Chris Kalberg

Effect of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (250/50 microg) or salmeterol (50 microg) on COPD exacerbations.

OBJECTIVES COPD exacerbations are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study evaluated the effect of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 and salmeterol 50 microg twice daily on moderate to severe exacerbations. METHODS Patients received standardized treatment with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 during a 1-month run-in, followed by randomization to fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 or salmeterol for 12 months. Moderate to severe exacerbations were defined as worsening symptoms of COPD requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or hospitalization. RESULTS In 782 patients with COPD (mean FEV(1)=0.94+/-0.36 L, 33% predicted normal), treatment with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 significantly reduced (1) the annual rate of moderate to severe exacerbations by 30.5% compared with salmeterol (1.06 and 1.53 per subject per year, respectively, p<0.001), (2) the risk of time to first exacerbation by 25% (hazard ratio=0.750, p=0.003) and (3) the annual rate of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids by 40% (p<0.001). Clinical improvements observed during run-in treatment with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 were better maintained over 12 months with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 than salmeterol. Adverse events were reported for a similar percentage of subjects across groups. A higher reporting of pneumonia was observed with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 than salmeterol (7% vs. 4%). CONCLUSIONS We conclude that fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 is more effective than salmeterol at reducing the rate of moderate to severe exacerbations over 1 year. The benefits of this reduction relative to the risk of a higher incidence of reported pneumonia should be considered. This study supports the use of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 for the reduction of COPD exacerbations in patients with COPD.

Impact of long-term inhaled corticosteroid therapy on bone mineral density: results of a meta-analysis:

BACKGROUND The impact of long-term inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy on bone mineral density (BMD) is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of long-term ICS use on BMD. METHODS Random-effects meta-analysis. Published and unpublished literature were identified by searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and consultation with experts. Studies reporting BMD among adult asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients using ICS and non-ICS controls were identified. Studies selected for review included at least 1 year of follow-up. Two independent reviewers evaluated studies; data from those meeting specified inclusion criteria were abstracted for inclusion in the meta-analysis. RESULTS Fourteen (5.3%) of 266 reviewed studies met specified inclusion criteria. Sufficient data were available to perform meta-analysis on 3 measures for ICS-using patients (lumbar, femoral neck, and major trochanter BMD) and 1 measure (lumbar BMD) for non-ICS-using controls. Using current National Asthma Education and Prevention Program definitions, the majority of studies (12 of 14) included patients receiving moderate to high doses of ICSs. Among ICS users, annual changes from baseline in lumbar, femoral neck, and major trochanter BMD (-0.23%, -0.17%, and +1.46%, respectively) were not statistically significant. Mean changes in lumbar BMD were also not significantly different from controls (-0.02%). Further, annual changes in lumbar BMD were not statistically significant for subgroups of patients with asthma or COPD. CONCLUSIONS Long-term use of ICSs in patients with asthma or COPD was not associated with significant changes in BMD.

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination compared with montelukast for the treatment of persistent asthma

BACKGROUND Asthma is a chronic disease characterized by inflammation and bronchoconstriction. Medications that are able to effectively treat both components are advantageous. OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting beta2-agonist combination product with a leukotriene antagonist for initial maintenance therapy in patients who were symptomatic while receiving short-acting beta2-agonists alone. METHODS A 12-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study was conducted in 432 patients 15 years of age and older with persistent asthma who were symptomatic on short-acting beta2-agonists alone. Fluticasone propionate 100 microg and salmeterol 50 microg combination product (FSC) twice daily or montelukast 10 mg once daily was administered. RESULTS At endpoint, compared with montelukast, FSC significantly increased morning predose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (0.61 +/- 0.03 L vs 0.32 +/- 0.03 L), morning peak expiratory flow rate (peak expiratory flow rate; 81.4 +/- 5.9 L/minute vs 41.9 +/- 4.8 L/minute), evening peak expiratory flow rate (64.6 +/- 5.3 L/minute vs 38.8 +/- 4.7 L/minute), the percentage of symptom-free days (40.3 +/- 2.9% vs 27.0 +/- 2.7%), the percentage of rescue-free days (53.4 +/- 2.8% vs 26.7 +/- 2.5%), and the percentage of nights with no awakenings (29.8 +/- 2.5% vs 19.6 +/- 2.1%) (P < or = 0.011, all comparisons). At endpoint, FSC significantly reduced asthma symptom scores (-1.0 +/- 0.1 vs -0.7 +/- 0.1) and rescue albuterol use (-3.6 +/- 0.2 puffs/day vs -2.2 +/- 0.2 puffs/day) compared with montelukast (P < 0.001). At endpoint, patients treated with FSC also had a significantly greater improvement in quality of life scores and were more satisfied with their treatment compared with montelukast-treated patients (P < or = 0.001). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS Initial maintenance therapy with FSC provides greater improvement in asthma control and patient satisfaction than montelukast.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Fluticasone Propionate Compared With Montelukast for Maintenance Treatment of Persistent Asthma

OBJECTIVE To compare the long-term effects of an inhaled corticosteroid with those of a leukotriene modifier on measures of clinical efficacy, subject preference, and safety in patients with persistent asthma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Between November 17, 1998, and May 26, 2000, we conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study of patients aged 15 years or older with persistent asthma. The patients were symptomatic while taking short-acting beta2-agonists alone and were treated with fluticasone propionate (88 microg [2 puffs of 44 microg] twice daily) or montelukast (10 mg/d) for 24 weeks. Measures of pulmonary function, asthma symptoms, albuterol use, nighttime awakenings, physician assessments of efficacy, patient satisfaction, asthma-related quality of life, and safety were evaluated. RESULTS A total of 522 patients were randomized to receive fluticasone or montelukast, and 395 patients completed the study. At end point, treatment with fluticasone significantly improved pulmonary function, asthma symptom scores, the percentage of symptom-free days, rescue albuterol use, and the number of nighttime awakenings due to asthma when compared with montelukast (P< or = .002, each comparison). Significantly more patients were satisfied with fluticasone therapy (83%) compared with montelukast therapy (66%) (P<.001), and fluticasone therapy was rated as effective by a significantly greater portion of physicians (67%) than was montelukast therapy (54%) (P<.001). Treatment with fluticasone significantly improved asthma-related quality-of-life measures compared with montelukast (P< or =.01). The incidence of asthma exacerbations was similar in the fluticasone (19 patients, 7%) and montelukast (21 patients, 8%) treatment groups, although slightly more patients in the montelukast group were withdrawn from the study because of asthma exacerbations (6% vs 4%, respectively). CONCLUSION Long-term treatment with a low dose of inhaled fluticasone is more effective than oral montelukast as first-line maintenance therapy for the treatment of persistent asthma.

A comparison of short-term treatment with inhaled fluticasone propionate and zafirlukast for patients with persistent asthma

PURPOSE To compare the short-term efficacy and safety of low-dose fluticasone propionate with that of oral zafirlukast therapy for patients previously treated with beta-2-agonists alone, and to evaluate the potential therapeutic benefit of switching from zafirlukast to a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid. SUBJECTS AND METHODS This study consisted of a 4-week randomized, double-blind treatment period followed by a 4-week open-label period. Two hundred ninety-four patients > or =12 years old with asthma previously uncontrolled with beta-2-agonists alone were randomly assigned to treatment with low-dose inhaled fluticasone (88 microg twice daily) or oral zafirlukast (20 mg twice daily). After 4 weeks, all patients discontinued their double-blind therapy and received open-label fluticasone (88 microg twice daily). Outcomes included pulmonary function, asthma symptoms, albuterol use, asthma exacerbations, and adverse events. RESULTS During the double-blind treatment period, fluticasone patients had significantly greater improvements in morning peak flow (29.3 L/min vs. 18.3 L/min), percentage of symptom-free days (19.8% vs. 11.6%), and daily albuterol use (-1.8 puffs per day vs. -1.1 puffs per day) compared with zafirlukast patients (P < or =0.025, each comparison). During the open-label treatment period, patients switched from zafirlukast to fluticasone experienced additional improvements in morning peak flow (17.2 L/min), evening peak flow (13.6 L/min), and FEV(1) (0.11 liter) and daily albuterol use (-0.9 puffs daily) compared with values obtained at the end of the double-blind treatment period (P < or =0.001, each comparison). CONCLUSION Low-dose fluticasone was more effective than zafirlukast in improving pulmonary function and symptoms in patients with persistent asthma. In addition, switching patients from zafirlukast to fluticasone further improved clinical outcomes.

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.

Effects of umeclidinium/vilanterol on exercise endurance in COPD: a randomised study

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period crossover study assessed the effect of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) on exercise capacity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using the endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT). Patients were randomised 1:1 to one of two treatment sequences: 1) UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg followed by placebo or 2) placebo followed by UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg. Each treatment was taken once daily for 12 weeks. The primary end-point was 3-h post-dose exercise endurance time (EET) at week 12. Secondary end-points included trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and 3-h post-dose functional residual capacity (FRC), both at week 12. COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score at week 12 was also assessed. UMEC/VI treatment did not result in a statistically significant improvement in EET change from baseline at week 12 versus placebo (p=0.790). However, improvements were observed in trough FEV1 (206 mL, 95% CI 167–246), 3-h post-dose FRC (−346 mL, 95% CI −487 to −204) and CAT score (−1.07 units, 95% CI −2.09 to −0.05) versus placebo at week 12. UMEC/VI did not result in improvements in EET at week 12 versus placebo, despite improvements in measures of lung function, hyperinflation and health status. Umeclidinium/vilanterol: no significant improvements in exercise endurance in COPD versus placebo after 12 weeks http://ow.ly/tc9i30gudVc

Once-Daily Umeclidinium/Vilanterol 125/25 μg Therapy in COPD

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.

Prevention of deteriorations in COPD on stepping up from tiotropium to umeclidinium/vilanterol

Introduction In patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) reduced clinically important deteriorations (CID) vs tiotropium (TIO) over 24 weeks (Singh D, et al. AJRCCM 2015;191:A5760). Here we investigate the effect of stepping-up from TIO in patients with moderate COPD. Methods This was a post hoc analysis of data from a 12-week randomised, blinded, parallel-group trial comparing UMEC/VI 62.5/25mcg with TIO 18mcg in patients on TIO for >3 months (FEV1 50−70% of predicted values; and modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea score >1). A post hoc analysis of time to first composite CID, defined as a ≥100mL decrease in trough FEV1, ≥4 unit increase in St George9s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, or moderate/severe exacerbation, was performed. Results In total, 494 patients were randomised and received ≥1 dose of study medication. The risk of a composite CID was lower with UMEC/VI vs TIO (54% vs 69%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.63 [95% CI: 0.50, 0.80]; p<0.001). This difference was primarily driven by a significant difference in FEV1 deteriorations with UMEC/VI vs TIO (Table). There was a reduced risk of other CID components with UMEC/VI vs TIO, however, the differences were not significant. Adverse events were similar for both treatments. Conclusion UMEC/VI reduced deteriorations in lung function following a step-up from TIO. Funded by GSK (NCT01899742, DB2116960).