The safety of long-acting ß2-agonists in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled long-acting bronchodilators are the mainstay of pharmacotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Both the twice-daily long-acting ß(2)-adrenoceptor agonists (LABAs) salmeterol and formoterol and the once-daily LABA indacaterol are indicated for use in COPD. This review examines current evidence for the safety of LABAs in COPD, focusing on their effect on exacerbations and deaths. METHODS: We searched PubMed for placebo-controlled studies evaluating long-term (≥24 weeks) use of formoterol, salmeterol, or indacaterol in patients with stable COPD, published between January 1990 and September 2012. We summarized data relating to exacerbations and adverse events, particularly events related to COPD. RESULTS: From 20 studies examined (8774 LABA-treated patients), there was no evidence of an association between LABA treatment and increased exacerbations, COPD-related adverse events, or deaths. Where analyzed as an efficacy outcome, LABA treatment was generally associated with significant or numerical reductions in COPD exacerbations compared with placebo. Incidences of COPD-related adverse events were similar for active and placebo treatments. The incidence of adverse events typically associated with the ß(2)-agonist drug class such as skeletal muscle tremors and palpitations was low (often <1% of patients), and there were no reports of increased incidence of cardiac arrhythmias. The systemic effects of ß(2)-adrenoceptor stimulation, such as high glucose and potassium levels, were considered minor. CONCLUSION: Current evidence from clinical studies of the safety and tolerability profile of LABAs supports their long-term use in COPD.

Once-daily indacaterol versus tiotropium for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (INVIGORATE): a randomised, blinded, parallel-group study.

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy and safety of indacaterol and tiotropium in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of at least one moderate to severe exacerbation in the previous 12 months. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, blinded, double-dummy, parallel group study, we enrolled patients aged 40 years or older with severe COPD and at least one exacerbation within the previous year. We used a computer-generated sequence to randomly allocate patients (1:1; stratified by baseline inhaled corticosteroid use, with the balance of treatments maintained at country level) to receive either indacaterol (150 µg) or tiotropium (18 µg) once-daily for 52 weeks. Our primary and key secondary objectives were to investigate whether indacaterol was non-inferior to tiotropium for trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at week 12 (primary endpoint), and for rate of exacerbations at week 52 (secondary endpoint). Analysis populations for the primary and key secondary endpoints were per-protocol sets. The safety set included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00845728. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2009, and July 5, 2012, we enrolled and randomly allocated 3444 patients: 1723 to indacaterol and 1721 to tiotropium. At week 12, the estimated least squares mean trough FEV1 difference between the groups was -0.011 L (least squares mean with indacaterol [n=1450] 1.134 L [SE 0.008] vs tiotropium [n=1467] 1.145 L [0.008]; one-sided 97.5% CI lower limit -0.026 L; p<0.0001). The lower limit of the 97.5% CI was above the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.055 L, suggesting that indacaterol was non-inferior to tiotropium. Indacaterol did not show non-inferiority in terms of annualised exacerbation rates: 0.79 (indacaterol, n=1529) versus 0.61 (tiotropium, n=1543); ratio 1.29 (one-sided 97.5% CI upper limit 1.44). In the safety set, we recorded no between-group difference in the number of patients who had adverse events (indacaterol 1119 [65%] of 1721 patients vs tiotropium 1065 [62%] of 1718 patients) or serious adverse events (indacaterol, 263 [15%] of 1721 patients vs tiotropium, 255 [15%] of 1718 patients). Respiratory disorders, particularly worsening of COPD, were the most common adverse events (COPD: indacaterol, 747 [43%] of 1721 patients and tiotropium, 665 [39%] of 1718 patients) and serious adverse events (COPD: indacaterol, 147 [9%] of 1721 patients and tiotropium, 121 [7%] of 1718 patients). INTERPRETATION: Indacaterol and tiotropium provided clinically relevant improvements in lung function with comparable safety profiles. Tiotropium afforded greater protection from exacerbations, although the absolute number of events was small and the difference between treatments is of uncertain clinical importance. The present data offer evidence consistent with current guidelines. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma AG.

Prevention of cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis by the selective neurokinin-1 antagonists, L-758,298 and MK-869.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that antiemetic therapy with a triple combination of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist MK-869, a serotonin (5-HT(3)) antagonist, and dexamethasone provides enhanced control of cisplatin-induced emesis compared with standard therapy regimens. The authors compared the antiemetic activity of a dual combination of MK-869 and dexamethasone with that of a standard dual combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone to characterize further the efficacy and tolerability profile of MK-869. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, active agent-controlled study of 177 cisplatin-naïve patients with malignant disease. On Day 1, MK-869 was given intravenously as its water-soluble prodrug, L-758,298. Patients were randomized to one of three groups as follows. Group I received L-758,298 100 mg intravenously (i.v.), then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by 300 mg MK-869 (tablet) orally on Days 2-5; Group II received L-758,298 100 mg i.v., then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by placebo on Days 2-5; and Group III received ondansetron 32 mg i.v., then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by placebo on Days 2-5. Emesis was recorded over Days 1-5 in a diary. Nausea was assessed every 24 hours by visual analog scale. Additional medication was available for emesis or nausea at any time. The primary efficacy parameters of interest were the proportion of patients without emesis and the proportion without emesis or rescue therapy on Day 1 (acute phase) and on Days 2-5 (delayed phase). RESULTS: No serious adverse events were attributed to L-758,298 or MK-869. On Day 1, the proportions of patients with no emesis and no use of rescue medication were 44% of patients in Group I, 36% of patients in Group II, 40% of patients in Groups I and II combined, and 83% of patients in Group III (P < 0.001 for Group III vs. the combined Groups I and II). The proportions of patients with no emesis and no use of rescue medication on Days 2-5 were 59% of patients in Group I, 46% of patients in Group II, and 38% of patients in Group III (P < 0.05 for Group I vs. Group III). The proportions of patients who were without emesis on Day 1 were 49% of patients in Group I, 47% of patients in Group II, and 84% of patients in Group III (P < 0.01 for Group I or II vs. Group III). On Days 2-5, however, the proportions of patients who were without emesis on Days 2-5 were 65% of patients in Group I, 61% of patients in Group II, and 41% of patients in Group III (P < 0.05 for Group I or II vs. Group III). Nausea scores in the acute phase were lower for Group III than for Group I, Group II, or Groups I and II combined (P < 0.05), although there was no significant difference among groups either for the delayed phase or overall for Days 1-5. CONCLUSIONS: Although the L-758,298 and dexamethasone combination reduced acute (Day 1) emesis compared with historic rates, dual therapy with ondansetron and dexamethasone was superior in controlling acute emesis. Continued dosing with MK-869 may enhance control of other measures of delayed emesis, such as the use of rescue medication, although confirmation is required before a definitive conclusion may be drawn. MK-869 given as dual therapy with dexamethasone was superior to ondansetron with dexamethasone for the control of delayed emesis (Days 2-5) and control of the need for rescue medication on Days 2-5.