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.

Cardiovascular safety profile of a fixed-dose combination of glycopyrrolate and formoterol fumarate delivered via metered dose inhaler using co-suspension delivery technology.

BACKGROUND: Glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) metered dose inhaler (MDI) is a fixed-dose combination of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), glycopyrrolate (GP), and the long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), formoterol fumarate (FF), delivered via metered dose inhaler using innovative co-suspension delivery technology. Here we report the results of two studies that examined the cardiovascular safety of GFF MDI. METHODS: The thorough QT (TQT) study was a Phase I, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, crossover study to assess GFF MDI 18/9.6 (Bevespi Aerosphere®), GFF MDI 144/38.4 and GP MDI 144 µg, compared with placebo MDI and open-label moxifloxacin 400 mg (active control) in healthy volunteers (PT003009). The cardiovascular safety study in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was a Phase IIb, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, 14-day dosing, parallel-group study to evaluate GFF MDI 36/9.6, GP MDI 36 and FF MDI 9.6 µg compared with open-label FF dry powder inhaler (DPI; Foradil® Aerolizer®) 12 µg, in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD (PT003003 [NCT01349803]). RESULTS: Seventy healthy volunteers were randomized in the TQT study. GFF MDI 144/38.4, GFF MDI 18/9.6 and GP MDI 144 µg all met the confidence interval-based criteria for negative QT prolongation potential. In the study in patients with COPD, 237 subjects were randomized and treated. GFF MDI 36/9.6, GP MDI 36, and FF MDI 9.6 µg did not result in clinically meaningful changes from baseline in 24-h mean heart rate at Day 14 (primary endpoint) or in any of the other Holter monitoring endpoints at Day 14, compared with FF DPI 12 µg. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically significant effects on cardiovascular safety occurred at therapeutic or supratherapeutic doses of GFF MDI, apart from a small and transient increase in heart rate following supratherapeutic dose of GFF MDI 144/38.4 µg. Furthermore, there were no unexpected safety findings reported in either healthy volunteers or patients with COPD.

Dose-response to inhaled glycopyrrolate delivered with a novel Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology metered dose inhaler (MDI) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

BACKGROUND: This study forms part of the first complete characterization of the dose-response curve for glycopyrrolate (GP) delivered using Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology via a metered dose inhaler (MDI). We examined the lower GP MDI dose range to determine an optimal dose for patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, chronic-dosing, balanced incomplete-block, placebo-controlled, crossover study compared six doses of GP MDI (18, 9, 4.6, 2.4, 1.2, and 0.6 µg, twice daily [BID]) with placebo MDI BID and open-label tiotropium dry powder inhaler (18 µg, once daily [QD]) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Patients were randomized into 1 of 120 treatment sequences. Each sequence included 4 of 8 treatments administered for 14-day periods separated by 7- to 21-day washout periods. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s area under the curve from 0 to 12 h (FEV1 AUC0-12) on Day 14. Secondary efficacy endpoints included peak change from baseline (post-dose) in FEV1 and inspiratory capacity (IC) on Days 1, 7, and 14; change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough FEV1 on Days 7 and 14; change from baseline in 12-h post-dose trough FEV1 on Day 14; time to onset of action (≥10 % improvement in mean FEV1) and the proportion of patients achieving ≥12 % improvement in FEV1 on Day 1; and pre-dose trough IC on Days 7 and 14. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: GP MDI 18, 9, 4.6, and 2.4 µg demonstrated statistically significant and clinically relevant increases in FEV1 AUC0-12 compared with placebo MDI following 14 days of treatment (modified intent-to-treat population = 120). GP MDI 18 µg was non-inferior to open-label tiotropium for peak change in FEV1 on Day 1 and morning pre-dose trough FEV1 on Day 14. All doses of GP MDI were well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings. CONCLUSIONS: These efficacy and safety results support GP MDI 18 µg BID as the most appropriate dose for evaluation in Phase III trials in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01566773 . Registered 27 March 2012.

Formoterol and tiotropium compared with tiotropium alone for treatment of COPD.

Combined use of beta(2)-agonists and anticholinergic bronchodilators may have complementary benefits in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The objective of this study was to compare combination treatment with formoterol (FORM) plus tiotropium (TIO) versus treatment with TIO alone in patients with COPD. In this active-controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial, a total of 255 subjects with diagnosed COPD were randomized to 12 weeks of either a combination of FORM 12 microg twice-daily plus TIO 18 microg once-daily in the morning (QD AM) or monotherapy with TIO 18 microg QD AM. The primary efficacy variable was the area under the curve for forced expiratory volume in 1 second measured 0 to 4 hours after AM dosing (FEV(1) AUC(0-4h)). Significantly greater improvements in the FEV(1) AUC(0-4h) were seen with FORM + TIO (n = 116) versus TIO (n = 124) at all time points. The increase in FEV(1) 5 minutes after the first dose was 180 mL with FORM + TIO versus 40 mL with TIO (p < 0.001). At endpoint, FEV(1) AUC(0-4h) increased 340 mL with FORM + TIO versus 170 mL with TIO (p < 0.001). Improvements in trough FEV(1) with FORM + TIO versus TIO were 180 mL and 100 mL, respectively (p < 0.01). Significantly greater reductions from baseline in symptom scores (p < 0.05) and daytime albuterol use (p < 0.04) were seen at endpoint with combination FORM + TIO versus TIO monotherapy. Both treatments were well tolerated. This study demonstrated that concurrent treatment with FORM + TIO results in greater therapeutic benefits than TIO alone.

Efficacy and safety of four doses of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate delivered via a metered dose inhaler compared with the monocomponents in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Purpose: To determine the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI 36/9.6, 36/7.2, 18/9.6, 9/9.6 µg) using innovative co-suspension delivery technology, compared with glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 36 µg and formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 µg, in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Methods: In this Phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, balanced incomplete-block, two-period, cross-over study (NCT01349816), patients received treatment twice-daily for 7 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12) on Day 7. Secondary efficacy endpoints were peak change from baseline in FEV1 through 2 hours; time to onset of action (≥10% improvement in mean FEV1); proportion of patients achieving ≥12% improvement in FEV1 on Day 1; peak change from baseline in inspiratory capacity (IC) on Days 1 and 7; change from baseline in morning pre-dose FEV1; peak change from baseline in FEV1 through 6 hours; and change from baseline in mean evening 12-hour post-dose trough FEV1 on Day 7. Safety was assessed. Results: All 185 randomized patients received treatment. All doses of GFF MDI significantly improved the primary endpoint compared with GP MDI 36 µg (all P≤0.0137). For peak change in FEV1 and IC and time to onset of action secondary endpoints, ≥2 doses of GFF MDI demonstrated superiority to GP MDI 36 µg. No significant differences were observed between GFF MDI and FF MDI 9.6 µg for primary and secondary endpoints. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments. Conclusion: While all doses of GFF MDI were superior to GP MDI 36 µg for the primary end-point, in this study neither superiority of GFF MDI to FF MDI 9.6 µg nor a clear dose-response was observed. All treatments were well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings.

Community-Acquired Pneumonia Recovery in the Elderly (CAPRIE): efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin therapy versus that of levofloxacin therapy.

BACKGROUND: Limited prospective data are available for elderly patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of moxifloxacin versus that of levofloxacin for the treatment of CAP in hospitalized elderly patients (age, > or = 65 years). METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Eligible patients were stratified by CAP severity before randomization to receive treatment with either intravenous/oral moxifloxacin (400 mg daily) or intravenous/oral levofloxacin (500 mg daily) for 7-14 days. Clinical response at test-of-cure (the primary efficacy end point was between days 5 and 21 after completion of therapy), and clinical response during therapy (between days 3 and 5 after the start of therapy) and bacteriologic response were secondary end points. RESULTS: The safety population included 394 patients (195 in the moxifloxacin group and 199 in the levofloxacin group). The population eligible for clinical efficacy analysis (i.e., the clinically valid population) included 281 patients (141 in the moxifloxacin group and 140 in the levofloxacin group); 51.3% were male, and the mean age (+/-SD) was 77.4 +/- 7.7 years. Cure rates at test-of-cure for the clinically valid population were 92.9% in the moxifloxacin arm and 87.9% in the levofloxacin arm (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.9 to 11.9; P = .2). Clinical recovery by days 3-5 after the start of treatment was 97.9% in the moxifloxacin arm vs. 90.0% in the levofloxacin arm (95% CI, 1.7-14.1; P = .01). In the moxifloxacin group, cure rates were 92.6% for patients with mild or moderate CAP and 94.7% for patients with severe CAP, compared with cure rates of 88.6% and 84.6%, respectively, in the levofloxacin group (P = not significant). Cure rates in the moxifloxacin arm were 90.0% for patients aged 65-74 years and 94.5% for patients aged > or = 75 years, compared with 85.0% and 90.0%, respectively, in the levofloxacin arm (P = not significant). There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups with regard to drug-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous/oral moxifloxacin therapy was efficacious and safe for hospitalized elderly patients with CAP, achieving > 90% cure in all severity and age subgroups, and was associated with faster clinical recovery than intravenous/oral levofloxacin therapy, with a comparable safety profile.

Faster onset of action of formoterol versus salmeterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a multicenter, randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a growing public health problem that has increased in recent years. It similarly affects men and women, especially those who smoke. The goals of COPD pharmacotherapy are to improve lung function, reduce symptoms, prevent exacerbations, and improve patients' health status. Bronchodilators are the foundation of treatment for COPD, and the long-acting beta2-agonists formoterol and salmeterol are both indicated for regular use by patients with stable COPD. OBJECTIVE: A clinical study was conducted to compare the onset of bronchodilator effects following treatment with formoterol 12 microg administered twice-daily (BID) or salmeterol 50 microg BID. The trial also assessed whether the bronchodilator effects of treatment resulted in significant differences in clinical response. METHODS: This was a randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group study of formoterol 12 microg BID versus salmeterol 50 microg BID, both administered for 28 days. Patients were current or previous smokers aged>or=40 years, with a diagnosis of stable COPD. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 5 min after drug administration on day 28. Secondary efficacy variables included changes from baseline in the 6-min walk test (6MWT) and rescue medication use. The primary variable was assessed by analysis of covariance, with baseline FEV1 as the covariate. RESULTS: A total of 270 patients were randomized to formoterol 12 microg BID (n=137) or salmeterol 50 microg BID (n=133). In the intent-to-treat population the least square (LS) mean change from baseline in FEV1 at 5 min postdose on day 28 was 0.13 L in the formoterol group compared with 0.07 L in the salmeterol group (P=0.022). At 30 min postdose on day 28, the LS mean change from baseline in FEV1 was 0.17 L in the formoterol group compared with 0.07 L in the salmeterol group (P<0.001). Similar changes were reported at 60 min postdose (0.19 L for the formoterol group versus 0.13 L for the salmeterol group, P=0.069). Patients in the formoterol group walked longer distances in the 6MWT and used less rescue medication compared with patients in the salmeterol group, although the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly greater improvements from baseline in FEV1 were observed at 5 and 30 min postdose with formoterol 12 microg compared with salmeterol 50 microg after 28 days of treatment. Numeric improvements in the 6MWT and rescue medication use were also observed with formoterol.