Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in a Single Inhaler Device versus theophylline+fluticasone propionate in patients with COPD

Theophylline for the management of respiratory disorders in adults in the 21st century: A scoping review from the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Pulmonary Practice and Research Network

Theophylline is an oral methylxanthine bronchodilator recommended as alternate therapy for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it is not generally recommended for the treatment of other respiratory disorders such as obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) or hypoxia. Most clinical practice guidelines rely on evidence published prior to the year 2000 to make these recommendations. This scoping review aimed to gather and characterize evidence describing theophylline for the management of respiratory disorders in adults between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2020. Databases searched included Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Scopus, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews. Studies were included if they were published in English, theophylline was used for any respiratory disorder, and the study outcomes were disease- or patient-oriented. After removal of duplicates, 841 studies were screened and 55 studies were included. Results aligned with current clinical guideline recommendations relegating theophylline as an alternative therapy for the treatment of respiratory disorders, in favor of inhaled corticosteroids and inhaled bronchodilators. This scoping review identified the need for future research including: theophylline versus other medications deemed alternative therapies for asthma and COPD, meta-analyses of low-dose theophylline, and studies evaluating evidence-based patient-oriented outcomes for OSA, hypoxia, ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction, and spinal cord injury-related pulmonary function.

Clinical outcomes of theophylline use as add-on therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A propensity score matching analysis

To examine clinical outcomes of theophylline use in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receiving inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta-2 agonists (LABA). Electronic data from five hospitals located in Northern Thailand between January 2011 and December 2015 were retrospectively collected. Propensity score (PS) matching (2:1 ratio) technique was used to minimize confounding factors. The primary outcome was overall exacerbations. Secondary outcomes were exacerbation not leading to hospital admission, hospitalization for exacerbation, hospitalization for pneumonia, and all-cause hospitalizations. Cox's proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). After PS matching, of 711 patients with COPD (mean age: 70.1 years; 74.4% male; 60.8% severe airflow obstruction), 474 theophylline users and 237 non-theophylline users were included. Mean follow-up time was 2.26 years. Theophylline significantly increased the risk of overall exacerbation (aHR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.11-1.96; p = 0.008) and exacerbation not leading to hospital admission (aHR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.06-2.03; p = 0.020). Theophylline use did not significantly increase the risk of hospitalization for exacerbation (aHR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.79-1.58; p = 0.548), hospitalization for pneumonia (aHR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.89-1.84; p = 0.185), and all-cause hospitalizations (aHR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.80-1.33; p = 0.795). Theophylline use as add-on therapy to ICS and LABA might be associated with an increased risk for overall exacerbation in patients with COPD. A large-scale prospective study of theophylline use investigating both safety and efficacy is warranted.

Assessment of Proper Medication Inhaler Technique in Adult Patients

Background: Many medications used to manage pulmonary disease are delivered via unique inhalation devices. Proper technique in using these devices is required for effective medication delivery. Objective: To assess the degree of proper inhaler technique among adult patients. Methods: Patients using inhalers were identified and then interviewed by pharmacy personnel regarding inhaler use. Checklists were used to document the adherence to manufacturers’ directions for each respective inhaler, and data were then tabulated and assessed for the number and types of inhalers used, incorrectly performed steps in using the inhalers, as well as demographic information of patients. Results: Of the 129 patients that were interviewed, a total of 212 inhalers were used. Twenty-five percent of inhalers (/212) were used incorrectly, with the 3 most common errors being improper priming or lack of test sprays, lack of proper exhalation prior to inhaling the medication, and absence or improper cleaning of inhalers. Furthermore, less than 4% of patients reported being instructed by a pharmacist on proper inhaler use. Conclusion: Inhaler technique among adult patients is substandard and is a key area for pharmacists to become more proactive in educating patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Guidelines for diagnosis and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Joint ICS/NCCP (I) recommendations

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major public health problem in India. Although several International guidelines for diagnosis and management of COPD are available, yet there are lot of gaps in recognition and management of COPD in India due to vast differences in availability and affordability of healthcare facilities across the country. The Indian Chest Society (ICS) and the National College of Chest Physicians (NCCP) of India have joined hands to come out with these evidence-based guidelines to help the physicians at all levels of healthcare to diagnose and manage COPD in a scientific manner. Besides the International literature, the Indian studies were specifically analyzed to arrive at simple and practical recommendations. The evidence is presented under these five headings: (a) definitions, epidemiology, and disease burden; (b) disease assessment and diagnosis; (c) pharmacologic management of stable COPD; (d) management of acute exacerbations; and (e) nonpharmacologic and preventive measures. The modified grade system was used for classifying the quality of evidence as 1, 2, 3, or usual practice point (UPP). The strength of recommendation was graded as A or B depending upon the level of evidence.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Exploratory economic evaluation of patients with COPD on a combination product versus individual components (ipratropium bromide and albuterol)

A population-based, retrospective claims analysis was undertaken to explore the economic profile of a nebulized ipratropium and albuterol combination product (DuoNeb(R) [DN], DEY, L.P., Napa, Calif). This analysis was performed to review expenditures and resource utilization of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who were taking DN or generic ipratropium and albuterol (dual single agents [DSA]). Cohort selection criteria applied to the PharMetrics managed care claims database yielded 1531 patients: 468 DN and 1063 DSA. Total per-member-per-month (PMPM) expenditures were $1,840.36 for DN and $2,046.73 DSA (Delta$206.37; P=.22). Emergency department (ED) costs were $36.67 for DN and $52.84 for DSA (Delta$16.17; P=.03). Differences in regression analysis adjusted least squares means between DSA and DN were $264.62 (P=.083) for total expenditures and $20.81 (P=.03) for ED costs. Resource utilization reflected expenditure observations; ED visits were 0.93 for DN and 1.33 for DSA (P<.001). Inpatient expenditures (DN $874.97, DSA $1,105.80; Delta$230.83) represented the largest portion of total costs: 45% with DN and 54% with DSA. The DN cohort was associated with statistically fewer individuals who reported interruptions (0.78 vs 0.85; P=.003). The DN cohort did not appear to be more expensive than the DSA group, was associated with statistically lower ED expenditures, and included fewer individuals with therapy interruptions. Future analyses should include clinical data to better elucidate the full impact of DN on healthcare resources and compliance in the COPD population.

A pilot study to assess the effects of combining fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and tiotropium on the airflow obstruction of patients with severe-to-very severe COPD

The aim of this pilot study was to explore the relative efficacy in terms of improvement in symptoms and lung function of combining fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) and tiotropium in patients with severe-to-very severe stable COPD. Ninety patients were randomized to receive 3 months of treatment in one of three treatment groups: (1) FSC 500/50 microg Diskus, 1 inhalation twice daily+placebo Handihaler 1 inhalation once-daily daily; (2) tiotropium 18 microg Handihaler, 1 inhalation once daily+placebo Diskus, 1 inhalation twice daily; (3) FSC 500/50 microg Diskus, 1 inhalation twice daily+tiotropium 18 microg Handihaler, 1 inhalation once-daily daily. Patients attended the clinic before and after 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months of treatment for evaluations of pulmonary function, and dyspnea, which was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS). Also the supplemental salbutamol use was measured. Eighty-one patients completed the 3-month treatment period: 26 patients receiving FSC, 26 patients receiving tiotropium, and 29 patients receiving FSC+tiotropium. Patients were withdrawn for COPD exacerbation. Improvements in trough FEV(1) with all treatments medications were observed by the first month when trough FEV(1) had improved significantly above baseline by 74 mL (p<0.05) in the tiotropium group, by 117 mL (p<0.05) in the FSC group and by 115 mL (p<0.05) in FSC+tiotropium group. At the end of the study, trough FEV(1) had improved significantly above baseline by 141 mL (p<0.05) in the tiotropium group, by 140 mL (p<0.05) in the FSC group and by 186 mL (p<0.05) in FSC+tiotropium group. The difference between FSC and tiotropium appeared to decrease, that between FSC and FSC+tiotropium appeared to increase and that between tiotropium and FSC+tiotropium remained almost similar with study duration. Our results suggest that adding FSC and tiotropium may provide benefits in symptomatic patients with severe-to-very severe stable COPD.

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol for the treatment of chronic-obstructive pulmonary disease

Chronic-obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a global public health problem and its impact is increasing. Although only smoking cessation has been shown to alter the natural history of the disease, current treatment guidelines recommend the use of inhaled bronchodilators to decrease symptoms, improve lung function and quality of life and to prevent exacerbations. For a subset of patients with more severe disease, inhaled corticosteroids may also have a role in achieving these goals. Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (Advair) or Seretide), GlaxoSmithKline) is a combination inhaled steroid and long-acting bronchodilator that is delivered by a dry-powder inhaler and was recently approved for use in COPD in the US. Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol is a potent bronchodilator and also appears to have important effects on the frequency of exacerbations and overall quality of life for some patients with COPD. Issues of patient selection as well as the pharmacology, efficacy and safety of the drug are discussed.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) trials register. Date of last search April 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcome was exacerbations.

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised trials with 4118 participants were included. Two different combination preparations (fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol) were used. Combination treatment was more effective than placebo for mean exacerbation rates, quality of life and lung function. No trials were found comparing the combination of drugs in a single inhaler with the same drugs both given in separate inhalers. Exacerbations: Fluticasone/salmeterol did not significantly reduce exacerbations compared with either of its component treatments in one large study. There was no significant difference when budesonide/formoterol was compared with budesonide. Budesonide/formoterol was more effective than formoterol in reducing exacerbations (Rate ratio: 0.78 [0.68 to 0.90], two studies). A pooled analysis of both combination therapies indicated that exacerbations were less frequent when compared with either placebo or long-acting beta-agonist (versus placebo Rate ratio: 0.76 [0.68, 0.84], three studies, versus beta-agonist, Rate ratio: 0.85 [0.77, 0.95], three studies), but not when compared with steroid. The clinical impact of this effect depends on the frequency of exacerbations experienced by patients. One full exacerbation was prevented for every two to four years of treatment in the type of patients included in the trials. Quality of Life: There were conflicting findings in quality of life and symptoms when fluticasone/salmeterol was compared with inhaled steroids alone (three studies). There was no significant difference between fluticasone/salmeterol and long-acting beta-agonist in quality of life scores (three studies). Budesonide/formoterol improved symptoms when compared with budesonide but not with formoterol. There were conflicting findings in quality of life scores when budesonide/formoterol was compared with component inhaled corticosteroid or beta-agonist. These may be accounted for by different study design. Lung Function: Treatment with either combination led to small, significant differences in lung function compared with component steroid medication. Fluticasone/salmeterol led to small improvements in FEV1 compared with salmeterol, but budesonide/formoterol treatment did not increase FEV1 significantly when compared with formoterol.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, combination therapy led to clinically meaningful differences in quality of life, symptoms and exacerbations. However, there were conflicting results when the different combination therapies were compared with the mono-components alone. In order to draw firmer conclusions about the effects of combination therapy in a single inhaler more data are necessary, including the assessment of the comparative effects with separate administration of the two drugs in double-dummy trials.