Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist in one inhaler versus inhaled steroids for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Preoperative inhalation therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease undergoing lung surgery: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Research shows that even the short-term administration of inhaled drugs immediately before surgery can improve respiratory function in surgical candidates with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the long-term efficacies of different types of long-acting inhaled agents when used during a short preoperative period remain unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacies of short-term, preoperative long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting β2-agonists (ICSs/LABAs), and long-acting muscarinic antagonists with long-acting β2-agonists (LAMAs/LABAs) in patients with COPD after lung resection.

METHODS

Patients who underwent anatomical lung resections between April 2010 and March 2020 were divided into the non-COPD (193 patients) and COPD (241 patients) groups. The COPD group underwent preoperative treatment with either a LAMA (51 patients), an ICS/LABA (112 patients), or a LAMA/LABA (78 patients) for almost 1 month, with pulmonary function tests performed initially, just before surgery, and at 1 and 6 months after surgery. Improvement in preoperative respiratory function by inhalation therapy and the maintenance of improvement in respiratory function after surgery were examined in each group.

RESULTS

The COPD group had significantly higher proportions of men, older patients, smokers, and histopathologic types except for adenocarcinoma than the non-COPD group; however, there were neither differences in sex, age, percentage of smokers, or histopathologic type among the inhalant groups within the COPD group nor were there differences in percentage of GOLD stage, preoperative inhalation period, or percentage of resected lobes in lobectomy. Preoperative increases in forced expiratory volume in 1.0 s (FEV1.0) were significantly higher in the COPD group (129.07 ± 11.29 mL) than in the non-COPD group (-2.32 ± 12.93 mL) (p < 0.0001). At 6 months, there was no significant difference in residual FEV1.0 between the COPD-LAMA/LABA (2017.46 ± 62.43 mL) and non-COPD groups (2046.93 ± 40.53 mL). The FEV1.0 reduction rate was more suppressed in the COPD-LAMA/LABA group than in the non-COPD group at 1 and 6 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term, preoperative, inhaled pharmacotherapies, particularly LAMAs/LABAs, were effective at improving respiratory function in patients with COPD; thus, these agents are recommended for use in this population.

Pharmacological treatment and current controversies in COPD

Bronchodilators, corticosteroids, and antibiotics are still key elements for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the 2019 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommendations and this is due in part to our current inability to discover new drugs capable of decisively influencing the course of the disease. However, in recent years, information has been produced that, if used correctly, can allow us to improve the use of the available therapies.

Diagnosis and pharmacotherapy of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the finnish guidelines

The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim initiated and managed the update of the Finnish national guideline for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Finnish COPD guideline was revised to acknowledge the progress in diagnosis and management of COPD. This Finnish COPD guideline in English language is a part of the original guideline and focuses on the diagnosis, assessment and pharmacotherapy of stable COPD. It is intended to be used mainly in primary health care but not forgetting respiratory specialists and other healthcare workers. The new recommendations and statements are based on the best evidence available from the medical literature, other published national guidelines and the GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) report. This guideline introduces the diagnostic approach, differential diagnostics towards asthma, assessment and treatment strategy to control symptoms and to prevent exacerbations. The pharmacotherapy is based on the symptoms and a clinical phenotype of the individual patient. The guideline defines three clinically relevant phenotypes including the low and high exacerbation risk phenotypes and the neglected asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS). These clinical phenotypes can help clinicians to identify patients that respond to specific pharmacological interventions. For the low exacerbation risk phenotype, pharmacotherapy with short-acting β2 -agonists (salbutamol, terbutaline) or anticholinergics (ipratropium) or their combination (fenoterol-ipratropium) is recommended in patients with less symptoms. If short-acting bronchodilators are not enough to control symptoms, a long-acting β2 -agonist (formoterol, indacaterol, olodaterol or salmeterol) or a long-acting anticholinergic (muscarinic receptor antagonists; aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, umeclidinium) or their combination is recommended. For the high exacerbation risk phenotype, pharmacotherapy with a long-acting anticholinergic or a fixed combination of an inhaled glucocorticoid and a long-acting β2 -agonist (budesonide-formoterol, beclomethasone dipropionate-formoterol, fluticasone propionate-salmeterol or fluticasone furoate-vilanterol) is recommended as a first choice. Other treatment options for this phenotype include combination of long-acting bronchodilators given from separate inhalers or as a fixed combination (glycopyrronium-indacaterol or umeclidinium-vilanterol) or a triple combination of an inhaled glucocorticoid, a long-acting β2 -agonist and a long-acting anticholinergic. If the patient has severe-to-very severe COPD (FEV1  < 50% predicted), chronic bronchitis and frequent exacerbations despite long-acting bronchodilators, the pharmacotherapy may include also roflumilast. ACOS is a phenotype of COPD in which there are features that comply with both asthma and COPD. Patients belonging to this phenotype have usually been excluded from studies evaluating the effects of drugs both in asthma and in COPD. Thus, evidence-based recommendation of treatment cannot be given. The treatment should cover both diseases. Generally, the therapy should include at least inhaled glucocorticoids (beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide, ciclesonide, fluticasone furoate, fluticasone propionate or mometasone) combined with a long-acting bronchodilator (β2 -agonist or anticholinergic or both).

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.

Prehospital use of inhaled corticosteroids and point prevalence of pneumonia at the time of hospital admission: secondary analysis of a multicenter cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To address clinical concern regarding the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and the risk for pneumonia, particularly among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multicentered prospective cohort of patients admitted to the hospital from March 1, 2009, through August 31, 2009, with pneumonia or another risk factor for acute respiratory distress syndrome was analyzed to determine the risk for pneumonia requiring hospitalization among patients taking ICSs. The adjusted risk (odds ratio [OR]) for developing pneumonia because of ICSs was determined in a multiple logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Of the 5584 patients in the cohort, 495 (9%) were taking ICSs and 1234 (22%) had pneumonia requiring hospitalization. In univariate analyses, pneumonia occurred in 222 (45%) of the patients on ICSs vs 1012 (20%) in those who were not (OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.71-3.96; P<.001). After adjusting in the logistic regression model, prehospital ICS use was not significantly associated with pneumonia in the whole cohort (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.93-1.53; P=.162), among the subset of 589 patients with COPD (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.95-2.09; P=.093), among the 440 patients with asthma (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.87; P=.81), nor among the remaining 4629 patients without COPD or asthma (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.88-1.97; P=.179).

CONCLUSION

When adjusted for multiple confounding variables, ICS use was not substantially associated with an increased risk for pneumonia requiring admission in our cohort.

Concordance of effects of medical interventions on hospital admission and readmission rates with effects on mortality

BACKGROUND

Many clinical trials examine a composite outcome of admission to hospital and death, or infer a relationship between hospital admission and survival benefit. This assumes concordance of the outcomes "hospital admission" and "death." However, whether the effects of a treatment on hospital admissions and readmissions correlate to its effect on serious outcomes such as death is unknown. We aimed to assess the correlation and concordance of effects of medical interventions on admission rates and mortality.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from its inception to January 2012 (issue 1, 2012) for systematic reviews of treatment comparisons that included meta-analyses for both admission and mortality outcomes. For each meta-analysis, we synthesized treatment effects on admissions and death, from respective randomized trials reporting those outcomes, using random-effects models. We then measured the concordance of directions of effect sizes and the correlation of summary estimates for the 2 outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 61 meta-analyses including 398 trials reporting mortality and 182 trials reporting admission rates; 125 trials reported both outcomes. In 27.9% of comparisons, the point estimates of treatment effects for the 2 outcomes were in opposite directions; in 8.2% of trials, the 95% confidence intervals did not overlap. We found no significant correlation between effect sizes for admission and death (Pearson r = 0.07, p = 0.6). Our results were similar when we limited our analysis to trials reporting both outcomes.

INTERPRETATION

In this metaepidemiological study, admission and mortality outcomes did not correlate, and discordances occurred in about one-third of the treatment comparisons included in our analyses. Both outcomes convey useful information and should be reported separately, but extrapolating the benefits of admission to survival is unreliable and should be avoided.

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.

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.

Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist in one inhaler versus inhaled corticosteroids alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Both long-acting beta(2)-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids have been recommended in guidelines for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Their co-administration in a combined inhaler is intended to facilitate adherence to medication regimens and to improve efficacy. Three preparations are currently available: fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FPS). budesonide/formoterol (BDF) and mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of combined long-acting beta2-agonist and inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) preparations, as measured by clinical endpoints and pulmonary function testing, compared with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, in the treatment of adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, which is compiled from systematic searches of multiple literature databases. The search was conducted in June 2013. In addition, we checked the reference lists of included studies and contacted the relevant manufacturers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were randomised and double-blind. Compared studies combined LABA/ICS with the ICS component.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcomes were exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia. Health-related quality of life (as measured by validated scales), lung function and side effects were secondary outcomes. Dichotomous data were analysed as fixed-effect odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous data as mean differences or rate ratios and 95% CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 15 studies of good methodological quality met the inclusion criteria by randomly assigning 7814 participants with predominantly poorly reversible, severe COPD. Data were most plentiful for the FPS combination. Exacerbation rates were significantly reduced with combination therapies (rate ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.94, 6 studies, N = 5601) compared with ICS alone. The mean exacerbation rate in the control (ICS) arms of the six included studies was 1.21 exacerbations per participant per year (range 0.88 to 1.60), and we would expect this to be reduced to a rate of 1.05 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.14) among those given combination therapy. Mortality was also lower with the combination (odds ratio (OR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94, 12 studies, N = 7518) than with ICS alone, but this was heavily weighted by a three-year study of FPS. When this study was removed, no significant mortality difference was noted. The reduction in exacerbations did not translate into significantly reduced rates of hospitalisation due to COPD exacerbation (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, 10 studies, N = 7060). Lung function data favoured combination treatment in the FPS, BDF and MF/F trials, but the improvement was small. Small improvements in health-related quality of life were measured on the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) with FPS or BDF compared with ICS, but this was well below the minimum clinically important difference. Adverse event profiles were similar between the two treatments arms, and rates of pneumonia when it was diagnosed by chest x-ray (CXR) were lower than those reported in earlier trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination ICS and LABA offer some clinical benefits in COPD compared with ICS alone, especially for reduction in exacerbations. This review does not support the use of ICS alone when LABAs are available. Adverse events were not significantly different between treatments. Further long-term assessments using practical outcomes of current and new 24-hour LABAs will help determine their efficacy and safety. For robust comparisons as to their relative effects, long-term head-to-head comparisons are needed.

Combination inhaled steroid and long-acting beta2-agonist versus tiotropium for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Combination therapy (inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-agonists) and tiotropium are both used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There is uncertainty about the relative benefits and harms of these treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative effects of inhaled combination therapy and tiotropium on markers of exacerbations, symptoms, quality of life, lung function, pneumonia and serious adverse events in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (November 2012) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted authors of the studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only parallel, randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled combination corticosteroid and long-acting beta2-agonist against inhaled tiotropium bromide.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We resolved discrepancies through discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

One large, two-year trial (INSPIRE) and two smaller, shorter trials on a total of 1528 participants were found. The results from these trials were not pooled. The number of withdrawals from each arm of the INSPIRE trial was large and imbalanced and outcome data were not collected for patients who withdrew, raising concerns about the reliability of data from this study.In INSPIRE, there were more deaths on tiotropium than on fluticasone/salmeterol (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.93). This was a statistically significant difference, however the number of withdrawals from each of the arms was 11 times larger than the observed number of deaths for participants on fluticasone/salmeterol and seven times larger for participants on tiotropium. There were more all-cause hospital admissions in patients on fluticasone/salmeterol than those on tiotropium in INSPIRE (Peto OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.67). There was no statistically significant difference in hospital admissions due to exacerbations, the primary outcome of INSPIRE. There was no significant difference in exacerbations in patients on fluticasone/salmeterol compared to tiotropium when compared as either an odds ratio or a rate ratio (mean number of exacerbations per patient per year). Exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids were less frequent in patients on fluticasone/salmeterol (rate ratio 0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.99). Conversely exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics were more frequent in patients treated with fluticasone/salmeterol (rate ratio 1.19; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.38). There were more cases of pneumonia in patients on fluticasone/salmeterol than in those on tiotropium (Peto OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.33 to 3.40). Confidence intervals for these outcomes do not reflect the additional uncertainty arising from unknown outcome data for patients who withdrew.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the proportion of missing outcome data compared to the observed outcome data is enough to induce a clinically relevant bias in the intervention effect, the relative efficacy and safety of combined inhalers and tiotropium remains uncertain. Further large, long-term randomised controlled trials comparing combination therapy to tiotropium are required, including adequate follow-up of all participants randomised (similar to the procedures undertaken in TORCH and UPLIFT). Additional studies comparing alternative inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist/steroid combination therapies with tiotropium are also required.

Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist in one inhaler versus long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Both inhaled steroids (ICS) and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) are used in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This updated review compared compound LABA plus ICS therapy (LABA/ICS) with the LABA component drug given alone.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of ICS and LABA in a single inhaler with mono-component LABA alone in adults with COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. The date of the most recent search was November 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind controlled trials. We included trials comparing compound ICS and LABA preparations with their component LABA preparations in people with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcomes were exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia, while secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life (measured by validated scales), lung function, withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, withdrawals due to adverse events and side-effects. Dichotomous data were analysed as random-effects model odds ratios or rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous data as mean differences and 95% CIs. We rated the quality of evidence for exacerbations, mortality and pneumonia according to recommendations made by the GRADE working group.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, randomising 11,794 people with severe COPD. We looked at any LABA plus ICS inhaler (LABA/ICS) versus the same LABA component alone, and then we looked at the 10 studies which assessed fluticasone plus salmeterol (FPS) and the four studies assessing budesonide plus formoterol (BDF) separately. The studies were well-designed with low risk of bias for randomisation and blinding but they had high rates of attrition, which reduced our confidence in the results for outcomes other than mortality.Primary outcomes There was low quality evidence that exacerbation rates in people using LABA/ICS inhalers were lower in comparison to those with LABA alone, from nine studies which randomised 9921 participants (rate ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.84). This corresponds to one exacerbation per person per year on LABA and 0.76 exacerbations per person per year on ICS/LABA. Our confidence in this effect was limited by statistical heterogeneity between the results of the studies (I(2) = 68%) and a risk of bias from the high withdrawal rates across the studies. When analysed as the number of people experiencing one or more exacerbations over the course of the study, FPS lowered the odds of an exacerbation with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.83 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98, 6 studies, 3357 participants). With a risk of an exacerbation of 47% in the LABA group over one year, 42% of people treated with LABA/ICS would be expected to experience an exacerbation. Concerns over the effect of reporting biases led us to downgrade the quality of evidence for this effect from high to moderate.There was no significant difference in the rate of hospitalisations (rate ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.13, very low quality evidence due to risk of bias, statistical imprecision and inconsistency). There was no significant difference in mortality between people on combined inhalers and those on LABA, from 10 studies on 10,680 participants (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.11, downgraded to moderate quality evidence due to statistical imprecision). Pneumonia occurred more commonly in people randomised to combined inhalers, from 12 studies with 11,076 participants (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.01, moderate quality evidence due to risk of bias in relation to attrition) with an annual risk of around 3% on LABA alone compared to 4% on combination treatment. There were no significant differences between the results for either exacerbations or pneumonia from trials adding different doses or types of inhaled corticosteroid.Secondary outcomes ICS/LABA was more effective than LABA alone in improving health-related quality of life measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (1.58 units lower with FPS; 2.69 units lower with BDF), dyspnoea (0.09 units lower with FPS), symptoms (0.07 units lower with BDF), rescue medication (0.38 puffs per day fewer with FPS, 0.33 puffs per day fewer with BDF), and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) (70 mL higher with FPS, 50 mL higher with BDF). Candidiasis (OR 3.75) and upper respiratory infection (OR 1.32) occurred more frequently with FPS than SAL. We did not combine adverse event data relating to candidiasis for BDF studies as the results were very inconsistent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Concerns over the analysis and availability of data from the studies bring into question the superiority of ICS/LABA over LABA alone in preventing exacerbations. The effects on hospitalisations were inconsistent and require further exploration. There was moderate quality evidence of an increased risk of pneumonia with ICS/LABA. There was moderate quality evidence that treatments had similar effects on mortality. Quality of life, symptoms score, rescue medication use and FEV(1) improved more on ICS/LABA than on LABA, but the average differences were probably not clinically significant for these outcomes. To an individual patient the increased risk of pneumonia needs to be balanced against the possible reduction in exacerbations.More information would be useful on the relative benefits and adverse event rates with combination inhalers using different doses of inhaled corticosteroids. Evidence from head-to-head comparisons is needed to assess the comparative risks and benefits of the different combination inhalers.

Pharmacology and therapeutics of bronchodilators

Bronchodilators are central in the treatment of of airways disorders. They are the mainstay of the current management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and are critical in the symptomatic management of asthma, although controversies around the use of these drugs remain. Bronchodilators work through their direct relaxation effect on airway smooth muscle cells. at present, three major classes of bronchodilators, β(2)-adrenoceptor (AR) agonists, muscarinic receptor antagonists, and xanthines are available and can be used individually or in combination. The use of the inhaled route is currently preferred to minimize systemic effects. Fast- and short-acting agents are best used for rescue of symptoms, whereas long-acting agents are best used for maintenance therapy. It has proven difficult to discover novel classes of bronchodilator drugs, although potential new targets are emerging. Consequently, the logical approach has been to improve the existing bronchodilators, although several novel broncholytic classes are under development. An important step in simplifying asthma and COPD management and improving adherence with prescribed therapy is to reduce the dose frequency to the minimum necessary to maintain disease control. Therefore, the incorporation of once-daily dose administration is an important strategy to improve adherence. Several once-daily β(2)-AR agonists or ultra-long-acting β(2)-AR-agonists (LABAs), such as indacaterol, olodaterol, and vilanterol, are already in the market or under development for the treatment of COPD and asthma, but current recommendations suggest the use of LABAs only in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid. In addition, some new potentially long-acting antimuscarinic agents, such as glycopyrronium bromide (NVA-237), aclidinium bromide, and umeclidinium bromide (GSK573719), are under development, as well as combinations of several classes of long-acting bronchodilator drugs, in an attempt to simplify treatment regimens as much as possible. This review will describe the pharmacology and therapeutics of old, new, and emerging classes of bronchodilator.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterised by progressive airflow obstruction that is only partly reversible, inflammation in the airways, and systemic effects or comorbities. The main cause is smoking tobacco, but other factors have been identified. Several pathobiological processes interact on a complex background of genetic determinants, lung growth, and environmental stimuli. The disease is further aggravated by exacerbations, particularly in patients with severe disease, up to 78% of which are due to bacterial infections, viral infections, or both. Comorbidities include ischaemic heart disease, diabetes, and lung cancer. Bronchodilators constitute the mainstay of treatment: β(2) agonists and long-acting anticholinergic agents are frequently used (the former often with inhaled corticosteroids). Besides improving symptoms, these treatments are also thought to lead to some degree of disease modification. Future research should be directed towards the development of agents that notably affect the course of disease.

Observational study on the impact of initiating tiotropium alone versus tiotropium with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination therapy on outcomes and costs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

This retrospective cohort study compared the risks of exacerbations and COPD-related healthcare costs between patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) initiating tiotropium (TIO) alone and patients initiating triple therapy with fluticasone-salmeterol combination (FSC) added to TIO.

Methods

Managed-care enrollees who had an index event of ≥ 1 pharmacy claim for TIO during the study period (January 1, 2003-April 30, 2008) and met other eligibility criteria were categorized into one of two cohorts depending on their medication use. Patients in the TIO+FSC cohort had combination therapy with TIO and FSC, defined as having an FSC claim on the same date as the TIO claim. Patients in the TIO cohort had no such FSC use. The risks of COPD exacerbations and healthcare costs were compared between cohorts during 1 year of follow-up.

Results

The sample comprised 3333 patients (n = 852 TIO+FSC cohort, n = 2481 TIO cohort). Triple therapy with FSC added to TIO compared with TIO monotherapy was associated with significant reductions in the adjusted risks of moderate exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.772; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.641, 0.930) and any exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.763; 95% CI 0.646, 0.949) and a nonsignificant reduction in COPD-related adjusted monthly medical costs.

Conclusions

Triple therapy with FSC added to TIO compared with TIO monotherapy was associated with significant reductions in the adjusted risks of moderate exacerbation and any exacerbation over a follow-up period of up to 1 year. These improvements were gained with triple therapy at roughly equal cost of that of TIO alone.

Inhaled corticosteroids versus long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta(2)-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids can be used as maintenance therapy by patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These interventions are often taken together in a combination inhaler. However, the relative added value of the two individual components is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effects of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) compared to long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) on clinical outcomes in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (latest search August 2011) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta(2)-agonists in the treatment of patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality, study outcomes and adverse events. We also contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven randomised trials (5997 participants) of good quality with a duration of six months to three years. All of the trials compared ICS/LABA combination inhalers with LABA and ICS as individual components. Four of these trials included fluticasone and salmeterol monocomponents and the remaining three included budesonide and formoterol monocomponents. There was no statistically significant difference in our primary outcome, the number of patients experiencing exacerbations (odds ratio (OR) 1.22; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.67), or the rate of exacerbations per patient year (rate ratio (RR) 0.96; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.02) between inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta(2)-agonists. The incidence of pneumonia, our co-primary outcome, was significantly higher among patients on inhaled corticosteroids than on long-acting beta(2)-agonists whether classified as an adverse event (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.73) or serious adverse event (Peto OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.93). Results of the secondary outcomes analysis were as follows. Mortality was higher in patients on inhaled corticosteroids compared to patients on long-acting beta(2)-agonists (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.42), although the difference was not statistically significant. Patients treated with beta(2)-agonists showed greater improvements in pre-bronchodilator FEV(1) compared to those treated with inhaled corticosteroids (mean difference (MD) 18.99 mL; 95% CI 0.52 to 37.46), whilst greater improvements in health-related quality of life were observed in patients receiving inhaled corticosteroids compared to those receiving long-acting beta(2)-agonists (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) MD -0.74; 95% CI -1.42 to -0.06). In both cases the differences were statistically significant but rather small in magnitude. There were no statistically significant differences between ICS and LABA in the number of hospitalisations due to exacerbations, number of mild exacerbations, peak expiratory flow, dyspnoea, symptoms scores, use of rescue medication, adverse events, all cause hospitalisations, or withdrawals from studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Placebo-controlled trials have established the benefits of both long-acting beta-agonist and inhaled corticosteroid therapy for COPD patients as individual therapies. This review, which included trials allowing comparisons between LABA and ICS, has shown that the two therapies confer similar benefits across the majority of outcomes, including the frequency of exacerbations and mortality. Use of long-acting beta-agonists appears to confer a small additional benefit in terms of improvements in lung function compared to inhaled corticosteroids. On the other hand, inhaled corticosteroid therapy shows a small advantage over long-acting beta-agonist therapy in terms of health-related quality of life, but inhaled corticosteroids also increase the risk of pneumonia. This review supports current guidelines advocating long-acting beta-agonists as frontline therapy for COPD, with regular inhaled corticosteroid therapy as an adjunct in patients experiencing frequent exacerbations.

Copd

INTRODUCTION

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a disease state characterised by airflow limitation that is not fully reversible. The airflow limitation is usually progressive and associated with an abnormal inflammatory response of the lungs to noxious particles or gases. Classically, it is thought to be a combination of emphysema and chronic bronchitis, although only one of these may be present in some people with COPD. The main risk factor for the development and deterioration of COPD is smoking.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of maintenance drug treatment in stable COPD? What are the effects of smoking cessation interventions in people with stable COPD? What are the effects of non-drug interventions in people with stable COPD? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found 119 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: alpha(1) antitrypsin, antibiotics (prophylactic), anticholinergics (inhaled), beta(2) agonists (inhaled), corticosteroids (oral and inhaled), general physical activity enhancement, inspiratory muscle training, nutritional supplementation, mucolytics, oxygen treatment (long-term domiciliary treatment), peripheral muscle strength training, psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation, pulmonary rehabilitation, and theophylline.

Pharmacotherapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis

Background:

Most patients with moderate and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receive long-acting bronchodilators (LABA) for symptom control. It is, however, unclear if and what drug treatments should be added to LABAs to reduce exacerbations, which is an important goal of COPD management. Since current guidelines cannot make strong recommendations yet, our aim was to determine the relative efficacy of existing treatments and combinations to reduce the risk for COPD exacerbations.

Methods:

We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating long-acting β₂ agonists (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), inhaled glucocorticosterioids (ICS), and the phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor roflumilast, and combinations of these interventions in moderate to severe COPD populations. Our primary outcome was the event rate of exacerbations. We conducted a random-effects Bayesian mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) and applied several sensitivity analyses. In particular, we confirmed our findings using a binomial MTC analysis examining whether a patient experienced at least one exacerbation event or not during the trial. We also used an additive assumption to calculate the combined effects of treatments that were not included in the systematic review.

Results:

Twenty-six studies provided data on the total number of exacerbations and/or the mean annual rate of exacerbations among a combined 36,312 patients. There were a total of 10 treatment combinations in the MTC and 15 in the additive analysis. Compared with all other treatments, the combination of roflumilast plus LAMA exhibited the largest treatment effects, and had the highest probability (45%) of being the best first-line treatment. This was consistent whether applying the incidence rate analysis or the binomial analysis. When applying the additive assumption, most point estimates suggested that roflumilast may provide additional benefit by further reducing exacerbations.

Conclusions:

Using various meta-analytic approaches, our study demonstrates that depending on the choice of drug, combined treatments offer a therapeutic advantage.

Combination inhaled steroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist in addition to tiotropium versus tiotropium or combination alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

The long-acting bronchodilator tiotropium and single inhaler combination therapy of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta(2)-agonists are both commonly used for maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than the individual components. However, the benefits and risks of using tiotropium and combination therapy together for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy in addition to tiotropium compared to tiotropium or combination therapy alone in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (July 2010) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer, comparing inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonists combination therapy in addition to inhaled tiotropium against tiotropium alone or combination therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials (1021 patients) were included comparing tiotropium in addition to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy to tiotropium alone. The duration, type of combination treatment and definition of outcomes varied. The limited data led to wide confidence intervals and there was no significant statistical difference in mortality, participants with one or more hospitalisations, episodes of pneumonia or adverse events. The results on exacerbations were heterogeneous and were not combined. The mean health-related quality of life and lung function were significantly different when combination therapy was added to tiotropium, although the size of the average benefits of additional combination therapy were small, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (MD -2.49; 95% CI -4.04 to -0.94) and forced expiratory volume in one second (MD 0.06 L; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.08).One trial (60 patients) compared tiotropium plus combination therapy to combination therapy alone. The results from the trial were insufficient to draw firm conclusions for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

To date there is uncertainty regarding the long-term benefits and risks of treatment with tiotropium in addition to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy on mortality, hospitalisation, exacerbations of COPD and pneumonia. The addition of combination treatment to tiotropium has shown improvements in average health-related quality of life and lung function.

Risks of pneumonia in patients with asthma taking inhaled corticosteroids

RATIONALE

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay of asthma treatment. Studies in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease reported increased rates of pneumonia with ICS. Concerns exist about an increased pneumonia risk in patients with asthma taking ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the risks of pneumonia in patients with asthma taking ICS.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis evaluated studies of the ICS budesonide in asthma. The primary data set were all double-blind, placebo-controlled trials lasting at least 3 months, involving budesonide (26 trials, n = 9,067 for budesonide; n = 5,926 for the comparator) sponsored by AstraZeneca. A secondary data set evaluated all double-blind trials lasting at least 3 months but without placebo control (60 trials, n = 33,496 for budesonide, n = 2,773 for fluticasone propionate). Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to estimate the relative effect of ICS on pneumonia adverse events (AEs) or serious adverse events (SAEs).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In the primary data set, the occurrence of pneumonia AEs was 0.5% (rate 10.0 events/1,000 patient-years [TPY]) for budesonide and 1.2% (19.3 per TPY) for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.76; P < 0.001); the occurrence of pneumonia SAEs was 0.15% (2.9 per TPY) for budesonide and 0.13% (2.1 per TPY) for placebo (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-3.12; P = 0.58). In the secondary data set, the percentage of patients reporting pneumonia AEs was 0.70% (12.7 per TPY), whereas the percentage of patients reporting pneumonia SAEs was 0.17% (3.1 per TPY). There was no increased risk with higher budesonide doses or any difference between budesonide and fluticasone.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no increased risk of pneumonia in patients with asthma, identified as an AE or SAE, in clinical trials using budesonide.

The effects of long-acting bronchodilators on total mortality in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the 4^th leading cause of mortality worldwide. Long-acting bronchodilators are considered first line therapies for patients with COPD but their effects on mortality are not well known. We performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of long-acting bronchodilators on total mortality in stable COPD.

Methods

Using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Systematic Review databases, we identified high quality randomized controlled trials of tiotropium, formoterol, salmeterol, formoterol/budesonide or salmeterol/fluticasone in COPD that had a follow-up of 6 months or longer and reported on total mortality. Two reviewers independently abstracted data from the original trials and disagreements were resolved by iteration and consensus.

Results

Twenty-seven trials that included 30,495 patients were included in the review. Relative risk (RR) for total mortality was calculated for each of the study and pooled together using a random-effects model. The combination of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) therapy was associated with reduced total mortality compared with placebo (RR, 0.80; p = 0.005). Neither tiotropium (RR, 1.08; p = 0.61) nor LABA by itself (RR, 0.90; p = 0.21) was associated with mortality.

Conclusions

A combination of ICS and LABA reduced mortality by approximately 20%. Neither tiotropium nor LABA by itself modifies all-cause mortality in COPD.

Safety and efficacy of combined long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids vs long-acting beta-agonists monotherapy for stable COPD: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) added to long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) for treatment of symptomatic patients with severe and very severe COPD. However, the evidence has been inconclusive. The aim of this review was to assess the safety and efficacy of LABAs/ICSs compared with LABA monotherapy for patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and the trial registers of manufacturers, without language restriction. Primary outcomes were COPD exacerbations and mortality. Secondary outcomes included lung function, health-related quality of life, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Eighteen randomized controlled trials (12,446 participants) were selected. Therapy with LABAs/ICSs did not decrease the number of severe exacerbations (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.01; I(2) = 1%), or all-cause mortality (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.06; I(2) = 0%), respiratory mortality (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.05; I(2) = 0%), and cardiovascular mortality (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.71; I(2) = 0%). To the contrary, the number of moderate exacerbations (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.96; I(2) = 50%) and the St. George respiratory questionnaire total score (weighted mean difference, -1.88; 95% CI, -2.44 to -1.33; I(2) = 29%) were significantly reduced with LABA/ICS therapy. Although therapy with LABAs/ICSs increases FEV(1) significantly (0.06 and 0.04 L, respectively), they were associated with an increased risk of pneumonia (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.98; I(2) = 20%).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with LABA monotherapy, the magnitude of the benefits of LABA/ICS therapy did not reach that of the criteria for predefined clinically important effects and were associated with serious adverse effects.

Inhaled drugs to reduce exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receive inhaled long-acting bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids. Conventional meta-analyses established that these drugs reduce COPD exacerbations when separately compared with placebo. However, there are relatively few head-to-head comparisons and conventional meta-analyses focus on single comparisons rather than on a simultaneous analysis of competing drug regimens that would allow rank ordering of their effectiveness. Therefore we assessed, using a network meta-analytic technique, the relative effectiveness of the common inhaled drug regimes used to reduce exacerbations in patients with COPD.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and searched existing systematic reviews and electronic databases for randomized trials of >/= 4 weeks' duration that assessed the effectiveness of inhaled drug regimes on exacerbations in patients with stable COPD. We extracted participants and intervention characteristics from included trials and assessed their methodological quality. For each treatment group we registered the proportion of patients with >/= 1 exacerbation during follow-up. We used treatment-arm based logistic regression analysis to estimate the absolute and relative effects of inhaled drug treatments while preserving randomization within trials.

RESULTS

We identified 35 trials enrolling 26,786 patients with COPD of whom 27% had >/= 1 exacerbation. All regimes reduced exacerbations statistically significantly compared with placebo (odds ratios ranging from 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64 to 0.80) for long-acting anticholinergics to 0.78 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.86) for inhaled corticosteroids). Compared with long-acting bronchodilators alone, combined treatment was not more effective (comparison with long-acting beta-agonists: odds ratio 0.93 [95% CI 0.84 to 1.04] and comparison with long-acting anticholinergics: odds ratio 1.02 [95% CI 0.90 to 1.16], respectively). If FEV1 was </= 40% predicted, long-acting anticholinergics, inhaled corticosteroids, and combination treatment reduced exacerbations significantly compared with long-acting beta-agonists alone, but not if FEV1 was > 40% predicted. This effect modification was significant for inhaled corticosteroids (P = 0.02 for interaction) and combination treatment (P = 0.01) but not for long-acting anticholinergics (P = 0.46). A limitation of this analysis is its exclusive focus on exacerbations and lack of FEV1 data for individual patients.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence that one single inhaled drug regimen is more effective than another in reducing exacerbations. Inhaled corticosteroids when added to long-acting beta-agonists reduce exacerbations only in patients with COPD with FEV1 </= 40%.

Medication adherence issues in patients treated for COPD

Although medical treatment of COPD has advanced, nonadherence to medication regimens poses a significant barrier to optimal management. Underuse, overuse, and improper use continue to be the most common causes of poor adherence to therapy. An average of 40%–60% of patients with COPD adheres to the prescribed regimen and only 1 out of 10 patients with a metered dose inhaler performs all essential steps correctly. Adherence to therapy is multifactorial and involves both the patient and the primary care provider. The effect of patient instruction on inhaler adherence and rescue medication utilization in patients with COPD does not seem to parallel the good results reported in patients with asthma. While use of a combined inhaler may facilitate adherence to medications and improve efficacy, pharmacoeconomic factors may influence patient’s selection of both the device and the regimen. Patient’s health beliefs, experiences, and behaviors play a significant role in adherence to pharmacological therapy. This manuscript reviews important aspects associated with medication adherence in patients with COPD and identifies some predictors of poor adherence.

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

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids have both been recommended in guidelines for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Their co-administration in a combined inhaler may facilitate adherence to medication regimens, and improve efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of combined inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist preparations, compared to placebo, in the treatment of adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials. The date of the most recent search is April 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they were randomised and double-blind. Studies could compare any combined inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonist preparation with placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. One author entered the data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria (6427 participants randomised). Two different combination preparations (fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol) were used. Study quality was good. Fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol both reduced the rate of exacerbations. Pooled analysis of both combination therapies indicated that exacerbations were less frequent when compared with placebo, Rate Ratio: 0.74 (95% CI 0.7 to 0.8). The clinical impact of this effect depends on the frequency of exacerbations experienced by patients. The patients included in these trials had on average 1-2 exacerbations per year which means that treatment with combination therapy would lead to a reduction of one exacerbation every two to four years in these individuals. There is an overall reduction in mortality, but this outcome is dominated by the results of TORCH and further studies on budesonide/formoterol are required. The three year number needed to treat to prevent one extra death is 36 (95% CI 21 to 258), using a baseline risk of 15.2% from the placebo arm of TORCH. Both treatments led to statistically significant improvement in health status measurements, although the clinical importance of the differences observed is open to interpretation. Symptoms and lung function assessments favoured combination treatments. There was an increase in the risk of pneumonia with combined inhalers. The three year number needed to treat for one extra case of pneumonia is 13 (95% CI 9 to 20), using a baseline risk of 12.3% from the placebo arm of TORCH. Fewer participants withdrew from studies assessing combined inhalers due to adverse events and lack of efficacy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, combination therapy led to a significant reduction of a quarter in exacerbation rates. There was a significant reduction in all-cause mortality with the addition of data from the TORCH trial. The increased risk of pneumonia is a concern, and better reporting of this outcome in future studies would be helpful. In order to draw firmer conclusions about the effects of combination therapy in a single inhaler more data are necessary, particularly in relation to the profile of adverse events and benefits in relation to different doses of inhaled corticosteroids.