Dataset Information

Assessing Short-term Deterioration in Maintenance-naive Patients with COPD Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol and Tiotropium: A Pooled Analysis of Three Randomized Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Dual bronchodilator therapy is reserved as a second-line treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and provides benefits in lung function and health status versus monotherapy. The aim of this study was to determine whether early initiation of a dual bronchodilator versus monotherapy reduced the risk of deterioration in COPD.

Methods

This post hoc pooled analysis investigated the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg/day compared with tiotropium (TIO) 18 mcg/day in a maintenance-naïve (MN) subgroup of patients relative to the intent-to-treat (ITT) population from three 6-month active comparator studies (n = 1747). Other treatment arms (UMEC/VI 125/25, VI 25 and UMEC 125) comprised 850 patients in total but were not included in this analysis. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁). St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, rescue medication use, and a novel composite endpoint of short-term clinically important deterioration (CID; ≥100 ml decrease in trough FEV₁, ≥4-unit increase in SGRQ score, or a COPD exacerbation) were also assessed.

Results

UMEC/VI improved trough FEV₁ versus TIO at day 169 [least squares mean (95% confidence interval): MN: 146 ml (102-189) and ITT: 95 ml (71-118); both P < 0.001]. Both UMEC/VI and TIO improved SGRQ and rescue use in the two populations, with greater improvements in rescue use with UMEC/VI versus TIO. UMEC/VI reduced the risk of short-term clinically important deterioration versus TIO [hazard ratio; 95% confidence interval: MN: 0.66 (0.51-0.85); ITT: 0.62 (0.54-0.71), both P ≤ 0.001]. Adverse events were similar across both populations and treatments.

Conclusions

Early use of dual-bronchodilator therapy has superior efficacy on lung function and may reduce the risk of short-term deterioration compared to monotherapy in symptomatic patients with COPD.

Clinical trial registration

GSK analysis 202066 (NCT01316900/DB2113360, NCT01316913/DB2113374, NCT01777334/ZEP117115).

Funding

This study was funded by GSK.

SUBMITTER: Maleki-Yazdi MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5126189 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPatients hospitalized for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are at risk of further readmissions, increased treatment costs, and excess mortality. This study evaluated inpatient admissions and readmissions in patients receiving initial maintenance therapy with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium (TIO).MethodsThis retrospective, matched cohort study identified patients with COPD who initiated maintenance therapy with UMEC/VI or TIO from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018 (index date defined as earliest dispensing). Eligibility criteria included: ≥ 1 medical claim for COPD pre-index or on the index date; ≥ 12 months of continuous eligibility pre-index; age ≥ 40 years at index; no pre- or post-index asthma diagnosis; and no pre-index claims for medications containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β2-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists. Outcomes included time to first on-treatment COPD-related inpatient admission, rate of on-treatment COPD-related admissions, and rate of all-cause and COPD-related readmissions within 30 and 90 days. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders.ResultsMatched UMEC/VI and TIO cohorts each included 7997 patients and were balanced on baseline characteristics (mean age 70.9 years; female 47.1-47.6%). Over 12 months, patients initiating UMEC/VI had significantly reduced risk (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.87 [0.79, 0.96]; p = 0.006) and rates (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.80 [0.72, 0.92]; p = 0.008) of COPD-related inpatient admissions compared with TIO. While all-cause readmission rates were similar between treatment cohorts, readmission rates among patients with an initial admission length of stay of 1-3 days were numerically lower for UMEC/VI versus TIO (30-day readmissions: 10.5% vs. 12.4%; 90-day readmissions: 15.5% vs. 19.8%). Similar patterns were observed for COPD-related readmissions.ConclusionsThese findings highlight the real-world benefits of dual therapy with UMEC/VI versus TIO in reducing inpatient admissions and readmissions in patients with COPD, which may translate to lower healthcare costs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Prospective evidence is lacking regarding incremental benefits of long-acting dual- versus mono-bronchodilation in improving symptoms and preventing short-term disease worsening/treatment failure in low exacerbation risk patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS:The 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised patients at low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5 μg once-daily or salmeterol 50 μg twice-daily. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The study was also powered for the secondary endpoint of Transition Dyspnoea Index at Week 24. Other efficacy assessments included spirometry, symptoms, heath status and short-term disease worsening measured by the composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration using three definitions. RESULTS:Change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 66 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43, 89) and 141 mL (95% CI: 118, 164) greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, respectively (both p < 0.001). Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated consistent improvements in Transition Dyspnoea Index versus both monotherapies at Week 24 (vs umeclidinium: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.68], p = 0.018; vs salmeterol: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.15, 0.76], p = 0.004) and all other symptom measures at all time points. Regardless of the clinically important deterioration definition considered, umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly reduced the risk of a first clinically important deterioration compared with umeclidinium (by 16-25% [p < 0.01]) and salmeterol (by 26-41% [p < 0.001]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS:Umeclidinium/vilanterol consistently provides early and sustained improvements in lung function and symptoms and reduces the risk of deterioration/treatment failure versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. These findings suggest a potential for early use of dual bronchodilators to help optimise therapy in this patient group.

Project description:BackgroundMinimizing the risk of disease progression and exacerbations is the key goal of COPD management, as these are well-established indicators of poor COPD prognosis. We developed a novel composite end point assessing three important aspects (lung function, health status, and exacerbations) of worsening in COPD. The objective was to determine whether dual bronchodilation with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) reduces clinically important deteriorations (CIDs) in COPD versus placebo or bronchodilator monotherapy.MethodsThis study is a post hoc analysis of two 24-week trials comparing UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg with UMEC 62.5 µg, VI 25 µg, or placebo (Study A; NCT01313650), or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg with tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg (Study B; NCT01777334) in patients with symptomatic COPD, without a history of frequent exacerbations. Deterioration was assessed as the time to a first CID, a composite measure defined as a decrease of ≥100 mL in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second or ≥4-unit increase in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score or an on-treatment moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation.ResultsIn Study A, fewer patients experienced a first CID with UMEC/VI (44%) versus UMEC (50%), VI (56%), and placebo (75%). The risk of a first CID was reduced with UMEC/VI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.37 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.30, 0.45]), UMEC (HR: 0.46 [95% CI: 0.38, 0.56]), and VI (HR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.45, 0.66]; all P<0.001) versus placebo, and with UMEC/VI versus UMEC (HR: 0.80 [95% CI: 0.65, 0.97]; P<0.05) and versus VI (HR: 0.67 [95% CI: 0.55, 0.81]; P<0.001). In Study B, fewer patients experienced a first CID with UMEC/VI (41%) versus TIO (59%). UMEC/VI reduced the risk of a first composite CID by 43% versus TIO (HR: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.47, 0.69]; P<0.001).ConclusionThis exploratory analysis, using a new assessment of clinical deterioration in COPD, revealed that a majority of symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk experienced a deterioration during the 24-week study periods. UMEC/VI reduces the risk of a first CID versus placebo or bronchodilator monotherapy.

Project description:BackgroundAdherence to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) maintenance medication is important for managing symptoms and exacerbation risk, and is associated with reduced mortality, hospitalizations, and costs. This study compared on-treatment exacerbations, medical costs, and medication adherence in patients with COPD initiating treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) or tiotropium (TIO).MethodsThis retrospective matched cohort study selected patients from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated maintenance treatment with UMEC/VI or TIO between 01/01/2014 and 12/31/2017 (index date defined as the first dispensing). Eligible patients were ≥ 40 years of age and had ≥ 12 months continuous health plan coverage pre- and post-index; ≥ 1 medical claim for COPD pre-index or on the index date; no moderate/severe COPD-related exacerbations on the index date; no asthma diagnosis pre- or post-index; no maintenance medication fills containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β2-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists pre-index or on the index date; and no fills for both UMEC/VI and TIO on the index date. Outcomes included time-to-first (Kaplan-Meier analysis) and rates of on-treatment COPD-related moderate/severe exacerbations, medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] and proportion of adherent patients [PDC ≥ 0.8]), and COPD-related medical costs per patient per month (PPPM). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders.ResultsEach cohort included 3929 matched patients. Kaplan-Meier rates of on-treatment COPD-related exacerbations were similar between cohorts (hazard ratio at 12 months; overall: 0.93, moderate: 0.92, severe: 1.07; all p > 0.05). UMEC/VI versus TIO initiators had significantly higher adherence (mean PDC: 0.44 vs 0.37; p < 0.001; proportion with PDC ≥ 0.8: 22.0% vs 16.4%; p< 0.001) and significantly lower mean on-treatment COPD-related total medical costs ($867 vs $1095 PPPM; p = 0.028), driven by lower outpatient visit costs.ConclusionsThese findings provide valuable information for physicians considering UMEC/VI or TIO as initial maintenance therapy options for patients with COPD.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This analysis of the IMPACT study assessed the cardiovascular (CV) safety of single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI dual therapy. METHODS:IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg with FF/VI 100/25 mcg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg in patients ?40?years of age with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and??1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. The inclusion criteria for the study were intentionally designed to permit the enrollment of patients with significant concurrent CV disease/risk. CV safety assessments included proportion of patients with and exposure-adjusted rates of on-treatment CV adverse events of special interest (CVAESI) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), as well as time-to-first (TTF) CVAESI, and TTF CVAESI resulting in hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death. RESULTS:Baseline CV risk factors were similar across treatment groups. Overall, 68% of patients (n =?7012) had ?1 CV risk factor and 40% (n =?4127) had ?2. At baseline, 29% of patients reported a current/past cardiac disorder and 58% reported a current/past vascular disorder. The proportion of patients with on-treatment CVAESI was 11% for both FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI, and 10% for FF/VI. There was no statistical difference for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in TTF CVAESI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85, 1.11; p =?0.711 and HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.08; p =?0.317, respectively) nor TTF CVAESI leading to hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.51; p =?0.167 and HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.27; p =?0.760, respectively). On-treatment MACE occurred in ?3% of patients across treatment groups, with similar prevalence and rates between treatments. CONCLUSIONS:In a symptomatic COPD population with a history of exacerbations and a high rate of CV disease/risk, the proportion of patients with CVAESI and MACE was 10-11% and 1-3%, respectively, across treatment arms, and the risk of CVAESI was low and similar across treatment arms. There was no statistically significant increased CV risk associated with the use of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI, and UMEC/VI versus FF/VI. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02164513 (GSK study number CTT116855).