Immunogenicity and safety of AZD2816, a beta (B.1.351) variant COVID-19 vaccine, and AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) as third-dose boosters for previously vaccinated adults: a multicentre, randomised, partly double-blinded, phase 2/3 non-inferiority immunobridging study in the UK and Poland.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate AZD2816, a variant-updated COVID-19 vaccine expressing the full-length SARS-CoV-2 beta (B.1.351) variant spike protein that is otherwise similar to AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), and AZD1222 as third-dose boosters. METHODS: This phase 2/3, partly double-blinded, randomised, active-controlled study was done at 19 sites in the UK and four in Poland. Adult participants who had received a two-dose AZD1222 or mRNA vaccine primary series were randomly assigned by means of an Interactive Response Technology-Randomisation and Trial Supply Management system (1:1 within each primary-series cohort, stratified by age, sex, and comorbidities) to receive AZD1222 or AZD2816 (intramuscular injection; 5 × 1010 viral particles). Participants, investigators, and all sponsor staff members involved in study conduct were masked to randomisation. AZD1222 and AZD2816 doses were prepared by unmasked study staff members. The primary objectives were to evaluate safety and humoral immunogenicity (non-inferiority of day-29 pseudovirus neutralising antibody geometric mean titre [GMT] against ancestral SARS-CoV-2: AZD1222 booster vs AZD1222 primary series [historical controls]; margin 0·67; SARS-CoV-2-seronegative participants). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04973449, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between June 27 and Sept 30, 2021, 1394 participants of the 1741 screened were randomly assigned to AZD1222 or AZD2816 following an AZD1222 (n=373, n=377) or mRNA vaccine (n=322, n=322) primary series. In SARS-CoV-2-seronegative participants receiving AZD1222 or AZD2816, 78% and 80% (AZD1222 primary series) and 90% and 93%, respectively (mRNA vaccine primary series) reported solicited adverse events to the end of day 8; 2%, 2%, 1%, and 1% had serious adverse events and 12%, 12%, 10%, and 11% had adverse events of special interest, respectively, to the end of day 180. The primary immunogenicity non-inferiority endpoint was met: day-29 neutralising antibody GMT ratios (ancestral SARS-CoV-2) were 1·02 (95% CI 0·90-1·14) and 3·47 (3·09-3·89) with AZD1222 booster versus historical controls (AZD1222 and mRNA vaccine primary series, respectively). Responses against beta were greater with AZD2816 versus AZD1222 (GMT ratios, AZD1222, mRNA vaccine primary series 1·84 [1·63-2·08], 2·22 [1·99-2·47]). INTERPRETATION: Both boosters were well tolerated, with immunogenicity against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 similar to AZD1222 primary-series vaccination. AZD2816 gave greater immune responses against beta versus AZD1222. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Umeclidinium/vilanterol as step-up therapy from tiotropium in patients with moderate COPD: a randomized, parallel-group, 12-week study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with COPD who remain symptomatic on long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy may benefit from step-up therapy to a long-acting bronchodilator combination. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) in patients with moderate COPD who remained symptomatic on tiotropium (TIO). METHODS: In this randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group study (NCT01899742), patients (N=494) who were prescribed TIO for ≥3 months at screening (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]: 50%-70% of predicted; modified Medical Research Council [mMRC] score ≥1) and completed a 4-week run-in with TIO were randomized to UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg or TIO 18 µg for 12 weeks. Efficacy assessments included trough FEV1 at Day 85 (primary end point), 0-3 h serial FEV1, rescue medication use, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and COPD Assessment Test (CAT). Safety evaluations included adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Compared with TIO, UMEC/VI produced greater improvements in trough FEV1 (least squares [LS] mean difference: 88 mL at Day 85 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 45-131]; P<0.001) and FEV1 after 5 min on Day 1 (50 mL [95% CI: 27-72]; P<0.001). Reductions in rescue medication use over 12 weeks were greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO (LS mean change: -0.1 puffs/d [95% CI: -0.2-0.0]; P≤0.05). More patients achieved clinically meaningful improvements in TDI score (≥1 unit) with UMEC/VI (63%) versus TIO (49%; odds ratio at Day 84=1.78 [95% CI: 1.21-2.64]; P≤0.01). Improvements in SGRQ and CAT scores were similar between treatments. The incidence of AEs was similar with UMEC/VI (30%) and TIO (31%). CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI step-up therapy provides clinical benefit over TIO monotherapy in patients with moderate COPD who are symptomatic on TIO alone.

A randomised, open-label study of umeclidinium versus glycopyrronium in patients with COPD.

This study compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium 62.5 µg with once-daily glycopyrronium 50 µg in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This was a 12-week, multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02236611). Patients were randomised 1:1 to umeclidinium 62.5 µg or glycopyrronium 50 µg administered via Ellipta or Breezhaler dry powder inhaler, respectively. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at day 85 in the per-protocol population. Other endpoints included: weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 h and patient-reported outcomes (transition dyspnoea index score and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score). Adverse events were also assessed. A total of 1037 patients were randomised to treatment. Umeclidinium was non-inferior (margin: -50 mL) to glycopyrronium (trough FEV1 at day 85 treatment difference: 24 mL, 95% confidence intervals: -5-54). Improvements in other endpoints were similar between treatments. Adverse event incidences were similar for umeclidinium (37%) and glycopyrronium (36%). Once-daily umeclidinium was non-inferior to once-daily glycopyrronium in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in trough FEV1 at day 85. Patient-reported outcomes and safety profiles were similar for both treatments.

Mast cell desensitization inhibits calcium flux and aberrantly remodels actin.

Rush desensitization (DS) is a widely used and effective clinical strategy for the rapid inhibition of IgE-mediated anaphylactic responses. However, the cellular targets and underlying mechanisms behind this process remain unclear. Recent studies have implicated mast cells (MCs) as the primary target cells for DS. Here, we developed a murine model of passive anaphylaxis with demonstrated MC involvement and an in vitro assay to evaluate the effect of DS on MCs. In contrast with previous reports, we determined that functional IgE remains on the cell surface of desensitized MCs following DS. Despite notable reductions in MC degranulation following DS, the high-affinity IgE receptor FcεRI was still capable of transducing signals in desensitized MCs. Additionally, we found that displacement of the actin cytoskeleton and its continued association with FcεRI impede the capacity of desensitized MCs to evoke the calcium response that is essential for MC degranulation. Together, these findings suggest that reduced degranulation responses in desensitized MCs arise from aberrant actin remodeling, providing insights that may lead to improvement of DS treatments for anaphylactic responses.

Correct usage, ease of use, and preference of two dry powder inhalers in patients with COPD: analysis of five phase III, randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Handheld inhalers are used to deliver treatment for COPD. Incorrect usage leads to suboptimal disease control. Complex treatment regimens and use of multiple inhalers may reduce patient compliance. The Anoro Ellipta™ dry powder inhaler (DPI) simultaneously delivers umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and vilanterol (VI) without coformulation being required. AIM: To assess the correct usage and ease of use of the Ellipta™ DPI administering UMEC/VI and to compare patient preference for Ellipta™ with the HandiHaler(®) through exploratory analyses of patient and observer questionnaires in five Phase III studies. METHODS: Two Phase III, 3-month double-blind, placebo-controlled studies assessed the correct usage of the Ellipta™ DPI at Day 1 and after 6 weeks, and ease of use of the Ellipta™ DPI using a nonvalidated patient questionnaire after 6 weeks or early withdrawal. In three 6-month, blinded double-dummy, active comparator studies (two Phase IIIa and one Phase IIIb), patients completed a COPD device preference questionnaire between the Ellipta™ DPI and the Handi-Haler(®) at Day 168 (Week 24) or early withdrawal. RESULTS: In the 3-month placebo-controlled studies, ≥98% of patients used the Ellipta™ DPI correctly and 99% of patients found the inhaler easy/very easy-to-use and the dose counter easy/very easy to read. Across the two Phase IIIa active comparator studies, patients consistently stated a preference for the Ellipta™ DPI over HandiHaler(®) regarding the number of steps to use (59% vs 17%), time taken to use (62% vs 14%), and ease of use (63% vs 15%) regardless of which inhaler contained active drug. Results were consistent in the Phase IIIb active comparator study. CONCLUSION: Delivery of UMEC/VI via the Ellipta™ DPI was considered easy-to-use, and patients with COPD demonstrated clear preference for this inhaler compared with HandiHaler(®).

The effect of umeclidinium added to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist in patients with symptomatic COPD: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study.

Benefits of triple therapy with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), added to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), have been demonstrated. Limited data assessing the efficacy of the LAMA umeclidinium (UMEC) added to ICS/LABA are available. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UMEC added to ICS/LABAs in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD. This is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study. Patients were symptomatic (modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale score ⩾2), despite receiving ICS/LABA (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL, branded) 500/50 mcg, budesonide/formoterol (BD/FOR, branded) 200/6 mcg or 400/12 mcg, or other ICS/LABAs) ⩾30 days before the run-in (7±2 days). Patients were randomised 1:1 to once-daily UMEC 62.5 mcg or placebo (PBO), added to twice-daily open-label ICS/LABA for 12 weeks. Primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Day 85; secondary end point was weighted mean (WM) 0-6 h FEV1 at Day 84; other end points included COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score and Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) score. Adverse events (AEs) were investigated. In the UMEC+ICS/LABA and PBO+ICS/LABA groups, 119 and 117 patients were randomised, respectively. Patients received FP/SAL (40%), BD/FOR (43%) and other ICS/LABAs (17%). UMEC+ICS/LABA resulted in significant improvements in trough FEV1 (Day 85) and in WM 0-6 h FEV1 (Day 84) versus PBO+ICS/LABA (difference: 123 and 148 ml, respectively, both P<0.001). Change from baseline for UMEC+ICS/LABA versus PBO+ICS/LABA was significantly different for CAT score at Day 84 (-1.31, P<0.05), but not for TDI score (0.40, P=0.152). AE incidence was similar with UMEC+ICS/LABA (38%) and PBO+ICS/LABA (42%). UMEC+ICS/LABA improved lung function and CAT score in patients with symptomatic COPD versus PBO+ICS/LABA (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02257372).

A randomized, parallel-group study to evaluate the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: The combination of the inhaled muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) with the long-acting ß2-agonist vilanterol (VI) has been shown to provide significant improvements in lung function compared with UMEC, VI, or placebo (PBO) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study was specifically designed to support these findings by assessing health-related quality of life and symptomatic outcomes in a similar population. METHODS: This was a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg (via ELLIPTA(®) dry powder inhaler) or PBO for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at day 84. Secondary efficacy endpoints included rescue albuterol use (puffs/day) over weeks 1-12 and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second on day 84. Adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 496 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population in the UMEC/VI (n=248) and PBO (n=248) treatment groups. UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in SGRQ total score at day 84 versus PBO (difference between treatments in SGRQ total score change from baseline: -4.03 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -6.28, -1.79]; P<0.001). UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg resulted in a statistically significant reduction in rescue albuterol use versus PBO (-0.7 puffs/day [95% CI: -1.1, -0.4]; P<0.001). UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second on day 84 versus PBO (122 mL [95% CI: 71, 172]; P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments (32% and 30% of patients in the UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg and PBO groups, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate that treatment with UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg provides clinically important improvements in SGRQ and rescue medication use versus PBO in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD.

Genetic effects on treatment response of umeclidinium/vilanterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is standard, but response varies. We investigated genetic association with treatment response to umeclidinium (UMEC, a LAMA), vilanterol (VI, a LABA), and combination therapy. METHODS: Data from 17 clinical trials (N = 6075) in patients with COPD receiving once-daily UMEC/VI (125/25mcg or 62.5/25mcg), UMEC (125 or 62.5mcg), VI (25mcg) or placebo were used. Genetic association with change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ∼24 h post-dosing was assessed for: (i) 3 ß2-adrenoceptor (ADRB2) gene variants; (ii) 298 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with prior evidence of associations; (iii) human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles and (iv) genome-wide association study (GWAS) SNPs. Other endpoints were (i) reversibility at screening; and at baseline: (ii) FEV1; (iii) forced vital capacity (FVC), and (iv) FEV1/FVC ratio. Using linear regression, the inverse normal transformed residuals were pooled together, first across treatment group, then across studies for each monotherapy, then combination therapy and finally for every treated patient. RESULTS: Of 6075 patients, 1849 received UMEC/VI, 1390 received UMEC, 1795 received VI, and 1041 received placebo. None of the ADRB2 variants, HLA alleles or GWAS variants tested were associated with treatment response or baseline endpoints. Four SNPs in FAM13A (rs7671167, rs2869967, rs1964516, rs1903003) were significantly associated with baseline FEV1/FVC ratio (p < 3 × 10(-5)) after adjusting for multiple testing. CONCLUSIONS: No genetic association was found with treatment response to UMEC or VI when administered as monotherapies or in combination.

A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 µg compared with tiotropium 18 µg in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: The long-acting muscarinic antagonists umeclidinium (UMEC) and tiotropium (TIO) are approved once-daily maintenance therapies for COPD. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of UMEC versus TIO in COPD. METHODS: This was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to UMEC 62.5 µg plus placebo or TIO 18 µg plus placebo. The primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at day 85 (non-inferiority margin -50 mL; per-protocol [PP] population). Other end points included weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 and 12-24 hours post-dose. Patient-reported outcomes comprised Transition Dyspnea Index score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and COPD Assessment Test score. Adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 1,017 patients were randomized to treatment. In the PP population, 489 and 487 patients received UMEC and TIO, respectively. In the PP population, change from baseline in trough FEV1 was greater with UMEC versus TIO at day 85, meeting non-inferiority and superiority margins (difference: 59 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 29-88; P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat analysis of trough FEV1 at day 85 (53 mL, 95% CI: 25-81; P<0.001). Improvements in weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 hours post-dose at day 84 were similar with UMEC and TIO but significantly greater with UMEC versus TIO over 12-24 hours post-dose (70 mL; P=0.015). Clinically meaningful improvements in Transition Dyspnea Index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire were observed with both treatments at all time points. No differences were observed between UMEC and TIO in patient-reported outcomes. Overall incidences of adverse events were similar for UMEC and TIO. CONCLUSION: UMEC 62.5 µg demonstrated superior efficacy to TIO 18 µg on the primary end point of trough FEV1 at day 85. Safety profiles were similar for both treatments.

Magnitude of umeclidinium/vilanterol lung function effect depends on monotherapy responses: Results from two randomised controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Dual therapy with bronchodilators of different pharmacological classes may produce greater lung function improvements than either drug alone. However, the relationship between a patient's response to monotherapy and response to dual bronchodilator therapy is currently unknown. We aimed to investigate whether dual therapy with umeclidinium/vilanterol provides additional benefit over umeclidinium or vilanterol monotherapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) identified as responsive (increase from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1s [FEV1] of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL, Day 1) or non-responsive to monotherapy. METHODS: In two randomised, double-blind, three-way complete-block, cross-over studies (DB2116132 n = 207; DB2116133 n = 182; intent-to-treat), all patients (moderate-to-very severe COPD) were randomised to 1 of 6 sequences and received once-daily umeclidinium 62.5 mcg, vilanterol 25 mcg, and umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg (one treatment/14-day period; 10-14-day washout). Key endpoints were 0-6 h weighted mean FEV1 (Day 14) and trough FEV1 (Day 15). Adverse events, vital signs and COPD exacerbations were assessed. Pooled data are presented. RESULTS: Umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly (p ≤ 0.001, unless stated otherwise) increased 0-6 h weighted mean FEV1 versus umeclidinium in umeclidinium-responders (+114 mL), versus vilanterol in vilanterol-responders (+92 mL) and versus umeclidinium (+70 mL) and vilanterol (+62 mL) in non-responders. Improvements in trough FEV1 occurred with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium in umeclidinium-responders (+77 mL), versus vilanterol in vilanterol-responders (+86 mL), and versus umeclidinium (+42 mL [p = 0.020]) and vilanterol (+58 mL) in non-responders. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly improved lung function in patients with COPD, with quantitatively greater improvements in patients identified as responders to umeclidinium and vilanterol monotherapy than non-responders.

Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium Added to Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol in Patients with COPD: Results of Two Randomized, Double-Blind Studies.

Combinations of drugs with distinct and complementary mechanisms of action may offer improved efficacy in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In two 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group studies, patients with COPD were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily umeclidinium (UMEC; 62.5 µg and 125 µg) or placebo (PBO), added to twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL; 250/50 µg). In both studies, the primary efficacy measure was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at Day 85. Secondary endpoints were weighted-mean (WM) FEV1 over 0-6 hours post-dose (Day 84) and rescue albuterol use. Health-related quality of life outcomes (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] and COPD assessment test [CAT]) were also examined. Safety was assessed throughout. Both UMEC+FP/SAL doses provided statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 (Day 85: 0.127-0.148 L) versus PBO+FP/SAL. Similarly, both UMEC+FP/SAL doses provided statistically-significant improvements in 0-6 hours post-dose WM FEV1 versus PBO+FP/SAL (Day 84: 0.144-0.165 L). Rescue use over Weeks 1-12 decreased with UMEC+FP/SAL in both studies versus PBO+FP/SAL (Study 1, 0.3 puffs/day [both doses]; Study 2, 0.5 puffs/day [UMEC 125+FP/SAL]). Decreases from baseline in CAT score were generally larger for both doses of UMEC+FP/SAL versus PBO+FP/SAL (except for Day 84 Study 2). In Study 1, no differences in SGRQ score were observed between UMEC+FP/SAL and PBO+FP/SAL; however, in Study 2, statistically significant improvements were observed with UMEC 62.5+FP/SAL (Day 28) and UMEC 125+FP/SAL (Days 28 and 84) versus PBO+FP/SAL. The incidence of on-treatment adverse events across all treatment groups was 37-41% in Study 1 and 36-38% in Study 2. Overall, these data indicate that the combination of UMEC+FP/SAL can provide additional benefits over FP/SAL alone in patients with COPD.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily inhaled umeclidinium/vilanterol in Asian patients with COPD: results from a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Combination of the inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC; GSK573719) with the long-acting ß2-agonist vilanterol (VI) is an approved maintenance treatment for COPD in the US and EU. We compared the efficacy and safety of UMEC/VI with placebo in patients with COPD of Asian ancestry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this 24-week, Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to UMEC/VI 125/25 µg, UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg, or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) on day 169; secondary end points were Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score at week 24 and weighted mean (WM) FEV1 over 0-6 hours postdose on day 1. Additional end points and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Both UMEC/VI 125/25 µg and UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg statistically significantly improved trough FEV1 at day 169 versus placebo (UMEC/VI 125/25 µg, 0.216 L, [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.175-0.257]; UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg, 0.151 L, 95% CI 0.110-0.191; both P<0.001). Statistically significant improvements in TDI score were observed for both UMEC/VI groups versus placebo (UMEC/VI 125/25 µg, 0.9, 95% CI 0.3-1.4, P=0.002; UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg, 0.7, 95% CI 0.1-1.2, P=0.016). On day 1, both UMEC/VI groups improved 0-6-hour WM FEV1 versus placebo (UMEC/VI 125/25 µg, 0.182 L 95% CI 0.161-0.203; UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg, 0.160 L, 95% CI 0.139-0.181; both P<0.001). Statistically significant improvements for UMEC/VI groups versus placebo were observed for rescue albuterol use at weeks 1-24 (puffs/day, both P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar across groups. CONCLUSION: In Asian patients with COPD, once-daily UMEC/VI 125/25 µg and UMEC 62.5/25 µg resulted in clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in lung-function end points versus placebo. Symptomatic and quality of life measures also improved. The safety profile of UMEC/VI was consistent with previous studies.

Umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in COPD: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Umeclidinium (UMEC; long-acting muscarinic antagonist) plus vilanterol (VI; long-acting beta2 agonist [LABA]) and the LABA/inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This 12-week, multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, double-dummy study compared the efficacy and safety of these treatments in symptomatic patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with no exacerbations in the year prior to enrolment. METHODS: Patients (n = 717) were randomised 1:1 to once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg or twice-daily FP/SAL 500/50 mcg. Endpoints included 0-24 h weighted mean (wm) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (Day 84; primary), trough FEV1 (Day 85; secondary), other lung function endpoints, symptoms, quality of life (QoL) and safety. RESULTS: Improvements with UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL were 0.080 L (95 % confidence interval: 0.046-0.113; wmFEV1) and 0.090 L (0.055-0.125; trough FEV1) (both p < 0.001). UMEC/VI statistically significantly improved all other lung function measures versus FP/SAL. Both treatments demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms (Transition Dyspnoea Index ≥1 unit) and QoL (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire Total score ≥4 unit decrease from baseline) over 12 weeks. The incidence of adverse events was 28 % (UMEC/VI) and 29 % (FP/SAL); nasopharyngitis and headache were most common. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg over 12 weeks resulted in significant and sustained improvements in lung function versus twice-daily FP/SAL 500/50 mcg in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and with no exacerbations in the year prior to enrolment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01822899 Registration date: March 28, 2013.

Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium added to fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Results of two randomized studies.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of these studies (NCT01957163; NCT02119286) was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC 62.5 µg and 125 µg) added to fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI, 100/25 µg) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: These were 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter studies. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1:1 to treatment with once-daily blinded UMEC 62.5 µg (delivering 55 µg), UMEC 125 µg (delivering 113 µg) or placebo (PBO) added to open-label FF/VI (delivering 92/22 µg; N = 1238 [intent-to-treat population]). The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) on Day 85; the secondary endpoint was 0-6 h post-dose weighted mean (WM) FEV1 at Day 84. Health-related quality of life was reported using St George's respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ). Adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. RESULTS: In both studies, trough FEV1 was significantly improved with UMEC + FF/VI (62.5 µg and 125 µg) versus PBO + FF/VI (range: 0.111-0.128 L, all p < 0.001 [Day 85]), as was 0-6 h post-dose WM FEV1 (range: 0.135-0.153 L, all p < 0.001 [Day 84]). SGRQ results were inconsistent, with statistically significant improvements with UMEC + FF/VI versus PBO + FF/VI in one study only and with UMEC 62.5 µg only (difference in SGRQ total score from baseline between treatments: -2.16, p < 0.05). Across all treatment groups, the overall incidences of AEs were similar (30-39%), as were cardiovascular AEs of special interest (<1-3%) and pneumonia AEs (0-1%). CONCLUSION: Overall, the addition of UMEC to FF/VI therapy resulted in significant improvements in lung function compared with PBO + FF/VI in patients with COPD, with similar safety profiles, though SGRQ results were inconsistent. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results from these two studies demonstrate that the addition of umeclidinium (62.5 µg and 125 µg) to FF/VI (100/25 µg) provides statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in lung function compared with placebo + FF/VI in patients with COPD. Statistically significant improvements in quality of life with UMEC + FF/VI versus placebo + FF/VI were reported in one study only. Safety profiles were consistent across all treatment groups in both studies. These studies support the use of triple therapy in COPD, providing physicians with an alternative treatment option.

Improvements in lung function with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and infrequent exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: Umeclidinium (UMEC; long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA])/vilanterol (VI; long-acting beta2-agonist [LABA]) and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) (inhaled corticosteroid/LABA) are approved maintenance therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Two studies compared efficacy and safety of UMEC/VI with FP/SAL in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with no exacerbations in the previous year. METHODS: In these 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, double-dummy trials, randomized (1:1) patients received once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg or twice-daily FP/SAL 250/50 mcg (DB2114930 n = 353 and 353; DB2114951 n = 349 and 348, respectively; intent-to-treat). Endpoints included 0-24 h weighted mean (wm) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (Day 84; primary), trough FEV1 (Day 85; secondary), other lung function endpoints, dyspnea, quality of life (QoL) and safety. RESULTS: UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvements in lung function measures versus FP/SAL. For 0-24 h wmFEV1 (Day 84), improvements with UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL were 74 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 38-110; DB2114930) and 101 mL (63-139; DB2114951) (both p < 0.001). Trough FEV1 improvements were 82 mL (45-119) and 98 mL (59-137) (both p < 0.001) for UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL, respectively. Both treatments demonstrated similar, clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in dyspnea (Transition Dyspnea Index focal score >1 unit) and QoL (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire Total score >4-unit decrease) in both studies with no statistical differences between treatments. Adverse event rates were similar: 26 and 30% UMEC/VI; 27 and 31% FP/SAL. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg over 12 weeks resulted in statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvements in lung function versus twice-daily FP/SAL 250/50 mcg in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with infrequent exacerbations. Both treatments improved dyspnea and QoL. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: DB2114930/NCT01817764; DB2114951/NCT01879410.

Daily variation in lung function in COPD patients with combined albuterol and ipratropium: results from a 4-week, randomized, crossover study.

BACKGROUND: The bronchodilator response to short-acting ß2-agonist and short-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapies varies on a day-to-day basis within individual patients. The objective of this study was to compare daily variation in bronchodilator response to the combined use of albuterol and ipratropium with monotherapies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This was a 4-week, randomized, open-label, two-period crossover study in patients with COPD. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive albuterol via metered dose inhaler followed by ipratropium or vice versa during treatment Period 1 (10-14 days). The order of treatments was then reversed during treatment Period 2 (10-14 days). Pre-defined efficacy endpoints were: forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), derived FEV1, inspiratory capacity (IC) and daily variability of FEV1 and IC as measured by coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS: Albuterol and ipratropium improved FEV1 when administered as the first bronchodilator, compared with pre-dose values (0.269 and 0.243 L, respectively). Administration of the second bronchodilator provided further improvements in lung function, but to a lesser magnitude than the first bronchodilator (0.094 L for both treatments). A statistically significant reduction in daily variability in FEV1 was observed for dual bronchodilator therapy compared with monotherapy (difference in CV = 0.007; p = 0.019) and pre-dose values (no treatment; difference in CV = 0.022; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The free combination of albuterol and ipratropium resulted in greater improvements and lower day-to-day variability in FEV1 compared with either monotherapy or no bronchodilator therapy. The reduced daily variability may be an important therapeutic advantage of using different classes of bronchodilators in COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01691482.

Effects of a combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol on exercise endurance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: two randomized, double-blind clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Exercise intolerance is a hallmark of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Patients with COPD were randomized in two multicentre, double-blind, incomplete block crossover studies. Patients received two of six treatments in sequence (12 weeks each): placebo, umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) (125/25 mcg or 62.5/25 mcg), VI (25 mcg) or UMEC (62.5 mcg or 125 mcg). Exercise endurance time (EET) and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (Week 12) were co-primary endpoints. Safety was monitored throughout. RESULTS: Both studies showed similar 3-hour post-dose EET improvements from baseline for UMEC/VI (Week 12). Significant EET improvements were observed with both UMEC/VI doses versus placebo at Week 12 in Study 418 (UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg: 65.8 s; p = 0.005; UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg: 69.4 s; p = 0.003), but not in Study 417, where a placebo effect was evident. Post hoc integrated data analysis showed significant but smaller EET improvements for both UMEC/VI doses versus placebo at Week 12 (UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg: 47.5 s; p = 0.002; UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg: 43.7 s; p = 0.001). Both studies showed trough FEV1 improvements at Week 12 for both UMEC/VI doses. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups within each study. CONCLUSIONS: UMEC/VI improved lung function and EET.

Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg and tiotropium 18 mcg in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results of a 24-week, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of inhaled long-acting bronchodilator therapies such as muscarinic antagonists and ß2-agonists may be more effective than monotherapy in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This study was a 24-week, Phase III, multicenter, randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group study of the once-daily, inhaled, fixed-dose combination of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium bromide and the long-acting ß2-agonist vilanterol (UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg) versus tiotropium (TIO, 18 mcg). The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Day 169. The secondary endpoint was weighted mean FEV1 over 0­6 h post-dose at Day 168. For key endpoints, a step-down closed testing hierarchy was applied to account for multiplicity. Other efficacy and safety endpoints were assessed. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 at Day 169 (0.112 L, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.081, 0.144; p < 0.001) and weighted mean FEV1 over 0­6 h post-dose at Day 168 (0.105 L, 95% CI: 0.071, 0.140; p < 0.001) were observed for UMEC/VI versus TIO. In addition UMEC/VI improved health-related quality of life, and reduced requirement for the use of rescue medication compared with TIO. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: UMEC/VI was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in lung function versus TIO. UMEC/VI was well tolerated. UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg could provide an effective new treatment option for patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Safety and tolerability of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 mcg and umeclidinium 125 mcg in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of UMEC with the long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) vilanterol (UMEC/VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the US and EU. They are not indicated for the treatment of asthma. METHODS: In this 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group safety study (GSK study DB2113359; NCT01316887), patients were randomized 2:2:1 to UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg, UMEC 125 mcg, or placebo. Study endpoints included adverse events (AEs), clinical chemistry and hematology parameters, vital signs, 12-lead, and 24-hour Holter electrocardiograms. COPD exacerbations and rescue medication use were assessed as safety parameters; lung function was also evaluated. RESULTS: The incidence of on-treatment AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), and drug-related AEs was similar between treatment groups (AEs: 52-58%; SAEs: 6-7%; drug-related AEs: 12-13%). Headache was the most common AE in each treatment group (8-11%). AEs associated with the LAMA and LABA pharmacologic classes occurred at a low incidence across treatment groups. No clinically meaningful effects on vital signs or laboratory assessments were reported for active treatments versus placebo. The incidences of atrial arrhythmias with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg were similar to placebo; for UMEC 125 mcg, the incidences of ectopic supraventricular beats, sustained supraventricular tachycardia, and ectopic supraventricular rhythm were ≥2% greater than placebo. With active treatments, COPD exacerbations were fewer (13-15% of patients reporting ≥1 exacerbation) and on average less rescue medication was required (1.6-2.2 puffs/day) versus placebo (24% reporting ≥1 exacerbation, 2.6 puffs/day). Both active treatments improved lung function versus placebo. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg and UMEC 125 mcg were well tolerated over 12 months in patients with COPD.

Dose response of umeclidinium administered once or twice daily in patients with COPD: a pooled analysis of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

Umeclidinium (UMEC) is an inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist approved in the US and EU for the once-daily (QD) treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); it is not indicated for the treatment of asthma. To fully characterize the dose-response relationship of UMEC in patients with COPD, a pooled analysis of data from two randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over, dose-ranging studies was performed, evaluating UMEC at doses of 15.6-1000 mcg QD and 15.6-250 mcg twice daily (BID). The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) at the end of each study's treatment period (Day 8/Day 15). A population model-based analysis using total daily UMEC dose was used for the primary analysis comparing QD and BID dosing. A physiological effect (E(max)) model was optimal in defining the relationship between UMEC dose and the primary endpoint, demonstrating a clear monotonic dose response over QD and BID dosing regimens. UMEC doses ≥62.5 mcg QD were differentiated from lower doses and BID dosing did not provide benefit over QD dosing. The potency (ED(50)) estimate was 33 mcg with QD dosing. These data indicate that UMEC 62.5 mcg and 125 mcg QD provide lung function benefits that warrant further investigation for the treatment of COPD.