Albuterol/budesonide for the treatment of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma: The TYREE study.

BACKGROUND: PT027 is a fixed-dose combination of albuterol (salbutamol) and budesonide in a single pressurized metered-dose inhaler. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of albuterol/budesonide compared with placebo in patients with asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, 2-period, single-dose crossover study, adolescents and adults with asthma and EIB (defined by ≥20% decrease from pre-exercise challenge forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]) were randomized to albuterol/budesonide (180/160 µg) followed by placebo (n = 29) or the reverse sequence (n = 31). Subjects were stratified by background therapy (as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist alone or low-to-medium dose inhaled corticosteroid plus as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist). FEV1 was measured 5 minutes pre-dose, 30 minutes postdose (5 minutes pre-exercise challenge [baseline]), and 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 minutes postexercise. The primary end point was maximum percentage fall from baseline in FEV1 up to 60 minutes postexercise challenge. RESULTS: Least squares mean maximum percentage fall in FEV1 up to 60 minutes postexercise challenge was 5.45% with albuterol/budesonide vs 18.97% with placebo (difference, -13.51% [95% confidence interval, -16.94% to -10.09%]; P < .001). More subjects were fully protected (maximum percentage fall in FEV1 post-exercise challenge < 10%) with albuterol/budesonide than with placebo (78.3% vs 28.3%; P < .001). The treatment effect was consistent irrespective of background inhaled corticosteroid therapy, and albuterol/budesonide was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In adolescents and adults with asthma and EIB, a single dose of albuterol/budesonide 180/160 µg taken approximately 30 minutes before exercise was significantly more effective than placebo in preventing EIB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04234464.

Dose-Ranging and Cumulative Dose Studies of Albuterol Sulfate MDI in Co-Suspension Delivery™ Technology (AS MDI; PT007) in Patients with Asthma: the ASPEN and ANTORA Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Co-suspension Delivery™ Technology has been developed for the administration of albuterol sulfate pressurised inhalation suspension via metered-dose inhaler (AS MDI, PT007). We assessed the efficacy and safety of AS MDI versus Proventil® in order to determine the optimal dose of AS MDI to take to Phase III clinical trials. METHODS: ASPEN (NCT03371459) and ANTORA (NCT03364608) were Phase II, randomised, crossover, multicentre studies of AS MDI versus Proventil® in patients with persistent asthma. In ASPEN, 46 patients received cumulative-dose treatments (90 µg/inhalation using 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 inhalations at 30-minute intervals) in 1 of 2 possible sequences: AS MDI/Proventil or Proventil/AS MDI. In ANTORA, 86 patients were randomised to one of 10 treatment sequences of AS MDI (90 µg or 180 µg), placebo MDI, or Proventil (90 µg or 180 µg). The primary endpoints were baseline-adjusted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 30 minutes after each cumulative dose (ASPEN) and change from baseline in FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 6 h (ANTORA). Safety was assessed in both studies. RESULTS: In ASPEN, AS MDI was equivalent to Proventil (within pre-specified bounds of ± 200 mL) following cumulative doses of albuterol up to 1440 µg for the primary endpoint. In ANTORA, 90 µg and 180 µg doses of AS MDI and Proventil were significantly superior to placebo MDI (p < 0.0001), and AS MDI was non-inferior to Proventil at both doses, based on a margin of 100 mL. No new safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSION: The effects of albuterol delivered via AS MDI and Proventil on bronchodilation were equivalent, supporting the selection of AS MDI 180 µg to be taken into Phase III clinical trials, either alone or in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ASPEN (NCT03371459); Date of registration: 29/12/2017. ANTORA (NCT03364608); Date of registration: 15/12/2017.

Step-Up Therapy in Black Children and Adults with Poorly Controlled Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity from asthma is disproportionately higher among black patients than among white patients, and black patients constitute the minority of participants in trials informing treatment. Data indicate that patients with inadequately controlled asthma benefit more from addition of a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) than from increased glucocorticoids; however, these data may not be informative for treatment in black patients. METHODS: We conducted two prospective, randomized, double-blind trials: one involving children and the other involving adolescents and adults. In both trials, the patients had at least one grandparent who identified as black and had asthma that was inadequately controlled with low-dose inhaled glucocorticoids. We compared combinations of therapy, which included the addition of a LABA (salmeterol) to an inhaled glucocorticoid (fluticasone propionate), a step-up to double to quintuple the dose of fluticasone, or both. The treatments were compared with the use of a composite measure that evaluated asthma exacerbations, asthma-control days, and lung function; data were stratified according to genotypic African ancestry. RESULTS: When quintupling the dose of fluticasone (to 250 µg twice a day) was compared with adding salmeterol (50 µg twice a day) and doubling the fluticasone (to 100 µg twice a day), a superior response occurred in 46% of the children with quintupling the fluticasone and in 46% of the children with doubling the fluticasone and adding salmeterol (P = 0.99). In contrast, more adolescents and adults had a superior response to added salmeterol than to an increase in fluticasone (salmeterol-low-dose fluticasone vs. medium-dose fluticasone, 49% vs. 28% [P = 0.003]; salmeterol-medium-dose fluticasone vs. high-dose fluticasone, 49% vs. 31% [P = 0.02]). Neither the degree of African ancestry nor baseline biomarkers predicted a superior response to specific treatments. The increased dose of inhaled glucocorticoids was associated with a decrease in the ratio of urinary cortisol to creatinine in children younger than 8 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to black adolescents and adults, almost half the black children with poorly controlled asthma had a superior response to an increase in the dose of an inhaled glucocorticoid and almost half had a superior response to the addition of a LABA. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; BARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01967173.).

Mometasone or Tiotropium in Mild Asthma with a Low Sputum Eosinophil Level.

BACKGROUND: In many patients with mild, persistent asthma, the percentage of eosinophils in sputum is less than 2% (low eosinophil level). The appropriate treatment for these patients is unknown. METHODS: In this 42-week, double-blind, crossover trial, we assigned 295 patients who were at least 12 years of age and who had mild, persistent asthma to receive mometasone (an inhaled glucocorticoid), tiotropium (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist), or placebo. The patients were categorized according to the sputum eosinophil level (<2% or ≥2%). The primary outcome was the response to mometasone as compared with placebo and to tiotropium as compared with placebo among patients with a low sputum eosinophil level who had a prespecified differential response to one of the trial agents. The response was determined according to a hierarchical composite outcome that incorporated treatment failure, asthma control days, and the forced expiratory volume in 1 second; a two-sided P value of less than 0.025 denoted statistical significance. A secondary outcome was a comparison of results in patients with a high sputum eosinophil level and those with a low level. RESULTS: A total of 73% of the patients had a low eosinophil level; of these patients, 59% had a differential response to a trial agent. However, there was no significant difference in the response to mometasone or tiotropium, as compared with placebo. Among the patients with a low eosinophil level who had a differential treatment response, 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48 to 66) had a better response to mometasone, and 43% (95% CI, 34 to 52) had a better response to placebo (P = 0.14). In contrast 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) had a better response to tiotropium, whereas 40% (95% CI, 32 to 49) had a better response to placebo (P = 0.029). Among patients with a high eosinophil level, the response to mometasone was significantly better than the response to placebo (74% vs. 26%) but the response to tiotropium was not (57% vs. 43%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with mild, persistent asthma had a low sputum eosinophil level and had no significant difference in their response to either mometasone or tiotropium as compared with placebo. These data provide equipoise for a clinically directive trial to compare an inhaled glucocorticoid with other treatments in patients with a low eosinophil level. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; SIENA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02066298.).

Long-term safety of tiotropium/olodaterol Respimat® in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and renal impairment in the TONADO® studies.

Introduction: The safety, lung function efficacy, and symptomatic benefits of combined tiotropium and olodaterol in patients with COPD were established in the 1-year TONADO® studies (NCT01431274; NCT01431287). As tiotropium is predominantly excreted by the kidneys, the long-term safety profile of tiotropium/olodaterol was investigated in patients with renal impairment in a prespecified safety analysis of the TONADO studies. Methods: These were 2 replicate, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 52-week Phase III studies that assessed tiotropium/olodaterol compared with tiotropium or olodaterol alone (all via Respimat®) in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. In this analysis, renal impairment was defined as mild (creatinine clearance [CLcr] 60-89 mL/min), moderate (CLcr 30-59 mL/min) or severe (CLcr 15-29 mL/min). Adverse events (AEs) were pooled from both studies. Results: Of 3,041 patients included in this analysis, 1,333 (43.8%) had mild, 404 (13.3%) had moderate, and 5 (0.2%) had severe renal impairment; these were distributed equally between treatment groups. Almost one-quarter of all treated patients (23.4%) had a history of cardiac disorder, 45.6% had hypertension, and 13.3% had glucose metabolism disorders, including diabetes. AEs with olodaterol, tiotropium, and tiotropium/olodaterol occurred in 75.1%, 70.8%, and 72.0% of patients with no renal impairment, 75.7%, 74.0%, and 73.3% with mild renal impairment, and 84.3%, 79.5%, and 79.7% with moderate renal impairment, respectively. There was no notable effect of renal impairment on the proportion of patients with an AE, and no differences were observed between tiotropium/olodaterol versus the monocomponents. There was no difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events, renal and urinary tract AEs, or potential anticholinergic effects with increasing severity of renal impairment. Conclusion: Over half the patients enrolled in the TONADO studies had renal impairment, and there was a high level of pre-existing cardiovascular comorbidity. The safety and tolerability of tiotropium/olodaterol is comparable to the monocomponents, irrespective of the level of renal impairment.

Benralizumab for patients with mild to moderate, persistent asthma (BISE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is a humanised, anti-interleukin 5 receptor α monoclonal antibody that directly and rapidly depletes eosinophils, reduces asthma exacerbations, and improves lung function for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. The objective of this trial was to assess the safety and efficacy of benralizumab for patients with mild to moderate, persistent asthma. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18-75 years, weighing at least 40 kg, and with a postbronchodilator reversibility in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of at least 12% at screening, from 52 clinical research centres in six countries. Patients must have been receiving either low- to medium-dosage inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or low-dosage ICS plus long-acting ß2 agonist fixed-combination therapy at screening, had a morning prebronchodilator FEV1 of more than 50% to 90% predicted at screening, and had one or more of the following symptoms within the 7 days before randomisation: a daytime or night-time asthma symptom score of at least 1 for at least 2 days, rescue short-acting ß2 agonist use for at least 2 days, or night-time awakenings due to asthma for at least one night. We converted patients' ICS treatments to 180 µg or 200 µg budesonide dry powder inhaler twice daily for the entire duration of the study using the approved dosages in the patients' respective countries and randomly allocated them (1:1; stratified by blood eosinophil count [<300 cells per µL vs ≥300 cells per µL] and region [USA vs the rest of the world]) with an interactive web-based voice response system to receive subcutaneous placebo or benralizumab 30 mg injections every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. All patients and investigators involved in patient treatment or clinical assessment and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was change from baseline prebronchodilator FEV1 at week 12. Efficacy analyses used an intention to treat approach. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02322775. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2015, and April 24, 2015, we enrolled 351 patients, with 211 (60%) randomly assigned (105 [50%] to placebo and 106 [50%] to benralizumab). Benralizumab resulted in an 80 mL (95% CI 0-150; p=0·04) greater improvement (least-squares mean difference) in prebronchodilator FEV1 after 12 weeks than did placebo (placebo group: 2246 mL [SD 768] at baseline vs 2261 mL [796] at week 12, change from baseline of 0 mL; benralizumab group: 2248 mL [606] vs 2310 mL [670], 70 mL). 44 (42%) patients in the benralizumab group had adverse events compared with 49 (47%) in the placebo group. The most common adverse events for both groups were nasopharyngitis (eight [8%] patients in each group) and upper respiratory tract infections (five [5%] patients in each group). Serious adverse events occurred in two (2%) patients each in the benralizumab (pancytopenia and a suicide attempt, both considered unrelated to treatment) and placebo (cervix carcinoma and colon adenoma) groups. INTERPRETATION: This study suggests that active and modifiable disease processes might be ongoing in patients with mild to moderate, persistent asthma receiving ICS. Although the lung function improvement observed does not warrant use of benralizumab in this population because it did not reach the minimum clinically important difference of 10%, further studies to assess this finding should be considered. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Randomized, placebo-controlled study of cetirizine and loratadine in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic treatment is a mainstay of allergy therapy and many caregivers use over-the-counter antihistamines for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms in children. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of cetirizine 10 mg syrup versus loratadine 10 mg syrup versus placebo syrup in a randomized double-blind study of children, ages 6-11 years, with SAR. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study was conducted at 71 U.S. centers during the spring tree and grass pollen season. After a 1-week placebo run-in period, qualified subjects were randomized to once-daily cetirizine 10 mg (n = 231), loratadine 10 mg (n = 221), and placebo (n = 231) for 2 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in the subject's mean reflective total symptom severity complex (TSSC) score over 14 days. RESULTS: Children treated with cetirizine experienced significantly greater TSSC score reductions versus children treated with placebo over 14 days (least square mean change, -2.1 versus -1.6; p = 0.006). The differences in TSSC score improvement over 14 days between the cetirizine versus loratadine groups (-2.1 versus -1.8; p = 0.124) and between the loratadine versus placebo groups (-1.8 versus -1.6; p = 0.230) were not statistically significant. Predominant adverse events in the cetirizine, loratadine, and placebo groups were headache (3.5, 3.6, and 3.1%, respectively) and pharyngitis (3.5, 2.7, and 3.5%, respectively). Somnolence was reported in three subjects (1.3%) treated with cetirizine and in none of the other subjects. CONCLUSION: Cetirizine 10 mg was statistically significantly more efficacious than placebo in the treatment of SAR symptoms in children ages 6-11 years. Symptom improvement was not significantly different between the loratadine 10 mg and placebo groups.

A randomized study of BI 671800, a CRTH2 antagonist, as add-on therapy in poorly controlled asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is characterized by a complex interaction of inflammatory mediators. The prostaglandin D2 receptor, chemoattractant receptor-homologous molecule on Th2 cells (CRTH2), plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of allergic airway inflammation. OBJECTIVE: To ealuate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of BI 671800, a CRTH2 antagonist, when added to inhaled corticosteroid therapy in adult patients with symptomatic asthma. METHODS: In this phase IIa, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, three-period, four-treatment, incomplete block crossover trial, BI 671800 was administered either as a single 400-mg dose in the morning (A.M.) or evening (P.M.), or 200 mg twice daily (A.M. and P.M.) versus placebo, together with fluticasone propionate (44 µg, two inhalations twice daily). The primary end point was the change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second percentage predicted after 4 weeks. The secondary end point was the change in Asthma Control Questionnaire score from baseline. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients were randomized and treated. After 4 weeks, the adjusted mean (± SE) treatment differences for the primary end point versus placebo were 0.08 ± 0.62%, 0.28 ± 0.61%, and 0.67 ± 0.63% for BI 671800 at 200 mg twice daily, 400 mg A.M., and 400 mg P.M., respectively (not statistically significant). No statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in the Asthma Control Questionnaire score were observed versus placebo. Each treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: BI 671800 at a dose of 400 mg administered for 4 weeks with fluticasone propionate did not provide clinical improvement in patients with asthma; reasons for this are unclear, but it may be due to insufficient inhibition of the CRTH2 receptor at the doses used.

Albuterol multidose dry powder inhaler efficacy and safety versus placebo in children with asthma.

BACKGROUND: A novel, inhalation-driven, multidose dry powder inhaler (MDPI) that does not require coordination of actuation with inhalation has been developed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of albuterol MDPI versus placebo MDPI after chronic dosing in children with asthma. METHODS: This phase III, double-blind, parallel-group study included children with asthma (ages, 4-11 years) with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of 50-95% of predicted. After a 14-day run-in period wherein the patients continued their current asthma therapy and received single-blind placebo MDPI, they were randomized to albuterol MDPI 90 µg per inhalation, two inhalations four times daily (total daily dose, 720 µg), or placebo for 3 weeks. Pulmonary function was assessed on days 1 and 22. Efficacy and safety were evaluated by measuring the baseline-adjusted percent-predicted FEV1 (PPFEV1) area under the time curve over 6 hours (AUC0-6) after the dose and adverse events, respectively. RESULTS: The full analysis set included 184 patients. Patients treated with albuterol MDPI versus patients treated with placebo MDPI had significantly greater baseline-adjusted PPFEV1 AUC0-6 over 3 weeks (least squares mean difference, 25.0%•hour, which favored albuterol; p < 0.001). The benefit of albuterol (mean change in PPFEV1) was evident 5 minutes after dosing and lasted several hours; the maximal effect was noted 1 to 2 hours after dosing. Albuterol MDPI was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In children with persistent asthma, albuterol MDPI improved pulmonary function significantly better than placebo MDPI over 3 weeks of treatment. Clinical efficacy was evident within 5 minutes of dosing and maintained for >2 hours. Four times daily administration was well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily glycopyrrolate in patients with stable, symptomatic COPD with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation: the GEM1 study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to confirm the efficacy and safety of twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, in patients with stable, symptomatic, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation. METHODS: The GEM1 study was a 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study that randomized patients with stable, symptomatic COPD with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation to twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg or placebo (1:1) via the Neohaler(®) device. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of glycopyrrolate versus placebo in terms of forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve between 0 and 12 hours post morning dose at week 12. Other outcomes included additional spirometric end points, transition dyspnea index, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, rescue medication use, and symptoms reported by patients via electronic diary. Safety was also assessed during the study. RESULTS: Of the 441 patients randomized (glycopyrrolate, n=222; placebo, n=219), 96% of patients completed the planned treatment phase. Glycopyrrolate demonstrated statistically significant (P<0.001) improvements in lung function versus placebo. Glycopyrrolate showed statistically significant improvement in the transition dyspnea index focal score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, COPD Assessment Test score, rescue medication use, and daily total symptom score versus placebo at week 12. Safety was comparable between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Significant improvement in lung function, dyspnea, COPD symptoms, health status, and rescue medication use suggests that glycopyrrolate is a safe and effective treatment option as maintenance bronchodilator in patients with stable, symptomatic COPD with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation.

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study to investigate different dosing regimens of olodaterol delivered via Respimat® in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: A Phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial comparing the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) time profile after 3 weeks' treatment with once-daily (QD) or twice-daily (BID) olodaterol (at the same total daily dose) versus placebo delivered via Respimat® in patients with moderate to severe asthma. METHODS: Patients were randomised to different sequences of olodaterol with 2-week washout, either as a total daily dose of 5 µg (5 µg QD [AM] or 2.5 µg BID) or placebo, or 10 µg (10 µg QD [AM] or 5 µg BID) or placebo. Primary end point was FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) response (defined as change from study baseline FEV1) after 3 weeks. Key secondary end points were FEV1 AUC0-12 and AUC12-24 responses. RESULTS: Two hundred and six patients received treatment. All olodaterol treatments demonstrated statistically significant improvements in FEV1 AUC0-24 response at 3 weeks versus placebo (p < 0.0001); adjusted mean treatment difference versus placebo was 0.191 L for olodaterol 2.5 µg BID (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.152, 0.229), 0.150 L for 5 µg QD (95 % CI 0.111, 0.189), 0.228 L for 5 µg BID (95 % CI 0.190, 0.266) and 0.209 L for 10 µg QD (95 % CI 0.170, 0.247). These results were supported by the key secondary end points. Olodaterol 5 µg QD provided numerically lower mean values for 24-h bronchodilation than olodaterol 2.5 µg BID (p = 0.0465), with no statistically significant difference between treatment with olodaterol 10 µg QD and 5 µg BID. No relevant differences in morning and evening peak expiratory flow or Asthma Control Questionnaire scores at 3 weeks were observed between different doses and regimens. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate and comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: All doses and dose frequencies provided adequate 24-h bronchodilation superior to placebo. Based on the results of this study, it would be reasonable to include both posologies of 5 µg olodaterol daily (5 µg QD or 2.5 µg BID, both delivered in two puffs per dose from the Respimat® inhaler) in subsequent studies. Further studies are necessary to confirm the optimum dosing regimen in asthma. No safety concerns were identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01311661.

The 24-h FEV1 time profile of olodaterol once daily via Respimat® and formoterol twice daily via Aerolizer® in patients with GOLD 2-4 COPD: results from two 6-week crossover studies.

ABSTRACT: These studies evaluated the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) profile of once-daily (QD) olodaterol compared to placebo and twice-daily (BID) formoterol in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In two replicate, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, four-way crossover studies, patients received olodaterol 5 and 10 µg QD, formoterol 12 µg BID, or placebo for 6 weeks in addition to usual-care background maintenance therapy. Co-primary end points were FEV1 area under the curve from 0-12 h (AUC0-12) response (change from baseline) and FEV1 AUC from 12-24 h (AUC12-24) response after 6 weeks, with FEV1 AUC from 0-24 h response identified as a key secondary end point. Other secondary end points included FEV1 AUC from 0-3 h and trough FEV1 responses, as well as corresponding forced vital capacity responses. With both olodaterol doses, FEV1 increased to near-maximal 30 min post-morning dose, which was sustained over 24 h. FEV1 also increased within 30 min post-morning dose of formoterol and was sustained over 12 h; the second formoterol dose resulted in a further increase, sustained for an additional 12 h. FEV1 AUC0-12 and AUC12-24 responses with both QD olodaterol doses and BID formoterol were significantly greater than placebo at 6 weeks (P < .0001). Secondary end-point outcomes were consistent with those of the co-primary end points. These data, together with those from the wider phase III clinical program, provide evidence for the 24-h bronchodilator efficacy of olodaterol QD in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT00931385 and NCT00932646.

Once-daily indacaterol 75 µg in moderate- to-severe COPD: results of a Phase IV study assessing time until patients' perceived onset of effect.

BACKGROUND: Indacaterol 75 µg once daily is a long-acting ß2 agonist approved for maintenance bronchodilator treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perception of onset of effect with a single dose. METHODS: In this double-blind, crossover, Phase IV study, 40 patients were randomized to receive a single dose of indacaterol 75 µg or placebo via a dry powder inhaler device. The primary variable was time until patient's perception of onset of effect, using a simple self-administered (nonvalidated) questionnaire that patients answered at nine protocol-specified time points. Exploratory variables included change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and change in percent predicted FEV1 from predose to postdose (determined 60-75 minutes postdose). RESULTS: The least-squares mean time to patient's perception of onset of effect was 25.4 minutes and 23.9 minutes for indacaterol and placebo, respectively. There was no significant effect for treatment, period, or sequence on the time to patient's perception. In addition, no statistically significant differences between treatments were observed for patient's global satisfaction with onset of effect and global expectation of treatment adherence. For the exploratory variable change in FEV1 from predose to postdose, indacaterol showed superiority over placebo with a clinically relevant least-squares mean treatment difference of 0.12 L (P<0.0001). There was little or no association between patient's perception of time to onset of effect and change in FEV1, or change in percent predicted FEV1. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: A single dose of indacaterol 75 µg did not separate from placebo in terms of patient perception of onset, although there was an improvement in FEV1 for indacaterol compared with placebo. Development and use of a validated questionnaire may be needed to address the inconsistency in evaluating this patient-related outcome.

Impact of exhaled nitric oxide measurements on treatment decisions in an asthma specialty clinic.

BACKGROUND: Asthma management in an outpatient setting is best accomplished by clinical evaluation coupled with spirometry and symptom evaluation, but these assessments do not provide information about airway inflammation. Exhaled nitric oxide (fraction of exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO]) measures T-helper cell type 2-mediated airway inflammation and may be a useful adjunct in asthma management. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of FeNO in the specialist management of asthma results in more effective and cost-effective treatment decisions. METHODS: Fifty subjects 7 to 60 years old with established asthma participated in this observational study. Subjects were evaluated by clinical examination, spirometry, and symptom assessment using the Asthma Control Test, and clinicians estimated airway inflammation and made treatment decisions based on these assessments. Then, FeNO was measured, and changes in therapy based on FeNO levels were documented. The estimated cost impact of using FeNO was calculated presuming ongoing FeNO use in patient management. RESULTS: Without FeNO, the clinician's assessment of airway inflammation was incorrectly classified in 50% of subjects. FeNO results substantially altered treatment decisions in more than one third of subjects, notably medication augmentation in 10 (20%) and medication decreases in 8 (16%). Use of FeNO in addition to standard of care was estimated to save $629 per subject per year. CONCLUSION: Measurement of FeNO augments routine clinical assessment of asthma by measuring airway inflammation. Knowledge of FeNO affects medication treatment decisions to augment or decrease pharmacotherapy, which has important long-term asthma management implications, most notably the potential to lower the costs and morbidity associated with asthma exacerbation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01729247.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (100/25 mcg) versus twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (250/50 mcg) in COPD patients.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) is an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA), recently approved as once-daily maintenance therapy for COPD. We compared the lung function effects of FF/VI with those of twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL). METHODS: Three 12 week studies comparing FF/VI and FP/SAL were conducted. Patients aged ≥40 years with moderate-to-very severe COPD were randomized to receive double-blind, double-dummy FF/VI 100/25 mcg once-daily, or FP/SAL 250/50 mcg twice-daily for 12 weeks following a 2 week placebo run-in period. The primary endpoint of each study was change from baseline trough in 0-24 h weighted mean FEV(1) (wmFEV(1)) on Day 84. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: In Study 1 (HZC113109) (intent-to-treat n: FF/VI = 260; FP/SAL = 259), the increase from baseline in 0-24 h wmFEV(1) was significantly greater with FF/VI than FP/SAL (Δ80 mL, P < 0.001). In Study 2 (HZC112352) (intent-to-treat n: FF/VI = 259; FP/SAL = 252) and Study 3 (RLV116974) (intent-to-treat n: FF/VI = 412; FP/SAL = 416), the increase from baseline in 0-24 h wmFEV(1) was not significantly greater with FF/VI than FP/SAL (Δ29 mL, P = 0.267; Δ25 mL, P = 0.137). The treatment difference was statistically but not clinically significant in a pooled analysis (Δ41 mL, P < 0.001). Pooled adverse events (FF/VI 27%; FP/SAL 28%) and serious adverse events (FF/VI 2%; FP/SAL 3%) were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg provides FEV(1) improvement in COPD that is at least comparable with that conferred by twice-daily FP/SAL 250/50 mcg, although interpretation is limited by differences in individual study outcomes. The safety profiles of FF/VI 100/25 mcg and FP/SAL 250/50 mcg are similar. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01323634; NCT01323621; NCT01706328. GlaxoSmithKline study codes: HZC113109; HZC112352; RLV116974.

Effect of cetirizine on symptom severity and quality of life in perennial allergic rhinitis.

The effect of cetirizine on quality of life (QOL) in subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) has been previously evaluated using generic instruments. While generic QOL tools are used across various conditions, disease-specific instruments evaluate the impact of treatment on areas that are affected by that particular condition. This study evaluated the effect of cetirizine on symptom severity and health-related QOL, using a disease-specific instrument, in adults with PAR. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted at 15 U.S. centers outside the pollen allergy season. After a 1-week placebo run-in period, qualified subjects aged 18-65 years with PAR were randomized to once-daily cetirizine 10 mg (n = 158) or placebo (n = 163) for 4 weeks. Change from baseline in total symptom severity complex (TSSC) and overall Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores were primary efficacy end points. Cetirizine produced significantly greater improvements in mean TSSC for each treatment week (p < 0.05) and for the entire 4-week treatment period (p = 0.005) compared with placebo. After 4 weeks, cetirizine-treated subjects reported significantly greater overall improvement in RQLQ scores compared with placebo-treated subjects (p = 0.004). After 1 week, cetirizine produced significant improvements in the nasal symptoms, practical problems, and activities RQLQ domain scores compared with placebo (p < 0.05). After 4 weeks, cetirizine-treated subjects reported significant reductions in these RQLQ domain scores and in emotion domain scores compared with placebo-treated subjects (p < 0.05). Cetirizine 10 mg daily produced significant improvements in symptom severity and allergic rhinitis-related QOL compared with placebo in adults with PAR.

Effect of vitamin D3 on asthma treatment failures in adults with symptomatic asthma and lower vitamin D levels: the VIDA randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: In asthma and other diseases, vitamin D insufficiency is associated with adverse outcomes. It is not known if supplementing inhaled corticosteroids with oral vitamin D3 improves outcomes in patients with asthma and vitamin D insufficiency. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if vitamin D supplementation would improve the clinical efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with symptomatic asthma and lower vitamin D levels. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The VIDA (Vitamin D Add-on Therapy Enhances Corticosteroid Responsiveness in Asthma) randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled trial studying adult patients with symptomatic asthma and a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of less than 30 ng/mL was conducted across 9 academic US medical centers in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's AsthmaNet network, with enrollment starting in April 2011 and follow-up complete by January 2014. After a run-in period that included treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid, 408 patients were randomized. INTERVENTIONS: Oral vitamin D3 (100,000 IU once, then 4000 IU/d for 28 weeks; n = 201) or placebo (n = 207) was added to inhaled ciclesonide (320 µg/d). If asthma control was achieved after 12 weeks, ciclesonide was tapered to 160 µg/d for 8 weeks, then to 80 µg/d for 8 weeks if asthma control was maintained. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to first asthma treatment failure (a composite outcome of decline in lung function and increases in use of ß-agonists, systemic corticosteroids, and health care). RESULTS: Treatment with vitamin D3 did not alter the rate of first treatment failure during 28 weeks (28% [95% CI, 21%-34%] with vitamin D3 vs 29% [95% CI, 23%-35%] with placebo; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.6-1.3]). Of 14 prespecified secondary outcomes, 9 were analyzed, including asthma exacerbation; of those 9, the only statistically significant outcome was a small difference in the overall dose of ciclesonide required to maintain asthma control (111.3 µg/d [95% CI, 102.2-120.4 µg/d] in the vitamin D3 group vs 126.2 µg/d [95% CI, 117.2-135.3 µg/d] in the placebo group; difference of 14.9 µg/d [95% CI, 2.1-27.7 µg/d]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Vitamin D3 did not reduce the rate of first treatment failure or exacerbation in adults with persistent asthma and vitamin D insufficiency. These findings do not support a strategy of therapeutic vitamin D3 supplementation in patients with symptomatic asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01248065.

Fluticasone/Formoterol combination therapy compared with monotherapy in adolescent and adult patients with mild to moderate asthma.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of a new asthma therapy combining fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol)*, administered twice daily (BID) via a single aerosol inhaler, compared with fluticasone propionate (fluticasone) or formoterol fumarate (formoterol) administered alone, in patients with mild to moderate asthma. METHODS: Patients aged ≥12 years were evenly randomized to 12 weeks of treatment with fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 µg BID), fluticasone (100 µg BID), or formoterol (10 µg BID), in this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, study. The 2 coprimary end points were: (1) change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) from morning predose at baseline to predose at week 12 for the comparison of the combination product with formoterol alone; and (2) change in FEV(1) from morning predose at baseline to 2 hours postdose at week 12 for the comparison of the combination product with fluticasone alone. The secondary objective was to demonstrate the efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol using other pulmonary function tests and clinical end points. Tolerability was assessed based on adverse events, clinical laboratory tests and vital sign evaluations. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were demonstrated for the 2 coprimary end points. Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy showed significantly greater improvements from baseline to end of study in the change in predose FEV(1) compared with formoterol (least squares [LS] mean treatment difference, 0.118 L [95% CI, 0.034-0.201; P = 0.006]) and the change in predose compared with 2 hours postdose FEV(1) versus fluticasone (LS mean treatment difference, 0.122 L [95% CI, 0.040-0.204; P = 0.004]). Statistical analyses of the secondary efficacy endpoints revealed that evaluations of lung function, asthma exacerbations, asthma symptoms, rescue medication use and asthma control were supportive overall of the superior efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy compared with its individual components; were supportive overall of the efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy compared with its individual components. Since the secondary endpoints were analyzed using the sequential gatekeeper approach, only the mean change from baseline to final week in morning peak expiratory flow rate between the combination-therapy and formoterol groups returned statistically significant results (least squares mean difference, 20.05 [95% CI, 7.631-32.472; P = 0.002]). The fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy had a good tolerability profile over the 12-week treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: Fluticasone/formoterol had a good tolerability profile and showed statistically superior efficacy for the two co-primary endpoints compared to fluticasone or formoterol, in adolescents and adults with mild to moderate asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00394199.

Ocular safety of fluticasone furoate nasal spray in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: a 2-year study.

BACKGROUND: This is the first study, to our knowledge, to evaluate the ocular effects of an intranasal corticosteroid during 2 years of treatment for perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). OBJECTIVE: To assess ocular safety in adult and adolescent patients 12 years and older with PAR after 2 years of continuous treatment with fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS), 110 µg once daily, and placebo. METHODS: This was a 2-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of once-daily FFNS, 110 ìg, and placebo in 548 patients 12 years and older with PAR. The primary ocular safety end points were time to first occurrence of an event for the Lens Opacities Classification System, Version III (LOCS III), posterior subcapsular opacity (PSO) and time to first occurrence of an event for intraocular pressure (IOP). RESULTS: On the basis of survival analyses, the difference between the treatment groups for time to first occurrence of a LOCS III PSO and time to first occurrence of an IOP event was not statistically significant (P = .39 and P = .34, respectively). Changes from baseline in visual acuity, LOCS III PSO, cortical opacity, LOCS III nuclear opacity and nuclear color, IOP, and horizontal cup-to-disc similar between treatment groups. There were no ophthalmic-related adverse events of LOCS III PSO or IOP that led to early withdrawal. The most common drug-related adverse event was epistaxis (FFNS, 28%; placebo, 14%). CONCLUSION: These data neither support nor negate current recommendations for regular ophthalmic monitoring in patients treated with intranasal corticosteroids. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00682643.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, safety and immunogenicity study of 4 formulations of Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed plus CPG 7909 (AV7909) in healthy adult volunteers.

A new anthrax vaccine that could accelerate the immune response and possibly reduce the number of injections needed for protection would be desirable in a post-exposure setting. This Phase 1 study compared the safety and immunogenicity of 2 IM doses (Days 0 and 14) of 4 formulations of AV7909 (AVA plus CPG 7909) with 2 IM doses of BioThrax(®) (Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed) and 2 IM doses of saline placebo administered on Days 0 and 14. A total of 105 healthy adults 18-50 years of age were randomized to 1 of 6 study groups: BioThrax (0.5 mL), AV7909 Formulation 1 (0.5 mL AVA+0.5mg CPG 7909), AV7909 Formulation 2 (0.5 mL AVA+0.25mg CPG 7909), AV7909 Formulation 3 (0.25 mL AVA+0.5mg CPG 7909), AV7909 Formulation 4 (0.25 mL AVA+0.25mg CPG 7909), or saline placebo (0.5 mL). All randomized subjects received at least 1 vaccination, and 100 subjects completed the trial. After 2 doses, mean peak normalized toxin neutralizing antibody responses (TNA NF50) in the AV7909 groups were higher than in the BioThrax group. Differences among the 4 AV7909 groups were not statistically significant. Subjects who received AV7909 reached peak titers on Day 28 vs. Day 35 in the BioThrax group. The most common adverse events (AEs) in the BioThrax and AV7909 groups assessed as related to vaccination were injection site reactions. Transient lymphopenia was observed after the first dose in each AV7909 group. Frequencies of injection site and systemic reactions recorded by subjects in diaries for 7 days after each injection were highest with AV7909 Formulation 1. No AEs of special interest (autoimmune events) were observed in the study. Further studies of doses and dosing regimens are planned to assess the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of AV7909.