Comparison of Systemic Exposure Between Epinephrine Delivered via Metered-Dose Inhalation and Intramuscular Injection.

Background: Primatene® MIST, an epinephrine metered-dose inhaler (MDI), has long been questioned by some medical professionals for asthma treatment despite having been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. One of the primary reasons for their concerns stemmed from potential cardiovascular complications following epinephrine administration. However, the majority of documented cardiovascular complications seemed to occur following the injection route of the epinephrine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the systemic exposure of epinephrine delivered through different administration routes and to understand its relationship with cardiovascular effects. Since albuterol inhalers are commonly recommended for asthma, albuterol was also studied as a comparator drug. Method: A randomized, evaluator-blinded, three-arm crossover study was conducted in 28 healthy adult subjects to compare the profiles of systemic exposure for epinephrine delivered by MDI versus epinephrine intramuscular (IM) injection and albuterol MDI. Serially sampled plasma epinephrine and albuterol levels were measured and compared between treatment groups. Safety was assessed by adverse events, serial vital signs, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and clinical laboratory tests obtained at each crossover dosing visit. Results: Systemic exogenous drug exposure for inhaled epinephrine MDI (39 pg/mL × hour) was ∼9 times lower than that of epinephrine IM (435 pg/mL × hour) and 122 times lower than that of albuterol MDI (3453 pg/mL × hour) after dose normalization. The Cmax in epinephrine MDI (345 pg/mL) was approximately half of that of epinephrine IM (816 pg/mL) and that of albuterol MDI (681 pg/mL). Plasma drug concentrations for epinephrine MDI dropped rapidly to baseline (∼0.6 hour), while epinephrine IM took ∼8 hours, and albuterol MDI required more than 24 hours. Epinephrine MDI and albuterol MDI resulted in minimal, clinically insignificant changes in vital signs and ECGs, whereas epinephrine IM led to mild transient increases in systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and corrected QT interval. Conclusion: Epinephrine MDI (Primatene MIST) had ∼9 times lower systemic drug exposure (SDE) than that of epinephrine IM and ∼122 times lower than that of albuterol MDI. The lower SDE of inhaled epinephrine also correlated with reassuring safety findings, with no significant cardiovascular adverse effects found, compared with transient effects seen after IM epinephrine. Clinical trial registration number: NCT04207840.

Characterization of Moderate and Severe Asthma Exacerbations in the CAPTAIN Study.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the relative impact of moderate and severe exacerbations on asthma control and impairment. OBJECTIVE: To explore data from the CAPTAIN trial to evaluate the relationship between first moderate or severe exacerbation and changes in lung function, symptoms, physical activity limitation scores, and short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) usage to determine the clinical relevance of moderate events. METHODS: CAPTAIN was a phase IIIA 24- to 52-week, multicenter, international, randomized controlled trial evaluating efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI in patients with uncontrolled asthma on inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist. Outcomes reported include first postrandomization exacerbation event by severity (wk 1-52), frequency and duration of moderate and severe exacerbations, and time course of changes over ± 14-day peri-exacerbation period for lung function, symptoms, limitations, and SABA use. RESULTS: Of the intent-to-treat population (n = 2,436), 550 patients (23%) continued to 52 weeks. There were 529 moderate and 546 severe exacerbations. Lung function changes were similar, but symptom, physical activity limitation scores, and SABA use were higher, for severe versus moderate exacerbations. Lung function decline preceded increases in symptom, physical activity limitation scores, and SABA use, irrespective of exacerbation severity. Lung function variables, limitation scores, and SABA use returned to pre-exacerbation baseline after approximately 8 to 12 days for both exacerbation severities. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas severe events were associated with greater impact on symptoms, physical activity limitations, and SABA use, onset and time to resolution were generally similar for moderate and severe events. Both exacerbation severities represent clinically important deteriorations comprising clinical and functional changes.

How can the findings of the EMAX trial on long-acting bronchodilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease be applied in the primary care setting?

This review addresses outstanding questions regarding initial pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Optimizing initial treatment improves clinical outcomes in symptomatic patients, including those with low exacerbation risk. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy improves lung function versus LAMA or LABA monotherapy, although other treatment benefits have been less consistently observed. The benefits of dual bronchodilation in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk, and its duration of efficacy and cost effectiveness in this population, are not yet fully established. Questions remain on the impact of baseline symptom severity, prior treatment, degree of reversibility to bronchodilators, and smoking status on responses to dual bronchodilator treatment. Using evidence from EMAX (NCT03034915), a 6-month trial comparing the LAMA/LABA combination umeclidinium/vilanterol with umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapy in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk who were inhaled corticosteroid-naïve, we describe how these findings can be applied in primary care.

Safety and Immunogenicity of a Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prefusion F (RSVPreF3) Candidate Vaccine in Older Adults: Phase 1/2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate safety and immunogenicity of vaccine formulations against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) containing the stabilized prefusion conformation of RSV fusion protein (RSVPreF3). METHODS: This phase 1/2, randomized controlled, observer-blind study enrolled 48 young adults (YAs; aged 18-40 years) and 1005 older adults (OAs; aged 60-80 years) between January and August 2019. Participants were randomized into equally sized groups to receive 2 doses of unadjuvanted (YAs and OAs) or AS01-adjuvanted (OAs) vaccine or placebo 2 months apart. Vaccine safety and immunogenicity were assessed until 1 month (YAs) or 12 months (OAs) after second vaccination. RESULTS: The RSVPreF3 vaccines boosted humoral (RSVPreF3-specific immunoglobulin G [IgG] and RSV-A neutralizing antibody) responses, which increased in an antigen concentration-dependent manner and were highest after dose 1. Compared to prevaccination, the geometric mean frequencies of polyfunctional CD4+ T cells increased after each dose and were significantly higher in adjuvanted than unadjuvanted vaccinees. Postvaccination immune responses persisted until end of follow-up. Solicited adverse events were mostly mild to moderate and transient. Despite a higher observed reactogenicity of AS01-containing vaccines, no safety concerns were identified for any assessed formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Based on safety and immunogenicity profiles, the AS01E-adjuvanted vaccine containing 120 µg of RSVPreF3 was selected for further clinical development. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03814590.

Applying key learnings from the EMAX trial to clinical practice and future trial design in COPD.

Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a large, multicentre, multi-national, randomised, double-blind, 24-week trial. EMAX evaluated the efficacy and safety of dual bronchodilator therapy with umeclidinium bromide (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus monotherapy with either UMEC or salmeterol (SAL) in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at low exacerbation risk who were not taking concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). EMAX generated evidence covering a wide range of patient-centred endpoints in COPD in addition to measures of lung function, clinical deterioration and safety. In addition, prospective and post hoc secondary analyses have generated clinically valuable information regarding the effects of baseline patient characteristics on treatment outcomes. Importantly, as concomitant ICS use was not permitted in this study, EMAX compared dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) therapy with LAMA or LABA monotherapy without potential confounding due to concurrent ICS use or withdrawal. EMAX demonstrated beneficial treatment effects of UMEC/VI over UMEC or SAL monotherapy as maintenance treatment across a range of different patient characteristics, with no forfeit in safety. Thus, the trial provided novel insights into the role of LAMA/LABA versus LABA and LAMA monotherapies as maintenance therapy for patients with symptomatic COPD at low risk of exacerbations. This article will explore the clinical implications of the main findings to date of the EMAX trial and consider the key learnings this trial offers for future trial design in COPD.

Initial analysis of viral dynamics and circulating viral variants during the mRNA-1273 Phase 3 COVE trial.

The mRNA-1273 vaccine for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) demonstrated 93.2% efficacy in reduction of symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in the blinded portion of the Phase 3 Coronavirus Efficacy (COVE) trial. While mRNA-1273 demonstrated high efficacy in prevention of COVID-19, including severe disease, its effect on the viral dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infections is not understood. Here, in exploratory analyses, we assessed the impact of mRNA-1273 vaccination in the ongoing COVE trial (number NCT04470427) on SARS-CoV-2 copy number and shedding, burden of disease and infection, and viral variants. Viral variants were sequenced in all COVID-19 and adjudicated COVID-19 cases (n = 832), from July 2020 in the blinded part A of the study to May 2021 of the open-label part B of the study, in which participants in the placebo arm started to receive the mRNA-1273 vaccine after US Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization of mRNA-1273 in December 2020. mRNA-1273 vaccination significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 viral copy number (95% confidence interval) by 100-fold on the day of diagnosis compared with placebo (4.1 (3.4-4.8) versus 6.2 (6.0-6.4) log10 copies per ml). Median times to undetectable viral copies were 4 days for mRNA-1273 and 7 days for placebo. Vaccination also substantially reduced the burden of disease and infection scores. Vaccine efficacies (95% confidence interval) against SARS-CoV-2 variants circulating in the United States during the trial assessed in this post hoc analysis were 82.4% (40.4-94.8%) for variants Epsilon and Gamma and 81.2% (36.1-94.5%) for Epsilon. The detection of other, non-SARS-CoV-2, respiratory viruses during the trial was similar between groups. While additional study is needed, these data show that in SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, vaccination reduced both the viral copy number and duration of detectable viral RNA, which may be markers for the risk of virus transmission.

Non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae-Moraxella catarrhalis vaccine for the prevention of exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, proof-of-concept, phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are associated with changes in the sputum microbiome, including an increased prevalence of pathogenic bacteria. Vaccination against the most frequent bacteria identified in AECOPD might reduce exacerbation frequency. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a candidate vaccine containing surface proteins from non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae (NTHi) and Moraxella catarrhalis (Mcat) in patients with COPD. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept, phase 2b trial recruited patients with stable COPD, moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 2, 3, or 4), at 67 clinical sites in Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, and USA. Eligible patients were aged 40-80 years and had a history of at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous year. Patients were allocated (1:1) using a minimisation algorithm to receive two intramuscular injections of NTHi-Mcat vaccine or placebo 60 days apart, in addition to standard care. The allocation algorithm considered age category, number of previous exacerbations, COPD severity at study entry, and country as minimisation factors, to guarantee treatment balance within each factor. Vaccine recipients and those responsible for evaluating study endpoints were masked to group allocation. In the analysis of efficacy, the primary outcome was the rate of any moderate or severe AECOPD occurring within a 1-year period, starting 1 month after the second dose in patients who received two vaccine doses (modified total vaccinated cohort). Safety was assessed in the total vaccinated cohort. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03281876, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2017, and Nov 30, 2018, 606 adults were enrolled and included in the total vaccinated cohort (304 in the NTHi-Mcat vaccine group, 302 in the placebo group); 571 received two doses and were included in the primary efficacy analysis (279 in the NTHi-Mcat vaccine group, 292 in the placebo group). 23 participants dropped-out in the NTHi-Mcat vaccine group and 39 in the placebo group; this included 4 patients in the NTHi-Mcat vaccine group and 15 in the placebo group who withdrew from the study because of an adverse event. The primary analysis included 340 exacerbations (in follow-up time 102 123 days) in the NTHi-Mcat vaccine group and 333 (in 104 443 days) in the placebo group, with a yearly rate of moderate or severe AECOPD of 1·22 in the NTHi-Mcat vaccine group and 1·17 in the placebo group, with vaccine efficacy in reducing the yearly rate of moderate or severe AECOPD estimated to be zero (vaccine efficacy point estimate 2·26% [87% CI -18·27 to 11·58]; p=0·82). Solicited local adverse events were more frequent in the NTHi-Mcat vaccine group (216 [72%] of 301 patients) than with placebo (34 [11%] of 299 patients), and the frequency of solicited general adverse events was similar between groups (239 [79%] of 301 vs 235 [79%] of 299 patients). There was one death in the NTHi-Mcat vaccine group (acute respiratory failure, not related to vaccination) and ten in the placebo group (seven due in part to COPD or respiratory failure). There were 158 serious adverse events (89 [29%] of 304 patients) in the NTHi-Mcat vaccine group, not related to vaccination, and 214 (99 [33%] of 302 patients) in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: NTHi-Mcat vaccine administered to patients with COPD did not show efficacy in reducing the yearly rate of moderate or severe exacerbations. No safety concerns were identified. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.

A randomized controlled trial of glycopyrrolate administered by metered dose inhaler in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite ICS/LABA treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of three doses of glycopyrrolate metered dose inhaler (GP MDI) in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonists (ICS/LABA) with or without tiotropium, to characterize the benefit of triple therapy. METHOD: This phase II/III, double-blind study randomized patients to 24 weeks' treatment with twice-daily GP MDI 36 µg, 18 µg, 9 µg, or placebo MDI (all delivered via Aerosphere inhalers), or once-daily open-label tiotropium 2.5 µg. Patients continued their own ICS/LABA regimen throughout the study. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 - 4 h (AUC0 - 4) at Week 24. Secondary endpoints included patient questionnaires to measure asthma control or symptoms. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: The primary analysis (modified intent-to-treat) population included 1066 patients. The primary study endpoint was not met (changes from baseline in FEV1 AUC0 - 4 at Week 24 were 294 mL, 284 mL, 308 mL, 240 mL, and 347 mL for GP MDI 36 µg, GP MDI 18 µg, GP MDI 9 µg, placebo, and open-label tiotropium, respectively). There were no significant differences between treatment and placebo in secondary endpoints at Week 24. Post-hoc analyses using post-bronchodilator FEV1 as the baseline measurement, or averaging values across multiple baseline visits, showed a dose-related response to GP MDI. The incidence of adverse events was low and similar across treatments. CONCLUSION: Although this study did not meet its primary endpoint, post hoc analyses identified a dose-related response to GP MDI when alternative definitions of baseline FEV1 were used in the analyses.

Economic Evaluation of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Umeclidinium or Salmeterol in Symptomatic Non-Exacerbating Patients with COPD from a UK Perspective Using the GALAXY Model.

INTRODUCTION: Dual bronchodilators are recommended as maintenance treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UK; further evidence is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness versus monotherapy. Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol from a UK healthcare perspective in patients without exacerbations in the previous year was assessed using post hoc EMAX trial data. METHODS: The validated GALAXY model was populated with baseline characteristics and treatment effects from the non-exacerbating subgroup of the symptomatic EMAX population (COPD assessment test score ≥10) and 2020 UK healthcare and drug costs. Outputs included estimated exacerbation rates, costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost/QALY gained. The base case (probabilistic model) used a 10-year time horizon, assumed no treatment discontinuation, and discounted future costs and QALYs by 3.5% annually. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed robustness of model results. RESULTS: Umeclidinium/vilanterol treatment was dominant versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, providing an additional 0.090 LYs (95% range: 0.035, 0.158) and 0.055 QALYs (-0.059, 0.168) with total cost savings of £690 (£231, £1306) versus umeclidinium, and 0.174 LYs (0.076, 0.286) and 0.204 QALYs (0.079, 0.326) with savings of £1336 (£1006, £2032) versus salmeterol. In scenario and sensitivity analyses, umeclidinium/vilanterol was dominant versus umeclidinium except over a 5-year time horizon (more QALYs at higher total cost; ICER=£4/QALY gained) and at the lowest estimate of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire treatment effect (fewer QALYs at lower total cost; ICER=£12,284/QALY gained); umeclidinium/vilanterol was consistently dominant versus salmeterol. At willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, probability that umeclidinium/vilanterol was cost-effective in this non-exacerbating subgroup was 95% versus umeclidinium and 100% versus salmeterol. CONCLUSION: Based on model predictions from a UK perspective, symptomatic patients with COPD and no exacerbations in the prior year receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol are expected to have better outcomes at lower costs versus umeclidinium and salmeterol.

Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol according to the degree of reversibility of airflow limitation at screening: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the relationship between short-term bronchodilator reversibility and longer-term response to bronchodilators is unclear. Here, we investigated whether the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators is associated with reversibility of airflow limitation in patients with COPD with a low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: The double-blind, double-dummy EMAX trial randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once daily, or salmeterol 50 µg twice daily. Bronchodilator reversibility to salbutamol was measured once at screening and defined as an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL 10-30 min post salbutamol. Post hoc, fractional polynomial (FP) modelling was conducted using the degree of reversibility (mL) at screening as a continuous variable to investigate its relationship to mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 and self-administered computerised-Transition Dyspnoea Index (SAC-TDI) at Week 24, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD (E-RS) at Weeks 21-24, and rescue medication use (puffs/day) over Weeks 1-24. Analyses were conducted across the full range of reversibility (-850-896 mL); however, results are presented for the range -100-400 mL because there were few participants with values outside this range. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) reversibility was 130 mL (156) and the median was 113 mL; 625/2425 (26%) patients were reversible. There was a trend towards greater improvements in trough FEV1, SAC-TDI, E-RS and rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol with higher reversibility. Improvements in trough FEV1 and reductions in rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol compared with either monotherapy across the range of reversibility. Greater improvements in SAC-TDI and E-RS total scores were observed with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in the middle of the reversibility range. CONCLUSIONS: FP analyses suggest that patients with higher levels of reversibility have greater improvements in lung function and symptoms in response to bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy across the full range of reversibility, suggesting that the dual bronchodilator umeclidinium/vilanterol may be an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of their level of reversibility.

Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Current and Former Smokers with COPD: A Prespecified Analysis of The EMAX Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking may reduce the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but its impact on bronchodilator efficacy is unclear. This analysis of the EMAX trial explored efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in current or former smokers with COPD. METHODS: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms, health status, exacerbations, clinically important deterioration, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving ICS. Current and former smoker subgroups were defined by smoking status at screening. RESULTS: The analysis included 1203 (50%) current smokers and 1221 (50%) former smokers. Both subgroups demonstrated greater improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 24 (primary endpoint) with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (least squares [LS] mean difference, mL [95% CI]; current: 84 [50, 117]; former: 49 [18, 80]) and salmeterol (current: 165 [132, 198]; former: 117 [86, 148]) and larger reductions in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (LS mean difference [95% CI]; current: - 0.42 [- 0.63, - 0.20]; former: - 0.25 - 0.44, - 0.05]) and salmeterol (current: - 0.28 [- 0.49, - 0.06]; former: - 0.29 [- 0.49, - 0.09]). Umeclidinium/vilanterol increased the odds (odds ratio [95% CI]) of clinically significant improvement at week 24 in Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.16, 2.06]; former: 1.32 [0.99, 1.75]) and salmeterol (current: 1.37 (1.03, 1.82]; former: 1.60 [1.20, 2.13]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.13, 2.09]; former: 1.50 [1.11, 2.04]) and salmeterol (current: 1.53 [1.13, 2.08]; former: 1.53 [1.12, 2.08]). All treatments were well tolerated in both subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In current and former smokers, umeclidinium/vilanterol provided greater improvements in lung function and symptoms versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, supporting consideration of dual-bronchodilator therapy in symptomatic patients with COPD regardless of their smoking status.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often require daily medication to control their COPD. Many patients with COPD are smokers, and smoking is one of the most common causes of COPD. This means that it is important to find out whether COPD medications are effective in both smokers and nonsmokers. We analyzed data from a clinical trial (EMAX) that investigated the use of a combination of two bronchodilators, which are inhaled medications that help to open the airways. We compared umeclidinium/vilanterol, a dual-bronchodilator combination, with a single bronchodilator (either umeclidinium or salmeterol) over 6 months. We found that both current and former smokers who were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol had larger improvements in lung function than those receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. Current or former smokers who were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol used their reliever inhaler less than those treated with umeclidinium or salmeterol. Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol were generally less likely to experience disease worsening compared with umeclidinium or salmeterol if they were former smokers, or compared with salmeterol if they were current smokers. Our findings suggest that umeclidinium/vilanterol may be more effective than a single bronchodilator for daily treatment of patients with COPD who are current or former smokers. Physicians should consider prescribing a combination of two bronchodilators to patients who have symptoms, whether or not they currently smoke, as well as encouraging smoking cessation for all patients.

Dual Bronchodilator Therapy as First-Line Treatment in Maintenance-Naïve Patients with Symptomatic COPD: A Pre-Specified Analysis of the EMAX Trial.

Introduction: Limited prospective evidence is available to guide selection of first-line maintenance therapy in patients with COPD. This pre-specified analysis of the EMAX trial explored the efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated patients. Methods: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms (including rescue medication use), exacerbations, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated subgroups were defined by maintenance bronchodilator use 30 days before screening. Results: The analysis included 749 (31%) maintenance-naïve and 1676 (69%) maintenance-treated patients. For both subgroups, improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 (primary endpoint) were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (mean difference [95% CI]; maintenance-naïve: 44 mL [1, 87]; maintenance-treated: 77 mL [50, 104]), and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: 128 mL [85, 171]; maintenance-treated: 145 mL [118, 172]), and in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (maintenance-naïve: -0.44 [-0.73, -0.16]; maintenance-treated: -0.28 [-0.45, -0.12]) and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: -0.37 [-0.66, -0.09]; maintenance-treated: -0.25 [-0.41, -0.08]). In maintenance-naïve patients, umeclidinium/vilanterol numerically improved scores at Week 24 for Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (0.37 [-0.21, 0.96]) and versus salmeterol (0.47 [-0.10, 1.05]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD versus umeclidinium (-0.26 [-1.04, 0.53]) and versus salmeterol (-0.58 [-1.36, 0.20]), with similar improvements seen in maintenance-treated patients. All treatments were well tolerated across both subgroups. Conclusion: Similar to maintenance-treated patients, maintenance-naïve patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol showed greater improvements in lung function and symptoms compared with patients receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. These findings provide support for the consideration of dual bronchodilator treatment in symptomatic maintenance-naïve patients with COPD.

Dose-Ranging and Cumulative Dose Studies of Albuterol Sulfate MDI in Co-Suspension Delivery™ Technology (AS MDI; PT007) in Patients with Asthma: the ASPEN and ANTORA Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Co-suspension Delivery™ Technology has been developed for the administration of albuterol sulfate pressurised inhalation suspension via metered-dose inhaler (AS MDI, PT007). We assessed the efficacy and safety of AS MDI versus Proventil® in order to determine the optimal dose of AS MDI to take to Phase III clinical trials. METHODS: ASPEN (NCT03371459) and ANTORA (NCT03364608) were Phase II, randomised, crossover, multicentre studies of AS MDI versus Proventil® in patients with persistent asthma. In ASPEN, 46 patients received cumulative-dose treatments (90 µg/inhalation using 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 inhalations at 30-minute intervals) in 1 of 2 possible sequences: AS MDI/Proventil or Proventil/AS MDI. In ANTORA, 86 patients were randomised to one of 10 treatment sequences of AS MDI (90 µg or 180 µg), placebo MDI, or Proventil (90 µg or 180 µg). The primary endpoints were baseline-adjusted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 30 minutes after each cumulative dose (ASPEN) and change from baseline in FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 6 h (ANTORA). Safety was assessed in both studies. RESULTS: In ASPEN, AS MDI was equivalent to Proventil (within pre-specified bounds of ± 200 mL) following cumulative doses of albuterol up to 1440 µg for the primary endpoint. In ANTORA, 90 µg and 180 µg doses of AS MDI and Proventil were significantly superior to placebo MDI (p < 0.0001), and AS MDI was non-inferior to Proventil at both doses, based on a margin of 100 mL. No new safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSION: The effects of albuterol delivered via AS MDI and Proventil on bronchodilation were equivalent, supporting the selection of AS MDI 180 µg to be taken into Phase III clinical trials, either alone or in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ASPEN (NCT03371459); Date of registration: 29/12/2017. ANTORA (NCT03364608); Date of registration: 15/12/2017.

Efficacy and safety of fevipiprant in patients with uncontrolled asthma: Two replicate, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (ZEAL-1 and ZEAL-2).

BACKGROUND: These studies assessed the efficacy and safety of fevipiprant, an oral antagonist of the prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) receptor (DP2), compared with placebo when added to standard-of-care (SoC) asthma therapy in patients with uncontrolled asthma. METHODS: ZEAL-1 (NCT03215758) and ZEAL-2 (NCT03226392) are two replicate, phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies in which fevipiprant 150 mg once daily (o.d.) or placebo was added to SoC asthma therapy in patients aged ≥12 years with uncontrolled asthma. Primary endpoint: change from baseline in pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) after 12 weeks' treatment. Key secondary endpoints: daytime asthma symptom score, short-acting ß-agonist (SABA) use and Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (AQLQ+12) score after 12-weeks treatment. FINDINGS: 662 patients in ZEAL-1 and 685 patients in ZEAL-2 completed the treatment period. In ZEAL-1, the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in pre-dose FEV1 was 112 mL in fevipiprant vs 71 mL in placebo group (difference [∆]:41 mL; 95% CI: -6, 88; adjusted p-value 0·088). In ZEAL-2, the LS mean change in pre-dose FEV1 was 126 mL and 157 mL in the fevipiprant and placebo groups, respectively (∆:-31 mL; 95% CI: -80, 18; adjusted p-value 0·214). For both studies, there were no statistically significant differences in the key secondary objectives between the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: The ZEAL studies did not demonstrate significant improvement in lung function or other clinical outcomes. These results suggest that DP2 receptor inhibition with fevipiprant is not effective in the studied patient population.

Treatment of COPD with Long-Acting Bronchodilators: Association Between Early and Longer-Term Clinically Important Improvement.

INTRODUCTION: This post hoc analysis of the "Early MAXimization of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability" (EMAX) trial investigated whether patients achieving early clinically important improvement (CII) sustained longer-term improvements and lower risk of clinically important deterioration (CID). METHODS: Patients were randomized to umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, or salmeterol for 24 weeks. The patient-reported outcomes (PROs) Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and COPD Assessment Test (CAT) were assessed. CII, defined as attaining minimum clinically important differences (MCID) in ≥2 PROs, was assessed at Weeks 4, 12 and 24. CID was defined as a deterioration in CAT, SGRQ, TDI by the MCID and/or a moderate/severe exacerbation from Day 30. RESULTS: Of 2425 patients, 50%, 53% and 51% achieved a CII at Weeks 4, 12 and 24, respectively. Patients with a CII at Week 4 versus those without had significantly greater odds of achieving a CII at Weeks 12 and 24 (odds ratio: 5.57 [95% CI: 4.66, 6.66]; 4.09 [95% CI: 3.44, 4.86]). The risk of a CID was higher in patients who did not achieve a CII at Week 4 compared with patients who did (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 2.09 [1.86, 2.34]). Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus either monotherapy had significantly greater odds of achieving CII at Weeks 4, 12 and 24. CONCLUSION: Achieving a CII at Week 4 was associated with longer-term improvement in PROs and a reduced risk of deterioration. Further research is required to investigate the importance of an early response to treatment on the long-term disease course.

A Dose-Ranging Study of the Novel Inhaled Dual PDE 3 and 4 Inhibitor Ensifentrine in Patients with COPD Receiving Maintenance Tiotropium Therapy.

PURPOSE: Ensifentrine is an inhaled dual inhibitor of phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and 4 that has shown bronchodilatory effects and symptom improvement in clinical studies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and anti-inflammatory effects in healthy volunteers in a model of COPD-like inflammation. This manuscript reports on the results of the clinical study examining if ensifentrine provides meaningful improvements in lung function when added on to tiotropium over 4 weeks in patients with COPD who have impaired lung function and symptoms despite treatment with tiotropium. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study recruited patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Patients were randomized to open-label tiotropium once daily (QD) plus (+) blinded escalating doses of ensifentrine or placebo twice daily (BID). Effects on lung function, symptoms and quality of life (QoL) were assessed over 4 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 416 COPD patients were randomized and 413 received at least one dose of blinded study medication + tiotropium. All ensifentrine doses produced a significant and dose-dependent increase in peak forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline to Week 4, with placebo-corrected differences of 77.5 mL when added to tiotropium (0.375 mg; 95% CI: 4.8, 150.1 mL; p=0.037) to 124.2 mL (3 mg; 95% CI: 51.0, 196.8 mL; p<0.001). A significant increase in average FEV1 (0-12h) was shown at Week 4 with the 3 mg dose (87.3 mL; 95% CI: 20.0, 154.5 mL; p=0.011). Clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire - COPD (SGRQ-C) additive to tiotropium were observed at Week 4, exceeding the minimally clinically important difference of 4 units with the 1.5 and 3 mg doses. Adverse events were similar in frequency between the ensifentrine and placebo arms. CONCLUSION: This clinical study demonstrated that nebulized ensifentrine added on to tiotropium produced clinically important improvements in lung function and QoL over 4 weeks in COPD patients receiving tiotropium who demonstrated symptoms and lung function impairment, with a safety profile similar to placebo.

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.

Long-term safety and efficacy studies of epinephrine HFA metered-dose inhaler (Primatene® Mist): a two-stage randomized controlled trial.

Objective: A new epinephrine hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) asthma metered-dose inhaler (MDI) was reformulated to replace the previously marketed epinephrine chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) MDI. In addition to the HFA propellant change, several enhanced modifications (i.e. changed from solution to suspension, 43% dose reduction, etc.) were made to the formulation of epinephrine HFA MDI. This study evaluates the 6-month long-term safety and efficacy profile of the new epinephrine HFA MDI.Method: The long-term safety study consists of two 3-month, multi-center, double- or evaluator-blinded, parallel-group, placebo, and active controlled stages. In each stage, subjects aged ≥12 years with intermittent or mild-to-moderate persistent asthma were randomized to receive epinephrine HFA (2 × 125 mcg/inhalation), placebo HFA, or epinephrine CFC (2 × 220 mcg/inhalation). Bronchodilator efficacy was assessed in Stage 1 and was determined primarily by the change in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ΔFEV1) at Week 12, relative to the same day baseline.Results: The primary efficacy endpoint (AUC0-6hrs of %ΔFEV1 at Week 12) for epinephrine HFA (47.3 ± 54.2) closely paralleled those for the active control, epinephrine CFC (41.0 ± 43.4). Both groups were found to be overall comparable in bronchodilator efficacy. Both also showed low incidence rates of AEs with tremor being most commonly reported for epinephrine HFA. All AEs found were non-serious and non-significant. The observed changes in vital signs, ECG, serum glucose, and potassium were minimal and not clinically relevant.Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the new epinephrine HFA is overall comparable, in both safety and efficacy, to the previous epinephrine CFC.

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.