Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple versus Dual Therapy in Patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with an inhaled glucocorticoid, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and a long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), as compared with dual therapy (either inhaled glucocorticoid-LABA or LAMA-LABA), are uncertain. METHODS: In this randomized trial involving 10,355 patients with COPD, we compared 52 weeks of a once-daily combination of fluticasone furoate (an inhaled glucocorticoid) at a dose of 100 µg, umeclidinium (a LAMA) at a dose of 62.5 µg, and vilanterol (a LABA) at a dose of 25 µg (triple therapy) with fluticasone furoate-vilanterol (at doses of 100 µg and 25 µg, respectively) and umeclidinium-vilanterol (at doses of 62.5 µg and 25 µg, respectively). Each regimen was administered in a single Ellipta inhaler. The primary outcome was the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations during treatment. RESULTS: The rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the triple-therapy group was 0.91 per year, as compared with 1.07 per year in the fluticasone furoate-vilanterol group (rate ratio with triple therapy, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.90; 15% difference; P<0.001) and 1.21 per year in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group (rate ratio with triple therapy, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.81; 25% difference; P<0.001). The annual rate of severe exacerbations resulting in hospitalization in the triple-therapy group was 0.13, as compared with 0.19 in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group (rate ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.78; 34% difference; P<0.001). There was a higher incidence of pneumonia in the inhaled-glucocorticoid groups than in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group, and the risk of clinician-diagnosed pneumonia was significantly higher with triple therapy than with umeclidinium-vilanterol, as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.92; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol resulted in a lower rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations than fluticasone furoate-vilanterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol in this population. Triple therapy also resulted in a lower rate of hospitalization due to COPD than umeclidinium-vilanterol. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; IMPACT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02164513 .).

Reduction in All-Cause Mortality with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Rationale: The IMPACT (Informing the Pathway of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment) trial demonstrated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (ACM) risk with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of future exacerbations. Five hundred seventy-four patients were censored in the original analysis owing to incomplete vital status information.Objectives: Report ACM and impact of stepping down therapy, following collection of additional vital status data.Methods: Patients were randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg following a run-in on their COPD therapies. Time to ACM was prespecified. Additional vital status data collection and subsequent analyses were performed post hoc.Measurements and Main Results: We report vital status data for 99.6% of the intention-to-treat population (n = 10,355), documenting 98 (2.36%) deaths on FF/UMEC/VI, 109 (2.64%) on FF/VI, and 66 (3.19%) on UMEC/VI. For FF/UMEC/VI, the hazard ratio for death was 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.99; P = 0.042) versus UMEC/VI and 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.16; P = 0.387) versus FF/VI. Independent adjudication confirmed lower rates of cardiovascular and respiratory death and death associated with the patient's COPD.Conclusions: In this secondary analysis of an efficacy outcome from the IMPACT trial, once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy reduced the risk of ACM versus UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations.

Serious Asthma Events with Fluticasone plus Salmeterol versus Fluticasone Alone.

BACKGROUND: The safe and appropriate use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for the treatment of asthma has been widely debated. In two large clinical trials, investigators found a potential risk of serious asthma-related events associated with LABAs. This study was designed to evaluate the risk of administering the LABA salmeterol in combination with an inhaled glucocorticoid, fluticasone propionate. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, adolescent and adult patients (age, ≥12 years) with persistent asthma were assigned to receive either fluticasone with salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. All the patients had a history of a severe asthma exacerbation in the year before randomization but not during the previous month. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had a history of life-threatening or unstable asthma. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization). Noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol to fluticasone alone was defined as an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation. RESULTS: Of 11,679 patients who were enrolled, 67 had 74 serious asthma-related events, with 36 events in 34 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 38 events in 33 patients in the fluticasone-only group. The hazard ratio for a serious asthma-related event in the fluticasone-salmeterol group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.66), and noninferiority was achieved (P=0.003). There were no asthma-related deaths; 2 patients in the fluticasone-only group underwent asthma-related intubation. The risk of a severe asthma exacerbation was 21% lower in the fluticasone-salmeterol group than in the fluticasone-only group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89), with at least one severe asthma exacerbation occurring in 480 of 5834 patients (8%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group, as compared with 597 of 5845 patients (10%) in the fluticasone-only group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone did not have a significantly higher risk of serious asthma-related events than did those who received fluticasone alone. Patients receiving fluticasone-salmeterol had fewer severe asthma exacerbations than did those in the fluticasone-only group. (AUSTRI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01475721.).

Safety of Adding Salmeterol to Fluticasone Propionate in Children with Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) have been shown to increase the risk of asthma-related death among adults and the risk of asthma-related hospitalization among children. It is unknown whether the concomitant use of inhaled glucocorticoids with LABAs mitigates those risks. This trial prospectively evaluated the safety of the LABA salmeterol, added to fluticasone propionate, in a fixed-dose combination in children. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, children 4 to 11 years of age who required daily asthma medications and had a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year to receive fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization), as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The statistical design specified that noninferiority would be shown if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for the primary safety end point was less than 2.675. The main efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation that led to treatment with systemic glucocorticoids, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: Among the 6208 patients, 27 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 21 in the fluticasone-alone group had a serious asthma-related event (all were hospitalizations); the hazard ratio with fluticasone-salmeterol versus fluticasone alone was 1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 2.27), which showed the noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol (P=0.006). A total of 265 patients (8.5%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 309 (10.0%) in the fluticasone-alone group had a severe asthma exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving children with asthma, salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone was associated with the risk of a serious asthma-related event that was similar to the risk with fluticasone alone. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; VESTRI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01462344 .).

Circulating neutrophils levels are a predictor of pneumonia risk in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have excess risk of developing pneumonia; however, no definitive biomarkers of risk have been established. We hypothesized that blood neutrophils would help predict pneumonia risk in COPD. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind clinical trials of COPD patients meeting the following criteria were selected from the GlaxoSmithKline trial registry: ≥1 inhaled corticosteroid-containing (ICS) arm (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol or fluticasone furoate/vilanterol), a control arm (non-ICS), pre-randomization blood neutrophil counts, ≥24-week duration. The number of patients with pneumonia events and time to first event (Kaplan-Meier analysis) were evaluated (post-hoc), stratified by baseline blood neutrophil count and ICS use. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR), split by median baseline blood neutrophils. RESULTS: Ten studies (1998 to 2011) with 11,131 patients were identified. The ICS (n = 6735) and non-ICS (n = 4396) cohorts were well matched in neutrophil distributions and demographics. Increasing neutrophil count was associated with an increased proportion of patients with pneumonia events; patients below the median neutrophil count were at less risk of a pneumonia event (HR, 0.75 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.92]), and had longer time to a first event, compared with those at/above the median. The increase in pneumonia risk by neutrophil count was similar between the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Increased blood neutrophils in COPD were associated with increased pneumonia risk, independent of ICS use. These data suggest blood neutrophils may be a useful marker in defining treatment pathways in COPD.

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of E-RS:COPD in patients with spirometric asthma-COPD overlap.

BACKGROUND: The Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (E-RS:COPD) is a patient-reported diary that assesses respiratory symptoms in stable COPD. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm trial (GSK ID: 200699; NCT02164539) assessed the structure, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the E-RS, and a separate wheeze item, for use in patients with a primary diagnosis of asthma or COPD, but with spirometric characteristics of both (fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility to salbutamol; a subset of patients referred to as spirometric asthma-COPD overlap [ACO]; N = 338). RESULTS: Factor analysis demonstrated that E-RS included Cough and Sputum, Chest Symptoms, and Breathlessness domains, with a Total score suitable for quantifying overall respiratory symptoms (comparative fit index: 0.9), consistent with the structure shown in COPD. The wheeze item did not fit the model. Total and domain scores were internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha: 0.7-0.9) and reproducible (intra-class correlations > 0.7). Moderate correlations between RS-Total and RS-Breathlessness scores were observed with St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total and Activity domain scores at baseline (r = 0.43 and r = 0.48, respectively). E-RS scores were sensitive to change when a patient global impression of change and SGRQ change scores were used to define responders, with changes of ≥ - 1.4 in RS-Total score interpreted as clinically meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: E-RS:COPD scores were reliable, valid and responsive in this sample, suggesting the measure may be suitable for evaluating the severity of respiratory symptoms and the effects of treatment in patients with asthma and COPD that exhibit spirometric characteristics of both fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility. Further study of this instrument and wheeze in new samples of patients with ACO is warranted.

FULFIL Trial: Once-Daily Triple Therapy for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

RATIONALE: Randomized data comparing triple therapy with dual inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. OBJECTIVES: We compared the effects of once-daily triple therapy on lung function and health-related quality of life with twice-daily ICS/LABA therapy in patients with COPD. METHODS: The FULFIL (Lung Function and Quality of Life Assessment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Closed Triple Therapy) trial was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study comparing 24 weeks of once-daily triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol 100 µg/62.5 µg/25 µg; ELLIPTA inhaler) with twice-daily ICS/LABA therapy (budesonide/formoterol 400 µg/12 µg; Turbuhaler). A patient subgroup remained on blinded treatment for up to 52 weeks. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline in trough FEV1 and in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at Week 24. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population (n = 1,810) at Week 24 for triple therapy (n = 911) and ICS/LABA therapy (n = 899), mean changes from baseline in FEV1 were 142 ml (95% confidence interval [CI], 126 to 158) and -29 ml (95% CI, -46 to -13), respectively, and mean changes from baseline in SGRQ scores were -6.6 units (95% CI, -7.4 to -5.7) and -4.3 units (95% CI, -5.2 to -3.4), respectively. For both endpoints, the between-group differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant reduction in moderate/severe exacerbation rate with triple therapy versus dual ICS/LABA therapy (35% reduction; 95% CI, 14-51; P = 0.002). The safety profile of triple therapy reflected the known profiles of the components. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the benefits of single-inhaler triple therapy compared with ICS/LABA therapy in patients with advanced COPD. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02345161).

A phase III randomised controlled trial of single-dose triple therapy in COPD: the IMPACT protocol.

Patients with symptomatic advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience recurrent exacerbations are particularly at risk of poor outcomes and present a significant burden on healthcare systems. The relative merits of treating with different inhaled combination therapies e.g. inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), LABA/long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), ICS/LABA/LAMA, in this patient group are poorly understood, as is reflected in current guidelines. The InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI over a 52-week treatment period. The study has been designed with a focus on understanding the comparative merits of each treatment modality in different phenotypes/endotypes.This is a phase III, randomised, double-blind, three-arm, parallel-group, global multicentre study comparing the rate of moderate and severe exacerbations between FF/UMEC/VI and FF/VI or UMEC/VI over a 52-week treatment period. The study aims to recruit 10 000 patients from approximately 1070 centres. Eligible patients are aged ≥40 years, with symptomatic advanced COPD (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group D) and an exacerbation in the previous 12 months.The first patients were recruited to the IMPACT study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02164513) in June 2014 and the anticipated completion date is July 2017.

Anaemia and iron dysregulation: untapped therapeutic targets in chronic lung disease?

Hypoxia is common in many chronic lung diseases. Beyond pulmonary considerations, delivery of oxygen (O2) to the tissues and subsequent O2 utilisation is also determined by other factors including red blood cell mass and iron status; consequently, disruption to these mechanisms provides further physiological strains on an already stressed system. O2 availability influences ventilation, regulates pulmonary blood flow and impacts gene expression throughout the body. Deleterious effects of poor tissue oxygenation include decreased exercise tolerance, increased cardiac strain and pulmonary hypertension in addition to pathophysiological involvement of multiple other organs resulting in progressive frailty. Increasing inspired O2 is expensive, disliked by patients and does not normalise tissue oxygenation; thus, other strategies that improve O2 delivery and utilisation may provide novel therapeutic opportunities in patients with lung disease. In this review, we focus on the rationale and possibilities for doing this by increasing haemoglobin availability or improving iron regulation.

Use of clinical characteristics to predict spirometric classification of obstructive lung disease.

Background: There is no consensus on how to define patients with symptoms of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A diagnosis of asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) syndrome has been proposed, but its value is debated. This study (GSK Study 201703 [NCT02302417]) investigated the ability of statistical modeling approaches to define distinct disease groups in patients with obstructive lung disease (OLD) using medical history and spirometric data. Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with diagnoses of asthma and/or COPD were categorized into three groups: 1) asthma (nonobstructive; reversible), 2) ACO (obstructive; reversible), and 3) COPD (obstructive; nonreversible). Obstruction was defined as a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity <0.7, and reversibility as a post-albuterol increase in FEV1 ≥200 mL and ≥12%. A primary model (PM), based on patients' responses to a health care practitioner-administered questionnaire, was developed using multinomial logistic regression modeling. Other multivariate statistical analysis models for identifying asthma and COPD as distinct entities were developed and assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) assessed the degree of overlap between groups. Results: The PM predicted spirometric classifications with modest sensitivity. Other analysis models performed with high discrimination (area under the ROC curve: asthma model, 0.94; COPD model, 0.87). PLS-DA identified distinct phenotypic groups corresponding to asthma and COPD. Conclusion: Within the OLD spectrum, patients with asthma or COPD can be identified as two distinct groups with a high degree of precision. Patients outside these classifications do not constitute a homogeneous group.

The adjunctive use of a centralised database in the monitoring of clozapine-related neutropenia.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of centralised routine monitoring of blood counts in subjects receiving clozapine. DESIGN: A cohort study based on a prospective drug exposure database. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with schizophrenia in 38 specialised centres across Australia. OUTCOME MEASURES: The time from detection of neutropenia to the interruption of therapy, the time to recovery of the absolute neutrophil count, the eventual outcome of subjects developing neutropenia. RESULTS: A total of 1500 subjects were registered on the database. Seven subjects developed severe neutropenia (a neutrophil count < 1.5 x 10(9)/L) whilst on therapy. Mean time to cessation of therapy was 1.6 days (range < 1-6 days). Neutrophil counts recovered to normal levels in all subjects after 6.4 days (range < 1-13). CONCLUSIONS: In the population investigated, the addition of a centralised database to clinical monitoring resulted in very rapid detection of severe neutropenia and an equally rapid cessation of therapy. In the sample investigated, this led to very low morbidity and zero mortality.