Blog
About

3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Inhaled Umeclidinium in Asian Patients with COPD: Results from a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Purpose

          Previous studies demonstrating efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium (UMEC) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have included few Asian patients. This study evaluated efficacy and safety of UMEC 62.5 mcg versus placebo in Asian patients with COPD.

          Patients and Methods

          A Phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Patients (aged ≥40 years with COPD, pre-, and post-albuterol forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV 1]/forced vital capacity ratio <0.70 and low risk of exacerbations) were randomized 2:1 to once-daily UMEC 62.5 mcg or placebo via the ELLIPTA inhaler for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was change from baseline (CFB) in trough FEV 1 on Day 169. Secondary endpoints were weighted mean FEV 1 over 0–6 hrs post-dose on Day 1 and CFB in Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score on Day 168.

          Results

          A total of 306 patients were included in the modified intent-to-treat population (UMEC: 205; placebo: 101). UMEC versus placebo provided a statistically significant improvement in least squares (LS) mean trough FEV 1 between baseline and Day 169 (154 mL [95% confidence interval (CI): 113, 194]; p<0.001). A clinically meaningful difference of 125 mL in favor of UMEC (95% CI: 103, 147; p<0.001) was also seen in LS weighted mean FEV 1 0–6 hrs post-dose on Day 1. A LS mean treatment difference in TDI focal score of 0.9 units in favor of UMEC was seen on Day 168 (95% CI: 0.3, 1.5; p=0.004). Incidence of on-treatment adverse events (AEs) was lower in the placebo (55%) versus UMEC arm (60%); non-fatal serious AEs, drug-related AEs, and AEs leading to withdrawal were similar with UMEC and placebo.

          Conclusion

          Once-daily UMEC 62.5 mcg resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in lung function and dyspnea, compared with placebo, in Asian patients with COPD, with no new safety concerns observed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 19

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

          Understanding the Hawthorne effect.

            Bookmark
            • 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

            Background The long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of UMEC with the long-acting β2-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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Health care use and economic burden of patients with diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Korea.

               C. Kim,  K H Yoo,  C Rhee (2014)
              The prevalence and economic burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are increasing worldwide. However, little information is available concerning COPD-associated health care use and costs in Korea.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                COPD
                copd
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                Dove
                1176-9106
                1178-2005
                17 April 2020
                2020
                : 15
                : 809-819
                Affiliations
                [1 ]State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Centre of Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University , Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China
                [2 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Eunpyeong St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, the Catholic University of Korea , Seoul, South Korea
                [3 ]GSK, Collegeville, and Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, PA, USA
                [4 ]GSK , Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Jinping Zheng Email jpzhenggy@163.com
                Article
                215011
                10.2147/COPD.S215011
                7173840
                © 2020 Zhong et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 5, References: 27, Pages: 11
                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article