Bronchodilators provide improvements in lung function and reductions in symptoms and exacerbations, and are the mainstay of pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease strategy recommends the use of a combination of long-acting β₂-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LABA/LAMA) as the first-line treatment option in the majority of symptomatic patients with COPD. This review provides an indirect comparison of available LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) through discussion of important efficacy and safety data from the key literature, with the objective of providing physicians with a framework for informed decision-making. LABA/LAMA FDCs provided greater benefits compared with placebo and similar or greater benefits compared with tiotropium and salmeterol/fluticasone in improving lung function, dyspnea, health-related quality of life, reducing rescue medication use and preventing exacerbations, although with some variability in efficacy between individual FDCs; further, tolerability profiles were comparable among LABA/LAMA FDCs. However, there is a disparity in the amount of evidence generated for different LABA/LAMA FDCs. Thus, this review shows that all LABA/LAMA FDCs may not be the same and that care should be taken when extrapolating individual treatment outcomes to the entire drug class. It is important that physicians consider the efficacy gradient that exists among LABA/LAMA FDCs, and factors such as inhaler devices and potential biomarkers, when choosing the optimal bronchodilator treatment for long-term management of patients with COPD.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Biomarkers ; Bronchodilator Agents ; Disease Management ; Dyspnea ; Humans ; Korea ; Lung ; Muscarinic Antagonists* ; Nebulizers and Vaporizers ; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive* ; Quality of Life ; Tiotropium Bromide

Purpose: We investigated the consistent efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim, a novel long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), in Koreans and Asians compared with the pooled population of two global phase 3 trials. Materials and Methods: Two phase 3 trials (ADVANCE and RECOVER) evaluated the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose eflapegrastim (13.2 mg/0.6 mL [3.6 mg G-CSF equivalent]) compared to pegfilgrastim (6 mg based on G-CSF) in breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant docetaxel/cyclophosphamide. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of eflapegrastim compared to pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1, in Korean and Asian subpopulations. Results: Among a total of 643 patients randomized to eflapegrastim (n=314) or pegfilgrastim (n=329), 54 Asians (29 to eflapegrastim and 25 to pegfilgrastim) including 28 Koreans (14 to both eflapegrastim and pegfilgrastim) were enrolled. The primary endpoint, DSN in cycle 1 in the eflapegrastim arm was non-inferior to the pegfilgrastim arm in Koreans and Asians. The DSN difference between the eflapegrastim and pegfilgrastim arms was consistent across populations: –0.120 days (95% confidence interval [CI], –0.227 to –0.016), –0.288 (95% CI, –0.714 to 0.143), and –0.267 (95% CI, –0.697 to 0.110) for pooled population, Koreans and Asians, respectively. There were few treatment-related adverse events that caused discontinuation of eflapegrastim (1.9%) or pegfilgrastim (1.5%) in total and no notable trends or differences across patient populations. Conclusion This study may suggest that eflapegrastim showed non-inferior efficacy and similar safety compared to pegfilgrastim in Koreans and Asians, consistently with those of pooled population.