Search

Salman H Siddiqui,1,2 Ian D Pavord,3,4 Neil C Barnes,5,6 Alessandro Guasconi,7 Sally Lettis,8 Steven Pascoe,9 Stefano Petruzzelli7 1University of Leicester, Leicester, UK; 2National Institute for Health Research Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK; 3Respiratory Theme, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 4Respiratory Medicine Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 5Glaxo Smith Kline, Brentford, London, UK; 6Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK; 7Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA, Parma, Italy; 8GSK, Uxbridge, London, UK; 9GSK, King of Prussia, PA, USA Background: Growing evidence suggests that blood eosinophil count is associated with patient responsiveness to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). We performed post hoc predictive modeling on data from the FORWARD study and two replicate studies by Dransfield, to evaluate the relationships between baseline eosinophil count and the effect of ICS on exacerbations and lung function in patients with COPD. Methods: The studies assessed ICS/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) combinations vs LABA alone. Using data from each study, we modeled COPD exacerbation rates, predose FEV1, and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score ([FORWARD only]) over a continuous range of eosinophils (0–1,000 eosinophils/µL in FORWARD, 0–993 eosinophils/µL in Dransfield). Results: In all studies, ICS/LABA reduced exacerbations versus LABA alone across all eosinophil levels, with progressively greater reductions at increasing baseline blood eosinophil counts. In FORWARD, annual exacerbation rates ranged from 0.78 to 0.83 per year between 0 and 1,000 eosinophils/µL in the ICS/LABA arm, and from 0.81 to 1.54 per year in the LABA-only arm. In the Dransfield studies, exacerbation rates ranged from 0.54 to 1.02 per year in the ICS/LABA arm between 0 and 993 eosinophils/µL, and from 0.56 to 1.75 per year in the LABA-only arm. Change in FEV1 was not associated with eosinophil count in ICS-treated patients in FORWARD, whereas an increased treatment benefit in terms of FEV1 was observed at higher eosinophil levels in the Dransfield studies. ICS/LABA led to greater improvements in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total scores compared to LABA alone in patients in FORWARD with ≥67 eosinophils/µL. Conclusion: Higher blood eosinophil count in patients with COPD is associated with an increased beneficial effect from ICS in terms of exacerbation reduction. Further prospective data are required to assess the role of blood eosinophils as a biomarker for therapeutic recommendations. Keywords: lung function, FEV1, COPD, ICS

David B Rubin,1 Harris A Ahmad,2 Michael O’Neal,2 Sophie Bennett,3 Sally Lettis,3 Dmitry V Galkin,1 Courtney Crim1 1Respiratory R&D, GSK, Research Triangle Park, NC, 2Medical Affairs, Medical Imaging and Biomarkers, BioClinica Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA; 3Statistics and Programming, GSK, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UK Background: Patients with COPD are at risk for life-threatening pneumonia. Although anatomical abnormalities in the thorax may predispose to pneumonia, those abnormalities identified on routine chest X-rays (CXRs) in patients with COPD have not been studied to better understand pneumonia risk. Methods: We conducted a post hoc exploratory analysis of data from two replicate year-long clinical trials assessing the impact of fluticasone furoate–vilanterol versus vilanterol alone on COPD exacerbations (GSK studies: HZC102871/NCT01009463 and HZC102970/NCT01017952). Abnormalities on baseline CXRs from 179 patients who developed pneumonia and 50 randomly selected patients who did not were identified by blinded consensus readings conducted by two radiologists. Positive and negative likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to evaluate the markers for subsequent pneumonia development during the 1-year study period. Results: Baseline characteristics distinguishing the pneumonia and non-pneumonia groups included a lower body mass index (24.9 vs 27.5 kg/m2, P=0.008), more severe airflow obstruction (mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]/forced vital capacity ratio: 42.3% vs 47.6%, P=0.003), and prior pneumonia (36% vs 20%, P=0.030). Baseline CXR findings with the highest diagnostic ORs were: elevated hemi-diaphragm (OR: 6.87; 95% CI: 0.90, 52.26), thick tracheal-esophageal stripe (OR: 4.39 [0.25, 78.22]), narrow cardiac silhouette (OR: 2.91 [0.85, 9.99]), calcified pleural plaque/mid-chest pleural thickening (OR: 2.82 [0.15, 53.76]), and large/prominent pulmonary artery shadow (OR: 1.94 [0.95, 3.97]). The presence of a narrow cardiac silhouette at baseline was associated with a statistically significant lower mean pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (P=0.040). There was also a trend for a lower mean pre-bronchodilator FEV1 in patients with a large/prominent pulmonary artery shadow at baseline (P=0.095). Conclusion: Findings on routine CXR that relate to pathophysiological mechanisms of pneumonia could help determine pneumonia risk in patients with COPD. Keywords: COPD, pneumonia, chest X-rays, predictors of risk

Background: Vilanterol (GW642444M) (VI) is a novel, inhaled, long-acting β(2) agonist with inherent 24-h activity under development as a once-daily combination therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid for COPD and asthma. This study assessed the dose response, efficacy, and safety of VI at doses of 3 to 50 μg in patients with moderate to severe COPD.Methods: Six hundred two patients (intent-to-treat) were randomized (double-blind) to VI 3, 6.25, 12.5, 25, or 50 μg or placebo once daily for 28 days. The primary end point was change from baseline in trough FEV1 at the end of the 28-day treatment period. Secondary end points included 0- to 24-h weighted mean FEV(1) on days 1 and 28 and time to increases of ≥ 100 mL or ≥ 12% from baseline FEV(1) on day 1. Safety assessments included adverse events, vital signs, ECG assessment, and clinical laboratory tests.Results: VI once daily for 28 days significantly improved trough FEV(1) in a dose-dependent manner vs placebo. Clinically relevant treatment differences of ≥ 130 mL in trough and 0- to 24-h weighted mean FEV(1) were observed with VI 25- and 50-μg doses vs placebo. All doses of VI were associated with a low incidence of treatment-related adverse events/serious adverse events, with no suggestion of effects on BP, pulse rate, QT intervals corrected for heart rate calculated by Fridericia formula, or blood glucose and potassium levels.Conclusions: VI 25 and 50 μg once daily provided both statistically and clinically relevant 24-h improvements in lung function in patients with COPD compared with placebo. All doses of VI had a safety and tolerability profile similar to placebo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most biologics for severe asthma target only type 2 immunity. Inhibition of IL-33 signaling has the potential to target type 2 and non-type 2 pathways., Objective: This multicenter phase IIA study evaluated the safety and efficacy of GSK3772847, a human mAb directed against the IL-33 receptor (IL-33R) in subjects with moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma., Methods: Adults with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β 2 -agonist therapy received equivalent replacement medication (open-label fluticasone propionate/salmeterol [500/50 μg, twice daily]) for 2 weeks before randomization at week 0. At weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12, participants were administered blinded placebo or 10 mg/kg of intravenous GSK3772847. At week 2, salmeterol was discontinued; thereafter, fluticasone propionate was titrated by approximately 50% on weeks 4, 6, 8, and 10. Asthma control was assessed until week 16. Participants with loss of asthma control discontinued treatment. The primary end point was loss of asthma control; secondary end points were the efficacy, safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of GSK3772847., Results: At week 16, 56 participants (81%) and 45 (66%) receiving placebo and GSK3772847, respectively, had loss of asthma control (an 18% reduction [95% credible interval = 2%-35%]). Early loss of asthma control prevented full analysis of the secondary efficacy end points after week 4. The most frequent classes of treatment-related adverse events were cardiac disorders (n = 3 [4%] in both groups) and musculoskeletal/connective tissue disorders (with GSK3772847, n = 3 [4%]; with placebo n = 0). Target engagement of IL-33R by GSK3772847 was demonstrated., Conclusion: Treatment with GSK3772847 may be beneficial for patients with uncontrolled asthma. Further studies are warranted., (© 2022 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.)

Discontinuation from randomised treatment is a common intercurrent event in clinical trials. When the target estimand uses a treatment policy strategy to deal with this intercurrent event, data after cessation of treatment is relevant to estimate the estimand and all efforts should be made to collect such data. Missing data may nevertheless occur due to participants withdrawing from the study and assumptions regarding the values for data that are missing are required for estimation. A missing-at-random assumption is commonly made in this setting, but it may not always be viewed as appropriate. Another potential approach is to assume missing values are similar to data collected after treatment discontinuation. This idea has been previously proposed in the context of recurrent event data. Here we extend this approach to time-to-event outcomes using the hazard function. We propose imputation models that allow for different hazard rates before and after treatment discontinuation and use the posttreatment discontinuation hazard to impute events for participants with missing follow-up periods due to study withdrawal. The imputation models are fitted as Andersen-Gill models. We illustrate the proposed methods with an example of a clinical trial in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Concerns have been raised about the practical use and clinical benefits of medications and inhalers in older patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here, we report analyses according to age from five clinical trials evaluating medications administered using the ELLIPTA dry-powder inhaler (DPI)., Methods: Efficacy and safety according to age groups (<65 and ≥65 years) were assessed using data from five clinical trials in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic COPD. There was a mix of pre-specified and post hoc analyses of two 24-week trials with fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 µg; one 24-week trial with umeclidinium (UMEC) 62.5 µg; and two 12-week trials with UMEC 62.5 µg + FF/VI 100/25 µg. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ) obtained 23 and 24 hours after dosing on the last day of the study., Results: A total of 2876 patients <65 years of age and 2148 patients ≥65 years of age were enrolled across all studies of whom 1333 and 1111 patients, respectively, received treatment at the doses presented. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful treatment differences in improvement from baseline in mean trough FEV 1 were reported for active comparators versus placebo at study end for both <65 and ≥65 years subgroups (FF/VI vs placebo: 143 mL and 111 mL; UMEC vs placebo: 110 mL and 123 mL; UMEC + FF/VI vs placebo + FF/VI: 136 mL and 105 mL; p<0.001 for all comparisons). The incidence of adverse events reported for active treatments was similar between age groups., Conclusion: These data provide evidence to support the use of FF/VI, UMEC, or UMEC + FF/VI, all delivered via the ELLIPTA DPI, to treat older (≥65 years) and younger (<65 years) patients with COPD., Competing Interests: NAH has received personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Regeneron, Genentech, Teva, Amgen, Sunovion, and Mylan for serving as an advisor or consultant. He also received grants research support from Gossamer Bio, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. TS, SL, CC, HP and IHB are employees of GSK and hold stock and shares in GSK. SC and DMM were employees of GSK at the time of the study and hold stock and shares in GSK. SC is currently an employee of Dermavant since April 2020. LT is a contingent worker on assignment at GSK. ELLIPTA is owned by/licensed to the GSK group of companies., (© 2021 Hanania et al.)

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

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

Introduction: Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a multicomponent measure for assessing disease worsening in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis investigated the prognostic value of a CID event on future clinical outcomes and the effect of single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy on reducing CID risk in patients in the IMPACT trial., Methods: IMPACT was a phase III, double-blind, 52-week, multicentre trial. Patients with symptomatic COPD and at least one moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomised 2:2:1 to fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg. CID at the time-point of interest was defined as a moderate/severe exacerbation, ≥100 mL decrease in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s or deterioration in health status (increase of ≥4.0 units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score or increase of ≥2.0 units in COPD Assessment Test score) from baseline. A treatment-independent post hoc prognostic analysis compared clinical outcomes up to week 52 in patients with/without a CID by week 28. A prospective analysis evaluated time to first CID with each treatment., Results: Patients with a CID by week 28 had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52 (all p<0.001), and increased risk of all-cause mortality after week 28 versus patients who were CID-free. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk versus dual therapies (all p<0.001)., Conclusions: Prevention of short-term disease worsening was associated with better long-term clinical outcomes. FF/UMEC/VI reduced CID risk versus dual therapies; this effect may improve long-term prognosis in this population., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: M.K. Han personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline, research support from Novartis and Sunovion, and personal fees from Mylan, Merck and Verona, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: G.J. Criner personal fees from Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, CSA Medical, Eolo Medical and GlaxoSmithKline, and ownership interest in HGE Health Care Solutions, and personal fees from Novartis, Nuvaira, Olympus, Pulmonx, Verona, Amgen, Broncus Medical, Gala Therapeutics, Helios Medical, Merck, Medtronic, Mereo BioPharma, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Philips Respironics, Respivant Sciences and The Implementation Group, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M.T. Dransfield grants from the Dept of Defense, personal fees and other support from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline, other support from Novartis, personal fees and other support from AstraZeneca, other support from Yungjin, personal fees and other support from PneumRx/BTG, other support from Pulmonx, personal fees from Genentech, other support from Boston Scientific, personal fees from Quark Pharmaceuticals, grants from NIH, personal fees from Mereo, and grants from the American Lung Association and the NIH, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D.M.G. Halpin reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees and nonfinancial support from GlaxoSmithKline, and personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C.E. Jones is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Kilbride is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: P. Lange personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi, and grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Lettis is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D.A. Lipson is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D.A. Lomas reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline and personal fees from Grifols, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: N. Martin is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: F.J. Martinez reports personal fees, nonfinancial support and other support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, nonfinancial support and other support from ProterrixBio, personal fees from Columbia University, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline and Inova Fairfax Health System, personal fees from MD Magazine and Methodist Hospital Brooklyn, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Miller Communications, the National Association for Continuing Education and Novartis, personal fees from New York University, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Pearl Pharmaceuticals, PeerView Communications, Prime Communications, the Puerto Rican Respiratory Society, Chiesi, Sunovion and Theravance, personal fees from UpToDate and WebMD/MedScape, other support from Afferent/Merck, nonfinancial support from Gilead and Nitto, personal fees and other support from Patara/Respivant, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Potomac, other support from Biogen, personal fees and nonfinancial support from the University of Alabama Birmingham, other support from Veracyte, nonfinancial support from Zambon, personal fees from the American Thoracic Society, grants from the NIH, personal fees and nonfinancial support from the Physicians Education Resource, personal fees from Rockpointe, other support from Prometic, personal fees from Rare Disease Healthcare Communications, other support from Bayer and Bridge Biotherapeutics, personal fees and nonfinancial support from the Canadian Respiratory Network, other support from ProMedior, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Teva, personal fees from the France Foundation, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Dartmouth, other support from Gala, and personal fees from the Physicians Education Resource, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: R.A. Wise reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca/Medimmune/Pearl and Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Contrafect, Pulmonx, Roche, Spiration and Sunovion, grants from Pearl Therapeutics, personal fees from Merck, Circassia, Pneuma, Verona, Mylan/Theravance and Propeller Health, grants from Sanofi-Aventis, personal fees from AbbVie, and grants and personal fees from GSK, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: I.P. Naya holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D. Singh reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi, personal fees from Cipla and Genentech, grants and personal fees from Glenmark, personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, grants and personal fees from Menarini and Mundipharma, personal fees from Peptinnovate, and grants and personal fees from Pfizer, Pulmatrix, Theravance and Verona, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©ERS 2021.)

Background: The InforMing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial demonstrated lower moderate/severe exacerbation rates with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations. Since IMPACT was a global study, post-hoc analyses were conducted by geographic region to investigate potential differences in overall findings., Methods: IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind trial. Patients with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25µg, FF/VI 100/25µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25µg. Endpoints assessed in the overall, Western Europe and North America populations included on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation (rates and time-to-first), trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score. Safety was assessed., Results: Overall, 10,355 patients were enrolled, 3164 from Western Europe, 2639 from North America. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in Western Europe (rate ratios 0.82 [95%CI 0.74-0.91], P <.001 and 0.76 [0.67-0.87], P <.001) and in North America (0.87 [0.77-0.97], P =.014 and 0.69 [0.60-0.80], P <.001). FF/UMEC/VI reduced time-to-first moderate/severe exacerbation and improved lung function versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in both regions, and improved SGRQ total score in Western Europe, but not North America. Safety profiles were generally similar between treatment groups/regions; the inhaled corticosteroid class effect of increased pneumonia incidence was seen in North America but not Western Europe., Conclusion: Consistent with intent-to-treat results, FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rate and risk and improved lung function in Western Europe and North America; however, between-regions differences were seen for SGRQ total score and pneumonia incidence., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02164513., Competing Interests: Editorial support (in the form of writing assistance, assembling figures, collating author comments, grammatical editing and referencing) was provided by Chrystelle Rasamison, Fishawack Indicia Ltd, United Kingdom, and was funded by GSK. A Bourdin was an investigator in the IMPACT trial and has received personal fees and a grant from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis and Sanofi-Regeneron, and is an investigator in clinical trials from Nuvaira, Pulmonx, Actelion, MSD, United Therapeutic, Vertex, Acceleron, and Galapagos. G Criner has received personal fees from Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, CSA Medical, Eolo, GSK, HGE Technologies, Novartis, Nuvaira, Olympus, Pulmonx, and Verona. G Devouassoux has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis Pharma, GSK, Chiesi, and Boehringer Ingelheim, and contracted clinical trial support from AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis Pharma, ALK, Chiesi, and Boehringer Ingelheim. M Dransfield has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, PneumRx/BTG, Genentech, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Mereo, AstraZeneca and GSK, a grant from the Department of Defense, and contracted clinical trial support from PneumRx/BTG, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Yungjin, Pulmonx, Boston Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, and GSK. DMG Halpin reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, and Pfizer, and non-financial support Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis. MK Han has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Mylan and GSK and research support from Novartis and Sunovion. CE Jones, S Lettis, DA Lipson, N Martin, H Quasny, and L Sail are GSK employees and hold stock/shares in GSK. R Kalhan reports grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from PneumRx (BTG), grants from Spiration, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from CVS Caremark, personal fees from Aptus Health, grants and personal fees from GSK, personal fees from Boston Scientific, and personal fees from Boston Consulting Group. P Lange reports personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi and Boehringer Ingelheim, and grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim. DA Lomas reports personal fees from GSK and Grifols; he chaired the GSK Respiratory Therapy Area Board in 2012–2015. JM Echave-Sustaeta María-Tomé has received personal fees from GSK and was an investigator in the IMPACT trial. FJ Martinez has received personal fees and non-financial support from, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GSK, Inova Fairfax Health System, Miller Communications, National Society for Continuing Education, Novartis, Pearl Pharmaceuticals, PeerView Communications, Prime Communications, Puerto Rico Respiratory Society, Chiesi, Sunovion, Theravance, Potomac, University of Alabama-Birmingham, Physicians Education Resource, Canadian Respiratory Network, Teva and Dartmouth; and personal fees from Columbia University, MD Magazine, Methodist Hospital Brooklyn, New York University, UpToDate, WebMD/MedScape, Patara/Respivant, the American Thoracic Society, Rockpointe, Rare Disease Healthcare Communications and the France Foundation, and has taken part in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, ProterrixBio, Genentech, Novartis, Pearl Pharmaceuticals, Theravance, Zambon, Gala, Chiesi, GSK, Sunovion, and Teva, steering committees for AstraZeneca, Pearl Pharmaceuticals, Afferent/Merck, Gilead, Nitto, Patara/Respivant, Biogen, Veracyte, Prometic, Bayer, ProMedior and GSK, and been an advisor for Bridge Biotherapeutics. TM Siler has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici, Compleware, Evidera (PPD), Forest Research Institute (now AstraZeneca), GSK, Novartis, Pearl Therapeutics, Proterix BioPharma, Oncocyte, Sanofi, Seer, Sunovion, Teva, Theravance BioPharma, Vapotherm, Restorbio and Westward, and personal fees from GSK, Sunovion, Theravance Biopharma and Vapotherm. D Singh reports personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Genentech, Glenmark, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Peptinnovate, Pfizer, Pulmatrix, Theravance, and Verona, and grant support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Glenmark, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pulmatrix, Theravance and Verona. B Thomashow has taken part in advisory boards for AstraZeneca and GSK. H Watz reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BerlinChemie, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Takeda, and Verona Pharma. R Wise reports personal fees from AstraZeneca/Medimmune/Pearl, Boehringer Ingelheim, Contrafect, Pulmonx, Roche, Spiration, Sunovion, Circassia, Pneuma, Verona, Mylan/Theravance, Propeller Health, AbbVie GSK, Merck, Kiniksa and Galderma, and has received research grants from AstraZeneca/MedImmune/Pearl, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pearl Therapeutics, Sanofi-Aventis and GSK. NA Hanania was an investigator on the IMPACT trial and reports receiving personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Regeneron, Genentech, Sunovion, and Mylan. He also received research support from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis and Astra Zeneca. ELLIPTA is owned by or licensed to the GSK Group of Companies., (JCOPDF © 2021.)

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).

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

Background: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at risk of exacerbations and pneumonia; how the risk factors interact is unclear., Methods: This post-hoc, pooled analysis included studies of COPD patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β 2 agonist (LABA) combinations and comparator arms of ICS, LABA, and/or placebo. Backward elimination via Cox's proportional hazards regression modelling evaluated which combination of risk factors best predicts time to first (a) pneumonia, and (b) moderate/severe COPD exacerbation., Results: Five studies contributed: NCT01009463, NCT01017952, NCT00144911, NCT00115492, and NCT00268216. Low body mass index (BMI), exacerbation history, worsening lung function (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage), and ICS treatment were identified as factors increasing pneumonia risk. BMI was the only pneumonia risk factor influenced by ICS treatment, with ICS further increasing risk for those with BMI <25 kg/m 2 . The modelled probability of pneumonia varied between 3 and 12% during the first year. Higher exacerbation risk was associated with a history of exacerbations, poorer lung function (GOLD stage), female sex and absence of ICS treatment. The influence of the other exacerbation risk factors was not modified by ICS treatment. Modelled probabilities of an exacerbation varied between 31 and 82% during the first year., Conclusions: The probability of an exacerbation was considerably higher than for pneumonia. ICS reduced exacerbations but did not influence the effect of risks associated with prior exacerbation history, GOLD stage, or female sex. The only identified risk factor for ICS-induced pneumonia was BMI <25 kg/m 2 . Analyses of this type may help the development of COPD risk equations.

Background: Previous studies have highlighted a relationship between reduction in rate of exacerbations with therapies containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and baseline blood eosinophil count in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The IMPACT trial showed that once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy significantly reduced exacerbations versus dual therapies. Blood eosinophil counts and smoking status could be important modifiers of treatment response to ICS. We aimed to model these relationships and their interactions, including outcomes other than exacerbations., Methods: IMPACT was a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, 52-week global study comparing once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate-umeclidinium-vilanterol) with dual inhaled therapy (fluticasone furoate-vilanterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol). Eligible patients had moderate-to-very-severe COPD and at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous year. We used fractional polynomials to model continuous blood eosinophil counts. We used negative binomial regression for numbers of moderate and severe exacerbations, severe exacerbations, and pneumonia. We modelled differences at week 52 in trough FEV 1 , St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and Transition Dyspnoea Index using repeated measurements mixed effect models. IMPACT was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02164513., Findings: The magnitude of benefit of regimens containing ICS (fluticasone furoate-umeclidinium-vilanterol n=4151 and fluticasone furoate-vilanterol n=4134) in reducing rates of moderate and severe exacerbations increased in proportion with blood eosinophil count, compared with a non-ICS dual long-acting bronchodilator (umeclidinium-vilanterol n=2070). The moderate and severe exacerbation rate ratio for triple therapy versus umeclidinium-vilanterol was 0·88 (95% CI 0·74 to 1·04) at blood eosinophil count less than 90 cells per μL and 0·56 (0·47 to 0·66) at counts of 310 cells per μL or more; the corresponding rate ratio for fluticasone furoate-vilanterol versus umeclidinium-vilanterol was 1·09 (0·91 to 1·29) and 0·56 (0·47 to 0·66), respectively. Similar results were observed for FEV 1 , Transition Dyspnoea Index, and SGRQ total score; however, the relationship with FEV 1 was less marked. At blood eosinophil counts less than 90 cells per μL and at counts of 310 cells per μL or more, the triple therapy versus umeclidinium-vilanterol treatment difference was 40 mL (95% CI 10 to 70) and 60 mL (20 to 100) for trough FEV 1 , -0·01 (-0·68 to 0·66) and 0·30 (-0·37 to 0·97) for Transition Dyspnoea Index score, and -0·01 (-1·81 to 1·78) and -2·78 (-4·64 to -0·92) for SGRQ total score, respectively. Smoking status modified the relationship between observed efficacy and blood eosinophil count for moderate or severe exacerbations, Transition Dyspnoea Index, and FEV 1 , with former smokers being more corticosteroid responsive at any eosinophil count than current smokers., Interpretation: This analysis of the IMPACT trial shows that assessment of blood eosinophil count and smoking status has the potential to optimise ICS use in clinical practice in patients with COPD and a history of exacerbations., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous disorder and patients respond differently to treatment. Blood eosinophils are a potential biomarker to stratify patient subsets for COPD therapy. We reviewed the value of blood eosinophils in predicting exacerbation risk and response to corticosteroid treatment in the available literature (PubMed articles in English; keywords: "COPD" and "eosinophil"; published prior to May 2017). Overall, clinical data suggest that in patients with a history of COPD exacerbations, a higher blood eosinophil count predicts an increased risk of future exacerbations and is associated with improved response to treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (in combination with long-acting bronchodilator[s]). Blood eosinophils are therefore a promising biomarker for phenotyping patients with COPD, although prospective studies are needed to assess blood eosinophils as a biomarker of corticosteroid response for this., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: Inhaled corticosteroids are important in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but can slightly increase the risk of pneumonia in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Patients with circulating eosinophil counts of 2% or more of blood leucocytes respond better to inhaled corticosteroids than do those with counts of less than 2% and it was therefore postulated that blood eosinophil count might also have an effect on the risk of pneumonia in patients with COPD. In this post-hoc meta-analysis, we investigate whether a 2% threshold can identify patients who differ in their risk of pneumonia, irrespective of inhaled corticosteroid treatment., Methods: From the GlaxoSmithKline trial registry, we selected randomised, double-blind, clinical trials of patients with COPD that had: inhaled corticosteroid arms (fluticasone propionate and salmeterol or fluticasone furoate and vilanterol); a control arm (not given inhaled fluticasone); and pre-randomisation measurements of blood eosinophil counts and were of at least 24 weeks in duration. With use of specified terms from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities we identified pneumonia adverse events in patient-level data. We calculated number of patients with pneumonia events, stratified by baseline blood eosinophil count (<2% vs ≥2% of blood leucocytes) and whether or not patients had received inhaled corticosteroids., Findings: We identified ten trials (conducted between 1998 and 2011), with eosinophil count data available for 10 861 patients with COPD. 4043 patients had baseline blood eosinophil counts of less than 2% and 6818 patients had baseline blood eosinophil counts of 2% or more. 149 (3·7%) patients with counts less than 2% had one or more pneumonia adverse events compared with 215 (3·2%) with counts of 2% or more (hazard ratio [HR] 1·31; 95% CI 1·06-1·62). In patients not treated with inhaled corticosteroids, 40 (3·8%) patients with less than 2% blood eosinophil counts had a pneumonia event versus 48 (2·4%) with 2% or more blood eosinophils (HR 1·53; 95% CI 1·01-2·31). In patients treated with inhaled corticosteroids, events occurred in 107 (4·5%) versus 164 (3·9%; HR 1·25; 95% CI 0·98-1·60), respectively., Interpretation: Using 2% baseline eosinophil count as a threshold, patients with COPD with lower blood eosinophil counts had more pneumonia events than did those with higher counts. The magnitude of this increased risk was small and should be further explored in large, prospective studies. These data should be considered when making treatment decisions, alongside existing evidence that patients with COPD and baseline blood eosinophil counts less than 2% have a poorer response to inhaled corticosteroids., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Product labels are intended to provide health care professionals with clear and concise prescribing information that will enhance the safe and effective use of drug products. In this manuscript, we offer suggestions to improve product labels. First, we recommend that product labels that include comparator data be changed to include adjusted incidence proportions (or adjusted incidence rates when needed and appropriate) for adverse drug reactions that are somewhat common. Second, we believe that including comparator incidence in product labels is a good practice, as it gives health care providers and patients appropriate information to put the absolute risks in perspective. Finally, we recommend changing the practice of reporting extremely rare events based on the "Rule of 3" in the Summary of Product Characteristics in Europe. We recommend that these adverse drug reactions be put in a separate table from other adverse drug reactions with a note that it is difficult to reliably estimate their incidences. In exceptional circumstances, it may be possible to present an estimate of their incidence based on postmarketing data. We believe the proposed changes could help product labels to better reflect the risk of a drug relative to a comparator.

Identification of a biomarker that predicts response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) would help evaluate the risk/benefit profile of ICS in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and guide treatment.The ISOLDE study randomised 751 patients (mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 1.4 L: 50% predicted normal) to fluticasone propionate 500 μg twice daily or placebo for 3 years, finding no difference in FEV1 rate of decline between treatments (p=0.16) and a significant reduction in median exacerbation rate with fluticasone propionate versus placebo (p=0.026). We re-analysed ISOLDE results by baseline blood eosinophil count to investigate whether eosinophil level predicts ICS benefit.Patients with eosinophils <2% (n=456) had a similar rate of post-bronchodilator FEV1 decline with fluticasone propionate as placebo (-2.9 mL·year(-1); p=0.688). With eosinophils ≥2% (n=214), the rate of decline decreased by 33.9 mL·year(-1) with fluticasone propionate versus placebo (p=0.003). Exacerbation rate reduction on ICS for fluticasone propionate versus placebo was higher in the eosinophil <2% group compared with the ≥2% group; time-to-first moderate/severe exacerbation was not different between treatments in either group.A baseline blood eosinophil count of ≥2% identifies a group of COPD patients with slower rates of decline in FEV1 when treated with ICS: prospective testing of this hypothesis is now warranted., (Copyright ©ERS 2016.)

Objective: We performed a review of studies of fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol (SAL) (combination inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)) in patients with COPD, which measured baseline (pretreatment) blood eosinophil levels, to test whether blood eosinophil levels ≥2% were associated with a greater reduction in exacerbation rates with ICS therapy., Methods: Three studies of ≥1-year duration met the inclusion criteria. Moderate and severe exacerbation rates were analysed according to baseline blood eosinophil levels (<2% vs ≥2%). At baseline, 57-75% of patients had ≥2% blood eosinophils. Changes in FEV1 and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores were compared by eosinophil level., Results: For patients with ≥2% eosinophils, FP/SAL was associated with significant reductions in exacerbation rates versus tiotropium (INSPIRE: n=719, rate ratio (RR)=0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.92, p=0.006) and versus placebo (TRISTAN: n=1049, RR=0.63, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.79, p<0.001). No significant difference was seen in the <2% eosinophil subgroup in either study (INSPIRE: n=550, RR=1.18, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.51, p=0.186; TRISTAN: n=354, RR=0.99, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.47, p=0.957, respectively). In SCO30002 (n=373), no significant effects were observed (FP or FP/SAL vs placebo). No relationship was observed in any study between eosinophil subgroup and treatment effect on FEV1 and SGRQ., Discussion: Baseline blood eosinophil levels may represent an informative marker for exacerbation reduction with ICS/LABA in patients with COPD and a history of moderate/severe exacerbations., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: Fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 mcg is a once-daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta2 agonist (LABA) treatment approved in the United States, Canada and Europe for the long-term maintenance therapy of COPD. We report data from mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) of once-daily FF/VI against established twice-daily ICS/LABA combination therapies on clinical efficacy outcomes., Methods: Data from 33 parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ICS/LABAs, of ≥8 weeks' duration in patients ≥12 years of age with COPD, identified by systematic review, were analysed using covariate-adjusted Bayesian hierarchical models for three efficacy outcomes. Lung function, assessed by change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), was the outcome of primary interest (n = 28 studies). Secondary objectives were assessment of annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations (n = 15) and patient-reported health status, measured by change from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total score (n = 20). Overall, 25 different treatments were included in the MTC; we report findings, including probabilities of non-inferiority, for comparisons of once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg with twice-daily fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol (SAL) 500/50 mcg and budesonide (BUD)/formoterol (FORM) 400/12 mcg., Results: For FEV1, FF/VI 100/25 mcg demonstrated >99% probability of non-inferiority to FP/SAL 500/50 mcg and BUD/FORM 400/12 mcg using a 50 mL margin. For annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, FF/VI 100/25 mcg demonstrated 73% and 77% probability of non-inferiority to FP/SAL 500/50 mcg and BUD/FORM 400/12 mcg, respectively, using a 10% rate ratio margin. For SGRQ Total score, the corresponding probabilities of non-inferiority were 99% and 98%, respectively, on a 2-unit margin. Significant covariate effects were identified: increased age was associated with deterioration in FEV1 and reduced exacerbation frequency; shorter study duration was associated with reduced exacerbation frequency., Conclusions: FF/VI 100/25 mcg was comparable with corresponding doses of FP/SAL and BUD/FORM on lung function and health status outcomes. Non-inferiority on moderate/severe exacerbation rate was not demonstrated to the same degree of confidence, though observed rates were similar. Model limitations include a weak treatment network for the exacerbation analysis and variability across the included studies. Our data support previous RCT findings suggesting that the efficacy of FF/VI 100/25 mcg on lung function and health status in COPD is comparable with twice-daily ICS/LABAs.

Rationale: Radiographically confirmed pneumonia risk with inhaled corticosteroid use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been assessed to date., Objectives: To determine the incidence of pneumonia, risk factors, and clinical attributes with inhaled fluticasone furoate (FF) in patients with COPD with an exacerbation history., Methods: Two replicate, 1-year, double-blind clinical trials enrolled subjects with COPD with moderate to very severe airflow limitation and at least one exacerbation within the prior year. Subjects were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive inhaled once-daily vilanterol (VI) 25 μg or VI 25 μg combined with 50, 100, or 200 μg FF. Subjects were required to have a chest radiograph at screening and within 48 hours of any suspected pneumonia or exacerbation., Measurements and Main Results: Among 3,255 randomized subjects, 205 pneumonia events occurred in 181 subjects. Chest imaging was available for 195 (95%) of these events. Chest radiographs were also obtained for 1,793 (70%) of the 2,545 moderate and severe exacerbations. For VI alone and the combination with 50, 100, or 200 μg FF, reported pneumonia incidence was 3, 6, 6, and 7%, respectively. However, for events with compatible parenchymal infiltrates, the respective incidences were 2, 4, 4, and 5%. Factors associated with at least a twofold increase in the risk of pneumonia with FF/VI treatment were being a current smoker, having prior pneumonia, body mass index <25 kg/m(2), and severe airflow limitation., Conclusions: Radiographically confirmed pneumonia risk is increased with inhaled FF/VI, although at less than investigator-defined rates. Modifiable pneumonia risk factors should be considered when attempting to optimize COPD management. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01009463 [HZC102871]; NCT01017952 [HZC102970]).

Background: Whether the combination of a once-daily inhaled corticosteroid with a once-daily longacting β(2) agonist is more protective than a once-daily longacting β(2) agonist alone against exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unknown. We hypothesised that fluticasone furoate and vilanterol would prevent more exacerbations than would vilanterol alone., Methods: We did two replicate double-blind parallel-group 1 year trials. Both studies began on Sept 25, 2009. Study 1 ended on Oct 31, 2011, and study 2 on Oct 17, 2011. Eligible patients were aged 40 years or older, had a history of COPD, a smoking history of 10 or more pack-years, a ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) to forced vital capacity of 0·70 or less after bronchodilators (and an FEV(1) of 70% or less of predicted), and a documented history of one or more moderate or severe disease exacerbations in the year before screening. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) on the basis of the Registration and Medication Ordering System to 25 μg vilanterol alone or 25 μg vilanterol combined with either 50 μg, 100 μg, or 200 μg fluticasone furoate once daily. Our primary endpoint was the yearly rate of moderate and severe exacerbations. The trials were analysed separately and a pooled analysis was also done. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01009463 and NCT01017952)., Findings: 1622 patients in study 1 and 1633 patients in study 2 were randomly assigned. In study 1, no significant difference in exacerbation rate was noted between the 200/25 μg fluticasone furoate/vilanterol group and the vilanterol only group (mean 0·90 events vs 1·05 events per year; ratio 0·9 [95% CI 0·7-1·0]). Because of the statistical hierarchy used, we could not infer significance for the 50 μg and 100 μg groups. In study 2, significantly fewer moderate and severe exacerbations were noted in all fluticasone furoate/vilanterol groups than in the vilanterol only group (p=0·0398 for the 50 μg group, 0·0244 for the 100 μg group, and 0·0004 for the 200 μg group). In the pooled analysis, significantly fewer moderate and severe exacerbations were noted in all fluticasone furoate/vilanterol groups than in the vilanterol only group (0·0141 for the 50 μg group, <0·0001 for the 100 μg group, and 0·0003 for the 200 μg group). Nasopharyngitis was the most frequently reported adverse event in both studies. Pneumonia and fractures were reported more frequently with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol than with vilanterol alone. Eight deaths from pneumonia were noted in the fluticasone furoate/vilanterol groups compared with none in the vilanterol only group., Interpretation: Addition of fluticasone furoate to vilanterol was associated with a decreased rate of moderate and severe exacerbations of COPD in patients with a history of exacerbation, but was also associated with an increased pneumonia risk., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Following the adoption of the ICH E2E guideline, risk management plans (RMP) defining the cumulative safety experience and identifying limitations in safety information are now required for marketing authorisation applications (MAA). A collaborative research project was conducted to gain experience with tools for presenting and evaluating data in the safety specification. This paper presents those tools found to be useful and the lessons learned from their use., Methods: Archive data from a successful MAA were utilised. Methods were assessed for demonstrating the extent of clinical safety experience, evaluating the sensitivity of the clinical trial data to detect treatment differences and identifying safety signals from adverse event and laboratory data to define the extent of safety knowledge with the drug., Results: The extent of clinical safety experience was demonstrated by plots of patient exposure over time. Adverse event data were presented using dot plots, which display the percentages of patients with the events of interest, the odds ratio, and 95% confidence interval. Power and confidence interval plots were utilised for evaluating the sensitivity of the clinical database to detect treatment differences. Box and whisker plots were used to display laboratory data., Conclusions: This project enabled us to identify new evidence-based methods for presenting and evaluating clinical safety data. These methods represent an advance in the way safety data from clinical trials can be analysed and presented. This project emphasises the importance of early and comprehensive planning of the safety package, including evaluation of the use of epidemiology data.

Troglitazone, a PPAR-gamma agonist, enhances the actions of insulin on muscle and liver. It is metabolized predominantly in the liver to a sulfate conjugate and a quinone metabolite. Acetaminophen also undergoes metabolism by conjugation. This three-way crossover study in 12 healthy male volunteers was conducted to investigate the effects of acetaminophen on the metabolism of troglitazone and vice versa. No statistically or clinically relevant differences in area under the concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUCinfinity) were observed for troglitazone, its quinone metabolite, or acetaminophen. A statistically significant decrease in troglitazone sulfate conjugate during administration with acetaminophen was not clinically relevant. No statistically or clinically relevant differences were observed in maximum concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax (tmax), or elimination half-life of troglitazone, its two main metabolites, and acetaminophen or in acetaminophen urinary sulfate excretion, although there was a slight decrease in acetaminophen glucuronide excretion during administration with troglitazone. Adverse events were minor and similar between treatments. These findings suggest that troglitazone and acetaminophen can be coadministered without adverse clinical consequences.

Troglitazone is a novel once-daily oral antidiabetic agent for the treatment of type 2 diabetes patients. Here, we report the overall dose response characteristics of troglitazone, with respect to effects on metabolic control, using a pharmacodynamic model. Data from week 12 from two previously reported double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging multicentre studies examining once-daily doses of 10, 30, 100, 200, 400, 600 and 800 mg of troglitazone were combined for the analyses. The pharmacodynamic relationships for relevant parameters of metabolic control were modelled using a nonlinear regression modelling programme. The troglitazone dose-concentration relationship was linear over 10-800 mg. Using an inhibitory sigmoid Emax model, ED50 values of approximately 100 mg and 200 mg were found for fasting serum glucose and triglycerides, respectively. The 200 mg dose for HbA1c showed an inconsistent reduction compared with placebo between the two studies; this illustrates the difficulties associated with comparing results from different assay techniques. Insulin and nonesterified fatty acid reductions compared with placebo were not consistent between studies, and no pharmacodynamic modelling was possible. No changes in body weight were observed at any dose. Troglitazone was as well tolerated as placebo across the dose range investigated. This pharmacodynamic analysis has established that 200-600 mg once daily can be considered the therapeutic dose range of troglitazone that significantly improves metabolic control in type 2 diabetes patients.