Pharmacokinetics of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler formulated using co-suspension delivery technology after single and chronic dosing in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, is a triple fixed-dose combination in late-stage clinical development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We conducted two studies to characterize the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of BGF MDI in patients with COPD: (i) a phase I, open-label, single and chronic (7-day) dosing study (NCT03250182) with one treatment arm (BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 µg); and (ii) a PK sub-study of KRONOS (NCT02497001), a phase III, randomized, double-blind study in which patients received 24 weeks' treatment with BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 µg, glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) MDI 18/9.6 µg, budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) MDI 320/9.6 µg, or budesonide/formoterol fumarate dry powder inhaler (BUD/FORM DPI) 320/9 µg. PK parameters in both studies included maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 12h (AUC0-12). RESULTS: In the phase I PK study (30 patients), budesonide and glycopyrronium Cmax were comparable after single and chronic dosing of BGF MDI (accumulation ratio [RAC] 95% and 107%, respectively) whereas Cmax for formoterol was slightly higher after chronic dosing (RAC 116%). AUC0-12 for budesonide, glycopyrronium, and formoterol were higher following chronic versus single dosing, with an RAC of 126%, 179%, and 143%, respectively. After 7 days' dosing, AUC0-12 and Cmax for all three components of BGF MDI were similar to those in the KRONOS PK sub-study (202 patients) at Week 24. In the latter sub-study, Cmax and AUC0-12 at Week 24 were generally comparable across treatments for budesonide (geometric mean ratios [GMR] of 96%-109% for BGF MDI vs BFF MDI or BUD/FORM DPI), glycopyrronium (GMR of 88%-100% for BGF MDI vs GFF MDI), and formoterol (GMR of 80%-113% for BGF MDI vs GFF MDI or BFF MDI). CONCLUSIONS: Steady-state PK parameters of budesonide, glycopyrronium, and formoterol were similar after 7 days' dosing in the phase I PK study and after 24 weeks in the KRONOS PK sub-study. Systemic exposure to budesonide, glycopyrronium, and formoterol was generally comparable across treatments in the KRONOS PK sub-study, suggesting no meaningful drug-drug or within-formulation PK interactions.

COPD patient satisfaction with ipratropium bromide/albuterol delivered via Respimat: a randomized, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Ipratropium bromide/albuterol Respimat inhaler (CVT-R) was developed as an environmentally friendly alternative to ipratropium bromide/albuterol metered-dose inhaler (CVT-MDI), which uses a chlorofluorocarbon propellant. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction, device usage, and long-term safety of CVT-R compared to CVT-MDI, and to the simultaneous administration of ipratropium bromide hydrofluoroalkane (HFA; I) and albuterol HFA (A) metered-dose inhalers as dual monotherapies (I + A). DESIGN: This is a 48-week, open-label, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group study (n = 470) comparing CVT-R to CVT-MDI and to I + A. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were at least 40 years of age, diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and current or exsmokers. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive: (1) CVT-R, one inhalation four times daily (QID); or (2) CVT-MDI, two inhalations QID; or (3) I + A two inhalations of each inhaler QID. MAIN MEASURES: Patient Satisfaction and Preference Questionnaire (PASAPQ) performance score (primary endpoint) and adverse events. KEY RESULTS: PASAPQ performance score was significantly higher (CVT-R versus CVT-MDI, 9.6; and CVT-R versus I + A, 6.2; both P < 0.001) when using CVT-R compared to CVT-MDI or I + A at all visits starting from week 3, while CVT-MDI and I + A treatment groups were similar. Time to first COPD exacerbation was slightly longer in the CVT-R group compared to the other treatment groups, although it did not reach statistical significance (CVT-R versus CVT-MDI, P = 0.57; CVT-R versus I + A, P = 0.22). Rates of withdrawal and patient refusal to continue treatment were lower in CVT-R compared with CVT-MDI and I + A groups (CVT-R versus CVT-MDI, P = 0.09; CVT-R versus I + A, P = 0.005). The percentage of patients reporting adverse events and serious adverse events was similar across all three treatment groups. CONCLUSION: CVT-R is an effective, environmentally friendly inhaler that provides patients with a high level of user satisfaction and may positively impact clinical outcomes while having no adverse impacts on patients using the device.