New Orleans – compared with tiotropium alone, according to results of a pooled analysis of phase 3 trial data.
Lung function, symptoms, and quality of life were all improved irrespective of disease severity and baseline symptoms, and these benefits were apparent across multiple subgroups of non-ICS patients, investigator Peter M. Calverley, MBChB, of the University of Liverpool (England) reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.
“Perhaps frustratingly, we can’t personalize [treatment] – everybody seemed to get benefit across the board, and the magnitude of that benefit was rather similar,” Dr. Calverley said in a podium presentation of the results.
The subgroup analysis was undertaken to fill a knowledge gap, according to Dr. Calverley, regarding the efficacy of combined long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting beta2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) treatment in the sizable proportion of COPD patients who are not receiving ICS.
Patients in LAMA/LABA clinical trials are frequently taking multiple therapies, including ICS, he explained.
The post hoc analysis of pooled data from the TONADO 1 and 2 and OTEMTO 1 and 2 trials included a total of 1,596 patients with COPD who were not receiving ICS at trial enrollment.
The no-ICS patients receiving tiotropium/olodaterol had a significantly greater improvement in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) response by week 12 of treatment, compared with patients receiving tiotropium alone (0.054 L; P less than .0001), the researcher reported.
The trough FEV1 improvement accruing to the tiotropium/olodaterol–treated patients was consistent across subgroups stratified according to GOLD stage and symptoms at baseline (such as Baseline Dyspnea Index), he added.
Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) score at 12 weeks in these patients not receiving ICS was likewise superior in the tiotropium/olodaterol treated patients, compared with the tiotropium monotherapy group (.575; P less than .0001), while changes in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores also favored the combination treatment, according to the analyses presented.
Taken together, results of this post hoc analysis support the use of dual bronchodilator therapy to improve key COPD outcomes, compared with single bronchodilator therapy. In addition, this strategy should be considered as an earlier treatment option, according to Dr. Calverley.
“Clearly dual bronchodilator therapy improves the key outcomes, compared with an effective single bronchodilator, and this perhaps is why it’s being picked up as an earlier treatment option, and certainly in some guidelines like the current [National Institute for Health Care and Excellence] guidelines where I live in the U.K., it’s becoming standard of care for most people with COPD,” he said in his presentation.
Dr. Calverley reported grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Recipharm, and Zambon; and personal and other fees from Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work.
SOURCE: Calverley PM et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.310.