Diagnostic value of post-bronchodilator pulmonary function testing to distinguish between stable, moderate to severe COPD and asthma

Daphne C Richter1, James R Joubert1, Haylene Nell1, Mace M Schuurmans2, Elvis M Irusen21Tiervlei Trial Centre, Karl Bremer Hospital, Bellville, RSA; 2Respiratory Research Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Stellenbosch, RSAObjective: The GOLD guidelines suggest that the presence of a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) 80% of the predicted value in combination with a FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) < 70% confirms the diagnosis of COPD. Limited data exist regarding the accuracy of these criteria to distinguish between COPD and asthma. The aim of this study therefore was to investigate the diagnostic value of post-bronchodilator lung function parameters in obstructive lung disease.Methods: The pulmonary function tests of 43 (22 = COPD, 21 = asthma) patients with similar baseline characteristics were evaluated (baseline FEV1 were 55.7% + 7.6%, and 59.3% + 8.4% predicted for COPD and asthma, respectively). Bronchodilator responsiveness (BDR) was calculated according to three recognized pulmonary function test criteria.Results: The first criteria, post-bronchodilator FEV1 < 80% of the predicted value in combination with a post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio of <70%, had an accuracy of 70% to diagnose COPD. This combination was very sensitive (100%) in diagnosing COPD, but it was not specific (38%). The second BDR criteria, defined as an increase of <12% and 200 mL of initial FEV1 and criterion number 3, an increase of <9% of predicted FEV1, were less sensitive (55% and 59%, respectively), but more specific (81% and 76% respectively) to diagnose COPD. Our findings suggest that the current recommended spirometric indices are not optimal in differentiating between COPD and asthma.Keywords: obstructive lung disease, diagnosis, post-bronchodilator pulmonary function tes

Therapeutic equivalence study of two formulations (innovator v. generic) of beclomethasone dipropionate in adult asthmatic patients

Objective. To study the therapeutic equivalence of two formulations (innovator v. generic) of beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) 400 pg twice daily administered per metered dose inhaler (MDO, in adults with moderate to severe asthma.Methods. A double-blind randomised parallel-group trial was performed with a 2-week run-in and an 8-week treatment period. Thirty-six symptomatic adult asthmatics on a mean daily dose of 750 μg inhaled corticosteroids during run-in, a mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of 70% predicted normal and a mean histamine concentration provoking a 20% reduction in FEV1 (histamine PC20 of 0.11 mg/l were randomised to one of the two treatment groups. Primary variables were morning peak expiratory flow (mPEF), FEV1 and histamine PC20- Secondary variables were β2-agonist use, symptom score and nocturnal awakening. The Schuirmann two one-sided tests procedure was used for the statistical analysis. Ninety-five per cent confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the differences in means.Results. The mean differences end of treatment to baseline for the two formulations (Becotide and Beclate) respectively were: mPEF 5.61/min (0 -16.4- 27.6) and -22.31/min (0 -35.6 - -9); FEV 1 -2.90/0 (0 -11 - 5.2) and 0.2% (0 -4.8 -5.2); Histamine PC20-0.04 mg/ml (0 -0.15- 0.06) and 0.02 mg/ mi (0 -0.37 - 0.4). Changes in clinical variables were not conclusive. The mean differences with CIs for Primary variables were contained within the limits set for equivalence. The sample size was sufficient to differentiate the groups for mPEF, but this was not of clinical significance.Conclusion. After 8 weeks of treatment the two formulations of BDP, delivered by MDI through a large-volume spacer, were therapeutically equivalent in moderate-to-severe asthmatic adults

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Lessertia frutescens in Healthy Adults

OBJECTIVES: Indigenous medicines are widely used throughout Africa, despite a lack of scientific evidence for their safety or efficacy. The aims of this study were: (a) to conduct a pilot study of the safety of a common indigenous South African phytotherapy, Lessertia frutescens (Sutherlandia), in healthy adults; and (b) to contribute to establishing procedures for ethical and scientifically rigorous clinical trials of African indigenous medicines. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of Sutherlandia leaf powder in healthy adults. SETTING: Tiervlei Trial Centre, Karl Bremer Hospital, Bellville, South Africa. PARTICIPANTS: 25 adults who provided informed consent and had no known significant diseases or allergic conditions nor clinically abnormal laboratory blood profiles during screening. INTERVENTION: 12 participants randomized to a treatment arm consumed 400 mg capsules of Sutherlandia leaf powder twice daily (800 mg/d). 13 individuals randomized to the control arm consumed a placebo capsule. Each participant received 180 capsules for the trial duration of 3 mo. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was frequency of adverse events; secondary endpoints were changes in physical, vital, blood, and biomarker indices. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in general adverse events or physical, vital, blood, and biomarker indices between the treatment and placebo groups (p > 0.05). However, participants consuming Sutherlandia reported improved appetite compared to those in the placebo group (p = 0.01). Although the treatment group exhibited a lower respiration rate (p < 0.04) and higher platelet count (p = 0.03), MCH (p = 0.01), MCHC (p = 0.02), total protein (p = 0.03), and albumin (p = 0.03), than the placebo group, these differences remained within the normal physiological range, and were not clinically relevant. The Sutherlandia biomarker canavanine was undetectable in participant plasma. CONCLUSION: Consumption of 800 mg/d Sutherlandia leaf powder capsules for 3 mo was tolerated by healthy adults

Immunological non-inferiority of a new fully liquid presentation of the MenACWY-CRM vaccine to the licensed vaccine : results from a randomized, controlled, observer-blind study in adolescents and young adult

A fully liquid MenACWY-CRM vaccine presentation has been developed, modifying the meningococcal serogroup A (MenA) component from lyophilized to liquid. The safety and immunogenicity of the liquid presentation at the end of the intended shelf-life (aged for 24 or 30 months) were compared to the licensed lyophilized/liquid presentation. This multicenter, randomized (1:1), observer-blind, phase 2b study (NCT03433482) enrolled adolescents and young adults (age 10-40 years). In part 1, 844 participants received one dose of liquid presentation stored for approximately 24 months or licensed presentation. In part 2, 846 participants received one dose of liquid presentation stored for approximately 30 months or licensed presentation. After storage, the MenA free saccharide (FS) level was approximately 25% and O-acetylation was approximately 45%. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of the liquid presentation to licensed presentation, as measured by human serum bactericidal assay (hSBA) geometric mean titers (GMTs) against MenA, 1-month post-vaccination. Immune responses against each vaccine serogroup were similar between groups. Between-group ratios of hSBA GMTs for MenA were 1.21 (part 1) and 1.11 (part 2), with two-sided 95% confidence interval lower limits (0.94 and 0.87, respectively) greater than the prespecified non-inferiority margin (0.5), thus meeting the primary study objective. No safety concerns were identified. Despite reduced O-acetylation of MenA and increased FS content, serogroup-specific immune responses induced by the fully liquid presentation were similar to those induced by the licensed MenACWY-CRM vaccine, with non-inferior anti-MenA responses. The safety profiles of the vaccine presentations were similar.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAhttps://www.tandfonline.com/journals/KHVIMedical Microbiolog

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

BACKGROUN

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. METHODS: In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. RESULTS: A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months.

BACKGROUND: BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and is currently approved, conditionally approved, or authorized for emergency use worldwide. At the time of initial authorization, data beyond 2 months after vaccination were unavailable. METHODS: In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, multinational, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned 44,165 participants 16 years of age or older and 2264 participants 12 to 15 years of age to receive two 30-μg doses, at 21 days apart, of BNT162b2 or placebo. The trial end points were vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety, which were both evaluated through 6 months after vaccination. RESULTS: BNT162b2 continued to be safe and have an acceptable adverse-event profile. Few participants had adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial. Vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.0 to 93.2) through 6 months of follow-up among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated. There was a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy. Vaccine efficacy of 86 to 100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse ages, sexes, race or ethnic groups, and risk factors for Covid-19 among participants without evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine efficacy against severe disease was 96.7% (95% CI, 80.3 to 99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.351 (or beta) was predominant, a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI, 53.5 to 100) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Through 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing Covid-19. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)

Safety and Efficacy of a Third Dose of BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Active immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) has been a critical mitigation tool against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In light of reports of waning protection occurring 6 months after the primary two-dose vaccine series, data are needed on the safety and efficacy of offering a third (booster) dose in persons 16 years of age or older. METHODS: In this ongoing, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned participants who had received two 30-μg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine at least 6 months earlier to be injected with a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine or with placebo. We assessed vaccine safety and efficacy against Covid-19 starting 7 days after the third dose. RESULTS: A total of 5081 participants received a third BNT162b2 dose and 5044 received placebo. The median interval between dose 2 and dose 3 was 10.8 months in the vaccine group and 10.7 months in the placebo group; the median follow-up was 2.5 months. Local and systemic reactogenicity events from the third dose were generally of low grade. No new safety signals were identified, and no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were reported. Among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated, Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after dose 3 was observed in 6 participants in the vaccine group and in 123 participants in the placebo group, which corresponded to a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.3% (95% confidence interval, 89.5 to 98.3). CONCLUSIONS: A third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine administered a median of 10.8 months after the second dose provided 95.3% efficacy against Covid-19 as compared with two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine during a median follow-up of 2.5 months. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; C4591031 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04955626.)