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.     

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.     

Efficacy and safety of formoterol Turbuhaler when added to inhaled corticosteroid treatment in children with asthma

This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study was conducted in 302 children aged 6-11 years with asthma not optimally treated with inhaled corticosteroids alone. Patients continued with their existing dose of inhaled corticosteroids and in addition received placebo, formoterol 4.5 microg or formoterol 9 microg b.i.d., for 12 weeks (all delivered via Turbuhaler). Terbutaline was available as reliever medication. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in morning peak expiratory flow (PEF); secondary efficacy variables included forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV(1)), serial PEF measured over 12 hr, evening PEF, asthma symptom score, and quality of life. Compared with placebo, formoterol 4.5 microg and 9 microg improved morning PEF by 8 l/min (P = 0.035) and 11 l/min (P = 0.0045), respectively. Evening PEF and FEV(1) were also significantly increased compared with placebo, with no statistically significant difference between formoterol doses. Lung-function improvements compared with placebo were greater in the middle of the day. Twelve-hour average serial PEF after 3 months increased by 24 l/min (95% CI, 9, 39 l/min) in the formoterol 9-microg group, and by 14 l/min (95% CI, 0, 29 l/min) in the formoterol 4.5-microg group. The incidence of severe exacerbations in both formoterol groups was numerically lower than in the placebo group, indicating that formoterol may have the potential to improve exacerbation control in children. Both formoterol doses were well-tolerated, and tolerance to the drug's bronchodilator effect was not observed. Formoterol provided sustained improvements in lung function and was well-tolerated in children with asthma suboptimally treated with inhaled corticosteroids alone.     

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).     

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.     

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.     

Evidence of the rapid protective effect of formoterol dry-powder inhalation against exercise-induced bronchospasm in athletes with asthma

BACKGROUND: Although formoterol, a new long-acting beta(2)-adrenergic agonist, has a rapid bronchodilating action, no studies have previously examined whether it can provide equally rapid protection against exercise-induced bronchospasm (EIB). Aim: The aim of the study was to assess the effect of inhaled formoterol against EIB 15 min and 4 h after administration in asthmatic athletes. METHODS: The protective effect of a formoterol (12 microg) dry-powder inhalation was evaluated in 14 EIB-positive asthmatic athletes (13 males, mean age 16.8 years), in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period cross-over study. On each treatment day, the subjects underwent two cycloergometric exercise tests 15 min and 4 h after receiving formoterol or placebo. RESULTS: Formoterol induced significant bronchodilation in comparison with placebo both 15 min and 4 h after administration (p = 0.007 and p = 0.004); placebo treatment had no effect on EIB, the maximum percent fall in FEV(1) after exercise being 29.3 +/- 14.3% and 22.9 +/- 13. 7% at 15 min and 4 h, respectively. Formoterol offered good protection against EIB in 12 athletes (86%) who experienced a decrease in FEV(1) after exercise <10% both 15 min and 4 h after administration. The mean maximum percent fall in FEV(1) after formoterol was 5.9+/-7.2% at 15 min (p < 0.0001), and 5.8 +/- 6.9% at 4 h (p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in resting heart rate before and after medication with placebo or formoterol, nor was the heart rate at the end of exercise significantly different on the 2 treatment days. No side effect was observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that formoterol dry powder inhalation is effective in protecting asthmatic athletes as early as 15 min after dosing. Furthermore, the data confirm the long duration of its protective effect and the absence of any significant adverse effects after acute administration.     

Efficacy and safety of formoterol delivered via a new multidose dry powder inhaler (Certihaler) in adolescents and adults with persistent asthma.

Our objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of formoterol (Foradil) delivered via a novel multidose dry powder inhaler (Certihaler) with placebo and albuterol [pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI)], in patients with persistent asthma. After a 2-week run-in phase, 265 patients (13-81 years) previously treated with regular/PRN bronchodilators for persistent asthma were randomized to 12 weeks' double-blind treatment with formoterol 10 microg BID via Certihaler (n = 86), albuterol 180 microg QID via pMDI (n = 88) or placebo (n = 91). The primary efficacy variable was 12-hour AUC of FEV1 after 12 weeks' treatment. Secondary efficacy variables included peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue bronchodilator medication use, asthma-related quality of life (Juniper Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire), and asthma symptom scores. Formoterol via the Certihaler had an onset of action within 5 minutes and was associated with a clinically relevant and statistically significant increase in 12-hour AUC of FEV1 after 12 weeks' treatment compared with placebo and albuterol (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05, respectively). Average PEF was significantly superior for formoterol compared with placebo and albuterol (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05, respectively). Compared with placebo, rescue albuterol use during the study was significantly lower for formoterol (p < 0.01) and was accompanied by a trend toward an improvement in asthma-related quality of life (QoL). Asthma symptom scores improved to a similar extent for all treatment groups. Treatment with formoterol via Certihaler was well tolerated. Formoterol 10 microg BID, delivered via the novel Certihaler device, is well tolerated and provides rapid, long-lasting, and clinically superior bronchodilation to placebo and albuterol via pMDI in patients with persistent asthma.     

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.     

Bronchodilating effects of cumulative doses of formoterol from a novel multi-dose inhaler (Airmax)

The bronchodilating properties of formoterol from a novel multi-dose inhaler, Airmax 6 microg and from a single-dose dry powder inhaler Foradil Aeroliser 12 microg were investigated in 31 adult asthmatics with FEV1 > or = 60% predicted and a reversibility > or = 12%. Patients received on a single day four doses of formoterol: cumulative dose 6, 12, 24 and 48 microg from Airmax, or 12, 24, 48 and 96 microg from Aeroliser. The mean FEV1 (SD) from baseline to 1 h after the final cumulative dose increased by 0.81 l from 2.62 (0.58) to 3.43 l (0.70) with Airmax and by 0.85 l from 2.65 (0.60) to 3.5 l (0.68) with Aeroliser. All 90% CIs for all four dose comparisons were within the equivalence range +/- 0.11. There was a higher incidence of hypokalaemia and hyperglycaemia at highest doses during treatment with the Aeroliser than with Airmax. In conclusion, formoterol delivered from Airmax provides a dose-dependent bronchodilating effect which is similar to that obtained by Aeroliser, at double the dose.     

Actions other than smooth muscle relaxation may play a role in the protective effects of formoterol on the allergen-induced late asthmatic reaction

Long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonists attenuate the allergen-induced late asthmatic reaction. We evaluated whether other mechanisms in addition to airway smooth muscle relaxation may be implicated in this protective effect. The effects of formoterol (Foradil Aerolizer(TM), 24 microg dry powder) on the late asthmatic reaction were assessed by a randomised crossover factorial study in 24 patients with asthma. Four challenge/treatment combinations were tested: (A) saline/placebo, (B) saline/formoterol, (C) allergen/placebo, (D) allergen/formoterol. Formoterol and placebo were administered double blind after the last inhalation of the allergen or saline. FEV(1) was measured up to 32 h. The bronchodilator effect of formoterol was estimated as (B-A) and the overall protective effect as (D-C). The effect not due to bronchodilation was estimated as [(D-C)-(B-A)]/2. The bronchodilator effect of formoterol was statistically significant up to 5h (all P< or =0.015). Formoterol significantly attenuated the late asthmatic reaction between 3 and 32 h after allergen inhalation (all P< or =0.0012). The difference between this protective effect and the bronchodilator effect was statistically significant at 5 h and between 7 and 28 h after allergen inhalation (all P< or =0.035). Our results suggest that functional antagonism may not be the sole mechanism by which formoterol attenuates the allergen-induced late asthmatic reaction.     

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.     

Acute relief of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction by inhaled formoterol in children with persistent asthma

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the acute bronchodilatory effect of the long-acting beta2-agonist formoterol against the short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) terbutaline during exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) in children with asthma. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of the immediate effect of formoterol, 9 microg, vs terbutaline, 0.5 mg, and placebo administered as dry powder at different study days. Exercise challenge test was used as a model of acute bronchoconstriction. PATIENTS: Twenty-four 7- to 15-year-old children with persistent asthma. INTERVENTIONS: The children performed standardized treadmill exercise tests, breathing dry air, with a submaximal workload. Study medication was administered 5 min after exercise if FEV1 dropped > or = 15% within 5 min after exercise. FEV1 and forced expiratory flows were measured repeatedly until 60 min after dose. RESULTS: Formoterol and terbutaline offered a significant acute bronchodilatory effect from 3 min after dose compared with placebo (p < 0.001). There was no difference between formoterol and terbutaline in FEV1 5 min after dose (p = 0.15), with a mean increase from each predrug baseline of 62% of the maximum increase for both. Median times to recovery within 5% of baseline FEV1 were 5.0 min and 7.4 min for formoterol and terbutaline, respectively (p = 0.33). CONCLUSION: Single-dose formoterol, 9 microg, via dry powder inhaler provided an acute bronchodilatory effect similar to terbutaline during EIB in schoolchildren with persistent asthma. Formoterol is at least as effective as SABA and may be considered an alternative in the treatment of acute bronchoconstriction in school children.     

The pulmonary and extra-pulmonary effects of high-dose formoterol in COPD: a comparison with salbutamol

OBJECTIVES: Formoterol, a beta(2) agonist with a rapid onset of effect and long duration of action, can be used as maintenance and reliever medication for asthma and COPD. We compared the pulmonary and extra-pulmonary effects of cumulative doses of formoterol and salbutamol in patients with COPD to assess efficacy and safety. METHODOLOGY: In a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study, 12 patients with moderate to severe COPD inhaled, via Turbuhaler, 10 doses of formoterol (total metered dose, 120 microg, equivalent to a 90- microg delivered dose), salbutamol (total metered dose 2000 microg) or placebo at 2-min intervals on separate days. The effects on lung function (FEV(1) and PEF), heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, corrected QT interval (QTc), T-wave height and plasma potassium were assessed before each dose, 15 min after each dose, and at half-hourly intervals for 3 h following the final dose. RESULTS: Inhalation of formoterol or salbutamol resulted in significant improvement in lung function (measured 30 min after the last dose) when compared with placebo. There were no clinically important or statistically significant changes in heart rate, QTc, T-wave height, plasma potassium, oxygen saturation, or systolic and diastolic blood pressures with formoterol or salbutamol. One patient developed ventricular trigeminy after both formoterol and salbutamol. She had had ventricular ectopics on her screening electrocardiogram. CONCLUSION: Formoterol and salbutamol both produced significant improvement in lung function and were similarly well tolerated in high doses, as might be taken by a patient for relief of COPD symptoms.     

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.     

Effects of formoterol and ipratropium bromide in COPD: a 3-month placebo-controlled study.

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of formoterol, ipratropium bromide and a placebo on walking distance, lung function, symptoms and quality of life (QoL) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. A total of 183 patients (mean age 64 yrs, 86 female) with moderate-to-severe nonreversible COPD participated in this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study. After a 2-week placebo run-in, patients were randomised to formoterol Turbuhaler 18 microg b.i.d. (delivered dose), ipratropium bromide 80 microg t.i.d. via a pressurised metered dose inhaler, or placebo for 12 weeks. Inhaled short-acting beta2-agonists were allowed as relief medication and inhaled glucocorticosteroids were allowed at a constant dose. The primary variable was walking distance in the shuttle walking test (SWT). Baseline mean SWT distance was 325 m, mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was 40% predicted. Clinically significant improvements in SWT (>30 m) were seen in 41, 38 and 30% of formoterol, ipratropium and placebo patients, respectively (not significant). Mean increases from run-in were 19, 17 and 5 m in the formoterol, ipratropium and placebo groups, respectively. Both active treatments significantly improved FEV1, forced vital capacity, peak expiratory flow and daytime dyspnoea score compared with placebo. Formoterol reduced relief medication use compared with placebo. Neither active treatment improved QoL. Formoterol and ipratropium improved airway function and symptoms, without significant improvements in the shuttle walking test.     

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.     

Formoterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized, controlled, 3-month trial.

The aim of this study was to investigate formoterol, an inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist, in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Six-hundred and ninety-two COPD patients, mean baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) 54%, FEV1/forced vital capacity 75% of predicted, reversibility 6.4% pred, were treated with formoterol (4.5, 9 or 18 microg b.i.d.) or placebo via Turbuhaler for 12 weeks. Symptoms were recorded daily. Spirometry and the incremental shuttle walking test (SWT) were performed at clinic visits. Compared with placebo, 18 microg b.i.d. formoterol reduced the mean total symptom score by 13% and increased the percentage of nights without awakenings by 15%. Formoterol (9 and 18 microg b.i.d.) significantly reduced symptom scores for breathlessness (-7% and -9%, respectively) and chest tightness (-11% and -8%, respectively), reduced the need for rescue medication (-25% and -18%, respectively), and increased symptom-free days (71% and 86%, respectively). FEV1 improved significantly after all three doses of formoterol (versus placebo). No differences were found between groups in SWT walking distance. No unexpected adverse events were seen. In conclusion, 9 and 18 microg b.i.d. formoterol reduced symptoms and increased the number of symptom-free days in a dose-dependent manner in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Formoterol improved lung function at a dose of 4.5 microg b.i.d. and higher.     

Effect of formoterol, tiotropium, and their combination in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pilot study

The aim of our study was to evaluate the pharmacodynamic effects of 1-day treatment with formoterol, tiotropium and their combination in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Twenty-one (19 males, mean age 72+/-8 years, mean FEV1 38+/-14% of predicted values) patients with mild to moderate AECOPD were enrolled. Patients received formoterol (12 microg deliver via Modulite b.i.d.), tiotropium (18 microg dry powder capsules delivered via HandiHaler once daily), and their combination, in randomized sequence. Serial measurements of FEV1, FVC, IC, SpO2 and HR were performed over 24h. Formoterol, tiotropium, and their combination significantly improved the area under curves (AUCs) for FEV1, FVC and IC over 12 and 24h. The mean FEV1, FVC and IC AUC(0-12h) and AUC(0-24h) after formoterol and tiotropium combination were significantly higher than formoterol and tiotropium alone, whereas the differences between the two single drugs were not statistically significant. Formoterol, either alone or in combination with tiotropium, elicited a significantly faster onset of action, and combination elicited a greater maximum bronchodilation than both single drugs in terms of FEV1 and FVC. After 24h the bronchodilating effect of the three treatments disappeared, with the exception of the combination on FEV1. The results of this study have documented that, although the time course of the effects of evaluated drugs differs significantly from that in stable COPD, with a shorter bronchodilation both for tiotropium and formoterol, these two long-acting bronchodilators appear to also be complementary in mild to moderate AECOPD.