Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (100/25; 200/25 μg) improves lung function in COPD: a randomised trial.

SummaryBackgroundOnce-daily combination treatment is an attractive maintenance therapy for COPD. However, the dose of inhaled corticosteroid to use in a once-daily combination is unknown. We compared two strengths of fluticasone furoate (FF) plus vilanterol (VI), the same strengths of the individual components, and placebo.MethodsMulticentre, randomised, 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in stable, moderate-to-severe COPD subjects (N = 1224). Subjects were randomised to FF/VI (200/25 μg; 100/25 μg), FF (200 μg; 100 μg), VI 25 μg, or placebo, once daily in the morning. Co-primary efficacy endpoints; 0–4 h weighted mean (wm) FEV1 on day 168, and change from baseline in trough (23–24 h post-dose) FEV1 on day 169. The primary safety objective was adverse events (AEs).ResultsThere was a statistically significant (p < 0.001) increase in wm FEV1 (209 ml) and trough FEV1 (131 ml) for FF/VI 200/25 μg vs. placebo; similar changes were seen for FF/VI 100/25 μg vs. placebo. Whereas the difference between FF/VI 200/25 μg and VI 25 μg in change from baseline trough FEV1 (32 ml) was not statistically significant (p = 0.224), the difference between FF/VI 200/25 μg and FF 200 μg for wm FEV1 (168 ml) was significantly different (p < 0.001). VI 25 μg significantly improved wm and trough FEV1 vs. placebo (209 ml and 131 ml, respectively). No increase was seen in on-treatment AEs or serious AEs (SAEs), with active therapy vs. placebo.ConclusionsFF/VI provides rapid and significant sustained improvement in FEV1 in subjects with moderate-to-severe COPD, which was not influenced by the dose of FF. These data suggest that FF/VI may offer clinical efficacy in COPD and warrants additional study.GSK study number: HZC112207.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01054885

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)

Magnitude of umeclidinium/vilanterol lung function effect depends on monotherapy responses:Results from two randomised controlled trials

AbstractPurposeDual therapy with bronchodilators of different pharmacological classes may produce greater lung function improvements than either drug alone. However, the relationship between a patient's response to monotherapy and response to dual bronchodilator therapy is currently unknown. We aimed to investigate whether dual therapy with umeclidinium/vilanterol provides additional benefit over umeclidinium or vilanterol monotherapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) identified as responsive (increase from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1s [FEV1] of ≥12% and ≥200 mL, Day 1) or non-responsive to monotherapy.MethodsIn two randomised, double-blind, three-way complete-block, cross-over studies (DB2116132 n = 207; DB2116133 n = 182; intent-to-treat), all patients (moderate-to-very severe COPD) were randomised to 1 of 6 sequences and received once-daily umeclidinium 62.5mcg, vilanterol 25mcg, and umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25mcg (one treatment/14-day period; 10–14-day washout). Key endpoints were 0–6 h weighted mean FEV1 (Day 14) and trough FEV1 (Day 15). Adverse events, vital signs and COPD exacerbations were assessed. Pooled data are presented.ResultsUmeclidinium/vilanterol significantly (p ≤ 0.001, unless stated otherwise) increased 0–6 h weighted mean FEV1 versus umeclidinium in umeclidinium-responders (+114 mL), versus vilanterol in vilanterol-responders (+92 mL) and versus umeclidinium (+70 mL) and vilanterol (+62 mL) in non-responders. Improvements in trough FEV1 occurred with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium in umeclidinium-responders (+77 mL), versus vilanterol in vilanterol-responders (+86 mL), and versus umeclidinium (+42 mL [p = 0.020]) and vilanterol (+58 mL) in non-responders. All treatments were well tolerated.ConclusionsOnce-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly improved lung function in patients with COPD, with quantitatively greater improvements in patients identified as responders to umeclidinium and vilanterol monotherapy than non-responders

Efficacy of FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with COPD: subgroup analysis of the Spain cohort in IMPACT

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