Improvements In Trough FEV1 Research Articles

Baseline Characteristics and ICS/LAMA/LABA Response in Asthma: Analyses From the CAPTAIN Study

BackgroundFindings from CAPTAIN (NCT02924688) suggest treatment response to fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) differs according to baseline type 2 (T2) inflammation markers in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. Understanding how other patient physiologic and clinical characteristics affect response to inhaled therapies may guide physicians toward a personalized approach for asthma management. ObjectiveTo investigate, using CAPTAIN data, the predictive value of key demographic and baseline physiologic variables in patients with asthma (lung function, bronchodilator reversibility, age, age at asthma onset) on response to addition of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist UMEC to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination FF/VI, or doubling FF dose. MethodsPrespecified and post hoc analyses of CAPTAIN data were performed using categorical and continuous variables of key baseline characteristics to understand their influence on treatment outcomes (lung function [trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second, FEV1], annualized rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, and asthma control [Asthma Control Questionnaire, ACQ]) following addition of UMEC to FF/VI or doubling FF dose in FF/VI or FF/UMEC/VI. ResultsAdding UMEC to FF/VI led to greater improvements in trough FEV1 versus doubling FF dose across all baseline characteristics assessed. Doubling FF dose was generally associated with numerically greater reductions in the annualized rate of moderate/severe exacerbations compared with adding UMEC, independent of baseline characteristics. Adding UMEC and/or doubling FF dose generally led to improvements in ACQ scores irrespective of baseline characteristics. ConclusionUnlike previous findings with T2 biomarkers, lung function, bronchodilator reversibility, age and age at asthma onset do not appear to predict response to inhaled therapy.

Efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol versus monotherapies and aclidinium versus placebo in Chinese and other Asian patients with moderate-to-severe COPD: The AVANT Phase 3 study

AVANT was a Phase 3, 24-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium/formoterol 400 μg/12 μg combination vs monotherapies and aclidinium vs placebo (1:1:1:1) in Asian patients (∼70% of whom were Chinese) with moderate-to-severe stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Endpoints were analyzed hierarchically to incorporate type I error control. At Week 24, aclidinium/formoterol demonstrated improvements from baseline in 1-h morning post-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) vs aclidinium (least squares [LS] mean 92 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI] 60, 124 mL; p < 0.001), and in trough FEV1 vs formoterol (LS mean 85 mL; 95% CI 53, 117 mL; p < 0.001). Furthermore, aclidinium provided improvements in trough FEV1 vs placebo (LS mean 134 mL; 95% CI 103, 166 mL; p < 0.001). There was an improvement in transition dyspnea index focal score at Week 24 for aclidinium/formoterol vs placebo (LS mean 0.8; 95% CI 0.2, 1.3; p = 0.005) but not for aclidinium vs placebo (LS mean 0.4; 95% CI −0.1, 1.0; p = 0.132). Improvements in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total scores occurred for aclidinium/formoterol vs placebo (LS mean −4.0; 95% CI −6.7, −1.4; p = 0.003) and aclidinium vs placebo (LS mean −2.9; 95% CI −5.5, −0.3; p = 0.031). Aclidinium/formoterol and aclidinium were well tolerated and safety findings were consistent with known profiles; rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) (aclidinium/formoterol: 54.8%; aclidinium: 47.4%; placebo: 53.9%), serious AEs (7.2, 7.9, and 7.8%, respectively), and AEs leading to discontinuation of study medication (2.3, 1.5, and 2.2%, respectively) were similar between groups.

Triple Therapy with Mometasone/Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium or Doubling the ICS/LABA Dose in GINA Step 4: IRIDIUM Analyses.

GINA guidelines recommend increasing the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as a step-up option for patients with inadequately controlled asthma at GINA step 4 [inadequately controlled asthma on medium-dose ICS/long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA)]. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) add-on to medium-dose ICS/LABA in patients at GINA 2022 step 4. This post hoc analysis of the IRIDIUM study evaluated the change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume (FEV1 ) in patients receiving medium-dose MF/IND/GLY versus high-dose MF/IND and high-dose FLU/SAL at Week 26. Other outcomes included improvement in lung functions [peak expiratory flow (PEF), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of the FVC (FEF)25-75%)], asthma control [Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-7)], responder analysis (≥0.5 unit improvement in ACQ-7), and reduction inasthma exacerbations at Weeks 26 and 52. A total of 1930 patients were included in this analysis. Medium-dose MF/IND/GLY improved trough FEV1 versus high-dose MF/IND (Δ 41mL; 95% CI -7-90) and high-dose FLU/SAL (Δ 88mL; 95% CI 39-137) at Week 26 which were sustained until Week 52. Exacerbation rates were 16% lower with medium-dose MF/IND/GLY versus high-dose MF/IND for all (mild, moderate, and severe) exacerbations and 21-30% lower versus high-dose FLU/SAL for all (mild, moderate, and severe), moderate or severe, and severe exacerbations over 52weeks. Further improvements in other lung functions were observed with medium-dose MF/IND/GLY. No new safety signals were identified. Medium-dose MF/IND/GLY improved lung function and reduced asthma exacerbations compared to high-dose ICS/LABA and may be an undervalued option in patients at GINA 2022 step 4. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02571777.

Efficacy of mometasone/indacaterol/glycopyrronium in patients with inadequately controlled asthma with respect to baseline eosinophil count: Post hoc analysis of IRIDIUM study

BackgroundBaseline characteristics could potentially guide asthma treatments. We evaluated whether baseline eosinophil levels affect the efficacy of mometasone/indacaterol/glycopyrronium (MF/IND/GLY) in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. MethodIn this post hoc analysis of IRIDIUM study, efficacy of high-dose MF/IND/GLY (160/150/50 μg, once-daily [o.d.]) versus high-dose MF/IND (320/150 μg o.d.) and high-dose fluticasone/salmeterol (FLU/SAL [500/50 μg, twice-daily [b.i.d.]); and efficacy of pooled MF/IND/GLY (160/150/50 μg and 80/150/50 μg) versus pooled MF/IND (320/150 μg and 160/150 μg) was evaluated in patient subgroups with baseline blood eosinophil count of <300 cells/μL or ≥300 cells/μL. ResultsOverall, 3065 patients were included. At Week 26, high-dose MF/IND/GLY showed improved trough FEV1 versus high-dose MF/IND (Δ78mL [<300 cells/μL]; Δ54mL [≥300 cells/μL]) and FLU/SAL (Δ112mL [<300 cells/μL]; Δ98mL [≥300 cells/μL]). Similarly, pooled MF/IND/GLY also showed improved trough FEV1 versus pooled MF/IND (Δ75mL [<300 cells/μL]; Δ68mL [≥300 cells/μL]).Over 52 weeks, high-dose MF/IND/GLY reduced the annualized rate of moderate or severe asthma exacerbations by 23% and 10%, severe exacerbations by 31% and 15%, and all exacerbation by 33% and 10% versus high-dose MF/IND for subgroups with <300 cells/μL and ≥300 cells/μL, respectively; and by 33% and 41%, 45% and 42%, 42% and 39% versus FLU/SAL, respectively. Similarly, pooled MF/IND/GLY reduced exacerbations by 22% and 8%, 21% and 7%, 27% and 8%, versus pooled MF/IND, for the respective subgroups. ConclusionMF/IND/GLY showed improvement in lung function and reduction in asthma exacerbations over MF/IND and FLU/SAL independent of baseline eosinophil levels, indicating that eosinophil levels did not affect the efficacy of MF/IND/GLY in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02571777 (IRIDIUM).

Efficacy of once-daily, single-inhaler, fixed-dose combination of mometasone/indacaterol/glycopyrronium in patients with asthma with or without persistent airflow limitation: Post hoc analysis from the IRIDIUM study

BackgroundA novel, once-daily, fixed-dose combination of mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide (MF/IND/GLY) delivered via Breezhaler® is the first inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ꞵ2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (ICS/LABA/LAMA) therapy approved for the maintenance treatment of asthma in adults inadequately controlled on ICS/LABA combination. In patients with asthma and persistent airflow limitation (PAL), maximal treatment, especially with combination is suggested. This post hoc analysis of data from the IRIDIUM study assessed the efficacy of MF/IND/GLY in asthma patients with and without PAL. MethodsPatients with post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≤80% of predicted and FEV1/FVC ratio of ≤0.7 were categorised as PAL subgroup and the remaining as the non-PAL subgroup. Lung function parameters (FEV1, PEF, and FEF25%–75%) and annualised asthma exacerbations rates were evaluated in both subgroups across the treatment arms: once-daily high-dose MF/IND/GLY (160/150/50 μg), high-dose MF/IND (320/150 μg) and twice-daily high-dose fluticasone/salmeterol (FLU/SAL; 500/50 μg). ResultsOf the 3092 randomised patients, 64% (n = 1981) met the criteria for PAL. Overall, there was no evidence of treatment difference between PAL and non-PAL subgroups (interaction P-value for FEV1, FEF25%–75%, PEF, moderate or severe exacerbations, severe exacerbations and all exacerbations were 0.42, 0.08, 0.43 0.29, 0.35 and 0.12, respectively). In the PAL subgroup, high-dose MF/IND/GLY versus high-dose MF/IND and high-dose FLU/SAL improved trough FEV1 (mean difference: 102 mL [P < 0.0001] and 137 mL [P < 0.0001]) and reduced moderate or severe (16% and 32%), severe (25% and 39%) and all exacerbations (19% and 38%), respectively. ConclusionsOnce-daily fixed-dose MF/IND/GLY was efficacious in asthma patients with and without persistent airflow limitation.

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

BackgroundIn 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsFP 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.

One time a day mometasone/indacaterol fixed-dose combination versus two times a day fluticasone/salmeterol in patients with inadequately controlled asthma: pooled analysis from PALLADIUM and IRIDIUM studies

BackgroundDespite currently available standard-of-care inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist therapies, a substantial proportion of patients with asthma remain inadequately controlled. This pooled analysis evaluated efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate...

Once-daily, single-inhaler indacaterol/mometasone versus twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone in Asian patients with inadequately controlled asthma: post hoc pooled analysis from PALLADIUM and IRIDIUM studies

Objective PALLADIUM and IRIDIUM studies demonstrated efficacy and safety of indacaterol/mometasone (IND/MF) versus salmeterol/fluticasone (SAL/FLU). This post hoc analysis of pooled data from PALLADIUM and IRIDIUM studies evaluated efficacy and safety of IND/MF versus SAL/FLU in Asian patients with inadequately controlled asthma. Methods Both studies were Phase III, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled that included patients with predicted pre-bronchodilator FEV1 (PALLADIUM, ≥50%–<85%; IRIDIUM, <80%), ACQ-7 score ≥1.5. Patients treated with IND/MF high- (150/320 μg) or medium-dose (150/160 μg) or SAL/FLU high-dose (50/500 μg) were included. Lung function, asthma control, and asthma exacerbations were evaluated. Results In total, 323 patients (IND/MF high-dose, n = 107; IND/MF medium-dose, n = 106, SAL/FLU high-dose, n = 110) were included. IND/MF high-dose showed improvement in trough FEV1 versus SAL/FLU high-dose at Weeks 26 (Δ, 42 mL; 95% CI, −35 to 120 mL), and 52 (Δ, 41 mL; 95% CI, −37 to 120 mL). IND/MF high-dose exhibited numerically greater improvement in ACQ-7 score versus SAL/FLU high-dose at Weeks 26 (Δ, −0.215; 95% CI, −0.385 to −0.044) and 52 (Δ, −0.176; 95% CI, −0.348 to −0.005). Improvements in trough FEV1 and ACQ-7 score were comparable between IND/MF medium-dose and SAL/FLU high-dose. IND/MF high- and medium-dose showed reductions in moderate or severe (45%; 30%), severe (39%; 41%), and all (9%; 25%) exacerbations, respectively, versus SAL/FLU high-dose over 52 weeks. All treatments were well tolerated. Conclusions Once-daily, single-inhaler IND/MF high-dose improved lung function with better asthma control, reduced asthma exacerbations with comparable safety versus twice-daily SAL/FLU high-dose. IND/MF medium-dose showed comparable outcomes to SAL/FLU high-dose at a reduced steroid dose.

Single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy versus tiotropium monotherapy in patients with COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment guidelines do not currently include recommendations for escalation directly from monotherapy to triple therapy. This 12-week, double-blind, double-dummy study randomized 800 symptomatic moderate-to-very-severe COPD patients receiving tiotropium (TIO) for ≥3 months to once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 mcg via ELLIPTA (n = 400) or TIO 18 mcg via HandiHaler (n = 400) plus matched placebo. Study endpoints included change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Days 85 (primary), 28 and 84 (secondary), health status (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] and COPD Assessment Test [CAT]) and safety. FF/UMEC/VI significantly improved trough FEV1 at all timepoints (Day 85 treatment difference [95% CI] 95 mL [62–128]; P < 0.001), and significantly improved SGRQ and CAT versus TIO. Treatment safety profiles were similar. Once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI significantly improved lung function and health status versus once-daily TIO in symptomatic moderate-to-very-severe COPD patients, with a similar safety profile.

Efficacy of one time per day, single-inhaler indacaterol/glycopyrronium/mometasone in patients with inadequately controlled asthma: post hoc analysis of IRIDIUM study in Asian population

Background and objectiveThe 52-week IRIDIUM study demonstrated the efficacy of indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide/mometasone furoate (IND/GLY/MF) versus IND/MF and salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate (SAL/FLU) in patients with symptomatic asthma, despite long-acting β2-agonist/inhaled...

Efficacy of indacaterol/glycopyrronium versus salmeterol/fluticasone in current and ex-smokers: a pooled analysis of IGNITE trials.

Inhaled corticosteroids have proven to be less effective in asthmatic patients who smoke; however, there is limited information on the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid-containing regimens in COPD patients who continue smoking. We evaluate the differential efficacy of once-daily indacaterol/glycopyrronium 110/50 µg compared with twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone 50/500 µg in current smokers and ex-smokers with COPD.A pooled analysis of data from ILLUMINATE, LANTERN and FLAME studies was conducted to assess the efficacy of indacaterol/glycopyrronium compared with salmeterol/fluticasone in current smokers and ex-smokers with COPD. Efficacy was assessed in terms of improvements in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), transition dyspnoea index (TDI) focal score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, reduced rescue medication use and exacerbation prevention at 26 weeks after the start of the therapy.In total, 1769 (38%) current smokers and 2848 (62%) ex-smokers were included. Patients treated with indacaterol/glycopyrronium experienced greater improvements in trough FEV1 versus salmeterol/fluticasone in both current and ex-smokers (least squares mean treatment difference, 105 mL and 78 mL, respectively). Improvements in TDI focal score, SGRQ total score and reduction in rescue medication use were also greater with indacaterol/glycopyrronium versus salmeterol/fluticasone in current and ex-smokers. Furthermore, indacaterol/glycopyrronium reduced all exacerbations (moderate/severe) compared with salmeterol/fluticasone, irrespective of smoking status. The difference in efficacy in favour of indacaterol/glycopyrronium was more prominent in current smokers in most cases.Indacaterol/glycopyrronium demonstrated greater efficacy versus salmeterol/fluticasone, and the differences were generally more prominent in current smokers suggesting smoking may reduce the effects of salmeterol/fluticasone.

Salbutamol use in relation to maintenance bronchodilator efficacy in COPD: a prospective subgroup analysis of the EMAX trial

BackgroundShort-acting β2-agonist (SABA) bronchodilators help alleviate symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and may be a useful marker of symptom severity. This analysis investigated whether SABA use impacts treatment differences between maintenance dual- and mono-bronchodilators in patients with COPD.MethodsThe Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids 1:1:1 to once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg, once-daily umeclidinium 62.5 μg or twice-daily salmeterol 50 μg for 24 weeks. Pre-specified subgroup analyses stratified patients by median baseline SABA use (low, < 1.5 puffs/day; high, ≥1.5 puffs/day) to examine change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), change in symptoms (Transition Dyspnoea Index [TDI], Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD [E-RS]), daily SABA use and exacerbation risk. A post hoc analysis used fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline SABA use covariates.ResultsAt baseline, patients in the high SABA use subgroup (mean: 3.91 puffs/day, n = 1212) had more severe airflow limitation, were more symptomatic and had worse health status versus patients in the low SABA use subgroup (0.39 puffs/day, n = 1206). Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium demonstrated statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 at Week 24 in both SABA subgroups (59–74 mL; p < 0.001); however, only low SABA users demonstrated significant improvements in TDI (high: 0.27 [p = 0.241]; low: 0.49 [p = 0.025]) and E-RS (high: 0.48 [p = 0.138]; low: 0.60 [p = 0.034]) scores. By contrast, significant reductions in mean SABA puffs/day with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium were observed only in high SABA users (high: − 0.56 [p < 0.001]; low: − 0.10 [p = 0.132]). Similar findings were observed when comparing umeclidinium/vilanterol and salmeterol. Fractional polynomial modelling showed baseline SABA use ≥4 puffs/day resulted in smaller incremental symptom improvements with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium compared with baseline SABA use < 4 puffs/day.ConclusionsIn high SABA users, there may be a smaller difference in treatment response between dual- and mono-bronchodilator therapy; the reasons for this require further investigation. SABA use may be a confounding factor in bronchodilator trials and in high SABA users; changes in SABA use may be considered a robust symptom outcome.FundingGlaxoSmithKline (study number 201749 [NCT03034915]).

SINGLE-INHALER TRIPLE THERAPY FLUTICASONE FUROATE/UMECLIDINIUM/VILANTEROL COMPARED WITH TIOTROPIUM MONOTHERAPY IN COPD: A POST HOC ANALYSIS BY AIRFLOW LIMITATION

SINGLE-INHALER TRIPLE THERAPY FLUTICASONE FUROATE/UMECLIDINIUM/VILANTEROL COMPARED WITH TIOTROPIUM MONOTHERAPY IN COPD: A POST HOC ANALYSIS BY AIRFLOW LIMITATION

Lung function, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability of inhaled indacaterol maleate and acetate in asthma patients

BackgroundIndacaterol maleate delivered with the Breezhaler® inhalation device is a long-acting β2-agonist approved for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In the development of a once daily, inhaled fixed dose combination (FDC) of indacaterol, glycopyrronium bromide (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist), and mometasone furoate (an inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]) for the treatment of patients with asthma, the acetate salt of indacaterol is used instead of the maleate salt. Here, we investigated the lung function, pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of indacaterol maleate 150 μg once daily (o.d.) and indacaterol acetate 150 μg o.d. in comparison with placebo.MethodsThis was a randomised, double-blind, three-period crossover study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03257995) in patients with asthma on background ICS therapy. Patients with percent predicted pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume per second (FEV1) ≥50% and ≤ 90% were included in the study. Patients received indacaterol maleate 150 μg o.d., indacaterol acetate 150 μg o.d., or placebo on top of stable background ICS in randomised sequence. Trough FEV1 was assessed after 14 days of treatment. PK of indacaterol salts were assessed at steady state after 14 days of treatment; peak expiratory flow (PEF) rate and rescue medication use were collected with a combined PEF-meter/electronic diary throughout the study.ResultsOf the 54 adult patients (median age of 48 years), 51 patients completed the study. Both indacaterol salts demonstrated statistically significant improvements in trough FEV1 of 186 mL (maleate) and 146 mL (acetate) compared with placebo (both P < 0.001). FEV1 AUC0-4h improved by 248 mL (maleate) and 245 mL (acetate), and PEF by 33 L/min (maleate) and 30.8 L/min (acetate) versus placebo. Systemic exposure of indacaterol (AUC0-24h,ss and Cmax,ss on Day 14) was comparable after administration of both salt forms. Both salt forms demonstrated a good safety profile and were well tolerated, with a difference in the reporting frequency of AEs of coughing (maleate, 23.5%; acetate, 0%).ConclusionsIn patients with asthma, indacaterol maleate and acetate elicited comparable and significant improvements in lung function compared with placebo and achieved comparable systemic exposure. Both indacaterol salts were safe and well tolerated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03257995 June 06, 2017

COPD Maintenance Therapy with Tiotropium/Olodaterol Compared with Tiotropium: An Analysis in the Absence of Additional ICS Therapy

The American Thoracic Society guidelines recommend long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) dual bronchodilation over LAMA or LABA monotherapy as maintenance therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease suffering from dyspnea or exercise intolerance. Previous studies, which included patients receiving background inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have shown the benefits of dual bronchodilation over monotherapy. This analysis aimed to confirm the benefits of LAMA/LABA over LAMA alone, without any confounding effects from ICS use. This pooled post hoc analysis compared the efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol with tiotropium alone in patients from the TONADO® and OTEMTO® clinical trials who were not receiving ICS at study entry or during the studies. We analyzed change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) score in all patients, by Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage, baseline SGRQ score, and Baseline Dyspnea Index score. In this analysis of 1596 patients, tiotropium/olodaterol improved trough FEV1, SGRQ and TDI compared with tiotropium alone. The observed mean differences were: trough FEV1, 0.054 L (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.036, 0.073; p < 0.001); SGRQ, −1.918 (95% CI −2.994, −0.843; p < 0.001); and TDI, 0.575 (95% CI 0.301, 0.848; p < 0.001). Similar improvements were seen in each of the subgroup analyses. Tiotropium/olodaterol therapy significantly improved lung function, symptoms and health status compared with tiotropium alone. In a population free from ICS treatment, these data confirm the benefits of dual bronchodilation versus monotherapy.

Navafenterol (AZD8871) in patients with mild asthma: a randomised placebo-controlled phase I study evaluating the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of single ascending doses of this novel inhaled long-acting dual-pharmacology bronchodilator

BackgroundNavafenterol (AZD8871) is an inhaled long-acting dual-pharmacology muscarinic antagonist/β2-adrenoceptor agonist (MABA) in development for the treatment of obstructive airways diseases. The safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of navafenterol were investigated in patients with mild asthma.MethodsThis was a randomised, single-blind, placebo-controlled, single-ascending-dose study. Patients were randomly assigned to one of two cohorts which evaluated escalating doses of navafenterol (50–2100 μg) in an alternating manner over three treatment periods. The primary pharmacodynamic endpoint was the change from pre-dose baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) for each treatment period.ResultsSixteen patients were randomised; 15 completed treatment. Data from all 16 patients were analysed. The maximum tolerated dose was not identified, and all doses of navafenterol were well tolerated. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were headache (n = 10, 62.5%) and nasopharyngitis (n = 7, 43.8%). No TEAEs were serious, fatal, or led to discontinuation, and no dose dependency was identified. Navafenterol demonstrated a dose-ordered bronchodilatory response with a rapid onset of action (within 5 min post-dose). Doses ≥200 μg resulted in improvements in trough FEV1 (mean change from baseline range 0.186–0.463 L) with sustained bronchodilation for 24–36 h. Plasma concentrations increased in a dose-proportional manner, peaking ~ 1 h post-dose, with a derived terminal elimination half-life of 15.96–23.10 h.ConclusionsIn this study navafenterol was generally well tolerated with a rapid onset of action which was sustained over 36 h.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02573155

Once-daily, single-inhaler mometasone–indacaterol–glycopyrronium versus mometasone–indacaterol or twice-daily fluticasone–salmeterol in patients with inadequately controlled asthma (IRIDIUM): a randomised, double-blind, controlled phase 3 study

Patients with asthma who are inadequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonist (ICS-LABA) combinations might benefit from the addition of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist. The aim of the IRIDIUM study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a once-daily, single-inhaler combination of mometasone furoate, indacaterol acetate, and glycopyrronium bromide (MF-IND-GLY) versus ICS-LABA in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. In this 52-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, active-controlled phase 3 study, patients were recruited from 415 sites across 41 countries. Patients aged 18 to 75 years with symptomatic asthma despite treatment with medium-dose or high-dose ICS-LABA, at least one exacerbation in the previous year, and a percentage of predicted FEV1 of less than 80% were included. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive medium-dose or high-dose MF-IND-GLY (80 μg, 150 μg, 50 μg; 160 μg, 150 μg, 50 μg) or MF-IND (160 μg, 150 μg; 320 μg, 150 μg) once daily via Breezhaler, or high-dose fluticasone-salmeterol (FLU-SAL; 500 μg, 50 μg) twice daily via Diskus. The primary outcome was change from baseline in trough FEV1 with MF-IND-GLY versus MF-IND at week 26 in patients in the full analysis set, analysed by means of a mixed model for repeated measures. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02571777, and is completed. Between Dec 8, 2015, and Jun 14, 2019, 3092 of 4851 patients screened were randomly assigned (medium-dose MF-IND-GLY, n=620; high-dose MF-IND-GLY, n=619; medium-dose MF-IND, n=617; high-dose MF-IND, n=618; high-dose FLU-SAL, n=618). 2747 (88·8%) patients completed the 52-week treatment and 321 (10·4%) started but discontinued study treatment prematurely. Medium-dose MF-IND-GLY (treatment difference [Δ] 76 mL [95% CI 41-111]; p<0·001) and high-dose MF-IND-GLY (Δ 65 mL [31-99]; p<0·001) showed superior improvement in trough FEV1 versus corresponding doses of MF-IND at week 26. Improvements in trough FEV1 were greater for both medium-dose MF-IND-GLY (99 mL [64-133]; p<0·001) and high-dose MF-IND-GLY (119 mL [85-154]; p<0·001) than for high-dose FLU-SAL at week 26. Overall, the incidence of adverse events was balanced across the treatment groups. Seven deaths were reported (one with medium-dose MF-IND-GLY, two with high-dose MF-IND-GLY, and four with high-dose MF-IND) during the study; none of these deaths was considered by the investigators to be caused by study drugs or other study-related factors. Once-daily, single-inhaler MF-IND-GLY improved lung function versus ICS-LABA combinations (MF-IND and FLU-SAL) in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. The safety profile was similar across treatment groups. MF-IND-GLY therefore constitutes a good treatment option in these patients. Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Once-daily mometasone plus indacaterol versus mometasone or twice-daily fluticasone plus salmeterol in patients with inadequately controlled asthma (PALLADIUM): a randomised, double-blind, triple-dummy, controlled phase 3 study

Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA) are considered safe and efficacious in asthma management. Most available FDCs require twice-daily dosing to achieve optimum therapeutic effect. The objective of the PALLADIUM study was to assess the efficacy and safety of once-daily FDC of mometasone furoate plus indacaterol acetate (MF-IND) versus mometasone furoate (MF) monotherapy in patients with inadequately controlled asthma. This 52-week, double-blind, triple-dummy, parallel-group, phase 3 study recruited patients from 316 centres across 24 countries. Patients aged 12 to 75 years with a documented diagnosis of asthma for at least 1 year, percentage of predicted FEV1 of 50-85%, and an Asthma Control Questionnaire 7 score of at least 1·5 despite treatment with medium-dose or high-dose ICS or low-dose ICS plus LABA were included. A history of asthma exacerbations was not a study requirement. Participants were randomily assigned (1:1:1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive one of the following treatments for 52 weeks: high-dose MF-IND (320 μg, 150 μg) or medium-dose MF-IND (160 μg, 150 μg) once daily via Breezhaler; high-dose MF (800 μg [400 μg twice daily]) or medium-dose MF (400 μg once daily) via Twisthaler; or high-dose fluticasone propionate-salmeterol xinafoate (FLU-SAL; 500 μg, 50 μg) twice daily via Diskus. Participants received placebo via inhalation through the Breezhaler, Twisthaler, or Diskus devices in the mornings and evenings, as appropriate. The primary endpoint was improvement in trough FEV1 with high-dose and medium-dose MF-IND versus respective MF doses from baseline at 26 weeks, analysed in the full analysis set by means of a mixed model for repeated measures. High-dose MF-IND once daily was compared with high-dose FLU-SAL twice daily for non-inferiority on improving trough FEV1 at week 26 with a margin of -90 mL using mixed model for repeated measures as one of the secondary endpoints. Safety was assessed in all patients who had received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02554786, and is completed. Between Dec 29, 2015, and May 4, 2018, 2216 patients were randomly assigned (high-dose MF-IND, n=445; medium-dose MF-IND, n=439; high-dose MF, n=442; medium-dose MF, n=444; high-dose FLU-SAL, n=446), of which 1973 (89·0%) completed the study treatment and 234 (10·6%) prematurely discontinued study treatment. High-dose MF-IND (treatment difference [Δ] 132 mL [95% CI 88 to 176]; p<0·001) and medium-dose MF-IND (Δ 211 mL [167 to 255]; p<0·001) showed superiority in improving trough FEV1 over corresponding MF doses from baseline at week 26. High-dose MF-IND was non-inferior to high-dose FLU-SAL in improving trough FEV1 from baseline at week 26 (Δ 36 mL [-7 to 80]; p=0·101). Overall, the incidence of adverse events was similar across the treatment groups. Once-daily FDC of ICS and LABA (MF-IND) significantly improved lung function over ICS monotherapy (MF) at week 26; high-dose MF-IND was non-inferior to twice-daily combination of ICS and LABA (high-dose FLU-SAL) for improvement in trough FEV1. The combination of MF-IND provides a novel once-daily dry powder option for asthma control. Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Once-daily single-inhaler versus twice-daily multiple-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD: lung function and health status results from two replicate randomized controlled trials

BackgroundThe comparative efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LAMA/LABA) triple therapy administered via single or multiple inhalers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has not been evaluated comprehensively. We conducted two replicate trials comparing single- with multiple-inhaler ICS/LAMA/LABA combination in COPD.Methods207608 and 207609 were Phase IV, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, triple-dummy non-inferiority trials comparing once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 μg via Ellipta inhaler, with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) 400/12 μg via metered-dose inhaler plus once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg via HandiHaler. Patients had symptomatic COPD and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) < 50% predicted, or FEV1 < 80% predicted and ≥ 2 moderate or 1 severe exacerbations in the prior year. The primary endpoint in both trials was weighted mean change from baseline (wmCFB) in 0–24-h FEV1 at Week 12. Secondary endpoints included CFB in trough FEV1 at Day 84 and 85. Other endpoints included serial FEV1 and health status outcomes at Week 12. Safety was evaluated descriptively.ResultsThe modified per-protocol population included 720 and 711 patients in studies 207608 and 207609 (intent-to-treat population: 728 and 732). FF/UMEC/VI was non-inferior to BUD/FOR+TIO for wmCFB in 0–24-h FEV1 at Week 12 (Study 207608 treatment difference [95% confidence interval]: 15 mL [− 13, 43]; Study 207609: 11 mL [− 20, 41]). FF/UMEC/VI improved trough FEV1 CFB versus BUD/FOR+TIO at Day 84 and 85 (Day 85 treatment difference: Study 207608: 38 mL [10, 66]; Study 207609: 51 mL [21, 82]) and FEV1 at 12 and 24 h post-morning dose at Week 12 in both studies. No treatment differences were seen in health status outcomes. Safety profiles were similar between treatments; pneumonia occurred in 7 (< 1%) patients with FF/UMEC/VI and 9 (1%) patients with BUD/FOR+TIO, across both studies.ConclusionsFF/UMEC/VI was non-inferior to BUD/FOR+TIO for wmCFB in 0–24-h FEV1 at Week 12 in patients with COPD. Greater improvements in trough and serial FEV1 measurements at Week 12 with FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR+TIO, together with similar health status improvements and safety outcomes including the incidence of pneumonia, suggest that once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI triple therapy is a viable option for patients looking to simplify their treatment regimen.Trial registrationGSK (207608/207609; NCT03478683/NCT03478696).

Effect of Gender on Lung Function and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with COPD Receiving Nebulized Glycopyrrolate.

PurposeThe clinical manifestation of COPD can differ by gender, with women experiencing worse lung function and health-related quality of life than men. Additionally, women tend to report more symptoms given the same disease severity. Accordingly, the impact of gender on efficacy and safety in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD was examined following 12 weeks of nebulized glycopyrrolate (GLY) 25 µg twice daily (BID) or placebo.Patients and MethodsGLY and placebo pooled data from the replicate 12-week GOLDEN 3 and 4 studies (n=861) were grouped by gender. Endpoints reported were change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and EXAcerbations of COPD Tool-Respiratory Symptoms (EXACT-RS) total scores. Safety was evaluated by reviewing the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs.ResultsMen (placebo: 54.7%; GLY: 56.1%) were generally older with a greater proportion of high cardiovascular risk and use of background long-acting β2-agonists or inhaled corticosteroids. GLY treatment resulted in significant, clinically important improvements in trough FEV1, regardless of gender. Patients treated with GLY reported significant improvements in SGRQ total score, irrespective of gender; however, the improvement was numerically higher in women. Although EXACT-RS improved in both genders, only women experienced a significant improvement. Overall, GLY was well tolerated with a numerically lower incidence of AEs in men than women.ConclusionTreatment with nebulized GLY resulted in lung function, SGRQ total score, and EXACT-RS total score improvements regardless of gender. However, only EXACT-RS showed significantly greater improvements in women compared with men. Treatment with GLY was generally well tolerated across genders. These data support the efficacy and safety of GLY 25 µg BID in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, independent of gender. Gender similarities in airflow improvement and differences in symptom-reporting augment the evidence supporting the consideration of individualized treatment plans for COPD patients.