Lebrikizumab in Uncontrolled Asthma: Reanalysis in a Well-Defined Type 2 Population.

BACKGROUND: LAVOLTA (L)I, LII, and ACOUSTICS were randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 trials of lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting IL-13 in patients with uncontrolled asthma. Failure to demonstrate efficacy may have been related to patient selection in those trials. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy in a well-defined subpopulation of patients with elevated blood eosinophil counts and a minimum number of prior asthma exacerbations. We performed an additional analysis in a subpopulation of patients with elevated FeNO and prior exacerbations. METHODS: Adult (LI and LII) and adolescent patients (aged 12-17 years weighing ≥40 kg, ACOUSTICS) with uncontrolled asthma received lebrikizumab (125 mg, n = 832; or 37.5 mg, n = 829) or placebo (n = 833) subcutaneously every 4 weeks. Post hoc analysis of the annualized adjusted exacerbation rate (AER) was performed in a subpopulation of patients with baseline blood eosinophils of 300 cells/µL or greater and history of one or more exacerbations. In this subpopulation, there were 227 patients in the placebo group, 222 in the lebrikizumab 37.5-mg group, and 217 in the lebrikizumab 125-mg group. We summarized safety in patients who received at least one dose of lebrikizumab using adverse events. RESULTS: Lebrikizumab significantly reduced AER compared with placebo in adults (AER reduction: 125 mg [38%]; and 37.5 mg [41%]) and adolescents (AER reduction:125 mg [59%]; 37.5 mg [64%]) with baseline blood eosinophils of 300 cells/µL or greater and one or more exacerbations. Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and did not lead to treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Lebrikizumab significantly reduced asthma exacerbations in a subpopulation of patients with elevated blood eosinophils, elevated FeNO, and a history of asthma exacerbation.

Long-term safety and efficacy studies of epinephrine HFA metered-dose inhaler (Primatene® Mist): a two-stage randomized controlled trial.

Objective: A new epinephrine hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) asthma metered-dose inhaler (MDI) was reformulated to replace the previously marketed epinephrine chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) MDI. In addition to the HFA propellant change, several enhanced modifications (i.e. changed from solution to suspension, 43% dose reduction, etc.) were made to the formulation of epinephrine HFA MDI. This study evaluates the 6-month long-term safety and efficacy profile of the new epinephrine HFA MDI.Method: The long-term safety study consists of two 3-month, multi-center, double- or evaluator-blinded, parallel-group, placebo, and active controlled stages. In each stage, subjects aged ≥12 years with intermittent or mild-to-moderate persistent asthma were randomized to receive epinephrine HFA (2 × 125 mcg/inhalation), placebo HFA, or epinephrine CFC (2 × 220 mcg/inhalation). Bronchodilator efficacy was assessed in Stage 1 and was determined primarily by the change in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ΔFEV1) at Week 12, relative to the same day baseline.Results: The primary efficacy endpoint (AUC0-6hrs of %ΔFEV1 at Week 12) for epinephrine HFA (47.3 ± 54.2) closely paralleled those for the active control, epinephrine CFC (41.0 ± 43.4). Both groups were found to be overall comparable in bronchodilator efficacy. Both also showed low incidence rates of AEs with tremor being most commonly reported for epinephrine HFA. All AEs found were non-serious and non-significant. The observed changes in vital signs, ECG, serum glucose, and potassium were minimal and not clinically relevant.Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the new epinephrine HFA is overall comparable, in both safety and efficacy, to the previous epinephrine CFC.

Nasal Carbon Dioxide Used As Needed in the Symptomatic Treatment of Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Nasal, noninhaled carbon dioxide (CO2) was shown to be effective for the treatment of symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and perennial allergic rhinitis in single application studies. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of as-needed treatment with nasal, noninhaled CO2 in patients with SAR. METHODS: Fifty-six ragweed-allergic patients were enrolled at 3 sites in this study. After a 3- to 7-day run-in, 32 eligible patients who had an instantaneous total nasal symptom score of 8 or more out of a maximum of 12 in at least 2 SAR episodes per day were randomized to the CO2 group (n = 19) or to the placebo group (n = 13). A 10-second/nostril application was used as needed for 14 days (maximum 6 times/d). Patients evaluated their symptoms before and 30 minutes after each application. All symptoms were scored on a 0 to 3 scale. RESULTS: Analysis of all treated episodes (CO2 = 816, placebo = 516) showed a statistically significant beneficial change in total nasal symptom score from baseline (effect size = -0.51; P < .001). The effect size was larger with more severe baseline symptoms (baseline severities of ≥6 = -0.98; ≥8 = -1.14; and ≥10 = -1.61; all P < .001). CO2 was well tolerated, with transient nasal discomfort as the most common adverse event reported. There were no serious adverse events, serious adverse device effects, or early discontinuations. CONCLUSIONS: Nasal, noninhaled CO2 is effective for the as-needed treatment of SAR symptoms. The effect is rapid and the effect size is large. It represents a novel potential option for the as-needed treatment of rhinitis symptoms.

Efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab in patients with uncontrolled asthma (LAVOLTA I and LAVOLTA II): replicate, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In phase 2 trials, lebrikizumab, an anti-interleukin-13 monoclonal antibody, reduced exacerbation rates and improved FEV1 in patients with uncontrolled asthma, particularly in those with high concentrations of type 2 biomarkers (eg, periostin or blood eosinophils). We undertook replicate phase 3 studies to assess the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids and at least one second controller medication. METHODS: Adult patients with uncontrolled asthma, pre-bronchodilator FEV1 40-80% predicted, and stable background therapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) with an interactive voice-web-based response system to receive lebrikizumab 37·5 mg or 125 mg, or placebo subcutaneously, once every 4 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by screening serum periostin concentration, history of asthma exacerbations within the last 12 months, baseline asthma medications, and country. The primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of asthma exacerbations over 52 weeks in biomarker-high patients (periostin ≥50 ng/mL or blood eosinophils ≥300 cells per µL), analysed with a Poisson regression model corrected for overdispersion with Pearson χ2 that included terms for treatment group, number of asthma exacerbations within the 12 months before study entry, baseline asthma medications, geographic region, screening periostin concentration, and blood eosinophil counts as covariates. Both trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, LAVOLTA I, number NCT01867125, and LAVOLTA II, number NCT01868061. FINDINGS: 1081 patients were treated in LAVOLTA I and 1067 patients in LAVOLTA II. Over 52 weeks, lebrikizumab reduced exacerbation rates in biomarker-high patients in the 37·5 mg dose group (rate ratio [RR] 0·49 [95% CI 0·34-0·69], p<0·0001) and in the 125 mg dose group (RR 0·70 [0·51-0·95], p=0·0232) versus placebo in LAVOLTA I. Exacerbation rates were also reduced in biomarker-high patients in both dose groups versus placebo in LAVOLTA II (37·5 mg: RR 0·74 [95% CI 0·54-1·01], p=0·0609; 125 mg: RR 0·74 [0·54-1·02], p=0·0626). Pooling both studies, the proportion of patients who experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (79% [1125 of 1432 patients] for both lebrikizumab doses vs 80% [576 of 716 patients] for placebo), serious adverse events (8% [115 patients] for both lebrikizumab doses vs 9% [65 patients] for placebo), and adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation (3% [49 patients] for both lebrikizumab doses vs 4% [31 patients] for placebo) were similar between lebrikizumab and placebo. The following serious adverse events were reported in the placebo-controlled period: one event of aplastic anaemia and five serious adverse events related to raised concentrations of eosinophils in patients treated with lebrikizumab and one event of eosinophilic pneumonia in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Lebrikizumab did not consistently show significant reduction in asthma exacerbations in biomarker-high patients. However, it blocked interleukin-13 as evidenced by the effect on interleukin-13-related pharmacodynamic biomarkers, and clinically relevant changes could not be ruled out. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Efficacy and Safety of Twice-Daily Glycopyrrolate Versus Placebo in Patients With COPD: The GEM2 Study.

Long-acting bronchodilators including muscarinic antagonists are central to the management of patients with COPD. The Glycopyrrolate Effect on syMptoms and lung function (GEM2) study assessed the efficacy and safety of twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg in patients with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation. This 12-week multicenter, double-blind study randomized (1:1) patients to glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg twice daily (b.i.d.) or placebo both delivered via the NeohalerTM device. The primary objective was superiority of glycopyrrolate compared with placebo for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) standardized area under curve (AUC) between 0 and 12 hours post dosing (FEV1 AUC0-12h)at week 12. Other outcomes included additional spirometry parameters, health status using St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), dyspnea via Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), rescue medication use and COPD symptoms reported by patients via the electronic diary. Safety was also assessed. Of the 432 patients randomized (glycopyrrolate, n=216; placebo, n=216), 96% completed the planned treatment phase. The study met its primary objective (superiority of glycopyrrolate compared with placebo for FEV1 AUC0-12h).Compared with placebo, glycopyrrolate showed significant improvements in lung function parameters (p<0.001). Health status (SGRQ total score and COPD assessment test), rescue medication use and daily total COPD symptom scores were significantly improved with glycopyrrolate versus placebo over 12 weeks. Improvements in dyspnea were observed with glycopyrrolate and placebo although the treatment difference was not statistically significant. Overall, differences in the incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events between the groups were not considered clinically meaningful. No deaths were reported. Twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements compared with placebo in lung function, COPD symptoms, health status, and rescue medication usage in COPD patients with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01715298.

Lebrikizumab in moderate-to-severe asthma: pooled data from two randomised placebo-controlled studies.

INTRODUCTION: In a subset of patients with asthma, standard-of-care treatment does not achieve disease control, highlighting the need for novel therapeutic approaches. Lebrikizumab is a humanised, monoclonal antibody that binds to and blocks interleukin-13 activity. METHODS: LUTE and VERSE were replicate, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, evaluating multiple doses of lebrikizumab in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite the use of medium-to-high-dose inhaled corticosteroid and a second controller. Patients received lebrikizumab 37.5, 125, 250 mg or placebo subcutaneously every four weeks. The primary endpoint was the rate of asthma exacerbations during the placebo-controlled period. Analyses were performed on prespecified subgroups based on baseline serum periostin levels. Following the discovery of a host-cell impurity in the study drug material, protocols were amended to convert from phase III to phase IIb. Subsequently, dosing of study medication was discontinued early as a precautionary measure. The data collected for analysis were from a placebo-controlled period of variable duration and pooled across both studies. RESULTS: The median duration of treatment was approximately 24 weeks. Treatment with lebrikizumab reduced the rate of asthma exacerbations, which was more pronounced in the periostin-high patients (all doses: 60% reduction) than in the periostin-low patients (all doses: 5% reduction); no dose-response was evident. Lung function also improved following lebrikizumab treatment, with greatest increase in FEV1 in periostin-high patients (all doses: 9.1% placebo-adjusted improvement) compared with periostin-low patients (all doses: 2.6% placebo-adjusted improvement). Lebrikizumab was well tolerated and no clinically important safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: These data are consistent with, and extend, previously published results demonstrating the efficacy of lebrikizumab in improving rate of asthma exacerbations and lung function in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma who remain uncontrolled despite current standard-of-care treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: The LUTE study was registered under NCT01545440 and the VERSE study under NCT01545453 at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Anti-interleukin 4 and 13 for asthma treatment in the era of endotypes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize recent advances in IL-4 and IL-13 blockade in the treatment of asthma. RECENT FINDINGS: Historically, anticytokine therapies have historically been unsuccessful in the treatment of asthma because of the heterogeneity of its pathogenesis. Recent advances in our understanding of asthma pathophysiology and our increased ability to phenotype patients have led to the identification of asthmatic subsets (endotypes) that are most likely to respond to anticytokine therapy. Several new biologic therapies targeting IL-13 or both IL-4 and IL-13 signaling are currently in clinical trials and both types of therapies have demonstrated therapeutic benefit. SUMMARY: Anti-IL-4/13 therapies, guided by knowledge of an individual's underlying pathophysiology, are a promising class of therapies for treatment of asthma.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (100/25 mcg) versus twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (250/50 mcg) in COPD patients.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) is an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA), recently approved as once-daily maintenance therapy for COPD. We compared the lung function effects of FF/VI with those of twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL). METHODS: Three 12 week studies comparing FF/VI and FP/SAL were conducted. Patients aged ≥40 years with moderate-to-very severe COPD were randomized to receive double-blind, double-dummy FF/VI 100/25 mcg once-daily, or FP/SAL 250/50 mcg twice-daily for 12 weeks following a 2 week placebo run-in period. The primary endpoint of each study was change from baseline trough in 0-24 h weighted mean FEV(1) (wmFEV(1)) on Day 84. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: In Study 1 (HZC113109) (intent-to-treat n: FF/VI = 260; FP/SAL = 259), the increase from baseline in 0-24 h wmFEV(1) was significantly greater with FF/VI than FP/SAL (Δ80 mL, P < 0.001). In Study 2 (HZC112352) (intent-to-treat n: FF/VI = 259; FP/SAL = 252) and Study 3 (RLV116974) (intent-to-treat n: FF/VI = 412; FP/SAL = 416), the increase from baseline in 0-24 h wmFEV(1) was not significantly greater with FF/VI than FP/SAL (Δ29 mL, P = 0.267; Δ25 mL, P = 0.137). The treatment difference was statistically but not clinically significant in a pooled analysis (Δ41 mL, P < 0.001). Pooled adverse events (FF/VI 27%; FP/SAL 28%) and serious adverse events (FF/VI 2%; FP/SAL 3%) were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg provides FEV(1) improvement in COPD that is at least comparable with that conferred by twice-daily FP/SAL 250/50 mcg, although interpretation is limited by differences in individual study outcomes. The safety profiles of FF/VI 100/25 mcg and FP/SAL 250/50 mcg are similar. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01323634; NCT01323621; NCT01706328. GlaxoSmithKline study codes: HZC113109; HZC112352; RLV116974.

Beclomethasone dipropionate nasal aerosol with an integrated dose counter: functionality and performance.

Consistent medication delivery is critical for disease control including symptom management of allergic rhinitis (AR). Available aqueous intranasal corticosteroid devices lack an accurate dose (actuation) counter, which may lead patients to prematurely discard a unit or use a unit beyond its labeled number of actuations, therefore impacting patient adherence. Beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) nasal aerosol, a nonaqueous hydrofluoroalkane formulation in a device with a novel integrated dose counter and an established efficacy/safety profile, was approved to treat AR-associated nasal symptoms in adolescent and adult patients. This study was designed to evaluate performance of the BDP nasal aerosol device with an integrated dose counter in perennial AR (PAR) patients. In a 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in PAR patients (≥12 years), patients were randomized to receive once-daily BDP nasal aerosol at 320 micrograms or placebo. In addition to assessing the primary efficacy end point, patients evaluated the performance of the device and reliability, accuracy, and functionality of the dose counter. Concordance between daily patient-reported actuations and dose counter readings was assessed by classifying discrepancies into four categories: "fire not count," "count not fire," "count unknown fire," and "count up unknown fire." Analysis was performed for the total device completer population (n = 374), which included all randomized patients completing ≥80% of actuations during the last 4 weeks of treatment. Low discrepancy rates were shown for all discrepancy categories. Of 41,891 patient-reported actuations, only 159 discrepancies (diary versus counter) were noted, resulting in an overall discrepancy rate of 0.38 per 100 actuations. The medically important discrepancy rate of "fire not count" was low (0.09 per 100 actuations). Overall, 79.1% of patients reported zero discrepancies, 9.4% reported one discrepancy, and 6.4% reported two discrepancies. These results showed the functionality and reliability of the BDP nasal aerosol device with an integrated dose counter in a clinical setting. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01134705.).

Dose-ranging study of lebrikizumab in asthmatic patients not receiving inhaled steroids.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a disease with marked heterogeneity in its clinical course and response to treatment. IL-13 is central to type 2 inflammation, which contributes to many key features of asthma. Lebrikizumab is an anti-IL-13 mAb previously reported to significantly improve lung function in patients with inadequately controlled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroid therapy, especially in periostin-high patients. OBJECTIVE: This phase II study investigated the efficacy and safety of IL-13 blockade with different doses of lebrikizumab in asthmatic patients not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive 125, 250, or 500 mg of lebrikizumab or placebo subcutaneously monthly for 12 weeks with an 8-week follow-up period. The primary efficacy end point was the relative change in prebronchodilator FEV1 from baseline to week 12. RESULTS: A total of 212 patients were randomized. The mean relative change in FEV1 was numerically higher in all lebrikizumab dose groups versus the placebo group, although the difference was neither statistically nor clinically significant. There were no meaningful differences in changes in FEV1 between the dose groups and the placebo group by the periostin subgroup. Lebrikizumab treatment was associated with a reduced risk of treatment failure at all doses versus placebo (P < .001), and results were similar by the periostin subgroup, with no apparent differences between doses of lebrikizumab. Lebrikizumab was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Blocking IL-13, a single cytokine, in this population of asthmatic patients is insufficient to improve lung function. There is evidence that IL-13 blockade may improve disease control, as measured by prevention of protocol-defined treatment failure in these patients.

Nasal carbon dioxide for the symptomatic treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Brief nasal carbon dioxide insufflation has previously been shown to provide rapid relief of the symptoms of allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety and efficacy of nasal carbon dioxide on the symptoms of perennial allergic rhinitis. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, in-clinic study that evaluated 2 flow rates (5 or 10 mL/s) and 2 administration durations (10 or 30 seconds per nostril) for nasal carbon dioxide vs placebo. Study participants rated their symptoms in clinic for 4 hours after administration and then through 24 hours outside the clinic. A total of 348 symptomatic patients with a minimum 2-year history of perennial allergic rhinitis requiring pharmacotherapy were randomized and treated. RESULTS: The mean change in total nasal symptom score from baseline at 30 minutes (the primary end point) showed greater improvement in the nasal carbon dioxide-treated groups compared with placebo. This change was statistically significant in the group treated with 10 mL/s for 10 seconds per nostril: -4.69 carbon dioxide vs -2.00 placebo (P = .03). The effect of a single dose lasted approximately 4 to 6 hours. The mean change from baseline at 30 minutes in total nonnasal symptom score was also statistically significant (-4.06 carbon dioxide vs -2.25 placebo, P = .029) for this group. The most common adverse events were nasal discomfort, lacrimation, and headache. CONCLUSION: The study provides further evidence that nasal carbon dioxide is a potentially efficacious treatment for the symptoms of allergic rhinitis.

Lebrikizumab treatment in adults with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with asthma have uncontrolled disease despite treatment with inhaled glucocorticoids. One potential cause of the variability in response to treatment is heterogeneity in the role of interleukin-13 expression in the clinical asthma phenotype. We hypothesized that anti-interleukin-13 therapy would benefit patients with asthma who had a pretreatment profile consistent with interleukin-13 activity. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody to interleukin-13, in 219 adults who had asthma that was inadequately controlled despite inhaled glucocorticoid therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the relative change in prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) from baseline to week 12. Among the secondary outcomes was the rate of asthma exacerbations through 24 weeks. Patient subgroups were prespecified according to baseline type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) status (assessed on the basis of total IgE level and blood eosinophil count) and serum periostin level. RESULTS: At baseline, patients had a mean FEV(1) that was 65% of the predicted value and were taking a mean dose of inhaled glucocorticoids of 580 µg per day; 80% were also taking a long-acting beta-agonist. At week 12, the mean increase in FEV(1) was 5.5 percentage points higher in the lebrikizumab group than in the placebo group (P = 0.02). Among patients in the high-periostin subgroup, the increase from baseline FEV(1) was 8.2 percentage points higher in the lebrikizumab group than in the placebo group (P = 0.03). Among patients in the low-periostin subgroup, the increase from baseline FEV(1) was 1.6 percentage points higher in the lebrikizumab group than in the placebo group (P = 0.61). Musculoskeletal side effects were more common with lebrikizumab than with placebo (13.2% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Lebrikizumab treatment was associated with improved lung function. Patients with high pretreatment levels of serum periostin had greater improvement in lung function with lebrikizumab than did patients with low periostin levels. (Funded by Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00930163 .).

A phase I randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-exploration study of single-dose inhaled montelukast in patients with chronic asthma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of oral montelukast has been well established in asthma and allergic rhinitis in adults and children. The purpose of this study was to evaluate dose-related bronchodilation and tolerability of inhaled montelukast. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, crossover, adaptive-design study comparing single-dose administration of inhaled montelukast versus placebo in patients age 15-65 years with chronic asthma (n = 68). Montelukast was delivered as a witnessed dose through dry powder inhaler at doses of 25, 250, or 1000 µg, and doses of 50, 100, and 500 µg could be used if needed based on a prespecified dose-response algorithm. Each administration was followed by a 4- to 7-day washout period before crossing over to the next treatment. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) over the first 4 hours after administration, calculated as a time-weighted average (ΔFEV1 [0-4 hours]). Other endpoints included the onset and duration of bronchodilation and the effect of albuterol when added to inhaled montelukast. RESULTS: Over 4 hours postdose, and compared with placebo (least-squares [LS] mean 0.03 L), inhaled montelukast 100 µg (0.13 L; p ≤ .001), 250 µg (0.10 L; p < .01), and 1000 µg (0.12 L; p ≤ .001) had significantly greater ΔFEV1 (0-4 hours). At 24 hours postdose, inhaled montelukast 100 µg (0.10 L) and 1000 µg (0.09 L) had significantly greater bronchodilation compared with placebo (0.02 L; p < .05 vs. montelukast). Montelukast 1000 µg provided significant bronchodilation versus placebo within 20 minutes of administration (0.03 L vs. -0.05 L), whereas montelukast 100 µg provided significant bronchodilation relative to placebo within 2 hours of dosing (0.09 L vs. 0.01 L). Montelukast (pooled doses) plus albuterol was significantly more effective than montelukast plus placebo for ΔFEV1 (0-90 minutes) (0.34 L vs. 0.15 L; p = .015). The tolerability of inhaled montelukast was similar to that of placebo. No serious adverse experiences were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled montelukast provided significant bronchodilation compared with placebo as early as 20 minutes after the administration that persisted for 24 hours and provided additive bronchodilation to albuterol.

Budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler for patients with persistent asthma.

The combination of budesonide and formoterol administered in one hydrofluoroalkane pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) is approved in the United States in two dosage strengths (budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations [160/9 microg] or 160/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations [320/9 microg]) in a fixed-dose, twice-daily regimen for the treatment of patients > or =12 years old with persistent asthma not adequately controlled with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) alone. This article reviews the clinical profile of budesonide/formoterol pMDI in patients with persistent asthma, including information on pharmacogenetics, efficacy, and tolerability. Studies of budesonide/formoterol pMDI in patients with asthma were identified through PubMed and respiratory meeting abstract databases. Budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/9 microg has shown a rapid onset (within 15 minutes) of clinically significant bronchodilation that is faster than fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) 250/50 microg (within 30 minutes). The efficacy and tolerability profile of budesonide/formoterol pMDI 320/9 microg was similar to fluticasone propionate/salmeterol DPI 250/50 microg and budesonide/formoterol DPI 320/9 microg in adults and adolescents with persistent asthma. Short-term (12-week) and long-term (6- to 12-month) studies have established greater efficacy and similar tolerability of budesonide/formoterol pMDI compared with its monocomponents and placebo in patients with mild/moderate or moderate/severe persistent asthma. Studies evaluating patient-reported outcomes, including health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction with treatment, further support the benefits of budesonide/formoterol pMDI in patients with persistent asthma. In summary, budesonide/formoterol pMDI is an effective, well-tolerated treatment option for patients with persistent asthma for whom ICS/long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist combination therapy is appropriate.

Ciclesonide and the treatment of asthma.

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD: Asthma is a chronic disease characterized by airway inflammation and hyper-responsiveness. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) constitute the guideline-recommended first-line therapy for persistent asthma. However, concerns regarding ICS-related adverse events may contribute to their underutilization by physicians and patients. AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW: The currently available published data on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties, safety and efficacy of the ICS, ciclesonide, is described. Peer-reviewed publications (1996 - 2009) on the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profile, safety and efficacy of ciclesonide were reviewed. WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN: Ciclesonide is delivered as an inactive prodrug, which is cleaved to the active molecule by intracellular esterases located in the lungs. This and other pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties may limit the amount of active molecule outside the lung and may reduce the incidence of side effects. Randomized placebo-controlled studies found that ciclesonide can initiate and maintain disease control in subjects with persistent asthma of all disease severities. Moreover, studies have found that ciclesonide is as effective as other ICSs in establishing and controlling disease symptoms. Controlled clinical trials also showed that ciclesonide is associated with minimal systemic and local treatment-related adverse events. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Published findings indicate that ciclesonide is effective at initiating and maintaining asthma control and is well tolerated, with a positive safety profile.

24-hour bronchodilator efficacy of single doses of indacaterol in patients with persistent asthma: comparison with placebo and formoterol.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the 24-h bronchodilator efficacy and safety of single-dose indacaterol in asthma. METHODS: This was a five-period, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover study in patients with persistent asthma. On separate study days, patients inhaled a single dose of indacaterol (150, 300 or 600 microg) in the morning via a single-dose dry powder inhaler (SDDPI), formoterol 12 microg twice daily via its proprietary SDDPI, or placebo. Study days were separated by a washout period of at least 6 days. RESULTS: Of the 45 patients randomized to treatment, 42 completed the study. The 24-h trough FEV(1) (primary endpoint) was significantly higher than placebo following all doses of indacaterol (mean [95% CI] differences of 0.11 [0.06, 0.16], 0.21 [0.17, 0.26] and 0.22 [0.18, 0.27] L for 150, 300, and 600 microg, respectively) and formoterol (by 0.13 [0.08, 0.18] L). The 24-h trough FEV(1) was significantly higher following indacaterol 300 and 600 microg than indacaterol 150 microg (by 0.11 [0.06, 0.15] and 0.12 [0.07, 0.17] L, respectively) or formoterol (by 0.08 [0.03, 0.13] L vs. 300 microg; by 0.09 [0.04, 0.14] L vs. 600 microg). Most adverse events were mild-to-moderate and transient. Examination of serum potassium, blood glucose, QTc interval, pulse rate, and blood pressure raised no concern over the safety of indacaterol. CONCLUSIONS: Single doses of indacaterol provided effective 24-h bronchodilation and were well tolerated in patients with persistent asthma. Safety findings were limited by non-standardized diet conditions in this study but suggest a minimal systemic treatment effect.

Efficacy and safety evaluation of ciclesonide in mild-to-moderate persistent asthma previously treated with inhaled corticosteroids.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are recommended as first-line treatment for persistent asthma. This study was designed to evaluate the ability of ciclesonide (CIC) in subjects with stable asthma previously receiving another ICS or ICS/long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) to maintain asthma disease control. In this 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, subjects aged > or =12 years with stable mild-to-moderate persistent asthma were switched at randomization from an ICS or ICS/LABA to CIC, 80 microg twice daily (CIC80 b.i.d.; n = 149); CIC, 160 microg once daily (CIC160 q.d.; n = 150); or placebo (n = 147). Change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1); primary end point), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue albuterol use, total asthma symptom score, nighttime awakenings, and safety were evaluated. FEV(1) improved from baseline to week 12 after CIC80 b.i.d. treatment (+0.07 L; p = 0.0232), and was maintained after CIC160 q.d. (+0.01 L; p = 0.6217). FEV(1) declined from baseline after placebo (-0.12 L; p < 0.0001) and significantly versus CIC treatments (p < 0.001). At week 12, morning PEF maintained baseline values after CIC80 b.i.d. (-4.43 L/minute; p = 0.1272) and decreased after CIC160 q.d. (-5.77 L/minute; p = 0.0490) and placebo (-12.82 L/minute; p < 0.0001); the difference between CIC80 b.i.d. and placebo was significant (p = 0.035). Baseline albuterol use, total daily asthma score, and nighttime awakenings were maintained after CIC treatments (p > 0.25), but increased after placebo (p < or = 0.002); the difference between CIC80 b.i.d. and placebo was significant (p < 0.02). Incidence of adverse events was similar among treatment groups (range, 52.0-57.9%). In this study, CIC80 b.i.d. maintained asthma control in subjects with stable mild-to-moderate asthma previously treated with ICS or ICS/LABA, was well tolerated, and, in general, was better than CIC160 q.d. in maintaining disease control.

Twelve-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of the efficacy and tolerability of budesonide and formoterol in one metered-dose inhaler compared with budesonide alone and formoterol alone in adolescents and adults with asthma.

BACKGROUND: The addition of the long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist formoterol to low- to moderate-dose budesonide has shown clinical efficacy in patients with persistent asthma. Combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol in 1 pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) has been found to have greater efficacy than its monocomponents in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma, but it has not been assessed in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of budesonide and formoterol delivered via 1 pMDI (budesonide/formoterol pMDI), budesonide pMDI, formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI), and placebo. METHODS: This 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-dummy study was conducted at 56 centers across the United States. Patients aged > or =12 years with mild to moderate persistent asthma treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for > or =4 weeks before screening and who had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) of > or =60% to < or =90% of predicted normal at screening were eligible. After 2 weeks (current asthma therapy discontinued), patients received twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (160/9 microg), budesonide pMDI 80 microg x 2 inhalations (160 microg), formoterol DPI 4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (9 microg), or placebo. The coprimary efficacy variables were changes from baseline in morning predose FEV(1) and 12-hour mean FEV(1) (from serial spirometry) after administration of the morning dose of study medication. Tolerability was assessed based on adverse events (AEs); routine laboratory assessments; electrocardiography; 24-hour Holter monitor assessments; and physical examinations, including vital signs (eg, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate). AEs were recorded manually by the patient in paper notebooks and reviewed at each clinic visit by the investigator and during a final follow-up phone call. RESULTS: A total of 480 patients were randomized (299 females, 181 males; mean age, 36 years; mean FEV(1), 2.4 L; budesonide/formoterol pMDI, 123 patients; budesonide pMDI, 121; formoterol DPI, 114; placebo, 122). At end of treatment, the mean increases from baseline in predose FEV(1) were greater with budesonide/formoterol pMDI versus budesonide pMDI, formoterol DPI, and placebo (0.37 vs 0.23, 0.17, and 0.03 L, respectively; all, P<0.005). 0.005). After administration of the first dose and at weeks 2 and 12, mean increases in 12-hour mean FEV(1) were significantly greater with budesonide/formoterol pMDI (0.41, 0.47, and 0.50 L, respectively) versus budesonide pMDI (0.17, 0.30, and 0.32 L) and placebo (0.15, 0.12, and 0.12 L) (all, P < 0.001). Fewer patients receiving budesonide/formoterol pMDI met criteria for (18.7%; P < 0.001) or withdrew because of (7.3%; P < or = 0.010) worsening asthma versus formoterol DPI (42.1% and 18.4%, respectively) and placebo (56.6% and 32.8%); results were similar between budesonide pMDI (21.5% and 6.6%, respectively) and budesonide/formoterol pMDI. Three patients experienced serious AEs; none was considered related to study medication. The proportions of withdrawals due to worsening asthma were not significantly different between the budesonide/formoterol pMDI and budesonide pMDI groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of adults and adolescents with mild to moderate persistent asthma previously treated with ICSs, twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI was associated with significantly increased pulmonary function versus its monocomponents. All study drugs were generally well tolerated.

The role of antileukotriene drugs in management of rhinitis and rhinosinusitis.

Antileukotriene drugs have been studied for more than 15 years. In this review we examine the role of leukotrienes in rhinitis and rhinosinusitis, and explore the clinical literature supporting the use of anti-leukotriene agents in these diseases. Although these medications clearly are efficacious in rhinitis, it is unclear where in the armamentarium they should be used. The evidence for use in sinusitis has not been well studied except in sinusitis-associated aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease. In this circumstance there is information that allows use of antileukotriene agents to be considered efficacious. We provide our rationale for use and await future clinical studies to answer this important question.