Efficacy and safety of zapnometinib in hospitalised adult patients with COVID-19 (RESPIRE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial.

Background: Zapnometinib is an oral, non-ATP-competitive, small-molecule inhibitor of MEK1/MEK2 with immunomodulatory and antiviral properties. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of zapnometinib in patients with COVID-19. Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial, we recruited hospitalised adults with moderate or severe COVID-19 from 18 hospitals in Germany, India, Romania, South Africa, and Spain. Those requiring ICU admission or ventilator support at screening or randomisation were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral zapnometinib (900 mg on Day 1; 600 mg on Days 2-6) or matching placebo, on top of standard of care. Randomisation, stratified by baseline clinical severity status (CSS 3 or 4, measured on a 7-point ordinal scale), was done using Interactive Response Technology. Patients, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was CSS at Day 15 and was conducted on the full analysis set (FAS: all patients who were randomised to the study, received at least one dose of study medication and had at least one post-dose assessment of CSS, as randomised). Safety analyses were conducted on the safety analysis set (all study participants who received at least one dose of study medication, as treated). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04776044) and EudraCT (2020-004206-59). Findings: The trial was terminated early as the emergence of the Omicron variant impacted recruitment. Between 12th April 2021 and 9th August 2022, 104 of the planned 220 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 103 were treated, and 101 were included in the FAS (zapnometinib: n = 50; placebo: n = 51). The primary outcome was not significantly different between the two groups, but patients on zapnometinib had higher odds of improved CSS versus placebo (odds ratio [OR] 1.54 [95% CI 0.72-3.33]; p = 0.26). Predefined subgroup analyses identified trends for improved CSS in patients with severe disease at baseline (OR 2.57 [0.76-8.88]; p = 0.13) and non-Omicron variants (OR 2.36 [0.85-6.71]; p = 0.10); the p value of the CSS subgroup by Treatment interaction term in the model was p = 0.28. The frequency and intensity of adverse events was low and similar between arms. Twenty (39.2%) patients treated with zapnometinib experienced adverse events compared with eighteen (34.6%) patients treated with placebo. One patient receiving zapnometinib and two patients receiving placebo died during the study. None of the deaths were considered related to study medication. Interpretation: These results provide proof-of-concept for the innovative approach of targeting the Raf/MEK/ERK pathway in patients with hospitalised moderate/severe COVID-19. Further clinical studies will be required to evaluate the clinical benefit of zapnometinib in this and other indications. Funding: Atriva Therapeutics GmbH and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany.

Non-interventional study of the safety and effectiveness of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in real-world asthma management.

INTRODUCTION: In recognition of the value of long-term real-world data, a postauthorization safety study of the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone propionate and long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform®) was conducted. METHODS: This was a 12-month observational study of outpatients with asthma aged ⩾ 12 years in eight European countries. Patients were prescribed fluticasone/formoterol according to the licensed indication, and independently of their subsequent enrolment in the study. They were then treated according to local standard practice. The study objectives were to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of fluticasone/formoterol under real-world conditions. RESULTS: The safety population for this study comprised 2539 patients (mean age 47.7 years; 94.3% aged ⩾ 18 years; 63.4% female). Most patients (1538/2539, 60.6%) had switched to fluticasone/formoterol from another ICS/LABA, primarily due to lack of efficacy (1150/2539, 45.3%). Three quarters (77.4%) of patients were treated for 12 months, and 80.6% continued fluticasone/formoterol treatment after the study. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 60.0% patients, and 10.2% had AEs considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol [most commonly asthma exacerbation (2.0% patients), dysphonia (1.8%) and cough (1.1%)]. Thirty-six severe AEs, but no serious AEs, were considered possibly related to fluticasone/formoterol. The proportion of patients with controlled asthma (based on Asthma Control Test score ⩾ 20) increased from 29.4% at baseline to 67.4% at study end (last observation carried forward). The proportion of patients experiencing at least one severe exacerbation decreased from 35.8% in the year prior to enrolment to 9.8% during the study. Improvements from baseline to study end were also observed in Asthma Quality of Life scores and physician/patient reports of satisfaction with treatment. CONCLUSION: In this real-world postauthorization safety study, fluticasone/formoterol demonstrated a safety profile consistent with that seen in controlled clinical trials, with effectiveness in improving asthma control.

A blinded evaluation of the efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium, a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist, versus tiotropium, in patients with COPD: the GLOW5 study.

BACKGROUND: Two once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are currently available for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) - tiotropium and glycopyrronium. Previous studies have compared glycopyrronium with open-label tiotropium. In the GLOW5 study, we compare glycopyrronium with blinded tiotropium. METHODS: In this blinded, double-dummy, parallel group, 12-week study, patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized 1:1 to glycopyrronium 50 µg once daily or tiotropium 18 µg once daily. The primary objective was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of glycopyrronium versus blinded tiotropium with respect to trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) following 12 weeks of treatment (non-inferiority margin: -50 mL). Secondary objectives were to evaluate glycopyrronium versus tiotropium for other spirometric outcomes, breathlessness (Transition Dyspnea Index; TDI), health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire; SGRQ), daily rescue medication use, COPD exacerbations and COPD symptoms over 12 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: 657 patients were randomized (glycopyrronium: 327; tiotropium: 330); 96% (630 patients) completed the study. Least squares mean trough FEV1 for both glycopyrronium and tiotropium was 1.405 L at Week 12, meeting the criterion for non-inferiority (mean treatment difference: 0 mL, 95% CI: -32, 31 mL). Glycopyrronium demonstrated rapid bronchodilation following first dose on Day 1, with significantly higher FEV1 at all time points from 0-4 h post-dose versus tiotropium (all p < 0.001). FEV1 area under the curve from 0-4 h (AUC0-4h) post-dose with glycopyrronium was significantly superior to tiotropium on Day 1 (p < 0.001) and was comparable to tiotropium at Week 12. Glycopyrronium demonstrated comparable improvements to tiotropium in TDI focal score, SGRQ total score, rescue medication use and the rate of COPD exacerbations (all p = not significant). Patients on glycopyrronium also had a significantly lower total COPD symptom score versus patients on tiotropium after 12 weeks (p = 0.035). Adverse events were reported by a similar percentage of patients receiving glycopyrronium (40.4%) and tiotropium (40.6%). CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, 12-week blinded treatment with once-daily glycopyrronium 50 µg or tiotropium 18 µg, provided similar efficacy and safety, with glycopyrronium having a faster onset of action on Day 1 versus tiotropium.

Once daily glycopyrronium for the treatment of COPD: pooled analysis of the GLOW1 and GLOW2 studies.

BACKGROUND: Glycopyrronium is a once daily (o.d.) long-acting muscarinic antagonist that is approved for maintenance treatment of COPD. This post-hoc pooled analysis of two phase III studies, GLycopyrronium bromide in COPD airWays 1 and 2 (GLOW1 and GLOW2), evaluated the effects of glycopyrronium compared with placebo and tiotropium over 26-52 weeks in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS: Patients aged≥40 years were randomised to 26 weeks' treatment with glycopyrronium 50 µg o.d. or placebo (GLOW1) or 52 weeks' treatment with glycopyrronium 50 µg o.d., placebo, or open-label tiotropium 18 µg o.d. (GLOW2). The primary efficacy endpoint in both studies was trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at Week 12. Other outcomes included additional spirometry endpoints, moderate or severe exacerbations, dyspnoea, health status, rescue medication use and safety. Serial spirometry over 24 hours was conducted in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Of 1888 subjects randomised, 98.2% were analysed (glycopyrronium 1059, tiotropium 267, placebo 528). Least squares mean (LSM) trough FEV1 was significantly higher with glycopyrronium versus placebo at Week 12 (treatment difference±standard error [SE]: 103±11.2 mL; p<0.001), as well as at Day 1 and Weeks 26 and 52. More patients achieved≥100 mL increase in trough FEV1 from baseline with glycopyrronium versus placebo at all assessments (p<0.001). Glycopyrronium significantly improved FEV1 immediately after the first dose on Day 1 versus placebo (90 mL at 5 minutes, 144 mL at 15 minutes; both p<0.001) and versus tiotropium (43 mL at 5 minutes, 65 mL at 15 minutes; both p<0.001). Glycopyrronium significantly improved other spirometry endpoints and provided clinically meaningful 24 hour bronchodilation versus placebo at most timepoints from Day 1 onwards (p<0.05). Time to first moderate or severe exacerbation was significantly prolonged with glycopyrronium versus placebo over 26 and 52 weeks (36% and 33%, respectively; both p < 0.001). Glycopyrronium provided significantly greater relief of dyspnoea, improved health status and reduced rescue medication use versus placebo. Glycopyrronium was safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Glycopyrronium 50 µg o.d. provided early bronchodilation after the first dose that was sustained for 24 hours, and reduced the risk of exacerbations compared with placebo, with efficacy at least equivalent to tiotropium. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT01005901 and NCT00929110.

A novel model-based approach for dose determination of glycopyrronium bromide in COPD.

BACKGROUND: Glycopyrronium bromide (NVA237) is an inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist in development for treatment of COPD. This study compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily (OD) and twice-daily (BID) glycopyrronium bromide regimens, using a novel model-based approach, in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS: Double-blind, randomized, dose-finding trial with an eight-treatment, two-period, balanced incomplete block design. Patients (smoking history ≥10 pack-years, post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≥30% and <80% predicted, FEV1/FVC <0.7) were randomized to one of 16 independent sequences for 28 days. Primary endpoint: mean trough FEV1 at Day 28. RESULTS: 385 patients (mean age 61.2 years; mean post-bronchodilator FEV1 53% predicted) were randomized; 88.6% completed. All OD and BID dosing regimens produced dose-dependent bronchodilation; at Day 28, increases in mean trough FEV1 versus placebo were statistically significant for all regimens, ranging from 51 mL (glycopyrronium bromide 12.5 µg OD) to 160 mL (glycopyrronium bromide 50 µg BID). Pharmacodynamic steady-state was reached by Day 7. There was a small separation (≤37 mL) between BID and OD dose-response curves for mean trough FEV1 at steady-state in favour of BID dosing. Over 24 hours, separation between OD and BID regimens was even smaller (FEV1 AUC0-24h maximum difference for equivalent daily dose regimens: 8 mL). Dose-response results for FEV1 at 12 hours, FEV1 AUC0-12h and FEV1 AUC0-4h at steady-state showed OD regimens provided greater improvement over placebo than BID regimens for total daily doses of 25 µg, 50 µg and 100 µg, while the reverse was true for OD versus BID regimens from 12-24 hours. The 12.5 µg BID dose produced a marginally higher improvement in trough FEV1 versus placebo than 50 µg OD, however, the response at 12 hours over placebo was suboptimal (74 mL). Glycopyrronium bromide was safe and well tolerated at all doses. CONCLUSIONS: Glycopyrronium bromide 50 µg OD provides significant bronchodilation over a 24 hour period, and in terms of FEV1 AUC0-24h is not significantly different than the same total daily dose administered BID. Importantly, OD dosing may confer better patient adherence. The results are consistent with previous glycopyrronium bromide studies and support once-daily dosing of glycopyrronium bromide 50 µg in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01119950.

Efficacy and safety of NVA237 versus placebo and tiotropium in patients with COPD: the GLOW2 study.

NVA237 (glycopyrronium bromide) is a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The GLycopyrronium bromide in COPD airWays clinical Study 2 (GLOW2) evaluated the efficacy and safety of NVA237 in moderate-to-severe COPD over 52 weeks. Patients were randomised 2:1:1 to NVA237 50 µg, placebo or open-label tiotropium 18 µg for 52 weeks. Primary end-point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) at 12 weeks. 1,066 patients were randomised, 810 completed the study. At week 12, trough FEV(1) increased significantly by 97 mL with NVA237 (95% CI 64.6-130.2; p<0.001) and 83 mL with tiotropium (95% CI 45.6-121.4; p<0.001). Compared with placebo, NVA237 produced significant improvements in dyspnoea (Transition Dyspnoea Index at week 26; p=0.002) and health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire at week 52; p<0.001). NVA237 significantly reduced the risk of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations by 34% (p=0.001) and the use of rescue medication (p=0.039), versus placebo. NVA237-placebo and tiotropium-placebo differences were comparable for all outcomes. Safety profiles were similar across groups. NVA237 50 µg provided significant improvements in lung function, dyspnoea, health status, exacerbations and rescue medication use, versus placebo, and was comparable to tiotropium. NVA237 can potentially be an alternative choice of LAMA for COPD patients.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily NVA237 in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: the GLOW1 trial.

BACKGROUND: NVA237 is a once-daily dry-powder formulation of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium bromide in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The glycopyrronium bromide in COPD airways clinical study 1 (GLOW1) evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of NVA237 in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS: Patients with COPD with a smoking history of ≥ 10 pack-years, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) < 80% and ≥ 30% predicted normal and FEV1/forced vital capacity < 0.70 were enrolled. Patients were randomized to double-blind treatment with NVA237 50 µg once daily or placebo for 26 weeks with inhaled/intranasal corticosteroids or H1 antagonists permitted in patients stabilized on them prior to study entry. The primary outcome measure was trough FEV1 at Week 12. RESULTS: A total of 822 patients were randomized to NVA237 (n = 552) or placebo (n = 270). Least squares mean (± standard error) trough FEV1 at Week 12 was significantly higher in patients receiving NVA237 (1.408 ± 0.0105 L), versus placebo (1.301 ± 0.0137 L; treatment difference 108 ± 14.8 mL, p < 0.001). Significant improvements in trough FEV1 were apparent at the end of Day 1 and sustained through Week 26. FEV1 was significantly improved in the NVA237 group versus placebo throughout the 24-hour periods on Day 1 and at Weeks 12 and 26, and at all other visits and timepoints. Transition dyspnoea index focal scores and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores were significantly improved with NVA237 versus placebo at Week 26, with treatment differences of 1.04 (p < 0.001) and -2.81 (p = 0.004), respectively. NVA237 significantly reduced the risk of first moderate/severe COPD exacerbation by 31% (p = 0.023) and use of rescue medication by 0.46 puffs per day (p = 0.005), versus placebo. NVA237 was well tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile, with a low frequency of cardiac and typical antimuscarinic adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily NVA237 was safe and well tolerated and provided rapid, sustained improvements in lung function, improvements in dyspnoea, and health-related quality of life, and reduced the risk of exacerbations and the use of rescue medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01005901.

Cardiovascular safety of QVA149, a combination of Indacaterol and NVA237, in COPD patients.

This study assessed the cardiovascular safety of QVA149, an inhaled, once daily, bronchodilator combination containing two 24-hour bronchodilators, the long-acting ß(2)-agonist indacaterol and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium (NVA237). In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, 257 patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were randomised to receive QVA149 (indacaterol/NVA237) 600/100 microg, 300/100 microg or 150/100 microg, indacaterol 300 µg or placebo, once daily for 14 days. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24-h mean heart rate versus placebo on Day 14. 255 patients were included in the safety analysis (mean age 63.8 years, 76.5% male, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV(1)] 53.2% predicted, FEV(1)/FVC [forced vital capacity] 50.0%, mean 24-h heart rate 79.6 bpm). There were no clinically significant differences in the 24-h mean heart rate on Day 14 between the three doses of QVA149 and placebo or indacaterol. The confidence intervals of these treatment differences (contrasts) were within the pre-specified equivalence limit (-5 to 5 bpm). No clinically relevant differences in QTc interval (Fridericia's) were observed between groups on Days 1, 7 and 14. Once-daily QVA149 was well tolerated in COPD patients with a cardiovascular safety profile and overall adverse event rates similar to placebo.

QVA149 demonstrates superior bronchodilation compared with indacaterol or placebo in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: This randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled, four-period crossover study assessed the efficacy and safety of once-daily QVA149, a dual bronchodilator consisting of the long-acting ß2-agonist indacaterol and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium (NVA237), in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Patients (N=154) were randomly assigned to receive QVA149 (indacaterol/NVA237) 300/50 µg, indacaterol 300 µg, indacaterol 600 µg, or placebo, once daily for 7 days with a 7-day washout period between each treatment. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (mean of 23 h 15 min and 23 h 45 min post-dose values) on day 7. Other endpoints included trough FEV1 on day 1, individual time point FEV1 and monitoring and recording of all adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 135 (87.7%) patients completed the study (all randomly assigned patients: mean age 61.7 years, 61.4% male, post-bronchodilator FEV1 52.2% predicted, FEV1/forced vital capacity 47.6%). The estimated treatment difference (95% CI) for trough FEV1 on day 7 between QVA149 and placebo was 226 ml (192 to 260; p<0.001). The estimated treatment difference between QVA149 and indacaterol 300 and 600 µg was 123 ml (89 to 157; p<0.001) and 117 ml (83 to 150; p<0.001), respectively. The improvements in mean trough FEV1 exceeded the predefined minimal clinically important differences of 100­140 ml for QVA149 versus placebo and indacaterol. Similar results were observed on day 1. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: QVA149 demonstrated rapid and sustained bronchodilation with significant improvements compared with indacaterol monotherapy and placebo in patients with COPD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00570778.

Effects of formoterol on exercise tolerance in severely disabled patients with COPD.

OBJECTIVE: We wished to evaluate the effects of inhaled formoterol, a long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist, on exercise tolerance and dynamic hyperinflation (DH) in severely disabled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. DESIGN: In a two-period, crossover study, 21 patients with advanced COPD (FEV(1)=38.8+/-11.7% predicted, 16 patients GOLD stages III-IV) were randomly allocated to receive inhaled formoterol fumarate 12 microg twice daily for 14 days followed by placebo for 14 days, or vice versa. Patients performed constant work-rate cardiopulmonary exercise tests to the limit of tolerance (Tlim) on a cycle ergometer: inspiratory capacity (IC) was obtained at rest and each minute during exercise. Baseline and transitional dyspnoea indices (BDI and TDI) were also recorded. RESULTS: Eighteen patients completed both treatment periods. Formoterol treatment was associated with an estimated increase of 130 s in Tlim compared with placebo (P=0.052): this corresponded to a 37.8% improvement over placebo (P=0.012). Enhanced exercise tolerance after bronchodilator was associated with diminished DH marked by higher inspiratory reserve and tidal volumes at isotime and exercise cessation (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between formoterol and placebo on exercise dyspnoea ratings; however, all domains of the TDI improved (P

Effects of formoterol and salmeterol on resting inspiratory capacity in COPD patients with poor FEV(1) reversibility.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that inspiratory capacity (IC) measured at rest can be used to predict improvements in dyspnea and exercise tolerance in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. In this study we compared the effect of formoterol (Foradil, Aerolizer) and salmeterol (Serevent, Diskus) in terms of IC in patients with COPD. METHODS: This was a multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-dose, double-dummy, crossover study conducted in five secondary care centres in four European countries. A total of 47 patients with Stage II and III COPD, as defined by ATS criteria, with an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV(1)) of

Faster onset of bronchodilation with formoterol than with salmeterol in patients with stable, moderate to severe COPD: results of a randomized, double-blind clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the onset and magnitude of bronchodilation after dry powder inhalations of formoterol fumarate (Foradil Aerolizer) versus salmeterol xinofoate (Serevent Diskus) with respect to normalized (*) forced expiratory volume in 1 s area under the curve 0 to 1 h after inhalation (FEV1 AUC*0-1 h). DESIGN: A double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre, randomized, placebo controlled, single-dose, five-period crossover study. SETTING: Five centres in four countries - one centre each in France, Greece and Italy, and two centres in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Forty-seven patients aged 42 to 80 years (mean age 63.5 years) with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) stage II and III, and mean baseline FEV1 1.17 L (range 0.56 to 1.77 L). INTERVENTIONS: Patients inhaled single doses of formoterol dry powder (12 and 24 mg), single doses of salmeterol (50 and 100 mg) and matching placebo on five separate days. MAIN RESULTS: The estimates of treatment difference in absolute terms (0.086 L) and percentage change from predose baseline (7.8%) for the primary end point, FEV1 AUC*0-1 h, showed that formoterol 12 mg was statistically significantly superior to salmeterol 50 mg (P=0.0044 and P=0.0021, respectively). In addition, both doses of formoterol were statistically superior to placebo for both absolute improvement and percentage change (P=0.0001). The analysis of secondary variables also confirmed the superiority of formoterol over salmeterol. CONCLUSIONS: Formoterol is associated with a faster onset of bronchodilation than salmeterol in patients with COPD.