Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler triple-therapy fluticasone furoate (FF), umeclidinium (UMEC), and vilanterol (VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations, with a similar safety profile.Research Question: Are trial outcomes with single-inhaler triple-therapy FF/UMEC/VI vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI affected by age in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations?Study Design and Methods: IMPACT was a phase III, double-blind, 52-week trial. Patients ≥ 40 years of age with symptomatic COPD and ≥ 1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year were randomly assigned 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 μg, FF/VI 100/25 μg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg. End points assessed by age included annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline (CFB) in trough FEV1, proportion of St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders (≥ 4 units decrease from baseline in SGRQ total score), and safety.Results: The intention-to-treat population comprised 10,355 patients; 4,724 (46%), 4,225 (41%), and 1,406 (14%) were ≤ 64, 65 to 74, and ≥ 75 years of age, respectively. FF/UMEC/VI reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates vs FF/VI (% reduction [95% CI]: ≤ 64 years, 8% [-1 to 16]; P = .070; 65-74 years, 22% [14-29]; P < .001; ≥ 75 years, 18% [3-31]; P = .021) and vs UMEC/VI (≤ 64 years, 16% [7-25]; P = .002; 65-74 years, 33% [25-41]; P < .001; ≥ 75 years, 24% [6-38]; P = .012), with greatest rate reduction seen in the 65 to 74 and ≥ 75 years subgroups. Post hoc analyses of CFB in trough FEV1 and proportion of SGRQ responders at week 52 were significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI than with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in all subgroups. No new safety signals were identified.Interpretation: FF/UMEC/VI reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations and improved lung function and health status vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI irrespective of age for most end points, with a similar safety profile.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02164513; URL: www.clinicaltrials.govCTT116855. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: In the IMPACT (Informing the Pathway of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment) trial, fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) significantly reduced exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a history of exacerbations.Objectives: To understand whether inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) withdrawal affected IMPACT results, given direct transition from prior maintenance medication to study medication at randomization.Methods: Exacerbations and change from baseline in trough FEV1 and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire results were analyzed by prior ICS use. Exacerbations were also analyzed while excluding data from the first 30 days.Measurements and Main Results: FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the annual moderate/severe exacerbation rate compared with UMEC/VI in prior ICS users (29% reduction; P < 0.001), but only a numerical reduction was seen among prior ICS nonusers (12% reduction; P = 0.115). To minimize impact from ICS withdrawal, in an analysis excluding the first 30 days, FF/UMEC/VI continued to significantly reduce the annual on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rate (19%; P < 0.001) compared with UMEC/VI. The benefit of FF/UMEC/VI compared with UMEC/VI was seen for severe exacerbation rates, regardless of prior ICS use (prior ICS users, 35% reduction; P < 0.001; non-ICS users, 35% reduction; P = 0.018), and overall when excluding the first 30 days (29%; P < 0.001). Improvements from baseline with FF/UMEC/VI compared with UMEC/VI were also maintained throughout the study for both trough FEV1 and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, regardless of prior ICS use.Conclusions: These data support the important treatment effects of FF/UMEC/VI combination therapy on exacerbation reduction, lung function, and quality of life that do not appear to be related to abrupt ICS withdrawal.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02164513). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The IMPACT trial has compared the benefit in the reduction of moderate/severe exacerbations of single inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus dual therapy with FF/VI (ICS/LABA) and UMEC/VI (LAMA/LABA) in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive disease (COPD). This study performs a subgroup analysis of the cohort from Spain in the IMPACT study. Materials and Methods: In IMPACT, a 52-week randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study (N = 10,355), patients ⩾40 years of age with COPD and ⩾1 moderate/severe exacerbations in the previous year were randomized 2:2:1 to once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg administered via the Ellipta inhaler. Here, we present a subgroup analysis of the 499 patients from Spain, included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population in the study. Endpoint assessed included exposure-adjusted rate of moderate and severe exacerbations. Results: In the Spain cohort, the exposure-adjusted rate of on-treatment moderate/severe COPD exacerbations per year for FF/UMEC/VI was 1.31 versus 1.43 and 1.57 for FF/VI and UMEC/VI, respectively. No new adverse events were identified. The results are consistent with those observed in the overall ITT study population. Conclusion: In the Spain cohort of the IMPACT study, patients receiving triple therapy with FF/UMEC/VI had a lower exposure-adjusted rate of exacerbations compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI, similar to the overall population. Study Title: A Phase III, 52 Week, Randomized, Double-blind, 3-arm Parallel Group Study, Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of the Fixed Dose Triple Combination FF/UMEC/VI With the Fixed Dose Dual Combinations of FF/VI and UMEC/VI, All Administered Once-daily in the Morning Via a Dry Powder Inhaler in Subjects With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease URL : https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=CTT116855/https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02164513 Registration number : GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513). The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: The IMPACT (Informing the Pathway of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment) trial demonstrated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (ACM) risk with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of future exacerbations. Five hundred seventy-four patients were censored in the original analysis owing to incomplete vital status information.Objectives: Report ACM and impact of stepping down therapy, following collection of additional vital status data.Methods: Patients were randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 μg, FF/VI 100/25 μg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg following a run-in on their COPD therapies. Time to ACM was prespecified. Additional vital status data collection and subsequent analyses were performed post hoc.Measurements and Main Results: We report vital status data for 99.6% of the intention-to-treat population (n = 10,355), documenting 98 (2.36%) deaths on FF/UMEC/VI, 109 (2.64%) on FF/VI, and 66 (3.19%) on UMEC/VI. For FF/UMEC/VI, the hazard ratio for death was 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.99; P = 0.042) versus UMEC/VI and 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.16; P = 0.387) versus FF/VI. Independent adjudication confirmed lower rates of cardiovascular and respiratory death and death associated with the patient's COPD.Conclusions: In this secondary analysis of an efficacy outcome from the IMPACT trial, once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy reduced the risk of ACM versus UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Inhaled corticosteroids have been shown to decrease exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Their effects in patients with milder airflow obstruction remain unclear.Objectives: This was an analysis of exacerbations in the SUMMIT (Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity) study.Methods: In a double-blind, randomized controlled trial, once-daily inhaled placebo, fluticasone furoate (FF; 100 μg), vilanterol (VI; 25 μg), or the combination of FF/VI was administered. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Exacerbations of COPD were an additional predefined endpoint. A total of 1,368 centers in 43 countries and 16,485 patients with moderate COPD and heightened cardiovascular risk were included in the study.Measurements and Main Results: Compared with placebo, FF/VI reduced the rate of moderate and/or severe exacerbations by 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22-35; P < 0.001) and the rate of hospitalized exacerbations by 27% (95% CI, 13-39; P < 0.001). These relative effects were similar regardless of whether subjects had a history of exacerbation in the year before the study or an FEV1 <60% or ≥60% of predicted. The number needed to treat was not influenced by baseline FEV1 but was influenced by the history of exacerbations. FF/VI also reduced the rate of exacerbations treated with corticosteroids alone or with corticosteroids and antibiotics but not the rates of those treated with antibiotics alone.Conclusions: Patients with moderate chronic airflow obstruction experienced a reduction in exacerbations with FF/VI compared with placebo, irrespective of a history of exacerbations or baseline FEV1. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01313676; GSK Study number 113782). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Combination long-acting bronchodilator therapy may be more effective than long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 125/25 mcg with placebo and UMEC or VI monotherapy in COPD.Methods: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. A total of 1493 patients were randomized (3:3:3:2) to 24 weeks of treatment with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg, UMEC 125 mcg, VI 25 mcg, or placebo once-daily via dry powder inhaler.Results: Primary efficacy endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) on Day 169 (23-24 h post-dose). Additional lung-function, symptomatic and health-related quality of life endpoints were also assessed. Safety evaluations included: adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiography and clinical laboratory measurements. All active treatments significantly improved trough FEV1 vs placebo (0.124-0.238 L, all p<0.001). Improvements with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg were significantly greater than for UMEC 125 mcg or VI 25 mcg (0.079 L and 0.114 L; both p≤0.001). Improvements for UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg vs placebo were observed for the transition dyspnea index (1.0 unit; p<0.001), rescue albuterol use at Weeks 1-24 (-1.5 puffs/day) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (-3.60 units, p<0.001). No safety signals were observed.Conclusions: Once-daily UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg was well tolerated and provided greater improvements in lung function, health status, and dyspnea scores compared with monotherapy components and placebo over 24 weeks. This study supports the use of UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg for the maintenance treatment of COPD.Clinical Trial Registration: protocol number: DB2113361; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01313637. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Triple therapy with Fluticasone Furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) was compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. For the comparison of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI in patients with a baseline FEV1% >=50%, the only significant improvement was FEV1 (0.097L); P<0.05. [Extracted from the article]

The effect of baseline reversibility on treatment response with fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) 100/62.5/25 mcg was compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. Reduction in severe exacerbations rates were 44% for FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI (95% CI: 14-63%) in reversible patients and 31% (95% CI: 17-44%) for non-reversible patients. B CONCLUSIONS: b FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the annual rate and TTF moderate/severe and severe exacerbations, improved lung function and QoL compared with UMEC/VI regardless of baseline reversibility. [Extracted from the article]

An abstract of the article Overview of Safety of Fluticasone Furoate, Vilanterol, or Their Combination in COPD Patients With Moderate Airflow Obstruction: The Summit Trial" by Fernando Martinez is presented.

Background: The benefits of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with an inhaled glucocorticoid, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), as compared with dual therapy (either inhaled glucocorticoid-LABA or LAMA-LABA), are uncertain.Methods: In this randomized trial involving 10,355 patients with COPD, we compared 52 weeks of a once-daily combination of fluticasone furoate (an inhaled glucocorticoid) at a dose of 100 μg, umeclidinium (a LAMA) at a dose of 62.5 μg, and vilanterol (a LABA) at a dose of 25 μg (triple therapy) with fluticasone furoate-vilanterol (at doses of 100 μg and 25 μg, respectively) and umeclidinium-vilanterol (at doses of 62.5 μg and 25 μg, respectively). Each regimen was administered in a single Ellipta inhaler. The primary outcome was the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations during treatment.Results: The rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the triple-therapy group was 0.91 per year, as compared with 1.07 per year in the fluticasone furoate-vilanterol group (rate ratio with triple therapy, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.90; 15% difference; P<0.001) and 1.21 per year in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group (rate ratio with triple therapy, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.81; 25% difference; P<0.001). The annual rate of severe exacerbations resulting in hospitalization in the triple-therapy group was 0.13, as compared with 0.19 in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group (rate ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.78; 34% difference; P<0.001). There was a higher incidence of pneumonia in the inhaled-glucocorticoid groups than in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group, and the risk of clinician-diagnosed pneumonia was significantly higher with triple therapy than with umeclidinium-vilanterol, as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.92; P<0.001).Conclusions: Triple therapy with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol resulted in a lower rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations than fluticasone furoate-vilanterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol in this population. Triple therapy also resulted in a lower rate of hospitalization due to COPD than umeclidinium-vilanterol. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; IMPACT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02164513 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a multicomponent measure for assessing disease worsening in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis investigated the prognostic value of a CID event on future clinical outcomes and the effect of single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy on reducing CID risk in patients in the IMPACT trial., Methods: IMPACT was a phase III, double-blind, 52-week, multicentre trial. Patients with symptomatic COPD and at least one moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomised 2:2:1 to fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg. CID at the time-point of interest was defined as a moderate/severe exacerbation, ≥100 mL decrease in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s or deterioration in health status (increase of ≥4.0 units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score or increase of ≥2.0 units in COPD Assessment Test score) from baseline. A treatment-independent post hoc prognostic analysis compared clinical outcomes up to week 52 in patients with/without a CID by week 28. A prospective analysis evaluated time to first CID with each treatment., Results: Patients with a CID by week 28 had significantly increased exacerbation rates after week 28, smaller improvements in lung function and health status at week 52 (all p<0.001), and increased risk of all-cause mortality after week 28 versus patients who were CID-free. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced CID risk versus dual therapies (all p<0.001)., Conclusions: Prevention of short-term disease worsening was associated with better long-term clinical outcomes. FF/UMEC/VI reduced CID risk versus dual therapies; this effect may improve long-term prognosis in this population., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: M.K. Han personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline, research support from Novartis and Sunovion, and personal fees from Mylan, Merck and Verona, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: G.J. Criner personal fees from Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, CSA Medical, Eolo Medical and GlaxoSmithKline, and ownership interest in HGE Health Care Solutions, and personal fees from Novartis, Nuvaira, Olympus, Pulmonx, Verona, Amgen, Broncus Medical, Gala Therapeutics, Helios Medical, Merck, Medtronic, Mereo BioPharma, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Philips Respironics, Respivant Sciences and The Implementation Group, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M.T. Dransfield grants from the Dept of Defense, personal fees and other support from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline, other support from Novartis, personal fees and other support from AstraZeneca, other support from Yungjin, personal fees and other support from PneumRx/BTG, other support from Pulmonx, personal fees from Genentech, other support from Boston Scientific, personal fees from Quark Pharmaceuticals, grants from NIH, personal fees from Mereo, and grants from the American Lung Association and the NIH, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D.M.G. Halpin reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees and nonfinancial support from GlaxoSmithKline, and personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C.E. Jones is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Kilbride is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: P. Lange personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi, and grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Lettis is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D.A. Lipson is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D.A. Lomas reports grants from GlaxoSmithKline and personal fees from Grifols, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: N. Martin is an employee of and holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: F.J. Martinez reports personal fees, nonfinancial support and other support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim, nonfinancial support and other support from ProterrixBio, personal fees from Columbia University, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline and Inova Fairfax Health System, personal fees from MD Magazine and Methodist Hospital Brooklyn, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Miller Communications, the National Association for Continuing Education and Novartis, personal fees from New York University, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Pearl Pharmaceuticals, PeerView Communications, Prime Communications, the Puerto Rican Respiratory Society, Chiesi, Sunovion and Theravance, personal fees from UpToDate and WebMD/MedScape, other support from Afferent/Merck, nonfinancial support from Gilead and Nitto, personal fees and other support from Patara/Respivant, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Potomac, other support from Biogen, personal fees and nonfinancial support from the University of Alabama Birmingham, other support from Veracyte, nonfinancial support from Zambon, personal fees from the American Thoracic Society, grants from the NIH, personal fees and nonfinancial support from the Physicians Education Resource, personal fees from Rockpointe, other support from Prometic, personal fees from Rare Disease Healthcare Communications, other support from Bayer and Bridge Biotherapeutics, personal fees and nonfinancial support from the Canadian Respiratory Network, other support from ProMedior, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Teva, personal fees from the France Foundation, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Dartmouth, other support from Gala, and personal fees from the Physicians Education Resource, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: R.A. Wise reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca/Medimmune/Pearl and Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Contrafect, Pulmonx, Roche, Spiration and Sunovion, grants from Pearl Therapeutics, personal fees from Merck, Circassia, Pneuma, Verona, Mylan/Theravance and Propeller Health, grants from Sanofi-Aventis, personal fees from AbbVie, and grants and personal fees from GSK, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: I.P. Naya holds shares/options in GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D. Singh reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi, personal fees from Cipla and Genentech, grants and personal fees from Glenmark, personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, grants and personal fees from Menarini and Mundipharma, personal fees from Peptinnovate, and grants and personal fees from Pfizer, Pulmatrix, Theravance and Verona, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©ERS 2021.)

IMPACT, a 52-week, randomised, double-blind trial, assessed the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations.Subgroup analyses assessed whether the efficacy of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI versus FF/VI varies according to prior exacerbation history, and the combined effects of exacerbation history and blood eosinophil counts. Three subgroups were defined: single moderate (1 moderate/no severe; n=3056 (30%)), frequent moderate (≥2 moderate/no severe; n=4628 (45%)) and severe (≥1 severe/any moderate; n=2671 (26%)). End-points included annual on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rate (pre-specified), lung function and health status (both post-hoc).Moderate/severe exacerbation rates (reduction % (95% CI)) were reduced in the FF/UMEC/VI group versus FF/VI (single moderate 20% (10-29), frequent moderate 11% (2-19), severe 17% (7-26)) and versus UMEC/VI (single moderate 18% (5-29), frequent moderate 29% (21-37), severe 26% (14-35)). Moderate/severe exacerbation rates were reduced in the FF/VI group versus UMEC/VI in the frequent moderate subgroup; a numerical reduction was observed in the severe subgroup (single moderate 2% (-12-18), frequent moderate 21% (11-29), severe 11% (-3-22)). Moderate/severe exacerbation rates were lower in the FF/VI group compared with UMEC/VI in patients with higher eosinophil counts. FF/UMEC/VI improved lung function and health status versus both dual therapies irrespective of exacerbation subgroup. UMEC/VI improved lung function versus FF/VI in all subgroups.Triple therapy was more effective than dual regardless of exacerbation history, consistent with results in the intent-to-treat population. Comparisons between dual therapies were influenced by prior exacerbation history and eosinophil counts., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: D.M.G. Halpin reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M.T. Dransfield reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; grants from Department of Defense, personal fees and other from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees and other from GlaxoSmithKline, other from Novartis, personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, other from Yungjin, personal fees and other from PneumRx/BTG, other from Pulmonx, personal fees from Genentech, other from Boston Scientific, personal fees from Quark Pharmaceuticals, grants from NIH, personal fees from Mereo, grants from American Lung Association, grants from NIH, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M.K. Han reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, other from Novartis, other from Sunovion, personal fees from Mylan, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: E. Jones reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, other from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Kilbride reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, other from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: P. Lange reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Chiesi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D.A. Lipson reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, other from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D.A. Lomas reports personal fees and other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; grants from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees and other from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from Grifols, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: F.J. Martinez reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees and non-financial support from American College of Chest Physicians, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, non-financial support from ProterrixBio, personal fees from Columbia University, personal fees and non-financial support from ConCert, personal fees and non-financial support from Genentech, personal fees and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees and non-financial support from Inova Fairfax Health System, personal fees from Integritas, personal fees from MD Magazine, personal fees from Methodist Hospital Brooklyn, personal fees and non-financial support from Miller Communicatinos, personal fees and non-financial support from National Association for Continuing Education, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees from New York University, personal fees and non-financial support from Pearl Pharmaceuticals, personal fees and non-financial support from PeerView Communications, personal fees and non-financial support from Prime Communications, personal fees and non-financial support from Puerto Rican Respiratory Society, personal fees and non-financial support from Chiesi, personal fees and non-financial support from Sunovion, personal fees and non-financial support from Theravance, personal fees from UpToDate, personal fees from WebMD/MedScape, personal fees from Western Connecticut Health Network, other from Afferent/Merck, non-financial support from Gilead, non-financial support from Nitto, personal fees from Patara/Respivant, personal fees from PlatformIQ, personal fees and non-financial support from Potomac, other from Biogen, personal fees and non-financial support from University of Alabama Birmingham, other from Veracyte, non-financial support from Zambon, personal fees from American Thoracic Society, grants from NIH, personal fees and non-financial support from Physicians Education Resource, personal fees from Rockpointe, other from Prometic, personal fees from Rare Disease Healthcare Communications, other from Bayer, other from Bridge Biotherapeutics, personal fees and non-financial support from Canadian Respiratory Network, other from ProMedior, personal fees and non-financial support from Teva, personal fees from France Foundation, personal fees and non-financial support from Dartmouth, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: S. Pascoe reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, other from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: D. Singh reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees from Cipla, personal fees from Genentech, grants and personal fees from Glenmark, grants and personal fees from Menarini, grants and personal fees from Mundipharma, grants and personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Peptinnovate, grants and personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from Pulmatrix, grants and personal fees from Therevance, grants and personal fees from Verona, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: R. Wise reports personal fees, non-financial support and other from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca / Medimmune / Pearl, grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Contrafect, personal fees from Pulmonx, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Spiration, personal fees from Sunovion, grants from Pearl Therapeutics, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Circassia, personal fees from Pneuma, personal fees from Verona, personal fees from Mylan/Theravance, personal fees from Propeller Health, grants from Sanofi-Aventis, personal fees from AbbVie, grants and personal fees from GSK, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: G.J. Criner reports other from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Almirall, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Chiesi, personal fees from CSA Medical, personal fees from Eolo, personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from HGE Technologies, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Nuvaira, personal fees from Olympus, personal fees from Pulmonx, personal fees from Verona, personal fees from NGM Bio, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©ERS 2020.)