Efficacy of Aclidinium Bromide According to Baseline Therapy: Post-Hoc Analysis of ASCENT-COPD Randomized Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs), inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), and their combinations, are recommended for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to determine whether the safety and efficacy of aclidinium bromide differs by baseline maintenance LABA and ICS therapies. METHODS: ASCENT-COPD was a phase 4, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and increased cardiovascular risk. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive aclidinium 400 µg or placebo twice daily, via a multidose dry-powder inhaler for up to 3 years. Outcomes included time to first major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), and COPD assessment test (CAT) total score over 3 years, and annual moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation rate in patients receiving aclidinium or placebo with maintenance LABA monotherapy, ICS monotherapy, LABA + ICS (fixed/free), or no maintenance therapy (neither LABA nor ICS) at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 3589 patients were included (LABA, n = 227; ICS, n = 290; LABA + ICS, n = 2058; no maintenance, n = 1130). Aclidinium did not increase the risk of MACE or all-cause mortality versus placebo, regardless of baseline maintenance treatment. Reductions in moderate-to-severe exacerbation rates were observed with aclidinium versus placebo in all subgroups [LABA 43% (P = 0.046); ICS 25% (P = 0.202); LABA + ICS 22% (P = 0.003); no maintenance 18% (P = 0.130)]. Aclidinium improved morning trough FEV1 irrespective of baseline therapy and CAT total scores, except for LABA and ICS subgroups, versus placebo at several time points. CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and CV risk factors, the addition of aclidinium to maintenance therapy with LABA or LABA + ICS provided further benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01966107.

An Evaluation Of Single And Dual Long-Acting Bronchodilator Therapy As Effective Interventions In Maintenance Therapy-Naïve Patients With COPD.

Background: Ideally, treatment recommendations for maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD should be based on studies conducted specifically in this population. We have reviewed evidence from previous studies of pharmacological treatments in maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD and performed a new post-hoc analysis of dual bronchodilator treatment in this population, aiming to assess the effectiveness of these interventions. Materials and methods: A literature review identified clinical trials that included analyses of patients with COPD who were maintenance therapy-naïve with long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). Additionally, a post-hoc subgroup analysis was conducted for maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD in two large phase III, randomized, double-blind, 24-week trials investigating the efficacy of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) fixed-dose combination versus monotherapy or placebo (ACLIFORM [NCT01462942] and AUGMENT [NCT01437397]). Results: Treatment-naïve patients with COPD often represent a population of patients at the earliest stage at which most patients seek treatment. Of nine relevant studies identified, all reported positive findings for efficacy of LABA, LAMA, or LABA/LAMA treatment in maintenance therapy-naïve populations. Improvements were observed in lung function, symptoms, and health status versus monotherapy or placebo. Post-hoc analysis of ACLIFORM and AUGMENT demonstrated that AB/FF was effective in improving lung function in patients who had received no prior maintenance therapy. AB/FF showed improvements in 1 hr post-dose FEV1, trough FEV1, and patient-reported outcomes versus placebo and monotherapies. Combined with reviews of previous studies in maintenance therapy-naïve patients, these findings suggest that earlier intervention with a dual bronchodilator maintenance therapy, such as AB/FF, may provide significantly greater benefits than LAMA or LABA mono-bronchodilator therapy as a first maintenance treatment for COPD. Conclusion: These data show that therapeutic intervention is effective in treatment-naïve patients. Intervention with dual bronchodilator therapy as a first maintenance treatment for COPD may provide greater benefits than LAMA or LABA monotherapy.

Efficacy of aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg, analyzed by airflow obstruction severity, age, sex, and exacerbation history: pooled analysis of ACLIFORM and AUGMENT.

BACKGROUND: Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg is a twice-daily maintenance bronchodilator for COPD. This post hoc study evaluated aclidinium/formoterol vs aclidinium 400 µg, formoterol 12 µg, or placebo in patient subgroups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from two 24-week Phase III clinical trials (ACLIFORM and AUGMENT). Patients (N=3,394) were analyzed by baseline airflow obstruction severity (moderate/severe), age (<65/≥65 years), sex, and exacerbation history (0/≥1 exacerbation in the previous 12 months). Changes from baseline vs placebo and mono-therapies were evaluated: morning pre-dose (trough) and morning 1-hour post-dose FEV1, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), and moderate/severe exacerbation rates (healthcare resource utilization [HCRU] and EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool [EXACT] criteria). RESULTS: Aclidinium/formoterol improved the post-dose FEV1 vs placebo and monotherapy in all subgroups (all P<0.01) and trough FEV1 vs placebo (P<0.001) and formoterol (P<0.05) across all subgroups. Improvements in trough FEV1 were observed vs aclidinium in patients with severe airflow obstruction, patients aged <65 years, males, and patients with exacerbation history (P<0.05). Improvements in TDI were observed vs placebo in all subgroups (all P<0.001), monotherapies for patients with moderate (formoterol P<0.05) or severe airflow obstruction (aclidinium P<0.05), patients aged <65 years (aclidinium P<0.01, formoterol P<0.05), males (formoterol P<0.05), and patients with no exacerbation history (formoterol P<0.05). HCRU exacerbation rates were lower for aclidinium/formoterol vs placebo in patients with no exacerbation history (P<0.01). EXACT exacerbation rates were lower for aclidinium/formoterol in patients with moderate airflow obstruction vs placebo and aclidinium, patients aged <65 years vs placebo and ≥65 years vs formoterol, males vs placebo, and patients with no exacerbation history vs placebo (all P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Aclidinium/formoterol significantly improved post-dose FEV1, trough FEV1, and TDI vs placebo across all subgroups and vs monotherapy in many subgroups. These findings further support the benefits of aclidinium/formoterol for all patients with COPD.

Reduction in clinically important deterioration in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with aclidinium/formoterol.

BACKGROUND: 'Clinically important deterioration' (CID) is a composite endpoint measuring worsening of the key clinical features of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), namely lung function, patient-reported outcomes, and exacerbations. ACLIFORM and AUGMENT were two 24-week, randomized, double-blind, phase III studies assessing twice-daily (BID) aclidinium bromide (AB) 400 µg/formoterol fumarate (FF) 12 µg. This pooled post-hoc analysis assessed the effects of AB/FF 400/12 µg on both first and sustained CID events versus placebo and monotherapies in patients with moderate to severe COPD. METHODS: A first CID event was defined as the occurrence of a moderate/severe exacerbation or the worsening from baseline in ≥1 of the following: trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; ≥100 mL), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score (≥1 unit), or St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (≥4 units). A 'sustained' CID was defined as a worsening maintained at all subsequent visits from appearance to week 24 or a moderate/severe exacerbation at any time. CID events were assessed at three visits (weeks 4, 12, and 24); trough FEV1 was also measured at weeks 1 and 18. RESULTS: AB/FF 400/12 µg reduced the risk of a first CID event by 45% versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, p < 0.001), 18% versus FF 12 µg (HR 0.82, p < 0.01), and 15% versus AB 400 µg (HR 0.85, p < 0.05). Similarly, AB/FF 400/12 µg reduced the risk of a sustained CID event by 48% versus placebo (HR 0.52, p < 0.001) and 22% versus FF 12 µg (HR 0.78, p < 0.01). AB/FF 400/12 µg reduced the risk of a first or sustained CID event for all four components versus placebo (trough FEV1 and TDI, first and sustained CID, all p < 0.001; SGRQ first CID p < 0.001; SGRQ sustained CID, p < 0.01; exacerbations first and sustained CID, both p < 0.05) and TDI and SGRQ versus FF 12 µg (TDI, first and sustained CID both p < 0.05; SGRQ first CID p < 0.01), and SGRQ versus AB 400 µg (first CID, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: AB/FF 400/12 µg BID may provide greater airway stability and fewer exacerbations or deteriorations in lung function, health status, or dyspnea compared with placebo or monotherapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01462942 (ACLIFORM); registered 26 October 2011. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01437397 (AUGMENT); registered 19 September 2011.

Improvement in 24-hour bronchodilation and symptom control with aclidinium bromide versus tiotropium and placebo in symptomatic patients with COPD: post hoc analysis of a Phase IIIb study.

BACKGROUND: A previous Phase IIIb study (NCT01462929) in patients with moderate to severe COPD demonstrated that 6 weeks of treatment with aclidinium led to improvements in 24-hour bronchodilation comparable to those with tiotropium, and improvement of symptoms versus placebo. This post hoc analysis was performed to assess the effect of treatment in the symptomatic patient group participating in the study. METHODS: Symptomatic patients (defined as those with Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms [E-RS™] in COPD baseline score ≥10 units) received aclidinium bromide 400 µg twice daily (BID), tiotropium 18 µg once daily (QD), or placebo, for 6 weeks. Lung function, COPD respiratory symptoms, and incidence of adverse events (AEs) were assessed. RESULTS: In all, 277 symptomatic patients were included in this post hoc analysis. Aclidinium and tiotropium treatment improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline to week 6 at all time points over 24 hours versus placebo. In addition, improvements in FEV1 from baseline during the nighttime period were observed for aclidinium versus tiotropium on day 1 (aclidinium 157 mL, tiotropium 67 mL; P<0.001) and week 6 (aclidinium 153 mL, tiotropium 90 mL; P<0.05). Aclidinium improved trough FEV1 from baseline versus placebo and tiotropium at day 1 (aclidinium 136 mL, tiotropium 68 mL; P<0.05) and week 6 (aclidinium 137 mL, tiotropium 71 mL; P<0.05). Aclidinium also improved early-morning and nighttime symptom severity, limitation of early-morning activities, and E-RS Total and domain scores versus tiotropium (except E-RS Chest Symptoms) and placebo over 6 weeks. Tolerability showed similar incidence of AEs in each arm. CONCLUSION: In this post hoc analysis of symptomatic patients with moderate to severe COPD, aclidinium 400 µg BID provided additional improvements compared with tiotropium 18 µg QD in: 1) bronchodilation, particularly during the nighttime, 2) daily COPD symptoms (E-RS), 3) early-morning and nighttime symptoms, and 4) early-morning limitation of activity.

The efficacy of aclidinium/formoterol on lung function and symptoms in patients with COPD categorized by symptom status: a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience respiratory symptoms, which impair quality of life. This pooled analysis of two Phase III studies assessed the impact of aclidinium/formoterol on patients with COPD categorized by symptom status. METHODS: Data were pooled from two 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of twice-daily aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg in moderate-to-severe COPD (ACLIFORM [NCT01462942] and AUGMENT [NCT01437397]). These post hoc analyses evaluated the efficacy of aclidinium/formoterol versus placebo or monotherapies in patients defined as less/more symptomatic by a) Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms (E-RS™) score ≥10/<10 and b) Baseline Dyspnea Index score <7/≥7. Endpoints included trough and 1-hour morning postdose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), Transition Dyspnea Index, E-RS total score, early-morning and nighttime symptom severity, early-morning limitation of activities, and exacerbation rate. RESULTS: Data for 3,394 patients were analyzed (mean age: 63.5 years; 60.5% male). In both definitions of less and more symptomatic patients, aclidinium/formoterol improved 1-hour morning postdose FEV1 from baseline at week 24 versus placebo (P<0.001) and both monotherapies (P<0.05). Aclidinium/formoterol improved trough FEV1 from baseline in both groups versus placebo (P<0.05) and formoterol (P<0.05); improvements were greater in more symptomatic patients. Improvements versus aclidinium were also observed in more symptomatic patients (P<0.05). Aclidinium/formoterol improved dyspnea, early-morning symptom severity, and limitation of activities versus placebo in both less and more symptomatic patients (P<0.001). In more symptomatic patients, aclidinium/formoterol also improved E-RS total score and severity of nighttime symptoms from baseline versus placebo and one or both monotherapies (P<0.05). The rate of moderate/severe exacerbations was reduced with aclidinium/formoterol versus placebo in more symptomatic patients. CONCLUSION: Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg provided consistent improvements in bronchodilation and symptoms versus monotherapies and reduced exacerbations versus placebo in more symptomatic patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, regardless of the definition used. Furthermore, patients with a low symptom burden achieved benefits with aclidinium/formoterol versus monotherapies in postdose FEV1, dyspnea, and early-morning symptoms.

The effect of aclidinium bromide on daily respiratory symptoms of COPD, measured using the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS: COPD) diary: pooled analysis of two 6-month Phase III studies.

BACKGROUND: Reducing the severity of respiratory symptoms is a key goal in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated the effect of aclidinium bromide 400 µg twice daily (BID) on respiratory symptoms, assessed using the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS(™): COPD) scale (formerly EXACT-RS). METHODS: Data were pooled from the aclidinium 400 µg BID and placebo arms of two 24-week, double-blind, randomized Phase III studies evaluating aclidinium monotherapy (ATTAIN) or combination therapy (AUGMENT COPD I) in patients with moderate to severe airflow obstruction. Patients were stratified by Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Groups A-D. Change from baseline in E-RS scores, proportion of responders (patients achieving pre-defined improvements in E-RS scores), and net benefit (patients who improved minus patients who worsened) were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 1210 patients, 1167 had data available for GOLD classification. Mean (standard deviation) age was 63.2 (8.6) years, 60.7 % were male, and mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s was 54.4 % predicted. Compared with placebo, aclidinium 400 µg BID significantly improved RS-Total (2.38 units vs 0.79 units, p < 0.001) and domain scores (all p < 0.001) at Week 24, and doubled the likelihood of being an RS-Total score responder (p < 0.05), irrespective of GOLD group. The net benefit for RS-Total (Overall: 56.9 % vs 19.4 %; A + C: 65.7 % vs 6.3 %; B + D: 56.0 % vs 20.8 %, for aclidinium 400 µg BID and placebo respectively; all p < 0.05) and domain scores (all p < 0.05) was significantly greater with aclidinium compared with placebo, in both GOLD Groups A + C and B + D. CONCLUSIONS: Aclidinium 400 µg BID significantly improved respiratory symptoms regardless of the patients' level of symptoms at baseline. Net treatment benefit was similar in patients with low or high levels of symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ATTAIN (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01001494 ) and AUGMENT COPD I (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01437397 ).

Effect of Aclidinium Bromide on Exacerbations in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe COPD: A Pooled Analysis of Five Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Studies.

We investigated the effect of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist aclidinium bromide on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations by pooling data from five randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group Phase III studies of 3-6 months' duration. Data were pooled from the aclidinium 400 µg twice-daily (BID) and placebo arms (N  =  2,521) and stratified by Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group (A, B, C and D). Results showed that fewer patients experienced ≥1 exacerbation with aclidinium (any severity: 12.5%; moderate to severe: 10.9%) compared with placebo (any severity: 15.7%; moderate to severe: 13.3%) and the odds of experiencing ≥1 exacerbation of any severity were reduced in patients receiving aclidinium (odds ratio  =   0.78, p  =  0.039). Furthermore, aclidinium reduced the rate of exacerbations compared with placebo (any severity: rate ratio  =  0.79, p  =  0.026; moderate to severe: 0.80, p  =  0.044). The time to first exacerbation of any severity was delayed with aclidinium compared with placebo (hazard ratio  =  0.79, p  =  0.026) and there was a numerical delay in time to first moderate-to-severe exacerbation. Finally, the effects of aclidinium on exacerbations versus placebo were greater in patients in GOLD Groups B and D; however, it is of note that only 10.7% of patients were classified in Group A or C. In summary, the results indicate that aclidinium 400 µg BID reduces the frequency of COPD exacerbations compared with placebo and that these effects are greater in symptomatic patients.

Effect of aclidinium bromide on cough and sputum symptoms in moderate-to-severe COPD in three phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: Cough and sputum are troublesome symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and are associated with adverse outcomes. The efficacy of aclidinium bromide 400 µg twice daily in patients with stable COPD has been established in two phase III studies (ACCORD COPD I and ATTAIN) and a phase IIIb active-comparator study. This analysis evaluated cough-related symptoms across these studies. METHOD: Patients were randomised to placebo, aclidinium 200 µg or 400 µg twice daily in ACCORD (12 weeks) and ATTAIN (24 weeks), or to placebo, aclidinium 400 µg twice daily or tiotropium 18 µg once daily (6-week active-comparator study). Analysed end points included changes from baseline in Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms (E-RS; formerly known as EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool), total and cough/sputum scores and frequency/severity of morning and night-time cough and sputum symptoms. RESULTS: Data for 1792 patients were evaluated. E-RS cough/sputum domain scores were significantly reduced with aclidinium 400 µg versus placebo in ATTAIN (-0.7 vs -0.3, respectively; p<0.01) and the active-comparator study (-0.6 vs -0.2, respectively; p<0.01). In the active-comparator study, significantly greater improvements were observed with aclidinium versus placebo for severity of morning cough (-0.19 vs -0.02; p<0.01) and phlegm (-0.19 vs -0.02; p<0.05). In ACCORD, aclidinium reduced night-time cough frequency (-0.36 vs 0.1 for placebo; p<0.001) and severity (-0.24 vs -0.1 for placebo; p<0.05), and frequency of night-time sputum production (-0.37 vs 0.05 for placebo; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Aclidinium 400 µg twice daily improves cough and sputum expectoration versus placebo in stable COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT00891462; NCT01001494; NCT01462929.

Characterisation and impact of reported and unreported exacerbations: results from ATTAIN.

The frequency and impact of exacerbations identified using healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) or the EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool (EXACT) were compared prospectively in a 24-week, phase III trial (ATTAIN). Patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease received twice-daily aclidinium 200 µg, aclidinium 400 µg or placebo. All HCRU events were reported to physicians. "EXACT-identified" events were categorised as "EXACT-reported" (detected by EXACT and reported to the physician) and "EXACT-unreported" (detected but not reported). Health status was measured using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Annualised EXACT-identified event rates were higher in all study arms (placebo 1.39, aclidinium 200 µg 1.00 and aclidinium 400 µg 0.98 per patient per year) versus HCRU (placebo 0.60, aclidinium 200 µg 0.43 and aclidinium 400 µg 0.40 per patient per year). Concordance between methods was low (kappa 0.16). Aclidinium reduced EXACT-identified events (rate ratio versus placebo: aclidinium 200 µg 0.72 and aclidinium 400 µg 0.71; both p<0.05); HCRU events were similarly reduced. At week 24, SGRQ scores improved (-6.6 versus baseline) in patients with no event during weeks 1-12; improvements were significantly smaller in patients with HCRU events (-3.4; p=0.036) or EXACT-unreported events (-3.0; p=0.002). Unreported events were more frequent than reported events. Both had similar negative impact on health status. Aclidinium reduced the frequency of both types of event.

Efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide compared with placebo and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a 6-week, randomized, controlled Phase IIIb study.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, Phase IIIb study evaluated the 24-hour bronchodilatory efficacy of aclidinium bromide versus placebo and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Patients received aclidinium 400 µg twice daily (morning and evening), tiotropium 18 µg once daily (morning), or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve for the 24-hour period post-morning dose (FEV1 AUC0-24) at week 6. Secondary and additional endpoints included FEV1 AUC12-24, COPD symptoms (EXAcerbations of chronic pulmonary disease Tool-Respiratory Symptoms [E-RS] total score and additional symptoms questionnaire), and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 414 patients were randomized and treated (FEV1 1.63 L [55.8% predicted]). Compared with placebo, FEV1 AUC0-24 and FEV1 AUC12-24 were significantly increased from baseline with aclidinium (∆ = 150 mL and 160 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001) and tiotropium (∆ = 140 mL and 123 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001) at week 6. Significant improvements in E-RS total scores over 6 weeks were numerically greater with aclidinium (p < 0.0001) than tiotropium (p < 0.05) versus placebo. Only aclidinium significantly reduced the severity of early-morning cough, wheeze, shortness of breath, and phlegm, and of nighttime symptoms versus placebo (p < 0.05). Adverse-event (AE) incidence (28%) was similar between treatments. Few anticholinergic AEs (<1.5%) or serious AEs (<3%) occurred in any group. CONCLUSIONS: Aclidinium provided significant 24-hour bronchodilation versus placebo from day 1 with comparable efficacy to tiotropium after 6 weeks. Improvements in COPD symptoms were consistently numerically greater with aclidinium versus tiotropium. Aclidinium was generally well tolerated.

Aclidinium bromide, a long-acting antimuscarinic, does not affect QT interval in healthy subjects.

In this phase I trial, the effect of aclidinium, a novel, inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist, on QT interval was evaluated, and its cardiovascular safety was assessed in 272 healthy subjects. Aclidinium 200 µg, aclidinium 800 µg, matching placebo, or open-label moxifloxacin 400 mg was administered daily for 3 days. The primary outcome was mean change in individual heart rate-corrected QT interval (QTcI). Secondary measures included Bazett-corrected QT interval (QTcB), Fridericia-corrected (QTcF) intervals, 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) readings, and 24-hour 12-lead Holter ECG parameters. Adverse events, vital signs, and laboratory and pharmacokinetic parameters were also assessed. Maximum mean QTcI change from time-matched baseline on day 3 was -1.0 milliseconds at 2 hours for aclidinium 200 µg, -1.8 milliseconds at 5 minutes for 800 µg, +11.0 milliseconds at 4 hours for moxifloxacin, and -1.2 milliseconds at 23.5 hours for placebo. Aclidinium had no significant effects on secondary ECG measures. Aclidinium plasma concentrations were generally below the lower limit of quantitation (0.05 ng/mL) after 200 µg and were detected only up to 1 hour after the 800-µg dose in the majority of cases. It is concluded that aclidinium bromide, at doses up to 800 µg, has a favorable cardiovascular safety profile with no effect on QT interval.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of ebastine 20 mg compared to loratadine 10 mg and placebo in the symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Few randomized studies have compared the efficacy of ebastine and loratadine in the symptomatic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed on data from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials comparing the efficacy of ebastine 20 mg once daily versus loratadine 10 mg once daily in the symptomatic treatment of SAR symptoms. Primary efficacy variable was the mean change in the overall mean daily reflective total symptom score (TSS), i.e. the sum of five rhinitis symptom scores: nasal discharge, nasal congestion, nasal itching, sneezing and total eye symptoms (itchy/watery eyes) over the first 2 weeks of treatment compared to baseline. RESULTS: There were 2,089 patients in the population analyzed: 749, 739 and 601 patients in the ebastine 20 mg, loratadine 10 mg and placebo groups, respectively. Compared to baseline, overall mean daily reflective TSS over the first 2 weeks of treatment was -3.61 (35.4% reduction from baseline) in the ebastine group, -3.05 (29.0% reduction) in the loratadine group and -2.30 (22.7% reduction) in the placebo group. Statistically significant differences in the mean change from baseline were found when comparing ebastine and loratadine (p<0.001), ebastine and placebo (p<0.0001), and loratadine and placebo (p<0.0001). The global effect (i.e. the difference in overall mean daily reflective TSS over the first 2 weeks of treatment) of ebastine compared with loratadine over the first 2 weeks of treatment was -0.56 (95% confidence interval, CI, -0.86 to -0.26), and it was sustained during the whole (4-week) period studied. The global effects of ebastine and loratadine compared with placebo were -1.30 (95% CI, -1.61 to -0.99) and -0.74 (95% CI, -1.05 to -0.43), respectively. Secondary variables (reflective and snapshot individual symptom scores) showed the same trend. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis confirms that ebastine 20 mg has a good efficacy profile, inducing a greater decrease from baseline in mean rhinitis symptom scores than loratadine 10 mg or placebo.