An Inhaled Galectin-3 Inhibitor in COVID-19 Pneumonitis: A Phase Ib/IIa Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial (DEFINE).

Rationale: High circulating galectin-3 is associated with poor outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We hypothesized that GB0139, a potent inhaled thiodigalactoside galectin-3 inhibitor with antiinflammatory and antifibrotic actions, would be safely and effectively delivered in COVID-19 pneumonitis. Objectives: Primary outcomes were safety and tolerability of inhaled GB0139 as an add-on therapy for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonitis. Methods: We present the findings of two arms of a phase Ib/IIa randomized controlled platform trial in hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonitis. Patients received standard of care (SoC) or SoC plus 10 mg inhaled GB0139 twice daily for 48 hours, then once daily for up to 14 days or discharge. Measurements and Main Results: Data are reported from 41 patients, 20 of which were assigned randomly to receive GB0139. Primary outcomes: the GB0139 group experienced no treatment-related serious adverse events. Incidences of adverse events were similar between treatment arms (40 with GB0139 + SoC vs. 35 with SoC). Secondary outcomes: plasma GB0139 was measurable in all patients after inhaled exposure and demonstrated target engagement with decreased circulating galectin (overall treatment effect post-hoc analysis of covariance [ANCOVA] over days 2-7; P = 0.0099 vs. SoC). Plasma biomarkers associated with inflammation, fibrosis, coagulopathy, and major organ function were evaluated. Conclusions: In COVID-19 pneumonitis, inhaled GB0139 was well-tolerated and achieved clinically relevant plasma concentrations with target engagement. The data support larger clinical trials to determine clinical efficacy. Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04473053) and EudraCT (2020-002230-32).

Zanamivir aqueous solution in severe influenza: A global Compassionate Use Program, 2009-2019.

BACKGROUND: Zanamivir is a neuraminidase inhibitor effective against influenza A and B viruses. In 2009, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) began clinical development of intravenous (IV) zanamivir and initiated a global Compassionate Use Program (CUP) in response to the evolving H1N1 global pandemic. The goal of the CUP was to provide zanamivir to critically ill patients with limited treatment options. METHODS: Zanamivir was administered to patients with suspected or confirmed influenza infection who were not suitable for other approved antiviral treatments. Reporting of serious adverse events (SAEs) was mandatory and recorded in the GSK safety database. A master summary tracking sheet captured requests and patient characteristics. A case report form was available for detailing medical conditions, dosing, treatment duration, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 4,033 requests were made for zanamivir treatment of hospitalized patients from 38 countries between 2009 and 2019; ≥95% patients received zanamivir via the IV route. Europe had the highest number of requests (n = 3,051) followed by North America (n = 713). At least 20 patients were aged ≤6 months, of whom 12 were born prematurely. The GSK safety database included 466 patients with ≥1 SAE, of whom 374 (80%) had a fatal outcome. Drug-related SAEs were reported in 41 (11%) patients, including hepatic failure (n = 6 [2%]) and acute kidney injury (n = 5 [1%)]. CONCLUSIONS: The CUP facilitated global access to zanamivir prior to product approval. No new safety concerns were identified in the CUP compared with IV zanamivir clinical studies.

Effect of raxibacumab on immunogenicity of Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed: a phase 4, open-label, parallel-group, randomised non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Raxibacumab is a monoclonal antibody against protective antigen, which is the cell-binding part of Bacillus anthracis toxin, and is approved for treatment and postexposure prophylaxis of inhalational anthrax. Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA), for anthrax prophylaxis, consists primarily of adsorbed protective antigen. We did a postapproval study to assess the effect of raxibacumab on immunogenicity of AVA. METHODS: We did an open-label, parallel-group, randomised non-inferiority study at three centres in the USA. We enrolled healthy volunteers (aged 18-65 years) with no evidence of exposure to protective antigen. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) according to a pregenerated balanced independent randomisation schedule to either subcutaneous 0·5 mL AVA on days 1, 15, and 29 or raxibacumab intravenous infusion (40 mg/kg) immediately before AVA on day 1, followed by AVA only on days 15 and 29. It was an open-label study to investigators and participants; however, the sponsor remained blinded during the study. The primary outcome was the ratio of geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) of anti-protective antigen antibodies (attributable to the immune response to AVA) between AVA and AVA plus raxibacumab 4 weeks after the first AVA dose in the per-protocol population. The per-protocol population comprised all individuals who received the allocated treatment within the protocol-specified visit window and completed the primary study outcome assessment, without a protocol deviation requiring exclusion. The non-inferiority margin for the ratio of GMCs was predefined (upper limit of 90% CI <1·5). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02339155. FINDINGS: Between Feb 24, 2015, and June 6, 2017, 873 participants were screened for eligibility, of whom 300 were excluded. 573 were randomly allocated either AVA (n=287) or AVA plus raxibacumab (n=286). The per-protocol population comprised 276 individuals assigned AVA and 269 allocated AVA plus raxibacumab. At week 4, the GMC of anti-protective antigen antibodies in participants allocated AVA was 26·5 µg/mL (95% CI 23·6-29·8) compared with 22·5 µg/mL (20·1-25·1) among individuals allocated AVA plus raxibacumab. The ratio between groups was 1·18 (90% CI 1·03-1·35; p=0·0019), which met the predefined non-inferiority margin. Adverse events in the safety population were similar across groups (87 [30%] of 286 in the AVA group vs 80 [29%] of 280 in the AVA plus raxibacumab group) and no treatment-related serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Co-administration of raxibacumab with AVA does not negatively affect AVA immunogenicity. This finding suggests that combining raxibacumab with AVA might provide added benefit in postexposure prophylaxis against inhalational anthrax. FUNDING: US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, and GlaxoSmithKline.

A randomized trial of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol or vilanterol versus placebo to determine effects on arterial stiffness in COPD.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Elevated arterial stiffness, measured by aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV), is a cardiovascular risk surrogate and is potentially modifiable by inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist combinations in patients with COPD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The effects of once-daily inhaled fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100/25 µg, VI 25 µg, versus placebo on arterial stiffness in patients with COPD and baseline aPWV ≥11.0 m/s were investigated in a 24-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, stratified (by COPD exacerbation history), parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. Eligible patients were ≥40 years old, with ≥10 pack-year smoking history, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity ≤0.70, and post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≤70% of predicted. Patients with a major cardiovascular event in the previous 6 months/current severe heart failure/uncontrolled hypertension were excluded. Primary endpoint is change from baseline in aPWV after 24 weeks of treatment. Safety analyses included adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 430 patients: FF/VI (n=135), VI (n=154), and placebo (n=141). Patients were predominantly male (79%) and Asian or White (each 48%), with a mean age of 68.5 years (standard deviation [SD] =7.9), percentage predicted post-bronchodilator FEV1 50.1% (SD =13.3), and aPWV 13.26 m/s (SD =2.22) at screening. At 24 weeks, mean (standard error [SE]) changes from baseline in aPWV were -1.75 m/s (SE =0.26, FF/VI), -1.95 m/s (SE =0.24, VI), and -1.97 m/s (SE =0.28, placebo). AEs occurred in 57% (FF/VI), 51% (VI), and 41% (placebo) of patients. CONCLUSION: No differences were observed in aPWV-adjusted mean change from baseline for FF/VI 100/25 µg, compared with placebo.

Efficacy of mepolizumab add-on therapy on health-related quality of life and markers of asthma control in severe eosinophilic asthma (MUSCA): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Mepolizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody approved as add-on therapy to standard of care for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, has been shown in previous studies to reduce exacerbations and dependency on oral corticosteroids compared with placebo. We aimed to further assess mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma by examining its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3b trial (MUSCA) in 146 hospitals or research centres in 19 countries worldwide. Eligible participants were patients aged 12 years or older with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of at least two exacerbations requiring treatment in the previous 12 months before screening despite regular use of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus other controller medicines. Exclusion criteria included current smokers or former smokers with a history of at least ten pack-years. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) by country to receive a subcutaneous injection of either mepolizumab 100 mg or placebo, plus standard of care, every 4 weeks for 24 weeks (the final dose was given at week 20). We did the randomisation using an interactive voice response system and a centralised, computer-generated, permuted-block design of block size six. The two treatments were identical in appearance and administered in a masked manner; patients, investigators, other site staff and the entire study team including those assessing outcomes data were also masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the mean change from baseline in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at week 24 in the modified intention-to-treat (modified ITT) population (analysed according to their randomly assigned treatment). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of trial medication (analysed according to the actual treatment received). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02281318. FINDINGS: We recruited patients between Dec 11, 2014, and Nov 20, 2015, and the study was undertaken between Dec 11, 2014, and June 10, 2016. The modified ITT population comprised 274 patients assigned to mepolizumab 100 mg and 277 assigned to placebo. Mepolizumab versus placebo showed significant improvements at week 24 from baseline in SGRQ total score (least squares mean [SE] change from baseline -15·6 (1·0) vs -7·9 (1·0), a treatment difference of -7·7 (95% CI -10·5 to -4·9; p<0·0001). No deaths occurred during the study. 192 (70%) of 273 patients who received mepolizumab and 207 (74%) of 278 who received placebo reported at least one on-treatment adverse event, the most common of which were headache (in 45 [16%] given mepolizumab vs 59 [21%] given placebo) and nasopharyngitis (in 31 [11%] given mepolizumab vs 46 [17%] given placebo). 15 (5%) and 22 (8%) patients had an on-treatment serious adverse event in the mepolizumab and placebo groups, respectively; the most common was asthma in both groups (in three [1%] given mepolizumab vs nine [3%] given placebo). INTERPRETATION: Mepolizumab was associated with significant improvements in HRQOL in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, and had a safety profile similar to that of placebo. These results add to and support the use of mepolizumab as a favourable add-on treatment option to standard of care in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (50/25 mcg; 100/25 mcg; 200/25 mcg) in Asian patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Three strengths of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) were previously evaluated for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a program of global Phase 3 studies that included only a small subgroup of Asian patients. This study further evaluated the efficacy and safety of the same three strengths of FF/VI exclusively in Asian patients. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study. Patients with post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC ≤0.70, FEV1 ≤70% predicted and modified Medical Research Council score ≥2 were randomized (1:1:1:1) to placebo, FF/VI 50/25 mcg, 100/25 mcg or 200/25 mcg once daily via the ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 643 patients. Statistically significant (p < 0.001) improvements in trough FEV1 were observed with all strengths of FF/VI versus placebo at Week 24 (0.14-0.19 L). Reduction of supplemental albuterol use was observed with all strengths of FF/VI versus placebo. The incidence of on-treatment adverse events (AEs) was 48% with FF/VI 200/25 mcg and 37-40% with other treatments. The incidence of on-treatment serious AEs was 4-9% with FF/VI treatments versus 9% with placebo; however, the study only covered a 6 month treatment period and was not powered to assess effects on exacerbations. No clinically significant treatment effects versus placebo were identified for electrocardiogram, vital signs, 24 hour urinary cortisol excretion and pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: All strengths of FF/VI improved lung function with an acceptable safety profile. There is no evidence to suggest that dose adjustment may be required in Asian patients using FF/VI 100/25 mcg for the treatment of COPD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01376245.