Safety, tolerance, and efficacy of posaconazole therapy in patients with nonmeningeal disseminated or chronic pulmonary coccidioidomycosis.

BACKGROUND: Coccidioidomycosis can be difficult to treat with available therapies, particularly in patients with progressive or disseminated disease. Posaconazole is a new azole antifungal with potent activity against Coccidioides species, the causative agent of coccidioidomycosis. METHODS: Twenty patients with chronic pulmonary or nonmeningeal disseminated coccidioidomycosis were enrolled in a multicenter trial to study the safety and tolerability of posaconazole therapy, with efficacy as a secondary end point. Patients received posaconazole (400 mg/day) in capsule formulation for up to 6 months. Safety was evaluated on the basis of the occurrence of adverse events. A satisfactory efficacy response was defined as a >or=50% reduction in the Mycoses Study Group score from baseline. RESULTS: Seventeen (85%) of 20 patients had a satisfactory response to treatment. The median duration of treatment was 173 days. Paired baseline and end-of-treatment culture results for Coccidioides species were available for 4 patients, all of whom converted from being positive to being negative for Coccidioides species. Relapse was experienced by 3 of 9 patients who did not receive antifungal therapy during the follow-up period. In general, posaconazole therapy was well tolerated, with 12 of 20 patients reporting adverse events that were possibly or probably related to treatment. The most common adverse events were dry mouth (in 5 patients [25%]) and headache (in 3 patients [15%]). CONCLUSIONS: Courses of posaconazole therapy that were up to 6 months in duration were well tolerated in patients with coccidioidomycosis. Although this study was limited by the number of patients enrolled, it clearly demonstrates that posaconazole shows promise in the treatment of patients with coccidioidomycosis and warrants additional investigation in a full-scale clinical trial.

Cardiac safety of formoterol 12 microg twice daily in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Some evidence suggests an increased risk of myocardial infarction and dysrhythmia events associated with beta(2)-agonist use in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the cardiac safety of formoterol and placebo in patients with COPD. METHODS: After a 3-14-day run-in, 204 patients were randomized to receive formoterol 12 microg dry powder inhalation or matching placebo twice daily for 8 weeks. Twenty four-hour continuous electrocardiography (Holter monitoring) was performed at screening and after 2 and 8 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Only a small number of patients met the predefined criteria for a proarrhythmic event (4 formoterol and 2 placebo patients). No patients had sustained postbaseline ventricular tachycardia events, postbaseline run of ventricular ectopic beats associated with relevant symptoms (e.g. hypotension, syncope), or an episode of ventricular flutter or fibrillation. Holter monitoring data were variable but showed no clinically meaningful differences between the formoterol and placebo groups, respectively, for variables such as (mean+/-SD at end of treatment): heart rate (80+/-8.6 vs. 80+/-10.6 bpm), number and rate of ventricular premature beats (total 732+/-2685.4 vs. 650+/-2090.6; rate 35+/-131.0 vs. 30+/-101.3 per h), ventricular tachycardia events (total 0.4+/-1.70 vs. 1.0+/-9.23; rate 0.02+/-0.082 vs. 0.05+/-0.479 per h), and supraventricular premature beats (total 504+/-1844.1 vs. 823+/-2961.8; rate 22+/-80.6 vs. 37+/-129.6 per h). Vital signs and electrocardiogram data, including corrected QT intervals (Bazett and Fridericia), were similar across treatment groups. The overall adverse event experience was similar in the formoterol (n=26 [27%]) and placebo (n=33 [31%]) groups. The most common adverse events, infections and respiratory events, were expected for this patient population. The incidence of cardiac adverse events was low (1 formoterol and 4 placebo patients). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study confirm the good cardiovascular safety profile of formoterol in patients with COPD.

Comparison of the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of formoterol dry powder and oral, slow-release theophylline in the treatment of COPD.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of therapy with formoterol and oral slow-release theophylline (THEO) in patients with COPD. DESIGN: A randomized, parallel-group study, with double-blind arms for formoterol and placebo (PL) and an open arm for oral slow-release THEO administered in individual doses on the basis of plasma concentrations. SETTING: Eighty-one centers worldwide. PATIENTS: Eight hundred fifty-four patients with symptomatic COPD. INTERVENTION: Comparison of twice-daily inhaled formoterol dry powder (12 or 24 microg), PL, and THEO (individualized doses) over 12 months. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Compared to PL, doses of formoterol and THEO both significantly improved the area under the curve for FEV(1) measured over a period of 12 h following the morning dose of study medication at 3 and 12 months (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Therapy with formoterol, 12 microg, was significantly more effective than that with THEO (p < or = 0.026). Formoterol significantly reduced the percentage of "bad days" (i.e., days with at least two individual symptom scores > or = 2 and/or a reduction in peak expiratory flow from a baseline of > 20%; p < or = 0.035 vs. PL and THEO), and the use of salbutamol rescue medication (p < or = 0.003 vs PL) over the whole treatment period, while the effect of THEO was similar to that of PL. Therapy with formoterol and THEO was more effective than PL at improving quality of life for > 12 months (p < or = 0.030). Treatment-related adverse events and discontinuations were more frequent among patients receiving THEO than among those receiving formoterol. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with inhaled formoterol dry powder is more effective and better tolerated than treatment with therapeutically appropriate doses of oral slow-release THEO in symptomatic patients with COPD.