Comparison of COPD health care utilization and associated costs across patients treated with LAMA+LABA fixed-dose therapies.

BACKGROUND: There is limited clinical trial and/or real-world evidence comparing differences among currently approved fixed-dose combination (FDC) long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) treatments. OBJECTIVE: To compare chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related and all-cause health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between COPD patients initiating tiotropium (TIO) + olodaterol (OLO) versus (a) other LAMA + LABA FDCs and (b) umeclidinium (UMEC) + vilanterol (VI), specifically. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, patients initiating fixed-dose LAMA + LABA therapy (earliest fill date = index date) between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2018, were identified using administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Patients were followed post-index for 1-12 months. Follow-up was censored at the earliest occurrence of index therapy discontinuation or switch, health plan disenrollment, study end date, or reaching the maximum 12-month allowed duration. Propensity score matching of 1:2 was used to balance differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts for each of the 2 comparisons. Annualized population averages of HCRU and costs were calculated for each cohort as [sum of visits (or costs) for all individuals during the follow-up period] ÷ [sum of follow-up on-treatment time for all individuals] × 365 days. RESULTS: After matching, compared with patients who initiated other LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI, patients who initiated TIO + OLO had 14.29% and 16.95% fewer mean annualized per-patient COPD-related emergency department (ED) visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 0.49 vs. 0.59, P = 0.005; vs. UMEC + VI: 0.48 vs. 0.56, P = 0.026) and 3.07% and 3.14% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 12.66 vs. 13.07, P = 0.016; vs. UMEC + VI: 12.62 vs. 13.02, P = 0.022), leading to 17.39% and 21.47% lower mean annualized per-patient COPD-related ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $289 vs. $368, P = 0.003; vs. UMEC + VI: $285 vs. $345, P = 0.027) and 4.56% and 5.67% lower mean annualized per-patient pharmacy spending (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $3,570 vs. $3,741, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $3,556 vs. $3,770, P < 0.001) in the follow-up period. Similarly, patients in the TIO + OLO cohort had 15.63% and 21.17% fewer mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 1.08 vs. 1.37, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: 1.08 vs. 1.28, P = 0.001), 8.29% fewer mean annualized per-patient outpatient visits (vs. UMEC + VI: 13.28 vs. 14.48, P = 0.031), 3.41% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 56.92 vs. 58.93, P = 0.028), 19.48% and 22.28% lower mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $755 vs. $971, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $749 vs. $930, P < 0.001), and 10.86% lower mean annualized per-patient outpatient setting costs (vs. UMEC + VI: $3,348 vs. $3,756, P = 0.050). There were no statistically significant differences for the other outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, differences in HCRU and costs were observed between FDC LAMA + LABAs, with patients initiating TIO + OLO having lower ED visits/costs, COPD-related pharmacy fills/costs, and all-cause pharmacy use and outpatient visits/costs than those initiating other FDC LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI specifically. The remaining HCRU and cost measures were not significantly different. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI; Ridgefield, CT). BIPI was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy, as well as intellectual property considerations. Palli is an employee of BIPI. Xie, Chastek, Elliott, and Bengtson are employees of Optum, which was contracted by BIPI to conduct this study. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. Part of the results of this study were accepted and presented at the 30th European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress (September 7-9, 2020; virtual).

The impact of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol on healthcare resource utilisation in the Salford Lung Study in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

AIM: The Salford Lung Study (SLS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of initiating fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100/25 µg versus continuing usual care (UC) in patients with COPD and a history of exacerbations. Here, we investigate the impact of initiating FF/VI on healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) in SLS COPD. METHODS: HRU and interventions were determined from patients' electronic health records. Annual rates of on-treatment all-cause and COPD-related secondary care contacts (SCCs) and primary care contacts (PCCs) for FF/VI versus UC were analysed using a general linear model. Costs were derived from national data sources. RESULTS: Least-squares (LS) mean annual rates of all-cause (9.81 versus 9.36) and COPD-related (1.57 versus 1.48) SCCs were similar for FF/VI and UC, as were rates of all-cause hospitalisations (0.87 versus 0.82). Mean duration of hospital stay/patient was 4.5 and 4.2 days, respectively. COPD-related SCC mean total cost/patient was £484 FF/VI and £475 UC. LS mean annual rates of all-cause PCCs were significantly higher for FF/VI (21.20 versus 18.88 UC; p < 0.001). LS mean annual rates of COPD-related PCCs were similar for FF/VI and UC (2.42 versus 2.46). All-cause PCC mean total cost/patient was £900 FF/VI versus £811 UC, but COPD-related PCC costs were similar (£116 versus £114). Direct COPD-related total medical costs/patient were significantly lower for FF/VI (LS geometric mean £806 versus £963 UC; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: In patients with COPD and exacerbation history, FF/VI may represent a less costly alternative to current therapies.GlaxoSmithKline plc. study HZC115151; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01551758.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Effect of Age on the Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple-Therapy Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients With COPD: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler triple-therapy fluticasone furoate (FF), umeclidinium (UMEC), and vilanterol (VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations, with a similar safety profile. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are trial outcomes with single-inhaler triple-therapy FF/UMEC/VI vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI affected by age in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: IMPACT was a phase III, double-blind, 52-week trial. Patients ≥ 40 years of age with symptomatic COPD and ≥ 1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year were randomly assigned 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg. End points assessed by age included annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline (CFB) in trough FEV1, proportion of St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders (≥ 4 units decrease from baseline in SGRQ total score), and safety. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population comprised 10,355 patients; 4,724 (46%), 4,225 (41%), and 1,406 (14%) were ≤ 64, 65 to 74, and ≥ 75 years of age, respectively. FF/UMEC/VI reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates vs FF/VI (% reduction [95% CI]: ≤ 64 years, 8% [-1 to 16]; P = .070; 65-74 years, 22% [14-29]; P < .001; ≥ 75 years, 18% [3-31]; P = .021) and vs UMEC/VI (≤ 64 years, 16% [7-25]; P = .002; 65-74 years, 33% [25-41]; P < .001; ≥ 75 years, 24% [6-38]; P = .012), with greatest rate reduction seen in the 65 to 74 and ≥ 75 years subgroups. Post hoc analyses of CFB in trough FEV1 and proportion of SGRQ responders at week 52 were significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI than with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in all subgroups. No new safety signals were identified. INTERPRETATION: FF/UMEC/VI reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations and improved lung function and health status vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI irrespective of age for most end points, with a similar safety profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02164513; URL: www.clinicaltrials.govCTT116855.

Cost-consequence analysis of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol for asthma management in Spain: an analysis based on the Salford Lung Study in asthma.

OBJECTIVES: The Salford Lung Study in asthma (SLS asthma) is a 12-month, open-label randomised clinical trial comparing clinical effectiveness of initiating once-daily inhaled combination of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 184/22 mcg or 92/22 mcg, with continuing optimized usual care (UC) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, or in combination with a long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA), in asthmatic patients followed in primary care in the UK. The objective of the analysis is to estimate the economic impact of these results when applied in Spain. METHODS: A 1-year cost-consequence model was populated with SLS asthma, adopting the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. 775,900 of diagnosed asthmatic patients ≥ 18 years old currently managed with UC in Spain were included in the analysis. Effectiveness data included the percentage of patients per Asthma Control Test (ACT) category at 24 and 52 weeks from SLS asthma. Direct costs (pharmacological and per ACT category) were estimated from Spanish public sources and literature (€, 2018). Base case analysis assumed an increased use of FF/VI from 10 to 20% within 1 year. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Within the 775,900 asthmatic patients analysed, substitution of UC with FF/VI was associated with reduced costs due to ACT improvement, leading to potential total annual savings of €4,927,672. Sensitivity analyses ranged from €6,012,975 to €14,783,015 cost savings associated with FF/VI. An analysis considering patients only on ICS/LABA showed potential cost savings of €8,207,448. CONCLUSIONS: The improved asthma control for FF/VI compared with UC observed in SLS asthma could be translated into potential savings for the Spanish NHS. These results may be useful for decision makers.

Cost-Effectiveness Of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy In COPD: The IMPACT Trial.

Background: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Canadian public healthcare perspective, incorporating data from the IMPACT trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02164513). Methods: Baseline inputs and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into the validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model. Canadian unit costs and drug costs (Canadian dollars [C$], 2017) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Analyses were probabilistic, and outputs included exacerbation rates, costs, and life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Results: Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a lifetime horizon, the analyses predicted that treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, more LYs and more QALYs gained, with a small incremental cost. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was C$18,989 (95% confidence interval [CI]: C$14,665, C$25,753) versus FF/VI and C$13,776 (95% CI: C$9787, C$19,448) versus UMEC/VI. FF/UMEC/VI remained cost-effective versus both FF/VI and UMEC/VI in all sensitivity analyses, including in scenario analyses that considered different intervention and comparator discontinuation rates, and treatment effects for subsequent therapy. Conclusion: Treatment with FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, in Canada.

Assessment of COPD-related outcomes in patients initiating a once daily or twice daily ICS/LABA.

BACKGROUND: Use of inhaled corticosteroids and long acting beta agonist (ICS/LABA) combination therapy has been shown to decrease the frequency of exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this population, adherence to treatment is associated with better disease control and lower risk of COPD-related exacerbations in the future. Using a treatment with a more convenient regimen or easier-to-use device could improve patient adherence, improve disease control, decrease the frequency of exacerbations and minimize the COPD-related economic burden. Real-world information on the impact on healthcare costs and exacerbation risk of initiating once-daily or twice daily ICS/LABA in this patient population is limited. The objective of this study was to assess COPD-related healthcare costs, adherence, and exacerbations in COPD patients initiating treatment with fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 (FF/VI) or budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 (BUD/F) using a large managed care database in the US. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study among COPD patients initiating FF/VI or BUD/F between January 01, 2014 and June 30, 2016. The analysis used the Optum Research Database (ORD) which contains patients from commercial and Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plans. The study included new initiators of ICS/LABA as either FF/VI or BUD/F for COPD, ≥40 years of age at index, ≥15 months of continuous enrollment (12 months pre-index and ≥3 months post-index). New users of FF/VI or BUD/F were matched on baseline characteristics using propensity score matching (PSM) methods. Multivariate models including ordinary least squares regression, Lin's regression, logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazards were used to assess differences between the cohorts on outcomes of interest. RESULTS: A total of 18,652 subjects met all inclusion and exclusion criteria with 5044 initiating FF/VI and 13,608 initiating BUD/F. Of these, 9026 subjects were matched at a 1:1 ratio (4513 patients in each cohort) and were included in the final analyses. Proportion of days covered (PDC), was significantly better for FF/VI (mean PDC [SD]: FF/VI: 0.46 [0.31], BUD/F: 0.41 [0.29], p < 0.001) while FF/VI was associated with a 9% lower risk (adj. hazard ratio (HR): 0.91, 95% CI: 0.85-0.96) of having a moderate or severe COPD-related exacerbation. However, COPD-related healthcare costs were not significantly different, $11,521 vs $10,986, p = 0.41 for FF/VI and BUD/F, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients initiating once-daily FF/VI were more adherent, and were associated with a lower risk of subsequent COPD-related exacerbations compared with twice-daily BUD/F, however this was not associated with a significant difference in costs. (GSK Study HO1617333/206702).

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).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg versus tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.

BACKGROUND: A head-to-head study demonstrated the superiority of once-daily umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) versus once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO from a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective, using data from this study and Spanish literature. METHODS: This analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System with a 3-year horizon as base case. A disease progression model using a linked risk equation approach was used to estimate disease progression and associated healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study was used to develop the statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints, and costs were calculated using a health state approach (by dyspnea severity). Utilities for QALY calculation were estimated using patient baseline characteristics within a regression fit to Spanish observational data. Treatment effect, expressed as change from baseline in FEV1 was obtained from the head-to-head study and used in the model (UMEC/VI minus TIO/OLO difference: + 52 mL [95% confidence interval: 28, 77]). Baseline patient characteristics were sourced from Spanish literature or the head-to-head study if unavailable. A scenario analysis using only the intent-to-treat (ITT) population from the head-to-head study, and sensitivity analyses (including probabilistic sensitivity analyses), were conducted. Direct healthcare costs (2017 Euro) were obtained from Spanish sources and costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS: UMEC/VI was associated with small improvements in QALYs (+ 0.029) over a 3-year time horizon, compared with TIO/OLO, alongside cost savings of €393/patient. The ITT scenario analysis and sensitivity analyses had similar results. All probabilistic simulations resulted in UMEC/VI being less costly and more effective than TIO/OLO. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI dominated TIO/OLO (more effective and less expensive). These results may aid payers and decision-makers in Spain when making judgements on which long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) treatments can be considered cost effective in Spain.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium/vilanterol for the management of patients with moderate to very severe COPD using an economic model.

BACKGROUND: Bronchodilators such as long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) are central to the pharmacological management of COPD. Dual bronchodilation with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI; 62.5/25 µg) is a novel LAMA/LABA combination approved for maintenance treatment for patients with COPD. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of maintenance treatment with UMEC/VI compared with tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg, open dual LAMA + LABA treatment, or no long-acting bronchodilator treatment in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and outcomes associated with UMEC/VI treatment in patients with moderate to very severe COPD (GSK study number: HO-13-13411). Clinical efficacy, costs, utilities, and mortality obtained from the published literature were used as the model inputs. Costs are presented in US dollars based on 2015 prices. The model outputs are total costs, drug costs, other medical costs, number of COPD exacerbations, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were discounted at a 3% annual rate. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the effects of changing parameters on the uncertainty of the results. RESULTS: UMEC/VI treatment for moderate to very severe COPD was associated with lower lifetime medical costs ($82,344) compared with TIO ($88,822), open dual LAMA + LABA treatment ($114,442), and no long-acting bronchodilator ($86,751). Fewer exacerbations were predicted to occur with UMEC/VI treatment compared with no long-acting bronchodilator treatment. UMEC/VI provided an 0.11 and 0.25 increase in QALYs compared with TIO and no long-acting bronchodilator treatment, and as such, dominated these cost-effectiveness analyses. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust. CONCLUSION: The results from this model suggest that UMEC/VI treatment would be dominant compared with TIO and no long-acting bronchodilator treatment, and less costly than open dual LAMA + LABA treatment in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic assessment of fluticasone furoate + vilanterol for the treatment of asthma.

INTRODUCTION: The pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of long-acting ß2-agonists and mostly inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) shape the efficacy and safety of these agents in the treatment of asthma. In fact, the PK and PD characteristics of the drug largely determine the degree of pulmonary targeting Areas covered. In this review, we summarize the PK and PD properties of inhaled fluticasone furoate (FF) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) and their fixed-dose combination (FDC) for the treatment of asthma Expert opinion. It is difficult to interpret the data that we have described because the preclinical and clinical development of FF/VI FDC was not really based on solid information on quantitative PK/PD approach. Unfortunately, for both FF and VI we only know concentrations in systemic blood, a compartment that is downstream of both target and non-target respiratory tissue. This lack of information does not allow us to understand the temporal relationship between the delivered dose and the drug concentration at the sites of action within the lungs. In addition, all studies performed with FF and VI did not address the fundamental issue that asthma can significantly alter lung deposition, absorption and also clearance of inhaled medicines.

Ethnic sensitivity assessment of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in East Asian asthma patients from randomized double-blind multicentre Phase IIb/III trials.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) is a once daily (OD) inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination asthma therapy approved in Japan and the EU. FF/VI efficacy and safety data from asthma studies including patients in East Asia were evaluated to assess ethnic sensitivity. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase IIb/III trials were assessed. Change from baseline relative to placebo or twice-daily fluticasone propionate 500 µg in trough FEV1 was compared between patients from Japan (N = 148) and Not-Japan (N = 3,066; three studies). Adverse events (AEs), laboratory results, and electrocardiograms were compared between patients from Japan + Korea (N = 188) and Not-Japan + Korea (N = 3,840; five studies). RESULTS: For trough FEV1, improvements from baseline (least-squares mean difference [95% confidence interval]) were reported for FF/VI 100/25 µg OD versus placebo at Week 12 (Japan: 0.323 L [0.104-0.542]; Not-Japan: 0.168 L [0.095-0.241]). Improvements from baseline (least-squares mean change [standard error]) were reported with FF/VI 200/25 µg OD at Week 24 (Japan: 0.355 L [0.1152]; Not-Japan: 0.396 L [0.0313]). A greater proportion of patients from Japan + Korea versus Not-Japan + Korea reported AEs in all treatment arms including placebo (FF/VI 100/25 µg: 79% versus 57%; FF/VI 200/25 µg: 64% versus 45%; placebo: 41% versus 23%). There were no notable differences in treatment-related or class-related AEs. No clinically significant changes in electrocardiogram assessments or statistically significant differences in 24 h urinary cortisol excretion were observed between the Japan + Korea and Not-Japan + Korea cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Good efficacy and an acceptable safety profile were observed for FF/VI 100/25 µg and 200/25 µg OD in East Asian asthma patients; these globally recommended doses are appropriate for asthma patients in Japan. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registration numbers: NCT01165138 , NCT01134042 , NCT01086384 , NCT00603278 , NCT00603382 .