Clinic vs Home Spirometry for Monitoring Lung Function in Patients With Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Studies examining agreement between home and clinic spirometry in patients with asthma are limited, with conflicting results. Understanding the strengths and limitations of telehealth and home spirometry is particularly important considering the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. RESEARCH QUESTION: How well do home and clinic measurements of trough FEV1 agree in patients with uncontrolled asthma? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This post hoc analysis used trough FEV1 data from the randomized double-anonymized parallel-group phase 3A CAPTAIN (205715; NCT02924688) and phase 2B 205832 (NCT03012061) trials in patients with uncontrolled asthma. CAPTAIN evaluated the impact of adding umeclidinium to fluticasone furoate/vilanterol via a single inhaler; the 205832 trial investigated adding umeclidinium to fluticasone furoate vs placebo. Trough FEV1 measurements were collected via home spirometry and supervised in-person spirometry in the research clinic. To compare home and clinic spirometry, we examined the time-course analyses of home and clinic trough FEV1, and generated post hoc Bland-Altman plots to assess agreement between home and clinic spirometry. RESULTS: Data from 2,436 patients (CAPTAIN trial) and 421 patients (205832 trial) were analyzed. Treatment-related improvements in FEV1 were observed in both trials, using home and clinic spirometry. Improvements measured by home spirometry were of lower magnitude and less consistent than clinic measurements. Bland-Altman plots suggested poor agreement between home and clinic trough FEV1 at baseline and week 24. INTERPRETATION: This post hoc comparison of home and clinic spirometry is the largest conducted in asthma. Results showed that home spirometry was less consistent than and lacked agreement with clinic spirometry, suggesting that unsupervised home readings are not interchangeable with clinic measurements. However, these findings may only be applicable to home spirometry using the specific device and coaching methods employed in these studies. Postpandemic, further research to optimize home spirometry use is needed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; Nos.: NCT03012061 and NCT02924688; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Measuring respiratory symptoms in moderate/severe asthma: evaluation of a respiratory symptom tool, the E-RS®: COPD in asthma populations.

BACKGROUND: Symptom constructs included in the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (E-RS®: COPD) tool may be relevant to patients with asthma. The purpose of this study was to evaluate content validity and psychometric performance of the E-RS: COPD in moderate/severe asthma patients. METHODS: Content validity of the E-RS: COPD was evaluated in patients with moderate/severe asthma using concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews. Secondary analyses using data from two clinical trials in patients with moderate/severe asthma evaluated the factor structure of the E-RS: COPD plus two supplementary items (wheeze; shortness of breath with strenuous physical activity) and assessed psychometric properties of the tool, which will be referred to as E-RS®: Asthma when used in asthma populations. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews (N = 25) achieved concept saturation for asthma respiratory symptoms. Concepts in the E-RS: COPD were relevant to patients and instructions were understood. Most patients (19/25; 76%) reported experiencing all concepts in the E-RS: COPD; no patients indicated missing symptoms. Secondary analyses of clinical trial data supported the original factor structure (RS-Total and three symptom-specific subscales). The two supplemental items did not fit with this factor structure and were not retained. RS-Total and subscale score reliability was high (internal consistency [α] > 0.70). Validity was demonstrated through significant (P < 0.0001) relationships with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and Asthma Symptom Severity scale. E-RS: Asthma was responsive to change when evaluated using SGRQ, Patient Global Impression of Change and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire as anchors (P < 0.0001). Clinically meaningful change thresholds were also identified (RS-Total: - 2.0 units). CONCLUSIONS: The E-RS: Asthma is reliable and responsive for evaluating respiratory symptoms in patients with moderate/severe asthma.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI in patients with inadequately controlled asthma (CAPTAIN): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3A trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy, 30-50% of patients with moderate or severe asthma remain inadequately controlled. We investigated the safety and efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate plus umeclidinium plus vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) compared with FF/VI. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3A study (Clinical Study in Asthma Patients Receiving Triple Therapy in a Single Inhaler [CAPTAIN]), participants were recruited from 416 hospitals and primary care centres across 15 countries. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with inadequately controlled asthma (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ]-6 score of ≥1·5) despite ICS/LABA, a documented health-care contact or a documented temporary change in asthma therapy for treatment of acute asthma symptoms in the year before screening, pre-bronchodilator FEV1 between 30% and less than 85% of predicted normal value, and reversibility (defined as an increase in FEV1 of ≥12% and ≥200 mL in the 20-60 min after four inhalations of albuterol or salbutamol) at screening. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), via central based randomisation stratified by pre-study ICS dose at study entry, to once-daily FF/VI (100/25 µg or 200/25 µg) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 µg, 100/62·5/25 µg, 200/31·25/25 µg, or 200/62·5/25 µg) administered via Ellipta dry powder inhaler (Glaxo Operations UK, Hertfordshire, UK). Patients, investigators, and the funder were masked to treatment allocation. Endpoints assessed in the intention-to-treat population were change from baseline in clinic trough FEV1 at week 24 (primary) and annualised moderate and/or severe asthma exacerbation rate (key secondary). Other secondary endpoints were change from baseline in clinic FEV1 at 3 h post-dose, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and ACQ-7 total score, all at week 24. Change from baseline in Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Asthma total score at weeks 21-24 was also a secondary endpoint but is not reported here. Exploratory analyses of biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation on treatment response were also done. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02924688, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 16, 2016, and Aug 31, 2018, 5185 patients were screened and 2439 were recruited and randomly assigned to FF/VI (100/25 µg n=407; 200/25 µg n=406) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 µg n=405; 100/62·5/25 µg n=406; 200/31·25/25 µg n=404; 200/62·5/25 µg n=408), with three patients randomly assigned in error and not included in analyses. In the intention-to-treat population, 922 (38%) patients were men, the mean age was 53·2 years (SD 13·1) and body-mass index was 29·4 (6·6). Baseline demographics were generally similar across all treatment groups. The least squares mean improvement in FEV1 change from baseline for FF/UMEC/VI 100/62·5/25 µg versus FF/VI 100/25 µg was 110 mL (95% CI 66-153; p<0·0001) and for 200/62·5/25 µg versus 200/25 µg was 92 mL (49-135; p<0·0001). Adding UMEC 31·25 µg to FF/VI produced similar improvements (FF/UMEC/VI 100/31·25/25 µg vs FF/VI 100/25 µg: 96 mL [52-139; p<0·0001]; and 200/31·25/25 µg vs 200/25 µg: 82 mL [39-125; p=0·0002]). These results were supported by the analysis of clinic FEV1 at 3 h post-dose. Non-significant reductions in moderate and/or severe exacerbation rates were observed for FF/UMEC 62·5 µg/VI versus FF/VI (pooled analysis), with rates lower in FF 200 µg-containing versus FF 100 µg-containing treatment groups. All pooled treatment groups demonstrated mean improvements (decreases) in SGRQ total score at week 24 compared with baseline in excess of the minimal clinically important difference of 4 points; however, there were no differences between treatment groups. For mean change from baseline to week 24 in asthma control questionnaire-7 score, improvements (decreases) exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of 0·5 points were observed in all pooled treatment groups. Adding UMEC to FF/VI resulted in small, dose-related improvements compared with FF/VI (pooled analysis: FF/UMEC 31·25 µg/VI versus FF/VI, -0·06 (95% CI -0·12 to 0·01; p=0·094) FF/UMEC 62·5 µg/VI versus FF/VI, -0·09 (-0·16 to -0·02, p=0·0084). By contrast with adding UMEC, the effects of higher dose FF on clinic trough FEV1 and annualised moderate and/or severe exacerbation rate were increased in patients with higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exhaled nitric oxide. Occurrence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups (patients with at least one event ranged from 210 [52%] to 258 [63%]), with the most commonly reported adverse events being nasopharyngitis (51 [13%]-63 [15%]), headache (19 [5%]-36 [9%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (13 [3%]-24 [6%]). The incidence of serious adverse events was similar across all groups (range 18 [4%]-25 [6%)). Three deaths occurred, of which one was considered to be related to study drug (pulmonary embolism in a patient in the FF/UMEC/VI 100/31·25/25 µg group). INTERPRETATION: In patients with uncontrolled moderate or severe asthma on ICS/LABA, adding UMEC improved lung function but did not lead to a significant reduction in moderate and/or severe exacerbations. For such patients, single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI is an effective treatment option with a favourable risk-benefit profile. Higher dose FF primarily reduced the rate of exacerbations, particularly in patients with raised biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation. Further confirmatory studies into the differentiating effect of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers on treatment outcomes in asthma are required to build on these exploratory findings and further guide clinical practice. FUNDING: GSK.

A phase IIb, randomised, parallel-group study: the efficacy, safety and tolerability of once-daily umeclidinium in patients with asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids.

BACKGROUND: Patients with asthma uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids may benefit from umeclidinium (UMEC), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist. METHODS: This Phase IIb, double-blind study included patients with reversible, uncontrolled/partially-controlled asthma for ≥6 months, receiving ≥100 mcg/day fluticasone propionate (or equivalent) for ≥12 weeks. Following a 2-week run-in on open-label fluticasone furoate (FF) 100 mcg, patients were randomised (1:1:1) to receive UMEC 31.25 mcg, UMEC 62.5 mcg or placebo on top of FF 100 mcg once-daily for 24 weeks. As-needed salbutamol was provided. Primary and secondary endpoints were change from baseline in clinic trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and clinic FEV1 3 h post-dose, respectively, at Week 24. Other endpoints included change from baseline in home daily spirometry (trough FEV1, evening FEV1, morning [pre-dose] and evening peak expiratory flow) over 24 weeks. Safety was assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 421 patients (UMEC 31.25 mcg: n =139, UMEC 62.5 mcg: n =139, placebo: n =143). UMEC 31.25 mcg and 62.5 mcg demonstrated significantly greater improvements from baseline in clinic trough FEV1 at Week 24 (difference [95% CI]: 0.176 L [0.092, 0.260; p<0.001] and 0.184 L [0.101, 0.268; p<0.001], respectively), clinic FEV1 3 h post-dose at Week 24 (0.190 L [0.100, 0.279; p<0.001] and 0.198 L [0.109, 0.287; p<0.001], respectively) and mean change from baseline in daily home spirometry over 24 weeks versus placebo. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: UMEC is a highly effective bronchodilator that leads to improved lung function when administered as a single bronchodilator on top of FF in subjects with fully reversible, uncontrolled/partially-controlled moderate asthma. These data support a favourable benefit/risk profile for UMEC (31.25 mcg and 62.5 mcg). TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK study ID: 205832; Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03012061.

Oral glucose lowering with linagliptin and metformin compared with linagliptin alone as initial treatment in Asian patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycemia: Subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is an epidemic in Asia, yet clinical trials of glucose-lowering therapies often enroll predominantly Western populations. We explored the initial combination of metformin and linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in Asia with marked hyperglycemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a post-hoc subgroup analysis of a multinational, parallel-group clinical trial in which 316 newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 8.5-12.0% were randomized to double-blind oral treatment with linagliptin/metformin or linagliptin monotherapy. The primary end-point was the change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24. We evaluated data for the 125 participants from Asian countries. RESULTS: After 24 weeks, the mean ± standard error reduction from baseline in HbA1c (mean 10.0%) was -2.99 ± 0.18% with linagliptin/metformin and -1.84 ± 0.18% with linagliptin; a treatment difference of -1.15% (95% confidence interval -1.65 to -0.66, P < 0.0001). HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 60% of participants receiving linagliptin/metformin. The mean bodyweight change after 24 weeks was -0.45 ± 0.41 kg and 1.33 ± 0.45 kg in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively (treatment difference -1.78 kg [95% confidence interval -2.99 to -0.57, P = 0.0043]). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 9.7% of participants receiving linagliptin/metformin and 4.8% of those receiving linagliptin. Hypoglycemia occurred in 6.5% and 4.8% of the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively, with no severe episodes. Gastrointestinal disorders occurred in 12.9% and 12.7% of the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively, with no associated treatment discontinuations. CONCLUSIONS: In people from Asia with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus and marked hyperglycemia, the initial combination of linagliptin and metformin substantially improved glycemic control without weight gain and with infrequent hypoglycemia. Initial oral combination therapy might be a viable treatment for such individuals.

Linagliptin plus metformin in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycemia.

OBJECTIVES: Few studies of oral glucose-lowering drugs exist in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with marked hyperglycemia, and insulin is often proposed as initial treatment. We evaluated the oral initial combination of metformin and linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in this population. METHODS: We performed a pre-specified subgroup analysis of a randomized study in which newly diagnosed T2D patients with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 8.5%-12.0% received linagliptin/metformin or linagliptin monotherapy. Subgroups of baseline HbA1c, age, body-mass index (BMI), renal function, race, and ethnicity were evaluated, with efficacy measured by HbA1c change from baseline after 24 weeks. RESULTS: HbA1c reductions from baseline (mean 9.7%) at week 24 in the overall population were an adjusted mean -2.81% ± 0.12% with linagliptin/metformin (n = 132) and -2.02% ± 0.13% with linagliptin (n = 113); treatment difference -0.79% (95% CI -1.13 to -0.46, P < 0.0001). In patients with baseline HbA1c ≥9.5%, HbA1c reduction was -3.37% with linagliptin/metformin (n = 76) and -2.53% with linagliptin (n = 61); difference -0.84% (95% CI -1.32 to -0.35). In those with baseline HbA1c <9.5%, HbA1c reduction was -2.08% with linagliptin/metformin (n = 56) and -1.39% with linagliptin (n = 52); difference -0.69% (95% CI -1.23 to -0.15). Changes in HbA1c and treatment differences between the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups were of similar magnitudes to the overall population across patient subgroups based on age, BMI, renal function, and race. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.8% and 5.7% of linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin patients, respectively; no severe hypoglycemia occurred. CONCLUSION: Linagliptin/metformin combination in newly diagnosed T2D patients with marked hyperglycemia was well tolerated and elicited substantial improvements in glycemic control regardless of baseline HbA1c, age, BMI, renal function, or race. Thus, newly diagnosed, markedly hyperglycemic patients may be effectively treated by combinations of oral agents. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT01512979.

Subgroup analysis of Asian patients in the INPULSIS® trials of nintedanib in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In the two-replicate randomized Phase III INPULSIS® trials in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), nintedanib 150 mg bd significantly reduced the annual rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) compared with placebo. The key secondary endpoints were time to first investigator-reported acute exacerbation and change from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, both over 52 weeks. Here, we assessed the effect of nintedanib in Asian patients. METHODS: Pre-specified subgroup analyses of the effect of nintedanib on the primary and key secondary endpoints in Asian versus White patients were undertaken based on pooled data from the two INPULSIS® trials. Safety data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Of the treated patients, 322 were Asian (nintedanib n = 194; placebo n = 128) and 608 were White (nintedanib n = 360; placebo n = 248). In Asian patients, the nintedanib versus placebo difference in the adjusted annual rate of decline in FVC was 94.1 mL/year (95% CI: 33.7, 154.6). The treatment effect of nintedanib on the annual rate of decline in FVC in Asian and White patients was similar (treatment-by-subgroup interaction P = 0.72) and consistent with the overall population. No significant treatment-by-subgroup interaction was observed for the key secondary endpoints between Asian and White patients. In Asian patients, the most common adverse event in the nintedanib group was diarrhoea (56.2% of patients vs 15.6% for placebo). CONCLUSION: In pre-specified subgroup analyses of Asian versus White patients with IPF in the INPULSIS® trials, race did not influence the effect of nintedanib on disease progression.

Nintedanib in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: Combined evidence from the TOMORROW and INPULSIS(®) trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Phase II TOMORROW trial and two Phase III INPULSIS(®) trials investigated the efficacy and safety of nintedanib versus placebo in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). To obtain an overall estimate of the treatment effect of nintedanib 150 mg twice daily (bid), pooled and meta-analyses of data from these three trials were conducted. METHODS: Pooled and meta-analyses were conducted for annual rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC), time to first acute exacerbation, change from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and mortality over 52 weeks. RESULTS: 1231 patients (nintedanib n = 723, placebo n = 508) were included in the pooled analysis. Adjusted annual rate of decline in FVC was -112.4 mL/year with nintedanib and -223.3 mL/year with placebo (difference: 110.9 mL/year [95% CI: 78.5, 143.3]; p < 0.0001). The hazard ratio for time to first acute exacerbation was 0.53 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.83; p = 0.0047). Adjusted mean change from baseline in SGRQ score at week 52 was 2.92 with nintedanib and 4.97 with placebo (difference: -2.05 [95% CI: -3.59, -0.50]; p = 0.0095). Hazard ratios for time to all-cause and on-treatment mortality were 0.70 (95% CI: 0.46, 1.08; p = 0.0954) and 0.57 (95% CI: 0.34, 0.97; p = 0.0274), respectively, in favour of nintedanib. The meta-analysis was generally consistent with the pooled analysis. Diarrhoea was the most frequent adverse event in the nintedanib group (61.5% of patients treated with nintedanib versus 17.9% of patients treated with placebo). CONCLUSION: Nintedanib has a beneficial effect on slowing disease progression in patients with IPF.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin co-administered with low-dose metformin once daily versus high-dose metformin twice daily in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: a double-blind randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin + low-dose (LD) metformin once daily versus high-dose (HD) metformin twice daily in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Patients (n = 689) were randomized (1:1) to double-blind treatment with linagliptin 5 mg + LD metformin (1000 mg) or HD metformin (2000 mg) for 14 weeks. Metformin was initiated at 500 mg/day and up-titrated within 2 weeks; the dose then remained unchanged. The primary endpoint was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to Week 14 in patients who tolerated a daily metformin dose of ≥1000 mg after 2 weeks. RESULTS: At Week 14, HbA1c changed from a mean baseline of 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) by -0.99% (-11 mmol/mol) for linagliptin + LD metformin, and -0.98% (-11 mmol/mol) for HD metformin [treatment difference -0.01% (95% confidence interval -0.13, 0.12) (0 mmol/mol), P = 0.8924]. The proportion of patients who achieved HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) without occurrence of moderate or severe gastrointestinal (GI) events (including abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and decreased appetite) was the same in both groups (51.3% for both). Although the occurrence of moderate or severe GI events was similar, the linagliptin + LD metformin group had fewer mild GI events (18.5% versus 24.3%). The incidence of hypoglycemia was low in both groups. CONCLUSION: Linagliptin + LD metformin combination showed similar efficacy and safety to HD metformin. This combination may be an alternative treatment option in patients who may have difficulty tolerating metformin doses >1000 mg/day. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.