scholarly journals The novel bronchodilator navafenterol: a phase 2a, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial in COPD

2021 ◽  
pp. 2100972
Author(s):  
Dave Singh ◽  
Jutta Beier ◽  
Carol Astbury ◽  
Maria G. Belvisi ◽  
Carla A. Da Silva ◽  
...  

BackgroundNavafenterol (AZD8871) belongs to a new class of bronchodilator, the single-molecule muscarinic antagonist and beta agonist (MABA), being developed for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, pharmacokinetics and safety of navafenterol versus placebo and an active comparator treatment for moderate-to-severe COPD.MethodsThis phase 2a, randomised, multicentre (Germany and UK), double-blind, double-dummy, three-way complete crossover study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03645434) compared 2 weeks’ treatment of once-daily navafenterol 600 µg via inhalation with placebo and a fixed-dose combination bronchodilator (umeclidinium/vilanterol [UMEC/VI]; 62.5 µg/25 µg) in participants with moderate-to-severe COPD. The primary outcome was change from baseline in trough FEV1 on day 15. Secondary endpoints included: change from baseline in peak FEV1; change from baseline in breathlessness, cough and sputum scale (BCSS); change from baseline in COPD assessment tool (CAT); adverse events; and pharmacokinetics.ResultsSeventy-three participants were randomised. After 14 days, trough FEV1 was significantly improved with navafenterol compared with placebo (least-squares [LS] mean difference 0.202 L; p<0.0001). There was no significant difference in FEV1 between navafenterol and UMEC/VI (LS mean difference −0.046 L; p=0.075). COPD symptoms (CAT and BCSS) showed significantly greater improvements with both active treatments versus placebo (all p<0.005). Novel objective monitoring (VitaloJAK) showed that cough was reduced with both active treatments compared with placebo. Safety profiles were similar across the treatment groups and no serious adverse events were reported in the navafenterol treatment period.ConclusionOnce-daily navafenterol was well tolerated, improved lung function and reduced COPD-related symptoms, similar to an established once-daily fixed-dose combination bronchodilator.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA9514-LBA9514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matti S. Aapro ◽  
Giorgia Rossi ◽  
Giada Rizzi ◽  
Marco Palmas ◽  
Steven Grunberg

LBA9514 Background: Management of CINV has been refined over the past several decades and CINV can now be managed with targeted prophylactic medications aimed at inhibiting several molecular pathways involved in emesis. NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant (NETU), a new NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) and palonosetron (PALO), a pharmacologically distinct 5-HT3RA, targets these dual antiemetic pathways and has been shown to uniquely work synergistically in vitro. Methods: This was a multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel group study assessing the efficacy and safety of a single oral dose of NEPA (NETU 300mg + PALO 0.50 mg) versus a single oral 0.50 mg dose of PALO in 1,455 chemotherapy-naive patients (pts) receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy (all pts received oral dexamethasone (DEX) 12 mg (NEPA) or 20 mg (PALO) on Day 1). The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the delayed (25-120h) phase. Results: Treatment groups had comparable demographic characteristics with the majority of the population being female (98%) and white (80%), with a mean age of 54 yrs; 97% pts had breast cancer. NEPA showed superior CR rates compared to PALO during the delayed, acute, and overall phases. NEPA was also superior to PALO during the delayed/overall phases for complete protection, no emesis, and no significant nausea. Most frequently reported study drug-related adverse events (AEs) for NEPA included headache (3.3%) and constipation (2.1%). The majority of adverse events for NEPA-treated pts were mild/moderate and there were very few (0.7%) severe drug-related AEs. The type and frequency of AEs were comparable between NEPA and PALO. There was no evidence of any cardiac safety concerns for NEPA or PALO. Conclusions: NEPA, a novel single-day fixed-dose combination targeting dual antiemetic pathways, is superior to PALO (both associated with DEX) in preventing CINV in pts receiving MEC. Clinical trial information: NCT01339260. [Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2021-111764
Author(s):  
Iain Crossingham ◽  
Sally Turner ◽  
Sanjay Ramakrishnan ◽  
Anastasia Fries ◽  
Matthew Gowell ◽  
...  

BackgroundIn people with mild asthma poor adherence to regular therapy is common and increases the risk of exacerbations, morbidity and mortality. The use of fixed-dose combination inhalers containing an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a fast-acting β2-agonist (FABA) is established in moderate asthma, but they may also have potential utility in mild asthma.ObjectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of single combined FABA/ICS inhaler only used as needed in people with mild asthma.Design and settingCochrane meta-analysis of available trial data.ParticipantsChildren aged 12+ and adults with mild asthma.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO trials portal on 19 March 2021.InterventionsA single fixed-dose FABA/ICS inhaler used as required compared with no treatment, placebo, short-acting beta agonist (SABA) as required, regular ICS with SABA as required, regular fixed-dose combination ICS/long-acting beta agonist (LABA), or regular fixed-dose combination ICS/FABA with as required ICS/FABA.We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over trial. We excluded trials shorter than 12 weeks. We included full texts, abstracts and unpublished data.Data collection and analysisWe used Cochrane’s standard methodological procedures and applied the GRADE approach to assess the evidence.Main outcome measuresWe included six studies from which 9657 participants contributed to the meta-analyses. All used dry powder budesonide and formoterol as the combination inhaler. Two studies included children aged 12+ years and two studies were open-label.FABA/ICS as-required versus FABA as-requiredCompared with as-required FABA alone, as-required FABA/ICS reduced exacerbations requiring systemic steroids (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, high-certainty evidence), equivalent to 109 people out of 1000 in the FABA alone group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared with 52 (95% CI 40 to 68) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. FABA/ICS as required may also reduce the odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.60, 2 RCTs, 2997 participants, low-certainty evidence). Changes in asthma control were small and less than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). FABA/ICS as required was associated with reductions in fractional exhaled nitric oxide, probably reducing the odds of an adverse event (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95) and may reduce total systemic steroid dose (mean difference (MD) −9.90, 95% CI −19.38 to −0.42).FABA/ICS as required versus regular ICS plus FABA as requiredThere may be little or no difference in the number of people with asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroids with FABA/ICS as required compared with regular ICS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.07, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence), equivalent to 81 people out of 1000 in the regular ICS plus FABA group experiencing an exacerbation requiring systemic steroids, compared with 65 (95% CI 49 to 86) out of 1000 in the FABA/ICS as-required group. The odds of an asthma-related hospital admission or emergency department or urgent care visit may be reduced in those taking FABA/ICS as required (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, 4 RCTs, 8065 participants, low-certainty evidence). Changes in asthma control were small and less than MCID. Adverse events and total systemic corticosteroid doses were similar between groups. FABA/ICS as required was likely associated with less average daily exposure to ICS than those on regular ICS (MD −154.51 mcg/day, 95% CI −207.94 to −101.09).ConclusionsFABA/ICS as required is clinically effective in adults and adolescents with mild asthma and reduced exacerbations, hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits and exposure to systemic corticosteroids and probably reduces adverse events compared with FABA as required alone. FABA/ICS as required is as effective as regular ICS and reduced asthma-related hospital admissions or unscheduled healthcare visits, and average exposure to ICS, and is unlikely associated with increased adverse events.


2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (8) ◽  
pp. 986-990
Author(s):  
Alexander V. Emelyanov

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one the most common allergic diseases affecting from 10 to 40% of the population in different countries, including Russia. AR is a risk factor of bronchial asthma, other upper airway disease and may decrease patient quality of life, their productivity, increase probability of occupational traumatism, depression and anxiety. AR also presents a substantial economic burden. The rationale to use fixed dose combination of intranasal steroids and topical H1 antihistamines includes suboptimal control of symptoms by monotherapy, its complementary pharmacologic activity and the results of clinical trials. This review focused on fixed dose combination of intranasal mometasone furoate and olopataine. Double blind placebo-controlled and open clinical trials have confirmed that this combination decreased severity of nasal and ocular symptoms of seasonal and perennial AR, improved patient quality of life and had a good tolerability. Its efficacy was higher than those of monotherapy. Fast onset of action and sustainable effect on symptoms (during 1 yr) may improve adherence patients to the treatment and control of symptoms of AR.


CHEST Journal ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 150 (4) ◽  
pp. 822A
Author(s):  
Anthony Yadao ◽  
Sebastian Fucile ◽  
Steven Shen ◽  
Tim Ayers ◽  
Donald Banerji ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 66-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matti S. Aapro ◽  
Giorgia Rossi ◽  
Giada Rizzi ◽  
Maria Elisa Borroni ◽  
Norman G. Nagl

66 Background: Certain antiemesis guidelines recommend combining a 5-HT3 RA, a NK1RA and DEX for prevention of CINV associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and with anthracycline + cyclophosphamide (AC)-based MEC. The objective of this analysis was to determine if using the oral fixed-dose combination NEPA prior to initiating AC-based chemotherapy resulted in no impact on daily living (NIDL) for patients. Methods: This phase III, multinational, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel group trial enrolled patients with solid tumors who were naïve to cytotoxics and scheduled to initiate AC-based chemotherapy. Patients received oral NEPA (netupitant 300 mg + PALO 0.5 mg) + oral DEX 12 mg on Day 1, or oral PALO 0.5 mg + oral DEX 20 mg on Day 1. The primary efficacy endpoint was Complete Response (CR: no emesis/no rescue medication) in the delayed phase (25-120 hours after chemotherapy) in cycle 1. Secondary endpoints including NIDL for patients was assessed using the Functional Living Index—Emesis (FLIE) during the first 120 hours. Results: 1,455 patients were randomized; 1,449 were included in the efficacy analysis. Significantly more patients achieved CR during the delayed phase in the NEPA arm compared with the PALO arm (76.9% vs 69.5%, respectively: p = 0.001). Significantly more patients in the NEPA arm reported NIDL via the FLIE (78.5% vs 72.1%: p = 0.005). A greater proportion of NEPA-treated patients reported no personal hardship imposed and no daily functioning affected (75.3% vs 70.5% and 77.1% vs 71.6%, respectively, as scored by the nausea domain of the FLIE; 95.2% vs 89.2% and 95.6% vs 89.2%, respectively, as scored by the vomiting domain of the FLIE). Adverse events were similar for both groups. Conclusions: NEPA significantly improved efficacy vs PALO for prevention of CINV in AC MEC and significantly more patients experienced NIDL compared to PALO. Both regimens were generally well tolerated.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document