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     

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.     

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     

Once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 mcg versus twice daily combination therapies in COPD – mixed treatment comparisons of clinical efficacy

Background

Fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 mcg is a once-daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) treatment approved in the United States, Canada and Europe for the long-term maintenance therapy of COPD. We report data from mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) of once-daily FF/VI against established twice-daily ICS/LABA combination therapies on clinical efficacy outcomes.

Methods

Data from 33 parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ICS/LABAs, of ≥8 weeks’ duration in patients ≥12 years of age with COPD, identified by systematic review, were analysed using covariate-adjusted Bayesian hierarchical models for three efficacy outcomes. Lung function, assessed by change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁), was the outcome of primary interest (n = 28 studies). Secondary objectives were assessment of annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations (n = 15) and patient-reported health status, measured by change from baseline in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total score (n = 20). Overall, 25 different treatments were included in the MTC; we report findings, including probabilities of non-inferiority, for comparisons of once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg with twice-daily fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol (SAL) 500/50 mcg and budesonide (BUD)/formoterol (FORM) 400/12 mcg.

Results

For FEV₁, FF/VI 100/25 mcg demonstrated >99% probability of non-inferiority to FP/SAL 500/50 mcg and BUD/FORM 400/12 mcg using a 50 mL margin. For annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, FF/VI 100/25 mcg demonstrated 73% and 77% probability of non-inferiority to FP/SAL 500/50 mcg and BUD/FORM 400/12 mcg, respectively, using a 10% rate ratio margin. For SGRQ Total score, the corresponding probabilities of non-inferiority were 99% and 98%, respectively, on a 2-unit margin. Significant covariate effects were identified: increased age was associated with deterioration in FEV₁ and reduced exacerbation frequency; shorter study duration was associated with reduced exacerbation frequency.

Conclusions

FF/VI 100/25 mcg was comparable with corresponding doses of FP/SAL and BUD/FORM on lung function and health status outcomes. Non-inferiority on moderate/severe exacerbation rate was not demonstrated to the same degree of confidence, though observed rates were similar. Model limitations include a weak treatment network for the exacerbation analysis and variability across the included studies. Our data support previous RCT findings suggesting that the efficacy of FF/VI 100/25 mcg on lung function and health status in COPD is comparable with twice-daily ICS/LABAs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-015-0184-8) 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.     

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 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.     

Acute bronchodilator responsiveness and health outcomes in COPD patients in the UPLIFT trial

Background

Debate continues as to whether acute bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) predicts long-term outcomes in COPD. Furthermore, there is no consensus on a threshold for BDR.

Methods

At baseline and during the 4-year Understanding Potential Long-term Improvements in Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT^®) trial, patients had spirometry performed before and after administration of ipratropium bromide 80 mcg and albuterol 400 mcg. Patients were split according to three BDR thresholds: ≥12% + ≥200 mL above baseline (criterion A), ≥15% above baseline (criterion B); and ≥10% absolute increase in percent predicted FEV₁ values (criterion C). Several outcomes (pre-dose spirometry, exacerbations, St. George''s Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] total score) were assessed according to presence or absence of BDR in the treatment groups.

Results

5783 of 5993 randomized patients had evaluable pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry at baseline. Mean age (SD) was 64 (8) years, with 75% men, mean post-bronchodilator FEV₁ 1.33 ± 0.44 L (47.6 ± 12.7% predicted) and 30% current smokers. At baseline, 52%, 66%, and 39% of patients had acute BDR using criterion A, B, and C, respectively. The presence of BDR was variable at follow-up visits. Statistically significant improvements in spirometry and health outcomes occurred with tiotropium regardless of the baseline BDR or criterion used.

Conclusions

A large proportion of COPD patients demonstrate significant acute BDR. BDR in these patients is variable over time and differs according to the criterion used. BDR status at baseline does not predict long-term response to tiotropium. Assessment of acute BDR should not be used as a decision-making tool when prescribing tiotropium to patients with COPD.     

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     

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.     

Tolerance to bronchodilation during treatment with long-acting beta-agonists,a randomised controlled trial

Background

Regular use of beta-agonists leads to tolerance to their bronchodilator effects. This can be demonstrated by measuring the response to beta-agonist following bronchoconstriction using methacholine. However most studies have demonstrated tolerance after a period of beta-agonist withdrawal, which is not typical of their use in clinical practice. This study assessed tolerance to the bronchodilator action of salbutamol during ongoing treatment with long-acting beta-agonist.

Methods

Random-order, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. After 1 week without beta-agonists, 13 asthmatic subjects inhaled formoterol 12 μg twice daily or matching placebo for 1 week. Eight hours after the first and last doses subjects inhaled methacholine to produce a 20% fall in FEV₁. Salbutamol 100, 200 and 400 μg (cumulative dose) was then given at 5-minute intervals and FEV₁ was measured 5 minutes after each dose. After a 1 week washout subjects crossed over to the other treatment. Unscheduled use of beta-agonists was not allowed during the study. The main outcome variable was the area under the salbutamol response curve.

Results

The analysis showed a significant time by treatment interaction indicating that the response to salbutamol fell during formoterol therapy compared to placebo. After 1 week of formoterol the area under the salbutamol response curve was 48% (95% confidence interval 28 to 68%) lower than placebo. This reduction in response remained significant when the analyses were adjusted for changes in the pre-challenge FEV₁ and dose of methacholine given (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

The bronchodilator response to salbutamol is significantly reduced in patients taking formoterol. Clinically relevant tolerance to rescue beta-agonist treatment is likely to occur in patients treated with long-acting beta-agonists.     

Health status in the TORCH study of COPD: treatment efficacy and other determinants of change

Background

Little is known about factors that determine health status decline in clinical trials of COPD.

Objectives

To examine health status changes over 3 years in the TORCH study of salmeterol+fluticasone propionate (SFC) vs. salmeterol alone, fluticasone propionate alone or placebo.

Methods

St George''s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) was administered at baseline then every 6 months.

Measurements and Main Results

Data from 4951 patients in 28 countries were available. SFC produced significant improvements over placebo in all three SGRQ domains during the study: (Symptoms -3.6 [95% CI -4.8, -2.4], Activity -2.8 [95% CI -3.9, -1.6], Impacts -3.2 [95% CI -4.3, -2.1]) but the pattern of change over time differed between domains. SGRQ deteriorated faster in patients with Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stages III & IV relative to GOLD stage II (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the relationship between deterioration in SGRQ Total score and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) decline (as % predicted) in men and women. Significantly faster deterioration in Total score relative to FEV₁ % predicted was seen in older patients (≥ 65 years) and there was an age-related change in Total score that was independent of change in FEV₁. The relationship between deterioration in FEV₁ and SGRQ did not differ in different world regions, but patients in Asia-Pacific showed a large improvement in score that was unrelated to FEV₁ change.

Conclusions

In addition to treatment effects, health status changes in clinical trials may be influenced by demographic and disease-related factors. Deterioration in health status appears to be fastest in older persons and those with severe airflow limitation.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00268216","term_id":"NCT00268216"}}NCT00268216     

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).     

Testing Two Different Doses of Tiotropium Respimat? in Cystic Fibrosis: Phase 2 Randomized Trial Results

Background

Tiotropium is a once-daily, long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilator with the potential to alleviate airway obstruction in cystic fibrosis. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2.5 and 5 µg once-daily tiotropium delivered via the Respimat Soft Mist Inhaler vs. placebo in people with cystic fibrosis.

Methods

This phase 2, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group study of tiotropium Respimat as add-on to usual cystic fibrosis maintenance therapy included people with cystic fibrosis with pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) ≥25% predicted. Co-primary efficacy end points were change from baseline in percent-predicted FEV₁ area under the curve from 0 to 4 hours (FEV₁ AUC_0–4h), and trough FEV₁ at the end of week 12.

Findings

A total of 510 subjects with cystic fibrosis aged 5–69 years were randomized. Both doses of tiotropium resulted in significant improvement compared with placebo in the co-primary efficacy end points at the end of week 12 (change from baseline in percent-predicted FEV₁ AUC_0–4h: 2.5 µg: 2.94%, 95% confidence interval 1.19–4.70, p = 0.001; 5 µg: 3.39%, 95% confidence interval 1.67–5.12, p = 0.0001; in percent-predicted trough FEV₁∶2.5 µg: 2.24%, p = 0.2; 5 µg: 2.22%, p = 0.02). There was a greater benefit with tiotropium 5 vs. 2.5 µg. No treatment-related adverse events or unexpected safety findings were observed in patients taking tiotropium.

Conclusions

Tiotropium significantly improved lung function in people with cystic fibrosis. The improvement was greater with the higher dose than the lower dose, with no difference in adverse events.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00737100","term_id":"NCT00737100"}}NCT00737100 EudraCT 2008-001156-43.     

Safety and tolerability of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 mcg and umeclidinium 125 mcg in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a 52-week,randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled study

Background

The long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of UMEC with the long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) vilanterol (UMEC/VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the US and EU. They are not indicated for the treatment of asthma.

Methods

In this 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group safety study (GSK study DB2113359; {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01316887","term_id":"NCT01316887"}}NCT01316887), patients were randomized 2:2:1 to UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg, UMEC 125 mcg, or placebo. Study endpoints included adverse events (AEs), clinical chemistry and hematology parameters, vital signs, 12-lead, and 24-hour Holter electrocardiograms. COPD exacerbations and rescue medication use were assessed as safety parameters; lung function was also evaluated.

Results

The incidence of on-treatment AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), and drug-related AEs was similar between treatment groups (AEs: 52–58%; SAEs: 6–7%; drug-related AEs: 12–13%). Headache was the most common AE in each treatment group (8–11%). AEs associated with the LAMA and LABA pharmacologic classes occurred at a low incidence across treatment groups. No clinically meaningful effects on vital signs or laboratory assessments were reported for active treatments versus placebo. The incidences of atrial arrhythmias with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg were similar to placebo; for UMEC 125 mcg, the incidences of ectopic supraventricular beats, sustained supraventricular tachycardia, and ectopic supraventricular rhythm were ≥2% greater than placebo. With active treatments, COPD exacerbations were fewer (13–15% of patients reporting ≥1 exacerbation) and on average less rescue medication was required (1.6–2.2 puffs/day) versus placebo (24% reporting ≥1 exacerbation, 2.6 puffs/day). Both active treatments improved lung function versus placebo.

Conclusion

UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg and UMEC 125 mcg were well tolerated over 12 months in patients with COPD.     

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     

A randomized controlled trial of vitamin E and selenium on rate of decline in lung function

Background

The intake of nutrients with antioxidant properties is hypothesized to augment antioxidant defenses, decrease oxidant damage to tissues, and attenuate age-related rate of decline in lung function. The objective was to determine whether long-term intervention with selenium and/or vitamin E supplements attenuates the annual rate of decline in lung function, particularly in cigarette smokers.

Methods

The Respiratory Ancillary Study (RAS) tested the single and joint effects of selenium (200 μg/d L-selenomethionine) and vitamin E (400 IU/day all rac-α-tocopheryl acetate) in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. At the end of the intervention, 1,641 men had repeated pulmonary function tests separated by an average of 3 years. Linear mixed-effects regression models estimated the effect of intervention on annual rate of decline in lung function.

Results

Compared to placebo, intervention had no main effect on either forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁) or forced expiratory flow (FEF_25–75). There was no evidence for a smoking by treatment interaction for FEV₁, but selenium attenuated rate of decline in FEF_25–75 in current smokers (P = 0.0219). For current smokers randomized to selenium, annual rate of decline in FEF_25–75 was similar to the annual decline experienced by never smokers randomized to placebo, with consistent effects for selenium alone and combined with vitamin E.

Conclusions

Among all men, there was no effect of selenium and/or vitamin E supplementation on rate of lung function decline. However, current smokers randomized to selenium had an attenuated rate of decline in FEF_25–75, a marker of airflow.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00241865.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-015-0195-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Adverse health consequences in COPD patients with rapid decline in FEV1 - evidence from the UPLIFT trial

Background

The rate of decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) is representative of the natural history of COPD. Sparse information exists regarding the associations between the magnitude of annualised loss of FEV₁ with other endpoints.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of UPLIFT^® trial (four-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of tiotropium 18 μg daily in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], n = 5993). Decline of FEV₁ was analysed with random co-efficient regression. Patients were categorised according to quartiles based on the rate of decline (RoD) in post-bronchodilator FEV_1. The St George''s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, exacerbations and mortality were assessed within each quartile.

Results

Mean (standard error [SE]) post-bronchodilator FEV₁ increased in the first quartile (Q1) by 37 (1) mL/year. The other quartiles showed annualised declines in FEV₁ (mL/year) as follows: Q2 = 24 (1), Q3 = 59 (1) and Q4 = 125 (2). Age, gender, respiratory medication use at baseline and SGRQ did not distinguish groups. The patient subgroup with the largest RoD had less severe lung disease at baseline and contained a higher proportion of current smokers. The percentage of patients with ≥ 1 exacerbation showed a minimal difference from the lowest to the largest RoD, but exacerbation rates increased with increasing RoD. The highest proportion of patients with ≥ 1 hospitalised exacerbation was in Q4 (Q1 = 19.5% [tiotropium], 26% [control]; Q4 = 33.8% [tiotropium] and 33.1% [control]). Time to first exacerbation and hospitalised exacerbation was shorter with increasing RoD. Rate of decline in SGRQ increased in direct proportion to each quartile. The group with the largest RoD had the highest mortality.

Conclusion

Patients can be grouped into different RoD quartiles with the observation of different clinical outcomes indicating that specific (or more aggressive) approaches to management may be needed.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number, {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00144339","term_id":"NCT00144339"}}NCT00144339     

Correlating changes in lung function with patient outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pooled analysis

Background

Relationships between improvements in lung function and other clinical outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are not documented extensively. We examined whether changes in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) are correlated with changes in patient-reported outcomes.

Methods

Pooled data from three indacaterol studies (n = 3313) were analysed. Means and responder rates for outcomes including change from baseline in Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI), St. George''s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores (at 12, 26 and 52 weeks), and COPD exacerbation frequency (rate/year) were tabulated across categories of ΔFEV₁. Also, generalised linear modelling was performed adjusting for covariates such as baseline severity and inhaled corticosteroid use.

Results

With increasing positive ΔFEV₁, TDI and ΔSGRQ improved at all timepoints, exacerbation rate over the study duration declined (P < 0.001). Individual-level correlations were 0.03-0.18, but cohort-level correlations were 0.79-0.95. At 26 weeks, a 100 ml increase in FEV₁ was associated with improved TDI (0.46 units), ΔSGRQ (1.3-1.9 points) and exacerbation rate (12% decrease). Overall, adjustments for baseline covariates had little impact on the relationship between ΔFEV₁ and outcomes.

Conclusions

These results suggest that larger improvements in FEV₁ are likely to be associated with larger patient-reported benefits across a range of clinical outcomes.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00393458","term_id":"NCT00393458"}}NCT00393458, {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00463567","term_id":"NCT00463567"}}NCT00463567, and {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00624286","term_id":"NCT00624286"}}NCT00624286