Sputum and blood transcriptomics characterisation of the inhaled PDE4 inhibitor CHF6001 on top of triple therapy in patients with chronic bronchitis.

BACKGROUND: Although phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitors have been shown to reduce COPD exacerbation rate, their biological mechanism of action is not completely elucidated at the molecular level. We aimed to characterise the whole genome gene expression profile of the inhaled PDE4-inhibitor CHF6001 on top of triple therapy in sputum cells and whole blood of patients with COPD and chronic bronchitis. METHODS: Whole genome gene expression analysis was carried out by microarray in 54 patients before and after 32 days treatment with CHF6001 800 and 1600 µg and placebo twice daily (BID) in a randomised crossover study. RESULTS: CHF6001 had a strong effect in sputum, with 1471 and 2598 significantly differentially-expressed probe-sets relative to placebo (p-adjusted for False Discovery Rate < 0.05) with 800 and 1600 µg BID, respectively. Functional enrichment analysis showed significant modulation of key inflammatory pathways involved in cytokine activity, pathogen-associated-pattern-recognition activity, oxidative stress and vitamin D with associated inhibition of downstream inflammatory effectors. A large number of pro-inflammatory genes coding for cytokines and matrix-metalloproteinases were significantly differentially expressed for both doses; the majority (> 87%) were downregulated, including macrophage inflammatory protein-1-alpha and 1-beta, interleukin-27-beta, interleukin-12-beta, interleukin-32, tumour necrosis factor-alpha-induced-protein-8, ligand-superfamily-member-15, and matrix-metalloproteinases-7,12 and 14. The effect in blood was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled PDE4 inhibition by CHF6001 on top of triple therapy in patients with COPD and chronic bronchitis significantly modulated key inflammatory targets and pathways in the lung but not in blood. Mechanistically these findings support a targeted effect in the lung while minimising unwanted systemic class-effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, EudraCT, 2015-005550-35. Registered 15 July 2016.

Effect of the inhaled PDE4 inhibitor CHF6001 on biomarkers of inflammation in COPD.

BACKGROUND: CHF6001 is a novel inhaled phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor. This Phase IIa study assessed the effects of CHF6001 on markers of inflammation in induced sputum and blood in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This was a multicentre, three-period (each 32 days), three-way, placebo-controlled, double-blind, complete-block crossover study. Eligible patients had COPD, chronic bronchitis, and were receiving inhaled triple therapy for ≥2 months. Patients received CHF6001 800 or 1600 µg, or matching placebo twice daily via multi-dose dry-powder inhaler (NEXThaler). Induced sputum was collected pre-dose on Day 1, and post-dose on Days 20, 26 and 32. Blood was sampled pre-dose on Day 1, and pre- and post-dose on Day 32. RESULTS: Of 61 randomised patients, 54 (88.5%) completed the study. There were no significant differences between groups for overall sputum cell count, or absolute numbers of neutrophils, eosinophils or lymphocytes. CHF6001 800 µg significantly decreased the absolute number and percentage of macrophages vs placebo. In sputum, compared with placebo both CHF6001 doses significantly decreased leukotriene B4, C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 8, macrophage inflammatory protein 1ß, matrix metalloproteinase 9, and tumour necrosis factor α (TNFα). In blood, both CHF6001 doses significantly decreased serum surfactant protein D vs placebo. CHF6001 1600 µg significantly decreased TNFα ex-vivo (after incubation with lipopolysaccharide). CONCLUSION: The data from this study show that CHF6001 inhaled twice daily has anti-inflammatory effects in the lungs of patients with COPD already treated with triple inhaled therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03004417 ).

Long-acting bronchodilators improve exercise capacity in COPD patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim to evaluate the efficacy of longacting bronchodilators on exercise capacity in COPD patients. Methods: The endpoints were the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators (altogether, and by single classes) vs. placebo in modifying endurance time (ET), inspiratory capacity (IC) and dyspnea during exercise, taking into consideration the outcomes according to different patients' inclusion criteria and exercise methodology. Results: Twenty-two studies were deemed eligible for analysis. Weighted mean increase in ET resulted of 67 s (95% CI ranges from 55 to 79). For isotime IC and dyspnea during exercise, weighted improvements were 195 ml (162­229), and − 0.41 units (− 0.56 to − 0.27), respectively. The increase in trough IC was 157 ml (138­175). We found a trend in favour of LAMA compared to LABA in terms of ET. In the 11 studies which reported a value of functional residual capacity > 120% as inclusion criterion, weighted mean increase in endurance time was 94 s (65 to 123); however we did not find any significant correlation between ET and mean trough IC (P: 0.593). The improvement of ET in the 5 studies using walking as exercise methodology resulted of 58 s (− 4 to 121). Conclusions: Long-acting bronchodilators improve exercise capacity in COPD. The main effect of long-acting bronchodilators seems to be a increase of basal IC rather than a modification of dynamic hyperinflation during exercise. The efficacy in terms of endurance time seems higher in studies which enrolled patients with hyperinflation, with a similar efficacy on walking or cycling.

Correction to: Long-acting bronchodilators improve exercise capacity in COPD patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In the original publication [1] is an incorrect sentence in the abstract under Conclusions.

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study to investigate different dosing regimens of olodaterol delivered via Respimat® in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: A Phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial comparing the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) time profile after 3 weeks' treatment with once-daily (QD) or twice-daily (BID) olodaterol (at the same total daily dose) versus placebo delivered via Respimat® in patients with moderate to severe asthma. METHODS: Patients were randomised to different sequences of olodaterol with 2-week washout, either as a total daily dose of 5 µg (5 µg QD [AM] or 2.5 µg BID) or placebo, or 10 µg (10 µg QD [AM] or 5 µg BID) or placebo. Primary end point was FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) response (defined as change from study baseline FEV1) after 3 weeks. Key secondary end points were FEV1 AUC0-12 and AUC12-24 responses. RESULTS: Two hundred and six patients received treatment. All olodaterol treatments demonstrated statistically significant improvements in FEV1 AUC0-24 response at 3 weeks versus placebo (p < 0.0001); adjusted mean treatment difference versus placebo was 0.191 L for olodaterol 2.5 µg BID (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.152, 0.229), 0.150 L for 5 µg QD (95 % CI 0.111, 0.189), 0.228 L for 5 µg BID (95 % CI 0.190, 0.266) and 0.209 L for 10 µg QD (95 % CI 0.170, 0.247). These results were supported by the key secondary end points. Olodaterol 5 µg QD provided numerically lower mean values for 24-h bronchodilation than olodaterol 2.5 µg BID (p = 0.0465), with no statistically significant difference between treatment with olodaterol 10 µg QD and 5 µg BID. No relevant differences in morning and evening peak expiratory flow or Asthma Control Questionnaire scores at 3 weeks were observed between different doses and regimens. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate and comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: All doses and dose frequencies provided adequate 24-h bronchodilation superior to placebo. Based on the results of this study, it would be reasonable to include both posologies of 5 µg olodaterol daily (5 µg QD or 2.5 µg BID, both delivered in two puffs per dose from the Respimat® inhaler) in subsequent studies. Further studies are necessary to confirm the optimum dosing regimen in asthma. No safety concerns were identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01311661.

Dose-finding evaluation of once-daily treatment with olodaterol, a novel long-acting ß2-agonist, in patients with asthma: results of a parallel-group study and a crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Olodaterol is a novel, inhaled long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) with >24-hour duration of action investigated in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: Two multicentre studies examined the efficacy and safety of 4 weeks' once-daily (QD) olodaterol (2, 5, 10 and 20 µg, with background inhaled corticosteroids) in patients with asthma. One randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study (1222.6; 296 patients) administered treatment in the morning. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were performed pre-dose (trough) and ≤3 hours post-dose (weeks 1 and 2), and ≤6 hours post-dose after 4 weeks; primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) response (change from baseline mean FEV1) after 4 weeks. A second randomised, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled (formoterol 12 µg twice-daily) incomplete-block crossover study (1222.27; 198 patients) administered QD treatments in the evening. PFTs were performed over a 24-hour dosing interval after 4 weeks; primary end point was FEV1 area under the curve from 0-24 hours (AUC0-24) response (change from study baseline [mean FEV1] after 4 weeks). RESULTS: Study 1222.6 showed a statistically significant increase in trough FEV1 response with olodaterol 20 µg (0.147 L; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.059, 0.234; p = 0.001) versus placebo, with more limited efficacy and no evidence of dose response compared to placebo across the other olodaterol doses (2, 5 and 10 µg). Study 1222.27 demonstrated increases in FEV1 AUC0-24 responses at 4 weeks with all active treatments (p < 0.0001); adjusted mean (95 % CI) differences from placebo were 0.140 (0.097, 0.182), 0.182 (0.140, 0.224), 0.205 (0.163, 0.248) and 0.229 (0.186, 0.272) L for olodaterol 2, 5, 10 and 20 µg, respectively, and 0.169 (0.126, 0.211) for formoterol, providing evidence of increased efficacy with higher olodaterol dose. Olodaterol was generally well tolerated, with a few events associated with known sympathomimetic effects, mainly with 20 µg. CONCLUSIONS: The LABA olodaterol has >24-hour duration of action. In patients with asthma, evidence of bronchodilator efficacy was demonstrated with statistically and clinically significant improvements in the primary end point of trough FEV1 response measured in clinics over placebo for the highest administered dose of 20 µg in Study 1222.6, and statistically and clinically significant improvements versus placebo in FEV1 AUC0-24 responses at 4 weeks for all doses tested in Study 1222.27, which also exhibited a dose response. Bronchodilator efficacy was seen over placebo for all olodaterol doses for morning and evening peak expiratory flow in both studies. All doses were well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT00467740 (1222.6) and NCT01013753 (1222.27).

The 24-h lung-function profile of once-daily tiotropium and olodaterol fixed-dose combination in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the effects on 24-h lung function and lung volume of a once-daily fixed-dose combination (FDC) of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium and the long-acting ß2-agonist olodaterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial with an incomplete crossover design. Patients received four of the following six treatment options for 6 weeks each: placebo, olodaterol 5 µg, tiotropium 2.5 µg, tiotropium 5 µg, tiotropium + olodaterol FDC 2.5/5 µg and tiotropium + olodaterol FDC 5/5 µg, all delivered via the Respimat(®) inhaler. The primary end point was forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) response after 6 weeks of treatment; key secondary end points were FEV1 AUC from 0 to 12 h and AUC from 12 to 24 h, and further end points included lung-volume parameters measured using body plethysmography (subset of patients), measures of peak and trough FEV1, and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: A significant improvement in FEV1 AUC0-24 response was observed with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 µg and 2.5/5 µg versus placebo and monotherapies after 6 weeks of treatment; mean response with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 µg versus placebo was 0.280 L (p < 0.0001). Differences to monotherapies with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 µg were 0.115 L versus olodaterol 5 µg, 0.127 L versus tiotropium 2.5 µg and 0.110 L versus tiotropium 5 µg (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Secondary end points supported these data. No safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study demonstrated improvements in lung function over 24 h with an FDC of tiotropium + olodaterol over tiotropium or olodaterol alone, with no observed difference in tolerability. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01559116.

Tiotropium Respimat® in asthma: a double-blind, randomised, dose-ranging study in adult patients with moderate asthma.

BACKGROUND: Tiotropium, a once-daily long-acting anticholinergic bronchodilator, when administered via Respimat® SoftMist™ inhaler (tiotropium Respimat®) significantly reduces the risk of severe exacerbations and improves lung function in patients with severe persistent asthma that is not fully controlled despite using inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting ß2-agonists. To further explore the dose-response curve in asthma, we investigated the efficacy and safety of three different doses of tiotropium Respimat® as add-on to ICS in symptomatic patients with moderate persistent asthma. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-way crossover study, patients were randomised to tiotropium Respimat® 5 µg, 2.5 µg or 1.25 µg or placebo Respimat®, once daily in the evening. Each treatment was administered for 4 weeks, without washout between treatment periods. Eligibility criteria included ≥60% and ≤90% of predicted normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and seven-question Asthma Control Questionnaire mean score of ≥1.5. Patients were required to continue maintenance treatment with stable medium-dose ICS for at least 4 weeks prior to and during the treatment period. Long-acting ß2-agonists were not permitted during the treatment phase. The primary efficacy end point was peak FEV1 measured within 3 hours after dosing (peak FEV1(0-3h)) at the end of each 4-week period, analysed as a response (change from study baseline). RESULTS: In total, 149 patients were randomised and 141 completed the study. Statistically significant improvements in peak FEV1(0-3h) response were observed with each tiotropium Respimat® dose versus placebo (all P < 0.0001). The largest difference from placebo was with tiotropium Respimat® 5 µg (188 mL). Trough FEV1 and FEV1 area under the curve (AUC)(0-3h) responses were greater with each tiotropium Respimat® dose than with placebo (all P < 0.0001), and both were greatest with 5 µg. Peak forced vital capacity (FVC)(0-3h), trough FVC and FVC AUC(0-3h) responses, versus placebo, were greatest with tiotropium Respimat® 5 µg (P < 0.0001, P = 0.0012 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Incidence of adverse events was comparable between placebo and all tiotropium Respimat® groups. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily tiotropium Respimat® add-on to medium-dose ICS improves lung function in symptomatic patients with moderate asthma. Overall, improvements were largest with tiotropium Respimat® 5 µg. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01233284.

A blinded evaluation of the efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium, a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist, versus tiotropium, in patients with COPD: the GLOW5 study.

BACKGROUND: Two once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are currently available for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) - tiotropium and glycopyrronium. Previous studies have compared glycopyrronium with open-label tiotropium. In the GLOW5 study, we compare glycopyrronium with blinded tiotropium. METHODS: In this blinded, double-dummy, parallel group, 12-week study, patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized 1:1 to glycopyrronium 50 µg once daily or tiotropium 18 µg once daily. The primary objective was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of glycopyrronium versus blinded tiotropium with respect to trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) following 12 weeks of treatment (non-inferiority margin: -50 mL). Secondary objectives were to evaluate glycopyrronium versus tiotropium for other spirometric outcomes, breathlessness (Transition Dyspnea Index; TDI), health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire; SGRQ), daily rescue medication use, COPD exacerbations and COPD symptoms over 12 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: 657 patients were randomized (glycopyrronium: 327; tiotropium: 330); 96% (630 patients) completed the study. Least squares mean trough FEV1 for both glycopyrronium and tiotropium was 1.405 L at Week 12, meeting the criterion for non-inferiority (mean treatment difference: 0 mL, 95% CI: -32, 31 mL). Glycopyrronium demonstrated rapid bronchodilation following first dose on Day 1, with significantly higher FEV1 at all time points from 0-4 h post-dose versus tiotropium (all p < 0.001). FEV1 area under the curve from 0-4 h (AUC0-4h) post-dose with glycopyrronium was significantly superior to tiotropium on Day 1 (p < 0.001) and was comparable to tiotropium at Week 12. Glycopyrronium demonstrated comparable improvements to tiotropium in TDI focal score, SGRQ total score, rescue medication use and the rate of COPD exacerbations (all p = not significant). Patients on glycopyrronium also had a significantly lower total COPD symptom score versus patients on tiotropium after 12 weeks (p = 0.035). Adverse events were reported by a similar percentage of patients receiving glycopyrronium (40.4%) and tiotropium (40.6%). CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, 12-week blinded treatment with once-daily glycopyrronium 50 µg or tiotropium 18 µg, provided similar efficacy and safety, with glycopyrronium having a faster onset of action on Day 1 versus tiotropium.

The novel TLR-9 agonist QbG10 shows clinical efficacy in persistent allergic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Allergen-specific TH2 responses contribute to the development of allergic asthma. Their increase may be due to a reduced early exposure to environmental pathogens, which induces a TH1 response, and thereby suppresses the allergic TH2 response. QbG10 (bacteriophage Qbeta-derived virus-like particle with CpG-motif G10 inside), a novel Toll-like receptor 9 agonist packaged into virus-like particles, was designed to stimulate the immune system toward a TH1-mediated protective response. OBJECTIVE: We examined clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of QbG10 with patient-reported and objective clinical outcome parameters in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent allergic asthma. METHODS: In this proof-of-concept parallel-group, double-blind, randomized trial, 63 asthmatic patients followed conversion to a standardized inhaled steroid and were treated with 7 injections of either QbG10 or placebo. Incorporating a controlled steroid withdrawal, the effects on patient-reported (day- and nighttime asthma symptoms, salbutamol usage, and 7-item-Asthma Control Questionnaire scores) and objective clinical outcome measures (FEV1, fraction of exhaled nitric oxide, and blood eosinophils) were assessed over 12 weeks (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00890734). RESULTS: All patient-reported parameters improved overall between week 0 and 12 in QbG10-treated patients (n = 33) despite steroid withdrawal, compared with deteriorations observed under placebo (n = 30, P < .05). At week 12, two thirds of the QbG10-treated patients had their asthma "well controlled" (Asthma Control Questionnaire score ≤0.75) compared with one third under placebo. FEV1 had worsened to a clinically significant extent in patients on placebo, while it remained stable in QbG10 patients. Adverse events were mostly injection site reactions occurring after QbG10 administration. CONCLUSION: Treatment with QbG10 may contribute to continued asthma control during steroid reduction in patients on moderate or high-dose inhaled steroids.

Real-World Effectiveness of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Symptomatic COPD: The ELLITHE Non-Interventional Trial.

Purpose: Real-life effectiveness data on once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (odSITT) with the inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate (FF), the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC), and the long-acting ß2-agonist vilanterol (VI) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are important to complement evidence from well-controlled randomized clinical trials. Effectiveness of odSITT was quantified by assessing health status and symptoms in usual care. Patients and Methods: ELLITHE was a single-country (Germany), multicenter, open-label, non-interventional effectiveness study between 2020 and 2022, evaluating the effect of treatment initiation with FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg once-daily via the ELLIPTA inhaler on improvements in clinical outcomes versus baseline in COPD patients. The primary endpoint was the change in the total COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score between baseline and month 12. Key secondary endpoints included change in CAT score over time, occurrence of exacerbations until month 12, changes in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), inhaler adherence, and safety. Results: Nine hundred and six patients were included (age 66.6 years, 55.6% male, mean FEV1 52.6% of predicted, mean CAT 21.5 units, 1.4 exacerbations/year pre-study). About 63.9% of patients were escalated from dual therapies, and 18% were switched from multiple-inhaler triple therapies. Reductions in CAT score at month 12 were statistically significant and above the threshold of clinical importance (-2.6 units; p < 0.0001). CAT score also improved at interim visits. CAT improvements were more pronounced in patients with high baseline scores and better inhaler adherence. Exacerbations during follow-up were rare (0.2 events/year) compared to pre-study (1.4 events/year). FEV1 was improved by 93 mL (p < 0.0001). No new safety effects were observed. Conclusion: In usual care, treatment with odSITT resulted in significant and clinically relevant improvements of CAT score and FEV1 in COPD patients, regardless of the occurrence of exacerbations. These findings challenge the current guideline recommendations for SITT only in patients experiencing exacerbations.

Characteristics of Users and New Initiators of Single- and Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Germany.

Purpose: To assess patient characteristics of users and new initiators of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Germany. Patients and Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with COPD and ≥1 prescription for single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT; fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI] or beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol [BDP/GLY/FOR]) or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT), using data from the AOK PLUS German sickness fund (1 January 2015-31 December 2019). The index date was the first date of prescription for FF/UMEC/VI or BDP/GLY/FOR (SITT users), or the first date of overlap of inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting ß2-agonist, and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (MITT users). Two cohorts were defined: the prevalent cohort included all identified triple therapy users; the incident cohort included patients newly initiating triple therapy for the first time (no prior use of MITT or SITT in the last 2 years). Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were assessed on the index date and during the 24-month pre-index period. Results: In total, 18,630 patients were identified as prevalent triple therapy users (MITT: 17,945; FF/UMEC/VI: 700; BDP/GLY/FOR: 908; non-mutually exclusive) and 2932 patients were identified as incident triple therapy initiators (MITT: 2246; FF/UMEC/VI: 311; BDP/GLY/FOR: 395; non-mutually exclusive). For both the prevalent and incident cohorts, more than two-thirds of patients experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the preceding 24 months; in both cohorts more BDP/GLY/FOR users experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation, compared with FF/UMEC/VI and MITT users. Overall, 97.9% of prevalent triple therapy users and 86.4% of incident triple therapy initiators received maintenance treatment in the 24-month pre-index period. Conclusion: In a real-world setting in Germany, triple therapy was most frequently used after maintenance therapy in patients with recent exacerbations, in line with current treatment recommendations.

Triple therapy (a combination of three different respiratory inhaled medications) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience repeated short-term symptom flare-ups when taking dual therapy (a combination of two different respiratory medications). Previously, patients had to take triple therapy using two or three separate inhalers. More recently, single-inhaler triple therapies have been developed, meaning patients can take all three different medications at the same time via one single inhaler. This study assessed the characteristics of patients who were already receiving triple therapy, or who started triple therapy (either via multiple inhalers or a single inhaler), in Germany between January 2015 and December 2019. In total, 18,630 patients who were already receiving triple therapy during the study period, and 2932 patients who newly started using triple therapy were included. The study reported that more than two-thirds of included patients had experienced at least one flare-up of COPD symptoms in the 2 years before starting triple therapy. Most patients had also received another therapy for COPD before starting triple therapy. A small proportion of patients started taking triple therapy after receiving no other therapy for COPD in the previous 2 years. The results of the study suggest that triple therapy for COPD in Germany is most often used in accordance with recommendations (patients already receiving therapy and experiencing repeated symptom flare-ups).

Cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus salmeterol: the POET-COPD trial.

The aim of this study was to perform a 1-yr trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of tiotropium versus salmeterol followed by a 5-yr model-based CEA. The within-trial CEA, including 7,250 patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), was performed alongside the 1-yr international randomised controlled Prevention of Exacerbations with Tiotropium (POET)-COPD trial comparing tiotropium with salmeterol regarding the effect on exacerbations. Main end-points of the trial-based analysis were costs, number of exacerbations and exacerbation days. The model-based analysis was conducted to extrapolate results to 5 yrs and to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). 1-yr costs per patient from the German statutory health insurance (SHI) perspective and the societal perspective were €126 (95% uncertainty interval (UI) €55-195) and €170 (95% UI €77-260) higher for tiotropium, respectively. The annual number of exacerbations was 0.064 (95% UI 0.010-0.118) lower for tiotropium, leading to a reduction in exacerbation-related costs of €87 (95% UI €19-157). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €1,961 per exacerbation avoided from the SHI perspective and €2,647 from the societal perspective. In the model-based analyses, the 5-yr costs per QALY were €3,488 from the SHI perspective and €8,141 from the societal perspective. Tiotropium reduced exacerbations and exacerbation-related costs, but increased total costs. Tiotropium can be considered cost-effective as the resulting cost-effectiveness ratios were below commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Inhaled pan-selectin antagonist Bimosiamose attenuates airway inflammation in COPD.

Selectins, a family of cell adhesion molecules, are involved in leukocyte extravasation to sites of inflammation. We investigated the safety and efficacy of the inhaled pan-selectin antagonist Bimosiamose in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). 77 COPD patients (mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s, 57% pred.) were enrolled in a cross-over, double-blind, randomized, Placebo-controlled, multi-center trial. Bimosiamose (10 mg) or Placebo was inhaled twice daily via the breath actuated nebulizer Akita2 Apixneb™ for 28 days on top of standard bronchodilator therapy. Efficacy was assessed by measurement of inflammatory parameters in induced sputum (differential cell count, interleukin-8, matrix-metalloproteinase-9, myeloperoxidase) and lung function at day 28 of both treatment periods. The total adverse event ratio of Bimosiamose compared to Placebo treatment was balanced. Compared to Placebo, treatment with Bimosiamose led to a decrease of the interleukin-8 concentration (-9.49 ng/mL, 95%CI -18.8 to -2.7 ng/mL, p = 0.008), for the neutrophil count a difference of -0.368 × 10(6) cells/mL (95%CI -1.256 to 0.407 × 10(6)/mL, p = 0.313) was found. The macrophage count decreased by -0.200 × 10(6) cells/mL (95%CI -0.365 to -0.044 × 10(6) cells/mL, p = 0.012). Most lung function parameters showed a small numeric increase. Inhalation of Bimosiamose for 28 days was safe and well tolerated in patients with COPD. It led to an attenuation of airway inflammation (EudraCT 2009-017257-35; NCT ID: NCT01108913).

Clinical trial design in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: current perspectives and considerations with regard to blinding of tiotropium.

Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials are considered the gold standard for evaluating a pharmacological agent, as they minimise any potential bias. However, it is not always possible to perform double-blind trials, particularly for medications delivered via specific devices, e.g. inhalers. In such cases, open-label studies can be employed instead. Methods used to minimise any potential bias introduced by open-label study design include randomisation, crossover study design, and objective measurements of primary efficacy and safety variables. Concise reviews analysing the effect of blinding procedures of comparator drugs on outcomes in respiratory trials are limited. Here, we compare data from different chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trials with once-daily indacaterol versus a blinded or non-blinded comparator. The clinical trial programme for indacaterol, a once-daily, long-acting ß2-agonist, used tiotropium as a comparator either in an open-label or blinded fashion. Data from these studies showed that the effects of tiotropium were consistent for forced expiratory volume in 1 second, an objective measure, across blinded and non-blinded studies. The data were consistent with previous studies of double-blind tiotropium, suggesting that the open-label use of tiotropium did not introduce treatment bias. The effect of tiotropium on subjective measures (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire; transition dyspnoea index) varied slightly across blinded and non-blinded studies, indicating that minimal bias was introduced by using open-label tiotropium. Importantly, the studies used randomised, open-label tiotropium patients to treatment allocation, a method shown to minimise bias to a greater degree than blinding. In conclusion, it is important when reporting a clinical trial to be transparent about who was blinded and how the blinding was performed; if the design is open-label, additional efforts must be made to minimise risk of bias. If these recommendations are followed, and the data are considered in the full knowledge of any potential sources of bias, results with tiotropium suggest that data from open-label studies can provide valuable and credible evidence of the effects of therapy.

Effect of indacaterol on dynamic lung hyperinflation and breathlessness in hyperinflated patients with COPD.

Indacaterol is a novel, inhaled once-daily ultra long-acting ß2-agonist for the treatment of COPD. This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period crossover study evaluated the effect of two-week treatment with indacaterol 300 µg on peak and isotime exercise inspiratory capacity (IC) in patients with COPD. Patients (40-80 years) with post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) < 70%, percent predicted FEV1 ≥ 40% and ≤ 80%, smoking history ≥ 20 pack-years and functional residual capacity > 120% of predicted normal were randomised to receive indacaterol 300 µg or placebo once-daily via a single-dose dry powder inhaler. Following 14 days of treatment, IC at peak and isotime during constant-load (80% of maximum workload) cycle ergometry was analysed using linear mixed-effects models. Safety and tolerability were also monitored. Twenty-seven patients (67% male; mean age, 61.3 years) were randomised; 24 completed the study. On Day 14, indacaterol showed statistically significant improvements over placebo in peak (317 mL [95% CI: 118-517]; p < 0.01) and isotime IC (268 mL [95% CI: 104-432]; p < 0.01). Statistically significant improvements were observed with indacaterol versus placebo on Day 14 for the following secondary endpoints: resting IC, trough FEV1, dyspnoea (BDI/TDI and Borg CR10 scale at isotime) and exercise endurance time. Indacaterol was well tolerated, with no serious adverse events or deaths. In conclusion, indacaterol 300 µg administered once-daily showed a clinically relevant increase in IC after 14 days of treatment, reflecting a reduction in dynamic hyperinflation.

Impact of guideline awareness on the counseling of patients with acute cough among general practitioners and pharmacy personnel.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the awareness and knowledge of applicable guidelines on acute cough among general practitioners, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians and to compare their recommendation behavior and clinical decision making to the evidence-based recommendation in the applicable guidelines. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was performed among 303 members of an existing panel of healthcare professionals (HCPs). They were presented with a hypothetical case vignette representative of their daily practice and asked for their treatment recommendations. After being shown an excerpt from the applicable guidelines, these questions were repeated. RESULTS: Forty-six % of participants reported to seek information on cough and respiratory conditions very often or often. Among 12 non-prescription treatments-commonly used over-the-counter-products for acute cough, HCPs most often recommended various plant extract-based products (phytotherapeutic remedies) for the acute cough case, whereas chemically defined options such as ambroxol or N-acetyl-cysteine were recommended less often. Following presentation of the guidelines excerpt, recommendations of the phytotherapeutic remedies decreased moderately whereas that of the guideline-recommended ambroxol more than doubled. Among stated reasons for the recommendation guideline conformity increased from 5% to 35% among the top-3 reasons. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations for the treatment of acute cough by professionals involved in primary healthcare deviated considerably from the applicable guideline recommendation but changed after presentation of a guidelines excerpt and knowledge thereof. We conclude that dissemination of applicable guideline knowledge is relevant to improve evidence-based healthcare and clinical decision making.

Pulmonary Therapy Podcast-COVID-19: Research and Real-World Experiences from the Editorial Board.

The Editorial Board have prepared a podcast describing their experiences over the past year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Editorial Board describe how COVID-19 impacted their research and how the initial clinical response changed over the course of the year in terms of treatment, personal protective equipment (PPE), and policy changes. The podcast and transcript can be viewed below the abstract of the online version of the manuscript. Alternatively, the podcast and transcript can be downloaded here: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14402291 Pulmonary Therapy Podcast-COVID-19: Research and Real-World Experiences from the Editorial Board (MP4 160260 KB).

Comparison of Dry-Powder Inhaler and Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler Formulations of Extrafine Beclomethasone Dipropionate/Formoterol Fumarate/Glycopyrronium in Patients with COPD: The TRI-D Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Three 52-week studies in COPD have assessed the efficacy and safety of single-inhaler extrafine formulation triple therapy combining beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), formoterol fumarate (FF) and glycopyrronium (G) delivered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI). BDP/FF/G is now being developed for delivery via multi-dose dry-powder inhaler (DPI; NEXThaler). This study aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority of BDP/FF/G DPI vs pMDI for lung function. METHODS: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, three-way cross-over study in patients with COPD and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 30-80% predicted. Patients received BDP/FF/G 100/6/10µg via DPI and pMDI, and BDP/FF 100/6µg via pMDI, all two inhalations twice daily for four weeks, with treatments separated by two-week washout. The two co-primary objectives were to demonstrate non-inferiority between the two BDP/FF/G formulations for FEV1 area under the curve between 0 and 12 hours post-dose (AUC0-12h) normalized by time and trough FEV1 at 24 hours, both on Day 28. EudraCT 2017-004405-41. RESULTS: Of 449 patients screened, 366 were randomized, with 342 (93.4%) completing all three treatment periods. The primary objectives were met, with changes from baseline in FEV1 AUC0-12h and trough FEV1 on Day 28 similar for the two BDP/FF/G formulations, and the confidence intervals for the difference lying entirely within the pre-specified non-inferiority criterion (-50mL): -20 (-35, -6) mL and 3 (-15, 20) mL for AUC0-12h and trough FEV1, respectively. BDP/FF/G pMDI and DPI were statistically superior to BDP/FF for these endpoints (p<0.001). A similar proportion of patients experienced adverse events with each treatment (15.5%, 18.7% and 15.4% with BDP/FF/G DPI and pMDI, and BDP/FF, respectively); the majority were mild or moderate, with few related to treatment. CONCLUSION: Extrafine BDP/FF/G DPI and pMDI demonstrated similar efficacy and safety in patients with COPD, supporting the DPI formulation as a valid alternative.