Combination inhaled steroid and long-acting beta₂-agonist in addition to tiotropium versus tiotropium or combination alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Development and validation of a prediction score to assess the risk of incurring in COPD-related exacerbations: a population-based study in primary care

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the fourth most important cause of death in high-income countries. Inappropriate use of COPD inhaled therapy, including the low adherence (only 10 %-40 % of patients reporting an adequate compliance) may shrink or even nullify the proven benefits of these medications. As such, an accurate prediction algorithm to assess at national level the risk of COPD exacerbation might be relevant for general practictioners (GPs) to improve patient's therapy.

METHODS

We formed a cohort of patients aged 45 years or older being diagnosed with COPD in the period between January 2013 to December 2021. Each patient was followed until occurrence of COPD exacerbation up to the end of 2021. Sixteen determinants were adopted to assemble the CopdEX(CEX)-Health Search(HS)core, which was therefore developed and validated through the related two sub-cohorts.

RESULTS

We idenfied 63763 patients aged 45 years or older being diagnosed with COPD (mean age: 67.8 (SD:11.7); 57.7 % males).When the risk of COPD exacerbation was estimated via CEX-HScore, its predicted value was equal to 14.22 % over a 6-month event horizon. Discrimination accuracy and explained variation were equal to 66 % (95 % CI: 65-67 %) and 10 % (95 % CI: 9-11 %), respectively. The calibration slope did not significantly differ from the unit (p = 0.514).

CONCLUSIONS

The CEX-HScore was featured by fair accuracy for prediction of COPD-related exacerbations over a 6-month follow-up. Such a tool might therefore support GPs to enhance COPD patients' care, and improve their outcomes by facilitating personalized approaches through a score-based decision support system.

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.

Optimal Management of Heart Failure and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Clinical Challenges

Heart failure (HF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common causes of breathlessness which frequently co-exist; one potentially exacerbating the other. Distinguishing between the two can be challenging due to their similar symptomatology and overlapping risk factors, but a timely and correct diagnosis is potentially lifesaving. Modern treatment for HF can substantially improve symptoms and prognosis for many patients and may have beneficial effects for patients with COPD. Conversely, while many inhaled treatments for COPD can improve symptoms and reduce exacerbations, there is conflicting evidence regarding the safety of some inhaled treatments for COPD in patients with HF. Here we explore the overlap between HF and COPD, examine the effect of one condition on the other, and address the challenges of managing patients with both conditions.

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.

Single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy versus tiotropium monotherapy in patients with COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment guidelines do not currently include recommendations for escalation directly from monotherapy to triple therapy. This 12-week, double-blind, double-dummy study randomized 800 symptomatic moderate-to-very-severe COPD patients receiving tiotropium (TIO) for ≥3 months to once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/25 mcg via ELLIPTA (n = 400) or TIO 18 mcg via HandiHaler (n = 400) plus matched placebo. Study endpoints included change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at Days 85 (primary), 28 and 84 (secondary), health status (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] and COPD Assessment Test [CAT]) and safety. FF/UMEC/VI significantly improved trough FEV₁ at all timepoints (Day 85 treatment difference [95% CI] 95 mL [62–128]; P < 0.001), and significantly improved SGRQ and CAT versus TIO. Treatment safety profiles were similar. Once-daily single-inhaler FF/UMEC/VI significantly improved lung function and health status versus once-daily TIO in symptomatic moderate-to-very-severe COPD patients, with a similar safety profile.

The Effects and Safety of Chinese Oral Herbal Paste on Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Chinese oral herbal paste has been widely used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the treatment effects of herbal paste were controversial and lack evidence to support its clinical use. This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese oral herbal paste for the treatment of stable COPD.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CNKI, VIP, CBM, and WANFANG database in addition to two websites of clinical trial registry were searched from respective inception to August 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying Chinese herbal paste for the treatment of stable COPD were included. Methodological quality was assessed based on Cochrane risk of bias and GRADE approach. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.3.

Results

A total of 19 RCTs with 1303 individuals compared Chinese oral herbal paste and Western medicine (WM) with WM alone were included for meta-analysis. The review showed compared with WM alone, the combination of herbal paste and WM reduced exacerbation frequency. Subgroup analyses showed that after two to three months of treatment, compared with WM alone, Chinese herbal paste plus WM significantly decreased the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores, COPD assessment test (CAT) scores, and scores of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) syndrome, and improved clinical effective rates, lung function, and 6-minute walk distance. No serious adverse events related to herbal paste were reported.

Conclusion

Current evidence showed that Chinese oral herbal paste may be an effective and well-tolerated adjuvant therapy for stable COPD. Considering the risks of bias and heterogeneity, more high-quality, well-designed RCTs are still needed.

Incorporating New Evidence on Inhaled Medications in COPD. The Latin American Chest Association (ALAT) 2019

This document on COPD from the Latin American Chest Association (ALAT-2019) uses PICO methodology to analyze new evidence on inhaled medication and answer clinical questions. The following key points emerged from this analysis: 1) evidence is lacking on the comparison of short-acting vs. long-acting bronchodilators in patients with mild COPD; patients with moderate-to-severe COPD obtain greater benefit from long-acting bronchodilators; 2) the benefits of monotherapy with long-acting antimuscarinic agents (LAMA) and combined therapy with long-acting β₂-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) are similar, although the latter is associated with a greater risk of pneumonia; 3) LABA/LAMA offer greater benefits in terms of lung function and risk of exacerbation than LABA/ICS (the latter involve an increased risk of pneumonia), 4) LAMA/LABA/ICS have greater therapeutic benefits than LABA/LAMA on the risk of moderate-severe exacerbations. With regard to the role of eosinophils in guiding the use of ICS, ICS withdrawal must be considered when the initial indication was wrong or no response is elicited, in patients with side effects such as pneumonia, and in patients with a low risk of exacerbation and an eosinophil blood count of <300 cells/μl. All this evidence, categorized according to the severity of the obstruction, symptoms, and risk of exacerbations, has been used to generate an algorithm for the use of inhaled medication in COPD.

Single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review

Background

Guidelines recommend that treatment with a long-acting β₂ agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), i.e. triple therapy, is reserved for a select group of symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who continue to exacerbate despite treatment with dual therapy (LABA/LAMA). A number of single-inhaler triple therapies are now available and important clinical questions remain over their role in the patient pathway. We compared the efficacy and safety of single-inhaler triple therapy to assess the magnitude of benefit and to identify patients with the best risk-benefit profile for treatment. We also evaluated and compared study designs and population characteristics to assess the strength of the evidence base.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search, from inception to December 2018, of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD. The primary outcome was the annual rate of moderate and severe exacerbations.

Results

We identified 523 records, of which 15 reports/abstracts from six RCTs were included. Triple therapy resulted in the reduction of the annual rate of moderate or severe exacerbations in the range of 15–52% compared with LAMA/LABA, 15–35% compared to LABA/ICS and 20% compared to LAMA. The patient-based number needed to treat for the moderate or severe exacerbation outcome ranged between approximately 25–50 (preventing one patient from having an event) and the event-based number needed to treat of around 3–11 (preventing one event). The absolute benefit appeared to be greater in patients with higher eosinophil counts or historical frequency of exacerbations and ex-smokers. In the largest study, there was a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia in the triple therapy arm. There were important differences in study designs and populations impacting the interpretation of the results and indicating there would be significant heterogeneity in cross-trial comparisons.

Conclusion

The decision to prescribe triple therapy should consider patient phenotype, magnitude of benefit and increased risk of adverse events. Future research on specific patient phenotype thresholds that can support treatment and funding decisions is now required from well-designed, robust, clinical trials.

Trial registration

PROSPERO #CRD42018102125.

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.

COPD treatment pathways in France: a retrospective analysis of electronic medical record data from general practitioners

Background

Increasing availability of therapeutic options for COPD may drive new treatment pathways. This study describes COPD treatment in France, focusing on identifying initial treatment modifications in patients with COPD who either initiated long-acting bronchodilator (LABD)-based therapy or escalated to triple therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA] + long-acting β₂-agonist [LABA] + inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]).

Methods

This retrospective analysis of patients with COPD in a large general practitioner database (IQVIA Longitudinal Patient Database) in France included two cohorts: Cohort 1 – new initiators of LABD-based therapy (LAMA, LABA, LAMA + LABA, LAMA + ICS, LABA + ICS or LAMA + LABA + ICS); Cohort 2 – patients escalating to triple therapy from mono- or dual-bronchodilator-based maintenance treatment. Both cohorts were indexed on the date of initiation/escalation (January 2008–December 2013), and the first treatment modification (at class level) within the 18-month post-index observational period was described. Five mutually exclusive outcomes were defined: continuous use (no modification), discontinuation (permanent [≥91 days with no restart] or temporary [≥91 days with subsequent restart]), switch, and augmentation (Cohort 1 only). Exploratory analysis of Cohort 1 explored potential drivers of treatment initiation.

Results

Overall, 5,065 patients initiated LABD-based therapy (Cohort 1), and 501 escalated to triple therapy (Cohort 2). In Cohort 1, 7.0% of patients were continuous users, 46.5% discontinued permanently, 28.5% discontinued temporarily, 2.8% augmented (added LAMA and/or LABA and/or ICS), and 15.2% switched therapy. In Cohort 2, 18.2% of patients were continuous users, 7.2% discontinued permanently, 27.9% discontinued temporarily, and 46.7% switched therapy. Exploratory analyses showed that time since COPD diagnosis was first recorded, pre-index exacerbation events, and concomitant medical conditions were potential drivers of initial maintenance treatment choices.

Conclusion

Discontinuation among new initiators of LABD-based therapy was high in France, whereas few switched or augmented treatment. In comparison, permanent discontinuation within 18 months was low in patients escalating to triple therapy.

Triple therapy in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rate of moderate to severe exacerbations between triple therapy and dual therapy or monotherapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane databases, and clinical trial registries searched from inception to April 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing triple therapy with dual therapy or monotherapy in patients with COPD were eligible. Efficacy and safety outcomes of interest were also available.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were collected independently. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate rate ratios, hazard ratios, risk ratios, and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Quality of evidence was summarised in accordance with GRADE methodology (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation).

RESULTS

21 trials (19 publications) were included. Triple therapy consisted of a long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), long acting β agonist (LABA), and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Triple therapy was associated with a significantly reduced rate of moderate or severe exacerbations compared with LAMA monotherapy (rate ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.85), LAMA and LABA (0.78, 0.70 to 0.88), and ICS and LABA (0.77, 0.66 to 0.91). Trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and quality of life were favourable with triple therapy. The overall safety profile of triple therapy is reassuring, but pneumonia was significantly higher with triple therapy than with dual therapy of LAMA and LABA (relative risk 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 1.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of triple therapy resulted in a lower rate of moderate or severe exacerbations of COPD, better lung function, and better health related quality of life than dual therapy or monotherapy in patients with advanced COPD.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Prospero CRD42018077033.

Use of medicines and health services for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among a cohort of Australians over 50 years

Background

It is not known if the medicines and services for COPD are used in Australia according to the COPD-X guideline. This study examined the use of medicines and health services for COPD among an Australian cohort to determine if they were consistent with recommendations.

Methods

The administrative claims data from the Australian Government Department of Veterans’ Affairs were used and included persons aged ≥50 years who were using medicines for COPD in April 2016. Use of medicines was identified using the Anatomical, Therapeutic and Chemical Classification and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Use of services was identified using the Medicare Benefits Schedule and Australian Government Department of Veterans’ Affairs Fee Schedule.

Results

Of the 143,261 persons aged ≥50 years, 12,623 (8.8%) were on medicines for COPD. Of the total COPD population, 42% were managed on monotherapy, 36% on dual therapy, 21% on triple therapy, and 1.5% on more than three COPD medicines. Monotherapy comprised tiotropium (80%) predominantly. Services to practitioners who may provide pulmonary rehabilitation service showed less than 10% of the cohort had a claim for a visit to an exercise physiologist and less than a third had a claim for a physiotherapist visit in the prior 12 months. Services to assist with care coordination in the form of general practitioner management plans were only claimed by half of the cohort, while services supporting appropriate medicine use were claimed by less than one in six cases, despite high levels of inhaler use and multiple inhaler use.

Conclusion

More than three-quarters of COPD persons aged 50 years and above were managed on either monotherapy or dual therapy, consistent with the guideline recommendations. Almost one-quarter was on three or more therapies, which will create challenges for multiple device management. Many services that may benefit persons with COPD appear to be underutilized.

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.

Efficacy of budesonide/formoterol and tiotropium combination for the treatment of Chinese patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol (B/F) and tiotropium combination in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Chinese patients.Between January 2015 and November 2017, 113 eligible Chinese patients with COPD were included and divided into an intervention group and a control group. Sixty-three patients in the intervention group underwent B/F combined tiotropium, while 50 patients in the control group received tiotropium alone. The primary outcome was severity of dyspnea on exertion (DOE), measured by the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) scale. The secondary outcomes included lung function, measured by the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), quality of life, measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and adverse events. All outcomes were measured at the end of 12-week treatment.B/F and tiotropium combination showed greater efficacy in DOE (P < .01), lung function (P < .01), and quality of life (P < .01), compared with tiotropium alone at the end of 12-week treatment. In addition, adverse events in both groups were similar and tolerable.The findings suggest that B/F and tiotropium combination can be used as an effective treatment in Chinese patients with COPD.

Single-inhaler triple therapy utilizing the once-daily combination of fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium and vilanterol in the management of COPD: the current evidence base and future prospects

Maintenance pharmacological treatment for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is based on inhaled drugs, including long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMA), long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Inhaled pharmacological treatment can improve patients' daily symptoms and reduce decline of pulmonary function and acute exacerbation rate. Treatment with all three inhaled drug classes is reserved for selected, more severe, patients with COPD when symptoms are not sufficiently controlled by dual LABA/LAMA therapy and exacerbations are frequent. This review focuses on the role of single-inhaler triple therapy with once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol fixed-dose combination, which is in phase III clinical development for maintenance treatment of severe-to-very severe COPD. In this review, we summarize evidence providing the rationale for its use in COPD and discuss the gaps to be filled in this pharmacotherapeutic area.

Pharmacological Management of People Living with End-Stage Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Supportive care and pharmacological treatment can improve the quality of life of people with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who cope on a daily basis with substantial physical, psychological, social and spiritual morbidity. Smoking cessation is the only intervention that reduces the rate of progression of COPD, but evidence-based drug treatments and non-pharmacological strategies can relieve symptoms and reduce the impact of exacerbations. People with severe COPD live with increasingly troublesome breathlessness and other symptoms such as fatigue, pain, sputum production and weight loss. As breathlessness increases, treatment is stepped up from short-acting to long-acting bronchodilators supplemented by non-pharmacological interventions such as pulmonary rehabilitation. Opiates relieve breathlessness, and referral to a multidisciplinary breathlessness service is an option for those with intractable symptoms. Other smoking-related conditions, such as coronary heart disease and lung cancer as well as depression and anxiety are common and should be treated with conventional pharmacotherapy. Acute exacerbations become more frequent and more severe as the disease reaches end-stage. Inhaled corticosteroids in combination with long-acting bronchodilators can reduce the frequency of exacerbations, and supported self-management aims to facilitate timely treatment of deterioration. Palliative care services have traditionally been predicated on identifying people with end-stage disease-a model that does not resonate with the unpredictable, relapsing trajectory of COPD. Approaches to care that promote a flexible approach to palliation alongside curative care could do much to improve the burden of living with severe COPD.