Efficacy and safety of budesonide and formoterol in one pressurized metered-dose inhaler in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results of a 6-month randomized clinical trial

Dual Bronchodilation with Indacaterol Maleate/Glycopyrronium Bromide Compared with Umeclidinium Bromide/Vilanterol in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe COPD: Results from Two Randomized, Controlled, Cross-over Studies

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of two long-acting dual bronchodilator combinations: indacaterol/glycopyrrolate (IND/GLY) versus umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI).

METHODS

Studies A2349 and A2350 were replicate, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, cross-over studies in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Patients were randomized to sequential 12-week treatments of twice-daily IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 μg and once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg, each separated by a 3-week washout. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of IND/GLY compared with UMEC/VI in terms of the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s profile at week 12 (FEV₁ AUC_0-24). Rescue medication use, symptom control, and safety were assessed throughout.

RESULTS

Both treatments delivered substantial bronchodilation over 12 weeks, with improvements in FEV₁ AUC_0-24h at week 12 of 232 and 185 mL for IND/GLY, and 244 and 203 mL with UMEC/VI in Studies A2349 and A2350, respectively. The primary efficacy objective of non-inferiority of IND/GLY relative to UMEC/VI was not met as the lower bound of the confidence interval for the LS treatment comparison was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -20 mL in both studies: -26.9 and -34.2 mL, respectively (LS mean between-treatment differences: -11.5 and -18.2 mL). Both drugs were well tolerated, with AE profiles consistent with their respective prescribing information.

CONCLUSIONS

IND/GLY and UMEC/VI provided clinically meaningful and comparable bronchodilation. Non-inferiority of IND/GLY to UMEC/VI could not be declared although between-treatment differences were not clinically relevant. The data support the use of IND/GLY as an efficacious and well tolerated treatment option in patients with COPD. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02487446 and NCT02487498).

FULFIL Trial: Once-Daily Triple Therapy for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

RATIONALE

Randomized data comparing triple therapy with dual inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited.

OBJECTIVES

We compared the effects of once-daily triple therapy on lung function and health-related quality of life with twice-daily ICS/LABA therapy in patients with COPD.

METHODS

The FULFIL (Lung Function and Quality of Life Assessment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Closed Triple Therapy) trial was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study comparing 24 weeks of once-daily triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol 100 μg/62.5 μg/25 μg; ELLIPTA inhaler) with twice-daily ICS/LABA therapy (budesonide/formoterol 400 μg/12 μg; Turbuhaler). A patient subgroup remained on blinded treatment for up to 52 weeks. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline in trough FEV₁ and in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at Week 24.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In the intent-to-treat population (n = 1,810) at Week 24 for triple therapy (n = 911) and ICS/LABA therapy (n = 899), mean changes from baseline in FEV₁ were 142 ml (95% confidence interval [CI], 126 to 158) and -29 ml (95% CI, -46 to -13), respectively, and mean changes from baseline in SGRQ scores were -6.6 units (95% CI, -7.4 to -5.7) and -4.3 units (95% CI, -5.2 to -3.4), respectively. For both endpoints, the between-group differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant reduction in moderate/severe exacerbation rate with triple therapy versus dual ICS/LABA therapy (35% reduction; 95% CI, 14-51; P = 0.002). The safety profile of triple therapy reflected the known profiles of the components.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the benefits of single-inhaler triple therapy compared with ICS/LABA therapy in patients with advanced COPD. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02345161).

Long-term treatment with budesonide/formoterol attenuates circulating CRP levels in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients of group D

Background

The systemic inflammation is associated with clinical outcome and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. To investigate the effects of tiotropium (Tio) and/or budesonide/formoterol (Bud/Form) on systemic inflammation biomarkers in stable COPD patients of group D, a randomized, open-label clinical trial was conducted.

Methods

Eligible participants (n = 324) were randomized and received either Tio 18ug once daily (group I), Bud/Form 160/4.5ug twice daily (group II), Bud/Form 320/9ug twice daily (group III), or Tio 18ug once daily with Bud/Form 160/4.5ug twice daily (group IV) for 6 months. Systemic inflammation biomarkers were measured before randomization and during the treatment, including C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), serum amyloid A (SAA), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), fibrinogen (Fib), and white blood cell (WBC).

Results

After 6-month treatment, CRP levels in group II, group III and group IV changed by a median (interquartile range) of -1.25 (-3.29, 1.18) mg/L, -1.13 (-2.55, 0.77) mg/L, and -1.56 (-4.64, 0.22) mg/L respectively, all of which with statistical differences compared with group I. In addition, there were no treatment differences in terms of IL-8, SAA, TNF-α, Fib and WBC levels.

Conclusions

A long-term treatment with Bud/Form alone or together with Tio can attenuate circulating CRP levels in COPD patients of group D, compared with Tio alone.

Severe exacerbation and pneumonia in COPD patients treated with fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2 agonist

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether severe exacerbation and pneumonia of COPD differs between patients treated with budesonide/formoterol and those treated with fluticasone/salmeterol. Therefore, we conducted a comparative study of those who used budesonide/formoterol and those treated with fluticasone/salmeterol for COPD.

METHODS

Subjects in this population-based cohort study comprised patients with COPD who were treated with a fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol. All patients were recruited from the Taiwan National Health Insurance database. The outcomes including severe exacerbations, pneumonia, and pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) were measured.

RESULTS

During the study period, 11,519 COPD patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol and 7,437 patients receiving budesonide/formoterol were enrolled in the study. Pairwise matching (1:1) of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol populations resulted in to two similar subgroups comprising each 7,295 patients. Patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol had higher annual rate and higher risk of severe exacerbation than patients receiving budesonide/formoterol (1.2219/year vs 1.1237/year, adjusted rate ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.07-1.10). In addition, patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol had higher incidence rate and higher risk of pneumonia than patients receiving budesonide/formoterol (12.11 per 100 person-years vs 10.65 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.20). Finally, patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol had higher incidence rate and higher risk of pneumonia requiring MV than patients receiving budesonide/formoterol (3.94 per 100 person-years vs 3.47 per 100 person-years, aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.24). A similar trend was seen before and after propensity score matching analysis, intention-to-treat, and as-treated analysis with and without competing risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this retrospective observational study, long-term treatment with fixed combination budesonide/formoterol was associated with fewer severe exacerbations, pneumonia, and pneumonia requiring MV than fluticasone/salmeterol in COPD patients.

Efficacy and Tolerability of an Inhaled Selective Glucocorticoid Receptor Modulator - AZD5423 - in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: Phase II Study Results

AZD5423 is a novel, inhaled, selective glucocorticoid receptor modulator (SGRM), which in an allergen challenge model in asthma patients improved lung function and airway hyper-reactivity. In the current trial, AZD5423 was for the first time tested in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this double-blind, randomized and parallel group study, we examined airway and systemic effects of two doses of AZD5423, inhaled via Turbuhaler for 12 weeks, in 353 symptomatic patients with COPD (average pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one-second (FEV1) at screening was 50-52% of predicted normal). Pre-bronchodilator FEV1 was primary variable, with other lung function parameters plus symptoms and 24-hr plasma cortisol being secondary variables. Plasma concentrations of AZD5423 were also measured. Effects were compared against placebo and a reference glucocorticoid receptor agonist control. Neither AZD5423, at doses which have shown to be efficacious in allergen-induced asthma, nor the reference control, at double the approved dose, had any clinically meaningful effect in the patient population studied in regard to lung function or markers of inflammation. Both GR modulators were well tolerated and did suppress 24-hr cortisol. This study suggests that the selected population of patients with COPD does not respond to treatment with AZD5423 as regards lung function, while showing the expected systemic effects. It cannot be ruled out that a favourable lung function response of AZD5423 can be evoked using another experimental setting and/or within a different population of patients with COPD.

Fluticasone propionate/formoterol for COPD management: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) in COPD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

COPD patients with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ≤50% predicted and ≥1 moderate/severe COPD exacerbation in the last 12 months were randomized to FP/FORM 500/20 or 250/10 µg bid, or formoterol (FORM) 12 µg bid for 52 weeks. The primary outcome was the annualized rate of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations.

RESULTS

In total, 1,765 patients were randomized. There were fewer discontinuations with FP/FORM 500/20 µg (20.6%) and 250/10 µg (24.0%) compared with FORM (26.1%). None of the two FP/FORM doses reduced the moderate/severe exacerbation rate versus FORM (rate ratios [RR]: 0.93; P≤0.402). There was a trend toward a lower moderate/severe exacerbation rate with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM in patients with ≥2 exacerbations in the preceding year (RR: 0.79; P=0.084). Pre- and post-dose FEV1 and forced vital capacity were greater with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM (P≤0.039). There was a trend toward a lower EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool (EXACT) exacerbation rate with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM (RR: 0.87; P=0.077). There were more St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-C) responders with FP/FORM 500/20 µg than FORM (odds ratios [OR] at weeks 6, 23 and 52 ≥1.28; P≤0.054). EXACT-respiratory symptoms total and breathlessness scores were lower with both FP/FORM 500/20 µg and 250/10 µg versus FORM (P≤0.066). Acute β2-agonist-induced effects and 24-hour Holter findings were similar for all treatments. Mean 24-hour urinary cortisol was similarly reduced with both FP/FORM doses. Radiologically confirmed pneumonia was seen in 2.4%, 3.2% and 1.5% of FP/FORM 500/20 µg, FP/FORM 250/10 µg and FORM-treated patients, respectively. Adverse events were otherwise similar across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

FP/FORM did not reduce exacerbation rates versus FORM. Numerical benefits were observed with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM for secondary variables, including lung function, EXACT exacerbations, SGRQ-C and EXACT-respiratory symptoms total and breathlessness scores. Few efficacy differences were evident between FP/FORM 250/10 µg and FORM. Pneumonia was more frequent in FP/FORM-treated patients, although the absolute difference was low. Adverse events were otherwise similar between treatments.

The effect of COPD severity and study duration on exacerbation outcome in randomized controlled trials

Background

When discontinuation in COPD randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is unevenly distributed between treatments (differential dropout), the capacity to demonstrate treatment effects may be reduced. We investigated the impact of the time of differential dropout on exacerbation outcomes in RCTs, in relation to study duration and COPD severity.

Methods

A post hoc analysis of 2,345 patients from three RCTs of 6- and 12-month duration was performed to compare budesonide/formoterol and formoterol in moderate, severe, and very severe COPD. Outcomes were exacerbation rate, time-to-first exacerbation, or discontinuation; patients were stratified by disease severity. Outcomes were studied by censoring data monthly from 1 to 12 months.

Results

In patients treated with budesonide/formoterol, annualized exacerbation rates (AERs) were comparable for each study duration (rate ratio [RR] =0.6). With formoterol, the AER decreased with study duration (RR =1.20 at 1 month to RR =0.86 at 12 months). There was a treatment-related difference in exacerbation rates of 45%–48% for shorter study durations (≤4 months) and 27% for 12-month duration. This treatment-related difference in exacerbation rates was comparable for the three disease severities in studies ≤4 months (range: 39%–51%), but this difference decreased with longer study durations, especially in more severe groups (22% and 29% at 12 months). There were fewer discontinuations with budesonide/formoterol; the treatment-related difference in time-to-first discontinuation decreased by study duration (35%, 30%, 26%, and 22% at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, respectively). Numbers of differential dropouts increased with increasing disease severity, being greatest during second, third, and fourth months.

Conclusions

COPD severity and study duration impact exacerbation as an outcome in double-blind RCTs. This effect is most obvious in patients with severe/very severe COPD and in studies that are longer than 4 months. Early differential dropout particularly impacts study outcome, producing a “healthy survivor effect,” which reduces estimations of treatment impact on exacerbations.

Inhaled corticosteroids have a protective effect against lung cancer in female patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a nationwide population-based cohort study

Whether the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) protects patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from lung cancer remains undetermined. In this retrospective nationwide population-based cohort study, we extracted data of 13,686 female COPD patients (ICS users, n = 1,290, ICS non-users, n = 12,396) diagnosed between 1997 and 2009 from the Taiwan's National Health Insurance database. These patients were followed-up until 2011, and lung cancer incidence was determined. Cox regression analysis was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for lung cancer incidence. The time to lung cancer diagnosis was significantly different between ICS users and non-users (10.75 vs. 9.68 years, P < 0.001). Per 100,000 person-years, the lung cancer incidence rate was 235.92 for non-users and 158.67 for users [HR = 0.70 (95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.46-1.09)]. After adjusting for patients' age, income, and comorbidities, a cumulative ICS dose > 39.48 mg was significantly associated with a lower risk of lung cancer [ICS users > 39.48 mg, HR = 0.45 (95% CI: 0.21-0.96)]. Age ≥ 60 years, pneumonia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension decreased lung cancer risk, whereas pulmonary tuberculosis increased the risk. Our results suggest that ICS have a potential role in lung cancer prevention among female COPD patients.

Risk of pneumonia with budesonide-containing treatments in COPD: an individual patient-level pooled analysis of interventional studies

Background

Concerns have been raised that treatment of COPD with inhaled corticosteroids may increase pneumonia risk. Responding to a request from the European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, a pooled analysis of interventional studies compared pneumonia risk with inhaled budesonide-containing versus non-budesonide-containing treatments and the impact of other clinically relevant factors.

Methods

AstraZeneca-sponsored, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trials meeting the following criteria were included: >8 weeks’ duration; ≥60 patients with COPD; inhaled budesonide treatment arm (budesonide/formoterol or budesonide); and non-budesonide-containing comparator arm (formoterol or placebo). Primary and secondary outcomes were time to first pneumonia treatment-emergent serious adverse event (TESAE) and treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAEs), respectively, analyzed using Cox regression models stratified by study.

Results

Eleven studies were identified; 10,570 out of 10,574 randomized patients receiving ≥1 dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (budesonide-containing, n=5,750; non-budesonide-containing, n=4,820). Maximum exposure to treatment was 48 months. The overall pooled hazard ratio (HR), comparing budesonide versus non-budesonide-containing treatments, was 1.15 for pneumonia TESAEs (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83, 1.57) and 1.13 for pneumonia TEAEs (95% CI: 0.94, 1.36). The annual incidence of pneumonia TESAEs was 1.9% and 1.5% for budesonide-containing and non-budesonide-containing treatments, respectively. Comparing budesonide/formoterol with non-budesonide-containing treatment, the HRs for pneumonia TESAEs and TEAEs were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.69, 1.44) and 1.21 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.57), respectively. For budesonide versus placebo, HRs were 1.57 for pneumonia TESAEs (95% CI: 0.90, 2.74) and 1.07 for pneumonia TEAEs (95% CI: 0.83, 1.38).

Conclusion

This pooled analysis found no statistically significant increase in overall risk for pneumonia TESAEs or TEAEs with budesonide-containing versus non-budesonide-containing treatments. However, a small increase in risk with budesonide-containing treatment cannot be ruled out; there is considerable heterogeneity in study designs and patient characteristics, particularly in the early budesonide studies, and each study contributes <40 pneumonia TESAEs.

Early efficacy of budesonide/formoterol in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD

Background and objective

Large clinical trials have confirmed the long-term efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combinations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It was hypothesized that significant treatment effects would already be present within 3 months after the initiation of treatment across a range of clinical outcomes, irrespective of COPD severity.

Methods

Post hoc analysis of 3-month post-randomization outcomes, including exacerbation rates, dropouts, symptoms, reliever use, and lung function, from three studies with similar inclusion criteria of moderate-to-very-severe COPD. Patients (n=1,571) were treated with budesonide/formoterol (B/F) 320/9 μg or placebo, twice daily; in one study, tiotropium 18 μg once daily was also given.

Results

Over the first 3 months of treatment, fewer patients randomized to B/F experienced exacerbations versus the placebo group (111 and 196 patients with ≥1 exacerbation, respectively). This was true in each COPD severity group. Compared with placebo, B/F treatment led to significantly lower 3-month exacerbation rates in the moderate and severe COPD severity groups (46% and 57% reduction, respectively), with a nonsignificant reduction (29%) in very severe COPD. Fewer dropouts occurred among patients treated with B/F versus placebo, this effect being greater with increasing COPD severity. B/F was associated with improved forced expiratory volume in 1 s, morning peak expiratory flow rate, total reliever use, and total symptom score versus placebo.

Conclusion

Treatment with B/F decreased exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD within 3 months of commencing treatment. This effect was paralleled by improved lung function, less reliever medication use, and fewer symptoms, irrespective of disease severity.

A randomised, phase III trial of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 μg versus once-daily vilanterol 25 μg to evaluate the contribution on lung function of fluticasone furoate in the combination in patients with COPD

BACKGROUND

The contribution of fluticasone furoate (FF) on lung function in the FF/vilanterol (VI) 100/25 μg combination has been demonstrated numerically, but not statistically.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial (GlaxoSmithKline study number 200820; clinicaltrials.gov NCT02105974) enrolled ≥40-year-old patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a ≥10-pack-year smoking history, a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) 30-70% of the predicted value, a FEV₁/forced vital capacity ratio of ≤0.70, ≥1 COPD exacerbation in the previous 12 months requiring corticosteroids, antibiotics and/or hospitalisation, and current COPD symptoms. Participants received FF/VI 100/25 μg or VI 25 μg once daily. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in trough FEV₁ at day 84.

FINDINGS

1620 patients were randomised and received at least one dose of FF/VI 100/25 μg (n = 806) or VI 25 μg (n = 814). At day 84, the FF/VI 100/25 μg group showed an adjusted mean treatment difference of 34 mL over VI 25 μg in change from baseline trough FEV₁ (95% confidence interval [CI] 14-55; p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in the percentage of rescue medication-free 24-h periods. The FF/VI 100/25 μg group demonstrated a 42% risk reduction compared with the VI 25 μg group in time to first moderate/severe COPD exacerbation (95% CI 22-57; nominal p < 0.001). The incidence of on-treatment adverse events was similar between the groups.

INTERPRETATION

The contribution of FF in the FF/VI 100/25 μg combination on lung function in COPD was statistically significant.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline.

Do inhaled corticosteroids protect against lung cancer in patients with COPD? A systematic review

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are commonly prescribed to COPD patients, particularly those with more advanced stages of the disease. These patients are also at increased risk of lung cancer. A systematic review was undertaken to identify studies that examined the association between lung cancer risk and ICS therapy in COPD patients. The search strategy was created in MEDLINE and extended to EMBASE as well as other relevant databases. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were considered for inclusion. Studies were required to have incident lung cancer or deaths from lung cancer as an outcome in order to be included in the review. Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Two observational studies directly addressed the specific research. Four RCTs presented sufficient data to calculate the relative risk of lung cancer in COPD patients. None of the identified RCTs showed a statistically significant association of ICS use with lung cancer risk. Observational studies showed a protective effect from ICS use, particularly at high doses. Given the observational evidence and the low numbers of lung cancer events in the RCTs, these results may be prone to type II error. The observational studies dealt with very specific patient populations and exposure definitions, which might not have adequately captured the complex relationship between ICS exposure and lung cancer risk. Results from RCTs suggest no effect of ICS on the risk of lung cancer. However, results from observational studies suggest the potential that ICS may confer a protective effect, particularly at high doses.

Differentiation of human bronchial epithelial cells: role of hydrocortisone in development of ion transport pathways involved in mucociliary clearance

Glucocorticoids strongly influence the mucosal-defense functions performed by the bronchial epithelium, and inhaled corticosteroids are critical in the treatment of patients with inflammatory airway diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cystic fibrosis. A common pathology associated with these diseases is reduced mucociliary clearance, a defense mechanism involving the coordinated transport of salt, water, and mucus by the bronchial epithelium, ultimately leading to retention of pathogens and particles in the airways and to further disease progression. In the present study we investigated the role of hydrocortisone (HC) in differentiation and development of the ion transport phenotype of normal human bronchial epithelial cells under air-liquid interface conditions. Normal human bronchial epithelial cells differentiated in the absence of HC (HC0) showed significantly less benzamil-sensitive short-circuit current than controls, as well as a reduced response after stimulation with the selective β2-adrenergic receptor agonist salbutamol. Apical membrane localization of epithelial Na(+) channel α-subunits was similarly reduced in HC0 cells compared with controls, supporting a role of HC in the trafficking and density of Na(+) channels in the plasma membrane. Additionally, glucocorticoid exposure during differentiation regulated the transcription of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator and β2-adrenergic receptor mRNAs and appeared to be necessary for the expression of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator-dependent anion secretion in response to β2-agonists. HC had no significant effect on surface cell differentiation but did modulate the expression of mucin mRNAs. These findings indicate that glucocorticoids support mucosal defense by regulating critical transport pathways essential for effective mucociliary clearance.

Inhaled corticosteroids and the increased risk of pneumonia: what's new? A 2015 updated review

There is a considerable amount of evidence that supports the possibility of an increased risk of pneumonia associated with prolonged use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, as yet, no statistically significant increase in pneumonia-related 30-day mortality in patients on ICS has been demonstrated. The lack of objective pneumonia definitions and radiological confirmations have been a major source of bias, because of the similarities in clinical presentation between pneumonia and acute exacerbations of COPD. One of the newer fluticasone furoate studies overcomes these limitations and also provides an assessment of a range of doses, suggesting that the therapeutic window is quite narrow and that conventional dosing has probably been too high, although the absolute risk may be different compared to other drugs. Newer studies were not able to rule out budesonide as responsible for pneumonia, as previous evidence suggested, and there is still need for evidence from head-to-head comparisons in order to better assess possible intra-class differences. Although the exact mechanisms by which ICS increase the risk of pneumonia are not fully understood, the immunosuppressive effects of ICS on the respiratory epithelium and the disruption of the lung microbiome are most likely to be implicated. Given that COPD represents such a complex and heterogeneous disease, attempts are being made to identify clinical phenotypes with clear therapeutic implications, in order to optimize the pharmacological treatment of COPD and avoid the indiscriminate use of ICS. If deemed necessary, gradual withdrawal of ICS appears to be well tolerated. Vaccination against pneumococcus and influenza should be emphasized in patients with COPD receiving ICS. Physicians should keep in mind that signs and symptoms of pneumonia in COPD patients may be initially indistinguishable from those of an exacerbation, and that patients with COPD appear to be at increased risk of developing pneumonia as a complication of ICS therapy.

Association of Inhaled Corticosteroids with Incident Pneumonia and Mortality in COPD Patients; Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids are commonly prescribed for patients with severe COPD. They have been associated with increased risk of pneumonia but not with increased pneumonia-associated or overall mortality.

METHODS

To further examine the effects of inhaled corticosteroids on pneumonia incidence, and mortality in COPD patients, we searched for potentially relevant articles in PubMed, Medline, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and manufacturers' web clinical trial registries from 1994 to February 4, 2014. Additionally, we checked the included and excluded studies' bibliographies. We subsequently performed systematic review and meta-analysis of included randomized controlled trials and observational studies on the topic.

RESULTS

We identified 38 studies: 29 randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies. The estimated unadjusted risk of pneumonia was increased in randomized trials: RR 1.61; 95% CI 1.35-1.93, p < 0.001; as well as in observational studies: OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.39-2.58, p < 0·001. Six randomized trials and seven observational studies were useful in estimating unadjusted risk of pneumonia -case-fatality: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.52-1.59, p = 0.74; and OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.59-0.88, p = 0.001, respectively. Twenty-nine randomized trials and six observational studies allowed estimation of unadjusted risk of overall mortality: RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.85-1.05, p = 0.31; and OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.65-0.97, p = 0.02, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a substantial and significant increase in unadjusted risk of pneumonia associated with inhaled corticosteroid use, pneumonia fatality and overall mortality were found not to be increased in randomized controlled trials and were decreased in observational studies.

Long-term outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: exploring the effects of inhalatory devices and their influence on the outcome

PURPOSE

Numerous systematic reviews have examined the outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease managed with different therapeutic strategies. However, no such studies have specifically focused on the effect of inhalation devices.

METHODS

A standard PubMed search was carried out in which we identified all randomized placebo-controlled trials conducted in patients with moderate-to-severe or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The clinical end points were exacerbations rate, incidence of pneumonia, and mortality. Meta-regression was employed to assess the effect of the device. For the incidence of exacerbations, an equivalence analysis was also carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 37 studies were analyzed. Four different devices were used across these trials (Respimat(®), HandiHaler(®), Diskus, and Turbuhaler(®)). Our meta-regression analysis failed to show any significant difference between devices with regard to exacerbation rate. Equivalence was shown for some comparisons (HandiHaler(®) vs Respimat(®)), but not for others. In analyzing mortality, Respimat(®) was shown to worsen this end point in comparison with Turbuhaler(®) and HandiHaler(®). Moreover, Turbuhaler(®) showed a protective effect over Diskus in the incidence of pneumonia.

CONCLUSION

The results of our analysis represent the first attempt to explore the effect of the type of device on long-term outcomes. One important limitation was that most drugs were associated with one particular device, and so the effects of drugs and devices could not be reliably differentiated from one another.

Relationship Between FEV1 and Patient-Reported Outcomes Changes: Results of a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials in Stable COPD

Background: This meta-analysis assessed the relationship between change from baseline (CFB) in spirometric measurements (trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁] and FEV₁ area under the curve [AUC]) and patient-reported outcomes (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score [SGRQ] CFB, Transition Dyspnea Index [TDI] and exacerbation rates) after 6-12 months' follow-up, using study treatment-group level data. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials of ≥24 weeks duration in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Studies reporting ≥1 spirometric measurement and ≥1 patient-reported outcome (PRO) at baseline and at study endpoint were selected. The relationships between PROs and spirometric endpoints were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient and meta-regression. Results: Fifty-two studies (62,385 patients) were included. Primary weighted analysis conducted at the last assessment showed a large significant negative correlation (r, -0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI); -0.77, -0.57]) between trough FEV₁ and SGRQ. Improvement of 100 mL in trough FEV₁ corresponded to a 5.9 point reduction in SGRQ. Similarly, a reduction of 4 points on SGRQ corresponded to 40 mL improvement in trough FEV₁ (p<0.001). The weighted correlation coefficients of trough FEV₁ with TDI, exacerbation rate (all) and exacerbation rate (moderate/severe) at last assessment point were 0.57, -0.69 and -0.57, respectively (all p<0.05). For the analyses excluding placebo groups, the correlations of FEV₁ with SGRQ and TDI were lower but significant. Conclusions: A strong association exists between changes in spirometric measurements and changes in PROs.

Early response to inhaled bronchodilators and corticosteroids as a predictor of 12-month treatment responder status and COPD exacerbations

Background

Early treatment response markers, for example, improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, may help clinicians to better manage patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We investigated the prevalence of clinically important improvements in FEV₁ and SGRQ scores after 2-month budesonide/formoterol or formoterol treatment and whether such improvements predict subsequent improvements and exacerbation rates.

Methods

This post hoc analysis is based on data from three double-blind, randomized studies in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD receiving twice-daily budesonide/formoterol or formoterol alone for 6 or 12 months. Prebronchodilator FEV₁ and SGRQ total score were measured before treatment and at 2 and 12 months; COPD exacerbation rates were measured during months 2–12. Responders were defined by ≥100 mL improvement in prebronchodilator FEV₁ and ≥4-point decrease in SGRQ total score.

Results

Overall, 2,331 and 1,799 patients were included in the 0–2- and 0–12-month responder analyses, respectively, and 2,360 patients in the 2–12-month exacerbation rate analysis. At 2 months, 35.1% of patients were FEV₁ responders and 44.3% were SGRQ responders. The probability of response was significantly greater with budesonide/formoterol than with formoterol or placebo for both parameters. Two-month responders had a greater chance of 12-month response than 2-month nonresponders for both FEV₁ (odds ratio, 5.57; 95% confidence interval, 4.14–7.50) and SGRQ (odds ratio, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 2.83–5.31). Two-month response in FEV₁ (P<0.001), but not SGRQ (P=0.11), was associated with greater reductions in exacerbation risk.

Conclusion

Early FEV₁ and SGRQ treatment responses relate to their changes at 12 months. FEV₁ response, but not SGRQ response, at 2 months predicts the risk of a future COPD exacerbation in some, but not all patients. This is potentially useful in clinical practice, although more sensitive and specific markers of favorable treatment response are required.

Adverse events among COPD patients treated with long-acting anticholinergics and β2-agonists in an outpatient respiratory clinic

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the fourth leading cause of death in Canada. Most patients with COPD receive long-term treatment with long-acting anticholinergics (LAAC) and/or long-acting β2-agonists (LABA). Adverse events (AEs) are also likely during long-term treatment with these medications.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence of AEs in COPD patients on LAAC and LABA in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of patients enrolled in the Registre de Données en Santé Pulmonaire (RESP) database, which records information on Canadian patients with asthma or COPD. COPD Patients completed a questionnaire about AEs that may be associated with LAAC and/or LABA. The prevalence of AEs and the corresponding 95% CI were calculated for three groups of patients (LAAC + LABA, LAAC alone, and LABA alone).

RESULTS

Most patients with COPD (n = 154) were current or ex-smokers. Over 50% of patients were overweight or obese, and had an annual family income of less or equal to $42,000. Dry mouth (55.2%, 40%, and 43.5%) and dry throat (33.6%, 26.7%, and 34.8%) occurred most of the time or always in the LAAC + LABA, LAAC, and LABA groups, respectively. Headache was reported by 17.4% of patients in the LABA group, but less than 11.2% in the other groups.

CONCLUSION

AEs reported in this study deserve clinical attention because they may negatively affect quality of life and treatment adherence of COPD patients.

Cardiac effects of current treatments of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

We review the cardiac safety of the drugs available at present for the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in stable disease, focusing on inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and long-acting β2 agonists (LABA), used either as a monotherapy or as a fixed-dose combination. We report the difficulties of, and pitfalls in, the investigation of the safety of drug treatments in COPD, which is hampered by the so-called COPD trial paradox: on the one hand, COPD is defined as a systemic disease and is frequently associated with comorbidities (especially cardiovascular comorbidities), which have an important effect on the prognosis of individual patients; on the other hand, patients with COPD and cardiovascular or other coexisting illnesses are often excluded from participation in randomised controlled clinical trials. In these trials, inhaled long-acting bronchodilators, both LAMA or LABA, or both, seem to be safe when used in the appropriate dose in adherent patients with COPD without uncontrolled cardiovascular disease or other notable comorbidities. However, the cardiac safety of LAMA and LABA is less evident when used inappropriately (eg, overdosing) or in patients with COPD and substantial cardiovascular disease, prolonged QTc interval, or polypharmacy. Potential warnings about rare cardiac events caused by COPD treatment from meta-analyses and observational studies need to be confirmed in high quality large randomised controlled trials. Finally, we briefly cover the cardiac safety issues of chronic oral drug treatments for COPD, encompassing theophylline, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, and macrolides.

Mortality and drug therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence suggests pharmacological treatments may impact on overall survival in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients. Individual clinical trials are rarely powered to detect mortality differences between treatments and may not include all treatment options relevant to healthcare decision makers.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify RCTs of COPD treatments reporting mortality; evidence was synthesised using network meta-analysis (NMA). The analysis included 40 RCTs; a quantitative indirect comparison between 14 treatments using data from 55,220 patients was conducted.

RESULTS

The analysis reported two treatments reducing all-cause mortality; salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) was associated with a reduction in mortality versus placebo in the fixed effects (HR 0.79; 95 % Crl 0.67, 0.94) but not the random effects model (0.79; 0.56, 1.09). Indacaterol was associated with a reduction in mortality versus placebo in fixed (0.28; 0.08 to 0.85) and random effects (0.29; 0.08, 0.89) models. Mean estimates and credible intervals for hazard ratios for indacaterol versus placebo are based on a small number of events; estimates may change when the results of future studies are included. These results were maintained across a variety of assumptions and provide evidence that SFC and indacaterol may lead to improved survival in COPD patients.

CONCLUSION

Results of an NMA of COPD treatments suggest that SFC and indacaterol may reduce mortality. Further research is warranted to strengthen this conclusion.

The EFFECT trial: evaluating exacerbations, biomarkers, and safety outcomes with two dose levels of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in COPD

Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination therapy is recommended in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients at high risk of exacerbations. The EFFECT (Efficacy of Fluticasone propionate/FormotErol in COPD Treatment) trial is a Phase III, 52-week, randomized, double-blind study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two doses of fluticasone propionate/formoterol compared to formoterol monotherapy in COPD patients with FEV1 ≥50% predicted and a history of exacerbations. The primary endpoint is the annualized rate of moderate and severe exacerbations. Secondary endpoints include pre-dose FEV1, EXACT-PRO (EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool - Patient-Reported Outcome)-defined exacerbations, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD, COPD Assessment Test, and EXACT-Respiratory Symptoms total score. Lung-specific biomarkers (surfactant protein D and CC chemokine ligand-18) will be measured in a subset of patients to explore their relationship to other clinical indices in COPD and their predictive utility. Pneumonia will be diagnosed per criteria defined by the British Thoracic Society community acquired pneumonia guideline, primarily by radiological confirmation and, additionally, using clinical criteria when a chest radiograph cannot be obtained. Serial measurements of serum potassium, vital signs and electrocardiograms, 24-hour Holter monitoring, and 24-hour urinary cortisol measurement will be performed in a subset of patients in addition to conventional safety assessments.

Inhaled Corticosteroids Increase the Risk of Pneumonia in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Nationwide Cohort Study

The association of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is still controversial.From the National Health Insurance Database of Taiwan, COPD cases with history of acute exacerbation (AE) were identified (COPD cohort). Time-dependent Cox regression analysis was applied to investigate the risk factors for pneumonia with COPD severity controlled by surrogate variables. Among the COPD cohort, those who continuously used ICS for more than 360 days without interruption were selected (ICS cohort). The incidence rate of pneumonia during ICS use was compared with those before ICS use and after ICS discontinuation by using pair t test.A total of 6034 and 842 cases were identified as the COPD and ICS cohorts, respectively. In the COPD cohort, recent ICS use was independently associated with pneumonia (hazard ratio: 1.06 [1.02-1.11] for per 80 mg of budesonide). Other independent risk factors included age, male, diabetes mellitus, malignancy, low income, baseline pneumonia event, and recent use of oral corticosteroids and aminophylline. In the ICS cohort, while AE rate gradually decreased, the incidence rate of pneumonia significantly increased after ICS use (from 0.10 to 0.21 event/person-year, P = 0.001).This study demonstrates the association between ICS use and pneumonia in patients with COPD and history of AE. ICS should be judiciously used in indicated COPD patients.

Efficacy and tolerability of budesonide/formoterol added to tiotropium compared with tiotropium alone in patients with severe or very severe COPD: A randomized, multicentre study in East Asia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Triple combination therapy with tiotropium plus budesonide/formoterol has improved lung function and reduced exacerbation risk in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Western countries, but no such data exist for East Asian patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of adding budesonide/formoterol to tiotropium compared with tiotropium alone in East Asian patients with severe/very severe COPD.

METHODS

This 12-week, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre, open-label study was conducted in East Asia. After a 14-day run-in period during which patients received tiotropium 18 μg once daily, patients were randomized to tiotropium (18 μg once daily) + budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 μg 2 inhalations twice daily) or tiotropium alone (18 μg once daily). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1 ) to the mean of values measured at Weeks 1, 6 and 12.

RESULTS

Pre-dose FEV1 significantly increased from baseline with tiotropium plus budesonide/formoterol (n = 287) versus tiotropium alone (n = 291) (5.0% vs 0.6%; treatment difference: 4.4% (95% CI: 1.9-6.9), P = 0.0004). Triple therapy also reduced the COPD exacerbation rate by 40.7% (P = 0.0032) and prolonged time to first exacerbation (38.6% risk reduction, P = 0.0167) versus tiotropium alone and markedly improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL), measured using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire. Incidence of adverse events was 26% for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In East Asian patients with severe/very severe COPD, adding budesonide/formoterol to tiotropium was associated with significant improvements in FEV1 and HRQoL and lower COPD exacerbation rates. Treatment was generally well tolerated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01397890 at Clinicaltrials.gov.

Inhaled Long-Acting β2-Agonists Do Not Increase Fatal Cardiovascular Adverse Events in COPD: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The cardiovascular safety of inhaled long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a controversial problem. Certain studies have suggested that inhaled LABAs lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients with COPD. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the cardiovascular safety of inhaled LABAs in COPD.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials for LABA treatment of COPD with at least 3 months of follow-up was performed. The fixed-effects model was used to evaluate the effects of LABAs on fatal cardiovascular adverse events. Adverse events were collected for each trial, and the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for LABA/placebo were estimated.

RESULTS

There were 24 trials included in this meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, inhaled LABAs significantly decreased fatal cardiovascular adverse events in COPD patients (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.86, P = 0.002). In sensitivity analysis, there was still no increased risk of fatal cardiovascular events (RR 0.68, 95%CI 0.46 to 1.01, P = 0.06) after excluding the trial with the largest weight. Among the different types of LABAs, only salmeterol had a significant effect (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.90). In subgroup analyses, inhaled LABAs were able to significantly decrease fatal cardiovascular events in long-term trials (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.87) and in trials with severe COPD patients (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96).

CONCLUSION

Inhaled LABAs do not increase the risk of fatal cardiovascular events in COPD patients.

Reliever salbutamol use as a measure of exacerbation risk in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Debate exists regarding which endpoints most sensitively reflect day-to-day variation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) symptoms and are most useful in clinical practice to predict COPD exacerbations. We hypothesized that short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) reliever use would predict short- and long-term exacerbation risk in COPD patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of data from a study (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT00419744) comparing budesonide/formoterol 320/9 μg with formoterol 9 μg (both twice daily) in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD; reliever salbutamol 90 μg was provided. First occurrence of reliever use >4 (low), >10 (medium), and >20 (high) inhalations/day was assessed as a predictor of short-term (3-week) exacerbation risk. Mean daily reliever use in the week preceding the 2-month visit was investigated as a predictor of the long-term (10-month) exacerbation risk, using intervals of 2-5, 6-9, and ≥10 inhalations/day.

RESULTS

Overall, 810 patients were included (61 % male; mean age 63.2 years; post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s 37.7 % of predicted). First occurrence of low, medium, or high reliever use was predictive of an exacerbation within the following 3 weeks; exacerbation risk increased significantly with increasing reliever use. Mean reliever use over 1 week was predictive of long-term exacerbation risk. Patients with mean use of 2-5, 6-9, and ≥10 inhalations/day exhibited 21 %, 67 %, and 135 % higher exacerbation rates, respectively, in the following 10 months, compared with <2 inhalations/day. Budesonide/formoterol was associated with lower short- and long-term exacerbation risk than formoterol in all reliever-use groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SABA reliever use is a predictor of short- and long-term exacerbation risk in moderate-to-very-severe COPD patients with a history of exacerbations receiving budesonide/formoterol or formoterol.

Incident pneumonia and mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A double effect of inhaled corticosteroids?

Inhaled corticosteroids are commonly prescribed for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Although their use improves quality of life and reduces exacerbations, it is associated with increased risk of pneumonia. Curiously, their use has not been associated with increased risk of pneumonia-related or overall mortality. We review pertinent literature to further explore the effects of inhaled corticosteroids on incident pneumonia and mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The association of use of inhaled corticosteroids and incident pneumonia is substantial and has been present in the majority of the studies on the topic. This includes both randomized controlled trials and observational studies. However, all of the studies have substantial risk of bias. Most randomized trials are limited by lack of systematic ascertainment of pneumonia; they depended on adverse event reporting. Many observational studies included proper radiographic assessment of pneumonia, but they are limited by their retrospective, observational design. The unadjusted higher risk of pneumonia is associated with longer duration of use, more potent ICS compounds, and higher doses. That implies a dose-effect relationship. Unlike pneumonia, mortality is a precise outcome. Despite the robust association of inhaled corticosteroid use with increased risk of pneumonia, all studies find either no difference or a reduction in pulmonary-related and overall mortality associated with the use of inhaled corticosteroids. These observations suggest a double effect of inhaled corticosteroids (i.e., an adverse effect plus an unexplained mitigating effect).

A score to predict short-term risk of COPD exacerbations (SCOPEX)

Background

There is no clinically useful score to predict chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations. We aimed to derive this by analyzing data from three existing COPD clinical trials of budesonide/formoterol, formoterol, or placebo in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD and a history of exacerbations in the previous year.

Methods

Predictive variables were selected using Cox regression for time to first severe COPD exacerbation. We determined absolute risk estimates for an exacerbation by identifying variables in a binomial model, adjusting for observation time, study, and treatment. The model was further reduced to clinically useful variables and the final regression coefficients scaled to obtain risk scores of 0–100 to predict an exacerbation within 6 months. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the corresponding C-index were used to investigate the discriminatory properties of predictive variables.

Results

The best predictors of an exacerbation in the next 6 months were more COPD maintenance medications prior to the trial, higher mean daily reliever use, more exacerbations during the previous year, lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity ratio, and female sex. Using these risk variables, we developed a score to predict short-term (6-month) risk of COPD exacerbations (SCOPEX). Budesonide/formoterol reduced future exacerbation risk more than formoterol or as-needed short-acting β₂-agonist (salbutamol).

Conclusion

SCOPEX incorporates easily identifiable patient characteristics and can be readily applied in clinical practice to target therapy to reduce COPD exacerbations in patients at the highest risk.

Inhaled corticosteroids and pneumonia in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Inhaled corticosteroids are widely used in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and, in combination with long-acting β2 agonists, reduce exacerbations and improve lung function and quality of life. However, inhaled corticosteroids have been linked with an increased risk of pneumonia in individuals with COPD, but the magnitude of this risk, the effects of different preparations and doses, and the mechanisms of this effect remain unclear. Therefore, making informed clinical decisions--balancing the beneficial and adverse effects of inhaled corticosteroids in individuals with COPD--is difficult. Understanding of the mechanisms of increased pneumonia risk with inhaled corticosteroids is urgently needed to clarify their role in the management of COPD and to aid the development of new, safer therapies.

Impact of changes to reimbursement of fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β₂ -agonists in obstructive lung diseases: a population-based, observational study

BACKGROUND

In 2010, the Icelandic government introduced a new cost-saving policy that limited reimbursement of fixed inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂ -agonist (ICS/LABA) combinations.

METHODS

This population-based, retrospective, observational study assessed the effects of this policy change by linking specialist/primary care medical records with data from the Icelandic Pharmaceutical Database. The policy change took effect on 1 January 2010 (index date); data for the year preceding and following this date were analysed in 8241 patients with controlled/partly controlled asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who had been dispensed an ICS/LABA during 2009. Oral corticosteroid (OCS) and short-acting β₂ -agonist (SABA) use, and healthcare visits, were assessed pre- and post-index.

RESULTS

The ICS/LABA reimbursement policy change led to 47.8% fewer fixed ICS/LABA combinations being dispensed during the post-index period among patients whose asthma and/or COPD was controlled/partly controlled during the pre-index period. Fewer ICS monocomponents were also dispensed. A total of 48.6% of patients were no longer receiving any respiratory medications after the policy change. This was associated with reduced disease control, as demonstrated by more healthcare visits (44.0%), and more OCS (76.3%) and SABA (51.2%) dispensations.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, these findings demonstrate that changes in healthcare policy and medication reimbursement can directly impact medication use and, consequently, clinical outcomes and should, therefore, be made cautiously.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treated with inhaled medium- or high-dose corticosteroids: a prospective and randomized study focusing on clinical efficacy and the risk of pneumonia

Purpose

Complications of pneumonia development in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receiving inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy have been documented. The aim of this study was to focus on clinical efficacy and the incidence of pneumonia between COPD patients receiving medium and high doses of ICS.

Patients and methods

This prospective, randomized study included COPD patients identified from three tertiary medical centers from 2010 to 2012. The patients were randomized into two groups: high dose (HD; fluticasone 1,000 μg + salmeterol 100 μg/day) and medium dose (MD; fluticasone 500 μg + salmeterol 100 μg/day). Lung function with forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), forced vital capacity, and COPD-assessment test (CAT) were checked every 2 months. The frequency of acute exacerbations and number of pneumonia events were measured. The duration of the study period was 1 year.

Results

In total, 237 COPD patients were randomized into the two treatment arms (115 in the HD group, 122 in the MD group). The FEV₁ level was significantly improved in the patients in the HD group compared with those in the MD group (HD 103.9±26.6 mL versus MD 51.4±19.7 mL, P<0.01) at the end of the study. CAT scores were markedly improved in patients using an HD compared to those using an MD (HD 13±5 versus MD 16±7, P=0.05). There was a significant difference in the percentage of annual rates in acute exacerbations (HD 0.16 versus MD 0.34, P<0.01) between the two groups. The incidence of pneumonia was similar in the two groups (HD 0.08 versus MD 0.10, P=0.38).

Conclusion

COPD patients treated with high doses of ICS had more treatment benefits and no significant increases in the incidence in pneumonia. Higher-dose ICS treatment may be suitable for COPD therapy.

Comparative efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta agonist combinations in preventing COPD exacerbations: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) is recommended in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients experiencing frequent exacerbations. Currently, there are five ICS/LABA combination products available on the market. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the efficacy of various ICS/LABA combinations with a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Several databases and manufacturer's websites were searched for relevant clinical trials. Randomized control trials, at least 12 weeks duration, comparing an ICS/LABA combination with active control or placebo were included. Moderate and severe exacerbations were chosen as the outcome assessment criteria. The primary analyses were conducted with a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method.

RESULTS

Most of the ICS/LABA combinations reduced moderate-to-severe exacerbations as compared with placebo and LABA, but none of them reduced severe exacerbations. However, many studies excluded patients receiving long-term oxygen therapy. Moderate-dose ICS was as effective as high-dose ICS in reducing exacerbations when combined with LABA.

CONCLUSION

ICS/LABA combinations had a class effect with regard to the prevention of COPD exacerbations. Moderate-dose ICS/LABA combination therapy would be sufficient for COPD patients when indicated. The efficacy of ICS/LABA combination therapy appeared modest and had no impact in reducing severe exacerbations. Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of ICS/LABA combination therapy in severely affected COPD patients requiring long-term oxygen therapy.

Use of pressurized metered dose inhalers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: review of evidence

The inhaled route is considered to be the best route to administer drugs for treating respiratory diseases like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), for both safety and efficacy. Inhalation devices are classified into four types - pressuriszed metered dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry powder inhalers, breath actuated inhalers and nebulizers. pMDIs are portable, convenient, multi-dose devices and these advantages have made them very popular with patients. They were introduced in the 1950s as the first portable, multi-dose delivery system for bronchodilators. Even though pMDIs are the most widely used devices for inhalation therapy in asthma and COPD, studies establishing their use and providing clinical data with bronchodilators and combination therapies in patients with COPD are limited. A summary of the use of pMDI with spacers in patients with COPD in terms of lung deposition and impact on lung function are presented in this review article. A review of use of the pMDI device in patients with COPD with different available and prescribed medications (bronchodilators-β2-agonists and anticholinergics, and their combination with inhaled corticosteroids) is discussed.

Long-acting inhaled therapy (beta-agonists, anticholinergics and steroids) for COPD: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is aimed at relieving symptoms, improving quality of life and preventing or treating exacerbations.Treatment tends to begin with one inhaler, and additional therapies are introduced as necessary. For persistent or worsening symptoms, long-acting inhaled therapies taken once or twice daily are preferred over short-acting inhalers. Several Cochrane reviews have looked at the risks and benefits of specific long-acting inhaled therapies compared with placebo or other treatments. However for patients and clinicians, it is important to understand the merits of these treatments relative to each other, and whether a particular class of inhaled therapies is more beneficial than the others.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of treatment options for patients whose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cannot be controlled by short-acting therapies alone. The review will not look at combination therapies usually considered later in the course of the disease.As part of this network meta-analysis, we will address the following issues.1. How does long-term efficacy compare between different pharmacological treatments for COPD?2. Are there limitations in the current evidence base that may compromise the conclusions drawn by this network meta-analysis? If so, what are the implications for future research?

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in existing Cochrane reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). In addition, we ran a comprehensive citation search on the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials (CAGR) and checked manufacturer websites and reference lists of other reviews. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group RCTs of at least 6 months' duration recruiting people with COPD. Studies were included if they compared any of the following treatments versus any other: long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs; formoterol, indacaterol, salmeterol); long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs; aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium); inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs; budesonide, fluticasone, mometasone); combination long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) (formoterol/budesonide, formoterol/mometasone, salmeterol/fluticasone); and placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a network meta-analysis using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for two efficacy outcomes: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (placebo). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within treatment classes (LAMA, LABA, ICS, LABA/ICS). We present estimates of class effects, variability between treatments within each class and individual treatment effects compared with every other.To justify the analyses, we assessed the trials for clinical and methodological transitivity across comparisons. We tested the robustness of our analyses by performing sensitivity analyses for lack of blinding and by considering six- and 12-month data separately.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 71 RCTs randomly assigning 73,062 people with COPD to 184 treatment arms of interest. Trials were similar with regards to methodology, inclusion and exclusion criteria and key baseline characteristics. Participants were more often male, aged in their mid sixties, with FEV1 predicted normal between 40% and 50% and with substantial smoking histories (40+ pack-years). The risk of bias was generally low, although missing information made it hard to judge risk of selection bias and selective outcome reporting. Fixed effects were used for SGRQ analyses, and random effects for Trough FEV1 analyses, based on model fit statistics and deviance information criteria (DIC). SGRQ SGRQ data were available in 42 studies (n = 54,613). At six months, 39 pairwise comparisons were made between 18 treatments in 25 studies (n = 27,024). Combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked intervention, with a mean improvement over placebo of -3.89 units at six months (95% credible interval (CrI) -4.70 to -2.97) and -3.60 at 12 months (95% CrI -4.63 to -2.34). LAMAs and LABAs were ranked second and third at six months, with mean differences of -2.63 (95% CrI -3.53 to -1.97) and -2.29 (95% CrI -3.18 to -1.53), respectively. Inhaled corticosteroids were ranked fourth (MD -2.00, 95% CrI -3.06 to -0.87). Class differences between LABA, LAMA and ICS were less prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and aclidinium were ranked somewhat higher than other members of their classes, and formoterol 12 mcg, budesonide 400 mcg and formoterol/mometasone combination were ranked lower within their classes. There was considerable overlap in credible intervals and rankings for both classes and individual treatments. Trough FEV1 Trough FEV1 data were available in 46 studies (n = 47,409). At six months, 41 pairwise comparisons were made between 20 treatments in 31 studies (n = 29,271). As for SGRQ, combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked class, with a mean improvement over placebo of 133.3 mL at six months (95% CrI 100.6 to 164.0) and slightly less at 12 months (mean difference (MD) 100, 95% CrI 55.5 to 140.1). LAMAs (MD 103.5, 95% CrI 81.8 to 124.9) and LABAs (MD 99.4, 95% CrI 72.0 to 127.8) showed roughly equivalent results at six months, and ICSs were the fourth ranked class (MD 65.4, 95% CrI 33.1 to 96.9). As with SGRQ, initial differences between classes were not so prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and salmeterol/fluticasone were ranked slightly better than others in their class, and formoterol 12, aclidinium, budesonide and formoterol/budesonide combination were ranked lower within their classes. All credible intervals for individual rankings were wide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis compares four different classes of long-acting inhalers for people with COPD who need more than short-acting bronchodilators. Quality of life and lung function were improved most on combination inhalers (LABA and ICS) and least on ICS alone at 6 and at 12 months. Overall LAMA and LABA inhalers had similar effects, particularly at 12 months. The network has demonstrated the benefit of ICS when added to LABA for these outcomes in participants who largely had an FEV1 that was less than 50% predicted, but the additional expense of combination inhalers and any potential for increased adverse events (which has been established by other reviews) require consideration. Our findings are in keeping with current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.

Budesonide/formoterol via Turbuhaler® versus formoterol via Turbuhaler® in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: phase III multinational study results

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and tolerability of budesonide/formoterol versus formoterol in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was evaluated.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase III study (NCT01069289), patients with moderate to severe COPD for ≥2 years received either budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 μg two inhalations twice daily via Turbuhaler® or formoterol 4.5 μg two inhalations twice daily via Turbuhaler® for 12 weeks. Salbutamol was available as reliever medication. Primary outcome variable: change from baseline to average during treatment in pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1 ).

RESULTS

One thousand two hundred ninety-three patients were randomized (budesonide/formoterol n = 636; formoterol n = 657). Both budesonide/formoterol and formoterol increased pre-dose FEV1 versus baseline (improvements of 4.6% and 1.5% over baseline, respectively), with the increase from baseline being significantly greater with budesonide/formoterol versus formoterol (budesonide/formoterol:formoterol ratio 1.032; 95% confidence interval: 1.013-1.052; P = 0.0011). The budesonide/formoterol group had a significantly prolonged time to first exacerbation versus the formoterol group (hazard ratio: 0.679; 95% confidence interval: 0.507-0.909; P = 0.0094) and significantly greater improvements in many secondary outcome measures. Both treatments were well tolerated; the incidence and type of adverse events were similar: most commonly reported (budesonide/formoterol vs formoterol): COPD (8.0% vs 9.4%) and nasopharyngitis (5.5% vs 4.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 μg two inhalations twice daily was effective and well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe COPD, offering benefits over formoterol alone in terms of improved lung function and reduced risk of exacerbation.

Inhaled steroids and risk of pneumonia for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are anti-inflammatory drugs that have proven benefits for people with worsening symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and repeated exacerbations. They are commonly used as combination inhalers with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) to reduce exacerbation rates and all-cause mortality, and to improve lung function and quality of life. The most common combinations of ICS and LABA used in combination inhalers are fluticasone and salmeterol, budesonide and formoterol and a new formulation of fluticasone in combination with vilanterol, which is now available. ICS have been associated with increased risk of pneumonia, but the magnitude of risk and how this compares with different ICS remain unclear. Recent reviews conducted to address their safety have not compared the relative safety of these two drugs when used alone or in combination with LABA.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of pneumonia associated with the use of fluticasone and budesonide for COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), clinicaltrials.gov, reference lists of existing systematic reviews and manufacturer websites. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies were included if they compared the ICS budesonide or fluticasone versus placebo, or either ICS in combination with a LABA versus the same LABA as monotherapy for people with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, numerical data and risk of bias information for each included study.We looked at direct comparisons of ICS versus placebo separately from comparisons of ICS/LABA versus LABA for all outcomes, and we combined these with subgroups when no important heterogeneity was noted. After assessing for transitivity, we conducted an indirect comparison to compare budesonide versus fluticasone monotherapy, but we could not do the same for the combination therapies because of systematic differences between the budesonide and fluticasone combination data sets.When appropriate, we explored the effects of ICS dose, duration of ICS therapy and baseline severity on the primary outcome. Findings of all outcomes are presented in 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADEPro.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 43 studies that met the inclusion criteria, and more evidence was provided for fluticasone (26 studies; n = 21,247) than for budesonide (17 studies; n = 10,150). Evidence from the budesonide studies was more inconsistent and less precise, and the studies were shorter. The populations within studies were more often male with a mean age of around 63, mean pack-years smoked over 40 and mean predicted forced expiratory volume of one second (FEV1) less than 50%.High or uneven dropout was considered a high risk of bias in almost 40% of the trials, but conclusions for the primary outcome did not change when the trials at high risk of bias were removed in a sensitivity analysis.Fluticasone increased non-fatal serious adverse pneumonia events (requiring hospital admission) (odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50 to 2.12; 18 more per 1000 treated over 18 months; high quality), and no evidence suggested that this outcome was reduced by delivering it in combination with salmeterol or vilanterol (subgroup differences: I(2) = 0%, P value 0.51), or that different doses, trial duration or baseline severity significantly affected the estimate. Budesonide also increased non-fatal serious adverse pneumonia events compared with placebo, but the effect was less precise and was based on shorter trials (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.62; six more per 1000 treated over nine months; moderate quality). Some of the variation in the budesonide data could be explained by a significant difference between the two commonly used doses: 640 mcg was associated with a larger effect than 320 mcg relative to placebo (subgroup differences: I(2) = 74%, P value 0.05).An indirect comparison of budesonide versus fluticasone monotherapy revealed no significant differences with respect to serious adverse events (pneumonia-related or all-cause) or mortality. The risk of any pneumonia event (i.e. less serious cases treated in the community) was higher with fluticasone than with budesonide (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.34); this was the only significant difference reported between the two drugs. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution because of possible differences in the assignment of pneumonia diagnosis, and because no trials directly compared the two drugs.No significant difference in overall mortality rates was observed between either of the inhaled steroids and the control interventions (both high-quality evidence), and pneumonia-related deaths were too rare to permit conclusions to be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide and fluticasone, delivered alone or in combination with a LABA, are associated with increased risk of serious adverse pneumonia events, but neither significantly affected mortality compared with controls. The safety concerns highlighted in this review should be balanced with recent cohort data and established randomised evidence of efficacy regarding exacerbations and quality of life. Comparison of the two drugs revealed no statistically significant difference in serious pneumonias, mortality or serious adverse events. Fluticasone was associated with higher risk of any pneumonia when compared with budesonide (i.e. less serious cases dealt with in the community), but variation in the definitions used by the respective manufacturers is a potential confounding factor in their comparison.Primary research should accurately measure pneumonia outcomes and should clarify both the definition and the method of diagnosis used, especially for new formulations such as fluticasone furoate, for which little evidence of the associated pneumonia risk is currently available. Similarly, systematic reviews and cohorts should address the reliability of assigning 'pneumonia' as an adverse event or cause of death and should determine how this affects the applicability of findings.

Evaluating the safety of COPD medications: an evidence-based review

The goals of management of COPD include reducing exposure to risk factors; improving lung function, exercise tolerance, and quality of life; and decreasing exacerbations and mortality. Pharmacologic treatments, such as inhaled β2-agonists, anticholinergics, and inhaled corticosteroids, are widely used to help achieve these goals. In addition to efficacy, medication safety is an important consideration in selecting COPD treatments. Clinical trials conducted in support of the regulatory review and approval process establish the general efficacy and tolerability of pharmacologic treatments for COPD, and these data are reflected in product labeling. Following approval, further research continues to provide more data with longer follow-up and in broader settings than feasible in clinical trials. These data add to our knowledge of the efficacy of medications. Understanding medication safety requires assessment of the quality and appropriateness of study design, as well as knowledge of study findings, and is of paramount importance in making sound clinical judgments in the treatment of patients with COPD. In recent years, a wealth of data on COPD medications has been published from different sources, including randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and observational studies. This review discusses important considerations in interpreting data from different types of studies, summarizes the tolerability profile of COPD medications established in preapproval studies, and discusses new findings from more recent postapproval data.

Can the anti-inflammatory activities of β2-agonists be harnessed in the clinical setting?

Beta2-adrenoreceptor agonists (β2-agonists) are primarily bronchodilators, targeting airway smooth muscle and providing critical symptomatic relief in conditions such as bronchial asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These agents also possess broad-spectrum, secondary, anti-inflammatory properties. These are mediated largely, though not exclusively, via interactions with adenylyl cyclase-coupled β2-adrenoreceptors on a range of immune and inflammatory cells involved in the immunopathogenesis of acute and chronic inflammatory disorders of the airways. The clinical relevance of the anti-inflammatory actions of β2-agonists, although often effective in the experimental setting, remains contentious. The primary objectives of the current review are: firstly, to assess the mechanisms, both molecular and cell-associated, that may limit the anti-inflammatory efficacy of β2-agonists; secondly, to evaluate pharmacological strategies, several of which are recent and innovative, that may overcome these limitations. These are preceded by a consideration of the various types of β2-agonists, their clinical applications, and spectrum of anti-inflammatory activities, particularly those involving adenosine 3',5'-cyclic adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase-mediated clearance of cytosolic calcium, and altered gene expression in immune and inflammatory cells.

Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta₂-agonist in one inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Both long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have been recommended in guidelines for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Their coadministration in a combination inhaler may facilitate adherence to medication regimens and improve efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of combined ICS and LABA for stable COPD in comparison with placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, reference lists of included studies and manufacturers' trial registries. The date of the most recent search was June 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration. Eligible studies compared combined ICS and LABA preparations with placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. Dichotomous data were analysed as fixed-effect odds ratios (OR) or rate ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and continuous data as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria (with 10,400 participants randomly assigned, lasting between 4 and 156 weeks, mean 42 weeks). Studies used three different combined preparations (fluticasone/salmeterol, budesonide/formoterol or mometasone/formoterol). The studies were generally at low risk of bias for blinding but at unclear or high risk for attrition bias because of participant dropouts. Compared with placebo, both fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol reduced the rate of exacerbations. Mometasone/formoterol reduced the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbation. Pooled analysis of the combined therapies indicated that exacerbations were less frequent when compared with placebo (Rate Ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.78, 7 studies, 7495 participants); the quality of this evidence when GRADE criteria were applied was rated as moderate. Participants included in these trials had on average one or two exacerbations per year, which means that treatment with combined therapy would lead to a reduction of one exacerbation every two to four years in these individuals. An overall reduction in mortality was seen, but this outcome was dominated by the results of one study (TORCH) of fluticasone/salmeterol. Generally, deaths in the smaller, shorter studies were too few to contribute to the overall estimate. Further longer studies on budesonide/formoterol and mometasone/formoterol are required to clarify whether this is seen more widely. When a baseline risk of death of 15.2% from the placebo arm of TORCH was used, the three-year number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with fluticasone/salmeterol to prevent one extra death was 42 (95% CI 24 to 775). All three combined treatments led to statistically significant improvement in health status measurements, although the mean differences observed are relatively small in relation to the minimum clinically important difference. Furthermore, symptoms and lung function assessments favoured combined treatments. An increase in the risk of pneumonia was noted with combined inhalers compared with placebo treatment (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.94), and the quality of this evidence was rated as moderate, but no dose effect was seen. The three-year NNTH for one extra case of pneumonia was 17, based on a 12.3% risk of pneumonia in the placebo arm of TORCH. Fewer participants withdrew from the combined treatment arms for adverse events or lack of efficacy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combined inhaler therapy led to around a quarter fewer COPD exacerbations than were seen with placebo. A significant reduction in all-cause mortality was noted, but this outcome was dominated by one trial (TORCH), emphasising the need for further trials of longer duration. Increased risk of pneumonia is a concern; however, this did not translate into increased exacerbations, hospitalisations or deaths. Current evidence does not suggest any major differences between inhalers in terms of effects, but nor is the evidence strong enough to demonstrate that all are equivalent. To permit firmer conclusions about the effects of combined therapy, more data are needed, particularly in relation to the profile of adverse events and benefits in relation to different formulations and doses of inhaled ICS. Head-to-head comparisons are necessary to determine whether one combined inhaler is better than the others.

Overtreatment of COPD with inhaled corticosteroids--implications for safety and costs: cross-sectional observational study

INTRODUCTION

Combined inhaled long-acting beta-agonists and corticosteroids (LABA+ICS) are costly. They are recommended in severe or very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). They should not be prescribed in mild or moderate disease. In COPD ICS are associated with side-effects including risk of pneumonia. We quantified appropriateness of prescribing and examined the risks and costs associated with overuse.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the electronic and paper records of 41 London general practices (population 310,775) including spirometry, medications and exacerbations. We classified severity, assessed appropriateness of prescribing using the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines for 2009, and performed a sensitivity analysis using the broader recommendations of the 2011 revision.

RESULTS

3537 patients had a diagnosis of COPD. Spirometry was recorded for 2458(69%). 709(29%) did not meet GOLD criteria. 1749(49%) with confirmed COPD were analysed: 8.6% under-treated, 38% over-treated. Over-prescription of ICS in GOLD stage I or II (n=403, 38%) and in GOLD III or IV without exacerbations (n=231, 33.6%) was common. An estimated 12 cases (95%CI 7-19) annually of serious pneumonia were likely among 897 inappropriately treated. 535 cases of overtreatment involved LABA+ICS with a mean per patient cost of £553.56/year (€650.03). Using the broader indications for ICS in the 2011 revised GOLD guideline 25% were still classified as over-treated. The estimated risk of 15 cases of pneumonia (95%CI 8-22) in 1074 patients currently receiving ICS would rise by 20% to 18 (95%CI 9.8-26.7) in 1305 patients prescribed ICS if all with GOLD grade 3 and 4 received LABA+ICS.

CONCLUSION

Over-prescription of ICS in confirmed COPD was widespread with considerable potential for harm. In COPD where treatment is often escalated in the hope of easing the burden of disease clinicians should consider both the risks and benefits of treatment and the costs where the benefits are unproven.

Long-acting beta2-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory disease that causes progressive symptoms of breathlessness, cough and mucus build-up. It is the fourth or fifth most common cause of death worldwide and is associated with significant healthcare costs.Inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs) are widely prescribed to manage the symptoms of COPD when short-acting agents alone are no longer sufficient. Twice-daily treatment with an inhaled LABA is aimed at relieving symptoms, improving exercise tolerance and quality of life, slowing decline and even improving lung function and preventing and treating exacerbations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of twice-daily long-acting beta2-agonists compared with placebo for patients with COPD on the basis of clinically important endpoints, primarily quality of life and COPD exacerbations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register, ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' websites in June 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting populations of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Studies were required to be at least 12 weeks in duration and designed to assess the safety and efficacy of a long-acting beta2-agonist against placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data and characteristics were extracted independently by two review authors, and each study was assessed for potential sources of bias. Data for all outcomes were pooled and subgrouped by LABA agent (formoterol 12 μg, formoterol 24 μg and salmeterol 50 μg) and then were separately analysed by LABA agent and subgrouped by trial duration. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for the proportion of participants taking inhaled corticosteroids and for studies with high or uneven rates of attrition.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six RCTs met the inclusion criteria, randomly assigning 14,939 people with COPD to receive twice-daily LABA or placebo. Study duration ranged from three months to three years; the median duration was six months. Participants were more often male with moderate to severe symptoms at randomisation; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was between 33% and 55% predicted normal in the studies, and mean St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (SGRQ) ranged from 44 to 55 when reported.Moderate-quality evidence showed that LABA treatment improved quality of life on the SGRQ (mean difference (MD) -2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.09 to -1.54; I(2) = 50%; 17 trials including 11,397 people) and reduced the number of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation (odds ratio (OR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; I(2) = 10%; seven trials including 3804 people). In absolute terms, 18 fewer people per 1000 were hospitalised as the result of an exacerbation while receiving LABA therapy over a weighted mean of 7 months (95% CI 3 to 31 fewer). Scores were also improved on the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ), and more people receiving LABA treatment showed clinically important improvement of at least four points on the SGRQ.The number of people who had exacerbations requiring a course of oral steroids or antibiotics was also lower among those taking LABA (52 fewer per 1000 treated over 8 months; 95% CI 24 to 78 fewer, moderate quality evidence).Mortality was low, and combined findings of all studies showed that LABA therapy did not significantly affect mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08; I(2) = 21%; 23 trials including 14,079 people, moderate quality evidence). LABA therapy did not affect the rate of serious adverse events (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; I(2) = 34%, moderate quality evidence), although there was significant unexplained heterogeneity, especially between the two formoterol doses.LABA therapy improved predose FEV1 by 73 mL more than placebo (95% CI 48 to 98; I(2) = 71%, low quality evidence), and people were more likely to withdraw from placebo than from LABA therapy (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80; I(2) = 0%). Higher rates of withdrawal in the placebo arm may reduce our confidence in some results, but the disparity is more likely to reduce the magnitude of difference between LABA and placebo than inflate the true effect; removing studies at highest risk of bias on the basis of high and unbalanced attrition did not change conclusions for the primary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence from 26 studies showed that inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists are effective over the medium and long term for patients with moderate to severe COPD. Their use is associated with improved quality of life and reduced exacerbations, including those requiring hospitalisation. Overall, findings showed that inhaled LABAs did not significantly reduce mortality or serious adverse events.