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

Introduction: Many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may derive inadequate benefit from dry powder inhalers (DPIs) because of suboptimal peak inspiratory flow (sPIF). Objectives: To assess the clinical burden of COPD by characterizing the clinical characteristics of participants with sPIF against medium-low resistance DPIs versus those with optimal PIF (oPIF) from two phase 3 clinical trials. Methods: Baseline data were collected from two randomized, controlled, phase 3 trials (NCT03095456; NCT02518139) in participants with moderate-to-severe COPD. oPIF (60 L/min) against the medium-low resistance DPIs was used as the threshold for defining the PIF subgroups (<60 L/min (sPIF) vs ≥60 L/min (oPIF)). Results: Most participants included in this analysis were White (92%) and male (63%); the mean (range) age was 65 (43-87) years. Participants with sPIF had significantly greater dyspnea than those with oPIF as measured using the modified Medical Research Council scoring (mean (95% CI): 2.1 (2.0-2.2) vs 1.6 (1.4-1.7); P < 0.001) and baseline dyspnea index (mean (95% CI): 5.1 (4.9-5.4) vs 6.1 (5.8-6.3); P < 0.001). Based on COPD Assessment Test scores, participants with sPIF had a higher COPD symptom burden than those with oPIF (mean (95% CI): 21.5 (19.7-23.3) vs 19.5 (18.6-20.4); P = 0.05). Conclusion: In these trials, participants with COPD who had sPIF against the medium-low resistance DPIs had more dyspnea and worse health status than those with oPIF. These results demonstrate that sPIF is associated with a higher clinical burden as measured by patient-reported outcomes.

Effects of CB1R inverse agonist, INV-202, in patients with features of metabolic syndrome. A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 1b study.

AIMS: To evaluate the clinical safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of the novel cannabinoid receptor-1 (CB1R) inverse agonist, INV-202, in adults with features of metabolic syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 28-day repeat-dose (INV-202 [25 mg] or placebo, once-daily oral tablet), parallel-group study in 37 participants aged 18 to 65 years (46% female, mean age 55 years, glycated haemoglobin 5.7% [39 mmol/mol], body mass index [BMI] 38.1 kg/m2 ) with features of metabolic syndrome and glucose intolerance. An oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed at baseline and at the end of the study. Lipid profiles, weight, waist circumference and biomarkers were assessed weekly. Statistical comparisons were performed post hoc. RESULTS: INV-202 was well tolerated with no serious or severe treatment-emergent adverse events; the most common events related to known effects of CB1R blockade in the gastrointestinal tract. INV-202 produced a significant mean weight loss of 3.5 kg (3.3% compared with placebo participants who gained a mean 0.6 kg [0.5%]). INV-202 also exhibited significant reductions in waist circumference and BMI (P ≤ 0.03). There was no significant difference in OGTT 0- to 3-hour area under the curve for INV-202 versus placebo: least squares mean 29.38 versus 30.25 h*mmol/L, with an INV-202: placebo ratio of 97.1% (95% confidence interval 90.2, 105.6; P = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: INV-202 was well tolerated, producing a signal for rapid weight loss with improvements in other metabolic syndrome markers in this population. These findings support further exploration and long-term assessment of cardiometabolic effects.

Lung deposition of inhaled once-daily long-acting muscarinic antagonists via standard jet nebulizer or dry powder inhaler, measured using functional respiratory imaging, in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Data for bronchodilator deposition via nebulizers and dry powder inhalers (DPIs) in the respiratory tract of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. We used functional respiratory imaging (FRI) to determine deposition patterns for revefenacin solution via a PARI LC® Sprint® nebulizer and tiotropium powder via HandiHaler® DPI. METHODS: Ten patients with COPD, of whom 9 had severe airflow obstruction, were selected from FLUIDDA's database. The study did not enroll patients. Drug deposition in the extrathoracic and intrathoracic regions, including the central and peripheral airways was simulated by FRI. The percentage of delivered dose and central-to-peripheral (C/P) deposition ratio for nebulizer and DPI were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean ±â€„standard deviation (SD) age was 64.7 ±â€„7.1 years, height was 168.8 ±â€„8.5 cm, and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s was 40.8 ±â€„12.3%; 50% of patients were men. At optimal inhalation flow, intrathoracic and peripheral deposition was three-fold higher for revefenacin via nebulizer than tiotropium via HandiHaler (mean ±â€„SD 34.6 ±â€„8.53% versus 10.9 ±â€„5.67% and 18.2 ±â€„4.30% versus 5.8 ±â€„2.73% of delivered dose, respectively). Similar results were observed for suboptimal flow (mean ±â€„SD percentage of revefenacin versus tiotropium: intrathoracic, 32.1 ±â€„8.3% versus 15.1 ±â€„5.9%; peripheral; 16.6 ±â€„4.1% versus 8.4 ±â€„2.9%). The C/P deposition ratio for nebulizer was similar to DPI (mean ±â€„SD 0.915 ±â€„0.241 versus 0.812 ±â€„0.249 at optimal; 0.947 ±â€„0.253 versus 0.784 ±â€„0.219 at suboptimal flow), even though the mass median aerodynamic diameter of revefenacin was higher than tiotropium. C/P deposition ratio for revefenacin decreased after bronchodilation (0.915 ±â€„0.241 pre-bronchodilation versus 0.799 ±â€„0.192 post-bronchodilation), suggesting progressively better deposition in the peripheral region, assuming bronchodilation occurred during the nebulization process. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate more efficient intrathoracic and peripheral deposition for revefenacin via standard jet nebulizer than tiotropium via HandiHaler, with similar C/P deposition ratio in patients with COPD. Nebulizers are an efficient alternative to DPIs for bronchodilator administration in patients with COPD.

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

BACKGROUND: Revefenacin, a once-daily, long-acting muscarinic antagonist delivered via standard jet nebulizer, increased trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in prior phase 3 trials. We evaluated the efficacy of revefenacin in patients with markers of more severe COPD. METHODS: A post hoc subgroup analysis of two replicate, randomized, phase 3 trials was conducted over 12 weeks. Endpoints included least squares change from baseline in trough FEV1, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders, and transition dyspnea index (TDI) responders at Day 85. This analysis included patient subgroups at high risk for COPD exacerbations and compared patients who received revefenacin 175 µg and placebo: severe and very severe airflow limitation (percent predicted FEV1 30%-< 50% and < 30%), 2011 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) D, reversibility (≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL increase in FEV1) to short-acting bronchodilators, concurrent use of long-acting ß agonists and/or inhaled corticosteroids, older age (> 65 and > 75 years), and comorbidity risk factors. RESULTS: Revefenacin demonstrated significant improvements in FEV1 versus placebo at Day 85 among the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and all subgroups. Additionally, there was a greater number of SGRQ and TDI responders in the ITT population and the majority of subgroups analyzed among patients who received revefenacin versus placebo. For the SGRQ responders, the odds of response (odds ratio > 2.0) were significantly greater in the revefenacin arm versus the placebo arm among the severe airflow obstruction, very severe airflow obstruction and 2011 GOLD D subgroups. For the TDI responders, the odds of response (odds ratio > 2.0) were significantly greater among the severe airflow obstruction subgroup and patients aged > 75 years. CONCLUSIONS: Revefenacin showed significantly greater improvements in FEV1 versus placebo in the ITT population and all subgroups. Furthermore, there were a greater number of SGRQ and TDI responders in the ITT population, and in the majority of patient subgroups among patients who received revefenacin versus placebo. Based on the data presented, revefenacin could be a therapeutic option among patients with markers of more severe COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (Studies 0126 [NCT02459080; prospectively registered 22 May 2015] and 0127 [NCT02512510; prospectively registered 28 July 2015]).

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

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

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

BACKGROUND: Peak inspiratory flow (PIF) has been proposed as a measure to assess a patient's ability to use dry powder inhalers (DPIs). However, robust quality criteria to determine a repeatability limit for measuring PIF are lacking. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: What are the repeatability limits for measuring PIF? What is the relationship between PIF measured using the In-Check DIAL device at Diskus (GlaxoSmithKline; PIFD) and HandiHaler (Boehringer Ingelheim; PIFHH) resistances? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from a randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial (study 0149; see Clinical Trial Registration data) were used to define repeatability limits for PIF. In addition, a model to characterize the relationship between PIF measured with the In-Check DIAL device at PIFD and PIFHH was defined using data from two randomized, controlled, phase 3 trials (studies 0128 and 0149). RESULTS: In study 0128, the mean values (SD) for PIF at zero resistance and PIFHH were 84.6 (33.4) and 57.3 (26.1) L/min, respectively. In study 0149, the mean values (SD) for PIFD and PIFHH were 42.4 (11.2) and 29.0 (8.3) L/min, respectively. At the mean level, the mean difference between measurement attempts for PIFD and PIFHH was small, < 5 and < 3 L/min, respectively. The repeatability limit was determined as 10 and 5 L/min for PIFD and PIFHH, respectively. Modeling the relationship between PIFD and PIFHH, after controlling for significant covariates, demonstrated that a PIFD value of 60 L/min was approximately equivalent to PIFHH of 40 L/min. INTERPRETATIONS: This analysis demonstrated that the two highest values of PIF using the In-Check DIAL device among three inspiratory efforts, met the repeatability limit. Altogether, these data provide guidance for measuring PIF against the simulated resistance of a specific DPI in clinical practice and research studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; Nos.: NCT02518139 (study 0128) and NCT03095456 (study 0149); URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

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

BACKGROUND: Combinations of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA), long-acting ß-agonist (LABA), and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) are used for patients with persistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations on bronchodilator monotherapy. In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of the LAMA revefenacin in patients with COPD taking concomitant LABA, including ICS/LABA (LABA subgroup). METHODS: Efficacy data were obtained from two 12-week, replicate, placebo-controlled trials and safety data were pooled from the 12-week and a 52-week tiotropium-controlled trial. Patients received revefenacin 175 µg or placebo in the 12-week or tiotropium 18 µg in the 52-week studies. The efficacy endpoint was least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). Clinical health outcomes were assessed using the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). RESULTS: Revefenacin produced similar improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 in the non-LABA and LABA subgroups [placebo-adjusted LS mean change (95% confidence interval) in day 85 trough FEV1, 150.9 (110.3-191.6) ml and 139.2 (82.9-195.5) ml; p < 0.0001 versus placebo]. Similar improvements were observed in SGRQ scores in the non-LABA and LABA subgroups [-3.3 (-5.4 to -1.2) and -3.4 (-6.3 to -0.6)]. Improvements in lung function and health outcomes were observed regardless of airflow obstruction severity. Revefenacin was well tolerated with more adverse events reported in the LABA than the non-LABA subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Once daily revefenacin for nebulization can be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients who require concomitant use of LABA with or without ICS. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIERS: NCT02512510, NCT02459080, NCT02518139 The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Nebulized Versus Dry Powder Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Bronchodilators in Patients With COPD and Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow Rate.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and suboptimal peak inspiratory flow rate (sPIFR) may not benefit optimally from dry powder inhalers (DPI) because of inadequate inspiratory flow. Nebulized bronchodilators may provide a better alternative. We compared bronchodilation with the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) revefenacin for nebulization versus the DPI LAMA tiotropium, in patients with COPD and sPIFR (< 60 L/min against the resistance of Diskus®). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, 28-day Phase 3b study in patients with COPD enrolled based on sPIFR. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) on Day 29 for revefenacin for nebulization versus tiotropium HandiHaler® DPI. RESULTS: We enrolled 206 patients with mean (standard deviation) age, 65 (8) years; percent predicted FEV1, 37 (16)%; PIFR, 45 (12) L/min. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, revefenacin improved trough FEV1 from baseline; however, the difference versus tiotropium was not significant (least squares [LS] mean difference [standard error], 17.0 [22.4] mL, P=0.4461). In a prespecified analysis of patients with FEV1 < 50% predicted, revefenacin produced an LS mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]), 49.1 (6.3-91.9) mL in trough FEV1 and 103.5 (7.7-199.3) mL in forced vital capacity versus tiotropium. Revefenacin produced >100 mL increase in FEV1 in 41.6% versus 34.4% of patients with tiotropium in ITT and 41.4% versus 25.7% of patients in FEV1 < 50% predicted populations. CONCLUSIONS: Revefenacin did not produce significant improvements in FEV1 versus tiotropium in the ITT population, but increased trough FEV1 in patients with FEV1 < 50% predicted and sPIFR. Clinical Trial Registration (www.Clinicaltrials.gov): Study 0149 (NCT03095456).

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 µg versus salmeterol 50 µg after chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled long-acting beta2 agonists used alone and in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid reduce the risk of exacerbations in patients with stable COPD. However, the relative efficacy of these agents in preventing recurrent exacerbations in those recovering from an initial episode is not known. This study compared the rate of COPD exacerbations over the 26 weeks after an initial exacerbation in patients receiving the combination of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FP/SAL) or SAL alone. METHODS: Patients (n = 639) aged ≥40 years were randomized to either twice-daily inhaled FP/SAL 250/50 µg or SAL 50 µg. Primary, and secondary, endpoints were rates of recurrent severe, and moderate/severe, exacerbations of COPD. Lung function, health outcomes and levels of biomarkers of systemic inflammation were also assessed. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant treatment difference in rates of recurrent severe exacerbations (treatment ratio 0.92 [95% CI: 0.58, 1.45]) and moderate/severe exacerbations (0.82 [0.64, 1.06]) between FP/SAL and SAL in the intent-to-treat population. Pre-dose morning FEV1 change from baseline was greater (0.10 L [0.04, 0.16]) with FP/SAL than SAL. No treatment difference was seen for other endpoints including patient-reported health outcomes and biomarker levels for the full cohort. CONCLUSIONS: No significant treatment difference between FP/SAL and SAL was seen in COPD exacerbation recurrence for the complete cohort. Treatment benefit with FP/SAL over SAL (treatment ratio 0.68 [0.47, 0.97]) was seen in patients having FEV1 ≥ 30% and prior exposure to ICS. No unexpected safety issues were identified with either treatment. Patients with the most severe COPD may be more refractory to treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01110200). This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (study number ADC113874).

Outcomes associated with timing of maintenance treatment for COPD exacerbation.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the impact of timing of maintenance treatment initiation (early vs delayed) on risk of future exacerbations and costs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort design using data (January 1, 2003, through June 30, 2009) from a large, US-based integrated pharmacy and medical claims database. METHODS: Administrative claims from January 1, 2003, through June 30, 2009, were used. Methotrexate (MTx)-naïve patients (aged >40 years) with at least 1 COPD-related hospitalization/emergency department (ED) visit were included (discharge date was index date). Patients initiating MTx within the first 30 days and 31 to 180 days post-index were classified into early and delayed cohorts, respectively. Clinical and economic outcomes related to COPD exacerbations were assessed for 1 year post-index and compared between cohorts using regression models controlling for baseline characteristics. The incremental effect on outcomes of every 30-day delay in MTx initiation up to 6 months after the index event was also assessed. RESULTS: The majority of the 3806 patients (78.6%) received early MTx. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the delayed cohort had a COPD-related hospitalization/ED visit compared with the early cohort (25.6% vs 18.0%; P <.001). After controlling for baseline differences, the delayed cohort had a 43% (P <.001) higher risk of a future COPD-related hospitalization/ED visit compared with the early cohort. Every 30-day delay was associated with 9% risk increase (P = .002). Treatment delay also increased COPD-related costs ($5012 vs $3585; P <.001). CONCLUSION: Early MTx initiation is associated with reduced risk of future COPD exacerbations and lower costs.

Observational study of the outcomes and costs of initiating maintenance therapies in patients with moderate exacerbations of COPD.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data describing patients with moderate COPD exacerbations and evaluating comparative effectiveness of maintenance treatments in this patient population. The study examined COPD patients with moderate COPD exacerbations. COPD-related outcomes were compared between patients initiating fluticasone propionate-salmeterol 250/50 mcg (FSC) vs anticholinergics (ACs) following a moderate COPD exacerbation. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used a large administrative claims database (study period: 2003-2009) to identify and describe patients with an initial, moderate COPD exacerbation. A descriptive analysis of patients with moderate COPD exacerbations was done evaluating maintenance treatment rates, subsequent COPD exacerbation rates, and COPD-related costs during a 1-year period. A cohort analysis compared COPD exacerbation rates and associated costs during a variable-length follow-up period between patients initiating maintenance therapy with FSC or ACs. COPD exacerbations were reported as rate per 100 patient-years, and monthly costs were reported (standardized to USD 2009). COPD exacerbation rates between cohorts were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models, and costs were analyzed using generalized linear models with log-link and gamma distribution. RESULTS: 21,524 patients with a moderate COPD exacerbation were identified. Only 25% initiated maintenance therapy, and 13% had a subsequent exacerbation. Annual costs averaged $594 per patient. A total of 2,849 treated patients (FSC = 925; AC = 1,924) were eligible for the cohort analysis. The FSC cohort had a significantly lower rate of COPD exacerbations compared to the AC cohort (20.8 vs 32.8; P = 0.04). After adjusting for differences in baseline covariates, the FSC cohort had a 42% significantly lower risk of a COPD exacerbation (HR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.91). The FSC cohort incurred significantly higher adjusted pharmacy costs per patient per month by $37 (95% CI: $19, $72) for COPD-related medications vs the AC cohort. However, this increase was offset by a significant reduction in adjusted monthly medical costs per patient for the FSC vs the AC cohort ($82 vs $112; P < 0.05). Total monthly COPD-related costs, as a result, did not differ between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Only a quarter of patients with a moderate COPD exacerbation were subsequently treated with maintenance therapy. Initiation of FSC among those treated was associated with better clinical and economic outcomes compared to AC.

Rehospitalization risks and outcomes in COPD patients receiving maintenance pharmacotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine clinical and economic outcomes following COPD-related hospitalization/emergency department (ED) care in patients receiving COPD maintenance therapy. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational study using administrative claims data, we identified COPD patients age ≥40 years who received maintenance therapy within 30 days of an initial COPD-related hospitalization or ED visit with: (1) fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC 250 mcg/50 mcg) as new therapy, or (2) an anticholinergic (AC; tiotropium or ipratropium with or without albuterol). The FSC and AC patients were matched (1:3 ratio) on various baseline characteristics using propensity scores to mitigate selection bias at baseline. The proportion of patients with COPD-related healthcare events, the mean event rates, and the mean costs in the subsequent 12 months were calculated. RESULTS: The FSC cohort (N = 484) had a significantly lower proportion of rehospitalized patients during follow-up than did the AC cohort (N = 1452), 3.1% versus 4.6% (P = 0.047). The mean number of rehospitalizations was 0.03 in the FSC cohort and 0.07 in the AC cohort (P = 0.001). The proportion of patients with an exacerbation resulting in an ED or physician-outpatient visit and the mean number of such visits did not differ between cohorts. Total annual COPD-related medical costs were lower for FSC than for AC ($2080 versus $2636, P = 0.006), with lower medical and higher pharmacy costs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving FSC as maintenance therapy following an initial COPD-related hospitalization or ED visit experienced better clinical and economic outcomes than patients receiving AC.

Benefits of adding fluticasone propionate/salmeterol to tiotropium in moderate to severe COPD.

BACKGROUND: Combining maintenance medications with different mechanisms of action may improve outcomes in COPD. In this study we evaluated the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/salmeterol (FSC) (250/50 mcg twice daily) when added to tiotropium (18 mcg once daily) (TIO) in subjects with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD. METHODS: This was a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, multi-center study. Subjects 40 years or older with cigarette smoking history ≥10 pack-years and with the diagnosis of COPD and post-bronchodilator FEV(1) ≥40 to ≤ 80% of predicted normal and FEV(1)/FVC of ≤0.70 were enrolled. Following a 4-week treatment with open-label TIO 18 mcg once daily, subjects were randomized in a double-blind fashion to either the addition of FSC 250/50 DISKUS twice daily or matching placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was AM pre-dose FEV(1) and secondary endpoints included other measures of lung function, rescue albuterol use, health status and exacerbations. RESULTS: The addition of FSC to TIO significantly improved lung function indices including AM pre-dose FEV(1), 2 h post-dose FEV(1), AM pre-dose FVC, 2 h post-dose FVC and AM pre-dose IC compared with TIO alone. Furthermore, this combination was superior to TIO alone in reducing rescue albuterol use. However, there were no significant differences between the treatment groups in health status or COPD exacerbations. The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of FSC to subjects with COPD treated with TIO significantly improves lung function without increasing the risk of adverse events. NCT00784550.

Safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of umeclidinium and vilanterol alone and in combination: a randomized crossover trial.

UNLABELLED: Umeclidinium bromide (GSK573719; UMEC), a new long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA), is in development with vilanterol (GW642444; VI), a selective long-acting ß(2) agonist (LABA), as a once-daily inhaled combination therapy for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A single dose healthy volunteer study was conducted to assess the safety and tolerability, pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of inhaled umeclidinium (500 µg) and vilanterol (50 µg) when administered separately and in combination using a novel dry powder inhaler (NDPI). Co-administration of single inhaled doses of umeclidinium and vilanterol to healthy Japanese subjects was well tolerated and not associated with meaningful changes in systemic exposure or PD effects compared with administration of either compound individually. Pharmacokinetic assessments showed rapid absorption for both drugs (Tmax = 5 min for both umeclidinium and vilanterol) followed by rapid elimination with median tlast of 4-5 h for umeclidinium and median tlast of 1.5-2.0 h for vilanterol. Assessments of pharmacokinetic interaction were inconclusive since for umeclidinium, Cmax following combination was higher than umeclidinium alone but not AUC whereas for vilanterol, AUC following combination was higher than vilanterol alone but not Cmax. There were no obvious trends observed between individual maximum supine heart rate and umeclidinium Cmax or vilanterol Cmax when delivered as umeclidinium 500 µg and vilanterol 50 µg combination or when delivered as umeclidinium or vilanterol alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00976144.

Effect of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol on arterial stiffness in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: COPD is associated with increased arterial stiffness which may in part explain the cardiovascular morbidity observed in the disease. A causal relationship between arterial stiffness and cardiovascular events has not been established, though their strong association raises the possibility that therapies that reduce arterial stiffness may improve cardiovascular outcomes. Prior studies suggest that fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FSC) may improve cardiovascular outcomes in COPD and we hypothesized that FSC would reduce arterial stiffness in these patients. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the effects of FSC 250/50 µg twice-daily and placebo on aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV) as determined by ECG-gated carotid and femoral artery waveforms. The primary endpoint was aPWV change from baseline at 12-weeks (last measure for each patient). RESULTS: 249 patients were randomized; the mean FEV(1) in each group was similar (55% predicted) and 60% of patients reported a cardiovascular disorder. At 12-weeks, aPWV between FSC and placebo was -0.42 m/s (95%CI -0.88, 0.03; p = 0.065). A statistically significant reduction in aPWV between FSC and placebo was observed in those who remained on study drug throughout the treatment period [-0.49 m/s (95%CI -0.98, -0.01; p = 0.045)]. A post hoc analysis suggested the effect of FSC was greater in patients with higher baseline aPWV. CONCLUSION: FSC does not reduce aPWV in all patients with moderate to severe COPD, but may have effects in those with elevated arterial stiffness. Additional studies are required to determine if aPWV could serve as a surrogate for cardiovascular events in COPD.

Prevalence of airway obstruction assessed by lung function questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of unidentified chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and determine the screening accuracy of the Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cigarette smokers who had a smoking history of 10 or more pack-years and were aged 30 years or older were recruited from 36 centers from February 18, 2009, to May 29, 2009. A total of 1575 patients completed a Web-based survey including the 5-item LFQ. Spirometry was performed on patients with an LFQ total score of 18 or less and on a subset scoring more than 18. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients at risk of airflow obstruction as measured by the LFQ (score, ≤ 18) in whom an airflow obstruction was confirmed by spirometry. RESULTS: Of the patients who completed the LFQ, 849 (54%) had standardized spirometry data available. On the basis of LFQ and spirometry results, the estimated prevalence of possible COPD was 17.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.3%-20.6%). At a cut point of 18 or less, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the LFQ were 88%, 25%, 21%, and 90%, respectively. Approximately 1 in 5 patients (21%) aged 30 years or older and 1 in 4 (26%) aged 50 years or older scored 18 or less on the LFQ and had a ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration to forced vital capacity less than 0.70. CONCLUSION: On the basis of postbronchodilator spirometry results using weighted estimates, approximately 1 in 5 patients (21%) aged 30 years or older with a smoking history of 10 or more pack-years seen in a primary care setting is likely to have COPD. The LFQ could be a helpful COPD case-finding tool for clinicians to identify patients who need further evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01013948.

Safety and efficacy of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol hydrofluoroalkane 134a metered-dose-inhaler compared with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol diskus in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

PURPOSE: To provide information on the efficacy and safety of Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Hydrofluoroalkane 134a Metered-Dose-Inhaler 230/42mcg (FSC MDI) and its comparable dose of Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol DISKUS 250/50mcg (FSC DISKUS) in patients with COPD. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12 week study was designed to evaluate FSC MDI treatment responses as compared with FSC DISKUS. The primary comparison of interest was non-inferiority between the FSC MDI treatment group and the FSC DISKUS treatment group assessed in terms of 2-hour post-dose FEV(1) change from baseline at endpoint. The non-inferiority criterion bound was 75mL (lower confidence limit of -75mL). INCLUSION CRITERIA: Male or female aged ≥ 40, post-bronchodilator FEV(1) ≤ 70% predicted normal, FEV(1)/FVC ≤ 70% and ≥ 10 pack years smoking history. Adverse events were recorded by patients throughout the study on daily diary cards. Adverse events were collected in eCRFs at all clinic visits and during a final follow-up phone call. RESULTS: Patients (N=247) were randomized to FSC MDI (FEV(1)% 49.3 ± 12.3, FEV(1)/FVC 50.5 ± 10.0) and FSC DISKUS (FEV(1)% 48.4 ± 11.0, FEV(1)/FVC 50.3 ± 10.3). From an ANCOVA model the least squares (LS) mean difference (FSC MDI- FSC DISKUS) for the 2-hour post dose FEV(1) at endpoint was -2.0mL (95% CI -64mL, 59mL). Pre-dose FEV(1), FVC, PEF, and albuterol use were also similar between the two formulations. The most common adverse events (AE) during treatment were headache (8% and 6% of patients), nasopharyngitis (4% and 6%), cough (3% and 4%), and sinusitis (2% and 5%) for FSC MDI and FSC DISKUS, respectively. Pneumonia was recorded as an AE for 2 (2%) patients in the FSC DISKUS arm. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to demonstrate that FSC MDI has a similar efficacy and safety profile to FSC DISKUS in COPD patients.

Longterm survival among patients with scleroderma-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension treated with intravenous epoprostenol.

OBJECTIVE: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) remains challenging to treat, especially in association with scleroderma. We examined survival rates among patients with PAH in association with scleroderma who received epoprostenol (Flolan) through continuous intravenous (i.v.) infusion in an uncontrolled open-label 3-year extension study following an initial randomized, controlled 12-week study. METHODS: One hundred two patients diagnosed with PAH in association with scleroderma who received epoprostenol were included in the analyses. This included 51 PAH patients from a subject population of 56 who received epoprostenol in the randomized controlled study, and 46 patients from an initial population of 55 subjects on conventional therapy in the randomized controlled study, who received epoprostenol in the extension study. All patients in this extension study received open-label epoprostenol. Adverse events, survival, and dosing information were collected throughout the study. RESULTS: The probabilities of survival during the first and second years for all subjects who received epoprostenol during the initial randomized controlled study or during the extension study were 0.71 and 0.52, respectively. This measure remained constant at 0.48 during the third and fourth years. CONCLUSION: This study reports longterm survival rates for patients with scleroderma-associated PAH treated with i.v. epoprostenol. Although comparisons to historical data should be made with caution, this study reports a better survival outcome than natural history data on patients with scleroderma-associated PAH.