Efficacy in asthma of once-daily treatment with fluticasone furoate: a randomized,placebo-controlled trial

Background

Fluticasone furoate (FF) is a novel long-acting inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). This double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study evaluated the efficacy and safety of FF 200 mcg or 400 mcg once daily, either in the morning or in the evening, and FF 200 mcg twice daily (morning and evening), for 8 weeks in patients with persistent asthma.

Methods

Asthma patients maintained on ICS for ≥ 3 months with baseline morning forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) 50-80% of predicted normal value and FEV₁ reversibility of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 ml were eligible. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline FEV₁ at week 8 in pre-dose (morning or evening [depending on regimen], pre-rescue bronchodilator) FEV₁.

Results

A total of 545 patients received one of five FF treatment groups and 101 patients received placebo (intent-to-treat population). Each of the five FF treatment groups produced a statistically significant improvement in pre-dose FEV₁ compared with placebo (p < 0.05). FF 400 mcg once daily in the evening and FF 200 mcg twice daily produced similar placebo-adjusted improvements in evening pre-dose FEV₁ at week 8 (240 ml vs. 235 ml). FF 400 mcg once daily in the morning, although effective, resulted in a smaller improvement in morning pre-dose FEV₁ than FF 200 mcg twice daily at week 8 (315 ml vs. 202 ml). The incidence of oral candidiasis was low (0-4%) and UC excretion was comparable with placebo for all FF groups.

Conclusions

FF at total daily doses of 200 mcg or 400 mcg was significantly more effective than placebo. FF 400 mcg once daily in the evening had similar efficacy to FF 200 mcg twice daily and all FF regimens had a safety tolerability profile generally similar to placebo. This indicates that inhaled FF is an effective and well tolerated once-daily treatment for mild-to-moderate asthma.

Trial registration

NCT00398645     

Comparative efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators for COPD - a network meta-analysis

Background

Clinicians are faced with an increasingly difficult choice regarding the optimal bronchodilator for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) given the number of new treatments. The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative efficacy of indacaterol 75/150/300 μg once daily (OD), glycopyrronium bromide 50 μg OD, tiotropium bromide 18 μg/5 μg OD, salmeterol 50 μg twice daily (BID), formoterol 12 μg BID, and placebo for moderate to severe COPD.

Methods

Forty randomized controlled trials were combined in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest were trough and post-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and responders (≥4 points), and Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) score and responders (≥1 point) at 6 months.

Results

Indacaterol was associated with a higher trough FEV₁ than other active treatments (difference for indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg versus placebo: 152 mL (95% credible interval (CrI): 126, 179); 160 mL (95% CrI: 133, 187)) and the greatest improvement in SGRQ score (difference for indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg versus placebo: -3.9 (95% CrI -5.2, -2.6); -3.6 (95% CrI -4.8, -2.3)). Glycopyrronium and tiotropium 18 μg resulted in the next best estimates for both outcomes with minor differences (difference for glycopyrronium versus tiotropium for trough FEV₁ and SGRQ: 18 mL (95% CrI: -16, 51); -0.55 (95% CrI: -2.04, 0.92).

Conclusion

In terms of trough FEV₁ and SGRQ score indacaterol, glycopyrronium, and tiotropium are expected to be the most effective bronchodilators.     

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50?μg versus salmeterol 50?μg after chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation

Background

Inhaled long-acting beta₂ agonists used alone and in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid reduce the risk of exacerbations in patients with stable COPD. However, the relative efficacy of these agents in preventing recurrent exacerbations in those recovering from an initial episode is not known. This study compared the rate of COPD exacerbations over the 26 weeks after an initial exacerbation in patients receiving the combination of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FP/SAL) or SAL alone.

Methods

Patients (n = 639) aged ≥40 years were randomized to either twice-daily inhaled FP/SAL 250/50 μg or SAL 50 μg. Primary, and secondary, endpoints were rates of recurrent severe, and moderate/severe, exacerbations of COPD. Lung function, health outcomes and levels of biomarkers of systemic inflammation were also assessed.

Results

There was no statistically significant treatment difference in rates of recurrent severe exacerbations (treatment ratio 0.92 [95% CI: 0.58, 1.45]) and moderate/severe exacerbations (0.82 [0.64, 1.06]) between FP/SAL and SAL in the intent-to-treat population. Pre-dose morning FEV₁ change from baseline was greater (0.10 L [0.04, 0.16]) with FP/SAL than SAL. No treatment difference was seen for other endpoints including patient-reported health outcomes and biomarker levels for the full cohort.

Conclusions

No significant treatment difference between FP/SAL and SAL was seen in COPD exacerbation recurrence for the complete cohort. Treatment benefit with FP/SAL over SAL (treatment ratio 0.68 [0.47, 0.97]) was seen in patients having FEV₁ ≥ 30% and prior exposure to ICS. No unexpected safety issues were identified with either treatment. Patients with the most severe COPD may be more refractory to treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01110200). This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (study number ADC113874).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-014-0105-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Dose-finding evaluation of once-daily treatment with olodaterol,a novel long-acting β2-agonist,in patients with asthma: results of a parallel-group study and a crossover study

Background

Olodaterol is a novel, inhaled long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) with >24-hour duration of action investigated in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Methods

Two multicentre studies examined the efficacy and safety of 4 weeks’ once-daily (QD) olodaterol (2, 5, 10 and 20 μg, with background inhaled corticosteroids) in patients with asthma. One randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study (1222.6; 296 patients) administered treatment in the morning. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were performed pre-dose (trough) and ≤3 hours post-dose (weeks 1 and 2), and ≤6 hours post-dose after 4 weeks; primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) response (change from baseline mean FEV₁) after 4 weeks. A second randomised, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled (formoterol 12 μg twice-daily) incomplete-block crossover study (1222.27; 198 patients) administered QD treatments in the evening. PFTs were performed over a 24-hour dosing interval after 4 weeks; primary end point was FEV₁ area under the curve from 0–24 hours (AUC_0–24) response (change from study baseline [mean FEV₁] after 4 weeks).

Results

Study 1222.6 showed a statistically significant increase in trough FEV₁ response with olodaterol 20 μg (0.147 L; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.059, 0.234; p = 0.001) versus placebo, with more limited efficacy and no evidence of dose response compared to placebo across the other olodaterol doses (2, 5 and 10 μg). Study 1222.27 demonstrated increases in FEV₁ AUC_0–24 responses at 4 weeks with all active treatments (p < 0.0001); adjusted mean (95 % CI) differences from placebo were 0.140 (0.097, 0.182), 0.182 (0.140, 0.224), 0.205 (0.163, 0.248) and 0.229 (0.186, 0.272) L for olodaterol 2, 5, 10 and 20 μg, respectively, and 0.169 (0.126, 0.211) for formoterol, providing evidence of increased efficacy with higher olodaterol dose. Olodaterol was generally well tolerated, with a few events associated with known sympathomimetic effects, mainly with 20 μg.

Conclusions

The LABA olodaterol has >24-hour duration of action. In patients with asthma, evidence of bronchodilator efficacy was demonstrated with statistically and clinically significant improvements in the primary end point of trough FEV₁ response measured in clinics over placebo for the highest administered dose of 20 μg in Study 1222.6, and statistically and clinically significant improvements versus placebo in FEV₁ AUC_0–24 responses at 4 weeks for all doses tested in Study 1222.27, which also exhibited a dose response. Bronchodilator efficacy was seen over placebo for all olodaterol doses for morning and evening peak expiratory flow in both studies. All doses were well tolerated.

Trial registrations

{"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00467740","term_id":"NCT00467740"}}NCT00467740 (1222.6) and {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01013753","term_id":"NCT01013753"}}NCT01013753 (1222.27).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-015-0249-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Tiotropium Respimat? in asthma: a double-blind,randomised, dose-ranging study in adult patients with moderate asthma

Background

Tiotropium, a once-daily long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilator, when administered via Respimat® SoftMist™ inhaler (tiotropium Respimat®) significantly reduces the risk of severe exacerbations and improves lung function in patients with severe persistent asthma that is not fully controlled despite using inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β₂-agonists. To further explore the dose–response curve in asthma, we investigated the efficacy and safety of three different doses of tiotropium Respimat® as add-on to ICS in symptomatic patients with moderate persistent asthma.

Methods

In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-way crossover study, patients were randomised to tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg, 2.5 μg or 1.25 μg or placebo Respimat®, once daily in the evening. Each treatment was administered for 4 weeks, without washout between treatment periods. Eligibility criteria included ≥60% and ≤90% of predicted normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and seven-question Asthma Control Questionnaire mean score of ≥1.5. Patients were required to continue maintenance treatment with stable medium-dose ICS for at least 4 weeks prior to and during the treatment period. Long-acting β₂-agonists were not permitted during the treatment phase. The primary efficacy end point was peak FEV₁ measured within 3 hours after dosing (peak FEV_1(0-3h)) at the end of each 4-week period, analysed as a response (change from study baseline).

Results

In total, 149 patients were randomised and 141 completed the study. Statistically significant improvements in peak FEV_1(0-3h) response were observed with each tiotropium Respimat® dose versus placebo (all P < 0.0001). The largest difference from placebo was with tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg (188 mL). Trough FEV₁ and FEV₁ area under the curve (AUC)_(0-3h) responses were greater with each tiotropium Respimat® dose than with placebo (all P < 0.0001), and both were greatest with 5 μg. Peak forced vital capacity (FVC)_(0-3h), trough FVC and FVC AUC_(0-3h) responses, versus placebo, were greatest with tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg (P < 0.0001, P = 0.0012 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Incidence of adverse events was comparable between placebo and all tiotropium Respimat® groups.

Conclusions

Once-daily tiotropium Respimat® add-on to medium-dose ICS improves lung function in symptomatic patients with moderate asthma. Overall, improvements were largest with tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01233284","term_id":"NCT01233284"}}NCT01233284.     

Indacaterol provides 24-hour bronchodilation in COPD: a placebo-controlled blinded comparison with tiotropium

Background

Indacaterol is a novel, inhaled, once-daily, ultra-long-acting β₂-agonist for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This randomized, double-blind study compared the bronchodilator efficacy of indacaterol with that of placebo and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Methods

In an incomplete-block, multi-dose, three-period, crossover design, patients received three of the following four treatments: indacaterol 150 μg, indacaterol 300 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and placebo, each once-daily for 14 days. Each treatment period was separated by a 14-day washout. Study drug was supplied daily by blinded, third party study personnel to maintain blinding of patients and investigators. The primary efficacy variable was trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) at 24 h post-dose after 14 days. The study was powered to demonstrate non-inferiority of indacaterol to tiotropium for this variable.

Results

A total of 169 patients were randomized (mean age 65 years); 153 (90.5%) completed. Trough FEV₁ after 14 days with indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg was statistically and clinically superior to placebo, with differences (95% CI) of 170 (120-220) and 150 (100-200) mL respectively (both p < 0.001). For this endpoint, both doses of indacaterol not only met the criterion for non-inferiority compared with tiotropium, but also achieved numerically higher values, with differences versus tiotropium of 40 and 30 mL for indacaterol 150 and 300 μg, respectively. At 5 min post-dose on Day 1, the mean FEV₁ for both indacaterol doses was significantly higher than placebo (by 120 and 130 mL for indacaterol 150 and 300 μg, respectively; p < 0.001) and tiotropium (by 80 mL for both doses; p < 0.001). Adverse events were reported by similar proportions of patients: 31.4%, 29.5%, 28.3% and 28.5% for indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg, tiotropium and placebo treatments, respectively.

Conclusions

Once-daily indacaterol provided clinically and statistically significant 24-h bronchodilation. Indacaterol was at least as effective as tiotropium, with a faster onset of action (within 5 min) on the first day of dosing. Indacaterol should prove useful in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, for whom treatment with one or more classes of long-acting bronchodilator is recommended.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00615459","term_id":"NCT00615459"}}NCT00615459, EudraCT number: 2007-004071-19     

Characterization of the bronchodilatory dose response to indacaterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using model-based approaches

Background

Indacaterol is a once-daily long-acting inhaled β₂-agonist indicated for maintenance treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The large inter-patient and inter-study variability in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) with bronchodilators makes determination of optimal doses difficult in conventional dose-ranging studies. We considered alternative methods of analysis.

Methods

We utilized a novel modelling approach to provide a robust analysis of the bronchodilatory dose response to indacaterol. This involved pooled analysis of study-level data to characterize the bronchodilatory dose response, and nonlinear mixed-effects analysis of patient-level data to characterize the impact of baseline covariates.

Results

The study-level analysis pooled summary statistics for each steady-state visit in 11 placebo-controlled studies. These study-level summaries encompassed data from 7476 patients at indacaterol doses of 18.75-600 μg once daily, and showed that doses of 75 μg and above achieved clinically important improvements in predicted trough FEV₁ response. Indacaterol 75 μg achieved 74% of the maximum effect on trough FEV₁, and exceeded the midpoint of the 100-140 mL range that represents the minimal clinically important difference (MCID; ≥120 mL vs placebo), with a 90% probability that the mean improvement vs placebo exceeded the MCID. Indacaterol 150 μg achieved 85% of the model-predicted maximum effect on trough FEV₁ and was numerically superior to all comparators (99.9% probability of exceeding MCID). Indacaterol 300 μg was the lowest dose that achieved the model-predicted maximum trough response.The patient-level analysis included data from 1835 patients from two dose-ranging studies of indacaterol 18.75-600 μg once daily. This analysis provided a characterization of dose response consistent with the study-level analysis, and demonstrated that disease severity, as captured by baseline FEV₁, significantly affects the dose response, indicating that patients with more severe COPD require higher doses to achieve optimal bronchodilation.

Conclusions

Comprehensive assessment of the bronchodilatory dose response of indacaterol in COPD patients provided a robust confirmation that 75 μg is the minimum effective dose, and that 150 and 300 μg are expected to provide optimal bronchodilation, particularly in patients with severe disease.     

Efficacy and safety of AZD3199 vs formoterol in COPD: a randomized,double-blind study

Background

We investigated the efficacy and safety of AZD3199, a novel inhaled ultra-LABA, with the main aim of establishing a dose that would maintain 24-hour bronchodilation in patients with COPD.

Methods

Patients (n = 329) were randomized to AZD3199 (200, 400 or 800 μg o.d.), formoterol (9 μg b.i.d.) or placebo via Turbuhaler® in a parallel group study. The primary objective of the study was to compare the clinical efficacy of three doses of AZD3199 inhaled once daily with 9 μg formoterol twice daily and placebo, over a 4-week treatment period in adults with moderate-to-severe COPD. After 4 weeks, peak (0–4 h) and trough (24–26 h) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) were assessed as the primary efficacy outcome variables.

Results

All AZD3199 doses significantly increased mean peak and trough FEV₁ versus placebo (106–171 ml and 97–110 ml increases, respectively), but with no clear dose–response; the level of bronchodilation was comparable to or greater than that achieved with formoterol. Forced vital capacity (FVC) at peak bronchodilation also significantly increased with AZD3199 versus placebo (153–204 ml). COPD symptom scores and reliever use were reduced with AZD3199, while FEV₁ reversibility was unaltered. Adverse events were mild-to-moderate, with no safety concerns identified. Drug exposure was dose-proportional, but lower than predicted from healthy volunteers.

Conclusions

All three doses of AZD3199 produced 24-hour bronchodilation, but with no clear dose–response, suggesting that doses of 200 μg or less may be sufficient to maintain bronchodilation over 24 hours in patients with COPD. No safety concerns were identified. Further studies are required to determine the once-daily AZD3199 dose for COPD.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00929708","term_id":"NCT00929708"}}NCT00929708     

Aclidinium bromide and formoterol fumarate as a fixed-dose combination in COPD: pooled analysis of symptoms and exacerbations from two six-month,multicentre, randomised studies (ACLIFORM and AUGMENT)

Background

The combination of aclidinium bromide, a long-acting anticholinergic, and formoterol fumarate, a long-acting beta₂-agonist (400/12 μg twice daily) achieves improvements in lung function greater than either monotherapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and is approved in the European Union as a maintenance treatment. The effect of this combination on symptoms of COPD and exacerbations is less well established. We examined these outcomes in a pre-specified analysis of pooled data from two 24-week, double-blind, parallel-group, active- and placebo-controlled, multicentre, randomised Phase III studies (ACLIFORM and AUGMENT).

Methods

Patients ≥40 years with moderate to severe COPD (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV₁]/forced vital capacity <70 % and FEV₁ ≥30 % but <80 % predicted normal) were randomised (ACLIFORM: 2:2:2:2:1; AUGMENT: 1:1:1:1:1) to twice-daily aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg or 400/6 μg, aclidinium 400 μg, formoterol 12 μg or placebo via Genuair™/Pressair®. Dyspnoea (Transition Dyspnoea Index; TDI), daily symptoms (EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool [EXACT]-Respiratory Symptoms [E-RS] questionnaire), night-time and early-morning symptoms, exacerbations (Healthcare Resource Utilisation [HCRU] and EXACT definitions) and relief-medication use were assessed.

Results

The pooled intent-to-treat population included 3394 patients. Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg significantly improved TDI focal score versus placebo and both monotherapies at Week 24 (all p < 0.05). Over 24 weeks, significant improvements in E-RS total score, overall night-time and early-morning symptom severity and limitation of early-morning activities were observed with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg versus placebo and both monotherapies (all p < 0.05). The rate of moderate or severe HCRU exacerbations was significantly reduced with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg compared with placebo (p < 0.05) but not monotherapies; the rate of EXACT-defined exacerbations was significantly reduced with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg versus placebo (p < 0.01) and aclidinium (p < 0.05). Time to first HCRU or EXACT exacerbation was longer with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg compared with placebo (all p < 0.05) but not the monotherapies. Relief-medication use was reduced with aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg versus placebo and aclidinium (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg significantly improves 24-hour symptom control compared with placebo, aclidinium and formoterol in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Furthermore, aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg reduces the frequency of exacerbations compared with placebo.

Trial registration

{"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01462942","term_id":"NCT01462942"}}NCT01462942 and {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01437397","term_id":"NCT01437397"}}NCT01437397 (ClinicalTrials.gov)

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-015-0250-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Randomised,double-blind,placebo-controlled crossover study to investigate different dosing regimens of olodaterol delivered via Respimat? in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma

Background

A Phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial comparing the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) time profile after 3 weeks’ treatment with once-daily (QD) or twice-daily (BID) olodaterol (at the same total daily dose) versus placebo delivered via Respimat® in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

Methods

Patients were randomised to different sequences of olodaterol with 2-week washout, either as a total daily dose of 5 μg (5 μg QD [AM] or 2.5 μg BID) or placebo, or 10 μg (10 μg QD [AM] or 5 μg BID) or placebo. Primary end point was FEV₁ area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC_0–24) response (defined as change from study baseline FEV₁) after 3 weeks. Key secondary end points were FEV₁ AUC_0–12 and AUC_12–24 responses.

Results

Two hundred and six patients received treatment. All olodaterol treatments demonstrated statistically significant improvements in FEV₁ AUC_0–24 response at 3 weeks versus placebo (p < 0.0001); adjusted mean treatment difference versus placebo was 0.191 L for olodaterol 2.5 μg BID (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.152, 0.229), 0.150 L for 5 μg QD (95 % CI 0.111, 0.189), 0.228 L for 5 μg BID (95 % CI 0.190, 0.266) and 0.209 L for 10 μg QD (95 % CI 0.170, 0.247). These results were supported by the key secondary end points. Olodaterol 5 μg QD provided numerically lower mean values for 24-h bronchodilation than olodaterol 2.5 μg BID (p = 0.0465), with no statistically significant difference between treatment with olodaterol 10 μg QD and 5 μg BID. No relevant differences in morning and evening peak expiratory flow or Asthma Control Questionnaire scores at 3 weeks were observed between different doses and regimens. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate and comparable between groups.

Conclusions

All doses and dose frequencies provided adequate 24-h bronchodilation superior to placebo. Based on the results of this study, it would be reasonable to include both posologies of 5 μg olodaterol daily (5 μg QD or 2.5 μg BID, both delivered in two puffs per dose from the Respimat® inhaler) in subsequent studies. Further studies are necessary to confirm the optimum dosing regimen in asthma. No safety concerns were identified.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01311661","term_id":"NCT01311661"}}NCT01311661

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-015-0243-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate: the 24-week,randomized, placebo-controlled AUGMENT COPD study

Background

Combining two long-acting bronchodilators with complementary mechanisms of action may provide treatment benefits to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that are greater than those derived from either treatment alone. The efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium bromide, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and formoterol fumarate, a long-acting β₂-agonist, in patients with moderate to severe COPD are presented.

Methods

In this 24-week double-blind study, 1692 patients with stable COPD were equally randomized to twice-daily treatment with FDC aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg (ACL400/FOR12 FDC), FDC aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 6 μg (ACL400/FOR6 FDC), aclidinium 400 μg, formoterol 12 μg, or placebo administered by a multidose dry powder inhaler (Genuair^®/Pressair^®)*. Coprimary endpoints were change from baseline to week 24 in 1-hour morning postdose FEV₁ (FDCs versus aclidinium) and change from baseline to week 24 in morning predose (trough) FEV₁ (FDCs versus formoterol). Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and improvement in Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score at week 24. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

Results

At study end, improvements from baseline in 1-hour postdose FEV₁ were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC or ACL400/FOR6 FDC compared with aclidinium (108 mL and 87 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001). Improvements in trough FEV₁ were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC versus formoterol (45 mL; p = 0.0102), a numerical improvement of 26 mL in trough FEV₁ over formoterol was observed with ACL400/FOR6 FDC. Significant improvements in both SGRQ total and TDI focal scores were observed in the ACL400/FOR12 FDC group at study end (p < 0.0001), with differences over placebo exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of ≥4 points and ≥1 unit, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated, with safety profiles of the FDCs similar to those of the monotherapies.

Conclusions

Treatment with twice-daily aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg FDC provided rapid and sustained bronchodilation that was greater than either monotherapy; clinically significant improvements in dyspnea and health status were evident compared with placebo. Aclidinium/formoterol FDC may be an effective and well tolerated new treatment option for patients with COPD.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01437397","term_id":"NCT01437397"}}NCT01437397.*Registered trademarks of Almirall S.A., Barcelona, Spain; for use within the US as Pressair^® and Genuair^® within all other licensed territories.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-014-0123-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Long-Term Once-Daily Tiotropium Respimat? Is Well Tolerated and Maintains Efficacy over 52 Weeks in Patients with Symptomatic Asthma in Japan: A Randomised,Placebo-Controlled Study

Background

This study assessed the long-term safety and efficacy of tiotropium Respimat, a long-acting inhaled anticholinergic bronchodilator, in asthma, added on to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with or without long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA).

Methods

285 patients with symptomatic asthma, despite treatment with ICS±LABA, were randomised 2:2:1 to once-daily tiotropium 5 μg, tiotropium 2.5 μg or placebo for 52 weeks (via the Respimat SoftMist inhaler) added on to ICS±LABA, in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study (NCT01340209). Primary objective: to describe the long-term safety profile of tiotropium. Secondary end points included: trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) response; peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) response; seven-question Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-7) score.

Results

At Week 52, adverse-event (AE) rates with tiotropium 5 μg, 2.5 μg and placebo were 88.6%, 86.8% and 89.5%, respectively. Commonly reported AEs with tiotropium 5 μg, 2.5 μg and placebo were nasopharyngitis (48.2%, 44.7%, 42.1%), asthma (28.9%, 29.8%, 38.6%), decreased PEFR (15.8%, 7.9%, 21.1%), bronchitis (9.6%, 13.2%, 7.0%), pharyngitis (7.9%, 13.2%, 3.5%) and gastroenteritis (10.5%, 3.5%, 5.3%). In the tiotropium 5 μg, 2.5 μg and placebo groups, 8.8%, 5.3% and 5.3% of patients reported drug-related AEs; 3.5%, 3.5% and 15.8% reported serious AEs. Asthma worsening was the only serious AE reported in more than one patient. At Week 52, adjusted mean trough FEV₁ and trough PEFR responses were significantly higher with tiotropium 5 μg (but not 2.5 μg) versus placebo. ACQ-7 responder rates were higher with tiotropium 5 μg and 2.5 μg versus placebo at Week 24.

Conclusions

The long-term tiotropium Respimat safety profile was comparable with that of placebo Respimat, and associated with mild to moderate, non-serious AEs in patients with symptomatic asthma despite ICS±LABA therapy. Compared with placebo, tiotropium 5 μg, but not 2.5 μg, significantly improved lung function and symptoms, supporting the long-term efficacy of the 5 μg dose.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01340209     

Protective effect of budesonide/formoterol compared with formoterol,salbutamol and placebo on repeated provocations with inhaled AMP in patients with asthma: a randomised,double-blind,cross-over study

Background

The budesonide/formoterol combination is successfully used for fast relief of asthma symptoms in addition to its use as maintenance therapy. The temporarily increased corticosteroid dose during increasing inhaler use for symptom relief is likely to suppress any temporary increase in airway inflammation and may mitigate or prevent asthma exacerbations. The relative contribution of the budesonide and formoterol components to the improved asthma control is unclear.

Methods

The acute protective effect of inhaled budesonide was tested in a model of temporarily increased airway inflammation with repeated indirect airway challenges, mimicking an acute asthma exacerbation. A randomised, double-blind, cross-over study design was used. Asthmatic patients (n = 17, mean FEV₁ 95% of predicted) who previously demonstrated a ≥30% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) after inhaling adenosine 5''-monophosphate (AMP), were challenged on four consecutive test days, with the same dose of AMP (at 09:00, 12:00 and 16:00 hours). Within 1 minute of the maximal AMP-induced bronchoconstriction at 09:00 hours, the patients inhaled one dose of either budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 μg), formoterol (4.5 μg), salbutamol (2 × 100 μg) or placebo. The protective effects of the randomised treatments were assessed by serial lung function measurements over the test day.

Results

In the AMP provocations at 3 and 7 hours after inhalation, the budesonide/formoterol combination provided a greater protective effect against AMP-induced bronchoconstriction compared with formoterol alone, salbutamol and placebo. In addition all three active treatments significantly increased FEV₁ within 3 minutes of administration, at a time when inhaled AMP had induced the 30% fall in FEV₁.

Conclusions

A single dose of budesonide/formoterol provided a greater protective effect against inhaled AMP-induced bronchoconstriction than formoterol alone, both at 3 and at 7 hours after inhalation. The acute protection against subsequent bronchoconstrictor stimuli such as inhaled AMP and the rapid reversal of airway obstruction supports the use of budesonide/formoterol for both relief and prevention in the treatment of asthma.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00272753","term_id":"NCT00272753"}}NCT00272753     

Efficacy and safety of once-daily fluticasone furoate 50 mcg in adults with persistent asthma: a 12-week randomized trial

Background

Fluticasone furoate (FF) is a novel, once-daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) that has been shown to improve lung function vs. placebo in asthma patients. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of FF 50 mcg compared with placebo in asthma patients uncontrolled by non-ICS therapy.

Methods

This 12-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase III study randomized 248 patients (aged ≥12 years) to once-daily FF 50 mcg administered via the ELLIPTA™^a dry powder inhaler or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in pre-dose evening trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁). Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in percentage of rescue-free 24-h periods (powered), evening and morning peak expiratory flow, symptom-free 24-h periods and withdrawals due to lack of efficacy. Other endpoints included Asthma Control Test™, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire and ELLIPTA ease of use questions. Safety was assessed throughout the study.

Results

There was a significant difference in evening trough FEV₁ between FF 50 mcg and placebo (treatment difference: 120 mL; p = 0.012). There was also a significant difference in rescue-free 24-h periods (11.6%; p = 0.004) vs. placebo. There were numerically greater improvements with FF vs. placebo for all remaining secondary endpoints. The incidence of adverse events was lower with FF (31%) than with placebo (38%); few were treatment-related (FF 50 mcg: n = 1, <1%; placebo: n = 4, 3%).

Conclusion

FF 50 mcg once daily significantly improved FEV₁ and percentage of rescue-free 24-h periods experienced over 12 weeks vs. placebo, and was well tolerated.

Trial registration

www.clinicaltrials.gov, registration number: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01436071","term_id":"NCT01436071"}}NCT01436071     

The Tiotropium Safety and Performance in Respimat? (TIOSPIR?) Trial: Spirometry Outcomes

Background

Tiotropium Safety and Performance in Respimat® (TIOSPIR®) compared the safety and efficacy of tiotropium Respimat® and tiotropium HandiHaler® in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A prespecified spirometry substudy compared the lung function efficacy between treatment groups.

Methods

TIOSPIR® was a large-scale, long-term (2.3-year), event-driven, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial of 17,135 patients with COPD. In the spirometry substudy, trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and forced vital capacity (FVC) were measured at baseline and every 24 weeks for the duration of the trial.

Results

The substudy included 1370 patients who received once-daily tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg (n = 461), 2.5 μg (n = 464), or tiotropium HandiHaler® 18 μg (n = 445). Adjusted mean trough FEV₁ (average 24–120 weeks) was 1.285, 1.258, and 1.295 L in the Respimat® 5 μg, 2.5 μg, and HandiHaler® 18 μg groups (difference versus HandiHaler® [95 % CI]: −10 [−38, 18] mL for Respimat® 5 μg and, −37 [−65, −9] mL for Respimat® 2.5 μg); achieving noninferiority to tiotropium HandiHaler® 18 μg for tiotropium Respimat® 5 but not for 2.5 μg (prespecified analysis). Adjusted mean trough FVC was 2.590, 2.544, and 2.593 L in the Respimat® 5 μg, 2.5 μg, and HandiHaler® 18 μg groups. The rates of FEV₁ decline over 24 to 120 weeks were similar for the three treatment arms (26, 40, and 34 mL/year for the tiotropium Respimat® 5-μg, 2.5-μg, and HandiHaler® 18-μg groups). The rate of FEV₁ decline in GOLD I + II patients was greater than in GOLD III + IV patients (46 vs. 23 mL/year); as well as in current versus ex-smokers, in patients receiving combination therapies at baseline versus not, and in those experiencing an exacerbation during the study versus not.

Conclusions

The TIOSPIR® spirometry substudy showed that tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg was noninferior to tiotropium HandiHaler® 18 μg for trough FEV₁, but Respimat® 2.5 μg was not. Tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg provides similar bronchodilator efficacy to tiotropium HandiHaler® 18 μg with comparable rates of FEV₁ decline. The rate of FEV₁ decline varied based on disease severity, with a steeper rate of decline observed in patients with moderate airway obstruction.

Trial registration

{"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01126437","term_id":"NCT01126437"}}NCT01126437.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-015-0269-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

The bioavailability and airway clearance of the steroid component of budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone after inhaled administration in patients with COPD and healthy subjects: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Airway absorption and bioavailability of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) may be influenced by differences in pharmacokinetic properties such as lipophilicity and patient characteristics such as lung function. This study aimed to further investigate and clarify the distribution of budesonide and fluticasone in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by measuring the systemic availability and sputum concentration of budesonide and fluticasone, administered via combination inhalers with the respective long-acting β₂-agonists, formoterol and salmeterol.

Methods

This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, two-way crossover, multicenter study. Following a run-in period, 28 patients with severe COPD (mean age 65 years, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁] 37.5% predicted normal) and 27 healthy subjects (mean age 31 years, FEV₁ 103.3% predicted normal) received two single-dose treatments of budesonide/formoterol (400/12 μg) and salmeterol/fluticasone (50/500 μg), separated by a 4–14-day washout period. ICS concentrations were measured over 10 hours post-inhalation in plasma in all subjects, and over 6 hours in spontaneously expectorated sputum in COPD patients. The primary end point was the area under the curve (AUC) of budesonide and fluticasone plasma concentrations in COPD patients relative to healthy subjects.

Results

Mean plasma AUC values were lower in COPD patients versus healthy subjects for budesonide (3.07 μM·hr versus 6.21 μM·hr) and fluticasone (0.84 μM·hr versus 1.50 μM·hr), and the dose-adjusted AUC (geometric mean) ratios in healthy subjects and patients with severe COPD for plasma budesonide and fluticasone were similar (2.02 versus 1.80; primary end point). In COPD patients, the T_max and the mean residence time in the systemic circulation were shorter for budesonide versus fluticasone (15.5 min versus 50.8 min and 4.41 hrs versus 12.78 hrs, respectively) and C_max was higher (1.08 μM versus 0.09 μM). The amount of expectorated fluticasone (percentage of estimated lung-deposited dose) in sputum over 6 hours was significantly higher versus budesonide (ratio 5.21; p = 0.006). Both treatments were well tolerated.

Conclusion

The relative systemic availabilities of budesonide and fluticasone between patients with severe COPD and healthy subjects were similar. In patients with COPD, a larger fraction of fluticasone was expectorated in the sputum as compared with budesonide.

Trial registration

Trial registration number {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00379028","term_id":"NCT00379028"}}NCT00379028     

Efficacy and safety of once-daily NVA237 in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: the GLOW1 trial

Background

NVA237 is a once-daily dry-powder formulation of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium bromide in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The glycopyrronium bromide in COPD airways clinical study 1 (GLOW1) evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of NVA237 in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Methods

Patients with COPD with a smoking history of ≥ 10 pack-years, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) < 80% and ≥ 30% predicted normal and FEV₁/forced vital capacity < 0.70 were enrolled. Patients were randomized to double-blind treatment with NVA237 50 μg once daily or placebo for 26 weeks with inhaled/intranasal corticosteroids or H₁ antagonists permitted in patients stabilized on them prior to study entry. The primary outcome measure was trough FEV₁ at Week 12.

Results

A total of 822 patients were randomized to NVA237 (n = 552) or placebo (n = 270). Least squares mean (± standard error) trough FEV₁ at Week 12 was significantly higher in patients receiving NVA237 (1.408 ± 0.0105 L), versus placebo (1.301 ± 0.0137 L; treatment difference 108 ± 14.8 mL, p < 0.001). Significant improvements in trough FEV₁ were apparent at the end of Day 1 and sustained through Week 26. FEV₁ was significantly improved in the NVA237 group versus placebo throughout the 24-hour periods on Day 1 and at Weeks 12 and 26, and at all other visits and timepoints. Transition dyspnoea index focal scores and St. George''s Respiratory Questionnaire scores were significantly improved with NVA237 versus placebo at Week 26, with treatment differences of 1.04 (p < 0.001) and-2.81 (p = 0.004), respectively. NVA237 significantly reduced the risk of first moderate/severe COPD exacerbation by 31% (p = 0.023) and use of rescue medication by 0.46 puffs per day (p = 0.005), versus placebo. NVA237 was well tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile, with a low frequency of cardiac and typical antimuscarinic adverse effects.

Conclusions

Once-daily NVA237 was safe and well tolerated and provided rapid, sustained improvements in lung function, improvements in dyspnoea, and health-related quality of life, and reduced the risk of exacerbations and the use of rescue medication.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01005901     

A randomised dose-ranging study of tiotropium Respimat? in children with symptomatic asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids

Background

A considerable number of children with asthma remain symptomatic despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, resulting in significant morbidity, reduced quality of life, increased healthcare costs and lost school days. The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of once-daily tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg, 2.5 μg and 1.25 μg add-on to medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids, with or without a leukotriene modifier, in children aged 6–11 years with symptomatic asthma.

Methods

In this Phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled, incomplete-crossover, dose-ranging study, patients were randomised to receive three of the four treatments evaluated: once-daily tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg, 2.5 μg or 1.25 μg or placebo Respimat®, in the evening during the 12-week (three × 4-week) treatment period.

Results

In total, 76, 74, 75 and 76 patients aged 6–11 years received tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg, 2.5 μg, 1.25 μg and placebo Respimat®, respectively. For the primary end point (peak forced expiratory volume in 1 second measured within 3 hours post-dosing), the adjusted mean responses with tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg (272 mL), 2.5 μg (290 mL) and 1.25 μg (261 mL) were significantly greater than with placebo Respimat® (185 mL; p = 0.0002, p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0011, respectively). The safety and tolerability of all doses of tiotropium Respimat® were comparable with those of placebo Respimat®, with no serious adverse events and no events leading to discontinuation.

Conclusions

Tiotropium Respimat® add-on to medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids, with or without a leukotriene modifier, was efficacious in paediatric patients with symptomatic asthma and had comparable safety and tolerability with placebo Respimat®.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01383499","term_id":"NCT01383499"}}NCT01383499

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-015-0175-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Efficacy and safety of once-daily aclidinium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

The long-term efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide, a novel, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, were investigated in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

In two double-blind, 52-week studies, ACCLAIM/COPD I (n = 843) and II (n = 804), patients were randomised to inhaled aclidinium 200 μg or placebo once-daily. Patients were required to have a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁)/forced vital capacity ratio of ≤70% and FEV₁ <80% of the predicted value. The primary endpoint was trough FEV₁ at 12 and 28 weeks. Secondary endpoints were health status measured by St George''s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and time to first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation.

Results

At 12 and 28 weeks, aclidinium improved trough FEV₁ versus placebo in ACCLAIM/COPD I (by 61 and 67 mL; both p < 0.001) and ACCLAIM/COPD II (by 63 and 59 mL; both p < 0.001). More patients had a SGRQ improvement ≥4 units at 52 weeks with aclidinium versus placebo in ACCLAIM/COPD I (48.1% versus 39.5%; p = 0.025) and ACCLAIM/COPD II (39.0% versus 32.8%; p = 0.074). The time to first exacerbation was significantly delayed by aclidinium in ACCLAIM/COPD II (hazard ratio [HR] 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.01), but not ACCLAIM/COPD I (HR 1.0; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.33; p = 0.9). Adverse events were minor in both studies.

Conclusion

Aclidinium is effective and well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe COPD.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00363896","term_id":"NCT00363896"}}NCT00363896 (ACCLAIM/COPD I) and {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00358436","term_id":"NCT00358436"}}NCT00358436 (ACCLAIM/COPD II).     

The Salford Lung Study protocol: a pragmatic,randomised phase III real-world effectiveness trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

New treatments need to be evaluated in real-world clinical practice to account for co-morbidities, adherence and polypharmacy.

Methods

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), ≥40 years old, with exacerbation in the previous 3 years are randomised 1:1 to once-daily fluticasone furoate 100 μg/vilanterol 25 μg in a novel dry-powder inhaler versus continuing their existing therapy. The primary endpoint is the mean annual rate of COPD exacerbations; an electronic medical record allows real-time collection and monitoring of endpoint and safety data.

Conclusions

The Salford Lung Study is the world’s first pragmatic randomised controlled trial of a pre-licensed medication in COPD.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01551758","term_id":"NCT01551758"}}NCT01551758.