Dataset Information

INTREPID: single- versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy for COPD in usual clinical practice.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Real-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.

Methods

INTREPID 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.

Results

3092 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.

Conclusions

In 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.

SUBMITTER: Halpin DMG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8181617 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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:Aim: This study sought to compare treatment persistence, adherence, and risk of exacerbation among patients with COPD treated with single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) and multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in the Chinese population. Methods: This was a multicenter, prospective observational study. Patients with COPD from ten hospitals in Hunan and Guangxi provinces in China were recruited from 1 January 2020 to 31 November 2021 for the study and were followed up for one year. Treatment persistence, adherence, and exacerbation rates during the 12-month follow-up were analyzed in COPD patients treated with SITT and MITT. Results: A total of 1,328 patients were enrolled for final analysis, including 535 (40.3%) patients treated with SITT and 793 (59.7%) treated with MITT. Of these patients, the mean age was 64.9 years and most patients were men. The mean CAT score was 15.2 ± 7.1, and the median (IQR) FEV1% was 54.4 (31.2). The SITT group had a higher mean CAT score, more patients with mMRC >1, and lower mean FEV1% and FEV1/FVC than the MITT patients. Moreover, the proportion of patients with ≥1 exacerbation in the previous year was higher in the SITT cohort. SITT patients had, compared to MITT patients, a higher proportion of adherence (proportion of days covered, PDC) ≥0.8 (86.5% vs. 79.8%; p = 0.006), higher treatment persistence [HR: 1.676 (1.356-2.071), p < 0.001], lower risk of moderate-to-severe exacerbation [HR: 0.729 (0.593-0.898), p = 0.003], and severe exacerbation [HR: 0.675 (0.515-0.875), p = 0.003], as well as reduced all-cause mortality risk [HR: 0.475 (0.237-0.952), p = 0.036] during the 12-month follow-up. Persistence was related to fewer future exacerbations and mortality than non-persistence in the SITT and MITT groups. Conclusion: Patients with COPD treated with SITT showed improved treatment persistence and adherence, as well as a reduction in the risk of moderate-to-severe exacerbation, severe exacerbation, and mortality compared to patients treated with MITT in the Chinese population. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier ChiCTR-POC-17010431.