Impact of baseline COPD symptom severity on the benefit from dual versus mono-bronchodilators: an analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial.
ABSTRACT: RATIONALE:Symptom relief is a key treatment goal in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there are limited data available on the response to bronchodilator therapy in patients at low risk of exacerbations with different levels of symptom severity. This study compared treatment responses in patients with a range of symptom severities as indicated by baseline COPD assessment test (CAT) scores. METHODS:The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated the benefits of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. This analysis assessed lung function, symptoms, health status, and short-term deterioration outcomes in subgroups defined by a baseline CAT score [<20 (post hoc) and ?20 (pre-specified)]. Outcomes were also assessed using post hoc fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline CAT score covariates. RESULTS:Of the intent-to-treat population (n?=?2425), 56% and 44% had baseline CAT scores of <20 and ?20, respectively. Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated favourable improvements compared with umeclidinium and salmeterol for the majority of outcomes irrespective of the baseline CAT score, with the greatest improvements generally observed in patients with CAT scores <20. Fractional polynomial analyses revealed consistent improvements in lung function, symptoms and reduction in rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol across a range of CAT scores, with the largest benefits seen in patients with CAT scores of approximately 10-21. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with symptomatic COPD benefit similarly from dual bronchodilator treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol. Fractional polynomial analyses demonstrated the greatest treatment differences favouring dual therapy in patients with a CAT score <20, although benefits were seen up to scores of 30. This suggests that dual bronchodilation may be considered as initial therapy for patients across a broad range of symptom severities, not only those with severe symptoms (CAT ?20).Trial registration: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT number).The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Short-acting ?2-agonist (SABA) bronchodilators help alleviate symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and may be a useful marker of symptom severity. This analysis investigated whether SABA use impacts treatment differences between maintenance dual- and mono-bronchodilators in patients with COPD. METHODS:The Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids 1:1:1 to once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25??g, once-daily umeclidinium 62.5??g or twice-daily salmeterol 50??g for 24?weeks. Pre-specified subgroup analyses stratified patients by median baseline SABA use (low, <?1.5 puffs/day; high, ?1.5 puffs/day) to examine change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1?s (FEV1), change in symptoms (Transition Dyspnoea Index [TDI], Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD [E-RS]), daily SABA use and exacerbation risk. A post hoc analysis used fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline SABA use covariates. RESULTS:At baseline, patients in the high SABA use subgroup (mean: 3.91 puffs/day, n?=?1212) had more severe airflow limitation, were more symptomatic and had worse health status versus patients in the low SABA use subgroup (0.39 puffs/day, n?=?1206). Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium demonstrated statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 at Week 24 in both SABA subgroups (59-74?mL; p?<?0.001); however, only low SABA users demonstrated significant improvements in TDI (high: 0.27 [p?=?0.241]; low: 0.49 [p?=?0.025]) and E-RS (high: 0.48 [p?=?0.138]; low: 0.60 [p?=?0.034]) scores. By contrast, significant reductions in mean SABA puffs/day with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium were observed only in high SABA users (high: -?0.56 [p?<?0.001]; low: -?0.10 [p?=?0.132]). Similar findings were observed when comparing umeclidinium/vilanterol and salmeterol. Fractional polynomial modelling showed baseline SABA use ?4 puffs/day resulted in smaller incremental symptom improvements with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium compared with baseline SABA use <?4 puffs/day. CONCLUSIONS:In high SABA users, there may be a smaller difference in treatment response between dual- and mono-bronchodilator therapy; the reasons for this require further investigation. SABA use may be a confounding factor in bronchodilator trials and in high SABA users; changes in SABA use may be considered a robust symptom outcome. FUNDING:GlaxoSmithKline (study number 201749 [NCT03034915]).
Project description:BACKGROUND:Prospective evidence is lacking regarding incremental benefits of long-acting dual- versus mono-bronchodilation in improving symptoms and preventing short-term disease worsening/treatment failure in low exacerbation risk patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS:The 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised patients at low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25??g once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5??g once-daily or salmeterol 50??g twice-daily. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1?s (FEV1) at Week 24. The study was also powered for the secondary endpoint of Transition Dyspnoea Index at Week 24. Other efficacy assessments included spirometry, symptoms, heath status and short-term disease worsening measured by the composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration using three definitions. RESULTS:Change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 66?mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43, 89) and 141?mL (95% CI: 118, 164) greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, respectively (both p?<?0.001). Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated consistent improvements in Transition Dyspnoea Index versus both monotherapies at Week 24 (vs umeclidinium: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.68], p?=?0.018; vs salmeterol: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.15, 0.76], p?=?0.004) and all other symptom measures at all time points. Regardless of the clinically important deterioration definition considered, umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly reduced the risk of a first clinically important deterioration compared with umeclidinium (by 16-25% [p?<?0.01]) and salmeterol (by 26-41% [p?<?0.001]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS:Umeclidinium/vilanterol consistently provides early and sustained improvements in lung function and symptoms and reduces the risk of deterioration/treatment failure versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. These findings suggest a potential for early use of dual bronchodilators to help optimise therapy in this patient group.
Project description:BACKGROUND:In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both the time needed for patients to gain symptom improvement with long-acting bronchodilator therapy and whether an early response is predictive of a sustained response is unknown. This study aimed to investigate how quickly meaningful symptom responses are seen in patients with COPD with bronchodilator therapy and whether these responses are sustained. METHODS:Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial that randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), umeclidinium or salmeterol. Daily Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS:COPD) score and rescue salbutamol use were captured via an electronic diary and analysed initially in 4-weekly periods. Post hoc analyses assessed change from baseline in daily E-RS:COPD score and rescue medication use weekly (Weeks 1-8), and association between E-RS:COPD responder status at Weeks 1-4 and later time points. RESULTS:In the intent-to-treat population (n?=?2425), reductions from baseline in E-RS:COPD scores and rescue medication use were apparent from Day 2 with all treatments. Treatment differences for UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy plateaued by Week 4-8 and were sustained at Weeks 21-24; improvements were consistently greater with UMEC/VI. For all treatments, most patients (60-85%) retained their Weeks 1-4 E-RS:COPD responder/non-responder status at Weeks 21-24. Among patients receiving UMEC/VI who were E-RS:COPD responders at Weeks 1-4, 70% were responders at Weeks 21-24. CONCLUSION:Patients with symptomatic COPD had greater potential for early symptom improvements with UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy. This benefit was generally maintained for 24?weeks. Early monitoring of treatment response can provide clinicians with an early indication of a patient's likely longer-term response to prescribed bronchodilator treatment and will facilitate appropriate early adjustments in care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT Number). The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Directly recorded patient experience of symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) can complement lung function and exacerbation rate data in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical studies. The FULFIL study recorded daily symptoms and activity limitation together with additional patient-reported outcomes of dyspnea and HRQoL, as part of the prespecified analyses. FULFIL co-primary endpoint data have been previously reported. METHODS:FULFIL was a phase III, 24-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study comparing once-daily single inhaler triple therapy [fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI)] 100 µg/62.5 µg/25 µg with twice-daily inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ?2-agonist therapy [budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR)] 400 µg/12 µg in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. A subset participated for 52 weeks. Patient-reported assessments were: Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD™ (E-RS: COPD), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) for COPD, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), baseline and transitional dyspnea indices (TDI) and daily and global anchor questions for activity limitation. RESULTS:FF/UMEC/VI showed greater reductions from baseline in 4-weekly mean E-RS: COPD total and all subscale scores compared with BUD/FOR; differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05) at each time period. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated greater improvements from baseline at weeks 4 and 24 in SGRQ domain scores and TDI focal score compared with BUD/FOR. At weeks 4 and 24, improvements greater than the minimal clinically important difference from baseline were observed in CAT score with FF/UMEC/VI, but not BUD/FOR; differences were statistically significant (P ? 0.003). CONCLUSION:These findings demonstrate sustained daily symptom and HRQoL benefits of FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR. The inclusion of the CAT may provide data that are readily generalizable to everyday clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02345161. FUNDING:GSK.
Project description:Umeclidinium and vilanterol, long-acting bronchodilators for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are primarily eliminated via the hepatic route; however, severe renal impairment may adversely affect some elimination pathways other than the kidney.To evaluate the effect of severe renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol.Nine patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance <30 mL/min) and nine matched healthy volunteers received a single dose of umeclidinium 125 ?g; and after a 7- to 14-day washout, a single dose of umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 ?g.No clinically relevant increases in plasma umeclidinium or vilanterol systemic exposure (area under the curve or maximum observed plasma concentration) were observed following umeclidinium 125 ?g or umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 ?g administration. On average, the amount of umeclidinium excreted in 24 hours in urine (90% confidence interval) was 88% (81%-93%) and 89% (81%-93%) lower in patients with severe renal impairment compared with healthy volunteers following umeclidinium 125 ?g and umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 ?g administration, respectively. Treatments were well tolerated in both populations.Umeclidinium 125 ?g or umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 ?g administration to patients with severe renal impairment did not demonstrate clinically relevant increases in systemic exposure compared with healthy volunteers. No dose adjustment for umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol is warranted in patients with severe renal impairment.
Project description:A population pharmacokinetic analysis was conducted from a subset of samples obtained from the Lung Function and Quality of Life Assessment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Closed Triple Therapy trial to characterize the pharmacokinetics of fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol in patients with symptomatic COPD following treatment with fluticason furoate-umeclidinium-vilanterol combined in a single inhaler. This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study comparing 24 weeks of once-daily triple therapy (fluticason furoate-umeclidinium-vilanterol, 100 ?g/62.5 ?g/25 ?g; Ellipta inhaler) with twice-daily dual therapy (budesonide/formoterol 400 ?g/12 ?g; Turbuhaler). The analyses were conducted in a subset of 74 patients who received fluticason furoate-umeclidinium-vilanterol and provided serial or sparse samples. Monte Carlo simulations and a model-based estimation approach both indicated that systemic drug concentrations of fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol after administration of fluticason furoate-umeclidinium-vilanterol triple combination therapy from a single inhaler were within the ranges observed following administration of these drugs as monotherapy (fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol) or as dual-combination therapy (fluticasone furoate/vilanterol or umeclidinium/vilanterol).
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The phase 3 InforMing the PAthway of COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler therapy with fluticasone furoate (FF) 100 ?g, umeclidinium (UMEC) 62.5 ?g, and vilanterol (VI) 25 ?g demonstrated a reduction in the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. This article reports additional evidence of improvements in symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with FF/UMEC/VI compared with either FF/VI or UMEC/VI from the IMPACT study. METHODS:Patient-reported HRQoL assessments and symptom measures included as pre-specified IMPACT end points were the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and Baseline Dyspnea Index (BDI) as the anchor for the Transitional Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score (BDI/TDI) in a subset of patients enrolled at study sites in North America and Europe. Change from baseline was assessed at weeks 4, 28, and 52. RESULTS:The intent-to-treat population included 10,355 patients (TDI population: 5058 patients). Clinically meaningful improvements in SGRQ total score between baseline and week 52 favored FF/UMEC/VI over FF/VI (- 1.8 units, p?<?0.001) and UMEC/VI (- 1.8 units, p?<?0.001). Similar improvements in the CAT and TDI focal score were also observed with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI. CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates that in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations, once-daily FF/UMEC/VI, compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, improves patient-perceived HRQoL and symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02164513.
Project description:Umeclidinium bromide (GSK573719; UMEC), a new long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA), is in development with vilanterol (GW642444; VI), a selective long-acting ?(2) agonist (LABA), as a once-daily inhaled combination therapy for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A single dose healthy volunteer study was conducted to assess the safety and tolerability, pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of inhaled umeclidinium (500 µg) and vilanterol (50 µg) when administered separately and in combination using a novel dry powder inhaler (NDPI). Co-administration of single inhaled doses of umeclidinium and vilanterol to healthy Japanese subjects was well tolerated and not associated with meaningful changes in systemic exposure or PD effects compared with administration of either compound individually. Pharmacokinetic assessments showed rapid absorption for both drugs (Tmax?=?5 min for both umeclidinium and vilanterol) followed by rapid elimination with median tlast of 4-5 h for umeclidinium and median tlast of 1.5-2.0 h for vilanterol. Assessments of pharmacokinetic interaction were inconclusive since for umeclidinium, Cmax following combination was higher than umeclidinium alone but not AUC whereas for vilanterol, AUC following combination was higher than vilanterol alone but not Cmax. There were no obvious trends observed between individual maximum supine heart rate and umeclidinium Cmax or vilanterol Cmax when delivered as umeclidinium 500 µg and vilanterol 50 µg combination or when delivered as umeclidinium or vilanterol alone.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00976144.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is associated with a high healthcare resource and cost burden. Healthcare resource utilization was analyzed in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at risk of exacerbations in the FULFIL study. Patients received either once-daily, single inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol) 100 µg/62.5 µg/25 µg or twice-daily dual inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonist therapy (budesonide/formoterol) 400 µg/12 µg. METHODS:FULFIL was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study. Unscheduled contacts with healthcare providers were recorded by patients in a daily electronic diary; the costs of healthcare resource utilization were calculated post hoc using UK reference costs. RESULTS:Over 24 weeks, slightly fewer patients who received fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (169/911; 18.6%) required contacts with healthcare providers compared with budesonide/formoterol (180/899; 20.0%). Over 52 weeks in an extension population, fewer patients who received fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol required unscheduled contacts with healthcare providers compared with budesonide/formoterol (25.2% vs. 32.7%). Non-drug costs per treated patient per year were lower in the fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol group than the budesonide/formoterol group over 24 and 52 weeks (£653.80 vs. £763.32 and £749.22 vs. £988.03, respectively), with the total annualized cost over 24 weeks being slightly greater for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol than budesonide/formoterol (£1,289.35 vs. £1,267.45). CONCLUSIONS:This healthcare resource utilization evidence suggests that, in a clinical trial setting over a 24- or 52-week timeframe, non-drug costs associated with management of a single inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol are lower compared with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02345161. FUNDING:GSK.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Only few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for head-to-head comparison have been conducted between various combinations of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). Our study was conducted to compare acute exacerbation and all-cause mortality among different LAMA/LABA regimens using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS:We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library (search date: July 1, 2019). We included parallel-group RCTs comparing LAMA/LABA combinations with other inhaled drugs in the stable COPD for???48 weeks. Two different network geometries were used. The geometry of network (A) had nodes of individual drugs or their combination, while that of network (B) combined all other treatments except LAMA/LABA into each drug class. This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO; CRD42019126753. RESULTS:We included 16 RCTs involving a total of 39,065 patients with stable COPD. Six combinations of LAMA/LABA were identified: tiotropium/salmeterol, glycopyrrolate/indacaterol, umeclidinium/vilanterol, tiotropium/olodaterol, aclidinium/formoterol, and glycopyrrolate/formoterol. We found that umeclidinium/vilanterol was associated with a lower risk of total exacerbations than other LAMA/LABAs in the NMA using network (A) (level of evidence: low or moderate). However, the significant differences were not present in the NMA of network (B). There were no significant differences among the LAMA/LABA combinations in terms of the number of moderate to severe exacerbations, all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, or pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS:The present NMA including all available RCTs provided that there is no strong evidence suggesting different benefits among LAMA/LABAs in patients with stable COPD who have been followed up for 48 weeks or more. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO; CRD42019126753.