No abstract

Background: Many CpGs become hyper or hypo-methylated with age. Multiple methods have been developed by Horvath et al. to estimate DNA methylation (DNAm) age including Pan-tissue, Skin & Blood, PhenoAge, and GrimAge. Pan-tissue and Skin & Blood try to estimate chronological age in the normal population whereas PhenoAge and GrimAge use surrogate markers associated with mortality to estimate biological age and its departure from chronological age. Here, we applied Horvath's four methods to calculate and compare DNAm age in 499 subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D) from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (DCCT/EDIC) study using DNAm data measured by Illumina EPIC array in the whole blood. Association of the four DNAm ages with development of diabetic complications including cardiovascular diseases (CVD), nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy, and their risk factors were investigated. Results: Pan-tissue and GrimAge were higher whereas Skin & Blood and PhenoAge were lower than chronological age (p < 0.0001). DNAm age was not associated with the risk of CVD or retinopathy over 18-20 years after DNAm measurement. However, higher PhenoAge (β = 0.023, p = 0.007) and GrimAge (β = 0.029, p = 0.002) were associated with higher albumin excretion rate (AER), an indicator of diabetic renal disease, measured over time. GrimAge was also associated with development of both diabetic peripheral neuropathy (OR = 1.07, p = 9.24E−3) and cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (OR = 1.06, p = 0.011). Both HbA1c (β = 0.38, p = 0.026) and T1D duration (β = 0.01, p = 0.043) were associated with higher PhenoAge. Employment (β = − 1.99, p = 0.045) and leisure time (β = − 0.81, p = 0.022) physical activity were associated with lower Pan-tissue and Skin & Blood, respectively. BMI (β = 0.09, p = 0.048) and current smoking (β = 7.13, p = 9.03E−50) were positively associated with Skin & Blood and GrimAge, respectively. Blood pressure, lipid levels, pulse rate, and alcohol consumption were not associated with DNAm age regardless of the method used. Conclusions: Various methods of measuring DNAm age are sub-optimal in detecting people at higher risk of developing diabetic complications although some work better than the others.

BackgroundSingle-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 μg has been shown to improve lung function and health status, and reduce exacerbations, versus budesonide/formoterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated the non-inferiority of single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI + UMEC using two inhalers.MethodsEligible patients with COPD (aged ≥40 years; ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the 12 months before screening) were randomized (1:1; stratified by the number of long-acting bronchodilators [0, 1 or 2] per day during run-in) to receive 24-week FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 μg and placebo or FF/VI 100/25 μg + UMEC 62.5 μg; all treatments/placebo were delivered using the ELLIPTA inhaler once-daily in the morning. Primary endpoint: change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The non-inferiority margin for the lower 95% confidence limit was set at − 50 mL.ResultsA total of 1055 patients (844 [80%] of whom were enrolled on combination maintenance therapy) were randomized to receive FF/UMEC/VI (n = 527) or FF/VI + UMEC (n = 528). Mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 113 mL (95% CI 91, 135) for FF/UMEC/VI and 95 mL (95% CI 72, 117) for FF/VI + UMEC; the between-treatment difference of 18 mL (95% CI -13, 50) confirmed FF/UMEC/VI’s was considered non-inferior to FF/VI + UMEC. At Week 24, the proportion of responders based on St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire Total score was 50% (FF/UMEC/VI) and 51% (FF/VI + UMEC); the proportion of responders based on the Transitional Dyspnea Index focal score was similar (56% both groups). A similar proportion of patients experienced a moderate/severe exacerbation in the FF/UMEC/VI (24%) and FF/VI + UMEC (27%) groups; the hazard ratio for time to first moderate/severe exacerbation with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI + UMEC was 0.87 (95% CI 0.68, 1.12). The incidence of adverse events was comparable in both groups (48%); the incidence of serious adverse events was 10% (FF/UMEC/VI) and 11% (FF/VI + UMEC).ConclusionsSingle-inhaler triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) is non-inferior to two inhalers (FF/VI + UMEC) on trough FEV1 change from baseline at 24 weeks. Results were similar on all other measures of efficacy, health-related quality of life, and safety.Trial registrationGSK study CTT200812; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02729051 (submitted 31 March 2016).

Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a novel composite end-point (lung function, health status, exacerbations) for assessing disease stability in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).We prospectively analysed CID in the FULFIL study. FULFIL (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02345161; randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study) compared 24 weeks of once daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 µg with twice daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400/12 μg in patients aged ≥40 years with symptomatic advanced COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease group D). A subset of patients received study treatment for up to 52 weeks. Time to first CID event was assessed over 24 and 52 weeks using two approaches for the health status component: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and COPD assessment test. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the risk of a first CID event by 47–52% versus BUD/FOR in the 24- and 52-week populations using both CID definitions (p<0.001).The median time to first CID event was ≥169 days and ≤31 days with FF/UMEC/VI and BUD/FOR, respectively. Only stable patients with no CID at 24 weeks demonstrated sustained clinically important improvements in lung function and health status at 52 weeks versus those who had experienced CID.Once daily, single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced the risk of CID versus twice daily BUD/FOR with a five-fold longer period without deterioration.

IntroductionDirectly recorded patient experience of symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) can complement lung function and exacerbation rate data in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical studies. The FULFIL study recorded daily symptoms and activity limitation together with additional patient-reported outcomes of dyspnea and HRQoL, as part of the prespecified analyses. FULFIL co-primary endpoint data have been previously reported.MethodsFULFIL was a phase III, 24-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study comparing once-daily single inhaler triple therapy [fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI)] 100 µg/62.5 µg/25 µg with twice-daily inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist therapy [budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR)] 400 µg/12 µg in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. A subset participated for 52 weeks. Patient-reported assessments were: Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD™ (E-RS: COPD), St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) for COPD, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), baseline and transitional dyspnea indices (TDI) and daily and global anchor questions for activity limitation.ResultsFF/UMEC/VI showed greater reductions from baseline in 4-weekly mean E-RS: COPD total and all subscale scores compared with BUD/FOR; differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05) at each time period. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated greater improvements from baseline at weeks 4 and 24 in SGRQ domain scores and TDI focal score compared with BUD/FOR. At weeks 4 and 24, improvements greater than the minimal clinically important difference from baseline were observed in CAT score with FF/UMEC/VI, but not BUD/FOR; differences were statistically significant (P ≤ 0.003).ConclusionThese findings demonstrate sustained daily symptom and HRQoL benefits of FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR. The inclusion of the CAT may provide data that are readily generalizable to everyday clinical practice.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02345161.FundingGSK.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-017-0650-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.