No abstract

Background: This randomized, double-blind, Phase IIIb study evaluated the 24-hour bronchodilatory efficacy of aclidinium bromide versus placebo and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: Patients received aclidinium 400 μg twice daily (morning and evening), tiotropium 18 μg once daily (morning), or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve for the 24-hour period post-morning dose (FEV1 AUC0–24) at week 6. Secondary and additional endpoints included FEV1 AUC12–24, COPD symptoms (EXAcerbations of chronic pulmonary disease Tool-Respiratory Symptoms [E-RS] total score and additional symptoms questionnaire), and safety. Results: Overall, 414 patients were randomized and treated (FEV1 1.63 L [55.8% predicted]). Compared with placebo, FEV1 AUC0–24 and FEV1 AUC12–24 were significantly increased from baseline with aclidinium (Δ = 150 mL and 160 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001) and tiotropium (Δ = 140 mL and 123 mL, respectively; p < 0.0001) at week 6. Significant improvements in E-RS total scores over 6 weeks were numerically greater with aclidinium (p < 0.0001) than tiotropium (p < 0.05) versus placebo. Only aclidinium significantly reduced the severity of early-morning cough, wheeze, shortness of breath, and phlegm, and of nighttime symptoms versus placebo (p < 0.05). Adverse-event (AE) incidence (28%) was similar between treatments. Few anticholinergic AEs (<1.5%) or serious AEs (<3%) occurred in any group. Conclusions: Aclidinium provided significant 24-hour bronchodilation versus placebo from day 1 with comparable efficacy to tiotropium after 6 weeks. Improvements in COPD symptoms were consistently numerically greater with aclidinium versus tiotropium. Aclidinium was generally well tolerated.

No abstract

Overall, this study demonstrated improvements in lung function over 24 h with an FDC of tiotropium + olodaterol over tiotropium or olodaterol alone, with no observed difference in tolerability. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01559116.

The efficacy and safety of twice-daily aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate was compared with that of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in patients with stable, moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).AFFIRM COPD (Aclidinium and Formoterol Findings in Respiratory Medicine COPD) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled study. Patients were randomised (1:1) to aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg twice-daily via Genuair/Pressair or salmeterol/fluticasone 50/500 µg twice-daily via Accuhaler. The primary end-point was peak forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV) at week 24. Other end-points included Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score at week 24, TDI and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders, COPD Assessment Test and SGRQ scores, assessment of COPD symptoms and exacerbations, use of reliever medication, and device preference. Adverse events were monitored throughout.In total, 933 patients were eligible (mean age 63.4 years, 65.1% male). Aclidinium/formoterol was superior to salmeterol/fluticasone in peak FEV and noninferior in TDI. Health status and reduction in exacerbation risk were similar in both groups. While both treatments were well tolerated, pneumonia occurred less frequently with aclidinium/formoterol than salmeterol/fluticasone.In stable COPD, aclidinium/formoterol significantly improved bronchodilation versus salmeterol/fluticasone, with equivalent benefits in symptom control and reduction in exacerbation risk. Both treatments were well tolerated and treatment-related adverse events were less common with aclidinium/formoterol.

In this study, inhaled GSK2269557 had an acceptable safety profile for progression into larger studies in COPD patients. Moreover, inhalation of GSK2269557 resulted in suppression of sputum IL-8 and IL-6 levels, consistent with the known anti-inflammatory activity of a PI3Kδ inhibitor. Inhibition of inflammatory cytokines in the airway compartment may contribute to the potential therapeutic benefit of a PI3Kδ inhibitor in chronically inflamed COPD patients.

Background: Little is known about the consequences of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) for physical activity (PA). Objectives: We aimed to investigate levels of PA in IPF and to study associations of PA with lung function, exercise capacity, symptoms, and quality of life. Methods: In stable patients with IPF we measured PA (steps per day, SPD; physical activity level, PAL; minutes of moderate activity, MMA) by accelerometry (SenseWear Armband) for 1 week. We also assessed lung function (forced vital capacity, FVC; diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide, DLCO); exercise capacity (6-minute walking distance, 6MWD); dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council, mMRC); fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, MFI-20), and generic (12-Item Short Form Survey, SF-12) and health-related quality of life (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire) as further clinical variables. Results: We investigated 48 patients with IPF in two centers (mean age, 67 years; 75% male; 23% on long-term oxygen therapy; mean FVC 75%pred.; mean DLCO 43%pred.; mean 6MWD 355 ± 140 m; mean SPD 5,017 ± 3,360). On a bivariate level, all clinical variables were significantly associated with SPD (p < 0.05). The associations of mMRC, MFI-20, SF-12 (physical health), and 6MWD with SPD were independent of impaired lung function (p < 0.05). At multivariate analyses, either 6MWD (total explained variance of the model, total R²: 42%) or MFI-20 (total R²: 39%) were the strongest independent predictors of SPD. Conclusion: Fatigue and exercise capacity are strong and independent predictors of PA in patients with IPF, which suggests that both measures should be assessed when the consequences of IPF for PA in daily life are studied.

Background:The TORRACTO® study evaluated the effects of tiotropium/olodaterol versus placebo on endurance time during constant work-rate cycling and constant speed shuttle walking in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) after 12 weeks of treatment.Methods:The effects of once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol (2.5/5 and 5/5 μg) on endurance time during constant work-rate cycle ergometry (CWRCE) after 6 and 12 weeks of treatment were compared with placebo in patients with COPD in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial. Endurance time during the endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT) after 6 and 12 weeks of treatment was also evaluated in a subset of patients.Results:A total of 404 patients received treatment, with 165 participating in the ESWT substudy. A statistically significant improvement in endurance time during CWRCE was observed after 12 weeks (primary endpoint) with tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg [14% (p = 0.02)] but not with tiotropium/olodaterol 2.5/5 µg [9% (p = 0.14)] versus placebo. In the ESWT substudy, a trend to improvement in endurance time during ESWT after 12 weeks (key secondary endpoint) was observed with tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg [21% (p = 0.055)] and tiotropium/olodaterol 2.5/5 µg [21% (p = 0.056)] versus placebo.Conclusion:Tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg improved endurance time during cycle ergometry versus placebo, with a strong tendency to also improve walking endurance time.[ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01525615.]