Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016;13(1):1-10.
doi: 10.3109/15412555.2015.1034256. Epub 2015 Oct 9.

Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium Added to Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol in Patients with COPD: Results of Two Randomized, Double-Blind Studies

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium Added to Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol in Patients with COPD: Results of Two Randomized, Double-Blind Studies

Thomas M Siler et al. COPD. 2016.

Abstract

Combinations of drugs with distinct and complementary mechanisms of action may offer improved efficacy in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In two 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group studies, patients with COPD were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily umeclidinium (UMEC; 62.5 μg and 125 μg) or placebo (PBO), added to twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL; 250/50 μg). In both studies, the primary efficacy measure was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at Day 85. Secondary endpoints were weighted-mean (WM) FEV1 over 0-6 hours post-dose (Day 84) and rescue albuterol use. Health-related quality of life outcomes (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] and COPD assessment test [CAT]) were also examined. Safety was assessed throughout. Both UMEC+FP/SAL doses provided statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 (Day 85: 0.127-0.148 L) versus PBO+FP/SAL. Similarly, both UMEC+FP/SAL doses provided statistically-significant improvements in 0-6 hours post-dose WM FEV1 versus PBO+FP/SAL (Day 84: 0.144-0.165 L). Rescue use over Weeks 1-12 decreased with UMEC+FP/SAL in both studies versus PBO+FP/SAL (Study 1, 0.3 puffs/day [both doses]; Study 2, 0.5 puffs/day [UMEC 125+FP/SAL]). Decreases from baseline in CAT score were generally larger for both doses of UMEC+FP/SAL versus PBO+FP/SAL (except for Day 84 Study 2). In Study 1, no differences in SGRQ score were observed between UMEC+FP/SAL and PBO+FP/SAL; however, in Study 2, statistically significant improvements were observed with UMEC 62.5+FP/SAL (Day 28) and UMEC 125+FP/SAL (Days 28 and 84) versus PBO+FP/SAL. The incidence of on-treatment adverse events across all treatment groups was 37-41% in Study 1 and 36-38% in Study 2. Overall, these data indicate that the combination of UMEC+FP/SAL can provide additional benefits over FP/SAL alone in patients with COPD.

Keywords: bronchodilation; inhaled corticosteroid; long-acting beta agonist; long-acting muscarinic antagonist.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Summary of patient disposition in Study 1 (A) and Study 2 (B). 
AE, adverse event; FP/SAL, fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination; ITT, intent-to-treat; PBO, placebo; PP, per protocol; UMEC, umeclidinium.
*The run-in population included screening failures, run-in failures, and those in the ITT population (i.e., any patient who took at least one dose of open-label FP/SAL during the run-in period). Study 1: Reasons for withdrawal: PBO + FP/SAL: AE (n = 6), withdrew consent (n = 3), lost to follow-up (n = 2), protocol deviation (n = 4), lack of efficacy (n = 11), subject reached protocol-stopping criteria (n = 1); UMEC 62.5 + FP/SAL: PBO + FP/SAL: AE (n = 5), withdrew consent (n = 1), protocol deviation (n = 3), lack of efficacy (n = 5); UMEC 125 + FP/SAL: AE (n = 10), withdrew consent (n = 5), protocol deviation (n = 3), lack of efficacy (n = 3). Study 2: Reasons for withdrawal: PBO + FP/SAL: AE (n = 13), withdrew consent (n = 7), lost to follow-up (n = 1), protocol deviation (n = 2), lack of efficacy (n = 8); UMEC 62.5 + FP/SAL: AE (n = 10), withdrew consent (n = 8), protocol deviation (n = 1), lack of efficacy (n = 6); UMEC 125 + FP/SAL: AE (n = 6), withdrew consent (n = 4), lost to follow-up (n = 1), protocol deviation (n = 1), lack of efficacy (n = 6).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
LS mean (95% CI) change from baseline in trough FEV1 (L) in Study 1 (A) and Study 2 (B) (ITT). CI, confidence interval; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; FP/SAL, fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination; ITT, intent-to-treat; LS, least squares; PBO, placebo; UMEC, umeclidinium. Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, baseline (mean of the two assessments made 30 minutes and 5 minutes pre-dose on Day 1), smoking status, Day, Day by baseline and Day by treatment interactions.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
LS mean (95% CI) change from baseline in 0–6 hours WM FEV1 (L) in Study 1 (A) and Study 2 (B) (ITT). CI, confidence interval; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; FP/SAL, fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination; ITT, intent-to-treat; LS, least squares; PBO, placebo; UMEC, umeclidinium; WM, weighted mean. Analysis performed using a repeated measures model with covariates of treatment, baseline (mean of the two assessments made 30 minutes and 5 minutes pre-dose on Day 1), smoking status, Day, Day by baseline and Day by treatment interactions.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Serial (24 hours) FEV1 LS mean (95% CI) change from baseline on Day 1 and Day 84 (ITT population) in Study 1 (A) and Study 2 (B). CI, confidence interval; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; FP/SAL, fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination; ITT, intent-to-treat; LS, least squares; PBO, placebo; UMEC, umeclidinium. Analyses performed using a separate repeated measures model for each Day with covariates of treatment, baseline (mean of the two assessments made 30 minutes and 5 minutes pre-dose on Day 1), smoking status, time, time by baseline and time by treatment interactions.

References

    1. Brusasco V. Reducing cholinergic constriction: the major reversible mechanism in COPD. Eur Respir Rev 2006. 15:32–36.
    1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2014 Available from: http://www.goldcopd.org/ accessed July 31 2014. - PubMed
    1. Singh D, Brooks J, Hagan G, et al. Superiority of “triple” therapy with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate and tiotropium bromide versus individual components in moderate to severe COPD. Thorax. 2008;63:592–598. - PubMed
    1. Cazzola M, Ando F, Santus P, et al. A pilot study to assess the effects of combining fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and tiotropium on the airflow obstruction of patients with severe-to-very severe COPD. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2007;20:556–561. - PubMed
    1. Hanania NA, Crater GD, Morris AN, et al. Benefits of adding fluticasone propionate/salmeterol to tiotropium in moderate to severe COPD. Respir Med. 2012;106:91–101. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms