AMPLIFY: a randomized, Phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol vs monocomponents and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD.

Background: AMPLIFY assessed the efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) vs its monocomponents and tiotropium (TIO) in patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD (NCT02796677). Methods: In this 24-week, Phase III, double-dummy, active-controlled study, symptomatic patients (COPD Assessment Test score ≥10) were randomized to twice-daily AB/FF 400/12 µg, AB 400 µg, or FF 12 µg, or once-daily TIO 18 µg. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline at week 24 in 1-hour morning post-dose FEV1 (AB/FF vs AB) and in pre-dose (trough) FEV1 (AB/FF vs FF). Non-inferiority of AB vs TIO in pre-dose FEV1 was also an objective. Normalized area under the curve (AUC)0-3/3 h FEV1 and nighttime and early morning symptoms were also assessed. A subgroup participated in a 24-hour serial spirometry sub-study. Results: A total of 1,594 patients were randomized; 566 entered the sub-study. At week 24, 1-hour post-dose FEV1 significantly improved with AB/FF vs AB, FF, and TIO (84, 84, and 92 mL; all P<0.0001). AB/FF significantly improved trough FEV1 vs FF (55 mL, P<0.001) and AB was non-inferior to TIO. AB/FF significantly improved AUC0-3/3 h FEV1 vs all comparators (P<0.0001) and provided significant improvements in early morning symptoms vs TIO. The 24-hour spirometry demonstrated significantly greater improvements with AB/FF in AUC12-24/12 h vs all comparators, and in AUC0-24/24 h vs FF or TIO at week 24. Conclusion: In patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD, twice-daily AB/FF significantly improved lung function vs monocomponents and TIO, and early morning symptom control vs TIO.

Efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol versus salmeterol/fluticasone: a phase 3 COPD study.

The efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate was compared with that of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in patients with stable, moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).AFFIRM COPD (Aclidinium and Formoterol Findings in Respiratory Medicine COPD) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled study. Patients were randomised (1:1) to aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg twice-daily via Genuair/Pressair or salmeterol/fluticasone 50/500 µg twice-daily via Accuhaler. The primary end-point was peak forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at week 24. Other end-points included Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score at week 24, TDI and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders, COPD Assessment Test and SGRQ scores, assessment of COPD symptoms and exacerbations, use of reliever medication, and device preference. Adverse events were monitored throughout.In total, 933 patients were eligible (mean age 63.4 years, 65.1% male). Aclidinium/formoterol was superior to salmeterol/fluticasone in peak FEV1 and noninferior in TDI. Health status and reduction in exacerbation risk were similar in both groups. While both treatments were well tolerated, pneumonia occurred less frequently with aclidinium/formoterol than salmeterol/fluticasone.In stable COPD, aclidinium/formoterol significantly improved bronchodilation versus salmeterol/fluticasone, with equivalent benefits in symptom control and reduction in exacerbation risk. Both treatments were well tolerated and treatment-related adverse events were less common with aclidinium/formoterol.

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.

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.

The prokinetic cinitapride has no clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interaction and effect on QT during coadministration with ketoconazole.

The present clinical trial was designed to evaluate the possible pharmacokinetic and electrocardiographic interactions of the gastroenteric prokinetic drug cinitapride with ketoconazole. The safety and tolerability of the study treatments were also evaluated. After a placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover design, 16 healthy male (n = 8) and female (n = 8) volunteers were randomized into four treatment groups of four subjects (two males and two females): cinitapride (CTP; 1 mg t.i.d.) + ketoconazole (KET; 200 mg b.i.d.), CTP + placebo (PL), PL+KET, and PL+PL. Treatments were given for 7 days with a washout period of 14 days between crossover treatments. Cinitapride is rapidly absorbed after oral administration and is metabolized by the cytochrome P450 CYP3A4 and CYP2C8 isozymes. At steady state, coadministration with ketoconazole, a potent CYP3A4 inhibitor, increased mean C(max,ss) and AUC(tau) by 1.63- and 1.98-fold, respectively. Measurement of mean QTc interval or baseline-corrected QTc intervals on day 7 showed small increases that were due to the effects of ketoconazole alone. Comparing CTP+KET versus PL+KET, the differences between mean increases in the QTc parameters were always less than 2 ms. Finally, no outlier increase of the QTc interval versus baseline >60 ms was identified after any treatment. The study showed that cinitapride, either given alone or after coadministration with ketoconazole 200 mg b.i.d., had no effect on cardiac repolarization as measured by changes in the heart rate-corrected QT interval on the surface electrocardiogram.