Charles Fogarty

Once-daily bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: indacaterol versus tiotropium.

RATIONALE Indacaterol is the first once-daily, long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonist bronchodilator studied in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVES To demonstrate greater efficacy of indacaterol versus placebo on FEV(1) at 24 hours post dose (trough) after 12 weeks, to compare efficacy with placebo and tiotropium, and to evaluate safety and tolerability over 26 weeks. MEASUREMENTS Patients with moderate-to-severe COPD were randomized to double-blind indacaterol 150 or 300 microg or placebo, or open-label tiotropium 18 microg, all once daily, for 26 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was trough FEV(1) at 12 weeks. Additional analyses (not adjusted for multiplicity) included transition dyspnea index (TDI), health status (St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]), and exacerbations. Serum potassium, blood glucose, and QTc interval were measured. RESULTS A total of 1,683 patients (age, 63.3 yr; post-bronchodilator FEV(1), 56% predicted; FEV(1)/FVC, 0.53) were randomized to the four treatment arms. Trough FEV(1) at Week 12 increased versus placebo by 180 ml with both indacaterol doses and by 140 ml with tiotropium (all P < 0.001 vs. placebo). At Week 26, for indacaterol 150/300 microg, respectively, versus placebo, TDI increased (1.00/1.18, P < 0.001) and SGRQ total score decreased (-3.3/-2.4, P < 0.01); corresponding results with tiotropium were 0.87 (P < 0.001) for TDI and (-1.0, P = not significant) for SGRQ total score. The incidence of adverse events, low serum potassium, high blood glucose, and prolonged QTc interval was similar across treatments. CONCLUSIONS Indacaterol was an effective once-daily bronchodilator and was at least as effective as tiotropium in improving clinical outcomes for patients with COPD. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00463567).

Delivery characteristics and patients’ handling of two single-dose dry-powder inhalers used in COPD

For optimal efficacy, an inhaler should deliver doses consistently and be easy for patients to use with minimal instruction. The delivery characteristics, patients’ correct use, and preference of two single-dose dry powder inhalers (Breezhaler and HandiHaler) were evaluated in two complementary studies. The first study examined aerodynamic particle size distribution, using inhalation profiles of seven patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The second was an open-label, two-period, 7-day crossover study, evaluating use of the inhalers with placebo capsules by 82 patients with mild to severe COPD. Patients’ correct use of the inhalers was assessed after reading written instructions on Day 1, and after training and 7 days of daily use. Patients’ preference was assessed after completion of both study periods. Patient inhalation profiles showed average peak inspiratory flows of 72 L/minute through Breezhaler and 36 L/minute through HandiHaler. For Breezhaler and HandiHaler, fine particle fractions were 27% and 10%, respectively. In the second study, correct use of Breezhaler and HandiHaler was achieved by >77% of patients for any step after 7 days; 61% of patients showed an overall preference for Breezhaler and 31% for HandiHaler (P = 0.01). Breezhaler is a low-resistance inhaler suitable for use by patients with a range of disease severities. Most patients used both inhalers correctly after 7 days, but more patients showed an overall preference for the Breezhaler compared with the HandiHaler. These are important factors for optimum dose delivery and successful COPD management.

Bronchodilatory effects of NVA237, a once daily long-acting muscarinic antagonist, in COPD patients

NVA237 is a novel, once daily inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist administered via a dry powder inhaler. This study aimed to assess the 24-h bronchodilatory effect following 14 days of treatment with inhaled NVA237 in patients with mild, moderate or severe COPD. This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period, crossover, multicenter study. A total of 33 patients (≥ 40 years; smoking history of ≥ 10 pack-years) were randomized to receive NVA237 50 μg once daily followed by placebo or placebo followed by NVA237 50 μg for 14 days. Treatment periods were separated by a 7-14 day washout period. The primary variable was the mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) derived from the area under the curve (AUC) between 0 and 24 h post-dose on Day 14. The 24-h FEV(1) profiles showed a consistent bronchodilator effect for NVA237 versus placebo on Day 14. Least square (LS) mean difference in FEV(1) AUC(0-24 h) values between NVA237 and placebo was 163 mL (P < 0.001). There were significant increases in mean FEV(1) AUC(0-12 h) (LS mean difference 165 mL, P = 0.001) and FEV(1) AUC(12-24 h) (161 mL, P < 0.001) versus placebo. NVA237 significantly improved peak FEV(1) (by 208 mL, P < 0.001) and trough FEV(1) (by 154 mL, P = 0.003) versus placebo on Day 14. NVA237 was well tolerated; all adverse events were mild or moderate in intensity and not related to study drug. NVA237 50 μg once daily was well tolerated and showed significant and sustained 24-h bronchodilation in patients with COPD.

Long-term safety of nebulized formoterol: results of a twelve-month open-label clinical trial.

Formoterol fumarate is a long-acting β2-agonist that is an effective bronchodilator for the maintenance management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The safety profile of the newly developed nebulized formoterol was evaluated over a twelve-month period in an open-label, active-control study. After completing a twelve-week double-blind double-dummy period, 569 subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease entered an open-label extension study and received twice-daily 20 µg formoterol fumarate inhalation solution for nebulization (FFIS) or 12 µg formoterol fumarate dry powder inhalation (FA) for 52 weeks. Most of the FFIS-treated subjects (86%) completed at least six months of open-label treatment with over 90% compliance, comparable to the FA group (88%). Results of safety monitoring for adverse events, laboratory values, and cardiac changes were similar between treatment groups. Three hundred forty (73%) of FFIS-treated subjects and 83 (78%) of FA-treated subjects experienced an adverse event over the course of the study, the majority of which were mild to moderate and considered unrelated to treatment. COPD exacerbation occurred in 15.8% of FFIS-treated and 17.9% of FA-treated subjects. Deaths, serious adverse events, and discontinuations for adverse events occurred in 1.3, 16.2, and 5.4% of the nebulized group versus 1.9, 17.9, and 7.5% of the inhaled group, respectively. There were no clinically important changes from baseline in laboratory tests, including serum potassium and glucose, or vital signs and no treatment-related increases in cardiac arrhythmias, heart rate, or QTc prolongation. We conclude that nebulized formoterol fumarate twice daily is well tolerated over long-term treatment in moderate-to-severe COPD subjects and has a similar safety profile to the DPI formulation.

Efficacy of Formoterol Fumarate Delivered by Metered Dose Inhaler Using Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology Versus Foradil® Aerolizer® in Moderate-To-Severe COPD: A Randomized, Dose-Ranging Study

Background: Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology offers a novel pharmaceutical platform for inhaled drug therapy. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose study (NCT01349868) evaluated the efficacy of a range of doses for formoterol fumarate (FF) delivered using Co-Suspension delivery technology via a pressurized metered dose inhaler (MDI) versus placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Secondary objectives included determination of non-inferior efficacy and systemic exposure compared with open-label Foradil® 12 μg (Foradil® Aerolizer®; formoterol fumarate dry powder inhaler). Methods: Patients received each of the 6 study treatments (FF MDI [7.2, 9.6 and 19.2μg], placebo MDI and open-label Foradil® [12 and 24µg]), separated by 3-10 days. Spirometry was performed 60 and 30 minutes prior to and at regular intervals up to 12 hours post-administration of study drug. The primary outcome measure was the change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) area under the curve between 0 and 12 hours (AUC0-12) relative to test day baseline. Results: A total of 50 patients were randomized to study treatment sequences. All doses of FF MDI demonstrated superiority to placebo (p<0.0001) and non-inferiority to Foradil® 12μg, on bronchodilator outcome measures. No serious adverse events were reported during the study. Conclusions: This study demonstrates non-inferiority of bronchodilator response and bioequivalent exposure of FF MDI 9.6μg to Foradil® 12μg, with both agents exhibiting a similar safety profile in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. This study supports the selection of FF MDI 9.6µg for further evaluation in Phase III trials.

Erratum: A randomized, seven-day study to assess the efficacy and safety of a glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combination metered dose inhaler using novel Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. [Respir Res. 18, 1 (2017), (8)] DOI: 10.1186/s12931-016-0491-8

Erratum Upon Publication of the original article [1] several discrepancies were highlighted in the following sections; Results, Table 1, Table 2 and Fig. 3. These errors have since been acknowledged and corrected in this erratum The first sentence in the subsection “Baseline characteristics” originally read: Patients’ baseline and demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1 (mITT population). This should read: Patients’ baseline and demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1. The header of Table 1 read: Baseline demographics (mITT population) This should read as: Baseline demographics (ITT population) It was noticed that Table 2 contained an error. In Table 2, data row 2, the footnote symbol ‘c’ was erroneously included in the third column. The footnote symbol ‘c ‘should be placed in the second column in this row. The corrected Table 2 is shown below. It was noticed that in Fig. 3b, the error bar on the 4th data point (AUCinf ) was incorrectly given. The error bar