Revefenacin, a once-daily, lung-selective, long-acting muscarinic antagonist for nebulized therapy: Safety and tolerability results of a 52-week phase 3 trial in moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Revefenacin Area Under the Curve Spirometry in Patients with Moderate to Very Severe COPD

Purpose

Several lung function endpoints are utilized in clinical trials of inhaled bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) is a commonly reported endpoint in COPD trials and can be complemented by area under the FEV1 vs time curve (FEV1 AUC), which provides information on duration and consistency of bronchodilation over a dosing interval. Revefenacin, a once-daily bronchodilator, significantly improved lung function in patients with COPD when measured by trough FEV1 in two replicate Phase 3 trials. Here, we report an FEV1 AUC substudy using data from these trials.

Patients and Methods

This post hoc analysis examined substudy data from 12-week replicate Phase 3 trials (NCT02459080/NCT02512510); patients with moderate to very severe COPD were randomized 1:1 to revefenacin 175 μg or placebo once daily. The substudy patients had FEV1 AUC0-2h assessed on Day 1, and those who continued to Day 84 also underwent 24-hour serial spirometry postdose where FEV1 AUC0-2h, AUC0-12h, AUC12-24h, and AUC0-24h were evaluated.

Results

Fifty and 47 patients who received revefenacin and placebo underwent 24-hour serial spirometry; most baseline characteristics were aligned between groups. At Day 84 postdose, revefenacin demonstrated sustained improvements in bronchodilation over 24 hours; differences in least squares mean vs placebo were 282, 220, 205, and 212 mL for FEV1 AUC0-2h, AUC0-12h, AUC12-24h, and AUC0-24h (all P <0.001), respectively.

Conclusion

This substudy analysis supplements previous findings that revefenacin provides sustained bronchodilation over 24 hours. Assessing additional complementary COPD clinical trial endpoints can help clinicians make treatment decisions.

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

Introduction

Many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may derive inadequate benefit from dry powder inhalers (DPIs) because of suboptimal peak inspiratory flow (sPIF).

Objectives

To assess the clinical burden of COPD by characterizing the clinical characteristics of participants with sPIF against medium-low resistance DPIs versus those with optimal PIF (oPIF) from two phase 3 clinical trials.

Methods

Baseline data were collected from two randomized, controlled, phase 3 trials (NCT03095456; NCT02518139) in participants with moderate-to-severe COPD. oPIF (60 L/min) against the medium-low resistance DPIs was used as the threshold for defining the PIF subgroups (<60 L/min (sPIF) vs ≥60 L/min (oPIF)).

Results

Most participants included in this analysis were White (92%) and male (63%); the mean (range) age was 65 (43-87) years. Participants with sPIF had significantly greater dyspnea than those with oPIF as measured using the modified Medical Research Council scoring (mean (95% CI): 2.1 (2.0-2.2) vs 1.6 (1.4-1.7); P  < 0.001) and baseline dyspnea index (mean (95% CI): 5.1 (4.9-5.4) vs 6.1 (5.8-6.3); P  < 0.001). Based on COPD Assessment Test scores, participants with sPIF had a higher COPD symptom burden than those with oPIF (mean (95% CI): 21.5 (19.7-23.3) vs 19.5 (18.6-20.4); P = 0.05).

Conclusion

In these trials, participants with COPD who had sPIF against the medium-low resistance DPIs had more dyspnea and worse health status than those with oPIF. These results demonstrate that sPIF is associated with a higher clinical burden as measured by patient-reported outcomes.

A review of the pathophysiology and the role of ion channels on bronchial asthma

Asthma is one of the main non-communicable chronic diseases and affects a huge portion of the population. It is a multifactorial disease, classified into several phenotypes, being the allergic the most frequent. The pathophysiological mechanism of asthma involves a Th2-type immune response, with high concentrations of allergen-specific immunoglobulin E, eosinophilia, hyperreactivity and airway remodeling. These mechanisms are orchestrated by intracellular signaling from effector cells, such as lymphocytes and eosinophils. Ion channels play a fundamental role in maintaining the inflammatory response on asthma. In particular, transient receptor potential (TRP), stock-operated Ca2+ channels (SOCs), Ca2+-activated K+ channels (IKCa and BKCa), calcium-activated chloride channel (TMEM16A), cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR), piezo-type mechanosensitive ion channel component 1 (PIEZO1) and purinergic P2X receptor (P2X). The recognition of the participation of these channels in the pathological process of asthma is important, as they become pharmacological targets for the discovery of new drugs and/or pharmacological tools that effectively help the pharmacotherapeutic follow-up of this disease, as well as the more specific mechanisms involved in worsening asthma.

Improvements in health status with revefenacin, a once-daily, nebulized, long-acting muscarinic antagonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Replicate, 12-week, phase 3 trials (0126 and 0127) of once-daily nebulized revefenacin 175 μg vs placebo demonstrated significant bronchodilation and improvements in health status in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This post hoc analysis evaluated improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) in both women and men.

METHODS

Participants were pooled from the two 12-week studies (411 [51%] women and 401 [49%] men). Changes in PROs were assessed overall and separately in men and women.

RESULTS

Revefenacin improved SGRQ and CAT total scores from baseline in both studies; improvement in CCQ total score reached significance only in 0126. In pooled data, a greater proportion of patients achieved clinically meaningful response in SGRQ score (≥4-unit decrease from baseline) with revefenacin vs placebo (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.1; P = 0.012). Clinically meaningful responses were also seen in CAT (≥2-unit decrease from baseline) and CCQ (≥0.4-unit decrease from baseline) scores with revefenacin vs placebo. When stratified by sex, improvements from baseline in SGRQ, CAT, and CCQ scores following revefenacin vs placebo reached statistical significance only in women.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintenance treatment with revefenacin improved health status in patients with moderate to very severe COPD; however, the effect was more pronounced for women than men.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV: NCT02459080; NCT02512510.

Recent advances predict a bright future for nebulizers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the improvement in device technology and delivery methods of inhaled medications, along with development of novel compounds and recognition of the importance of personalized approach in the management of chronic airway diseases, nebulizers have not only maintained their place in the treatment hierarchy of airway disease but have also proven a vital platform for the development of new classes of drugs.

RECENT FINDINGS

This short review explores recent advances in nebulized drug delivery in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other chronic airway diseases, emphasizing the progress in nebulizer technology, physiologic advantages of nebulized drug delivery and the high versatility of currently available and developing nebulizer-delivered pharmacotherapies.

SUMMARY

Versatility and efficiency of nebulizers allows for a broad spectrum of existing and novel therapies to be clinically studied, facilitating the progress in phenotype-targeted pharmacotherapies in the management of chronic airway diseases.

Safety evaluation of revefenacin at the approved dose in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Revefenacin is the first once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) for nebulization use in maintenance therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety and tolerability profile of revefenacin at the approved dose (175 μg), compared with placebo and a lower dose (88 μg), for the treatment of COPD.

METHODS

Available randomized controlled trials (RCTs), both published and unpublished, were identified via databases. Risk differences (RDs) and risk ratios (RRs), with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated as effect sizes.

RESULTS

One unpublished RCT and four articles containing 5 RCTs were included. Combined results showed that there were no significant differences between COPD patients receiving 175 μg revefenacin and those receiving a placebo, concerning the risk of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs), any all-grade AE, or any serious AE. 175 μg revefenacin also did not significantly increase the risk of antimuscarinic-related AEs, cardiovascular AEs, or 12 commonly reported AEs. Plus, a lower dose of 88 μg was shown to share a comparable safety profile with the 175 μg revefenacin. A non-significant trend towards a decrease in risks of AEs for 175 μg revefenacin was observed. The most frequently reported AE for each group was COPD worsening/exacerbation.

CONCLUSION

Revefenacin at the approved dose is generally well-tolerated and safe with minimal AEs, which supports its use as a once-daily nebulized LAMA for the treatment of moderate to severe stable COPD. Additional studies are needed to complete the safety and tolerability profile.

The Efficacy and Safety of Revefenacin for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review

Background Revefenacin (REV) is a novel once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in the treatment of moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic review incorporating a dose-response meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of REV.

Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, and Wanfang database were searched from their inception to April 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated the efficacy and safety of REV in COPD patients. Two reviewers independently performed study screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Outcomes consisted of the mean change in trough Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second (FEV₁) from baseline, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). A dose-response meta-analysis using the robust error meta-regression method was conducted. We used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence.

Results Nine RCTs (3,121 participants) were included in this systematic review. The meta-analyses indicated that 175 μg/day REV could significantly improve the trough FEV₁ (MD=143.67, 95%CI: 129.67 to 157.68; I²=96%; 809 participants; studies=4; low quality) without increasing the risk of AEs (OR=0.98, 95%CI: 0.81 to 1.18; I²=34%; 2,286 participants; studies=7; low quality) or SAEs (OR=0.89, 95%CI: 0.55 to 1.46; I²=0%; 2,318 participants; studies=7; very low quality) compared to placebo. Furthermore, the effect of REV in increasing trough FEV₁ was dose-dependent with an effective threshold of 88 μg/day (R² = 0.7017). Nevertheless, only very low-quality to low-quality evidence showed that REV at a dose of 175 μg/day was inferior to tiotropium regarding the long-term efficacy, and its safety profile was not superior to tiotropium or ipratropium.

Conclusion Current evidence shows that REV is a promising option for the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD. Due to most evidence graded as low quality, further studies are required to compare the efficacy, long-term safety and cost-effectiveness between REV and other LAMAs in different populations.

Clinical Trial Registration: [PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42020182793]

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

Background:

Combinations of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA), long-acting β-agonist (LABA), and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) are used for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations on bronchodilator monotherapy. In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of the LAMA revefenacin in patients with COPD taking concomitant LABA, including ICS/LABA (LABA subgroup).

Methods:

Efficacy data were obtained from two 12-week, replicate, placebo-controlled trials and safety data were pooled from the 12-week and a 52-week tiotropium-controlled trial. Patients received revefenacin 175 µg or placebo in the 12-week or tiotropium 18 µg in the 52-week studies. The efficacy endpoint was least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁). Clinical health outcomes were assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ).

Results:

Revefenacin produced similar improvements from baseline in trough FEV₁ in the non-LABA and LABA subgroups [placebo-adjusted LS mean change (95% confidence interval) in day 85 trough FEV₁, 150.9 (110.3−191.6) ml and 139.2 (82.9−195.5) ml; p < 0.0001 versus placebo]. Similar improvements were observed in SGRQ scores in the non-LABA and LABA subgroups [−3.3 (−5.4 to −1.2) and −3.4 (−6.3 to −0.6)]. Improvements in lung function and health outcomes were observed regardless of airflow obstruction severity. Revefenacin was well tolerated with more adverse events reported in the LABA than the non-LABA subgroup.

Conclusions:

Once daily revefenacin for nebulization can be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients who require concomitant use of LABA with or without ICS.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers:

NCT02512510, NCT02459080, NCT02518139

The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Revefenacin, a once-daily, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, for nebulized maintenance therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

PURPOSE

This article reviews the efficacy and safety of revefenacin, the first once-daily, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, when delivered via a standard jet nebulizer in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

SUMMARY

Revefenacin 175 µg is indicated for the maintenance treatment of patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Preclinical studies showed that revefenacin is a potent and selective antagonist with similar affinity for the different subtypes of muscarinic receptors (M1-M5). Furthermore, prevention of methacholine- and acetylcholine-induced bronchoconstrictive effects was dose dependent and lasted longer than 24 hours, demonstrating a long duration of action. In phase 2 and 3 trials, treatment with revefenacin was demonstrated to result in statistical improvements in pulmonary function (≥100 mL, P < 0.05) vs placebo, including among patients with markers of more severe disease and those who received concomitant long-acting β-agonists or long-acting β-agonists together with inhaled corticosteroids. Revefenacin was also demonstrated to have efficacy similar to that of tiotropium. The clinical trial findings indicated no significant difference between revefenacin and tiotropium with regard to rates of adverse events. Overall, revefenacin was well tolerated, with COPD worsening/exacerbation, dyspnea, headache, and cough among the most common adverse events noted in the clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Revefenacin treatment delivered via nebulization led to improvements in lung function in patients with COPD. It was also generally well tolerated, with no major safety concerns. Revefenacin provides a viable treatment option for patients with COPD and may be a suitable alternative for those with conditions that may impair proper use of traditional handheld inhalers.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Revefenacin in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Revefenacin is a lung-selective, long-acting muscarinic antagonist indicated for the maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The objectives of this analysis were to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of revefenacin and its major metabolite (THRX-195518) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and identify significant covariates affecting revefenacin disposition using a population pharmacokinetic approach based on plasma concentration-time data obtained after single- and repeated-dose once-daily administration in three phase II and two phase III studies.

METHODS

Plasma concentrations of revefenacin and THRX-195518 following once-daily administration via nebulization at a dose levels ranging from 22-700 μg in 935 patients (488 men, 447 women; age 41-88 years) were analyzed using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling.

RESULTS

Plasma revefenacin pharmacokinetics was best described by a two-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination. Pharmacokinetic parameters for THRX-195518 were estimated using a sequential approach, where the concentration-time profiles were fit to a combined model. The formation of the metabolite in each subject was estimated to be a fixed fraction of the individually estimated (post-hoc) clearance rate of revefenacin. Four statistically significant covariates were identified: for revefenacin, age on apparent clearance and body weight on apparent intercompartment clearance, for THRX-195518, age on apparent clearance and body weight on the fraction of revefenacin apparent clearance that was metabolized to THRX-195518.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the identified statistically significant covariates were associated with a clinically meaningful effect on revefenacin or THRX-195518 exposure in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number NCT03064113, NCT01704404, NCT02040792, NCT02459080, and NCT02512510.

Maintenance Therapy with Nebulizers in Patients with Stable COPD: Need for Reevaluation

Patients with stable COPD rely heavily on inhaled bronchodilators and corticosteroids to control symptoms, maximize quality of life, and avoid exacerbations and costly hospitalizations. These drugs are typically delivered by hand-held inhalers or nebulizers. The majority of patients are prescribed inhalers due to their perceived convenience, portability, and lower cost, relative to nebulizers. Unfortunately, poor inhaler technique compromises symptom relief in most of these patients. In contrast to one or two puffs through an inhaler, nebulizers deliver a drug over many breaths, through tidal breathing, and hence are more forgiving to poor inhalation technique. To what extent susceptibility to errors in their use may influence the relative effectiveness of these two types of inhalation device has received little attention in COPD research. In 2005, a systematic review of the literature concluded that nebulizers and inhalers are equally effective in patients who are adequately trained to use their inhalation device. This conclusion was based on two small clinical trials that only examined objective measures of lung function. Since then, additional studies have found that maintenance therapy administered by nebulizers could improve patients' reported feelings of symptom relief, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment, compared to therapy administered by inhalers. Because it has been 15 years since the publication of the systematic review, in this article we summarize the results of studies that compared the effectiveness of inhalers with that of nebulizers in patients with stable COPD and discuss their implications for clinical practice and need for future research.

Revefenacin Absorption, Metabolism, and Excretion in Healthy Subjects and Pharmacological Activity of Its Major Metabolite

Revefenacin inhalation solution is an anticholinergic indicated for the maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Mass balance, pharmacokinetics, and metabolism of revefenacin were evaluated after intravenous and oral administration of [¹⁴C]-revefenacin in healthy subjects. Pharmacological activity of the major revefenacin metabolite was also assessed. Adult males (n = 9) received 20 μg intravenously of approximately 1 μCi [¹⁴C]-revefenacin and/or a single 200-μg oral solution of approximately 10 μCi [¹⁴C]-revefenacin. Mean recovery of radioactive material was 81.4% after intravenous administration (54.4% in feces; 27.1% in urine) and 92.7% after oral dosing (88.0% in feces, 4.7% in urine). Mean absolute bioavailability of oral revefenacin was low (2.8%). Intact revefenacin accounted for approximately 52.1% and 13.1% of the total radioactivity in plasma after intravenous and oral administration, respectively. Two main circulating metabolites were observed in plasma. After an intravenous dose, a hydrolysis product, THRX-195518 (M2) was observed that circulated in plasma at 14.3% of total radioactivity. After an oral dose, both THRX-195518 and THRX-697795 (M10, N-dealkylation and reduction of the parent compound) were observed at 12.5% of total circulating radioactivity. THRX-195518 was the major metabolite excreted in feces and comprised 18.8% and 9.4% of the administered intravenous and oral dose, respectively. The major metabolic pathway for revefenacin was hydrolysis to THRX-195518. In vitro pharmacological evaluation of THRX-195518 indicated that it had a 10-fold lower binding affinity for the M₃ receptor relative to revefenacin. Receptor occupancy analysis suggested that THRX-195518 has minimal contribution to systemic pharmacology relative to revefenacin after inhaled administration. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The major metabolic pathway for revefenacin was hydrolysis to the metabolite THRX-195518 (M2), and both revefenacin and THRX-195518 underwent hepatic-biliary and fecal elimination after oral or intravenous administration with negligible renal excretion. Pharmacological evaluation of THRX-195518 indicated that it had a 10-fold lower binding affinity for the M₃ muscarinic receptor relative to revefenacin and that THRX-195518 has minimal contribution to systemic pharmacology after inhaled administration.

Nebulized Therapies in COPD: Past, Present, and the Future

Current guidelines recommend inhalation therapy as the preferred route of drug administration for treating patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Inhalation devices consist of nebulizers and handheld inhalers, such as dry-powder inhalers (DPIs), pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), and soft mist inhalers (SMIs). Although pMDIs, DPIs and SMIs may be appropriate for most patients with COPD, certain patient populations may have challenges with these devices. Patients who have cognitive, neuromuscular, or ventilatory impairments (and receive limited assistance from caregivers), as well as those with suboptimal peak inspiratory flow may not derive the full benefit from handheld inhalers. A considerable number of patients are not capable of producing a peak inspiratory flow rate to overcome the internal resistance of DPIs. Furthermore, patients may have difficulty coordinating inhalation with device actuation, which is required for pMDIs and SMIs. However, inhalation devices such as spacers and valved holding chambers can be used with pMDIs to increase the efficiency of aerosol delivery. Nebulized treatment provides patients with COPD an alternative administration route that avoids the need for inspiratory flow, manual dexterity, or complex hand-breath coordination. The recent approval of two nebulized long-acting muscarinic antagonists has added to the extensive range of nebulized therapies in COPD. Furthermore, with the availability of quieter and more portable nebulizer devices, nebulization may be a useful treatment option in the management of certain patient populations with COPD. The aim of this narrative review was to highlight recent updates and the treatment landscape in nebulized therapy and COPD. We first discuss the pathophysiology of patients with COPD and inhalation device considerations. Second, we review the updates on recently approved and newly marketed nebulized treatments, nebulized treatments currently in development, and technological advances in nebulizer devices. Finally, we discuss the current applications of nebulized therapy in patients with COPD.

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

Background

Revefenacin, a once-daily, long-acting muscarinic antagonist delivered via standard jet nebulizer, increased trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in prior phase 3 trials. We evaluated the efficacy of revefenacin in patients with markers of more severe COPD.

Methods

A post hoc subgroup analysis of two replicate, randomized, phase 3 trials was conducted over 12 weeks. Endpoints included least squares change from baseline in trough FEV₁, St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders, and transition dyspnea index (TDI) responders at Day 85. This analysis included patient subgroups at high risk for COPD exacerbations and compared patients who received revefenacin 175 μg and placebo: severe and very severe airflow limitation (percent predicted FEV₁ 30%–< 50% and < 30%), 2011 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) D, reversibility (≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL increase in FEV₁) to short-acting bronchodilators, concurrent use of long-acting β agonists and/or inhaled corticosteroids, older age (> 65 and > 75 years), and comorbidity risk factors.

Results

Revefenacin demonstrated significant improvements in FEV₁ versus placebo at Day 85 among the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and all subgroups. Additionally, there was a greater number of SGRQ and TDI responders in the ITT population and the majority of subgroups analyzed among patients who received revefenacin versus placebo. For the SGRQ responders, the odds of response (odds ratio > 2.0) were significantly greater in the revefenacin arm versus the placebo arm among the severe airflow obstruction, very severe airflow obstruction and 2011 GOLD D subgroups. For the TDI responders, the odds of response (odds ratio > 2.0) were significantly greater among the severe airflow obstruction subgroup and patients aged > 75 years.

Conclusions

Revefenacin showed significantly greater improvements in FEV₁ versus placebo in the ITT population and all subgroups. Furthermore, there were a greater number of SGRQ and TDI responders in the ITT population, and in the majority of patient subgroups among patients who received revefenacin versus placebo. Based on the data presented, revefenacin could be a therapeutic option among patients with markers of more severe COPD.

Trial registration

Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (Studies 0126 [NCT02459080; prospectively registered 22 May 2015] and 0127 [NCT02512510; prospectively registered 28 July 2015]).

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

BACKGROUND

Peak inspiratory flow (PIF) has been proposed as a measure to assess a patient's ability to use dry powder inhalers (DPIs). However, robust quality criteria to determine a repeatability limit for measuring PIF are lacking.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

What are the repeatability limits for measuring PIF? What is the relationship between PIF measured using the In-Check DIAL device at Diskus (GlaxoSmithKline; PIF_D) and HandiHaler (Boehringer Ingelheim; PIF_HH) resistances?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Data from a randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial (study 0149; see Clinical Trial Registration data) were used to define repeatability limits for PIF. In addition, a model to characterize the relationship between PIF measured with the In-Check DIAL device at PIF_D and PIF_HH was defined using data from two randomized, controlled, phase 3 trials (studies 0128 and 0149).

RESULTS

In study 0128, the mean values (SD) for PIF at zero resistance and PIF_HH were 84.6 (33.4) and 57.3 (26.1) L/min, respectively. In study 0149, the mean values (SD) for PIF_D and PIF_HH were 42.4 (11.2) and 29.0 (8.3) L/min, respectively. At the mean level, the mean difference between measurement attempts for PIF_D and PIF_HH was small, < 5 and < 3 L/min, respectively. The repeatability limit was determined as 10 and 5 L/min for PIF_D and PIF_HH, respectively. Modeling the relationship between PIF_D and PIF_HH, after controlling for significant covariates, demonstrated that a PIF_D value of 60 L/min was approximately equivalent to PIF_HH of 40 L/min.

INTERPRETATIONS

This analysis demonstrated that the two highest values of PIF using the In-Check DIAL device among three inspiratory efforts, met the repeatability limit. Altogether, these data provide guidance for measuring PIF against the simulated resistance of a specific DPI in clinical practice and research studies.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov; Nos.: NCT02518139 (study 0128) and NCT03095456 (study 0149); URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

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

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

Revefenacin for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Introduction: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive condition characterized by irreversible or incompletely reversible airflow limitation. Long-acting bronchodilators, including β₂ agonists (LABA) and muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), serve as the standard of care for maintenance therapy in COPD. Individualizing therapy to optimize selection of delivery device has the potential to improve medication adherence and clinical outcomes among COPD patients.Areas covered: Revefenacin (Yupelri) is the only LAMA approved for once-daily administration via standard jet nebulizer for the maintenance therapy in patients with COPD. Revefenacin has a unique biphenyl carbamate tertiary amine structure, differing from the quaternary amine structure of previously approved LAMAs. Here we summarize the available clinical data for this new agent and discuss its potential place in the treatment of COPD.Expert opinion: Based on available clinical trial data, revefenacin appears to be an effective and safe option for long-term maintenance therapy of COPD. Revefenacin offers a once-daily option for LAMA therapy for patients who prefer or require nebulized drug delivery. The availability of this agent can allow patients to combine nebulized therapies that could improve clinical outcomes in appropriately selected patients with COPD.

Revefenacin: A Once-Daily, Long-Acting Bronchodilator For Nebulized Treatment Of COPD

Bronchodilation with muscarinic antagonists, β2-agonists, and inhaled corticosteroids remains the foundation of pharmaceutical treatment for patients with stable COPD. These drugs are delivered from a variety of devices, including dry powder inhalers, pressurized metered-dose inhalers, soft-mist inhalers, or nebulizers. Nebulized delivery is often preferable in patients who are elderly, are cognitively impaired, are unable to generate sufficient inspiratory force to use their inhaler, have difficulty coordinating hand-breath activity, are too dyspneic to hold their breath for a sufficient time, and/or may be acutely ill. Revefenacin, a once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist for nebulization recently approved by the US FDA for the treatment of patients with COPD, was discovered and developed using "duration and lung selectivity-by-design." This strategy selected a molecule with a high lung-selective index to maximize bronchodilation and limit systemic anti-muscarinic side effects. In early-phase clinical studies, revefenacin for nebulization led to a rapid onset of bronchodilation that was sustained for 24 hrs in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Revefenacin also demonstrated minimal systemic exposure and good tolerability in these studies. Statistically and clinically significant improvements in lung function (ie, peak and/or trough FEV1) relative to placebo were observed with revefenacin in Phase III clinical trials of up to 3 months in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Revefenacin was well tolerated in Phase III clinical trials with a low incidence of systemic antimuscarinic adverse events, which is consistent with its lung-selective design. There was no evidence of an increased risk of major cardiovascular events. Patient-reported outcome data from clinical trials indicated statistically significant improvements in several disease-specific measures. Revefenacin 175 μg for nebulization provides an effective once-daily treatment option for patients with moderate to very severe COPD who require or prefer nebulized therapy.

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

BACKGROUND

Revefenacin is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist that was recently approved for the nebulized treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although shorter duration studies have documented the efficacy of revefenacin in COPD, longer-term efficacy has not been described. In a recent 52-week safety trial, revefenacin was well tolerated and had a favorable benefit-risk profile. Here we report exploratory efficacy and health outcomes in patients receiving revefenacin 175 μg or 88 μg daily during the 52-week trial.

METHODS

In this randomized, parallel-group, 52-week trial (NCT02518139), 1055 participants with moderate to very severe COPD received revefenacin 175 μg or 88 μg in a double-blind manner, or open-label active control tiotropium.

RESULTS

Over the 52-week treatment period, both doses of revefenacin, as well as tiotropium, elicited significant (all p < 0.0003) improvements from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). The trough FEV1 profile (least squares mean change from baseline) for revefenacin 175 μg ranged from 52.3-124.3 mL and the trough FEV1 profile for tiotropium ranged from 79.7-112.8 mL. In subgroup comparisons, the effect of revefenacin on trough FEV1 was comparable in patients taking concomitant long-acting β-agonists, with or without inhaled corticosteroids, with patients who were not taking these medications. There were statistically significant (p < 0.05) improvements in all measured health status outcomes (evaluated using St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, Clinical COPD Questionnaire and Baseline and Transition Dyspnea Index) from 3 months onward, in all treatment arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant sustained improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 and respiratory health outcomes were demonstrated for 175-μg revefenacin over 52 weeks, further supporting its use as a once-daily bronchodilator for the nebulized treatment of patients with COPD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02518139 ; Registered 5 August 2015.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of revefenacin in subjects with impaired renal or hepatic function

Purpose

Revefenacin, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist for nebulization, has been shown to improve lung function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Here we report pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety results from two multicenter, open-label, single-dose trials evaluating revefenacin in subjects with severe renal impairment (NCT02578082) and moderate hepatic impairment (NCT02581592).

Subjects and methods

The renal impairment trial enrolled subjects with normal renal function and severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m²). The hepatic impairment trial enrolled subjects with normal hepatic function and moderate hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh class B). Subjects received a single 175-µg dose of revefenacin through nebulization. PK plasma samples and urine collections were obtained at multiple time points for 5 days following treatment; all subjects were monitored for adverse events.

Results

In the renal impairment study, the maximum observed plasma revefenacin concentration (C_max) was up to 2.3-fold higher and area under the concentration–time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC_inf) was up to 2.4-fold higher in subjects with severe renal impairment compared with those with normal renal function. For THRX-195518, the major metabolite of revefenacin, the corresponding changes in C_max and AUC_inf were 1.8- and 2.7-fold higher, respectively. In the hepatic impairment study, revefenacin C_max and AUC_inf were 1.03- and 1.18-fold higher, respectively, in subjects with moderate hepatic impairment compared with those with normal hepatic function. The corresponding changes in THRX-195518 C_max and AUC_inf were 1.5- and 2.8-fold higher, respectively.

Conclusion

Systemic exposure to revefenacin increased modestly in subjects with severe renal impairment but was similar between subjects with moderate hepatic impairment and normal hepatic function. The increase in plasma exposure to THRX-195518 in subjects with severe renal or moderate hepatic impairment is unlikely to be of clinical consequence given its low antimuscarinic potency, low systemic levels after inhaled revefenacin administration, and favorable safety profile.

Data on the safety and tolerability of revefenacin, in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

This article contains information on the experimental design and methods on how the safety and tolerability data concerning patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were obtained. This is in addition to our original research article. [1] We have also provided information on the clinical laboratory tests that were conducted.

Further interpretation and discussion of the data are demonstrated in the article “Revefenacin, a Once-daily, Lung-selective, Long-acting Muscarinic Antagonist for Nebulized Therapy: Safety and Tolerability Results of a 52-week Phase 3 Trial in Moderate to Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.” [1]

Revefenacin, a Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist, Does Not Prolong QT Interval in Healthy Subjects: Results of a Placebo- and Positive-Controlled Thorough QT Study

Revefenacin is a novel once‐daily, lung‐selective, long‐acting muscarinic antagonist developed as a nebulized inhalation solution for the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In a randomized, 4‐way crossover study, healthy subjects received a single inhaled dose of revefenacin 175 µg (therapeutic dose), revefenacin 700 µg (supratherapeutic dose), and placebo via standard jet nebulizer, and a single oral dose of moxifloxacin 400 mg (open‐label) in separate treatment periods. Electrocardiograms were recorded, and pharmacokinetic samples were collected serially after dosing. The primary end point was the placebo‐corrected change from baseline QT interval corrected for heart rate using Fridericia's formula, analyzed at each postdose time. Concentration‐QTc modeling was also performed. Following administration of revefenacin 175  and 700 µg, placebo‐corrected change from baseline QTcF (ΔΔQTcF) values were close to 0 at all times, with the largest mean ΔΔQTcF of 1.0 millisecond (95% confidence interval [CI], −1.2 to 3.1 milliseconds) 8 hours postdose and 1.0 millisecond (95%CI, −1.1 to 3.1 milliseconds) 1 hour postdose after inhalation of revefenacin 175 and 700 µg, respectively. Revefenacin did not have a clinically meaningful effect on heart rate (within ±5 beats per minute of placebo), or PR and QRS intervals (within ±3 and ±1 milliseconds of placebo, respectively). Using concentration‐QTc modeling, an effect of revefenacin > 10 milliseconds can be excluded within the observed plasma concentration range of up to ≈3 ng/mL. Both doses of revefenacin were well tolerated. These results demonstrate that revefenacin does not prolong the QT interval.