Umeclidinium bromide 65micrograms/dose / Vilanterol 22micrograms/dose dry powder inhaler

Abstract Background Prospective evidence is lacking regarding incremental benefits of long-acting dual- versus mono-bronchodilation in improving symptoms and preventing short-term disease worsening/treatment failure in low exacerbation risk patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Methods The 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised patients at low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5 μg once-daily or salmeterol 50 μg twice-daily. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The study was also powered for the secondary endpoint of Transition Dyspnoea Index at Week 24. Other efficacy assessments included spirometry, symptoms, heath status and short-term disease worsening measured by the composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration using three definitions. Results Change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 66 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43, 89) and 141 mL (95% CI: 118, 164) greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, respectively (both p < 0.001). Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated consistent improvements in Transition Dyspnoea Index versus both monotherapies at Week 24 (vs umeclidinium: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.68], p = 0.018; vs salmeterol: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.15, 0.76], p = 0.004) and all other symptom measures at all time points. Regardless of the clinically important deterioration definition considered, umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly reduced the risk of a first clinically important deterioration compared with umeclidinium (by 16–25% [p < 0.01]) and salmeterol (by 26–41% [p < 0.001]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments. Conclusions Umeclidinium/vilanterol consistently provides early and sustained improvements in lung function and symptoms and reduces the risk of deterioration/treatment failure versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. These findings suggest a potential for early use of dual bronchodilators to help optimise therapy in this patient group.

Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0

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

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

AIM: This study aims to systematically evaluate which single-inhaler triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroids [ICS], long-acting β2-agonists [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonists [LAMA]) is safer and more effective for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Cochrane library and Google Scholar from database establishment to November 2025. Searches were limited to English articles. The RCTs that compared single-inhaler triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) with triple therapy (ICS/LABA+LAMA) or dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LABA/LAMA) for COPD were included. Minimum duration ≥ 12 weeks and minimum participant numbers ≥ 300 patients. Outcomes included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), moderate and severe exacerbations, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index (TDI) focal score and safety. RESULTS: 12 RCTs (n = 28930 patients) were included in this network meta-analysis. Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol/umeclidinium (FF/VIL/UMEC) was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV1 (based on change from baseline) than dual therapies (ICS/LABA or LABA/LAMA), free triple therapy (ICS/LABA+LAMA), budesonide/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrronium bromide (BUD/FOR/GLY) and beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrronium bromide (BDP/FOR/GLY). In addition, FF/VIL/UMEC, BUD/FOR/GLY, and free triple therapy (ICS/LABA+LAMA) showed significant improvement in the total SGRQ score to dual therapies (ICS/LABA or LABA/LAMA). FF/VIL/UMEC and free triple therapy (ICS/LABA+LAMA) showed borderline significant improvement in the total SGRQ score to BDP/FOR/GLY. CONCLUSION: The four available single-inhaler triple therapies and free triple therapy appear to have similar effectiveness and safety. Given the absence of direct comparison studies differences cannot be found with a sufficient level of certainty. Further analysis is needed, as additional evidence becomes available.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND