23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    3
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Is there a rationale and role for long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilators in asthma?

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Despite current guidelines and the range of available treatments, over a half of patients with asthma continue to suffer from poor symptomatic control and remain at risk of future worsening. Although a number of non-pharmacological measures are crucial for good clinical management of asthma, new therapeutic controller medications will have a role in the future management of the disease. Several long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilators are under investigation or are available for the treatment of respiratory diseases, including tiotropium bromide, aclidinium bromide, glycopyrronium bromide, glycopyrrolate and umeclidinium bromide, although none is yet licensed for the treatment of asthma. A recent Phase III investigation demonstrated that the once-daily long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilator tiotropium bromide improves lung function and reduces the risk of exacerbation in patients with symptomatic asthma, despite the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β 2-agonists (LABAs). This has prompted the question of what the rationale is for long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilators in asthma. Bronchial smooth muscle contraction is the primary cause of reversible airway narrowing in asthma, and the baseline level of contraction is predominantly set by the level of ‘cholinergic tone’. Patients with asthma have increased bronchial smooth muscle tone and mucus hypersecretion, possibly as a result of elevated cholinergic activity, which anticholinergic compounds are known to reduce. Further, anticholinergic compounds may also have anti-inflammatory properties. Thus, evidence suggests that long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilators might offer benefits for the maintenance of asthma control, such as in patients failing to gain control on ICS and a LABA, or those with frequent exacerbations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references76

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Mepolizumab for severe eosinophilic asthma (DREAM): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

          Some patients with severe asthma have recurrent asthma exacerbations associated with eosinophilic airway inflammation. Early studies suggest that inhibition of eosinophilic airway inflammation with mepolizumab-a monoclonal antibody against interleukin 5-is associated with a reduced risk of exacerbations. We aimed to establish efficacy, safety, and patient characteristics associated with the response to mepolizumab. We undertook a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 81 centres in 13 countries between Nov 9, 2009, and Dec 5, 2011. Eligible patients were aged 12-74 years, had a history of recurrent severe asthma exacerbations, and had signs of eosinophilic inflammation. They were randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1:1 ratio) to receive one of three doses of intravenous mepolizumab (75 mg, 250 mg, or 750 mg) or matched placebo (100 mL 0·9% NaCl) with a central telephone-based system and computer-generated randomly permuted block schedule stratified by whether treatment with oral corticosteroids was required. Patients received 13 infusions at 4-week intervals. The primary outcome was the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations, which were defined as validated episodes of acute asthma requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, admission, or a visit to an emergency department. Patients, clinicians, and data analysts were masked to treatment assignment. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01000506. 621 patients were randomised: 159 were assigned to placebo, 154 to 75 mg mepolizumab, 152 to 250 mg mepolizumab, and 156 to 750 mg mepolizumab. 776 exacerbations were deemed to be clinically significant. The rate of clinically significant exacerbations was 2·40 per patient per year in the placebo group, 1·24 in the 75 mg mepolizumab group (48% reduction, 95% CI 31-61%; p<0·0001), 1·46 in the 250 mg mepolizumab group (39% reduction, 19-54%; p=0·0005), and 1·15 in the 750 mg mepolizumab group (52% reduction, 36-64%; p<0·0001). Three patients died during the study, but the deaths were not deemed to be related to treatment. Mepolizumab is an effective and well tolerated treatment that reduces the risk of asthma exacerbations in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. GlaxoSmithKline. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Lebrikizumab treatment in adults with asthma.

            Many patients with asthma have uncontrolled disease despite treatment with inhaled glucocorticoids. One potential cause of the variability in response to treatment is heterogeneity in the role of interleukin-13 expression in the clinical asthma phenotype. We hypothesized that anti-interleukin-13 therapy would benefit patients with asthma who had a pretreatment profile consistent with interleukin-13 activity. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody to interleukin-13, in 219 adults who had asthma that was inadequately controlled despite inhaled glucocorticoid therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the relative change in prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) from baseline to week 12. Among the secondary outcomes was the rate of asthma exacerbations through 24 weeks. Patient subgroups were prespecified according to baseline type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) status (assessed on the basis of total IgE level and blood eosinophil count) and serum periostin level. At baseline, patients had a mean FEV(1) that was 65% of the predicted value and were taking a mean dose of inhaled glucocorticoids of 580 μg per day; 80% were also taking a long-acting beta-agonist. At week 12, the mean increase in FEV(1) was 5.5 percentage points higher in the lebrikizumab group than in the placebo group (P = 0.02). Among patients in the high-periostin subgroup, the increase from baseline FEV(1) was 8.2 percentage points higher in the lebrikizumab group than in the placebo group (P = 0.03). Among patients in the low-periostin subgroup, the increase from baseline FEV(1) was 1.6 percentage points higher in the lebrikizumab group than in the placebo group (P = 0.61). Musculoskeletal side effects were more common with lebrikizumab than with placebo (13.2% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.045). Lebrikizumab treatment was associated with improved lung function. Patients with high pretreatment levels of serum periostin had greater improvement in lung function with lebrikizumab than did patients with low periostin levels. (Funded by Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00930163 .).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Can guideline-defined asthma control be achieved? The Gaining Optimal Asthma ControL study.

              For most patients, asthma is not controlled as defined by guidelines; whether this is achievable has not been prospectively studied. A 1-year, randomized, stratified, double-blind, parallel-group study of 3,421 patients with uncontrolled asthma compared fluticasone propionate and salmeterol/fluticasone in achieving two rigorous, composite, guideline-based measures of control: totally and well-controlled asthma. Treatment was stepped-up until total control was achieved (or maximum 500 microg corticosteroid twice a day). Significantly more patients in each stratum (previously corticosteroid-free, low- and moderate-dose corticosteroid users) achieved control with salmeterol/fluticasone than fluticasone. Total control was achieved across all strata: 520 (31%) versus 326 (19%) patients after dose escalation (p < 0.001) and 690 (41%) versus 468 (28%) at 1 year for salmeterol/fluticasone and fluticasone, respectively. Asthma became well controlled in 1,071 (63%) versus 846 (50%) after dose escalation (p < 0.001) and 1,204 (71%) versus 988 (59%) at 1 year. Control was achieved more rapidly and at a lower corticosteroid dose with salmeterol/fluticasone versus fluticasone. Across all strata, 68% and 76% of the patients receiving salmeterol/fluticasone and fluticasone, respectively, were on the highest dose at the end of treatment. Exacerbation rates (0.07-0.27 per patient per year) and improvement in health status were significantly better with salmeterol/fluticasone. This study confirms that the goal of guideline-derived asthma control was achieved in a majority of the patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                NPJ Prim Care Respir Med
                NPJ Prim Care Respir Med
                NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine
                Nature Publishing Group
                2055-1010
                17 July 2014
                2014
                : 24
                : 14023
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Centre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen , Aberdeen, UK
                [2 ] Research in Real Life Ltd , Cambridge, UK
                [3 ] Department of Family Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA , Los Angeles, CA, USA
                [4 ] Family Physician Airways Group of Canada , Richmond Hill, ON, Canada
                [5 ] Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, University Medical Center , Groningen, The Netherlands
                [6 ] Son Pisa Primary Health Care Centre, Balearic Health Service , Palma de Mallorca, Spain
                Author notes
                []

                The authors take full responsibility for the scope, direction, content of, and editorial decisions relating to, the manuscript; they were involved at all stages of development and have approved the submitted manuscript. DP provided the initial scope, flow, topics and search term areas to be included in the manuscript outline. DP, LF, AK, TvdM and MRR all provided input and guidance on content, style, flow, figures and reference sources on all subsequent drafts of the outline and the full manuscript. All authors provided their approval of the final draft of the manuscript. Medical writing assistance, in the form of literature searches and preparation and revision of the draft manuscript, was provided by Sam Yarwood, PhD, of Complete HealthVizion, under the authors' conceptual direction and based on feedback from all authors.

                Article
                npjpcrm201423
                10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.23
                4373380
                25030457
                42935e96-47f5-4679-a497-2d9c5628ed75
                Copyright © 2014 Primary Care Respiratory Society UK/Macmillan Publishers Limited

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History
                : 19 July 2013
                : 14 February 2014
                : 28 March 2014
                Categories
                Review Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article