Generic Trelegy Ellipta 92micrograms/dose / 55micrograms/dose / 22micrograms/dose dry powder inhaler
Requires a prescription from a doctor or prescriber
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Official medicine documents
Yellow Card
Report side effects (MHRA)
Drug safety updates
MHRA alerts for Fluticasone + Umeclidinium bromide + Vilanterol
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
3 branded products available
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Fluticasone + Umeclidinium bromide + Vilanterol on the MHRA register
Trelegy Ellipta 92micrograms/dose / 55micrograms/dose / 22micrograms/dose dry powder inhaler
Trelegy Ellipta 92micrograms/dose / 55micrograms/dose / 22micrograms/dose dry powder inhaler
Trelegy Ellipta 92micrograms/dose / 55micrograms/dose / 22micrograms/dose dry powder inhaler
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
Browse tools
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. BNF code shown is the factual mapping value distributed by NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) in the dm+d supplementary file under OGL v3.0; it is not affiliated with, nor licensed from, the publishers of the British National Formulary. ATC codes from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (whocc.no).
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 21 · Randomised trials: 12 · 2012–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Marc Decramer, Antonio Anzueto, Edward Kerwin, et al.
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 2014
Zhu H, Lei J, Gao F, et al.
2024
- Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
- Benzyl Alcohols
- Chlorobenzenes
Xiong Y, Hu JQ, Tang HL, et al.
2024
IntroductionMonoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against cytokines and chemokines or their receptors promise to be a potential therapeutic option to address chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aim to provide a comprehensive literature review of the improvement in FEV1 and safety when comparing mAbs with conventional dichotomous agents.MethodsWe systematically searched 3 electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) up to August 1, 2023 to collect eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A frequentist network meta-analysis using a random-effects model was deployed to calculate mean differences (MD) for FEV1, relative risk (RR) of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and estimate the surface under cumulative rankings (SUCRA). A higher SUCRA indicates a better outcome.ResultsThis study included 23 RCTs involving a total of 20,853 patients. Overall, except for Dupilumab, mAbs did not significantly improve FEV1 compared to traditional conventional dichotomous agents. Among all the interventions included, Aclidinium bromide/Formoterol (AB/FF) (SUCRA 97.7%) ranked highest, followed by Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) (SUCRA 93.5%), and Glycopyrrolate Formoterol Fumarate (GFF) (SUCRA 84.7%). Dupilumab (SUCRA 66.9%) ranked the fourth among all interventions but ranked the first among all the mAbs. Importantly, all mAbs demonstrated a good safety profile compared with placebo.ConclusionConsidering the improvement in FEV1 and its safety, the development of mAbs for COPD still holds significant clinical potential.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, CRD42023452714.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Noorduyn SG, Begaj K, Martin A, et al.
2025
IntroductionLong-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) addition to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA) dual therapy is recommended for severe asthma, but its real-world effectiveness is not well established.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) to investigate clinical outcomes in US adults with asthma receiving ICS + LABA + LAMA as multiple-/single-inhaler triple therapy (MITT/SITT). Real-world/observational studies published in English in Embase/MEDLINE databases (2014-2024) and conference abstracts presented 2022-2024 were eligible for inclusion.ResultsFrom 588 identified records, only 8 articles reporting 6 unique studies were included; 2 assessed SITT and 4 assessed MITT, and 4 treatments were investigated. Exacerbation rates reported in two studies were significantly reduced with tiotropium (TIO) + ICS + LABA MITT versus high-dose ICS + LABA within 6 (64% lower) and 12 months (73%), and fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 mcg SITT versus pre-treatment after 12 months (41%). Oral corticosteroid (OCS) use was reported in two studies. The proportion of patients with ≥ 1 rescue OCS dispensing decreased with TIO 1.25 mcg + ICS + LABA MITT, with greatest reductions for MITT ± leukotriene receptor antagonist (pre-treatment: 68.4%, post treatment: 54.2%). Mean number of OCS dispensings/patient/year significantly decreased (29%, p ConclusionsThis brief communication reports a systematic review that identified few sources of SITT or MITT in US patients with asthma. Although inclusion of observational studies can result in reporting/selection bias, we identified greater clinical benefits with triple therapies versus dual therapies.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC
A. Bourdin, J. Knagenhjelm, I. Artico, et al.
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2026
Afisi Ismaila, Katrin Haeussler, Alexandrosz Czira, et al.
Advances in Therapy, 2022
- Fluticasone
- Budesonide, Formoterol Fumarate Drug Combination
- Network Meta-Analysis
J. Marshall, Amit Kumar Sharma, P. Darken, et al.
Advances in Therapy, 2023
- Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
- Androstadienes
- Benzyl Alcohols
The network meta-analysis (NMA) of Ismaila et al. contains limitations in design and reporting that could strongly influence the validity of the findings and conclusions. Heterogeneity between studies was not adequately accounted for; only results from a fixed-effects model are reported, which contradicts guidance on NMA methodology for comparing studies with considerable heterogeneity and can yield misleading results.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC 4.0
Chunjuan Zhai, Fen Wang, Ruie Xu, et al.
Postgraduate Medical Journal, 2024
A. Ismaila, K. Haeussler, M. Malmenäs, et al.
Advances in Therapy, 2023
Luigino Calzetta, Paola Rogliani
Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine, 2023
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.