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     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Repeated intranasal TLR7 stimulation reduces allergen responsiveness in allergic rhinitis

Background

Interactions between Th1 and Th2 immune responses are of importance to the onset and development of allergic disorders. A Toll-like receptor 7 agonist such as AZD8848 may have potential as a treatment for allergic airway disease by skewing the immune system away from a Th2 profile.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intranasal AZD8848.

Methods

In a placebo-controlled single ascending dose study, AZD8848 (0.3-600 μg) was given intranasally to 48 healthy subjects and 12 patients with allergic rhinitis ({"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00688779","term_id":"NCT00688779"}}NCT00688779). In a placebo-controlled repeat challenge/treatment study, AZD8848 (30 and 60 μg) was given once weekly for five weeks to 74 patients with allergic rhinitis out of season: starting 24 hours after the final dose, daily allergen challenges were given for seven days ({"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00770003","term_id":"NCT00770003"}}NCT00770003). Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and biomarkers were monitored. During the allergen challenge series, nasal symptoms and lavage fluid levels of tryptase and α₂-macroglobulin, reflecting mast cell activity and plasma exudation, were monitored.

Results

AZD8848 produced reversible blood lymphocyte reductions and dose-dependent flu-like symptoms: 30–100 μg produced consistent yet tolerable effects. Plasma interleukin-1 receptor antagonist was elevated after administration of AZD8848, reflecting interferon production secondary to TLR7 stimulation. At repeat challenge/treatment, AZD8848 reduced nasal symptoms recorded ten minutes after allergen challenge up to eight days after the final dose. Tryptase and α₂-macroglobulin were also reduced by AZD8848.

Conclusions

Repeated intranasal stimulation of Toll-like receptor 7 by AZD8848 was safe and produced a sustained reduction in the responsiveness to allergen in allergic rhinitis.

Trial registration

{"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00688779","term_id":"NCT00688779"}}NCT00688779 and {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00770003","term_id":"NCT00770003"}}NCT00770003 as indicated above.     

Fluticasone impact on airway dendritic cells in smokers: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Myeloid Dendritic cells are key drivers of inflammation in smoke-related lung diseases, whereas plasmacytoid DCs play a crucial role in the defense against infections. Effects of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on airway DCs in smokers are unknown.

Methods

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 45 active cigarette smokers inhaled placebo, fluticasone or fluticasone plus salmeterol twice daily for 4 weeks. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid DCs were analyzed using four-color flow cytometry before and after the inhalation period. In addition, fluticasone effects were tested on T-cell proliferation in co-cultures with blood myeloid DCs from smokers.

Results

Inhalation of fluticasone plus salmeterol, but not fluticasone alone or placebo, reduced endobronchial concentrations of myeloid DCs (median decrease: 24%), macrophages (median decrease: 26%) and neutrophils (median decrease: 76%). In contrast, fluticasone reduced plasmacytoid DC concentrations independently of salmeterol. There were no changes in the expression of function-associated surface molecules on myeloid DC (such as CD1a, Langerin, BDCA-1, CD83 or CCR5) in all groups after treatment. Fluticasone (either alone or in combination with salmeterol) suppressed T-cell proliferation in co-cultures with blood myeloid DCs from smokers.

Conclusions

Resistance to ICS monotherapy in smokers might in part be due to lacking effects on airway myeloid DCs, whereas the increased risk for infections during ICS therapy could be attributable to a reduction in plasmacytoid DCs. Combination therapy of fluticasone with salmeterol is associated with a reduction in airway myeloid DCs, but also airway macrophages and neutrophils.

Trial registration

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00908362","term_id":"NCT00908362"}}NCT00908362) and the European Clinical Trial Database, EudraCT (identifier: 2009-009459-40).     

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.     

Fluticasone furoate: once-daily evening treatment versus twice-daily treatment in moderate asthma

Background

Inhaled corticosteroids are the recommended first-line treatment for asthma but adherence to therapy is suboptimal. The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily (OD) evening and twice-daily (BD) regimens of the novel inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate (FF) in asthma patients.

Methods

Patients with moderate asthma (age ≥ 12 years; pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) 40-85% predicted; FEV₁ reversibility of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 ml) were randomized to FF or fluticasone propionate (FP) regimens in a double-blind, crossover study. Patients were not permitted to have used any ICS for ≥ 8 weeks prior to enrolment and subsequently received doses of FF or FP 200 μg OD, FF or FP 100 μg BD and matching placebo by inhalation for 28 days each. Primary endpoint was Day 28 evening pre-dose (trough) FEV₁; non-inferiority of FF 200 μg OD and FF 100 μg BD was assessed, as was superiority of all active treatment relative to placebo. Adverse events (AEs) and 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion were assessed.

Results

The intent-to-treat population comprised 147 (FF) and 43 (FP) patients. On Day 28, pre-dose FEV₁ showed FF 200 μg OD to be non-inferior (pre-defined limit -110 ml) to FF 100 μg BD (mean treatment difference 11 ml; 95% CI: -35 to +56 ml); all FF and FP regimens were significantly superior to placebo (p ≤ 0.02). AEs were similar to placebo; no serious AEs were reported. Urinary cortisol excretion at Day 28 for FF was lower than placebo (ratios: 200 μg OD, 0.75; 100 μg BD, 0.84; p ≤ 0.02).

Conclusions

FF 200 μg OD in the evening is an efficacious and well tolerated treatment for asthma patients and is not inferior to the same total BD dose.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov; {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00766090","term_id":"NCT00766090"}}NCT00766090.     

Inhaled salmeterol and/or fluticasone alters structure/function in a murine model of allergic airways disease

Background

The relationship between airway structural changes (remodeling) and airways hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is unclear. Asthma guidelines suggest treating persistent asthma with inhaled corticosteroids and long acting β-agonists (LABA). We examined the link between physiological function and structural changes following treatment fluticasone and salmeterol separately or in combination in a mouse model of allergic asthma.

Methods

BALB/c mice were sensitized to intraperitoneal ovalbumin (OVA) followed by six daily inhalation exposures. Treatments included 9 daily nebulized administrations of fluticasone alone (6 mg/ml), salmeterol (3 mg/ml), or the combination fluticasone and salmeterol. Lung impedance was measured following methacholine inhalation challenge. Airway inflammation, epithelial injury, mucus containing cells, and collagen content were assessed 48 hours after OVA challenge. Lungs were imaged using micro-CT.

Results and Discussion

Treatment of allergic airways disease with fluticasone alone or in combination with salmeterol reduced AHR to approximately naüve levels while salmeterol alone increased elastance by 39% compared to control. Fluticasone alone and fluticasone in combination with salmeterol both reduced inflammation to near naive levels. Mucin containing cells were also reduced with fluticasone and fluticasone in combination with salmeterol.

Conclusions

Fluticasone alone and in combination with salmeterol reduces airway inflammation and remodeling, but salmeterol alone worsens AHR: and these functional changes are consistent with the concomitant changes in mucus metaplasia.     

The Tiotropium Safety and Performance in Respimat? Trial (TIOSPIR?), a large scale,randomized, controlled,parallel-group trial-design and rationale

Background

Tiotropium bromide is an effective therapy for COPD patients. Comparing across programs tiotropium Respimat® Soft Mist™ inhaler was at least as efficacious as tiotropium HandiHaler®, however, concerns have been raised about tiotropium’s safety when given via Respimat®.

Methods

The TIOSPIR® trial ({"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01126437","term_id":"NCT01126437"}}NCT01126437) compares the safety and efficacy of tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg once daily (marketed) and 2.5 μg once daily (investigational) with tiotropium HandiHaler® 18 μ once daily (marketed). The hypotheses to be tested are 1). that tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg once daily and Respimat® 2.5 μg once daily are non-inferior to HandiHaler® in terms of all-cause mortality, and 2). that tiotropium Respimat® 5 μg once daily is superior to HandiHaler® in terms of time to first exacerbation. A spirometry substudy evaluates the bronchodilator efficacy. The trial is a randomized, double-blind, double dummy, event-driven, parallel group study. Participants can use any background treatment for COPD except inhaled anticholinergic agents. The study encompasses a wide range of COPD patients, e.g. patients with stable cardiac diseases including arrhythmia can be included. Clinical sites are international and include both primary care as well as specialists.

Results

To date, over 17,000 participants have been randomized from over 1200 sites in 50 countries with an anticipated treatment duration of 2–3 years.

Conclusion

TIOSPIR® will provide precise estimates of the relative safety and efficacy of the Respimat® and HandiHaler® formulations of tiotropium, assess potential dose-dependence of important outcomes and provide information on the clinical epidemiology of COPD in a large international patient cohort.     

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.     

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     

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.     

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.     

V0162 a new long-acting bronchodilator for treatment of chronic obstructive lung diseases: preclinical and clinical results

Background

Long acting bronchodilators are the standard of care in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of V0162, a novel anticholinergic agent with bronchodilator properties, in preclinical models and in patients with COPD.

Methods

Guinea pigs were used to evaluate the impact of V0162 on the acetylcholine or histamine-induced bronchoconstriction. V0162 was also investigated in an allergic asthma model on ovalbumin-sensitized guinea pig. For clinical investigations, healthy volunteers were included in a dose-escalation, randomized, placebo-controlled phase I study to determine the maximal tolerated dose, followed by a randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over phase II study in patients with COPD. V0162 was given via inhalation route. The objectives of the phase I/II study were to assess the safety and efficacy of V0162, in terms of bronchodilation and reduction in hyperinflation.

Results

Preclinical results showed that V0162 was able to prevent bronchoconstriction induced either by acetylcholine or histamine. V0162 reversed the bronchoconstriction and airway inflammation caused by ovalbumin challenge in sensitized guinea pigs. In the healthy volunteers study, 88 subjects were enrolled: 66 received V0162 and 22 received placebo. No particular safety concerns were raised. The maximal tolerated dose was not reached and the dose escalation was stopped at 2400 μg. A total of 20 patients with COPD were then enrolled. All patients received a single-dose of V0162 1600 μg and of placebo in two alternating periods. In COPD patients, V0162 demonstrated a significant increase in FEV₁ compared with placebo (148 ± 137 ml vs. 36 ± 151 ml, p = 0.003). This bronchodilatory effect was corroborated by a reduction in hyperinflation. There was a trend toward dyspnea relief (change in visual analog scale at 22 h, −15.1 ± 26.0 mm vs.- 5.3 ± 28.8 mm with placebo, p = 0.054). No serious adverse events (AEs) were reported. Most common AEs were productive and non-productive cough, dyspnea and pruritus.

Conclusions

V0162 improved pulmonary function and tended to improve dyspnea in patients with COPD over more than 24 h. The slight plasmatic exposure observed might support the good safety profile.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01348555","term_id":"NCT01348555"}}NCT01348555     

Efficacy,safety and tolerability of GSK2190915, a 5-lipoxygenase activating protein inhibitor,in adults and adolescents with persistent asthma: a randomised dose-ranging study

Background

GSK2190915 is a high affinity 5-lipoxygenase-activating protein inhibitor being developed for the treatment of asthma. The objective of this study was to evaluate GSK2190915 efficacy, dose–response and safety in subjects with persistent asthma treated with short-acting beta2-agonists (SABAs) only.

Methods

Eight-week multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, stratified (by age and smoking status), parallel-group, placebo-controlled study in subjects aged ≥12 years with a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) of 50–85% predicted. Subjects (n = 700) were randomised to receive once-daily (QD) oral GSK2190915 (10–300 mg), twice-daily inhaled fluticasone propionate 100 μg, oral montelukast 10 mg QD or placebo. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline (randomisation) in trough (morning pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) FEV₁ at the end of the 8-week treatment period. Secondary endpoints included morning and evening peak expiratory flow, symptom-free days and nights, rescue-free days and nights, day and night-time symptom scores, day and night-time rescue medication use, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, Asthma Control Questionnaire and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores.

Results

For the primary endpoint, there was no statistically significant difference between any dose of GSK2190915 QD and placebo. However, repeated measures sensitivity analysis demonstrated nominal statistical significance for GSK2190915 30 mg QD compared with placebo (mean difference: 0.115 L [95% confidence interval: 0.00, 0.23], p = 0.044); no nominally statistically significant differences were observed with any of the other doses. For the secondary endpoints, decreases were observed in day-time symptom scores and day-time SABA use for GSK2190915 30 mg QD versus placebo (p ≤ 0.05). No dose–response relationship was observed for the primary and secondary endpoints across the GSK2190915 dose range studied; the 10 mg dose appeared to be sub-optimal. GSK2190915 was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in urinary leukotriene E₄. The profile and incidence of adverse events were similar between treatment groups.

Conclusion

Efficacy was demonstrated for GSK2190915 30 mg compared with placebo in day-time symptom scores and day-time SABA use. No additional improvement on efficacy endpoints was gained by administration of GSK2190915 doses greater than 30 mg. GSK2190915 was well-tolerated. These results may support further studies with GSK2190915 30 mg.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01147744","term_id":"NCT01147744"}}NCT01147744.     

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     

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.     

Azithromycin and cough-specific health status in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic cough: a randomised controlled trial

Background

Macrolides reduce exacerbations in patients with COPD. Their effects on health status has not been assessed as primary outcome and is less clear. This study assessed the effects of prophylactic azithromycin on cough-specific health status in COPD-patients with chronic productive cough.

Methods

In this randomised controlled trial 84 patients met the eligibility criteria: age of ≥40 years, COPD GOLD stage ≥2 and chronic productive cough. The intervention-group (n = 42) received azithromycin 250 mg 3 times a week and the control-group (n = 42) received a placebo. Primary outcome was cough-specific health status at 12 weeks, measured with the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ). Secondary outcomes included generic and COPD-specific health status and exacerbations. Changes in adverse events and microbiology were monitored.

Results

Mean age of participants was 68 ± 10 years and mean FEV1 was 1.36 ± 0.47 L. The improvement in LCQ total score at 12 weeks was significantly greater with azithromycin (difference 1.3 ± 0.5, 95% CI 0.3;2.3, p = 0.01) and met the minimal clinically important difference. Similar results were found for the domain scores, and COPD-specific and generic health status questionnaires. Other secondary endpoints were non-significant. No imbalances in adverse events were found.

Conclusions

Prophylactic azithromycin improved cough-specific health status in COPD-patients with chronic productive cough to a clinically relevant degree.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01071161","term_id":"NCT01071161"}}NCT01071161     

The Effects of Orally Administered Beta-Glucan on Innate Immune Responses in Humans,a Randomized Open-Label Intervention Pilot-Study

Rationale

To prevent or combat infection, increasing the effectiveness of the immune response is highly desirable, especially in case of compromised immune system function. However, immunostimulatory therapies are scarce, expensive, and often have unwanted side-effects. β-glucans have been shown to exert immunostimulatory effects in vitro and in vivo in experimental animal models. Oral β-glucan is inexpensive and well-tolerated, and therefore may represent a promising immunostimulatory compound for human use.

Methods

We performed a randomized open-label intervention pilot-study in 15 healthy male volunteers. Subjects were randomized to either the β -glucan (n = 10) or the control group (n = 5). Subjects in the β-glucan group ingested β-glucan 1000 mg once daily for 7 days. Blood was sampled at various time-points to determine β-glucan serum levels, perform ex vivo stimulation of leukocytes, and analyze microbicidal activity.

Results

β-glucan was barely detectable in serum of volunteers at all time-points. Furthermore, neither cytokine production nor microbicidal activity of leukocytes were affected by orally administered β-glucan.

Conclusion

The present study does not support the use of oral β-glucan to enhance innate immune responses in humans.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01727895","term_id":"NCT01727895"}}NCT01727895