The Pharmacokinetics, Safety and Tolerability of Aclidinium Bromide 400 µg Administered by Inhalation as Single and Multiple (Twice Daily) Doses in Healthy Chinese Participants.

Purpose: To date, aclidinium pharmacokinetic (PK) studies have focused on Caucasian populations, and no data are available for Chinese populations. We aimed to characterize the PK and safety profile of aclidinium and its metabolites (LAS34823 and LAS34850) following single and multiple (twice-daily; BID) dosing in healthy Chinese participants, and to compare PK data between Chinese and Caucasian populations. Materials and methods: In this Phase I, open-label study (NCT03276052), healthy participants from a single site in China received aclidinium bromide 400 µg via a dry powder inhaler. The Day 1 single dose was followed by a washout period of 96 hours. On Days 5 through 8, participants received BID doses. Results: Twenty healthy Chinese participants, aged 18-45 years, were enrolled. Aclidinium absorption was rapid (median time to maximum concentration [tmax] 0.08 hours post-dose following single/multiple doses). LAS34823 had a similar median tmax of 0.08 hours, whereas LAS34850 tmax occurred later (median 2.50-3.00 hours). Aclidinium, LAS34823, and LAS34850 concentrations declined in a bi-phasic manner; geometric mean half-life was 13.5 hours (single dosing) and 21.4 hours (multiple dosing), while steady state was generally achieved after 5 days' continuous dosing. Area under the concentration-time curve during a dosage interval (AUCτ) metabolite to parent ratios for LAS34823 were 2.6 (Day 1) and 2.9 (Day 9), while LAS34850 had ratios of 136.0 and 94.8, respectively. Aclidinium accumulation occurred after 5 days of BID dosing (LS mean accumulation ratio for AUCτ Day 9/Day 1: 214.1% [90% CI, 176.5, 259.6]); LAS34823 accumulation was similar, while LAS34850 accumulation was lower. Between-participant exposure variability was moderate to high for aclidinium and LAS34823, and low for LAS34850. Conclusion: Single and multiple doses of aclidinium were well tolerated in healthy Chinese participants. The safety profile of and exposure to aclidinium was consistent with previous studies conducted in Caucasian populations.

Efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol versus monotherapies and aclidinium versus placebo in Chinese and other Asian patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: The AVANT Phase 3 study.

AVANT was a Phase 3, 24-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol 400 µg/12 µg combination vs monotherapies and aclidinium vs placebo (1:1:1:1) in Asian patients (∼70% of whom were Chinese) with moderate-to-severe stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Endpoints were analyzed hierarchically to incorporate type I error control. At Week 24, aclidinium/formoterol demonstrated improvements from baseline in 1-h morning post-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) vs aclidinium (least squares [LS] mean 92 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] 60, 124 mL; p < 0.001), and in trough FEV1 vs formoterol (LS mean 85 mL; 95% CI 53, 117 mL; p < 0.001). Furthermore, aclidinium provided improvements in trough FEV1 vs placebo (LS mean 134 mL; 95% CI 103, 166 mL; p < 0.001). There was an improvement in transition dyspnea index focal score at Week 24 for aclidinium/formoterol vs placebo (LS mean 0.8; 95% CI 0.2, 1.3; p = 0.005) but not for aclidinium vs placebo (LS mean 0.4; 95% CI -0.1, 1.0; p = 0.132). Improvements in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total scores occurred for aclidinium/formoterol vs placebo (LS mean -4.0; 95% CI -6.7, -1.4; p = 0.003) and aclidinium vs placebo (LS mean -2.9; 95% CI -5.5, -0.3; p = 0.031). Aclidinium/formoterol and aclidinium were well tolerated and safety findings were consistent with known profiles; rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) (aclidinium/formoterol: 54.8%; aclidinium: 47.4%; placebo: 53.9%), serious AEs (7.2, 7.9, and 7.8%, respectively), and AEs leading to discontinuation of study medication (2.3, 1.5, and 2.2%, respectively) were similar between groups.