Alison Church

Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium plus vilanterol versus tiotropium, vilanterol, or umeclidinium monotherapies over 24 weeks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from two multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND Combination long-acting bronchodilator treatment might be more effective than long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC) plus vilanterol (VI) with tiotropium (TIO) monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, or VI monotherapy in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. METHODS In two multicentre, randomised, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, active-controlled trials, eligible patients (current or former smokers aged 40 years or older with an established clinical history of COPD) were randomly assigned in 1:1:1:1 ratio to UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, TIO 18 μg, and either VI 25 μg (study 1) or UMEC 125 μg (study 2). All study drugs were used once daily for 24 weeks. TIO was delivered via the HandiHaler inhaler and all other active treatments were delivered via the ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler. Random assignment (by a validated computer-based system) was done by centre and was not stratified. All patients and physicians were masked to assigned treatment during the studies. The primary efficacy endpoint of both studies was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 169, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Both studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01316900 (study 1) and NCT01316913 (study 2). FINDINGS 1141 participants were recruited in study 1, and 1191 in study 2. For study 1, after exclusions, 208, 209, 214, and 212 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, VI monotherapy, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, and UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, respectively. For study 2, 215, 222, 215, and 217 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, and UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, respectively. In both studies, we noted improvements in trough FEV1 on day 169 for both doses of UMEC plus VI compared with TIO monotherapy (study 1, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·088 L [95% CI 0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; study 1, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·141; p=0·0006]; study 2, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·074 L [0·025 to 0·123; p=0·0031]; study 2, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·060 L [0·010 to 0·109; nominal p=0·0182]). Both doses of UMEC plus VI also improved trough FEV1 compared with VI monotherapy (UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·088 L [0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·142; p=0·0006], but not compared with UMEC 125 μg monotherapy (UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·037 L [-0·012 to 0·087; p=0·14]; UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·022 L [-0·027 to 0·072; p=0·38]). All treatments produced improvements in dyspnoea and health-related quality of life; we noted no significant differences in symptoms, health status, or risk of exacerbation between UMEC plus VI and TIO. The most common on-treatment, severe-intensity adverse event in both studies was acute exacerbation of COPD (1-4 [<1-2%] patients across treatment groups in study 1 and 1-6 [<1-3%] patients in study 2). We recorded five to 15 (2-7%) on-treatment serious adverse events across treatment groups in study 1, and nine to 22 (4-10%) in study 2. We noted no substantial changes from baseline in vital signs, clinical laboratory findings, or electrocardiography findings in any of the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION Combination treatment with once-daily UMEC plus VI improved lung function compared with VI monotherapy and TIO monotherapy in patients with COPD. Overall our results suggest that the combination of UMEC plus VI could be beneficial for the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline.

Once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 mcg in COPD: a randomized, controlled study.

BACKGROUND Combination long-acting bronchodilator therapy may be more effective than long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 125/25 mcg with placebo and UMEC or VI monotherapy in COPD. METHODS This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. A total of 1493 patients were randomized (3:3:3:2) to 24 weeks of treatment with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg, UMEC 125 mcg, VI 25 mcg, or placebo once-daily via dry powder inhaler. RESULTS Primary efficacy endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) on Day 169 (23-24 h post-dose). Additional lung-function, symptomatic and health-related quality of life endpoints were also assessed. Safety evaluations included: adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiography and clinical laboratory measurements. All active treatments significantly improved trough FEV1 vs placebo (0.124-0.238 L, all p<0.001). Improvements with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg were significantly greater than for UMEC 125 mcg or VI 25 mcg (0.079 L and 0.114 L; both p≤0.001). Improvements for UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg vs placebo were observed for the transition dyspnea index (1.0 unit; p<0.001), rescue albuterol use at Weeks 1-24 (-1.5 puffs/day) and St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (-3.60 units, p<0.001). No safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS Once-daily UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg was well tolerated and provided greater improvements in lung function, health status, and dyspnea scores compared with monotherapy components and placebo over 24 weeks. This study supports the use of UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg for the maintenance treatment of COPD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION protocol number: DB2113361; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01313637.

Umeclidinium in patients with COPD: a randomised, placebo-controlled study

Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium administered in a dry power inhaler were evaluated in moderate-to-very-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. This was a randomised, placebo-controlled study assessing once-daily umeclidinium 62.5 and 125 &mgr;g over 12 weeks. The primary end-point was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 85. Secondary end-points were 0–6-h weighted mean and serial forced expiratory volume in 1 s. Other end-points were transitional dyspnoea index, health outcomes (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire), pharmacokinetics and safety. 246 patients were enrolled; 168 completed the study. On day 85, umeclidinium 62.5 and 125 &mgr;g significantly improved least squares mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 (127 and 152 mL, respectively; p<0.001) compared with placebo. On day 84, umeclidinium 62.5 and 125 &mgr;g significantly improved least squares mean change from baseline in 0–6-h weighted mean (166 and 191 mL, respectively; p<0.001) and serial FEV1 at each time point (p≤0.003). Significant improvement in least squares mean transitional dyspnoea index focal score (1.0 and 1.3 units, respectively; p≤0.05) and change from baseline St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score (-7.9 and -10.87 units, respectively; p<0.001) were noted compared with placebo at week 12. The incidence of adverse events was low and similar across treatments. Umeclidinium 62.5 and 125 &mgr;g significantly improved lung function, dyspnoea and health status compared with placebo, and were well tolerated in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients over 12 weeks. Umeclidinium significantly improves lung function, dyspnoea and health status and is well tolerated http://ow.ly/qf7T9

Once-Daily Umeclidinium/Vilanterol 125/25 μg Therapy in COPD: A Randomized, Controlled Study

BACKGROUND Combination long-acting bronchodilator therapy may be more effective than long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 125/25 mcg with placebo and UMEC or VI monotherapy in COPD. METHODS This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. A total of 1493 patients were randomized (3:3:3:2) to 24 weeks of treatment with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg, UMEC 125 mcg, VI 25 mcg, or placebo once-daily via dry powder inhaler. RESULTS Primary efficacy endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) on Day 169 (23-24 h post-dose). Additional lung-function, symptomatic and health-related quality of life endpoints were also assessed. Safety evaluations included: adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiography and clinical laboratory measurements. All active treatments significantly improved trough FEV1 vs placebo (0.124-0.238 L, all p<0.001). Improvements with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg were significantly greater than for UMEC 125 mcg or VI 25 mcg (0.079 L and 0.114 L; both p≤0.001). Improvements for UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg vs placebo were observed for the transition dyspnea index (1.0 unit; p<0.001), rescue albuterol use at Weeks 1-24 (-1.5 puffs/day) and St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (-3.60 units, p<0.001). No safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS Once-daily UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg was well tolerated and provided greater improvements in lung function, health status, and dyspnea scores compared with monotherapy components and placebo over 24 weeks. This study supports the use of UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg for the maintenance treatment of COPD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION protocol number: DB2113361; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01313637.

Effects of a combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol on exercise endurance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: two randomized, double-blind clinical trials:

Objective: Exercise intolerance is a hallmark of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: Patients with COPD were randomized in two multicentre, double-blind, incomplete block crossover studies. Patients received two of six treatments in sequence (12 weeks each): placebo, umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) (125/25 mcg or 62.5/25 mcg), VI (25 mcg) or UMEC (62.5 mcg or 125 mcg). Exercise endurance time (EET) and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) (Week 12) were co-primary endpoints. Safety was monitored throughout. Results: Both studies showed similar 3-hour post-dose EET improvements from baseline for UMEC/VI (Week 12). Significant EET improvements were observed with both UMEC/VI doses versus placebo at Week 12 in Study 418 (UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg: 65.8 s; p = 0.005; UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg: 69.4 s; p = 0.003), but not in Study 417, where a placebo effect was evident. Post hoc integrated data analysis showed significant but smaller EET improvements for both UMEC/VI doses versus placebo at Week 12 (UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg: 47.5 s; p = 0.002; UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg: 43.7 s; p = 0.001). Both studies showed trough FEV1 improvements at Week 12 for both UMEC/VI doses. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups within each study. Conclusions: UMEC/VI improved lung function and EET.

Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium Added to Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol in Patients with COPD: Results of Two Randomized, Double-Blind Studies

Abstract Combinations of drugs with distinct and complementary mechanisms of action may offer improved efficacy in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In two 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group studies, patients with COPD were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily umeclidinium (UMEC; 62.5 μg and 125 μg) 
or placebo (PBO), added to twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL; 250/50 μg). In both studies, the primary efficacy measure was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at Day 85. Secondary endpoints were weighted-mean (WM) FEV1 over 0–6 hours post-dose (Day 84) and rescue albuterol use. Health-related quality of life outcomes (St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] and COPD assessment test [CAT]) were also examined. Safety was assessed throughout. Both UMEC+FP/SAL doses provided statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 (Day 85: 0.127–0.148 L) versus PBO+FP/SAL. Similarly, both UMEC+FP/SAL doses provided statistically-significant improvements in 0–6 hours post-dose WM FEV1 versus PBO+FP/SAL (Day 84: 0.144–0.165 L). Rescue use over Weeks 1–12 decreased with UMEC+FP/SAL in both studies versus PBO+FP/SAL (Study 1, 0.3 puffs/day [both doses]; Study 2, 0.5 puffs/day [UMEC 125+FP/SAL]). Decreases from baseline in CAT score were generally larger for both doses of UMEC+FP/SAL versus PBO+FP/SAL (except for Day 84 Study 2). In Study 1, no differences in SGRQ score were observed between UMEC+FP/SAL and PBO+FP/SAL; however, in Study 2, statistically significant improvements were observed with UMEC 62.5+FP/SAL (Day 28) and UMEC 125+FP/SAL (Days 28 and 84) versus PBO+FP/SAL. The incidence of on-treatment adverse events across all treatment groups was 37–41% in Study 1 and 36–38% in Study 2. Overall, these data indicate that the combination of UMEC+FP/SAL can provide additional benefits over FP/SAL alone in patients with COPD.

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

PURPOSE Dual therapy with bronchodilators of different pharmacological classes may produce greater lung function improvements than either drug alone. However, the relationship between a patients 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. METHODS In 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 62.5 mcg, vilanterol 25 mcg, and umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg (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. RESULTS Umeclidinium/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. CONCLUSIONS Once-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.

A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD.

Background The long-acting muscarinic antagonists umeclidinium (UMEC) and tiotropium (TIO) are approved once-daily maintenance therapies for COPD. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of UMEC versus TIO in COPD. Methods This was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to UMEC 62.5 μg plus placebo or TIO 18 μg plus placebo. The primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at day 85 (non-inferiority margin −50 mL; per-protocol [PP] population). Other end points included weighted mean FEV1 over 0–24 and 12–24 hours post-dose. Patient-reported outcomes comprised Transition Dyspnea Index score, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and COPD Assessment Test score. Adverse events were also assessed. Results In total, 1,017 patients were randomized to treatment. In the PP population, 489 and 487 patients received UMEC and TIO, respectively. In the PP population, change from baseline in trough FEV1 was greater with UMEC versus TIO at day 85, meeting non-inferiority and superiority margins (difference: 59 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 29–88; P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat analysis of trough FEV1 at day 85 (53 mL, 95% CI: 25–81; P<0.001). Improvements in weighted mean FEV1 over 0–24 hours post-dose at day 84 were similar with UMEC and TIO but significantly greater with UMEC versus TIO over 12–24 hours post-dose (70 mL; P=0.015). Clinically meaningful improvements in Transition Dyspnea Index and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire were observed with both treatments at all time points. No differences were observed between UMEC and TIO in patient-reported outcomes. Overall incidences of adverse events were similar for UMEC and TIO. Conclusion UMEC 62.5 μg demonstrated superior efficacy to TIO 18 μg on the primary end point of trough FEV1 at day 85. Safety profiles were similar for both treatments.

Umeclidinium/vilanterol as step-up therapy from tiotropium in patients with moderate COPD: a randomized, parallel-group, 12-week study

Introduction Patients with COPD who remain symptomatic on long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy may benefit from step-up therapy to a long-acting bronchodilator combination. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) in patients with moderate COPD who remained symptomatic on tiotropium (TIO). Methods In this randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group study (NCT01899742), patients (N=494) who were prescribed TIO for ≥3 months at screening (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]: 50%–70% of predicted; modified Medical Research Council [mMRC] score ≥1) and completed a 4-week run-in with TIO were randomized to UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg or TIO 18 µg for 12 weeks. Efficacy assessments included trough FEV1 at Day 85 (primary end point), 0–3 h serial FEV1, rescue medication use, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and COPD Assessment Test (CAT). Safety evaluations included adverse events (AEs). Results Compared with TIO, UMEC/VI produced greater improvements in trough FEV1 (least squares [LS] mean difference: 88 mL at Day 85 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 45–131]; P<0.001) and FEV1 after 5 min on Day 1 (50 mL [95% CI: 27–72]; P<0.001). Reductions in rescue medication use over 12 weeks were greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO (LS mean change: −0.1 puffs/d [95% CI: −0.2–0.0]; P≤0.05). More patients achieved clinically meaningful improvements in TDI score (≥1 unit) with UMEC/VI (63%) versus TIO (49%; odds ratio at Day 84=1.78 [95% CI: 1.21–2.64]; P≤0.01). Improvements in SGRQ and CAT scores were similar between treatments. The incidence of AEs was similar with UMEC/VI (30%) and TIO (31%). Conclusion UMEC/VI step-up therapy provides clinical benefit over TIO monotherapy in patients with moderate COPD who are symptomatic on TIO alone.

A randomized, parallel-group study to evaluate the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD

Background The combination of the inhaled muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) with the long-acting β2-agonist vilanterol (VI) has been shown to provide significant improvements in lung function compared with UMEC, VI, or placebo (PBO) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study was specifically designed to support these findings by assessing health-related quality of life and symptomatic outcomes in a similar population. Methods This was a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg (via ELLIPTA® dry powder inhaler) or PBO for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at day 84. Secondary efficacy endpoints included rescue albuterol use (puffs/day) over weeks 1–12 and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second on day 84. Adverse events were also assessed. Results A total of 496 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population in the UMEC/VI (n=248) and PBO (n=248) treatment groups. UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in SGRQ total score at day 84 versus PBO (difference between treatments in SGRQ total score change from baseline: −4.03 [95% confidence interval {CI}: −6.28, −1.79]; P<0.001). UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg resulted in a statistically significant reduction in rescue albuterol use versus PBO (−0.7 puffs/day [95% CI: −1.1, −0.4]; P<0.001). UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second on day 84 versus PBO (122 mL [95% CI: 71, 172]; P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments (32% and 30% of patients in the UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg and PBO groups, respectively). Conclusion The results of this study demonstrate that treatment with UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg provides clinically important improvements in SGRQ and rescue medication use versus PBO in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD.