Long-term safety and exploratory efficacy of fevipiprant in patients with inadequately controlled asthma: the SPIRIT randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) receptor 2 (DP2 receptor) pathway is an important regulator of the inflammatory cascade in asthma, which can be stimulated by allergic or non-allergic triggers. Fevipiprant is an oral, non-steroidal, highly selective, reversible antagonist of the DP2 receptor that inhibits the binding of PGD2 and its metabolites. METHODS: SPIRIT, a 2-treatment period (52-week, double-blind and optional 104-week single-blind), randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre, parallel-group study, assessed the long-term safety of fevipiprant (150 mg and 450 mg o.d.) added to standard of care in patients ≥ 12 years with uncontrolled asthma. Stratified block randomisation was used. Patients were randomised in an approximate ratio of 3:3:1 (fevipiprant 150 mg, fevipiprant 450 mg or placebo). Patients were either newly enrolled or had participated in a previous fevipiprant Phase 3 trial. Primary endpoints were: time-to-first treatment emergent adverse event (AE); serious AE; and AE leading to discontinuation from study treatment. Data from both treatment periods were combined for analyses. Data were collected during study site visits. RESULTS: In total, 1093 patients were randomised to receive fevipiprant 150 mg, 1085 to fevipiprant 450 mg, and 360 to placebo. Overall, 1184 patients had ≥ 52 weeks' treatment, while 163 received ≥ 104 weeks' treatment. Both doses were well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to placebo both in new patients and in those enrolled from previous studies. In exploratory analyses, reduced rates of moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbations, increased time-to-first moderate-to-severe asthma exacerbation and improved FEV1 were observed for both doses of fevipiprant versus placebo; these were without multiplicity adjustment and should be interpreted with caution. SPIRIT was terminated early, on 16 December 2019, by the Sponsor. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with uncontrolled asthma, the addition of fevipiprant had a favourable long-term safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03052517, prospectively registered 23 January 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03052517 .

Efficacy and safety of fevipiprant in patients with uncontrolled asthma: Two replicate, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (ZEAL-1 and ZEAL-2).

BACKGROUND: These studies assessed the efficacy and safety of fevipiprant, an oral antagonist of the prostaglandin D2 (PGD2) receptor (DP2), compared with placebo when added to standard-of-care (SoC) asthma therapy in patients with uncontrolled asthma. METHODS: ZEAL-1 (NCT03215758) and ZEAL-2 (NCT03226392) are two replicate, phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies in which fevipiprant 150 mg once daily (o.d.) or placebo was added to SoC asthma therapy in patients aged ≥12 years with uncontrolled asthma. Primary endpoint: change from baseline in pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) after 12 weeks' treatment. Key secondary endpoints: daytime asthma symptom score, short-acting ß-agonist (SABA) use and Asthma Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (AQLQ+12) score after 12-weeks treatment. FINDINGS: 662 patients in ZEAL-1 and 685 patients in ZEAL-2 completed the treatment period. In ZEAL-1, the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in pre-dose FEV1 was 112 mL in fevipiprant vs 71 mL in placebo group (difference [∆]:41 mL; 95% CI: -6, 88; adjusted p-value 0·088). In ZEAL-2, the LS mean change in pre-dose FEV1 was 126 mL and 157 mL in the fevipiprant and placebo groups, respectively (∆:-31 mL; 95% CI: -80, 18; adjusted p-value 0·214). For both studies, there were no statistically significant differences in the key secondary objectives between the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: The ZEAL studies did not demonstrate significant improvement in lung function or other clinical outcomes. These results suggest that DP2 receptor inhibition with fevipiprant is not effective in the studied patient population.

Olopatadine-mometasone combination nasal spray: Evaluation of efficacy and safety in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Background: GSP301 is an investigational fixed-dose combination nasal spray that contains the antihistamine, olopatadine hydrochloride (HCl), and the corticosteroid, mometasone furoate. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Methods: In this double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, patients (≥12 years of age) with SAR were equally randomized to intranasal GSP301 (olopatadine 665 µg and mometasone 25 µg), olopatadine HCl (665 µg), mometasone furoate (25 µg), or placebo for 14 days of twice-daily treatment. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in the average A.M. and P.M. 12-hour reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) analyzed by using mixed-effect model repeated measures (p < 0.05 indicates statistical significance). Additional assessments included instantaneous TNSS (iTNSS), individual nasal symptoms, reflective Total Ocular Symptom Score (rTOSS) and instantaneous Total Ocular Symptom Score (iTOSS), onset of action, Physician-assessed Nasal Symptom Score (PNSS), quality of life, and adverse events (AE). Results: A total of 1180 patients were randomized. Over 14 days of treatment, GSP301 significantly improved average A.M. and P.M. rTNSS versus placebo (least squares mean difference -0.98 [95% confidence interval, -1.38 to -0.57]; p < 0.001) and versus olopatadine (p = 0.003), and approached statistical significance versus mometasone (p = 0.059). GSP301 also significantly improved average A.M. and P.M. iTNSS versus placebo and both monotherapies (p < 0.05, all). Further, GSP301 significantly improved individual nasal symptoms, overall ocular symptoms (rTOSS and iTOSS), and overall quality of life versus placebo (p < 0.01, all). Onset of action for GSP301 was observed within 15 minutes and was maintained at all subsequent time points assessed. Results for the PNSS also were significant for GSP301 versus placebo (p < 0.001). The percentages of patients with treatment-emergent AEs treated with GSP301, olopatadine, mometasone, and placebo were 12.9, 12.5, 7.1, and 9.4%, respectively. Conclusion: GSP301 was efficacious and well tolerated for the treatment of SAR symptoms compared with placebo, with a rapid onset of action of 15 minutes in patients ≥12 years of age.Clinical trial NCT02631551, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

A phase I randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-exploration study of single-dose inhaled montelukast in patients with chronic asthma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of oral montelukast has been well established in asthma and allergic rhinitis in adults and children. The purpose of this study was to evaluate dose-related bronchodilation and tolerability of inhaled montelukast. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, crossover, adaptive-design study comparing single-dose administration of inhaled montelukast versus placebo in patients age 15-65 years with chronic asthma (n = 68). Montelukast was delivered as a witnessed dose through dry powder inhaler at doses of 25, 250, or 1000 µg, and doses of 50, 100, and 500 µg could be used if needed based on a prespecified dose-response algorithm. Each administration was followed by a 4- to 7-day washout period before crossing over to the next treatment. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) over the first 4 hours after administration, calculated as a time-weighted average (ΔFEV1 [0-4 hours]). Other endpoints included the onset and duration of bronchodilation and the effect of albuterol when added to inhaled montelukast. RESULTS: Over 4 hours postdose, and compared with placebo (least-squares [LS] mean 0.03 L), inhaled montelukast 100 µg (0.13 L; p ≤ .001), 250 µg (0.10 L; p < .01), and 1000 µg (0.12 L; p ≤ .001) had significantly greater ΔFEV1 (0-4 hours). At 24 hours postdose, inhaled montelukast 100 µg (0.10 L) and 1000 µg (0.09 L) had significantly greater bronchodilation compared with placebo (0.02 L; p < .05 vs. montelukast). Montelukast 1000 µg provided significant bronchodilation versus placebo within 20 minutes of administration (0.03 L vs. -0.05 L), whereas montelukast 100 µg provided significant bronchodilation relative to placebo within 2 hours of dosing (0.09 L vs. 0.01 L). Montelukast (pooled doses) plus albuterol was significantly more effective than montelukast plus placebo for ΔFEV1 (0-90 minutes) (0.34 L vs. 0.15 L; p = .015). The tolerability of inhaled montelukast was similar to that of placebo. No serious adverse experiences were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled montelukast provided significant bronchodilation compared with placebo as early as 20 minutes after the administration that persisted for 24 hours and provided additive bronchodilation to albuterol.

Efficacy and safety evaluation of ciclesonide in subjects with mild-to-moderate asthma not currently using inhaled corticosteroids.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are a first-line treatment for persistent asthma. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of ciclesonide (CIC) in subjects with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma not using an ICS. This was a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, 16-week study in subjects who were > or =12 years old, had a > or =6-month history of persistent asthma, a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) of > or =60 to < or =85% predicted, and who were not using an ICS < or =30 days before study entry. Subjects were randomized to CIC, 80 microg twice daily (CIC80 b.i.d.; n = 170); CIC, 160 microg once daily in the morning (CIC160 q.d. in the A.M.; n = 173); CIC80 b.i.d. for 4 weeks followed by CIC160 q.d. for 12 weeks (CIC80 b.i.d./CIC160 q.d.; n = 171); or placebo (n = 177). Change in FEV(1) from baseline to the average of weeks 12 and 16 (primary end point) and to week 16, A.M. peak expiratory flow, rescue albuterol use, nighttime awakenings, asthma symptom scores, and safety were evaluated. FEV(1) improved from baseline to the average of weeks 12 and 16 for CIC80 b.i.d. (+0.30L; p < 0.0001), CIC160q.d. (+0.19L; p < 0.0001), CIC80 b.i.d./CIC160 q.d. (+0.19L; p < 0.0001), and placebo (+0.06L; p = 0.0251); improvement was greatest for CIC80 b.i.d. (p < 0.01). At week 16, all CIC treatments significantly improved FEV(1) and A.M. PEF from baseline (p < 0.0001) and compared with placebo (p < or = 0.015). All treatments reduced albuterol use and nighttime awakenings and improved asthma symptom scores (p < or = 0.05 versus baseline); these improvements were greater for CIC80 b.i.d. than for placebo (p < 0.01). The incidence of adverse events was similar among treatment groups (range, 53-58%). In this study, CIC80 b.i.d. improved disease control in subjects with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma not using an ICS and provided greater improvements than CIC160 q.d.

A randomized, controlled trial to investigate the effect of ciclesonide and beclomethasone dipropionate on eye lens opacity.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended first-line therapy for the treatment of persistent asthma. However, reports from observational studies have suggested that the use of ICS may be associated with systemic adverse events, such as glaucoma and cataract (opacity of the lens) formation. OBJECTIVE: To compare two ICS over 1 year regarding the formation/progression of lenticular opacities in patients with asthma. METHODS: Adults (>or=18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe asthma were randomized to ciclesonide 640 micro g/day (n = 785) or beclomethasone dipropionate 640 micro g/day (n = 783) in a multinational, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a positive Class I grading shift (increase [worsening] in Lens Opacities Classification System [LOCS] III score of >or= 0.5 for nuclear opalescence, >or= 0.8 for cortical opacification, or >or= 0.5 for posterior subcapsular opacification, or cataract surgery) in either eye at any visit over the 12-month, double-blind treatment period. RESULTS: Mean changes (+/- standard error) in nuclear opalescence and cortical and posterior subcapsular opacification were small and similar between groups (ciclesonide 640 micro g/day: 0.10 +/- 0.02, 0.07 +/- 0.02 and 0.04 +/- 0.01, respectively; beclomethasone dipropionate 640 micro g/day: 0.11 +/- 0.02, 0.09 +/- 0.02 and 0.03 +/- 0.01, respectively). Class I shifts were observed in 34.3% versus 36.8% of ciclesonide-treated and beclomethasone dipropionate-treated patients, respectively. Ciclesonide 640 micro g/day was non-inferior to beclomethasone dipropionate 640 micro g/day regarding Class I shifts (risk ratio of ciclesonide to beclomethasone dipropionate, 0.940 [95% confidence interval, 0.820-1.077]); the 95% confidence interval upper bound was lower than the pre-specified non-inferiority bound of 1.333 (p < 0.0001), thereby excluding the possibility of higher risk ratio values. CONCLUSIONS: Mean changes in LOCS III scores were very small in both groups. Treatment with ciclesonide 640 micro g/day or beclomethasone dipropionate 640 micro g/day for 1 year has a minimal impact on lenticular opacities development and/or progression.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of MAP0004 (orally-inhaled DHE) in adult asthmatics.

BACKGROUND: MAP0004 (a proprietary formulation of dihydroergotamine mesylate [DHE]) for inhaled delivery is being developed for acute migraine treatment. Because asthma and migraine often occur as co-morbid conditions, it is considered important to study the safety of MAP0004 in a population of asthmatic adults and to confirm that the pharmacokinetics of DHE, when inhaled by asthmatic subjects, were comparable to a population of healthy volunteers. The safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of orally-inhaled MAP0004 administered by the Tempo inhaler were studied in adult asthmatics. SCOPE: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of two doses of inhaled MAP0004. Eligible subjects were randomized in a 2 : 1 ratio to MAP0004 or placebo and observed for 4 h after each dose. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined pre-dose and up to 36 h post-dose. FINDINGS: Among 19 subjects, geometric mean AUC(0-36) was 6754 pg.h/mL and geometric mean AUC(0-inf) was 7483 pg.h/mL. Geometric mean t(max) was 9.6 min, geometric mean C(max) was 3174 pg/mL, and geometric mean t((1/2)) was 9.5 h. Overall, 13 of 19 (68%) subjects reported at least one adverse event, most commonly nausea, vomiting, dysgeusia, and headache. CONCLUSION: MAP0004 results in rapid and efficient systemic absorption in asthmatic subjects. Systemic DHE concentrations were similar to those previously reported in healthy subjects, and no clinically relevant safety issues were observed. While this small study was suitable for pharmacokinetic analysis and conclusions, MAP0004 use in migraineurs with concomitant stable asthma should be supported by larger studies of longer duration to confirm that it does not present additional safety risks compared to non-asthmatic migraineurs.

Addition of ibuprofen to pseudoephedrine and chlorpheniramine in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis experience many nasal and concomitant nonnasal symptoms. Many patients also experience headaches and facial pain, pressure, or discomfort. Standard over-the-counter therapy with antihistamines and nasal decongestants often does not completely relieve all symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: To establish the contribution of ibuprofen when used with pseudoephedrine and chlorpheniramine, a standard over-the-counter regimen, to relieve the symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis. METHODS: In this 7-day, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial, qualified subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 treatment groups that received combined ibuprofen/pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine (200/30/2 mg or 400/60/4 mg), combined pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine (30/2 mg), or placebo. Therapy began when the subject experienced a minimum of moderate allergy-associated pain, and it continued 3 times a day for 7 consecutive days. RESULTS: Mean pain intensity reduction in both ibuprofen/pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine treatment groups was 40% greater than in the placebo group and 33% greater than in the pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine treatment group (P < .001). Mean changes from baseline in total and nonpain symptom scores for both ibuprofen/pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine doses were significantly greater than for placebo (P < .001) and pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine (P < .001-.05) but were not different from each other. Ibuprofen enhanced the chlorpheniramine and pseudoephedrine effects, resulting in incremental 33% to 34% pain relief and 17% to 22% allergy symptom relief compared with pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine. CONCLUSIONS: In both doses of the triple combination, ibuprofen added to the effects of chlorpheniramine and pseudoephedrine, resulting in superior relief of pain and all nonpain allergy symptoms compared with pseudoephedrine/chlorpheniramine treatment. Furthermore, the superior efficacy of the lower dose of the triple combination allowed for a decrease in the incidence of adverse effects.

Effective dose range of mometasone furoate nasal spray in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: Mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) 400 microg, twice daily, as adjunctive treatment with oral antibiotic significantly improved symptoms of recurrent rhinosinusitis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of MFNS 200 microg, twice daily, and 400 microg, twice daily, compared with placebo as adjunctive treatment with oral antibiotic for acute rhinosinusitis. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 967 outpatients with computed tomographic scan-confirmed moderate to severe rhinosinusitis received amoxicillin/clavulanate potassium (Augmentin, GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC) 875 mg, twice daily, for 21 days with adjunctive twice daily MFNS 200 microg, MFNS 400 microg, or placebo nasal spray. Patients recorded scores of six rhinosinusitis symptoms and any adverse events twice daily. Pre- and postcosyntropin-stimulation plasma cortisol levels were measured in a subset of patients at selected study sites. RESULTS: Treatment with MFNS 200 microg or 400 microg, twice daily, produced significantly greater improvements in total symptoms score (primary efficacy variable) day 1 to day 15 average (50% and 51%, respectively) than placebo (44%, P < or = 0.017). Both doses of MFNS produced significant total symptoms score improvement over placebo by day 4, and maintained efficacy over the entire 21-day study. Relief of individual symptoms showed a similar pattern. Both doses of MFNS were well tolerated, and adverse events were similar to that of placebo. Cosyntropin stimulation showed no evidence of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis suppression. CONCLUSIONS: As adjunctive therapy to oral antibiotic treatment, MFNS at doses of 200 microg or 400 microg, twice daily, was well tolerated and significantly more effective in reducing the symptoms of rhinosinusitis than antibiotic therapy alone.