The novel bronchodilator navafenterol: a phase 2a, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial in COPD.

BACKGROUND: Navafenterol (AZD8871) belongs to a new class of bronchodilator, the single-molecule muscarinic antagonist and ß-agonist, developed for the treatment of COPD. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, pharmacokinetics and safety of navafenterol versus placebo and an active comparator treatment for moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS: This phase 2a, randomised, multicentre (Germany and UK), double-blind, double-dummy, three-way complete crossover study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03645434) compared 2 weeks' treatment of once-daily navafenterol 600 µg via inhalation with placebo and a fixed-dose combination bronchodilator (umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI); 62.5 µg/25 µg) in participants with moderate-to-severe COPD. The primary outcome was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 15. Secondary end-points included change from baseline in peak FEV1; change from baseline in Breathlessness, Cough and Sputum Scale (BCSS); change from baseline in COPD Assessment Tool (CAT); adverse events; and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: 73 participants were randomised. After 14 days, trough FEV1 was significantly improved with navafenterol compared with placebo (least-squares (LS) mean difference 0.202 L; p<0.0001). There was no significant difference in FEV1 between navafenterol and UMEC/VI (LS mean difference -0.046 L; p=0.075). COPD symptoms (CAT and BCSS) showed significantly greater improvements with both active treatments versus placebo (all p<0.005). Novel objective monitoring (VitaloJAK) showed that cough was reduced with both active treatments compared with placebo. Safety profiles were similar across the treatment groups and no serious adverse events were reported in the navafenterol treatment period. CONCLUSION: Once-daily navafenterol was well tolerated, improved lung function and reduced COPD-related symptoms, similar to an established once-daily fixed-dose combination bronchodilator.

Navafenterol (AZD8871) in patients with COPD: a randomized, double-blind, phase I study evaluating safety and pharmacodynamics of single doses of this novel, inhaled, long-acting, dual-pharmacology bronchodilator.

BACKGROUND: Navafenterol (AZD8871) is a dual-pharmacology muscarinic antagonist ß2-agonist (MABA) molecule in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The pharmacodynamics, safety and tolerability of single doses of navafenterol were investigated in patients with moderate to severe COPD. METHODS: This was a randomized, five-way complete cross-over study. Patients received single doses of navafenterol 400 µg, navafenterol 1800 µg and placebo (all double-blind) and indacaterol 150 µg and tiotropium 18 µg (both open-label active comparators). The primary pharmacodynamic endpoint was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 2. Safety and tolerability were monitored throughout. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were randomized and 28 (73.7%) completed the study. Navafenterol 400 µg and 1800 µg demonstrated statistically significant improvements vs placebo in change from baseline in trough FEV1 (least squares mean [95% confidence interval]: 0.111 [0.059, 0.163] L and 0.210 [0.156, 0.264] L, respectively, both P < .0001). The changes were significantly greater with navafenterol 1800 µg vs the active comparators (least squares mean treatment difference: 0.065-0.069 L, both P < .05). The frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for placebo and the active comparators (range 34.4-37.5%), slightly higher for navafenterol 400 µg (52.9%), and lowest for navafenterol 1800 µg (22.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Both doses of navafenterol demonstrated sustained bronchodilation over 24 h. Navafenterol was well tolerated and no safety concerns were raised. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov ; No.: NCT02573155 ; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov . Registered 9th October, 2015.

Navafenterol (AZD8871) in healthy volunteers: safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of multiple ascending doses of this novel inhaled, long-acting, dual-pharmacology bronchodilator, in two phase I, randomised, single-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: Navafenterol (AZD8871) is a novel, long-acting, dual-pharmacology (muscarinic receptor antagonist and ß2-adrenoceptor agonist) molecule in development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. METHODS: These two phase I, randomised, single-blind, multiple-ascending-dose studies evaluated inhaled navafenterol and placebo (3:1 ratio) in healthy, male, non-Japanese (study A; NCT02814656) and Japanese (study B; NCT03159442) volunteers. In each study, volunteers were dosed in three cohorts, allowing gradual dose escalation from 300 µg to 600 µg to 900 µg. The primary objective was to investigate the safety and tolerability of navafenterol at steady state. Pharmacokinetics were also assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-four volunteers completed each study (navafenterol, n = 6; placebo, n = 2 in each cohort). There were no deaths, serious adverse events (AEs) or treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) leading to discontinuation of navafenterol. The most frequent TEAEs were vessel puncture-site bruise (placebo, n = 2; navafenterol 900 µg; n = 3) in study A and diarrhoea (placebo, n = 1; navafenterol 300 µg, n = 2; navafenterol 900 µg, n = 3) in study B. No dose-response relationship was observed for TEAEs. There was a dose-dependent increase in mean heart rate on day 16 in both studies. The pharmacokinetics of navafenterol were similar between non-Japanese and Japanese volunteers. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple ascending doses of navafenterol were well-tolerated and the safety and pharmacokinetics of navafenterol were similar in non-Japanese and Japanese volunteers. The findings support navafenterol clinical development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ; Nos.: NCT02814656 and NCT03159442; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov .

A Phase 1, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Single Ascending Dose Study to Evaluate the Pharmacokinetics, Immunogenicity, Safety, and Tolerability After Subcutaneous Administration of Tozorakimab in Healthy Chinese Participants.

Tozorakimab is a high-affinity human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody that neutralizes interleukin (IL)-33, an IL-1 family cytokine. This phase 1, single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose study (NCT05070312) evaluated tozorakimab in a healthy Chinese population. Outcomes included the characterization of the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile and immunogenicity of tozorakimab. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and clinical laboratory, electrocardiogram, and vital sign parameters. Healthy, non-smoking, male, and female Chinese participants aged 18-45 years with a body mass index 19-24 kg/m2 were enrolled. In total, 36 participants across 2 cohorts of 18 participants were randomized 2:1 to receive a single subcutaneous dose of tozorakimab (300 mg [2 mL] or 600 mg [4 mL]) or matching placebo (2 or 4 mL). Tozorakimab showed dose-dependent serum PK concentrations with an approximate monophasic distribution in serum over time and a maximum observed peak concentration of 20.1 and 33.7 µg/mL in the 300- and 600-mg cohorts, respectively. No treatment-emergent anti-drug antibodies for tozorakimab were observed in any of the participants. There were no clinically relevant trends in the occurrence of TEAEs across the treatment groups. There were no clinically relevant trends over time in clinical laboratory (hematology, clinical chemistry, and urinalysis), electrocardiogram, or vital sign parameters in any treatment group. Overall, tozorakimab demonstrated dose-dependent systemic exposure in healthy Chinese participants and was well tolerated, with no safety concerns identified in this study.

A Randomized Phase I Study of the Anti-Interleukin-33 Antibody Tozorakimab in Healthy Adults and Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Tozorakimab is a human monoclonal antibody that neutralizes interleukin (IL)-33. IL-33 is a broad-acting epithelial "alarmin" cytokine upregulated in lung tissue of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This first-in-human, phase I, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT03096795) evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PKs), immunogenicity, target engagement, and pharmacodynamics (PDs) of tozorakimab. This was a 3-part study. In part 1, 56 healthy participants with a history of mild atopy received single escalating doses of either intravenous or subcutaneous tozorakimab or placebo. In part 2, 24 patients with mild COPD received multiple ascending doses of subcutaneous tozorakimab or placebo. In part 3, 8 healthy Japanese participants received a single intravenous dose of tozorakimab or placebo. The safety data collected included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, and clinical laboratory parameters. Biological samples for PKs, immunogenicity, target engagement, and PD biomarker analyses were collected. No meaningful differences in the frequencies of TEAEs were observed between the tozorakimab and placebo arms. Three tozorakimab-treated participants with COPD experienced treatment-emergent serious adverse events. Subcutaneous or intravenous tozorakimab demonstrated linear, time-independent PKs with a mean half-life of 11.7-17.3 days. Treatment-emergent anti-drug antibody frequency was low. Engagement of tozorakimab with endogenous IL-33 in serum and nasal airways was demonstrated. Tozorakimab significantly reduced serum IL-5 and IL-13 levels in patients with COPD compared with placebo. Overall, tozorakimab was well tolerated, with a linear, time-independent serum PK profile. Additionally, biomarker studies demonstrated proof of mechanism. Overall, these data support the further clinical development of tozorakimab in COPD and other inflammatory diseases.

AZD9567 versus prednisolone in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: A phase IIa, randomized, double-blind, efficacy, and safety study.

Oral corticosteroid use is limited by side effects, some caused by off-target actions on the mineralocorticoid receptor that disrupt electrolyte balance. AZD9567 is a selective, nonsteroidal glucocorticoid receptor modulator. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AZD9567 and prednisolone were assessed in a phase IIa study. Anti-inflammatory mechanism of action was also evaluated in vitro in monocytes from healthy donors. In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study, patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were randomized 1:1 to AZD9567 40 mg or prednisolone 20 mg once daily orally for 14 days. The primary end point was change from baseline in DAS28-CRP at day 15. Secondary end points included components of DAS28-CRP, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria (ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70), and safety end points, including serum electrolytes. Overall, 21 patients were randomized to AZD9567 (n = 11) or prednisolone (n = 10), and all completed the study. As anticipated, AZD9567 had a similar efficacy profile to prednisolone, with no clinically meaningful (i.e., >1.0) difference in change from baseline to day 15 in DAS28-CRP between AZD9567 and prednisolone (least-squares mean difference: 0.47, 95% confidence interval: -0.49 to 1.43). Similar results were observed for the secondary efficacy end points. In vitro transcriptomic analysis showed that anti-inflammatory responses were similar for AZD9567, prednisolone, and dexamethasone. Unlike prednisolone, AZD9567 had no effect on the serum sodium:potassium ratio. The safety profile was not different from that of prednisolone. Larger studies of longer duration are required to determine whether AZD9567 40 mg may in the future be an alternative to prednisolone in patients with inflammatory disease.

Risk Assessment of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Stroke Associated with Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists, Alone or in Combination, versus Long-Acting beta2-Agonists.

Background: The long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) aclidinium was approved in Europe in 2012 to relieve symptoms in adult patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A post-authorization safety study was initiated to assess potential cardiovascular risks associated with LAMAs versus long-acting beta2-agonists. Purpose: To estimate incidence rates and adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in new users of aclidinium, aclidinium/formoterol, tiotropium, other LAMA, long-acting beta-agonists/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS), and LAMA/LABA compared with initiators of LABA. Patients and Methods: This population-based cohort study included patients with COPD aged ≥40 years initiating COPD medications in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum database from 2012 to 2019. Poisson regression models were used to estimate the IRR for AMI, stroke, and MACE in users of COPD medications versus LABA, adjusting for clinically relevant covariables. Results: The study included 11,121 new users of aclidinium, 4804 of aclidinium/formoterol, 56,198 of tiotropium, 23,856 of other LAMA, 17,450 of LAMA/LABA, 70,289 of LABA/ICS, and 13,716 of LABA. During periods of continuous medication use after initiation (current use), crude incidence rates per 1000 person-years for AMI ranged from 8.7 (aclidinium/formoterol) to 12.4 (LAMA/LABA), for stroke ranged from 4.8 (aclidinium/formoterol) to 7.2 (LAMA/LABA), and for MACE ranged from 13.5 (aclidinium/formoterol) to 19.3 (LAMA/LABA). Using LABA as reference, adjusted IRRs [95% confidence intervals] were close to 1 for all study drugs for AMI (lowest for aclidinium/formoterol, 0.95 [0.60-1.52], and highest for LAMA/LABA, 1.23 [0.91-1.67]), stroke (lowest for aclidinium/formoterol, 0.64 [0.39-1.06], and highest for tiotropium, 1.02 [0.81-1.27] for tiotropium) and for MACE (lowest for aclidinium, 0.93 [0.75-1.16], and highest for LAMA/LABA, 1.24 [0.97-1.59]). Conclusion: Risks of AMI, stroke, and MACE in current users of aclidinium, aclidinium/formoterol, tiotropium, other LAMA, LAMA/LABA, or LABA/ICS were similar to the risks among current users of LABA.

Characteristics of New Users of Aclidinium Bromide, Aclidinium/Formoterol, and Other COPD Medications in the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Germany.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Aclidinium bromide was approved in the European Union for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in adult patients in 2012 and in a fixed-dose combination with formoterol in 2014. We characterised new users of aclidinium, aclidinium/formoterol and other COPD medications and evaluated off-label prescribing of these medications in three European populations. METHODS: We described demographic characteristics, comorbidities, comedications, COPD severity and off-label prescribing of new users of aclidinium, aclidinium/formoterol and other COPD medications in patients with COPD aged ≥ 40 years in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD, UK), Danish National Health Databases, and German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database (GePaRD) between 2015 and 2017. RESULTS: We included 17,668 new users of aclidinium (CPRD, 4871; Denmark, 2836; GePaRD, 9961) and 14,808 new users of aclidinium/formoterol (CPRD, 2153; Denmark, 2586; GePaRD, 10,069). Study patients were of similar age, except in GePaRD, where users of long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroids were younger. Patients had multiple comorbidities and used multiple comedications-most frequently hypertension (50-79%) and short-acting beta2-agonists (26-84%). Aclidinium users in CPRD and long-acting anticholinergics/LABA users in Denmark and GePaRD had the highest frequency of severe/very severe COPD. Off-label prescribing of aclidinium (5.0% [CPRD]-8.9% [Denmark]) and aclidinium/formoterol (2.6% [GePaRD]-3.2% [CPRD]) was low, and the main reason was asthma without a COPD diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Aclidinium and aclidinium/formoterol were mostly prescribed according to label, with preference given to older patients with more severe COPD and to patients with a high prevalence of comorbidities and comedication use.

A Cohort Study to Evaluate the Risk of Hospitalisation for Congestive Heart Failure Associated with the Use of Aclidinium and Other Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Medications in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

BACKGROUND: The long-acting anticholinergic (LAMA) aclidinium was approved in Europe in 2012 to relieve symptoms in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A Post-Authorisation Safety Study (PASS) was initiated to assess potential cardiovascular safety concerns for aclidinium. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) for hospitalisation for heart failure in patients with COPD who were new users of aclidinium, tiotropium, other LAMA, long-acting beta-agonists/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS), and LAMA/LABA were compared with initiators of LABA. METHODS: This population-based cohort study included patients with COPD aged ≥40 years initiating COPD medications in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD in the United Kingdom from 2012 to 2017. Medications were identified via general practice prescriptions. The first-ever hospitalisations for heart failure were identified in the Hospital Episode Statistics, and general practitioner records from the CPRD. Poisson regression models were used to estimate the IRR for hospitalisation for heart failure in users of COPD medications versus LABA, adjusting for clinically relevant covariates. RESULTS: The study included 4350 new users of aclidinium, 23,405 of tiotropium, 6977 of other LAMAs, 3122 of LAMA/LABA, 26,093 of LABA/ICS, and 5678 of LABA. Mean age was 69-70 years across medication groups. Aclidinium users had the highest proportion of severe COPD, and LABA users had the lowest (35% vs 19%, respectively). Crude incidence rates per 1000 person-years for the first-ever hospitalisation for heart failure ranged from 6.9 in LABA to 9.5 in aclidinium. Using LABA as reference, adjusted IRRs (95% confidence interval) for first-ever hospitalisation for heart failure were 0.90 (0.53-1.53) for aclidinium, 1.02 (0.69-1.51) for tiotropium, 0.86 (0.50-1.47) for other LAMAs, 1.09 (0.41-2.92) for LAMA/LABA, and 1.01 (0.69, 1.48) for LABA/ICS. CONCLUSION: The study did not find increased risks of hospitalisations for heart failure in new users of aclidinium, tiotropium, other LAMAs, LAMA/LABA, and LABA/ICS compared with LABA.

Use of aclidinium did not increase the risk of death in a noninterventional cohort study in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Aclidinium bromide is an inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). Although the initial potential increased cardiovascular and mortality risk among users of tiotropium has been ruled out by several observational studies, and clinical trials, there are still concerns related to the use of newer LAMA medications. The current study aimed to evaluate the risk of death among users of aclidinium and other LAMAs. METHODS: We conducted a cohort and nested case-control study among patients with COPD aged 40 years or older to compare the risk of all-cause mortality among users of aclidinium and other COPD medications with the risk among users of long-acting ß2 agonists (LABA), in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in the United Kingdom (2012-2017). RESULTS: Mortality rates per 1,000 person-years were 32.9 for aclidinium, 43.8 for tiotropium, 38.0 for other LAMA, 47.1 for LABA/ICS, and 38.1 for LABA. The RR of death compared with current use of LABA was 0.54 (confidence interval [95% CI], 0.40-0.72) for aclidinium, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.76-1.21) for tiotropium, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.58-0.99) for other LAMA, and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.90-1.31) for LABA/ICS. Decreased risk for death observed among users of aclidinium was driven by overall current single use (RR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.79), which corresponded to 26% of the aclidinium users (<15 cases) and not by multiple use (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.71-1.48). CONCLUSION: Use of aclidinium, tiotropium, other LAMA, or LABA/ICS was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality as compared with the use of LABAs.

A randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled, long-term extension study of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of fixed-dose combinations of aclidinium/formoterol or monotherapy in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

INTRODUCTION: Aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) 400/12 µg efficacy and safety was demonstrated in two 6-month Phase III studies (AUGMENT and ACLIFORM) and a 12-month study in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This Phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-month AUGMENT extension investigated the long-term safety and tolerability of AB/FF 400/12 µg (NCT01572792). METHODS: Patients were randomised in AUGMENT (1:1:1:1:1) to twice-daily AB/FF 400/12 µg, AB/FF 400/6 µg, AB 400 µg, FF 12 µg or placebo. Patients completing AUGMENT were invited to continue the same treatment in the extension. Adverse events (AEs), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), laboratory tests, electrocardiograms and vital signs were recorded. Efficacy was assessed. RESULTS: Of 1322 patients completing AUGMENT, 921 enrolled and 780 completed the extension. AE incidence was low and comparable across treatment groups; most common were nasopharyngitis (range 4.8%-9.3%), urinary tract infection (range 4.1%-8.8%) and upper respiratory tract infection (range 2.7%-5.5%). Serious AEs (SAEs) and MACE were low (ranges 6.8%-7.7% and 0.5%-1.5%, respectively). Significant improvements in bronchodilation and dyspnoea were maintained over 52 weeks versus placebo. Trends towards improvements in other symptoms and health status were observed versus placebo and monotherapies. AB/FF combinations increased the time to first exacerbation by approximately 30% versus placebo (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: AB/FF 400/12 µg was well tolerated over 52 weeks with low incidences of AEs, SAEs and MACE that were comparable across treatment groups. Improvements in bronchodilation, symptoms and health status were maintained across 52 weeks.

Long-term safety of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combination: Results of a randomized 1-year trial in patients with COPD.

TRIAL DESIGN: This was a one-year, Phase III randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-control study investigating the long-term safety and tolerability of twice-daily aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg versus formoterol 12 µg. METHODS: Eligible patients were male or female, current or ex-smokers (history of ≥10 pack-years) aged ≥40 years with a diagnosis of moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio <70%, and post-bronchodilator FEV1≥30% and <80% predicted. Patients were randomized 2:1 to twice-daily aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg or formoterol 12 µg, administered via a multidose dry powder inhaler (Genuair™/Pressair(®))(1). The objective was to evaluate the one-year safety of aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg versus formoterol 12 µg. RESULTS: All 590 patients were included in the safety population; 392 patients received aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg and 198 patients received formoterol 12 µg. Of these, 581 patients were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (385 patients received aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg; 196 patients received formoterol 12 µg). In the safety population, the percentage of patients with ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event was similar between aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg (71.4%) and formoterol 12 µg (65.7%). Mean baseline post-bronchodilator FEV1 was 51.3% of predicted (ITT population). Aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg significantly improved morning pre-dose (trough) FEV1 and trough FVC versus formoterol 12 µg at each assessment, with improvements at Week 1 (least squares mean difference [LSMD]: 87.4 mL and 157.8 mL, respectively) maintained at study end (LSMD: 81.5 mL and 185.4 mL, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to formoterol 12 µg and consistent with that seen in two Phase III studies. Additionally, aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg improved lung function versus formoterol 12 µg, with a sustained effect over one year.