Safety analysis of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir in patients with markers of advanced liver disease in clinical and real-world cohorts.

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has the greatest health impact in patients with advanced liver disease. The direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimen glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (G/P) is approved for treatment of HCV-infected patients without cirrhosis and with compensated cirrhosis. However, events of liver decompensation/failure have been reported in patients treated with protease-inhibitor-containing DAA regimens, often in patients with advanced liver disease. This study examines the safety of on-label G/P treatment in patients with compensated cirrhosis (F4 at baseline) with markers of advanced liver disease. Patients with cirrhosis were categorized into 4 subgroups, based on different noninvasive markers of advanced liver disease identified using laboratory measures: platelet count < or ≥ 100 × 109 /L, and Child-Pugh score 5 or 6. Separate analyses were performed using pooled data from clinical trials and from real-world post-marketing observational studies. G/P was well tolerated in patients with platelet count ≥100 × 109 /L (n = 800), platelet count <100 × 109 /L (n = 215), a Child-Pugh score of 5 (n = 915) and a Child-Pugh score of 6 (n = 95). In the clinical trial and real-world cohorts two patients and no patients experienced a serious adverse event (AE) possibly related to study drug, respectively; three patients and no patients experienced an AE of special interest for hepatic decompensation and hepatic failure. This analysis reaffirms G/P's safety profile in indicated patients with compensated cirrhosis, including those with markers of more advanced liver disease. Increasing the number of patients treated with short-duration G/P therapy may contribute to meeting HCV elimination targets.

A randomized, controlled, repeat-dose study of batefenterol/fluticasone furoate compared with placebo in the treatment of COPD.

BACKGROUND: Batefenterol (BAT) is a bi-functional molecule with both muscarinic antagonist and ß2-adrenoceptor agonist pharmacology. This Phase II, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study evaluated the safety and tolerability of BAT 300 µg with fluticasone furoate (FF) 100 µg administered via the ELLIPTA inhaler (BAT/FF 300/100). METHODS: Subjects with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were randomized 2:1 to receive BAT/FF 300/100 or placebo once daily for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 0-4-h weighted mean (WM) heart rate (HR, measured by electrocardiogram [ECG]) on Day 42. Other endpoints included WM and maximum 0-4-h corrected QT interval (ECG on Days 1, 28, and 42), HR measured by Holter monitoring (Day 42), and standard safety assessments. Study protocol was approved by an Investigational Review Board. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomized and received ≥1 dose of study medication (BAT/FF 300/100 n = 42; placebo n = 20). Mean age was 62.5 years (standard deviation [SD] 8.17). Study completion rates were 83% (BAT/FF 300/100) and 100% (placebo). Screening mean (SD) post-bronchodilator percentage-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s was 57.57 (11.42) in the BAT/FF 300/100 group and 55.68 (14.03) in the placebo group. BAT/FF 300/100 was non-inferior to placebo for the primary endpoint, treatment difference: - 2.2 beats per minute (bpm), 95% confidence interval [CI]: - 6.2, 1.7). There were no clinically relevant differences between treatment groups in WM or maximum 0-4-h corrected QT interval, or mean HR based on Holter monitoring on Day 42 (BAT/FF 300/100: 76.3 bpm [SD 11.38]; placebo: 84.8 bpm [SD 9.87]). Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 38% (BAT/FF 300/100) and 35% (placebo) of patients. AEs in ≥2 subjects with BAT/FF 300/100 were dysgeusia (10%), diarrhea (7%), nasopharyngitis (7%), and cough (5%). AEs leading to discontinuation occurred in two subjects who received BAT/FF 300/100: post-treatment severe pneumonia (serious AE) and non-serious AEs of moderate vomiting and severe gastroenteritis; both were not considered drug-related. No deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Six weeks of BAT/FF 300/100 treatment was non-inferior to placebo for change from baseline in HR, with no new clinically relevant general or cardiovascular safety signals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02573870 (submitted October 12, 2015).

Serious Asthma Events with Fluticasone plus Salmeterol versus Fluticasone Alone.

BACKGROUND: The safe and appropriate use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for the treatment of asthma has been widely debated. In two large clinical trials, investigators found a potential risk of serious asthma-related events associated with LABAs. This study was designed to evaluate the risk of administering the LABA salmeterol in combination with an inhaled glucocorticoid, fluticasone propionate. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, adolescent and adult patients (age, ≥12 years) with persistent asthma were assigned to receive either fluticasone with salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. All the patients had a history of a severe asthma exacerbation in the year before randomization but not during the previous month. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had a history of life-threatening or unstable asthma. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization). Noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol to fluticasone alone was defined as an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation. RESULTS: Of 11,679 patients who were enrolled, 67 had 74 serious asthma-related events, with 36 events in 34 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 38 events in 33 patients in the fluticasone-only group. The hazard ratio for a serious asthma-related event in the fluticasone-salmeterol group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.66), and noninferiority was achieved (P=0.003). There were no asthma-related deaths; 2 patients in the fluticasone-only group underwent asthma-related intubation. The risk of a severe asthma exacerbation was 21% lower in the fluticasone-salmeterol group than in the fluticasone-only group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89), with at least one severe asthma exacerbation occurring in 480 of 5834 patients (8%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group, as compared with 597 of 5845 patients (10%) in the fluticasone-only group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone did not have a significantly higher risk of serious asthma-related events than did those who received fluticasone alone. Patients receiving fluticasone-salmeterol had fewer severe asthma exacerbations than did those in the fluticasone-only group. (AUSTRI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01475721.).

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 µg versus salmeterol 50 µg after chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled long-acting beta2 agonists used alone and in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid reduce the risk of exacerbations in patients with stable COPD. However, the relative efficacy of these agents in preventing recurrent exacerbations in those recovering from an initial episode is not known. This study compared the rate of COPD exacerbations over the 26 weeks after an initial exacerbation in patients receiving the combination of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FP/SAL) or SAL alone. METHODS: Patients (n = 639) aged ≥40 years were randomized to either twice-daily inhaled FP/SAL 250/50 µg or SAL 50 µg. Primary, and secondary, endpoints were rates of recurrent severe, and moderate/severe, exacerbations of COPD. Lung function, health outcomes and levels of biomarkers of systemic inflammation were also assessed. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant treatment difference in rates of recurrent severe exacerbations (treatment ratio 0.92 [95% CI: 0.58, 1.45]) and moderate/severe exacerbations (0.82 [0.64, 1.06]) between FP/SAL and SAL in the intent-to-treat population. Pre-dose morning FEV1 change from baseline was greater (0.10 L [0.04, 0.16]) with FP/SAL than SAL. No treatment difference was seen for other endpoints including patient-reported health outcomes and biomarker levels for the full cohort. CONCLUSIONS: No significant treatment difference between FP/SAL and SAL was seen in COPD exacerbation recurrence for the complete cohort. Treatment benefit with FP/SAL over SAL (treatment ratio 0.68 [0.47, 0.97]) was seen in patients having FEV1 ≥ 30% and prior exposure to ICS. No unexpected safety issues were identified with either treatment. Patients with the most severe COPD may be more refractory to treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01110200). This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (study number ADC113874).

Efficacy and Safety of 8- or 12 Weeks of Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir in Patients with Evidence of Portal Hypertension.

INTRODUCTION: High efficacy and safety of 8-week glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (G/P) therapy was seen in hepatitis C (HCV)-infected, treatment-naïve (TN), compensated cirrhosis (CC) patients in EXPEDITION-8. To provide further understanding of the efficacy of G/P treatment in HCV-infected TN patients with CC and clinical evidence of portal hypertension (PHT), this analysis focused on differences in sustained virologic response at post-treatment week 12 (SVR12) between 8-week and 12-week G/P treatment groups in patients with PHT, and on differences in safety outcomes between PHT and non-PHT groups. METHODS: Data were derived from an ad hoc subgroup analysis of the EXPEDITION-8 study for patients receiving 8 weeks of G/P therapy, and pooled patient-level data from nine clinical studies for patients receiving 12 weeks of therapy. Evidence of PHT included at least one of the following at baseline: FibroScan ≥ 20 kPa, platelets < 100 × 109/L, or medical history consistent with PHT. The primary efficacy endpoint was SVR12; adverse events (AEs) consistent with hepatic decompensation were assessed. RESULTS: PHT was identified in 60.6% (208/343) and 57.1% (224/392) of the 8- and 12-week groups, respectively. For those with PHT, SVR12 was 97.6% (203/208) and 98.7% (221/224) with 8- and 12-week treatment, respectively (intention-to-treat population). For those without PHT, 97.8% (132/135) in the 8-week group and 97.6% (164/168) in the 12-week group achieved SVR12. Eight patients with PHT, and seven without, did not achieve SVR12. Similar rates of AEs were observed in the PHT and non-PHT groups. Three cases of hepatic decompensation in the PHT group, unrelated to G/P according to the investigators, were reported. CONCLUSION: G/P treatment for 8 or 12 weeks was equally efficacious in HCV patients with features of PHT. Safety outcomes were similar between PHT and non-PHT groups, with G/P treatment well tolerated across groups. NCTS: NCT03089944, NCT02642432, NCT02738138, NCT02243293, NCT02651194, NCT03235349, NCT02707952, NCT02966795, NCT03069365, NCT03219216.

Beta2-receptor polymorphisms in patients receiving salmeterol with or without fluticasone propionate.

RATIONALE: Retrospective pharmacogenetic studies have questioned whether patients with asthma who are arginine homozygous at the beta(2-)adrenergic receptor (position 16) should use long-acting beta-agonists. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the response to salmeterol alone or in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid is influenced by beta- receptor polymorphisms. METHODS: Subjects using only as-needed albuterol were screened and completed two sequential open-label run-in periods (8 wk on as-needed albuterol; 8 wk on as-needed ipratropium). Five hundred forty-four subjects were randomized by Arg16Gly genotype to salmeterol alone or with fluticasone propionate for 16 weeks. Change from baseline in morning peak expiratory flow was the primary endpoint. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Lung function responses were sustained over treatment and no statistically significant changes from baseline between genotypes within treatments were observed. Overall mean changes in morning peak flow for salmeterol with fluticasone propionate were 32.6 L/min (Arg/Arg vs. Gly/Gly, 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.3, 22.1), 25.9 L/min (Arg/Arg vs. Arg/Gly, 95% CI, -7.1, 21.3), and 24.9 L/min (Arg/Gly vs. Gly/Gly, 95% CI, -13.0, 14.6), and for salmeterol alone were 19.4 L/min (Arg/Arg vs. Gly/Gly, 95% CI, -1.7, 21.4), 24.6 L/min (Arg/Arg vs. Arg/Gly, 95% CI, -13.0, 10.6), and 12.4 L/min (Arg/Gly vs. Gly/Gly, 95% CI, -0.2, 22.3) for Arg/Arg, Arg/Gly, and Gly/Gly genotypes, respectively. Other measures of asthma control showed similar responses. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed no evidence of a pharmacogenetic effect of beta-receptor variation on salmeterol response. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00102882).

Disease severity and symptoms among patients receiving monotherapy for COPD.

AIM: To examine the burden of respiratory symptoms, quality of life and co-morbid illness in COPD patients receiving maintenance treatment in a real world setting. METHODS: In a single visit, patients with a physician's diagnosis of COPD who were receiving monotherapy with a long-acting bronchodilator (LABD) performed spirometry, completed symptom questionnaires, and reported their treatments, history of exacerbations and co-morbidities. RESULTS: We enrolled 1084 patients of whom 1072 had acceptable spirometry. 689 (64%) had airflow obstruction (FEV1/FVC≤0.70) while 383 (36%) failed to meet spirometric criteria for COPD despite receiving maintenance therapy and having comparable symptoms and comorbid illness. Among those with confirmed COPD, dyspnoea was worse in those with more severe airflow limitation though exacerbation frequency was comparable across COPD stages. CONCLUSIONS: COPD is commonly diagnosed and treated in patients without airflow obstruction. Many COPD patients receiving LABD monotherapy continue to suffer significant symptoms, exacerbations and poor quality of life.

Safety of Patients with Hepatitis C Virus Treated with Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir from Clinical Trials and Real-World Cohorts.

INTRODUCTION: More than 70 million people are estimated to be infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) globally. If left untreated, HCV infection can lead to complications such as extensive liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Evolution of treatments has resulted in highly effective and well-tolerated all-oral direct-acting antivirals. The pangenotypic regimen of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir is approved for treating HCV for patients without cirrhosis or with compensated cirrhosis (CC). Guidelines have evolved to simplify treatment to enable non-specialists to manage and treat HCV-infected patients. Simultaneously, such treatment algorithms provide guidance on the pretreatment identification of small subsets of patients who may require specialist treatment and long-term follow-up for advanced liver disease, including those at risk of developing HCC. This study describes the safety profile of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir in patients identified using previously described noninvasive laboratory measures who may be eligible for treatment by non-liver specialists. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir in patients, identified by noninvasive laboratory measures, intended to exclude patients with advanced liver disease and severe renal impairment, who can be managed within non-liver specialist settings. Patients were included from clinical trials and real-world studies of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for HCV treatment. Baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and safety assessments, including adverse events and laboratory abnormalities, were summarized. RESULTS: Data across these large-scale studies confirm that glecaprevir/pibrentasvir is well tolerated across different patient populations, with fewer than 0.1% of patients experiencing a serious adverse event related to treatment drugs, and few patients developing HCC during or after treatment. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir enhances the confidence of non-liver specialists to treat the majority of HCV-infected patients, and provides an opportunity to expand the treater pool, potentially increasing diagnosis and treatment rates for HCV, contributing to elimination of HCV.

Body mass index and response to asthma therapy: fluticasone propionate/salmeterol versus montelukast.

We studied the relationship between body mass index (BMI) on responses to asthma therapy using a retrospective analysis of four previously reported clinical trials. Fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol via Diskus 100/50 microg twice daily and montelukast (MON) 10 mg daily were compared. BMI was classified as underweight (less than 20 kg/m(2)), normal (20-24.9 kg/m(2)), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m(2)), obese-1 (30-34.9 kg/m(2)), obese-2 (35-39.9 kg/m(2)), or obese-3 (at least 40 kg/m(2)). Outcomes assessed included forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)), asthma symptom score, and albuterol use. FP/salmeterol produced greater improvements compared to MON in each of the asthma outcomes studied over the entire BMI range at the week-12 endpoint, with statistically significant differences noted among normal, overweight, obese-1, and obese-3 subjects. The within-treatment responses to FP/salmeterol across BMI ranges at the week-12 endpoint was statistically significantly greater in normal compared to obese-3 for FEV(1) and albuterol use, and in overweight compared to the obese-3 for each outcome studied. The within-treatment comparisons of MON across BMI ranges were significant for albuterol use in normal and underweight compared to obese-3 at the week-12 endpoint. Compared to subjects with normal BMI, the onset to peak FEV(1) may require longer treatment exposure in the very obese. Treatment responses to FP/salmeterol were consistently greater compared to MON and persisted at higher BMI.

Comparative effect of body mass index on response to asthma controller therapy.

Increases in body mass index (BMI) are reported to influence asthma severity and response to treatment. This analysis was designed to explore whether increasing BMI altered the comparative response to treatment with either fluticasone propionate (FP) or montelukast. Two double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trials of 12-weeks duration comparing FP, 88 micrograms, twice daily or montelukast, 10 mg, daily were evaluated. Subjects with mild-moderate persistent asthma were retrospectively stratified by BMI of <20 kg/m(2) (underweight), 20-24.9 kg/m(2) (normal weight), 25-29.9 kg/m(2) (overweight), and > or =30 kg/m(2) (obese). Outcomes included mean changes in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) and morning peak flow, daily albuterol use, and daily symptom scores. There were 1052 subjects evenly distributed between FP and montelukast by baseline parameters, including BMI. FP was statistically superior to montelukast for all BMI categories of normal, overweight, and obese subjects for FEV(1) (p < 0.008), morning peak flow (p < 0.002), albuterol use (p < 0.02), and symptom scores (p < 0.05). FP produced a significantly greater clinical response for normal, overweight, and obese subjects compared with montelukast. Irrespective of BMI, FP appears to be the more effective asthma controller therapy.

Effect of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (250/50) on COPD exacerbations and impact on patient outcomes.

Prevention and treatment of COPD exacerbations are recognized as key goals in disease management. This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study evaluated the effect of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250 mcg/50 mcg (FSC 250/50) and salmeterol 50 mcg (SAL) twice-daily on moderate/severe exacerbations. Subjects received treatment with FSC 250/50 during a one month run-in, followed by randomization to FSC 250/50 or SAL for 52 weeks. Moderate/severe exacerbations were defined as worsening symptoms of COPD requiring antibiotics, oral corticosteroids and/or hospitalization. In 797 subjects with COPD (mean FEV(1) = 0.98L, 34% predicted normal), treatment with FSC 250/50 significantly reduced the annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations by 30.4% compared with SAL (1.10 and 1.59 per subject per year, respectively, p < 0.001), the annual rate of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids by 34% (p < 0.001) and the annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations requiring hospitalization by 36% (p = 0.043). Clinical improvements observed during run-in treatment with FSC 250/50 were better maintained over 52 weeks with FSC 250/50 compared to SAL. Statistically significant reductions in albuterol use, dyspnea scores, and nighttime awakenings and numerical benefits on quality of life were seen with FSC 250/50 compared with SAL. The incidence of adverse events was similar across groups. Pneumonia was reported more frequently with FSC 250/50 compared with SAL (7% vs. 2%). FSC 250/50 is more effective than SAL at reducing the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations. These data confirm the beneficial effect of FSC on the management of COPD exacerbations and support the use of FSC in patients with COPD.

Effect of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (250/50 microg) or salmeterol (50 microg) on COPD exacerbations.

OBJECTIVES: COPD exacerbations are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study evaluated the effect of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 and salmeterol 50 microg twice daily on moderate to severe exacerbations. METHODS: Patients received standardized treatment with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 during a 1-month run-in, followed by randomization to fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 or salmeterol for 12 months. Moderate to severe exacerbations were defined as worsening symptoms of COPD requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or hospitalization. RESULTS: In 782 patients with COPD (mean FEV(1)=0.94+/-0.36 L, 33% predicted normal), treatment with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 significantly reduced (1) the annual rate of moderate to severe exacerbations by 30.5% compared with salmeterol (1.06 and 1.53 per subject per year, respectively, p<0.001), (2) the risk of time to first exacerbation by 25% (hazard ratio=0.750, p=0.003) and (3) the annual rate of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids by 40% (p<0.001). Clinical improvements observed during run-in treatment with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 were better maintained over 12 months with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 than salmeterol. Adverse events were reported for a similar percentage of subjects across groups. A higher reporting of pneumonia was observed with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 than salmeterol (7% vs. 4%). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 is more effective than salmeterol at reducing the rate of moderate to severe exacerbations over 1 year. The benefits of this reduction relative to the risk of a higher incidence of reported pneumonia should be considered. This study supports the use of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 for the reduction of COPD exacerbations in patients with COPD.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol or tiotropium in subjects with COPD at cardiovascular risk.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) is a novel, once-daily, inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination approved for the treatment of COPD and asthma. We compared the safety and efficacy of FF/VI and tiotropium (TIO) in subjects with moderate-to-severe COPD with greater risk for comorbid cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: This randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group study compared a once-daily morning dose of FF/VI 100/25 mcg delivered via ELLIPTA™ with TIO 18 mcg via HandiHaler(®) for 12 weeks in subjects with diagnosed COPD, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 30%-70% predicted, and CVD or CVD risk. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24-hour weighted mean FEV1 on Day 84. Other efficacy endpoints included time to onset of bronchodilation, trough FEV1, other spirometry measures, rescue medication use, symptoms, quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire-COPD [SGRQ-C]), and health status (COPD Assessment Tests [CAT]) measures. Safety endpoints included cardiovascular monitoring, cortisol excretion, COPD exacerbations, and adverse events, including prespecified drug effects. RESULTS: Both FF/VI and TIO improved the 24-hour weighted mean FEV1 from baseline after 12 weeks with no significant difference between treatments. Other endpoints favored FF/VI for time to onset of bronchodilation, rescue medication use, dyspnea, SGRQ-C and CAT scores, or favored TIO for change from baseline in forced vital capacity and inspiratory capacity. Pneumonia occurred more frequently in the FF/VI group, and two TIO-treated subjects died following cardiovascular events. Other safety measures were similar between groups, and cardiovascular monitoring did not reveal increased CVD risk. CONCLUSION: Both FF/VI and TIO were efficacious in improving lung function in subjects with COPD and comorbid CVD or CVD risk factors, with minor differences in efficacy and safety profiles.

A Patient-Centered Walking Program for COPD.

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation programs improve dyspnea and health status associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but benefits wane when patients return to a sedentary lifestyle. This study tested a simple, low-resource, low-cost home walking program. Methods: In this single center, 3-month study, 115 COPD patients were randomized to a control cohort or a goal setting cohort. Each patient met with study staff and received 5 telephone calls at 2-week intervals. During these contacts, the Goal group was assisted by a wellness coach who helped them set personal activity goals. All patients wore a pedometer to record daily steps, the primary study outcome. Results: Over the 12-week interval, the average step-per-days was 36% higher for the Goal cohort patients (Week 12 mean = 4390) than for Control patients (mean = 3790). No group differences emerged on the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale, the COPD Assessment Test, or the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire. Secondary analyses indicated that even patients with greater disease severity, including those with an mMRC score >2 or forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) % predicted below 50%, increased their walking relative to Control patients. Almost half (48%) of Goal patients successfully reached at least one personal goal such as increasing stamina and activity, or decreasing shortness of breath or weight. Conclusions: A relatively low-resource wellness coaching, goal-setting intervention resulted in a small improvement in the activity level of COPD patients over a 12-week period including those with marked pulmonary impairment. Further investigation should be directed at understanding the optimal blend of in person and remote coaching needed to produce the greatest cost-to-benefit ratio.

The efficacy and safety of inhaled fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and ipratropium/albuterol for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an eight-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study.

BACKGROUND: The pathology of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) includes both obstructive and inflammatory components. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to confirm the findings of a previous study that compared the efficacy of a combination of 2 short-acting bronchodilators with the use of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta-agonist in the treatment of COPD. METHODS: We conducted an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study of subjects with moderate to severe COPD to compare fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 microg BID (FSC) with ipratropium/albuterol 36/206 microg QID (IB/ALB). The primary efficacy measure was morning preadministration forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)). Secondary measures were morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), 6-hour FEV(1) AUC, percentage of symptom-free nights, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) score, and overall daytime symptom score. Additional measures included sleep symptoms, supplemental albuterol use, and nighttime awakenings due to respiratory symptoms. Safety evaluations were based on clinical adverse events and COPD exacerbations. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between the FSC (n = 180) and IB/ALB (n = 181) groups, including mean age (63.7 and 65.4 years, respectively), mean body weight (81 and 79 kg, respectively), screening pulmonary function (mean [SD], 43.7% [14.2%] and 41.6% [13.4%] of predicted FEV(1)), race (82% and 91% white), and sex (64% and 62% male). FSC resulted in greater improvements in morning preadministration FEV(1), morning PEF, and 6-hour FEV(1) AUC (all, P < 0.001), TDI score (P = 0.026), overall daytime symptom score (P = 0.024), percentage of symptom-free nights (P = 0.010), nighttime awakenings due to respiratory symptoms (P = 0.002), sleep symptom score (P = 0.003), and percentage of days and nights without rescue albuterol use compared with IB/ALB (P = 0.021 and P < 0.001, respectively). Compared with day 1, the FEV(1) AUC at week 8 increased by 0.38 L-h with FSC and decreased by 0.18 L-h with IB/ALB (P < 0.001 between groups). The type and incidence of adverse events were similar between the 2 groups. One or more adverse event was reported for 81 (45%) and 85 (47%) subjects in the FSC and IB/ALB groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this 8-week study, subjects with moderate to severe COPD experienced greater improvements in lung function and symptom measures with FSC than with IB/ALB.

A short-term comparison of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol with ipratropium bromide/albuterol for the treatment of COPD.

BACKGROUND: This is the first comparison of two combination therapies, fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and ipratropium bromide/albuterol (salbutamol), for the treatment of patients with COPD. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, multicenter evaluation of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 microg twice daily via DISKUS and ipratropium bromide/albuterol 36/206 microg four times daily via metered-dose inhaler over 8 weeks was conducted at 41 research sites in the US. Morning pre-dose FEV(1), 6-hour serial spirometry, PEF, dyspnea, night-time awakenings, supplemental albuterol use, and patient diary evaluations of symptoms were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 365 patients with symptomatic COPD were enrolled. The treatment groups were similar in mean age (63.3 and 63.9 years), screening pulmonary function (44.1% and 43.2% of predicted FEV(1)), race (96% and 95% White), and sex distribution (59% and 60% male). Both fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and ipratropium bromide/albuterol improved lung function, symptoms, and supplemental albuterol use compared with baseline. Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol was more effective than ipratropium bromide/albuterol for improvement in morning pre-dose FEV(1), morning PEF, 6-hour FEV(1) area under the curve (AUC(6)), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score, daytime symptom score, night-time awakenings, sleep symptoms, and albuterol-free nights (p < or = 0.013). Compared with day 1, at week 8 the FEV(1) AUC(6) significantly increased with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and significantly decreased with ipratropium bromide/albuterol (p < or = 0.003). The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups, except for a higher incidence of oral candidiasis with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term treatment with the combined inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist fluticasone propionate/salmeterol resulted in greater control of lung function and symptoms than combined ipratropium bromide/albuterol bronchodilator therapy, in patients with COPD.

Cost-effectiveness comparison of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus montelukast in the treatment of adults with persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative cost effectiveness of salmeterol (50 microg)/ fluticasone propionate (100 microg) with that of oral montelukast (10mg) as initial maintenance therapy in patients with persistent asthma uncontrolled on short-acting beta2-agonist therapy alone. STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based on effectiveness and resource utilisation data that was prospectively collected from a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, 12-week trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (>15 years of age) who had asthma for at least 6 months. Effectiveness measurements in this analysis included improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) and symptom-free days (SFDs). Cost of asthma drug treatment as well as costs related to an asthma exacerbation were used in the cost analysis. The study assumed a payer's perspective. All costs are in 2001 US dollars. RESULTS: Of the 423 patients eligible for the study, 211 were randomised to salmeterol/fluticasone propionate and 212 to montelukast. Treatment with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients who achieved a 12% increase in FEV(1) (successful treatment) [salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: 71% vs montelukast: 39%; p < 0.001] and percentage of SFDs (salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: 46.8% vs montelukast: 21.5%; p < 0.001) compared with montelukast. The mean daily costs per successfully treated patient were lower in the salmeterol/fluticasone propionate group (US dollars 5.03, 95% CI US dollars 4.61 to US dollars 5.50) compared with the montelukast group (US dollars 8.25, 95% CI US dollars 6.98 to US dollars 9.93). Furthermore, per patient mean daily cost per SFD was lower with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (US dollars 7.63, 95% CI US dollars 6.90 to US dollars 8.50) compared with montelukast (US dollars 14.89, 95% CI US dollars 12.36 to US dollars 17.98). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) showed that the additional costs to achieve these benefits with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate were minimal. With regards to improvement in lung function, the ICER was US dollars 1.33 (95% CI US dollars 0.80 to US dollars 2.02) and with regards to SFD, the ICER was US dollars 1.69 (95% CI US dollars 1.01 to US dollars 2.48). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated the stability of the results over a range of assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: From a third-party payer perspective, this analysis shows that based on increased efficacy and only a slight increase in cost, twice-daily treatment with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is more cost effective than once-daily treatment with montelukast as initial maintenance therapy for persistent asthma. This finding complements the results of the clinical analyses indicating that treatment of both inflammation and bronchoconstriction with products such as salmeterol/ fluticasone propionate may be more cost effective as initial maintenance asthma therapy than the use of leukotriene modifiers such as montelukast.

Cost effectiveness of fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol versus fluticasone propionate plus montelukast in the treatment of persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic disease, the two main components of which are inflammation and bronchoconstriction. Fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol, a strategy that treats both main components of asthma, has been recently compared with FP plus montelukast in a randomised clinical trial. The present study reports economic evaluation of these two strategies. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative cost effectiveness when persistent asthma is treated with FP/salmeterol 100/50 microg twice daily administered via a single Diskus inhaler device versus treatment with FP 100 microg twice daily via a Diskus inhaler plus oral montelukast 10mg once daily. STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed by applying cost unit data to resource utilisation data collected prospectively during a US randomised, double-blind, 12-week trial of FP/salmeterol (n = 222) versus FP + montelukast (n = 225). Patients were > or =15 years of age and were symptomatic despite inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Efficacy measurements in this analysis included improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) and symptom-free days. Direct costs included those related to study drugs, emergency room department visits, unscheduled physician visits, treatment of drug-related adverse events (oral candidiasis), and rescue medication (salbutamol [albuterol]). The study assumed a US third-party payer's perspective with costs in 2001 US dollars. RESULTS: Treatment with FP/salmeterol resulted in a significantly higher proportion (p < 0.001) of patients who achieved a > or =12% increase in FEV(1) than treatment with FP + montelukast (54% [95% CI 47%, 61%] vs 32% [95% CI 26%, 38%]). Lower daily costs and greater efficacy of FP/salmeterol resulted in a cost-effectiveness ratio of US6.77 dollars (95% CI US5.99 dollars, US7.66 dollars) per successfully treated patient in the FP/salmeterol group compared with US14.59 dollars (95% CI US12.12 dollars, US17.77 dollars) for FP + montelukast. In addition, FP/salmeterol achieved similar efficacy in terms of symptom-free days compared with FP + montelukast (31% [95% CI 26%, 35%] vs 27% [95% CI 23%, 32%]), but at a significantly lower daily per-patient cost (US3.64 dollars [95% CI US3.60, US3.68 dollars] vs US4.64 dollars [95% CI US4.56 dollars, US4.73 dollars]). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the stability of the results over a range of assumptions. CONCLUSION: From a US third-party payer's perspective, these findings suggest that treating the two main components of asthma (inflammation and bronchoconstriction) with FP/salmeterol may not only be a more cost-effective strategy but may actually lead to cost savings compared with the addition of montelukast to low-dose FP in patients with persistent asthma. The results were found to be robust over a range of assumptions.