Characteristics of Users and New Initiators of Single- and Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Germany.

Purpose: To assess patient characteristics of users and new initiators of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Germany. Patients and Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with COPD and ≥1 prescription for single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT; fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI] or beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol [BDP/GLY/FOR]) or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT), using data from the AOK PLUS German sickness fund (1 January 2015-31 December 2019). The index date was the first date of prescription for FF/UMEC/VI or BDP/GLY/FOR (SITT users), or the first date of overlap of inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting ß2-agonist, and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (MITT users). Two cohorts were defined: the prevalent cohort included all identified triple therapy users; the incident cohort included patients newly initiating triple therapy for the first time (no prior use of MITT or SITT in the last 2 years). Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were assessed on the index date and during the 24-month pre-index period. Results: In total, 18,630 patients were identified as prevalent triple therapy users (MITT: 17,945; FF/UMEC/VI: 700; BDP/GLY/FOR: 908; non-mutually exclusive) and 2932 patients were identified as incident triple therapy initiators (MITT: 2246; FF/UMEC/VI: 311; BDP/GLY/FOR: 395; non-mutually exclusive). For both the prevalent and incident cohorts, more than two-thirds of patients experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the preceding 24 months; in both cohorts more BDP/GLY/FOR users experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation, compared with FF/UMEC/VI and MITT users. Overall, 97.9% of prevalent triple therapy users and 86.4% of incident triple therapy initiators received maintenance treatment in the 24-month pre-index period. Conclusion: In a real-world setting in Germany, triple therapy was most frequently used after maintenance therapy in patients with recent exacerbations, in line with current treatment recommendations.

Triple therapy (a combination of three different respiratory inhaled medications) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience repeated short-term symptom flare-ups when taking dual therapy (a combination of two different respiratory medications). Previously, patients had to take triple therapy using two or three separate inhalers. More recently, single-inhaler triple therapies have been developed, meaning patients can take all three different medications at the same time via one single inhaler. This study assessed the characteristics of patients who were already receiving triple therapy, or who started triple therapy (either via multiple inhalers or a single inhaler), in Germany between January 2015 and December 2019. In total, 18,630 patients who were already receiving triple therapy during the study period, and 2932 patients who newly started using triple therapy were included. The study reported that more than two-thirds of included patients had experienced at least one flare-up of COPD symptoms in the 2 years before starting triple therapy. Most patients had also received another therapy for COPD before starting triple therapy. A small proportion of patients started taking triple therapy after receiving no other therapy for COPD in the previous 2 years. The results of the study suggest that triple therapy for COPD in Germany is most often used in accordance with recommendations (patients already receiving therapy and experiencing repeated symptom flare-ups).

Real-World Effectiveness of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Symptomatic COPD: The ELLITHE Non-Interventional Trial.

Purpose: Real-life effectiveness data on once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (odSITT) with the inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate (FF), the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC), and the long-acting ß2-agonist vilanterol (VI) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are important to complement evidence from well-controlled randomized clinical trials. Effectiveness of odSITT was quantified by assessing health status and symptoms in usual care. Patients and Methods: ELLITHE was a single-country (Germany), multicenter, open-label, non-interventional effectiveness study between 2020 and 2022, evaluating the effect of treatment initiation with FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg once-daily via the ELLIPTA inhaler on improvements in clinical outcomes versus baseline in COPD patients. The primary endpoint was the change in the total COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score between baseline and month 12. Key secondary endpoints included change in CAT score over time, occurrence of exacerbations until month 12, changes in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), inhaler adherence, and safety. Results: Nine hundred and six patients were included (age 66.6 years, 55.6% male, mean FEV1 52.6% of predicted, mean CAT 21.5 units, 1.4 exacerbations/year pre-study). About 63.9% of patients were escalated from dual therapies, and 18% were switched from multiple-inhaler triple therapies. Reductions in CAT score at month 12 were statistically significant and above the threshold of clinical importance (-2.6 units; p < 0.0001). CAT score also improved at interim visits. CAT improvements were more pronounced in patients with high baseline scores and better inhaler adherence. Exacerbations during follow-up were rare (0.2 events/year) compared to pre-study (1.4 events/year). FEV1 was improved by 93 mL (p < 0.0001). No new safety effects were observed. Conclusion: In usual care, treatment with odSITT resulted in significant and clinically relevant improvements of CAT score and FEV1 in COPD patients, regardless of the occurrence of exacerbations. These findings challenge the current guideline recommendations for SITT only in patients experiencing exacerbations.

Impact of guideline awareness on the counseling of patients with acute cough among general practitioners and pharmacy personnel.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the awareness and knowledge of applicable guidelines on acute cough among general practitioners, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians and to compare their recommendation behavior and clinical decision making to the evidence-based recommendation in the applicable guidelines. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was performed among 303 members of an existing panel of healthcare professionals (HCPs). They were presented with a hypothetical case vignette representative of their daily practice and asked for their treatment recommendations. After being shown an excerpt from the applicable guidelines, these questions were repeated. RESULTS: Forty-six % of participants reported to seek information on cough and respiratory conditions very often or often. Among 12 non-prescription treatments-commonly used over-the-counter-products for acute cough, HCPs most often recommended various plant extract-based products (phytotherapeutic remedies) for the acute cough case, whereas chemically defined options such as ambroxol or N-acetyl-cysteine were recommended less often. Following presentation of the guidelines excerpt, recommendations of the phytotherapeutic remedies decreased moderately whereas that of the guideline-recommended ambroxol more than doubled. Among stated reasons for the recommendation guideline conformity increased from 5% to 35% among the top-3 reasons. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations for the treatment of acute cough by professionals involved in primary healthcare deviated considerably from the applicable guideline recommendation but changed after presentation of a guidelines excerpt and knowledge thereof. We conclude that dissemination of applicable guideline knowledge is relevant to improve evidence-based healthcare and clinical decision making.

INTREPID: single- versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy for COPD in usual clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world trial data comparing single- with multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in COPD patients are currently lacking. The effectiveness of once-daily single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) and MITT were compared in usual clinical care. METHODS: INTREPID was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase IV effectiveness study comparing FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg via the ELLIPTA inhaler with a clinician's choice of any approved non-ELLIPTA MITT in usual COPD clinical practice in five European countries. Primary end-point was proportion of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) responders (≥2-unit decrease in CAT score from baseline) at week 24. Secondary end-points in a subpopulation included change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and percentage of patients making at least one critical error in inhalation technique at week 24. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: 3092 patients were included (FF/UMEC/VI n=1545; MITT n=1547). The proportion of CAT responders at week 24 was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13-1.51; p<0.001) and mean change from baseline in FEV1 was significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI (77 mL versus 28 mL; treatment difference 50 mL, 95% CI 26-73 mL; p<0.001). The percentage of patients with at least one critical error in inhalation technique was low in both groups (FF/UMEC/VI 6%; non-ELLIPTA MITT 3%). Safety profiles, including incidence of pneumonia serious adverse events, were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In a usual clinical care setting, treatment with once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI resulted in significantly more patients gaining health status improvement and greater lung function improvement versus non-ELLIPTA MITT.

Pulmonary Therapy Podcast-COVID-19: Research and Real-World Experiences from the Editorial Board.

The Editorial Board have prepared a podcast describing their experiences over the past year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Editorial Board describe how COVID-19 impacted their research and how the initial clinical response changed over the course of the year in terms of treatment, personal protective equipment (PPE), and policy changes. The podcast and transcript can be viewed below the abstract of the online version of the manuscript. Alternatively, the podcast and transcript can be downloaded here: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14402291 Pulmonary Therapy Podcast-COVID-19: Research and Real-World Experiences from the Editorial Board (MP4 160260 KB).

Comparison of Dry-Powder Inhaler and Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler Formulations of Extrafine Beclomethasone Dipropionate/Formoterol Fumarate/Glycopyrronium in Patients with COPD: The TRI-D Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Three 52-week studies in COPD have assessed the efficacy and safety of single-inhaler extrafine formulation triple therapy combining beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), formoterol fumarate (FF) and glycopyrronium (G) delivered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI). BDP/FF/G is now being developed for delivery via multi-dose dry-powder inhaler (DPI; NEXThaler). This study aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority of BDP/FF/G DPI vs pMDI for lung function. METHODS: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, three-way cross-over study in patients with COPD and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 30-80% predicted. Patients received BDP/FF/G 100/6/10µg via DPI and pMDI, and BDP/FF 100/6µg via pMDI, all two inhalations twice daily for four weeks, with treatments separated by two-week washout. The two co-primary objectives were to demonstrate non-inferiority between the two BDP/FF/G formulations for FEV1 area under the curve between 0 and 12 hours post-dose (AUC0-12h) normalized by time and trough FEV1 at 24 hours, both on Day 28. EudraCT 2017-004405-41. RESULTS: Of 449 patients screened, 366 were randomized, with 342 (93.4%) completing all three treatment periods. The primary objectives were met, with changes from baseline in FEV1 AUC0-12h and trough FEV1 on Day 28 similar for the two BDP/FF/G formulations, and the confidence intervals for the difference lying entirely within the pre-specified non-inferiority criterion (-50mL): -20 (-35, -6) mL and 3 (-15, 20) mL for AUC0-12h and trough FEV1, respectively. BDP/FF/G pMDI and DPI were statistically superior to BDP/FF for these endpoints (p<0.001). A similar proportion of patients experienced adverse events with each treatment (15.5%, 18.7% and 15.4% with BDP/FF/G DPI and pMDI, and BDP/FF, respectively); the majority were mild or moderate, with few related to treatment. CONCLUSION: Extrafine BDP/FF/G DPI and pMDI demonstrated similar efficacy and safety in patients with COPD, supporting the DPI formulation as a valid alternative.

Pulmonary Therapy 2020 Update and Podcast: Meet the Journal's Editors-in-Chief.

The Editors-in-Chief of Pulmonary Therapy have prepared podcasts summarizing their current research, recent highlights from the field, and future predictions. Audio-only versions and the transcripts can be downloaded here: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11938863. Following this is a written summary of the journal's recent developments and the transcripts from the podcasts.

Sputum and blood transcriptomics characterisation of the inhaled PDE4 inhibitor CHF6001 on top of triple therapy in patients with chronic bronchitis.

BACKGROUND: Although phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitors have been shown to reduce COPD exacerbation rate, their biological mechanism of action is not completely elucidated at the molecular level. We aimed to characterise the whole genome gene expression profile of the inhaled PDE4-inhibitor CHF6001 on top of triple therapy in sputum cells and whole blood of patients with COPD and chronic bronchitis. METHODS: Whole genome gene expression analysis was carried out by microarray in 54 patients before and after 32 days treatment with CHF6001 800 and 1600 µg and placebo twice daily (BID) in a randomised crossover study. RESULTS: CHF6001 had a strong effect in sputum, with 1471 and 2598 significantly differentially-expressed probe-sets relative to placebo (p-adjusted for False Discovery Rate < 0.05) with 800 and 1600 µg BID, respectively. Functional enrichment analysis showed significant modulation of key inflammatory pathways involved in cytokine activity, pathogen-associated-pattern-recognition activity, oxidative stress and vitamin D with associated inhibition of downstream inflammatory effectors. A large number of pro-inflammatory genes coding for cytokines and matrix-metalloproteinases were significantly differentially expressed for both doses; the majority (> 87%) were downregulated, including macrophage inflammatory protein-1-alpha and 1-beta, interleukin-27-beta, interleukin-12-beta, interleukin-32, tumour necrosis factor-alpha-induced-protein-8, ligand-superfamily-member-15, and matrix-metalloproteinases-7,12 and 14. The effect in blood was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled PDE4 inhibition by CHF6001 on top of triple therapy in patients with COPD and chronic bronchitis significantly modulated key inflammatory targets and pathways in the lung but not in blood. Mechanistically these findings support a targeted effect in the lung while minimising unwanted systemic class-effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, EudraCT, 2015-005550-35. Registered 15 July 2016.

Effect of the inhaled PDE4 inhibitor CHF6001 on biomarkers of inflammation in COPD.

BACKGROUND: CHF6001 is a novel inhaled phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor. This Phase IIa study assessed the effects of CHF6001 on markers of inflammation in induced sputum and blood in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This was a multicentre, three-period (each 32 days), three-way, placebo-controlled, double-blind, complete-block crossover study. Eligible patients had COPD, chronic bronchitis, and were receiving inhaled triple therapy for ≥2 months. Patients received CHF6001 800 or 1600 µg, or matching placebo twice daily via multi-dose dry-powder inhaler (NEXThaler). Induced sputum was collected pre-dose on Day 1, and post-dose on Days 20, 26 and 32. Blood was sampled pre-dose on Day 1, and pre- and post-dose on Day 32. RESULTS: Of 61 randomised patients, 54 (88.5%) completed the study. There were no significant differences between groups for overall sputum cell count, or absolute numbers of neutrophils, eosinophils or lymphocytes. CHF6001 800 µg significantly decreased the absolute number and percentage of macrophages vs placebo. In sputum, compared with placebo both CHF6001 doses significantly decreased leukotriene B4, C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 8, macrophage inflammatory protein 1ß, matrix metalloproteinase 9, and tumour necrosis factor α (TNFα). In blood, both CHF6001 doses significantly decreased serum surfactant protein D vs placebo. CHF6001 1600 µg significantly decreased TNFα ex-vivo (after incubation with lipopolysaccharide). CONCLUSION: The data from this study show that CHF6001 inhaled twice daily has anti-inflammatory effects in the lungs of patients with COPD already treated with triple inhaled therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03004417 ).

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.

Characterization of differential patient profiles and therapeutic responses of pharmacy customers for four ambroxol formulations.

BACKGROUND: Ambroxol relieves cough symptoms based on its secretagogue, anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant, anti-bacterial, anti-viral, immunomodulatory and local anesthetic effects. The present study was designed to explore differential patient profiles and efficacy against acute respiratory symptoms of four formulations registered as over-the-counter medicines. METHODS: Nine hundred sixty-five pharmacy customers purchasing one of four branded ambroxol formulations (extended release capsules, adult syrup, pediatric syrup and soft pastilles) filled a questionnaire including a patient-adapted version of the Bronchitis Severity Scale, several questions on degree of impairment by acute cough, time to onset of symptom relief and duration of treatment. Data on pediatric syrup users were entered by their parents. Based on the exploratory character of the study, no hypothesis-testing statistical analysis was applied. RESULTS: Users of the pediatric syrup and the pastilles reported somewhat less severe baseline symptoms. The patient-adapted Bronchitis Severity Scale proved feasible as a self-administered tool. Among BSS items, ambroxol formulations improved chest pain while coughing to the largest and sputum to smallest degree (- 75% vs. -40%). Reported efficacy was comparable among formulations with minor differences in favor of the pediatric syrup. Time to onset of symptom relief was less than 60 min in more than 90% of patients and occurred prior to known systemic tmax. Time to onset was the parameter with the greatest differences between formulations, being reported fastest with pastilles and pediatric syrup and, as expected, slowest with extended release capsules. All ambroxol formulations were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that over-the-counter formulations of ambroxol exhibit comparable user profiles and efficacy. Differences in speed of onset of symptom relief may involve not only those in systemic pharmacokinetics but also local anesthetic effects of immediate release formulations. Differences between pediatric and adult syrup may in part reflect reporting bias.

Correction to: Long-acting bronchodilators improve exercise capacity in COPD patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In the original publication [1] is an incorrect sentence in the abstract under Conclusions.

Long-acting bronchodilators improve exercise capacity in COPD patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim to evaluate the efficacy of longacting bronchodilators on exercise capacity in COPD patients. Methods: The endpoints were the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators (altogether, and by single classes) vs. placebo in modifying endurance time (ET), inspiratory capacity (IC) and dyspnea during exercise, taking into consideration the outcomes according to different patients' inclusion criteria and exercise methodology. Results: Twenty-two studies were deemed eligible for analysis. Weighted mean increase in ET resulted of 67 s (95% CI ranges from 55 to 79). For isotime IC and dyspnea during exercise, weighted improvements were 195 ml (162­229), and − 0.41 units (− 0.56 to − 0.27), respectively. The increase in trough IC was 157 ml (138­175). We found a trend in favour of LAMA compared to LABA in terms of ET. In the 11 studies which reported a value of functional residual capacity > 120% as inclusion criterion, weighted mean increase in endurance time was 94 s (65 to 123); however we did not find any significant correlation between ET and mean trough IC (P: 0.593). The improvement of ET in the 5 studies using walking as exercise methodology resulted of 58 s (− 4 to 121). Conclusions: Long-acting bronchodilators improve exercise capacity in COPD. The main effect of long-acting bronchodilators seems to be a increase of basal IC rather than a modification of dynamic hyperinflation during exercise. The efficacy in terms of endurance time seems higher in studies which enrolled patients with hyperinflation, with a similar efficacy on walking or cycling.

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.

The lung function profile of once-daily tiotropium and olodaterol via Respimat(®) is superior to that of twice-daily salmeterol and fluticasone propionate via Accuhaler(®) (ENERGITO(®) study).

BACKGROUND: Tiotropium + olodaterol has demonstrated improvements beyond lung function benefits in a large Phase III clinical program as a once-daily maintenance treatment for COPD and may be a potential option for the initiation of maintenance treatment in COPD. Despite guideline recommendations that combined long-acting ß2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids should only be used in individuals at high risk of exacerbation, there is substantial use in individuals at lower risk. This raises the question of the comparative effectiveness of this combination as maintenance treatment in this group compared to other combination regimens. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess the effect on lung function of once-daily tiotropium + olodaterol versus twice-daily salmeterol + fluticasone propionate in all participants with Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2 or 3 (moderate to severe) COPD. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, four-treatment, complete crossover study in which participants received once-daily tiotropium + olodaterol (5/5 µg and 2.5/5 µg) via Respimat(®) and twice-daily salmeterol + fluticasone propionate (50/500 µg and 50/250 µg) via Accuhaler(®) for 6 weeks. The primary end point was change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 hour to 12 hours (AUC0-12) relative to the baseline after 6 weeks. RESULTS: Tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 µg and 2.5/5 µg demonstrated statistically significant improvements in FEV1 AUC0-12 compared to salmeterol + fluticasone propionate (improvements from baseline were 317 mL and 295 mL with tiotropium + olodaterol 5/5 µg and 2.5/5 µg, and 188 mL and 192 mL with salmeterol + fluticasone propionate 50/500 µg and 50/250 µg, respectively). Tiotropium + olodaterol was superior to salmeterol + fluticasone propionate in lung function secondary end points, including FEV1 area under the curve from 0 hour to 24 hours (AUC0-24). CONCLUSION: Once-daily tiotropium + olodaterol in participants with moderate-to-severe COPD provided superior lung function improvements to twice-daily salmeterol + fluticasone propionate. Dual bronchodilation can be considered to optimize lung function in individuals requiring maintenance treatment for COPD.

Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics Following Once-Daily and Twice-Daily Dosing of Tiotropium Respimat® in Asthma Using Standardized Sample-Contamination Avoidance.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to confirm the 24-hour bronchodilator efficacy and pharmacokinetic profile of once-daily tiotropium Respimat® 5 µg add-on to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in adults with symptomatic asthma. It used a trial protocol designed to minimize the risk of pharmacokinetic sample contamination resulting from improper sampling procedure, sample handling, or device handling during priming and subsequent inhalation procedure. METHODS: A Phase II, randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover study (NCT01696071) comparing two daily dosing regimens of tiotropium for 4 weeks, once-daily 5 µg (evening dosing) or twice-daily 2.5 µg (morning and evening dosing), as add-on to maintenance therapy with ICS (400-800 µg budesonide or equivalent) as controller medication. There was no washout between treatment periods. RESULTS: An increase in the area under the curve of the 24-hour forced expiratory volume in 1 second profile from study baseline was observed following once-daily tiotropium 5 µg (217 mL) and twice-daily 2.5 µg (219 mL), with no difference between the two regimens (-2 mL [95% confidence interval: -38, 34]). In a subset of the study population, total tiotropium exposure, expressed as area under the plasma concentration versus time curve over 24 hours, was comparable between dosing regimens. Unexpected tiotropium plasma levels were observed in two patients, possibly because of contamination. CONCLUSIONS: The observed bronchodilator efficacy over 24 hours was similar with once-daily tiotropium 5 µg and twice-daily 2.5 µg as add-on to ICS therapy, supporting the suitability of once-daily dosing to provide sustained improvements in lung function in adults with symptomatic asthma.

Dose-finding evaluation of once-daily treatment with olodaterol, a novel long-acting ß2-agonist, in patients with asthma: results of a parallel-group study and a crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Olodaterol is a novel, inhaled long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) with >24-hour duration of action investigated in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: Two multicentre studies examined the efficacy and safety of 4 weeks' once-daily (QD) olodaterol (2, 5, 10 and 20 µg, with background inhaled corticosteroids) in patients with asthma. One randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study (1222.6; 296 patients) administered treatment in the morning. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were performed pre-dose (trough) and ≤3 hours post-dose (weeks 1 and 2), and ≤6 hours post-dose after 4 weeks; primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) response (change from baseline mean FEV1) after 4 weeks. A second randomised, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled (formoterol 12 µg twice-daily) incomplete-block crossover study (1222.27; 198 patients) administered QD treatments in the evening. PFTs were performed over a 24-hour dosing interval after 4 weeks; primary end point was FEV1 area under the curve from 0-24 hours (AUC0-24) response (change from study baseline [mean FEV1] after 4 weeks). RESULTS: Study 1222.6 showed a statistically significant increase in trough FEV1 response with olodaterol 20 µg (0.147 L; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.059, 0.234; p = 0.001) versus placebo, with more limited efficacy and no evidence of dose response compared to placebo across the other olodaterol doses (2, 5 and 10 µg). Study 1222.27 demonstrated increases in FEV1 AUC0-24 responses at 4 weeks with all active treatments (p < 0.0001); adjusted mean (95 % CI) differences from placebo were 0.140 (0.097, 0.182), 0.182 (0.140, 0.224), 0.205 (0.163, 0.248) and 0.229 (0.186, 0.272) L for olodaterol 2, 5, 10 and 20 µg, respectively, and 0.169 (0.126, 0.211) for formoterol, providing evidence of increased efficacy with higher olodaterol dose. Olodaterol was generally well tolerated, with a few events associated with known sympathomimetic effects, mainly with 20 µg. CONCLUSIONS: The LABA olodaterol has >24-hour duration of action. In patients with asthma, evidence of bronchodilator efficacy was demonstrated with statistically and clinically significant improvements in the primary end point of trough FEV1 response measured in clinics over placebo for the highest administered dose of 20 µg in Study 1222.6, and statistically and clinically significant improvements versus placebo in FEV1 AUC0-24 responses at 4 weeks for all doses tested in Study 1222.27, which also exhibited a dose response. Bronchodilator efficacy was seen over placebo for all olodaterol doses for morning and evening peak expiratory flow in both studies. All doses were well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT00467740 (1222.6) and NCT01013753 (1222.27).

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study to investigate different dosing regimens of olodaterol delivered via Respimat® in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: A Phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial comparing the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) time profile after 3 weeks' treatment with once-daily (QD) or twice-daily (BID) olodaterol (at the same total daily dose) versus placebo delivered via Respimat® in patients with moderate to severe asthma. METHODS: Patients were randomised to different sequences of olodaterol with 2-week washout, either as a total daily dose of 5 µg (5 µg QD [AM] or 2.5 µg BID) or placebo, or 10 µg (10 µg QD [AM] or 5 µg BID) or placebo. Primary end point was FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) response (defined as change from study baseline FEV1) after 3 weeks. Key secondary end points were FEV1 AUC0-12 and AUC12-24 responses. RESULTS: Two hundred and six patients received treatment. All olodaterol treatments demonstrated statistically significant improvements in FEV1 AUC0-24 response at 3 weeks versus placebo (p < 0.0001); adjusted mean treatment difference versus placebo was 0.191 L for olodaterol 2.5 µg BID (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.152, 0.229), 0.150 L for 5 µg QD (95 % CI 0.111, 0.189), 0.228 L for 5 µg BID (95 % CI 0.190, 0.266) and 0.209 L for 10 µg QD (95 % CI 0.170, 0.247). These results were supported by the key secondary end points. Olodaterol 5 µg QD provided numerically lower mean values for 24-h bronchodilation than olodaterol 2.5 µg BID (p = 0.0465), with no statistically significant difference between treatment with olodaterol 10 µg QD and 5 µg BID. No relevant differences in morning and evening peak expiratory flow or Asthma Control Questionnaire scores at 3 weeks were observed between different doses and regimens. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate and comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: All doses and dose frequencies provided adequate 24-h bronchodilation superior to placebo. Based on the results of this study, it would be reasonable to include both posologies of 5 µg olodaterol daily (5 µg QD or 2.5 µg BID, both delivered in two puffs per dose from the Respimat® inhaler) in subsequent studies. Further studies are necessary to confirm the optimum dosing regimen in asthma. No safety concerns were identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01311661.