Pharmacotherapeutic group: Drugs for obstructive airway diseases, adrenergics in combination with anticholinergics including triple combinations with corticosteroids, ATC code: R03AL08.
Mechanism of action
Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol is a combination of inhaled synthetic corticosteroid, long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist and long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA). Following oral inhalation, umeclidinium and vilanterol act locally on airways to produce bronchodilation by separate mechanisms and fluticasone furoate reduces inflammation.
Fluticasone furoate
Fluticasone furoate is a corticosteroid with potent anti-inflammatory activity. The precise mechanism through which fluticasone furoate affects COPD symptoms is not known. Corticosteroids have been shown to have a wide range of actions on multiple cell types (e.g. eosinophils, macrophages, lymphocytes) and mediators (e.g. cytokines and chemokines) involved in inflammation.
Umeclidinium
Umeclidinium is a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (also referred to as an anticholinergic). Umeclidinium exerts its bronchodilatory activity by competitively inhibiting the binding of acetylcholine with muscarinic receptors on airway smooth muscle. It demonstrates slow reversibility at the human M3 muscarinic receptor subtype in vitro and a long duration of action in vivo when administered directly to the lungs in pre-clinical models.
Vilanterol
Vilanterol is a selective long-acting, beta2-adrenergic receptor agonist (LABA). The pharmacologic effects of beta2-adrenergic agonists, including vilanterol, are at least in part attributable to stimulation of intracellular adenylate cyclase, the enzyme that catalyses the conversion of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) to cyclic-3',5'-adenosine monophosphate (cyclic AMP). Increased cyclic AMP levels cause relaxation of bronchial smooth muscle and inhibition of release of mediators of immediate hypersensitivity from cells, especially from mast cells.
Pharmacodynamic effects
Cardiac electrophysiology
The effect of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol on the QT interval has not been evaluated in a thorough QT (TQT) study. TQT studies for FF/VI and umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) did not show clinically relevant effects on QT interval at clinical doses of FF, UMEC and VI.
No clinically relevant effects on the QTc interval were observed on review of centrally read ECGs from 911 subjects with COPD exposed to fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol for up to 24 weeks, or in the subset of 210 subjects exposed for up to 52 weeks.
Clinical efficacy and safety
The efficacy of Trelegy Ellipta (92/55/22 micrograms), administered as a once-daily treatment, has been evaluated in patients with a clinical diagnosis of COPD in two, active-controlled studies and in a single, non-inferiority study. All three studies were multicentre, randomised, double-blind studies that required patients to be symptomatic with a COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score ≥10 and on daily maintenance treatment for their COPD for at least three months prior to study entry.
FULFIL (CTT116853) was a 24-week study (N=1 810), with an extension up to 52 weeks in a subset of subjects (n=430), that compared Trelegy Ellipta (92/55/22 micrograms) with budesonide/formoterol 400/12 micrograms (BUD/FOR) administered twice-daily. At screening, the mean post-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1 was 45% and 65% of patients reported a history of one or more moderate/severe exacerbation in the past year.
IMPACT (CTT116855) was a 52-week study (N=10 355) that compared Trelegy Ellipta (92/55/22 micrograms) with fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 92/22 micrograms (FF/VI) and umeclidinium/vilanterol 55/22 micrograms (UMEC/VI). At screening, the mean post-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV1 was 46% and over 99% of patients reported a history of one or more moderate/severe exacerbation in the past year.
At study entry, the most common COPD medications reported in the FULFIL and IMPACT studies were ICS +LABA+LAMA (28%, 34% respectively), ICS+LABA (29%, 26% respectively), LAMA+LABA (10%, 8% respectively) and LAMA (9%, 7% respectively). These patients may have also been taking other COPD medications (e.g. mucolytics or leukotriene receptor antagonists).
Study 200812 was a 24-week, non-inferiority study (N=1 055) that compared Trelegy Ellipta (92/55/22 micrograms) with FF/VI (92/22 micrograms) + UMEC (55 micrograms), co-administered once daily as a multi-inhaler therapy in patients with a history of moderate or severe exacerbations within the prior 12 months.
Lung function
In FULFIL, bronchodilatory effects with Trelegy Ellipta were evident on the first day of treatment and were maintained over the 24-week treatment period (mean changes from baseline in FEV1 were 90-222 mL on day 1 and 160-339 mL at week 24). Trelegy Ellipta significantly improved (p<0.001) lung function (as defined by mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 24) (see Table 1) and the improvement was maintained in the subset of patients who continued treatment to week 52.
Table 1. Lung function endpoint in FULFIL
| | Trelegy Ellipta (N= 911) | BUD/FOR (N=899) | Treatment difference (95% CI) |
| Comparison with BUD/FOR |
| Trough FEV1 (L) at week 24, LS mean change from baseline (SE)a | 0.142 (0.0083) | -0.029 (0.0085) | 0.171 0.148, 0.194 |
FEV1=forced expiratory volume in 1 second; L=litres; LS=least squares; SE= standard error, N=number in the intent-to-treat population; CI= confidence interval, a Statistically significant treatment difference for FF/UMEC/VI vs. BUD/FOR also observed at the other assessment timepoints (weeks 2, 4 and 12).
In IMPACT, Trelegy Ellipta significantly improved (p<0.001) lung function when compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a 52-week period (See Table 2).
Table 2 – Lung function endpoint in IMPACT
| | Trelegy Ellipta (N = 4 151) | FF/VI (N = 4 134) | UMEC/VI (N = 2 070) | Treatment difference 95% CI |
| Comparison Trelegy vs. FF/VI | Comparison Trelegy vs. UMEC/VI |
| Trough FEV1 (L) at week 52, LS mean change from baseline (SE) a | 0.094 (0.004) | -0.003 (0.004) | 0.040 (0.006) | 0.097 0.085, 0.109 | 0.054 0.039, 0.069 |
FEV1= forced expiratory volume in 1 second; L= litres; LS=least squares; SE= standard error; N= number in the intent-to-treat population; CI= confidence interval; a Statistically significant treatment differences for FF/UMEC/VI vs. FF/VI and FF/UMEC/VI vs. UMEC/VI were also observed at the other assessment timepoints (weeks 4, 16, 28, and 40).
In Study 200812, Trelegy Ellipta was non-inferior compared with FF/VI+UMEC, co-administered in two inhalers, in the improvement from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 24. The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 50 mL.
Exacerbations
In IMPACT, over 52 weeks, Trelegy Ellipta significantly reduced (p<0.001) the annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations by 15% (95% CI:10, 20) compared with FF/VI (rate; 0.91 vs 1.07 events per patient year) and by 25% (95% CI: 19, 30) compared with UMEC/VI (rate; 0.91 vs 1.21 events per patient year). In FULFIL, based upon data up to 24 weeks, Trelegy Ellipta significantly reduced (p=0.002) the annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations by 35% (95% CI: 14, 51) compared with BUD/FOR.
In IMPACT, Trelegy Ellipta prolonged the time to first moderate/severe exacerbation and significantly decreased (p<0.001) the risk of a moderate/severe exacerbation, as measured by time to first exacerbation, compared with both FF/VI (14.8%; 95% CI: 9.3, 19.9) and UMEC/VI (16.0%; 95% CI: 9.4, 22.1). In FULFIL, Trelegy Ellipta significantly decreased the risk of a moderate/severe exacerbation compared with BUD/FOR over 24 weeks (33%; 95% CI: 12, 48; p=0.004).
In IMPACT, treatment with Trelegy Ellipta reduced the annual rate of severe exacerbations (i.e., requiring hospitalisation or resulting in death) by 13% compared with FF/VI (95% CI: -1, 24; p=0.064). Treatment with Trelegy Ellipta significantly reduced the annual rate of severe exacerbations by 34% compared with UMEC/VI (95% CI: 22, 44; p<0.001).
Health-related quality of life
Trelegy Ellipta significantly improved (p<0.001) Health Related Quality of Life (as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] total score) in both FULFIL (week 24) when compared with BUD/FOR (-2.2 units; 95% CI: -3.5, -1.0) and IMPACT (week 52) when compared with FF/VI (-1.8 units; 95% CI: -2.4, -1.1) and UMEC/VI (-1.8 units; 95% CI: -2.6, -1.0).
A higher percentage of patients receiving Trelegy Ellipta responded with a clinically meaningful improvement in SGRQ total score in FULFIL at week 24 compared with BUD/FOR (50% and 41% respectively), odds ratios of response vs. non-response (OR) (1.41; 95% CI: 1.16, 1.70) and in IMPACT at week 52 compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI (42%, 34% and 34% respectively), OR vs. FF/VI (1.41; 95% CI:1.29, 1.55) and OR vs. UMEC/VI (1.41; 95% CI: 1.26, 1.57); all treatment comparisons were statistically significant (p<0.001).
In FULFIL, the proportion of patients who were CAT responders (defined as 2 units below baseline or lower) at week 24, was significantly higher (p<0.001) for patients treated with Trelegy Ellipta compared with BUD/FOR (53% vs. 45%; OR 1.44; 95% CI: 1.19, 1.75). In IMPACT, the proportion of patients who were CAT responders at week 52 was significantly higher (p<0.001) for patients treated with Trelegy Ellipta (42%) compared with FF/VI (37%; OR 1.24; 95% CI: 1.14, 1.36) and UMEC/VI (36%; OR 1.28; 95% CI: 1.15, 1.43).
Symptom relief
Breathlessness was measured using the Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score at week 24 in FULFIL and week 52 in IMPACT (a subset of patients, n=5 058). In FULFIL the proportion of responders according to TDI (defined as at least 1 unit) was significantly higher (p<0.001) for Trelegy Ellipta compared with BUD/FOR (61% vs 51%; OR 1.61; 95% CI: 1.33, 1.95). In IMPACT, the proportion of responders was also significantly higher (p<0.001) for Trelegy Ellipta (36%) compared with FF/VI (29%; OR 1.36; 95% CI: 1.19, 1.55) and UMEC/VI (30%; OR 1.33; 95% CI: 1.13, 1.57).
In FULFIL, Trelegy Ellipta improved daily symptoms of COPD as assessed by E-RS: COPD total score, compared with BUD/FOR (≥2 unit decrease from baseline). The proportion of responders during weeks 21-24 was significantly higher (p<0.001) for patients treated with Trelegy Ellipta compared with BUD/FOR (47% and 37% respectively; OR 1.59; 95% CI: 1.30, 1.94).
Use of rescue medication
In FULFIL, Trelegy Ellipta significantly reduced (p<0.001) the use of rescue medication between weeks 1-24 compared with BUD/FOR (treatment difference: -0.2 occasions per day; 95% CI: -0.3, -0.1).
In IMPACT, Trelegy Ellipta significantly reduced (p<0.001) the use of rescue medication (occasions per day) at each 4-week time period compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. At weeks 49-52, the treatment difference was -0.28 (95% CI: -0.37, -0.19) when compared with FF/VI and -0.30 (95% CI: -0.41, -0.19) with UMEC/VI.
Nighttime awakenings
In IMPACT, Trelegy Ellipta statistically significantly reduced the mean number of nighttime awakenings due to COPD compared with FF/VI (-0.05; 95% CI: -0.08, -0.01; p=0.005) and with UMEC/VI (-0.10; 95% CI: -0.14, -0.05; p<0.001) at weeks 49 to 52. Significant reductions were observed over all other timepoints for UMEC/VI (p<0.001) and for the all but two of the of timepoints for FF/VI (p≤0.021).
Paediatric population
The European Medicines Agency has waived the obligation to submit the results of studies with Trelegy Ellipta in all subsets of the paediatric population in COPD (see section 4.2 for information on paediatric use).