Maggie Tabberer

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.

Tests of the Responsiveness of the COPD Assessment Test Following Acute Exacerbation and Pulmonary Rehabilitation

BACKGROUND The COPD Assessment Test (CAT) is an eight-item questionnaire suitable for routine clinical use that shows reliability and validity in stable and exacerbating COPD. METHODS Study 1 assessed CAT responsiveness to changes in health status in 67 patients during an exacerbation (days 1-14). Study 2 assessed CAT responsiveness in 64 patients undergoing pulmonary rehabilitation (days 1-42). Correlations between CAT and other outcome measures were examined. RESULTS In study 1, mean 14-day improvement in CAT score was -1.4 ± 5.3 units (P = .03). In patients judged to be responders (clinician defined) change in score was -2.6 ± 4.4; in nonresponders it was -0.2 ± 5.9. In study 2, the mean improvement in CAT score was -2.2 ± 5.3 (P = .002); the effect size for the change was -0.33. Effect size for changes in the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire-Self Administered Standardized (CRQ-SAS) form domain scores ranged from -0.02 to 0.34. Change in 6-min walk distance (6MWD) was 41 ± 55 m. CAT and CRQ-SAS domain scores correlated at baseline (r = -0.54 to -0.69, P < .0001) and in terms of change following pulmonary rehabilitation (r = -0.39 to -0.63, P < .01). Correlations were less strong between change in the CAT and St. George Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD in study 1 (r < 0.24) and for 6MWD (r < 0.11) in study 2. CONCLUSIONS These studies indicate that the CAT is sensitive to changes in health status following exacerbations and is as responsive to pulmonary rehabilitation as more complex COPD health status measures.

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.

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).

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.

The PROactive instruments to measure physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

No current patient-centred instrument captures all dimensions of physical activity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Our objective was item reduction and initial validation of two instruments to measure physical activity in COPD. Physical activity was assessed in a 6-week, randomised, two-way cross-over, multicentre study using PROactive draft questionnaires (daily and clinical visit versions) and two activity monitors. Item reduction followed an iterative process including classical and Rasch model analyses, and input from patients and clinical experts. 236 COPD patients from five European centres were included. Results indicated the concept of physical activity in COPD had two domains, labelled “amount” and “difficulty”. After item reduction, the daily PROactive instrument comprised nine items and the clinical visit contained 14. Both demonstrated good model fit (person separation index >0.7). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the bidimensional structure. Both instruments had good internal consistency (Cronbachs α>0.8), test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥0.9) and exhibited moderate-to-high correlations (r>0.6) with related constructs and very low correlations (r<0.3) with unrelated constructs, providing evidence for construct validity. Daily and clinical visit “PROactive physical activity in COPD” instruments are hybrid tools combining a short patient-reported outcome questionnaire and two activity monitor variables which provide simple, valid and reliable measures of physical activity in COPD patients. Both PROactive hybrid tools are simple, valid, and reliable measures of physical activity in COPD patients http://ow.ly/LJqP8

Prevalence and burden of breathlessness in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease managed in primary care.

Background & Aims Breathlessness is a primary clinical feature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to describe the frequency of and factors associated with breathlessness in a cohort of COPD patients identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), a general practice electronic medical records database. Methods Patients with a record of COPD diagnosis after January 1 2008 were identified in the CPRD. Breathlessness was assessed using the Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale, with scoring ranging from 1–5, which has been routinely administered as a part of the regular assessment of patients with COPD in the general practice since April 2009. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression estimated independent associations with dyspnoea. Negative binomial regression evaluated a relationship between breathlessness and exacerbation rate during follow-up. Results The total cohort comprised 49,438 patients diagnosed with COPD; 40,425 (82%) had any MRC dyspnoea grade recorded. Of those, 22,770 (46%) had moderate-to-severe dyspnoea (MRC≥3). Breathlessness increased with increasing airflow limitation; however, moderate-to-severe dyspnoea was also observed in 32% of patients with mild airflow obstruction. Other factors associated with increased dyspnoea grade included female gender, older age (≥70 years), obesity (BMI ≥30), history of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations, and frequent visits to the general practitioner. Patients with worse breathlessness were at higher risk of COPD exacerbations during follow-up. Conclusions Moderate-to-severe dyspnoea was reported by >40% of patients diagnosed with COPD in primary care. Presence of dyspnoea, including even a perception of mild dyspnoea (MRC = 2), was associated with increased disease severity and a higher risk of COPD exacerbations during follow-up.

Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple versus Dual Therapy in Patients with COPD

BACKGROUND The benefits of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with an inhaled glucocorticoid, a long‐acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and a long‐acting β2‐agonist (LABA), as compared with dual therapy (either inhaled glucocorticoid–LABA or LAMA–LABA), are uncertain. METHODS In this randomized trial involving 10,355 patients with COPD, we compared 52 weeks of a once‐daily combination of fluticasone furoate (an inhaled glucocorticoid) at a dose of 100 μg, umeclidinium (a LAMA) at a dose of 62.5 μg, and vilanterol (a LABA) at a dose of 25 μg (triple therapy) with fluticasone furoate–vilanterol (at doses of 100 μg and 25 μg, respectively) and umeclidinium–vilanterol (at doses of 62.5 μg and 25 μg, respectively). Each regimen was administered in a single Ellipta inhaler. The primary outcome was the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations during treatment. RESULTS The rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the triple‐therapy group was 0.91 per year, as compared with 1.07 per year in the fluticasone furoate–vilanterol group (rate ratio with triple therapy, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.90; 15% difference; P<0.001) and 1.21 per year in the umeclidinium–vilanterol group (rate ratio with triple therapy, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.81; 25% difference; P<0.001). The annual rate of severe exacerbations resulting in hospitalization in the triple‐therapy group was 0.13, as compared with 0.19 in the umeclidinium–vilanterol group (rate ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.78; 34% difference; P<0.001). There was a higher incidence of pneumonia in the inhaled‐glucocorticoid groups than in the umeclidinium–vilanterol group, and the risk of clinician‐diagnosed pneumonia was significantly higher with triple therapy than with umeclidinium–vilanterol, as assessed in a time‐to‐first‐event analysis (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.92; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Triple therapy with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol resulted in a lower rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations than fluticasone furoate–vilanterol or umeclidinium–vilanterol in this population. Triple therapy also resulted in a lower rate of hospitalization due to COPD than umeclidinium–vilanterol. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; IMPACT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02164513.)

Shortness of breath with daily activities questionnaire: Validation and responder thresholds in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Objectives To test the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the 13-item Shortness of Breath with Daily Activities (SOBDA) questionnaire, and determine the threshold for response and minimal important difference (MID). Design 6 week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Setting 40 centres in the USA between 29 October 2009 and 1 July 2010. Primary and secondary outcome measures 547 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were enrolled and 418 entered the 2-week run-in period. Data from the run-in period were collected to test internal consistency, test–retest reliability, convergent validity and known-groups validity of the SOBDA. Three hundred and sixty six patients were randomised 2:2:1 to fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 µg, salmeterol 50 µg or placebo, twice daily. Results from the SOBDA questionnaire, Patient Global Assessment of Change Question, modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale (mMRC), Clinician Global Impression of Dysponea Severity (CGI-S), Clinician Global Impression of Change Question and Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire self-administered standardised version (CRQ-SAS) were evaluated; spirometry and safety parameters were measured. Study endpoints were selected to investigate the cross-sectional and longitudinal validity of the SOBDA questionnaire in relation to the clinical criteria. Results Internal consistency of the SOBDA questionnaire (Cronbach α) was 0.89. Test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation) was 0.94. The SOBDA weekly scores correlated with the patient-reported and clinician-reported mMRC, CGI-S and CRQ-SAS dyspnoea domain scores (0.29, 0.24, 0.24 and –0.68, respectively). The SOBDA weekly scores differentiated between the responders and the non-responders as rated by the patients and the clinicians. Anchor-based and supportive distribution-based analyses produced a range of the potential values for the threshold for the responders and MID. Conclusions The 13-item SOBDA questionnaire is reliable, valid and responsive to change in patients with COPD. On using anchor-based methods, the proposed responder threshold shows a −0.1 to −0.2 score change. A specific threshold value will be identified as more data are generated from future clinical trials. Trial registration NCT00984659; GlaxoSmithKline study number: ASQ112989.

Statistical Modeling of Disease Progression for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Using Data from the ECLIPSE Study

Background. To develop statistical models predicting disease progression and outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), using data from ECLIPSE, a large, observational study of current and former smokers with COPD. Methods. Based on a conceptual model of COPD disease progression and data from 2164 patients, associations were made between baseline characteristics, COPD disease progression attributes (exacerbations, lung function, exercise capacity, and symptoms), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and survival. Linear and nonlinear functional forms of random intercept models were used to characterize these relationships. Endogeneity was addressed by time-lagging variables in the regression models. Results. At the 5% significance level, an exacerbation history in the year before baseline was associated with increased risk of future exacerbations (moderate: +125.8%; severe: +89.2%) and decline in lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]) (–94.20 mL per year). Each 1% increase in FEV1 % predicted was associated with decreased risk of exacerbations (moderate: –1.1%; severe: –3.0%) and increased 6-minute walk test distance (6MWD) (+1.5 m). Increases in baseline exercise capacity (6MWD, per meter) were associated with slightly increased risk of moderate exacerbations (+0.04%) and increased FEV1 (+0.62 mL). Symptoms (dyspnea, cough, and/or sputum) were associated with an increased risk of moderate exacerbations (+13.4% to +31.1%), and baseline dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council score ≥2 v. <2) was associated with lower FEV1 (–112.3 mL). Conclusions. A series of linked statistical regression equations have been developed to express associations between indicators of COPD disease severity and HRQoL and survival. These can be used to represent disease progression, for example, in new economic models of COPD.