Mass spectrometry detection of inhaled drug in distal fibrotic lung.

BACKGROUND: Currently the only available therapies for fibrotic Interstitial Lung Disease are administered systemically, often causing significant side effects. Inhaled therapy could avoid these but to date there is no evidence that drug can be effectively delivered to distal, fibrosed lung. We set out to combine mass spectrometry and histopathology with rapid sample acquisition using transbronchial cryobiopsy to determine whether an inhaled drug can be delivered to fibrotic, distal lung parenchyma in participants with Interstitial Lung Disease. METHODS: Patients with radiologically and multidisciplinary team confirmed fibrotic Interstitial Lung Disease were eligible for this study. Transbronchial cryobiopsies and endobronchial biopsies were taken from five participants, with Interstitial Lung Disease, within 70 min of administration of a single dose of nebulised ipratropium bromide. Thin tissue cryosections were analysed by Matrix Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization-Mass Spectrometry imaging and correlated with histopathology. The remainder of the cryobiopsies were homogenised and analysed by Liquid Chromatography-tandem Mass Spectrometry. RESULTS: Drug was detected in proximal and distal lung samples from all participants. Fibrotic regions were identified in research samples of four of the five participants. Matrix Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization-Mass Spectrometry imaging showed co-location of ipratropium with fibrotic regions in samples from three participants. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof of concept study, using mass spectrometry, we demonstrate for the first-time that an inhaled drug can deposit in distal fibrotic lung parenchyma in patients with Interstitial Lung Disease. This suggests that drugs to treat pulmonary fibrosis could potentially be administered by the inhaled route. Trial registration A prospective clinical study approved by London Camden and Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee and registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03136120).

A positron emission tomography imaging study to confirm target engagement in the lungs of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis following a single dose of a novel inhaled αvß6 integrin inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive lung disease with poor prognosis and a significant unmet medical need. This study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and target engagement in the lungs, of GSK3008348, a novel inhaled alpha-v beta-6 (αvß6) integrin inhibitor, in participants with IPF. METHODS: This was a phase 1b, randomised, double-blind (sponsor unblind) study, conducted in the UK (two clinical sites, one imaging unit) between June 2017 and July 2018 (NCT03069989). Participants with a definite or probable diagnosis of IPF received a single nebulised dose of 1000 mcg GSK3008348 or placebo (ratio 5:2) in two dosing periods. In period 1, safety and PK assessments were performed up to 24 h post-dose; in period 2, after a 7-day to 28-day washout, participants underwent a total of three positron emission tomography (PET) scans: baseline, Day 1 (~ 30 min post-dosing) and Day 2 (~ 24 h post-dosing), using a radiolabelled αvß6-specific ligand, [18F]FB-A20FMDV2. The primary endpoint was whole lung volume of distribution (VT), not corrected for air volume, at ~ 30 min post-dose compared with pre-dose. The study success criterion, determined using Bayesian analysis, was a posterior probability (true % reduction in VT > 0%) of ≥80%. RESULTS: Eight participants with IPF were enrolled and seven completed the study. Adjusted posterior median reduction in uncorrected VT at ~ 30 min after GSK3008348 inhalation was 20% (95% CrI: - 9 to 42%). The posterior probability that the true % reduction in VT > 0% was 93%. GSK3008348 was well tolerated with no reports of serious adverse events or clinically significant abnormalities that were attributable to study treatment. PK was successfully characterised showing rapid absorption followed by a multiphasic elimination. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated engagement of the αvß6 integrin target in the lung following nebulised dosing with GSK3008348 to participants with IPF. To the best of our knowledge this is the first time a target-specific PET radioligand has been used to assess target engagement in the lung, not least for an inhaled drug. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03069989; date of registration: 3 March 2017.

Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapies in symptomatic patients with COPD not receiving inhaled corticosteroids: the EMAX randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Prospective evidence is lacking regarding incremental benefits of long-acting dual- versus mono-bronchodilation in improving symptoms and preventing short-term disease worsening/treatment failure in low exacerbation risk patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: The 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised patients at low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once-daily or salmeterol 50 µg twice-daily. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The study was also powered for the secondary endpoint of Transition Dyspnoea Index at Week 24. Other efficacy assessments included spirometry, symptoms, heath status and short-term disease worsening measured by the composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration using three definitions. RESULTS: Change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 66 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43, 89) and 141 mL (95% CI: 118, 164) greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, respectively (both p < 0.001). Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated consistent improvements in Transition Dyspnoea Index versus both monotherapies at Week 24 (vs umeclidinium: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.68], p = 0.018; vs salmeterol: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.15, 0.76], p = 0.004) and all other symptom measures at all time points. Regardless of the clinically important deterioration definition considered, umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly reduced the risk of a first clinically important deterioration compared with umeclidinium (by 16-25% [p < 0.01]) and salmeterol (by 26-41% [p < 0.001]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Umeclidinium/vilanterol consistently provides early and sustained improvements in lung function and symptoms and reduces the risk of deterioration/treatment failure versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. These findings suggest a potential for early use of dual bronchodilators to help optimise therapy in this patient group.

Relationship between exercise endurance and static hyperinflation in a post hoc analysis of two clinical trials in patients with COPD.

Background: Lung hyperinflation and exercise intolerance are hallmarks of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, their relationship remains uncertain. A combined analysis of two placebo-controlled, randomized studies examined the effects of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) and long-acting ß2-agonist vilanterol (VI) separately and in combination on static hyperinflation, exercise endurance time (EET), and their relationship in patients with COPD. Methods: Patients with moderate-to-severe stable COPD and resting functional residual capacity >120% predicted were randomized to UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg, UMEC 62.5 µg, VI 25 µg, or placebo for 12 weeks. Inspiratory capacity (IC), residual volume (RV), total lung capacity (TLC), and EET in an endurance shuttle-walk test were measured. In this post hoc analysis, IC/TLC, RV/TLC, and IC were used as hyperinflation markers. Results: After 12 weeks, UMEC/VI and UMEC and VI showed significant improvements in hyperinflation versus placebo when measured by absolute change from baseline in IC/TLC (trough and 3 hours postdose [P≤0.011]). UMEC/VI showed significant improvements versus UMEC and VI in absolute changes in IC/TLC (trough and 3 hours postdose [P≤0.001]). Statistical significance for comparisons with placebo and between treatments for absolute changes in IC and percentage changes in RV/TLC followed similar patterns to those for absolute changes in IC/TLC. UMEC/VI showed significant improvements in EET versus placebo at day 2 and week 12, measured as change from baseline in seconds (P≤0.002) and as a percentage from baseline (P≤0.005). There was a lack of evidence to suggest a correlation between improvements in static hyperinflation and EET at any time point. Conclusion: Although the dual bronchodilator UMEC/VI demonstrated greater improvements in static hyperinflation markers than UMEC or VI and significant improvements in exercise endurance, no direct relationship was observed between static hyperinflation and exercise endurance.

Interpreting patient-reported outcomes from clinical trials in COPD: a discussion.

One of the challenges faced by the practising physician is the interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials and the relevance of such data to their patients. This is especially true when caring for patients with progressive diseases such as COPD. In an attempt to incorporate the patient perspective, many clinical trials now include assessments of PROs. These are formalized methods of capturing patient-centered information. Given the importance of PROs in evaluating the potential utility of an intervention for a patient with COPD, it is important that physicians are able to critically interpret (and critique) the results derived from them. Therefore, in this paper, a series of questions is posed for the practising physician to consider when reviewing the treatment effectiveness as assessed by PROs. The focus is on the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for worked examples, but the principles apply equally to other symptom-based questionnaires. A number of different ways of presenting PRO data are discussed, including the concept of the minimum clinically important difference, whether there is a ceiling effect to PRO results, and the strengths and weaknesses of responder analyses. Using a worked example, the value of including a placebo arm in a study is illustrated, and the influence of the study on PRO results is considered, in terms of the design, patient withdrawal, and the selection of the study population. For the practising clinician, the most important consideration is the importance of individualization of treatment (and of treatment goals). To inform such treatment, clinicians need to critically review PRO data. The hope is that the questions posed here will help to build a framework for this critical review.

A randomised, open-label study of umeclidinium versus glycopyrronium in patients with COPD.

This study compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium 62.5 µg with once-daily glycopyrronium 50 µg in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This was a 12-week, multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group study (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02236611). Patients were randomised 1:1 to umeclidinium 62.5 µg or glycopyrronium 50 µg administered via Ellipta or Breezhaler dry powder inhaler, respectively. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at day 85 in the per-protocol population. Other endpoints included: weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 h and patient-reported outcomes (transition dyspnoea index score and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score). Adverse events were also assessed. A total of 1037 patients were randomised to treatment. Umeclidinium was non-inferior (margin: -50 mL) to glycopyrronium (trough FEV1 at day 85 treatment difference: 24 mL, 95% confidence intervals: -5-54). Improvements in other endpoints were similar between treatments. Adverse event incidences were similar for umeclidinium (37%) and glycopyrronium (36%). Once-daily umeclidinium was non-inferior to once-daily glycopyrronium in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in trough FEV1 at day 85. Patient-reported outcomes and safety profiles were similar for both treatments.

A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 µg compared with tiotropium 18 µg in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: The long-acting muscarinic antagonists umeclidinium (UMEC) and tiotropium (TIO) are approved once-daily maintenance therapies for COPD. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of UMEC versus TIO in COPD. METHODS: This was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to UMEC 62.5 µg plus placebo or TIO 18 µg plus placebo. The primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at day 85 (non-inferiority margin -50 mL; per-protocol [PP] population). Other end points included weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 and 12-24 hours post-dose. Patient-reported outcomes comprised Transition Dyspnea Index score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and COPD Assessment Test score. Adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 1,017 patients were randomized to treatment. In the PP population, 489 and 487 patients received UMEC and TIO, respectively. In the PP population, change from baseline in trough FEV1 was greater with UMEC versus TIO at day 85, meeting non-inferiority and superiority margins (difference: 59 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 29-88; P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat analysis of trough FEV1 at day 85 (53 mL, 95% CI: 25-81; P<0.001). Improvements in weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 hours post-dose at day 84 were similar with UMEC and TIO but significantly greater with UMEC versus TIO over 12-24 hours post-dose (70 mL; P=0.015). Clinically meaningful improvements in Transition Dyspnea Index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire were observed with both treatments at all time points. No differences were observed between UMEC and TIO in patient-reported outcomes. Overall incidences of adverse events were similar for UMEC and TIO. CONCLUSION: UMEC 62.5 µg demonstrated superior efficacy to TIO 18 µg on the primary end point of trough FEV1 at day 85. Safety profiles were similar for both treatments.

Relationship Between FEV1 and Patient-Reported Outcomes Changes: Results of a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials in Stable COPD.

Background: This meta-analysis assessed the relationship between change from baseline (CFB) in spirometric measurements (trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] and FEV1 area under the curve [AUC]) and patient-reported outcomes (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score [SGRQ] CFB, Transition Dyspnea Index [TDI] and exacerbation rates) after 6-12 months' follow-up, using study treatment-group level data. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials of ≥24 weeks duration in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Studies reporting ≥1 spirometric measurement and ≥1 patient-reported outcome (PRO) at baseline and at study endpoint were selected. The relationships between PROs and spirometric endpoints were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient and meta-regression. Results: Fifty-two studies (62,385 patients) were included. Primary weighted analysis conducted at the last assessment showed a large significant negative correlation (r, -0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI); -0.77, -0.57]) between trough FEV1 and SGRQ. Improvement of 100 mL in trough FEV1 corresponded to a 5.9 point reduction in SGRQ. Similarly, a reduction of 4 points on SGRQ corresponded to 40 mL improvement in trough FEV1 (p<0.001). The weighted correlation coefficients of trough FEV1 with TDI, exacerbation rate (all) and exacerbation rate (moderate/severe) at last assessment point were 0.57, -0.69 and -0.57, respectively (all p<0.05). For the analyses excluding placebo groups, the correlations of FEV1 with SGRQ and TDI were lower but significant. Conclusions: A strong association exists between changes in spirometric measurements and changes in PROs.