Jan Lötvall, Eric D Bateman, William W Busse, Paul M O'Byrne, Ashley Woodcock, William T Toler, Loretta Jacques, Caroline Goldfrad, Eugene R Bleecker
{"title":"维兰特罗是一种新型长效β 2受体激动剂,与安慰剂和沙美特罗对照组在吸入皮质类固醇控制哮喘患者中的比较","authors":"Jan Lötvall, Eric D Bateman, William W Busse, Paul M O'Byrne, Ashley Woodcock, William T Toler, Loretta Jacques, Caroline Goldfrad, Eugene R Bleecker","doi":"10.1186/1477-5751-13-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current maintenance therapies for asthma require twice-daily dosing. Vilanterol (VI) is a novel long-acting beta2 agonist, under development in combination with fluticasone furoate, a new inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Findings from a previous 4-week study suggested that VI has inherent 24-hour activity and is therefore suitable for once-daily dosing. The study described here was a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, the aim of which was to assess the efficacy of once-daily VI compared with placebo in patients with persistent asthma. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24-hour weighted mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second after 12 weeks of treatment vs. placebo. An active control arm received salmeterol (SAL) twice daily. All patients were maintained on a stable background dose of ICS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients (n = 347) received VI, placebo or SAL (1:1:1). For the primary endpoint, substantial improvements in lung function were seen with VI (359 ml), SAL (283 ml) and placebo (289 ml). There were no statistically significant treatment differences between either the VI (70 ml, P = 0.244) or SAL (-6 ml, P = 0.926) groups and placebo. Both active treatments were well tolerated, with similarly low rates of treatment-related adverse events compared with placebo. No treatment-related serious adverse events occurred.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study failed to show a treatment difference between VI and placebo for the primary endpoint, in the presence of a placebo response of unforeseen magnitude. Because the placebo response was so large, it is not possible to draw meaningful conclusions from the data. The reason for this magnitude of effect is unclear but it may reflect increased compliance with the anti-inflammatory therapy regimen during the treatment period.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>NCT01181895 at ClinicalTrials.gov.</p>","PeriodicalId":73849,"journal":{"name":"Journal of negative results in biomedicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1477-5751-13-9","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of vilanterol, a novel long-acting beta2 agonist, with placebo and a salmeterol reference arm in asthma uncontrolled by inhaled corticosteroids.\",\"authors\":\"Jan Lötvall, Eric D Bateman, William W Busse, Paul M O'Byrne, Ashley Woodcock, William T Toler, Loretta Jacques, Caroline Goldfrad, Eugene R Bleecker\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/1477-5751-13-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current maintenance therapies for asthma require twice-daily dosing. Vilanterol (VI) is a novel long-acting beta2 agonist, under development in combination with fluticasone furoate, a new inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Findings from a previous 4-week study suggested that VI has inherent 24-hour activity and is therefore suitable for once-daily dosing. The study described here was a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, the aim of which was to assess the efficacy of once-daily VI compared with placebo in patients with persistent asthma. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24-hour weighted mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second after 12 weeks of treatment vs. placebo. An active control arm received salmeterol (SAL) twice daily. All patients were maintained on a stable background dose of ICS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients (n = 347) received VI, placebo or SAL (1:1:1). For the primary endpoint, substantial improvements in lung function were seen with VI (359 ml), SAL (283 ml) and placebo (289 ml). There were no statistically significant treatment differences between either the VI (70 ml, P = 0.244) or SAL (-6 ml, P = 0.926) groups and placebo. Both active treatments were well tolerated, with similarly low rates of treatment-related adverse events compared with placebo. No treatment-related serious adverse events occurred.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study failed to show a treatment difference between VI and placebo for the primary endpoint, in the presence of a placebo response of unforeseen magnitude. Because the placebo response was so large, it is not possible to draw meaningful conclusions from the data. The reason for this magnitude of effect is unclear but it may reflect increased compliance with the anti-inflammatory therapy regimen during the treatment period.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>NCT01181895 at ClinicalTrials.gov.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73849,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of negative results in biomedicine\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1477-5751-13-9\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of negative results in biomedicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-5751-13-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of negative results in biomedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-5751-13-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21
摘要
背景:目前哮喘的维持治疗需要每日两次给药。Vilanterol (VI)是一种新型长效β 2激动剂,正在与糠酸氟替卡松(一种新型吸入皮质类固醇(ICS))联合开发。先前一项为期4周的研究结果表明,维甲酸具有固有的24小时活性,因此适合每天服用一次。本文描述的研究是一项双盲、双虚拟、随机、安慰剂对照试验,其目的是评估每日一次的VI与安慰剂对持续性哮喘患者的疗效。主要终点是治疗12周后与安慰剂相比1秒内24小时加权平均用力呼气量的基线变化。主动控制组每天服用两次沙美特罗(SAL)。所有患者均维持稳定的ICS背景剂量。结果:347例患者接受VI、安慰剂或SAL(1:1:1)治疗。对于主要终点,使用VI (359 ml)、SAL (283 ml)和安慰剂(289 ml)可以显著改善肺功能。VI组(70 ml, P = 0.244)或SAL组(-6 ml, P = 0.926)与安慰剂组的治疗差异均无统计学意义。两种积极治疗均具有良好的耐受性,与安慰剂相比,治疗相关不良事件发生率同样较低。未发生治疗相关的严重不良事件。结论:该研究未能显示VI和安慰剂在主要终点的治疗差异,存在不可预见的安慰剂反应。由于安慰剂反应如此之大,因此不可能从数据中得出有意义的结论。这种影响程度的原因尚不清楚,但它可能反映了治疗期间抗炎治疗方案的依从性增加。试验注册:NCT01181895, ClinicalTrials.gov。
Comparison of vilanterol, a novel long-acting beta2 agonist, with placebo and a salmeterol reference arm in asthma uncontrolled by inhaled corticosteroids.
Background: Current maintenance therapies for asthma require twice-daily dosing. Vilanterol (VI) is a novel long-acting beta2 agonist, under development in combination with fluticasone furoate, a new inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Findings from a previous 4-week study suggested that VI has inherent 24-hour activity and is therefore suitable for once-daily dosing. The study described here was a double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, the aim of which was to assess the efficacy of once-daily VI compared with placebo in patients with persistent asthma. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24-hour weighted mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second after 12 weeks of treatment vs. placebo. An active control arm received salmeterol (SAL) twice daily. All patients were maintained on a stable background dose of ICS.
Results: Patients (n = 347) received VI, placebo or SAL (1:1:1). For the primary endpoint, substantial improvements in lung function were seen with VI (359 ml), SAL (283 ml) and placebo (289 ml). There were no statistically significant treatment differences between either the VI (70 ml, P = 0.244) or SAL (-6 ml, P = 0.926) groups and placebo. Both active treatments were well tolerated, with similarly low rates of treatment-related adverse events compared with placebo. No treatment-related serious adverse events occurred.
Conclusions: This study failed to show a treatment difference between VI and placebo for the primary endpoint, in the presence of a placebo response of unforeseen magnitude. Because the placebo response was so large, it is not possible to draw meaningful conclusions from the data. The reason for this magnitude of effect is unclear but it may reflect increased compliance with the anti-inflammatory therapy regimen during the treatment period.
Trial registration: NCT01181895 at ClinicalTrials.gov.