Mometasone/Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium (MF/IND/GLY) and MF/IND at Different MF Strengths versus Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Xinafoate (FLU/SAL) and FLU/SAL+ Tiotropium in Patients with Asthma.

Background

Once-daily, single-inhaler mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide (MF/IND/GLY, an ICS/LABA/LAMA) and MF/IND (an ICS/LABA) via Breezhaler

Objective

Once-daily (o.d.) formulations of MF/IND/GLY and MF/IND at different MF dose strengths have been compared with twice-daily (b.i.d.) fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (FLU/SAL), and b.i.d. FLU/SAL+ o.d. tiotropium (TIO) in the PALLADIUM, IRIDIUM and ARGON studies.

Methods

The similarity in study design and consistent outcomes in these studies prompted the pooling of data in this review to better characterise these novel once-daily controller formulations.

Results

Pooled data from PALLADIUM and IRIDIUM studies showed comparable or greater efficacy with o.d. MF/IND formulations versus b.i.d. FLU/SAL. The o.d. MF/IND/GLY was superior to b.i.d. FLU/SAL in the IRIDIUM study, and similar to, if not more efficacious than b.i.d. FLU/SAL + o.d. TIO in the ARGON study.

Conclusion

These formulations therefore provide novel once-daily treatment options for patients across asthma severity and flexibility for clinicians to step-up or step-down the treatment using the same device and formulations.

Informations de copyright

© 2023 van Zyl-Smit et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Authors received no compensation related to the development of the manuscript. RNvZ-S reports receiving personal fees for consultancy or advisory board participation from Aspen–GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Glennmark, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim and Cipla, outside of the submitted work. KRC reports grant and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants, and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from CSL, Behring, grant and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, personal fees from Inhibrx, personal fees from Merck, grants and personal fees from Grifols, personal fees from Kamada, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, grants and personal fees from Regeneron, grants and personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Takeda, grants from Vertex, grants from Bellus, outside the submitted work. HAMK reports grants and fees for consultancy or advisory board participation from Novartis, during the conduct of the study; and grants and fees for consultancy or advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Boehringer Ingelheim, and a grant from Chiesi, outside of the submitted work. All were paid to his institution. CG reports receiving personal fees for advisory board and honoraria for academic talks from GSK, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Teva, Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Berlin-Chemie, Chiesi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Sanofi, outside of the submitted work. HS received lecture fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Kyorin Pharma, and Novartis Pharma. A-MT, MH and DL are employees of Novartis Pharma AG. AP and PD’A are employees of Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation. HCT is an employee of Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.