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.

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 FEV 1 , 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 FEV 1 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., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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 FEV 1 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 FEV 1 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).

Introduction: The 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., Methods: Patient-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., Results: The 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., Conclusions: This 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 Number: NCT02164513.

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.

Background: This analysis of the IMPACT study assessed the cardiovascular (CV) safety of single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI dual therapy., Methods: IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg with FF/VI 100/25 mcg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. The inclusion criteria for the study were intentionally designed to permit the enrollment of patients with significant concurrent CV disease/risk. CV safety assessments included proportion of patients with and exposure-adjusted rates of on-treatment CV adverse events of special interest (CVAESI) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), as well as time-to-first (TTF) CVAESI, and TTF CVAESI resulting in hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death., Results: Baseline CV risk factors were similar across treatment groups. Overall, 68% of patients (n = 7012) had ≥1 CV risk factor and 40% (n = 4127) had ≥2. At baseline, 29% of patients reported a current/past cardiac disorder and 58% reported a current/past vascular disorder. The proportion of patients with on-treatment CVAESI was 11% for both FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI, and 10% for FF/VI. There was no statistical difference for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in TTF CVAESI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85, 1.11; p = 0.711 and HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.08; p = 0.317, respectively) nor TTF CVAESI leading to hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.51; p = 0.167 and HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.27; p = 0.760, respectively). On-treatment MACE occurred in ≤3% of patients across treatment groups, with similar prevalence and rates between treatments., Conclusions: In a symptomatic COPD population with a history of exacerbations and a high rate of CV disease/risk, the proportion of patients with CVAESI and MACE was 10-11% and 1-3%, respectively, across treatment arms, and the risk of CVAESI was low and similar across treatment arms. There was no statistically significant increased CV risk associated with the use of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI, and UMEC/VI versus FF/VI., Trial Registration: NCT02164513 (GSK study number CTT116855).

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.)

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.

Purpose: The Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) study demonstrated that single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduces moderate/severe exacerbation rates and improves lung function and health status versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI dual therapy in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations. This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI in patients enrolled in Japan., Patients and Methods: IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study comparing FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg with FF/VI 100/25 µg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg in patients ≥40 years with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. Endpoints included annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations (primary endpoint), time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation and change from baseline at Week 52 in trough FEV 1 , post-bronchodilator FEV 1 , St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, and COPD Assessment Test score. Safety was also assessed., Results: The Japan subgroup accounted for only 4% (378/10,355) of the overall IMPACT intent-to-treat (ITT) population. In the Japan subgroup, FF/UMEC/VI reduced the annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations by 15% (95% CI: -20, 40) versus FF/VI (compared with 15% [10, 20] in the ITT) and 36% (95% CI: 6, 57) versus UMEC/VI (compared with 25% [19, 30] in the ITT). FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation risk (time-to-first), improved lung function and health status at Week 52 versus both dual therapies. These results were in the same direction and of a generally similar magnitude to those seen in the overall ITT population. No new safety signals were identified in the Japan subgroup compared with the ITT population. Pneumonia incidence was higher with FF/UMEC/VI and FF/VI versus UMEC/VI., Conclusion: These results highlight the favorable benefit-risk profile of FF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI dual therapy in patients in Japan with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 exacerbation in the prior year., Competing Interests: Motokazu Kato has received lecture honoraria from GSK, AstraZeneca, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis Pharma. Keisuke Tomii has received lecture honoraria from Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis Pharma, and Teijin Pharma. Kenichi Hashimoto, Takeo Ishii, C. Elaine Jones, Sally Kilbride, Annette S. Gross, Christine S. Clifton, and David A. Lipson are GSK employees and hold stock/shares in GSK. Yasuko Nezu is an employee of GSK. Ellipta is owned by or licensed to the GSK Group of Companies. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2019 Kato et al.)

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 β 2 -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 .).