A randomised controlled trial of the effect of a connected inhaler system on medication adherence in uncontrolled asthmatic patients.

Suboptimal adherence to maintenance therapy contributes to poor asthma control and exacerbations. This study evaluated the effect of different elements of a connected inhaler system (CIS), comprising clip-on inhaler sensors, a patient-facing app and a healthcare professional (HCP) dashboard, on adherence to asthma maintenance therapy.This was an open-label, parallel-group, 6-month, randomised controlled trial in adults with uncontrolled asthma (asthma control test (ACT) score less than 20) on fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß-agonist maintenance therapy (n=437). All subjects received fluticasone furoate/vilanterol ELLIPTA dry-powder inhalers for maintenance and salbutamol/albuterol metered-dose inhalers for rescue, with a sensor attached to each inhaler. Participants were randomised to one of five CIS study arms (allocation ratio 1:1:1:1:1) reflecting the recipient of the data feedback from the sensors, as follows: 1) maintenance use to participants and HCPs (n=87); 2) maintenance use to participants (n=88); 3) maintenance and rescue use to participants and HCPs (n=88); 4) maintenance and rescue use to participants (n=88); and 5) no feedback (control) (n=86).For the primary endpoint, observed mean±sd adherence to maintenance therapy over months 4-6 was 82.2±16.58% (n=83) in the "maintenance to participants and HCPs" arm and 70.8±27.30% (n=85) in the control arm. The adjusted least squares mean±se was 80.9±3.19% and 69.0±3.19%, respectively (study arm difference: 12.0%, 95% CI 5.2-18.8%; p<0.001). Adherence was also significantly greater in the other CIS arms versus the control arm. The mean percentage of rescue medication free days (months 4-6) was significantly greater in participants receiving data on their rescue use compared with controls. ACT scores improved in all study arms with no significant differences between groups.A CIS can improve adherence to maintenance medication and reduce rescue medication use in patients with uncontrolled asthma.

ELLIPTA Dry Powder Versus Metered-Dose Inhalers in an Optimized Clinical Trial Setting.

BACKGROUND: Reduced error rates have been demonstrated with the ELLIPTA inhaler versus other commonly used devices. OBJECTIVE: This phase IV, randomized, crossover study evaluated correct use of ELLIPTA compared with 2 commonly prescribed metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) in adults with asthma and optimized inhaler technique. METHODS: The study comprised 2 crossover substudies (ELLIPTA vs MDI-1 and ELLIPTA vs MDI-2). Inhaler use was assessed at the start of each period, following instruction from a health care professional, and after 28 days of use without instruction. Data for each inhaler were pooled within substudies, irrespective of treatment sequence; study objectives were addressed in each substudy. The primary end point, percentage of participants making 0 errors after 28 days of use, was analyzed separately for each substudy using a Mainland-Gart test for each ELLIPTA versus MDI comparison. RESULTS: Correct use rates after 28 days were higher with ELLIPTA than with MDI-1 and MDI-2 (ELLIPTA vs MDI-1, 96% vs 84%; ELLIPTA vs MDI-2, 98% vs 91%). Among discordant cases, statistically significantly more participants correctly used ELLIPTA but made 1 or more overall error with MDIs than did those who correctly used the MDIs but made 1 or more overall error using ELLIPTA (87% vs 13% in both substudies; P < .001 and P = .007 for ELLIPTA vs MDI-1 and ELLIPTA vs MDI-2, respectively). More participants made multiple device errors with MDIs than with ELLIPTA. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaler technique can be optimized in trial settings. In such settings, ELLIPTA is associated with higher rates of correct use and lower error rates than are MDIs.

A randomized, open-label, single-visit, crossover study simulating triple-drug delivery with Ellipta compared with dual inhaler combinations in patients with COPD.

Background: Administering maintenance COPD therapy with a combination of multiple inhalers may increase inhaler errors. This study evaluated the potential benefits of using a single Ellipta dry powder inhaler (DPI) compared with two combinations of DPIs commonly used to deliver triple maintenance therapy. Methods: Patients receiving inhaled COPD medication were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, open-label, placebo-device, crossover study with a 2×2 complete block design (NCT0298218), which comprised two substudies: Ellipta vs Diskus + HandiHaler (substudy 1) or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler (substudy 2). Patients demonstrated inhaler use after reading the relevant patient information leaflet (PIL). A trained investigator assessed user errors (critical errors [errors likely to result in no or significantly reduced medication being inhaled] and overall errors). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients making ≥1 critical error after reading the PIL. The secondary endpoints included error rates during ≤2 reassessments following investigator instruction (if required), instruction time, and patient preference. Results: After reading the PIL, significantly fewer patients made critical errors with Ellipta compared with Diskus + HandiHaler (9% [7/80] vs 75% [60/80], respectively; P<0.001) or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler (9% [7/79] vs 73% [58/79], respectively; P<0.001). The number of patients making overall errors was also lower with Ellipta vs tested inhaler combinations (P<0.001 for each substudy). The median instruction time needed for error-free use was shorter with Ellipta in substudies 1 and 2 (2.7 and 2.6 minutes, respectively) vs either combination (10.6 [Diskus + HandiHaler] and 11.3 minutes [Turbuhaler + HandiHaler], respectively). Significantly more patients preferred Ellipta over Diskus + HandiHaler or Turbuhaler + HandiHaler overall for taking their COPD medication (81% vs 9% and 84% vs 4%, respectively) and per the number of steps for taking their COPD medication (89% vs 8% and 91% vs 5%, respectively). Conclusion: Fewer patients with COPD made critical errors with the single DPI, and patients required less instruction time, compared with each dual DPI combination.

A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the ELLIPTA and HandiHaler Dry Powder Inhalers in Patients With COPD: Inhaler-Specific Attributes and Overall Patient Preference.

This randomised, open-label, cross-over, placebo-containing inhaler study assessed patient preference indicators for ELLIPTA and HandiHaler dry powder inhalers in patients with COPD (NCT02786927; GSK identifier: 204983). The primary objective of this study was to assess patient preference between ELLIPTA and HandiHaler based on the number of steps needed to use the inhaler. Eligible patients ≥40 years of age with COPD were randomised 1:1 to receive their current COPD medication plus a placebo-containing ELLIPTA or HandiHaler inhaler once daily for 7 ± 2 days (treatment period 1); this was followed by a 7 ± 2-day placebo treatment with the alternative inhaler. A 5-item questionnaire assessed inhaler-related patient preferences. A total of 212 patients (mean age, 65.1 years) were enrolled at 22 US sites; 73% had a COPD duration ≥5 years. Median (range) exposure was 8 ( 5 , 13 ) days for ELLIPTA and 8 ( 1 , 16) days for HandiHaler. Significantly more patients preferred ELLIPTA to HandiHaler in terms of the number of steps to use and all secondary attributes (size, comfort of the mouthpiece, remaining doses, and ease of use of the two inhalers; all p < 0.001). Similar results were observed irrespective of the order of inhaler use. Eighteen patients (8%) reported at least one AE and two (<1%) patients reported four non-fatal SAEs; none were related to the study treatment. Patient attitude toward a particular inhaler and their experiences in using it can affect adherence to therapy, which can in turn strongly influence effectiveness of inhaled medications. This study uses a robust methodology to assess patient preference.

Effect of Disease Severity in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease on Inhaler-Specific Inhalation Profiles Through the ELLIPTA® Dry Powder Inhaler.

BACKGROUND: Two studies were undertaken to characterize the maximal effort inhalation profiles of healthy subjects and patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) through a moderate-resistance dry powder inhaler (DPI). Correlations between inhaler-specific inhalation characteristics and inhaler-independent lung function parameters were investigated. METHODS: Healthy subjects (n = 15), patients with mild, moderate, or severe asthma (n = 45), and patients with mild, moderate, severe, or very-severe COPD (n = 60) were included in the studies. Inhalation pressure drop versus time profiles were recorded using an instrumented ELLIPTA® DPI or bespoke resistor component with equivalent resistivity. Inhaler-independent lung function assessments included pharyngometry, spirometry, plethysmography, and diffusion. RESULTS: For the inhaler-specific inhalation profiles, the mean maximal effort peak inspiratory flow rates (PIFRs) varied across the subgroups from 65.8-110.6 L/min (range: 41.6-142.9). Peak pressure drop, PIFR, inhaled volume, and average inhalation flow rate (primary endpoints) did not differ markedly between healthy subjects and patients with asthma or mild COPD. Moderate, severe, and very-severe COPD patients demonstrated lower mean peak pressure drops, PIFRs and inhaled volumes, which tended to decrease with increasing COPD severity. Severe and very-severe COPD patients demonstrated shorter mean inhalation times compared with all other participants. Inhaler-independent lung function parameters were consistent with disease severity, and statistically significant (p < 0.05) strong correlations (R > 0.7) with components of the inhaler-specific inhalation profiles were observed in the COPD cohort; correlations in the asthma cohort tended to be weaker. CONCLUSIONS: All participants achieved a maximal effort PIFR ≥ 41.6 L/min through the moderate resistance of the ELLIPTA inhaler. Patients with asthma achieved similar inhalation profiles to healthy subjects, but increasing COPD severity tended to reduce a patient's inhalation capability. Correlation analyses suggest that some lung function parameters may be a useful indicator of ability to inhale efficiently through a moderate-resistance DPI, such as the ELLIPTA inhaler.

Effect of severe renal impairment on umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol pharmacokinetics and safety: a single-blind, nonrandomized study.

BACKGROUND: Umeclidinium and vilanterol, long-acting bronchodilators for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are primarily eliminated via the hepatic route; however, severe renal impairment may adversely affect some elimination pathways other than the kidney. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of severe renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol. METHODS: Nine patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance <30 mL/min) and nine matched healthy volunteers received a single dose of umeclidinium 125 µg; and after a 7- to 14-day washout, a single dose of umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 µg. RESULTS: No clinically relevant increases in plasma umeclidinium or vilanterol systemic exposure (area under the curve or maximum observed plasma concentration) were observed following umeclidinium 125 µg or umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 µg administration. On average, the amount of umeclidinium excreted in 24 hours in urine (90% confidence interval) was 88% (81%-93%) and 89% (81%-93%) lower in patients with severe renal impairment compared with healthy volunteers following umeclidinium 125 µg and umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 µg administration, respectively. Treatments were well tolerated in both populations. CONCLUSION: Umeclidinium 125 µg or umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 µg administration to patients with severe renal impairment did not demonstrate clinically relevant increases in systemic exposure compared with healthy volunteers. No dose adjustment for umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol is warranted in patients with severe renal impairment.

A randomized, placebo- and moxifloxacin-controlled thorough QT study of umeclidinium monotherapy and umeclidinium/vilanterol combination in healthy subjects.

INTRODUCTION: The long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of UMEC with the long-acting beta2 agonist vilanterol (VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the US and EU. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the effect of UMEC and UMEC/VI on the QT interval corrected using Fridericia's correction (QTcF) following a 10-day treatment period. METHODS: Randomized, placebo- and moxifloxacin-controlled, 4-period incomplete block crossover study of healthy non-smokers (n = 103). All treatments were double blind, except for moxifloxacin/moxifloxacin placebo controls which were single blinded. Subjects were randomized to a treatment sequence which consisted of 4 of 5 regimens. Each regimen consisted of once-daily doses on Days 1-10 via the ELLIPTA™ dry powder inhaler and a single tablet on Day 10 of the following: placebo + placebo; placebo + moxifloxacin; UMEC 500 µg + placebo; UMEC/VI 125/25 µg (delivered dose: 113/22 µg) + placebo; UMEC/VI 500/100 µg + placebo. QT interval, additional cardiac parameters, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety were assessed. RESULTS: No clinically significant changes from baseline in QTcF occurred with UMEC 500 µg and UMEC/VI 125/25 µg compared with placebo, however, there was a change in QTcF from baseline of 6.4 ms (90% confidence interval [CI]: 4.3, 8.5) at 10 min and 8.2 ms (90%: 6.2, 10.2) at 30 min post dose following UMEC/VI 500/100 µg compared with placebo. On Day 10, categorical analysis demonstrated absolute QTcF values >450-480 ms for UMEC/VI 125/25 µg (1 subject) and moxifloxacin (3 subjects), and a change from baseline QTcF of >30-60 ms for UMEC/VI 125/25 µg, UMEC 500/100 µg and placebo (1 subject each) and moxifloxacin (2 subjects). On Day 10, the mean change from baseline in heart rate was increased with UMEC/VI 125/25 µg and UMEC 500/100 µg compared with placebo with the maximum increase occurring at 10 min post dose (8.4 bpm [90% CI: 7.0, 9.8] for UMEC/VI 125/25 µg; 20.3 bpm [90% CI: 18.9, 21.7] for UMEC/VI 500/100 µg); after this timepoint, heart rate rapidly returned to normal levels. UMEC and VI systemic exposures following UMEC/VI 500/100 µg were >4-fold higher than those following UMEC/VI 125/25 µg. All treatments were generally well tolerated in terms of adverse events, laboratory, vital signs and electrocardiogram data; the proportion of subjects with any adverse event was similar across treatments arms (39-59%).. CONCLUSION: There was no clinically significant effect on QTcF observed following 10-days' treatment with inhaled UMEC/VI 125/25 µg or UMEC 500 µg compared with placebo. The supratherapeutic dose of UMEC/VI 500/100 µg prolonged QTcF by 6.4 ms (90% CI: 4.3, 8.5) at 10 min and 8.2 ms (90% CI: 6.2, 10.2) at 30 min compared with placebo, following which QTcF interval difference from placebo declined rapidly..

Effects of moderate hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetic properties and tolerability of umeclidinium and vilanterol in inhalational umeclidinium monotherapy and umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy: an open-label, nonrandomized study.

BACKGROUND: The long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) is approved as a monotherapy, and in combination with the long-acting ß2-agonist vilanterol (VI), as a once-daily inhaled maintenance bronchodilator therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the US and EU; they are not indicated for the treatment of asthma. Preclinical and clinical data suggest that UMEC and VI are predominantly eliminated by the liver. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study were to evaluate the effects of moderate hepatic impairment on the plasma and urinary pharmacokinetic properties of each drug, and on the tolerability of inhalational UMEC/VI 125/25 µg and UMEC 125 µg. METHODS: This open-label, nonrandomized study was conducted in patients with moderate hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh score, 7-9) and in healthy volunteers (control). Patients and volunteers were administered a single dose of UMEC/VI 125/25 µg, and, after a 7- to 14-day washout period, repeat-dose UMEC 125 µg once daily for 7 days. Primary end points were the plasma pharmacokinetic properties of single- and repeat-dose UMEC and VI. Secondary end points were the urinary pharmacokinetic properties of UMEC, and the tolerability of each treatment. RESULTS: All 18 enrolled patients and volunteers (12 men, 6 women; mean age, 53.6 years) completed the study. Mean systemic exposures of UMEC and VI were similar or numerically lower in patients with moderate hepatic impairment compared with those in healthy volunteers, but the differences were not clinically significant. UMEC accumulations with 7-day dosing of UMEC were similar between patients with moderate hepatic impairment and healthy volunteers. UMEC/VI 125/25 µg and UMEC 125 µg were well-tolerated, with no safety concerns identified. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of UMEC/VI 125/25 µg or UMEC 125 µg in patients with moderate hepatic impairment did not result in clinically relevant increases in UMEC or VI exposures compared with those in healthy volunteers. Based on these findings, no dose adjustment for UMEC/VI or UMEC is warranted in patients with moderate hepatic impairment.

Safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of inhaled once-daily umeclidinium in healthy adults deficient in CYP2D6 activity: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Umeclidinium is a new, long-acting, muscarinic receptor antagonist currently in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In vitro cell culture data suggest that up to 99 % of umeclidinium is potentially metabolized by cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6), but without a definitive human metabolism radiolabel study, the extrapolation of in vitro to in vivo is only an estimate. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of umeclidinium in patients with normal and deficient CYP2D6 metabolism. METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled study to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of inhaled single and repeat doses (for 7 days) of umeclidinium. The study took place at a single clinical site, at which subjects remained throughout the study. Healthy volunteers (HVTs) who were normal CYP2D6 metabolizers (HVT-NMs) [n = 20] and poor CYP2D6 metabolizers (HVT-PMs) [n = 16] participated in the study. The subjects received umeclidinium (100-1,000 µg) and placebo as single and repeat doses. The primary outcome measurements were protocol-defined safety and tolerability endpoints. RESULTS: Thirteen subjects in each population reported adverse events (AEs); none were considered serious. No clinically significant abnormalities in vital signs, lung function, haematology, biochemistry, 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) or 24-h Holter ECGs were attributable to the study drug. There were no differences in plasma and urine pharmacokinetics between populations: the plasma area under the concentration-time curve over the dosing interval (from 0 to 24 h for the once-daily drug) [AUC(τ) (ng·h/mL)] and the maximum plasma concentration [C(max) (ng/mL)] ratios (with 90 % confidence intervals [CIs]) following repeat dosing with 500 µg umeclidinium for HVT-PMs (as compared with HVT-NMs) were 1.03 (0.79-1.34) and 0.80 (0.59-1.08), respectively; the cumulative amount of the unchanged drug excreted into the urine at 24 h (Ae(24)) [ng] ratio was 1.01 (0.82-1.26). Following repeat dosing with umeclidinium 1,000 µg, the plasma AUC(τ) [ng·h/mL] and C(max) (ng/mL) ratios (with 90 % CIs) were 1.33 (0.98-1.81) and 1.07 (0.76-1.51); the urine Ae(24) (ng) ratio was 1.47 (1.15-1.88). Similar ratios for urine and plasma were observed following single and repeat-dose regimens. CONCLUSION: Umeclidinium has favourable safety and pharmacokinetic profiles in both HVT-NM and HVT-PM populations.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of single and repeat inhaled doses of umeclidinium in healthy subjects: two randomized studies.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has a significant negative impact on quality of life and increases the risk of premature death. Umeclidinium is a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist in development for the treatment of COPD with the aim to broaden treatment options for clinicians and patients by providing improved symptom control. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of single and repeat inhaled doses of umeclidinium in healthy subjects. STUDY DESIGN: Two randomized, placebo-controlled, ascending-dose studies were conducted in healthy ipratropium bromide-responsive subjects. In the single-dose study, subjects (n = 20) received umeclidinium (10-350 µg), tiotropium bromide 18 µg and placebo in a crossover dosing schedule. In this study, lung function was assessed for 24 h by measuring specific airways conductance (sGaw) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). In the repeat-dose study, subjects (n = 36) received umeclidinium (250-1,000 µg) and placebo for 14 days in a parallel-group schedule. RESULTS: Adverse events (AEs) were reported in five subjects (single-dose study) and 23 subjects (repeat-dose study); none were serious. In both studies, no abnormalities in 12-lead electrocardiogram parameters, 24-h Holter monitoring or lead II monitoring were reported as AEs. Umeclidinium was rapidly absorbed following single-dose administration [time to reach the maximum plasma concentration (tmax) 5-15 min] and repeat-dose administration (tmax 5-7 min). Following repeat dosing, the geometric mean plasma elimination half-life was approximately 27 h and statistically significant accumulation was observed for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve, maximum plasma concentration and cumulative amount of unchanged drug excreted into the urine at 24 h (range 1.5- to 4.5-fold). Umeclidinium at doses of 100 µg and above, and tiotropium bromide demonstrated statistically significant bronchodilatory effects relative to placebo at 12 h post-dosing, which lasted up to 24 h for umeclidinium 350 µg and for tiotropium bromide. Relative to placebo, these increases in sGaw were 24-34 % at 12 h post-dose and 13 % at 24 h post-dose. Increases in FEV1 achieved statistical significance at 12 and 24 h for umeclidinium 100 µg and 350 µg compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: Umeclidinium was well tolerated and demonstrated bronchodilatory effects in healthy subjects for up to 24 h. These bronchodilatory effects can be potentially clinically important in patients with airway obstruction such as COPD. The data obtained have informed dose selection for subsequent trials in subjects with COPD.

Effect of verapamil on systemic exposure and safety of umeclidinium and vilanterol: a randomized and open-label study.

BACKGROUND: The combination of umeclidinium (UMEC), a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist, and vilanterol (VI), a selective long-acting ß2 agonist, is in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability, and pharmacodynamics of once-daily, inhaled UMEC and UMEC/VI when co-administered with oral verapamil, a moderate P-glycoprotein transporter and moderate cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) inhibitor frequently used by patients with COPD and cardiovascular comorbidities. METHODS: Subjects were randomized to one of two 13-day treatment regimens: UMEC 500 µg or UMEC 500 µg/VI 25 µg. All subjects received a single tablet containing 240 mg verapamil on each of days 9-13. RESULTS: Repeat doses of UMEC and UMEC/VI in combination with and without verapamil were safe and well tolerated. There was no increase in systemic exposure of UMEC when administered in combination with VI compared to UMEC alone. UMEC maximum concentration was similar with or without verapamil; a moderate increase in UMEC area under the curve (approximately 1.4-fold) was observed with verapamil. Verapamil did not increase systemic exposure to VI following administration of the UMEC/VI combination. CONCLUSION: Administration of UMEC and UMEC/VI combination was well tolerated and did not show clinically relevant increases in systemic exposure for either drug. The UMEC/VI combination is unlikely to have a clinically meaningful drug-drug interaction with moderate P-glycoprotein transporter and CYP3A4 inhibitor drugs.

Initial assessment of single and repeat doses of inhaled umeclidinium in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: two randomised studies.

To characterise the safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics (bronchodilatory effect) and pharmacokinetics of inhaled umeclidinium in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The first investigation was a single dose, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00515502) in which ipratropium bromide-sensitive patients received umeclidinium (250µg, 500µg, and 1000µg), tiotropium bromide 18µg or placebo. Patients were randomised to receive four out of five possible treatments as an incomplete block four-way cross-over. A subsequent study (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT700732472) was focused on assessment of safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of umeclidinium (250µg and 1000µg) administered once-daily for 7 days in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group design. Of the 24 patients randomised for the single dose study, 20 completed; 31 out of 38 patients completed the repeat dose study. Most adverse events were mild-to-moderate and transient. Examination of heart rate, QTc interval, blood pressure and clinical laboratory assessments raised no concern over the safety of umeclidinium. Evidence of pharmacology was demonstrated in first study by statistically significant increases in specific airway conductance (sGaw) for up to 24h for all active treatments compared with placebo. Increases in forced expiratory volume in 1s were also observed. Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated that maximum observed plasma umeclidinium concentration (Cmax) was reached rapidly (time to Cmax: ∼5-15min) after single and repeat doses; 1.5-1.9-fold accumulation was observed after repeat-dosing. Single and repeat doses of umeclidinium were well tolerated and produced clinically relevant lung function improvements over 24h in patients with COPD.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of umeclidinium and vilanterol alone and in combination: a randomized crossover trial.

UNLABELLED: Umeclidinium bromide (GSK573719; UMEC), a new long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA), is in development with vilanterol (GW642444; VI), a selective long-acting ß(2) agonist (LABA), as a once-daily inhaled combination therapy for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A single dose healthy volunteer study was conducted to assess the safety and tolerability, pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of inhaled umeclidinium (500 µg) and vilanterol (50 µg) when administered separately and in combination using a novel dry powder inhaler (NDPI). Co-administration of single inhaled doses of umeclidinium and vilanterol to healthy Japanese subjects was well tolerated and not associated with meaningful changes in systemic exposure or PD effects compared with administration of either compound individually. Pharmacokinetic assessments showed rapid absorption for both drugs (Tmax = 5 min for both umeclidinium and vilanterol) followed by rapid elimination with median tlast of 4-5 h for umeclidinium and median tlast of 1.5-2.0 h for vilanterol. Assessments of pharmacokinetic interaction were inconclusive since for umeclidinium, Cmax following combination was higher than umeclidinium alone but not AUC whereas for vilanterol, AUC following combination was higher than vilanterol alone but not Cmax. There were no obvious trends observed between individual maximum supine heart rate and umeclidinium Cmax or vilanterol Cmax when delivered as umeclidinium 500 µg and vilanterol 50 µg combination or when delivered as umeclidinium or vilanterol alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00976144.

Virus recognition by specific natural antibodies and complement results in MHC I cross-presentation.

Natural antibodies (NAb) and complement (C') are important regulators of immune system activation. We have shown previously that the galactosyl-alpha1,3-galactosyl (Gal alpha1,3Gal) xenoantigen and the similar ABO histo-blood group antigens are transferred onto virus from the producer cell, resulting in sensitisation of the virus to the respective NAb in a C'-dependent manner. Here we show that measles virus (Mv) that expresses Gal alpha1,3Gal termini can drive the proliferation of human T cells in the presence of serum and autologous DC, whereas without such targets, measles, as expected, suppress T cell reactivity. The use of affinity-purified NAb to Gal alpha1,3Gal and rabbit C' demonstrated the components in human serum responsible for this effect. Proteasome inhibition and blocking of antigen presentation showed that the increased T cell proliferation was mediated by MHC class I cross-presentation of immune complexes. These results lend further support to the idea that polymorphic carbohydrates of the Gal alpha1,3Gal/ABO type serve as important targets for NAb and C' and that their expression on virus has influenced their evolution by contributing to protection against viral transmission within as well as between species. The adjuvance effect of this recognition, acting as a bridge between the natural innate and adaptive immune systems, also has important implications for vaccine development.

Expression of ABO or related antigenic carbohydrates on viral envelopes leads to neutralization in the presence of serum containing specific natural antibodies and complement.

No definitive biologic function has been associated with the human ABO histo-blood group polymorphism, or any other terminal carbohydrate differences within or between closely related species. We have experimentally addressed the question of whether viral particles can become glycosylated as determined by the glycosylation (eg, ABO) status of the producer cell and as a result be affected by human serum containing specific natural antibodies (NAbs). Measles virus was produced in cells transfected with cDNA encoding, either human A-transferase, B-transferase, an inactive "O-transferase," or a pig alpha1-3galactosyltransferase (alpha1-3GT) synthesizing the Galalpha1-3Gal structure. The viruses were shown to carry the same ABO structures as the cells; that is, A but not B if produced in A-type cells, and B but not A if produced in B-type cells. Only O was detected on the virus produced from O-type cells, whereas reduced amounts of O appeared on the A- and B-type viral particles. In addition, the Galalpha1-3Gal structure was transferred onto measles only when grown in human cells expressing this structure. When subjected to human preimmune sera, the A-type, the B-type, and the Galalpha1-3Gal viral particles were partially neutralized in a complement-dependent manner. However, the O-type or the Galalpha1-3Gal-negative viral particles were not neutralized. The neutralization appeared to be mediated by specific NAb, as judged by specific inhibition using synthetic A and Galalpha1-3Gal oligosaccharides. Such viral glycosylation may thus partly explain why the ABO antigens and other similar intraspecies as well as interspecies polymorphic carbohydrates have evolved and been maintained over long evolutionary periods.