Efficacy and safety of GSP301 nasal spray in children aged 6 to 11 years with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of the antihistamine olopatadine hydrochloride and the corticosteroid mometasone furoate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of GSP301 in pediatric patients (aged ≥6 to <12 years) with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study randomized 446 eligible patients 1:1 (GSP301 [olopatadine hydrochloride 665 µg and mometasone furoate 25 µg] or placebo) as 1 spray/each nostril twice daily for 14 days. The primary end point was change from baseline in average morning and evening subject-reported 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) over a 14-day treatment period analyzed using mixed-effect model repeated measures. Additional assessments included instantaneous Total Nasal Symptom Score, Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, reflective Total Ocular Symptoms Score, instantaneous Total Ocular Symptoms Score, individual symptoms, Physician-assessed Nasal Symptom Score, and adverse events. RESULTS: GSP301 showed clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in rTNSS vs placebo (-0.6; 95% confidence interval, -0.9 to -0.2; P = .001). Statistically significant improvements favoring GSP301 were shown for all individual rTNSS symptoms, instantaneous Total Nasal Symptom Score, and most of its individual symptoms, Physician-assessed Nasal Symptom Score (P = .01), and Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (P < .001). For ocular symptoms, numerical improvements favoring GSP301 were observed, with statistical significance achieved only for reflective "tearing/watering eyes" (P = .04). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 12.0% and 10.4% of patients in the GSP301 and placebo groups, respectively. One subject (0.5%) (placebo group) experienced a serious adverse event (suspected viral meningitis) that was not related to the study treatment and was resolved. CONCLUSION: GSP301 was well tolerated and efficacious for treating SAR symptoms in pediatric patients and showed a favorable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03463031.

Efficacy and safety of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). METHODS: In this double-blind study, eligible patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were randomized 1:1:1:1 to twice-daily GSP301 (665 µg of olopatadine and 25 µg of mometasone), olopatadine (665 µg), mometasone (25 µg), or placebo for 14 days. The primary end point-mean change from baseline in average morning and evening 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS)-was analyzed via a mixed-effect model repeated measures (P < .05 was considered to be statistically significant). Additional assessments included average morning and evening 12-hour instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), ocular symptoms, individual symptoms, onset of action, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 1176 patients were randomized. GSP301 provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful rTNSS improvements vs placebo (least squares mean difference, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.49 to -0.69; P < .001) and vs olopatadine (P = .03) and mometasone (P = .02). Similar significant improvements in iTNSS were also observed with GSP301 (P < .05 for all). Furthermore, GSP301 significantly improved overall ocular symptoms, individual nasal and ocular symptoms, and quality of life vs placebo (P ≤ .001 for all). Onset of action for GSP301 was observed within 15 minutes and was maintained at all subsequent timepoints. Treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 15.6%, 12.6%, 9.6%, and 9.5% of patients in the GSP301, olopatadine, mometasone, and placebo groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: GSP301 is efficacious and well tolerated vs placebo for treating SAR-associated nasal and ocular symptoms, with a rapid onset of action of 15 minutes in adult and adolescent patients 12 years and older. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02870205.

Olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray: Evaluation of efficacy and safety in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Background: GSP301 is an investigational fixed-dose combination nasal spray that contains the antihistamine, olopatadine hydrochloride (HCl), and the corticosteroid, mometasone furoate. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Methods: In this double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were equally randomized to intranasal GSP301 (olopatadine 665 µg and mometasone 25 µg), olopatadine HCl (665 µg), mometasone furoate (25 µg), or placebo for 14 days of twice-daily treatment. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in the average A.M. and P.M. 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) analyzed by using mixed-effect model repeated measures (p < 0.05 indicates statistical significance). Additional assessments included instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), individual nasal symptoms, reflective Total Ocular Symptom Score (rTOSS) and instantaneous Total Ocular Symptom Score (iTOSS), onset of action, Physician-assessed Nasal Symptom Score (PNSS), quality of life, and adverse events (AE). Results: A total of 1180 patients were randomized. Over 14 days of treatment, GSP301 significantly improved average A.M. and P.M. rTNSS versus placebo (least squares mean difference -0.98 [95% confidence interval, -1.38 to -0.57]; p < 0.001) and versus olopatadine (p = 0.003), and approached statistical significance versus mometasone (p = 0.059). GSP301 also significantly improved average A.M. and P.M. iTNSS versus placebo and both monotherapies (p < 0.05, all). Further, GSP301 significantly improved individual nasal symptoms, overall ocular symptoms (rTOSS and iTOSS), and overall quality of life versus placebo (p < 0.01, all). Onset of action for GSP301 was observed within 15 minutes and was maintained at all subsequent time points assessed. Results for the PNSS also were significant for GSP301 versus placebo (p < 0.001). The percentages of patients with treatment-emergent AEs treated with GSP301, olopatadine, mometasone, and placebo were 12.9, 12.5, 7.1, and 9.4%, respectively. Conclusion: GSP301 was efficacious and well tolerated for the treatment of SAR symptoms compared with placebo, with a rapid onset of action of 15 minutes in patients ≥12 years of age.Clinical trial NCT02631551, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Long-term safety and efficacy of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis.

Background: Safety and efficacy of GSP301 nasal spray, an investigational fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride and mometasone furoate, was established in three large, 2-week seasonal allergic rhinitis studies. Objective: To evaluate long-term (52 weeks) safety and efficacy of GSP301 in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, 601 patients (ages ≥ 12 years) with PAR were randomized 4:1:1 to twice-daily GSP301 (olopatadine 665 µg and mometasone 25 µg [pH 3.7]) or two GSP301 vehicle formulations (placebo pH 3.7 or 7.0). Safety (primary end point) was monitored through adverse events (AE), laboratory assessments, vital signs, and physical examinations at weeks 30 and 52. The change from baseline in the average A.M. reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) and instantaneous Total Nasal Symptom Score (iTNSS), Physician-assessed Nasal Symptom Scores (PNSS), and quality of life were assessed for GSP301 versus placebo pH 3.7 (p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant). Results: At week 52, treatment-emergent AEs (TEAE) occurred in 51.7, 41.4, and 53.5% of patients in the GSP301, placebo pH 3.7 and placebo 7.0 groups, respectively. No clinically meaningful differences were observed in TEAE incidences or other safety assessments across treatments. At weeks 6 and 30, GSP301 provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in average rTNSS and iTNSS versus placebo pH 3.7 (p < 0.01, all comparisons). Similarly, at week 52, GSP301 provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in rTNSS (least-squares mean difference -0.91 [95% confidence interval {CI}, -1.35 to -0.47]; p < 0.001), and iTNSS (least-squares mean difference -0.75 [95% CI, -1.17 to -0.33]; p < 0.001) versus placebo pH 3.7, with significant improvements in each individual symptom (p < 0.05, all comparisons). PNSS and quality of life were significantly improved versus placebo pH 3.7 at weeks 6 and 30 (p < 0.05, all comparisons), but these greater improvements did not reach statistical significance at week 52 (PNSS, p = 0.552; quality of life, p = 0.790). Conclusion: Twice-daily GSP301 was well tolerated and provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PAR nasal symptoms versus placebo over 52 weeks and demonstrated a favorable safety profile and efficacy.Clinical trial NCT02709538, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Fluticasone propionate and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol multidose dry powder inhalers compared with placebo for persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: A novel, inhalation-driven, multidose dry powder inhaler (MDPI) has been developed, which allows for lower doses of fluticasone propionate (Fp) and Fp/salmeterol (FS) for the treatment of patients with asthma. OBJECTIVE: This phase III, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study (NCT02141854) evaluated the efficacy and safety of Fp MDPI and FS MDPI versus placebo MDPI. METHODS: Patients aged ≥12 years with persistent asthma who previously took an inhaled corticosteroid with or without a long-acting beta-agonist entered a 14- to 21-day run-in period, during which they received single-blind, low-dose Fp MDPI 50 µg (1 inhalation twice daily [b.i.d.]) and used albuterol hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) metered-dose inhaler (MDI) for rescue. The patients who continued to meet eligibility criteria (N = 728) were randomized to Fp MDPI (100 or 200 µg), FS MDPI (100 µg/12.5 µg or 200 µg/12.5 µg), or placebo (1 inhalation b.i.d.). Primary efficacy end points were the change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and the baseline-adjusted area under the FEV1 curve 12 hours after the dose at week 12. Secondary efficacy end points were A.M. peak expiratory flow, asthma symptom scores, albuterol HFA MDI use, time to patient withdrawal, Asthma Quality of Life scores, and time to 15% and 12% improvement from baseline in FEV1. Safety end points were monitored. RESULTS: Fp MDPI and FS MDPI significantly improved both primary end points compared with placebo (p < 0.05). FS MDPI significantly improved both end points versus the corresponding Fp MDPI dose (p < 0.05), with improvement also greater for FS MDPI 100 µg/12.5 µg versus Fp MDPI 200 µg (p < 0.05). Both active treatments improved a variety of secondary end points and exhibited a safety profile consistent with the drug classes. CONCLUSION: Delivery of Fp and FS via the novel MDPI provided significant clinical benefits and was well tolerated in patients with persistent asthma.

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 ß2-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 NCT01437397.

Mass balance and metabolism of aclidinium bromide following intravenous administration of [¹4C]-aclidinium bromide in healthy subjects.

Aclidinium bromide is a novel, inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist with low systemic activity developed for the treatment of COPD. It is an ester compound rapidly hydrolysed in plasma into inactive alcohol and acid metabolites. In this Phase I, open-label study, the rates and routes of elimination of radioactivity following intravenous administration of [¹4C]-aclidinium bromide were determined. The metabolites of aclidinium were also characterized and identified in plasma and excreta. Twelve healthy males were randomized (1:1) to receive a single intravenous 400 µg dose of [phenyl-U-¹4C]- or [glycolyl-U-¹4C]-aclidinium bromide (via 5 min infusion) to label alcohol or acid metabolites of aclidinium, respectively. Safety and tolerability were assessed over a 9-day period. Following intravenous administration, the parent compound was rapidly hydrolysed into its acid and alcohol metabolites. Primary excretion routes for [phenyl-U-¹4C]- and [glycolyl-U-¹4C]-aclidinium were renal (urine: 65% and 54%, respectively; feces: 33% and 20%, respectively), with 1% excreted as unchanged aclidinium. A total of three treatment-emergent adverse events in two subjects were reported and were related to infusion site pain. Overall, aclidinium is rapidly hydrolysed into two main metabolites, which are predominantly excreted in urine. Aclidinium bromide 400 µg administered intravenously was safe and well tolerated in healthy subjects.

Efficacy and safety of a 12-week treatment with twice-daily aclidinium bromide in COPD patients (ACCORD COPD I).

BACKGROUND: This Phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg versus placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS: In this 12-week, double-blind, multicenter trial, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to inhaled twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg, aclidinium 400 µg, or placebo. Primary and secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in trough FEV1 and peak FEV1 at Week 12, respectively. Health status (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]), COPD symptoms (Transitional Dyspnea Index [TDI], night and early morning symptoms), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 561 patients (mean age, 64 ± 9 years) with a mean baseline FEV1 of 1.36 ± 0.54 L (47.2% of predicted value) were randomized. At Week 12, aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg showed significant improvements from baseline in mean (95% CI) trough FEV1 compared with placebo by 86 (45, 127) mL and 124 (83,164) mL, respectively, and in peak FEV1 by 146 (101, 190) mL and 192 (148, 236) mL, respectively (p ≤ 0.0001 for all). Both aclidinium doses also provided significant improvements in SGRQ, TDI and almost all COPD symptom scores compared with placebo (p < 0.05 for all). Incidences of adverse events (AEs) were similar across treatment groups. The incidence of anticholinergic AEs was low and similar across groups (dry mouth: 0.5%-1.6%; constipation: 0%-1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD patients with twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg was associated with significant improvements in bronchodilation, health status, and COPD symptoms. Both doses were well tolerated and had safety profiles similar to placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This ACCORD I study (AClidinium in Chronic Obstructive Respiratory Disease I) was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00891462) as "Efficacy and Safety of Aclidinium Bromide for Treatment of Moderate to Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)".

Efficacy and safety of favipiravir, an oral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor, in mild-to-moderate COVID-19: A randomized, comparative, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of favipiravir in adults with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, parallel-arm, multicenter, phase 3 trial, adults (18-75 years) with RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 and mild-to-moderate symptoms (including asymptomatic) were randomized 1:1 to oral favipiravir (day 1: 1800 mg BID and days 2-14: 800 mg BID) plus standard supportive care versus supportive care alone. The primary endpoint was time to the cessation of viral shedding; time to clinical cure was also measured. RESULTS: From May 14 to July 3, 2020, 150 patients were randomized to favipiravir (n = 75) or control (n = 75). Median time to the cessation of viral shedding was 5 days (95% CI: 4 days, 7 days) versus 7 days (95% CI: 5 days, 8 days), P = 0.129, and median time to clinical cure was 3 days (95% CI: 3 days, 4 days) versus 5 days (95% CI: 4 days, 6 days), P = 0.030, for favipiravir and control, respectively. Adverse events were observed in 36% of favipiravir and 8% of control patients. One control patient died due to worsening disease. CONCLUSION: The lack of statistical significance on the primary endpoint was confounded by limitations of the RT-PCR assay. Significant improvement in time to clinical cure suggests favipiravir may be beneficial in mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

Patterns of allelic loss differ in lung adenocarcinomas of smokers and nonsmokers.

Cigarette smoking is the most important cause of lung cancer, however approximately 10% of patients with lung cancer have no history of smoking. While the molecular pathogenesis of smoking associated lung carcinogenesis is becoming well characterized, the pathogenesis of lung cancer in nonsmokers is not. We designed a study to examine the pathogenesis of adenocarcinoma in nonsmokers by determining if loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in tumors of nonsmokers differs from those of smokers. We evaluated six cases of primary adenocarcinoma in never smokers and six selected cases in smokers, matched by clinical and histological criteria. LOH in tumor DNA relative to nonmalignant lung DNA was determined at 52 microsatellites located on ten chromosomal loci. The extent of allelic loss in smokers, as measured by fractional allelic loss (FAL), was compared with nonsmokers. LOH was more frequent in the tumors of nonsmokers than of smokers with mean FAL of 46% in nonsmokers and 28% in smokers (P<0.05). Increased LOH in nonsmokers was most pronounced at chromosomes: 3p, 8p, 9p, 10p, and 18q. Since this study compared allelic loss between lung and tumor-bearing lung, less frequent LOH in smokers' tumors can be interpreted to suggest LOH was already present in the nonmalignant lung of smokers and fewer additional instances of allelic loss were present in the tumors of smokers. Our results suggest that the early steps of lung carcinogenesis differ in nonsmokers compared with smokers. In addition, the chromosomal sites of LOH may identify genes important for lung carcinogenesis in nonsmokers.

Gender differences in pulmonary disease.

Epidemiologic evidence points to gender-based differences in incidence, risk, histology, and pathogenesis of certain lung diseases in women as compared with men. Gender influences not only physiological differences, but also the social, economic, and cultural context in which men and women coexist. Central to these differences is the role of sex hormones, which may contribute to the pathogenesis of disease or serve as protective factors. This paper seeks to review the role of gender in major areas of pulmonary disease and explore the mechanisms that may underlie gender differences in asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mycobacterial disease (tuberculosis and Mycobacterium avium intracellulare infection), on lung cancer.

ACCORD COPD II: a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the 12-week efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium bromide in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Aclidinium bromide is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist approved for the long-term maintenance treatment of bronchospasm associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This 12-week phase III study evaluated efficacy and tolerability of aclidinium 200 or 400 µg in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS: In this double-blind study, 544 patients with COPD were randomized to placebo or twice-daily aclidinium 200 or 400 µg administered by Genuair(®)/Pressair(®). Lung function, health status [measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)], dyspnea [measured using the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI)], and safety were assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: Mean changes from baseline in morning trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) at week 12 (primary endpoint) were significantly higher for aclidinium than for placebo (200 µg, 51 mL; 400 µg, 72 mL; both p < 0.05). Aclidinium also significantly improved other lung function outcomes. At week 12, improvements from baseline were observed with aclidinium in SGRQ total score (200 µg, -6.0; 400 µg, -5.4) and TDI focal score (200 µg, 1.0; 400 µg, 1.3). Furthermore, clinically important improvements in SGRQ total and TDI focal scores were achieved by 45 and 51 % of patients, respectively, who received aclidinium 400 µg, with a significant difference versus placebo for TDI (p < 0.05). Anticholinergic-related adverse events (e.g., dry mouth) were infrequent, occurring <2 % for any event in any treatment group. Both aclidinium doses were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates efficacy and safety of aclidinium in COPD patients. Unexpected baseline imbalances between treatment groups may have impacted the aclidinium treatment benefit in this study.

Efficacy of aclidinium bromide 400 µg twice daily compared with placebo and tiotropium in patients with moderate to severe COPD.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide bid, a novel, long-acting, muscarinic antagonist, was assessed in patients with moderate to severe COPD. METHODS: In this phase IIa randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover trial, patients with moderate to severe COPD received aclidinium 400 µg bid, tiotropium 8 µg once daily, and placebo for 15 days, with a 9- to 15-day washout between treatment periods. Treatments were administered through the Genuair or HandiHaler dry powder inhalers. The primary end point was mean change from baseline in FEV(1) AUC(0-12/12h) (area under the curve where the numbers represent the time period for which data were collected divided by the number of hours over which the data are averaged [eg, 0-12 h postdose divided by 12 h]) on day 15. Secondary end points were changes from baseline in FEV(1) AUC(12-24/12h), FEV(1) AUC(0-24/24h), morning predose FEV(1), peak FEV(1), and COPD symptom scores. RESULTS: Thirty patients with COPD were randomized, and 27 completed the study. Mean change from baseline in FEV(1) AUC(0-12/12h) at day 15 was significantly greater for aclidinium and tiotropium over placebo (P < .0001). Mean changes from baseline in FEV(1) AUC(12-24/12h), FEV(1) AUC(0-24/24h), morning predose FEV(1), and peak FEV(1) at day 15 were significantly greater for aclidinium and tiotropium over placebo (P < .0001 for all except P < .001 for FEV(1) AUC(12-24/12h) tiotropium vs placebo). Improvements were significantly greater with aclidinium vs tiotropium on day 1 for all of the normalized AUC values of FEV(1) as well as on day 15 for FEV(1) AUC(12-24/12h) (P < .05 for all). COPD symptoms were significantly improved from baseline with aclidinium vs placebo (P < .05) but not with tiotropium. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COPD, aclidinium 400 µg bid compared with placebo provided clinically meaningful improvements in 24-h bronchodilation that generally were comparable to tiotropium 18 µg daily but with significant differences in favor of aclidinium observed in the average nighttime period. Larger studies with longer treatment duration are ongoing to confirm the efficacy of aclidinium 400 µg bid on bronchodilation and COPD symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00868231; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.