Triose Phosphate Isomerase Structure-Based Virtual Screening and In Vitro Biological Activity of Natural Products as Leishmania mexicana Inhibitors

Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a public health problem affecting more than 98 countries worldwide. No vaccine is available to prevent the disease, and available medical treatments cause serious side effects. Additionally, treatment failure and parasite resistance have made the development of new drugs against CL necessary. In this work, a virtual screening of natural products from the BIOFACQUIM and Selleckchem databases was performed using the method of molecular docking at the triosephosphate isomerase (TIM) enzyme interface of Leishmania mexicana (L. mexicana). Finally, the in vitro leishmanicidal activity of selected compounds against two strains of L. mexicana, their cytotoxicity, and selectivity index were determined. The top ten compounds were obtained based on the docking results. Four were selected for further in silico analysis. The ADME-Tox analysis of the selected compounds predicted favorable physicochemical and toxicological properties. Among these four compounds, S-8 (IC50 = 55 µM) demonstrated a two-fold higher activity against the promastigote of both L. mexicana strains than the reference drug glucantime (IC50 = 133 µM). This finding encourages the screening of natural products as new anti-leishmania agents.

Safety and Effectiveness of Indacaterol in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients in South Korea

BACKGROUND

Inhaled indacaterol (Onbrez Breezhaler), a long-acting β₂-agonist, is approved in over 100 countries, including South Korea, as a once-daily bronchodilator for maintenance and treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here, we present an interim analysis of a post-marketing surveillance study conducted to evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of indacaterol in the Korean population.

METHODS

This was an open-label, observational, prospective study in which COPD patients, who were newly prescribed with indacaterol (150 or 300 µg), were evaluated for 12 or 24 weeks. Safety was assessed based on the incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Effectiveness was evaluated based on physician's assessment by considering changes in symptoms and lung function, if the values of forced expiratory volume in 1 second were available.

RESULTS

Safety data were analyzed in 1,016 patients of the 1,043 enrolled COPD patients receiving indacaterol, and 784 patients were included for the effectiveness analysis. AEs were reported in 228 (22.44%) patients, while 98 (9.65%) patients reported SAEs. The COPD condition improved in 348 patients (44.4%), while the condition was maintained in 396 patients (50.5%), and only 40 patients (5.1%) exhibited worsening of ailment as compared with baseline. During the treatment period, 90 patients were hospitalized while nine patients died. All deaths were assessed to be not related to the study drug by the investigator.

CONCLUSION

In real-life clinical practice in South Korea, indacaterol was well tolerated in COPD patients, and can be regarded as an effective option for their maintenance treatment.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily QVA149 compared with the free combination of once-daily tiotropium plus twice-daily formoterol in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD (QUANTIFY): a randomised, non-inferiority study

Background

QVA149 is a once-daily (o.d.) inhaled dual bronchodilator containing a fixed-dose combination of the long-acting β₂-agonist indacaterol and the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium for the treatment of COPD. The QUANTIFY study compared QVA149 with a free-dose bronchodilator combination of tiotropium plus formoterol (TIO+FOR) in improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with COPD.

Methods

This multicentre, blinded, triple-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study randomised patients aged ≥40 years with moderate-to-severe COPD (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) ≥30% to <80% predicted) to QVA149 110/50 µg o.d. or TIO 18 µg o.d.+ FOR 12 µg twice daily (1:1) for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate non-inferiority in HRQoL assessed using St George's Respiratory Questionnaire-COPD (SGRQ-C). The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 4 units. Secondary endpoints included Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) score, pre-dose FEV₁, forced vital capacity (FVC) and safety.

Results

Of the 934 patients randomised (QVA149=476 and TIO+FOR=458), 87.9% completed the study. At week 26, non-inferiority was met for SGRQ-C (QVA149 vs TIO+FOR; difference: –0.69 units; 95% CI −2.31 to 0.92; p=0.399). A significantly higher percentage of patients achieved a clinically relevant ≥1 point improvement in TDI total score with QVA149 (49.6%) versus TIO+FOR (42.4%; p=0.033). QVA149 significantly increased pre-dose FEV₁ (+68 mL, 95% CI 37 mL to 100 mL; p<0.001) and FVC (+74 mL, 95% CI 24 mL to 125 mL; p=0.004) compared with TIO+FOR at week 26. The incidence of adverse events was comparable between both treatments (QVA149=43.7% and TIO+FOR=42.6%).

Conclusions

QVA149 is non-inferior to TIO+FOR in improving HRQoL, with clinically meaningful and significant improvements in breathlessness and lung function in patients with COPD.

Trial registration number

NCT01120717.

INSTEAD: a randomised switch trial of indacaterol versus salmeterol/fluticasone in moderate COPD

The Indacaterol: Switching Non-exacerbating Patients with Moderate COPD From Salmeterol/Fluticasone to Indacaterol (INSTEAD) study investigated the effect of switching patients at low risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations from salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC; inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) regimen) to indacaterol monotherapy (non-ICS regimen).

This 26-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, phase IV study, randomised 581 patients with moderate COPD to indacaterol 150 μg once daily or SFC 50/500 μg twice daily. Patients had been receiving SFC 50/500 μg for ≥3 months, with no COPD exacerbations for more than a year before the study (patients for whom ICS is not recommended). The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of indacaterol to SFC, measured by trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) after 12 weeks (non-inferiority margin of 0.06 L).

The primary objective was met, with a mean treatment difference of 9 mL (95% CI -45–26 mL). There were no significant differences between treatments in terms of breathlessness (transition dyspnoea index) or health status (Saint George’s Respiratory Questionnaire) at weeks 12 or 26, or rescue medication use or COPD exacerbation rates over 26 weeks. Safety profiles of both treatments were as expected.

This study demonstrated that patients with moderate COPD and no exacerbations in the previous year can be switched from SFC to indacaterol 150 μg with no efficacy loss.

Once-daily long-acting beta-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an indirect comparison of olodaterol and indacaterol

Purpose

In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials comparing the once-daily, long-acting beta2-agonists olodaterol and indacaterol for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an indirect treatment comparison by systematic review and synthesis of the available clinical evidence was conducted.

Methods

A systematic literature review of randomized, controlled clinical trials in patients with COPD was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olodaterol and indacaterol. Network meta-analysis and adjusted indirect comparison methods were employed to evaluate treatment efficacy, using outcomes based on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), Transition Dyspnea Index, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score and response, rescue medication use, and proportion of patients with exacerbations.

Results

Eighteen trials were identified for meta-analysis (eight, olodaterol; ten, indacaterol). Olodaterol trials included patients of all severities, whilst indacaterol trials excluded patients with very severe COPD. Concomitant maintenance bronchodilator use was allowed in most olodaterol trials, but not in indacaterol trials. When similarly designed trials/data were analyzed for change from baseline in trough FEV₁ (liters), the following mean differences (95% confidence interval) were observed: trials excluding concomitant bronchodilator: indacaterol 75 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, −0.005 (−0.077 to 0.067), and indacaterol 150 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, 0.020 (−0.036 to 0.077); trials with concomitant tiotropium: indacaterol 150 mcg versus olodaterol 5 mcg, 0.000 (−0.043 to 0.042). In sensitivity analyses of the full network, results for change from baseline in trough FEV₁ favored indacaterol, but this dataset suffered from trial design heterogeneity. For the other endpoints investigated, no statistically significant differences were found when analyzed in the full network.

Conclusion

When compared under similar trial conditions, olodaterol and indacaterol have similar efficacy in patients with COPD. This research highlights the importance of considering the concomitant COPD medication when evaluating treatment effects in COPD.

Use of indacaterol for the treatment of COPD: a pharmacokinetic evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Indacaterol is a β2-agonist with a rapid onset of action and a bronchodilating effect that lasts for 24 h.

AREAS COVERED

This review considers indacaterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, in whom it is rapidly absorbed into the systemic circulation with serum levels measurable after 5 min and Cmax being reached approximately 15 min post-dose. Its disposition kinetics are characterized by at least two phases, a relatively fast decline of the concentrations within the first 12 h, followed by a terminal elimination phase. The increase in systemic exposure is dose-proportional, but systemic concentrations are low at the recommended doses. Indacaterol is relatively highly bound to plasma proteins regardless of concentration. Metabolic clearance and/or biliary clearance account for the majority of its systemic excretion. Weight, age, gender and ethnicity significantly influence its pharmacokinetic profile, but it is not necessary to adjust the dose based on these covariates. Substrates, inhibitors or inducers of UGT1A1 and CYP3A may also affect the pharmacokinetic profile of indacaterol.

EXPERT OPINION

Blood concentrations of indacaterol are unable to predict its bronchodilator effects. Furthermore, at the recommended doses, systemic concentrations of indacaterol are low and this is the likely reason for its safe profile.

Indacaterol improves daily physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

The current mainstay of therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is long-acting bronchodilators. To date, the effect of indacaterol, a β2-agonist, on activities of daily living in COPD patients is not well understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of indacaterol with regard to activities of daily living in patients with COPD.

Methods

In this nonrandomized open-label study, 23 patients with COPD were instructed to carry an accelerometer for 4 weeks without indacaterol therapy and then for another period of 4 weeks while receiving indacaterol therapy.

Results

The number of steps, duration of moderate or greater physical activity, and energy expenditure were significantly increased after treatment with indacaterol compared with baseline data in all patients with COPD; the metabolic equivalent of task was also significantly enhanced after treatment with indacaterol.

Conclusion

This study provides early evidence that indacaterol improves daily physical activity in patients with COPD.