Once-Daily Triple Therapy in Patients with COPD: Patient-Reported Symptoms and Quality of Life

Improved Confidence in a Confirmatory Stage by Application of Item-Based Pharmacometrics Model: Illustration with a Phase III Active Comparator-Controlled Trial in COPD Patients

PURPOSE

The current study aimed to illustrate how a non-linear mixed effect (NLME) model-based analysis may improve confidence in a Phase III trial through more precise estimates of the drug effect.

METHODS

The FULFIL clinical trial was a Phase III study that compared 24 weeks of once daily inhaled triple therapy with twice daily inhaled dual therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patient reported outcome data, obtained by using The Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS:COPD) questionnaire, from the FULFIL study were analyzed using an NLME item-based response theory model (IRT). The change from baseline (CFB) in E-RS:COPD total score over 4-week intervals for each treatment arm was obtained using the IRT and compared with published results obtained with a mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis.

RESULTS

The IRT included a graded response model characterizing item parameters and a Weibull function combined with an offset function to describe the COPD symptoms-time course in patients receiving either triple therapy (n = 907) or dual therapy (n = 894). The IRT improved precision of the estimated drug effect compared to MMRM, resulting in a sample size of at least 3.64 times larger for the MMRM analysis to achieve the IRT precision in the CFB estimate.

CONCLUSION

This study shows the advantage of IRT over MMRM with a direct comparison of the same primary endpoint for the two analyses using the same observed clinical trial data, resulting in an increased confidence in Phase III.

Patient and Clinical Demographics of New Users to Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

INTRODUCTION

Single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2017 as a maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patient characteristics and treatment patterns prior to initiating FF/UMEC/VI are currently unknown. This study assessed patient characteristics, exacerbation, and medication history in patients with COPD before the initiation of FF/UMEC/VI or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study using the Optum Clinformatics® Data Mart. Patients who initiated FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy or MITT (consisting of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA], long-acting β2-agonist [LABA], and inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]) between October 2017 and September 2018, were enrolled in commercial or Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plans, were aged > 40 years, and had a COPD diagnosis were eligible. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, COPD medication use, exacerbations, and eosinophil counts were assessed in the 12-month baseline period prior to initiation of FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy or MITT.

RESULTS

The study population included 3933 FF/UMEC/VI users and 18,244 MITT users. Mean (standard deviation) patient age was 72.2 (8.6) years in FF/UMEC/VI users and 70.7 (9.7) years in MITT users. Prior to initiating triple therapy, the majority of FF/UMEC/VI (89.1%) and MITT (93.8%) users experienced a moderate or severe exacerbation or used a COPD maintenance therapy during the baseline period. In addition, 41.2% of FF/UMEC/VI users received overlapping ICS/LAMA/LABA, 20.3% received ICS/LABA, and 9.7% received LAMA/LABA.

CONCLUSION

In this population of COPD patients, triple therapy was frequently initiated after previous maintenance medication use or an exacerbation, in line with treatment guideline recommendations.

A single inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol for the treatment of COPD

INTRODUCTION

: Single inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with an inhaled corticosteroid, a long-acting β₂-agonist, and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist is an effective and attractive therapeutic option codified in the recommendations of guidelines and treatment strategies for the management of COPD.

AREAS COVERED

: The preclinical and clinical development in COPD of fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) SITT and its use in the real world.

EXPERT OPINION

: Findings from phase III/IV trials and the use of FF/UMEC/VI in the real-world setting support the view that it may be a useful, safe, and cost-effective option for the maintenance treatment of COPD, especially when dealing with patients who are not adequately controlled with dual ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA therapy. Only direct head-to-head comparisons will be able to establish whether FF/UMEC/VI may be preferable to the other SITTs approved for COPD due to its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics and especially the fact that it is the only one that can be taken once-daily. In addition, there is a need for further studies, especially in the real world, to optimize the positioning of FF/UMEC/VI in the treatment of COPD, also considering the availability of FF/VI and UMEC/VI and the need for better differentiation between the three treatments.

Disease Burden and Healthcare Utilization Among Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in England

Purpose

Clinical guidelines for COPD management suggest pharmacologic treatment algorithms based on symptoms and exacerbation history. As previous research has suggested that prescribing patterns are not always aligned with these recommendations, this study investigated the burden of disease in patients with COPD receiving, and persisting on, new inhaled maintenance therapy.

Patients and Methods

This was a retrospective observational study using two linked electronic databases containing health records of patients in England. Patients aged ≥35 years with a confirmed diagnosis of COPD, and who initiated a new inhaled respiratory pharmacologic maintenance regimen between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 (index date) were eligible for inclusion. New treatments could be long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) monotherapy, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA or LAMA/LABA dual therapy, or a multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT; LAMA/LABA/ICS). Patients were required to have 12 months of available medical history prior to, and after, the index date.

Results

In total, 25,350 eligible patients were identified, of these 8282 (mean age: 70.9 years; 51.5% male) persisted with their newly prescribed inhaled therapy for ≥12 months and were included in the analysis. In the 12 months prior to index, 54% of patients had moderate or severe dyspnea (Medical Research Council score ≥3). The most common therapy initiated at index was MITT (42%), followed by ICS/LABA dual therapy (31.2%). The proportion of patients with moderate or severe dyspnea in the post-index period ranged from 29.0% of patients receiving ICS to 64.2% of patients receiving MITT. In the post-index period, 48.1% of patients experienced ≥1 exacerbation and 54.9% had ≥5 general practitioner visits.

Conclusion

Many of the patients with COPD in our study continued to experience symptoms and exacerbations, despite persisting on the same treatment for ≥12 months. This suggests that some patients may benefit from treatment modification in accordance with guideline recommendations.

Pharmacist involvement in the inhaler choice improves lung function in patients with COPD: a prospective single-arm study

Background

Currently, in Japan, shifting tasks from physician to hospital pharmacist is being developed to reduce physician workload and improve the quality of pharmacotherapy. This study aimed to investigate the effects of pharmacist involvement in the choice of inhaler as the task on the clinical outcomes of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

This prospective, single-center, single-arm study included 36 outpatients with newly diagnosed COPD indicating inhaler therapy. Eligible patients were immediately interviewed by pharmacist. Then, pharmacist assessed patient’s inhalation flow rate, physical function to handle an inhaler, comprehension, and value, and finally recommended a personalized inhaler based on originally developed inhaler choice protocol, and pulmonologist prescribed a pharmacist-selected inhaler. The primary endpoint was the improvement in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) between baseline and week 26. The secondary endpoints were safety, and improvements at week 26 in scores for the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), modified British Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (mMRC), and Adherence Starts with Knowledge-20 (ASK-20).

Results

The pneumonologists completely agreed with the pharmacist-recommended inhaler. Mean FEV₁ significantly increased from baseline to week 26 (1.60, SD 0.54 L vs. 1.98, SD 0.56 L; p < 0.0001). Significant improvements in CAT, mMRC, and ASK-20 scores were also observed. The prevalence of CAT responders as a negative predictor of acute exacerbation, defined as those with a decrease in CAT score of ≥2 points from baseline, was 86%. None of the patients experienced exacerbation during the study period.

Conclusions

Pharmacist involvement in the choice of inhaler for patients with newly diagnosed COPD was associated with improved lung function, health status, clinical symptoms, and adherence to inhaler therapy. Shifting task of choosing appropriate inhaler from physician to hospital pharmacist may be performed effectively and safely with an inhaler choice protocol.

Trial registration number

UMIN000039722, retrospectively registered on March 10, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40780-021-00211-0.

Improved Decision-Making Confidence Using Item-Based Pharmacometric Model: Illustration with a Phase II Placebo-Controlled Trial

This study aimed to illustrate how a new methodology to assess clinical trial outcome measures using a longitudinal item response theory–based model (IRM) could serve as an alternative to mixed model repeated measures (MMRM). Data from the EXACT (Exacerbation of chronic pulmonary disease tool) which is used to capture frequency, severity, and duration of exacerbations in COPD were analyzed using an IRM. The IRM included a graded response model characterizing item parameters and functions describing symptom-time course. Total scores were simulated (month 12) using uncertainty in parameter estimates. The 50th (2.5th, 97.5th) percentiles of the resulting simulated differences in average total score (drug minus placebo) represented the estimated drug effect (95%CI), which was compared with published MMRM results. Furthermore, differences in sample size, sensitivity, specificity, and type I and II errors between approaches were explored. Patients received either oral danirixin 75 mg twice daily (n = 45) or placebo (n = 48) on top of standard of care over 52 weeks. A step function best described the COPD symptoms-time course in both trial arms. The IRM improved precision of the estimated drug effect compared to MMRM, resulting in a sample size of 2.5 times larger for the MMRM analysis to achieve the IRM precision. The IRM showed a higher probability of a positive predictive value (34%) than MMRM (22%). An item model–based analysis data gave more precise estimates of drug effect than MMRM analysis for the same endpoint in this one case study.

Ultra Long-Acting β-Agonists in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled β-agonists have been foundational medications for maintenance COPD management for decades. Through activation of cyclic adenosine monophosphate pathways, these agents relax airway smooth muscle and improve expiratory airflow by relieving bronchospasm and alleviating air trapping and dynamic hyperinflation improving breathlessness, exertional capabilities, and quality of life. β-agonist drug development has discovered drugs with increasing longer durations of action: short acting (SABA) (4-6 h), long acting (LABA) (6-12 h), and ultra-long acting (ULABA) (24 h). Three ULABAs, indacaterol, olodaterol, and vilanterol, are approved for clinical treatment of COPD.

PURPOSE

This article reviews both clinically approved ULABAs and ULABAs in development.

CONCLUSION

Indacaterol and olodaterol were originally approved for clinical use as monotherapies for COPD. Vilanterol is the first ULABA to be approved only in combination with other respiratory medications. Although there are many other ULABA's in various stages of development, most clinical testing of these novel agents is suspended or proceeding slowly. The three approved ULABAs are being combined with antimuscarinic agents and corticosteroids as dual and triple agent treatments that are being tested for clinical use and efficacy. Increasingly, these clinical trials are using specific COPD clinical characteristics to define study populations and to begin to develop therapies that are trait-specific.

Relationship Between Clinical Control, Respiratory Symptoms and Quality of Life for Patients with COPD

Background

The concept of clinical control has been proposed as an instrument for evaluating patients with COPD. However, the possible association between clinical control, reduced symptom severity and HRQoL has yet to be confirmed.

Methods

This multicentre, prospective and observational study was carried out in 15 pulmonology clinics in Spain. The patients were followed up for six months, with a baseline visit (V0), followed by visits at three months (V1) and six months (V2). Clinical control was determined at V1, with the application of both clinical criteria and the COPD assessment test (CAT). All patients reported their symptoms by a validated symptom diary (E-RS) using a portable device, and their HRQoL was assessed using the EQ5D questionnaire. The relationship between clinical control and E-RS and HRQoL during follow-up was assessed with t-test.

Results

A total of 126 patients were screened. After application of the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 93 were finally included (mean age 66 ± 8 years, 84.9% male), with a mean FEV1 predicted of 49.8% ± 16.5%. Of these patients, 44 (47.3%) achieved clinical control at V1, according to CAT criteria, and 50 (53.8%), according to clinical criteria. The E-RS scores differed between controlled and uncontrolled patients at all time points, both according to CAT (mean differences of -4.6, -5.6 and -6.2 units at V0, V1 and V2, respectively, p<0.005 for all comparisons) and to clinical criteria (mean differences of -3.3, -5-6 and -4.99 units, respectively, p<0.005 for all comparisons). The controlled patients also presented a significantly better HRQoL, measured by the EQ5D questionnaire (mean difference 0.13 and 0.10 at V2 by CAT or clinical criteria, respectively, p<0.05).

Conclusion

Clinical control in patients with COPD, whether measured by CAT or by clinical criteria, is associated with a lower symptom load and a better HRQoL.

Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy and Health-Related Quality of Life in COPD: The IMPACT Study

Introduction

The phase 3 InforMing the PAthway of COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler therapy with fluticasone furoate (FF) 100 μg, umeclidinium (UMEC) 62.5 μg, and vilanterol (VI) 25 μg demonstrated a reduction in the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. This article reports additional evidence of improvements in symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with FF/UMEC/VI compared with either FF/VI or UMEC/VI from the IMPACT study.

Methods

Patient-reported HRQoL assessments and symptom measures included as pre-specified IMPACT end points were the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and Baseline Dyspnea Index (BDI) as the anchor for the Transitional Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score (BDI/TDI) in a subset of patients enrolled at study sites in North America and Europe. Change from baseline was assessed at weeks 4, 28, and 52.

Results

The intent-to-treat population included 10,355 patients (TDI population: 5058 patients). Clinically meaningful improvements in SGRQ total score between baseline and week 52 favored FF/UMEC/VI over FF/VI (− 1.8 units, p < 0.001) and UMEC/VI (− 1.8 units, p < 0.001). Similar improvements in the CAT and TDI focal score were also observed with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations, once-daily FF/UMEC/VI, compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, improves patient-perceived HRQoL and symptoms.

Trial Registration Number

NCT02164513.

CXCR2 antagonist for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with chronic mucus hypersecretion: a phase 2b trial

Background

Oral CXC chemokine receptor 2 (CXCR2) antagonists have been shown to inhibit neutrophil migration and activation in the lung in preclinical and human models of neutrophilic airway inflammation. A previous study with danirixin, a reversible CXCR2 antagonist, demonstrated a trend for improved respiratory symptoms and health status in patients with COPD.

Methods

This 26-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIb study enrolled symptomatic patients with mild-to-moderate COPD at risk for exacerbations. Patients received danirixin 5, 10, 25, 35 or 50 mg twice daily or placebo in addition to standard of care. Primary end-points were the dose response of danirixin compared with placebo on the incidence and severity of respiratory symptoms (Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD [E-RS:COPD] scores) and safety. Secondary end-points included the incidence of moderate-severe exacerbations, health status (COPD Assessment test, CAT) and health-related quality of life HRQoL (St. George Respiratory Questionnaire-COPD, SGRQ-C).

Results

A total of 614 participants were randomized to treatment. There were no improvements in E-RS:COPD, CAT or SGRQ-C scores in participants treated with any dose of danirixin compared to placebo; a larger than expected placebo effect was observed. There was an increased incidence of exacerbation in the danirixin-treated groups and an increased number of pneumonias in participants treated with danirixin 50 mg.

Conclusions

The robust placebo and study effects prohibited any conclusions on the efficacy of danirixin. However, the absence of a clear efficacy benefit and the observed increase in exacerbations in danirixin-treated groups suggests an unfavorable benefit-risk profile in patients with COPD.

Trial registration

This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03034967.

Single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review

Background

Guidelines recommend that treatment with a long-acting β₂ agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), i.e. triple therapy, is reserved for a select group of symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who continue to exacerbate despite treatment with dual therapy (LABA/LAMA). A number of single-inhaler triple therapies are now available and important clinical questions remain over their role in the patient pathway. We compared the efficacy and safety of single-inhaler triple therapy to assess the magnitude of benefit and to identify patients with the best risk-benefit profile for treatment. We also evaluated and compared study designs and population characteristics to assess the strength of the evidence base.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search, from inception to December 2018, of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD. The primary outcome was the annual rate of moderate and severe exacerbations.

Results

We identified 523 records, of which 15 reports/abstracts from six RCTs were included. Triple therapy resulted in the reduction of the annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the range of 15–52% compared with LAMA/LABA, 15–35% compared to LABA/ICS and 20% compared to LAMA. The patient-based number needed to treat for the moderate or severe exacerbation outcome ranged between approximately 25–50 (preventing one patient from having an event) and the event-based number needed to treat of around 3–11 (preventing one event). The absolute benefit appeared to be greater in patients with higher eosinophil counts or historical frequency of exacerbations and ex-smokers. In the largest study, there was a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia in the triple therapy arm. There were important differences in study designs and populations impacting the interpretation of the results and indicating there would be significant heterogeneity in cross-trial comparisons.

Conclusion

The decision to prescribe triple therapy should consider patient phenotype, magnitude of benefit and increased risk of adverse events. Future research on specific patient phenotype thresholds that can support treatment and funding decisions is now required from well-designed, robust, clinical trials.

Trial registration

PROSPERO #CRD42018102125.

Reliability, validity and responsiveness of E-RS:COPD in patients with spirometric asthma-COPD overlap

BACKGROUND

The Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (E-RS:COPD) is a patient-reported diary that assesses respiratory symptoms in stable COPD.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm trial (GSK ID: 200699; NCT02164539) assessed the structure, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the E-RS, and a separate wheeze item, for use in patients with a primary diagnosis of asthma or COPD, but with spirometric characteristics of both (fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility to salbutamol; a subset of patients referred to as spirometric asthma-COPD overlap [ACO]; N = 338).

RESULTS

Factor analysis demonstrated that E-RS included Cough and Sputum, Chest Symptoms, and Breathlessness domains, with a Total score suitable for quantifying overall respiratory symptoms (comparative fit index: 0.9), consistent with the structure shown in COPD. The wheeze item did not fit the model. Total and domain scores were internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha: 0.7-0.9) and reproducible (intra-class correlations > 0.7). Moderate correlations between RS-Total and RS-Breathlessness scores were observed with St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total and Activity domain scores at baseline (r = 0.43 and r = 0.48, respectively). E-RS scores were sensitive to change when a patient global impression of change and SGRQ change scores were used to define responders, with changes of ≥ - 1.4 in RS-Total score interpreted as clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSIONS

E-RS:COPD scores were reliable, valid and responsive in this sample, suggesting the measure may be suitable for evaluating the severity of respiratory symptoms and the effects of treatment in patients with asthma and COPD that exhibit spirometric characteristics of both fixed airflow obstruction and reversibility. Further study of this instrument and wheeze in new samples of patients with ACO is warranted.

COPD treatment pathways in France: a retrospective analysis of electronic medical record data from general practitioners

Background

Increasing availability of therapeutic options for COPD may drive new treatment pathways. This study describes COPD treatment in France, focusing on identifying initial treatment modifications in patients with COPD who either initiated long-acting bronchodilator (LABD)-based therapy or escalated to triple therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA] + long-acting β₂-agonist [LABA] + inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]).

Methods

This retrospective analysis of patients with COPD in a large general practitioner database (IQVIA Longitudinal Patient Database) in France included two cohorts: Cohort 1 – new initiators of LABD-based therapy (LAMA, LABA, LAMA + LABA, LAMA + ICS, LABA + ICS or LAMA + LABA + ICS); Cohort 2 – patients escalating to triple therapy from mono- or dual-bronchodilator-based maintenance treatment. Both cohorts were indexed on the date of initiation/escalation (January 2008–December 2013), and the first treatment modification (at class level) within the 18-month post-index observational period was described. Five mutually exclusive outcomes were defined: continuous use (no modification), discontinuation (permanent [≥91 days with no restart] or temporary [≥91 days with subsequent restart]), switch, and augmentation (Cohort 1 only). Exploratory analysis of Cohort 1 explored potential drivers of treatment initiation.

Results

Overall, 5,065 patients initiated LABD-based therapy (Cohort 1), and 501 escalated to triple therapy (Cohort 2). In Cohort 1, 7.0% of patients were continuous users, 46.5% discontinued permanently, 28.5% discontinued temporarily, 2.8% augmented (added LAMA and/or LABA and/or ICS), and 15.2% switched therapy. In Cohort 2, 18.2% of patients were continuous users, 7.2% discontinued permanently, 27.9% discontinued temporarily, and 46.7% switched therapy. Exploratory analyses showed that time since COPD diagnosis was first recorded, pre-index exacerbation events, and concomitant medical conditions were potential drivers of initial maintenance treatment choices.

Conclusion

Discontinuation among new initiators of LABD-based therapy was high in France, whereas few switched or augmented treatment. In comparison, permanent discontinuation within 18 months was low in patients escalating to triple therapy.

Fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium bromide, and vilanterol as a combination therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Introduction: Triple therapy with two bronchodilators (LABA plus LAMA) and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is recommended for patients suffering from severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Areas covered: All 12-52 week-long studies comparing triple therapy with umeclidinium (UM) added to either fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) vs. other comparators in COPD patients of group B or D (2011 GOLD classification) were considered. When UM was added to ICS/LABA with separate devices or within a single device, triple combination was more effective than comparators (usually, ICS/LABA combinations) regarding improvements to pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life and, in the longer studies, rate of moderate-severe exacerbations. The IMPACT study (a large trial comparing UM/FF/VI with both FF/VI and UM/VI combinations) showed that triple therapy had a greater effect compared to dual therapies in reducing the rate of moderate-severe exacerbations, improving trough FEV1 and improving quality of life. The safety profile was good, without excess cardiovascular effects or pneumonia, however, the presence of comorbidities was frequent. Expert commentary: UM/FF/VI combination represents a good option for severe COPD patients who remain symptomatic and/or with frequent exacerbations despite dual therapies. Once daily administration with a simple and effective device may increase adherence and efficacy of the treatment.

Symptomatic burden of COPD for patients receiving dual or triple therapy

Background

COPD is associated with a large disease burden. The use of dual (two maintenance treatments) and triple (combination of any three treatments) therapy has shown efficacy for symptom relief; however, some patients with COPD remain symptomatic despite these therapies. This study assessed the scope and magnitude of the symptomatic burden for patients with COPD receiving dual or triple therapy.

Patients and methods

Cross-sectional data from three Adelphi COPD surveys (2013–2016) conducted in the USA, Europe, Japan, and China were analyzed for patients with COPD and forced expiratory volume in 1 second ≤65% receiving dual or triple therapy for ≥3 months. Physicians completed clinical and disease characteristic forms for identified patients. Corresponding patients completed questionnaires that included validated survey instruments to assess adherence and symptom impact. Descriptive statistics are reported.

Results

Our analysis included 690 patients (mean age 68.2 years; 73.3% male); 41.4% and 58.6% were receiving dual and triple therapy, respectively. Most patients had dyspnea with substantial disability (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale rating ≥2, 56.3%; large health status impairment from symptoms, COPD Assessment Test score >20, 64.4%). A large symptom burden was observed, even for patients highly adherent to treatment (Morisky Medication Adherence Scale 8, 30.3% [185/612]), of whom 62.1% still had a COPD Assessment Test score >20. Sensitivity analyses of patients regardless of their forced expiratory volume in 1 second status and of those receiving treatment for >6 months both reported similar results.

Conclusion

Although patients who consult their physicians more frequently than average may be overrepresented because of the observational design of this study, we report that unmet needs remain for patients with COPD, despite the use of dual or triple therapy. A percentage of patients with COPD reported major symptom burden affecting their daily living and causing a large impairment in the health status, regardless of treatment adherence.

Patient considerations in the treatment of COPD: focus on the new combination inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol

The pharmacological treatment for stable COPD is based on the use of inhaled bronchodilators (long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists and long-acting beta-2 adrenoceptor agonists) and inhaled corticosteroids. The use of triple inhaled therapy is recommended to selected patients with COPD. Among the various inhaler combinations in triple therapy, a new combination by fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol is available for COPD patients. Recently, a large clinical trial using this combination has been published, resulting in a reduction in exacerbation rate in COPD patients. Furthermore, this combination has demonstrated efficacy and safety, with a single administration a day, through a dry powder inhalator device, which has shown a good adherence and is a preference of the patient. This review focuses on the main characteristics of this inhaler combination evaluating the main clinical effects, the patients' adherence, and the safety.