Modeled small airways lung deposition of two fixed-dose triple therapy combinations assessed with in silico functional respiratory imaging.

BACKGROUND: Small airways disease plays a key role in the pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and is a major cause of obstruction; therefore, it is a critical pharmacotherapy target. This study evaluated lung deposition of two inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist single-inhaler triple therapies using in silico functional respiratory imaging (FRI). Deposition was assessed using real-world inhalation profiles simulating everyday use where optimal inhalation may be compromised. METHODS: Three-dimensional airway models were produced from 20 patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Total, central, and regional small airways deposition as a percentage of delivered dose of budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (BGF) 160/7.2/5 µg per actuation and fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UM/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg were evaluated using in silico FRI based on in vitro aerodynamic particle size distributions of each device. Simulations were performed using multiple inhalation profiles of varying durations and flow rates representing patterns suited for a pressurized metered-dose inhaler or dry-powder inhaler (four for BGF, two for FF/UM/VI, with one common profile). For the common profile, deposition for BGF versus FF/UM/VI was compared post-hoc using paired t-tests. RESULTS: Across inhalation profiles, mean total lung deposition was consistently higher with BGF (47.0-54.1%) versus FF/UM/VI (20.8-22.7%) and for each treatment component, with greater deposition for BGF also seen in the central large airways. Mean regional small airways deposition was also greater across inhalation profiles with BGF (16.9-23.6%) versus FF/UM/VI (6.8-8.7%) and for each treatment component. For the common profile, total, central, and regional small airways deposition were significantly greater for BGF versus FF/UM/VI (nominal p < 0.001), overall and for treatment components; notably, regional small airways deposition of the ICS components was approximately five-fold greater with budesonide versus fluticasone furoate (16.1% vs. 3.3%). CONCLUSIONS: BGF was associated with greater total, central, and small airways deposition for all components versus FF/UM/VI. Importantly, using an identical inhalation profile, there was an approximately five-fold difference in small airways deposition for the ICS components, with only a small percentage of the ICS from FF/UM/VI reaching the small airways. Further research is needed to understand if the enhanced delivery of BGF translates to clinical benefits.

Mortality risk reduction with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate versus fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol in COPD: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ETHOS and IMPACT.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of death worldwide. While two approved fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) triple therapies reduce all-cause mortality (ACM) versus dual LAMA/LABA therapy in patients with COPD, head-to-head studies have not compared the effects of these therapies on ACM. We compared ACM in adults with moderate-to-very severe COPD receiving budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) in ETHOS versus fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) in IMPACT using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified two studies (ETHOS [NCT02465567]; IMPACT [NCT02164513]) of ≥52 weeks reporting ACM as an efficacy endpoint in patients receiving triple therapy. As ETHOS and IMPACT lack a common comparator, an unanchored MAIC compared ACM between licensed doses of BGF (320/18/9.6 µg) from ETHOS and FF/UMEC/VI (100/62.5/25 µg) from IMPACT in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Using on- and off-treatment data from the final retrieved datasets of the intention-to-treat populations, BGF data were adjusted according to aggregate FF/UMEC/VI data using 11 baseline covariates; a supplementary unadjusted indirect treatment comparison was also conducted. P-values for these post-hoc analyses are not adjusted for Type I error. RESULTS: ACM over 52 weeks was statistically significantly reduced by 39% for BGF versus FF/UMEC/VI in the MAIC (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.38, 0.95], p = 0.030) and unadjusted analysis (HR [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.41, 0.92], p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: In this MAIC, which adjusted for population heterogeneity between ETHOS and IMPACT, ACM was significantly reduced with BGF versus FF/UMEC/VI in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (known as COPD) is a leading cause of death worldwide, being responsible for over 3 million deaths in 2019. People living with COPD are more likely to die. Importantly, a sudden worsening of COPD symptoms (known as an exacerbation) is associated with a higher chance of death from heart-related and breathing-related problems. Therefore, reducing risk of death is an important treatment goal for COPD. Of the three medications approved for treating COPD that combine three drugs in a single-inhaler device, there are two­referred to generically as budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) and fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI)­that can reduce the risk of death in people living with COPD compared with treatments that combine two drugs. However, no studies have directly compared the risk of death in people living with COPD treated with these medicines. We compared the risk of death in people living with moderate-to-very severe COPD who received either BGF during a clinical trial called ETHOS or FF/UMEC/VI during a clinical trial called IMPACT. To make this comparison, we used a method called "matching-adjusted indirect comparison", which used specific features (such as sex, breathing difficulty, and whether they were current smokers) to match patients from the two studies to ensure similar groups were examined. Our analysis showed a 39% decrease in the chance of death in patients who received BGF compared with patients who received FF/UMEC/VI. This finding may be important for doctors to improve patient health and reduce the risk of death in people living with COPD.

Healthcare Resource Utilization, Cost and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Diagnosed with COPD Initiating Tiotropium Bromide/Olodaterol versus Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Based on Exacerbation History.

Background: ATS and GOLD guidelines recommend treating low-exacerbation risk COPD patients with dual (LAMA/LABA) agents and reserving triple therapy (TT; LAMA/LABA and inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]) for severe cases with higher-exacerbation risk. However, TT often is prescribed across the COPD spectrum. This study compared COPD exacerbations, pneumonia diagnosis, healthcare resource utilization, and costs for patients initiating tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) and a TT, fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI), stratified by exacerbation history. Methods: COPD patients who initiated TIO/OLO or FF/UMEC/VI between 06/01/2015-11/30/2019 (index date=first pharmacy fill-date with ≥30 consecutive treatment days) were identified from the Optum Research Database. Patients were ≥40 years old and continuously enrolled for 12 months during the baseline period and ≥30 days during follow-up. Patients were stratified into GOLD A/B (0-1 baseline non-hospitalized exacerbation), No exacerbation (subset of GOLD A/B), and GOLD C/D (≥2 non-hospitalized and/or ≥1 hospitalized baseline exacerbation). Baseline characteristics were balanced with propensity score matching (1:1). Adjusted risks of exacerbation, pneumonia diagnosis, and COPD and/or pneumonia-related utilization and costs were evaluated. Results: Adjusted exacerbation risk was similar in GOLD A/B and No exacerbation subgroups, and lower in GOLD C/D for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators (hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.98, p=0.020). Adjusted pneumonia risk was similar between cohorts across the GOLD subgroups. Adjusted COPD and/or pneumonia-related population annualized pharmacy costs were significantly higher for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators across subgroups, p<0.001. Adjusted COPD and/or pneumonia-related population annualized total healthcare costs were significantly higher for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators in the GOLD A/B and No exacerbation, subgroups, p<0.001 (cost ratio [95% CI]: 1.25 [1.13, 1.38] and 1.21 [1.09, 1.36], respectively), but similar in the GOLD C/D subgroup. Conclusion: These real-world results support ATS and GOLD recommendations for treating low-exacerbation risk COPD patients with dual bronchodilators and TT for more severe, higher-exacerbation risk COPD patients.

Therapeutic Response to Single-Inhaler Triple Therapies in Moderate-to-Severe COPD.

BACKGROUND: COPD is characterized by progressive and irreversible air flow limitations. Single-inhaler therapies (SITTs) incorporating an inhaled corticosteroid, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and a long-acting ß2-agonist have been shown to effectively alleviate symptoms and improve lung function. Fluticasone-furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (F/U/V) and budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol (B/G/F) are available as SITT in Japan. However, the clinical differences between these 2 combinations and the predictors of their proper use have not been established. This study aimed to identify the subject characteristics that could predict the effectiveness of inhaler therapy. METHODS: We assessed the pulmonary function test results of subjects with COPD before and one month after using F/U/V and B/G/F as SITT. Subjects with a difference of 100 mL or more in the FEV1 after treatment with pre-SITT were extracted and divided into the F/U/V effect and no-effect group and B/G/F effect and no-effect group to examine the factors associated with positive outcomes with each inhaler. RESULTS: F/U/V and B/G/F significantly improved the inspiratory capacity (IC), %IC, FVC, and %FEV1 when compared to pre-intervention values (P < .001, P = .001, P = .007, P = .009, respectively, for F/U/V; and P = .006, P = .008, P = .038, P = .005, respectively, for B/G/F). Factors associated with FEV1 improvement in F/U/V included lower %IC (odds ratio 0.97 [95% CI 0.94-0.99], P = .03) and a higher modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score (2.36 [1.27-4.70], P < .01). In addition, a higher %IC (1.03 [1.00-1.06], P = .02) and lower mMRC dyspnea score (0.55 [0.28-0.99], P = .041) were predictors for the effectiveness of B/G/F. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that SITT significantly improved the IC, %IC, FVC, and %FEV1 when compared to pre-intervention and that F/U/V was more effective in subjects with severe symptoms, whereas B/G/F was more effective in subjects with mild symptoms.

Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Triple Therapy Compared with Other Therapies for the Treatment of COPD: A Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting ß2-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) investigated the comparative efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus any triple (ICS/LABA/LAMA) combinations and dual therapies in patients with COPD. METHODS: This NMA was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR), which identified RCTs in adults aged at least 40 years with COPD. The RCTs compared different ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations or an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination with any dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA). Outcomes of interest included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), annualized rate of combined moderate and severe exacerbations, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index focal score, and rescue medication use (RMU). Analyses were conducted at 24 weeks (primary endpoint), and 12 and 52 weeks (if feasible). RESULTS: The NMA was informed by five trials reporting FEV1 at 24 weeks. FF/UMEC/VI was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV1 (based on change from baseline) than all triple comparators in the network apart from UMEC + FF/VI. The NMA was informed by 17 trials reporting moderate or severe exacerbation endpoints. FF/UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus single-inhaler budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR). At 24 weeks, the NMA was informed by five trials. FF/UMEC/VI showed statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus UMEC + FF/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated improvements in mean SGRQ score versus other triple therapy comparators at 24 weeks, and a significant reduction in RMU compared with BUD/GLY/FOR (160/18/9.6). CONCLUSION: The findings of this NMA suggest favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI. Further analysis is required as additional evidence becomes available.

Once-Daily Triple Therapy in Patients with COPD: Patient-Reported Symptoms and Quality of Life.

INTRODUCTION: Directly recorded patient experience of symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) can complement lung function and exacerbation rate data in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical studies. The FULFIL study recorded daily symptoms and activity limitation together with additional patient-reported outcomes of dyspnea and HRQoL, as part of the prespecified analyses. FULFIL co-primary endpoint data have been previously reported. METHODS: FULFIL was a phase III, 24-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study comparing once-daily single inhaler triple therapy [fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI)] 100 µg/62.5 µg/25 µg with twice-daily inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist therapy [budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR)] 400 µg/12 µg in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. A subset participated for 52 weeks. Patient-reported assessments were: Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD™ (E-RS: COPD), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) for COPD, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), baseline and transitional dyspnea indices (TDI) and daily and global anchor questions for activity limitation. RESULTS: FF/UMEC/VI showed greater reductions from baseline in 4-weekly mean E-RS: COPD total and all subscale scores compared with BUD/FOR; differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05) at each time period. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated greater improvements from baseline at weeks 4 and 24 in SGRQ domain scores and TDI focal score compared with BUD/FOR. At weeks 4 and 24, improvements greater than the minimal clinically important difference from baseline were observed in CAT score with FF/UMEC/VI, but not BUD/FOR; differences were statistically significant (P ≤ 0.003). CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate sustained daily symptom and HRQoL benefits of FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR. The inclusion of the CAT may provide data that are readily generalizable to everyday clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02345161. FUNDING: GSK.

Single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone furoate/vilanterol plus umeclidinium using two inhalers for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg has been shown to improve lung function and health status, and reduce exacerbations, versus budesonide/formoterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated the non-inferiority of single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI + UMEC using two inhalers. METHODS: Eligible patients with COPD (aged ≥40 years; ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the 12 months before screening) were randomized (1:1; stratified by the number of long-acting bronchodilators [0, 1 or 2] per day during run-in) to receive 24-week FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg and placebo or FF/VI 100/25 µg + UMEC 62.5 µg; all treatments/placebo were delivered using the ELLIPTA inhaler once-daily in the morning. Primary endpoint: change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The non-inferiority margin for the lower 95% confidence limit was set at - 50 mL. RESULTS: A total of 1055 patients (844 [80%] of whom were enrolled on combination maintenance therapy) were randomized to receive FF/UMEC/VI (n = 527) or FF/VI + UMEC (n = 528). Mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 113 mL (95% CI 91, 135) for FF/UMEC/VI and 95 mL (95% CI 72, 117) for FF/VI + UMEC; the between-treatment difference of 18 mL (95% CI -13, 50) confirmed FF/UMEC/VI's was considered non-inferior to FF/VI + UMEC. At Week 24, the proportion of responders based on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire Total score was 50% (FF/UMEC/VI) and 51% (FF/VI + UMEC); the proportion of responders based on the Transitional Dyspnea Index focal score was similar (56% both groups). A similar proportion of patients experienced a moderate/severe exacerbation in the FF/UMEC/VI (24%) and FF/VI + UMEC (27%) groups; the hazard ratio for time to first moderate/severe exacerbation with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI + UMEC was 0.87 (95% CI 0.68, 1.12). The incidence of adverse events was comparable in both groups (48%); the incidence of serious adverse events was 10% (FF/UMEC/VI) and 11% (FF/VI + UMEC). CONCLUSIONS: Single-inhaler triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) is non-inferior to two inhalers (FF/VI + UMEC) on trough FEV1 change from baseline at 24 weeks. Results were similar on all other measures of efficacy, health-related quality of life, and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK study CTT200812; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02729051 (submitted 31 March 2016).

Once-Daily Triple Therapy in Patients with Advanced COPD: Healthcare Resource Utilization Data and Associated Costs from the FULFIL Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is associated with a high healthcare resource and cost burden. Healthcare resource utilization was analyzed in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at risk of exacerbations in the FULFIL study. Patients received either once-daily, single inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol) 100 µg/62.5 µg/25 µg or twice-daily dual inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonist therapy (budesonide/formoterol) 400 µg/12 µg. METHODS: FULFIL was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study. Unscheduled contacts with healthcare providers were recorded by patients in a daily electronic diary; the costs of healthcare resource utilization were calculated post hoc using UK reference costs. RESULTS: Over 24 weeks, slightly fewer patients who received fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (169/911; 18.6%) required contacts with healthcare providers compared with budesonide/formoterol (180/899; 20.0%). Over 52 weeks in an extension population, fewer patients who received fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol required unscheduled contacts with healthcare providers compared with budesonide/formoterol (25.2% vs. 32.7%). Non-drug costs per treated patient per year were lower in the fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol group than the budesonide/formoterol group over 24 and 52 weeks (£653.80 vs. £763.32 and £749.22 vs. £988.03, respectively), with the total annualized cost over 24 weeks being slightly greater for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol than budesonide/formoterol (£1,289.35 vs. £1,267.45). CONCLUSIONS: This healthcare resource utilization evidence suggests that, in a clinical trial setting over a 24- or 52-week timeframe, non-drug costs associated with management of a single inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol are lower compared with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02345161. FUNDING: GSK.