Dataset Information

Once-Daily Triple Therapy in Patients with COPD: Patient-Reported Symptoms and Quality of Life.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Directly recorded patient experience of symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) can complement lung function and exacerbation rate data in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical studies. The FULFIL study recorded daily symptoms and activity limitation together with additional patient-reported outcomes of dyspnea and HRQoL, as part of the prespecified analyses. FULFIL co-primary endpoint data have been previously reported.

Methods

FULFIL was a phase III, 24-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study comparing once-daily single inhaler triple therapy [fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI)] 100 µg/62.5 µg/25 µg with twice-daily inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist therapy [budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR)] 400 µg/12 µg in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. A subset participated for 52 weeks. Patient-reported assessments were: Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD™ (E-RS: COPD), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) for COPD, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), baseline and transitional dyspnea indices (TDI) and daily and global anchor questions for activity limitation.

Results

FF/UMEC/VI showed greater reductions from baseline in 4-weekly mean E-RS: COPD total and all subscale scores compared with BUD/FOR; differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05) at each time period. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated greater improvements from baseline at weeks 4 and 24 in SGRQ domain scores and TDI focal score compared with BUD/FOR. At weeks 4 and 24, improvements greater than the minimal clinically important difference from baseline were observed in CAT score with FF/UMEC/VI, but not BUD/FOR; differences were statistically significant (P ≤ 0.003).

Conclusion

These findings demonstrate sustained daily symptom and HRQoL benefits of FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR. The inclusion of the CAT may provide data that are readily generalizable to everyday clinical practice.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02345161.

Funding

GSK.

SUBMITTER: Tabberer M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5778187 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionChronic obstructive pulmonary disease is associated with a high healthcare resource and cost burden. Healthcare resource utilization was analyzed in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at risk of exacerbations in the FULFIL study. Patients received either once-daily, single inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol) 100 µg/62.5 µg/25 µg or twice-daily dual inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonist therapy (budesonide/formoterol) 400 µg/12 µg.MethodsFULFIL was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study. Unscheduled contacts with healthcare providers were recorded by patients in a daily electronic diary; the costs of healthcare resource utilization were calculated post hoc using UK reference costs.ResultsOver 24 weeks, slightly fewer patients who received fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (169/911; 18.6%) required contacts with healthcare providers compared with budesonide/formoterol (180/899; 20.0%). Over 52 weeks in an extension population, fewer patients who received fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol required unscheduled contacts with healthcare providers compared with budesonide/formoterol (25.2% vs. 32.7%). Non-drug costs per treated patient per year were lower in the fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol group than the budesonide/formoterol group over 24 and 52 weeks (£653.80 vs. £763.32 and £749.22 vs. £988.03, respectively), with the total annualized cost over 24 weeks being slightly greater for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol than budesonide/formoterol (£1,289.35 vs. £1,267.45).ConclusionsThis healthcare resource utilization evidence suggests that, in a clinical trial setting over a 24- or 52-week timeframe, non-drug costs associated with management of a single inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol are lower compared with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02345161.FundingGSK.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The comparative efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ?2-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) triple therapy administered via single or multiple inhalers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been evaluated comprehensively. We conducted two replicate trials comparing single- with multiple-inhaler ICS/LAMA/LABA combination in COPD. METHODS:207608 and 207609 were Phase IV, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, triple-dummy non-inferiority trials comparing once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25??g via Ellipta inhaler, with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400/12??g via metered-dose inhaler plus once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18??g via HandiHaler. Patients had symptomatic COPD and forced expiratory volume in 1?s (FEV1) <?50% predicted, or FEV1 <?80% predicted and???2 moderate or 1?severe exacerbations in the prior year. The primary endpoint in both trials was weighted mean change from baseline (wmCFB) in 0-24-h FEV1 at Week 12. Secondary endpoints included CFB in trough FEV1 at Day 84 and 85. Other endpoints included serial FEV1 and health status outcomes at Week 12. Safety was evaluated descriptively. RESULTS:The modified per-protocol population included 720 and 711 patients in studies 207608 and 207609 (intent-to-treat population: 728 and 732). FF/UMEC/VI was non-inferior to BUD/FOR+TIO for wmCFB in 0-24-h FEV1 at Week 12 (Study 207608 treatment difference [95% confidence interval]: 15?mL [-?13, 43]; Study 207609: 11?mL [-?20, 41]). FF/UMEC/VI improved trough FEV1 CFB versus BUD/FOR+TIO at Day 84 and 85 (Day 85 treatment difference: Study 207608: 38?mL [10, 66]; Study 207609: 51?mL [21, 82]) and FEV1 at 12 and 24?h post-morning dose at Week 12 in both studies. No treatment differences were seen in health status outcomes. Safety profiles were similar between treatments; pneumonia occurred in 7 (<?1%) patients with FF/UMEC/VI and 9 (1%) patients with BUD/FOR+TIO, across both studies. CONCLUSIONS:FF/UMEC/VI was non-inferior to BUD/FOR+TIO for wmCFB in 0-24-h FEV1 at Week 12 in patients with COPD. Greater improvements in trough and serial FEV1 measurements at Week 12 with FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR+TIO, together with similar health status improvements and safety outcomes including the incidence of pneumonia, suggest that once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy is a viable option for patients looking to simplify their treatment regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION:GSK (207608/207609; NCT03478683/NCT03478696).

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) vs twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations, from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.Patients and methodsThe validated GALAXY-COPD model was used to simulate disease progression and predict healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 3-year time horizon for a Spanish population. Patient characteristics from published literature were supplemented by data from FULFIL (NCT02345161), which compared FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. Treatment effects, extrapolated to 3 years, were based on Week 24 results in the FULFIL intent-to-treat population, including change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, and exacerbation rates. Treatment, exacerbations, and COPD management costs (2019€) were informed by Spanish public sources and published literature. A 3% discount rate for costs and benefits was applied. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), were performed.ResultsFF/UMEC/VI treatment led to fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (2.126 and 0.306, respectively) vs BUD/FOR (2.608 and 0.515, respectively), with a mean incremental cost of €69 and gain of 0.107 QALYs, which resulted in an ICER of €642 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to treatment effect variations in exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization/event costs. Overall, 95% of 1000 PSA simulations resulted in an ICER less than €11,000 per QALY gained for FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR, confirming robustness of the results. The probability of FF/UMEC/VI being cost-effective vs BUD/FOR was 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionAt the accepted Spanish ICER threshold of €30,000, FF/UMEC/VI represents a cost-effective treatment option vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations.