A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial assessing the efficacy and safety of intravenous nemonoxacin malate vs. levofloxacin for community-acquired pneumonia in adult patients.

BACKGROUND: Nemonoxacin malate is a novel non-fluorinated quinolone for oral and intravenous (IV) administration. This phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-controlled clinical trial (NCT02205112) evaluated the efficacy and safety of IV nemonoxacin vs. levofloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adult patients. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomised to receive 500 mg nemonoxacin or levofloxacin via IV infusion, once daily for 7-14 days. The primary endpoint was the clinical cure rate at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population. Secondary efficacy and safety were also compared between nemonoxacin and levofloxacin. RESULTS: Overall, 525 patients were randomised and treated with nemonoxacin (n = 349) or levofloxacin (n = 176). The clinical cure rate was 91.8% (279/304) for nemonoxacin and 85.7% (138/161) for levofloxacin in the mITT population (P > 0.05). The clinical efficacy of nemonoxacin was non-inferior to levofloxacin for treatment of CAP. Microbiological success rate with nemonoxacin was 88.8% (95/107) and with levofloxacin was 87.8% (43/49) (P > 0.05) at the TOC visit in the bacteriological mITT population. The incidence of drug-related adverse events (AEs) was 37.1% in the nemonoxacin group and 22.2% in the levofloxacin group. These AEs were mostly local reactions at the infusion site, nausea, elevated alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase (ALT/AST), and QT interval prolongation. The nemonoxacin-related AEs were mostly mild and resolved after discontinuation of nemonoxacin. CONCLUSIONS: Nemonoxacin 500 mg IV once daily for 7-14 days is effective and safe and non-inferior to levofloxacin for treating CAP in adult patients.

Efficacy and safety of tratinterol hydrochloride tablets in bronchial asthma: a randomized double-blind and multicenter clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of tratinterol hydrochloride in bronchial asthma (BA) treatment. METHODS: Patients enrolled in this study were distributed randomly into a treatment group (tratinterol hydrochloride) and an active control group (procaterol hydrochloride) and were treated for 2 weeks after running-in. The end points were changes in pulmonary function and clinical symptoms after administration. Safety indices were physical examinations, laboratory testing and spontaneous reporting. FINDINGS: We enrolled 732 subjects, -365 in the treatment group and 367 in the active control group. Forced expiratory volume (FEV1), significantly increased in both group after treatment (P < 0.05). Least-squares (LS) means were -0.03/in the full-analysis set (FAS) and -0.02 in the per-protocol set (PPS) set, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for these sets were -0.09 to 0.03 and -0.08 to 0.04, respectively. Forced expiratory volume (FVC), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) and asthma scores were significantly different with pretreatment (P < 0.05). There was no difference in asymptomatic days or frequency of relief medicine use (P > 0.05). No serious adverse events occurred. IMPLICATIONS: Tratinterol hydrochloride was effective, safe and not inferior to procaterol hydrochloride in treating BA.

The Efficacy and Safety of Once-daily Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Twice-daily Budesonide/Formoterol in a Subgroup of Patients from China with Symptomatic COPD at Risk of Exacerbations (FULFIL Trial).

The FULFIL study evaluated once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100 µg/62.5 µg/25 µg versus twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400 µg/12 µg in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. FULFIL demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements at Week 24 in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) Total scores and reduced exacerbation frequency. Predefined analyses were performed to evaluate treatment effects in a subgroup of patients recruited in China (China subgroup; FF/UMEC/VI, n = 32; BUD/FOR, n = 29). Analyses included treatment by region (China versus non-China) to allow estimated treatment effects in patients from China to be compared with those of the non-China subgroup and the overall FULFIL intent-to-treat (ITT) population. In the China subgroup at Week 24: the mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 was 125 mL (95% confidence interval [CI] 36, 214) for FF/UMEC/VI and -70 mL (95% CI -163, 23) BUD/FOR (between-treatment difference: 195 mL [95% CI 67, 323]; p = 0.003) and in SGRQ Total score was -5.6 units (95% CI -10.5, -0.7) and -0.3 units (95% CI -5.4, 4.7), respectively (between-treatment difference: -5.3 [95% CI -12.3, 1.7]; p = 0.140). Fewer moderate/severe exacerbations occurred with FF/UMEC/VI than BUD/FOR (16% and 28%, respectively). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between arms (FF/UMEC/VI: 38%; BUD/FOR: 31%). This prespecified subgroup analysis of patients recruited in China to FULFIL demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to that observed in the non-China and in the overall ITT populations, for FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR.

Roflumilast for the treatment of COPD in an Asian population: a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study.

BACKGROUND: Roflumilast is the only oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor indicated for use in the treatment of COPD. Previous studies of roflumilast have predominantly involved European and North American populations. A large study was necessary to determine the efficacy and safety of roflumilast in a predominantly ethnic Chinese population. METHODS: In a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3 study, patients of Chinese, Malay, and Indian ethnicity (N = 626) with severe to very severe COPD were randomized 1:1 to receive either roflumilast 500 µg once daily or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary end point was change in prebronchodilator FEV1 from baseline to study end. RESULTS: Three hundred thirteen patients were assigned to each treatment. Roflumilast provided a sustained increase over placebo in mean prebronchodilator FEV1 (0.071 L; 95% CI, 0.046, 0.095 L; P < .0001). Similar improvements were observed in the secondary end points of postbronchodilator FEV1 (0.068 L; 95% CI 0.044, 0.092 L; P < .0001) and prebronchodilator and postbronchodilator FVC (0.109 L; 95% CI, 0.061, 0.157 L; P < .0001 and 0.101 L; 95% CI, 0.055, 0.146 L; P < .0001, respectively). The adverse event profile was consistent with previous roflumilast studies. The most frequently reported treatment-related adverse event was diarrhea (6.0% and 1.0% of patients in the roflumilast and placebo groups, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Roflumilast plays an important role in lung function improvement and is well tolerated in an Asian population. It provides an optimal treatment choice for patients with severe to very severe COPD.