Literature DB >> 35857184

Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Afisi S Ismaila1,2,3, Katrin Haeussler4, Alexandrosz Czira5, Vanita Tongbram6, Mia Malmenäs7, Jatin Agarwal8, Maria Nassim4, Marija Živković-Gojović9, Yunrong Shen10, Xinzhe Dong11, Maria Duarte5, Chris Compton5, Claus F Vogelmeier12, David M G Halpin13.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.
METHODS: A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.
RESULTS: The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV1 versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.
CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV1 at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  COPD; Dual bronchodilators; Dual inhaler therapy; LABA; LAMA; Network meta-analysis

Mesh：

Substances：

Year:  2022        PMID： 35857184      PMCID： PMC9525347          DOI： 10.1007/s12325-022-02234-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Ther        ISSN： 0741-238X            Impact factor:   4.070


Key Summary Points

Introduction

Long-acting bronchodilators are the mainstay of maintenance therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, treatment guidelines provide different recommendations on when to initiate long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) dual therapy rather than LAMA or LABA monotherapy. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy report typically recommends a stepwise approach with escalation to LAMA/LABA dual therapy for patients who have persistent dyspnoea or exacerbations on LAMA or LABA monotherapy, although LAMA/LABA dual therapy can also be considered as an initial maintenance therapy option for patients with severe symptoms [1]. In contrast, the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend initiating treatment with LAMA/LABA dual therapy for all patients with dyspnoea [2, 3]. Previous meta-analyses of clinical trial data comparing dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies have shown that treatment with LAMA/LABA combinations provide better outcomes for patients than LAMA or LABA monotherapy [4-9]. All currently available LAMA/LABA combinations provided greater improvements in lung function, health status and breathlessness compared with monotherapies [4–6, 9]. However, further evidence from large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy and safety of LAMA/LABA dual therapy versus monotherapy is now available, so there is a need for updated analyses to incorporate these findings. The relative differences in safety and efficacy between available LAMA/LABA treatments within the dual bronchodilator class also remain unclear. There is a need to identify whether there is a difference between bronchodilators in the benefits they produce across different outcomes to help guide treatment decisions. Previous meta-analyses showed a gradient of effectiveness between LAMA/LABA fixed-dose combinations in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD based on the evidence available in 2015 [4, 6]. Although within-class RCTs comparing outcomes between LAMA/LABA dual therapies remain limited, recent evidence may help to clarify the relative benefits of different LAMA/LABA combinations. An updated synthesis of recent and previously available evidence is therefore needed to understand the potential advantages of starting treatment with LAMA/LABA dual therapy versus LABA or LAMA monotherapy, and which treatments provide the best outcomes within the LAMA/LABA dual therapy class. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to investigate whether treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) provides better outcomes than (a) monotherapy with LABA or LAMA, and (b) other dual bronchodilator combinations in symptomatic patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Methods

Systematic Literature Review Rationale

The systematic literature review (SLR) methodology was consistent with recommendations published in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, as well as guidance provided by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Cochrane Collaboration [10, 11]. A previously published SLR identified publications up to October 2015 reporting RCTs in patients with COPD that compared selected maintenance therapies, including LAMA and LABA monotherapies and LAMA/LABA dual therapies, to inform an NMA [6]. An update to this search was conducted to identify publications between October 2015 and November 2020 reporting studies in which any LAMA, LABA or LABA/LAMA either as a monotherapy or as a combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS; dual therapy) were compared with LABA/LAMA dual therapy (fixed-dose or open combination). Studies with an ICS/LABA treatment arm were used to construct the networks, but were excluded from the comparisons.

Search Strategy

The systematic bibliographic searches were conducted between 2 October 2015 and 19 November 2020 using the Ovid Platform in the following databases: MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library: Cochrane Database of Systematic Review (CDSR) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) websites, HTA database and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). To complement the evidence from the bibliographic databases, a secondary systematic searches were performed in clinical trial registries including Clinicaltrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/search/advanced), the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial register; World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP; http://apps.wo.int/trialsearch/AdvSearch.aspx); ISRCTN registry Clinical Trials Register (ISRCTN; http://www.controlled-trials.com/editAdvancedSearch); Klinische Prüfungen PharmNet.Bund (http://www.pharmnet-bund.de/dynamic/de/klinische-pruefungen/index.htm); the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#searchadvanced); National Institute for Health Research—Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA; http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects) and EU Clinical Trials Register (EU-CTR; www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu). The search was restricted to articles written in English or German.

Inclusion Criteria and Study Selection Process

The outcomes included in the SLR are listed in Table 1. For all outcomes evaluated at 12 and 24 weeks, an extended margin of time was permitted to strengthen the networks. If the endpoint of interest was not reported at 12 or 24 weeks, but instead between 8 and 16 weeks and 20 and 28 weeks, the proxy outcome was reported. The primary outcome was trough FEV1 at 24 weeks.
Table 1

PICOS criteria

PopulationAdult patients with COPD
Intervention

Dual therapies:

 •UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg OD

 •ACL/FOR 400/12 µg or 400/6 µg

 •GLY/FOR 18/9.6 µg

 •IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg or 110/50 µg or 150/50 µg

 •TIO/OLO 2.5/5 µg or 5/5 µg

 •TIO 18 µg + FOR 10 µg or TIO 18 µg + FOR 12 µg

 •TIO 18 µg + IND 150 µg

 •Any other combination of a LABA and LAMA

LAMA monotherapies:

 •UMEC 62.5 µg or 125 µg OD

 •ACL 400 µg BID

 •TIO 5 µg or 18 µg OD

 •GLY 15.6 µg or 18 µg or 50 µg OD

LABA monotherapies:

 •SAL 50 µg BID

 •FOR 9.6 µg or 10 µg or 12 µg BID

 •IND 25.5 µg or 75 µg or 150 µg or 300 µg OD

 •OLO 5 µg or 10 µg OD

ComparatorAny comparison between the interventions of interest (including combination therapies) or of those interventions with placebo, as long as one arm receiving a LABA/LAMA dual therapy was included in the study
Outcomes

 •Trough FEV1

 •Post-bronchodilator FEV1

 •SGRQ total score

 •Proportion of patients with an improvement of at least 4 units in SGRQ total score (responder analysis)

 •TDI focal score

 •Proportion of patients with an improvement of at least 1 unit in TDI score (responder analysis)

 •Rescue medication use (including SABAs and ICS)

 •Rate of exacerbations per patient-year over the trial period across definitions

 •Proportion of patients experiencing at least one exacerbation (across definitions) at the end of the study

 •Time to first moderate/severe exacerbation

Study designRCTs with a duration ≥ 8 weeks

ACL aclidinium; BID twice daily; COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; FEV forced expiratory volume in 1 s; FOR formoterol; ICS inhaled corticosteroid; IND indacaterol; GLY glycopyrronium; LABA long-acting β2-agonist; LAMA long-acting muscarinic antagonist; OD once daily; OLO olodaterol; PICOS population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, and study design; RCT randomised controlled trial; SABA short-acting β2-agonist; SAL salmeterol; SGRQ St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire; TDI Transitional Dyspnoea Index; TIO tiotropium; UMEC umeclidinium; VI vilanterol

PICOS criteria Dual therapies: •UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg OD •ACL/FOR 400/12 µg or 400/6 µg •GLY/FOR 18/9.6 µg •IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg or 110/50 µg or 150/50 µg •TIO/OLO 2.5/5 µg or 5/5 µg •TIO 18 µg + FOR 10 µg or TIO 18 µg + FOR 12 µg •TIO 18 µg + IND 150 µg •Any other combination of a LABA and LAMA LAMA monotherapies: •UMEC 62.5 µg or 125 µg OD •ACL 400 µg BID •TIO 5 µg or 18 µg OD •GLY 15.6 µg or 18 µg or 50 µg OD LABA monotherapies: •SAL 50 µg BID •FOR 9.6 µg or 10 µg or 12 µg BID •IND 25.5 µg or 75 µg or 150 µg or 300 µg OD •OLO 5 µg or 10 µg OD •Trough FEV1 •Post-bronchodilator FEV1 •SGRQ total score •Proportion of patients with an improvement of at least 4 units in SGRQ total score (responder analysis) •TDI focal score •Proportion of patients with an improvement of at least 1 unit in TDI score (responder analysis) •Rescue medication use (including SABAs and ICS) •Rate of exacerbations per patient-year over the trial period across definitions •Proportion of patients experiencing at least one exacerbation (across definitions) at the end of the study •Time to first moderate/severe exacerbation ACL aclidinium; BID twice daily; COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; FEV forced expiratory volume in 1 s; FOR formoterol; ICS inhaled corticosteroid; IND indacaterol; GLY glycopyrronium; LABA long-acting β2-agonist; LAMA long-acting muscarinic antagonist; OD once daily; OLO olodaterol; PICOS population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, and study design; RCT randomised controlled trial; SABA short-acting β2-agonist; SAL salmeterol; SGRQ St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire; TDI Transitional Dyspnoea Index; TIO tiotropium; UMEC umeclidinium; VI vilanterol All abstracts and full articles were reviewed against the eligibility criteria by two systematic reviewers; disagreements were referred to a third reviewer and an agreement was reached. A PRISMA flow diagram, indicating the numbers of studies included and excluded at each stage of the review, is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

PRISMA flow diagram of study selection process. CSR clinical study report, NMA network meta-analysis, SLR systematic literature review

PRISMA flow diagram of study selection process. CSR clinical study report, NMA network meta-analysis, SLR systematic literature review

Quality Assessment

The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used to assess risk of bias at study level. The scored items were extracted in the data extraction form.

Network Meta-Analysis

In traditional pairwise meta-analysis, all included studies compare the same intervention with the same comparator. NMA is an extension of this approach that includes multiple different pairwise comparisons across a range of different interventions (Supplementary Methods) [12-14]. For the current study, all analyses were conducted using a frequentist weighted regression-based approach as previously described [15]. The efficacy outcomes were lung function (trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]), health-related quality of life (HRQoL; St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] total score), breathlessness (Transitional Dyspnoea Index [TDI] focal score), rescue medication use, moderate/severe exacerbation rate and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation. For safety outcomes, analyses were not feasible because of differences in outcome definitions. Both fixed effects (FE) and random effects (RE) models were used; in the absence of heterogeneity, results from both models were identical. Where heterogeneity was present, the RE models automatically accounted for this; RE model results are presented in the supplementary material. Networks were stratified by observation time horizon (12 and 24 weeks) depending on data availability and the primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Results from the frequentist approach are presented as point estimates with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Point estimates and 95% CIs are presented in figures and tables; only statistically significant results at 24 weeks have been reported in the text. The frequentist regression-based NMA was conducted using R v4.1.2 (www.r-project.org), using the netmeta package [16]. Further details are provided in the Supplementary Methods.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Results

Studies and Patient Characteristics

In the SLR and its update, a total of 6847 abstracts were reviewed following the removal of duplicates. Of those, 753 full length publications were assessed for inclusion and data were extracted from 83 publications and 13 GSK clinical study reports (CSRs). In total, 96 publications reporting 61 studies were included in the SLR. Following assessment of the feasibility of including studies identified in the SLR, the NMA included 69 publications (including 10 GSK CSRs) reporting 49 different studies (Fig. 1). The characteristics of the studies included in the NMA are shown in Table 2; the characteristics of patients included in these studies are shown in Table 3.
Table 2

Study characteristics of the trials included in the NMA

Author, yearStudy name, NCT numberTreatmentITT/study duration, weeksStudy designStudy phaseCrossover
Lipworth, 2018 [30]PINNACLE-4, NCT02343458

GLY/FOR (MDI) 18/9.6

GLY 18

FOR 9.6

PBO

24RCT, MC, DB, PG, PC3No
Singh, 2015 [31]OTEMTO 1, NCT01964352

TIO/OLO 5/5

TIO/OLO 2.5/5

TIO 5

PBO

12RCT, MC, DB, PC3No
Singh, 2015 [31]OTEMTO 2, NCT02006732

TIO/OLO 5/5

TIO/OLO 2.5/5

TIO 5

PBO

12RCT, MC, DB, PC3No
Vogelmeier, 2008 [32]NCT00134979

FOR 10

TIO 18

TIO 18 + FOR 10

PBO

24RCT, MC, DB (TIO open label), AC4No
Maleki-Yazdi, 2014 [33]ZEP117115, NCT01777334

UMEC/VI 62.5/25

TIO 18

24RCT, MC, DB, DD, PG3No
Calverley, 2018 [34]DYNAGITO, NCT02296138

TIO/OLO 5/5

TIO 5

52RCT, MC, MN, DB, PG, AC3No
Kerwin, 2017 [35]A2349, NCT02487446IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 BID12RCT, MC, DB, DD, AC, 2-period crossover3Yes, at 12 weeks
Kerwin, 2017 [35]A2350, NCT02487498

IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 BID

UMEC/VI 62.5/25

12RCT, MC, DB, DD, AC, 2-period crossover3Yes, at 12 weeks
Maltais, 2019 [22]EMAX, NCT03034915

UMEC/VI 62.5/25

UMEC 62.5

SAL 50

24RCT, MC, MN, DB, DD, PG3No
Feldman, 2017 [25]GSK 204990, NCT02799784

UMEC/VI 62.5/25

TIO/OLO 5/5

8RCT, MC, open label, two-period crossover study4Yes, at 8 weeks
Kalberg, 2016 [36]GSK 116961, NCT02257385

UMEC/VI 62.5/25

TIO 18 + IND 150

12RCT, MC, DB, triple dummy3No
Riley, 2018 [37]GSK 201317, NCT02275052

UMEC/VI 62.5/25

PBO

12RCT, MC, DB, PC, crossover4Yes, at 12 weeks
Mahler, 2012 [38]INTRUST-1, NCT00846586

TIO 18 + IND 150

TIO 18

12RCT, MC, DB, PG3No
Mahler, 2012 [38]INTRUST-2, NCT00877383

TIO 18 + IND 150

TIO 18

12RCT, MC, DB, PG3No
Vincken, 2014 [39]GLOW6, NCT01604278

IND 150 + GLY 50

IND 150

12RCT, MC, DB, PG3No
Wedzicha, 2013 [40]SPARK, NCT01120691

IND/GLY 110/50

GLY 50

TIO 18

64RCT, MC, DB, PG3No
GSK CSRaDB2113374, NCT01316913

UMEC 125

UMEC/VI 62.5/25

UMEC/VI 125/25

TIO 18

24RCT, MC, DB, DD, PG3No
GSK CSRaDB2113360, NCT01316900

UMEC 125

UMEC/VI 62.5/25

UMEC/VI 125/25

TIO 18

24RCT, MC, DB, DD, PG3No
GSK CSRaDB2113373, NCT01313650

UMEC 125

UMEC/VI 62.5/25

UMEC/VI 125/25

TIO 18

24RCT, MC, DB, PC3No
Vogelmeier, 2016 [41]AFFIRM, NCT01908140

ACL/FOR 400/12

SAL/FP 50/500

24RCT, MC, DB3bNo
Wedzicha, 2016 [42]FLAME, NCT01782326

IND/GLY 110/50

SAL/FF 50/500

52RCT, MC, DB3No
Maltais, 2019 [24]AERISTO, NCT03162055

GLY/FOR 18/9.6

UMEC/VI 62.5/25

24RCT, MC, DB, double dummy3bNo
Sethi, 2019 [43]AMPLIFY, NCT02796677

ACL/FOR 400/12

ACL 400

FOR 12

TIO 18

24RCT, DB, DD, PG3No
D'Urzo, 2014 [44]AUGMENT, NCT01437397

ACL/FOR 400/12

ACL/FOR 400/6

ACL 400

FOR 12

PBO

24RCT, MC, DB, PC3No
D'Urzo, 2017 [45]bAUGMENT EXTENSION, NCT01572792

ACL/FOR 400/12

ACL/FOR 400/6

ACL 400

FOR 12

PBO

28RCT, MC, DB, PC, long-term extension3No
Ferguson, 2016 [46]FLIGHT3, NCT01682863

IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 BID

IND/GLY 27.5/31.2 BID

IND 75

52RCT, MC, DB3No
Mahler, 2015 [47]FLIGHT1, NCT01727141

IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 BID

IND 27.5

GLY 15.6

PBO

12RCT, MC, DB, PC, PG3No
Mahler, 2015 [47]FLIGHT2, NCT0171251

IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 BID

IND 27.5

GLY 15.6

PBO

12RCT, MC, DB, PC, PG3No
Siler, 2016 [48]201211, NCT02152605

UMEC/VI 62.5/25

PBO

12RCT, MC, DB, PC3No
Kerwin, 2017 [49]DB2116960, NCT01899742UMEC/VI 62.5/2512RCT, MC, DB, DD3No
Donohue, 2016 [50]NCT01437540

ACL/FOR 400/12

FOR 12

52RCT, MC, DB, AC3No
Martinez, 2017 [51]PINNACLE-1, NCT01854645

GLY/FOR 18/9.6

GLY 18

FOR 9.6

PBO

TIO 18

24RCT, MC, DB, PC3No
Martinez, 2017 [51]PINNACLE-2, NCT01854658

GLY/FOR 18/9.6

GLY 18

FOR 9.6

PBO

TIO 18

24RCT, MC, DB, PC3No
Bateman, 2013 [18]SHINE, NCT01202188IND/GLY 110/5026RCT, MC, DB, PG, PC, AC3No
Buhl, 2015 [52]QUANTIFY, NCT01120717

IND/GLY 110/50

TIO 18 + FOR 12

26RCT, MC, DB, AC, PG, triple dummy3No
Tashkin, 2009 [53]NR

TIO 18 + FOR 12

TIO 18

12RCT, MC, DB (TIO open label), ACNRNo
Frith, 2018 [54]FLASH, NCT02516592

IND/GLY 110/50

SAL/FF 50/500

12RCT, MC, DB, DD, AC4No
Celli, 2014 [55]NCT01313637

UMEC/VI 125/25

VI 25

UMEC 125

PBO

24RCT, MC, DB, AC, PC3No
Singh, 2015 [56]DB2116134, NCT01822899

UMEC/VI 62.5/25

SAL/FP 50/500

12RCT, MC, DB, PC3bNo
Donohue, 2015 [57]DB2114930, NCT01817764

UMEC/VI 62.5/25

SAL/FP 50/250

12RCT, MC, DB, DD3No
Donohue, 2015 [57]DB2114951, NCT01879410

UMEC/VI 62.5/25

SAL/FP 50/250

12RCT, MC, DB, DD3No
Vogelmeier, 2013 [58]ILLUMINATE NCT01315249

IND/GLY 110/50

SAL/FF 50/500

26RCT, MC, DB, PC3No
Zhong, 2015 [59]LANTERN, NCT01709903IND/GLY 110/5026RCT, MC, DB, DD3No
Hoshino, 2015 [60]NR

TIO 18 + IND 150

SAL/FF 50/250

16RCT, open label_No
Singh, 2014 [61]ACLIFORM-COPD, NCT01462942

ACL/FOR 400/12

ACL/FOR 400/6

ACL 400

FOR 12

PBO

24RCT, MC, DB, PG3No
ZuWallack, 2014 [62]ANHELTO 1, NCT01694771

TIO 18

TIO 18 + OLO 5

12RCT, MC, DB, AC, PG3No
ZuWallack, 2014 [62]ANHELTO 2, NCT01696058

TIO 18

TIO 18 + OLO 5

12RCT, MC, DB, AC, PG3No
Dahl, 2013 [63]ENLIGHTEN, NCT01120717

IND/GLY 110/50

PBO

52RCT, MC, DB, PC3No
Buhl, 2015b [19]TONADO 1, NCT01431274

OLO 5

TIO 2.5

TIO 5

TIO/OLO 2.5/5

TIO/OLO 5/5

52RCT, MC, DB, PG3No
Buhl, 2015b [19]TONADO 2, NCT01431287

OLO 5

TIO 2.5

TIO 5

TIO/OLO 2.5/5

TIO/OLO 5/5

52RCT, MC, DB, PG3No

AC active-controlled, ACL aclidinium, ATS American Thoracic Society, CAT COPD Assessment Test, COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CSR clinical study report, DB double blind, DD double dummy, ECG electrocardiogram, ERS European Respiratory Society, FEV forced expiratory volume in 1 s, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, FRC functional residual capacity, FVC forced vital capacity, ICS inhaled corticosteroid, GLY glycopyrronium, GOLD Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease, IND indacaterol, ITT intent-to-treat, LABA long-acting β2-agonist, LAMA long-acting muscarinic antagonist, MC multicentred, MDI metered dose inhaler, mMRC modified Medical Research Council, NMA network meta-analysis, NR not reported, OLO olodaterol, PBO placebo, PC placebo controlled, PDE phosphodiesterase, PG parallel group, RCT randomised controlled trial, SAL salmeterol, SABA short-acting β2-agonist, SAMA short-acting muscarinic antagonist, SGRQ St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, SSRI selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol

aCSRs are available from clinicalstudydatarequest.com

bThe extension trial AUGMENT EXTENSION was not counted as a unique trial but secondary publication to main trial

Table 3

Baselines characteristics of patients in the studies included in the NMA

Author & yearTreatmentITT population, nMale, %Age, yearsCurrent smokers, %Severe or very severe COPD, %Concomitant ICS, %Mean/median duration of COPD, yearsaSmoking history, pack-yearsTrough mean/median pre-bronchodilator FEV1, LaMean/median post-bronchodilator FEV1, LaPre-bronchodilator FEV1% predictedPost-bronchodilator FEV1% predicted
Lipworth, 2018 [30]GLY/FOR (MDI) 18/9.655174.064.745.7

Severe: 34.8

Very severe: 4.2

30.76.245.9NRNRNR53.9
GLY 1847473.064.044.1

Severe: 35.4

Very severe: 3.0

30.26.244.8NRNRNR54.8
FOR 9.648076.064.143.3

Severe: 35.6

Very severe: 2.9

29.66.146.9NRNRNR53.9
PBO23572.863.948.1

Severe: 36.6

Very severe: 2.6

33.66.145.7NRNRNR54.4

Singh, 2015 [31]

(OTEMTO 1)

TIO + OLO 5/520356.264.754.7

GOLD 3: 36.0

GOLD 4: 0

41.9NRNR1.31.5NR54.9
TIO + OLO 2.5/520257.464.748.5

GOLD 3: 34.2

GOLD 4: 0.5

38.6NRNR1.31.5NR55.5
TIO 520361.164.948.3

GOLD 3: 36.0

GOLD 4: 1.0

37.9NRNR1.31.5NR54.7
PBO20462.365.143.1

GOLD 3: 36.0

GOLD 4: 0.5

34.8NRNR1.41.6NR56.3

Singh, 2015 [31]

(OTEMTO 2)

TIO + OLO 5/520265.865.245.5

GOLD 3: 38.1

GOLD 4: 0

35.6NRNR1.41.6NR54.8
TIO + OLO 2.5/520262.464.444.6

GOLD 3: 34.7

GOLD 4: 1.5

41.1NRNR1.31.5NR54.5
TIO 520364.064.744.8

GOLD 3: 32.5

GOLD 4: 0

35.0NRNR1.41.6NR55.9
PBO20257.964.047.0

GOLD 3: 39.1

GOLD 4: 0.5

35.1NRNR1.31.5NR54.3
Vogelmeier, 2008 [32]FOR 1021075.761.8NRNRNR735.41.5NR51.6NR
TIO 1822179.263.4NRNRNR6.938.61.5NR51.6NR
TIO 18 + FOR 1020779.262.6NRNRNR7.2 (7.0)37.91.5NR50.4NR
PBO20977.562.5NRNRNR6.740.11.5NR51.1NR
Maleki-Yazdi, 2014 [33]UMEC/VI 62.5/2545468.061.959.060.054.0NR44.11.3

Post salbutamol: 1.4

Post ipratropium: 1.5

NR46.2
TIO 1845167.062.754.058.053.0NR44.41.3

Post salbutamol: 1.4

Post ipratropium: 1.5

NR46.5
Calverley, 2018 [34]TIO/OLO 5/5393971.066.536.0

GOLD C: 4.0

GOLD D: 40

ICS only: 3

LABA–ICS: 26

LAMA–ICS: 2

LAMA–LABA–ICS: 39

NR44.8NR1.2NR44.6
TIO 5394172.066.336.0

GOLD C: 4.0

GOLD D: 39

ICS only: 2

LABA–ICS: 26

LAMA–ICS: 2

LAMA–LABA–ICS: 40

NR44.7NR1.2NR44.5
Kerwin, 2017 [49] (A2349)IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 BID and UMEC/VI 62.5/2535752.164.156.9GOLD 3: 35.636.18.152.31.21.5NR54.0
Kerwin, 2017 [49] (A2350)IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 BID and UMEC/VI 62.5/2535554.163.957.2GOLD 3: 37.536.18.454.01.31.6NR54.6
Maltais, 2019 [22]UMEC/VI 62.5/2581261.064.649GOLD 3: 36.0NR8.849.41.51.6NR54.9
UMEC 62.580459.064.949GOLD 3: 34.0NR7.847.61.51.6NR55.9
SAL 5080958.064.451GOLD 3: 35.0NR8.348.11.51.6NR55.6
Feldman, 2017 [25]UMEC/VI 62.5/2523660.064.4535.04NR50.2NR1.7NR59.6
TIO/OLO 5/523660.064.4535.04NR50.2NR1.7NR59.6
Kalberg, 2016 [36]UMEC/VI 62.5/2548274.064.041.056.056.0NR43.2NR1.4NRNR
TIO 18 + IND 15047971.064.046.058.051.0NR42.3NR1.4NRNR
Riley, 2018 [37]UMEC/VI 62.5/2519853.060.764.046.028.0NR52.21.41.5NR50.5
PBO19853.060.764.046.028.0NR52.21.41.5NR50.5
Mahler, 2012 [38] (INTRUST-1)TIO 18 + IND 15057070.064.040.053.052.07.147.2

Pre salbutamol: 1.2

Pre ipratropium: 1.2

Post salbutamol: 1.3

Post ipratropium: 1.4

NR48.3
TIO 1856167.063.436.053.052.06.647.2

Pre salbutamol: 1.2

Pre ipratropium: 1.2

Post salbutamol: 1.3

Post ipratropium: 1.4

NR48.9
Mahler, 2012 [38] (INTRUST-2)TIO 18 + IND 15057263.063.138.054.057.07.346.2

Pre salbutamol: 1.1

Pre ipratropium: 1.2

Post salbutamol: 1.3

Post ipratropium: 1.3

NR48.6
TIO 1857068.062.843.054.051.07.146.3

Pre salbutamol: 1.2

Pre ipratropium: 1.2

Post salbutamol: 1.3

Post ipratropium: 1.4

NR48.6
Vincken, 2014 [39]IND 150 + GYL 5022679.663.442.538.561.17.144.5NR1.554.2NR
IND 15022384.264.141.633.064.37.244.4NR1.655.5NR
Wedzicha, 2013 [40]IND/GLY 110/5072976.063.138.0

Severe: 79.0

Very severe: 21

75.07.245.00.91.0NR37.0
GLY 5074073.063.138.0

Severe: 79.0

Very severe: 21.0

75.07.144.00.91.0NR37.3
TIO 1873775.063.637.0

Severe: 79.0

Very severe: 21.0

76.07.247.00.91.0NR37.4
GSK CSRb (DB2113374)UMEC 12522267.064.544.061.056.0NR47.6NR1.1NR46.2
UMEC/VI 62.5/2521765.065.042.051.047.0NR47.8NR1.2NR47.7
UMEC/VI 125/2521569.063.845.059.053.0NR46.9NR1.2NR47.1
TIO 1821571.065.247.052.053.0NR54.0NR1.2NR47.4
GSK CSRb (DB2113360)UMEC/VI 125/2521471.062.958.053.048.0NR43.5NR1.3NR47.2
UMEC/VI 62.5/2521270.063.046.050.044.0NR44.8NR1.3NR48
VI 2520968.063.251.054.040.0NR41.6NR1.3NR47.7
TIO 1820867.062.648.053.045.0NR41.9NR1.3NR47.8
GSK CSRb (DB2113373)UMEC 62.541871.064.050.054.052.0NR46.81.21.3NR46.8
VI 2542168.062.747.053.050.0NR44.71.21.4NR48.2
UMEC/VI 62.5/2541374.063.149.051.051.0NR46.51.31.4NR47.8
PBO28070.062.254.058.049.0NR47.21.21.4NR46.7
Vogelmeier, 2016 [41]ACL/FOR 400/1246865.763.5NRGOLD D: 43.537.7NR41.6NR1.4NR53.3
SAL/FP 50/50046664.463.3NRGOLD D: 44.839.1NR42.6NR1.4NR53.2
Wedzicha, 2016 [42]IND/GLY 110/50168077.364.640.057.956.87.2NR1.01.2NR44.0
SAL/FF 50/500168274.864.540.058.355.87.3NR1.01.2NR44.1
Maltais 2019 [24]GLY/FOR 18/9.6552.074.364.352.753.553.38.139.5NRNRNR48.5
UMEC/VI 62.5/25552.071.063.854.352.652.78.038.7NRNRNR48.9
Sethi, 2019 [43]ACL/FOR 400/1231461.564.452.247.533.1NR46.21.3NRNR50.9
ACL 40047564.064.452.251.432.4NR45.41.3NRNR49.6
FOR 1231959.664.751.153.634.2NR45.21.3NRNR49.6
TIO 1847558.164.052.645.729.9NR46.41.3NRNR51.2
D'Urzo, 2014 [44]ACL/FOR 400/1233550.164.251.642.4NRNR53.31.3NRNR53.2
ACL/FOR 400/633356.263.952.938.1NRNR52.11.4NRNR54.7
ACL 40033755.864.450.743.6NRNR52.01.3NRNR53
FOR 1233250.963.751.539.5NRNR52.51.4NRNR53.9
PBO33252.763.550.945.2NRNR53.31.4NRNR52.6
D'Urzo, 2017 [45]cACL/FOR 400/1218248.463.753.844.0NRNR53.31.3NRNR52.1
ACL/FOR 400/620458.863.654.436.8NRNR53.71.4NRNR55.1
ACL 40019453.662.959.345.4NRNR52.31.3NRNR52.7
FOR 1219246.962.853.637.0NRNR53.11.4NRNR55.1
PBO14655.563.252.745.2NRNR54.51.4NRNR53.2
Ferguson, 2016 [46]IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 BID20464.264.049.535.846.66.7NR1.31.5NR55
IND/GLY 27.5/31.2 BID20460.363.951.538.248.56.8NR1.21.5NR54.2
IND 7520772.062.851.735.748.86.6NR1.31.6NR53.9
Mahler, 2015 [47] (FLIGHT1 & FLIGHT2, pooled)IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 BID50863.463.450.437.845.97.1NR1.31.5NR54.9
IND 27.551165.863.752.139.948.97NR1.31.5NR54.4
GLY 15.651163.863.452.337.442.97NR1.31.5NR54.6
PBO50860.263.251.639.245.57.1NR1.31.5NR54.4
Siler, 2016 [48]UMEC/VI 62.5/2524858.064.155.0GOLD D: 6445.0NR38.8NRNRNR46.5
PBO24860.062.652.0GOLD D: 5650.0NR38.4NRNRNR48.4
Kerwin, 2017 [49]UMEC/VI 62.5/2524766.064.552.00.0NRNR38.6NR1.8NR59.8
TIO 1824765.064.348.00.0NRNR40.4NR1.8NR59.4
Donohue, 2016 [50]ACL/FOR 400/1239255.163.946.946.235.2NR50.91.3NRNR51.8
FOR 1219855.164.743.946.5

ICS: 34.3

ICS + LABA: 0.6

NR52.61.3NRNR50.5
Martinez, 2017 [51] (PINNACLE-1)GLY/FOR 18/9.652655.162.653.446.033.7NR50.9NR1.5NR51.4
GLY 1845156.562.954.347.035.9NR50.4NR1.5NR50.7
FOR 9.644954.863.054.347.036.7NR52.9NR1.5NR51.2
PBO21955.762.557.547.035.2NR50.8NR1.5NR50.6
TIO 1845159.663.052.847.036.4NR53.0NR1.5NR51.4
Martinez, 2017 [51] (PINNACLE-2)GLY/FOR 18/9.651053.362.852.547.737.6NR50.5NR1.5NR52.1
GLY 1843955.162.851.546.239.2NR50.4NR1.5NR51.5
FOR 9.643756.562.657.747.135.9NR50.6NR1.5NR51.9
PBO22356.164.249.347.539.9NR53.2NR1.5NR52.5
Bateman, 2013 [18]IND/GLY 110/5047576.464.040.5Severe: 34.057.06.0NR1.31.5NR55.7
IND 15047774.463.638.7Severe: 38.257.06.3NR1.31.5NR54.9
GLY 5047577.264.340.0Severe: 36.658.06.5NR1.31.5NR55.1
TIO 1848375.063.539.4Severe: 38.359.06.1NR1.31.5NR55.1
PBO23472.864.440.1Severe: 32.358.06.4NR1.31.5NR55.2
Buhl, 2015 [52]IND/GLY 110/5047666.662.649.241.742.06.541.11.31.653.3NR

TIO 18 +

FOR 12

45865.163.148.94340.06.841.81.31.553.0NR
Tashkin, 2009 [53]

TIO 18 +

FOR 12

12465.063.849.0NR27.0NRNRNRNRNRNR
TIO 1813168.063.946.0NR27.0NRNRNRNRNRNR
Frith, 2018 [54]IND/GLY 110/5024888.765.036.746.0100.06.444.3NRNRNR51.3
SAL/FF 50/50025089.665.138.046.6100.06.445.3NRNRNR51.7
Celli, 2014 [55]UMEC 12540766.063.153.0

GOLD 3: 44.0

GOLD 4: 8.0

47.0NR44.0NRNRNR48.8
VI 2540466.062.852.0

GOLD 3: 40.0

GOLD 4: 9.0

47.0NR42.8NRNRNR48.5
UMEC/VI 125/2540366.063.450.0

GOLD 3: 47.0

GOLD 4: 9.0

44.0NR45.4NRNRNR47.7
PBO27564.062.252.0

GOLD 3: 48.0

GOLD 4: 8.0

50.0NR43.6NRNRNR47.6
Singh, 2015 [56]UMEC/VI 62.5/2535873.061.857.0GOLD D: 46.0NR6.640.71.41.6NR50.2
SAL/FP 50/50035871.061.461.0GOLD D: 44.0NR6.639.41.51.6NR51.1
Donohue, 2015 [57] (DB2114930)UMEC/VI 62.5/2535372.062.545.052.0NR–d43.21.31.4NR49.2
SAL/FP 50/25035369.063.041.050.0NR–d41.71.31.5NR49.6
Donohue, 2015 [57] (DB2114951)UMEC/VI 62.5/2534976.063.251.050.0NR–d43.81.31.5NR49.4
SAL/FP 50/25034876.064.053.050.0NR–d44.51.31.5NR49.5
Vogelmeier, 2013 [58]IND/GLY 110/5025870.263.247.719.832.96.440.71.51.751.160.5
SAL/FF 50/50026471.663.448.119.737.17.539.61.41.750.760.0
Zhong, 2015 [59]IND/GLY 110/5037291.764.826.047.055.45.2NR1.31.3NR51.6
SAL/FF 50/50036989.765.326.045.854.25.1NR1.21.3NR52.0
Hoshino, 2015 [60]TIO 18 + IND 1502281.872.0NRNRNRNR56.21.4NR61.9NR
SAL/FF 50/2502185.769.0NRNRNRNR60.41.4NR60.8NR
Singh, 2014 [61]ACL/FOR 400/1238567.862.747.040.522.1NRNR1.4NRNR54.6
ACL/FOR 400/638168.062.947.839.618.9NRNR1.4NRNR54.1
ACL 40038566.563.147.340.920.5NRNR1.4NRNR53.6
PBO19471.164.248.539.920.1NRNR1.4NRNR55.0
FOR 1238466.463.446.637.617.7NRNR1.4NRNR54.5
ZuWallack, 2014 [62] (ANHELTO 1)TIO 1856550.464.852.240.237.97.952.71.31.5NR53.9

TIO 18 +

OLO 5

56749.264.349.739.535.88.554.01.21.5NR54.2
ZuWallack, 2014 [62] (ANHELTO 2)TIO 1856953.363.648.244.337.87.151.41.31.4NR53.0

TIO 18 +

OLO 5

56653.964.645.840.337.68.253.91.31.5NR53.6
Dahl, 2013 [63]IND/GLY 110/5022577.362.545.331.145.85.836.31.41.6NR56.4
PBO11376.162.945.119.538.95.538.11.51.7NR59.4
Buhl, 2015b [19] (TONADO 1)OLO 552873.163.737.151.347.2NRNR1.21.449.9NR
TIO 2.552574.764.241.048.646.5NRNR1.31.450.9NR
TIO 552772.764.235.750.145.0NRNR1.21.449.7NR

TIO/OLO

2.5/5

52274.564.137.548.549.8NRNR1.21.450.5NR
TIO/OLO 5/552273.664.836.250.651.7NRNR1.21.349.5NR
Buhl, 2015b [19] (TONADO 2)OLO 551074.164.735.746.050.2NRNR1.21.450.7NR
TIO 2.550771.263.934.150.745.8NRNR1.21.449.7NR
TIO 550673.563.536.049.645.3NRNR1.21.449.7NR

TIO/OLO

2.5/5

50872.464.134.650.645.9NRNR1.21.450.0NR
TIO/OLO 5/550768.862.741.651.846.5NRNR1.21.449.1NR

ACL aclidinium, COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, FEV forced expiratory volume in 1 s, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, GLY glycopyrronium, GOLD Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease, ICS inhaled corticosteroid, IND indacaterol, ITT intent-to-treat, LABA long-acting β2-agonist, MDI metered dose inhaler, NMA network meta-analysis, NR not reported, OLO olodaterol, PBO placebo, SAL salmeterol, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol

aReported data are mean or median, as reported in the corresponding study. If both the mean and median were reported, the mean is presented

bAvailable from clinicalstudydatarequest.com

cThe extension trial AUGMENT EXTENSION was not counted as a unique trial but secondary publication to main trial

dDuration of COPD reported by category (< 1 year, ≥ 1 to < 5 years, ≥ 5 to < 10 years and ≥ 10 years)

Study characteristics of the trials included in the NMA GLY/FOR (MDI) 18/9.6 GLY 18 FOR 9.6 PBO TIO/OLO 5/5 TIO/OLO 2.5/5 TIO 5 PBO TIO/OLO 5/5 TIO/OLO 2.5/5 TIO 5 PBO FOR 10 TIO 18 TIO 18 + FOR 10 PBO UMEC/VI 62.5/25 TIO 18 TIO/OLO 5/5 TIO 5 IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 BID UMEC/VI 62.5/25 UMEC/VI 62.5/25 UMEC 62.5 SAL 50 UMEC/VI 62.5/25 TIO/OLO 5/5 UMEC/VI 62.5/25 TIO 18 + IND 150 UMEC/VI 62.5/25 PBO TIO 18 + IND 150 TIO 18 TIO 18 + IND 150 TIO 18 IND 150 + GLY 50 IND 150 IND/GLY 110/50 GLY 50 TIO 18 UMEC 125 UMEC/VI 62.5/25 UMEC/VI 125/25 TIO 18 UMEC 125 UMEC/VI 62.5/25 UMEC/VI 125/25 TIO 18 UMEC 125 UMEC/VI 62.5/25 UMEC/VI 125/25 TIO 18 ACL/FOR 400/12 SAL/FP 50/500 IND/GLY 110/50 SAL/FF 50/500 GLY/FOR 18/9.6 UMEC/VI 62.5/25 ACL/FOR 400/12 ACL 400 FOR 12 TIO 18 ACL/FOR 400/12 ACL/FOR 400/6 ACL 400 FOR 12 PBO ACL/FOR 400/12 ACL/FOR 400/6 ACL 400 FOR 12 PBO IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 BID IND/GLY 27.5/31.2 BID IND 75 IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 BID IND 27.5 GLY 15.6 PBO IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 BID IND 27.5 GLY 15.6 PBO UMEC/VI 62.5/25 PBO ACL/FOR 400/12 FOR 12 GLY/FOR 18/9.6 GLY 18 FOR 9.6 PBO TIO 18 GLY/FOR 18/9.6 GLY 18 FOR 9.6 PBO TIO 18 IND/GLY 110/50 TIO 18 + FOR 12 TIO 18 + FOR 12 TIO 18 IND/GLY 110/50 SAL/FF 50/500 UMEC/VI 125/25 VI 25 UMEC 125 PBO UMEC/VI 62.5/25 SAL/FP 50/500 UMEC/VI 62.5/25 SAL/FP 50/250 UMEC/VI 62.5/25 SAL/FP 50/250 IND/GLY 110/50 SAL/FF 50/500 TIO 18 + IND 150 SAL/FF 50/250 ACL/FOR 400/12 ACL/FOR 400/6 ACL 400 FOR 12 PBO TIO 18 TIO 18 + OLO 5 TIO 18 TIO 18 + OLO 5 IND/GLY 110/50 PBO OLO 5 TIO 2.5 TIO 5 TIO/OLO 2.5/5 TIO/OLO 5/5 OLO 5 TIO 2.5 TIO 5 TIO/OLO 2.5/5 TIO/OLO 5/5 LAMAs or LABAs other than study medication SAMAs were permitted only during the screening period ICS monotherapy, salbutamol/ albuterol (as rescue) AC active-controlled, ACL aclidinium, ATS American Thoracic Society, CAT COPD Assessment Test, COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CSR clinical study report, DB double blind, DD double dummy, ECG electrocardiogram, ERS European Respiratory Society, FEV forced expiratory volume in 1 s, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, FRC functional residual capacity, FVC forced vital capacity, ICS inhaled corticosteroid, GLY glycopyrronium, GOLD Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease, IND indacaterol, ITT intent-to-treat, LABA long-acting β2-agonist, LAMA long-acting muscarinic antagonist, MC multicentred, MDI metered dose inhaler, mMRC modified Medical Research Council, NMA network meta-analysis, NR not reported, OLO olodaterol, PBO placebo, PC placebo controlled, PDE phosphodiesterase, PG parallel group, RCT randomised controlled trial, SAL salmeterol, SABA short-acting β2-agonist, SAMA short-acting muscarinic antagonist, SGRQ St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, SSRI selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol aCSRs are available from clinicalstudydatarequest.com bThe extension trial AUGMENT EXTENSION was not counted as a unique trial but secondary publication to main trial Baselines characteristics of patients in the studies included in the NMA Severe: 34.8 Very severe: 4.2 Severe: 35.4 Very severe: 3.0 Severe: 35.6 Very severe: 2.9 Severe: 36.6 Very severe: 2.6 Singh, 2015 [31] (OTEMTO 1) GOLD 3: 36.0 GOLD 4: 0 GOLD 3: 34.2 GOLD 4: 0.5 GOLD 3: 36.0 GOLD 4: 1.0 GOLD 3: 36.0 GOLD 4: 0.5 Singh, 2015 [31] (OTEMTO 2) GOLD 3: 38.1 GOLD 4: 0 GOLD 3: 34.7 GOLD 4: 1.5 GOLD 3: 32.5 GOLD 4: 0 GOLD 3: 39.1 GOLD 4: 0.5 Post salbutamol: 1.4 Post ipratropium: 1.5 Post salbutamol: 1.4 Post ipratropium: 1.5 GOLD C: 4.0 GOLD D: 40 ICS only: 3 LABA–ICS: 26 LAMA–ICS: 2 LAMA–LABA–ICS: 39 GOLD C: 4.0 GOLD D: 39 ICS only: 2 LABA–ICS: 26 LAMA–ICS: 2 LAMA–LABA–ICS: 40 Pre salbutamol: 1.2 Pre ipratropium: 1.2 Post salbutamol: 1.3 Post ipratropium: 1.4 Pre salbutamol: 1.2 Pre ipratropium: 1.2 Post salbutamol: 1.3 Post ipratropium: 1.4 Pre salbutamol: 1.1 Pre ipratropium: 1.2 Post salbutamol: 1.3 Post ipratropium: 1.3 Pre salbutamol: 1.2 Pre ipratropium: 1.2 Post salbutamol: 1.3 Post ipratropium: 1.4 Severe: 79.0 Very severe: 21 Severe: 79.0 Very severe: 21.0 Severe: 79.0 Very severe: 21.0 ICS: 34.3 ICS + LABA: 0.6 TIO 18 + FOR 12 TIO 18 + FOR 12 GOLD 3: 44.0 GOLD 4: 8.0 GOLD 3: 40.0 GOLD 4: 9.0 GOLD 3: 47.0 GOLD 4: 9.0 GOLD 3: 48.0 GOLD 4: 8.0 TIO 18 + OLO 5 TIO 18 + OLO 5 TIO/OLO 2.5/5 TIO/OLO 2.5/5 ACL aclidinium, COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, FEV forced expiratory volume in 1 s, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, GLY glycopyrronium, GOLD Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease, ICS inhaled corticosteroid, IND indacaterol, ITT intent-to-treat, LABA long-acting β2-agonist, MDI metered dose inhaler, NMA network meta-analysis, NR not reported, OLO olodaterol, PBO placebo, SAL salmeterol, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol aReported data are mean or median, as reported in the corresponding study. If both the mean and median were reported, the mean is presented bAvailable from clinicalstudydatarequest.com cThe extension trial AUGMENT EXTENSION was not counted as a unique trial but secondary publication to main trial dDuration of COPD reported by category (< 1 year, ≥ 1 to < 5 years, ≥ 5 to < 10 years and ≥ 10 years)

Lung Function

Trough FEV1 data were available from 22 and 44 studies at 24 and 12 weeks, respectively (Supplementary Fig. S1). Not all comparators had data available at 24 weeks, including tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) fixed-dose and open combinations. The networks of evidence showed that the TONADO 1 and TONADO 2 studies formed a disconnected network at 24 weeks (Supplementary Fig. S1A). In the FE model at 24 weeks, change from baseline in trough FEV1 was statistically significant in favour of UMEC/VI versus all comparators, including dual therapies (Fig. 2a) and monotherapies (Fig. 2b). Mean difference in change from baseline in trough FEV1 (95% CI) versus dual therapies was 108.87 ml (79.27, 138.47) versus aclidinium/formoterol (ACL/FOR) 400/6 µg, 97.50 ml (72.89, 122.11) versus ACL/FOR 400/12 µg, 74.19 ml (55.06, 93.31) versus glycopyrronium (GLY)/FOR 18/9.6 µg, 39.43 ml (19.56, 59.30) versus indacaterol (IND)/GLY 110/50 µg, and 107.43 ml (70.18, 144.67) versus TIO 18 µg + FOR 12 µg. UMEC/VI showed clinically meaningful improvements (treatment difference ≥ 100 ml) [17] compared with ACL/FOR 400/6 µg and TIO 18 µg + FOR 12 µg dual therapies. At 12 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significantly greater improvements in trough FEV1 than all dual therapies, with the exception of GLY/IND (Supplementary Fig. S2A), and provided greater improvements than all monotherapies and placebo (Supplementary Fig. S2B). All therapies were significantly more effective than placebo in increasing trough FEV1, with UMEC/VI providing the largest improvements at both time points (Supplementary Figs. S3 and S4). The RE model produced consistent results (Supplementary Tables S1 and S2).
Fig. 2

Fixed effects model of mean difference in change from baseline in trough FEV1 of UMEC/VI versus a dual therapy and b monotherapy at 24 weeks. Assessment of heterogeneity/inconsistency: I2 = 35.33%; Q = 44.84, p = 0.0305. ACL aclidinium, CFB change from baseline, CI confidence interval, FEV forced expiratory volume in 1 s, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, GLY glycopyrronium, IND indacaterol, PBO placebo, SAL salmeterol, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol

Fixed effects model of mean difference in change from baseline in trough FEV1 of UMEC/VI versus a dual therapy and b monotherapy at 24 weeks. Assessment of heterogeneity/inconsistency: I2 = 35.33%; Q = 44.84, p = 0.0305. ACL aclidinium, CFB change from baseline, CI confidence interval, FEV forced expiratory volume in 1 s, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, GLY glycopyrronium, IND indacaterol, PBO placebo, SAL salmeterol, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol

Health-Related Quality of Life

SGRQ total score was available in 17 studies at 24 weeks (Supplementary Fig. S5) and 20 studies at 12 weeks. In the FE model at 24 weeks, there was no evidence of any statistically significant differences in SGRQ total score with UMEC/VI compared with all other LAMA/LABAs (Fig. 3a), whereas UMEC/VI provided statistically significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg (mean difference in change from baseline [95% CI] − 1.89 [− 3.49, − 0.30), GLY 18 μg (− 2.12 [− 3.61, − 0.62]), GLY 50 μg (− 1.43 [− 2.67, − 0.18]), TIO 18 μg (− 1.37 [− 2.42, − 0.32]), and salmeterol (SAL) 50 μg (− 1.79 [− 3.04, − 0.54]), but not versus other monotherapies (Fig. 3b). At 12 weeks, improvements in SGRQ total score with UMEC/VI were not statistically significant compared with other LAMA/LABA combinations; statistically significant improvements were seen for IND/GLY 110/50 μg and TIO 18 µg + IND 150 µg compared with UMEC/VI (Supplementary Table S2). UMEC/VI provided statistically significantly greater improvements in SGRQ total score at 12 weeks than TIO 18 μg and SAL 50 μg, but not compared with the other monotherapies (Supplementary Table S2). In the FE model, all treatments provided statistically significant improvements in SGRQ total score versus placebo, with the exception of UMEC 125 μg at 24 and 12 weeks and SAL 50 μg and IND 150 μg at 24 weeks (Supplementary Tables S3 and S4).
Fig. 3

Fixed effects model of mean difference in change from baseline in SGRQ total score of UMEC/VI versus a dual therapy and b monotherapy at 24 weeks. Assessment of heterogeneity/inconsistency: I2 = 22.49%; Q = 32.25; p = 0.1508. ACL aclidinium, CFB change from baseline, CI confidence interval, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, GLY glycopyrronium, IND indacaterol, PBO placebo, SAL salmeterol, SGRQ St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol

Fixed effects model of mean difference in change from baseline in SGRQ total score of UMEC/VI versus a dual therapy and b monotherapy at 24 weeks. Assessment of heterogeneity/inconsistency: I2 = 22.49%; Q = 32.25; p = 0.1508. ACL aclidinium, CFB change from baseline, CI confidence interval, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, GLY glycopyrronium, IND indacaterol, PBO placebo, SAL salmeterol, SGRQ St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol SGRQ responder analyses were available in 14 and 12 studies at 24 (Supplementary Fig. S6) and 12 weeks, respectively. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI was associated with a statistically significantly greater proportion of SGRQ responders compared with UMEC 62.5 μg (SGRQ responders odds ratio [95% CI] 1.19 [1.02, 1.40]), GLY 18 μg (1.54 [1.22, 1.95]), TIO 18 μg (1.18 [1.00, 1.39]), FOR 9.6 μg (1.36 [1.08, 1.72]) and SAL 50 μg (1.47 [1.22, 1.78]) (Supplementary Fig. S7). At 12 weeks, the odds of being a responder were significantly greater with UMEC/VI versus UMEC 62.5 μg, ACL 400 μg and SAL 50 μg (Supplementary Table S2). All treatments provided statistically significantly greater proportion of SGRQ responders compared with placebo, with the exception of GLY 18 μg at 24 weeks; ACL 400 μg and FOR 12 μg at 12 weeks; and SAL 50 μg at both time points (Supplementary Tables S3 and S4). The RE model produced consistent results (Supplementary Tables S1–S4).

Breathlessness

Breathlessness as measured by TDI focal score was available in 14 studies at 24 weeks (Supplementary Fig. S8) and 21 studies at 12 weeks. In the FE model at 24 weeks, TDI focal score was statistically significant in favour of UMEC/VI versus GLY/FOR 18/9.6 µg (mean difference in change from baseline [95% CI] 0.33 [0.13, 0.52]), UMEC 62.5 µg (0.32 [0.08, 0.57]), UMEC 125 µg (0.55 [0.16, 0.93]), GLY 18 µg (0.68 [0.32, 1.04]), TIO 18 µg (0.34 [0.03, 0.64)], VI 25 µg (0.42 [0.13, 0.71]), FOR 9.6 µg (0.48 [0.11, 0.84]) and SAL 50 µg (0.43 [0.14, 0.72]) (Fig. 4). At 12 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significantly greater improvements in TDI focal score than UMEC 62.5 µg, UMEC 125 µg, TIO 18 µg, VI 25 µg and SAL 50 µg; IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg, TIO/OLO 2.5/5 µg and TIO/OLO 5/5 µg provided statistically significantly greater improvements in TDI focal score than UMEC/VI (Supplementary Table S2). At both time points, all therapies provided statistically significantly greater improvements than placebo, with the exception of TIO 18 µg + FOR 12 µg at 12 weeks (Supplementary Tables S3 and S4).
Fig. 4

Fixed effects model of mean difference in change from baseline in TDI focal score of UMEC/VI versus a dual therapy and b monotherapy at 24 weeks. Assessment of heterogeneity/inconsistency: I2 = 0%; Q = 12.60; p = 0.4793. ACL aclidinium, CFB change from baseline, CI confidence interval, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, GLY glycopyrronium, IND indacaterol, PBO placebo, SAL salmeterol, TDI Transitional Dyspnoea Index, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol

Fixed effects model of mean difference in change from baseline in TDI focal score of UMEC/VI versus a dual therapy and b monotherapy at 24 weeks. Assessment of heterogeneity/inconsistency: I2 = 0%; Q = 12.60; p = 0.4793. ACL aclidinium, CFB change from baseline, CI confidence interval, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, GLY glycopyrronium, IND indacaterol, PBO placebo, SAL salmeterol, TDI Transitional Dyspnoea Index, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol TDI responder analyses were available for 10 and 11 studies at 24 (Supplementary Fig. S9) and 12 weeks, respectively. In the FE model, the odds of being a responder were statistically significantly greater with UMEC/VI versus GLY 15.6 µg and TIO 18 µg at 12 weeks, and versus UMEC 62.5 µg, VI 25 µg and SAL 50 µg at both 24 and 12 weeks (TDI responders odds ratio at 24 weeks [95% CI]; UMEC 62.5 µg: 1.33 [1.14, 1.56]; VI 25 µg: 1.38 [1.14, 1.67]; SAL 50 µg: 1.41 [1.17, 1.70]) (Supplementary Fig. S10; Supplementary Table S2). At both time points, all therapies provided statistically significantly greater proportion of TDI responders than placebo, with the exception of TIO 18 µg + FOR 12 µg at 24 weeks (Supplementary Tables S3 and S4). The RE model produced consistent results (Supplementary Tables S1–4).

Rescue Medication Use

Rescue medication use data were available in 14 studies at 24 weeks and 15 studies at 12 weeks. At 24 weeks, the ILLUMINATE study was disconnected from the network (Supplementary Fig. S11). In the FE model at 24 weeks, change from baseline in rescue medication use was statistically significant in favour of UMEC/VI versus ACL/FOR 400/12 µg (mean difference in change from baseline [95% CI] − 0.46 [− 0.66, − 0.25]) and all monotherapies (mean difference in change from baseline [95% CI]; UMEC 62.5 µg: − 0.33 [− 0.48, − 0.18]; UMEC 125 µg: − 0.36 [− 0.72, − 0.01]; ACL 400 µg: − 0.37 [− 0.61, − 0.12]; GLY 18 µg: − 0.58 [− 0.80, − 0.37]; GLY 50 µg: − 0.86 [− 1.24, − 0.48]; TIO 18 µg: − 0.50 [− 0.51, − 0.49]; FOR 9.6 µg: − 0.27 [− 0.49, − 0.06]; FOR 12 µg: − 0.27 [− 0.53, 0.00]; SAL 50 µg: − 0.28 [− 0.43, − 0.13]; IND 150 µg: − 0.51 [− 0.89, − 0.13]), with the exception of VI 25 µg: − 0.29 (− 0.64, 0.06) (Fig. 5). At 12 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significantly greater improvements in rescue medication use than TIO/OLO 5/5 µg, UMEC 62.5 µg, TIO 18 µg and SAL 50 µg; IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg and TIO 18 µg + IND 150 µg provided statistically significantly greater improvements in rescue medication use than UMEC/VI (Supplementary Table S2). All treatments provided statistically significantly greater improvements in rescue medication use compared with placebo, with the exception of GLY 50 µg at 24 weeks and UMEC 125 µg at 12 weeks (Supplementary Tables S3 and S4).
Fig. 5

Fixed effects model of mean difference in change from baseline in rescue medication use of UMEC/VI versus a dual therapy and b monotherapy at 24 weeks. Assessment of heterogeneity/inconsistency: I2 = 49.21%; Q = 33.47; p = 0.0098. ACL aclidinium, CFB change from baseline, CI confidence interval, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, GLY glycopyrronium, IND indacaterol, PBO placebo, SAL salmeterol, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol

Fixed effects model of mean difference in change from baseline in rescue medication use of UMEC/VI versus a dual therapy and b monotherapy at 24 weeks. Assessment of heterogeneity/inconsistency: I2 = 49.21%; Q = 33.47; p = 0.0098. ACL aclidinium, CFB change from baseline, CI confidence interval, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, GLY glycopyrronium, IND indacaterol, PBO placebo, SAL salmeterol, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol Some differences were observed in the findings of the RE model for rescue medication use. At 24 weeks, change from baseline in rescue medication use was statistically significant in favour of UMEC/VI versus ACL/FOR 400/12 µg, ACL 400 µg, GLY 18 µg, GLY 50 µg and TIO 18 µg (Supplementary Table S1). At 12 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significantly greater improvements versus TIO 18 µg only (Supplementary Table S2).

Annualised Moderate/Severe Exacerbations Rates

Moderate/severe exacerbation data were available in nine studies (Supplementary Fig. S12). In the FE model, UMEC/VI provided statistically significantly lower annualised rates of moderate/severe exacerbations versus ACL/FOR 400/6 µg (incidence rate ratio [95% CI] 0.43 [0.20, 0.91]) and ACL/FOR 400/12 µg (0.43 [0.22, 0.84]), and versus all monotherapies with the exception of UMEC 62.5 µg and TIO 18 µg (Fig. 6). Only UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg, GLY/FOR 18/9.6 µg and IND/GLY 110/50 µg provided statistically significantly lower annualised rates of moderate/severe exacerbations versus placebo, with IND/GLY 110/50 µg providing statistically significant improvements only in the RE model (Supplementary Table S3).
Fig. 6

Fixed effects model of incidence ratio of annualised moderate/severe exacerbations rates of UMEC/VI versus a dual therapy and b monotherapy at 24 weeks. Assessment of heterogeneity/inconsistency: I2 = 38.86%; Q = 6.54; p = 0.1622. ACL aclidinium, CFB change from baseline, CI confidence interval, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, GLY glycopyrronium, IND indacaterol, PBO placebo, SAL salmeterol, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol

Fixed effects model of incidence ratio of annualised moderate/severe exacerbations rates of UMEC/VI versus a dual therapy and b monotherapy at 24 weeks. Assessment of heterogeneity/inconsistency: I2 = 38.86%; Q = 6.54; p = 0.1622. ACL aclidinium, CFB change from baseline, CI confidence interval, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, GLY glycopyrronium, IND indacaterol, PBO placebo, SAL salmeterol, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol

Time to First Exacerbation

In total, 12 studies had data available for time to first exacerbation (Supplementary Fig. S13). In the FE model, hazard of a first exacerbation was statistically significantly lower with UMEC/VI versus SAL 50 µg (hazard ratio [95% CI] 0.64 [0.50, 0.81]) and placebo (0.47 [0.32, 0.67]) (Fig. 7), which was consistent with the RE model (Supplementary Table S1). In the FE model, among dual therapies, UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg, IND/GLY 110/50 µg and GLY/FOR 18/9.6 µg provided statistically significantly lower hazard of a first exacerbation than placebo, with IND/GLY 110/50 µg only providing statistically significant improvements versus placebo in the RE model (Supplementary Table S3). UMEC 62.5 µg, UMEC 125 µg and TIO 18 µg monotherapies provided statistically significant reductions in hazard of a first exacerbation versus placebo; results from the RE model were similar (Supplementary Table S3).
Fig. 7

Fixed effects model of hazard ratio of time to first exacerbation of UMEC/VI versus a dual therapy and b monotherapy at 24 weeks. Assessment of heterogeneity/inconsistency: I2 = 35.54%; Q = 10.86; p = 0.1448. CI confidence interval, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, GLY glycopyrronium, HR hazard ratio, IND indacaterol, PBO placebo, SAL salmeterol, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol

Fixed effects model of hazard ratio of time to first exacerbation of UMEC/VI versus a dual therapy and b monotherapy at 24 weeks. Assessment of heterogeneity/inconsistency: I2 = 35.54%; Q = 10.86; p = 0.1448. CI confidence interval, FOR formoterol fumarate, FP fluticasone propionate, GLY glycopyrronium, HR hazard ratio, IND indacaterol, PBO placebo, SAL salmeterol, TIO tiotropium, UMEC umeclidinium, VI vilanterol

Safety Overview

Safety outcomes were not analysed in the NMA, but are summarised for the included studies in Supplementary Table S5. Briefly, the percentage of patients with ≥1 adverse event (AE) ranged from 21% to 94%, and the percentage with ≥1 serious AE from 0.6% to 24.0%. Pneumonia was reported in 0–16.0% of patients. In total, 0.2–33.0% of patients withdrew, and 0.5–10.6% of early withdrawals were due to AEs. On-treatment mortality was reported for 0–3.1% of patients.

Discussion

This study evaluated the comparative efficacy of UMEC/VI dual therapy versus other mono and dual therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD at 24 and 12 weeks. Treatment with dual therapy resulted in greater improvements in lung function as measured by trough FEV1 compared with LABA or LAMA monotherapy, with improvements in HRQoL, symptoms, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rates seen in some comparisons; AEs were also summarised and showed a similar safety profile across the treatments of interest. At both time points, all treatments provided greater improvements in lung function compared with placebo; the two UMEC formulations performed better than other monotherapies, and the twice-daily LABAs (SAL 50 µg; FOR 12 µg and FOR 9.6 µg) performed worse than other LABAs. Treatment with UMEC/VI resulted in significant improvements in lung function as measured by trough FEV1 compared with all LAMA and LABA monotherapies. These findings support existing evidence from clinical trials that dual therapy provides greater improvements than monotherapies [18-22], and suggest that starting treatment with dual therapy may improve outcomes for many symptomatic patients compared with a stepwise approach to treatment escalation [1]. The non-interventional prospective DETECT study in 3653 patients showed improvements in lung function, QoL and morning symptoms in the year following a switch from prior treatment (most commonly bronchodilator monotherapy) to fixed-dose ACL/FOR, GLY/IND or UMEC/VI [23]. Previous NMAs have also demonstrated that LAMA/LABA dual therapy is more effective than LAMA or LABA monotherapy in terms of lung function improvement [4, 5, 8]. Notably, while many trials comparing dual bronchodilator therapies with monotherapy are likely to have been affected by the confounding effects of concomitant ICS use, the EMAX trial has demonstrated that UMEC/VI provides better outcomes than UMEC and SAL in symptomatic patients at low exacerbations risk not taking concomitant ICS [22]. Taken together, this evidence suggests that dual therapy may be an appropriate initial maintenance therapy in this patient population, as recommended by the ATS and NICE guidelines [2, 3]. However, it should be noted that the present study also supported the efficacy of LAMA and LABA monotherapies compared with placebo. At both time points, UMEC/VI demonstrated larger improvements in lung function than other dual therapies. The smallest treatment differences were seen with UMEC/VI versus IND/GLY formulations, while the other dual therapies performed similarly; clinically meaningful differences (based on a mean difference in change from baseline of ≥ 100 ml) [17] were seen with UMEC/VI versus some dual therapies at 24 weeks. Treatment effects on SGRQ total score, TDI focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbations were less clear. The results of this updated NMA are consistent with head-to-head trials. The AERISTO trial in 1119 symptomatic patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD found that GLY/FOR was non-inferior to UMEC/VI when comparing treatment effects on peak FEV1, but was inferior when comparing the co-primary endpoint of trough FEV1 [24]. UMEC/VI provided numerical improvements compared with GLY/FOR on symptoms outcomes (TDI focal score and COPD Assessment Test score) in the AERISTO trial, although these were not considered clinically significant [24]. Another head-to-head study showed that UMEC/VI provided statistically significant increases in lung function-related outcomes compared with TIO/OLO in 236 symptomatic patients [25]. Results for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were less clear; while UMEC/VI provided a significantly greater reduction in rescue medication use during the study and a significant decrease in CAT score at week 4 versus TIO/OLO, there were no consistent treatment differences on exacerbations or other symptoms outcomes, although the study was not powered to demonstrate treatment effects on these measures [25]. Despite the efficacy gradient suggested by the findings of head-to-head trials, previous NMAs have shown mixed results when comparing treatments within the LAMA/LABA class. An NMA of studies in moderate-to-very severe patients with COPD found that TIO/OLO 5/5 µg was ranked highest on efficacy and cardiovascular safety when compared with alternative LAMA/LABAs, including UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg; however, SGRQ and TDI response rates, rescue medication use, and moderate/severe exacerbations were not included in the analysis [26]. Another previous NMA including RCTs of patients with stable COPD compared six LAMA/LABA dual therapies, and reported that UMEC/VI reduced total exacerbation events compared with alternative LAMA/LABAs (with the exception of GLY/FOR) in one network, although no statistically significant differences were seen in an alternative network [19]. Similarly, the current updated NMA found that UMEC/VI reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations versus two formulations of ACL/FOR, but not GLY/FOR 18/9.6 µg or IND/GLY 110/50 µg. Taken together, the evidence from head-to-head trials and NMAs generally supports a gradient of effectiveness within the LAMA/LABA class, with UMEC/VI providing greater improvements in lung function compared with other LAMA/LABAs, and improvements in other outcomes including exacerbations and PROs in some analyses. The relationship between improvement in lung function and PROs remains unclear; a pooled analysis of 23 clinical trials in COPD found a correlation between improvement in lung function and PRO improvements [27], but disparities have been noted in other studies [28, 29]. This dissociation may be related to factors such as study design, patient population, and statistical power. This NMA is an updated extension of our original NMA comparing the efficacy of UMEC/VI with fixed-dose and open LAMA/LABA combinations, with TIO, and with placebo [6]. In the present study we have used well-established frequentist NMA approach to compare UMEC/VI with dual therapies and monotherapies, and we have incorporated a larger number of studies, with an additional five RCTs included in the updated NMA. The updated NMA also included additional outcomes such as the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, time to first moderate/severe exacerbation, and responder analyses for symptoms and health status outcomes. Similar to our original NMA [6] and to a previous NMA that compared RCTs of patients with COPD comparing five combinations of LAMA/LABA dual therapies [4], the present study also found evidence for a potential gradient of effectiveness in treatment effects within the LAMA/LABA class. However, this updated NMA did not analyse certain outcomes relevant to patients with COPD, such as exercise capacity, because of lack of sufficient clinical trial data to construct networks. A general strength of NMA approaches is the inclusion of a broader population than individual RCTs; specific strengths of this study include the greater number of studies available for inclusion in the NMA compared with similar previous analyses, which allowed for a better estimation of relative treatment effects. Potential general limitations of NMA approaches include a risk of unknown imbalances in effect modifiers and residual confounding bias. Only RCTs were included in this study, eliminating the risk of bias due to imbalanced effect modifiers within the trials as a result of randomisation. However, randomisation does not control for known treatment effect modifiers across studies, and unknown treatment effect modifiers could still bias the results. Another potential general limitation of NMA approaches is the risk of violation of the three assumptions of similarity, consistency and transitivity. In this study, the similarity assumption (i.e. the comparability of baseline characteristics) and consistency assumption (tested through heterogeneity statistics such as I2, the Q statistic and the corresponding p value) were deemed to hold, providing certainty that the transitivity assumption also holds. This study was also limited by the availability of data for inclusion in the NMA, which in some cases included relatively small sample sizes and sparse networks of evidence. This resulted in wide CIs which in some cases covered the decision threshold, raising the possibility that potential differences between interventions were not identified.

Conclusion

The findings of this SLR and NMA suggest that UMEC/VI provides better outcomes in terms of lung function (as measured by change from baseline in trough FEV1) with a similar safety profile compared with LAMA and LABA monotherapies and other LAMA/LABA dual therapies. UMEC/VI also provided additional benefits on HRQoL, symptoms, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbations compared with some monotherapies. These results suggest that treatment with UMEC/VI dual therapy may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD. Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. Supplementary file1 (PDF 2759 KB)
Why carry out this study?
Long-acting bronchodilators are the mainstay of maintenance therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but there is no consensus on the timing of treatment initiation with dual therapy with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist and a long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) combination versus monotherapy with a LAMA or a LABA.
Several dual bronchodilator therapies are available for COPD treatment; however, only a few head-to-head randomised controlled trials have compared outcomes between dual bronchodilator therapies, and these may have been affected by differences in inhaler devices.
This network meta-analysis investigated the relative efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual bronchodilator combinations and LAMA and LABA monotherapies with reduced confounding due to inhaler device differences.
What was learned from the study?
UMEC/VI dual therapy provided better outcomes in terms of lung function (as measured by change from baseline in trough FEV1) compared with alternative dual therapies and monotherapies, as well as improvements in health-related quality of life, symptoms, rescue medication use, moderate/severe exacerbation rates, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation compared with monotherapies.
These results suggest that treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative dual and monotherapies.
  59 in total

1.  Comparison of airway dimensions with once daily tiotropium plus indacaterol versus twice daily Advair(®) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Authors:  Makoto Hoshino; Junichi Ohtawa; Kenta Akitsu
Journal:  Pulm Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2014-08-23       Impact factor: 3.410

2.  Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg and tiotropium 18 mcg in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results of a 24-week, randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  M Reza Maleki-Yazdi; Thomas Kaelin; Nathalie Richard; Michael Zvarich; Alison Church
Journal:  Respir Med       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 3.415

3.  Efficacy and Safety of Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Metered Dose Inhaler Formulated Using Co-Suspension Delivery Technology in Patients With COPD.

Authors:  Fernando J Martinez; Klaus F Rabe; Gary T Ferguson; Leonardo M Fabbri; Stephen Rennard; Gregory J Feldman; Sanjay Sethi; Selwyn Spangenthal; Gregory M Gottschlich; Roberto Rodriguez-Roisin; Samir Arora; Thomas M Siler; Shahid Siddiqui; Patrick Darken; Tracy Fischer; Andrea Maes; Michael Golden; Chad Orevillo; Colin Reisner
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 9.410

4.  Long-term safety of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combination: Results of a randomized 1-year trial in patients with COPD.

Authors:  James F Donohue; Weily Soong; Xiao Wu; Pomy Shrestha; Alejhandra Lei
Journal:  Respir Med       Date:  2016-05-07       Impact factor: 3.415

5.  Tiotropium and olodaterol in the prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations (DYNAGITO): a double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, active-controlled trial.

Authors:  Peter M A Calverley; Antonio R Anzueto; Kerstine Carter; Lars Grönke; Christoph Hallmann; Christine Jenkins; Jadwiga Wedzicha; Klaus F Rabe
Journal:  Lancet Respir Med       Date:  2018-04-05       Impact factor: 30.700

6.  Efficacy and safety of combining olodaterol Respimat(®) and tiotropium HandiHaler(®) in patients with COPD: results of two randomized, double-blind, active-controlled studies.

Authors:  Richard ZuWallack; Lisa Allen; Gemzel Hernandez; Naitee Ting; Roger Abrahams
Journal:  Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis       Date:  2014-10-14

7.  Tiotropium and olodaterol fixed-dose combination versus mono-components in COPD (GOLD 2-4).

Authors:  Roland Buhl; François Maltais; Roger Abrahams; Leif Bjermer; Eric Derom; Gary Ferguson; Matjaž Fležar; Jacques Hébert; Lorcan McGarvey; Emilio Pizzichini; Jim Reid; Antony Veale; Lars Grönke; Alan Hamilton; Lawrence Korducki; Kay Tetzlaff; Stella Waitere-Wijker; Henrik Watz; Eric Bateman
Journal:  Eur Respir J       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 16.671

8.  Assessing Short-term Deterioration in Maintenance-naïve Patients with COPD Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol and Tiotropium: A Pooled Analysis of Three Randomized Trials.

Authors:  M Reza Maleki-Yazdi; Dave Singh; Antonio Anzueto; Lee Tombs; William A Fahy; Ian Naya
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2016-10-28       Impact factor: 3.845

9.  Comparative Efficacy of Once-Daily Umeclidinium/Vilanterol and Tiotropium/Olodaterol Therapy in Symptomatic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Study.

Authors:  Gregory J Feldman; Ana R Sousa; David A Lipson; Lee Tombs; Neil Barnes; John H Riley; Sadhana Patel; Ian Naya; Chris Compton; Bernardino Alcázar Navarrete
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 3.845

10.  Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of US-approved LAMA/LABA therapies versus tiotropium in moderate-to-severe COPD.

Authors:  MeiLan K Han; Riju Ray; Jason Foo; Chaienna Morel; Beth Hahn
Journal:  NPJ Prim Care Respir Med       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 2.871
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Triple Therapy Compared with Other Therapies for the Treatment of COPD: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Afisi S Ismaila; Katrin Haeussler; Alexandrosz Czira; Ji-Hee Youn; Mia Malmenäs; Nancy A Risebrough; Jatin Agarwal; Maria Nassim; Raj Sharma; Chris Compton; Claus F Vogelmeier; MeiLan K Han; David M G Halpin
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2022-07-17       Impact factor: 4.070
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.