Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Dear Editor,
We would like to thank you for allowing us the opportunity to respond to the letter received from Marshall et al. and to address the queries raised with respect to our network meta-analysis (NMA) of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy compared with other therapies for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [1].
To minimize clinical heterogeneity across COPD studies, we conducted two separate NMAs [1, 2] and presented the data in parallel in the same journal. The dual therapy NMA [2] included studies from patients who were mostly symptomatic with infrequent exacerbations to ensure that the long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) comparisons were performed in populations similar to those in which they were indicated for use in routine practice. In the triple therapy NMA [1], we focused on patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD. This was to ensure that the comparisons of the triple therapy class were performed in populations that were consistent with the licensed indication for COPD triple therapy. We also limited the studies to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to minimize methodological heterogeneity. Most of the included studies were high-quality registration trials, which strengthens the assumption of similarity or exchangeability [3,4,5]. An important consideration when conducting an NMA is the selection of a model that best fits the distribution of the data and takes into account any potential sources of error/heterogeneity [6]. As noted, outcomes of our NMA were originally reported using a fixed-effects (FE) model. The FE model was considered the most appropriate due to the low expected heterogeneity between studies and the small number of studies reporting some of the outcome variables. Random-effects (RE) models are not recommended where there are too few studies for an accurate estimate of between-study variance to be made [6].
Some heterogeneity exists and is a known and accepted characteristic of all NMAs. As part of the feasibility assessment for this NMA, covariates were compared over the studies, finding that the similarity assumption held, and differences between covariates were acceptable to allow pooling. Important covariates assessed were sex, age, smoking status, disease severity, number of exacerbations in the previous year, percentage of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) users at baseline, and COPD duration in years. In this NMA, we also performed and reported statistical tests to quantify heterogeneity within our selected studies, namely a chi-squared test and Higgins I2 test, both of which are common and well-established. For the majority of analyses, I2 showed a mild-to-moderate amount of heterogeneity (0–50%) [7]. For the exacerbation analyses, I2 was higher than the other analyses; the source of heterogeneity was investigated through sensitivity analysis, such as excluding open-label studies and studies with a duration of follow-up of less than 24 weeks. The overall findings remained unchanged. As an alternative, meta-regression could be conducted to explore the sources of heterogeneity by excluding studies from the networks of evidence, and comparison of baseline characteristics. Meta-regression, however, cannot be conducted if the evidence base includes less than 10 studies [8].
Although RE models are considered appropriate in some cases where statistically significant heterogeneity may be present, starting with the FE model and moving to the RE model (in analyses where the test of heterogeneity is high) is discouraged [6]. In consideration of the above, we chose to report outcomes using an FE model for all analyses. Heterogeneity in study design and/or clinical characteristics of participants from individual studies was highlighted as a potential limitation of the analysis in our publication.
Marshall et al. appear to indicate that using RE models will resolve statistical heterogeneity. In our experience, the heterogeneity statistics do not change when switching from RE to FE models; the Q-statistics and I2 statistics are all identical for both modeling approaches. For the primary endpoint of our study (mean change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] at 24 weeks), the result of the NMA using the RE model was identical to the result when using the FE model. An examination of the FEV1 results generated from the triple therapy studies NMA clearly shows that the results are consistent with the magnitude and direction of results seen in AERISTO [9] (glycopyrrolate [GLY]/formoterol fumarate [FOR] vs. UMEC/VI) even though the AERISTO trial was not included in our NMA. This helps to provide additional internal validity of the results of our NMA.
For moderate/severe exacerbation analysis, the incident rate ratios for comparators versus FF/UMEC/VI are similar using FE versus RE models, and the order of the P-score rankings are similar; however, the confidence intervals were wider (due to the number of small studies in the network) when using the RE model, despite the similar values. Taking into account between-study variance, RE models produce a “less precise” and more conservative estimate of combined effect size compared with an FE model [6].
Marshall et al. questioned the inclusion of the KRONOS and FULFIL trials in our NMA. The patient populations included in these two studies are broadly similar in relation to many parameters, including the patient age, sex, current smokers, post-bronchodilator FEV1% predicted, and percentage of ICS users at study entry [10, 11]. In addition, these two studies have the same duration and measured similar outcomes using a similar statistical hierarchy. The only aspect in which KRONOS may be considered different to FULFIL, based on their inclusion criteria, is the number of prior exacerbations of the patients at baseline (65% of patients with ≥ 1 exacerbation in FULFIL vs. 26% in KRONOS). However, this fact did not seem to differentially affect the exacerbation rate experienced during the study duration. In fact, there is an opposite trend observed in the exacerbation rates recorded with the common comparator (budesonide [BUD]/FOR dry powder inhaler). In FULFIL, 0.34 and 0.36 exacerbations occurred by 24 and 52 weeks, respectively, versus 0.55 in KRONOS (annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations based on 24-week core phase). Thus, we cannot assume that this difference has any significant effect on NMA findings. This is likely the reason why these two studies have also been included in other NMAs.
As part of the study selection for this triple therapy NMA, we included studies conducted in populations that were consistent with the licensed indication for COPD triple therapy: “indicated as a maintenance treatment in adult patients with moderate-to-severe COPD who are not adequately treated by a combination of an ICS and a LABA or combination of a LABA and a LAMA” [12,13,14]. The comprehensive systematic literature review (SLR) identified RCTs conducted in adults aged ≥ 40 years with a COPD diagnosis, including the relevant triple therapy studies that are presented specifically within the respective Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) of the licensed triple therapies. It should be noted that both pivotal registration trials, ETHOS and KRONOS, are included within the BUD/GLY/FOR SmPC (Trixeo Aerosphere SmPC) [13], and are presented as supportive of the efficacy with respect to lung function and moderate/severe exacerbations. It would therefore be remiss to exclude either of these key registration studies. All the studies that met the following inclusion criteria were included in the SLR:
-
Study designs: RCTs with a minimum duration of 8 weeks;
-
Population: adults aged ≥ 40 years with a moderate-to-severe COPD diagnosis as defined by Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines or any other major guidelines;
-
Interventions: triple therapy combinations, these being combinations of three molecule classes (ICS, LABA, and LAMA) either as single- or multiple-inhaler triple therapy;
-
Comparators: studies that compare treatments of interest (above) to any therapy (including combination therapies) licensed for the treatment of COPD in any country;
-
Outcomes: the outcomes of interest include lung function (trough FEV1), annual or annualized exacerbation rates, health-related quality of life (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score), Transition Dyspnea Index, rescue medication use, and adverse events;
-
Database search date limits: March 3, 2017–October 16, 2020.
Marshall et al. commented on the differences between our findings and those of four other NMA studies [13,14,15,16]. The Ferguson et al. [17] and Bourdin et al. [16] publications assume therapeutic equivalency of the ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA therapies (an assumption that is not supported by head-to-head evidence), which may contribute towards differences in findings and the magnitude of effects reported. These assumptions will allow weaker ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA combinations to “borrow efficacy” from the stronger ones. These two assumptions would mean that we are testing the benefit of adding different LAMA (to ICS/LABA) or different ICS (to LAMA/LABA). Differences between alternative LAMA/LABA combinations [2, 9, 17, 18] or ICS/LABA combinations [19, 20] have previously been demonstrated, and it has been suggested that the clinical impact of triple combination therapies may be modulated by the pharmacological characteristics of the individual components [14]. We also propose that differences in efficacy observed between triple therapies in our NMA may be attributed to differences in the component molecules. Further to this, in one of the cited NMA studies [13, 14], data from the phase 3 ETHOS trial, representing a large body of evidence for BUD/GLY/FOR efficacy, were not included in the analysis, which is an important consideration when comparing outcomes.
The NMA studies mentioned by Marshall et al. [13,14,15,16] presented results from a Bayesian RE model. These studies have not presented sufficient details on their statistical analyses to facilitate reproducibility of the models used. One of the reasons for selecting a Frequentist model rather than a Bayesian model for our NMA was to facilitate reproducibility and ensure that the data and method for our NMA are consistent with the method used in the primary clinical trials included in our NMA. All the original clinical trials that met our eligibility criteria for our NMA used a Frequentist method.
One of the strengths of our NMA is the acknowledgment that we have not made any assumptions that are not substantiated by the available data. No pooling of the ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA make it easier to compare direct and indirect results generated within the triple therapy NMA. For this reason, we have presented our NMA results separately for dual and triple therapies. The FEV1 results generated from the triple therapy NMA clearly show that the results are consistent with the magnitude and direction of results seen in AERISTO [9], even though the AERISTO trial was not included in the triple therapy NMA. Furthermore, the NMA generated consistent results with the known head-to-head trials [10, 21, 22].
In summary, we believe that we have selected the most appropriate model for the analysis. Regardless of which model is used, the data are either very similar or identical, and remain suggestive of favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI versus other single- or multiple-inhaler triple therapies.
References
Ismaila AS, Haeussler K, Czira A, et al. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy compared with other therapies for the treatment of COPD: a network meta-analysis. Adv Ther. 2022;39:3957–78.
Ismaila AS, Haeussler K, Czira A, et al. Comparative efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus other bronchodilators for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a network meta-analysis. Adv Ther. 2022;39:4961–5010.
Laws A, Kendall R, Hawkins N. A comparison of national guidelines for network meta-analysis. Value Health. 2014;17:642–54.
Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011;14:429–37.
Tonin FS, Rotta I, Mendes AM, Pontarolo R. Network meta-analysis: a technique to gather evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2017;15:943.
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1:97–111.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.
Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2008. p. 243–96.
Maltais F, Ferguson GT, Feldman GJ, et al. A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler relative to umeclidinium/vilanterol dry powder inhaler in COPD. Adv Ther. 2019;36:2434–49.
Lipson DA, Barnacle H, Birk R, et al. FULFIL trial: once-daily triple therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;196:438–46.
Ferguson GT, Rabe KF, Martinez FJ, et al. Triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate with co-suspension delivery technology versus dual therapies in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (KRONOS): a double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6:747–58.
EMC. Trixeo Aerosphere 5 micrograms/7.2 micrograms/160 micrograms pressurised inhalation, suspension - summary of product characteristics. 2022. https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/12028/smpc. Accessed 12 Jan 2023.
Lee HW, Kim HJ, Jang EJ, Lee CH. Comparisons of efficacy and safety between triple (inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting beta-agonist) therapies in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Respiration. 2021;100:631–43.
Rogliani P, Ora J, Cavalli F, Cazzola M, Calzetta L. Comparing the efficacy and safety profile of triple fixed-dose combinations in COPD: a meta-analysis and IBiS score. J Clin Med. 2022;11:4491.
Ferguson GT, Darken P, Ballal S, et al. Efficacy of budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI) versus other inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) triple combinations in COPD: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis. Adv Ther. 2020;37:2956–75.
Bourdin A, Molinari N, Ferguson GT, et al. Efficacy and safety of budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate versus other triple combinations in COPD: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis. Adv Ther. 2021;38:3089–112.
Alcázar Navarrete B, Boucot I, Naya I, et al. Umeclidinium/vilanterol versus tiotropium/olodaterol in maintenance-naïve patients with moderate symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a post hoc analysis. Pulm Ther. 2018;4:171–83.
Feldman GJ, Sousa AR, Lipson DA, et al. Comparative efficacy of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol and tiotropium/olodaterol therapy in symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized study. Adv Ther. 2017;34:2518–33.
Suissa S, Dell’Aniello S, Ernst P. Comparing initial LABA-ICS inhalers in COPD: real-world effectiveness and safety. Respir Med. 2021;189:106645.
Latorre M, Novelli F, Vagaggini B, et al. Differences in the efficacy and safety among inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) combinations in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): role of ICS. Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2015;30:44–50.
Lipson DA, Barnhart F, Brealey N, et al. Once-daily single-inhaler triple versus dual therapy in patients with COPD. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1671–80.
Ferguson GT, Brown N, Compton C, et al. Once-daily single-inhaler versus twice-daily multiple-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD: lung function and health status results from two replicate randomized controlled trials. Respir Res. 2020;21:131.
Acknowledgements
Funding
This article was funded by GSK (study number 206272). No sponsorship or funding was provided for the publication of this letter.
Authorship
All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published. The authors listed are responding on behalf of the entire author group from the original publication, which also includes Alexandrosz Czira, Ji-Hee Youn, Nancy A. Risebrough, Jatin Agarwal, and Maria Nassim. All original authors are aware of the response letter and approve of its publication.
Author Contributions
All named authors contributed to the drafting and revising of this response letter.
Medical Writing and Editorial Assistance
Editorial support (in the form of writing assistance, including preparation of the draft article under the direction and guidance of the authors, collating and incorporating authors’ comments for each draft, grammatical editing, and referencing) was provided by Rebecca Cunningham and Abigail Marmont of Aura, a division of Spirit Medical Communications Group Limited, and was funded by GSK.
Disclosures
Afisi S. Ismaila, Raj Sharma, and Chris Compton are employees of GSK and/or hold stocks/shares in GSK. Afisi S. Ismaila is also a part-time unpaid faculty member at McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. Katrin Haeussler and Mia Malmenäs are employees of ICON Plc. ICON Plc. received funding from GSK to conduct this study. Claus F. Vogelmeier gave presentations at symposia and/or served on scientific advisory boards sponsored by Aerogen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Chiesi, GSK, Grifols, Menarini, Novartis, Nuvaira, and MedUpdate. MeiLan K. Han reports personal fees from GSK, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cipla, Chiesi, Novartis, Pulmonx, Teva, Verona, Merck, Mylan, Sanofi, DevPro, Aerogen, Polarian, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., United Therapeutics, Altesa Biopharma, UpToDate, Medscape, and Integrity. She has received either in-kind research support or funds paid to the institution from the NIH, Novartis, Sunovion, Nuvaira, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gala Therapeutics, Biodesix, the COPD Foundation, and the American Lung Association. She has participated in Data Safety Monitoring Boards for Novartis and Medtronic with funds paid to the institution. She has received stock options from Meissa Vaccines and Altesa Biopharma. David M. G. Halpin reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Chiesi and GSK, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, and personal fees from Pfizer and Sanofi.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Data Availability
The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial 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-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ismaila, A.S., Haeussler, K., Malmenäs, M. et al. A Response to: Letter to the Editor Regarding “Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Triple Therapy Compared with Other Therapies for the Treatment of COPD: A Network Meta-analysis”. Adv Ther 40, 2556–2561 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-023-02495-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-023-02495-0