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.

Adherence and persistence to once-daily single-inhaler versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the USA: A real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Triple therapy comprising an inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting ß2 agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) is recommended for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients at risk of exacerbation. Multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) is associated with poor adherence and persistence; however, these outcomes have not been evaluated for single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI). METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus claims database identified patients with COPD initiating triple therapy between 18 September 2017 and 30 June 2019. The first date of single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI dispensing, or first day of overlapping ICS, LAMA, and LABA medications for MITT users, defined the index date. Patients were ≥40 years, had ≥12 months of continuous insurance coverage pre-index (baseline) and ≥6 months' coverage post-index; those with MITT during baseline were excluded. Inverse probability weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics. Adherence was assessed using proportion of days covered (PDC) and was evaluated using linear and log-binomial models. Persistence (non-persistence identified as >30-day gap between fills) was evaluated using Cox models. RESULTS: 9942 patients (FF/UMEC/VI: 2782; MITT: 7160) were included. Adherence was significantly higher for FF/UMEC/VI versus MITT users (mean PDC, 0.66 vs. 0.48; p < 0.001), and FF/UMEC/VI users were twice as likely to be adherent (PDC ≥0.8) than MITT users (46.5% vs. 22.3%; risk ratio [95% CI]: 2.08 [1.85-2.30]; p < 0.001). After 12 months, significantly more FF/UMEC/VI users persisted on therapy than MITT users (35.7% vs. 13.9%; hazard ratio [95% CI]: 1.91 [1.81-2.01]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: COPD patients initiating single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI had significantly improved adherence and persistence compared with MITT.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Different Types of Inhaled Long-Acting ß2-Agonist Plus Inhaled Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist vs Inhaled Long-Acting ß2-Agonist Plus Inhaled Corticosteroid Fixed-Dose Combinations in COPD A Propensity Score-Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite multiple available fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of inhaled long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) plus long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and LABAs plus inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for COPD, uncertainty remains regarding their comparative effects. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can comparative effectiveness and safety of LABA plus LAMA (LABA/LAMA) and LABA plus ICS (LABA/ICS) FDCs vary by different individual components of the dual combinations in COPD? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a new user, propensity score-inverse probability of treatment weighting cohort study to compare the effectiveness and safety of two frequently used LABA/LAMA FDCs (indacaterol plus glycopyrronium [IND/GLY] and vilanterol plus umeclidinium [VI/UMEC]) vs three commonly prescribed LABA/ICS FDCs (salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate [SAL/FP], formoterol fumarate plus budesonide [FF/BUD], and formoterol fumarate plus beclomethasone dipropionate [FF/BDP]) using the Taiwanese nationwide health care claims from 2014 through 2017. The primary effectiveness outcome was the annual moderate to severe exacerbation rate, and safety outcomes included risks of severe pneumonia and cardiovascular disease requiring hospitalization. Weighted generalized linear mixed models and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Patients with COPD initiating IND/GLY and VI/UMEC showed an 11% (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and 20% (IRR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90) reduced annual rate of moderate to severe exacerbations, respectively, than those initiating SAL/FP, but showed a similar rate as those initiating FF/BUD or FF/BDP. Both LABA/LAMA FDCs, compared with SAL/FP and VI/UMEC vs FF/BDP, were associated with a 27% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90) to 42% (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.70) reduced pneumonia risk. Cardiovascular risk was comparable in five groups. An intraclass difference existed in rates of moderate to severe COPD exacerbation and risks of pneumonia among LABA/ICS FDCs, but not between LABA/LAMA FDCs. INTERPRETATION: Both LABA/LAMAs vs SAL/FP are associated with a lower exacerbation rate and pneumonia risk, but exhibit similar effectiveness and safety outcomes compared with FF/BDP or FF/BUD, suggesting that comparative effects may differ by individual components of the dual therapies in COPD.

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.

Fixed-Dose Combinations of Long-Acting Bronchodilators for the Management of COPD: Global and Asian Perspectives.

Maintenance bronchodilator therapy with long-acting ß-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) is the cornerstone treatment for patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of LABA/LAMA are recommended for the majority of symptomatic COPD patients by global guidelines; regional guidelines such as the Japanese and Korean guidelines also provide similar recommendations for the use of LABA/LAMA FDCs. This review comprehensively describes the latest clinical evidence from key studies on the efficacy and safety of four approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations: indacaterol/glycopyrronium, vilanterol/umeclidinium, formoterol/aclidinium, and olodaterol/tiotropium. Additionally, in this review we describe the rationale behind the use of LABA/LAMA FDC therapy, key findings from the preclinical and clinical trial evaluation of respective LABA and LAMA monocomponents, and the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA FDCs. Special emphasis is placed on the clinical evidence for the monocomponents and LABA/LAMA FDCs from the Asian population. This detailed overview of the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA FDCs in global and Asian COPD patients is envisaged to provide a better understanding of the benefits of these therapies and to inform healthcare providers and patients on their appropriate use.Funding: Novartis Pharma K.K.

Fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium bromide, and vilanterol as a combination therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Introduction: Triple therapy with two bronchodilators (LABA plus LAMA) and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is recommended for patients suffering from severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Areas covered: All 12-52 week-long studies comparing triple therapy with umeclidinium (UM) added to either fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) vs. other comparators in COPD patients of group B or D (2011 GOLD classification) were considered. When UM was added to ICS/LABA with separate devices or within a single device, triple combination was more effective than comparators (usually, ICS/LABA combinations) regarding improvements to pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life and, in the longer studies, rate of moderate-severe exacerbations. The IMPACT study (a large trial comparing UM/FF/VI with both FF/VI and UM/VI combinations) showed that triple therapy had a greater effect compared to dual therapies in reducing the rate of moderate-severe exacerbations, improving trough FEV1 and improving quality of life. The safety profile was good, without excess cardiovascular effects or pneumonia, however, the presence of comorbidities was frequent. Expert commentary: UM/FF/VI combination represents a good option for severe COPD patients who remain symptomatic and/or with frequent exacerbations despite dual therapies. Once daily administration with a simple and effective device may increase adherence and efficacy of the treatment.

Rates of escalation to triple COPD therapy among incident users of LAMA and LAMA/LABA.

BACKGROUND: Improved outcomes have been reported for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receiving combination long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) therapy compared with LAMA monotherapy. However, little is known about the relative characteristics of these patients and their rates of escalation to triple therapy (TT, combining a LAMA, LABA, and inhaled corticosteroid). This study aimed to characterize patients initiating treatment with the LAMA tiotropium (TIO) and the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combination therapy umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), and to compare rates of escalation to TT between patients receiving these therapies. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients with COPD enrolled in a US health insurance plan during 2013-2015 and newly initiated on TIO or UMEC/VI. Patients were ≥40 years of age at index (date of therapy initiation) with continuous enrollment for 12 months pre-index and ≥30 days post-index. LAMA users were propensity score matched 1:1 to LAMA/LABA users, with TT initiation rates reported by cohort using pharmacy claims. RESULTS: 35,357 patients initiating on TIO and 2407 patients initiating on UMEC/VI were identified. After propensity score matching, the rate of TT initiation was significantly higher in new TIO users (n = 1320) than in new UMEC/VI users (n = 1320) (0.92 vs 0.49 per 100 months of exposure, respectively; p < 0.001). Relative to the UMEC/VI cohort, the TIO cohort had an 87% higher risk of TT initiation (hazard ratio: 1.87; 95% confidence interval: 1.4-2.5; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving UMEC/VI progressed to TT more slowly, and were at lower risk of progressing to TT, than patients receiving TIO.

Dual bronchodilator therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: evidence for the efficacy and Safety of fixed dose combination treatments in the setting of recent guideline updates.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent updates to the GOLD guidelines emphasize the use of combination LABA and LAMA bronchodilators for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with persistent dyspnea despite monotherapy or frequent exacerbations despite LAMA monotherapy. There are several commercially available LABA/LAMA fixed dose combination inhalers, which are likely to become the principle therapy for many patients with COPD. RECENT FINDINGS: In the last 4 years, there have been a number of large clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of combined LAMA and LABA bronchodilators. LAMA/LABA fixed dose combination therapies have consistently demonstrated clinically significant improvements to airway obstruction, dyspnea, and quality of life whenever compared with placebo, and more modest improvements compared with bronchodilator monotherapies and combined bronchodilator/inhaled corticosteroid therapy. SUMMARY: New guidelines emphasize combination bronchodilators as a mainstay of therapy for many patients with symptomatic COPD and there are several new combination bronchodilator therapies available to patients. It is important for physicians and patients to understand the range and degree of expected clinical effects and the safety profiles of these new medications.

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.

Randomized controlled trials and real-world observational studies in evaluating cardiovascular safety of inhaled bronchodilator therapy in COPD.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) bronchodilators and their combination are recommended for the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although the efficacy of LAMAs and LABAs has been well established through randomized controlled trials (RCTs), questions remain regarding their cardiovascular (CV) safety. Furthermore, while the safety of LAMA and LABA monotherapy has been extensively studied, data are lacking for LAMA/LABA combination therapy, and the majority of the studies that have reported on the CV safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy were not specifically designed to assess this. Evaluation of CV safety for COPD treatments is important because many patients with COPD have underlying CV comorbidities. However, severe CV and other comorbidities are often exclusion criteria for RCTs, contributing to a lack in external validity and generalizability. Real-world observational studies are another important tool to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COPD therapies in a broader population of patients and can improve upon the external validity limitations of RCTs. We examine what is already known regarding the CV and cerebrovascular safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy from RCTs and real-world observational studies, and explore the advantages and limitations of data derived from each study type. We also describe an ongoing prospective, observational, comparative post-authorization safety study of a LAMA/LABA combination therapy (umeclidinium/vilanterol) and LAMA monotherapy (umeclidinium) versus tiotropium, with a focus on the relative merits of the study design.

Vilanterol trifenatate for the treatment of COPD.

INTRODUCTION: Currently the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has limited effectiveness and there is a need to develop new drugs. International guidelines recommend the use of long-acting bronchodilators (ß2 agonists and anti-cholinergics/muscarinics), inhaled steroids and associations between these drugs in the maintenance treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD. AREA COVERED: Vilanterol trifenate is a new once-daily highly selective ß2-agonist available in USA and Europe in association with umeclidinium bromide (a long-acting anti-muscarnic agent) and fluticasone furoate (an inhaled corticosteroid) for the once-daily maintenance treatment of COPD. Vilanterol combined in fixed-dose treatments has been tested in numerous clinical trials involving thousands of patients. Expert commentary: These new once-daily formulations have the potential to improve compliance to long-term inhaled therapy. This paper will review the clinical and experimental data regarding vilanterol use in the regular treatment of COPD as well as provide a critical discussion of possible future treatment settings.

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.

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Umeclidinium and Vilanterol for the Treatment of COPD.

BACKGROUND: COPD guidelines recommend the combined use of inhaled long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) if symptoms are not improved by a single agent. This systematic review tested the hypothesis that the bronchodilator effect of the LABA/LAMA combination, umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VIL), would translate into better outcomes without incurring increased adverse events (AEs). METHODS: This was a systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled or crossover trials (> 4 weeks) involving UMEC/VIL compared with its monocomponents, tiotropium, or fluticasone/salmeterol. Primary outcomes were trough FEV1, serious adverse events (SAEs), and serious cardiovascular events (SCVEs). RESULTS: Eleven trials from 10 studies (9,609 patients) showed that UMEV/VIL provided superior improvements in lung function compared with UMEC, VIL, tiotropium, and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (mean trough FEV1, 60, 110, 90, and 90 mL, respectively; P < .0001). Also, UMEC/VIL had a greater likelihood of demonstrating a minimal clinically important difference on the Transition Dyspnea Index compared with UMEC and VIL (number needed to treat for benefit [NNTB] = 14 and 10, respectively). UMEC/VIL therapy significantly reduced the risk of COPD exacerbations compared with UMEC and VIL (NNTB = 42 and 41, respectively). On the contrary, we noted no significant differences between UMEC/VIL and tiotropium with respect to dyspnea, health status, or risk of COPD exacerbation. Regarding safety issues, the incidence of AEs, SAEs, SCVEs, and mortality on treatment was similar across treatments, suggesting reduced safety concerns with the use of the UMEC/VIL combination. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily inhaled UMEC/VIL showed superior efficacy compared with its monocomponents, tiotropium, and fluticasone/combination in patients with moderate to severe COPD.

Umeclidinium/vilanterol combination inhaler efficacy and potential impact on current chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Umeclidinium bromide (UM) with vilanterol (VI) is the first once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2 agonist (LAMA/LABA) combination approved for use in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the USA. Prior to this, only combinations of short-acting bronchodilators and short-acting muscarinic antagonists were available in the USA as a single inhaler and they required frequent dosing. LAMA or LABA therapy is the recommended first choice for moderate-to-very severe COPD with combination therapy added if monotherapy fails to control patients' symptoms. This allows lower dosing of individual medications, which may limit adverse effects. It could also have the additional benefit of improving patient compliance by making medication regimens less laboring. AREAS COVERED: A comprehensive literature search of journal articles and abstracts looking for trials that evaluated both the efficacy and the safety of UM/VI revealed that UM/VI improves patients' lung function and overall health status, while maintaining excellent safety and tolerability profiles compared to placebo and other bronchodilators. EXPERT OPINION: Given the clinical efficacy, favorable safety profile and ease of use, clinicians may recommend UM/VI to patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD - a shift that could have significant impact on the management of COPD.

Drug updates and approvals: 2014 in review.

This article highlights important prescribing information for new drugs approved by the FDA over the last year. These include albiglutide, apremilast, dapagliflozin, insulin human inhalation powder, riociguat, timothy grass pollen allergen extract, umeclidinium and vilanterol inhalation powder, and vorapaxar.

Umeclidinium bromide and vilanterol in combination for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Drugs from the two major classes of bronchodilator; umeclidinium, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and vilanterol, a long-acting ß2 agonist (LABA), have been combined in a single inhaler device for once-daily use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These drugs have been proven safe and well tolerated in patients with COPD and show an enhanced improvement in FEV1 when compared to either drug in isolation and when compared with an established LAMA drug. In this article, we discuss the data supporting this combination inhaler and also review alternative combined LAMA/LABA options. We discuss where these agents are likely to find a place in the current therapy of COPD and where the future is likely to lead with these and other therapies.

New developments in the combination treatment of COPD: focus on umeclidinium/vilanterol.

An increasing body of evidence suggests that the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) combination appears to play an important role in maximizing bronchodilation, with studies to date indicating that combining different classes of bronchodilators may result in significantly greater improvements in lung function compared to the use of a single drug, and that these combinations are well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). An inhaled, fixed-dose combination of two 24-hour bronchodilators, the LAMA umeclidinium and the LABA vilanterol, is under development as a once-daily treatment for COPD. The efficacy of both mono-components has already been demonstrated. The information currently available suggests that umeclidinium/vilanterol is an effective once-daily dual bronchodilator fixed-dose combination in the treatment of COPD. However, it remains to be seen if it compares favorably with current therapies. Moreover, the question remains whether umeclidinium/vilanterol fixed-dose combination, which significantly improves FEV1, is also associated with improvements in other outcome measures that are important to COPD patients.

The combination of umeclidinium bromide and vilanterol in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: current evidence and future prospects.

The defining feature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is progressive airflow limitation that causes air trapping and hyperinflation. The increasing hyperinflation results in dyspnea along with associated inability to engage in the activities of daily living. The American Thoracic Society (ATS), European Respiratory Society (ERS) and Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) treatment guidelines all place bronchodilators as the foundation of pharmacological management of COPD. In patients with moderate-to-very-severe respiratory impairment, adding regular treatment with one or more long-acting bronchodilators is recommended [long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs)]. A growing body of evidence shows that LAMA and LABA co-administration is more effective than either drug class alone in managing stable COPD to improve lung function, symptoms and health status. Recently, new drug applications (NDAs) for a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of umeclidinium (UMEC), a LAMA, and vilanterol (VI), a LABA, at UMEC/VI doses of 125/25 and 62.5/25 µg have been submitted by sponsors to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Thus, UMEC/VI has become the first FDC LAMA/LABA product that has reached a regulatory approval stage. Other LAMA/LABA once-daily combinations coming through development include FDCs of tiotropium and olodaterol, glycopyrronium and indacaterol, and twice-daily aclidinium and formoterol. The aim of this review is to explore currently available data for once-daily UMEC/VI in the context of the evolving standards of COPD management.

28-Day safety and tolerability of umeclidinium in combination with vilanterol in COPD: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Umeclidinium (UMEC; GSK573719) is a new long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) currently in development in combination with vilanterol (VI), an inhaled, long-acting beta2 agonist for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of repeat dosing of UMEC and VI in combination once daily for 28 days in patients with COPD. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study. Patients aged ≥40 years with post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≤80% of predicted normal values and FEV1/FVC ratio ≤0.70, and a smoking history of ≥10 pack-years, were randomized 4:1 to once-daily UMEC/VI (500/25 mcg; n = 42) or placebo (n = 9). RESULTS: UMEC/VI was non-inferior to placebo in weighted mean pulse rate over 0-6 h at Day 28 (primary endpoint: difference of -0.5 bpm, 95% CI: -5.5 to 4.5). There was no evidence of a difference between UMEC/VI compared with placebo in blood pressure, minimum and maximum pulse rate, or QTcF assessments. Adverse events (AEs) were reported by 11 (26%) patients in the UMEC/VI group and one (11%) patient in the placebo group. No serious AEs were reported. Both UMEC and VI showed rapid absorption (median t(max) ∼6 min for both drugs) with no evidence of accumulation for AUC or C(max) on Day 28 compared with Day 1 for UMEC or VI. There was no correlation between individual steady-state C(max) and pulse rate on Day 28. Change from baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 29 showed numerically greater improvements with UMEC/VI compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: Once-daily dosing with UMEC in combination with VI in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD was well tolerated over 28 days.