Effects of CB1R inverse agonist, INV-202, in patients with features of metabolic syndrome. A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 1b study.

AIMS: To evaluate the clinical safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of the novel cannabinoid receptor-1 (CB1R) inverse agonist, INV-202, in adults with features of metabolic syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 28-day repeat-dose (INV-202 [25 mg] or placebo, once-daily oral tablet), parallel-group study in 37 participants aged 18 to 65 years (46% female, mean age 55 years, glycated haemoglobin 5.7% [39 mmol/mol], body mass index [BMI] 38.1 kg/m2 ) with features of metabolic syndrome and glucose intolerance. An oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed at baseline and at the end of the study. Lipid profiles, weight, waist circumference and biomarkers were assessed weekly. Statistical comparisons were performed post hoc. RESULTS: INV-202 was well tolerated with no serious or severe treatment-emergent adverse events; the most common events related to known effects of CB1R blockade in the gastrointestinal tract. INV-202 produced a significant mean weight loss of 3.5 kg (3.3% compared with placebo participants who gained a mean 0.6 kg [0.5%]). INV-202 also exhibited significant reductions in waist circumference and BMI (P ≤ 0.03). There was no significant difference in OGTT 0- to 3-hour area under the curve for INV-202 versus placebo: least squares mean 29.38 versus 30.25 h*mmol/L, with an INV-202: placebo ratio of 97.1% (95% confidence interval 90.2, 105.6; P = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: INV-202 was well tolerated, producing a signal for rapid weight loss with improvements in other metabolic syndrome markers in this population. These findings support further exploration and long-term assessment of cardiometabolic effects.

Efficacy of revefenacin, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist for nebulized therapy, in patients with markers of more severe COPD: a post hoc subgroup analysis.

BACKGROUND: Revefenacin, a once-daily, long-acting muscarinic antagonist delivered via standard jet nebulizer, increased trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in prior phase 3 trials. We evaluated the efficacy of revefenacin in patients with markers of more severe COPD. METHODS: A post hoc subgroup analysis of two replicate, randomized, phase 3 trials was conducted over 12 weeks. Endpoints included least squares change from baseline in trough FEV1, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders, and transition dyspnea index (TDI) responders at Day 85. This analysis included patient subgroups at high risk for COPD exacerbations and compared patients who received revefenacin 175 µg and placebo: severe and very severe airflow limitation (percent predicted FEV1 30%-< 50% and < 30%), 2011 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) D, reversibility (≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL increase in FEV1) to short-acting bronchodilators, concurrent use of long-acting ß agonists and/or inhaled corticosteroids, older age (> 65 and > 75 years), and comorbidity risk factors. RESULTS: Revefenacin demonstrated significant improvements in FEV1 versus placebo at Day 85 among the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and all subgroups. Additionally, there was a greater number of SGRQ and TDI responders in the ITT population and the majority of subgroups analyzed among patients who received revefenacin versus placebo. For the SGRQ responders, the odds of response (odds ratio > 2.0) were significantly greater in the revefenacin arm versus the placebo arm among the severe airflow obstruction, very severe airflow obstruction and 2011 GOLD D subgroups. For the TDI responders, the odds of response (odds ratio > 2.0) were significantly greater among the severe airflow obstruction subgroup and patients aged > 75 years. CONCLUSIONS: Revefenacin showed significantly greater improvements in FEV1 versus placebo in the ITT population and all subgroups. Furthermore, there were a greater number of SGRQ and TDI responders in the ITT population, and in the majority of patient subgroups among patients who received revefenacin versus placebo. Based on the data presented, revefenacin could be a therapeutic option among patients with markers of more severe COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (Studies 0126 [NCT02459080; prospectively registered 22 May 2015] and 0127 [NCT02512510; prospectively registered 28 July 2015]).

Maintained therapeutic effect of revefenacin over 52 weeks in moderate to very severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).

BACKGROUND: Revefenacin is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist that was recently approved for the nebulized treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although shorter duration studies have documented the efficacy of revefenacin in COPD, longer-term efficacy has not been described. In a recent 52-week safety trial, revefenacin was well tolerated and had a favorable benefit-risk profile. Here we report exploratory efficacy and health outcomes in patients receiving revefenacin 175 µg or 88 µg daily during the 52-week trial. METHODS: In this randomized, parallel-group, 52-week trial (NCT02518139), 1055 participants with moderate to very severe COPD received revefenacin 175 µg or 88 µg in a double-blind manner, or open-label active control tiotropium. RESULTS: Over the 52-week treatment period, both doses of revefenacin, as well as tiotropium, elicited significant (all p < 0.0003) improvements from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). The trough FEV1 profile (least squares mean change from baseline) for revefenacin 175 µg ranged from 52.3-124.3 mL and the trough FEV1 profile for tiotropium ranged from 79.7-112.8 mL. In subgroup comparisons, the effect of revefenacin on trough FEV1 was comparable in patients taking concomitant long-acting ß-agonists, with or without inhaled corticosteroids, with patients who were not taking these medications. There were statistically significant (p < 0.05) improvements in all measured health status outcomes (evaluated using St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, Clinical COPD Questionnaire and Baseline and Transition Dyspnea Index) from 3 months onward, in all treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Significant sustained improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 and respiratory health outcomes were demonstrated for 175-µg revefenacin over 52 weeks, further supporting its use as a once-daily bronchodilator for the nebulized treatment of patients with COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02518139 ; Registered 5 August 2015.

Cardiovascular safety of revefenacin, a once-daily, lung-selective, long-acting muscarinic antagonist for nebulized therapy of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Evaluation in phase 3 clinical trials.

The cardiovascular safety of revefenacin, an anticholinergic indicated for the maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD), was evaluated in phase 3 trials in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. No clinically meaningful changes in 12-lead electrocardiogram recordings were observed with up to 52 weeks of once-daily revefenacin 88 or 175 µg. In a pooled analysis of Studies 0126 and 0127, the incidence of prolonged QT interval corrected for heart rate using the Fridericia correction formula (QTcF; >450 msec) for revefenacin 88 µg (n = 23, 5.6%) and revefenacin 175 µg (n = 23, 5.9%) was similar to that for placebo (n = 22, 5.3%). In Study 0128, the incidence of prolonged QTcF was similar in the revefenacin 175 µg (n = 25, 7.7%) and tiotropium (n = 26, 7.3%) groups and lower in the revefenacin 88 µg (n = 15, 4.2%) group. There were four major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in Study 0126 (one, two, and one in the placebo, revefenacin 88 µg, and revefenacin 175 µg groups, respectively), no MACEs in Study 0127 and 26 MACEs in Study 0128 (9, 10 and 7 in the revefenacin 88 µg, revefenacin 175 µg and tiotropium groups, respectively). In Study 0128, only one MACE was considered possibly/probably related to revefenacin (atrial fibrillation in the revefenacin 175 µg group). Thus, revefenacin may provide beneficial nebulized therapy for patients with COPD without further elevating their risk of cardiovascular events.

Research in progress: Medical Research Council United Kingdom Refractory Asthma Stratification Programme (RASP-UK).

The UK Refractory Asthma Stratification Programme (RASP-UK) will explore novel biomarker stratification strategies in severe asthma to improve clinical management and accelerate development of new therapies. Prior asthma mechanistic studies have not stratified on inflammatory phenotype and the understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms in asthma without Type 2 cytokine inflammation is limited. RASP-UK will objectively assess adherence to corticosteroids (CS) and examine a novel composite biomarker strategy to optimise CS dose; this will also address what proportion of patients with severe asthma have persistent symptoms without eosinophilic airways inflammation after progressive CS withdrawal. There will be interactive partnership with the pharmaceutical industry to facilitate access to stratified populations for novel therapeutic studies.

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 µg versus salmeterol 50 µg after chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled long-acting beta2 agonists used alone and in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid reduce the risk of exacerbations in patients with stable COPD. However, the relative efficacy of these agents in preventing recurrent exacerbations in those recovering from an initial episode is not known. This study compared the rate of COPD exacerbations over the 26 weeks after an initial exacerbation in patients receiving the combination of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FP/SAL) or SAL alone. METHODS: Patients (n = 639) aged ≥40 years were randomized to either twice-daily inhaled FP/SAL 250/50 µg or SAL 50 µg. Primary, and secondary, endpoints were rates of recurrent severe, and moderate/severe, exacerbations of COPD. Lung function, health outcomes and levels of biomarkers of systemic inflammation were also assessed. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant treatment difference in rates of recurrent severe exacerbations (treatment ratio 0.92 [95% CI: 0.58, 1.45]) and moderate/severe exacerbations (0.82 [0.64, 1.06]) between FP/SAL and SAL in the intent-to-treat population. Pre-dose morning FEV1 change from baseline was greater (0.10 L [0.04, 0.16]) with FP/SAL than SAL. No treatment difference was seen for other endpoints including patient-reported health outcomes and biomarker levels for the full cohort. CONCLUSIONS: No significant treatment difference between FP/SAL and SAL was seen in COPD exacerbation recurrence for the complete cohort. Treatment benefit with FP/SAL over SAL (treatment ratio 0.68 [0.47, 0.97]) was seen in patients having FEV1 ≥ 30% and prior exposure to ICS. No unexpected safety issues were identified with either treatment. Patients with the most severe COPD may be more refractory to treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01110200). This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (study number ADC113874).

Clinical Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Patients with Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow.

Introduction: Many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may derive inadequate benefit from dry powder inhalers (DPIs) because of suboptimal peak inspiratory flow (sPIF). Objectives: To assess the clinical burden of COPD by characterizing the clinical characteristics of participants with sPIF against medium-low resistance DPIs versus those with optimal PIF (oPIF) from two phase 3 clinical trials. Methods: Baseline data were collected from two randomized, controlled, phase 3 trials (NCT03095456; NCT02518139) in participants with moderate-to-severe COPD. oPIF (60 L/min) against the medium-low resistance DPIs was used as the threshold for defining the PIF subgroups (<60 L/min (sPIF) vs ≥60 L/min (oPIF)). Results: Most participants included in this analysis were White (92%) and male (63%); the mean (range) age was 65 (43-87) years. Participants with sPIF had significantly greater dyspnea than those with oPIF as measured using the modified Medical Research Council scoring (mean (95% CI): 2.1 (2.0-2.2) vs 1.6 (1.4-1.7); P < 0.001) and baseline dyspnea index (mean (95% CI): 5.1 (4.9-5.4) vs 6.1 (5.8-6.3); P < 0.001). Based on COPD Assessment Test scores, participants with sPIF had a higher COPD symptom burden than those with oPIF (mean (95% CI): 21.5 (19.7-23.3) vs 19.5 (18.6-20.4); P = 0.05). Conclusion: In these trials, participants with COPD who had sPIF against the medium-low resistance DPIs had more dyspnea and worse health status than those with oPIF. These results demonstrate that sPIF is associated with a higher clinical burden as measured by patient-reported outcomes.

Therapeutic potential of a novel peripherally restricted CB1R inverse agonist on the progression of diabetic nephropathy.

Objective: This study assessed the efficacy of INV-202, a novel peripherally restricted cannabinoid type-1 receptor (CB1R) inverse agonist, in a streptozotocin-induced type-1 diabetes nephropathy mouse model. Methods: Diabetes was induced in 8-week-old C57BL6/J male mice via intraperitoneal injection of streptozotocin (45 mg/kg/day for 5 days); nondiabetic controls received citrate buffer. Diabetic mice were randomized to 3 groups based on blood glucose, polyuria, and albuminuria, and administered daily oral doses for 28-days of INV-202 at 0.3 or 3 mg/kg or vehicle. Results: INV-202 did not affect body weight but decreased kidney weight compared with the vehicle group. While polyuria was unaffected by INV-202 treatment, urinary urea (control 30.77 ± 14.93; vehicle 189.81 ± 31.49; INV-202 (0.3 mg/kg) 127.76 ± 20; INV-202 (3 mg/kg) 93.70 ± 24.97 mg/24h) and albumin (control 3.06 ± 0.38; vehicle 850.08 ± 170.50; INV-202 (0.3 mg/kg) 290.65 ± 88.70; INV-202 (3 mg/kg) 111.29 ± 33.47 µg/24h) excretion both decreased compared with vehicle-treated diabetic mice. Compared with the vehicle group, there was a significant improvement in the urinary albumin to creatinine ratio across INV-202 groups. Regardless of the dose, INV-202 significantly reduced angiotensin II excretion in diabetic mice. The treatment also decreased Agtr1a renal expression in a dose-dependent manner. Compared with nondiabetic controls, the glomerular filtration rate was increased in the vehicle group and significantly decreased by INV-202 at 3 mg/kg. While the vehicle group showed a significant loss in the mean number of podocytes per glomerulus, INV-202 treatment limited podocyte loss in a dose-dependent manner. Moreover, in both INV-202 groups, expression of genes coding for podocyte structural proteins nephrin (Nphs1), podocin (Nphs2), and podocalyxin (Pdxl) were restored to levels similar to nondiabetic controls. INV-202 partially limited the proximal tubular epithelial cell (PTEC) hyperplasia and normalized genetic markers for PTEC lesions. INV-202 also reduced expression of genes contributing to oxidative stress (Nox2, Nox4, and P47phox) and inflammation (Tnf). In addition, diabetes-induced renal fibrosis was significantly reduced by INV-202. Conclusions: INV-202 reduced glomerular injury, preserved podocyte structure and function, reduced injury to PTECs, and ultimately reduced renal fibrosis in a streptozotocin-induced diabetic nephropathy mouse model. These results suggest that INV-202 may represent a new therapeutic option in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease.

Observational study on the impact of initiating tiotropium alone versus tiotropium with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination therapy on outcomes and costs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective cohort study compared the risks of exacerbations and COPD-related healthcare costs between patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) initiating tiotropium (TIO) alone and patients initiating triple therapy with fluticasone-salmeterol combination (FSC) added to TIO. METHODS: Managed-care enrollees who had an index event of ≥ 1 pharmacy claim for TIO during the study period (January 1, 2003-April 30, 2008) and met other eligibility criteria were categorized into one of two cohorts depending on their medication use. Patients in the TIO+FSC cohort had combination therapy with TIO and FSC, defined as having an FSC claim on the same date as the TIO claim. Patients in the TIO cohort had no such FSC use. The risks of COPD exacerbations and healthcare costs were compared between cohorts during 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: The sample comprised 3333 patients (n = 852 TIO+FSC cohort, n = 2481 TIO cohort). Triple therapy with FSC added to TIO compared with TIO monotherapy was associated with significant reductions in the adjusted risks of moderate exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.772; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.641, 0.930) and any exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.763; 95% CI 0.646, 0.949) and a nonsignificant reduction in COPD-related adjusted monthly medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy with FSC added to TIO compared with TIO monotherapy was associated with significant reductions in the adjusted risks of moderate exacerbation and any exacerbation over a follow-up period of up to 1 year. These improvements were gained with triple therapy at roughly equal cost of that of TIO alone.

Observational study of the outcomes and costs of initiating maintenance therapies in patients with moderate exacerbations of COPD.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data describing patients with moderate COPD exacerbations and evaluating comparative effectiveness of maintenance treatments in this patient population. The study examined COPD patients with moderate COPD exacerbations. COPD-related outcomes were compared between patients initiating fluticasone propionate-salmeterol 250/50 mcg (FSC) vs anticholinergics (ACs) following a moderate COPD exacerbation. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used a large administrative claims database (study period: 2003-2009) to identify and describe patients with an initial, moderate COPD exacerbation. A descriptive analysis of patients with moderate COPD exacerbations was done evaluating maintenance treatment rates, subsequent COPD exacerbation rates, and COPD-related costs during a 1-year period. A cohort analysis compared COPD exacerbation rates and associated costs during a variable-length follow-up period between patients initiating maintenance therapy with FSC or ACs. COPD exacerbations were reported as rate per 100 patient-years, and monthly costs were reported (standardized to USD 2009). COPD exacerbation rates between cohorts were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models, and costs were analyzed using generalized linear models with log-link and gamma distribution. RESULTS: 21,524 patients with a moderate COPD exacerbation were identified. Only 25% initiated maintenance therapy, and 13% had a subsequent exacerbation. Annual costs averaged $594 per patient. A total of 2,849 treated patients (FSC = 925; AC = 1,924) were eligible for the cohort analysis. The FSC cohort had a significantly lower rate of COPD exacerbations compared to the AC cohort (20.8 vs 32.8; P = 0.04). After adjusting for differences in baseline covariates, the FSC cohort had a 42% significantly lower risk of a COPD exacerbation (HR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.91). The FSC cohort incurred significantly higher adjusted pharmacy costs per patient per month by $37 (95% CI: $19, $72) for COPD-related medications vs the AC cohort. However, this increase was offset by a significant reduction in adjusted monthly medical costs per patient for the FSC vs the AC cohort ($82 vs $112; P < 0.05). Total monthly COPD-related costs, as a result, did not differ between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Only a quarter of patients with a moderate COPD exacerbation were subsequently treated with maintenance therapy. Initiation of FSC among those treated was associated with better clinical and economic outcomes compared to AC.

28-Day safety and tolerability of umeclidinium in combination with vilanterol in COPD: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Umeclidinium (UMEC; GSK573719) is a new long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) currently in development in combination with vilanterol (VI), an inhaled, long-acting beta2 agonist for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of repeat dosing of UMEC and VI in combination once daily for 28 days in patients with COPD. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study. Patients aged ≥40 years with post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≤80% of predicted normal values and FEV1/FVC ratio ≤0.70, and a smoking history of ≥10 pack-years, were randomized 4:1 to once-daily UMEC/VI (500/25 mcg; n = 42) or placebo (n = 9). RESULTS: UMEC/VI was non-inferior to placebo in weighted mean pulse rate over 0-6 h at Day 28 (primary endpoint: difference of -0.5 bpm, 95% CI: -5.5 to 4.5). There was no evidence of a difference between UMEC/VI compared with placebo in blood pressure, minimum and maximum pulse rate, or QTcF assessments. Adverse events (AEs) were reported by 11 (26%) patients in the UMEC/VI group and one (11%) patient in the placebo group. No serious AEs were reported. Both UMEC and VI showed rapid absorption (median t(max) ∼6 min for both drugs) with no evidence of accumulation for AUC or C(max) on Day 28 compared with Day 1 for UMEC or VI. There was no correlation between individual steady-state C(max) and pulse rate on Day 28. Change from baseline in trough FEV1 on Day 29 showed numerically greater improvements with UMEC/VI compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: Once-daily dosing with UMEC in combination with VI in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD was well tolerated over 28 days.

Lung deposition of inhaled once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonists via standard jet nebulizer or dry powder inhaler, measured using functional respiratory imaging, in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Data for bronchodilator deposition via nebulizers and dry powder inhalers (DPIs) in the respiratory tract of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. We used functional respiratory imaging (FRI) to determine deposition patterns for revefenacin solution via a PARI LC® Sprint® nebulizer and tiotropium powder via HandiHaler® DPI. METHODS: Ten patients with COPD, of whom 9 had severe airflow obstruction, were selected from FLUIDDA's database. The study did not enroll patients. Drug deposition in the extrathoracic and intrathoracic regions, including the central and peripheral airways was simulated by FRI. The percentage of delivered dose and central-to-peripheral (C/P) deposition ratio for nebulizer and DPI were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean ±â€„standard deviation (SD) age was 64.7 ±â€„7.1 years, height was 168.8 ±â€„8.5 cm, and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s was 40.8 ±â€„12.3%; 50% of patients were men. At optimal inhalation flow, intrathoracic and peripheral deposition was three-fold higher for revefenacin via nebulizer than tiotropium via HandiHaler (mean ±â€„SD 34.6 ±â€„8.53% versus 10.9 ±â€„5.67% and 18.2 ±â€„4.30% versus 5.8 ±â€„2.73% of delivered dose, respectively). Similar results were observed for suboptimal flow (mean ±â€„SD percentage of revefenacin versus tiotropium: intrathoracic, 32.1 ±â€„8.3% versus 15.1 ±â€„5.9%; peripheral; 16.6 ±â€„4.1% versus 8.4 ±â€„2.9%). The C/P deposition ratio for nebulizer was similar to DPI (mean ±â€„SD 0.915 ±â€„0.241 versus 0.812 ±â€„0.249 at optimal; 0.947 ±â€„0.253 versus 0.784 ±â€„0.219 at suboptimal flow), even though the mass median aerodynamic diameter of revefenacin was higher than tiotropium. C/P deposition ratio for revefenacin decreased after bronchodilation (0.915 ±â€„0.241 pre-bronchodilation versus 0.799 ±â€„0.192 post-bronchodilation), suggesting progressively better deposition in the peripheral region, assuming bronchodilation occurred during the nebulization process. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate more efficient intrathoracic and peripheral deposition for revefenacin via standard jet nebulizer than tiotropium via HandiHaler, with similar C/P deposition ratio in patients with COPD. Nebulizers are an efficient alternative to DPIs for bronchodilator administration in patients with COPD.

Disease severity and symptoms among patients receiving monotherapy for COPD.

AIM: To examine the burden of respiratory symptoms, quality of life and co-morbid illness in COPD patients receiving maintenance treatment in a real world setting. METHODS: In a single visit, patients with a physician's diagnosis of COPD who were receiving monotherapy with a long-acting bronchodilator (LABD) performed spirometry, completed symptom questionnaires, and reported their treatments, history of exacerbations and co-morbidities. RESULTS: We enrolled 1084 patients of whom 1072 had acceptable spirometry. 689 (64%) had airflow obstruction (FEV1/FVC≤0.70) while 383 (36%) failed to meet spirometric criteria for COPD despite receiving maintenance therapy and having comparable symptoms and comorbid illness. Among those with confirmed COPD, dyspnoea was worse in those with more severe airflow limitation though exacerbation frequency was comparable across COPD stages. CONCLUSIONS: COPD is commonly diagnosed and treated in patients without airflow obstruction. Many COPD patients receiving LABD monotherapy continue to suffer significant symptoms, exacerbations and poor quality of life.

Efficacy and safety of revefenacin for nebulization in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease taking concomitant ICS/LABA or LABA: subgroup analysis from phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: Combinations of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA), long-acting ß-agonist (LABA), and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) are used for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations on bronchodilator monotherapy. In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of the LAMA revefenacin in patients with COPD taking concomitant LABA, including ICS/LABA (LABA subgroup). METHODS: Efficacy data were obtained from two 12-week, replicate, placebo-controlled trials and safety data were pooled from the 12-week and a 52-week tiotropium-controlled trial. Patients received revefenacin 175 µg or placebo in the 12-week or tiotropium 18 µg in the 52-week studies. The efficacy endpoint was least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). Clinical health outcomes were assessed using the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). RESULTS: Revefenacin produced similar improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 in the non-LABA and LABA subgroups [placebo-adjusted LS mean change (95% confidence interval) in day 85 trough FEV1, 150.9 (110.3-191.6) ml and 139.2 (82.9-195.5) ml; p < 0.0001 versus placebo]. Similar improvements were observed in SGRQ scores in the non-LABA and LABA subgroups [-3.3 (-5.4 to -1.2) and -3.4 (-6.3 to -0.6)]. Improvements in lung function and health outcomes were observed regardless of airflow obstruction severity. Revefenacin was well tolerated with more adverse events reported in the LABA than the non-LABA subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Once daily revefenacin for nebulization can be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients who require concomitant use of LABA with or without ICS. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIERS: NCT02512510, NCT02459080, NCT02518139 The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Safety and Efficacy of Revefenacin and Formoterol in Sequence and Combination via a Standard Jet Nebulizer in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Phase 3b, Randomized, 42-Day Study.

Although no nebulized, dual mechanism, long-acting bronchodilator is currently marketed, with the approval of once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) revefenacinefenacin, it is theoretically possible to deliver a LAMA and long-acting beta2-agonist via standard jet nebulizer. The primary and secondary objectives of our study were to characterize the safety profile of revefenacin administered sequentially before or in combination with formoterol, via standard jet nebulizer in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this randomized, double-blind, 42-day trial (NCT03573817), patients received revenacin 175 µg (n=63) or placebo (n=59), followed by formoterol 20 µg in the morning and formoterol alone in the evening formoterol 21 days via standard jet nebulizer (sequential administration). For another 21 days, revefenacin/placebo and formoterol, were administered as mixed solutions via single nebulization in the morning (combined administration), and formoterol alone in the evening. The adverse events' (AEs) incidence was higher in the placebo + formoterol arms (11%-12%) than in the revefenacin + formoterol arms (5%-8%). The most common AEs were worsening/exacerbation of COPD, cough, and dizziness. There were no serious AEs or deaths reported in any arm. The least squares mean in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) versus baseline was higher in the revefenacin + formoterol arms (116-157 mL) than in the placebo + formoterol arms (35-53 mL). Revefenacin had a safety profile similar to formoterol alone when delivered sequentially or combined. Trough FEV1 was similar when revefenacin was delivered sequentially or combined with formoterol, with revefenacin providing an additional 81-104 mL improvements over formoterol alone.

Peak Inspiratory Flows: Defining Repeatability Limits and a Predictive Equation for Different Inhalers.

BACKGROUND: Peak inspiratory flow (PIF) has been proposed as a measure to assess a patient's ability to use dry powder inhalers (DPIs). However, robust quality criteria to determine a repeatability limit for measuring PIF are lacking. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: What are the repeatability limits for measuring PIF? What is the relationship between PIF measured using the In-Check DIAL device at Diskus (GlaxoSmithKline; PIFD) and HandiHaler (Boehringer Ingelheim; PIFHH) resistances? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from a randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial (study 0149; see Clinical Trial Registration data) were used to define repeatability limits for PIF. In addition, a model to characterize the relationship between PIF measured with the In-Check DIAL device at PIFD and PIFHH was defined using data from two randomized, controlled, phase 3 trials (studies 0128 and 0149). RESULTS: In study 0128, the mean values (SD) for PIF at zero resistance and PIFHH were 84.6 (33.4) and 57.3 (26.1) L/min, respectively. In study 0149, the mean values (SD) for PIFD and PIFHH were 42.4 (11.2) and 29.0 (8.3) L/min, respectively. At the mean level, the mean difference between measurement attempts for PIFD and PIFHH was small, < 5 and < 3 L/min, respectively. The repeatability limit was determined as 10 and 5 L/min for PIFD and PIFHH, respectively. Modeling the relationship between PIFD and PIFHH, after controlling for significant covariates, demonstrated that a PIFD value of 60 L/min was approximately equivalent to PIFHH of 40 L/min. INTERPRETATIONS: This analysis demonstrated that the two highest values of PIF using the In-Check DIAL device among three inspiratory efforts, met the repeatability limit. Altogether, these data provide guidance for measuring PIF against the simulated resistance of a specific DPI in clinical practice and research studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; Nos.: NCT02518139 (study 0128) and NCT03095456 (study 0149); URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Effect of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (250/50) on COPD exacerbations and impact on patient outcomes.

Prevention and treatment of COPD exacerbations are recognized as key goals in disease management. This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study evaluated the effect of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250 mcg/50 mcg (FSC 250/50) and salmeterol 50 mcg (SAL) twice-daily on moderate/severe exacerbations. Subjects received treatment with FSC 250/50 during a one month run-in, followed by randomization to FSC 250/50 or SAL for 52 weeks. Moderate/severe exacerbations were defined as worsening symptoms of COPD requiring antibiotics, oral corticosteroids and/or hospitalization. In 797 subjects with COPD (mean FEV(1) = 0.98L, 34% predicted normal), treatment with FSC 250/50 significantly reduced the annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations by 30.4% compared with SAL (1.10 and 1.59 per subject per year, respectively, p < 0.001), the annual rate of exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids by 34% (p < 0.001) and the annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations requiring hospitalization by 36% (p = 0.043). Clinical improvements observed during run-in treatment with FSC 250/50 were better maintained over 52 weeks with FSC 250/50 compared to SAL. Statistically significant reductions in albuterol use, dyspnea scores, and nighttime awakenings and numerical benefits on quality of life were seen with FSC 250/50 compared with SAL. The incidence of adverse events was similar across groups. Pneumonia was reported more frequently with FSC 250/50 compared with SAL (7% vs. 2%). FSC 250/50 is more effective than SAL at reducing the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations. These data confirm the beneficial effect of FSC on the management of COPD exacerbations and support the use of FSC in patients with COPD.

Improvements in Lung Function with Nebulized Revefenacin in the Treatment of Patients with Moderate to Very Severe COPD: Results from Two Replicate Phase III Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Revefenacin, a novel, lung-selective, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, has been developed for nebulized therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We present the results of replicate Phase III efficacy and safety studies of revefenacin in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. METHODS: In 2 double-blind, parallel-group studies, (Study 0126 and Study 0127), patients ≥ 40 years old were randomized to revefenacin 88 µg, revefenacin 175 µg or placebo administered once daily by standard jet nebulizer for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was 24-hour trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) on day 85. Secondary efficacy endpoints included overall treatment effect (OTE) on trough FEV1 and peak FEV1 (0-2 hours after first dose). Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: At day 85, revefenacin 88 µg and 175 µg improved trough FEV1 versus placebo in Study 0126 (by 79 mL [p=0.0003] and 146 mL [p<0.0001]) and Study 0127 (by 160 mL and 147 mL; both p<0.0001). Compared with placebo, pooled data of revefenacin 88 µg and 175 µg increased OTE trough FEV1 by 115 mL and 142 mL (both p<0.001) and increased peak FEV1 by 127 mL and 129 mL (both p<0.0001). Revefenacin 175 µg demonstrated greater improvements in FEV1 in concomitant long-acting beta2-agonist patients and in more severe patients than revefenacin 88 µg. Adverse events were minor. CONCLUSION: Revefenacin, administered once daily for 12 weeks to patients with moderate to very severe COPD, demonstrated clinically significant improvements in trough FEV1 and OTE FEV1. Revefenacin was generally well tolerated with no major safety concerns.

Nebulized Versus Dry Powder Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Bronchodilators in Patients With COPD and Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate (sPIFR) may not benefit optimally from dry powder inhalers (DPI) because of inadequate inspiratory flow. Nebulized bronchodilators may provide a better alternative. We compared bronchodilation with the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) revefenacin for nebulization versus the DPI LAMA tiotropium, in patients with COPD and sPIFR (< 60 L/min against the resistance of Diskus®). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, 28-day Phase 3b study in patients with COPD enrolled based on sPIFR. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) on Day 29 for revefenacin for nebulization versus tiotropium HandiHaler® DPI. RESULTS: We enrolled 206 patients with mean (standard deviation) age, 65 (8) years; percent predicted FEV1, 37 (16)%; PIFR, 45 (12) L/min. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, revefenacin improved trough FEV1 from baseline; however, the difference versus tiotropium was not significant (least squares [LS] mean difference [standard error], 17.0 [22.4] mL, P=0.4461). In a prespecified analysis of patients with FEV1 < 50% predicted, revefenacin produced an LS mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]), 49.1 (6.3-91.9) mL in trough FEV1 and 103.5 (7.7-199.3) mL in forced vital capacity versus tiotropium. Revefenacin produced >100 mL increase in FEV1 in 41.6% versus 34.4% of patients with tiotropium in ITT and 41.4% versus 25.7% of patients in FEV1 < 50% predicted populations. CONCLUSIONS: Revefenacin did not produce significant improvements in FEV1 versus tiotropium in the ITT population, but increased trough FEV1 in patients with FEV1 < 50% predicted and sPIFR. Clinical Trial Registration (www.Clinicaltrials.gov): Study 0149 (NCT03095456).