Clinical effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol in usual practice: the COPD INTREPID study design

Evaluation of comparative efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus other bronchodilators in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

BACKGROUND

UMEC/VI administered via a combination inhaler is associated with a clinically significant improvement in lung function and health-related quality of life in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD. However, their efficacy compared to other bronchodilator mono or dual therapies still remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research was to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of UMEC/VI dual and UMEC/VI/FF triple therapies versus alternative bronchodilator regimens in COPD patients.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) to select publications published in peer-reviewed journals written in English. The odds ratio (OR) and risk ratio (RR) was calculated, along with their 95% confidence intervals. We assessed heterogeneity using Cochrane Q and I [2] statistics and the appropriate p-value. The analysis used RevMan 5.4.

RESULTS

The current meta-analysis includes 31,814 COPD patients from 17 RCTs. The meta-analysis results demonstrate that the combination of LABA and LAMA provides additive bronchodilation and improved lung function in COPD patients. We found that UMEC/VI dual therapy significantly improved FEV1 (OR 1.98 [95% CI 1.70-2.30]), TDI values (OR 1.97 [95% CI 1.72-2.26]), and reduced SGRQ total scores (OR 1.99 [95% CI 1.71-2.32]), with fewer drug-related adverse events (RR 0.58 [95% CI 0.53-0.64]). Similarly, UMEC/VI/FF triple therapy also showed similar benefits, with significant improvements in FEV1 (OR 1.93 [95% CI 1.73-2.15]), TDI values (OR 2.37 [95% CI 2.15-2.61]), and reduced SGRQ total scores (OR 1.83 [95% CI 1.63-2.05]), and fewer drug-related adverse events (RR 0.53 [95% CI 0.49-0.58]).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis concludes that UMEC and VI combinations are an efficacious treatment option for symptomatic COPD patients.

Eligibility of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for inclusion in randomised control trials investigating triple therapy: a study using routinely collected data

BACKGROUND

Randomised control trials (RCTs) with strict eligibility criteria can lead to trial populations not commonly seen in clinical practice. We described the proportion of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in England eligible for RCTs investigating treatment with triple therapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs investigating triple therapy and eligibility criteria for each trial were extracted. Using routinely collected primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum linked with Hospital Episode Statistics, we defined a population of COPD patients registered at a general practice in England, who were ≥ 40 years old, and had a history of smoking. Inclusion date was January 1, 2020. Patients who died earlier or left the general practice were excluded. Eligibility criteria for each RCT was applied to the population of COPD patients and the proportion of patients meeting each trial eligibility criteria were described.

RESULTS

26 RCTs investigating triple therapy were identified from the literature. The most common eligibility criteria were post-bronchodilator FEV1% predicted 30-80%, ≥ 2 moderate/≥ 1 severe exacerbations 12-months prior, no moderate exacerbations one-month prior and no severe exacerbations three-months prior, and the use of maintenance therapy or ICS use prior to inclusion. After applying each RCT eligibility criteria to our population of 79,810 COPD patients, a median of 11.2% [interquartile range (IQR) 1.8-17.4] of patients met eligibility criteria. The most discriminatory criteria included the presence exacerbations of COPD and previous COPD related medication use with a median of 67.6% (IQR 8.5-73.4) and 63% (IQR 69.3-38.4) of COPD patients not meeting these criteria, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Data from these RCTs may not be generalisable to the wider population of people with COPD seen in everyday clinical practice and real-world evidence studies are needed to supplement trials to understand effectiveness in all people with COPD.

Validation of the GetReal Trial Tool - Facilitating discussion and understanding more pragmatic design choices and their implications

BACKGROUND

The GetReal Trial Tool is a decision support tool to assess the impact of design choices on generalizability of clinical trials to routine clinical practice, while taking into account the risk of bias, precision, acceptability and operational feasibility. This study describes the validation of the GetReal Trial Tool.

METHODS

Twelve experts took part in the GetReal Trial tool validation using the protocols of 6 trials conducted with pragmatic elements. The tool entails 7 domains with a total of 43 questions. A pooled Kappa statistic (95% CI) using random effects model was estimated using Open Meta (analyst) software. The possible operational challenges were collated and discussed with the trialists that conducted the trials.

RESULTS

Agreement in the design choices made for the trial protocols was >50% for all the trials and all teams reached consensus during discussion. The pooled Kappa statistic (95% CI) was 0.236 (0.154-0.318). The GetReal Trial tool highlighted several operational challenges, of which almost half had been experienced previously by the trialists. Out of 25 additional operational challenges mentioned by the trialists, 76% were already highlighted by the tool. The tool was considered helpful to optimize trials right from the design stage.

CONCLUSION

The GetReal Trial Tool helps to scrutinize the choice of study design in the light of Real World Evidence generation. The tool identifies most of the operational challenges experienced by trialists to date. The tool serves the intended purpose of facilitating discussion and understanding more pragmatic design choices and their implications.

Cost-Effectiveness of Single- versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in a UK COPD Population: The INTREPID Trial

Purpose

The 24-week INTREPID trial demonstrated the clinical benefits of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of symptomatic COPD from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

Patients and Methods

The analysis was conducted using the validated GALAXY COPD disease progression model. Baseline characteristics, treatment effect parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score [derived from exploratory COPD Assessment Test score mapping]), and discontinuation data from INTREPID were used to populate the model. UK healthcare resource and drug costs (2020 British pounds) were applied, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon from a UK NHS perspective. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results by varying parameter values and assumptions.

Results

Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.174 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.024, 0.344) LYs (approximately 2 months), and 0.253 (95% CI: 0.167, 0.346) QALYs (approximately 3 months), at a cost saving of £1764 (95% CI: −£2600, −£678) per patient, compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT. FF/UMEC/VI remained the dominant treatment option, meaning greater benefits at lower costs, across all scenario and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Based on this analysis, in a UK setting, FF/UMEC/VI would improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of patients with symptomatic COPD. SITT may help to reduce the clinical and economic burden of COPD and should be considered by physicians as a preferred treatment option.

Pragmatic randomised controlled trials in COPD and asthma: how to guide clinical practice

The use of real-world evidence (RWE) studies, including pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs; randomised RWE studies), to aid the development of treatment guidelines, is gradually becoming a mainstay within clinical practice. RWE is an integral part of patient-driven decision-making and offers important value to add complimentary evidence to traditional RCTs; these provide a more well-rounded view of the benefits to patient-reported outcomes and improve the external validity of a given treatment versus findings from traditional RCTs alone. Discussions in recent scientific workshops explored the importance of pragmatic RCTs in optimising guideline development and patient care in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. The Salford Lung Study in patients with COPD (NCT01551758) and asthma (NCT01706198) were the world’s first prelicence pragmatic RCTs that compared novel investigational treatments with existing COPD and asthma treatments and, more recently (2021), RWE studies have been used by the American Thoracic Society and the US Food and Drug Administration to support the approval of an immunosuppressant drug in patients receiving lung transplants. This highlights the importance of RWE data in supporting clinical guideline development and emphasises the advantages for the use of pragmatic RCTs in guiding clinical practice.

Experience of using a triple fixed combination in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Aim. To evaluate the effectiveness of a fixed triple combination of vilanterol/umeclidinium bromide/fluticasone furoate in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with frequent exacerbations. Materials and methods. The study included 46 patients with severe and extremely severe COPD (GOLD 34) with frequent exacerbations. All patients were divided into 2 groups. The 1st group included 22 COPD patients with a content of eosinophils in the peripheral blood of 300 cells/ml, the 2nd group included 24 COPD patients with no signs of eosinophilic inflammation in the peripheral blood. Group 1 patients were recommended therapy with a fixed triple combination of vilanterol/umeclidinium bromide/fluticasone furoate at a dose of 22/55/92 mcg 1 time per day, group 2 patients received vilanterol+umeclidinium bromide at a dose of 22/55 mcg 1 time per day. The duration of follow-up was 12 months. Results. After 12 months of treatment with a fixed triple combination of vilanterol/umeclidinium bromide/fluticasone furoate, a statistically significant decrease in peripheral blood eosinophilia was noted in patients with COPD with frequent exacerbations and peripheral blood eosinophilia (p=0.001), as well as a decrease in shortness of breath on the MMRs scale (p=0.001) and the frequency of exacerbations in patients with COPD with frequent exacerbations and eosinophilia (p=0.001). Conclusion. The use of a fixed combination of vilanterol/umeclidinium bromide/fluticasone furoate for 12 months allowed to reduce the impact of the disease, improve respiratory function and quality of life in COPD patients with eosinophilia.

A Real World Study to Assess the Effectiveness of Switching to Once Daily Closed Triple Therapy from Mono/Dual Combination or Open Triple Therapy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Objective

This real world study evaluated the effectiveness of switching to closed triple therapy from mono/dual combination or open triple therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

We conducted this retrospective study at a single medical center from December 2014 to September 2020. Patients with COPD who were stepped up to triple therapy were enrolled. We analyzed the duration from initial COPD management to open or closed triple therapy and identified the clinical predictors of the patients who needed triple therapy early. We also evaluated the effectiveness of triple therapy after switching from initial management, and closed triple therapy after switching from open triple therapy.

Results

A total 115 COPD patients who were stepped up to triple therapy from initial treatment were analyzed. The duration from initial treatment to triple therapy was 22.4 months. The baseline peripheral blood eosinophil counts of the patients who switched to triple therapy early (n=63, less than 22 months) and those who switched to triple therapy later (n=52, more than 22 months) were similar (489.6 vs 434.5 cells/uL; p=0.589). After univariate and multivariate analysis, the patients who were older had more acute exacerbations (AEs) in the previous year, asthma and COPD overlap (ACO), and initial dual bronchodilator therapy were stepped up to triple therapy early. The FEV1 of the patients was significantly increased after switching to open triple therapy from mono bronchodilator therapy. In addition, switching from initial or open triple therapy to closed triple therapy significantly reduced the incidence of AEs.

Conclusion

COPD patients with high blood eosinophilia, older age, more AEs in the previous year, ACO, and initial dual bronchodilator therapy were stepped up to triple therapy early. Triple therapy showed improvements in lung function of most patients switching from mono bronchodilator therapy. After switching to closed triple therapy further reduced the incidence of AEs.

INTREPID: single- versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy for COPD in usual clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Real-world trial data comparing single- with multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in COPD patients are currently lacking. The effectiveness of once-daily single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) and MITT were compared in usual clinical care.

METHODS

INTREPID was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase IV effectiveness study comparing FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg via the ELLIPTA inhaler with a clinician's choice of any approved non-ELLIPTA MITT in usual COPD clinical practice in five European countries. Primary end-point was proportion of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) responders (≥2-unit decrease in CAT score from baseline) at week 24. Secondary end-points in a subpopulation included change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and percentage of patients making at least one critical error in inhalation technique at week 24. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

3092 patients were included (FF/UMEC/VI n=1545; MITT n=1547). The proportion of CAT responders at week 24 was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13-1.51; p<0.001) and mean change from baseline in FEV1 was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI (77 mL versus 28 mL; treatment difference 50 mL, 95% CI 26-73 mL; p<0.001). The percentage of patients with at least one critical error in inhalation technique was low in both groups (FF/UMEC/VI 6%; non-ELLIPTA MITT 3%). Safety profiles, including incidence of pneumonia serious adverse events, were similar between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

In a usual clinical care setting, treatment with once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI resulted in significantly more patients gaining health status improvement and greater lung function improvement versus non-ELLIPTA MITT.

Inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists in asthma - A narrative review

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) have a recognised role in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In asthma, muscarinic antagonists (both short- and long-acting) were historically considered less effective than β₂-agonists; only relatively recently have studies been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of LAMAs, as add-on to either inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy or ICS/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) combinations. These studies led to the approval of the first LAMA, tiotropium, as an add-on therapy in patients with poorly controlled asthma. Subsequently, a number of single-inhaler ICS/LABA/LAMA triple therapies have been approved or are in clinical development for the management of asthma. There is now substantial evidence of the efficacy and safety of LAMAs in asthma that is uncontrolled despite treatment with an ICS/LABA combination. This regimen is recommended by GINA as an optimisation step for patients with severe asthma before any biologic or systemic corticosteroid treatment is initiated. This narrative review summarises the potential mechanisms of action of LAMAs in asthma, together with the initial clinical evidence supporting this use. We also discuss the studies that led to the approval of tiotropium for asthma and the data evaluating the efficacy and safety of the various triple therapies, before considering other potential uses for triple therapy.