Aclidinium bromide 396micrograms/dose / Formoterol 11.8micrograms/dose dry powder inhaler
Requires a prescription from a doctor or prescriber
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Official medicine documents
Yellow Card
Report side effects (MHRA)
Drug safety updates
MHRA alerts for Aclidinium bromide + Formoterol
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
2 branded products available
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Aclidinium bromide + Formoterol on the MHRA register
Duaklir 340micrograms/dose / 12micrograms/dose Genuair
Aclidinium bromide 396micrograms/dose / Formoterol 11.8micrograms/dose dry powder inhaler
This is the NHS Drug Tariff indicative price used for reimbursement purposes. It may not reflect the price paid by patients or pharmacies.
View full Drug TariffSource: NHS Drug Tariff via NHSBSA. Derived from dm+d VMPP (Virtual Medicinal Product Pack) pricing data. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
Browse tools
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. BNF code shown is the factual mapping value distributed by NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) in the dm+d supplementary file under OGL v3.0; it is not affiliated with, nor licensed from, the publishers of the British National Formulary. ATC codes from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (whocc.no).
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 14 · Randomised trials: 7 · 2012–2025
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Ioanna Vlachaki, S. Donhauser, A. Madoni, et al.
Health Economics Review, 2025
In patients with asthma uncontrolled by a medium or high-strength (MS/HS) inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), according to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, a maintenance therapy option is the addition of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) via single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT). Evidence has previously been published on the cost-effectiveness of a SITT extra fine formulation of beclomethasone, formoterol and glycopyrronium bromide (BDP/FOR/GLY) vs. dual ICS/LABA combination, using data from two 52-week clinical trials (TRIMARAN and TRIGGER). However, there is limited evidence on the comparative cost-effectiveness of SITTs. The current analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BDP/FOR/GLY versus other SITTs, in the UK setting. Markov cohort state-transition model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of BDP/FOR/GLY Medium Strength (MS) vs. fluticasone, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) MS and, BDP/FOR/GLY High Strength vs. FF/UMEC/VI HS and vs. indacaterol acetate, glycopyrronium bromide, and mometasone (IND/GLY/MF) HS. A network meta-analysis was performed to estimate comparative efficacy of BDP/FOR/GLY against other SITTs. The model analyzed cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), net monetary benefit (NMB), and was developed from the perspective of England National Health Service (NHS) and Prescribed Specialized Services expenditure (2022 costs). Uncertainty of the inputs was estimated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. BDP/FOR/GLY MS was projected to be a dominant treatment alternative against FF/UMEC/VI MS (£5,121 less costly, gained 0.065 additional QALYs). Similarly, BDP/FOR/GLY HS was a dominant treatment alternative against FF/UMEC/VI HS (£143, 0.003 additional QALYs) and IND/GLY/MF HS (£692 less costly, gained 0.023 additional QALYs). BDP/FOR/GLY MS and HS had 77.1%, 51.3%, and 61.2% likelihoods to be cost-effective vs. FF/UMEC/VI MS, FF/UMEC/VI HS, and IND/GLY/MF HS at the defined willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, respectively. BDP/FOR/GLY MS and HS were a dominant treatment alternative compared with FF/UMEC/VI, both MS and HS, and IND/GLY/MF HS in patients with asthma uncontrolled by ICS/LABA.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND
Lee HW, Park J, Jang EJ, et al.
2020
- Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
- Disease Progression
- Muscarinic Antagonists
BackgroundOnly few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for head-to-head comparison have been conducted between various combinations of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). Our study was conducted to compare acute exacerbation and all-cause mortality among different LAMA/LABA regimens using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library (search date: July 1, 2019). We included parallel-group RCTs comparing LAMA/LABA combinations with other inhaled drugs in the stable COPD for ≥ 48 weeks. Two different network geometries were used. The geometry of network (A) had nodes of individual drugs or their combination, while that of network (B) combined all other treatments except LAMA/LABA into each drug class. This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO; CRD42019126753.ResultsWe included 16 RCTs involving a total of 39,065 patients with stable COPD. Six combinations of LAMA/LABA were identified: tiotropium/salmeterol, glycopyrrolate/indacaterol, umeclidinium/vilanterol, tiotropium/olodaterol, aclidinium/formoterol, and glycopyrrolate/formoterol. We found that umeclidinium/vilanterol was associated with a lower risk of total exacerbations than other LAMA/LABAs in the NMA using network (A) (level of evidence: low or moderate). However, the significant differences were not present in the NMA of network (B). There were no significant differences among the LAMA/LABA combinations in terms of the number of moderate to severe exacerbations, all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, or pneumonia.ConclusionsThe present NMA including all available RCTs provided that there is no strong evidence suggesting different benefits among LAMA/LABAs in patients with stable COPD who have been followed up for 48 weeks or more.Trial registrationThis study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO; CRD42019126753.
Abstract licence: CC BY
H. Ni, S. Moe, Zay Soe, et al.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018
- Formoterol Fumarate
- Bronchodilator Agents
- Dyspnea
Siddiqui MK, Shukla P, Jenkins M, et al.
2019
- Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
- Glycopyrrolate
- Muscarinic Antagonists
BackgroundDual bronchodilation with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) fixed-dose combination (FDC) is an established treatment strategy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The relative efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI 18/9.6 μg) in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, compared with other licensed LAMA/LABA FDCs, was investigated using an integrated Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsA systematic literature review and subsequent screening process identified randomized controlled trials of ⩾10 weeks' duration that enrolled patients aged ⩾40 years with moderate-to-very severe COPD and included at least one LAMA/LABA FDC or open LAMA + LABA treatment arm. NMAs were conducted for outcomes including change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and transition dyspnea index (TDI) parameters, annualized rate of exacerbations, use of rescue medication, adverse events, and all-cause withdrawals. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses accounted for heterogeneity across studies.ResultsIn total, 29 studies including 34,617 patients contributed to the NMA for efficacy or safety outcomes at week 24 or exacerbations. For all LAMA/LABA FDCs with data available, significantly greater improvements in FEV1 [trough, peak, and area under the curve (AUC)0-4], SGRQ total score and TDI focal score at week 24, and annualized rate of moderate-to-severe exacerbations, were observed versus placebo. Where indirect comparisons were possible, differences between GFF MDI and other LAMA/LABA FDCs were small relative to established margins of clinical relevance, and not statistically significant. The safety and tolerability profile of GFF MDI was consistent with other LAMA/LABA FDCs and placebo. The results of the meta-regression were generally similar to the base case.ConclusionsGFF MDI demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety outcomes to other LAMA/LABA FDCs. Personalization of treatment choice within the class on the basis of other factors such as patient preference may be appropriate.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC
Andreas Karabis, Leandro Lindner, Michelle Mocarski, et al.
International Journal of COPD, 2013
- Tiotropium Bromide
- Bayes Theorem
- Bronchodilator Agents
Yi-Tong Huang, Hong Lu, Pei-Feng Chen, et al.
2020
- Research Design
- Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
- Tropanes
Abstract Background: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: Electronic databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, WanFang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database were searched for studies on the use of combined aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate in the treatment of COPD. Two independent researchers performed literature screening, data extraction, and assessment of quality of studies. The strength of the association of the efficacy and safety of combined aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate in the treatment of COPD was evaluated according to the odds ratio (OR), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence interval (CI). Statistical analysis was carried out via using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: The results of the present study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Conclusion: The conclusion of the present study will provide evidence to judge whether combined aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate is an effective and safety intervention in the treatment of COPD. Systematic review registration number: INPLASY202070063.
Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0
Charlotte Suppli Ulrik
International Journal of COPD, 2012
- Administration, Inhalation
- Bronchodilator Agents
- Forced Expiratory Volume
Kaiwen Ni, Jia Yang, Huan Yang, et al.
Heart & Lung, 2022
Kaiwen Ni, Jia Yang, Huan Yang, et al.
Heart & Lung, 2022
Gogali A, Kostikas K, Kyriakopoulos C, et al.
2025
- Lung
- Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
- Glycopyrrolate
IntroductionThe efficacy of the fixed extrafine combination of beclomethasone/formoterol/glycopyrronium (BDP/FF/G 87/5/9 μg) has been evaluated in randomized controlled trials of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, only few data exist on its effectiveness on small airways dysfunction (SAD).MethodsThe MASCOT (MAnaging Small airways dysfunction in COPD patients in real life on the fixed Triple combination of BDP/FF/G 87/5/9 μg pMDI) prospective observational study evaluated the effectiveness of this combination on SAD in a period of 4 weeks, after direct switch from long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) in COPD patients with SAD (forced expiratory flow at 25-75% of the vital capacity, FEF25-75% ResultsBetween May 2022 and July 2023 we recruited 93 COPD patients (mean age 68.5 years, 82% men) with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1, mean ± SD) 1.53 ± 0.47L (53.4 ± 14.5% predicted) and small airways dysfunction (FEF25-75% predicted 27.7 ± 15.4%). We observed statistically significant improvement in R5-19 between baseline (V1) and follow-up (V2) visits [median (IQR) V2 0.70 (0.41-1.10) vs V1 0.90 (0.60-1.83); mean change (95% CI) -0.49, -0.66 to -0.33 cmH2O/L/sec, p 1 (0.142, 0.078 to 0.205 L, p ConclusionExtrafine triple therapy improved SAD and spirometric parameters, leading to improvement in health status at 4 weeks. These results need to be confirmed in longer studies.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.