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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of baseline COPD symptom severity on the benefit from dual versus mono-bronchodilators: an analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial.

RATIONALE: Symptom relief is a key treatment goal in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there are limited data available on the response to bronchodilator therapy in patients at low risk of exacerbations with different levels of symptom severity. This study compared treatment responses in patients with a range of symptom severities as indicated by baseline COPD assessment test (CAT) scores. METHODS: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated the benefits of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. This analysis assessed lung function, symptoms, health status, and short-term deterioration outcomes in subgroups defined by a baseline CAT score [<20 (post hoc) and ⩾20 (pre-specified)]. Outcomes were also assessed using post hoc fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline CAT score covariates. RESULTS: Of the intent-to-treat population (n = 2425), 56% and 44% had baseline CAT scores of <20 and ⩾20, respectively. Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated favourable improvements compared with umeclidinium and salmeterol for the majority of outcomes irrespective of the baseline CAT score, with the greatest improvements generally observed in patients with CAT scores <20. Fractional polynomial analyses revealed consistent improvements in lung function, symptoms and reduction in rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol across a range of CAT scores, with the largest benefits seen in patients with CAT scores of approximately 10-21. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with symptomatic COPD benefit similarly from dual bronchodilator treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol. Fractional polynomial analyses demonstrated the greatest treatment differences favouring dual therapy in patients with a CAT score <20, although benefits were seen up to scores of 30. This suggests that dual bronchodilation may be considered as initial therapy for patients across a broad range of symptom severities, not only those with severe symptoms (CAT ⩾20).Trial registration: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT number).The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Clinically Important Deterioration Among Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Treated with Nebulized Glycopyrrolate: A Post Hoc Analysis of Pooled Data from Two Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Studies.

Purpose: Using a composite endpoint, pooled data from two 12-week Phase III placebo-controlled trials (GOLDEN 3, NCT02347761; GOLDEN 4, NCT02347774) were analyzed to determine whether glycopyrrolate inhalation solution (25 mcg and 50 mcg) administered twice daily (BID) via the eFlow® Closed System nebulizer (GLY) reduced the risk of clinically important deterioration (CID) in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD. Methods: CID was defined as ≥100-mL decrease from baseline in post-bronchodilator trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), or ≥4-unit increase in baseline St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, or moderate/severe exacerbation. The relative treatment effect of GLY versus placebo on the odds of CID (any and by component endpoints) was expressed as the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroups categorized by age (<65/≥65 years), sex, smoking status (current/former), long-acting beta agonist (LABA) use, FEV1 (<50%/≥50%), and peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) (<60 L/min/≥60 L/min) were analyzed. Results: Compared to placebo, GLY 25 mcg and 50 mcg BID over 12 weeks significantly reduced the risk of CID by 50% (OR: 0.50 [0.37-0.68]) and 40% (OR: 0.60 [0.44-0.80]), respectively. Subjects treated with GLY 25 mcg BID were 59% less likely to experience CID in FEV1 (OR: 0.41 [0.27-0.62]) and 48% less likely to perceive CID in health status (OR: 0.52 [0.37-0.73]). Statistically significant reductions were also observed at the higher dose. The incidence of moderate/severe exacerbations was low and comparable among the cohorts. GLY 25 mcg BID was significantly more effective than placebo (p<0.05) in preventing CID irrespective of age, smoking status, LABA use, COPD severity, or PIFR. Subjects <65 years (OR 0.45 [0.29-0.68]) and those with PIFR <60 L/min (OR 0.36 [0.20-0.67]) exhibited the largest benefit. Conclusion: Nebulized GLY over 12 weeks significantly reduced the risk of CID and provided greater short-term stability in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD.

Observational Real-World Study to Assess Clinical Characteristics and Device Satisfaction in Patients with COPD Treated with Glycopyrrolate/eFlow® CS.

Purpose: To assess clinical characteristics and device satisfaction of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treated with glycopyrrolate/eFlow® Closed System (CS) nebulizer (further referred to as eFlow) under real-world conditions. Participants and Methods: Patients with COPD currently using eFlow were identified by the study sponsor. Consenting patients who met study inclusion criteria completed a cross-sectional survey that included a device satisfaction questionnaire. Means, medians, and standard deviations were calculated. Results: Sixty-six patients met inclusion criteria and completed the survey. Participants' mean ± standard deviation age was 64.9 ± 11.9 years and the majority were white (86.4%) and female (59.1%). Almost two-thirds were former smokers. Thirty-nine (59.1%) reported their COPD to be severe/very severe and 38 (57.6%) reported a COPD exacerbation resulting in a hospitalization, ER visit, or medication modification over the past 12 months. Among 55 participants who had previously used another type of nebulizer, 44 (80%) were overall "much more"/"somewhat more" satisfied with the eFlow compared with their previous nebulizer(s). Regardless of prior nebulizer use, 60 (90.9%) participants were "satisfied"/"very satisfied" overall with the eFlow. Assembly and disassembly, operation, and cleaning were perceived as being "easy"/"very easy" by at least 65% of participants. Among all participants, 57 (86.4%) were "confident"/"very confident" of glycopyrrolate administration. On a Likert scale of 1 ("I don't like it") to 7 ("I like it a lot"), mean scores were at least 5.9 for portability, ease of cleaning, size, weight, short administration time, and relative silence of the device. Over 80% of participants said they "probably"/"definitely" would continue to use eFlow. Conclusion: Based on this real-world study, the majority of patients were highly satisfied with, and confident in, using eFlow.

Comparing Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Studies in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Pharmacotherapy.

Analytic epidemiological studies cover a large spectrum of study methodologies, ranging from noninterventional observational studies (population-based, case-control, or cohort studies) to interventional studies (clinical trials). Herein, we review the different research methodologies or study designs and discuss their advantages and disadvantages in the context of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) pharmacotherapy. Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the "gold standard" for evaluating the efficacy and safety of an intervention, observational studies conducted in a real-world scenario are useful in providing evidence on the effectiveness of the intervention in clinical practice; understanding both efficacy and effectiveness is important from the clinician's perspective. Pragmatic clinical trials that use real-world data while retaining randomization bridge the gap between explanatory RCTs and noninterventional observational studies. Overall, different study designs have their associated advantages and disadvantages; together, findings from all types of studies bring about progress in clinical research as elucidated through examples from COPD research in this paper.

Pharmacokinetic Study of Epinephrine Hydrofluoroalkane (Primatene MIST) Metered-Dose Inhaler.

Background: Primatene® MIST CFC, an epinephrine metered-dose inhaler (MDI), was discontinued from the market owing to environmental concerns from its use of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellant. As a result, a new epinephrine MDI was developed using hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) propellant. This article reports the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of the newly Food and Drug Administration-approved epinephrine HFA MDI. Methods: A randomized, evaluator-blinded, active-controlled, single-dose, two-arm crossover study was conducted to evaluate the PK profile of epinephrine HFA (Primatene® MIST) and epinephrine CFC (Primatene® MIST CFC) in 23 healthy volunteers to characterize the epinephrine absorption extent and rate. The study was performed at a high dose of five times the normal dose to obtain measurable plasma epinephrine levels. Plasma epinephrine levels were measured and safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs), vital signs, clinical laboratory tests, and physical examinations. Results: Epinephrine HFA demonstrated a greater systemic drug exposure (greater area under the curve) than that of epinephrine CFC (∼37% higher). The Cmax occurred at ∼2 minutes and was significantly higher in the epinephrine HFA group (0.18 ng/mL) compared with the CFC version (0.046 ng/mL) at normal dose. Within 20 minutes, both groups demonstrated comparable plasma epinephrine levels. No clinically significant adverse effects were found to be associated with epinephrine HFA, even after an ultrahigh dose (i.e., 10 inhalations). Conclusions: The systemic exposure of epinephrine HFA was found to be higher for the first 20 minutes, and then comparable with epinephrine CFC. Minimal AEs were found in this study despite the very high 1250-2200 µg inhaled doses (i.e., 10 inhalations) used for PK characterization.

Early and sustained symptom improvement with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in COPD: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both the time needed for patients to gain symptom improvement with long-acting bronchodilator therapy and whether an early response is predictive of a sustained response is unknown. This study aimed to investigate how quickly meaningful symptom responses are seen in patients with COPD with bronchodilator therapy and whether these responses are sustained. METHODS: Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial that randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), umeclidinium or salmeterol. Daily Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS:COPD) score and rescue salbutamol use were captured via an electronic diary and analysed initially in 4-weekly periods. Post hoc analyses assessed change from baseline in daily E-RS:COPD score and rescue medication use weekly (Weeks 1-8), and association between E-RS:COPD responder status at Weeks 1-4 and later time points. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population (n = 2425), reductions from baseline in E-RS:COPD scores and rescue medication use were apparent from Day 2 with all treatments. Treatment differences for UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy plateaued by Week 4-8 and were sustained at Weeks 21-24; improvements were consistently greater with UMEC/VI. For all treatments, most patients (60-85%) retained their Weeks 1-4 E-RS:COPD responder/non-responder status at Weeks 21-24. Among patients receiving UMEC/VI who were E-RS:COPD responders at Weeks 1-4, 70% were responders at Weeks 21-24. CONCLUSION: Patients with symptomatic COPD had greater potential for early symptom improvements with UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy. This benefit was generally maintained for 24 weeks. Early monitoring of treatment response can provide clinicians with an early indication of a patient's likely longer-term response to prescribed bronchodilator treatment and will facilitate appropriate early adjustments in care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT Number). The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

ELLIPTA Versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler in COPD: A Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Study in a Clinical Trial Setting.

BACKGROUND: Inhaler errors among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can reduce treatment efficacy. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, crossover study evaluated correct use of ELLIPTA versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler. Participants with COPD attended at least 3 study visits (Day 1 [Visit 1], Day 28 [Visit 2], and Day 56 [Visit 3]). Inhalers contained placebo; usual maintenance medication was continued. Participants were randomized to an inhaler sequence (ELLIPTA then DISKUS plus HandiHaler, or the reverse) and preference questionnaire at Visit 1. Participants read the instructions for use in the approved prescribing information for their inhaler(s) and correct use was assessed at Visit 1 (verbal guidance provided if required). Correct use was reassessed at Visit 2, and with the next inhaler(s) at Visit 3. Primary endpoint was the proportion of participants demonstrating correct use (0 errors) with the assigned inhaler(s) after 28 days. RESULTS: A greater proportion of study participants (n = 217) correctly used ELLIPTA (96%) versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler (87%) after 28 days. The odds of demonstrating correct use with ELLIPTA were 6.88 times that of DISKUS plus HandiHaler (p < 0.001). Overall, > 99% of participants made 0 critical errors (errors leading to no or significantly reduced medication inhaled) with ELLIPTA versus 89% with DISKUS plus HandiHaler after 28 days. ELLIPTA was the patient-preferred option versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler or no preference (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of COPD maintenance therapy via ELLIPTA demonstrates higher correct use rates and lower critical error rates compared with DISKUS plus HandiHaler.

A Dose-Ranging Study of Epinephrine Hydrofluroalkane Metered-Dose Inhaler (Primatene® MIST) in Subjects with Intermittent or Mild-to-Moderate Persistent Asthma.

Background: Two sequential single-dose crossover dose-ranging studies were performed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety profile of epinephrine hydrofluroalkane (HFA) metered-dose inhaler (MDI) formulation at various doses in subjects with asthma. Methods: In these multicenter, multiarm, double-blinded, or evaluator-blinded studies, subjects were randomized to receive the epinephrine HFA (Primatene® MIST HFA) MDI medication at doses ranging from 90 to 440 µg/dose, as well as to a placebo (PLA) control and an active control of epinephrine CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) MDI (Primatene® MIST CFC) at 220 µg/inhalation. Results: Spirometry testing for FEV1 (Forced Expiratory Volume in one second) demonstrated statistically significant improvements over PLA for epinephrine HFA MDI at all doses above 125 µg, as the amount out of the actuator (i.e., mouthpiece). The efficacy results for epinephrine HFA MDI in the dose range of 125-250 µg were also comparable to epinephrine CFC MDI (220 µg/inh). Safety assessments demonstrated minimal safety concerns for all treatment groups. No notable safety differences were observed between the studied doses of epinephrine HFA MDI and the active control formulation of epinephrine CFC MDI. Conclusion: The findings indicate that epinephrine HFA MDI provided clinically significant bronchodilator efficacy with minimal safety concerns in a dose range of 125-250 µg. These findings confirmed the optimal treatment doses of 125-250 µg that were appropriate for use in longer term 12 and 26 week chronic dosing studies of epinephrine HFA MDI for patients with intermittent or mild to moderate persistent asthma. Clinical trials registration number: NCT01025648.

Onset of Effect, Changes in Airflow Obstruction and Lung Volume, and Health-Related Quality of Life Improvements with Benralizumab for Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Phase IIIb Randomized, Controlled Trial (SOLANA).

OBJECTIVE: In the SOLANA trial, we sought to physiologically characterize benralizumab's onset of effect and maintenance of that effect for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. METHODS: SOLANA (NCT02869438) was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, Phase IIIb study conducted at 49 centers in six countries (Chile, Germany, Hungary, the Philippines, South Korea, and the United States). Eligible patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/µL were randomized to subcutaneous benralizumab (30 mg) or placebo administered at Days 0, 28, and 56. The primary endpoint was the average change from baseline in prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (pre-BD FEV1) during the Day 28‒Day 84 period for benralizumab vs placebo. Secondary endpoints included patient-reported outcomes (PROs). A subset of patients participated in a whole-body plethysmography substudy. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 233 patients were randomized to benralizumab (n=118) or placebo (n=115). Improvement from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 with benralizumab 30 mg was not statistically significant compared with placebo (least-squares mean change difference [95% confidence interval] 57 mL [-22 to 135]; p=0.16). Compared with placebo, benralizumab demonstrated early (Day 7) nonstatistically significant improvements in whole-body plethysmography assessments of hyperinflation and clinically meaningful improvements in PRO measures (Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 at Day 14 and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire at Day 28), which were maintained over the treatment period. Benralizumab's safety profile was commensurate with previously reported studies. CONCLUSION: The observed early changes in lung volume despite relatively small improvements in airflow obstruction suggest that the anti-inflammatory effect of benralizumab may be manifested as deflation over time for patients with hyperinflation, who potentially have a greater degree of airway remodeling. This early effect could partially explain the rapid PRO improvements observed for certain patients.