Effect of continued treatment with pirfenidone following clinically meaningful declines in forced vital capacity: analysis of data from three phase 3 trials in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of treatment response in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is complicated by the variable clinical course. We examined the variability in the rate of disease progression and evaluated the effect of continued treatment with pirfenidone in patients who experienced meaningful progression during treatment. METHODS: The source population included patients enrolled in the ASCEND and CAPACITY trials (N=1247). Pearson's correlation coefficients were used to characterise the relationship between changes in FVC during consecutive 6-month intervals in the placebo population. Outcomes following a ≥10% decline in FVC were evaluated by comparing the proportion of patients in the pirfenidone and placebo groups who experienced a ≥10% decline in FVC or death during the subsequent 6 months. RESULTS: A weak negative correlation was observed between FVC changes during consecutive intervals in the placebo population (coefficient, -0.146, p<0.001), indicating substantial variability. Thirty-four (5.5%) and 68 (10.9%) patients in the pirfenidone and placebo groups, respectively, experienced a ≥10% decline in FVC by month 6. During the subsequent 6 months, fewer patients in the pirfenidone group compared with placebo experienced a ≥10% decline in FVC or death (5.9% vs 27.9%; relative difference, 78.9%). There was one (2.9%) death in the pirfenidone group and 14 (20.6%) deaths in the placebo group (relative difference, 85.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal FVC data from patients with IPF showed substantial intrasubject variability, underscoring the inability to reliably assess therapeutic response using serial FVC trends. In patients who progressed during treatment, continued treatment with pirfenidone resulted in a lower risk of subsequent FVC decline or death. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01366209, NCT00287729, NCT00287716.

Pirfenidone for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: analysis of pooled data from three multinational phase 3 trials.

Pirfenidone is an antifibrotic agent that has been evaluated in three multinational phase 3 trials in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). We analysed pooled data from the multinational trials to obtain the most precise estimates of the magnitude of treatment effect on measures of disease progression.All patients randomised to pirfenidone 2403 mg·day(-1) or placebo in the CAPACITY or ASCEND studies were included in the analysis. Pooled analyses of outcomes at 1 year were based on the pre-specified end-points and analytic methods described in the ASCEND study protocol.A total of 1247 patients were included in the analysis. At 1 year, pirfenidone reduced the proportion of patients with a ≥10% decline in per cent predicted forced vital capacity or death by 43.8% (95% CI 29.3-55.4%) and increased the proportion of patients with no decline by 59.3% (95% CI 29.0-96.8%). A treatment benefit was also observed for progression-free survival, 6-min walk distance and dyspnoea. Gastrointestinal and skin-related adverse events were more common in the pirfenidone group, but rarely led to discontinuation.Analysis of data from three phase 3 trials demonstrated that treatment with pirfenidone for 1 year resulted in clinically meaningful reductions in disease progression in patients with IPF.

Effect of smoking on the pharmacokinetics of inhaled loxapine.

BACKGROUND: Loxapine inhalation powder delivered by a hand-held device as a thermally generated aerosol (ADASUVE) was recently approved in the United States and European Union for use in the acute treatment of agitation in patients with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. As smokers comprise a large subpopulation of these patients, and many antipsychotic drugs require dose adjustments for smokers, the objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics of inhaled loxapine administered to smokers and nonsmokers. METHODS: Pharmacokinetics and sedation pharmacodynamics using a visual analog scale were studied in 35 male and female adult subjects (18 nonsmokers and 17 smokers) following a single dose of 10 mg of inhaled loxapine. Blood samples were drawn at predose, 30 seconds, 1, 2, 3, 10, 30, and 60 minutes, and 2, 6, 12, and 24 hours after dosing. Loxapine and 8-OH-loxapine were analyzed using reverse-phase liquid chromatography coupled with a tandem mass spectrometer. Pharmacokinetic parameters assessed included Cmax, Tmax, AUCinf, and T1/2 for loxapine and 8-OH-loxapine. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) were determined for smokers to nonsmokers. RESULTS: Loxapine Cmax was similar in smokers and nonsmokers with a GMR of 99.0%. The median loxapine Tmax was 1.88 and 1.01 minutes for nonsmokers and smokers, respectively. Loxapine AUCinf and AUClast values in nonsmokers were comparable with smokers (GMRs of 85.3% and 86.7%, respectively). A slight decrease in the observed mean terminal half-life values was observed for smokers (6.52 hours for smokers and 7.30 hours for nonsmokers). CONCLUSIONS: Sedation profiles and visual analog scale scores at each time point were similar for nonsmokers and smokers. It was concluded that inhaled loxapine does not require dosage adjustment based on smoking behavior.

Rapid acute treatment of agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial with inhaled loxapine.

OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluated inhaled loxapine for the acute treatment of agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder. METHODS: A Phase 3, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group inpatient study was performed at 17 psychiatric research facilities. Agitated patients (N=314) with bipolar I disorder (manic or mixed episodes) were randomized (1:1:1) to inhaled loxapine 5 mg or 10 mg, or inhaled placebo using the Staccato® system. Following baseline assessments, patients received Dose 1 and were evaluated for 24 hours. If required, up to two additional doses of study drug and/or lorazepam rescue medication were given. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) score two hours after Dose 1. The key secondary endpoint was the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score at two hours after Dose 1. Additional endpoints included the changes from baseline in the PANSS-EC from 10 min through 24 hours after Dose 1. Safety was assessed by adverse events, vital signs, physical examinations, and laboratory tests. RESULTS: For the primary and key secondary endpoints, both doses of inhaled loxapine significantly reduced agitation compared with placebo. Reduced agitation, as reflected in PANSS-EC score, was evident 10 min after Dose 1 with both doses. Inhaled loxapine was well tolerated, and the most common adverse events were known effects of loxapine or minor oral effects common with inhaled medications (dysgeusia was reported in 17% of patients receiving active drug versus 6% receiving placebo). CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled loxapine provided a rapid, non-injection, well-tolerated acute treatment for agitation in patients with bipolar I disorder.

Safety of pirfenidone in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: integrated analysis of cumulative data from 5 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Pirfenidone is an oral antifibrotic agent that has been shown to reduce the decline in lung function in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). We performed an integrated analysis of safety data from five clinical trials evaluating pirfenidone in patients with IPF. METHODS: All patients treated with pirfenidone in the three multinational Phase 3 studies (CAPACITY (studies 004 and 006), ASCEND (study 016)) and two ongoing open-label studies (study 002 and study 012 (RECAP)) were included in the analysis. Safety outcomes were assessed during the period from the first dose until 28 days after the last dose of study drug. RESULTS: A total of 1299 patients were included in the analysis. The cumulative total exposure to pirfenidone was 3160 person exposure years (PEY). The median duration of exposure was 1.7 years (range 1 week to 9.9 years), and the mean (±SD) daily dose was 2053.8 (±484.9) mg. Gastrointestinal events (nausea (37.6%), diarrhoea (28.1%), dyspepsia (18.4%), vomiting (15.9%)) and rash (25.0%) were the most common adverse events; these were generally mild to moderate in severity and without significant clinical consequence. Elevations in alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase greater than three times the upper limit of normal occurred in 40/1299 (3.1%) patients (adjusted incidence, 2.3 per 100 PEY). Elevations were generally transient and reversible with dose modification or discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive analysis of safety outcomes in a large and well-defined cohort of 1299 patients with IPF who were followed prospectively for up to 9.9 years demonstrated that long-term treatment with pirfenidone is safe and generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT00287716, NCT00287729, NCT00662038, NCT01366209.

Dose-response relationships of inhaled insulin delivered via the Aerodose insulin inhaler and subcutaneously injected insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the dose-response relationship following inhalation of regular insulin delivered via the Aerodose insulin inhaler with that following subcutaneously injected regular insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients with type 2 diabetes (21 nonsmoking men, aged 36-80 years) each received two of three doses of 80, 160, or 240 units inhaled regular insulin, delivered via a clinical Aerodose insulin inhaler, and two of three corresponding doses of 8, 16, or 24 units by subcutaneous injection under isoglycemic clamp conditions on 4 separate study days in an incomplete block design study. Glucose infusion rates (GIRs) and serum insulin concentrations were monitored over the following 8 h. RESULTS: Inhaled insulin exhibited significantly shorter time-to-peak insulin levels (T(max) 77 +/- 66 vs. 193 +/- 104 min, P < 0.001) and time-to-peak metabolic effects (T(GIRmax) 240 +/- 94 vs. 353 +/- 60 min, P < 0.001) compared with subcutaneously injected insulin. Comparison of total insulin absorption (insulin area under the curve [AUC]) versus total metabolic effect (GIR-AUC) from 0 to 8 h (group means) revealed overlapping dose-response relationships for both inhaled and subcutaneous injection treatments. Comparison of slopes revealed no significant differences between the inhaled and subcutaneous injection treatment groups (P = 0.6). No significant differences in either relative bioavailability or relative biopotency were found among doses, indicating a consistent subcutaneous injection-to-inhaled dosing conversion ratio among doses. No serious adverse events or clinically relevant changes in lung function were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The overlapping dose-response curves of inhaled and subcutaneous treatments together with a consistent relative bioavailability and relative biopotency for inhaled insulin across doses suggest that the Aerodose insulin inhaler will deliver a pharmacologically predictable insulin dose to patients with diabetes similar to that observed following subcutaneous injection.

Absorption and metabolic effect of inhaled insulin: intrapatient variability after inhalation via the Aerodose insulin inhaler in patients with type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the intrapatient variability of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses to inhaled regular insulin (INH) delivered via the Aerodose Insulin Inhaler with that of subcutaneously injected regular insulin (SC) in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 15 patients with type 2 diabetes (nonsmokers, 10 men, aged 47-77 years) received two 240-unit doses of INH, delivered via a clinical Aerodose Insulin Inhaler and two 24-unit doses of SC under euglycemic clamp conditions on four separate study days. Glucose infusion rates (GIRs) and serum insulin concentrations were monitored over the following 8 h. Comparisons of intrapatient coefficients of variation (CV) were used to assess the reproducibility of INH versus SC. RESULTS: INH showed a bioavailability (0-8 h postdosing) of 16% and biopotency of 13% relative to SC. Comparison of the CVs (%) for area under the curve for serum insulin and GIR between INH and SC showed no significant differences between the treatments during 0-3 h (19% for INH versus 23% for SC) or 0-8 h (22% for INH versus 16% for SC). INH exhibited a shorter time to peak insulin concentration (T(max) [mean +/- SD] 76 +/- 51 vs. 193 +/- 66 min) and shorter time to peak metabolic effect (T(GIRmax) 170 +/- 53 vs. 244 +/- 75 min) compared with SC (P < 0.001). No adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Comparable dosing reproducibility and shorter time to peak action of INH compared with SC suggest that INH delivered via the Aerodose Insulin Inhaler can provide reliable preprandial dosing of insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Impact of particle size and aerosolization time on the metabolic effect of an inhaled insulin aerosol.

The effects were compared of varying aerosol particle size and aerosolization time within each breath on the metabolic effect elicited by inhalation of a liquid insulin aerosol in comparison with that after subcutaneous injection (s.c.) of regular insulin. In this single-center, open-label euglycemic glucose clamp study, 13 healthy non-smoking subjects received five administrations of insulin in randomized order on separate study days, once by s.c. (0.15 U/kg of regular insulin) and four times by inhalation. Subjects inhaled 1.5 U/kg of liquid insulin aerosol administered by the Aerodose Insulin Inhaler (Aerogen Inc., Mountain View, CA) configured to deliver two aerosol particle sizes--fine [F, 4.4 +/- 0.3 microm (mean +/- SD)] or very fine (VF, 3.5 +/- 0.2 microm)--and two aerosolization times (aerosol released for the first 2 or 4 s after the start of each 5-s inhalation). Glucose infusion rate (GIR) values necessary to keep blood glucose concentrations constant at 5.0 mmol/L were determined over a 6-h period following insulin administration. After inhalation of insulin, the onset of action was substantially more rapid on all four inhalation study days than after s.c. insulin, and the time to maximal action [t(GIRmax) (min)] was reached earlier: F/2 s, 127 +/- 54; F/4 s, 128 +/- 55; VF/2 s, 158 +/- 91; VF/4 s, 132 +/- 72; s.c., 175 +/- 69 (P < 0.0001). The longer aerosolization time (4 vs. 2 s) resulted in higher maximal metabolic action [GIR(max) (mg/kg/min), F/4 s 8.1 +/- 3.6, VF/4 s 8.4 +/- 2.7 vs. F/2 s 6.6 +/- 2.4, VF/2 s 7.2 +/- 2.4 (P = 0.01 for 4 s vs. 2 s, grouped data)], total metabolic activity [area under the curve of GIR 0-6 h (g/kg), F/4 s 1.97 +/- 0.92, VF/4 s 2.14 +/- 0.86 vs. F/2 s 1.56 +/- 0.68, VF/2 s 1.78 +/- 0.60 (P = 0.01)], and relative biopotency [F/4 s 10.6 +/- 4.0%, VF/4 s 11.7% +/- 4.1% vs. F/2 s 8.5 +/- 3.2%, VF/2 s 9.7 +/- 2.4% (P = 0.01)]. None of these summary measures was significantly affected by particle size. No drug- or device-related adverse events were observed. This study shows that aerosolization time, but not particle size, in the ranges studied, had an impact on the metabolic effect elicited by inhaled insulin, allowing rational selection of delivery parameters for further clinical testing. Based on the observed biopotency and the rapid onset of action, inhalation of a liquid insulin aerosol generated by the Aerodose Insulin Inhaler shows promise for covering prandial insulin requirements.

Safety and tolerability of inhaled loxapine in subjects with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease--two randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Loxapine, a first-generation antipsychotic, delivered with a novel inhalation delivery device developed for the acute treatment of agitation in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder was evaluated in subjects with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Separate randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled trials compared two administrations of inhaled loxapine (10 mg) 10 hr apart with placebo in 52 subjects with asthma and in 53 subjects with COPD. A thermally-generated drug aerosol of loxapine was delivered to the deep lung for rapid systemic absorption. Controller medications were continued throughout the study, but quick-relief bronchodilators were withheld from 6-8 hr before through 34 hr after dose 1, unless indicated as rescue. RESULTS: All airway adverse events (AEs) were of mild or moderate severity. Symptomatic bronchospasm occurred in 53.8% of subjects with asthma after inhaled loxapine and 11.5% after placebo; and in 19.2% of COPD subjects after inhaled loxapine and 11.1% after placebo. Subjects required inhaled albuterol as follows: asthma: 53.8% after inhaled loxapine and 11.5% after placebo; and COPD: 23.1% after inhaled loxapine and 14.8% after placebo. Respiratory signs/symptoms requiring treatment responded to rescue bronchodilator [forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV(1)) return to within 10% of baseline] within 1 hr in 11 of 15 events in asthma subjects and four of seven events in COPD subjects, the remainder by the last spirometry. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with either asthma or COPD, FEV(1) decline and bronchospasm can occur following inhaled loxapine, but more frequently in asthmatic subjects. Most subjects with bronchospasm responded to rescue bronchodilator within 1 hr. No treatment-related serious AE occurred. Although inhaled loxapine is contraindicated in patients with active airways disease per the current approved US labeling, these studies demonstrated that rescue bronchodilator mitigated the symptomatic bronchospasms that may occur in case of inadvertent use.