Effect of verapamil on systemic exposure and safety of umeclidinium and vilanterol: a randomized and open-label study

Pharmacokinetic considerations to optimize clinical outcomes for COVID-19 drugs

The development of clinically effective drugs that could complement existing vaccines is urgently needed to reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19. Drug-metabolizing enzymes, membrane-associated drug transporters, and inflammatory responses can partly determine the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 drugs by controlling their concentrations in both the systemic circulation and in peripheral tissues. It is still unknown how these factors affect how well COVID-19 drugs work in the clinic. We explore how drug metabolism and transport, as well as SARS-CoV-2-associated inflammatory response at disease target sites, may affect the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 drugs. In addition, we provide expert opinion on potential strategies for overcoming the clinical pharmacology and pathophysiological obstacles to improve COVID-19 drug effectiveness.

Current pharmacogenomic recommendations in chronic respiratory diseases: Is there a biomarker ready for clinical implementation?

INTRODUCTION

The study of genetic variants in response to different drugs has predominated in fields of medicine such as oncology and infectious diseases. In chronic respiratory diseases, the available pharmacogenomic information is scarce but not less relevant.

AREAS COVERED

We searched the pharmacogenomic recommendations for respiratory diseases in the Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling (U.S. Food and Drug Administration), the Clinical Pharmacogenomics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), and PharmGKB. The main pharmacogenomics recommendation in this field is to assess CFTR variants for using ivacaftor and its combination. The drugs' labels for arformoterol, indacaterol, and umeclidinium indicate a lack of influence of genetic variants in the pharmacokinetics of these drugs. Further studies should evaluate the contribution of CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 variants for formoterol. In addition, there are reports of potential pharmacogenetic variants in the treatment with acetylcysteine (TOLLIP rs3750920) and captopril (ACE rs1799752). The genetic variations for warfarin also are presented in PharmGKB and CPIC for patients with pulmonary hypertension.

EXPERT OPINION

The pharmacogenomics recommendations for lung diseases are limited. The clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics in treating respiratory diseases will contribute to the quality of life of patients with chronic respiratory diseases.

Evidence-based review of data on the combination inhaler umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD

The use of inhaled, fixed-dose, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) combined with long-acting, beta2-adrenergic receptor agonists (LABA) has become a mainstay in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One of the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations is the dry powder inhaler (DPI) of umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) (62.5 µg/25 µg) approved for once-a-day maintenance treatment of COPD. This paper reviews the use of fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA agents focusing on the UMEC/VI DPI inhaler in the maintenance treatment of COPD. The fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA inhaler offers a step beyond a single inhaled maintenance agent but is still a single device for the COPD patient having frequent COPD exacerbations and persistent symptoms not well controlled on one agent. Currently available clinical trials suggest that the once-a-day DPI of UMEC/VI is well-tolerated, safe and non-inferior or better than other currently available inhaled fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations for COPD.

Effect of Nebulized Verapamil on Oxygenation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Many pharmacological and behavioral therapies have been investigated to improve oxygenation in the intensive care unit (ICU). In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the purpose of therapy is to correct the ventilation perfusion (V/Q) mismatch. Agents, such as calcium blockers, can affect both ventilation and vasculature. The inhalation route allows a more rapid achievement of therapeutic effects with few systemic side effects. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the effect of nebulized verapamil on oxygenation in COPD patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized clinical trial, twenty hypoxic COPD patients, admitted to ICU, were treated with 10 mg of verapamil twice daily for three days. Also, twenty patients with COPD, who were matched in terms of age, sex, and severity of the disease, were enrolled in the control group and received nebulized normal saline. The oxygenation parameters were compared using an arterial blood gas (ABG) test before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

The mean oxygen saturation was 91.2%±12.15 before verapamil inhalation, which increased to 95.75%±14.57 after receiving nebulized verapamil (P<0.05). Also, correction of blood pH, blood oxygen pressure, and oxygen ratio (PaO₂/FIO₂) were higher in patients receiving verapamil, compared to the control group. The length of hospital stay was similar in the two groups. During the first three days, 30% of patients in the verapamil group and 20% of patients in the control group were intubated.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicated that verapamil inhalation increased oxygen saturation and accelerated extubation in patients with COPD.

Pharmacokinetics of Single and Repeat Doses of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Healthy Chinese Adults

The pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) after single and repeat dosing in healthy Chinese adults were assessed. In this open-label study (NCT02837380), subjects received once-daily FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg on day 1 and repeat doses on days 2-7. PK parameters (days 1 and 7) included maximum observed concentration (C_max ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero (predose) to last time of quantifiable concentration (AUC_0-t ). Terminal phase half-life (t_½ ) on day 1 was estimated. The primary objective was to assess systemic exposure of FF 100 µg, UMEC 62.5 µg, and VI 25 µg following single-inhaler triple therapy on days 1 and 7. On day 1, geometric mean t_½ of UMEC and VI was 0.36 and 0.52 hours, respectively; t_½ of FF was not representative because of nonquantifiable concentration data. On days 1 and 7, geometric mean C_max of FF was 10.46 and 27.32 pg/mL, respectively; C_max of UMEC was 144.14 and 241.35 pg/mL, respectively; and C_max of VI was 120.42 and 196.78 pg/mL, respectively. AUC_0-t of FF was 1.77 and 276.96 pg·h/mL, respectively; AUC_0-t of UMEC was 28.44 and 117.19 pg·h/mL, respectively; and AUC_0-t of VI, 42.46 and 101.12 pg·h/mL, respectively. The PK of FF/UMEC/VI was as expected for the individual-component PK previously reported in healthy Chinese adults. No new safety signals were observed.

Umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have poor quality of life, reduced survival, and accelerated decline in lung function, especially associated with acute exacerbations, leading to high healthcare costs. Long-acting bronchodilators are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic improvement, and umeclidinium is one of the new long-acting muscarinic antagonists approved for treatment of patients with stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, and the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Clinical Study Register, using prespecified terms, as well as the reference lists of all identified studies. Searches are current to April 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing umeclidinium bromide versus placebo in people with COPD, for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. If we noted significant heterogeneity in the meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies by umeclidinium dose.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies of 12 to 52 weeks' duration, involving 3798 participants with COPD. Mean age of participants ranged from 60.1 to 64.6 years; most were males with baseline mean smoking pack-years of 39.2 to 52.3. They had moderate to severe COPD and baseline mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) ranging from 44.5% to 55.1% of predicted normal. As all studies were systematically conducted according to prespecified protocols, we assessed risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases as low.Compared with those given placebo, participants in the umeclidinium group had a lesser likelihood of developing moderate exacerbations requiring a short course of steroids, antibiotics, or both (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.80; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: high), but not specifically requiring hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.92; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: low). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent an acute exacerbation requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both was 18 (95% CI 13 to 37). Quality of life was better in the umeclidinium group (mean difference (MD) -4.79, 95% CI -8.84 to -0.75; three studies, N = 1119), and these participants had a significantly higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least four units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score compared with those in the placebo group (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.82; three studies, N = 1397; GRADE: moderate). The NNTB to achieve one person with a clinically meaningful improvement was 11 (95% CI 7 to 29). The likelihood of all-cause mortality, non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: moderate), and adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: moderate) did not differ between umeclidinium and placebo groups. The umeclidinium group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in change from baseline in trough FEV₁ compared with the placebo group (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.17; four studies, N = 1381; GRADE: high). Symptomatic improvement was more likely in the umeclidinium group than in the placebo group, as determined by Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.09; three studies, N = 1193), and the chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least one unit improvement was significantly higher with umeclidinium than with placebo (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; three studies, N = 1141; GRADE: high). The NNTB to attain one person with clinically important symptomatic improvement was 8 (95% CI 5 to 14). The likelihood of rescue medication usage (change from baseline in the number of puffs per day) was significantly less for the umeclidinium group than for the placebo group (MD -0.45, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14; four studies, N = 1531).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Umeclidinium reduced acute exacerbations requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both, although no evidence suggests that it decreased the risk of hospital admission due to exacerbations. Moreover, umeclidinium demonstrated significant improvement in quality of life, lung function, and symptoms, along with lesser use of rescue medications. Studies reported no differences in adverse events, non-fatal serious adverse events, or mortality between umeclidinium and placebo groups; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

Umeclidinium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: latest evidence and place in therapy

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity, mortality and health care expenditure throughout the world. COPD guidelines recommend the use of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) either alone or in combination with a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA). For over 10 years, tiotropium was the only LAMA that was used in the management of COPD. Over the past few years, various new drugs have been identified that act on the muscarinic receptors and β2 receptors. Umeclidinium (Umec) is a new LAMA currently approved for use in patients with COPD either as monotherapy or in combination with vilanterol (Vil). Both Umec alone and in combination with Vil delivered through a multi-dose dry powder Ellipta™ device have shown improvement in lung function, health-related quality of life and exacerbation frequency in patients with COPD. This review provides an overview of the pharmacology, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of Umec, and evaluates the clinical efficacy and safety studies in patients with COPD.

Inhaled Umeclidinium in COPD Patients: A Review and Meta-Analysis

A number of new agents for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at different stages of development, including several inhaled long-acting antimuscarinics (LAMA). Long-acting bronchodilators are considered to be central to the management of COPD due to the evidence supporting their efficacy and safety. Umeclidinium, a LAMA, has recently been approved for the maintenance treatment of moderate to very severe COPD in a number of countries. This comprehensive review and pooled meta-analysis provides detailed information about the efficacy and safety of this agent. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of umeclidinium observed in phase I and II studies support its once-daily administration. Umeclidinium is rapidly cleared from blood, and renal or hepatic impairment do not lead to significant changes in drug disposition. A pooled analysis of phase III and comparative studies of umeclidinium in patients with moderate to very severe COPD showed significant improvement in lung function measures, including trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), as well as in acute exacerbations of COPD, dyspnea, and quality of life. Adverse effects, including known anticholinergic effects, were uncommon with umeclidinium. Limited data suggest the efficacy of umeclidinium is similar to that of tiotropium. Umeclidinium is administered as a dry powder inhaler, provides adequate lung delivery in patients with moderate to very severe airflow obstruction, and appears to be easily used by patients. Umeclidinium provides a safe and effective option as an inhaled LAMA for the management of COPD.

Vilanterol trifenatate for the treatment of COPD

INTRODUCTION

Currently the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has limited effectiveness and there is a need to develop new drugs. International guidelines recommend the use of long-acting bronchodilators (β2 agonists and anti-cholinergics/muscarinics), inhaled steroids and associations between these drugs in the maintenance treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD.

AREA COVERED

Vilanterol trifenate is a new once-daily highly selective β2-agonist available in USA and Europe in association with umeclidinium bromide (a long-acting anti-muscarnic agent) and fluticasone furoate (an inhaled corticosteroid) for the once-daily maintenance treatment of COPD. Vilanterol combined in fixed-dose treatments has been tested in numerous clinical trials involving thousands of patients. Expert commentary: These new once-daily formulations have the potential to improve compliance to long-term inhaled therapy. This paper will review the clinical and experimental data regarding vilanterol use in the regular treatment of COPD as well as provide a critical discussion of possible future treatment settings.

Umeclidinium/vilanterol: a review of its use as maintenance therapy in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Umeclidinium/vilanterol (Anoro(®) Ellipta™; Laventair™) is an inhaled fixed-dose combination of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist and a long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonist. It is available in several countries, including Japan, the USA, Canada and those of the EU, where it is indicated for oral inhalation in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Umeclidinium/vilanterol is administered once daily using the Ellipta™ multi-dose dry powder inhaler, which is regarded as easy to use. Umeclidinium/vilanterol (62.5/25 µg once daily, equivalent to a delivered dose of 55/22 µg once daily) was effective and well tolerated in adult patients with COPD participating in large, multicentre trials of up to 24 weeks' duration. Umeclidinium/vilanterol improved pulmonary function to a significantly greater extent than placebo and each of the individual components. Moreover, umeclidinium/vilanterol was significantly more effective than once-daily tiotropium bromide monotherapy and a twice-daily fixed combination of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate at improving pulmonary function. Umeclidinium/vilanterol also had beneficial effects on dyspnoea, use of rescue medication, exacerbations, health-related quality of life and, in one study, exercise endurance. Umeclidinium/vilanterol is generally well tolerated in patients with COPD, with the most common adverse events in clinical trials being headache and nasopharyngitis. Umeclidinium/vilanterol was not associated with a clinically relevant increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events in patients with COPD, when data from several clinical trials were pooled. Thus, inhaled umeclidinium/vilanterol extends the treatment options currently available for the maintenance treatment of adults with COPD and has the convenience of once-daily administration.

Prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society Guideline

BACKGROUND

COPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States as well as throughout the rest of the world. An exacerbation of COPD (periodic escalations of symptoms of cough, dyspnea, and sputum production) is a major contributor to worsening lung function, impairment in quality of life, need for urgent care or hospitalization, and cost of care in COPD. Research conducted over the past decade has contributed much to our current understanding of the pathogenesis and treatment of COPD. Additionally, an evolving literature has accumulated about the prevention of acute exacerbations.

METHODS

In recognition of the importance of preventing exacerbations in patients with COPD, the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) joint evidence-based guideline (AECOPD Guideline) was developed to provide a practical, clinically useful document to describe the current state of knowledge regarding the prevention of acute exacerbations according to major categories of prevention therapies. Three key clinical questions developed using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format addressed the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: nonpharmacologic therapies, inhaled therapies, and oral therapies. We used recognized document evaluation tools to assess and choose the most appropriate studies and to extract meaningful data and grade the level of evidence to support the recommendations in each PICO question in a balanced and unbiased fashion.

RESULTS

The AECOPD Guideline is unique not only for its topic, the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD, but also for the first-in-kind partnership between two of the largest thoracic societies in North America. The CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee in partnership with the CTS COPD Clinical Assembly launched this project with the objective that a systematic review and critical evaluation of the published literature by clinical experts and researchers in the field of COPD would lead to a series of recommendations to assist clinicians in their management of the patient with COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline is unique because it provides an up-to-date, rigorous, evidence-based analysis of current randomized controlled trial data regarding the prevention of COPD exacerbations.

Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of inhaled umeclidinium and vilanterol alone and in combination in healthy Chinese subjects: a randomized, open-label, crossover trial

Inhaled umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of inhaled UMEC with vilanterol (UMEC/VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the US and EU. This was a randomized, open-label, three-period crossover, single- and repeat-dose study to assess the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and tolerability of inhaled UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg (delivering 55/22 μg) and UMEC/VI 125/25 μg (delivering 113/22 μg) compared with their monotherapy components (UMEC 62.5 μg, UMEC 125 μg and, VI 25 μg [delivering 55, 113, and 22 μg, respectively]) in healthy Chinese subjects (n=20). UMEC and VI were rapidly absorbed following single and repeat dosing (time to maximum plasma concentration [t_max]: UMEC = 5 min; VI = 5 min). The median t_last was 2–4 h for UMEC and 1–2 h for VI following single doses of UMEC/VI and UMEC monotherapy (both doses). UMEC reached steady-state prior to Day 10; steady-state for VI could not be assessed. UMEC accumulation following repeat dosing was 11–34% based on C_max and 19–59% based on area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 2 h (AUC_(0-2)). VI accumulation following repeat dosing was 25–66% based on C_max and 17–43% based on AUC_(0-2). The evidence was not sufficient to suggest that systemic exposure was substantially different between UMEC/VI combination therapy and the constituent monotherapies following single or repeat dosing. Following both single- and repeat-dose administration, the inter-subject coefficient of variation for all UMEC PK parameter estimates ranged from 12% to 165% for all treatments, indicating a wide range of variability in inhaled PK parameters. Twelve subjects experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE). Six subjects experienced ≥1 treatment-related AE; the most commonly reported treatment-related AE was chest discomfort (n=3 [15%]). No clinically important changes in vital signs or electrocardiogram parameters were reported. These data suggest that single- and repeat-dose administration of UMEC/VI combination therapy in healthy Chinese subjects did not result in substantial differences in systemic exposure compared with UMEC and VI as monotherapies.

Beta-2 Adrenergic Agonists Are Substrates and Inhibitors of Human Organic Cation Transporter 1

Beta-2-adrenergic agonists are first line therapeutics in the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Upon inhalation, bronchodilation is achieved after binding to β2-receptors, which are primarily localized on airway smooth muscle cells. Given that β2-adrenergic agonists chemically are bases, they carry net positive charge at physiologic pH value in the lungs (i.e., pH 7.4). Here, we studied whether β2-agonists interact with organic cation transporters (OCT) and whether this interaction exerted an influence on their passage across the respiratory epithelium to their target receptors. [14C]-TEA uptake into proximal (i.e., Calu-3) and distal (i.e., A549 and NCI-H441) lung epithelial cells was significantly reduced in the presence of salbutamol sulfate, formoterol fumarate, and salmeterol xinafoate in vitro. Expression of all five members of the OCT/N family has been confirmed in human pulmonary epithelial cells in situ and in vitro, which makes the identification of the transporter(s) responsible for the β2-agonist interaction challenging. Thus, additional experiments were carried out in HEK-293 cells transfected with hOCT1-3. The most pronounced inhibition of organic cation uptake by β2-agonists was observed in hOCT1 overexpressing HEK-293 cells. hOCT3 transfected HEK-293 cells were affected to a lesser extent, and in hOCT2 transfectants only marginal inhibition of organic cation uptake by β2-agonists was observed. Bidirectional transport studies across confluent NCI-H441 cell monolayers revealed a net absorptive transport of [3H]-salbutamol, which was sensitive to inhibition by the OCT1 modulator, verapamil. Accordingly, salbutamol uptake into hOCT1 overexpressing HEK-293 cells was time- and concentration-dependent and could be completely blocked by decynium-22. Taken together, our data suggest that β2-agonists are specific substrates and inhibitors of OCT1 in human respiratory epithelial cells and that this transporter might play a role in the pulmonary disposition of drugs of this class.

Effect of severe renal impairment on umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol pharmacokinetics and safety: a single-blind, nonrandomized study

Background

Umeclidinium and vilanterol, long-acting bronchodilators for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, are primarily eliminated via the hepatic route; however, severe renal impairment may adversely affect some elimination pathways other than the kidney.

Objectives

To evaluate the effect of severe renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol.

Methods

Nine patients with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance <30 mL/min) and nine matched healthy volunteers received a single dose of umeclidinium 125 μg; and after a 7- to 14-day washout, a single dose of umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 μg.

Results

No clinically relevant increases in plasma umeclidinium or vilanterol systemic exposure (area under the curve or maximum observed plasma concentration) were observed following umeclidinium 125 μg or umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 μg administration. On average, the amount of umeclidinium excreted in 24 hours in urine (90% confidence interval) was 88% (81%–93%) and 89% (81%–93%) lower in patients with severe renal impairment compared with healthy volunteers following umeclidinium 125 μg and umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 μg administration, respectively. Treatments were well tolerated in both populations.

Conclusion

Umeclidinium 125 μg or umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 μg administration to patients with severe renal impairment did not demonstrate clinically relevant increases in systemic exposure compared with healthy volunteers. No dose adjustment for umeclidinium and umeclidinium/vilanterol is warranted in patients with severe renal impairment.

Differential pharmacology and clinical utility of emerging combination treatments in the management of COPD--role of umeclidinium/vilanterol

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a preventable and treatable disease characterized by airflow limitation that is not fully reversible. Bronchodilator therapy is the cornerstone in COPD treatment. Bronchodilation in COPD is mainly achieved via administration of long- and ultralong-acting β₂-agonists and with long-acting muscarinic antagonists. New combinations of bronchodilators with dual-acting muscarinic antagonist and β₂-agonist properties have been licensed, and others are currently being developed with the aim of achieving once-daily dosing, and therefore may improve the likelihood of treatment compliance. These combination bronchodilators include glycopyrronium bromide/indacaterol maleate, umeclidinium (UMEC) bromide/vilanterol trifenatate (VI), aclidinium bromide/formoterol and tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (Boehringer Ingelheim, Germany). This review will focus mainly on studies and clinical trials involving the novel fixed-dose combination of UMEC/VI at doses of 125/25 μg and 62.5/25 μg in patients with COPD. Data from large clinical trials involving more than 4,500 COPD patients indicate that UMEC/VI is an effective once-daily treatment in COPD with improved pulmonary function. Future studies assessing the impact of this combination on exacerbations, delay in disease progression, and health status in patients with COPD are warranted.

Effects of moderate hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetic properties and tolerability of umeclidinium and vilanterol in inhalational umeclidinium monotherapy and umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy: an open-label, nonrandomized study

BACKGROUND

The long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) is approved as a monotherapy, and in combination with the long-acting β2-agonist vilanterol (VI), as a once-daily inhaled maintenance bronchodilator therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the US and EU; they are not indicated for the treatment of asthma. Preclinical and clinical data suggest that UMEC and VI are predominantly eliminated by the liver.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study were to evaluate the effects of moderate hepatic impairment on the plasma and urinary pharmacokinetic properties of each drug, and on the tolerability of inhalational UMEC/VI 125/25 µg and UMEC 125 µg.

METHODS

This open-label, nonrandomized study was conducted in patients with moderate hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh score, 7-9) and in healthy volunteers (control). Patients and volunteers were administered a single dose of UMEC/VI 125/25 µg, and, after a 7- to 14-day washout period, repeat-dose UMEC 125 µg once daily for 7 days. Primary end points were the plasma pharmacokinetic properties of single- and repeat-dose UMEC and VI. Secondary end points were the urinary pharmacokinetic properties of UMEC, and the tolerability of each treatment.

RESULTS

All 18 enrolled patients and volunteers (12 men, 6 women; mean age, 53.6 years) completed the study. Mean systemic exposures of UMEC and VI were similar or numerically lower in patients with moderate hepatic impairment compared with those in healthy volunteers, but the differences were not clinically significant. UMEC accumulations with 7-day dosing of UMEC were similar between patients with moderate hepatic impairment and healthy volunteers. UMEC/VI 125/25 µg and UMEC 125 µg were well-tolerated, with no safety concerns identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of UMEC/VI 125/25 µg or UMEC 125 µg in patients with moderate hepatic impairment did not result in clinically relevant increases in UMEC or VI exposures compared with those in healthy volunteers. Based on these findings, no dose adjustment for UMEC/VI or UMEC is warranted in patients with moderate hepatic impairment.

Umeclidinium bromide and vilanterol in combination for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Drugs from the two major classes of bronchodilator; umeclidinium, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and vilanterol, a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA), have been combined in a single inhaler device for once-daily use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These drugs have been proven safe and well tolerated in patients with COPD and show an enhanced improvement in FEV1 when compared to either drug in isolation and when compared with an established LAMA drug. In this article, we discuss the data supporting this combination inhaler and also review alternative combined LAMA/LABA options. We discuss where these agents are likely to find a place in the current therapy of COPD and where the future is likely to lead with these and other therapies.

Biopharmaceutical in vitro characterization of CPZEN-45, a drug candidate for inhalation therapy of tuberculosis

BACKGROUND

The caprazamycin derivative, CPZEN-45 has previously demonstrated antitubercular activity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv. Here, the authors report a basic biopharmaceutical characterization of the compound focusing on in vitro permeability and cytotoxicity, with respect to the suitability of CPZEN-45 hydrochloride for inhalation treatment of tuberculosis.

RESULTS

MTT assays confirmed that CPZEN-45 HCl had no acute cytotoxic effects up to 3 mg/ml. In transport studies, apparent permeability coefficients of CPZEN-45 HCl across Calu-3 monolayers in absorptive and secretive directions were 0.43 ± 0.20 × 10(-6) cm/s and 0.38 ± 0.12 × 10(-6) cm/s, respectively. Across ATI-like monolayers, apparent permeability values were 12.10 ± 4.31 × 10(-6) cm/s and 8.50 ± 1.83 × 10(-6) cm/s. CPZEN-45 HCl formed colloidal complexes at concentrations above 0.38 mg/ml; however, these complexes were not micelles, as assessed by Orange OT encapsulation assay.

CONCLUSION

CPZEN-45 is an interesting new drug candidate with potential to be used in aerosol therapy of tuberculosis.

Selectivity in the impact of P-glycoprotein upon pulmonary absorption of airway-dosed substrates: a study in ex vivo lung models using chemical inhibition and genetic knockout

P-glycoprotein (P-gp) mediated efflux is recognised to alter the absorption and disposition of a diverse range of substrates. Despite evidence showing the presence of P-gp within the lung, relatively little is known about the transporter's effect upon the absorption and distribution of drugs delivered via the pulmonary route. Here, we present data from an intact isolated rat lung model, alongside two isolated mouse lung models using either chemical or genetic inhibition of P-gp. Data from all three models show inhibition of P-gp increases the extent of absorption of a subset of P-gp substrates (e.g. rhodamine 123 and loperamide) whose physico-chemical properties are distinct from those whose pulmonary absorption remained unaffected (e.g. digoxin and saquinavir). This is the first study showing direct evidence of P-gp mediated efflux within an intact lung, a finding that should warrant consideration as part of respiratory drug discovery and development as well as in the understanding of pulmonary pharmacokinetic (PK)-pharmacodynamic (PD) relationships.

The verapamil transporter expressed in human alveolar epithelial cells (A549) does not interact with β2-receptor agonists

  Affinity of different organs for verapamil is highly variable and organ-specific. For example, the drug exhibits high levels of accumulation in lung tissues. A transporter recognising verapamil as a substrate has previously been identified in human retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) and in rat retinal capillary endothelial (TR-iBRB2) cells. This transporter is distinct from any of the cloned organic cation transporters. Therefore, we hypothesised that the verapamil transporter is also functionally expressed in the human respiratory mucosa. Moreover, we tested the hypothesis that this transporter interacts with pulmonary administered cationic drugs such as β2-agonists. The uptake of [(3)H]verapamil was studied in A549 human alveolar epithelial cell monolayers at different times and concentrations. The influence of extracellular proton concentration and various organic cations on verapamil uptake was determined. Verapamil uptake into A549 cells was time- and concentration-dependent, sensitive to pH and had a Km value of 39.8 ± 8.2 µM. Verapamil uptake was also sensitive to inhibition by amantadine, quinidine and pyrilamine, but insensitive to other typical modulators of organic cation and choline transporters. Whilst we demonstrated functional activity of the elusive verapamil transporter at the lung epithelium, our data suggest that this transporter does not interact with β2-agonists at therapeutic concentrations.