Cost versus utility of aclidinium bromide 400 µg plus formoterol fumarate dihydrate 12 µg compared to aclidinium bromide 400 µg alone in the management of moderate-to-severe COPD.
ABSTRACT: 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: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: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:Aclidinium/formoterol is a twice-daily (BID) fixed-dose combination (FDC) in development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol versus monotherapy and placebo in patients with COPD was assessed.In this 24-week double-blind, parallel-group, active- and placebo-controlled, multicentre Phase III study, patients (≥40 years, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]/forced vital capacity <70% and FEV1 ≥30% but <80% predicted normal) were randomised 2:2:2:2:1 to aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg (n = 385) or 400/6 μg (n = 381), aclidinium 400 μg (n = 385), formoterol 12 μg (n = 384) or placebo (n = 194) BID via Genuair®/Pressair®a.At Week 24, aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg and 400/6 μg lead to significant improvements from baseline in 1-hour post-dose FEV1 versus aclidinium (125 mL [95% CI: 90, 160; p < 0 · 001] and 69 mL [95% CI: 34, 105; p < 0.001], respectively) and trough FEV1 versus formoterol (85 mL [95% CI: 51, 119; p < 0.001] and 53 mL [95% CI: 19, 87; p < 0.01], respectively; co-primary endpoints). Additionally, aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg and 400/6 μg provided significant improvements in Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score versus placebo (1.29 units [95% CI: 0.73, 1.86; p < 0.001] and 1.16 units [95% CI: 0.59, 1.73; p < 0.001], respectively; secondary endpoint). All treatments were well tolerated, with safety profiles of the FDCs similar to those of placebo and monotherapy.Both aclidinium/formoterol BID doses significantly improved bronchodilation versus monotherapy, and dyspnoea versus placebo, with no increase in safety risk. Aclidinium/formoterol may be an effective treatment for patients with COPD.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01462942.
Project description:Bronchodilator therapy is the backbone of the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In some patients, inhaled corticosteroids can be prescribed in combination with bronchodilators. Through a subgroup analysis of pooled data from two large phase III clinical trials of bronchodilator therapy according to concomitant inhaled corticosteroid use (user vs. non-user), we sought to evaluate the clinical benefit of adding inhaled corticosteroids to dual bronchodilator therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The primary focus of this analysis of pooled data from the phase III ACLIFORM and AUGMENT studies was to evaluate the efficacy of aclidinium/formoterol on lung function stratified by inhaled corticosteroid use. We found that lung-function end points were significantly improved regardless of concomitant inhaled corticosteroid use among patients treated with the dual bronchodilator aclidinium/formoterol 400/12?µg twice daily compared with placebo and both monotherapies. Together with the previously reported observations that aclidinium/formoterol 400/12?µg reduces exacerbations vs. placebo in inhaled corticosteroid users and improves dyspnoea compared to monotherapy in inhaled corticosteroid non-users, these data suggest that both groups achieve lung function improvements, which translates to different clinical benefits depending on whether or not a patient is receiving concomitant inhaled corticosteroids.CHRONIC LUNG DISEASE: 'TRIPLE' THERAPY COULD PROVE BENEFICIAL: A dual bronchodilator therapy taken together with corticosteroid inhalers may benefit patients with severe chronic lung disease. Bronchodilator drugs relax the lungs and widen airways in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). While recent studies have shown that a dual bronchodilator therapy containing aclidinium and formoterol significantly improves lung function in COPD, little is known about combining the dual therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). Anthony D'Urzo at the University of Toronto, Canada, and co-workers analysed data from 3394 patients with COPD undergoing dual therapy trials. Of these, 1180 were already taking ICSs. The team compared symptoms in the ICS group with those not taking ICSs. The dual therapy improved lung function across both groups regardless of ICS use, though patients gained different clinical benefits depending on ICS use and disease severity.
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: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: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: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:Aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) 400/12 µg is a twice-daily long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist and long-acting ?2 agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual-bronchodilator maintenance therapy used to relieve symptoms and reduce future risk of exacerbations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To date, there have been several clinical studies and post hoc analyses of AB/FF, assessing treatment outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. These studies have looked at a range of outcomes, including lung function parameters, patient-reported symptom scores, quality-of-life measures assessing impaired health and perceived well-being, and the frequency, duration, and severity of exacerbations. In light of the major 2017 revision to the Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommendations, and the subsequent updates, we present an update on the latest evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of AB/FF. This review discusses the clinical relevance of the improvements in lung function, symptoms, quality of life, and exacerbations in patients with COPD reported in the phase III and IV trials of AB/FF. Given the current concerns over unnecessary inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use in COPD, we also touch briefly on the use of blood eosinophils as a biomarker for identifying those patients with COPD already using LAMA/LABA therapy for whom the addition of ICS might be of benefit.
Project description:'Clinically important deterioration' (CID) is a composite endpoint measuring worsening of the key clinical features of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), namely lung function, patient-reported outcomes, and exacerbations. ACLIFORM and AUGMENT were two 24-week, randomized, double-blind, phase III studies assessing twice-daily (BID) aclidinium bromide (AB) 400 μg/formoterol fumarate (FF) 12 μg. This pooled post-hoc analysis assessed the effects of AB/FF 400/12 μg on both first and sustained CID events versus placebo and monotherapies in patients with moderate to severe COPD.A first CID event was defined as the occurrence of a moderate/severe exacerbation or the worsening from baseline in ≥1 of the following: trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; ≥100 mL), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score (≥1 unit), or St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (≥4 units). A 'sustained' CID was defined as a worsening maintained at all subsequent visits from appearance to week 24 or a moderate/severe exacerbation at any time. CID events were assessed at three visits (weeks 4, 12, and 24); trough FEV1 was also measured at weeks 1 and 18.AB/FF 400/12 μg reduced the risk of a first CID event by 45% versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, p < 0.001), 18% versus FF 12 μg (HR 0.82, p < 0.01), and 15% versus AB 400 μg (HR 0.85, p < 0.05). Similarly, AB/FF 400/12 μg reduced the risk of a sustained CID event by 48% versus placebo (HR 0.52, p < 0.001) and 22% versus FF 12 μg (HR 0.78, p < 0.01). AB/FF 400/12 μg reduced the risk of a first or sustained CID event for all four components versus placebo (trough FEV1 and TDI, first and sustained CID, all p < 0.001; SGRQ first CID p < 0.001; SGRQ sustained CID, p < 0.01; exacerbations first and sustained CID, both p < 0.05) and TDI and SGRQ versus FF 12 μg (TDI, first and sustained CID both p < 0.05; SGRQ first CID p < 0.01), and SGRQ versus AB 400 μg (first CID, p < 0.05).AB/FF 400/12 μg BID may provide greater airway stability and fewer exacerbations or deteriorations in lung function, health status, or dyspnea compared with placebo or monotherapies.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01462942 (ACLIFORM); registered 26 October 2011. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01437397 (AUGMENT); registered 19 September 2011.