Treatment Patterns, Healthcare Utilization and Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Initiating Single-Inhaler Long-Acting ß2-Agonist/Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Dual Therapy in Primary Care in England.

Purpose: Selection of treatments for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may impact clinical outcomes, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and direct healthcare costs. We aimed to characterize these outcomes along with treatment patterns, for patients with COPD following initiation of single-inhaler long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy in the primary care setting in England. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study used linked primary care electronic medical record data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink-Aurum) and secondary care administrative data (Hospital Episode Statistics) in England to assess outcomes for patients with COPD who had a prescription for one of four single-inhaler LAMA/LABA dual therapies between 1st June 2015-31st December 2018 (indexing period). Outcomes were assessed during a 12-month follow-up period from the index date (date of earliest prescription of a single-inhaler LAMA/LABA within the indexing period). Incident users were those without previous LAMA/LABA dual therapy prescriptions prior to index; this manuscript focuses on a subset of incident users: non-triple therapy users (patients without concomitant inhaled corticosteroid use at index). Results: Of 10,991 incident users included, 9888 (90.0%) were non-triple therapy users, indexed on umeclidinium/vilanterol (n=4805), aclidinium/formoterol (n=2109), indacaterol/glycopyrronium (n=1785) and tiotropium/olodaterol (n=1189). At 3 months post-index, 63.3% of non-triple therapy users remained on a single-inhaler LAMA/LABA, and 22.1% had discontinued inhaled therapy. Most patients (86.9%) required general practitioner consultations in the first 3 months post-index. Inpatient stays were the biggest contributor to healthcare costs. Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs), adherence, time-to-triple therapy, time-to-first on-treatment moderate-to-severe AECOPD, time-to-index treatment discontinuation, HCRU and healthcare costs were similar across indexed therapies. Conclusion: Patients initiating treatment with single-inhaler LAMA/LABA in primary care in England were unlikely to switch treatments in the first three months following initiation, but some may discontinue respiratory medication. Outcomes were similar across indexed treatments.

Characterization of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Initiating Single-Inhaler Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist/Long-Acting ß2-Agonist Dual Therapy in a Primary Care Setting in England.

Purpose: Treatment pathways of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receiving single-inhaler dual therapies remain unclear. We aimed to describe characteristics, prescribed treatments, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs of patients with COPD who initiated single-inhaler long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy in primary care in England. Patients and Methods: Retrospective study using linked data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets. Patients with COPD with ≥1 single-inhaler LAMA/LABA prescription between June 2015 and December 2018 (index) were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics, prescribed treatments, HCRU and costs were evaluated in the 12 months pre-index. Data are presented for patients not receiving concomitant inhaled corticosteroids at index (non-triple users). Results: Of 10,991 patients initiating LAMA/LABA, 9888 were non-triple users, of whom 21.3% (n=2109) received aclidinium bromide/formoterol, 18.1% (n=1785) received indacaterol/glycopyrronium, 12.0% (n=1189) received tiotropium bromide/olodaterol and 48.6% (n=4805) received umeclidinium/vilanterol. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar across indexed therapies. LAMA monotherapy was the most frequently prescribed respiratory therapy at 12 (18.4-25.8% of patients) and 3 months (23.9-33.7% of patients) pre-index across indexed therapies; 42.5-59.0% of patients were prescribed no respiratory therapy at these time points. COPD-related HCRU during the 12 months pre-index was similar across indexed therapies (general practitioner consultations: 62.0-68.6% patients; inpatient stays: 19.3-26.1% patients). Pre-index COPD-related costs were similar across indexed therapies, with inpatient stays representing the highest contribution. Mean total direct annual COPD-related costs ranged from £805-£1187. Conclusion: Characteristics of patients newly initiating single-inhaler LAMA/LABA dual therapy were highly consistent across indexed therapies. As half of non-triple users were not receiving respiratory therapy one year prior to LAMA/LABA initiation, there may be an opportunity for early optimization of treatment to relieve clinical burden versus current prescribing patterns in primary care in England.

Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD. METHODS: A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented. RESULTS: The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV1 versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 µg, glycopyrronium 50 µg, glycopyrronium 18 µg, tiotropium 18 µg and salmeterol 50 µg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV1 at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.

Bronchodilators are medicines that open the airways, allowing patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to breathe more easily. There are two different types of bronchodilators, namely long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting ß₂-agonists (LABAs), which can be used on their own or combined (LAMA/LABAs). Only a few clinical trials have compared different LAMA/LABA combinations with each other, so it is unclear which LAMA/LABA combination provides the greatest benefits for patients.In this study, we used network meta-analysis to compare a LAMA/LABA combination medicine called umeclidinium and vilanterol (UMEC/VI) with other LAMAs and LABAs used alone or in combination to treat patients with COPD. Network meta-analysis is a way of comparing two or more medicines by analysing data from many studies. We systematically searched for evidence from clinical trials in adult patients with COPD that were at least 8 weeks long and that compared LAMA/LABA combinations with a LAMA, a LABA, or another LAMA/LABA combination. We analysed data from 49 clinical trials that met these criteria.We found that patients treated with UMEC/VI had better lung function than patients treated with alternative LAMA/LABA combinations or bronchodilators used on their own. Patients treated with UMEC/VI had better quality of life than those receiving some other treatments, but not all. All the medicines we compared had similar side effects.Our results suggest that treating patients with COPD with UMEC/VI might improve their lung function and quality of life more than alternative bronchodilators.

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.

Characteristics of New Users of Single- and Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy for COPD in Primary Care in England.

Purpose: Inhaled triple therapy is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who have poorly controlled symptoms and to reduce the risk of exacerbations. This study assessed the clinical characteristics of new users of single- and multiple-inhaler triple therapy (SITT and MITT) treated in a primary care setting in England. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional, observational study used data from an electronic health record database (CPRD Aurum) of COPD patients registered with a primary care practice in England, with linkage to a secondary care database. Patients were required to have initiated a new triple therapy (index) between November 2017 and November 2018 and have ≥12 months of available medical history prior to the index date. Results: In total, 3536 patients initiated fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) SITT for the first time: 65% had a Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnea score ≥3, 45% had forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)% predicted <50%, and 64% had a moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous 12 months. The majority (83%) of new FF/UMEC/VI users had a history of MITT use. Immediately prior to FF/UMEC/VI initiation, 46% received MITT, 25% received an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), 12% received long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/LABA, and 14% stepped up directly from LAMA monotherapy. A second cohort of 6540 patients initiated triple therapy (SITT or MITT) for the first time. COPD severity (airflow limitation, exacerbation history) was worse among patients initiating SITT versus MITT. In the 12 months before triple-therapy initiation, ICS/LABA was the most common treatment; a step up from LAMA/LABA was more common among patients initiating FF/UMEC/VI (34%) or beclomethasone/formoterol/glycopyrronium bromide SITT (25%) than MITT (14%). Conclusion: First-time triple therapy was frequently initiated in patients with COPD inadequately controlled on maintenance therapy. General practitioners in England generally identify appropriate patients who require initiation of triple therapy.

Benefit/Risk Profile of Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in COPD.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with major healthcare and socioeconomic burdens. International consortia recommend a personalized approach to treatment and management that aims to reduce both symptom burden and the risk of exacerbations. Recent clinical trials have investigated single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for patients with symptomatic COPD. Here, we review evidence from randomized controlled trials showing the benefits of SITT and weigh these against the reported risk of pneumonia with ICS use. We highlight the challenges associated with cross-trial comparisons of benefit/risk, discuss blood eosinophils as a marker of ICS responsiveness, and summarize current treatment recommendations and the position of SITT in the management of COPD, including potential advantages in terms of improving patient adherence. Evidence from trials of SITT versus dual therapies in symptomatic patients with moderate to very severe airflow limitation and increased risk of exacerbations shows benefits in lung function and patient-reported outcomes. Moreover, the key benefits reported with SITT are significant reductions in exacerbations and hospitalizations, with data also suggesting reduced all-cause mortality. These benefits outweigh the ICS-class effect of higher incidence of study-reported pneumonia compared with LAMA/LABA. Important differences in trial design, baseline population characteristics, such as exacerbation history, and assessment of outcomes, have significant implications for interpreting data from cross-trial comparisons. Current understanding interprets the blood eosinophil count as a continuum that can help predict response to ICS and has utility alongside other clinical factors to aid treatment decision-making. We conclude that treatment decisions in COPD should be guided by an approach that considers benefit versus risk, with early optimization of treatment essential for maximizing long-term benefits and patient outcomes.

Once-daily single-inhaler versus twice-daily multiple-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD: lung function and health status results from two replicate randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) triple therapy administered via single or multiple inhalers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been evaluated comprehensively. We conducted two replicate trials comparing single- with multiple-inhaler ICS/LAMA/LABA combination in COPD. METHODS: 207608 and 207609 were Phase IV, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, triple-dummy non-inferiority trials comparing once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg via Ellipta inhaler, with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400/12 µg via metered-dose inhaler plus once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg via HandiHaler. Patients had symptomatic COPD and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) < 50% predicted, or FEV1 < 80% predicted and ≥ 2 moderate or 1 severe exacerbations in the prior year. The primary endpoint in both trials was weighted mean change from baseline (wmCFB) in 0-24-h FEV1 at Week 12. Secondary endpoints included CFB in trough FEV1 at Day 84 and 85. Other endpoints included serial FEV1 and health status outcomes at Week 12. Safety was evaluated descriptively. RESULTS: The modified per-protocol population included 720 and 711 patients in studies 207608 and 207609 (intent-to-treat population: 728 and 732). FF/UMEC/VI was non-inferior to BUD/FOR+TIO for wmCFB in 0-24-h FEV1 at Week 12 (Study 207608 treatment difference [95% confidence interval]: 15 mL [- 13, 43]; Study 207609: 11 mL [- 20, 41]). FF/UMEC/VI improved trough FEV1 CFB versus BUD/FOR+TIO at Day 84 and 85 (Day 85 treatment difference: Study 207608: 38 mL [10, 66]; Study 207609: 51 mL [21, 82]) and FEV1 at 12 and 24 h post-morning dose at Week 12 in both studies. No treatment differences were seen in health status outcomes. Safety profiles were similar between treatments; pneumonia occurred in 7 (< 1%) patients with FF/UMEC/VI and 9 (1%) patients with BUD/FOR+TIO, across both studies. CONCLUSIONS: FF/UMEC/VI was non-inferior to BUD/FOR+TIO for wmCFB in 0-24-h FEV1 at Week 12 in patients with COPD. Greater improvements in trough and serial FEV1 measurements at Week 12 with FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR+TIO, together with similar health status improvements and safety outcomes including the incidence of pneumonia, suggest that once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy is a viable option for patients looking to simplify their treatment regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK (207608/207609; NCT03478683/NCT03478696).

Clinical effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol in usual practice: the COPD INTREPID study design.

Effectiveness studies complement conventional randomised controlled trials by providing a holistic view of treatments in the setting of usual clinical practice. We present the protocol for the ongoing INTREPID (INvestigation of TRelegy Effectiveness: usual PractIce Design; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03467425) study, a randomised, open-label, 24-week effectiveness study of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI; Trelegy) delivered by the ELLIPTA inhaler versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in usual practice settings. INTREPID was designed to provide evidence of FF/UMEC/VI effectiveness in patients with COPD managed in routine healthcare systems across multiple European countries. Between study initiation and end-of-study visits, patients will receive their medication and care as they would ordinarily receive it, from their usual healthcare provider at their usual healthcare centre. Study-specific intervention will be minimal. The primary end-point will be the proportion of COPD assessment test (CAT) responders, defined as a clinically meaningful improvement from baseline of ≥2 units, at week 24. The CAT was chosen as it provides health status information relevant to patients, physicians, health technology agencies and payers. Lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s) and critical inhaler errors will also be assessed in a subgroup of patients. The strengths and weaknesses of the protocol and some of the challenges associated with conducting this multicountry study, such as differences in healthcare systems and treatment practices across sites, will also be discussed.

Efficacy and safety of the dual bronchodilator combination umeclidinium/vilanterol in COPD by age and airflow limitation severity: A pooled post hoc analysis of seven clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and those with more severe airway limitation are perceived to experience reduced efficacy from inhaled bronchodilators, especially those administered in a dry powder inhaler. This study compared the efficacy and safety of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist dry powder combination in elderly patients with COPD and patients with moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation. METHODS: This post hoc pooled analysis of seven randomized studies of ≥12 weeks' duration investigated the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 µg versus tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) 250/50 µg. Change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), a common efficacy measure in all trials, proportion of FEV1 responders (≥100 mL increase from baseline) and safety outcomes were analyzed at Day 28, 56, and 84 in patients classified by age (<65, ≥65, and ≥75 years of age) and severity of baseline airflow limitation (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 2 [moderate] and stage 3/4 [severe/very severe]). A 24-week analysis was also conducted for the UMEC/VI versus TIO comparison. RESULTS: The pooled intent-to-treat population comprised 3821 patients (≥65 years: 44-45%; ≥75 years: 9-10%; GOLD stage 3/4: 50-55%); 2246, 874, and 701 patients received UMEC/VI, TIO, or FP/SAL, respectively. Significant improvements in trough FEV1 at Day 84 were observed with UMEC/VI versus TIO or FP/SAL irrespective of age (all p ≤ 0.029) or GOLD stage (all p < 0.001). The proportion of FEV1 responders at Day 84 was significantly greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO or FP/SAL across all age groups (all p ≤ 0.016) and GOLD stages (all p < 0.001). Safety profiles were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI consistently demonstrated improved lung function versus TIO and FP/SAL across age and airflow limitation severity subgroups, with no safety concerns, indicating that UMEC/VI provides no loss in efficacy or additional safety concerns for both elderly patients with COPD and patients with severe/very severe airway limitation.

Preventing Clinically Important Deterioration of COPD with Addition of Umeclidinium to Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting ß2-Agonist Therapy: An Integrated Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing clinically important measures of disease progression is essential for evaluating therapeutic effects on disease stability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed whether providing additional bronchodilation with the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) to patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) therapy would improve disease stability compared with ICS/LABA therapy alone. METHODS: This integrated post hoc analysis of four 12-week, randomized, double-blind trials (NCT01772134, NCT01772147, NCT01957163, NCT02119286) compared UMEC 62.5 µg with placebo added to open-label ICS/LABA in symptomatic patients with COPD (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score ≥ 2). A clinically important deterioration (CID) was defined as: a decrease from baseline of ≥ 100 mL in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), an increase from baseline of ≥ 4 units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, or a moderate/severe exacerbation. Risk of a first CID was evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients stratified by Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification, exacerbation history and type of ICS/LABA therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 1637 patients included in the ITT population received UMEC + ICS/LABA (n = 819) or placebo + ICS/LABA (n = 818). Additional bronchodilation with UMEC reduced the risk of a first CID by 45-58% in the ITT population and all subgroups analyzed compared with placebo (all p < 0.001). Improvements were observed in reducing FEV1 (69% risk reduction; p < 0.001) and exacerbation (47% risk reduction; p = 0.004) events in the ITT population. No significant reduction in risk of a SGRQ CID was observed. AE incidence was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic patients with COPD receiving ICS/LABA experience frequent deteriorations. Additional bronchodilation with UMEC significantly reduced the risk of CID and provided greater short-term stability versus continued ICS/LABA therapy in these patients. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline (study number: 202067). Plain language summary available for this article.

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.