Fluticasone propionate/formoterol for COPD management: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) in COPD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

COPD patients with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ≤50% predicted and ≥1 moderate/severe COPD exacerbation in the last 12 months were randomized to FP/FORM 500/20 or 250/10 µg bid, or formoterol (FORM) 12 µg bid for 52 weeks. The primary outcome was the annualized rate of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations.

RESULTS

In total, 1,765 patients were randomized. There were fewer discontinuations with FP/FORM 500/20 µg (20.6%) and 250/10 µg (24.0%) compared with FORM (26.1%). None of the two FP/FORM doses reduced the moderate/severe exacerbation rate versus FORM (rate ratios [RR]: 0.93; P≤0.402). There was a trend toward a lower moderate/severe exacerbation rate with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM in patients with ≥2 exacerbations in the preceding year (RR: 0.79; P=0.084). Pre- and post-dose FEV1 and forced vital capacity were greater with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM (P≤0.039). There was a trend toward a lower EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool (EXACT) exacerbation rate with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM (RR: 0.87; P=0.077). There were more St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-C) responders with FP/FORM 500/20 µg than FORM (odds ratios [OR] at weeks 6, 23 and 52 ≥1.28; P≤0.054). EXACT-respiratory symptoms total and breathlessness scores were lower with both FP/FORM 500/20 µg and 250/10 µg versus FORM (P≤0.066). Acute β2-agonist-induced effects and 24-hour Holter findings were similar for all treatments. Mean 24-hour urinary cortisol was similarly reduced with both FP/FORM doses. Radiologically confirmed pneumonia was seen in 2.4%, 3.2% and 1.5% of FP/FORM 500/20 µg, FP/FORM 250/10 µg and FORM-treated patients, respectively. Adverse events were otherwise similar across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

FP/FORM did not reduce exacerbation rates versus FORM. Numerical benefits were observed with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM for secondary variables, including lung function, EXACT exacerbations, SGRQ-C and EXACT-respiratory symptoms total and breathlessness scores. Few efficacy differences were evident between FP/FORM 250/10 µg and FORM. Pneumonia was more frequent in FP/FORM-treated patients, although the absolute difference was low. Adverse events were otherwise similar between treatments.

Final results of the European Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Sorafenib (EU-ARCCS) expanded-access study: a large open-label study in diverse community settings

BACKGROUND

The European Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Sorafenib (EU-ARCCS) expanded-access study provided sorafenib to advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients in whom previous systemic therapy had failed. The study assessed the safety and use of sorafenib for the treatment of advanced RCC in a large community-based patient population across 11 countries in Europe.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

EU-ARCCS was a single-arm, open-label trial of sorafenib in advanced RCC patients. End points included safety, time to progression, progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control rate (DCR). Subgroup analyses included age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, histology, prior therapy, and number and sites of metastases.

RESULTS

About 1159 advanced RCC patients were enrolled. Most patients (94%) experienced drug-related adverse events (AEs) of any grade, with the most common grade ≥3 AEs including hand-foot skin reaction (13%), diarrhea (7%), fatigue (7%), hypertension (6%), and rash/desquamation (5%). The incidence of AEs in the subgroups was similar to that in the overall population. Median PFS was 6.6 months; DCR at ≥8 and ≥12 weeks was 85% and 78%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The sorafenib safety profile in European community-based practice settings was similar to that reported in clinical trials. The heterogeneous advanced RCC patient population in EU-ARCCS permitted assessment of sorafenib in important subpopulations of advanced RCC patients.