Qualitative interviews of patients with COPD and muscle weakness enrolled in a clinical trial evaluating a new anabolic treatment: patient perspectives of disease experience, trial participation and outcome assessments.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and muscle weakness can cause impaired physical function, significantly impacting patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Loss of muscle strength is usually assessed through clinical and performance outcome (PerfO) assessments, which consists of tasks performed in a standardized manner, providing evidence of a patient's functional ability. However, evidence documenting the patient experience of COPD and muscle weakness is limited. METHODS: This two-stage qualitative study used semi-structured interviews in patients aged 45-80 years with COPD (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1s [FEV1]/forced vital capacity ratio < 0.70, and FEV1% predicted of 30-80%) and muscle weakness. In Stage 1, 30-minute concept elicitation interviews were conducted with participants recruited across three US sites to explore impacts on physical functioning and activities of daily living. In Stage 2, interviews were performed with participants exiting a Phase IIa trial investigating the efficacy of a selective androgen receptor modulator (GSK2881078) on leg strength, whereby PerfOs were used to evaluate strength and physical functioning endpoints. These participants completed either 60-minute in-depth (n = 32) or 15-minute confirmatory (n = 35) interviews exploring trial experience, completion of outcome measures, disease experience and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: In Stage 1 (n = 20), most participants described their muscles as weak (83.3%). Difficulties with walking (100%) and lifting heavy objects (90%) were reported. In Stage 2, 60-minute interviews, all participants (n = 32) reported a positive trial experience. Most participants reported that the home exercise program was easy to fit into daily life (77.8%), the PROactive daily diary was easy to complete (100%) and wearable sensors were easy to use (65.6%). However, technical issues were reported (71%), and few participants (19.4%) found physical assessments easy to complete. Improvements in muscle strength and functional limitations were reported by most participants. The shorter 15-minute confirmatory interviews (n = 35) supported the in-depth interview results. CONCLUSION: The qualitative interviews generated in-depth evidence of key concepts relevant to patients with COPD and muscle weakness and support the assessments of patient strength and physical function as outcome measures in this population in future studies. TRIAL NUMBER: GSK Stage 1: 206869; Stage 2: 200182, NCT03359473; Registered December 2, 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03359473 .

Mepolizumab improvements in health-related quality of life and disease symptoms in a patient population with very severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: psychometric and efficacy analyses from the SYNAPSE study.

BACKGROUND: Although the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures (e.g. the 22-item Sino-nasal Outcomes Test [SNOT-22]) in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) have been defined, these definitions have not been extensively studied in patients with very severe CRSwNP, as defined by recurrent disease despite ≥ 1 previous surgery and a current need for further surgery. Therefore, the psychometric properties of the symptoms visual analogue scales (VAS) were evaluated, and meaningful within-patient change thresholds were calculated for VAS and SNOT-22. METHODS: SYNAPSE (NCT03085797), a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 52-week trial, assessed the efficacy and safety of 4-weekly mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneously added to standard of care in very severe CRSwNP. Enrolled patients (n = 407) completed symptom VAS (six items) daily and SNOT-22 every 4 weeks from baseline until Week 52. Blinded psychometric assessment of individual and composite VAS was performed post hoc, including anchor-based thresholds for meaningful within-patient changes for VAS and SNOT-22, supported by cumulative distribution function and probability density function plots. The effect of mepolizumab versus placebo for 52 weeks on VAS and SNOT-22 scores was then determined using these thresholds using unblinded data. RESULTS: Internal consistency was acceptable for VAS and SNOT-22 scores (Cronbach's α-coefficients ≥ 0.70). Test-retest reliability was demonstrated for all symptom VAS (Intra-Class Correlation coefficients > 0.75). Construct validity was acceptable between individual and composite VAS and SNOT-22 total score (r = 0.461-0.598) and between individual symptom VAS and corresponding SNOT-22 items (r = 0.560-0.780), based upon pre-specified ranges. Known-groups validity assessment demonstrated generally acceptable validity based on factors associated with respiratory health, with all VAS responsive to change. Mepolizumab treatment was associated with significantly increased odds of meeting or exceeding meaningful within-patient change thresholds, derived for this very severe cohort using six anchor groups for individual VAS (odds ratio [OR] 2.19-2.68) at Weeks 49-52, and SNOT-22 (OR 1.61-2.96) throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms VAS and SNOT-22 had acceptable psychometric properties for use in very severe CRSwNP. Mepolizumab provided meaningful within-patient improvements in symptom severity and health-related quality of life versus placebo, indicating mepolizumab provides substantial clinical benefits in very severe CRSwNP.

Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) often have blocked or runny noses, and loss of sense of smell. They can also have sac-like growths in their nose called nasal polyps, which often require surgical removement. The symptoms of CRS with nasal polyps can affect quality of life. In a clinical study named SYNAPSE, a new treatment option called mepolizumab reduced the size and severity of nasal polyps in patients suffering from very severe CRS with nasal polyps, compared with placebo. Mepolizumab also reduced the need for nasal polyp surgery. The SYNAPSE study also measured if 1 year of mepolizumab treatment improved patients' symptoms and quality of life. This was evaluated by asking patients to complete two separate tasks. These tasks were rating symptoms on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and completing a quality of life questionnaire called SNOT-22. The objective of this analysis was to see if these questionnaires accurately assessed a patient's quality of life. The analysis also assessed how many patients had major improvements in their symptoms with mepolizumab. Overall, data from 407 patients in the SYNAPSE study was analyzed. Results showed that both the VAS and SNOT-22 questionnaires accurately captured CRS symptoms and quality of life. In addition, patients treated with mepolizumab for 1 year had improvements in quality of life compared with placebo. In conclusion, these findings suggest that the VAS and SNOT-22 questionnaires are appropriate evaluation tools for patients with very severe CRS with nasal polyps. The findings also show that mepolizumab treatment is beneficial for these patients.

Selective androgen receptor modulation for muscle weakness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised control trial.

BACKGROUND: Selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) increase muscle mass via the androgen receptor. This phase 2A trial investigated the effects of a SARM, GSK2881078, in conjunction with exercise, on leg strength in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and impaired physical function. METHODS: 47 postmenopausal women and 50 men with COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 s 30%-65% predicted; short physical performance battery score: 3-11) were enrolled into a randomised double-blind, placebo control trial. Patients were randomised 1:1 to once daily placebo or oral GSK2881078 (females: 1.0 mg; males: 2.0 mg) for 13 weeks with a concurrent home-exercise programme, involving strength training and physical activity. Primary endpoints were change from baseline in leg strength at 90 days (one-repetition maximum; absolute (kg) and relative (% change)) and multiple safety outcomes. Secondary endpoints included lean body mass, physical function and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: GSK2881078 increased leg strength in men. The difference in adjusted mean change from baseline and adjusted mean percentage change from baseline between treatment and placebo were: for women, 8.0 kg (90% CI -2.5 to 18.4) and 5.2% (90% CI -4.7 to 15.0), respectively; for men, 11.8 kg (90% CI -0.5 to 24.0) and 7.0% (90% CI 0.5 to 13.6), respectively. Lean body mass increased, but no changes in patient-reported outcomes were observed. Reversible reductions in high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and transient elevations in hepatic transaminases were the main treatment-related safety findings. CONCLUSIONS: GSK2881078 was well tolerated and short-term treatment increased leg strength, when expressed as per cent predicted, in men with COPD more than physical training alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03359473.

Patient experience of moderate asthma attacks: qualitative research in the USA and Germany.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information available on the impact of moderate asthma exacerbations, often called "asthma attacks" (i.e., those not requiring hospitalisation or treatment with systemic corticosteroids) on patients' lives. This multi-country qualitative study explored the patient experience of these events. METHODS: Semi-structured concept elicitation interviews were conducted in the USA and Germany with adult patients with asthma who had experienced a moderate asthma exacerbation in the prior 30 days. Physicians with experience in managing patients with asthma were also interviewed. Interviews explored patients' experience of symptoms and impact of moderate exacerbations and associated exacerbation triggers and treatment patterns. Physicians were also asked about their interpretation of a clinical definition and treatment of a moderate exacerbation. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patient (n = 20 in the USA, n = 8 in Germany) and six physician (n = 3 in the USA, n = 3 in Germany) interviews were conducted. During their moderate exacerbation, all patients reported experiencing shortness of breath, which many considered to be severe and the most bothersome symptom. Wheezing was also reported by all patients and considered severe by two thirds of patients. Most patients also reported coughing and chest tightness. All or almost all patients reported that moderate exacerbation caused fatigue/tiredness and impacted their physical functioning, emotional functioning, activities of daily living and work/school life. Most patients reported using rescue or maintenance inhalers to alleviate symptoms of the exacerbation. Conceptual saturation (i.e., the point at which no new concepts are likely to emerge with continued data collection) was achieved. Findings were used to develop a patient-focused conceptual model of the experience of moderate asthma exacerbations, outlining concepts related to triggers, symptoms, impact, and treatment from the patient perspective. Physician data was consistent with patient reports and complemented the conceptual model. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from concept elicitation interviews highlight the increased frequency, duration and severity of asthma symptoms and increased rescue medication use during moderate asthma exacerbations compared with the typical daily asthma experience, which have a substantial impact on patients' lives.

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).

Measuring respiratory symptoms in moderate/severe asthma: evaluation of a respiratory symptom tool, the E-RS®: COPD in asthma populations.

BACKGROUND: Symptom constructs included in the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (E-RS®: COPD) tool may be relevant to patients with asthma. The purpose of this study was to evaluate content validity and psychometric performance of the E-RS: COPD in moderate/severe asthma patients. METHODS: Content validity of the E-RS: COPD was evaluated in patients with moderate/severe asthma using concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews. Secondary analyses using data from two clinical trials in patients with moderate/severe asthma evaluated the factor structure of the E-RS: COPD plus two supplementary items (wheeze; shortness of breath with strenuous physical activity) and assessed psychometric properties of the tool, which will be referred to as E-RS®: Asthma when used in asthma populations. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews (N = 25) achieved concept saturation for asthma respiratory symptoms. Concepts in the E-RS: COPD were relevant to patients and instructions were understood. Most patients (19/25; 76%) reported experiencing all concepts in the E-RS: COPD; no patients indicated missing symptoms. Secondary analyses of clinical trial data supported the original factor structure (RS-Total and three symptom-specific subscales). The two supplemental items did not fit with this factor structure and were not retained. RS-Total and subscale score reliability was high (internal consistency [α] > 0.70). Validity was demonstrated through significant (P < 0.0001) relationships with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and Asthma Symptom Severity scale. E-RS: Asthma was responsive to change when evaluated using SGRQ, Patient Global Impression of Change and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire as anchors (P < 0.0001). Clinically meaningful change thresholds were also identified (RS-Total: - 2.0 units). CONCLUSIONS: The E-RS: Asthma is reliable and responsive for evaluating respiratory symptoms in patients with moderate/severe asthma.

Nemiralisib in Patients with an Acute Exacerbation of COPD: Placebo-Controlled, Dose-Ranging Study.

Background: Management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is sometimes inadequate leading to either prolonged duration and/or an increased risk of recurrent exacerbations in the period following the initial event. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of inhaled nemiralisib, a phosphoinositide 3-kinase δ inhibitor, in patients experiencing an acute exacerbation of COPD. Patients and Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, COPD patients (40-80 years, ≥10 pack-year smoking history, current moderate/severe acute exacerbation of COPD requiring standard-of-care treatment) were randomized to placebo or nemiralisib 12.5 µg, 50 µg, 100 µg, 250 µg, 500 µg, or 750 µg (ratio of 3:1:1:1:1:1:3; N=938) for 12 weeks with an exploratory 12-week follow-up period. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in post-bronchodilator FEV1 at week 12. Key secondary endpoints were rate of re-exacerbations, patient-reported outcomes (Exacerbations of Chronic Pulmonary Disease Tool, COPD Assessment Test, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire-COPD), plasma pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety/tolerability. Results: There was no difference in change from baseline FEV1 at week 12 between the nemiralisib and placebo treatment groups (posterior adjusted median difference, nemiralisib 750 µg and placebo: -0.004L (95% CrI: -0.051L to 0.042L)). Overall, there were also no differences between nemiralisib and placebo in secondary endpoints, including re-exacerbations. Plasma PK increased in a dose proportional manner. The most common adverse event for nemiralisib was post-inhalation cough which appeared to be dose-related. Conclusion: The addition of nemiralisib to standard-of-care treatment for 12 weeks did not improve lung function or re-exacerbations in patients with, and following an acute exacerbation of COPD. However, this study demonstrated that large clinical trials recruiting acutely exacerbating patients can successfully be conducted.

Improved Decision-Making Confidence Using Item-Based Pharmacometric Model: Illustration with a Phase II Placebo-Controlled Trial.

This study aimed to illustrate how a new methodology to assess clinical trial outcome measures using a longitudinal item response theory-based model (IRM) could serve as an alternative to mixed model repeated measures (MMRM). Data from the EXACT (Exacerbation of chronic pulmonary disease tool) which is used to capture frequency, severity, and duration of exacerbations in COPD were analyzed using an IRM. The IRM included a graded response model characterizing item parameters and functions describing symptom-time course. Total scores were simulated (month 12) using uncertainty in parameter estimates. The 50th (2.5th, 97.5th) percentiles of the resulting simulated differences in average total score (drug minus placebo) represented the estimated drug effect (95%CI), which was compared with published MMRM results. Furthermore, differences in sample size, sensitivity, specificity, and type I and II errors between approaches were explored. Patients received either oral danirixin 75 mg twice daily (n = 45) or placebo (n = 48) on top of standard of care over 52 weeks. A step function best described the COPD symptoms-time course in both trial arms. The IRM improved precision of the estimated drug effect compared to MMRM, resulting in a sample size of 2.5 times larger for the MMRM analysis to achieve the IRM precision. The IRM showed a higher probability of a positive predictive value (34%) than MMRM (22%). An item model-based analysis data gave more precise estimates of drug effect than MMRM analysis for the same endpoint in this one case study.

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.

Validity and responsiveness of the Daily- and Clinical visit-PROactive Physical Activity in COPD (D-PPAC and C-PPAC) instruments.

BACKGROUND: The Daily-PROactive and Clinical visit-PROactive Physical Activity (D-PPAC and C-PPAC) instruments in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) combines questionnaire with activity monitor data to measure patients' experience of physical activity. Their amount, difficulty and total scores range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) but require further psychometric evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To test reliability, validity and responsiveness, and to define minimal important difference (MID), of the D-PPAC and C-PPAC instruments, in a large population of patients with stable COPD from diverse severities, settings and countries. METHODS: We used data from seven randomised controlled trials to evaluate D-PPAC and C-PPAC internal consistency and construct validity by sex, age groups, COPD severity, country and language as well as responsiveness to interventions, ability to detect change and MID. RESULTS: We included 1324 patients (mean (SD) age 66 (8) years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s 55 (17)% predicted). Scores covered almost the full range from 0 to 100, showed strong internal consistency after stratification and correlated as a priori hypothesised with dyspnoea, health-related quality of life and exercise capacity. Difficulty scores improved after pharmacological treatment and pulmonary rehabilitation, while amount scores improved after behavioural physical activity interventions. All scores were responsive to changes in self-reported physical activity experience (both worsening and improvement) and to the occurrence of COPD exacerbations during follow-up. The MID was estimated to 6 for amount and difficulty scores and 4 for total score. CONCLUSIONS: The D-PPAC and C-PPAC instruments are reliable and valid across diverse COPD populations and responsive to pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and changes in clinically relevant variables.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI in patients with inadequately controlled asthma (CAPTAIN): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3A trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy, 30-50% of patients with moderate or severe asthma remain inadequately controlled. We investigated the safety and efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate plus umeclidinium plus vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) compared with FF/VI. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3A study (Clinical Study in Asthma Patients Receiving Triple Therapy in a Single Inhaler [CAPTAIN]), participants were recruited from 416 hospitals and primary care centres across 15 countries. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with inadequately controlled asthma (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ]-6 score of ≥1·5) despite ICS/LABA, a documented health-care contact or a documented temporary change in asthma therapy for treatment of acute asthma symptoms in the year before screening, pre-bronchodilator FEV1 between 30% and less than 85% of predicted normal value, and reversibility (defined as an increase in FEV1 of ≥12% and ≥200 mL in the 20-60 min after four inhalations of albuterol or salbutamol) at screening. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), via central based randomisation stratified by pre-study ICS dose at study entry, to once-daily FF/VI (100/25 µg or 200/25 µg) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 µg, 100/62·5/25 µg, 200/31·25/25 µg, or 200/62·5/25 µg) administered via Ellipta dry powder inhaler (Glaxo Operations UK, Hertfordshire, UK). Patients, investigators, and the funder were masked to treatment allocation. Endpoints assessed in the intention-to-treat population were change from baseline in clinic trough FEV1 at week 24 (primary) and annualised moderate and/or severe asthma exacerbation rate (key secondary). Other secondary endpoints were change from baseline in clinic FEV1 at 3 h post-dose, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and ACQ-7 total score, all at week 24. Change from baseline in Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Asthma total score at weeks 21-24 was also a secondary endpoint but is not reported here. Exploratory analyses of biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation on treatment response were also done. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02924688, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 16, 2016, and Aug 31, 2018, 5185 patients were screened and 2439 were recruited and randomly assigned to FF/VI (100/25 µg n=407; 200/25 µg n=406) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 µg n=405; 100/62·5/25 µg n=406; 200/31·25/25 µg n=404; 200/62·5/25 µg n=408), with three patients randomly assigned in error and not included in analyses. In the intention-to-treat population, 922 (38%) patients were men, the mean age was 53·2 years (SD 13·1) and body-mass index was 29·4 (6·6). Baseline demographics were generally similar across all treatment groups. The least squares mean improvement in FEV1 change from baseline for FF/UMEC/VI 100/62·5/25 µg versus FF/VI 100/25 µg was 110 mL (95% CI 66-153; p<0·0001) and for 200/62·5/25 µg versus 200/25 µg was 92 mL (49-135; p<0·0001). Adding UMEC 31·25 µg to FF/VI produced similar improvements (FF/UMEC/VI 100/31·25/25 µg vs FF/VI 100/25 µg: 96 mL [52-139; p<0·0001]; and 200/31·25/25 µg vs 200/25 µg: 82 mL [39-125; p=0·0002]). These results were supported by the analysis of clinic FEV1 at 3 h post-dose. Non-significant reductions in moderate and/or severe exacerbation rates were observed for FF/UMEC 62·5 µg/VI versus FF/VI (pooled analysis), with rates lower in FF 200 µg-containing versus FF 100 µg-containing treatment groups. All pooled treatment groups demonstrated mean improvements (decreases) in SGRQ total score at week 24 compared with baseline in excess of the minimal clinically important difference of 4 points; however, there were no differences between treatment groups. For mean change from baseline to week 24 in asthma control questionnaire-7 score, improvements (decreases) exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of 0·5 points were observed in all pooled treatment groups. Adding UMEC to FF/VI resulted in small, dose-related improvements compared with FF/VI (pooled analysis: FF/UMEC 31·25 µg/VI versus FF/VI, -0·06 (95% CI -0·12 to 0·01; p=0·094) FF/UMEC 62·5 µg/VI versus FF/VI, -0·09 (-0·16 to -0·02, p=0·0084). By contrast with adding UMEC, the effects of higher dose FF on clinic trough FEV1 and annualised moderate and/or severe exacerbation rate were increased in patients with higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exhaled nitric oxide. Occurrence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups (patients with at least one event ranged from 210 [52%] to 258 [63%]), with the most commonly reported adverse events being nasopharyngitis (51 [13%]-63 [15%]), headache (19 [5%]-36 [9%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (13 [3%]-24 [6%]). The incidence of serious adverse events was similar across all groups (range 18 [4%]-25 [6%)). Three deaths occurred, of which one was considered to be related to study drug (pulmonary embolism in a patient in the FF/UMEC/VI 100/31·25/25 µg group). INTERPRETATION: In patients with uncontrolled moderate or severe asthma on ICS/LABA, adding UMEC improved lung function but did not lead to a significant reduction in moderate and/or severe exacerbations. For such patients, single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI is an effective treatment option with a favourable risk-benefit profile. Higher dose FF primarily reduced the rate of exacerbations, particularly in patients with raised biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation. Further confirmatory studies into the differentiating effect of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers on treatment outcomes in asthma are required to build on these exploratory findings and further guide clinical practice. FUNDING: GSK.

Defining Chronic Mucus Hypersecretion Using the CAT in the SPIROMICS Cohort.

Background: Chronic cough and phlegm are frequently reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) symptoms. Prior research classified chronic mucus hypersecretion (CMH) based on the presence of these symptoms for ≥3 months, called chronic bronchitis (CB) if respiratory infection symptoms were present for 1-2 years (Medical Research Council [MRC] definition). We explored whether the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), a simple measure developed for routine clinical use, captures CMH populations and outcomes similarly to MRC and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) definitions. Methods: We identified CMH in the SPIROMICS COPD cohort using (a) MRC definitions, (b) SGRQ questions for cough and phlegm (both as most/several days a week), and (c) CAT cough and phlegm questions. We determined optimal cut-points for CAT items and described exacerbation frequencies for different CMH definitions. Moderate exacerbations required a new prescription for antibiotics/oral corticosteroids or emergency department visit; severe exacerbations required hospitalization. Results were stratified by smoking status. Results: In a population of 1431 participants (57% male; mean FEV1% predicted 61%), 47% and 49% of evaluable participants had SGRQ- or CAT-defined CMH, respectively. A cut-point of ≥2 for cough and phlegm items defined CMH in CAT. Among SGRQ-CMH+ participants, 80% were also defined as CMH+ by the CAT. CMH+ participants were more likely to be current smokers. A higher exacerbation frequency was observed for presence of CMH+ versus CMH- in the year prior to baseline for all CMH definitions; this trend continued across 3 years of follow-up, regardless of smoking status. Conclusion: Items from the CAT identified SGRQ-defined CMH, a frequent COPD trait that correlated with exacerbation frequency. The CAT is a short, simple questionnaire and a potentially valuable tool for telemedicine or real-world trials. CAT-based CMH is a novel approach for identifying clinically important characteristics in COPD that can be ascertained in these settings.

Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy and Health-Related Quality of Life in COPD: The IMPACT Study.

INTRODUCTION: The phase 3 InforMing the PAthway of COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler therapy with fluticasone furoate (FF) 100 µg, umeclidinium (UMEC) 62.5 µg, and vilanterol (VI) 25 µg demonstrated a reduction in the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. This article reports additional evidence of improvements in symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with FF/UMEC/VI compared with either FF/VI or UMEC/VI from the IMPACT study. METHODS: Patient-reported HRQoL assessments and symptom measures included as pre-specified IMPACT end points were the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and Baseline Dyspnea Index (BDI) as the anchor for the Transitional Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score (BDI/TDI) in a subset of patients enrolled at study sites in North America and Europe. Change from baseline was assessed at weeks 4, 28, and 52. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 10,355 patients (TDI population: 5058 patients). Clinically meaningful improvements in SGRQ total score between baseline and week 52 favored FF/UMEC/VI over FF/VI (- 1.8 units, p < 0.001) and UMEC/VI (- 1.8 units, p < 0.001). Similar improvements in the CAT and TDI focal score were also observed with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations, once-daily FF/UMEC/VI, compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, improves patient-perceived HRQoL and symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02164513.

Assessment of the COPD Assessment Test Within U.S. Primary Care.

RATIONALE: Uptake of the COPD Assessment Test (CATTM) is not yet widespread in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) within U.S. primary care and its alignment with other assessments has not been evaluated in U.S. clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To assess the alignment of the CAT with other standard measures of COPD severity and its usability in a U.S. primary care population. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational, longitudinal study of patients with COPD and their primary care physicians. Patients with spirometry-confirmed airflow restriction completed a daily electronic diary (eDiary) over 12 weeks; surveys were also administered at baseline and at 6- and 12-week follow-up. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In the study population (n=178), statistically significant differences (P<0.05) were found across 4 CAT impact score groups where at all time points patients in the Low Impact CAT score group had superior lung function and physical/mental health status than patients in the Medium, High, and Very High Impact groups. Numerical, though lesser, differences were also found across these latter 3 groups. Furthermore, the average total EXAcerbations of COPD Tool (EXACT®) score was significantly worse in patients in the highest CAT score group over the first 7 days. CONCLUSIONS: COPD severity; respiratory symptoms; frequency, severity, and duration of pulmonary exacerbations; and overall physical and mental health status are linked concurrently and prospectively to CAT impact score categories. The stratification of patients according to CAT impact scores, and application of clinical and functional health status information to these categories, enhances the usability of the CAT in practice settings for COPD management.

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.

Preventing clinically important deterioration with single-inhaler triple therapy in COPD.

Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a novel composite end-point (lung function, health status, exacerbations) for assessing disease stability in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We prospectively analysed CID in the FULFIL study. FULFIL (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02345161; randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study) compared 24 weeks of once daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg with twice daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400/12 µg in patients aged ≥40 years with symptomatic advanced COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease group D). A subset of patients received study treatment for up to 52 weeks. Time to first CID event was assessed over 24 and 52 weeks using two approaches for the health status component: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD assessment test. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the risk of a first CID event by 47-52% versus BUD/FOR in the 24- and 52-week populations using both CID definitions (p<0.001). The median time to first CID event was ≥169 days and ≤31 days with FF/UMEC/VI and BUD/FOR, respectively. Only stable patients with no CID at 24 weeks demonstrated sustained clinically important improvements in lung function and health status at 52 weeks versus those who had experienced CID. Once daily, single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the risk of CID versus twice daily BUD/FOR with a five-fold longer period without deterioration.

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 .).