Albuterol/budesonide for the treatment of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma: The TYREE study

BACKGROUND

PT027 is a fixed-dose combination of albuterol (salbutamol) and budesonide in a single pressurized metered-dose inhaler.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of albuterol/budesonide compared with placebo in patients with asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB).

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, 2-period, single-dose crossover study, adolescents and adults with asthma and EIB (defined by ≥20% decrease from pre-exercise challenge forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁]) were randomized to albuterol/budesonide (180/160 µg) followed by placebo (n = 29) or the reverse sequence (n = 31). Subjects were stratified by background therapy (as-needed short-acting β₂-agonist alone or low-to-medium dose inhaled corticosteroid plus as-needed short-acting β₂-agonist). FEV₁ was measured 5 minutes pre-dose, 30 minutes postdose (5 minutes pre-exercise challenge [baseline]), and 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 minutes postexercise. The primary end point was maximum percentage fall from baseline in FEV₁ up to 60 minutes postexercise challenge.

RESULTS

Least squares mean maximum percentage fall in FEV₁ up to 60 minutes postexercise challenge was 5.45% with albuterol/budesonide vs 18.97% with placebo (difference, -13.51% [95% confidence interval, -16.94% to -10.09%]; P < .001). More subjects were fully protected (maximum percentage fall in FEV₁ post-exercise challenge < 10%) with albuterol/budesonide than with placebo (78.3% vs 28.3%; P < .001). The treatment effect was consistent irrespective of background inhaled corticosteroid therapy, and albuterol/budesonide was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

In adolescents and adults with asthma and EIB, a single dose of albuterol/budesonide 180/160 µg taken approximately 30 minutes before exercise was significantly more effective than placebo in preventing EIB.

Dose-Ranging and Cumulative Dose Studies of Albuterol Sulfate MDI in Co-Suspension Delivery™ Technology (AS MDI; PT007) in Patients with Asthma: the ASPEN and ANTORA Trials

Background and Objectives

Co-suspension Delivery™ Technology has been developed for the administration of albuterol sulfate pressurised inhalation suspension via metered-dose inhaler (AS MDI, PT007). We assessed the efficacy and safety of AS MDI versus Proventil^® in order to determine the optimal dose of AS MDI to take to Phase III clinical trials.

Methods

ASPEN (NCT03371459) and ANTORA (NCT03364608) were Phase II, randomised, crossover, multicentre studies of AS MDI versus Proventil^® in patients with persistent asthma. In ASPEN, 46 patients received cumulative-dose treatments (90 μg/inhalation using 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 inhalations at 30-minute intervals) in 1 of 2 possible sequences: AS MDI/Proventil or Proventil/AS MDI. In ANTORA, 86 patients were randomised to one of 10 treatment sequences of AS MDI (90 μg or 180 μg), placebo MDI, or Proventil (90 μg or 180 μg). The primary endpoints were baseline-adjusted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) 30 minutes after each cumulative dose (ASPEN) and change from baseline in FEV₁ area under the curve from 0 to 6 h (ANTORA). Safety was assessed in both studies.

Results

In ASPEN, AS MDI was equivalent to Proventil (within pre-specified bounds of ± 200 mL) following cumulative doses of albuterol up to 1440 μg for the primary endpoint. In ANTORA, 90 μg and 180 μg doses of AS MDI and Proventil were significantly superior to placebo MDI (p < 0.0001), and AS MDI was non-inferior to Proventil at both doses, based on a margin of 100 mL. No new safety concerns were identified.

Conclusion

The effects of albuterol delivered via AS MDI and Proventil on bronchodilation were equivalent, supporting the selection of AS MDI 180 µg to be taken into Phase III clinical trials, either alone or in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid.

Trial Registration number

ASPEN (NCT03371459); Date of registration: 29/12/2017. ANTORA (NCT03364608); Date of registration: 15/12/2017.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40261-021-01040-7.

Mometasone or Tiotropium in Mild Asthma with a Low Sputum Eosinophil Level

BACKGROUND

In many patients with mild, persistent asthma, the percentage of eosinophils in sputum is less than 2% (low eosinophil level). The appropriate treatment for these patients is unknown.

METHODS

In this 42-week, double-blind, crossover trial, we assigned 295 patients who were at least 12 years of age and who had mild, persistent asthma to receive mometasone (an inhaled glucocorticoid), tiotropium (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist), or placebo. The patients were categorized according to the sputum eosinophil level (<2% or ≥2%). The primary outcome was the response to mometasone as compared with placebo and to tiotropium as compared with placebo among patients with a low sputum eosinophil level who had a prespecified differential response to one of the trial agents. The response was determined according to a hierarchical composite outcome that incorporated treatment failure, asthma control days, and the forced expiratory volume in 1 second; a two-sided P value of less than 0.025 denoted statistical significance. A secondary outcome was a comparison of results in patients with a high sputum eosinophil level and those with a low level.

RESULTS

A total of 73% of the patients had a low eosinophil level; of these patients, 59% had a differential response to a trial agent. However, there was no significant difference in the response to mometasone or tiotropium, as compared with placebo. Among the patients with a low eosinophil level who had a differential treatment response, 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48 to 66) had a better response to mometasone, and 43% (95% CI, 34 to 52) had a better response to placebo (P = 0.14). In contrast 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) had a better response to tiotropium, whereas 40% (95% CI, 32 to 49) had a better response to placebo (P = 0.029). Among patients with a high eosinophil level, the response to mometasone was significantly better than the response to placebo (74% vs. 26%) but the response to tiotropium was not (57% vs. 43%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients with mild, persistent asthma had a low sputum eosinophil level and had no significant difference in their response to either mometasone or tiotropium as compared with placebo. These data provide equipoise for a clinically directive trial to compare an inhaled glucocorticoid with other treatments in patients with a low eosinophil level. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; SIENA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02066298.).

Long-term safety of tiotropium/olodaterol Respimat® in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and renal impairment in the TONADO® studies

Introduction

The safety, lung function efficacy, and symptomatic benefits of combined tiotropium and olodaterol in patients with COPD were established in the 1-year TONADO^® studies (NCT01431274; NCT01431287). As tiotropium is predominantly excreted by the kidneys, the long-term safety profile of tiotropium/olodaterol was investigated in patients with renal impairment in a prespecified safety analysis of the TONADO studies.

Methods

These were 2 replicate, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 52-week Phase III studies that assessed tiotropium/olodaterol compared with tiotropium or olodaterol alone (all via Respimat^®) in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. In this analysis, renal impairment was defined as mild (creatinine clearance [CLcr] 60–89 mL/min), moderate (CLcr 30–59 mL/min) or severe (CLcr 15–29 mL/min). Adverse events (AEs) were pooled from both studies.

Results

Of 3,041 patients included in this analysis, 1,333 (43.8%) had mild, 404 (13.3%) had moderate, and 5 (0.2%) had severe renal impairment; these were distributed equally between treatment groups. Almost one-quarter of all treated patients (23.4%) had a history of cardiac disorder, 45.6% had hypertension, and 13.3% had glucose metabolism disorders, including diabetes. AEs with olodaterol, tiotropium, and tiotropium/olodaterol occurred in 75.1%, 70.8%, and 72.0% of patients with no renal impairment, 75.7%, 74.0%, and 73.3% with mild renal impairment, and 84.3%, 79.5%, and 79.7% with moderate renal impairment, respectively. There was no notable effect of renal impairment on the proportion of patients with an AE, and no differences were observed between tiotropium/olodaterol versus the monocomponents. There was no difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events, renal and urinary tract AEs, or potential anticholinergic effects with increasing severity of renal impairment.

Conclusion

Over half the patients enrolled in the TONADO studies had renal impairment, and there was a high level of pre-existing cardiovascular comorbidity. The safety and tolerability of tiotropium/olodaterol is comparable to the monocomponents, irrespective of the level of renal impairment.

Benralizumab for patients with mild to moderate, persistent asthma (BISE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Benralizumab is a humanised, anti-interleukin 5 receptor α monoclonal antibody that directly and rapidly depletes eosinophils, reduces asthma exacerbations, and improves lung function for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. The objective of this trial was to assess the safety and efficacy of benralizumab for patients with mild to moderate, persistent asthma.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18-75 years, weighing at least 40 kg, and with a postbronchodilator reversibility in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) of at least 12% at screening, from 52 clinical research centres in six countries. Patients must have been receiving either low- to medium-dosage inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or low-dosage ICS plus long-acting β₂ agonist fixed-combination therapy at screening, had a morning prebronchodilator FEV₁ of more than 50% to 90% predicted at screening, and had one or more of the following symptoms within the 7 days before randomisation: a daytime or night-time asthma symptom score of at least 1 for at least 2 days, rescue short-acting β₂ agonist use for at least 2 days, or night-time awakenings due to asthma for at least one night. We converted patients' ICS treatments to 180 μg or 200 μg budesonide dry powder inhaler twice daily for the entire duration of the study using the approved dosages in the patients' respective countries and randomly allocated them (1:1; stratified by blood eosinophil count [<300 cells per μL vs ≥300 cells per μL] and region [USA vs the rest of the world]) with an interactive web-based voice response system to receive subcutaneous placebo or benralizumab 30 mg injections every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. All patients and investigators involved in patient treatment or clinical assessment and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was change from baseline prebronchodilator FEV₁ at week 12. Efficacy analyses used an intention to treat approach. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02322775.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 2, 2015, and April 24, 2015, we enrolled 351 patients, with 211 (60%) randomly assigned (105 [50%] to placebo and 106 [50%] to benralizumab). Benralizumab resulted in an 80 mL (95% CI 0-150; p=0·04) greater improvement (least-squares mean difference) in prebronchodilator FEV₁ after 12 weeks than did placebo (placebo group: 2246 mL [SD 768] at baseline vs 2261 mL [796] at week 12, change from baseline of 0 mL; benralizumab group: 2248 mL [606] vs 2310 mL [670], 70 mL). 44 (42%) patients in the benralizumab group had adverse events compared with 49 (47%) in the placebo group. The most common adverse events for both groups were nasopharyngitis (eight [8%] patients in each group) and upper respiratory tract infections (five [5%] patients in each group). Serious adverse events occurred in two (2%) patients each in the benralizumab (pancytopenia and a suicide attempt, both considered unrelated to treatment) and placebo (cervix carcinoma and colon adenoma) groups.

INTERPRETATION

This study suggests that active and modifiable disease processes might be ongoing in patients with mild to moderate, persistent asthma receiving ICS. Although the lung function improvement observed does not warrant use of benralizumab in this population because it did not reach the minimum clinically important difference of 10%, further studies to assess this finding should be considered.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

A randomized study of BI 671800, a CRTH2 antagonist, as add-on therapy in poorly controlled asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is characterized by a complex interaction of inflammatory mediators. The prostaglandin D2 receptor, chemoattractant receptor-homologous molecule on Th2 cells (CRTH2), plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of allergic airway inflammation.

OBJECTIVE

To ealuate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of BI 671800, a CRTH2 antagonist, when added to inhaled corticosteroid therapy in adult patients with symptomatic asthma.

METHODS

In this phase IIa, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, three-period, four-treatment, incomplete block crossover trial, BI 671800 was administered either as a single 400-mg dose in the morning (A.M.) or evening (P.M.), or 200 mg twice daily (A.M. and P.M.) versus placebo, together with fluticasone propionate (44 μg, two inhalations twice daily). The primary end point was the change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second percentage predicted after 4 weeks. The secondary end point was the change in Asthma Control Questionnaire score from baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 108 patients were randomized and treated. After 4 weeks, the adjusted mean (± SE) treatment differences for the primary end point versus placebo were 0.08 ± 0.62%, 0.28 ± 0.61%, and 0.67 ± 0.63% for BI 671800 at 200 mg twice daily, 400 mg A.M., and 400 mg P.M., respectively (not statistically significant). No statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences in the Asthma Control Questionnaire score were observed versus placebo. Each treatment was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

BI 671800 at a dose of 400 mg administered for 4 weeks with fluticasone propionate did not provide clinical improvement in patients with asthma; reasons for this are unclear, but it may be due to insufficient inhibition of the CRTH2 receptor at the doses used.

Albuterol multidose dry powder inhaler efficacy and safety versus placebo in children with asthma

BACKGROUND

A novel, inhalation-driven, multidose dry powder inhaler (MDPI) that does not require coordination of actuation with inhalation has been developed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of albuterol MDPI versus placebo MDPI after chronic dosing in children with asthma.

METHODS

This phase III, double-blind, parallel-group study included children with asthma (ages, 4-11 years) with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of 50-95% of predicted. After a 14-day run-in period wherein the patients continued their current asthma therapy and received single-blind placebo MDPI, they were randomized to albuterol MDPI 90 μg per inhalation, two inhalations four times daily (total daily dose, 720 μg), or placebo for 3 weeks. Pulmonary function was assessed on days 1 and 22. Efficacy and safety were evaluated by measuring the baseline-adjusted percent-predicted FEV1 (PPFEV1) area under the time curve over 6 hours (AUC0-6) after the dose and adverse events, respectively.

RESULTS

The full analysis set included 184 patients. Patients treated with albuterol MDPI versus patients treated with placebo MDPI had significantly greater baseline-adjusted PPFEV1 AUC0-6 over 3 weeks (least squares mean difference, 25.0%•hour, which favored albuterol; p < 0.001). The benefit of albuterol (mean change in PPFEV1) was evident 5 minutes after dosing and lasted several hours; the maximal effect was noted 1 to 2 hours after dosing. Albuterol MDPI was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma, albuterol MDPI improved pulmonary function significantly better than placebo MDPI over 3 weeks of treatment. Clinical efficacy was evident within 5 minutes of dosing and maintained for >2 hours. Four times daily administration was well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of twice-daily glycopyrrolate in patients with stable, symptomatic COPD with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation: the GEM1 study

Background

The purpose of this study was to confirm the efficacy and safety of twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, in patients with stable, symptomatic, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation.

Methods

The GEM1 study was a 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study that randomized patients with stable, symptomatic COPD with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation to twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg or placebo (1:1) via the Neohaler^® device. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of glycopyrrolate versus placebo in terms of forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve between 0 and 12 hours post morning dose at week 12. Other outcomes included additional spirometric end points, transition dyspnea index, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, rescue medication use, and symptoms reported by patients via electronic diary. Safety was also assessed during the study.

Results

Of the 441 patients randomized (glycopyrrolate, n=222; placebo, n=219), 96% of patients completed the planned treatment phase. Glycopyrrolate demonstrated statistically significant (P<0.001) improvements in lung function versus placebo. Glycopyrrolate showed statistically significant improvement in the transition dyspnea index focal score, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score, COPD Assessment Test score, rescue medication use, and daily total symptom score versus placebo at week 12. Safety was comparable between the treatment groups.

Conclusion

Significant improvement in lung function, dyspnea, COPD symptoms, health status, and rescue medication use suggests that glycopyrrolate is a safe and effective treatment option as maintenance bronchodilator in patients with stable, symptomatic COPD with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation.

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study to investigate different dosing regimens of olodaterol delivered via Respimat® in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

A Phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial comparing the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) time profile after 3 weeks' treatment with once-daily (QD) or twice-daily (BID) olodaterol (at the same total daily dose) versus placebo delivered via Respimat® in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

METHODS

Patients were randomised to different sequences of olodaterol with 2-week washout, either as a total daily dose of 5 μg (5 μg QD [AM] or 2.5 μg BID) or placebo, or 10 μg (10 μg QD [AM] or 5 μg BID) or placebo. Primary end point was FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) response (defined as change from study baseline FEV1) after 3 weeks. Key secondary end points were FEV1 AUC0-12 and AUC12-24 responses.

RESULTS

Two hundred and six patients received treatment. All olodaterol treatments demonstrated statistically significant improvements in FEV1 AUC0-24 response at 3 weeks versus placebo (p < 0.0001); adjusted mean treatment difference versus placebo was 0.191 L for olodaterol 2.5 μg BID (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.152, 0.229), 0.150 L for 5 μg QD (95 % CI 0.111, 0.189), 0.228 L for 5 μg BID (95 % CI 0.190, 0.266) and 0.209 L for 10 μg QD (95 % CI 0.170, 0.247). These results were supported by the key secondary end points. Olodaterol 5 μg QD provided numerically lower mean values for 24-h bronchodilation than olodaterol 2.5 μg BID (p = 0.0465), with no statistically significant difference between treatment with olodaterol 10 μg QD and 5 μg BID. No relevant differences in morning and evening peak expiratory flow or Asthma Control Questionnaire scores at 3 weeks were observed between different doses and regimens. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate and comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

All doses and dose frequencies provided adequate 24-h bronchodilation superior to placebo. Based on the results of this study, it would be reasonable to include both posologies of 5 μg olodaterol daily (5 μg QD or 2.5 μg BID, both delivered in two puffs per dose from the Respimat® inhaler) in subsequent studies. Further studies are necessary to confirm the optimum dosing regimen in asthma. No safety concerns were identified.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01311661.

The 24-h FEV1 time profile of olodaterol once daily via Respimat® and formoterol twice daily via Aerolizer® in patients with GOLD 2-4 COPD: results from two 6-week crossover studies

ABSTRACT

These studies evaluated the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) profile of once-daily (QD) olodaterol compared to placebo and twice-daily (BID) formoterol in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In two replicate, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, four-way crossover studies, patients received olodaterol 5 and 10 μg QD, formoterol 12 μg BID, or placebo for 6 weeks in addition to usual-care background maintenance therapy. Co-primary end points were FEV1 area under the curve from 0-12 h (AUC0-12) response (change from baseline) and FEV1 AUC from 12-24 h (AUC12-24) response after 6 weeks, with FEV1 AUC from 0-24 h response identified as a key secondary end point. Other secondary end points included FEV1 AUC from 0-3 h and trough FEV1 responses, as well as corresponding forced vital capacity responses. With both olodaterol doses, FEV1 increased to near-maximal 30 min post-morning dose, which was sustained over 24 h. FEV1 also increased within 30 min post-morning dose of formoterol and was sustained over 12 h; the second formoterol dose resulted in a further increase, sustained for an additional 12 h. FEV1 AUC0-12 and AUC12-24 responses with both QD olodaterol doses and BID formoterol were significantly greater than placebo at 6 weeks (P < .0001). Secondary end-point outcomes were consistent with those of the co-primary end points. These data, together with those from the wider phase III clinical program, provide evidence for the 24-h bronchodilator efficacy of olodaterol QD in this patient population.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT00931385 and NCT00932646.

Effect of vitamin D3 on asthma treatment failures in adults with symptomatic asthma and lower vitamin D levels: the VIDA randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE

In asthma and other diseases, vitamin D insufficiency is associated with adverse outcomes. It is not known if supplementing inhaled corticosteroids with oral vitamin D3 improves outcomes in patients with asthma and vitamin D insufficiency.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if vitamin D supplementation would improve the clinical efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with symptomatic asthma and lower vitamin D levels.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The VIDA (Vitamin D Add-on Therapy Enhances Corticosteroid Responsiveness in Asthma) randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled trial studying adult patients with symptomatic asthma and a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of less than 30 ng/mL was conducted across 9 academic US medical centers in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's AsthmaNet network, with enrollment starting in April 2011 and follow-up complete by January 2014. After a run-in period that included treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid, 408 patients were randomized.

INTERVENTIONS

Oral vitamin D3 (100,000 IU once, then 4000 IU/d for 28 weeks; n = 201) or placebo (n = 207) was added to inhaled ciclesonide (320 µg/d). If asthma control was achieved after 12 weeks, ciclesonide was tapered to 160 µg/d for 8 weeks, then to 80 µg/d for 8 weeks if asthma control was maintained.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to first asthma treatment failure (a composite outcome of decline in lung function and increases in use of β-agonists, systemic corticosteroids, and health care).

RESULTS

Treatment with vitamin D3 did not alter the rate of first treatment failure during 28 weeks (28% [95% CI, 21%-34%] with vitamin D3 vs 29% [95% CI, 23%-35%] with placebo; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.6-1.3]). Of 14 prespecified secondary outcomes, 9 were analyzed, including asthma exacerbation; of those 9, the only statistically significant outcome was a small difference in the overall dose of ciclesonide required to maintain asthma control (111.3 µg/d [95% CI, 102.2-120.4 µg/d] in the vitamin D3 group vs 126.2 µg/d [95% CI, 117.2-135.3 µg/d] in the placebo group; difference of 14.9 µg/d [95% CI, 2.1-27.7 µg/d]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Vitamin D3 did not reduce the rate of first treatment failure or exacerbation in adults with persistent asthma and vitamin D insufficiency. These findings do not support a strategy of therapeutic vitamin D3 supplementation in patients with symptomatic asthma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01248065.

Ocular safety of fluticasone furoate nasal spray in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis: a 2-year study

BACKGROUND

This is the first study, to our knowledge, to evaluate the ocular effects of an intranasal corticosteroid during 2 years of treatment for perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).

OBJECTIVE

To assess ocular safety in adult and adolescent patients 12 years and older with PAR after 2 years of continuous treatment with fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS), 110 μg once daily, and placebo.

METHODS

This was a 2-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of once-daily FFNS, 110 ìg, and placebo in 548 patients 12 years and older with PAR. The primary ocular safety end points were time to first occurrence of an event for the Lens Opacities Classification System, Version III (LOCS III), posterior subcapsular opacity (PSO) and time to first occurrence of an event for intraocular pressure (IOP).

RESULTS

On the basis of survival analyses, the difference between the treatment groups for time to first occurrence of a LOCS III PSO and time to first occurrence of an IOP event was not statistically significant (P = .39 and P = .34, respectively). Changes from baseline in visual acuity, LOCS III PSO, cortical opacity, LOCS III nuclear opacity and nuclear color, IOP, and horizontal cup-to-disc similar between treatment groups. There were no ophthalmic-related adverse events of LOCS III PSO or IOP that led to early withdrawal. The most common drug-related adverse event was epistaxis (FFNS, 28%; placebo, 14%).

CONCLUSION

These data neither support nor negate current recommendations for regular ophthalmic monitoring in patients treated with intranasal corticosteroids.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00682643.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, safety and immunogenicity study of 4 formulations of Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed plus CPG 7909 (AV7909) in healthy adult volunteers

A new anthrax vaccine that could accelerate the immune response and possibly reduce the number of injections needed for protection would be desirable in a post-exposure setting. This Phase 1 study compared the safety and immunogenicity of 2 IM doses (Days 0 and 14) of 4 formulations of AV7909 (AVA plus CPG 7909) with 2 IM doses of BioThrax(®) (Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed) and 2 IM doses of saline placebo administered on Days 0 and 14. A total of 105 healthy adults 18-50 years of age were randomized to 1 of 6 study groups: BioThrax (0.5 mL), AV7909 Formulation 1 (0.5 mL AVA+0.5mg CPG 7909), AV7909 Formulation 2 (0.5 mL AVA+0.25mg CPG 7909), AV7909 Formulation 3 (0.25 mL AVA+0.5mg CPG 7909), AV7909 Formulation 4 (0.25 mL AVA+0.25mg CPG 7909), or saline placebo (0.5 mL). All randomized subjects received at least 1 vaccination, and 100 subjects completed the trial. After 2 doses, mean peak normalized toxin neutralizing antibody responses (TNA NF50) in the AV7909 groups were higher than in the BioThrax group. Differences among the 4 AV7909 groups were not statistically significant. Subjects who received AV7909 reached peak titers on Day 28 vs. Day 35 in the BioThrax group. The most common adverse events (AEs) in the BioThrax and AV7909 groups assessed as related to vaccination were injection site reactions. Transient lymphopenia was observed after the first dose in each AV7909 group. Frequencies of injection site and systemic reactions recorded by subjects in diaries for 7 days after each injection were highest with AV7909 Formulation 1. No AEs of special interest (autoimmune events) were observed in the study. Further studies of doses and dosing regimens are planned to assess the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of AV7909.

A 26-week tolerability study of ciclesonide nasal aerosol in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

A new, hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol solution formulation of ciclesonide (CIC-HFA) delivered via a metered dose inhaler is currently in clinical development for treatment of allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE

To study tolerability and quality of life following administration of CIC-HFA 74- or 148-μg doses once-daily compared with placebo in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) over 26 weeks.

METHODS

Patients ≥12 years of age with a ≥2 year history of PAR were randomized in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, multicenter study to CIC-HFA 74 μg, 148 μg, or placebo QD AM for 26 weeks. Safety was assessed by monitoring treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Quality of life was assessed by using a rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire with standardized activities (RQLQ[S]) in patients with baseline RQLQ ≥3.00. Reflective total nasal symptom scores (rTNSS) and instantaneous total nasal symptom scores (iTNSS) over 26 weeks were also evaluated.

RESULTS

In this study, 1111 patients were randomized. The overall incidence of TEAEs was comparable between the treatment groups. Treatment with CIC-HFA 74- or 148-μg doses showed improvements in RQLQ[S] [least squares (LS) mean change 0.40 and 0.37, respectively from baseline, p < 0.01 versus placebo for both], rTNSS (LS mean change 0.65 and 0.52, respectively from baseline; p ≤ 0.01 versus placebo for both), and iTNSS (LS mean change 0.51 and 0.42, respectively from baseline; p < 0.05 versus placebo for both) from baseline.

CONCLUSION

In this study, once-daily treatment with CIC-HFA 74- or 148-μg doses over 26 weeks was well tolerated with comparable incidence of TEAEs between the treatment groups.

MP29-02 (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate) in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of efficacy and safety

Many patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) have uncontrolled symptoms despite available treatment options. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MP29-02 (a novel intranasal formulation of fluticasone propionate [FP] and azelastine [AZ] hydrochloride), compared with monotherapy with FP, AZ, and placebo sprays for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). This 2-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 779 patients with moderate-to-severe SAR. Treatments were administered 1 spray/nostril twice daily in the same vehicle and delivery device. Daily doses of AZ and FP were 548 and 200 micrograms, respectively. The primary efficacy variable was the 12-hour reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), consisting of nasal congestion, sneezing, itchy nose, and runny nose. Secondary efficacy variables were (1) 12-hour reflective individual nasal symptom scores; (2) onset of action; (3) 12-hour reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS), including itchy eyes, watery eyes, and red eyes; and (4) the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) overall score. MP29-02 significantly reduced the mean rTNSS from baseline by -5.54 points compared with FP (-4.55; p = 0.038), AZ (-4.54; p = 0.032), and placebo (-3.03; p < 0.001), improving the rTNSS by 39% beyond the contribution of FP. All individual nasal symptoms contributed to the efficacy of MP29-02. Onset of action was within 30 minutes. MP29-02 significantly improved rTOSS compared with placebo, provided a clinically important improvement in the overall RQLQ score, and was well tolerated. In this study, MP29-02 provided more complete symptom relief than two widely used first-line AR treatments and was well tolerated.

Efficacy and tolerability study of ciclesonide nasal aerosol in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis

A new nasal aerosol solution formulation of ciclesonide containing a hydrofluoroalkane propellant (CIC-HFA) delivered via a metered-dose inhaler is currently in clinical development as a potential treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR). This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of CIC-HFA 74- or 148-microgram doses compared with placebo in patients with perennial AR (PAR). Patients ≥12 years of age with a ≥ 2-year history of PAR were randomized in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study to CIC-HFA 74 micrograms, CIC-HFA 148 micrograms, or placebo q.d. in the morning (A.M.) for 26 weeks. Change from baseline in reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS), and rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life questionnaire with standardized activities (RQLQ[S]) in patients with baseline RQLQ of ≥3.00 were evaluated for the first 6 weeks of treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were monitored throughout the study. Eleven hundred eleven patients were randomized. CIC-HFA 74- and 148-microgram doses showed statistically significant improvements in rTNSS (least squares [LS] mean change, 0.70 and 0.54, respectively; p ≤ 0.001 versus placebo for both), iTNSS (LS mean change, 0.58 and 0.42, respectively; p < 0.05 versus placebo for both), and RQLQ[S] (LS mean change, 0.55 and 0.37, respectively; p < 0.01 versus placebo for both) from baseline. The overall incidence of TEAEs was comparable between the CIC-HFA treatment groups and placebo. In this study, once-daily treatment with CIC-HFA 74- or 148-micrograms showed statistically significant improvements in nasal symptoms of PAR. Both doses were well tolerated. Clinical trial registration URL and registration number: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00953147.

Patient satisfaction with a pressurized metered-dose inhaler with an integrated dose counter containing a fixed-dose mometasone furoate/formoterol combination

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled delivery devices that are easy to use and facilitate dose tracking may lead to improved patient satisfaction and adherence. Patient satisfaction with a metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with an integrated dose counter containing a fixed-dose mometasone furoate/formoterol combination (MF/F MDI dose counter) was evaluated in subjects with persistent asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

METHODS

In this multicenter study (N = 272, age range: 12-92 years), subject experience and satisfaction with MDI devices was evaluated using baseline and poststudy surveys. Subjects responded to the baseline survey based on their previous MDI experience, then received MF/F MDI 100/10 μg with the integrated dose counter for 4 weeks before completing the poststudy survey. This evaluation was part of a broader study objective to assess performance of the MF/F MDI dose counter.

RESULTS

At baseline, 52% of subjects reported being extremely satisfied with their previous MDI. After using the MF/F MDI dose counter, a relative increase of 43% in overall satisfaction was observed. Approximately 90% of subjects agreed the MF/F dose counter helped them track doses and was easy to use; >80% agreed the inhaler was of good quality and well designed. Subjects agreed the dose counter relieved anxiety about running out of medication (68%) or taking a subtherapeutic dose (65%). Nearly 80% of subjects had no reservations about the MF/F MDI dose counter, and most subjects stated they would request it from their physician (66%) and recommend it to a friend (75%).

CONCLUSIONS

The MF/F MDI dose counter was found to be easy to use and have overall high patient satisfaction.

Profiling the bronchodilator effects of the novel ultra-long-acting β2-agonist indacaterol against established treatments in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Indacaterol is a novel, inhaled, ultra-long-acting β(2)-agonist providing 24-h bronchodilation with once-daily (od) dosing for maintenance use in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This article reviews the bronchodilator properties of indacaterol compared with other treatments used in COPD. Data from five published placebo-controlled studies were reviewed. Two 14-day crossover studies, the first comparing indacaterol 300 µg od with salmeterol 50 µg twice daily (bid), the second comparing indacaterol 150 µg and 300 µg od with tiotropium 18 µg od, assessed forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) at 24 h postdose (trough). Third, a 14-day crossover study evaluated trough FEV(1) following indacaterol 300 µg dosed morning or evening compared with salmeterol 50 µg bid. Fourth, a single-dose study of indacaterol 150 and 300 µg measured FEV(1) at 5 min postdose compared with salmeterol/fluticasone 50/500 µg and salbutamol 200 µg. Finally, data from a 1-year study with indacaterol 300 µg and formoterol 12 µg bid were examined to determine whether bronchodilation was maintained long term. In the first two studies, indacaterol increased trough FEV(1) after 14 days by a statistically significant and clinically relevant margin over placebo; indacaterol had a greater effect than salmeterol and a similar effect to tiotropium. In the third study, indacaterol had the same effect on trough FEV(1) whether dosed in the morning or evening. In the fourth study, the onset of the bronchodilator effect of indacaterol was similar to that of salbutamol. In the fifth study, the bronchodilator effect of indacaterol on trough FEV(1) was maintained at a significant and clinically relevant level over 52 weeks, whereas the bronchodilator effect of formoterol diminished over time. To conclude, indacaterol is a highly effective bronchodilator that is superior to or at least as effective as other available long-acting bronchodilators for COPD.

Safety profile and clinical activity of multiple subcutaneous doses of MEDI-528, a humanized anti-interleukin-9 monoclonal antibody, in two randomized phase 2a studies in subjects with asthma

Background

Interleukin-9 (IL-9)-targeted therapies may offer a novel approach for treating asthmatics. Two randomized placebo-controlled studies were conducted to assess the safety profile and potential efficacy of multiple subcutaneous doses of MEDI-528, a humanized anti-IL-9 monoclonal antibody, in asthmatics.

Methods

Study 1: adults (18-65 years) with mild asthma received MEDI-528 (0.3, 1, 3 mg/kg) or placebo subcutaneously twice weekly for 4 weeks. Study 2: adults (18-50 years) with stable, mild to moderate asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction received 50 mg MEDI-528 or placebo subcutaneously twice weekly for 4 weeks. Adverse events (AEs), pharmacokinetics (PK), immunogenicity, asthma control (including asthma exacerbations), and exercise challenge test were evaluated in study 1, study 2, or both.

Results

In study 1 (N = 36), MEDI-528 showed linear serum PK; no anti-MEDI-528 antibodies were detected. Asthma control: 1/27 MEDI-528-treated subjects had 1 asthma exacerbation, and 2/9 placebo-treated subjects had a total of 4 asthma exacerbations (one considered a serious AE). In study 2, MEDI-528 (n = 7) elicited a trend in the reduction in mean maximum decrease in FEV₁ post-exercise compared to placebo (n = 2) (-6.49% MEDI-528 vs -12.60% placebo; -1.40% vs -20.10%; -5.04% vs -15.20% at study days 28, 56, and 150, respectively). Study 2 was halted prematurely due to a serious AE in an asymptomatic MEDI-528-treated subject who had an abnormal brain magnetic resonance imaging that was found to be an artifact on further evaluation.

Conclusions

In these studies, MEDI-528 showed an acceptable safety profile and findings suggestive of clinical activity that support continued study in subjects with mild to moderate asthma.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials (NCT): NCT00507130 and ClinicalTrials (NCT): NCT00590720

Safety of formoterol in patients with asthma: combined analysis of data from double-blind, randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Concerns exist that regular long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist (LABA) therapy may increase the risk of serious asthma-related events.

OBJECTIVE

To assess risks of formoterol-containing versus non-LABA treatment by using a large asthma database.

METHODS

This analysis included all blind, parallel-arm, randomized, active-controlled and/or placebo-controlled AstraZeneca-sponsored asthma studies with formoterol-containing and non-LABA comparator arms. Serious adverse events were assessed for inclusion in all-cause death, asthma-related death, asthma-related intubation, and asthma-related hospitalization categories by using blind adjudication. Data were combined across trials; relative risk (RR) was assessed by using Mantel-Haenszel methods.

RESULTS

Data were from 13,542 formoterol-randomized and 9968 non-LABA patients 4 years or older (42 trials), of whom 93% and 89%, respectively, received inhaled corticosteroid as part of randomized treatment or allowed medication. Incidence of all-cause death was low (n=3 and n=4, respectively), with numerically lower all-cause deaths/1000 patient-treatment years in the formoterol-treated group (0.53) versus the non-LABA group (0.82) (RR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-2.92). No asthma-related deaths and 1 asthma-related intubation (formoterol-treated group) occurred. Asthma-related hospitalizations/1000 patient-treatment years were lower numerically in the formoterol-treated group (12.1) versus the non-LABA group (16.4) (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-1.01), with fewer study discontinuations in the formoterol-treated group (12.7% vs 15.4%, respectively; RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.85). Relative to non-LABA, increasing daily formoterol dose (>/=4.5, 9, 18, 36 mug) did not increase the rate or incidence of asthma-related hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

No evidence of increased risk of asthma-related hospitalization, no asthma-related deaths, and a low incidence of all-cause death and asthma-related intubation were seen with formoterol-containing versus non-LABA treatment.

Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol once daily for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Aerosol-based corticosteroid nasal formulations may be preferred over current aqueous nasal sprays by some patients because they traditionally cause less pharyngeal and anterior nose runoff.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the optimal dose, safety, and tolerability of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR).

METHODS

Patients 12 years or older with a history of SAR received ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol to a total dose of 75, 150, or 300 microg or placebo once daily (half dose per nostril) for 2 weeks. The primary efficacy assessment was patient-reported average morning and evening reflective (24-hour) total nasal symptom scores (rTNSS). Secondary efficacy assessments included patient-reported average morning and evening instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), patient-reported morning iTNSS, physician-assessed nasal signs and symptom severity, and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire responses. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

RESULTS

Ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol demonstrated a statistically significantly greater reduction from baseline in average morning and evening rTNSS (24-hour) vs placebo, with treatment differences as follows: 0.81 (P = .001; 300 microg), 0.90 (P < .001; 150 microg), and 0.66 (P = .01; 75 microg). Improvements in average morning and evening iTNSS and patient-reported morning iTNSS were also significantly improved regardless of dose (P < or = .003 for all ciclesonide groups vs placebo). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low (< 1.6% for all) and similar among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane nasal aerosol demonstrated statistically significant improvements in SAR symptoms vs placebo. On the basis of comparable efficacy and safety profiles observed for all doses, these results suggest that the 75-microg and 150-microg doses of ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane appear appropriate for further evaluation of efficacy.

24-hour bronchodilator efficacy of single doses of indacaterol in patients with persistent asthma: comparison with placebo and formoterol

OBJECTIVE

To assess the 24-h bronchodilator efficacy and safety of single-dose indacaterol in asthma.

METHODS

This was a five-period, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover study in patients with persistent asthma. On separate study days, patients inhaled a single dose of indacaterol (150, 300 or 600 microg) in the morning via a single-dose dry powder inhaler (SDDPI), formoterol 12 microg twice daily via its proprietary SDDPI, or placebo. Study days were separated by a washout period of at least 6 days.

RESULTS

Of the 45 patients randomized to treatment, 42 completed the study. The 24-h trough FEV(1) (primary endpoint) was significantly higher than placebo following all doses of indacaterol (mean [95% CI] differences of 0.11 [0.06, 0.16], 0.21 [0.17, 0.26] and 0.22 [0.18, 0.27] L for 150, 300, and 600 microg, respectively) and formoterol (by 0.13 [0.08, 0.18] L). The 24-h trough FEV(1) was significantly higher following indacaterol 300 and 600 microg than indacaterol 150 microg (by 0.11 [0.06, 0.15] and 0.12 [0.07, 0.17] L, respectively) or formoterol (by 0.08 [0.03, 0.13] L vs. 300 microg; by 0.09 [0.04, 0.14] L vs. 600 microg). Most adverse events were mild-to-moderate and transient. Examination of serum potassium, blood glucose, QTc interval, pulse rate, and blood pressure raised no concern over the safety of indacaterol.

CONCLUSIONS

Single doses of indacaterol provided effective 24-h bronchodilation and were well tolerated in patients with persistent asthma. Safety findings were limited by non-standardized diet conditions in this study but suggest a minimal systemic treatment effect.

Efficacy and tolerability of once-daily budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler in adults and adolescents with asthma previously stable with twice-daily budesonide/ formoterol dosing

BACKGROUND

The goal of asthma therapy is to control symptoms using minimal pharmacologic intervention.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily budesonide/formoterol vs once-daily budesonide in patients stable with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol.

METHODS

This double-blind, 12-week study enrolled 619 patients 12 years and older with mild to moderate asthma. After 4 to 5 weeks of twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI), 80/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (320/18 microg/d), stable patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to 2 inhalations twice daily of budesonide/formoterol pMDI, 80/4.5 microg (320/18 microg/d), or 2 inhalations once daily (evening) of budesonide/formoterol pMDI, 160/4.5 microg or 80/4.5 microg (320/9 microg or 160/9 microg/d), or budesonide pMDI, 160 microg (320 microg/d).

RESULTS

All budesonide/formoterol groups maintained significantly more favorable evening predose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), daytime/nighttime asthma symptoms, nighttime rescue medication use, and rescue medication-free days vs budesonide. Variables evaluated during the end of the once-daily dosing interval (evening predose FEV1, evening PEF, daytime asthma symptoms, and daytime rescue medication use) significantly favored twice-daily budesonide/formoterol vs all treatments. Twice-daily budesonide/formoterol demonstrated significantly more favorable results for symptom-free and asthma control days vs all treatments and awakening-free nights vs budesonide. Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire and Asthma Control Questionnaire results significantly favored twice-daily budesonide/formoterol vs budesonide (P < or = .018). All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Pulmonary function and asthma control were more effectively maintained with all budesonide/formoterol regimens vs once-daily budesonide and with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol at twice the daily formoterol dose vs both once-daily budesonide/formoterol doses.

Comparison of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray versus fluticasone propionate 50 microg in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

The efficacy of nasal antihistamines (NAHs) for allergic rhinitis (AR) is comparable with or better than second-generation oral antihistamines, with faster onset of action and greater effect on congestion. Limited data suggest that NAHs may be equivalent to intranasal corticosteroids at reducing the full range of nasal seasonal AR (SAR) symptoms, including congestion. The efficacy of olopatadine 0.6% nasal spray (2 sprays/nostril b.i.d.) for symptoms of SAR was compared with fluticasone 50 microg nasal spray (2 sprays/nostril q.d.) in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, 2-week noninferiority trial. A total of 130 symptomatic patients were randomized to treatment and they recorded nasal and ocular allergy symptom scores b.i.d. (morning and evening) in a diary. Both treatments reduced reflective and instantaneous assessments of nasal and ocular symptoms from baseline throughout the 2-week study period (p < 0.05). The reflective total nasal symptom score (the primary efficacy variable) decreased by an average of -45.4% for patients treated with olopatadine 0.6% and by -47.4% for those treated with fluticasone; statistical significance favoring olopatadine was demonstrated at day 1. No significant between-treatment differences were determined for the average 2-week percent changes from baseline for congestion, runny nose, sneezing, itchy nose, and ocular symptoms, although olopatadine had a faster onset of action for reducing all symptoms. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Olopatadine and fluticasone nasal sprays both reduced nasal and ocular SAR symptoms with no significant between-treatment differences except for a faster and greater onset of action with olopatadine.

Influence of C-159T SNP of the CD14 gene promoter on lung function in smokers

CD14, a co-receptor for endotoxin, plays a significant role in regulating the inflammatory response to this agent. The C-159T single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the CD14 gene promoter is an important regulator of CD14 expression, with TT homozygotes having increased expression of CD14. This SNP has been linked to pathogenesis of asthma and with cardiovascular diseases in smokers. We hypothesize that CD14 also plays a role in the pathophysiology of COPD in smokers who are exposed to endotoxin contained in cigarette smoke as well as endotoxin derived from Gram-negative microbes colonizing their airways. To assess the effect of the C-159T SNP of the CD14 gene promoter on lung function, we recruited 246 smokers 40 years of age or older with a range of 10-156 pack-year smoking exposures. The TT genotype was associated with lower lung function in smokers with a moderate smoking history. However, the CC genotype was associated with decreased lung function in heavy smokers (>56 pack years). The effect of CC genotype on severity of COPD is analogous with the effect of this genotype in risk for asthma. CD14 may be a factor in the pathophysiology of COPD, as it is in asthma and smoking-related cardiovascular diseases.

Comparative study of sensory attributes of two antihistamine nasal sprays: olopatadine 0.6% and azelastine 0.1%

Allergic rhinitis is a chronic, allergen-induced inflammatory reaction. Patients often differentiate intranasal treatments based on sensory attributes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensory attributes of olopatadine HCl nasal spray 0.6% (OLO) relative to azelastine HCl nasal spray 0.1% (AZE). This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, crossover comparison of OLO versus AZE in adult, symptomatic patients with at least a 2-year history of allergic rhinitis. Patients received each of the treatments separately with a washout between exposures, evaluated their sensory perceptions immediately after and 45 minutes postdosing with each treatment, and evaluated their perceptions of the two medications after administering both therapies. The mean age of the 110 patients was 42.4 years; 67% were women. OLO was superior to AZE in overall aftertaste (60.6% versus 30.3%; p = 0.0005), patient preference (62.4% versus 33.9%; p = 0.0001), and likelihood of extended use (60.9% versus 34.5%; p = 0.0004). OLO was superior to AZE in perceptions of immediate taste (1.9 U versus 3.2 U, respectively; p < 0.0001). Perceptions of additional attributes after administration of both treatments were significant and favored OLO (p < or = 0.0036 for all variables). In these assessments, respectively, 54.1 and 32.1% of patients favored the taste and smell of OLO compared with 27.5 and 11.9% who favored AZE. Both treatments were well tolerated. The sensory attributes of OLO are superior to AZE in terms of immediate taste postdosing, overall aftertaste, overall patient preference, and likelihood of use. This outcome could lead to greater patient compliance and improved treatment effect.

Bronchodilator efficacy of indacaterol, a novel once-daily beta2-agonist, in patients with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

Indacaterol is a novel once-daily inhaled beta2-agonist in development for the treatment of patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the bronchodilator efficacy of indacaterol in patients with persistent asthma.

METHODS

Patients received a randomized sequence of single doses of indacaterol, 400 microg, via single-dose dry powder inhaler (SDDPI); indacaterol, 200 microg, via multidose dry powder inhaler (MDDPI); and placebo. At each visit, the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was recorded at a series of time points during a 24-hour period.

RESULTS

Of 33 patients screened, 25 were randomized to treatment. Adjusted mean FEV1 was significantly higher (P < or = .005) for both indacaterol doses vs placebo at most time points. The first time points at which statistically significant treatment differences were observed for indacaterol and placebo in FEV1 were 0.17 L at 5 minutes after dosing for 400 microg of indacaterol (SDDPI) and 0.21 L at 10 minutes for 200 microg of indacaterol (MDDPI) (both P < .001 vs placebo). Differences relative to placebo at the final time point, 24 hours after dosing, were 0.29 L and 0.15 L for indacaterol, 400 microg and 200 microg, respectively (both P < or = .003 vs placebo). Overall, FEV1 was significantly higher for the 400-microg dose compared with the 200-microg dose from 15 minutes to 2 hours after dosing (P < or = .013) and from 5 hours onward (P < or = .022). Indacaterol was associated with good tolerability and safety.

CONCLUSIONS

Indacaterol demonstrates sustained bronchodilator efficacy throughout the full 24-hour period, with a rapid onset of action and a good overall safety profile.

Indacaterol provides sustained 24 h bronchodilation on once-daily dosing in asthma: a 7-day dose-ranging study

BACKGROUND

Indacaterol is a novel, once-daily beta(2)-agonist in development for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Studies were required to determine optimal dose(s) for continuing investigation.

OBJECTIVE

A dose-ranging study was undertaken to evaluate efficacy and safety of indacaterol.

METHODS

A total of 436 patients with persistent asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids were randomized to 7 days treatment with once-daily indacaterol 50, 100, 200, or 400 microg via multi-dose dry-powder inhaler (MDDPI; Certihaler), indacaterol 400 microg via single-dose dry-powder inhaler (SDDPI), or placebo. Serial 24-h spirometry was performed on days 1 and 7. Vital signs, laboratory evaluations, and adverse events were monitored.

RESULTS

All doses of indacaterol increased the mean time-standardized area under the curve of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) from 22 to 24 h postdose (P <or= 0.001 vs placebo) on days 1 and 7, with clinically relevant treatment-placebo differences of 240, 260, 350, 300, and 380 ml on day 1 and 230, 220, 320, 250, and 270 ml on day 7 for indacaterol 50, 100, 200, and 400 microg via MDDPI and 400 microg via SDDPI, respectively. All doses increased mean FEV(1) (P < 0.05 vs placebo) from 5 min to 24 h postdose on days 1 and 7. All doses were well tolerated. Most adverse events were mild-to-moderate in severity: most frequently reported were respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily dosing with indacaterol provided sustained 24-h bronchodilation in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, with a satisfactory overall safety profile. Indacaterol 200 microg appears the optimum dose, offering the best efficacy/safety balance.

Efficacy and safety of inhaled zanamivir in the prevention of influenza in community-dwelling, high-risk adult and adolescent subjects: a 28-day, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Influenza can cause significant morbidity and mortality in subjects at high risk for complications, including the elderly (age >or=65 years) and those with chronic respiratory, cardiovascular, or metabolic conditions. Effective prophylaxis can significantly reduce the disease burden in this population. Previous studies conducted primarily in non-high-risk subjects have reported the efficacy of inhaled zanamivir in preventing influenza.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of zanamivir in preventing influenza in community-dwelling adult and adolescent subjects at high risk for complications of influenza.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in community-dwelling subjects aged >or=12 years who were at high risk for developing complications of influenza, were able to use the Diskhaler device (Glaxo Group Limited, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina), and were able to take the first dose of study medication within 5 days of laboratory-confirmed local influenza activity. Eligible subjects were randomized to receive inhaled zanamivir 10 mg or placebo once daily for 28 days. The primary end point was the proportion of randomized subjects who developed symptomatic influenza during prophylaxis, as confirmed by culture and/or serology. All adverse events (AEs) occurring after the first dose of study medication were recorded.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 3363 subjects, of whom 58% were female and 93% were white; the mean age of participants was 60.4 years (range, 12-94 years), and 4% were adolescents. Significantly fewer zanamivir-treated subjects developed symptomatic, laboratory- confirmed influenza during prophylaxis compared with placebo recipients (4/1678 vs 23/1685, respectively), representing a relative risk (RR) of 0.17 (95% CI, 0.07-0.44; P < 0.001) and a protective efficacy of 83%. The incidence of complications was reduced in zanamivir-treated subjects compared with placebo recipients (1/1678 and 8/1685), representing an RR of 0.12 (95% CI, 0.02-0.73; P = 0.042) and a protective efficacy of 88%. The numbers of zanamivir recipients (151/1678 [9%]) and placebo recipients (169/1685 [ 10 % ] ) who developed symptomatic influenza-like illness regardless of laboratory confirmation did not differ significantly (RR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70-1.06), indicating that zanamivir was not effective in preventing influenza-like illness that was not caused by influenza infection. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the numbers of zanamivir and placebo recipients who developed laboratory-confirmed infection regardless of symptoms (39/1678 [2%] and 52/1685 [3%], respectively; RR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.50-1.15). Of these, 64 subjects (35 and 29) were asymptomatic; seroconversion occurred in all but 1 subject, indicating that zanamivir prophylaxis did not prevent asymptomatic seroconversion. During prophylaxis, 51% of subjects in both treatment groups reported at least 1 AE. There were no major differences in the frequency or nature of AEs between groups. The most commonly reported AEs (>or=3% of subjects in each treatment group) were consistent with upper respiratory viral infection (headache: 17% zanamivir, 18% placebo; cough: 14% and 15%, respectively; throat and tonsil discomfort/pain: 13% and 14%). There were no differences between groups in the overall incidence of viral respiratory infections (5% in both groups) or ear, nose, and throat infections (2% in both groups). None of the analyzed isolates from confirmed cases of influenza exhibited reduced susceptibility to zanamivir or genotypic evidence of resistance.

CONCLUSIONS

Zanamivir, administered once daily for 28 days, was efficacious in preventing infection with the predominant circulating strains in the 2000- 2001 influenza season in the Northern Hemisphere (influenza A/New Calendonia/20/99-1ike and influenza B/ Sichuan/379/99-like) in these high-risk community- dwelling subjects aged >or=12 years. Zanamivir was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable to that of placebo. No emergence of resistant virus was detected.

Efficacy and safety of ciclesonide, 200 microg once daily, for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Ciclesonide is an intranasal corticosteroid approved for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and quality-of-life benefits of intranasal ciclesonide, 200 microg once daily, for the treatment of perennial AR (PAR).

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults and adolescents with at least a 2-year history of PAR received intranasal ciclesonide, 200 microg, or placebo once daily for 6 weeks. Patient-evaluated total nasal symptom scores (TNSSs), physician-assessed overall nasal signs and symptoms severity scores, and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores were evaluated.

RESULTS

Patient baseline characteristics were similar in the ciclesonide (n = 238) and placebo (n = 233) groups and were consistent with moderate PAR severity. Ciclesonide therapy significantly reduced average morning and evening reflective TNSSs compared with placebo (P < .001) and significantly reduced average morning and evening instantaneous TNSSs (P = .001) over 6 weeks of treatment. At the end point, a greater decrease from baseline was observed in physician-assessed overall nasal signs and symptoms severity for the ciclesonide group compared with the placebo group (P = .051). An appreciable improvement in combined Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores at the end point was also observed in the ciclesonide group (P = .01 vs placebo). The frequency of adverse events was similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, intranasal ciclesonide treatment was associated with significant reductions in nasal symptoms and appreciable improvements in health-related quality of life in adult and adolescent patients with PAR. Ciclesonide was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable with that of placebo.

Comparison of cetirizine-pseudoephedrine and placebo in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis and concomitant mild-to-moderate asthma: randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma are common concurrent conditions.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of cetirizine hydrochloride (5 mg)-pseudoephedrine hydrochloride (120 mg) (cetirizine-D) twice daily on AR and asthma symptoms, pulmonary function, and asthma-related quality of life in 274 patients with confirmed seasonal AR and concomitant mild-to-moderate asthma.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, after a 1-week screening period, patients took cetirizine-D or placebo for 4 weeks. The primary efficacy variable, AR total symptom severity complex score, was derived from patient daily diary ratings of sneezing, runny nose, itchy nose, postnasal drip, and nasal congestion. Asthma symptom severity total scores were derived from twice-daily diary ratings of wheezing, coughing, shortness of breath, and chest tightness. Pulmonary function was tested at clinic visits and by patients each morning and evening. Patients completed the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire at each visit. All tests were 2-sided, with statistical significance at the .05 level.

RESULTS

Cetirizine-D reduced total symptom severity complex scores by 42.3% overall vs 23.6% with placebo (P < .001). Asthma symptom severity total scores were significantly improved with cetirizine-D at most times vs placebo. Cetirizine-D treatment was also associated with significantly improved Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire overall scores. Pulmonary function test results were neutral. Cetirizine-D was well tolerated, with discontinuation and adverse event rates similar to placebo. Somnolence occurred in 8 patients (5.8%) taking cetirizine-D and in 1 (0.7%) taking placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with cetirizine-D twice daily significantly reduced rhinitis and asthma symptoms and improved overall asthma quality of life in patients with seasonal AR and concomitant mild-to-moderate asthma.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of montelukast for treating perennial allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) is a persistent allergic inflammation of the upper respiratory tract due to year-round allergen exposure.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast for the treatment of PAR.

METHODS

Protocol 265 was a 2-arm study performed during the winter. After a placebo run-in period, adults with perennial allergen sensitivity and active symptoms of PAR were randomized to receive 10 mg of montelukast (n=1002) or placebo (n=990) once daily during a 6-week, double-blind, active-treatment period. The primary end point was the daytime nasal symptoms score, defined as the average of scores for nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, and sneezing rated daily by patients.

RESULTS

Statistically significant improvements in PAR symptoms were seen in patients treated with montelukast. Their daytime nasal symptoms scores were reduced during treatment compared with those of the placebo group: the difference between treatments in least squares mean change from baseline was -0.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.12 to -0.04; P < .001). Montelukast treatment also improved global evaluations of allergic rhinitis by patients and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores: differences vs the placebo group were -0.15 (95% CI, -0.27 to -0.04; P < .01) and -0.15 (95% CI, -0.24 to -0.06; P < .001), respectively. Other end points that showed statistically significant improvement with montelukast treatment were nighttime symptoms and each of the 4 nasal symptoms (congestion, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and itching). The treatment effects of montelukast were stable and persistent during the entire 6 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Montelukast provided statistically significant relief of PAR symptoms during 6 weeks of treatment.

The safety of twice-daily treatment with fluticasone propionate and salmeterol in pediatric patients with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND

For children older than 5 years with asthma who remain symptomatic despite inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy, the preferred treatment is to add an inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist vs increasing the ICS dose.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety of twice-daily treatment with inhaled fluticasone propionate plus the inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist salmeterol with that of fluticasone propionate used alone in children aged 4 to 11 years with persistent asthma.

METHODS

A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study in 203 children with persistent asthma who were symptomatic during ICS therapy. Patients received fluticasone propionate-salmeterol (100/50 microg) or fluticasone propionate (100 microg) alone twice daily for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

The safety profile of fluticasone propionate-salmeterol was similar to that of fluticasone propionate alone. The overall incidence of adverse events was 59% for fluticasone propionate-salmeterol and 57% for fluticasone propionate. Both treatments were well tolerated. Two patients receiving fluticasone propionate-salmeterol and 5 receiving fluticasone propionate withdrew from the study because of worsening asthma. Changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and laboratory variables were infrequent and were similar between treatments. No patients had clinically significant abnormal electrocardiographic findings during treatment. Geometric mean 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment was comparable within and between groups; no patient in either group had abnormally low 24-hour urinary cortisol excretion after 12 weeks of treatment. The incidence of withdrawals due to asthma exacerbations was 2% in the fluticasone propionate-salmeterol group and 5% in the fluticasone propionate group.

CONCLUSIONS

In pediatric patients with persistent asthma, fluticasone propionate-salmeterol twice daily was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of fluticasone propionate used alone.

Efficacy and safety of formoterol delivered via a new multidose dry powder inhaler (Certihaler) in adolescents and adults with persistent asthma

Our objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of formoterol (Foradil) delivered via a novel multidose dry powder inhaler (Certihaler) with placebo and albuterol [pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI)], in patients with persistent asthma. After a 2-week run-in phase, 265 patients (13-81 years) previously treated with regular/PRN bronchodilators for persistent asthma were randomized to 12 weeks' double-blind treatment with formoterol 10 microg BID via Certihaler (n = 86), albuterol 180 microg QID via pMDI (n = 88) or placebo (n = 91). The primary efficacy variable was 12-hour AUC of FEV1 after 12 weeks' treatment. Secondary efficacy variables included peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue bronchodilator medication use, asthma-related quality of life (Juniper Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire), and asthma symptom scores. Formoterol via the Certihaler had an onset of action within 5 minutes and was associated with a clinically relevant and statistically significant increase in 12-hour AUC of FEV1 after 12 weeks' treatment compared with placebo and albuterol (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05, respectively). Average PEF was significantly superior for formoterol compared with placebo and albuterol (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05, respectively). Compared with placebo, rescue albuterol use during the study was significantly lower for formoterol (p < 0.01) and was accompanied by a trend toward an improvement in asthma-related quality of life (QoL). Asthma symptom scores improved to a similar extent for all treatment groups. Treatment with formoterol via Certihaler was well tolerated. Formoterol 10 microg BID, delivered via the novel Certihaler device, is well tolerated and provides rapid, long-lasting, and clinically superior bronchodilation to placebo and albuterol via pMDI in patients with persistent asthma.