Efficacy and safety of GSP301 nasal spray in children aged 6 to 11 years with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of the antihistamine olopatadine hydrochloride and the corticosteroid mometasone furoate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of GSP301 in pediatric patients (aged ≥6 to <12 years) with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study randomized 446 eligible patients 1:1 (GSP301 [olopatadine hydrochloride 665 µg and mometasone furoate 25 µg] or placebo) as 1 spray/each nostril twice daily for 14 days. The primary end point was change from baseline in average morning and evening subject-reported 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) over a 14-day treatment period analyzed using mixed-effect model repeated measures. Additional assessments included instantaneous Total Nasal Symptom Score, Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, reflective Total Ocular Symptoms Score, instantaneous Total Ocular Symptoms Score, individual symptoms, Physician-assessed Nasal Symptom Score, and adverse events. RESULTS: GSP301 showed clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in rTNSS vs placebo (-0.6; 95% confidence interval, -0.9 to -0.2; P = .001). Statistically significant improvements favoring GSP301 were shown for all individual rTNSS symptoms, instantaneous Total Nasal Symptom Score, and most of its individual symptoms, Physician-assessed Nasal Symptom Score (P = .01), and Pediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (P < .001). For ocular symptoms, numerical improvements favoring GSP301 were observed, with statistical significance achieved only for reflective "tearing/watering eyes" (P = .04). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 12.0% and 10.4% of patients in the GSP301 and placebo groups, respectively. One subject (0.5%) (placebo group) experienced a serious adverse event (suspected viral meningitis) that was not related to the study treatment and was resolved. CONCLUSION: GSP301 was well tolerated and efficacious for treating SAR symptoms in pediatric patients and showed a favorable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03463031.

Efficacy and safety of favipiravir, an oral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor, in mild-to-moderate COVID-19: A randomized, comparative, open-label, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of favipiravir in adults with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: In this randomized, open-label, parallel-arm, multicenter, phase 3 trial, adults (18-75 years) with RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 and mild-to-moderate symptoms (including asymptomatic) were randomized 1:1 to oral favipiravir (day 1: 1800 mg BID and days 2-14: 800 mg BID) plus standard supportive care versus supportive care alone. The primary endpoint was time to the cessation of viral shedding; time to clinical cure was also measured. RESULTS: From May 14 to July 3, 2020, 150 patients were randomized to favipiravir (n = 75) or control (n = 75). Median time to the cessation of viral shedding was 5 days (95% CI: 4 days, 7 days) versus 7 days (95% CI: 5 days, 8 days), P = 0.129, and median time to clinical cure was 3 days (95% CI: 3 days, 4 days) versus 5 days (95% CI: 4 days, 6 days), P = 0.030, for favipiravir and control, respectively. Adverse events were observed in 36% of favipiravir and 8% of control patients. One control patient died due to worsening disease. CONCLUSION: The lack of statistical significance on the primary endpoint was confounded by limitations of the RT-PCR assay. Significant improvement in time to clinical cure suggests favipiravir may be beneficial in mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

Long-term safety and efficacy of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis.

Background: Safety and efficacy of GSP301 nasal spray, an investigational fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride and mometasone furoate, was established in three large, 2-week seasonal allergic rhinitis studies. Objective: To evaluate long-term (52 weeks) safety and efficacy of GSP301 in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR). Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, 601 patients (ages ≥ 12 years) with PAR were randomized 4:1:1 to twice-daily GSP301 (olopatadine 665 µg and mometasone 25 µg [pH 3.7]) or two GSP301 vehicle formulations (placebo pH 3.7 or 7.0). Safety (primary end point) was monitored through adverse events (AE), laboratory assessments, vital signs, and physical examinations at weeks 30 and 52. The change from baseline in the average A.M. reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) and instantaneous Total Nasal Symptom Score (iTNSS), Physician-assessed Nasal Symptom Scores (PNSS), and quality of life were assessed for GSP301 versus placebo pH 3.7 (p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant). Results: At week 52, treatment-emergent AEs (TEAE) occurred in 51.7, 41.4, and 53.5% of patients in the GSP301, placebo pH 3.7 and placebo 7.0 groups, respectively. No clinically meaningful differences were observed in TEAE incidences or other safety assessments across treatments. At weeks 6 and 30, GSP301 provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in average rTNSS and iTNSS versus placebo pH 3.7 (p < 0.01, all comparisons). Similarly, at week 52, GSP301 provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in rTNSS (least-squares mean difference -0.91 [95% confidence interval {CI}, -1.35 to -0.47]; p < 0.001), and iTNSS (least-squares mean difference -0.75 [95% CI, -1.17 to -0.33]; p < 0.001) versus placebo pH 3.7, with significant improvements in each individual symptom (p < 0.05, all comparisons). PNSS and quality of life were significantly improved versus placebo pH 3.7 at weeks 6 and 30 (p < 0.05, all comparisons), but these greater improvements did not reach statistical significance at week 52 (PNSS, p = 0.552; quality of life, p = 0.790). Conclusion: Twice-daily GSP301 was well tolerated and provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PAR nasal symptoms versus placebo over 52 weeks and demonstrated a favorable safety profile and efficacy.Clinical trial NCT02709538, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray: Evaluation of efficacy and safety in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Background: GSP301 is an investigational fixed-dose combination nasal spray that contains the antihistamine, olopatadine hydrochloride (HCl), and the corticosteroid, mometasone furoate. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Methods: In this double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were equally randomized to intranasal GSP301 (olopatadine 665 µg and mometasone 25 µg), olopatadine HCl (665 µg), mometasone furoate (25 µg), or placebo for 14 days of twice-daily treatment. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in the average A.M. and P.M. 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) analyzed by using mixed-effect model repeated measures (p < 0.05 indicates statistical significance). Additional assessments included instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), individual nasal symptoms, reflective Total Ocular Symptom Score (rTOSS) and instantaneous Total Ocular Symptom Score (iTOSS), onset of action, Physician-assessed Nasal Symptom Score (PNSS), quality of life, and adverse events (AE). Results: A total of 1180 patients were randomized. Over 14 days of treatment, GSP301 significantly improved average A.M. and P.M. rTNSS versus placebo (least squares mean difference -0.98 [95% confidence interval, -1.38 to -0.57]; p < 0.001) and versus olopatadine (p = 0.003), and approached statistical significance versus mometasone (p = 0.059). GSP301 also significantly improved average A.M. and P.M. iTNSS versus placebo and both monotherapies (p < 0.05, all). Further, GSP301 significantly improved individual nasal symptoms, overall ocular symptoms (rTOSS and iTOSS), and overall quality of life versus placebo (p < 0.01, all). Onset of action for GSP301 was observed within 15 minutes and was maintained at all subsequent time points assessed. Results for the PNSS also were significant for GSP301 versus placebo (p < 0.001). The percentages of patients with treatment-emergent AEs treated with GSP301, olopatadine, mometasone, and placebo were 12.9, 12.5, 7.1, and 9.4%, respectively. Conclusion: GSP301 was efficacious and well tolerated for the treatment of SAR symptoms compared with placebo, with a rapid onset of action of 15 minutes in patients ≥12 years of age.Clinical trial NCT02631551, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Efficacy and safety of olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: GSP301 nasal spray is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). METHODS: In this double-blind study, eligible patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were randomized 1:1:1:1 to twice-daily GSP301 (665 µg of olopatadine and 25 µg of mometasone), olopatadine (665 µg), mometasone (25 µg), or placebo for 14 days. The primary end point-mean change from baseline in average morning and evening 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS)-was analyzed via a mixed-effect model repeated measures (P < .05 was considered to be statistically significant). Additional assessments included average morning and evening 12-hour instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), ocular symptoms, individual symptoms, onset of action, quality of life, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 1176 patients were randomized. GSP301 provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful rTNSS improvements vs placebo (least squares mean difference, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.49 to -0.69; P < .001) and vs olopatadine (P = .03) and mometasone (P = .02). Similar significant improvements in iTNSS were also observed with GSP301 (P < .05 for all). Furthermore, GSP301 significantly improved overall ocular symptoms, individual nasal and ocular symptoms, and quality of life vs placebo (P ≤ .001 for all). Onset of action for GSP301 was observed within 15 minutes and was maintained at all subsequent timepoints. Treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 15.6%, 12.6%, 9.6%, and 9.5% of patients in the GSP301, olopatadine, mometasone, and placebo groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: GSP301 is efficacious and well tolerated vs placebo for treating SAR-associated nasal and ocular symptoms, with a rapid onset of action of 15 minutes in adult and adolescent patients 12 years and older. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02870205.

The pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of single, high-strength doses of fluticasone propionate and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol delivered via a novel multidose dry powder inhaler in adolescents and adults with persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Characterize fluticasone propionate (Fp) and combination fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FS) pharmacokinetic and safety profiles, delivered via a novel, inhalation-driven, multidose dry powder inhaler (MDPI). METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, four-period crossover, single-dose study randomized patients aged ≥12 years with persistent asthma to Fp MDPI 200 mcg, FS MDPI 200/12.5 mcg, Fp dry powder inhaler (DPI) 500 mcg (250 mcg × 2 inhalations), or FS DPI 500/50 mcg. Blood samples for determination of Fp and salmeterol pharmacokinetic parameters including Cmax, AUC0-t, AUC0-inf, tmax, and t½ were collected predose through 36 h postdose (14 time points). Safety assessments comprised adverse events, vital signs, and physical examinations. The institutional review board approved the study protocol. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetic analysis set and safety population each included 40 patients. Fp systemic exposure (Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-inf) was highest for Fp DPI 500 mcg and similar for Fp MDPI 200 mcg, FS MDPI 200/12.5 mcg, and FS DPI 500/50 mcg. Fp geometric mean t½ values were similar across treatments. Salmeterol Cmax was 20% lower and AUC0-t and AUC0-inf were approximately 50% lower with FS MDPI versus FS DPI. Median tmax and geometric mean t½ were similar between FS MDPI and FS DPI. Adverse events were similar across treatments with no relevant changes in vital signs, physical examinations, or hematology test results. CONCLUSIONS: Fp MDPI and FS MDPI produced similar or lower systemic exposure to Fp and salmeterol, despite lower doses, versus conventional DPI devices, suggesting improved efficiency due to formulation and device differences.

Randomized, double-blind trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol delivered via multidose dry powder inhalers in patients with persistent asthma aged 12 years and older.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate (Fp) and Fp/salmeterol (FS) administered via a novel multidose dry powder inhaler (MDPI) that is easy to use correctly in asthma patients. METHODS: This phase-3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study evaluated asthmatic patients (≥12 years of age) previously treated with either low- or mid-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) or ICS/long-acting beta agonists. After a 14- to 21-day run-in, patients were randomized to Fp MDPI 50 mcg, Fp MDPI 100 mcg, FS MDPI 50/12.5 mcg, FS MDPI 100/12.5 mcg, or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. Change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; primary endpoint) was evaluated at week 12, and serial spirometry was collected at day 1 and week 12 (subset of patients). Safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The full analysis and serial spirometry subset included 640 and 312 patients, respectively. At week 12, FS MDPI significantly improved FEV1 from baseline at each dose vs corresponding Fp MDPI doses (p < 0.05). Change from baseline in FEV1 for active treatment groups was significantly greater vs placebo (p < 0.05). After 12 weeks, serial spirometry was significantly greater at all time points in the FS MDPI groups vs corresponding Fp MDPI groups (p < 0.05). Improvements in serial spirometry on day 1 were maintained through week 12. AEs were similar across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary function was significantly improved with Fp MDPI and FS MDPI vs placebo and FS MDPI vs Fp MDPI. Active treatments had a safety profile comparable to placebo.

Fluticasone propionate and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol multidose dry powder inhalers compared with placebo for persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: A novel, inhalation-driven, multidose dry powder inhaler (MDPI) has been developed, which allows for lower doses of fluticasone propionate (Fp) and Fp/salmeterol (FS) for the treatment of patients with asthma. OBJECTIVE: This phase III, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study (NCT02141854) evaluated the efficacy and safety of Fp MDPI and FS MDPI versus placebo MDPI. METHODS: Patients aged ≥12 years with persistent asthma who previously took an inhaled corticosteroid with or without a long-acting beta-agonist entered a 14- to 21-day run-in period, during which they received single-blind, low-dose Fp MDPI 50 µg (1 inhalation twice daily [b.i.d.]) and used albuterol hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) metered-dose inhaler (MDI) for rescue. The patients who continued to meet eligibility criteria (N = 728) were randomized to Fp MDPI (100 or 200 µg), FS MDPI (100 µg/12.5 µg or 200 µg/12.5 µg), or placebo (1 inhalation b.i.d.). Primary efficacy end points were the change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and the baseline-adjusted area under the FEV1 curve 12 hours after the dose at week 12. Secondary efficacy end points were A.M. peak expiratory flow, asthma symptom scores, albuterol HFA MDI use, time to patient withdrawal, Asthma Quality of Life scores, and time to 15% and 12% improvement from baseline in FEV1. Safety end points were monitored. RESULTS: Fp MDPI and FS MDPI significantly improved both primary end points compared with placebo (p < 0.05). FS MDPI significantly improved both end points versus the corresponding Fp MDPI dose (p < 0.05), with improvement also greater for FS MDPI 100 µg/12.5 µg versus Fp MDPI 200 µg (p < 0.05). Both active treatments improved a variety of secondary end points and exhibited a safety profile consistent with the drug classes. CONCLUSION: Delivery of Fp and FS via the novel MDPI provided significant clinical benefits and was well tolerated in patients with persistent asthma.

A 6-month safety and efficacy study of fluticasone propionate and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol multidose dry powder inhalers in persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: A novel multidose dry powder inhaler (MDPI) that is breath actuated, easy, and intuitive to use has been developed for administering fluticasone propionate (Fp) and Fp/salmeterol (FS). OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of Fp MDPI versus Fp hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) and FS MDPI versus FS dry-powder inhaler (DPI). METHODS: This phase III, 26-week, open-label, active drug-controlled study enrolled subjects ≥12 years old with persistent asthma. Based on entry controller medication (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] or ICS/long-acting beta-agonist), the subjects were randomized to twice-daily mid-strength Fp MDPI 100 µg or Fp HFA 220 µg, high-strength Fp MDPI 200 µg or Fp HFA 440 µg, mid-strength FS MDPI 100/12.5 µg or FS DPI 250/50 µg, or high-strength FS MDPI 200/12.5 µg or FS DPI 500/50 µg in a 3:1 MDPI to Fp HFA or FS DPI ratio. Safety and efficacy were assessed by adverse events (AE) and pulmonary function and asthma symptoms, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 674 subjects were randomized. The AE incidence was similar across treatment groups (upper respiratory tract infections, sinusitis, and nasopharyngitis were most frequent). A higher percentage of subjects in the Fp HFA 440 µg and FS DPI 500/50 µg groups had oral candidiasis versus those who received Fp MDPI 200 µg or FS MDPI 200/12.5 µg, respectively. Serious AEs were similar between the treatments, with no unexpected findings. The incidence of asthma exacerbations was low and generally similar between the groups. Noninferiority was established for all Fp MDPI and FS MDPI doses compared with Fp HFA and FS DPI, respectively, for forced expiratory volume in 1 second. Changes in peak expiratory flow, rescue albuterol use, and symptoms were similar between treatments. CONCLUSION: The safety and efficacy profiles of Fp MDPI and FS MDPI administered at lower doses were generally comparable with those of Fp HFA and FS DPI, respectively, after 26 weeks of treatment.The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT02175771.

Aclidinium improves exercise endurance, dyspnea, lung hyperinflation, and physical activity in patients with COPD: a randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the effects of aclidinium bromide, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist indicated for maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), on exercise endurance, dyspnea, lung hyperinflation, and physical activity. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, crossover study, patients with stable COPD and moderate-to-severe airflow limitation received aclidinium 400 µg twice daily or placebo via Genuair®/Pressair(®a) for 3 weeks (2-week washout between treatment periods). The primary endpoint was change from baseline to Week 3 in endurance time, measured by constant work rate cycle ergometry testing at 75% peak incremental work rate. Changes from baseline in intensity of exertional dyspnea (Borg CR10 Scale®) and trough inspiratory capacity were secondary endpoints. Additional endpoints included changes from baseline in other spirometric, plethysmographic, and physical activity (assessed by objective accelerometer measurement) parameters. Efficacy endpoints were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model. RESULTS: In total, 112 patients were randomized and treated (mean age 60.3 years; mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s 1.7 L [56.7% predicted]; mean endurance time 485.7 s). After 3 weeks, endurance time was significantly increased with aclidinium versus placebo (treatment difference 58.5 s; p < 0.05). At Week 3, aclidinium significantly reduced dyspnea intensity at isotime during exercise (treatment difference -0.63; p < 0.05) and improved trough inspiratory capacity (treatment difference 78 mL; p < 0.05) versus placebo. Significant improvements in spirometric, plethysmographic, and some physical activity parameters were observed with aclidinium versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that aclidinium significantly improves exercise endurance, exertional dyspnea, hyperinflation, and physical activity in patients with COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01471171; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combinations compared with individual components and placebo in patients with COPD (ACLIFORM-COPD): a multicentre, randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Aclidinium/formoterol is a twice-daily (BID) fixed-dose combination (FDC) in development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol versus monotherapy and placebo in patients with COPD was assessed. METHODS: In this 24-week double-blind, parallel-group, active- and placebo-controlled, multicentre Phase III study, patients (≥40 years, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]/forced vital capacity <70% and FEV1 ≥30% but <80% predicted normal) were randomised 2:2:2:2:1 to aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg (n = 385) or 400/6 µg (n = 381), aclidinium 400 µg (n = 385), formoterol 12 µg (n = 384) or placebo (n = 194) BID via Genuair®/Pressair®a. RESULTS: At Week 24, aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg and 400/6 µg lead to significant improvements from baseline in 1-hour post-dose FEV1 versus aclidinium (125 mL [95% CI: 90, 160; p < 0 · 001] and 69 mL [95% CI: 34, 105; p < 0.001], respectively) and trough FEV1 versus formoterol (85 mL [95% CI: 51, 119; p < 0.001] and 53 mL [95% CI: 19, 87; p < 0.01], respectively; co-primary endpoints). Additionally, aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg and 400/6 µg provided significant improvements in Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score versus placebo (1.29 units [95% CI: 0.73, 1.86; p < 0.001] and 1.16 units [95% CI: 0.59, 1.73; p < 0.001], respectively; secondary endpoint). All treatments were well tolerated, with safety profiles of the FDCs similar to those of placebo and monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Both aclidinium/formoterol BID doses significantly improved bronchodilation versus monotherapy, and dyspnoea versus placebo, with no increase in safety risk. Aclidinium/formoterol may be an effective treatment for patients with COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01462942.

Characterisation and impact of reported and unreported exacerbations: results from ATTAIN.

The frequency and impact of exacerbations identified using healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) or the EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool (EXACT) were compared prospectively in a 24-week, phase III trial (ATTAIN). Patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease received twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg, aclidinium 400 µg or placebo. All HCRU events were reported to physicians. "EXACT-identified" events were categorised as "EXACT-reported" (detected by EXACT and reported to the physician) and "EXACT-unreported" (detected but not reported). Health status was measured using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Annualised EXACT-identified event rates were higher in all study arms (placebo 1.39, aclidinium 200 µg 1.00 and aclidinium 400 µg 0.98 per patient per year) versus HCRU (placebo 0.60, aclidinium 200 µg 0.43 and aclidinium 400 µg 0.40 per patient per year). Concordance between methods was low (kappa 0.16). Aclidinium reduced EXACT-identified events (rate ratio versus placebo: aclidinium 200 µg 0.72 and aclidinium 400 µg 0.71; both p<0.05); HCRU events were similarly reduced. At week 24, SGRQ scores improved (-6.6 versus baseline) in patients with no event during weeks 1-12; improvements were significantly smaller in patients with HCRU events (-3.4; p=0.036) or EXACT-unreported events (-3.0; p=0.002). Unreported events were more frequent than reported events. Both had similar negative impact on health status. Aclidinium reduced the frequency of both types of event.

Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate: the 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled AUGMENT COPD study.

BACKGROUND: Combining two long-acting bronchodilators with complementary mechanisms of action may provide treatment benefits to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that are greater than those derived from either treatment alone. The efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium bromide, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and formoterol fumarate, a long-acting ß2-agonist, in patients with moderate to severe COPD are presented. METHODS: In this 24-week double-blind study, 1692 patients with stable COPD were equally randomized to twice-daily treatment with FDC aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg (ACL400/FOR12 FDC), FDC aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 6 µg (ACL400/FOR6 FDC), aclidinium 400 µg, formoterol 12 µg, or placebo administered by a multidose dry powder inhaler (Genuair®/Pressair®)*. Coprimary endpoints were change from baseline to week 24 in 1-hour morning postdose FEV1 (FDCs versus aclidinium) and change from baseline to week 24 in morning predose (trough) FEV1 (FDCs versus formoterol). Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and improvement in Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score at week 24. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: At study end, improvements from baseline in 1-hour postdose FEV1 were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC or ACL400/FOR6 FDC compared with aclidinium (108 mL and 87 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001). Improvements in trough FEV1 were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC versus formoterol (45 mL; p = 0.0102), a numerical improvement of 26 mL in trough FEV1 over formoterol was observed with ACL400/FOR6 FDC. Significant improvements in both SGRQ total and TDI focal scores were observed in the ACL400/FOR12 FDC group at study end (p < 0.0001), with differences over placebo exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of ≥4 points and ≥1 unit, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated, with safety profiles of the FDCs similar to those of the monotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with twice-daily aclidinium 400 µg/formoterol 12 µg FDC provided rapid and sustained bronchodilation that was greater than either monotherapy; clinically significant improvements in dyspnea and health status were evident compared with placebo. Aclidinium/formoterol FDC may be an effective and well tolerated new treatment option for patients with COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01437397.

ACCORD COPD II: a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the 12-week efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium bromide in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Aclidinium bromide is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist approved for the long-term maintenance treatment of bronchospasm associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This 12-week phase III study evaluated efficacy and tolerability of aclidinium 200 or 400 µg in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS: In this double-blind study, 544 patients with COPD were randomized to placebo or twice-daily aclidinium 200 or 400 µg administered by Genuair(®)/Pressair(®). Lung function, health status [measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)], dyspnea [measured using the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI)], and safety were assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: Mean changes from baseline in morning trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) at week 12 (primary endpoint) were significantly higher for aclidinium than for placebo (200 µg, 51 mL; 400 µg, 72 mL; both p < 0.05). Aclidinium also significantly improved other lung function outcomes. At week 12, improvements from baseline were observed with aclidinium in SGRQ total score (200 µg, -6.0; 400 µg, -5.4) and TDI focal score (200 µg, 1.0; 400 µg, 1.3). Furthermore, clinically important improvements in SGRQ total and TDI focal scores were achieved by 45 and 51 % of patients, respectively, who received aclidinium 400 µg, with a significant difference versus placebo for TDI (p < 0.05). Anticholinergic-related adverse events (e.g., dry mouth) were infrequent, occurring <2 % for any event in any treatment group. Both aclidinium doses were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates efficacy and safety of aclidinium in COPD patients. Unexpected baseline imbalances between treatment groups may have impacted the aclidinium treatment benefit in this study.

Long-term safety and efficacy of twice-daily aclidinium bromide in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Aclidinium is a novel, long-acting muscarinic antagonist indicated for maintenance treatment of COPD. METHODS: In this 52-week, parallel-group, double-blind study, patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized (1:1) to receive aclidinium twice-daily (BID) 200 µg or 400 µg via a novel, dry powder inhaler (Genuair(®)/Pressair(®)) [Registered trademarks of Almirall, SA, Barcelona, Spain for use within the European Union, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland as Genuair(®) and within the United States as Pressair(®)]. Safety, the primary objective, was assessed via adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, and 12-lead electrocardiograms. Efficacy was evaluated using spirometry, SGRQ, and rescue medication use. RESULTS: A total of 605 patients were randomized in the study. The percentage of patients reporting any treatment-emergent AE (TEAE) was comparable between groups; most TEAEs were mild or moderate. Anticholinergic TEAEs were reported by low percentages of patients in either treatment group (dry mouth: 200 µg, 1.3%; 400 µg, 2.7%; constipation: 200 µg, 2.9%; 400 µg, 1.7%). Cardiac TEAEs were also reported by a low percentage of patients (<2% for any event in any group) and did not appear to be dose dependent. There were no clinically relevant abnormalities in other safety outcomes. Both aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg resulted in improvements from baseline to Week 52 in FEV1, with numerically greater increases observed with the higher dose. Clinically important improvements in SGRQ scores and a reduction in rescue medication use were observed throughout the study for both doses. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with aclidinium 200 µg or 400 µg BID was well tolerated, with sustained benefits in lung function and health status in patients with COPD throughout the 1-year study.

Efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide compared with placebo and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a 6-week, randomized, controlled Phase IIIb study.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, Phase IIIb study evaluated the 24-hour bronchodilatory efficacy of aclidinium bromide versus placebo and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Patients received aclidinium 400 µg twice daily (morning and evening), tiotropium 18 µg once daily (morning), or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve for the 24-hour period post-morning dose (FEV1 AUC0-24) at week 6. Secondary and additional endpoints included FEV1 AUC12-24, COPD symptoms (EXAcerbations of chronic pulmonary disease Tool-Respiratory Symptoms [E-RS] total score and additional symptoms questionnaire), and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 414 patients were randomized and treated (FEV1 1.63 L [55.8% predicted]). Compared with placebo, FEV1 AUC0-24 and FEV1 AUC12-24 were significantly increased from baseline with aclidinium (∆ = 150 mL and 160 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001) and tiotropium (∆ = 140 mL and 123 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001) at week 6. Significant improvements in E-RS total scores over 6 weeks were numerically greater with aclidinium (p < 0.0001) than tiotropium (p < 0.05) versus placebo. Only aclidinium significantly reduced the severity of early-morning cough, wheeze, shortness of breath, and phlegm, and of nighttime symptoms versus placebo (p < 0.05). Adverse-event (AE) incidence (28%) was similar between treatments. Few anticholinergic AEs (<1.5%) or serious AEs (<3%) occurred in any group. CONCLUSIONS: Aclidinium provided significant 24-hour bronchodilation versus placebo from day 1 with comparable efficacy to tiotropium after 6 weeks. Improvements in COPD symptoms were consistently numerically greater with aclidinium versus tiotropium. Aclidinium was generally well tolerated.

One-year extension study of ACCORD COPD I: safety and efficacy of two doses of twice-daily aclidinium bromide in patients with COPD.

This was a 52-week, double-blind, extension study in which COPD patients previously treated with twice-daily (BID) aclidinium bromide 200 µg or 400 µg during a 12-week lead-in study (ACCORD COPD I) continued the same treatment, while patients previously receiving placebo were rerandomized (1:1) to aclidinium 200 µg or 400 µg BID. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of aclidinium treatment. Efficacy outcomes included bronchodilation, health status, and rescue medication use. A total of 467 patients completed the lead-in study and 291 patients consented to participate in the extension. At study end, the percentages of patients who reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) were similar for both treatments (200 µg, 77.4%; 400 µg, 73.7%). Incidence of anticholinergic TEAEs was low and similar for both treatments, with dry mouth reported in only 1 patient (400 µg). Cardiac TEAEs were reported by a similarly low percentage of patients (<5% for any event in any group) with no apparent dose dependence. Improvements from baseline in lung function were greatest for patients who received continuous aclidinium treatment and those who were rerandomized from placebo to aclidinium 400 µg; these improvements were generally sustained throughout the study. Health status and overall rescue medication use was improved from baseline for both treatments. The safety profile of twice-daily aclidinium and sustained improvements in lung function and health status throughout the 52-week extension study support its use as a long-term maintenance treatment for patients with COPD. (Clinical trial registration number NCT00970268).

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium bromide in COPD patients: the ATTAIN study.

The efficacy and safety of two doses of aclidinium bromide were evaluated in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this 24-week, double-blind trial, patients were randomised to twice-daily aclidinium (200 µg or 400 µg) or placebo. The primary efficacy end-point was change in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) at week 24. Other end-points included peak FEV(1), health status (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire; SGRQ) and dyspnoea (Transitional Dyspnoea Index; TDI). Overall, 828 patients were randomised. At week 24, significant improvements from baseline were observed with aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg versus placebo for trough FEV(1) (99 and 128 mL; both p<0.0001) and peak FEV(1) (185 and 209 mL; both p<0.0001). Peak FEV(1) improvements on day 1 were comparable with week 24. Aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg produced significant improvements over placebo in baseline-adjusted mean SGRQ total score (-3.8 and -4.6 units; p<0.001 and p<0.0001) and TDI focal score (0.6 and 1.0 units; p<0.05 and p<0.001) at week 24. With both aclidinium doses, the incidence of anticholinergic adverse events was low, and similar to placebo. Twice-daily aclidinium significantly improved bronchodilation, health status and dyspnoea, and was well tolerated in patients with COPD.

Efficacy and safety of a 12-week treatment with twice-daily aclidinium bromide in COPD patients (ACCORD COPD I).

BACKGROUND: This Phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg versus placebo in the treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS: In this 12-week, double-blind, multicenter trial, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to inhaled twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg, aclidinium 400 µg, or placebo. Primary and secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in trough FEV1 and peak FEV1 at Week 12, respectively. Health status (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]), COPD symptoms (Transitional Dyspnea Index [TDI], night and early morning symptoms), and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 561 patients (mean age, 64 ± 9 years) with a mean baseline FEV1 of 1.36 ± 0.54 L (47.2% of predicted value) were randomized. At Week 12, aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg showed significant improvements from baseline in mean (95% CI) trough FEV1 compared with placebo by 86 (45, 127) mL and 124 (83,164) mL, respectively, and in peak FEV1 by 146 (101, 190) mL and 192 (148, 236) mL, respectively (p ≤ 0.0001 for all). Both aclidinium doses also provided significant improvements in SGRQ, TDI and almost all COPD symptom scores compared with placebo (p < 0.05 for all). Incidences of adverse events (AEs) were similar across treatment groups. The incidence of anticholinergic AEs was low and similar across groups (dry mouth: 0.5%-1.6%; constipation: 0%-1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD patients with twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg and 400 µg was associated with significant improvements in bronchodilation, health status, and COPD symptoms. Both doses were well tolerated and had safety profiles similar to placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This ACCORD I study (AClidinium in Chronic Obstructive Respiratory Disease I) was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00891462) as "Efficacy and Safety of Aclidinium Bromide for Treatment of Moderate to Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)".