Back to Search Start Over

Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapies in symptomatic patients with COPD not receiving inhaled corticosteroids: the EMAX randomised trial.

Authors :
Maltais, François
Bjermer, Leif
Kerwin, Edward M.
Jones, Paul W.
Watkins, Michael L.
Tombs, Lee
Naya, Ian P.
Boucot, Isabelle H.
Lipson, David A.
Compton, Chris
Vahdati-Bolouri, Mitra
Vogelmeier, Claus F.
Source :
Respiratory Research. 10/30/2019, Vol. 20 Issue 1, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p. 1 Diagram, 3 Charts, 4 Graphs.
Publication Year :
2019

Abstract

<bold>Background: </bold>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.<bold>Methods: </bold>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 (FEV1) 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.<bold>Results: </bold>Change from baseline in trough FEV1 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.<bold>Conclusions: </bold>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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
14659921
Volume :
20
Issue :
1
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
Respiratory Research
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
139390246
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-019-1193-9