Dataset Information

In Vitro, Pharmacokinetic, Pharmacodynamic, and Safety Comparisons of Single and Combined Administration of Tiotropium and Salmeterol in COPD Patients Using Different Dry Powder Inhalers.

ABSTRACT: In vitro Andersen cascade impactor-sized mass (ISM) and aerodynamic fine particle mass (FPM) <5 ?m for tiotropium and salmeterol combined in a novel inhalation powder formulation containing 7.5 ?g tiotropium/25 ?g salmeterol (TSHH) were similar (within ±15%) to reference products containing 18 ?g of tiotropium (Spiriva® HandiHaler®) (TioHH) and 50 ?g of salmeterol (Serevent® Diskus®) (SalD). The pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of the novel fixed-dose TSHH formulation administered once daily was compared with the single-agent therapies TioHH (once daily [qd]) and SalD (twice daily [bid]) and with the jointly administered combination of TioHH (qd) plus SalD (bid) in a randomized, 22-week, open-label, four-way crossover study in 50 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). For tiotropium, TSHH and TioHH were bioequivalent based on mean steady-state plasma area under the plasma concentration-time curves (AUC), while the urinary excretion amount was higher for TSHH and not bioequivalent to TioHH. Tiotropium peak plasma concentrations at steady state (C max,ss) were 40% higher with TSHH. For salmeterol, substantial differences were observed in plasma AUCs and Cmax,ss. No significant differences in 8-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s or forced vital capacity were detected for the TSHH (qd) against the combination of TioHH (qd) with SalD (bid). Maintenance therapy with tiotropium plus salmeterol as TSHH or as the jointly administered reference products is superior to either agent alone, safe, and well tolerated in COPD patients. In vitro results were not predictive of clinical PK findings for both tiotropium and salmeterol for the TSHH dry powder inhaler product.

SUBMITTER: Horhota ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4476986 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

In Vitro, Pharmacokinetic, Pharmacodynamic, and Safety Comparisons of Single and Combined Administration of Tiotropium and Salmeterol in COPD Patients Using Different Dry Powder Inhalers.

Horhota Stephen T ST van Noord Jan A JA Verkleij Cynthia B CB Bour Loek J LJ Sharma Ashish A Trunk Michael M Cornelissen Piet J G PJ

The AAPS journal 20150321 4

In vitro Andersen cascade impactor-sized mass (ISM) and aerodynamic fine particle mass (FPM) <5 μm for tiotropium and salmeterol combined in a novel inhalation powder formulation containing 7.5 μg tiotropium/25 μg salmeterol (TSHH) were similar (within ±15%) to reference products containing 18 μg of tiotropium (Spiriva® HandiHaler®) (TioHH) and 50 μg of salmeterol (Serevent® Diskus®) (SalD). The pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of the novel fixed-dose TSHH formul ...[more]

PMID: 25794622

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Easyhaler® dry powder inhaler (DPI) containing salmeterol and fluticasone propionate was developed for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Three different Salmeterol/fluticasone Easyhaler test products (Orion Pharma, Finland) were compared against the reference product Seretide® Diskus® DPI (GlaxoSmithKline, United Kingdom) to study whether any of the test products are bioequivalent with the reference. METHODS:Open and randomized pharmacokinetic four-period crossover study on 65 healthy volunteers was performed in a single center to compare the lung deposition and total systemic exposure of salmeterol and fluticasone propionate after administration of single doses (two inhalations of 50/500??g/inhalation strength) in fasting conditions. Blood samples were drawn before dosing and at frequent time points between 2 minutes and 34 hours after dosing for determination of drug concentrations. The primary variables for total systemic exposure and lung deposition of fluticasone propionate were maximum concentration of the concentration-time curve (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to the last sample with quantifiable concentration (AUCt). For salmeterol, the primary variables for total systemic exposure were Cmax and AUCt and for lung deposition Cmax and AUC up to 30 minutes after study treatment administration (AUC30min). RESULTS:One of the Easyhaler test products met all the criteria for bioequivalence with the reference. The 96.7% confidence intervals (CIs) for the test/reference ratios of fluticasone propionate Cmax and AUCt were 0.9901-1.1336 and 0.9448-1.0542, respectively. Ninety percent CIs for salmeterol Cmax, AUC30min, and AUCt ratios were 1.0567-1.2012, 1.0989-1.2255, and 1.0769-1.1829, respectively. Median salmeterol time to maximum concentration (tmax) was 4.0 minutes. Median fluticasone propionate tmax was from 1.5 to 2.0 hours. Terminal elimination half-life was 11 hours for salmeterol and 9-10 hours for fluticasone propionate. CONCLUSIONS:Salmeterol/fluticasone Easyhaler was shown to be bioequivalent with the reference product.

Project description:BackgroundDry powder inhalers (DPIs) rely on both internal resistance and patients' inspiratory capacity for effective operation. Optimal inspiratory technique is crucial for DPI users. This study assessed the accuracy and repeatability of two available devices, PF810® and In-Check DIAL®, and analyzed their measurement errors and consistency in detecting inspiratory capacity.MethodsThe accuracy and repeatability of peak inspiratory flow (PIF) and forced inspiratory vital capacity (FIVC) against various internal resistances of the two devices were assessed using standard waveforms generated by a breathing simulator. The agreement of PIF measurements between the two devices in healthy volunteers and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients was analyzed with the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman graphical analysis.ResultsPF810® showed great accuracy and repeatability in measuring PIF, except for square waveforms at the lowest flow rate (20 L/min). In-Check DIAL® exhibited poor accuracy against high resistance levels. In scenarios with no resistance, In-Check DIAL® had significantly smaller measurement errors than PF810®, but larger errors against high resistance levels. The two devices showed excellent agreement (ICC > 0.80, P < 0.05), except for healthy volunteers against medium to high resistance (R3-R5) where the ICC was insignificant. Bland-Altman plots indicated small disagreements between the two devices for both healthy volunteers and COPD patients.ConclusionsIn-Check DIAL® exhibited poor accuracy and larger measurement errors than PF810® when detecting PIFs against higher internal resistances. However, its good performance against lower internal resistances, along with its cost-effectiveness and convenience made it appropriate for primary care. PF810® showed good accuracy and repeatability and could detect additional parameters of inspiratory capacity beyond PIF, though required further studies to confirm its clinical benefits.

Dataset Information

In Vitro, Pharmacokinetic, Pharmacodynamic, and Safety Comparisons of Single and Combined Administration of Tiotropium and Salmeterol in COPD Patients Using Different Dry Powder Inhalers.

Publications

In Vitro, Pharmacokinetic, Pharmacodynamic, and Safety Comparisons of Single and Combined Administration of Tiotropium and Salmeterol in COPD Patients Using Different Dry Powder Inhalers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets