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 AZD3199 vs formoterol in COPD: a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the efficacy and safety of AZD3199, a novel inhaled ultra-LABA, with the main aim of establishing a dose that would maintain 24-hour bronchodilation in patients with COPD. METHODS: Patients (n = 329) were randomized to AZD3199 (200, 400 or 800 µg o.d.), formoterol (9 µg b.i.d.) or placebo via Turbuhaler® in a parallel group study. The primary objective of the study was to compare the clinical efficacy of three doses of AZD3199 inhaled once daily with 9 µg formoterol twice daily and placebo, over a 4-week treatment period in adults with moderate-to-severe COPD. After 4 weeks, peak (0-4 h) and trough (24-26 h) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) were assessed as the primary efficacy outcome variables. RESULTS: All AZD3199 doses significantly increased mean peak and trough FEV1 versus placebo (106-171 ml and 97-110 ml increases, respectively), but with no clear dose-response; the level of bronchodilation was comparable to or greater than that achieved with formoterol. Forced vital capacity (FVC) at peak bronchodilation also significantly increased with AZD3199 versus placebo (153-204 ml). COPD symptom scores and reliever use were reduced with AZD3199, while FEV1 reversibility was unaltered. Adverse events were mild-to-moderate, with no safety concerns identified. Drug exposure was dose-proportional, but lower than predicted from healthy volunteers. CONCLUSIONS: All three doses of AZD3199 produced 24-hour bronchodilation, but with no clear dose-response, suggesting that doses of 200 µg or less may be sufficient to maintain bronchodilation over 24 hours in patients with COPD. No safety concerns were identified. Further studies are required to determine the once-daily AZD3199 dose for COPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00929708.

Effect of esomeprazole 40 mg once or twice daily on asthma: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

RATIONALE: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common among patients with asthma; however, studies investigating the effect of proton pump inhibitors on asthma outcomes report conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of esomeprazole 40 mg once or twice daily on asthma outcomes in patients with concomitant symptoms of GERD. METHODS: This 26-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT00317044) included adult patients (18-70 yr) with moderate-to-severe asthma and symptomatic GERD. The change in morning peak expiratory flow (primary variable), evening peak expiratory flow, FEV(1), asthma symptoms, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Reflux Disease Questionnaire, and tolerability were assessed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 961 patients were randomized and 828 completed the study. Relative to baseline, improvement in morning peak expiratory flow was observed for both esomeprazole 40 mg once daily (+3.5 L/min; 95% CI, -3.2 to 10.2) and 40 mg twice daily (+5.5 L/min; 95% CI, -1.2 to 12.2), although no statistically significant between-treatment differences were apparent. At treatment end, both doses of esomeprazole significantly improved FEV(1) versus placebo (+0.09 L and +0.12 L; P = 0.0039 and P < 0.0001, respectively). However, only esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily demonstrated a significant improvement when FEV(1) was calculated over the entire 26-week period (+0.07 L; P = 0.0042). Significant improvements in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire total score were demonstrated for both esomeprazole doses compared with placebo (+0.28 and +0.41; P = 0.0006 and P < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole may improve pulmonary function and asthma-related quality of life. However, the improvements were minor and of small clinical significance.

Effect on lung function and morning activities of budesonide/formoterol versus salmeterol/fluticasone in patients with COPD.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often experience symptoms and problems with activities early in the morning. This is the first study to compare the effect of budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone on lung function, symptoms and activities early in the morning. METHODS: Lung function (peak expiratory flow [PEF] and forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV( 1)]) and symptoms were measured at bedside and activities were measured during the morning using a six-item questionnaire concerning basic morning routines. In a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, cross-over study, 442 patients with COPD aged >or=40 years (pre-bronchodilator FEV(1)

Efficacy and safety of a new pressurised metered-dose inhaler formulation of budesonide/formoterol in children with asthma: a superiority and therapeutic equivalence study.

AIM: This paediatric asthma study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a novel hydrofluoroalkane pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) formulation of budesonide/formoterol versus budesonide pMDI and budesonide/formoterol dry-powder inhaler (DPI). METHODS: The study was a 12-week, multinational, double-blind trial involving children (aged 6-11 years) with symptomatic asthma on inhaled corticosteroids (375-1000 microg/day), with a history of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and peak expiratory flow (PEF) > or =50% of predicted. Patients were randomised (two inhalations twice daily) to budesonide pMDI 100 microg, budesonide/formoterol DPI 80/4.5 microg or budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 microg. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in morning PEF. RESULTS: Overall, 622 patients were randomised. Increases in morning PEF with budesonide/formoterol pMDI and budesonide/formoterol DPI were therapeutically equivalent (29.5 versus 30.2l/min, respectively; 95% confidence interval: -6.0 to 4.6; P=0.78, also confirmed by per-protocol analysis). Improvements in secondary efficacy endpoints with both budesonide/formoterol formulations were not significantly different. Significantly greater improvement was achieved with budesonide/formoterol pMDI versus budesonide pMDI for morning PEF (+9.6l/min; P<0.001) and other lung function parameters. The safety profile of budesonide/formoterol pMDI was favourable and similar to that of budesonide/formoterol DPI and budesonide pMDI. CONCLUSION: Budesonide/formoterol, administered via the therapeutically equivalent hydrofluoroalkane pMDI or DPI, is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for children with asthma.

Effects of esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily on asthma: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

RATIONALE: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common in patients with asthma, suggesting an interaction between the two conditions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of gastric acid suppression with the proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole on asthma outcomes in subjects with persistent moderate to severe asthma treated with antiinflammatory asthma medication. METHODS: In this double-blind study, subjects were randomized to receive esomeprazole 40 mg or placebo twice daily for 16 wk. According to nocturnal respiratory symptoms (NOC) and GERD, subjects were divided into three strata: GERD-/NOC+, GERD+/NOC-, and GERD+/NOC+. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 770 subjects were randomized. There was no statistically significant improvement in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) over placebo in the overall study population: 6.3 L/min (p = 0.061). Over the whole treatment period, in GERD+/NOC+ subjects (n = 350), esomeprazole provided an 8.7-L/min improvement (p = 0.03) in morning PEF, and a 10.2-L/min improvement (p = 0.012) in evening PEF over placebo. Among 307 subjects taking long-acting beta2-agonists, improvements over placebo were observed in morning PEF (12.2 L/min, p = 0.017) and in evening PEF (11.1 L/min, p = 0.024); these improvements were more pronounced in GERD+/NOC+ subjects. Esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily was well tolerated and no safety concerns were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole improved PEF in subjects with asthma who presented with both GERD and NOC. In subjects without both GERD and NOC, no improvement could be detected.