- Cancer Biology & Biomarkers
- Chromatography & Mass Spectrometry
- Contract Research, Clinical Trials and Outsourcing
- Drug Discovery
- Drug Targets
- Flow Cytometry
- Informatics & Lab Automation
- Ingredients, Excipients and Dosages
- Microbiology & RMMs
- NIR, PAT & QbD
- Raman Spectroscopy
- Screening, Assays & High-Content Analysis
- Thermal Processing
- Events & Workshops
Positive head-to-head results for GSK’s umeclidinium in COPD
21 October 2015 • Author: Victoria White
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has announced positive results from two head-to-head studies directly comparing the efficacy and safety of Incruse Ellipta (umeclidinium) to two available bronchodilator treatments, tiotropium (study 201316) or glycopyrronium (study 201315), when used by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
COPD is a disease of the lungs that includes chronic bronchitis, emphysema or both. COPD is characterised by obstruction to airflow that interferes with normal breathing. COPD is thought to affect 329 million people worldwide.
Umeclidinium achieved a significant improvement in lung function compared to tiotropium
Results from study 201316 showed that umeclidinium achieved a statistically significant improvement in lung function measured by trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at 12 weeks, compared to tiotropium. The difference in treatment effect observed was 59ml for umeclidinium compared to tiotropium based on a per protocol analysis. For the intention to treat population, the difference observed was 53ml, which was also statistically significant.
In study 201316, the most commonly reported on-treatment adverse events for both umeclidinium and tiotropium were headache (6% umeclidinium; 6% tiotropium) and nasopharyngitis (5% umeclidinium; 5% tiotropium). The overall incidence of on-treatment adverse events was 32% in the umeclidinium group and 30% in the tiotropium group. The incidence of any on-treatment serious adverse event in both treatment arms was 3%.
Results from study 201315 showed that umeclidinium was non-inferior to glycopyrronium, also measured by trough FEV1 at 12 weeks. The difference in treatment effect observed was 24ml for umeclidinium compared to glycopyrronium based on a per protocol analysis. For the intention to treat population, the difference observed was 33ml.
In study 201315, the most commonly reported on-treatment adverse events for both umeclidinium and glycopyrronium were headache (8% umeclidinium; 10% glycopyrronium) and nasopharyngitis (8% umeclidinium; 8% glycopyrronium). The overall incidence of on-treatment adverse events was 37% in the umeclidinium group and 36% in the glycopyrronium group. The incidence of any on-treatment serious adverse event in both treatment arms was 3%.
ABB Analytical Measurement ACD/Labs ADInstruments Ltd Advanced Analytical Technologies GmbH Analytik Jena AG Astell Scientific Ltd B&W Tek Bachem AG Bibby Scientific Limited Bio-Rad Laboratories BioNavis Ltd Biopharma Group Black Swan Analysis Limited Butterworth Laboratories Ltd CAPSUGEL NV Charles Ischi AG | Kraemer Elektronik Cherwell Laboratories CI Precision Cobalt Light Systems Coulter Partners CPC Biotech srl Dassault Systèmes BIOVIA DiscoverX Edinburgh Instruments Enterprise System Partners (ESP) Eurofins BioPharma Product Testing EUROGENTEC F.P.S. Food and Pharma Systems Srl GE Analytical Instruments IDBS JEOL Europe L.B. Bohle Maschinen + Verfahren GmbH Lab M Ltd. LabWare Linkam Scientific Instruments Limited MA Business Metrohm Molins Technologies Multicore Dynamics Ltd Nanosurf New England Biolabs, Inc. Ocean Optics Panasonic Biomedical Sales Europe B.V. PerkinElmer Inc ReAgent Russell Finex Limited Source BioScience Takara Clontech Tornado Spectral Systems Tuttnauer Viavi Solutions, Inc Watson-Marlow Fluid Technology Group Wickham Laboratories Limited Xylem Analytics YMC Europe GmbH Yusen Logistics