Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Elderly Patients with COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Effect of Age on Efficacy and Safety of Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol (FF/VI), Umeclidinium (UMEC), and UMEC + FF/VI in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Analyses of Five Randomized Clinical Trials

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 (FEV₁) 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 FEV₁ 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.

Effect of Age on the Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple-Therapy Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients With COPD: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment Trial

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.

Pharmacology and Therapeutics of Bronchodilators Revisited

Bronchodilators remain the cornerstone of the treatment of airway disorders such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There is therefore considerable interest in understanding how to optimize the use of our existing classes of bronchodilator and in identifying novel classes of bronchodilator drugs. However, new classes of bronchodilator have proved challenging to develop because many of these have no better efficacy than existing classes of bronchodilator and often have unacceptable safety profiles. Recent research has shown that optimization of bronchodilation occurs when both arms of the autonomic nervous system are affected through antagonism of muscarinic receptors to reduce the influence of parasympathetic innervation of the lung and through stimulation of β 2-adrenoceptors (β 2-ARs) on airway smooth muscle with β 2-AR-selective agonists to mimic the sympathetic influence on the lung. This is currently achieved by use of fixed-dose combinations of inhaled long-acting β 2-adrenoceptor agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonists (LAMAs). Due to the distinct mechanisms of action of LAMAs and LABAs, the additive/synergistic effects of using these drug classes together has been extensively investigated. More recently, so-called "triple inhalers" containing fixed-dose combinations of both classes of bronchodilator (dual bronchodilation) and an inhaled corticosteroid in the same inhaler have been developed. Furthermore, a number of so-called "bifunctional drugs" having two different primary pharmacological actions in the same molecule are under development. This review discusses recent advancements in knowledge on bronchodilators and bifunctional drugs for the treatment of asthma and COPD. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Since our last review in 2012, there has been considerable research to identify novel classes of bronchodilator drugs, to further understand how to optimize the use of the existing classes of bronchodilator, and to better understand the role of bifunctional drugs in the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Evidence-based review of data on the combination inhaler umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD

The use of inhaled, fixed-dose, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) combined with long-acting, beta2-adrenergic receptor agonists (LABA) has become a mainstay in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One of the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations is the dry powder inhaler (DPI) of umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) (62.5 µg/25 µg) approved for once-a-day maintenance treatment of COPD. This paper reviews the use of fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA agents focusing on the UMEC/VI DPI inhaler in the maintenance treatment of COPD. The fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA inhaler offers a step beyond a single inhaled maintenance agent but is still a single device for the COPD patient having frequent COPD exacerbations and persistent symptoms not well controlled on one agent. Currently available clinical trials suggest that the once-a-day DPI of UMEC/VI is well-tolerated, safe and non-inferior or better than other currently available inhaled fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations for COPD.

Efficacy and safety of the dual bronchodilator combination umeclidinium/vilanterol in COPD by age and airflow limitation severity: A pooled post hoc analysis of seven clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and those with more severe airway limitation are perceived to experience reduced efficacy from inhaled bronchodilators, especially those administered in a dry powder inhaler. This study compared the efficacy and safety of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist dry powder combination in elderly patients with COPD and patients with moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation.

METHODS

This post hoc pooled analysis of seven randomized studies of ≥12 weeks' duration investigated the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 μg versus tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) 250/50 μg. Change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), a common efficacy measure in all trials, proportion of FEV₁ responders (≥100 mL increase from baseline) and safety outcomes were analyzed at Day 28, 56, and 84 in patients classified by age (<65, ≥65, and ≥75 years of age) and severity of baseline airflow limitation (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 2 [moderate] and stage 3/4 [severe/very severe]). A 24-week analysis was also conducted for the UMEC/VI versus TIO comparison.

RESULTS

The pooled intent-to-treat population comprised 3821 patients (≥65 years: 44-45%; ≥75 years: 9-10%; GOLD stage 3/4: 50-55%); 2246, 874, and 701 patients received UMEC/VI, TIO, or FP/SAL, respectively. Significant improvements in trough FEV₁ at Day 84 were observed with UMEC/VI versus TIO or FP/SAL irrespective of age (all p ≤ 0.029) or GOLD stage (all p < 0.001). The proportion of FEV₁ responders at Day 84 was significantly greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO or FP/SAL across all age groups (all p ≤ 0.016) and GOLD stages (all p < 0.001). Safety profiles were similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI consistently demonstrated improved lung function versus TIO and FP/SAL across age and airflow limitation severity subgroups, with no safety concerns, indicating that UMEC/VI provides no loss in efficacy or additional safety concerns for both elderly patients with COPD and patients with severe/very severe airway limitation.