Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

The effect of exacerbation history on outcomes in the IMPACT trial

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Omics-based tracking of Pseudomonas aeruginosa persistence in "eradicated" cystic fibrosis patients.

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Long-term air pollution and road traffic noise exposure and COPD: the Danish Nurse Cohort

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. COVID-19: guidance on palliative care from a European Respiratory Society international task force

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Morbidity and mortality in carriers of the cystic fibrosis mutation CFTR Phe508del in the general population

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Cardiorespiratory responses to high intensity skeletal muscle metaboreflex activation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Danish general practitioners' management of patients with COPD: a nationwide survey

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Occupational exposures and exacerbations of asthma and COPD-A general population study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  • David M G Halpin
  • Mark T Dransfield
  • MeiLan K Han
  • C Elaine Jones
  • Sally Kilbride
  • Peter Lange
  • David A Lipson
  • David A Lomas
  • Fernando J Martinez
  • Steve Pascoe
  • Dave Singh
  • Robert Wise
  • Gerard J Criner
Vis graf over relationer

IMPACT, a 52-week, randomised, double-blind trial, assessed the efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations.Subgroup analyses assessed whether the efficacy of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI versus FF/VI varies according to prior exacerbation history, and the combined effects of exacerbation history and blood eosinophil counts. Three subgroups were defined: single moderate (1 moderate/no severe; n=3056 (30%)), frequent moderate (≥2 moderate/no severe; n=4628 (45%)) and severe (≥1 severe/any moderate; n=2671 (26%)). End-points included annual on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rate (pre-specified), lung function and health status (both post-hoc).Moderate/severe exacerbation rates (reduction % (95% CI)) were reduced in the FF/UMEC/VI group versus FF/VI (single moderate 20% (10-29), frequent moderate 11% (2-19), severe 17% (7-26)) and versus UMEC/VI (single moderate 18% (5-29), frequent moderate 29% (21-37), severe 26% (14-35)). Moderate/severe exacerbation rates were reduced in the FF/VI group versus UMEC/VI in the frequent moderate subgroup; a numerical reduction was observed in the severe subgroup (single moderate 2% (-12-18), frequent moderate 21% (11-29), severe 11% (-3-22)). Moderate/severe exacerbation rates were lower in the FF/VI group compared with UMEC/VI in patients with higher eosinophil counts. FF/UMEC/VI improved lung function and health status versus both dual therapies irrespective of exacerbation subgroup. UMEC/VI improved lung function versus FF/VI in all subgroups.Triple therapy was more effective than dual regardless of exacerbation history, consistent with results in the intent-to-treat population. Comparisons between dual therapies were influenced by prior exacerbation history and eosinophil counts.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftThe European respiratory journal
Vol/bind55
Udgave nummer5
ISSN0903-1936
DOI
StatusUdgivet - maj 2020

Bibliografisk note

Copyright ©ERS 2020.

ID: 62368865