Effect of a spacer on total systemic and lung bioavailability in healthy volunteers and in vitro performance of the Symbicort® (budesonide/formoterol) pressurized metered dose inhaler.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma experience difficulties in coordinating inhalation with pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) actuation. The use of a spacer device can improve drug delivery in these patients. The aim of this study was to establish the relative bioavailability of single doses of Symbicort® (budesonide/formoterol) pMDI 160/4.5 µg/actuation (2 actuations) used with and without a spacer device. In addition, an in vitro study was conducted to characterize performance of the inhaler when used in conjunction with a spacer device. METHODS: A Phase I, randomized, open-label, single-dose, single-center, crossover study in 50 healthy volunteers (NCT02934607) assessed the relative bioavailability of single-dose Symbicort® pMDI 160/4.5 µg/actuation (2 actuations) with and without a spacer (AeroChamber Plus® Flow-Vu®). Inhaled doses were administered without or with activated charcoal (taken orally) to estimate total systemic exposure and exposure through the lung, respectively. The in vitro study characterized the effect of the spacer with respect to delivered dose, fine particle dose, and dose during simulated breathing of budesonide and formoterol. RESULTS: In terms of total systemic exposure, use of the spacer increased the relative bioavailability determined by AUC(0-last) and Cmax by 68% (spacer:no spacer treatment ratio, 167.9%; 90% CI, 144.1 to 195.6) and 99% (ratio, 198.7%; 90% CI, 164.4 to 240.2) for budesonide, and 77% (ratio, 176.6%; 90% CI, 145.1 to 215.0) and 124% (ratio, 223.6%; 90% CI, 189.9 to 263.3) for formoterol, respectively, compared with pMDI alone. Similarly, the lung exposure of budesonide and formoterol increased (AUC(0-last) and Cmax by 146% [ratio, 246.0%; 90% CI, 200.7 to 301.6] and 127% [ratio, 226.5%; 90% CI, 186.4 to 275.4] for budesonide, and 173% [ratio, 272.8%; 90% CI, 202.5 to 367.4] and 136% [ratio, 236.2%; 90% CI, 192.6 to 289.6] for formoterol, respectively) when the pMDI was administered through the spacer. When assessed by AUC(0-last) quartile without spacer, subjects in the lowest exposure quartile (indicating poor inhalation technique) with Symbicort® pMDI 160/4.5 µg/actuation (2 actuations) had markedly increased total systemic and lung exposure when the same dose was administered with the spacer. In contrast, for subjects in the highest exposure quartile with pMDI alone, total systemic and lung exposure of formoterol and budesonide was similar with and without the spacer. In the in vitro study, the fine particle dose (<5 µm) of both budesonide and formoterol from the spacer at delay time (i.e. pause period after actuation) = 0 s (instantaneous) after actuation was similar to the fine particle dose when not using the spacer. The delivered doses of budesonide and formoterol from the spacer were both lower compared with the doses administered without the spacer. There was also a decrease in delivered dose with increasing delay time. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical study demonstrated that in subjects with poor inhalation technique the use of the AeroChamber Plus® Flow-Vu® spacer increased the bioavailability of Symbicort® pMDI to a level observed in subjects with good inhalation technique without a spacer. The findings from the in vitro study support the fine particle dose characteristics of Symbicort® pMDI with the AeroChamber Plus® Flow-Vu® spacer.

Risk of pneumonia with budesonide-containing treatments in COPD: an individual patient-level pooled analysis of interventional studies.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised that treatment of COPD with inhaled corticosteroids may increase pneumonia risk. Responding to a request from the European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, a pooled analysis of interventional studies compared pneumonia risk with inhaled budesonide-containing versus non-budesonide-containing treatments and the impact of other clinically relevant factors. METHODS: AstraZeneca-sponsored, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trials meeting the following criteria were included: >8 weeks' duration; ≥60 patients with COPD; inhaled budesonide treatment arm (budesonide/formoterol or budesonide); and non-budesonide-containing comparator arm (formoterol or placebo). Primary and secondary outcomes were time to first pneumonia treatment-emergent serious adverse event (TESAE) and treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAEs), respectively, analyzed using Cox regression models stratified by study. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified; 10,570 out of 10,574 randomized patients receiving ≥1 dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (budesonide-containing, n=5,750; non-budesonide-containing, n=4,820). Maximum exposure to treatment was 48 months. The overall pooled hazard ratio (HR), comparing budesonide versus non-budesonide-containing treatments, was 1.15 for pneumonia TESAEs (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83, 1.57) and 1.13 for pneumonia TEAEs (95% CI: 0.94, 1.36). The annual incidence of pneumonia TESAEs was 1.9% and 1.5% for budesonide-containing and non-budesonide-containing treatments, respectively. Comparing budesonide/formoterol with non-budesonide-containing treatment, the HRs for pneumonia TESAEs and TEAEs were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.69, 1.44) and 1.21 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.57), respectively. For budesonide versus placebo, HRs were 1.57 for pneumonia TESAEs (95% CI: 0.90, 2.74) and 1.07 for pneumonia TEAEs (95% CI: 0.83, 1.38). CONCLUSION: This pooled analysis found no statistically significant increase in overall risk for pneumonia TESAEs or TEAEs with budesonide-containing versus non-budesonide-containing treatments. However, a small increase in risk with budesonide-containing treatment cannot be ruled out; there is considerable heterogeneity in study designs and patient characteristics, particularly in the early budesonide studies, and each study contributes <40 pneumonia TESAEs.

Efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol pMDI vs budesonide pMDI in asthmatic children (6-<12 years).

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) have been demonstrated in patients with asthma at least 12 years old. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of 2 formoterol doses added to budesonide as fixed combinations vs budesonide alone in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma. METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded, parallel-group, multicenter study (NCT02091986; CHASE 3) included children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma previously receiving a medium-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or an ICS plus a long-acting ß2-agonist. Children symptomatic during a 7-28-day run-in on low-dose ICS, 1 inhalation of budesonide dry powder inhaler 90 µg twice daily (BID), were randomized to receive 2 inhalations of budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 µg (160/9 µg) BID (n = 92), budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/2.25 µg (160/4.5 µg) BID (n = 95), or budesonide pMDI 80 µg (160 µg) BID (n = 92) for 12 weeks. RESULTS: Change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline to 1 hour after dosing (primary end point), change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second 15 minutes after dosing, and peak expiratory flow 1 hour after dosing at week 12 were statistically significantly greater for budesonide/formoterol 160/9 µg vs budesonide (P ≤ .015 for all comparisons), but not for budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg vs budesonide. Bronchodilator effects, evident 15 minutes after the dose on day 1, were maintained at week 12. Incidence of protocol-defined asthma exacerbations and improvements in asthma symptom-related and quality-of-life outcomes were similar across treatments. There were no notable safety differences among treatments. CONCLUSION: Budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/9 µg showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful lung function improvements vs budesonide pMDI 160 µg, demonstrating appropriateness as a therapeutic option for children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma symptomatic on ICS alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02091986.

Methacholine challenge tests to demonstrate therapeutic equivalence of terbutaline sulfate via different Turbuhaler® devices in patients with mild to moderate asthma: Appraisal of a four-way crossover design.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate therapeutic equivalence of terbutaline via two different Turbuhaler® devices by evaluating its protective effect against methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction in stable asthma. METHODS: In this double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre, single-dose, 4-way crossover study, patients with stable mild-to-moderate asthma (FEV1 ≥80% predicted) were randomised to 0.5 or 1.5 mg terbutaline via either Turbuhaler® M2 or Turbuhaler® M3 followed by a methacholine challenge test. The primary outcome variable was the concentration of methacholine causing a 20% drop in FEV1 (PC20). Patients had a PC20 methacholine <8 mg/mL that was reproducible after 2 weeks, and a stable baseline FEV1 at all visits (90-110% of enrolment value). RESULTS: 60 patients (mean age 31.1 years [range:18-64]; mean FEV1 92.1% predicted normal [78.4-120.6%]) were randomised to treatment; all completed the study. There was a clear dose-response for both devices. The within-device ratios (1.5 mg:0.5 mg) were 1.79 and 1.87 for Turbuhaler® M3 and M2, respectively (both p < 0.001). The between-device ratios (M3:M2) were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.75-1.13) for 0.5 mg and 0.88 (95% CI 0.72-1.08) for 1.5 mg. Both confidence intervals lie inside the interval 0.67-1.50, which was the pre-specified condition for equivalent effect. CONCLUSIONS: Bronchoprotection using a standardised methacholine challenge model proved to be an effective design to elucidate therapeutic equivalence between devices in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma. The findings indicate that patients may switch from one type of Turbuhaler® to the other without adjustment of therapy. Moreover, they show the robustness and utility of this study design and its suitability for investigating therapeutic equivalence. EUDRACT NUMBER: 2014-001457-16. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02322788.

Efficacy and safety of budesonide administered by pressurized metered-dose inhaler in children with asthma.

BACKGROUND: Budesonide is approved for delivery using a nebulized solution and dry-powder inhaler, but its use through a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) in pediatric patients with asthma has not been determined. OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of 160 µg twice daily of budesonide through a pMDI vs placebo in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma and a demonstrated need for inhaled corticosteroids. METHODS: A 6-week, international, multicenter, double-blinded, parallel-group, phase 2 study randomized 304 pediatric patients (mean age, 9 years; 21.7% <8 years) 1:1 to 160 µg (80 µg × 2 inhalations) twice daily of budesonide through a pMDI or placebo after a 7- to 21-day run-in period. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF); safety end points included adverse events, vital signs, and discontinuations. RESULTS: Budesonide treatment significantly improved morning PEF vs placebo; mean treatment effect (budesonide vs placebo) was 13.6 L/min (P < .0001). Budesonide also showed significant improvements vs placebo for forced expiratory volume in 1 second, evening PEF, forced expiratory flow at 25% to 75% of pulmonary volume, reliever medication use, nighttime awakenings, awakenings with reliever use, and percentage of patients with at least 15- and at least 30-L/min increase in morning PEF from baseline. The numbers of patients experiencing adverse events and discontinuations were smaller in the budesonide than in the placebo group. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Budesonide at 160 µg twice daily through a pMDI was generally well tolerated and significantly improved lung function, symptoms, rescue medication use, and nighttime awakenings vs placebo in children 6 to younger than 12 years with asthma and a demonstrated need for inhaled corticosteroids.

Real-life use of budesonide/formoterol in clinical practice: a 12-month follow-up assessment in a multi-national study of asthma patients established on single-inhaler maintenance and reliever therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (MRT) has been demonstrated in phase III clinical studies, but limited data are available in a real-life setting. We examined the pattern of maintenance and as-needed inhaler use in routine clinical practice among patients with asthma receiving budesonide/formoterol MRT (NCT00505388). METHODS: This 12-month European observational study enrolled patients prescribed budesonide/formoterol MRT and grouped them based on regimen: 80/4.5 µg one inhalation twice daily (b.i.d.); 160/4.5 µg one inhalation b.i.d.; 160/4.5 µg two inhalations b.i.d. (all plus as needed). Patient data were collected daily using an interactive voice- or web-response system. The primary outcome measure was total number of budesonide/formoterol inhalations/day. RESULTS: Overall, 4,581 patients were included (64% female; mean age 48.4 years; regimen: 80/4.5 µg, n = 119; 160/4.5 µg, n = 3,106; 2 x 160/4.5 µg, n = 1,355). Mean (median) total numbers of budesonide/formoterol inhalations/day were 2.48 (2.11), 2.53 (2.14), and 4.27 (4.05) for 80/4.5 µg b.i.d., 160/4.5 µg b.i.d., and 2 x 160/4.5 µg b.i.d., respectively; corresponding mean (median) number of as-needed inhalations/day were 0.68 (0.17), 0.73 (0.26), and 1.08 (0.45), respectively. As-needed budesonide/formoterol use was generally low with a mean of 61 - 66% of reliever-free days; over 4 reliever inhalations/day occurred on a mean of 0.4 - 2.5% of days for all budesonide/formoterol MRT regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Inroutine clinical practice, all budesonide/formoterol MRT regimens were associated with a high proportion of reliever-free days and low incidence of high reliever-use days, indicating acceptable levels of asthma control with this symptom-adjusted controller regimen.

Therapeutic equivalence of budesonide/formoterol delivered via breath-actuated inhaler vs pMDI.

RATIONALE: To assess equivalence of twice daily (bid) budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FM) 160/4.5 µg via breath-actuated metered-dose inhaler (BAI) versus pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI). METHODS: This 12-week, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group study, randomized adolescents and adults (aged ≥12 years) with asthma (and ≥3 months daily use of inhaled corticosteroids) to BUD/FM BAI 2 × 160/4.5 µg bid, BUD/FM pMDI 2 × 160/4.5 µg bid, or BUD pMDI 2 × 160 µg bid. Inclusion required prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) ≥45 to ≤85% predicted, and reversibility of ≥12% in FEV1 (ages 12 to <18 years) or ≥12% and 200 mL (ages ≥18 years). Confirmation that 60-min postdose FEV1 response to BUD/FM pMDI was superior to BUD pMDI was required before equivalence testing. Therapeutic equivalence was shown by treatment effect ratio of BUD/FM BAI vs BUD/FM pMDI on 60-min postdose FEV1 and predose FEV1 within confidence intervals (CIs) of 80-125%. RESULTS: Mean age of 214 randomized patients was 42.7 years. BUD/FM pMDI was superior to BUD pMDI (60-min postdose FEV1 treatment effect ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06-1.14; p < 0.001). Treatment effect ratios for BUD/FM BAI versus pMDI for 60-min postdose FEV1 (1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05) and predose FEV1 (1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.08) were within predetermined CIs for therapeutic equivalence. Adverse event profiles, tolerability, and patient-reported ease of use were similar. CONCLUSIONS: BUD/FM 2 × 160/4.5 µg bid BAI is therapeutically equivalent to BUD/FM conventional pMDI. The introduction of BUD/FM BAI would expand options for delivering inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination therapy to patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01360021.

Bronchodilator effect of single-dose formoterol administered by pressurized metered-dose inhaler in children with asthma aged 6 to <12 years receiving budesonide.

Dose-response of formoterol via pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) has not been determined in asthmatic pediatric patients aged 6 to <12 years. This study was designed to assess the bronchodilating dose-response of three formoterol pMDI doses in children with stable asthma aged 6 to <12 years receiving twice-daily (b.i.d.) budesonide 160 micrograms. A U.S., multicenter, five-way crossover study compared single doses of formoterol, a long-acting beta-agonist, via pMDI (2.25, 4.5, and 9 micrograms) or dry powder inhaler (12 micrograms; active comparator) and placebo, with a 3- to 14-day washout period between doses. Budesonide pMDI 160 micrograms, an inhaled corticosteroid, was given b.i.d. throughout the study. Fifty-four pediatric patients (mean age, 9.2 years; mean asthma history, 6.1 years) were randomized. All formoterol doses showed significantly higher average 12-hour forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; area under the curve) versus placebo (primary efficacy). Formoterol pMDI 4.5 and 9 micrograms showed significantly greater average 12-hour FEV1 than formoterol 2.25 micrograms (p = 0.0007 and p = 0.0001, respectively). Formoterol also resulted in significant improvement in maximum FEV1 during the 12-hour treatment period (secondary efficacy) with formoterol 4.5-, 9-, and 12-microgram doses versus placebo and the formoterol 2.25-microgram dose. Bronchodilation was not maintained during the 12-hour dosing interval with formoterol 2.25 micrograms. No serious adverse events were reported. Formoterol pMDI showed generally dose-proportional pharmacokinetics to 9 micrograms, as determined by urinary excretion. Single doses of formoterol pMDI showed a dose-response, with formoterol 9 micrograms exhibiting a maximum response, in pediatric patients aged 6 to <12 years with persistent stable asthma maintained on b.i.d. budesonide pMDI 160 micrograms. Clinical trial NCT01136655, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Effects of AZD3480 on cognition in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease: a phase IIb dose-finding study.

AZD3480 is a selective agonist of the central α4ß2 and α2ß2 neuronal nicotinic cholinergic receptors (NNRs). Its effects on cognition were investigated in 567 patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) (Mini Mental State Examination [MMSE] 12-26). Mean baseline MMSE was 21 (SD ± 3.7), with 61% of patients having mild disease (MMSE 21-26). Mean age was 74 (range 58-85) years. Patients were randomized to one of 5 treatment groups: AZD3480 5 mg, 20 mg or 35/100 mg, donepezil 10 mg (active comparator) or placebo, and treated once daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline at Week 12 on the AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog). Neither AZD3480 nor donepezil showed a statistically significant improvement versus placebo on ADAS-Cog. Improvements in a number of secondary outcome measures (MMSE, AD Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) and Disability Assessment for Dementia [DAD]) were observed for AZD3480 and for donepezil. A post-hoc analysis on ADAS-Cog, excluding patients with very mild AD (MMSE 25-26) indicated improvement versus placebo for AZD3480 20 mg (-1.4, 95% CI: -3.0; 0.2) and donepezil (-1.0, 95% CI: -2.3; 0.3). AZD3480 was well tolerated. The study did not meet proof of concept criteria: since neither AZD3480 nor donepezil were statistically significantly superior to placebo on ADAS-Cog and was considered to be inconclusive. Further studies are required to determine the therapeutic potential of stimulating α4ß2 receptors with NNRs in AD patients.

Effect of increasing esomeprazole and pantoprazole doses on acid control in patients with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a randomized, dose-response study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), dose escalation or drug switching may be considered in those with symptoms that persist despite standard-dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. This study set out to assess whether increasing the dosage of oral esomeprazole and pantoprazole improves acid control in GORD patients, and to compare the pharmacodynamic efficacy of esomeprazole and pantoprazole administered at different dosages. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, six-way crossover study that included Helicobacter pylori-negative GORD patients (aged 20-60 years) with <30% of time with intragastric pH>4. Patients were treated with oral once-daily esomeprazole 20 mg, 40 mg and 80 mg, and pantoprazole 20 mg, 40 mg and 80 mg, for 5 days. The main outcome measures were time with intragastric pH>4 over 24 hours, median pH over 24 hours and area under the hydrogen ion versus time curve on day 5 for each treatment period. RESULTS: Dose escalation with both PPIs improved acid control. The proportion of time with intragastric pH>4 (day 5) was 46.7% with esomeprazole 20 mg/day, 58.6% with esomeprazole 40 mg/day, and 65.8% with esomeprazole 80 mg/day; the corresponding percentages with pantoprazole were 28.6%, 36.9% and 44.9%, respectively. On a milligram-per-milligram basis, esomeprazole provided greater acid control than pantoprazole (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Dose escalation with oral esomeprazole and pantoprazole improves acid control in patients with GORD, although esomeprazole provides significantly greater acid control on a milligram-per-milligram basis.

Potential risk factors for prolonged recovery following whiplash injury.

A retrospective analysis of insurance data was made of 600 individuals claiming compensation for whiplash following motor vehicle accidents. Three hundred randomly selected claimants who had settled their injury claims within 9 months of the accident were compared with 300 who had settled more than 24 months after the accident. We compared the two groups to identify possible risk factors for prolonged recovery, for which settlement time greater than 24 months was a marker. Variables considered included demographic factors, type of collision, degree of vehicle damage, workers compensation, prior claim or neck disability, treatment and time to settlement. Consulting a solicitor was associated with a highly significant, four-fold increase of late settlement of the claim. A concurrent workers' compensation claim, prior neck disability and undergoing physiotherapy or chiropractic treatment were weakly associated with late settlement. The degree of damage to the vehicle (as indicated by cost of repairs) was not a significant predictor of late settlement. Late settlement may be the direct effect of legal intervention, independent of the severity of the injury. Whilst the financial benefit to the claimant of consulting a solicitor is apparent, the benefit of prolonged disability is not. It may be to the advantage of both insurers and claimants if those likely to proceed to late settlement could be recognised early and their claims settled expeditiously.