Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy European Patient Survey: Assessing Patient Reported Disease Burden and Preferences in Clinical Trial Participation.

Background: Facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD) is a genetic disorder characterized by progressive muscle weakness leading to permanent disability. There are no curative treatments, however, there are several upcoming clinical trials testing new therapies in FSHD. Objective: This study aimed to explore the disease burden and patient preferences of people with FSHD to ensure that clinical trials can be designed to include outcome measures that are relevant and important to patients. Methods: A survey was developed with a steering committee clinicians and physiotherapists with relevant experience in the disease, patient representatives, a registry expert and industry consultants. Themes of the survey included; participant demographics, disease progression and impact on function, factors encouraging or discouraging clinical trial participation, and positive outcomes of a clinical trial. Results: 1147 participants responded to the online survey, representing 26 countries across Europe and a range of disease severities. The study highlighted the key symptoms causing concern for FSHD patients - muscle weakness and mobility issues - reflecting what participants want targeted for future therapies. The need for clear information and communication throughout clinical trials was emphasised. Factors most encouraging trial participation included access to new investigational therapies, access to trial results and benefits for the FSHD community. Factors most discouraging trial participation included travel related issues and fear of side effects. Conclusions: The results from this study identify the patient reported burden of FSHD and should provide researchers and industry with areas of therapeutic research that would be meaningful to patients, as well as supporting the development of patient centric outcome measures in clinical trials.

Racial and ethnic diversity in global neuroscience clinical trials.

Background: Despite efforts to increase diversity in neuroscience trials, racial and ethnic minority groups remain underrepresented. Disparities in clinical trial participation could reflect unequal opportunities to participate and may contribute to decreased generalizability of findings and failure to identify important differences in efficacy and safety outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the F. Hoffmann-La Roche database for global, multicenter, neuroscience clinical trials from February 2016 to February 2021 and summarized and stratified race and ethnicity distributions by clinical trial therapeutic area and by country. These data were then compared to national population data for each study's targeted age group (available for studies conducted in the US, Canada, and the UK). The underrepresentation or overrepresentation of each racial and ethnic group was summarized. Results: The analysis population included 8015 participants from 47 countries. Globally, 85.6 % of participants were White, 7.1 % were Asian, 1.6 % were Black, 1.3 % were American Indian or Alaska Native, less than 0.1 % were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 0.7 % were of multiple races, and 3.6 % were of other/unknown race. White individuals predominated in all but one trial. Black individuals were underrepresented in all trials but one. Asian individuals were overrepresented in approximately 20 % of trials. In the US, 7.3 % of participants were of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity vs 16.4 % of the US population. Conclusion: The findings and learnings from this summary and analysis demonstrate the need for continued awareness and new approaches in designing studies that reflect population diversity.

Two-year efficacy and safety of risdiplam in patients with type 2 or non-ambulant type 3 spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).

Risdiplam is an oral, survival of motor neuron 2 (SMN2) pre-mRNA splicing modifier approved for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). SUNFISH (NCT02908685) Part 2, a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, investigated the efficacy and safety of risdiplam in type 2 and non­ambulant type 3 SMA. The primary endpoint was met: a significantly greater change from baseline in 32-item Motor Function Measure (MFM32) total score was observed with risdiplam compared with placebo at month 12. After 12 months, all participants received risdiplam while preserving initial treatment blinding. We report 24-month efficacy and safety results in this population. Month 24 exploratory endpoints included change from baseline in MFM32 and safety. MFM­derived results were compared with an external comparator. At month 24 of risdiplam treatment, 32% of patients demonstrated improvement (a change of ≥ 3) from baseline in MFM32 total score; 58% showed stabilization (a change of ≥ 0). Compared with an external comparator, a treatment difference of 3.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.67-4.57) in favor of risdiplam was observed in MFM-derived scores. Overall, gains in motor function at month 12 were maintained or improved upon at month 24. In patients initially receiving placebo, MFM32 remained stable compared with baseline (0.31 [95% CI - 0.65 to 1.28]) after 12 months of risdiplam; 16% of patients improved their score and 59% exhibited stabilization. The safety profile after 24 months was consistent with that observed after 12 months. Risdiplam over 24 months resulted in further improvement or stabilization in motor function, confirming the benefit of longer-term treatment.

Risdiplam in types 2 and 3 spinal muscular atrophy: A randomised, placebo-controlled, dose-finding trial followed by 24 months of treatment.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by reduced levels of survival of motor neuron (SMN) protein due to deletions and/or mutations in the SMN1 gene. Risdiplam is an orally administered molecule that modifies SMN2 pre-mRNA splicing to increase functional SMN protein. METHODS: SUNFISH Part 1 was a dose-finding study conducted in 51 individuals with types 2 and 3 SMA aged 2-25 years. A dose-escalation method was used to identify the appropriate dose for the subsequent pivotal Part 2. Individuals were randomized (2:1) to risdiplam or placebo at escalating dose levels for a minimum 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled period, followed by treatment for 24 months. The dose selection for Part 2 was based on safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic data. Exploratory efficacy was also measured. RESULTS: There was no difference in safety findings for all assessed dose levels. A dose-dependent increase in blood SMN protein was observed; a median twofold increase was obtained within 4 weeks of treatment initiation at the highest dose level. The increase in SMN protein was sustained over 24 months of treatment. Exploratory efficacy showed improvement or stabilization in motor function. The pivotal dose selected for Part 2 was 5 mg for patients with a body weight ≥20 kg or 0.25 mg/kg for patients with a body weight <20 kg. CONCLUSIONS: SUNFISH Part 1 demonstrated a twofold increase in SMN protein after treatment with risdiplam. The observed safety profile supported the initiation of the pivotal Part 2 study. The long-term efficacy and safety of risdiplam are being assessed with ongoing treatment.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in pediatric asthma patients: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) (fluticasone/formoterol; Flutiform®; 100/10 µg b.i.d.) was compared with fluticasone propionate (Flixotide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100 µg b.i.d.) and fluticasone/salmeterol (Seretide® Evohaler® pMDI; 100/50 µg b.i.d.) in a pediatric asthma population (EudraCT number: 2010-024635-16). METHODS: A double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, multicenter study. Patients, aged 5-<12 years with persistent asthma ⩾ 6 months and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ⩽ 90% predicted were randomized 1:1:1 to 12 weeks' treatment. The study objectives were to demonstrate superiority of fluticasone/formoterol to fluticasone and non-inferiority to fluticasone/salmeterol. RESULTS: A total of 512 patients were randomized: fluticasone/formoterol, 169; fluticasone, 173; fluticasone/salmeterol, 170. Fluticasone/formoterol was superior to fluticasone for the primary endpoint: change from predose FEV1 at baseline to 2 h postdose FEV1 over 12 weeks [least squares (LS) mean difference 0.07 l; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03, 0.11; p < 0.001] and the first key secondary endpoint, FEV1 area under the curve over 4 hours (AUC0-4 h) at week 12 (LS mean difference 0.09 l; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.13; p < 0.001). Per a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.1 l, fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the primary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.00 l; 95% CI -0.04, 0.04; p < 0.001) and first key secondary endpoint (LS mean difference 0.01; 95% CI -0.03, 0.06; p < 0.001). Fluticasone/formoterol was non-inferior to fluticasone/salmeterol for the second key secondary endpoint, change from predose FEV1 over 12 weeks (treatment difference -0.02 l; 95% CI -0.06, 0.02; p < 0.001), but was not superior to fluticasone for this endpoint (LS mean difference 0.03 l; 95% CI -0.01, 0.07; p = 0.091). All treatments elicited large improvements from baseline to week 12 for the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (LS mean change 0.76 to 0.85 units) and Asthma Control Questionnaire (LS mean change -1.03 to -1.13 units). Few severe exacerbations were seen (fluticasone/formoterol: two; fluticasone/salmeterol: two). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol in a pediatric asthma population and its superiority to fluticasone.

A 12-week open-label, randomized, controlled trial and 24-week extension to assess the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in children with asthma.

OBJECTIVES: The present study was conducted to assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate combination therapy (FP/FORM; Flutiform®) compared with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL; Seretide® Evohaler®) in children with asthma. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, controlled, phase III trial and extension. Patients aged 4-12 years with reversible asthma [% predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 60-100%; documented reversibility of ⩾15% in FEV1] were randomized to receive FP/FORM (100/10 µg b.i.d.) or FP/SAL (100/50 µg b.i.d.) for 12 weeks. Eligible patients completing the 12-week core phase entered a 24-week extension phase with FP/FORM (100/10 µg b.i.d.). The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in predose FEV1 from day 0 to day 84. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change in predose to 2-hours postdose FEV1 from day 0 to day 84, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), patient-reported outcomes, rescue-medication use and asthma exacerbations. RESULTS: In total, 211 patients were randomized and 210 completed the core phase; of these patients, 208 entered and 205 completed the extension phase of the study. Predose FEV1 increased from day 0 to day 84 [FP/FORM, 182 ml; 95% confidence interval (CI), 127, 236; FP/SAL, 212 ml, 95% CI, 160, 265] and FP/FORM was noninferior to FP/SAL: least squares (LS) mean treatment difference: -0.031 (95% CI, -0.093, 0.031; p = 0.026). Secondary efficacy analyses indicated similar efficacy with both therapies. There were no notable differences observed in the safety and tolerability profile between treatments. No safety concerns were identified with long-term FP/FORM therapy, and there was no evidence of an effect of FP/FORM on plasma cortisol. CONCLUSIONS: FP/FORM improved lung function and measures of asthma control with comparable efficacy to FP/SAL, and demonstrated a favourable safety and tolerability profile in children aged 4-12 years.

Long-Term Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Fumarate Combination Therapy Is Associated with a Low Incidence of Severe Asthma Exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: A primary goal of asthma management is the reduction of exacerbation risk. We assessed the occurrence of oral corticosteroid-requiring exacerbations (OCS exacerbations) with long-term fluticasone/formoterol therapy, and compared it with the occurrence of similar events reported with other inhaled corticosteroid/long acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA) combinations. METHODS: The occurrence of OCS exacerbations was assessed in two open-label trials of fixed-dose fluticasone/formoterol administered for between 26 to 60 weeks in adults and adolescents with asthma. The incidence of OCS exacerbations with fluticasone/formoterol was compared with those reported in three recent Cochrane meta-analyses of other ICS/LABAs. RESULTS: The pooled incidence of OCS exacerbations with long-term fluticasone/formoterol was 2.1% (95% CI: 1.1, 3.2%, n/N = 16/752). In only two of the nineteen treatment arms summarized by Cochrane did OCS exacerbation incidence approximate that seen in the two fluticasone/formoterol trials (single-inhaler fluticasone/salmeterol [2.9%]; separate inhaler budesonide, beclometasone, or flunisolide plus formoterol [3.4%]). In Lasserson's review the pooled incidence of OCS exacerbations for single-inhaler combinations was 9.5% (95% CI: 8.4, 10.6%; n/N = 239/2516) for fluticasone/salmeterol, and 10.6% (95% CI: 9.3, 11.8%; n/N = 257/2433) for budesonide/formoterol. In Ducharme's and Chauhan's meta-analyses (primarily incorporating separate inhaler combinations [fluticasone, budesonide, beclometasone, or flunisolide plus salmeterol or formoterol]), the pooled incidences of OCS exacerbations were 16.0% (95% CI: 14.2, 17.8%, n/N = 258/1615) and 16.7% (95% CI: 14.9, 18.5, n/N = 275/1643), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of exacerbations in two fixed-dose fluticasone/formoterol studies was low and less than in the majority of comparable published studies involving other ICS/LABA combinations. This difference could not be readily explained by differences in features of the respective studies and may be related to the favorable pharmacological/mechanistic characteristics of the constituent components fluticasone and formoterol compared to other drugs in their respective classes.

The EFFECT trial: evaluating exacerbations, biomarkers, and safety outcomes with two dose levels of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in COPD.

Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination therapy is recommended in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients at high risk of exacerbations. The EFFECT (Efficacy of Fluticasone propionate/FormotErol in COPD Treatment) trial is a Phase III, 52-week, randomized, double-blind study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two doses of fluticasone propionate/formoterol compared to formoterol monotherapy in COPD patients with FEV1 ≥50% predicted and a history of exacerbations. The primary endpoint is the annualized rate of moderate and severe exacerbations. Secondary endpoints include pre-dose FEV1, EXACT-PRO (EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool - Patient-Reported Outcome)-defined exacerbations, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD, COPD Assessment Test, and EXACT-Respiratory Symptoms total score. Lung-specific biomarkers (surfactant protein D and CC chemokine ligand-18) will be measured in a subset of patients to explore their relationship to other clinical indices in COPD and their predictive utility. Pneumonia will be diagnosed per criteria defined by the British Thoracic Society community acquired pneumonia guideline, primarily by radiological confirmation and, additionally, using clinical criteria when a chest radiograph cannot be obtained. Serial measurements of serum potassium, vital signs and electrocardiograms, 24-hour Holter monitoring, and 24-hour urinary cortisol measurement will be performed in a subset of patients in addition to conventional safety assessments.

An evaluation of comparative treatment effects with high and low dose fluticasone propionate/formoterol combination in asthma.

BACKGROUND: Despite extensive use of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combinations in asthma, limited data evaluating dose-response for this combination class are available. The benefits of dose escalation and nature of patient subgroups likely to benefit are thus ill-defined. METHOD: In this randomised, double-blind, 8-week study the effects of two dose levels (100/10 and 500/20 µg b.i.d.) of a fixed combination of fluticasone/formoterol (flutiform(®)) were compared in 309 patients. Treatment effects upon spirometric and symptom-based endpoints were examined in the overall population and in two subgroups defined a priori by % predicted FEV1 at baseline (≥40-≤60% ["severe" airways obstruction] and >60-≤80% ["moderate" airways obstruction]). RESULTS: No dose-response was evident for spirometric outcomes (FEV1, FEV1 AUC0-12, PEFR) either overall or in either subgroup. At variance with the spirometric data, statistically significant dose-dependent differences were seen for nocturnal outcomes and consistent numerical differences were found across multiple symptom-based outcomes (symptom scores, sleep scores, rescue medication use, asthma control days, AQLQ scores, exacerbations); greater effects were noted with the higher dose of fluticasone/formoterol. Between-group differences for the overall population were driven by treatment effect differences in the "severe" subgroup. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory comparison a high dose of fluticasone/formoterol in asthmatic patients appears to provide additional improvement in symptom-based rather than spirometric outcomes. Additional benefits from high versus low dose treatment are most likely in patients with severe airway obstruction, although the doses at which ceiling effects are attained may vary between individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00734318; EudraCT number: 2007-001633-34.

Efficacy of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate in the treatment of asthma: a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate have been combined in a single inhaler (fluticasone/formoterol; flutiform(®)) for the maintenance treatment of asthma. This pooled analysis assessed the efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol versus fluticasone in patients who previously received inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: Data were pooled from five randomised studies in patients with asthma (aged ≥12 years) treated for 8 or 12 weeks with fluticasone/formoterol (100/10, 250/10 or 500/20 µg b.i.d.; n = 528 delivered via pMDI) or fluticasone alone (100, 250 or 500 µg b.i.d.; n = 527). RESULTS: Fluticasone/formoterol provided significantly greater increases than fluticasone alone in mean morning forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from pre-dose at baseline to 2 hours post-dose at study end (least-squares mean [LSM] treatment difference: 0.146L; p < 0.001) and in pre-dose FEV1 from baseline to study end (LSM treatment difference: 0.048 L; p = 0.043). Compared with fluticasone, fluticasone/formoterol provided greater increases in the percentage of asthma control days (no symptoms, no rescue medication use and no sleep disturbance due to asthma) from baseline to study end (LSM treatment difference: 8.6%; p < 0.001), and was associated with a lower annualised rate of exacerbations (rate ratio: 0.71; p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, fluticasone/formoterol provides clinically significant improvements in lung function and asthma control measures, with a lower incidence of exacerbations than fluticasone alone.

Efficacy and safety profile of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy compared to its individual components administered concurrently in asthma: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The potent inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate (fluticasone), and the long-acting ß2-agonist with a rapid onset of action, formoterol fumarate (formoterol), have now been combined in a single aerosol inhaler, fluticasone/formoterol (flutiform). This study investigated the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy compared with its individual components administered concurrently via two separate inhalers. METHODS: Patients ≥ 12 years (N = 210) with mild to moderate-severe persistent, reversible asthma were evenly randomised to 12 weeks of treatment (b.i.d.) with fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy (100/10 µg b.i.d. or 250/10 µg b.i.d.) or fluticasone plus formoterol (Flixotide Evohaler, pMDI, Flovent [HFA]; Foradil, DPI, Foradil Aerolizer) administered concurrently (fluticasone + formoterol; 100 µg + 12 µg b.i.d. or 250 µg + 12 µg b.i.d.) in an open-label, parallel-group, multicentre study. The primary objective of this study was to show non-inferiority of fluticasone/formoterol compared with fluticasone + formoterol based on mean post-dose FEV1. RESULTS: The mean FEV1 30-60 minutes post-dose on Day 84 was approximately 2.6 L in both the fluticasone/formoterol combination and the fluticasone + formoterol treatment groups (per protocol sets; treatment difference least squares (LS) mean: -0.03 L; 95% CI: -0.148, 0.081). The lower limit of the 95% CI (-0.148 L) was above the non-inferiority threshold of ≥-0.2 L. Analyses of other pulmonary function tests, patient reported outcomes, rescue medication use, asthma exacerbations and quality of life questionnaires were also comparable. The safety profiles of the two study groups were similar overall. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy had comparable efficacy to its individual components administered concurrently, when measured by post-dose FEV1 in patients aged ≥ 12 years with mild to moderate-severe asthma. The safety and tolerability profile of fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy was similar to that of its individual components administered concurrently. Although this was an open-label study, the results remain compelling: the primary efficacy measure was a physical endpoint and study statisticians were blinded to treatment allocations until analysis was completed.

Onset of bronchodilation with fluticasone/formoterol combination versus fluticasone/salmeterol in an open-label, randomized study.

INTRODUCTION: The inhaled corticosteroid, fluticasone propionate (fluticasone), and the long-acting beta(2)-agonist, formoterol fumarate (formoterol), have been combined in a single aerosol inhaler (fluticasone/formoterol). In a randomized, open-label study, fluticasone/formoterol showed similar efficacy to fluticasone/salmeterol after 12 weeks of treatment. This post-hoc analysis compared the onset of bronchodilation with the two treatments. METHODS: Adults with mild-to-moderate-severe persistent asthma were randomized to fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 or 250/10 µg twice daily [b.i.d.]) or fluticasone/salmeterol (100/50 or 250/50 µg b.i.d.) for 12 weeks. The onset of bronchodilation (the first post-dose time point at which the forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] was ≥12% greater than the pre-dose value), responder rates (the proportion of patients achieving bronchodilation), and changes in FEV(1) were assessed at days 0 (baseline) and 84. RESULTS: Fluticasone/formoterol (n = 101) provided more rapid onset of bronchodilation than fluticasone/salmeterol (n = 101) over the first 120 min post-dose on days 0 (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.47 [95% CI 1.05-2.05]) and 84 (HR = 1.77 [95% CI 1.14-2.73]). The odds of a patient achieving bronchodilation within 5 min of dosing were almost four-times higher with fluticasone/formoterol than with fluticasone/salmeterol on day 0 (odds ratio [OR] = 3.97 [95% CI 1.96-8.03]) and almost 10-times higher on day 84 (OR = 9.58 [95% CI 2.14-42.90]); the odds of achieving bronchodilation within 120 min post-dose were approximately twofold higher with fluticasone/formoterol on both days. The overall percentage increase in least-squares (LS) mean FEV1 during the 120-min post-dose period was significantly greater with fluticasone/formoterol than fluticasone/salmeterol on days 0 (LS mean treatment difference: 4.70% [95% CI 1.57-7.83]; P = 0.003) and 84 (2.79% [95% CI 0.65-4.93]; P = 0.011). CONCLUSION: These analyses showed that fluticasone/formoterol provided a faster onset of bronchodilation than fluticasone/salmeterol, which was maintained over 12 weeks of treatment. This benefit may facilitate treatment adherence among patients with asthma.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone and formoterol in a single pressurized metered dose inhaler.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone and formoterol are well established medications for the treatment of asthma. This study (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00734318) compares the efficacy and safety of a combination of these drugs in a single inhaler (fluticasone/formoterol) versus the individual components (fluticasone + formoterol). METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years (n=620) with a history of severe, persistent reversible asthma for ≥ 6 months prior to screening were included in this randomized, double-blind study, which consisted of a screening phase of up to 5 days, a 2-week run-in phase and an 8-week treatment period. RESULTS: Fluticasone/formoterol (500/20 µg, b.i.d.) was at least as effective as fluticasone + formoterol (500 µg + 24 µg, b.i.d.) with respect to the primary outcome measure: there were similar increases in mean pre-morning dose forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV(1)) in these two groups. Fluticasone/formoterol (500/20 µg, b.i.d.) also demonstrated similar efficacy to fluticasone + formoterol in terms of change in mean FEV(1) from baseline pre-morning dose to 2 h post-morning dose at week 8, as well as for several secondary parameters. Fluticasone/formoterol (500/20 µg, b.i.d.) demonstrated superiority to fluticasone monotherapy (500 µg, b.i.d.) and fluticasone/formoterol (100/10 µg, b.i.d.) for several secondary efficacy parameters. Fluticasone/formoterol had a similar safety and tolerability profile to fluticasone + formoterol. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the fluticasone/formoterol combination is at least as effective as its components administered concurrently from separate inhalers. Fluticasone/formoterol (500/20 µg, b.i.d.) showed superior efficacy to its inhaled corticosteroid component alone and the efficacy of fluticasone/formoterol was dose-dependent for several clinically important parameters.