Mortality Risk and Serious Cardiopulmonary Events in Moderate-to-Severe COPD: Post Hoc Analysis of the IMPACT Trial.

Background: In the InforMing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF) /umeclidinium (UMEC) /vilanterol (VI) significantly reduced severe exacerbation rates and all-cause mortality (ACM) risk versus UMEC/VI among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This post hoc analysis aimed to define the risk of ACM during and following a moderate/severe exacerbation, and further determine the benefit-risk profile of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI using a cardiopulmonary composite adverse event (AE) endpoint. Methods: The 52-week, double-blind IMPACT trial randomized patients with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 exacerbation in the prior year 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25mcg, FF/VI 100/25mcg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25mcg. Post hoc endpoints included the risk of ACM during, 1-90 and 91-365 days post moderate or severe exacerbation and time-to-first cardiopulmonary composite event. Results: Of the 10,355 patients included, 5034 (49%) experienced moderate/severe exacerbations. Risk of ACM was significantly increased during a severe exacerbation event compared with baseline (hazard ratio [HR]: 41.22 [95% confidence interval (CI) 26.49-64.15]; p<0.001) but not significantly different at 1-90 days post-severe exacerbation (HR: 2.13 [95% CI: 0.86-5.29]; p=0.102). Moderate exacerbations did not significantly increase the risk of ACM during or after an exacerbation. Cardiopulmonary composite events occurred in 647 (16%), 636 (15%), and 356 (17%) patients receiving FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI, and UMEC/VI, respectively; FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced cardiopulmonary composite event risk versus UMEC/VI by 16.5% (95% CI: 5.0-26.7; p=0.006). Conclusion: Results confirm a substantial mortality risk during severe exacerbations, and an underlying CV risk. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the risk of a composite cardiopulmonary AE versus UMEC/VI.

Single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus dual therapy in current and former smokers with COPD: IMPACT trial post hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is the major risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In IMPACT, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function and health status versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in COPD patients. This post hoc analysis investigated trial outcomes by smoking status. METHODS: IMPACT was a double-blind, 52-week trial. Patients aged ≥40 years with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year 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. Endpoints assessed by smoking status at screening included rate and risk of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score at Week 52. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 10,355 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 3,587 (35%) were current smokers. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in current (rate ratio 0.85 [95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.95]; P = 0.003 and 0.86 [0.76-0.98]; P = 0.021) and former smokers (0.85 [0.78-0.91]; P < 0.001 and 0.70 [0.64-0.77]; P < 0.001). FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in former smokers, and versus FF/VI in current smokers. Similar trends were seen for lung function and health status. Former smokers receiving inhaled corticosteroid-containing therapy had higher pneumonia incidence than current smokers. CONCLUSIONS: FF/UMEC/VI improved clinical outcomes versus dual therapy regardless of smoking status. Benefits of FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI were greatest in former smokers, potentially due to relative corticosteroid resistance in current smokers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513).

Cost-Effectiveness of Single- versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in a UK COPD Population: The INTREPID Trial.

Purpose: The 24-week INTREPID trial demonstrated the clinical benefits of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of symptomatic COPD from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Patients and Methods: The analysis was conducted using the validated GALAXY COPD disease progression model. Baseline characteristics, treatment effect parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score [derived from exploratory COPD Assessment Test score mapping]), and discontinuation data from INTREPID were used to populate the model. UK healthcare resource and drug costs (2020 British pounds) were applied, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon from a UK NHS perspective. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results by varying parameter values and assumptions. Results: Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.174 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.024, 0.344) LYs (approximately 2 months), and 0.253 (95% CI: 0.167, 0.346) QALYs (approximately 3 months), at a cost saving of £1764 (95% CI: -£2600, -£678) per patient, compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT. FF/UMEC/VI remained the dominant treatment option, meaning greater benefits at lower costs, across all scenario and sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Based on this analysis, in a UK setting, FF/UMEC/VI would improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of patients with symptomatic COPD. SITT may help to reduce the clinical and economic burden of COPD and should be considered by physicians as a preferred treatment option.

Effect of Recent Exacerbation History on the Efficacy of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Triple Therapy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the FULFIL Trial.

Background: In the FULFIL trial, once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) resulted in reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates and conferred significant improvements in lung function and health status in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) versus twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) dual therapy. Methods: FULFIL was a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study. Patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic COPD were randomized 1:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg or BUD/FOR 400/12 mcg. In this post hoc analysis, patients were categorized by exacerbation history in the year prior to study entry (≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation [recent exacerbation] versus no recent exacerbation). Endpoints included annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations up to Week 24, annual rate of on-treatment severe exacerbations up to Week 24, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at Week 24, and change from baseline in health status as measured by St George's respiratory questionnaire total score at Week 24. Results: Of the 1810 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 1180 (65%) had one or more moderate/severe exacerbation in the year prior to entry, while 630 (35%) patients did not. FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates in the recent exacerbation subgroup (mean annualized rate: 0.19 vs 0.29; rate ratio [95% confidence interval [CI]]: 0.64: [0.45, 0.91]; p=0.014) and numerically reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates in the no recent exacerbation subgroup (mean annualized rate: 0.29 vs 0.43; rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.67 [0.43, 1.04]; p=0.073). Severe exacerbation rates were numerically reduced with FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR treatment across both subgroups. FF/UMEC/VI conferred significant improvements in lung function and health status versus BUD/FOR, regardless of recent exacerbation history. Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe and severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function and health status versus BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of recent exacerbation history.

Time-Dependent Risk of Cardiovascular Events Following an Exacerbation in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Post Hoc Analysis From the IMPACT Trial.

Background The association between chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations and increased cardiovascular event risk has not been adequately studied in a heterogenous population with both low and high cardiovascular risk. Methods and Results This post hoc analysis of the IMPACT (Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment) trial (N=10 355 symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at risk of exacerbations) evaluated time-dependent risk of cardiovascular adverse events of special interest (CVAESI) following exacerbations and impact of exacerbation history, cardiovascular risk factors, and study treatment on this association. Risk (time-to-first) of CVAESI or CVAESI resulting in hospitalization or death was assessed during and 1 to 30, 31 to 90, and 91 to 365 days after resolution of moderate or severe exacerbations. CVAESI risk was compared between the period before and during/after exacerbation. CVAESI risk increased significantly during a moderate (hazard ratio [HR], 2.63 [95% CI, 2.08-3.32]) or severe (HR, 21.84 [95% CI, 17.71-26.93]) exacerbation and remained elevated for 30 days following an exacerbation (moderate: HR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.28-2.08]; severe: HR, 1.75 [95% CI, 0.99-3.11; nonsignificant]) and decreased over time, returning to baseline by 90 days. Risk of CVAESI resulting in hospitalization or death also increased during an exacerbation (moderate: HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 1.53-3.97]; severe: HR, 41.29 [95% CI, 30.43-56.03]) and decreased in a similar time-dependent pattern. Results were consistent regardless of exacerbation history, cardiovascular risk at screening, or study treatment. Conclusions Overall risk of cardiovascular events was higher during and in the 30 days following chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, even among those with low cardiovascular risk, highlighting the need for exacerbation prevention and vigilance for cardiovascular events following exacerbations. Registration URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02164513; Unique identifier: NCT02164513.

Effect of chronic mucus hypersecretion on treatment responses to inhaled therapies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Post hoc analysis of the IMPACT trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Chronic mucus hypersecretion (CMH) is a clinical phenotype of COPD. This exploratory post hoc analysis assessed relationship between CMH status and treatment response in IMPACT. METHODS: Patients were randomized to once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg and designated CMH+ if they scored 1/2 in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) questions 1 and 2. Endpoints assessed by baseline CMH status included on-treatment exacerbation rates, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second, SGRQ total score, COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, proportion of SGRQ and CAT responders at Week 52 and safety. RESULTS: Of 10,355 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 10,250 reported baseline SGRQ data (CMH+: 62% [n = 6383]). FF/UMEC/VI significantly (p < 0.001) reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in CMH+ (rate ratio: 0.87 and 0.72) and CMH- patients (0.82 and 0.80). FF/UMEC/VI significantly (p < 0.05) reduced on-treatment severe exacerbation rates versus UMEC/VI in CMH+ (0.62) and CMH- (0.74) subgroups. Similar improvements in health status and lung function with FF/UMEC/VI were observed, regardless of CMH status. In CMH+ patients, FF/VI significantly (p < 0.001) reduced on-treatment moderate/severe and severe exacerbation rates versus UMEC/VI (0.83 and 0.70). CONCLUSION: FF/UMEC/VI had a favourable benefit: risk profile versus dual therapies irrespective of CMH status. The presence of CMH did not influence treatment response or exacerbations, lung function and/or health status. However, CMH did generate differences when dual therapies were compared and the impact of CMH should be considered in future trial design.

Higher COPD Assessment Test Score Associated With Greater Exacerbations Risk: A Post Hoc Analysis of the IMPACT Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This post hoc analysis tested the relationship between baseline health status, risk of future exacerbations, and efficacy outcomes. METHODS: IMPACT was a Phase 3, double-blind, 52-week trial in patients with symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test [CAT] score ≥10) and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25mcg, FF/VI 100/25mcg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25mcg. Annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations, lung function, and safety were analyzed by continuous baseline CAT score. RESULTS: Moderate/severe exacerbation rates increased with increasing baseline CAT scores in FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI arms. There was a very small increase in on-treatment pneumonia rates at higher baseline CAT scores across all treatment arms. FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus UMEC/VI (i.e., the inhaled corticosteroid effect) consistently across the range of CAT scores. The reduction with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI (i.e., the long-acting muscarinic antagonist effect) was greatest at lower CAT scores and appeared lesser at higher CAT scores. Improvements in lung function were observed with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI, regardless of baseline CAT score. CONCLUSIONS: The CAT score was predictive of exacerbation risk. Worse baseline health status was associated with higher moderate/severe exacerbation and pneumonia rates. Irrespective of baseline CAT score, FF/UMEC/VI improved lung function, and reduced the annual moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus dual therapy. Results indicate an overall favorable benefit-risk profile of triple versus dual therapy, irrespective of CAT score. Clinical Trial Registration:GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513).

Discordant diagnostic criteria for pneumonia in COPD trials: a review.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have a class effect of increasing pneumonia risk in patients with COPD. However, pneumonia incidence varies widely across clinical trials of ICS use in COPD. This review clarifies methodological differences in defining and recording pneumonia events in these trials and discusses factors that could contribute to the varying pneumonia incidence. Literature searches and screening yielded 40 relevant references for inclusion. Methods used to capture pneumonia events in these studies included investigator-reported pneumonia adverse events, standardised list of signs or symptoms, radiographic confirmation of suspected cases and/or confirmation by an independent clinical end-point committee. In general, more stringent pneumonia diagnosis criteria led to lower reported pneumonia incidence rates. In addition, studies varied in design and population characteristics, including exacerbation history and lung function, factors that probably contribute to the varying pneumonia incidence. As such, cross-trial comparisons are problematic. A minimal set of standardised criteria for diagnosis and reporting of pneumonia should be used in COPD studies, as well as reporting of patients' pneumonia history at baseline, to allow comparison of pneumonia rates between trials. Currently, within-trial comparison of ICS-containing versus non-ICS-containing treatments is the appropriate method to assess the influence of ICS on pneumonia incidence.

INTREPID: single- versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy for COPD in usual clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world trial data comparing single- with multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in COPD patients are currently lacking. The effectiveness of once-daily single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) and MITT were compared in usual clinical care. METHODS: INTREPID was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase IV effectiveness study comparing FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg via the ELLIPTA inhaler with a clinician's choice of any approved non-ELLIPTA MITT in usual COPD clinical practice in five European countries. Primary end-point was proportion of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) responders (≥2-unit decrease in CAT score from baseline) at week 24. Secondary end-points in a subpopulation included change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and percentage of patients making at least one critical error in inhalation technique at week 24. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: 3092 patients were included (FF/UMEC/VI n=1545; MITT n=1547). The proportion of CAT responders at week 24 was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13-1.51; p<0.001) and mean change from baseline in FEV1 was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI (77 mL versus 28 mL; treatment difference 50 mL, 95% CI 26-73 mL; p<0.001). The percentage of patients with at least one critical error in inhalation technique was low in both groups (FF/UMEC/VI 6%; non-ELLIPTA MITT 3%). Safety profiles, including incidence of pneumonia serious adverse events, were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In a usual clinical care setting, treatment with once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI resulted in significantly more patients gaining health status improvement and greater lung function improvement versus non-ELLIPTA MITT.

Validation of the Summit Lab Score in Predicting Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Among Individuals with High Arterial Stiffness.

INTRODUCTION: The presence of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and CV disease in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) leads to worse outcomes. A number of tools are currently available to stratify the risk of adverse outcomes in these patients with COPD. This post hoc analysis evaluated the Summit Lab Score for validation as a predictor of the first episode of moderate-to-severe acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) and other outcomes, in patients with COPD and high arterial pulse wave velocity (aPWV). METHODS: Data from a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study were retrospectively analyzed to evaluate treatment effects of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 µg in patients with COPD and an elevated CV risk (aPWV≥11m/s) over 24 weeks. The previously derived Summit Lab Score and, secondarily, the Intermountain Risk Score (IMRS) were computed for each patient, with patients then stratified into tertiles for each score. Risk of moderate-to-severe AECOPD was analyzed across tertiles using Kaplan-Meier survival curve and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: In 430 patients with COPD, Kaplan-Meier probabilities of no moderate-to-severe AECOPD for Summit Lab Score tertiles 1, 2, and 3 were 92.3%, 95.5%, and 85.1%, respectively (P trend = 0.015), over 24 weeks. Grouped by IMRS tertiles, the respective probabilities were 92.9%, 91.2%, and 88.3%, respectively (P trend = 0.141). Length of stay in the hospital (P = 0.034) and the hospital ward (P = 0.042) were also significantly different between Summit Lab Score tertiles but not for intensive care (P = 0.191). CONCLUSION: The Summit Lab Score was associated with the 24-week risk of moderate-to-severe AECOPD in COPD patients with elevated CV risk. Secondarily, IMRS showed a trend towards differences in the risk of AECOPD, which was not statistically significant.

Critical Error Frequency and the Impact of Training with Inhalers Commonly used for Maintenance Treatment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Introduction: Training in correct inhaler use, ideally in person or by video demonstration, can minimize errors but is rarely provided in clinics. This open-label, low-intervention study evaluated critical error rates with dry-powder inhalers (DPIs), before and after training, in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Methods: Patients prescribed an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) (ELLIPTA, Turbuhaler, or DISKUS), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/LABA (ELLIPTA or Breezhaler), or LAMA-only DPI (ELLIPTA, HandiHaler, or Breezhaler) were enrolled. Critical errors were assessed before training (Visit 1 [V1]; primary endpoint) and 6 weeks thereafter (Visit 2 [V2]; secondary endpoint). Logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for between-group comparisons. Results: The intent-to-treat population comprised 450 patients. At V1, fewer patients made ≥1 critical error with ELLIPTA (10%) versus other ICS/LABA DPIs (Turbuhaler: 40%, OR 4.66, P=0.005; DISKUS: 26%, OR 2.48, P=0.114) and other LAMA or LAMA/LABA DPIs (HandiHaler: 34%, OR 3.50, P=0.026; Breezhaler: 33%, OR 3.94, P=0.012). Critical error rates with the primary ICS/LABA DPI were not significantly different between ELLIPTA ICS/LABA (10%) and ICS/LABA plus LAMA groups (12-25%). Critical errors with the primary ICS/LABA DPI occurred less frequently with ELLIPTA ICS/LABA with or without LAMA (11%) versus Turbuhaler ICS/LABA with or without LAMA (39%, OR 3.99, P<0.001) and DISKUS ICS/LABA with or without LAMA (26%, OR 2.18, P=0.069). Simulating single-inhaler versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy, critical error rates were lower with ELLIPTA fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI; 10%) versus ELLIPTA FF/VI plus LAMA (22%), considering errors with either DPI (OR 2.50, P=0.108). At V2, critical error rates decreased for all DPIs/groups, reaching zero only for ELLIPTA. Between-group comparisons were similar to V1. Conclusion: Fewer patients made critical errors with ELLIPTA versus other ICS/LABA, and LAMA or LAMA/LABA DPIs. The effect of "verbal" training highlights its importance for reducing critical errors with common DPIs.

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.

Clinical effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol in usual practice: the COPD INTREPID study design.

Effectiveness studies complement conventional randomised controlled trials by providing a holistic view of treatments in the setting of usual clinical practice. We present the protocol for the ongoing INTREPID (INvestigation of TRelegy Effectiveness: usual PractIce Design; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03467425) study, a randomised, open-label, 24-week effectiveness study of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI; Trelegy) delivered by the ELLIPTA inhaler versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in usual practice settings. INTREPID was designed to provide evidence of FF/UMEC/VI effectiveness in patients with COPD managed in routine healthcare systems across multiple European countries. Between study initiation and end-of-study visits, patients will receive their medication and care as they would ordinarily receive it, from their usual healthcare provider at their usual healthcare centre. Study-specific intervention will be minimal. The primary end-point will be the proportion of COPD assessment test (CAT) responders, defined as a clinically meaningful improvement from baseline of ≥2 units, at week 24. The CAT was chosen as it provides health status information relevant to patients, physicians, health technology agencies and payers. Lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s) and critical inhaler errors will also be assessed in a subgroup of patients. The strengths and weaknesses of the protocol and some of the challenges associated with conducting this multicountry study, such as differences in healthcare systems and treatment practices across sites, will also be discussed.

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.

A randomized, open-label, single-visit, crossover study simulating triple-drug delivery with Ellipta compared with dual inhaler combinations in patients with COPD.

Background: Administering maintenance COPD therapy with a combination of multiple inhalers may increase inhaler errors. This study evaluated the potential benefits of using a single Ellipta dry powder inhaler (DPI) compared with two combinations of DPIs commonly used to deliver triple maintenance therapy. Methods: Patients receiving inhaled COPD medication were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, open-label, placebo-device, crossover study with a 2×2 complete block design (NCT0298218), which comprised two substudies: Ellipta vs Diskus + HandiHaler (substudy 1) or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler (substudy 2). Patients demonstrated inhaler use after reading the relevant patient information leaflet (PIL). A trained investigator assessed user errors (critical errors [errors likely to result in no or significantly reduced medication being inhaled] and overall errors). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients making ≥1 critical error after reading the PIL. The secondary endpoints included error rates during ≤2 reassessments following investigator instruction (if required), instruction time, and patient preference. Results: After reading the PIL, significantly fewer patients made critical errors with Ellipta compared with Diskus + HandiHaler (9% [7/80] vs 75% [60/80], respectively; P<0.001) or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler (9% [7/79] vs 73% [58/79], respectively; P<0.001). The number of patients making overall errors was also lower with Ellipta vs tested inhaler combinations (P<0.001 for each substudy). The median instruction time needed for error-free use was shorter with Ellipta in substudies 1 and 2 (2.7 and 2.6 minutes, respectively) vs either combination (10.6 [Diskus + HandiHaler] and 11.3 minutes [Turbuhaler + HandiHaler], respectively). Significantly more patients preferred Ellipta over Diskus + HandiHaler or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler overall for taking their COPD medication (81% vs 9% and 84% vs 4%, respectively) and per the number of steps for taking their COPD medication (89% vs 8% and 91% vs 5%, respectively). Conclusion: Fewer patients with COPD made critical errors with the single DPI, and patients required less instruction time, compared with each dual DPI combination.

The distribution of blood eosinophil levels in a Japanese COPD clinical trial database and in the rest of the world.

Background: Blood eosinophil measurements may help to guide physicians on the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Emerging data suggest that COPD patients with higher blood eosinophil counts may be at higher risk of exacerbations and more likely to benefit from combined ICS/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) treatment than therapy with a LABA alone. This analysis describes the distribution of blood eosinophil count at baseline in Japanese COPD patients in comparison with non-Japanese COPD patients. Methods: A post hoc analysis of eosinophil distribution by percentage and absolute cell count was performed across 12 Phase II-IV COPD clinical studies (seven Japanese studies [N=848 available absolute eosinophil counts] and five global studies [N=5,397 available eosinophil counts] that included 246 Japanese patients resident in Japan with available counts). Blood eosinophil distributions were assessed at baseline, before blinded treatment assignment. Findings: Among Japanese patients, the median (interquartile range) absolute eosinophil count was 170 cells/mm3 (100-280 cells/mm3). Overall, 612/1,094 Japanese patients (56%) had an absolute eosinophil count ≥150 cells/mm3 and 902/1,304 Japanese patients (69%) had a percentage eosinophil ≥2%. Among non-Japanese patients, these values were 160 (100-250) cells/mm3, 2,842/5,151 patients (55%), and 2,937/5,155 patients (57%), respectively. The eosinophil distribution among Japanese patients was similar to that among non-Japanese patients. Within multi-country studies with similar inclusion criteria, the eosinophil count was numerically lower in Japanese compared with non-Japanese patients (median 120 vs 160 cells/mm3). Interpretation: The eosinophil distribution in Japanese patients seems comparable to that of non-Japanese patients; although within multi-country studies, there was a slightly lower median eosinophil count for Japanese patients compared with non-Japanese patients. These findings suggest that blood eosinophil data from global studies are of relevance in Japan.

A randomized trial of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol or vilanterol versus placebo to determine effects on arterial stiffness in COPD.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Elevated arterial stiffness, measured by aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV), is a cardiovascular risk surrogate and is potentially modifiable by inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist combinations in patients with COPD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The effects of once-daily inhaled fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100/25 µg, VI 25 µg, versus placebo on arterial stiffness in patients with COPD and baseline aPWV ≥11.0 m/s were investigated in a 24-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, stratified (by COPD exacerbation history), parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. Eligible patients were ≥40 years old, with ≥10 pack-year smoking history, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity ≤0.70, and post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≤70% of predicted. Patients with a major cardiovascular event in the previous 6 months/current severe heart failure/uncontrolled hypertension were excluded. Primary endpoint is change from baseline in aPWV after 24 weeks of treatment. Safety analyses included adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 430 patients: FF/VI (n=135), VI (n=154), and placebo (n=141). Patients were predominantly male (79%) and Asian or White (each 48%), with a mean age of 68.5 years (standard deviation [SD] =7.9), percentage predicted post-bronchodilator FEV1 50.1% (SD =13.3), and aPWV 13.26 m/s (SD =2.22) at screening. At 24 weeks, mean (standard error [SE]) changes from baseline in aPWV were -1.75 m/s (SE =0.26, FF/VI), -1.95 m/s (SE =0.24, VI), and -1.97 m/s (SE =0.28, placebo). AEs occurred in 57% (FF/VI), 51% (VI), and 41% (placebo) of patients. CONCLUSION: No differences were observed in aPWV-adjusted mean change from baseline for FF/VI 100/25 µg, compared with placebo.

A randomised, phase III trial of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 µg versus once-daily vilanterol 25 µg to evaluate the contribution on lung function of fluticasone furoate in the combination in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: The contribution of fluticasone furoate (FF) on lung function in the FF/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 µg combination has been demonstrated numerically, but not statistically. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial (GlaxoSmithKline study number 200820; clinicaltrials.gov NCT02105974) enrolled ≥40-year-old patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a ≥10-pack-year smoking history, a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 30-70% of the predicted value, a FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio of ≤0.70, ≥1 COPD exacerbation in the previous 12 months requiring corticosteroids, antibiotics and/or hospitalisation, and current COPD symptoms. Participants received FF/VI 100/25 µg or VI 25 µg once daily. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at day 84. FINDINGS: 1620 patients were randomised and received at least one dose of FF/VI 100/25 µg (n = 806) or VI 25 µg (n = 814). At day 84, the FF/VI 100/25 µg group showed an adjusted mean treatment difference of 34 mL over VI 25 µg in change from baseline trough FEV1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 14-55; p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in the percentage of rescue medication-free 24-h periods. The FF/VI 100/25 µg group demonstrated a 42% risk reduction compared with the VI 25 µg group in time to first moderate/severe COPD exacerbation (95% CI 22-57; nominal p < 0.001). The incidence of on-treatment adverse events was similar between the groups. INTERPRETATION: The contribution of FF in the FF/VI 100/25 µg combination on lung function in COPD was statistically significant. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Lung Deflation and Cardiovascular Structure and Function in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Randomized Controlled Trial.

RATIONALE: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease develop increased cardiovascular morbidity with structural alterations. OBJECTIVES: To investigate through a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study the effect of lung deflation on cardiovascular structure and function using cardiac magnetic resonance. METHODS: Forty-five hyperinflated patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were randomized (1:1) to 7 (maximum 14) days inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 µg or placebo (7-day minimum washout). Primary outcome was change from baseline in right ventricular end-diastolic volume index versus placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There was a 5.8 ml/m(2) (95% confidence interval, 2.74-8.91; P < 0.001) increase in change from baseline right ventricular end-diastolic volume index and a 429 ml (P < 0.001) reduction in residual volume with fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus placebo. Left ventricular end-diastolic and left atrial end-systolic volumes increased by 3.63 ml/m(2) (P = 0.002) and 2.33 ml/m(2) (P = 0.002). In post hoc analysis, right ventricular stroke volume increased by 4.87 ml/m(2) (P = 0.003); right ventricular ejection fraction was unchanged. Left ventricular adaptation was similar; left atrial ejection fraction improved by +3.17% (P < 0.001). Intrinsic myocardial function was unchanged. Pulmonary artery pulsatility increased in two of three locations (main +2.9%, P = 0.001; left +2.67%, P = 0.030). Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol safety profile was similar to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has consistent beneficial and plausible effects on cardiac function and pulmonary vasculature that may contribute to favorable effects of inhaled therapies. Future studies should investigate the effect of prolonged lung deflation on intrinsic myocardial function. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01691885).