Tiotropium versus ipratropium bromide for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

A retrospective study to assess clinical characteristics and time to initiation of open-triple therapy among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, newly established on long-acting mono- or combination therapy

INTRODUCTION

An incremental approach using open-triple therapy may improve outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there is little sufficient, real-world evidence available identifying time to open-triple initiation.

METHODS

This retrospective study of patients with COPD, newly initiated on long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy or inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist (ICS/LABA) combination therapy, assessed baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and exacerbations during 12 months prior to first LAMA or ICS/LABA use. Time to initiation of open-triple therapy was assessed for 12 months post-index date. Post hoc analyses were performed to assess the subsets of patients with pulmonary-function test (PFT) information and patients with and without comorbid asthma.

RESULTS

Demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between cohorts in the pre-specified and post hoc analyses. In total, 283 (19.3%) and 160 (10.9%) patients had moderate and severe exacerbations at baseline, respectively, in the LAMA cohort, compared with 482 (21.3%) and 289 (12.8%) patients in the ICS/LABA cohort. Significantly more patients initiated open-triple therapy in the LAMA cohort compared with the ICS/LABA cohort (226 [15.4%] versus 174 [7.7%]; P<0.001); results were similar in the post hoc analyses. Mean (standard deviation) time to open-triple therapy was 79.8 (89.0) days in the LAMA cohort and 122.9 (105.4) days in the ICS/LABA cohort (P<0.001). This trend was also observed in the post hoc analyses, though the difference between cohorts was nonsignificant in the subset of patients with PFT information.

DISCUSSION

In this population, patients with COPD are more likely to initiate open-triple therapy following LAMA therapy, compared with ICS/LABA therapy. Further research is required to identify factors associated with the need for treatment augmentation among patients with COPD.

An evaluation of early medication use for COPD: a population-based cohort study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the first initiation, sequence of addition, and appropriate prescribing of COPD medications in Manitoba, Canada.

Patients and methods

A population-based cohort study of COPD medication use was conducted using administrative health care data (1997–2012). Those aged ≥35 years with COPD based on three or more COPD-related outpatient visits over a rolling 24-month window or at least one COPD-related hospitalization were included. The first medication(s) dispensed on or after the date of COPD diagnosis were determined based on pharmacy claims. The next medication(s) in sequence were determined to be additions or switches to the previous regimen. Evaluation of guideline-based appropriateness to receive inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) was based on exacerbation history and past medication use.

Results

Of 13,369 patients dispensed COPD medications after diagnosis, 66.0% were dispensed short-acting bronchodilators as first medications. Although long-acting bronchodilators alone were uncommonly used as first or subsequent medications, ICS were dispensed as first medications in 28.2% of patients. Over the study period, use of short-acting bronchodilators as first medications declined from 70.6% to 59.4% (P<0.0001), whereas the use of ICS as a first medication increased from 23.5% to 34.4% (P<0.0001). Dispensation of an ICS plus a long-acting β-agonist increased dramatically from 1.2% to 27.3% (P<0.0001). By the end of the study period, the majority of patients (53.3%) were being initiated on two or more medications. Of 5,823 patients dispensed an ICS, 52.4% met Canadian guideline criteria for initiating an ICS, whereas 0.3% met Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guideline criteria.

Conclusion

The use of first-line medications has declined over time, replaced primarily by combination inhalers prescribed early without prior trials of appropriate next step medications. This, along with an increasingly predominant use of multiple first medications, indicates a significant degree of medication burden in this already complex patient population.

Long-term safety of tiotropium delivered by Respimat® SoftMist™ Inhaler: patient selection and special considerations

Tiotropium bromide is a long-acting inhaled muscarinic antagonist used in patients with chronic respiratory disease. It has been available since 2002 as a single-dose dry powder formulation via the HandiHaler^® dry powder inhaler (DPI) device, and since 2007 as the Respimat^® SoftMist™ Inhaler (SMI). The latter is a novel method of medication delivery that utilizes a multidose aqueous solution to deliver the drug as a fine mist. Potential benefits include more efficient drug deposition throughout the respiratory tract, reduced systemic exposure, and greater ease of use and patient satisfaction compared with the use of HandiHaler DPI. Although tiotropium bromide delivered via the HandiHaler DPI has been clearly shown to improve lung function, dyspnea, and quality of life and to reduce exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), there is accumulating evidence regarding the use of tiotropium HandiHaler in other respiratory diseases characterized by airflow limitation, such as asthma and cystic fibrosis. Developed more recently, tiotropium delivered via the Respimat SMI appears to have a similar efficacy and safety profile to the HandiHaler DPI, and early data raising the possibility of safety concerns with its use in COPD have been refuted by more recent evidence. The benefits over the HandiHaler DPI, however, remain unclear. This paper will review the evidence for tiotropium delivered via the Respimat SMI inhaler, in particular as an alternative to the HandiHaler DPI, and will focus on the safety profile for each of the chronic lung diseases in which it has been trialed, as well as an approach to appropriate patient selection.

Bronchodilator treatment for COPD in primary care of four Latin America countries: The multinational, cross-sectional, non-interventional PUMA study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Bronchodilators (BDs) are the cornerstone of COPD treatment. However, their underuse has been reported in real-life studies. PUMA is a primary-care study from Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela and Uruguay that could help understand the BD use in terms of frequency for long-acting (LA-BD) and short-acting (SA-BD) BDs alone or associated with corticosteroids (CS), and the use as-needed or on regular basis.

METHODS

This is a multicentre, multinational, cross-sectional, non-interventional study including no randomised primary-care centres from each country (total 57 centres) without connection with respiratory specialists. Subjects attending routine visits, at-risk for COPD (≥40 years, current or former smokers or exposed to biomass) completed a questionnaire and performed spirometry. COPD was defined as post-BD FEV1/FVC<0.70 and by the lower limit of normal (LLN). Prior physician diagnosis of emphysema, chronic bronchitis or COPD was also determined.

RESULTS

1743 patients were interviewed, 1540 completed spirometry, 309 had COPD by post-BD FEV1/FVC<0.70, 226 by LLN, and 102 had prior medical diagnosis. A total of 77/309 COPD patients by spirometry (24.9%) used BD (3.6% LA-BDs), 15.2% used BD + CS (13.6% LA-BD + CS). Among these patients, SA-BDs (monotherapy) were the most commonly used medication both as-needed (4.5%) and on a regular basis (17.5%). Similar findings were observed using the LLN criteria. In those with prior medical diagnosis, 66/102 (64.7%) used BDs (9.8% LA-BD), and 25.6% used BD + CS (13.6% LA-BD + CS); among them SA-BDs were the most commonly medication used as-needed (9%) and on a regular basis (48.1%). Having health insurance with medication coverage increased the use of BDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Up to 60% of COPD patients by spirometry and 10% of those with prior medical diagnosis attending a primary care sample of four Latin American countries did not use BDs. LA-BDs are widely underused on a regular-basis (2.6% and 8.3% of patients with spirometric and medical-diagnosis, respectively) This represents a considerable gap between guideline recommendations and BD prescribing pattern in these centres.

Novel, Alternative, and Controversial Therapies of Rhinitis

Rhinitis is a multifactorial disease characterized by sneezing, rhinorrhea, postnasal drip, and nasal congestion. This condition affects 10% to 40% of the population and is responsible for billions of spent health care dollars and impairment in quality of life for those affected. Currently available medical and vaccine therapies are effective for a large segment of this population; however, a subset of patients still has difficult-to-control rhinitis. This article reviews the current progress being made in novel drug and vaccine development and delves into alternative medical, surgical, and homeopathic strategies that may be promising adjunctive treatments for the difficult-to-treat rhinitis patient.

Long-acting beta2-agonist in addition to tiotropium versus either tiotropium or long-acting beta2-agonist alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators, comprising long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and long-acting anti-muscarinic agents (LAMA, principally tiotropium), are commonly used for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than the individual components. However, the benefits and risks of combining tiotropium and LABAs for the treatment of COPD are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative effects on markers of quality of life, exacerbations, symptoms, lung function and serious adverse events in people with COPD randomised to LABA plus tiotropium versus tiotropium alone; or LABA plus tiotropium versus LABA alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and ClinicalTrials.gov up to July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing treatment with tiotropium in addition to LABA against tiotropium or LABA alone for people with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 10 trials on 10,894 participants, mostly recruiting participants with moderate or severe COPD. All of the trials compared tiotropium in addition to LABA to tiotropium alone, and four trials additionally compared LAMA plus LABA with LABA alone. Four studies used the LABA olodaterol, three used indacaterol, two used formoterol, and one used salmeterol.Compared to tiotropium alone, treatment with tiotropium plus LABA resulted in a slightly larger improvement in mean health-related quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) (mean difference (MD) -1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.87 to -0.80; 6709 participants; 5 studies). The MD was smaller than the four units that is considered clinically important, but a responder analysis indicated that 7% more participants receiving tiotropium plus LABA had a noticeable benefit (greater than four units) from treatment in comparison to tiotropium alone. In the control arm in one study, which was tiotropium alone, the SGRQ improved by falling 4.5 units from baseline and with tiotropium plus LABA the improvement was a fall of a further 1.3 units (on average). Most of the data came from studies using olodaterol. High withdrawal rates in the trials increased the uncertainty in this result, and the GRADE assessment for this outcome was therefore moderate. There were no significant differences in the other primary outcomes (hospital admission or mortality).The secondary outcome of pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) showed a small mean increase with the addition of LABA over the control arm (MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.07; 9573 participants; 10 studies), which showed a change from baseline ranging from 0.03 L to 0.13 L with tiotropium alone. None of the other secondary outcomes (exacerbations, symptom scores, serious adverse events, and withdrawals) showed any statistically significant differences between the groups. There was moderate heterogeneity for both exacerbations and withdrawals.This review included data on four LABAs: two administered twice daily (salmeterol, formoterol) and two once daily (indacaterol, olodaterol). The results were largely from studies of olodaterol and there was insufficient information to assess whether the other LABAs were equivalent to olodaterol or each other.Comparing LABA plus tiotropium treatment with LABA alone, there was a small but significant improvement in SGRQ (MD -1.25, 95% CI -2.14 to -0.37; 3378 participants; 4 studies). The data came mostly from studies using olodaterol and, although the difference was smaller than four units, this still represented an increase of 10 people with a clinically important improvement for 100 treated. There was also an improvement in FEV1 (MD 0.07, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.09; 3513 participants; 4 studies), and in addition an improvement in exacerbation rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93; 3514 participants; 3 studies).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results from this review indicated a small mean improvement in health-related quality of life and FEV1 for participants on a combination of tiotropium and LABA compared to either agent alone, and this translated into a small increase in the number of responders on combination treatment. In addition, adding tiotropium to LABA reduced exacerbations, although adding LABA to tiotropium did not. Hospital admission and mortality were not altered by adding LABA to tiotropium, although there may not be enough data. While it is possible that this is affected by higher attrition in the tiotropium group, one would expect that participants withdrawn from the study would have had less favourable outcomes; this means that the expected direction of attrition bias would be to reduce the estimated benefit of the combination treatment. The results were largely from studies of olodaterol and there was insufficient information to assess whether the other LABAs were equivalent to olodaterol or each other.

V0162 a new long-acting bronchodilator for treatment of chronic obstructive lung diseases: preclinical and clinical results

Background

Long acting bronchodilators are the standard of care in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of V0162, a novel anticholinergic agent with bronchodilator properties, in preclinical models and in patients with COPD.

Methods

Guinea pigs were used to evaluate the impact of V0162 on the acetylcholine or histamine-induced bronchoconstriction. V0162 was also investigated in an allergic asthma model on ovalbumin-sensitized guinea pig. For clinical investigations, healthy volunteers were included in a dose-escalation, randomized, placebo-controlled phase I study to determine the maximal tolerated dose, followed by a randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over phase II study in patients with COPD. V0162 was given via inhalation route. The objectives of the phase I/II study were to assess the safety and efficacy of V0162, in terms of bronchodilation and reduction in hyperinflation.

Results

Preclinical results showed that V0162 was able to prevent bronchoconstriction induced either by acetylcholine or histamine. V0162 reversed the bronchoconstriction and airway inflammation caused by ovalbumin challenge in sensitized guinea pigs. In the healthy volunteers study, 88 subjects were enrolled: 66 received V0162 and 22 received placebo. No particular safety concerns were raised. The maximal tolerated dose was not reached and the dose escalation was stopped at 2400 μg. A total of 20 patients with COPD were then enrolled. All patients received a single-dose of V0162 1600 μg and of placebo in two alternating periods. In COPD patients, V0162 demonstrated a significant increase in FEV₁ compared with placebo (148 ± 137 ml vs. 36 ± 151 ml, p = 0.003). This bronchodilatory effect was corroborated by a reduction in hyperinflation. There was a trend toward dyspnea relief (change in visual analog scale at 22 h, −15.1 ± 26.0 mm vs.- 5.3 ± 28.8 mm with placebo, p = 0.054). No serious adverse events (AEs) were reported. Most common AEs were productive and non-productive cough, dyspnea and pruritus.

Conclusions

V0162 improved pulmonary function and tended to improve dyspnea in patients with COPD over more than 24 h. The slight plasmatic exposure observed might support the good safety profile.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01348555

Four patients with a history of acute exacerbations of COPD: implementing the CHEST/Canadian Thoracic Society guidelines for preventing exacerbations

The American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society have jointly produced evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This educational article gives four perspectives on how these guidelines apply to the practical management of people with COPD. A current smoker with frequent exacerbations will benefit from support to quit, and from optimisation of his inhaled treatment. For a man with very severe COPD and multiple co-morbidities living in a remote community, tele-health care may enable provision of multidisciplinary care. A woman who is admitted for the third time in a year needs a structured assessment of her care with a view to stepping up pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment as required. The overlap between asthma and COPD challenges both diagnostic and management strategies for a lady smoker with a history of asthma since childhood. Common threads in all these cases are the importance of advising on smoking cessation, offering (and encouraging people to attend) pulmonary rehabilitation, and the importance of self-management, including an action plan supported by multidisciplinary teams.

Prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society Guideline

BACKGROUND

COPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States as well as throughout the rest of the world. An exacerbation of COPD (periodic escalations of symptoms of cough, dyspnea, and sputum production) is a major contributor to worsening lung function, impairment in quality of life, need for urgent care or hospitalization, and cost of care in COPD. Research conducted over the past decade has contributed much to our current understanding of the pathogenesis and treatment of COPD. Additionally, an evolving literature has accumulated about the prevention of acute exacerbations.

METHODS

In recognition of the importance of preventing exacerbations in patients with COPD, the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) joint evidence-based guideline (AECOPD Guideline) was developed to provide a practical, clinically useful document to describe the current state of knowledge regarding the prevention of acute exacerbations according to major categories of prevention therapies. Three key clinical questions developed using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format addressed the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: nonpharmacologic therapies, inhaled therapies, and oral therapies. We used recognized document evaluation tools to assess and choose the most appropriate studies and to extract meaningful data and grade the level of evidence to support the recommendations in each PICO question in a balanced and unbiased fashion.

RESULTS

The AECOPD Guideline is unique not only for its topic, the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD, but also for the first-in-kind partnership between two of the largest thoracic societies in North America. The CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee in partnership with the CTS COPD Clinical Assembly launched this project with the objective that a systematic review and critical evaluation of the published literature by clinical experts and researchers in the field of COPD would lead to a series of recommendations to assist clinicians in their management of the patient with COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline is unique because it provides an up-to-date, rigorous, evidence-based analysis of current randomized controlled trial data regarding the prevention of COPD exacerbations.

Long-acting beta(2)-agonist in addition to tiotropium versus either tiotropium or long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators comprising long-acting beta(2)-agonists and the anticholinergic agent tiotropium are commonly used for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than the individual components. However, the benefits and risks of combining tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary (COPD) disease are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and clinicaltrials.gov up to January 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing treatment with tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta(2)-agonist against tiotropium or long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Five trials were included in this review, mostly recruiting participants with moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. All of them compared tiotropium in addition to long-acting beta(2)-agonist to tiotropium alone, but only one trial additionally compared a combination of the two types of bronchodilator with long-acting beta(2)-agonist (formoterol) alone. Two studies used the long-acting beta(2)-agonist indacaterol, two used formoterol and one used salmeterol.Compared to tiotropium alone (3263 patients), treatment with tiotropium plus long-acting beta(2)-agonist resulted in a slightly larger improvement in the mean health-related quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) MD -1.61; 95% CI -2.93 to -0.29). In the control arm, tiotropium alone, the SGRQ improved by falling 4.5 units from baseline and with both treatments the improvement was a fall of 6.1 units from baseline (on average). High withdrawal rates in the trials increased the uncertainty in this result, and the GRADE assessment for this outcome was therefore moderate. There were no significant differences in the other primary outcomes (hospital admission or mortality).The secondary outcome of pre-bronchodilator FEV(1) showed a small mean increase with the addition of long-acting beta(2)-agonist (MD 0.07 L; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.09) over the control arm, which showed a change from baseline ranging from 0.03 L to 0.13 L on tiotropium alone. None of the other secondary outcomes (exacerbations, symptom scores, serious adverse events, and withdrawals) showed any statistically significant differences between the groups. There were wide confidence intervals around these outcomes and moderate heterogeneity for both exacerbations and withdrawals.The results from the one trial comparing the combination of tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonist to long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone (417 participants) were insufficient to draw firm conclusions for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results from this review indicate a small mean improvement in health-related quality of life for patients on a combination of tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonist compared to tiotropium alone, but it is not clear how clinically important this mean difference may be. Hospital admission and mortality have not been shown to be altered by adding long-acting beta(2)-agonists to tiotropium. There were not enough data to determine the relative efficacy and safety of tiotropium plus long-acting beta(2)-agonist compared to long-acting beta(2)-agonist alone. There were insufficient data to make comparisons between the different long-acting beta(2)-agonists when used in addition to tiotropium.