Efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate 100 μg once-daily in patients with persistent asthma: a 24-week placebo and active-controlled randomised trial

Best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty about the best treatment option for children/adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and international guidelines make different recommendations. We evaluated the pharmacological treatments to reduce asthma exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled patients age <18 years on ICS.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment series, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, conference abstracts and internal clinical trial registers (1 July 2014 to 5 May 2023) for randomised controlled trials of participants age <18 years with uncontrolled asthma on any ICS dose alone at screening. Studies before July 2014 were retrieved from previous systematic reviews/contact with authors. Patients had to be randomised to any dose of ICS alone or combined with long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) or combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), LTRA alone, theophylline or placebo. Primary outcomes were exacerbation and asthma control. The interventions evaluated were ICS (low/medium/high dose), ICS+LABA, ICS+LTRA, LTRA alone, theophylline and placebo.

RESULTS

Of the 4708 publications identified, 144 trials were eligible. Individual participant data were obtained from 29 trials and aggregate data were obtained from 19 trials. Compared with ICS Low, ICS Medium+LABA was associated with the lowest odds of exacerbation (OR 0.44, 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) 0.19-0.90) and with an increased forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference 0.71, 95% CrI 0.35-1.06). Treatment with LTRA was the least preferred. No apparent differences were found for asthma control.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncontrolled children/adolescents on low-dose ICS should be recommended a change to medium-dose ICS+LABA to reduce the risk for exacerbation and improve lung function.

Personalizing medicine in Africa: current state, progress and challenges

Personalized medicine has been identified as a powerful tool for addressing the myriad of health issues facing different health systems globally. Although recent studies have expanded our understanding of how different factors such as genetics and the environment play significant roles in affecting the health of individuals, there are still several other issues affecting their translation into personalizing health interventions globally. Since African populations have demonstrated huge genetic diversity, there is a significant need to apply the concepts of personalized medicine to overcome various African-specific health challenges. Thus, we review the current state, progress, and challenges facing the adoption of personalized medicine in Africa with a view to providing insights to critical stakeholders on the right approach to deploy.

Assessing the Effects of Changing Patterns of Inhaled Corticosteroid Dosing and Adherence with Fluticasone Furoate and Budesonide on Asthma Management

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacological asthma management focuses on the use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing therapies, which reduce airway inflammation and provide bronchoprotection, improving symptom control and reducing exacerbation risk. ICS underuse due to poor adherence is common, leading to poor clinical outcomes including increased risk of mortality. This article reviews efficacy versus systemic activity profiles for various adherence patterns and dosing regimens of fluticasone furoate (FF)-containing and budesonide (BUD)-containing asthma therapies in clinical trials and real-world studies.

METHODS

We performed a structured literature review (1 January 2000-3 March 2022) and mathematical modelling analysis of FF-containing and BUD-containing regular daily dosing in patients with mild-to-severe asthma, as-needed BUD/formoterol (FOR) in mild asthma, and BUD/FOR maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) dosing in moderate-to-severe asthma, to assess efficacy (bronchoprotection) and systemic activity (cortisol suppression) profiles of dosing patterns of ICS use in multiple adherence scenarios.

RESULTS

A total of 22 manuscripts were included in full-text review and 18 in the model simulations. Focusing on FF-containing or BUD-containing treatments at comparable adherence rates, regular daily FF or FF/vilanterol (VI) dosing provided more prolonged bronchoprotection and fewer systemic effects than daily BUD, daily BUD/FOR, or BUD/FOR MART dosing, especially in low adherence scenarios. In model simulations and the real-world setting, FF/VI generally provided longer bronchoprotection, lower systemic activity, and greater clinical benefits over BUD/FOR as well as consistently higher adherence.

CONCLUSION

In this literature review and modelling analysis, FF/VI was found to show clinical advantages on asthma control over BUD/FOR. These findings have implications for helping clinicians select the most suitable inhaled therapy for their patients with asthma.

Addition of long-acting beta2 agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists versus doubling the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma with medium dose ICS: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay treatment for persistent asthma. Escalating treatment is required when asthma is not controlled with ICS therapy alone, which would include, but is not limited to, adding a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) or a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or doubling the dose of ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of adding a LABA or LAMA to ICS therapy versus doubling the dose of ICS in adolescents and adults whose asthma is not well controlled on medium-dose (MD)-ICS using a network meta-analysis (NMA), and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization ICTRP for pre-registered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from January 2008 to 19 December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for studies including adolescents and adults with uncontrolled asthma who had been treated with or were eligible for MD-ICS, comparing it to high-dose (HD)-ICS, ICS/LAMA, or ICS/LABA. We excluded cluster- and cross-over RCTs. Studies were of at least 12 weeks duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis according to a previously published protocol. We used Cochrane's Screen4ME workflow to assess search results. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. The primary outcome is asthma exacerbations (moderate and severe).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38,276 participants from 35 studies (median duration 24 weeks (range 12 to 78); mean age 44.1; 38% male; 69% white; mean forced expiratory volume in one second 2.1 litres and 68% of predicted). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA likely reduce and MD-ICS/LAMA possibly reduces moderate to severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.59 to 0.82; moderate certainty; HR 0.59, 95% CrI 0.46 to 0.76; moderate certainty; and HR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.38 to 0.82; low certainty, respectively), whereas HD-ICS probably does not (HR 0.94, 95% CrI 0.70 to 1.24; moderate certainty). There is no clear evidence to suggest that any combination therapy or HD-ICS reduces severe asthma exacerbations compared to MD-ICS (low to moderate certainty). This study suggests no clinically meaningful differences in the symptom or quality of life score between dual combinations and monotherapy (low to high certainty). MD- and HD-ICS/LABA increase or likely increase the odds of Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) responders at 6 and 12 months compared to MD-ICS (odds ratio (OR) 1.47, 95% CrI 1.23 to 1.76; high certainty; and OR 1.59, 95% CrI 1.31 to 1.94; high certainty at 6 months; and OR 1.61, 95% CrI 1.22 to 2.13; moderate certainty and OR 1.55, 95% CrI 1.20 to 2.00; high certainty at 12 months, respectively). MD-ICS/LAMA probably increases the odds of ACQ responders at 6 months (OR 1.32, 95% CrI 1.11 to 1.57; moderate certainty). No data were available at 12 months. There is no clear evidence to suggest that HD-ICS increases the odds of ACQ responders or improves the symptom or qualify of life score compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA or ICS/LAMA reduces asthma-related or all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs) compared to MD-ICS (very low to high certainty). HD-ICS results in or likely results in little or no difference in the included safety outcomes compared to MD-ICS as well as HD-ICS/LABA compared to MD-ICS/LABA. The pairwise meta-analysis shows that MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause adverse events (AEs) and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.96; 4 studies, 2238 participants; moderate certainty; and RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.99; 4 studies, 2239 participants; absolute risk reduction 10 fewer per 1000 participants; moderate certainty, respectively). The NMA evidence is in agreement with the pairwise evidence on treatment discontinuation due to AEs, but very uncertain on all-cause AEs, due to imprecision and heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review findings suggest that MD- or HD-ICS/LABA and MD-ICS/LAMA reduce moderate to severe asthma exacerbations and increase the odds of ACQ responders compared to MD-ICS whereas HD-ICS probably does not. The evidence is generally stronger for MD- and HD-ICS/LABA than for MD-ICS/LAMA primarily due to a larger evidence base. There is no evidence to suggest that ICS/LABA, ICS/LAMA, or HD-ICS/LABA reduces severe asthma exacerbations or SAEs compared to MD-ICS. MD-ICS/LAMA likely reduces all-cause AEs and results in a slight reduction in treatment discontinuation due to AEs compared to MD-ICS. The above findings may assist in deciding on a treatment option during the stepwise approach of asthma management. Longer-term safety of higher than medium-dose ICS needs to be addressed in phase 4 or observational studies given that the median duration of included studies was six months.

The safety of long-term use of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the safety of long-term use of ICS in patients with asthma.

METHODS

A systematic search was made of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov, without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on treatment of asthma with ICS, compared with non-ICS treatment (placebo or other active drugs), were reviewed.

RESULTS

Eighty-six RCTs (enrolling 51,538 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Oral or oropharyngeal candidiasis (RR 2.58, 95% CI 2.00 to 3.33), and dysphonia/hoarseness (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.85) were less frequent in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of upper respiratory tract infection, lower respiratory tract infection, influenza, decline in bone mineral density, and fractures between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In addition to the mild local adverse events, the long-term use of ICS was safe in patients with asthma.

Improving the risk-to-benefit ratio of inhaled corticosteroids through delivery and dose: current progress and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are known to increase the risk of systemic and local adverse effects, especially with high doses and long-term use. Hence, considerable resources are invested to improve pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) properties of ICS, effective delivery systems and novel combination therapies to enhance the risk-to-benefit ratio of ICS.

AREAS COVERED

There is an unmet need for new solutions to achieve optimal clinical outcomes with minimal dose of ICS. This paper gives an overview of novel treatment strategies regarding the safety of ICS therapy on the basis of the three most recent molecules introduced to our everyday clinical practice - ciclesonide, mometasone furoate, and fluticasone furoate. Advances in aerosol devices and new areas of inhalation therapy are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Current progress in improving the risk-to-benefit ratio of ICS through dose and delivery probably established pathways for further developments. This applies both to the improvement of the PK/PD properties of ICS molecules but also includes technical aspects that lead to simplified applicability of the device with simultaneous optimal drug deposition in the lungs. Indubitably, the future of medicine lies not only in the development of new molecules but also in technology and digital revolution.

Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial for Stepping Down Asthma Controller Treatment in Patients Controlled with Low-Dose Inhaled Corticosteroid and Long-Acting β2-Agonist: Step-Down of Intervention and Grade in Moderate Asthma Study

BACKGROUND

Current asthma guidelines recommend stepping down controller treatment when the condition is well-controlled for a certain time. However, the optimal step-down strategy for well-controlled patients receiving a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study was a randomized, open-label, three-arm, parallel pragmatic trial comparing two kinds of step-down approaches for maintaining treatment.

METHODS

Adults with asthma who were aged 18 years or older, and who had been stable with low-dose ICS/LABA for at least 3 months, were enrolled. Subjects (n = 225) were randomly allocated into one of three groups (maintaining low-dose ICS/LABA [G1], discontinuing LABA [G2], and reducing ICS/LABA to once daily [G3]), and were observed for 6 months. The primary end point was a change in Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores between randomization and the final 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The change in ACT was analyzed in the per-protocol population; noninferiority was not demonstrated in either step-down group compared with the maintenance group (95% confidence interval of the difference, G2 vs G1 = -1.40-0.55; G3 vs G1 = -1.19-0.77). Although over 90% of patients were fine, higher rates of treatment failure were observed in step-down groups (G1: 0%; G2: 9.46%; and G3: 9.09%; P = .027). There were no significant differences between step-down approaches in terms of ACT change or treatment failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Both step-down methods were not noninferior to maintenance of treatment. Step-down therapy can be attempted when patients are stable, but appropriate monitoring and supervision are necessary with precautions regarding loss of disease control.

Once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol combination versus twice-daily budesonide/formoterol combination in the treatment of controlled stable asthma: a randomized crossover trial

Introduction

Fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) dry powder inhaler (DPI) is the only once-daily maintenance inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2 adrenergic agonist (LABA) combination for asthma. We aimed to compare the clinical effects of once-daily FF/VI and twice-daily budesonide (BUD)/formoterol (FM) DPI in patients with controlled stable asthma.

Methods

We performed a randomized crossover trial in which stable asthmatic patients controlled on ICS/LABA received 8 weeks of FF/VI (100/25 μg 1 puff once-daily) or BUD/FM (160/4.5 μg 2 puffs twice-daily) DPI treatment. After a 4–8-week washout period, patients received another crossover treatment for 8 weeks. We assessed pulmonary function, the 5-item version asthma control questionnaire (ACQ5), the asthma control test (ACT), and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) at baseline and after 8 weeks of treatment (week 8). As the primary outcome was change in force expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) between baseline and week 8, we evaluated the incidence of asthma exacerbation and adherence barrier questionnaire (Ask-12) at week 8.

Results

Twenty-three patients were initially enrolled in this study; however, one patient had to be excluded. The FF/VI DPI treatment group showed a similar magnitude of change in FEV₁ between baseline and week 8 as the BUD/FM DPI treatment group. In addition, there were no significant differences in pulmonary function tests, ACQ5 scores, ACT scores, and FeNO between baseline and week 8 in both groups. Although the incidence of exacerbation did not differ between groups, the Ask-12 score in the FF/VI DPI group was significantly lower than that in the BUD/FM DPI group.

Conclusions

The present study indicates that once-daily FF/VI DPI is not inferior to twice-daily BUD/FM DPI in clinical effect and more likely to improve inconvenience and forgetfulness in inhalation adherence barriers for stable asthma control therapy. Once-daily FF/VI DPI may be an effective alternative for asthma maintenance treatment.

Efficacy and safety of AZD7594, an inhaled non-steroidal selective glucocorticoid receptor modulator, in patients with asthma: a phase 2a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial

Background

Inhaled corticosteroids reduce inflammation in asthma but chronic use may cause adverse effects. AZD7594, an inhaled non-steroidal selective glucocorticoid receptor modulator, has the potential of an improved risk-benefit profile. We investigated the safety and efficacy of AZD7594 in asthma.

Methods

This phase 2a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study enrolled adults with asthma aged 18 to 75 years. Patients were treated with budesonide 200 μg twice daily for 2–3 3 weeks (run in part one). If controlled, as demonstrated by an asthma control questionnaire-5 score of < 1.5, patients entered a three-week run-in (part two) where they received a short acting bronchodilator alone. Thereafter, patients with a fractional exhaled nitric oxide (F_ENO) ≥25 ppb and pre-dose FEV₁ 40 to 90% predicted were randomized to one of nine treatment sequences. Each patient received placebo and two of three dose levels of AZD7594 (58, 250, 800 μg) once daily via inhalation, in 14-day treatment periods, separated by three-week washout periods. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in morning trough FEV₁ versus placebo on day 15. Secondary endpoints included measures of airway inflammation and asthma control.

Results

Fifty-four patients were randomized and received at least 1 dose of treatment, 48 patients completed the study. Overall 52 patients received placebo, 34 received AZD7594 58 μg, 34 received AZD7594 250 μg, and 34 received AZD7594 800 μg. AZD7594 800 μg demonstrated a significant improvement in Day 15 morning trough FEV₁versus placebo (LS means difference 0.148 L 95% CI 0.035–0.261, p = 0.011), with a dose-dependent response seen in the 250 μg (0.076 L -0·036–0·188, p = 0.183) and 58 μg (0·027 L -0·086–0·140, p = 0.683). All secondary endpoints showed statistically significant improvement at the 800 μg dose. All doses demonstrated a significant reduction in F_ENO at day 15 p < 0.01. No statistically significant difference in plasma cortisol level was observed between AZD7594 and placebo at any dose. AZD7594 was considered safe and well tolerated.

Conclusions

Two-week treatment with AZD7594 demonstrated a favorable risk-benefit profile in patients with mild to moderate asthma. Further clinical studies are needed to fully characterize AZD7594.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02479412.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-019-1000-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Adrenal suppression from glucocorticoids: preventing an iatrogenic cause of morbidity and mortality in children

Adrenal suppression (AS) is an important side effect of glucocorticoids (GCs) including inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). AS can often be asymptomatic or associated with non-specific symptoms until a physiological stress such as an illness precipitates an adrenal crisis. Morbidity and death associated with adrenal crisis is preventable but continues to be reported in children. There is a lack of consensus about the management of children at risk of AS. However, healthcare professionals need to develop an awareness and approach to keep these children safe. In this article, current knowledge of the risk factors, diagnosis and management of AS are reviewed while drawing attention to knowledge gaps and areas of controversy. Possible strategies to reduce the morbidity associated with this iatrogenic condition are provided for healthcare professionals.

Inhaled corticosteroids and risk of upper respiratory tract infection in patients with asthma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have suggested a possible association between respiratory infection and the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). We aimed to ascertain the risk of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) with long-term inhaled corticosteroid use among patients with asthma.

METHODS

Through a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar from inception to May 2018, we included randomized controlled trials of any ICS vs. a control treatment for asthma, with reporting of URTI as an adverse event. We conducted meta-analyses by the Peto approaches to generate summary estimates comparing ICS with non-ICS treatment on the risk of URTI.

RESULTS

Seventeen trials (15,336 subjects) were included. Compared with non-ICS treatment, ICSs were associated with a significantly increased risk of URTI (Peto OR, 1.24; 95% CI 1.08-1.42; I² = 5%, p = 0.002). Subgroup analyses were performed for different dose, both high- and low-dose ICSs were associated with a significantly increased risk of URTI (high dose: Peto OR, 1.46; 95% CI 1.05-2.03; I² = 0%; p = 0.03) (low dose: Peto OR, 1.20; 95% CI 1.04-1.39; I² = 25%; p = 0.01). Moreover, fluticasone was observed with an increased risk of URTI (Peto OR, 1.18; 95% CI 1.02-1.38; p = 0.03; heterogeneity: I² = 21%) but not budesonide, low-dose fluticasone treatment was associated with a significantly higher risk of URTI but not high dose.

CONCLUSIONS

This study raises safety concerns about the risk of URTI associated with ICS use in patients with asthma, but it should be further investigated.

Impact of dosage timing of once-daily inhaled corticosteroids in asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Once-daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are widely used as first-line therapy in patients with asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of ICSs administered once daily in the morning or evening as determined by lung function.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register were searched for relevant clinical trials. The primary outcome was lung function assessed as trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second and peak expiratory flow at end point.

RESULTS

Eight randomized clinical trials involving 1,234 patients were analyzed. The total number of patients treated with once-daily ICS in the morning and evening was 628 and 606, respectively. Pooled estimates showed that ICS administered once daily in the evening resulted in mild improvements in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (mean difference 0.05 L; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.09; P = .026; I² = 22.5%) and morning peak expiratory flow (mean difference 13.92 L/min; 95% confidence interval 5.77-22.06; P = .001; I² = 13%) at end point compared with morning dosing. The change in use of rescue medicine and the incidence of adverse events with once-daily ICS were not significantly different between the 2 dosing times.

CONCLUSION

Compared with morning dosing, ICSs administered once daily in the evening seemed to provide some benefits in lung function for patients with asthma. However, because of methodologic limitations, further large-scale randomized clinical trials for dosing time of once-daily ICSs are needed.

Comparative Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Once-Daily Fluticasone Furoate 100 µG Versus Twice-Daily Fluticasone Propionate 250 µG in Adolescents and Adults with Persistent Asthma

Fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate are recommended options for prophylactic maintenance treatment of persistent asthma. Using data from two previous clinical studies (GSK studies: FFA109685/NCT00603278, FFA112059/NCT01159912), this meta-analysis compared change from baseline in clinic visit mean trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) with fluticasone furoate 100 µg once-daily (FF100) versus fluticasone propionate 250 µg twice-daily (FP250) in adolescents and adults with persistent asthma. Using a DerSimonian–Laird random-effects model (primary meta-analysis), there was no statistically significant difference between FF100 and FP250 in change from baseline in trough FEV₁ (−1.7 mL [95% CI −80.4, +77.0], p = 0.9664) and FF100 was non-inferior to FP250. Supporting analyses using least squares mean and fixed-effects model approaches produced similar findings. In this analysis, FF100 and FP250 demonstrated a comparable treatment effect on trough FEV₁ in patients aged ≥12 years with persistent asthma; however, results interpretation should consider study design and methodological limitations.

Pharmacokinetic Comparison of a Unit Dose Dry Powder Inhaler with a Multidose Dry Powder Inhaler for Delivery of Fluticasone Furoate

BACKGROUND

The unit dose dry powder inhaler (UD-DPI) is being considered as an alternative inhaler platform that, if developed, has the potential to improve access to inhaled respiratory medicines in developing countries.

AIM

This study compared the systemic exposure of fluticasone furoate after delivery from the UD-DPI with that from the ELLIPTA^® inhaler.

METHODS

This open-label, five-way cross-over, randomized, single-dose study in healthy subjects evaluated fluticasone furoate systemic exposure of three dose strengths (using four inhalations), 4 × 80 μg [320 μg], 4 × 100 μg [400 μg], and 4 × 140 μg [560 μg]), and two percentages of drug in lactose blends (0.6% and 0.8% by weight) after delivery from the UD-DPI compared with systemic exposures from the ELLIPTA inhaler (4 × 100 μg [400 μg] dose, 0.8% lactose blend). The primary treatment comparisons were area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to 6 hours [AUC_0-6] and maximum plasma concentration [C_max].

RESULTS

After single-dose administration of fluticasone furoate, systemic exposure was lower from all UD-DPI formulations versus the ELLIPTA inhaler in terms of both AUC_0-6 [AUC_0-6 geometric least squares mean (GLM) ratios confidence interval (90% CI) for: UD-DPI (400 μg 0.8% blend)/ELLIPTA: 0.61 (0.55-0.67) and C_max GLM (90% CI) for: UD-DPI (400 μg 0.8% blend)/ELLIPTA: 0.56 (0.49-0.64)]. Systemic exposures were ∼10% lower for fluticasone furoate UD-DPI for the 0.8% blend versus the 0.6% blend [GLM ratio (90% CI); 0.90 (0.81-1.00) for AUC_0-6 and 0.89 (0.77-1.01) for C_max], and increasing doses of fluticasone furoate from the UD-DPI showed systemic exposures that were approximately dose proportional. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluticasone furoate systemic exposure was lower from the UD-DPI than from the ELLIPTA inhaler, but the UD-DPI formulations did demonstrate detectable systemic levels and approximate dose proportionality. Together with the good tolerability shown, these data support further evaluation of the UD-DPI as a potential device for delivering inhaled respiratory drugs.

Spotlight on fluticasone furoate/vilanterol trifenatate for the once-daily treatment of asthma: design, development and place in therapy

The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) plays a key role in the treatment of asthmatic patients, and international guidelines have designated ICSs as an early maintenance therapy in controlling asthma symptoms. When asthmatic patients remain symptomatic on ICSs, one common option is to add a long-acting beta₂ agonist (LABA) to the maintenance treatment. Fixed combination inhalers that contain both an ICS and a LABA have been popular for both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. Historically, these inhalers have been dosed twice daily. However, currently, there is a once-daily combination therapy with the ICS fluticasone furoate (FF) and the LABA vilanterol trifenatate (VI) with indications for use in both COPD and asthma. This dry powder inhaler (DPI) comes in two doses of FF (100 or 200 μg) both combined with VI (25 μg). This article reviews the clinical trial data for FF, VI and FF/VI combination inhalers and documents the efficacy and safety of once-daily inhaled maintenance therapy by DPI in asthmatic patients.

Integrated safety and efficacy analysis of once-daily fluticasone furoate for the treatment of asthma

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate is a once-daily inhaled corticosteroid. This report provides an overview of safety and efficacy data that support the use of once-daily fluticasone furoate 100 μg or 200 μg in adult and adolescent asthma patients.

METHODS

Fourteen clinical studies (six Phase II and eight Phase III) were conducted as part of the fluticasone furoate global clinical development programme in asthma. Safety data from 10 parallel-group, randomised, double-blind Phase II and III studies (including 3345 patients who received at least one dose of fluticasone furoate) were integrated to provide information on adverse events, withdrawals, laboratory assessments, vital signs and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function. The efficacy of once-daily fluticasone furoate was evaluated in all included studies.

RESULTS

Once-daily fluticasone furoate 100 μg and 200 μg safety profiles were consistent with those reported for other inhaled corticosteroids, and both doses consistently demonstrated efficacy versus placebo. In the integrated analysis, no dose-response relationship was observed for the overall incidence of adverse events and there were no significant effects of fluticasone furoate on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily fluticasone furoate 100 μg and 200 μg had acceptable safety profiles and was efficacious in adult and adolescent patients with asthma. There was no evidence of cortisol suppression at studied doses.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

GSK (NCT01499446/FFA20001, NCT00398645/FFA106783, NCT00766090/112202, NCT00603746/FFA109684, NCT00603278/FFA109685, NCT00603382/FFA109687, NCT01436071/115283, NCT01436110/115285, NCT01159912/112059, NCT01431950/114496, NCT01165138/HZA106827, NCT01086384/106837, NCT01134042/HZA106829 and NCT01244984/1139879).

Cost comparison of asthma treatments in 12-week study: caution about matching and short observational follow-up

In the absence of randomisation, observational studies must take extra care to create treatment groups that are comparable in terms of key characteristics. Various matching methods exist which can create sound comparisons, minimising confounding where possible. A recent observational study by Dal Negro et al. carried out a cost analysis comparing two asthma medications. They report strong conclusions which favour one treatment over the other, however they include little discussion on the limitations of their study. The purpose of this letter is to comment on the weaknesses of the study design, including the level of matching used, and to urge readers to consider these issues alongside the interpretation of results.

Efficacy and safety comparison: Fluticasone furoate and fluticasone propionate, after step down from fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in Japanese patients with well-controlled asthma, a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

For patients with well-controlled asthma, 'step down' of therapy is recommended. We evaluated Japanese patients switching from inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA; equivalent to fluticasone propionate [FP]/salmeterol [SAL] 250/50 μg twice daily [BD]) to fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 μg, then stepping down to ICS alone.

METHODS

This phase III trial had two treatment periods (P): P1, patients with well-controlled asthma on FP/SAL 250/50 μg BD equivalent stepped across to once daily (OD) FF/VI 100/25 μg (open-label, eight weeks); P2, patients remaining 'well controlled' after P1 stepped down to FF 100 μg OD/FP 100 μg BD/FP 250 μg BD (randomized 1:1:1, double-blind, 12 weeks). Co-primary P2 endpoints: percentage of patients with well-controlled asthma; time to withdrawal due to poorly controlled asthma requiring step-up therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored.

RESULTS

At the end of P1 (n = 430), 373 (90.5%; 95% confidence interval 87.29-93.18) patients' asthma remained well controlled with FF/VI; in P2 (n = 371), control was maintained in 89.5% (FF 100 μg)/79.5% (FP 100 μg)/83.8% (FP 250 μg) of patients. In P2, 4.9-7.3% of patients were withdrawn due to worsening asthma (time-to-withdrawal cumulative incidence curves were comparable). AEs were reported by 37% of patients during P1; and by 36% (FF 100 μg)/48% (FP 100 μg)/49% (FP 250 μg) of patients in P2.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with well-controlled asthma on mid dose ICS/LABA (equivalent to FP/SAL 250/50 μg BD), control can be maintained when they are stepped across to FF/VI 100/25 μg OD. FF 100 μg OD is an effective step-down therapy from FF/VI 100/25 μg OD with similar efficacy to FP 100 μg BD and FP 250 μg BD.

Phamacology of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol trifenatate combination therapy for asthma

INTRODUCTION

Fluticasone furoate (FF) is a novel inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Vilanterol trifenate (VI) is a new inhaled, selective, long - acting β2 adrenergic agonist (LABA). It is now also marketed as a novel once daily combined ICS/LABA indicated for treatment of moderate and severe asthma.

AREAS COVERED

FF has a highly specific, fast association and slow dissociation from the glucocorticoid receptor, with a 24 hr duration of action. This, combined with a slow transport out of respiratory cells, creates a long tissue retention period. Vilanterol trifenate (VI) is a new inhaled, selective, long - acting β2 adrenergic agonist, also with a rapid onset of action with a maximal effect within 6 mins and prolonged lung retention with effects on lung function over 24 hours. Expert commentary: Multiple Phase I-III efficacy studies performed on FF and VI have shown an improvement in spirometry as well as symptom control in asthma. The development of once daily ICS/LABA combinations may potentially improve adherence to asthma therapy, but this has yet to be demonstrated.

Fixed-Dose combination of the inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist therapy in adults with persistent asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is a respiratory condition characterized by airway inflammation, airflow obstruction, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness. The standard treatment of asthma comprises inhaled corticosteroid and beta2-agonist. Inhaled short-acting-beta2-agonists have been used as rescue medication for exacerbation. However, long-acting-beta2-agonists (LABA) used as monotherapy for asthma had been reported for having a safety concern. Consequently, it had been recommended as an add-on treatment to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in moderate to severe persistent asthma. The fixed-dose combination (FDC) of ICS and LABA has been approved since the year 2000. Evidences revealed using the combination of these medications is more effective in asthma control.

AREAS COVERED

The rational and phase III onward randomized-controlled studies were reviewed. Sources of evidences were from studies published in Medline until November 2015.

EXPERT OPINION

There are six FDC inhaler regimens approved worldwide. The significant synergistic effects of ICS and LABA in one device are well evidenced. A FDC reduces the daily dosage of ICS and asthma exacerbation. It is safe to use regularly as controller. The efficacy of each individual combination on asthma treatment is generally similar. Clinical experience, ease of use, cost and side effects of medication would guide the clinician's preferences.

The combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol trifenatate in the management of asthma: clinical trial evidence and experience

The treatment of persistent asthma has been aided by the recent approval of new medications. The combined inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) powder inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol trifenatate (VI) is one of these new agents, which was recently approved as a maintenance therapy for persistent asthma. This once-daily ICS/LABA inhaler has previously been approved and used in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as a maintenance therapy. Both FF and VI individually have been shown to have efficacy in the treatment of persistent asthma; the combination of FF/VI at the dose of 100/25 μg daily improves trough peak expiratory flows and forced expiratory volume in 1 s. It also reduces the frequency of asthma exacerbations in patients with persistent asthma. The once-daily dosing is well tolerated, with limited clinically significant adverse events; the once-daily inhaled dosing regimen should also improve medication adherence. The data supporting the use of the FF/VI inhaler in persistent asthma are reviewed. The dry powder inhaler of FF/VI (100/25 μg) is an effective and well tolerated once-daily maintenance treatment for patients with persistent asthma.

The efficacy of fluticasone furoate administered in the morning or evening is comparable in patients with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

The inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate (FF) is efficacious as a once-daily treatment for the management of asthma. Asthma is associated with circadian changes, with worsening lung function at night. We compared the efficacy of once-daily FF in the morning or evening for the treatment of asthma.

METHODS

Adults with persistent bronchial asthma were enrolled into this randomised, repeat-dose, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, three-way crossover study. After a 14-day run-in period, patients received either: FF 100 μg in the morning (AM); FF 100 μg in the evening (PM); or placebo, via the ELLIPTA(®) dry powder inhaler. Patients received all three treatments (14 ± 2 day duration) separated by a 14- to 21-day washout period. The primary endpoint was 24-h weighted mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) measured at the end of each 14-day treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients aged between 19 and 67 years were randomised and 21 (75%) completed all three study arms. Once-daily administration of FF 100 μg resulted in an increased 24-hour weighted mean FEV1; differences between the adjusted means for AM and PM FF dosing versus placebo were 0.077 L (90% confidence interval [CI]: 0.001, 0.152) and 0.105 L (90% CI: 0.029, 0.180), respectively (adjusted mean difference: -0.028 L [90% CI: -0.102, 0.045]). AM or PM doses had comparable incidences of adverse events (AEs; 18/23 versus 18/24, respectively), no serious AEs occurred.

CONCLUSION

AM and PM doses of once-daily FF 100 μg produced comparable improvements in lung function relative to placebo.

Patient perspectives on fluticasone-vilanterol versus other corticosteroid combination products for the treatment of asthma

OBJECTIVE

Fluticasone furoate (FF), an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and vilanterol (VI), a long-acting beta2 receptor agonist (LABA), is a new combination used in an Ellipta(®) device. This article compares FF-VI to other ICS-LABA combinations available, particularly emphasizing product selection from the patient perspective.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMED and EMBASE search completed in October 2015 identified trials using the MeSH terms "fluticasone", "vilanterol", and "asthma". Additional information was gathered from references cited in the identified publications, the manufacturer, package insert, and ClinicalTrials.gov registry.

STUDY SELECTION/DATA EXTRACTION

Preference was given to randomized controlled clinical trials. Animal trials, trials for COPD, and non-English sources were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Seven efficacy trials of FF-VI in asthma were identified. Only one (24 weeks) trial compared FF-VI to another ICS-LABA combination (fluticasone propionate-salmeterol). Primary outcomes (usually lung function) and secondary outcomes (eg, quality of life and symptom scores) were comparable. In three FF-VI safety trials, the type and frequency of common adverse reactions (ie, thrush and dysphonia) were similar to those in clinical trials. Over 90% of subjects rated the Ellipta(®) device as "easy to use" and demonstrated correct device technique initially and at 4 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Individuals may have drug- and device-specific preferences that should be incorporated into therapeutic decision making. Limited data indicate that clinical and patient-oriented efficacy/safety outcomes of FF-VI are likely comparable to other available combinations for adults with asthma. Patient-friendly features include once-daily dosing, flexibility of dose timing, and design/ease of the use of the device. Additional larger and long-term comparative studies are needed to determine whether these features translate into greater efficacy, safety, patient preference, or adherence versus other ICS-LABA combinations. In the next few years, the availability of less expensive generic ICS-LABA products may strongly influence patient preference.

New developments in inhaler devices within pharmaceutical companies: A systematic review of the impact on clinical outcomes and patient preferences

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceutical companies offer an increasing number of inhaler devices, whether or not together with new substances, for maintenance treatment of patients with COPD or asthma. However, well-designed studies to support these developments are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this research was to evaluate how far new developments of inhaler devices are scientifically supported and translate into improvements of patient preferences and/or clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed to retrieve randomised controlled trials in patients with COPD or asthma that studied the in-company evolution of inhaler devices. Results were tabulated and discussed.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies were found comparing Respimat(®) vs. HandiHaler(®), Diskus(®)(Accuhaler(®)) vs. Diskhaler(®)(Rotadisk(®)) or pMDI, Ellipta(®) vs. Diskus(®)(Accuhaler(®)), Nexthaler(®) vs. pMDI, or Breezhaler(®) vs. Aerolizer(®). These studies show that developments of inhaler devices may improve patient satisfaction but do not lead to demonstrable improvements in clinical efficacy. Current changes of devices are most commonly parallelled by changes in administration frequency towards once daily treatment. The only well-documented effect was found for the Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ Inhaler, which realises a more than 3-fold lowering of the once-daily tiotropium dose through increased performance of the inhaler device. There are however, no data on clinical efficacy or safety comparing the two devices at the same dosage.

CONCLUSIONS

Future developments of inhaler devices should all require well-designed studies to demonstrate patient benefit.

The ELLIPTA® Dry Powder Inhaler: Design, Functionality, In Vitro Dosing Performance and Critical Task Compliance by Patients and Caregivers

Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are commonly used for the delivery of inhaled medications, and should provide consistent, efficient dosing, be easy to use correctly, and be liked by patients; these attributes can all affect patient compliance and therefore treatment efficacy. The ELLIPTA^® DPI was developed for the delivery of once-daily therapies for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It has moderate resistance to airflow and can hold one or two blister strips, with each blister containing a sealed single dose of medication. Monotherapies can be delivered by the single-strip configuration and, in the two-strip configuration, one dose from each strip can be aerosolized simultaneously to allow combination therapies to be delivered, which enables the formulations for each product to be developed individually, since they are stored separately until the point of administration. There are three principal operating steps to administer a dose: open, inhale, close. This article summarizes the design, functionality, and in vitro dose-delivery characteristics of the ELLIPTA inhaler, and describes the results of human factors validation tests, designed to assess the performance of critical tasks required to use the inhaler. Results from the in vitro studies indicate that the ELLIPTA inhaler performs consistently with respect to in vitro dose delivery characteristics at a range of flow rates that can be achieved by the target population (≥30 L/min) and over its 30-day in-use life. Data from the human factors validation tests demonstrated that almost all participants (≥97%) were able to complete each of the steps required to prepare a dose for inhalation without error. Overall, the ELLIPTA inhaler has a versatile single- or two-strip design that allows it to be used for the delivery of a range of treatment options. It also improves patient ease-of-use when compared with the DISKUS^® DPI.

Emerging corticosteroid agonists for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Asthma is one of the most frequent chronic diseases worldwide. For decades, asthma has been treated with bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). However, adverse effects of ICS and disease heterogeneity necessitate improvements in the existing treatment regimes. Recently approved ICS show improved pharmocodynamic properties. Nevertheless, emerging drugs acting on the same receptor as the ICS, glucocorticoid receptor agonists (GRAs), are under current research. These drugs exhibit selective action on the glucocorticoid receptor (GR), which may improve their adverse effect profile, compared to the currently approved ICS that act unselectively on the GR.

AREAS COVERED

The present article reviews emerging GRAs for the treatment of asthma. Furthermore, the more recently approved ICS with improved safety profiles are reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

Compared with drugs acting on other pathological pathways, research in GRAs for asthma is sparse. However, a few promising agents acting selectively on the GR are currently under investigation and may reach approval for asthma treatment. These drugs exhibit improved pharmacodynamic properties due to selectivity in the mechanism of action, including promotion of transrepression and reduction of transactivation. However, competition from already approved ICS and other emerging treatment options may lead to cessation of development of the new GRAs.

Once-daily fluticasone furoate 50 mcg in mild-to-moderate asthma: a 24-week placebo-controlled randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Inhaled glucocorticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay of treatment in asthma. Fluticasone furoate (FF) is a novel, once-daily ICS asthma therapy. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of FF 50 mcg in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma.

METHODS

A 24-week, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled and active-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group phase III study. Three hundred and fifty-one patients (aged ≥12 years; uncontrolled by non-ICS therapy) were randomized to treatment (1 : 1 : 1) with once-daily FF 50 mcg dosed in the evening, twice-daily fluticasone propionate (FP) 100 mcg or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in evening trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1 ) at Week 24. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in the percentage of rescue-free 24-h periods (powered endpoint), change from baseline in evening and morning peak expiratory flow, change from baseline in the percentage of symptom-free 24-h periods and number of withdrawals due to lack of efficacy.

RESULTS

Evening trough FEV1 at Week 24 was not statistically significantly increased with FF 50 mcg once-daily (37 ml [95% CI: -55, 128]; P = 0.430), but was with FP 100 mcg twice daily (102 ml [10, 194]; P = 0.030), vs placebo. No consistent trends were observed across other endpoints, including the powered secondary endpoint. No safety concerns were raised for either active treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

FP 100 mcg twice daily improved evening trough FEV1 in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma, but FF 50 mcg once daily did not demonstrate a significant effect. Secondary endpoints showed variable results. No safety concerns were identified for FF or FP.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate 100 μg and 200 μg once daily in the treatment of moderate-severe asthma in adults and adolescents: a 24-week randomised study

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids are a mainstay of therapy for persistent asthma, but suboptimal adherence with twice-daily use is widespread. Fluticasone furoate (FF) is a new inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) suitable for once-daily dosing in asthma. This study was performed to descriptively assess the efficacy and safety of two doses of FF, with no planned formal statistical hypothesis testing.

METHODS

This was a 24-week double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group study (NCT01431950). Patients aged ≥ 12 years with moderate-severe persistent asthma and uncontrolled on mid-high dose ICS were stratified by baseline FEV1 and randomised (1:1) to treatment with FF 100 μg or 200 μg once daily in the evening. The primary endpoint was change from baseline trough FEV1 after 24 weeks; secondary and other endpoints included peak expiratory flow (PEF) and rescue-free and symptom-free 24-hour periods over Weeks 1-24, and Asthma Control Test™ (ACT) score at Week 24. A pre-specified subgroup analysis of patients by randomisation strata was performed for the primary and selected secondary and other endpoints. Safety assessments included adverse events, laboratory and vital sign measurements, and change from baseline in 24-hour urinary cortisol at Week 24.

RESULTS

With FF 100 μg and 200 μg, least squares mean trough FEV1 improved from baseline by 208 mL and 284 mL, respectively, at Week 24; treatment difference: 77 mL (95% CI: -39, 192). Similar improvements from baseline in rescue- and symptom-free periods, and morning and evening PEF were observed in both groups. Patients were 42% more likely to be well-controlled (ACT score ≥ 20) with FF 200 μg than with FF 100 μg. Slightly more patients receiving FF 200 μg vs. FF 100 μg reported adverse events (63% vs. 59%) and events deemed treatment related (5% vs. <1%). Seven serious adverse events (FF 200 μg 4; FF 100 μg 3) were reported, none of which were deemed treatment related. No clinically relevant effects of either dose on 24-hour urinary cortisol were observed.

CONCLUSION

Improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 were observed after 24 weeks of treatment with both doses of FF, with a numerically greater improvement in FEV1 observed in patients receiving FF 200 μg. Secondary endpoint findings were similar between groups. No safety concerns were identified during the study.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (100/25 mcg) versus twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (250/50 mcg) in COPD patients

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) is an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA), recently approved as once-daily maintenance therapy for COPD. We compared the lung function effects of FF/VI with those of twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL).

METHODS

Three 12 week studies comparing FF/VI and FP/SAL were conducted. Patients aged ≥40 years with moderate-to-very severe COPD were randomized to receive double-blind, double-dummy FF/VI 100/25 mcg once-daily, or FP/SAL 250/50 mcg twice-daily for 12 weeks following a 2 week placebo run-in period. The primary endpoint of each study was change from baseline trough in 0-24 h weighted mean FEV(1) (wmFEV(1)) on Day 84. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

In Study 1 (HZC113109) (intent-to-treat n: FF/VI = 260; FP/SAL = 259), the increase from baseline in 0-24 h wmFEV(1) was significantly greater with FF/VI than FP/SAL (Δ80 mL, P < 0.001). In Study 2 (HZC112352) (intent-to-treat n: FF/VI = 259; FP/SAL = 252) and Study 3 (RLV116974) (intent-to-treat n: FF/VI = 412; FP/SAL = 416), the increase from baseline in 0-24 h wmFEV(1) was not significantly greater with FF/VI than FP/SAL (Δ29 mL, P = 0.267; Δ25 mL, P = 0.137). The treatment difference was statistically but not clinically significant in a pooled analysis (Δ41 mL, P < 0.001). Pooled adverse events (FF/VI 27%; FP/SAL 28%) and serious adverse events (FF/VI 2%; FP/SAL 3%) were similar between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg provides FEV(1) improvement in COPD that is at least comparable with that conferred by twice-daily FP/SAL 250/50 mcg, although interpretation is limited by differences in individual study outcomes. The safety profiles of FF/VI 100/25 mcg and FP/SAL 250/50 mcg are similar.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01323634; NCT01323621; NCT01706328. GlaxoSmithKline study codes: HZC113109; HZC112352; RLV116974.

Comparison of vilanterol, a novel long-acting beta2 agonist, with placebo and a salmeterol reference arm in asthma uncontrolled by inhaled corticosteroids

Background

Current maintenance therapies for asthma require twice-daily dosing. Vilanterol (VI) is a novel long-acting beta₂ agonist, under development in combination with fluticasone furoate, a new inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Findings from a previous 4-week study suggested that VI has inherent 24-hour activity and is therefore suitable for once-daily dosing. The study described here was a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, the aim of which was to assess the efficacy of once-daily VI compared with placebo in patients with persistent asthma. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24-hour weighted mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second after 12 weeks of treatment vs. placebo. An active control arm received salmeterol (SAL) twice daily. All patients were maintained on a stable background dose of ICS.

Results

Patients (n = 347) received VI, placebo or SAL (1:1:1). For the primary endpoint, substantial improvements in lung function were seen with VI (359 ml), SAL (283 ml) and placebo (289 ml). There were no statistically significant treatment differences between either the VI (70 ml, P = 0.244) or SAL (-6 ml, P = 0.926) groups and placebo. Both active treatments were well tolerated, with similarly low rates of treatment-related adverse events compared with placebo. No treatment-related serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusions

This study failed to show a treatment difference between VI and placebo for the primary endpoint, in the presence of a placebo response of unforeseen magnitude. Because the placebo response was so large, it is not possible to draw meaningful conclusions from the data. The reason for this magnitude of effect is unclear but it may reflect increased compliance with the anti-inflammatory therapy regimen during the treatment period.

Trial registration

NCT01181895 at ClinicalTrials.gov.