Search

Despite inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting β 2 -agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy, 30–50% of patients with moderate or severe asthma remain inadequately controlled. We investigated the safety and efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate plus umeclidinium plus vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) compared with FF/VI. In this double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3A study (Clinical Study in Asthma Patients Receiving Triple Therapy in a Single Inhaler [CAPTAIN]), participants were recruited from 416 hospitals and primary care centres across 15 countries. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with inadequately controlled asthma (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ]-6 score of ≥1·5) despite ICS/LABA, a documented health-care contact or a documented temporary change in asthma therapy for treatment of acute asthma symptoms in the year before screening, pre-bronchodilator FEV 1 between 30% and less than 85% of predicted normal value, and reversibility (defined as an increase in FEV 1 of ≥12% and ≥200 mL in the 20–60 min after four inhalations of albuterol or salbutamol) at screening. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), via central based randomisation stratified by pre-study ICS dose at study entry, to once-daily FF/VI (100/25 μg or 200/25 μg) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 μg, 100/62·5/25 μg, 200/31·25/25 μg, or 200/62·5/25 μg) administered via Ellipta dry powder inhaler (Glaxo Operations UK, Hertfordshire, UK). Patients, investigators, and the funder were masked to treatment allocation. Endpoints assessed in the intention-to-treat population were change from baseline in clinic trough FEV 1 at week 24 (primary) and annualised moderate and/or severe asthma exacerbation rate (key secondary). Other secondary endpoints were change from baseline in clinic FEV 1 at 3 h post-dose, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and ACQ-7 total score, all at week 24. Change from baseline in Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Asthma total score at weeks 21–24 was also a secondary endpoint but is not reported here. Exploratory analyses of biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation on treatment response were also done. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02924688 , and is now complete. Between Dec 16, 2016, and Aug 31, 2018, 5185 patients were screened and 2439 were recruited and randomly assigned to FF/VI (100/25 μg n=407; 200/25 μg n=406) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 μg n=405; 100/62·5/25 μg n=406; 200/31·25/25 μg n=404; 200/62·5/25 μg n=408), with three patients randomly assigned in error and not included in analyses. In the intention-to-treat population, 922 (38%) patients were men, the mean age was 53·2 years (SD 13·1) and body-mass index was 29·4 (6·6). Baseline demographics were generally similar across all treatment groups. The least squares mean improvement in FEV 1 change from baseline for FF/UMEC/VI 100/62·5/25 μg versus FF/VI 100/25 μg was 110 mL (95% CI 66–153; p<0·0001) and for 200/62·5/25 μg versus 200/25 μg was 92 mL (49–135; p<0·0001). Adding UMEC 31·25 μg to FF/VI produced similar improvements (FF/UMEC/VI 100/31·25/25 μg vs FF/VI 100/25 μg: 96 mL [52–139; p<0·0001]; and 200/31·25/25 μg vs 200/25 μg: 82 mL [39–125; p=0·0002]). These results were supported by the analysis of clinic FEV 1 at 3 h post-dose. Non-significant reductions in moderate and/or severe exacerbation rates were observed for FF/UMEC 62·5 μg/VI versus FF/VI (pooled analysis), with rates lower in FF 200 μg-containing versus FF 100 μg-containing treatment groups. All pooled treatment groups demonstrated mean improvements (decreases) in SGRQ total score at week 24 compared with baseline in excess of the minimal clinically important difference of 4 points; however, there were no differences between treatment groups. For mean change from baseline to week 24 in asthma control questionnaire-7 score, improvements (decreases) exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of 0·5 points were observed in all pooled treatment groups. Adding UMEC to FF/VI resulted in small, dose-related improvements compared with FF/VI (pooled analysis: FF/UMEC 31·25 μg/VI versus FF/VI, −0·06 (95% CI −0·12 to 0·01; p=0·094) FF/UMEC 62·5 μg/VI versus FF/VI, −0·09 (−0·16 to −0·02, p=0·0084). By contrast with adding UMEC, the effects of higher dose FF on clinic trough FEV 1 and annualised moderate and/or severe exacerbation rate were increased in patients with higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exhaled nitric oxide. Occurrence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups (patients with at least one event ranged from 210 [52%] to 258 [63%]), with the most commonly reported adverse events being nasopharyngitis (51 [13%]–63 [15%]), headache (19 [5%]–36 [9%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (13 [3%]–24 [6%]). The incidence of serious adverse events was similar across all groups (range 18 [4%]–25 [6%)). Three deaths occurred, of which one was considered to be related to study drug (pulmonary embolism in a patient in the FF/UMEC/VI 100/31·25/25 μg group). In patients with uncontrolled moderate or severe asthma on ICS/LABA, adding UMEC improved lung function but did not lead to a significant reduction in moderate and/or severe exacerbations. For such patients, single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI is an effective treatment option with a favourable risk–benefit profile. Higher dose FF primarily reduced the rate of exacerbations, particularly in patients with raised biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation. Further confirmatory studies into the differentiating effect of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers on treatment outcomes in asthma are required to build on these exploratory findings and further guide clinical practice. GSK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with asthma uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids may benefit from umeclidinium (UMEC), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist.Methods: This Phase IIb, double-blind study included patients with reversible, uncontrolled/partially-controlled asthma for ≥6 months, receiving ≥100 mcg/day fluticasone propionate (or equivalent) for ≥12 weeks. Following a 2-week run-in on open-label fluticasone furoate (FF) 100 mcg, patients were randomised (1:1:1) to receive UMEC 31.25 mcg, UMEC 62.5 mcg or placebo on top of FF 100 mcg once-daily for 24 weeks. As-needed salbutamol was provided. Primary and secondary endpoints were change from baseline in clinic trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and clinic FEV1 3 h post-dose, respectively, at Week 24. Other endpoints included change from baseline in home daily spirometry (trough FEV1, evening FEV1, morning [pre-dose] and evening peak expiratory flow) over 24 weeks. Safety was assessed throughout the study.Results: The intent-to-treat population comprised 421 patients (UMEC 31.25 mcg: n =139, UMEC 62.5 mcg: n =139, placebo: n =143). UMEC 31.25 mcg and 62.5 mcg demonstrated significantly greater improvements from baseline in clinic trough FEV1 at Week 24 (difference [95% CI]: 0.176 L [0.092, 0.260; p<0.001] and 0.184 L [0.101, 0.268; p<0.001], respectively), clinic FEV1 3 h post-dose at Week 24 (0.190 L [0.100, 0.279; p<0.001] and 0.198 L [0.109, 0.287; p<0.001], respectively) and mean change from baseline in daily home spirometry over 24 weeks versus placebo. No new safety signals were identified.Conclusions: UMEC is a highly effective bronchodilator that leads to improved lung function when administered as a single bronchodilator on top of FF in subjects with fully reversible, uncontrolled/partially-controlled moderate asthma. These data support a favourable benefit/risk profile for UMEC (31.25 mcg and 62.5 mcg).Trial Registration: GSK study ID: 205832; Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03012061. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Although interventions have been shown to alleviate symptoms in most patients suffering from asthma, only one-third of asthma patients have disease that is well-controlled. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether partly and uncontrolled asthmas are associated with increased costs for asthma-related healthcare utilization compared to well-controlled asthma and to determine whether these associations differed across racial groups. Methods: We classified respondents from the Asthma Insights and Management survey into those with well-, partly and uncontrolled asthma and compared utilization of healthcare services and costs among these groups, as well as between whites and non-whites. Results: Respondents categorized as having asthma that was not well-controlled reported lower income levels, higher rates of unemployment and more trouble paying for healthcare; similar results were found in analyses stratified by race. Patients whose asthma was partly or uncontrolled had greater use of asthma-related medications and medical services compared to patients whose asthma was well-controlled. Total unadjusted and adjusted costs were greater in patients whose asthma was classified as partly and uncontrolled. Similar results were found in analyses stratified on race. Across all levels of asthma control, non-whites had higher rates of utilization of emergency rooms and urgent care facilities and had greater rates of hospitalizations compared to whites. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that patients with asthma that is not well-controlled utilized more healthcare resources and had greater medical costs, despite lacking of health insurance which may suggest less access to care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of a new asthma therapy combining fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; flutiformW), administered twice daily (b.i.d.) via a single aerosol inhaler, compared with its individual components administered separately and placebo, in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma. Methods: Patients aged ≥12 years were evenly randomised to 12 weeks of treatment with fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 µg b.i.d.), fluticasone (100 µg b.i.d.), formoterol (10 µg b.i.d.), or placebo, in this double-blind, parallel group, multicentre study. The three co-primary endpoints were: a) change in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) from morning pre-dose at baseline to pre-dose at week 12 for the comparison with formoterol; b) change in FEV1 from morning pre-dose at baseline to 2 hours post-dose at week 12 for the comparison with fluticasone, and c) time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy from baseline to week 12 for the comparison with placebo. Safety was assessed based on adverse events, clinical laboratory tests and vital sign evaluations. Results: Statistically significant differences were demonstrated for all the three co-primary endpoints. Fluticasone/ formoterol combination therapy showed significantly greater improvements from baseline to end of study in the change in pre-dose FEV1 compared with formoterol (Least Squares (LS) mean treatment difference: 0.101 L; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.002, 0.199; p = 0.045) and the change in pre-dose compared with 2 hours post-dose FEV1 versus fluticasone (LS mean treatment difference: 0.200 L; 95% CI: 0.109, 0.292; p < 0.001). The time to discontinuation due to lack of efficacy was significantly longer for patients in the combination therapy group compared with those receiving placebo (p = 0.015). Overall, the results from multiple secondary endpoints assessing lung function, asthma symptoms, and rescue medication use supported the superior efficacy of the combination product compared with fluticasone, formoterol, and placebo. The fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy had a good safety and tolerability profile over the 12 week treatment period. Conclusions: Fluticasone/formoterol had a good safety and tolerability profile and showed statistically superior efficacy for the three co-primary endpoints compared to fluticasone, formoterol, and placebo, in adolescents and adults with mild-to-moderate asthma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with asthma experience disruptions in usual activities that can impair their quality of life, and in patients whose daily routine involves an active lifestyle, these disruptions can be severe. We assessed the patient-perceived effect of treatment with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC), compared with fluticasone propionate (FP) or salmeterol (SAL) alone, on activity limitations, particularly strenuous physical activities. The Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) was administered in two 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials comparing FSC 100/50 or 250/50 µg twice daily vs. the individual components alone in 686 adults and adolescents with asthma. In one study, patients were stratified by prior treatment [low to medium doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or SAL], and in the other study, all patients were previously treated with medium to high doses of ICS. Patients prospectively identified five activities they performed regularly and were asked how these activities were limited by their asthma. The effect of randomized treatment on strenuous activities (e.g., aerobics, cycling, hiking, and basketball) was assessed. In both studies, treatment with FSC resulted in clinically meaningful improvements (i.e., change in AQLQ of ≥0.5) and was statistically significantly better than SAL in both studies and FP in one study. Treatment of the two main components of asthma—inflammation and bronchoconstriction—with FSC results in clinically meaningful improvements in the ability of patients with persistent asthma to perform not only their usual activities but also strenuous activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]