The Effect of ICS Withdrawal and Baseline Inhaled Treatment on Exacerbations in the IMPACT Study: A Randomized, Double-blind Multicenter Trial

RATIONALE: In the IMPACT trial fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/ vilanterol (FF/UMEC/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: 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 forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were analyzed by prior ICS use. Exacerbations were also analyzed excluding data from the first 30 days. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced annual moderate/severe exacerbation rate versus UMEC/VI in prior ICS users (29% reduction; p<0.001), but only a numerical reduction was seen among prior ICS non-users (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 annual on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rate (19%; p<0.001) versus UMEC/VI. Benefit of FF/UMEC/VI versus 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 versus UMEC/VI were also maintained throughout the study for both trough FEV1 and SGRQ regardless of prior ICS use. CONCLUSIONS: These data support important treatment effects from 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. FUNDING: GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513). Clinical trial registration available at www.clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT02164513. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Effect of Age on the Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Post Hoc Analysis of the IMPACT Trial

BACKGROUND: In the IMPACT trial, single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations, with a similar safety profile. Research Question Does age have an effect on trial outcomes? 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 prior year were randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg, FF/VI 100/25 mcg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg. Endpoints assessed by age included annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline (CFB) in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), proportion of St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders (≥4 units decrease from baseline in SGRQ total score) and safety. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 10,355 patients; 4724 (46%), 4225 (41%), and 1406 (14%) were ≤64, 65-74, and ≥75 years of age, respectively. FF/UMEC/VI reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI (% reduction [95% confidence interval (CI)], ≤64 years: 8% [-1, 16], p=0.070; 65-74 years: 22% [14, 29], p<0.001; ≥75 years 18% [3, 31], p=0.021) and versus UMEC/VI (≤64 years: 16% [7, 25], p=0.002; 65-74 years: 33% [25, 41], p<0.001; ≥75 years 24% [6, 38], p=0.012), with greatest rate reduction seen in the 65-74 and ≥75 years subgroups. Post hoc analyses of CFB in trough FEV1, and proportion of SGRQ responders at Week 52 were significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI than 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 versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI irrespective of age for most endpoints, with a similar safety profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513)

Prognostic value of clinically important deterioration in COPD: IMPACT trial analysis

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

Single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone furoate/vilanterol and umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD: results on cardiovascular safety from the IMPACT trial

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)

Reduction in All-Cause Mortality with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in COPD Patients

Rationale: The IMPACT trial demonstrated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (ACM) risk with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with COPD at risk of future exacerbations. 574 patients were censored from the original analysis due to incomplete vital status information. Objective: 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 100/62.5/25µg, FF/VI 100/25µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25µg 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%CI: 0.53,0.99;P=0.042) versus UMEC/VI and 0.89 (95%CI: 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. Funding: GSK(CTT116855/NCT02164513)

InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT Trial) Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol) Versus Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol and Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients With COPD: Analysis o the Western Europe and North America Regions

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a lung disease characterized by airflow limitation and progressive respiratory symptoms.1 Global public health trends estimate that the COPD burden will continue to rise, with COPD deaths estimated to increase to 4.4% of all deaths in Europe and 6.3% in the World Health Organization-defined region of the Americas by 2060.2 There are differences in the COPD burden in different regions reflecting variations in etiology,3,4 disease severity,5 symptoms,6 medication use,7 and health care systems and utilization.7 These differences may help inform therapeutic strategies to optimize therapeutic approaches to reducing symptoms and exacerbation risk.1 In the global InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function and health-related quality of life versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI dual therapy in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations.8 Within trial populations, regional differences such as patient characteristics, treatment patterns, access to care and cultural/socioeconomic factors may dictate treatment choices and influence disease severity and progression in particular geographical locations. For example, a meta-analysis conducted in 2015 comprising 123 studies between 1990 and 2010 found that the overall prevalence of COPD as well as the rate of increase was higher in the Americas (including both North and South America) compared with Europe.9 Furthermore, a cross-sectional study assessing the burden of COPD symptoms in the United States and Europe found variations between patients across countries who had experienced at least 1 symptom of COPD.10 In Europe, patients with more frequent symptoms were more likely to experience worsening of symptoms and unexpected hospitalization. Whereas in the United States, patients with more frequent symptoms were not only more likely to experience worsening of symptoms but also longer lasting symptoms and a longer length of exacerbations.10 A further difference was that treatment adherence was higher in the United States than Europe, however, adherence was consistent across patients in Europe when assessed by modified Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2014 groups11 but varied in the United States with adherence highest in the GOLD Group C and lowest in Group A.10 Therefore, it is important to evaluate how overall population results pertain to patients treated in particular regions. As IMPACT is one of the largest trials conducted in patients with COPD to date, we have the unique opportunity to analyze study outcomes in patients enrolled in Western Europe and North America, the 2 main regions from an enrollment perspective

Improving lung health in low-income and middle-income countries: from challenges to solutions

Low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) bear a disproportionately high burden of the global morbidity and mortality caused by chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs), including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, and post-tuberculosis lung disease. CRDs are strongly associated with poverty, infectious diseases, and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and contribute to complex multi-morbidity, with major consequences for the lives and livelihoods of those affected. The relevance of CRDs to health and socioeconomic wellbeing is expected to increase in the decades ahead, as life expectancies rise and the competing risks of early childhood mortality and infectious diseases plateau. As such, the World Health Organization has identified the prevention and control of NCDs as an urgent development issue and essential to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. In this Review, we focus on CRDs in LMICs. We discuss the early life origins of CRDs; challenges in their prevention, diagnosis, and management in LMICs; and pathways to solutions to achieve true universal health coverage

Network analysis of sea turtle movements and connectivity: A tool for conservation prioritization

This is the final version. Available on open access from Wiley via the DOI in this recordData availability statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available in the Supplementary Material of this article and Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5898578). Details for all animals included in this study are provided in Appendices S1 and S2. Data used to create the spatial networks are listed in the Appendices S3 and S4. The geospatial files for all networks are available on the Migratory Connectivity in the Ocean Project website (https://mico.eco) and Dryad (https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.j3tx95xg9). Additional data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.Aim Understanding the spatial ecology of animal movements is a critical element in conserving long-lived, highly mobile marine species. Analyzing networks developed from movements of six sea turtle species reveals marine connectivity and can help prioritize conservation efforts. Location Global. Methods We collated telemetry data from 1235 individuals and reviewed the literature to determine our dataset's representativeness. We used the telemetry data to develop spatial networks at different scales to examine areas, connections, and their geographic arrangement. We used graph theory metrics to compare networks across regions and species and to identify the role of important areas and connections. Results Relevant literature and citations for data used in this study had very little overlap. Network analysis showed that sampling effort influenced network structure, and the arrangement of areas and connections for most networks was complex. However, important areas and connections identified by graph theory metrics can be different than areas of high data density. For the global network, marine regions in the Mediterranean had high closeness, while links with high betweenness among marine regions in the South Atlantic were critical for maintaining connectivity. Comparisons among species-specific networks showed that functional connectivity was related to movement ecology, resulting in networks composed of different areas and links. Main conclusions Network analysis identified the structure and functional connectivity of the sea turtles in our sample at multiple scales. These network characteristics could help guide the coordination of management strategies for wide-ranging animals throughout their geographic extent. Most networks had complex structures that can contribute to greater robustness but may be more difficult to manage changes when compared to simpler forms. Area-based conservation measures would benefit sea turtle populations when directed toward areas with high closeness dominating network function. Promoting seascape connectivity of links with high betweenness would decrease network vulnerability.International Climate Initiative (IKI)German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU