Comparable bronchodilation with hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA) albuterol and chlorofluorocarbons-11/12 (CFC) albuterol in children with asthma.

This was an open-label, parallel group, randomized, age-stratified, multicenter study designed to compare the safety and efficacy of regular use of albuterol formulated in hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA albuterol) and albuterol formulated in chlorofluorocarbons-11/12 (CFC albuterol) in children with asthma. Children age 4-11 years using a short-acting inhaled beta2-agonist for 6 months to manage stable asthma, and with a prestudy forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) of >50% predicted after withholding short-acting inhaled beta2-agonists for at least 6 hr, an increase in FEV1 > or = 12% within 30 min after two puffs of CFC albuterol, and the capability to comply with medication withholding requirements were eligible for study entry. After screening evaluation, patients entered a minimum 7-day run-in period. On study day 1 spirometry and a baseline 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) were performed, pulse and blood pressure were measured, and patients self-administered two puffs of their randomized study drug, either HFA albuterol or CFC albuterol. Serial spirometry was performed over 6 hr after study drug dosing. Pulse and blood pressure were measured just prior to each spirometry and a 12-lead ECG was performed at 60 min postdose. Patients took two puffs of their study drug four times a day for 4 weeks. At study week 4, study day 1 procedures were repeated. Patients maintained a daily diary of morning (A.M.) and evening (P.M.) peak expiratory flow (PEF), daytime asthma symptom scores, nighttime asthma sleep disturbance scores, and study drug use. Demographics and baseline characteristics of the 63 patients randomized to HFA albuterol (33) and CFC albuterol (30) were similar. No significant differences were found between the HFA albuterol and CFC albuterol treatment groups for any of the primary or secondary FEV1 efficacy variables either at study day 1 or study week 4. No significant differences were noted between treatment groups for A.M. and P.M. PEF, individual asthma symptom scores, nighttime asthma sleep disturbance scores, and rescue study drug use over the 4-week study. No significant differences were found between the two treatment groups for change from predose in heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and 12-lead ECG intervals at either study day 1 or study week 4. Adverse event reporting was similar for the two treatment groups. In this study, with regular use of HFA albuterol in children with asthma, there was a similar safety profile and comparable bronchodilator efficacy as with CFC albuterol.

Proventil HFA prevents exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in children.

Short-acting inhaled beta2-agonists used just prior to exercise are an effective method for preventing exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) in children. This was a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, four-period crossover study that compared the effectiveness of albuterol formulated in hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA) to albuterol formulated in chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and to placebo in protecting asthmatic children age 6-11 from EIB. Patients self-administered either HFA albuterol, two different CFC albuterol products, or placebo 30 min prior to exercise challenge. Spirometry was performed predose and 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 min after the exercise challenge was completed. The smallest percent change from the predose forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) after exercise challenge was similar for the three active treatments, and each of the active treatments was significantly better than placebo. Each active treatment had significantly fewer patients unprotected from EIB (unprotected defined as having >20% fall in FEV1 after exercise challenge) than placebo. Changes in heart rate, blood pressure and electrocardiogram (ECG) intervals were similar for the three active treatments following exercise. HFA albuterol is as effective as albuterol products formulated in CFCs and more effective than placebo in protecting asthmatic children from EIB.

Safety of long-term treatment with HFA albuterol.

BACKGROUND: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used as propellants in metered-dose inhalers deplete stratospheric ozone, which results in serious public health concerns. Albuterol has been reformulated in the non-ozone-depleting propellant, hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA albuterol). OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare the safety of HFA albuterol to an albuterol product formulated in chlorofluorocarbon propellants (CFC albuterol) during 1 year of treatment in asthmatics. Bronchodilator efficacy of the two products was assessed as a secondary objective. METHODS: The results from two open-label, parallel-group trials of similar design in asthmatics requiring short-acting beta-agonists for symptom control were combined. Patients took two puffs bid of either HFA albuterol or CFC albuterol for 1 year. Additional puffs of study drug were allowed as needed to control asthma symptoms. Adverse events were recorded at clinic visits. Patients self-administered study drug at quarterly visits and underwent serial spirometry during a 6-h period postdose. Bronchodilator efficacy variables, based on FEV1 response to study drug, were proportion of responders, time to onset of effect, peak percent change, time to peak effect, duration of effect, and area under the curve. Differences between products and changes over time in efficacy variables were assessed using an analysis of variance model. Regression analyses with FEV1 as a covariate were performed post-hoc to analyze changes in bronchodilator efficacy over time. RESULTS: Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar for patients receiving HFA albuterol (n = 337) and CFC albuterol (n = 132). Total reported adverse events were similar for the two treatments. Differences in only four individual adverse events were noted: the HFA albuterol group reported more gastroenteritis and dizziness; the CFC albuterol group reported more epistaxis and expectoration. Adverse events attributed to study drug use were infrequent. No serious adverse events were related to study drug use. Predose FEV1 at quarterly visits increased to a small extent in both groups from month 0 to month 12. The bronchodilator efficacy of HFA albuterol was comparable to that of CFC albuterol at the quarterly visits, but decreased from baseline for both products over the 12 months of treatment. Use of inhaled corticosteroids, nasal corticosteroids, or theophylline did not explain the increase in predose FEV1 over time and did not protect patients from developing reduced bronchodilator efficacy by month 12. The change in predose FEV1 did not entirely account for the reduced bronchodilator efficacy over time. CONCLUSIONS: HFA albuterol has a safety profile similar to that of CFC albuterol during chronic, scheduled use, and both drugs are well tolerated. HFA albuterol and CFC albuterol provided comparable bronchodilator efficacy, but bronchodilator efficacy decreased for both products with 1 year of use.

Switching patients with asthma from chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) albuterol to hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA) albuterol.

Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants deplete stratospheric ozone. Production and use of CFCs, except for certain critical exemptions, has been prohibited by the Montreal Protocol. Use of CFCs as propellants in metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) is still allowed, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is planning the transition to alternative propellants for use in MDIs. Hydrofluoroalkane-134a (HFA), a non-ozone-depleting propellant, has been used to reformulate albuterol (HFA albuterol). This study evaluates whether comparable safety and efficacy continues for 12 weeks after patients with asthma are switched from CFC albuterol to HFA albuterol. Patients with asthma stabilized on CFC albuterol during a 12-week safety and efficacy trial were randomized to either continue receiving CFC albuterol or to be switched to receive HFA albuterol in a yearlong safety and efficacy trial. Safety and efficacy were compared over the first 12 weeks of the yearlong trial between patients who had remained on CFC albuterol and those who had been switched to HFA albuterol. Bronchodilator efficacy was evaluated by serial spirometry for 6 hr after the patients self-administered the study drug in the clinic. Safety was assessed by measuring changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, and electrocardiogram (ECG) intervals after dosing with study drug, monitoring adverse events, and performing prestudy and poststudy laboratory testing and physical examinations. No significant differences in bronchodilator efficacy between the patients continuing to receive CFC albuterol and those switched to HFA albuterol were found in the 12 weeks after the switch. No differences between the two products were found for changes in pulse rate, blood pressure, and ECG intervals. Adverse event profiles were similar for the two products, except the patients remaining on CFC albuterol reported increased asthma symptoms and rhinitis significantly more often than the patients switched to HFA albuterol. No clinically meaningful changes in laboratory tests or physical examinations were found in either treatment group. Patients with asthma switched from CFC albuterol to HFA albuterol receive comparable bronchodilation with a similar safety profile as those continuing to receive CFC albuterol.

Proventil HFA and ventolin have similar safety profiles during regular use.

OBJECTIVE: As a secondary objective to a long-term study evaluating the bronchodilator effectiveness of Proventil HFA (albuterol), to assess the safety of Proventil HFA, Ventolin, and hydrofluoroalkane 134a (HFA-134a) placebo over 12 weeks of regular dosing. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel group, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial of asthmatics requiring inhaled beta-adrenergic bronchodilators for symptom control. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment with Proventil HFA, Ventolin, or HFA-134a placebo, qid, for 12 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Adverse events were reviewed at biweekly clinic visits. Between clinic visits, patients recorded morning and evening peak expiratory flow (PEF), asthma symptom and nighttime asthma sleep disturbance scores, and use of rescue beta-adrenergic bronchodilator on diary cards daily. Investigators provided a global assessment of asthma control at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12. Vital signs were recorded over 6 h after dosing with study drug at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12. Standard laboratory tests, CBC count, serum chemistries, and urinalysis were obtained at study start and end. RESULTS: Adverse event reporting rates were similar for the three treatment groups. The morning PEF tended to be lower for the Proventil HFA and Ventolin groups than the HFA-134a placebo group, but the evening PEF tended to be higher for the active treatment groups. Daytime asthma symptom scores tended to be lower (better) with active treatment than placebo, but nighttime asthma sleep disturbance scores were similar for all three treatment groups. Use of Ventolin Rotacaps as rescue medication was significantly greater for the HFA-134a placebo group than the Proventil HFA and Ventolin groups. Diary card data did not change within groups over time. Investigator global assessments of asthma scores clustered between fair and good for all three treatment groups throughout the study. Changes in heart rate and BP were small after dosing with study drug and tended to be similar for the active treatments and HFA-134a placebo groups. No clinically meaningful changes in results of standard laboratory tests were found in any treatment group during this study. CONCLUSIONS: Proventil HFA had a similar safety profile as Ventolin during regular use. A dosage of 16 puffs per day of propellant HFA-134a was well tolerated by asthmatics. Regular use of either Proventil HFA or Ventolin did not cause asthma control to deteriorate.

Proventil HFA provides bronchodilation comparable to ventolin over 12 weeks of regular use in asthmatics.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the bronchodilator effectiveness of albuterol reformulated in the chlorofluorocarbon-free propellant hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)134a (Proventil HFA) to that of Ventolin and HFA placebo over 12 weeks of regular dosing. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, placebo-controlled, multi-center trial of asthmatics requiring inhaled beta-adrenergic bronchodilators for symptom control. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment qid with Proventil HFA, Ventolin, or HFA-134a placebo for 12 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: At weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12, spirometry was performed predose and serially over 6 h after dosing with study drug. Bronchodilator efficacy variables, based on FEV1 response to study drug, were proportion of responders, time to onset of effect, peak percent change, time to peak effect, duration of effect, and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar for patients randomized to Proventil HFA (193), Ventolin (186), and HFA-134a placebo (186). No significant differences were found between the Proventil HFA and Ventolin treatment groups for any FEV1 efficacy variable, either predose or during 6 h of serial spirometry, at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12. For all efficacy variables, except time to onset of effect, the Proventil HFA and Ventolin results were significantly greater than placebo. Time to onset of effect for the HFA-134a placebo group is misleading; only 13 patients (7%) were found to be responders in the intent-to-treat database. These efficacy results were found to be consistent across subgroup analyses of inhaled and nasal corticosteroid use, age (18 to 35 and 36 to 66 years), sex, race, weight (<60, 60 to 100, and >100 kg), and baseline FEV1 (< or =55% and >55% predicted). The peak FEV1 effect, duration of FEV1 effect, and AUC for FEV1 were all significantly smaller at weeks 4, 8, and 12 than week 0 for both the Proventil HFA and Ventolin treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Proventil HFA provided bronchodilation comparable to Ventolin and superior effects to HFA-134a placebo over 12 weeks of regular dosing. There was a diminution in bronchodilator response to both Proventil HFA and Ventolin after 4 weeks of use.

Cumulative dose response study comparing HFA-134a albuterol sulfate and conventional CFC albuterol in patients with asthma.

BACKGROUND: As a result of the pending ban on chlorofluorocarbon production, the non-chlorofluorocarbon propellant 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFA-134a) is being evaluated as a replacement for CFCs in metered-dose inhalers. OBJECTIVES: This cumulative dose response study compared the safety and bronchodilator efficacy of 16 cumulative inhalations of albuterol sulfate in an HFA-134a, CFC-free propellant system (108 microg of albuterol sulfate, equivalent to 90 microg of albuterol base) with that of equivalent doses of albuterol in a conventional CFC propellant system. METHODS: Twenty-two patients with at least a 12-month history of stable asthma, who were currently taken an inhaled beta-adrenergic bronchodilator, and who had a FEV1 between 40% and 80% of predicted, were enrolled in this randomized, modified-blind, two-period crossover study. One, 1, 2, 4, and 8 inhalations of study drug were self-administered at 30-minute intervals, resulting in 16 cumulative inhalations. Pulmonary function and safety measures were assessed after each dosing interval. RESULTS: A significant dose response was found for HFA-134a albuterol sulfate and CFC albuterol with regard to changes in FEV1, serum potassium, heart rate, and blood pressure after 16 cumulative inhalations. No significant differences were demonstrated between HFA-134a albuterol sulfate and CFC albuterol for any FEV1 or safety parameter at any cumulative dose level. No clinically meaningful laboratory or physical examination abnormalities were found with administration of either HFA-134a albuterol sulfate or CFC albuterol. CONCLUSIONS: HFA-134a albuterol sulfate provides bronchodilation comparable to CFC albuterol and has a similar safety profile.

Proventil HFA provides protection from exercise-induced bronchoconstriction comparable to proventil and ventolin.

INTRODUCTION: During the 1970s, scientists suggested that the growing use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was contributing to depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer with potentially harmful results. A committee on the ozone layer organized the preparation of the Montreal Protocol. This protocol mandated the cessation of production and use of CFCs by January 1, 1996. The primary exemption to this ban is for the use of CFCs as propellants in metered dose inhalers (MDIs) for the treatment of asthma. Suitable replacement hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) propellants, such as HFA-134a, for use in MDIs have been identified. Albuterol, a selective beta-adrenergic agonist, currently widely available for inhalation asthma therapy, has been reformulated in HFA-134a (Proventil HFA). OBJECTIVE; To compare the efficacy of Proventil HFA to Ventolin, Proventil, and placebo (HFA-134a) MDI in protecting asthmatic patients from exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. METHODS: This was a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, 4-period crossover study of asthmatic patients with documented exercise-induced broncho-constriction. Twenty patients self administered two puffs of either Proventil HFA, Ventolin, Proventil or placebo, from an MDI, 30 minutes prior to performing a standardized exercise challenge at the study site. Spirometry was performed predose and 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90 minutes after completion of the exercise challenge. Heart rate and blood pressure were measured just prior to spirometry and a 12-lead ECG was performed 15 minutes after completion of the exercise challenge for measurement of the QT corrected interval. RESULTS: The primary efficacy variable was the smallest percent change from the predose FEV1 following exercise. The smallest percent change from predose FEV1 for Proventil HFA was 2.0 +/- 9.9 SD, similar to the 2.0 +/- 11.4 SD for Ventolin, and the 3.6 +/- 10.2 SD for Proventil. The smallest percent change from predose FEV1 for each of the active treatments was significantly different from placebo, -23.7 +/- 14.5. Twelve of the patients had a > or = 20% fall in FEV1 post-exercise with placebo pretreatment, but only 1, 1, and 0 had > or = 20% FEV1 falls after treatment with Proventil HFA, Ventolin, and Proventil respectively. Changes in heart rate, blood pressure and QT corrected interval were similar for the three active treatments following exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Proventil HFA provides protection against exercise-induced bronchoconstriction comparable to Ventolin and Proventil and protection superior to placebo. Proventil HFA has a safety profile similar to Ventolin when used to prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction.

Acute safety of the CFC-free propellant HFA-134a from a pressurized metered dose inhaler.

The acute safety of the alternative chlorofluorocarbon-free (CFC-free) propellant HFA-134a from a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (MDI) was assessed in 12 healthy male subjects according to a double-blind, randomized, crossover design. On each of three consecutive days, cumulative doses of 1,2,4,8 and 16 inhalations were administered 30 min apart from one of three MDIs. The three MDIs contained either the HFA-134a CFC-free system without drug (HFA-Placebo), the CFC-free system with salbutamol sulphate (HFA-Salbutamol), or a conventional CFC propellant mixture without drug (CFC-Placebo). Pulmonary function (FEV1, FEF25-75%), cardiovascular performance (heart rate and blood pressure), objective tremor measurements and serum potassium were measured after each incremental dose. Similar responses for pulmonary function, cardiovascular performance, tremor and serum potassium were observed between the HFA-Placebo and CFC-Placebo groups. No statistically significant difference was seen in change from baseline of any parameter between the two propellant systems. The administration of HFA-Salbutamol produced statistically significant dose-related increases in heart rate, systolic blood pressure and tremor and a significant dose-related decrease in serum potassium; these responses were expected based on cumulative doses of active drug. Blood samples for HFA-134a analysis were collected to measure systemic absorption of this propellant. Levels of HFA-134a between 200 and 700 ng.ml-1 were detected in all subjects given the CFC-free system. This study shows that acute inhalation of HFA-134a in a CFC-free system is as safe as a CFC propellant system. Salbutamol sulphate in the CFC-free system can be delivered in a dose-linear fashion, without any noticeable change in the safety profile of active drug.

Kinetics of absorption of a new once-a-day formulation of theophylline in the presence and absence of food.

Two three-way crossover studies were done to characterize the drug release characteristics of Monospan (3M Pharmaceuticals, St. Paul, MN) capsules, a new once-a-day theophylline formulation. In the first study, 22 healthy males received single 450-mg doses of Monospan in the presence and absence of a high-fat breakfast; the same dose of Somophyllin (Fisons, Rochester, NY) immediate-release liquid was given to fasted subjects as a reference. The second study involved 29 healthy males given a single dose of 900 mg of Monospan in the presence and absence of the same high-fat meal; Theo-24 (G. D. Searle and Co., Skokie, IL) capsules were given to fasted subjects as a reference. The results of both studies showed that food did not affect the absorption of theophylline from Monospan; peak concentration, to and area under the serum concentration-time curve were all unchanged. The absorption rates were similar with both strengths and dietary conditions and showed that theophylline was absorbed slowly from Monospan at a constant rate (approximately 3.2%/h) over 24 h. Absorption continued past 24 h, and the extent of absorption from Monospan compared with that from each reference averaged 88% or higher. A good correlation (r > 0.980) was observed for Monospan between the amount absorbed in vivo and the amount released in the in vitro dissolution test, a result that demonstrates the precise rate control of Monospan. We conclude that Monospan is a suitable once-a-day formulation that can be taken without regard to food.