Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of AZD3199 vs formoterol in COPD: a randomized, double-blind study.

ABSTRACT: We investigated the efficacy and safety of AZD3199, a novel inhaled ultra-LABA, with the main aim of establishing a dose that would maintain 24-hour bronchodilation in patients with COPD.Patients (n?=?329) were randomized to AZD3199 (200, 400 or 800 ?g o.d.), formoterol (9 ?g b.i.d.) or placebo via Turbuhaler® in a parallel group study. The primary objective of the study was to compare the clinical efficacy of three doses of AZD3199 inhaled once daily with 9 ?g formoterol twice daily and placebo, over a 4-week treatment period in adults with moderate-to-severe COPD. After 4 weeks, peak (0-4 h) and trough (24-26 h) forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) were assessed as the primary efficacy outcome variables.All AZD3199 doses significantly increased mean peak and trough FEV1 versus placebo (106-171 ml and 97-110 ml increases, respectively), but with no clear dose-response; the level of bronchodilation was comparable to or greater than that achieved with formoterol. Forced vital capacity (FVC) at peak bronchodilation also significantly increased with AZD3199 versus placebo (153-204 ml). COPD symptom scores and reliever use were reduced with AZD3199, while FEV1 reversibility was unaltered. Adverse events were mild-to-moderate, with no safety concerns identified. Drug exposure was dose-proportional, but lower than predicted from healthy volunteers.All three doses of AZD3199 produced 24-hour bronchodilation, but with no clear dose-response, suggesting that doses of 200 ?g or less may be sufficient to maintain bronchodilation over 24 hours in patients with COPD. No safety concerns were identified. Further studies are required to determine the once-daily AZD3199 dose for COPD.Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00929708.

SUBMITTER: Kuna P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3691744 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of AZD3199 vs formoterol in COPD: a randomized, double-blind study.

Kuna Piotr P Ivanov Yavor Y Trofimov Vasily Ivanovich VI Saito Takefumi T Beckman Ola O Bengtsson Thomas T Jorup Carin C Maltais François F

Respiratory research 20130603

<h4>Background</h4>We investigated the efficacy and safety of AZD3199, a novel inhaled ultra-LABA, with the main aim of establishing a dose that would maintain 24-hour bronchodilation in patients with COPD.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients (n = 329) were randomized to AZD3199 (200, 400 or 800 μg o.d.), formoterol (9 μg b.i.d.) or placebo via Turbuhaler® in a parallel group study. The primary objective of the study was to compare the clinical efficacy of three doses of AZD3199 inhaled once daily with 9 μg ...[more]

PMID: 23731768

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBudesonide and formoterol (BF) Spiromax® is a dry powder inhaler designed to deliver BF with maximum ease of use for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.MethodsA phase 3b, 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, controlled trial in patients (≥12 years) with persistent asthma.Primary objectiveto demonstrate non-inferiority of twice-daily BF Spiromax 160/4.5 mcg to BF Turbuhaler® 200/6 mcg in change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). Secondary endpoints included: Patient Satisfaction and Preference Questionnaire scores, change from baseline in evening PEF, trough forced expiratory volume in one second, percentage of symptom-free and rescue-free 24-hour periods, and safety.ResultsThe analysis was based on the per-protocol population (BF Spiromax, n = 290; BF Turbuhaler, n = 284). The least squares mean change from baseline to week 12 in morning PEF was: BF Spiromax, 18.8 L/min and BF Turbuhaler, 21.8 L/min. Non-inferiority of BF Spiromax vs BF Turbuhaler was demonstrated (the lower limit of the 95% two-sided confidence interval was -9.02 L/min, which is greater than -15 L/min [the criteria specified for non-inferiority]). The mean difference in the total performance domains scores for BF Spiromax vs BF Turbuhaler were 0.248 at baseline and 0.353 at week 12 (both, p <0.001), indicating statistical superiority for BF Spiromax. No statistical or numerical differences were recorded in the total convenience domain score between the two devices. Scores for 'device preference' and 'willingness to continue' supported BF Spiromax at baseline and at week 12 (p = 0.0005 vs BF Turbuhaler). No significant between-group differences were observed in the other secondary efficacy endpoints. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences in adverse events or asthma exacerbations.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the non-inferiority of BF Spiromax vs BF Turbuhaler in patients (≥12 years) with asthma. More patients preferred the Spiromax device over Turbuhaler for its performance, and were willing to continue therapy with BF Spiromax beyond the 12-week study period.Trial registrationNCT01803555; February 28, 2013.

Project description:BackgroundCombining two long-acting bronchodilators with complementary mechanisms of action may provide treatment benefits to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that are greater than those derived from either treatment alone. The efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium bromide, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and formoterol fumarate, a long-acting β2-agonist, in patients with moderate to severe COPD are presented.MethodsIn this 24-week double-blind study, 1692 patients with stable COPD were equally randomized to twice-daily treatment with FDC aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg (ACL400/FOR12 FDC), FDC aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 6 μg (ACL400/FOR6 FDC), aclidinium 400 μg, formoterol 12 μg, or placebo administered by a multidose dry powder inhaler (Genuair®/Pressair®)*. Coprimary endpoints were change from baseline to week 24 in 1-hour morning postdose FEV1 (FDCs versus aclidinium) and change from baseline to week 24 in morning predose (trough) FEV1 (FDCs versus formoterol). Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and improvement in Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score at week 24. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.ResultsAt study end, improvements from baseline in 1-hour postdose FEV1 were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC or ACL400/FOR6 FDC compared with aclidinium (108 mL and 87 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001). Improvements in trough FEV1 were significantly greater in patients treated with ACL400/FOR12 FDC versus formoterol (45 mL; p = 0.0102), a numerical improvement of 26 mL in trough FEV1 over formoterol was observed with ACL400/FOR6 FDC. Significant improvements in both SGRQ total and TDI focal scores were observed in the ACL400/FOR12 FDC group at study end (p < 0.0001), with differences over placebo exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of ≥4 points and ≥1 unit, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated, with safety profiles of the FDCs similar to those of the monotherapies.ConclusionsTreatment with twice-daily aclidinium 400 μg/formoterol 12 μg FDC provided rapid and sustained bronchodilation that was greater than either monotherapy; clinically significant improvements in dyspnea and health status were evident compared with placebo. Aclidinium/formoterol FDC may be an effective and well tolerated new treatment option for patients with COPD.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01437397.

Project description:BackgroundNew tools are required for the diagnosis of pre-symptomatic leprosy towards further reduction of disease burden and its associated reactions. To address this need, two new skin test antigens were developed to assess safety and efficacy in human trials.MethodsA Phase I safety trial was first conducted in a non-endemic region for leprosy (U.S.A.). Healthy non-exposed subjects (n = 10) received three titrated doses (2.5 µg, 1.0 µg and 0.1 µg) of MLSA-LAM (n = 5) or MLCwA (n = 5) and control antigens [Rees MLSA (1.0 µg) and saline]. A randomized double blind Phase II safety and efficacy trial followed in an endemic region for leprosy (Nepal), but involved only the 1.0 µg (high dose) and 0.1 µg (low dose) of each antigen; Tuberculin PPD served as a control antigen. This Phase II safety and efficacy trial consisted of three Stages: Stage A and B studies were an expansion of Phase I involving 10 and 90 subjects respectively, and Stage C was then conducted in two parts (high dose and low dose), each enrolling 80 participants: 20 borderline lepromatous/lepromatous (BL/LL) leprosy patients, 20 borderline tuberculoid/tuberculoid (BT/TT) leprosy patients, 20 household contacts of leprosy patients (HC), and 20 tuberculosis (TB) patients. The primary outcome measure for the skin test was delayed type hypersensitivity induration.FindingsIn the small Phase I safety trial, reactions were primarily against the 2.5 µg dose of both antigens and Rees control antigen, which were then excluded from subsequent studies. In the Phase II, Stage A/B ramped-up safety study, 26% of subjects (13 of 50) showed induration against the high dose of each antigen, and 4% (2 of 50) reacted to the low dose of MLSA-LAM. Phase II, Stage C safety and initial efficacy trial showed that both antigens at the low dose exhibited low sensitivity at 20% and 25% in BT/TT leprosy patients, but high specificity at 100% and 95% compared to TB patients. The high dose of both antigens showed lower specificity (70% and 60%) and sensitivity (10% and 15%). BL/LL leprosy patients were anergic to the leprosy antigens.InterpretationMLSA-LAM and MLCwA at both high (1.0 µg) and low (0.1 µg) doses were found to be safe for use in humans without known exposure to leprosy and in target populations. At a sensitivity rate of 20-25% these antigens are not suitable as a skin test for the detection of the early stages of leprosy infection; however, the degree of specificity is impressive given the presence of cross-reactive antigens in these complex native M. leprae preparations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920750 (Phase I), NCT00128193 (Phase II).

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of AZD3199 vs formoterol in COPD: a randomized, double-blind study.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of AZD3199 vs formoterol in COPD: a randomized, double-blind study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets