OBJECTIVE: This study examined the clinical relevance of fine-particle mass (FPM) delivered from metered dose inhalers (MDIs) to bronchodilatation and bronchoprotection against methacholine challenge by comparing a marketed chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) formulation of salmeterol with an investigational hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)formulation. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-way crossover study in patients with mild to moderate asthma who had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV (1)) of > or =60% predicted and a base-line provocation dose of inhaled methacholine required to produce a 20% decrease in FEV(1) (PD (20) [methacholine]) of < or =3.2 mg. On separate occasions, patients received 2 inhalations of salmeterol 25 microg from either the CFC MDI (FPM 14 microg), the investigational HFA MDI (FPM 7 microg), or placebo via CFC MDI. Serial measurements of FEV(1) were made over 90 minutes after dosing, followed by methacholine challenge. Efficacy end points were PD(20) (methacholine) and FEV(1) AUC (inc) (incremental area under the FEV(1) curve) over 15 to 90 minutes. The study was designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the investigational HFA formulation to the CFC formulation in terms of protection against methacholine-induced bronchial hyperresponsiveness; for PD(20) (methacholine), noninferiority was predefined as 1.0 doubling dose of methacholine. RESULTS: The study enrolled 40 patients (65% men; mean age, 36.9 years). Both active treatments were significantly better than placebo in terms of PD(20) (methacholine) (P < 0.001). In the per-protocol population, the mean (SE) difference in bronchoprotection between the CFC MDI and placebo was 2.7888 (0.3432) doubling doses of methacholine (n = 32), and the difference between the investigational HFA MDI and placebo was 1.8268 (0.3418) doubling doses(n = 33). The adjusted mean (SE) treatment difference between the CFC MDI and HFA MDI was 0.9621 (0.3454) doubling doses. The upperlimit of the 95% CI (0.2714-1.6527) was greater than the predefined limit for noninferiority. There was no significant difference in FEV(1) AUC(inc) between formulations (mean treatment difference, 1.895 L . min; 95% CI, -4.893 to 8.684); however, both active treatments were significantly different from placebo (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: FPM from different MDI formulations may affect the bronchoprotective properties of salmeterol. In this study, the formulation with the smaller FPM was associated with less-effective bronchoprotection, although there was no difference in bronchodilatation. This study did not demonstrate noninferiority of the investigational HFA formulation to the CFC formulation in terms of protection against methacholine-induced bronchial hyperresponsiveness.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the clinical relevance of fine-particle mass (FPM) delivered from metered dose inhalers (MDIs) to bronchodilatation and bronchoprotection against methacholine challenge by comparing a marketed chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) formulation of salmeterol with an investigational hydrofluoroalkane (HFA)formulation. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-way crossover study in patients with mild to moderate asthma who had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV (1)) of > or =60% predicted and a base-line provocation dose of inhaled methacholine required to produce a 20% decrease in FEV(1) (PD (20) [methacholine]) of < or =3.2 mg. On separate occasions, patients received 2 inhalations of salmeterol 25 microg from either the CFC MDI (FPM 14 microg), the investigational HFA MDI (FPM 7 microg), or placebo via CFC MDI. Serial measurements of FEV(1) were made over 90 minutes after dosing, followed by methacholine challenge. Efficacy end points were PD(20) (methacholine) and FEV(1) AUC (inc) (incremental area under the FEV(1) curve) over 15 to 90 minutes. The study was designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of the investigational HFA formulation to the CFC formulation in terms of protection against methacholine-induced bronchial hyperresponsiveness; for PD(20) (methacholine), noninferiority was predefined as 1.0 doubling dose of methacholine. RESULTS: The study enrolled 40 patients (65% men; mean age, 36.9 years). Both active treatments were significantly better than placebo in terms of PD(20) (methacholine) (P < 0.001). In the per-protocol population, the mean (SE) difference in bronchoprotection between the CFC MDI and placebo was 2.7888 (0.3432) doubling doses of methacholine (n = 32), and the difference between the investigational HFA MDI and placebo was 1.8268 (0.3418) doubling doses(n = 33). The adjusted mean (SE) treatment difference between the CFC MDI and HFA MDI was 0.9621 (0.3454) doubling doses. The upperlimit of the 95% CI (0.2714-1.6527) was greater than the predefined limit for noninferiority. There was no significant difference in FEV(1) AUC(inc) between formulations (mean treatment difference, 1.895 L . min; 95% CI, -4.893 to 8.684); however, both active treatments were significantly different from placebo (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: FPM from different MDI formulations may affect the bronchoprotective properties of salmeterol. In this study, the formulation with the smaller FPM was associated with less-effective bronchoprotection, although there was no difference in bronchodilatation. This study did not demonstrate noninferiority of the investigational HFA formulation to the CFC formulation in terms of protection against methacholine-induced bronchial hyperresponsiveness.