A comparison of the efficacy and safety of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol with twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in moderate to very severe COPD.

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol trifenatate (FF/VI) is a once-daily inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination in development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment. We compared the efficacy and safety of FF/VI versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) twice daily over 12 weeks. Moderate to very severe COPD patients received FF/VI 100/25 µg once daily in the morning (n=266) or FP/SAL 500/50 µg twice daily (n=262). The primary end-point was a change from baseline in 0-24 h weighted mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s (wmFEV1) at 12 weeks. Additional end-points included time to 100 mL improvement from baseline on day 1 and a change from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Safety was also assessed. wmFEV1 (mean 130 mL) was greater and time to 100 mL improvement shorter (median 16 min) with FF/VI than FP/SAL (weighted mean 108 mL, median 28 min). Health status (SGRQ total score) improved in both groups (FF/VI -4.3 units, FP/SAL -3.0 units). Differences between treatments were not statistically significant. Six patients in the FF/VI (2%) and three in the FP/SAL (1%) arm experienced serious adverse events, none of which were considered to be drug related. Improvements in lung function and health status were not significantly different between FF/VI 100/25 µg once daily and FP/SAL 500/50 µg twice daily; there was no apparent difference between the safety profiles of either therapy.

Accuracy of death certificates in COPD: analysis from the TORCH trial.

The Towards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) trial was an international clinical trial of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients where cause of death was assigned by an independent committee. Comparison of death certificate data and adjudicated cause of death allows a unique opportunity to determine death certificate accuracy and frequency of COPD listing on death certificates of COPD patients. In this analysis, the authors determine the concordance between adjudicated cause of death and primary and secondary cause of death from death certificates. In 317 (80%) of informative deaths, the primary or secondary cause of death from certificates agreed with adjudicated cause of death. Only 229 (58%) of death certificates in these COPD patients listed COPD on the certificate. COPD was not listed on the death certificate in 21% of deaths adjudicated to be caused by COPD exacerbation. Compared with pulmonary causes, the listing of COPD on certificates occurred with less frequency than cardiovascular, cancer and other categories of death. The combined primary and secondary listing on death certificates has good concordance with actual cause of death. COPD is under-reported on death certificates, and this under-reporting is more frequent when the primary cause of death is not pulmonary.

ELLIPTA Versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler in COPD: A Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Study in a Clinical Trial Setting.

BACKGROUND: Inhaler errors among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can reduce treatment efficacy. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, crossover study evaluated correct use of ELLIPTA versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler. Participants with COPD attended at least 3 study visits (Day 1 [Visit 1], Day 28 [Visit 2], and Day 56 [Visit 3]). Inhalers contained placebo; usual maintenance medication was continued. Participants were randomized to an inhaler sequence (ELLIPTA then DISKUS plus HandiHaler, or the reverse) and preference questionnaire at Visit 1. Participants read the instructions for use in the approved prescribing information for their inhaler(s) and correct use was assessed at Visit 1 (verbal guidance provided if required). Correct use was reassessed at Visit 2, and with the next inhaler(s) at Visit 3. Primary endpoint was the proportion of participants demonstrating correct use (0 errors) with the assigned inhaler(s) after 28 days. RESULTS: A greater proportion of study participants (n = 217) correctly used ELLIPTA (96%) versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler (87%) after 28 days. The odds of demonstrating correct use with ELLIPTA were 6.88 times that of DISKUS plus HandiHaler (p < 0.001). Overall, > 99% of participants made 0 critical errors (errors leading to no or significantly reduced medication inhaled) with ELLIPTA versus 89% with DISKUS plus HandiHaler after 28 days. ELLIPTA was the patient-preferred option versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler or no preference (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of COPD maintenance therapy via ELLIPTA demonstrates higher correct use rates and lower critical error rates compared with DISKUS plus HandiHaler.

Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg and tiotropium 18 mcg in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results of a 24-week, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of inhaled long-acting bronchodilator therapies such as muscarinic antagonists and ß2-agonists may be more effective than monotherapy in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This study was a 24-week, Phase III, multicenter, randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group study of the once-daily, inhaled, fixed-dose combination of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium bromide and the long-acting ß2-agonist vilanterol (UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg) versus tiotropium (TIO, 18 mcg). The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Day 169. The secondary endpoint was weighted mean FEV1 over 0­6 h post-dose at Day 168. For key endpoints, a step-down closed testing hierarchy was applied to account for multiplicity. Other efficacy and safety endpoints were assessed. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 at Day 169 (0.112 L, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.081, 0.144; p < 0.001) and weighted mean FEV1 over 0­6 h post-dose at Day 168 (0.105 L, 95% CI: 0.071, 0.140; p < 0.001) were observed for UMEC/VI versus TIO. In addition UMEC/VI improved health-related quality of life, and reduced requirement for the use of rescue medication compared with TIO. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: UMEC/VI was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in lung function versus TIO. UMEC/VI was well tolerated. UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg could provide an effective new treatment option for patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Effect of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol on 24-hour pulmonary function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized, three-way, incomplete block, crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Available inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß(2)-agonist combinations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) require twice-daily administration. The combination of fluticasone furoate (FF) and vilanterol (VI) FF/VI is being developed in a novel dry powder inhaler for the treatment of COPD and asthma with the potential for once-daily dosing. Results from Phase II studies have shown clinically and statistically significant improvements over placebo in trough (24-hour postdose) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) after once-daily dosing with FF or VI (VI concurrently with an inhaled corticosteroid) in asthma and VI in COPD. OBJECTIVES: This Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was designed based on guidance from drug regulators with the goal of evaluating the 24-hour spirometric effect of once-daily FF/VI in patients with COPD. METHODS: Patients (aged ≥40 years) who completed a 2-week placebo run-in period were randomized to 1 of 18 three-course sequences of placebo and 2 of 3 dose combinations of FF/VI (50/25 µg, 100/25 µg, and 200/25 µg), dosed once daily in the morning. Each 28-day treatment period was separated by a 2-week, single-blind, placebo washout period. The primary end point was time-adjusted (weighted mean) 0 to 24-hour FEV(1) (AUC) at the end of each 28-day treatment period (period days 28-29). Safety profile assessments included incidence of adverse events (AEs) (defined according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities), 12-lead ECG outputs, vital signs (pulse rate, diastolic and systolic blood pressure) and clinical laboratory assessments (including fasting serum glucose and potassium) and 24-hour serum cortisol. The pharmacokinetics of FF and VI were assessed at the end of each 28-day treatment period with FF/VI. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were screened; 54 completed run-in and were randomized to double-blind treatment. The mean patient age was 57.9 years, and 46% were male. The majority of patients were current smokers (83%) and were receiving short-acting ß(2)-agonists within the 3 months before screening (63%). All 3 strengths of once-daily FF/VI demonstrated significantly higher 0 to 24-hour (period days 28-29) change from period baseline weighted mean FEV(1) than placebo: adjusted mean improvements from placebo in FEV(1) for FF/VI were 220 to 236 mL (all, P < 0.001). Improvements versus placebo in change from period baseline serial FEV(1) measures were observed at each time-point and with each strength of FF/VI over the 0 to 25-hour period (period days 28-29), indicating sustained bronchodilation. The overall incidence of on-treatment AEs was low (10%-12% with FF/VI; 4% with placebo); 2 serious AEs were reported during washout periods (1 AE after FF/VI 50/25 µg and 1 AE after placebo) but neither was considered treatment related. No serious AEs were reported during the treatment periods or during the follow-up period. No clinically or statistically significant differences from placebo were reported for serum glucose or potassium. No significant effects on vital signs, ECG, or 24-hour serial serum cortisol were reported. The extent of systemic exposure to FF and VI at steady state was low for all strengths of FF/VI. CONCLUSIONS: FF/VI inhaled once daily in the morning for 28 days produced significant improvements in pulmonary function with a prolonged (>24 hours') duration of action in this population of patients with COPD. The combination was well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01072149.

Ascertainment of cause-specific mortality in COPD: operations of the TORCH Clinical Endpoint Committee.

BACKGROUND: TORCH (Towards a Revolution in COPD Health) is an international multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial of inhaled fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination treatment and its monotherapy components for maintenance treatment of moderately to severely impaired patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The primary outcome is all-cause mortality. Cause-specific mortality and deaths related to COPD are additional outcome measures, but systematic methods for ascertainment of these outcomes have not previously been described. METHODS: A Clinical Endpoint Committee (CEC) was tasked with categorising the cause of death and the relationship of deaths to COPD in a systematic, unbiased and independent manner. The key elements of the operation of the committee were the use of predefined principles of operation and definitions of cause of death and COPD-relatedness; the independent review of cases by all members with development of a consensus opinion; and a substantial infrastructure to collect medical information. RESULTS: 911 deaths were reviewed and consensus was reached in all. Cause-specific mortality was: cardiovascular 27%, respiratory 35%, cancer 21%, other 10% and unknown 8%. 40% of deaths were definitely or probably related to COPD. Adjudications were identical in 83% of blindly re-adjudicated cases (kappa = 0.80). COPD-relatedness was reproduced 84% of the time (kappa = 0.73). The CEC adjudication was equivalent to the primary cause of death recorded by the site investigator in 52% of cases. CONCLUSION: A CEC can provide standardised, reliable and informative adjudication of COPD mortality that provides information which frequently differs from data collected from assessment by site investigators.