Efficacy and safety of zapnometinib in hospitalised adult patients with COVID-19 (RESPIRE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial.

Background: Zapnometinib is an oral, non-ATP-competitive, small-molecule inhibitor of MEK1/MEK2 with immunomodulatory and antiviral properties. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of zapnometinib in patients with COVID-19. Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial, we recruited hospitalised adults with moderate or severe COVID-19 from 18 hospitals in Germany, India, Romania, South Africa, and Spain. Those requiring ICU admission or ventilator support at screening or randomisation were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral zapnometinib (900 mg on Day 1; 600 mg on Days 2-6) or matching placebo, on top of standard of care. Randomisation, stratified by baseline clinical severity status (CSS 3 or 4, measured on a 7-point ordinal scale), was done using Interactive Response Technology. Patients, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was CSS at Day 15 and was conducted on the full analysis set (FAS: all patients who were randomised to the study, received at least one dose of study medication and had at least one post-dose assessment of CSS, as randomised). Safety analyses were conducted on the safety analysis set (all study participants who received at least one dose of study medication, as treated). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04776044) and EudraCT (2020-004206-59). Findings: The trial was terminated early as the emergence of the Omicron variant impacted recruitment. Between 12th April 2021 and 9th August 2022, 104 of the planned 220 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 103 were treated, and 101 were included in the FAS (zapnometinib: n = 50; placebo: n = 51). The primary outcome was not significantly different between the two groups, but patients on zapnometinib had higher odds of improved CSS versus placebo (odds ratio [OR] 1.54 [95% CI 0.72-3.33]; p = 0.26). Predefined subgroup analyses identified trends for improved CSS in patients with severe disease at baseline (OR 2.57 [0.76-8.88]; p = 0.13) and non-Omicron variants (OR 2.36 [0.85-6.71]; p = 0.10); the p value of the CSS subgroup by Treatment interaction term in the model was p = 0.28. The frequency and intensity of adverse events was low and similar between arms. Twenty (39.2%) patients treated with zapnometinib experienced adverse events compared with eighteen (34.6%) patients treated with placebo. One patient receiving zapnometinib and two patients receiving placebo died during the study. None of the deaths were considered related to study medication. Interpretation: These results provide proof-of-concept for the innovative approach of targeting the Raf/MEK/ERK pathway in patients with hospitalised moderate/severe COVID-19. Further clinical studies will be required to evaluate the clinical benefit of zapnometinib in this and other indications. Funding: Atriva Therapeutics GmbH and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany.

Formoterol mono- and combination therapy with tiotropium in patients with COPD: a 6-month study.

Although guidelines recommend combining long-acting bronchodilators in COPD, data are limited. We examined the clinical efficacy and safety of formoterol, tiotropium and the combination in patients with COPD. Eight hundred and forty-seven patients with COPD (mean FEV(1) 52% predicted; FEV(1)/FVC 53%) were randomized to receive one of the following four treatments for 24 weeks: formoterol 10 microg b.i.d. plus tiotropium 18 microg o.d.; formoterol 10 microg b.i.d.; tiotropium 18 microg o.d., or placebo. The study was partially blinded (formoterol and placebo). For the primary endpoint, FEV(1) 2h post-dose after 24 weeks, there were small differences in favour of the combination therapy versus formoterol (0.07 L, p=0.044) or tiotropium (0.06 L, p=0.066). All three treatments were superior to placebo (p<0.001). The combination was statistically superior to monotherapy for: the primary endpoint (p=0.044 vs. formoterol); FEV(1) 5 min after the first dose (p<0.001) and at 12 weeks (p<0.05 vs. tiotropium); and peak expiratory flow averaged over the first 6 weeks (p<0.001 vs. both). The three active treatments were significantly more effective than placebo for secondary endpoints: COPD-related 'bad days', symptoms, use of rescue medication and peak expiratory flow, and aspects of health-related quality of life. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar with all active treatments, although COPD-related adverse events were more common with tiotropium. Combined bronchodilator therapy may be a valuable treatment option for patients with COPD.

Inhalation devices for long-acting beta2-agonists: efficiency and ease of use of dry powder formoterol inhalers for use by patients with asthma and COPD.

BACKGROUND: Since the long-acting beta(2)-agonist bronchodilator, formoterol, first became available for the treatment of subjects with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), generic forms of this agent have been launched in a variety of devices. It is timely to review the characteristics of the original dry powder delivery device, the single-dose Aerolizer, its in vitro performance and its comparability with other inhaler devices that are now available for delivery of formoterol. SCOPE: This review focuses on the performance of the formoterol Aerolizer inhaler in comparison with other inhalers. Publically available data (PubMed) on the device performance characteristics of the Aerolizer were reviewed and summarized, together with the results of comparative studies performed by the authors. Published studies (PubMed) on patient handling and inhaler technique that include the Aerolizer are described and studies comparing the clinical effect of formoterol in the Aerolizer with formoterol delivered via other devices were reviewed and are summarized. FINDINGS: The Aerolizer performs consistently in dosing efficiency across a range of inspiratory flow rates, suggesting its suitability for use by patients with differing inspiratory flow abilities. The single-dose, capsule-based nature of the device provides patients with obvious feedback on whether the drug has been taken successfully and the Aerolizer has been shown to be one of the more easily used devices in comparative patient handling studies. Studies comparing the clinical effect of formoterol delivered by different inhalation devices show that formoterol via Aerolizer has an equivalent therapeutic effect. CONCLUSION: Judged on the basis of dosing efficiency, ease of use and clinical equivalence, formoterol Aerolizer remains a useful option in the management of patients with asthma or COPD.

Onset and duration of action of formoterol and tiotropium in patients with moderate to severe COPD.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management guidelines recommend regular treatment with one or more long-acting bronchodilators for patients with moderate to severe COPD. OBJECTIVE: To compare the onset and duration of action of formoterol and tiotropium in patients with COPD. METHODS: This randomized, multicentre, open-label crossover study in 38 patients with COPD (mean age 64 years; mean FEV(1) 55% predicted) assessed the effect of 7 days of treatment with formoterol (12 microg b.i.d. via Foradil Aerolizer) vs. tiotropium (18 microg o.d. via Spiriva HandiHaler) on lung function measured over a period of 12 h after the first dose on day 1 and the last dose on day 8. RESULTS: The primary efficacy variable, FEV(1)-AUC during the first 2 h post-dose (FEV(1)-AUC(10-120 min)), was significantly higher for formoterol compared with tiotropium, with between-treatment differences of 124 ml (p = 0.016) after the first dose and 80 ml (p = 0.036) after 7 days' treatment in favour of formoterol. FEV(1) measured 12 h after inhalation did not differ statistically significantly between treatments. Adverse events occurred in 2 (5%) patients after treatment with formoterol and in 5 (12%) patients after treatment with tiotropium. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates faster onset of action and greater bronchodilation of formoterol vs. tiotropium for bronchodilation within the first 2 h of inhalation (FEV(1)-AUC(10-120 min)) and comparable bronchodilation 12 h post-inhalation in patients with moderate to severe COPD.