A structured review evaluating content validity of the Asthma Control Test, and its consistency with U.S. guidelines and patient expectations for asthma control.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the content of the Asthma Control Test (ACT) served as a valid measure of asthma control (i.e., content validity) by mapping ACT items to the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) guideline asthma control definitions, and to language used by patients to describe their asthma. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and EMBASE databases were used for a structured literature analysis. STUDY SELECTIONS: Full-text, English-language articles that reported findings from qualitative studies conducted in adults, focusing on patient descriptors of asthma symptoms, impacts, or severity, were included. Pediatric studies, studies conducted in patients without asthma, and studies that did not contain qualitative data were excluded. RESULTS: ACT items reflected all domains of asthma impairment described in the NHLBI guidelines, except pulmonary function. Following the literature review, 28 full-text publications were identified that included patient descriptors that could be mapped to ACT items. For example, per ACT Item 1, patients described having trouble at work, school, and completing household chores; and, per ACT Item 2, patients used the phrase "short of breath" to describe asthma-associated symptoms. CONCLUSION: ACT item content corresponded well with the NHLBI guideline definitions of the impairment domain of asthma control (focused on asthma symptoms and impact), and we identified numerous examples in the literature indicating that ACT concepts and item content mirror the language patients use when discussing asthma symptoms and impact, and their degree of asthma control. This provides further evidence to support content validity of the ACT as a measure of asthma control.

Safety data in randomised real-world evidence studies: Salford Lung Study learnings.

Evidence to support clinical decision making must be based on safety data that have been captured, analysed and interpreted in a robust and reliable way. Randomised real-world evidence (RRWE) studies provide the opportunity to evaluate the use of medicines in patients and settings representative of routine clinical practice. However, elements that underpin the design of RRWE studies can have a significant impact upon the analysis, interpretation and implications of safety data. In this narrative review, we use data from the Salford Lung Study; two prospective, 12-month, open-label, parallel-group, phase III randomised controlled trials conducted in primary care in the UK; to highlight the importance of capturing treatment modifications when attempting to evaluate safety events according to actual treatment exposure. We demonstrate that analysing safety data by actual treatment received (i.e. accounting for the treatment modifications that occur routinely in the primary care setting) provides additional insight beyond analysing according to randomised treatment strategy only. It is therefore proposed that understanding of safety data from RRWE trials can be optimised by analysing both by randomised group and by actual treatment received.

Impact of socioeconomic status on participation and outcomes in the Salford Lung Studies.

COPD and asthma prevalence is associated with socioeconomic status (or "deprivation"), yet deprivation is rarely considered in typical large-scale efficacy randomised controlled trials that recruit highly selected patient populations. In this post hoc analysis of the Salford Lung Studies in COPD and asthma (two 12-month, open-label, effectiveness randomised controlled trials conducted in UK primary care), we evaluated the impact of patient deprivation on clinical outcomes with initiating fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus continuing usual care. Patients were categorised into deprivation quintiles based on postcode and a countrywide database of indices of deprivation, and trial outcomes by quintile were assessed. 52% of patients in the COPD study were included in the most deprived quintile, contrasting with 20% in the asthma study. Greater deprivation was associated with higher rates of primary/secondary healthcare contacts and costs. However, the treatment effect of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus usual care for primary (COPD: moderate/severe exacerbations; asthma: Asthma Control Test responders at week 24) and secondary/other (healthcare consumption, adherence, treatment modifications, study withdrawals, exacerbations, serious adverse events) outcomes was similar across deprivation quintiles. Our findings support the recruitment of participants from all socioeconomic strata to allow assessment of data generalisability to routine clinical practice.

Real-World Data and Randomised Controlled Trials: The Salford Lung Study.

Traditional efficacy double-blind randomised controlled trials (DBRCTs) measure the benefit a treatment produces under near-ideal test conditions in highly selected patient populations; however, the behaviour of patients and investigators in such trials is highly controlled, highly compliant and adherent, and non-representative of routine clinical practice. Pragmatic effectiveness trials measure the benefit a treatment produces in patients in everyday "real-world" practice. Ideally, effectiveness trials should recruit patients as similar as possible to those who will ultimately be prescribed the medicine, and create freedom within the study design to allow normal behaviours of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) to be expressed. The Salford Lung Study (SLS) was a world-first, prospective, phase III, pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) programme in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma to evaluate the effectiveness of a pre-licensed medication (fluticasone furoate/vilanterol) in real-world practice using electronic health records and through collaboratively engaging general practitioners and community pharmacists in clinical research. The real-world aspect of SLS was unique, requiring careful planning and attention to the goals of maximising the external validity of the trials while maintaining scientific rigour and securing suitable electronic processes for proper interpretation of safety data. Key learnings from SLS that may inform the design of future pragmatic effectiveness RCTs include: (1) ensuring the trial setting and operational infrastructure are aligned with routine clinical care; (2) recruiting a broad patient population with characteristics as close as possible to patients in routine clinical practice, to maximise the generalisability and applicability of trial results; (3) ensuring that patients and HCPs are suitably engaged in the trial, to maximise the chances of successful trial delivery; and (4) careful study design, incorporating outcomes of value to patients, HCPs, policymakers and payers, and using pre-planned analyses to address scientifically valid research hypotheses to ensure robustness of the trial data.

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.

Can medicines development improve outcomes in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease management by driving effectiveness?

Despite the availability of treatment guidelines and inhaled medications for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), much remains to be done to lessen the burden of these respiratory diseases for patients. The challenge of selecting effective and efficacious drugs for patients is a key focus area for healthcare professionals. Here we discuss the concept of "drivers of effectiveness"- features of a medicine which may increase or decrease its effectiveness in the presence of real-world factors - and highlight the importance of considering these drivers in the early stages of drug development, and exploring their impact in carefully designed pragmatic trials. Using the Salford Lung Studies (SLS) in asthma and COPD as an illustrative example, we discuss various features of the inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination, fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI), as potential drivers of effectiveness that may have contributed to the improved patient outcomes observed with initiation of FF/VI versus continuation of usual care in the UK primary care setting.

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.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) versus twice-daily inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-agonists (ICS/LABA) in patients with uncontrolled asthma: An open-label, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A variety of different fixed-dose combinations of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-agonists (ICS/LABA) are available for the treatment of asthma. The aim of this 24-week, open-label, multicenter, Phase IIIb randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI; 100/25 or 200/25 µg) compared with twice-daily fixed combinations of ICS/LABA (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol [FP/S] and budesonide/formoterol [BUD/F]) as maintenance therapy in patients with uncontrolled asthma treated with ICS alone. METHODS: Adult patients with documented physician-diagnosed asthma ≥1 year with an Asthma Control Test (ACT) score ≥15 and < 20 were included. The primary study endpoint was change from baseline in ACT total score at Week 12. RESULTS: Overall, 423 patients were randomized to receive study medication in France and Germany. The least-squares mean change (standard error) in ACT total score at Week 12 was 3.6 units with FF/VI and 2.8 with usual ICS/LABA, giving a treatment difference of 0.8 (95% confidence interval 0.1, 1.5; p = 0.033). Non-inferiority of FF/VI to usual ICS/LABA was confirmed at Weeks 6, 18 and 24. The observed safety profile for FF/VI in this study was in line with previous experience with FF/VI. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, in a tightly controlled randomized controlled trial setting, once-daily FF/VI provides similar asthma control over 24 weeks to usual, twice-daily ICS/LABA in patients with asthma that is uncontrolled on ICS alone. FF/VI was well tolerated.

Patient-reported outcomes with initiation of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus continuing usual care in the Asthma Salford Lung Study.

BACKGROUND: The Asthma Salford Lung Study demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of initiating once-daily inhaled fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) versus continuing usual care (UC) in asthma patients in UK primary care [1]. Here, we report a detailed analysis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints. METHODS: Adults with symptomatic asthma maintained on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) ±â€¯long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) were randomized 1:1 to initiate FF/VI (100 [200]/25 µg) or continue UC. PROs were measured using the Asthma Control Test (ACT), Standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ [S]), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: asthma questionnaire, and EQ-5D-3L (EuroQol 5-Dimensions 3-Levels) questionnaire, at timepoints across the 12-month study period. RESULTS: The individual components of ACT response (total score ≥20 or improvement from baseline ≥3) both contributed to the composite primary effectiveness endpoint at Week 24, with odds ratios favoring FF/VI over UC in both cases. Patients initiating FF/VI versus continuing UC were more likely to maintain/improve asthma control, regardless of baseline control status. The odds of patients being responders on AQLQ (S) total score and on individual AQLQ domains at Week 52 were significantly higher for FF/VI versus UC (all p < .001). FF/VI was associated with significantly greater reductions in overall work and activity impairment due to asthma (both p < .001), and a significantly greater change from baseline in EQ visual analogue scale score (p = .007), versus UC at Week 52. PRO findings were consistent across baseline ICS and ICS/LABA subsets. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of FF/VI versus continuing UC was associated with consistent improvements in PROs.

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.

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.

Effectiveness of fluticasone furoate plus vilanterol on asthma control in clinical practice: an open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for management of asthma comes from closely monitored efficacy trials done in highly selected patient groups. There is a need for randomised trials that are closer to usual clinical practice. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, controlled, two-arm effectiveness trial at 74 general practice clinics in Salford and South Manchester, UK. Patients aged 18 years or older with a general practitioner's diagnosis of symptomatic asthma and on maintenance inhaler therapy were randomly assigned to initiate treatment with a once-daily inhaled combination of either 100 µg or 200 µg fluticasone furoate with 25 µg vilanterol or optimised usual care and followed up for 12 months. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who achieved an asthma control test (ACT) score of 20 or greater or an increase in ACT score from baseline of 3 or greater at 24 weeks (termed responders), in patients with a baseline ACT score less than 20 (the primary effectiveness analysis population). All effectiveness analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01706198. FINDINGS: Between Nov 12, 2012, and Dec 16, 2016, 4725 patients were enrolled and 4233 randomly assigned to initiate treatment with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol (n=2114) or usual care (n=2119). 1207 patients (605 assigned to usual care, 602 to fluticasone furoate and vilanterol) had a baseline ACT score greater than or equal to 20 and were thus excluded from the primary effectiveness analysis population. At week 24, the odds of being a responder were higher for patients who initiated treatment with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol than for those on usual care (977 [71%] of 1373 in the fluticasone furoate and vilanterol group vs 784 [56%] of 1399 in the usual care group; odds ratio [OR] 2·00 [95% CI 1·70-2·34], p<0·0001). At week 24, the adjusted mean ACT score increased by 4·4 points from baseline in patients initiated with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol, compared with 2·8 points in the usual care group (difference 1·6 [95% CI 1·3-2·0], p<0·0001). This result was consistent for the duration of the study. Pneumonia was uncommon, with no differences between groups; there was no difference in other serious adverse events between the groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with a general practitioner's diagnosis of symptomatic asthma and on maintenance inhaler therapy, initiation of a once-daily treatment regimen of combined fluticasone furoate and vilanterol improved asthma control without increasing the risk of serious adverse events when compared with optimised usual care. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Integrated safety and efficacy analysis of once-daily fluticasone furoate for the treatment of asthma.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate is a once-daily inhaled corticosteroid. This report provides an overview of safety and efficacy data that support the use of once-daily fluticasone furoate 100 µg or 200 µg in adult and adolescent asthma patients. METHODS: Fourteen clinical studies (six Phase II and eight Phase III) were conducted as part of the fluticasone furoate global clinical development programme in asthma. Safety data from 10 parallel-group, randomised, double-blind Phase II and III studies (including 3345 patients who received at least one dose of fluticasone furoate) were integrated to provide information on adverse events, withdrawals, laboratory assessments, vital signs and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function. The efficacy of once-daily fluticasone furoate was evaluated in all included studies. RESULTS: Once-daily fluticasone furoate 100 µg and 200 µg safety profiles were consistent with those reported for other inhaled corticosteroids, and both doses consistently demonstrated efficacy versus placebo. In the integrated analysis, no dose-response relationship was observed for the overall incidence of adverse events and there were no significant effects of fluticasone furoate on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function. CONCLUSION: Once-daily fluticasone furoate 100 µg and 200 µg had acceptable safety profiles and was efficacious in adult and adolescent patients with asthma. There was no evidence of cortisol suppression at studied doses. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: GSK (NCT01499446/FFA20001, NCT00398645/FFA106783, NCT00766090/112202, NCT00603746/FFA109684, NCT00603278/FFA109685, NCT00603382/FFA109687, NCT01436071/115283, NCT01436110/115285, NCT01159912/112059, NCT01431950/114496, NCT01165138/HZA106827, NCT01086384/106837, NCT01134042/HZA106829 and NCT01244984/1139879).

Efficacy and safety comparison: Fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate, after step down from fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in Japanese patients with well-controlled asthma, a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with well-controlled asthma, 'step down' of therapy is recommended. We evaluated Japanese patients switching from inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA; equivalent to fluticasone propionate [FP]/salmeterol [SAL] 250/50 µg twice daily [BD]) to fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 µg, then stepping down to ICS alone. METHODS: This phase III trial had two treatment periods (P): P1, patients with well-controlled asthma on FP/SAL 250/50 µg BD equivalent stepped across to once daily (OD) FF/VI 100/25 µg (open-label, eight weeks); P2, patients remaining 'well controlled' after P1 stepped down to FF 100 µg OD/FP 100 µg BD/FP 250 µg BD (randomized 1:1:1, double-blind, 12 weeks). Co-primary P2 endpoints: percentage of patients with well-controlled asthma; time to withdrawal due to poorly controlled asthma requiring step-up therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored. RESULTS: At the end of P1 (n = 430), 373 (90.5%; 95% confidence interval 87.29-93.18) patients' asthma remained well controlled with FF/VI; in P2 (n = 371), control was maintained in 89.5% (FF 100 µg)/79.5% (FP 100 µg)/83.8% (FP 250 µg) of patients. In P2, 4.9-7.3% of patients were withdrawn due to worsening asthma (time-to-withdrawal cumulative incidence curves were comparable). AEs were reported by 37% of patients during P1; and by 36% (FF 100 µg)/48% (FP 100 µg)/49% (FP 250 µg) of patients in P2. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with well-controlled asthma on mid dose ICS/LABA (equivalent to FP/SAL 250/50 µg BD), control can be maintained when they are stepped across to FF/VI 100/25 µg OD. FF 100 µg OD is an effective step-down therapy from FF/VI 100/25 µg OD with similar efficacy to FP 100 µg BD and FP 250 µg BD.

Efficacy and safety evaluation of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in Asian patients with asthma uncontrolled on a low- to mid-strength inhaled corticosteroid or low-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist.

BACKGROUND: Response to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) combinations varies across ethnic groups. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of the ICS/LABA combination fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100/25 µg in Asian patients with asthma. METHODS: A randomized (1:1), 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, multicenter phase III study of once-daily FF/VI 100/25 µg versus placebo in patients of Asian ancestry ages ≥12 years with asthma, uncontrolled on a low- to mid-strength ICS or low-dose ICS/LABA. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in the daily evening peak expiratory flow. Secondary end points were the mean change from baseline in percentage rescue-free 24-hour periods, daily morning peak expiratory flow, percentage symptom-free 24-hour periods, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score, adverse events, and severe exacerbations. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population was 307 patients. There were significant (p < 0.001) improvements from baseline for FF/VI 100/25 µg versus placebo in evening peak expiratory flow (51.0 L/min [95% confidence interval {CI}, 42.2-59.7 L/min]) and all secondary end points (percentage rescue-free 24-hour periods 21.8% [95% CI, 14.6-29.1%]; morning peak expiratory flow 52.9 L/min [95% CI, 44.2-61.6 L/min]; percentage symptom-free 24-hour periods 15.8% [95% CI, 9.4-22.3%]; Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score 0.52 [95% CI, 0.28, 0.75]). On-treatment adverse events were 35% with FF/VI (n = 2 [serious]), 31% with placebo; severe exacerbations were FF/VI (n = 1), placebo (n = 7). CONCLUSIONS: In patients of Asian ancestry, once-daily FF/VI 100/25 µg produced statistically and clinically significant improvements in efficacy end points versus placebo, with a generally similar safety profile. Results were consistent with a global phase III study of FF/VI 100/25 µg. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01498679.

Ethnic sensitivity assessment of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in East Asian asthma patients from randomized double-blind multicentre Phase IIb/III trials.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) is a once daily (OD) inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination asthma therapy approved in Japan and the EU. FF/VI efficacy and safety data from asthma studies including patients in East Asia were evaluated to assess ethnic sensitivity. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase IIb/III trials were assessed. Change from baseline relative to placebo or twice-daily fluticasone propionate 500 µg in trough FEV1 was compared between patients from Japan (N = 148) and Not-Japan (N = 3,066; three studies). Adverse events (AEs), laboratory results, and electrocardiograms were compared between patients from Japan + Korea (N = 188) and Not-Japan + Korea (N = 3,840; five studies). RESULTS: For trough FEV1, improvements from baseline (least-squares mean difference [95% confidence interval]) were reported for FF/VI 100/25 µg OD versus placebo at Week 12 (Japan: 0.323 L [0.104-0.542]; Not-Japan: 0.168 L [0.095-0.241]). Improvements from baseline (least-squares mean change [standard error]) were reported with FF/VI 200/25 µg OD at Week 24 (Japan: 0.355 L [0.1152]; Not-Japan: 0.396 L [0.0313]). A greater proportion of patients from Japan + Korea versus Not-Japan + Korea reported AEs in all treatment arms including placebo (FF/VI 100/25 µg: 79% versus 57%; FF/VI 200/25 µg: 64% versus 45%; placebo: 41% versus 23%). There were no notable differences in treatment-related or class-related AEs. No clinically significant changes in electrocardiogram assessments or statistically significant differences in 24 h urinary cortisol excretion were observed between the Japan + Korea and Not-Japan + Korea cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Good efficacy and an acceptable safety profile were observed for FF/VI 100/25 µg and 200/25 µg OD in East Asian asthma patients; these globally recommended doses are appropriate for asthma patients in Japan. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registration numbers: NCT01165138 , NCT01134042 , NCT01086384 , NCT00603278 , NCT00603382 .

Fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (100/25 mcg or 200/25 mcg) or FF (100 mcg) in persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVES: Fluticasone furoate (FF; inhaled corticosteroid) combined with vilanterol (VI; long-acting beta(2) agonist) is a once-daily therapy for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This 12-week phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily (evening dosing) FF/VI 100/25 mcg versus FF 100 mcg (primary objective) and FF/VI 100/25 mcg versus FF/VI 200/25 mcg (descriptive comparison only) in patients (n = 1039) ≥12 years with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma. METHODS: The primary end point was weighted mean (wm) 0-24-h serial forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) at week 12. Secondary end points (change from baseline) were trough FEV(1) and the proportion (%) of rescue-free 24-h periods (both powered), the proportion (%) of symptom-free 24-h periods, and morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF). Safety data (adverse events, AEs) were collected throughout. RESULTS: Compared with FF 100 mcg, FF/VI 100/25 mcg significantly improved wmFEV(1) (p < 0.001), trough FEV(1) (p = 0.014), % rescue-free (p < 0.001), % symptom-free (p = 0.002) 24-h periods, and morning and evening PEF (p < 0.001). FF/VI 200/25 mcg produced small numerical improvements versus FF/VI 100/25 mcg for all end points. Incidence of AEs was similar across groups. CONCLUSIONS: FF/VI 100/25 mcg resulted in significant improvements in all primary and secondary end points versus FF 100 mcg. Numerical improvements occurred with FF/VI 200/25 mcg versus FF/VI 100/25 mcg. All treatments were well tolerated.