Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Generic Versus Brand-Name Fluticasone-Salmeterol to Treat Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first generic maintenance inhaler for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The inhaler, Wixela Inhub (fluticasone-salmeterol; Viatris), is a substitutable version of the dry powder inhaler Advair Diskus (fluticasone-salmeterol; GlaxoSmithKline). When approving complex generic products like inhalers, the FDA applies a special "weight-of-evidence" approach. In this case, manufacturers were required to perform a randomized controlled trial in patients with asthma but not COPD, although the product received approval for both indications. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of generic (Wixela Inhub) and brand-name (Advair Diskus) fluticasone-salmeterol among patients with COPD treated in routine care. DESIGN: A 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort study. SETTING: A large, longitudinal health care database. PATIENTS: Adults older than 40 years with a diagnosis of COPD. MEASUREMENTS: Incidence of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (effectiveness outcome) and incidence of first pneumonia hospitalization (safety outcome) in the 365 days after cohort entry. RESULTS: Among 45 369 patients (27 305 Advair Diskus users and 18 064 Wixela Inhub users), 10 012 matched pairs were identified for the primary analysis. Compared with Advair Diskus use, Wixela Inhub use was associated with a nearly identical incidence of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.04]) and first pneumonia hospitalization (HR, 0.99 [CI, 0.86 to 1.15]). LIMITATIONS: Follow-up times were short, reflecting real-world clinical practice. The possibility of residual confounding cannot be completely excluded. CONCLUSION: Use of generic and brand-name fluticasone-salmeterol was associated with similar outcomes among patients with COPD treated in routine practice. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Clinical Response and Cost-Savings Associated With Generic Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Multidose, Dry-Powder Inhaler in Asthma Patients Managed in an Ambulatory Care Practice Setting.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol multidose, dry powder inhaler (MDPI) was the first and only authorized generic inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonist (ICS/LABA) combination inhaler at the time of this study. This offers the potential for significant prescription cost-savings for both patients and accountable care organizations. The objective of the study was to demonstrate patients' clinical response to generic fluticasone propionate/salmeterol MDPI when switched from one of its brand name competitors. METHODS: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at MCPHS University. This was a prospective chart review of a large, multi-center ambulatory care organization in the Greater Boston area. Patients 12 years of age or older who were switched from a brand-name ICS/LABA inhaler to the generic fluticasone/salmeterol MDPI were included in the study. The primary endpoint was worsened asthma control requiring a change in therapy, oral corticosteroid therapy, or hospitalization at or before 12 weeks after the inhaler was switched. RESULTS: In total, 203 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those 203 patients, 35 had a change in therapy due to worsened asthma control (17.2% of patients, 95% CI 12.0% to 22.4%) within 12 weeks. Total projected yearly prescription cost-savings for patients who were switched and remained on the generic inhaler was $581,628. CONCLUSION: Eighty-three percent of patients maintained appropriate asthma control after switching from a brand ICS/LABA inhaler to the generic fluticasone/salmeterol MDPI for 12 weeks. Switching to the generic inhaler resulted in significant prescription cost-savings for the accountable care organization.

Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Compared with Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol, Budesonide/Formoterol, and Tiotropium as Initial Maintenance Therapy in Patients with COPD Who Have High Costs and Comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are associated with increased medical costs and risk of exacerbations. This study compared COPD-related medical costs and exacerbations in high-cost, high-comorbidity patients with COPD receiving initial maintenance treatment (IMT) with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL), budesonide/formoterol (B/F), or tiotropium (TIO). METHODS: This retrospective, matched cohort study identified patients from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated UMEC/VI, FP/SAL, B/F, or TIO between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 (index date defined as date of the first fill). Eligibility criteria included age ≥40 years at index, ≥1 pre-index COPD diagnosis, no pre-index asthma diagnosis, 12 months of continuous insurance coverage pre-index, and high pre-index costs (≥80th percentile of IMT population) and comorbidities (Quan-Charlson comorbidity index ≥3). Propensity score matching was used to control for potential confounders. On-treatment COPD-related medical costs (primary endpoint) and exacerbations were evaluated. RESULTS: Matched cohorts were well balanced on baseline characteristics (UMEC/VI vs FP/SAL: n=1194 each; UMEC/VI vs B/F: n=1441 each; UMEC/VI vs TIO: n=1277 each). Patients receiving UMEC/VI had significantly lower COPD-related medical costs versus FP/SAL (difference: $6587 per patient per year; P=0.048), and numerically lower costs versus B/F and TIO. Patients initiating UMEC/VI had significantly lower risk of COPD-related severe exacerbation versus FP/SAL (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.78 [0.62, 0.98]; P=0.032), B/F (0.77 [0.63, 0.95]; P=0.016), and TIO (0.79 [0.64, 0.98]; P=0.028). The rate of COPD-related severe exacerbations was significantly lower with UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.73 [0.59, 0.91]; P=0.008) and B/F (0.73 [0.59, 0.93]; P=0.012), and numerically lower versus TIO (0.83 [0.68, 1.04]; P=0.080). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that high-cost, high-comorbidity patients with COPD receiving UMEC/VI compared with FP/SAL, B/F, and TIO as IMT may have lower medical costs and exacerbation risk.

Symptom Burden and GOLD Classification in Medicare Advantage Patients with COPD Initiating Umeclidinium/Vilanterol or Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Therapy.

Background: Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) provide greater improvements in lung function and symptoms than inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study evaluated symptom burden and Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) categorization among patients who recently initiated umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI; LAMA/LABA) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL; ICS/LABA) single-inhaler dual therapy. Methods: COPD-diagnosed Medicare Advantage enrollees aged ≥65 years were identified from the Optum Research Database (ORD). Eligible patients had ≥1 pharmacy claim for UMEC/VI or FP/SAL in the 6-month period before sample identification, with no evidence of triple therapy (ICS/LAMA/LABA), asthma, or lung cancer. Symptom burden was assessed via cross-sectional surveys using the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale. Patients were classified into GOLD categories using patient-reported symptoms and claims-based exacerbation history. Treatment groups were balanced on potential confounders using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). CAT and mMRC scores were analyzed with generalized linear regression models using IPTW propensity scores. Results: The final analytic sample included 789 respondents (UMEC/VI: N=392; FP/SAL: N=397). Approximately 66% patients were classified as GOLD B when assessing symptoms with CAT and mMRC together, or CAT alone; more patients were classified as GOLD A (~40%) than GOLD B (~36%) using mMRC alone. Proportions of patients in each GOLD group were similar between treatment cohorts. Post-IPTW multivariable modeling showed similar symptom burden between treatment groups. Conclusion: After controlling for baseline characteristics, symptom burden was similar between patients receiving UMEC/VI or FP/SAL. GOLD classification using mMRC produced more conservative results compared with CAT, potentially underestimating patient symptoms. Many patients receiving FP/SAL were classified as GOLD A or B, despite GOLD recommending non-ICS-containing therapy in these patients. These findings support the need for routine assessment of symptoms in patients with COPD.

Risk of active tuberculosis among COPD patients treated with fixed combinations of long-acting beta2 agonists and inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence of active tuberculosis (TB) among COPD patients using fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol, and to identify any differences between these two groups of patients. METHODS: The study enrolled COPD patients from Taiwan NHIRD who received treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol for > 90 days between 2004 and 2011. The incidence of active TB was the primary outcome. RESULTS: Among the intention-to-treat population prior to matching, the incidence rates of active TB were 0.94 and 0.61% in the fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol groups, respectively. After matching, the fluticasone/salmeterol group had significantly higher rates of active TB (adjusted HR, 1.41, 95% CI, 1.17-1.70) compared with the budesonide/formoterol group. The significant difference between these two groups remained after a competing risk analysis (HR, 1.45, 95% CI, 1.21-1.74). Following propensity score matching, the fluticasone/salmeterol group had significantly higher rates of active TB compared with the budesonide/formoterol group (adjusted HR, 1.45, 95% CI, 1.14-1.85). A similar trend was observed after a competing risk analysis (HR, 1.44, 95% CI, 1.19-1.75). A higher risk of active TB was observed in the fluticasone/salmeterol group compared with the budesonide/formoterol group across all subgroups, but some differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Fluticasone/salmeterol carried a higher risk of active TB compared with budesonide/formoterol among COPD patients.

Comparative Safety Profile of the Fixed-Dose Combination Corticosteroid and Long-acting ß2-Agonist Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Fumarate: A 36-Month Longitudinal Cohort Study in UK Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: The inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA) fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM; Flutiform®) has been available as fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy for asthma patients aged ≥ 12 years in the UK since 2012. This post-authorisation safety study examined adverse outcomes and prescribing practices for FP/FORM and other FDC ICS/LABA therapies in a real-life clinical setting over 36 months. METHODS: Historical, longitudinal cohort database study using UK primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database, for patients initiated on or switched to an FDC ICS/LABA (ENCePP study number: EUPAS12330). The main cohort was adults aged ≥ 18 years with asthma. The primary outcome was incidence of new adverse outcomes after initiation of ICS/LABA; hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for FP/FORM versus other FDC ICS/LABAs using Cox regression models. RESULTS: A total of 241,007 patients with an FDC ICS/LABA prescription were identified. In the adult asthma cohort (N = 41,609), the incidence rate of new adverse outcomes [in 100 patient-years (py)] was significantly lower for FP/FORM (24.75) versus fluticasone/salmeterol metered-dose inhaler [8.86; HR 1.14 (1.04, 1.25)], fluticasone/salmeterol dry powder inhaler [31.19; HR 1.18 (1.08, 1.29)], budesonide/formoterol [25.16; HR: 1.13 (1.03, 1.25)] and beclometasone/formoterol [25.47; HR 1.14 (1.04, 1.25)]. The overall prescribing rate was lower for FP/FORM (13.85 per 1000/py) than licensed FDC ICS/LABA comparators (20.30-28.13 per 1000/py). Of those prescribed FP/FORM, 80.8% were adults with asthma and < 7% were prescribed FP/FORM "off-label". CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that FP/FORM was associated with an overall lower adverse outcome rate than the licensed comparators.

Risk of sepsis among patients with COPD treated with fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting Beta2 agonists.

This study aimed to compare the effect of budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol on the risk and outcomes of sepsis in COPD patients. We conducted this study using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. We included COPD patients prescribed with budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol between 2004 and 2011. Outcomes including sepsis and mortality were measured. 10,267 COPD patients who received fluticasone/salmeterol and 6,844 patients who received budesonide/formoterol were enrolled into this study and then subsequence were adjusted by propensity score weighting. The incidence of sepsis was 5.74 and 4.99 per 100 person-years for the patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol, respectively. Fluticasone/salmeterol was associated with higher risk of sepsis (aHR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.07-1.24) and septic shock (aHR, 1.14; 95%CI, 1.01-1.29) than budesonide/formoterol. Besides, fluticasone/salmeterol was associated with higher risk of death (aHR, 1.090; 95%CI, 1.01-1.18) than budesonide/formoterol. Patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol had a significant higher risk of sepsis related respiratory organ dysfunction, lower respiratory tract infection, genitourinary tract infection, bacteremia and skin infection. In conclusion, long-term treatment with budesonide/formoterol was associated with lower rates of sepsis and deaths than fluticasone/salmeterol in patients with COPD.

Real-life effectiveness of indacaterol-glycopyrronium after switching from tiotropium or salmeterol/fluticasone therapy in patients with symptomatic COPD: the POWER study.

PURPOSE: In contrast to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), changes in maintenance pharmacotherapy in clinical practice occur without a washout period. The Prospective cohort study for the real-life effectiveness evaluation of glycOpyrronium With indacatERol combination in the management of COPD in Canada (POWER) study evaluated the real-life effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) following a direct switch from a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA, tiotropium) or long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance treatment (salmeterol/fluticasone [SFC]). METHODS: POWER was a single-cohort, prospective, multicenter, interventional study in which patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, who remained symptomatic on their current treatment of once-daily (od) tiotropium 18 µg or twice-daily (bid) SFC (any dose), were switched to treatment with open-label IND/GLY 110/50 µg od for 16 weeks. Effectiveness end points were change from baseline in trough FEV1, transition dyspnea index (TDI) total scores, and COPD assessment test (CAT) scores at 16 weeks. RESULTS: Trough FEV1 improved by 175 mL at Week 16 in patients who switched to IND/GLY. The change was 176 mL (95% CI: 135-217) when switched from tiotropium and 172 mL (95% CI: 85-258) when switched from SFC fixed-dose combination (FDC). At Week 16, significant improvements were observed in the mean TDI total scores (Δ=2.5) and CAT scores (Δ=-6.5) after the switch to IND/GLY treatment (both P<0.0001). Additionally, IND/GLY was well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, and no safety signal was observed. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice settings, a direct switch from previous treatment with either tiotropium or SFC to IND/GLY was safe and provided superior clinically significant improvements in lung function and patient-related outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02202616.

Efficacy and safety of the combination fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol in asthmatic preschoolers: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled Corticosteroids (ICS) are the cornerstone of asthma management in pediatric patients. However, in some cases, asthma is not adequately controlled on ICS alone. Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) are one of the available additional therapies but their use has rarely been studied among children younger than 5 years. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this observational study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FP/SA) in asthmatic children younger than 5 years of age. METHODS: A retrospective study of 796 children under the age of 5 years (2.87 ± 1.22 years, 64.2% males), who were treated with FP/SA was conducted. Hospitalization rates, frequency of wheezing, exercise induced asthma, nocturnal wheeze and drug-related side-effects were recorded through children's medical records. RESULTS: The children had previously received short-acting ß2-agonists (73%), ICS (17%), montelukast (1%), and ICS with montelukast (2%). Mean duration of therapy with FP/SA was 12.45 ± 9.14 months. After adjusting for age, gender, and duration of treatment, a 89% reduction was recorded in annual hospitalization rates (from 27.13% before treatment to 3.01% after FP/SA therapy, p < 0.001), a 71% reduction in incidence of exercise-induced asthma (36.8% vs. after 10.6%, p < 0.001), a 81% reduction in nocturnal asthma (33.7% vs. after: 6.4%, p < 0.001), as well as in frequency of wheezing (p < 0.01),. No previous treatment carry-on effect was observed. No major drug-related side-effects occurred in the study group. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy (FP/SA) is well-tolerated and highly effective in asthmatic children under the age of 5 years.

The efficacy and safety of fluticasone/salmeterol compared to fluticasone in children younger than four years of age.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone propionate 50 µg/salmeterol xinafoate 25 µg (FP/SAL) is widely used in adults and children with asthma, but there is sparse information on its use in very young children. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, controlled trial conducted in children aged 8 months to 4 years. During a 2-week run-in period, they all received FP twice daily. At randomization, they commenced FP/SAL or FP twice daily for 8 weeks. All were then given FP/SAL only, in a 16-week open-label study continuation. Medications were inhaled through an AeroChamber Plus with attached face mask. The primary end-point was mean change in total asthma symptom scores from baseline to the last 7 days of the double-blind period. Analyses were undertaken in all children randomized to treatment and who received at least one dose of study medication. RESULTS: Three hundred children were randomized 1:1 to receive FP/SAL or FP. Mean change from baseline in total asthma symptom scores was -3.97 for FP/SAL and -3.01 with FP. The between-group difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.21; 95% confidence interval: -2.47, 0.54). No new safety signals were seen with FP/SAL. CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized, double-blind study of this size to evaluate FP/SAL in very young children with asthma. FP/SAL did not show superior efficacy to FP; no clear add-on effect of SAL was demonstrated. No clinically significant differences in safety were noted with FP/SAL usage.

Indacaterol acetate/mometasone furoate provides sustained improvements in lung function compared with salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD: results from a Phase II randomized, double-blind 12-week study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Fixed-dose combinations of a long-acting beta agonist and an inhaled corticosteroid are more effective than the individual components in COPD. The primary study objective was to demonstrate that the combination indacaterol acetate/mometasone furoate (IND/MF [QMF149]) was non-inferior to the twice-daily combination salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate (Sal/Flu) in terms of trough FEV1 at week 12 (day 85). Secondary objectives were to compare the efficacy of IND/MF (QMF149) vs Sal/Flu with respect to other lung function parameters, COPD exacerbations, symptoms and dyspnea, health status/health-related quality of life, and rescue medication use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, Phase II study in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, who were randomized (1:1) to IND/MF (QMF149) (150/160 µg once daily; n=316) or Sal/Flu (50/500 µg twice daily; n=313). RESULTS: Over 90% of patients completed the study: 94.6% in the IND/MF (QMF149) group and 92.0% in the Sal/Flu group. The primary objective of non-inferiority of IND/MF (QMF149) to Sal/Flu for trough FEV1 at week 12 (day 85) was met: the lower limit of the CI (95% CI: 27.7, 83.3 mL) was greater than -60 mL. The analysis for superiority of IND/MF (QMF149) to Sal/Flu demonstrated superiority of IND/MF (QMF149), with a difference of 56 mL (P<0.001). In addition, IND/MF (QMF149) treatment significantly improved COPD exacerbation-related parameters during the 12-week period. Other significant improvements with IND/MF (QMF 149) vs Sal/Flu were noted for dyspnea at week 12 and other COPD symptoms and COPD rescue medication use over the 12 weeks. The safety and tolerability profiles of both the treatments were similar. CONCLUSION: IND/MF (QMF149) (150/160 µg once daily) offered superior lung function and symptom efficacy and a favorable safety profile compared with Sal/Flu (50/500 µg twice daily) in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Preventing Clinically Important Deterioration of COPD with Addition of Umeclidinium to Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting ß2-Agonist Therapy: An Integrated Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing clinically important measures of disease progression is essential for evaluating therapeutic effects on disease stability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed whether providing additional bronchodilation with the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) to patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) therapy would improve disease stability compared with ICS/LABA therapy alone. METHODS: This integrated post hoc analysis of four 12-week, randomized, double-blind trials (NCT01772134, NCT01772147, NCT01957163, NCT02119286) compared UMEC 62.5 µg with placebo added to open-label ICS/LABA in symptomatic patients with COPD (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score ≥ 2). A clinically important deterioration (CID) was defined as: a decrease from baseline of ≥ 100 mL in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), an increase from baseline of ≥ 4 units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, or a moderate/severe exacerbation. Risk of a first CID was evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients stratified by Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification, exacerbation history and type of ICS/LABA therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 1637 patients included in the ITT population received UMEC + ICS/LABA (n = 819) or placebo + ICS/LABA (n = 818). Additional bronchodilation with UMEC reduced the risk of a first CID by 45-58% in the ITT population and all subgroups analyzed compared with placebo (all p < 0.001). Improvements were observed in reducing FEV1 (69% risk reduction; p < 0.001) and exacerbation (47% risk reduction; p = 0.004) events in the ITT population. No significant reduction in risk of a SGRQ CID was observed. AE incidence was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic patients with COPD receiving ICS/LABA experience frequent deteriorations. Additional bronchodilation with UMEC significantly reduced the risk of CID and provided greater short-term stability versus continued ICS/LABA therapy in these patients. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline (study number: 202067). Plain language summary available for this article.

Efficacy and safety of the direct switch to indacaterol/glycopyrronium from salmeterol/fluticasone in non-frequently exacerbating COPD patients: The FLASH randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Combination long-acting ß2 -agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA/LAMA) has demonstrated superior clinical outcomes over LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients; however, data from blinded randomized controlled trials on direct switching from LABA/ICS to LABA/LAMA are lacking. FLASH (Assessment of switching salmeterol/Fluticasone to indacateroL/glycopyrronium in A Symptomatic COPD patient coHort) investigated if direct switch, without a washout period, from salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) to indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) in COPD patients improves lung function and is well tolerated. METHODS: In this 12-week, multicentre, double-blind study, patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and up to one exacerbation in previous year, receiving SFC for ≥3 months, were randomized to continue SFC 50/500 µg twice daily (bd) or switch to IND/GLY 110/50 µg once daily (od). Primary endpoint was pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1 ) at Week 12. RESULTS: In total, 502 patients were randomized (1:1) to IND/GLY or SFC. Patients switched to IND/GLY demonstrated superior lung function (pre-dose trough FEV1 ) versus SFC at Week 12 (treatment difference (Δ) = 45 mL; P = 0.028). IND/GLY provided significant improvements in pre-dose trough forced vital capacity (FVC; Δ = 102 mL; P = 0.002) and numerical improvements in transition dyspnoea index (TDI; Δ = 0.46; P = 0.063). Rescue medication use and COPD assessment test (CAT) scores were comparable between groups. Both treatments had similar safety profiles. CONCLUSION: FLASH demonstrated that a direct switch to IND/GLY from SFC improved pre-dose FEV1 and FVC in COPD patients with up to one exacerbation in the previous year. No new safety signals were identified.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in pediatric asthma patients: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform®; 100/10 µg b.i.d.) was compared with fluticasone propionate (Flixotide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100 µg b.i.d.) and fluticasone/salmeterol (Seretide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100/50 µg b.i.d.) in a pediatric asthma population (EudraCT number: 2010-024635-16). METHODS: A double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, multicenter study. Patients, aged 5-<12 years with persistent asthma ⩾ 6 months and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ⩽ 90% predicted were randomized 1:1:1 to 12 weeks' treatment. The study objectives were to demonstrate superiority of fluticasone/formoterol to fluticasone and non-inferiority to fluticasone/salmeterol. RESULTS: A total of 512 patients were randomized: fluticasone/formoterol, 169; fluticasone, 173; fluticasone/salmeterol, 170. Fluticasone/formoterol was superior to fluticasone for the primary endpoint: change from predose FEV1 at baseline to 2 h postdose FEV1 over 12 weeks [least squares (LS) mean difference 0.07 l; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 0.11; p < 0.001] and the first key secondary endpoint, FEV1 area under the curve over 4 hours (AUC0-4 h) at week 12 (LS mean difference 0.09 l; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.13; p < 0.001). Per a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.1 l, fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the primary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.00 l; 95% CI -0.04, 0.04; p < 0.001) and first key secondary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.06; p < 0.001). Fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the second key secondary endpoint, change from predose FEV1 over 12 weeks (treatment difference -0.02 l; 95% CI -0.06, 0.02; p < 0.001), but was not superior to fluticasone for this endpoint (LS mean difference 0.03 l; 95% CI -0.01, 0.07; p = 0.091). All treatments elicited large improvements from baseline to week 12 for the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (LS mean change 0.76 to 0.85 units) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (LS mean change -1.03 to -1.13 units). Few severe exacerbations were seen (fluticasone/formoterol: two; fluticasone/salmeterol: two). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol in a pediatric asthma population and its superiority to fluticasone.

Exacerbation heterogeneity in COPD: subgroup analyses from the FLAME study.

BACKGROUND: The FLAME study compared once-daily indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) 110/50 µg with twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) 50/500 µg in symptomatic patients with moderate to very severe COPD and a history of exacerbations in the previous year. METHODS: This prespecified and post hoc subgroup analysis evaluated treatment efficacy on 1) moderate/severe exacerbations according to prior exacerbation history and treatment, and 2) types of exacerbations according to health care resource utilization (HCRU) during 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: IND/GLY reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations versus SFC in patients with a history of 1 exacerbation (rate ratio [RR]: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75-0.93), ≥2 exacerbations (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.70-1.03) and ≥2 exacerbations or ≥1 hospitalization in the previous year (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.74-1.00). Prolonged time-to-first exacerbation was observed in all the groups according to exacerbation history. Moderate/severe exacerbations decreased with IND/GLY versus SFC, independent of previous treatment. IND/GLY significantly reduced rates of moderate/severe exacerbations treated with antibiotics (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67-0.93) and systemic corticosteroids and antibiotics (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.91); rates of exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids alone were comparable (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.80-1.22). CONCLUSION: Overall, IND/GLY demonstrated consistent beneficial effects versus SFC on moderate/severe exacerbations, independent of prior exacerbation history or treatment. The efficacy of IND/GLY on exacerbation prevention was superior to SFC for exacerbations treated with antibiotics with/without systemic corticosteroids and was similar for exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids alone.

The pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of single, high-strength doses of fluticasone propionate and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol delivered via a novel multidose dry powder inhaler in adolescents and adults with persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Characterize fluticasone propionate (Fp) and combination fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FS) pharmacokinetic and safety profiles, delivered via a novel, inhalation-driven, multidose dry powder inhaler (MDPI). METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, four-period crossover, single-dose study randomized patients aged ≥12 years with persistent asthma to Fp MDPI 200 mcg, FS MDPI 200/12.5 mcg, Fp dry powder inhaler (DPI) 500 mcg (250 mcg × 2 inhalations), or FS DPI 500/50 mcg. Blood samples for determination of Fp and salmeterol pharmacokinetic parameters including Cmax, AUC0-t, AUC0-inf, tmax, and t½ were collected predose through 36 h postdose (14 time points). Safety assessments comprised adverse events, vital signs, and physical examinations. The institutional review board approved the study protocol. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetic analysis set and safety population each included 40 patients. Fp systemic exposure (Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-inf) was highest for Fp DPI 500 mcg and similar for Fp MDPI 200 mcg, FS MDPI 200/12.5 mcg, and FS DPI 500/50 mcg. Fp geometric mean t½ values were similar across treatments. Salmeterol Cmax was 20% lower and AUC0-t and AUC0-inf were approximately 50% lower with FS MDPI versus FS DPI. Median tmax and geometric mean t½ were similar between FS MDPI and FS DPI. Adverse events were similar across treatments with no relevant changes in vital signs, physical examinations, or hematology test results. CONCLUSIONS: Fp MDPI and FS MDPI produced similar or lower systemic exposure to Fp and salmeterol, despite lower doses, versus conventional DPI devices, suggesting improved efficiency due to formulation and device differences.

Randomized, double-blind trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol delivered via multidose dry powder inhalers in patients with persistent asthma aged 12 years and older.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate (Fp) and Fp/salmeterol (FS) administered via a novel multidose dry powder inhaler (MDPI) that is easy to use correctly in asthma patients. METHODS: This phase-3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study evaluated asthmatic patients (≥12 years of age) previously treated with either low- or mid-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) or ICS/long-acting beta agonists. After a 14- to 21-day run-in, patients were randomized to Fp MDPI 50 mcg, Fp MDPI 100 mcg, FS MDPI 50/12.5 mcg, FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg, or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. Change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; primary endpoint) was evaluated at week 12, and serial spirometry was collected at day 1 and week 12 (subset of patients). Safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The full analysis and serial spirometry subset included 640 and 312 patients, respectively. At week 12, FS MDPI significantly improved FEV1 from baseline at each dose vs corresponding Fp MDPI doses (p < 0.05). Change from baseline in FEV1 for active treatment groups was significantly greater vs placebo (p < 0.05). After 12 weeks, serial spirometry was significantly greater at all time points in the FS MDPI groups vs corresponding Fp MDPI groups (p < 0.05). Improvements in serial spirometry on day 1 were maintained through week 12. AEs were similar across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary function was significantly improved with Fp MDPI and FS MDPI vs placebo and FS MDPI vs Fp MDPI. Active treatments had a safety profile comparable to placebo.

The comparative effectiveness of initiating fluticasone/salmeterol combination therapy via pMDI versus DPI in reducing exacerbations and treatment escalation in COPD: a UK database study.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a complex progressive disease, is currently the third leading cause of death worldwide. One recommended treatment option is fixed-dose combination therapy of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß-agonist. Clinical trials suggest pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and dry powder inhalers (DPIs) show similar efficacy and safety profiles in COPD. Real-world observational studies have shown that combination therapy has significantly greater odds of achieving asthma control when delivered via pMDIs. Our aim was to compare effectiveness, in terms of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) prescriptions, for COPD patients initiating fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol xinafoate (SAL) via pMDI versus DPI at two doses of FP (500 and 1,000 µg/d) using a real-life, historical matched cohort study. COPD patients with ≥2 years continuous practice data, ≥2 prescriptions for FP/SAL via pMDI/DPI, and no prescription for ICS were selected from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database. Patients were matched 1:1. Rate of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations and odds of LAMA prescription were analyzed using conditional Poisson and logistic regression, respectively. Of 472 patients on 500 µg/d, we observed fewer moderate/severe exacerbations in patients using pMDI (99 [42%]) versus DPI (115 [49%]) (adjusted rate ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.54, 0.93), an important result since the pMDI is not licensed for COPD in the UK, USA, or China. At 1,000 µg/d, we observed lower LAMA prescription for pMDI (adjusted odds ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.55, 0.91), but no difference in exacerbation rates, potentially due to higher dose of ICS overcoming low lung delivery from the DPI.

Severe exacerbation and pneumonia in COPD patients treated with fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2 agonist.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether severe exacerbation and pneumonia of COPD differs between patients treated with budesonide/formoterol and those treated with fluticasone/salmeterol. Therefore, we conducted a comparative study of those who used budesonide/formoterol and those treated with fluticasone/salmeterol for COPD. METHODS: Subjects in this population-based cohort study comprised patients with COPD who were treated with a fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol. All patients were recruited from the Taiwan National Health Insurance database. The outcomes including severe exacerbations, pneumonia, and pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) were measured. RESULTS: During the study period, 11,519 COPD patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol and 7,437 patients receiving budesonide/formoterol were enrolled in the study. Pairwise matching (1:1) of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol populations resulted in to two similar subgroups comprising each 7,295 patients. Patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol had higher annual rate and higher risk of severe exacerbation than patients receiving budesonide/formoterol (1.2219/year vs 1.1237/year, adjusted rate ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.07-1.10). In addition, patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol had higher incidence rate and higher risk of pneumonia than patients receiving budesonide/formoterol (12.11 per 100 person-years vs 10.65 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.20). Finally, patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol had higher incidence rate and higher risk of pneumonia requiring MV than patients receiving budesonide/formoterol (3.94 per 100 person-years vs 3.47 per 100 person-years, aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.24). A similar trend was seen before and after propensity score matching analysis, intention-to-treat, and as-treated analysis with and without competing risk. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this retrospective observational study, long-term treatment with fixed combination budesonide/formoterol was associated with fewer severe exacerbations, pneumonia, and pneumonia requiring MV than fluticasone/salmeterol in COPD patients.

Fluticasone propionate and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol multidose dry powder inhalers compared with placebo for persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: A novel, inhalation-driven, multidose dry powder inhaler (MDPI) has been developed, which allows for lower doses of fluticasone propionate (Fp) and Fp/salmeterol (FS) for the treatment of patients with asthma. OBJECTIVE: This phase III, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study (NCT02141854) evaluated the efficacy and safety of Fp MDPI and FS MDPI versus placebo MDPI. METHODS: Patients aged ≥12 years with persistent asthma who previously took an inhaled corticosteroid with or without a long-acting beta-agonist entered a 14- to 21-day run-in period, during which they received single-blind, low-dose Fp MDPI 50 µg (1 inhalation twice daily [b.i.d.]) and used albuterol hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) metered-dose inhaler (MDI) for rescue. The patients who continued to meet eligibility criteria (N = 728) were randomized to Fp MDPI (100 or 200 µg), FS MDPI (100 µg/12.5 µg or 200 µg/12.5 µg), or placebo (1 inhalation b.i.d.). Primary efficacy end points were the change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and the baseline-adjusted area under the FEV1 curve 12 hours after the dose at week 12. Secondary efficacy end points were A.M. peak expiratory flow, asthma symptom scores, albuterol HFA MDI use, time to patient withdrawal, Asthma Quality of Life scores, and time to 15% and 12% improvement from baseline in FEV1. Safety end points were monitored. RESULTS: Fp MDPI and FS MDPI significantly improved both primary end points compared with placebo (p < 0.05). FS MDPI significantly improved both end points versus the corresponding Fp MDPI dose (p < 0.05), with improvement also greater for FS MDPI 100 µg/12.5 µg versus Fp MDPI 200 µg (p < 0.05). Both active treatments improved a variety of secondary end points and exhibited a safety profile consistent with the drug classes. CONCLUSION: Delivery of Fp and FS via the novel MDPI provided significant clinical benefits and was well tolerated in patients with persistent asthma.