Search

Background The aim of this study was to investigate safety and immunogenicity of vaccine formulations against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) containing the stabilized prefusion conformation of RSV fusion protein (RSVPreF3). Methods This phase 1/2, randomized controlled, observer-blind study enrolled 48 young adults (YAs; aged 18–40 years) and 1005 older adults (OAs; aged 60–80 years) between January and August 2019. Participants were randomized into equally sized groups to receive 2 doses of unadjuvanted (YAs and OAs) or AS01-adjuvanted (OAs) vaccine or placebo 2 months apart. Vaccine safety and immunogenicity were assessed until 1 month (YAs) or 12 months (OAs) after second vaccination. Results The RSVPreF3 vaccines boosted humoral (RSVPreF3-specific immunoglobulin G [IgG] and RSV-A neutralizing antibody) responses, which increased in an antigen concentration-dependent manner and were highest after dose 1. Compared to prevaccination, the geometric mean frequencies of polyfunctional CD4+ T cells increased after each dose and were significantly higher in adjuvanted than unadjuvanted vaccinees. Postvaccination immune responses persisted until end of follow-up. Solicited adverse events were mostly mild to moderate and transient. Despite a higher observed reactogenicity of AS01-containing vaccines, no safety concerns were identified for any assessed formulation. Conclusions Based on safety and immunogenicity profiles, the AS01E-adjuvanted vaccine containing 120 μg of RSVPreF3 was selected for further clinical development. Clinical Trials Registration NCT03814590.

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps affects approximately 2–4% of the general population, and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids is associated with adverse effects. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab in adults with recurrent, refractory severe bilateral chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Methods: SYNAPSE was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done at 93 centres, mainly hospitals, in 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with recurrent, refractory, severe, bilateral nasal polyp symptoms (nasal obstruction symptom visual analogue scale [VAS] score of >5), were eligible for repeat nasal surgery (overall symptoms VAS score >7 and endoscopic nasal polyps score of ≥5, with a minimum score of 2 in each nasal cavity) despite standard of care treatment, and had to have at least one nasal surgery in the past 10 years. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using permuted block design, to receive either 100 mg mepolizumab subcutaneously or placebo once every 4 weeks, in addition to standard of care (mometasone furoate intranasal spray for at least 8 weeks before screening and during the study, saline nasal irrigations, systemic corticosteroids or antibiotics, or both), as required, for 52 weeks. Site staff, the central study team, and patients were masked to study treatment and absolute blood eosinophil counts. The coprimary endpoints were change from baseline in total endoscopic nasal polyp score at week 52 and in mean nasal obstruction VAS score during weeks 49–52, assessed in the intention-to-treat population (ITT). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03085797. Findings: From May 25, 2017, to Dec 12, 2018, 854 patients were screened for eligibility. 414 patients were randomly assigned with 407 included in the ITT population; 206 received mepolizumab and 201 received placebo. Total endoscopic nasal polyp score significantly improved at week 52 from baseline with mepolizumab versus placebo (adjusted difference in medians −0·73, 95% CI −1·11 to −0·34; p

Gary T Ferguson,1 Edward M Kerwin,2 Tara Rheault,3 Thomas Bengtsson,4 Kathleen Rickard3 1Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan, Farmington Hills, MI, USA; 2Altitude Clinical Consulting, Medford, OR, USA; 3Verona Pharma, Plc, Raleigh, NC, USA; 4Stat Mind AB, Lund, SwedenCorrespondence: Tara RheaultVerona Pharma, 8045 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 130, Raleigh, NC, 27617, USATel +1 646-530-2126Email tara.rheault@veronapharma.comPurpose: Ensifentrine is an inhaled dual inhibitor of phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and 4 that has shown bronchodilatory effects and symptom improvement in clinical studies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and anti-inflammatory effects in healthy volunteers in a model of COPD-like inflammation. This manuscript reports on the results of the clinical study examining if ensifentrine provides meaningful improvements in lung function when added on to tiotropium over 4 weeks in patients with COPD who have impaired lung function and symptoms despite treatment with tiotropium.Patients and Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study recruited patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Patients were randomized to open-label tiotropium once daily (QD) plus (+) blinded escalating doses of ensifentrine or placebo twice daily (BID). Effects on lung function, symptoms and quality of life (QoL) were assessed over 4 weeks.Results: A total of 416 COPD patients were randomized and 413 received at least one dose of blinded study medication + tiotropium. All ensifentrine doses produced a significant and dose-dependent increase in peak forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline to Week 4, with placebo-corrected differences of 77.5 mL when added to tiotropium (0.375 mg; 95% CI: 4.8, 150.1 mL; p=0.037) to 124.2 mL (3 mg; 95% CI: 51.0, 196.8 mL; p< 0.001). A significant increase in average FEV1 (0– 12h) was shown at Week 4 with the 3 mg dose (87.3 mL; 95% CI: 20.0, 154.5 mL; p=0.011). Clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire – COPD (SGRQ-C) additive to tiotropium were observed at Week 4, exceeding the minimally clinically important difference of 4 units with the 1.5 and 3 mg doses. Adverse events were similar in frequency between the ensifentrine and placebo arms.Conclusion: This clinical study demonstrated that nebulized ensifentrine added on to tiotropium produced clinically important improvements in lung function and QoL over 4 weeks in COPD patients receiving tiotropium who demonstrated symptoms and lung function impairment, with a safety profile similar to placebo.Keywords: dual PDE3 and 4 inhibitor, phosphodiesterase, COPD, tiotropium, bronchodilation

Background:Despite inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy, 30–50% of patients with moderate or severe asthma remain inadequately controlled. We investigated the safety and efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate plus umeclidinium plus vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) compared with FF/VI. Methods:In this double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, phase 3A study (Clinical Study in Asthma Patients Receiving Triple Therapy in a Single Inhaler [CAPTAIN]), participants were recruited from 416 hospitals and primary care centres across 15 countries. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with inadequately controlled asthma (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ]-6 score of ≥1·5) despite ICS/LABA, a documented health-care contact or a documented temporary change in asthma therapy for treatment of acute asthma symptoms in the year before screening, pre-bronchodilator FEV1between 30% and less than 85% of predicted normal value, and reversibility (defined as an increase in FEV1of ≥12% and ≥200 mL in the 20–60 min after four inhalations of albuterol or salbutamol) at screening. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1), via central based randomisation stratified by pre-study ICS dose at study entry, to once-daily FF/VI (100/25 μg or 200/25 μg) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 μg, 100/62·5/25 μg, 200/31·25/25 μg, or 200/62·5/25 μg) administered via Ellipta dry powder inhaler (Glaxo Operations UK, Hertfordshire, UK). Patients, investigators, and the funder were masked to treatment allocation. Endpoints assessed in the intention-to-treat population were change from baseline in clinic trough FEV1at week 24 (primary) and annualised moderate and/or severe asthma exacerbation rate (key secondary). Other secondary endpoints were change from baseline in clinic FEV1at 3 h post-dose, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, and ACQ-7 total score, all at week 24. Change from baseline in Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Asthma total score at weeks 21–24 was also a secondary endpoint but is not reported here. Exploratory analyses of biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation on treatment response were also done. This study is registered withClinicalTrials.gov,NCT02924688, and is now complete. Findings:Between Dec 16, 2016, and Aug 31, 2018, 5185 patients were screened and 2439 were recruited and randomly assigned to FF/VI (100/25 μg n=407; 200/25 μg n=406) or FF/UMEC/VI (100/31·25/25 μg n=405; 100/62·5/25 μg n=406; 200/31·25/25 μg n=404; 200/62·5/25 μg n=408), with three patients randomly assigned in error and not included in analyses. In the intention-to-treat population, 922 (38%) patients were men, the mean age was 53·2 years (SD 13·1) and body-mass index was 29·4 (6·6). Baseline demographics were generally similar across all treatment groups. The least squares mean improvement in FEV1change from baseline for FF/UMEC/VI 100/62·5/25 μg versus FF/VI 100/25 μg was 110 mL (95% CI 66–153; pvsFF/VI 100/25 μg: 96 mL [52–139; pvs200/25 μg: 82 mL [39–125; p=0·0002]). These results were supported by the analysis of clinic FEV1at 3 h post-dose. Non-significant reductions in moderate and/or severe exacerbation rates were observed for FF/UMEC 62·5 μg/VI versus FF/VI (pooled analysis), with rates lower in FF 200 μg-containing versus FF 100 μg-containing treatment groups. All pooled treatment groups demonstrated mean improvements (decreases) in SGRQ total score at week 24 compared with baseline in excess of the minimal clinically important difference of 4 points; however, there were no differences between treatment groups. For mean change from baseline to week 24 in asthma control questionnaire-7 score, improvements (decreases) exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of 0·5 points were observed in all pooled treatment groups. Adding UMEC to FF/VI resulted in small, dose-related improvements compared with FF/VI (pooled analysis: FF/UMEC 31·25 μg/VI versus FF/VI, −0·06 (95% CI −0·12 to 0·01; p=0·094) FF/UMEC 62·5 μg/VI versus FF/VI, −0·09 (−0·16 to −0·02, p=0·0084). By contrast with adding UMEC, the effects of higher dose FF on clinic trough FEV1and annualised moderate and/or severe exacerbation rate were increased in patients with higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exhaled nitric oxide. Occurrence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups (patients with at least one event ranged from 210 [52%] to 258 [63%]), with the most commonly reported adverse events being nasopharyngitis (51 [13%]–63 [15%]), headache (19 [5%]–36 [9%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (13 [3%]–24 [6%]). The incidence of serious adverse events was similar across all groups (range 18 [4%]–25 [6%)). Three deaths occurred, of which one was considered to be related to study drug (pulmonary embolism in a patient in the FF/UMEC/VI 100/31·25/25 μg group). Interpretation:In patients with uncontrolled moderate or severe asthma on ICS/LABA, adding UMEC improved lung function but did not lead to a significant reduction in moderate and/or severe exacerbations. For such patients, single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI is an effective treatment option with a favourable risk–benefit profile. Higher dose FF primarily reduced the rate of exacerbations, particularly in patients with raised biomarkers of type 2 airway inflammation. Further confirmatory studies into the differentiating effect of type 2 inflammatory biomarkers on treatment outcomes in asthma are required to build on these exploratory findings and further guide clinical practice.

The aim was to investigate safety and immunogenicity of vaccine formulations against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) containing the stabilized prefusion conformation of RSV fusion protein (RSVPreF3).This phase I/II, randomized, controlled, observer-blind study enrolled 48 young adults (YA; 18-40 years) and 1005 older adults (OA; 60-80 years) between January and August 2019. Participants were randomized into equally sized groups to receive two doses of unadjuvanted (YA and OA) or AS01-adjuvanted (OA) vaccine or placebo two months apart. Vaccine safety and immunogenicity were assessed until one (YA) or 12 months (OA) after second vaccination.The RSVPreF3 vaccines boosted humoral (RSVPreF3-specific IgG and RSV-A neutralizing antibody) responses, which increased in an antigen-concentration-dependent manner and were highest post-dose one. Compared to pre-vaccination, the geometric mean frequencies of polyfunctional CD4+ T-cells increased after each dose and were significantly higher in adjuvanted than unadjuvanted vaccinees. Post-vaccination immune responses persisted until end of follow-up. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were mostly mild-to-moderate and transient. Despite a higher observed reactogenicity of AS01-containing vaccines, no safety concerns were identified for any assessed formulation.Based on safety and immunogenicity profiles, the AS01E-adjuvanted vaccine containing 120 μg of RSVPreF3 was selected for further clinical development.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03814590; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03814590.

Background: Primatene® MIST CFC, an epinephrine metered-dose inhaler (MDI), was discontinued from the market owing to environmental concerns from its use of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellant. As a result, a new epinephrine MDI was developed using hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) propellant. This article reports the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of the newly Food and Drug Administration-approved epinephrine HFA MDI. Methods: A randomized, evaluator-blinded, active-controlled, single-dose, two-arm crossover study was conducted to evaluate the PK profile of epinephrine HFA (Primatene® MIST) and epinephrine CFC (Primatene® MIST CFC) in 23 healthy volunteers to characterize the epinephrine absorption extent and rate. The study was performed at a high dose of five times the normal dose to obtain measurable plasma epinephrine levels. Plasma epinephrine levels were measured and safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs), vital signs, clinical laboratory tests, and physical examinations. Results: Epinephrine HFA demonstrated a greater systemic drug exposure (greater area under the curve) than that of epinephrine CFC (∼37% higher). The Cmax occurred at ∼2 minutes and was significantly higher in the epinephrine HFA group (0.18 ng/mL) compared with the CFC version (0.046 ng/mL) at normal dose. Within 20 minutes, both groups demonstrated comparable plasma epinephrine levels. No clinically significant adverse effects were found to be associated with epinephrine HFA, even after an ultrahigh dose (i.e., 10 inhalations). Conclusions: The systemic exposure of epinephrine HFA was found to be higher for the first 20 minutes, and then comparable with epinephrine CFC. Minimal AEs were found in this study despite the very high 1250–2200 μg inhaled doses (i.e., 10 inhalations) used for PK characterization.

Purpose To assess clinical characteristics and device satisfaction of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treated with glycopyrrolate/eFlow® Closed System (CS) nebulizer (further referred to as eFlow) under real-world conditions. Participants and Methods Patients with COPD currently using eFlow were identified by the study sponsor. Consenting patients who met study inclusion criteria completed a cross-sectional survey that included a device satisfaction questionnaire. Means, medians, and standard deviations were calculated. Results Sixty-six patients met inclusion criteria and completed the survey. Participants' mean ± standard deviation age was 64.9 ± 11.9 years and the majority were white (86.4%) and female (59.1%). Almost two-thirds were former smokers. Thirty-nine (59.1%) reported their COPD to be severe/very severe and 38 (57.6%) reported a COPD exacerbation resulting in a hospitalization, ER visit, or medication modification over the past 12 months. Among 55 participants who had previously used another type of nebulizer, 44 (80%) were overall "much more"/"somewhat more" satisfied with the eFlow compared with their previous nebulizer(s). Regardless of prior nebulizer use, 60 (90.9%) participants were "satisfied"/"very satisfied" overall with the eFlow. Assembly and disassembly, operation, and cleaning were perceived as being "easy"/"very easy" by at least 65% of participants. Among all participants, 57 (86.4%) were "confident"/"very confident" of glycopyrrolate administration. On a Likert scale of 1 ("I don't like it") to 7 ("I like it a lot"), mean scores were at least 5.9 for portability, ease of cleaning, size, weight, short administration time, and relative silence of the device. Over 80% of participants said they "probably"/"definitely" would continue to use eFlow. Conclusion Based on this real-world study, the majority of patients were highly satisfied with, and confident in, using eFlow.

Background: Two sequential single-dose crossover dose-ranging studies were performed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety profile of epinephrine hydrofluroalkane (HFA) metered-dose inhaler (MDI) formulation at various doses in subjects with asthma. Methods: In these multicenter, multiarm, double-blinded, or evaluator-blinded studies, subjects were randomized to receive the epinephrine HFA (Primatene® MIST HFA) MDI medication at doses ranging from 90 to 440 μg/dose, as well as to a placebo (PLA) control and an active control of epinephrine CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) MDI (Primatene® MIST CFC) at 220 μg/inhalation. Results: Spirometry testing for FEV1 (Forced Expiratory Volume in one second) demonstrated statistically significant improvements over PLA for epinephrine HFA MDI at all doses above 125 μg, as the amount out of the actuator (i.e., mouthpiece). The efficacy results for epinephrine HFA MDI in the dose range of 125–250 μg were also comparable to epinephrine CFC MDI (220 μg/inh). Safety assessments demonstrated minimal safety concerns for all treatment groups. No notable safety differences were observed between the studied doses of epinephrine HFA MDI and the active control formulation of epinephrine CFC MDI. Conclusion: The findings indicate that epinephrine HFA MDI provided clinically significant bronchodilator efficacy with minimal safety concerns in a dose range of 125–250 μg. These findings confirmed the optimal treatment doses of 125–250 μg that were appropriate for use in longer term 12 and 26 week chronic dosing studies of epinephrine HFA MDI for patients with intermittent or mild to moderate persistent asthma. Clinical trials registration number: NCT01025648.

Analytic epidemiological studies cover a large spectrum of study methodologies, ranging from noninterventional observational studies (population-based, case-control, or cohort studies) to interventional studies (clinical trials). Herein, we review the different research methodologies or study designs and discuss their advantages and disadvantages in the context of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) pharmacotherapy. Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the "gold standard" for evaluating the efficacy and safety of an intervention, observational studies conducted in a real-world scenario are useful in providing evidence on the effectiveness of the intervention in clinical practice; understanding both efficacy and effectiveness is important from the clinician's perspective. Pragmatic clinical trials that use real-world data while retaining randomization bridge the gap between explanatory RCTs and noninterventional observational studies. Overall, different study designs have their associated advantages and disadvantages; together, findings from all types of studies bring about progress in clinical research as elucidated through examples from COPD research in this paper.

Background: Wixela® Inhub® is a dry powder inhaler approved as a generic equivalent to Advair® Diskus® (fluticasone propionate [FP]/salmeterol fixed-dose combination) for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed at confirming the local (lung) therapeutic equivalence of both the FP and salmeterol components of Wixela Inhub (test [T]) to Advair Diskus (reference [R]) after inhalation. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in patients ≥18 years with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma compared the local therapeutic equivalence (using forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1]) of FP/salmeterol (100/50 μg) after inhaled delivery via T and R. Results: Randomized patients (N = 1127) received T (n = 512), R (n = 512), or placebo (n = 103). T and R significantly increased day 1 FEV1 area under the effect curve over 12 hours of the change from baseline (AUC[0–12]) and day 29 trough FEV1 over placebo, indicating that these endpoints were sufficiently sensitive for evaluation of bioequivalence. On day 1, T and R each increased FEV1 AUC(0–12) over placebo (3.134 L•h [T], 2.677 L•h [R]; each p

International audience; BackgroundAcute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are associated with changes in the sputum microbiome, including an increased prevalence of pathogenic bacteria. Vaccination against the most frequent bacteria identified in AECOPD might reduce exacerbation frequency. We assessed the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a candidate vaccine containing surface proteins from non-typeable Haemophilus influenzae (NTHi) and Moraxella catarrhalis (Mcat) in patients with COPD.MethodsThis multicentre, randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept, phase 2b trial recruited patients with stable COPD, moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 2, 3, or 4), at 67 clinical sites in Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, and USA. Eligible patients were aged 40–80 years and had a history of at least one moderate or severe exacerbation in the previous year. Patients were allocated (1:1) using a minimisation algorithm to receive two intramuscular injections of NTHi–Mcat vaccine or placebo 60 days apart, in addition to standard care. The allocation algorithm considered age category, number of previous exacerbations, COPD severity at study entry, and country as minimisation factors, to guarantee treatment balance within each factor. Vaccine recipients and those responsible for evaluating study endpoints were masked to group allocation. In the analysis of efficacy, the primary outcome was the rate of any moderate or severe AECOPD occurring within a 1-year period, starting 1 month after the second dose in patients who received two vaccine doses (modified total vaccinated cohort). Safety was assessed in the total vaccinated cohort. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03281876, and is complete.FindingsBetween Nov 27, 2017, and Nov 30, 2018, 606 adults were enrolled and included in the total vaccinated cohort (304 in the NTHi–Mcat vaccine group, 302 in the placebo group); 571 received two doses and were included in the primary efficacy analysis (279 in the NTHi–Mcat vaccine group, 292 in the placebo group). 23 participants dropped-out in the NTHi–Mcat vaccine group and 39 in the placebo group; this included 4 patients in the NTHi–Mcat vaccine group and 15 in the placebo group who withdrew from the study because of an adverse event. The primary analysis included 340 exacerbations (in follow-up time 102 123 days) in the NTHi–Mcat vaccine group and 333 (in 104 443 days) in the placebo group, with a yearly rate of moderate or severe AECOPD of 1·22 in the NTHi–Mcat vaccine group and 1·17 in the placebo group, with vaccine efficacy in reducing the yearly rate of moderate or severe AECOPD estimated to be zero (vaccine efficacy point estimate 2·26% [87% CI –18·27 to 11·58]; p=0·82). Solicited local adverse events were more frequent in the NTHi–Mcat vaccine group (216 [72%] of 301 patients) than with placebo (34 [11%] of 299 patients), and the frequency of solicited general adverse events was similar between groups (239 [79%] of 301 vs 235 [79%] of 299 patients). There was one death in the NTHi–Mcat vaccine group (acute respiratory failure, not related to vaccination) and ten in the placebo group (seven due in part to COPD or respiratory failure). There were 158 serious adverse events (89 [29%] of 304 patients) in the NTHi–Mcat vaccine group, not related to vaccination, and 214 (99 [33%] of 302 patients) in the placebo group.InterpretationNTHi–Mcat vaccine administered to patients with COPD did not show efficacy in reducing the yearly rate of moderate or severe exacerbations. No safety concerns were identified.

Soham Shukla,1 Dhvani Shah,2 Alan Martin,3 Nancy A Risebrough,4 Robyn Kendall,5 Claus F Vogelmeier,6 Isabelle Boucot,3 Lee Tombs,7 Leif Bjermer,8 Paul W Jones,3 Edward Kerwin,9 Chris Compton,3 François Maltais,10 David A Lipson,11,12 Afisi S Ismaila1,13 1Value Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, Collegeville, PA, USA; 2ICON, New York, NY, USA; 3Value Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, Brentford, Middlesex, UK; 4Global Health Economics, and Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, ICON, Toronto, ON, Canada; 5Global Health Economics, and Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, ICON, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 6Department of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany; 7Precise Approach Ltd, Contingent Worker on Assignment at GSK, Brentford, Middlesex, UK; 8Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 9Altitude Clinical Consulting and Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, Medford, OR, USA; 10Centre de Pneumologie, Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada; 11Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 12Respiratory Clinical Sciences, GSK, Collegeville, PA, USA; 13Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: Afisi S IsmailaValue Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline 1250 South Collegeville Road, Collegeville, PA, 19426-0989, USATel +1 919 315 8229Email afisi.s.ismaila@gsk.comIntroduction: Dual bronchodilators are recommended as maintenance treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UK; further evidence is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness versus monotherapy. Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol from a UK healthcare perspective in patients without exacerbations in the previous year was assessed using post hoc EMAX trial data.Methods: The validated GALAXY model was populated with baseline characteristics and treatment effects from the non-exacerbating subgroup of the symptomatic EMAX population (COPD assessment test score ≥ 10) and 2020 UK healthcare and drug costs. Outputs included estimated exacerbation rates, costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost/QALY gained. The base case (probabilistic model) used a 10-year time horizon, assumed no treatment discontinuation, and discounted future costs and QALYs by 3.5% annually. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed robustness of model results.Results: Umeclidinium/vilanterol treatment was dominant versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, providing an additional 0.090 LYs (95% range: 0.035, 0.158) and 0.055 QALYs (− 0.059, 0.168) with total cost savings of £ 690 (£ 231, £ 1306) versus umeclidinium, and 0.174 LYs (0.076, 0.286) and 0.204 QALYs (0.079, 0.326) with savings of £ 1336 (£ 1006, £ 2032) versus salmeterol. In scenario and sensitivity analyses, umeclidinium/vilanterol was dominant versus umeclidinium except over a 5-year time horizon (more QALYs at higher total cost; ICER=£ 4/QALY gained) and at the lowest estimate of the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire treatment effect (fewer QALYs at lower total cost; ICER=£ 12,284/QALY gained); umeclidinium/vilanterol was consistently dominant versus salmeterol. At willingness-to-pay threshold of £ 20,000/QALY, probability that umeclidinium/vilanterol was cost-effective in this non-exacerbating subgroup was 95% versus umeclidinium and 100% versus salmeterol.Conclusion: Based on model predictions from a UK perspective, symptomatic patients with COPD and no exacerbations in the prior year receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol are expected to have better outcomes at lower costs versus umeclidinium and salmeterol.Keywords: COPD treatment, cost-effectiveness, umeclidinium, salmeterol, umeclidinium/vilanterol

Background In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the relationship between short-term bronchodilator reversibility and longer-term response to bronchodilators is unclear. Here, we investigated whether the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators is associated with reversibility of airflow limitation in patients with COPD with a low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Methods The double-blind, double-dummy EMAX trial randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once daily, or salmeterol 50 µg twice daily. Bronchodilator reversibility to salbutamol was measured once at screening and defined as an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL 10−30 min post salbutamol. Post hoc, fractional polynomial (FP) modelling was conducted using the degree of reversibility (mL) at screening as a continuous variable to investigate its relationship to mean change from baseline in trough FEV1 and self-administered computerised-Transition Dyspnoea Index (SAC-TDI) at Week 24, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD (E-RS) at Weeks 21–24, and rescue medication use (puffs/day) over Weeks 1–24. Analyses were conducted across the full range of reversibility (−850–896 mL); however, results are presented for the range −100–400 mL because there were few participants with values outside this range. Results The mean (standard deviation) reversibility was 130 mL (156) and the median was 113 mL; 625/2425 (26%) patients were reversible. There was a trend towards greater improvements in trough FEV1, SAC-TDI, E-RS and rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol with higher reversibility. Improvements in trough FEV1 and reductions in rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol compared with either monotherapy across the range of reversibility. Greater improvements in SAC-TDI and E-RS total scores were observed with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in the middle of the reversibility range. Conclusions FP analyses suggest that patients with higher levels of reversibility have greater improvements in lung function and symptoms in response to bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy across the full range of reversibility, suggesting that the dual bronchodilator umeclidinium/vilanterol may be an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of their level of reversibility.

Introduction Smoking may reduce the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but its impact on bronchodilator efficacy is unclear. This analysis of the EMAX trial explored efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in current or former smokers with COPD. Methods The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms, health status, exacerbations, clinically important deterioration, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving ICS. Current and former smoker subgroups were defined by smoking status at screening. Results The analysis included 1203 (50%) current smokers and 1221 (50%) former smokers. Both subgroups demonstrated greater improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 24 (primary endpoint) with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (least squares [LS] mean difference, mL [95% CI]; current: 84 [50, 117]; former: 49 [18, 80]) and salmeterol (current: 165 [132, 198]; former: 117 [86, 148]) and larger reductions in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (LS mean difference [95% CI]; current: − 0.42 [− 0.63, − 0.20]; former: − 0.25 − 0.44, − 0.05]) and salmeterol (current: − 0.28 [− 0.49, − 0.06]; former: − 0.29 [− 0.49, − 0.09]). Umeclidinium/vilanterol increased the odds (odds ratio [95% CI]) of clinically significant improvement at week 24 in Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.16, 2.06]; former: 1.32 [0.99, 1.75]) and salmeterol (current: 1.37 (1.03, 1.82]; former: 1.60 [1.20, 2.13]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms–COPD versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.13, 2.09]; former: 1.50 [1.11, 2.04]) and salmeterol (current: 1.53 [1.13, 2.08]; former: 1.53 [1.12, 2.08]). All treatments were well tolerated in both subgroups. Conclusions In current and former smokers, umeclidinium/vilanterol provided greater improvements in lung function and symptoms versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, supporting consideration of dual-bronchodilator therapy in symptomatic patients with COPD regardless of their smoking status. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01855-y., Plain Language Summary Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often require daily medication to control their COPD. Many patients with COPD are smokers, and smoking is one of the most common causes of COPD. This means that it is important to find out whether COPD medications are effective in both smokers and nonsmokers. We analyzed data from a clinical trial (EMAX) that investigated the use of a combination of two bronchodilators, which are inhaled medications that help to open the airways. We compared umeclidinium/vilanterol, a dual-bronchodilator combination, with a single bronchodilator (either umeclidinium or salmeterol) over 6 months. We found that both current and former smokers who were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol had larger improvements in lung function than those receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. Current or former smokers who were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol used their reliever inhaler less than those treated with umeclidinium or salmeterol. Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol were generally less likely to experience disease worsening compared with umeclidinium or salmeterol if they were former smokers, or compared with salmeterol if they were current smokers. Our findings suggest that umeclidinium/vilanterol may be more effective than a single bronchodilator for daily treatment of patients with COPD who are current or former smokers. Physicians should consider prescribing a combination of two bronchodilators to patients who have symptoms, whether or not they currently smoke, as well as encouraging smoking cessation for all patients. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01855-y.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of three doses of glycopyrrolate metered dose inhaler (GP MDI) in patients with uncontrolled asthma despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting βThis phase II/III, double-blind study randomized patients to 24 weeks' treatment with twice-daily GP MDI 36 µg, 18 µg, 9 µg, or placebo MDI (all deliveredThe primary analysis (modified intent-to-treat) population included 1066 patients. The primary study endpoint was not met (changes from baseline in FEVAlthough this study did not meet its primary endpoint

Background Ideally, treatment recommendations for maintenance therapy-naive patients with COPD should be based on studies conducted specifically in this population. We have reviewed evidence from previous studies of pharmacological treatments in maintenance therapy-naive patients with COPD and performed a new post-hoc analysis of dual bronchodilator treatment in this population, aiming to assess the effectiveness of these interventions. Materials and methods A literature review identified clinical trials that included analyses of patients with COPD who were maintenance therapy-naive with long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). Additionally, a post-hoc subgroup analysis was conducted for maintenance therapy-naive patients with COPD in two large phase III, randomized, double-blind, 24-week trials investigating the efficacy of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) fixed-dose combination versus monotherapy or placebo (ACLIFORM [NCT01462942] and AUGMENT [NCT01437397]). Results Treatment-naive patients with COPD often represent a population of patients at the earliest stage at which most patients seek treatment. Of nine relevant studies identified, all reported positive findings for efficacy of LABA, LAMA, or LABA/LAMA treatment in maintenance therapy-naive populations. Improvements were observed in lung function, symptoms, and health status versus monotherapy or placebo. Post-hoc analysis of ACLIFORM and AUGMENT demonstrated that AB/FF was effective in improving lung function in patients who had received no prior maintenance therapy. AB/FF showed improvements in 1 hr post-dose FEV1, trough FEV1, and patient-reported outcomes versus placebo and monotherapies. Combined with reviews of previous studies in maintenance therapy-naive patients, these findings suggest that earlier intervention with a dual bronchodilator maintenance therapy, such as AB/FF, may provide significantly greater benefits than LAMA or LABA mono-bronchodilator therapy as a first maintenance treatment for COPD. Conclusion These data show that therapeutic intervention is effective in treatment-naive patients. Intervention with dual bronchodilator therapy as a first maintenance treatment for COPD may provide greater benefits than LAMA or LABA monotherapy.

Background Prior replicate 12-week phase 3 trials demonstrated that once-daily doses of revefenacin inhalation solution at 88 μg and 175 μg produced significant bronchodilation over 24 h post dose in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The objective was to characterize the safety profile of revefenacin 88 μg and 175 μg over 52 weeks of treatment. Methods In this randomized, parallel-group, 52-week trial (NCT02518139), 1055 participants with moderate to very severe COPD received revefenacin 88 μg or 175 μg in a double-blind manner, or open-label active control tiotropium. Results Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were comparable across all treatment groups (n [%] patients; revefenacin 88 μg, 272 [74.7%]; 175 μg, 242 [72.2%]; tiotropium, 275 [77.2%]). Numerically fewer COPD exacerbations (n [%] patients) were observed with revefenacin 175 μg (73 [21.8%]) than with 88 μg (107 [29.4%]) or tiotropium (100 [28.1%]). Serious AEs were comparable with revefenacin 88 μg (58 [15.9%] and tiotropium (58 [16.3%]), but were lower with revefenacin 175 μg (43 [12.8%]), and mortality was low. In patients using revefenacin 88 μg or tiotropium with a concurrent long-acting β-agonist (LABA) product, the incidence of AEs was slightly higher than without concurrent LABA. LABA did not affect the incidence of AEs for patients who received revefenacin 175 μg. Conclusions Revefenacin was generally well tolerated over 52 weeks of treatment, and had a safety profile that supports its use as a long-term once-daily bronchodilator for the nebulized treatment of COPD.

There is increasing focus on understanding the nature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) during the earlier stages. Mild COPD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] stage 1 or the now-withdrawn GOLD stage 0) represents an early stage of COPD that may progress to more severe disease. This review summarises the disease burden of patients with mild COPD and discusses the evidence for treatment intervention in this subgroup. Overall, patients with mild COPD suffer a substantial disease burden that includes persistent or potentially debilitating symptoms, increased risk of exacerbations, increased healthcare utilisation, reduced exercise tolerance and physical activity, and a higher rate of lung function decline versus controls. However, the evidence for treatment efficacy in these patients is limited due to their frequent exclusion from clinical trials. Careful assessment of disease burden and the rate of disease progression in individual patients, rather than a reliance on spirometry data, may identify patients who could benefit from earlier treatment intervention. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-019-1108-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Batefenterol is a novel bifunctional muscarinic antagonist β2-agonist in development for COPD. The primary objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active comparator, Phase IIb study was to model the dose-response of batefenterol and select a dose for Phase III development. Patients and methods Patients aged ≥40 years with COPD and FEV1 ≥30% and ≤70% predicted normal were randomized equally to batefenterol 37.5, 75, 150, 300, or 600 µg, placebo, or umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 µg once daily. The primary and secondary endpoints were weighted-mean FEV1 over 0-6 hours post-dose and trough FEV1, analyzed by Bayesian and maximum likelihood estimation Emax of dose-response modeling, respectively, on day 42. Results In the intent-to-treat population (N=323), all batefenterol doses demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvements from baseline vs placebo in the primary and secondary endpoints (191.1-292.8 and 182.2-244.8 mL, respectively), with a relatively flat dose-response. In the subgroup reversible to salbutamol, there were greater differences between batefenterol doses. Lung function improvements with batefenterol ≥150 µg were comparable with those with UMEC/VI. Batefenterol was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. Conclusion Batefenterol 300 µg may represent the optimal dose for Phase III studies.

Effective delivery of inhaled drugs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) depends on patients' ability to correctly use an inhalation device. Nebulized delivery may be appropriate for COPD patients who cannot coordinate breath with inhalation or generate adequate inhalational force. Until recently, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), used for maintenance treatment of COPD, were available for delivery only via handheld inhalers. Lonhala™ Magnair™ (glycopyrrolate inhalation solution) is a LAMA delivered via the eFlowGOLDEN-5, a phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, evaluated the safety and efficacy of glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS 50 μg twice daily versus tiotropium 18 μg once daily (administered via HandiHaler™) in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Only patients in the glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS group completed a study-specific device use questionnaire, evaluating patients' perceptions about ease of use, confidence in drug delivery, and overall device satisfaction at week 48 or end of study. Responses were summarized by counts and percentages.Of 620 patients who received glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS, 454 completed the questionnaire (mean age [standard deviation, SD] 63.3 [8.5] years; mean BMI [SD] 28.45 [6.208] kg/mHigh levels of satisfaction, confidence, and ease of use were reported with the eFlow CS nebulizer in this study. These findings support the use of the eFlow CS for maintenance treatment of COPD with glycopyrrolate inhalation solution.

Background: Chronic cough, dyspnea, and excessive sputum production, the characteristic symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), can negatively affect patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The fixed-dose combination of a long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA/LAMA) have been shown to improve HRQoL and COPD symptoms as measured by the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) total scores. However, the impact of a LABA/LAMA on the individual components of HRQoL and dyspnea with daily activities is unknown. Methods: Secondary analysis of pooled data from 2 replicate, phase 3, 12-week, randomized, placebo, and active-controlled trials of twice-daily indacaterol/glycopyrrolate (IND/GLY) were analyzed. Change from baseline in HRQoL and dyspnea was measured by SGRQ and TDI, respectively. Total and component scores were evaluated using linear mixed models. Logistic regression was used to analyze the proportion of patients achieving minimum clinically important difference. Study outcomes were further explored in patient subgroups. Results: A total of 2038 patients from FLIGHT1/FLIGHT2 studies were evaluated. IND/GLY significantly improved SGRQ component scores (symptoms [–7.3], activity [–3.6], and impacts [–5.0]); all P < 0.001 compared with placebo. IND/GLY also significantly improved symptoms scores compared with IND and GLY (–3.5 and –3.7, respectively; both P < 0.001). Patients treated with IND/GLY also had significant improvements in TDI component scores compared with placebo: functional impairment (0.48), magnitude of task (0.61), and magnitude of effort (0.54); all P < 0.001. All component scores were significantly higher for IND/GLY compared with IND and GLY (P ≤ 0.002 for all). Conclusions: Twice-daily IND/GLY significantly improved total scores as well as components of HRQoL and dyspnea in patients with COPD. These data demonstrate multiple clinical benefits of LABA/LAMA maintenance therapy in the COPD population. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT 01727141 and NCT 01712516

Leif Bjermer,1 Isabelle H Boucot,2 François Maltais,3 Edward M Kerwin,4 Ian P Naya,2 Lee Tombs,5 Paul W Jones,2 Chris Compton,2 David A Lipson,6,7 Claus F Vogelmeier8 1Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 2Global Specialty & Primary Care, GSK, Brentford, Middlesex, UK; 3Centre de Pneumologie, Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Université Laval, Québec, Canada; 4Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, Medford, OR, USA; 5Precise Approach Ltd, contingent worker on assignment at GSK, Stockley Park West, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK; 6Respiratory Clinical Sciences, GSK, Collegeville, PA, USA; 7Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 8Department of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, GermanyCorrespondence: Leif BjermerRespiratory Medicine and Allergology, Skane University Hospital, 221 85 Lund, SwedenTel +46 46 17 23 25Email leif.bjermer@med.lu.seIntroduction: Limited prospective evidence is available to guide selection of first-line maintenance therapy in patients with COPD. This pre-specified analysis of the EMAX trial explored the efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated patients.Methods: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms (including rescue medication use), exacerbations, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated subgroups were defined by maintenance bronchodilator use 30 days before screening.Results: The analysis included 749 (31%) maintenance-naïve and 1676 (69%) maintenance-treated patients. For both subgroups, improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 (primary endpoint) were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (mean difference [95% CI]; maintenance-naïve: 44 mL [1, 87]; maintenance-treated: 77 mL [50, 104]), and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: 128 mL [85, 171]; maintenance-treated: 145 mL [118, 172]), and in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (maintenance-naïve: − 0.44 [− 0.73, − 0.16]; maintenance-treated: − 0.28 [− 0.45, − 0.12]) and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: − 0.37 [− 0.66, − 0.09]; maintenance-treated: − 0.25 [− 0.41, − 0.08]). In maintenance-naïve patients, umeclidinium/vilanterol numerically improved scores at Week 24 for Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (0.37 [− 0.21, 0.96]) and versus salmeterol (0.47 [− 0.10, 1.05]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms–COPD versus umeclidinium (− 0.26 [− 1.04, 0.53]) and versus salmeterol (− 0.58 [− 1.36, 0.20]), with similar improvements seen in maintenance-treated patients. All treatments were well tolerated across both subgroups.Conclusion: Similar to maintenance-treated patients, maintenance-naïve patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol showed greater improvements in lung function and symptoms compared with patients receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. These findings provide support for the consideration of dual bronchodilator treatment in symptomatic maintenance-naïve patients with COPD.Keywords: COPD treatment, first-line therapy, maintenance-naïve, umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, salmeterol

No point of care HbA1c (A1c) assays are CLIA waived for use in diagnosing diabetes. The accuracy of the Abbott Afinion HbA1c Dx (Afinion) was evaluated for this purpose. Operators with no laboratory training (N=21) tested fingerstick (FS) and venous (V) whole blood samples from subjects at 7 CLIA waived sites with 2 Afinion analyzer models (AS100 and Afinion 2). Operators self-trained on use of the Afinion using only materials that are provided when the test is purchased. A portion of each subject’s V sample was tested with a recognized comparative method (CM) at an NGSP Secondary Reference Laboratory (SRL). Consistent with FDA requirements for total error of A1c test systems, the percentage of Afinion results within an Allowable Total Error (ATE) zone of ±6% of the CM result was calculated, as well as the bias at 6.5% A1c. A total of 1,229 subjects with A1c values spanning the Afinion assay measuring range were enrolled. For the Afinion 2, 95.04% (95% lower confidence limit, LCL: 93.33%) of FS and 94.86% (95% LCL: 93.12%) of V results were within the ATE zone. For the AS100, 94.22% (95% LCL: 92.38%) and 93.36% (95% LCL: 91.41%) of Afinion results were within the ATE zone for FS and V samples, respectively. The bias at 6.5% A1c for the Afinion 2 was -0.13% (-0.008% A1c units) for FS and 0.01% (0.000% A1c units) for V samples. For the AS100, the bias was 0.62% (0.040% A1c units) and 1.13% (0.073% A1c units) for FS and V samples, respectively. No operator effects and no differences between the Afinion and CM results that could potentially impact clinical decision making were observed in this study. In subjects with unreported hemoglobin variants (detected by CM), 16/16 FS and 15/16 V Afinion results were within the ATE zone when compared to a second NGSP certified method at the same SRL. These data support the use of Afinion in CLIA waived settings to diagnose diabetes. Disclosure M. Clendenin: Employee; Self; Abbott. A. J. Nation: None. R. C. San george: Other Relationship; Self; Abbott. K. Kupfer: Employee; Self; Abbott. K. S. Fortner: Employee; Self; Abbott. R. R. Little: None. T. S. Bailey: Consultant; Self; Abbott Diabetes, LifeScan, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Research Support; Self; Abbott, Abbott Diabetes, Biolinq, Capillary Biomedical, Inc., Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Kowa Research Institute, Inc., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Livongo, Medtronic, Medtrum Technologies, Novo Nordisk, REMD Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sanvita, Viacyte, Inc., vTv Therapeutics, Zealand Pharma A/S, Speaker’s Bureau; Self; BD, Medtronic, Sanofi. K. N. Castorino: Consultant; Self; Dexcom, Inc., Research Support; Self; Abbott Diabetes, Abbott Laboratories, Dexcom, Inc., Drawbridge Health, Inc., Lilly Diabetes, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk Inc. D. S. Denham: None. E. Kerwin: Consultant; Self; Amphastar, AstraZeneca, Connect Biopharma, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Mylan N. V., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Theravance Biopharma, Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Chiesi USA, Inc. M. Mickiewicz: None.

Claus F Vogelmeier,1 Ian P Naya,2,3 François Maltais,4 Leif Bjermer,5 Edward M Kerwin,6 Lee Tombs,7 Paul W Jones,2 Chris Compton,2 David A Lipson,8,9 Isabelle H Boucot2,10 1Department of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany; 2Global Specialty & Primary Care, GSK, Brentford, Middlesex, UK; 3RAMAX Ltd, Bramhall, Cheshire, UK; 4Centre De Pneumologie, Institut Universitaire De Cardiologie Et De Pneumologie De Québec, Université Laval, Québec, Canada; 5Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 6Altitude Clinical Consulting and Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, Medford, OR, USA; 7Precise Approach Ltd, Contingent Worker on Assignment at GSK, Brentford, Middlesex, UK; 8Respiratory Clinical Sciences, GSK, Collegeville, PA, USA; 9Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 10Medical Emerging Markets, GSK, Brentford, Middlesex, UKCorrespondence: Claus F VogelmeierUniversity Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Baldingerstraße, Marburg, 35043, GermanyTel +49 6421/58-66451Email claus.vogelmeier@med.uni-marburg.deIntroduction: This post hoc analysis of the “Early MAXimization of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability” (EMAX) trial investigated whether patients achieving early clinically important improvement (CII) sustained longer-term improvements and lower risk of clinically important deterioration (CID).Methods: Patients were randomized to umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, or salmeterol for 24 weeks. The patient-reported outcomes (PROs) Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and COPD Assessment Test (CAT) were assessed. CII, defined as attaining minimum clinically important differences (MCID) in ≥ 2 PROs, was assessed at Weeks 4, 12 and 24. CID was defined as a deterioration in CAT, SGRQ, TDI by the MCID and/or a moderate/severe exacerbation from Day 30.Results: Of 2425 patients, 50%, 53% and 51% achieved a CII at Weeks 4, 12 and 24, respectively. Patients with a CII at Week 4 versus those without had significantly greater odds of achieving a CII at Weeks 12 and 24 (odds ratio: 5.57 [95% CI: 4.66, 6.66]; 4.09 [95% CI: 3.44, 4.86]). The risk of a CID was higher in patients who did not achieve a CII at Week 4 compared with patients who did (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 2.09 [1.86, 2.34]). Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus either monotherapy had significantly greater odds of achieving CII at Weeks 4, 12 and 24.Conclusion: Achieving a CII at Week 4 was associated with longer-term improvement in PROs and a reduced risk of deterioration. Further research is required to investigate the importance of an early response to treatment on the long-term disease course.Keywords: bronchodilator, clinically important improvement, clinically important deterioration, COPD symptoms, early improvement, patient-reported outcomes

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 β-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.

This Phase II, randomized, parallel group study was conducted as part of US regulatory requirements to identify the most appropriate dose of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium bromide (GB) for use in a single-inhaler triple-therapy combination with the inhaled corticosteroid beclomethasone dipropionate plus the long-acting β2-agonist formoterol fumarate. Eligible subjects were adults with COPD and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 40–80% predicted. Subjects were randomized to receive inhaled double-blind GB 6.25, 12.5, 25 or 50 µg or placebo, all twice daily (BID), or open-label tiotropium 18 µg once daily for six weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of GB versus placebo in terms of FEV1 area under the curve between 0 and 12 h at Week 6. Of 733 subjects randomized, 682 (93.0%) completed the study. For the primary endpoint, all GB doses were superior to placebo (p p

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of benralizumab, an interleukin-5 receptor alpha-directed cytolytic monoclonal antibody, for the prevention of exacerbations in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are not known.METHODS: In the GALATHEA and TERRANOVA trials, we enrolled patients with COPD (at a ratio of approximately 2:1 on the basis of eosinophil count [≥220 per cubic millimeter vs. RESULTS: In GALATHEA, the estimates of the annualized exacerbation rate were 1.19 per year (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.36) in the 30-mg benralizumab group, 1.03 per year (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.19) in the 100-mg benralizumab group, and 1.24 per year (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.42) in the placebo group; the rate ratio as compared with placebo was 0.96 for 30 mg of benralizumab (P = 0.65) and 0.83 for 100 mg of benralizumab (P = 0.05). In TERRANOVA, the estimates of the annualized exacerbation rate for 10 mg, 30 mg, and 100 mg of benralizumab and for placebo were 0.99 per year (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.13), 1.21 per year (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.37), 1.09 per year (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.23), and 1.17 per year (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32), respectively; the corresponding rate ratios were 0.85 (P = 0.06), 1.04 (P = 0.66), and 0.93 (P = 0.40). At 56 weeks, none of the annualized COPD exacerbation rate ratios for any dose of benralizumab as compared with placebo reached significance in either trial. Types and frequencies of adverse events were similar with benralizumab and placebo.CONCLUSIONS: Add-on benralizumab was not associated with a lower annualized rate of COPD exacerbations than placebo among patients with moderate to very severe COPD, a history of frequent moderate or severe exacerbations, and blood eosinophil counts of 220 per cubic millimeter or greater (Funded by AstraZeneca [GALATHEA and TERRANOVA] and Kyowa Hakko Kirin [GALATHEA]; GALATHEA and TERRANOVA ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02138916 and NCT02155660.).

Edward M Kerwin,1 Lindsey Murray,2 Xiaoli Niu,3 Carole Dembek3 1Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, Medford, OR, USA; 2Evidera, Bethesda, MD, USA; 3Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Marlborough, MA, USACorrespondence: Xiaoli NiuSunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., 84 Waterford Dr, Marlborough, MA 01752, USATel +1 508 357 7863Email xiaoli.niu@sunovion.comPurpose: Using a composite endpoint, pooled data from two 12-week Phase III placebo-controlled trials (GOLDEN 3, NCT02347761; GOLDEN 4, NCT02347774) were analyzed to determine whether glycopyrrolate inhalation solution (25 mcg and 50 mcg) administered twice daily (BID) via the eFlow® Closed System nebulizer (GLY) reduced the risk of clinically important deterioration (CID) in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD.Methods: CID was defined as ≥ 100-mL decrease from baseline in post-bronchodilator trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), or ≥ 4-unit increase in baseline St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, or moderate/severe exacerbation. The relative treatment effect of GLY versus placebo on the odds of CID (any and by component endpoints) was expressed as the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroups categorized by age (< 65/≥ 65 years), sex, smoking status (current/former), long-acting beta agonist (LABA) use, FEV1 (< 50%/≥ 50%), and peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) (< 60 L/min/≥ 60 L/min) were analyzed.Results: Compared to placebo, GLY 25 mcg and 50 mcg BID over 12 weeks significantly reduced the risk of CID by 50% (OR: 0.50 [0.37– 0.68]) and 40% (OR: 0.60 [0.44– 0.80]), respectively. Subjects treated with GLY 25 mcg BID were 59% less likely to experience CID in FEV1 (OR: 0.41 [0.27– 0.62]) and 48% less likely to perceive CID in health status (OR: 0.52 [0.37– 0.73]). Statistically significant reductions were also observed at the higher dose. The incidence of moderate/severe exacerbations was low and comparable among the cohorts. GLY 25 mcg BID was significantly more effective than placebo (p< 0.05) in preventing CID irrespective of age, smoking status, LABA use, COPD severity, or PIFR. Subjects < 65 years (OR 0.45 [0.29– 0.68]) and those with PIFR < 60 L/min (OR 0.36 [0.20– 0.67]) exhibited the largest benefit.Conclusion: Nebulized GLY over 12 weeks significantly reduced the risk of CID and provided greater short-term stability in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD.Keywords: nebulized glycopyrrolate, clinically important deterioration, composite measure

Background: CAT scores can be used to assess the effects of COPD on patient health status. Within a study cohort, higher CAT scores are associated with more frequent exacerbations (Kelly JF, et al. Respiration 2012;84:193–9) and predict exacerbations in patients at risk (Lee SD, et al. Respir Med 2014;108:600–8). Aim: To compare individual CAT item scores in cohorts with differing risk of exacerbation from two COPD trials. Methods: Data from the EMAX and IMPACT trials were used as baseline differences between these trials in total CAT score were small, but differences in exacerbation rates were large (Figure 1). The analysis was post hoc without statistical comparisons. Results: Compared with IMPACT, EMAX patients had less severe airflow limitation and a greater proportion were current smokers (Figure 1); however, individual CAT item scores were similar between the trials (Figure 2). Conclusion: Despite differences in exacerbation history of the two cohorts, mean individual CAT item scores were similar. Method: GSK (201749, NCT03034915; 116855, NCT02164513)

Background: CAPTAIN assessed moderate (mod.) and severe (sev.) exacerbations in patients with inadequately controlled asthma randomised to ICS-based dual/triple therapy for 24–52 wks. Aim: Assess changes in lung function (LF)/clinical characteristics during mod. and sev. exacerbations (prespecified analysis). Methods: Mod. and sev. exacerbations were defined (ATS/ERS guidelines) as asthma worsening requiring physician directed temporary change in maintenance therapy (mod.), or systemic steroids for ≥3 days/ED visit/hospitalisation requiring systemic steroids (sev.). For first event, relationships between exacerbation severity and eDiary/spirometric LF/clinical characteristics over a ±14-day peri-exacerbation period are reported. Results: 529 mod. and 546 sev. exacerbations occurred over 52 wks (median duration 9.0 & 10.0 d); time courses (±14 days) showed similar patterns for both types (Figures). During these periods and relative to pre-exacerbation baseline, mod. and sev. exacerbations were associated with mean reductions in lowest trough FEV1 (437 & 421 mL) and lowest AM PEF (75.2 & 79.8 L/min), and increases in highest symptom score (0.82 & 1.10) and highest SABA use (2.08 & 4.06 puffs/day). Conclusion: Time course and changes in LF were similar for mod. and sev. exacerbations. Symptom scores and SABA use were slightly higher with sev. exacerbations. Both events represent clinically important deteriorations. Method: GSK (205715/NCT02924688).

Background Patients with asthma uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids may benefit from umeclidinium (UMEC), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist. Methods This Phase IIb, double-blind study included patients with reversible, uncontrolled/partially-controlled asthma for ≥6 months, receiving ≥100 mcg/day fluticasone propionate (or equivalent) for ≥12 weeks. Following a 2-week run-in on open-label fluticasone furoate (FF) 100 mcg, patients were randomised (1:1:1) to receive UMEC 31.25 mcg, UMEC 62.5 mcg or placebo on top of FF 100 mcg once-daily for 24 weeks. As-needed salbutamol was provided. Primary and secondary endpoints were change from baseline in clinic trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and clinic FEV1 3 h post-dose, respectively, at Week 24. Other endpoints included change from baseline in home daily spirometry (trough FEV1, evening FEV1, morning [pre-dose] and evening peak expiratory flow) over 24 weeks. Safety was assessed throughout the study. Results The intent-to-treat population comprised 421 patients (UMEC 31.25 mcg: n =139, UMEC 62.5 mcg: n =139, placebo: n =143). UMEC 31.25 mcg and 62.5 mcg demonstrated significantly greater improvements from baseline in clinic trough FEV1 at Week 24 (difference [95% CI]: 0.176 L [0.092, 0.260; pp1 3 h post-dose at Week 24 (0.190 L [0.100, 0.279; pp Conclusions UMEC is a highly effective bronchodilator that leads to improved lung function when administered as a single bronchodilator on top of FF in subjects with fully reversible, uncontrolled/partially-controlled moderate asthma. These data support a favourable benefit/risk profile for UMEC (31.25 mcg and 62.5 mcg). Trial registration GSK study ID: 205832; Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03012061.