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

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

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol and umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol in the management of moderate and severe COPD in China.

OBJECTIVE: A study has analyzed the long-term cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol combination therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol dual therapy (UMEC/VI) in the treatment of moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), providing evidence for decision-making in COPD treatment. METHODS: From the perspective of the whole society, a Markov model based on the severity of COPD was established, consisting of four states: moderate, severe, very severe, and death. The cycle of the model is three months, and the time frame of the study is 20 years. Data such as initial states, transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were collected from published literature, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) COPD economic report, Yaozh database, and the National Statistics Office. The discount rate is 5 %, and the willingness to pay threshold is set at three times the per capita GDP of China in 2022. TreeAge Pro 2011 was used to obtain the results of multiplication analyses, and one-way factor analysis and probability sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The study findings demonstrate that for patients treated with FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI, the 20-year treatment costs amount to $10,126.46 and $10,685.74, respectively. Similarly, the effectiveness is 32.94 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 32.19 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is $-745.70/QALY, which is lower than the willingness to pay threshold. The tornado plot from one-way factor analysis indicates that the first two factors impacting the results are the utility values for severe COPD of UMEC/VI and FF/UMEC/VI. Probability sensitivity analysis indicates that FF/UMEC/VI compared to UMEC/VI can be considered a more cost-effective treatment at the willingness to pay threshold of $35,806.96. CONCLUSION: The triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) is more affordable than dual therapy (UMEC/VI) when compared to China's three times GDP per capita criterion.

Inpatient Admissions and Re-Admissions in Medicare Beneficiaries Initiating Umeclidinium/Vilanterol or Tiotropium Therapy.

Purpose: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are hospitalized are more likely to die from their illness and have increased likelihood of re-admission than those who are not. Subsequent re-admissions further increase the burden on healthcare systems. This study compared inpatient admission rates and time-to-first COPD-related inpatient admission among Medicare beneficiaries with COPD indexed on umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium (TIO). Patients and Methods: This retrospective study used the All-Payer Claims Database to investigate hospital admission and re-admission outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries with COPD with an initial pharmacy claim for UMEC/VI or TIO from 1 January 2015 to 28 February 2020. Inpatient admissions, baseline, and follow-up variables were assessed in patients indexed on UMEC/VI and TIO after propensity score matching (PSM), with time-to-first on-treatment COPD-related inpatient admission as the primary endpoint. Re-admissions were assessed among patients with a COPD-related inpatient admission in the 30- and 90-days post-discharge. Results: Post-PSM, 7152 patients indexed on UMEC/VI and 7069 on TIO were eligible for admissions analysis. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) time-to-first COPD-related inpatient admission was 46.71 (87.99) days for patients indexed on UMEC/VI and 44.96 (85.90) days for those on TIO (p=0.06). The mean (SD) number of inpatient admissions per patient was 1.24 (2.92) for patients indexed on UMEC/VI and 1.26 (3.05) for those on TIO (p=0.49). Proportion of patients undergoing re-admissions was similar between treatments over both 30 and 90 days, excluding a significantly lower proportion of patients indexed on UMEC/VI than those indexed on TIO for COPD-related re-admissions for hospital stays of 4-7 days and 7-14 days, and all-cause re-admissions for stays of 4-7 days. Conclusion: Patients with COPD using Medicare in the US and receiving UMEC/VI or TIO reported similar time-to-first inpatient admission and similar proportion of re-admissions.

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

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

Modeled small airways lung deposition of two fixed-dose triple therapy combinations assessed with in silico functional respiratory imaging.

BACKGROUND: Small airways disease plays a key role in the pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and is a major cause of obstruction; therefore, it is a critical pharmacotherapy target. This study evaluated lung deposition of two inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist single-inhaler triple therapies using in silico functional respiratory imaging (FRI). Deposition was assessed using real-world inhalation profiles simulating everyday use where optimal inhalation may be compromised. METHODS: Three-dimensional airway models were produced from 20 patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Total, central, and regional small airways deposition as a percentage of delivered dose of budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (BGF) 160/7.2/5 µg per actuation and fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UM/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg were evaluated using in silico FRI based on in vitro aerodynamic particle size distributions of each device. Simulations were performed using multiple inhalation profiles of varying durations and flow rates representing patterns suited for a pressurized metered-dose inhaler or dry-powder inhaler (four for BGF, two for FF/UM/VI, with one common profile). For the common profile, deposition for BGF versus FF/UM/VI was compared post-hoc using paired t-tests. RESULTS: Across inhalation profiles, mean total lung deposition was consistently higher with BGF (47.0-54.1%) versus FF/UM/VI (20.8-22.7%) and for each treatment component, with greater deposition for BGF also seen in the central large airways. Mean regional small airways deposition was also greater across inhalation profiles with BGF (16.9-23.6%) versus FF/UM/VI (6.8-8.7%) and for each treatment component. For the common profile, total, central, and regional small airways deposition were significantly greater for BGF versus FF/UM/VI (nominal p < 0.001), overall and for treatment components; notably, regional small airways deposition of the ICS components was approximately five-fold greater with budesonide versus fluticasone furoate (16.1% vs. 3.3%). CONCLUSIONS: BGF was associated with greater total, central, and small airways deposition for all components versus FF/UM/VI. Importantly, using an identical inhalation profile, there was an approximately five-fold difference in small airways deposition for the ICS components, with only a small percentage of the ICS from FF/UM/VI reaching the small airways. Further research is needed to understand if the enhanced delivery of BGF translates to clinical benefits.

Mortality risk reduction with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate versus fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol in COPD: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ETHOS and IMPACT.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of death worldwide. While two approved fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) triple therapies reduce all-cause mortality (ACM) versus dual LAMA/LABA therapy in patients with COPD, head-to-head studies have not compared the effects of these therapies on ACM. We compared ACM in adults with moderate-to-very severe COPD receiving budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) in ETHOS versus fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) in IMPACT using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified two studies (ETHOS [NCT02465567]; IMPACT [NCT02164513]) of ≥52 weeks reporting ACM as an efficacy endpoint in patients receiving triple therapy. As ETHOS and IMPACT lack a common comparator, an unanchored MAIC compared ACM between licensed doses of BGF (320/18/9.6 µg) from ETHOS and FF/UMEC/VI (100/62.5/25 µg) from IMPACT in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Using on- and off-treatment data from the final retrieved datasets of the intention-to-treat populations, BGF data were adjusted according to aggregate FF/UMEC/VI data using 11 baseline covariates; a supplementary unadjusted indirect treatment comparison was also conducted. P-values for these post-hoc analyses are not adjusted for Type I error. RESULTS: ACM over 52 weeks was statistically significantly reduced by 39% for BGF versus FF/UMEC/VI in the MAIC (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.38, 0.95], p = 0.030) and unadjusted analysis (HR [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.41, 0.92], p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: In this MAIC, which adjusted for population heterogeneity between ETHOS and IMPACT, ACM was significantly reduced with BGF versus FF/UMEC/VI in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (known as COPD) is a leading cause of death worldwide, being responsible for over 3 million deaths in 2019. People living with COPD are more likely to die. Importantly, a sudden worsening of COPD symptoms (known as an exacerbation) is associated with a higher chance of death from heart-related and breathing-related problems. Therefore, reducing risk of death is an important treatment goal for COPD. Of the three medications approved for treating COPD that combine three drugs in a single-inhaler device, there are two­referred to generically as budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) and fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI)­that can reduce the risk of death in people living with COPD compared with treatments that combine two drugs. However, no studies have directly compared the risk of death in people living with COPD treated with these medicines. We compared the risk of death in people living with moderate-to-very severe COPD who received either BGF during a clinical trial called ETHOS or FF/UMEC/VI during a clinical trial called IMPACT. To make this comparison, we used a method called "matching-adjusted indirect comparison", which used specific features (such as sex, breathing difficulty, and whether they were current smokers) to match patients from the two studies to ensure similar groups were examined. Our analysis showed a 39% decrease in the chance of death in patients who received BGF compared with patients who received FF/UMEC/VI. This finding may be important for doctors to improve patient health and reduce the risk of death in people living with COPD.

The Role of Long-Acting Antimuscarinic Agents in the Treatment of Asthma.

The journey of using anticholinergics in the treatment of asthma started with anticholinergic-containing plants such as Datura stramonium and Atropa belladonna, followed by ipratropium bromide and continued with tiotropium, glycopyrronium, and umeclidinium. Although antimuscarinics were used in the maintenance treatment of asthma over a century ago, after a long time (since 2014), it has been recommended to be used as an add-on long-acting antimuscarinic agent (LAMA) therapy in the maintenance treatment of asthma. The airway tone controlled by the vagus nerve is increased in asthma. Allergens, toxins, or viruses cause airway inflammation and inflammation-related epithelial damage, increased sensory nerve stimulation, ganglionic and postganglionic acetylcholine (ACh) release by inflammatory mediators, intensification of ACh signaling at M1 and M3 muscarinic ACh receptors (mAChRs), and dysfunction of M2 mAChR. Optimal anticholinergic drug for asthma should effectively block M3 and M1 receptors, but have minimal effect on M2 receptors. Tiotropium, umeclidinium, and glycopyrronium are anticholinergic agents with this feature. Tiotropium has been used in a separate inhaler as an add-on treatment to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), and glycopyrronium and umeclidinium have been used in a single inhaler as a combination of ICS/LABA/LAMA in asthma in recent years. Guidelines recommend this regimen as an optimization step for patients with severe asthma before initiating any biologic or systemic corticosteroid therapy. In this review, the history of antimuscarinic agents, their effectiveness and safety in line with randomized controlled trials, and real-life studies in asthma treatment will be discussed according to the current data.

Real-world effects of once-daily inhaled steroid (fluticasone furoate) combined with long-acting beta-2 agonist (vilanterol) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (umeclidinium) on lung function tests of asthma patients in Japan.

Background: The Japanese drug use system allowed the once-daily use of inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate (FF) combined with a long-acting beta-2 agonist vilanterol (VI) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) against asthma on 18 February 2021. We investigated the real-world effects of these drugs (FF/UMEC/VI) mainly on lung function tests. Methods: This was an open-label, uncontrolled, within-group time-series (before-after) study. Prior asthma treatment (inhaled corticosteroid with/without a long-acting beta-2 agonist with/without a long-acting muscarinic antagonist) was switched to FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 µg. Subjects were evaluated by lung function tests prior to, and 1-2 months after, initiation of FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 µg. Patients were asked questions regarding the asthma control test and preference for drugs. Results: Overall, 114 asthma outpatients (97% Japanese) were enrolled from February 2021 to April 2022: 104 subjects completed the study. Forced expiratory volume in 1 s, peak flow, and asthma control test score of FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 µg-treated subjects were significantly increased (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.01, respectively). In contrast with FF/VI 200/25 µg, instantaneous flow at 25% of the forced vital capacity and expiratory reserve volume were significantly increased by FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 µg (p < 0.01, p < 0.05, respectively). Sixty-six percent of subjects declared they wanted to continue FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 µg in the future. Adverse effects, mainly local, were seen in 30% of patients, but no serious adverse effects were seen. Conclusion: Once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 µg was effective against asthma without serious adverse events. This is the first report that demonstrated FF/UMEC/VI dilated peripheral airways using lung function tests. This evidence on drug effects may improve our understanding of pulmonary physiology and the pathophysiology of asthma.

Healthcare Resource Utilization, Cost and Clinical Outcomes in Patients Diagnosed with COPD Initiating Tiotropium Bromide/Olodaterol versus Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Based on Exacerbation History.

Background: ATS and GOLD guidelines recommend treating low-exacerbation risk COPD patients with dual (LAMA/LABA) agents and reserving triple therapy (TT; LAMA/LABA and inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]) for severe cases with higher-exacerbation risk. However, TT often is prescribed across the COPD spectrum. This study compared COPD exacerbations, pneumonia diagnosis, healthcare resource utilization, and costs for patients initiating tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) and a TT, fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI), stratified by exacerbation history. Methods: COPD patients who initiated TIO/OLO or FF/UMEC/VI between 06/01/2015-11/30/2019 (index date=first pharmacy fill-date with ≥30 consecutive treatment days) were identified from the Optum Research Database. Patients were ≥40 years old and continuously enrolled for 12 months during the baseline period and ≥30 days during follow-up. Patients were stratified into GOLD A/B (0-1 baseline non-hospitalized exacerbation), No exacerbation (subset of GOLD A/B), and GOLD C/D (≥2 non-hospitalized and/or ≥1 hospitalized baseline exacerbation). Baseline characteristics were balanced with propensity score matching (1:1). Adjusted risks of exacerbation, pneumonia diagnosis, and COPD and/or pneumonia-related utilization and costs were evaluated. Results: Adjusted exacerbation risk was similar in GOLD A/B and No exacerbation subgroups, and lower in GOLD C/D for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators (hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.98, p=0.020). Adjusted pneumonia risk was similar between cohorts across the GOLD subgroups. Adjusted COPD and/or pneumonia-related population annualized pharmacy costs were significantly higher for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators across subgroups, p<0.001. Adjusted COPD and/or pneumonia-related population annualized total healthcare costs were significantly higher for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators in the GOLD A/B and No exacerbation, subgroups, p<0.001 (cost ratio [95% CI]: 1.25 [1.13, 1.38] and 1.21 [1.09, 1.36], respectively), but similar in the GOLD C/D subgroup. Conclusion: These real-world results support ATS and GOLD recommendations for treating low-exacerbation risk COPD patients with dual bronchodilators and TT for more severe, higher-exacerbation risk COPD patients.

Therapeutic Response to Single-Inhaler Triple Therapies in Moderate-to-Severe COPD.

BACKGROUND: COPD is characterized by progressive and irreversible air flow limitations. Single-inhaler therapies (SITTs) incorporating an inhaled corticosteroid, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and a long-acting ß2-agonist have been shown to effectively alleviate symptoms and improve lung function. Fluticasone-furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (F/U/V) and budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol (B/G/F) are available as SITT in Japan. However, the clinical differences between these 2 combinations and the predictors of their proper use have not been established. This study aimed to identify the subject characteristics that could predict the effectiveness of inhaler therapy. METHODS: We assessed the pulmonary function test results of subjects with COPD before and one month after using F/U/V and B/G/F as SITT. Subjects with a difference of 100 mL or more in the FEV1 after treatment with pre-SITT were extracted and divided into the F/U/V effect and no-effect group and B/G/F effect and no-effect group to examine the factors associated with positive outcomes with each inhaler. RESULTS: F/U/V and B/G/F significantly improved the inspiratory capacity (IC), %IC, FVC, and %FEV1 when compared to pre-intervention values (P < .001, P = .001, P = .007, P = .009, respectively, for F/U/V; and P = .006, P = .008, P = .038, P = .005, respectively, for B/G/F). Factors associated with FEV1 improvement in F/U/V included lower %IC (odds ratio 0.97 [95% CI 0.94-0.99], P = .03) and a higher modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea score (2.36 [1.27-4.70], P < .01). In addition, a higher %IC (1.03 [1.00-1.06], P = .02) and lower mMRC dyspnea score (0.55 [0.28-0.99], P = .041) were predictors for the effectiveness of B/G/F. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that SITT significantly improved the IC, %IC, FVC, and %FEV1 when compared to pre-intervention and that F/U/V was more effective in subjects with severe symptoms, whereas B/G/F was more effective in subjects with mild symptoms.

Differences in Pulmonary Function Improvement after Once-Daily LABA/LAMA Fixed-Dose Combinations in Patients with COPD.

This real-world study evaluated the efficacy of once-daily long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) for improving lung function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patients with COPD who were treated with once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs for 12 months were included. We evaluated their lung function improvement after 12 months of treatment with different LABA/LAMA FDCs. A total of 198 patients with COPD who were treated with once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs were analyzed. A total of 114 patients were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VIL); 34 patients were treated with indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY); and 50 patients were treated with tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO). The forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) was significantly increased in the patients treated with all three once-daily FDCs (55.2% to 60.9%, p = 0.012 for UMEC/VIL, 58.2% to 63.6%, p = 0.023 for IND/GLY, and 54.1% to 57.7%, p = 0.009 for TIO/OLO). The treatment of COPD patients with TIO/OLO resulted in a significant improvement in both forced vital capacity (FVC%) (71.7% to 77.9%, p = 0.009) and residual volume (RV%) (180.1% to 152.5%, p < 0.01) compared with those treated with UMEC/VIL (FVC%: 75.1% to 81.5%, p < 0.001; RV%:173.8% to 165.2%, p = 0.231) or IND/GLY (FVC%: 73.9% to 79.3%, p = 0.08; RV%:176.8% to 168.3%, p = 0.589). Patients treated with UMEC/VIL or TIO/OLO showed significant improvement in FVC. In addition, those receiving TIO/OLO also showed significant improvement in RV reduction.

Hyperhidrosis: A Review of Recent Advances in Treatment with Topical Anticholinergics.

BACKGROUND: Topical anticholinergics have been reported to be effective in managing hyperhidrosis (HH) given the recent approval of glycopyrronium tosylate. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to examine the effectiveness of emerging topical anticholinergic treatments for HH and their associated adverse effects in comparison to current treatment options. METHODS: We conducted a search within the PubMed and Embase databases for current and emerging topical anticholinergic treatments for primary HH. RESULTS: The topical anticholinergics that have been recently investigated for use in HH include glycopyrrolate, oxybutynin, sofpironium bromide, and umeclidinium. The only agent currently FDA approved is glycopyrrolate. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of topical anticholinergic treatment options is important for patient care when managing HH. This review shows that while available safety data thus far are limited, emerging topical anticholinergics pose minimal known human risks.

Current pharmacogenomic recommendations in chronic respiratory diseases: Is there a biomarker ready for clinical implementation?

INTRODUCTION: The study of genetic variants in response to different drugs has predominated in fields of medicine such as oncology and infectious diseases. In chronic respiratory diseases, the available pharmacogenomic information is scarce but not less relevant. AREAS COVERED: We searched the pharmacogenomic recommendations for respiratory diseases in the Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling (U.S. Food and Drug Administration), the Clinical Pharmacogenomics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), and PharmGKB. The main pharmacogenomics recommendation in this field is to assess CFTR variants for using ivacaftor and its combination. The drugs' labels for arformoterol, indacaterol, and umeclidinium indicate a lack of influence of genetic variants in the pharmacokinetics of these drugs. Further studies should evaluate the contribution of CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 variants for formoterol. In addition, there are reports of potential pharmacogenetic variants in the treatment with acetylcysteine (TOLLIP rs3750920) and captopril (ACE rs1799752). The genetic variations for warfarin also are presented in PharmGKB and CPIC for patients with pulmonary hypertension. EXPERT OPINION: The pharmacogenomics recommendations for lung diseases are limited. The clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics in treating respiratory diseases will contribute to the quality of life of patients with chronic respiratory diseases.

[Experience of using a triple fixed combination in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of a fixed triple combination of vilanterol/umeclidinium bromide/fluticasone furoate in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with frequent exacerbations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 46 patients with severe and extremely severe COPD (GOLD 34) with frequent exacerbations. All patients were divided into 2 groups. The 1st group included 22 COPD patients with a content of eosinophils in the peripheral blood of 300 cells/ml, the 2nd group included 24 COPD patients with no signs of eosinophilic inflammation in the peripheral blood. Group 1 patients were recommended therapy with a fixed triple combination of vilanterol/umeclidinium bromide/fluticasone furoate at a dose of 22/55/92 mcg 1 time per day, group 2 patients received vilanterol+umeclidinium bromide at a dose of 22/55 mcg 1 time per day. The duration of follow-up was 12 months. RESULTS: After 12 months of treatment with a fixed triple combination of vilanterol/umeclidinium bromide/fluticasone furoate, a statistically significant decrease in peripheral blood eosinophilia was noted in patients with COPD with frequent exacerbations and peripheral blood eosinophilia (p=0.001), as well as a decrease in shortness of breath on the MMRs scale (p=0.001) and the frequency of exacerbations in patients with COPD with frequent exacerbations and eosinophilia (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of a fixed combination of vilanterol/umeclidinium bromide/fluticasone furoate for 12 months allowed to reduce the impact of the disease, improve respiratory function and quality of life in COPD patients with eosinophilia.

Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Triple Therapy Compared with Other Therapies for the Treatment of COPD: A Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting ß2-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) investigated the comparative efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus any triple (ICS/LABA/LAMA) combinations and dual therapies in patients with COPD. METHODS: This NMA was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR), which identified RCTs in adults aged at least 40 years with COPD. The RCTs compared different ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations or an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination with any dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA). Outcomes of interest included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), annualized rate of combined moderate and severe exacerbations, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index focal score, and rescue medication use (RMU). Analyses were conducted at 24 weeks (primary endpoint), and 12 and 52 weeks (if feasible). RESULTS: The NMA was informed by five trials reporting FEV1 at 24 weeks. FF/UMEC/VI was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV1 (based on change from baseline) than all triple comparators in the network apart from UMEC + FF/VI. The NMA was informed by 17 trials reporting moderate or severe exacerbation endpoints. FF/UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus single-inhaler budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR). At 24 weeks, the NMA was informed by five trials. FF/UMEC/VI showed statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus UMEC + FF/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated improvements in mean SGRQ score versus other triple therapy comparators at 24 weeks, and a significant reduction in RMU compared with BUD/GLY/FOR (160/18/9.6). CONCLUSION: The findings of this NMA suggest favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI. Further analysis is required as additional evidence becomes available.

Adherence and Persistence to Single-Inhaler Versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Asthma Management.

BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines recommend triple therapy for patients with asthma who remain uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist therapy. Previously, triple therapy was only available via multiple inhalers. Single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) is approved as maintenance treatment for asthma; however, real-world information on adherence and persistence is limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare adherence and persistence among adult patients with asthma receiving single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used IQVIA PharMetrics Plus data to evaluate patients with asthma who initiated once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg or MITT between September 18, 2017, and September 30, 2019. Inverse probability weighting and multivariable regression adjusted for differences in characteristics between the FF/UMEC/VI and MITT cohorts. Adherence was assessed using proportion of days covered (PDC) and proportion of patients achieving PDC ≥0.8 and PDC ≥0.5. Non-persistence was identified as a >45-day gap between fills. RESULTS: The study included 1396 FF/UMEC/VI and 5115 MITT initiators. Three months after initiation, FF/UMEC/VI users had significantly higher mean PDC versus MITT users (0.68 vs 0.59; P < .001) and 31% more likely to be adherent (PDC ≥0.8; 40.6% vs 31.3%; adjusted risk ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.31 [1.13-1.54]; P < .001). Similar patterns were observed at 6 and 12 months post initiation. In addition, FF/UMEC/VI users were 49% more likely to persist at 12 months than MITT users (25.9% vs 15.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI]: 1.49 [1.39-1.60]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with asthma initiating triple therapy with FF/UMEC/VI had significantly better adherence and persistence compared with MITT initiators.