Search

Francesco Patalano,1 Carolina Hache,2 Abhijit Pethe,3 Harneet Kaur,4 Nancy Kline Leidy,5 Tasneem Arsiwala,1 Nuzhat Afroz,6 Florian S Gutzwiller4 1Pediatric and Patient Reported Outcomes Center of Excellence, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 2Regulatory Affairs, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 3Biostatistics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; 4Global Access Evidence, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 5Patient-Centered Research, Evidera/PPD, Bethesda, MD, USA; 6Patient Access Services, Novartis Healthcare Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad, IndiaCorrespondence: Florian S Gutzwiller, HEOR & Access Evidence TA Head, Global Patient Access, Novartis Pharma AG, WSJ-188 6 001, Basel, CH-4056, Switzerland, Tel +41 616963713, Email florian.gutzwiller@novartis.comIntroduction: Patient perception of the burden of chronic bronchitis symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be assessed using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The Cough and Sputum Assessment Questionnaire (CASA-Q) was developed and tested for this purpose. This study reviewed the performance of the CASA-Q in published online studies and tested a novel approach to complement traditional methods of qualitative content validation.Methods: A targeted literature search was performed to identify published clinical studies of COPD using the CASA-Q as an endpoint. The performance of the questionnaire was examined in relation to other study endpoints, including clinical and functional measurements and other PROMs. Assessment of the content validity of the CASA-Q was carried out by comparing the content and structure of the questionnaire with published qualitative patient data from previously conducted online social media listening (SML) and online bulletin board (OBB) studies.Results: In the interventional clinical trials, CASA-Q change scores were consistent with study objectives and other endpoints, including FEV1 and other PROMs. Two observational studies showed cross-sectional correlations with other PROMs like the St.-George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and COPD assessment test (CAT) scores. Qualitative data from the SML and OBB patient studies were consistent with the content and structure of the CASA-Q, supporting the content validity of the measure.Conclusion: Results suggest that the CASA-Q is appropriately responsive to changes in cough and sputum symptoms and clinical impact in trials of COPD. The mapping of qualitative findings from online SML and OBB studies to CASA-Q domains and items confirm the content validity of the instrument. These results suggest the CASA-Q can be a valuable tool for evaluating treatment effect in COPD trials.Keywords: patient-reported outcomes, social media, online bulletin board, online community, CASA-Q, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, content validation, performance, chronic bronchitis

Konstantinos Kostikas,1 Alexander J Mackay,2 Claus F Vogelmeier,3 Stefan-Marian Frent,4 Pritam Gupta,5 Donald Banerji,6 Francesco Patalano,7 Pascal J Pfister,7 Jadwiga A Wedzicha8 1Respiratory Medicine Department, University of Ioannina Medical School, Ioannina, Greece; 2National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK; 3Department of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany; 4Department of Pulmonology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania; 5Novartis Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, India; 6Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; 7Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 8Respiratory Clinical Science Section, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UKCorrespondence: Konstantinos KostikasRespiratory Medicine Department, University of Ioannina Medical School, Ioannina 45110, GreeceTel +30-6944780616Email ktkostikas@gmail.comBackground: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are difficult outcomes to measure in clinical trials. It would be valuable to be able to predict which patients are likely to benefit in terms of exacerbation prevention based on their early response in lung function and symptoms.Methods: This was a post-hoc analysis from the 52-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority FLAME trial. Early clinically important improvement (ECII) was defined as achievement of minimal clinically important difference in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; ≥ 100 mL increase) and one patient-reported outcome (PRO): either St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (≥ 4-unit reduction; D1), or COPD assessment test (≥ 2-point reduction; D2) at Week 4 or 12.Results: Approximately 18– 20% of patients achieved ECII at Week 4 or 12 post-randomization according to any of the two definitions. The rate of subsequent exacerbations was lower in patients who achieved ECII at Week 4 (D1: ratio of rates [95% CI], 0.85 [0.74 to 0.98]; D2, 0.88 [0.77 to 1.00]) or at Week 12 (D1, 0.85 [0.74 to 0.98]; D2, 0.86 [0.75 to 1.00]) versus patients not achieving ECII. Patients who achieved ECII experienced longer time-to-first exacerbation between Week 4 or 12 to end of study. More patients achieved ECII with indacaterol/glycopyrronium versus salmeterol/fluticasone according to both definitions at Week 4 (D1, odds ratio [95% CI], 1.69 [1.40 to 2.04]; D2, 1.61 [1.34 to 1.93]), and 12 (D1, 2.01 [1.66 to 2.44]; D2, 1.80 [1.48 to 2.18]).Conclusion: ECII is a novel composite endpoint, based on clinically relevant improvement in lung function and PROs in the early phase of treatment intervention that may predict subsequent exacerbation risk and may be used in clinical trials.Keywords: exacerbations, ECII, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, lung function, PROs

Nuzhat Afroz,1 Florian S Gutzwiller,2 Alex J Mackay,3,4 Christel Naujoks,2 Francesco Patalano,5 Konstantinos Kostikas6,7 1Patient Access Services, Novartis Healthcare Private Limited, Hyderabad, India; 2Global Patient Access, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 3National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK; 4Global Medical Affairs and Drug Development, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 5Clinical Development and Analytic, Global Drug Development, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 6Respiratory Medicine Department, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece; 7Global Medical Affairs, Respiratory, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, SwitzerlandCorrespondence: Nuzhat AfrozNovartis Healthcare Private Limited, Hyderabad 500032, IndiaTel +91 40675841975Email nuzhat.afroz@novartis.comAbstract: Key characteristics of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that significantly affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL) include chest symptoms, dyspnea, cough, sputum production, and exacerbations. Additional areas of impact are sleep, fatigue, emotional well-being, social functioning, and coping. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are essential to evaluate symptoms, impact of symptoms on activities of daily living, and treatment response. This review summarizes COPD-specific PRO endpoints from randomized controlled trials of approved and commonly used COPD drugs. A search conducted in “ClinicalTrials.gov” to identify COPD clinical trials (only completed Phase III and IV) incorporating PRO endpoints yielded a total of 104 clinical trials for inclusion in this analysis. Both symptom-based and HRQoL-specific PRO measures were reported. Several COPD-specific PRO measures are available; however, the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and the Baseline and Transition Dyspnea Indexes (BDI/TDI) were reported in the majority of the studies. Results reflected a gap in terms of full coverage of key impacted areas from a patient’s perspective. Methodological issues identified in this review related to scoring of instruments require careful consideration, as these challenges may limit the complete assessment of drug benefits. Selection of PRO measures aligned with the expected treatment benefit of a drug in a clinical trial should reflect patients’ perspective holistically.Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, patient-reported outcomes, clinical trials, endpoints, Patient-Focused Drug Development, randomized controlled trials

Claus F Vogelmeier,1 Kenneth R Chapman,2 Marc Miravitlles,3 Nicolas Roche,4 Jørgen Vestbo,5 Chau Thach,6 Donald Banerji,6 Robert Fogel,6 Francesco Patalano,7 Petter Olsson,8 Konstantinos Kostikas,7 Jadwiga A Wedzicha9 1Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Department of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany; 2Asthma and Airway Centre, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 3Pneumology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Barcelona, Spain; 4Service de Pneumologie AP-HP, Cochin Hospital, University Paris Descartes (EA2511), Paris, France; 5Institute of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, The University of Manchester and Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 6Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; 7Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 8Novartis Sverige AB, Täby, Sweden; 9National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK Background: The FLAME study compared once-daily indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) 110/50 µg with twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) 50/500 µg in symptomatic patients with moderate to very severe COPD and a history of exacerbations in the previous year. Methods: This prespecified and post hoc subgroup analysis evaluated treatment efficacy on 1) moderate/severe exacerbations according to prior exacerbation history and treatment, and 2) types of exacerbations according to health care resource utilization (HCRU) during 1-year follow-up. Results: IND/GLY reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations versus SFC in patients with a history of 1 exacerbation (rate ratio [RR]: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75–0.93), ≥2 exacerbations (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.70–1.03) and ≥2 exacerbations or ≥1 hospitalization in the previous year (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.74–1.00). Prolonged time-to-first exacerbation was observed in all the groups according to exacerbation history. Moderate/severe exacerbations decreased with IND/GLY versus SFC, independent of previous treatment. IND/GLY significantly reduced rates of moderate/severe exacerbations treated with antibiotics (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67–0.93) and systemic corticosteroids and antibiotics (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70–0.91); rates of exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids alone were comparable (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.80–1.22). Conclusion: Overall, IND/GLY demonstrated consistent beneficial effects versus SFC on moderate/severe exacerbations, independent of prior exacerbation history or treatment. The efficacy of IND/GLY on exacerbation prevention was superior to SFC for exacerbations treated with antibiotics with/without systemic corticosteroids and was similar for exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids alone. Keywords: indacaterol/glycopyrronium, salmeterol/fluticasone, LABA/LAMA, LABA/ICS

Timm Greulich,1 Konstantinos Kostikas,2 Mina Gaga,3 Maryam Aalamian-Mattheis,2 Nadine S Lossi,4 Francesco Patalano,2 Xavier Nunez,5 Veronica A Pagano,5 Robert Fogel,6 Claus F Vogelmeier,1,* Andreas Clemens2,7,* 1University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany; 2Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 37th Respiratory Medicine Department, Athens Chest Hospital Sotiria, Athens, Greece; 4Novartis Pharma GmbH, Nürnberg, Germany; 5TFS Develop, Barcelona, Spain; 6Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; 7Heart Center Freiburg University, Cardiology and Angiology I, Faculty of Medicine, Freiburg, Germany *These authors contributed equally to this work Purpose: COPD is a progressive disease characterized by exacerbations and a decline in health status and lung function. Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a composite endpoint used to evaluate treatment efficacy. This analysis evaluated the impact of a direct switch to once-daily indacaterol/glycopyrronium 110/50 µg (IND/GLY) from previous monotherapy with a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or with an LABA and an inhaled corticosteroid (LABA + ICS) on reducing CID. Methods: CRYSTAL was a 12-week, prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label study conducted in clinical practice settings. Three definitions of CID (D1–D3) were used, including: 1) ≥100 mL decrease in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), 2) ≥1 point decrease in transition dyspnea index (TDI) and/or ≥0.4 points increase in clinical COPD questionnaire score (CCQ), or 3) an acute moderate/severe exacerbation (AECOPD). In D1 and D2, either TDI or CCQ was evaluated along with FEV1 and AECOPD, whereas in D3, all 4 parameters were included. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01985334. Results: Of the 2,159 patients analyzed, 1,622 switched to IND/GLY and 537 continued their baseline treatments. The percentage of patients with a CID was significantly lower after a direct switch to IND/GLY versus LABA or LAMA using all 3 CID definitions (D1: odds ratio [OR] 0.41 [95% CI: 0.30–0.55]; D2: OR 0.41 [95% CI: 0.31–0.55]; D3: OR 0.39 [95% CI: 0.29–0.52]). Compared with LABA + ICS, IND/GLY also reduced the risk of CID (D1: OR 0.76 [95% CI: 0.56–1.02]; D2: OR 0.75 [95% CI: 0.56–1.00]; D3: OR 0.67 [95% CI: 0.51–0.89]). Conclusion: In this analysis, IND/GLY reduced the risk of a CID in moderate COPD patients after direct switch from LABA + ICS or LABA or LAMA in real-life clinical practice. Keywords: clinically important deterioration/CID, direct-switch, pragmatic, open-label, clinical COPD questionnaire/CCQ, transition dyspnea index/TDI

Gustavo J Rodrigo,1 David Price,2,3 Antonio Anzueto,4,5 Dave Singh,6 Pablo Altman,7 Giovanni Bader,8 Francesco Patalano,8 Robert Fogel,7 Konstantinos Kostikas8 1Departamento de Emergencia, Hospital Central de las Fuerzas Armadas, Montevideo, Uruguay; 2Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK; 3Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 4University of Texas Health Science Center, 5South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX, USA; 6Medicines Evaluation Unit, National Institute for Health Research Respiratory and Allergy Clinical Research Facility, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester, Manchester, England, UK; 7Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; 8Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting bronchodilator combinations, such as β2-agonist (LABA)/muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), have favorable efficacy compared with commonly used COPD treatments. The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA with LAMA or LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in adults with stable moderate-to-very-severe COPD. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and clinical trial/manufacturer databases) included RCTs comparing ≥12 weeks’ LABA/LAMA treatment with LAMA and/or LABA/ICS (approved doses only). Eligible studies were independently selected by two authors using predefined data fields; the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Results: Eighteen studies (23 trials) were eligible (N=20,185). LABA/LAMA significantly improved trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline to week 12 versus both LAMA and LABA/ICS (0.07 L and 0.08 L, P100 mL (risk ratio [RR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.20, 1.46] and RR: 1.44, 95% CI: [1.33, 1.56], respectively, the number needed to treat being eight and six, respectively). LABA/LAMA improved transitional dyspnea index and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores at week 12 versus LAMA (both P

Jadwiga A Wedzicha,1 Nanshan Zhong,2 Masakazu Ichinose,3 Michael Humphries,4 Robert Fogel,5 Chau Thach,5 Francesco Patalano,6 Donald Banerji5 1National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK; 2State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center of Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Disease, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China; 3Department of Respiratory Medicine, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan; 4Beijing Novartis Pharma Co. Ltd., Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 5Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; 6Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland Background: The FLAME study demonstrated that indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY), the fixed-dose combination of a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA, IND) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA, GLY), was superior to salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC) in preventing exacerbations in COPD patients with a high risk of exacerbations. In this study, we report a prespecified analysis of the efficacy and safety of IND/GLY versus SFC in Asian patients from the FLAME study.Patients and methods: Patients from Asian centers with moderate-to-very severe COPD and ≥1 exacerbation in the previous year from the 52-week, randomized FLAME study were included. IND/GLY was compared versus SFC for effects on exacerbations, lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] and forced vital capacity [FVC]), health status (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]), rescue medication use, and safety.Results: A total of 510 Asian patients (IND/GLY, n=250 or SFC, n=260) were included. Compared to the overall FLAME population, the Asian cohort had more males, a shorter duration of COPD, fewer patients using inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) at screening, fewer current smokers, and more patients with very severe COPD. IND/GLY significantly reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations (rate ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.58–0.97; P=0.027) and prolonged time to first moderate/severe exacerbation versus SFC (hazard ratio: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.59–1.01; P=0.055). Predose trough FEV1 and FVC significantly improved in Asian patients (P

Claus Vogelmeier,1 Nanshan Zhong,2 Michael J Humphries,3 Karen Mezzi,4 Robert Fogel,5 Giovanni Bader,4 Francesco Patalano,4 Donald Banerji5 1Department of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Philipps-University Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany; 2State Key Laboratory, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Diseases, First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 3Beijing Novartis Pharma Co. Ltd., Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 4Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 5Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA Background: Indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) is approved for maintenance treatment of adult patients with COPD. This post hoc analysis explored the efficacy and safety of IND/GLY versus salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) in symptomatic (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease [GOLD] B and GOLD D) patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.Patients and methods: Data from LANTERN and ILLUMINATE studies were pooled and analyzed. In both studies, symptomatic COPD patients were randomized to once-daily IND/GLY 110 µg/50 µg or twice-daily SFC 50 µg/500 µg. End points were pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), standardized area under the curve for FEV1 from 0 to 12 hours (FEV1 AUC0–12 hours), peak FEV1, peak forced vital capacity (FVC), pre-dose trough FVC, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) total score, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire total score, rescue medication use and safety.Results: A total of 1,263 patients were classified as either GOLD B (n=809) or GOLD D (n=454). At week 26, IND/GLY demonstrated statistically significant improvement in all lung function parameters versus SFC in patients in both the GOLD B and GOLD D subgroups. TDI total score and rescue medication use were significantly improved with IND/GLY versus SFC in the overall population and in the GOLD B (TDI total score only) and GOLD D (rescue medication only) subgroups. IND/GLY also reduced the rate of exacerbations in the pooled population. Overall safety profile was comparable with a higher incidence of pneumonia in the SFC-treated group.Conclusion: In this pooled analysis, IND/GLY demonstrated superior efficacy compared with SFC in patients in the GOLD B and GOLD D subgroups and supported its use in symptomatic COPD patients. Keywords: COPD, exacerbation, LABA/LAMA, LABA/ICS, lung function

Craig LaForce,1 Gregory Feldman,2 Selwyn Spangenthal,3 Joerg H Eckert,4 Michelle Henley,5 Francesco Patalano,4 Peter D’Andrea5 1North Carolina Clinical Research, Raleigh, NC, USA; 2South Carolina Pharmaceutical Research, Spartanburg, SC, USA; 3American Health Research, Charlotte, NC, USA; 4Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 5Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA Background: The purpose of this study was to confirm the efficacy and safety of twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, in patients with stable, symptomatic, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation.Methods: The GEM1 study was a 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study that randomized patients with stable, symptomatic COPD with moderate-to-severe airflow limitation to twice-daily glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg or placebo (1:1) via the Neohaler® device. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of glycopyrrolate versus placebo in terms of forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve between 0 and 12 hours post morning dose at week 12. Other outcomes included additional spirometric end points, transition dyspnea index, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, rescue medication use, and symptoms reported by patients via electronic diary. Safety was also assessed during the study.Results: Of the 441 patients randomized (glycopyrrolate, n=222; placebo, n=219), 96% of patients completed the planned treatment phase. Glycopyrrolate demonstrated statistically significant (P

Konstantinos Kostikas, Andreas Clemens, Francesco Patalano Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland Abstract: The term asthma–COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) is one of multiple terms used to describe patients with characteristics of both COPD and asthma, representing ~20% of patients with obstructive airway diseases. The recognition of both sets of morbidities in patients is important to guide practical treatment decisions. It is widely recognized that patients with COPD and coexisting asthma present with a higher disease burden, despite the conceptual expectation that the “reversible” or “treatable” component of asthma would allow for more effective management and better outcomes. However, subcategorization into terms such as ACOS is complicated by the vast spectrum of heterogeneity that is encapsulated by asthma and COPD, resulting in different clinical clusters. In this review, we discuss the possibility that these different clusters are suboptimally described by the umbrella term “ACOS”, as this additional categorization may lead to clinical confusion and potential inappropriate use of resources. We suggest that a more clinically relevant approach would be to recognize the extreme variability and the numerous phenotypes encompassed within obstructive airway diseases, with various degrees of overlapping in individual patients. In addition, we discuss some of the evidence to be considered when making practical decisions on the treatment of patients with overlapping characteristics between COPD and asthma, as well as the potential options for phenotype and biomarker-driven management of airway disease with the aim of providing more personalized treatment for patients. Finally, we highlight the need for more evidence in patients with overlapping disease characteristics and to facilitate better characterization of potential treatment responders. Keywords: emphysema, chronic bronchitis, COPD, asthma, ACOS, overlap syndrome

Nanshan Zhong,1 Changzheng Wang,2 Xiangdong Zhou,3 Nuofu Zhang,1 Michael Humphries,4 Linda Wang,4 Chau Thach,5 Francesco Patalano,6 Donald Banerji5On behalf of the LANTERN Investigators 1State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Diseases, First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 2Institute of Respiratory Disease, Xin Qiao Hospital, 3Department of Respiratory Medicine, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing City, Chongqing, 4Beijing Novartis Pharma Co. Ltd., Shanghai, People’s Republic of China; 5Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA; 6Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, SwitzerlandBackground: The current Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) treatment strategy recommends the use of one or more bronchodilators according to the patient’s airflow limitation, their history of exacerbations, and symptoms. The LANTERN study evaluated the effect of the long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) dual bronchodilator, QVA149 (indacaterol/glycopyrronium), as compared with the LABA/inhaled corticosteroid, salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC), in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with a history of ≤1 exacerbation in the previous year.Methods: In this double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, 744 patients with moderate-to-severe COPD with a history of ≤1 exacerbations in the previous year were randomized (1:1) to QVA149 110/50 µg once daily or SFC 50/500 µg twice daily for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was noninferiority of QVA149 versus SFC for trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at week 26.Results: Overall, 676 patients completed the study. The primary objective of noninferiority between QVA149 and SFC in trough FEV1 at week 26 was met. QVA149 demonstrated statistically significant superiority to SFC for trough FEV1 (treatment difference [∆]=75 mL; P

Introduction: Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) and Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA) are rare inherited retinal degenerative disorders resulting in visual impairments and impacts on patients' vision-dependent activities of daily living (ADL), mobility and distal health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to conduct qualitative research to understand the patient experience of RP/LCA across genotypes and inform development of patient- and observer-reported outcome (PRO/ObsRO) instruments in RP/LCA., Methods: Research activities included a qualitative literature review and review of existing visual function PRO instruments in RLBP1 RP, and concept elicitation (CE) and cognitive debriefing (CD) interviews of existing PRO instruments with patients with RLBP1 RP, expert clinicians, and payers. In wider RP/LCA, a social media listening (SML) study and a qualitative literature review was conducted, while psychometric evaluation of a PRO instrument in LCA was performed. Input from expert clinicians was sought at key stages., Results: Findings from the qualitative literature reviews identified a range of visual function symptoms which had significant impacts on patients' vision-related ADL and distal HRQoL. Patient interviews identified additional visual function symptoms and impacts not previously reported in published literature. These sources informed development and refinement of a conceptual model displaying the patient experience of RP/LCA. Review of existing visual function PRO instruments, and CD interviews evaluating their content validity, confirmed that no existing instrument provides a comprehensive assessment of all concepts relevant to patients with RP/LCA. This highlighted the need for development of the Visual Symptom and Impact Outcomes PRO and ObsRO instruments to adequately assess the patient experience of RP/LCA., Conclusions: Results informed and supported development of the instruments to assess visual functioning symptoms and vision-dependent ADL, mobility and distal HRQoL in RP/LCA, in accordance with regulatory standards. Next steps to further support use in RP/LCA clinical trials/practice includes content and psychometric validation of the instruments in this population., (© 2023. The Author(s).)