Efficacy of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine at Completion of Blinded Phase.

BACKGROUND: At interim analysis in a phase 3, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial, the mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy in preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). After emergency use of the vaccine was authorized, the protocol was amended to include an open-label phase. Final analyses of efficacy and safety data from the blinded phase of the trial are reported. METHODS: We enrolled volunteers who were at high risk for Covid-19 or its complications; participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 µg) or placebo, 28 days apart, at 99 centers across the United States. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The data cutoff date was March 26, 2021. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 30,415 participants; 15,209 were assigned to receive the mRNA-1273 vaccine, and 15,206 to receive placebo. More than 96% of participants received both injections, 2.3% had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and the median follow-up was 5.3 months in the blinded phase. Vaccine efficacy in preventing Covid-19 illness was 93.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.0 to 94.8), with 55 confirmed cases in the mRNA-1273 group (9.6 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 7.2 to 12.5) and 744 in the placebo group (136.6 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 127.0 to 146.8). The efficacy in preventing severe disease was 98.2% (95% CI, 92.8 to 99.6), with 2 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 106 in the placebo group, and the efficacy in preventing asymptomatic infection starting 14 days after the second injection was 63.0% (95% CI, 56.6 to 68.5), with 214 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 498 in the placebo group. Vaccine efficacy was consistent across ethnic and racial groups, age groups, and participants with coexisting conditions. No safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The mRNA-1273 vaccine continued to be efficacious in preventing Covid-19 illness and severe disease at more than 5 months, with an acceptable safety profile, and protection against asymptomatic infection was observed. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.).

Efficacy and Safety of Inhaled Glycopyrronium Bromide in COPD: A Randomized, Parallel Group, Dose-Ranging Study (GLIMMER).

This Phase II, randomized, parallel group study was conducted as part of US regulatory requirements to identify the most appropriate dose of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium bromide (GB) for use in a single-inhaler triple-therapy combination with the inhaled corticosteroid beclomethasone dipropionate plus the long-acting ß2-agonist formoterol fumarate. Eligible subjects were adults with COPD and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 40-80% predicted. Subjects were randomized to receive inhaled double-blind GB 6.25, 12.5, 25 or 50 µg or placebo, all twice daily (BID), or open-label tiotropium 18 µg once daily for six weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of GB versus placebo in terms of FEV1 area under the curve between 0 and 12 h at Week 6. Of 733 subjects randomized, 682 (93.0%) completed the study. For the primary endpoint, all GB doses were superior to placebo (p < 0.05), with a dose-response up to 25 µg BID, and 25 and 50 µg BID both superior to 6.25 µg BID (p < 0.05). Results for the secondary spirometry endpoints were consistent with the primary endpoint. Overall, the efficacy of GB 25 and 50 µg BID was broadly consistent with that of tiotropium. The incidence of adverse events, both overall and for the most common preferred terms, was low and similar in all treatment groups, including placebo (overall, 22.3-29.3%). Based on the totality of the efficacy and safety data, the optimal GB dose is 25 µg BID.

Benefits of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI) in improving lung function and reducing exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD: a pooled analysis of the PINNACLE studies.

BACKGROUND: The Phase III PINNACLE studies assessed the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI), a dual long-acting bronchodilator for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here we present a pre-specified pooled analysis of PINNACLE-1, PINNACLE-2, and PINNACLE-4. METHODS: PINNACLE-1, -2, and -4 were multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, with no requirement for exacerbation history or a high symptom burden. Patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 µg, glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 18 µg, formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 µg, or placebo MDI, twice-daily for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint of the pooled analysis was the change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at week 24. Secondary endpoints included COPD exacerbations and clinically important deterioration (CID). Adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: The pooled intent-to-treat population included 4983 patients; of these, 61.9% had a COPD assessment test (CAT) score ≥15, and 25.0% had experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the past year. At week 24, GFF MDI improved morning pre-dose trough FEV1 versus GP MDI (least squares mean [LSM] difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 59 mL [43, 75]), FF MDI (65 mL [48, 81]), and placebo MDI (146 mL [125, 166]); all p < 0.0001. GFF MDI reduced the risk of a moderate/severe exacerbation by 18% (p = 0.0168), 15% (p = 0.0628), and 28% (p = 0.0012) compared with GP MDI, FF MDI, and placebo MDI, respectively. In general, exacerbation risk reduction with GFF MDI versus comparators was greater in subgroups of symptomatic patients (CAT ≥15) and those who had an exacerbation history, than in the pooled intent-to-treat population. The risk of CID was also lower with GFF MDI versus GP MDI (23% decrease), FF MDI (17%), and placebo MDI (49%); all p < 0.0001. All treatments were well tolerated, with no unexpected safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis of the PINNACLE studies demonstrated that GFF MDI improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations compared with monocomponents and placebo in patients with COPD. Exacerbation reductions with GFF MDI versus comparators were generally greater in patients with higher symptom burden and those with exacerbation history. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01854645, NCT01854658, and NCT02343458. Registered 13 May 2013 (NCT01854645, NCT01854658) and 6 January 2015 (NCT02343458).

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy Study of Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler Relative to Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Dry Powder Inhaler in COPD.

INTRODUCTION: Glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, is the only approved fixed-dose combination long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) delivered via MDI. Direct comparisons of GFF MDI versus other LAMA/LABAs have not previously been performed. We assessed the efficacy and safety of GFF MDI relative to umeclidinium/vilanterol dry powder inhaler (UV DPI) in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: In this phase IIIb randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, 24-week study, patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 µg (equivalent to glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate 14.4/10 µg; two inhalations per dose, twice-daily; n = 559) or UV DPI 62.5/25 µg (one inhalation, once-daily; n = 560). Primary endpoints were change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and peak change from baseline in FEV1 within 2 h post-dose, both over 24 weeks. Additional lung function, symptom and safety endpoints were also assessed. RESULTS: For the primary endpoints, GFF MDI was non-inferior to UV DPI (using a margin of - 50 mL) for peak FEV1 (least squares mean [LSM] difference - 3.4 mL, 97.5% confidence interval [CI] - 32.8, 25.9) but not for trough FEV1 (LSM difference - 87.2 mL; - 117.0, - 57.4). GFF MDI was nominally superior to UV DPI for onset of action (p < 0.0001) and was nominally non-inferior to UV DPI for all symptom endpoints (Transition Dyspnea Index focal score, Early Morning/Night-Time Symptoms COPD instrument scores, and COPD Assessment Test score). Exacerbation and safety findings were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Over 24 weeks of treatment, GFF MDI was non-inferior to UV DPI for peak FEV1, but not for morning pre-dose trough FEV1. GFF MDI had a faster onset of action versus UV DPI. There were no clinically meaningful differences between treatments in symptom endpoints. Both treatments were well tolerated with similar safety profiles. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03162055 (Clinicaltrials.gov) FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Cardiovascular safety of revefenacin, a once-daily, lung-selective, long-acting muscarinic antagonist for nebulized therapy of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Evaluation in phase 3 clinical trials.

The cardiovascular safety of revefenacin, an anticholinergic indicated for the maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD), was evaluated in phase 3 trials in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. No clinically meaningful changes in 12-lead electrocardiogram recordings were observed with up to 52 weeks of once-daily revefenacin 88 or 175 µg. In a pooled analysis of Studies 0126 and 0127, the incidence of prolonged QT interval corrected for heart rate using the Fridericia correction formula (QTcF; >450 msec) for revefenacin 88 µg (n = 23, 5.6%) and revefenacin 175 µg (n = 23, 5.9%) was similar to that for placebo (n = 22, 5.3%). In Study 0128, the incidence of prolonged QTcF was similar in the revefenacin 175 µg (n = 25, 7.7%) and tiotropium (n = 26, 7.3%) groups and lower in the revefenacin 88 µg (n = 15, 4.2%) group. There were four major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in Study 0126 (one, two, and one in the placebo, revefenacin 88 µg, and revefenacin 175 µg groups, respectively), no MACEs in Study 0127 and 26 MACEs in Study 0128 (9, 10 and 7 in the revefenacin 88 µg, revefenacin 175 µg and tiotropium groups, respectively). In Study 0128, only one MACE was considered possibly/probably related to revefenacin (atrial fibrillation in the revefenacin 175 µg group). Thus, revefenacin may provide beneficial nebulized therapy for patients with COPD without further elevating their risk of cardiovascular events.

Improvements in Lung Function with Nebulized Revefenacin in the Treatment of Patients with Moderate to Very Severe COPD: Results from Two Replicate Phase III Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Revefenacin, a novel, lung-selective, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, has been developed for nebulized therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We present the results of replicate Phase III efficacy and safety studies of revefenacin in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. METHODS: In 2 double-blind, parallel-group studies, (Study 0126 and Study 0127), patients ≥ 40 years old were randomized to revefenacin 88 µg, revefenacin 175 µg or placebo administered once daily by standard jet nebulizer for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was 24-hour trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) on day 85. Secondary efficacy endpoints included overall treatment effect (OTE) on trough FEV1 and peak FEV1 (0-2 hours after first dose). Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: At day 85, revefenacin 88 µg and 175 µg improved trough FEV1 versus placebo in Study 0126 (by 79 mL [p=0.0003] and 146 mL [p<0.0001]) and Study 0127 (by 160 mL and 147 mL; both p<0.0001). Compared with placebo, pooled data of revefenacin 88 µg and 175 µg increased OTE trough FEV1 by 115 mL and 142 mL (both p<0.001) and increased peak FEV1 by 127 mL and 129 mL (both p<0.0001). Revefenacin 175 µg demonstrated greater improvements in FEV1 in concomitant long-acting beta2-agonist patients and in more severe patients than revefenacin 88 µg. Adverse events were minor. CONCLUSION: Revefenacin, administered once daily for 12 weeks to patients with moderate to very severe COPD, demonstrated clinically significant improvements in trough FEV1 and OTE FEV1. Revefenacin was generally well tolerated with no major safety concerns.

Randomized dose-finding study of batefenterol via dry powder inhaler in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Batefenterol is a novel bifunctional muscarinic antagonist ß2-agonist in development for COPD. The primary objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active comparator, Phase IIb study was to model the dose-response of batefenterol and select a dose for Phase III development. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥40 years with COPD and FEV1 ≥30% and ≤70% predicted normal were randomized equally to batefenterol 37.5, 75, 150, 300, or 600 µg, placebo, or umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 µg once daily. The primary and secondary endpoints were weighted-mean FEV1 over 0-6 hours post-dose and trough FEV1, analyzed by Bayesian and maximum likelihood estimation Emax of dose-response modeling, respectively, on day 42. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population (N=323), all batefenterol doses demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvements from baseline vs placebo in the primary and secondary endpoints (191.1-292.8 and 182.2-244.8 mL, respectively), with a relatively flat dose-response. In the subgroup reversible to salbutamol, there were greater differences between batefenterol doses. Lung function improvements with batefenterol ≥150 µg were comparable with those with UMEC/VI. Batefenterol was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Batefenterol 300 µg may represent the optimal dose for Phase III studies.

Correct use and ease of use of a placebo dry powder inhaler in subjects with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Correct use and ease of use of a placebo dry powder inhaler was evaluated in two single-arm, United States-multicenter, phase-IV studies in adults with asthma ( n = 259) or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; n = 278) who were receiving maintenance inhaler therapy. Subjects demonstrating correct placebo inhaler use within three attempts at screening were instructed to take once-daily inhalations from the inhaler for 28 ± 2 days (continuing usual maintenance), followed by randomization to complete one of two versions of an ease-of-use questionnaire and reassessment for correct inhaler use. At study end, 96% asthma/93% COPD subjects rated the placebo inhaler as "easy" or "very easy" to use while demonstrating correct use. Furthermore, 99% asthma/99% COPD subjects indicated it was "easy" or "very easy" to determine number of doses remaining, and 81%/84%, respectively, indicated they would be "likely" or "very likely" to request their current medication in the inhaler, if available. Adverse event (AE) rates were 12% asthma/15% COPD, most frequently headache (3%/3%). Treatment-related AEs were reported in one subject with asthma (cough) and four subjects with COPD (cough, n = 3; back pain, n = 1). At study end, most subjects with asthma or COPD operated the placebo inhaler correctly and found it easy to use.

An Open-Label Study Evaluating the Performance of the Dose Indicator in a Metered Dose Inhaler Delivering Glycopyrrolate and Formoterol Fumarate in Patients with Moderate-to-Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: GFF MDI is a glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combination metered dose inhaler formulated using co-suspension delivery technology. This open-label, single-arm multicenter study (NCT02268396) evaluated the accuracy, reliability, and functionality of the GFF MDI AeroCount® dose indicator when used by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study enrolled subjects (40-80 years of age) with an established clinical history (≥6 months) of COPD, who completed an electronic diary twice daily to record study-drug administration time, the number of actuations used, and pre- and post-dose dose indicator readings. The primary endpoint was the percentage of devices for which the number of subject-reported actuations was consistent (±20 actuations) with the dose indicator-based actuation count (equal to 130 minus the dose indicator reading) at the end of the treatment period (4 weeks). Safety was monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: A total of 138 subjects with moderate-to-very severe COPD (50.7% male; mean [standard deviation (SD)] age 62.1 [8.3] years) were enrolled and treated. Subject-reported actuation count and dose indicator-based actuation counts were consistent for 96.4% (132/137) of devices at the end of the treatment period (4 weeks) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and for all devices in the per-protocol (PP) population. The mean (SD) dose indicator-based actuation and subject-reported actuation counts in the ITT population (n = 137) were 113.4 (18.9) and 117.0 (19.0), respectively, with a mean (SD) difference of 3.6 (7.9). The mean (SD) dose indicator-based actuation and subject-reported actuation counts in the PP population (n = 112) were 116.8 (8.7) and 119.7 (8.1), respectively. There were no unexpected safety findings. CONCLUSIONS: This study supported the accuracy, reliability, and utility of the dose indicator integrated into the GFF MDI device when used by patients with COPD.

Safety and Efficacy of Remimazolam Compared With Placebo and Midazolam for Moderate Sedation During Bronchoscopy.

BACKGROUND: While the complexity of flexible bronchoscopy has increased, standard options for moderate sedation medications have not changed in three decades. There is a need to improve moderate sedation while maintaining safety. Remimazolam was developed to address shortcomings of current sedation strategies. METHODS: A prospective, double-blind, randomized, multicenter, parallel group trial was performed at 30 US sites. The efficacy and safety of remimazolam for sedation during flexible bronchoscopy were compared with placebo and open-label midazolam. RESULTS: The success rates were 80.6% in the remimazolam arm, 4.8% in the placebo arm (P < .0001), and 32.9% in the midazolam arm. Bronchoscopy was started sooner in the remimazolam arm (mean, 6.4 ± 5.82 min) compared with placebo (17.2 ± 4.15 min; P < .0001) and midazolam (16.3 ± 8.60 min). Time to full alertness after the end of bronchoscopy was significantly shorter in patients treated with remimazolam (median, 6.0 min; 95% CI, 5.2-7.1) compared with those treated with placebo (13.6 min; 95% CI, 8.1-24.0; P = .0001) and midazolam (12.0 min; 95% CI, 5.0-15.0). Remimazolam registered superior restoration of neuropsychiatric function compared with placebo and midazolam. Safety was comparable among all three arms, and 5.6% of the patients in the remimazolam group had serious treatment-emergent adverse events as compared with 6.8% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam administered under the supervision of a pulmonologist was effective and safe for moderate sedation during flexible bronchoscopy. In an exploratory analysis, it demonstrated a shorter onset of action and faster neuropsychiatric recovery than midazolam.

Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Tiotropium/Olodaterol in Maintenance-Naïve Patients with Moderate Symptomatic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Appropriate timing for dual bronchodilator therapy initiation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management is uncertain. Combination therapy is recommended as step-up from monotherapy or first-line treatment in patients with persistent symptoms. In this setting, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) demonstrated improved lung function and reduced rescue medication use over tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO). This subgroup analysis explored efficacy differences between these combinations in patients naïve to COPD maintenance therapy before study entry. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of an 8-week, randomized, open-label, assessor-blind, two-period crossover study (204990; NCT02799784) comparing UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg and TIO/OLO 5/5 mcg, focused on maintenance-naïve (MN) patients with moderate COPD and persistent symptoms (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score ≥ 2). Change from baseline (CFB) in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), percentage of FEV1 responders (CFB ≥ 100 ml), rescue medication use and safety were evaluated. RESULTS: The MN population comprised 63% of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (148/236 patients) and had similar baseline demographics. At week 8, adjusted mean (standard error) improvements in trough FEV1 from baseline were clinically meaningful for both combinations (UMEC/VI: 167 [17] ml; TIO/OLO 110 [18] ml; adjusted mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 57 [23-92] ml; p = 0.001; %CFB: 11 vs. 8%). Proportion of FEV1 responders was greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO at week 8 (60 vs. 42%; odds ratio [95% CI] 1.90 [1.12-3.22]; p = 0.018). Reduction in rescue medication use was 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.34) puffs/day greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO over weeks 1-8 (p = 0.003). Adverse events incidence was similar (UMEC/VI: 24%; TIO/OLO: 29%). CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight that the efficacy difference between UMEC/VI and TIO/OLO demonstrated in the ITT population is maintained in MN patients. Greater lung function improvements with UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO were accompanied by symptom improvements, as reflected in a significantly lower need for supplemental rescue medication. FUNDING: GSK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02799784.

A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the ELLIPTA and HandiHaler Dry Powder Inhalers in Patients With COPD: Inhaler-Specific Attributes and Overall Patient Preference.

This randomised, open-label, cross-over, placebo-containing inhaler study assessed patient preference indicators for ELLIPTA and HandiHaler dry powder inhalers in patients with COPD (NCT02786927; GSK identifier: 204983). The primary objective of this study was to assess patient preference between ELLIPTA and HandiHaler based on the number of steps needed to use the inhaler. Eligible patients ≥40 years of age with COPD were randomised 1:1 to receive their current COPD medication plus a placebo-containing ELLIPTA or HandiHaler inhaler once daily for 7 ± 2 days (treatment period 1); this was followed by a 7 ± 2-day placebo treatment with the alternative inhaler. A 5-item questionnaire assessed inhaler-related patient preferences. A total of 212 patients (mean age, 65.1 years) were enrolled at 22 US sites; 73% had a COPD duration ≥5 years. Median (range) exposure was 8 ( 5 , 13 ) days for ELLIPTA and 8 ( 1 , 16) days for HandiHaler. Significantly more patients preferred ELLIPTA to HandiHaler in terms of the number of steps to use and all secondary attributes (size, comfort of the mouthpiece, remaining doses, and ease of use of the two inhalers; all p < 0.001). Similar results were observed irrespective of the order of inhaler use. Eighteen patients (8%) reported at least one AE and two (<1%) patients reported four non-fatal SAEs; none were related to the study treatment. Patient attitude toward a particular inhaler and their experiences in using it can affect adherence to therapy, which can in turn strongly influence effectiveness of inhaled medications. This study uses a robust methodology to assess patient preference.

Comparative Efficacy of Once-Daily Umeclidinium/Vilanterol and Tiotropium/Olodaterol Therapy in Symptomatic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Study.

INTRODUCTION: We report the results of the first direct comparison of the once-daily fixed-dose long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) combinations umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) and tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) in patients with COPD. METHODS: This was a randomized, two-period crossover open-label study in symptomatic patients with COPD [age 40 years or older, postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of 70% or less and 50% or more of predicted normal values, and modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale score of 2 or greater] not receiving inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Patients were randomized to receive UMEC/VI (62.5/25 µg once daily) via a multidose dry powder inhaler (ELLIPTA) followed by TIO/OLO (5/5 µg once daily) via a soft mist inhaler (Respimat), each for 8 weeks with an interim 3-week washout or vice versa. The primary end point was the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 8 with a noninferiority margin of - 50 mL in the per-protocol (PP) population. The incidence of adverse events was also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 236 patients (mean age 64.4 years, 60% male) were included in the intent-to-treat population and 227 were included in the PP population. UMEC/VI treatment was noninferior in the PP population and superior in the intent-to-treat population to TIO/OLO treatment with regard to trough FEV1 at week 8 [FEV1 change from baseline 180 mL vs 128 mL; difference 52 mL (95% confidence interval 28-77 mL); p < 0.001]. Patients receiving UMEC/VI had twofold increased odds of experiencing a clinically meaningful increase (100 mL or more) from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 8 compared with patients receiving TIO/OLO (odds ratio 2.05; 95% confidence interval 1.34-3.14). Adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the UMEC/VI group and in 31% of patients in the TIO/OLO group. CONCLUSION: In this first direct comparison of two once-daily fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations, superiority was observed for the primary end point of trough FEV1 at week 8 with UMEC/VI compared with TIO/OLO in patients with symptomatic COPD. Both treatments had similar safety profiles. These findings confirm the results of previous indirect LAMA/LABA comparisons, and show that an efficacy gradient exists within the LAMA/LABA class. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02799784. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

24-h bronchodilation and inspiratory capacity improvements with glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate via co-suspension delivery technology in COPD.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may vary throughout the day and it is important that therapeutic approaches provide 24-h symptom control. We report the results of two phase IIIb crossover studies, PT003011 and PT003012, investigating the 24-h lung function profile of GFF MDI (glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate 18/9.6 µg delivered using innovative co-suspension delivery technology) administered twice daily. METHODS: Patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease received 4 weeks' treatment with each of GFF MDI, placebo MDI, and open-label tiotropium (PT003011 only). Lung function was assessed over 24 h on day 29 of each treatment period. The primary outcome was forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (FEV1AUC0-24). Other outcomes included change from baseline in average daily rescue medication use over the treatment period. In addition, we conducted a post-hoc analysis of data pooled from both studies to further characterize the effect of GFF MDI on inspiratory capacity. RESULTS: GFF MDI treatment significantly increased FEV1AUC0-24 versus placebo in studies PT003011 (n = 75) and PT003012 (n = 35) on day 29 (both studies p < 0.0001), with similar improvements in FEV1AUC versus placebo for hours 0-12 and 12-24. In PT003011, improvements with GFF MDI versus tiotropium in FEV1AUC were greater during hours 12-24 compared to 0-12 h. GFF MDI treatment also resulted in a significant reduction in rescue medication use versus placebo (-0.84 [p<0.0001] and -1.11 [p=0.0054] puffs/day in PT003011 and PT003012, respectively), and versus tiotropium in PT003011 (-0.44 [p=0.017] puffs/day). A post-hoc pooled analysis showed patients treated with GFF MDI were more likely to achieve a >15% increase from baseline in inspiratory capacity than patients treated with placebo or tiotropium (72.1%, 19.0% and 47.0% of patients, respectively after the evening dose on day 29). There were no significant safety/tolerability findings. CONCLUSIONS: GFF MDI significantly improved 24-h lung function versus placebo in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, with similar benefits in the second 12-h period compared to the first, supporting twice-daily dosing of GFF MDI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pearl Therapeutics, Inc.; www.clinicaltrials.gov ; NCT02347072 and NCT02347085 . Registered 21 January 2015.

Efficacy and Safety of Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Metered Dose Inhaler Formulated Using Co-Suspension Delivery Technology in Patients With COPD.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) combinations are a treatment option for patients with COPD who continue to have symptoms despite treatment with a LAMA or a LABA alone. The Efficacy and Safety of PT003, PT005, and PT001 in Subjects with Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD (PINNACLE-1) (NCT01854645) and the Multi-Center Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of PT003, PT005, and PT001 in Subjects with Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD (PINNACLE-2) (NCT01854658) trials investigated the efficacy and safety of a novel glycopyrrolate [GP]/formoterol [FF] 18/9.6-µg (GFF) metered dose inhaler (MDI) formulated using the Co-Suspension Delivery Technology in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. METHODS: These two phase III trials took place over 24 weeks and were randomized, double blind, and placebo controlled; 2,103 and 1,615 patients (40-80 years of age), respectively, were randomized. Patients received GFF MDI, GP MDI 18 µg, FF MDI 9.6 µg, or placebo MDI (all twice daily), or tiotropium 18 µg dry powder inhaler (once daily in PINNACLE-1 only [open-label active comparator]). Efficacy and safety were assessed. RESULTS: At week 24, differences in change from baseline in the morning predose trough FEV1 for GFF MDI vs placebo MDI, GP MDI, and FF MDI were 150 mL, 59 mL, and 64 mL in PINNACLE-1 (all P < .0001) and 103 mL, 54 mL, and 56 mL in PINNACLE-2 (all P < .001), respectively. There were no significant safety findings (incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment arms). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that GFF MDI 18/9.6 µg demonstrated superiority over placebo and monocomponent MDIs and was well tolerated, thus providing an additional treatment option for patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01854645 and No. NCT01854658; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Immunogenicity of AS03-adjuvanted and non-adjuvanted trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines in elderly adults: A Phase 3, randomized trial and post-hoc correlate of protection analysis.

In this study we describe the immunogenicity results from a subset of older people (N = 5187) who participated in a Phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded trial of AS03-TIV versus TIV (Fluarix™) (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00753272). Participants received one dose of AS03-TIV or TIV in each study year and antibody titers against the vaccine strains were assessed using hemagglutination-inhibition (HI) assay at 21 d and 180 d post-vaccination in each vaccine group in the 2008/09 (Year 1) and 2009/10 (Year 2) influenza seasons. Manufacturing consistency of 3 lots of AS03-TIV for HI antibody responses in Year 1 was a co-primary objective. In a post-hoc analysis, a statistical regression model included 4830 subjects in whom immunogenicity and laboratory-confirmed attack rate data were available; the analysis was performed to assess HI antibody titers against A/H3N2 as a correlate of protection for laboratory-confirmed A/H3N2 influenza. AS03-TIV and TIV elicited strong HI antibody responses against each vaccine strain 21 d post-vaccination in both years. The manufacturing consistency of 3 lots of AS03-TIV was demonstrated. In both years and each vaccine group, HI antibody responses were lower for A/H1N1 than the other vaccine strains. Day 180 seroconversion rates (proportion with ≥4-fold increase in titer compared with pre-vaccination titer) in Year 1 in the AS03-TIV and TIV groups, respectively, were 87.7% and 74.1% for A/H3N2, 69.7% and 59.6% for influenza B, and 58.3% and 47.4% for A/H1N1. The post-hoc statistical model based on A/H3N2 attack rates and HI antibody titers estimated that a 4-fold increase in post-vaccination titers against A/H3N2 was associated with a 2-fold decrease in the odds of A/H3N2 infection.

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily glycopyrrolate in patients with stable, symptomatic COPD with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation: the GEM1 study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to confirm the efficacy and safety of twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, in patients with stable, symptomatic, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation. METHODS: The GEM1 study was a 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study that randomized patients with stable, symptomatic COPD with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation to twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg or placebo (1:1) via the Neohaler(®) device. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of glycopyrrolate versus placebo in terms of forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve between 0 and 12 hours post morning dose at week 12. Other outcomes included additional spirometric end points, transition dyspnea index, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, rescue medication use, and symptoms reported by patients via electronic diary. Safety was also assessed during the study. RESULTS: Of the 441 patients randomized (glycopyrrolate, n=222; placebo, n=219), 96% of patients completed the planned treatment phase. Glycopyrrolate demonstrated statistically significant (P<0.001) improvements in lung function versus placebo. Glycopyrrolate showed statistically significant improvement in the transition dyspnea index focal score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, COPD Assessment Test score, rescue medication use, and daily total symptom score versus placebo at week 12. Safety was comparable between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Significant improvement in lung function, dyspnea, COPD symptoms, health status, and rescue medication use suggests that glycopyrrolate is a safe and effective treatment option as maintenance bronchodilator in patients with stable, symptomatic COPD with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation.

A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 µg compared with tiotropium 18 µg in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: The long-acting muscarinic antagonists umeclidinium (UMEC) and tiotropium (TIO) are approved once-daily maintenance therapies for COPD. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of UMEC versus TIO in COPD. METHODS: This was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to UMEC 62.5 µg plus placebo or TIO 18 µg plus placebo. The primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at day 85 (non-inferiority margin -50 mL; per-protocol [PP] population). Other end points included weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 and 12-24 hours post-dose. Patient-reported outcomes comprised Transition Dyspnea Index score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and COPD Assessment Test score. Adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 1,017 patients were randomized to treatment. In the PP population, 489 and 487 patients received UMEC and TIO, respectively. In the PP population, change from baseline in trough FEV1 was greater with UMEC versus TIO at day 85, meeting non-inferiority and superiority margins (difference: 59 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 29-88; P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat analysis of trough FEV1 at day 85 (53 mL, 95% CI: 25-81; P<0.001). Improvements in weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 hours post-dose at day 84 were similar with UMEC and TIO but significantly greater with UMEC versus TIO over 12-24 hours post-dose (70 mL; P=0.015). Clinically meaningful improvements in Transition Dyspnea Index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire were observed with both treatments at all time points. No differences were observed between UMEC and TIO in patient-reported outcomes. Overall incidences of adverse events were similar for UMEC and TIO. CONCLUSION: UMEC 62.5 µg demonstrated superior efficacy to TIO 18 µg on the primary end point of trough FEV1 at day 85. Safety profiles were similar for both treatments.

The 24-h FEV1 time profile of olodaterol once daily via Respimat® and formoterol twice daily via Aerolizer® in patients with GOLD 2-4 COPD: results from two 6-week crossover studies.

ABSTRACT: These studies evaluated the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) profile of once-daily (QD) olodaterol compared to placebo and twice-daily (BID) formoterol in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In two replicate, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, four-way crossover studies, patients received olodaterol 5 and 10 µg QD, formoterol 12 µg BID, or placebo for 6 weeks in addition to usual-care background maintenance therapy. Co-primary end points were FEV1 area under the curve from 0-12 h (AUC0-12) response (change from baseline) and FEV1 AUC from 12-24 h (AUC12-24) response after 6 weeks, with FEV1 AUC from 0-24 h response identified as a key secondary end point. Other secondary end points included FEV1 AUC from 0-3 h and trough FEV1 responses, as well as corresponding forced vital capacity responses. With both olodaterol doses, FEV1 increased to near-maximal 30 min post-morning dose, which was sustained over 24 h. FEV1 also increased within 30 min post-morning dose of formoterol and was sustained over 12 h; the second formoterol dose resulted in a further increase, sustained for an additional 12 h. FEV1 AUC0-12 and AUC12-24 responses with both QD olodaterol doses and BID formoterol were significantly greater than placebo at 6 weeks (P < .0001). Secondary end-point outcomes were consistent with those of the co-primary end points. These data, together with those from the wider phase III clinical program, provide evidence for the 24-h bronchodilator efficacy of olodaterol QD in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT00931385 and NCT00932646.