airflow obstruction, patients aged <65 years, males, and patients with exacerbation history (P<0.05). Improvements in TDI were observed vs placebo in all subgroups (all P<0.001), monotherapies for patients with moderate (formoterol P<0.05) or severe airflow obstruction (aclidinium P<0.05), patients aged <65 years (aclidinium P<0.01, formoterol P<0.05), males (formoterol P<0.05), and patients with no exacerbation history (formoterol P<0.05). HCRU exacerbation rates were lower for aclidinium/formoterol vs placebo in patients with no exacerbation history (P<0.01). EXACT exacerbation rates were lower for aclidinium/formoterol in patients with moderate airflow obstruction vs placebo and aclidinium, patients aged <65 years vs placebo and ?65 years vs formoterol, males vs placebo, and patients with no exacerbation history vs placebo (all P<0.05). Conclusion:Aclidinium/formoterol significantly improved post-dose FEV1, trough FEV1, and TDI vs placebo across all subgroups and vs monotherapy in many subgroups. These findings further support the benefits of aclidinium/formoterol for all patients with 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.