Blog
About

16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Safety and tolerability of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 mcg and umeclidinium 125 mcg in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of UMEC with the long-acting β 2-agonist (LABA) vilanterol (UMEC/VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the US and EU. They are not indicated for the treatment of asthma.

          Methods

          In this 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group safety study (GSK study DB2113359; NCT01316887), patients were randomized 2:2:1 to UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg, UMEC 125 mcg, or placebo. Study endpoints included adverse events (AEs), clinical chemistry and hematology parameters, vital signs, 12-lead, and 24-hour Holter electrocardiograms. COPD exacerbations and rescue medication use were assessed as safety parameters; lung function was also evaluated.

          Results

          The incidence of on-treatment AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), and drug-related AEs was similar between treatment groups (AEs: 52–58%; SAEs: 6–7%; drug-related AEs: 12–13%). Headache was the most common AE in each treatment group (8–11%). AEs associated with the LAMA and LABA pharmacologic classes occurred at a low incidence across treatment groups. No clinically meaningful effects on vital signs or laboratory assessments were reported for active treatments versus placebo. The incidences of atrial arrhythmias with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg were similar to placebo; for UMEC 125 mcg, the incidences of ectopic supraventricular beats, sustained supraventricular tachycardia, and ectopic supraventricular rhythm were ≥2% greater than placebo. With active treatments, COPD exacerbations were fewer (13–15% of patients reporting ≥1 exacerbation) and on average less rescue medication was required (1.6–2.2 puffs/day) versus placebo (24% reporting ≥1 exacerbation, 2.6 puffs/day). Both active treatments improved lung function versus placebo.

          Conclusion

          UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg and UMEC 125 mcg were well tolerated over 12 months in patients with COPD.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Standards for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with COPD: a summary of the ATS/ERS position paper.

           W MacNee,  ,  B Celli (2004)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A long-term evaluation of once-daily inhaled tiotropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

            Currently available inhaled bronchodilators used as therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) necessitate multiple daily dosing. The present study evaluates the long-term safety and efficacy of tiotropium, a new once-daily anticholinergic in COPD. Patients with stable COPD (age 65.2+/-8.7 yrs (mean+/-SD), n=921) were enrolled in two identical randomized double-blind placebo-controlled 1-yr studies. Patients inhaled tiotropium 18 microg or placebo (mean screening forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) 1.01 versus 0.99 L, 39.1 and 38.1% of the predicted value) once daily as a dry powder. The primary spirometric outcome was trough FEV1 (i.e. FEV1 prior to dosing). Changes in dyspnoea were measured using the Transition Dyspnea Index, and health status with the disease-specific St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire and the generic Short Form 36. Medication use and adverse events were recorded. Tiotropium provided significantly superior bronchodilation relative to placebo for trough FEV1 response (approximately 12% over baseline) (p<0.01) and mean response during the 3 h following dosing (approximately 22% over baseline) (p<0.001) over the 12-month period. Tiotropium recipients showed less dyspnoea (p<0.001), superior health status scores, and fewer COPD exacerbations and hospitalizations (p<0.05). Adverse events were comparable with placebo, except for dry mouth incidence (tiotropium 16.0% versus placebo 2.7%, p<0.05). Tiotropium is an effective, once-daily bronchodilator that reduces dyspnoea and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation frequency and improves health status. This suggests that tiotropium will make an important contribution to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease therapy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium plus vilanterol versus tiotropium, vilanterol, or umeclidinium monotherapies over 24 weeks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from two multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trials.

              Combination long-acting bronchodilator treatment might be more effective than long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC) plus vilanterol (VI) with tiotropium (TIO) monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, or VI monotherapy in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. In two multicentre, randomised, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, active-controlled trials, eligible patients (current or former smokers aged 40 years or older with an established clinical history of COPD) were randomly assigned in 1:1:1:1 ratio to UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, TIO 18 μg, and either VI 25 μg (study 1) or UMEC 125 μg (study 2). All study drugs were used once daily for 24 weeks. TIO was delivered via the HandiHaler inhaler and all other active treatments were delivered via the ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler. Random assignment (by a validated computer-based system) was done by centre and was not stratified. All patients and physicians were masked to assigned treatment during the studies. The primary efficacy endpoint of both studies was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 169, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Both studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01316900 (study 1) and NCT01316913 (study 2). 1141 participants were recruited in study 1, and 1191 in study 2. For study 1, after exclusions, 208, 209, 214, and 212 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, VI monotherapy, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, and UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, respectively. For study 2, 215, 222, 215, and 217 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, and UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, respectively. In both studies, we noted improvements in trough FEV1 on day 169 for both doses of UMEC plus VI compared with TIO monotherapy (study 1, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·088 L [95% CI 0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; study 1, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·141; p=0·0006]; study 2, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·074 L [0·025 to 0·123; p=0·0031]; study 2, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·060 L [0·010 to 0·109; nominal p=0·0182]). Both doses of UMEC plus VI also improved trough FEV1 compared with VI monotherapy (UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·088 L [0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·142; p=0·0006], but not compared with UMEC 125 μg monotherapy (UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·037 L [-0·012 to 0·087; p=0·14]; UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·022 L [-0·027 to 0·072; p=0·38]). All treatments produced improvements in dyspnoea and health-related quality of life; we noted no significant differences in symptoms, health status, or risk of exacerbation between UMEC plus VI and TIO. The most common on-treatment, severe-intensity adverse event in both studies was acute exacerbation of COPD (1-4 [<1-2%] patients across treatment groups in study 1 and 1-6 [<1-3%] patients in study 2). We recorded five to 15 (2-7%) on-treatment serious adverse events across treatment groups in study 1, and nine to 22 (4-10%) in study 2. We noted no substantial changes from baseline in vital signs, clinical laboratory findings, or electrocardiography findings in any of the treatment groups. Combination treatment with once-daily UMEC plus VI improved lung function compared with VI monotherapy and TIO monotherapy in patients with COPD. Overall our results suggest that the combination of UMEC plus VI could be beneficial for the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD. GlaxoSmithKline. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Respir Res
                Respir. Res
                Respiratory Research
                BioMed Central
                1465-9921
                1465-993X
                2014
                11 July 2014
                : 15
                : 1
                : 78
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
                [2 ]VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA
                [3 ]GlaxoSmithKline, Respiratory Medicines Development Centre, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UK
                [4 ]Research & Development, GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, USA
                Article
                1465-9921-15-78
                10.1186/1465-9921-15-78
                4113670
                25015176
                Copyright © 2014 Donohue et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                Categories
                Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article