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.

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.

Estimating individual treatment effects on COPD exacerbations by causal machine learning on randomised controlled trials.

RATIONALE: Estimating the causal effect of an intervention at individual level, also called individual treatment effect (ITE), may help in identifying response prior to the intervention. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop machine learning (ML) models which estimate ITE of an intervention using data from randomised controlled trials and illustrate this approach with prediction of ITE on annual chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation rates. METHODS: We used data from 8151 patients with COPD of the Study to Understand Mortality and MorbidITy in COPD (SUMMIT) trial (NCT01313676) to address the ITE of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) versus control (placebo) on exacerbation rate and developed a novel metric, Q-score, for assessing the power of causal inference models. We then validated the methodology on 5990 subjects from the InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial (NCT02164513) to estimate the ITE of FF/umeclidinium/VI (FF/UMEC/VI) versus UMEC/VI on exacerbation rate. We used Causal Forest as causal inference model. RESULTS: In SUMMIT, Causal Forest was optimised on the training set (n=5705) and tested on 2446 subjects (Q-score 0.61). In IMPACT, Causal Forest was optimised on 4193 subjects in the training set and tested on 1797 individuals (Q-score 0.21). In both trials, the quantiles of patients with the strongest ITE consistently demonstrated the largest reductions in observed exacerbations rates (0.54 and 0.53, p<0.001). Poor lung function and blood eosinophils, respectively, were the strongest predictors of ITE. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that ML models for causal inference can be used to identify individual response to different COPD treatments and highlight treatment traits. Such models could become clinically useful tools for individual treatment decisions in COPD.

In Vitro Drug Delivery of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol from a Dry Powder Inhaler.

Background: Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) require patients to impart sufficient energy through inhalation to ensure adequate dose emission, medication deaggregation, and resultant particle sizes suitable for lung deposition. There is an ongoing debate regarding the level of inspiratory effort, and therefore inspiratory flow rate, needed for optimal dose delivery from DPIs. Materials and Methods: The delivered dose (DD) and fine particle fraction (FPF) for each component of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg and FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 µg ELLIPTA DPIs were assessed at flow rates of 30, 60, and 90 L/min. Electronic lung (eLung) (eLung; an electronic breathing simulator) assessments were conducted to replicate inhalation profiles representing a wide range of inhalation parameters and inhaled volumes achieved by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma of all severity levels. Timing and duration of dose emission were assessed using a particle detector located at the entrance of an anatomical throat cast attached to the eLung. Results: During DD assessment, a mean of >80% of the nominal blister content (nbc) was emitted from the ELLIPTA DPI at all flow rates. In Next Generation Impactor assessments, the observed mean DD across flow rates for FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg ranged from 85.9% to 97.0% of nbc and 84.0% to 93.5% for FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 µg. In eLung assessments, 82.8% to 95.5% of nbc was delivered across the PIF range, 43.5 to 129.9 L/min (COPD), and 85.1% to 92.3% across the PIF range, 67.4 to 129.9 L/min (asthma). The FPF (mass <5 µm; % nbc) for each component was comparable across all flow rates and inhalation profiles. Dose emission timings indicated that near-complete dose emission occurs before reaching PIF. Conclusions: Dose delivery assessments across all flow rates and inhalation profiles indicate that patients with all severity levels of COPD or asthma can achieve the required inspiratory effort for efficient delivery of all components of FF/UMEC/VI from the ELLIPTA DPI. Dose emission profiles suggest rapid and near-complete dose delivery from the ELLIPTA DPI before reaching PIF.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Among Different Fixed-Dose Combinations of Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists and Long-Acting ß2-Agonists in Patients With COPD.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have yet to obtain conclusive evidence differentiating among fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) for COPD in terms of real-world clinical outcomes. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the differences between available LAMA/LABA FDCs in the risk of acute exacerbation (AE) and cardiovascular events? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study based on a national insurance claims database included patients with COPD ≥ 40 years of age who were newly prescribed glycopyrronium (GLY)/indacaterol (IND), umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI), or tiotropium (TIO)/olodaterol (OLO) FDC between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. Propensity score matching and Cox regression models were used to compare outcomes of AE and cardiovascular events associated with LAMA/LABA FDC treatment. RESULTS: Among the 44,498 patients identified and included, 15,586 received GLY/IND, 20,460 received UMEC/VI, and 8,452 received TIO/OLO. Baseline characteristics were well balanced after 1:1 matching of UMEC/VI and GLY/IND, 2:1 matching of UMEC/VI and TIO/OLO, and 2:1 matching of GLY/IND and TIO/OLO. Risk of severe AE was lower among patients treated with UMEC/VI or GLY/IND than among those who received TIO/OLO (UMEC/VI vs TIO/OLO: 17.85 vs 29.32 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.84; GLY/IND vs TIO/OLO: 15.54 vs 25.53 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88). In addition, GLY/IND users tended to have a lower risk of cardiovascular events than TIO/OLO users, but the difference dissipated when restricting follow up to a shorter duration. INTERPRETATION: Our results revealed that the risk of severe AE was lower among patients with COPD receiving UMEC/VI or GLY/IND than among those receiving TIO/OLO, whereas the incidence of cardiovascular events was similar across groups but was slightly lower in GLY/IND users when compared with TIO/OLO users. Further research will be required to confirm these findings.

Single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus dual therapy in current and former smokers with COPD: IMPACT trial post hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is the major risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In IMPACT, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function and health status versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in COPD patients. This post hoc analysis investigated trial outcomes by smoking status. METHODS: IMPACT was a double-blind, 52-week trial. Patients aged ≥40 years with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year 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. Endpoints assessed by smoking status at screening included rate and risk of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score at Week 52. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 10,355 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 3,587 (35%) were current smokers. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in current (rate ratio 0.85 [95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.95]; P = 0.003 and 0.86 [0.76-0.98]; P = 0.021) and former smokers (0.85 [0.78-0.91]; P < 0.001 and 0.70 [0.64-0.77]; P < 0.001). FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in former smokers, and versus FF/VI in current smokers. Similar trends were seen for lung function and health status. Former smokers receiving inhaled corticosteroid-containing therapy had higher pneumonia incidence than current smokers. CONCLUSIONS: FF/UMEC/VI improved clinical outcomes versus dual therapy regardless of smoking status. Benefits of FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI were greatest in former smokers, potentially due to relative corticosteroid resistance in current smokers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513).

Metabolomic changes related to airway inflammation, asthma pathogenesis and systemic activity following inhaled fluticasone furoate/vilanterol: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol trifenatate (FF/VI) is an inhaled therapy for the treatment of asthma, with a prolonged duration of anti-inflammatory and bronchodilatory action. This study investigated the global metabolomic and lipidomic profile following treatment with FF/VI or placebo and assessed whether changes correlated with exhaled nitric oxide levels as a measure of airway inflammation. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period, crossover, repeat-dose study. Adults with asthma (forced expiratory volume in 1 s ≥ 60% predicted; fraction of exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO] > 40 parts per billion) received once-daily FF/VI 100 µg/25 µg or placebo for 14 days, followed by a 21-day washout period. Serum samples were taken at pre-dose (T1), and 15 and 21 days (T2 and T3, respectively) post dose in each period. The metabolomic and lipidomic profiles were analyzed by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry and polar liquid chromatography platforms, and ions were matched to a library of standards for metabolite identification and quantification. FeNO values at each timepoint were evaluated for correlations with the biochemical data. RESULTS: Of 27 randomized participants (mean age 24.5 years, 63% male), 26 provided serum samples for metabolomic analysis. A total of 1969 metabolites were identified, 1634 of which corresponded to a named structure in a reference library. Treatment-related changes in the metabolome were generally subtle, with a modest increase in metabolite perturbations across timepoints. The percentage of metabolites with significant changes (p < 0.05 for all) (increases↑/decreases↓) versus placebo were: 2.1% (1.1%↑/1.0%↓), 6.7% (0.46%↑/6.2%↓) and 11.8% (0.86%↑/10.9%↓) at T1, T2 and T3, respectively. Treatment with FF/VI reduced FeNO levels by 60%, whereas the systemic intermediates involved in NO biosynthesis remained unaffected. Evidence of systemic anti-inflammatory activity was seen in complex lipid pathways, suggesting reduced phospholipase-A2 activity, but without downstream impact on free fatty acids or inflammatory mediators. Consistent with the pathogenesis of asthma, there was evidence of higher fatty acid ß-oxidation and lower glycolysis in the placebo arm; this pattern was reversed in the treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the prolonged airway anti-inflammatory action of FF/VI, this was accompanied by only subtle systemic metabolomic and lipidomic changes. Trial registration Prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov registry number NCT02712047.

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.

Adherence and persistence to once-daily single-inhaler versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the USA: A real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Triple therapy comprising an inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting ß2 agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) is recommended for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients at risk of exacerbation. Multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) is associated with poor adherence and persistence; however, these outcomes have not been evaluated for single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI). METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus claims database identified patients with COPD initiating triple therapy between 18 September 2017 and 30 June 2019. The first date of single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI dispensing, or first day of overlapping ICS, LAMA, and LABA medications for MITT users, defined the index date. Patients were ≥40 years, had ≥12 months of continuous insurance coverage pre-index (baseline) and ≥6 months' coverage post-index; those with MITT during baseline were excluded. Inverse probability weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics. Adherence was assessed using proportion of days covered (PDC) and was evaluated using linear and log-binomial models. Persistence (non-persistence identified as >30-day gap between fills) was evaluated using Cox models. RESULTS: 9942 patients (FF/UMEC/VI: 2782; MITT: 7160) were included. Adherence was significantly higher for FF/UMEC/VI versus MITT users (mean PDC, 0.66 vs. 0.48; p < 0.001), and FF/UMEC/VI users were twice as likely to be adherent (PDC ≥0.8) than MITT users (46.5% vs. 22.3%; risk ratio [95% CI]: 2.08 [1.85-2.30]; p < 0.001). After 12 months, significantly more FF/UMEC/VI users persisted on therapy than MITT users (35.7% vs. 13.9%; hazard ratio [95% CI]: 1.91 [1.81-2.01]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: COPD patients initiating single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI had significantly improved adherence and persistence compared with MITT.

Benefit of Prompt versus Delayed Use of Single-Inhaler Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Following a COPD Exacerbation.

Purpose: Triple therapy (TT; inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and long-acting ß2-agonist) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbation, although the optimum timing of TT initiation remains unclear. This study evaluated the impact of prompt versus delayed initiation of single-inhaler TT (fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI]) following a COPD exacerbation. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study used data from the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database. Patients initiating FF/UMEC/VI following a COPD exacerbation between September 18, 2017 and September 30, 2019 (exacerbation = index date) were categorized as prompt (within 30 days of index) or delayed (31-180 days after index) FF/UMEC/VI initiators. Patients were aged ≥40 years at index, had ≥12 months' continuous health insurance coverage before index (baseline), and ≥6 months' coverage after index (follow-up). Patients with a COPD exacerbation or claim for FF/UMEC/VI during baseline were excluded. Inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts. Exacerbations (overall, moderate, and severe), healthcare costs, and readmissions were evaluated during follow-up. Results: A total of 1904 patients (prompt: 529; delayed: 1375) were included. After weighting, baseline characteristics were well balanced between cohorts. Patients in the prompt cohort had significantly lower rates per person-year (PPY) of overall (0.98 vs 1.23; rate ratio [RR] [95% CI] = 0.79 [0.65-0.94], p = 0.004), moderate (0.86 vs 1.03; RR [95% CI] = 0.84 [0.69-0.99], p = 0.038), and severe (0.11 vs 0.20; RR [95% CI] = 0.57 [0.37-0.79], p = 0.002) exacerbations, compared with delayed initiators. Mean all-cause and COPD-related healthcare costs were significantly lower among prompt initiators (all-cause: $26,107 vs $32,400 PPY, p = 0.014; COPD-related: $12,694 vs $17,640 PPY, p = 0.002). Conclusion: Prompt initiation of FF/UMEC/VI following a moderate or severe COPD exacerbation was associated with significant reductions in exacerbations and healthcare costs relative to delayed initiation.

Symptom control in patients with asthma using inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-agonists (fluticasone furoate/vilanterol or budesonide/formoterol) in the US: a retrospective matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment with fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI), an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist therapy, reduces the risk of severe asthma exacerbations and improves lung function and symptom control in patients with asthma. However, real-world data remain limited among asthma patients in the United States (US). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study propensity score (PS) matched adult asthma patients initiating once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg with patients initiating twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (B/F) 160/4.5 mcg using a US claims database (January 1, 2015-December 31, 2018). Asthma control was measured by the mean number of short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) canisters dispensed per patient-year (PPY) during follow-up. Time to first, and rates of, overall and severe asthma exacerbations were also measured. RESULTS: After PS matching, 18,531 patients receiving FF/VI were matched to 18,531 patients receiving B/F. Mean SABA canisters dispensed PPY was significantly lower for FF/VI users compared with B/F users (FF/VI: 1.47, B/F: 1.64; p < 0.001). FF/VI use resulted in 13% significantly lower risk of having an overall asthma-related exacerbation and 22% lower risk of a severe exacerbation versus B/F use (overall exacerbation hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.87 [0.82-0.92], p < 0.001; severe exacerbation HR [95% CI]: 0.78 [0.63-0.97], p = 0.027). Asthma-related exacerbation rates per 100 patient-days were also significantly lower for the FF/VI group compared with the B/F group (overall: 0.0475 vs. 0.0558, p < 0.001; severe: 0.0026 vs. 0.0033, p = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: In real-world practice, initiation of once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg in adults with asthma was associated with lower use of SABA and fewer asthma-related exacerbations, which may indicate better asthma control, when compared with use of twice-daily B/F 160/4.5 mcg.

Genetics plays a limited role in predicting chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment response and exacerbation.

BACKGROUND: Combination treatments, targeting multiple disease processes, benefit subjects with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). However, predicting treatment response and exacerbation risk remain challenging. OBJECTIVE: To identify genetic associations with AECOPD risk and response to combination therapy (fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium bromide and vilanterol). METHODS: The genetic basis of AECOPD disease was investigated in 19,841 subjects from 23 clinical studies and 2 disease cohorts to identify exacerbation disease targets. AECOPD pharmacogenetic effects were examined in 8439 moderate to severe COPD patients with exacerbation rate, lung function and quality of life endpoints; results were followed up in an additional 2201 subjects. RESULTS: We did not identify significant associations in the AECOPD disease analysis. In the AECOPD pharmacogenetics analysis, rs56195836 (MAPK8) was significantly associated with moderate to severe exacerbation rate in subjects on fluticasone furoate with baseline blood eosinophils ≥150 cells/µl (P = 1.8 × 10-8). Post-hoc, one variant was associated with on-treatment moderate to severe exacerbation rate stratifying by exacerbation history. AZU1 rs1962343 was significantly associated in subjects with frequent moderate exacerbation history when treated with fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (P = 1.1 × 10-8). Neither of these signals was supported in independent follow-up. CONCLUSION: Common genetic variants do not play major roles in AECOPD disease nor predict response to triple therapy or its components in moderate to very severe COPD.

Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Current and Former Smokers with COPD: A Prespecified Analysis of The EMAX Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking may reduce the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but its impact on bronchodilator efficacy is unclear. This analysis of the EMAX trial explored efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in current or former smokers with COPD. METHODS: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms, health status, exacerbations, clinically important deterioration, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving ICS. Current and former smoker subgroups were defined by smoking status at screening. RESULTS: The analysis included 1203 (50%) current smokers and 1221 (50%) former smokers. Both subgroups demonstrated greater improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 24 (primary endpoint) with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (least squares [LS] mean difference, mL [95% CI]; current: 84 [50, 117]; former: 49 [18, 80]) and salmeterol (current: 165 [132, 198]; former: 117 [86, 148]) and larger reductions in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (LS mean difference [95% CI]; current: - 0.42 [- 0.63, - 0.20]; former: - 0.25 - 0.44, - 0.05]) and salmeterol (current: - 0.28 [- 0.49, - 0.06]; former: - 0.29 [- 0.49, - 0.09]). Umeclidinium/vilanterol increased the odds (odds ratio [95% CI]) of clinically significant improvement at week 24 in Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.16, 2.06]; former: 1.32 [0.99, 1.75]) and salmeterol (current: 1.37 (1.03, 1.82]; former: 1.60 [1.20, 2.13]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.13, 2.09]; former: 1.50 [1.11, 2.04]) and salmeterol (current: 1.53 [1.13, 2.08]; former: 1.53 [1.12, 2.08]). All treatments were well tolerated in both subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In current and former smokers, umeclidinium/vilanterol provided greater improvements in lung function and symptoms versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, supporting consideration of dual-bronchodilator therapy in symptomatic patients with COPD regardless of their smoking status.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often require daily medication to control their COPD. Many patients with COPD are smokers, and smoking is one of the most common causes of COPD. This means that it is important to find out whether COPD medications are effective in both smokers and nonsmokers. We analyzed data from a clinical trial (EMAX) that investigated the use of a combination of two bronchodilators, which are inhaled medications that help to open the airways. We compared umeclidinium/vilanterol, a dual-bronchodilator combination, with a single bronchodilator (either umeclidinium or salmeterol) over 6 months. We found that both current and former smokers who were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol had larger improvements in lung function than those receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. Current or former smokers who were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol used their reliever inhaler less than those treated with umeclidinium or salmeterol. Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol were generally less likely to experience disease worsening compared with umeclidinium or salmeterol if they were former smokers, or compared with salmeterol if they were current smokers. Our findings suggest that umeclidinium/vilanterol may be more effective than a single bronchodilator for daily treatment of patients with COPD who are current or former smokers. Physicians should consider prescribing a combination of two bronchodilators to patients who have symptoms, whether or not they currently smoke, as well as encouraging smoking cessation for all patients.

Dual Bronchodilator Therapy as First-Line Treatment in Maintenance-Naïve Patients with Symptomatic COPD: A Pre-Specified Analysis of the EMAX Trial.

Introduction: Limited prospective evidence is available to guide selection of first-line maintenance therapy in patients with COPD. This pre-specified analysis of the EMAX trial explored the efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated patients. Methods: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms (including rescue medication use), exacerbations, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated subgroups were defined by maintenance bronchodilator use 30 days before screening. Results: The analysis included 749 (31%) maintenance-naïve and 1676 (69%) maintenance-treated patients. For both subgroups, improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 (primary endpoint) were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (mean difference [95% CI]; maintenance-naïve: 44 mL [1, 87]; maintenance-treated: 77 mL [50, 104]), and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: 128 mL [85, 171]; maintenance-treated: 145 mL [118, 172]), and in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (maintenance-naïve: -0.44 [-0.73, -0.16]; maintenance-treated: -0.28 [-0.45, -0.12]) and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: -0.37 [-0.66, -0.09]; maintenance-treated: -0.25 [-0.41, -0.08]). In maintenance-naïve patients, umeclidinium/vilanterol numerically improved scores at Week 24 for Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (0.37 [-0.21, 0.96]) and versus salmeterol (0.47 [-0.10, 1.05]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD versus umeclidinium (-0.26 [-1.04, 0.53]) and versus salmeterol (-0.58 [-1.36, 0.20]), with similar improvements seen in maintenance-treated patients. All treatments were well tolerated across both subgroups. Conclusion: Similar to maintenance-treated patients, maintenance-naïve patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol showed greater improvements in lung function and symptoms compared with patients receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. These findings provide support for the consideration of dual bronchodilator treatment in symptomatic maintenance-naïve patients with COPD.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in Japanese patients with inadequately controlled asthma: the CAPTAIN study.

OBJECTIVE: In CAPTAIN, a double-blind, parallel-group, Phase IIIA study, fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) improved lung function, symptoms and asthma control versus FF/VI in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. Here, we report efficacy and safety from a Japanese cohort in CAPTAIN. METHODS: Adults with inadequately controlled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA) were randomized (1:1:1:1:1:1) to once-daily FF/VI (100/25 mcg or 200/25 mcg) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31.25/25 mcg, 100/62.5/25 mcg, 200/31.25/25 mcg, or 200/62.5/25 mcg) for ≥24 weeks. Endpoints included change from baseline in clinic trough FEV1 (primary), annualized rate of moderate/severe asthma exacerbations (key secondary), clinic FEV1 3 h post-dose, and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-7, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) (all Week 24), Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms (E-RS): Asthma total scores (Weeks 21-24) (all secondary). Adverse events and adverse events of special interest were monitored. Clinical trials.gov registry no: NCT02924688. RESULTS: Overall, 229 of 2436 patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population were from Japan. In this cohort, change from baseline in trough FEV1 for FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg versus FF/VI 100/25 mcg was 105 mL (95% confidence interval -5, 216) and 69 mL (-42, 179) for 200/62.5/25 mcg versus 200/25 mcg. These observations were supported by clinic FEV1 at 3 h post-dose. Moderate/severe exacerbation incidence was low and similar across pooled treatment groups (FF/VI, FF/UMEC 31.25 mcg/VI, FF/UMEC 62.5 mcg/VI). All pooled groups demonstrated clinically important improvements from baseline in ACQ-7, SGRQ and E-RS: Asthma total scores. Safety profiles were consistent with the overall ITT population, with no new safety concerns. CONCLUSION: FF/UMEC/VI is an effective option with a favorable risk-benefit profile in Japanese patients with uncontrolled moderate or severe asthma on ICS/LABA.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Different Types of Inhaled Long-Acting ß2-Agonist Plus Inhaled Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist vs Inhaled Long-Acting ß2-Agonist Plus Inhaled Corticosteroid Fixed-Dose Combinations in COPD A Propensity Score-Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite multiple available fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of inhaled long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) plus long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and LABAs plus inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for COPD, uncertainty remains regarding their comparative effects. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can comparative effectiveness and safety of LABA plus LAMA (LABA/LAMA) and LABA plus ICS (LABA/ICS) FDCs vary by different individual components of the dual combinations in COPD? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a new user, propensity score-inverse probability of treatment weighting cohort study to compare the effectiveness and safety of two frequently used LABA/LAMA FDCs (indacaterol plus glycopyrronium [IND/GLY] and vilanterol plus umeclidinium [VI/UMEC]) vs three commonly prescribed LABA/ICS FDCs (salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate [SAL/FP], formoterol fumarate plus budesonide [FF/BUD], and formoterol fumarate plus beclomethasone dipropionate [FF/BDP]) using the Taiwanese nationwide health care claims from 2014 through 2017. The primary effectiveness outcome was the annual moderate to severe exacerbation rate, and safety outcomes included risks of severe pneumonia and cardiovascular disease requiring hospitalization. Weighted generalized linear mixed models and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Patients with COPD initiating IND/GLY and VI/UMEC showed an 11% (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and 20% (IRR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90) reduced annual rate of moderate to severe exacerbations, respectively, than those initiating SAL/FP, but showed a similar rate as those initiating FF/BUD or FF/BDP. Both LABA/LAMA FDCs, compared with SAL/FP and VI/UMEC vs FF/BDP, were associated with a 27% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90) to 42% (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.70) reduced pneumonia risk. Cardiovascular risk was comparable in five groups. An intraclass difference existed in rates of moderate to severe COPD exacerbation and risks of pneumonia among LABA/ICS FDCs, but not between LABA/LAMA FDCs. INTERPRETATION: Both LABA/LAMAs vs SAL/FP are associated with a lower exacerbation rate and pneumonia risk, but exhibit similar effectiveness and safety outcomes compared with FF/BDP or FF/BUD, suggesting that comparative effects may differ by individual components of the dual therapies in COPD.

Once daily combined inhaled steroid and ultra long-acting bronchodilator prescribing in pediatric asthma: a dual Center retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: A high proportion of children and adolescents who have "difficult" or therapy-resistant asthma, are found to have poor adherence to maintenance therapies. Such individuals are thus difficult asthmatics (for reasons of poor adherence) rather than being young people with true difficult asthma. In our centers, once daily ICS/ULABA (Relvar™) is considered if there is an increase in reported interval symptoms, asthma attacks requiring hospital attendance or rescue oral prednisolone, or persistently low lung function despite reported regular use of a twice daily ICS/LABA preparation. In the majority of these young people, a clinical history of overt non-adherence or a clinical suspicion of covert non-adherence will be noted. METHODS: The aim of our retrospective cohort study was to assess the clinical effectiveness of Relvar™ in a selected adolescent asthma population. RESULTS: In a pre-selected group of adolescents with likely poor prior adherence to inhaled therapies, a change to Relvar™ (once daily combined ICS/ULABA) led to improvements in asthma control, as assessed by ED attendances and oral steroid burden. CONCLUSIONS: A prospective study to verify these findings and also explore the effects on quality of life, asthma control, and adherence is warranted.