Efficacy and optimal dosing interval of the long-acting beta2 agonist, vilanterol, in persistent asthma: A randomised trial

SummaryBackgroundVilanterol (VI) is a novel once-daily long-acting beta2 agonist with inherent 24-h activity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of three once-daily doses and one twice-daily dose of VI used concurrently with ICS in adult patients (≥18 years) with persistent asthma. Safety was also assessed.MethodsMulticentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, five-period crossover study consisting of 7-day treatment periods separated by 7-day wash-out periods. Seventy-five patients, maintained on ICS, received VI 6.25, 12.5 and 25 mcg once-daily (evening), VI 6.25 mcg twice-daily (morning/evening), and placebo. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (mean of 23 h and 24 h post evening dose) on Day 7; secondary endpoint was weighted mean 24-h serial FEV1 on Day 7.ResultsAll VI groups demonstrated statistically significant increases in trough FEV1 versus placebo (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant increase in weighted mean 24-h FEV1 for each VI group versus placebo (p < 0.001). The effects of once-daily VI on trough FEV1 and weighted mean 24-h FEV1 were dose dependent. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was low in each VI treatment group and was not dose dependent (5–9%; placebo = 18%); no drug-related AEs or serious AEs were reported.ConclusionOnce-daily treatment with VI was well tolerated and associated with improvements in lung function. The VI 6.25 mcg twice-daily dose showed the greatest change in trough FEV1, however, similar changes in weighted mean 24-h FEV1 with VI 12.5 mcg once-daily were observed. Although our study was not powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of once- versus twice-daily dosing of VI, the data suggest no advantage over a 24-h period of twice-daily over once-daily dosing for the same total daily dose.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00980200

INTREPID:single- versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy for COPD in usual clinical practice

INTRODUCTION: Real-world trial data comparing single- with multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in COPD patients are currently lacking. The effectiveness of once-daily single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) and MITT were compared in usual clinical care. METHODS: INTREPID was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase IV effectiveness study comparing FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg via the ELLIPTA inhaler with a clinician's choice of any approved non-ELLIPTA MITT in usual COPD clinical practice in five European countries. Primary end-point was proportion of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) responders (≥2-unit decrease in CAT score from baseline) at week 24. Secondary end-points in a subpopulation included change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) and percentage of patients making at least one critical error in inhalation technique at week 24. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: 3092 patients were included (FF/UMEC/VI n=1545; MITT n=1547). The proportion of CAT responders at week 24 was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13–1.51; p<0.001) and mean change from baseline in FEV(1) was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI (77 mL versus 28 mL; treatment difference 50 mL, 95% CI 26–73 mL; p<0.001). The percentage of patients with at least one critical error in inhalation technique was low in both groups (FF/UMEC/VI 6%; non-ELLIPTA MITT 3%). Safety profiles, including incidence of pneumonia serious adverse events, were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In a usual clinical care setting, treatment with once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI resulted in significantly more patients gaining health status improvement and greater lung function improvement versus non-ELLIPTA MITT

Outcome reporting across randomized trials and observational studies evaluating treatments for twin–twin transfusion syndrome: systematic review

Objective Twin–twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Potential treatments for the condition require robust evaluation. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcome reporting across observational studies and randomized controlled trials assessing treatments for TTTS. Methods Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from inception to August 2016. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials reporting outcome following treatment for TTTS in monochorionic–diamniotic twin pregnancy and monochorionic–triamniotic or dichorionic–triamniotic triplet pregnancy were included. Outcome reporting was systematically extracted and categorized. Results Six randomized trials and 94 observational studies were included, reporting data from 20 071 maternal participants and 3199 children. Six different treatments were evaluated. Included studies reported 62 different outcomes, including six fetal, seven offspring mortality, 25 neonatal, six early childhood and 18 maternal/operative outcomes. Outcomes were reported inconsistently across trials. For example, when considering offspring mortality, 31 (31%) studies reported live birth, 31 (31%) reported intrauterine death, 49 (49%) reported neonatal mortality and 17 (17%) reported perinatal mortality. Four (4%) studies reported respiratory distress syndrome. Only 19 (19%) studies were designed for long‐term follow‐up and 11 (11%) of these reported cerebral palsy. Conclusions Studies evaluating treatments for TTTS have often neglected to report clinically important outcomes, especially neonatal morbidity outcomes, and most are not designed for long‐term follow‐up. The development of a core outcome set could help standardize outcome collection and reporting in TTTS studies. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Comparative adherence and persistence of single- and multiple-inhaler triple therapies among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in an English real-world primary care setting.

This is the final version. Available from Dove Press via the DOI in this record. Data Sharing Statement: The data analyzed in this publication are derived from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (www.cprd.com) and Hospital Episode Statistics database (https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/hospital-episodestatistics). Authors had access to the study data for the purposes of this work only. Data were accessed through an existing GSK license to address the prespecified research questions only. Therefore, the data cannot be broadly disclosed or made publicly available at this time. Access to each database can be requested via the respective websites.PURPOSE: Triple therapy comprising a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, long-acting β2-agonist and inhaled corticosteroid is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who continue to experience frequent exacerbations or symptoms whilst receiving dual therapy. Adherence and persistence to multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) is known to be poor. This study assessed comparative adherence to single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) versus MITT in a real-world setting in England. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using linked primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum) and secondary care (Hospital Episode Statistics [HES] Admitted Patient Care) data to identify patients with COPD who were newly initiated on SITT or MITT between November 2017 and June 2019. Eligible patients were aged ≥35 years and had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity 30 days between the end of a prescription and the following refill used to determine non-persistence. RESULTS: Overall, 4080 SITT and 6579 MITT users comprised the study cohort. After weighting, the baseline characteristics between the cohorts were comparable (absolute standardized mean difference <10%). SITT users had significantly higher adherence than MITT users at 6, 12, and 18 months post-initiation (p<0.001 for all comparisons). Median persistence was higher among SITT users than MITT users (5.09 months vs 0.99 months). CONCLUSION: Patients with COPD in England initiating SITT had significantly better adherence and persistence compared with MITT initiators. These improvements continued at least 18 months following treatment initiation.GlaxoSmithKlei