NAVIGATE II: Randomized, double-blind trial of the exhalation delivery system with fluticasone for nasal polyposis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and sometimes complicated by nasal polyps (NPs). Corticosteroid nasal sprays are often unsatisfactory because they are ineffective at delivering medication to high/deep sites of inflammation. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess whether an exhalation delivery system with fluticasone (EDS-FLU) capable of high/deep drug deposition improves outcomes. METHODS: Patients (n = 323) 18 years and older with moderate-to-severe congestion and NPs were randomized to twice-daily EDS-FLU (93, 186, or 372 µg) or exhalation delivery system (EDS)-placebo for 24 weeks (16 double-blind plus 8 open-label when all received 372 µg). Coprimary end points were change in nasal congestion/obstruction at 4 weeks and summed bilateral polyp grade at 16 weeks. Secondary end points included symptoms, polyp elimination, and functioning. RESULTS: EDS-FLU was superior on both coprimary end points (P < .001 vs EDS-placebo, all doses). Mean polyp grade improved continuously through week 24 (P < .009, all comparisons), with polyps eliminated on at least 1 side in approximately 25% of patients at week 24 versus 8.7% with EDS-placebo (P ≤ .014, all comparisons). Sino-Nasal Outcomes Test scores also improved significantly versus those in patients receiving EDS-placebo (-21.1 to -21.4 vs -11.7 at week 16, P < .05 all doses). At the end of the double-blind period, EDS-FLU (all doses) significantly improved all 4 defining disease symptoms. In most patients (68%), those receiving EDS-FLU reported "much" or "very much" improvement. The number of patients eligible for surgery decreased by 62%-67%. The safety profile was similar to that reported in prior trials evaluating conventional corticosteroid nasal sprays in comparable populations. CONCLUSION: EDS-FLU produces clinically and statistically significant improvement in all 4 diagnostically defining disease symptoms, polyp grade, and quality of life in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with NPs.

A cross-sectional, population-based survey of U.S. adults with symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis.

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is believed to create a substantial population-level disease burden in the United States due to its high prevalence and significant disease morbidity, but many studies of CRS epidemiology are based on administrative or historical record sources rather than primary population sources. Objective: To characterize CRS symptoms, burden, and patient characteristics by using a primary U.S. population-based representative sample. Methods: A demographically and geographically representative sample of 10,336 U.S. adults recruited from a general panel of 4.3 million were obtained by using three-stage randomization. Data collected included a range of respondent-reported CRS symptoms, symptom impact and severity, symptom duration, and treatment. Results: Approximately 11.5% of the respondents (n = 1189) reported defining symptom and duration criteria for CRS. A previous diagnosis of nasal polyps was reported by ∼10% of this population. The remaining respondents reported severe (7.3%) or moderate (3.1%) symptom severity. The most frequently reported defining symptoms were nasal congestion and/or obstruction (94-97%) and drainage (89-92%). CRS participants reported a high average degree of symptom burden (e.g., on a 0-10 scale, 8.2 for CRS with nasal polyps, 8.4 for CRS without nasal polyps with severe symptoms, and 6.4 for CRS without nasal polyps with moderate symptoms). The participants with CRS reported high health-care use for CRS, adverse effects of CRS symptoms on multiple areas of daily life, and high dissatisfaction with currently available treatments. Conclusion: More than 10% of the general U.S. adult population have CRS symptoms. Most report severe symptoms, lack of satisfaction with current treatment options, and a substantial adverse impact on daily functioning.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of breath powered nasal delivery of sumatriptan powder (AVP-825) in the treatment of acute migraine (The TARGET Study).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of AVP-825, a drug-device combination of low-dose sumatriptan powder (22 mg loaded dose) delivered intranasally through a targeted Breath Powered device vs an identical device containing lactose powder (placebo device) in the treatment of migraine headache. BACKGROUND: Early treatment of migraine headaches is associated with improved outcome, but medication absorption after oral delivery may be delayed in migraineurs because of reduced gastric motility. Sumatriptan powder administered with an innovative, closed-palate, Bi-Directional, Breath Powered intranasal delivery mechanism is efficiently absorbed across the nasal mucosa and produces fast absorption into the circulation. Results from a previously conducted placebo-controlled study of AVP-825 showed a high degree of headache relief with an early onset of action (eg, 74% AVP-825 vs 38% placebo device at 1 hour, P<.01). METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in adults with a history of migraine with or without aura, participants were randomized via computer-generated lists to AVP-825 or placebo device to treat a single migraine headache of moderate or severe intensity. The primary endpoint was headache relief (defined as reduction of headache pain intensity from severe or moderate migraine headache to mild or none) at 2 hours post-dose. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty patients (116 AVP-825 and 114 placebo device) were randomized, of whom 223 (112 and 111, respectively) experienced a qualifying migraine headache (their next migraine headache that reached moderate or severe intensity). A significantly greater proportion of AVP-825 patients reported headache relief at 2 hours post-dose compared with those using the placebo device (68% vs 45%, P=.002, odds ratio 2.53, 95% confidence interval [1.45, 4.42]). Between-group differences in headache relief were evident as early as 15 minutes, reached statistical significance at 30 minutes post-dose (42% vs 27%, P=.03), and were sustained at 24 hours (44% vs 24%, P=.002) and 48 hours (34% vs 20%, P=.01). Thirty-four percent of patients treated with AVP-825 were pain-free at 2 hours compared with 17% using the placebo device (P=.008). More AVP-825 patients reported meaningful pain relief (patient interpretation) of migraine within 2 hours of treatment vs placebo device (70% vs 45%, P<.001), and fewer required rescue medication (37% vs 52%, P=.02). Total migraine freedom (patients with no headache, nausea, phonophobia, photophobia, or vomiting) reached significance following treatment with AVP-825 at 1 hour (19% vs 9%; P=.04). There were no serious adverse events (AEs), and no systemic AEs occurred in more than one patient. Chest pain or pressure was not reported, and only one patient taking AVP-825 reported mild paresthesia. No other triptan sensations were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted delivery of a low-dose of sumatriptan powder via a novel, closed-palate, Breath Powered, intranasal device (AVP-825) provided fast relief of moderate or severe migraine headache in adults that reached statistical significance over placebo by 30 minutes. The treatment was well tolerated with a low incidence of systemic AEs.

AVP-825 breath-powered intranasal delivery system containing 22 mg sumatriptan powder vs 100 mg oral sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraines (The COMPASS study): a comparative randomized clinical trial across multiple attacks.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of AVP-825, an investigational bi-directional breath-powered intranasal delivery system containing low-dose (22 mg) sumatriptan powder, vs 100 mg oral sumatriptan for acute treatment of migraine in a double-dummy, randomized comparative efficacy clinical trial allowing treatment across multiple migraine attacks. BACKGROUND: In phases 2 and 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, AVP-825 provided early and sustained relief of moderate or severe migraine headache in adults, with a low incidence of triptan-related adverse effects. METHODS: This was a randomized, active-comparator, double-dummy, cross-over, multi-attack study (COMPASS; NCT01667679) with two ≤12-week double-blind periods. Subjects experiencing 2-8 migraines/month in the past year were randomized 1:1 using computer-generated sequences to AVP-825 plus oral placebo tablet or an identical placebo delivery system plus 100 mg oral sumatriptan tablet for the first period; patients switched treatment for the second period in this controlled comparative design. Subjects treated ≤5 qualifying migraines per period within 1 hour of onset, even if pain was mild. The primary end-point was the mean value of the summed pain intensity differences through 30 minutes post-dose (SPID-30) using Headache Severity scores. Secondary outcomes included pain relief, pain freedom, pain reduction, consistency of response across multiple migraines, migraine-associated symptoms, and atypical sensations. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 275 adults were randomized, 174 (63.3%) completed the study (ie, completed the second treatment period), and 185 (67.3%) treated at least one migraine in both periods (1531 migraines assessed). There was significantly greater reduction in migraine pain intensity with AVP-825 vs oral sumatriptan in the first 30 minutes post-dose (least squares mean SPID-30 = 10.80 vs 7.41, adjusted mean difference 3.39 [95% confidence interval 1.76, 5.01]; P < .001). At each time point measured between 15 and 90 minutes, significantly greater rates of pain relief and pain freedom occurred with AVP-825 treatment compared with oral sumatriptan. At 2 hours, rates of pain relief and pain freedom became comparable; rates of sustained pain relief and sustained pain freedom from 2 to 48 hours remained comparable. Nasal discomfort and abnormal taste were more common with AVP-825 vs oral sumatriptan (16% vs 1% and 26% vs 4%, respectively), but ∼90% were mild, leading to only one discontinuation. Atypical sensation rates were significantly lower with AVP-825 than with conventional higher dose 100 mg oral sumatriptan. CONCLUSIONS: AVP-825 (containing 22 mg sumatriptan nasal powder) provided statistically significantly greater reduction of migraine pain intensity over the first 30 minutes following treatment, and greater rates of pain relief and pain freedom within 15 minutes, compared with 100 mg oral sumatriptan. Sustained pain relief and pain freedom through 24 and 48 hours was achieved in a similar percentage of attacks for both treatments, despite substantially lower total systemic drug exposure with AVP-825. Treatment was well tolerated, with statistically significantly fewer atypical sensations with AVP-825.

Efficacy of EDS-FLU for Chronic Rhinosinusitis: Two Randomized Controlled Trials (ReOpen1 and ReOpen2).

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a prevalent inflammatory disease. No medications are Food and Drug Administration-approved for the most common form, CRS without nasal polyps (also called "chronic sinusitis"). Novel biomechanics of the exhalation delivery system deliver fluticasone (EDS-FLU; XHANCE) to sinonasal areas above the inferior turbinate, especially sinus drainage pathways not reached by standard-delivery nasal sprays. OBJECTIVE: Assess EDS-FLU efficacy for CRS (irrespective of nasal polyps). METHODS: Two randomized, EDS-placebo-controlled trials in adults with CRS irrespective of polyps (ReOpen1) or exclusively without polyps (ReOpen2) were conducted at 120 sites in 13 countries. Patients received EDS-FLU 1 or 2 sprays/nostril, or EDS-placebo, twice daily for 24 weeks. Coprimary measures were composite symptom score through week 4 and ethmoid/maxillary sinus percent opacification by computed tomography at week 24. RESULTS: ReOpen1 (N = 332) composite symptom score least-squares mean change for EDS-FLU 1 or 2 sprays/nostril versus EDS-placebo was -1.58 and -1.60 versus -0.62 (P < .001, P < .001); ReOpen2 (N = 223), -1.54 and -1.74 versus -0.81 (P = .011, P = .001). In ReOpen1, sinus opacification least-squares mean change for EDS-FLU 1 or 2 sprays/nostril versus EDS-placebo was -5.58 and -6.20 versus -1.60 (P = .045, P = .018), and in ReOpen2, -7.00 and -5.14 versus +1.19 (P < .001, P = .009). Acute disease exacerbations were reduced by 56% to 66% with EDS-FLU versus EDS-placebo (P = .001). There were significant, and similar magnitude, symptom reductions in patients using standard-delivery nasal steroid products just before entering the study (P < .001). Adverse events were similar to standard-delivery intranasal steroids. CONCLUSIONS: EDS-FLU is the first nonsurgical treatment demonstrated to reduce symptoms, intrasinus opacification, and exacerbations in replicate randomized clinical trials in CRS, regardless of polyp status.

Breath powered nasal delivery: a new route to rapid headache relief.

The nose offers an attractive noninvasive alternative for drug delivery. Nasal anatomy, with a large mucosal surface area and high vascularity, allows for rapid systemic absorption and other potential benefits. However, the complex nasal geometry, including the narrow anterior valve, poses a serious challenge to efficient drug delivery. This barrier, plus the inherent limitations of traditional nasal delivery mechanisms, has precluded achievement of the full potential of nasal delivery. Breath Powered bi-directional delivery, a simple but novel nasal delivery mechanism, overcomes these barriers. This innovative mechanism has now been applied to the delivery of sumatriptan. Multiple studies of drug deposition, including comparisons of traditional nasal sprays to Breath Powered delivery, demonstrate significantly improved deposition to superior and posterior intranasal target sites beyond the nasal valve. Pharmacokinetic studies in both healthy subjects and migraineurs suggest that improved deposition of sumatriptan translates into improved absorption and pharmacokinetics. Importantly, the absorption profile is shifted toward a more pronounced early peak, representing nasal absorption, with a reduced late peak, representing predominantly gastrointestinal (GI) absorption. The flattening and "spreading out" of the GI peak appears more pronounced in migraine sufferers than healthy volunteers, likely reflecting impaired GI absorption described in migraineurs. In replicated clinical trials, Breath Powered delivery of low-dose sumatriptan was well accepted and well tolerated by patients, and onset of pain relief was faster than generally reported in previous trials with noninjectable triptans. Interestingly, Breath Powered delivery also allows for the potential of headache-targeted medications to be better delivered to the trigeminal nerve and the sphenopalatine ganglion, potentially improving treatment of various types of headache. In brief, Breath Powered bi-directional intranasal delivery offers a new and more efficient mechanism for nasal drug delivery, providing an attractive option for improved treatment of headaches by enabling or enhancing the benefits of current and future headache therapies.

Improved pharmacokinetics of sumatriptan with Breath Powered™ nasal delivery of sumatriptan powder.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to directly compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of 22-mg sumatriptan powder delivered intranasally with a novel Breath Powered™ device (11 mg in each nostril) vs a 20-mg sumatriptan liquid nasal spray, a 100-mg oral tablet, and a 6-mg subcutaneous injection. BACKGROUND: A prior PK study found that low doses of sumatriptan powder delivered intranasally with a Breath Powered device were efficiently and rapidly absorbed. An early phase clinical trial with the same device and doses found excellent tolerability with high response rates and rapid onset of pain relief, approaching the benefits of injection despite significantly lower predicted drug levels. METHODS: An open-label, cross-over, comparative bioavailability study was conducted in 20 healthy subjects at a single center in the USA. Following randomization, fasted subjects received a single dose of each of the 4 treatments separated by a 7-day washout. Blood samples were taken pre-dose and serially over 14 hours post-dose for PK analysis. RESULTS: Quantitative measurement of residuals in used Breath Powered devices demonstrated that the devices delivered 8±0.9 mg (mean±standard deviation) of sumatriptan powder in each nostril (total dose 16 mg). Although the extent of systemic exposure over 14 hours was similar following Breath Powered delivery of 16-mg sumatriptan powder and 20-mg liquid nasal spray (area under the curve [AUC]0-∞ 64.9 ng*hour/mL vs 61.1 ng*hour/mL), sumatriptan powder, despite a 20% lower dose, produced 27% higher peak exposure (Cmax 20.8 ng/mL vs 16.4 ng/mL) and 61% higher exposure in the first 30 minutes compared with the nasal spray (AUC0-30 minutes 5.8 ng*hour/mL vs 3.6 ng*hour/mL). The magnitude of difference is larger on a per-milligram basis. The absorption profile following standard nasal spray demonstrated bimodal peaks, consistent with lower early followed by higher later absorptions. In contrast, the profile following Breath Powered delivery showed higher early and lower late absorptions. Relative to the 100-mg oral tablet (Cmax 70.2 ng/mL, AUC0-∞, 308.8 ng*hour/mL) and 6-mg injection (Cmax 111.6 ng/mL, AUC0-∞ 128.2 ng*hour/mL), the peak and overall exposure following Breath Powered intranasal delivery of sumatriptan powder was substantially lower. CONCLUSIONS: Breath Powered intranasal delivery of sumatriptan powder is a more efficient form of drug delivery, producing a higher peak and earlier exposure with a lower delivered dose than nasal spray and faster absorption than either nasal spray or oral administration. It also produces a significantly lower peak and total systemic exposure than oral tablet or subcutaneous injection.

The efficacy and safety of fentanyl buccal tablet compared with immediate-release oxycodone for the management of breakthrough pain in opioid-tolerant patients with chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Current clinical guidelines have identified the need for studies comparing the effect of different short-acting or rapid-onset opioids for the treatment of breakthrough pain (BTP). In this study we evaluated the efficacy and safety of treatment with fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) in comparison with immediate-release oxycodone in alleviating BTP in opioid-tolerant patients with chronic pain. METHODS: In this cross-over design study, opioid-tolerant patients were randomized to open-label titration with FBT (200, 400, 600, 800 µg) followed by oxycodone (15, 30, 45, 60 mg) or vice versa for the management of BTP. After titration to a successful dose of both study drugs, patients were rerandomized to double-blind treatment for 10 BTP episodes with 1 of the already identified successful doses of study drug followed by cross-over to double-blind treatment for 10 BTP episodes with the other study drug. The primary efficacy measure was the difference in pain intensity (based on an 11-point numerical scale) 15 minutes after administration of study drug (PID(15)). Other efficacy measures included PID at other time points postdose (5 through 60 minutes), the sum of pain intensity differences (SPID) at 30 and 60 minutes postdose, pain relief (5 through 60 minutes), proportion of BTP episodes for which patients experienced meaningful reduction in pain intensity, and patient preference for BTP medication. Adverse events were also recorded. RESULTS: Of the 323 patients enrolled, 203 achieved a successful dose of both study drugs, 191 completed the titration phase, and 180 completed the double-blind phase. PID(15) was significantly greater after FBT versus oxycodone (mean [SD], 0.82 [1.12] vs. 0.60 [0.88]; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.18, 0.29; P < 0.0001). Secondary efficacy measures favored FBT and showed differences versus oxycodone from 5 minutes postdose for PID and 10 minutes postdose for pain relief. SPID(30) and SPID(60) were greater with FBT than with oxycodone (P < 0.0001 for both measures). A ≥33% improvement in pain intensity occurred in a larger proportion of FBT-treated episodes versus oxycodone beginning 15 through 45 minutes postdose (P < 0.05). FBT was preferred by 52% of patients, oxycodone by 33%. Adverse events with both study drugs were generally typical of opioids, and the majority occurred during titration. Two serious adverse events (pneumonia) were reported in 1 patient; both occurrences were considered unrelated to study drug. CONCLUSION: FBT resulted in more rapid onset of analgesia and was generally well tolerated in comparison with oxycodone for the treatment of BTP in opioid-tolerant patients.

A novel 12-week study, with three randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled periods to evaluate fentanyl buccal tablets for the relief of breakthrough pain in opioid-tolerant patients with noncancer-related chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the time of onset, overall efficacy, and safety of fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) for noncancer-related breakthrough pain (BTP) in opioid-tolerant adults over 12 weeks. DESIGN: A novel 12-week study that mimicked clinical practice with dose titration to effective dose, open-label treatment, and three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-crossover periods at weeks 4, 8, and 12. For each double-blind period, study patients received nine doses (FBT = 6, placebo = 3) in a randomized sequence. SETTING: Twenty-one study centers in the United States. POPULATION: Opioid-tolerant adults with noncancer-related chronic pain and BTP. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the sum of the pain intensity differences (PID) 5-60 minutes post dose (SPID60) during the final double-blind period. Secondary outcomes included pain relief (PR), meaningful PR, and proportion of episodes with a PID of ≥33% and ≥50%. RESULTS: Of 148 patients who entered the titration phase, 105 (71%) achieved a successful dose and 81 (55%) participated in all three assessment periods in the study. The final RCT assessment period results demonstrated continued efficacy of FBT vs placebo (P < 0.05) for SPID60 (mean [SD]: 7.7 [6.2] vs 4.6 [4.7]). The average onset of PR began at 5 minutes, with meaningful PR by ≤10 minutes. The proportion of episodes with ≥33% improvement in PI was 7% with FBT vs 3% with placebo at 5 minutes and with ≥50% was 17% vs 10% at 15 minutes. All periods showed similar results. Adverse events and patient discontinuations were generally typical of clinical opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: FBT showed continued clinically important analgesic effects and was generally well tolerated over 12 weeks of treatment.

Consistent and clinically relevant effects with fentanyl buccal tablet in the treatment of patients receiving maintenance opioid therapy and experiencing cancer-related breakthrough pain.

Fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) has shown efficacy and tolerability in patients with cancer-related persistent pain treated with maintenance opioids. We conducted a combined analysis of two similarly designed, randomized, placebo-controlled studies to further evaluate the consistency and clinical relevance of analgesia outcomes. Of the 252 patients enrolled, 150 fulfilled the criteria for efficacy analysis and experienced 1,417 breakthrough pain episodes. A consistently greater effect was noted with FBT vs. placebo on the following measures: improvements from baseline of >or=33% and >or=50% in pain intensity (PI), a >or=2-point reduction in PI, and a score of >or=2 for pain relief. Improvements in these clinically meaningful efficacy measures were seen with FBT at 15 minutes (earliest common evaluation) and remained evident at 60 minutes (final common evaluation). They were also reflected in a more favorable global medication performance assessment for FBT over placebo. FBT was generally well tolerated; most adverse events were typical of potent opioid use in a cancer population. Application-site (buccal) abnormalities were infrequent and led to withdrawal of three patients. There were no serious adverse events or deaths attributable to FBT. This analysis suggests that FBT provides an analgesic effect that is consistent across multiple clinically relevant efficacy measures.

Role of nasal casts for in vitro evaluation of nasal drug delivery and quantitative evaluation of various nasal casts.

Background: Nasal casts may characterize intranasal drug deposition. Methodology: The Koken cast, described as 'anatomically correct', and the Optinose cast, derived from MRI of a healthy male during velum closure, were dimensionally compared and assessed for deposition assessment suitability. Results: Smallest vertical cross-sectional areas (valve region) for Koken and Optinose right/left: 2.55/2.75 and 1.18/1.18 cm2, respectively, versus a 'normative' mean (range) of 0.85 cm2 (0.2-1.6 cm2). Intranasal volumes differed (computed tomography/water fill): Koken, 35.8/38.6 cm3 and Optinose, 24.1/25.0 cm3, versus a 'normative' mean (range) of 26.4 cm3 (20.9-31.1 cm3). Conclusion: Koken cast dimensions are larger than the normal range and the Optinose cast. The validity of casts for regulatory drug deposition studies is suspect.

A Race Against Time-Changing the Natural History of CRIM Negative Infantile Pompe Disease.

We report the clinical course of the first prenatally diagnosed cross-reactive immunologic material (CRIM)-negative infantile Pompe disease (IPD) patient [homozygous for c.2560C>T (p.Arg854X) variant in the GAA gene] to undergo prophylactic immune tolerance induction (ITI) and enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) within the first 2 days of life. Both parents were found to be carriers of the c.2560C>T (p.Arg854X) variant through prenatal carrier screening. Fetal echocardiogram at 31 weeks of gestation showed left ventricular hypertrophy. An echocardiogram on the 1st day of life revealed marked biventricular hypertrophy. Physical exam was significant for macroglossia and hypotonia. A short course of Prophylactic ITI with rituximab, methotrexate, and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in conjunction with ERT at a dose of 20 mg/kg every other week was started on day 2 of life. The patient completed the ITI protocol safely and complete B-cell recovery, based on CD19 count, was noted by 3 months of age. The patient never developed anti-rhGAA IgG antibodies to ERT. Vaccinations were initiated at 9 months of age, with adequate response noted. Complete recovery of cardiac function and left ventricular mass was seen by 11 weeks of age. At 8 months of age, the patient developmentally measured at 75-90% on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale, walked at 11 months and continues to develop age-appropriately at 50 months of age based on the Early Learning Accomplishment Profile. ERT dosing was increased to 40 mg/kg every 2 weeks at 32 months of age and frequency increased to 40 mg/kg every week at 47 months of age. Patient continues to have undetectable antibody titers, most recently at age 50 months and urine Hex4 has remained normal. To our knowledge, this is the first report of successful early ERT and ITI in a prenatally diagnosed CRIM-negative IPD patient and the youngest IPD patient to receive ITI safely. With the addition of Pompe disease to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel(RUSP) and its addition to multiple state newborn screening programs, our case highlights the benefits of early diagnosis and timely initiation of treatment in babies with Pompe disease, who represent the most severe end of the disease spectrum.

A Randomized Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics and Bioavailability of Fluticasone Propionate Delivered via Xhance Exhalation Delivery System Versus Flonase Nasal Spray and Flovent HFA Inhalational Aerosol.

PURPOSE: The exhalation delivery system with fluticasone propionate (Xhance®) has been shown to deliver drug substantially more broadly in the nasal cavity (particularly into superior/posterior regions), with less off-target loss of drug to drip-out and swallowing, than conventional nasal sprays. This open-label study evaluated the systemic bioavailability of Xhance® by comparing the pharmacokinetic (PK) properties of a single dose of fluticasone from 3 products administering the drug using 3 different devices: Xhance®, Flonase® (fluticasone propionate inhalational nasal spray), and Flovent® HFA (fluticasone propionate inhalational aerosol). METHODS: This open-label study was conducted in 2 parts. Study part 1 compared systemic exposure with a single dose of Xhance® 186 or 372 µg versus Flonase® 400 µg (3-way, 3-treatment, 3-sequence, randomized crossover in healthy subjects; n = 90). A separate study, part 2, under the same umbrella protocol, compared systemic exposure with Xhance® 372 µg versus Flovent® HFA 440 µg (2-way, 2-treatment, 2-sequence, randomized crossover in patients with mild to moderate asthma; n = 30). FINDINGS: With Xhance® 186 µg, the geometric least squares mean (LSM) Cmax was higher than with Flonase® 400 µg (16.02 vs 11.66 pg/mL, respectively; geometric mean ratio [GMR], 137.42%) and the geometric LSM AUC0-∞ values were similar (97.30 vs 99.61 pg · h/mL; GMR, 97.78%). With Xhance® 372 µg, the geometric LSM Cmax and AUC0-∞ were higher than with Flonase® 400 µg (Cmax, 23.50 vs 11.66 pg/mL [GMR, 201.53%]; AUC0-∞, 146.61 vs 99.61 pg · h/mL [GMR, 147.19%]). In part 2, the geometric LSM Cmax and AUC0-∞ values were lower with Xhance® 372 µg than with Flovent® HFA 440 µg (Cmax, 25.28 vs 40.02 pg/mL [GMR, 63.18%]; AUC0-∞, 205.78 vs 415.16 pg · h/mL [GMR, 49.57%]). IMPLICATIONS: Similar intranasal doses of Xhance® (372 µg) and Flonase® (400 µg) are clearly not bioequivalent. Systemic exposure is very low with all products. Systemic exposure is higher with Xhance® than with Flonase® and substantially lower than with Flovent® HFA 440 µg and, based on dose normalization, Flovent® HFA 220 µg. ClincalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02266927.

NAVIGATE I: Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial of the Exhalation Delivery System With Fluticasone for Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps.

BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis is a common, high-morbidity chronic inflammatory disease, and patients often experience suboptimal outcomes with current medical treatment. The exhalation delivery system with fluticasone (EDS-FLU) may improve care by increasing superior/posterior intranasal corticosteroid deposition. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of EDS-FLU versus EDS-placebo in patients with nasal polyps (NP). Coprimary end points were change in nasal congestion and polyp grade. Key secondary end points were Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) and Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale-Revised (MOS Sleep-R). Other prespecified end points included all 4 cardinal symptoms of NP, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI), and key indicators for surgical intervention. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, EDS-placebo-controlled, multicenter study. METHODS: Three hundred twenty-three subjects with NP and moderate-severe congestion/obstruction, most with history of corticosteroid use (94.4%) and/or prior surgery (60.4%), were randomized to EDS-FLU 93 µg, 186 µg, or 372 µg or EDS-placebo twice daily (BID) for 24 weeks (16 double-blind + 8 single-arm extension with EDS-FLU 372 µg BID). RESULTS: All EDS-FLU doses produced significant improvement in both coprimary end points ( P < .05) and in SNOT-22 total score ( P ≤ .005). EDS-FLU significantly improved all 4 cardinal symptoms of NP ( P < .05), including congestion/obstruction, facial pain/pressure, rhinorrhea/post-nasal drip, and hyposmia/anosmia. Approximately 80% of subjects reported improvement with EDS-FLU, with 65% reporting "much" or "very much" improvement by week 16. Adverse events were generally local in nature and similar to other intranasal steroids studied for similar durations in similar populations, with the most common being epistaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with NP (CRSwNP) who were symptomatic despite high rates of prior intranasal steroid use and/or surgery, EDS-FLU produced statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements compared to EDS-placebo in multiple subjective and objective outcomes (symptoms, SNOT-22, RSDI, SF-36, PGIC, and NP grade), including all 4 cardinal symptoms of CRSwNP.

EXHANCE-12: 1-year study of the exhalation delivery system with fluticasone (EDS-FLU) in chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate efficacy of current intranasal steroids in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is attributable to ineffective and/or inconsistent drug delivery to target anatomic sites. A new exhalation delivery system with fluticasone (EDS-FLU) may improve outcomes by significantly increasing superior/posterior corticosteroid delivery. A study was conducted to assess the long-term efficacy and safety outcomes of EDS-FLU in individuals with CRS. METHODS: This was a 12-month, multicenter, single-arm study evaluating the safety and efficacy of EDS-FLU 372 µg twice daily in CRS patients (with [n = 34] or without [n = 189] nasal polyps [NP]). Efficacy assessments by serial nasal endoscopy and patient report included: 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), NP grade, standardized surgical indicator assessment, Lund-Kennedy score, and Patient Global Impression of Change. Adverse event (AE) evaluations included nasal endoscopy. Additional safety and efficacy outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of 223 patients who received EDS-FLU, 96% reported prior corticosteroid use and 29% prior sinus surgery. The EDS-FLU AE profile was similar to conventional intranasal steroids studied in similar populations. Most patients (87%) reported symptom improvement. Through 12 months, mean SNOT-22 scores improved by -21.5 and -21.1 for CRS with and without NP, respectively. Among patients with NP, 54.2% had polyp elimination in at least 1 nostril and 83.3% had ≥1-point improvement in polyp grade. CONCLUSION: Over 1 year of treatment in CRS with and without NP, EDS-FLU 372 µg twice daily was well tolerated and produced improvements across a broad range of objective and subjective measures. EDS-FLU may be a desirable new option for patients with this condition.

Fentanyl buccal tablet for the relief of breakthrough pain in opioid-tolerant adult patients with chronic neuropathic pain: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic noncancer pain, including neuropathic pain, may have transitory exacerbations of pain (median duration, 60 minutes), termed breakthrough pain (BTP), that may reach peak intensity within minutes. Typical short-acting oral opioids may not provide sufficiently rapid relief (30- to 60-minute onset of analgesia). The fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) provides a rapid onset of analgesia (10-15 minutes) by enhancing fentanyl absorption across the buccal mucosa. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of FBT in opioid-tolerant patients with BTP associated with chronic noncancer neuropathic pain. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in men and women aged 18 to 80 years who were opioid tolerant; had a >/= 3-month history of chronic persistent neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, traumatic injury, or complex regional pain syndrome; and reported having episodes of BTP. After an open-label titration period to identify an effective FBT dose (the dose at which the patient reported receiving adequate pain relief within 30 minutes after administration of a single tablet of that dose during at least 2 of 3 BTP episodes), patients were randomly assigned to treat 9 consecutive episodes of BTP over the next 21 days with 1 of 3 double-blind dose sequences of FBT and placebo tablets. Pain intensity (PI) (rated on an 11-point pain scale, from 0 = no pain to 10 = worst pain) and other outcomes were assessed before dosing and for 2 hours after dosing. The primary efficacy measure was the sum of PI differences (PIDs) for the first 60 minutes (SPID(60)). Secondary efficacy measures included the proportion of BTP episodes with >/= 33% and >/= 50% improvement in PI from baseline; PID at other time points (5, 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after dosing); pain relief (PR) at the same time points (rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 = none to 4 = complete); proportion of BTP episodes with meaningful PR; time to meaningful PR; and proportion of BTP episodes in which supplemental medication was required after administration of study drug. Adverse events (AEs) spontaneously reported by the patient or elicited by the investigator were recorded throughout the study. RESULTS: Of 102 patients in the open-label titration period, 80 identified an effective dose of FBT and 79 entered the double-blind phase. Of these 79 patients, 77 (97%) completed the study and 75 (95%) were evaluable for efficacy. Of the 79 patients who entered the double-blind phase, 63% were women and 92% were white; their mean (SD) age was 48.3 (10.42) years, and their mean weight was 96.8 (33.42) kg. Baseline demographic and pain characteristics were similar between the overall population and the double-blind population. SPID(60) was significantly greater for BTP episodes treated with FBT compared with those in which placebo was administered (mean [SE], 9.63 [0.75] vs 5.73 [0.72], respectively; P < 0.001). Significant differences between FBT and placebo were seen beginning at 10 minutes for PID (mean, 0.740 [0.149] vs 0.427 [0.081]; P < 0.047) and PR (mean, 0.561 [0.087] vs 0.324 [0.056]; P < 0.001). A >/= 33% improvement in PI from baseline was seen in a greater proportion of BTP episodes treated with FBT compared with placebo from 10 minutes (9% vs 3%; P = 0.008) through 2 hours (66% vs 37%; P < 0.001). Patients were almost 4 times less likely to require supplemental opioids when BTP episodes were treated with FBT compared with placebo (odds ratio = 0.28; 95% Cl, 0.18-0.42). AEs were reported by 64 (63%) of 102 patients. The most commonly reported AEs were those typical of opioids (nausea [13%], dizziness [13%], somnolence [10%], and vomiting [5%]) and occurred more often during the dose-titration phase (55/102 [54%]) than during the double-blind phase (22/79 [28%]). CONCLUSION: In these opioid-tolerant patients with chronic neuropathic pain who identified an effective FBT dose, FBT had a rapid onset of action and was effective and well tolerated in the treatment of BTP.

Fentanyl buccal tablet for relief of breakthrough pain in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer-related chronic pain.

Fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) is a new opioid formulation providing rapid-onset analgesia for the treatment of breakthrough pain (BTP). This study evaluated FBT for BTP in opioid-tolerant patients with chronic cancer pain. The study had a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design and was conducted at 30 outpatient treatment centers in the United States. Following open-label titration, patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 18 double-blind dose sequences (7 FBT tablets, 3 placebo) to treat 10 BTP episodes. Pain intensity was measured on an 11-point scale (0 = no pain; 10 = worst pain). The primary efficacy measure was the sum of pain intensity differences (PIDs) for the first 60 minutes (SPID60); secondary efficacy measures included PIDs and pain relief (PR) measured from 5 minutes through 2 hours. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Of 129 patients enrolled, 87 entered the double-blind phase. SPID60 significantly favored FBT versus placebo (mean +/- SE, 9.7 +/- 0.63 vs 4.9 +/- 0.50; P < 0.0001). Secondary measures also favored FBT: PIDs and PR showed significant differences versus placebo at 10 minutes (0.9 vs 0.5; 0.815 vs 0.606, respectively, P < 0.0001) and all subsequent time points (P < 0.0001). AEs were typical of opioids (eg, nausea, dizziness, fatigue). In conclusion, in this study of opioid-tolerant patients with chronic cancer pain and BTP, FBT was efficacious, well tolerated, demonstrated rapid onset of analgesia (within 10 minutes), and had a sustained effect.

A randomized, placebo-controlled study of fentanyl buccal tablet for breakthrough pain in opioid-treated patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer-related breakthrough pain (BTP) is typically managed with a short-acting oral opioid, taken as needed during a fixed-schedule opioid regimen. The conventional approach may not provide the onset of analgesia required for BTP for many patients, because the onset of analgesia with short-acting opioids lags behind the time course of the majority of episodes of BTP. The fentanyl buccal tablet (FBT) employs a novel delivery system that enhances the rate and extent of absorption of fentanyl through the buccal mucosa. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of FBT in opioid-treated patients with cancer-related BTP. METHODS: After an open-label titration (N=123) to identify an effective FBT dose to treat BTP episodes, 77 patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 18 prespecified dose sequences of 10 tablets (7 FBT and 3 placebo). Pain intensity, pain relief (PR), and global performance of the medication were recorded at regular time intervals between 15 and 60 minutes. Pain intensity differences (PID), the summed PID (SPID), and summed total PR were calculated. The SPID at 30 minutes (SPID30) was the primary efficacy variable. Adverse events were reported. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent (80/123) of patients were titrated to an effective dose. The mean (SE) SPID30 for FBT was 3.0+/-0.12 versus 1.8+/-0.18 for placebo (P<0.0001). Measures of PR, PID, SPID, summed total PR, and patient ratings of global performance of medication significantly favored FBT over placebo at all time points. Adverse events were typical of opioid drugs. Poor oral tolerability was noted in 2 patients. CONCLUSIONS: FBT is efficacious and safe in the treatment of cancer-related BTP.