Estimation of a treatment policy estimand for time to event data using data collected post discontinuation of randomised treatment.

Discontinuation from randomised treatment is a common intercurrent event in clinical trials. When the target estimand uses a treatment policy strategy to deal with this intercurrent event, data after cessation of treatment is relevant to estimate the estimand and all efforts should be made to collect such data. Missing data may nevertheless occur due to participants withdrawing from the study and assumptions regarding the values for data that are missing are required for estimation. A missing-at-random assumption is commonly made in this setting, but it may not always be viewed as appropriate. Another potential approach is to assume missing values are similar to data collected after treatment discontinuation. This idea has been previously proposed in the context of recurrent event data. Here we extend this approach to time-to-event outcomes using the hazard function. We propose imputation models that allow for different hazard rates before and after treatment discontinuation and use the posttreatment discontinuation hazard to impute events for participants with missing follow-up periods due to study withdrawal. The imputation models are fitted as Andersen-Gill models. We illustrate the proposed methods with an example of a clinical trial in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

IL-33 receptor inhibition in subjects with uncontrolled asthma: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Most biologics for severe asthma target only type 2 immunity. Inhibition of IL-33 signaling has the potential to target type 2 and non-type 2 pathways. Objective: This multicenter phase IIA study evaluated the safety and efficacy of GSK3772847, a human mAb directed against the IL-33 receptor (IL-33R) in subjects with moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma. Methods: Adults with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist therapy received equivalent replacement medication (open-label fluticasone propionate/salmeterol [500/50 µg, twice daily]) for 2 weeks before randomization at week 0. At weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12, participants were administered blinded placebo or 10 mg/kg of intravenous GSK3772847. At week 2, salmeterol was discontinued; thereafter, fluticasone propionate was titrated by approximately 50% on weeks 4, 6, 8, and 10. Asthma control was assessed until week 16. Participants with loss of asthma control discontinued treatment. The primary end point was loss of asthma control; secondary end points were the efficacy, safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of GSK3772847. Results: At week 16, 56 participants (81%) and 45 (66%) receiving placebo and GSK3772847, respectively, had loss of asthma control (an 18% reduction [95% credible interval = 2%-35%]). Early loss of asthma control prevented full analysis of the secondary efficacy end points after week 4. The most frequent classes of treatment-related adverse events were cardiac disorders (n = 3 [4%] in both groups) and musculoskeletal/connective tissue disorders (with GSK3772847, n = 3 [4%]; with placebo n = 0). Target engagement of IL-33R by GSK3772847 was demonstrated. Conclusion: Treatment with GSK3772847 may be beneficial for patients with uncontrolled asthma. Further studies are warranted.

Effect of Age on Efficacy and Safety of Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol (FF/VI), Umeclidinium (UMEC), and UMEC + FF/VI in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Analyses of Five Randomized Clinical Trials.

Introduction: Concerns have been raised about the practical use and clinical benefits of medications and inhalers in older patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here, we report analyses according to age from five clinical trials evaluating medications administered using the ELLIPTA dry-powder inhaler (DPI). Methods: Efficacy and safety according to age groups (<65 and ≥65 years) were assessed using data from five clinical trials in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic COPD. There was a mix of pre-specified and post hoc analyses of two 24-week trials with fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 µg; one 24-week trial with umeclidinium (UMEC) 62.5 µg; and two 12-week trials with UMEC 62.5 µg + FF/VI 100/25 µg. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) obtained 23 and 24 hours after dosing on the last day of the study. Results: A total of 2876 patients <65 years of age and 2148 patients ≥65 years of age were enrolled across all studies of whom 1333 and 1111 patients, respectively, received treatment at the doses presented. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful treatment differences in improvement from baseline in mean trough FEV1 were reported for active comparators versus placebo at study end for both <65 and ≥65 years subgroups (FF/VI vs placebo: 143 mL and 111 mL; UMEC vs placebo: 110 mL and 123 mL; UMEC + FF/VI vs placebo + FF/VI: 136 mL and 105 mL; p<0.001 for all comparisons). The incidence of adverse events reported for active treatments was similar between age groups. Conclusion: These data provide evidence to support the use of FF/VI, UMEC, or UMEC + FF/VI, all delivered via the ELLIPTA DPI, to treat older (≥65 years) and younger (<65 years) patients with COPD.

InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial: fibrinogen levels predict risk of moderate or severe exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: Fibrinogen is the first qualified prognostic/predictive biomarker for exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The IMPACT trial investigated fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. This analysis used IMPACT trial data to examine the relationship between fibrinogen levels and exacerbation outcomes in patients with COPD. METHODS: 8094 patients with a fibrinogen assessment at Week 16 were included, baseline fibrinogen data were not measured. Post hoc analyses were performed by fibrinogen quartiles and by 3.5 g/L threshold. Endpoints included on-treatment exacerbations and adverse events of special interest (AESIs). RESULTS: Rates of moderate, moderate/severe, and severe exacerbations were higher in the highest versus lowest fibrinogen quartile (0.75, 0.92 and 0.15 vs 0.67, 0.79 and 0.10, respectively). The rate ratios (95% confidence interval [CI]) for exacerbations in patients with fibrinogen levels ≥ 3.5 g/L versus those with fibrinogen levels < 3.5 g/L were 1.03 (0.95, 1.11) for moderate exacerbations, 1.08 (1.00, 1.15) for moderate/severe exacerbations, and 1.30 (1.10, 1.54) for severe exacerbations. There was an increased risk of moderate/severe exacerbation (hazard ratio [95% CI]: highest vs lowest quartile 1.16 [1.04, 1.228]; ≥ 3.5 g/L vs < 3.5 g/L: 1.09 [1.00, 1.16]) and severe exacerbation (1.35 [1.09, 1.69]; 1.27 [1.08, 1.47], respectively) with increasing fibrinogen level. Cardiovascular AESIs were highest in patients in the highest fibrinogen quartile. CONCLUSIONS: Rate and risk of exacerbations was higher in patients with higher fibrinogen levels. This supports the validity of fibrinogen as a predictive biomarker for COPD exacerbations, and highlights the potential use of fibrinogen as an enrichment strategy in trials examining exacerbation outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02164513.

Prognostic value of clinically important deterioration in COPD: IMPACT trial analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a multicomponent measure for assessing disease worsening in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis investigated the prognostic value of a CID event on future clinical outcomes and the effect of single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy on reducing CID risk in patients in the IMPACT trial. METHODS: IMPACT was a phase III, double-blind, 52-week, multicentre trial. Patients with symptomatic COPD and at least one moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomised 2:2:1 to fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg. CID at the time-point of interest was defined as a moderate/severe exacerbation, ≥100 mL decrease in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s or deterioration in health status (increase of ≥4.0 units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score or increase of ≥2.0 units in COPD Assessment Test score) from baseline. A treatment-independent post hoc prognostic analysis compared clinical outcomes up to week 52 in patients with/without a CID by week 28. A prospective analysis evaluated time to first CID with each treatment. RESULTS: Patients with a CID by week 28 had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52 (all p<0.001), and increased risk of all-cause mortality after week 28 versus patients who were CID-free. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk versus dual therapies (all p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of short-term disease worsening was associated with better long-term clinical outcomes. FF/UMEC/VI reduced CID risk versus dual therapies; this effect may improve long-term prognosis in this population.

Triple Versus Dual Combination Therapy in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Asian Countries: Analysis of the IMPACT Trial.

INTRODUCTION: In the IMPACT trial, single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI dual therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, pneumonia incidence was higher in FF-containing arms. As COPD is a growing problem in Asia, we compared the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI in Asia versus non-Asia regions. METHODS: IMPACT was a double-blind, 52-week trial in symptomatic COPD patients with ≥ 1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year. This pre-specified analysis evaluated the annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, mortality, and safety (including pneumonia) in Asia versus non-Asia regions. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 10,355 patients (Asia n = 1644 [16%]). Rate ratios (95% confidence intervals) for moderate/severe exacerbations with FF/UMEC/VI were 0.89 (0.76-1.05) versus FF/VI and 0.86 (0.71-1.04) versus UMEC/VI in Asia, and 0.84 (0.79-0.90) and 0.74 (0.68-0.80) in non-Asia. Efficacy of FF/UMEC/VI on other endpoints was similar in both regions. There was an increased incidence of investigator-reported pneumonia in patients in Asia (FF/UMEC/VI: 13%; FF/VI: 14%; UMEC/VI: 6%) compared with non-Asia (FF/UMEC/VI: 6%; FF/VI: 5%; UMEC/VI: 4%). The increased risk of pneumonia in patients in Asia was most marked in patients with lower body mass index, lower lung function, and taking inhaled corticosteroids. In post hoc analysis of adjudicated on-treatment all-cause mortality, probabilities of death were numerically lower in both regions with FF/UMEC/VI (Asia: 1.16%; non-Asia: 1.35%) and FF/VI (Asia: 1.77%; non-Asia: 1.21%) versus UMEC/VI (Asia: 1.91%; non-Asia: 2.23%). CONCLUSIONS: FF/UMEC/VI provides similar benefits in COPD patients in Asia and non-Asia regions. Clinical benefits of treatment, including reduction in mortality risk, should be weighed against risk of pneumonia, taking account of all known risk factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identification, NCT02164513.

InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT Trial) Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol) Versus Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol and Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients With COPD: Analysis of the Western Europe and North America Regions.

BACKGROUND: The InforMing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial demonstrated lower moderate/severe exacerbation rates with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations. Since IMPACT was a global study, post-hoc analyses were conducted by geographic region to investigate potential differences in overall findings. METHODS: IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind trial. Patients with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25µg, FF/VI 100/25µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25µg. Endpoints assessed in the overall, Western Europe and North America populations included on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation (rates and time-to-first), trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 10,355 patients were enrolled, 3164 from Western Europe, 2639 from North America. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in Western Europe (rate ratios 0.82 [95%CI 0.74-0.91], P<.001 and 0.76 [0.67-0.87], P<.001) and in North America (0.87 [0.77-0.97], P=.014 and 0.69 [0.60-0.80], P<.001). FF/UMEC/VI reduced time-to-first moderate/severe exacerbation and improved lung function versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in both regions, and improved SGRQ total score in Western Europe, but not North America. Safety profiles were generally similar between treatment groups/regions; the inhaled corticosteroid class effect of increased pneumonia incidence was seen in North America but not Western Europe. CONCLUSION: Consistent with intent-to-treat results, FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rate and risk and improved lung function in Western Europe and North America; however, between-regions differences were seen for SGRQ total score and pneumonia incidence. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02164513.

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

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

Reduction in All-Cause Mortality with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Rationale: The IMPACT (Informing the Pathway of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment) trial demonstrated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (ACM) risk with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of future exacerbations. Five hundred seventy-four patients were censored in the original analysis owing to incomplete vital status information.Objectives: Report ACM and impact of stepping down therapy, following collection of additional vital status data.Methods: Patients were randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg following a run-in on their COPD therapies. Time to ACM was prespecified. Additional vital status data collection and subsequent analyses were performed post hoc.Measurements and Main Results: We report vital status data for 99.6% of the intention-to-treat population (n = 10,355), documenting 98 (2.36%) deaths on FF/UMEC/VI, 109 (2.64%) on FF/VI, and 66 (3.19%) on UMEC/VI. For FF/UMEC/VI, the hazard ratio for death was 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.99; P = 0.042) versus UMEC/VI and 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.16; P = 0.387) versus FF/VI. Independent adjudication confirmed lower rates of cardiovascular and respiratory death and death associated with the patient's COPD.Conclusions: In this secondary analysis of an efficacy outcome from the IMPACT trial, once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy reduced the risk of ACM versus UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations.

Risk factors for exacerbations and pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at risk of exacerbations and pneumonia; how the risk factors interact is unclear. METHODS: This post-hoc, pooled analysis included studies of COPD patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2 agonist (LABA) combinations and comparator arms of ICS, LABA, and/or placebo. Backward elimination via Cox's proportional hazards regression modelling evaluated which combination of risk factors best predicts time to first (a) pneumonia, and (b) moderate/severe COPD exacerbation. RESULTS: Five studies contributed: NCT01009463, NCT01017952, NCT00144911, NCT00115492, and NCT00268216. Low body mass index (BMI), exacerbation history, worsening lung function (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage), and ICS treatment were identified as factors increasing pneumonia risk. BMI was the only pneumonia risk factor influenced by ICS treatment, with ICS further increasing risk for those with BMI <25 kg/m2. The modelled probability of pneumonia varied between 3 and 12% during the first year. Higher exacerbation risk was associated with a history of exacerbations, poorer lung function (GOLD stage), female sex and absence of ICS treatment. The influence of the other exacerbation risk factors was not modified by ICS treatment. Modelled probabilities of an exacerbation varied between 31 and 82% during the first year. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of an exacerbation was considerably higher than for pneumonia. ICS reduced exacerbations but did not influence the effect of risks associated with prior exacerbation history, GOLD stage, or female sex. The only identified risk factor for ICS-induced pneumonia was BMI <25 kg/m2. Analyses of this type may help the development of COPD risk equations.

Circulating neutrophils levels are a predictor of pneumonia risk in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have excess risk of developing pneumonia; however, no definitive biomarkers of risk have been established. We hypothesized that blood neutrophils would help predict pneumonia risk in COPD. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind clinical trials of COPD patients meeting the following criteria were selected from the GlaxoSmithKline trial registry: ≥1 inhaled corticosteroid-containing (ICS) arm (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol or fluticasone furoate/vilanterol), a control arm (non-ICS), pre-randomization blood neutrophil counts, ≥24-week duration. The number of patients with pneumonia events and time to first event (Kaplan-Meier analysis) were evaluated (post-hoc), stratified by baseline blood neutrophil count and ICS use. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR), split by median baseline blood neutrophils. RESULTS: Ten studies (1998 to 2011) with 11,131 patients were identified. The ICS (n = 6735) and non-ICS (n = 4396) cohorts were well matched in neutrophil distributions and demographics. Increasing neutrophil count was associated with an increased proportion of patients with pneumonia events; patients below the median neutrophil count were at less risk of a pneumonia event (HR, 0.75 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.92]), and had longer time to a first event, compared with those at/above the median. The increase in pneumonia risk by neutrophil count was similar between the two cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Increased blood neutrophils in COPD were associated with increased pneumonia risk, independent of ICS use. These data suggest blood neutrophils may be a useful marker in defining treatment pathways in COPD.

Blood eosinophils and treatment response with triple and dual combination therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: analysis of the IMPACT trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have highlighted a relationship between reduction in rate of exacerbations with therapies containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and baseline blood eosinophil count in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The IMPACT trial showed that once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy significantly reduced exacerbations versus dual therapies. Blood eosinophil counts and smoking status could be important modifiers of treatment response to ICS. We aimed to model these relationships and their interactions, including outcomes other than exacerbations. METHODS: IMPACT was a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, 52-week global study comparing once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate-umeclidinium-vilanterol) with dual inhaled therapy (fluticasone furoate-vilanterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol). Eligible patients had moderate-to-very-severe COPD and at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous year. We used fractional polynomials to model continuous blood eosinophil counts. We used negative binomial regression for numbers of moderate and severe exacerbations, severe exacerbations, and pneumonia. We modelled differences at week 52 in trough FEV1, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and Transition Dyspnoea Index using repeated measurements mixed effect models. IMPACT was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02164513. FINDINGS: The magnitude of benefit of regimens containing ICS (fluticasone furoate-umeclidinium-vilanterol n=4151 and fluticasone furoate-vilanterol n=4134) in reducing rates of moderate and severe exacerbations increased in proportion with blood eosinophil count, compared with a non-ICS dual long-acting bronchodilator (umeclidinium-vilanterol n=2070). The moderate and severe exacerbation rate ratio for triple therapy versus umeclidinium-vilanterol was 0·88 (95% CI 0·74 to 1·04) at blood eosinophil count less than 90 cells per µL and 0·56 (0·47 to 0·66) at counts of 310 cells per µL or more; the corresponding rate ratio for fluticasone furoate-vilanterol versus umeclidinium-vilanterol was 1·09 (0·91 to 1·29) and 0·56 (0·47 to 0·66), respectively. Similar results were observed for FEV1, Transition Dyspnoea Index, and SGRQ total score; however, the relationship with FEV1 was less marked. At blood eosinophil counts less than 90 cells per µL and at counts of 310 cells per µL or more, the triple therapy versus umeclidinium-vilanterol treatment difference was 40 mL (95% CI 10 to 70) and 60 mL (20 to 100) for trough FEV1, -0·01 (-0·68 to 0·66) and 0·30 (-0·37 to 0·97) for Transition Dyspnoea Index score, and -0·01 (-1·81 to 1·78) and -2·78 (-4·64 to -0·92) for SGRQ total score, respectively. Smoking status modified the relationship between observed efficacy and blood eosinophil count for moderate or severe exacerbations, Transition Dyspnoea Index, and FEV1, with former smokers being more corticosteroid responsive at any eosinophil count than current smokers. INTERPRETATION: This analysis of the IMPACT trial shows that assessment of blood eosinophil count and smoking status has the potential to optimise ICS use in clinical practice in patients with COPD and a history of exacerbations. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Blood eosinophils: a biomarker of COPD exacerbation reduction with inhaled corticosteroids.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence suggests that blood eosinophil count is associated with patient responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). We performed post hoc predictive modeling on data from the FORWARD study and two replicate studies by Dransfield, to evaluate the relationships between baseline eosinophil count and the effect of ICS on exacerbations and lung function in patients with COPD. METHODS: The studies assessed ICS/long-acting ß2 agonist (LABA) combinations vs LABA alone. Using data from each study, we modeled COPD exacerbation rates, predose FEV1, and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score ([FORWARD only]) over a continuous range of eosinophils (0-1,000 eosinophils/µL in FORWARD, 0-993 eosinophils/µL in Dransfield). RESULTS: In all studies, ICS/LABA reduced exacerbations versus LABA alone across all eosinophil levels, with progressively greater reductions at increasing baseline blood eosinophil counts. In FORWARD, annual exacerbation rates ranged from 0.78 to 0.83 per year between 0 and 1,000 eosinophils/µL in the ICS/LABA arm, and from 0.81 to 1.54 per year in the LABA-only arm. In the Dransfield studies, exacerbation rates ranged from 0.54 to 1.02 per year in the ICS/LABA arm between 0 and 993 eosinophils/µL, and from 0.56 to 1.75 per year in the LABA-only arm. Change in FEV1 was not associated with eosinophil count in ICS-treated patients in FORWARD, whereas an increased treatment benefit in terms of FEV1 was observed at higher eosinophil levels in the Dransfield studies. ICS/LABA led to greater improvements in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total scores compared to LABA alone in patients in FORWARD with ≥67 eosinophils/µL. CONCLUSION: Higher blood eosinophil count in patients with COPD is associated with an increased beneficial effect from ICS in terms of exacerbation reduction. Further prospective data are required to assess the role of blood eosinophils as a biomarker for therapeutic recommendations.

Blood eosinophil levels as a biomarker in COPD.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous disorder and patients respond differently to treatment. Blood eosinophils are a potential biomarker to stratify patient subsets for COPD therapy. We reviewed the value of blood eosinophils in predicting exacerbation risk and response to corticosteroid treatment in the available literature (PubMed articles in English; keywords: "COPD" and "eosinophil"; published prior to May 2017). Overall, clinical data suggest that in patients with a history of COPD exacerbations, a higher blood eosinophil count predicts an increased risk of future exacerbations and is associated with improved response to treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (in combination with long-acting bronchodilator[s]). Blood eosinophils are therefore a promising biomarker for phenotyping patients with COPD, although prospective studies are needed to assess blood eosinophils as a biomarker of corticosteroid response for this.

Predictors of pneumonia on routine chest radiographs in patients with COPD: a post hoc analysis of two 1-year randomized controlled trials.

Background: Patients with COPD are at risk for life-threatening pneumonia. Although anatomical abnormalities in the thorax may predispose to pneumonia, those abnormalities identified on routine chest X-rays (CXRs) in patients with COPD have not been studied to better understand pneumonia risk. Methods: We conducted a post hoc exploratory analysis of data from two replicate year-long clinical trials assessing the impact of fluticasone furoate-vilanterol versus vilanterol alone on COPD exacerbations (GSK studies: HZC102871/NCT01009463 and HZC102970/NCT01017952). Abnormalities on baseline CXRs from 179 patients who developed pneumonia and 50 randomly selected patients who did not were identified by blinded consensus readings conducted by two radiologists. Positive and negative likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to evaluate the markers for subsequent pneumonia development during the 1-year study period. Results: Baseline characteristics distinguishing the pneumonia and non-pneumonia groups included a lower body mass index (24.9 vs 27.5 kg/m2, P=0.008), more severe airflow obstruction (mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]/forced vital capacity ratio: 42.3% vs 47.6%, P=0.003), and prior pneumonia (36% vs 20%, P=0.030). Baseline CXR findings with the highest diagnostic ORs were: elevated hemi-diaphragm (OR: 6.87; 95% CI: 0.90, 52.26), thick tracheal-esophageal stripe (OR: 4.39 [0.25, 78.22]), narrow cardiac silhouette (OR: 2.91 [0.85, 9.99]), calcified pleural plaque/mid-chest pleural thickening (OR: 2.82 [0.15, 53.76]), and large/prominent pulmonary artery shadow (OR: 1.94 [0.95, 3.97]). The presence of a narrow cardiac silhouette at baseline was associated with a statistically significant lower mean pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (P=0.040). There was also a trend for a lower mean pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in patients with a large/prominent pulmonary artery shadow at baseline (P=0.095). Conclusion: Findings on routine CXR that relate to pathophysiological mechanisms of pneumonia could help determine pneumonia risk in patients with COPD.

Effect of inhaled corticosteroids on blood eosinophil count in steroid-naïve patients with COPD.

INTRODUCTION: Sputum and blood eosinophil counts have attracted attention as potential biomarkers in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One question regarding the use of blood eosinophils as a biomarker in COPD is whether their levels are affected by the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), which are commonly prescribed for COPD. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of peripheral blood leucocytes from a previously completed clinical trial that examined effects of ICS in steroid-naïve patients with COPD. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The data show that the ICS-containing treatment arms (containing fluticasone propionate) had a small effect on peripheral blood eosinophils in steroid-naïve patients with COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00358358; Post-results.

Blood eosinophil count and pneumonia risk in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a patient-level meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are important in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but can slightly increase the risk of pneumonia in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Patients with circulating eosinophil counts of 2% or more of blood leucocytes respond better to inhaled corticosteroids than do those with counts of less than 2% and it was therefore postulated that blood eosinophil count might also have an effect on the risk of pneumonia in patients with COPD. In this post-hoc meta-analysis, we investigate whether a 2% threshold can identify patients who differ in their risk of pneumonia, irrespective of inhaled corticosteroid treatment. METHODS: From the GlaxoSmithKline trial registry, we selected randomised, double-blind, clinical trials of patients with COPD that had: inhaled corticosteroid arms (fluticasone propionate and salmeterol or fluticasone furoate and vilanterol); a control arm (not given inhaled fluticasone); and pre-randomisation measurements of blood eosinophil counts and were of at least 24 weeks in duration. With use of specified terms from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities we identified pneumonia adverse events in patient-level data. We calculated number of patients with pneumonia events, stratified by baseline blood eosinophil count (<2% vs ≥2% of blood leucocytes) and whether or not patients had received inhaled corticosteroids. FINDINGS: We identified ten trials (conducted between 1998 and 2011), with eosinophil count data available for 10 861 patients with COPD. 4043 patients had baseline blood eosinophil counts of less than 2% and 6818 patients had baseline blood eosinophil counts of 2% or more. 149 (3·7%) patients with counts less than 2% had one or more pneumonia adverse events compared with 215 (3·2%) with counts of 2% or more (hazard ratio [HR] 1·31; 95% CI 1·06-1·62). In patients not treated with inhaled corticosteroids, 40 (3·8%) patients with less than 2% blood eosinophil counts had a pneumonia event versus 48 (2·4%) with 2% or more blood eosinophils (HR 1·53; 95% CI 1·01-2·31). In patients treated with inhaled corticosteroids, events occurred in 107 (4·5%) versus 164 (3·9%; HR 1·25; 95% CI 0·98-1·60), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Using 2% baseline eosinophil count as a threshold, patients with COPD with lower blood eosinophil counts had more pneumonia events than did those with higher counts. The magnitude of this increased risk was small and should be further explored in large, prospective studies. These data should be considered when making treatment decisions, alongside existing evidence that patients with COPD and baseline blood eosinophil counts less than 2% have a poorer response to inhaled corticosteroids. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Blood eosinophils as a marker of response to inhaled corticosteroids in COPD.

Identification of a biomarker that predicts response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) would help evaluate the risk/benefit profile of ICS in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and guide treatment.The ISOLDE study randomised 751 patients (mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 1.4 L: 50% predicted normal) to fluticasone propionate 500 µg twice daily or placebo for 3 years, finding no difference in FEV1 rate of decline between treatments (p=0.16) and a significant reduction in median exacerbation rate with fluticasone propionate versus placebo (p=0.026). We re-analysed ISOLDE results by baseline blood eosinophil count to investigate whether eosinophil level predicts ICS benefit.Patients with eosinophils <2% (n=456) had a similar rate of post-bronchodilator FEV1 decline with fluticasone propionate as placebo (-2.9 mL·year(-1); p=0.688). With eosinophils ≥2% (n=214), the rate of decline decreased by 33.9 mL·year(-1) with fluticasone propionate versus placebo (p=0.003). Exacerbation rate reduction on ICS for fluticasone propionate versus placebo was higher in the eosinophil <2% group compared with the ≥2% group; time-to-first moderate/severe exacerbation was not different between treatments in either group.A baseline blood eosinophil count of ≥2% identifies a group of COPD patients with slower rates of decline in FEV1 when treated with ICS: prospective testing of this hypothesis is now warranted.