Transition Dyspnea Index Focal Score Research Articles

Self-reported dyspnoea and shortness of breathing deterioration in long-term survivors after segmentectomy or lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer.

To assess the self-reported current dyspnoea and perioperative changes of dyspnoea in long term survivors after minimally invasive segmentectomy or lobectomy for early-stage lung cancer. Cross-sectional telephonic survey of patients alive and disease-free as of March 2023, with pathologic stage IA1-2, non-small cell lung cancer, assessed 1 to 5 years after minimally invasive segmentectomy or lobectomy (performed from January 2018 to January 2022). Current dyspnoea level: Baseline Dyspnoea Index score < 10. Perioperative changes of dyspnoea were assessed using the Transition Dyspnoea Index. A negative Transition Dyspnoea Index focal score indicates perioperative deterioration in dyspnoea.Mixed effect models were used to examine demographic, medical, and health-related correlates of current dyspnoea and changes of dyspnoea level. 152 of 236 eligible patients consented or were available to respond to the telephonic interview(67% response rate):90 lobectomies and 62 segmentectomies.The Baseline Dyspnoea Index score was lower (greater dyspnoea) in lobectomy patients (median 7, IQR 6-10) compared to segmentectomy (median 9, IQR 6-11), p = 0.034. 70% of lobectomy patients declared to have a current dyspnoea vs 53% after segmentectomy, p = 0.035.82% of patients after lobectomy reported a perioperative deterioration in their dyspnoea compared to 57% after segmentectomy, p = 0.002.Mixed effect logistic regression analysis adjusting for patient related factors and time elapsed from operation showed that segmentectomy was associated with a reduced risk of perioperative dyspnoea deterioration (as opposed to lobectomy) (OR 0.31, p = 0.004). Our findings may be valuable to inform the shared decision-making process by complementing objective data on perioperative changes of pulmonary function.

Efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol versus monotherapies and aclidinium versus placebo in Chinese and other Asian patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: The AVANT Phase 3 study

AVANT was a Phase 3, 24-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol 400 μg/12 μg combination vs monotherapies and aclidinium vs placebo (1:1:1:1) in Asian patients (∼70% of whom were Chinese) with moderate-to-severe stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Endpoints were analyzed hierarchically to incorporate type I error control. At Week 24, aclidinium/formoterol demonstrated improvements from baseline in 1-h morning post-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) vs aclidinium (least squares [LS] mean 92 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] 60, 124 mL; p < 0.001), and in trough FEV1 vs formoterol (LS mean 85 mL; 95% CI 53, 117 mL; p < 0.001). Furthermore, aclidinium provided improvements in trough FEV1 vs placebo (LS mean 134 mL; 95% CI 103, 166 mL; p < 0.001). There was an improvement in transition dyspnea index focal score at Week 24 for aclidinium/formoterol vs placebo (LS mean 0.8; 95% CI 0.2, 1.3; p = 0.005) but not for aclidinium vs placebo (LS mean 0.4; 95% CI −0.1, 1.0; p = 0.132). Improvements in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total scores occurred for aclidinium/formoterol vs placebo (LS mean −4.0; 95% CI −6.7, −1.4; p = 0.003) and aclidinium vs placebo (LS mean −2.9; 95% CI −5.5, −0.3; p = 0.031). Aclidinium/formoterol and aclidinium were well tolerated and safety findings were consistent with known profiles; rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) (aclidinium/formoterol: 54.8%; aclidinium: 47.4%; placebo: 53.9%), serious AEs (7.2, 7.9, and 7.8%, respectively), and AEs leading to discontinuation of study medication (2.3, 1.5, and 2.2%, respectively) were similar between groups.

Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Triple Therapy Compared with Other Therapies for the Treatment of COPD: A Network Meta-Analysis.

IntroductionRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β2-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) investigated the comparative efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus any triple (ICS/LABA/LAMA) combinations and dual therapies in patients with COPD.MethodsThis NMA was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR), which identified RCTs in adults aged at least 40 years with COPD. The RCTs compared different ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations or an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination with any dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA). Outcomes of interest included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), annualized rate of combined moderate and severe exacerbations, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index focal score, and rescue medication use (RMU). Analyses were conducted at 24 weeks (primary endpoint), and 12 and 52 weeks (if feasible).ResultsThe NMA was informed by five trials reporting FEV1 at 24 weeks. FF/UMEC/VI was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV1 (based on change from baseline) than all triple comparators in the network apart from UMEC + FF/VI. The NMA was informed by 17 trials reporting moderate or severe exacerbation endpoints. FF/UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus single-inhaler budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR). At 24 weeks, the NMA was informed by five trials. FF/UMEC/VI showed statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus UMEC + FF/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated improvements in mean SGRQ score versus other triple therapy comparators at 24 weeks, and a significant reduction in RMU compared with BUD/GLY/FOR (160/18/9.6).ConclusionThe findings of this NMA suggest favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI. Further analysis is required as additional evidence becomes available.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02231-0.

Benefits of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) on symptoms and quality of life in patients with COPD in the ETHOS trial

BackgroundWe report the long-term effects of triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) vs glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) and budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) on symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over 52 weeks in the Phase III ETHOS study of patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. MethodsETHOS was a randomized, double-blind, multi-center, parallel-group study in symptomatic patients with COPD who experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. Patients received twice-daily BGF 320/18/9.6 μg, BGF 160/18/9.6 μg, GFF 18/9.6 μg, or BFF 320/9.6 μg, administered via a single Aerosphere inhaler, for 52 weeks. ResultsThe modified intent-to-treat population included 8509 patients (mean age 64.7 years; 59.7% male; mean COPD Assessment Test score, 19.6). BGF significantly reduced rescue medication use vs GFF and BFF (−0.53 puffs/day [p < 0.0001] and −0.35 puffs/day [p = 0.0002], respectively, with BGF 320 over 52 weeks). BGF 320 also significantly improved St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score over 24 and 52 weeks vs dual therapies, resulting in the greatest proportion of SGRQ responders vs dual therapies over 24 weeks (52.5% vs 42.5% [GFF] and 45.2% [BFF]) and 52 weeks (47.0% vs 37.8% [GFF] and 41.0% [BFF]). Similar results were observed with BGF 160.Benefits were also observed vs dual therapies in symptomatic endpoints including Transition Dyspnea Index focal score, EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool total scores and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD total scores over 24 and 52 weeks. ConclusionsBGF triple therapy improved symptoms and HRQoL vs dual therapies over 24 and 52 weeks in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Direct Switch from Tiotropium to Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients in Korea.

BackgroundMany chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients receiving monotherapy continue to experience symptoms, exacerbations and poor quality of life. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of direct switch from once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg to indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) 110/50 μg once daily in COPD patients in Korea.MethodsThis was a randomized, open-label, parallel group, 12-week trial in mild-to-moderate COPD patients who received TIO 18 μg once daily for ≥12 weeks prior to study initiation. Patients aged ≥40 years, with predicted post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≥50%, post-bronchodilator FEV1/forced vital capacity <0.7 and smoking history of ≥10 pack-years were included. Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either IND/GLY or TIO. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of IND/GLY over TIO in pre-dose trough FEV1 at week 12. Secondary endpoints included transition dyspnea index (TDI) focal score, COPD assessment test (CAT) total score, and rescue medication use following the 12-week treatment, and safety assessment.ResultsOf the 442 patients screened, 379 were randomized and 347 completed the study. IND/GLY demonstrated superiority in pre-dose trough FEV1 versus TIO at week 12 (least squares mean treatment difference [Δ], 50 mL; p=0.013). Also, numerical improvements were observed with IND/GLY in the TDI focal score (Δ, 0.31), CAT total score (Δ, −0.81), and rescue medication use (Δ, −0.09 puffs/day). Both treatments were well tolerated by patients.ConclusionA direct switch from TIO to IND/GLY provided improvements in lung function and other patient-reported outcomes with an acceptable safety profile in patients with mild-to-moderate airflow limitation.

Efficacy of indacaterol/glycopyrronium versus salmeterol/fluticasone in current and ex-smokers: a pooled analysis of IGNITE trials.

Inhaled corticosteroids have proven to be less effective in asthmatic patients who smoke; however, there is limited information on the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid-containing regimens in COPD patients who continue smoking. We evaluate the differential efficacy of once-daily indacaterol/glycopyrronium 110/50 µg compared with twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone 50/500 µg in current smokers and ex-smokers with COPD.A pooled analysis of data from ILLUMINATE, LANTERN and FLAME studies was conducted to assess the efficacy of indacaterol/glycopyrronium compared with salmeterol/fluticasone in current smokers and ex-smokers with COPD. Efficacy was assessed in terms of improvements in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), transition dyspnoea index (TDI) focal score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, reduced rescue medication use and exacerbation prevention at 26 weeks after the start of the therapy.In total, 1769 (38%) current smokers and 2848 (62%) ex-smokers were included. Patients treated with indacaterol/glycopyrronium experienced greater improvements in trough FEV1 versus salmeterol/fluticasone in both current and ex-smokers (least squares mean treatment difference, 105 mL and 78 mL, respectively). Improvements in TDI focal score, SGRQ total score and reduction in rescue medication use were also greater with indacaterol/glycopyrronium versus salmeterol/fluticasone in current and ex-smokers. Furthermore, indacaterol/glycopyrronium reduced all exacerbations (moderate/severe) compared with salmeterol/fluticasone, irrespective of smoking status. The difference in efficacy in favour of indacaterol/glycopyrronium was more prominent in current smokers in most cases.Indacaterol/glycopyrronium demonstrated greater efficacy versus salmeterol/fluticasone, and the differences were generally more prominent in current smokers suggesting smoking may reduce the effects of salmeterol/fluticasone.

Symptom Improvement Following Treatment with the Inhaled Dual Phosphodiesterase 3 and 4 Inhibitor Ensifentrine in Patients with Moderate to Severe COPD - A Detailed Analysis.

IntroductionEnsifentrine is an inhaled first-in-class dual inhibitor of phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and 4. In a four-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), nebulized ensifentrine 0.75 to 6mg twice daily significantly improved bronchodilation and symptoms, with all doses being well tolerated. Here, we report data for a number of prespecified exploratory and post hoc endpoints from this study that help to further profile the effect of ensifentrine on symptoms.MethodsEligible patients were males or females aged 40–75 years with COPD, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second 40–80% predicted. Other than being clinically stable for at least four weeks prior to entry, there were no symptomatic inclusion or exclusion criteria. The outcome measures reported in this manuscript are the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms [E-RS™:COPD] questionnaire total score and subscales (breathlessness, cough/sputum and chest symptoms) at Weeks 1–4, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score at Weeks 2 and 4, and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire – COPD Specific (SGRQ-C) total score and domain data (symptoms, activity and impacts) at Week 4.ResultsThere was a gradual improvement versus placebo with all ensifentrine doses for all three E-RS™:COPD subscales from Week 1 to Week 4, with the greatest ensifentrine effect on the breathlessness subscale, and all four doses superior to placebo from Week 2 onwards (p<0.05). For TDI focal score, all ensifentrine doses were superior to placebo at Weeks 2 and 4 (p<0.05). In the individual SGRQ-C domains at Week 4, ensifentrine had the greatest effect on the symptoms domain, with ensifentrine 6mg superior to placebo (p<0.05).ConclusionIn these analyses, ensifentrine demonstrated a notable early and meaningful effect on dyspnea, with this effect observed across two different assessment tools.

Efficacy of Tiotropium/Olodaterol Compared with Tiotropium as a First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Patients with COPD Who Are Naïve to LAMA, LABA and ICS: Pooled Analysis of Four Clinical Trials.

The efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol compared with tiotropium in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been demonstrated in a large clinical programme. Currently, randomised controlled trial (RCT) data on dual bronchodilation as first-line maintenance therapy are limited. In this post hoc analysis of pooled data from four RCTs, we compared the efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium as maintenance therapy in patients with COPD who were not receiving maintenance treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) or inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) ("maintenance naïve") at study entry. TONADO®1/2 (52weeks) and OTEMTO®1/2 (12weeks) were phaseIII RCTs in patients with COPD. TONADO1/2 and OTEMTO1/2 enrolled patients with post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1) < 80% predicted (lower limit FEV1 ≥ 30% in OTEMTO1/2 only). We examined the effect of tiotropium/olodaterol5/5µg versus tiotropium 5µg on trough FEV1 response, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score at 12weeks in four pooled studies. The pooled analysis included 1078 maintenance-naïve patients. There were significant improvements with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium in trough FEV1 [0.056L; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.033, 0.079; P < 0.0001], SGRQ score (-1.780; 95% CI -3.126 to -0.434; P = 0.0096) and TDI score (0.409; 95% CI 0.077, 0.741; P = 0.0158) at week12. For patients receiving tiotropium/olodaterol, the odds of achieving a minimal clinically important difference from baseline in any of the analysed outcomes (FEV1 ≥ 0.1 L, SGRQ ≥ 4.0 points or TDI ≥ 1.0 point) were higher versus tiotropium. In patients who were maintenance naïve at baseline, treatment initiation with tiotropium/olodaterol resulted in greater improvements in lung function, health status and dyspnoea severity compared with tiotropium alone, without compromising patient safety. These results support the use of dual bronchodilation with tiotropium/olodaterol as first-line maintenance treatment in patients with COPD. ClinicalTrials.gov: TONADO® 1 and 2 (NCT01431274 and NCT01431287, registered 8 September 2011) and OTEMTO® 1 and 2 (NCT01964352 and NCT02006732, registered 14 October 2013).

Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy and Health-Related Quality of Life in COPD: The IMPACT Study.

IntroductionThe 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.MethodsPatient-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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThis 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 NumberNCT02164513.

Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Inhaled Umeclidinium in Asian Patients with COPD: Results from a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study.

PurposePrevious studies demonstrating efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium (UMEC) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have included few Asian patients. This study evaluated efficacy and safety of UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo in Asian patients with COPD.Patients and MethodsA Phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Patients (aged ≥40 years with COPD, pre-, and post-albuterol forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]/forced vital capacity ratio <0.70 and low risk of exacerbations) were randomized 2:1 to once-daily UMEC 62.5 mcg or placebo via the ELLIPTA inhaler for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was change from baseline (CFB) in trough FEV1 on Day 169. Secondary endpoints were weighted mean FEV1 over 0–6 hrs post-dose on Day 1 and CFB in Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score on Day 168.ResultsA total of 306 patients were included in the modified intent-to-treat population (UMEC: 205; placebo: 101). UMEC versus placebo provided a statistically significant improvement in least squares (LS) mean trough FEV1 between baseline and Day 169 (154 mL [95% confidence interval (CI): 113, 194]; p<0.001). A clinically meaningful difference of 125 mL in favor of UMEC (95% CI: 103, 147; p<0.001) was also seen in LS weighted mean FEV1 0–6 hrs post-dose on Day 1. A LS mean treatment difference in TDI focal score of 0.9 units in favor of UMEC was seen on Day 168 (95% CI: 0.3, 1.5; p=0.004). Incidence of on-treatment adverse events (AEs) was lower in the placebo (55%) versus UMEC arm (60%); non-fatal serious AEs, drug-related AEs, and AEs leading to withdrawal were similar with UMEC and placebo.ConclusionOnce-daily UMEC 62.5 mcg resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in lung function and dyspnea, compared with placebo, in Asian patients with COPD, with no new safety concerns observed.

Effect of smoking status on lung function, patient-reported outcomes, and safety among COPD patients treated with glycopyrrolate inhalation powder: pooled analysis of GEM1 and GEM2 studies

BackgroundSmoking is a major risk factor for COPD and may impact the efficacy of COPD treatments; however, a large proportion of COPD patients continue to smoke following diagnosis.MethodsThis post-hoc analysis of pooled data from the replicate 12-week, placebo-controlled GEM1 and GEM2 studies assessed the impact of smoking status on the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate 15.6 μg twice daily vs placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Data from 867 patients enrolled in GEM1 and GEM2 were pooled for analysis and grouped by smoking status (57% current smokers, 43% ex-smokers). Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 12 h, trough FEV1, forced vital capacity, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, COPD assessment test (CAT) score, transition dyspnea index (TDI) focal score, daily symptom scores, and rescue medication use were assessed in current smokers and ex-smokers. Incidences of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were also assessed.ResultsTreatment with glycopyrrolate resulted in significant improvements in all lung function measures, independent of smoking status. In both current and ex-smokers, changes from baseline in trough FEV1 were less marked in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) than those not receiving ICS. Changes from baseline in SGRQ total score and rescue medication use were significantly greater with glycopyrrolate compared with placebo, regardless of smoking status. Changes in the CAT score, TDI focal score, and daily symptom scores significantly improved versus placebo, but only in current smokers. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with glycopyrrolate relative to placebo were numerically greater in current smokers than ex-smokers. The incidences of AEs and SAEs were similar regardless of smoking status.ConclusionsIn this post-hoc analysis of GEM1 and GEM2, glycopyrrolate use led to significant improvements in lung function, independent of baseline smoking status; improvements were less marked among patients receiving background ICS, regardless of baseline smoking status. Improvements in PROs were greater with glycopyrrolate than placebo, and the magnitude of changes was numerically greater among current smokers. The safety profile of glycopyrrolate was comparable between current smokers and ex-smokers.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy Study of Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler Relative to Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Dry Powder Inhaler in COPD.

Glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, is the only approved fixed-dose combination long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) delivered via MDI. Direct comparisons of GFF MDI versus other LAMA/LABAs have not previously been performed. We assessed the efficacy and safety of GFF MDI relative to umeclidinium/vilanterol dry powder inhaler (UV DPI) in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this phase IIIb randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, 24-week study, patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6μg (equivalent to glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate 14.4/10μg; two inhalations per dose, twice-daily; n = 559) or UV DPI 62.5/25μg (one inhalation, once-daily; n = 560). Primary endpoints were change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1) and peak change from baseline in FEV1 within 2h post-dose, both over 24weeks. Additional lung function, symptom and safety endpoints were also assessed. For the primary endpoints, GFF MDI was non-inferior to UV DPI (using a margin of - 50mL) for peak FEV1 (least squares mean [LSM] difference - 3.4mL, 97.5% confidence interval [CI] - 32.8, 25.9) but not for trough FEV1 (LSM difference - 87.2mL; - 117.0, - 57.4). GFF MDI was nominally superior to UV DPI for onset of action (p < 0.0001) and was nominally non-inferior to UV DPI for all symptom endpoints (Transition Dyspnea Index focal score, Early Morning/Night-Time Symptoms COPD instrument scores, and COPD Assessment Test score). Exacerbation and safety findings were similar between groups. Over 24weeks of treatment, GFF MDI was non-inferior to UV DPI for peak FEV1, but not for morning pre-dose trough FEV1. GFF MDI had a faster onset of action versus UV DPI. There were no clinically meaningful differences between treatments in symptom endpoints. Both treatments were well tolerated with similar safety profiles. NCT03162055 (Clinicaltrials.gov) FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Efficacy of Indacaterol/Glycopyrrolate in Patients with COPD by Airway Reversibility at Baseline: A Pooled Analysis of the FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2 12-Week Studies

Bronchodilator reversibility occurs in patients with COPD. Pooled analysis of two 12-week, placebo-controlled randomised studies (FLIGHT1 [NCT01727141]; FLIGHT2 [NCT01712516]) assessed the effect of bronchodilator reversibility on lung function, patient-reported outcomes, and safety in 2,043 patients with moderate-to-severe COPD treated with indacaterol/glycopyrrolate (IND/GLY) 27.5/15.6 µg twice daily. Reversibility was defined as post-bronchodilator increase in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of ≥12% and ≥0.200 L. Overall, mean reversibility (mean post-bronchodilator FEV1 increase) was 22.8%, and 54.5% of patients met reversibility criteria. IND/GLY resulted in significant (p < 0.05) placebo-adjusted improvements from baseline at Week 12 in reversible and non-reversible patients in FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (0.308 L and 0.170 L, respectively), trough FEV1 (0.260 L and 0.174 L), St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score (−6.3 and –3.5), COPD Assessment Test total score (−2.3 and –1.2), daily rescue medication use (−1.52 and −0.79), and daily total symptom score (−0.86 and –0.63); Transition Dyspnoea Index focal score also showed improvements (1.93 and 1.29) at Week 12, irrespective of reversibility status. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were significantly (p < 0.05) greater in IND/GLY patients in the reversible subgroup compared with the non-reversible subgroup. The safety profile was similar across treatment groups and reversibility subgroups. Overall, treatment with IND/GLY led to significant improvements in lung function and PROs in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, regardless of reversibility status, with greater improvements in the reversible subgroup. Safety profile was not affected by reversibility status.

Efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate in patients with COPD by reversibility: pooled analysis of GEM1 and GEM2 12-week studies.

PurposeBronchodilator reversibility has been reported in patients with COPD, although correlations between reversibility and treatment response are unclear. The effect of reversibility on lung function, health status, and dyspnea was assessed in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD receiving glycopyrrolate (GLY) 15.6 µg twice daily vs placebo in the Glycopyrrolate Effect on syMptoms and lung function 1 and 2 (GEM1 and GEM2) replicate, 12-week, placebo-controlled studies.Patients and methodsReversibility was defined as a post-bronchodilator increase of ≥12% and ≥0.200 L in FEV1. FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0–12 h), trough FEV1, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, COPD Assessment Test (CAT™) score, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score, daily symptom scores, and rescue medication use were assessed by reversibility status. Incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were also assessed.ResultsData from 846 patients enrolled in GEM1 and GEM2 with known reversibility status were pooled for post hoc analysis. GLY significantly improved FEV1 AUC0–12 h, trough FEV1, SGRQ and CAT total scores, and rescue medication use compared with placebo in reversible and nonreversible patients. Significant improvements in TDI focal score and daily symptom scores with GLY over placebo were observed only among reversible patients. Improvements in FEV1 AUC0−12 h (0.165 vs 0.078 L; P<0.001) and trough FEV1 (0.173 vs 0.070 L; P<0.001) were clinically relevant (based on minimal clinically important differences) and significantly greater in reversible compared with nonreversible patients receiving GLY. The safety profile of GLY was not affected by reversibility status.ConclusionIn this post hoc analysis, GLY was associated with significant improvements in lung function and patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo, mostly independent of reversibility status. In patients receiving GLY, improvements in lung function were greater in reversible compared with nonreversible patients. Reversibility status did not meaningfully impact the safety profile of GLY.

Effects of baseline symptom burden on treatment response in COPD.

RationaleIn symptomatic patients with COPD, the decision whether to initiate maintenance treatment with a single agent or a combination of long-acting bronchodilators remains unclear.ObjectiveTo investigate whether baseline symptomatic status influences response to tiotropium/olodaterol treatment.Materials and methodsPost hoc analysis of the randomized OTEMTO® studies (NCT01964352; NCT02006732), in which patients with moderate-to-severe COPD received placebo, tiotropium 5 µg, tiotropium/olodaterol 2.5/5 µg, or tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg once daily for 12 weeks via the Respimat® inhaler (Boehringer Ingelheim, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany). Impact of baseline symptomatic status (modified Medical Research Council [mMRC] score) on response to treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg, tiotropium 5 µg, or placebo at Week 12 was assessed by St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and response rate, transition dyspnea index (TDI) focal score and response rate, and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second response.ResultsTiotropium/olodaterol improved SGRQ total scores and response rates compared with placebo and tiotropium for patients with baseline mMRC scores 0–1 and ≥2. For tiotropium/olodaterol vs tiotropium, greater improvements were observed for patients with mMRC ≥2 (SGRQ score adjusted mean treatment difference −3.44 [95% CI: −5.43, −1.46]; P=0.0007; SGRQ response rate ORs 2.09 [95% CI: 1.41, 3.10]; P=0.0002). Dyspnea, measured by TDI score, was consistently improved with tiotropium/olodaterol vs placebo for patients with mMRC scores 0–1 and ≥2 (adjusted mean treatment difference 1.63 [95% CI: 1.06, 2.20]; P<0.0001 and 1.60 [95% CI: 1.09, 2.10]; P<0.0001, respectively). In patients with mMRC scores 0–1 and ≥2, tiotropium/olodaterol consistently improved TDI response rate and lung function vs placebo and tiotropium.ConclusionsPatients with COPD with more severe baseline dyspnea appear to derive greater health status benefit with tiotropium/olodaterol compared with tiotropium alone.

Single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone furoate/vilanterol plus umeclidinium using two inhalers for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized non-inferiority study

BackgroundSingle-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 μg has been shown to improve lung function and health status, and reduce exacerbations, versus budesonide/formoterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated the non-inferiority of single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI + UMEC using two inhalers.MethodsEligible patients with COPD (aged ≥40 years; ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the 12 months before screening) were randomized (1:1; stratified by the number of long-acting bronchodilators [0, 1 or 2] per day during run-in) to receive 24-week FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 μg and placebo or FF/VI 100/25 μg + UMEC 62.5 μg; all treatments/placebo were delivered using the ELLIPTA inhaler once-daily in the morning. Primary endpoint: change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The non-inferiority margin for the lower 95% confidence limit was set at − 50 mL.ResultsA total of 1055 patients (844 [80%] of whom were enrolled on combination maintenance therapy) were randomized to receive FF/UMEC/VI (n = 527) or FF/VI + UMEC (n = 528). Mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 113 mL (95% CI 91, 135) for FF/UMEC/VI and 95 mL (95% CI 72, 117) for FF/VI + UMEC; the between-treatment difference of 18 mL (95% CI -13, 50) confirmed FF/UMEC/VI’s was considered non-inferior to FF/VI + UMEC. At Week 24, the proportion of responders based on St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire Total score was 50% (FF/UMEC/VI) and 51% (FF/VI + UMEC); the proportion of responders based on the Transitional Dyspnea Index focal score was similar (56% both groups). A similar proportion of patients experienced a moderate/severe exacerbation in the FF/UMEC/VI (24%) and FF/VI + UMEC (27%) groups; the hazard ratio for time to first moderate/severe exacerbation with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI + UMEC was 0.87 (95% CI 0.68, 1.12). The incidence of adverse events was comparable in both groups (48%); the incidence of serious adverse events was 10% (FF/UMEC/VI) and 11% (FF/VI + UMEC).ConclusionsSingle-inhaler triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) is non-inferior to two inhalers (FF/VI + UMEC) on trough FEV1 change from baseline at 24 weeks. Results were similar on all other measures of efficacy, health-related quality of life, and safety.Trial registrationGSK study CTT200812; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02729051 (submitted 31 March 2016).

A Network Meta-Analysis of Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist (LAMA) and Long-Acting β2-Agonist (LABA) Combinations in COPD.

IntroductionComparative data on the efficacies of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combinations for the treatment of moderate-to-very-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. The aim of this Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) is to assess the relative efficacies of available open combinations (delivered via separate inhalers) and fixed-dose combinations (FDCs, delivered via a single inhaler).MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ≥8-week duration in adults aged ≥40 years with COPD that compared LAMA + LABA combinations with each other, with tiotropium (TIO), or with placebo. Data on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and on St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score, and rescue medication use at 12 and 24 weeks were extracted from these RCTs and analyzed using a NMA in a Bayesian framework.ResultsData from 44 RCTs were included in the NMA. All FDCs showed improvements relative to placebo in terms of trough FEV1, SGRQ total score, and TDI focal score above clinically relevant thresholds, with the exception of TIO/olodaterol and aclidinium/formoterol, both of which failed to show clinically relevant improvements in SGRQ score at 24 weeks. All FDCs demonstrated reduced rescue medication use versus placebo. Open combinations demonstrated improved efficacy in all outcomes versus placebo, but these improvements did not consistently exceed clinically relevant thresholds for SGRQ and TDI scores. All once-daily FDCs showed improved efficacy versus TIO, but improvements were less consistently observed versus TIO with open dual combinations and combinations containing formoterol or salmeterol administered twice daily. Relative probabilities of improvement between FDCs highlighted potential between-class differences for trough FEV1 but suggested little potential for differences in patient-reported outcomes.ConclusionLAMA + LABA combinations generally showed improved outcomes versus placebo and TIO. FDCs appeared to perform better than open dual combinations. A potential effectiveness gradient was observed between FDCs for objectively assessed functional outcomes, although further prospective trials are required to confirm these findings.FundingGSK.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s41030-017-0048-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Reduction in clinically important deterioration in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with aclidinium/formoterol

Background‘Clinically important deterioration’ (CID) is a composite endpoint measuring worsening of the key clinical features of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), namely lung function, patient-reported outcomes, and exacerbations. ACLIFORM and AUGMENT were two 24-week, randomized, double-blind, phase III studies assessing twice-daily (BID) aclidinium bromide (AB) 400 μg/formoterol fumarate (FF) 12 μg. This pooled post-hoc analysis assessed the effects of AB/FF 400/12 μg on both first and sustained CID events versus placebo and monotherapies in patients with moderate to severe COPD.MethodsA first CID event was defined as the occurrence of a moderate/severe exacerbation or the worsening from baseline in ≥1 of the following: trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; ≥100 mL), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score (≥1 unit), or St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (≥4 units). A ‘sustained’ CID was defined as a worsening maintained at all subsequent visits from appearance to week 24 or a moderate/severe exacerbation at any time. CID events were assessed at three visits (weeks 4, 12, and 24); trough FEV1 was also measured at weeks 1 and 18.ResultsAB/FF 400/12 μg reduced the risk of a first CID event by 45% versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, p < 0.001), 18% versus FF 12 μg (HR 0.82, p < 0.01), and 15% versus AB 400 μg (HR 0.85, p < 0.05). Similarly, AB/FF 400/12 μg reduced the risk of a sustained CID event by 48% versus placebo (HR 0.52, p < 0.001) and 22% versus FF 12 μg (HR 0.78, p < 0.01). AB/FF 400/12 μg reduced the risk of a first or sustained CID event for all four components versus placebo (trough FEV1 and TDI, first and sustained CID, all p < 0.001; SGRQ first CID p < 0.001; SGRQ sustained CID, p < 0.01; exacerbations first and sustained CID, both p < 0.05) and TDI and SGRQ versus FF 12 μg (TDI, first and sustained CID both p < 0.05; SGRQ first CID p < 0.01), and SGRQ versus AB 400 μg (first CID, p < 0.05).ConclusionsAB/FF 400/12 μg BID may provide greater airway stability and fewer exacerbations or deteriorations in lung function, health status, or dyspnea compared with placebo or monotherapies.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01462942 (ACLIFORM); registered 26 October 2011.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01437397 (AUGMENT); registered 19 September 2011.

Long-term safety and efficacy of glycopyrrolate/formoterol metered dose inhaler using novel Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BackgroundThe long-term safety and efficacy of a novel Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology glycopyrrolate (GP)/formoterol fumarate (FF) 18/9.6 μg fixed-dose combination metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI) were investigated in a 28-week safety extension study (PINNACLE-3, NCT01970878) of two randomized controlled Phase III trials (PINNACLE-1 and -2; NCT01854645 and NCT01854658) in subjects with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). MethodsSubjects completing 24 weeks' treatment with GFF MDI, GP MDI, FF MDI (all twice-daily) or open-label tiotropium 18 μg (once-daily) in PINNACLE-1 or -2 were randomly selected to continue treatment for 28 weeks. The target enrollment for PINNACLE-3 was 850 subjects. Safety and efficacy were evaluated over 52 weeks. ResultsOf 3274 subjects randomized to active treatment in PINNACLE-1 or -2, 892 entered PINNACLE-3. Incidences of adverse events, serious adverse events and major adverse cardiovascular events were similar across treatment groups with no unexpected safety findings. For change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), treatment differences for GFF MDI versus GP MDI, FF MDI and open-label tiotropium over 52 weeks were 57, 65 and 25 mL, respectively (p ≤ 0.0117). Average daily rescue medication use was significantly reduced for GFF MDI versus GP MDI and open-label tiotropium (p ≤ 0.0002). Statistically significant improvements were observed with GFF MDI versus monocomponents in Self-Administered Computerized Transition Dyspnea Index focal score, and in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score versus GP MDI. ConclusionsResults confirmed the long-term safety and tolerability of GFF MDI 18/9.6 μg twice-daily in subjects with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Improvements in efficacy endpoints were also sustained over 52 weeks.

Effect of tiotropium and olodaterol on symptoms and patient-reported outcomes in patients with COPD: results from four randomised, double-blind studies

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Trials of maintenance chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatments focus on improvement in lung function and reductions in exacerbations, while patients are much more concerned about symptoms and health status. Our aim was to investigate the effects of tiotropium + olodaterol on patient-reported health outcomes, breathlessness and night-time rescue medication use in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, compared to placebo, tiotropium or olodaterol monotherapy. Two pairs of replicate, phase III studies of 12 (OTEMTO 1 + 2) and 52 weeks’ (TONADO 1 + 2) duration were evaluated, in which patients received either tiotropium + olodaterol 2.5/5 or 5/5 μg, tiotropium 2.5 or 5 μg, olodaterol 5 μg or placebo, all delivered once daily via Respimat inhaler. Patient-reported outcomes included breathlessness assessed by transition dyspnoea index focal score, health status assessed by St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score and night-time rescue medication use at 12 or 24 weeks. Outcomes from the pooled study data are reported. Overall, 1621 and 5162 patients were treated in the OTEMTO and TONADO trials, respectively. Significantly larger improvements in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and transition dyspnoea index focal scores were observed and a greater proportion of patients were responders to therapy (based on minimum clinically important differences in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and transition dyspnoea index) with tiotropium + olodaterol compared to either monotherapy or to placebo. Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 µg significantly reduced night-time rescue medication usage.