BACKGROUND: People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have poor quality of life, reduced survival, and accelerated decline in lung function, especially associated with acute exacerbations, leading to high healthcare costs. Long-acting bronchodilators are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic improvement, and umeclidinium is one of the new long-acting muscarinic antagonists approved for treatment of patients with stable COPD. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with stable COPD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, and the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Clinical Study Register, using prespecified terms, as well as the reference lists of all identified studies. Searches are current to April 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing umeclidinium bromide versus placebo in people with COPD, for at least 12 weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. If we noted significant heterogeneity in the meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies by umeclidinium dose. MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies of 12 to 52 weeks' duration, involving 3798 participants with COPD. Mean age of participants ranged from 60.1 to 64.6 years; most were males with baseline mean smoking pack-years of 39.2 to 52.3. They had moderate to severe COPD and baseline mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ranging from 44.5% to 55.1% of predicted normal. As all studies were systematically conducted according to prespecified protocols, we assessed risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases as low.Compared with those given placebo, participants in the umeclidinium group had a lesser likelihood of developing moderate exacerbations requiring a short course of steroids, antibiotics, or both (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.80; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: high), but not specifically requiring hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.92; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: low). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent an acute exacerbation requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both was 18 (95% CI 13 to 37). Quality of life was better in the umeclidinium group (mean difference (MD) -4.79, 95% CI -8.84 to -0.75; three studies, N = 1119), and these participants had a significantly higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least four units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score compared with those in the placebo group (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.82; three studies, N = 1397; GRADE: moderate). The NNTB to achieve one person with a clinically meaningful improvement was 11 (95% CI 7 to 29). The likelihood of all-cause mortality, non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: moderate), and adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: moderate) did not differ between umeclidinium and placebo groups. The umeclidinium group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in change from baseline in trough FEV1 compared with the placebo group (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.17; four studies, N = 1381; GRADE: high). Symptomatic improvement was more likely in the umeclidinium group than in the placebo group, as determined by Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.09; three studies, N = 1193), and the chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least one unit improvement was significantly higher with umeclidinium than with placebo (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; three studies, N = 1141; GRADE: high). The NNTB to attain one person with clinically important symptomatic improvement was 8 (95% CI 5 to 14). The likelihood of rescue medication usage (change from baseline in the number of puffs per day) was significantly less for the umeclidinium group than for the placebo group (MD -0.45, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14; four studies, N = 1531). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Umeclidinium reduced acute exacerbations requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both, although no evidence suggests that it decreased the risk of hospital admission due to exacerbations. Moreover, umeclidinium demonstrated significant improvement in quality of life, lung function, and symptoms, along with lesser use of rescue medications. Studies reported no differences in adverse events, non-fatal serious adverse events, or mortality between umeclidinium and placebo groups; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Umeclidinium (UMEC; long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA])/vilanterol (VI; long-acting beta2-agonist [LABA]) and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL) (inhaled corticosteroid/LABA) are approved maintenance therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Two studies compared efficacy and safety of UMEC/VI with FP/SAL in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with no exacerbations in the previous year. METHODS: In these 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, double-dummy trials, randomized (1:1) patients received once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg or twice-daily FP/SAL 250/50 mcg (DB2114930 n = 353 and 353; DB2114951 n = 349 and 348, respectively; intent-to-treat). Endpoints included 0-24 h weighted mean (wm) forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (Day 84; primary), trough FEV1 (Day 85; secondary), other lung function endpoints, dyspnea, quality of life (QoL) and safety. RESULTS: UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvements in lung function measures versus FP/SAL. For 0-24 h wmFEV1 (Day 84), improvements with UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL were 74 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 38-110; DB2114930) and 101 mL (63-139; DB2114951) (both p < 0.001). Trough FEV1 improvements were 82 mL (45-119) and 98 mL (59-137) (both p < 0.001) for UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL, respectively. Both treatments demonstrated similar, clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in dyspnea (Transition Dyspnea Index focal score >1 unit) and QoL (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire Total score >4-unit decrease) in both studies with no statistical differences between treatments. Adverse event rates were similar: 26 and 30% UMEC/VI; 27 and 31% FP/SAL. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg over 12 weeks resulted in statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvements in lung function versus twice-daily FP/SAL 250/50 mcg in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with infrequent exacerbations. Both treatments improved dyspnea and QoL. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: DB2114930/NCT01817764; DB2114951/NCT01879410.

Question: In adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), what are the relative efficacy and safety of combination umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VIL) and its monocomponents, tiotropium, or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FSC)? Review scope: Included studies compared UMEC/VIL with UMEC, VIL, tiotropium, or FSC in adults ≥ 40 years of age who had stable moderate to very severe COPD and reported a relevant outcome. Outcomes included health status (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, minimal clinically important difference ≥ 4 points), exacerbations, dyspnea (Transition Dyspnea Index total score, minimal clinically important difference ≥ 1 point), pulmonary function (trough FEV[sub 1]), serious adverse events (SAEs), and serious cardiovascular events (SCVEs). Prospero International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42014015463. Review methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Feb 2015), gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for published or unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with duration > 4 weeks. 11 RCTs (n = 9609, mean age 62 y, 68% men) met the selection criteria. All studies were sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. Main results: Main outcomes are in the Table. UMEC/VIL reduced risk for SAEs compared with VIL (relative risk 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92) but did not differ from UMEC, tiotropium, or FSC. UMEC/VIL did not differ from UMEC, VIL, tiotropium, or FSC for SCVEs. CONCLUSION: In adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, combination umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VIL) improved health status more than UMEC and reduced exacerbations more than UMEC or VIL.