Safety and Effectiveness of As-Needed Formoterol in Asthma Patients Taking Inhaled Corticosteroid (ICS)-Formoterol or ICS-Salmeterol Maintenance Therapy.

BACKGROUND: As-needed low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol reliever is recommended in patients with asthma prescribed maintenance ICS-formoterol. Clinicians often ask whether ICS-formoterol reliever can be used with other maintenance ICS-long-acting ß2-agonists. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of as-needed formoterol in patients taking maintenance ICS-formoterol or ICS-salmeterol from the RELIEF study. METHODS: RELIEF (SD-037-0699) was a 6-month, open-label study that randomized 18,124 patients with asthma to as-needed formoterol 4.5 µg or salbutamol 200 µg on top of maintenance therapy. This post hoc analysis included patients on maintenance ICS-formoterol or ICS-salmeterol (n = 5436). The primary safety outcome was a composite of serious adverse events (SAEs) and/or adverse events leading to discontinuation (DAEs); the primary effectiveness outcome was time-to-first exacerbation. RESULTS: For both maintenance groups and both relievers, similar numbers of patients had ≥1 SAE and/or DAE. In patients taking maintenance ICS-salmeterol, but not ICS-formoterol, significantly more non-asthma-related and nonserious DAEs occurred with as-needed formoterol versus as-needed salbutamol (P = .0066 and P = .0034, respectively). In patients taking maintenance ICS-formoterol, there was a significantly lower risk in time-to-first exacerbation with as-needed formoterol versus as-needed salbutamol (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70, 0.95; P = .007). In patients taking ICS-salmeterol maintenance, time-to-first exacerbation was not significantly different between treatment arms (HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.84, 1.06; P = .35). CONCLUSIONS: As-needed formoterol significantly reduced exacerbation risk compared with as-needed salbutamol when added to maintenance ICS-formoterol, but not to maintenance ICS-salmeterol. More DAEs were seen with ICS-salmeterol maintenance therapy plus as-needed formoterol. Further research is needed to assess whether this is relevant to as-needed combination ICS-formoterol.

As-Needed Budesonide-Formoterol versus Maintenance Budesonide in Mild Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mild asthma often rely on inhaled short-acting ß2-agonists for symptom relief and have poor adherence to maintenance therapy. Another approach might be for patients to receive a fast-acting reliever plus an inhaled glucocorticoid component on an as-needed basis to address symptoms and exacerbation risk. METHODS: We conducted a 52-week, double-blind, multicenter trial involving patients 12 years of age or older who had mild asthma and were eligible for treatment with regular inhaled glucocorticoids. Patients were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily placebo plus budesonide-formoterol (200 µg of budesonide and 6 µg of formoterol) used as needed or budesonide maintenance therapy with twice-daily budesonide (200 µg) plus terbutaline (0.5 mg) used as needed. The primary analysis compared budesonide-formoterol used as needed with budesonide maintenance therapy with regard to the annualized rate of severe exacerbations, with a prespecified noninferiority limit of 1.2. Symptoms were assessed according to scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5) on a scale from 0 (no impairment) to 6 (maximum impairment). RESULTS: A total of 4215 patients underwent randomization, and 4176 (2089 in the budesonide-formoterol group and 2087 in the budesonide maintenance group) were included in the full analysis set. Budesonide-formoterol used as needed was noninferior to budesonide maintenance therapy for severe exacerbations; the annualized rate of severe exacerbations was 0.11 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10 to 0.13) and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.10 to 0.14), respectively (rate ratio, 0.97; upper one-sided 95% confidence limit, 1.16). The median daily metered dose of inhaled glucocorticoid was lower in the budesonide-formoterol group (66 µg) than in the budesonide maintenance group (267 µg). The time to the first exacerbation was similar in the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.17). The change in ACQ-5 score showed a difference of 0.11 units (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.15) in favor of budesonide maintenance therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild asthma, budesonide-formoterol used as needed was noninferior to twice-daily budesonide with respect to the rate of severe asthma exacerbations during 52 weeks of treatment but was inferior in controlling symptoms. Patients in the budesonide-formoterol group had approximately one quarter of the inhaled glucocorticoid exposure of those in the budesonide maintenance group. (Funded by AstraZeneca; SYGMA 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02224157 .).

Inhaled Combined Budesonide-Formoterol as Needed in Mild Asthma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with mild asthma, as-needed use of an inhaled glucocorticoid plus a fast-acting ß2-agonist may be an alternative to conventional treatment strategies. METHODS: We conducted a 52-week, double-blind trial involving patients 12 years of age or older with mild asthma. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three regimens: twice-daily placebo plus terbutaline (0.5 mg) used as needed (terbutaline group), twice-daily placebo plus budesonide-formoterol (200 µg of budesonide and 6 µg of formoterol) used as needed (budesonide-formoterol group), or twice-daily budesonide (200 µg) plus terbutaline used as needed (budesonide maintenance group). The primary objective was to investigate the superiority of as-needed budesonide-formoterol to as-needed terbutaline with regard to electronically recorded weeks with well-controlled asthma. RESULTS: A total of 3849 patients underwent randomization, and 3836 (1277 in the terbutaline group, 1277 in the budesonide-formoterol group, and 1282 in the budesonide maintenance group) were included in the full analysis and safety data sets. With respect to the mean percentage of weeks with well-controlled asthma per patient, budesonide-formoterol was superior to terbutaline (34.4% vs. 31.1% of weeks; odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.30; P=0.046) but inferior to budesonide maintenance therapy (34.4% and 44.4%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.73). The annual rate of severe exacerbations was 0.20 with terbutaline, 0.07 with budesonide-formoterol, and 0.09 with budesonide maintenance therapy; the rate ratio was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.49) for budesonide-formoterol versus terbutaline and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.59 to 1.16) for budesonide-formoterol versus budesonide maintenance therapy. The rate of adherence in the budesonide maintenance group was 78.9%. The median metered daily dose of inhaled glucocorticoid in the budesonide-formoterol group (57 µg) was 17% of the dose in the budesonide maintenance group (340 µg). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild asthma, as-needed budesonide-formoterol provided superior asthma-symptom control to as-needed terbutaline, assessed according to electronically recorded weeks with well-controlled asthma, but was inferior to budesonide maintenance therapy. Exacerbation rates with the two budesonide-containing regimens were similar and were lower than the rate with terbutaline. Budesonide-formoterol used as needed resulted in substantially lower glucocorticoid exposure than budesonide maintenance therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; SYGMA 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02149199 .).

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in adolescent patients with asthma.

Asthma control is often suboptimal in adolescents, but few studies have evaluated asthma treatments in this population.This post hoc analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) for treatment of persistent asthma in adolescent (age 12-17 years) subgroups within six randomised, double-blind trials. The primary end-point was time to first severe exacerbation. Secondary end-points included number of severe exacerbations, asthma-related symptoms, night-time awakenings, morning peak expiratory flow, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, as-needed medication use and five-item asthma control questionnaire scores.In adolescents (n=1847), BUD/FORM MART was similar to or more effective than comparators across each of the studies in reducing the risk of a first severe exacerbation (hazard ratios (HR) BUD/FORM MART versus comparators 0.15-1.01; pooled HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34-0.70), with comparable outcomes to the adult subgroups (n=12 197). Similar treatment benefits for BUD/FORM MART were observed for secondary end-points. As-needed medication use was lower with BUD/FORM MART than comparators, and BUD/FORM as-needed use was lower in adolescents than adults. Treatment was well tolerated.This analysis supports the use of BUD/FORM MART in adolescents with persistent asthma, its efficacy and safety being consistent with that reported for adults.

Effect of budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler on exacerbations versus formoterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: The 6-month, randomized RISE (Revealing the Impact of Symbicort in reducing Exacerbations in COPD) study.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of exacerbations is a primary goal for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapy. This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, multicenter study evaluated the effect of budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) versus formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) on reducing COPD exacerbations. METHODS: 1219 patients aged ≥40 years with moderate-to-very-severe COPD (per lung function) and a history of ≥1 COPD exacerbation received budesonide/formoterol pMDI 320/9 µg twice daily (BID) during a 4-week run-in. Patients were then randomized 1:1 to receive budesonide/formoterol pMDI 320/9 µg BID (n = 606) or formoterol DPI 9 µg BID (n = 613) for 26 weeks. Exacerbations were identified using predefined criteria for symptom worsening and treatment with systemic corticosteroids and/or antibiotics and/or hospitalization. The primary endpoint was annual rate of exacerbations. RESULTS: Budesonide/formoterol pMDI resulted in a 24% reduction in annual rate of exacerbations (0.85 vs 1.12; rate ratio: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.62, 0.92]; P = 0.006), and a significant risk reduction for time to first exacerbation (hazard ratio: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.64, 0.96]; P = 0.016) versus formoterol DPI. The most commonly reported adverse events (AEs; ≥3%) in budesonide/formoterol and formoterol groups were COPD (4.5% vs 8.6%) and nasopharyngitis (5.0% vs 5.2%). Pneumonia AEs were reported in 0.5% and 1.0% of budesonide/formoterol-treated and formoterol-treated patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide/formoterol pMDI is an effective treatment option for reducing exacerbation rates in COPD patients with moderate-to-very-severe airflow limitation and history of exacerbations. No increase in pneumonia was observed with budesonide/formoterol; safety data were consistent with its established profile.

Risk of pneumonia with budesonide-containing treatments in COPD: an individual patient-level pooled analysis of interventional studies.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised that treatment of COPD with inhaled corticosteroids may increase pneumonia risk. Responding to a request from the European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, a pooled analysis of interventional studies compared pneumonia risk with inhaled budesonide-containing versus non-budesonide-containing treatments and the impact of other clinically relevant factors. METHODS: AstraZeneca-sponsored, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trials meeting the following criteria were included: >8 weeks' duration; ≥60 patients with COPD; inhaled budesonide treatment arm (budesonide/formoterol or budesonide); and non-budesonide-containing comparator arm (formoterol or placebo). Primary and secondary outcomes were time to first pneumonia treatment-emergent serious adverse event (TESAE) and treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAEs), respectively, analyzed using Cox regression models stratified by study. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified; 10,570 out of 10,574 randomized patients receiving ≥1 dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (budesonide-containing, n=5,750; non-budesonide-containing, n=4,820). Maximum exposure to treatment was 48 months. The overall pooled hazard ratio (HR), comparing budesonide versus non-budesonide-containing treatments, was 1.15 for pneumonia TESAEs (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83, 1.57) and 1.13 for pneumonia TEAEs (95% CI: 0.94, 1.36). The annual incidence of pneumonia TESAEs was 1.9% and 1.5% for budesonide-containing and non-budesonide-containing treatments, respectively. Comparing budesonide/formoterol with non-budesonide-containing treatment, the HRs for pneumonia TESAEs and TEAEs were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.69, 1.44) and 1.21 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.57), respectively. For budesonide versus placebo, HRs were 1.57 for pneumonia TESAEs (95% CI: 0.90, 2.74) and 1.07 for pneumonia TEAEs (95% CI: 0.83, 1.38). CONCLUSION: This pooled analysis found no statistically significant increase in overall risk for pneumonia TESAEs or TEAEs with budesonide-containing versus non-budesonide-containing treatments. However, a small increase in risk with budesonide-containing treatment cannot be ruled out; there is considerable heterogeneity in study designs and patient characteristics, particularly in the early budesonide studies, and each study contributes <40 pneumonia TESAEs.

Pharmacokinetics of the Inhaled Selective Glucocorticoid Receptor Modulator AZD5423 Following Inhalation Using Different Devices.

AZD5423 is a non-steroidal glucocorticoid receptor modulator, with low aqueous solubility, developed for treatment of asthma and COPD. In this work, we aim to evaluate and compare the absorption pharmacokinetics (PK) of AZD5423 after inhalation via four devices, (Spira®, I-neb®, Turbuhaler® and a new dry powder inhaler (new DPI)) with two formulations using differently sized primary particles, and to compare the pulmonary bioavailability with the predicted lung deposited dose. Plasma concentration-time data after intravenous, oral and inhaled administration via four devices were available from two clinical studies in healthy and asthmatic subjects. A population PK modelling approach was taken to sequentially incorporate each route of administration, assuming parallel absorption compartments for inhaled AZD5423. A non-compartmental analysis for derivation of PK parameters was performed for comparison. Pulmonary bioavailability varied between devices, with the lowest estimates for I-neb (27%) and Turbuhaler (30%) and the highest for the new DPI (46%) and Spira (35-49%). The pulmonary bioavailability was substantially lower than the predicted lung deposited dose (range 59-90%). Lung absorption was separated into a faster and a slower process in the model. The half-life of the faster absorption appeared formulation-dependent, while the slower absorption (half-life of 0.59-0.78 h) appeared independent of formulation. The large difference in the estimated pulmonary bioavailability and the predicted lung deposited dose for AZD5423 implies an impact of mucociliary clearance. The lung absorption half-life indicates that AZD5423 is retained in the lung for a relatively short time.

Efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol pMDI vs budesonide pMDI in asthmatic children (6-<12 years).

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) have been demonstrated in patients with asthma at least 12 years old. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of 2 formoterol doses added to budesonide as fixed combinations vs budesonide alone in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma. METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded, parallel-group, multicenter study (NCT02091986; CHASE 3) included children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma previously receiving a medium-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or an ICS plus a long-acting ß2-agonist. Children symptomatic during a 7-28-day run-in on low-dose ICS, 1 inhalation of budesonide dry powder inhaler 90 µg twice daily (BID), were randomized to receive 2 inhalations of budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 µg (160/9 µg) BID (n = 92), budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/2.25 µg (160/4.5 µg) BID (n = 95), or budesonide pMDI 80 µg (160 µg) BID (n = 92) for 12 weeks. RESULTS: Change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline to 1 hour after dosing (primary end point), change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second 15 minutes after dosing, and peak expiratory flow 1 hour after dosing at week 12 were statistically significantly greater for budesonide/formoterol 160/9 µg vs budesonide (P ≤ .015 for all comparisons), but not for budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg vs budesonide. Bronchodilator effects, evident 15 minutes after the dose on day 1, were maintained at week 12. Incidence of protocol-defined asthma exacerbations and improvements in asthma symptom-related and quality-of-life outcomes were similar across treatments. There were no notable safety differences among treatments. CONCLUSION: Budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/9 µg showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful lung function improvements vs budesonide pMDI 160 µg, demonstrating appropriateness as a therapeutic option for children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma symptomatic on ICS alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02091986.

Efficacy and Tolerability of an Inhaled Selective Glucocorticoid Receptor Modulator - AZD5423 - in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: Phase II Study Results.

AZD5423 is a novel, inhaled, selective glucocorticoid receptor modulator (SGRM), which in an allergen challenge model in asthma patients improved lung function and airway hyper-reactivity. In the current trial, AZD5423 was for the first time tested in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this double-blind, randomized and parallel group study, we examined airway and systemic effects of two doses of AZD5423, inhaled via Turbuhaler for 12 weeks, in 353 symptomatic patients with COPD (average pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one-second (FEV1) at screening was 50-52% of predicted normal). Pre-bronchodilator FEV1 was primary variable, with other lung function parameters plus symptoms and 24-hr plasma cortisol being secondary variables. Plasma concentrations of AZD5423 were also measured. Effects were compared against placebo and a reference glucocorticoid receptor agonist control. Neither AZD5423, at doses which have shown to be efficacious in allergen-induced asthma, nor the reference control, at double the approved dose, had any clinically meaningful effect in the patient population studied in regard to lung function or markers of inflammation. Both GR modulators were well tolerated and did suppress 24-hr cortisol. This study suggests that the selected population of patients with COPD does not respond to treatment with AZD5423 as regards lung function, while showing the expected systemic effects. It cannot be ruled out that a favourable lung function response of AZD5423 can be evoked using another experimental setting and/or within a different population of patients with COPD.

The SYGMA programme of phase 3 trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol given 'as needed' in mild asthma: study protocols for two randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In many patients with mild asthma, the low frequency of symptoms and the episodic nature of exacerbations make adherence to regular maintenance treatment difficult. This often leads to over-reliance on short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) reliever medication and under-treatment of the underlying inflammation, with poor control of asthma symptoms and increased risk of exacerbations. The use of budesonide/formoterol 'as needed' in response to symptoms may represent an alternative treatment option for patients with mild asthma. METHODS/DESIGN: The SYmbicort Given as needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) programme consists of two 52-week, double-blind, randomised, multicentre, parallel-group, phase 3 trials of patients aged 12 years and older with a clinical diagnosis of asthma for at least 6 months, who would qualify for treatment with regular inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). SYGMA1 aims to recruit 3750 patients who will be randomised to placebo twice daily (bid) plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg, placebo bid plus as-needed terbutaline 0.4 mg, or budesonide 200 µg bid plus as-needed terbutaline 0.4 mg. The primary objective is to demonstrate the superiority of as-needed budesonide/formoterol over as-needed terbutaline for asthma control, as measured by well-controlled asthma weeks; a secondary objective is to establish the noninferiority of as-needed budesonide/formoterol versus maintenance budesonide plus as-needed terbutaline using the same outcome measure. SYGMA2 aims to recruit 4114 patients who will be randomised to placebo bid plus as-needed budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg, or budesonide 200 µg bid plus as-needed terbutaline 0.4 mg. The primary objective is to demonstrate the noninferiority of as-needed budesonide/formoterol over budesonide bid plus as-needed terbutaline as measured by the annualised severe exacerbation rate. In both studies, use of all blinded study inhalers will be recorded electronically using Turbuhaler® Usage Monitors. DISCUSSION: Given the known risks of mild asthma, and known poor adherence with regular inhaled corticosteroids, the results of the SYGMA programme will help to determine the efficacy and safety of as-needed budesonide/formoterol therapy in mild asthma. Patient recruitment is complete, and completion of the phase 3 studies is planned in 2017. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02149199 SYGMA1 and NCT02224157 SYGMA2. Registered on 16 May 2014 and 19 August 2014, respectively.

Should recommendations about starting inhaled corticosteroid treatment for mild asthma be based on symptom frequency: a post-hoc efficacy analysis of the START study.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are highly effective for reducing asthma exacerbations and mortality. Conventionally, ICS treatment is recommended for patients with symptoms on more than 2 days per week, but this criterion has scant evidence. We aimed to assess the validity of the previous symptom-based cutoff for starting ICS by establishing whether there was a differential response to budesonide versus placebo for severe asthma exacerbations, lung function, and asthma symptom control across subgroups identified by baseline asthma symptom frequency. METHODS: We did a post-hoc analysis of the 3 year inhaled Steroid Treatment As Regular Therapy (START) study, done in 32 countries, with clinic visits every 3 months. Patients (aged 4-66 years) with mild asthma diagnosed within the previous 2 years and no previous regular corticosteroids were randomised to receive once daily, inhaled budesonide 400 µg (those aged <11 years 200 µg) or placebo. Coprimary outcomes for this analysis were time to first severe asthma-related event (SARE; hospital admission, emergency treatment, or death) and change from baseline in lung function after bronchodilator. Interaction with baseline symptom frequency was investigated, with patients grouped by more than two symptom days per week and two or fewer symptom days per week (divided into no days to 1 day, and more than 1 day to 2 days). Analysis was done by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Of 7138 patients (n=3577 budesonide; n=3561 placebo), baseline symptom frequency was 0-1 days per week for 2184 (31%) participants, more than 1 and less than or equal to 2 symptom days per week for 1914 (27%) participants, and more than 2 symptom days per week for 3040 (43%) participants. For budesonide versus placebo, time to first SARE was longer across symptom frequency subgroups (hazard ratios 0·54 [95% CI 0·34-0·86] for 0-1 symptom days per week, 0·60 [0·39-0·93] for >1 to ≤2 symptom days per week, 0·57 [0·41-0·79] >2 symptom days per week, pinteraction=0·94), and the decline in postbronchodilator lung function was less at 3 years' follow-up (pinteraction=0·32). For budesonide versus placebo, severe exacerbations requiring oral or systemic corticosteroids were reduced (rate ratio 0·48 [0·38-0·61] 0-1 symptom days per week, 0·56 [0·44-0·71] >1 to ≤2 symptom days per week, and 0·66 [0·55-0·80] >2 symptom days per week, pinteraction=0·11), prebronchodilator lung function was higher, and symptom-free days were more frequent (p<0·0001 for all three subgroups), with no interaction by symptom frequency (prebronchodilator pinteraction=0·43; symptom-free days pinteraction=0·53). Similar results were noted when participants were classified by any guidelines criterion as so-called persistent versus so-called intermittent asthma. INTERPRETATION: In mild recent-onset asthma, once daily, low-dose budesonide decreases SARE risk, reduces lung function decline, and improves symptom control similarly across all symptom subgroups. The results do not support restriction of inhaled corticosteroids to patients with symptoms on more than 2 days per week and suggest that treatment recommendations for mild asthma should consider both risk reduction and symptoms. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Serious Asthma Events with Budesonide plus Formoterol vs. Budesonide Alone.

BACKGROUND: Concerns remain about the safety of adding long-acting ß2-agonists to inhaled glucocorticoids for the treatment of asthma. In a postmarketing safety study mandated by the Food and Drug Administration, we evaluated whether the addition of formoterol to budesonide maintenance therapy increased the risk of serious asthma-related events in patients with asthma. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, 26-week study, we randomly assigned patients, 12 years of age or older, who had persistent asthma, were receiving daily asthma medication, and had had one to four asthma exacerbations in the previous year to receive budesonide-formoterol or budesonide alone. Patients with a history of life-threatening asthma were excluded. The primary end point was the first serious asthma-related event (a composite of adjudicated death, intubation, and hospitalization), as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The noninferiority of budesonide-formoterol to budesonide was defined as an upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The primary efficacy end point was the first asthma exacerbation, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 11,693 patients underwent randomization, of whom 5846 were assigned to receive budesonide-formoterol and 5847 to receive budesonide. A serious asthma-related event occurred in 43 patients who were receiving budesonide-formoterol and in 40 patients who were receiving budesonide (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.65]); budesonide-formoterol was shown to be noninferior to budesonide alone. There were two asthma-related deaths, both in the budesonide-formoterol group; one of these patients had undergone an asthma-related intubation. The risk of an asthma exacerbation was 16.5% lower with budesonide-formoterol than with budesonide (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.94; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Among adolescents and adults with predominantly moderate-to-severe asthma, treatment with budesonide-formoterol was associated with a lower risk of asthma exacerbations than budesonide and a similar risk of serious asthma-related events. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01444430 .).

Safety, Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of the Selective Glucocorticoid Receptor Modulator AZD5423 after Inhalation in Healthy Volunteers.

AZD5423 is a selective glucocorticosteroid receptor modulator developed for the inhaled use in asthma and COPD. This study reports the initial, first-in-man, single and repeat dose-escalating studies in healthy male individuals, including one cohort of male Japanese individuals. Inhaled, nebulized AZD5423 was safe and well tolerated up to and including the highest doses tested for up to 2 weeks of once-daily treatment. Plasma exposure suggested dose-proportional pharmacokinetics and dose-related effects on 24-hr plasma and urine cortisol. There were no or marginal effects on other biomarkers tested (osteocalcin, TRAP5b, DHEA-S and 4ß-OH-cholesterol). No clinically relevant differences in safety or pharmacokinetics could be distinguished between the two study populations, although hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) effects appeared to be marginally greater in the Japanese- versus the Caucasian-dominant study population. AZD5423, inhaled via nebulization, can be used in healthy individuals at doses of at least 300 µg for 2 weeks. The effects on the HPA axis reported herein, together with efficacy data reported elsewhere, indicate that benefit-risk ratio may be improved relative to conventional inhaled steroids.

Feasibility of Computed Tomography in a Multicenter COPD Trial: A Study of the Effect of AZD9668 on Structural Airway Changes.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of using computed tomography (CT) in a multicenter setting to assess structural airway changes. METHODS: This was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase IIb trial using CT to investigate the effect of a novel, oral, reversible neutrophil elastase inhibitor, AZD9668 60 mg twice daily (BID), on structural airway changes in patients aged 50-80 years with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (ex-smokers). PRIMARY OUTCOME VARIABLE: airway wall thickness at an extrapolated interior perimeter of 10 mm (AWT-Pi10). Secondary outcome variables: fifth-generation wall area %; air trapping index; pre- and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1); morning and evening peak expiratory flow and FEV1; body plethysmography; EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool (EXACT); Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum Scale (BCSS); St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD; and proportion of reliever-medication-free trial days. Safety variables were also assessed. RESULTS: There was no difference between placebo (n = 19) and AZD9668 (n = 17) for AWT-Pi10 at treatment end. This was consistent with results for most secondary variables. However, patients randomized to AZD9668 experienced an improvement versus placebo for morning and evening FEV1, and EXACT and BCSS cough and sputum scores. AZD9668 60 mg BID was well tolerated and no new safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the feasibility of using CT to assess structural airway changes in COPD. However, there was no evidence of improvements in CT structural measures following 12 weeks' treatment with AZD9668 60 mg BID. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of AZD3199, an inhaled ultra-long-acting ß2-adrenoreceptor agonist (uLABA).

OBJECTIVE: The clinical pharmacokinetics of AZD3199, an ultra-long-acting ß2-agonist, were investigated in healthy volunteers and patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five studies are presented: one single ascending dose study in healthy Caucasian males; two multiple ascending dose studies in healthy males, one in Caucasians and one in Japanese; a Phase IIA asthma study; and a Phase IIB COPD study. Subjects received AZD3199 via a Spira nebulizer (Turbuhaler; equivalent delivered doses 5-3200 µg) or Turbuhaler (single delivered doses of 120-1920 µg or repeated delivered once-daily doses 240-1,680 µg). AZD3199 pharmacokinetics were assessed using total plasma concentration and urinary excretion, and tolerability using adverse events, clinical laboratory tests, and physical examinations. RESULTS: AZD3199 appeared rapidly in the systemic circulation following single and multiple dosing in healthy volunteers and patients (maximum plasma concentration within 30 minutes), with dose-proportional time-independent pharmacokinetics. Plasma exposure to unmetabolized drug was similar in healthy volunteers and patients with asthma, but relatively lower in patients with COPD. Estimated terminal half-life was up to 142 hours in healthy Caucasian males. AZD3199 was well tolerated and showed no or at most mild systemic effects. CONCLUSION: AZD3199 plasma exposure in healthy volunteers and patients suggested linear pharmacokinetics and a long half-life. Systemic availability was similar in healthy subjects and patients with asthma, but was lower in patients with COPD. These clinical trials suggest that AZD3199 is well-tolerated in healthy male volunteers and patients, with no safety concerns identified to preclude further evaluation.

A nonsteroidal glucocorticoid receptor agonist inhibits allergen-induced late asthmatic responses.

RATIONALE: Effective antiinflammatory therapies are needed for the treatment of asthma, but preferably without the systemic adverse effects of glucocorticosteroids. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the effect of an inhaled nonsteroidal glucocorticoid receptor agonist, AZD5423, on allergen-induced responses. METHODS: Twenty subjects with mild allergic asthma were randomized to receive 7 days of treatment with nebulized AZD5423 (75 or 300 µg) once daily, budesonide 200 µg twice daily via Turbuhaler, or placebo in a double-blind, four-period, crossover design study. Allergen challenge was performed on Day 6. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: FEV1 was measured repeatedly for 7 hours after allergen challenge for early and late asthmatic responses. Sputum inflammatory cells was measured before and at 7 and 24 hours after allergen challenge, and methacholine airway responsiveness was measured before and 24 hours after allergen challenge. AZD5423 significantly attenuated the fall in FEV1 during the late asthmatic response (both doses led to an 8.7% fall) versus placebo (14% fall) (P < 0.05) with no effect of budesonide (12.5% fall) versus placebo (P > 0.05). There was no effect on the fall in FEV1 during early asthmatic response. AZD5423 300 and 75 µg significantly attenuated allergen-induced sputum eosinophilia by 63 and 61% at 7 hours, respectively, and by 46 and 34% at 24 hours after allergen challenge, respectively, versus placebo (all P < 0.05). Budesonide did not reduce allergen-induced sputum eosinophilia versus placebo. AZD5423 at 300 µg significantly attenuated allergen-induced airway hyperresponsiveness at 24 hours after allergen challenge versus placebo (P < 0.05). Both doses of AZD5423 were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Seven-day treatment with inhalation of the nonsteroidal glucocorticoid receptor agonist AZD5423 effectively reduced allergen-induced responses in subjects with mild allergic asthma. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01225549).

Transient paradoxical bronchospasm associated with inhalation of the LAMA AZD9164: analysis of two Phase I, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: AZD9164 has demonstrated potential as an inhaled, long-acting, muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) bronchodilator. However, in patients with COPD, but not in healthy subjects, a transient initial drop in FEV1 was observed following inhalation of nebulised doses of AZD9164 in citrate buffer.Two additional studies were conducted to further assess the safety and tolerability of multiple ascending doses of AZD9164 in 27 white and 18 Japanese healthy subjects and in 4 patients with COPD. In these studies, AZD9164 was inhaled via Turbuhaler™. METHODS: These were Phase I, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple ascending dose (MAD) studies conducted in Sweden and UK. Healthy subjects (mean age 25.9 yrs) and patients with COPD (mean age 66 yrs, mean post-bronchodilator FEV1 60.1% predicted normal value) were randomised 2:1 to active treatment (400, 1000 or 2800 µg delivered doses of AZD9164) or placebo. RESULTS: No safety or tolerability concerns were identified in the healthy subjects at doses up to and including 2800 µg and both studies confirmed the bronchodilator effect of AZD9164. However, the first 3 patients in the COPD cohort who received AZD9164 (1000 µg) experienced a transient fall in FEV1 5 to 15 minutes after inhalation of AZD9164 while the patient receiving placebo did not. The study safety review process then resulted in cessation of further activities on AZD9164. Retrospective analysis showed that two healthy subjects had also had transient falls in FEV1 shortly after inhalation of AZD9164 400 and 2800 µg respectively, although neither reported any related respiratory symptoms or other AEs. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that transient paradoxical bronchoconstriction can occur in some healthy subjects, in addition to patients with COPD, following inhalation of AZD9164 and that the citrate buffer used in the nebulised formulation cannot have been the only cause of the drop in FEV1 in previous studies. As preclinical data do not provide an explanation, the reasons for this brief post-dose drop in FEV1 remain unclear. However, these results highlight the importance of monitoring lung function immediately post-dose when investigating novel inhaled treatments, even when a rapid onset of effect is not expected. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01016951 and NCT01096563.

Efficacy and safety of AZD3199 vs formoterol in COPD: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the efficacy and safety of AZD3199, a novel inhaled ultra-LABA, with the main aim of establishing a dose that would maintain 24-hour bronchodilation in patients with COPD. METHODS: Patients (n = 329) were randomized to AZD3199 (200, 400 or 800 µg o.d.), formoterol (9 µg b.i.d.) or placebo via Turbuhaler® in a parallel group study. The primary objective of the study was to compare the clinical efficacy of three doses of AZD3199 inhaled once daily with 9 µg formoterol twice daily and placebo, over a 4-week treatment period in adults with moderate-to-severe COPD. After 4 weeks, peak (0-4 h) and trough (24-26 h) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) were assessed as the primary efficacy outcome variables. RESULTS: All AZD3199 doses significantly increased mean peak and trough FEV1 versus placebo (106-171 ml and 97-110 ml increases, respectively), but with no clear dose-response; the level of bronchodilation was comparable to or greater than that achieved with formoterol. Forced vital capacity (FVC) at peak bronchodilation also significantly increased with AZD3199 versus placebo (153-204 ml). COPD symptom scores and reliever use were reduced with AZD3199, while FEV1 reversibility was unaltered. Adverse events were mild-to-moderate, with no safety concerns identified. Drug exposure was dose-proportional, but lower than predicted from healthy volunteers. CONCLUSIONS: All three doses of AZD3199 produced 24-hour bronchodilation, but with no clear dose-response, suggesting that doses of 200 µg or less may be sufficient to maintain bronchodilation over 24 hours in patients with COPD. No safety concerns were identified. Further studies are required to determine the once-daily AZD3199 dose for COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00929708.

Local and systemic effects of inhaled AZD9164 compared with tiotropium in patients with COPD.

There is still a need for new agents which improve upon the therapeutic index of tiotropium, the current standard of care for many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We examined in patients with COPD the efficacy of single doses of AZD9164, an M(3)-selective muscarinic antagonist, to identify an appropriate dose-range for future studies. COPD patients (n = 28) inhaled AZD9164 (100, 400 and 1200 µg), tiotropium (18 µg) and placebo at 5 study centre visits (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00939211). The effects of these test drugs on average (E(av)), peak (E(max)) and trough (E(22-26)) forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) were assessed, as were systemically-mediated effects and the safety and exposure of single doses of AZD9164. AZD9164 100, 400 and 1200 µg caused increases in FEV(1) to peak effects of 12, 17 and 12% above baseline respectively, following an initial transient and dose-related fall in FEV(1) and associated increase in mild respiratory symptoms such as cough. Bronchodilation was maintained overnight, with minimal FEV(1) decline. AZD9164 400 and 1200 µg produced larger effects than tiotropium on E(22-26) (p < 0.05; both doses) while AZD9164 400 µg also had larger effects on E(max) (p = 0.001) and E(av) (p < 0.05). There were no serious adverse events and statistically significant systemic effects were observed only with AZD9164 1200 µg. AZD9164 may improve upon the therapeutic index of tiotropium, increasing the magnitude and duration of lung function improvements without increasing systemically-mediated adverse events. The initial bronchoconstrictor effect of AZD9164 requires further investigation.

Effect of budesonide in combination with formoterol for reliever therapy in asthma exacerbations: a randomised controlled, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: The contributions of as-needed inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2 agonists (LABA) to asthma control have not been fully established. We compared the efficacy and safety of three reliever strategies: a traditional short-acting beta2 agonist; a rapid-onset LABA (formoterol); and a combination of LABA and an inhaled corticosteroid (budesonide-formoterol) in symptomatic patients receiving budesonide-formoterol maintenance therapy. METHODS: We did a 12-month, double-blind, parallel-group study in 3394 patients (aged 12 years or older), in 289 centres in 20 countries, who were using inhaled corticosteroids at study entry and symptomatic on budesonide-formoterol (160 microg and 4.5 microg, respectively), one inhalation twice daily, during a 2-week run-in. After run-in, patients were randomly assigned budesonide-formoterol maintenance therapy plus one of three alternative as-needed medications-terbutaline (0.4 mg), formoterol (4.5 microg), or budesonide-formoterol (160 microg and 4.5 microg). The primary outcome was time to first severe exacerbation, defined as an event resulting in hospitalisation, emergency room treatment, or both, or the need for oral steroids for 3 days or more. FINDINGS: Time to first severe exacerbation was longer with as-needed budesonide-formoterol versus formoterol (p=0.0048; log-rank test) and with as-needed formoterol versus terbutaline (p=0.0051). The rate of severe exacerbations was 37, 29, and 19 per 100 patients per year with as-needed terbutaline, formoterol, and budesonide-formoterol, respectively (rate ratios budesonide-formoterol versus formoterol 0.67 [95% CI 0.56-0.80; p<0.0001]; budesonide-formoterol versus terbutaline 0.52 [0.44-0.62; p<0.0001]; formoterol versus terbutaline 0.78 [0.67-0.91; p=0.0012]). Asthma control days increased to a similar extent in all treatment groups. As-needed formoterol did not significantly improve symptoms compared with as-needed terbutaline. All treatments were well tolerated. INTERPRETATION: Both monocomponents of budesonide-formoterol given as needed contribute to enhanced protection from severe exacerbations in patients receiving combination therapy for maintenance.