Comparative efficacy of long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapies in COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Randomized, controlled trials comparing long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) efficacy in COPD are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the relative efficacy of tiotropium 18 µg once-daily (OD) and newer agents (aclidinium 400 µg twice-daily, glycopyrronium 50 µg OD, and umeclidinium 62.5 µg OD). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified randomized, controlled trials of adult COPD patients receiving LAMAs. A NMA within a Bayesian framework examined change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), transitional dyspnea index focal score, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score, and rescue medication use. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies (n=21,311) compared LAMAs with placebo/each other. Aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, and umeclidinium, respectively, demonstrated favorable results versus placebo, for change from baseline (95% credible interval) in 12-week trough FEV(1) (primary endpoint: 101.40 mL [77.06–125.60]; 117.20 mL [104.50–129.90]; 114.10 mL [103.10–125.20]; 136.70 mL [104.20–169.20]); 24-week trough FEV(1) (128.10 mL [84.10–172.00]; 135.80 mL [123.10–148.30]; 106.40 mL [95.45–117.30]; 115.00 mL [74.51–155.30]); 24-week St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score (−4.60 [−6.76 to −2.54]; −3.14 [−3.83 to −2.45]; −2.43 [−2.92 to −1.93]; −4.69 [−7.05 to −2.31]); 24-week transitional dyspnea index score (1.00 [0.41–1.59]; 1.01 [0.79–1.22]; 0.82 [0.62–1.02]; 1.00 [0.49–1.51]); and 24-week rescue medication use (data not available; −0.41 puffs/day [−0.62 to −0.20]; −0.52 puffs/day [−0.74 to −0.30]; −0.30 puffs/day [−0.81 to 0.21]). For 12-week trough FEV(1), differences in change from baseline (95% credible interval) were −12.8 mL (−39.39 to 13.93), aclidinium versus tiotropium; 3.08 mL (−7.58 to 13.69), glycopyrronium versus tiotropium; 22.58 mL (−11.58 to 56.97), umeclidinium versus tiotropium; 15.90 mL (−11.60 to 43.15), glycopyrronium versus aclidinium; 35.40 mL (−5.06 to 76.07), umeclidinium versus aclidinium; and 19.50 mL (−15.30 to 54.38), umeclidinium versus glycopyrronium. Limitations included inhaler-related factors and safety; longer-term outcomes were not considered. CONCLUSION: The new LAMAs studied had at least comparable efficacy to tiotropium, the established class standard. Choice should depend on physician’s and patient’s preference.