Skip to main content
Download PDF

Single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone furoate/vilanterol and umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD: results on cardiovascular safety from the IMPACT trial

Respiratory Research volume 21, Article number: 139 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

This analysis of the IMPACT study assessed the cardiovascular (CV) safety of single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI dual therapy.

Methods

IMPACT was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg with FF/VI 100/25 mcg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. The inclusion criteria for the study were intentionally designed to permit the enrollment of patients with significant concurrent CV disease/risk. CV safety assessments included proportion of patients with and exposure-adjusted rates of on-treatment CV adverse events of special interest (CVAESI) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), as well as time-to-first (TTF) CVAESI, and TTF CVAESI resulting in hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death.

Results

Baseline CV risk factors were similar across treatment groups. Overall, 68% of patients (n = 7012) had ≥1 CV risk factor and 40% (n = 4127) had ≥2. At baseline, 29% of patients reported a current/past cardiac disorder and 58% reported a current/past vascular disorder. The proportion of patients with on-treatment CVAESI was 11% for both FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI, and 10% for FF/VI. There was no statistical difference for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in TTF CVAESI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85, 1.11; p = 0.711 and HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.08; p = 0.317, respectively) nor TTF CVAESI leading to hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.51; p = 0.167 and HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.27; p = 0.760, respectively). On-treatment MACE occurred in ≤3% of patients across treatment groups, with similar prevalence and rates between treatments.

Conclusions

In a symptomatic COPD population with a history of exacerbations and a high rate of CV disease/risk, the proportion of patients with CVAESI and MACE was 10–11% and 1–3%, respectively, across treatment arms, and the risk of CVAESI was low and similar across treatment arms. There was no statistically significant increased CV risk associated with the use of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI, and UMEC/VI versus FF/VI.

Trial registration

NCT02164513 (GSK study number CTT116855).

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common respiratory disease characterized by chronic airflow limitation and persistent respiratory symptoms [1]. COPD is associated with a substantial clinical burden [1], was the third leading cause of death in the world in 2016, and is expected to remain a leading cause of death worldwide in 2030 [2, 3]. The main goals of COPD pharmacological treatment are to reduce symptoms, improve health status and exercise tolerance, and to reduce the risk of exacerbation and mortality [1].

Most patients with COPD present with at least one chronic comorbidity [4]. Clinicians must therefore take into consideration the effect of therapeutic intervention on comorbid diseases to ensure appropriate disease management [1, 5]. Cardiovascular (CV) disease, including coronary artery disease, heart failure, and arrhythmias, is a common comorbidity of COPD [6]. Exacerbations in COPD symptoms are associated with elevated CV disease risk or worse outcomes especially in patients with concomitant COPD and CV disease [1, 6, 7]. Similarly, the presence of CV comorbidities in patients with COPD has been associated with worse outcomes [8].

COPD and CV disease share many risk factors, including older age and history of smoking, as well as similar pathophysiological mechanisms and exposures [6, 9]. Static and dynamic hyperinflation, which alter venous return and cardiac output, hypoxemia, and systemic inflammation may each lead to increased risk of adverse CV events/disease, which can then in turn exacerbate COPD symptoms [6, 9,10,11,12].

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) are a mainstay of COPD treatment [1]. There are concerns that LAMA and LABA therapy may be associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular adverse events, depending on dosage and receptor specificity, by signaling through β-adrenergic receptors and inhibiting muscarinic receptors, which are present in lung and heart tissue [7, 13,14,15]. Some studies have suggested an increased risk of CV events in patients with COPD receiving bronchodilators, although the evidence remains controversial [7, 14, 16,17,18]. Recent studies have found no increased CV risk with the use of inhaled COPD therapies or during escalation from ICS/LABA to ICS/LAMA/LABA triple therapy, but have noted that additional data are needed in patients with higher CV risk [7, 19,20,21].

In the InforMing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) study, once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations and improved lung function and health-related quality of life compared with dual therapy with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients ≥40 years of age with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations [22]. FF/UMEC/VI also significantly reduced the rate of hospitalized exacerbations and all-cause mortality versus UMEC/VI, with a reduction in respiratory death, CV death, and death associated with the patients’ underlying COPD when compared with UMEC/VI [22].

Unlike many previous clinical studies, the IMPACT trial had broad entry criteria and included patients with significant concurrent CV disease/risk [23]. This allowed the assessment of efficacy and CV safety of these inhaled COPD therapies in a population that is more representative of real-world clinical practice. The aim of this pre-specified analysis was to assess the CV safety of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population of the IMPACT trial.

Methods

Study design

The IMPACT trial (GSK Study CTT116855; NCT02164513) was a 52-week randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase III study, which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy with FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg with once-daily dual therapy with FF/VI 100/25 mcg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg. The study design has been published previously [22, 23]. Briefly, after a 2-week run-in period during which patients continued their existing COPD medications, patients were randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 mcg, FF/VI 100/25 mcg or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg, all administered once daily via the ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler.

Study population

Inclusion/exclusion criteria of the IMPACT trial have been described previously [22]. Briefly, eligible patients were ≥40 years of age with symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test score ≥10), and had a forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) < 50% of predicted normal values and a history of ≥1 moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous year, or a FEV1 50–80% of predicted normal values and a history of ≥2 moderate or ≥1 severe exacerbations in the previous year [22]. Patients were excluded if they had unstable or life-threatening CV disease. However, patients with a history of previous myocardial infarction (MI; >6 months prior to screening), New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class 1–3 heart failure, and unstable or life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia requiring intervention (>3 months prior to Screening) were eligible to participate in the study [23]. Patients using ≤3 L/min of supplemental oxygen at rest at screening were also eligible to participate. The presence of CV risk factors was assessed at baseline, based on data captured in the electronic case report form (eCRF). Patients with ≥1 of the following past or current medical conditions were classed as having a CV risk factor: angina pectoris, coronary artery disease, MI, arrhythmia, congestive heart failure, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, carotid or aorto-femoral vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypercholesterolemia.

Study endpoints

Safety endpoints investigated in this analysis included the incidence of investigator-reported adverse events (AEs) of special interest (AESI), and the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). AESI were pre-specified groups of AEs of special interest for FF, UMEC, or VI, or for patients with COPD, allowing for a comprehensive review of safety data that is not limited to a specific AE Preferred Term. For the AESI of Cardiovascular effects (termed CVAESI here), Standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Queries (SMQs) were used. MedDRA SMQs are validated, pre-determined sets of MedDRA Preferred Terms grouped together to facilitate the capture all plausible events linked to a disease process [24]. In the IMPACT study, CVAESI included cardiac arrhythmia (contains selected sub-SMQs), cardiac failure (SMQ), ischemic heart disease (SMQ), hypertension (SMQ), and central nervous system (CNS) hemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions (SMQ). The CVAESI SMQs and constituent Preferred Terms that were reported in the IMPACT study are provided in Supplementary Table 1. Serious CVAESI were those CVAESI reported as serious AEs (SAEs; as specified in the protocol [23]). CVAESI resulting in hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death – referred to herein as ‘hospitalized or fatal CVAESI’ – were classified as such according to investigator-reported information in the eCRF.

MACE was determined from independently adjudicated CV deaths and investigator-reported non-fatal AEs and was broadly and narrowly defined. Broad MACE included adjudicated CV deaths, non-fatal CNS hemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions (SMQ), non-fatal MI (SMQ) and non-fatal other ischemic heart disease (SMQ). Narrow MACE included adjudicated CV deaths, non-fatal CNS hemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions (SMQ), non-fatal MI Preferred Term and acute MI Preferred Term.

On-treatment CV safety and MACE were assessed as pre-specified analyses in the IMPACT study. On-treatment CV safety assessments included: (1) the proportion of patients with and exposure-adjusted rate of CVAESI and serious CVAESI; (2) risk (time-to-first [TTF]) of CVAESI; (3) risk (TTF) of hospitalized or fatal CVAESI (overall and by baseline CV risk factors); and (4) the proportion of patients with and exposure-adjusted rate of MACE.

Statistical analyses

The proportion of patients with on-treatment MACE was reported as a percentage and exposure-adjusted rate per 1000-patient years. The risk of on-treatment CVAESI and on-treatment hospitalized or fatal CVAESI was evaluated using a TTF event analysis and derived using a Cox proportional hazards model with covariates of treatment group and geographical region.

Results

Patients

The ITT population included a total of 10,355 patients (FF/UMEC/VI: N = 4151, FF/VI: N = 4134, UMEC/VI: N = 2070) [22]. Baseline characteristics, CV disorders, and risk factors were similar across treatment groups (Table 1). At baseline, 29% (n = 2964) of patients reported a current or past cardiac disorder (coronary artery disease n = 1252 [12%]; arrhythmia n = 816 [8%]; angina pectoris n = 737 [7%]; MI n = 681 [7%]; congestive heart failure n = 539 [5%]). Overall, 58% (n = 6021) of patients reported a current or past vascular disorder (hypertension n = 5446 [53%]; cerebrovascular accident n = 458 [4%]; carotid or aorto-femoral vascular disease n = 342 [3%]).

Table 1 Baseline characteristics (ITT population)
Full size table

Overall, 68% (n = 7012) of patients had at least one CV risk factor and 40% (n = 4127) had at least 2 (Table 1). The reported frequency of risk factors was consistent across treatment groups. The CV risk factors most frequently reported (≥10% of patients) were hypertension (53%), hypercholesterolemia (33%), diabetes mellitus (15%), and coronary artery disease (12%) (Table 1).

On-treatment CVAESI (defined by MedDRA SMQ [see Supplementary Table 1])

The most frequently reported on-treatment AESI in the ITT population was Cardiovascular Effects [22], referred to in the current paper as CVAESI. The proportion of patients with and exposure-adjusted rates of on-treatment CVAESI were similar across all treatment groups (proportion [rate per 1000 patient-years]: 11% [167.2], 10% [157.0], and 11% [166.6] for FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI, and UMEC/VI, respectively) (Table 2). Cardiac arrhythmia (comprised of sub-SMQs; Supplementary Table 1) was reported most frequently and occurred in a similar proportion of patients (4% in all treatment groups) and with similar adjusted exposure rates across treatment groups, followed by Cardiac failure (SMQ) and Hypertension (SMQ), both of which occurred in 3% of patients in all treatment groups (Table 2). Ischemic heart disease (SMQ) occurred in 1–2% of patients across treatment groups, with exposure-adjusted rates for FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI and UMEC/VI of 26.1, 18.5, and 30.6 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (Table 2). The proportion of patients with and rate of CVAESI (including sub-SMQs) by baseline CV risk factors were generally similar between treatment arms, with no pattern of events observed (Supplementary Table2).

Table 2 Summary of on-treatment CVAESI by SMQs and sub-SMQs (ITT population)
Full size table

On-treatment serious CVAESI occurred in 3–4% of patients across treatment arms (Table 3). On-treatment fatal serious CVAESI were reported in <1% of patients in each treatment group, with exposure-adjusted rates (per 1000 patient-years) of 7.0 for FF/UMEC/VI, 6.9 for FF/VI, and 11.2 for UMEC/VI group.

Table 3 Summary of on-treatment serious and fatal serious CVAESIa by SMQs and sub-SMQs (ITT population)
Full size table

Risk (TTF analysis) of on-treatment CVAESI

Based on an analysis of TTF event, the risk of experiencing a CVAESI was similar for FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.11; p = 0.711), FF/UMEC/VI compared with UMEC/VI (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.78, 1.08; p = 0.317) and UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.90, 1.24; p = 0.490) (Figs 1 and 2).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Kaplan–Meier plot of TTF on-treatment CVAESI. CVAESI, cardiovascular adverse event of special interest; FF, fluticasone furoate; TTF, time to first; UMEC, umeclidinium; VI, vilanterol

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

TTF on-treatment CVAESI and hospitalized or fatal CVAESI. a. FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI. b. UMEC/VI versus FF/VI. Hospitalized or fatal CVAESI refers to any CVAESI that resulted in hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death. CI, confidence interval; CVAESI, cardiovascular adverse event of special interest; FF, fluticasone furoate; n, number of patients with an event; N, number of patients in subgroup; TTF, time to first; UMEC, umeclidinium; VI, vilanterol

Full size image

The proportion of patients with hospitalized or fatal CVAESI was 4, 3, and 3% for FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI, and UMEC/VI, respectively (Fig. 2a). There were no statistically significant differences in risk of hospitalized or fatal CVAESI for FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.93, 1.51; p = 0.167) or UMEC/VI (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.27; p = 0.760), and UMEC/VI versus FF/VI (HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.92, 1.66; p = 0.153) in the overall ITT population (Figs. 2 and 3). A numerical increased risk of hospitalized or fatal CVAESI was seen with FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI (Fig. 2).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Kaplan–Meier plot of TTF on-treatment hospitalized or fatal CVAESI. Hospitalized or fatal CVAESI refers to any CVAESI that resulted in hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death. CVAESI, cardiovascular adverse event of special interest; FF, fluticasone furoate; HR, hazard ratio; TTF, time to first; UMEC, umeclidinium; VI, vilanterol

Full size image

There were no statistically significant differences in the risk of hospitalized or fatal CVAESI between the treatment groups when assessed by CV risk factor subgroup (Fig. 4), although a numerical increased risk of hospitalized or fatal CVAESI with FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI was seen in patients who had no CV risk factors at baseline.

Fig. 4
figure 4

TTF on-treatment hospitalized or fatal CVAESI according to CV risk factors*. *In ≥3% of patients in any treatment group. Hospitalized or fatal CVAESI refers to any CVAESI that resulted in hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization or death. CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; CVAESI, cardiovascular adverse event of special interest; FF, fluticasone furoate; n, number of patients with an event; N, number of patients in subgroup; TTF, time to first; UMEC, umeclidinium; VI, vilanterol

Full size image

Prevalence and rates of on-treatment MACE

The proportion of patients with and exposure-adjusted rates for any on-treatment MACE using the broad and narrow definitions were similar across treatment groups, with no consistent pattern seen between individual MACE categories (Table 4). The proportion of patients with MACE using the narrow definition was 2, 1, and 2% for FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI, and UMEC/VI, respectively, with exposure-adjusted rates of 22.3, 18.8, and 22.4 per 1000 patient-years (Table 4). The proportion of patients with MACE using the broad definition was 3, 2, and 3% for FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI, and UMEC/VI, respectively. The broad MACE exposure-adjusted rate was 44.7, 35.3, and 44.8 per 1000 patient-years for FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI, and UMEC/VI, respectively (Table 4). The proportion of patients with adjudicated CV deaths was low across all treatment groups (<1%), with numerically lower exposure-adjusted rates observed in the FF/UMEC/VI and FF/VI groups (5.4 and 7.8 respectively) compared with the UMEC/VI group (9.4) (Table 4).

Table 4 On-treatment MACE (ITT population)
Full size table

Discussion

IMPACT was a large trial in patients with symptomatic COPD and at risk of exacerbation evaluating the efficacy and safety of triple ICS/LAMA/LABA therapy versus dual LAMA/LABA or ICS/LABA therapy using the same molecules, doses and delivery device. The study had broad inclusion criteria, in particular with regards to significant concurrent CV disease/risk [22], compared with previously reported randomized controlled trials. In the IMPACT trial, patients with significant pre-existing CV disease were included and, therefore, the trial population is more likely to accurately reflect the real-world COPD population. At baseline, 68% of patients had at least one CV risk factor, and 40% had at least two. Approximately half of the patients across all treatment groups presented with vascular disorders at baseline and 16% had cardiac disorders.

This study shows that, in this symptomatic COPD population with a history of exacerbations including approximately two-thirds of patients with at least one CV risk factor at baseline, the proportion of patients with on-treatment CVAESI was 10–11% and with on-treatment MACE was 1–3%, without a consistent pattern across treatment groups. Furthermore, although the IMPACT study was not powered to assess CV safety, a low risk of on-treatment CVAESI was seen and there was no statistically significant increase in the risk of CVAESI, or hospitalized or fatal CVAESI, with FF/UMEC/VI versus either dual therapy; this was consistently observed irrespective of the number of baseline CV risk factors. There was a non-statistically significant increase in the risk of hospitalized or fatal CVAESI with FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI. In addition, in patients who had no CV risk factors at baseline, there was a non-statistically significant increase in the risk of hospitalized or fatal CVAESI with FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI.

Differences in the exposure-adjusted rates of on-treatment CVAESI and serious CVAESI, as well as narrow and broad MACE were small between the FF/UMEC/VI group and the FF/VI and UMEC/VI dual therapy groups. Any observed differences were likely due to the small number of events rather than an effect of the drug itself.

The exposure-adjusted rate of on-treatment CVAESI observed in the IMPACT trial should also be viewed in the context of using AESI for assessing CV safety outcomes. The use of CVAESI is a more conservative approach than using individual CV AE Preferred Terms or MACE, since the CVAESI encompasses a broad list of CV AE Preferred Terms that are pre-defined by the MedDRA. Furthermore, the IMPACT trial population reflects a population with a heavy CV risk factor burden when compared with the general COPD population as reported in a pooled analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) data [25], suggesting that the benefit seen with FF/UMEC/VI may extend outside the clinical trial environment.

Recent studies including meta-analyses and systematic reviews have demonstrated no increased CV risk during escalation from LAMA or LABA monotherapy to dual LAMA/LABA therapy, nor from ICS/LABA to ICS/LAMA/LABA triple therapy [7, 19, 20, 26, 27]; however, patients with high CV risk were not specifically included in some of these studies. The studies published so far have not highlighted CV safety concerns for UMEC [15], although, results are awaited from an ongoing observational study specifically investigating the effect of UMEC/VI versus tiotropium (TIO) on CV safety [28].

In a 2018 case-control study investigating dual LAMA/LABA therapy in more than 280,000 patients with COPD in Taiwan, a 1.5-fold increase of severe CV risk was demonstrated in patients who were naïve to LAMA/LABA treatment compared with patients who had prior exposure, regardless of exacerbation history or CV disease status [29]. However, this effect was only observed within 30 days of the onset of treatment; beyond 30 days of treatment the risk waned and subsequently reached lower than baseline levels [29]. As such, these results should be interpreted with caution, since if the increased risk of CV events was truly treatment-related the effect seen would be expected to continue beyond 30 days. This may reflect misdiagnosis, with cardiac symptoms being mistaken for COPD-related symptoms. Alternatively, it may suggest that this study was confounded by indication, as the study evaluated patients who newly initiated LAMA/LABA, i.e., likely to be symptomatic and requiring maximal bronchodilation due to the severity of their COPD; these patients would therefore be unstable and likely to be at a higher risk of experiencing adverse CV events [6].

Other clinical trials of single-inhaler triple therapy with ICS/LAMA/LABA have also shown similar CV safety profiles for triple therapy compared with LAMA monotherapy or ICS/LABA therapy. The TRILOGY (NCT01917331), TRINITY (NCT01911364), and TRIBUTE (NCT02579850) studies compared single-inhaler beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrronium bromide triple therapy versus beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate (ICS/LABA), TIO, and beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate + TIO in multiple inhalers, and indacaterol/glycopyrronium (LABA/LAMA) over 52 weeks [30,31,32]. These studies showed similar prevalence of CV AEs and SAEs (e.g., ischemic heart disease and cardiac failure) and MACE between single-inhaler triple therapy and comparator arms [30,31,32]. However, these studies excluded patients with clinically significant CV disease, such as unstable ischemic heart disease, NYHA Class 3/4, left ventricular failure and acute MI, and patients with atrial fibrillation [30,31,32]. In contrast, the IMPACT study was designed with broader inclusion criteria with regards to CV disease and permitted participation of patients with history of previous MI (>6 months prior to screening), NYHA Class 1–3 heart failure, and unstable or life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia requiring intervention (>3 months prior to Screening) [22]. The IMPACT study results therefore support and expand the findings from other studies of triple therapies and those from recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews which demonstrated no increased CV risk with the use of inhaled COPD therapies [7, 19, 20]. These findings also support the overall favorable CV safety profile of FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy for the treatment of patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations and are consistent with the extensive CV safety database for FF/VI, UMEC/VI, and UMEC monotherapy.

The data presented within this analysis, however, should be interpreted within the context of some potential limitations. Firstly, the study was not primarily designed or statistically powered for specifically assessing CV safety; secondly, the number of patients presenting with CV events was relatively small; and thirdly, the study duration of 52 weeks is short compared with studies dedicated to investigating CV outcomes.

In the IMPACT study, FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the rate of severe exacerbations compared with both dual therapies [22]. A post hoc analysis of the SUMMIT (NCT01313676) study data has shown that COPD exacerbations can increase the risk of CV events [9], and other studies have shown that CV involvement during a COPD exacerbation may contribute to poor outcomes [33, 34]. The greater reduction in the rate and risk of exacerbations observed with FF/UMEC/VI compared with either dual therapy in the IMPACT trial [22] may therefore be expected to reduce the risk of CV mortality. The IMPACT trial demonstrated a significant 28% reduction in on−/off-treatment all-cause mortality with FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI and a non-statistically significant reduction of 11% versus FF/VI, although CV mortality has not been specifically assessed [35, 36]. As the current analysis is focused on all CVAESI and only includes on-treatment events, it would be of interest to further explore the relationship between CV events, COPD exacerbations, and mortality in IMPACT in future analyses.

Conclusions

In a large symptomatic COPD population with a history of exacerbations and a high rate of CV disease/risk, the proportion of patients with on-treatment CVAESI and MACE was 10–11% and 1–3%, respectively, and the risk of on-treatment CVAESI was low, with no consistent patterns across triple and dual treatment groups. These results for FF/UMEC/VI show no additive CV risk with bronchodilator combinations and are consistent with a previous network meta-analysis [37] and with the extensive existing CV safety database for FF/VI, UMEC/VI, and UMEC.

Availability of data and materials

Anonymized individual participant data and study documents can be requested for further research from www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com.

Abbreviations

AE:

Adverse event

AESI:

Adverse event of special interest

CNS:

Central nervous system

COPD:

Chronic pulmonary obstructive disease

CV:

Cardiovascular

CVAESI:

Cardiovascular adverse event of special interest

FEV1 :

Forced expiratory volume in 1 s

FF:

Fluticasone furoate

ICS:

Inhaled corticosteroids

IMPACT:

InforMing the Pathway of COPD Treatment

ITT:

Intent-to-treat

LABA:

Long-acting β2-agonists

LAMA:

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists

MACE:

Major adverse cardiovascular event

MedDRA:

Medical dictionary for regulatory activities

MI:

Myocardial infarction

NYHA:

New York Heart Association

SAE:

Serious adverse event

SMQ:

Standardized MedDRA Query

TIO:

Tiotropium

TTF:

Time to first

UMEC:

Umeclidinium

VI:

Vilanterol

References

  1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report. 2019.

  2. Mathers CD, Loncar D. Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med. 2006;3:e442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organisation. The top 10 causes of death. Fact Sheet. 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death.

  4. Putcha N, Drummond MB, Wise RA, Hansel NN. Comorbidities and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: prevalence, influence on outcomes, and management. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;36:575–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brook RD, Anderson JA, Calverley PM, Celli BR, Crim C, Denvir MA, Magder S, Martinez FJ, Rajagopalan S, Vestbo J, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes with an inhaled beta2-agonist/corticosteroid in patients with COPD at high cardiovascular risk. Heart. 2017;103:1536–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rabe KF, Hurst JR, Suissa S. Cardiovascular disease and COPD: dangerous liaisons? Eur Respir Rev. 2018;27.

  7. Rogliani P, Calzetta L, Matera MG, di Daniele N, Girolami A, Cazzola M, Ora J. Inhaled therapies and cardiovascular risk in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2019;20:737–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Morgan AD, Zakeri R, Quint JK. Defining the relationship between COPD and CVD: what are the implications for clinical practice? Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2018;12:1753465817750524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kunisaki KM, Dransfield MT, Anderson JA, Brook RD, Calverley PMA, Celli BR, Crim C, Hartley BF, Martinez FJ, Newby DE, et al. Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiac events. A post hoc cohort analysis from the SUMMIT randomized clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;198:51–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Maclay JD, McAllister DA, Johnston S, Raftis J, McGuinnes C, Deans A, Newby DE, Mills NL, MacNee W. Increased platelet activation in patients with stable and acute exacerbation of COPD. Thorax. 2011;66:769–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Macnee W, Maclay J, McAllister D. Cardiovascular injury and repair in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2008;5:824–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sin DD, Man SF. Why are patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at increased risk of cardiovascular diseases? The potential role of systemic inflammation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Circulation. 2003;107:1514–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cazzola M, Matera MG, Donner CF. Inhaled beta2-adrenoceptor agonists: cardiovascular safety in patients with obstructive lung disease. Drugs. 2005;65:1595–610.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Salpeter SR, Ormiston TM, Salpeter EE. Cardiovascular effects of beta-agonists in patients with asthma and COPD: a meta-analysis. Chest. 2004;125:2309–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rogliani P, Ora J, Matera MG, Cazzola M, Calzetta L. The safety of dual bronchodilation on cardiovascular serious adverse events in COPD. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2018;17:589–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Singh S, Loke YK, Furberg CD. Inhaled anticholinergics and risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300:1439–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wise RA, Anzueto A, Calverley P, Dahl R, Dusser D, Pledger G, Koenen-Bergmann M, Joseph E, Cotton D, Disse B. The Tiotropium safety and performance in Respimat trial (TIOSPIR), a large scale, randomized, controlled, parallel-group trial-design and rationale. Respir Res. 2013;14:40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Halpin DM, Dahl R, Hallmann C, Mueller A, Tashkin D. Tiotropium HandiHaler((R)) and Respimat((R)) in COPD: a pooled safety analysis. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2015;10:239–59.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Calzetta L, Cazzola M, Matera MG, Rogliani P. Adding a LAMA to ICS/LABA therapy: a meta-analysis of triple combination therapy in COPD. Chest. 2019.

  20. Rogliani P, Matera MG, Ora J, Cazzola M, Calzetta L. The impact of dual bronchodilation on cardiovascular serious adverse events and mortality in COPD: a quantitative synthesis. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2017;12:3469–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Vestbo J, Anderson JA, Brook RD, Calverley PM, Celli BR, Crim C, Martinez F, Yates J, Newby DE, Investigators S. Fluticasone furoate and vilanterol and survival in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with heightened cardiovascular risk (SUMMIT): a double-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1817–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lipson DA, Barnhart F, Brealey N, Brooks J, Criner GJ, Day NC, Dransfield MT, Halpin DMG, Han MK, Jones CE, et al. Once-daily single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy in patients with COPD. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1671–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Pascoe SJ, Lipson DA, Locantore N, Barnacle H, Brealey N, Mohindra R, Dransfield MT, Pavord I, Barnes N. A phase III randomised controlled trial of single-dose triple therapy in COPD: the IMPACT protocol. Eur Respir J. 2016;48:320–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. 2019.

  25. Agarwal S, Rokadia H, Senn T, Menon V. Burden of cardiovascular disease in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47:105–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Samp JC, Joo MJ, Schumock GT, Calip GS, Pickard AS, Lee TA. Risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in COPD patients treated with long-acting beta2-agonist combined with a long-acting muscarinic or inhaled corticosteroid. Ann Pharmacother. 2017;51:945–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Suissa S, Dell'Aniello S, Ernst P. Concurrent use of long-acting bronchodilators in COPD and the risk of adverse cardiovascular events. Eur Respir J. 2017;49.

  28. European Network of Centres for Pharmcoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance. Post-authorisation safety (PAS) observational cohort study to quantify the incidence and comparative safety of selected cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in COPD patients using inhaled UMEC/VI combination or inhaled UMEC versus Tiotropium (Study 201038; EU PAS 10316). Available from: http://www.encepp.eu/encepp/studySearch.htm.

  29. Wang MT, Liou JT, Lin CW, Tsai CL, Wang YH, Hsu YJ, Lai JH. Association of Cardiovascular Risk with Inhaled Long-Acting Bronchodilators in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a nested case-control study. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178:229–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Papi A, Vestbo J, Fabbri L, Corradi M, Prunier H, Cohuet G, Guasconi A, Montagna I, Vezzoli S, Petruzzelli S, et al. Extrafine inhaled triple therapy versus dual bronchodilator therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (TRIBUTE): a double-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391:1076–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Singh D, Papi A, Corradi M, Pavlisova I, Montagna I, Francisco C, Cohuet G, Vezzoli S, Scuri M, Vestbo J. Single inhaler triple therapy versus inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting beta2-agonist therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (TRILOGY): a double-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388:963–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Vestbo J, Papi A, Corradi M, Blazhko V, Montagna I, Francisco C, Cohuet G, Vezzoli S, Scuri M, Singh D. Single inhaler extrafine triple therapy versus long-acting muscarinic antagonist therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (TRINITY): a double-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389:1919–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Fabbri LM, Beghe B, Agusti A. Cardiovascular mechanisms of death in severe COPD exacerbation: time to think and act beyond guidelines. Thorax. 2011;66:745–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Halpin DM, Decramer M, Celli B, Kesten S, Leimer I, Tashkin DP. Risk of nonlower respiratory serious adverse events following COPD exacerbations in the 4-year UPLIFT(R) trial. Lung. 2011;189:261–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lipson DA, Criner G, Day N, Dransfield MT, Halpin DMG, Han M, Jones CE, Kilbride S, Lange P, Lomas DA, et al. Reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol compared to umeclidinium/vilanterol in IMPACT including previously missing or censored vital status data. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199:A7344.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lipson DA, Crim C, Criner G, Day N, Dransfield MT, Halpin DMG, Han MK, Jones CE, Kilbride S, Lange P, et al. Reduction in all-cause mortality with Fluticason Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in COPD patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201911-2207OC. (epub ahead of print).

  37. Calzetta L, Rogliani P, Matera MG, Cazzola M. A systematic review with meta-analysis of dual Bronchodilation with LAMA/LABA for the treatment of stable COPD. Chest. 2016;149:1181–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Editorial support (in the form of writing assistance, assembling figures, collating author comments, grammatical editing and referencing) was provided by Chrystelle Rasamison PhD, and Hayley Mukherjee, PhD, at Fishawack Indicia Ltd., UK, and was funded by GSK. Dave Singh is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).

Funding

This study was funded by GSK (study number CTT116855; NCT02164513). The funders of the study had a role in the study design, data analysis, data interpretation, and writing of the report. Editorial support (in the form of writing assistance, assembling figures, collating author comments, grammatical editing and referencing) was provided by Chrystelle Rasamison, PhD and Hayley Mukherjee, PhD, at Fishawack Indicia Ltd., UK, and was funded by GSK.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GlaxoSmithKline, Stockley Park West, 1-3 Ironbridge Road, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB11 1BT, UK

    Nicola C. Day, Subramanya Kumar & Sally Kilbride

  2. Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Gerard Criner

  3. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Lung Health Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Mark Dransfield

  4. University of Exeter Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, Exeter, UK

    David M. G. Halpin

  5. University of Michigan, Pulmonary & Critical Care, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    MeiLan K. Han

  6. GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

    C. Elaine Jones

  7. GlaxoSmithKline, Collegeville, PA, USA

    Morrys C. Kaisermann & David A. Lipson

  8. Department of Public Health, Section of Epidemiology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Peter Lange

  9. Medical Department, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev, Denmark

    Peter Lange

  10. UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK

    David A. Lomas

  11. GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK

    Neil Martin

  12. University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

    Neil Martin

  13. New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Fernando J. Martinez

  14. University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK

    Dave Singh

  15. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Robert Wise

  16. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    David A. Lipson

Authors
  1. Nicola C. Day
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Subramanya Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerard Criner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark Dransfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David M. G. Halpin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. MeiLan K. Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. C. Elaine Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Morrys C. Kaisermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sally Kilbride
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Peter Lange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. David A. Lomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Neil Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Fernando J. Martinez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Dave Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Robert Wise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. David A. Lipson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, contributed to the writing and reviewing of the manuscript, and have given final approval for the version to be published. All authors had full access to the data in this study and take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis. NC Day and DA Lipson contributed to the conception or design of the study, and the data analysis and interpretation. S Kumar, MK Han, CE Jones, M Kaisermann, S Kilbride, P Lange, DA Lomas, N Martin, FJ Martinez, D Singh, and R Wise contributed to the data analysis and interpretation. DMG Halpin, G Criner, and M Dransfield contributed to the acquisition of data and the data analysis and interpretation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola C. Day.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All study patients provided written informed consent. The study protocol, any amendments, the informed consent, and other information that required pre-approval were reviewed and approved by a national, regional, or investigational site ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB), in accordance with the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use Good Clinical Practice and applicable country-specific requirements, including United States 21 Code of Federal Regulations 312.3(b) for constitution of independent ethics committees.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

NC Day, S Kumar, CE Jones, M Kaisermann, S Kilbride, N Martin, and DA Lipson are GSK employees and hold stock/shares in GSK. G Criner has received personal fees from Almirall, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, CSA Medical, Eolo, GSK, HGE Technologies, Novartis, Nuvaira, Olympus, Pulmonx, Verona and NGM Bio. M Dransfield has received grant support from the Department of Defense and NIH; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, PneumRx/BTG, Genentech, Boston Scientific, Quark Pharmaceuticals and GSK; and contracted clinical trial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Yungjin, PneumRx/BTG, Pulmonx, Boston Scientific and GSK. DMG Halpin has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, and Pfizer, and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis. MK Han has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and GSK and research support from Novartis and Sunovion. P Lange has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, and GSK. DA Lomas has received personal fees from GSK. FJ Martinez has received personal fees and non-financial support from the American College of Chest Physicians, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, ConCert, Genentech, GSK, Inova Fairfax Health System, Miller Communications, National Society for Continuing Education, Novartis, Pearl Pharmaceuticals, PeerView Communications, Prime Communications, Puerto Rico Respiratory Society, Chiesi, Sunovion, Theravance, Potomac, University of Alabama Birmingham, Physicians Education Resource, Canadian Respiratory Network, Teva and Dartmouth; non-financial support from ProterrixBio, Gilead, Nitto and Zambon; and personal fees from Columbia University, Integritas, MD magazine, Methodist Hospital Brooklyn, New York University, UpToDate, WebMD/MedScape, Western Connecticut Health Network, Patara/Respivant, PlatformIQ, American Thoracic Society, Rockpointe, Rare Disease Healthcare Communications and France Foundation; grant support from NIH; and is a member of steering committees for Afferent/Merck, Biogen, Veracyte, Prometic, Bayer, Bridge Biotherapeutics and ProMedior. D Singh has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, Genentech, Glenmark, GSK, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Peptinnovate, Pfizer, Pulmatrix, Theravance, and Verona. R Wise has received personal fees from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Contrafect, Pulmonx, Roche, Spiration, Sunovion, Merck, Circassia, GSK, Pneuma, Verona, Bonti, Denali, Aradigm, Mylan/Theravance, Propeller Health and AbbVie; and grant support from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pearl Therapeutics, GSK and Sanofi-Aventis.

ELLIPTA is owned by or licensed to the GSK Group of Companies.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1

. SMQs, sub-SMQs, and Preferred Terms for on-treatment CVAESI that were reported in the IMPACT study Supplementary Table 2. Summary of on-treatment CVAESI by baseline CV risk factors (ITT population)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Day, N.C., Kumar, S., Criner, G. et al. Single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone furoate/vilanterol and umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD: results on cardiovascular safety from the IMPACT trial. Respir Res 21, 139 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-020-01398-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-020-01398-w

Keywords

Respiratory Research

ISSN: 1465-993X

Contact us