Characteristics of Users and New Initiators of Single- and Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Germany.

Purpose: To assess patient characteristics of users and new initiators of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Germany. Patients and Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with COPD and ≥1 prescription for single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT; fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI] or beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol [BDP/GLY/FOR]) or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT), using data from the AOK PLUS German sickness fund (1 January 2015-31 December 2019). The index date was the first date of prescription for FF/UMEC/VI or BDP/GLY/FOR (SITT users), or the first date of overlap of inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting ß2-agonist, and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (MITT users). Two cohorts were defined: the prevalent cohort included all identified triple therapy users; the incident cohort included patients newly initiating triple therapy for the first time (no prior use of MITT or SITT in the last 2 years). Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were assessed on the index date and during the 24-month pre-index period. Results: In total, 18,630 patients were identified as prevalent triple therapy users (MITT: 17,945; FF/UMEC/VI: 700; BDP/GLY/FOR: 908; non-mutually exclusive) and 2932 patients were identified as incident triple therapy initiators (MITT: 2246; FF/UMEC/VI: 311; BDP/GLY/FOR: 395; non-mutually exclusive). For both the prevalent and incident cohorts, more than two-thirds of patients experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the preceding 24 months; in both cohorts more BDP/GLY/FOR users experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation, compared with FF/UMEC/VI and MITT users. Overall, 97.9% of prevalent triple therapy users and 86.4% of incident triple therapy initiators received maintenance treatment in the 24-month pre-index period. Conclusion: In a real-world setting in Germany, triple therapy was most frequently used after maintenance therapy in patients with recent exacerbations, in line with current treatment recommendations.

Triple therapy (a combination of three different respiratory inhaled medications) is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience repeated short-term symptom flare-ups when taking dual therapy (a combination of two different respiratory medications). Previously, patients had to take triple therapy using two or three separate inhalers. More recently, single-inhaler triple therapies have been developed, meaning patients can take all three different medications at the same time via one single inhaler. This study assessed the characteristics of patients who were already receiving triple therapy, or who started triple therapy (either via multiple inhalers or a single inhaler), in Germany between January 2015 and December 2019. In total, 18,630 patients who were already receiving triple therapy during the study period, and 2932 patients who newly started using triple therapy were included. The study reported that more than two-thirds of included patients had experienced at least one flare-up of COPD symptoms in the 2 years before starting triple therapy. Most patients had also received another therapy for COPD before starting triple therapy. A small proportion of patients started taking triple therapy after receiving no other therapy for COPD in the previous 2 years. The results of the study suggest that triple therapy for COPD in Germany is most often used in accordance with recommendations (patients already receiving therapy and experiencing repeated symptom flare-ups).

Gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with the use of intravenous oliceridine compared with intravenous hydromorphone or fentanyl in acute pain management utilizing adjusted indirect treatment comparison methods.

Background: In the absence of head-to-head comparative data from randomized controlled trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) may be used to compare the relative effects of treatments versus a common comparator (either placebo or active treatment). For acute pain management, the effects of oliceridine have been compared in clinical trials to morphine but not to fentanyl or hydromorphone. Aim: To assess the comparative safety (specifically differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting and opioid-induced respiratory depression [OIRD]) between oliceridine and relevant comparators (fentanyl and hydromorphone) through ITC analysis. Methods: A systematic literature review identified randomized clinical trials with oliceridine versus morphine and morphine versus fentanyl or hydromorphone. The ITC utilized the common active comparator, morphine, for the analysis. Results: A total of six randomized controlled trials (oliceridine - 2; hydromorphone - 3; fentanyl - 1) were identified for data to be used in the ITC analyses. The oliceridine data were reported in two studies (plastic surgery and orthopedic surgery) and were also reported in a pooled analysis. The ITC focused on nausea and vomiting due to limited data for OIRD. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone in the ITC analysis, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting requiring antiemetics compared with hydromorphone (both orthopedic surgery and pooled data), while results in plastic surgery were not statistically significant. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone utilizing data from Hong, the ITC only showed a trend toward reduced risk of nausea and vomiting with oliceridine that was not statistically significant across all three comparisons (orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery and combined). An ITC comparing oliceridine with a study of fentanyl utilizing the oliceridine orthopedic surgery data and combined orthopedic and plastic surgery data showed a trend toward reduced risk that was not statistically significant. Conclusion: In ITC analyses, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting or the need for antiemetics in orthopedic surgery compared with hydromorphone and a non-significant trend toward reduced risk versus fentanyl.

Real-World Disease Burden and Healthcare Resource Utilization Among Patients with COPD and Asthma Using Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) in the United States.

Purpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma are associated with chronic inflammation of the respiratory tract; despite some overlap of symptoms, they are considered separate disorders. Triple therapy is recommended for patients with COPD and asthma whose symptoms remain uncontrolled despite dual therapy. There are limited real-world studies evaluating outcomes among patients with COPD and asthma who are receiving inhaled triple therapy. This United States (US)-based real-world study aimed to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes among patients with COPD and asthma receiving single-inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI]). Patients and Methods: Retrospective pre-post study using claims data from the Optum Clinformatics® database. Patients with COPD and asthma were indexed on the first date of FF/UMEC/VI prescription (1 October 2017-31 March 2019). Each patient acted as their own control. Patients were required to have continuous health plan enrollment for 12 months prior to (pre-treatment) and following (post-treatment) index. Exacerbations, all-cause and COPD-related healthcare resource utilization, and costs were compared before and after FF/UMEC/VI initiation. Results: Overall, 2743 patients were included (mean age: 71 years; 64% female). Cardiovascular disease was the most prevalent comorbidity during both the pre- and post-treatment periods (90% for both periods). There was a lower proportion of patients with ≥1 COPD exacerbation or ≥1 asthma exacerbation post-treatment versus pre-treatment (51% vs 57%, p<0.0001, and 22% vs 32%, p<0.0001, respectively). Fewer patients had ≥1 all-cause office visit post-treatment versus pre-treatment (99.3% vs 99.7%, p=0.0329); more patients had ≥1 COPD-related office visit post-treatment versus pre-treatment (89.6% vs 87.5%, p=0.0035). Total all-cause healthcare costs were significantly higher post-treatment versus pre-treatment ($72,809 vs $63,734, p<0.0001). The driver of increased costs appeared to be primarily non-COPD-related (COPD-related costs: post-treatment $27,779 vs pre-treatment $25,081, p=0.0062). Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI reduced exacerbations among patients with COPD and asthma in a real-world setting in the US.

Impact of body weight-based dosing of palonosetron and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequent adverse effect following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Palonosetron with a standard dosing (75 µg) schedule has been questioned due to its low efficiency in obese patients. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of the body weight-based dosing of palonosetron in managing PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, double-blinded randomized study was conducted between August 2021 and December 2021. Patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were prospectively recruited in the study. One hundred patients were randomly divided into palonosetron (Group P) and ondansetron (Group O). The demographic and clinical variables were recorded. The primary outcome of the study was the incidence of PONV between the two groups during the hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were the number of rescue anti-emetic and analgesic medications and the Functional Living Index-Emesis scores. RESULTS: There were 50 patients in each group (Group P and Group O). There were significant differences in the scores of POVN, nausea, and vomiting favoring Group P. In Group P, the rate of patients using rescue anti-emetics was significantly lower. The incidence of complete response and proportion of patients with higher Functional Living Index-Emesis scores were significantly higher in patients using palonosetron. CONCLUSIONS: The use of palonosetron significantly reduced the incidence of PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. There was a significant improvement in the scores of Functional Living Index-Emesis in patients using palonosetron.

Dexamethasone-sparing on days 2-4 with combined palonosetron, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and olanzapine in cisplatin: a randomized phase III trial (SPARED Trial).

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with sparing on days 2-4 in cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with malignant solid tumors who were treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m²) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either DEX on days 1-4 (Arm D4) or DEX on day 1 (Arm D1) plus palonosetron, NK-1 RA, and olanzapine (5 mg). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the delayed (24-120 h) phase. The non-inferiority margin was set at -15%. RESULTS: A total of 281 patients were enrolled, 278 of whom were randomly assigned to Arm D4 (n = 139) or Arm D1 (n = 139). In 274 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, the rates of delayed CR in Arms D4 and D1 were 79.7% and 75.0%, respectively (risk difference -4.1%; 95% CI -14.1%-6.0%, P = 0.023). However, patients in Arm D1 had significantly lower total control rates during the delayed and overall phases, and more frequent nausea and appetite loss. There were no significant between-arm differences in the quality of life. CONCLUSION: DEX-sparing is an alternative option for patients receiving cisplatin; however, this revised administration schedule should be applied on an individual basis after a comprehensive evaluation. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER: UMIN000032269.

Effectiveness of Palonosetron, 1-Day Dexamethasone, and Aprepitant in Patients Undergoing Carboplatin-Based Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) and aprepitant (APR), as triplet antiemetic prophylaxis, is associated with poor control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether using palonosetron (PALO) as a 5HT3RA provides superior control with CINV than first-generation (1st) 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with a DEX-sparing strategy. METHODS: Pooled patient-level data from a nationwide, multicenter, and prospective observational study were analyzed to compare the incidence of CINV between patients administered PALO and 1st 5HT3RA in combination with 1-day DEX and APR. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the incidence of CINV, pattern of CINV, or severity of nausea by type of 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with DEX-sparing strategy. In both groups, the incidence of nausea gradually increased from day 3, peaked on day 4 or 5, and then declined slowly. The visual analog scale scores in the delayed phase remained high throughout the 7-day observation period. CONCLUSION: Careful patient selection and symptom monitoring are needed when implementing the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis for patients undergoing CBDCA-based chemotherapy. Furthermore, additional strategies may be needed to achieve better control of delayed CINV.

COPD Exacerbations, Costs, and Health Care Resource Utilization Before and After Initiation of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Routine Care in the USA.

Purpose: To examine the impact of initiating fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) in a single device on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, COPD exacerbation-related costs, and all-cause and COPD-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with COPD. Methods: Retrospective database analysis of patients with COPD aged ≥40 years who initiated FF/UMEC/VI between September 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018 (index date: first pharmacy claim for FF/UMEC/VI), following evidence of multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) (≥30 consecutive days) in the year prior to index. COPD exacerbations, COPD exacerbation-related costs, and all-cause and COPD-related HCRU and costs were compared between the baseline period (12 months prior to and including index) and follow-up period (12 months following index). Results: Data from 912 patients (mean [SD] age: 71.2 [8.1], 51.2% female) were included in the analyses. Among the overall cohort, mean count of total COPD exacerbations (moderate or severe) per patient was statistically significantly lower in the follow-up period compared to baseline (1.2 vs 1.4, p=0.001). The proportion of patients with ≥1 COPD exacerbation (moderate or severe) was also statistically significantly lower in the follow-up period compared to baseline (56.4% vs 62.4%, p=0.001). All-cause and COPD-related HCRU were similar during follow-up compared to baseline, although the proportion of patients with COPD-related ambulatory visits was lower during follow-up (p<0.001). COPD-related office visit costs, emergency room visit costs, and pharmacy costs were statistically significantly lower during follow-up compared to baseline (p<0.001; p=0.019; p<0.001, respectively). Conclusion: In a real-world setting, patients on MITT who subsequently initiated FF/UMEC/VI in a single device had significant reductions in the rate of COPD exacerbations (moderate or severe). Switching to FF/UMEC/VI also resulted in improvements in some HCRU and cost outcomes. These data support the use of FF/UMEC/VI among patients at high risk of exacerbation to reduce future risk and improve outcomes.

Bayesian or frequentist: there is no question when comparing single-inhaler triple therapies via network meta-analysis. Focus on fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol fixed-dose combination in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVES: Single-inhaler triple therapies (SITTs) have never been directly compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cochrane recommends the Bayesian approach for indirect comparisons but a frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) reported superiority of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) over other SITT. We assessed the most appropriate inference method for NMA characterized by between-study heterogeneity on SITT in COPD. METHODS: Bayesian and frequentist NMA were performed on RCTs investigating the effect of SITT on exacerbations and trough forced expiratory volume in the 1st second (FEV1) in COPD. RESULTS: The included RCTs (ETHOS, FULFIL, IMPACT, KRONOS 200812) reported significant between-study heterogeneity (I2 > 99%, p < 0.001). The Bayesian random-effect NMA provided unbiased evidence that FF/UMEC/VI was not superior to other SITT on exacerbations and trough FEV1. The frequentist fixed-effect NMA indicated that FF/UMEC/VI was significantly (p < 0.05) more effective than other SITT, although results were affected by dispersion, asymmetry, and significant risk of bias. Frequentist random-effect NMA provided effect estimates rather similar but not equal to those of Bayesian approach. CONCLUSION: Indirect comparison should be performed via Bayesian approach instead of frequentist inference with a fixed-effect model. Claiming the superiority of a specific medication over other therapies should be confirmed by findings originating from well-designed RCTs.

Single-inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus dual therapy in current and former smokers with COPD: IMPACT trial post hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is the major risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In IMPACT, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy significantly reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates and improved lung function and health status versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in COPD patients. This post hoc analysis investigated trial outcomes by smoking status. METHODS: IMPACT was a double-blind, 52-week trial. Patients aged ≥40 years with symptomatic COPD and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year were randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg. Endpoints assessed by smoking status at screening included rate and risk of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score at Week 52. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the 10,355 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 3,587 (35%) were current smokers. FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in current (rate ratio 0.85 [95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.95]; P = 0.003 and 0.86 [0.76-0.98]; P = 0.021) and former smokers (0.85 [0.78-0.91]; P < 0.001 and 0.70 [0.64-0.77]; P < 0.001). FF/UMEC/VI significantly reduced time-to-first on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in former smokers, and versus FF/VI in current smokers. Similar trends were seen for lung function and health status. Former smokers receiving inhaled corticosteroid-containing therapy had higher pneumonia incidence than current smokers. CONCLUSIONS: FF/UMEC/VI improved clinical outcomes versus dual therapy regardless of smoking status. Benefits of FF/UMEC/VI versus UMEC/VI were greatest in former smokers, potentially due to relative corticosteroid resistance in current smokers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513).

[Experience of using a triple fixed combination in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease].

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of a fixed triple combination of vilanterol/umeclidinium bromide/fluticasone furoate in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with frequent exacerbations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 46 patients with severe and extremely severe COPD (GOLD 34) with frequent exacerbations. All patients were divided into 2 groups. The 1st group included 22 COPD patients with a content of eosinophils in the peripheral blood of 300 cells/ml, the 2nd group included 24 COPD patients with no signs of eosinophilic inflammation in the peripheral blood. Group 1 patients were recommended therapy with a fixed triple combination of vilanterol/umeclidinium bromide/fluticasone furoate at a dose of 22/55/92 mcg 1 time per day, group 2 patients received vilanterol+umeclidinium bromide at a dose of 22/55 mcg 1 time per day. The duration of follow-up was 12 months. RESULTS: After 12 months of treatment with a fixed triple combination of vilanterol/umeclidinium bromide/fluticasone furoate, a statistically significant decrease in peripheral blood eosinophilia was noted in patients with COPD with frequent exacerbations and peripheral blood eosinophilia (p=0.001), as well as a decrease in shortness of breath on the MMRs scale (p=0.001) and the frequency of exacerbations in patients with COPD with frequent exacerbations and eosinophilia (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of a fixed combination of vilanterol/umeclidinium bromide/fluticasone furoate for 12 months allowed to reduce the impact of the disease, improve respiratory function and quality of life in COPD patients with eosinophilia.

Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in Patients with Advanced COPD: Bayesian Modeling of the Healthcare Resource Utilization Data and Associated Costs from the IMPACT Trial.

Objectives: In the IMPACT trial (NCT02164513), triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) showed clinical benefit compared with dual therapy with either FF/VI or UMEC/VI in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We used data from IMPACT to determine whether this translated into differences in COPD-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU) costs in a United Kingdom (UK) setting. Methods: In a within-trial analysis, individual patient data from the IMPACT intention-to-treat (ITT) population were analyzed to estimate rates of COPD-related HRU with FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI, or UMEC/VI. A Bayesian approach was applied to address issues typically encountered with this kind of data, namely data missing due to early study withdrawal, subjects with zero reported HRU, and skewness. Rates of HRU were estimated under alternate assumptions of data being missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). UK-specific unit costs were then applied to estimated HRU rates to calculate treatment-specific costs. Results: Under each MNAR scenario, per patient per year (PPPY) rates of COPD-related HRU were lowest amongst those patients who received treatment with FF/UMEC/VI compared with those receiving either FF/VI or UMEC/VI. Although absolute HRU rates and costs were typically higher for all treatment groups under MNAR scenarios versus MAR, final economic conclusions were robust to patient withdrawals. Conclusions: PPPY rates were typically lower with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI.

Characteristics of New Users of Single- and Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy for COPD in Primary Care in England.

Purpose: Inhaled triple therapy is recommended for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who have poorly controlled symptoms and to reduce the risk of exacerbations. This study assessed the clinical characteristics of new users of single- and multiple-inhaler triple therapy (SITT and MITT) treated in a primary care setting in England. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional, observational study used data from an electronic health record database (CPRD Aurum) of COPD patients registered with a primary care practice in England, with linkage to a secondary care database. Patients were required to have initiated a new triple therapy (index) between November 2017 and November 2018 and have ≥12 months of available medical history prior to the index date. Results: In total, 3536 patients initiated fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) SITT for the first time: 65% had a Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnea score ≥3, 45% had forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)% predicted <50%, and 64% had a moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous 12 months. The majority (83%) of new FF/UMEC/VI users had a history of MITT use. Immediately prior to FF/UMEC/VI initiation, 46% received MITT, 25% received an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), 12% received long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/LABA, and 14% stepped up directly from LAMA monotherapy. A second cohort of 6540 patients initiated triple therapy (SITT or MITT) for the first time. COPD severity (airflow limitation, exacerbation history) was worse among patients initiating SITT versus MITT. In the 12 months before triple-therapy initiation, ICS/LABA was the most common treatment; a step up from LAMA/LABA was more common among patients initiating FF/UMEC/VI (34%) or beclomethasone/formoterol/glycopyrronium bromide SITT (25%) than MITT (14%). Conclusion: First-time triple therapy was frequently initiated in patients with COPD inadequately controlled on maintenance therapy. General practitioners in England generally identify appropriate patients who require initiation of triple therapy.

Evaluation of adverse events in small-breed dogs treated with maropitant and a single dose of doxorubicin.

BACKGROUND: The recommended doxorubicin (DOX) dose for small dogs is 1 mg/kg. Recent data suggest that DOX-induced gastrointestinal (GI) toxicosis can be reduced with maropitant treatment. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence of adverse events (AEs) in small-breed dogs administered a single 25 mg/m2 DOX followed by administration of maropitant (DOX25). The primary aim was to assess myelo- and GI toxicoses for 2 weeks after DOX administration. The secondary aim was to compare the incidence and grades of AEs found in the DOX25 group with a historical control group (DOX 1 mg/kg without administration of antiemetic or antidiarrheal medications). ANIMALS: Nineteen small-breed tumor-bearing dogs. METHODS: A prospective, observational study of tumor-bearing dogs, weighing 5 to 10 kg, administered a single 25 mg/m2 dose of DOX IV, followed by administration of maropitant for the next 5 days. RESULTS: Inappetence, vomiting, and diarrhea were found in 7/19, 2/19, and 6/19 of the DOX25 dogs, respectively. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was 12/19 and 3/19, respectively. Most AEs were grades 1 and 2, except for grades 3 and 4 inappetence and neutropenia in 3 and 4 dogs, respectively. Furthermore, febrile neutropenia occurred in 3/19 dogs in the DOX25 group. All AEs between the DOX25 and historical control groups were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Vomiting and diarrhea were deemed acceptable with 25 mg/m2 DOX followed by maropitant treatment in 5 to 10 kg dogs; however, additional supportive care might be needed for dogs with inappetence and neutropenia.

A single inhaler triple therapy fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol for the treatment of COPD.

INTRODUCTION: Single inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with an inhaled corticosteroid, a long-acting ß2-agonist, and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist is an effective and attractive therapeutic option codified in the recommendations of guidelines and treatment strategies for the management of COPD. AREAS COVERED: The preclinical and clinical development in COPD of fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) SITT and its use in the real world. EXPERT OPINION: Findings from phase III/IV trials and the use of FF/UMEC/VI in the real-world setting support the view that it may be a useful, safe, and cost-effective option for the maintenance treatment of COPD, especially when dealing with patients who are not adequately controlled with dual ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA therapy. Only direct head-to-head comparisons will be able to establish whether FF/UMEC/VI may be preferable to the other SITTs approved for COPD due to its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics and especially the fact that it is the only one that can be taken once-daily. In addition, there is a need for further studies, especially in the real world, to optimize the positioning of FF/UMEC/VI in the treatment of COPD, also considering the availability of FF/VI and UMEC/VI and the need for better differentiation between the three treatments.

Prophylactic Penehyclidine Inhalation for Prevention of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in High-risk Patients: A Double-blind Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications are common. Aging and respiratory disease provoke airway hyperresponsiveness, high-risk surgery induces diaphragmatic dysfunction, and general anesthesia contributes to atelectasis and peripheral airway injury. This study therefore tested the hypothesis that inhalation of penehyclidine, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, reduces the incidence of pulmonary complications in high-risk patients over the initial 30 postoperative days. METHODS: This single-center double-blind trial enrolled 864 patients age over 50 yr who were scheduled for major upper-abdominal or noncardiac thoracic surgery lasting 2 h or more and who had an Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score of 45 or higher. The patients were randomly assigned to placebo or prophylactic penehyclidine inhalation from the night before surgery through postoperative day 2 at 12-h intervals. The primary outcome was the incidence of a composite of pulmonary complications within 30 postoperative days, including respiratory infection, respiratory failure, pleural effusion, atelectasis, pneumothorax, bronchospasm, and aspiration pneumonitis. RESULTS: A total of 826 patients (mean age, 64 yr; 63% male) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. A composite of pulmonary complications was less common in patients assigned to penehyclidine (18.9% [79 of 417]) than those receiving the placebo (26.4% [108 of 409]; relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.93; P = 0.010; number needed to treat, 13). Bronchospasm was less common in penehyclidine than placebo patients: 1.4% (6 of 417) versus 4.4% (18 of 409; relative risk, 0.327; 95% CI, 0.131 to 0.82; P = 0.011). None of the other individual pulmonary complications differed significantly. Peak airway pressures greater than 40 cm H2O were also less common in patients given penehyclidine: 1.9% (8 of 432) versus 4.9% (21 of 432; relative risk, 0.381; 95% CI, 0.171 to 0.85; P = 0.014). The incidence of other adverse events, including dry mouth and delirium, that were potentially related to penehyclidine inhalation did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients having major upper-abdominal or noncardiac thoracic surgery, prophylactic penehyclidine inhalation reduced the incidence of pulmonary complications without provoking complications.

Real-world multicenter study of the safety and efficacy of netupitant plus palonosetron fixed-dose combination to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among Malaysian patients receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

AIM: A large proportion of cancer patients are at high risk for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), but the choice of anti-emetics for CINV in Malaysia is limited. METHODS: This was a real-world study of a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron (NEPA) to inhibit CINV in adult patients receiving moderately (MEC) or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) for solid/hematological malignancies at eight Malaysian centers. Each HEC/MEC cycle received one dose of NEPA + dexamethasone for CINV prevention. Complete response (no emesis, no rescue medication) (CR), no more than mild nausea (severity score ≤ 2.5), and complete control (CR) (no more than mild nausea) during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) phases post-chemotherapy were measured. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were recorded. RESULTS: During March 2016-April 2018 (NMRR-17-3286-38282), NEPA + dexamethasone was administered to 54 patients (77.8% solid, 22.2% hematological malignancies). Note that 59.3% received HEC, while 40.7% received MEC regimen. During the overall phase of the first cycle, the majority had CR (77.8%), no more than mild nausea (74.1%), and complete control (61.1%). Seventeen patients received two consecutive cycles at any point of chemotherapy cycles. During the overall phases across two consecutive cycles, all patients achieved CR, and the majority reported no more than mild nausea and complete control. No grades 3-4 AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: NEPA had sustained efficacy and tolerability at first administration and across two cycles of MEC/HEC for CINV prevention.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study of Fosnetupitant Versus Fosaprepitant for Prevention of Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: CONSOLE.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of fosnetupitant (FosNTP) versus fosaprepitant (FosAPR) for preventing highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This phase III study was the first head-to-head comparison between two different neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to FosNTP 235 mg or FosAPR 150 mg in combination with palonosetron 0.75 mg and dexamethasone. The primary end point was overall (0-120 hours) complete response (CR; no emetic event and no rescue medication) rate, stratified by sex and age category, to show the noninferiority of FosNTP to FosAPR (noninferiority margin, -10% for the difference in the overall CR rate). RESULTS: Overall, 795 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 785 received the study drug (FosNTP [N = 392] v FosAPR [N = 393]) and were evaluated for efficacy and safety. The overall CR rate was 75.2% versus 71.0%, respectively (Mantel-Haenszel common risk difference, 4.1%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 10.3%), demonstrating noninferiority of FosNTP to FosAPR. The CR rates in the acute (0-24 hours), delayed (24-120 hours), and beyond delayed (120-168 hours) phases, and at 0-168 hours were 93.9% versus 92.6%, 76.8% versus 72.8%, 86.5% versus 81.4%, and 73.2% versus 66.9%, respectively. The incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events with FosNTP versus FosAPR were 22.2% versus 25.4%, whereas adverse events or treatment-related adverse events relevant to injection site reactions were 11.0% versus 20.6% (P < .001) and 0.3% versus 3.6% (P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSION: FosNTP demonstrated noninferiority to FosAPR, with a favorable safety profile and lower risk for injection site reactions. Thus, FosNTP is valuable in the prophylaxis of acute, delayed, and beyond delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol according to the degree of reversibility of airflow limitation at screening: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the relationship between short-term bronchodilator reversibility and longer-term response to bronchodilators is unclear. Here, we investigated whether the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators is associated with reversibility of airflow limitation in patients with COPD with a low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: The double-blind, double-dummy EMAX trial randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once daily, or salmeterol 50 µg twice daily. Bronchodilator reversibility to salbutamol was measured once at screening and defined as an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL 10-30 min post salbutamol. Post hoc, fractional polynomial (FP) modelling was conducted using the degree of reversibility (mL) at screening as a continuous variable to investigate its relationship to mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 and self-administered computerised-Transition Dyspnoea Index (SAC-TDI) at Week 24, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD (E-RS) at Weeks 21-24, and rescue medication use (puffs/day) over Weeks 1-24. Analyses were conducted across the full range of reversibility (-850-896 mL); however, results are presented for the range -100-400 mL because there were few participants with values outside this range. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) reversibility was 130 mL (156) and the median was 113 mL; 625/2425 (26%) patients were reversible. There was a trend towards greater improvements in trough FEV1, SAC-TDI, E-RS and rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol with higher reversibility. Improvements in trough FEV1 and reductions in rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol compared with either monotherapy across the range of reversibility. Greater improvements in SAC-TDI and E-RS total scores were observed with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in the middle of the reversibility range. CONCLUSIONS: FP analyses suggest that patients with higher levels of reversibility have greater improvements in lung function and symptoms in response to bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy across the full range of reversibility, suggesting that the dual bronchodilator umeclidinium/vilanterol may be an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of their level of reversibility.