CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR UMECLIDINIUM BROMIDE; VILANTEROL TRIFENATATE

All Clinical Trials for umeclidinium bromide; vilanterol trifenatate

Trial ID	Title	Status	Sponsor	Phase	Start Date	Summary
NCT01899638 ↗	Pharmacokinetics Of Umeclidinium and Vilanterol in Healthy Chinese, a Randomized, Open Label, 3 Crossover Study.	Completed	GlaxoSmithKline	Phase 1	2013-05-20	This study is to assess the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety and tolerability of UMEC (62.5µg and 125µg) and VI (25µg) as monotherapies and combinations in healthy Chinese subjects.
NCT03184987 ↗	A Long-term Safety Study of Fixed Dose Combination Therapy Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium Bromide/Vilanterol Trifenatate in Japanese Subjects With Asthma	Completed	BI Medical.Inc	Phase 3	2017-06-22	Despite availability of treatments and published guidelines, subjects may have asthma that is inadequately controlled. GlaxoSmithKline is currently developing a once-daily 'closed' triple therapy of an Inhaled Corticosteroids/Long-Acting Beta-2-Agonists/Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) combination (Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium Bromide/Vilanterol Trifenatate [FF/UMEC/VI]) in a single device, with the aim of providing a new treatment option for the management of asthma by improving lung function, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom control over established combination therapies. This study has 3 study periods: Run-in, Treatment period and a Follow-up period. Eligible subjects who meet the pre-defined criteria at screening (Visit 1) will enter into a 2-week run-in period. Subjects will continue their pre-screening inhaled medications for asthma (ICS+LABA or ICS+LABA+LAMA) without any change in regimen/dosage until day before Visit 2. At Visit 2 subjects will be allocated to either FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 or FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 micrograms (mcg) treatment depending on the asthma control status for 52 weeks. Switching medication from FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 to FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 will be permitted in accordance with the control status of the subject assessed by Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-7 at Week 24 of the treatment period. A follow-up visit will be conducted for approximately 1 week. Subjects will be provided with salbutamol as a rescue medication throughout the study.
NCT03184987 ↗	A Long-term Safety Study of Fixed Dose Combination Therapy Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium Bromide/Vilanterol Trifenatate in Japanese Subjects With Asthma	Completed	Parexel International Japan	Phase 3	2017-06-22	Despite availability of treatments and published guidelines, subjects may have asthma that is inadequately controlled. GlaxoSmithKline is currently developing a once-daily 'closed' triple therapy of an Inhaled Corticosteroids/Long-Acting Beta-2-Agonists/Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) combination (Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium Bromide/Vilanterol Trifenatate [FF/UMEC/VI]) in a single device, with the aim of providing a new treatment option for the management of asthma by improving lung function, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom control over established combination therapies. This study has 3 study periods: Run-in, Treatment period and a Follow-up period. Eligible subjects who meet the pre-defined criteria at screening (Visit 1) will enter into a 2-week run-in period. Subjects will continue their pre-screening inhaled medications for asthma (ICS+LABA or ICS+LABA+LAMA) without any change in regimen/dosage until day before Visit 2. At Visit 2 subjects will be allocated to either FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 or FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 micrograms (mcg) treatment depending on the asthma control status for 52 weeks. Switching medication from FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 to FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 will be permitted in accordance with the control status of the subject assessed by Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-7 at Week 24 of the treatment period. A follow-up visit will be conducted for approximately 1 week. Subjects will be provided with salbutamol as a rescue medication throughout the study.
NCT03184987 ↗	A Long-term Safety Study of Fixed Dose Combination Therapy Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium Bromide/Vilanterol Trifenatate in Japanese Subjects With Asthma	Completed	Q2 Solutions	Phase 3	2017-06-22	Despite availability of treatments and published guidelines, subjects may have asthma that is inadequately controlled. GlaxoSmithKline is currently developing a once-daily 'closed' triple therapy of an Inhaled Corticosteroids/Long-Acting Beta-2-Agonists/Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) combination (Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium Bromide/Vilanterol Trifenatate [FF/UMEC/VI]) in a single device, with the aim of providing a new treatment option for the management of asthma by improving lung function, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom control over established combination therapies. This study has 3 study periods: Run-in, Treatment period and a Follow-up period. Eligible subjects who meet the pre-defined criteria at screening (Visit 1) will enter into a 2-week run-in period. Subjects will continue their pre-screening inhaled medications for asthma (ICS+LABA or ICS+LABA+LAMA) without any change in regimen/dosage until day before Visit 2. At Visit 2 subjects will be allocated to either FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 or FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 micrograms (mcg) treatment depending on the asthma control status for 52 weeks. Switching medication from FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 to FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 will be permitted in accordance with the control status of the subject assessed by Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-7 at Week 24 of the treatment period. A follow-up visit will be conducted for approximately 1 week. Subjects will be provided with salbutamol as a rescue medication throughout the study.
NCT03184987 ↗	A Long-term Safety Study of Fixed Dose Combination Therapy Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium Bromide/Vilanterol Trifenatate in Japanese Subjects With Asthma	Completed	Q2 Solutions, LLC	Phase 3	2017-06-22	Despite availability of treatments and published guidelines, subjects may have asthma that is inadequately controlled. GlaxoSmithKline is currently developing a once-daily 'closed' triple therapy of an Inhaled Corticosteroids/Long-Acting Beta-2-Agonists/Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) combination (Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium Bromide/Vilanterol Trifenatate [FF/UMEC/VI]) in a single device, with the aim of providing a new treatment option for the management of asthma by improving lung function, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom control over established combination therapies. This study has 3 study periods: Run-in, Treatment period and a Follow-up period. Eligible subjects who meet the pre-defined criteria at screening (Visit 1) will enter into a 2-week run-in period. Subjects will continue their pre-screening inhaled medications for asthma (ICS+LABA or ICS+LABA+LAMA) without any change in regimen/dosage until day before Visit 2. At Visit 2 subjects will be allocated to either FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 or FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 micrograms (mcg) treatment depending on the asthma control status for 52 weeks. Switching medication from FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 to FF/UMEC/VI 200/62.5/25 will be permitted in accordance with the control status of the subject assessed by Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-7 at Week 24 of the treatment period. A follow-up visit will be conducted for approximately 1 week. Subjects will be provided with salbutamol as a rescue medication throughout the study.

Clinical Trial Conditions for umeclidinium bromide; vilanterol trifenatate

Condition Name

Condition Name for umeclidinium bromide; vilanterol trifenatate
Intervention	Trials
Asthma	2
Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive	1

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for umeclidinium bromide; vilanterol trifenatate
Intervention	Trials
Asthma	2
Lung Diseases	1
Chronic Disease	1
Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive	1

Clinical Trial Locations for umeclidinium bromide; vilanterol trifenatate

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for umeclidinium bromide; vilanterol trifenatate
Location	Trials
United States	16
Australia	4
Japan	2
Canada	2
China	1

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for umeclidinium bromide; vilanterol trifenatate
Location	Trials
Maine	1
Louisiana	1
Illinois	1
Florida	1
California	1

Clinical Trial Progress for umeclidinium bromide; vilanterol trifenatate

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for umeclidinium bromide; vilanterol trifenatate
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
PHASE4	1
Phase 3	1
Phase 1	1

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for umeclidinium bromide; vilanterol trifenatate
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
Completed	2
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING	1

Clinical Trial Sponsors for umeclidinium bromide; vilanterol trifenatate

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for umeclidinium bromide; vilanterol trifenatate
Sponsor	Trials
GlaxoSmithKline	3
BI Medical.Inc	1
Parexel International Japan	1

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for umeclidinium bromide; vilanterol trifenatate
Sponsor	Trials
Industry	5
Other	4

Umeclidinium Bromide / Vilanterol Trifenatate Clinical Trials Update, Market Analysis, and Price-Competition Projection

Last updated: July 29, 2026

Umeclidinium bromide plus vilanterol trifenatate (UMEC/VI) is established in COPD as a dual bronchodilator regimen (LAMA/LABA). The main near-term exclusivity and competitive pressure depends on each marketed strength’s approved label, the specific US patents listed in the FDA Orange Book for the approved combination product, and any new clinical readouts that expand indications or support additional line extensions (new dose, delivery device, or patient subgroups). Current market dynamics are dominated by class-wide substitution from older LAMA/LABA and LAMA/ICS regimens, with pricing and formulary position driving net sales more than new mechanistic differentiation.

How many clinical trials are ongoing for umeclidinium bromide and vilanterol in COPD, and what results matter for timelines?

Featured answer: The highest impact trials are those designed to (1) support label expansions (new COPD populations, exacerbation endpoints, or pulmonary impairment strata), (2) establish superiority or noninferiority versus active comparators using inhaler-specific endpoints (trough FEV1, exacerbations, symptom burden), or (3) generate real-world evidence that affects payor coverage and formulary tier placement.

Which trials drive label growth versus “maintenance” evidence?

Most COPD programs in this space separate into three evidence categories:

1. Regulatory endpoint trials

   • Primary endpoints typically include trough FEV1 at defined timepoints and exacerbation-driven secondary endpoints.
   • These trials can change dosing frequency or support broadened wording around exacerbation reduction.

2. Comparator trials against other LAMA/LABA and LAMA/ICS

   • Competitive endpoints are usually standardized across inhaled COPD drugs: trough FEV1, SGRQ or mMRC, and moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates.
   • These programs influence differentiation in payer negotiations and prescriber preference rather than regulatory status unless they support new claims.

3. Special population or device/transition trials

   • Examples include studies in older adults, prior exacerbators, inhaler-naïve patients, and adherence/persistence datasets.
   • These affect market uptake and retention after switching, not core indications.

What outcomes most affect commercial projection for UMEC/VI?

Net sales trajectory is most sensitive to:

• Exacerbation claim strength: payors and health systems emphasize exacerbation reduction when building COPD formularies.
• Trough FEV1 consistency: improves likelihood of switching from alternative bronchodilators.
• Patient-reported outcomes (SGRQ, TDI): influences real-world persistence.
• Adherence and device usability: UMEC/VI products compete on inhaler performance, not just pharmacology.

What to watch in upcoming clinical readouts

For a projection horizon that supports investment or licensing decisions, the market typically reacts to:

• New phase 3 or phase 4 data with statistically supported exacerbation trends.
• Subgroup analyses that reduce payer uncertainty around “who benefits most.”
• Switching studies that show persistence advantage after forced formulary changes.

What is the market position of umeclidinium/vilanterol in COPD, and how much revenue is at stake?

Featured answer: UMEC/VI competes in the LAMA/LABA segment, where the majority of net sales competition comes from formulary tiering, inhaler-device preference, and the ability to maintain share against LAMA/ICS or next-generation combinations. Revenue exposure depends on (1) the share of COPD patients managed on dual bronchodilation, (2) uptake among prior exacerbators, and (3) how intensively competing LAMA/LABA and triple therapies expand within health plans.

Segment dynamics: why LAMA/LABA share is pressured

The UMEC/VI market sits inside a broader COPD class competition where:

• Triple therapy (LAMA/LABA/ICS) is used for patients with frequent exacerbations or eosinophilic phenotype.
• Dual therapy remains the default for moderate symptoms or patients with low exacerbation frequency.
• Payors use step therapy and bundle policies that favor specific manufacturers based on rebates and budget impact.

Competitive set that typically trades prescriptions with UMEC/VI

Within LAMA/LABA and LAMA/ICS, UMEC/VI is commonly benchmarked against:

• LAMA/LABA inhalers (multiple marketed combinations)
• Triple therapy regimens that can capture higher risk patients
• Older bronchodilator sequences where generics or LOE dynamics change relative value propositions

What changes pricing and share for UMEC/VI?

• Placement on commercial formularies (preferred vs non-preferred).
• PBM rebate pressure against newer combinations and triple therapy uptake.
• Ability to maintain “line continuity” when patients are switched between inhaler devices within the same therapeutic class.

When does UMEC/VI lose exclusivity in the US, and what are the generic and biosimilar risks?

Featured answer: Generic risk is primarily a small molecule formulation and method-of-use/IP landscape problem, not a biologics risk. For UMEC/VI (a fixed-dose combination of two small molecules), the practical threat schedule is set by the Orange Book expiration dates for each listed patent and by the ability of generics to enter without infringing formulation, device, or method claims.

How to interpret exclusivity for this combination

For UMEC/VI, “losing exclusivity” in practice is driven by:

• Patent expirations covering the combination drug product, including formulation and process patents
• Regulatory exclusivities (if applicable) such as new chemical entity or new molecular entity exclusivity, and any combination-related exclusivities
• Orphan status or pediatric exclusivity if present (rare for COPD combinations)

Generic entry risks: what causes delays despite LOE

Even after “core” patent expiration, entry can be blocked by:

• Remaining formulation/process patents
• Method-of-use patents tied to dosing regimens or exacerbation-reduction claims
• Device-related claims if the inhaler delivery mechanism is covered
• Paragraph IV litigation that triggers 30-month stays if a challenge is filed and litigated

Biosimilar risk

UMEC/VI has no biosimilar pathway risk because it is not a biologic.

What patents protect umeclidinium/vilanterol products, and how strong is the patent estate?

Featured answer: For UMEC/VI, the patent estate strength is measured by (1) how many Orange Book-listed patents remain in force for each dosage form and (2) whether active litigation or court rulings have already narrowed claims. The most business-relevant patents typically include composition/formulation, process/manufacturing, and method-of-use claims.

Patent estate mapping structure for COPD fixed-dose combinations

A defensible patent landscape typically breaks into:

• Composition-of-matter for each active ingredient and their combination
• Combination product formulation (fixed-dose blend, particle engineering, excipient system)
• Methods of treating COPD with specific dosing or patient subgroups
• Manufacturing/process patents
• Inhaler/device patents (less common for classic combos but relevant if delivery is claimed)

How to score patent strength for UMEC/VI

Commercially useful strength scoring for this class focuses on:

• Remaining time to expiration for the last blocking patent
• Whether claims have survived IV challenges in court
• How tightly formulation/process claims constrain “design-around” strategies
• The number of independent claims that must be avoided simultaneously

What is the Orange Book status of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol trifenatate products?

Featured answer: Orange Book status is assessed by the listed patents for each specific NDC and dosage strength. Practical entry risk depends on which patents have already expired and which remain listed for the exact marketed strength and route.

What “Orange Book ready-to-launch” looks like

A generic challenger is typically positioned to file and launch when:

• The Orange Book lists are fully expired for the relevant NDC, or
• The generic can carve around non-expired patents without infringement, or
• Paragraph IV litigation results in non-infringement or invalidity rulings that clear the way.

Where delays usually come from

• Patents that remain listed even after the earliest drug substance patents expire.
• Continued listing for combination formulation or process that is hard to replicate.
• Court stays that push effective launch beyond nominal expiration.

What formulations and delivery systems are protected for UMEC/VI, and what can a generic copy?

Featured answer: For inhaled combinations, formulation protection usually includes the fixed-dose mixture, particle characteristics, and excipient system that enable consistent aerosol performance and delivered dose. Delivery-system IP can also matter if claims cover device components or how the aerosol is generated.

Key formulation/IP barrier categories

1. Powder blend composition
2. Particle size and engineering
3. Excipients and their role in flow and aerosolization
4. Manufacturing process for consistent particle properties
5. Device compatibility for dose delivery

Generic “design-around” feasibility

For UMEC/VI generics to launch smoothly, they must meet:

• Bioequivalence requirements in addition to IP clearance
• Demonstrated delivered dose and aerosol performance
• Non-infringement of composition/process claims for the exact product form

What patent litigation affects umeclidinium/vilanterol, including Paragraph IV challenges and settlements?

Featured answer: Litigation risk is determined by whether generic challengers have filed Paragraph IV certifications for the UMEC/VI listed patents and whether any settlements have shortened or structured launch timing.

How to interpret litigation for market projections

• A court decision can convert “stay risk” into “launch certainty.”
• Settlements can establish:
  • a date-certain launch,
  • coexistence agreements,
  • or channel/territory restrictions that delay effective commercialization.

Business impact

• Paragraph IV outcomes can change gross-to-net conversion by altering competitive pricing.
• Even when launch is delayed, filing itself can shift payor behavior through “pipeline discounting.”

How does UMEC/VI compare with competing COPD therapies, and which switches are most likely?

Featured answer: UMEC/VI competes against other LAMA/LABA and triple therapies primarily through symptom control, exacerbation outcomes, inhaler usability, and formulary pricing. Most switches happen in plan-driven settings rather than from new mechanistic evidence.

Switch scenarios that affect UMEC/VI share

• Plan formulary tightening: may move UMEC/VI from preferred to non-preferred tier, forcing copay-driven discontinuation.
• Step-up to triple therapy: targets exacerbation-prone patients where ICS inclusion changes outcomes.
• Device preference: can swing share when multiple inhalers are therapeutically similar.

What evidence payors use in these decisions

• Real-world persistence and adherence
• Exacerbation event rates tied to claims databases
• Drug utilization management rules and budget impact models

Clinical trial evidence that could change UMEC/VI uptake: what endpoints drive payer behavior?

Featured answer: For UMEC/VI commercialization, the payer-relevant endpoints are exacerbations and downstream utilization, supported by trough FEV1 and patient-reported outcomes.

Endpoints with the highest commercial utility

• Moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates
• Time to first exacerbation
• Hospitalization/ER utilization proxies
• SGRQ or TDI changes
• Treatment-emergent adverse event profile

Why “statistical significance” alone is not enough

Payers respond to:

• Magnitude of benefit in clinically meaningful units
• Consistency across subgroups relevant to their patient populations
• Safety signals that influence restriction criteria

Revenue projection: base-case, downside, and upside scenarios for UMEC/VI

Featured answer: A practical projection framework for UMEC/VI uses (1) market growth in COPD, (2) share retention in dual bronchodilation, and (3) penetration losses from pricing pressure and competitor substitution, especially if exclusivity is nearing expiration or if active litigation could produce generic entry.

Base-case drivers

• Stable formulary position in core plans
• Limited disruptive generics during the projection window due to remaining patent protections
• Moderate growth from COPD prevalence and guideline adherence

Downside drivers

• Faster-than-expected share loss to triple therapy
• Aggressive rebate compression against competing LAMA/LABA or next-generation inhalers
• Adverse positioning if Orange Book status indicates earlier-than-expected generic risk clearance

Upside drivers

• New label or subgroup evidence that improves clinical justification for exacerbation-prone patients
• Improved persistence due to adherence evidence or device positioning
• Settlement or litigation outcomes that extend effective exclusivity

Key Takeaways

• UMEC/VI market performance depends on COPD formulary tiering and step therapy patterns, not just incremental lung-function gains.
• Exclusivity and generic risk for this fixed-dose combination are governed by Orange Book-listed patents per NDC, including formulation/process and any method-of-use claims.
• Clinical trial readouts matter commercially when they reinforce exacerbation reduction, persistence/adherence, or payer-relevant differentiators that influence switching behavior.
• Revenue projections should be modeled around exclusivity timing, Paragraph IV/settlement outcomes, and class-wide pricing pressure from LAMA/LABA and triple therapy competitors.

FAQs

1. Which COPD patient subgroups benefit most from umeclidinium/vilanterol based on trial endpoints that influence formularies?
2. What NDC-specific Orange Book patents typically block generic entry for umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol trifenatate combinations?
3. How does Paragraph IV litigation affect launch timing for small-molecule inhaled fixed-dose combinations like UMEC/VI?
4. What formulation or process differences are most likely to support generic design-around for inhaled LAMA/LABA products?
5. How do net price and rebate changes in LAMA/LABA categories typically shift utilization toward or away from UMEC/VI?

References

1. FDA. Orange Book: Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations. (Accessed 2026-07-30).
2. FDA. Drug Trials Snapshots: Umeclidinium / Vilanterol (COPD). (Accessed 2026-07-30).