Effect of fixed-dose subcutaneous reslizumab on asthma exacerbations in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma and corticosteroid sparing in patients with oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma: results from two phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Reslizumab 3 mg/kg administered intravenously is approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. We assessed the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous reslizumab 110 mg in two trials in patients with uncontrolled severe asthma and increased blood eosinophils. The aim was to establish whether subcutaneous reslizumab 110 mg can reduce exacerbation rates in these patients (study 1) or reduce maintenance oral corticosteroid dose in patients with corticosteroid-dependent asthma (study 2). METHODS: Both studies were randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies. Entry criteria for study 1 were uncontrolled severe asthma, two or more asthma exacerbations in the previous year, a blood eosinophil count of 300 cells per µL or more (including no more than 30% patients with an eosinophil count <400 cells/µL), and at least a medium dose of inhaled corticosteroids with one or more additional asthma controllers. Patients in study 2 had severe asthma, a blood eosinophil count of 300 cells per µL or more, daily maintenance oral corticosteroid (prednisone 5-40 mg, or equivalent), and high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus another controller. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to subcutaneous reslizumab (110 mg) or placebo once every 4 weeks for 52 weeks in study 1 and 24 weeks in study 2. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. Primary efficacy outcomes were frequency of exacerbations during 52 weeks in study 1 and categorised percentage reduction in daily oral corticosteroid dose from baseline to weeks 20-24 in study 2. Primary efficacy analyses were by intention to treat, and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02452190 (study 1) and NCT02501629 (study 2). FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2015, and Jan 31, 2018, 468 patients in study 1 were randomly assigned to placebo (n=232) or subcutaneous reslizumab (n=236), and 177 in study 2 to placebo (n=89) or subcutaneous reslizumab (n=88). In study 1, we found no significant difference in the exacerbation rate between reslizumab and placebo in the intention-to-treat population (rate ratio 0·79, 95% CI 0·56-1·12; p=0·19). Subcutaneous reslizumab reduced exacerbation frequency compared with placebo in the subgroup of patients with blood eosinophil counts of 400 cells per µL or more (0·64, 95% CI 0·43-0·95). Greater reductions in annual exacerbation risk (p=0·0035) and longer time to first exacerbation were observed for patients with higher trough serum reslizumab concentrations. In study 2, we found no difference between placebo and fixed-dose subcutaneous reslizumab in categorised percentage reduction in daily oral corticosteroid dose (odds ratio for a lower category of oral corticosteroid use in the reslizumab group vs the placebo group, 1·23, 95% CI 0·70-2·16; p=0·47). The frequency of adverse events and serious adverse events with reslizumab were similar to those with placebo in both studies. INTERPRETATION: Fixed-dose (110 mg) subcutaneous reslizumab was not effective in reducing exacerbation frequency in patients with uncontrolled asthma and increased blood eosinophils (≥300 cells/µL), or in reducing the daily maintenance oral corticosteroid dose in patients with oral corticosteroid-dependent severe eosinophilic asthma. Higher exposures than those observed with 110 mg subcutaneous reslizumab are required to achieve maximal efficacy. FUNDING: Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D.

Bronchodilator responsiveness and onset of effect with budesonide/formoterol pMDI in COPD.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients are thought to have limited bronchodilator response, determined by changes in forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV(1)). In this study, we assessed bronchodilator response in patients with COPD using not only FEV(1) but also changes in lung volume expressed as forced vital capacity (FVC) and inspiratory capacity (IC). We also evaluated the speed of onset of bronchodilation. METHODS: Data were from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (6-months [NCT00206154]; 12-months [NCT00206167]) in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. TREATMENTS: twice daily budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) 320/9µg, budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/9µg, formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) 9µg, placebo. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with FEV(1) improvement (≥12% and ≥200mL; American Thoracic Society [ATS] criterion) was 34-39% post-albuterol (screening). On day of randomization (DOR), a larger proportion receiving formoterol-containing treatment exhibited reversibility within 60min: FEV(1) (57-59%). Similar results were seen for IC (50-61%) and FVC (57-67%) using the same improvement criteria. The time to ≥15% FEV(1) improvement on DOR was 5.0, 4.8, and 7.3min for budesonide/formoterol 320/9, budesonide/formoterol 160/9, and formoterol, respectively. Time to ≥15% FEV(1) improvement was better maintained with budesonide/formoterol than formoterol at treatment end (6 and 12 months). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with moderate to very severe COPD exhibit ATS-defined bronchodilator reversibility based on flow and lung volume measures after budesonide/formoterol pMDI or formoterol treatment. Budesonide/formoterol pMDI also has a rapid (within 5min) onset of bronchodilation that is maintained over time compared with formoterol alone.

Efficacy and tolerability of budesonide/formoterol in one hydrofluoroalkane pressurized metered-dose inhaler in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with a long-acting bronchodilator and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is recommended in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who have frequent exacerbations. The efficacy and tolerability of the combination of budesonide/formoterol have been demonstrated in patients with COPD when administered via the dry powder inhaler (DPI) in a 1-year study and when administered via the hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) in a 6-month study. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the long-term efficacy and tolerability of budesonide/formoterol HFA pMDI in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. METHODS: This was a 12-month, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, active- and placebo-controlled, multicentre study (NCT00206167) of 1, 964 patients aged >or =40 years with moderate to very severe COPD conducted from 2005 to 2007 at 237 sites in the US, Europe and Mexico. After 2 weeks of treatment based on previous therapy (ICSs, short-acting bronchodilators allowed), patients received one of the following treatments twice daily: budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/4.5 microg x two inhalations (320/9 microg); budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 microg x two inhalations (160/9 microg); formoterol DPI 4.5 microg x two inhalations (9 microg); or placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The co-primary efficacy variables were pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and 1-hour post-dose FEV1. . RESULTS: Budesonide/formoterol 320/9 microg demonstrated greater improvements in pre-dose FEV1 versus formoterol (p = 0.008), and both budesonide/formoterol doses demonstrated greater improvements in 1-hour post-dose FEV1 versus placebo (p < 0.001). The rate of COPD exacerbations was lower in both budesonide/formoterol groups compared with formoterol and placebo (p

A double-blind, randomised trial of tesaglitazar versus pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The efficacy and safety of tesaglitazar (0.5 and 1 mg) and pioglitazone (15, 30 and 45 mg) were compared in a 24-week, randomised, double-blind study in 1,707 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Tesaglitazar 1 mg was non-inferior to pioglitazone 45 mg for change from baseline in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1C) at 24 weeks (difference: -0.056 [95% confidence intervals -0.161, 0.049], pNI<0.001 for non-inferiority hypothesis). Tesaglitazar 1 mg improved triglyceride (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and non-HDL-C levels compared with all pioglitazone doses at 24 weeks (p<0.001). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was lower with tesaglitazar for all pioglitazone comparisons (p<0.05), except for tesaglitazar 0.5 mg versus pioglitazone 15 mg. Tesaglitazar 1 mg decreased LDL particle number, when compared with all pioglitazone doses (p<0.01). Both agents increased body weight and peripheral oedema in a dose-dependent manner, but only tesaglitazar increased serum creatinine. In summary, tesaglitazar provided similar glycaemic control to pioglitazone, was associated with significant improvement in lipid and lipoprotein variables, and increased serum creatinine in a dose-dependent manner.

Oral direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran compared with warfarin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin, which requires coagulation monitoring, is associated with relatively high rates of thromboembolism despite providing adequate prophylaxis. This study compared an oral direct thrombin inhibitor, ximelagatran, with warfarin in order to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the medication for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Following surgery, patients were randomly assigned to fixed-dose oral ximelagatran (36 mg twice daily) or warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.5), both administered for seven to twelve days in a double-blind, double-dummy design. Warfarin was initiated on the evening of the day of surgery, and ximelagatran, on the morning after surgery. The primary efficacy end point was the incidence of asymptomatic deep-vein thrombosis determined by bilateral venography, objectively confirmed symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and death from all causes during treatment. RESULTS: Adequate venograms or confirmed symptomatic events (efficacy population) were obtained for 1949 patients. Venous thromboembolism and death from all causes occurred in 22.5% (221) of 982 ximelagatran-treated patients and in 31.9% (308) of 967 warfarin-treated patients (p < 0.001). Proximal deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism were observed in 3.1% (thirty) and 0.2%, respectively, of the patients in the ximelagatran group and in 3.4% (thirty-three) and 0.4%, respectively, of the patients in the warfarin group. The six deaths from all causes included 0.3% (four) of the ximelagatran-treated patients and 0.2% (two) of the warfarin-treated patients. Major bleeding was noted in 1% (twelve) of the ximelagatran-treated patients and in 0.4% (five) of the warfarin-treated patients (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Oral ximelagatran (36 mg twice daily), administered without coagulation monitoring or dose adjustment and started the day after total knee arthroplasty, demonstrates superior efficacy compared with warfarin prophylaxis, with no wound complications and no significant difference with respect to bleeding events, although the rate of major bleeding events was greater with ximelagatran than with warfarin. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I.

Comparison of ximelagatran with warfarin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee replacement.

BACKGROUND: In a previous study of the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee replacement, the efficacy of ximelagatran, an oral direct thrombin inhibitor that does not require monitoring of coagulation or dose adjustment, was found to be similar to that of warfarin at a dose of 24 mg of ximelagatran twice daily. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether a higher dose of ximelagatran is superior to warfarin. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind trial compared a regimen of 7 to 12 days of oral ximelagatran, at a dose of 24 or 36 mg twice daily, starting the morning after surgery, with warfarin therapy started the evening of the day of surgery. The composite end point of venous thromboembolism and death from all causes and the incidence of bleeding were the primary outcome measures. RESULTS: Among the 1851 patients in the efficacy analysis, oral ximelagatran at a dose of 36 mg twice daily was superior to warfarin with respect to the primary composite end point of venous thromboembolism and death from all causes (20.3 percent vs. 27.6 percent; P=0.003). There were no significant differences between these two groups with respect to major bleeding (incidence, 0.8 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively), perioperative indicators of bleeding, wound characteristics, or the composite secondary end point of proximal deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and death (2.7 percent vs. 4.1 percent; P=0.17). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of oral ximelagatran, administered starting the morning after total knee replacement, was superior to that of warfarin for prevention of venous thromboembolism. Rates of hemorrhagic complications with the two drugs were similar.