Chang-Qing Zhu

FULFIL Trial: Once-Daily Triple Therapy for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Rationale: Randomized data comparing triple therapy with dual inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long‐acting &bgr;2‐agonist (LABA) therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. Objectives: We compared the effects of once‐daily triple therapy on lung function and health‐related quality of life with twice‐daily ICS/LABA therapy in patients with COPD. Methods: The FULFIL (Lung Function and Quality of Life Assessment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Closed Triple Therapy) trial was a randomized, double‐blind, double‐dummy study comparing 24 weeks of once‐daily triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol 100 &mgr;g/62.5 &mgr;g/25 &mgr;g; ELLIPTA inhaler) with twice‐daily ICS/LABA therapy (budesonide/formoterol 400 &mgr;g/12 &mgr;g; Turbuhaler). A patient subgroup remained on blinded treatment for up to 52 weeks. Co‐primary endpoints were change from baseline in trough FEV1 and in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at Week 24. Measurements and Main Results: In the intent‐to‐treat population (n = 1,810) at Week 24 for triple therapy (n = 911) and ICS/LABA therapy (n = 899), mean changes from baseline in FEV1 were 142 ml (95% confidence interval [CI], 126 to 158) and −29 ml (95% CI, −46 to −13), respectively, and mean changes from baseline in SGRQ scores were −6.6 units (95% CI, −7.4 to −5.7) and −4.3 units (95% CI, −5.2 to −3.4), respectively. For both endpoints, the between‐group differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant reduction in moderate/severe exacerbation rate with triple therapy versus dual ICS/LABA therapy (35% reduction; 95% CI, 14‐51; P = 0.002). The safety profile of triple therapy reflected the known profiles of the components. Conclusions: These results support the benefits of single‐inhaler triple therapy compared with ICS/LABA therapy in patients with advanced COPD. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02345161).

Effects of a FLAP inhibitor, GSK2190915, in asthmatics with high sputum neutrophils

Patients with refractory asthma frequently have neutrophilic airway inflammation and respond poorly to inhaled corticosteroids. This study evaluated the effects of an oral 5-lipoxygenase-activating protein (FLAP) inhibitor, GSK2190915, in patients with asthma and elevated sputum neutrophils. Patients received 14 (range 13-16) days treatment with GSK2190915 100 mg and placebo with a minimum 14 day washout in a double-blind, cross-over, randomised design (N = 14). Sputum induction was performed twice pre-dose in each treatment period to confirm sputum neutrophilia, and twice at the end of each treatment period. The primary endpoint was the percentage and absolute sputum neutrophil count, averaged for end-of-treatment visits. GSK2190915 did not significantly reduce mean percentage sputum neutrophils (GSK2190915-placebo difference [95% CI]: -0.9 [-12.0, 10.3]), or mean sputum neutrophil counts (GSK2190915/placebo ratio [95% CI]: 1.06 [0.43, 2.61]). GSK2190915 resulted in a marked suppression (>90%) of sputum LTB4 and urine LTE4, but did not alter clinical endpoints. There were no safety issues. Despite suppressing the target mediator LTB4, FLAP inhibitor GSK2190915 had no short-term effect on sputum cell counts or clinical endpoints in patients with asthma and sputum neutrophilia.

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.

The effect of umeclidinium added to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist in patients with symptomatic COPD: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study.

Benefits of triple therapy with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), added to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), have been demonstrated. Limited data assessing the efficacy of the LAMA umeclidinium (UMEC) added to ICS/LABA are available. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UMEC added to ICS/LABAs in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD. This is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study. Patients were symptomatic (modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale score ⩾2), despite receiving ICS/LABA (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL, branded) 500/50 mcg, budesonide/formoterol (BD/FOR, branded) 200/6 mcg or 400/12 mcg, or other ICS/LABAs) ⩾30 days before the run-in (7±2 days). Patients were randomised 1:1 to once-daily UMEC 62.5 mcg or placebo (PBO), added to twice-daily open-label ICS/LABA for 12 weeks. Primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Day 85; secondary end point was weighted mean (WM) 0–6 h FEV1 at Day 84; other end points included COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score and Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) score. Adverse events (AEs) were investigated. In the UMEC+ICS/LABA and PBO+ICS/LABA groups, 119 and 117 patients were randomised, respectively. Patients received FP/SAL (40%), BD/FOR (43%) and other ICS/LABAs (17%). UMEC+ICS/LABA resulted in significant improvements in trough FEV1 (Day 85) and in WM 0–6 h FEV1 (Day 84) versus PBO+ICS/LABA (difference: 123 and 148 ml, respectively, both P<0.001). Change from baseline for UMEC+ICS/LABA versus PBO+ICS/LABA was significantly different for CAT score at Day 84 (−1.31, P<0.05), but not for TDI score (0.40, P=0.152). AE incidence was similar with UMEC+ICS/LABA (38%) and PBO+ICS/LABA (42%). UMEC+ICS/LABA improved lung function and CAT score in patients with symptomatic COPD versus PBO+ICS/LABA (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02257372).

Bronchodilator reversibility in patients with COPD revisited: short-term reproducibility.

Categorization of patients with COPD as reversible or nonreversible to a bronchodilator may change over time. This post hoc analysis aimed to determine if an individual’s reversibility, when treated as a continuous variable, could predict his/her future response to two short-acting bronchodilators: albuterol and ipratropium. The analysis was completed using data from a 4-week, randomized, open-label, two-period crossover study (NCT01691482; GSK study DB2114956). Patients received albuterol (doses: UK =4×100 μg/puff; US =4×90 μg/puff) followed 1 hour later by ipratropium (4×20 μg/puff) or vice versa during treatment Period 1. The order of treatments was reversed during Period 2. Predefined efficacy end points included pre- and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second. The correlation coefficient between bronchodilator response on Days 1 and 10 was investigated, as well as the correlation between treatment response on Day 1 and the mean treatment response on Days 5–10, for each individual patient. Bronchodilator response to albuterol on Day 1 was strongly correlated with that on Day 10 (r=0.64; n=53). The correlation coefficient of bronchodilator treatment response on Day 1 and Days 5–10 was 0.78 (P<0.001; n=53) and 0.76 (P<0.001; n=54) for albuterol and ipratropium, respectively. A single measurement of the initial bronchodilator response to albuterol or ipratropium was, therefore, highly correlated with the subsequent mean bronchodilator response over 5–10 days, demonstrating its potential usefulness for future treatment decisions.

Reply to Morice and Hart: Increased Propensity for Pneumonia with Fluticasone in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

1 GSK, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; 2 Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 3 GSK, Stockley Park West, Uxbridge, Middlesex, United Kingdom; 4 UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, United Kingdom; and 5 KLB Health Research, Lübeck, Germany * Employee of GSK at the time of study. Current affiliation is Roche, Basel, Switzerland. Page 1 of 3 AJRCCM Articles in Press. Published on 14-December-2017 as 10.1164/rccm.201711-2313LE

Preventing clinically important deterioration with single-inhaler triple therapy in COPD

Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a novel composite end-point (lung function, health status, exacerbations) for assessing disease stability in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We prospectively analysed CID in the FULFIL study. FULFIL (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02345161; randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study) compared 24 weeks of once daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg with twice daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400/12 μg in patients aged ≥40 years with symptomatic advanced COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease group D). A subset of patients received study treatment for up to 52 weeks. Time to first CID event was assessed over 24 and 52 weeks using two approaches for the health status component: St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD assessment test. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the risk of a first CID event by 47–52% versus BUD/FOR in the 24- and 52-week populations using both CID definitions (p<0.001). The median time to first CID event was ≥169 days and ≤31 days with FF/UMEC/VI and BUD/FOR, respectively. Only stable patients with no CID at 24 weeks demonstrated sustained clinically important improvements in lung function and health status at 52 weeks versus those who had experienced CID. Once daily, single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the risk of CID versus twice daily BUD/FOR with a five-fold longer period without deterioration. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol improves disease stability in COPD compared with budesonide/formoterol http://ow.ly/TaNY30loBa8