Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple versus Dual Therapy in Patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with an inhaled glucocorticoid, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and a long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), as compared with dual therapy (either inhaled glucocorticoid-LABA or LAMA-LABA), are uncertain. METHODS: In this randomized trial involving 10,355 patients with COPD, we compared 52 weeks of a once-daily combination of fluticasone furoate (an inhaled glucocorticoid) at a dose of 100 µg, umeclidinium (a LAMA) at a dose of 62.5 µg, and vilanterol (a LABA) at a dose of 25 µg (triple therapy) with fluticasone furoate-vilanterol (at doses of 100 µg and 25 µg, respectively) and umeclidinium-vilanterol (at doses of 62.5 µg and 25 µg, respectively). Each regimen was administered in a single Ellipta inhaler. The primary outcome was the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations during treatment. RESULTS: The rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the triple-therapy group was 0.91 per year, as compared with 1.07 per year in the fluticasone furoate-vilanterol group (rate ratio with triple therapy, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.90; 15% difference; P<0.001) and 1.21 per year in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group (rate ratio with triple therapy, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.81; 25% difference; P<0.001). The annual rate of severe exacerbations resulting in hospitalization in the triple-therapy group was 0.13, as compared with 0.19 in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group (rate ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.78; 34% difference; P<0.001). There was a higher incidence of pneumonia in the inhaled-glucocorticoid groups than in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group, and the risk of clinician-diagnosed pneumonia was significantly higher with triple therapy than with umeclidinium-vilanterol, as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.92; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol resulted in a lower rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations than fluticasone furoate-vilanterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol in this population. Triple therapy also resulted in a lower rate of hospitalization due to COPD than umeclidinium-vilanterol. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; IMPACT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02164513 .).

Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol according to the degree of reversibility of airflow limitation at screening: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the relationship between short-term bronchodilator reversibility and longer-term response to bronchodilators is unclear. Here, we investigated whether the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators is associated with reversibility of airflow limitation in patients with COPD with a low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: The double-blind, double-dummy EMAX trial randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once daily, or salmeterol 50 µg twice daily. Bronchodilator reversibility to salbutamol was measured once at screening and defined as an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL 10-30 min post salbutamol. Post hoc, fractional polynomial (FP) modelling was conducted using the degree of reversibility (mL) at screening as a continuous variable to investigate its relationship to mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 and self-administered computerised-Transition Dyspnoea Index (SAC-TDI) at Week 24, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD (E-RS) at Weeks 21-24, and rescue medication use (puffs/day) over Weeks 1-24. Analyses were conducted across the full range of reversibility (-850-896 mL); however, results are presented for the range -100-400 mL because there were few participants with values outside this range. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) reversibility was 130 mL (156) and the median was 113 mL; 625/2425 (26%) patients were reversible. There was a trend towards greater improvements in trough FEV1, SAC-TDI, E-RS and rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol with higher reversibility. Improvements in trough FEV1 and reductions in rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol compared with either monotherapy across the range of reversibility. Greater improvements in SAC-TDI and E-RS total scores were observed with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in the middle of the reversibility range. CONCLUSIONS: FP analyses suggest that patients with higher levels of reversibility have greater improvements in lung function and symptoms in response to bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy across the full range of reversibility, suggesting that the dual bronchodilator umeclidinium/vilanterol may be an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of their level of reversibility.

Once daily combined inhaled steroid and ultra long-acting bronchodilator prescribing in pediatric asthma: a dual Center retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: A high proportion of children and adolescents who have "difficult" or therapy-resistant asthma, are found to have poor adherence to maintenance therapies. Such individuals are thus difficult asthmatics (for reasons of poor adherence) rather than being young people with true difficult asthma. In our centers, once daily ICS/ULABA (Relvar™) is considered if there is an increase in reported interval symptoms, asthma attacks requiring hospital attendance or rescue oral prednisolone, or persistently low lung function despite reported regular use of a twice daily ICS/LABA preparation. In the majority of these young people, a clinical history of overt non-adherence or a clinical suspicion of covert non-adherence will be noted. METHODS: The aim of our retrospective cohort study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of Relvar™ in a selected adolescent asthma population. RESULTS: In a pre-selected group of adolescents with likely poor prior adherence to inhaled therapies, a change to Relvar™ (once daily combined ICS/ULABA) led to improvements in asthma control, as assessed by ED attendances and oral steroid burden. CONCLUSIONS: A prospective study to verify these findings and also explore the effects on quality of life, asthma control, and adherence is warranted.

Real-Life Clinical and Functional Effects of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol-Combined Triple Therapy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Triple therapy consisting of a drug association including an inhaled corticosteroid, a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist and a long-acting ß2-adrenergic agonist, delivered via a single device, can be a valuable treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients experiencing frequent disease exacerbations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this real-life, single-center, observational study was to evaluate, in 44 COPD patients with recurrent exacerbations, the effects of the triple inhaled therapy combining fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI). METHODS: Within such a therapeutic context, several clinical and lung functional parameters were considered at baseline and after 24 weeks of treatment with combined inhaled triple therapy. RESULTS: With respect to baseline, after 24 weeks of treatment with FF/UMEC/VI, significant changes were recorded with regard to Modified British Medical Research Council (p < 0.0001) and COPD Assessment Test (p < 0.0001) scores, COPD exacerbations (p < 0.001), forced expiratory volume in the first second (p < 0.001), residual volume (p < 0.01), forced mid-expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of FVC (p < 0.0001), inspiratory capacity (p < 0.01), forced vital capacity (p < 0.05), and peak expiratory flow (p < 0.0001). Moreover, in a subgroup of 28 patients, a significant increase of diffusion lung capacity (p < 0.01) was also detected. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our real-life results suggest that triple inhaled therapy with FF/UMEC/VI, when given to COPD patients with frequent exacerbations, is able to positively impact on dyspnea and global health status as well as to significantly decrease COPD exacerbations and improve airflow limitation and lung hyperinflation.

The Effect of Inhaled Corticosteroid Withdrawal and Baseline Inhaled Treatment on Exacerbations in the IMPACT Study. A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter Clinical Trial.

Rationale: In the IMPACT (Informing the Pathway of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment) trial, fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) significantly reduced exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a history of exacerbations.Objectives: To understand whether inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) withdrawal affected IMPACT results, given direct transition from prior maintenance medication to study medication at randomization.Methods: Exacerbations and change from baseline in trough FEV1 and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire results were analyzed by prior ICS use. Exacerbations were also analyzed while excluding data from the first 30 days.Measurements and Main Results: FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the annual moderate/severe exacerbation rate compared with UMEC/VI in prior ICS users (29% reduction; P < 0.001), but only a numerical reduction was seen among prior ICS nonusers (12% reduction; P = 0.115). To minimize impact from ICS withdrawal, in an analysis excluding the first 30 days, FF/UMEC/VI continued to significantly reduce the annual on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rate (19%; P < 0.001) compared with UMEC/VI. The benefit of FF/UMEC/VI compared with UMEC/VI was seen for severe exacerbation rates, regardless of prior ICS use (prior ICS users, 35% reduction; P < 0.001; non-ICS users, 35% reduction; P = 0.018), and overall when excluding the first 30 days (29%; P < 0.001). Improvements from baseline with FF/UMEC/VI compared with UMEC/VI were also maintained throughout the study for both trough FEV1 and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, regardless of prior ICS use.Conclusions: These data support the important treatment effects of FF/UMEC/VI combination therapy on exacerbation reduction, lung function, and quality of life that do not appear to be related to abrupt ICS withdrawal.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02164513).

The effect of exacerbation history on outcomes in the IMPACT trial.

IMPACT, a 52-week, randomised, double-blind trial, assessed the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations.Subgroup analyses assessed whether the efficacy of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI versus FF/VI varies according to prior exacerbation history, and the combined effects of exacerbation history and blood eosinophil counts. Three subgroups were defined: single moderate (1 moderate/no severe; n=3056 (30%)), frequent moderate (≥2 moderate/no severe; n=4628 (45%)) and severe (≥1 severe/any moderate; n=2671 (26%)). End-points included annual on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rate (pre-specified), lung function and health status (both post-hoc).Moderate/severe exacerbation rates (reduction % (95% CI)) were reduced in the FF/UMEC/VI group versus FF/VI (single moderate 20% (10-29), frequent moderate 11% (2-19), severe 17% (7-26)) and versus UMEC/VI (single moderate 18% (5-29), frequent moderate 29% (21-37), severe 26% (14-35)). Moderate/severe exacerbation rates were reduced in the FF/VI group versus UMEC/VI in the frequent moderate subgroup; a numerical reduction was observed in the severe subgroup (single moderate 2% (-12-18), frequent moderate 21% (11-29), severe 11% (-3-22)). Moderate/severe exacerbation rates were lower in the FF/VI group compared with UMEC/VI in patients with higher eosinophil counts. FF/UMEC/VI improved lung function and health status versus both dual therapies irrespective of exacerbation subgroup. UMEC/VI improved lung function versus FF/VI in all subgroups.Triple therapy was more effective than dual regardless of exacerbation history, consistent with results in the intent-to-treat population. Comparisons between dual therapies were influenced by prior exacerbation history and eosinophil counts.

Single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone furoate/vilanterol and umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD: results on cardiovascular safety from the IMPACT trial.

BACKGROUND: This analysis of the IMPACT study assessed the cardiovascular (CV) safety of single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI dual therapy. METHODS: IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg with FF/VI 100/25 mcg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. The inclusion criteria for the study were intentionally designed to permit the enrollment of patients with significant concurrent CV disease/risk. CV safety assessments included proportion of patients with and exposure-adjusted rates of on-treatment CV adverse events of special interest (CVAESI) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), as well as time-to-first (TTF) CVAESI, and TTF CVAESI resulting in hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death. RESULTS: Baseline CV risk factors were similar across treatment groups. Overall, 68% of patients (n = 7012) had ≥1 CV risk factor and 40% (n = 4127) had ≥2. At baseline, 29% of patients reported a current/past cardiac disorder and 58% reported a current/past vascular disorder. The proportion of patients with on-treatment CVAESI was 11% for both FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI, and 10% for FF/VI. There was no statistical difference for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in TTF CVAESI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85, 1.11; p = 0.711 and HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.08; p = 0.317, respectively) nor TTF CVAESI leading to hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.51; p = 0.167 and HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.27; p = 0.760, respectively). On-treatment MACE occurred in ≤3% of patients across treatment groups, with similar prevalence and rates between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In a symptomatic COPD population with a history of exacerbations and a high rate of CV disease/risk, the proportion of patients with CVAESI and MACE was 10-11% and 1-3%, respectively, across treatment arms, and the risk of CVAESI was low and similar across treatment arms. There was no statistically significant increased CV risk associated with the use of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI, and UMEC/VI versus FF/VI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02164513 (GSK study number CTT116855).

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate in patients with asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction.

Objective: To investigate whether once-daily (OD) fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) provides greater long-term protection from postexercise fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) than twice-daily (BD) fluticasone propionate (FP) in patients with asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. Methods: A randomized, double-blind, crossover study was conducted in patients (aged 12-50 years) on low-/mid-dose maintenance inhaled corticosteroid. Following a 4-week run-in period (FP 250 µg BD), patients with a ≥ 20% decrease in postexercise FEV1 received FF/VI 100/25 µg OD or FP 250 µg BD for 2 weeks. Exercise challenges were carried out 23 h after the first dose of study medication, and 12 and 23 h after evening clinic dose at the end of the 2-week treatment period. After a 2-week washout period (FP 250 µg), patients crossed over treatments, with procedures and tests repeated. The primary endpoint was mean maximal percentage decrease from pre-exercise FEV1 following exercise challenge 12-h postevening dose on Day 14. Results: The mean maximal percentage decrease from pre-exercise FEV1 after the 12-h exercise challenge (Day 14) was 15.02% with FF/VI, and 16.71% with FP (difference, -1.69; 95% confidence interval, -3.76 to 0.39; p = 0.109). After the 23-h exercise challenge (Day 14), respective mean maximal decreases were 11.90% and 14.05% (difference, -2.15; 95% confidence interval, -4.31 to 0.01). Conclusion: The study failed to show a difference between FF/VI and FP at providing long-term protection from exercise-induced bronchoconstriction.

Effectiveness of Fluticasone Furoate-Vilanterol for COPD in Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) comes from closely monitored efficacy trials involving groups of patients who were selected on the basis of restricted entry criteria. There is a need for randomized trials to be conducted in conditions that are closer to usual clinical practice. METHODS: In a controlled effectiveness trial conducted in 75 general practices, we randomly assigned 2799 patients with COPD to a once-daily inhaled combination of fluticasone furoate at a dose of 100 µg and vilanterol at a dose of 25 µg (the fluticasone furoate-vilanterol group) or to usual care (the usual-care group). The primary outcome was the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations among patients who had had an exacerbation within 1 year before the trial. Secondary outcomes were the rates of primary care contact (contact with a general practitioner, nurse, or other health care professional) and secondary care contact (inpatient admission, outpatient visit with a specialist, or visit to the emergency department), modification of the initial trial treatment for COPD, and the rate of exacerbations among patients who had had an exacerbation within 3 years before the trial, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: The rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was significantly lower, by 8.4% (95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 15.2), with fluticasone furoate-vilanterol therapy than with usual care (P=0.02). There was no significant difference in the annual rate of COPD-related contacts to primary or secondary care. There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of the first moderate or severe exacerbation and the first severe exacerbation in the time-to-event analyses. There were no excess serious adverse events of pneumonia in the fluticasone furoate-vilanterol group. The numbers of other serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COPD and a history of exacerbations, a once-daily treatment regimen of combined fluticasone furoate and vilanterol was associated with a lower rate of exacerbations than usual care, without a greater risk of serious adverse events. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; Salford Lung Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01551758 .).

Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapies in symptomatic patients with COPD not receiving inhaled corticosteroids: the EMAX randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Prospective evidence is lacking regarding incremental benefits of long-acting dual- versus mono-bronchodilation in improving symptoms and preventing short-term disease worsening/treatment failure in low exacerbation risk patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: The 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised patients at low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once-daily or salmeterol 50 µg twice-daily. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The study was also powered for the secondary endpoint of Transition Dyspnoea Index at Week 24. Other efficacy assessments included spirometry, symptoms, heath status and short-term disease worsening measured by the composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration using three definitions. RESULTS: Change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 66 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43, 89) and 141 mL (95% CI: 118, 164) greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, respectively (both p < 0.001). Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated consistent improvements in Transition Dyspnoea Index versus both monotherapies at Week 24 (vs umeclidinium: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.68], p = 0.018; vs salmeterol: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.15, 0.76], p = 0.004) and all other symptom measures at all time points. Regardless of the clinically important deterioration definition considered, umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly reduced the risk of a first clinically important deterioration compared with umeclidinium (by 16-25% [p < 0.01]) and salmeterol (by 26-41% [p < 0.001]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Umeclidinium/vilanterol consistently provides early and sustained improvements in lung function and symptoms and reduces the risk of deterioration/treatment failure versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. These findings suggest a potential for early use of dual bronchodilators to help optimise therapy in this patient group.

Effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol on asthma control in the Salford Lung Study.

OBJECTIVE: The Asthma Salford Lung Study demonstrated the effectiveness of initiating once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) versus continuing usual care in asthma patients in UK primary care [ 1 ]. Here, we report a secondary analysis in a subset of patients with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/Salm) as their baseline intended maintenance therapy, to evaluate the relative effectiveness of initiating FF/VI versus continuing FP/Salm. METHODS: Adults with symptomatic asthma were randomised to initiate FF/VI 100[200]/25 µg or continue FP/Salm. The Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Asthma questionnaire, severe exacerbations, salbutamol inhaler prescriptions and serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded throughout the 12-month treatment period. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred and sixty-four patients (FF/VI 646; FP/Salm 618) were included in this subset analysis; 978 had baseline ACT score <20 and were included in the primary effectiveness analysis (PEA) population. At week 24, odds of patients being ACT responders (total score ≥20 and/or improvement from baseline ≥3) were significantly higher with FF/VI versus FP/Salm (71% vs. 56%; odds ratio 2.03 [95% CI: 1.53, 2.68]; p < 0.001 [PEA]). Significant benefit with FF/VI versus FP/Salm was also observed for AQLQ responders, activity impairment due to asthma, exacerbation rates, and salbutamol inhalers prescribed. No significant between-group differences were observed for impairment while working or work absenteeism due to asthma. CONCLUSIONS: For patients in primary care, initiating FF/VI was significantly better than continuing with FP/Salm for improving asthma control and quality of life, and reducing asthma exacerbations, with no notable difference in SAEs. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01706198.

Effect of triple therapy in patients with asthma-COPD overlap
.

OBJECTIVE: Asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap (ACO) is of increasing interest because ACO patients have significantly worse outcomes, leading to greater social and economic burdens compared with asthma or COPD alone. Some guidelines for ACO recommend triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting ß2 agonists, and long-acting muscarinic antagonists. However, this approach is based on extrapolating data from patients with asthma or COPD alone. Therapeutic studies for ACO have not previously been conducted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 12-week, randomized, open-label cross-over pilot study was conducted in 17 ACO patients to evaluate the effect of umeclidinium (UMEC) 62.5 µg once-daily added to fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 200/25 µg once-daily. A 4-week run-in, a first and a second 4-week treatment period were included. Respiratory function, respiratory impedance, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, COPD assessment test, and asthma control test scores were evaluated 0, 4, and 8 weeks after randomization. RESULTS: Mean values of post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second as a percentage of the predicted value (%FEV1), after UMEC was added to FF/VI, were significantly higher than after the run-in (p < 0.01). Mean values of resonant frequency during inspiration (Fres), after UMEC was added to FF/VI, were significantly lower than after the run-in (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Adding UMEC to FF/VI provides greater improvement in lung function, indicating that triple therapy is a suitable regular treatment for ACO.

Fluticasone Furoate, Vilanterol, and Lung Function Decline in Patients with Moderate Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Heightened Cardiovascular Risk.

RATIONALE: Many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have an accelerated loss of lung function. It is unclear whether drug treatment can modify this in patients with moderately severe disease. OBJECTIVES: In a prespecified analysis of the key secondary outcome in SUMMIT (Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity), we investigated whether the inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate (FF; 100 µg), the long-acting ß-agonist vilanterol (VI; 25 µg), or their combination (FF/VI) modified the rate of decline in FEV1 compared with placebo. We also investigated how baseline covariates affected this decline. METHODS: Spirometry was measured every 12 weeks in this event-driven, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 16,485 patients with moderate COPD and heightened cardiovascular risk. An average of seven spirometric assessments per subject among the 15,457 patients with at least one on-treatment measurement were used in the analysis of rate of FEV1 decline. All statistical comparisons are considered nominal. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The adjusted rates of FEV1 decline were -46 ml/yr (-3.0% of baseline) with placebo, -47 ml/yr (-3.1%) with VI, -38 ml/yr (-2.5%) with FF, and -38 ml/yr (-2.3%) with FF/VI. FF-containing regimens had lower rates of decline than placebo (P < 0.03), and FF/VI had a lower rate of decline than VI alone (P < 0.005). The FEV1 decline was faster in current smokers, those with a lower body mass index, males, and patients with established cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate COPD and heightened cardiovascular risk, FF alone or in combination with VI appears to reduce the rate of FEV1 decline. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01313676).

Anti-inflammatory duration of action of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol trifenatate in asthma: a cross-over randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate/Vilanterol trifenatate (FF/VI) is an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist combination with a prolonged bronchodilator duration of action. We characterised the time-course of onset and offset of airway anti-inflammatory action of FF/VI, as assessed by fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and compared this to the bronchodilator duration of action. METHODS: A single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period, crossover study was undertaken in 28 steroid-naïve adults with asthma. Participants with an FEV1 ≥ 60% predicted, reversible airway disease, and FeNO > 40 ppb received FF/VI 100/25 mcg or placebo once daily for 14 days. FeNO and peak expiratory flow were measured twice-daily during treatment and during a 21-day washout period. FEV1 was measured for five days from treatment cessation. The primary outcome measure was FeNO change from baseline ratio for 21 days following treatment cessation. RESULTS: In the 27 subjects who completed the study, median (range) baseline FeNO was 87 ppb (42-212). FF/VI 100/25 mcg reduced FeNO by day 3, ratio FF/VI versus placebo 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.86) with the maximum reduction occurring at day 14, 0.32 (0.27-0.37). Following cessation of treatment FeNO remained suppressed for 18 days, ratio on day 18 0.77 (0.59-1.00), whereas improvements in FEV1 and peak flow were maintained for 3 to 4 days post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The anti-inflammatory duration of action of FF/VI is consistent with the high glucocorticoid receptor affinity and long lung retention of fluticasone furoate. The anti-inflammatory effect of FF/VI was of greater duration than its bronchodilator effect in adults with mild asthma. Funding GlaxoSmithKline (201499). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov registry number NCT02712047 .

Single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone furoate/vilanterol plus umeclidinium using two inhalers for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg has been shown to improve lung function and health status, and reduce exacerbations, versus budesonide/formoterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated the non-inferiority of single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI + UMEC using two inhalers. METHODS: Eligible patients with COPD (aged ≥40 years; ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the 12 months before screening) were randomized (1:1; stratified by the number of long-acting bronchodilators [0, 1 or 2] per day during run-in) to receive 24-week FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg and placebo or FF/VI 100/25 µg + UMEC 62.5 µg; all treatments/placebo were delivered using the ELLIPTA inhaler once-daily in the morning. Primary endpoint: change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The non-inferiority margin for the lower 95% confidence limit was set at - 50 mL. RESULTS: A total of 1055 patients (844 [80%] of whom were enrolled on combination maintenance therapy) were randomized to receive FF/UMEC/VI (n = 527) or FF/VI + UMEC (n = 528). Mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 113 mL (95% CI 91, 135) for FF/UMEC/VI and 95 mL (95% CI 72, 117) for FF/VI + UMEC; the between-treatment difference of 18 mL (95% CI -13, 50) confirmed FF/UMEC/VI's was considered non-inferior to FF/VI + UMEC. At Week 24, the proportion of responders based on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire Total score was 50% (FF/UMEC/VI) and 51% (FF/VI + UMEC); the proportion of responders based on the Transitional Dyspnea Index focal score was similar (56% both groups). A similar proportion of patients experienced a moderate/severe exacerbation in the FF/UMEC/VI (24%) and FF/VI + UMEC (27%) groups; the hazard ratio for time to first moderate/severe exacerbation with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI + UMEC was 0.87 (95% CI 0.68, 1.12). The incidence of adverse events was comparable in both groups (48%); the incidence of serious adverse events was 10% (FF/UMEC/VI) and 11% (FF/VI + UMEC). CONCLUSIONS: Single-inhaler triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) is non-inferior to two inhalers (FF/VI + UMEC) on trough FEV1 change from baseline at 24 weeks. Results were similar on all other measures of efficacy, health-related quality of life, and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK study CTT200812; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02729051 (submitted 31 March 2016).

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

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

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol once daily improves night-time awakenings in asthma patients with night symptoms: Post hoc analyses of three randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Symptoms, including night-time awakenings, affect the quality of life of people with asthma. Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) reduces exacerbations, improves lung function, and rescue-free and symptom-free 24-hour periods in patients with asthma. These post hoc analyses compared daytime and night-time symptoms in patients with asthma who received FF/VI, versus FF, fluticasone propionate (FP) or placebo. METHODS: Daytime and night-time symptoms were collected via electronic daily diary cards in three Phase III randomized studies of once-daily FF/VI in patients with uncontrolled asthma on inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) ± long-acting beta2 agonists (n = 609/1039/586). Endpoints included change from baseline in symptom-free days and nights (analyzed by Analysis of Covariance, covariates: baseline, region, sex, age, and treatment), time for patients to achieve seven consecutive symptom-free nights (analyzed by Cox proportional hazards' model, covariates as above), and proportion of patients experiencing 100% symptom-free nights per week (analyzed by logistic regression, covariates: percentage of symptom-free nights, sex, age, and treatment). RESULTS: Improvements in symptom-free days and nights were generally observed for all treatments. More patients who received FF/VI experienced 100% symptom-free nights in the last week of the treatment period than patients who received ICS alone or placebo. FF/VI also reduced time to achieve seven consecutive symptom-free nights. Patients with at least one night of symptoms at baseline experienced an additional 2.7 and 2.0 symptom-free nights per week with FF/VI 100/25 µg, versus 1.9 and 1.7 with FF alone; similar findings were seen with FF/VI 200/25 µg. CONCLUSIONS: Benefits in terms of symptom-free days and nights were observed for patients receiving FF/VI versus comparators in these post hoc analyses.

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

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

Once-daily long-acting beta2-agonists/inhaled corticosteroids combined inhalers versus inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Three classes of inhaler medication are used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA); long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA); and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). To encourage patient adherence, two classes of medication are often combined in a single medication device; it seems that once-daily dosing offers greatest convenience to patients and may markedly influence adherence. OBJECTIVES: To compare a once-daily combination of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist inhalers (ICS/LABA) versus inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists alone (LAMA) for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). SEARCH METHODS: We performed an electronic search of the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group (14 May 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (14 May 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (20 September 2017), then a search of other resources, including reference lists of included studies and manufacturers' trial registers (10 October 2017). Two pairs of review authors screened and scrutinised selected articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing once-daily administered ICS/LABA and LAMA in adults with COPD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in each study. We analysed dichotomous data as random-effects odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as mean differences (MDs), both with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), using Review Manager 5. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with 880 participants. We identified one ongoing trial with planned recruitment of 80 participants. Included studies enrolled participants with both partially reversible and non-reversible COPD and baseline mean per cent predicted (%pred) forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of 43.4 to 49.6. Both studies lasted 12 weeks. Both studies used the same combination of inhaled ICS/LABA (fluticasone furoate and vilanterol 100/25 mcg once daily; FF/VI) versus LAMA (18 mcg tiotropium; TIO). They were published as full articles, and neither study was at low risk of bias in all domains.Compared to the TIO arm, results for pooled primary outcomes for the FF/VI arm were as follows: mortality: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.73, 880 participants (deaths reported only in the TIO arm), very low-quality evidence; COPD exacerbation (requiring short-burst oral corticosteroids or antibiotics, or both): OR 0.72, 95% Cl 0.35 to 1.50, 880 participants, very low-quality evidence; pneumonia: reported in both studies only during treatment with FF/VI: OR 6.12, 95% Cl 0.73 to 51.24, 880 participants, very low-quality evidence; and total serious adverse events: OR 0.96, 95% Cl 0.50 to 1.83, 880 participants, very low-quality evidence. None of the pneumonias were fatal. Compared to the TIO arm, we found no statistically significant difference for pooled secondary outcomes, including St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) mean total score change; hospital admissions (all-cause); disease-specific adverse events; mean weekly rescue medication use (results available from only one of the studies); and mean weekly percentage of rescue-free days for FF/VI. We found no statistically significant differences between ICS/LABA and LAMA for improvement in symptoms measured by the COPD Assessment Test (CAT score) nor for FEV1 (change from baseline trough in 24-hour weighted mean on treatment day 84). Many pooled estimates lacked precision. Data for other endpoints such as exacerbations leading to intubation and physical activity measures were not available in included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on analysis of primary and secondary outcomes, we are uncertain whether once-daily ICS/LABA, combined in one inhaler, has a different efficacy or adverse effect profile compared to LAMA for treatment of people with COPD. However, the current review is based on only two trials with the main focus on primary outcomes other than those considered in this review. The short follow-up period and the very low quality of evidence limit our confidence in the result and increase uncertainty. Further trials of longer duration are needed. Current evidence is not strong enough to demonstrate important differences between inhalers in terms of effects, nor to establish that once-daily fluticasone/vilanterol 100/25 mcg and tiotropium 18 mcg are equivalent.

Assessment of the Target Engagement and D-Serine Biomarker Profiles of the D-Amino Acid Oxidase Inhibitors Sodium Benzoate and PGM030756.

Irregular N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) function is one of the main hypotheses employed to facilitate understanding of the underlying disease state of schizophrenia. Although direct agonism of the NMDAR has not yielded promising therapeutics, advances have been made by modulating the NMDAR co-agonist site which is activated by glycine and D-serine. One approach to activate the co-agonist site is to increase synaptic D-serine levels through inhibition of D-amino acid oxidase (DAO), the major catabolic clearance pathway for this and other D-amino acids. A number of DAO inhibitors have been developed but most have not entered clinical trials. One exception to this is sodium benzoate which has demonstrated efficacy in small trials of schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease. Herein we provide data on the effect of sodium benzoate and an optimised Takeda compound, PGM030756 on ex vivo DAO enzyme occupancy and cerebellar D-serine levels in mice. Both compounds achieve high levels of enzyme occupancy; although lower doses of PGM030756 (1, 3 and 10 mg/kg) were required to achieve this compared to sodium benzoate (300, 1000 mg/kg). Cerebellar D-serine levels were increased by both agents with a delay of approximately 6 h after dosing before the peak effect was achieved. Our data and methods may be useful in understanding the effects of sodium benzoate that have been seen in clinical trials of schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease and to support the potential clinical assessment of other DAO inhibitors, such as PGM030756, which demonstrate good enzyme occupancy and D-serine increases following administration of low oral doses.