Search

Wenjia Chen,1 Mohsen Sadatsafavi,2 Trung N Tran,3 Ruth B Murray,4 Chong Boon Nigel Wong,1 Nasloon Ali,4,5 Cono Ariti,4,5 Esther Garcia Gil,6 Anthony Newell,5,7 Marianna Alacqua,8 Mona Al-Ahmad,9 Alan Altraja,10 Riyad Al-Lehebi,11,12 Mohit Bhutani,13 Leif Bjermer,14 Anne Sofie Bjerrum,15 Arnaud Bourdin,16 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,4,5 Anna von Bülow,17 John Busby,18 Giorgio Walter Canonica,19,20 Victoria Carter,4,5 George C Christoff,21 Borja G Cosio,22 Richard W Costello,23 J Mark FitzGerald,24 João A Fonseca,25 Kwang Ha Yoo,26 Liam G Heaney,27 Enrico Heffler,19,20 Mark Hew,28,29 Ole Hilberg,30 Flavia Hoyte,31,32 Takashi Iwanaga,33 David J Jackson,34,35 Rupert C Jones,36 Mariko Siyue Koh,37,38 Piotr Kuna,39 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,40 Sverre Lehmann,41 Lauri A Lehtimäki,42,43 Juntao Lyu,5,7 Bassam Mahboub,44,45 Jorge Maspero,46,47 Andrew N Menzies-Gow,48 Concetta Sirena,49 Nikolaos Papadopoulos,50,51 Andriana I Papaioannou,52 Luis Pérez de Llano,53,54 Diahn-Warng Perng,55,56 Matthew Peters,57 Paul E Pfeffer,58,59 Celeste M Porsbjerg,17 Todor A Popov,60 Chin Kook Rhee,61 Sundeep Salvi,62 Camille Taillé,63 Christian Taube,64 Carlos A Torres-Duque,65 Charlotte S Ulrik,66 Seung Won Ra,67 Eileen Wang,31,32 Michael E Wechsler,68 David B Price4,5,69 1Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; 2Respiratory Evaluation Sciences Program, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 3AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 4Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 5Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 6AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 7Optimum Patient Care, Queensland, VIC, Australia; 8AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 9Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait; 10Department of Pulmonology, University of Tartu and Lung Clinic, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia; 11Department of Pulmonology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 12College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 13Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Medicine, University of Alberta, Western Canada, AB, Canada; 14Department of Clinical Sciences, Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 15Department of Respiratory Medicine and Allergy, Aarhus University Hospital, Jutland, Aarhus, Denmark; 16PhyMedExp, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, INSERM, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France; 17Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 18Centre for Public Health, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 19Personalized Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Milan, Italy; 20Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy; 21Medical University-Sofia, Faculty of Public Health, Sofia, Bulgaria; 22Son Espases University Hospital-IdISBa-Ciberes, Mallorca, Spain; 23Department of Respiratory Medicine, Clinical Research Centre, Smurfit Building Beaumont Hospital, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland; 24Department of Medicine, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 25Comunity Health, Information and Decision Sciences Department (MEDCIDS) & Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine of University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 26KonKuk University School of Medicine in Seoul, Seoul, Korea; 27Wellcome-Wolfson Centre for Experimental Medicine, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 28Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 29Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 30Medical Department, Vejle University Hospital, Jutland, Vejle, Denmark; 31Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 32Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; 33Center for General Medical Education and Clinical Training, Kindai University Hospital, Osakasayama, Japan; 34UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 35School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 36Research and Knowledge Exchange, Plymouth Marjon University, Plymouth, UK; 37Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore; 38SingHealth Duke-NUS Lung Centre, Singapore, Singapore; 39Division of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy Medical University of &Lstrok;ód&zacute;, &Lstrok;ód&zacute;, Poland; 40Directora Centro de Excelencia en Asma y Alergia, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México, Mexico; 41Section of Thoracic Medicine, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; 42Allergy Centre, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland; 43Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland; 44College of Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates; 45Rashid Hospital, Dubai Health Authority, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 46Clinical Research for Allergy and Respiratory Medicine, CIDEA Foundation, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 47University Career of Specialists in Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the Buenos Aires University School of Medicine, Buenos Aires, Argentina; 48Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals, London, UK; 49Severe Asthma Network in Italy (SANI), Milano, Italy; 50Division of Infection, Immunity & Respiratory Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 51Allergy Department, 2nd Pediatric Clinic, University of Athens, Athens, Greece; 52 2nd Respiratory Medicine Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece; 53Pneumology Service, Lucus Augusti University Hospital, EOXI Lugo, Lugo, Spain; 54Biodiscovery Research Group, Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain; 55Division of Clinical Respiratory Physiology Chest Department, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; 56COPD Assembly of the Asian Pacific Society of Respirology Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan; 57Department of Thoracic Medicine, Concord Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 58Department of Respiratory Medicine, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK; 59Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK; 60University Hospital ”sv. Ivan Rilski”, Sofia, Bulgaria; 61Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea; 62Pulmocare Research and Education Foundation, Pune, India; 63Department of Respiratory Diseases, Bichat Hospital, AP-HP Nord-Université de Paris, Paris, France; 64Department of Pulmonary Medicine, University Medical Center Essen-Ruhrlandklinik, Essen, Germany; 65CINEUMO, Respiratory Research Center, Fundación Neumológica Colombiana, Bogotá, Colombia; 66Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark; 67Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Pulmonology, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, South Korea; 68Department of Medicine, NJH Cohen Family Asthma Institute, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 69Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B Price, Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, &num;06 Midview City, Singapore, Singapore, 573969, Tel +65 3105 1489, Email dprice@opri.sgBackground: Many severe asthma patients with high oral corticosteroid exposure (HOCS) often do not initiate biologics despite being eligible. This study aimed to compare the characteristics of severe asthma patients with HOCS who did and did not initiate biologics.Methods: Baseline characteristics of patients with HOCS (long-term maintenance OCS therapy for at least 1 year, or ≥ 4 courses of steroid bursts in a year) from the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; https://isaregistries.org/), who initiated or did not initiate biologics (anti-lgE, anti-IL5/5R or anti-IL4R), were described at the time of biologic initiation or registry enrolment. Statistical relationships were tested using Pearson’s chi-squared tests for categorical variables, and t-tests for continuous variables, adjusting for potential errors in multiple comparisons.Results: Between January 2015 and February 2021, we identified 1412 adult patients with severe asthma from 19 countries that met our inclusion criteria of HOCS, of whom 996 (70.5%) initiated a biologic and 416 (29.5%) did not. The frequency of biologic initiation varied across geographical regions. Those who initiated a biologic were more likely to have higher blood eosinophil count (483 vs 399 cells/μL, p=0.003), serious infections (49.0% vs 13.3%, p< 0.001), nasal polyps (35.2% vs 23.6%, p< 0.001), airflow limitation (56.8% vs 51.8%, p=0.013), and uncontrolled asthma (80.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.004) despite greater conventional treatment adherence than those who did not start a biologic. Both groups had similar annual asthma exacerbation rates in the previous 12 months (5.7 vs 5.3, p=0.147).Conclusion: Around one third of severe HOCS asthma patients did not receive biologics despite a similar high burden of asthma exacerbations as those who initiated a biologic therapy. Other disease characteristics such as eosinophilic phenotype, serious infectious events, nasal polyps, airflow limitation and lack of asthma control appear to dictate biologic use.Keywords: severe asthma, biologics, real-world, treatment pattern, patient characteristics

Maud Koopman,1– 3 Frits ME Franssen,1– 3 Swetlana Gaffron,4 Henrik Watz,5 Thierry Troosters,6,7 Judith Garcia-Aymerich,8– 10 Pierluigi Paggiaro,11 Eduard Molins,12 Miguel Moya,12 Lindy van Burk,13 Dieter Maier,14 Esther Garcia Gil,12 Emiel FM Wouters,1,3,15 Lowie EGW Vanfleteren,16 Martijn A Spruit1– 3 1Department of Research and Development, CIRO+, Center of Expertise for Chronic Organ Failure, Horn, the Netherlands; 2NUTRIM, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 3Department of Respiratory Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+), Maastricht, the Netherlands; 4Viscovery Software GmbH, Vienna, Austria; 5Pulmonary Research Institute at LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Airway Research Center North (ARCN), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Grosshansdorf, Germany; 6Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven – University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 7Department of Respiratory Diseases, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 8Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain; 9Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain; 10CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Publica (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain; 11Department of Surgery, Medicine, Molecular Biology and Critical Care, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; 12AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 13AstraZeneca, Den Haag, the Netherlands; 14Biomax Informatics AB, Planegg, 82152, Germany; 15Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Lung Health, Vienna, Austria; 16COPD Center, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Institute of Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, SwedenCorrespondence: Maud Koopman, CIRO+, Center of Expertise for Chronic Organ Failure, Hornerheide 1, Horn, 6085 NM, the Netherlands, Email maudkoopman@gmail.comRationale: It is difficult to predict the effects of long-acting bronchodilators (LABD) on lung function, exercise capacity and physical activity in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Therefore, the multidimensional response to LABD was profiled in COPD patients participating in the ACTIVATE study and randomized to LABD.Methods: In the ACTIVATE study, patients were randomized to aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) or placebo for four weeks. The primary outcomes included (1) lung function as measured by functional residual capacity (FRC), residual volume (RV), and spirometric outcomes; (2) exercise performance as measured by a constant work rate cycle ergometry test (CWRT); and (3) physical activity (PA) using an activity monitor. Self-organizing maps (SOMs) were used to create an ordered representation of the patients who were randomly assigned to four weeks of AB/FF and cluster them into different outcome groups.Results: A total of 250 patients were randomized to AB/FF (n = 126) or placebo (n = 124). Patients in the AB/FF group (39.6% women) had moderate-to-severe COPD, static hyperinflation (FRC: 151.4 (27.7)% predicted) and preserved exercise capacity. Six clusters with differential outcomes were identified. Patients in clusters 1 and 2 had significant improvements in lung function compared to the remaining AB/FF-treated patients. Patients in clusters 1 and 3 had significant improvements in CWRT time, and patients in clusters 2, 3 and 6 had significant improvements in PA compared to the remaining AB/FF-treated patients.Conclusion: Individual responses to 4 weeks of AB/FF-treatment in COPD are differential and the degree of change differs across domains of lung function, exercise capacity and PA. These results indicate that clinical response to LABD therapy is difficult to predict and is non-linear, and show doctors that it is important to look at multiple outcomes simultaneously when evaluating the clinical response to LABD therapy.Clinical Trial Registration: The original ACTIVATE study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number NCT02424344.Keywords: COPD, hyperinflation, physical activity

Andrew N Menzies-Gow,1 Claire McBrien,2 Bindhu Unni,3 Celeste M Porsbjerg,4 Mona Al-Ahmad,5 Christopher S Ambrose,6 Karin Dahl Assing,7 Anna von Bülow,4 John Busby,8 Borja G Cosio,9 J Mark FitzGerald,10 Esther Garcia Gil,11 Susanne Hansen,12 Liam G aHeaney,8 Mark Hew,13,14 David J Jackson,15,16 Maria Kallieri,17 Stelios Loukides,17 Njira L Lugogo,18 Andriana I Papaioannou,17 Désirée Larenas-Linnemann,19 Wendy C Moore,20 Luis A Perez-de-Llano,21 Linda M Rasmussen,22 Johannes M Schmid,23 Salman Siddiqui,24 Marianna Alacqua,25 Trung N Tran,6 Charlotte Suppli Ulrik,26 John W Upham,27 Eileen Wang,28,29 Lakmini Bulathsinhala,3,30 Victoria A Carter,3,30 Isha Chaudhry,3,30 Neva Eleangovan,3,30 Ruth B Murray,3,30 Chris A Price,3,30 David B Price3,30,31 1UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals, London, UK; 2Kingston Hospital, London, UK; 3Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore; 4Respiratory Research Unit, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 5Al-Rashed Allergy Center, Ministry of Health, Microbiology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Kuwait; 6AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 7Department of Respiratory Medicine, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark; 8UK Severe Asthma Network and National Registry, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland; 9Son Espases University Hospital-IdISBa-Ciberes, Mallorca, Spain; 10The Centre for Lung Health, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, UBC, Vancouver, Canada; 11AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 12Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 13Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; 14Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; 15UK Severe Asthma Network andNational Registry, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust, London, UK; 16School of Immunology & Microbial Sciences, King’s College London, London, UK; 17 2nd Respiratory Medicine Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece; 18Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA; 19Directora Centro de Excelencia en Asma y Alergia, Hospital Médica Sur, Ciudad de México, Mexico; 20Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy, and Immunologic Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA; 21Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hospital Universitario Lucus Augusti, Lugo, Spain; 22Allergy Clinic, Department of Dermato-Allergology, Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 23University Hospital of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark; 24University of Leicester, Department of Respiratory Sciences & NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (Respiratory Theme), Leicester, UK; 25AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK; 26Department of Respiratory Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital-Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark; 27Diamantina Institute & PA-Southside Clinical Unit, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; 28Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, Department of Medicine, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 29Division of Allergy & Clinical Immunology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; 30Optimum Patient Care, Cambridge, UK; 31Centre of Academic Primary Care, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UKCorrespondence: David B PriceObservational and Pragmatic Research Institute, 22 Sin Ming Lane, #06 Midview City, Singapore, 573969 Tel +65 3105 1489Email dprice@opri.sgIntroduction: International registries provide opportunities to describe use of biologics for treating severe asthma in current clinical practice. Our aims were to describe real-life global patterns of biologic use (continuation, switches, and discontinuations) for severe asthma, elucidate reasons underlying these patterns, and examine associated patient-level factors.Methods: This was a historical cohort study including adults with severe asthma enrolled into the International Severe Asthma Registry (ISAR; http://isaregistries.org, 2015– 2020) or the CHRONICLE Study (2018– 2020) and treated with a biologic. Eleven countries were included (Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, South Korea, Spain, UK, and USA). Biologic utilization patterns were defined: 1) continuing initial biologic; 2) stopping biologic treatment; or 3) switching to another biologic. Reasons for discontinuation/switching were recorded and comparisons drawn between groups.Results: A total of 3531 patients were included. Omalizumab was the most common initial biologic in 2015 (88.2%) and benralizumab in 2019 (29.6%). Most patients (79%; 2791/3531) continued their first biologic; 10.2% (356/3531) stopped; 10.8% (384/3531) switched. The most frequent first switch was from omalizumab to an anti–IL-5/5R (49.6%; 187/377). The most common subsequent switch was from one anti–IL-5/5R to another (44.4%; 20/45). Insufficient efficacy and/or adverse effects were the most frequent reasons for stopping/switching. Patients who stopped/switched were more likely to have a higher baseline blood eosinophil count and exacerbation rate, lower lung function, and greater health care resource utilization.Conclusion: The description of real-life patterns of continuing, stopping, or switching biologics enhances our understanding of global biologic use. Prospective studies involving structured switching criteria could ascertain optimal strategies to identify patients who may benefit from switching.Keywords: severe asthma, biologics, prescribing, cohort study, management, international

Sanjay Sethi,1 Edward Kerwin,2 Henrik Watz,3 Gary T Ferguson,4 Robert M Mroz,5,6 Rosa Segarra,7 Eduard Molins,7 Diana Jarreta,7 Esther Garcia Gil7 1Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, SUNY, Buffalo, NY, USA; 2Clinical Research Institute, Medford, OR, USA; 3Pulmonary Research Institute at LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Airway Research Center North, German Center for Lung Research, Grosshansdorf, Germany; 4Pulmonary Research Institute of Southeast Michigan, Farmington Hills, MI, USA; 5Centrum Medycyny Oddechowej, Białystok, Poland; 6Medical University of Białystok, Białystok, Poland; 7AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain Background: AMPLIFY assessed the efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) vs its monocomponents and tiotropium (TIO) in patients with moderate-to-very severe symptomatic COPD (NCT02796677).Methods: In this 24-week, Phase III, double-dummy, active-controlled study, symptomatic patients (COPD Assessment Test score ≥10) were randomized to twice-daily AB/FF 400/12 µg, AB 400 µg, or FF 12 µg, or once-daily TIO 18 µg. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline at week 24 in 1-hour morning post-dose FEV1 (AB/FF vs AB) and in pre-dose (trough) FEV1 (AB/FF vs FF). Non-inferiority of AB vs TIO in pre-dose FEV1 was also an objective. Normalized area under the curve (AUC)0–3/3 h FEV1 and nighttime and early morning symptoms were also assessed. A subgroup participated in a 24-hour serial spirometry sub-study.Results: A total of 1,594 patients were randomized; 566 entered the sub-study. At week 24, 1-hour post-dose FEV1 significantly improved with AB/FF vs AB, FF, and TIO (84, 84, and 92 mL; all P

Anthony D D’Urzo,1 Dave Singh,2 James F Donohue,3 Edward M Kerwin,4 Anna Ribera,5 Eduard Molins,5 Ferran Chuecos,5 Diana Jarreta,5 Esther Garcia Gil5 1Department of Family and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 2Medicines Evaluation Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 3Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 4Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, Medford, OR, USA; 5AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain Background: Aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg is a twice-daily maintenance bronchodilator for COPD. This post hoc study evaluated aclidinium/formoterol vs aclidinium 400 µg, formoterol 12 µg, or placebo in patient subgroups. Patients and methods: Data were pooled from two 24-week Phase III clinical trials (ACLIFORM and AUGMENT). Patients (N=3,394) were analyzed by baseline airflow obstruction severity (moderate/severe), age (

Asha Hareendran,1 Barry J Make,2 Erica Zaiser,1 Esther Garcia Gil3 1Patient Centered Research, Evidera, London, UK; 2Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, National Jewish Health, Denver, CO, USA; 3Global Medical Affairs, AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain Background: Early morning respiratory symptoms impact quality of life and are often the most troublesome for patients with COPD. Reduction in symptoms and their impact are important treatment outcomes for COPD. The Early Morning Symptoms of COPD Instrument (EMSCI) is a daily diary designed to collect patients’ report of the occurrence, severity, and impact of morning COPD symptoms.Methods: To assess the psychometric properties of the EMSCI, a split-half sample of data from a COPD clinical trial where participants completed the EMSCI daily was used for conducting descriptive statistics, factor analyses, and Rasch model analyses to examine item performance and inform scoring. Once the final scoring algorithm was determined, data from the second split-half sample were used to examine the properties of the EMSCI. Test–retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Correlations with other study assessments were used to evaluate convergent and known-groups validity.Results: Data from 1,663 patients with COPD aged 40–93 years were analyzed. Factor analysis and Rasch analysis confirmed a one-factor structure for the 6 individual symptom items. Item analyses supported the generation of 4 scores. All scores demonstrated good test–retest reliability: 6-item symptom severity (ICC, 0.84); overall morning symptom severity (ICC, 0.84); activity limitation (ICC, 0.85); and rescue medication (ICC, 0.62). Significant correlations between EMSCI scores, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores, and EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool (EXACT)-Respiratory Symptoms scores supported the tool’s convergent validity. Significant differences (p

Henrik Watz,1 Thierry Troosters,2 Kai M Beeh,3 Judith Garcia-Aymerich,4–6 Pierluigi Paggiaro,7 Eduard Molins,8 Massimo Notari,9 Antonio Zapata,10 Diana Jarreta,8 Esther Garcia Gil8 1Pulmonary Research Institute at LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Airway Research Center North, German Center for Lung Research, Grosshansdorf, Germany; 2Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Pulmonary Rehabilitation and Respiratory Division, University Hospital Leuven, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 3insaf Respiratory Research Institute GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany; 4Barcelona Institute of Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain; 5Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain; 6CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain; 7Department of Surgery, Medicine, Molecular Biology and Critical Care, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; 8AstraZeneca PLC, Barcelona, Spain; 9A. Menarini Farmaceutica Internazionale S.R.L., Firenze, Italy; 10Laboratorios Menarini, S.A., Badalona, Spain Abstract: The Phase IV, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ACTIVATE study (NCT02424344) evaluated the effect of aclidinium/formoterol (AB/FF) 400/12 µg twice daily on lung hyperinflation, exercise capacity, and physical activity in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Patients received AB/FF (n=134) or placebo (n=133) (1:1) via the Genuair™/Pressair® dry powder inhaler for 8 weeks. From Weeks 5 to 8, all patients participated in behavioral intervention (BI; daily messages providing step goals). The primary end point was trough functional residual capacity (FRC) at Week 4. Exercise endurance time and physical activity were assessed at Week 4 (pharmacotherapy only) and at Week 8 (8 weeks of pharmacotherapy plus 4 weeks of BI). Other end points included post-dose FRC, residual volume, and inspiratory capacity (IC) at rest and during exercise. After 4 weeks, trough FRC improved with AB/FF versus placebo but did not reach significance (125 mL; P=0.0690). However, post-dose FRC, residual volume, and IC at rest improved significantly with AB/FF at Week 4 versus placebo (all P

Jutta Beier,1 Robert Mroz,2,3 Anne-Marie Kirsten,4 Ferran Chuecos,5 Esther Garcia Gil5 1insaf Respiratory Research Institute, Wiesbaden, Germany; 2Centrum Medycyny Oddechowej, 3Medical University of Białystok, Białystok, Poland; 4Pulmonary Research Institute at LungenClinic Grosshansdorf, Airway Research Center North, German Center for Lung Research, Grosshansdorf, Germany; 5AstraZeneca PLC, Barcelona, Spain Background: A previous Phase IIIb study (NCT01462929) in patients with moderate to severe COPD demonstrated that 6 weeks of treatment with aclidinium led to improvements in 24-hour bronchodilation comparable to those with tiotropium, and improvement of symptoms versus placebo. This post hoc analysis was performed to assess the effect of treatment in the symptomatic patient group participating in the study. Methods: Symptomatic patients (defined as those with Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms [E-RS™] in COPD baseline score ≥10 units) received aclidinium bromide 400 µg twice daily (BID), tiotropium 18 µg once daily (QD), or placebo, for 6 weeks. Lung function, COPD respiratory symptoms, and incidence of adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Results: In all, 277 symptomatic patients were included in this post hoc analysis. Aclidinium and tiotropium treatment improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline to week 6 at all time points over 24 hours versus placebo. In addition, improvements in FEV1 from baseline during the nighttime period were observed for aclidinium versus tiotropium on day 1 (aclidinium 157 mL, tiotropium 67 mL; P

Marc Miravitlles,1 Kenneth R Chapman,2 Ferran Chuecos,3 Anna Ribera,4 Esther Garcia Gil3 1Department of Pneumology, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, CIBER de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), Barcelona, Spain; 2Asthma & Airway Centre, University Health Network, Toronto Western Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 3Global Medicines Development, AstraZeneca PLC, Barcelona, Spain; 4Global Medical Affairs, AstraZeneca PLC, Barcelona, Spain Background: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience respiratory symptoms, which impair quality of life. This pooled analysis of two Phase III studies assessed the impact of aclidinium/formoterol on patients with COPD categorized by symptom status.Methods: Data were pooled from two 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of twice-daily aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg in moderate-to-severe COPD (ACLIFORM [NCT01462942] and AUGMENT [NCT01437397]). These post hoc analyses evaluated the efficacy of aclidinium/formoterol versus placebo or monotherapies in patients defined as less/more symptomatic by a) Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms (E-RS™) score ≥10/

David Price,1 Mark Small,2 Gary Milligan,2 Victoria Higgins,2 Esther Garcia Gil,3 Jordi Estruch3 1Centre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; 2Adelphi Real World, Adelphi Mill, Bollington, UK; 3Almirall S.A., Barcelona, Spain Background: Sleep quality is often poor in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A cross-sectional European survey investigated the prevalence of night-time symptoms in COPD to evaluate the level of disconnect between physician and patient perceptions of the presence of night-time symptoms, and to compare the characteristics of patients with and without night-time symptoms. Methods: A total of 251 primary care physicians and 251 respiratory specialists completed record forms on 2,807 patients with COPD. The forms captured information on patient demographics, lung function, COPD severity, and symptoms. Patients completed questionnaires on the time of day when their COPD symptoms bothered them, and the impact of COPD on their ability to get up in the morning and on sleep. Data were compared between groups (those with and without night-time symptoms) using t-tests or Wilcoxon signed rank tests. The kappa statistic was used to assess the level of disconnect between physician and patient perceptions of the impact of night-time symptoms. Results: Most patients (78%) reported night-time disturbance. Patients with night-time symptoms experienced more daytime breathlessness (mean modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score 2.4 versus 1.1) and exacerbations in the previous 12 months (mean 1.7 versus 0.4), and received more maintenance therapy (mean of 2.8 versus 2.3 products) than those without. Concordance between the frequency of physician-reported (67.9% of patients) and patient-reported (68.5% of patients) night-time symptoms was good. Physicians significantly underestimated the impact of COPD on the patient's ability to get up in the morning and on sleep (fair–moderate agreement). Physician-reported night-time symptoms were present for 41.2% of patients who could be categorized by Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group (n=937), increasing from 20.9% of those in the low-risk group to 77.4% of those in the high-riskgroup. Conclusion: Patients with COPD experience night-time symptoms regardless of GOLD group, that impact on their ability to get up in the morning and on their sleep quality. Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, night-time symptoms, sleep quality, burden

Weimin Li,1 Sami Z Daoud,2 Roopa Trivedi,3 Pradeep B Lukka,4 Eulalia Jimenez,5 Eduard Molins,5 Catherine Stewart,6 Pranob Bharali,3,7 Esther Garcia-Gil8 1Clinical Trial Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, People’s Republic of China; 2Respiratory & Immunology, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 3Late Respiratory & Immunology, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Durham, NC, USA; 4Clinical & Quantitative Pharmacology, Clinical Pharmacology & Safety Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 5Clinical & Quantitative Pharmacology, Clinical Pharmacology & Safety Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain; 6Statistics, Phastar, Chiswick, London, UK; 7BioPharmaceuticals R&D Late-Stage Development, AstraZeneca India Pvt Ltd., Bangalore, Karnataka, India; 8Respiratory & Immunology, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Barcelona, SpainCorrespondence: Sami Z Daoud, Respiratory & Immunology, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, One MedImmune Way, Gaithersburg, MD, 20878, USA, Tel +1 302-598-8614, Email Sami.Daoud@astrazeneca.comPurpose: To date, aclidinium pharmacokinetic (PK) studies have focused on Caucasian populations, and no data are available for Chinese populations. We aimed to characterize the PK and safety profile of aclidinium and its metabolites (LAS34823 and LAS34850) following single and multiple (twice-daily; BID) dosing in healthy Chinese participants, and to compare PK data between Chinese and Caucasian populations.Materials and methods: In this Phase I, open-label study (NCT03276052), healthy participants from a single site in China received aclidinium bromide 400 μg via a dry powder inhaler. The Day 1 single dose was followed by a washout period of 96 hours. On Days 5 through 8, participants received BID doses.Results: Twenty healthy Chinese participants, aged 18– 45 years, were enrolled. Aclidinium absorption was rapid (median time to maximum concentration [tmax] 0.08 hours post-dose following single/multiple doses). LAS34823 had a similar median tmax of 0.08 hours, whereas LAS34850 tmax occurred later (median 2.50– 3.00 hours). Aclidinium, LAS34823, and LAS34850 concentrations declined in a bi-phasic manner; geometric mean half-life was 13.5 hours (single dosing) and 21.4 hours (multiple dosing), while steady state was generally achieved after 5 days’ continuous dosing. Area under the concentration–time curve during a dosage interval (AUCτ) metabolite to parent ratios for LAS34823 were 2.6 (Day 1) and 2.9 (Day 9), while LAS34850 had ratios of 136.0 and 94.8, respectively. Aclidinium accumulation occurred after 5 days of BID dosing (LS mean accumulation ratio for AUCτ Day 9/Day 1: 214.1% [90% CI, 176.5, 259.6]); LAS34823 accumulation was similar, while LAS34850 accumulation was lower. Between-participant exposure variability was moderate to high for aclidinium and LAS34823, and low for LAS34850.Conclusion: Single and multiple doses of aclidinium were well tolerated in healthy Chinese participants. The safety profile of and exposure to aclidinium was consistent with previous studies conducted in Caucasian populations.Keywords: aclidinium bromide, bronchodilator, China, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pharmacokinetics, safety

Robert A Wise,1 Kenneth R Chapman,2 Benjamin M Scirica,3,4 Sami Z Daoud,5 Dan Lythgoe,6 Esther Garcia-Gil7 1Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; 2Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 3Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; 4Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 5Late-Stage Respiratory and Immunology, BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 6Statistics, Phastar, Chiswick, London, UK; 7Respiratory & Immunology, BioPharmaceuticals Medical, AstraZeneca, Barcelona, SpainCorrespondence: Robert A WiseMedicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 5501 Hopkins Bayview Circle, Baltimore, MD, 21224, USAEmail rwise@jhmi.eduPurpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality. Here, we investigate whether the safety and efficacy of aclidinium bromide differ due to exacerbation history in patients with COPD and increased cardiovascular risk.Patients and Methods: ASCENT-COPD was a Phase 4, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and increased cardiovascular risk. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive aclidinium or placebo twice daily for up to 3 years. Outcomes included time to first MACE and all-cause mortality over 3 years, exacerbation rate during the first year on-treatment, and change in baseline pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) over 3 years. This pre-specified subgroup analysis compared outcomes in patients receiving aclidinium vs placebo. The comparison of patients with vs without an exacerbation history was added following a protocol amendment to increase enrollment in the primary study.Results: Of 3589 patients, 2156 (60.1%) had ≥ 1 moderate or severe exacerbations in the prior year, compared with 1433 (39.9%) without prior exacerbations. Although patients with an exacerbation history had numerically higher rates of MACE and mortality regardless of treatment, aclidinium did not increase risk of MACE (≥ 1: hazard ratio [HR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54– 1.16; none: HR 1.27, 95% CI: 0.65– 2.47; interaction P=0.233) or all-cause mortality (≥ 1: HR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.81– 1.43; none: HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.36– 1.22; interaction P=0.154), regardless of exacerbation history. Aclidinium reduced the exacerbation rate vs placebo irrespective of exacerbation history (≥ 1: rate ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% CI: 0.68– 0.94; none: RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.54– 0.89; interaction P=0.340) and improved FEV1 (interaction P=0.633).Conclusion: In patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and increased cardiovascular risk, aclidinium did not increase risk of MACE or mortality and reduced exacerbation rate vs placebo, regardless of exacerbation history.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01966107.Keywords: COPD, COPD exacerbation, aclidinium, MACE, mortality