Comparative efficacy and safety of dolutegravir relative to common core agents in treatment-naïve patients infected with HIV-1: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) provide comparative treatment effects estimates in the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This NMA compared the efficacy and safety of dolutegravir (DTG) with other recommended or commonly used core antiretroviral agents. METHODS: A systematic review identified phase 3/4 RCTs in treatment-naïve patients with HIV-1 receiving core agents: ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PIs), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), or integrase strand inhibitors (INSTIs). Efficacy (virologic suppression [VS], CD4+ cell count change from baseline) and safety (adverse events [AEs], discontinuations, discontinuation due to AEs, lipid changes) were analyzed at Week 48 using Bayesian NMA methodology, which allowed calculation of probabilistic results. Subgroup analyses were conducted for VS (baseline viral load [VL] ≤/> 100,000copies/mL, ≤/> 500,000copies/mL; baseline CD4+ ≤/>200cells/µL). Results were adjusted for the nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) combined with the core agent (except subgroup analyses). RESULTS: The NMA included 36 studies; 2 additional studies were included in subgroup analyses only. Odds of achieving VS with DTG were statistically superior to PIs (odds ratios [ORs] 1.78-2.59) and NNRTIs (ORs 1.51-1.86), and similar but numerically higher than other INSTIs. CD4+ count increase was significantly greater with DTG than PIs (difference: 23.63-31.47 cells/µL) and efavirenz (difference: 34.54 cells/µL), and similar to other core agents. INSTIs were more likely to result in patients achieving VS versus PIs (probability: 76-100%) and NNRTIs (probability: 50-100%), and a greater CD4+ count increase versus PIs (probability: 72-100%) and NNRTIs (probability: 60-100%). DTG was more likely to result in patients achieving VS (probability: 94-100%), and a greater CD4+ count increase (probability: 53-100%) versus other core agents, including INSTIs (probability: 94-97% and 53-93%, respectively). Safety outcomes with DTG were generally similar to other core agents. In patients with baseline VL > 100,000copies/mL or ≤ 200 CD4+cells/µL (18 studies), odds of achieving VS with DTG were superior or similar to other core agents. CONCLUSION: INSTI core agents had superior efficacy and similar safety to PIs and NNRTIs at Week 48 in treatment-naïve patients with HIV-1, with DTG being among the most efficacious, including in patients with baseline VL > 100,000copies/mL or ≤ 200 CD4+cells/µL, who can be difficult to treat.

A Network Meta-Analysis of Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist (LAMA) and Long-Acting ß2-Agonist (LABA) Combinations in COPD.

INTRODUCTION: Comparative data on the efficacies of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) combinations for the treatment of moderate-to-very-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. The aim of this Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) is to assess the relative efficacies of available open combinations (delivered via separate inhalers) and fixed-dose combinations (FDCs, delivered via a single inhaler). METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ≥8-week duration in adults aged ≥40 years with COPD that compared LAMA + LABA combinations with each other, with tiotropium (TIO), or with placebo. Data on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score, and rescue medication use at 12 and 24 weeks were extracted from these RCTs and analyzed using a NMA in a Bayesian framework. RESULTS: Data from 44 RCTs were included in the NMA. All FDCs showed improvements relative to placebo in terms of trough FEV1, SGRQ total score, and TDI focal score above clinically relevant thresholds, with the exception of TIO/olodaterol and aclidinium/formoterol, both of which failed to show clinically relevant improvements in SGRQ score at 24 weeks. All FDCs demonstrated reduced rescue medication use versus placebo. Open combinations demonstrated improved efficacy in all outcomes versus placebo, but these improvements did not consistently exceed clinically relevant thresholds for SGRQ and TDI scores. All once-daily FDCs showed improved efficacy versus TIO, but improvements were less consistently observed versus TIO with open dual combinations and combinations containing formoterol or salmeterol administered twice daily. Relative probabilities of improvement between FDCs highlighted potential between-class differences for trough FEV1 but suggested little potential for differences in patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: LAMA + LABA combinations generally showed improved outcomes versus placebo and TIO. FDCs appeared to perform better than open dual combinations. A potential effectiveness gradient was observed between FDCs for objectively assessed functional outcomes, although further prospective trials are required to confirm these findings. FUNDING: GSK.

Can Assessment of Disease Burden Prior to Changes in Initial COPD Maintenance Treatment Provide Insight into Remaining Unmet Needs? A Retrospective Database Study in UK Primary Care.

This retrospective cohort study aimed to assess treatment patterns over 24 months amongst patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), initiating a new COPD maintenance treatment, and to understand clinical indicators of treatment change. Patients included in the study initiated a long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), or a combination of LABA and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS/LABA) between January 1, 2009, and November 30, 2013, as recorded in the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink (UK CPRD). Treatment modifications (switching or adding maintenance treatments) over 24 months were assessed, and patient characteristics, disease burden, medication and healthcare resource use during the 30 days before treatment modification were evaluated. The cohort comprised 17,258 patients [LABA (8%), LAMA (39%) and ICS/LABA (54%)] with similar age, body mass index and dyspnoea distribution. LABA users were more likely than LAMA users to add a maintenance therapy. Distinct patterns of treatment augmentations were noted, whereby LABA users typically received dual therapy before moving to triple therapy, while LAMA users moved to triple therapy by directly adding an ICS/LABA. Exacerbation events immediately prior to treatment change were not frequently recorded; however, the need for rescue short-acting medication and assessment of dyspnoea in the 30 days prior to the treatment change suggest that dyspnoea is a remaining unmet need driving therapy change.

The effect of umeclidinium added to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist in patients with symptomatic COPD: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study.

Benefits of triple therapy with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), added to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), have been demonstrated. Limited data assessing the efficacy of the LAMA umeclidinium (UMEC) added to ICS/LABA are available. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UMEC added to ICS/LABAs in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD. This is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study. Patients were symptomatic (modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale score ⩾2), despite receiving ICS/LABA (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL, branded) 500/50 mcg, budesonide/formoterol (BD/FOR, branded) 200/6 mcg or 400/12 mcg, or other ICS/LABAs) ⩾30 days before the run-in (7±2 days). Patients were randomised 1:1 to once-daily UMEC 62.5 mcg or placebo (PBO), added to twice-daily open-label ICS/LABA for 12 weeks. Primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Day 85; secondary end point was weighted mean (WM) 0-6 h FEV1 at Day 84; other end points included COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score and Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) score. Adverse events (AEs) were investigated. In the UMEC+ICS/LABA and PBO+ICS/LABA groups, 119 and 117 patients were randomised, respectively. Patients received FP/SAL (40%), BD/FOR (43%) and other ICS/LABAs (17%). UMEC+ICS/LABA resulted in significant improvements in trough FEV1 (Day 85) and in WM 0-6 h FEV1 (Day 84) versus PBO+ICS/LABA (difference: 123 and 148 ml, respectively, both P<0.001). Change from baseline for UMEC+ICS/LABA versus PBO+ICS/LABA was significantly different for CAT score at Day 84 (-1.31, P<0.05), but not for TDI score (0.40, P=0.152). AE incidence was similar with UMEC+ICS/LABA (38%) and PBO+ICS/LABA (42%). UMEC+ICS/LABA improved lung function and CAT score in patients with symptomatic COPD versus PBO+ICS/LABA (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02257372).