Effects of mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combination formulation on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): results from a 52-week Phase III trial in subjects with moderate-to-very severe COPD

RATIONALE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate (MF/F) administered via a metered-dose inhaler in subjects with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial had a 26-week treatment period and a 26-week safety extension. Subjects (n = 1196), at least 40 years old, were current or ex-smokers randomized to twice-daily inhaled MF/F 400/10 μg, MF/F 200/10 μg, MF 400 μg, F 10 μg, or placebo. The trial\u27s co-primary endpoints were mean changes from baseline, as area under the curve (AUC), in forced expiratory volume (FEV1) over 0-12 hours (AUC0-12 h FEV1) with MF/F versus MF, and in morning (AM) pre-dose (trough) FEV1 with MF/F versus F after 13 weeks of treatment. Key secondary endpoints were the effects of MF/F on respiratory health status using the Saint George\u27s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), symptom-free nights, partly stable COPD at 26 weeks, and time to first COPD exacerbation. RESULTS: The largest improvements in AUC0-12 h FEV1 were observed with MF/F 400/10 μg and MF/F 200/10 μg. Serial spirometry results demonstrated that bronchodilator effects with MF/F occurred rapidly (within 5 minutes), persisted for 12 hours after dosing, and were sustained over the 26-week treatment period. Similar findings were observed for AM pre-dose FEV1, for which effects were further investigated, excluding subjects whose AM FEV1 data were incorrectly collected after 2 days from the last dose of study treatment. Improvements in SGRQ scores surpassed the minimum clinically important difference of more than four units with both MF/F treatments. At 26 weeks, no notable between-treatment differences in the occurrence and nature of adverse events (AEs) were reported. No unexpected AEs were observed. Overall, 90 subjects reported AEs considered to be treatment-related, the most common of which were lenticular opacities, dysphonia, and oral candidiasis. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, MF/F treatments improved lung function and respiratory health status, reduced exacerbations, and were well tolerated in subjects with moderate-to-very severe COPD

Efficacy and safety characteristics of mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combination in subjects with moderate to very severe COPD: findings from pooled analysis of two randomized, 52-week placebo-controlled trials

Background: The clinical efficacy and safety of a mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate (MF/F) fixed-dose combination formulation administered via a metered-dose inhaler was investigated in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: Two 52-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with identical study designs were conducted in current or ex-smokers (aged =40 years), and pooled study results are presented herein. Subjects (n = 2251) were randomized to 26 weeks of twice-daily treatment with MF/F 400/10 µg, MF/F 200/10 µg, MF 400 µg, F 10 µg, or placebo. After the 26-week treatment period, placebo subjects completed the trial and 75% of subjects on active treatment entered a 26-week safety extension. Coprimary efficacy variables were mean changes in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours postdose (AUC0–12 h), and morning predose/trough FEV1 from baseline to the week 13 endpoint. Key secondary efficacy variables were St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores, symptom-free nights, time-to-first exacerbation, and partly stable COPD at the week 26 endpoint. Results: In the 26-week treatment period, significantly greater increases in FEV1 AUC0–12 h occurred with MF/F 400/10 versus MF 400 and placebo at the week 13 and week 26 endpoints (P = 0.032). These increases were over three-fold greater with MF/F 400/10 than with MF 400. Also, significantly greater increases in morning predose/trough FEV1 occurred with MF/F 400/10 versus F 10 and placebo at the week 13 endpoint (P \u3c 0.05). The increase was four-fold greater with MF/F 400/10 than with F 10. All active treatment groups achieved minimum clinically important differences from baseline (\u3e4 units) in St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores at week 26. Symptom-free nights increased by =14% in the MF/F 400/10, MF 400, and F 10 groups (P= 0.033 versus placebo). The incidence of exacerbations was lower in the MF/F groups (=33.3%) than it was in the MF, formoterol, and placebo groups (=33.8%) over the 26-week treatment period. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the active-treated and placebo-treated subjects across 26 weeks of treatment. Over the 1-year study period, there were no notable differences in the incidence or types of adverse events between the MF/F 400/10 and MF/F 200/10 groups compared with the MF or formoterol groups. Differences in rates of individual treatment-emergent adverse events were Conclusion: Patients treated with MF/F demonstrated significant improvements in lung function, health status, and exacerbation rates. Although significant improvements were seen with both doses, a trend showing a dose-response effect was observed in the lung function measurements

The cost-effectiveness of treatment with desloratadine in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis

Objectives: A new classification of persistent allergic rhinitis (PER) has been developed by the ARIA working group. Although the burden of AR is significant, treatment itself is also costly. It is unclear if treatment based on the new definition of PER is cost-effective. Methods: The current study simulated the cost-effectiveness of desloratadine compared to placebo in the treatment of PER from the French societal perspective. Decision analysis was used to model the costs, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness over 12 months. Costs included medical expenditures (physician visits and prescription drugs) attributable to PER and related comorbidities and lost productivity due to absenteeism and presenteeism. Prices, tariffs and national wages were estimated from French national sources. Measures of effectiveness included: symptom-based visual analogue scale (VAS), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), Total 5 Symptoms Score (T5SS), categorical improvement in therapeutic response, interference with activities of daily living (ADL) and sleep outcomes. Mild or symptom-free days and responders were also captured as outcomes. Univariate and second-order multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: Treatment with desloratadine dominated placebo (cost less and resulted in greater effectiveness) for all measures of effectiveness. Of the individuals taking desloratadine 46.8 were classified as responders vs. 34.8 for placebo (p0.0012). Individuals taking desloratadine experienced mild/no symptoms for 57.6 of study days vs. 36.5 for placebo (p0.002). The expected annual cost of treatment with desloratadine (€1819) was less than placebo (€2618). Lost productivity was the most significant contributor to total cost. Results of the 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations showed that treatment was cost-saving in 99.6 of simulations. Conclusions: Treatment of PER with desloratadine resulted in improved effectiveness and significant savings. While the cost of drug treatment is greater than that of no treatment, the downstream costs associated with not treating PER significantly outweigh the cost of treatment. Key limitations include the comparison of desloratadine to placebo and the sources of cost and effectiveness measures. Future studies should examine the cost-effectiveness of all available treatments for PER. In addition, many utilization, productivity and effectiveness measures were taken from clinical trials and may not accurately reflect real world treatment patterns and outcomes. © 2010 Informa UK Ltd All rights reserved

Efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of mometasone furoate and formoterol fumarate in subjects with moderate to very severe COPD: results from a 52-week Phase III trial.

BackgroundA clinical trial of mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate (MF/F) administered via a metered-dose inhaler in subjects with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) investigated the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of MF/F.MethodsThis multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial had a 26-week treatment period and a 26-week safety extension. Subjects (n = 1055; ≥40 years) were current or ex- smokers randomized to twice-daily treatment with inhaled MF/F 400/10 μg, MF/F 200/10 μg, MF 400 μg, F 10 μg, or placebo. The coprimary endpoints of the trial were mean changes from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) over 0-12 hours (AUC(0-12) FEV(1)) with MF/F versus MF, and in morning predose FEV(1) with MF/F versus F. Key secondary endpoints were quality of life (Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]), symptom-free nights, and partly stable COPD at 26 weeks, as well as time to first COPD exacerbation.ResultsSignificant improvements in FEV(1) AUC(0-12) occurred at endpoint with MF/F 400/10 and MF/F 200/10 versus MF 400 (P ≤ 0.007). Significant bronchodilation occurred in 5 minutes with MF/F, and serial spirometry demonstrated sustained FEV(1) improvements with MF/F over the treatment period. Significant improvements in morning predose FEV(1) occurred with both MF/F doses, and these effects were further investigated by excluding results for subjects whose morning FEV(1) data were collected >2 days after the last dose of study treatment. Improvements in SGRQ total scores surpassed the minimum clinically important difference of at least 4 units with MF/F 400/10. MF/F 400/10 significantly reduced the time-to-first COPD exacerbation. Similar proportions of subjects in all five treatment groups reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Rates of pneumonia were low (≤1.0%) across treatment groups.ConclusionMF/F 400/10 μg twice daily was shown to be an effective therapy for patients with moderate to very severe COPD, and both MF/F 400/10 μg twice daily and MF/F 200/10 μg twice daily were well tolerated

The 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine V114 induces cross-reactive antibodies against pneumococcal serotype 6C

Pneumococcal serogroups consist of structurally related serotypes, and serotype-specific antibodies can cross-react against other serotypes within the same serogroup. Cross-reactivity of vaccine-induced serotype 6A antibodies, and, to a lesser extent, serotype 6B antibodies, to serotype 6C has been demonstrated following receipt of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13), which contains serotypes 6A and 6B. V114 is a 15-valent PCV containing the 13 PCV13 serotypes plus two additional serotypes, 22F and 33F. This study assessed cross-reactivity to serotype 6C in recipients of V114 and PCV13 as well as specificity of opsonophagocytic activity (OPA) responses in serogroup 6. Following receipt of V114 or PCV13, the observed OPA geometric mean titers to serotypes 6A, 6B, and 6C were comparable across both vaccination groups (post-single dose in adults ≥50 years of age [n = 250] and from pre- to post-dose 4 in pediatric participants 12–15 months of age [n = 150]). Based on OPA inhibition studies, V114 induced cross-reactive antibodies to serotype 6C in adult and pediatric populations that were specific and comparable to those induced by PCV13. Based on experience with PCV13, V114 may also provide comparable protection against pneumococcal disease caused by serotype 6C; however, this will have to be evaluated in real-world studies

Phase 3 trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of V114, a 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, followed by 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine 6 months later, in at-risk adults 18–49 years of age (PNEU-DAY): A subgroup analysis by baseline risk factors

Immunocompetent adults with certain medical and behavioral factors are at increased risk of pneumococcal disease. In some countries, sequential vaccination with 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) followed by 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) is recommended for at-risk adults. This subgroup analysis from a phase 3 study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of sequential administration of either V114 (a 15-valent PCV containing serotypes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19A, 19F, 22F, 23F, and 33F) or PCV13, followed 6 months later by PPSV23, in immunocompetent adults 18–49 years of age with pre-defined risk factors for pneumococcal disease. Safety and immunogenicity post-vaccination were analyzed by type and baseline number of risk factors for pneumococcal disease (1 and ≥2 risk factors). This analysis included 1,131 participants randomized 3:1 to receive either V114 or PCV13, followed by PPSV23. The majority (73.1%) of participants had at least one risk factor. Safety and tolerability profiles of V114 and PCV13 were similar across risk factor groups. V114 administered either alone or sequentially with PPSV23 6 months later was immunogenic for all 15 serotypes, including those not contained in PCV13, regardless of the number of baseline risk factors. V114 has the potential to broaden serotype coverage for at-risk adults