Dataset Information

Early and sustained symptom improvement with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in COPD: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both the time needed for patients to gain symptom improvement with long-acting bronchodilator therapy and whether an early response is predictive of a sustained response is unknown. This study aimed to investigate how quickly meaningful symptom responses are seen in patients with COPD with bronchodilator therapy and whether these responses are sustained. METHODS:Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial that randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), umeclidinium or salmeterol. Daily Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS:COPD) score and rescue salbutamol use were captured via an electronic diary and analysed initially in 4-weekly periods. Post hoc analyses assessed change from baseline in daily E-RS:COPD score and rescue medication use weekly (Weeks 1-8), and association between E-RS:COPD responder status at Weeks 1-4 and later time points. RESULTS:In the intent-to-treat population (n?=?2425), reductions from baseline in E-RS:COPD scores and rescue medication use were apparent from Day 2 with all treatments. Treatment differences for UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy plateaued by Week 4-8 and were sustained at Weeks 21-24; improvements were consistently greater with UMEC/VI. For all treatments, most patients (60-85%) retained their Weeks 1-4 E-RS:COPD responder/non-responder status at Weeks 21-24. Among patients receiving UMEC/VI who were E-RS:COPD responders at Weeks 1-4, 70% were responders at Weeks 21-24. CONCLUSION:Patients with symptomatic COPD had greater potential for early symptom improvements with UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy. This benefit was generally maintained for 24?weeks. Early monitoring of treatment response can provide clinicians with an early indication of a patient's likely longer-term response to prescribed bronchodilator treatment and will facilitate appropriate early adjustments in care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT Number). The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

SUBMITTER: Kerwin EM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7278094 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Early and sustained symptom improvement with umeclidinium/vilanterol <i>versus</i> monotherapy in COPD: a <i>post hoc</i> analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial.

Kerwin Edward M EM Boucot Isabelle H IH Vogelmeier Claus F CF Maltais Francois F Naya Ian P IP Tombs Lee L Jones Paul W PW Lipson David A DA Keeley Tom T Bjermer Leif L

Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease 20200101

<h4>Background</h4>In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both the time needed for patients to gain symptom improvement with long-acting bronchodilator therapy and whether an early response is predictive of a sustained response is unknown. This study aimed to investigate how quickly meaningful symptom responses are seen in patients with COPD with bronchodilator therapy and whether these responses are sustained.<h4>Methods</h4>Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD sta ...[more]

PMID: 32462979

Similar Datasets

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??g once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5??g once-daily or salmeterol 50??g 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:IntroductionSmoking may reduce the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but its impact on bronchodilator efficacy is unclear. This analysis of the EMAX trial explored efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in current or former smokers with COPD.MethodsThe 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms, health status, exacerbations, clinically important deterioration, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving ICS. Current and former smoker subgroups were defined by smoking status at screening.ResultsThe analysis included 1203 (50%) current smokers and 1221 (50%) former smokers. Both subgroups demonstrated greater improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 24 (primary endpoint) with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (least squares [LS] mean difference, mL [95% CI]; current: 84 [50, 117]; former: 49 [18, 80]) and salmeterol (current: 165 [132, 198]; former: 117 [86, 148]) and larger reductions in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (LS mean difference [95% CI]; current: - 0.42 [- 0.63, - 0.20]; former: - 0.25 - 0.44, - 0.05]) and salmeterol (current: - 0.28 [- 0.49, - 0.06]; former: - 0.29 [- 0.49, - 0.09]). Umeclidinium/vilanterol increased the odds (odds ratio [95% CI]) of clinically significant improvement at week 24 in Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.16, 2.06]; former: 1.32 [0.99, 1.75]) and salmeterol (current: 1.37 (1.03, 1.82]; former: 1.60 [1.20, 2.13]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.13, 2.09]; former: 1.50 [1.11, 2.04]) and salmeterol (current: 1.53 [1.13, 2.08]; former: 1.53 [1.12, 2.08]). All treatments were well tolerated in both subgroups.ConclusionsIn current and former smokers, umeclidinium/vilanterol provided greater improvements in lung function and symptoms versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, supporting consideration of dual-bronchodilator therapy in symptomatic patients with COPD regardless of their smoking status.

Project description:Background In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the relationship between short-term bronchodilator reversibility and longer-term response to bronchodilators is unclear. Here, we investigated whether the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators is associated with reversibility of airflow limitation in patients with COPD with a low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Methods The double-blind, double-dummy EMAX trial randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once daily, or salmeterol 50 µg twice daily. Bronchodilator reversibility to salbutamol was measured once at screening and defined as an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL 10−30 min post salbutamol. Post hoc, fractional polynomial (FP) modelling was conducted using the degree of reversibility (mL) at screening as a continuous variable to investigate its relationship to mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 and self-administered computerised-Transition Dyspnoea Index (SAC-TDI) at Week 24, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD (E-RS) at Weeks 21–24, and rescue medication use (puffs/day) over Weeks 1–24. Analyses were conducted across the full range of reversibility (−850–896 mL); however, results are presented for the range −100–400 mL because there were few participants with values outside this range. Results The mean (standard deviation) reversibility was 130 mL (156) and the median was 113 mL; 625/2425 (26%) patients were reversible. There was a trend towards greater improvements in trough FEV1, SAC-TDI, E-RS and rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol with higher reversibility. Improvements in trough FEV1 and reductions in rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol compared with either monotherapy across the range of reversibility. Greater improvements in SAC-TDI and E-RS total scores were observed with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in the middle of the reversibility range. Conclusions FP analyses suggest that patients with higher levels of reversibility have greater improvements in lung function and symptoms in response to bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy across the full range of reversibility, suggesting that the dual bronchodilator umeclidinium/vilanterol may be an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of their level of reversibility. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12931-021-01859-w.

Project description:Minimizing 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.This 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.In 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).This 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: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).

Project description:BackgroundThe InforMing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial demonstrated lower moderate/severe exacerbation rates with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations. Since IMPACT was a global study, post-hoc analyses were conducted by geographic region to investigate potential differences in overall findings.MethodsIMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind trial. Patients with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25µg, FF/VI 100/25µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25µg. Endpoints assessed in the overall, Western Europe and North America populations included on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation (rates and time-to-first), trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score. Safety was assessed.ResultsOverall, 10,355 patients were enrolled, 3164 from Western Europe, 2639 from North America. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in Western Europe (rate ratios 0.82 [95%CI 0.74-0.91], P<.001 and 0.76 [0.67-0.87], P<.001) and in North America (0.87 [0.77-0.97], P=.014 and 0.69 [0.60-0.80], P<.001). FF/UMEC/VI reduced time-to-first moderate/severe exacerbation and improved lung function versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in both regions, and improved SGRQ total score in Western Europe, but not North America. Safety profiles were generally similar between treatment groups/regions; the inhaled corticosteroid class effect of increased pneumonia incidence was seen in North America but not Western Europe.ConclusionConsistent with intent-to-treat results, FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rate and risk and improved lung function in Western Europe and North America; however, between-regions differences were seen for SGRQ total score and pneumonia incidence.Clinical trial registrationNCT02164513.

Dataset Information

Early and sustained symptom improvement with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in COPD: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Early and sustained symptom improvement with umeclidinium/vilanterol <i>versus</i> monotherapy in COPD: a <i>post hoc</i> analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure