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

InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial: fibrinogen levels predict risk of moderate or severe exacerbations

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: NCT0216451

Effect of chronic mucus hypersecretion on treatment responses to inhaled therapies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Post hoc analysis of the IMPACT trial.

This is the final version. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT: Anonymized individual participant data and study documents can be requested for further research from www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com.BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Chronic mucus hypersecretion (CMH) is a clinical phenotype of COPD. This exploratory post hoc analysis assessed relationship between CMH status and treatment response in IMPACT. METHODS: Patients were randomized to once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 μg, FF/VI 100/25 μg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg and designated CMH+ if they scored 1/2 in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) questions 1 and 2. Endpoints assessed by baseline CMH status included on-treatment exacerbation rates, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second, SGRQ total score, COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score, proportion of SGRQ and CAT responders at Week 52 and safety. RESULTS: Of 10,355 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 10,250 reported baseline SGRQ data (CMH+: 62% [n = 6383]). FF/UMEC/VI significantly (p < 0.001) reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in CMH+ (rate ratio: 0.87 and 0.72) and CMH- patients (0.82 and 0.80). FF/UMEC/VI significantly (p < 0.05) reduced on-treatment severe exacerbation rates versus UMEC/VI in CMH+ (0.62) and CMH- (0.74) subgroups. Similar improvements in health status and lung function with FF/UMEC/VI were observed, regardless of CMH status. In CMH+ patients, FF/VI significantly (p < 0.001) reduced on-treatment moderate/severe and severe exacerbation rates versus UMEC/VI (0.83 and 0.70). CONCLUSION: FF/UMEC/VI had a favourable benefit: risk profile versus dual therapies irrespective of CMH status. The presence of CMH did not influence treatment response or exacerbations, lung function and/or health status. However, CMH did generate differences when dual therapies were compared and the impact of CMH should be considered in future trial design.GlaxoSmithKleinNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC

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)

Role of the mesoamygdaloid dopamine projection in emotional learning

Amygdala dopamine is crucially involved in the acquisition of Pavlovian associations, as measured via conditioned approach to the location of the unconditioned stimulus (US). However, learning begins before skeletomotor output, so this study assessed whether amygdala dopamine is also involved in earlier 'emotional' learning. A variant of the conditioned reinforcement (CR) procedure was validated where training was restricted to curtail the development of selective conditioned approach to the US location, and effects of amygdala dopamine manipulations before training or later CR testing assessed. Experiment 1a presented a light paired (CS+ group) or unpaired (CS- group) with a US. There were 1, 2 or 10 sessions, 4 trials per session. Then, the US was removed, and two novel levers presented. One lever (CR+) presented the light, and lever pressing was recorded. Experiment 1b also included a tone stimulus. Experiment 2 applied intra-amygdala R(+) 7-OH-DPAT (10 nmol/1.0 A mu l/side) before two training sessions (Experiment 2a) or a CR session (Experiment 2b). For Experiments 1a and 1b, the CS+ group preferred the CR+ lever across all sessions. Conditioned alcove approach during 1 or 2 training sessions or associated CR tests was low and nonspecific. In Experiment 2a, R(+) 7-OH-DPAT before training greatly diminished lever pressing during a subsequent CR test, preferentially on the CR+ lever. For Experiment 2b, R(+) 7-OH-DPAT infusions before the CR test also reduced lever pressing. Manipulations of amygdala dopamine impact the earliest stage of learning in which emotional reactions may be most prevalent

Mortality risk and serious cardiopulmonary events in moderate-to-severe COPD: Post hoc analysis of the IMPACT trial.

This is the final version. Available from COPD Foundation via the DOI in this record. BACKGROUND: In the InforMing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF) /umeclidinium (UMEC) /vilanterol (VI) significantly reduced severe exacerbation rates and all-cause mortality (ACM) risk versus UMEC/VI among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This post hoc analysis aimed to define the risk of ACM during and following a moderate/severe exacerbation, and further determine the benefit-risk profile of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI using a cardiopulmonary composite adverse event (AE) endpoint. METHODS: The 52-week, double-blind IMPACT trial randomized patients with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 exacerbation in the prior year 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25mcg, FF/VI 100/25mcg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25mcg. Post hoc endpoints included the risk of ACM during, 1-90 and 91-365 days post moderate or severe exacerbation and time-to-first cardiopulmonary composite event. RESULTS: Of the 10,355 patients included, 5034 (49%) experienced moderate/severe exacerbations. Risk of ACM was significantly increased during a severe exacerbation event compared with baseline (hazard ratio [HR]: 41.22 [95% confidence interval (CI) 26.49-64.15]; p<0.001) but not significantly different at 1-90 days post-severe exacerbation (HR: 2.13 [95% CI: 0.86-5.29]; p=0.102). Moderate exacerbations did not significantly increase the risk of ACM during or after an exacerbation. Cardiopulmonary composite events occurred in 647 (16%), 636 (15%), and 356 (17%) patients receiving FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI, and UMEC/VI, respectively; FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced cardiopulmonary composite event risk versus UMEC/VI by 16.5% (95% CI: 5.0-26.7; p=0.006). CONCLUSION: Results confirm a substantial mortality risk during severe exacerbations, and an underlying CV risk. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the risk of a composite cardiopulmonary AE versus UMEC/VI.GlaxoSmithKlineGlaxoSmithKlin

Suitability of PSA-detected localised prostate cancers for focal therapy: Experience from the ProtecT study

This article is available through a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Copyright @ 2011 Cancer Research UK.Background: Contemporary screening for prostate cancer frequently identifies small volume, low-grade lesions. Some clinicians have advocated focal prostatic ablation as an alternative to more aggressive interventions to manage these lesions. To identify which patients might benefit from focal ablative techniques, we analysed the surgical specimens of a large sample of population-detected men undergoing radical prostatectomy as part of a randomised clinical trial. Methods: Surgical specimens from 525 men who underwent prostatectomy within the ProtecT study were analysed to determine tumour volume, location and grade. These findings were compared with information available in the biopsy specimen to examine whether focal therapy could be provided appropriately. Results: Solitary cancers were found in prostatectomy specimens from 19% (100 out of 525) of men. In addition, 73 out of 425 (17%) men had multiple cancers with a solitary significant tumour focus. Thus, 173 out of 525 (33%) men had tumours potentially suitable for focal therapy. The majority of these were small, well-differentiated lesions that appeared to be pathologically insignificant (38–66%). Criteria used to select patients for focal prostatic ablation underestimated the cancer's significance in 26% (34 out of 130) of men and resulted in overtreatment in more than half. Only 18% (24 out of 130) of men presumed eligible for focal therapy, actually had significant solitary lesions. Conclusion: Focal therapy appears inappropriate for the majority of men presenting with prostate-specific antigen-detected localised prostate cancer. Unifocal prostate cancers suitable for focal ablation are difficult to identify pre-operatively using biopsy alone. Most lesions meeting criteria for focal ablation were either more aggressive than expected or posed little threat of progression.National Institute for Health Researc