在ELLITHE试验中,糠酸氟替卡松/乌莫替尼/维兰特罗每日一次单吸入三联疗法的临床重要改善和疾病稳定性:事后反应分析

IF 3 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Pulmonary Therapy Pub Date : 2025-09-01 Epub Date: 2025-07-13 DOI:10.1007/s41030-025-00306-1
Kai-Michael Beeh, Karl Scheithe, Heike Schmutzler, Saskia Krüger
{"title":"在ELLITHE试验中,糠酸氟替卡松/乌莫替尼/维兰特罗每日一次单吸入三联疗法的临床重要改善和疾病稳定性:事后反应分析","authors":"Kai-Michael Beeh, Karl Scheithe, Heike Schmutzler, Saskia Krüger","doi":"10.1007/s41030-025-00306-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Responder analyses provide information about characteristics associated with therapeutic benefits. Short-term responses may predict long-term benefits. We evaluated responders, clinically important improvement (CII), disease stability (DS), and the relation of short- to long-term responses in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in ELLITHE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ELLITHE was a multicenter, open-label, non-interventional effectiveness study between 2020 and 2022 evaluating the effects of treatment initiation with once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (odSITT) FF/UMEC/VI (100/62.5/25 µg via ELLIPTA) on COPD Assessment Test (CAT), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV<sub>1</sub>), and exacerbations over 12 months. Post hoc responder analyses for CAT (≥ 2 units improvement), FEV<sub>1</sub> (≥ 100 ml change), and exacerbations (no event) were performed. Composite endpoints CII and DS (CII = response to at least two outcomes; DS = absence of clinically important deterioration for all outcomes) were also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 786 patients had available data for any analysis. At study completion, 53.3% of patients were CAT, 36.7% FEV<sub>1</sub>, and 90.2% exacerbation responders, with 22.1% responding to all outcomes; 64.3% had a CII, and 52.7% showed DS. CII and DS were more frequent in subjects with higher baseline CAT score, and DS in patients  on prior ICS/LABA therapy (all p < 0.05). Early (3 months) CAT, FEV<sub>1</sub> and CII response strongly predicted respective responses at study end (odds ratios = OR ranging from 6.3 to 7.4), and DS (OR from 3.0 to 4.2). In the patient subset with available baseline eosinophil counts, response was generally similar at < 150 versus ≥ 150 cells/μl.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite overlapping responses to single and composite outcomes with odSITT, individual patterns support a multidimensional approach to evaluate benefits in COPD. Responders had higher baseline CAT scores and frequency of prior dual therapies. Short-term responses of FEV<sub>1</sub> and/or CAT were reasonable predictors of long-term responses, including DS. DS was achievable for the majority of patients and may represent a useful outcome for future COPD research and management.</p>","PeriodicalId":20919,"journal":{"name":"Pulmonary Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"443-459"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12373607/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinically Important Improvements and Disease Stability with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in the ELLITHE Trial: A Post Hoc Responder Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Kai-Michael Beeh, Karl Scheithe, Heike Schmutzler, Saskia Krüger\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41030-025-00306-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Responder analyses provide information about characteristics associated with therapeutic benefits. Short-term responses may predict long-term benefits. We evaluated responders, clinically important improvement (CII), disease stability (DS), and the relation of short- to long-term responses in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in ELLITHE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ELLITHE was a multicenter, open-label, non-interventional effectiveness study between 2020 and 2022 evaluating the effects of treatment initiation with once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (odSITT) FF/UMEC/VI (100/62.5/25 µg via ELLIPTA) on COPD Assessment Test (CAT), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV<sub>1</sub>), and exacerbations over 12 months. Post hoc responder analyses for CAT (≥ 2 units improvement), FEV<sub>1</sub> (≥ 100 ml change), and exacerbations (no event) were performed. Composite endpoints CII and DS (CII = response to at least two outcomes; DS = absence of clinically important deterioration for all outcomes) were also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 786 patients had available data for any analysis. At study completion, 53.3% of patients were CAT, 36.7% FEV<sub>1</sub>, and 90.2% exacerbation responders, with 22.1% responding to all outcomes; 64.3% had a CII, and 52.7% showed DS. CII and DS were more frequent in subjects with higher baseline CAT score, and DS in patients  on prior ICS/LABA therapy (all p < 0.05). Early (3 months) CAT, FEV<sub>1</sub> and CII response strongly predicted respective responses at study end (odds ratios = OR ranging from 6.3 to 7.4), and DS (OR from 3.0 to 4.2). In the patient subset with available baseline eosinophil counts, response was generally similar at < 150 versus ≥ 150 cells/μl.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite overlapping responses to single and composite outcomes with odSITT, individual patterns support a multidimensional approach to evaluate benefits in COPD. Responders had higher baseline CAT scores and frequency of prior dual therapies. Short-term responses of FEV<sub>1</sub> and/or CAT were reasonable predictors of long-term responses, including DS. DS was achievable for the majority of patients and may represent a useful outcome for future COPD research and management.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pulmonary Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"443-459\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12373607/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pulmonary Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-025-00306-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pulmonary Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-025-00306-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

应答者分析提供了与治疗益处相关的特征信息。短期反应可能预示长期利益。我们在ELLITHE中评估了慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的应答者、临床重要改善(CII)、疾病稳定性(DS)以及短期和长期反应的关系。方法:ELLITHE是一项2020年至2022年期间的多中心、开放标签、非介入性有效性研究,评估每日一次单吸入器三合一治疗(odSITT) FF/UMEC/VI(100/62.5/25µg通过ELLIPTA)对COPD评估测试(CAT)、1s用力呼气量(FEV1)和12个月加重的影响。对CAT(改善≥2个单位)、FEV1(改变≥100 ml)和加重(无事件)进行事后反应分析。复合终点CII和DS (CII =对至少两个结局的反应;还评估了DS(无临床重要恶化的所有结果)。结果:共有786例患者可用于任何分析。研究完成时,53.3%的患者为CAT, 36.7%为FEV1, 90.2%为急性加重应答者,其中22.1%对所有结果均有反应;64.3%为CII, 52.7%为DS。在基线CAT评分较高的受试者中,CII和DS更常见,而在先前接受ICS/LABA治疗的患者中,DS(所有的p 1和CII反应强烈预测了研究结束时各自的反应(比值比= OR范围从6.3到7.4)和DS (OR范围从3.0到4.2)。在基线嗜酸性粒细胞计数可用的患者亚组中,反应大致相似:结论:尽管odSITT对单一和复合结果的反应重叠,但个体模式支持多维方法来评估COPD的益处。应答者有较高的基线CAT评分和先前双重治疗的频率。FEV1和/或CAT的短期反应是包括DS在内的长期反应的合理预测指标。对于大多数患者来说,退行性椎体滑移是可以实现的,这可能是未来COPD研究和管理的有用结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Clinically Important Improvements and Disease Stability with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in the ELLITHE Trial: A Post Hoc Responder Analysis.

Clinically Important Improvements and Disease Stability with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in the ELLITHE Trial: A Post Hoc Responder Analysis.

Clinically Important Improvements and Disease Stability with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in the ELLITHE Trial: A Post Hoc Responder Analysis.

Clinically Important Improvements and Disease Stability with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in the ELLITHE Trial: A Post Hoc Responder Analysis.

Introduction: Responder analyses provide information about characteristics associated with therapeutic benefits. Short-term responses may predict long-term benefits. We evaluated responders, clinically important improvement (CII), disease stability (DS), and the relation of short- to long-term responses in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in ELLITHE.

Methods: ELLITHE was a multicenter, open-label, non-interventional effectiveness study between 2020 and 2022 evaluating the effects of treatment initiation with once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (odSITT) FF/UMEC/VI (100/62.5/25 µg via ELLIPTA) on COPD Assessment Test (CAT), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), and exacerbations over 12 months. Post hoc responder analyses for CAT (≥ 2 units improvement), FEV1 (≥ 100 ml change), and exacerbations (no event) were performed. Composite endpoints CII and DS (CII = response to at least two outcomes; DS = absence of clinically important deterioration for all outcomes) were also evaluated.

Results: A total of 786 patients had available data for any analysis. At study completion, 53.3% of patients were CAT, 36.7% FEV1, and 90.2% exacerbation responders, with 22.1% responding to all outcomes; 64.3% had a CII, and 52.7% showed DS. CII and DS were more frequent in subjects with higher baseline CAT score, and DS in patients  on prior ICS/LABA therapy (all p < 0.05). Early (3 months) CAT, FEV1 and CII response strongly predicted respective responses at study end (odds ratios = OR ranging from 6.3 to 7.4), and DS (OR from 3.0 to 4.2). In the patient subset with available baseline eosinophil counts, response was generally similar at < 150 versus ≥ 150 cells/μl.

Conclusions: Despite overlapping responses to single and composite outcomes with odSITT, individual patterns support a multidimensional approach to evaluate benefits in COPD. Responders had higher baseline CAT scores and frequency of prior dual therapies. Short-term responses of FEV1 and/or CAT were reasonable predictors of long-term responses, including DS. DS was achievable for the majority of patients and may represent a useful outcome for future COPD research and management.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pulmonary Therapy
Pulmonary Therapy Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
24
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Aims and Scope Pulmonary Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed (single-blind), and rapid publication journal. The scope of the journal is broad and will consider all scientifically sound research from pre-clinical, clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the use of pulmonary therapies, devices, and surgical techniques. Areas of focus include, but are not limited to: asthma; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; pulmonary hypertension; cystic fibrosis; lung cancer; respiratory tract disorders; allergic rhinitis and other respiratory allergies; influenza, pneumococcal infection, respiratory syncytial virus and other respiratory infections; and inhalers and other device therapies. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/series, trial protocols and short communications such as commentaries and editorials. Pulmonary Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals. Rapid Publication The journal’s publication timelines aim for a rapid peer review of 2 weeks. If an article is accepted it will be published 3–4 weeks from acceptance. The rapid timelines are achieved through the combination of a dedicated in-house editorial team, who manage article workflow, and an extensive Editorial and Advisory Board who assist with peer review. This allows the journal to support the rapid dissemination of research, whilst still providing robust peer review. Combined with the journal’s open access model this allows for the rapid, efficient communication of the latest research and reviews, fostering the advancement of pulmonary therapies. Open Access All articles published by Pulmonary Therapy are open access. Personal Service The journal’s dedicated in-house editorial team offer a personal “concierge service” meaning authors will always have an editorial contact able to update them on the status of their manuscript. The editorial team check all manuscripts to ensure that articles conform to the most recent COPE, GPP and ICMJE publishing guidelines. This supports the publication of ethically sound and transparent research. Digital Features and Plain Language Summaries Pulmonary Therapy offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by key summary points, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article. The journal also provides the option to include various types of digital features including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations. All additional features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. If you consider that your paper would benefit from the inclusion of a digital feature, please let us know. Our editorial team are able to create high-quality slide decks and infographics in-house, and video abstracts through our partner Research Square, and would be happy to assist in any way we can. For further information about digital features, please contact the journal editor (see ‘Contact the Journal’ for email address), and see the ‘Guidelines for digital features and plain language summaries’ document under ‘Submission guidelines’. For examples of digital features please visit our showcase page https://springerhealthcare.com/expertise/publishing-digital-features/ Publication Fees Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be required to pay the mandatory Rapid Service Fee of €4500/ $5100/ £3650. The journal will consider fee discounts and waivers for developing countries and this is decided on a case by case basis. Peer Review Process Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the editorial team to ensure they fit within the aims and scope of the journal and are also checked for plagiarism. All suitable submissions are then subject to a comprehensive single-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise and publication history in the subject area. The journal has an extensive pool of editorial and advisory board members who have been selected to assist with peer review based on the afore-mentioned criteria. At least two extensive reviews are required to make the editorial decision, with the exception of some article types such as Commentaries, Editorials, and Letters which are generally reviewed by one member of the Editorial Board. Where reviewer recommendations are conflicted, the editorial board will be contacted for further advice and a presiding decision. Manuscripts are then either accepted, rejected or authors are required to make major or minor revisions (both reviewer comments and editorial comments may need to be addressed). Once a revised manuscript is re-submitted, it is assessed along with the responses to reviewer comments and if it has been adequately revised it will be accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are then copyedited and typeset by the production team before online publication. Appeals against decisions following peer review are considered on a case-by-case basis and should be sent to the journal editor. Preprints We encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration in our journals. Authors should disclose details of preprint posting during the submission process or at any other point during consideration in one of our journals. Once the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website. Please follow the link for further information on preprint sharing: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/journal-author-helpdesk/submission/1302#c16721550 Copyright Pulmonary Therapy''s content is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, which allows users to read, copy, distribute, and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited. The author assigns the exclusive right to any commercial use of the article to Springer. For more information about the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, click here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0. Contact For more information about the journal, including pre-submission enquiries, please contact christopher.vautrinot@springer.com.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信