In patients with COPD, treatment with a combination of formoterol and ipratropium is more effective than a combination of salbutamol and ipratropium : a 3-week, randomized, double-blind, within-patient, multicenter study.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of adding formoterol or salbutamol to regular ipratropium bromide treatment in COPD patients whose conditions were suboptimally controlled with ipratropium bromide alone. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, two-period, crossover clinical trial. SETTING: Twenty-four clinics and university medical centers in nine countries. PATIENTS: One hundred seventy-two patients with baseline FEV(1) < or = 65% predicted, with FEV(1) reversibility to salbutamol not exceeding the normal variability of the measurement, and symptomatic despite regular treatment with ipratropium bromide. INTERVENTIONS: Each patient received two treatments in random order: either inhaled formoterol dry powder, 12 microg bid, in addition to ipratropium bromide, 40 microg qid for 3 weeks, followed by salbutamol, 200 microg qid, in addition to ipratropium, 40 microg qid for 3 weeks, or vice versa. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Efficacy end points included morning premedication peak expiratory flow (PEF) during the last week of treatment (primary end point), the area under the curve (AUC) for FEV(1) measured for 6 h after morning dose on the last day of treatment, and symptom scores (from daily diary recordings). Morning PEF and the AUC for FEV(1) were significantly better for formoterol/ipratropium than for salbutamol/ipratropium (p = 0.0003 and p < 0.0001, respectively). The formoterol/ipratropium combination also induced a greater improvement in mean total symptom scores (p = 0.0042). The safety profile of the two treatments was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: In COPD patients requiring combination bronchodilator treatment, the addition of formoterol to regular ipratropium treatment is more effective than the addition of salbutamol.

Rapid onset of bronchodilation in COPD: a placebo-controlled study comparing formoterol (Foradil Aerolizer) with salbutamol (Ventodisk).

Formoterol fumarate is a beta2-agonist bronchodilator that combines a fast onset of action with a long duration of action. Its fast onset of action is well documented in asthma but has not been directly compared with that of salbutamol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to assess the bronchodilatory effects over the first 3 h after inhalation of single doses of formoterol 24 microg delivered via the Aerolizer dry powder inhaler device (double-blind), or salbutamol 400 microg delivered by a Diskhaler dry powder inhaler (single-blind) in patients with COPD. A total of 24 patients with COPD were randomized [mean age 61.6 +/- 7.8 years, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) 1.38 +/- 0.32 l and 45.8 +/- 9.6% of predicted]. Inhalation of formoterol or salbutamol resulted in similar increases in FEV from 0 to 3 h post-dose. Both drugs produced similar bronchodilation by 5 min, which became almost maximal by 30 min. The primary efficacy variable, the area under the curve (AUC) of the FEV increase above predose baseline from 0 to 30 min (AUC(0-30 min)), demonstrated significant effects for formoterol (mean 5.89 +/- 4.67 l min(-1)), and salbutamol (mean 6.06 +/- 4.34 l min(-1)), which were not statistically different from each other but statistically significantly higher (P<0.0001) than that observed with placebo (-0.32 +/- 2.59 l min(-1)). In addition, both formoterol and salbutamol produced similar and rapid increases in forced vital capacity (FVC). In summary, this study confirms the rapid onset of action of formoterol and indicates that the onset of action of formoterol and salbutamol are similar in patients with COPD.

Similar bronchodilation with formoterol delivered by aerolizer or turbuhaler.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, two dry powder formulations of inhaled formoterol are available for clinical use; one uses a single-dose device (Foradil, Aerolizer), and the other uses a multiple-dose device (Oxis, Turbuhaler). OBJECTIVES: To study the bronchodilating effect of formoterol 12 mg when delivered via the Aerolizer and Turbuhaler devices over 12 h. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled crossover study. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was monitored during a 12 h period. PATIENTS: Nineteen nonsmoking asthma patients were included in the trial on the basis of reversibility of symptoms in response to inhaled salbutamol (either 200 or 400 mg given cumulatively; minimum reversibility 15%). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two dry powder devices regarding the change from baseline of FEV1 over 12 h, the area under the curve of FEV1 over 12 h or the maximum value of FEV1. The improvement in FEV1 with formoterol 12 mg versus placebo was highly significant for both devices. CONCLUSIONS: Formoterol is similarly effective when used as a dry powder when given by either Aerolizer or the Turbuhaler.

Clinical efficacy with formoterol in the absence of a response to salmeterol: a review.

Salmeterol and formoterol are both beta 2-agonist bronchodilators with a long duration of action and are often classified together, yet they are distinctly different in their pharmacology. Recent evidence suggests there is a subpopulation of asthmatic patients who do not respond to salmeterol, yet can attain clinical benefit with formoterol. Following a literature search, three published case reports are reviewed as well as results from two published clinical trials designed specifically to document response to formoterol in 'non-responders to salmeterol' asthmatics. Possible mechanisms underlying this observation are discussed, including pharmacological differences of the two drugs relating to agonism at the beta 2-receptor and to effect on nuclear transcription factors.

Formoterol (Foradil) and medium-high doses of inhaled corticosteroids are more effective than high doses of corticosteroids in moderate-to-severe asthma.

This double-blind, randomised, multi-centre, parallel-group study compared the effect of adding Foradil (formoterol fumarate) to existing medium-high doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with that of doubling the dose of ICS in patients with sub-optimally controlled asthma. After a run-in period, 203 patients with moderate-to-severe asthma who remained symptomatic despite treatment with 500 microg beclomethasone twice daily, were randomised to receive either 12 microg formoterol twice daily (Foradil Aerolizer), Novartis) in addition to beclomethasone 500 microg twice daily, or beclomethasone 1000 microg twice daily and placebo for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was mean morning pre-medication peak expiratory flow (PEF) during the last seven days of treatment. The difference in PEF between treatments was 27.78 l/min in favour of the formoterol/beclomethasone combination (95% CI 13.42, 42.14 l/min, p=0.0002, intention-to-treat population). Significant differences in the urinary cortisol/creatinine ratio between treatment groups at 12 weeks (p=0.001) indicated suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in the patients on beclomethasone 1000 microg twice daily. The addition of formoterol 12 microg twice daily to beclomethasone in patients with asthma who were poorly controlled with beclomethasone 500 microg twice daily was more effective than doubling the ICS dose and resulted in less suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.

Bronchodilatory responses to formoterol, ipratropium, and their combination in patients with stable COPD.

We studied 27 patients with stable chronic obstuctive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a randomised, single-blind, within-patient, placebo-controlled clinical study. Each patient was assigned on six separate days to receive one of the following drug regimens in random order: A. 40 micrograms ipratropium bromide (Atrovent MDI, 20 micrograms/puff) plus 2 puffs placebo; B. 12 micrograms formoterol fumarate (Foradil MDI, 12 micrograms/puff) plus 3 puffs placebo; C. 80 micrograms ipratropium; D. 24 micrograms formoterol plus 2 puffs placebo; E. 12 micrograms formoterol plus 40 micrograms ipratropium plus 1 puff placebo; F. 4 puffs placebo. On each study day, spirometric indices and vital signs were measured at 5, 10, 15 and 60 minutes, and hourly thereafter up to and including 12 hours after study drug administration. Mean peak FEV1 change (primary endpoint) was maximum with the administration of the combination of ipratropium and formoterol (335.2 ml, SE 24.6), and it differed significantly from the observed peak changes following single administration of the two tested doses of ipratropium (p < 0.05 and p < 0.05 respectively). Safety and tolerability were satisfactory throughout the study.

FEV1 reversibility does not adequately predict effect of formoterol via Aerolizer in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Evaluation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often includes the use of post-bronchodilator reversibility testing to guide treatment decisions. Recommendations for reversibility testing differ and there is no universally accepted method or outcome criterion. A survey of recent clinical trials with beta2-agonists in COPD illustrates the diversity of methods used to assess reversibility and highlights the difficulty of comparing data from such trials. Two recent studies demonstrated the benefits of treatment with the long-acting beta2-agonist bronchodilator formoterol (Foradil Aerolizer) in patients with COPD. When patients were classified according to their degree of reversibility as partially or poorly reversible, improvements were observed in both groups irrespective of the definition applied. These results suggest that bronchodilator reversibility testing should not be used as a rigid basis for treatment decisions with beta2-agonists in COPD patients. There is a pressing need for the role of reversibility testing to be clearly defined.

Similar efficacy following four weeks treatment of asthmatics with formoterol 12 micrograms b.d. delivered by two different dry powder inhalers: differences in inhaler handling.

This randomised, multicentre, parallel-group study compared the clinical efficacy and ease of handling of two dry powder inhalers delivering the long-acting beta 2-agonist formoterol. After run-in, 200 asthmatics on treatment with inhaled corticosteroids and still presenting with suboptimal asthma control were randomised to receive 12 micrograms formoterol twice daily via either the Aerolizer inhaler (Foradil Aerolizer) or the Turbuhaler inhaler (Oxis Turbuhaler) for four weeks. Study variables included the mean morning pre-medication peak expiratory flow (PEF) during the last seven days of treatment and the correct inhaler handling according to inhaler-specific checklists. The mean difference in the effect on morning pre-medication PEF was 13.86 l/min in favour of formoterol via the Aerolizer inhaler (90% confidence interval 2.50, 25.21) in the intent-to-treat population. Eighty-six per cent of the patients under treatment with formoterol via the Turbuhaler inhaler performed correctly all the essential inhalation manoeuvres, whereas 98% of those on the Aerolizer inhaler did so. These results strongly suggest similar clinical efficacy with twice daily treatment of formoterol 12 micrograms metered dose delivered either by the Aerolizer, or the Turbuhaler device. They also suggest that handling the Aerolizer is easier than that of the Turbuhaler.

Comparable efficacy and tolerability of formoterol (Foradil) administered via a novel multi-dose dry powder inhaler (Certihaler) or the Aerolizer dry powder inhaler in patients with persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: For maximum treatment compliance there is a need to provide asthma patients with devices that suit their particular preferences. The Foradil Certihaler is a novel multi-dose dry powder inhaler developed to increase the choice of devices available. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of formoterol administered via the Foradil Certihaler, or via the single-dose inhaler Foradil Aerolizer. METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-dummy, incomplete block crossover, dose-ranging and pharmacokinetic study in patients with persistent asthma. Sixty-seven patients (mean 48.0 years) were randomized to formoterol 5, 10, 15 and 30 microg twice daily via the Certihaler, 12 microg formoterol b.i.d. via the Aerolizer, or placebo in four 1-week double-blind treatment periods separated by 1-week single-blind washouts. RESULTS All formoterol doses delivered via the Certihaler or the Aerolizer significantly increased FEV(1) compared with placebo (p < 0.0001). Formoterol demonstrated an onset of action of <3 min. All active treatments were well tolerated. Tremor was the most common adverse event and was more pronounced at high doses. At lower doses the incidence of tremor with the Certihaler was similar to that observed with placebo or the Aerolizer. The pharmacokinetic evaluation comprised 41 patients (mean 45.9 years). Urinary excretion of unchanged formoterol and total formoterol increased with dose delivered via the Certihaler. The optimum dose of formoterol via the Certihaler was 10 microg. CONCLUSION: Delivery of formoterol via the Certihaler or Aerolizer combines rapid relief with enduring control and provides convenient bronchodilation in patients with persistent asthma.

Formoterol and beclomethasone versus higher dose beclomethasone as maintenance therapy in adult asthma.

A total of 132 adult asthmatics who were symptomatic on 500 microg x day(-1) inhaled beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) were studied in an open-label randomized, parallel group, 12 week, clinical trial. The addition of 12 microg formoterol fumarate solution aerosol (pressurized metered dose inhaler) b.i.d. to BDP at a dose of 500 microg x day(-1) was compared with a higher dose of 1,000 microg x day(-1) BDP. Mean morning premedication peak expiratory flow rate (PEF) during the final week of treatment (primary end-point) increased in both groups compared to baseline. The estimated treatment difference of 20.4 L x min(-1) (95% confidence interval 3.2-37.6) after 12 weeks of treatment was statistically significant (p<0.05) in favour of the formoterol/BDP group. The overall mean morning premedication PEF for the entire treatment period was higher in the formotero/BDP group (p=0.002). The overall number of puffs of rescue medication and asthma symptom scores were less in the formotero/BDP group (p<0.01). Safety and tolerability evaluations were satisfactory in both groups. In conclusion, the results suggest that the addition of formoterol fumarate to the existing dose of an inhaled corticosteroid should be considered as an alternative to increasing the dose of inhaled corticosteroid in the inadequately controlled asthmatic.