Effects of a novel sodium channel blocker, GSK2339345, in patients with refractory chronic cough
.

OBJECTIVE: Voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSC) are important in the initiation and propagation of action potentials in afferent sensory nerve fibers responsible for evoking cough. This study investigated the efficacy of GSK2339345, a VGSC inhibitor, in the treatment of refractory chronic cough (RCC). METHODS: A three-part randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study was conducted in the UK. In part A, patients with RCC received two inhaled doses of either GSK2339345 or placebo, 4 hours apart during three study periods. Patients were monitored for cough for 8 hours post-first dose using the VitaloJAK, ambulatory cough monitor. In parts B and C, patients underwent full dose-response cough challenges with capsaicin and citric acid respectively following single doses of randomly assigned GSK2339345 or placebo (4 study days). Part A was analyzed using a mixed effects model and parts B and C using population non-linear mixed effects models. RESULTS: Of 16 enrolled patients, 11 completed the study. 8-hour cough counts increased following GSK2339345 treatment compared with placebo (GSK2339345/placebo ratio of adjusted geometric means: 1.26 (90% credible interval 1.10, 1.44), associated with GSK2339345-evoked coughing, recorded during the 2 minutes post-dose. This was not observed with placebo. The effect of GSK2339345 on cough responses during cough challenges was inconclusive. GSK2339345 was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: While these data could not determine if GSK2339345 reached the target VGSC, they strongly suggest that GSK2339345 has no anti-tussive effect despite reaching airway sensory nerves as evidenced by the evoked transient cough.
.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Once-Daily Intranasal Fluticasone Furoate and Levocabastine Administered Alone or Simultaneously as fluticasone Furoate/Levocabastine Fixed-Dose Combination.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate potential systemic pharmacokinetic interactions between intranasal fluticasone furoate (FF) and levocabastine (LEVO) when delivered simultaneously via a metered atomizing spray pump. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, crossover study. Healthy male and female subjects (n = 30) received once-daily repeat doses of FF/LEVO (100/200 µg) as a fixed-dose combination (FDC), FF (110 µg), or LEVO (200 µg) for 7 days. FF and LEVO plasma pharmacokinetics (0-24 hours) were measured on day 7, with safety assessments over the study duration. RESULTS: Systemic exposure to LEVO was similar when administered as FF/LEVO FDC or LEVO alone. Following FF/LEVO FDC or FF alone, the majority (>99%) of FF concentrations were nonquantifiable, that is, below the lower limit of quantification of 10 pg/mL. All treatments were well tolerated, and adverse event incidence was similar across the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that in healthy subjects, for LEVO, there is no pharmacokinetic interaction with FF when delivered as FF/LEVO FDC. As the majority of data were below the assay sensitivity for FF, any potential differences in the bioavailability of FF when delivered alone or as FF/LEVO FDC could not be established. There was no clinically relevant impact on safety/tolerability when FF/LEVO was coadministered.

Once-daily dosing of levocabastine has comparable efficacy to twice-daily dosing in the treatment of allergic rhinitis assessed in an allergen challenge chamber.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that intranasal levocabastine (LEVO) may provide benefits as a oncedaily treatment in allergic rhinitis (AR), this non-inferiority study compared the effect at steady state of once- and twice-daily dosing with LEVO on allergen-induced nasal symptoms in AR patients. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, three-way cross over study evaluating the effects of repeat doses of LEVO 200 µg once-daily, LEVO 200 µg twice-daily (total dose 400 µg) and placebo, all via intranasal spray, in 78 AR patients. The primary endpoint was weighted mean total nasal symptom score (TNSS) during a 4-hour allergen exposure in the Environmental Exposure Chamber measured at trough pharmacokinetic levels either 12 (LEVO twice-daily) or 24 (LEVO once-daily) hours post-dose. RESULTS: After 7 days dosing, the difference in weighted mean TNSS (0-4 hours) following LEVO once-daily versus twice-daily was 0.23 units (95% CI -0.36, 0.82), demonstrating noninferiority between the two LEVO dosing regimens by meeting the pre-specified criterion of an upper limit of 95% CI<1.0. Both dosing regimens of LEVO resulted in a statistically significant reduction in mean TNSS compared with placebo (adjusted mean difference from placebo: LEVO once-daily: -1.12 (95% CI -1.71, -0.53); LEVO twice-daily: -1.35 (-1.94, -0.76)), meeting the pre-specified criterion for superiority (upper limit of 95% CI<0). All treatments were well-tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the hypothesis that at steady state LEVO 200 µg taken once-daily provides similar benefit to LEVO 200 µg dosed twice-daily.

On the definition of chronic cough and current treatment pathways: an international qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The pathogenesis of chronic cough is not well understood and treatment options are limited. In this study we sought to explore the current understanding and management of chronic cough across an international group of specialists. METHODS: This was an international study of cross sectional qualitative design. In depth interviews were carried out with "Respiratory Specialists" experienced in treating treating Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), idiopathic chronic cough (ICC) and/or lung cancer patients and with "Disease Experts" in the field of Chronic Cough. Participants in the study were recruited from the USA, UK, Germany, Ireland, Australia and Japan. Interviews with specialists were held at research facilities and with DEs over the telephone. These were preceded by the specialists completing case records of patients recently seen. All interviews were conducted by native speaking trained moderators using a semi-structured interview guide script. This was designed to elicit the definition of chronic cough, explore the unmet needs for each disease state, define therapy goals, identify patient phenotypes and give an overview of the treatment pathway. RESULTS: 76 specialists and 10 experts took part in the study. Over two thirds (70%) of respondents defined chronic cough as "cough lasting more than 8/12 weeks" (range 2 weeks to 2 years). Physicians emphasised three interdependent aspects of clinical assessment: impact on quality of life, type of cough (productive versus non-productive) and the underlying pathology. Specialists emphasised treating the underlying cause rather than the cough, this being most prominent in Japan. Experts as a group focussed on chronic cough independently. Evaluation of the respiratory system, GI tract and upper airway (ENT) for establishing an underlying cause was recommended. Type of cough (productive vs non-productive) and impact on quality of life influenced treatment initiation. 33% of patients with ICC were prescribed anti-tussives. With associated diagnoses of COPD, IPF or lung cancer the emphasis was on treating the underlying condition. Alternatives to pharmacological treatments were frequently considered. CONCLUSION: There is significant international variation in our understanding and management of chronic cough. Further work is required to bring forth clear guidance and effective medicines for these patients.

TRPV1 inhibition does not prevent cold dry air-elicited symptoms in non-allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: The transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1)-expressing sensory C-fibers may play a role in the development of nasal hyper-responsiveness and symptoms of non-allergic rhinitis (NAR). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a TRPV1-antagonist, SB-705498, on cold dry air (CDA)-induced symptoms in patients with NAR. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study evaluated 14 days of once daily, topical intranasal SB-705498 12 mg in 40 patients with NAR using a CDA challenge experimental model in an environmental exposure chamber (EEC, Cetero Research, Mississauga, Ontario). The primary endpoint was total symptom score (TSS), expressed as weighted mean over 60 minutes (WM0-60) or maximum TSS at 1 hour and 24 hours postdosing. RESULTS: Treatment with SB-705498, relative to placebo, did not improve WM0-60 or maximum TSS at 1 hour and 24 hours post-dosing on days 1 or 14. Mean (95% CI) treatment differences (SB-705498 - placebo) on day 14 were, for WM0-60 at 1 hour: -0.12 (-0.60, 0.36); for maximum TSS at 1 hour: -0.03 (-0.58, 0.51). SB-705498 had no impact on any other efficacy parameters. SB-705498 was well tolerated and pharmacokinetics analysis supported the dosing regimen. CONCLUSION: SB-705498 12 mg for 14 days did not alleviate the CDA-induced symptoms of NAR. Despite engagement of the TRPV1 receptor, there was no translation to clinical efficacy, suggesting redundancy in symptom pathways.

The effects of a TRPV1 antagonist, SB-705498, in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Current pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis (AR) does not totally ameliorate all symptoms for all patients. Residual symptoms could be due to nasal neuronal hyperresponsiveness caused by stimulation of the ion channel transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1). SB-705498 is a TRPV1 antagonist that has been developed in an intranasal formulation for treatment of AR. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, 3-way incomplete block crossover study evaluated the effects of 8 days treatment with SB-705498 12 mg alone, SB-705498 12 mg plus fluticasone propionate 200 µg (FP), FP 200 µg alone or placebo on allergen-induced symptoms in 70 patients with AR. The primary endpoint was total nasal symptom score (TNSS), expressed as mean over 4 hours or maximum TNSS during allergen challenge in the Vienna Challenge Chamber on 8th day of treatment. RESULTS: At the end of treatment, there were no differences in allergen-induced mean TNSS between SB-705498 alone and placebo or between SB-705498 plus FP and FP alone. Treatment with FP and SB-705498 plus FP resulted in a significant decrease in TNSS vs. placebo. Mean (90% CI) treatment differences in TNSS over 0 - 4 hours were: SB-705498 - placebo: -0.2 (-0.9, 0.4); SB-705498 plus FP - FP: 0.7 (0.2, 1.2); FP - placebo: -2.9 (-3.4, -2.5); SB-705498 plus FP - placebo: -2.3 (-2.8, -1.8). SB-705498 had no impact on diary card symptoms, nasal airflow or Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores. SB-705498 was well tolerated and pharmacokinetics exposure results supported the dosing regimen. CONCLUSION: SB-705498 12 mg for 8 days did not alleviate the allergen-induced symptoms of AR, or provide additional relief of symptoms when in combination with FP. Despite engagement of the TRPV1 receptor there was no translation to clinical efficacy, suggesting redundancy in symptom pathways.

Clinical expert panel on monitoring potential lung toxicity of inhaled oligonucleotides: consensus points and recommendations.

Oligonucleotides (ONs) are an emerging class of drugs being developed for the treatment of a wide variety of diseases including the treatment of respiratory diseases by the inhalation route. As a class, their toxicity on human lungs has not been fully characterized, and predictive toxicity biomarkers have not been identified. To that end, identification of sensitive methods and biomarkers that can detect toxicity in humans before any long term and/or irreversible side effects occur would be helpful. In light of the public's greater interests, the Inhalation Subcommittee of the Oligonucleotide Safety Working Group (OSWG) held expert panel discussions focusing on the potential toxicity of inhaled ONs and assessing the strengths and weaknesses of different monitoring techniques for use during the clinical evaluation of inhaled ON candidates. This white paper summarizes the key discussions and captures the panelists' perspectives and recommendations which, we propose, could be used as a framework to guide both industry and regulatory scientists in future clinical research to characterize and monitor the short and long term lung response to inhaled ONs.

Evaluation of oral corticosteroids and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor on the acute inflammation induced by inhaled lipopolysaccharide in human.

BACKGROUND: Endotoxins are pro-inflammatory substances present in the environment. In man, inhalation of its purified derivative lipopolysaccharide (LPS) induces inflammation related to macrophages and neutrophils. Corticosteroids and phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors have inhibiting effects on macrophages and neutrophils, respectively. This study investigated the effect of prednisolone and of the PDE-4 inhibitor cilomilast on the LPS-induced acute inflammation. METHODS: The study was a placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover design. On three occasions, at 2 weeks interval, 16 healthy subjects inhaled 50 microg LPS after a 6-day treatment with cilomilast (15 mg bd), prednisolone (10 mg bd) or placebo. For the assessment of the inflammatory response, induced sputum was obtained before inclusion and 6h post-LPS while blood samples were collected before, 6 and 24 h post-LPS. RESULTS: Inhaled LPS induced an increase in sputum neutrophils (p<0.0001), logMMP-9 (p<0.05), logMMP-9/TIMP-1 (p<0.01) and logTNF-alpha (p<0.02). At the blood level there were significant rise in neutrophilia (p<0.001), E-selectin (p<0.02), C-reactive protein (CRP) (p<0.001) and LPS-binding protein (p<0.001). There was both a slight, but not significant, increase in body temperature and decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)). Neither prednisolone nor cilomilast had protective effect on the LPS-induced airways' inflammation. The LPS-induced CRP acute-phase protein of inflammation (0.58+/-0.13 and 3.52+/-0.41 mg/dL, before and after LPS, respectively) was significantly inhibited by a pre-treatment with prednisolone (1.39+/-0.32 mg/dL, p<0.01) and attenuated (2.65+/-0.30 mg/dL, p=0.09) with cilomilast. CONCLUSION: In healthy subjects, while the LPS-induced airways' inflammation was not modified either by oral prednisolone or by PDE-4 inhibitor cilomilast (at actual dosage), the LPS-induced acute phase of blood inflammation was reduced by prednisolone.

Effects of cilomilast, a selective phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, on esophageal motility and pH, and orocecal and colonic transit: two single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-part crossover studies in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Phase IIb studies have reported that cilomilast, a selective phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor being developed for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, is associated with gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects (AEs) in a small proportion (approximately 5%) of individuals. OBJECTIVES: The aims of these 2 studies were to investigate the effects of cilomilast 15 mg BID on: (1) lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP) and esophageal body motility and pH (study 1); and (2) orocecal and whole-gut transit times (OCTT and WGTT, respectively) (study 2) in healthy volunteers. METHODS: These 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-part crossover studies were conducted at the Neurogastroenterology Unit, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom (study 1) and GlaxoSmithKline, Harlow, United Kingdom (study 2). In study 1, subjects were randomly assigned to receive either cilomilast (15 mg BID) or matched placebo (control) for 7 days (13 doses; subjects were not given the evening dose on day 7), and in study 2, cilomilast (15 mg BID) or matched placebo (control) for 9 days (18 doses) in each of 2 treatment periods. After study drug administration, combined esophageal motility and pH were recorded for 2 hours before and 4 hours after the administration of a standardized meal (2400 kJ [573 kcal]). Sequences of 6 consecutive 5-mL water swallows (separated by 20 seconds) were carried out 60 and 90 minutes (fasting) and 150, 180, 210, 240, 300, and 360 minutes (fed) after study drug administration. OCTT was determined from the increase in breath hydrogen after the meal. WGTT was determined from the time taken to excrete at least 16 of 20 ingested radiopaque markers, ingested as 2 capsules, each containing 10 radiopaque markers, with 240 mL of water. AEs were elicited at specified times throughout each session using nonleading questions, spontaneously reported AEs, and diary cards. RESULTS: Study 1 enrolled 20 subjects (11 men, 9 women; age range, 20-52 years). Study 2 enrolled 16 subjects (10 men, 6 women; age range, 19-48 years). No clinically significant differences in the amplitude (mean difference in postprandial-preprandial AUC0-t/t, 6.09 mm Hg; 95% CI, -10.66 to 22.84), duration (difference, -0.08 second; 95% CI, -0.54 to 0.37), or velocity of propagation (difference, 0.90 cm/s; 95% CI, -0.66 to 2.46) of esophageal contractions, LESP (difference, -0.39 mm Hg; 95% CI, -5.23 to 4.45), or preprandial or postprandial percentage time pH<4 (median differences: preprandial, 0.47% [95% CI, -0.45 to 1.27]; postprandial, -0.005% [95% CI, -1.30 to 6.27]) were found with cilomilast compared with placebo. No significant differences in OCTT (difference, -0.37 hour; 95% CI, -1.59 to 0.84) or WGTT (difference, -2.96 hours; 95% CI, -20.76 to 14.84) were found with cilomilast compared with controls. In both studies, the most frequently reported AEs with cilomilast use were nausea (8/18 in study 1 and 3/16 in study 2) and headache (8/18 in study 1 and 6/16 in study 2); however, these were generally of mild to moderate intensity. Overall, GI AEs did not correlate with changes in GI motility. CONCLUSION: The results of these 2 studies suggest that cilomilast was not associated with significant changes in esophageal motility and pH or GI transit in these healthy volunteers.

Lack of pharmacokinetic interactions between cilomilast and theophylline or smoking in healthy volunteers.

The pharmacokinetic profile of cilomilast (Ariflo), a selective phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor, was investigated in three separate studies. Two of these studies explored the drug interaction potential of cilomilast with the nonselective PDE inhibitor, theophylline, and a third study compared the pharmacokinetic profile of cilomilast in smokers and nonsmokers. Repeated administration of cilomilast had no effect on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of theophylline in either a pilot dose-ranging or definitive therapeutic study. At therapeutic doses, the point estimate and 90% confidence interval for theophylline AUC(0-12) and C(max) were completely contained within the range (0.8, 1.25). Similarly, repeated administration of theophylline had little clinically relevant effect on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of cilomilast when compared to placebo, as only slight average increases in cilomilast AUC(0-12) and C(max) (6% and 3%, respectively) were observed. In addition, mean cilomilast exposure (AUC(0- infinity )) was found to be similar in both smokers and nonsmokers (8.47 +/- 2.20 microg*h/mL and 7.70 +/- 2.25 microg*h/mL, respectively). Throughout all three studies, cilomilast was well tolerated, and concomitant use of these selective and nonselective inhibitors, although unlikely in the clinic, is hypothetically feasible. Taken together, these studies clearly differentiate cilomilast from theophylline for drug-drug liability issues in a smoker and nonsmoker population, as well as highlight the potential to switch from one drug to another without undue clinical concern.