Safety and Immunogenicity of a Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prefusion F (RSVPreF3) Candidate Vaccine in Older Adults: Phase 1/2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate safety and immunogenicity of vaccine formulations against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) containing the stabilized prefusion conformation of RSV fusion protein (RSVPreF3). METHODS: This phase 1/2, randomized controlled, observer-blind study enrolled 48 young adults (YAs; aged 18-40 years) and 1005 older adults (OAs; aged 60-80 years) between January and August 2019. Participants were randomized into equally sized groups to receive 2 doses of unadjuvanted (YAs and OAs) or AS01-adjuvanted (OAs) vaccine or placebo 2 months apart. Vaccine safety and immunogenicity were assessed until 1 month (YAs) or 12 months (OAs) after second vaccination. RESULTS: The RSVPreF3 vaccines boosted humoral (RSVPreF3-specific immunoglobulin G [IgG] and RSV-A neutralizing antibody) responses, which increased in an antigen concentration-dependent manner and were highest after dose 1. Compared to prevaccination, the geometric mean frequencies of polyfunctional CD4+ T cells increased after each dose and were significantly higher in adjuvanted than unadjuvanted vaccinees. Postvaccination immune responses persisted until end of follow-up. Solicited adverse events were mostly mild to moderate and transient. Despite a higher observed reactogenicity of AS01-containing vaccines, no safety concerns were identified for any assessed formulation. CONCLUSIONS: Based on safety and immunogenicity profiles, the AS01E-adjuvanted vaccine containing 120 µg of RSVPreF3 was selected for further clinical development. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03814590.

How can the findings of the EMAX trial on long-acting bronchodilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease be applied in the primary care setting?

This review addresses outstanding questions regarding initial pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Optimizing initial treatment improves clinical outcomes in symptomatic patients, including those with low exacerbation risk. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy improves lung function versus LAMA or LABA monotherapy, although other treatment benefits have been less consistently observed. The benefits of dual bronchodilation in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk, and its duration of efficacy and cost effectiveness in this population, are not yet fully established. Questions remain on the impact of baseline symptom severity, prior treatment, degree of reversibility to bronchodilators, and smoking status on responses to dual bronchodilator treatment. Using evidence from EMAX (NCT03034915), a 6-month trial comparing the LAMA/LABA combination umeclidinium/vilanterol with umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapy in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk who were inhaled corticosteroid-naïve, we describe how these findings can be applied in primary care.

A randomized controlled trial of glycopyrrolate administered by metered dose inhaler in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite ICS/LABA treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of three doses of glycopyrrolate metered dose inhaler (GP MDI) in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonists (ICS/LABA) with or without tiotropium, to characterize the benefit of triple therapy. METHOD: This phase II/III, double-blind study randomized patients to 24 weeks' treatment with twice-daily GP MDI 36 µg, 18 µg, 9 µg, or placebo MDI (all delivered via Aerosphere inhalers), or once-daily open-label tiotropium 2.5 µg. Patients continued their own ICS/LABA regimen throughout the study. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 - 4 h (AUC0 - 4) at Week 24. Secondary endpoints included patient questionnaires to measure asthma control or symptoms. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: The primary analysis (modified intent-to-treat) population included 1066 patients. The primary study endpoint was not met (changes from baseline in FEV1 AUC0 - 4 at Week 24 were 294 mL, 284 mL, 308 mL, 240 mL, and 347 mL for GP MDI 36 µg, GP MDI 18 µg, GP MDI 9 µg, placebo, and open-label tiotropium, respectively). There were no significant differences between treatment and placebo in secondary endpoints at Week 24. Post-hoc analyses using post-bronchodilator FEV1 as the baseline measurement, or averaging values across multiple baseline visits, showed a dose-related response to GP MDI. The incidence of adverse events was low and similar across treatments. CONCLUSION: Although this study did not meet its primary endpoint, post hoc analyses identified a dose-related response to GP MDI when alternative definitions of baseline FEV1 were used in the analyses.

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.

Long-term safety and efficacy studies of epinephrine HFA metered-dose inhaler (Primatene® Mist): a two-stage randomized controlled trial.

Objective: A new epinephrine hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) asthma metered-dose inhaler (MDI) was reformulated to replace the previously marketed epinephrine chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) MDI. In addition to the HFA propellant change, several enhanced modifications (i.e. changed from solution to suspension, 43% dose reduction, etc.) were made to the formulation of epinephrine HFA MDI. This study evaluates the 6-month long-term safety and efficacy profile of the new epinephrine HFA MDI.Method: The long-term safety study consists of two 3-month, multi-center, double- or evaluator-blinded, parallel-group, placebo, and active controlled stages. In each stage, subjects aged ≥12 years with intermittent or mild-to-moderate persistent asthma were randomized to receive epinephrine HFA (2 × 125 mcg/inhalation), placebo HFA, or epinephrine CFC (2 × 220 mcg/inhalation). Bronchodilator efficacy was assessed in Stage 1 and was determined primarily by the change in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ΔFEV1) at Week 12, relative to the same day baseline.Results: The primary efficacy endpoint (AUC0-6hrs of %ΔFEV1 at Week 12) for epinephrine HFA (47.3 ± 54.2) closely paralleled those for the active control, epinephrine CFC (41.0 ± 43.4). Both groups were found to be overall comparable in bronchodilator efficacy. Both also showed low incidence rates of AEs with tremor being most commonly reported for epinephrine HFA. All AEs found were non-serious and non-significant. The observed changes in vital signs, ECG, serum glucose, and potassium were minimal and not clinically relevant.Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the new epinephrine HFA is overall comparable, in both safety and efficacy, to the previous epinephrine CFC.

Efficacy and Safety of Inhaled Glycopyrronium Bromide in COPD: A Randomized, Parallel Group, Dose-Ranging Study (GLIMMER).

This Phase II, randomized, parallel group study was conducted as part of US regulatory requirements to identify the most appropriate dose of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium bromide (GB) for use in a single-inhaler triple-therapy combination with the inhaled corticosteroid beclomethasone dipropionate plus the long-acting ß2-agonist formoterol fumarate. Eligible subjects were adults with COPD and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 40-80% predicted. Subjects were randomized to receive inhaled double-blind GB 6.25, 12.5, 25 or 50 µg or placebo, all twice daily (BID), or open-label tiotropium 18 µg once daily for six weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of GB versus placebo in terms of FEV1 area under the curve between 0 and 12 h at Week 6. Of 733 subjects randomized, 682 (93.0%) completed the study. For the primary endpoint, all GB doses were superior to placebo (p < 0.05), with a dose-response up to 25 µg BID, and 25 and 50 µg BID both superior to 6.25 µg BID (p < 0.05). Results for the secondary spirometry endpoints were consistent with the primary endpoint. Overall, the efficacy of GB 25 and 50 µg BID was broadly consistent with that of tiotropium. The incidence of adverse events, both overall and for the most common preferred terms, was low and similar in all treatment groups, including placebo (overall, 22.3-29.3%). Based on the totality of the efficacy and safety data, the optimal GB dose is 25 µg BID.

A phase IIb, randomised, parallel-group study: the efficacy, safety and tolerability of once-daily umeclidinium in patients with asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids.

BACKGROUND: Patients with asthma uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids may benefit from umeclidinium (UMEC), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist. METHODS: This Phase IIb, double-blind study included patients with reversible, uncontrolled/partially-controlled asthma for ≥6 months, receiving ≥100 mcg/day fluticasone propionate (or equivalent) for ≥12 weeks. Following a 2-week run-in on open-label fluticasone furoate (FF) 100 mcg, patients were randomised (1:1:1) to receive UMEC 31.25 mcg, UMEC 62.5 mcg or placebo on top of FF 100 mcg once-daily for 24 weeks. As-needed salbutamol was provided. Primary and secondary endpoints were change from baseline in clinic trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and clinic FEV1 3 h post-dose, respectively, at Week 24. Other endpoints included change from baseline in home daily spirometry (trough FEV1, evening FEV1, morning [pre-dose] and evening peak expiratory flow) over 24 weeks. Safety was assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 421 patients (UMEC 31.25 mcg: n =139, UMEC 62.5 mcg: n =139, placebo: n =143). UMEC 31.25 mcg and 62.5 mcg demonstrated significantly greater improvements from baseline in clinic trough FEV1 at Week 24 (difference [95% CI]: 0.176 L [0.092, 0.260; p<0.001] and 0.184 L [0.101, 0.268; p<0.001], respectively), clinic FEV1 3 h post-dose at Week 24 (0.190 L [0.100, 0.279; p<0.001] and 0.198 L [0.109, 0.287; p<0.001], respectively) and mean change from baseline in daily home spirometry over 24 weeks versus placebo. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: UMEC is a highly effective bronchodilator that leads to improved lung function when administered as a single bronchodilator on top of FF in subjects with fully reversible, uncontrolled/partially-controlled moderate asthma. These data support a favourable benefit/risk profile for UMEC (31.25 mcg and 62.5 mcg). TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK study ID: 205832; Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03012061.

Pharmacokinetics of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler formulated using co-suspension delivery technology after single and chronic dosing in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, is a triple fixed-dose combination in late-stage clinical development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We conducted two studies to characterize the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of BGF MDI in patients with COPD: (i) a phase I, open-label, single and chronic (7-day) dosing study (NCT03250182) with one treatment arm (BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 µg); and (ii) a PK sub-study of KRONOS (NCT02497001), a phase III, randomized, double-blind study in which patients received 24 weeks' treatment with BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 µg, glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) MDI 18/9.6 µg, budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) MDI 320/9.6 µg, or budesonide/formoterol fumarate dry powder inhaler (BUD/FORM DPI) 320/9 µg. PK parameters in both studies included maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 12h (AUC0-12). RESULTS: In the phase I PK study (30 patients), budesonide and glycopyrronium Cmax were comparable after single and chronic dosing of BGF MDI (accumulation ratio [RAC] 95% and 107%, respectively) whereas Cmax for formoterol was slightly higher after chronic dosing (RAC 116%). AUC0-12 for budesonide, glycopyrronium, and formoterol were higher following chronic versus single dosing, with an RAC of 126%, 179%, and 143%, respectively. After 7 days' dosing, AUC0-12 and Cmax for all three components of BGF MDI were similar to those in the KRONOS PK sub-study (202 patients) at Week 24. In the latter sub-study, Cmax and AUC0-12 at Week 24 were generally comparable across treatments for budesonide (geometric mean ratios [GMR] of 96%-109% for BGF MDI vs BFF MDI or BUD/FORM DPI), glycopyrronium (GMR of 88%-100% for BGF MDI vs GFF MDI), and formoterol (GMR of 80%-113% for BGF MDI vs GFF MDI or BFF MDI). CONCLUSIONS: Steady-state PK parameters of budesonide, glycopyrronium, and formoterol were similar after 7 days' dosing in the phase I PK study and after 24 weeks in the KRONOS PK sub-study. Systemic exposure to budesonide, glycopyrronium, and formoterol was generally comparable across treatments in the KRONOS PK sub-study, suggesting no meaningful drug-drug or within-formulation PK interactions.

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]).

Weighing the evidence for pharmacological treatment interventions in mild COPD; a narrative perspective.

There is increasing focus on understanding the nature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during the earlier stages. Mild COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 1 or the now-withdrawn GOLD stage 0) represents an early stage of COPD that may progress to more severe disease. This review summarises the disease burden of patients with mild COPD and discusses the evidence for treatment intervention in this subgroup.Overall, patients with mild COPD suffer a substantial disease burden that includes persistent or potentially debilitating symptoms, increased risk of exacerbations, increased healthcare utilisation, reduced exercise tolerance and physical activity, and a higher rate of lung function decline versus controls. However, the evidence for treatment efficacy in these patients is limited due to their frequent exclusion from clinical trials. Careful assessment of disease burden and the rate of disease progression in individual patients, rather than a reliance on spirometry data, may identify patients who could benefit from earlier treatment intervention.

Bone and ocular safety of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler in COPD: a 52-week randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) has been associated with increased risk of bone and ocular comorbidities. We evaluated the effects of the triple fixed-dose combination budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, on bone mineral density (BMD) and ocular safety in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: In this extension study, a subset of patients from the 24-week, phase III, randomized, double-blind KRONOS study (NCT02497001) continued treatment (BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 µg, budesonide/formoterol fumarate [BFF] MDI 320/9.6 µg or glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate [GFF] MDI 18/9.6 µg, as a non-steroidal comparator) for an additional 28 weeks. Primary endpoints were percentage change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD and change from baseline in lens opacities classification system III posterior subcapsular cataract (P) score, both at Week 52. Adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 456 patients were included in the safety population (53.1% male, mean age 62.8 years). Changes from baseline in lumbar spine BMD (least squares mean [LSM] range - 0.12 to 0.38%) and P score (LSM range 0.02-0.15) were small for all treatments. Both BGF MDI and BFF MDI were non-inferior to GFF MDI using margins of -2% (BMD) and 0.5 units (P score). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs)  was generally similar among groups. Rates of confirmed pneumonia were low overall (2.4%) and highest in the GFF MDI group (3.4%), followed by BGF MDI (2.1%) and BFF MDI (1.1%). There were no cumulative adverse effects of treatment over time as the incidence and types of TEAEs, were generally similar in the first 24 weeks of the study and after Week 24. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COPD, both ICS-containing therapies were non-inferior to GFF MDI for the primary BMD and ophthalmological endpoints. Changes from baseline in all three treatment groups over 52 weeks were small and not clinically meaningful. All treatments were well tolerated with no new or unexpected safety findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02536508. Registered 27 August 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.

Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapies in symptomatic patients with COPD not receiving inhaled corticosteroids: the EMAX randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Prospective evidence is lacking regarding incremental benefits of long-acting dual- versus mono-bronchodilation in improving symptoms and preventing short-term disease worsening/treatment failure in low exacerbation risk patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: The 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised patients at low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once-daily or salmeterol 50 µg twice-daily. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The study was also powered for the secondary endpoint of Transition Dyspnoea Index at Week 24. Other efficacy assessments included spirometry, symptoms, heath status and short-term disease worsening measured by the composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration using three definitions. RESULTS: Change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 66 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43, 89) and 141 mL (95% CI: 118, 164) greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, respectively (both p < 0.001). Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated consistent improvements in Transition Dyspnoea Index versus both monotherapies at Week 24 (vs umeclidinium: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.68], p = 0.018; vs salmeterol: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.15, 0.76], p = 0.004) and all other symptom measures at all time points. Regardless of the clinically important deterioration definition considered, umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly reduced the risk of a first clinically important deterioration compared with umeclidinium (by 16-25% [p < 0.01]) and salmeterol (by 26-41% [p < 0.001]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Umeclidinium/vilanterol consistently provides early and sustained improvements in lung function and symptoms and reduces the risk of deterioration/treatment failure versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. These findings suggest a potential for early use of dual bronchodilators to help optimise therapy in this patient group.

Budesonide/formoterol MDI with co-suspension delivery technology in COPD: the TELOS study.

TELOS compared budesonide (BD)/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FF) metered dose inhaler (BFF MDI), formulated using innovative co-suspension delivery technology that enables consistent aerosol performance, with its monocomponents and budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate dry powder inhaler (DPI) in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), without a requirement for an exacerbation history.In this phase III, double-blind, parallel-group, 24-week study (NCT02766608), patients were randomised to BFF MDI 320/10 µg (n=664), BFF MDI 160/10 µg (n=649), FF MDI 10 µg (n=648), BD MDI 320 µg (n=209) or open-label budesonide/formoterol DPI 400/12 µg (n=219). Primary end-points were change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and FEV1 area under the curve from 0-4 h (AUC0-4). Time to first and rate of moderate/severe exacerbations were assessed.BFF MDI 320/10 µg improved pre-dose trough FEV1versus FF MDI (least squares mean (LSM) 39 mL; p=0.0018), and BFF MDI 320/10 µg and 160/10 µg improved FEV1 AUC0-4versus BD MDI (LSM 173 mL and 157 mL, respectively; both p<0.0001) at week 24. BFF MDI 320/10 µg and 160/10 µg improved time to first and rate of moderate/severe exacerbations versus FF MDI. Treatments were well tolerated, with pneumonia incidence ranging from 0.5-1.4%.BFF MDI improved lung function versus monocomponents and exacerbations versus FF MDI in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

A phase IIb randomized, chronic-dosing, incomplete block, cross-over study of glycopyrronium, delivered via metered dose inhaler, compared with a placebo and an active control in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) bronchodilators are key to the pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This Phase IIb study investigated the safety and efficacy of four doses of the LAMA glycopyrronium (GP) delivered using co-suspension delivery technology via metered dose inhaler (MDI). The study was part of a wider clinical trial program performed to determine the optimal dose of GP MDI, the LABA formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FF) MDI, and glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (GFF) MDI fixed-dose combination to be taken forward into Phase III studies. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, 7-day chronic-dosing, three-period incomplete block, cross-over study, patients with moderate-to-severe COPD received two of the four doses of GP MDI (28.8 µg, 14.4 µg, 7.2 µg, and 3.6 µg) twice daily (BID), and either placebo MDI BID or open-label ipratropium MDI 34 µg four times daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC0-12) relative to baseline on Day 7. Secondary and exploratory efficacy endpoints were assessed on Days 1 and 7. Safety and tolerability were evaluated throughout the study. RESULTS: All GP MDI treatments were superior to placebo MDI for the primary efficacy endpoint (all p < 0.0001). However, only GP MDI 28.8 µg and 14.4 µg demonstrated statistical superiority to placebo MDI for all secondary efficacy endpoints analyzed in this study, with the exception of GP MDI 14.4 µg versus placebo MDI for the proportion of patients achieving ≥12% improvement in FEV1. No nominally significant differences were observed between GP MDI 28.8 µg and GP MDI 14.4 µg for any of the endpoints. All doses of GP MDI were well tolerated, with no unexpected safety findings. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that there was no advantage of GP MDI 28.8 µg compared with GP MDI 14.4 µg. It therefore added to the evidence from the Phase I/II clinical trial program, which identified GP MDI 14.4 µg as the most appropriate dose for use in the Phase III clinical studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01350128). Registered May 09, 2011.

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol once daily improves night-time awakenings in asthma patients with night symptoms: Post hoc analyses of three randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Symptoms, including night-time awakenings, affect the quality of life of people with asthma. Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) reduces exacerbations, improves lung function, and rescue-free and symptom-free 24-hour periods in patients with asthma. These post hoc analyses compared daytime and night-time symptoms in patients with asthma who received FF/VI, versus FF, fluticasone propionate (FP) or placebo. METHODS: Daytime and night-time symptoms were collected via electronic daily diary cards in three Phase III randomized studies of once-daily FF/VI in patients with uncontrolled asthma on inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) ± long-acting beta2 agonists (n = 609/1039/586). Endpoints included change from baseline in symptom-free days and nights (analyzed by Analysis of Covariance, covariates: baseline, region, sex, age, and treatment), time for patients to achieve seven consecutive symptom-free nights (analyzed by Cox proportional hazards' model, covariates as above), and proportion of patients experiencing 100% symptom-free nights per week (analyzed by logistic regression, covariates: percentage of symptom-free nights, sex, age, and treatment). RESULTS: Improvements in symptom-free days and nights were generally observed for all treatments. More patients who received FF/VI experienced 100% symptom-free nights in the last week of the treatment period than patients who received ICS alone or placebo. FF/VI also reduced time to achieve seven consecutive symptom-free nights. Patients with at least one night of symptoms at baseline experienced an additional 2.7 and 2.0 symptom-free nights per week with FF/VI 100/25 µg, versus 1.9 and 1.7 with FF alone; similar findings were seen with FF/VI 200/25 µg. CONCLUSIONS: Benefits in terms of symptom-free days and nights were observed for patients receiving FF/VI versus comparators in these post hoc analyses.

A 28-day, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study of nebulized revefenacin in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Revefenacin is a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in clinical development for the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In a dose-ranging study, nebulized once-daily revefenacin had a long duration of action in patients after 7 days' administration of doses up to 700 µg. In this multiple-dose study, the bronchodilation efficacy and adverse events profile were characterized in patients administered nebulized revefenacin once daily for 28 days. METHODS: A total of 355 COPD patients (mean age 62 years, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] 44% of predicted) were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group study. Inhaled corticosteroids as well as short-acting bronchodilators were permitted. Once-daily treatments (44, 88, 175 or 350 µg revefenacin or matching placebo) were administered by a standard jet nebulizer, for 28 days. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in D28 trough FEV1, and secondary endpoints included weighted mean FEV1 over 0 to 24 h and rescue medication (albuterol) use. Safety evaluations included adverse events, laboratory assessments, electrocardiograms and 24-h Holter profiles. RESULTS: Revefenacin (88, 175 and 350 µg) significantly improved D28 trough FEV1 over placebo (187.4, 166.6 and 170.6 mL, respectively, all p < 0.001); 44 µg produced a sub-therapeutic response. At doses ≥88 µg, more than 80% of patients achieved at least a 100-mL increase from baseline FEV1 in the first 4 h post dose compared with 33% of placebo patients. For doses ≥88 µg, D28 24 h weighted mean differences from placebo for FEV1 were numerically similar to respective trough FEV1 values, indicating bronchodilation was sustained for 24 h post dose. Doses ≥88 µg reduced the average number of albuterol puffs/day by more than one puff/day. The 350 µg dose did not demonstrate additional efficacy over that observed with 175 µg revefenacin. Revefenacin was generally well tolerated, with minimal reports of systemic anti-cholinergic effects. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that 88 and 175 µg revefenacin are appropriate doses for use in longer-term safety and efficacy trials. Revefenacin offers the potential for the first once-daily LAMA for nebulization in patients with COPD who require or prefer a nebulized drug delivery option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02040792 . Registered January 16, 2014.

A randomized, seven-day study to assess the efficacy and safety of a glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combination metered dose inhaler using novel Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist combinations are recommended for patients whose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is not managed with monotherapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate (GP)/formoterol fumarate (FF) fixed-dose combination delivered via a Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology-based metered dose inhaler (MDI) (GFF MDI). METHODS: This was a Phase IIb randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, chronic-dosing (7 days), crossover study in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD ( NCT01085045 ). Treatments included GFF MDI twice daily (BID) (GP/FF 72/9.6 µg or 36/9.6 µg), GP MDI 36 µg BID, FF MDI 7.2 and 9.6 µg BID, placebo MDI, and open-label formoterol dry powder inhaler (FF DPI) 12 µg BID or tiotropium DPI 18 µg once daily. The primary endpoint was forced expiratory volume in 1 s area under the curve from 0 to 12 h (FEV1 AUC0-12) on Day 7 relative to baseline FEV1. Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics and safety. RESULTS: GFF MDI 72/9.6 µg or 36/9.6 µg led to statistically significant improvements in FEV1 AUC0-12 after 7 days' treatment versus monocomponent MDIs, placebo MDI, tiotropium, or FF DPI (p ≤ 0.0002). GFF MDI 36/9.6 µg was non-inferior to GFF MDI 72/9.6 µg and monocomponent MDIs were non-inferior to open-label comparators. Pharmacokinetic results showed glycopyrrolate and formoterol exposure were decreased following administration via fixed-dose combination versus monocomponent MDIs; however, this was not clinically meaningful. GFF MDI was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: GFF MDI 72/9.6 µg and 36/9.6 µg BID improve lung function and are well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01085045 . Registered 9 March 2010.

Randomized, dose-ranging study of a fluticasone propionate multidose dry powder inhaler in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma not previously treated with inhaled corticosteroids.

OBJECTIVE: A novel, inhalation-driven, multidose dry powder inhaler (MDPI) eliminates the need to coordinate actuation with inhalation. To characterize dose response, efficacy, and safety of fluticasone propionate (Fp) MDPI, a dose-ranging study was conducted with placebo and active comparators. METHODS: This 12-week, double-blind, parallel-group study randomized patients aged ≥12 years with uncontrolled persistent asthma not previously treated with inhaled corticosteroid therapy (N = 622) to twice-daily treatment with Fp MDPI (12.5, 25, 50, or 100 µg), placebo MDPI, or open-label Fp dry powder inhaler (DPI) 100 µg. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline over 12 weeks in trough (morning pre-dose and pre-rescue bronchodilator) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). Blood samples were collected from a patient subset to evaluate pharmacokinetics. Adverse events were monitored. RESULTS: Fp MDPI 25, 50, and 100 µg significantly improved change from baseline in trough FEV1 over 12 weeks compared with placebo (p < 0.01). There were no substantial differences in FEV1 change from baseline over 12 weeks between any Fp MDPI dose and Fp DPI 100 µg. Maximum observed concentration (Cmax) of Fp increased with increasing Fp MDPI doses; time of Cmax was similar across doses and treatments. Systemic exposures for Fp MDPI 25 and 50 µg were lower than that for Fp DPI 100 µg. The safety profile of Fp MDPI was consistent with that of Fp DPI. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, Fp MDPI 25 and 50 µg provided comparable efficacy and safety to Fp DPI 100 µg, with lower systemic exposure.

Dual Bronchodilation with Indacaterol Maleate/Glycopyrronium Bromide Compared with Umeclidinium Bromide/Vilanterol in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe COPD: Results from Two Randomized, Controlled, Cross-over Studies.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and safety of two long-acting dual bronchodilator combinations: indacaterol/glycopyrrolate (IND/GLY) versus umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI). METHODS: Studies A2349 and A2350 were replicate, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, cross-over studies in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Patients were randomized to sequential 12-week treatments of twice-daily IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg and once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg, each separated by a 3-week washout. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of IND/GLY compared with UMEC/VI in terms of the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s profile at week 12 (FEV1 AUC0-24). Rescue medication use, symptom control, and safety were assessed throughout. RESULTS: Both treatments delivered substantial bronchodilation over 12 weeks, with improvements in FEV1 AUC0-24h at week 12 of 232 and 185 mL for IND/GLY, and 244 and 203 mL with UMEC/VI in Studies A2349 and A2350, respectively. The primary efficacy objective of non-inferiority of IND/GLY relative to UMEC/VI was not met as the lower bound of the confidence interval for the LS treatment comparison was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -20 mL in both studies: -26.9 and -34.2 mL, respectively (LS mean between-treatment differences: -11.5 and -18.2 mL). Both drugs were well tolerated, with AE profiles consistent with their respective prescribing information. CONCLUSIONS: IND/GLY and UMEC/VI provided clinically meaningful and comparable bronchodilation. Non-inferiority of IND/GLY to UMEC/VI could not be declared although between-treatment differences were not clinically relevant. The data support the use of IND/GLY as an efficacious and well tolerated treatment option in patients with COPD. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02487446 and NCT02487498).