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

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

Lung function improvements following inhaled indacaterol/glycopyrronium/mometasone furoate are independent of dosing time in asthma patients: a randomised trial.

Once-daily asthma treatment should prevent night-time deterioration, irrespective of the time of dosing. IND/GLY/MF, a fixed-dose combination of inhaled indacaterol acetate (IND, long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)), glycopyrronium bromide (GLY, long-acting muscarinic antagonist) and mometasone furoate (MF, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)) delivered by Breezhaler, is indicated in adult asthma patients inadequately controlled on LABA/ICS. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-period, crossover, phase II study was performed to investigate the bronchodilator effect of IND/GLY/MF (150/50/80 µg) dosed morning and evening versus placebo in patients with mild-moderate asthma. The primary end-point was weighted mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) over 24 h following 14 days of IND/GLY/MF dosed a.m. and p.m. versus placebo. Secondary end-points included the effect of dosing time on peak expiratory flow (PEF) and safety/tolerability. Of 37 randomised patients (age 18-72 years; 21 male, 16 female) 34 completed all three treatment periods. At screening, median (range) pre-bronchodilator FEV1 was 75.8% (60-96%). Patients were using stable low- (83.8%) or medium-dose (16.2%) ICS. Morning and evening dosing of IND/GLY/MF improved FEV1 (area under the curve from 0 to 24 h) by 610 mL (90% CI 538-681 mL) and 615 mL (90% CI 544-687 mL), respectively, versus placebo. Mean PEF over 14 days increased by 70.7 L·min-1 (90% CI 60.5-80.9 L·min-1) following a.m. dosing, and by 59.7 L·min-1 (90% CI 49.5-69.9 L·min-1) following p.m. dosing of IND/GLY/MF versus placebo. IND/GLY/MF demonstrated a safety profile comparable with placebo. Once-daily inhaled IND/GLY/MF was well tolerated and provided sustained lung function improvements over 24 h, irrespective of a.m. or p.m. dosing, in patients with mild-moderate asthma.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of LABA/LAMA Fixed-Dose Combinations Aclidinium/Formoterol, Glycopyrronium/Indacaterol and Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in the Treatment of COPD in Daily Practice - Results of the Non-Interventional DETECT Study.

Background: LABA (long-acting ß2-agonists) and/or LAMA (long-acting muscarinic antagonists) represent the first treatment options for patients with symptomatic COPD. Although both display different mechanisms of activity, in combination they have a stronger broncho-dilating effect than monotherapy; hence, a combination of both LABA and LAMA is particularly recommended for patients whose symptoms cannot be sufficiently improved by a single active ingredient. To date, only few data have been collected regarding the therapeutic outcomes of approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) under everyday (real-life) conditions in non-clinical trial settings. Objective and Methods: The main objective of the DETECT study was to investigate the impact of aclidinium/formoterol (AB/FF, b.i.d.), glycopyrronium/indacaterol (GLY/IND, q.d.) and umeclidinium/vilanterol (UME/VL, q.d.) in patients with COPD in daily clinical practice. Therefore, a prospective, non-randomized, 12-month, observational study was implemented to assess the effectiveness of these treatments in patients who had been switched to FDC within the last 3 months or for whom such a changeover was intended. Changes in lung function were analyzed by the forced expiratory volume (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) measures. Quality of life and well-being were evaluated by the COPD Assessment Test (CAT™). Furthermore, a number of exacerbations and early morning COPD symptoms were documented. Results: In total, 3653 patients were enrolled. FEV1 and FVC values significantly improved during the study with AB/FF (increase by 0.09 ± 0.40 L and 0.10 ± 0.57 L, respectively; p<0.0001), GLY/IND (0.06±0.38/0.05±0.51 L; p<0.0001 and p=0.0025) and UME/VL (0.12±0.39/0.10±0.52 L; p<0.0001). CAT scores decreased indicating improved COPD (AB/FF, 4.17±8.30; GLY/IND, 3.66±7.88; UME/VL, 4.06±7.96; p<0.0001). Moreover, the number of exacerbations as well as early morning COPD symptoms similarly diminished in all treatment groups. A comparable proportion of patients with adverse drug reactions was recorded: AB/FF, 4.07% of patients; GLY/IND, 3.52%; UME/VL, 3.64%. Conclusion: In summary, AB/FF, GLY/IND and UME/VL provided clinical benefits in lung function, quality of life and early morning COPD symptoms in a broad cohort of COPD patients under routine medical practice conditions. All three treatments were well tolerated.

Letter to the editor: indacaterol/glycopyrronium/mometasone furoate compared with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in patients with asthma: a randomized controlled cross-over study.

Indacaterol (IND; 150 µg), glycopyrronium (GLY; 50 µg) and mometasone furoate (MF; 160 µg [high-dose ICS] and 80 µg [medium-dose ICS]) have been formulated as a once-daily (o.d.) fixed-dose combination treatment delivered via the Breezhaler® device for the treatment of patients with asthma. In this randomized (n = 116), double-blind, double-dummy, active comparator-controlled, three-period cross-over study we evaluated the benefit of o.d. IND/GLY/MF versus twice daily (b.i.d.) salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC; 50/500 µg; high-dose ICS) treatment (NCT03063086). Overall, 107 patients completed the study. The study met its primary objective by demonstrating superiority of o.d. IND/GLY/MF at medium and high-dose ICS over b.i.d. SFC (high-dose ICS) in peak FEV1 after 21 days of treatment (+ 172 mL with high-dose and + 159 mL with medium-dose IND/GLY/MF versus SFC, p < 0.0001 for each comparison). We also observed that a higher percentage of patients did not need rescue medicine with IND/GLY/MF (high-dose ICS, 58%; medium-dose ICS, 52%) compared with SFC (45%) during the last week of each treatment period. Study treatments were well-tolerated with no relevant differences in tolerability between both IND/GLY/MF doses and SFC. In conclusion, both doses of IND/GLY/MF provided superior lung function benefits compared with twice-daily, standard-of-care SFC at the highest approved dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, (Identifier: NCT03063086), EudraCT start date: May 11, 2017; First patient first visit / study initiation date: May 31, 2017.

Efficacy and safety of AZD7594, an inhaled non-steroidal selective glucocorticoid receptor modulator, in patients with asthma: a phase 2a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids reduce inflammation in asthma but chronic use may cause adverse effects. AZD7594, an inhaled non-steroidal selective glucocorticoid receptor modulator, has the potential of an improved risk-benefit profile. We investigated the safety and efficacy of AZD7594 in asthma. METHODS: This phase 2a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study enrolled adults with asthma aged 18 to 75 years. Patients were treated with budesonide 200 µg twice daily for 2-3 3 weeks (run in part one). If controlled, as demonstrated by an asthma control questionnaire-5 score of < 1.5, patients entered a three-week run-in (part two) where they received a short acting bronchodilator alone. Thereafter, patients with a fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) ≥25 ppb and pre-dose FEV1 40 to 90% predicted were randomized to one of nine treatment sequences. Each patient received placebo and two of three dose levels of AZD7594 (58, 250, 800 µg) once daily via inhalation, in 14-day treatment periods, separated by three-week washout periods. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in morning trough FEV1 versus placebo on day 15. Secondary endpoints included measures of airway inflammation and asthma control. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were randomized and received at least 1 dose of treatment, 48 patients completed the study. Overall 52 patients received placebo, 34 received AZD7594 58 µg, 34 received AZD7594 250 µg, and 34 received AZD7594 800 µg. AZD7594 800 µg demonstrated a significant improvement in Day 15 morning trough FEV1versus placebo (LS means difference 0.148 L 95% CI 0.035-0.261, p = 0.011), with a dose-dependent response seen in the 250 µg (0.076 L -0·036-0·188, p = 0.183) and 58 µg (0·027 L -0·086-0·140, p = 0.683). All secondary endpoints showed statistically significant improvement at the 800 µg dose. All doses demonstrated a significant reduction in FENO at day 15 p < 0.01. No statistically significant difference in plasma cortisol level was observed between AZD7594 and placebo at any dose. AZD7594 was considered safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Two-week treatment with AZD7594 demonstrated a favorable risk-benefit profile in patients with mild to moderate asthma. Further clinical studies are needed to fully characterize AZD7594. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02479412 .

Indacaterol acetate/mometasone furoate provides sustained improvements in lung function compared with salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD: results from a Phase II randomized, double-blind 12-week study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Fixed-dose combinations of a long-acting beta agonist and an inhaled corticosteroid are more effective than the individual components in COPD. The primary study objective was to demonstrate that the combination indacaterol acetate/mometasone furoate (IND/MF [QMF149]) was non-inferior to the twice-daily combination salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate (Sal/Flu) in terms of trough FEV1 at week 12 (day 85). Secondary objectives were to compare the efficacy of IND/MF (QMF149) vs Sal/Flu with respect to other lung function parameters, COPD exacerbations, symptoms and dyspnea, health status/health-related quality of life, and rescue medication use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, Phase II study in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, who were randomized (1:1) to IND/MF (QMF149) (150/160 µg once daily; n=316) or Sal/Flu (50/500 µg twice daily; n=313). RESULTS: Over 90% of patients completed the study: 94.6% in the IND/MF (QMF149) group and 92.0% in the Sal/Flu group. The primary objective of non-inferiority of IND/MF (QMF149) to Sal/Flu for trough FEV1 at week 12 (day 85) was met: the lower limit of the CI (95% CI: 27.7, 83.3 mL) was greater than -60 mL. The analysis for superiority of IND/MF (QMF149) to Sal/Flu demonstrated superiority of IND/MF (QMF149), with a difference of 56 mL (P<0.001). In addition, IND/MF (QMF149) treatment significantly improved COPD exacerbation-related parameters during the 12-week period. Other significant improvements with IND/MF (QMF 149) vs Sal/Flu were noted for dyspnea at week 12 and other COPD symptoms and COPD rescue medication use over the 12 weeks. The safety and tolerability profiles of both the treatments were similar. CONCLUSION: IND/MF (QMF149) (150/160 µg once daily) offered superior lung function and symptom efficacy and a favorable safety profile compared with Sal/Flu (50/500 µg twice daily) in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of once-daily abediterol in patients with stable, persistent asthma: a Phase II, randomized, 7-day, crossover study.

Abediterol is a once-daily, long-acting ß2 -adrenergic agonist in development for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of three dose levels of abediterol, given once daily for 7 days in patients with stable, persistent asthma. This was an ascending-dose, three-period incomplete crossover study design investigating three dose levels of abediterol versus placebo (EudraCT No. 2008-003732-38). Twenty-eight male patients (25-59 years) were randomized to one of four treatment sequences (1:1:1:1). Follow-up was 7 days after final treatment. Spirometry was performed regularly up to 24 h postdose Day 1, up to 36 h postdose Day 7, and at follow-up. Vital signs, 12-lead electrocardiogram, and clinical laboratory tests were recorded throughout. Abediterol 2.5, 5, and 10 µg provided clinically and statistically significant improvements from baseline (predose, Day 1) in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1 ) versus placebo on Day 7 (primary endpoint) of 334, 365, and 294 mL, respectively (all P < 0.01), and peak FEV1 versus placebo on Day 7 of 364 (P < 0.001), 403 (P < 0.001), and 375 mL (P < 0.01), respectively. Days 1 and 7 area under the curve (AUC) parameters within each abediterol group were similar for AUC0-6 , AUC0-12 , AUC0-24 , and AUC12-24 , with dose-dependent effects observed on Day 1. Abediterol (2.5-10 µg) demonstrated a good safety and tolerability profile. Abediterol 2.5, 5, and 10 µg once daily achieved statistically and clinically significant improvements in pulmonary function versus placebo over 7 days and demonstrated a safety and tolerability profile comparable with placebo.

Improvement in 24-hour bronchodilation and symptom control with aclidinium bromide versus tiotropium and placebo in symptomatic patients with COPD: post hoc analysis of a Phase IIIb study.

BACKGROUND: A previous Phase IIIb study (NCT01462929) in patients with moderate to severe COPD demonstrated that 6 weeks of treatment with aclidinium led to improvements in 24-hour bronchodilation comparable to those with tiotropium, and improvement of symptoms versus placebo. This post hoc analysis was performed to assess the effect of treatment in the symptomatic patient group participating in the study. METHODS: Symptomatic patients (defined as those with Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms [E-RS™] in COPD baseline score ≥10 units) received aclidinium bromide 400 µg twice daily (BID), tiotropium 18 µg once daily (QD), or placebo, for 6 weeks. Lung function, COPD respiratory symptoms, and incidence of adverse events (AEs) were assessed. RESULTS: In all, 277 symptomatic patients were included in this post hoc analysis. Aclidinium and tiotropium treatment improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline to week 6 at all time points over 24 hours versus placebo. In addition, improvements in FEV1 from baseline during the nighttime period were observed for aclidinium versus tiotropium on day 1 (aclidinium 157 mL, tiotropium 67 mL; P<0.001) and week 6 (aclidinium 153 mL, tiotropium 90 mL; P<0.05). Aclidinium improved trough FEV1 from baseline versus placebo and tiotropium at day 1 (aclidinium 136 mL, tiotropium 68 mL; P<0.05) and week 6 (aclidinium 137 mL, tiotropium 71 mL; P<0.05). Aclidinium also improved early-morning and nighttime symptom severity, limitation of early-morning activities, and E-RS Total and domain scores versus tiotropium (except E-RS Chest Symptoms) and placebo over 6 weeks. Tolerability showed similar incidence of AEs in each arm. CONCLUSION: In this post hoc analysis of symptomatic patients with moderate to severe COPD, aclidinium 400 µg BID provided additional improvements compared with tiotropium 18 µg QD in: 1) bronchodilation, particularly during the nighttime, 2) daily COPD symptoms (E-RS), 3) early-morning and nighttime symptoms, and 4) early-morning limitation of activity.

Effect of ELOM-080 on exacerbations and symptoms in COPD patients with a chronic bronchitis phenotype - a post-hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Treating symptoms and preventing exacerbations are key components of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) long-term management. Recently, a more tailored treatment approach has been proposed, in particular for two well-established clinical phenotypes, frequent exacerbators and chronic bronchitis-dominant COPD. ELOM-080 has demonstrated clinical efficacy in treating symptoms and preventing exacerbations in subjects with chronic bronchitis. However, little is known about the potential effects of ELOM-080 in COPD patients. AIM: To evaluate the effect on exacerbation, cough sputum, and general state of health of long-term treatment with ELOM-080 in COPD patients with an exacerbation history and chronic bronchitis. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled parallel-group clinical trial of a 6-month treatment with ELOM-080 (3×300 mg) in patients with chronic bronchitis and concomitant COPD. The primary outcome was the proportion of subjects with at least one exacerbation over the 6-month study period. Secondary outcomes included the total number of exacerbations (ie, cumulative occurrence of exacerbations during the study period) and the proportion of acute exacerbations necessitating an antibiotic treatment, monthly evaluations of sputum and cough symptoms, and the general state of health and a safety analysis. RESULTS: Of 260 randomized subjects, 64 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria for COPD (ELOM-080: 35, placebo: 29). Compared to placebo, ELOM-080 reduced the percentage of subjects with at least one exacerbation (29% versus 55%, P=0.031) and a reduction in the overall occurrence of exacerbations (ELOM-080: 10, placebo: 21, P=0.012) during the winter season. The percentage of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients (sputum/expectoration and cough) was consistently higher in the ELOM-080 group compared to placebo, with statistical significant differences after 2 and 3 months of treatment (2 months: ELOM-080 25%, placebo 11%, P<0.005; 3 months: ELOM-080 26%, placebo 14%, P<0.05). Likewise the subjective rating of general health status was better in the ELOM-080 group with statistically significant superiority after 2 and 3 months of treatment (2-month treatment: P=0.015; 3-month treatment: P=0.024). Tolerability results were comparable between ELOM-080 and placebo. CONCLUSION: ELOM-080 is efficacious in patients with COPD and a chronic bronchitis phenotype. Prophylactic use reduces the rate of exacerbations and improves the key symptoms of sputum and cough with a favorable long-term tolerability profile.

Data on the oral CRTh2 antagonist QAW039 (fevipiprant) in patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma.

This article contains data on clinical endpoints (Peak Flow Expiratory Rate, fractional exhaled nitric oxide and total IgE serum levels) and plasma pharmacokinetic parameters concerning the use of the oral CRTh2 antagonist QAW039 (fevipiprant) in mild to moderate asthma patients. Information on experimental design and methods on how this data was obtained is also described. Further interpretation and discussion of this data can be found in the article "The oral CRTh2 antagonist QAW039 (fevipiprant): a phase II study in uncontrolled allergic asthma" (Erpenbeck et al., in press) [1].

Efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol versus salmeterol/fluticasone: a phase 3 COPD study.

The efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate was compared with that of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in patients with stable, moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).AFFIRM COPD (Aclidinium and Formoterol Findings in Respiratory Medicine COPD) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled study. Patients were randomised (1:1) to aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg twice-daily via Genuair/Pressair or salmeterol/fluticasone 50/500 µg twice-daily via Accuhaler. The primary end-point was peak forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at week 24. Other end-points included Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score at week 24, TDI and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders, COPD Assessment Test and SGRQ scores, assessment of COPD symptoms and exacerbations, use of reliever medication, and device preference. Adverse events were monitored throughout.In total, 933 patients were eligible (mean age 63.4 years, 65.1% male). Aclidinium/formoterol was superior to salmeterol/fluticasone in peak FEV1 and noninferior in TDI. Health status and reduction in exacerbation risk were similar in both groups. While both treatments were well tolerated, pneumonia occurred less frequently with aclidinium/formoterol than salmeterol/fluticasone.In stable COPD, aclidinium/formoterol significantly improved bronchodilation versus salmeterol/fluticasone, with equivalent benefits in symptom control and reduction in exacerbation risk. Both treatments were well tolerated and treatment-related adverse events were less common with aclidinium/formoterol.

Abediterol, a novel long-acting ß2-agonist: bronchodilation, safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetic results from a single-dose, dose-ranging, active-comparator study in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Abediterol is a novel, once-daily long-acting ß2-agonist in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma in combination with an anti-inflammatory agent. This Phase IIa, randomised, double-blind, crossover study investigated the bronchodilation, safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of abediterol in patients with moderate to severe COPD. METHODS: Seventy patients (aged ≥40 years, Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Stage II/III) were randomised (1:1:1:1:1:1) to single doses of abediterol 0.625, 2.5, 5 or 10 µg, indacaterol 150 µg or placebo. Spirometry was performed up to 36 h post-dose. Pharmacokinetics were assessed in a subset of patients (N = 20). Safety and tolerability were evaluated throughout the study. RESULTS: Abediterol (all doses) significantly improved change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) compared with placebo (0.102, 0.203, 0.233 and 0.259 L for abediterol 0.625, 2.5, 5 and 10 µg, respectively; all p < 0.0001; primary endpoint). Abediterol 2.5, 5 and 10 µg significantly improved trough FEV1 compared with indacaterol 150 µg (0.092, 0.122 and 0.148 L, respectively; all p < 0.0001). Improvements in bronchodilation were maintained at all time points post-dose versus placebo (all abediterol doses) and from 15 or 30 min post-dose versus indacaterol 150 µg with abediterol 2.5, 5 and 10 µg (all p < 0.05). Abediterol had low systemic exposure; incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: All doses of abediterol (0.625-10 µg) provided clinically and statistically significant, dose-dependent improvements in bronchodilation versus placebo, and abediterol 2.5, 5 and 10 µg gave significant improvements versus indacaterol. All doses of abediterol were safe and well tolerated in patients with COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01425814 . Registered 29 August 2011.

The oral CRTh2 antagonist QAW039 (fevipiprant): A phase II study in uncontrolled allergic asthma.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet medical need for allergic asthma patients who are uncontrolled on conventional therapies. The aim of this study was to collect efficacy and safety data for QAW039, an oral chemoattractant receptor-homologous molecule expressed on Th2 cells (CRTh2) receptor antagonist, for the treatment of asthma. METHODS: This was an exploratory phase II, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled multi-center study. Patients with mild-to-moderate uncontrolled allergic asthma (N = 170) were either without or weaned off inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting ß-agonists (LABA) and randomized (1:1) to QAW039 (500 mg once daily) or to placebo for 28 days. RESULTS: Overall, 157 patients completed the study. There were no significant differences between QAW039 and placebo for trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) or Asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) in the total population. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that patients with a FEV1 <70% of predicted at baseline treated with QAW039 had significant improvement compared with placebo in trough FEV1 (QAW039- Placebo [Δ] = 207 mL; 90% confidence interval [CI]: 96, 319; P = 0.002) and ACQ7 (Δ = -0.41; 90%CI: -0.69, -0.13; P = 0.009). QAW039 reached a mean maximum concentration (Cmax) of 3440 ng/mL on day 28 at a median Tmax of 1 h (range 0.5-4 h). Most adverse events (AEs) were mild/moderate and balanced between both groups, with no serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: In the general study population, no improvement in lung function was observed with QAW039. However, a subgroup analysis revealed that patients with greater severity of airflow limitation (FEV1 < 70%) had improved lung function and asthma control when treated with QAW039. QAW039 also demonstrated a favorable safety profile. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT01253603.

Longitudinal measurement of airway inflammation over one year in children and adults with intermittent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is an inflammatory disease of the airways, but in clinical practice inflammation is rarely monitored. The aim of this study was to assess the level of airway inflammation in steroid naïve adult and pediatric patients with intermittent asthma over one year. METHODS: 54 children and 50 adults with intermittent asthma (GINA step 1) were included. On up to 6 visits lung function, airway hyperresponsiveness to methacholine (PC20FEV1), sputum eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were assessed. RESULTS: 36 pediatric and 34 adult patients were able to produce at least three adequate sputum samples over the study period and were included into the analysis.In 8 children (22%) the percentage of sputum eosinophils was always below 2.5%. A higher level of eosinophils (>2.5%) was found on at least one visit in 16 (44%) and always >2.5% in 12 children (33%). In the adult group the respective numbers were 14 patients (41%) with always low (<2.5%), 17 (50%) with at least once over 2.5% and three patients (9%) were always above the threshold of 2.5% sputum eosinophils. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that a substantial number of children and adults with intermittent asthma under ß-agonist treatment only, have variable or persistently high levels of eosinophilic airway inflammation. Long-term studies are needed to observe the progression of asthma severity in such patient populations.

Effect of QVA149 on lung volumes and exercise tolerance in COPD patients: the BRIGHT study.

INTRODUCTION: QVA149 is a novel, inhaled, once-daily dual bronchodilator containing a fixed-dose combination of the long-acting ß2-agonist indacaterol and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium (NVA237), for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study evaluated the effects of QVA149 on exercise tolerance, hyperinflation, lung function and lung volumes versus placebo and tiotropium. METHODS: Patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized to QVA149 110/50 µg, placebo or tiotropium 18 µg once daily in a blinded, 3-period crossover study for 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was exercise endurance time at Day 21 for QVA149 versus placebo. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were randomized; 86% completed the study. QVA149 significantly improved exercise endurance time at Day 21 compared with placebo (least squares mean treatment difference 60 s [p = 0.006]). No significant improvements in exercise endurance time at Day 21 between QVA149 and tiotropium were found. Dynamic inspiratory capacity (IC) at exercise isotime, trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, residual volume and functional residual capacity showed significant improvements with QVA149 from Day 1 of treatment that were maintained throughout the study. The safety profiles were similar across groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, once-daily QVA149 significantly improved exercise endurance time compared with placebo which was associated with sustained reductions of lung hyperinflation as indicated by significant improvement in IC at rest and during exercise. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01294787. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Dual bronchodilation with QVA149 decreases lung hyperinflation and improves exercise tolerance and lung function in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

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.

Efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide compared with placebo and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a 6-week, randomized, controlled Phase IIIb study.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, Phase IIIb study evaluated the 24-hour bronchodilatory efficacy of aclidinium bromide versus placebo and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Patients received aclidinium 400 µg twice daily (morning and evening), tiotropium 18 µg once daily (morning), or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve for the 24-hour period post-morning dose (FEV1 AUC0-24) at week 6. Secondary and additional endpoints included FEV1 AUC12-24, COPD symptoms (EXAcerbations of chronic pulmonary disease Tool-Respiratory Symptoms [E-RS] total score and additional symptoms questionnaire), and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 414 patients were randomized and treated (FEV1 1.63 L [55.8% predicted]). Compared with placebo, FEV1 AUC0-24 and FEV1 AUC12-24 were significantly increased from baseline with aclidinium (∆ = 150 mL and 160 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001) and tiotropium (∆ = 140 mL and 123 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001) at week 6. Significant improvements in E-RS total scores over 6 weeks were numerically greater with aclidinium (p < 0.0001) than tiotropium (p < 0.05) versus placebo. Only aclidinium significantly reduced the severity of early-morning cough, wheeze, shortness of breath, and phlegm, and of nighttime symptoms versus placebo (p < 0.05). Adverse-event (AE) incidence (28%) was similar between treatments. Few anticholinergic AEs (<1.5%) or serious AEs (<3%) occurred in any group. CONCLUSIONS: Aclidinium provided significant 24-hour bronchodilation versus placebo from day 1 with comparable efficacy to tiotropium after 6 weeks. Improvements in COPD symptoms were consistently numerically greater with aclidinium versus tiotropium. Aclidinium was generally well tolerated.

Inhaled pan-selectin antagonist Bimosiamose attenuates airway inflammation in COPD.

Selectins, a family of cell adhesion molecules, are involved in leukocyte extravasation to sites of inflammation. We investigated the safety and efficacy of the inhaled pan-selectin antagonist Bimosiamose in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). 77 COPD patients (mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s, 57% pred.) were enrolled in a cross-over, double-blind, randomized, Placebo-controlled, multi-center trial. Bimosiamose (10 mg) or Placebo was inhaled twice daily via the breath actuated nebulizer Akita2 Apixneb™ for 28 days on top of standard bronchodilator therapy. Efficacy was assessed by measurement of inflammatory parameters in induced sputum (differential cell count, interleukin-8, matrix-metalloproteinase-9, myeloperoxidase) and lung function at day 28 of both treatment periods. The total adverse event ratio of Bimosiamose compared to Placebo treatment was balanced. Compared to Placebo, treatment with Bimosiamose led to a decrease of the interleukin-8 concentration (-9.49 ng/mL, 95%CI -18.8 to -2.7 ng/mL, p = 0.008), for the neutrophil count a difference of -0.368 × 10(6) cells/mL (95%CI -1.256 to 0.407 × 10(6)/mL, p = 0.313) was found. The macrophage count decreased by -0.200 × 10(6) cells/mL (95%CI -0.365 to -0.044 × 10(6) cells/mL, p = 0.012). Most lung function parameters showed a small numeric increase. Inhalation of Bimosiamose for 28 days was safe and well tolerated in patients with COPD. It led to an attenuation of airway inflammation (EudraCT 2009-017257-35; NCT ID: NCT01108913).

Clinical trial design in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: current perspectives and considerations with regard to blinding of tiotropium.

Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials are considered the gold standard for evaluating a pharmacological agent, as they minimise any potential bias. However, it is not always possible to perform double-blind trials, particularly for medications delivered via specific devices, e.g. inhalers. In such cases, open-label studies can be employed instead. Methods used to minimise any potential bias introduced by open-label study design include randomisation, crossover study design, and objective measurements of primary efficacy and safety variables. Concise reviews analysing the effect of blinding procedures of comparator drugs on outcomes in respiratory trials are limited. Here, we compare data from different chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trials with once-daily indacaterol versus a blinded or non-blinded comparator. The clinical trial programme for indacaterol, a once-daily, long-acting ß2-agonist, used tiotropium as a comparator either in an open-label or blinded fashion. Data from these studies showed that the effects of tiotropium were consistent for forced expiratory volume in 1 second, an objective measure, across blinded and non-blinded studies. The data were consistent with previous studies of double-blind tiotropium, suggesting that the open-label use of tiotropium did not introduce treatment bias. The effect of tiotropium on subjective measures (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire; transition dyspnoea index) varied slightly across blinded and non-blinded studies, indicating that minimal bias was introduced by using open-label tiotropium. Importantly, the studies used randomised, open-label tiotropium patients to treatment allocation, a method shown to minimise bias to a greater degree than blinding. In conclusion, it is important when reporting a clinical trial to be transparent about who was blinded and how the blinding was performed; if the design is open-label, additional efforts must be made to minimise risk of bias. If these recommendations are followed, and the data are considered in the full knowledge of any potential sources of bias, results with tiotropium suggest that data from open-label studies can provide valuable and credible evidence of the effects of therapy.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of aclidinium bromide in younger and elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of aclidinium bromide 200 µg and 400 µg after a single dose and repeated once-daily doses in younger and elderly patients with moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Younger (40-59 years; n = 12) and elderly (≥ 70 years; n = 12) patients were treated with aclidinium via the Genuair® inhaler. Patients received once-daily aclidinium 200 µg for 3 days; after a 7-day washout period, patients received once-daily aclidinium 400 µg for 3 days. Pharmacokinetic analyses were conducted on plasma and urine on Days 1 and 3 of both treatment periods. Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Aclidinium showed similar linear and time-independent pharmacokinetics in younger and elderly patients at each dose level and day of treatment. For both age groups at each dose level and day, aclidinium appeared rapidly in the plasma with a median tmax between 10 and 15 min; concentrations of aclidinium in the plasma declined rapidly with a t1/2 between 1 and 3 h. Plasma exposure with the 400 µg dose was ~ 2-fold higher than for the 200 µg dose in both age groups on both days. For both age groups, urinary excretion of aclidinium over 24 h was < 0.15% of the dose at each dose and day. Aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg were safe and well tolerated in both age groups. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that no dose adjustment of aclidinium is required when treating elderly patients with COPD.