Export

ATC codes: R03BB04
Indication
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ICD11 code: CA22
INN
Tiotropium bromide
Medicine type
Chemical agent
List type
Core
Formulations
Respiratory > Inhalation > dry powder: 18 µg capsule
Respiratory > Inhalation > solution: 1.25 µg per actuation ; 2.5 µg per actuation
EML status history
First added in 2019 (TRS 1021)
Sex
All
Age
Adolescents and adults
Therapeutic equivalence
Medicines within the same pharmacological class can be used
Patent information
Main patents have expired but secondary patents might remain active in some jurisdictions. For more information on specific patents and license status for developing countries visit www.MedsPal.org
Expert Committee recommendation
The Committee recommended the inclusion of tiotropium with a square box as representative of the pharmacological class of long-acting muscarinic agents (LAMA) to the core list of the EML for use in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on the evidence presented for efficacy in reducing COPD exacerbations, safety and cost-effectiveness.
Background
The application requested the inclusion of tiotropium with a square box as representative of the pharmacological class of long-acting muscarinic agents (LAMA) to the EML for use in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Single agent LAMAs had not previously been considered for inclusion on the EML. The short-acting muscarinic agent ipratropium has been included on the EML since 1998.
Public health relevance
COPD affects approximately 300 million people worldwide and was responsible for over 3 million deaths globally in 2017 (1). In 2017, it was the third leading cause of death worldwide, after ischaemic heart disease and stroke (2).
Benefits
Data were presented from systematic reviews and network meta-analyses identified through a literature search conducted for the application. A 2018 Cochrane systematic review and network meta-analysis of 99 studies (101 311 participants) compared the efficacy and safety of LAMA and long-acting beta agonist (LABA) monotherapy and LABA/LAMA and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dual combination therapy for COPD (3). The quality of the included studies was considered by the authors to be generally good. Results of the NMA suggested that the LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranking treatment for reducing COPD exacerbations, followed by LAMA monotherapy in patients at both high- and low-risk for COPD exacerbations, although there was some uncertainty in the results. The authors also concluded that dual combination therapies appeared more effective than LABA or LAMA monotherapy for improving symptom and quality of life scores. For the comparison of LAMA versus LABA (six studies, 11 943 participants), LAMAs were associated with decreased moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.86, 95%CI 0.79 to 0.93). A 2014 Cochrane systematic review and NMA of 71 studies (73 062 participants) assessed the efficacy of long-acting therapies for COPD (betaagonists, anticholinergics and corticosteroids) (4). The efficacy outcomes evaluated with St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). Results from pairwise comparisons for the efficacy outcome of SGRQ total score indicated LABA/ICS as the highest ranked intervention, with a mean improvement over placebo of −3.89 units at six months (95% credible interval (CrI) −4.70 to −2.97) and −3.60 at 12 months (95%CrI −4.63 to −2.34). LAMAs and LABAs were ranked second and third at six months, with mean differences of −2.63 (95%CrI −3.53 to −1.97) and −2.29 (95%CrI −3.18 to −1.53), respectively. Inhaled corticosteroids were ranked fourth (MD −2.00, 95%CrI −3.06 to −0.87). Results from pairwise comparisons for the outcome of FEV1 also indicated LABA/ICS to be the highest ranking intervention, followed by LAMAs and LABAs with essentially equivalent results, with ICS ranking fourth. The authors concluded that quality of life and lung function were improved most with LABA/ICS combination therapy. LAMA and LABA monotherapy demonstrated similar effects to each other. A 2014 Cochrane systematic review of 12 randomized controlled trials (9547 participants) evaluated the efficacy and safety of the LAMA aclidinium bromide in patients with stable COPD (5). Compared to placebo, aclidinium was associated with improvements in quality of life as measured by SGRQ total score (mean difference −2.34, 95%CI −3.18 to −1.51). Aclidinium also reduced the number of hospitalizations due to severe exacerbations compared to placebo (OR 0.64; 95%CI 0.46 to 0.88; corresponding to 4 to 20 fewer per 1000 in absolute terms). However, the authors concluded that overall, aclidinium did not significantly reduce mortality, serious adverse events, or exacerbations requiring oral steroids and/or antibiotics. The available data were insufficient and of very low quality for efficacy comparisons of aclidinium versus tiotropium. A 2018 Cochrane systematic review of seven randomized controlled trials (5921 participants) evaluated the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with aclidinium bromide and LABAs in patients with stable COPD (6). Compared to individual monotherapy or placebo, aclidinium/LABA combination therapy was associated with improved dyspnoea, lung function and quality of life. The authors found no evidence of a difference between combination therapy and monotherapy or placebo for exacerbations, hospital admissions, mortality, nonfatal serious adverse event (SAEs) or adverse events. A 2015 Cochrane systematic review of 10 trials (10 894 participants) compared the relative effects of treatment with LABA plus tiotropium versus tiotropium or LABA monotherapy in patients with COPD (7). The authors concluded that LABA/tiotropium combination therapy was associated with a small mean improvement in health-related quality of life and FEV1 compared to either agent alone. There was no observed difference in hospital admissions or death between treatment groups. The application also presented the results of systematic reviews and individual trials that compared monotherapy with aclidinium (5, 8), glycopyrronium (9–11), tiotropium (12–18) and umeclidinium (19, 20) versus placebo, other short- and long-acting LAMAs, and LABAs. The findings of two network meta-analyses of LAMAs versus placebo indicated no significant differences among medicines within the class for most efficacy outcomes (21, 22).
Harms
Extensive use of LAMAs in a wide range of doses and clinical settings has shown them to be acceptably safe. Common adverse effects of LAMAs relate to their anticholinergic activity and include dry mouth, constipation and urinary retention (23–26). However, inhaled anticholinergic medicines are poorly absorbed, which limits the systemic effects observed with atropine (24). Most safety data is available for tiotropium, but the rate of anticholinergic side-effects for the wider class of LAMAs appears to be low and generally similar (27). In a large, long-term clinical trial in COPD patients, tiotropium added to other standard therapies had no effect on cardiovascular risk (24).
Cost / cost effectiveness
A 2017 systematic review of 18 pharmacoeconomic analyses of COPD therapy included six analyses of LAMA monotherapy (tiotropium, glycopyrronium and aclidinium) (29). All studies were conducted in high-income settings and were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Based on these and previous studies, the authors considered that there was strong evidence that tiotropium monotherapy is cost-effective compared to usual care but considered evidence to be inconclusive for the relative cost-effectiveness of tiotropium, glycopyrronium and aclidinium versus each other. The application presented wholesale monthly costs for tiotropium from Australia and the United States, between which, a substantial (10-fold) difference in cost exists. No information was presented in the application regarding the monthly treatment costs for other medicines in the class. The United Kingdom’s March 2019 NHS Prescription Services Drug Tariff reported similar prices (for one months’ treatment) across the four LAMAs tiotropium, aclidinium, glycopyrronium and umeclidinium (30).
WHO guidelines
There are no current WHO guidelines for the management of COPD. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) released an updated report on its global strategy for the diagnosis, management and prevention of COPD in 2019 (28). LAMAs, alone or in combination with LABAs are recommended as initial pharmacological treatment for stable COPD in patients classified as Gold B, C and D using the “ABCD” assessment tool, which takes into account both symptom burden and exacerbation risk.
Availability
Tiotropium has wide international availability and is available in generic brands.
Other considerations
Comments on the application were received from the Department of Management of Noncommunicable Diseases, Disability, Violence and Injury Prevention. The technical unit supports the inclusion of tiotropium on the EML, stating that it is an effective formulation to control COPD symptoms and the frequency and severity of exacerbations. Its inclusion on the EML may improve equity by making it more accessible to patients who need prolonged bronchodilator effect.
1. GBD Results Tool | GHDx. 2018. Seattle: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington; 2018. Available from http://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool, accessed 29 September 2019. 2. Global Burden of Disease compare data visualization. Seattle: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington; 2016. Available from https://vizhub.Healthdata.Org/gbdcompare/, accessed 29 September 2019. 3. Oba Y, Keeney E, Ghatehorde N, Dias S. Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;12:CD012620. 4. Kew KM, Dias S, Cates CJ. Long-acting inhaled therapy (beta-agonists, anticholinergics and steroids) for COPD: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014(3):CD010844. 5. Ni H, Soe Z, Moe S. Aclidinium bromide for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014(9):CD010509. 6. Ni H, Moe S, Soe Z, Myint KT, Viswanathan KN. Combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta2-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;12:CD011594. 7. Farne HA, Cates CJ. Long-acting beta2-agonist in addition to tiotropium versus either tiotropium or long-acting beta2-agonist alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015(10):CD008989. 8. Wedzicha JA, Agusti A, Donaldson G, Chuecos F, Lamarca R, Garcia Gil E. Effect of Aclidinium Bromide on Exacerbations in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Five Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Studies. COPD. 2016;13(6):669–76. 9. D’Urzo A, Ferguson GT, van Noord JA, Hirata K, Martin C, Horton R et al. Efficacy and safety of once-daily NVA237 in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: the GLOW1 trial. Respir Res. 2011;12:156. 10. Kerwin E, Hebert J, Gallagher N, Martin C, Overend T, Alagappan VK et al. Efficacy and safety of NVA237 versus placebo and tiotropium in patients with COPD: the GLOW2 study. Eur Respir J. 2012;40(5):1106–14. 11. Chapman KR, Beeh KM, Beier J, Bateman ED, D’Urzo A, Nutbrown R et al. A blinded evaluation of the efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium, a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist, versus tiotropium, in patients with COPD: the GLOW5 study. BMC Pulm Med. 2014;14:4. 12. Karner C, Chong J, Poole P. Tiotropium versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014(7):CD009285. 13. Zhou Y, Zhong NS, Li X, Chen S, Zheng J, Zhao D et al. Tiotropium in Early-Stage Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(10):923–35. 14. Yohannes AM, Willgoss TG, Vestbo J. Tiotropium for treatment of stable COPD: a meta-analysis of clinically relevant outcomes. Respir Care. 2011;56(4):477–87. 15. Vogelmeier C, Hederer B, Glaab T, Schmidt H, Rutten-van Molken MP, Beeh KM et al. Tiotropium versus salmeterol for the prevention of exacerbations of COPD. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(12): 1093–103. 16. Decramer ML, Chapman KR, Dahl R, Frith P, Devouassoux G, Fritscher C et al. Once-daily indacaterol versus tiotropium for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (INVIGORATE): a randomised, blinded, parallel-group study. Lancet Respir Med. 2013;1(7):524–33. 17. Chong J, Karner C, Poole P. Tiotropium versus long-acting beta-agonists for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(9):CD009157. 18. Cheyne L, Irvin-Sellers MJ, White J. Tiotropium versus ipratropium bromide for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013(9):CD009552. 19. Trivedi R, Richard N, Mehta R, Church A. Umeclidinium in patients with COPD: a randomised, placebo-controlled study. Eur Respir J. 2014;43(1):72–81. 20. Feldman G, Maltais F, Khindri S, Vahdati-Bolouri M, Church A, Fahy WA et al. A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 mug compared with tiotropium 18 mug in patients with COPD. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2016;11:719–30. 21. Oba Y, Lone NA. Comparative efficacy of long-acting muscarinic antagonists in preventing COPD exacerbations: a network meta-analysis and meta-regression. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2015;9(1):3–15. 22. Ismaila AS, Huisman EL, Punekar YS, Karabis A. Comparative efficacy of long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapies in COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10:2495–517. 23. Disse B, Speck GA, Rominger KL, Witek TJ, Jr., Hammer R. Tiotropium (Spiriva): mechanistical considerations and clinical profile in obstructive lung disease. Life Sci. 1999;64(6-7):457–64. 24. Tashkin DP. Long-acting anticholinergic use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: efficacy and safety. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2010;16(2):97–105. 25. Kesten S, Jara M, Wentworth C, Lanes S. Pooled clinical trial analysis of tiotropium safety. Chest. 2006;130(6):1695–703. 26. Halpin DM, Dahl R, Hallmann C, Mueller A, Tashkin D. Tiotropium HandiHaler((R)) and Respimat((R)) in COPD: a pooled safety analysis. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10:239-59. 27. Jones PW, Singh D, Bateman ED, Agusti A, Lamarca R, de Miquel G et al. Efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium bromide in COPD patients: the ATTAIN study. Eur Respir J. 2012;40(4): 830–6. 28. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (2019 Report). Fontana: Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease; 2019. Available from https://goldcopd.org/, accessed 29 September 2019. 29. van der Schans S, Goossens LMA, Boland MRS, Kocks JWH, Postma MJ, van Boven JFM et al. Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Pharmacologic Maintenance Treatment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Methodological Considerations and Recommendations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(1):43–63. 30. NHS Business Services Authority Electronic Drug Tariff. March 2019. Available from http://www. drugtariff.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/#/00684922-DA/DA00684858/Home, accessed 26 March 2019.