Christopher J. Miller

Twelve-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of the efficacy and tolerability of budesonide and formoterol in one metered-dose inhaler compared with budesonide alone and formoterol alone in adolescents and adults with asthma.

BACKGROUNDnThe addition of the long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist formoterol to low- to moderate-dose budesonide has shown clinical efficacy in patients with persistent asthma. Combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol in 1 pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) has been found to have greater efficacy than its monocomponents in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma, but it has not been assessed in patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma.nnnOBJECTIVEnThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of budesonide and formoterol delivered via 1 pMDI (budesonide/formoterol pMDI), budesonide pMDI, formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI), and placebo.nnnMETHODSnThis 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-dummy study was conducted at 56 centers across the United States. Patients aged > or =12 years with mild to moderate persistent asthma treated with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) for > or =4 weeks before screening and who had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) of > or =60% to < or =90% of predicted normal at screening were eligible. After 2 weeks (current asthma therapy discontinued), patients received twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (160/9 microg), budesonide pMDI 80 microg x 2 inhalations (160 microg), formoterol DPI 4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (9 microg), or placebo. The coprimary efficacy variables were changes from baseline in morning predose FEV(1) and 12-hour mean FEV(1) (from serial spirometry) after administration of the morning dose of study medication. Tolerability was assessed based on adverse events (AEs); routine laboratory assessments; electrocardiography; 24-hour Holter monitor assessments; and physical examinations, including vital signs (eg, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and heart rate). AEs were recorded manually by the patient in paper notebooks and reviewed at each clinic visit by the investigator and during a final follow-up phone call.nnnRESULTSnA total of 480 patients were randomized (299 females, 181 males; mean age, 36 years; mean FEV(1), 2.4 L; budesonide/formoterol pMDI, 123 patients; budesonide pMDI, 121; formoterol DPI, 114; placebo, 122). At end of treatment, the mean increases from baseline in predose FEV(1) were greater with budesonide/formoterol pMDI versus budesonide pMDI, formoterol DPI, and placebo (0.37 vs 0.23, 0.17, and 0.03 L, respectively; all, P<0.005). 0.005). After administration of the first dose and at weeks 2 and 12, mean increases in 12-hour mean FEV(1) were significantly greater with budesonide/formoterol pMDI (0.41, 0.47, and 0.50 L, respectively) versus budesonide pMDI (0.17, 0.30, and 0.32 L) and placebo (0.15, 0.12, and 0.12 L) (all, P < 0.001). Fewer patients receiving budesonide/formoterol pMDI met criteria for (18.7%; P < 0.001) or withdrew because of (7.3%; P < or = 0.010) worsening asthma versus formoterol DPI (42.1% and 18.4%, respectively) and placebo (56.6% and 32.8%); results were similar between budesonide pMDI (21.5% and 6.6%, respectively) and budesonide/formoterol pMDI. Three patients experienced serious AEs; none was considered related to study medication. The proportions of withdrawals due to worsening asthma were not significantly different between the budesonide/formoterol pMDI and budesonide pMDI groups.nnnCONCLUSIONSnIn this population of adults and adolescents with mild to moderate persistent asthma previously treated with ICSs, twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pMDI was associated with significantly increased pulmonary function versus its monocomponents. All study drugs were generally well tolerated.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Zafirlukast for the Treatment of Asthma in Children

OBJECTIVEnThis study was undertaken to examine the dose-response relationship of zafirlukast (5 to 40 mg BID) and to assess the efficacy and tolerability of the 10-mg BID dose in school-aged children with mild to moderate asthma.nnnBACKGROUNDnThe efficacy and tolerability of zafirlukast, an oral leukotriene-receptor antagonist, has been demonstrated in adolescents and adults aged > or = 12 years.nnnMETHODSnData from 2 placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter trials (trial 1, 4-week double-blind; trial 2, 6-week double-blind) were integrated. Children aged 5 to 11 years were randomly assigned to receive zafirlukast 5 mg BID (n = 99), 10 mg BID (n = 205), 20 mg BID (n = 105), 40 mg BID (n = 99), or placebo (n = 206). The primary outcome was change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) expressed as percent of predicted normal. Secondary outcomes were FEV1 (L), morning and evening peak expiratory flow, peak flow variability, short-acting beta2-agonist use, asthma episode score, and nights awakened by asthma.nnnRESULTSnMean baseline FEV1 was 76.5% of predicted. The greatest improvements were generally seen with zafirlukast 5 mg BID or 10 mg BID, with no additional clinically significant benefits seen at higher doses. The pooled data analysis showed that 10 mg BID compared with placebo significantly improved (P < 0.045) all efficacy outcomes except asthma-episode score and nights awakened with asthma. However, in the subset of children who had > or = 1 night awakened per week at baseline (zafirlukast 10 mg BID = 78; placebo = 86), 10 mg BID significantly reduced nights awakened (P = 0.009) (mean difference from placebo at end point = -0.81 night/wk). All zafirlukast doses were well tolerated and had tolerability profiles that were clinically indistinguishable from placebo.nnnCONCLUSIONnThese results support the effectiveness and tolerability of the 10-mg BID dose of zafirlukast for the prophylaxis and chronic treatment of mild to moderate asthma in children.

Effect of roflumilast and inhaledcorticosteroid/long-acting b2-agonist on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations (RE2SPOND): A randomized clinical trial

RATIONALEnModerate and severe exacerbations are incompletely prevented by maximal inhalation therapy in patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo determine whether roflumilast reduces moderate and/or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations in patients at risk for exacerbations despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist with or without a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA).nnnMETHODSnIn this 52-week, phase 4, double-blind, placebo-controlled RE(2)SPOND (Roflumilast Effect on Exacerbations in Patients on Dual [LABA/ICS] Therapy) trial (NCT01443845), participants aged 40 years or older with severe/very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic bronchitis, two or more exacerbations and/or hospitalizations in the previous year, and receiving inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist with or without LAMA daily for 3 or more months were equally randomized to once-daily roflumilast, 500 μg (nu2009=u20091,178), or placebo (nu2009=u20091,176). Stratification was based on LAMA use.nnnMEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTSnAlthough rate of moderate or severe exacerbations per patient per year (primary endpoint) was reduced by 8.5% with roflumilast versus placebo, the between-group difference was not statistically significant (rate ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.04; Pu2009=u20090.163). However, roflumilast improved lung function, and in a post hoc analysis roflumilast significantly reduced the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in participants with a history of more than three exacerbations and/or one or more hospitalizations in the prior year. Adverse event-related discontinuations occurred in 11.7% roflumilast-treated and 5.4% placebo-treated participants. Deaths occurred in 2.5% roflumilast and 2.1% placebo participants.nnnCONCLUSIONSnRoflumilast failed to statistically significantly reduce moderate and/or severe exacerbations in the overall population. Roflumilast improved lung function and reduced exacerbations in participants with frequent exacerbations and/or hospitalization history. The safety profile of roflumilast was consistent with that of previous studies. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01443845).

Two multicenter, randomized, single-blind, single-dose, crossover studies of specific sensory attributes of budesonide aqueous nasal spray and fluticasone propionate nasal spray

BACKGROUNDnIntranasal corticosteroids are effective for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Sensory attributes associated with these sprays may affect patient preference and adherence to treatment regimens.nnnOBJECTIVESnThese 2 studies compared patients perceptions of and preferences for specific sensory attributes of budesonide aqueous nasal spray (BANS) and fluticasone propionate nasal spray (FPNS).nnnMETHODSnIn 2 multicenter, randomized, single-blind (patient), single-dose, 2-period, 1-day crossover studies, adults with mild to moderate allergic rhinitis received single doses of BANS (one 32-pg spray per nostril in both studies, 64-microg total dose) and FPNS (two 50-microg sprays per nostril in study 1, 200-pg total dose; one 50-microg spray per nostril in study 2, 100-microg total dose). Study 1 compared the once-daily recommended starting doses of BANS and FPNS, and study 2 compared BANS with half the once-daily recommended dose of FPNS to balance the number of actuations for delivery of study drug. Patients completed the 23-item Sensory Perceptions Questionnaire and indicated their product preference (if any).nnnRESULTSnA total of 110 women and 71 men in study 1 and 136 women and 54 men in study 2 were randomized to treatment. None had previously used BANS or FPNS. In both studies, fewer patients perceived scent or taste (both P < 0.001 in both studies), forceful spray (P < 0.001 in both studies), and a wet feel in both the nose and throat (study 1, P < 0.004; study 2, P < 0.002) with BANS than with FPNS. In addition, more patients in both studies liked the spray force (study 1, P < 0.01; study 2, P < 0.001) and moisture content in the throat (study 1, P < 0.001; study 2, P < 0.006) of BANS and indicated a greater overall satisfaction with the sensory features of BANS than those of FPNS (study 1, P < 0.001; study 2, P < 0.015). In analyses that included all responding patients, 54.4% of patients in study 1 preferred BANS and 37.8% preferred FPNS (P < 0.022). In study 2, 47.4% preferred BANS and 41.1% preferred FPNS (not significant). Of the 92.2% of patients in study 1 and 88.4% in study 2 who specified a product preference, 59.0% preferred BANS and 41.0% preferred FPNS in study 1 (P = 0.021), and 53.6% preferred BANS and 46.4% preferred FPNS in study 2 (not significant).nnnCONCLUSIONSnOn the basis of perceptions of specific sensory attributes reported after 1 administration in these 2 studies, BANS was rated as more pleasing and preferred over the recommended QD starting dose of FPNS, and was also rated as more pleasing than half the QD recommended starting dose of FPNS.

The effect of budesonide and formoterol in one pressurized metered-dose inhaler on patient-reported outcomes in adults with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma

ABSTRACT Objective: To determine the effects of budesonide and formoterol administered via one pressurized metered-dose inhaler (budesonide/formoterol pMDI) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and to determine the contributions of budesonide and formoterol to those effects in adults with asthma. Research design and methods: A 12-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, multicenter study was conducted in 480 patients aged ≥u200912 years with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. After a 2-week run-in period during which current asthma therapy was discontinued, patients were randomized to receive two inhalations twice daily of budesonide/formoterol pMDI 80/4.5u2009μg (160/9u2009μg), budesonide pMDI 80u2009μg (160u2009μg), formoterol via dry powder inhaler (DPI) 4.5u2009μg (9u2009μg), or placebo. Main outcome measures: Analyses included a subpopulation of 405 patients aged ≥u200918 years. PROs included the standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ(S)), the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale, the Patient Satisfaction with Asthma Medication (PSAM) questionnaire, and asthma control variables (recorded via electronic diaries), such as asthma symptoms, rescue medication use, and nighttime awakenings due to asthma. Patient and physician global assessments were collected at the end of the study. Results: Patients aged ≥u200918 years receiving budesonide/formoterol pMDI reported significantly greater improvements from baseline in AQLQ overall and domain scores, MOS Sleep Scale domain scores, and asthma control variables than patients receiving placebo (u2009p ≤ 0.033). Improvements from baseline in AQLQ(S) overall and domain scores, daily asthma symptoms scores, percentage of symptom-free days, percentage of rescue medication-free days, and percentage of asthma control days were significantly greater in patients receiving budesonide/formoterol pMDI versus formoterol DPI (u2009p ≤ 0.042). Patients receiving budesonide/formoterol pMDI reported significantly greater PSAM scores than did patients in all other treatment arms (u2009p ≤ 0.004). Study limitations may include the fact that the formoterol-alone arm used a different device and formulation than the other active arms as well as the absence of a treatment arm with budesonide and formoterol administered concomitantly in separate inhalers. In addition, these results may not be generalized to all patients with asthma, as this analysis included only patients aged ≥u200918 years. Conclusions: Patients receiving treatment with budesonide/formoterol pMDI experienced significantly greater improvements from baseline in asthma-related quality of life, quality of sleep, and asthma control and greater satisfaction with treatment than patients receiving placebo. The combination of budesonide and formoterol in one pMDI is beneficial in improving how a patient feels and functions as a result of treatment.

Onset of effect of budesonide and formoterol administered via one pressurized metered-dose inhaler in patients with asthma previously treated with inhaled corticosteroids

BACKGROUNDnOnset of bronchodilation of budesonide/formoterol in one pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) has not been evaluated in asthma.nnnOBJECTIVEnTo evaluate time to onset of clinically significant bronchodilation (> or = 15% improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second) and patient-perceived onset of effect (OE) in patients previously receiving inhaled corticosteroids.nnnMETHODSnIn two 12-week studies, patients 12 years and older with moderate to severe (study 1; n = 596) and mild to moderate (study 2; n = 480) persistent asthma received budesonide/formoterol pMDI, budesonide pMDI plus formoterol dry powder inhaler (study 1 only), budesonide pMDI, formoterol dry powder inhaler, or placebo. Postdose time to 15% or greater improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second and patient-perceived OE (assessed in a subset of patients 18 years and older [study 1, n=553; study 2, n=405]) were evaluated [corrected]nnnRESULTSnMore budesonide/formoterol-treated patients achieved onset of clinically significant bronchodilation within 15 minutes (median, 13 minutes) of administration at randomization vs those taking budesonide or placebo (P < .001). More patients receiving budesonide/formoterol vs budesonide and placebo reported feeling their study medication begin to work right away (P < or = .004; end of week 1). Similar results (P < .001) were observed for patient satisfaction with how quickly they felt their medication begin to work (except budesonide/formoterol vs budesonide, study 1 [P = .073]). Time to onset of clinically significant bronchodilation and patient-perceived OE of budesonide/formoterol and formoterol were similar.nnnCONCLUSIONnBudesonide/formoterol demonstrated a more rapid onset of clinically significant bronchodilation and a greater percentage of patients who perceived their medication working right away vs budesonide or placebo.

Efficacy and tolerability of once-daily budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler in adults and adolescents with asthma previously stable with twice-daily budesonide/ formoterol dosing

BACKGROUNDnThe goal of asthma therapy is to control symptoms using minimal pharmacologic intervention.nnnOBJECTIVEnTo evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily budesonide/formoterol vs once-daily budesonide in patients stable with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol.nnnMETHODSnThis double-blind, 12-week study enrolled 619 patients 12 years and older with mild to moderate asthma. After 4 to 5 weeks of twice-daily budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI), 80/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (320/18 microg/d), stable patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to 2 inhalations twice daily of budesonide/formoterol pMDI, 80/4.5 microg (320/18 microg/d), or 2 inhalations once daily (evening) of budesonide/formoterol pMDI, 160/4.5 microg or 80/4.5 microg (320/9 microg or 160/9 microg/d), or budesonide pMDI, 160 microg (320 microg/d).nnnRESULTSnAll budesonide/formoterol groups maintained significantly more favorable evening predose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), daytime/nighttime asthma symptoms, nighttime rescue medication use, and rescue medication-free days vs budesonide. Variables evaluated during the end of the once-daily dosing interval (evening predose FEV1, evening PEF, daytime asthma symptoms, and daytime rescue medication use) significantly favored twice-daily budesonide/formoterol vs all treatments. Twice-daily budesonide/formoterol demonstrated significantly more favorable results for symptom-free and asthma control days vs all treatments and awakening-free nights vs budesonide. Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire and Asthma Control Questionnaire results significantly favored twice-daily budesonide/formoterol vs budesonide (P < or = .018). All treatments were well tolerated.nnnCONCLUSIONSnPulmonary function and asthma control were more effectively maintained with all budesonide/formoterol regimens vs once-daily budesonide and with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol at twice the daily formoterol dose vs both once-daily budesonide/formoterol doses.