Efficacy and safety of GSK3772847 in participants with moderate-to-severe asthma with allergic fungal airway disease: A phase IIa randomized, multicenter, double-blind, sponsor-open, comparative trial.

INTRODUCTION: Current treatments for allergic fungal airway disease are not specific for asthma and are associated with limited efficacy or safety concerns. This Phase IIa randomized, multicenter, double-blind, sponsor-open, comparative trial assessed the efficacy and safety of GSK3772847, an anti-interleukin-33 receptor monoclonal antibody, in moderate-to-severe asthma patients with allergic fungal airway disease (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03393806). METHODS: Key inclusion criteria required participants of ≥18 years of age with a documented diagnosis of moderate-to-severe asthma (≥12 months) treated with inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting ß2-agonist (≥4 months); evidence of allergic fungal airway disease (fungal sensitization to Aspergillus fumigatus [>0.35 KU/L] or Penicillium chrysogenum [>0.35 KU/L] and no history of concurrent respiratory disease/recurrent or ongoing non-pulmonary infections. Participants were randomized (1:1) to GSK3772847 (10 mg/kg) or matching placebo intravenously administered at Weeks 0, 4, and 8, in addition to standard of care. Randomization was based on systemic anti-fungal treatment status at screening. Primary endpoints were change from baseline (Week 0) to Week 12 in blood eosinophils and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. RESULTS: Participants (n = 17) were randomized to GSK3772847 (n = 8) or placebo (n = 9) for 12 weeks and included in efficacy and safety analyses. This study was terminated early due to the high rate of screen failure, low enrollment, and unlikely feasibility of timely study completion. There were no differences observed in blood eosinophils or fractional exhaled nitric oxide between treatment arms. Target engagement was demonstrated by reductions in free soluble suppressor of tumorigenicity 2 levels in the GSK3772847 arm throughout the treatment period. No deaths occurred and no new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of clinical benefits with GSK3772847 was likely due to the small sample size, highlighting the need for larger prospective studies.

International Differences in the Frequency of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations Reported in Three Clinical Trials.

Rationale: Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are an important endpoint in multinational clinical treatment trials, but the observed event rate is often lower than anticipated and appears to vary between countries. Objectives: We investigated whether systematic differences in national exacerbation rates might explain this observed variation. Methods: We reviewed data from three large multicenter international randomized trials conducted over an 18-year period with different designs and clinical severities of COPD, comparing bronchodilator and/or inhaled corticosteroids with bronchodilators alone and/or placebo. Exacerbations were defined by antibiotic and/or oral corticosteroid use (moderate) or need for hospitalization (severe). We calculated crude exacerbation rates in the 30 countries contributing 30 or more patients to at least two trials. We grouped data by exacerbation rate based on their first study contribution. Measurements and Main Results: For the 29,756 patients in 41 countries analyzed, the mean exacerbation rate was two- to threefold different between the highest and lowest tertiles of the recruiting nations. These differences were not explained by demographic features, study protocol, or reported exacerbation history at enrollment. Of the 18 countries contributing to all trials, half of those in the highest and half in the lowest tertiles of exacerbation history remained in these groups across trials. Severe exacerbations showed a different rank order internationally. Conclusions: Countries contributing to COPD trials differ consistently in their reporting of healthcare-defined exacerbations. These differences help explain why large studies have been needed to show differences between treatments that decrease exacerbation risk.

IL-33 receptor inhibition in subjects with uncontrolled asthma: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Most biologics for severe asthma target only type 2 immunity. Inhibition of IL-33 signaling has the potential to target type 2 and non-type 2 pathways. Objective: This multicenter phase IIA study evaluated the safety and efficacy of GSK3772847, a human mAb directed against the IL-33 receptor (IL-33R) in subjects with moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma. Methods: Adults with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist therapy received equivalent replacement medication (open-label fluticasone propionate/salmeterol [500/50 µg, twice daily]) for 2 weeks before randomization at week 0. At weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12, participants were administered blinded placebo or 10 mg/kg of intravenous GSK3772847. At week 2, salmeterol was discontinued; thereafter, fluticasone propionate was titrated by approximately 50% on weeks 4, 6, 8, and 10. Asthma control was assessed until week 16. Participants with loss of asthma control discontinued treatment. The primary end point was loss of asthma control; secondary end points were the efficacy, safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of GSK3772847. Results: At week 16, 56 participants (81%) and 45 (66%) receiving placebo and GSK3772847, respectively, had loss of asthma control (an 18% reduction [95% credible interval = 2%-35%]). Early loss of asthma control prevented full analysis of the secondary efficacy end points after week 4. The most frequent classes of treatment-related adverse events were cardiac disorders (n = 3 [4%] in both groups) and musculoskeletal/connective tissue disorders (with GSK3772847, n = 3 [4%]; with placebo n = 0). Target engagement of IL-33R by GSK3772847 was demonstrated. Conclusion: Treatment with GSK3772847 may be beneficial for patients with uncontrolled asthma. Further studies are warranted.

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.

Effect of Age on Efficacy and Safety of Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol (FF/VI), Umeclidinium (UMEC), and UMEC + FF/VI in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Analyses of Five Randomized Clinical Trials.

Introduction: Concerns have been raised about the practical use and clinical benefits of medications and inhalers in older patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here, we report analyses according to age from five clinical trials evaluating medications administered using the ELLIPTA dry-powder inhaler (DPI). Methods: Efficacy and safety according to age groups (<65 and ≥65 years) were assessed using data from five clinical trials in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic COPD. There was a mix of pre-specified and post hoc analyses of two 24-week trials with fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 µg; one 24-week trial with umeclidinium (UMEC) 62.5 µg; and two 12-week trials with UMEC 62.5 µg + FF/VI 100/25 µg. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) obtained 23 and 24 hours after dosing on the last day of the study. Results: A total of 2876 patients <65 years of age and 2148 patients ≥65 years of age were enrolled across all studies of whom 1333 and 1111 patients, respectively, received treatment at the doses presented. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful treatment differences in improvement from baseline in mean trough FEV1 were reported for active comparators versus placebo at study end for both <65 and ≥65 years subgroups (FF/VI vs placebo: 143 mL and 111 mL; UMEC vs placebo: 110 mL and 123 mL; UMEC + FF/VI vs placebo + FF/VI: 136 mL and 105 mL; p<0.001 for all comparisons). The incidence of adverse events reported for active treatments was similar between age groups. Conclusion: These data provide evidence to support the use of FF/VI, UMEC, or UMEC + FF/VI, all delivered via the ELLIPTA DPI, to treat older (≥65 years) and younger (<65 years) patients with COPD.

Challenging the obesity paradox: extreme obesity and COPD mortality in the SUMMIT trial.

Populations with COPD demonstrate higher survival in overweight and obese compared with normal weight; the "obesity paradox". Relationships in less-severe COPD are unclear, as is the impact of cardiovascular risk, and few studies include individuals at extremes of obesity. We examined the relationship between body mass index (BMI; defined as underweight: <20 kg·m-2, normal: 20-25 kg·m-2, overweight: 25- <30 kg·m-2, obese class I: 30- <35 kg·m-2, class II: 35- <40 kg·m-2 and class III: ≥40 kg·m-2), morbidity, and mortality in the SUMMIT trial population (n=16 485), characterised by moderate COPD and heightened cardiovascular risk with a substantial proportion with class III obesity. The association between BMI category and time to event was modelled via proportional hazards (reference normal weight) adjusted for demographics and cardiorespiratory disease. Consistent with the paradox, underweight individuals demonstrated higher mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.04-1.64)), with lower mortality among overweight (HR 0.62 (95% CI 0.52-0.73)) and obese class I (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.62-0.90)). However, mortality increased in obese class III (HR 1.36 (95% CI 1.00-1.86)). Death was primarily attributable to cardiovascular causes. Within a large, multinational cohort with moderate COPD and increased cardiovascular risk, the phenomenon of reduced mortality with obesity did not persist at BMI >40 kg·m-2, suggesting that obesity may not remain protective at the extremes in this population.

Safety data in randomised real-world evidence studies: Salford Lung Study learnings.

Evidence to support clinical decision making must be based on safety data that have been captured, analysed and interpreted in a robust and reliable way. Randomised real-world evidence (RRWE) studies provide the opportunity to evaluate the use of medicines in patients and settings representative of routine clinical practice. However, elements that underpin the design of RRWE studies can have a significant impact upon the analysis, interpretation and implications of safety data. In this narrative review, we use data from the Salford Lung Study; two prospective, 12-month, open-label, parallel-group, phase III randomised controlled trials conducted in primary care in the UK; to highlight the importance of capturing treatment modifications when attempting to evaluate safety events according to actual treatment exposure. We demonstrate that analysing safety data by actual treatment received (i.e. accounting for the treatment modifications that occur routinely in the primary care setting) provides additional insight beyond analysing according to randomised treatment strategy only. It is therefore proposed that understanding of safety data from RRWE trials can be optimised by analysing both by randomised group and by actual treatment received.

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.

Risk of Exacerbation and Pneumonia with Single-Inhaler Triple versus Dual Therapy in IMPACT.

Rationale: In the IMPACT (Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment) trial, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy reduced exacerbation risk versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI and mortality risk versus UMEC/VI. However, pneumonia incidence was higher in the inhaled corticosteroid (FF)-containing arms, raising questions about the relative benefit of exacerbation reduction compared with the increased risk of pneumonia.Objectives: Determine benefit-risk of the three treatments by evaluating time-to-first and rates of composite exacerbation or pneumonia outcomes.Methods: We evaluated time-to-first (prespecified) and rates (post hoc) of investigator-reported pneumonia, serious pneumonia leading to hospitalization or death, and the composite endpoints of 1) moderate (required antibiotics/corticosteroids)/severe (hospitalized) exacerbation or pneumonia and 2) severe exacerbation or serious (hospitalized) pneumonia. Analyses were repeated for radiographically confirmed pneumonia (post hoc).Results: Moderate/severe exacerbations occurred in 47%, 49%, and 50% of patients randomized to FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI and UMEC/VI, and pneumonias in 8%, 7%, and 5%, respectively. FF/UMEC/VI reduced the risk of combined moderate/severe exacerbation or pneumonia (time-to-first) versus FF/VI (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-0.92]) and UMEC/VI (0.87 [0.81-0.94]), as well as the risk of combined severe exacerbation or serious pneumonia versus UMEC/VI (0.83 [0.72-0.96]). FF/UMEC/VI reduced the rate of combined moderate/severe exacerbation or pneumonia (rate ratio, 0.78 [0.72-0.84]) and combined severe exacerbation or serious pneumonia (rate ratio, 0.76 [0.65-0.89]) versus UMEC/VI. Results were similar for radiographically confirmed pneumonia endpoints.Conclusions: Despite higher incidence of pneumonia in FF-containing arms, these composite exacerbation/pneumonia outcomes support a favorable benefit-risk profile of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a history of exacerbations.

Pharmacotherapy and Lung Function Decline in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Systematic Review.

Rationale: Whether pharmacological therapy alters decline in FEV1 in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease remains controversial. Because pharmacotherapy improves health status, exacerbation rate, and symptoms, it may be unethical to complete placebo-controlled long-term studies aimed at modifying FEV1 decline.Objectives: We conducted a systematic review of placebo-controlled pharmacological trials lasting ≥1 year to address the question of whether therapy alters FEV1 decline.Methods: A literature search for randomized trials that included repeated spirometry with at least one active and one placebo arm was conducted. Articles were excluded if study duration was <1 year, <3 spirometric measurements, or <100 subjects per arm. Study design was assessed using the Jadad score. To combine studies and find the estimated effect, we used random effects methodology to account for both within-study and between-study variation.Measurements and Main Results: There were 33,051 patients in the analysis (active component, n = 21,941; placebo, n = 11,110 in nine studies). The active treatment arms demonstrated a 5.0 ml/yr reduction (95% confidence interval, 0.8-9.1 ml/yr; P < 0.001) in the rate of FEV1 decline compared with the placebo arms. The relative FEV1 differences between active and placebo arms were within the range of differences reported for health status and for the exacerbation rate in the same studies.Conclusions: In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pharmacotherapy ameliorates rate of lung function decline. The relative benefit observed is within the range of those reported for health status and exacerbations in the same studies. Guidelines should be adjusted according to these findings.

Markers of disease activity in COPD: an 8-year mortality study in the ECLIPSE cohort.

RATIONALE: There are no validated measures of disease activity in COPD. Since "active" disease is expected to have worse outcomes (e.g. mortality), we explored potential markers of disease activity in patients enrolled in the ECLIPSE cohort in relation to 8-year all-cause mortality. METHODS: We investigated 1) how changes in relevant clinical variables over time (1 or 3 years) relate to 8-year mortality; 2) whether these variables inter-relate; and 3) if any clinical, imaging and/or biological marker measured cross-sectionally at baseline relates to any activity component. RESULTS: Results showed that 1) after 1 year, hospitalisation for COPD, exacerbation frequency, worsening of body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnoea and exercise (BODE) index or health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)) and persistence of systemic inflammation were significantly associated with 8-year mortality; 2) at 3 years, the same markers, plus forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) decline and to a lesser degree computed tomography (CT) emphysema, showed association, thus qualifying as markers of disease activity; 3) changes in FEV1, inflammatory cytokines and CT emphysema were not inter-related, while the multidimensional indices (BODE and SGRQ) showed modest correlations; and 4) changes in these markers could not be predicted by any baseline cross-sectional measure. CONCLUSIONS: In COPD, 1- and 3-year changes in exacerbation frequency, systemic inflammation, BODE and SGRQ scores and FEV1 decline are independent markers of disease activity associated with 8-year all-cause mortality. These disease activity markers are generally independent and not predictable from baseline measurements.

Effect of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus vilanterol alone on bone mineral density in patients with COPD: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between inhaled corticosteroids and bone mineral density (BMD) remains uncertain despite extensive research. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 3-year noninferiority study. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (⩾40 years of age; smoking history ⩾10 pack years) and at least one native hip evaluable for BMD were enrolled and randomized 1:1, stratified by sex, to treatment with vilanterol (VI) 25 µg or fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100 µg/25 µg. BMD measurements were taken via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry every 6 months. The primary endpoint was assessment of the noninferiority of change from baseline in total hip BMD per year at the -1% noninferiority level. Change from baseline in BMD at the lumbar spine and BMD measurements by sex were secondary endpoints. Incidences of COPD exacerbations and bone fractures throughout the study were also recorded. RESULTS: Of 283 randomized patients, 170 (60%) completed the study. Noninferiority was demonstrated for FF/VI versus VI with regards to change from baseline in total hip BMD per year, with changes of -0.27% and 0.18%, respectively, and a treatment difference of -0.46% per year [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.97 to 0.06]. The treatment difference for FF/VI versus VI regarding lumbar spine BMD was -0.51% per year (95% CI -1.11 to 0.10). COPD exacerbations and bone fracture rates were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: FF/VI showed noninferiority to VI for change from baseline in total hip BMD per year, when assessed at the -1% noninferiority margin in a combined sample of men and women with COPD.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

The Summit Score Stratifies Mortality and Morbidity in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Introduction: Tobacco use and other cardiovascular risk factors often accompany chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study derived and validated the Summit Score to predict mortality in people with COPD and cardiovascular risks. Methods: SUMMIT trial subjects (N=16,485) ages 40-80 years with COPD were randomly assigned 50%/50% to derivation (N=8181) and internal validation (N=8304). Three external COPD validations from Intermountain Healthcare included outpatients with cardiovascular risks (N=9251), outpatients without cardiovascular risks (N=8551), and inpatients (N=26,170). Cox regression evaluated 40 predictors of all-cause mortality. SUMMIT treatments including combined fluticasone furoate (FF) 100µg/vilanterol 25µg (VI) were not included in the score. Results: Mortality predictors were FEV1, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, body mass index, age, smoking pack-years, prior COPD hospitalizations, myocardial infarction, heart failure, diabetes, anti-thrombotics, anti-arrhythmics, and xanthines. Combined in the Summit Score (derivation: c=0.668), quartile 4 vs 1 had HR=4.43 in SUMMIT validation (p<0.001, 95% CI=3.27, 6.01, c=0.662) and HR=8.15 in Intermountain cardiovascular risk COPD outpatients (p<0.001, 95% CI=5.86, 11.34, c=0.736), and strongly predicted mortality in the other Intermountain COPD populations. Among all SUMMIT subjects with scores 14-19, FF 100µg/VI 25µg vs placebo had HR=0.76 (p=0.0158, 95% CI=0.61, 0.95), but FF 100µg/VI 25µg was not different from placebo for scores <14 or >19. Conclusion: In this post hoc analysis of SUMMIT trial data, the Summit Score was derived and validated in multiple Intermountain COPD populations. The score was used to identify a subpopulation in which mortality risk was lower for FF 100µg/VI 25µg treatment. Trial Registration: The SUMMIT trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as number NCT01313676.

FEV1 is a stronger mortality predictor than FVC in patients with moderate COPD and with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Purpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Impaired lung function is associated with heightened risk for death, cardiovascular events, and COPD exacerbations. However, it is unclear if forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) differ in predictive value. Patients and Methods: Data from 16,485 participants in the Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity (SUMMIT) in COPD were analyzed. Patients were grouped into quintiles for each lung function parameter (FEV1 %predicted, FVC %predicted, FEV1/FVC). The four highest quintiles (Q2-Q5) were compared to the lowest (Q1) to assess their relationship with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, and moderate-to-severe and severe exacerbations. Cox-regression was used, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, smoking status, previous exacerbations, cardiovascular disease, treatment, and modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score. Results: Compared to Q1 (<53.5% FEV1 predicted), increasing FEV1 quintiles (Q2 53.5-457.5% predicted, Q3 57.5-461.6% predicted, Q4 61.6-465.8% predicted, and Q5 ≥65.8%) were all associated with significantly decreased all-cause mortality (20% (4-34%), 28% (13-40%), 23% (7-36%), and 30% (15-42%) risk reduction, respectively). In contrast, a significant risk reduction (21% (4-35%)) was seen only between Q1 and Q5 quintiles of FVC. Neither FEV1 nor FVC was associated with cardiovascular risk. Increased FEV1 and FEV1/FVC quintiles were also associated with the reduction of moderate-to-severe and severe exacerbations while, surprisingly, the highest FVC quintile was related to the heightened exacerbation risk (28% (8-52%) risk increase). Conclusion: Our results suggest that FEV1 is a stronger predictor for all-cause mortality than FVC in moderate COPD patients with heightened cardiovascular risk and that subjects with moderate COPD have very different risks.

Adjudication of cardiovascular events in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: SUMMIT trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjudicated cause-specific mortality has been used in major trials of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, there is less experience with adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events as a key efficacy outcome in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trials. The Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trial required a Clinical Endpoint Committee to adjudicate the outcomes of modified major adverse cardiovascular events and cause-specific mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: A six-member Clinical Endpoint Committee reviewed adverse event and serious adverse event reports included in a list of 204 Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms. Adverse events were triaged by one Clinical Endpoint Committee member, and then reviewed by three reviewers (round 1). If these three disagreed on the adjudication, the event was discussed by the full committee to reach a consensus (round 2). Among 16,485 participants, 48,105 adverse events were reported, among which 3314 were reviewed by the Clinical Endpoint Committee. After triage, 1827 were adjudicated in round 1; 338 required committee consensus in round 2, yielding 450 myocardial infarctions, strokes, unstable anginas or transient ischaemic attacks. Only 20/1627 (1%) non-serious adverse events were adjudicated as cardiovascular events. Only 45/204 Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms reviewed yielded cardiovascular events. A total of 430 deaths were adjudicated in round 1 and 631 in round 2, yielding 459 cardiovascular deaths. Adjudication of chest pain and sudden death often required additional information from site investigators. Site assessment of cardiovascular death was moderately specific (501/602 = 83%) but not sensitive (256/459 = 56%). CONCLUSION: A Clinical Endpoint Committee is useful for adjudication of major adverse cardiovascular events in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trials but requires considerable resources and effort by investigators. This process can be streamlined by reviewing only serious adverse events and filtering by selected Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms.

A randomized, controlled, repeat-dose study of batefenterol/fluticasone furoate compared with placebo in the treatment of COPD.

BACKGROUND: Batefenterol (BAT) is a bi-functional molecule with both muscarinic antagonist and ß2-adrenoceptor agonist pharmacology. This Phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study evaluated the safety and tolerability of BAT 300 µg with fluticasone furoate (FF) 100 µg administered via the ELLIPTA inhaler (BAT/FF 300/100). METHODS: Subjects with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were randomized 2:1 to receive BAT/FF 300/100 or placebo once daily for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 0-4-h weighted mean (WM) heart rate (HR, measured by electrocardiogram [ECG]) on Day 42. Other endpoints included WM and maximum 0-4-h corrected QT interval (ECG on Days 1, 28, and 42), HR measured by Holter monitoring (Day 42), and standard safety assessments. Study protocol was approved by an Investigational Review Board. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomized and received ≥1 dose of study medication (BAT/FF 300/100 n = 42; placebo n = 20). Mean age was 62.5 years (standard deviation [SD] 8.17). Study completion rates were 83% (BAT/FF 300/100) and 100% (placebo). Screening mean (SD) post-bronchodilator percentage-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s was 57.57 (11.42) in the BAT/FF 300/100 group and 55.68 (14.03) in the placebo group. BAT/FF 300/100 was non-inferior to placebo for the primary endpoint, treatment difference: - 2.2 beats per minute (bpm), 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 6.2, 1.7). There were no clinically relevant differences between treatment groups in WM or maximum 0-4-h corrected QT interval, or mean HR based on Holter monitoring on Day 42 (BAT/FF 300/100: 76.3 bpm [SD 11.38]; placebo: 84.8 bpm [SD 9.87]). Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 38% (BAT/FF 300/100) and 35% (placebo) of patients. AEs in ≥2 subjects with BAT/FF 300/100 were dysgeusia (10%), diarrhea (7%), nasopharyngitis (7%), and cough (5%). AEs leading to discontinuation occurred in two subjects who received BAT/FF 300/100: post-treatment severe pneumonia (serious AE) and non-serious AEs of moderate vomiting and severe gastroenteritis; both were not considered drug-related. No deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Six weeks of BAT/FF 300/100 treatment was non-inferior to placebo for change from baseline in HR, with no new clinically relevant general or cardiovascular safety signals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02573870 (submitted October 12, 2015).

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.