Generic Trimbow 172micrograms/dose / 5micrograms/dose / 9micrograms/dose inhaler CFC free
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 Beclometasone + Formoterol + Glycopyrronium bromide
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.
1 branded products available
Part of the Trimbow brand family (generic: Beclometasone + Formoterol + Glycopyrronium bromide)
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Beclometasone + Formoterol + Glycopyrronium bromide on the MHRA register
Trimbow 172micrograms/dose / 5micrograms/dose / 9micrograms/dose 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. 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: 16 · Randomised trials: 7 · 2017–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Fulvio Braido, Ioanna Vlachaki, Georgios F. Nikolaidis, et al.
Scientific Reports, 2025
- Asthma
- Glycopyrrolate
- Beclomethasone
Recent literature has shown that triple therapy is more effective than dual therapy for individuals with uncontrolled asthma. However, the comparative efficacy between different triple therapies remains unclear. The objective of this study was to determine the comparative efficacy of extra-fine single-inhaler medium-dose (MD) or high-dose (HD) of beclometasone/formoterol/glycopyrronium bromide (BDP/FOR/GLY) compared to other triple therapies in patients whose asthma remains uncontrolled with MD or HD inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists. A systematic literature review identified randomized control trials on adult patients with uncontrolled asthma. Two separate networks were constructed according to patients’ previous inhaled-corticosteroid dosage. Network meta-analyses evaluated severe and moderate-to-severe exacerbations, pre-dose forced expiratory volume, and asthma control questionnaire responses at 52 (± 3) weeks. Among single-inhaler triple therapies, MD BDP/FOR/GLY significantly reduced the risk of severe exacerbations (RR [95% CrI] compared to MD fluticasone/umeclidinium/vilanterol: 0.65 [0.49, 0.89]), while HD BDP/FOR/GLY demonstrated an improved trend in reducing severe and moderate-to-severe exacerbations versus HD indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide/mometasone, fluticasone/umeclidinium/vilanterol, and salmeterol/fluticasone + tiotropium. HD BDP/FOR/GLY and HD BDP/FOR + tiotropium did not differ significantly. Compared to relevant single-inhaler triple therapies, MD and HD BDP/FOR/GLY are associated with a significant benefit or trend for improvement in terms of reducing the rate of severe and moderate-to-severe exacerbations.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Ioanna Vlachaki, Simon Donhauser, Alessandra Madoni, et al.
Health Economics Review, 2025
In patients with asthma uncontrolled by a medium or high-strength (MS/HS) inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), according to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, a maintenance therapy option is the addition of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) via single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT). Evidence has previously been published on the cost-effectiveness of a SITT extra fine formulation of beclomethasone, formoterol and glycopyrronium bromide (BDP/FOR/GLY) vs. dual ICS/LABA combination, using data from two 52-week clinical trials (TRIMARAN and TRIGGER). However, there is limited evidence on the comparative cost-effectiveness of SITTs. The current analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BDP/FOR/GLY versus other SITTs, in the UK setting. Markov cohort state-transition model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of BDP/FOR/GLY Medium Strength (MS) vs. fluticasone, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) MS and, BDP/FOR/GLY High Strength vs. FF/UMEC/VI HS and vs. indacaterol acetate, glycopyrronium bromide, and mometasone (IND/GLY/MF) HS. A network meta-analysis was performed to estimate comparative efficacy of BDP/FOR/GLY against other SITTs. The model analyzed cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), net monetary benefit (NMB), and was developed from the perspective of England National Health Service (NHS) and Prescribed Specialized Services expenditure (2022 costs). Uncertainty of the inputs was estimated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. BDP/FOR/GLY MS was projected to be a dominant treatment alternative against FF/UMEC/VI MS (£5,121 less costly, gained 0.065 additional QALYs). Similarly, BDP/FOR/GLY HS was a dominant treatment alternative against FF/UMEC/VI HS (£143, 0.003 additional QALYs) and IND/GLY/MF HS (£692 less costly, gained 0.023 additional QALYs). BDP/FOR/GLY MS and HS had 77.1%, 51.3%, and 61.2% likelihoods to be cost-effective vs. FF/UMEC/VI MS, FF/UMEC/VI HS, and IND/GLY/MF HS at the defined willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, respectively. BDP/FOR/GLY MS and HS were a dominant treatment alternative compared with FF/UMEC/VI, both MS and HS, and IND/GLY/MF HS in patients with asthma uncontrolled by ICS/LABA.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
M. Orlovic, G. Nikolaidis, D. Tzelis, et al.
Value in Health, 2023
Lee HW, Park J, Jang EJ, et al.
2020
- Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
- Disease Progression
- Muscarinic Antagonists
BackgroundOnly few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for head-to-head comparison have been conducted between various combinations of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). Our study was conducted to compare acute exacerbation and all-cause mortality among different LAMA/LABA regimens using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library (search date: July 1, 2019). We included parallel-group RCTs comparing LAMA/LABA combinations with other inhaled drugs in the stable COPD for ≥ 48 weeks. Two different network geometries were used. The geometry of network (A) had nodes of individual drugs or their combination, while that of network (B) combined all other treatments except LAMA/LABA into each drug class. This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO; CRD42019126753.ResultsWe included 16 RCTs involving a total of 39,065 patients with stable COPD. Six combinations of LAMA/LABA were identified: tiotropium/salmeterol, glycopyrrolate/indacaterol, umeclidinium/vilanterol, tiotropium/olodaterol, aclidinium/formoterol, and glycopyrrolate/formoterol. We found that umeclidinium/vilanterol was associated with a lower risk of total exacerbations than other LAMA/LABAs in the NMA using network (A) (level of evidence: low or moderate). However, the significant differences were not present in the NMA of network (B). There were no significant differences among the LAMA/LABA combinations in terms of the number of moderate to severe exacerbations, all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, or pneumonia.ConclusionsThe present NMA including all available RCTs provided that there is no strong evidence suggesting different benefits among LAMA/LABAs in patients with stable COPD who have been followed up for 48 weeks or more.Trial registrationThis study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO; CRD42019126753.
Abstract licence: CC BY
A. Bourdin, N. Molinari, G. Ferguson, et al.
Advances in Therapy, 2021
Price D, Henley W, Cançado JED, et al.
2024
BackgroundCombined ICS and long-acting bronchodilators (LABD) more effectively reduce COPD exacerbations than LABD therapy alone. Corticosteroid-related adverse effects, including pneumonia, limit ICS use. Previous data suggest this risk is lower for extrafine beclometasone (ef-BDP). We compared pneumonia risk among new users of fixed dose ICS/LABD formulations containing ef-BDP, versus patients initiating LABD without any ICS.MethodsA propensity-matched historical cohort study design used data from OPCRD. COPD patients with ≥1 year of continuous data who initiated LABD or ICS/LABD formulations containing ef-BDP were matched. Primary outcome was time to pneumonia event, as treated, using either sensitive (physician diagnosed) or specific (physician diagnosed and x-ray or hospital admission confirmed) definitions, with non-inferiority boundary of 15%.Results23,898 COPD patients were matched, who were 68±11 years, 54.3% male and 56% current-smokers, while 43% were former-smokers. Initiation of ef-BDP/LABD was not associated with an increased risk of pneumonia versus LABD, for either a sensitive 0.89 (0.78-1.02), P = 0.08 or a specific 0.91 (0.78-1.05), P = 0.18 definition of pneumonia. The probability of remaining pneumonia free 1-year after ef-BDP/LABD was 98.4%, which was comparable to LABD at 97.7%, and was sustained up to 6 years of observation; non-inferiority criterion was met for both definitions. Initiation of ef-BDP/LABD was also associated with a reduced risk of developing LRTIs in the propensity matched cohort.ConclusionRisk of pneumonia when using ICS for the management of COPD reported in several randomised controlled trials may not be relevant with ef-BDP in a diverse real-world clinical population.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC
Henrik Watz, Anne-Marie Kirsten, Andrea Ludwig-Sengpiel, et al.
Respiratory Research, 2024
- Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
- Glycopyrrolate
- Beclomethasone
The single-inhaler triple combination of beclometasone dipropionate, formoterol fumarate, and glycopyrronium (BDP/FF/G) is available for maintenance therapy of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cardinal features of COPD are lung hyperinflation and reduced exercise capacity. TRIFORCE aimed to evaluate the effect of BDP/FF/G on lung hyperinflation and exercise capacity in patients with COPD. This double-blind, randomised, active- and placebo-controlled, crossover study recruited adults with COPD aged ≥ 40 years, who were hyperinflated and symptomatic, and were receiving mono- or dual inhaled maintenance COPD therapy. In the three treatment periods, patients were randomised to receive BDP/FF/G, BDP/FF, or placebo, each for 3 weeks, with a 7–10-day washout between treatment periods. Assessments included slow inspiratory spirometry (for resting inspiratory capacity [IC]) and constant work-rate cycle ergometry (for dynamic IC and exercise endurance time). The primary objective was to compare BDP/FF/G and BDP/FF vs. placebo for resting IC at Week 3. Key secondary objectives were to compare BDP/FF/G and BDP/FF vs. placebo for dynamic IC and exercise endurance time during constant work rate cycle ergometry at Week 3. Of 106 patients randomised, 95 completed the study. Resting IC adjusted mean differences vs. placebo were 315 and 223 mL for BDP/FF/G and BDP/FF, respectively (p < 0.001 for both). Adjusted mean differences vs. placebo for the key secondary endpoints were: 245 mL for dynamic IC (p < 0.001) and 69.2 s for exercise endurance time (nominal p < 0.001) with BDP/FF/G, and 96 mL (p = 0.053) and 70.1 s (nominal p < 0.001) with BDP/FF. Differences between BDP/FF/G and BDP/FF for resting and dynamic IC were 92 and 149 mL (p < 0.01 for both). All three treatments were generally well tolerated, with 27.3%, 25.3% and 19.0% of patients reporting adverse events with BDP/FF/G, BDP/FF and placebo, respectively, all mild or moderate. In patients with COPD, BDP/FF/G provided significant and clinically relevant improvements vs. placebo and BDP/FF in static and dynamic hyperinflation, with an improvement vs. placebo in exercise endurance. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05097014), registered 27th October 2021.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
O. Titova, O.A. Kuzubova, D. Sklyarova
Russian Medical Inquiry, 2024
Ferguson GT, Brown N, Compton C, et al.
2020
- Nebulizers and Vaporizers
- Health Status
- Lung
BackgroundThe comparative efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) triple therapy administered via single or multiple inhalers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been evaluated comprehensively. We conducted two replicate trials comparing single- with multiple-inhaler ICS/LAMA/LABA combination in COPD.Methods207608 and 207609 were Phase IV, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, triple-dummy non-inferiority trials comparing once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 μg via Ellipta inhaler, with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400/12 μg via metered-dose inhaler plus once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg via HandiHaler. Patients had symptomatic COPD and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 1 1 at Week 12. Secondary endpoints included CFB in trough FEV1 at Day 84 and 85. Other endpoints included serial FEV1 and health status outcomes at Week 12. Safety was evaluated descriptively.ResultsThe modified per-protocol population included 720 and 711 patients in studies 207608 and 207609 (intent-to-treat population: 728 and 732). FF/UMEC/VI was non-inferior to BUD/FOR+TIO for wmCFB in 0-24-h FEV1 at Week 12 (Study 207608 treatment difference [95% confidence interval]: 15 mL [- 13, 43]; Study 207609: 11 mL [- 20, 41]). FF/UMEC/VI improved trough FEV1 CFB versus BUD/FOR+TIO at Day 84 and 85 (Day 85 treatment difference: Study 207608: 38 mL [10, 66]; Study 207609: 51 mL [21, 82]) and FEV1 at 12 and 24 h post-morning dose at Week 12 in both studies. No treatment differences were seen in health status outcomes. Safety profiles were similar between treatments; pneumonia occurred in 7 (ConclusionsFF/UMEC/VI was non-inferior to BUD/FOR+TIO for wmCFB in 0-24-h FEV1 at Week 12 in patients with COPD. Greater improvements in trough and serial FEV1 measurements at Week 12 with FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR+TIO, together with similar health status improvements and safety outcomes including the incidence of pneumonia, suggest that once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy is a viable option for patients looking to simplify their treatment regimen.Trial registrationGSK (207608/207609; NCT03478683/NCT03478696).
Abstract licence: CC BY
Marco Mantero, Dejan Radovanovic, Pierachille Santus, et al.
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 2018
The major determinant of the decline in lung function, quality of life, and the increased mortality risk in patients with COPD is represented by severe acute exacerbations of the disease, that is, those requiring patients’ hospitalization, constituting a substantial social and health care burden in terms of morbidity and medical resource utilization. Different long-term therapeutic strategies have been proposed so far in order to prevent and/or reduce the clinical and social impact of these events, the majority of which were extrapolated from trials initially focused on the effect of long-acting muscarinic antagonist and subsequently on the efficacy of long-acting β2-agonists in combination or not with inhaled corticosteroids. The option to employ all three classes of molecules combined, despite the limited amount of evidence in our possession, represents a choice currently proposed by international guidelines; however, current recommendations are often based mainly on observational studies or on the results of secondary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. The present narrative review evaluates the available trials that investigated the efficacy of inhaled therapy to prevent COPD exacerbations and especially severe ones, with a particular focus on beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol/glycopyrronium bromide fixed dose combination, which is the first treatment that comprises all the three drug classes, specifically tested for the prevention of moderate and severe COPD exacerbations.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC 3.0
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.