Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy and Health-Related Quality of Life in COPD: The IMPACT Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
The phase 3 InforMing the PAthway of COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler therapy with fluticasone furoate (FF) 100 μg, umeclidinium (UMEC) 62.5 μg, and vilanterol (VI) 25 μg demonstrated a reduction in the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. This article reports additional evidence of improvements in symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with FF/UMEC/VI compared with either FF/VI or UMEC/VI from the IMPACT study.Methods
Patient-reported HRQoL assessments and symptom measures included as pre-specified IMPACT end points were the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and Baseline Dyspnea Index (BDI) as the anchor for the Transitional Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score (BDI/TDI) in a subset of patients enrolled at study sites in North America and Europe. Change from baseline was assessed at weeks 4, 28, and 52.Results
The intent-to-treat population included 10,355 patients (TDI population: 5058 patients). Clinically meaningful improvements in SGRQ total score between baseline and week 52 favored FF/UMEC/VI over FF/VI (- 1.8 units, p < 0.001) and UMEC/VI (- 1.8 units, p < 0.001). Similar improvements in the CAT and TDI focal score were also observed with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI.Conclusions
This study demonstrates that in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations, once-daily FF/UMEC/VI, compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, improves patient-perceived HRQoL and symptoms.Trial registration number
NCT02164513.
SUBMITTER: Tabberer M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7444357 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundWe assessed the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Canadian public healthcare perspective, incorporating data from the IMPACT trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02164513).MethodsBaseline inputs and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into the validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model. Canadian unit costs and drug costs (Canadian dollars [C$], 2017) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Analyses were probabilistic, and outputs included exacerbation rates, costs, and life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.ResultsCompared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a lifetime horizon, the analyses predicted that treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, more LYs and more QALYs gained, with a small incremental cost. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was C$18,989 (95% confidence interval [CI]: C$14,665, C$25,753) versus FF/VI and C$13,776 (95% CI: C$9787, C$19,448) versus UMEC/VI. FF/UMEC/VI remained cost-effective versus both FF/VI and UMEC/VI in all sensitivity analyses, including in scenario analyses that considered different intervention and comparator discontinuation rates, and treatment effects for subsequent therapy.ConclusionTreatment with FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, in Canada.
| S-EPMC6890193 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Triple inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ?2-agonist (LABA) therapy is recommended for symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and at risk of exacerbations. However, the benefits versus side-effects of triple inhaled therapy for COPD, based on distinct patient clinical profiles, are unclear. FULFIL, a phase III, randomised, double-blind study, compared 24?weeks of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25?µg using the Ellipta inhaler with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400/12?µg using the Turbuhaler. Subgroup analyses of forced expiratory volume in 1?s (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total score and exacerbation rates were carried out. Subgroups were defined by COPD medication at screening (ICS+LABA, BUD+FOR, ICS+LABA+LAMA, LAMA alone, tiotropium alone and LAMA+LABA), by disease severity (lung function and exacerbations) and by exacerbation history (exacerbation severity and frequency). In the intent-to-treat population (n=1810) at week 24, FF/UMEC/VI (n=911) versus BUD/FOR (n=899) improved FEV1 and SGRQ Total score and reduced mean annual exacerbation rates in all disease severity and exacerbation history subgroups. FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR improved FEV1 and SGRQ Total score in all medication subgroups and reduced mean annual exacerbation rates in all medication subgroups, except LAMA+LABA. Adverse events were similar across subgroups. These findings support the benefit of FF/UMEC/VI compared with dual ICS/LABA therapy in patients with symptomatic COPD regardless of disease severity or prior treatment and may help to inform clinical decision making.
| S-EPMC5934530 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a novel composite end-point (lung function, health status, exacerbations) for assessing disease stability in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We prospectively analysed CID in the FULFIL study. FULFIL (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02345161; randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study) compared 24 weeks of once daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg with twice daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400/12 μg in patients aged ≥40 years with symptomatic advanced COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease group D). A subset of patients received study treatment for up to 52 weeks. Time to first CID event was assessed over 24 and 52 weeks using two approaches for the health status component: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD assessment test. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the risk of a first CID event by 47-52% versus BUD/FOR in the 24- and 52-week populations using both CID definitions (p<0.001). The median time to first CID event was ≥169 days and ≤31 days with FF/UMEC/VI and BUD/FOR, respectively. Only stable patients with no CID at 24 weeks demonstrated sustained clinically important improvements in lung function and health status at 52 weeks versus those who had experienced CID. Once daily, single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the risk of CID versus twice daily BUD/FOR with a five-fold longer period without deterioration.
| S-EPMC6168763 | biostudies-literature
Project description:UK management costs for COPD, estimated at £1.9 billion/year, are rising. In the FULFIL (Lung Function and Quality of Life Assessment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Closed Triple Therapy) study, single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (100/62.5/25 µg) improved clinical outcomes versus budesonide/formoterol (400/12 µg) in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol for treating COPD from a UK National Health Service perspective. A model was developed combining a trial-based and Markov component and populated with baseline and treatment effect data from FULFIL, together with UK healthcare resource costs and disease-related utilities. Costs per life year and per quality-adjusted life year gained (costing year 2017) for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol were calculated for a lifetime horizon. Results were explored using deterministic sensitivity, scenario and probabilistic analyses. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol was associated with gains in life years (0.533) and quality-adjusted life years (0.506) versus budesonide/formoterol, but at slightly increased total costs (£26 416 versus £25 860). This translated to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £1042/life year and £1098/quality-adjusted life year for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol. In scenario analyses, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from dominant to £1547/quality-adjusted life year gained. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol provides a cost-effective treatment option versus budesonide/formoterol for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UK.
| S-EPMC7983252 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionReal-world trial data comparing single- with multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in COPD patients are currently lacking. The effectiveness of once-daily single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) and MITT were compared in usual clinical care.MethodsINTREPID was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase IV effectiveness study comparing FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg via the ELLIPTA inhaler with a clinician's choice of any approved non-ELLIPTA MITT in usual COPD clinical practice in five European countries. Primary end-point was proportion of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) responders (≥2-unit decrease in CAT score from baseline) at week 24. Secondary end-points in a subpopulation included change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and percentage of patients making at least one critical error in inhalation technique at week 24. Safety was also assessed.Results3092 patients were included (FF/UMEC/VI n=1545; MITT n=1547). The proportion of CAT responders at week 24 was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13-1.51; p<0.001) and mean change from baseline in FEV1 was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI (77 mL versus 28 mL; treatment difference 50 mL, 95% CI 26-73 mL; p<0.001). The percentage of patients with at least one critical error in inhalation technique was low in both groups (FF/UMEC/VI 6%; non-ELLIPTA MITT 3%). Safety profiles, including incidence of pneumonia serious adverse events, were similar between treatments.ConclusionsIn a usual clinical care setting, treatment with once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI resulted in significantly more patients gaining health status improvement and greater lung function improvement versus non-ELLIPTA MITT.
| S-EPMC8181617 | biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC7257245 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe 24-week INTREPID trial demonstrated the clinical benefits of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of symptomatic COPD from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective.Patients and methodsThe analysis was conducted using the validated GALAXY COPD disease progression model. Baseline characteristics, treatment effect parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score [derived from exploratory COPD Assessment Test score mapping]), and discontinuation data from INTREPID were used to populate the model. UK healthcare resource and drug costs (2020 British pounds) were applied, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon from a UK NHS perspective. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results by varying parameter values and assumptions.ResultsOver a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.174 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.024, 0.344) LYs (approximately 2 months), and 0.253 (95% CI: 0.167, 0.346) QALYs (approximately 3 months), at a cost saving of £1764 (95% CI: -£2600, -£678) per patient, compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT. FF/UMEC/VI remained the dominant treatment option, meaning greater benefits at lower costs, across all scenario and sensitivity analyses.ConclusionBased on this analysis, in a UK setting, FF/UMEC/VI would improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of patients with symptomatic COPD. SITT may help to reduce the clinical and economic burden of COPD and should be considered by physicians as a preferred treatment option.
| S-EPMC9617516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale: In the IMPACT (Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment) trial, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy reduced exacerbation risk versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI and mortality risk versus UMEC/VI. However, pneumonia incidence was higher in the inhaled corticosteroid (FF)-containing arms, raising questions about the relative benefit of exacerbation reduction compared with the increased risk of pneumonia.Objectives: Determine benefit-risk of the three treatments by evaluating time-to-first and rates of composite exacerbation or pneumonia outcomes.Methods: We evaluated time-to-first (prespecified) and rates (post hoc) of investigator-reported pneumonia, serious pneumonia leading to hospitalization or death, and the composite endpoints of 1) moderate (required antibiotics/corticosteroids)/severe (hospitalized) exacerbation or pneumonia and 2) severe exacerbation or serious (hospitalized) pneumonia. Analyses were repeated for radiographically confirmed pneumonia (post hoc).Results: Moderate/severe exacerbations occurred in 47%, 49%, and 50% of patients randomized to FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI and UMEC/VI, and pneumonias in 8%, 7%, and 5%, respectively. FF/UMEC/VI reduced the risk of combined moderate/severe exacerbation or pneumonia (time-to-first) versus FF/VI (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-0.92]) and UMEC/VI (0.87 [0.81-0.94]), as well as the risk of combined severe exacerbation or serious pneumonia versus UMEC/VI (0.83 [0.72-0.96]). FF/UMEC/VI reduced the rate of combined moderate/severe exacerbation or pneumonia (rate ratio, 0.78 [0.72-0.84]) and combined severe exacerbation or serious pneumonia (rate ratio, 0.76 [0.65-0.89]) versus UMEC/VI. Results were similar for radiographically confirmed pneumonia endpoints.Conclusions: Despite higher incidence of pneumonia in FF-containing arms, these composite exacerbation/pneumonia outcomes support a favorable benefit-risk profile of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a history of exacerbations.
| S-EPMC8086537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment guidelines do not currently include recommendations for escalation directly from monotherapy to triple therapy. This 12-week, double-blind, double-dummy study randomized 800 symptomatic moderate-to-very-severe COPD patients receiving tiotropium (TIO) for ≥3 months to once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 mcg via ELLIPTA (n = 400) or TIO 18 mcg via HandiHaler (n = 400) plus matched placebo. Study endpoints included change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Days 85 (primary), 28 and 84 (secondary), health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] and COPD Assessment Test [CAT]) and safety. FF/UMEC/VI significantly improved trough FEV1 at all timepoints (Day 85 treatment difference [95% CI] 95 mL [62-128]; P < 0.001), and significantly improved SGRQ and CAT versus TIO. Treatment safety profiles were similar. Once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI significantly improved lung function and health status versus once-daily TIO in symptomatic moderate-to-very-severe COPD patients, with a similar safety profile.
| S-EPMC8149706 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDirectly 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.MethodsFULFIL 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.ResultsFF/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).ConclusionThese 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02345161.FundingGSK.
| S-EPMC5778187 | biostudies-literature