Therapeutic effect of long-acting muscarinic antagonist for treating uncontrolled asthma assessed using impulse oscillometry.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the incorporation of LAMAs into asthma therapy has been expected to enhance symptom control. However, a significant number of patients with asthma continue to experience poorly managed symptoms. There have been limited investigations on LAMA-induced airway alterations in asthma treatment employing IOS. In this study, we administered a LAMA to patients with poorly controlled asthma, evaluated clinical responses and respiratory function, and investigated airway changes facilitated by LAMA treatments using the IOS. METHODS: Of a total of 1282 consecutive patients with asthma, 118 exhibited uncontrolled symptoms. Among them, 42 switched their treatment to high-dose fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) (ICS/LABA/LAMA). The patients were then assessed using AHQ-33 or LCQ and ACT. Spirometry parameters (such as FEV1 or MMEF) and IOS parameters (such as R20 or AX) were measured and compared before and after exacerbations and the addition of LAMA. RESULTS: Of the 42 patients, 17 who switched to FF/UMEC/VI caused by dyspnea exhibited decreased pulmonary function between period 1 and baseline, followed by an increase in pulmonary function between baseline and period 2. Significant differences were observed in IOS parameters such as R20, R5-R20, Fres, or AX between period 1 and baseline as well as between baseline and period 2. Among the patients who switched to inhaler due to cough, 25 were classified as responders (n = 17) and nonresponders (n = 8) based on treatment outcomes. Among nonresponders, there were no significant differences in spirometry parameters such as FEV1 or PEF and IOS parameters such as R20 or AX between period 1 and baseline. However, among responders, significant differences were observed in all IOS parameters, though not in most spirometry parameters, between period 1 and baseline. Furthermore, significant differences were noted between baseline and period 2 in terms of FEV1, %MMEF, %PEF, and all IOS parameters. CONCLUSION: ICS/LABA/LAMA demonstrates superiority over ICS/LABA in improving symptoms and lung function, which is primarily attributed to the addition of LAMA. Additionally, IOS revealed the effectiveness of LAMA across all airway segments, particularly in the periphery. Hence, LAMA can be effective against various asthma phenotypes characterized by airway inflammation, even in real-world cases.

Evaluation of Adherence and Persistence to Triple Therapy in Patients with COPD: A German Claims Data Study.

Purpose: Triple therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience recurrent exacerbations. Multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) is associated with poor adherence and persistence. This study assessed comparative adherence and persistence to single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) versus MITT among patients with COPD in a real-world setting in Germany. Patients and Methods: This retrospective analysis using the WIG2 benchmark database identified patients with COPD newly initiating triple therapy with MITT or SITT (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI] or formoterol/beclomethasone/glycopyrronium bromide [FOR/BDP/GLY]) November 2017-June 2019. Eligible patients were ≥35 years with 1 year's continual insurance prior to triple therapy initiation and no previous record of triple therapy. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics. Adherence was measured using proportion of days covered (PDC) at 6, 12, and 18 months post-treatment initiation; persistence (time until treatment discontinuation) was measured at 6, 12, and 18 months, with a gap of >30 days used to define non-persistence. Results: Of 5710 patients included in the analysis (mean age 66 years), 71.4% initiated MITT and 28.6% initiated SITT (FF/UMEC/VI: 41.4%; FOR/BDP/GLY: 58.6%). Mean PDC was higher among SITT versus MITT users at all time points; at each time point, mean PDC was highest among FF/UMEC/VI users. During the first 6 months following treatment initiation, higher adherence was exhibited by FF/UMEC/VI (29%) and FOR/BDP/GLY (19%) users versus MITT users. Over the entire observation period, FF/UMEC/VI users had the highest proportion of persistent patients; at 18 months, 16.5% of FF/UMEC/VI users were persistent versus 2.3% of MITT users. Conclusion: Patients initiating SITT in Germany had significantly higher adherence and persistence compared with patients initiating MITT over 6 to 18 months following treatment initiation. Among SITT, FF/UMEC/VI users had the highest proportion of adherence and persistence.

[Safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol in Chinese patients in a real-world setting: a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, observational study].

Objective: To evaluate the safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol in Chinese participants in a real-world setting. Methods: This was a 24-week, prospective, multicenter, single-arm, observational study that enrolled participants treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol in real-world settings from 14 sites in China from 14 December 2020 to 30 January 2022. The primary outcomes were the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) at week 24. Results: A total of 887 participants on umeclidinium/vilanterol were enrolled. The mean (±SD) age of these participants was 67.5 (±9.6) years, with more men (77.7%) enrolled. The majority of the participants (98.1%) had been diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 67.6% of them reported comorbidities. More than half of the participants (52.8%) were taking concomitant medication in addition to the study treatment. AEs were reported in 59 (6.7%) participants and were predominantly mild to moderate in severity. SAEs were reported in 21 (2.4%) participants, including 9 fatal SAEs, 10 reported non-fatal SAEs, and 2 reported both non-fatal and fatal SAEs. None of the SAEs, including the fatal events, were considered by the investigators to be related to umeclidinium/vilanterol. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were reported in 6 (0.7%) participants with 4 preferred terms (PTs), all of which were considered mild in severity. Of these PTs, 2 were known ADRs of umeclidinium/vilanterol. Three participants (0.3%) reported AEs that were part of serious identified/potential hazards, all of which were considered by the investigators to be unrelated to umeclidinium/vilanterol. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that umeclidinium/vilanterol was well tolerated in Chinese participants in a real-world setting and no new drug-related safety signals were observed.

Comparison of Budesonide/formoterol versus Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol as maintenance and reliever therapy for asthma control: a real-world observational study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported reduced acute exacerbation rates and improved symptom control in asthma patients treated using inhaled corticosteroids plus formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Fluticasone furoate (FF) and vilanterol (VIL) also provide rapid bronchodilation and sustained anti-inflammatory effects, however no studies have investigated FF/VIL as MART for asthma control. METHODS: From October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2023, this retrospective study included asthma patients classified as step 3 or 4 according to the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines, who were then divided into two groups. One group received BUD/FOR as MART, while the other received FF/VIL as MART. Pulmonary function tests, exacerbation rates, Asthma Control Test (ACT), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels, and blood eosinophil counts were measured before and after 12 months of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients were included, of whom 36 received BUD/FOR twice daily as MART, and 125 received FF/VIL once daily as MART. After 12 months of treatment, the FF/VIL group showed a significant increase in ACT scores by 1.57 (p < 0.001), while the BUD/FOR group had an increase of 0.88 (p = 0.11). In terms of FeNO levels, the BUD/FOR group experienced a decline of -0.2 ppb (p = 0.98), whereas the FF/VIL group had a mild increase of + 0.8 ppb (p = 0.7). Notably, there was a significant difference in the change of FeNO between the two groups (∆ FeNO: -0.2 ppb in BUD/FOR; + 0.8 ppb in FF/VIL, p < 0.001). There were no significant alterations observed in FEV1, blood eosinophil count, or acute exacerbation decline in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, patients treated with FF/VIL as MART showed improvements in ACT scores, while those treated with BUD/FOR as MART exhibited a reduction in FeNO levels. However, the difference between the two treatment groups did not reach clinical significance. Thus, FF/VIL as MART showed similar effectiveness to BUD/FOR as MART.

The long-term clinical and economic benefits of treating advanced COPD patients with single-inhaler triple therapy in Quebec, Canada - The IMPACT trial.

BACKGROUND: This cost-utility analysis assessed the long-term clinical and economic benefits of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy vs FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Quebec societal perspective in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. METHODS: The validated GALAXY disease progression model was utilized, with parameters set to baseline and efficacy data from IMPACT. Treatment costs (2017 Canadian dollars [C$]) were estimated using Quebec-specific unit costs. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5 %/year. A willingness-to-pay threshold of C$50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was considered cost-effective. Outcomes modeled were exacerbation rates, QALYs, life years (LYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Subgroup analyses were performed according to prior treatment, exacerbation history in the previous year, and baseline lung function. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI resulted in more QALYs and LYs gained, at a small incremental cost compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. From a societal perspective, the estimated ICER for the base case was C$18,152/QALY vs FF/VI, and C$15,847/QALY vs UMEC/VI. For the subgroup analyses (FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI), ICERs ranged from: C$17,412-25,664/QALY and C$16,493-18,663/QALY (prior treatment); C$15,247-19,924/QALY and C$15,444-28,859/QALY (exacerbation history); C$14,025-34,154/QALY and C$16,083-17,509/QALY (baseline lung function). INTERPRETATION: FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be cost-effective vs both comparators in the base case and all subgroup analyses, and based on this analysis would be an appropriate investment of health service funds in Quebec. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: IMPACT trial NCT02164513.

Study of endocrine disruptor effects in AVP and OT mediated behavioral and reproductive processes in female rat models.

Environmental exposures may have endocrine disruptor (ED) effects, e.g., a role for halogenated hydrocarbon chlorobenzenes in increasing vasopressin (AVP), oxytocin (OT) secretion and, in association, anxiety and aggression in male rats has been shown. Our aim is to investigate whether 1,2,4-trichlorobenzenehexachlorobenzene= 1:1 (mClB) treatment of female rats also shows ED effects and reproductive biology differences, and whether AVP may have a mediator role in this? Female Wistar rats were treated (0.1; 1.0; 10.0 µg/bwkg/day) with mClB (by gastrictube) and then 30; 60; 90 days after treatment anxiety (open field test) and aggressive (resident intruder test) behaviors AVP, OT concentrations from blood plasma samples were detected by radioimmunoassay on 30; 60; 90 days. Treated female rats were mated with untreated males. Mating success, number of newborn and maternal aggression on the neonates were monitored. Results showed that AVP, OT levels; and anxiety, aggressive behaviors; and mothers' aggression towards their offspring increased significantly in relation to the duration and the dose of mClB treatment. But mating propensity and number of offspring decreased. Patterns of AVP, OT release and anxiety, aggression behaviors, and reproductive-related behaviors were correlated. Consistent with the literature, our studies confirmed the role of AVP and OT in different behavioral effects.

Outcomes of patients with COPD switching from multiple-inhaler to once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy in a real-world primary care setting in England: a retrospective pre-post cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Compared with multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT), single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) demonstrated improved lung function and meaningful improvements in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Assessment Test score. This real-world study compared the effectiveness of switching patients with COPD in England from MITT to once-daily SITT with FF/UMEC/VI by evaluating rates of COPD exacerbation, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and associated direct medical costs. METHODS: Retrospective cohort pre-post study using linked primary care electronic health record and secondary care administrative datasets. Patients diagnosed with COPD at age ≥35 years, with smoking history, linkage to secondary care data and continuous GP registration for 12 months pre-switch and 6 months post-switch to FF/UMEC/VI were included. Index date was the first initiation of an FF/UMEC/VI prescription immediately following MITT use from 15 November 2017 to 30 September 2019. Baseline was 12 months prior to index, with outcomes assessed 6/12 months pre-switch and post-switch, and stratified by prior COPD exacerbation status. RESULTS: We included 2533 patients (mean [SD] age: 71.1 [9.9] years; 52.1% male). In the 6 months post-switch, there were significant decreases in the proportion of patients experiencing ≥1 moderate-to-severe (36.2%-28.9%), moderate only (24.4%-19.8%) and severe only (15.4%-11.8%) COPD exacerbation (each, p<0.0001) compared with the 6 months pre-switch. As demonstrated by rate ratios, there were significant reductions in exacerbation rates of each severity overall (p<0.01) and among patients with prior exacerbations (p<0.0001). In the same period, there were significant decreases in the rate of each COPD-related HCRU and total COPD-related costs (-24.9%; p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Patients with COPD switching from MITT to once-daily SITT with FF/UMEC/VI in a primary care setting had significantly fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, and lower COPD-related HCRU and costs, in the 6 months post-switch compared with the 6 months pre-switch.

Triple Therapy and Clinical Control in B+ COPD Patients: A Pragmatic, Prospective, Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment with LABA/LAMA is recommended in GOLD B patients. We hypothesized that triple therapy (LABA/LAMA/ICS) will be superior to LABA/LAMA in achieving and maintaining clinical control (CC), a composite outcome that considers both impact and disease stability in a subgroup of GOLD B patients (here termed GOLD B+ patients) characterized by: (1) remaining symptomatic (CAT≥10) despite regular LABA/LAMA therapy; (2) having suffered one moderate exacerbation in the previous year; and (3) having blood eosinophil counts (BEC) ≥150cells/µL. METHODS: The ANTES B+ study is a prospective, multicenter, open label, randomized, pragmatic, controlled trial designed to test this hypothesis. It will randomize 1028 B+ patients to continue with their usual LABA/LAMA combination prescribed by their attending physician or to begin fluticasone furoate (FF) 92µg/umeclidinium (UMEC) 55µg/vilanterol (VI) 22µg in a single inhaler q.d. for 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome will be the level of CC achieved. Secondary outcomes include the clinical important deterioration index (CID), annual rate of exacerbations, and FEV1. Exploratory objectives include the interaction of BEC and smoking status, all-cause mortality and proportion of patients on LABA/LAMA arm that switch therapy arms. Safety analysis include adverse events and incidence of pneumonia. RESULTS: The first patient was recruited on February 29, 2024; results are expected in the first quarter of 2026. CONCLUSIONS: The ANTES B+ study is the first to: (1) explore the efficacy and safety of triple therapy in a population of B+ COPD patients and (2) use a composite index (CC) as the primary result of a COPD trial.

Real-world characteristics of patients with asthma initiating fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol single-inhaler triple therapy in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data assessing characteristics of patients with asthma initiating inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) triple therapy in Japan are limited. METHODS: Descriptive, observational study of patients with asthma aged ≥15 years newly initiating single- or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (SITT: fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI], SITT: indacaterol/glycopyrronium bromide/mometasone furoate [IND/GLY/MF] or MITT) or ICS/LABA using JMDC/Medical Data Vision (MDV) health insurance databases from February 2021-February 2022 (first prescription date: index date). Patients were assigned to three non-mutually exclusive cohorts: A) new FF/UMEC/VI initiators; B) new FF/UMEC/VI, IND/GLY/MF, or MITT initiators; C) new FF/UMEC/VI, IND/GLY/MF, MITT or ICS/LABA initiators as initial maintenance therapy (IMT). Patient characteristics were assessed descriptively for 12-months pre-treatment initiation (baseline period). RESULTS: Cohort A: among new FF/UMEC/VI initiators, 12.8% and 0.1% (JMDC) and 21.7% and 0.9% (MDV) of patients had ≥1 moderate and severe exacerbation; 52.0% (JMDC) and 79.2% (MDV) had ICS/LABA use. Cohort B: most patients initiated FF/UMEC/VI and IND/GLY/MF over MITT (JMDC: 91.3% vs 8.7%; MDV: 67.8% vs 32.2%), with fewer exacerbations and lower rescue medication use. Cohort C: a greater proportion of FF/UMEC/VI initiators as IMT experienced a moderate exacerbation at index versus ICS/LABA initiators as IMT (JMDC: 17.8% vs 10.7%; MDV: 8.0% vs 5.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Patient characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups; SITT initiators had fewer exacerbations and lower rescue medication use than MITT initiators, represented by the greater proportion of IMT among SITT versus MITT initiators. Physicians may have prescribed triple over dual therapy as IMT in response to an exacerbation.

Characteristics of Users and New Initiators of Single- and Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Germany.

Purpose: To assess patient characteristics of users and new initiators of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Germany. Patients and Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with COPD and ≥1 prescription for single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT; fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI] or beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol [BDP/GLY/FOR]) or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT), using data from the AOK PLUS German sickness fund (1 January 2015-31 December 2019). The index date was the first date of prescription for FF/UMEC/VI or BDP/GLY/FOR (SITT users), or the first date of overlap of inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting ß2-agonist, and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (MITT users). Two cohorts were defined: the prevalent cohort included all identified triple therapy users; the incident cohort included patients newly initiating triple therapy for the first time (no prior use of MITT or SITT in the last 2 years). Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were assessed on the index date and during the 24-month pre-index period. Results: In total, 18,630 patients were identified as prevalent triple therapy users (MITT: 17,945; FF/UMEC/VI: 700; BDP/GLY/FOR: 908; non-mutually exclusive) and 2932 patients were identified as incident triple therapy initiators (MITT: 2246; FF/UMEC/VI: 311; BDP/GLY/FOR: 395; non-mutually exclusive). For both the prevalent and incident cohorts, more than two-thirds of patients experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the preceding 24 months; in both cohorts more BDP/GLY/FOR users experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation, compared with FF/UMEC/VI and MITT users. Overall, 97.9% of prevalent triple therapy users and 86.4% of incident triple therapy initiators received maintenance treatment in the 24-month pre-index period. Conclusion: In a real-world setting in Germany, triple therapy was most frequently used after maintenance therapy in patients with recent exacerbations, in line with current treatment recommendations.

Triple therapy (a combination of three different respiratory inhaled medications) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience repeated short-term symptom flare-ups when taking dual therapy (a combination of two different respiratory medications). Previously, patients had to take triple therapy using two or three separate inhalers. More recently, single-inhaler triple therapies have been developed, meaning patients can take all three different medications at the same time via one single inhaler. This study assessed the characteristics of patients who were already receiving triple therapy, or who started triple therapy (either via multiple inhalers or a single inhaler), in Germany between January 2015 and December 2019. In total, 18,630 patients who were already receiving triple therapy during the study period, and 2932 patients who newly started using triple therapy were included. The study reported that more than two-thirds of included patients had experienced at least one flare-up of COPD symptoms in the 2 years before starting triple therapy. Most patients had also received another therapy for COPD before starting triple therapy. A small proportion of patients started taking triple therapy after receiving no other therapy for COPD in the previous 2 years. The results of the study suggest that triple therapy for COPD in Germany is most often used in accordance with recommendations (patients already receiving therapy and experiencing repeated symptom flare-ups).

Umeclidinium plus vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Umeclidinium plus vilanterol (UMEC/VI) is an inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting beta2-agonist (LAMA/LABA), recently approved as once-daily maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and safety of UMEC/VI compared with fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol (FP/SAL). METHODS: A systematic search was conducted by a trained medical research librarian across MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) for randomized controlled trials comparing UMEC/VI with FP/SAL in COPD patients. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcome was 0-24 h weighted mean (wm) forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), trough FEV1. The secondary outcomes were other lung functions, symptoms, quality of life, and safety. RESULTS: Three studies with 2119 patients were included in the meta-analysis. UMEC/VI showed improvement in 0-24 h wm FEV1 (mean difference (MD) 0.08 L, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.10, P < 0.01, moderate quality) and trough FEV1 (MD 0.09 L, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.11, P < 0.01, moderate quality) in comparison with FP/SAL. UMEC/VI statistically significantly improved all other lung functions compared with FP/SAL. However, there were no significant differences between UMEC/VI and FP/SAL in rescue-medication use, symptomatic endpoints, and health outcomes. UMEC/VI also demonstrated fewer drug-related adverse effects (risk ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.82, P = 0.01, low quality). CONCLUSIONS: UMEC/VI, when compared with FP/SAL, demonstrated significant improvements in lung functions with fewer drug-related adverse effects. However, the conclusion was limited by the scarcity of studies and long-term trials.

Efficacy and safety of Once-Daily Vilanterol/Fluticasone furoate MDI in persistent asthma: Phase 3 OD-INHALE Study.

INTRODUCTION: Once-daily inhalers have been shown to improve adherence leading to lesser discontinuation compared to twice- or thrice-daily inhalers in management of asthma. Combination of Vilanterol and Fluticasone Furoate (VI/FF) is approved for management of asthma and COPD and is available as a dry powder inhaler. Pressurized-Metered Dose Inhalers (pMDIs) offer ease-of-use and therapy alternatives for patients with low inspiratory flow. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of a new once-daily pMDI containing VI/FF in individuals diagnosed with persistent asthma. METHODS: This phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled study assessed the non-inferiority of VI/FF (12.5 mcg/50 mcg & 12.5 mcg/100 mcg; 2 puffs once-daily) over Formoterol Fumarate and Fluticasone Propionate (FOR/FP, 6 mcg/125 mcg & 6 mcg/250 mcg; 2 puffs twice-daily) in patients with persistent asthma. Primary outcome was change from baseline in trough FEV1 at the end of study (12 weeks). Adverse events and number of exacerbations were used to evaluate safety. RESULTS: A total of 330 patients were randomized into VI/FF (165) and FOR/FP (165). Trough FEV1 significantly improved in both the groups at week 12, with a mean difference (VI/FF minus FOR/FP) being 54.75 mL (95% CI, 8.42-101.08 mL, p = 0.02). The low dose VI/FF had similar efficacy to that of low dose FOR/FP and high dose VI/FF had similar efficacy to high dose FOR/FP. No serious adverse events were reported during the study. CONCLUSION: Once daily VI/FF pMDI was non-inferior to twice daily FOR/FP pMDI in patients with persistent asthma.

Baseline Characteristics and ICS/LAMA/LABA Response in Asthma: Analyses From the CAPTAIN Study.

BACKGROUND: Findings from CAPTAIN (NCT02924688) suggest that treatment response to fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) differs according to baseline type 2 inflammation markers in patients with moderate to severe asthma. Understanding how other patient physiologic and clinical characteristics affect response to inhaled therapies may guide physicians toward a personalized approach for asthma management. OBJECTIVE: To investigate, using CAPTAIN data, the predictive value of key demographic and baseline physiologic variables in patients with asthma (lung function, bronchodilator reversibility, age, age at asthma onset) on response to addition of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist UMEC to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination FF/VI, or doubling the FF dose. METHODS: Prespecified and post hoc analyses of CAPTAIN data were performed using categorical and continuous variables of key baseline characteristics to understand their influence on treatment outcomes (lung function [trough FEV1], annualized rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, and asthma control [Asthma Control Questionnaire]) following addition of UMEC to FF/VI or doubling the FF dose in FF/VI or FF/UMEC/VI. RESULTS: Adding UMEC to FF/VI led to greater improvements in trough FEV1 versus doubling the FF dose across all baseline characteristics assessed. Doubling the FF dose was generally associated with numerically greater reductions in the annualized rate of moderate/severe exacerbations compared with adding UMEC, independent of baseline characteristics. Adding UMEC and/or doubling the FF dose generally led to improvements in Asthma Control Questionnaire scores irrespective of baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike previous findings with type 2 biomarkers, lung function, bronchodilator reversibility, age and age at asthma onset do not appear to predict response to inhaled therapy.

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.

Short- and long-term effects of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in exercising asthmatic adolescents: A randomized and open label trial.

PURPOSE: Relvar® (fluticasone furoate [FF]/vilanterol [VI]) is a once-daily inhaler with bronchodilator effect lasting 24 h. Our aim was to investigate the short- and long-term effects of FF/VI on exercise-induced asthma (EIA) in adolescents. METHODS: Ninety-three adolescent asthmatics aged 12-18 years were referred for evaluation of EIA. Following a positive exercise challenge test (ECT), 22/44 were allocated to a single administration of salbutamol (400 µg) and 22/44 to FF/VI (92/22 µg) in a double-blind method. Thirty-five subjects were reassessed by repeat ECT 30-60 days of FF/VI. RESULTS: Median FEV1 change post-ECT at baseline was -22.8% predicted (interquartile range [IQR] -26.1 and -18.0) for salbutamol and -21.0 (IQR -30.7 and -16.8) for FF/VI. Following bronchodilator, FEV1 improved similarly in both groups. Repeat ECT following 30-60 days of FF/VI resulted in negative ECT in 33/35 subjects; the median decrease in FEV1 of these 35 subjects was 22.6% predicted (IQR 29-18) before, and 4.6% predicted (IQR 8.7-2.5) after 30-60 days of FF/VI treatment (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: FF/VI is effective in reversing EIA after 15 min in adolescents and in protecting EIA after 30-60 days in adolescents. Larger studies are needed to assess the effect of FF/VI on EIA.

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

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

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

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

Single inhaler triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with COPD: subgroup analysis of the China cohort in the IMPACT trial.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is becoming a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in China. In the IMPACT trial, fluticasone furoate[FF]/umeclidinium[UMEC]/vilanterol[VI] single-inhaler triple therapy demonstrated lower rates of moderate/severe exacerbations than dual therapy with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations. This analysis investigates the China cohort and its consistency with the overall ITT population. METHODS: 10,355 patients were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg for 52 weeks. Endpoints included: annual rates of exacerbations, time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation and change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week-52. Clinical trial registration is NCT02164513 (CTT116855). RESULTS: 535 patients (5.2%) were from China. Annual on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rate was 0.81 with FF/UMEC/VI versus 0.96 with FF/VI (rate ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64, 1.11; p = .227) and 0.80 with UMEC/VI (rate ratio: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.44; p = .929). Hazard ratio for time-to-first moderate/severe exacerbation was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.11; p = .218) for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.27; p = .516) versus UMEC/VI. Significant improvements in mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 were observed for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI (treatment difference 137 mL; 95% CI: 86, 188; p < .001) and UMEC/VI (63 mL; 0, 125; p = .050). Health status was improved with FF/UMEC/VI versus both dual therapies. Results were similar to the overall ITT population. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Single-inhaler triple therapy with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI reduced the rate and risk of exacerbations, and improved lung function and health status in the China cohort similar to the overall ITT population. No new safety signals were identified.

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

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

Efficacy and safety of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI in patients with inadequately controlled asthma (CAPTAIN): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3A trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy, 30-50% of patients with moderate or severe asthma remain inadequately controlled. We investigated the safety and efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate plus umeclidinium plus vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) compared with FF/VI. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3A study (Clinical Study in Asthma Patients Receiving Triple Therapy in a Single Inhaler [CAPTAIN]), participants were recruited from 416 hospitals and primary care centres across 15 countries. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with inadequately controlled asthma (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ]-6 score of ≥1·5) despite ICS/LABA, a documented health-care contact or a documented temporary change in asthma therapy for treatment of acute asthma symptoms in the year before screening, pre-bronchodilator FEV1 between 30% and less than 85% of predicted normal value, and reversibility (defined as an increase in FEV1 of ≥12% and ≥200 mL in the 20-60 min after four inhalations of albuterol or salbutamol) at screening. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), via central based randomisation stratified by pre-study ICS dose at study entry, to once-daily FF/VI (100/25 µg or 200/25 µg) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 µg, 100/62·5/25 µg, 200/31·25/25 µg, or 200/62·5/25 µg) administered via Ellipta dry powder inhaler (Glaxo Operations UK, Hertfordshire, UK). Patients, investigators, and the funder were masked to treatment allocation. Endpoints assessed in the intention-to-treat population were change from baseline in clinic trough FEV1 at week 24 (primary) and annualised moderate and/or severe asthma exacerbation rate (key secondary). Other secondary endpoints were change from baseline in clinic FEV1 at 3 h post-dose, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and ACQ-7 total score, all at week 24. Change from baseline in Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Asthma total score at weeks 21-24 was also a secondary endpoint but is not reported here. Exploratory analyses of biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation on treatment response were also done. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02924688, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 16, 2016, and Aug 31, 2018, 5185 patients were screened and 2439 were recruited and randomly assigned to FF/VI (100/25 µg n=407; 200/25 µg n=406) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 µg n=405; 100/62·5/25 µg n=406; 200/31·25/25 µg n=404; 200/62·5/25 µg n=408), with three patients randomly assigned in error and not included in analyses. In the intention-to-treat population, 922 (38%) patients were men, the mean age was 53·2 years (SD 13·1) and body-mass index was 29·4 (6·6). Baseline demographics were generally similar across all treatment groups. The least squares mean improvement in FEV1 change from baseline for FF/UMEC/VI 100/62·5/25 µg versus FF/VI 100/25 µg was 110 mL (95% CI 66-153; p<0·0001) and for 200/62·5/25 µg versus 200/25 µg was 92 mL (49-135; p<0·0001). Adding UMEC 31·25 µg to FF/VI produced similar improvements (FF/UMEC/VI 100/31·25/25 µg vs FF/VI 100/25 µg: 96 mL [52-139; p<0·0001]; and 200/31·25/25 µg vs 200/25 µg: 82 mL [39-125; p=0·0002]). These results were supported by the analysis of clinic FEV1 at 3 h post-dose. Non-significant reductions in moderate and/or severe exacerbation rates were observed for FF/UMEC 62·5 µg/VI versus FF/VI (pooled analysis), with rates lower in FF 200 µg-containing versus FF 100 µg-containing treatment groups. All pooled treatment groups demonstrated mean improvements (decreases) in SGRQ total score at week 24 compared with baseline in excess of the minimal clinically important difference of 4 points; however, there were no differences between treatment groups. For mean change from baseline to week 24 in asthma control questionnaire-7 score, improvements (decreases) exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of 0·5 points were observed in all pooled treatment groups. Adding UMEC to FF/VI resulted in small, dose-related improvements compared with FF/VI (pooled analysis: FF/UMEC 31·25 µg/VI versus FF/VI, -0·06 (95% CI -0·12 to 0·01; p=0·094) FF/UMEC 62·5 µg/VI versus FF/VI, -0·09 (-0·16 to -0·02, p=0·0084). By contrast with adding UMEC, the effects of higher dose FF on clinic trough FEV1 and annualised moderate and/or severe exacerbation rate were increased in patients with higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exhaled nitric oxide. Occurrence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups (patients with at least one event ranged from 210 [52%] to 258 [63%]), with the most commonly reported adverse events being nasopharyngitis (51 [13%]-63 [15%]), headache (19 [5%]-36 [9%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (13 [3%]-24 [6%]). The incidence of serious adverse events was similar across all groups (range 18 [4%]-25 [6%)). Three deaths occurred, of which one was considered to be related to study drug (pulmonary embolism in a patient in the FF/UMEC/VI 100/31·25/25 µg group). INTERPRETATION: In patients with uncontrolled moderate or severe asthma on ICS/LABA, adding UMEC improved lung function but did not lead to a significant reduction in moderate and/or severe exacerbations. For such patients, single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI is an effective treatment option with a favourable risk-benefit profile. Higher dose FF primarily reduced the rate of exacerbations, particularly in patients with raised biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation. Further confirmatory studies into the differentiating effect of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers on treatment outcomes in asthma are required to build on these exploratory findings and further guide clinical practice. FUNDING: GSK.