Serious Asthma Events with Fluticasone plus Salmeterol versus Fluticasone Alone.

BACKGROUND: The safe and appropriate use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for the treatment of asthma has been widely debated. In two large clinical trials, investigators found a potential risk of serious asthma-related events associated with LABAs. This study was designed to evaluate the risk of administering the LABA salmeterol in combination with an inhaled glucocorticoid, fluticasone propionate. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, adolescent and adult patients (age, ≥12 years) with persistent asthma were assigned to receive either fluticasone with salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. All the patients had a history of a severe asthma exacerbation in the year before randomization but not during the previous month. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had a history of life-threatening or unstable asthma. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization). Noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol to fluticasone alone was defined as an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation. RESULTS: Of 11,679 patients who were enrolled, 67 had 74 serious asthma-related events, with 36 events in 34 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 38 events in 33 patients in the fluticasone-only group. The hazard ratio for a serious asthma-related event in the fluticasone-salmeterol group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.66), and noninferiority was achieved (P=0.003). There were no asthma-related deaths; 2 patients in the fluticasone-only group underwent asthma-related intubation. The risk of a severe asthma exacerbation was 21% lower in the fluticasone-salmeterol group than in the fluticasone-only group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89), with at least one severe asthma exacerbation occurring in 480 of 5834 patients (8%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group, as compared with 597 of 5845 patients (10%) in the fluticasone-only group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone did not have a significantly higher risk of serious asthma-related events than did those who received fluticasone alone. Patients receiving fluticasone-salmeterol had fewer severe asthma exacerbations than did those in the fluticasone-only group. (AUSTRI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01475721.).

Safety of Adding Salmeterol to Fluticasone Propionate in Children with Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) have been shown to increase the risk of asthma-related death among adults and the risk of asthma-related hospitalization among children. It is unknown whether the concomitant use of inhaled glucocorticoids with LABAs mitigates those risks. This trial prospectively evaluated the safety of the LABA salmeterol, added to fluticasone propionate, in a fixed-dose combination in children. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, children 4 to 11 years of age who required daily asthma medications and had a history of asthma exacerbations in the previous year to receive fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization), as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The statistical design specified that noninferiority would be shown if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for the primary safety end point was less than 2.675. The main efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation that led to treatment with systemic glucocorticoids, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: Among the 6208 patients, 27 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 21 in the fluticasone-alone group had a serious asthma-related event (all were hospitalizations); the hazard ratio with fluticasone-salmeterol versus fluticasone alone was 1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 2.27), which showed the noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol (P=0.006). A total of 265 patients (8.5%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 309 (10.0%) in the fluticasone-alone group had a severe asthma exacerbation (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving children with asthma, salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone was associated with the risk of a serious asthma-related event that was similar to the risk with fluticasone alone. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; VESTRI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01462344 .).

Interim safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 omicron BA.1 variant-containing vaccine in children in the USA: an open-label non-randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Variant-containing mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 to broaden protection against SARS-CoV-2 variants are recommended based on findings in adults. We report interim safety and immunogenicity of an omicron BA.1 variant-containing (mRNA-1273.214) primary vaccination series and booster dose in paediatric populations. METHODS: This open-label, two-part, non-randomised phase 3 trial enrolled participants aged 6 months to 5 years at 24 US study sites. Eligible participants were generally healthy or had stable chronic conditions, without known SARS-CoV-2 infection in the previous 90 days. Individuals who were acutely ill or febrile 1 day before or at the screening visit or those who previously received other COVID-19 vaccines (except mRNA-1273 for part 2) were excluded. In part 1, SARS-CoV-2-vaccine-naive participants received two-dose mRNA-1273.214 (25 µg; omicron BA.1 and ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 mRNA) primary series. In part 2, participants who previously completed the two-dose mRNA-1273 (25 µg) primary series in KidCOVE (NCT04796896) received a mRNA-1273.214 (10 µg) booster dose. Primary study outcomes were safety and reactogenicity of the mRNA-1273.214 primary series (part 1) or booster dose (part 2) as well as the inferred effectiveness of mRNA-1273.214 based on immune responses against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) and omicron BA.1 variant at 28 days post-primary series (part 1) or post-booster dose (part 2). The safety set included participants who received at least one dose of the study vaccine; the immunogenicity set included those who provided immunogenicity samples. Interim safety and immunogenicity are summarised in this analysis as of the data cutoff date (Dec 5, 2022). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05436834. FINDINGS: Between June 21, 2022, and Dec 5, 2022, 179 participants received one or more doses of mRNA-1273.214 primary series (part 1) and 539 received a mRNA-1273.214 booster dose (part 2). The safety profile within 28 days after either dose of the mRNA-1273.214 primary series and the booster dose was consistent with that of the mRNA-1273 primary series in this age group, with no new safety concerns or vaccine-related serious adverse events observed. At 28 days after primary series dose 2 and the booster dose, both mRNA-1273.214 primary series (day 57, including all participants with or without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline) and booster (day 29, including participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline) elicited responses that were superior against omicron-BA.1 (geometric mean ratio part 1: 25·4 [95% CI 20·1-32·1] and part 2: 12·5 [11·0-14·3]) and non-inferior against D614G (part 1: 0·8 [0·7-1·0] and part 2: 3·1 [2·8-3·5]), compared with neutralising antibody responses induced by the mRNA-1273 primary series (in a historical comparator group). INTERPRETATION: mRNA-1273.214 was immunogenic against BA.1 and D614G in children aged 6 months to 5 years, with a comparable safety profile to mRNA-1273, when given as a two-dose primary series or a booster dose. These results are aligned with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations for the use of variant-containing vaccines for continued protection against the emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2. FUNDING: Moderna.

An evaluation of asthma medication utilization for risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) in the United States: 2005-2011.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess drug utilization patterns of fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol (SAL) combination (FSC) and SAL over the 7-year period of 2005-2011 in patients with asthma as part of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS). METHODS: A descriptive, retrospective observational study utilizing national pharmacy data and employer-based claims data to characterize drug utilization patterns. RESULTS: For patients with asthma, the total number of FSC and SAL dispensings and users of FSC and SAL has declined between 2005 and 2011. During this period, FSC and SAL dispensing for asthma decreased 24% and 76%, respectively, with a more pronounced decline between 2010 and 2011 relative to other years. The total number of patients with asthma who were dispensed FSC has decreased by 10% among adults and by 40% in children and adolescents. While SAL-containing medications decreased, dispensing of FP monotherapy increased 39% during the same 7-year period. The number of patients dispensed FP for asthma has increased 47% in children 4-11 years of age, 72% in adolescents 12-17 years of age, and 6% in adults. SAL use without a controller was infrequent and decreasing, reported by 1.7% and 0.5% of patients with asthma in 2005 and 2011, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with asthma, use of FSC and SAL decreased between 2005 and 2011, while the use of FP increased. Use of SAL monotherapy was infrequent and declined during the study period. The data suggest that the substantial communication activities have encouraged appropriate prescribing of long-acting ß2-adrenergic agonist (LABA).

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.

Brand-Specific Enhanced Safety Surveillance of GSK's Quadrivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccine in Belgium, Germany and Spain for the 2018/2019 Season.

INTRODUCTION: Seasonal influenza causes numerous deaths worldwide each year. Annual vaccination for disease prevention is crucial. Seasonal vaccines are updated each year to closely match circulating strains. OBJECTIVE: To comply with European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidance, an enhanced safety study was conducted to rapidly collect and assess adverse events (AEs) within 7 days following vaccination with GSK's inactivated quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine (IIV4) in 2018/2019. METHODS: A customised AE reporting card (AERC) and standardised electronic data reporting application were used in Belgium, Germany and Spain in adult and paediatric subjects in this study. RESULTS: In 2018, 1060 subjects vaccinated with one dose of GSK's IIV4 were enrolled (all subjects in Belgium and Germany were adults, and 75% and 25% of subjects in Spain were children and adults, respectively). In Spain, 139 eligible children later received a second dose. Overall 1035 subjects completed the study. After dose 1 and dose 2, 98.3% and 100% of subjects, respectively, returned the completed AERC. Over the study period, 43.0% (456/1060 post dose 1) and 23.7% (33/139 post dose 2) of subjects reported at least one AE within 7 days after immunisation. The most frequently reported categories of AEs were General and Administration Site (e.g. injection site pain, swelling, erythema) and Respiratory Disorders (e.g. rhinorrhoea, cough, nasal congestion). There were no deaths and no serious AEs deemed related to GSK's IIV4. CONCLUSION: In compliance with EMA guidance, this study design allowed for near real-time assessment of AEs. No safety signals were detected at any point during the study period. The study supports and confirms the acceptable safety profile of GSK's IIV4. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03688620.

Enhanced Safety Surveillance of GSK's Quadrivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccine in Belgium, Germany, and Spain for the 2018/19 Season: Interim Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Influenza is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in Europe. Prevention by annual vaccination is most effective but with yearly vaccine reformulation to match circulating virus strains, vaccine safety must be continuously monitored. The European Medicines Agency published guidance on safety monitoring of influenza vaccines. METHODS: An enhanced safety surveillance study of GSK's inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (IIV4) was conducted in Belgium, Germany, and Spain in influenza season 2018/19. The objective was to collect adverse event (AE) reports from subjects within 7 days of vaccination. A customized AE reporting card (AERC) with predefined AEs of interest was used to rapidly detect and evaluate potential new safety concerns. Interim results are presented here. RESULTS: Between week 40 and 52, 1060 vaccinated subjects were enrolled (31.0% Belgium, 26.2% Germany, and 42.7% Spain) covering all ages for which IIV4 is indicated (32.0% aged 6 months-17 years, 33.8% 18-65 years, and 34.2% over 65 years). Pediatric subjects less than 9 years old (n = 139) received two doses. Following dose 1 and dose 2, 98.2% and 100%, respectively, returned the completed AERC recording any AEs. Following dose 1 and dose 2, 454 and 34 subjects, respectively, reported at least one AE (most frequently expected general and injection site symptoms and respiratory symptoms). CONCLUSION: All reported AEs were expected as per summary product characteristics (smPC). No safety signals that impact public health or alter the benefit-risk profile of GSK's IIV4 were identified. Subjects from all vaccinated age groups were enrolled and the use of AERCs allowed rapid monitoring and analysis of reported AEs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03688620. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.

Enhanced passive surveillance of influenza vaccination in England, 2016-2017- an observational study using an adverse events reporting card.

Influenza is a major public health burden, mainly prevented by vaccination. Recommendations on influenza vaccine composition are updated annually and constant benefit-risk monitoring is therefore needed. We conducted near-real-time enhanced passive surveillance (EPS) for the influenza vaccine, Fluarix Tetra, according to European Medicines Agency guidance, in 10 volunteer general practices in England using Fluarix Tetra as their principal influenza vaccine brand, from 1-Sep to 30-Nov-2016. The EPS method used a combination of routinely collected data from electronic health records (EHR) and a customized adverse events reporting card (AERC) distributed to participants vaccinated with Fluarix Tetra. For participants vaccinated with a different influenza vaccine, data were derived exclusively from the EHR. We reported weekly and cumulative incidence of pre-defined adverse events of interest (AEI) occurring within 7 days post-vaccination, adjusted for clustering effect. Of the 97,754 eligible participants, 19,334 (19.8%) received influenza vaccination, of whom 13,861 (71.7%) received Fluarix Tetra. A total of 1,049 participants receiving Fluarix Tetra reported AEIs; 703 (67%) used the AERC (adjusted cumulative incidence rate 4.96% [95% CI: 3.92-6.25]). Analysis by individual pre-specified AEI categories identified no safety signal for Fluarix Tetra. A total of 62 individuals reported an AEI with a known brand of non-GSK influenza vaccine and 54 with an unknown brand (adjusted cumulative incidence rate 2.59% [1.93-3.47] and 1.77% [1.42-2.20], respectively). In conclusion, the study identified no safety signal for Fluarix Tetra and showed that the AERC was a useful tool that complemented routine pharmacovigilance by allowing more comprehensive capture of AEIs.

Passive enhanced safety surveillance of GSK's quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine in Belgium, Germany and Spain, an observational study: protocol for the 2018/2019 influenza season.

INTRODUCTION: The European Medicines Agency requires Marketing Authorisation Holders providing seasonal influenza vaccines in Europe to conduct enhanced safety surveillance accounting for the different age groups based on the vaccine indication, in order to detect any potential increase of local and systemic adverse reactions early in an influenza season. To comply with this requirement, a multicountry European passive enhanced safety surveillance study has been set up to capture and assess adverse events occurring within 7 days following seasonal influenza vaccination. Here we share our surveillance protocol for the 2018/2019 influenza season. METHODS: Nine healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Belgium, Germany and Spain have been recruited for this study. Cumulatively, approximately 1000 vaccinees will be provided with customised adverse event recording cards to report adverse events experienced within 7 days following vaccination with GSK's split-virion inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine. The cards are to be returned to the HCPs and the events encoded using an electronic case report form. Adverse event reporting rates will be analysed weekly and cumulatively, throughout the study period. Event rates will be described by country, age group and by influenza morbidity/mortality risk status of vaccinees (based on HCP assessment). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics committee approval was obtained for all participating sites prior to enrolment of the study participants. At the end of the study, each participating site will receive their data, and the outputs from the research will be made available to regulatory authorities. We intend to seek publication in peer-reviewed journals. GSK has posted a summary of the study protocol before the start of the study and results will be posted within 12 months of statistical analysis completion, in line with the National Institutes of Health recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03688620.

Patient Comprehension of Medication Guides for Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Medications.

PURPOSE: This study assessed patients' comprehension of the Advair and Serevent medication guides (MGs) and MG reading behaviors with the goal to improve risk communication. METHODS: After reading their assigned MGs, 452 adults with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease participated in structured interviews to assess comprehension of safety risks in the Advair MG (asthma, n = 150; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, n = 153) and Serevent MG (asthma, n = 149). Generalized estimating equations for correlated binary data were used to identify factors associated with correct responses. RESULTS: For 10 of 12 individual risk questions, ≥75% of patients reported correct responses. After adjusting for patient characteristics, health literacy was significantly associated with correct responses (odds ratio = 1.03, 95% confidence interval = 1.02-1.05 per 1-point increase in the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine). MG reading behaviors were inconsistent, with many patients reading MGs only once (40%) despite multiple prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehension of safety risks in the Advair and Serevent MGs was adequate for most patients in the study but decreased with health literacy. Initiatives to improve patient-directed risk communication should consider health literacy and reasons for inconsistent reading behaviors.