Cargando…

Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Elderly Patients with COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pooled analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 µg dual bronchodilation versus placebo in elderly symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We conducted a post hoc pooled analysis of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ray, Riju, Tombs, Lee, Asmus, Michael J., Boucot, Isabelle, Lipson, David A., Compton, Chris, Naya, Ian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6061430/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29951734
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40266-018-0558-y
_version_ 1783342223660679168
author Ray, Riju
Tombs, Lee
Asmus, Michael J.
Boucot, Isabelle
Lipson, David A.
Compton, Chris
Naya, Ian
author_facet Ray, Riju
Tombs, Lee
Asmus, Michael J.
Boucot, Isabelle
Lipson, David A.
Compton, Chris
Naya, Ian
author_sort Ray, Riju
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pooled analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 µg dual bronchodilation versus placebo in elderly symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We conducted a post hoc pooled analysis of data from 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Change from baseline (CFB) in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)), proportion of FEV(1) responders (≥ 100-mL increase from baseline), and safety were analyzed in patients aged < 65, ≥ 65, and ≥ 75 years on Days 28, 56, and 84 (12-week analysis of parallel-group design studies), Days 28, 56, 84, 112, 140, 168, and 169 (24-week analysis of parallel-group design studies), and Days 2, 42, and 84 (12-week analysis of crossover design studies). RESULTS: The UMEC/VI intent-to-treat (ITT) populations comprised 2246, 1296, and 472 patients in the 12-week parallel-group, 24-week parallel-group, and 12-week crossover analysis, respectively (≥ 65 years: 36–44%; ≥ 75 years: 7–11%). The placebo ITT populations comprised 528, 280, and 505 patients, respectively (≥ 65 years: 37–41%; ≥ 75 years: 5–11%). Significant improvements in trough FEV(1) and significantly greater proportions of FEV(1) responders were seen with UMEC/VI compared with placebo in all analyses regardless of patient age or timepoint considered (p ≤ 0.023), except Day 84 trough FEV(1) CFB in the 12-week crossover analysis in patients aged ≥ 75 years (p = 0.064). UMEC/VI safety profile was similar to placebo in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled analysis of RCT data, once-daily UMEC/VI was well tolerated and provided clinically significant lung function benefits compared with placebo in younger and older patients with COPD. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline (study 208125). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40266-018-0558-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6061430
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60614302018-08-09 Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Elderly Patients with COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Ray, Riju Tombs, Lee Asmus, Michael J. Boucot, Isabelle Lipson, David A. Compton, Chris Naya, Ian Drugs Aging Original Research Article OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pooled analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 µg dual bronchodilation versus placebo in elderly symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We conducted a post hoc pooled analysis of data from 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Change from baseline (CFB) in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)), proportion of FEV(1) responders (≥ 100-mL increase from baseline), and safety were analyzed in patients aged < 65, ≥ 65, and ≥ 75 years on Days 28, 56, and 84 (12-week analysis of parallel-group design studies), Days 28, 56, 84, 112, 140, 168, and 169 (24-week analysis of parallel-group design studies), and Days 2, 42, and 84 (12-week analysis of crossover design studies). RESULTS: The UMEC/VI intent-to-treat (ITT) populations comprised 2246, 1296, and 472 patients in the 12-week parallel-group, 24-week parallel-group, and 12-week crossover analysis, respectively (≥ 65 years: 36–44%; ≥ 75 years: 7–11%). The placebo ITT populations comprised 528, 280, and 505 patients, respectively (≥ 65 years: 37–41%; ≥ 75 years: 5–11%). Significant improvements in trough FEV(1) and significantly greater proportions of FEV(1) responders were seen with UMEC/VI compared with placebo in all analyses regardless of patient age or timepoint considered (p ≤ 0.023), except Day 84 trough FEV(1) CFB in the 12-week crossover analysis in patients aged ≥ 75 years (p = 0.064). UMEC/VI safety profile was similar to placebo in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled analysis of RCT data, once-daily UMEC/VI was well tolerated and provided clinically significant lung function benefits compared with placebo in younger and older patients with COPD. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline (study 208125). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s40266-018-0558-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2018-06-27 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6061430/ /pubmed/29951734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40266-018-0558-y Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Ray, Riju
Tombs, Lee
Asmus, Michael J.
Boucot, Isabelle
Lipson, David A.
Compton, Chris
Naya, Ian
Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Elderly Patients with COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Elderly Patients with COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_full Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Elderly Patients with COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_fullStr Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Elderly Patients with COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Elderly Patients with COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_short Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Elderly Patients with COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_sort efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol in elderly patients with copd: a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6061430/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29951734
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40266-018-0558-y
work_keys_str_mv AT rayriju efficacyofumeclidiniumvilanterolinelderlypatientswithcopdapooledanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT tombslee efficacyofumeclidiniumvilanterolinelderlypatientswithcopdapooledanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT asmusmichaelj efficacyofumeclidiniumvilanterolinelderlypatientswithcopdapooledanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT boucotisabelle efficacyofumeclidiniumvilanterolinelderlypatientswithcopdapooledanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT lipsondavida efficacyofumeclidiniumvilanterolinelderlypatientswithcopdapooledanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT comptonchris efficacyofumeclidiniumvilanterolinelderlypatientswithcopdapooledanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT nayaian efficacyofumeclidiniumvilanterolinelderlypatientswithcopdapooledanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials