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

Network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies and traditional conventional dichotomous agents for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Introduction

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against cytokines and chemokines or their receptors promise to be a potential therapeutic option to address chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aim to provide a comprehensive literature review of the improvement in FEV1 and safety when comparing mAbs with conventional dichotomous agents.

Methods

We systematically searched 3 electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) up to August 1, 2023 to collect eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A frequentist network meta-analysis using a random-effects model was deployed to calculate mean differences (MD) for FEV1, relative risk (RR) of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and estimate the surface under cumulative rankings (SUCRA). A higher SUCRA indicates a better outcome.

Results

This study included 23 RCTs involving a total of 20,853 patients. Overall, except for Dupilumab, mAbs did not significantly improve FEV1 compared to traditional conventional dichotomous agents. Among all the interventions included, Aclidinium bromide/Formoterol (AB/FF) (SUCRA 97.7%) ranked highest, followed by Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) (SUCRA 93.5%), and Glycopyrrolate Formoterol Fumarate (GFF) (SUCRA 84.7%). Dupilumab (SUCRA 66.9%) ranked the fourth among all interventions but ranked the first among all the mAbs. Importantly, all mAbs demonstrated a good safety profile compared with placebo.

Conclusion

Considering the improvement in FEV1 and its safety, the development of mAbs for COPD still holds significant clinical potential.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, CRD42023452714.

Risk of Pneumonia in Patients with COPD Initiating Fixed Dose Inhaled Corticosteroid (ICS) / Long-Acting Bronchodilator (LABD) Formulations Containing Extrafine Beclometasone Dipropionate versus Patients Initiating LABD Without ICS

Background

Combined ICS and long-acting bronchodilators (LABD) more effectively reduce COPD exacerbations than LABD therapy alone. Corticosteroid-related adverse effects, including pneumonia, limit ICS use. Previous data suggest this risk is lower for extrafine beclometasone (ef-BDP). We compared pneumonia risk among new users of fixed dose ICS/LABD formulations containing ef-BDP, versus patients initiating LABD without any ICS.

Methods

A propensity-matched historical cohort study design used data from OPCRD. COPD patients with ≥1 year of continuous data who initiated LABD or ICS/LABD formulations containing ef-BDP were matched. Primary outcome was time to pneumonia event, as treated, using either sensitive (physician diagnosed) or specific (physician diagnosed and x-ray or hospital admission confirmed) definitions, with non-inferiority boundary of 15%.

Results

23,898 COPD patients were matched, who were 68±11 years, 54.3% male and 56% current-smokers, while 43% were former-smokers. Initiation of ef-BDP/LABD was not associated with an increased risk of pneumonia versus LABD, for either a sensitive 0.89 (0.78-1.02), P = 0.08 or a specific 0.91 (0.78-1.05), P = 0.18 definition of pneumonia. The probability of remaining pneumonia free 1-year after ef-BDP/LABD was 98.4%, which was comparable to LABD at 97.7%, and was sustained up to 6 years of observation; non-inferiority criterion was met for both definitions. Initiation of ef-BDP/LABD was also associated with a reduced risk of developing LRTIs in the propensity matched cohort.

Conclusion

Risk of pneumonia when using ICS for the management of COPD reported in several randomised controlled trials may not be relevant with ef-BDP in a diverse real-world clinical population.

Discontinuation Schedule of Inhaled Corticosteroids in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background

Long-term use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) is associated with several potential adverse effects. While patients unlikely to benefit should stop ICS use, abrupt discontinuation may result in an increased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation. Stepwise tapering may reduce this risk but data are limited, and there is no consensus on the likelihood of COPD exacerbations following ICS discontinuation. The North Texas Veterans Affairs Health Care System conducted a single center, retrospective cohort study to evaluate the rate of COPD exacerbations following the discontinuation of ICS therapy using different schedules of discontinuation.

Methods

Data were collected from the electronic health records of patients aged ≥ 40 years with a diagnosis of COPD who were on a stable dose of an ICS for ≥ 1 year that was subsequently discontinued with a last documented fill date between January 10, 2021 and September 1, 2021. Eligible patients were followed for COPD exacerbations that resulted in hospitalization until November 1, 2022. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate characteristics of patients who experienced an exacerbation.

Results

Seventy-five patients were included: 5 (7%) experienced an exacerbation following ICS discontinuation. Age, sex, race, and ethnicity were similar for those patients who did vs did not have an exacerbation. Unexpectedly, the mean baseline eosinophil count for patients with an exacerbation was 92 cells/μL compared with 227.4 cells/μL for those without an exacerbation. Nine patients had their ICS tapered gradually, and none of them experienced an exacerbation.

Conclusions

Study findings suggest that there is a relatively low risk of COPD exacerbation following ICS discontinuation, regardless of whether a taper was performed. This result may indicate that it is reasonable to abruptly discontinue ICS in eligible patients.

Inhaled corticosteroids and risk of lower respiratory tract infection with Moraxella catarrhalis in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is common in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and has been associated with an increased risk of pneumonia. Moraxella catarrhalis is one of the most common bacterial causes of infectious exacerbation in COPD. Currently, to our knowledge, no studies have investigated if ICS increases the risk of lower respiratory tract infection with M. catarrhalis in patients with COPD.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if accumulated ICS use in patients with COPD, is associated with a dose-dependent risk of infection with M. catarrhalis.

METHODS

This observational cohort study included 18 870 persons with COPD who were registered in The Danish Register of COPD. Linkage to several nationwide registries was performed.Exposure to ICS was determined by identifying all prescriptions for ICS, redeemed within 365 days prior to study entry. Main outcome was a lower respiratory tract sample positive for M. catarrhalis. For the main analysis, a Cox multivariate regression model was used.We defined clinical infection as admission to hospital and/or a redeemed prescription for a relevant antibiotic, within 7 days prior to 14 days after the sample was obtained.

RESULTS

We found an increased, dose-dependent, risk of a lower respiratory tract sample with M. catarrhalis among patients who used ICS, compared with non-users. For low and moderate doses of ICS HR was 1.65 (95% CI 1.19 to 2.30, p=0.003) and 1.82 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.51, p=0.0002), respectively. In the group of patients with highest ICS exposure, the HR of M. catarrhalis was 2.80 (95% CI 2.06 to 3.82, p<0.0001). Results remained stable in sensitivity analyses. 87% of patients fulfilled the criteria for clinical infection, and results remained unchanged in this population.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows a dose-dependent increased risk of infection with M. catarrhalis associated to ICS exposure.

Re-exacerbation within 30 days of discharge is associated with poor prognosis in the following year among patients hospitalised with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a clinical cohort study

BACKGROUND

Exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ECOPD) is a complex phenomenon, with marked heterogeneity in the aetiology, pathophysiology and clinical manifestations. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of patients with 30-day exacerbation among those hospitalised with ECOPD in China.

METHODS

Data from the Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Inpatient Registry were used in this study. The patients were divided into re-event and non-event groups based on the incidence of re-exacerbation within 30 days of discharge. Exacerbation, severe exacerbation and all-cause readmissions in the following 12 months were the outcomes of interest. The cumulative incidence rates and incidence densities were calculated. Multivariate hazard function models were used to determine the association between 30-day re-exacerbation and the long-term outcomes after accounting for the competing risk of death.

RESULTS

Re-exacerbation within 30 days of discharge was observed in 4.9% (n=242) of the patients (n=4963). The cumulative incidence rates and incidence densities of exacerbation, severe exacerbation and all-cause readmissions in the event group were significantly higher than those in the non-event group. After adjustment, re-exacerbation within 30 days of discharge was associated with increased risks of exacerbation, severe exacerbation and all-cause readmissions in the following 12 months (adjusted HR: 3.85 (95% CI: 3.09 to 4.80), 3.46 (2.66 to 4.50) and 3.28 (2.52 to 4.25) accordingly).

CONCLUSION

Re-exacerbation of COPD within 30 days of discharge is a significant predictor of long-term prognosis. In clinical practice, short-term re-exacerbation is a significant clinical phenotype of ECOPD that requires careful management at the earliest.

Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol Use Trends and Characteristics in Patients With Obstructive Airway Disease: A Real-World Study of 10,374 Patients From India

Introduction Obstructive Airway Diseases (OADs) are the leading cause of death among chronic respiratory diseases worldwide, and novel therapies are direly needed. Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/Vi) (100/25 µg) is the first once-daily ICS/uLABA marketed in India for COPD since 2021. Considering its limited real-world experience in OAD patients in Indian clinical settings, a large drug utilization study (DUS) was planned. Methodology We conducted a cross-sectional, observational DUS at 1900 outpatient clinics in India from October 2021 to March 2022. Prescription data and medical history of patients who were prescribed the FF/Vi combination were collected. Results It was observed that FF/Vi was prescribed in an almost equal number of patients with COPD (44.2%) and asthma (42.9%). The majority of the patients (74%) were switched from previous ICS/LABA to this ICS/uLABA, while 26% of patients were treatment naïve. The average CAT score was 19.5±7.8 (43.2% GOLD Group C and 32.2% GOLD Group B) in COPD patients, while the average ACQ-5 score was 2.6±1.3 (33.1% GINA Step 3, 29.5% GINA Step 2) in asthmatic patients. Most of the patients (63.9%) had raised biomarkers (Blood eosinophil count >300 cells/μl). Prior history of exacerbation was present in 65% of patients with annual exacerbation rates of 1.2 in COPD, 1.1 in asthma, and 1.2 in asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS). Leukotriene inhibitors (42%) and LAMAs (30.8%) were common add-on medications. Conclusion We observed a trend towards a shift to once-daily ICS/uLABA (FF/Vi) by physicians, especially in symptomatic and exacerbating OAD patients with underlying comorbidities.

High versus Medium Dose of Inhaled Corticosteroid in Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) combined with bronchodilators have been identified to improve outcomes in COPD but also to be associated with certain adverse effects.

Objective

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compile and summarize data on the efficacy and safety of dosing levels (high versus medium/low) of ICS alongside ancillary bronchodilators following PRISMA guidelines.

Data Sources

Medline and Embase were systematically searched until December 2021. Randomized, clinical trials (RCTs) that met predefined inclusion criteria were included.

Data Extraction

Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted. Any acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) risk was chosen as the primary efficacy outcome, mortality rate as the primary safety outcome, moderate/severe AECOPD risk as the secondary efficacy outcome and pneumonia risk as the secondary safety outcome. Subgroup analyses of individual ICS agents, of patients with baseline moderate/severe/very severe COPD and of patients with recent COPD exacerbation history were also performed. A random-effects model was used.

Results

We included 13 RCTs in our study. No data on low doses were included in the analysis. High dose ICS was not associated with a statistically significant difference in any AECOPD risk (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.91-1.05, I²: 41.3%), mortality rate (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.75-1.32, I²: 0.0%), moderate/severe AECOPD risk (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.96-1.06, I²: 0.0%) or pneumonia risk (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.86 -1.33, I²: 9.3%) compared to medium dose ICS. The same trend was identified with the several subgroup analyses.

Conclusion

Our study collected RCTs investigating the optimal dosing level of ICS prescribed alongside ancillary bronchodilators to patients with COPD. We identified that the high ICS dose neither reduces AECOPD risk and mortality rates nor increases pneumonia risk relative to the medium dose.

Immunostimulants versus placebo for preventing exacerbations in adults with chronic bronchitis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or chronic bronchitis may experience recurrent exacerbations, which negatively impact prognosis and quality of life, and can impose a significant socioeconomic burden on the individual and wider society. Immunostimulants are a broad category of therapies that may theoretically enhance non-specific immunity against several respiratory insults, thereby reducing exacerbation risk and severity. However, evidence to date for their use in this population is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of immunostimulants in preventing respiratory exacerbations in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic bronchitis, or both.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest literature search was conducted on 25 January 2022.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared immunostimulant therapy, administered by any method and with the intention of preventing (rather than treating) exacerbations, with placebo for a minimum treatment duration of one month in adults with chronic bronchitis or COPD, or both. We excluded participants with other respiratory conditions.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were number of participants with no exacerbations during the study period and all-cause mortality, secondary outcomes were respiratory-related mortality, quality of life, number of participants requiring antibiotics, exacerbation duration, respiratory-related hospitalisation duration and adverse events/side effects. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 36 studies involving 6192 participants. Studies were published between 1981 and 2015. Duration ranged from three to 14 months. The mean age of study participants varied between 35.2 and 82 years. Twelve studies examined participants with COPD only. Seventeen studies reported baseline lung function values; most indicated a moderate-to-severe degree of airflow limitation. Nineteen studies indicated inclusion of participants with a mean baseline exacerbation frequency of two or more in the preceding year. Immunostimulants investigated were OM-85, AM3, RU41740 (Biostim), Ismigen, Diribiotine CK, thymomodulin, pidotimod, D53 (Ribomunyl), Lantigen B, Symbioflor, and hyaluronan; routes of administration were oral, sublingual, and subcutaneous. The risk of bias of the included studies was mostly low or unclear. Participants receiving immunostimulants for a mean duration of six months were slightly more likely to be free of exacerbations during that time (odds ratio (OR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.90; 15 RCTs, 2961 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The overall number needed to treat with immunostimulants for a mean of six months, to prevent one participant from experiencing an exacerbation, was 11 (95% CI 7 to 29). This outcome was associated with a moderate degree of unexplained heterogeneity (I2 = 53%). Type of immunostimulant, baseline lung function, baseline exacerbation frequency, treatment duration, and follow-up duration did not modify the effect size, although due to heterogeneity and limited study and participant numbers within some subgroups, the validity of the subgroup treatment effect estimates were uncertain. Immunostimulants probably result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.10; 5 RCTs, 1558 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and respiratory-related mortality (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.07; 2 RCTs, 735 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo; however, the effects were imprecise and data quality limited the certainty of these results.  There was a small improvement in health-related quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), with immunostimulant compared to placebo (mean difference -4.59, 95% CI -7.59 to -1.59; 2 RCTs, 617 participants; very-low certainty evidence). The effect estimate just met the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) score of 4 units; however, the CI width means the possibility of a non-meaningful difference cannot be excluded. The pooled result from five studies indicated that immunostimulants likely reduce the number of participants requiring antibiotics over a mean duration of six months (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.63; 542 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This outcome had a low-to-moderate degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 38%), but the direction of effect was consistent across all studies. There was no evidence of a difference in the odds of experiencing an adverse event with immunostimulant compared to placebo, over a mean duration of six months (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.21; 20 RCTs, 3780 participants; high-certainty evidence). The CI limits for the associated risk ratio (RR) did not cross thresholds for appreciable harm or benefit (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.13). An additional seven studies reported no events rates in either study arm. Meta-analyses were not performed for the outcomes of exacerbation duration and respiratory-related hospitalisation duration, due to high levels of heterogeneity across the included studies (exacerbation duration: I2 = 92%; respiratory-related hospitalisation duration: I2 = 83%). Results from an effect direction plot and binomial probability test for exacerbation duration indicated that a significant proportion of studies (94% (95% CI 73% to 99%); P = 0.0002) favoured intervention, possibly indicating that immunostimulants are efficacious in reducing the mean exacerbation duration compared to placebo. However, the degree of uncertainty associated with this estimate remained high due to data quality and heterogeneity. Three studies reported mean duration of respiratory-related hospitalisation, two of which demonstrated a direction of effect that favoured immunostimulant over placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In participants with chronic bronchitis or COPD, we are moderately confident that treatment with immunostimulants is associated with a small reduction in the likelihood of having an exacerbation and a moderate reduction in the requirement for antibiotics. Low numbers of events limit interpretation of the effect of immunostimulants on all-cause and respiratory-related mortality. We are uncertain whether immunostimulants improve quality of life, and whether they are associated with a reduction in exacerbation and respiratory-related hospitalisation durations, although immunostimulants were generally associated with a positive effect direction in the studies that examined these outcomes. Immunostimulants appear to be safe and well-tolerated, and are not associated with an increased risk of adverse events.

Evidence-based management approaches for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): A practice review

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) face limited treatment options and inadequate access to palliative care.

AIM

To provide a pragmatic overview of clinical guidelines and produce evidence-based recommendations for severe COPD. Interventions for which there is inconsistent evidence to support their use and areas requiring further research were identified.

DESIGN

Practice review of guidelines supported by scoping review methodology to examine the evidence reporting the use of guideline-recommended interventions.

DATA SOURCES

An electronic search was undertaken in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, complemented by web searching for guidelines and publications providing primary evidence (July 2021). Guidelines published within the last 5 years and evidence in the last 10 years were included.

RESULTS

Severe COPD should be managed using a multidisciplinary approach with a holistic assessment. For stable patients, long-acting beta-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist and pulmonary rehabilitation are recommended. Low dose opioids, self-management, handheld fan and nutritional support may provide small benefits, whereas routine corticosteroids should be avoided. For COPD exacerbations, systematic corticosteroids, non-invasive ventilation and exacerbation action plans are recommended. Short-acting inhaled beta-agonists and antibiotics may be considered but pulmonary rehabilitation should be avoided during hospitalisation. Long term oxygen therapy is only recommended for patients with chronic severe hypoxaemia. Short-acting anticholinergic inhalers, nebulised opioids, oral theophylline or telehealth are not recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommended interventions by guidelines are not always supported by high-quality evidence. Further research is required on efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, mucolytics, relaxation and breathing exercises.

Why small particle fixed dose triple therapy? An excursus from COPD pathology to pharmacological treatment evolution

Although bronchodilators are the cornerstone in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapy, the treatment with a single-agent bronchodilator may not provide adequate symptoms control in COPD. The combination of drugs with different mechanisms of action may be more effective in inducing bronchodilation and preventing exacerbations, with a lower risk of side-effects in comparison with the increase of the dose of a single molecule. Several studies comparing the triple therapy with the association of long-acting ß2 agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/LABA reported improvement of lung function and quality of life. A significant reduction in moderate/severe exacerbations has been observed with a fixed triple combination of beclometasone dipropionate (BDP), formoterol fumarate (FF) and glycopyrronium (G) in a single inhaler. The TRILOGY, TRINITY and TRIBUTE studies have provided confirming evidence for a clinical benefit of triple therapy over ICS/LABA combination treatment, LAMA monotherapy and LABA/LAMA combination, with prevention of exacerbations being a key finding. A pooled post hoc analysis of the published clinical studies involving BDP/FF/G fixed combination demonstrated a reduction in fatal events in patients treated with ICS-containing medications, with a trend of statistical significance [hazard ratio = 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-1.02, p = 0.066], that becomes significant if we consider reduction in fatal events for non-respiratory reasons (hazard ratio = 0.65, 95% CI 0.43-0.97, p = 0.037). In conclusion, a fixed combination of more drugs in a single inhaler can improve long-term adherence to the therapy, reducing the risk of exacerbations and hospital resources utilization. The twice a day administration may provide a better coverage of night, particularly in COPD patients who are highly symptomatic. The inhaled extrafine formulation that allows drug deposition in both large and small - peripheral - airways, is the value added.

Comparison of Risk of Pneumonia Caused by Fluticasone Propionate versus Budesonide in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) play an important role in lowering the risk of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, ICSs are known to increase the risk of pneumonia. Moreover, previous studies have shown that the incidence rate of pneumonia varies depending on the type of ICS. In this study, the risk of pneumonia according to the type of ICS was investigated in a population-based cohort.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using claims data of the entire population from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Patients who were newly diagnosed with COPD and prescribed fluticasone propionate or budesonide were enrolled as study subjects. Cumulative doses of ICSs were classified into categorical variables to analyze the risk of pneumonia within identical ICS doses.

Results

A total of 47,473 subjects were identified and allocated as 14,518 fluticasone propionate and 14,518 budesonide users through 1:1 propensity score matching. Fluticasone propionate users were more likely to develop pneumonia than budesonide users (14.22% vs 10.66%, p<0.0001). The incidence rate per 100,000 person-years was 2,914.77 for fluticasone propionate users and 2,102.90 for budesonide users. The hazard ratio (HR) of pneumonia in fluticasone propionate compared to budesonide was 1.34 (95% CI 1.26–1.43, p<0.0001). The risk of pneumonia for fluticasone propionate compared to budesonide increased with higher ICS cumulative doses: 1.06 (0.93–1.21), 1.41 (1.19–1.66), 1.41 (1.23–1.63), and 1.49 (1.33–1.66) from the lowest to highest quartiles, respectively.

Conclusion

ICS types and doses need to be carefully considered during treatment with ICSs in patients with COPD.

Narrative Literature Review Guided Approach of Inhaled Corticosteroid de-escalation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

OBJECTIVE

To review the 2020 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) report recommendations and create an algorithm to assist clinicians in determining which chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients qualify for inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) de-escalation. Data Sources: A literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed from 2002 to August 2021 was conducted using the search terms inhaled corticosteroids, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and de-escalation and review of the reference lists of identified articles for pertinent citations.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant studies and articles were included if they focused on the utilization of ICS in COPD.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The 2020 GOLD report only recommends triple therapy with ICS, long acting beta agonists, and long acting muscarinic antagonists for patients with frequent exacerbations, frequent hospitalizations, or elevated blood eosinophil counts. Despite this clear framework, patients are prescribed ICS without these characteristics. Available evidence suggests that these patients can be de-escalated from ICS therapy without concern for worsening lung function or exacerbations. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Patients with COPD may be experiencing more risk than benefit on ICS therapy. Clinicians should be knowledgeable on how to evaluate patient therapy for appropriateness and know how to safely deprescribe ICS given their limited efficacy in many COPD patients.

CONCLUSION

There remains no specific guidance on how to de-escalate patients off an ICS when the therapy is not indicated. Use of clinical evidence with stepwise algorithms can be models to approach de-escalation of ICS in patients with COPD.

Medications for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a historical non-interventional cohort study with validation against RCT results

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment is informed by randomised controlled trial results, but it is unclear if these findings apply to people excluded from these trials. We used data from the TORCH (TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health) randomised controlled trial to validate non-interventional methods for assessing the clinical effectiveness of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, before applying these methods to the analysis of people who would have been excluded from TORCH.

OBJECTIVES

To validate the use of non-interventional Clinical Practice Research Datalink data and methods for estimating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment effects against trial results, and, using validated methods, to determine treatment effects in people who would have been excluded from the TORCH trial.

DESIGN

A historical non-interventional cohort design, including validation against randomised controlled trial results.

SETTING

The UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

PARTICIPANTS

People aged ≥ 18 years with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease registered in Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD between January 2000 and January 2017. For objective 1, we prepared a cohort that was analogous to the TORCH trial cohort by applying TORCH trial inclusion/exclusion criteria followed by individual matching to TORCH trial participants. For objectives 2 and 3, we prepared cohorts that were analogous to the TORCH trial that, nevertheless, would not have been eligible for the TORCH trial because of age, asthma, comorbidity or mild disease.

INTERVENTIONS

The long-acting beta-2 agonist and inhaled corticosteroid combination product Seretide (GlaxoSmithKline plc) [i.e. fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol (FP-SAL)] compared with (1) no FP-SAL exposure or (2) exposure to salmeterol (i.e. the long-acting beta-2 agonist) only.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Exacerbations, mortality, pneumonia and time to treatment change.

RESULTS

For objective 1, the exacerbation rate ratio was comparable to that in the TORCH trial for FP-SAL compared with salmeterol (0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.97, vs. TORCH trial 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.95), but not for FP-SAL compared with no FP-SAL (1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.42, vs. TORCH trial 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.81). Active comparator results were also consistent with the TORCH trial for mortality (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.32, vs. TORCH trial hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.13) and pneumonia (risk ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.87, vs. TORCH trial risk ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 1.73). For objectives 2 and 3, active comparator results were consistent with the TORCH trial for exacerbations, with the exception of people with milder chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, in whom we observed a stronger protective association (risk ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.70, vs. TORCH trial risk ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.97). For the analysis of mortality, we saw a lack of association with being prescribed FP-SAL (vs. being prescribed salmeterol), with the exception of those with prior asthma, for whom we observed an increase in mortality (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.85, vs. TORCH trial-analogous HR 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Routinely collected electronic health record data can be used to successfully measure chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment effects when comparing two treatments, but not for comparisons between active treatment and no treatment. Analyses involving patients who would have been excluded from trials mostly suggests that treatment effects for FP-SAL are similar to trial effects, although further work is needed to characterise a small increased risk of death in those with concomitant asthma.

LIMITATIONS

Some of our analyses had small numbers.

FUTURE WORK

The differences in treatment effects that we found should be investigated further in other data sets. Currently recommended chronic obstructive pulmonary disease inhaled combination therapy (other than FP-SAL) should also be investigated using these methods.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Low-dose theophylline in addition to ICS therapy in COPD patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A synergism has been reported between theophylline and corticosteroids, wherein theophylline increases and restores the anti-inflammatory effect of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) by enhancing histone deacetylase-2 (HDAC) activity. Several studies have explored the efficacy of low-dose theophylline plus ICS therapy on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but the results are discrepant.

METHOD

We conducted searches in electronic database such as PubMed, Web Of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase to find out original studies. Stata/SE 15.0 was used to perform all data analysis.

RESULT

A total of 47,556 participants from 7 studies were included in our analysis and the sample size of each study varied from 24 to 10,816. Theophylline as an add-on therapy to ICS was not associated with the reduction of COPD exacerbations (HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.19, I2 = 95.2%). Instead, the theophylline group demonstrated a higher hospitalization rate (HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.15, I2 = 20.4%) and mortality (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.25, I2 = 0%). Further, the anti-inflammatory effect of low-dose theophylline as an adjunct to ICS on COPD was controversial. Besides, the theophylline group showed significant improvement in lung function compared with the non-theophylline group.

CONCLUSION

Based on current evidence, low-dose theophylline as add-on therapy to ICS did not reduce the exacerbation rate. Instead, the hospitalization rate and mortality increased with theophylline. Thus, we do not recommend adding low-dose theophylline to ICS therapy in COPD patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration CRD42021224952.

Romanian clinical guideline for diagnosis and treatment of COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a disease with increasing prevalence and burden for health systems worldwide. Every country collects its own epidemiological data regarding COPD prevalence, morbidity and mortality while taking steps to educate the population and medical community to improve early detection and treatment. The rising COPD prevalence creates a need for comprehensive guidelines. In 2012 and 2017–2018, the Romanian Society of Pneumology (SRP) organised national inquiries for COPD, while lung physicians in Romania began receiving education regarding the correct algorithms for COPD diagnosis and therapy. During 2019, a Romanian clinical guideline for diagnosis and treatment of COPD was published, and a condensed version of key points from this guideline are presented herein. COPD is diagnosed based on the presence of three major components: relevant exposure history, respiratory symptoms, and airway limitation that is not fully reversible. Clinical evaluation of patients diagnosed with COPD should include the level of symptoms, exacerbation rate, the presence of comorbidities and determination of phenotypes. The present abridged guideline is designed to be accessible and practical for assessing and managing patients with COPD. The application of up-to-date COPD guidelines may enhance the optimism of physicians and patients in managing this disease.

The Role of ICS/LABA Fixed-Dose Combinations in the Treatment of Asthma and COPD: Bioequivalence of a Generic Fluticasone Propionate-Salmeterol Device

Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are inflammatory chronic respiratory conditions with high rates of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The objectives of this review are to briefly describe the pathophysiology and epidemiology of asthma and COPD, discuss guideline recommendations for uncontrolled disease, and review a new generic option for the treatment of asthma and COPD. Although mild forms of these diseases may be controlled with as-needed pharmacotherapy, uncontrolled or persistent asthma and moderate or severe COPD uncontrolled by bronchodilators with elevated eosinophilia or frequent exacerbations may require intervention with combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta agonists (LABAs), according to international guidelines. Fixed-dose combinations of ICS/LABA are commonly prescribed for both conditions, with fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol forming a cornerstone of many treatment plans. An oral inhalation powder containing the combination of FP and salmeterol has been available as Advair Diskus® in the United States for almost 20 years, and the first and only substitutable generic version of this product has recently been approved for use: Wixela™ Inhub™. Bioequivalence of Wixela Inhub and Advair Diskus has been established. Furthermore, the Inhub inhaler was shown to be robust and easy to use, suggesting that Wixela Inhub may provide an alternative option to Advair Diskus for patients with asthma or COPD requiring intervention with an ICS/LABA.

Real world effects of COPD medications: a cohort study with validation against results from randomised controlled trials

Real-world data provide the potential for generating evidence on drug treatment effects in groups excluded from trials, but rigorous, validated methodology for doing so is lacking. We investigated whether non-interventional methods applied to real-world data could reproduce results from the landmark TORCH COPD trial.We performed a historical cohort study (2000-2017) of COPD drug treatment effects in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Two control groups were selected from CPRD by applying TORCH inclusion/exclusion criteria and 1:1 matching to TORCH participants, as follows. Control group 1: people with COPD not prescribed fluticasone propionate (FP)-salmeterol (SAL); control group 2: people with COPD prescribed SAL only. FP-SAL exposed groups were then selected from CPRD by propensity score matching to each control group. Outcomes studied were COPD exacerbations, death from any cause and pneumonia.2652 FP-SAL exposed people were propensity score matched to 2652 FP-SAL unexposed people while 991 FP-SAL exposed people were propensity score matched to 991 SAL exposed people. Exacerbation rate ratio was comparable to TORCH for FP-SAL versus SAL (0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97 versus 0.88, 0.81-0.95) but not for FP-SAL versus no FP-SAL (1.30, 1.19-1.42 versus 0.75, 0.69-0.81). In addition, active comparator results were consistent with TORCH for mortality (hazard ratio 0.93, 0.65-1.32 versus 0.93, 0.77-1.13) and pneumonia (risk ratio 1.39, 1.04-1.87 versus 1.47, 1.25-1.73).We obtained very similar results to the TORCH trial for active comparator analyses, but were unable to reproduce placebo-controlled results. Application of these validated methods for active comparator analyses to groups excluded from randomised controlled trials provides a practical way for contributing to the evidence base and supporting COPD treatment decisions.

Evaluating the association of osteoporosis with inhaled corticosteroid use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Taiwan

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by airflow limitation and osteoporosis is the major comorbidity associated with poor prognosis in COPD. However, the effect of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on bone mineral density among COPD remains uncertain. There is the urgent need to examine whether the long-term ICS use may increase the risk of osteoporosis. In this nested case-control study retrieved from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database from 2002 to 2017, the study aimed to investigate risk of osteoporosis associated with ICS, focusing on the dosage and duration of ICS therapy. Cases with osteoporosis or osteoporotic fractures claims were defined and matched to 3 randomly selected controls. Conditional logistic regressions were used to estimate odds ratios of osteoporosis from ICS treatment measured in 3 years before the index date. This population-based study included 891,395 patients with COPD, where after matching had 58,048 case groups and 174,144 matched control groups. After adjusting for potential confounders, ICS use in COPD was associated with a 1.053-fold (95% confidence interval 1.020-1.087) increased osteoporosis risk, where 7892 (13.59%) ICS use in case and 22,580 (12.97%) in control. New ICS use in COPD patients is associated with increased osteoporosis risk, regardless of exposure period.

Risk of Pneumonia Associated with Inhaled Corticosteroid in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Korean Population-Based Study

Introduction

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are recommended for patients with frequent exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, accumulating evidence has indicated the risk of pneumonia from the use of ICS. This study aimed to investigate the association between ICS and pneumonia in the real-world clinical setting.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed using nationwide population data from the Korea National Health Insurance Service. Subjects who had a new diagnosis of COPD and who received inhaled bronchodilators without a diagnosis of pneumonia before the initiation of bronchodilators were identified. Subjects were followed up until their first diagnosis of pneumonia. The risk of pneumonia in ICS users was compared to that in non-ICS users.

Results

A total of 87,594 subjects were identified and 1:1 matched to 22,161 ICS users and non-ICS users. More ICS users were diagnosed with pneumonia compared to non-ICS users (33.73% versus 24.51%, P<0.0001). The incidence rate per 100,000 person-years was 8904.98 for ICS users and 6206.79 for non-ICS users. The hazard ratio (HR) of pneumonia for ICS users was 1.62 (95% CI 1.54–1.70). The HR of subjects prescribed with the lowest ICS cumulative dose was 1.35 (1.27–1.43). The HR increased to 1.51 (1.42–1.60), 1.96 (1.85–2.09), and 2.03 (1.89–2.18) as the cumulative dose increased. Pneumonia was strongly associated with fluticasone propionate (1.79 (1.70–1.89)) and fluticasone furoate (1.80 (1.61–2.01)) use, compared to the use of other types of ICS.

Conclusion

ICS increases the risk of pneumonia in patients with COPD. Hence, ICS should be carefully prescribed in patients with risk factors for pneumonia while considering the cumulative doses and subtypes of ICS.

Symptom Burden and GOLD Classification in Medicare Advantage Patients with COPD Initiating Umeclidinium/Vilanterol or Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol Therapy

Background

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) provide greater improvements in lung function and symptoms than inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study evaluated symptom burden and Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) categorization among patients who recently initiated umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI; LAMA/LABA) or fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL; ICS/LABA) single-inhaler dual therapy.

Methods

COPD-diagnosed Medicare Advantage enrollees aged ≥65 years were identified from the Optum Research Database (ORD). Eligible patients had ≥1 pharmacy claim for UMEC/VI or FP/SAL in the 6-month period before sample identification, with no evidence of triple therapy (ICS/LAMA/LABA), asthma, or lung cancer. Symptom burden was assessed via cross-sectional surveys using the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale. Patients were classified into GOLD categories using patient-reported symptoms and claims-based exacerbation history. Treatment groups were balanced on potential confounders using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). CAT and mMRC scores were analyzed with generalized linear regression models using IPTW propensity scores.

Results

The final analytic sample included 789 respondents (UMEC/VI: N=392; FP/SAL: N=397). Approximately 66% patients were classified as GOLD B when assessing symptoms with CAT and mMRC together, or CAT alone; more patients were classified as GOLD A (~40%) than GOLD B (~36%) using mMRC alone. Proportions of patients in each GOLD group were similar between treatment cohorts. Post-IPTW multivariable modeling showed similar symptom burden between treatment groups.

Conclusion

After controlling for baseline characteristics, symptom burden was similar between patients receiving UMEC/VI or FP/SAL. GOLD classification using mMRC produced more conservative results compared with CAT, potentially underestimating patient symptoms. Many patients receiving FP/SAL were classified as GOLD A or B, despite GOLD recommending non-ICS-containing therapy in these patients. These findings support the need for routine assessment of symptoms in patients with COPD.

Day and Night Control of COPD and Role of Pharmacotherapy: A Review

The topic of 24-hour management of COPD is related to day-to-night symptoms management, specific follow-up and patients' adherence to therapy. COPD symptoms strongly vary during day and night, being worse in the night and early morning. This variability is not always adequately considered in the trials. Night-time symptoms are predictive of higher mortality and more frequent exacerbations; therefore, they should be a target of therapy. During night-time, in COPD patients the supine position is responsible for a different thoracic physiology; moreover, during some sleep phases the vagal stimulation determines increased bronchial secretions, increased blood flow in the bronchial circulation (enhancing inflammation) and increased airway resistance (broncho-motor tone). Moreover, in COPD patients the circadian rhythm may be impaired. The role of pharmacotherapy in this regard is still poorly investigated. Symptoms can be grossly differentiated according to the different phenotypes of the disease: wheezing recalls asthma, while dyspnea is strongly related to emphysema (dynamic hyperinflation) or obstructive bronchiolitis (secretions). Those symptoms may be different targets of therapy. In this regard, GOLD recommendations for the first time introduced the concept of phenotype distinction suggesting the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) particularly when an asthmatic pattern or eosiophilic inflammations are present, and hypothesized different approaches to target symptoms (ie, dyspnea) or exacerbations. Pharmacotherapy should be evaluated and possibly directed on the basis of circadian variations, for instance, supporting the use of twice-daily rapid-action bronchodilators and evening dose of ICS. Recommendations on day and night symptoms monitoring strategies and choice of the specific drug according to patient's profile are still not systematically investigated or established. This review is the summary of an advisory board on the topic "24-hour control of COPD and role of pharmacotherapy", held by five pulmonologists, experts in respiratory pathophysiology, pharmacology and sleep medicine.

Should You Recommend Inhaled Corticosteroids for This Patient With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

Approximately 12 million adults in the United States receive a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) each year, and it is the fourth leading cause of death. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease refers to a group of diseases that cause airflow obstruction and a constellation of symptoms, including cough, sputum production, and shortness of breath. The main risk factor for COPD is tobacco smoke, but other environmental exposures also may contribute. The GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) 2020 Report aims to provide a nonbiased review of the current evidence for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with COPD. To date, no conclusive evidence exists that any existing medications for COPD modify mortality. The mainstay of treatment for COPD is inhaled bronchodilators, whereas the role of inhaled corticosteroids is less clear. Inhaled corticosteroids have substantial risks, including an increased risk for pneumonia. Here, 2 experts, both pulmonologists, reflect on the care of a woman with severe COPD, a 50-pack-year smoking history, frequent COPD exacerbations, and recurrent pneumonia. They consider the indications for inhaled corticosteroids in COPD, when inhaled corticosteroids should be withdrawn, and what other treatments are available.

Comparison of Characteristics Between ICS-Treated COPD Patients and ICS-Treated COPD Patients with Concomitant Asthma: A Study in Primary Care

Background and Objective

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for COPD has been much debated. Our aim was to identify characteristics associated with prescribing ICS for patients with COPD alone compared to those with concomitant asthma in general practice.

Patients and Methods

Participating general practitioners (GPs) (n=144) recruited patients with COPD (ICPC 2nd ed. code R95) currently prescribed ICS (ACT code R03AK and R03BA). Data, if available, on demographics, smoking habits, spirometry, COPD medication, dyspnea score, and exacerbation history were retrieved from the medical records. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify possible differences in characteristics between patients with COPD alone compared to those having a concomitant diagnosis of asthma.

Results

A total of 2.289 (45% males) COPD patients on ICS were recruited. Compared to patients with COPD alone (n=1.749), those with COPD and concomitant asthma (n=540) were younger (p<0.001), had higher BMI, higher FEV1/FVC ratio, higher blood eosinophil count and less life-time tobacco exposure (36 and 26 pack-years, respectively). Compared to COPD alone, logistic regression analysis showed that COPD with concomitant asthma was significantly associated to age (OR 0.94; CI 0.92 to 0.97; p<0.001), pack-years of smoking (OR 0.98; CI 0.97 to 0.99; p<0.001), %pred (OR 1.02; CI 1.00 to 1.03; p=0.005), and doctor-diagnosed depression (OR 2.59; CI 1.20 to 5.58; p=0.015).

Conclusion

In COPD patients currently prescribed ICS, the presence of concomitant asthma was associated with being younger, having less tobacco exposure, more preserved lung function and a higher likelihood of doctor-diagnosed depression compared to COPD alone.

The prevalence and clinical features of asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) definitively diagnosed according to the Japanese Respiratory Society Guidelines for the Management of ACO 2018

Background Asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) is a disease that shares clinical features of both asthma and COPD. The purpose of this study is to investigate the prevalence and clinical features of ACO. Methods We retrospectively reviewed data for 170 patients with persistent airflow limitation and diagnosed them according to "The Japanese Respiratory Society Guidelines for the Management of ACO 2018". Results Of the 170 patients, 111 were diagnosed as follows : COPD (74 patients, 66.6%), ACO (34 patients, 30.6%), and asthma (3 patients, 2.8%). There was no significant difference in clinical features between ACO and COPD patients. The following pulmonary function tests were significantly lower in ACO than in COPD patients : forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity, peak expiratory flow, maximal mid-expiratory flow, and the maximum expiratory flow at 50%and75%. The following respiratory impedance parameters were significantly higher in ACO than in COPD patients : respiratory resistance (Rrs) at 5 Hz (R5), Rrsat 20 Hz (R20), R5-R20, and low-frequency reactance area. Conclusions About 30% of patients with persistent airflow limitation were diagnosed with ACO. ACO patients had lower lung function and higher respiratory impedance compared with COPD patients. J. Med. Invest. 66 : 157-164, February, 2019.

Association between Inhaled Corticosteroid Use and Pulmonary Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Infection

RATIONALE

Nontuberculous mycobacterial (NTM) pulmonary disease prevalence is increasing.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the association between the use of inhaled corticosteroids and the likelihood of NTM pulmonary infection among individuals with treated airway disease.

METHODS

We conducted a case-control study of subjects with airway disease with and without NTM pulmonary infection (based on mycobacterial respiratory cultures) between 2000 and 2010 in northern California. We quantified the use of inhaled corticosteroids, other airway disease medications, and healthcare use within 6 months of NTM pulmonary infection identification. We used 1:10 case-control matching and conditional logistic regression to evaluate the association between the duration and cumulative dosage of inhaled corticosteroid use and NTM pulmonary infection.

RESULTS

We identified 248 cases with NTM pulmonary infection with an estimated rate of 16.4 cases per 10,000 subjects treated for airway disease. The median interval between treated airway disease cohort entry (defined as date of patient filling the third airway disease treatment prescription) and NTM case identification was 1,217 days. Compared with control subjects, subjects with NTM pulmonary infection were more likely to use airway disease medications including systemic steroids; they were also more likely to use health care. Any inhaled corticosteroids use between 120 days and 2 years before cohort entry was associated with substantially increased odds of NTM infection. For example, the adjusted odds ratio for NTM infection among inhaled corticosteroid users in a 2-year interval was 2.51 (95% confidence interval, 1.40-4.49; P < 0.01). Increasing cumulative inhaled corticosteroid dose was also associated with greater odds of NTM infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled corticosteroid use, and particularly high-dose inhaled corticosteroid use, was associated with an increased risk of NTM pulmonary infection.

Airway pharmacology: treatment options and algorithms to treat patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Pharmacological treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) aims to reduce disease burden and prevent future risk, especially exacerbations, hospitalizations, decline of lung function and quality of life, and mortality. This review will describe the basic pharmacology of the different classes of agents, followed by the effects they exert in patients with COPD, and the side effects. Targets for pharmacological treatments include airway smooth muscle contraction, inflammation, mucus production, alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency and respiratory infection. Inhaled bronchodilators are the mainstay, with methylxanthines as secondary choice agents. Anti-inflammatory therapy can be administered as corticosteroids, phosphodiesterase inhibitor, and long-term macrolides such as azithromycin. Mucus production is addressed by use of mucolytics. In some countries, alpha-1-antitrypsin augmentation therapy is available for severe alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency. The treatment of bacterial infection and/or colonization can be attempted with antibiotics; there is a dire need for effective anti-viral agents for the common viruses causing exacerbations of COPD. Since clinicians need to choose medications for their individual patients, algorithms for how to choose and change medication are increasingly being presented with more elements of treatable traits and personalized medicine.

A Framework For Step Down Or Therapeutic Re-Organization For Withdrawal Of Inhaled Corticosteroids In Selected Patients With COPD: A Proposal For COPD Management

While chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality, pharmacological therapy has a definite benefit on symptoms as well as the frequency and severity of exacerbations, and general health. The most recent Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines recommend triple therapy (long-acting beta2 agonists [LABA] + long-acting muscarinic antagonists [LAMA] + inhaled corticosteroids [ICS]) only for patients with exacerbations, elevated eosinophils, and without control using a LABA/LAMA or ICS/LABA combination. Long-term monotherapy with ICS is not currently recommended, but may be considered in association with LABAs in patients with a history of exacerbations and elevated eosinophils in spite of appropriate treatment with long-acting bronchodilators. However, long-term use of ICS in combination therapy has been associated with adverse effects, even if widely used in routine management for decades. The available evidence suggests that ICS can be rationally discontinued in patients with stable disease and is not likely to have unfavorable effects on lung function, overall health, or be associated with a greater risk of exacerbations. Indeed, it is widely accepted that ICS therapy should be limited to a small proportion of patients after careful assessment of the individual risk-benefit profile. Unfortunately, however, there are no international recommendations that provide specific guidance or a protocol for withdrawal of ICS. Herein, the available evidence on the use of ICS is reviewed and an easy to use tool is proposed that can provide clinicians with a simple management scheme to guide the most appropriate therapy for management of COPD and use of ICS. In management of COPD, a highly personalized approach is advocated so that the most appropriate therapy for each individual patient can be selected.

Cathelicidin LL-37 restoring glucocorticoid function in smoking and lipopolysaccharide-induced airway inflammation in rats

Background

Glucocorticoids have been widely used to treat patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Nevertheless, corticosteroid insensitivity is a major barrier to the effective treatment of COPD and its mechanism remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of cathelicidin LL-37 on corticosteroid insensitivity in COPD rat model, and to explore the involved mechanisms.

Methods

COPD model was established by exposing male Wistar rats to cigarette smoke combined with intratracheal instillation of lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Inhaled budesonide and LL-37 were consequently applied to COPD models separately or collectively to confirm the effects on inflammatory cytokines (tumor necrosis factor [TNF]-α and transforming growth factor [TGF]-β) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and lung tissue histopathological morphology. Expression of histone deacetylase-2 (HDAC2) and phosphorylation of Akt (p-AKT) in lung were also measured.

Results

Briefly, COPD model rats showed an increased basal release of inflammatory cytokines (lung TNF-α: 45.7 ± 6.1 vs. 20.1 ± 3.8 pg/mL, P < 0.01; serum TNF-α: 8.9 ± 1.2 vs. 6.7 ± 0.5 pg/mL, P = 0.01; lung TGF-β: 122.4 ± 20.8 vs. 81.9 ± 10.8 pg/mL, P < 0.01; serum TGF-β: 38.9 ± 8.5 vs. 20.6 ± 2.3 pg/mL, P < 0.01) and COPD related lung tissue histopathological changes, as well as corticosteroid resistance molecular profile characterized by an increase in phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/Akt (0.5 ± 0.1 fold of control vs. 0.2 ± 0.1 fold of control, P = 0.04) and a decrease in HDAC2 expression and activity (expression: 13.1 ± 0.4 μmol/μg vs. 17.4 ± 1.1 μmol/μg, P < 0.01; activity: 1.1 ± 0.1 unit vs. 1.4 ± 0.1 unit, P < 0.01), compared with control group. In addition, LL-37 enhanced the anti-inflammatory effect of budesonide in an additive manner. Treatment with combination of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and LL-37 led to a significant increase of HDAC2 expression and activity (expression: 15.7 ± 0.4 μmol/μg vs. 14.1 ± 0.9 μmol/μg, P < 0.01; activity: 1.3 ± 0.1 unit vs. 1.0 ± 0.1 unit, P < 0.01), along with decrease of p-AKT compared to budesonide monotherapy (0.1 ± 0.0 fold of control vs. 0.3 ± 0.1 fold of control, P < 0.01).

Conclusions

This study suggested that LL-37 could improve the anti-inflammatory activity of budesonide in cigarette smoke and LPS-induced COPD rat model by enhancing the expression and activity of HDAC2. The mechanism of this function of LL-37 might involve the inhibition of PI3K/Akt pathway.

Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD patients: rationale and algorithms

Observational studies indicate that overutilization of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is common in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Overprescription and the high risk of serious ICS-related adverse events make withdrawal of this treatment necessary in patients for whom the treatment-related risks outweigh the expected benefits. Elaboration of an optimal, universal, user-friendly algorithm for withdrawal of ICS therapy has been identified as an important clinical need. This article reviews the available evidence on the efficacy, risks, and indications of ICS in COPD, as well as the benefits of ICS treatment withdrawal in patients for whom its use is not recommended by current guidelines. After discussing proposed approaches to ICS withdrawal published by professional associations and individual authors, we present a new algorithm developed by consensus of an international group of experts in the field of COPD. This relatively simple algorithm is based on consideration and integrated assessment of the most relevant factors (markers) influencing decision-making, such a history of exacerbations, peripheral blood eosinophil count, presence of infection, and risk of community-acquired pneumonia.

Treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: protocol for a systematic review and evidence map

INTRODUCTION

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive lung disease, usually caused by tobacco smoking, but other important risk factors include exposures to combustion products of biomass fuels and environmental pollution. The introduction of several new (combination) inhaler therapies, increasing uncertainty about the role of inhaled corticosteroids and a rapid proliferation of the literature on management of stable COPD in general, call for novel ways of evidence synthesis in this area. A systematic review and evidence map can provide the basis for shared decision-making tools and help to establish a future research agenda.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This systematic review will follow an umbrella systematic review design (also called overview of reviews). We plan to conduct a comprehensive literature search of Ovid MEDLINE (including epub ahead of print, in process and other non-indexed citations), Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus from database inception to the present. We will include systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention on one or more patient-important outcomes and/or lung function in patients with stable COPD. For every intervention/outcome pair, one systematic review will be included. An a priori protocol will guide, which systematic reviews will be chosen, how their credibility will be evaluated, and how the quality of the body of evidence will be rated. Data will be synthesised into an evidence map that will present a matrix that depicts each available treatment for stable COPD with a quantitative estimate on symptoms/outcomes from the patient perspective, along with an indication of the size and certainty in the evidence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval by a research ethics committee is not required since the review will only include published data. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018095079.

Risks of budesonide/formoterol for the treatment of stable COPD: a meta-analysis

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the comparative risks of budesonide/formoterol, versus placebo or monotherapies, for the treatment of patients with stable COPD.

Materials and methods

We undertook a systematic search of the literature in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing budesonide/formoterol with control regimens for the treatment of patients with stable COPD and at least 12 weeks of follow-up, meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were reviewed, and OR with corresponding 95% CI was used to pool the results.

Results

A total of eight studies involving 9,254 patients met the inclusion criteria of this meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol was associated with a significantly higher risk of adverse effects including oral candidiasis (OR: 3.09, 95% CI: 1.95–4.91) and dysphonia (OR: 2.76, 95% CI: 1.40–5.44), but not pneumonia (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.64–1.37) or bronchitis (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.95–1.95). A similar pattern was also evident for the comparison of formoterol with budesonide/formoterol, with increased occurrence of oral candidiasis (OR: 2.72, 95% CI: 1.33–5.58) and dysphonia (OR: 4.13, 95% CI: 1.95–8.76); however, there were no significant differences in pneumonia (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.98–1.74) or bronchitis (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.83–1.31). In contrast, compared with budesonide, combined budesonide/formoterol was associated with similar risks of adverse effects, including pneumonia (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.60–2.39), bronchitis (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.41–2.20), oral candidiasis (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.41–1.53), and dysphonia (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.40–2.47).

Conclusion

Combination therapy does not cause more adverse events, including pneumonia and bronchitis, than control (placebo, formoterol, or budesonide) treatment in patients with stable COPD, while there were higher risks of oral candidiasis and dysphonia compared with the non-inhaled corticosteroid group (placebo, formoterol).

Discontinuation of therapy among COPD patients who experience an improvement in exacerbation status

PURPOSE

A subset of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience a decrease in exacerbation frequency, leading to a diminished need for treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). We investigated prescribing and discontinuation patterns of long-acting bronchodilators and ICS in COPD patients according to exacerbation frequency.

METHODS

Using the nationwide Danish health registries, we conducted a drug utilization study among patients who had at least two exacerbations or one hospitalization due to an exacerbation during 2011-2012. This study population was stratified according to consistency of exacerbation occurrence after 12, 24, 36, and 48 months of follow-up and the groups were described according to use of ICS, long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA), and long-acting anticholinergics (LAMA), and combinations thereof.

RESULTS

We identified 29,010 COPD exacerbators during 2011-2012. Upon inclusion, 70% received ICS-containing regimens, in combination with LABA (23%) or both LABA and LAMA (41%). The proportion of prevalent users of ICS-containing regimens decreased to 56% during follow-up among exacerbation-free individuals, while it increased to 86% in individuals who experienced at least one exacerbation annually. Persistence to ICS-containing regimens was 58% after 4 years in individuals without exacerbations compared to 74% among those with annual exacerbations. Similar patterns were observed for triple therapy which was the most extensively used drug combination regardless of consistency of exacerbation occurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

The extensive use of ICS and the relatively high persistence to ICS-containing regimens in individuals who had a decrease in exacerbation occurrence highlight a need for the development and implementation of de-escalation strategies in clinical practice.

Inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: friend or foe?

The efficacy, safety and positioning of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is much debated, since it can result in clear clinical benefits in some patients ("friend") but can be ineffective or even associated with undesired side effects, e.g. pneumonia, in others ("foe"). After critically reviewing the evidence for and against ICS treatment in patients with COPD, we propose that: 1) ICS should not be used as a single, stand-alone therapy in COPD; 2) patients most likely to benefit from the addition of ICS to long-acting bronchodilators include those with history of multiple or severe exacerbations despite appropriate maintenance bronchodilator use, particularly if blood eosinophils are >300 cells·µL^-1, and those with a history of and/or concomitant asthma; and 3) the risk of pneumonia in COPD patients using ICS is higher in those with older age, lower body mass index (BMI), greater overall fragility, receiving higher ICS doses and those with blood eosinophils <100 cells·µL^-1 All these factors must be carefully considered and balanced in any individual COPD patient before adding ICS to her/his maintenance bronchodilator treatment. Further research is needed to clarify some of these issues and firmly establish these recommendations.

Combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta2-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Several dual bronchodilator combinations of long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) have been approved for treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The current GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) recommendations suggest the use of LABA/LAMA combinations in people with group B COPD with persistent symptoms, group C COPD with further exacerbations on LAMA therapy alone and group D COPD with or without inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Fixed-dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium/formoterol is one of the approved LABA/LAMA therapies for people with stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta₂-agonists in stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and manufacturers' websites as well as the reference list of published trials up to 12 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing combined aclidinium bromide and LABAs in people with stable COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data collection and analysis. The primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring a short course of an oral steroid or antibiotic, or both; quality of life measured by a validated scale and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs). Where the outcome or study details were not reported, we contacted the study investigators or pharmaceutical company trial co-ordinators (or both) for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified RCTs comparing aclidinium/formoterol FDC versus aclidinium, formoterol or placebo only. We included seven multicentre trials of four to 52 weeks' duration conducted in outpatient settings. There were 5921 participants, whose mean age ranged from 60.7 to 64.7 years, mostly men with a mean smoking pack-years of 46.4 to 61.3 of which 43.9% to 63.4% were current smokers. They had a moderate-to-severe degree of COPD with a mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) between 50.5% and 61% of predicted normal and the baseline mean FEV₁ of 1.23 L to 1.43 L. We assessed performance and detection biases as low for all studies whereas selection, attrition and reporting biases were either low or unclear.FDC versus aclidiniumThere was no evidence of a difference between FDC and aclidinium for exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); quality of life measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -0.92, 95% CI -2.15 to 0.30); participants with significant improvement in SGRQ score (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41; 2 trials, 2002 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); non-fatal SAE (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.80; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.29; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or adverse events (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with aclidinium, FDC improved symptoms (Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score: MD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.68; 2 trials, 2013 participants) with a higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of at least one unit improvement (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.62; high-certainty evidence); the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) being 14 (95% CI 9 to 39).FDC versus formoterolWhen compared to formoterol, combination therapy reduced exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99; 3 trials, 2694 participants; high-certainty evidence); may decrease SGRQ total score (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.10 to -0.65; 2 trials, 2002 participants; low-certainty evidence; MCID for SGRQ is 4 units); increased TDI focal score (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; 2 trials, 2010 participants) with more participants attaining an MCID (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56; high-certainty evidence) and an NNTB of 16 (95% CI 10 to 60). FDC lowered the risk of adverse events compared to formoterol (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.93; 5 trials, 3140 participants; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 22). However, there was no difference between FDC and formoterol for hospital admissions, all-cause mortality and non-fatal SAEs.FDC versus placeboCompared with placebo, FDC demonstrated no evidence of a difference in exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.18; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although estimates were uncertain. Quality of life measure by SGRQ total score was significantly better with FDC compared to placebo (MD -2.91, 95% CI -4.33 to -1.50; 2 trials, 1823 participants) resulting in a corresponding increase in SGRQ responders who achieved at least four units decrease in SGRQ total score (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.13; high-certainty evidence) with an NNTB of 7 (95% CI 5 to 12). FDC also improved symptoms measured by TDI focal score (MD 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.69; 2 studies, 1832 participants) with more participants attaining at least one unit improvement in TDI focal score (OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.11; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 4). There were no differences in non-fatal SAEs, adverse events and all-cause mortality between FDC and placebo.Combination therapy significantly improved trough FEV₁ compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

FDC improved dyspnoea and lung function compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo, and this translated into an increase in the number of responders on combination treatment. Quality of life was better with combination compared to formoterol or placebo. There was no evidence of a difference between FDC and monotherapy or placebo for exacerbations, hospital admissions, mortality, non-fatal SAEs or adverse events. Studies reported a lower risk of moderate exacerbations and adverse events with FDC compared to formoterol; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

Indacaterol acetate/mometasone furoate provides sustained improvements in lung function compared with salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD: results from a Phase II randomized, double-blind 12-week study

Background and purpose

Fixed-dose combinations of a long-acting beta agonist and an inhaled corticosteroid are more effective than the individual components in COPD. The primary study objective was to demonstrate that the combination indacaterol acetate/mometasone furoate (IND/MF [QMF149]) was non-inferior to the twice-daily combination salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate (Sal/Flu) in terms of trough FEV₁ at week 12 (day 85). Secondary objectives were to compare the efficacy of IND/MF (QMF149) vs Sal/Flu with respect to other lung function parameters, COPD exacerbations, symptoms and dyspnea, health status/health-related quality of life, and rescue medication use.

Materials and methods

This was a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, Phase II study in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, who were randomized (1:1) to IND/MF (QMF149) (150/160 µg once daily; n=316) or Sal/Flu (50/500 µg twice daily; n=313).

Results

Over 90% of patients completed the study: 94.6% in the IND/MF (QMF149) group and 92.0% in the Sal/Flu group. The primary objective of non-inferiority of IND/MF (QMF149) to Sal/Flu for trough FEV₁ at week 12 (day 85) was met: the lower limit of the CI (95% CI: 27.7, 83.3 mL) was greater than −60 mL. The analysis for superiority of IND/MF (QMF149) to Sal/Flu demonstrated superiority of IND/MF (QMF149), with a difference of 56 mL (P<0.001). In addition, IND/MF (QMF149) treatment significantly improved COPD exacerbation-related parameters during the 12-week period. Other significant improvements with IND/MF (QMF 149) vs Sal/Flu were noted for dyspnea at week 12 and other COPD symptoms and COPD rescue medication use over the 12 weeks. The safety and tolerability profiles of both the treatments were similar.

Conclusion

IND/MF (QMF149) (150/160 µg once daily) offered superior lung function and symptom efficacy and a favorable safety profile compared with Sal/Flu (50/500 µg twice daily) in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators such as long-acting β-agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations have been used in people with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to control symptoms such as dyspnoea and cough, and prevent exacerbations. A number of LABA/LAMA combinations are now available for clinical use in COPD. However, it is not clear which group of above mentioned inhalers is most effective or if any specific formulation works better than the others within the same group or class.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of available formulations from four different groups of inhalers (i.e. LABA/LAMA combination, LABA/ICS combination, LAMA and LABA) in people with moderate to severe COPD. The review will update previous systematic reviews on dual combination inhalers and long-acting bronchodilators to answer the questions described above using the strength of a network meta-analysis (NMA).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register, which contains several databases. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' websites. The most recent searches were conducted on 6 April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people aged 35 years or older with a diagnosis of COPD and a baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of less than 80% of predicted. We included studies of at least 12 weeks' duration including at least two active comparators from one of the four inhaler groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted NMAs using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method. We considered a study as high risk if recruited participants had at least one COPD exacerbation within the 12 months before study entry and as low risk otherwise. Primary outcomes were COPD exacerbations (moderate to severe and severe), and secondary outcomes included symptom and quality-of-life scores, safety outcomes, and lung function. We collected data only for active comparators and did not consider placebo was not considered. We assumed a class/group effect when a fixed-class model fitted well. Otherwise we used a random-class model to assess intraclass/group differences. We supplemented the NMAs with pairwise meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 101,311 participants from 99 studies (26 studies with 32,265 participants in the high-risk population and 73 studies with 69,046 participants in the low-risk population) in our systematic review. The median duration of studies was 52 weeks in the high-risk population and 26 weeks in the low-risk population (range 12 to 156 for both populations). We considered the quality of included studies generally to be good.The NMAs suggested that the LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations followed by LAMA in the both populations.There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination, LAMA, and LABA in the high-risk population (network hazard ratios (HRs) 0.86 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.76 to 0.99), 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.99), and 0.70 (95% CrI 0.61 to 0.8) respectively), and that LAMA decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA in the high- and low-risk populations (network HR 0.80 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.88) and 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.97), respectively). There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination reduces severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination and LABA in the high-risk population (network HR 0.78 (95% CrI 0.64 to 0.93) and 0.64 (95% CrI 0.51 to 0.81), respectively).There was a general trend towards a greater improvement in symptom and quality-of-life scores with the combination therapies compared to monotherapies, and the combination therapies were generally ranked higher than monotherapies.The LABA/ICS combination was the lowest ranked in pneumonia serious adverse events (SAEs) in both populations. There is evidence that the LABA/ICS combination increases the odds of pneumonia compared to LAMA/LABA combination, LAMA and LABA (network ORs: 1.69 (95% CrI 1.20 to 2.44), 1.78 (95% CrI 1.33 to 2.39), and 1.50 (95% CrI 1.17 to 1.92) in the high-risk population and network or pairwise OR: 2.33 (95% CI 1.03 to 5.26), 2.02 (95% CrI 1.16 to 3.72), and 1.93 (95% CrI 1.29 to 3.22) in the low-risk population respectively). There were significant overlaps in the rank statistics in the other safety outcomes including mortality, total, COPD, and cardiac SAEs, and dropouts due to adverse events.None of the differences in lung function met a minimal clinically important difference criterion except for LABA/LAMA combination versus LABA in the high-risk population (network mean difference 0.13 L (95% CrI 0.10 to 0.15). The results of pairwise meta-analyses generally agreed with those of the NMAs. There is no evidence to suggest intraclass/group differences except for lung function at 12 months in the high-risk population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations although there was some uncertainty in the results. LAMA containing inhalers may have an advantage over those without a LAMA for preventing COPD exacerbations based on the rank statistics. Combination therapies appear more effective than monotherapies for improving symptom and quality-of-life scores. ICS-containing inhalers are associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.Our most comprehensive review including intraclass/group comparisons, free combination therapies, 99 studies, and 20 outcomes for each high- and low-risk population summarises the current literature and could help with updating existing COPD guidelines.

Inhaled corticosteroids for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: what is their role in therapy?

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are a mainstay of COPD treatment for patients with a history of exacerbations. Initial studies evaluating their use as monotherapy failed to show an effect on rate of pulmonary function decline in COPD, despite improvements in symptoms and reductions in exacerbations. Subsequently, ICS use in combination with long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) was shown to provide improved reductions in exacerbations, lung function, and health status. ICS-LABA combination therapy is currently recommended for patients with a history of exacerbations despite treatment with long-acting bronchodilators alone. The presence of eosinophilic bronchial inflammation, detected by high blood eosinophil levels or a history of asthma or asthma-COPD overlap, may define a population of patients in whom ICSs may be of particular benefit. Prospective clinical studies to determine an appropriate threshold of eosinophil levels for predicting the beneficial effects of ICSs are needed. Further study is also required in COPD patients who continue to smoke to assess the impact of cell- and tissue-specific changes on ICS responsiveness. The safety profile of ICSs in COPD patients is confounded by comorbidities, age, and prior use of systemic corticosteroids. The risk of pneumonia in patients with COPD is increased, particularly with more advanced age and worse disease severity. ICS-containing therapy also has been shown to increase pneumonia risk; however, differences in study design and the definition of pneumonia events have led to substantial variability in risk estimates, and some data indicate that pneumonia risk may differ by the specific ICS used. In summary, treatment with ICSs has a role in dual and triple therapy for COPD to reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms. Careful assessment of COPD phenotypes related to risk factors, triggers, and comorbidities may assist in individualizing treatment while maximizing the benefit-to-risk ratio of ICS-containing COPD treatment.

Once-daily long-acting beta₂-agonists/inhaled corticosteroids combined inhalers versus inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Three classes of inhaler medication are used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA); long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA); and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). To encourage patient adherence, two classes of medication are often combined in a single medication device; it seems that once-daily dosing offers greatest convenience to patients and may markedly influence adherence.

OBJECTIVES

To compare a once-daily combination of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta₂-agonist inhalers (ICS/LABA) versus inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists alone (LAMA) for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an electronic search of the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group (14 May 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (14 May 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (20 September 2017), then a search of other resources, including reference lists of included studies and manufacturers' trial registers (10 October 2017). Two pairs of review authors screened and scrutinised selected articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing once-daily administered ICS/LABA and LAMA in adults with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in each study. We analysed dichotomous data as random-effects odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as mean differences (MDs), both with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), using Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with 880 participants. We identified one ongoing trial with planned recruitment of 80 participants. Included studies enrolled participants with both partially reversible and non-reversible COPD and baseline mean per cent predicted (%pred) forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) of 43.4 to 49.6. Both studies lasted 12 weeks. Both studies used the same combination of inhaled ICS/LABA (fluticasone furoate and vilanterol 100/25 mcg once daily; FF/VI) versus LAMA (18 mcg tiotropium; TIO). They were published as full articles, and neither study was at low risk of bias in all domains.Compared to the TIO arm, results for pooled primary outcomes for the FF/VI arm were as follows: mortality: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.73, 880 participants (deaths reported only in the TIO arm), very low-quality evidence; COPD exacerbation (requiring short-burst oral corticosteroids or antibiotics, or both): OR 0.72, 95% Cl 0.35 to 1.50, 880 participants, very low-quality evidence; pneumonia: reported in both studies only during treatment with FF/VI: OR 6.12, 95% Cl 0.73 to 51.24, 880 participants, very low-quality evidence; and total serious adverse events: OR 0.96, 95% Cl 0.50 to 1.83, 880 participants, very low-quality evidence. None of the pneumonias were fatal. Compared to the TIO arm, we found no statistically significant difference for pooled secondary outcomes, including St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) mean total score change; hospital admissions (all-cause); disease-specific adverse events; mean weekly rescue medication use (results available from only one of the studies); and mean weekly percentage of rescue-free days for FF/VI. We found no statistically significant differences between ICS/LABA and LAMA for improvement in symptoms measured by the COPD Assessment Test (CAT score) nor for FEV₁ (change from baseline trough in 24-hour weighted mean on treatment day 84). Many pooled estimates lacked precision. Data for other endpoints such as exacerbations leading to intubation and physical activity measures were not available in included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on analysis of primary and secondary outcomes, we are uncertain whether once-daily ICS/LABA, combined in one inhaler, has a different efficacy or adverse effect profile compared to LAMA for treatment of people with COPD. However, the current review is based on only two trials with the main focus on primary outcomes other than those considered in this review. The short follow-up period and the very low quality of evidence limit our confidence in the result and increase uncertainty. Further trials of longer duration are needed. Current evidence is not strong enough to demonstrate important differences between inhalers in terms of effects, nor to establish that once-daily fluticasone/vilanterol 100/25 mcg and tiotropium 18 mcg are equivalent.

Open-Label, Crossover Study to Determine the Pharmacokinetics of Fluticasone Furoate and Batefenterol When Administered Alone, in Combination, or Concurrently

The study aim was to investigate the pharmacokinetics of single high doses and repeated therapeutic doses of fluticasone furoate (FF) and batefenterol (BAT; a bifunctional muscarinic antagonist and β₂ -agonist) administered in combination (BAT/FF) or as monotherapy. In this open-label, 6-period, crossover study of 48 subjects, the treatment sequences were (1) single high-dose BAT/FF 900/300 μg followed by repeated therapeutic doses of BAT/FF 300/100 μg (once daily for 7 days); (2) single high-dose BAT 900 μg administered concurrently with FF 300 μg; (3) single high-dose BAT 900 μg followed by repeated therapeutic-dose BAT 300 μg; (4) single high-dose FF 300 μg followed by repeated therapeutic-dose FF 100 μg; (5) single high-dose FF 300 μg (magnesium stearate); and (6) single high-dose FF/vilanterol 300/75 μg. Plasma FF area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve (AUC) was reduced after single high-dose BAT/FF versus FF alone (ratio of geometric least squares means: 0.79; 90% confidence interval: 0.75-0.83). After repeat dosing, FF AUC at the lower therapeutic dosage was similar for BAT/FF and FF (primary endpoint; AUC geometric least squares means: 1.03). Adverse events were minor, the most common being cough. These data support the feasibility of developing BAT/inhaled corticosteroid triple therapy in a single inhaler.

Overuse of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: five questions for withdrawal in daily practice

Evidence and guidelines are becoming increasingly clear about imbalance between the risks and benefits of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in patients with COPD. While selected patients may benefit from ICS-containing regimens, ICSs are often inappropriately prescribed with - according to Belgian market research data - up to 70% of patients in current practice receiving ICSs, usually as a fixed combination with a long-acting β2-adrenoreceptor agonist. Studies and recommendations support withdrawal of ICSs in a large group of patients with COPD. However, historical habits appear difficult to change even in the light of recent scientific evidence. We have built a collaborative educational platform with chest physicians and primary care physicians to increase awareness and provide guidance and support in this matter.

Indacaterol/glycopyrronium is cost-effective compared to salmeterol/fluticasone in COPD: FLAME-based modelling in a Swedish population

BACKGROUND

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) versus salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with moderate to very severe airflow limitation and ≥1 exacerbation in the preceding year.

METHODS

A previously published and validated patient-level simulation model was adapted using clinical data from the FLAME trial and real-world cost data from the ARCTIC study. Costs (total monetary costs comprising drug, maintenance, exacerbation, and pneumonia costs) and health outcomes (life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)) were projected over various time horizons (1, 5, 10 years, and lifetime) from the Swedish payer's perspective and were discounted at 3% annually. Uncertainty in model input values was studied through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

IND/GLY was associated with lower costs and better outcomes compared with SFC over all the analysed time horizons. Use of IND/GLY resulted in additional 0.192 LYs and 0.134 QALYs with cost savings of €1211 compared with SFC over lifetime. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was estimated to be €8560 based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of €55,000/QALY. The NMB was higher in the following subgroups: severe (GOLD 3), high risk and more symptoms (GOLD D), females, and current smokers.

CONCLUSION

IND/GLY is a cost-effective treatment compared with SFC in COPD patients with mMRC dyspnea grade ≥ 2, moderate to very severe airflow limitation, and ≥1 exacerbation in the preceding year.

A proposal for the withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in the clinical practice of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

According to the current clinical practice guidelines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the addition of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to long-acting β2 agonist therapy is recommended in patients with moderate-to-severe disease and an increased risk of exacerbations. However, ICS are largely overprescribed in clinical practice, and most patients are unlikely to benefit from long-term ICS therapy.Evidence from recent randomized-controlled trials supports the hypothesis that ICS can be safely and effectively discontinued in patients with stable COPD and in whom ICS therapy may not be indicated, without detrimental effects on lung function, health status, or risk of exacerbations. This article summarizes the evidence supporting the discontinuation of ICS therapy, and proposes an algorithm for the implementation of ICS withdrawal in patients with COPD in clinical practice.Given the increased risk of potentially serious adverse effects and complications with ICS therapy (including pneumonia), the use of ICS should be limited to the minority of patients in whom the treatment effects outweigh the risks.

Changes in definition lead to changes in the clinical characteristics across COPD categories according to GOLD 2017: a national cross-sectional survey in China

Purpose

To investigate how the changes of definition in assessment of Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stratification 2017 lead to changes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patient clinical characteristics across categories in China.

Patients and methods

COPD patients from 11 medical centers in China were stratified into old and new groups A–D twice according to the GOLD 2011 and 2017 comprehensive assessment. Demography and clinical characteristics were compared between old and new groups A–D.

Results

In 1,532 COPD patients, the distribution from group A to D was 330 (21.5%), 132 (8.6%), 411 (26.8%), 659 (43.0%) and 557 (36.4%), 405 (26.4%), 184 (12.0%), 386 (25.2%), respectively according to GOLD 2011 and 2017. 46.7% (500/1,070) patients in high-risk groups were regrouped to low-risk groups. Compared to the old groups A and B, the new groups A and B had a higher proportion of males, lower body mass index, higher modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) grade, poor pulmonary function, more patients with chronic bronchitis, and fewer patients with coronary heart disease and hypertension disease. Compared to the old groups C and D, the new groups C and D had older patients, fewer men, better pulmonary functions, frequent acute exacerbations in the previous year, and more patients with chronic bronchitis, coronary heart disease, or diabetes mellitus. The new group D had more patients with stroke than the old group D.

Conclusion

In China, GOLD 2017 shifted the overall COPD comprehensive assessments distribution to more low-risk groups. The new high-risk groups had more characteristics associated with high risk of acute exacerbation and mortality. Some of the changes in demography and clinical characteristics of the new low-risk groups were associated with high risk of acute exacerbation and/or mortality.

Scientific rationale for the possible inhaled corticosteroid intraclass difference in the risk of pneumonia in COPD

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) treatment combined with long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonists (LABAs) reduces the risk of exacerbations in COPD, but the use of ICSs is associated with increased incidence of pneumonia. There are indications that this association is stronger for fluticasone propionate than for budesonide. We have examined systematic reviews assessing the risk of pneumonia associated with fluticasone propionate and budesonide COPD therapy. Compared with placebo or LABAs, we found that fluticasone propionate was associated with 43%-78% increased risk of pneumonia, while only slightly increased risk or no risk was found for budesonide. We have evaluated conceivable mechanisms which may explain this difference and suggest that the higher pneumonia risk with fluticasone propionate treatment is caused by greater and more protracted immunosuppressive effects locally in the airways/lungs. These effects are due to the much slower dissolution of fluticasone propionate particles in airway luminal fluid, resulting in a slower uptake into the airway tissue and a much longer presence of fluticasone propionate in airway epithelial lining fluid.

A cross-sectional survey of current treatment and symptom burden of patients with COPD consulting for routine care according to GOLD 2014 classifications

Background

As part of the Respiratory Disease Specific Program (DSP) conducted to provide observations of clinical practice from a physician and matched patient viewpoint, this study aimed to establish how patients with COPD are treated according to the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification system and to quantify the symptom burden.

Methods

Data were obtained from the Respiratory DSP, a cross-sectional survey of patients with a diagnosis of COPD consulting for routine care in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, and the USA during the third quarter of 2013. Patients’ exacerbation risk and symptom data were used for classification into GOLD groups A−D based on GOLD 2014 criteria. Prescribing practices were stratified by physician type and time since patient diagnosis.

Results

A total of 903 physicians participated in the Respiratory DSP, with data from 1,641 patients included in this analysis. Most patients were classified into GOLD groups B (n=742; 45.2%) and D (n=704; 42.9%). Patients in groups A and D were most likely to be treated in line with GOLD recommendations (61.5% and 77.5%, respectively), compared with 40.1% for group B. Patients with a diagnosis within the past 12 months were more likely to be treated according to recommendations. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in combination with one or more long-acting bronchodilator were prescribed across all GOLD groups. Patterns of treatment were, in general, similar for patients treated by a primary care physician or a pulmonologist. COPD assessment test scores ≥10 indicating a high symptom burden were reported for >80% of patients.

Conclusion

This analysis confirmed a high symptom burden among patients with COPD and indicates some misalignment of prescribing with GOLD recommendations, particularly regarding the role of ICS/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) and ICS/LABA + long-acting muscarinic antagonist combinations across the different GOLD groups.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) kills more than 3 million people worldwide every year. Despite progress in the treatment of symptoms and prevention of acute exacerbations, few advances have been made to ameliorate disease progression or affect mortality. A better understanding of the complex disease mechanisms resulting in COPD is needed. Smoking cessation programmes, increasing physical activity, and early detection and treatment of comorbidities are further key components to reduce the burden of the disease. However, without a global political and economic effort to reduce tobacco use, to regulate environmental exposure, and to find alternatives to the massive use of biomass fuel, COPD will remain a major health-care problem for decades to come.