Efficacy and safety of the direct switch to indacaterol/glycopyrronium from salmeterol/fluticasone in non‐frequently exacerbating COPD patients: The FLASH randomized controlled trial

QVA149 is an inhaled fixed-dose combination therapy under development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It combines indacaterol (a longacting β2-agonist) with glycopyrronium (a longacting muscarinic antagonist) as a dual bronchodilator. We aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of QVA149 versus salmeterol-fluticasone (SFC) over 26 weeks in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. In this multicentre double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, 523 patients (age 40 years or older, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stages II-III, without exacerbations in the previous year) were randomly assigned (1:1; via automated, interactive response technology and stratified for smoking status) to once-daily QVA149 110/50 μg or twice-daily SFC 50/500 μg for 26 weeks. Efficacy was assessed in the full analysis set (randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug); safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate the superiority of QVA149 compared with SFC for the standardised area under the curve from 0 to 12 h post dose for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1 AUC0-12h) after 26 weeks of treatment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT01315249. Between March 25, 2011, and March 12, 2012, 259 patients were randomly assigned to receive QVA149 and 264 to receive SFC. At week 26, FEV1 AUC0-12h was significantly higher with QVA149 than with SFC (treatment difference 0·138 L; 95% CI 0·100-0·176; p<0·0001). Overall incidence of adverse events (including COPD exacerbations) was 55·4% (143 of 258) for the QVA149 group and 60·2% (159 of 264) for the SFC group. Incidence of serious adverse events was similar between treatment groups (QVA149, 13 of 258 [5·0%]; SFC 14 of 264 [5·3%]); COPD worsening was the most frequent serious adverse event (one of 13 [0·4%] and three of 14 [1·1%], respectively). Once-daily QVA149 provides significant, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvements in lung function versus twice-daily SFC, with significant symptomatic benefit. These results indicate the potential of dual bronchodilation as a treatment option for non-exacerbating symptomatic COPD patients. Novartis Pharma AG. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting bronchodilator combinations, such as β2-agonist (LABA)/muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), have favorable efficacy compared with commonly used COPD treatments. The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA with LAMA or LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in adults with stable moderate-to-very-severe COPD. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinical trial/manufacturer databases) included RCTs comparing ≥12 weeks’ LABA/LAMA treatment with LAMA and/or LABA/ICS (approved doses only). Eligible studies were independently selected by two authors using predefined data fields; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Results Eighteen studies (23 trials) were eligible (N=20,185). LABA/LAMA significantly improved trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline to week 12 versus both LAMA and LABA/ICS (0.07 L and 0.08 L, P 100 mL (risk ratio [RR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.20, 1.46] and RR: 1.44, 95% CI: [1.33, 1.56], respectively, the number needed to treat being eight and six, respectively). LABA/LAMA improved transitional dyspnea index and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores at week 12 versus LAMA (both P<0.0001), but not versus LABA/ICS, and reduced rescue medication use versus both (P<0.0001 and P=0.001, respectively). LABA/LAMA significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rate compared with LABA/ICS (RR 0.82, 95% CI: [0.75, 0.91]). Adverse event (AE) incidence was no different for LABA/LAMA versus LAMA treatment, but it was lower versus LABA/ICS (RR 0.94, 95% CI: [0.89, 0.99]), including a lower pneumonia risk (RR 0.59, 95% CI: [0.43, 0.81]). LABA/LAMA presented a lower risk for withdrawals due to lack of efficacy versus LAMA (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: [0.51, 0.87]) and due to AEs versus LABA/ICS (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: [0.69, 0.99]). Conclusion The greater efficacy and comparable safety profiles observed with LABA/LAMA combinations versus LAMA or LABA/ICS support their potential role as first-line treatment options in COPD. These findings are of direct relevance to clinical practice because we included all currently available LABA/LAMAs and comparators, only at doses approved for clinical use.

Background Dual bronchodilation combining a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) is the preferred choice of treatment recommended by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2017 guidelines for the management of patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The once-daily (q.d.) fixed-dose combination (FDC) of LABA, indacaterol 110 μg and LAMA, glycopyrronium 50 μg (IND/GLY 110/50 μg q.d.) demonstrated superior improvements in lung function, dyspnoea and overall health status and better tolerability against LABA or LAMA monotherapies and combination of LABA and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in more than 11,000 patients with moderate-to-severe COPD in several randomised controlled clinical trials. Methods The CRYSTAL study was the first, 12-week, randomised, open-label trial that evaluated the efficacy and safety of a direct switch from previous treatments to IND/GLY 110/50 μg q.d. on lung function and dyspnoea in patients with moderate COPD and a history of up to one exacerbation in the previous year. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to their background therapy and symptom scores and were randomised (3:1) to IND/GLY or to continue with their previous treatments. Results The study included 4389 randomised patients, of whom 2160 were in groups switched to IND/GLY (intention-to-treat population). The effect of IND/GLY was superior to LABA + ICS on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1; treatment difference, Δ = +71 mL) and transition dyspnoea index (TDI; [Δ = 1.09 units]), and to LABA or LAMA on trough FEV1 (Δ = +101 mL) and a TDI (Δ = 1.26 units). Improvements in health status and lower rescue medication use were also observed with IND/GLY. The safety profile of the study medication was similar to that observed in previous studies. Conclusions IND/GLY demonstrated superior improvements in lung function and dyspnoea after direct switch from previous treatments. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01985334. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-017-0622-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.