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

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). 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. 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. 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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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

Abstract: The use of inhaled, fixed-dose, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) combined with long-acting, beta 2 -adrenergic receptor agonists (LABA) has become a mainstay in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One of the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations is the dry powder inhaler (DPI) of umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) (62.5 μg/25 μg) approved for once-a-day maintenance treatment of COPD. This paper reviews the use of fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA agents focusing on the UMEC/VI DPI inhaler in the maintenance treatment of COPD. The fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA inhaler offers a step beyond a single inhaled maintenance agent but is still a single device for the COPD patient having frequent COPD exacerbations and persistent symptoms not well controlled on one agent. Currently available clinical trials suggest that the once-a-day DPI of UMEC/VI is well-tolerated, safe and non-inferior or better than other currently available inhaled fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations for COPD. Keywords: fixed-dose combination inhalers, long-acting beta 2 -adrenergic agonists, LABA, long-acting muscarinic antagonists, LAMA, COPD, umeclidinium bromide, vilanterol trifenatate

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

BACKGROUND: -agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) triple therapy in Japan are limited. METHODS: Descriptive, observational study of patients with asthma aged ≥15 years newly initiating single- or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (SITT: fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI], SITT: indacaterol/glycopyrronium bromide/mometasone furoate [IND/GLY/MF] or MITT) or ICS/LABA using JMDC/Medical Data Vision (MDV) health insurance databases from February 2021-February 2022 (first prescription date: index date). Patients were assigned to three non-mutually exclusive cohorts: A) new FF/UMEC/VI initiators; B) new FF/UMEC/VI, IND/GLY/MF, or MITT initiators; C) new FF/UMEC/VI, IND/GLY/MF, MITT or ICS/LABA initiators as initial maintenance therapy (IMT). Patient characteristics were assessed descriptively for 12-months pre-treatment initiation (baseline period). RESULTS: Cohort A: among new FF/UMEC/VI initiators, 12.8% and 0.1% (JMDC) and 21.7% and 0.9% (MDV) of patients had ≥1 moderate and severe exacerbation; 52.0% (JMDC) and 79.2% (MDV) had ICS/LABA use. Cohort B: most patients initiated FF/UMEC/VI and IND/GLY/MF over MITT (JMDC: 91.3% vs 8.7%; MDV: 67.8% vs 32.2%), with fewer exacerbations and lower rescue medication use. Cohort C: a greater proportion of FF/UMEC/VI initiators as IMT experienced a moderate exacerbation at index versus ICS/LABA initiators as IMT (JMDC: 17.8% vs 10.7%; MDV: 8.0% vs 5.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Patient characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups; SITT initiators had fewer exacerbations and lower rescue medication use than MITT initiators, represented by the greater proportion of IMT among SITT versus MITT initiators. Physicians may have prescribed triple over dual therapy as IMT in response to an exacerbation.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background: ATS and GOLD guidelines recommend treating low-exacerbation risk COPD patients with dual (LAMA/LABA) agents and reserving triple therapy (TT; LAMA/LABA and inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]) for severe cases with higher-exacerbation risk. However, TT often is prescribed across the COPD spectrum. This study compared COPD exacerbations, pneumonia diagnosis, healthcare resource utilization, and costs for patients initiating tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) and a TT, fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI), stratified by exacerbation history. Methods: COPD patients who initiated TIO/OLO or FF/UMEC/VI between 06/01/2015-11/30/2019 (index date=first pharmacy fill-date with ≥30 consecutive treatment days) were identified from the Optum Research Database. Patients were ≥40 years old and continuously enrolled for 12 months during the baseline period and ≥30 days during follow-up. Patients were stratified into GOLD A/B (0-1 baseline non-hospitalized exacerbation), No exacerbation (subset of GOLD A/B), and GOLD C/D (≥2 non-hospitalized and/or ≥1 hospitalized baseline exacerbation). Baseline characteristics were balanced with propensity score matching (1:1). Adjusted risks of exacerbation, pneumonia diagnosis, and COPD and/or pneumonia-related utilization and costs were evaluated. Results: Adjusted exacerbation risk was similar in GOLD A/B and No exacerbation subgroups, and lower in GOLD C/D for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators (hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.98, p=0.020). Adjusted pneumonia risk was similar between cohorts across the GOLD subgroups. Adjusted COPD and/or pneumonia-related population annualized pharmacy costs were significantly higher for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators across subgroups, p<0.001. Adjusted COPD and/or pneumonia-related population annualized total healthcare costs were significantly higher for FF/UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO initiators in the GOLD A/B and No exacerbation, subgroups, p<0.001 (cost ratio [95% CI]: 1.25 [1.13, 1.38] and 1.21 [1.09, 1.36], respectively), but similar in the GOLD C/D subgroup. Conclusion: These real-world results support ATS and GOLD recommendations for treating low-exacerbation risk COPD patients with dual bronchodilators and TT for more severe, higher-exacerbation risk COPD patients.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

Single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 μg has been shown to improve lung function and health status, and reduce exacerbations, versus budesonide/formoterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated the non-inferiority of single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI + UMEC using two inhalers. Eligible patients with COPD (aged ≥40 years; ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the 12 months before screening) were randomized (1:1; stratified by the number of long-acting bronchodilators [0, 1 or 2] per day during run-in) to receive 24-week FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 μg and placebo or FF/VI 100/25 μg + UMEC 62.5 μg; all treatments/placebo were delivered using the ELLIPTA inhaler once-daily in the morning. Primary endpoint: change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The non-inferiority margin for the lower 95% confidence limit was set at − 50 mL. A total of 1055 patients (844 [80%] of whom were enrolled on combination maintenance therapy) were randomized to receive FF/UMEC/VI (n = 527) or FF/VI + UMEC (n = 528). Mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 113 mL (95% CI 91, 135) for FF/UMEC/VI and 95 mL (95% CI 72, 117) for FF/VI + UMEC; the between-treatment difference of 18 mL (95% CI -13, 50) confirmed FF/UMEC/VI’s was considered non-inferior to FF/VI + UMEC. At Week 24, the proportion of responders based on St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire Total score was 50% (FF/UMEC/VI) and 51% (FF/VI + UMEC); the proportion of responders based on the Transitional Dyspnea Index focal score was similar (56% both groups). A similar proportion of patients experienced a moderate/severe exacerbation in the FF/UMEC/VI (24%) and FF/VI + UMEC (27%) groups; the hazard ratio for time to first moderate/severe exacerbation with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI + UMEC was 0.87 (95% CI 0.68, 1.12). The incidence of adverse events was comparable in both groups (48%); the incidence of serious adverse events was 10% (FF/UMEC/VI) and 11% (FF/VI + UMEC). Single-inhaler triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) is non-inferior to two inhalers (FF/VI + UMEC) on trough FEV1 change from baseline at 24 weeks. Results were similar on all other measures of efficacy, health-related quality of life, and safety. GSK study CTT200812; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02729051 (submitted 31 March 2016).

Abstract licence: CC BY

Purpose: -agonist combination umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is limited. This study compared rescue medication prescriptions in patients with COPD in England receiving UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study used primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database linked with secondary care administrative data from Hospital Episode Statistics. Patients with a COPD diagnosis at age ≥35 years were included (indexed) following initiation of single-inhaler UMEC/VI or TIO/OLO between July 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Outcomes included the number of rescue medication prescriptions at 12-months (primary), and at 6-, 18- and 24-months (secondary), adherence at 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-months post-index, defined as proportion of days covered ≥80% (secondary), and time-to-initiation of triple therapy (exploratory). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance potential confounding baseline characteristics. Superiority of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO for the primary outcome of rescue medication prescriptions was assessed using an intention-to-treat analysis with a p-value < 0.05. Results: In total, 8603 patients were eligible (UMEC/VI: n = 6536; TIO/OLO: n = 2067). Following IPTW, covariates were well balanced across groups. Patients initiating UMEC/VI had statistically significantly fewer (mean [standard deviation]; p-value) rescue medication prescriptions versus TIO/OLO in both the unweighted (4.84 [4.78] vs 5.68 [5.00]; p < 0.001) and weighted comparison (4.91 [4.81] vs 5.48 [5.02]; p = 0.0032) at 12 months; consistent results were seen at all timepoints. Adherence was numerically higher for TIO/OLO versus UMEC/VI at all timepoints. Time-to-triple therapy was similar between treatment groups. Conclusion: UMEC/VI was superior to TIO/OLO in reducing rescue medication prescriptions at 12 months after treatment initiation in a primary care cohort in England, potentially suggesting improvements in symptom control with UMEC/VI compared with TIO/OLO.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

Medication adherence among patients with chronic diseases, such as COPD, may be suboptimal, and many factors contribute to this poor adherence. One major factor is the frequency of medication dosing. Once-daily dosing has been shown to be an important variable in medication adherence in chronic diseases, such as COPD. New inhalers that only require once-daily dosing are becoming more widely available. Combination once-daily inhalers that combine any two of the following three agents are now available: 1) a long-acting muscarinic antagonist; 2) a long acting beta2 agonist; and 3) an inhaled corticosteroid. A new once-daily inhaler with both a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, umeclidinium bromide, and a long acting beta2 agonist, vilanterol trifenatate, is now available worldwide for COPD treatment. It provides COPD patients convenience, efficacy, and a very favorable adverse-effects profile. Additional once-daily combination inhalers are available or will soon be available for COPD patients worldwide. The use of once-daily combination inhalers will likely become the standard maintenance management approach in the treatment of COPD because they improve medication adherence.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC