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.
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 (FEV
) 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.
Change from baseline in trough FEV
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.
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.
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by varying trajectories of decline. Information regarding the prognostic value of preventing short-term clinically important ...deterioration (CID) in lung function, health status, or first moderate/severe exacerbation as a composite endpoint of worsening is needed. We evaluated post hoc the link between early CID and long-term adverse outcomes.
CID was defined as ≥100 mL decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV
), ≥4-unit increase in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score from baseline, and/or a moderate/severe exacerbation during enrollment in two 3-year studies. Presence of CID was assessed at 6 months for the principal analysis (TORCH) and 12 months for the confirmatory analysis (ECLIPSE). Association between presence (+) or absence (-) of CID and long-term deterioration in FEV
, SGRQ, future risk of exacerbations, and all-cause mortality was assessed.
In total, 2870 (54%; TORCH) and 1442 (73%; ECLIPSE) patients were CID+. At 36 months, in TORCH, CID+ patients (vs CID-) had sustained clinically significant worsening of FEV
(- 117 mL; 95% confidence interval CI: - 134, - 100 mL; P < 0.001) and SGRQ score (+ 6.42 units; 95% CI: 5.40, 7.45; P < 0.001), and had higher risk of exacerbations (hazard ratio HR: 1.61 95% CI: 1.50, 1.72; P < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (HR: 1.41 95% CI: 1.15, 1.72; P < 0.001). Similar risks post-CID were observed in ECLIPSE.
A CID within 6-12 months of follow-up was consistently associated with increased long-term risk of exacerbations and all-cause mortality, and predicted sustained meaningful loss in FEV
and health status amongst survivors.
NCT00268216 ; NCT00292552 .
Introduction
Assessing clinically important measures of disease progression is essential for evaluating therapeutic effects on disease stability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This ...analysis assessed whether providing additional bronchodilation with the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) to patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β
2
-agonist (LABA) therapy would improve disease stability compared with ICS/LABA therapy alone.
Methods
This integrated post hoc analysis of four 12-week, randomized, double-blind trials (NCT01772134, NCT01772147, NCT01957163, NCT02119286) compared UMEC 62.5 µg with placebo added to open-label ICS/LABA in symptomatic patients with COPD (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score ≥ 2). A clinically important deterioration (CID) was defined as: a decrease from baseline of ≥ 100 mL in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV
1
), an increase from baseline of ≥ 4 units in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, or a moderate/severe exacerbation. Risk of a first CID was evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients stratified by Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification, exacerbation history and type of ICS/LABA therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.
Results
Overall, 1637 patients included in the ITT population received UMEC + ICS/LABA (
n
= 819) or placebo + ICS/LABA (
n
= 818). Additional bronchodilation with UMEC reduced the risk of a first CID by 45–58% in the ITT population and all subgroups analyzed compared with placebo (all
p
< 0.001). Improvements were observed in reducing FEV
1
(69% risk reduction;
p
< 0.001) and exacerbation (47% risk reduction;
p
= 0.004) events in the ITT population. No significant reduction in risk of a SGRQ CID was observed. AE incidence was similar between treatment groups.
Conclusion
Symptomatic patients with COPD receiving ICS/LABA experience frequent deteriorations. Additional bronchodilation with UMEC significantly reduced the risk of CID and provided greater short-term stability versus continued ICS/LABA therapy in these patients.
Funding
GlaxoSmithKline (study number: 202067).
Plain Language Summary
Plain language summary available for this article.
Given the heterogeneity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), personalized clinical management is key to optimizing patient outcomes. Important treatment goals include minimizing disease ...activity and preventing disease progression; however, quantification of these components remains a challenge. Growing evidence suggests that decline over time in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV
), traditionally the key marker of disease progression, may not be sufficient to fully determine deterioration across COPD populations. In addition, there is a lack of evidence showing that currently available multidimensional COPD indexes improve clinical decision-making, treatment, or patient outcomes. The composite clinically important deterioration (CID) endpoint was developed to assess disease worsening by detecting early deteriorations in lung function (measured by FEV
), health status (assessed by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire), and the presence of exacerbations. Post hoc and prospective analyses of clinical trial data have confirmed that the multidimensional composite CID endpoint better predicts poorer medium-term outcomes compared with any single CID component alone, and that it can demonstrate differences in treatment efficacy in short-term trials. Given the widely acknowledged need for an individualized holistic approach to COPD management, monitoring short-term CID has the potential to facilitate early identification of suboptimal treatment responses and patients at risk of increased disease progression. CID monitoring may lead to better-informed clinical management decisions and potentially improved prognosis.
Symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and low exacerbation risk still have disease instability, which can be improved with better bronchodilation. We evaluated two ...long-acting bronchodilators individually and in combination on reducing exacerbation risk and the potential impact of concurrent medication in these patients.
Integrated post hoc intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of data from two large 24-week, randomized placebo (PBO)-controlled trials (NCT01313637, NCT01313650). Symptomatic patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD with/without an exacerbation history were randomized (2:3:3:3) to once-daily: PBO, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg NCT01313650 or 125/25 μg NCT01313637), UMEC (62.5 NCT01313650 or 125 μg NCT01313637) or VI (25 μg) via the ELLIPTA inhaler. Medication subgroups were segmented by treatment status at screening: a) maintenance-naïve or on maintenance medications, b) inhaled corticosteroid ICS-free or ICS-treated, c) low or high albuterol use based on median run-in use (< 3.6 or ≥ 3.6 puffs/day). Time to first moderate/severe exacerbation (Cox proportional hazard model) and change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV
; mixed model repeated measures) were analyzed. Safety was also assessed.
Of 3021 patients (ITT population; UMEC/VI: n = 816; UMEC: n = 825; VI: n = 825; PBO: n = 555), 36% had a recent exacerbation history, 33% were maintenance-naïve, 51% were ICS-free. Mean baseline albuterol use was 5.1 puffs/day. In the ITT population, UMEC/VI, UMEC, and VI reduced the risk of a first exacerbation versus PBO by 58, 44, and 39%, respectively (all p < 0.05). UMEC/VI provided significant risk reductions versus PBO in all subgroups. VI had no benefit versus PBO in maintenance-naïve, ICS-free, and low rescue use patients and was significantly less effective than UMEC/VI in these subgroups. UMEC had no significant benefit versus PBO in maintenance-naïve and ICS-free patients. All bronchodilators improved FEV
versus PBO, and UMEC/VI significantly improved FEV
versus both monotherapies across all populations studied (p < 0.05). All bronchodilators were similarly well tolerated.
Results suggest that UMEC/VI reduces exacerbation risk versus PBO more consistently across medication subgroups than UMEC or VI, particularly in patients with no/low concurrent medication use. Confirmed prospectively, these findings may support first-line use of dual bronchodilation therapy in symptomatic low-risk patients.
Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a large, multicentre, multi-national, randomised, double-blind, 24-week trial. EMAX evaluated the efficacy and safety of ...dual bronchodilator therapy with umeclidinium bromide (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus monotherapy with either UMEC or salmeterol (SAL) in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at low exacerbation risk who were not taking concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS).
EMAX generated evidence covering a wide range of patient-centred endpoints in COPD in addition to measures of lung function, clinical deterioration and safety. In addition, prospective and post hoc secondary analyses have generated clinically valuable information regarding the effects of baseline patient characteristics on treatment outcomes. Importantly, as concomitant ICS use was not permitted in this study, EMAX compared dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) therapy with LAMA or LABA monotherapy without potential confounding due to concurrent ICS use or withdrawal. EMAX demonstrated beneficial treatment effects of UMEC/VI over UMEC or SAL monotherapy as maintenance treatment across a range of different patient characteristics, with no forfeit in safety. Thus, the trial provided novel insights into the role of LAMA/LABA versus LABA and LAMA monotherapies as maintenance therapy for patients with symptomatic COPD at low risk of exacerbations. This article will explore the clinical implications of the main findings to date of the EMAX trial and consider the key learnings this trial offers for future trial design in COPD.
•EMAX compared dual bronchodilators with monotherapy in symptomatic COPD patients.•The study design excluded confounding effects of concomitant ICS treatment.•EMAX showed improvements in lung function and symptoms with dual vs monotherapy.•Dual therapy was beneficial regardless of smoking status and at CAT scores >10.•Dual therapy was cost effective and did not increase adverse events vs monotherapy.
Reducing rescue medication use is a guideline-defined goal of asthma treatment, however, little is known about the validity of rescue medicine use as a marker of symptoms in chronic obstructive ...pulmonary disease (COPD). To improve patient outcomes, greater insight is needed into the relationship between rescue medication use and alternative COPD outcomes.
A systematic search of electronic databases (Embase®, MEDLINE® and Cochrane CENTRAL) was conducted from database start to 26 May, 2015. Studies of bronchodilator therapy with a duration of ≥24 weeks were included if they reported either mean change from baseline (CFB) in rescue medication use in puffs/day or % rescue-free days (%RFD), and at least one other COPD endpoint. Correlation and meta-regression analyses were undertaken to test the association between rescue medication use and other COPD outcomes using weighted means (weights proportional to the sample size of the treatment group) and unweighted means (equal weight for each treatment group). Each association was assessed at 6 months and study end.
Forty-six studies involving 46,531 patients provided mean data from 145 treatment groups for evaluation. Changes in both measures of rescue medication use were correlated with changes in trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV
; Pearson correlation coefficients |r| ≥ 0.63; p < 0.0001) and with St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score (|r| ≥ 0.70; p < 0.0001) at study end. Change in rescue medication use in puffs/day during the study correlated with annualized rates of moderate/severe exacerbations at 6 months and study end (both r = 0.66; p ≤ 0.0028). CFB in puffs/day was not well correlated with Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI), but %RFD did correlate with TDI score at 6 months and study end (both r = 0.69; p < 0.0001). The values for CFB in puffs/day corresponding to the proposed minimal clinically important differences for trough FEV
and SGRQ score were -1.3 and -0.6 puffs/day, respectively. A -1.0 puffs/day CFB in rescue use corresponded to a change of 0.26 events/patient-year in moderate/severe exacerbations.
This analysis provides clear evidence of associations at a patient group level between rescue medication use and other clinically important COPD outcomes.
This post hoc analysis of the "Early MAXimization of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability" (EMAX) trial investigated whether patients achieving early clinically important improvement (CII) ...sustained longer-term improvements and lower risk of clinically important deterioration (CID).
Patients were randomized to umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, or salmeterol for 24 weeks. The patient-reported outcomes (PROs) Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and COPD Assessment Test (CAT) were assessed. CII, defined as attaining minimum clinically important differences (MCID) in ≥2 PROs, was assessed at Weeks 4, 12 and 24. CID was defined as a deterioration in CAT, SGRQ, TDI by the MCID and/or a moderate/severe exacerbation from Day 30.
Of 2425 patients, 50%, 53% and 51% achieved a CII at Weeks 4, 12 and 24, respectively. Patients with a CII at Week 4 versus those without had significantly greater odds of achieving a CII at Weeks 12 and 24 (odds ratio: 5.57 95% CI: 4.66, 6.66; 4.09 95% CI: 3.44, 4.86). The risk of a CID was higher in patients who did not achieve a CII at Week 4 compared with patients who did (hazard ratio 95% CI: 2.09 1.86, 2.34). Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus either monotherapy had significantly greater odds of achieving CII at Weeks 4, 12 and 24.
Achieving a CII at Week 4 was associated with longer-term improvement in PROs and a reduced risk of deterioration. Further research is required to investigate the importance of an early response to treatment on the long-term disease course.
Introduction: Limited prospective evidence is available to guide selection of first-line maintenance therapy in patients with COPD. This pre-specified analysis of the EMAX trial explored the efficacy ...and safety of dual-versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in maintenance-naive and maintenance-treated patients. Methods: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms (including rescue medication use), exacerbations, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Maintenance-naive and maintenance-treated subgroups were defined by maintenance bronchodilator use 30 days before screening. Results: The analysis included 749 (31%) maintenance-naive and 1676 (69%) maintenance-treated patients. For both subgroups, improvements from baseline in trough FEV.sub.1 at Week 24 (primary endpoint) were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (mean difference 95% CI; maintenance-naive: 44 mL 1, 87; maintenance-treated: 77 mL 50, 104), and salmeterol (maintenance-naive: 128 mL 85, 171; maintenance-treated: 145 mL 118, 172), and in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (maintenance-naive: -0.44 -0.73, -0.16; maintenance-treated: -0.28 -0.45, -0.12) and salmeterol (maintenance-naive: -0.37 -0.66, -0.09; maintenance-treated: -0.25 -0.41, -0.08). In maintenance-naive patients, umeclidinium/vilanterol numerically improved scores at Week 24 for Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (0.37 -0.21, 0.96) and versus salmeterol (0.47 -0.10, 1.05) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD versus umeclidinium (-0.26 -1.04, 0.53) and versus salmeterol (-0.58 -1.36, 0.20), with similar improvements seen in maintenance-treated patients. All treatments were well tolerated across both subgroups. Conclusion: Similar to maintenance-treated patients, maintenance-naive patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol showed greater improvements in lung function and symptoms compared with patients receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. These findings provide support for the consideration of dual bronchodilator treatment in symptomatic maintenance-naive patients with COPD. Keywords: COPD treatment, first-line therapy, maintenance-naive, umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, salmeterol
PDF
