Edward M Kerwin1, Herminia Taveras2, Harald Iverson2, Denise Wayne2, Tushar Shah2, Mark S Lepore3, David S Miller4. 1. Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, PC, 3860 Crater Lake Avenue, Suite B, Medford, OR, 97507, USA. ekerwin@allergyasthmaso.com. 2. Teva Branded Pharmaceuticals R&D Inc., Frazer, PA, USA. 3. , Maple Glen, PA, USA. 4. Northeast Medical Research Associates, North Dartmouth, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Metered-dose inhalers require patients to coordinate inhalation with actuation. The present albuterol multi-dose dry-powder inhaler (mDPI) does not require patients to coordinate inspiration with actuation, thereby simplifying delivery of albuterol to the lungs. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, extrapulmonary pharmacodynamics, and safety of albuterol (salbuterol) delivered via a ProAir® hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) metered-dose inhaler and an mDPI. METHODS: Two double-blind, randomized, double-dummy, crossover, multicenter, placebo-controlled studies in persistent asthma patients were conducted. Study 1: 47 adult patients were treated with cumulative doses of albuterol mDPI or ProAir HFA (90 µg/inhalation; 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 inhalations) or placebo. Study 2: 71 patients aged ≥12 years were randomly assigned to receive 90 or 180 μg of albuterol mDPI or ProAir HFA, or placebo. Primary efficacy endpoints were baseline-adjusted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at 30 min (30-min FEV1) after each cumulative dose (Study 1) and FEV1 area under the effect curve over 6 h (FEV1 AUEC0-6) after dosing (Study 2). RESULTS: Study 1: differences, with corresponding 90% confidence intervals, between albuterol mDPI and ProAir HFA in FEV1 after each cumulative dose and in FEV1 AUEC0-6 after the final dose were within pre-established equivalence limits. The difference in FEV1 at high vs. low doses was significant for both active treatments (p < 0.0001). Active treatments were similar in systemic exposure, extrapulmonary pharmacodynamics, and safety. Study 2: mean FEV1 AUEC0-6 was significantly greater than for placebo for both doses of albuterol mDPI and ProAir HFA (p < 0.0001). Albuterol mDPI was comparable to ProAir HFA at 90 and 180 µg. Both study treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The bronchodilatory efficacy and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles of albuterol mDPI and ProAir HFA are comparable, with a safety profile consistent with that of inhaled albuterol.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Metered-dose inhalers require patients to coordinate inhalation with actuation. The present albuterol multi-dose dry-powder inhaler (mDPI) does not require patients to coordinate inspiration with actuation, thereby simplifying delivery of albuterol to the lungs. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, extrapulmonary pharmacodynamics, and safety of albuterol (salbuterol) delivered via a ProAir® hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) metered-dose inhaler and an mDPI. METHODS: Two double-blind, randomized, double-dummy, crossover, multicenter, placebo-controlled studies in persistent asthmapatients were conducted. Study 1: 47 adult patients were treated with cumulative doses of albuterol mDPI or ProAir HFA (90 µg/inhalation; 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 inhalations) or placebo. Study 2: 71 patients aged ≥12 years were randomly assigned to receive 90 or 180 μg of albuterol mDPI or ProAir HFA, or placebo. Primary efficacy endpoints were baseline-adjusted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at 30 min (30-min FEV1) after each cumulative dose (Study 1) and FEV1 area under the effect curve over 6 h (FEV1 AUEC0-6) after dosing (Study 2). RESULTS: Study 1: differences, with corresponding 90% confidence intervals, between albuterol mDPI and ProAir HFA in FEV1 after each cumulative dose and in FEV1 AUEC0-6 after the final dose were within pre-established equivalence limits. The difference in FEV1 at high vs. low doses was significant for both active treatments (p < 0.0001). Active treatments were similar in systemic exposure, extrapulmonary pharmacodynamics, and safety. Study 2: mean FEV1 AUEC0-6 was significantly greater than for placebo for both doses of albuterol mDPI and ProAir HFA (p < 0.0001). Albuterol mDPI was comparable to ProAir HFA at 90 and 180 µg. Both study treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The bronchodilatory efficacy and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles of albuterol mDPI and ProAir HFA are comparable, with a safety profile consistent with that of inhaled albuterol.
Authors: E Bronsky; G A Bucholtz; W W Busse; P Chervinsky; J Condemi; M A Ghafouri; L Hudson; S Lakshminarayan; R Lockey; M E Reese Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 1987-05 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Anne L Fuhlbrigge; Robert J Adams; Theresa W Guilbert; Evie Grant; Paula Lozano; Susan L Janson; Fernando Martinez; Kevin B Weiss; Scott T Weiss Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2002-10-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: G K Crompton; P J Barnes; M Broeders; C Corrigan; L Corbetta; R Dekhuijzen; J C Dubus; A Magnan; F Massone; J Sanchis; J L Viejo; T Voshaar Journal: Respir Med Date: 2006-02-21 Impact factor: 3.415