This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Background Navafenterol (AZD8871) belongs to a new class of bronchodilator, the single-molecule muscarinic antagonist and β-agonist, developed for the treatment of COPD. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, pharmacokinetics and safety of navafenterolversusplacebo and an active comparator treatment for moderate-to-severe COPD. Methods This phase 2a, randomised, multicentre (Germany and UK), double-blind, double-dummy, three-way complete crossover study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03645434 ) compared 2 weeks’ treatment of once-daily navafenterol 600 µgviainhalation with placebo and a fixed-dose combination bronchodilator (umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI); 62.5 µg/25 µg) in participants with moderate-to-severe COPD. The primary outcome was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) on day 15. Secondary end-points included change from baseline in peak FEV1; change from baseline in Breathlessness, Cough and Sputum Scale (BCSS); change from baseline in COPD Assessment Tool (CAT); adverse events; and pharmacokinetics. Results 73 participants were randomised. After 14 days, trough FEV1was significantly improved with navafenterol compared with placebo (least-squares (LS) mean difference 0.202 L; p<0.0001). There was no significant difference in FEV1between navafenterol and UMEC/VI (LS mean difference −0.046 L; p=0.075). COPD symptoms (CAT and BCSS) showed significantly greater improvements with both active treatmentsversusplacebo (all p<0.005). Novel objective monitoring (VitaloJAK) showed that cough was reduced with both active treatments compared with placebo. Safety profiles were similar across the treatment groups and no serious adverse events were reported in the navafenterol treatment period. Conclusion Once-daily navafenterol was well tolerated, improved lung function and reduced COPD-related symptoms, similar to an established once-daily fixed-dose combination bronchodilator.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: