Icenticaftor, a CFTR Potentiator, in COPD: A Multicenter, Parallel-Group, Double-Blind Clinical Trial.

Rationale: CFTR (cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator) dysfunction is associated with mucus accumulation and worsening chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) symptoms. Objectives: The aim of this phase IIb dose-finding study was to compare a CFTR potentiator, icenticaftor (QBW251), with placebo in patients with COPD and chronic bronchitis. Methods: Patients with COPD on triple therapy for at least three months were randomized to six treatment arms (icenticaftor 450, 300, 150, 75, or 25 mg or placebo twice daily [b.i.d.]) in a 24-week, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind study. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in trough FEV1 after 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in trough FEV1 and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS) total and cough and sputum scores after 24 weeks. Multiple comparison procedure-modeling was conducted to characterize dose-response relationship. Rescue medication use, exacerbations, and change in serum fibrinogen concentration after 24 weeks were assessed in exploratory and post hoc analyses, respectively. Measurements and Main Results: Nine hundred seventy-four patients were randomized. After 12 weeks of icenticaftor treatment, no dose-response relationship for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was observed; however, it was observed for E-RS cough and sputum score. A dose-response relationship was observed after 24 weeks for trough FEV1, E-RS cough and sputum and total scores, rescue medication use, and fibrinogen. A dose of 300 mg b.i.d. was consistently the most effective. Improvements for 300 mg b.i.d. versus placebo were also seen in pairwise comparisons of these endpoints. All treatments were well tolerated. Conclusions: The primary endpoint was negative, as icenticaftor did not improve trough FEV1 over 12 weeks. Although the findings must be interpreted with caution, icenticaftor improved trough FEV1; reduced cough, sputum, and rescue medication use; and lowered fibrinogen concentrations at 24 weeks. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04072887).

Ruxolitinib in addition to standard of care for the treatment of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RUXCOVID): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Background: COVID-19 is associated with acute respiratory distress and cytokine release syndrome. The Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib reduces inflammatory cytokine concentrations in disorders characterised by cytokine dysregulation, including graft-versus-host disease, myelofibrosis, and secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. We assessed whether treatment with the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib would be beneficial in patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital. Methods: RUXCOVID was an international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial of ruxolitinib plus standard of care versus placebo plus standard of care in patients with COVID-19. Patients who were hospitalised but not on mechanical ventilation or in the intensive care unit [ICU] were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral ruxolitinib 5 mg twice per day or placebo for 14 days (14 additional days were allowed if no improvement). The primary endpoint was a composite of death, respiratory failure (invasive ventilation), or ICU care by day 29, analysed by logistic regression including region, treatment, baseline clinical status, age, and sex as covariates. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04362137. Findings: Between May 4 and Sept 19, 2020, 432 patients were randomly assigned to ruxolitinib (n=287) or placebo (n=145) plus standard of care; the mean age was 56·5 years (SD 13·3), 197 (46%) were female, and 235 (54%) were male. The primary objective was not met: the composite endpoint occurred in 34 (12%) of 284 ruxolitinib-treated patients versus 17 (12%) of 144 placebo-treated patients (odds ratio 0·91, 95% CI 0·48-1·73; p=0·77). By day 29, nine (3%) of 286 ruxolitinib-treated patients had died compared with three (2%) of 145 placebo-treated patients; 22 (8%) of 286 ruxolitinib-treated patients had received invasive ventilation compared with ten (7%) of 145 placebo-treated patients; and 30 (11%) of 284 ruxolitinib-treated patients had received ICU care compared with 17 (12%) of 144 placebo-treated patients. In an exploratory analysis, median time to recovery was 1 day faster with ruxolitinib versus placebo (8 days vs 9 days; hazard ratio 1·10, 95% CI 0·89-1·36). Adverse events included headache (23 [8%] of 281 on ruxolitinib vs 11 [8%] of 143 on placebo) and diarrhoea (21 [7%] vs 12 [8%]). Interpretation: Ruxolitinib 5 mg twice per day showed no benefit in the overall study population. A larger sample is required to determine the clinical importance of trends for increased efficacy in patient subgroups. Funding: Novartis and Incyte.

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.

Efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of mometasone furoate and formoterol fumarate in subjects with moderate to very severe COPD: results from a 52-week Phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: A clinical trial of mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate (MF/F) administered via a metered-dose inhaler in subjects with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) investigated the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of MF/F. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial had a 26-week treatment period and a 26-week safety extension. Subjects (n = 1055; ≥40 years) were current or ex- smokers randomized to twice-daily treatment with inhaled MF/F 400/10 µg, MF/F 200/10 µg, MF 400 µg, F 10 µg, or placebo. The coprimary endpoints of the trial were mean changes from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) over 0-12 hours (AUC(0-12) FEV(1)) with MF/F versus MF, and in morning predose FEV(1) with MF/F versus F. Key secondary endpoints were quality of life (Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]), symptom-free nights, and partly stable COPD at 26 weeks, as well as time to first COPD exacerbation. RESULTS: Significant improvements in FEV(1) AUC(0-12) occurred at endpoint with MF/F 400/10 and MF/F 200/10 versus MF 400 (P ≤ 0.007). Significant bronchodilation occurred in 5 minutes with MF/F, and serial spirometry demonstrated sustained FEV(1) improvements with MF/F over the treatment period. Significant improvements in morning predose FEV(1) occurred with both MF/F doses, and these effects were further investigated by excluding results for subjects whose morning FEV(1) data were collected >2 days after the last dose of study treatment. Improvements in SGRQ total scores surpassed the minimum clinically important difference of at least 4 units with MF/F 400/10. MF/F 400/10 significantly reduced the time-to-first COPD exacerbation. Similar proportions of subjects in all five treatment groups reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Rates of pneumonia were low (≤1.0%) across treatment groups. CONCLUSION: MF/F 400/10 µg twice daily was shown to be an effective therapy for patients with moderate to very severe COPD, and both MF/F 400/10 µg twice daily and MF/F 200/10 µg twice daily were well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety characteristics of mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combination in subjects with moderate to very severe COPD: findings from pooled analysis of two randomized, 52-week placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy and safety of a mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate (MF/F) fixed-dose combination formulation administered via a metered-dose inhaler was investigated in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Two 52-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with identical study designs were conducted in current or ex-smokers (aged ≥40 years), and pooled study results are presented herein. Subjects (n = 2251) were randomized to 26 weeks of twice-daily treatment with MF/F 400/10 µg, MF/F 200/10 µg, MF 400 µg, F 10 µg, or placebo. After the 26-week treatment period, placebo subjects completed the trial and 75% of subjects on active treatment entered a 26-week safety extension. Coprimary efficacy variables were mean changes in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)), area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours postdose (AUC(0-12 h)), and morning predose/trough FEV(1) from baseline to the week 13 endpoint. Key secondary efficacy variables were St George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores, symptom-free nights, time-to-first exacerbation, and partly stable COPD at the week 26 endpoint. RESULTS: In the 26-week treatment period, significantly greater increases in FEV(1) AUC(0-12 h) occurred with MF/F 400/10 versus MF 400 and placebo at the week 13 and week 26 endpoints (P ≤ 0.032). These increases were over three-fold greater with MF/F 400/10 than with MF 400. Also, significantly greater increases in morning predose/trough FEV(1) occurred with MF/F 400/10 versus F 10 and placebo at the week 13 endpoint (P < 0.05). The increase was four-fold greater with MF/F 400/10 than with F 10. All active treatment groups achieved minimum clinically important differences from baseline (>4 units) in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores at week 26. Symptom-free nights increased by ≥14% in the MF/F 400/10, MF 400, and F 10 groups (P ≤ 0.033 versus placebo). The incidence of exacerbations was lower in the MF/F groups (≤33.3%) than it was in the MF, formoterol, and placebo groups (≥33.8%) over the 26-week treatment period. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the active-treated and placebo-treated subjects across 26 weeks of treatment. Over the 1-year study period, there were no notable differences in the incidence or types of adverse events between the MF/F 400/10 and MF/F 200/10 groups compared with the MF or formoterol groups. Differences in rates of individual treatment-emergent adverse events were <3% between treatment groups. Rates of pneumonia were low (≤2%) across all treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with MF/F demonstrated significant improvements in lung function, health status, and exacerbation rates. Although significant improvements were seen with both doses, a trend showing a dose-response effect was observed in the lung function measurements.

The efficacy and tolerability of MK-0633, a 5-lipoxygenase inhibitor, in chronic asthma.

Leukotriene B4 (LTB(4)) is a potent inflammatory mediator in asthma, and is increased in more severe asthma. Targeting LTB(4), in addition to cysteinyl leukotrienes, could be beneficial in asthma. This was a randomized, double-blind trial of once-daily MK-0633, a potent 5-lypoxygenase inhibitor, 10 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg, and placebo in patients 18-70 years with a history of chronic asthma, and FEV(1) ≥45 and ≤85% predicted. There was a 6-week main period and optional 18-week and 34-week periods (52 weeks total), the latter two comparing only MK-0633 100 mg and placebo. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in FEV(1) over the last 4 weeks of the 6-week primary treatment period. Secondary endpoints included symptom scores, ß-agonist use, peak expiratory flow (PEF), asthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ), asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), asthma attacks, exacerbations, days with asthma control, post-ß-agonist FEV(1), and blood eosinophils. MK-0633 100 mg was significantly more effective than placebo for the change from baseline in FEV(1) (0.20 L vs. 0.13 L; p = 0.004). The other MK-0633 doses were not significantly more effective than placebo. MK-0633 (at various doses) was also more effective than placebo for ß-agonist use, AQLQ, AM and PM PEFR, ACQ, and post-ß-agonist FEV(1) (p < 0.05 for all). MK-0633 was associated with a dose-dependent increase in elevated aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase. Because of the relative benefit-risk ratio, the optional study periods were terminated after unblinding for the main study period. Overall, the benefit-risk ratio did not support the clinical utility of MK-0633 in asthma.

Pharmacokinetics of montelukast in asthmatic patients 6 to 24 months old.

Montelukast is a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of asthma for those ages 1 year old to adult. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic comparability of a 4-mg dose of montelukast oral granules in patients > or = 6 to < 24 months old to the 10-mg approved dose in adults. This was an open-label study in 32 patients. Population pharmacokinetic parameters included estimates of AUC(pop), C(max), and t(max). Results were compared with estimates from adults (10-mg film-coated tablet [FCT]). Dose selection criteria were for the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the AUC(pop) estimate ratio (pediatric/adult 10 mg FCT) to be within comparability bounds of (0.5, 2.00). The AUC(pop) ratio and the 95% CI for children compared with adults were within the predefined comparability bounds. Observed plasma concentrations were also similar. Based on systemic exposure of montelukast, a 4-mg dose of montelukast appears appropriate for children as young as 6 months of age.