Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases:Journal of the COPD Foundation

Return to Current Issue | RSS Options

Efficacy and Safety of Twice-Daily Glycopyrrolate Versus Placebo in Patients With COPD: The GEM2 Study

Edward Kerwin, MD1 Thomas M. Siler, MD2 Phillip Korenblat, MD3 Alexander White, MD4 Joerg H. Eckert, PhD5 Michelle Henley, MSc6 Francesco Patalano, MD5 Peter D’Andrea, MD6

Author Affiliations

  1. Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, Medford
  2. Midwest Chest Consultants, St. Charles, Missouri
  3. The Clinical Research Center, St. Louis, Missouri
  4. Progressive Medical Research, Port Orange, Florida
  5. Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland
  6. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, New Jersey

Address correspondence to:

Edward Kerwin, MD
Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon
3860 Crater Lake Avenue
Medford, OR 97504
Phone: 541-858-1003
Email: ekerwin@criresearch.com

Abstract

Long-acting bronchodilators including muscarinic antagonists are central to the management of patients with COPD. The Glycopyrrolate Effect on syMptoms and lung function (GEM2) study assessed the efficacy and safety of twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 μg in patients with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation.

This 12-week multicenter, double-blind study randomized (1:1) patients to glycopyrrolate 15.6 μg twice daily (b.i.d.) or placebo both delivered via the NeohalerTM device. The primary objective was superiority of glycopyrrolate compared with placebo for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) standardized area under curve (AUC) between 0 and 12 hours post dosing (FEV1 AUC0-12h) at week 12. Other outcomes included additional spirometry parameters, health status using St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), dyspnea via Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), rescue medication use and COPD symptoms reported by patients via the electronic diary. Safety was also assessed.

Of the 432 patients randomized (glycopyrrolate, n=216; placebo, n=216), 96% completed the planned treatment phase. The study met its primary objective (superiority of glycopyrrolate compared with placebo for FEV1 AUC0-12h). Compared with placebo, glycopyrrolate showed significant improvements in lung function parameters (p<0.001). Health status (SGRQ total score and COPD assessment test), rescue medication use and daily total COPD symptom scores were significantly improved with glycopyrrolate versus placebo over 12 weeks. Improvements in dyspnea were observed with glycopyrrolate and placebo although the treatment difference was not statistically significant. Overall, differences in the incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events between the groups were not considered clinically meaningful. No deaths were reported.

Twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 μg showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements compared with placebo in lung function, COPD symptoms, health status, and rescue medication usage in COPD patients with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation.

Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01715298

Citation

Citation: Kerwin E, Siler TM, Korenblat P, et al. Efficacy and safety of twice-daily glycopyrrolate versus placebo in patients with COPD: the GEM2 study. Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2016; 3(2): 549-559. doi: http://doi.org/10.15326/jcopdf.3.2.2015.0157

PDF Download

PDF PDF Version (9490 KB)

Running Head: Efficacy and Safety of Glycopyrrolate

Funding support: The study was supported and funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel. Writing support was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.

Date of Acceptance: December 9, 2015

Abbreviations: Glycopyrrolate Effect on syMptoms and lung function study, GEM2; twice daily, b.i.d.; forced expiratory volume in 1 second, FEV1; area under the curve, AUC; St. George’s Respiratory Questionaire, SGRQ; Transition Dyspnea Index, TDI; Global initiative for chronic Lung Disease, GOLD; long-acting muscarinic antagonist, LAMA; long-acting β2-agonist, LABA; inhaled corticosteroid, ICS; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA; forced vital capacity, FVC; modified Medical Research Council, mMRC; electronic diary, e-diary; minimal clinically important difference, MCID; COPD Assessment Test, CAT; adverse event, AE; major adverse cardiovascular events, MACE; cardio-and cerebrovascular, CCV; full analysis set, FAS; per protocol set, PPS; Baseline Dyspnea Index, BDI; glycopyrrolate, GLY; placebo, PBO; confidence interval, CI; odds ratio, OR; serious adverse effects, SAEs; Friederica’s corrected QT interval, QTcF; least squares means, LSM

Citation: Kerwin E, Siler TM, Korenblat P, et al. Efficacy and safety of twice-daily glycopyrrolate versus placebo in patients with COPD: the GEM2 study. Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2016; 3(2): 549-559. doi: http://doi.org/10.15326/jcopdf.3.2.2015.0157

Introduction

The current Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy1 and American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society guidelines2 recommend inhaled bronchodilators, such as a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) alone or in combination with a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) or inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), as the mainstay for treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Glycopyrrolate, also known as glycopyrronium bromide, is a fast onset (statistically significant bronchodilation within 5 and 15 minutes post-dose) and long-acting (sustained 24-hour bronchodilation) muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), developed for maintenance treatment in patients with COPD.3-5 Preclinical studies with glycopyrrolate have demonstrated high affinity and slow dissociation from muscarinic receptors which supports the prolonged bronchodilation effect in patients with COPD.6 Various global clinical studies have demonstrated that treatment with glycopyrrolate 63 µg (equivalent to glycopyrronium 50 µg) administered once-daily offers substantial benefit to patients with moderate to severe COPD with improved lung function, dyspnea, health status, rescue medication use, with overall good safety profile 4,5,7 and is an approved treatment in more than 80 countries including the European Union, Brazil, Japan, Canada, Switzerland and Australia, excluding the United States. In the United States, a separate phase III clinical trial program with glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg (equivalent to glycopyrronium 12.5 µg) was developed that included 2 identical pivotal 12-week efficacy and safety studies, Glycopyrrolate Effect on syMptoms and lung function study (GEM1) and GEM2 and a long-term safety study, GEM3. The dose selection was based on a dose-ranging study8 showing statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) with twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg treatment and on discussions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Seebri® NeohalerTM (glycopyrrolate) 15.6 µg is now approved in the United States for the long-term maintenance treatment of airflow obstruction in patients with COPD.

This manuscript presents the results of the 12-week Phase III GEM2 study that assessed the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate 15.6 μg b.i.d. compared with placebo in COPD patients with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation (GOLD 2 and 3 according to the GOLD 2011 strategy).

Methods

Study Design and Treatment

GEM2 was a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo controlled study (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT01715298). The study comprised an initial wash out period (duration of 7 to 1 days depending on washout required for prior medications), a run-in period of 2 weeks, followed by a 12-week randomized treatment period, and a 30-day safety follow-up period. Patients were randomized after the run-in period to receive glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg b.i.d. or placebo (both delivered via the single-dose dry-powder inhaler [the NeohalerTM device; Novartis, Basel, Switzerland]) for the following 12 weeks using an allocation ratio of 1:1 (Figure 1).

JCOPDF-2015-0157-Figure1

Additional details of the randomization and blinding procedures are included in the online supplementary material. This study was conducted at 64 centers within the United States. The first patient was enrolled on November 26, 2012 and the last patient visit was completed on December 26, 2013. Albuterol (100 µg/puff administered from the pressurized metered-dose inhaler) was allowed as a rescue medication. The continuation of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy at a stable dose regimen was permitted as COPD background therapy. This study was submitted to the FDA, was approved by the institutional review boards/independent ethics committees/research ethics boards of participating centers, and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidelines. All patients provided written informed consent before participating in the study.

Patients

The study population included male and female patients aged 40 years or older with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation (GOLD 2 or 3 as defined in GOLD 2011), current or ex-smokers with a smoking history of at least 10 pack years, post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≥30% and ˂80% of predicted value, post bronchodilator FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio ˂0.70, and a modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Dyspnea Scale grade of at least 2 at the run-in visit. Key exclusion criteria included history of asthma and COPD exacerbation requiring treatment with antibiotics, systemic corticosteroids (oral or intravenous), and/or a hospitalization within 6 weeks before screening or during screening and run-in. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are provided in the online supplementary material.

Study Objectives

The primary objective was to demonstrate the superiority of glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg b.i.d compared with placebo for FEV1 standardized area under curve (AUC) between 0 and 12 hours post dose (FEV1 AUC0-12h) at Week 12. The secondary objectives were evaluation of glycopyrrolate compared with placebo in terms of lung function through trough FEV1 (mean of FEV1 measured at 23:15 h and 23:45 h post previous morning dose) at Day 2 and Week 12, standardized FEV1 AUC between 0 and 4 hours post-dose (AUC0-4h), 4 to 8 hours post-dose (AUC4-8h), and 8 to 12 hours post-dose (AUC8-12h) on Day 1 and Week 12, FEV1 and FVC recording at the following time points relative to the morning dose: 5 and 15 min, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12-hours post dose on Day 1 and Week 12. Additional lung function efficacy objectives were peak FEV1 and FVC during 4 hours post morning dose on Day 1 and Week 12 and trough FVC on Day 2 and Week 12. The time (min) to achieve ≥100 mL improvement in FEV1 from baseline on Day 1 was also evaluated to determine the onset of action.

Other secondary objectives included evaluation of dyspnea (assessed via the Transition Dyspnea Index [TDI] focal scores), health status (assessed via the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] total score) at Week 12, rescue medication use, and COPD symptoms reported using the patient electronic diary (e-diary) over the 12 week treatment period, which also confirmed study compliance. The percentage of patients who achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in SGRQ total score and TDI focal score in the glycopyrrolate and placebo treated groups was also analyzed. An exploratory objective of the study was to evaluate health status using the COPD assessment test (CAT) at Week 12.

Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), monitoring of vital signs (pulse rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure), electrocardiography, and laboratory analyses (hematology, clinical chemistry assessments, and urinalysis). All serious cardio- and cerebro-vascular events (CCV), atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, and all cases of death that occurred between randomization and the end of the follow-up period were evaluated by an independent adjudication committee. Serious CCV events were adjudicated by major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) outcome and atrial fibrillation/flutter events were adjudicated based on the new onset or recurrence/persistence of events.

Statistical Analysis

The full analysis set (FAS) included all randomized patients who received at least 1 dose of the study drug. The per-protocol set (PPS) included all patients in the FAS who did not have any major protocol deviations. The safety set included all patients who received at least 1 dose of the study drug. The FAS was used for the analysis of the primary objective and all other efficacy variables. The PPS was used for the supportive analysis of the primary variable. The safety set was used in the analysis of all safety variables.

FEV1AUC0-12h was calculated using the trapezoidal rule divided by length of time (12 hours).9 For the analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint (FEV1 AUC0–12h), a mixed model for repeated measures was used. The model contained terms for treatment, baseline FEV1, baseline smoking status, baseline ICS use, visit, treatment x visit interaction and baseline FEV1 x visit interaction, with an unstructured covariance matrix. Secondary endpoints were analyzed using the same mixed model as used for the primary endpoint, with the respective baseline values replacing baseline FEV1 as a covariate as necessary. The proportion of patients who achieved the MCID in the SGRQ total score and TDI focal score was analyzed using a logistic regression model. Details on the sample size estimation are given in the online supplementary material.

Results

Patient Disposition and Baseline Characteristics

Of the 1144 patients screened, 432 were randomized to glycopyrrolate (n=216) or placebo (n=216), and 414 patients (96%) completed the 12-week planned treatment phase (glycopyrrolate, n=209 [96.8%]; placebo, n=205 [94.9%]). Patients could continue to participate in the 12-week planned treatment phase even if they had permanently discontinued the study medication. The most common reason for study discontinuations was patient decision (glycopyrrolate, n=7; placebo, n=9) and 2 patients were discontinued in the placebo group due to lost to follow up.

Patient demographics and baseline clinical characteristics were comparable between the treatment groups (Table 1). Most of the enrolled patients were men (58.8%) and white(86.8%) with moderate airflow limitation (61.1%). Most of the patients belonged to the GOLD 2011 Group B (57.6%) and did not have COPD exacerbations in the year prior to study entry (78.0%).

JCOPDF-2015-0157-Table1

Efficacy

Lung Function

The study met its primary objective with glycopyrrolate demonstrating significant improvement compared with placebo (p<0.001) in change from baseline in FEV1 AUC0-12h at Week 12 (Figure 2). Both at Day 1 and Week 12, FEV1 AUC0-12h was higher with glycopyrrolate (p<0.001) compared with placebo, with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful treatment difference10 of 119 mL and 123 mL, respectively (Figure 2). The results of the PPS analysis (Week 12) were consistent with the primary analysis (treatment difference 128 mL; 95% confidence interval 84, 171 mL; p<0.001).

JCOPDF-2015-0157-Figure2

Improvement in FEV1 AUC0-12h with glycopyrrolate versus placebo in all the subgroups based on age, sex, airflow limitation, baseline smoking status, and ICS use at baseline was generally consistent with the overall study population (Figure 3).

JCOPDF-2015-0157-Figure3

Superior bronchodilation with glycopyrrolate was supported by statistically significant improvement in trough FEV1 on Day 2 which was maintained at all timepoints through Week 12 (both Days 85 and 86) (Figure 4) confirming benefits with respect to trough FEV1 for twice-daily glycopyrrolate.

JCOPDF-2015-0157-Figure4

Glycopyrrolate showed an early onset of bronchodilation with statistically significant improvements in FEV1 at 5 and 15 minutes post-dose compared with placebo at Day 1 and Week 12 (all p<0.001; Figure 5A and 5B). Serial spirometry showed significantly higher improvements in FEV1 with glycopyrrolate versus placebo at all individual post-baseline timepoints from 0 to 12 hours during the study (p <0.001 at all timepoints; Figure 5A and 5B). Similarly, FVC at all timepoints from 0 to 12 hours post dose at Day 1 and Week 12 was significantly improved with glycopyrrolate versus placebo (data not shown).

JCOPDF-2015-0157-Figure5

At Week 12, peak FEV1 and peak FVC for glycopyrrolate were significantly higher compared to placebo (peak FEV1 treatment difference 148 mL; p <0.001 and peak FVC treatment difference 201 mL; p <0.001; online supplementary material Table 1).

Health Status and Dyspnea

With respect to health status, glycopyrrolate showed a statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement in the SGRQ total score compared with placebo (p<0.001; Figure 6A) and 29.8% more patients in the glycopyrrolate group achieved a clinically relevant ≥4 units improvement versus placebo (p<0.01; Figure 6B).

JCOPDF-2015-0157-Figure6

The TDI focal score showed a numerical reduction in dyspnea with glycopyrrolate compared with placebo (Figure 7A) but the difference was not statistically significant. Overall, more patients receiving glycopyrrolate (46.3%) achieved the MCID of ≥1 unit in dyspnea than those receiving placebo (39.5%; Figure 7B). The CAT score significantly improved by -1.5 units at Week 12 (online supplementary material Table 1).

JCOPDF-2015-0157-Figure7

Rescue Medication Use and Symptom Scores

The change from baseline in the use of rescue medication was significantly lower in daily (treatment difference -0.53 puffs/day; p<0.05), daytime (treatment difference -0.30 puffs/day; p<0.05), and nighttime (treatment difference -0.25 puffs/night; p<0.05) number of puffs in patients treated with glycopyrrolate compared with placebo over the 12 week treatment period (online supplementary material Table 2). Glycopyrrolate also showed a significant improvement in the daily total symptom score (derived from data recorded in the patient e-diary) compared with placebo (online supplementary material Table 2).

Safety

Adverse events were reported for 111 (51.4%) patients in the glycopyrrolate group versus 91 (42.5%) patients in the placebo group (Table 2). The incidence of serious AEs (SAEs) was 4.2% with glycopyrrolate versus 2.3% with placebo (Table 2). The majority of SAEs were respiratory-related, and the incidence rate was the same across both treatment groups (1.9% in both the treatment groups). COPD (exacerbation) was the most commonly reported AE, and was comparable across the treatment groups (glycopyrrolate 20.8% versus placebo 21.5%; Table 2). Oropharyngeal related AEs (upper respiratory infection, nasopharyngitis, and oropharyngeal pain) that are commonly seen with orally inhaled LAMAs, occurred at low frequencies in both groups (Table 2). Potential anti-cholinergic AEs occurred infrequently with less than 1.5% of patients reporting urinary tract infections (Table 2) and less than 1% reporting dry mouth, constipation and bladder outflow obstruction and urinary retention. The majority of AEs reported during the treatment period were of mild or moderate severity; 5.6% of patients in the glycopyrrolate group and 2.8% in the placebo group experienced severe AEs. No death occurred in either group. The proportion of patients who discontinued the study treatment due to AEs (with COPD being the most common AE [≥1% in any group] leading to discontinuation) and SAEs was similar between the treatment groups (Table 2). An adjudicated serious CCV AE was reported for 1 patient in the glycopyrrolate group only; this event was adjudicated as MACE and classified as a non-fatal myocardial infarction. No patient in the placebo group had an adjudicated serious CCV event. Atrial fibrillation/flutter events occurred in 4 patients (1.9%) in the glycopyrrolate group compared to 1 patient (0.5%) in placebo, of which new onset events were reported by 2 patients (0.9%) in the glycopyrrolate group versus none in the placebo group. The proportion of patients with newly occurring or worsening clinically notable Fridericia’s corrected QT interval (QTcF) values was similar between the treatment groups. One patient in the glycopyrrolate group had a QTcF value >480 msec. No meaningful differences between treatment groups were seen for laboratory evaluations and clinically notable vital signs.

JCOPDF-2015-0157-Table2

Discussion

Bronchodilation with a LAMA and/or LABA is central to the management of COPD.1 As per the current clinical guidelines, LAMAs are recommended as a potential first choice therapy, alone or in combination, for patients at high risk of exacerbations.1 Glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg twice-daily provides an additional LAMA option which has proven to be clinically effective with an early onset of bronchodilatory action and is generally well tolerated with a low incidence of anticholinergic effects, as shown in this study. The overall results of the GEM2 study demonstrate that twice-daily glycopyrrolate is efficacious and safe compared with placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. The selection of the glycopyrrolate dose used in this study was based on the findings of a dose-ranging study in which glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg b.i.d. was demonstrated as an effective dose that showed clinically meaningful improvement in trough FEV1 versus placebo.8

The study met its primary objective with glycopyrrolate demonstrating superiority to placebo in terms of FEV1 AUC0-12h at Week 12. The magnitude of improvement (glycopyrrolate versus placebo) was 123 mL, which was considered clinically meaningful thus supporting the efficacy of glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg b.i.d. Glycopyrrolate was also statistically significantly superior to placebo for this endpoint on Day 1. Other secondary lung function parameters supported the primary endpoint with significant improvements in trough FEV1, pre-dose trough FEV1, peak FEV1, peak FVC, and FVC AUC0-12h. Bronchodilation with glycopyrrolate was evident at Day 1 and was maintained over the 12-week treatment duration. Compared to the GLOW14 and GLOW25 studies, generally, similar improvements in lung function were seen with glycopyrrolate versus placebo in this study at Week 12 (least square mean [LSM] treatment difference [trough FEV1] 108 to 97 mL in GLOW1 and GLOW2 studies [12-week data], respectively, versus 86 mL in this study). Notably, glycopyrrolate in this study has shown similar lung function improvement compared to other twice-daily LAMAs such as aclidinium in the ACCORD COPD II trial (change from baseline in trough FEV1 was 51 and 72 mL versus placebo at doses of 200 µg and 400 µg respectively).11 Of note, patient baseline characteristics, disease history and severity were comparable between the glycopyrrolate and placebo groups.

As per the GOLD guidelines, an improvement in symptoms is an important goal in the disease management of patients with COPD.1 Clinical guidelines and systematic reviews suggest that the effectiveness of COPD treatments should not be assessed by lung function alone but should also include a variety of other measures, in particular patient-reported outcomes such as dyspnea, health related quality of life and improved exercise endurance.1,12,13 Also, there is clear evidence that improvements in mean trough FEV1 is associated with improvements in SGRQ.14 In this study, glycopyrrolate showed significant improvements in health status, mean daily total symptom scores and mean daily rescue medication use over 12 weeks’ treatment and these were generally consistent with the known efficacy results of glycopyrrolate from other clinical trials.15 The reduced usage of rescue medication in patients receiving glycopyrrolate compared with placebo also suggests an improvement in symptoms. This overall improvement was also reflected in the SGRQ total scores which correlated well with symptom and rescue medication parameters. MCID for the SGRQ is a reduction of 4 units in the total score and is well established.16 In this study, the proportion of patients who achieved the MCID in the SGRQ total score was significantly higher with glycopyrrolate than with placebo. In addition, CAT was also used as an exploratory objective to evaluate the improvement in health status and it was observed that glycopyrrolate significantly improved the CAT score compared with placebo. With regards to dyspnea, there was a trend towards improvement in TDI focal score which might have achieved significance with longer study duration.

The safety profile of glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg b.i.d observed in this study was consistent with the known safety profile of glycopyrrolate.5,7,8,17,18 Anti-muscarinic side effects, such as dry mouth, constipation, urinary retention, and urinary tract infections, occurred with a low frequency in both the treatment groups. Overall, glycopyrrolate 15.6 μg b.i.d. was generally well tolerated over a treatment period of 12 weeks. In spite of some minor imbalances in the frequency of some individual AEs, no clinically relevant differences between the groups could be observed with respect to any type of AE. In patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, it had been previously demonstrated that glycopyrrolate was well tolerated and had a similar incidence of MACEs, when compared with placebo or active treatments.4,7 Similarly, in this study, based on the adjudicated findings, there was no imbalance in MACEs between the treatment groups and no deaths were observed in either group. The incidence of atrial fibrillation/flutter was low and comparable to that reported with other marketed LAMAs such as umeclidinium and tiotropium.19

The study has certain limitations. First, it should be considered that the study duration of 12 weeks with the current sample size was not powered for analysis of exacerbations or for the assessment of some of the patient-reported outcomes. Similarly, the long-term safety profile could not be established in a 12-week study. Furthermore, no active comparator arm was included. Longer duration studies or studies enriched for COPD exacerbations would be needed to further clarify effects on exacerbations and long term safety findings.

Conclusion

The results from the GEM2 study demonstrated that twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg showed an early onset of action, apparent within 5 and 15 minutes post-dose and sustained 24-hour bronchodilation over 12 weeks compared with placebo. Glycopyrrolate also showed statistically significant improvements in COPD symptoms, health status, and rescue medication use. Overall, glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg b.i.d. was generally well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Novartis Pharma AG. The authors thank the patients who participated, and the staff at the participating clinical centers. The authors also thank Novartis clinical team members Fernando Mota, Pamalar Lewis, Cathy Surdouski, Colleen Spotts, Michael Kleinhoffer and Janet Jenkins for their contributions in executing the study and Vivek Khanna (professional medical writer; Novartis) for assistance in the preparation of this paper.

Declaration of Interest

EK has served on speaker panels, advisory boards and as consultant for AstraZeneca (Pearl), Amphastar, Forest Laboratories, Sunovion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Teva Labs, Novartis, Mylan and Theravance. TMS has received research funding from Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Forest Research Institute, Astra Zeneca, Sunovion, and Pearl Therapeutics. PK has received research support for studies of COPD from Astra Zeneca, Amphastar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Forrest Laboratory, Novartis, Mylan, Sunovian and Teva. AW has no conflict of interests. JHE, FP and PD are employees of the study sponsor, Novartis. MH is contracted to work for Novartis. All authors participated in the development and writing of the manuscript and take full responsibility for the content of the article. All authors approved the final draft that was submitted. PD, JHE, MH and FP contributed to the design of the study. EK, the principal investigator of the study, has read and commented on the full study report, and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. TMS, PK and AW as investigators of the study, contributed to the writing of each draft of the manuscript. All the investigators were involved in primary data collection. PD, JHE, MH and FP, as employees of the sponsor, contributed to the design and preparation, conduct, analysis and interpretation of the study for the manuscript, and also contributed to the writing of each draft of the manuscript.

Online Supplement

Methods

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion Criteria
  • Male or female adults aged ≥ 40 years, who had signed an informed consent form before initiation of any study-related procedure;
  • Patients with stable, symptomatic COPD with airflow obstruction of level 2 and 3 according to the current Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy (GOLD 2011);
  • Current or ex-smokers with a smoking history of at least 10 pack years (10 pack years was defined as 20 cigarettes a day for 10 years, or 10 cigarettes a day for 20 years). An ex-smoker was defined as a patient who had not smoked for ≥ 6 months at screening;
  • Patients with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≥30% and < 80% of the predicted normal, and a post-bronchodilator FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) < 0.70 at run-in visit. Post-bronchodilator referred to 45 minutes after inhalation of 84 μg ipratropium bromide (or equivalent dose);

Exclusion Criteria

  • Patients with Type I or uncontrolled Type II diabetes;
  • Patients with a history of long QT syndrome or whose corrected QT (QTc) measured at run-in visit (Fridericia method) was prolonged (> 450 ms for males and females) and confirmed by a central assessor. These patients were not to be re-screened;
  • Patients who had a clinically significant electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormality at run-in or baseline visits. These patients were not be re-screened;
  • Patients with a history of malignancy of any organ system (other than localized basal cell carcinoma of the skin), treated or untreated, within the past 5 years regardless of whether there is evidence of local recurrence or metastasis;
  • Pregnant or nursing (lactating) women, where pregnancy was defined as the state of a female after conception and until the termination of gestation, confirmed by a positive β-hCG laboratory test;
  • Women of child-bearing potential, defined as all women physiologically capable of becoming pregnant, unless they were using effective methods of contraception during dosing of study treatment. Women were considered post-menopausal and not of child bearing potential if they had 12 months of natural (spontaneous) amenorrhea with an appropriate clinical profile (e.g., age appropriate, history of vasomotor symptoms) or had surgical bilateral oophorectomy (with or without hysterectomy) or tubal ligation at least 6 weeks before. In the case of oophorectomy alone, only when the reproductive status of the woman was confirmed by follow up hormone level assessment, was she considered not of child-bearing potential;
  • Patients who in the judgment of the investigator, would be at potential risk if enrolled into the study;
  • Patients who had a clinically significant laboratory abnormality at run-in visit;
  • Patients with a body mass index (BMI) of more than 40 kg/m2;
  • Patients with clinically significant renal, cardiovascular (such as but not limited to unstable ischemic heart disease, New York Health Authority (NYHA) Class III/IV left ventricular failure, myocardial infarction), arrhythmia, neurological, endocrine, immunological, psychiatric, gastrointestinal, hepatic, or hematological abnormalities that could interfere with the assessment of the efficacy and safety of the study treatment;
  • Patients with paroxysmal (e.g. intermittent) atrial fibrillation. Patients with persistent atrial fibrillation defined by continuous atrial fibrillation for at least 6 months and controlled with a rate control strategy (e.g., beta blocker, calcium channel blocker, pacemaker placement, digoxin or ablation therapy) for at least 6 months could be considered for inclusion. In such patients, atrial fibrillation had to be present at run-in and baseline visits, with a resting ventricular rate of < 100/min;
  • Patients contraindicated for treatment with, or having a history of reactions/hypersensitivity to any of the following inhaled drugs, drugs of a similar class or any component thereof: anticholinergics, long-/short-acting β2-agonists, sympathomimetic amines, lactose, or any of the other excipients;
  • Patients with narrow-angle glaucoma, symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia or bladder-neck obstruction, severe renal impairment or urinary retention (Benign prostatic hyperplasia patients who were stable on treatment could be considered);
  • Patients who had not achieved acceptable spirometry results at screening (run-in visit) in accordance with American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society Task Force: Standardization of Lung Function Testing (ATS/ERS) criteria for acceptability and repeatability and spirometry guidance;
  • Patients who had a COPD exacerbation that required treatment with antibiotics, systemic steroids and/or hospitalization in the 6 weeks before pre-screening. Patients could be re-screened after a minimum of 6 weeks after the resolution of the COPD exacerbation;
  • Patients who had a COPD exacerbation between the pre-screening and randomization visits were not eligible but were permitted to be re-screened after a minimum of 6 weeks after the resolution of the COPD exacerbation;
  • Patients who had a respiratory tract infection within 4 weeks prior to pre-screening. Patients who developed a respiratory tract infection between screening period and treatment were not eligible, but were permitted to be re-screened 4 weeks after the resolution of the respiratory tract infection;
  • Patients requiring long-term oxygen therapy prescribed for >12 hours per day;
  • Patients with any history of asthma;
  • Patients with a blood eosinophil count of >600/mm3 (during run-in visit);
  • Patients with an onset of respiratory symptoms, including a COPD diagnosis prior to age 40 years;
  • Patients with allergic rhinitis who were using an H1 antagonist or intra-nasal corticosteroids intermittently (treatment with a stable dose or regimen was permitted);
  • Patients with concomitant pulmonary disease (e.g. lung fibrosis, sarcoidosis, interstitial lung disease, pulmonary hypertension);
  • Patients with clinically significant bronchiectasis;
  • Patients with a diagnosis of alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency;
  • Patients with active pulmonary tuberculosis, unless confirmed by imaging to be no longer active;
  • Patients with pulmonary lobectomy or lung volume reduction surgery or lung transplantation;
  • Patients participating in or planning to participate in the active phase of a supervised pulmonary rehabilitation program during the study. Participation in a maintenance program was permitted;
  • Patients receiving any medications in the classes listed in the study protocol;
  • Use of other investigational drugs/devices (approved or unapproved) at the time of enrollment, or within 30 days or 5 half-lives of Visit 1, whichever was longer, or previous participation in the GEM1 replicate study;
  • Patients unable to use an e-diary;
  • Patients unable to use a dry powder inhaler device or a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (rescue medication) or comply with the study regimen. Spacer devices were not permitted;
  • Investigational site staff, their immediate family, or sponsor staff connected with this study, were to be excluded from participation in this trial;

Randomization and Blinding

All eligible patients were randomized via the Interactive Response Technology (IRT) to one of the treatment arms. The investigator or his/her delegate contacted the IRT after confirming that the patient fulfilled all inclusion / exclusion criteria. Randomization was stratified by smoking status (current smoker, ex-smoker). A randomization ratio of 1:1 was used and the balance was maintained at the country level (USA). Patients, investigator staff, persons performing the assessments and data analysts remained blinded to the identity of the treatment that a patient had been randomized to from the time of randomization until database lock.

Sample size calculation

A difference of 100 mL between glycopyrrolate and placebo in terms of FEV1AUC0-12 at Week 12 was assumed for the sample size calculation. A standard deviation (SD) of 200 mL was assumed based on data from other Novartis sponsored COPD clinical studies, 86 completers per arm gave 90% power with a type I error of 0.05. In addition, 191 completers per arm gave 85% power to detect a treatment difference of 4 units between glycopyrrolate and placebo for the SGRQ total score at the level of 0.05, assuming a SD of 13 units. A drop-out of 10% was assumed therefore it was planned to randomize approximately 426 patients (or 213 randomized patients per arm) into the study.

JCOPDF-2015-0157SupTable1

JCOPDF-2015-0157SupTable2

1. Global initiative for chronic Lung Disease (GOLD). Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2015. GOLD website. www.goldcopd.com. Published 2015. Accessed January 2016.

2. American Thoracic Society and European Respiratory Society. Standards for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with COPD, 2004. American Thoracic Society website. http://www.thoracic.org/copd-guidelines/ Published 2004. Accessed January 2016.

3. European Medicines Agency. Seebri breezhaler, glycopyrronium bromide: summary of product characteristics. European Medicines Agency website. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/002430/WC500133769.pdf. Accessed January 2016.

4. D'Urzo A, Ferguson GT, van Noord JA, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-daily NVA237 in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: the GLOW1 trial. Respir Res. 2011;12:156. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1465-9921-12-156

5. Kerwin E, Hebert J, Gallagher N, et al. Efficacy and safety of NVA237 versus placebo and tiotropium in patients with COPD: the GLOW2 study. Eur Respir J. 2012; 40(5):1106-1114. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00040712

6. Haddad EB, Patel H, Keeling JE, et al. Pharmacological characterization of the muscarinic receptor antagonist, glycopyrrolate, in human and guinea-pig airways. Br J Pharmacol. 1999;127(2):413-20.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0702573

7. D'Urzo A, Kerwin E, Overend T, et al. Once daily glycopyrronium for the treatment of COPD: pooled analysis of the GLOW1 and GLOW2 studies. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30(3):493-508. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2013.858618

8. Arievich H, Overend T, Renard D, et al. A novel model-based approach for dose determination of glycopyrronium bromide in COPD. BMC Pulm Med. 2012;12:74. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2466-12-74

9. Mysovskikh IP. Trapezium formula. Encyclopedia of Mathematics website. http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Trapezium_formula&oldid=12696. Updated February 7, 2011. Accessed January 2016.

10. Cazzola M, MacNee W, Martinez FJ, et al. Outcomes for COPD pharmacological trials: from lung function to biomarkers. Eur Respir J. 2008;31(2):416-469.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00099306

11. Rennard SI, Scanlon PD, Ferguson GT, et al. ACCORD COPD II: a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the 12-week efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium bromide in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Clin Drug Invest. 2013;33(12):893-904.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40261-013-0138-1

12. Westwood M, Bourbeau J, Jones PW, et al. Relationship between FEV1 change and patient-reported outcomes in randomised trials of inhaled bronchodilators for stable COPD: a systematic review. Respir Res. 2011;12:40.doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1465-9921-12-40

13. Glaab T, Vogelmeier C, Buhl R. Outcome measures in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): strengths and limitations. Respir Res. 2010;11:79.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1465-9921-11-79

14. Global initiative for chronic Lung Disease (GOLD). Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2014. GOLD website. www.goldcopd.com. Published 2014. Accessed January 2016.

15. Ulrik CS. Once-daily glycopyrronium bromide, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review of clinical benefit. Int J Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2012;7:673-678.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S35990

16. Jones PW, Beeh KM, Chapman KR, et al. Minimal clinically important differences in pharmacological trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189(3):250-255.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201310-1863PP

17. Vogelmeier C, Verkindre C, Cheung D, et al. Safety and tolerability of NVA237, a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist, in COPD patients. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2010; 23(5):438-444. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pupt.2010.04.005

18. Verkindre C, Fukuchi Y, Flemale A, et al. Sustained 24-h efficacy of NVA237, a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist, in COPD patients. Respir Med. 2010; 104(10):1482-1489. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2010.04.006

19. Manickam R, Asija A, Aronow WS. Umeclidinium for treating COPD: an evaluation of pharmacologic properties, safety and clinical use. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2014;13(11):1555-1561.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/14740338.2014.968550

Keywords (Click on any keyword for related articles)

Images

  • Efficacy and Safety of Twice-Daily Glycopyrrolate Versus Placebo in Patients With COPD: The GEM2 Study
  • Efficacy and Safety of Twice-Daily Glycopyrrolate Versus Placebo in Patients With COPD: The GEM2 Study
  • Efficacy and Safety of Twice-Daily Glycopyrrolate Versus Placebo in Patients With COPD: The GEM2 Study
  • Efficacy and Safety of Twice-Daily Glycopyrrolate Versus Placebo in Patients With COPD: The GEM2 Study
  • Efficacy and Safety of Twice-Daily Glycopyrrolate Versus Placebo in Patients With COPD: The GEM2 Study
  • Efficacy and Safety of Twice-Daily Glycopyrrolate Versus Placebo in Patients With COPD: The GEM2 Study
  • Efficacy and Safety of Twice-Daily Glycopyrrolate Versus Placebo in Patients With COPD: The GEM2 Study
  • Efficacy and Safety of Twice-Daily Glycopyrrolate Versus Placebo in Patients With COPD: The GEM2 Study
  • Efficacy and Safety of Twice-Daily Glycopyrrolate Versus Placebo in Patients With COPD: The GEM2 Study
  • Efficacy and Safety of Twice-Daily Glycopyrrolate Versus Placebo in Patients With COPD: The GEM2 Study
  • Efficacy and Safety of Twice-Daily Glycopyrrolate Versus Placebo in Patients With COPD: The GEM2 Study

Share This Article

E-mail this article to a friend   

Copyright 2024 by COPD Foundation Disclaimer| Privacy|

The COPD Foundation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.