Search

This review addresses outstanding questions regarding initial pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Optimizing initial treatment improves clinical outcomes in symptomatic patients, including those with low exacerbation risk. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β 2 -agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy improves lung function versus LAMA or LABA monotherapy, although other treatment benefits have been less consistently observed. The benefits of dual bronchodilation in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk, and its duration of efficacy and cost effectiveness in this population, are not yet fully established. Questions remain on the impact of baseline symptom severity, prior treatment, degree of reversibility to bronchodilators, and smoking status on responses to dual bronchodilator treatment. Using evidence from EMAX (NCT03034915), a 6-month trial comparing the LAMA/LABA combination umeclidinium/vilanterol with umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapy in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk who were inhaled corticosteroid-naïve, we describe how these findings can be applied in primary care., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: EMK has served on advisory boards, speaker panels or received travel reimbursement for Amphastar, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Connect Biopharma, GSK, Mylan, Novartis, Pearl, Sunovion, Teva and Theravance, and has received consulting fees from Cipla and GSK. PWJ is an Emeritus Professor of Respiratory Medicine at St George’s, University of London, and a former full-time employee of GSK at the time of protocol development and contributed to study design and protocol on behalf of GSK. He is a part-time consultant at GSK and holds stocks/shares. IHB, DAL and CC are employees of GSK and hold stock and shares in GSK. LHB has received honoraria for giving a lecture or attending an advisory board for Airsonett, ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Meda, Novartis and Teva. FM has received research grants for participating in multicenter trials for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Sanofi and Novartis, and has received unrestricted research grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols and Novartis. IPN was an employee of GSK at the time of the EMAX trial, holds stocks and shares in GSK, and was a contingent worker on assignment at AstraZeneca. LT is a contingent worker on assignment at GSK. CFV has received grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Grifols, Mundipharma, Novartis, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Competence Network Asthma and COPD (ASCONET), and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin Chemie/Menarini, Chiesi, CSL Behring, GSK, Grifols, MedUpdate, Novartis and Teva. DISKUS and ELLIPTA are owned by/licensed to the GSK group of companies.

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 β 2 -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., Competing Interests: Disclosures FM has received research grants for participating in multicentre trials for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Sanofi and Novartis, and has received unrestricted research grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols and Novartis. CFV has received grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Grifols and Novartis, and has received lecturing and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin Chemie/Menarini, Chiesi, CSL Behring, GSK, Grifols, MedUpdate, Novartis, Aerogen and Nuvaira. EMK has served on advisory boards, speaker panels or received travel reimbursement for Amphastar, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Connect Biopharma, GSK, Mylan, Novartis, Pearl, Sunovion, Teva and Theravance, and has received consulting fees from Cipla and GSK. LHB has received honoraria for giving a lecture or attending an advisory board for Airsonett, ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Meda, Novartis and Teva. PWJ, IHB, DAL and CC are GSK employees and hold shares and stocks in GSK. LT is a contingent worker on assignment at GSK. IPN was an employee of GSK at the time of the EMAX trial, holds stocks and shares in GSK, and was a contingent worker on assignment at AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the relationship between short-term bronchodilator reversibility and longer-term response to bronchodilators is unclear. Here, we investigated whether the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators is associated with reversibility of airflow limitation in patients with COPD with a low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids., Methods: The double-blind, double-dummy EMAX trial randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once daily, or salmeterol 50 µg twice daily. Bronchodilator reversibility to salbutamol was measured once at screening and defined as an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL 10-30 min post salbutamol. Post hoc, fractional polynomial (FP) modelling was conducted using the degree of reversibility (mL) at screening as a continuous variable to investigate its relationship to mean change from baseline in trough FEV 1 and self-administered computerised-Transition Dyspnoea Index (SAC-TDI) at Week 24, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD (E-RS) at Weeks 21-24, and rescue medication use (puffs/day) over Weeks 1-24. Analyses were conducted across the full range of reversibility (-850-896 mL); however, results are presented for the range -100-400 mL because there were few participants with values outside this range., Results: The mean (standard deviation) reversibility was 130 mL (156) and the median was 113 mL; 625/2425 (26%) patients were reversible. There was a trend towards greater improvements in trough FEV 1 , SAC-TDI, E-RS and rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol with higher reversibility. Improvements in trough FEV 1 and reductions in rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol compared with either monotherapy across the range of reversibility. Greater improvements in SAC-TDI and E-RS total scores were observed with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in the middle of the reversibility range., Conclusions: FP analyses suggest that patients with higher levels of reversibility have greater improvements in lung function and symptoms in response to bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy across the full range of reversibility, suggesting that the dual bronchodilator umeclidinium/vilanterol may be an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of their level of reversibility., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Smoking may reduce the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but its impact on bronchodilator efficacy is unclear. This analysis of the EMAX trial explored efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in current or former smokers with COPD., Methods: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms, health status, exacerbations, clinically important deterioration, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving ICS. Current and former smoker subgroups were defined by smoking status at screening., Results: The analysis included 1203 (50%) current smokers and 1221 (50%) former smokers. Both subgroups demonstrated greater improvements from baseline in trough FEV 1 at week 24 (primary endpoint) with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (least squares [LS] mean difference, mL [95% CI]; current: 84 [50, 117]; former: 49 [18, 80]) and salmeterol (current: 165 [132, 198]; former: 117 [86, 148]) and larger reductions in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (LS mean difference [95% CI]; current: - 0.42 [- 0.63, - 0.20]; former: - 0.25 - 0.44, - 0.05]) and salmeterol (current: - 0.28 [- 0.49, - 0.06]; former: - 0.29 [- 0.49, - 0.09]). Umeclidinium/vilanterol increased the odds (odds ratio [95% CI]) of clinically significant improvement at week 24 in Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.16, 2.06]; former: 1.32 [0.99, 1.75]) and salmeterol (current: 1.37 (1.03, 1.82]; former: 1.60 [1.20, 2.13]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.13, 2.09]; former: 1.50 [1.11, 2.04]) and salmeterol (current: 1.53 [1.13, 2.08]; former: 1.53 [1.12, 2.08]). All treatments were well tolerated in both subgroups., Conclusions: In current and former smokers, umeclidinium/vilanterol provided greater improvements in lung function and symptoms versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, supporting consideration of dual-bronchodilator therapy in symptomatic patients with COPD regardless of their smoking status., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

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-naïve 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-naïve and maintenance-treated subgroups were defined by maintenance bronchodilator use 30 days before screening., Results: The analysis included 749 (31%) maintenance-naïve and 1676 (69%) maintenance-treated patients. For both subgroups, improvements from baseline in trough FEV 1 at Week 24 (primary endpoint) were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (mean difference [95% CI]; maintenance-naïve: 44 mL [1, 87]; maintenance-treated: 77 mL [50, 104]), and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: 128 mL [85, 171]; maintenance-treated: 145 mL [118, 172]), and in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (maintenance-naïve: -0.44 [-0.73, -0.16]; maintenance-treated: -0.28 [-0.45, -0.12]) and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: -0.37 [-0.66, -0.09]; maintenance-treated: -0.25 [-0.41, -0.08]). In maintenance-naïve 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-naïve 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-naïve patients with COPD., Competing Interests: IHB, DAL, CC, and PWJ are employees of GSK and hold stocks and shares in GSK. IHB’s current affiliation is Medical Emerging Markets, GSK, Brentford, Middlesex, UK. IPN was an employee of GSK at the time of the study, holds stocks and shares in GSK, and was a contingent worker on assignment at AstraZeneca. IPN’s current affiliation is RAMAX Ltd, Bramhall, Cheshire, UK. LT is a contingent worker on assignment at GSK. FM has received research grants for participating in multicenter trials for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Sanofi, and Novartis, and has received unrestricted research grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols, and Novartis. LB has received honoraria for giving a lecture or attending an advisory board for Airsonett, ALK-Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Meda, Novartis and Teva. EMK has served on advisory boards, speaker panels or received travel reimbursement from for Amphastar, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Connect Biopharma, GSK, Mylan, Novartis, Pearl, Sunovion, Teva, and Theravance and has received consulting fees from Cipla and GSK. CFV has received grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Grifols, Novartis, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Competence Network Asthma and COPD (ASCONET), and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin Chemie/Menarini, Chiesi, CSL Behring, GSK, Grifols, MedUpdate, Novartis, Nuvaira, and Teva. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2021 Bjermer et al.)

Introduction: Concerns have been raised about the practical use and clinical benefits of medications and inhalers in older patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here, we report analyses according to age from five clinical trials evaluating medications administered using the ELLIPTA dry-powder inhaler (DPI)., Methods: Efficacy and safety according to age groups (<65 and ≥65 years) were assessed using data from five clinical trials in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic COPD. There was a mix of pre-specified and post hoc analyses of two 24-week trials with fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 µg; one 24-week trial with umeclidinium (UMEC) 62.5 µg; and two 12-week trials with UMEC 62.5 µg + FF/VI 100/25 µg. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ) obtained 23 and 24 hours after dosing on the last day of the study., Results: A total of 2876 patients <65 years of age and 2148 patients ≥65 years of age were enrolled across all studies of whom 1333 and 1111 patients, respectively, received treatment at the doses presented. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful treatment differences in improvement from baseline in mean trough FEV 1 were reported for active comparators versus placebo at study end for both <65 and ≥65 years subgroups (FF/VI vs placebo: 143 mL and 111 mL; UMEC vs placebo: 110 mL and 123 mL; UMEC + FF/VI vs placebo + FF/VI: 136 mL and 105 mL; p<0.001 for all comparisons). The incidence of adverse events reported for active treatments was similar between age groups., Conclusion: These data provide evidence to support the use of FF/VI, UMEC, or UMEC + FF/VI, all delivered via the ELLIPTA DPI, to treat older (≥65 years) and younger (<65 years) patients with COPD., Competing Interests: NAH has received personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi Genzyme, Novartis, Regeneron, Genentech, Teva, Amgen, Sunovion, and Mylan for serving as an advisor or consultant. He also received grants research support from Gossamer Bio, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. TS, SL, CC, HP and IHB are employees of GSK and hold stock and shares in GSK. SC and DMM were employees of GSK at the time of the study and hold stock and shares in GSK. SC is currently an employee of Dermavant since April 2020. LT is a contingent worker on assignment at GSK. ELLIPTA is owned by/licensed to the GSK group of companies., (© 2021 Hanania et al.)

Most patients with COPD are recommended to initiate maintenance therapy with a single long-acting bronchodilator, such as a long-acting muscarinic antagonist or long-acting β 2 -agonist. However, many patients receiving mono-bronchodilation continue to experience high symptom burden, suggesting that patients are frequently not receiving optimal treatment. Treatment goals for COPD are often broad and not individually tailored, making initial treatment response assessments difficult. A personalised approach to initial maintenance therapy, based upon an individual's symptom burden and exacerbation risk, may be more appropriate.An alternative approach would be to maximise bronchodilation early in the disease course of all patients with COPD. Evidence suggests that dual bronchodilation has greater and consistent efficacy for lung function and symptoms than mono-bronchodilation, whilst potentially reducing the risk of exacerbations and disease deterioration, with a similar safety profile to mono-bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and symptoms between dual- and mono-bronchodilation have also been demonstrated in maintenance-naïve patients, who are most likely to resemble those at first presentation in a clinical setting. Despite promising results, there are several evidence gaps that need to be addressed to allow decision makers to evaluate the merits of a widespread earlier introduction of dual bronchodilation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: D. Singh reports other funding from GlaxoSmithKline and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study. He reports personal fees from Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A., Cipla, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Gossamerbio, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., Pulmatrix, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, Menarini and Verona Pharma, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: J.F. Donohue reports other funding from GlaxoSmithKline and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study. He reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Circassia, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Theravance and Sunovion, and other funding from AstraZeneca, Avillion, Merck, CSA and INSMED, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: I.H. Boucot reports other funding from GlaxoSmithKline and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study. She reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline and other funding from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: N.C. Barnes reports other funding from GlaxoSmithKline and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study. He reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline and other funding from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C. Compton reports other funding from GlaxoSmithKline and non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, during the conduct of the study. He reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline and other funding from GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: F.J. Martinez reports other funding from GlaxoSmithKline, non-financial support from GlaxoSmithKline, and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Raziel, during the conduct of the study. He reports personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Miller Communications, National Society for Continuing Education, PeerView Communications, Chiesi, Sunovion, American Thoracic Society, Rockpointe, Csl Behring, Sanofi/Regeneron, Teva, Canadian Respiratory Network, Physicians Education Resource; non-financial support from ProterrixBio, Gilead, Nitto, Zambon; personal fees, non-financial support and other from Genentech; personal fees from MD Magazine, Methodist Hospital Brooklyn, New York University, UpToDate, WebMD/MedScape, Patara/Respivant, CME Outfitters, Integritas, DevPro, Dartmouth University, IQVIA, Projects in Knowledge, Vindico, Academy for Continuing Healthcare Learning; personal fees and other from Bayer; other from Afferent/Merck, Biogen, Veracyte, Prometic, Bridge Biotherapeutics, Gala, twoXAR, AbbVie; and grants from NIH, Rare Disease Healthcare Communications, ProMedior/Roche, outside the submitted work., (Copyright ©The authors 2021.)

Introduction: 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)., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusion: 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., Competing Interests: CFV has received grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Grifols, Mundipharma, Novartis, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Competence Network Asthma and COPD (ASCONET), and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin Chemie/Menarini, Chiesi, CSL Behring, GSK, Grifols, MedUpdate, Nuvaira, Novartis and Teva. EMK has served on advisory boards, speaker panels or received travel reimbursement for Amphastar, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Mylan, Novartis, Pearl, Sunovion, Teva and Theravance, and has received consulting fees from Cipla, Connect Biopharma, and GSK. IHB, DAL, CC and PWJ are employees of GSK and hold stock and shares in GSK. FM has received research grants for participating in multicenter trials for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Sanofi and Novartis, and has received unrestricted research grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols and Novartis. FM also reports financial participation in Oxynov, a company which is developing an oxygen delivery system. IPN was an employee of GSK at the time of the study, holds stocks and shares in GSK, and was a contingent worker on assignment at AstraZeneca. LT is a contingent worker on assignment at GSK. LB has received honoraria for giving a lecture or attending an advisory board for Airsonett, ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Meda, Novartis and Teva. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2021 Vogelmeier et al.)

Rationale: Symptom relief is a key treatment goal in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there are limited data available on the response to bronchodilator therapy in patients at low risk of exacerbations with different levels of symptom severity. This study compared treatment responses in patients with a range of symptom severities as indicated by baseline COPD assessment test (CAT) scores., Methods: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated the benefits of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. This analysis assessed lung function, symptoms, health status, and short-term deterioration outcomes in subgroups defined by a baseline CAT score [<20 ( post hoc ) and ⩾20 (pre-specified)]. Outcomes were also assessed using post hoc fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline CAT score covariates., Results: Of the intent-to-treat population ( n  = 2425), 56% and 44% had baseline CAT scores of <20 and ⩾20, respectively. Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated favourable improvements compared with umeclidinium and salmeterol for the majority of outcomes irrespective of the baseline CAT score, with the greatest improvements generally observed in patients with CAT scores <20. Fractional polynomial analyses revealed consistent improvements in lung function, symptoms and reduction in rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol across a range of CAT scores, with the largest benefits seen in patients with CAT scores of approximately 10-21., Conclusions: Patients with symptomatic COPD benefit similarly from dual bronchodilator treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol. Fractional polynomial analyses demonstrated the greatest treatment differences favouring dual therapy in patients with a CAT score <20, although benefits were seen up to scores of 30. This suggests that dual bronchodilation may be considered as initial therapy for patients across a broad range of symptom severities, not only those with severe symptoms (CAT ⩾20). Trial registration: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT number). The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Background: In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both the time needed for patients to gain symptom improvement with long-acting bronchodilator therapy and whether an early response is predictive of a sustained response is unknown. This study aimed to investigate how quickly meaningful symptom responses are seen in patients with COPD with bronchodilator therapy and whether these responses are sustained., Methods: Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial that randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), umeclidinium or salmeterol. Daily Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS:COPD) score and rescue salbutamol use were captured via an electronic diary and analysed initially in 4-weekly periods. Post hoc analyses assessed change from baseline in daily E-RS:COPD score and rescue medication use weekly (Weeks 1-8), and association between E-RS:COPD responder status at Weeks 1-4 and later time points., Results: In the intent-to-treat population ( n  = 2425), reductions from baseline in E-RS:COPD scores and rescue medication use were apparent from Day 2 with all treatments. Treatment differences for UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy plateaued by Week 4-8 and were sustained at Weeks 21-24; improvements were consistently greater with UMEC/VI. For all treatments, most patients (60-85%) retained their Weeks 1-4 E-RS:COPD responder/non-responder status at Weeks 21-24. Among patients receiving UMEC/VI who were E-RS:COPD responders at Weeks 1-4, 70% were responders at Weeks 21-24., Conclusion: Patients with symptomatic COPD had greater potential for early symptom improvements with UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy. This benefit was generally maintained for 24 weeks. Early monitoring of treatment response can provide clinicians with an early indication of a patient's likely longer-term response to prescribed bronchodilator treatment and will facilitate appropriate early adjustments in care., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT Number). The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Background: 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., Methods: 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 1 ) 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., Results: Change from baseline in trough FEV 1 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., Conclusions: 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.