Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple versus Dual Therapy in Patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with an inhaled glucocorticoid, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and a long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), as compared with dual therapy (either inhaled glucocorticoid-LABA or LAMA-LABA), are uncertain. METHODS: In this randomized trial involving 10,355 patients with COPD, we compared 52 weeks of a once-daily combination of fluticasone furoate (an inhaled glucocorticoid) at a dose of 100 µg, umeclidinium (a LAMA) at a dose of 62.5 µg, and vilanterol (a LABA) at a dose of 25 µg (triple therapy) with fluticasone furoate-vilanterol (at doses of 100 µg and 25 µg, respectively) and umeclidinium-vilanterol (at doses of 62.5 µg and 25 µg, respectively). Each regimen was administered in a single Ellipta inhaler. The primary outcome was the annual rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations during treatment. RESULTS: The rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the triple-therapy group was 0.91 per year, as compared with 1.07 per year in the fluticasone furoate-vilanterol group (rate ratio with triple therapy, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.90; 15% difference; P<0.001) and 1.21 per year in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group (rate ratio with triple therapy, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.81; 25% difference; P<0.001). The annual rate of severe exacerbations resulting in hospitalization in the triple-therapy group was 0.13, as compared with 0.19 in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group (rate ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.78; 34% difference; P<0.001). There was a higher incidence of pneumonia in the inhaled-glucocorticoid groups than in the umeclidinium-vilanterol group, and the risk of clinician-diagnosed pneumonia was significantly higher with triple therapy than with umeclidinium-vilanterol, as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.92; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol resulted in a lower rate of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations than fluticasone furoate-vilanterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol in this population. Triple therapy also resulted in a lower rate of hospitalization due to COPD than umeclidinium-vilanterol. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; IMPACT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02164513 .).

Mapping the COPD Assessment Test onto EQ-5D.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an algorithm for estimating EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D)-equivalent utilities from the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) assessment test (CAT) and evaluate its use in economic evaluations as part of health technology assessments for COPD. METHODS: Data for the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) and the CAT were obtained from two multinational, phase III clinical trials. Three approaches were explored for estimating EQ-5D-equivalent utilities from the CAT: ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression, multinomial logistic regression, and a combination of the two. Estimated utilities were compared with actual EQ-5D-3L utilities, including treatment effect and the impact of disease severity on health, to evaluate the predictive performance of each algorithm. RESULTS: Root mean squared error and mean absolute error analyses showed that an OLS algorithm performed as well as algorithms developed using more complex modeling structures. The OLS regression included EQ-5D-3L utility weights as dependent variables and CAT items as independent variables. Within-sample validation showed systematic overestimation and underestimation within the range 0.5 ≤ EQ-5D-3L ≤ 0.9 (although all mean absolute errors were ≤0.100), with the smallest difference between estimated and actual values within 0.7 < EQ-5D-3L ≤ 0.9. The algorithm underestimated utility near full health and overestimated utility less than 0.5. As a consequence, the change from baseline was lower and the confidence intervals were narrower than those observed with actual EQ-5D-3L data. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of EQ-5D data, the OLS regression algorithm may provide an estimate of utility for treatment models, but it is likely to underestimate treatment effects. Therefore, it is recommended that utilities be derived directly from the EQ-5D for the purposes of health technology assessments for COPD treatments in the United Kingdom.

Genetic effects on treatment response of umeclidinium/vilanterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is standard, but response varies. We investigated genetic association with treatment response to umeclidinium (UMEC, a LAMA), vilanterol (VI, a LABA), and combination therapy. METHODS: Data from 17 clinical trials (N = 6075) in patients with COPD receiving once-daily UMEC/VI (125/25mcg or 62.5/25mcg), UMEC (125 or 62.5mcg), VI (25mcg) or placebo were used. Genetic association with change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ∼24 h post-dosing was assessed for: (i) 3 ß2-adrenoceptor (ADRB2) gene variants; (ii) 298 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with prior evidence of associations; (iii) human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles and (iv) genome-wide association study (GWAS) SNPs. Other endpoints were (i) reversibility at screening; and at baseline: (ii) FEV1; (iii) forced vital capacity (FVC), and (iv) FEV1/FVC ratio. Using linear regression, the inverse normal transformed residuals were pooled together, first across treatment group, then across studies for each monotherapy, then combination therapy and finally for every treated patient. RESULTS: Of 6075 patients, 1849 received UMEC/VI, 1390 received UMEC, 1795 received VI, and 1041 received placebo. None of the ADRB2 variants, HLA alleles or GWAS variants tested were associated with treatment response or baseline endpoints. Four SNPs in FAM13A (rs7671167, rs2869967, rs1964516, rs1903003) were significantly associated with baseline FEV1/FVC ratio (p < 3 × 10(-5)) after adjusting for multiple testing. CONCLUSIONS: No genetic association was found with treatment response to UMEC or VI when administered as monotherapies or in combination.

Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium Added to Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol in Patients with COPD: Results of Two Randomized, Double-Blind Studies.

Combinations of drugs with distinct and complementary mechanisms of action may offer improved efficacy in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In two 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group studies, patients with COPD were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily umeclidinium (UMEC; 62.5 µg and 125 µg) or placebo (PBO), added to twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL; 250/50 µg). In both studies, the primary efficacy measure was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at Day 85. Secondary endpoints were weighted-mean (WM) FEV1 over 0-6 hours post-dose (Day 84) and rescue albuterol use. Health-related quality of life outcomes (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] and COPD assessment test [CAT]) were also examined. Safety was assessed throughout. Both UMEC+FP/SAL doses provided statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 (Day 85: 0.127-0.148 L) versus PBO+FP/SAL. Similarly, both UMEC+FP/SAL doses provided statistically-significant improvements in 0-6 hours post-dose WM FEV1 versus PBO+FP/SAL (Day 84: 0.144-0.165 L). Rescue use over Weeks 1-12 decreased with UMEC+FP/SAL in both studies versus PBO+FP/SAL (Study 1, 0.3 puffs/day [both doses]; Study 2, 0.5 puffs/day [UMEC 125+FP/SAL]). Decreases from baseline in CAT score were generally larger for both doses of UMEC+FP/SAL versus PBO+FP/SAL (except for Day 84 Study 2). In Study 1, no differences in SGRQ score were observed between UMEC+FP/SAL and PBO+FP/SAL; however, in Study 2, statistically significant improvements were observed with UMEC 62.5+FP/SAL (Day 28) and UMEC 125+FP/SAL (Days 28 and 84) versus PBO+FP/SAL. The incidence of on-treatment adverse events across all treatment groups was 37-41% in Study 1 and 36-38% in Study 2. Overall, these data indicate that the combination of UMEC+FP/SAL can provide additional benefits over FP/SAL alone in patients with COPD.

A meta-analysis of four randomized clinical trials to confirm the reliability and responsiveness of the Shortness of Breath with Daily Activities (SOBDA) questionnaire in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by non-reversible airflow limitation. A common symptom of COPD is dyspnea or shortness of breath. Dyspnea may vary daily, with a large impact on patients' lives. Previous clinical trials used patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures that quantified dyspnea at discrete intervals and hence did not reflect this variability. Recently the Shortness of Breath with Daily Activities (SOBDA) questionnaire was developed as a PRO measure of dyspnea utilizing a daily diary. This confirmatory post hoc meta-analysis of SOBDA data from a large clinical study program further supports the questionnaire and clarifies the minimum threshold of SOBDA response. METHODS: Data from four clinical trials (DB2113361, NCT01313637; DB2113373, NCT01313650; DB2113360, NCT01316900; DB2113374, NCT01316913) were analyzed. These 24-week trials were randomized, blinded studies investigating the efficacy and safety of several COPD treatments. These post hoc analyses focused on the SOBDA questionnaire properties. This electronic-diary consists of 13 items completed daily, in which patients rate their breathlessness level during common daily activities. Resultant SOBDA scores were compared with related, commonly used assessments: modified Medical Research Council Research Dyspnea Scale (mMRC), Baseline Dyspnea Index (BDI), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). The consistency, reliability, validity (convergent, known groups), and responsiveness of the SOBDA questionnaire was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 4967 patients with COPD provided data for these analyses. The SOBDA questionnaire had high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.936), high test-retest reliability (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.86) and convergent validity with related measures (SGRQ total score, Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.59; CAT, Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient = 0.50). SOBDA scores were statistically significantly lower in responders (as defined by TDI, SGRQ, CAT, and trough FEV1 levels) versus non-responders (p < 0.001 for all assessments and all time points). Using an anchor-based method, the threshold of a minimum response was calculated as a SOBDA score change of -0.2 (SOBDA score range = 1-4). CONCLUSIONS: The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the SOBDA questionnaire as a PRO measure to quantify dyspnea was supported in a large clinical trial population of patients with moderate-very severe COPD.

Is Blood Eosinophil Count a Predictor of Response to Bronchodilators in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease? Results from Post Hoc Subgroup Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with blood eosinophil (EOS) count ≥ 2% benefit from exacerbation reductions with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs). We conducted post hoc analyses to determine if EOS count ≥ 2% is a marker for greater responsiveness to the bronchodilators umeclidinium (UMEC; long-acting muscarinic antagonist), vilanterol (VI; long-acting ß2-agonist) or UMEC/VI combination. METHODS: Effects of once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25, UMEC 62.5 and VI 25 µg versus placebo on trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores and adverse event (AE) incidences in four completed, 6-month studies were assessed by EOS subgroup. Trough FEV1 was also evaluated by ICS use and EOS subgroup. Analyses were performed using a repeated measures model. RESULTS: At baseline, 2437 of 4647 (52%) patients had EOS count ≥ 2%. Overall, ≈ 50% of patients used ICSs. At day 169, no notable variations were observed in trough FEV1 least squares mean differences between EOS subgroups versus placebo for UMEC/VI, UMEC and VI; results according to ICS use were similar. No differences were reported between EOS subgroups in TDI and SGRQ scores on day 168, or for incidences of AEs, serious AEs and AEs leading to withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Response to UMEC/VI, UMEC and VI in terms of trough FEV1, dyspnoea and health-related quality of life was similar for COPD patients with baseline EOS counts ≥ 2 or <2%. EOS count did not appear to predict bronchodilator response in either ICS users or non-users.

Safety and tolerability of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 mcg and umeclidinium 125 mcg in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of UMEC with the long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) vilanterol (UMEC/VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the US and EU. They are not indicated for the treatment of asthma. METHODS: In this 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group safety study (GSK study DB2113359; NCT01316887), patients were randomized 2:2:1 to UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg, UMEC 125 mcg, or placebo. Study endpoints included adverse events (AEs), clinical chemistry and hematology parameters, vital signs, 12-lead, and 24-hour Holter electrocardiograms. COPD exacerbations and rescue medication use were assessed as safety parameters; lung function was also evaluated. RESULTS: The incidence of on-treatment AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), and drug-related AEs was similar between treatment groups (AEs: 52-58%; SAEs: 6-7%; drug-related AEs: 12-13%). Headache was the most common AE in each treatment group (8-11%). AEs associated with the LAMA and LABA pharmacologic classes occurred at a low incidence across treatment groups. No clinically meaningful effects on vital signs or laboratory assessments were reported for active treatments versus placebo. The incidences of atrial arrhythmias with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg were similar to placebo; for UMEC 125 mcg, the incidences of ectopic supraventricular beats, sustained supraventricular tachycardia, and ectopic supraventricular rhythm were ≥2% greater than placebo. With active treatments, COPD exacerbations were fewer (13-15% of patients reporting ≥1 exacerbation) and on average less rescue medication was required (1.6-2.2 puffs/day) versus placebo (24% reporting ≥1 exacerbation, 2.6 puffs/day). Both active treatments improved lung function versus placebo. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg and UMEC 125 mcg were well tolerated over 12 months in patients with COPD.

Dose response of umeclidinium administered once or twice daily in patients with COPD: a randomised cross-over study.

BACKGROUND: Umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) is an inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist in development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-way cross-over, incomplete block study to evaluate UMEC 15.6, 31.25, 62.5, and 125 µg administered once daily (QD), and UMEC 15.6 µg and 31.25 µg administered twice daily (BID), over 7 days in patients with COPD. Tiotropium was included as an open-label treatment arm. The primary efficacy endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) on Day 8. Secondary efficacy endpoints included weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 hours after morning dosing on Day 7, and serial FEV1 at each time point over 24 hours after morning dosing on Day 7. Safety and pharmacokinetics were also examined. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-three patients (mean age 59.5 years, 52% female) were randomised. Based on the population dose-response model of trough FEV1 data, the geometric mean potency (ED50) of UMEC was 37 µg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18, 57) with a predicted maximum intrinsic efficacy (Emax) at trough of 0.185 L (95% CI: 0.153, 0.218) after QD dosing. UMEC 125 µg QD demonstrated the greatest improvements in measure of lung function compared with doses of 62.5 µg and below. UMEC 125 µg QD exhibited more consistent increases in FEV1 from baseline across serial time points over 24 hours compared with other UMEC doses and tiotropium. Increases in FEV1 over 0-12 hours were similar to those observed over 12-24 hours after the second dose of UMEC was administered. UMEC was rapidly absorbed following inhaled dosing and eliminated from plasma. Adverse events, generally mild, were highest with UMEC 125 µg QD (18%) compared with placebo (8%), tiotropium (4%) and other UMEC doses (5-12%). CONCLUSIONS: UMEC is a potent QD bronchodilator with geometric mean ED50 of 37 µg. A dose ordering over the range of UMEC 15.6-125 µg QD doses was observed, with UMEC 125 µg showing the greatest improvement in trough FEV1.

Item selection, reliability and validity of the Shortness of Breath with Daily Activities (SOBDA) questionnaire: a new outcome measure for evaluating dyspnea in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by irreversible, progressive obstruction of lung airflow. Dyspnea (shortness of breath [SOB]) is the COPD symptom which most negatively impacts patients' daily activities. To assess how SOB affects daily activities, 37 items were drafted through focus group discussions and cognitive interviews with COPD patients to develop a patient-reported outcome instrument: the Shortness of Breath with Daily Activities questionnaire (SOBDA). Psychometric analysis was conducted to reduce the number of items and evaluate the measurement properties of the final SOBDA. METHODS: Prospective, observational study of 334 COPD patients, recruited from 24 pulmonology and internal medicine clinics in the United States. The 37-item SOBDA was administered to patients each evening for 28 days using an electronic diary. Patients answered every item and rated their level of SOB experienced that day during specific activities. Item selection was conducted by examining item characteristics, dimensionality, and Rasch model analysis results. The decision to delete an item was based on psychometric evidence, content validity, and expert clinical input. The final SOBDA instrument was evaluated for internal consistency, reproducibility, convergent validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness. RESULTS: Twenty-four items from the 37-item pool were removed following the item selection process: nine items were removed due to high item-to-item correlations; five due to floor effects; three due to infrequent activity; one due to gender bias; two due to low factor loadings; three due to unordered response options; and one due to expert's discretion. Internal consistency and reproducibility of the final SOBDA were demonstrated by Cronbach Alpha = 0.87, and intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.91. Convergent validity was demonstrated by high correlation with the CRQ-SAS (0.60) and SGRQ-C (0.61). Known groups validity was demonstrated by significant difference between ratings of the mMRC and clinical global rating of severity. Evaluation of the ability to detect change was not performed owing to too few responders at the end of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Through the empirical item reduction process, 13 items were selected from the 37-item pool generated during qualitative development. The final 13-item SOBDA is a reliable and valid instrument for use in clinical trials.

Shortness of Breath with Daily Activities questionnaire: validation and responder thresholds in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVES: To test the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the 13-item Shortness of Breath with Daily Activities (SOBDA) questionnaire, and determine the threshold for response and minimal important difference (MID). DESIGN: 6 week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: 40 centres in the USA between 29 October 2009 and 1 July 2010. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: 547 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were enrolled and 418 entered the 2-week run-in period. Data from the run-in period were collected to test internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity and known-groups validity of the SOBDA. Three hundred and sixty six patients were randomised 2:2:1 to fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 µg, salmeterol 50 µg or placebo, twice daily. Results from the SOBDA questionnaire, Patient Global Assessment of Change Question, modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale (mMRC), Clinician Global Impression of Dysponea Severity (CGI-S), Clinician Global Impression of Change Question and Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire self-administered standardised version (CRQ-SAS) were evaluated; spirometry and safety parameters were measured. Study endpoints were selected to investigate the cross-sectional and longitudinal validity of the SOBDA questionnaire in relation to the clinical criteria. RESULTS: Internal consistency of the SOBDA questionnaire (Cronbach α) was 0.89. Test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation) was 0.94. The SOBDA weekly scores correlated with the patient-reported and clinician-reported mMRC, CGI-S and CRQ-SAS dyspnoea domain scores (0.29, 0.24, 0.24 and -0.68, respectively). The SOBDA weekly scores differentiated between the responders and the non-responders as rated by the patients and the clinicians. Anchor-based and supportive distribution-based analyses produced a range of the potential values for the threshold for the responders and MID. CONCLUSIONS: The 13-item SOBDA questionnaire is reliable, valid and responsive to change in patients with COPD. On using anchor-based methods, the proposed responder threshold shows a -0.1 to -0.2 score change. A specific threshold value will be identified as more data are generated from future clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00984659; GlaxoSmithKline study number: ASQ112989.

Bronchodilation of umeclidinium, a new long-acting muscarinic antagonist, in COPD patients.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the dose-response of the new long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (GSK573719) in patients with COPD. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study evaluated three once-daily doses of umeclidinium (125, 250 and 500 µg) for 28 days in 285 patients with COPD having FEV(1) of 35-70% predicted (mean (SD) age=61.4 (8.41); mean (SD) post-bronchodilator FEV(1)=1.577 (0.450)). The primary endpoint was morning trough FEV(1) at Day 29. Secondary endpoints included 0-6h weighted mean FEV(1) and serial FEV(1) measured over 6h post-dose and at trough. Safety and pharmacokinetics were also assessed. RESULTS: All doses of umeclidinium significantly increased trough FEV(1) over placebo from 150 to 168 mL (p<0.001), 0-6h weighted mean FEV(1) from 113 to 211 mL (p<0.001), and serial FEV(1) at each point in time over 24h. Reductions in salbutamol use and improvements in FVC were noted for all doses. Umeclidinium was well tolerated with no apparent treatment-related changes in vital signs. CONCLUSION: Once-daily umeclidinium provides clinically significant, sustained improvement in lung function and is well tolerated.

28-Day safety and tolerability of umeclidinium in combination with vilanterol in COPD: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Umeclidinium (UMEC; GSK573719) is a new long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) currently in development in combination with vilanterol (VI), an inhaled, long-acting beta2 agonist for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of repeat dosing of UMEC and VI in combination once daily for 28 days in patients with COPD. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study. Patients aged ≥40 years with post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≤80% of predicted normal values and FEV1/FVC ratio ≤0.70, and a smoking history of ≥10 pack-years, were randomized 4:1 to once-daily UMEC/VI (500/25 mcg; n = 42) or placebo (n = 9). RESULTS: UMEC/VI was non-inferior to placebo in weighted mean pulse rate over 0-6 h at Day 28 (primary endpoint: difference of -0.5 bpm, 95% CI: -5.5 to 4.5). There was no evidence of a difference between UMEC/VI compared with placebo in blood pressure, minimum and maximum pulse rate, or QTcF assessments. Adverse events (AEs) were reported by 11 (26%) patients in the UMEC/VI group and one (11%) patient in the placebo group. No serious AEs were reported. Both UMEC and VI showed rapid absorption (median t(max) ∼6 min for both drugs) with no evidence of accumulation for AUC or C(max) on Day 28 compared with Day 1 for UMEC or VI. There was no correlation between individual steady-state C(max) and pulse rate on Day 28. Change from baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 29 showed numerically greater improvements with UMEC/VI compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: Once-daily dosing with UMEC in combination with VI in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD was well tolerated over 28 days.

A randomized, double-blind dose-ranging study of the novel LAMA GSK573719 in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the dose-response and dosing interval of the novel long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA) GSK573719 in patients with COPD. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-way cross-over, incomplete block study evaluated 5 once-daily doses of GSK573719 (62.5-1000 µg), 3 twice-daily doses (62.5-250 µg), and open-label tiotropium for 14 days in patients (N = 176) with COPD (FEV(1) of 35-70% predicted). The primary endpoint was morning trough FEV(1) at Day 15. Secondary endpoints included 0-24 h weighted mean FEV(1) and serial FEV(1) values over 28 h. Safety measures and pharmacokinetics were assessed. RESULTS: All once-daily doses of GSK573719 significantly increased trough FEV(1) at Day 15 with improvements ranging from 95 to 186 mL over placebo (p ≤ 0.006), from 79 to 172 mL with twice-daily dosing (p ≤ 0.03), and 105 mL with tiotropium (p = 0.003). No clear dose ordering was observed. Once-daily doses significantly (p < 0.001) increased 0-24 h weighted mean FEV(1) at Day 14 by 131-143 mL over placebo, comparable to increases with the twice-daily doses (120-142 mL) and tiotropium (127 mL). Significant reductions in rescue albuterol use and improvements in FVC were also observed with once-daily dosing. Plasma C(max) occurred within 5-15 min of dosing after which the drug was rapidly cleared and eliminated. GSK573719 was well tolerated, with no apparent treatment-related changes in vital signs, ECG and Holter assessments, or clinical laboratory parameters. CONCLUSION: Once-daily dosing with GSK573719 in COPD provides clinically significant and sustained improvement in lung function over 24 h with similar efficacy to twice-daily dosing.

Safety and efficacy of dual therapy with GSK233705 and salmeterol versus monotherapy with salmeterol, tiotropium, or placebo in a crossover pilot study in partially reversible COPD patients.

BACKGROUND: GSK233705 is an inhaled, long-acting muscarinic antagonist in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study was performed to see if the addition of GSK233705 to salmeterol would provide greater bronchodilation than salmeterol or tiotropium alone in COPD. METHODS: In an incomplete-block, three-period, crossover design, dually responsive patients received three of the following five treatments: GSK233705 20 µg plus salmeterol 50 µg twice-daily; GSK233705 50 µg plus salmeterol 50 µg twice-daily; salmeterol 50 µg or placebo, each twice-daily; and tiotropium 18 µg or placebo once-daily for 7 days. Each treatment period was separated by a 14-day washout. The primary efficacy endpoint was morning (trough) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) on Day 8, following 7 days of treatment. Secondary endpoints included pulmonary function, plethysmography, pharmacokinetics of GSK233705 and salmeterol, adverse events (AEs), electrocardiograms (ECGs), vital signs, and laboratory parameters. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients were randomized. The mean % predicted normal postbronchodilator FEV(1) was 55% at screening. Compared with placebo (n = 24), the adjusted mean change from baseline in trough FEV(1) on Day 8 was 215 mL higher with GSK233705 20 µg + salmeterol (n = 23) and 203 mL higher with GSK233705 50 µg + salmeterol (n = 27), whereas with salmeterol (n = 27) and tiotropium (n = 28) the changes were 101 mL and 118 mL higher, respectively. The primary efficacy results were supported by the results from the other secondary lung function assessments. AEs were reported by similar proportions of patients across the treatment groups, with headache the most frequently reported treatment-related AE reported by one subject receiving each of GSK233705 20 µg + salmeterol, tiotropium, and placebo. No significant differences were seen in vital signs, ECGs, or laboratory parameters between the groups. CONCLUSION: The addition of GSK233705 to salmeterol in partially reversible COPD patients resulted in greater bronchodilation than salmeterol or tiotropium alone and was well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist GSK233705 delivered once daily in patients with COPD.

INTRODUCTION: GSK233705 is a recently developed inhaled anticholinergic being investigated for the potential treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVES: This dose-ranging, parallel-group, double-blind study compared the bronchodilator efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of GSK233705 with placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive 12.5 µg, 25 µg, 50 µg, 100 µg or 200 µg of GSK233705 or placebo once daily for 28 days. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) on day 29. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population consisted of 576 patients (mean predicted FEV(1) 51%; mean age 62 years). Treatment with GSK233705 produced statistically significant improvements in pulmonary function compared with placebo. Only the 200 µg dose exceeded the predefined target threshold of 130-mL difference compared with placebo for the primary endpoint of change from baseline in trough FEV(1) on day 29. No clear pattern of dose response was observed for the other doses. Serial FEV(1) (0-24 h) showed a peak effect around 2 h postdose and tended to decline to clinically insignificant levels compared with placebo at 23 and 24 h. Each dose of GSK233705 was well tolerated. The incidence of adverse events was low and similar across all treatment groups. There were no clinically significant effects on laboratory parameters, vital signs or electrocardiograms. CONCLUSION: All doses of GSK233705 demonstrated bronchodilatory activity and were well tolerated. Although the onset of bronchodilation was rapid, it was not sustained over 24 h making it unsuitable for once-daily dosing.