6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      International Journal of COPD (submit here)

      This international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal by Dove Medical Press focuses on pathophysiological processes underlying Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) interventions, patient focused education, and self-management protocols. Sign up for email alerts here.

      39,063 Monthly downloads/views I 2.893 Impact Factor I 5.2 CiteScore I 1.16 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) I 0.804 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler Improves Lung Function versus Monotherapies in GOLD Category A Patients with COPD: Pooled Data from the Phase III PINNACLE Studies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommends a short-acting bronchodilator or single long-acting bronchodilator as an initial pharmacological treatment for GOLD category A patients with COPD. We pooled data from the PINNACLE-1, -2, and -4 studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the dual bronchodilator fixed-dose combination glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, in GOLD category A patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

          Materials and Methods

          PINNACLE-1, -2, and -4 were Phase III, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter studies (NCT01854645, NCT01854658, and NCT02343458). Patients received 24 weeks’ treatment with GFF MDI 18/9.6 µg, glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 18 µg, formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 µg, or placebo MDI twice daily. GOLD category A patients were identified based on a COPD Assessment Test score of <10 and exacerbation history in the previous year (none/one not requiring hospitalization). Endpoints evaluated were change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV 1), peak change from baseline in FEV 1 within 2 hrs post-dose, and adverse events (AEs).

          Results

          The pooled intent-to-treat population comprised 729 GOLD category A patients. GFF MDI significantly improved morning pre-dose trough FEV 1 at Week 24 versus GP MDI, FF MDI, and placebo MDI (least squares mean [LSM] differences 54 mL, 62 mL, and 188 mL, respectively; all p≤0.0053), and peak FEV 1 at Week 24 versus GP MDI, FF MDI, and placebo MDI (LSM differences 124 mL, 104 mL, and 307 mL, respectively; all p<0.0001). Improvements over 24 weeks were comparable to at Week 24. The AE profile of GFF MDI in GOLD category A patients was similar to monocomponents and placebo MDI.

          Conclusion

          GFF MDI significantly improved lung function versus monocomponents and placebo MDI in GOLD category A patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, with no unexpected safety findings.

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Standards for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with COPD: a summary of the ATS/ERS position paper

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research: GPP3.

            This updated Good Publication Practice (GPP) guideline, known as GPP3, builds on earlier versions and provides recommendations for individuals and organizations that contribute to the publication of research results sponsored or supported by pharmaceutical, medical device, diagnostics, and biotechnology companies. The recommendations are designed to help individuals and organizations maintain ethical and transparent publication practices and comply with legal and regulatory requirements. These recommendations cover publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations (oral or poster) at scientific congresses. The International Society for Medical Publication Professionals invited more than 3000 professionals worldwide to apply for a position on the steering committee, or as a reviewer, for this guideline. The GPP2 authors reviewed all applications (n = 241) and assembled an 18-member steering committee that represented 7 countries and a diversity of publication professions and institutions. From the 174 selected reviewers, 94 sent comments on the second draft, which steering committee members incorporated after discussion and consensus. The resulting guideline includes new sections (Principles of Good Publication Practice for Company-Sponsored Medical Research, Data Sharing, Studies That Should Be Published, and Plagiarism), expands guidance on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' authorship criteria and common authorship issues, improves clarity on appropriate author payment and reimbursement, and expands information on the role of medical writers. By following good publication practices (including GPP3), individuals and organizations will show integrity; accountability; and responsibility for accurate, complete, and transparent reporting in their publications and presentations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Efficacy and safety of umeclidinium plus vilanterol versus tiotropium, vilanterol, or umeclidinium monotherapies over 24 weeks in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from two multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trials.

              Combination long-acting bronchodilator treatment might be more effective than long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium (UMEC) plus vilanterol (VI) with tiotropium (TIO) monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, or VI monotherapy in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. In two multicentre, randomised, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, active-controlled trials, eligible patients (current or former smokers aged 40 years or older with an established clinical history of COPD) were randomly assigned in 1:1:1:1 ratio to UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, TIO 18 μg, and either VI 25 μg (study 1) or UMEC 125 μg (study 2). All study drugs were used once daily for 24 weeks. TIO was delivered via the HandiHaler inhaler and all other active treatments were delivered via the ELLIPTA dry powder inhaler. Random assignment (by a validated computer-based system) was done by centre and was not stratified. All patients and physicians were masked to assigned treatment during the studies. The primary efficacy endpoint of both studies was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 169, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Both studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01316900 (study 1) and NCT01316913 (study 2). 1141 participants were recruited in study 1, and 1191 in study 2. For study 1, after exclusions, 208, 209, 214, and 212 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, VI monotherapy, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, and UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, respectively. For study 2, 215, 222, 215, and 217 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, UMEC monotherapy, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg, and UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg, respectively. In both studies, we noted improvements in trough FEV1 on day 169 for both doses of UMEC plus VI compared with TIO monotherapy (study 1, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·088 L [95% CI 0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; study 1, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·141; p=0·0006]; study 2, UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·074 L [0·025 to 0·123; p=0·0031]; study 2, UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·060 L [0·010 to 0·109; nominal p=0·0182]). Both doses of UMEC plus VI also improved trough FEV1 compared with VI monotherapy (UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·088 L [0·036 to 0·140; p=0·0010]; UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·090 L [0·039 to 0·142; p=0·0006], but not compared with UMEC 125 μg monotherapy (UMEC 125 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·037 L [-0·012 to 0·087; p=0·14]; UMEC 62·5 μg plus VI 25 μg: 0·022 L [-0·027 to 0·072; p=0·38]). All treatments produced improvements in dyspnoea and health-related quality of life; we noted no significant differences in symptoms, health status, or risk of exacerbation between UMEC plus VI and TIO. The most common on-treatment, severe-intensity adverse event in both studies was acute exacerbation of COPD (1-4 [<1-2%] patients across treatment groups in study 1 and 1-6 [<1-3%] patients in study 2). We recorded five to 15 (2-7%) on-treatment serious adverse events across treatment groups in study 1, and nine to 22 (4-10%) in study 2. We noted no substantial changes from baseline in vital signs, clinical laboratory findings, or electrocardiography findings in any of the treatment groups. Combination treatment with once-daily UMEC plus VI improved lung function compared with VI monotherapy and TIO monotherapy in patients with COPD. Overall our results suggest that the combination of UMEC plus VI could be beneficial for the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD. GlaxoSmithKline. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                COPD
                copd
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                Dove
                1176-9106
                1178-2005
                09 January 2020
                2020
                : 15
                : 99-106
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Joan and Sanford I. Weill Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine , New York, NY, USA
                [2 ]Department of Pneumonology, LungenClinic Grosshansdorf and Christian-Albrechts University Kiel, Airway Research Center North, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL) , Grosshansdorf, Germany
                [3 ]Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research, Ninewells Hospital, University of Dundee , Dundee, Scotland, UK
                [4 ]Aventiv Research Inc ., Columbus, OH, USA
                [5 ]Global Medicines Development, AstraZeneca , Cambridge, UK
                [6 ]Research and Development, AstraZeneca , Gaithersburg, MD, USA
                [7 ]R&D Biopharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca , Morristown, NJ, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Fernando J Martinez Joan and Sanford I. Weill Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center , 525 E 68th Street, Room M-522, Box 130, New York, NY10065, USATel +1646 962 2748 Email fjm2003@med.cornell.edu
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2412-3182
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8140-2014
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0089-7677
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1856-9863
                Article
                229794
                10.2147/COPD.S229794
                6957003
                54a0a3db-4880-4205-b582-f07e24ca6a18
                © 2020 Martinez et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                : 06 September 2019
                : 02 December 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 3, References: 18, Pages: 8
                Funding
                These studies were supported by Pearl – a member of the AstraZeneca Group.
                Categories
                Original Research

                Respiratory medicine
                β2-agonist,bronchodilator,copd,co-suspension delivery technology,lung function,muscarinic antagonist

                Comments

                Comment on this article