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.

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.

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.

Pharmacokinetics of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler formulated using co-suspension delivery technology after single and chronic dosing in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, is a triple fixed-dose combination in late-stage clinical development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We conducted two studies to characterize the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of BGF MDI in patients with COPD: (i) a phase I, open-label, single and chronic (7-day) dosing study (NCT03250182) with one treatment arm (BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 µg); and (ii) a PK sub-study of KRONOS (NCT02497001), a phase III, randomized, double-blind study in which patients received 24 weeks' treatment with BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 µg, glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) MDI 18/9.6 µg, budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) MDI 320/9.6 µg, or budesonide/formoterol fumarate dry powder inhaler (BUD/FORM DPI) 320/9 µg. PK parameters in both studies included maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 12h (AUC0-12). RESULTS: In the phase I PK study (30 patients), budesonide and glycopyrronium Cmax were comparable after single and chronic dosing of BGF MDI (accumulation ratio [RAC] 95% and 107%, respectively) whereas Cmax for formoterol was slightly higher after chronic dosing (RAC 116%). AUC0-12 for budesonide, glycopyrronium, and formoterol were higher following chronic versus single dosing, with an RAC of 126%, 179%, and 143%, respectively. After 7 days' dosing, AUC0-12 and Cmax for all three components of BGF MDI were similar to those in the KRONOS PK sub-study (202 patients) at Week 24. In the latter sub-study, Cmax and AUC0-12 at Week 24 were generally comparable across treatments for budesonide (geometric mean ratios [GMR] of 96%-109% for BGF MDI vs BFF MDI or BUD/FORM DPI), glycopyrronium (GMR of 88%-100% for BGF MDI vs GFF MDI), and formoterol (GMR of 80%-113% for BGF MDI vs GFF MDI or BFF MDI). CONCLUSIONS: Steady-state PK parameters of budesonide, glycopyrronium, and formoterol were similar after 7 days' dosing in the phase I PK study and after 24 weeks in the KRONOS PK sub-study. Systemic exposure to budesonide, glycopyrronium, and formoterol was generally comparable across treatments in the KRONOS PK sub-study, suggesting no meaningful drug-drug or within-formulation PK interactions.

Weighing the evidence for pharmacological treatment interventions in mild COPD; a narrative perspective.

There is increasing focus on understanding the nature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during the earlier stages. Mild COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 1 or the now-withdrawn GOLD stage 0) represents an early stage of COPD that may progress to more severe disease. This review summarises the disease burden of patients with mild COPD and discusses the evidence for treatment intervention in this subgroup.Overall, patients with mild COPD suffer a substantial disease burden that includes persistent or potentially debilitating symptoms, increased risk of exacerbations, increased healthcare utilisation, reduced exercise tolerance and physical activity, and a higher rate of lung function decline versus controls. However, the evidence for treatment efficacy in these patients is limited due to their frequent exclusion from clinical trials. Careful assessment of disease burden and the rate of disease progression in individual patients, rather than a reliance on spirometry data, may identify patients who could benefit from earlier treatment intervention.

Bone and ocular safety of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler in COPD: a 52-week randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) has been associated with increased risk of bone and ocular comorbidities. We evaluated the effects of the triple fixed-dose combination budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, on bone mineral density (BMD) and ocular safety in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: In this extension study, a subset of patients from the 24-week, phase III, randomized, double-blind KRONOS study (NCT02497001) continued treatment (BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 µg, budesonide/formoterol fumarate [BFF] MDI 320/9.6 µg or glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate [GFF] MDI 18/9.6 µg, as a non-steroidal comparator) for an additional 28 weeks. Primary endpoints were percentage change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD and change from baseline in lens opacities classification system III posterior subcapsular cataract (P) score, both at Week 52. Adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 456 patients were included in the safety population (53.1% male, mean age 62.8 years). Changes from baseline in lumbar spine BMD (least squares mean [LSM] range - 0.12 to 0.38%) and P score (LSM range 0.02-0.15) were small for all treatments. Both BGF MDI and BFF MDI were non-inferior to GFF MDI using margins of -2% (BMD) and 0.5 units (P score). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs)  was generally similar among groups. Rates of confirmed pneumonia were low overall (2.4%) and highest in the GFF MDI group (3.4%), followed by BGF MDI (2.1%) and BFF MDI (1.1%). There were no cumulative adverse effects of treatment over time as the incidence and types of TEAEs, were generally similar in the first 24 weeks of the study and after Week 24. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COPD, both ICS-containing therapies were non-inferior to GFF MDI for the primary BMD and ophthalmological endpoints. Changes from baseline in all three treatment groups over 52 weeks were small and not clinically meaningful. All treatments were well tolerated with no new or unexpected safety findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02536508. Registered 27 August 2015.

Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapies in symptomatic patients with COPD not receiving inhaled corticosteroids: the EMAX randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Prospective evidence is lacking regarding incremental benefits of long-acting dual- versus mono-bronchodilation in improving symptoms and preventing short-term disease worsening/treatment failure in low exacerbation risk patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: The 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised patients at low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once-daily or salmeterol 50 µg twice-daily. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The study was also powered for the secondary endpoint of Transition Dyspnoea Index at Week 24. Other efficacy assessments included spirometry, symptoms, heath status and short-term disease worsening measured by the composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration using three definitions. RESULTS: Change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 66 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43, 89) and 141 mL (95% CI: 118, 164) greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, respectively (both p < 0.001). Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated consistent improvements in Transition Dyspnoea Index versus both monotherapies at Week 24 (vs umeclidinium: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.68], p = 0.018; vs salmeterol: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.15, 0.76], p = 0.004) and all other symptom measures at all time points. Regardless of the clinically important deterioration definition considered, umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly reduced the risk of a first clinically important deterioration compared with umeclidinium (by 16-25% [p < 0.01]) and salmeterol (by 26-41% [p < 0.001]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Umeclidinium/vilanterol consistently provides early and sustained improvements in lung function and symptoms and reduces the risk of deterioration/treatment failure versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. These findings suggest a potential for early use of dual bronchodilators to help optimise therapy in this patient group.

Budesonide/formoterol MDI with co-suspension delivery technology in COPD: the TELOS study.

TELOS compared budesonide (BD)/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FF) metered dose inhaler (BFF MDI), formulated using innovative co-suspension delivery technology that enables consistent aerosol performance, with its monocomponents and budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate dry powder inhaler (DPI) in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), without a requirement for an exacerbation history.In this phase III, double-blind, parallel-group, 24-week study (NCT02766608), patients were randomised to BFF MDI 320/10 µg (n=664), BFF MDI 160/10 µg (n=649), FF MDI 10 µg (n=648), BD MDI 320 µg (n=209) or open-label budesonide/formoterol DPI 400/12 µg (n=219). Primary end-points were change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and FEV1 area under the curve from 0-4 h (AUC0-4). Time to first and rate of moderate/severe exacerbations were assessed.BFF MDI 320/10 µg improved pre-dose trough FEV1versus FF MDI (least squares mean (LSM) 39 mL; p=0.0018), and BFF MDI 320/10 µg and 160/10 µg improved FEV1 AUC0-4versus BD MDI (LSM 173 mL and 157 mL, respectively; both p<0.0001) at week 24. BFF MDI 320/10 µg and 160/10 µg improved time to first and rate of moderate/severe exacerbations versus FF MDI. Treatments were well tolerated, with pneumonia incidence ranging from 0.5-1.4%.BFF MDI improved lung function versus monocomponents and exacerbations versus FF MDI in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

A phase IIb randomized, chronic-dosing, incomplete block, cross-over study of glycopyrronium, delivered via metered dose inhaler, compared with a placebo and an active control in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) bronchodilators are key to the pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This Phase IIb study investigated the safety and efficacy of four doses of the LAMA glycopyrronium (GP) delivered using co-suspension delivery technology via metered dose inhaler (MDI). The study was part of a wider clinical trial program performed to determine the optimal dose of GP MDI, the LABA formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FF) MDI, and glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (GFF) MDI fixed-dose combination to be taken forward into Phase III studies. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, 7-day chronic-dosing, three-period incomplete block, cross-over study, patients with moderate-to-severe COPD received two of the four doses of GP MDI (28.8 µg, 14.4 µg, 7.2 µg, and 3.6 µg) twice daily (BID), and either placebo MDI BID or open-label ipratropium MDI 34 µg four times daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC0-12) relative to baseline on Day 7. Secondary and exploratory efficacy endpoints were assessed on Days 1 and 7. Safety and tolerability were evaluated throughout the study. RESULTS: All GP MDI treatments were superior to placebo MDI for the primary efficacy endpoint (all p < 0.0001). However, only GP MDI 28.8 µg and 14.4 µg demonstrated statistical superiority to placebo MDI for all secondary efficacy endpoints analyzed in this study, with the exception of GP MDI 14.4 µg versus placebo MDI for the proportion of patients achieving ≥12% improvement in FEV1. No nominally significant differences were observed between GP MDI 28.8 µg and GP MDI 14.4 µg for any of the endpoints. All doses of GP MDI were well tolerated, with no unexpected safety findings. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that there was no advantage of GP MDI 28.8 µg compared with GP MDI 14.4 µg. It therefore added to the evidence from the Phase I/II clinical trial program, which identified GP MDI 14.4 µg as the most appropriate dose for use in the Phase III clinical studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01350128). Registered May 09, 2011.

A randomized, seven-day study to assess the efficacy and safety of a glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combination metered dose inhaler using novel Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist combinations are recommended for patients whose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is not managed with monotherapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate (GP)/formoterol fumarate (FF) fixed-dose combination delivered via a Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology-based metered dose inhaler (MDI) (GFF MDI). METHODS: This was a Phase IIb randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, chronic-dosing (7 days), crossover study in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD ( NCT01085045 ). Treatments included GFF MDI twice daily (BID) (GP/FF 72/9.6 µg or 36/9.6 µg), GP MDI 36 µg BID, FF MDI 7.2 and 9.6 µg BID, placebo MDI, and open-label formoterol dry powder inhaler (FF DPI) 12 µg BID or tiotropium DPI 18 µg once daily. The primary endpoint was forced expiratory volume in 1 s area under the curve from 0 to 12 h (FEV1 AUC0-12) on Day 7 relative to baseline FEV1. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics and safety. RESULTS: GFF MDI 72/9.6 µg or 36/9.6 µg led to statistically significant improvements in FEV1 AUC0-12 after 7 days' treatment versus monocomponent MDIs, placebo MDI, tiotropium, or FF DPI (p ≤ 0.0002). GFF MDI 36/9.6 µg was non-inferior to GFF MDI 72/9.6 µg and monocomponent MDIs were non-inferior to open-label comparators. Pharmacokinetic results showed glycopyrrolate and formoterol exposure were decreased following administration via fixed-dose combination versus monocomponent MDIs; however, this was not clinically meaningful. GFF MDI was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: GFF MDI 72/9.6 µg and 36/9.6 µg BID improve lung function and are well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01085045 . Registered 9 March 2010.

Randomized, dose-ranging study of a fluticasone propionate multidose dry powder inhaler in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma not previously treated with inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVE: A novel, inhalation-driven, multidose dry powder inhaler (MDPI) eliminates the need to coordinate actuation with inhalation. To characterize dose response, efficacy, and safety of fluticasone propionate (Fp) MDPI, a dose-ranging study was conducted with placebo and active comparators. METHODS: This 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group study randomized patients aged ≥12 years with uncontrolled persistent asthma not previously treated with inhaled corticosteroid therapy (N = 622) to twice-daily treatment with Fp MDPI (12.5, 25, 50, or 100 µg), placebo MDPI, or open-label Fp dry powder inhaler (DPI) 100 µg. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline over 12 weeks in trough (morning pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). Blood samples were collected from a patient subset to evaluate pharmacokinetics. Adverse events were monitored. RESULTS: Fp MDPI 25, 50, and 100 µg significantly improved change from baseline in trough FEV1 over 12 weeks compared with placebo (p < 0.01). There were no substantial differences in FEV1 change from baseline over 12 weeks between any Fp MDPI dose and Fp DPI 100 µg. Maximum observed concentration (Cmax) of Fp increased with increasing Fp MDPI doses; time of Cmax was similar across doses and treatments. Systemic exposures for Fp MDPI 25 and 50 µg were lower than that for Fp DPI 100 µg. The safety profile of Fp MDPI was consistent with that of Fp DPI. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, Fp MDPI 25 and 50 µg provided comparable efficacy and safety to Fp DPI 100 µg, with lower systemic exposure.

Dose-response to inhaled glycopyrrolate delivered with a novel Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology metered dose inhaler (MDI) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

BACKGROUND: This study forms part of the first complete characterization of the dose-response curve for glycopyrrolate (GP) delivered using Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology via a metered dose inhaler (MDI). We examined the lower GP MDI dose range to determine an optimal dose for patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, chronic-dosing, balanced incomplete-block, placebo-controlled, crossover study compared six doses of GP MDI (18, 9, 4.6, 2.4, 1.2, and 0.6 µg, twice daily [BID]) with placebo MDI BID and open-label tiotropium dry powder inhaler (18 µg, once daily [QD]) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Patients were randomized into 1 of 120 treatment sequences. Each sequence included 4 of 8 treatments administered for 14-day periods separated by 7- to 21-day washout periods. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s area under the curve from 0 to 12 h (FEV1 AUC0-12) on Day 14. Secondary efficacy endpoints included peak change from baseline (post-dose) in FEV1 and inspiratory capacity (IC) on Days 1, 7, and 14; change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough FEV1 on Days 7 and 14; change from baseline in 12-h post-dose trough FEV1 on Day 14; time to onset of action (≥10 % improvement in mean FEV1) and the proportion of patients achieving ≥12 % improvement in FEV1 on Day 1; and pre-dose trough IC on Days 7 and 14. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: GP MDI 18, 9, 4.6, and 2.4 µg demonstrated statistically significant and clinically relevant increases in FEV1 AUC0-12 compared with placebo MDI following 14 days of treatment (modified intent-to-treat population = 120). GP MDI 18 µg was non-inferior to open-label tiotropium for peak change in FEV1 on Day 1 and morning pre-dose trough FEV1 on Day 14. All doses of GP MDI were well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings. CONCLUSIONS: These efficacy and safety results support GP MDI 18 µg BID as the most appropriate dose for evaluation in Phase III trials in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01566773 . Registered 27 March 2012.

Safety and efficacy of beclomethasone dipropionate delivered by breath-actuated or metered-dose inhaler for persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Breath-actuated inhalers (BAI) have been developed to simplify the delivery of inhaled medication. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of beclomethasone dipropionate hydrofluoroalkane BAI and metered-dose inhaler (MDI) versus placebo in patients who previously used a mid- to high-dose inhaled corticosteroid or inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonist for persistent asthma. METHODS: This phase III study included five treatment groups: placebo, and four beclomethasone dipropionate groups (BAI 320 µg/day, BAI 640 µg/day, MDI 320 µg/day, and MDI 640 µg/day). Efficacy over 12 weeks was assessed by spirometry, peak flow measurements, and other clinical end points. Safety was assessed by adverse events. RESULTS: Baseline-adjusted trough morning forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the effect curve from time 0 to 12 weeks (primary end point) was increased in the BAI 320 and BAI 640 µg/day groups and the MDI 640 µg/day group versus placebo (not significant). Clinically important improvements were noted in morning and evening peak expiratory flow and decreased rescue medications. More patients who received placebo than patients in active treatment groups withdrew due to meeting the stopping criteria for worsening asthma. Patients in the active treatment groups experienced a greater decrease in asthma symptoms than patients in the placebo group. Quality of life and Asthma Control Test scores improved in the active treatment groups compared with the placebo group (p ≤ 0.0074). The most common adverse events (>5% in any group) were oral candidiasis and upper respiratory tract infection. CONCLUSION: Clinical benefits for patients who used BAI 320 and 640 µg/day and MDI 640 µg/day were demonstrated. The safety profiles of BAI 320 and 640 µg/day were comparable with that of the MDI. These benefits and the continued need for better symptom control among patients with asthma support the continued development of this controller medication. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02031640.

A Preference Study of Two Placebo Dry Powder Inhalers in Adults with COPD: ELLIPTA® Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) versus DISKUS® DPI.

Patients' preference is an important factor in selecting an inhaler treatment for COPD. The DISKUS® dry powder inhaler (DPI), which has been available to deliver several COPD medications for a decade, and the ELLIPTA® DPI, developed for the delivery of newer once-daily medications for patients with COPD, were studied in terms of patient preference and inhaler-specific attributes. We conducted a randomized, open-label, crossover study in patients with COPD. Patients used placebo ELLIPTA DPI once daily and placebo DISKUS DPI twice daily, for ∼1 week each, while continuing their COPD medications. Endpoints were: inhaler preference based on size of the numbers on the dose-counter (primary); the number of steps needed and inhaler size (secondary); and based on comfort of the mouthpiece, ease of opening, overall preference, and dosing regimen preference ('other'). Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs). A total of 287 patients were randomized. A significantly (p < 0.001) larger proportion of patients preferred the ELLIPTA DPI over DISKUS DPI for each of the tested attributes and overall, and preferred once-daily over twice-daily dosing. AEs were reported for 36 patients (13%); one (dry mouth) was considered to be related to the placebo-containing DISKUS DPI. Three patients had five non-fatal serious AEs, none were deemed inhaler-related. This study demonstrated that more patients with COPD preferred five specific inhaler attributes of the ELLIPTA DPI over DISKUS DPI and overall, and preferred once-daily versus twice-daily dosing. Safety profiles were consistent with those expected for COPD.

Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate: the 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled AUGMENT COPD study.

BACKGROUND: Combining two long-acting bronchodilators with complementary mechanisms of action may provide treatment benefits to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that are greater than those derived from either treatment alone. The efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium bromide, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and formoterol fumarate, a long-acting ß2-agonist, in patients with moderate to severe COPD are presented. METHODS: In this 24-week double-blind study, 1692 patients with stable COPD were equally randomized to twice-daily treatment with FDC aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg (ACL400/FOR12 FDC), FDC aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 6 µg (ACL400/FOR6 FDC), aclidinium 400 µg, formoterol 12 µg, or placebo administered by a multidose dry powder inhaler (Genuair®/Pressair®)*. Coprimary endpoints were change from baseline to week 24 in 1-hour morning postdose FEV1 (FDCs versus aclidinium) and change from baseline to week 24 in morning predose (trough) FEV1 (FDCs versus formoterol). Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and improvement in Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score at week 24. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: At study end, improvements from baseline in 1-hour postdose FEV1 were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC or ACL400/FOR6 FDC compared with aclidinium (108 mL and 87 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001). Improvements in trough FEV1 were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC versus formoterol (45 mL; p = 0.0102), a numerical improvement of 26 mL in trough FEV1 over formoterol was observed with ACL400/FOR6 FDC. Significant improvements in both SGRQ total and TDI focal scores were observed in the ACL400/FOR12 FDC group at study end (p < 0.0001), with differences over placebo exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of ≥4 points and ≥1 unit, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated, with safety profiles of the FDCs similar to those of the monotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with twice-daily aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg FDC provided rapid and sustained bronchodilation that was greater than either monotherapy; clinically significant improvements in dyspnea and health status were evident compared with placebo. Aclidinium/formoterol FDC may be an effective and well tolerated new treatment option for patients with COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01437397.

Safety and efficacy of the prostaglandin D2 receptor antagonist AMG 853 in asthmatic patients.

BACKGROUND: The D-prostanoid receptor and the chemoattractant receptor homologous molecule expressed on T(H)2 cells (CRTH2) are implicated in asthma pathogenesis. AMG 853 is a potent, selective, orally bioavailable, small-molecule dual antagonist of human D-prostanoid and CRTH2. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the efficacy and safety of AMG 853 compared with placebo in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. METHODS: Adults with moderate-to-severe asthma were randomized to placebo; 5, 25, or 100 mg of oral AMG 853 twice daily; or 200 mg of AMG 853 once daily for 12 weeks. All patients continued their inhaled corticosteroids. Long-acting ß-agonists were not allowed during the treatment period. Allowed concomitant medications included short-acting ß-agonists and a systemic corticosteroid burst for asthma exacerbation. The primary end point was change in total Asthma Control Questionnaire score from baseline to week 12. Secondary and exploratory end points included FEV(1), symptom scores, rescue short-acting ß-agonist use, and exacerbations. RESULTS: Among treated patients, no effect over placebo (n = 79) was observed in mean changes in Asthma Control Questionnaire scores at 12 weeks (placebo, -0.492; range for AMG 853 groups [n = 317], -0.444 to -0.555). No significant differences between the active and placebo groups were observed for secondary end points. The most commonly reported adverse events were asthma, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache; 9 patients experienced serious adverse events, all of which were deemed unrelated to study treatment by the investigator. CONCLUSION: AMG 853 as an add-on to inhaled corticosteroid therapy demonstrated no associated risks but was not effective at improving asthma symptoms or lung function in patients with inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe asthma.

Efficacy of indacaterol 75 µg once-daily on dyspnea and health status: results of two double-blind, placebo-controlled 12-week studies.

Indacaterol is an inhaled, once-daily, long-acting ®(2)-agonist for the treatment of COPD. Most previous studies were conducted with doses of 150 and/or 300 µg once-daily, and data with the 75 µg dose are limited. Two identically designed studies were, therefore, conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the 75 µg once-daily dose. In two double-blind studies conducted in the USA, patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized to treatment with indacaterol 75 µg once-daily (n = 163 and 159) or matching placebo (n = 160 and 159) for 12 weeks. The primary variable was forced expiratory volume in 1 s measured 24 h post-dose after 12 weeks (reported elsewhere). This report describes secondary efficacy endpoints, including transition dyspnea index (TDI) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores, and the percentages of patients with improvements of or above the minimal clinically important difference (MCID; ≥1 in TDI score and ≥4 in SGRQ score). Differences between indacaterol and placebo for TDI total score at week 12 were 1.23 (p < 0.001) and 0.45 (p = 0.16), with odds ratios for achieving the MCID of 2.19 (p = 0.002) and 1.58 (p = 0.065). SGRQ total score decreased (improved) from baseline by 5.8 and 4.9 units with indacaterol at week 12 (2.0 and 0.9 with placebo), with odds ratios for achieving the MCID of 1.80 (p = 0.024) and 1.71 (p = 0.031). Patients receiving indacaterol had statistically significant or numerical improvements in diary-derived symptom variables compared with placebo. Treatment with indacaterol 75 µg may provide useful improvements in patient-reported outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Efficacy and safety of a 12-week treatment with twice-daily aclidinium bromide in COPD patients (ACCORD COPD I).

BACKGROUND: This Phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg versus placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS: In this 12-week, double-blind, multicenter trial, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to inhaled twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg, aclidinium 400 µg, or placebo. Primary and secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in trough FEV1 and peak FEV1 at Week 12, respectively. Health status (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]), COPD symptoms (Transitional Dyspnea Index [TDI], night and early morning symptoms), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 561 patients (mean age, 64 ± 9 years) with a mean baseline FEV1 of 1.36 ± 0.54 L (47.2% of predicted value) were randomized. At Week 12, aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg showed significant improvements from baseline in mean (95% CI) trough FEV1 compared with placebo by 86 (45, 127) mL and 124 (83,164) mL, respectively, and in peak FEV1 by 146 (101, 190) mL and 192 (148, 236) mL, respectively (p ≤ 0.0001 for all). Both aclidinium doses also provided significant improvements in SGRQ, TDI and almost all COPD symptom scores compared with placebo (p < 0.05 for all). Incidences of adverse events (AEs) were similar across treatment groups. The incidence of anticholinergic AEs was low and similar across groups (dry mouth: 0.5%-1.6%; constipation: 0%-1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD patients with twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg was associated with significant improvements in bronchodilation, health status, and COPD symptoms. Both doses were well tolerated and had safety profiles similar to placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This ACCORD I study (AClidinium in Chronic Obstructive Respiratory Disease I) was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00891462) as "Efficacy and Safety of Aclidinium Bromide for Treatment of Moderate to Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)".

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.