Safety and tolerability of high-dose formoterol (Aerolizer) and salbutamol (pMDI) in patients with mild/moderate, persistent asthma

This double-blind, double-dummy, crossover study evaluated the tolerability of high-dose formoterol and salbutamol. Sixteen adults with mild/moderate persistent asthma (FEV1 > or = 70% predicted) were randomized to receive either formoterol 36 microg three times daily (TID) at 5-h intervals via Aerolizer (total daily dose 108 microg), or salbutamol 600 microg TID via pressurized metered-dose inhaler (total daily dose 1800 microg) for 3 consecutive days. After a 3-7-day washout period patients received the other treatment. FEV1 was measured 15 min pre-dose and 2 h post-dose. Both formoterol and salbutamol were associated with decreased plasma potassium (mean of minimum values: 3.4 and 3.6 mmol/L, respectively; P<0.001), increased serum glucose (mean of maximum values: 8.3 and 7.9 mmol/L, respectively; P=0.021), and small increases in mean QTc interval (mean of maximum values: 428.8 and 417.4 ms, respectively; P<0.001). However, none of these effects was clinically significant. Both treatments increased FEV1 to a mean maximum of 4.6 L (P=0.613), but the mean FEV1 AUC(0-72)h for formoterol was significantly greater than for salbutamol (302.2 L h, vs. 277.4 L h; P<0.001). No patients discontinued due to treatment-related adverse events. High-dose formoterol via Aerolizer did not produce any clinically significant systemic effects in patients with mild/moderate asthma.     

Formoterol (OXIS) Turbuhaler as a rescue therapy compared with salbutamol pMDI plus spacer in patients with acute severe asthma

Formoterol has a similar onset of effect to salbutamol but a prolonged duration of action. However, the relative efficacy of the two drugs in acute severe asthma is not known. This double-blind, double-dummy study compared the safety and efficacy of the maximum recommended daily dose of formoterol and a predicted equivalent dose of salbutamol in 88 patients presenting to the emergency department with acute severe asthma. Patients were randomized to formoterol 54 microg via Turbuhaler or salbutamol 2400 microg via pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) plus spacer in three equal doses over 1 h. Following the full dose, mean FEV1 at 75 min increased by 37% for formoterol and 28% for salbutamol (P = 0.18). The maximum increase in FEV1 over 4 h was significantly greater with formoterol compared with salbutamol (51% vs. 36%, respectively P < 0.05) and formoterol was as effective as salbutamol at improving symptoms and wellbeing. Both treatments were well tolerated. Formoterol caused a greater decrease in serum potassium (difference -0.2 mmol/l). In severe acute asthma, bronchodilator therapy with high-dose (54 microg) formoterol Turbuhaler provided equally rapid improvements in lung function of greater magnitude over 4 h than high-dose (2400 microg) salbutamol pMDI plus spacer.     

Rapid onset of bronchodilation in COPD: a placebo-controlled study comparing formoterol (Foradil Aerolizer) with salbutamol (Ventodisk)

Formoterol fumarate is a beta2-agonist bronchodilator that combines a fast onset of action with a long duration of action. Its fast onset of action is well documented in asthma but has not been directly compared with that of salbutamol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted to assess the bronchodilatory effects over the first 3 h after inhalation of single doses of formoterol 24 microg delivered via the Aerolizer dry powder inhaler device (double-blind), or salbutamol 400 microg delivered by a Diskhaler dry powder inhaler (single-blind) in patients with COPD. A total of 24 patients with COPD were randomized [mean age 61.6 +/- 7.8 years, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1) 1.38 +/- 0.32 l and 45.8 +/- 9.6% of predicted]. Inhalation of formoterol or salbutamol resulted in similar increases in FEV from 0 to 3 h post-dose. Both drugs produced similar bronchodilation by 5 min, which became almost maximal by 30 min. The primary efficacy variable, the area under the curve (AUC) of the FEV increase above predose baseline from 0 to 30 min (AUC(0-30 min)), demonstrated significant effects for formoterol (mean 5.89 +/- 4.67 l min(-1)), and salbutamol (mean 6.06 +/- 4.34 l min(-1)), which were not statistically different from each other but statistically significantly higher (P<0.0001) than that observed with placebo (-0.32 +/- 2.59 l min(-1)). In addition, both formoterol and salbutamol produced similar and rapid increases in forced vital capacity (FVC). In summary, this study confirms the rapid onset of action of formoterol and indicates that the onset of action of formoterol and salbutamol are similar in patients with COPD.     

Comparison of formoterol, salbutamol and salmeterol in methacholine-induced severe bronchoconstriction.

The onset of the bronchodilating effect of formoterol (12 microg by Turbuhaler) was compared with that of salbutamol (50 microg by Turbuhaler), salmeterol (50 microg by Diskhaler) and placebo in methacholine-induced severe bronchoconstriction. Seventeen subjects with mild-to-moderate asthma completed this randomized, double blind, cross-over, double-dummy study. On four study days, baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was recorded and the subjects were challenged with methacholine until FEV1 fell by at least 30%. Immediately thereafter, the study drugs were inhaled and lung function was assessed for 60 min. The geometric mean time for FEV1 to return to 85% of baseline was 7.2 min with formoterol, 6.5 min with salbutamol, 14.1 min with salmeterol and 34.7 min with placebo (p=0.0001, overall ANOVA). The difference between formoterol and salmeterol was statistically significant (p=0.01); there was no difference between formoterol and salbutamol (p=0.69). In conclusion, formoterol reversed methacholine-induced severe bronchoconstriction as rapidly as salbutamol and more rapidly than salmeterol. Classifying beta2-agonists as "fast"- and "slow"- acting may be supplemental to "short"- and "long"-acting.     

Clinically equivalent bronchodilatation achieved with formoterol delivered via Easyhaler and Aerolizer

BACKGROUND: User-friendly devices for the delivery of asthma drugs are needed to enhance treatment compliance. Formoterol inhalation powder has been developed to Easyhaler multidose powder inhaler to enable the treatment of all asthma severities with the same device. OBJECTIVES: This double-blind, double-dummy, single- dose, placebo-controlled, cross-over study aimed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the bronchodilating effect of formoterol 12 microg delivered via Easyhaler versus via Aerolizer. In addition, dose responses following placebo, 12-microg and 48-microg doses of formoterol via Easyhaler were compared. Furthermore, onset and duration of action, and safety of formoterol inhaled using the two inhalers were compared. METHODS: Sixty-seven adult asthmatic subjects showing >or=15% increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) after short-acting sympathomimetic inhalation were enrolled and completed the study. The study comprised screening and 4 treatment days, with each subject inhaling a single 12-mug dose of formoterol via Easyhaler, a 12-microg dose via Aerolizer, a 48-microg dose via Easyhaler or placebo. Repeat spirometry and vital sign measurements were performed for 12 h during treatment days. The primary efficacy variable was the area under the flow volume curve (AUC(0-12)) of FEV(1). Secondary efficacy variables comprised maximum FEV(1 )(FEV(1max)), forced vital capacity (FVC), and the need of rescue medication during the treatment days. Safety was evaluated by determining blood pressure, heart rate and the number of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Results showed the non-inferiority of the bronchodilating effect of 12 microg formoterol via Easyhaler compared to Aerolizer. The Easyhaler-Aerolizer ratio for AUC(0-12) of FEV(1 )was 0.991 (95% confidence interval from 0.969 to 1.013). No statistically significant differences emerged for secondary efficacy variables. A statistically significant dose response was seen following placebo, 12- and 48-microg doses in FEV(1). No safety differences emerged for the 12-microg dose inhaled via Easyhaler or Aerolizer, but the incidence of AEs was higher following formoterol 48 microg and placebo treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Formoterol delivered via Easyhaler was therapeutically equivalent to Aerolizerat the 12-microg dose. The 48-microg dose via Easyhaler demonstrated statistically significantly greater bronchodilation but showed an increased occurrence of AEs.     

Total reversibility testing as indicator of the clinical efficacy of formoterol in COPD

RATIONALE: The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines recommend bronchodilator reversibility testing to guide treatment decisions. This study evaluated the relationship between the change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) with salbutamol or formoterol and the clinical effects of a 4-week formoterol (Foradil) treatment. METHODS: At Visit 1, patients (n = 448) with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease took an FEV1 reversibility test using 200 microg salbutamol via a metered dose inhaler. At Visit 2 (Day 0), an FEV1 reversibility test was performed using formoterol via a dry-powder inhaler (Aerolizer). Patients then received formoterol 12 microg twice daily until Visit 3 (Day 21-30), when a further formoterol FEV1 reversibility test was performed. Clinical parameters included FEV1, symptom questionnaires and rescue medication use. RESULTS: There was no significant relationship between the immediate change in FEV1 with salbutamol and the absolute change from baseline in FEV1, symptom scores or rescue medication use after a 4-week formoterol treatment. Relative immediate change in FEV1 with formoterol was correlated with change in rescue medication use (P = 0.02) and FEV1 at Visit 3 (P < 0.001). Total reversibility in FEV1 with formoterol (post-dose Visit 3-pre-dose Visit 2) was correlated with all treatment efficacy variables (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate salbutamol reversibility testing, as performed under these study conditions, failed to predict the clinical efficacy of formoterol. Total reversibility after 4 weeks of formoterol treatment may be a better predictor of clinical benefits of long-term bronchodilator therapy.     

Comparable efficacy and tolerability of formoterol (Foradil) administered via a novel multi-dose dry powder inhaler (Certihaler) or the Aerolizer dry powder inhaler in patients with persistent asthma

BACKGROUND: For maximum treatment compliance there is a need to provide asthma patients with devices that suit their particular preferences. The Foradil Certihaler is a novel multi-dose dry powder inhaler developed to increase the choice of devices available. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of formoterol administered via the Foradil Certihaler, or via the single-dose inhaler Foradil Aerolizer. METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-dummy, incomplete block crossover, dose-ranging and pharmacokinetic study in patients with persistent asthma. Sixty-seven patients (mean 48.0 years) were randomized to formoterol 5, 10, 15 and 30 microg twice daily via the Certihaler, 12 microg formoterol b.i.d. via the Aerolizer, or placebo in four 1-week double-blind treatment periods separated by 1-week single-blind washouts. RESULTS All formoterol doses delivered via the Certihaler or the Aerolizer significantly increased FEV(1) compared with placebo (p < 0.0001). Formoterol demonstrated an onset of action of <3 min. All active treatments were well tolerated. Tremor was the most common adverse event and was more pronounced at high doses. At lower doses the incidence of tremor with the Certihaler was similar to that observed with placebo or the Aerolizer. The pharmacokinetic evaluation comprised 41 patients (mean 45.9 years). Urinary excretion of unchanged formoterol and total formoterol increased with dose delivered via the Certihaler. The optimum dose of formoterol via the Certihaler was 10 microg. Conclusion: Delivery of formoterol via the Certihaler or Aerolizer combines rapid relief with enduring control and provides convenient bronchodilation in patients with persistent asthma.     

Efficacy and safety of formoterol delivered through the Novolizer, a novel dry powder inhaler (DPI) compared with a standard DPI in patients with moderate to severe asthma

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Because of environmental concerns CFC-containing pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDI) had to be replaced by dry powder inhalers (DPI). The Novolizer, a novel DPI has previously been shown to be as effective as the Turbuhaler in delivering budesonide. The objective of this study was to show non-inferiority of inhaled formoterol therapy delivered through the Novolizer compared to formoterol delivered through the Aerolizer in patients suffering from moderate to severe asthma. METHODS: In this double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study 392 patients were randomised and received a dose of 12 microg formoterol twice daily for 4 weeks either through the Aerolizer or the Novolizer. FEV1 after 4 weeks of treatment was the primary variable. Secondary variables were FVC, PEF, consumption of short-acting; 2 adrenoceptor agonists, asthma symptoms, tolerability and safety. RESULTS: After 4 weeks of treatment, the mean trough FEV1 (95% CI) was 2.34 L (2.24-2.45) for the Novolizer and 2.31 L (2.21-2.41) for the Aerolizer. Non-inferiority was proven (p<0.0001, pre-defined; of 0.25 L). All secondary variables (incl. PEF) confirmed these findings. Treatment with both devices was safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Inhalation of 12 microg formoterol twice daily via Novolizer was shown to be equally therapeutically effective compared to the inhalation via Aerolizer in the treatment of moderate to severe persistent asthma. Treatment via both inhalers was safe and well tolerated.     

In patients with COPD, treatment with a combination of formoterol and ipratropium is more effective than a combination of salbutamol and ipratropium : a 3-week, randomized, double-blind, within-patient, multicenter study

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of adding formoterol or salbutamol to regular ipratropium bromide treatment in COPD patients whose conditions were suboptimally controlled with ipratropium bromide alone. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, two-period, crossover clinical trial. SETTING: Twenty-four clinics and university medical centers in nine countries. PATIENTS: One hundred seventy-two patients with baseline FEV(1) < or = 65% predicted, with FEV(1) reversibility to salbutamol not exceeding the normal variability of the measurement, and symptomatic despite regular treatment with ipratropium bromide. INTERVENTIONS: Each patient received two treatments in random order: either inhaled formoterol dry powder, 12 microg bid, in addition to ipratropium bromide, 40 microg qid for 3 weeks, followed by salbutamol, 200 microg qid, in addition to ipratropium, 40 microg qid for 3 weeks, or vice versa. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Efficacy end points included morning premedication peak expiratory flow (PEF) during the last week of treatment (primary end point), the area under the curve (AUC) for FEV(1) measured for 6 h after morning dose on the last day of treatment, and symptom scores (from daily diary recordings). Morning PEF and the AUC for FEV(1) were significantly better for formoterol/ipratropium than for salbutamol/ipratropium (p = 0.0003 and p < 0.0001, respectively). The formoterol/ipratropium combination also induced a greater improvement in mean total symptom scores (p = 0.0042). The safety profile of the two treatments was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: In COPD patients requiring combination bronchodilator treatment, the addition of formoterol to regular ipratropium treatment is more effective than the addition of salbutamol.     

Onset of action of single doses of formoterol administered via Turbuhaler in patients with stable COPD

We studied 16 patients with stable COPD in a double blind, double dummy, placebo-controlled, within patient study to see if formoterol could be used as a rescue drug. We compared the of onset of bronchodilation obtained with formoterol 12 microg (metered dose corresponding to 9 microg delivered dose) and formoterol 24 microg (metered dose corresponding to 18 microg delivered dose), both delivered via Turbuhaler, with that of salbutamol 400 microg and salbutamol 800 microg delivered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI). Patients inhaled single doses of placebo, formoterol and salbutamol on five separate days. FEV1 was measured in baseline condition and 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 30, 40, 50, and 60 min after inhalation of each treatment. We examined two separate criteria for deciding if a response was greater than that expected by a random variation of the measurement: (1) a rise in FEV1 of at least 15% from the baseline value; (2) an absolute increase in FEV1 of at least 200 ml. Formoterol 12 microg (15.2 min; 95% CI 9.5-21.0) and formoterol 24 microg (15.1 min; 95% CI 8.9-21.2) caused a rise in FEV1 of at least 15% from the baseline value almost rapidly as salbutamol 400 microg (13.6 min; 95% CI 7.1-20.1) and salbutamol 800 microg (14.5 min; 95% CI 7.1-21.9). No significant difference (P=0.982) in onset of action was seen between the four active treatments. According to Criterion 2, the mean time to 200 ml increase in FEV1 was 11.1 min (95% CI: 7.0-15.2) after salbutamol 400 microg, 13.0 min (95% CI: 7.9-18.1) after salbutamol 800 microg, 14.7 min (95% CI: 7.1-22.4) after formoterol 12 microg, and 12.7 min (95% CI: 7.4-18.0) after formoterol 24 microg. Again, there was no significant difference (P= 0.817) between the four active treatments. Formoterol Turbuhaler 12 microg and 24 microg caused bronchodilation as rapidly as salbutamol 400 microg and 800 microg given via pMDI.     

Onset and duration of action of formoterol and tiotropium in patients with moderate to severe COPD

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management guidelines recommend regular treatment with one or more long-acting bronchodilators for patients with moderate to severe COPD. OBJECTIVE: To compare the onset and duration of action of formoterol and tiotropium in patients with COPD. METHODS: This randomized, multicentre, open-label crossover study in 38 patients with COPD (mean age 64 years; mean FEV(1) 55% predicted) assessed the effect of 7 days of treatment with formoterol (12 microg b.i.d. via Foradil Aerolizer) vs. tiotropium (18 microg o.d. via Spiriva HandiHaler) on lung function measured over a period of 12 h after the first dose on day 1 and the last dose on day 8. RESULTS: The primary efficacy variable, FEV(1)-AUC during the first 2 h post-dose (FEV(1)-AUC(10-120 min)), was significantly higher for formoterol compared with tiotropium, with between-treatment differences of 124 ml (p = 0.016) after the first dose and 80 ml (p = 0.036) after 7 days' treatment in favour of formoterol. FEV(1) measured 12 h after inhalation did not differ statistically significantly between treatments. Adverse events occurred in 2 (5%) patients after treatment with formoterol and in 5 (12%) patients after treatment with tiotropium. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates faster onset of action and greater bronchodilation of formoterol vs. tiotropium for bronchodilation within the first 2 h of inhalation (FEV(1)-AUC(10-120 min)) and comparable bronchodilation 12 h post-inhalation in patients with moderate to severe COPD.     

Safety of formoterol after cumulative dosing via Easyhaler and Aerolizer

This randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, cumulative dose, multicentre crossover study aimed to demonstrate non-inferiority in safety of formoterol delivered via Easyhaler versus Aerolizer. The secondary objective was to compare the efficacy of the devices. Thirty-three adult asthmatic subjects entered the study and 32 completed it. The study comprised screening and two study days, with each subject inhaling 96 microg (12, 12, 24 and 48 microg) cumulative dose of formoterol via the study inhalers. Serum potassium (S-K+), vital signs and spirometry were performed at baseline, 1h after each dose and additionally 4h after the last dose. The primary safety variable was S-K+. Secondary safety variables were heart rate, corrected QT interval, blood pressure, serum glucose and adverse events. Spirometry was assessed to evaluate efficacy. The results showed non-inferiority in safety of formoterol inhaled via Easyhaler compared to Aerolizer. The adjusted treatment difference in the S-K+ values after 96 microg cumulative dose of formoterol was 0.14 mmol/L being clearly above the pre-determined lower limit of the non-inferiority criterion of -0.2 mmol/L. There were dose-related changes in secondary efficacy variables after both treatments. The changes were comparable in most of the parameters but heart rate was statistically significantly higher and decrease in diastolic blood pressure greater after formoterol via Aerolizer than that via Easyhaler. The occurrence of adverse events was dose-related, the most common events being tremor, hypokalaemia, headache and palpitation. The spirometry results showed no statistically significant difference in efficacy between the treatments. In conclusion, formoterol delivered via Easyhaler was as safe as via Aerolizer.     

Efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol compared with salbutamol in the treatment of acute asthma

This study compared the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) Turbuhaler)) with salbutamol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) with spacer for relief of acute bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma. In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients (n = 104 allocated to treatment; n = 103 received treatment; mean age 45 years) seeking medical attention for acute asthma (mean FEV(1) 43% of predicted) received two doses repeated at t = -5 and 0 min of either budesonide/formoterol (320/9 microg, two inhalations) or salbutamol (100 microg x eight inhalations); total doses 1280/36 microg and 1600 microg, respectively. All patients received prednisolone 60 mg at 90 min and FEV(1) was assessed over 3h. FEV(1) 90 min after dosing (primary variable) increased compared with pre-dose FEV(1) by an average of 30% and 32% for budesonide/formoterol and salbutamol, respectively (P = 0.66), with similar increases at all timepoints from 3 to 180 min for both groups. Mean pulse rate over 3h was significantly higher in the salbutamol group versus the budesonide/formoterol group (92 vs. 88 bpm; P < 0.01). No treatment differences were seen for other vital signs, including ECG. High-dose budesonide/formoterol was effective and well tolerated for the treatment of acute asthma, with rapid onset of efficacy and a safety profile over 3h similar to high-dose salbutamol.     

Onset of action following formoterol Turbuhaler and salbutamol pMDI in reversible chronic airway obstruction

Short-acting beta(2)-agonists are currently recommended for symptom relief in asthma and the treatment of mild, acute exacerbations in COPD. However, formoterol has as fast an onset of action as salbutamol with the additional benefit of longer-lasting bronchodilation (approximately 12 h). Furthermore, systemic side effects observed with formoterol are of a similar duration but less pronounced than with short-acting beta(2)-agonists. In this double-blind, randomized, cross-over study, 20 adult patients with reversible chronic airway obstruction (intrinsic asthma or COPD) inhaled single doses of formoterol 9 microg or salbutamol 100 microg (group A) or formoterol 18 microg or salbutamol 200 microg (group B). FEV(1) was measured prior to and 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 min following inhalation of study drug. No significant differences in FEV(1) values were observed between group A (P=0.704) or group B (P=0.270) at baseline, or at 5 (Group A: P=0.340; Group B: P=0.559) and 15 min (Group A: P=0.526; Group B: P=0.818) post dose. No adverse events were reported during the study. Formoterol Turbuhaler has as rapid an onset of action as salbutamol pMDI when given at the recommended doses.     

Relief of dyspnoea by beta2-agonists after methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction

Virtually all asthma patients use brorichodilators. Formoterol and salbutamol have a rapid onset of bronchodilating effect, whereas salmeterol acts slower. We studied the onset of improvement of dyspnoea sensation after inhalation with these bronchodilators and placebo to reverse a methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction as a model for an acute asthma attack. Seventeen patients with asthma completed this randomised, double-blind, crossover, double-dummy study. On 4 test days, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and Borg score were recorded and patients were challenged with methacholine until FEV1 fell with > or = 30% of baseline value. Thereafter, formoterol 12 microg via Turbuhaler, salbutamol 50 microg via Turbuhaler, salmeterol 50 microg via Diskhaler, or placebo was inhaled. FEV1 and Borg scores were assessed during the following 60 min. The first sensed improvement of Borg score was significantly (P<0.05) faster achieved with formoterol (geometric mean (Gmean) (range) 1.5 (1-40) min) and salbutamol 1.8 (1-10) min than with salmeterol 4.5 (1-30) min and placebo 3.4 (1-40) min. The Borg score returned significantly faster to the baseline value with formoterol, salbutamol, and salmeterol (Gmean time 13.8 (1-75), 13.4 (1-60), and 18.0 (1-75) min, respectively) than with placebo (33.6 (1-75 min). Formoterol and salbutamol act significantly faster than salmeterol in relieving dyspnoea induced by methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction, in patients with asthma.     

Bronchodilator response to formoterol Turbuhaler in patients with COPD under regular treatment with formoterol Turbuhaler

Formoterol Turbuhaler has been suggested for as-needed use in asthmatic patients. We investigated whether regular treatment with formoterol would modify the dose-response curves to formoterol in patients with partially reversible COPD. In this randomised, double-blind, cross-over study taking place over four non-consecutive days 16 outpatients with moderate to severe COPD, who were under regular treatment with formoterol Turbuhaler (18 microg in two daily doses) from at least 4 months, inhaled a conventional dose of formoterol Turbuhaler 9 microg or placebo. Two hours later, a FEV(1) value was established, following which a dose-response curve to formoterol (4.5 microg/inhalation) or placebo was constructed using four inhalations (1+1+2)--total cumulative delivered dose of 18 microg formoterol--with the following sequences: (1) formoterol pre-treatment + formoterol 18 microg, (2) formoterol pre-treatment + placebo, (3) placebo pre-treatment + formoterol 18 microg, (4) placebo pre-treatment + placebo. Formoterol 9 microg induced significant (P < 0.0001) bronchodilation at 2 h after inhalation (best mean increase in FEV(1): 0.170 L). Afterwards, dose-dependent increases in FEV(1) occurred with formoterol (maximum mean increase from 2-h value with formoterol: 0.072 after formoterol pre-treatment, and 0.201 L after placebo pre-treatment). Both maximum values of bronchodilation after the last inhalation of formoterol were statistically different (P < 0.001) from 2-h levels. These results show that dose-dependent bronchodilatation of formoterol is maintained despite regular treatment.     

Relative therapeutic index between inhaled formoterol and salbutamol in asthma patients

A double-blind, randomized crossover study in 28 asthmatic patients assessed the relative therapeutic index for inhaled formoterol and salbutamol. Pre-drug administration FEV1 (mean 2.08 l) was 49-93% of predicted and reversibility 16-82% after inhalation of salbutamol. Patients inhaled single doses of formoterol (Oxis) (4.5,18 and 54 microg, delivered doses) via Turbuhaler, salbutamol (Ventolin) (200 and 1800 microg) via pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) and placebo at intervals of 48 h or more. Individual maximum FEV1 and minimum S-K+ were calculated. Relative local (maximum FEV1) and systemic (minimum S-K+) dose potencies, and their ratio, the relative therapeutic index, were estimated using a non-linear mixed effect model. The drug effects were well tolerated and dose dependent. A log-linear approximation was used to describe the bronchodilatory effect, whereas a sigmoid approximation was more apt to describe the decrease in serum potassium concentration. A bivariate dose-response model based on these principles was fitted simultaneously to all data. The mean relative therapeutic index between formoterol 4.5-54 microg given via Turbuhaler and salbutamol 200-1800 microg given via pMDI was estimated to be 2.5 in favour of formoterol; this trend was not statistically significant.     

Once versus twice daily formoterol via Novolizer for patients with moderate to severe COPD--a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate in patients with moderate to severe COPD whether a single morning dose of 24 microg formoterol from the Novolizer is not inferior to two divided doses of 12 microg formoterol inhaled in the morning and in the evening. DESIGN: Randomised, double blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, multi-centre study with a 2-week run-in period and a 12-week treatment phase. SETTING: Forty-seven outpatient centres in Germany, including private practices. PARTICIPANTS: N=321 symptomatic patients with moderate to severe COPD aged 40-70 years with an FEV1 of 30-80% predicted and the requirement of 3-12 actuations of salbutamol per day on 5 days during the run-in period. TREATMENT: Eligible patients were randomised to inhale formoterol either (a) as a single 24 microg dose in the morning (OD) or (b) in two divided 12 microg doses in the morning and in the evening (b.i.d.). MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: The mean age was 60.3 (SD 7.3) years, and mean baseline pre-dose FEV1 was 1.5l (0.5l) or 50% (12%) of predicted, respectively. After 12 weeks of treatment, pre-dose FEV(1) improved in both groups (mean: OD, +104 ml, b.i.d., +135 ml, mean difference between groups: 31 ml). The 95% CI exceeded the pre-determined margin of 100ml by 2 ml, so that the statistical hypothesis of non-inferiority of once daily dosing was not confirmed. No statistically significant differences were seen for improvements in PEF, MEF75, MEF50, and MEF25. COPD symptoms, percentage of symptom-free days and quality of life (SGRQ) improved in both groups to a similar degree. There were no relevant differences in the incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a comparable efficacy and tolerability, the dosing schedule with formoterol via Novolizer as once daily in the morning seems to be an alternative compared to twice daily treatment. The primary endpoint suggests the equivalence of both treatment schedules from a clinical perspective. This regimen can be considered as an alternative therapeutic approach for a subgroup of COPD patients and may help to improve patient compliance.     

Efficacy and safety of formoterol fumarate delivered by nebulization to COPD patients

Nebulized solutions of long-acting bronchodilators provide an alternative to DPI and MDI delivery, particularly for COPD patients unable to use hand-held devices easily or correctly. The long-acting beta2-agonist, formoterol fumarate, is differentiated by its onset of significant bronchodilation within 5 min of administration. In a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial, COPD subjects (n=351, mean forced expiratory volume FEV1=1.3 L, 44% predicted) received nebulized formoterol fumarate (Perforomist inhalation solution; FFIS 20 microg) or DPI (Foradil Aerolizer; FA 12 microg), or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. Efficacy was assessed with 12-h pulmonary function tests, and quality of life was assessed before and after treatment with the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). At the 12-week endpoint, FFIS significantly increased FEV1 AUC0-12h relative to placebo (p<0.0001). No evidence of tachyphylaxis was observed as indicated by maintained FEV1 AUC and reduced rescue albuterol use throughout treatment. FFIS also significantly increased peak FEV1, trough FEV1, and standardized FVC AUC0-12h compared with placebo. SGRQ assessment at Week 12 demonstrated significant and clinically meaningful improvements in total score (FFIS vs placebo, -4.9, p=0.0067), symptom, and impact scores. No significant differences in efficacy were observed between the two active treatments. Drug related AEs in the FFIS arm with a frequency > or = 1% and exceeding placebo were dry mouth, nausea, and insomnia. Nebulized FFIS provided significant improvement in respiratory status and quality of life in subjects with COPD relative to placebo and was well tolerated. The efficacy and safety profile of FFIS was comparable to FA DPI.     

Single-dose comparison of formoterol (Oxis) Turbuhaler 6 microg and formoterol Aerolizer 12 microg in moderate to severe asthma: a randomised,crossover study

Formoterol inhaled via Turbuhaler (Oxis) or Aerolizer (Foradil) produces fast and long-lasting bronchodilation in asthmatic patients. While formoterol Turbuhaler provides sustained efficacy for > or =12h at a metered dose of 6 microg (delivered dose 4.5 microg), the recommended metered dose for formoterol Aerolizer is 12 microg (delivered dose unknown). This difference may be attributable to improved lung deposition with the Turbuhaler. This open, randomised, crossover study compared the effects of a single metered dose of formoterol Turbuhaler 6 microg and formoterol Aerolizer 12 microg in 16 patients with stable moderate-to-severe asthma. Pulmonary function, assessed by measuring specific airway conductance (sGaw), was determined at intervals of < or =8h post-inhalation of each drug on separate study days. Both inhalers increased sGaw at all time points. There were no significant differences between the two formulations in onset of activity, maximum effect, duration of effect or area under the response curve. Furthermore, both treatments were well tolerated with no differences in adverse events, blood pressure or heart rate; thus the formoterol Turbuhaler may, therefore, have an improved therapeutic index. This pilot study indicates that the same clinical effect can be achieved with half the metered dose (6 microg) of formoterol Turbuhaler compared with formoterol Aerolizer (12 microg).