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 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.

Dual Bronchodilator Therapy with Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Tiotropium plus Indacaterol in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The fixed-dose, long-acting bronchodilator combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) has not previously been compared with a combination of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting ß2-agonist in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This 12-week, randomized, blinded, triple-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study compared once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18 mcg + indacaterol (IND) 150 mcg in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD. The primary endpoint was the trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 85 (predefined non-inferiority margin -50 mL), and the secondary endpoint was the 0- to 6-h weighted mean (WM) FEV1 on day 84. Other efficacy endpoints [including rescue medication use, the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score, and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score] and safety endpoints [adverse events (AEs), vital signs, and COPD exacerbations] were also assessed. RESULTS: Trough FEV1 improvements were comparable between treatment groups [least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline to day 85: UMEC/VI 172 mL; TIO + IND 171 mL; treatment difference 1 mL; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -29 to 30 mL], demonstrating non-inferiority between UMEC/VI and TIO + IND. The treatments produced similar improvements in the trough FEV1 at other study visits and the 0- to 6-h WM FEV1 (LS mean changes at day 84: UMEC/VI 235 mL; TIO + IND 258 mL; treatment difference -23 mL; 95 % CI -54 to 8 mL). The results for patient-reported measures (rescue medication use, TDI focal score, and SGRQ score) were comparable; both treatments produced clinically meaningful improvements in TDI and SGRQ scores. The incidence of AEs and COPD exacerbations, and changes in vital signs were similar for the two treatments. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI and TIO + IND, given once daily, provided similar improvements in lung function and patient-reported outcomes over 12 weeks in patients with COPD, with comparable tolerability and safety profiles. TRIAL NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov study ID NCT02257385; GSK study no. 116961.

Daily variation in lung function in COPD patients with combined albuterol and ipratropium: results from a 4-week, randomized, crossover study.

BACKGROUND: The bronchodilator response to short-acting ß2-agonist and short-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapies varies on a day-to-day basis within individual patients. The objective of this study was to compare daily variation in bronchodilator response to the combined use of albuterol and ipratropium with monotherapies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This was a 4-week, randomized, open-label, two-period crossover study in patients with COPD. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive albuterol via metered dose inhaler followed by ipratropium or vice versa during treatment Period 1 (10-14 days). The order of treatments was then reversed during treatment Period 2 (10-14 days). Pre-defined efficacy endpoints were: forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), derived FEV1, inspiratory capacity (IC) and daily variability of FEV1 and IC as measured by coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS: Albuterol and ipratropium improved FEV1 when administered as the first bronchodilator, compared with pre-dose values (0.269 and 0.243 L, respectively). Administration of the second bronchodilator provided further improvements in lung function, but to a lesser magnitude than the first bronchodilator (0.094 L for both treatments). A statistically significant reduction in daily variability in FEV1 was observed for dual bronchodilator therapy compared with monotherapy (difference in CV = 0.007; p = 0.019) and pre-dose values (no treatment; difference in CV = 0.022; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The free combination of albuterol and ipratropium resulted in greater improvements and lower day-to-day variability in FEV1 compared with either monotherapy or no bronchodilator therapy. The reduced daily variability may be an important therapeutic advantage of using different classes of bronchodilators in COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01691482.

Population pharmacokinetics of inhaled umeclidinium and vilanterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A fixed-dose combination of the bronchodilators umeclidinium and vilanterol is in development for the long-term, once-daily treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We characterized the pharmacokinetics of umeclidinium and vilanterol in ≈1,635 patients with COPD, evaluating the impact of patient demographics and baseline characteristics on umeclidinium and vilanterol exposure. METHODS: Plasma concentrations of umeclidinium and vilanterol were evaluated in patients enrolled in two phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials using inhaled umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy and inhaled umeclidinium and vilanterol monotherapies as treatments. Population-pharmacokinetic models were developed using non-linear mixed-effects analyses, performed using NONMEM(®) software. A likelihood-based approach was used to characterize the data below limit of quantification. Umeclidinium and vilanterol exposures at clinical doses were simulated based on the population model. RESULTS: For the umeclidinium and vilanterol population-pharmacokinetic analyses, 1,635 and 1,637 patients provided 8,498 and 8,405 observations, respectively. Umeclidinium and vilanterol pharmacokinetics were best described by a two-compartment model with first-order absorption. For umeclidinium, bodyweight, age, and creatinine clearance (CLCR) were statistically significant covariates for apparent inhaled clearance (CL/F); bodyweight was a statistically significant covariate for volume of distribution of central compartment (V 2/F).The population parameter estimates namely CL/F and V 2/F for umeclidinium were 218 L/h and 1,160 L and 40.9 L/h and 268 L for vilanterol. For vilanterol, bodyweight and age were statistically significant covariates for CL/F. The effect of covariates on umeclidinium and vilanterol systemic exposure was marginal. The population model indicates that a 10 % increase in bodyweight will result in a 2 % increase in CL/F for umeclidinium and vilanterol and 6 % increase in umeclidinium V 2/F. A 10 % increase in age will provide a 7 and 4 % decrease in umeclidinium and vilanterol CL/F, respectively. A 10 % decrease in CLCR will result in a 3 % decrease in umeclidinium CL/F. Umeclidinium and vilanterol population-pharmacokinetic model-based systemic exposure predictions showed no pharmacokinetic interactions between umeclidinium and vilanterol when administered in combination. CONCLUSIONS: There were no apparent pharmacokinetic interactions when umeclidinium and vilanterol were co-administered in patients with COPD. The effects of patient demographics, including age, bodyweight, and CLCR, on umeclidinium or vilanterol systemic exposure were minimal, and therefore no dose adjustments are necessary.

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. George's 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.

Effect of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol on lung hyperinflation and exercise endurance in COPD.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of fluticasone propionate, 250 microg/salmeterol, 50 microg combination (FSC 250/50) twice daily on lung hyperinflation and associated measures of exercise performance in patients with COPD. DESIGN: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. PATIENTS: Eligible patients were > or = 40 years old with a diagnosis of COPD, prealbuterol FEV(1) < 70% of predicted, FEV1/FVC ratio > or = 0.70, and functional residual capacity (FRC) > or = 120% of predicted normal. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to FSC 250/50; salmeterol, 50 microg; or placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. Predose and postdose spirometry, plethysmography, and constant-load cycle cardiopulmonary exercise test evaluations were compared. The primary comparison was FSC 250/50 with placebo. The salmeterol group was included for exploratory comparisons with FSC 250/50. RESULTS: A total of 185 patients (mean baseline FEV1 of 41% predicted) were enrolled. At rest, FSC 250/50 significantly reduced postdose FRC and increased inspiratory capacity (IC) compared with placebo (differences of - 0.35 +/- 0.12 L and 0.33 +/- 0.06 L [mean +/- SE], respectively, at week 8; p > or = 0.003) and increased exercise endurance time (difference, 132 +/- 45 s; p = 0.004). At a standardized time during exercise (isotime), FSC 250/50 increased postdose IC by 0.20 +/- 0.05 L over placebo with associated improvements in tidal volume and minute ventilation (p < 0.05 vs placebo at week 8). Improvement in exercise time was significantly correlated with the increase in IC (r = 0.45, p < 0.001) but not FEV1 (r = 0.23, p = 0.08). Predose comparisons of FSC 250/50 with salmeterol and placebo favored FSC 250/50. CONCLUSION: We conclude that FSC 250/50 decreases lung hyperinflation at rest and during exercise with an associated increase in exercise endurance time when compared with placebo.

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.

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.

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.