gsk573719 and Cardiovascular-Diseases

The purpose of this review is to discuss the cardiovascular risk associated with inhaled anticholinergics in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Several meta-analyses of data for tiotropium raised the possibility of an increased risk for arrhythmia, angina, myocardial infarction, etc. This review includes the data of retrospective studies of databases using databases, randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses of clinical trials. The conclusions of studies were inconsistent. In most clinical trials the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events was similar in active treatment and placebo groups, especially in patients with previous cardiovascular diseases. Considering meta-analyses, there is little, if any, evidence for the association between anticholinergics and the development of cardiovascular symptoms. The author discusses the presence and function of cholinergic receptor subtypes in human heart, and cardiac functions controlled by the autonomic nervous system via these receptors, their possible role, and pharmacokinetic properties of inhaled anticholinergics. The author concludes that it is not possible to find evidence of increased cardiovascular harm of inhaled anticholinergics.

Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Bronchodilator Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cardiovascular System; Cholinergic Antagonists; Clinical Trials as Topic; Glycopyrrolate; Humans; Incidence; Ipratropium; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quinuclidines; Risk Factors; Scopolamine Derivatives; Tiotropium Bromide

This analysis of the IMPACT study assessed the cardiovascular (CV) safety of single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI dual therapy.. IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg with FF/VI 100/25 mcg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. The inclusion criteria for the study were intentionally designed to permit the enrollment of patients with significant concurrent CV disease/risk. CV safety assessments included proportion of patients with and exposure-adjusted rates of on-treatment CV adverse events of special interest (CVAESI) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), as well as time-to-first (TTF) CVAESI, and TTF CVAESI resulting in hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death.. Baseline CV risk factors were similar across treatment groups. Overall, 68% of patients (n = 7012) had ≥1 CV risk factor and 40% (n = 4127) had ≥2. At baseline, 29% of patients reported a current/past cardiac disorder and 58% reported a current/past vascular disorder. The proportion of patients with on-treatment CVAESI was 11% for both FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI, and 10% for FF/VI. There was no statistical difference for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in TTF CVAESI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85, 1.11; p = 0.711 and HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.08; p = 0.317, respectively) nor TTF CVAESI leading to hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.51; p = 0.167 and HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.27; p = 0.760, respectively). On-treatment MACE occurred in ≤3% of patients across treatment groups, with similar prevalence and rates between treatments.. In a symptomatic COPD population with a history of exacerbations and a high rate of CV disease/risk, the proportion of patients with CVAESI and MACE was 10-11% and 1-3%, respectively, across treatment arms, and the risk of CVAESI was low and similar across treatment arms. There was no statistically significant increased CV risk associated with the use of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI, and UMEC/VI versus FF/VI.. NCT02164513 (GSK study number CTT116855).

Topics: Aged; Androstadienes; Benzyl Alcohols; Cardiovascular Diseases; Chlorobenzenes; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Nebulizers and Vaporizers; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quinuclidines

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) bronchodilators and their combination are recommended for the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although the efficacy of LAMAs and LABAs has been well established through randomized controlled trials (RCTs), questions remain regarding their cardiovascular (CV) safety. Furthermore, while the safety of LAMA and LABA monotherapy has been extensively studied, data are lacking for LAMA/LABA combination therapy, and the majority of the studies that have reported on the CV safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy were not specifically designed to assess this. Evaluation of CV safety for COPD treatments is important because many patients with COPD have underlying CV comorbidities. However, severe CV and other comorbidities are often exclusion criteria for RCTs, contributing to a lack in external validity and generalizability. Real-world observational studies are another important tool to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COPD therapies in a broader population of patients and can improve upon the external validity limitations of RCTs. We examine what is already known regarding the CV and cerebrovascular safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy from RCTs and real-world observational studies, and explore the advantages and limitations of data derived from each study type. We also describe an ongoing prospective, observational, comparative post-authorization safety study of a LAMA/LABA combination therapy (umeclidinium/vilanterol) and LAMA monotherapy (umeclidinium) versus tiotropium, with a focus on the relative merits of the study design.

Topics: Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Benzyl Alcohols; Bronchodilator Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Chlorobenzenes; Comorbidity; Drug Combinations; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Lung; Muscarinic Antagonists; Patient Safety; Patient Selection; Prospective Studies; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quinuclidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Tiotropium Bromide; Treatment Outcome