Pharmacokinetic Models for Inhaled Fluticasone Propionate and Salmeterol Xinafoate to Quantify Batch-to-Batch Variability.

Advair Diskus is an essential treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It is a dry powder inhaler with a combination of fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol xinafoate (SX). However, the pharmacokinetics (PK) batch-to-batch variability of the reference-listed drug (RLD) hindered its generic product development. This work developed the PK models for inhaled FP and SX that could represent potential batch variability. Two batches each of the reference and the test product (R1, R2, T1, T2) of Advair Diskus (100 µg FP/50 µg SX inhalation) were administered to 60 healthy subjects in a 4-period, 4-sequence crossover study. The failure of the bioequivalence (BE) between R1 and R2 confirmed the high between-batch variability of the RLD. Non-linear mixed effect modeling was used to estimate the population mean PK parameters for each batch. For FP, a 2-compartment model with a sequential dual zero-order absorption best described the PK profile. For SX, a 2-compartment model with a first-order absorption model best fit the data. Both models were able to capture the plasma concentration, the maximum concentration, and the total exposure (AUCinf) adequately for each batch, which could be used to simulate the BE study in the future. In vitro properties were also measured for each batch, and the batch with a higher fraction of the fine particle (diameter < 1 µm, < 2 µm) had a higher AUCinf. This positive correlation for both FP and SX could potentially assist the batch selection for the PK BE study.

Consultas a urgencia y valores espirométricos tras el reemplazo de salmeterol/fluticasona por budesonida/formoterol en pacientes con asma moderada a grave / Emergency consultations and spirometric values after replacement of salmeterol/fluticasone with budesonide/formoterol in patients with moderate to severe asthma

El asma se caracteriza por su impacto deletéreo que incluye gran coste económico para el sistema de salud. En pacientes con asma mal controlada a pesar del tratamiento, se propone un régimen de mantenimiento con corticoides inhalados y formoterol. El objetivo del presente estudio observacional retrospectivo fue evaluar las modificaciones espirométricas tras el cambio del medicamento controlador en pacientes con asma moderada a severa asistidos en el Hospital Clínico de Magallanes de Punta Arenas, así como también cuantificar la modificación en el número de exacerbaciones graves (consulta a un servicio de urgencia y/u hospitalización por asma). Participaron 61 adultos con asma moderada a severa (mediana de edad: 60 años [rango: 21-87], mujeres: 69,4%; comorbilidad atópica/alérgica: 79%; otras comorbilidades: 46,8%) en los que se cambió el tratamiento con fluticasona/salmeterol 250/25 μg por budesónida/formoterol 160/4,5 μg. No se observaron cambios significativos en los índices espirométricos tras el cambio. Con el tratamiento inicial, el 46,9% presentó ≥ 1 visita a urgencias (total: 50 consultas). Tras el cambio por budesonida/formoterol, el 21% requirió al menos una visita a urgencias (total: 14 consultas; p < 0,01). La proporción de pacientes con ≥ 2 consultas a urgencias fue de 19,7% con el tratamiento basal y de 1,6% tras el cambio a budesonida/formoterol (p < 0,01). No se observaron diferencias significativas en la cantidad de hospitalizaciones. En este estudio del mundo real de pacientes con asma moderada a grave, el cambio del tratamiento a budesonida/formoterol se asoció con reducción significativa de las consultas a urgencias, a pesar de no detectarse cambios de significación estadística en los índices espirométricos habituales.

Asthma is characterized by its deleterious impact, including a high cost to the healthcare system. In patients with poorly controlled asthma despite treatment, a maintenance regimen of inhaled corticosteroids and formoterol is proposed. The aim of this retrospective, observational study was to evaluate the spirometric changes after switching the controller medication in patients with moderate to severe asthma attended in our institution ("Hospital Clínico de Magallanes"), as well as the variation in the number of severe exacerbations (consultation to an emergency department and/or hospitalization for asthma). Sixty-one adults with moderate to severe asthma (median age: 60 years-old [range: 21-87], women: 69.4%; atopic/allergic comorbidity: 79%; other comorbidities: 46.8%) in whom treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol 250/25 μg was switched to budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 μg participated in our study. No significant changes in spirometric parameters were observed after the replacement treatment. With the initial treatment, 46.9% patients presented ≥ 1 visit to the emergency department (total: 50 visits). After the switch to budesonide/formoterol, 21% required at least one emergency department visit (total: 14 consultations; p < 0.01). The proportion of patients with ≥ 2 emergency department visits was 19.7% with baseline treatment and 1.6% after switching to budesonide/formoterol (p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed in the number of hospitalizations. In this real-world study of moderate to severe asthma patients, switching to budesonide/formoterol was associated with a significant reduction in emergency department visits, despite no statistically significant changes in the usual spirometric parameters.

Comparing initial LABA-ICS inhalers in COPD: Real-world effectiveness and safety.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with multiple exacerbations and eosinophilia recommend a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combined inhaler, with no distinction between different agents. We compared the effectiveness and safety of budesonide-formoterol versus fluticasone-salmeterol on the incidence of exacerbations and pneumonia in a real-world clinical practice setting of COPD, particularly considering eosinophilia, an important marker for ICS effectiveness. METHODS: We identified a cohort of patients with COPD, new users of a LABA-ICS during 2002-2018, age 50 or older, from the UK's CPRD database, and followed for one year. The hazard ratio (HR) of exacerbation and of pneumonia was estimated using the Cox regression model, weighted by fine stratification of the propensity score of treatment initiation. RESULTS: The cohort included 24,973 of budesonide-formoterol and 61,251 initiators of fluticasone-salmeterol. The adjusted HR of a first moderate or severe exacerbation with budesonide-formoterol relative to fluticasone-salmeterol was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95-1.01), while for severe exacerbation it was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85-0.99). The HR of severe pneumonia with budesonide-formoterol was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.70-0.83), and was particularly decreased with higher blood eosinophil count, dropping to 0.62 (95% CI: 0.51-0.77) at >300 cells/µL. CONCLUSION: In a real-world clinical setting of COPD treatment, a budesonide-formoterol inhaler was generally as effective at reducing the incidence of moderate-severe exacerbations as fluticasone-salmeterol. However, budesonide-formoterol was more effective than fluticasone-salmeterol at reducing the incidence of severe exacerbation and the risk of severe pneumonia, particularly in patients with higher blood eosinophil counts.

A new formulation of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in a metered-dose inhaler (MDI HFA) allows for the reduction of a daily dose of corticosteroid and provides optimal asthma control - A randomized, multi-center, non-inferiority, phase IV clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Improvement of the delivery method of inhaled corticosteroids and subsequent dose reduction can minimize the risk of unfavorable outcomes while providing optimal asthma control. OBJECTIVE: This randomized, multi-center, non-inferiority, phase IV clinical study compared the efficacy and safety of a new formulation of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (250 µg/50 µg, twice daily) administered in a metered-dose inhaler hydrofluoroalkane (MDI HFA) with a dry-powder inhaler (DPI) containing fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (500 µg/50 µg, twice daily). METHODS: Adults with asthma (n = 231) were randomly assigned to either the study group (treated for 12 weeks with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol MDI HFA) or a control group (treated for 12 weeks with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol DPI). Asthma symptoms, exacerbations, short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) use, physical activity, lung function, and general health status were assessed during four study visits. RESULTS: Compared with the reference drug, the study drug decreased the incidence of daytime and night-time asthma symptoms, asthma exacerbations, self-administration of SABA, and the limitation of physical activity. Comparable improvement in peak expiratory flow ([MDI HFA] from 6.2 ± 0.2 to 6.6 ± 0.2 l/s vs. [DPI] from 6.0 ± 0.2 to 6.9 ± 0.2 l/s; p > 0.05), forced expiratory volume in one second, and forced vital capacity were obtained in both groups. Significantly lower incidence of hoarseness was observed in the study group ([MDI HFA] 0.0% vs. [DPI] 2.8%; p = 0.0267); no major differences were found for other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (250 µg/50 µg, twice daily) MDI HFA provides optimal asthma control and is non-inferior to fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (500 µg/50 µg, twice daily) DPI.

Risk of active tuberculosis among COPD patients treated with fixed combinations of long-acting beta2 agonists and inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence of active tuberculosis (TB) among COPD patients using fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol, and to identify any differences between these two groups of patients. METHODS: The study enrolled COPD patients from Taiwan NHIRD who received treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol for > 90 days between 2004 and 2011. The incidence of active TB was the primary outcome. RESULTS: Among the intention-to-treat population prior to matching, the incidence rates of active TB were 0.94 and 0.61% in the fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol groups, respectively. After matching, the fluticasone/salmeterol group had significantly higher rates of active TB (adjusted HR, 1.41, 95% CI, 1.17-1.70) compared with the budesonide/formoterol group. The significant difference between these two groups remained after a competing risk analysis (HR, 1.45, 95% CI, 1.21-1.74). Following propensity score matching, the fluticasone/salmeterol group had significantly higher rates of active TB compared with the budesonide/formoterol group (adjusted HR, 1.45, 95% CI, 1.14-1.85). A similar trend was observed after a competing risk analysis (HR, 1.44, 95% CI, 1.19-1.75). A higher risk of active TB was observed in the fluticasone/salmeterol group compared with the budesonide/formoterol group across all subgroups, but some differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Fluticasone/salmeterol carried a higher risk of active TB compared with budesonide/formoterol among COPD patients.

Once-daily mometasone plus indacaterol versus mometasone or twice-daily fluticasone plus salmeterol in patients with inadequately controlled asthma (PALLADIUM): a randomised, double-blind, triple-dummy, controlled phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting ß2-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA) are considered safe and efficacious in asthma management. Most available FDCs require twice-daily dosing to achieve optimum therapeutic effect. The objective of the PALLADIUM study was to assess the efficacy and safety of once-daily FDC of mometasone furoate plus indacaterol acetate (MF-IND) versus mometasone furoate (MF) monotherapy in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. METHODS: This 52-week, double-blind, triple-dummy, parallel-group, phase 3 study recruited patients from 316 centres across 24 countries. Patients aged 12 to 75 years with a documented diagnosis of asthma for at least 1 year, percentage of predicted FEV1 of 50-85%, and an Asthma Control Questionnaire 7 score of at least 1·5 despite treatment with medium-dose or high-dose ICS or low-dose ICS plus LABA were included. A history of asthma exacerbations was not a study requirement. Participants were randomily assigned (1:1:1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive one of the following treatments for 52 weeks: high-dose MF-IND (320 µg, 150 µg) or medium-dose MF-IND (160 µg, 150 µg) once daily via Breezhaler; high-dose MF (800 µg [400 µg twice daily]) or medium-dose MF (400 µg once daily) via Twisthaler; or high-dose fluticasone propionate-salmeterol xinafoate (FLU-SAL; 500 µg, 50 µg) twice daily via Diskus. Participants received placebo via inhalation through the Breezhaler, Twisthaler, or Diskus devices in the mornings and evenings, as appropriate. The primary endpoint was improvement in trough FEV1 with high-dose and medium-dose MF-IND versus respective MF doses from baseline at 26 weeks, analysed in the full analysis set by means of a mixed model for repeated measures. High-dose MF-IND once daily was compared with high-dose FLU-SAL twice daily for non-inferiority on improving trough FEV1 at week 26 with a margin of -90 mL using mixed model for repeated measures as one of the secondary endpoints. Safety was assessed in all patients who had received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02554786, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 29, 2015, and May 4, 2018, 2216 patients were randomly assigned (high-dose MF-IND, n=445; medium-dose MF-IND, n=439; high-dose MF, n=442; medium-dose MF, n=444; high-dose FLU-SAL, n=446), of which 1973 (89·0%) completed the study treatment and 234 (10·6%) prematurely discontinued study treatment. High-dose MF-IND (treatment difference [Δ] 132 mL [95% CI 88 to 176]; p<0·001) and medium-dose MF-IND (Δ 211 mL [167 to 255]; p<0·001) showed superiority in improving trough FEV1 over corresponding MF doses from baseline at week 26. High-dose MF-IND was non-inferior to high-dose FLU-SAL in improving trough FEV1 from baseline at week 26 (Δ 36 mL [-7 to 80]; p=0·101). Overall, the incidence of adverse events was similar across the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Once-daily FDC of ICS and LABA (MF-IND) significantly improved lung function over ICS monotherapy (MF) at week 26; high-dose MF-IND was non-inferior to twice-daily combination of ICS and LABA (high-dose FLU-SAL) for improvement in trough FEV1. The combination of MF-IND provides a novel once-daily dry powder option for asthma control. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Once-daily, single-inhaler mometasone-indacaterol-glycopyrronium versus mometasone-indacaterol or twice-daily fluticasone-salmeterol in patients with inadequately controlled asthma (IRIDIUM): a randomised, double-blind, controlled phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with asthma who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting ß2-adrenoceptor agonist (ICS-LABA) combinations might benefit from the addition of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist. The aim of the IRIDIUM study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a once-daily, single-inhaler combination of mometasone furoate, indacaterol acetate, and glycopyrronium bromide (MF-IND-GLY) versus ICS-LABA in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. METHODS: In this 52-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, active-controlled phase 3 study, patients were recruited from 415 sites across 41 countries. Patients aged 18 to 75 years with symptomatic asthma despite treatment with medium-dose or high-dose ICS-LABA, at least one exacerbation in the previous year, and a percentage of predicted FEV1 of less than 80% were included. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive medium-dose or high-dose MF-IND-GLY (80 µg, 150 µg, 50 µg; 160 µg, 150 µg, 50 µg) or MF-IND (160 µg, 150 µg; 320 µg, 150 µg) once daily via Breezhaler, or high-dose fluticasone-salmeterol (FLU-SAL; 500 µg, 50 µg) twice daily via Diskus. The primary outcome was change from baseline in trough FEV1 with MF-IND-GLY versus MF-IND at week 26 in patients in the full analysis set, analysed by means of a mixed model for repeated measures. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02571777, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2015, and Jun 14, 2019, 3092 of 4851 patients screened were randomly assigned (medium-dose MF-IND-GLY, n=620; high-dose MF-IND-GLY, n=619; medium-dose MF-IND, n=617; high-dose MF-IND, n=618; high-dose FLU-SAL, n=618). 2747 (88·8%) patients completed the 52-week treatment and 321 (10·4%) started but discontinued study treatment prematurely. Medium-dose MF-IND-GLY (treatment difference [Δ] 76 mL [95% CI 41-111]; p<0·001) and high-dose MF-IND-GLY (Δ 65 mL [31-99]; p<0·001) showed superior improvement in trough FEV1 versus corresponding doses of MF-IND at week 26. Improvements in trough FEV1 were greater for both medium-dose MF-IND-GLY (99 mL [64-133]; p<0·001) and high-dose MF-IND-GLY (119 mL [85-154]; p<0·001) than for high-dose FLU-SAL at week 26. Overall, the incidence of adverse events was balanced across the treatment groups. Seven deaths were reported (one with medium-dose MF-IND-GLY, two with high-dose MF-IND-GLY, and four with high-dose MF-IND) during the study; none of these deaths was considered by the investigators to be caused by study drugs or other study-related factors. INTERPRETATION: Once-daily, single-inhaler MF-IND-GLY improved lung function versus ICS-LABA combinations (MF-IND and FLU-SAL) in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. The safety profile was similar across treatment groups. MF-IND-GLY therefore constitutes a good treatment option in these patients. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Impact of a change of bronchodilator medications in a hospital drug formulary on intra- and out-of-hospital drug prescriptions: interrupted time series design with comparison group.

BACKGROUND: Hospital drug formularies are reduced lists of drugs designed to optimise inpatient care. Adherence to the drugs included in such formularies is not always 100% but is generally very high. Little research has targeted the impact of a change in these formularies on outpatient drug prescriptions. This study therefore sought to evaluate the impact of a change affecting bronchodilator medications in a hospital drug formulary on intra- and out-of-hospital drug prescriptions in a region in north-western Spain. Two new drugs belonging to this same class were brought onto the out-of-hospital market, overlapping with the intervention. METHODS: We used a natural before-after quasi-experimental design with control group based on monthly data. The intervention evaluated was the modification of a hospital drug formulary, which involved withdrawing salmeterol/fluticasone in order to retain formoterol/budesonide as the sole inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist (ICS/LABA). Using official data sources, we extracted the following dependent variables: defined daily doses (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants per day, DDD per 100 bed-days, and cost per DDD. RESULTS: Intra-hospital use showed a 173.2% rise (95% CI 47.3-299.0%) in the medication retained in the formulary, formoterol/budesonide, and a 94.9% drop (95% CI 77.9-111.9%) in the medication withdrawn from the formulary, salmeterol/fluticasone. This intervention led to an immediate reduction of 75.9% (95% CI 82.8-68.9%) in the intra-hospital cost per DDD of ICS/LABA. No significant changes were observed in out-of-hospital use. CONCLUSIONS: Although this intervention was cost-effective in the intra-hospital setting, the out-of-hospital impact of a change in the drug formulary cannot be generalised to all types of medications and situations.

Impact of baseline symptoms and health status on COPD exacerbations in the FLAME study.

BACKGROUND: COPD is a heterogeneous disease and patients may respond differently to therapies depending on baseline symptom burden. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis from the 52-week FLAME study investigated the impact of baseline symptom burden in terms of health status, dyspnoea, bronchitis status, eosinophil levels and smoking status on the subsequent risk of moderate or severe exacerbations. Health status was measured by St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score (higher ≥46.6 and lower < 46.6) and COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score (higher ≥17 and lower < 17); dyspnoea and bronchitis were assessed via an electronic diary (eDiary). Differential response to once-daily indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) 110/50 µg versus twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) 50/500 µg was assessed. RESULTS: Data from 3354 patients was analysed. The risk of exacerbations was lower in patients who had less severe health impairment (rate ratio [RR] [95% CI]): SGRQ-C, (0.88 [0.78, 0.99]); CAT, 0.85 [0.75, 0.96]) and lower dyspnoea (0.79 [0.69, 0.90]) at baseline versus those with more severe health impairment and higher dyspnoea, respectively. Compared with SFC, IND/GLY led to better prevention of moderate-to-severe exacerbations in the majority of groups studied. CONCLUSION: Patients with more severe health status impairment and greater symptom burden at baseline subsequently experienced more exacerbations in the FLAME study. IND/GLY was overall more effective in preventing exacerbations versus SFC, regardless of baseline symptom burden. Our results suggest that future studies on novel exacerbation therapies should consider targeting patients with higher symptom burden at baseline. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT01782326.

Letter to the editor: indacaterol/glycopyrronium/mometasone furoate compared with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in patients with asthma: a randomized controlled cross-over study.

Indacaterol (IND; 150 µg), glycopyrronium (GLY; 50 µg) and mometasone furoate (MF; 160 µg [high-dose ICS] and 80 µg [medium-dose ICS]) have been formulated as a once-daily (o.d.) fixed-dose combination treatment delivered via the Breezhaler® device for the treatment of patients with asthma. In this randomized (n = 116), double-blind, double-dummy, active comparator-controlled, three-period cross-over study we evaluated the benefit of o.d. IND/GLY/MF versus twice daily (b.i.d.) salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC; 50/500 µg; high-dose ICS) treatment (NCT03063086). Overall, 107 patients completed the study. The study met its primary objective by demonstrating superiority of o.d. IND/GLY/MF at medium and high-dose ICS over b.i.d. SFC (high-dose ICS) in peak FEV1 after 21 days of treatment (+ 172 mL with high-dose and + 159 mL with medium-dose IND/GLY/MF versus SFC, p < 0.0001 for each comparison). We also observed that a higher percentage of patients did not need rescue medicine with IND/GLY/MF (high-dose ICS, 58%; medium-dose ICS, 52%) compared with SFC (45%) during the last week of each treatment period. Study treatments were well-tolerated with no relevant differences in tolerability between both IND/GLY/MF doses and SFC. In conclusion, both doses of IND/GLY/MF provided superior lung function benefits compared with twice-daily, standard-of-care SFC at the highest approved dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, (Identifier: NCT03063086), EudraCT start date: May 11, 2017; First patient first visit / study initiation date: May 31, 2017.

Evaluation of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol for the treatment of COPD: a systematic review.

Introduction: Recently, the generic formulation of FP/SAL FDC has been approved in COPD. Although FP/SAL FDC has been the first long-acting FDC approved in COPD, no systematic review assessed the effect of this combination for the treatment of COPD by considering specifically Phase IV studies. The aim of this review was to systematically assess the effect of FP/SAL FDC in COPD patients enrolled in Phase IV studies.Areas covered: The question of this systematic review was to examine the evidence regarding the impact of FP/SAL FDC for the treatment of COPD by searching for Phase IV studies in the ClinicalTrials.gov database.Expert opinion: Generic drugs represent an effective cost-saving step for health-care budgets in the treatment of COPD and should be used in agreement with current recommendations and prescription accuracy. FP/SAL FDC is recommended for the initiation therapy just in a small percentage of symptomatic patients that are at high risk of exacerbation with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells per µl. At follow-up, FP/SAL FDC can be escalated to triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination or switched to LABA/LAMA combination by considering symptoms, exacerbations, lack of response to ICS, inappropriate original indication, and ICS-related adverse events such as pneumonia.

Equivalent Systemic Exposure to Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Following Single Inhaled Doses from Advair Diskus and Wixela Inhub: Results of Three Pharmacokinetic Bioequivalence Studies.

Background: Wixela® Inhub® was developed to deliver inhaled fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/S) combination as a substitutable generic equivalent to Advair® Diskus®. These studies aimed to confirm the pharmacokinetic bioequivalence (BE) of FP/S after single doses of Wixela Inhub (test [T]) and Advair Diskus (reference [R]). Methods: Three open-label, randomized, two-way crossover, single-dose studies in healthy subjects (N = 66 each) compared the systemic exposure of FP and salmeterol after inhalation from three dose strengths of FP/S (100/50, 250/50, or 500/50 µg) delivered from T and R. Primary BE endpoints were the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time = 0 to the last measurable concentration (AUC(0-t)) and the maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) for both FP and S. The BE acceptance criteria specified that the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean T/R ratios for AUC(0-t) and Cmax can be contained within 0.80-1.25 for both FP and salmeterol. Results: Wixela Inhub met the acceptance criteria for BE for FP and salmeterol at each dose strength. Estimated AUC(0-t) and Cmax geometric mean ratios (T/R [90% CI]) for FP were, respectively, 1.04 (1.00-1.08) and 0.92 (0.87-0.96) for 100/50 µg FP/S, 1.07 (1.02-1.13) and 1.01 (0.95-1.07) for 250/50 µg, and 0.97 (0.92, 1.00) and 0.90 (0.86-0.93) for 500/50 µg. Estimated AUC(0-t) and Cmax ratios for salmeterol were, respectively, 1.08 (1.04-1.11) and 1.00 (0.94-1.04) for 100/50 µg FP/S, 1.03 (0.99-1.07) and 0.93 (0.87-1.00) for 250/50 µg, and 1.00 (0.96-1.04) and 0.86 (0.81-0.91) for 500/50 µg. FP/S at all doses via both T and R was comparably well tolerated. Conclusions: Wixela Inhub was bioequivalent to Advair Diskus at all three dose strengths for both FP and S, providing direct evidence of equivalent systemic safety and indirect evidence for equivalent pulmonary deposition.

Clinical Bioequivalence of Wixela Inhub and Advair Diskus in Adults With Asthma.

Background: Wixela® Inhub® is a dry powder inhaler approved as a generic equivalent to Advair® Diskus® (fluticasone propionate [FP]/salmeterol fixed-dose combination) for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed at confirming the local (lung) therapeutic equivalence of both the FP and salmeterol components of Wixela Inhub (test [T]) to Advair Diskus (reference [R]) after inhalation. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in patients ≥18 years with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma compared the local therapeutic equivalence (using forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]) of FP/salmeterol (100/50 µg) after inhaled delivery via T and R. Results: Randomized patients (N = 1127) received T (n = 512), R (n = 512), or placebo (n = 103). T and R significantly increased day 1 FEV1 area under the effect curve over 12 hours of the change from baseline (AUC[0-12]) and day 29 trough FEV1 over placebo, indicating that these endpoints were sufficiently sensitive for evaluation of bioequivalence. On day 1, T and R each increased FEV1 AUC(0-12) over placebo (3.134 L•h [T], 2.677 L•h [R]; each p < 0.0001). Following twice-daily dosing for 28 days, T and R also each increased trough FEV1 (measured on day 29) over placebo (235 mL [T], 215 mL [R]; each p < 0.0001). Least-squares mean T/R ratios (90% confidence intervals) for day 1 FEV1 AUC(0-12) and day 29 trough FEV1 were 1.120 (1.016-1.237) and 1.069 (0.938-1.220), respectively, indicating that T and R were bioequivalent for both co-primary endpoints. FP/salmeterol was well tolerated when administered via either T or R. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that the therapeutic effects of Wixela Inhub are bioequivalent to Advair Diskus in the lung. Wixela Inhub represents a therapeutically equivalent new FP/salmeterol treatment option for use in the treatment of asthma and COPD.

Comparative Safety Profile of the Fixed-Dose Combination Corticosteroid and Long-acting ß2-Agonist Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Fumarate: A 36-Month Longitudinal Cohort Study in UK Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: The inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA) fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM; Flutiform®) has been available as fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy for asthma patients aged ≥ 12 years in the UK since 2012. This post-authorisation safety study examined adverse outcomes and prescribing practices for FP/FORM and other FDC ICS/LABA therapies in a real-life clinical setting over 36 months. METHODS: Historical, longitudinal cohort database study using UK primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) database, for patients initiated on or switched to an FDC ICS/LABA (ENCePP study number: EUPAS12330). The main cohort was adults aged ≥ 18 years with asthma. The primary outcome was incidence of new adverse outcomes after initiation of ICS/LABA; hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for FP/FORM versus other FDC ICS/LABAs using Cox regression models. RESULTS: A total of 241,007 patients with an FDC ICS/LABA prescription were identified. In the adult asthma cohort (N = 41,609), the incidence rate of new adverse outcomes [in 100 patient-years (py)] was significantly lower for FP/FORM (24.75) versus fluticasone/salmeterol metered-dose inhaler [8.86; HR 1.14 (1.04, 1.25)], fluticasone/salmeterol dry powder inhaler [31.19; HR 1.18 (1.08, 1.29)], budesonide/formoterol [25.16; HR: 1.13 (1.03, 1.25)] and beclometasone/formoterol [25.47; HR 1.14 (1.04, 1.25)]. The overall prescribing rate was lower for FP/FORM (13.85 per 1000/py) than licensed FDC ICS/LABA comparators (20.30-28.13 per 1000/py). Of those prescribed FP/FORM, 80.8% were adults with asthma and < 7% were prescribed FP/FORM "off-label". CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that FP/FORM was associated with an overall lower adverse outcome rate than the licensed comparators.

Real-world effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol as initial maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a retrospective cohort study.

Background and objective: Retrospective claims data in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) initiating maintenance therapy with inhaled fixed-dose combinations of long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) versus inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA have not been reported. Methods: Retrospective observational study in a COPD-diagnosed population of commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D (MAPD) enrollees aged ≥40 years from a US health insurer database. Patients initiated umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI [62.5/25 µg]) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL [250/50 µg]) between April 1, 2014 and August 31, 2016 (index date) and had 12 months continuous enrollment pre- and post-index. Exclusion criteria included an asthma diagnosis in the pre-index period/index date; ICS-, LABA-, or LAMA-containing therapy during the pre-index period; or pharmacy fills for both UMEC/VI and FP/SAL, multiple-inhaler triple therapy, a non-index therapy, or COPD exacerbation on the index date. Adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] ≥80%) was modeled using weighted logistic regression following inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression following IPTW were performed for incidence of COPD exacerbation and escalation to multiple-inhaler triple therapy. Results: The study population included 5306 patients (1386 initiating UMEC/VI and 3920 initiating FP/SAL). Adjusted odds of adherence were 2.00 times greater among UMEC/VI than FP/SAL initiators (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.62─2.46; P<0.001). The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for first exacerbation was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.74-1.01; P=0.067) among UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL initiators. UMEC/VI initiators had 35% lower adjusted risk of escalation to multiple-inhaler triple therapy (HR 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47-0.89; P=0.008) versus FP/SAL. On-treatment, UMEC/VI initiators had an adjusted 30% reduced risk of a first moderate/severe COPD exacerbation (HR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54-0.90; P=0.006). Conclusion: Patients with COPD initiating UMEC/VI had higher adherence and longer time before escalation to multiple-inhaler triple therapy than FP/SAL initiators.

Comparing a fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol with other inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting beta-agonist combinations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a review.

Introduction: Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) combinations are commonly used in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). At least four fixed-dose ICS/LABA combinations are available, including budesonide/formoterol, beclomethasone/formoterol, fluticasone/vilanterol and fluticasone/salmeterol, but there is little guidance for clinicians on which of these combinations to prescribe. Areas covered: The aim of this in-depth review was to identify studies that compared budesonide/formoterol with the other ICS/LABA combinations and assess the data on exacerbations, safety, and patient quality of life. PubMed and Ovid databases were searched, and 14 studies were identified. Our findings highlight the lack of prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing LABA/ICS combinations in the treatment of COPD as only two such studies were identified. However, current evidence suggests that the effects of budesonide/formoterol on reducing exacerbations and improving quality of life may be similar to, or more marked than, those of other LABA/ICS combinations in COPD and, compared with the other LABA/ICS combinations, budesonide/formoterol may be associated with a lower incidence of serious pneumonia events and oral candidiasis. Expert opinion: To better guide clinicians in selecting between the available ICS/LABA, robust meta-analyses and well-designed head-to-head clinical trials are urgently needed.

A Dose-Response Study to Examine the Methodology for Demonstrating the Local Therapeutic Equivalence of the Fluticasone Propionate Component of an Orally Inhaled Combination Therapy of Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Dry Powder.

Background: Asthma is widely treated using inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist combinations, such as fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FPS) dry powder inhaler. Some regulators require generic medications to demonstrate local therapeutic equivalence (LTE) for each component of the FPS reference product. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) was developed as a possible LTE endpoint for the fluticasone propionate (FP) component of FPS in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study in steroid-naive asthma patients with elevated FeNO (≥45 parts per billion). Methods: Thirty-four patients received three of five treatments: FPS 100/50 µg once daily (QD), FPS 100/50 µg twice daily (BID), FPS 250/50 µg BID, FPS 500/50 µg BID, or placebo, each for 2 weeks separated by 14-day washout. FeNO was measured on days 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 14 of each period, according to American Thoracic Society standards. Results: FPS treatments decreased FeNO compared with placebo, with the largest differentiation between doses noted on day 14; the mean decreases from days 1 to 14 ranged from -46.6% to -64.5% with FPS versus -9.1% with placebo. The dose-response plateaued at 200 µg/day (FPS 100/50 µg BID). Linear regression analysis revealed significant slopes between FPS doses, with the steepest between 100/50 µg QD and 100/50 µg BID (-0.0039, p = 0.020). An estimated sample size (SS) of 160 or 48 patients would be required to demonstrate LTE of generic and FPS reference products (0.80-1.25 and 0.67-1.50 bioequivalence limits, respectively). However, as the slope between BID FPS doses was shallow, a larger SS may be needed if only an approved dose regimen was used. Conclusion: FeNO could be a valid endpoint to determine LTE between the FP component of generic and reference FPS products, but only if QD dosing and wide equivalence limits are included. As QD dosing is not an approved regimen, this approach is unlikely to be acceptable.

A Dose-Response Study Examining the Use of Methacholine Challenge to Demonstrate Local Therapeutic Equivalence of the Salmeterol Component of Generic Inhaled Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Combination Products.

Background: Asthma is widely treated using inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonist (LABA) combinations, for example, fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FPS) dry powder inhaler, marketed as Advair® Diskus®. Some regulators require generics to demonstrate local (lung) therapeutic equivalence (LTE) for each component of the FPS reference, ideally with a dose-response within the approved FPS dose range. We sought to develop a methacholine challenge (MeCh) LTE methodology for assessing the LABA (salmeterol) component of FPS. Methods: Forty-six patients with asthma received single doses of albuterol (active control; 90 or 180 µg), FPS (100/50 or 200/100 µg), and placebo on 5 separate study days. Spirometry and MeCh were performed 1, 6, and 10 hours after study drug inhalation. Primary endpoint was provocative concentration of methacholine producing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (PC20). Study entry required screening PC20 ≤8 mg/mL, with a greater than fourfold increase (and PC20 ≤128 mg/mL) after 180 µg albuterol. Results: Both albuterol (90 and 180 µg) and FPS (100/50 and 200/100 µg) significantly increased PC20 compared with placebo (sustained 6 and 10 hours postdose with FPS but not albuterol). The dose-response slopes (95% confidence interval) estimated 1 hour after treatment were 0.374 (-0.068 to 0.815) and 0.310 (-0.135 to 0.754) between low and high doses of albuterol and FPS, respectively, both nonsignificant. Slopes were shallower than those available in the literature for albuterol and formoterol, but similar to those for salmeterol. Conclusions: These data confirm that the bronchoprotective effect of FPS lasts longer than that of albuterol. The shallow dose-response slope we observed for albuterol is contrary to previous reports, probably due to the measurement of PC20 beginning at 1 hour postdose. The results suggest that use of MeCh to assess LTE for salmeterol formulations may be more difficult to accomplish than it is for albuterol and formoterol products.

Real-life effectiveness of indacaterol-glycopyrronium after switching from tiotropium or salmeterol/fluticasone therapy in patients with symptomatic COPD: the POWER study.

PURPOSE: In contrast to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), changes in maintenance pharmacotherapy in clinical practice occur without a washout period. The Prospective cohort study for the real-life effectiveness evaluation of glycOpyrronium With indacatERol combination in the management of COPD in Canada (POWER) study evaluated the real-life effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) following a direct switch from a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA, tiotropium) or long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance treatment (salmeterol/fluticasone [SFC]). METHODS: POWER was a single-cohort, prospective, multicenter, interventional study in which patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, who remained symptomatic on their current treatment of once-daily (od) tiotropium 18 µg or twice-daily (bid) SFC (any dose), were switched to treatment with open-label IND/GLY 110/50 µg od for 16 weeks. Effectiveness end points were change from baseline in trough FEV1, transition dyspnea index (TDI) total scores, and COPD assessment test (CAT) scores at 16 weeks. RESULTS: Trough FEV1 improved by 175 mL at Week 16 in patients who switched to IND/GLY. The change was 176 mL (95% CI: 135-217) when switched from tiotropium and 172 mL (95% CI: 85-258) when switched from SFC fixed-dose combination (FDC). At Week 16, significant improvements were observed in the mean TDI total scores (Δ=2.5) and CAT scores (Δ=-6.5) after the switch to IND/GLY treatment (both P<0.0001). Additionally, IND/GLY was well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, and no safety signal was observed. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice settings, a direct switch from previous treatment with either tiotropium or SFC to IND/GLY was safe and provided superior clinically significant improvements in lung function and patient-related outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02202616.