Search

Introduction: Once-daily inhalers have been shown to improve adherence leading to lesser discontinuation compared to twice- or thrice-daily inhalers in management of asthma. Combination of Vilanterol and Fluticasone Furoate (VI/FF) is approved for management of asthma and COPD and is available as a dry powder inhaler. Pressurized-Metered Dose Inhalers (pMDIs) offer ease-of-use and therapy alternatives for patients with low inspiratory flow. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of a new once-daily pMDI containing VI/FF in individuals diagnosed with persistent asthma., Methods: This phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled study assessed the non-inferiority of VI/FF (12.5 mcg/50 mcg & 12.5 mcg/100 mcg; 2 puffs once-daily) over Formoterol Fumarate and Fluticasone Propionate (FOR/FP, 6 mcg/125 mcg & 6 mcg/250 mcg; 2 puffs twice-daily) in patients with persistent asthma. Primary outcome was change from baseline in trough FEV1 at the end of study (12 weeks). Adverse events and number of exacerbations were used to evaluate safety., Results: A total of 330 patients were randomized into VI/FF (165) and FOR/FP (165). Trough FEV1 significantly improved in both the groups at week 12, with a mean difference (VI/FF minus FOR/FP) being 54.75 mL (95% CI, 8.42-101.08 mL, p  = 0.02). The low dose VI/FF had similar efficacy to that of low dose FOR/FP and high dose VI/FF had similar efficacy to high dose FOR/FP. No serious adverse events were reported during the study., Conclusion: Once daily VI/FF pMDI was non-inferior to twice daily FOR/FP pMDI in patients with persistent asthma.

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., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: This cost-utility analysis assessed the long-term clinical and economic benefits of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy vs FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Quebec societal perspective in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year., Methods: The validated GALAXY disease progression model was utilized, with parameters set to baseline and efficacy data from IMPACT. Treatment costs (2017 Canadian dollars [C$]) were estimated using Quebec-specific unit costs. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5 %/year. A willingness-to-pay threshold of C$50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was considered cost-effective. Outcomes modeled were exacerbation rates, QALYs, life years (LYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Subgroup analyses were performed according to prior treatment, exacerbation history in the previous year, and baseline lung function., Results: Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI resulted in more QALYs and LYs gained, at a small incremental cost compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. From a societal perspective, the estimated ICER for the base case was C$18,152/QALY vs FF/VI, and C$15,847/QALY vs UMEC/VI. For the subgroup analyses (FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI), ICERs ranged from: C$17,412-25,664/QALY and C$16,493-18,663/QALY (prior treatment); C$15,247-19,924/QALY and C$15,444-28,859/QALY (exacerbation history); C$14,025-34,154/QALY and C$16,083-17,509/QALY (baseline lung function)., Interpretation: FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be cost-effective vs both comparators in the base case and all subgroup analyses, and based on this analysis would be an appropriate investment of health service funds in Quebec., Clinical Trial Registration Number: IMPACT trial NCT02164513., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: A.S. Ismaila, M. Schroeder, A. Martin, S. Mursleen: are/were employees of, and hold shares in, GSK. A.S. Ismaila: unpaid, part-time professor at McMaster University, Canada. N.A. Risebrough, D. Shah, K. Ndirangu: employees of ICON plc, which received funding from GSK to conduct this study, but were not themselves paid for development of this manuscript., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Environmental exposures may have endocrine disruptor (ED) effects, e.g., a role for halogenated hydrocarbon chlorobenzenes in increasing vasopressin (AVP), oxytocin (OT) secretion and, in association, anxiety and aggression in male rats has been shown. Our aim is to investigate whether 1,2,4-trichlorobenzenehexachlorobenzene= 1:1 (mClB) treatment of female rats also shows ED effects and reproductive biology differences, and whether AVP may have a mediator role in this? Female Wistar rats were treated (0.1; 1.0; 10.0 μg/bwkg/day) with mClB (by gastrictube) and then 30; 60; 90 days after treatment anxiety (open field test) and aggressive (resident intruder test) behaviors AVP, OT concentrations from blood plasma samples were detected by radioimmunoassay on 30; 60; 90 days. Treated female rats were mated with untreated males. Mating success, number of newborn and maternal aggression on the neonates were monitored. Results showed that AVP, OT levels; and anxiety, aggressive behaviors; and mothers' aggression towards their offspring increased significantly in relation to the duration and the dose of mClB treatment. But mating propensity and number of offspring decreased. Patterns of AVP, OT release and anxiety, aggression behaviors, and reproductive-related behaviors were correlated. Consistent with the literature, our studies confirmed the role of AVP and OT in different behavioral effects., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Triple therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β 2 -agonist/inhaled corticosteroid) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience recurrent exacerbations. Multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) is associated with poor adherence and persistence. This study assessed comparative adherence and persistence to single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) versus MITT among patients with COPD in a real-world setting in Germany., Patients and Methods: This retrospective analysis using the WIG2 benchmark database identified patients with COPD newly initiating triple therapy with MITT or SITT (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI] or formoterol/beclomethasone/glycopyrronium bromide [FOR/BDP/GLY]) November 2017-June 2019. Eligible patients were ≥35 years with 1 year's continual insurance prior to triple therapy initiation and no previous record of triple therapy. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics. Adherence was measured using proportion of days covered (PDC) at 6, 12, and 18 months post-treatment initiation; persistence (time until treatment discontinuation) was measured at 6, 12, and 18 months, with a gap of >30 days used to define non-persistence., Results: Of 5710 patients included in the analysis (mean age 66 years), 71.4% initiated MITT and 28.6% initiated SITT (FF/UMEC/VI: 41.4%; FOR/BDP/GLY: 58.6%). Mean PDC was higher among SITT versus MITT users at all time points; at each time point, mean PDC was highest among FF/UMEC/VI users. During the first 6 months following treatment initiation, higher adherence was exhibited by FF/UMEC/VI (29%) and FOR/BDP/GLY (19%) users versus MITT users. Over the entire observation period, FF/UMEC/VI users had the highest proportion of persistent patients; at 18 months, 16.5% of FF/UMEC/VI users were persistent versus 2.3% of MITT users., Conclusion: Patients initiating SITT in Germany had significantly higher adherence and persistence compared with patients initiating MITT over 6 to 18 months following treatment initiation. Among SITT, FF/UMEC/VI users had the highest proportion of adherence and persistence., Competing Interests: CFV has given presentations at symposia and/or served on scientific advisory boards sponsored by Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Grifols, GSK, Insmed, MedUpdate, Menarini, Novartis, Nuvaira, Roche, and Sanofi. KMB is a full-time employee of insaf Respiratory Research Institute. He has received personal or institutional compensation for services on advisory boards or consulting for AstraZeneca, Bosch Healthcare, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Clario, Elpen, GSK, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pohl Boskamp, Sanofi, sterna, and Zentiva; and compensation for speaker activities in scientific meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, ERT, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Pohl Boskamp, Sanofi, and Teva, all outside the submitted work. The institution has received compensations for design and performance of clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Parexel, Pearl Therapeutics, sterna, and Zentiva. MS is an employee of ZEG Berlin, which received funding from GSK to conduct this study. NK and LMR are employees of WIG2 GmbH, that conducted the study on behalf of GSK. JC, CC, SGN, ASI, and GR are employees of, and/or hold financial equities in GSK. ASI is also a part-time, unpaid professor at McMaster University. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 Vogelmeier et al.)

Background: In recent years, the incorporation of LAMAs into asthma therapy has been expected to enhance symptom control. However, a significant number of patients with asthma continue to experience poorly managed symptoms. There have been limited investigations on LAMA-induced airway alterations in asthma treatment employing IOS. In this study, we administered a LAMA to patients with poorly controlled asthma, evaluated clinical responses and respiratory function, and investigated airway changes facilitated by LAMA treatments using the IOS., Methods: Of a total of 1282 consecutive patients with asthma, 118 exhibited uncontrolled symptoms. Among them, 42 switched their treatment to high-dose fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) (ICS/LABA/LAMA). The patients were then assessed using AHQ-33 or LCQ and ACT. Spirometry parameters (such as FEV 1 or MMEF) and IOS parameters (such as R20 or AX) were measured and compared before and after exacerbations and the addition of LAMA., Results: Of the 42 patients, 17 who switched to FF/UMEC/VI caused by dyspnea exhibited decreased pulmonary function between period 1 and baseline, followed by an increase in pulmonary function between baseline and period 2. Significant differences were observed in IOS parameters such as R20, R5-R20, Fres, or AX between period 1 and baseline as well as between baseline and period 2. Among the patients who switched to inhaler due to cough, 25 were classified as responders (n = 17) and nonresponders (n = 8) based on treatment outcomes. Among nonresponders, there were no significant differences in spirometry parameters such as FEV 1 or PEF and IOS parameters such as R20 or AX between period 1 and baseline. However, among responders, significant differences were observed in all IOS parameters, though not in most spirometry parameters, between period 1 and baseline. Furthermore, significant differences were noted between baseline and period 2 in terms of FEV 1 , %MMEF, %PEF, and all IOS parameters., Conclusion: ICS/LABA/LAMA demonstrates superiority over ICS/LABA in improving symptoms and lung function, which is primarily attributed to the addition of LAMA. Additionally, IOS revealed the effectiveness of LAMA across all airway segments, particularly in the periphery. Hence, LAMA can be effective against various asthma phenotypes characterized by airway inflammation, even in real-world cases., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Previous studies have reported reduced acute exacerbation rates and improved symptom control in asthma patients treated using inhaled corticosteroids plus formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). Fluticasone furoate (FF) and vilanterol (VIL) also provide rapid bronchodilation and sustained anti-inflammatory effects, however no studies have investigated FF/VIL as MART for asthma control., Methods: From October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2023, this retrospective study included asthma patients classified as step 3 or 4 according to the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines, who were then divided into two groups. One group received BUD/FOR as MART, while the other received FF/VIL as MART. Pulmonary function tests, exacerbation rates, Asthma Control Test (ACT), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels, and blood eosinophil counts were measured before and after 12 months of treatment., Results: A total of 161 patients were included, of whom 36 received BUD/FOR twice daily as MART, and 125 received FF/VIL once daily as MART. After 12 months of treatment, the FF/VIL group showed a significant increase in ACT scores by 1.57 (p < 0.001), while the BUD/FOR group had an increase of 0.88 (p = 0.11). In terms of FeNO levels, the BUD/FOR group experienced a decline of -0.2 ppb (p = 0.98), whereas the FF/VIL group had a mild increase of + 0.8 ppb (p = 0.7). Notably, there was a significant difference in the change of FeNO between the two groups (∆ FeNO: -0.2 ppb in BUD/FOR; + 0.8 ppb in FF/VIL, p < 0.001). There were no significant alterations observed in FEV1, blood eosinophil count, or acute exacerbation decline in either group., Conclusions: In the current study, patients treated with FF/VIL as MART showed improvements in ACT scores, while those treated with BUD/FOR as MART exhibited a reduction in FeNO levels. However, the difference between the two treatment groups did not reach clinical significance. Thus, FF/VIL as MART showed similar effectiveness to BUD/FOR as MART., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To evaluate the safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol in Chinese participants in a real-world setting. Methods: This was a 24-week, prospective, multicenter, single-arm, observational study that enrolled participants treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol in real-world settings from 14 sites in China from 14 December 2020 to 30 January 2022. The primary outcomes were the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) at week 24. Results: A total of 887 participants on umeclidinium/vilanterol were enrolled. The mean (±SD) age of these participants was 67.5 (±9.6) years, with more men (77.7%) enrolled. The majority of the participants (98.1%) had been diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 67.6% of them reported comorbidities. More than half of the participants (52.8%) were taking concomitant medication in addition to the study treatment. AEs were reported in 59 (6.7%) participants and were predominantly mild to moderate in severity. SAEs were reported in 21 (2.4%) participants, including 9 fatal SAEs, 10 reported non-fatal SAEs, and 2 reported both non-fatal and fatal SAEs. None of the SAEs, including the fatal events, were considered by the investigators to be related to umeclidinium/vilanterol. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were reported in 6 (0.7%) participants with 4 preferred terms (PTs), all of which were considered mild in severity. Of these PTs, 2 were known ADRs of umeclidinium/vilanterol. Three participants (0.3%) reported AEs that were part of serious identified/potential hazards, all of which were considered by the investigators to be unrelated to umeclidinium/vilanterol. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that umeclidinium/vilanterol was well tolerated in Chinese participants in a real-world setting and no new drug-related safety signals were observed.

Introduction: Treatment with LABA/LAMA is recommended in GOLD B patients. We hypothesized that triple therapy (LABA/LAMA/ICS) will be superior to LABA/LAMA in achieving and maintaining clinical control (CC), a composite outcome that considers both impact and disease stability in a subgroup of GOLD B patients (here termed GOLD B+ patients) characterized by: (1) remaining symptomatic (CAT≥10) despite regular LABA/LAMA therapy; (2) having suffered one moderate exacerbation in the previous year; and (3) having blood eosinophil counts (BEC) ≥150cells/μL., Methods: The ANTES B+ study is a prospective, multicenter, open label, randomized, pragmatic, controlled trial designed to test this hypothesis. It will randomize 1028 B+ patients to continue with their usual LABA/LAMA combination prescribed by their attending physician or to begin fluticasone furoate (FF) 92μg/umeclidinium (UMEC) 55μg/vilanterol (VI) 22μg in a single inhaler q.d. for 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome will be the level of CC achieved. Secondary outcomes include the clinical important deterioration index (CID), annual rate of exacerbations, and FEV1. Exploratory objectives include the interaction of BEC and smoking status, all-cause mortality and proportion of patients on LABA/LAMA arm that switch therapy arms. Safety analysis include adverse events and incidence of pneumonia., Results: The first patient was recruited on February 29, 2024; results are expected in the first quarter of 2026., Conclusions: The ANTES B+ study is the first to: (1) explore the efficacy and safety of triple therapy in a population of B+ COPD patients and (2) use a composite index (CC) as the primary result of a COPD trial., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Real-world data assessing characteristics of patients with asthma initiating inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β 2 -agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) triple therapy in Japan are limited., Methods: Descriptive, observational study of patients with asthma aged ≥15 years newly initiating single- or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (SITT: fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI], SITT: indacaterol/glycopyrronium bromide/mometasone furoate [IND/GLY/MF] or MITT) or ICS/LABA using JMDC/Medical Data Vision (MDV) health insurance databases from February 2021-February 2022 (first prescription date: index date). Patients were assigned to three non-mutually exclusive cohorts: A) new FF/UMEC/VI initiators; B) new FF/UMEC/VI, IND/GLY/MF, or MITT initiators; C) new FF/UMEC/VI, IND/GLY/MF, MITT or ICS/LABA initiators as initial maintenance therapy (IMT). Patient characteristics were assessed descriptively for 12-months pre-treatment initiation (baseline period)., Results: Cohort A: among new FF/UMEC/VI initiators, 12.8% and 0.1% (JMDC) and 21.7% and 0.9% (MDV) of patients had ≥1 moderate and severe exacerbation; 52.0% (JMDC) and 79.2% (MDV) had ICS/LABA use. Cohort B: most patients initiated FF/UMEC/VI and IND/GLY/MF over MITT (JMDC: 91.3% vs 8.7%; MDV: 67.8% vs 32.2%), with fewer exacerbations and lower rescue medication use. Cohort C: a greater proportion of FF/UMEC/VI initiators as IMT experienced a moderate exacerbation at index versus ICS/LABA initiators as IMT (JMDC: 17.8% vs 10.7%; MDV: 8.0% vs 5.1%)., Conclusions: Patient characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups; SITT initiators had fewer exacerbations and lower rescue medication use than MITT initiators, represented by the greater proportion of IMT among SITT versus MITT initiators. Physicians may have prescribed triple over dual therapy as IMT in response to an exacerbation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest TO has received lecture fees from GSK K.K., Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co. Ltd, AstraZeneca K.K., Novartis Pharma K.K., and Teijin Healthcare Ltd. CM, RI, GR, KJR, SGN, LY, and MY are employees of GSK and may hold stocks/shares in GSK, or were at the time of the study. SGN is a PhD candidate at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Compared with multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT), single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) demonstrated improved lung function and meaningful improvements in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Assessment Test score. This real-world study compared the effectiveness of switching patients with COPD in England from MITT to once-daily SITT with FF/UMEC/VI by evaluating rates of COPD exacerbation, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and associated direct medical costs., Methods: Retrospective cohort pre-post study using linked primary care electronic health record and secondary care administrative datasets. Patients diagnosed with COPD at age ≥35 years, with smoking history, linkage to secondary care data and continuous GP registration for 12 months pre-switch and 6 months post-switch to FF/UMEC/VI were included. Index date was the first initiation of an FF/UMEC/VI prescription immediately following MITT use from 15 November 2017 to 30 September 2019. Baseline was 12 months prior to index, with outcomes assessed 6/12 months pre-switch and post-switch, and stratified by prior COPD exacerbation status., Results: We included 2533 patients (mean [SD] age: 71.1 [9.9] years; 52.1% male). In the 6 months post-switch, there were significant decreases in the proportion of patients experiencing ≥1 moderate-to-severe (36.2%-28.9%), moderate only (24.4%-19.8%) and severe only (15.4%-11.8%) COPD exacerbation (each, p<0.0001) compared with the 6 months pre-switch. As demonstrated by rate ratios, there were significant reductions in exacerbation rates of each severity overall (p<0.01) and among patients with prior exacerbations (p<0.0001). In the same period, there were significant decreases in the rate of each COPD-related HCRU and total COPD-related costs (-24.9%; p<0.0001)., Conclusion: Patients with COPD switching from MITT to once-daily SITT with FF/UMEC/VI in a primary care setting had significantly fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, and lower COPD-related HCRU and costs, in the 6 months post-switch compared with the 6 months pre-switch., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KJR, CC, RS and ASI are employed by and/or hold stocks/shares in GSK; ASI is also a part-time member of the McMaster University faculty. AC was an employee of and/or held stocks/shares in GSK at the time of study. RPW, LJC, OKIM and MS are employees of Adelphi Real World; Adelphi Real World received funds from GSK to conduct the analysis. VLB was an employee of Adelphi Real World at the time of study, and is now employed by, and holds stocks/shares in Bayer Plc. DMGH reports personal fees from Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, CSL Behring, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi. CFV has given presentations at symposia and/or served on scientific advisory boards sponsored by Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Grifols, GSK, Insmed, MedUpdate, Menarini, Novartis, Nuvaira, Roche and Sanofi., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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 β 2 -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 FEV 1 ], 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 FEV 1 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., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To assess patient characteristics of users and new initiators of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Germany., Patients and Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with COPD and ≥1 prescription for single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT; fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI] or beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol [BDP/GLY/FOR]) or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT), using data from the AOK PLUS German sickness fund (1 January 2015-31 December 2019). The index date was the first date of prescription for FF/UMEC/VI or BDP/GLY/FOR (SITT users), or the first date of overlap of inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting β 2 -agonist, and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (MITT users). Two cohorts were defined: the prevalent cohort included all identified triple therapy users; the incident cohort included patients newly initiating triple therapy for the first time (no prior use of MITT or SITT in the last 2 years). Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were assessed on the index date and during the 24-month pre-index period., Results: In total, 18,630 patients were identified as prevalent triple therapy users (MITT: 17,945; FF/UMEC/VI: 700; BDP/GLY/FOR: 908; non-mutually exclusive) and 2932 patients were identified as incident triple therapy initiators (MITT: 2246; FF/UMEC/VI: 311; BDP/GLY/FOR: 395; non-mutually exclusive). For both the prevalent and incident cohorts, more than two-thirds of patients experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the preceding 24 months; in both cohorts more BDP/GLY/FOR users experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation, compared with FF/UMEC/VI and MITT users. Overall, 97.9% of prevalent triple therapy users and 86.4% of incident triple therapy initiators received maintenance treatment in the 24-month pre-index period., Conclusion: In a real-world setting in Germany, triple therapy was most frequently used after maintenance therapy in patients with recent exacerbations, in line with current treatment recommendations., Competing Interests: Kai-Michael Beeh is a full-time employee of Insaf Respiratory Research Institute. He has received personal or institutional compensation for services on advisory boards or consulting for AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Elpen, GSK, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pohl Boskamp, Sanofi, sterna, and Zentiva, and compensation for speaker activities in scientific meetings supported by AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, ERT, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Pohl Boskamp, Sanofi, and Teva, all outside the submitted work. The institution has received compensation for design and performance of clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Parexel, Pearl Therapeutics, sterna, and Zentiva. Kieran J Rothnie, Jing Claussen, Chris Compton, and Afisi S Ismaila are employees of and/or hold stocks/shares in GSK. Afisi S Ismaila is also an unpaid part-time member of the McMaster University faculty. Alexandrosz Czira was an employee of GSK at the time of the study and now works for Gedeon Richter PLC. Fränce Hardtstock and Rachel K Knapp participated in this study as employees of Cytel/Ingress-Health. Cytel/Ingress-Health received funding from GSK to conduct the study. Thomas Wilke reports grants from GSK and Cytel/Ingress-Health during the conduct of the study and grants from Apontis, Janssen, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Thomas Wilke received honoraria and other financial support from Cytel Inc., which does studies with all major pharmaceutical companies. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 Beeh et al.)

Purpose: Relvar® (fluticasone furoate [FF]/vilanterol [VI]) is a once-daily inhaler with bronchodilator effect lasting 24 h. Our aim was to investigate the short- and long-term effects of FF/VI on exercise-induced asthma (EIA) in adolescents., Methods: Ninety-three adolescent asthmatics aged 12-18 years were referred for evaluation of EIA. Following a positive exercise challenge test (ECT), 22/44 were allocated to a single administration of salbutamol (400 μg) and 22/44 to FF/VI (92/22 μg) in a double-blind method. Thirty-five subjects were reassessed by repeat ECT 30-60 days of FF/VI., Results: Median FEV 1 change post-ECT at baseline was -22.8% predicted (interquartile range [IQR] -26.1 and -18.0) for salbutamol and -21.0 (IQR -30.7 and -16.8) for FF/VI. Following bronchodilator, FEV 1 improved similarly in both groups. Repeat ECT following 30-60 days of FF/VI resulted in negative ECT in 33/35 subjects; the median decrease in FEV 1 of these 35 subjects was 22.6% predicted (IQR 29-18) before, and 4.6% predicted (IQR 8.7-2.5) after 30-60 days of FF/VI treatment (p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: FF/VI is effective in reversing EIA after 15 min in adolescents and in protecting EIA after 30-60 days in adolescents. Larger studies are needed to assess the effect of FF/VI on EIA., (© 2021 Nordic Association for the Publication of BCPT (former Nordic Pharmacological Society). Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the relationship between short-term bronchodilator reversibility and longer-term response to bronchodilators is unclear. Here, we investigated whether the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators is associated with reversibility of airflow limitation in patients with COPD with a low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids., Methods: The double-blind, double-dummy EMAX trial randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once daily, or salmeterol 50 µg twice daily. Bronchodilator reversibility to salbutamol was measured once at screening and defined as an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL 10-30 min post salbutamol. Post hoc, fractional polynomial (FP) modelling was conducted using the degree of reversibility (mL) at screening as a continuous variable to investigate its relationship to mean change from baseline in trough FEV 1 and self-administered computerised-Transition Dyspnoea Index (SAC-TDI) at Week 24, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD (E-RS) at Weeks 21-24, and rescue medication use (puffs/day) over Weeks 1-24. Analyses were conducted across the full range of reversibility (-850-896 mL); however, results are presented for the range -100-400 mL because there were few participants with values outside this range., Results: The mean (standard deviation) reversibility was 130 mL (156) and the median was 113 mL; 625/2425 (26%) patients were reversible. There was a trend towards greater improvements in trough FEV 1 , SAC-TDI, E-RS and rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol with higher reversibility. Improvements in trough FEV 1 and reductions in rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol compared with either monotherapy across the range of reversibility. Greater improvements in SAC-TDI and E-RS total scores were observed with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in the middle of the reversibility range., Conclusions: FP analyses suggest that patients with higher levels of reversibility have greater improvements in lung function and symptoms in response to bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy across the full range of reversibility, suggesting that the dual bronchodilator umeclidinium/vilanterol may be an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of their level of reversibility., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

BACKGROUND: There is limited clinical trial and/or real-world evidence comparing differences among currently approved fixed-dose combination (FDC) long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) treatments. OBJECTIVE: To compare chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related and all-cause health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between COPD patients initiating tiotropium (TIO) + olodaterol (OLO) versus (a) other LAMA + LABA FDCs and (b) umeclidinium (UMEC) + vilanterol (VI), specifically. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, patients initiating fixed-dose LAMA + LABA therapy (earliest fill date = index date) between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2018, were identified using administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Patients were followed post-index for 1-12 months. Follow-up was censored at the earliest occurrence of index therapy discontinuation or switch, health plan disenrollment, study end date, or reaching the maximum 12-month allowed duration. Propensity score matching of 1:2 was used to balance differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts for each of the 2 comparisons. Annualized population averages of HCRU and costs were calculated for each cohort as [sum of visits (or costs) for all individuals during the follow-up period] ÷ [sum of follow-up on-treatment time for all individuals] × 365 days. RESULTS: After matching, compared with patients who initiated other LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI, patients who initiated TIO + OLO had 14.29% and 16.95% fewer mean annualized per-patient COPD-related emergency department (ED) visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 0.49 vs. 0.59, P = 0.005; vs. UMEC + VI: 0.48 vs. 0.56, P = 0.026) and 3.07% and 3.14% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 12.66 vs. 13.07, P = 0.016; vs. UMEC + VI: 12.62 vs. 13.02, P = 0.022), leading to 17.39% and 21.47% lower mean annualized per-patient COPD-related ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $289 vs. $368, P = 0.003; vs. UMEC + VI: $285 vs. $345, P = 0.027) and 4.56% and 5.67% lower mean annualized per-patient pharmacy spending (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $3,570 vs. $3,741, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $3,556 vs. $3,770, P < 0.001) in the follow-up period. Similarly, patients in the TIO + OLO cohort had 15.63% and 21.17% fewer mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 1.08 vs. 1.37, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: 1.08 vs. 1.28, P = 0.001), 8.29% fewer mean annualized per-patient outpatient visits (vs. UMEC + VI: 13.28 vs. 14.48, P = 0.031), 3.41% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 56.92 vs. 58.93, P = 0.028), 19.48% and 22.28% lower mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $755 vs. $971, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $749 vs. $930, P < 0.001), and 10.86% lower mean annualized per-patient outpatient setting costs (vs. UMEC + VI: $3,348 vs. $3,756, P = 0.050). There were no statistically significant differences for the other outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, differences in HCRU and costs were observed between FDC LAMA + LABAs, with patients initiating TIO + OLO having lower ED visits/costs, COPD-related pharmacy fills/costs, and all-cause pharmacy use and outpatient visits/costs than those initiating other FDC LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI specifically. The remaining HCRU and cost measures were not significantly different. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI; Ridgefield, CT). BIPI was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy, as well as intellectual property considerations. Palli is an employee of BIPI. Xie, Chastek, Elliott, and Bengtson are employees of Optum, which was contracted by BIPI to conduct this study. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. Part of the results of this study were accepted and presented at the 30th European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress (September 7-9, 2020; virtual).

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.

Background: In the Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler triple-therapy fluticasone furoate (FF), umeclidinium (UMEC), and vilanterol (VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations, with a similar safety profile., Research Question: Are trial outcomes with single-inhaler triple-therapy FF/UMEC/VI vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI affected by age in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations?, Study Design and Methods: IMPACT was a phase III, double-blind, 52-week trial. Patients ≥ 40 years of age with symptomatic COPD and ≥ 1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year were randomly assigned 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 μg, FF/VI 100/25 μg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg. End points assessed by age included annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline (CFB) in trough FEV 1 , proportion of St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders (≥ 4 units decrease from baseline in SGRQ total score), and safety., Results: The intention-to-treat population comprised 10,355 patients; 4,724 (46%), 4,225 (41%), and 1,406 (14%) were ≤ 64, 65 to 74, and ≥ 75 years of age, respectively. FF/UMEC/VI reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates vs FF/VI (% reduction [95% CI]: ≤ 64 years, 8% [-1 to 16]; P = .070; 65-74 years, 22% [14-29]; P < .001; ≥ 75 years, 18% [3-31]; P = .021) and vs UMEC/VI (≤ 64 years, 16% [7-25]; P = .002; 65-74 years, 33% [25-41]; P < .001; ≥ 75 years, 24% [6-38]; P = .012), with greatest rate reduction seen in the 65 to 74 and ≥ 75 years subgroups. Post hoc analyses of CFB in trough FEV 1 and proportion of SGRQ responders at week 52 were significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI than with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in all subgroups. No new safety signals were identified., Interpretation: FF/UMEC/VI reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations and improved lung function and health status vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI irrespective of age for most end points, with a similar safety profile., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02164513; URL: www.clinicaltrials.govCTT116855., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Despite inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting β 2 -agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy, 30-50% of patients with moderate or severe asthma remain inadequately controlled. We investigated the safety and efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate plus umeclidinium plus vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) compared with FF/VI., Methods: In this double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3A study (Clinical Study in Asthma Patients Receiving Triple Therapy in a Single Inhaler [CAPTAIN]), participants were recruited from 416 hospitals and primary care centres across 15 countries. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with inadequately controlled asthma (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ]-6 score of ≥1·5) despite ICS/LABA, a documented health-care contact or a documented temporary change in asthma therapy for treatment of acute asthma symptoms in the year before screening, pre-bronchodilator FEV 1 between 30% and less than 85% of predicted normal value, and reversibility (defined as an increase in FEV 1 of ≥12% and ≥200 mL in the 20-60 min after four inhalations of albuterol or salbutamol) at screening. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), via central based randomisation stratified by pre-study ICS dose at study entry, to once-daily FF/VI (100/25 μg or 200/25 μg) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 μg, 100/62·5/25 μg, 200/31·25/25 μg, or 200/62·5/25 μg) administered via Ellipta dry powder inhaler (Glaxo Operations UK, Hertfordshire, UK). Patients, investigators, and the funder were masked to treatment allocation. Endpoints assessed in the intention-to-treat population were change from baseline in clinic trough FEV 1 at week 24 (primary) and annualised moderate and/or severe asthma exacerbation rate (key secondary). Other secondary endpoints were change from baseline in clinic FEV 1 at 3 h post-dose, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and ACQ-7 total score, all at week 24. Change from baseline in Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Asthma total score at weeks 21-24 was also a secondary endpoint but is not reported here. Exploratory analyses of biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation on treatment response were also done. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02924688, and is now complete., Findings: Between Dec 16, 2016, and Aug 31, 2018, 5185 patients were screened and 2439 were recruited and randomly assigned to FF/VI (100/25 μg n=407; 200/25 μg n=406) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 μg n=405; 100/62·5/25 μg n=406; 200/31·25/25 μg n=404; 200/62·5/25 μg n=408), with three patients randomly assigned in error and not included in analyses. In the intention-to-treat population, 922 (38%) patients were men, the mean age was 53·2 years (SD 13·1) and body-mass index was 29·4 (6·6). Baseline demographics were generally similar across all treatment groups. The least squares mean improvement in FEV 1 change from baseline for FF/UMEC/VI 100/62·5/25 μg versus FF/VI 100/25 μg was 110 mL (95% CI 66-153; p<0·0001) and for 200/62·5/25 μg versus 200/25 μg was 92 mL (49-135; p<0·0001). Adding UMEC 31·25 μg to FF/VI produced similar improvements (FF/UMEC/VI 100/31·25/25 μg vs FF/VI 100/25 μg: 96 mL [52-139; p<0·0001]; and 200/31·25/25 μg vs 200/25 μg: 82 mL [39-125; p=0·0002]). These results were supported by the analysis of clinic FEV 1 at 3 h post-dose. Non-significant reductions in moderate and/or severe exacerbation rates were observed for FF/UMEC 62·5 μg/VI versus FF/VI (pooled analysis), with rates lower in FF 200 μg-containing versus FF 100 μg-containing treatment groups. All pooled treatment groups demonstrated mean improvements (decreases) in SGRQ total score at week 24 compared with baseline in excess of the minimal clinically important difference of 4 points; however, there were no differences between treatment groups. For mean change from baseline to week 24 in asthma control questionnaire-7 score, improvements (decreases) exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of 0·5 points were observed in all pooled treatment groups. Adding UMEC to FF/VI resulted in small, dose-related improvements compared with FF/VI (pooled analysis: FF/UMEC 31·25 μg/VI versus FF/VI, -0·06 (95% CI -0·12 to 0·01; p=0·094) FF/UMEC 62·5 μg/VI versus FF/VI, -0·09 (-0·16 to -0·02, p=0·0084). By contrast with adding UMEC, the effects of higher dose FF on clinic trough FEV 1 and annualised moderate and/or severe exacerbation rate were increased in patients with higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exhaled nitric oxide. Occurrence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups (patients with at least one event ranged from 210 [52%] to 258 [63%]), with the most commonly reported adverse events being nasopharyngitis (51 [13%]-63 [15%]), headache (19 [5%]-36 [9%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (13 [3%]-24 [6%]). The incidence of serious adverse events was similar across all groups (range 18 [4%]-25 [6%)). Three deaths occurred, of which one was considered to be related to study drug (pulmonary embolism in a patient in the FF/UMEC/VI 100/31·25/25 μg group)., Interpretation: In patients with uncontrolled moderate or severe asthma on ICS/LABA, adding UMEC improved lung function but did not lead to a significant reduction in moderate and/or severe exacerbations. For such patients, single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI is an effective treatment option with a favourable risk-benefit profile. Higher dose FF primarily reduced the rate of exacerbations, particularly in patients with raised biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation. Further confirmatory studies into the differentiating effect of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers on treatment outcomes in asthma are required to build on these exploratory findings and further guide clinical practice., Funding: GSK., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The Salford Lung Study (SLS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of initiating fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100/25 µg versus continuing usual care (UC) in patients with COPD and a history of exacerbations. Here, we investigate the impact of initiating FF/VI on healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) in SLS COPD., Methods: HRU and interventions were determined from patients' electronic health records. Annual rates of on-treatment all-cause and COPD-related secondary care contacts (SCCs) and primary care contacts (PCCs) for FF/VI versus UC were analysed using a general linear model. Costs were derived from national data sources., Results: Least-squares (LS) mean annual rates of all-cause (9.81 versus 9.36) and COPD-related (1.57 versus 1.48) SCCs were similar for FF/VI and UC, as were rates of all-cause hospitalisations (0.87 versus 0.82). Mean duration of hospital stay/patient was 4.5 and 4.2 days, respectively. COPD-related SCC mean total cost/patient was £484 FF/VI and £475 UC. LS mean annual rates of all-cause PCCs were significantly higher for FF/VI (21.20 versus 18.88 UC; p  < 0.001). LS mean annual rates of COPD-related PCCs were similar for FF/VI and UC (2.42 versus 2.46). All-cause PCC mean total cost/patient was £900 FF/VI versus £811 UC, but COPD-related PCC costs were similar (£116 versus £114). Direct COPD-related total medical costs/patient were significantly lower for FF/VI (LS geometric mean £806 versus £963 UC; p  < 0.001)., Discussion: In patients with COPD and exacerbation history, FF/VI may represent a less costly alternative to current therapies.GlaxoSmithKline plc. study HZC115151; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01551758. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Background: Triple therapy consisting of a drug association including an inhaled corticosteroid, a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist and a long-acting β2-adrenergic agonist, delivered via a single device, can be a valuable treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients experiencing frequent disease exacerbations., Objectives: The aim of this real-life, single-center, observational study was to evaluate, in 44 COPD patients with recurrent exacerbations, the effects of the triple inhaled therapy combining fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI)., Methods: Within such a therapeutic context, several clinical and lung functional parameters were considered at baseline and after 24 weeks of treatment with combined inhaled triple therapy., Results: With respect to baseline, after 24 weeks of treatment with FF/UMEC/VI, significant changes were recorded with regard to Modified British Medical Research Council (p < 0.0001) and COPD Assessment Test (p < 0.0001) scores, COPD exacerbations (p < 0.001), forced expiratory volume in the first second (p < 0.001), residual volume (p < 0.01), forced mid-expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of FVC (p < 0.0001), inspiratory capacity (p < 0.01), forced vital capacity (p < 0.05), and peak expiratory flow (p < 0.0001). Moreover, in a subgroup of 28 patients, a significant increase of diffusion lung capacity (p < 0.01) was also detected., Conclusions: In conclusion, our real-life results suggest that triple inhaled therapy with FF/UMEC/VI, when given to COPD patients with frequent exacerbations, is able to positively impact on dyspnea and global health status as well as to significantly decrease COPD exacerbations and improve airflow limitation and lung hyperinflation., (© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objectives: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is becoming a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in China. In the IMPACT trial, fluticasone furoate[FF]/umeclidinium[UMEC]/vilanterol[VI] single-inhaler triple therapy demonstrated lower rates of moderate/severe exacerbations than dual therapy with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations. This analysis investigates the China cohort and its consistency with the overall ITT population., Methods: 10,355 patients were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg for 52 weeks. Endpoints included: annual rates of exacerbations, time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation and change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) at Week-52. Clinical trial registration is NCT02164513 (CTT116855)., Results: 535 patients (5.2%) were from China. Annual on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rate was 0.81 with FF/UMEC/VI versus 0.96 with FF/VI (rate ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64, 1.11; p  = .227) and 0.80 with UMEC/VI (rate ratio: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.44; p  = .929). Hazard ratio for time-to-first moderate/severe exacerbation was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.11; p  = .218) for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.27; p  = .516) versus UMEC/VI. Significant improvements in mean change from baseline in trough FEV 1 were observed for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI (treatment difference 137 mL; 95% CI: 86, 188; p  < .001) and UMEC/VI (63 mL; 0, 125; p  = .050). Health status was improved with FF/UMEC/VI versus both dual therapies. Results were similar to the overall ITT population. No new safety signals were identified., Conclusions: Single-inhaler triple therapy with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI reduced the rate and risk of exacerbations, and improved lung function and health status in the China cohort similar to the overall ITT population. No new safety signals were identified.

Rationale: In the IMPACT (Informing the Pathway of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment) trial, fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) significantly reduced exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a history of exacerbations. Objectives: To understand whether inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) withdrawal affected IMPACT results, given direct transition from prior maintenance medication to study medication at randomization. Methods: Exacerbations and change from baseline in trough FEV 1 and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire results were analyzed by prior ICS use. Exacerbations were also analyzed while excluding data from the first 30 days. Measurements and Main Results: FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the annual moderate/severe exacerbation rate compared with UMEC/VI in prior ICS users (29% reduction; P  < 0.001), but only a numerical reduction was seen among prior ICS nonusers (12% reduction; P  = 0.115). To minimize impact from ICS withdrawal, in an analysis excluding the first 30 days, FF/UMEC/VI continued to significantly reduce the annual on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rate (19%; P  < 0.001) compared with UMEC/VI. The benefit of FF/UMEC/VI compared with UMEC/VI was seen for severe exacerbation rates, regardless of prior ICS use (prior ICS users, 35% reduction; P  < 0.001; non-ICS users, 35% reduction; P  = 0.018), and overall when excluding the first 30 days (29%; P  < 0.001). Improvements from baseline with FF/UMEC/VI compared with UMEC/VI were also maintained throughout the study for both trough FEV 1 and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, regardless of prior ICS use. Conclusions: These data support the important treatment effects of FF/UMEC/VI combination therapy on exacerbation reduction, lung function, and quality of life that do not appear to be related to abrupt ICS withdrawal.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02164513).

Objective: Creating an environment that supports conditions of routine clinical practice and enables an effectiveness trial design with a pre-licensed medicine is extremely challenging. Here, we summarise our experiences and achievements with engaging and mobilising community pharmacies in and around Salford, United Kingdom, in the Phase III effectiveness Salford Lung Studies (SLS)., Methods: This article provides the authors' personal experiences and viewpoints on community pharmacy involvement in the SLS., Key Findings: More than 130 community pharmacies were enabled, and >2500 pharmacy staff trained, for involvement in the SLS. Key to community pharmacy participation in the SLS was the formation of the SLS Pharmacy Steering Group (PSG), contributing to study oversight, and the development of a pharmacy standard operating procedure document, the major principle of which was to ensure minimum disruption to the normal medicine dispensing process while ensuring compliance with regulations, guidelines, good clinical practice and requirements for pharmacovigilance. The high level of commitment and collaboration of community pharmacy in the SLS demonstrated a willingness to work together and take on additional and novel roles beyond their everyday commercial functions for the benefit of patients, despite normally competing for prescription business., Conclusions: The involvement and integration of community pharmacy as a key partner in the SLS was pivotal in securing the delivery of these world-first clinical effectiveness studies. To our knowledge, this has not been previously achieved in a study of a pre-licensed maintenance therapy for a common disease in primary care., (© 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal Pharmaceutical Society.)

Background: This analysis of the IMPACT study assessed the cardiovascular (CV) safety of single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI dual therapy., Methods: IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg with FF/VI 100/25 mcg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. The inclusion criteria for the study were intentionally designed to permit the enrollment of patients with significant concurrent CV disease/risk. CV safety assessments included proportion of patients with and exposure-adjusted rates of on-treatment CV adverse events of special interest (CVAESI) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), as well as time-to-first (TTF) CVAESI, and TTF CVAESI resulting in hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death., Results: Baseline CV risk factors were similar across treatment groups. Overall, 68% of patients (n = 7012) had ≥1 CV risk factor and 40% (n = 4127) had ≥2. At baseline, 29% of patients reported a current/past cardiac disorder and 58% reported a current/past vascular disorder. The proportion of patients with on-treatment CVAESI was 11% for both FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI, and 10% for FF/VI. There was no statistical difference for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in TTF CVAESI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85, 1.11; p = 0.711 and HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.08; p = 0.317, respectively) nor TTF CVAESI leading to hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.51; p = 0.167 and HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.27; p = 0.760, respectively). On-treatment MACE occurred in ≤3% of patients across treatment groups, with similar prevalence and rates between treatments., Conclusions: In a symptomatic COPD population with a history of exacerbations and a high rate of CV disease/risk, the proportion of patients with CVAESI and MACE was 10-11% and 1-3%, respectively, across treatment arms, and the risk of CVAESI was low and similar across treatment arms. There was no statistically significant increased CV risk associated with the use of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI, and UMEC/VI versus FF/VI., Trial Registration: NCT02164513 (GSK study number CTT116855).

IMPACT, a 52-week, randomised, double-blind trial, assessed the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations.Subgroup analyses assessed whether the efficacy of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI versus FF/VI varies according to prior exacerbation history, and the combined effects of exacerbation history and blood eosinophil counts. Three subgroups were defined: single moderate (1 moderate/no severe; n=3056 (30%)), frequent moderate (≥2 moderate/no severe; n=4628 (45%)) and severe (≥1 severe/any moderate; n=2671 (26%)). End-points included annual on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rate (pre-specified), lung function and health status (both post-hoc).Moderate/severe exacerbation rates (reduction % (95% CI)) were reduced in the FF/UMEC/VI group versus FF/VI (single moderate 20% (10-29), frequent moderate 11% (2-19), severe 17% (7-26)) and versus UMEC/VI (single moderate 18% (5-29), frequent moderate 29% (21-37), severe 26% (14-35)). Moderate/severe exacerbation rates were reduced in the FF/VI group versus UMEC/VI in the frequent moderate subgroup; a numerical reduction was observed in the severe subgroup (single moderate 2% (-12-18), frequent moderate 21% (11-29), severe 11% (-3-22)). Moderate/severe exacerbation rates were lower in the FF/VI group compared with UMEC/VI in patients with higher eosinophil counts. FF/UMEC/VI improved lung function and health status versus both dual therapies irrespective of exacerbation subgroup. UMEC/VI improved lung function versus FF/VI in all subgroups.Triple therapy was more effective than dual regardless of exacerbation history, consistent with results in the intent-to-treat population. Comparisons between dual therapies were influenced by prior exacerbation history and eosinophil counts., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: D.M.G. Halpin reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M.T. Dransfield reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; grants from Department of Defense, personal fees and other from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees and other from GlaxoSmithKline, other from Novartis, personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, other from Yungjin, personal fees and other from PneumRx/BTG, other from Pulmonx, personal fees from Genentech, other from Boston Scientific, personal fees from Quark Pharmaceuticals, grants from NIH, personal fees from Mereo, grants from American Lung Association, grants from NIH, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M.K. Han reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, other from Novartis, other from Sunovion, personal fees from Mylan, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: E. Jones reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, other from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Kilbride reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, other from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: P. Lange reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Chiesi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D.A. Lipson reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, other from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D.A. Lomas reports personal fees and other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; grants from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees and other from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from Grifols, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: F.J. Martinez reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees and non-financial support from American College of Chest Physicians, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, non-financial support from ProterrixBio, personal fees from Columbia University, personal fees and non-financial support from ConCert, personal fees and non-financial support from Genentech, personal fees and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees and non-financial support from Inova Fairfax Health System, personal fees from Integritas, personal fees from MD Magazine, personal fees from Methodist Hospital Brooklyn, personal fees and non-financial support from Miller Communicatinos, personal fees and non-financial support from National Association for Continuing Education, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees from New York University, personal fees and non-financial support from Pearl Pharmaceuticals, personal fees and non-financial support from PeerView Communications, personal fees and non-financial support from Prime Communications, personal fees and non-financial support from Puerto Rican Respiratory Society, personal fees and non-financial support from Chiesi, personal fees and non-financial support from Sunovion, personal fees and non-financial support from Theravance, personal fees from UpToDate, personal fees from WebMD/MedScape, personal fees from Western Connecticut Health Network, other from Afferent/Merck, non-financial support from Gilead, non-financial support from Nitto, personal fees from Patara/Respivant, personal fees from PlatformIQ, personal fees and non-financial support from Potomac, other from Biogen, personal fees and non-financial support from University of Alabama Birmingham, other from Veracyte, non-financial support from Zambon, personal fees from American Thoracic Society, grants from NIH, personal fees and non-financial support from Physicians Education Resource, personal fees from Rockpointe, other from Prometic, personal fees from Rare Disease Healthcare Communications, other from Bayer, other from Bridge Biotherapeutics, personal fees and non-financial support from Canadian Respiratory Network, other from ProMedior, personal fees and non-financial support from Teva, personal fees from France Foundation, personal fees and non-financial support from Dartmouth, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Pascoe reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, other from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D. Singh reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees from Cipla, personal fees from Genentech, grants and personal fees from Glenmark, grants and personal fees from Menarini, grants and personal fees from Mundipharma, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Peptinnovate, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Pulmatrix, grants and personal fees from Therevance, grants and personal fees from Verona, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: R. Wise reports personal fees, non-financial support and other from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca / Medimmune / Pearl, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Contrafect, personal fees from Pulmonx, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Spiration, personal fees from Sunovion, grants from Pearl Therapeutics, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Circassia, personal fees from Pneuma, personal fees from Verona, personal fees from Mylan/Theravance, personal fees from Propeller Health, grants from Sanofi-Aventis, personal fees from AbbVie, grants and personal fees from GSK, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: G.J. Criner reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Almirall, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees from CSA Medical, personal fees from Eolo, personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from HGE Technologies, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Nuvaira, personal fees from Olympus, personal fees from Pulmonx, personal fees from Verona, personal fees from NGM Bio, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©ERS 2020.)

Objective : To investigate whether once-daily (OD) fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) provides greater long-term protection from postexercise fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) than twice-daily (BD) fluticasone propionate (FP) in patients with asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. Methods : A randomized, double-blind, crossover study was conducted in patients (aged 12-50 years) on low-/mid-dose maintenance inhaled corticosteroid. Following a 4-week run-in period (FP 250 µg BD), patients with a ≥ 20% decrease in postexercise FEV 1 received FF/VI 100/25 µg OD or FP 250 µg BD for 2 weeks. Exercise challenges were carried out 23 h after the first dose of study medication, and 12 and 23 h after evening clinic dose at the end of the 2-week treatment period. After a 2-week washout period (FP 250 µg), patients crossed over treatments, with procedures and tests repeated. The primary endpoint was mean maximal percentage decrease from pre-exercise FEV 1 following exercise challenge 12-h postevening dose on Day 14. Results: The mean maximal percentage decrease from pre-exercise FEV 1 after the 12-h exercise challenge (Day 14) was 15.02% with FF/VI, and 16.71% with FP (difference, -1.69; 95% confidence interval, -3.76 to 0.39; p = 0.109). After the 23-h exercise challenge (Day 14), respective mean maximal decreases were 11.90% and 14.05% (difference, -2.15; 95% confidence interval, -4.31 to 0.01). Conclusion: The study failed to show a difference between FF/VI and FP at providing long-term protection from exercise-induced bronchoconstriction.

Objectives: The Salford Lung Study in asthma (SLS asthma) is a 12-month, open-label randomised clinical trial comparing clinical effectiveness of initiating once-daily inhaled combination of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 184/22 mcg or 92/22 mcg, with continuing optimized usual care (UC) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, or in combination with a long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA), in asthmatic patients followed in primary care in the UK. The objective of the analysis is to estimate the economic impact of these results when applied in Spain., Methods: A 1-year cost-consequence model was populated with SLS asthma, adopting the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. 775,900 of diagnosed asthmatic patients ≥ 18 years old currently managed with UC in Spain were included in the analysis. Effectiveness data included the percentage of patients per Asthma Control Test (ACT) category at 24 and 52 weeks from SLS asthma. Direct costs (pharmacological and per ACT category) were estimated from Spanish public sources and literature (€, 2018). Base case analysis assumed an increased use of FF/VI from 10 to 20% within 1 year. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed., Results: Within the 775,900 asthmatic patients analysed, substitution of UC with FF/VI was associated with reduced costs due to ACT improvement, leading to potential total annual savings of €4,927,672. Sensitivity analyses ranged from €6,012,975 to €14,783,015 cost savings associated with FF/VI. An analysis considering patients only on ICS/LABA showed potential cost savings of €8,207,448., Conclusions: The improved asthma control for FF/VI compared with UC observed in SLS asthma could be translated into potential savings for the Spanish NHS. These results may be useful for decision makers.

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.

Background: The relationship between inhaled corticosteroids and bone mineral density (BMD) remains uncertain despite extensive research., Methods: This was an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 3-year noninferiority study. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (⩾40 years of age; smoking history ⩾10 pack years) and at least one native hip evaluable for BMD were enrolled and randomized 1:1, stratified by sex, to treatment with vilanterol (VI) 25 µg or fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100 µg/25 µg. BMD measurements were taken via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry every 6 months. The primary endpoint was assessment of the noninferiority of change from baseline in total hip BMD per year at the -1% noninferiority level. Change from baseline in BMD at the lumbar spine and BMD measurements by sex were secondary endpoints. Incidences of COPD exacerbations and bone fractures throughout the study were also recorded., Results: Of 283 randomized patients, 170 (60%) completed the study. Noninferiority was demonstrated for FF/VI versus VI with regards to change from baseline in total hip BMD per year, with changes of -0.27% and 0.18%, respectively, and a treatment difference of -0.46% per year [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.97 to 0.06]. The treatment difference for FF/VI versus VI regarding lumbar spine BMD was -0.51% per year (95% CI -1.11 to 0.10). COPD exacerbations and bone fracture rates were similar between treatment groups., Conclusion: FF/VI showed noninferiority to VI for change from baseline in total hip BMD per year, when assessed at the -1% noninferiority margin in a combined sample of men and women with COPD. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Background: Population pharmacokinetic methods were used to characterize the pharmacokinetics of fluticasone furoate (FF), umeclidinium (UMEC), and vilanterol (VI) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) when administered as a fixed-dose combination via a single closed inhaler., Methods: Plasma concentration data from three studies were analyzed using non-linear mixed-effects modeling in NONMEM ® ., Results: The pooled dataset consisted of 2948, 2589, and 3331 FF, UMEC, and VI observations from 714, 622, and 817 patients with COPD, respectively. There were 41%, 13%, and 21% of observations below the quantification limit for FF, UMEC, and VI, respectively. The pharmacokinetics of FF, UMEC, and VI were all adequately described by a two-compartment model with first-order absorption. The following covariates were statistically significant, but none were considered to be clinically relevant. For FF, Japanese heritage and FF/VI treatment on apparent inhaled clearance (CL/F) with FF CL/F 35% lower in patients of Japanese heritage across all treatments and FF CL/F 42% higher in patients with COPD following FF/VI administration. This is in line with the product label. For UMEC, weight, age, and smoking status on CL/F and weight on apparent volume of distribution (V2/F) with every 10% increase in age from 60 years of age leading to approximately a 6% decrease in UMEC CL/F and every 10% increase in weight from 70 kg leading to approximately a 6% increase in UMEC CL/F and approximately an 8% increase in UMEC V2/F. For a subject with COPD who smoked, UMEC CL/F was 28% higher. For VI, weight on CL/F and smoking status on V2/F with an approximately 4% increase in VI CL/F for every 10% increase in weight from 70 kg, and for a subject with COPD who smoked, VI V2/F was 46% higher. The majority of these covariates have been previously identified in historical analyses. None of these effects were clinically relevant in terms of systemic exposures and do not warrant dose adjustment., Conclusions: All FF, UMEC, and VI plasma concentrations were well interspersed with historical data and were all adequately described by a two-compartment model with first-order absorption. There were no clinically relevant differences in FF, UMEC, or VI systemic exposures when administered as FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI + UMEC, or the dual combinations FF/VI and/or UMEC/VI.

Objectives: The IMPACT trial has compared the benefit in the reduction of moderate/severe exacerbations of single inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus dual therapy with FF/VI (ICS/LABA) and UMEC/VI (LAMA/LABA) in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive disease (COPD). This study performs a subgroup analysis of the cohort from Spain in the IMPACT study., Materials and Methods: In IMPACT, a 52-week randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study ( N  = 10,355), patients ⩾40 years of age with COPD and ⩾1 moderate/severe exacerbations in the previous year were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg administered via the Ellipta inhaler. Here, we present a subgroup analysis of the 499 patients from Spain, included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population in the study. Endpoint assessed included exposure-adjusted rate of moderate and severe exacerbations., Results: In the Spain cohort, the exposure-adjusted rate of on-treatment moderate/severe COPD exacerbations per year for FF/UMEC/VI was 1.31 versus 1.43 and 1.57 for FF/VI and UMEC/VI, respectively. No new adverse events were identified. The results are consistent with those observed in the overall ITT study population., Conclusion: In the Spain cohort of the IMPACT study, patients receiving triple therapy with FF/UMEC/VI had a lower exposure-adjusted rate of exacerbations compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI, similar to the overall population. Study Title: A Phase III, 52 Week, Randomized, Double-blind, 3-arm Parallel Group Study, Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of the Fixed Dose Triple Combination FF/UMEC/VI With the Fixed Dose Dual Combinations of FF/VI and UMEC/VI, All Administered Once-daily in the Morning Via a Dry Powder Inhaler in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease URL : https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=CTT116855/ https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02164513 Registration number : GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513). The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Purpose: The Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) study demonstrated that single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduces moderate/severe exacerbation rates and improves lung function and health status versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI dual therapy in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations. This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI in patients enrolled in Japan., Patients and Methods: IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study comparing FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg with FF/VI 100/25 µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg in patients ≥40 years with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. Endpoints included annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations (primary endpoint), time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation and change from baseline at Week 52 in trough FEV 1 , post-bronchodilator FEV 1 , St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, and COPD Assessment Test score. Safety was also assessed., Results: The Japan subgroup accounted for only 4% (378/10,355) of the overall IMPACT intent-to-treat (ITT) population. In the Japan subgroup, FF/UMEC/VI reduced the annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations by 15% (95% CI: -20, 40) versus FF/VI (compared with 15% [10, 20] in the ITT) and 36% (95% CI: 6, 57) versus UMEC/VI (compared with 25% [19, 30] in the ITT). FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation risk (time-to-first), improved lung function and health status at Week 52 versus both dual therapies. These results were in the same direction and of a generally similar magnitude to those seen in the overall ITT population. No new safety signals were identified in the Japan subgroup compared with the ITT population. Pneumonia incidence was higher with FF/UMEC/VI and FF/VI versus UMEC/VI., Conclusion: These results highlight the favorable benefit-risk profile of FF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI dual therapy in patients in Japan with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 exacerbation in the prior year., Competing Interests: Motokazu Kato has received lecture honoraria from GSK, AstraZeneca, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis Pharma. Keisuke Tomii has received lecture honoraria from Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis Pharma, and Teijin Pharma. Kenichi Hashimoto, Takeo Ishii, C. Elaine Jones, Sally Kilbride, Annette S. Gross, Christine S. Clifton, and David A. Lipson are GSK employees and hold stock/shares in GSK. Yasuko Nezu is an employee of GSK. Ellipta is owned by or licensed to the GSK Group of Companies. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2019 Kato et al.)

Background: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Canadian public healthcare perspective, incorporating data from the IMPACT trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02164513)., Methods: Baseline inputs and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into the validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model. Canadian unit costs and drug costs (Canadian dollars [C$], 2017) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Analyses were probabilistic, and outputs included exacerbation rates, costs, and life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained., Results: Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a lifetime horizon, the analyses predicted that treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, more LYs and more QALYs gained, with a small incremental cost. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was C$18,989 (95% confidence interval [CI]: C$14,665, C$25,753) versus FF/VI and C$13,776 (95% CI: C$9787, C$19,448) versus UMEC/VI. FF/UMEC/VI remained cost-effective versus both FF/VI and UMEC/VI in all sensitivity analyses, including in scenario analyses that considered different intervention and comparator discontinuation rates, and treatment effects for subsequent therapy., Conclusion: Treatment with FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, in Canada., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following conflicts of interest during the last three years in relation to this article: A.S. Ismaila, M. Schroeder and A. Martin are employees of, and hold shares in, GlaxoSmithKline plc.; A.S. Ismaila is also an unpaid, part-time professor at McMaster University, Canada. E.C. Goodall is an employee of GlaxoSmithKline plc. N. Risebrough, D. Shah and K. Ndirangu are employees of ICON plc., which received funding from GlaxoSmithKline plc. to conduct this study, but were not themselves paid for development of this article. G. Criner reports grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline plc., Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Mereo, AstraZeneca, Pulmonx, PneumRx, Olympus, Broncus, Lungpacer, Mereo, Nuvaira, ResMed, Respironics and Patara, Pearl, and Sanofi, personal fees from Verona, BTG, EOLO and NGM, and grants from ALung, Fisher Paykel and Galapagos, outside the submitted work. M. Dransfield reports personal and other fees from GlaxoSmithKline plc. during the conduct of this study, and grants from Department of Defense, personal and other fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline plc., AstraZeneca and PneumRx/BTG, personal fees from Genentech, Quark Pharmaceuticals and Mereo, grants from NIH and American Lung Association and other fees from Novartis, Yungjin, Pulmonx and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. D.M.G. Halpin reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline plc. and Pfizer, and personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, outside the submitted work. M.L. Han reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline plc. during the conduct of this study, and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline plc., Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Mylan, and other fees from Novartis and Sunovion, outside of the submitted work. D.A. Lomas reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline plc. during the conduct of the study, and personal fees and grants from GlaxoSmithKline plc., and personal fees from Griffols, outside of the submitted work. D.A. Lomas also chaired the Respiratory Therapy Area Board at GlaxoSmithKline plc. between 2012 and 2015. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2019 Ismaila et al.)

Introduction : Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus long-acting β 2 -agonist (LABA) combinations are commonly used in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). At least four fixed-dose ICS/LABA combinations are available, including budesonide/formoterol, beclomethasone/formoterol, fluticasone/vilanterol and fluticasone/salmeterol, but there is little guidance for clinicians on which of these combinations to prescribe. Areas covered : The aim of this in-depth review was to identify studies that compared budesonide/formoterol with the other ICS/LABA combinations and assess the data on exacerbations, safety, and patient quality of life. PubMed and Ovid databases were searched, and 14 studies were identified. Our findings highlight the lack of prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing LABA/ICS combinations in the treatment of COPD as only two such studies were identified. However, current evidence suggests that the effects of budesonide/formoterol on reducing exacerbations and improving quality of life may be similar to, or more marked than, those of other LABA/ICS combinations in COPD and, compared with the other LABA/ICS combinations, budesonide/formoterol may be associated with a lower incidence of serious pneumonia events and oral candidiasis. Expert opinion : To better guide clinicians in selecting between the available ICS/LABA, robust meta-analyses and well-designed head-to-head clinical trials are urgently needed.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common respiratory disease that is predicted to be one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Pharmacologic treatment options of COPD are bronchodilators, using either long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs), or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), or a combination of two. Anoro Ellipta (umeclidinium + vilanterol) dry powder inhaler, a fixed-dose combination of LAMA and LABA, was Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in 2013 for COPD. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once daily umeclidinium/vilanterol (62.5 mcg/25 mcg) in COPD patients, focusing on pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics, efficacy and safety in clinical studies and cost. Literature search was done through PubMed (2004-2017) using the terms umeclidinium, vilanterol, COPD, LABA and LAMA. Recent and significant clinical trials about the monocomponents and their combination were identified, in addition to reviews, guidelines for COPD, data from manufacturer and FDA product labels. The search was limited to English language studies on human subjects. Clinical data published on the combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD have shown greater improvements in lung function compared to monotherapies. However, further studies comparing umeclidinium/vilanterol FDC (ANORO) to other LABA/LAMA combinations are needed., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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 μg once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5 μg once-daily or salmeterol 50 μg twice-daily. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) 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 FEV 1 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.

Background: This was the first real-world head-to-head study comparing inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β 2 -agonist fixed-dose combination treatments as maintenance therapy., Methods: Retrospective observational study including commercial, Medicare Advantage with Part D or Part D-only enrollees aged ≥40 years from the Optum Research Database. Patients initiated umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) or tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) between June 1, 2015 and November 30, 2016 (index date) with 12 months of pre- and post-index continuous enrollment. Outcomes were modeled following the inverse probability of treatment weighting. The primary endpoint, rescue medication use, was modeled using weighted ordinary least squares regression with bootstrapped variance estimation. Intent-to-treat analysis evaluated non-inferiority and superiority of UMEC/VI to TIO/OLO with thresholds of 0.30 and 0 units, respectively. On-treatment sensitivity analysis evaluated the superiority of UMEC/VI to TIO/OLO for rescue medication use. The secondary endpoint, medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC]≥80%), was evaluated using weighted logistic regression. Post hoc weighted Cox proportional hazards regression analysis evaluated escalation to multiple inhaler triple therapy (MITT)., Results: The study population included 14,324 patients; 9549 initiated UMEC/VI and 4775 initiated TIO/OLO. During the 12-month post-index period, UMEC/VI initiators used 0.16 fewer adjusted mean units of rescue medication than TIO/OLO initiators (95% CI: -0.28, -0.04), meeting pre-specified non-inferiority ( P <0.001) and superiority ( P =0.005) criteria; the on-treatment sensitivity analysis for superiority was not statistically significant. Significantly more UMEC/VI than TIO/OLO initiators (28.6% vs 22.7%; P <0.001) achieved a clinically meaningful level (PDC≥80%) of medication adherence. The adjusted risk of escalation to MITT was similar between treatment groups (HR=0.93; 95% CI: 0.81, 1.06; P =0.268)., Conclusion: UMEC/VI was superior to TIO/OLO for rescue medication use and UMEC/VI initiators had better medication adherence than TIO/OLO initiators. This study supports findings from a head-to-head trial that demonstrated significant, clinically meaningful improvements in lung function with UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO., Competing Interests: CM, BH, RR, and RHS are employees of GSK and hold stocks/shares in GSK. LGSB, EK, LL, and JT are employees of Optum. EK reports grant from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study. LS was an employee of Optum at the time of the study, which was contracted by GSK to conduct the study. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2019 Moretz et al.)

Introduction: Glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, is the only approved fixed-dose combination long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β 2 -agonist (LAMA/LABA) delivered via MDI. Direct comparisons of GFF MDI versus other LAMA/LABAs have not previously been performed. We assessed the efficacy and safety of GFF MDI relative to umeclidinium/vilanterol dry powder inhaler (UV DPI) in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)., Methods: In this phase IIIb randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, 24-week study, patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 μg (equivalent to glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate 14.4/10 μg; two inhalations per dose, twice-daily; n = 559) or UV DPI 62.5/25 μg (one inhalation, once-daily; n = 560). Primary endpoints were change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) and peak change from baseline in FEV 1 within 2 h post-dose, both over 24 weeks. Additional lung function, symptom and safety endpoints were also assessed., Results: For the primary endpoints, GFF MDI was non-inferior to UV DPI (using a margin of - 50 mL) for peak FEV 1 (least squares mean [LSM] difference - 3.4 mL, 97.5% confidence interval [CI] - 32.8, 25.9) but not for trough FEV 1 (LSM difference - 87.2 mL; - 117.0, - 57.4). GFF MDI was nominally superior to UV DPI for onset of action (p < 0.0001) and was nominally non-inferior to UV DPI for all symptom endpoints (Transition Dyspnea Index focal score, Early Morning/Night-Time Symptoms COPD instrument scores, and COPD Assessment Test score). Exacerbation and safety findings were similar between groups., Conclusions: Over 24 weeks of treatment, GFF MDI was non-inferior to UV DPI for peak FEV 1 , but not for morning pre-dose trough FEV 1 . GFF MDI had a faster onset of action versus UV DPI. There were no clinically meaningful differences between treatments in symptom endpoints. Both treatments were well tolerated with similar safety profiles., Trial Registration: NCT03162055 (Clinicaltrials.gov) FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

The term ultra-LABA indicates once-daily β2-AR agonists (abediterol, indacaterol, olodaterol and vilanterol) that are single enantiomers of the (R)-configuration. All have a near full-agonist profile at human β2-AR. They can be prescribed in asthmatics only when associated with an with ICS, although further confirmations need to clarify what really these agents add if used in association to ICS and in what asthmatic patients this association may have more value. They are also under development in triple inhalers that include an ultra-LABA, a LAMA and an ICS. The once-daily posology might increase adherence in long-term treatment of asthma but superiority to twice-daily LABAs has not yet been fully demonstrated. In any case, still no ultra-LABA can be recommended as preferred., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The Salford Lung Study in Asthma (SLS Asthma) was a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label trial that assessed initiating once-daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100 μg/25 μg or 200 μg/25 μg versus continuing usual care. A subgroup (n = 400) from SLS Asthma was enrolled in this exploratory, interview-based follow-up study. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected via questionnaires. The primary objective was to capture patient-centred outcomes (symptom experience, quality of life [QoL], disease management behaviours) and patient experience. Secondary objectives were to assess the correlation of patient-reported outcomes with pre-defined variables from SLS Asthma (Asthma Control Test [ACT] score). The follow-up sample was representative of the SLS Asthma population; half reported asthma improvement during the study. Breathlessness was the most likely symptom to improve (47.8% of patients reported improvement). Most patients reported 'no change' in overall QoL (57.5%) and daily life domains (functioning 66.3%, activities 68.3%, relationships 86.8%, psychological 68.5%). Functioning was reported as the most frequently improved domain (29.8% of patients). Perceived improvement in asthma control (42.5%) and confidence (37.3%) was frequent. ACT responders (defined as patients achieving an ACT score ≥20 and/or an increase of ≥3 in ACT score from baseline at Week 52) were more likely to report asthma improvement (88.7% of patients reporting 'a lot' of improvement) than non-responders. Patients' asthma experiences generally improved during SLS Asthma. Clinical improvements were often associated with perceived improvement by patients, particularly among ACT responders.

Background and Objective: Retrospective claims data in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) initiating maintenance therapy with inhaled fixed-dose combinations of long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β 2 -agonist (LAMA/LABA) versus inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA have not been reported., Methods: Retrospective observational study in a COPD-diagnosed population of commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D (MAPD) enrollees aged ≥40 years from a US health insurer database. Patients initiated umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI [62.5/25 µg]) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL [250/50 µg]) between April 1, 2014 and August 31, 2016 (index date) and had 12 months continuous enrollment pre- and post-index. Exclusion criteria included an asthma diagnosis in the pre-index period/index date; ICS-, LABA-, or LAMA-containing therapy during the pre-index period; or pharmacy fills for both UMEC/VI and FP/SAL, multiple-inhaler triple therapy, a non-index therapy, or COPD exacerbation on the index date. Adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] ≥80%) was modeled using weighted logistic regression following inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression following IPTW were performed for incidence of COPD exacerbation and escalation to multiple-inhaler triple therapy., Results: The study population included 5306 patients (1386 initiating UMEC/VI and 3920 initiating FP/SAL). Adjusted odds of adherence were 2.00 times greater among UMEC/VI than FP/SAL initiators (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.62─2.46; P <0.001). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for first exacerbation was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.74-1.01; P =0.067) among UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL initiators. UMEC/VI initiators had 35% lower adjusted risk of escalation to multiple-inhaler triple therapy (HR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47-0.89; P =0.008) versus FP/SAL. On-treatment, UMEC/VI initiators had an adjusted 30% reduced risk of a first moderate/severe COPD exacerbation (HR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54-0.90; P =0.006)., Conclusion: Patients with COPD initiating UMEC/VI had higher adherence and longer time before escalation to multiple-inhaler triple therapy than FP/SAL initiators., Competing Interests: CM, BH, RR, and RHS are employees of GSK and hold stocks/shares in GSK. LGSB, EK, LL, and JT are employees of Optum and LS was an employee of Optum at the time of the study, which was contracted by GSK to conduct the study. Employees of Optum were not paid for manuscript development. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.

The pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) after single and repeat dosing in healthy Chinese adults were assessed. In this open-label study (NCT02837380), subjects received once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg on day 1 and repeat doses on days 2-7. PK parameters (days 1 and 7) included maximum observed concentration (C max ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero (predose) to last time of quantifiable concentration (AUC 0-t ). Terminal phase half-life (t ½ ) on day 1 was estimated. The primary objective was to assess systemic exposure of FF 100 µg, UMEC 62.5 µg, and VI 25 µg following single-inhaler triple therapy on days 1 and 7. On day 1, geometric mean t ½ of UMEC and VI was 0.36 and 0.52 hours, respectively; t ½ of FF was not representative because of nonquantifiable concentration data. On days 1 and 7, geometric mean C max of FF was 10.46 and 27.32 pg/mL, respectively; C max of UMEC was 144.14 and 241.35 pg/mL, respectively; and C max of VI was 120.42 and 196.78 pg/mL, respectively. AUC 0-t of FF was 1.77 and 276.96 pg·h/mL, respectively; AUC 0-t of UMEC was 28.44 and 117.19 pg·h/mL, respectively; and AUC 0-t of VI, 42.46 and 101.12 pg·h/mL, respectively. The PK of FF/UMEC/VI was as expected for the individual-component PK previously reported in healthy Chinese adults. No new safety signals were observed., (© 2018, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Objective: Asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap (ACO) is of increasing interest because ACO patients have significantly worse outcomes, leading to greater social and economic burdens compared with asthma or COPD alone. Some guidelines for ACO recommend triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β2 agonists, and long-acting muscarinic antagonists. However, this approach is based on extrapolating data from patients with asthma or COPD alone. Therapeutic studies for ACO have not previously been conducted., Materials and Methods: A 12-week, randomized, open-label cross-over pilot study was conducted in 17 ACO patients to evaluate the effect of umeclidinium (UMEC) 62.5 µg once-daily added to fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 200/25 µg once-daily. A 4-week run-in, a first and a second 4-week treatment period were included. Respiratory function, respiratory impedance, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, COPD assessment test, and asthma control test scores were evaluated 0, 4, and 8 weeks after randomization., Results: Mean values of post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second as a percentage of the predicted value (%FEV 1 ), after UMEC was added to FF/VI, were significantly higher than after the run-in (p < 0.01). Mean values of resonant frequency during inspiration (Fres), after UMEC was added to FF/VI, were significantly lower than after the run-in (p < 0.01)., Conclusion: Adding UMEC to FF/VI provides greater improvement in lung function, indicating that triple therapy is a suitable regular treatment for ACO.

Objective: The Asthma Salford Lung Study demonstrated the effectiveness of initiating once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) versus continuing usual care in asthma patients in UK primary care [ 1 ]. Here, we report a secondary analysis in a subset of patients with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/Salm) as their baseline intended maintenance therapy, to evaluate the relative effectiveness of initiating FF/VI versus continuing FP/Salm., Methods: Adults with symptomatic asthma were randomised to initiate FF/VI 100[200]/25 µg or continue FP/Salm. The Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Asthma questionnaire, severe exacerbations, salbutamol inhaler prescriptions and serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded throughout the 12-month treatment period., Results: One thousand two hundred and sixty-four patients (FF/VI 646; FP/Salm 618) were included in this subset analysis; 978 had baseline ACT score <20 and were included in the primary effectiveness analysis (PEA) population. At week 24, odds of patients being ACT responders (total score ≥20 and/or improvement from baseline ≥3) were significantly higher with FF/VI versus FP/Salm (71% vs. 56%; odds ratio 2.03 [95% CI: 1.53, 2.68]; p < 0.001 [PEA]). Significant benefit with FF/VI versus FP/Salm was also observed for AQLQ responders, activity impairment due to asthma, exacerbation rates, and salbutamol inhalers prescribed. No significant between-group differences were observed for impairment while working or work absenteeism due to asthma., Conclusions: For patients in primary care, initiating FF/VI was significantly better than continuing with FP/Salm for improving asthma control and quality of life, and reducing asthma exacerbations, with no notable difference in SAEs. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01706198.

The use of inhaled, fixed-dose, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) combined with long-acting, beta 2 -adrenergic receptor agonists (LABA) has become a mainstay in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One of the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations is the dry powder inhaler (DPI) of umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) (62.5 µg/25 µg) approved for once-a-day maintenance treatment of COPD. This paper reviews the use of fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA agents focusing on the UMEC/VI DPI inhaler in the maintenance treatment of COPD. The fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA inhaler offers a step beyond a single inhaled maintenance agent but is still a single device for the COPD patient having frequent COPD exacerbations and persistent symptoms not well controlled on one agent. Currently available clinical trials suggest that the once-a-day DPI of UMEC/VI is well-tolerated, safe and non-inferior or better than other currently available inhaled fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations for COPD., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

The Salford Lung Study in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (SLS COPD) was a 12-month, Phase III, open-label, randomised study comparing the effectiveness and safety of initiating once-daily fluticasone furoate 100 µg/vilanterol 25 µg (FF/VI) with continuing usual care (UC). Follow-up interviews were conducted among a subset of 400 patients who completed SLS COPD to further understand patients' experiences with treatment outcomes and the impact of COPD, and potential risk factors associated with higher rates of exacerbations during SLS COPD. Another objective was to explore how such patient-centred outcomes differed by randomised treatment. Patients' perceived control over COPD and effects on quality of life (QoL) were similar between treatment groups at the time of the follow-up interview, but more patients in the FF/VI group compared with UC reported perceived improvements in COPD control and QoL during the study. Of patients who experienced ≥2 exacerbations during SLS COPD, a greater percentage were women, were unemployed or homemakers, or were on long-term sick leave. Having ≥2 exacerbations also appeared to be associated with smoking, seeing a hospital specialist, a feeling of having no/little control over COPD, perceived worsening of feelings of control and reduced overall QoL since the start of the study, being aware of impending exacerbation occurrence and a more severe last exacerbation. Initiation of FF/VI was associated with a greater perceived improvement in patients' control of their COPD and QoL throughout SLS COPD than continuation of UC. Suggestions that smoking status and feelings of control are potentially related to exacerbation require further investigation.

Rationale: Systemic levels of C reactive protein (CRP), surfactant protein D (SPD), fibrinogen, soluble receptor of activated glycogen end-product (sRAGE) and club cell protein 16 (CC-16) have been associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) outcomes. However, they require validation in different cohorts., Objectives: Relate systemic levels of those proteins to forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) decline, exacerbations, hospitalisations and mortality in COPD patients (FEV 1 of ≥50 and ≤70% predicted) and heightened cardiovascular risk in a substudy of the Study to Understand Mortality and MorbidITy trial., Methods: Participants were randomised to daily inhalations of placebo, vilanterol 25 µg (VI), fluticasone furoate 100 µg (FF) or their combination (VI 25/FF 100) and followed quarterly until 1000 deaths in the overall 16 485 participants occurred. Biomarker blood samples were available from 1673 patients. The FEV 1 decline (mL/year), COPD exacerbations, hospitalisations and death were determined. Associations between biomarker levels and outcomes were adjusted by age and gender., Results: Systemic levels of CC-16, CRP, sRAGE, SPD and fibrinogen did not relate to baseline FEV 1 , FEV 1 decline, exacerbations or hospitalisations. Fibrinogen and CRP were related to mortality over a median follow-up of 2.3 years. Only the CC-16 changed with study therapy (VI, FF and FF/VI, p<0.01) at 3 months., Conclusions: In COPD, systemic levels of CC-16, CRP, sRAGE, SPD and fibrinogen were not associated with FEV 1 decline, exacerbations or hospitalisations. These results cast doubts about the clinical usefulness of the systemic levels of these proteins as surrogate markers of these COPD outcomes. The study confirms that CRP and fibrinogen are associated with increased risk of death in patients with COPD., Trial Registration Number: NCT01313676., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Although efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) and budesonide/formoterol (BUD/F) have been demonstrated in clinical studies, real-world comparisons of utilization have not been performed., Objective: To compare similar patients with asthma initiating FF/VI or BUD/F on measures of adherence, persistence, and the asthma medication ratio (AMR)., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D enrollees initiating FF/VI or BUD/F for asthma. Adult patients (≥18 years) with at least 15-month (12-month preindex and 3-month postindex) continuous enrollment and 1 or more asthma diagnosis code were eligible for the study. Patients with a history of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β-agonist and other respiratory disorders (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, acute respiratory failure) in the baseline period were excluded. Propensity-score matching was used to balance cohorts on baseline characteristics. Logistic regression and Cox-proportional hazard models were used to assess differences., Results: A total of 9951 patients met all criteria. After propensity-score matching, 1725 patients were matched in each cohort. Subjects who initiated FF/VI had a significantly higher mean proportion of days covered (P < .001), had 86% greater odds of having a proportion of days covered value of greater than or equal to 0.80 (adjusted odds ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.51-2.30), 26% lower risk of discontinuation (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.79), and 36% greater odds of an AMR of greater than or equal to 0.50 (adjusted odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.23-1.50) compared with BUD/F., Conclusions: Adherence and treatment persistence were low in both cohorts; however, patients initiating once-daily FF/VI were more likely to be adherent, have an AMR of greater than or equal to 0.5, and were less likely to discontinue therapy compared with patients initiating twice-daily BUD/F (GlaxoSmithKline Study HO1617302/206482)., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)