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

BACKGROUND: Smoking is the major risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In IMPACT, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function and health status versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in COPD patients. This post hoc analysis investigated trial outcomes by smoking status. METHODS: IMPACT was a double-blind, 52-week trial. Patients aged ≥40 years with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg. Endpoints assessed by smoking status at screening included rate and risk of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score at Week 52. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 10,355 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 3,587 (35%) were current smokers. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in current (rate ratio 0.85 [95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.95]; P = 0.003 and 0.86 [0.76-0.98]; P = 0.021) and former smokers (0.85 [0.78-0.91]; P < 0.001 and 0.70 [0.64-0.77]; P < 0.001). FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in former smokers, and versus FF/VI in current smokers. Similar trends were seen for lung function and health status. Former smokers receiving inhaled corticosteroid-containing therapy had higher pneumonia incidence than current smokers. CONCLUSIONS: FF/UMEC/VI improved clinical outcomes versus dual therapy regardless of smoking status. Benefits of FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI were greatest in former smokers, potentially due to relative corticosteroid resistance in current smokers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513).

Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Current and Former Smokers with COPD: A Prespecified Analysis of The EMAX Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking may reduce the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but its impact on bronchodilator efficacy is unclear. This analysis of the EMAX trial explored efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in current or former smokers with COPD. METHODS: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms, health status, exacerbations, clinically important deterioration, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving ICS. Current and former smoker subgroups were defined by smoking status at screening. RESULTS: The analysis included 1203 (50%) current smokers and 1221 (50%) former smokers. Both subgroups demonstrated greater improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 24 (primary endpoint) with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (least squares [LS] mean difference, mL [95% CI]; current: 84 [50, 117]; former: 49 [18, 80]) and salmeterol (current: 165 [132, 198]; former: 117 [86, 148]) and larger reductions in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (LS mean difference [95% CI]; current: - 0.42 [- 0.63, - 0.20]; former: - 0.25 - 0.44, - 0.05]) and salmeterol (current: - 0.28 [- 0.49, - 0.06]; former: - 0.29 [- 0.49, - 0.09]). Umeclidinium/vilanterol increased the odds (odds ratio [95% CI]) of clinically significant improvement at week 24 in Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.16, 2.06]; former: 1.32 [0.99, 1.75]) and salmeterol (current: 1.37 (1.03, 1.82]; former: 1.60 [1.20, 2.13]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.13, 2.09]; former: 1.50 [1.11, 2.04]) and salmeterol (current: 1.53 [1.13, 2.08]; former: 1.53 [1.12, 2.08]). All treatments were well tolerated in both subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In current and former smokers, umeclidinium/vilanterol provided greater improvements in lung function and symptoms versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, supporting consideration of dual-bronchodilator therapy in symptomatic patients with COPD regardless of their smoking status.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often require daily medication to control their COPD. Many patients with COPD are smokers, and smoking is one of the most common causes of COPD. This means that it is important to find out whether COPD medications are effective in both smokers and nonsmokers. We analyzed data from a clinical trial (EMAX) that investigated the use of a combination of two bronchodilators, which are inhaled medications that help to open the airways. We compared umeclidinium/vilanterol, a dual-bronchodilator combination, with a single bronchodilator (either umeclidinium or salmeterol) over 6 months. We found that both current and former smokers who were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol had larger improvements in lung function than those receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. Current or former smokers who were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol used their reliever inhaler less than those treated with umeclidinium or salmeterol. Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol were generally less likely to experience disease worsening compared with umeclidinium or salmeterol if they were former smokers, or compared with salmeterol if they were current smokers. Our findings suggest that umeclidinium/vilanterol may be more effective than a single bronchodilator for daily treatment of patients with COPD who are current or former smokers. Physicians should consider prescribing a combination of two bronchodilators to patients who have symptoms, whether or not they currently smoke, as well as encouraging smoking cessation for all patients.

24-Hour Serial Spirometric Assessment of Once-Daily Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Twice-Daily Budesonide/Formoterol in Patients with COPD: Analysis of the FULFIL Study.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have utilized 24-h serial spirometry to compare the effects of inhaled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapies on lung function. The FULFIL study previously reported significant lung function improvements with once-daily single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus twice-daily single-inhaler budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. METHODS: This prespecified analysis evaluated 24-h serial spirometry data from a subgroup of 406 patients in FULFIL. BUD/FOR twice-daily dosing was maintained during 24-h spirometry. A post hoc analysis evaluated serial forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at day 1 and week 24 by disease severity at screening (FEV1 < 50% predicted and no moderate or severe exacerbation in prior year, FEV1 < 50% predicted and ≥ 1 moderate or severe exacerbation in prior year, and FEV1 ≥ 50% and < 80% predicted and ≥ 2 moderate or ≥ 1 severe exacerbations in prior year). RESULTS: Odds of achieving a ≥ 100-mL increase from baseline in FEV1 within the first 6 h post dose on day 1 were significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI than BUD/FOR [odds ratio 2.79 (95% confidence interval 1.56-4.98); p < 0.001]. FF/UMEC/VI led to greater improvements in weighted mean FEV1 over 0-6, 0-12, 0-24, and 12-24 h on day 1 and at week 24, with the greatest between-group differences at week 24 (range 196-210 mL; all p < 0.001). Significant between-treatment differences in FEV1 and forced vital capacity (FVC) in favor of FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR were seen at all time points at week 24 (FEV1 range 156-231 mL, all p < 0.001; FVC range 139-309 mL, all p ≤ 0.002). Serial FEV1 results were consistent irrespective of disease severity at screening. CONCLUSION: These findings further demonstrate sustained lung function benefits with once-daily FF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations across a range of disease severities.

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.

Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium Bromide/Vilanterol in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Population pharmacokinetic methods were used to characterize the pharmacokinetics of fluticasone furoate (FF), umeclidinium (UMEC), and vilanterol (VI) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) when administered as a fixed-dose combination via a single closed inhaler. METHODS: Plasma concentration data from three studies were analyzed using non-linear mixed-effects modeling in NONMEM®. RESULTS: The pooled dataset consisted of 2948, 2589, and 3331 FF, UMEC, and VI observations from 714, 622, and 817 patients with COPD, respectively. There were 41%, 13%, and 21% of observations below the quantification limit for FF, UMEC, and VI, respectively. The pharmacokinetics of FF, UMEC, and VI were all adequately described by a two-compartment model with first-order absorption. The following covariates were statistically significant, but none were considered to be clinically relevant. For FF, Japanese heritage and FF/VI treatment on apparent inhaled clearance (CL/F) with FF CL/F 35% lower in patients of Japanese heritage across all treatments and FF CL/F 42% higher in patients with COPD following FF/VI administration. This is in line with the product label. For UMEC, weight, age, and smoking status on CL/F and weight on apparent volume of distribution (V2/F) with every 10% increase in age from 60 years of age leading to approximately a 6% decrease in UMEC CL/F and every 10% increase in weight from 70 kg leading to approximately a 6% increase in UMEC CL/F and approximately an 8% increase in UMEC V2/F. For a subject with COPD who smoked, UMEC CL/F was 28% higher. For VI, weight on CL/F and smoking status on V2/F with an approximately 4% increase in VI CL/F for every 10% increase in weight from 70 kg, and for a subject with COPD who smoked, VI V2/F was 46% higher. The majority of these covariates have been previously identified in historical analyses. None of these effects were clinically relevant in terms of systemic exposures and do not warrant dose adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: All FF, UMEC, and VI plasma concentrations were well interspersed with historical data and were all adequately described by a two-compartment model with first-order absorption. There were no clinically relevant differences in FF, UMEC, or VI systemic exposures when administered as FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI + UMEC, or the dual combinations FF/VI and/or UMEC/VI.

Blood eosinophils and treatment response with triple and dual combination therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: analysis of the IMPACT trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have highlighted a relationship between reduction in rate of exacerbations with therapies containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and baseline blood eosinophil count in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The IMPACT trial showed that once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy significantly reduced exacerbations versus dual therapies. Blood eosinophil counts and smoking status could be important modifiers of treatment response to ICS. We aimed to model these relationships and their interactions, including outcomes other than exacerbations. METHODS: IMPACT was a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, 52-week global study comparing once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate-umeclidinium-vilanterol) with dual inhaled therapy (fluticasone furoate-vilanterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol). Eligible patients had moderate-to-very-severe COPD and at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous year. We used fractional polynomials to model continuous blood eosinophil counts. We used negative binomial regression for numbers of moderate and severe exacerbations, severe exacerbations, and pneumonia. We modelled differences at week 52 in trough FEV1, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and Transition Dyspnoea Index using repeated measurements mixed effect models. IMPACT was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02164513. FINDINGS: The magnitude of benefit of regimens containing ICS (fluticasone furoate-umeclidinium-vilanterol n=4151 and fluticasone furoate-vilanterol n=4134) in reducing rates of moderate and severe exacerbations increased in proportion with blood eosinophil count, compared with a non-ICS dual long-acting bronchodilator (umeclidinium-vilanterol n=2070). The moderate and severe exacerbation rate ratio for triple therapy versus umeclidinium-vilanterol was 0·88 (95% CI 0·74 to 1·04) at blood eosinophil count less than 90 cells per µL and 0·56 (0·47 to 0·66) at counts of 310 cells per µL or more; the corresponding rate ratio for fluticasone furoate-vilanterol versus umeclidinium-vilanterol was 1·09 (0·91 to 1·29) and 0·56 (0·47 to 0·66), respectively. Similar results were observed for FEV1, Transition Dyspnoea Index, and SGRQ total score; however, the relationship with FEV1 was less marked. At blood eosinophil counts less than 90 cells per µL and at counts of 310 cells per µL or more, the triple therapy versus umeclidinium-vilanterol treatment difference was 40 mL (95% CI 10 to 70) and 60 mL (20 to 100) for trough FEV1, -0·01 (-0·68 to 0·66) and 0·30 (-0·37 to 0·97) for Transition Dyspnoea Index score, and -0·01 (-1·81 to 1·78) and -2·78 (-4·64 to -0·92) for SGRQ total score, respectively. Smoking status modified the relationship between observed efficacy and blood eosinophil count for moderate or severe exacerbations, Transition Dyspnoea Index, and FEV1, with former smokers being more corticosteroid responsive at any eosinophil count than current smokers. INTERPRETATION: This analysis of the IMPACT trial shows that assessment of blood eosinophil count and smoking status has the potential to optimise ICS use in clinical practice in patients with COPD and a history of exacerbations. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Follow-up interviews from The Salford Lung Study (COPD) and analyses per treatment and exacerbations.

The Salford Lung Study in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (SLS COPD) was a 12-month, Phase III, open-label, randomised study comparing the effectiveness and safety of initiating once-daily fluticasone furoate 100 µg/vilanterol 25 µg (FF/VI) with continuing usual care (UC). Follow-up interviews were conducted among a subset of 400 patients who completed SLS COPD to further understand patients' experiences with treatment outcomes and the impact of COPD, and potential risk factors associated with higher rates of exacerbations during SLS COPD. Another objective was to explore how such patient-centred outcomes differed by randomised treatment. Patients' perceived control over COPD and effects on quality of life (QoL) were similar between treatment groups at the time of the follow-up interview, but more patients in the FF/VI group compared with UC reported perceived improvements in COPD control and QoL during the study. Of patients who experienced ≥2 exacerbations during SLS COPD, a greater percentage were women, were unemployed or homemakers, or were on long-term sick leave. Having ≥2 exacerbations also appeared to be associated with smoking, seeing a hospital specialist, a feeling of having no/little control over COPD, perceived worsening of feelings of control and reduced overall QoL since the start of the study, being aware of impending exacerbation occurrence and a more severe last exacerbation. Initiation of FF/VI was associated with a greater perceived improvement in patients' control of their COPD and QoL throughout SLS COPD than continuation of UC. Suggestions that smoking status and feelings of control are potentially related to exacerbation require further investigation.

Assessment of Adherence and Asthma Medication Ratio for a Once-Daily and Twice-Daily Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting ß-Agonist for Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Although efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) and budesonide/formoterol (BUD/F) have been demonstrated in clinical studies, real-world comparisons of utilization have not been performed. OBJECTIVE: To compare similar patients with asthma initiating FF/VI or BUD/F on measures of adherence, persistence, and the asthma medication ratio (AMR). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D enrollees initiating FF/VI or BUD/F for asthma. Adult patients (≥18 years) with at least 15-month (12-month preindex and 3-month postindex) continuous enrollment and 1 or more asthma diagnosis code were eligible for the study. Patients with a history of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß-agonist and other respiratory disorders (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, acute respiratory failure) in the baseline period were excluded. Propensity-score matching was used to balance cohorts on baseline characteristics. Logistic regression and Cox-proportional hazard models were used to assess differences. RESULTS: A total of 9951 patients met all criteria. After propensity-score matching, 1725 patients were matched in each cohort. Subjects who initiated FF/VI had a significantly higher mean proportion of days covered (P < .001), had 86% greater odds of having a proportion of days covered value of greater than or equal to 0.80 (adjusted odds ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.51-2.30), 26% lower risk of discontinuation (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.79), and 36% greater odds of an AMR of greater than or equal to 0.50 (adjusted odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.23-1.50) compared with BUD/F. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence and treatment persistence were low in both cohorts; however, patients initiating once-daily FF/VI were more likely to be adherent, have an AMR of greater than or equal to 0.5, and were less likely to discontinue therapy compared with patients initiating twice-daily BUD/F (GlaxoSmithKline Study HO1617302/206482).

Once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in patients with asthma well controlled on ICS/LABA.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 µg (FF/VI) to twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 µg (FP/SAL) in adults/adolescents with asthma well controlled on inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2 agonist (ICS/LABA). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, 24-week study (NCT02301975/GSK study 201378). Patients whose asthma met study-defined criteria for control were randomized 1:1:1 to receive FF/VI, FP/SAL or twice-daily FP 250 µg for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in evening trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). Secondary endpoints included rescue-/symptom-free 24-hour periods. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat (ITT) population included 1504 randomized and treated patients (504 FF/VI; 501 FP/SAL; 499 FP); mean age 43.5 years, 64% female. FF/VI demonstrated non-inferiority (using a margin of -100 mL) to FP/SAL for evening trough FEV1 at Week 24 (ITT: 19 mL [95% confidence interval (CI) -11 to 49]; per protocol population [N = 1336]: 6 mL [95% CI -27 to 40]). Improvement in evening trough FEV1 at Week 24 for both FF/VI (123 mL; p < 0.001) and FP/SAL (104 mL; p < 0.001) was greater than FP. FF/VI increased rescue-/symptom-free 24-hour periods by 1.2%/1.2% compared with FP/SAL. All treatments were well tolerated. On-treatment adverse event (AE) rates were 43% to 45% across arms; there were no drug-related serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: FF/VI was non-inferior to FP/SAL for evening trough FEV1 at 24 weeks. These data suggest that patients well controlled on FP/SAL could step across to FF/VI without loss of control.

Comparative Efficacy of Once-Daily Umeclidinium/Vilanterol and Tiotropium/Olodaterol Therapy in Symptomatic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Study.

INTRODUCTION: We report the results of the first direct comparison of the once-daily fixed-dose long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) combinations umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) and tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) in patients with COPD. METHODS: This was a randomized, two-period crossover open-label study in symptomatic patients with COPD [age 40 years or older, postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of 70% or less and 50% or more of predicted normal values, and modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale score of 2 or greater] not receiving inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Patients were randomized to receive UMEC/VI (62.5/25 µg once daily) via a multidose dry powder inhaler (ELLIPTA) followed by TIO/OLO (5/5 µg once daily) via a soft mist inhaler (Respimat), each for 8 weeks with an interim 3-week washout or vice versa. The primary end point was the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 8 with a noninferiority margin of - 50 mL in the per-protocol (PP) population. The incidence of adverse events was also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 236 patients (mean age 64.4 years, 60% male) were included in the intent-to-treat population and 227 were included in the PP population. UMEC/VI treatment was noninferior in the PP population and superior in the intent-to-treat population to TIO/OLO treatment with regard to trough FEV1 at week 8 [FEV1 change from baseline 180 mL vs 128 mL; difference 52 mL (95% confidence interval 28-77 mL); p < 0.001]. Patients receiving UMEC/VI had twofold increased odds of experiencing a clinically meaningful increase (100 mL or more) from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 8 compared with patients receiving TIO/OLO (odds ratio 2.05; 95% confidence interval 1.34-3.14). Adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the UMEC/VI group and in 31% of patients in the TIO/OLO group. CONCLUSION: In this first direct comparison of two once-daily fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations, superiority was observed for the primary end point of trough FEV1 at week 8 with UMEC/VI compared with TIO/OLO in patients with symptomatic COPD. Both treatments had similar safety profiles. These findings confirm the results of previous indirect LAMA/LABA comparisons, and show that an efficacy gradient exists within the LAMA/LABA class. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02799784. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Dual Bronchodilation with Indacaterol Maleate/Glycopyrronium Bromide Compared with Umeclidinium Bromide/Vilanterol in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe COPD: Results from Two Randomized, Controlled, Cross-over Studies.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of two long-acting dual bronchodilator combinations: indacaterol/glycopyrrolate (IND/GLY) versus umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI). METHODS: Studies A2349 and A2350 were replicate, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, cross-over studies in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Patients were randomized to sequential 12-week treatments of twice-daily IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg and once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg, each separated by a 3-week washout. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of IND/GLY compared with UMEC/VI in terms of the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s profile at week 12 (FEV1 AUC0-24). Rescue medication use, symptom control, and safety were assessed throughout. RESULTS: Both treatments delivered substantial bronchodilation over 12 weeks, with improvements in FEV1 AUC0-24h at week 12 of 232 and 185 mL for IND/GLY, and 244 and 203 mL with UMEC/VI in Studies A2349 and A2350, respectively. The primary efficacy objective of non-inferiority of IND/GLY relative to UMEC/VI was not met as the lower bound of the confidence interval for the LS treatment comparison was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -20 mL in both studies: -26.9 and -34.2 mL, respectively (LS mean between-treatment differences: -11.5 and -18.2 mL). Both drugs were well tolerated, with AE profiles consistent with their respective prescribing information. CONCLUSIONS: IND/GLY and UMEC/VI provided clinically meaningful and comparable bronchodilation. Non-inferiority of IND/GLY to UMEC/VI could not be declared although between-treatment differences were not clinically relevant. The data support the use of IND/GLY as an efficacious and well tolerated treatment option in patients with COPD. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02487446 and NCT02487498).

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

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

A systematic review with meta-analysis of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol combination for the treatment of stable COPD.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend the use of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta2-agonists as first-line therapy for COPD patients at risk for acute exacerbations and/or severe airflow limitation. This systematic review assesses available evidence on the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) combination versus each alone, for the treatment of patients with severe to very severe stable COPD. METHODS: Randomized, placebo-controlled trials of >8 weeks of duration were included. Primary end points were pulmonary function, COPD exacerbations and serious adverse events. FF/VI was compared with its mono-components. RESULTS: Five reports with six trials (n = 15,515 patients) met the entry criteria. FF/VI was associated with significant increases in trough FEV1 compared with vilanterol (VI) and fluticasone furoate (FF) (45 mL and 90 mL respectively). FF/VI significantly reduced the number of subjects with at least one moderate to severe exacerbation compared with VI (number needed to treat for benefit [NNTB] = 21) and with FF (NNTB = 26). There were no statistical differences in the rates of serious adverse events, cardiac events and all-cause mortality. On the contrary, FF/VI showed a significant 52% increase in the rate of pneumonia compared with VI monotherapy (5.3% vs. 3.5%). However, there was no difference in the rate of pneumonia when FF/VI was compared with FF alone. CONCLUSIONS: FF/VI combination was associated with a decrease of the rate of COPD exacerbations, without affecting mortality or cardiovascular outcomes in patients with moderate to severe stable COPD. Also, the use of FF was associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.

Assessing Short-term Deterioration in Maintenance-naïve Patients with COPD Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol and Tiotropium: A Pooled Analysis of Three Randomized Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Dual bronchodilator therapy is reserved as a second-line treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and provides benefits in lung function and health status versus monotherapy. The aim of this study was to determine whether early initiation of a dual bronchodilator versus monotherapy reduced the risk of deterioration in COPD. METHODS: This post hoc pooled analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg/day compared with tiotropium (TIO) 18 mcg/day in a maintenance-naïve (MN) subgroup of patients relative to the intent-to-treat (ITT) population from three 6-month active comparator studies (n = 1747). Other treatment arms (UMEC/VI 125/25, VI 25 and UMEC 125) comprised 850 patients in total but were not included in this analysis. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, rescue medication use, and a novel composite endpoint of short-term clinically important deterioration (CID; ≥100 ml decrease in trough FEV1, ≥4-unit increase in SGRQ score, or a COPD exacerbation) were also assessed. RESULTS: UMEC/VI improved trough FEV1 versus TIO at day 169 [least squares mean (95% confidence interval): MN: 146 ml (102-189) and ITT: 95 ml (71-118); both P < 0.001]. Both UMEC/VI and TIO improved SGRQ and rescue use in the two populations, with greater improvements in rescue use with UMEC/VI versus TIO. UMEC/VI reduced the risk of short-term clinically important deterioration versus TIO [hazard ratio; 95% confidence interval: MN: 0.66 (0.51-0.85); ITT: 0.62 (0.54-0.71), both P ≤ 0.001]. Adverse events were similar across both populations and treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Early use of dual-bronchodilator therapy has superior efficacy on lung function and may reduce the risk of short-term deterioration compared to monotherapy in symptomatic patients with COPD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK analysis 202066 (NCT01316900/DB2113360, NCT01316913/DB2113374, NCT01777334/ZEP117115). FUNDING: This study was funded by GSK.

Efficacy and safety comparison: Fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate, after step down from fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in Japanese patients with well-controlled asthma, a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with well-controlled asthma, 'step down' of therapy is recommended. We evaluated Japanese patients switching from inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA; equivalent to fluticasone propionate [FP]/salmeterol [SAL] 250/50 µg twice daily [BD]) to fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 µg, then stepping down to ICS alone. METHODS: This phase III trial had two treatment periods (P): P1, patients with well-controlled asthma on FP/SAL 250/50 µg BD equivalent stepped across to once daily (OD) FF/VI 100/25 µg (open-label, eight weeks); P2, patients remaining 'well controlled' after P1 stepped down to FF 100 µg OD/FP 100 µg BD/FP 250 µg BD (randomized 1:1:1, double-blind, 12 weeks). Co-primary P2 endpoints: percentage of patients with well-controlled asthma; time to withdrawal due to poorly controlled asthma requiring step-up therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored. RESULTS: At the end of P1 (n = 430), 373 (90.5%; 95% confidence interval 87.29-93.18) patients' asthma remained well controlled with FF/VI; in P2 (n = 371), control was maintained in 89.5% (FF 100 µg)/79.5% (FP 100 µg)/83.8% (FP 250 µg) of patients. In P2, 4.9-7.3% of patients were withdrawn due to worsening asthma (time-to-withdrawal cumulative incidence curves were comparable). AEs were reported by 37% of patients during P1; and by 36% (FF 100 µg)/48% (FP 100 µg)/49% (FP 250 µg) of patients in P2. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with well-controlled asthma on mid dose ICS/LABA (equivalent to FP/SAL 250/50 µg BD), control can be maintained when they are stepped across to FF/VI 100/25 µg OD. FF 100 µg OD is an effective step-down therapy from FF/VI 100/25 µg OD with similar efficacy to FP 100 µg BD and FP 250 µg BD.

Fluticasone furoate and vilanterol and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with heightened cardiovascular risk (SUMMIT): a double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often coexists with cardiovascular disease. Treatments for airflow limitation might improve survival and both respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess whether inhaled treatment with a combined treatment of the corticosteroid, fluticasone furoate, and the long-acting ß agonist, vilanterol could improve survival compared with placebo in patients with moderate COPD and heightened cardiovascular risk. METHODS: In this double-blind randomised controlled trial (SUMMIT) done in 1368 centres in 43 countries, eligible patients were aged 40-80 years and had a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) between 50% and 70% of the predicted value, a ratio of post-bronchodilator FEV1 to forced vital capacity (FVC) of 0·70 or less, a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years, and a score of 2 or greater on the modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale. Patients had to have a history, or be at increased risk, of cardiovascular disease. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) through a centralised randomisation service in permuted blocks to receive once daily inhaled placebo, fluticasone furoate (100 µg), vilanterol (25 µg), or the combination of fluticasone furoate (100 µg) and vilanterol (25 µg). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes were on-treatment rate of decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and a composite of cardiovascular events. Safety analyses were performed on the safety population (all patients who took at least one dose of study drug) and efficacy analyses were performed on the intention-to-treat population (safety population minus sites excluded with Good Clinical Practice violations). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01313676. FINDINGS: Between Jan 24, 2011, and March 12, 2014, 23 835 patients were screened, of whom 16 590 were randomised. 16 485 patients were included in the intention-to-treat efficacy population; 4111 in the placebo group, 4135 in the fluticasone furoate group, 4118 in the vilanterol group, and 4121 in the combination group. Compared with placebo, all-cause mortality was unaffected by combination therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88 [95% CI 0·74-1·04]; 12% relative reduction; p=0·137) or the components (fluticasone furoate, HR 0·91 [0·77-1·08]; p=0·284; vilanterol, 0·96 [0·81-1·14]; p=0·655), and therefore secondary outcomes should be interpreted with caution. Rate of decline in FEV1 was reduced by combination therapy (38 mL per year [SE 2·4] vs 46 mL per year [2·5] for placebo, difference 8 mL per year [95% CI 1-15]) with similar findings for fluticasone furoate (difference 8 mL per year [95% CI 1-14]), but not vilanterol (difference -2 mL per year [95% CI -8 to 5]). Combination therapy had no effect on composite cardiovascular events (HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·75-1·14]) with similar findings for fluticasone furoate (0·90 [0·72-1·11]) and vilanterol (0·99 [0·80-1·22]). All treatments reduced the rate of moderate and severe exacerbation. No reported excess risks of pneumonia (5% in the placebo group, 6% in the combination group, 5% in the fluticasone furoate group, and 4% in the vilanterol group) or adverse cardiac events (17% in the placebo group, 18% in the combination group, and 17% in the fluticasone furoate group, and 17% in the vilanterol group) were noted in the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with moderate COPD and heightened cardiovascular risk, treatment with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol did not affect mortality or cardiovascular outcomes, reduced exacerbations, and was well tolerated. Fluticasone furoate, alone or in combination with vilanterol, seemed to reduce FEV1 decline. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Dual Bronchodilator Therapy with Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Tiotropium plus Indacaterol in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The fixed-dose, long-acting bronchodilator combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) has not previously been compared with a combination of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting ß2-agonist in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This 12-week, randomized, blinded, triple-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study compared once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18 mcg + indacaterol (IND) 150 mcg in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD. The primary endpoint was the trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 85 (predefined non-inferiority margin -50 mL), and the secondary endpoint was the 0- to 6-h weighted mean (WM) FEV1 on day 84. Other efficacy endpoints [including rescue medication use, the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score, and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score] and safety endpoints [adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and COPD exacerbations] were also assessed. RESULTS: Trough FEV1 improvements were comparable between treatment groups [least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline to day 85: UMEC/VI 172 mL; TIO + IND 171 mL; treatment difference 1 mL; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -29 to 30 mL], demonstrating non-inferiority between UMEC/VI and TIO + IND. The treatments produced similar improvements in the trough FEV1 at other study visits and the 0- to 6-h WM FEV1 (LS mean changes at day 84: UMEC/VI 235 mL; TIO + IND 258 mL; treatment difference -23 mL; 95 % CI -54 to 8 mL). The results for patient-reported measures (rescue medication use, TDI focal score, and SGRQ score) were comparable; both treatments produced clinically meaningful improvements in TDI and SGRQ scores. The incidence of AEs and COPD exacerbations, and changes in vital signs were similar for the two treatments. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI and TIO + IND, given once daily, provided similar improvements in lung function and patient-reported outcomes over 12 weeks in patients with COPD, with comparable tolerability and safety profiles. TRIAL NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov study ID NCT02257385; GSK study no. 116961.

Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy umeclidinium/vilanterol versus tiotropium in symptomatic COPD Spanish patients.

PURPOSE: Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) is a novel fixed dose combination of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta 2 receptor antagonist (LABA) agent. This analysis evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UMEC/VI compared with tiotropium (TIO), from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A previously published linked equations cohort model based on the epidemiological longitudinal study ECLIPSE (Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate End-points) was used. Patients included were COPD patients with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≤70% and the presence of respiratory symptoms measured with the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (modified Medical Research Council ≥2). Treatment effect, expressed as change in FEV1 from baseline, was estimated from a 24-week head-to-head phase III clinical trial comparing once-daily UMEC/VI with once-daily TIO and was assumed to last 52 weeks following treatment initiation (maximum duration of UMEC/VI clinical trials). Spanish utility values were derived from a published local observational study. Unitary health care costs (€2015) were obtained from local sources. A 3-year time horizon was selected, and 3% discount was applied to effects and costs. Results were expressed as cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed. RESULTS: UMEC/VI produced additional 0.03 QALY and €590 vs TIO, leading to an ICER of €21,475/QALY. According to PSA, the probability of UMEC/VI being cost-effective was 80.3% at a willingness-to-pay of €30,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI could be considered as a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with TIO in symptomatic COPD patients from the Spanish NHS perspective.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Inhaled Fluticasone Furoate and Vilanterol in Subjects with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Previous pharmacokinetic studies of the inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone furoate (FF), and the long-acting, beta2-receptor agonist, vilanterol (VI) have been performed in relatively small populations using non-compartmental pharmacokinetic methods and censored data (due to low drug exposure relative to assay sensitivity). This paper presents a population pharmacokinetic analysis, utilizing pooled concentration-time data from clinical studies in healthy subjects and from global trials in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The objective of this analysis was to characterize the population pharmacokinetics of FF and VI following once-daily inhalation dosing of FF/VI or the individual components (FF and VI) and to identify significant covariates that impact systemic exposure to FF and VI in this population. METHODS: Population pharmacokinetic methods that maximize the likelihood of all data were developed to describe systemic exposure to FF and VI following once-daily FF/VI, FF, or VI, and to identify significant covariates that impact the pharmacokinetics. COPD patients (N = 1225 for the FF analysis and N = 1091 for the VI analysis; 94 and 93 % of total data, respectively) and healthy subjects contributed to the analysis. RESULTS: FF data were described by a two-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination. The population grouping "race" was a significant covariate on inhaled clearance (CL/F). The area under the curve over 24 h (AUC0-24) for FF was higher for East Asian, Japanese, and South East Asian (average 23-30 %) and Asian Central, White Arabic, American Indian/Native Alaskan, and 'other' (10-26 %) subjects compared with White/Caucasians. VI pharmacokinetics were described by a three-compartment model with zero-order absorption and first-order elimination. Significant demographic covariates identified to affect pharmacokinetics of VI were age [on CL/F and central volume (V 1/F)], bodyweight (on CL/F), sex and smoking (on V 1/F). CONCLUSIONS: While significant effects of the covariates were observed in this study, the magnitude of these effects on systemic exposure is not large enough to warrant FF/VI dosage adjustment in patients with COPD.