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

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

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

Is a Mass Immunization Program for Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Good Value for Money? Early Evidence from the Canadian Experience.

This work contributes informed estimates to the current debate about the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 mass immunization program's economic merits. We performed a cost-utility analysis of the (H1N1) 2009 mass immunization program in Ontario, Canada's most populous province. The analysis is based on a simulation model of a pandemic (H1N1) 2009 outbreak, surveillance data, and administrative data. We consider no immunization versus mass immunization reaching 30% of the population. Immunization program costs are expected to be $118 million in Ontario. Our analysis indicates this program will reduce influenza cases by 50%, preventing 35 deaths, and cutting treatment costs in half. A pandemic (H1N1) 2009 immunization program is likely to be highly cost-effective.