An adjudication algorithm for respiratory-related hospitalisation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Background: There is no standard definition of respiratory-related hospitalisation, a common end-point in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) clinical trials. As diverse aetiologies and complicating comorbidities can present similarly, external adjudication is sometimes employed to achieve standardisation of these events. Methods: An algorithm for respiratory-related hospitalisation was developed through a literature review of IPF clinical trials with respiratory-related hospitalisation as an end-point. Experts reviewed the algorithm until a consensus was reached. The algorithm was validated using data from the phase 3 ISABELA trials (clinicaltrials.gov identifiers NCT03711162 and NCT03733444), by assessing concordance between nonadjudicated, investigator-defined, respiratory-related hospitalisations and those defined by the adjudication committee using the algorithm. Results: The algorithm classifies respiratory-related hospitalisation according to cause: extraparenchymal (worsening respiratory symptoms due to left heart failure, volume overload, pulmonary embolism, pneumothorax or trauma); other (respiratory tract infection, right heart failure or exacerbation of COPD); "definite" acute exacerbation of IPF (AEIPF) (worsening respiratory symptoms within 1 month, with radiological or histological evidence of diffuse alveolar damage); or "suspected" AEIPF (as for "definite" AEIPF, but with no radiological or histological evidence of diffuse alveolar damage). Exacerbations ("definite" or "suspected") with identified triggers (infective, post-procedural or traumatic, drug toxicity- or aspiration-related) are classed as "known AEIPF"; "idiopathic AEIPF" refers to exacerbations with no identified trigger. In the ISABELA programme, there was 94% concordance between investigator- and adjudication committee-determined causes of respiratory-related hospitalisation. Conclusion: The algorithm could help to ensure consistency in the reporting of respiratory-related hospitalisation in IPF trials, optimising its utility as an end-point.

Ziritaxestat, a Novel Autotaxin Inhibitor, and Lung Function in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: The ISABELA 1 and 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: There is a major need for effective, well-tolerated treatments for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of the autotaxin inhibitor ziritaxestat in patients with IPF. Design, Setting, and Participants: The 2 identically designed, phase 3, randomized clinical trials, ISABELA 1 and ISABELA 2, were conducted in Africa, Asia-Pacific region, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and North America (26 countries). A total of 1306 patients with IPF were randomized (525 patients at 106 sites in ISABELA 1 and 781 patients at 121 sites in ISABELA 2). Enrollment began in November 2018 in both trials and follow-up was completed early due to study termination on April 12, 2021, for ISABELA 1 and on March 30, 2021, for ISABELA 2. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 600 mg of oral ziritaxestat, 200 mg of ziritaxestat, or placebo once daily in addition to local standard of care (pirfenidone, nintedanib, or neither) for at least 52 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the annual rate of decline for forced vital capacity (FVC) at week 52. The key secondary outcomes were disease progression, time to first respiratory-related hospitalization, and change from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score (range, 0 to 100; higher scores indicate poorer health-related quality of life). Results: At the time of study termination, 525 patients were randomized in ISABELA 1 and 781 patients in ISABELA 2 (mean age: 70.0 [SD, 7.2] years in ISABELA 1 and 69.8 [SD, 7.1] years in ISABELA 2; male: 82.4% and 81.2%, respectively). The trials were terminated early after an independent data and safety monitoring committee concluded that the benefit to risk profile of ziritaxestat no longer supported their continuation. Ziritaxestat did not improve the annual rate of FVC decline vs placebo in either study. In ISABELA 1, the least-squares mean annual rate of FVC decline was -124.6 mL (95% CI, -178.0 to -71.2 mL) with 600 mg of ziritaxestat vs -147.3 mL (95% CI, -199.8 to -94.7 mL) with placebo (between-group difference, 22.7 mL [95% CI, -52.3 to 97.6 mL]), and -173.9 mL (95% CI, -225.7 to -122.2 mL) with 200 mg of ziritaxestat (between-group difference vs placebo, -26.7 mL [95% CI, -100.5 to 47.1 mL]). In ISABELA 2, the least-squares mean annual rate of FVC decline was -173.8 mL (95% CI, -209.2 to -138.4 mL) with 600 mg of ziritaxestat vs -176.6 mL (95% CI, -211.4 to -141.8 mL) with placebo (between-group difference, 2.8 mL [95% CI, -46.9 to 52.4 mL]) and -174.9 mL (95% CI, -209.5 to -140.2 mL) with 200 mg of ziritaxestat (between-group difference vs placebo, 1.7 mL [95% CI, -47.4 to 50.8 mL]). There was no benefit with ziritaxestat vs placebo for the key secondary outcomes. In ISABELA 1, all-cause mortality was 8.0% with 600 mg of ziritaxestat, 4.6% with 200 mg of ziritaxestat, and 6.3% with placebo; in ISABELA 2, it was 9.3% with 600 mg of ziritaxestat, 8.5% with 200 mg of ziritaxestat, and 4.7% with placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: Ziritaxestat did not improve clinical outcomes compared with placebo in patients with IPF receiving standard of care treatment with pirfenidone or nintedanib or in those not receiving standard of care treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03711162 and NCT03733444.

A 24-Week, Phase IIa, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Ziritaxestat in Early Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: We undertook this study to explore the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ziritaxestat, a selective autotaxin inhibitor, in patients with early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc). METHODS: NOVESA was a 24-week, multicenter, phase IIa, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adults with dcSSc were randomized to oral ziritaxestat 600 mg once daily or matching placebo. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in modified Rodnan skin score (MRSS) at week 24. Secondary end points assessed safety and tolerability; other end points included assessment of skin and blood biomarkers. Patients in NOVESA could enter a 104-week open-label extension (OLE). RESULTS: Patients were randomized to ziritaxestat (n = 21) or placebo (n = 12). Reduction in MRSS was significantly greater in the ziritaxestat group versus the placebo group (-8.9 versus -6.0 units, respectively; P = 0.0411). Placebo patients switching to ziritaxestat in the OLE showed similar reductions in MRSS to those observed for ziritaxestat patients in the parent study. Ziritaxestat was well tolerated; the most frequent treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events were headache and diarrhea. Circulating lysophosphatidic acid (LPA) C18:2 was significantly reduced, demonstrating ziritaxestat target engagement, and levels of fibrosis biomarkers were reduced in the blood. No differentially expressed genes were identified in skin biopsies. Significant changes in 109 genes were identified in blood samples. CONCLUSION: Ziritaxestat resulted in significantly greater reduction in MRSS at week 24 than placebo; no new safety signals emerged. Biomarker analysis suggests ziritaxestat may reduce fibrosis. Modulation of the autotaxin/LPA pathway could improve skin involvement in patients with dcSSc. A plain language summary is provided in the Supplementary Material, available on the Arthritis & Rheumatology website at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.42477.

Control of moderate-to-severe asthma with randomized ciclesonide doses of 160, 320 and 640 µg/day.

BACKGROUND: The inhaled corticoteroid (ICS) ciclesonide (Cic), controls asthma symptoms in the majority of patients at the recommended dose of 160 µg/day. However, the relationship between the level of asthma control and increasing doses of Cic is unknown. This study investigated whether long-term treatment with higher doses of Cic would further improve asthma symptoms in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite ICS use. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, 367 patients were allocated to one of three treatment arms (Cic 160, 320 and 640 µg/day). After a single-blind, 3-week baseline period with Cic 160 µg/day, eligible patients were randomized to receive 52 weeks of treatment with Cic 160, 320 or 640 µg/day (double-blind period) during which forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), exacerbations and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) scores were measured. RESULTS: Treatment with all the three doses was associated with significant improvements in ACQ scores, FEV1 and asthma symptoms (P<0.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the three doses. The results of the primary end point analysis showed a numerical improvement in the ACQ score with Cic 640 µg/day compared with Cic 160 µg/day (least square [LS] mean: -0.122; two-sided P-value: 0.30). Post hoc subgroup analyses showed that the improvement in the ACQ score with Cic 640 µg/day compared with Cic 160 µg/day was statistically significant in subjects who experience at least one exacerbation per year (LS mean: -0.586; 95% confidence interval: -1.110, -0.062, P=0.0285). Adverse events were low and consistent with the known safety profile of Cic. CONCLUSION: In patients with persistent, uncontrolled asthma, increasing the Cic dose from 160 to 640 µg/day provided no clear additional effect. Patients who experience more than one exacerbation per year may benefit from higher doses; however, further studies are necessary to confirm this. All Cic doses were well tolerated.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in China: the potential role of indacaterol.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is becoming a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in China, with tobacco smoking, biomass fuel use and genetic susceptibility being the major risk factors. COPD poses a high economic burden with the total expenditure per patient costing 40% and nearly one-third of an average family income in urban and rural areas of China, respectively. Despite the use of the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease strategy document being recommended for the diagnosis and management of COPD, the majority of patients with COPD go undiagnosed or are not managed appropriately by physicians. Long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) have long been used for symptomatic management of COPD, with salmeterol and formoterol being the commonly used twice-daily treatments. Indacaterol is the first once-daily LABA, approved at a dose of 150 µg once daily in China. Several phase III studies have shown that indacaterol 150 µg improves lung function, breathlessness, health status, exacerbations, rescue medication use and symptoms, as compared with placebo and other bronchodilators, in patients with COPD, with a rapid onset of action following first dose and a good safety and tolerability profile. In this review we elaborate on the efficacy and safety results from several such studies.

Assessing efficacy of indacaterol in moderate and severe COPD patients: a 12-week study in an Asian population.

INTRODUCTION: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of indacaterol, a novel inhaled once-daily long-acting ß(2)-agonist, by disease severity (GOLD 2005) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD from six Asian countries/areas (Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan). METHODS: Data from a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in patients randomized to indacaterol 150 µg, indacaterol 300 µg or placebo once daily were analyzed based on baseline disease severity (moderate or severe). Endpoints were: trough FEV(1) (average of 23 h 10 min and 23 h 45 min post-dose values), transition dyspnoea index (TDI) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) at Week 12. Safety data were collected. RESULTS: Of 347 patients randomized, 59.7% had moderate, and 40.3% had severe COPD. Least squares means (LSMs) indacaterol-placebo differences in trough FEV(1) at Week 12 exceeded the pre-specified minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 0.12L and were statistically superior (p < 0.001) for indacaterol (150 µg, 300 µg) versus placebo in the two subgroups [0.19L, 0.20L (moderate); 0.15L, 0.19L (severe) respectively]. LSM TDI scores for both indacaterol doses versus placebo in both subgroups were statistically superior (p < 0.05) and clinically meaningful (≥1 unit). Both indacaterol doses showed improvements in LSM SGRQ total scores at Week 12 which exceeded the MCID (4 units) versus placebo in both subgroups, with indacaterol 300 µg-placebo difference in the severe subgroup being statistically significant (p < 0.01). Overall incidence of adverse events was lower with indacaterol than with placebo across both subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Indacaterol demonstrated clinically relevant improvements versus placebo in lung function, dyspnea and health status in Asian COPD patients irrespective of disease severity. CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER: NCT00794157.

Efficacy and safety of indacaterol 150 and 300 µg in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients from six Asian areas including Japan: a 12-week, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of indacaterol, a novel inhaled once daily ultra long-acting ß(2) -agonist was evaluated in COPD patients in six Asian countries/areas. This study was primarily designed to obtain the regulatory approval of indacaterol in Japan. METHODS: Moderate-to-severe COPD patients were randomized to indacaterol 150 µg, indacaterol 300 µg or placebo once daily. Efficacy variables: trough FEV(1) (average of 23 h 10 min and 23 h 45 min post-dose values), health status (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire) and transition dyspnoea index at week 12. Safety/tolerability was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 347 patients were randomized (96.5% male, mean (SD) age 66.7 (8.38) years, post-bronchodilator FEV(1) % predicted: 53.7 (12.50)); 88.8% completed. The least squares means (LSM) trough FEV(1) at week 12 for indacaterol 150 µg, indacaterol 300 µg and placebo were 1.34 L, 1.37 L and 1.17 L, respectively, with differences versus placebo exceeding the prespecified minimal clinically important difference of 0.12 L (0.17 L and 0.20 L for indacaterol 150 µg and 300 µg, respectively, both P < 0.001). The week 12 LSM transition dyspnoea index score was statistically superior for both indacaterol doses versus placebo (differences of 1.30 and 1.26, P < 0.001; both exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of 1). At week 12, both indacaterol doses provided statistically significant (P ≤ 0.005) and clinically meaningful (≥4 units) improvements in LSM St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score versus placebo (differences: -4.8 and -5.7 units). Adverse events for indacaterol (49.1%, both doses) were lower than placebo (59.0%) and were mostly mild/moderate in severity; no deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Indacaterol provided clinically significant bronchodilation and improvements in dyspnoea and health status in Asian COPD patients.

Efficacy and safety of indacaterol 150 microg once-daily in COPD: a double-blind, randomised, 12-week study.

BACKGROUND: Indacaterol is a novel, once-daily (o.d.) inhaled, long-acting beta2-agonist in development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This 12-week, double-blind study compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of indacaterol to that of placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. METHODS: Efficacy variables included 24-h trough FEV1 (mean of 23 h 10 min and 23 h 45 min post-dose) at Week 12 (primary endpoint) and after Day 1, and the percentage of COPD days with poor control (i.e., worsening symptoms). Safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs), mean serum potassium and blood glucose, QTc (Fridericia), and vital signs. RESULTS: Patients were randomised (n = 416, mean age 63 years) to receive either indacaterol 150 microg o.d. (n = 211) or placebo (n = 205) via a single-dose dry-powder inhaler; 87.5% completed the study. Trough FEV1 (LSM +/- SEM) at Week 12 was 1.48 +/- 0.018 L for indacaterol and 1.35 +/- 0.019 L for placebo, a clinically relevant difference of 130 +/- 24 mL (p < 0.001). Trough FEV1 after one dose was significantly higher with indacaterol than placebo (p < 0.001). Indacaterol demonstrated significantly higher peak FEV1 than placebo, both on Day 1 and at Week 12, with indacaterol-placebo differences (LSM +/- SEM) of 190 +/- 28 (p < 0.001) and 160 +/- 28 mL (p < 0.001), respectively. Standardised AUC measurements for FEV1 (between 5 min and 4 h, 5 min and 1 h, and 1 and 4 h post-dose) at Week 12 were all significantly greater with indacaterol than placebo (p < 0.001), with LSM (+/- SEM) differences of 170 +/- 24, 180 +/- 24, and 170 +/- 24 mL, respectively. Indacaterol significantly reduced the percentage of days of poor control versus placebo by 22.5% (p < 0.001) and was also associated with significantly reduced use of rescue medication (p < 0.001). The overall rates of AEs were comparable between the groups (indacaterol 49.3%, placebo 46.8%), with the most common AEs being COPD worsening (indacaterol 8.5%, placebo 12.2%) and cough (indacaterol 6.2%, placebo 7.3%). One patient died in the placebo group. Serum potassium and blood glucose levels did not differ significantly between the two groups, and no patient had QTc >500 ms. CONCLUSIONS: Indacaterol 150 microg o.d. provided clinically significant and sustained bronchodilation, reduced rescue medication use, and had a safety and tolerability profile similar to placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00624286.