Risk assessment validation in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: Data from a Southern Brazil registry (RESPHIRAR study).

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a severe and progressive disease characterized by increased pulmonary vascular resistance, ultimately leading to right heart failure and death. Registries are a valuable tool in the research of rare conditions such as PAH. Moreover, the risk assessment strategy has been validated in European and North American registries and has been reported to provide an accurate prediction of mortality and the clinical advantage of reaching low-risk status. However, there is no available data from Brazil. Thus, the aim of the present study was to describe the characteristics of a sample of PAH from Southern Brazil and to retrospectively validate the risk assessment at our population. The RESPHIRAR is a retrospective and multicentric registry on pulmonary hypertension. With a join collaboration from nine centers in Southern Brazil, demographics, clinical presentation, and hemodynamics data of PAH were collected between 2007 and 2017. Moreover, the REVEAL 2.0 and REVEAL 2.0 Lite risk assessments were validated in our population. Overall, 370 PAH patients were included in the present study. Patients were predominantly female (78.5%) and had a mean age of 41.8 ± 18.8 years. Most patients (33.4%) had idiopathic PAH, 30.2% had PAH associated with congenital heart disease, and 23.5% had PAH associated with connective tissue disease. The low-risk group showed significantly lower mortality than the intermediated- or high-risk group at diagnosis (p < 0.05). In conclusion, our data suggest that REVEAL 2.0 and REVEAL 2.0 Lite risk assessments can predict mortality risk in PAH patients in Southern Brazil.

Equivalência farmacêutica da formulação combinada de budesonida e formoterol em cápsula única com dispositivo inalador de pó / Pharmaceutical equivalence of the combination formulation of budesonide and formoterol in a single capsule with a dry powder inhaler

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a equivalência farmacêutica da formulação teste (associação fixa de budesonida e fumarato de formoterol em cápsula única dispensada com o dispositivo Aerocaps®) em relação a uma formulação referência (budesonida e fumarato de formoterol em duas cápsulas distintas dispensadas com o dispositivo Aerolizer®). MÉTODOS: Estudo in vitro no qual foram realizadas identificação/quantificação dos ingredientes ativos por HPCL e determinação da uniformidade da dose liberada e da distribuição aerodinâmica das partículas das formulações teste e referência. RESULTADOS: Na formulação teste, o teor de budesonida e de formoterol foi de 111,0% e 103,8%, respectivamente, enquanto esse foi de 110,5% e 104,5% na formulação referência. Na formulação teste, a uniformidade das doses de budesonida e de formoterol foi de 293,2 µg e 10,2 µg, respectivamente, enquanto essa foi de 353,0 µg e 11,1 µg na formulação referência. Esses resultados estão dentro da faixa recomendada para esse tipo de formulação (75-125% da dose rotulada). A fração de partículas finas (< 5 µm) para budesonida e formoterol foi de, respectivamente, 45% e 56% na formulação teste e de 54% e 52% na formulação referência. CONCLUSÕES: As formulações teste e referência apresentaram níveis de ingredientes ativos, uniformidade de doses e diâmetros aerodinâmicos apropriados ao uso com seus respectivos dispositivos inalatórios de pó.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pharmaceutical equivalence of a test formulation (fixed-dose combination of budesonide and formoterol fumarate in a single capsule dispensed in an Aerocaps® inhaler) in relation to a reference formulation (budesonide and formoterol fumarate in two separate capsules dispensed in an Aerolizer® inhaler). METHODS: This was an in vitro study in which we performed the identification/quantification of the active ingredients by HPLC and determined dose uniformity and aerodynamic particle size distribution in the test and reference formulations. RESULTS: In the test formulation, the content of budesonide and formoterol was 111.0% and 103.8%, respectively, compared with 110.5% and 104.5%, respectively, in the reference formulation. In the test formulation, dose uniformity regarding budesonide and formoterol was 293.2 µg and 10.2 µg, respectively, whereas it was 353.0 µg and 11.1 µg in the reference formulation. These values are within the recommended range for this type of formulation (75-125% of the labeled dose). The fine particle fraction (< 5 µm) for budesonide and formoterol was 45% and 56%, respectively, in the test formulation and 54% and 52%, respectively, in the reference formulation. CONCLUSIONS: For both of the formulations tested, the levels of active ingredients, dose uniformity, and aerodynamic diameters were suitable for use with the respective dry powder inhalers.

Pharmaceutical equivalence of the combination formulation of budesonide and formoterol in a single capsule with a dry powder inhaler.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pharmaceutical equivalence of a test formulation (fixed-dose combination of budesonide and formoterol fumarate in a single capsule dispensed in an Aerocaps® inhaler) in relation to a reference formulation (budesonide and formoterol fumarate in two separate capsules dispensed in an Aerolizer® inhaler). METHODS: This was an in vitro study in which we performed the identification/quantification of the active ingredients by HPLC and determined dose uniformity and aerodynamic particle size distribution in the test and reference formulations. RESULTS: In the test formulation, the content of budesonide and formoterol was 111.0% and 103.8%, respectively, compared with 110.5% and 104.5%, respectively, in the reference formulation. In the test formulation, dose uniformity regarding budesonide and formoterol was 293.2 µg and 10.2 µg, respectively, whereas it was 353.0 µg and 11.1 µg in the reference formulation. These values are within the recommended range for this type of formulation (75-125% of the labeled dose). The fine particle fraction (< 5 µm) for budesonide and formoterol was 45% and 56%, respectively, in the test formulation and 54% and 52%, respectively, in the reference formulation. CONCLUSIONS: For both of the formulations tested, the levels of active ingredients, dose uniformity, and aerodynamic diameters were suitable for use with the respective dry powder inhalers.

Effectiveness and safety of bronchial thermoplasty in the treatment of severe asthma: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial.

RATIONALE: Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) is a bronchoscopic procedure in which controlled thermal energy is applied to the airway wall to decrease smooth muscle. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of BT versus a sham procedure in subjects with severe asthma who remain symptomatic despite treatment with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta(2)-agonists. METHODS: A total of 288 adult subjects (Intent-to-Treat [ITT]) randomized to BT or sham control underwent three bronchoscopy procedures. Primary outcome was the difference in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) scores from baseline to average of 6, 9, and 12 months (integrated AQLQ). Adverse events and health care use were collected to assess safety. Statistical design and analysis of the primary endpoint was Bayesian. Target posterior probability of superiority (PPS) of BT over sham was 95%, except for the primary endpoint (96.4%). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The improvement from baseline in the integrated AQLQ score was superior in the BT group compared with sham (BT, 1.35 +/- 1.10; sham, 1.16 +/- 1.23 [PPS, 96.0% ITT and 97.9% per protocol]). Seventy-nine percent of BT and 64% of sham subjects achieved changes in AQLQ of 0.5 or greater (PPS, 99.6%). Six percent more BT subjects were hospitalized in the treatment period (up to 6 wk after BT). In the posttreatment period (6-52 wk after BT), the BT group experienced fewer severe exacerbations, emergency department (ED) visits, and days missed from work/school compared with the sham group (PPS, 95.5, 99.9, and 99.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: BT in subjects with severe asthma improves asthma-specific quality of life with a reduction in severe exacerbations and healthcare use in the posttreatment period. Clinical trial registered with www.clinialtrials.gov (NCT00231114).