Equivalent bronchodilation with budesonide/formoterol combination via Easyhaler and Turbuhaler in patients with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic equivalence of Budesonide/formoterol Easyhaler compared to Symbicort Turbuhaler has been previously demonstrated with in vitro and pharmacokinetic studies. This study was performed to confirm equivalent bronchodilator efficacy of the products in asthmatic patients. METHODS: A randomised, single-dose, 4-period crossover study was carried out in a double-blind, double-dummy manner in 11 study sites. The studied doses were 320/9 µg and 1280/36 µg of budesonide/formoterol delivered by Easyhaler and Turbuhaler. Spirometry was performed before and 10 min, 20 min and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 h after administration of the study treatments. The primary efficacy endpoint was average 12-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). The secondary efficacy endpoints were maximum FEV1 and FEV1 at 12 h post-dose. RESULTS: 72 asthma patients with reversible airway obstruction were randomised to receive study treatments. 53 patients completed all study periods according to the protocol and had sufficient data available to calculate the primary endpoint. They were included in the per-protocol analyses. The assay sensitivity of the study was shown as the common slope of average 12-h FEV1 between doses was 0.063 (95% CI 0.032-0.093) and showed statistical significance (p < 0.001). In equivalence testing, the difference in average 12-h FEV1 between the treatments (Easyhaler-Turbuhaler) was 0.013 l at the lower dose and -0.028 l at the higher dose, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (-0.047 to 0.073 and -0.087 to 0.032, respectively) fell within the range of a clinically non-relevant difference. The results of the secondary efficacy endpoints were in line with the results of the primary endpoint. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm equivalent bronchodilator efficacy of Budesonide/formoterol Easyhaler compared to Symbicort Turbuhaler. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT02308098.

Efficacy and safety of a CXCR2 antagonist, AZD5069, in patients with uncontrolled persistent asthma: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Airway neutrophilic inflammation is a pathological feature in some patients with severe asthma. Stimulation of the chemokine receptor CXCR2 mediates neutrophil migration into the airways. We investigated the safety and efficacy of AZD5069, a CXCR2 antagonist, as an add-on therapy in patients with uncontrolled severe asthma. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with uncontrolled asthma despite combination therapy with long-acting ß2 agonists and medium-dose or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids. Patients were randomised in a 1:1:1:1 ratio via an interactive voice-response or web-response system to receive 5, 15, or 45 mg oral AZD5069 twice daily or matched placebo. The primary endpoint was the number of severe asthma exacerbations in 6 months. Safety was assessed in the 6-month treatment period and an optional 6-month safety extension. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01704495. FINDINGS: 640 patients with a mean age of 52 (SD 11·8) years were randomised, 478 to receive AZD5069 (5 mg n=160, 15 mg n=156, and 45 mg n=162) and 162 placebo. No dose of AZD5069 reduced the rate of severe exacerbations compared with placebo (rate ratio for 5 mg 1·29, 90% CI 0·79-2·11; for 15 mg 1·53, 0·95-2·46; and for 45 mg 1·56, 0·98-2·49). Treatment with AZD5069 was generally well tolerated. The most commonly reported adverse event overall was nasopharyngitis, seen in 18 (11·5%) receiving 5 mg, 13 (8·5%) receiving 15 mg, and 18 (11·2%) receiving 45 mg AZD5069, and 31 (19·5%) of those receiving placebo. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with this selective CXCR2 antagonist did not reduce the frequency of severe exacerbations in patients with uncontrolled severe asthma. These findings bring into question the role of CXCR2-mediated neutrophil recruitment in the pathobiology of exacerbations in severe refractory asthma. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Efficacy and safety of oral solithromycin versus oral moxifloxacin for treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia: a global, double-blind, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial (SOLITAIRE-ORAL).

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, and treatment recommendations, each with specific limitations, vary globally. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of solithromycin, a novel macrolide, with moxifloxacin for treatment of CABP. METHODS: We did this global, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial at 114 centres in North America, Latin America, Europe, and South Africa. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with clinically and radiographically confirmed pneumonia of Pneumonia Outcomes Research Team (PORT) risk class II, III, or IV were randomly assigned (1:1), via an internet-based central block randomisation procedure (block size of four), to receive either oral solithromycin (800 mg on day 1, 400 mg on days 2-5, placebo on days 6-7) or oral moxifloxacin (400 mg on days 1-7). Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, PORT risk class (II vs III or IV), and medical history of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The study sponsor, investigators, staff, and patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was early clinical response, defined as an improvement in at least two of four symptoms (cough, chest pain, sputum production, dyspnoea) with no worsening in any symptom at 72 h after the first dose of study drug, with a 10% non-inferiority margin. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT-01756339. FINDINGS: Between Jan 3, 2013, and Sept 24, 2014, we randomly assigned 860 patients to receive solithromycin (n=426) or moxifloxacin (n=434). Patients were followed up to days 28-35 after first dose. Solithromycin was non-inferior to moxifloxacin in achievement of early clinical response: 333 (78·2%) patients had an early clinical response in the solithromycin group versus 338 (77·9%) patients in the moxifloxacin group (difference 0·29, 95% CI -5·5 to 6·1). Both drugs had a similar safety profile. 43 (10%) of 155 treatment-emergent adverse events in the solithromycin group and 54 (13%) of 154 such events in the moxifloxacin group were deemed to be related to study drug. The most common adverse events, mostly of mild severity, were gastrointestinal disorders, including diarrhoea (18 [4%] patients in the solithromycin group vs 28 [6%] patients in the moxifloxacin group), nausea (15 [4%] vs 17 [4%] patients) and vomiting (ten [2%] patients in each group); and nervous system disorders, including headache (19 [4%] vs 11 [3%] patients) and dizziness (nine [2%] vs seven [2%] patients). INTERPRETATION: Oral solithromycin was non-inferior to oral moxifloxacin for treatment of patients with CABP, showing the potential to restore macrolide monotherapy for this indication. FUNDING: Cempra.

Evaluation of intravenous peramivir for treatment of influenza in hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza causes >200 000 annual hospitalizations in the United States. Current antiviral treatment options are limited to oral or inhaled agents. There is an urgent unmet need for intravenous antiviral treatments. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with suspected influenza were randomized to 5-day treatment with intravenous peramivir (600 mg once daily) or placebo; all received the institution's standard of care (SOC) treatment. Time to clinical resolution and change in viral shedding in nasopharyngeal specimens were the primary and key secondary end points. RESULTS: Influenza infection was confirmed in 338 of 405 enrolled patients. At the time of a preplanned interim analysis, the primary efficacy analysis population comprised 121 patients who did not receive a concurrent neuraminidase inhibitor as part of the SOC. The median (95% confidence interval) time to clinical resolution was 42.5 (34.0-57.9) hours for peramivir versus 49.5 (40.0-61.9) hours for placebo (P = .97). A larger treatment effect was observed in patients with history of symptoms <48 hours or admitted to an intensive care unit. Greater reductions in viral shedding, based on median tissue culture infective dose, were observed in patients who received peramivir than in placebo recipients, although this difference was not statistically significant. The incidence and severity of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were similar between the 2 treatment groups. The study was terminated for futility after a preplanned interim analysis. CONCLUSIONS: A significant clinical benefit was not demonstrated for peramivir plus SOC compared with placebo plus SOC. Peramivir was generally safe and well tolerated. These findings highlight the challenges in designing studies to evaluate influenza antiviral agents in a hospitalized setting. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT00958776.