Search

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

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

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

Judith J Stephenson,1 Carole Dembek,2 Amanda Caldwell-Tarr,3 Rebecca M Conto,1 Mark Paullin,1 Edward M Kerwin4 1HealthCore Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA; 2Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA; 3HealthCore Inc., Watertown, MA, USA; 4Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, Medford, OR, USACorrespondence: Judith J Stephenson Tel +1 302 230 2142Email jstephenson@healthcore.comPurpose: 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.Keywords: device satisfaction, cross-sectional, survey, nebulizer, COPD

Donald P Tashkin,1 Alpesh N Amin,2 Edward M Kerwin3 1The Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 2Department of Medicine, School of Medicine University of California, Irvine, CA, USA; 3Crisor, LLC Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, Medford, OR, USACorrespondence: Donald P TashkinDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USATel +1 310 825 3163Fax +1 310 206 5088Email dtashkin@mednet.ucla.eduAbstract: 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.Keywords: clinical trials, COPD, pharmacotherapy, study designs

Reynold A Panettieri Jr,1 Tobias Welte,2 Kartik V Shenoy,3 Stephanie Korn,4 Margret Jandl,5 Edward M Kerwin,6 Rosa Feijoo,7 Peter Barker,8 Richard F Olsson,9 Ubaldo J Martin8 On behalf of the SOLANA Study Investigators1Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Division, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 2Department of Respiratory Medicine, Member of the German Center of Lung Research, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany; 3Department of Thoracic Medicine and Surgery, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 4Pulmonary Department, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Langenbeckstr, Mainz, Germany; 5Hamburger Institut Für Therapieforschung, Hamburg, Germany; 6Clinical Trials Division, Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon (Crisor), Medford, OR, USA; 7Departamento De Medicina Interna Oriente, Universidad De Chile, Santiago, Chile; 8Research and Development, AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 9R&D, Innovative Medicines and Early Development, Early Clinical Development, AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, SwedenCorrespondence: Reynold A PanettieriUniversity of Pennsylvania, 125 South 31st Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USATel +1 215 573-9860Fax +1 215 746-1224Email rp865@rbhs.rutgers.eduObjective: In the SOLANA trial, we sought to physiologically characterize benralizumab’s onset of effect and maintenance of that effect for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.Methods: SOLANA (NCT02869438) was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, Phase IIIb study conducted at 49 centers in six countries (Chile, Germany, Hungary, the Philippines, South Korea, and the United States). Eligible patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells/μL were randomized to subcutaneous benralizumab (30 mg) or placebo administered at Days 0, 28, and 56. The primary endpoint was the average change from baseline in prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (pre-BD FEV1) during the Day 28‒Day 84 period for benralizumab vs placebo. Secondary endpoints included patient-reported outcomes (PROs). A subset of patients participated in a whole-body plethysmography substudy. Safety was also assessed.Results: In total, 233 patients were randomized to benralizumab (n=118) or placebo (n=115). Improvement from baseline in pre-BD FEV1 with benralizumab 30 mg was not statistically significant compared with placebo (least-squares mean change difference [95% confidence interval] 57 mL [− 22 to 135]; p=0.16). Compared with placebo, benralizumab demonstrated early (Day 7) nonstatistically significant improvements in whole-body plethysmography assessments of hyperinflation and clinically meaningful improvements in PRO measures (Asthma Control Questionnaire 6 at Day 14 and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire at Day 28), which were maintained over the treatment period. Benralizumab’s safety profile was commensurate with previously reported studies.Conclusion: The observed early changes in lung volume despite relatively small improvements in airflow obstruction suggest that the anti-inflammatory effect of benralizumab may be manifested as deflation over time for patients with hyperinflation, who potentially have a greater degree of airway remodeling. This early effect could partially explain the rapid PRO improvements observed for certain patients.Keywords: anti–IL-5Rα, benralizumab, interleukin-5, randomized controlled trial, eosinophilic, severe asthma

Dave Singh,1 Anthony D D’Urzo,2 James F Donohue,3 Edward M Kerwin,4 Eduard Molins,5 Ferran Chuecos,5 Anna Ribera,5 Diana Jarreta5 1Medicines Evaluation Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; 2Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 3Division of Pulmonary Diseases and Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina Pulmonary Critical Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 4Clinical Research Institute, Medford, OR, USA; 5BioPharmaceuticals R&D, AstraZeneca, Barcelona, SpainCorrespondence: Dave SinghMedicines Evaluation Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M23 9QZ, UK Tel +44 161 946 4073Fax +44 161 946 1459Email DSingh@meu.org.ukBackground: Ideally, treatment recommendations for maintenance therapy-naïve 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-naïve 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-naïve with long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). Additionally, a post-hoc subgroup analysis was conducted for maintenance therapy-naïve 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-naïve 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-naïve 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-naïve 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-naïve patients. Intervention with dual bronchodilator therapy as a first maintenance treatment for COPD may provide greater benefits than LAMA or LABA monotherapy.Keywords: COPD, treatment-naïve, LAMA, LABA

Courtney Crim,1 Michael L Watkins,1 Eric D Bateman,2 Gregory J Feldman,3 Isabelle Schenkenberger,4 Edward M Kerwin,5 Catriona Crawford,6 Krishna Pudi,7 Shuyen Ho,8 Charlotte Baidoo,9 Ramiro Castro-Santamaria10 1GSK, Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA; 2Division of Pulmonology, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; 3S. Carolina Pharmaceutical Research, Spartanburg, SC, USA; 4Klinische Forschung Berlin GbR, Berlin, Germany; 5Clinical Trials Division, Crisor LLC, Clinical Research Institute, Medford OR, USA; 6GSK, Global Medical, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK; 7Upstate Pharmaceutical Research, Greenville, SC, USA; 8PAREXEL International, Durham, NC, USA; 9GSK, Clinical Statistics, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK; 10GSK, Research and Development, Collegeville, PA, USA 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. Keywords: bifunctional, bronchodilator, dual-pharmacophore, dose–response, muscarinic antagonist β2-agonist

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 (

Edward M Kerwin,1 Robert Tosiello,2 Barry Price,2 Shahin Sanjar,2 Thomas Goodin2 1Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, Inc., Medford, OR, USA; 2Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA Background: Phase III studies demonstrated efficacy and safety of nebulized glycopyrrolate inhalation solution (GLY) in subjects with COPD. Secondary analyses were performed to examine the effect of background long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) use on the efficacy and safety of nebulized GLY. Methods: In two 12-week placebo-controlled studies (GOLDEN 3 and GOLDEN 4) and one 48-week, open-label active-controlled study (GOLDEN 5), a total of 2,379 subjects were stratified by background LABA use (LABA-yes: n=861; LABA-no: n=1,518) and randomized to placebo vs GLY 25 or 50 µg twice daily, or GLY 50 µg twice daily vs tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg once daily. Lung function, patient-reported outcomes, exacerbations, and safety were assessed. Results: Compared with placebo, pooled data from the 12-week studies showed significant improvements from baseline with GLY 25 and 50 µg across LABA subgroups in trough FEV1 (LABA-yes: 0.101 and 0.110 L; LABA-no: 0.092 and 0.101 L, respectively; P

Colin Reisner,1,2 James Pearle,3 Edward M Kerwin,4 Earl St Rose,1 Patrick Darken1 1Pearl – a member of the AstraZeneca Group, Morristown, NJ, USA; 2AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 3California Research Medical Group, Inc., Fullerton, CA, USA; 4Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, Medford, OR, USA Purpose: To determine the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI 36/9.6, 36/7.2, 18/9.6, 9/9.6 μg) using innovative co‑suspension delivery technology, compared with glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 36 μg and formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 μg, in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Methods: In this Phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, balanced incomplete-block, two-period, cross-over study (NCT01349816), patients received treatment twice-daily for 7 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0–12) on Day 7. Secondary efficacy endpoints were peak change from baseline in FEV1 through 2 hours; time to onset of action (≥10% improvement in mean FEV1); proportion of patients achieving ≥12% improvement in FEV1 on Day 1; peak change from baseline in inspiratory capacity (IC) on Days 1 and 7; change from baseline in morning pre-dose FEV1; peak change from baseline in FEV1 through 6 hours; and change from baseline in mean evening 12-hour post-dose trough FEV1 on Day 7. Safety was assessed. Results: All 185 randomized patients received treatment. All doses of GFF MDI significantly improved the primary endpoint compared with GP MDI 36 μg (all P≤0.0137). For peak change in FEV1 and IC and time to onset of action secondary endpoints, ≥2 doses of GFF MDI demonstrated superiority to GP MDI 36 μg. No significant differences were observed between GFF MDI and FF MDI 9.6 μg for primary and secondary endpoints. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments. Conclusion: While all doses of GFF MDI were superior to GP MDI 36 μg for the primary endpoint, in this study neither superiority of GFF MDI to FF MDI 9.6 μg nor a clear dose-response was observed. All treatments were well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings. Keywords: bronchodilator, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, co-suspension delivery technology, fixed-dose combination, LAMA/LABA, long-acting β2-agonist, long-acting muscarinic antagonist

Edward M Kerwin,1 Thomas M Siler,2 Samir Arora,3 Patrick Darken,4 Earl St Rose,4 Colin Reisner4,5 1Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, Medford, OR, USA; 2Midwest Chest Consultants, St Charles, MO, USA; 3Aventiv Research, Columbus, OH, USA; 4Pearl – a member of the AstraZeneca Group, Morristown, NJ, USA; 5AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA Purpose: This study investigated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of the inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist fixed-dose combination budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) metered dose inhaler (MDI), compared with the monocomponents budesonide (BD) MDI and formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI, in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Materials and methods: In this Phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, four-period, five-treatment, incomplete-block, crossover study (NCT02196077), all patients received BFF MDI 320/9.6 μg and FF MDI 9.6 μg, and two of either BFF MDI 160/9.6 μg, BFF MDI 80/9.6 μg, or BD MDI 320 μg twice daily for 28 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours on Day 29. Secondary efficacy endpoints included additional lung function assessments, and evaluation of dyspnea and rescue medication use. Safety was monitored throughout. The systemic exposure to budesonide and formoterol was assessed on Day 29. Results: Overall, 180 patients were randomized. For forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours on Day 29, all BFF MDI doses showed significant improvements versus BD MDI 320 μg (least squares mean differences 186–221 mL; all p

Edward M Kerwin,1 Thomas J Ferro,2 Rinat Ariely,3 Debra E Irwin,4 Ruchir Parikh3 1Clinical Trials Division, Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, PC, Medford, OR, 2Global Medical Affairs, 3Global Health Economics and Outcome Research, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Frazer, PA, 4Outcomes Research, Truven Health Analytics, Durham, NC, USA Background: Accurate tracking of the administered dose of asthma rescue inhalers is critical for optimal disease management and is related to reductions in rates of unscheduled health care utilization in asthma patients. There are few published data on the real-world impact of rescue inhalers with integrated dose counters (IDCs) on health care resource utilization (HRU) for asthma patients. This study evaluates HRU among users of ProAir® hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) (albuterol sulfate inhalation aerosol), with IDC versus without IDC, in asthma patients.Methods: This was a retrospective administrative claims study of asthma patients receiving a new prescription for albuterol inhalation aerosol without IDC during 2 years (January 2011–December 2012) or with IDC during the first full year after IDC implementation in the USA (July 2013–July 2014). Six months of continuous enrollment with medical and prescription drug benefits were required before and after the first prescription during the study period. Data on respiratory-related hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits were collected during the follow-up period.Results: A total of 135,305 (32%) patients used albuterol inhalation aerosol with IDC, and 287,243 (68%) patients received albuterol inhalation aerosol without IDC. After adjusting for baseline confounding factors, the odds ratio (OR) for experiencing a respiratory-related hospitalization (OR=0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–0.96) or ED visit (OR=0.92; 95% CI 0.90–0.94) was significantly lower among patients using albuterol inhalation aerosol with IDC versus without IDC.Conclusion: In a real-world setting, asthma patients using ProAir HFA with IDC experienced significantly fewer hospitalizations and ED visits compared with patients using ProAir HFA without IDC. Dosage information provided by IDCs may allow providers to better understand patients’ disease severity and aid in titrating controller medications and also decrease the likelihood that the canister will be empty when needed, thereby enhancing disease management and reducing HRU. Keywords: asthma, ProAir, integrated dose counters, respiratory-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, lower respiratory tract infections-related outpatient visits

Edward M Kerwin,1 Chris J Kalberg,2 Dmitry V Galkin,2 Chang-Qing Zhu,3 Alison Church,2 John H Riley,4 William A Fahy4 1Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, Medford, OR, 2Respiratory Department, GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA; 3Clinical Statistics, GlaxoSmithKline, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, Middlesex, 4Respiratory Department, GlaxoSmithKline, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK Introduction: Patients with COPD who remain symptomatic on long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy may benefit from step-up therapy to a long-acting bronchodilator combination. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) in patients with moderate COPD who remained symptomatic on tiotropium (TIO). Methods: In this randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group study (NCT01899742), patients (N=494) who were prescribed TIO for ≥3 months at screening (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]: 50%–70% of predicted; modified Medical Research Council [mMRC] score ≥1) and completed a 4-week run-in with TIO were randomized to UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg or TIO 18 µg for 12 weeks. Efficacy assessments included trough FEV1 at Day 85 (primary end point), 0–3 h serial FEV1, rescue medication use, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and COPD Assessment Test (CAT). Safety evaluations included adverse events (AEs). Results: Compared with TIO, UMEC/VI produced greater improvements in trough FEV1 (least squares [LS] mean difference: 88 mL at Day 85 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 45–131]; P

Anthony D D’Urzo,1 Edward M Kerwin,2 Kenneth R Chapman,3 Marc Decramer,4 Robert DiGiovanni,5 Peter D’Andrea,6 Huilin Hu,6 Pankaj Goyal,5 Pablo Altman6 1Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; 2Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, PC, Medford, USA; 3Asthma and Airway Centre, University Health Network, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; 4Respiratory Division, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 5Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 6Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA Background: Chronic use of inhaled anticholinergics by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has raised long-term safety concerns, particularly cardiovascular. Glycopyrronium is a once-daily anticholinergic with greater receptor selectivity than previously available agents. Methods: We assessed the safety of inhaled glycopyrronium using data pooled from two analysis sets, involving six clinical studies and over 4,000 patients with COPD who received one of the following treatments: glycopyrronium 50 µg, placebo (both delivered via the Breezhaler® device), or tiotropium 18 µg (delivered via the HandiHaler® device). Data were pooled from studies that varied in their duration and severity of COPD of the patients (ie, ≤12 weeks duration with patients having moderate or severe COPD; and >1 year duration with patients having severe and very severe COPD). Safety comparisons were made for glycopyrronium vs tiotropium or placebo. Poisson regression was used to assess the relative risk for either active drug or placebo (and between drugs where placebo was not available) for assessing the incidence of safety events. During post-marketing surveillance (PMS), safety was assessed by obtaining reports from various sources, and disproportionality scores were computed using EMPIRICA™. In particular, the cardiac safety of glycopyrronium during the post-marketing phase was evaluated.Results: The overall incidence of adverse events and deaths was similar across groups, while the incidence of serious adverse events was numerically higher in placebo. Furthermore, glycopyrronium did not result in an increased risk of cerebro-cardiovascular events vs placebo. There were no new safety reports during the PMS phase that suggested an increased risk compared to results from the clinical studies. Moreover, the cardiac safety of glycopyrronium during the PMS phase was also consistent with the clinical data.Conclusion: The overall safety profile of glycopyrronium was similar to its comparators indicating no increase in the overall risk for any of the investigated safety end points. Keywords: COPD, drug safety, glycopyrronium, post-marketing surveillance

BACKGROUND: Recently, there have been concerns about the tolerability of long-acting (2)-agonists, including possible adverse cardiovascular effects-a particular concern in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), who are at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the cardiac safety profile of nebulized formoterol fumarate inhalation solution. METHODS: Cardiac safety was assessed as part of a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled trial that was conducted at 38 centers across the United States. Male and female patients aged >/=40 years with COPD and without other significant disease were enrolled. After a 4- to 14-day, single-blind placebo run-in period, patients with COPD were randomly assigned to receive formoterol fumarate inhalation solution 20 microg BID via nebulizer (FFIS group), formoterol fumarate 12 microg BID via dry powder inhaler (FA group), or placebo. Cardiac effects-measured by changes in heart rate (HR) and ventricular premature beats; incidence of proarrhythmic events; change in corrected QT (QTc) interval; and incidence of maximum mean change in QTc >/=60 ms-were assessed using 24-hour Holter monitoring at baseline and 12 weeks; 12-lead electrocardiography at screening and weeks 4, 8, and 12; and patient diary cards. RESULTS: A total of 351 patients with COPD were randomized (mean age, 62.8 years; 56.1% male; mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second, 1.5 L). Holter monitoring found no clinically meaningful effects of FFIS or FA treatment on mean or maximum HR, ventricular premature beats, or inci dence of arrhythmic events compared with placebo. At week 12, mean (SD) changes from baseline in mean HR were -0.6 (10.9), +0.1 (11.6), and -1.4 (9.4) bpm in the FFIS, FA, and placebo groups, respectively. The incidence of mean maximum changes in QTc >/=60 ms at any time during the 12-week treatment period were 1.6%, 1.8%, and 1.8% with FFIS, FA, and placebo, respectively. Treatment-emergent cardiac adverse events (AEs) occurred in 4.1%, 3.5%, and 4.4% of patients in the FFIS, FA, and placebo groups; withdrawals due to possible cardiac AEs occurred in 1 patient per treatment group. No deaths or serious cardiac AEs occurred during the treatment period. CONCLUSION: In this COPD population, no clinically significant cardiac effects were found with twicedaily treatment with nebulized formoterol fumarate inhalation solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primatene ® MIST, an epinephrine metered-dose inhaler (MDI), has long been questioned by some medical professionals for asthma treatment despite having been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. One of the primary reasons for their concerns stemmed from potential cardiovascular complications following epinephrine administration. However, the majority of documented cardiovascular complications seemed to occur following the injection route of the epinephrine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the systemic exposure of epinephrine delivered through different administration routes and to understand its relationship with cardiovascular effects. Since albuterol inhalers are commonly recommended for asthma, albuterol was also studied as a comparator drug. Method: A randomized, evaluator-blinded, three-arm crossover study was conducted in 28 healthy adult subjects to compare the profiles of systemic exposure for epinephrine delivered by MDI versus epinephrine intramuscular (IM) injection and albuterol MDI. Serially sampled plasma epinephrine and albuterol levels were measured and compared between treatment groups. Safety was assessed by adverse events, serial vital signs, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and clinical laboratory tests obtained at each crossover dosing visit. Results: Systemic exogenous drug exposure for inhaled epinephrine MDI (39 pg/mL × hour) was ∼9 times lower than that of epinephrine IM (435 pg/mL × hour) and 122 times lower than that of albuterol MDI (3453 pg/mL × hour) after dose normalization. The C max in epinephrine MDI (345 pg/mL) was approximately half of that of epinephrine IM (816 pg/mL) and that of albuterol MDI (681 pg/mL). Plasma drug concentrations for epinephrine MDI dropped rapidly to baseline (∼0.6 hour), while epinephrine IM took ∼8 hours, and albuterol MDI required more than 24 hours. Epinephrine MDI and albuterol MDI resulted in minimal, clinically insignificant changes in vital signs and ECGs, whereas epinephrine IM led to mild transient increases in systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and corrected QT interval. Conclusion: Epinephrine MDI (Primatene MIST) had ∼9 times lower systemic drug exposure (SDE) than that of epinephrine IM and ∼122 times lower than that of albuterol MDI. The lower SDE of inhaled epinephrine also correlated with reassuring safety findings, with no significant cardiovascular adverse effects found, compared with transient effects seen after IM epinephrine. Clinical trial registration number: NCT04207840.

This review addresses outstanding questions regarding initial pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Optimizing initial treatment improves clinical outcomes in symptomatic patients, including those with low exacerbation risk. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β 2 -agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy improves lung function versus LAMA or LABA monotherapy, although other treatment benefits have been less consistently observed. The benefits of dual bronchodilation in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk, and its duration of efficacy and cost effectiveness in this population, are not yet fully established. Questions remain on the impact of baseline symptom severity, prior treatment, degree of reversibility to bronchodilators, and smoking status on responses to dual bronchodilator treatment. Using evidence from EMAX (NCT03034915), a 6-month trial comparing the LAMA/LABA combination umeclidinium/vilanterol with umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapy in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk who were inhaled corticosteroid-naïve, we describe how these findings can be applied in primary care., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: EMK has served on advisory boards, speaker panels or received travel reimbursement for Amphastar, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Connect Biopharma, GSK, Mylan, Novartis, Pearl, Sunovion, Teva and Theravance, and has received consulting fees from Cipla and GSK. PWJ is an Emeritus Professor of Respiratory Medicine at St George’s, University of London, and a former full-time employee of GSK at the time of protocol development and contributed to study design and protocol on behalf of GSK. He is a part-time consultant at GSK and holds stocks/shares. IHB, DAL and CC are employees of GSK and hold stock and shares in GSK. LHB has received honoraria for giving a lecture or attending an advisory board for Airsonett, ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Meda, Novartis and Teva. FM has received research grants for participating in multicenter trials for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Sanofi and Novartis, and has received unrestricted research grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols and Novartis. IPN was an employee of GSK at the time of the EMAX trial, holds stocks and shares in GSK, and was a contingent worker on assignment at AstraZeneca. LT is a contingent worker on assignment at GSK. CFV has received grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Grifols, Mundipharma, Novartis, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Competence Network Asthma and COPD (ASCONET), and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin Chemie/Menarini, Chiesi, CSL Behring, GSK, Grifols, MedUpdate, Novartis and Teva. DISKUS and ELLIPTA are owned by/licensed to the GSK group of companies.

Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a large, multicentre, multi-national, randomised, double-blind, 24-week trial. EMAX evaluated the efficacy and safety of dual bronchodilator therapy with umeclidinium bromide (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus monotherapy with either UMEC or salmeterol (SAL) in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at low exacerbation risk who were not taking concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). EMAX generated evidence covering a wide range of patient-centred endpoints in COPD in addition to measures of lung function, clinical deterioration and safety. In addition, prospective and post hoc secondary analyses have generated clinically valuable information regarding the effects of baseline patient characteristics on treatment outcomes. Importantly, as concomitant ICS use was not permitted in this study, EMAX compared dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β 2 -agonist (LABA) therapy with LAMA or LABA monotherapy without potential confounding due to concurrent ICS use or withdrawal. EMAX demonstrated beneficial treatment effects of UMEC/VI over UMEC or SAL monotherapy as maintenance treatment across a range of different patient characteristics, with no forfeit in safety. Thus, the trial provided novel insights into the role of LAMA/LABA versus LABA and LAMA monotherapies as maintenance therapy for patients with symptomatic COPD at low risk of exacerbations. This article will explore the clinical implications of the main findings to date of the EMAX trial and consider the key learnings this trial offers for future trial design in COPD., Competing Interests: Disclosures FM has received research grants for participating in multicentre trials for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Sanofi and Novartis, and has received unrestricted research grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols and Novartis. CFV has received grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Grifols and Novartis, and has received lecturing and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin Chemie/Menarini, Chiesi, CSL Behring, GSK, Grifols, MedUpdate, Novartis, Aerogen and Nuvaira. EMK has served on advisory boards, speaker panels or received travel reimbursement for Amphastar, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Connect Biopharma, GSK, Mylan, Novartis, Pearl, Sunovion, Teva and Theravance, and has received consulting fees from Cipla and GSK. LHB has received honoraria for giving a lecture or attending an advisory board for Airsonett, ALK-Abelló, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Meda, Novartis and Teva. PWJ, IHB, DAL and CC are GSK employees and hold shares and stocks in GSK. LT is a contingent worker on assignment at GSK. IPN was an employee of GSK at the time of the EMAX trial, holds stocks and shares in GSK, and was a contingent worker on assignment at AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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 (FEV 1 ) 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 FEV 1 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 FEV 1 , SAC-TDI, E-RS and rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol with higher reversibility. Improvements in trough FEV 1 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., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

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 FEV 1 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., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: 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 FEV 1 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., Competing Interests: IHB, DAL, CC, and PWJ are employees of GSK and hold stocks and shares in GSK. IHB’s current affiliation is Medical Emerging Markets, GSK, Brentford, Middlesex, UK. IPN was an employee of GSK at the time of the study, holds stocks and shares in GSK, and was a contingent worker on assignment at AstraZeneca. IPN’s current affiliation is RAMAX Ltd, Bramhall, Cheshire, UK. LT is a contingent worker on assignment at GSK. FM has received research grants for participating in multicenter trials for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Sanofi, and Novartis, and has received unrestricted research grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols, and Novartis. LB has received honoraria for giving a lecture or attending an advisory board for Airsonett, ALK-Abello, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Meda, Novartis and Teva. EMK has served on advisory boards, speaker panels or received travel reimbursement from for Amphastar, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Connect Biopharma, GSK, Mylan, Novartis, Pearl, Sunovion, Teva, and Theravance and has received consulting fees from Cipla and GSK. CFV has received grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GSK, Grifols, Novartis, and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Competence Network Asthma and COPD (ASCONET), and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Berlin Chemie/Menarini, Chiesi, CSL Behring, GSK, Grifols, MedUpdate, Novartis, Nuvaira, and Teva. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2021 Bjermer et al.)

Background and Objectives: Co-suspension Delivery™ Technology has been developed for the administration of albuterol sulfate pressurised inhalation suspension via metered-dose inhaler (AS MDI, PT007). We assessed the efficacy and safety of AS MDI versus Proventil ® in order to determine the optimal dose of AS MDI to take to Phase III clinical trials., Methods: ASPEN (NCT03371459) and ANTORA (NCT03364608) were Phase II, randomised, crossover, multicentre studies of AS MDI versus Proventil ® in patients with persistent asthma. In ASPEN, 46 patients received cumulative-dose treatments (90 μg/inhalation using 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 inhalations at 30-minute intervals) in 1 of 2 possible sequences: AS MDI/Proventil or Proventil/AS MDI. In ANTORA, 86 patients were randomised to one of 10 treatment sequences of AS MDI (90 μg or 180 μg), placebo MDI, or Proventil (90 μg or 180 μg). The primary endpoints were baseline-adjusted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1 ) 30 minutes after each cumulative dose (ASPEN) and change from baseline in FEV 1 area under the curve from 0 to 6 h (ANTORA). Safety was assessed in both studies., Results: In ASPEN, AS MDI was equivalent to Proventil (within pre-specified bounds of ± 200 mL) following cumulative doses of albuterol up to 1440 μg for the primary endpoint. In ANTORA, 90 μg and 180 μg doses of AS MDI and Proventil were significantly superior to placebo MDI (p < 0.0001), and AS MDI was non-inferior to Proventil at both doses, based on a margin of 100 mL. No new safety concerns were identified., Conclusion: The effects of albuterol delivered via AS MDI and Proventil on bronchodilation were equivalent, supporting the selection of AS MDI 180 µg to be taken into Phase III clinical trials, either alone or in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid., Trial Registration Number: ASPEN (NCT03371459); Date of registration: 29/12/2017. ANTORA (NCT03364608); Date of registration: 15/12/2017.

Objective : A new epinephrine hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) asthma metered-dose inhaler (MDI) was reformulated to replace the previously marketed epinephrine chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) MDI. In addition to the HFA propellant change, several enhanced modifications (i.e. changed from solution to suspension, 43% dose reduction, etc.) were made to the formulation of epinephrine HFA MDI. This study evaluates the 6-month long-term safety and efficacy profile of the new epinephrine HFA MDI. Method : The long-term safety study consists of two 3-month, multi-center, double- or evaluator-blinded, parallel-group, placebo, and active controlled stages. In each stage, subjects aged ≥12 years with intermittent or mild-to-moderate persistent asthma were randomized to receive epinephrine HFA (2 × 125 mcg/inhalation), placebo HFA, or epinephrine CFC (2 × 220 mcg/inhalation). Bronchodilator efficacy was assessed in Stage 1 and was determined primarily by the change in the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ΔFEV1) at Week 12, relative to the same day baseline. Results : The primary efficacy endpoint (AUC 0-6hrs of %ΔFEV1 at Week 12) for epinephrine HFA (47.3 ± 54.2) closely paralleled those for the active control, epinephrine CFC (41.0 ± 43.4). Both groups were found to be overall comparable in bronchodilator efficacy. Both also showed low incidence rates of AEs with tremor being most commonly reported for epinephrine HFA. All AEs found were non-serious and non-significant. The observed changes in vital signs, ECG, serum glucose, and potassium were minimal and not clinically relevant. Conclusion : This study demonstrated that the new epinephrine HFA is overall comparable, in both safety and efficacy, to the previous epinephrine CFC.

Background: Short-acting β 2 -agonist (SABA) bronchodilators help alleviate symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and may be a useful marker of symptom severity. This analysis investigated whether SABA use impacts treatment differences between maintenance dual- and mono-bronchodilators in patients with COPD., Methods: The Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids 1:1:1 to once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg, once-daily umeclidinium 62.5 μg or twice-daily salmeterol 50 μg for 24 weeks. Pre-specified subgroup analyses stratified patients by median baseline SABA use (low, < 1.5 puffs/day; high, ≥1.5 puffs/day) to examine change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ), change in symptoms (Transition Dyspnoea Index [TDI], Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD [E-RS]), daily SABA use and exacerbation risk. A post hoc analysis used fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline SABA use covariates., Results: At baseline, patients in the high SABA use subgroup (mean: 3.91 puffs/day, n = 1212) had more severe airflow limitation, were more symptomatic and had worse health status versus patients in the low SABA use subgroup (0.39 puffs/day, n = 1206). Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium demonstrated statistically significant improvements in trough FEV 1 at Week 24 in both SABA subgroups (59-74 mL; p < 0.001); however, only low SABA users demonstrated significant improvements in TDI (high: 0.27 [p = 0.241]; low: 0.49 [p = 0.025]) and E-RS (high: 0.48 [p = 0.138]; low: 0.60 [p = 0.034]) scores. By contrast, significant reductions in mean SABA puffs/day with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium were observed only in high SABA users (high: - 0.56 [p < 0.001]; low: - 0.10 [p = 0.132]). Similar findings were observed when comparing umeclidinium/vilanterol and salmeterol. Fractional polynomial modelling showed baseline SABA use ≥4 puffs/day resulted in smaller incremental symptom improvements with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium compared with baseline SABA use < 4 puffs/day., Conclusions: In high SABA users, there may be a smaller difference in treatment response between dual- and mono-bronchodilator therapy; the reasons for this require further investigation. SABA use may be a confounding factor in bronchodilator trials and in high SABA users; changes in SABA use may be considered a robust symptom outcome., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline (study number 201749 [NCT03034915]).

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 C max 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.

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.

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., Competing Interests: Carole Dembek is an employee of Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. Edward M Kerwin has received consultancy and advisory fees from Amphastar, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Mylan, Novartis, Oriel, Pearl, Sunovion, Teva, and Theravance. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2020 Stephenson et al.)

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 [FEV 1 ]) 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 FEV 1 area under the effect curve over 12 hours of the change from baseline (AUC [0-12] ) and day 29 trough FEV 1 over placebo, indicating that these endpoints were sufficiently sensitive for evaluation of bioequivalence. On day 1, T and R each increased FEV 1 AUC (0-12) over placebo (3.134 L•h [T], 2.677 L•h [R]; each p  < 0.0001). Following twice-daily dosing for 28 days, T and R also each increased trough FEV 1 (measured on day 29) over placebo (235 mL [T], 215 mL [R]; each p  < 0.0001). Least-squares mean T/R ratios (90% confidence intervals) for day 1 FEV 1 AUC (0-12) and day 29 trough FEV 1 were 1.120 (1.016-1.237) and 1.069 (0.938-1.220), respectively, indicating that T and R were bioequivalent for both co-primary endpoints. FP/salmeterol was well tolerated when administered via either T or R. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that the therapeutic effects of Wixela Inhub are bioequivalent to Advair Diskus in the lung. Wixela Inhub represents a therapeutically equivalent new FP/salmeterol treatment option for use in the treatment of asthma and COPD.

Background: Inhaler errors among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can reduce treatment efficacy., Methods: This randomized, open-label, crossover study evaluated correct use of ELLIPTA versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler. Participants with COPD attended at least 3 study visits (Day 1 [Visit 1], Day 28 [Visit 2], and Day 56 [Visit 3]). Inhalers contained placebo; usual maintenance medication was continued. Participants were randomized to an inhaler sequence (ELLIPTA then DISKUS plus HandiHaler, or the reverse) and preference questionnaire at Visit 1. Participants read the instructions for use in the approved prescribing information for their inhaler(s) and correct use was assessed at Visit 1 (verbal guidance provided if required). Correct use was reassessed at Visit 2, and with the next inhaler(s) at Visit 3. Primary endpoint was the proportion of participants demonstrating correct use (0 errors) with the assigned inhaler(s) after 28 days., Results: A greater proportion of study participants (n = 217) correctly used ELLIPTA (96%) versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler (87%) after 28 days. The odds of demonstrating correct use with ELLIPTA were 6.88 times that of DISKUS plus HandiHaler ( p < 0.001). Overall, > 99% of participants made 0 critical errors (errors leading to no or significantly reduced medication inhaled) with ELLIPTA versus 89% with DISKUS plus HandiHaler after 28 days. ELLIPTA was the patient-preferred option versus DISKUS plus HandiHaler or no preference ( p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Delivery of COPD maintenance therapy via ELLIPTA demonstrates higher correct use rates and lower critical error rates compared with DISKUS plus HandiHaler., Competing Interests: EMK has participated in consulting, advisory boards, speaker panels, or received travel reimbursement from Amphastar, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Mylan, Novartis, Oriel, Pearl, Sunovion, Teva, and Theravance. He has conducted multicenter clinical research trials for approximately 40 pharmaceutical companies. SS has been a principal investigator for 20 years and has conducted clinical research trials for a large number of pharmaceutical companies. He has also participated as a consultant and on advisory boards and speaker panels for pharmaceutical companies including AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Mylan, Menlo, Novartis, Pearl, Sunovion, Teva, and Theravance. MZ, VM, RJ, KC, and RS are employees of, and own shares in, GlaxoSmithKline plc. Editorial support (in the form of writing assistance, collating author comments, assembling tables and/or figures, grammatical editing, fact checking, and referencing) was provided by Matthew Hallam, MSc(Res) and Joanna Wilson, PhD, of Gardine—Caldwell Communications (Macclesfield, UK) and was funded by GlaxoSmithKline plc. Trademarks are the property of their respective owners., (JCOPDF © 2020.)

Background: Budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, is a triple fixed-dose combination in late-stage clinical development for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)., Methods: We conducted two studies to characterize the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of BGF MDI in patients with COPD: (i) a phase I, open-label, single and chronic (7-day) dosing study (NCT03250182) with one treatment arm (BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 μg); and (ii) a PK sub-study of KRONOS (NCT02497001), a phase III, randomized, double-blind study in which patients received 24 weeks' treatment with BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 μg, glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) MDI 18/9.6 μg, budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) MDI 320/9.6 μg, or budesonide/formoterol fumarate dry powder inhaler (BUD/FORM DPI) 320/9 μg. PK parameters in both studies included maximum observed plasma concentration (C max ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 12h (AUC 0-12 )., Results: In the phase I PK study (30 patients), budesonide and glycopyrronium C max were comparable after single and chronic dosing of BGF MDI (accumulation ratio [R AC ] 95% and 107%, respectively) whereas C max for formoterol was slightly higher after chronic dosing (R AC 116%). AUC 0-12 for budesonide, glycopyrronium, and formoterol were higher following chronic versus single dosing, with an R AC of 126%, 179%, and 143%, respectively. After 7 days' dosing, AUC 0-12 and C max for all three components of BGF MDI were similar to those in the KRONOS PK sub-study (202 patients) at Week 24. In the latter sub-study, C max and AUC 0-12  at Week 24 were generally comparable across treatments for budesonide (geometric mean ratios [GMR] of 96%-109% for BGF MDI vs BFF MDI or BUD/FORM DPI), glycopyrronium (GMR of 88%-100% for BGF MDI vs GFF MDI), and formoterol (GMR of 80%-113% for BGF MDI vs GFF MDI or BFF MDI)., Conclusions: Steady-state PK parameters of budesonide, glycopyrronium, and formoterol were similar after 7 days' dosing in the phase I PK study and after 24 weeks in the KRONOS PK sub-study. Systemic exposure to budesonide, glycopyrronium, and formoterol was generally comparable across treatments in the KRONOS PK sub-study, suggesting no meaningful drug-drug or within-formulation PK interactions., (Copyright © 2019 AstraZeneca. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both the time needed for patients to gain symptom improvement with long-acting bronchodilator therapy and whether an early response is predictive of a sustained response is unknown. This study aimed to investigate how quickly meaningful symptom responses are seen in patients with COPD with bronchodilator therapy and whether these responses are sustained., Methods: Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial that randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), umeclidinium or salmeterol. Daily Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS:COPD) score and rescue salbutamol use were captured via an electronic diary and analysed initially in 4-weekly periods. Post hoc analyses assessed change from baseline in daily E-RS:COPD score and rescue medication use weekly (Weeks 1-8), and association between E-RS:COPD responder status at Weeks 1-4 and later time points., Results: In the intent-to-treat population ( n  = 2425), reductions from baseline in E-RS:COPD scores and rescue medication use were apparent from Day 2 with all treatments. Treatment differences for UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy plateaued by Week 4-8 and were sustained at Weeks 21-24; improvements were consistently greater with UMEC/VI. For all treatments, most patients (60-85%) retained their Weeks 1-4 E-RS:COPD responder/non-responder status at Weeks 21-24. Among patients receiving UMEC/VI who were E-RS:COPD responders at Weeks 1-4, 70% were responders at Weeks 21-24., Conclusion: Patients with symptomatic COPD had greater potential for early symptom improvements with UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy. This benefit was generally maintained for 24 weeks. Early monitoring of treatment response can provide clinicians with an early indication of a patient's likely longer-term response to prescribed bronchodilator treatment and will facilitate appropriate early adjustments in care., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT Number). The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Rationale: Symptom relief is a key treatment goal in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there are limited data available on the response to bronchodilator therapy in patients at low risk of exacerbations with different levels of symptom severity. This study compared treatment responses in patients with a range of symptom severities as indicated by baseline COPD assessment test (CAT) scores., Methods: The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated the benefits of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. This analysis assessed lung function, symptoms, health status, and short-term deterioration outcomes in subgroups defined by a baseline CAT score [<20 ( post hoc ) and ⩾20 (pre-specified)]. Outcomes were also assessed using post hoc fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline CAT score covariates., Results: Of the intent-to-treat population ( n  = 2425), 56% and 44% had baseline CAT scores of <20 and ⩾20, respectively. Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated favourable improvements compared with umeclidinium and salmeterol for the majority of outcomes irrespective of the baseline CAT score, with the greatest improvements generally observed in patients with CAT scores <20. Fractional polynomial analyses revealed consistent improvements in lung function, symptoms and reduction in rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol across a range of CAT scores, with the largest benefits seen in patients with CAT scores of approximately 10-21., Conclusions: Patients with symptomatic COPD benefit similarly from dual bronchodilator treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol. Fractional polynomial analyses demonstrated the greatest treatment differences favouring dual therapy in patients with a CAT score <20, although benefits were seen up to scores of 30. This suggests that dual bronchodilation may be considered as initial therapy for patients across a broad range of symptom severities, not only those with severe symptoms (CAT ⩾20). Trial registration: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT number). The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Background: Prospective evidence is lacking regarding incremental benefits of long-acting dual- versus mono-bronchodilation in improving symptoms and preventing short-term disease worsening/treatment failure in low exacerbation risk patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) not receiving inhaled corticosteroids., Methods: The 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised patients at low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5 μg once-daily or salmeterol 50 μg twice-daily. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) at Week 24. The study was also powered for the secondary endpoint of Transition Dyspnoea Index at Week 24. Other efficacy assessments included spirometry, symptoms, heath status and short-term disease worsening measured by the composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration using three definitions., Results: Change from baseline in trough FEV 1 at Week 24 was 66 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43, 89) and 141 mL (95% CI: 118, 164) greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, respectively (both p < 0.001). Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated consistent improvements in Transition Dyspnoea Index versus both monotherapies at Week 24 (vs umeclidinium: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.68], p = 0.018; vs salmeterol: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.15, 0.76], p = 0.004) and all other symptom measures at all time points. Regardless of the clinically important deterioration definition considered, umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly reduced the risk of a first clinically important deterioration compared with umeclidinium (by 16-25% [p < 0.01]) and salmeterol (by 26-41% [p < 0.001]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments., Conclusions: Umeclidinium/vilanterol consistently provides early and sustained improvements in lung function and symptoms and reduces the risk of deterioration/treatment failure versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. These findings suggest a potential for early use of dual bronchodilators to help optimise therapy in this patient group.

Background: Long-term use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) has been associated with increased risk of bone and ocular comorbidities. We evaluated the effects of the triple fixed-dose combination budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, on bone mineral density (BMD) and ocular safety in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)., Methods: In this extension study, a subset of patients from the 24-week, phase III, randomized, double-blind KRONOS study (NCT02497001) continued treatment (BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 μg, budesonide/formoterol fumarate [BFF] MDI 320/9.6 μg or glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate [GFF] MDI 18/9.6 μg, as a non-steroidal comparator) for an additional 28 weeks. Primary endpoints were percentage change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD and change from baseline in lens opacities classification system III posterior subcapsular cataract (P) score, both at Week 52. Adverse events were also assessed., Results: In total, 456 patients were included in the safety population (53.1% male, mean age 62.8 years). Changes from baseline in lumbar spine BMD (least squares mean [LSM] range - 0.12 to 0.38%) and P score (LSM range 0.02-0.15) were small for all treatments. Both BGF MDI and BFF MDI were non-inferior to GFF MDI using margins of -2% (BMD) and 0.5 units (P score). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs)  was generally similar among groups. Rates of confirmed pneumonia were low overall (2.4%) and highest in the GFF MDI group (3.4%), followed by BGF MDI (2.1%) and BFF MDI (1.1%). There were no cumulative adverse effects of treatment over time as the incidence and types of TEAEs, were generally similar in the first 24 weeks of the study and after Week 24., Conclusions: In patients with COPD, both ICS-containing therapies were non-inferior to GFF MDI for the primary BMD and ophthalmological endpoints. Changes from baseline in all three treatment groups over 52 weeks were small and not clinically meaningful. All treatments were well tolerated with no new or unexpected safety findings., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02536508. Registered 27 August 2015.

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.

Background: Reduced error rates have been demonstrated with the ELLIPTA inhaler versus other commonly used devices., Objective: This phase IV, randomized, crossover study evaluated correct use of ELLIPTA compared with 2 commonly prescribed metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) in adults with asthma and optimized inhaler technique., Methods: The study comprised 2 crossover substudies (ELLIPTA vs MDI-1 and ELLIPTA vs MDI-2). Inhaler use was assessed at the start of each period, following instruction from a health care professional, and after 28 days of use without instruction. Data for each inhaler were pooled within substudies, irrespective of treatment sequence; study objectives were addressed in each substudy. The primary end point, percentage of participants making 0 errors after 28 days of use, was analyzed separately for each substudy using a Mainland-Gart test for each ELLIPTA versus MDI comparison., Results: Correct use rates after 28 days were higher with ELLIPTA than with MDI-1 and MDI-2 (ELLIPTA vs MDI-1, 96% vs 84%; ELLIPTA vs MDI-2, 98% vs 91%). Among discordant cases, statistically significantly more participants correctly used ELLIPTA but made 1 or more overall error with MDIs than did those who correctly used the MDIs but made 1 or more overall error using ELLIPTA (87% vs 13% in both substudies; P < .001 and P = .007 for ELLIPTA vs MDI-1 and ELLIPTA vs MDI-2, respectively). More participants made multiple device errors with MDIs than with ELLIPTA., Conclusions: Inhaler technique can be optimized in trial settings. In such settings, ELLIPTA is associated with higher rates of correct use and lower error rates than are MDIs., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Handheld spirometers for home use by patients allow longitudinal spirometry data to be collected daily and may overcome some of the limitations of in-clinic spirometry (long intervals between measurements, results can be affected by site-based coaching and patient's asthma status during a given visit)., Objectives: To determine the relationship between spirometry values measured by clinic-based and handheld spirometers during a clinical trial., Methods: A post hoc correlation analysis of data from a 6-week phase 3 study of beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP; delivered by breath-actuated inhaler: BAI) versus placebo in patients aged ≥12 years with persistent asthma. During the study, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) was assessed by both office-based spirometry at Weeks 2, 4 and 6, and daily by handheld spirometer as a secondary study endpoint., Results: There was a high correlation between FEV 1 values measured at home and in-clinic (overall correlation coefficient = 0.8393, R = 0.81921, 0.85927, 0.85369 and 0.83734 for BAI 320 μg/day, BAI 640 μg/day, BDP metered dose inhaler 320 μg/day and placebo treatment groups, respectively), with the scatterplot showing an upward trend for all treatment groups. Nearly all patients achieved home FEV 1 values close to clinic FEV 1 values, with very few outliers., Conclusions: Clinic-based and handheld spirometry demonstrated comparable treatment effects relative to placebo, suggesting that home spirometry could be used to help patients monitor their asthma severity. Daily measurement of FEV 1 provides more comprehensive data than can be achieved through clinic visits, and may lead to a new approach to clinical trial design., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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 eFlow ® closed-system (eFlow CS) vibrating membrane nebulizer. We assessed patient-reported ease of use and satisfaction with the eFlow CS nebulizer in the GOLDEN (Glycopyrrolate for Obstructive Lung Disease via Electronic Nebulizer)-5 study., Methods: GOLDEN-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., Results: 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/m 2 ). Based on patient-reported perceptions, most patients (83%) were "confident" to "very confident" that the drug was delivered into their lungs with the eFlow CS; >70% rated the eFlow CS as "easy" or "very easy" to assemble, operate, and clean. Most (75%) patients ranked themselves as being "satisfied" or "very satisfied" overall with the eFlow CS nebulizer., Conclusions: High 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: Phase III studies demonstrated efficacy and safety of nebulized glycopyrrolate inhalation solution (GLY) in subjects with COPD. Secondary analyses were performed to examine the effect of background long-acting beta 2 -agonist (LABA) use on the efficacy and safety of nebulized GLY., Methods: In two 12-week placebo-controlled studies (GOLDEN 3 and GOLDEN 4) and one 48-week, open-label active-controlled study (GOLDEN 5), a total of 2,379 subjects were stratified by background LABA use (LABA-yes: n=861; LABA-no: n=1,518) and randomized to placebo vs GLY 25 or 50 µg twice daily, or GLY 50 µg twice daily vs tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg once daily. Lung function, patient-reported outcomes, exacerbations, and safety were assessed., Results: Compared with placebo, pooled data from the 12-week studies showed significant improvements from baseline with GLY 25 and 50 µg across LABA subgroups in trough FEV 1 (LABA-yes: 0.101 and 0.110 L; LABA-no: 0.092 and 0.101 L, respectively; P <0.001) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score (SGRQ; LABA-yes: -2.957 and -3.888; LABA-no: -3.301 and -2.073, respectively; P <0.05). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was similar in LABA subgroups, and lower in GLY 25 µg vs placebo. In the 48-week active-controlled study, GLY and TIO both showed improvement from baseline across LABA subgroups in FEV 1 (LABA-yes: 0.106 and 0.092 L; LABA-no: 0.096 and 0.096 L, respectively) and in SGRQ total score (LABA-yes: -5.190 and -3.094; LABA-no: -4.368 and -4.821, respectively). Incidence of TEAEs was similar between GLY and TIO, and across LABA subgroups. Exacerbation rates were similar across treatments and LABA subgroups, and cardiovascular events of special interest were more frequent in the LABA-no subgroup. Nebulized GLY, combined with LABA, did not generate any additional safety signals., Conclusion: Nebulized GLY demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated up to 48 weeks in subjects with COPD with/without background LABA., Competing Interests: Disclosure EMK has participated in consulting, advisory boards, speaker panels, or received travel reimbursement for Amphastar, AstraZeneca, Forest, Mylan, Novartis, Oriel, Pearl, Sunovion, Teva, and Theravance. He has conducted multicenter clinical research trials for ~40 pharmaceutical companies. RT, BP, SS, and TG are employees of Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.

TELOS compared budesonide (BD)/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FF) metered dose inhaler (BFF MDI), formulated using innovative co-suspension delivery technology that enables consistent aerosol performance, with its monocomponents and budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate dry powder inhaler (DPI) in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), without a requirement for an exacerbation history.In this phase III, double-blind, parallel-group, 24-week study (NCT02766608), patients were randomised to BFF MDI 320/10 µg (n=664), BFF MDI 160/10 µg (n=649), FF MDI 10 µg (n=648), BD MDI 320 µg (n=209) or open-label budesonide/formoterol DPI 400/12 µg (n=219). Primary end-points were change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) and FEV 1 area under the curve from 0-4 h (AUC 0-4 ). Time to first and rate of moderate/severe exacerbations were assessed.BFF MDI 320/10 µg improved pre-dose trough FEV 1 versus FF MDI (least squares mean (LSM) 39 mL; p=0.0018), and BFF MDI 320/10 µg and 160/10 µg improved FEV 1 AUC 0-4 versus BD MDI (LSM 173 mL and 157 mL, respectively; both p<0.0001) at week 24. BFF MDI 320/10 µg and 160/10 µg improved time to first and rate of moderate/severe exacerbations versus FF MDI. Treatments were well tolerated, with pneumonia incidence ranging from 0.5-1.4%.BFF MDI improved lung function versus monocomponents and exacerbations versus FF MDI in patients with moderate to very severe COPD., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: G.T. Ferguson reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; and grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pearl (a member of the AstraZeneca Group) and Sunovion, grants and personal fees from Theravance, and personal fees from Verona, Mylan, Innoviva, GlaxoSmithKline and Circassia, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: A. Papi reports board membership, consultancy, payment for lectures, grants for research and travel expenses reimbursement from Chiesi, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mundipharma and TEVA, payment for lectures and travel expenses reimbursement from Menarini, Novartis and Zambon, board membership, payment for lectures, grants for research and travel expenses reimbursement from Pfizer, and grants for research from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: A. Anzueto reports institutional grants from GSK, and personal fees for consultancy from GSK, AstraZeneca, Novartis and BI, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: E.M. Kerwin is an employee of Crisor LLC Research, has served on advisory boards, speaker panels, or received travel reimbursement from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Amphastar, Forest, Pearl (a member of the AstraZeneca Group), Sunovion, Teva and Theravance, has served on a medical advisory board for Mylan, and has undertaken consultancy for GSK, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: C. Cappelletti is a full-time employee of Pearl (a member of the AstraZeneca Group). Conflict of interest: E.A. Duncan is a full-time employee of Pearl (a member of the AstraZeneca Group). Conflict of interest: J. Nyberg is a full-time employee of Pearl (a member of the AstraZeneca Group). Conflict of interest: P. Dorinsky is a full-time employee of Pearl (a member of the AstraZeneca Group)., (Copyright ©ERS 2018.)

Background: Symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may diminish patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We report effects of Longhala™ Magnair™ (glycopyrrolate) Inhalation Solution, a drug/device combination of the long-acting antimuscarinic glycopyrrolate administered using the eFlow® closed system (eFlow CS) nebulizer, on HRQoL from the Glycopyrrolate for Obstructive Lung Disease Via Electronic Nebulizer (GOLDEN) clinical studies. Methods: Data consisted of a pooled analysis of 2 phase 3, 12-week efficacy studies (GOLDEN-3 and -4) of glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS (25 or 50 mcg twice daily [BID]) versus placebo, and a 48-week, open-label safety study (GOLDEN-5) of glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS 50 mcg BID versus tiotropium 18 mcg once daily in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Change from baseline in HRQoL was measured via the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Results are provided as mean changes in SGRQ Total score and as response analysis (≥4-point improvement [responder], no change, and ≥4-point worsening in Total score) using analysis of covariance or logistic regression, as applicable. Results: Atotal of 1293 patients were evaluated from GOLDEN-3 and -4 and 1086 from GOLDEN-5. Glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS significantly improved SGRQ Total and component scores. The percentage of SGRQ responders in pooled GOLDEN-3/4 was 46.8% for glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS 25 mcg, 41.7% for glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS 50 mcg, and 34.5% for placebo. SGRQ Total and component score improvements were similar between glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS and tiotropium in GOLDEN-5. Conclusions: The drug/device combination of glycopyrrolate/eFlow CS significantly improved HRQoL, as measured by the SGRQ, offering a potential maintenance treatment option in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02347761, NCT02347774, NCT02276222., Competing Interests: Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., provided funding for this research. G. Ferguson receives consultancy and advisory fees from Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., E.M. Kerwin receives consultancy and advisory fees from Amphastar, AstraZeneca, Mylan, Novartis, Pearl, Sunovion, Teva, and Theravance. He has conducted multicenter clinical research trials for approximately 40 pharmaceutical companies. J. Donohue receives consultancy and advisory fees from Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. R. Tosiello, V Ganapathy, and K. Rajagopalan are full-time employees of Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. V. Bollu was a former full-time employee of Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc., and currently receives consultancy fees from Sunovion.

Background: Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting β 2 -agonist (LABA) bronchodilators are key to the pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This Phase IIb study investigated the safety and efficacy of four doses of the LAMA glycopyrronium (GP) delivered using co-suspension delivery technology via metered dose inhaler (MDI). The study was part of a wider clinical trial program performed to determine the optimal dose of GP MDI, the LABA formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FF) MDI, and glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (GFF) MDI fixed-dose combination to be taken forward into Phase III studies., Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, 7-day chronic-dosing, three-period incomplete block, cross-over study, patients with moderate-to-severe COPD received two of the four doses of GP MDI (28.8 μg, 14.4 μg, 7.2 μg, and 3.6 μg) twice daily (BID), and either placebo MDI BID or open-label ipratropium MDI 34 μg four times daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) area under the curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC 0-12 ) relative to baseline on Day 7. Secondary and exploratory efficacy endpoints were assessed on Days 1 and 7. Safety and tolerability were evaluated throughout the study., Results: All GP MDI treatments were superior to placebo MDI for the primary efficacy endpoint (all p < 0.0001). However, only GP MDI 28.8 μg and 14.4 μg demonstrated statistical superiority to placebo MDI for all secondary efficacy endpoints analyzed in this study, with the exception of GP MDI 14.4 μg versus placebo MDI for the proportion of patients achieving ≥12% improvement in FEV 1 . No nominally significant differences were observed between GP MDI 28.8 μg and GP MDI 14.4 μg for any of the endpoints. All doses of GP MDI were well tolerated, with no unexpected safety findings., Conclusions: This study indicated that there was no advantage of GP MDI 28.8 μg compared with GP MDI 14.4 μg. It therefore added to the evidence from the Phase I/II clinical trial program, which identified GP MDI 14.4 μg as the most appropriate dose for use in the Phase III clinical studies., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01350128). Registered May 09, 2011.