Effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI versus ICS/LABA in Patients with Uncontrolled Asthma Treated in Routine Clinical Practice (PERFORM): A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose: Asthma guidelines recommend stepwise escalation of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β 2 -agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy, yet many patients remain uncontrolled. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that single-inhaler triple therapy improves lung function, with varying effects on symptoms and exacerbations. However, highly controlled explanatory RCTs with selective populations may not reflect real-world care. PERFORM evaluated the effectiveness and safety of initiating once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) ELLIPTA versus usual care non-ELLIPTA ICS/LABA in routine clinical practice. Methods: PERFORM (GSK219912/NCT06372496) is a randomized, open-label, active-controlled, 52-week, global pragmatic trial including adults (18– 75 years) with uncontrolled, infrequently exacerbating asthma, previously untreated or treated with non-ELLIPTA ICS or ICS/LABA in the 3-months pre-randomization. Powered primary and secondary endpoints were change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ) and asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ]-7 responder analysis) at Week 24 (W24). Safety was assessed throughout the trial. Results: Overall, 1236 patients (mean age: 48.9 years; 68.6% female) were included in this W24 primary analysis (FF/UMEC/VI: N=619; ICS/LABA: N=617). At baseline mean FEV 1 %predicted was 85.7; mean ACQ-7 score was 2.46. At W24, FF/UMEC/VI statistically significantly improved trough FEV 1 from baseline versus ICS/LABA (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval]: +68mL [36– 99], P < 0.001). FEV 1 improvement from baseline was 178mL (139– 217) with FF/UMEC/VI and 110mL (72– 149) with ICS/LABA. Odds of a clinically meaningful response in ACQ-7 score (≥ 0.5-point improvement from baseline) were significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI versus ICS/LABA (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.47 [1.13– 1.92], P < 0.004); 79.0% of patients achieved a response with FF/UMEC/VI and 71.8% with ICS/LABA. Safety profile to W24 aligned with previous studies. Conclusion: This pragmatic RCT demonstrated significant improvements in lung function and asthma control with FF/UMEC/VI versus ICS/LABA in uncontrolled and infrequently exacerbating patients treated in a routine practice setting. These findings further inform the evidence base for optimized use of FF/UMEC/VI. Keywords: asthma control, lung function, real-world setting, single-inhaler triple therapy

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Asthma and Allergy
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2147/jaa.s599766
Primary Topic
Asthma and respiratory diseases
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI versus ICS/LABA in Patients with Uncontrolled Asthma Treated in Routine Clinical Practice (PERFORM): A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

Jodie Crawford, Gabriel García, Erika Penz, Mary Woessner et al.
Journal of Asthma and Allergy
Asthma and respiratory diseases
article

Effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI versus ICS/LABA in Patients with Uncontrolled Asthma Treated in Routine Clinical Practice (PERFORM): A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

Jodie Crawford, Gabriel García, Erika Penz, Mary Woessner, David Slade, J Oppenheimer, Alan Baptist, Nicola Brown, Stephen Noorduyn, Alison Moore, Hiroyuki Nagase, Lydia Demetriou
article en

Abstract

Purpose: Asthma guidelines recommend stepwise escalation of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β 2 -agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy, yet many patients remain uncontrolled. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that single-inhaler triple therapy improves lung function, with varying effects on symptoms and exacerbations. However, highly controlled explanatory RCTs with selective populations may not reflect real-world care. PERFORM evaluated the effectiveness and safety of initiating once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) ELLIPTA versus usual care non-ELLIPTA ICS/LABA in routine clinical practice. Methods: PERFORM (GSK219912/NCT06372496) is a randomized, open-label, active-controlled, 52-week, global pragmatic trial including adults (18– 75 years) with uncontrolled, infrequently exacerbating asthma, previously untreated or treated with non-ELLIPTA ICS or ICS/LABA in the 3-months pre-randomization. Powered primary and secondary endpoints were change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ) and asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ]-7 responder analysis) at Week 24 (W24). Safety was assessed throughout the trial. Results: Overall, 1236 patients (mean age: 48.9 years; 68.6% female) were included in this W24 primary analysis (FF/UMEC/VI: N=619; ICS/LABA: N=617). At baseline mean FEV 1 %predicted was 85.7; mean ACQ-7 score was 2.46. At W24, FF/UMEC/VI statistically significantly improved trough FEV 1 from baseline versus ICS/LABA (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval]: +68mL [36– 99], P < 0.001). FEV 1 improvement from baseline was 178mL (139– 217) with FF/UMEC/VI and 110mL (72– 149) with ICS/LABA. Odds of a clinically meaningful response in ACQ-7 score (≥ 0.5-point improvement from baseline) were significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI versus ICS/LABA (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.47 [1.13– 1.92], P < 0.004); 79.0% of patients achieved a response with FF/UMEC/VI and 71.8% with ICS/LABA. Safety profile to W24 aligned with previous studies. Conclusion: This pragmatic RCT demonstrated significant improvements in lung function and asthma control with FF/UMEC/VI versus ICS/LABA in uncontrolled and infrequently exacerbating patients treated in a routine practice setting. These findings further inform the evidence base for optimized use of FF/UMEC/VI. Keywords: asthma control, lung function, real-world setting, single-inhaler triple therapy

Journal of Asthma and AllergyVol. Volume 19
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US), North Carolina Central University (US), Henry Ford Health System (US), General Medical Council (GB), Global University Systems (GB), Henry Ford Hospital (US), University of Saskatchewan (CA), GlaxoSmithKline (United States) (US), Hospital Italiano La Plata (AR), Respiratory Clinical Trials (GB), GlaxoSmithKline (Canada) (CA), MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB), Impact (CA), Teikyo University (JP), McMaster University (CA)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Asthma and respiratory diseases
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.