Early Clinically Important Improvement (ECII) and Exacerbation Outcomes in COPD Patients

Triple Therapy and Clinical Control in B+ COPD Patients: A Pragmatic, Prospective, Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Treatment with LABA/LAMA is recommended in GOLD B patients. We hypothesized that triple therapy (LABA/LAMA/ICS) will be superior to LABA/LAMA in achieving and maintaining clinical control (CC), a composite outcome that considers both impact and disease stability in a subgroup of GOLD B patients (here termed GOLD B+ patients) characterized by: (1) remaining symptomatic (CAT≥10) despite regular LABA/LAMA therapy; (2) having suffered one moderate exacerbation in the previous year; and (3) having blood eosinophil counts (BEC) ≥150cells/μL.

METHODS

The ANTES B+ study is a prospective, multicenter, open label, randomized, pragmatic, controlled trial designed to test this hypothesis. It will randomize 1028 B+ patients to continue with their usual LABA/LAMA combination prescribed by their attending physician or to begin fluticasone furoate (FF) 92μg/umeclidinium (UMEC) 55μg/vilanterol (VI) 22μg in a single inhaler q.d. for 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome will be the level of CC achieved. Secondary outcomes include the clinical important deterioration index (CID), annual rate of exacerbations, and FEV1. Exploratory objectives include the interaction of BEC and smoking status, all-cause mortality and proportion of patients on LABA/LAMA arm that switch therapy arms. Safety analysis include adverse events and incidence of pneumonia.

RESULTS

The first patient was recruited on February 29, 2024; results are expected in the first quarter of 2026.

CONCLUSIONS

The ANTES B+ study is the first to: (1) explore the efficacy and safety of triple therapy in a population of B+ COPD patients and (2) use a composite index (CC) as the primary result of a COPD trial.

An Update on Outcomes for COPD Pharmacological Trials: A COPD Investigators Report - Reassessment of the 2008 American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Statement on Outcomes for COPD Pharmacological Trials

Background: In 2008, a dedicated American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society task force published a paper on the possible use and limitations of clinical outcomes and biomarkers to evaluate the impact of pharmacological therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Since then, our scientific understanding of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has increased considerably; there has been a progressive shift from a one-size-fits-all diagnostic and therapeutic approach to a personalized approach; and many new treatments currently in development will require new endpoints to evaluate their efficacy adequately. Objectives: The emergence of several new relevant outcome measures motivated the authors to review advances in the field and highlight the need to update the content of the original report. Methods: The authors separately created search strategies for the literature, primarily based on their opinions and assessments supported by carefully chosen references. No centralized examination of the literature or uniform criteria for including or excluding evidence were used. Measurements and Main Results: Endpoints, outcomes, and biomarkers have been revisited. The limitations of some of those reported in the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society task force document have been highlighted. In addition, new tools that may be useful, especially in evaluating personalized therapy, have been described. Conclusions: Because the "label-free" treatable traits approach is becoming an important step toward precision medicine, future clinical trials should focus on highly prevalent treatable traits, and this will influence the choice of outcomes and markers to be considered. The use of the new tools, particularly combination endpoints, could help better identify the right patients to be treated with the new drugs.

Treatment Trials in Young Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Pre-Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: Time to Move Forward

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the end result of a series of dynamic and cumulative gene-environment interactions over a lifetime. The evolving understanding of COPD biology provides novel opportunities for prevention, early diagnosis, and intervention. To advance these concepts, we propose therapeutic trials in two major groups of subjects: "young" individuals with COPD and those with pre-COPD. Given that lungs grow to about 20 years of age and begin to age at approximately 50 years, we consider "young" patients with COPD those patients in the age range of 20-50 years. Pre-COPD relates to individuals of any age who have respiratory symptoms with or without structural and/or functional abnormalities, in the absence of airflow limitation, and who may develop persistent airflow limitation over time. We exclude from the current discussion infants and adolescents because of their unique physiological context and COPD in older adults given their representation in prior randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We highlight the need of RCTs focused on COPD in young patients or pre-COPD to reduce disease progression, providing innovative approaches to identifying and engaging potential study subjects. We detail approaches to RCT design, including potential outcomes such as lung function, patient-reported outcomes, exacerbations, lung imaging, mortality, and composite endpoints. We critically review study design components such as statistical powering and analysis, duration of study treatment, and formats to trial structure, including platform, basket, and umbrella trials. We provide a call to action for treatment RCTs in 1) young adults with COPD and 2) those with pre-COPD at any age.

Treatment of COPD with Long-Acting Bronchodilators: Association Between Early and Longer-Term Clinically Important Improvement

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.