Impact of ICS/LABA and LABA/LAMA FDCs on functional and clinical outcomes in COPD: A network meta-analysis

Outcomes of Patients with COPD Treated with ICS/LABA Before and After Initiation of Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy with Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI)

INTRODUCTION

Triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol; FF/UMEC/VI) has been shown to improve symptoms and reduce exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations. This real-world study compared exacerbation rates and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) before and after initiation of FF/UMEC/VI in patients with COPD previously treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D administrative claims data from September 01, 2016, to March 31, 2020, of patients diagnosed with COPD. The index date was the date of the first FF/UMEC/VI claim (September 2017-March 2019). The 12 months prior to index (baseline) were used to assess patient characteristics and outcomes; the 12 months following index (follow-up) were used to assess study outcomes. All patients had ≥ 30 consecutive days' supply of any ICS/LABA dual therapy during the 12 months prior to FF/UMEC/VI initiation. Subgroup analyses included patients with ≥ 30 consecutive days' supply of budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) during baseline. Analyses of patients with ≥ 1 COPD exacerbation during baseline were reported as well.

RESULTS

The overall population included 1449 patients (mean age 70.75 years; 54.18% female), of whom 540 were patients in the BUD/FORM subgroup. Significantly fewer patients experienced any exacerbation during follow-up versus baseline (overall population 53.49% vs 62.59%; p < 0.001; BUD/FORM subgroup 55.00% vs 62.41%; p = 0.004). Effects on exacerbation reduction were more pronounced among patients with ≥ 1 exacerbation during baseline. Lower COPD-related HCRU was observed during the follow-up compared with baseline for both the overall population and the BUD/FORM subgroup.

CONCLUSION

Patients with COPD treated with ICS/LABA during baseline, including patients specifically treated with BUD/FORM and those with a history of ≥ 1 exacerbation, had fewer COPD exacerbations and lower COPD-related HCRU after initiating FF/UMEC/VI.

LABA/LAMA versus LABA/ICS fixed-dose combinations in the prevention of COPD exacerbations: a modeling analysis of literature aggregate data

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to quantitatively compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in preventing moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using public databases. The time course characteristics of the probability of a moderate or severe exacerbation in stable COPD patients treated with LABA/LAMA and LABA/ICS FDCs were described by the parametric survival function. A random-effects model in a single-arm meta-analysis was used to analyze the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) and pneumonia.

RESULTS

Twenty studies including 23,955 participants were included. The proportion of participants with a history of COPD exacerbation (%) in the previous year and the postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) (%predicted) were important factors affecting drug efficacy. After adjusting the above factors to median levels of 100% and 45.5%, respectively, the moderate or severe exacerbation rates at 52 weeks for olodaterol/tiotropium, formoterol/budesonide, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, formoterol/glycopyrronium, vilanterol/fluticasone, salmeterol/fluticasone, and vilanterol/umeclidinium were 38.3%, 41.0%, 42.6%, 47.0%, 47.5%, 47.9%, and 53.0%, respectively. In terms of safety, significant differences were observed among drugs containing different LABA/LAMA FDCs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that not all LABA/LAMA FDCs were superior to LABA/ICS FDCs in safety and in preventing moderate or severe exacerbations in patients with stable COPD, providing important quantitative information for COPD-related guidelines.

Prescription Patterns of New Use of Fixed-Dose Combination Inhalers in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Long-Acting β2 Agonists Plus Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists versus Long-Acting β2 Agonists Plus Inhaled Corticosteroids

Background

The clinical guideline recommends use of long-acting β2 agonists/long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LABA/LAMA) or long-acting β2 agonists/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) combination therapies for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhalers of LABA/LAMA and LABA/ICS were reimbursed in Taiwan in 2015 and in 2002, respectively. This study aimed to examine prescription patterns of new use of either FDC therapy in real-world practice.

Methods

We identified COPD patients who initiated LABA/LAMA FDC or LABA/ICS FDC between 2015 and 2018 from a population-based Taiwanese database with 2 million, randomly sampled beneficiaries enrolled in a single-payer health insurance system. We compared number of LABA/LAMA FDC and LABA/ICS FDC initiators in each calendar year, from different hospital accreditation levels, and cared for by different physician specialties. We also compared baseline patient characteristics between LABA/LAMA FDC and LABA/ICS FDC initiators.

Results

A total of 12,455 COPD patients who initiated LABA/LAMA FDC (n=4019) or LABA/ICS FDC (n=8436) were included. Number of LABA/LAMA FDC initiators increased apparently (n=336 in 2015 versus n=1436 in 2018), but number of LABA/ICS FDC initiators decreased obviously (n=2416 in 2015 versus n=1793 in 2018) over time. The preference of use of LABA/LAMA FDC varied across clinical environments. The proportions of LABA/LAMA FDC initiators were more than 30% in the setting of non-primary care clinics (eg, medical centers) and in the services of chest physicians; but were only less than 10% in primary care clinics and non-chest physicians' services (eg, family medicine physicians). LABA/LAMA FDC initiators appeared to be older, male, to have more comorbidities, and to utilize resources more frequently compared to LABA/ICS FDC initiators.

Conclusion

This real-world study found evident temporal trends, variations in healthcare provider, and differences in patient characteristics among COPD patients who initiated LABA/LAMA FDC or LABA/ICS FDC.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Among Different Fixed-Dose Combinations of Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists and Long-Acting β2-Agonists in Patients With COPD

BACKGROUND

Researchers have yet to obtain conclusive evidence differentiating among fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for COPD in terms of real-world clinical outcomes.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the differences between available LAMA/LABA FDCs on the risk of acute exacerbation (AE) and cardiovascular events?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study based on a national insurance claims database included patients with COPD ≥ 40 years of age who were newly prescribed glycopyrronium (GLY)/indacaterol (IND), umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI), or tiotropium (TIO)/olodaterol (OLO) FDC between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. Propensity score matching and Cox regression models were used to compare outcomes of AE and cardiovascular events associated with LAMA/LABA FDC treatment.

RESULTS

Among the 44,498 patients identified and included, 15,586 received GLY/IND, 20,460 received UMEC/VI, and 8,452 received TIO/OLO. Baseline characteristics were well balanced after 1:1 matching of UMEC/VI and GLY/IND, 2:1 matching of UMEC/VI and TIO/OLO, and 2:1 matching of GLY/IND and TIO/OLO. Risk of severe AE was lower among patients treated with UMEC/VI or GLY/IND than among those who received TIO/OLO (UMEC/VI vs TIO/OLO: 17.85 vs 29.32 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.84; GLY/IND vs TIO/OLO: 15.54 vs 25.53 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88). In addition, GLY/IND users tended to have a lower risk of cardiovascular events than TIO/OLO users, but the difference dissipated when restricting follow up to a shorter duration.

INTERPRETATION

Our results revealed that the risk of severe AE was lower among patients with COPD receiving UMEC/VI or GLY/IND than among those receiving TIO/OLO, whereas the incidence of cardiovascular events was similar across groups but was slightly lower in GLY/IND users when compared with TIO/OLO users. Further research will be required to confirm these findings.

May a different kinetic mode explain the high efficacy/safety profile of inhaled budesonide?

The claimed functional basis for ICSs in asthma and COPD is airway selectivity, attained by inhaling a potent, lipophilic compound with long local dissolution/absorption time. The development has been empirically based, resulting in five widely used ICSs. Among them, budesonide (BUD) deviates by being less lipophilic, leading to a more rapid systemic uptake with plasma peaks with some systemic anti-inflammatory activity. By this, BUD fits less well into the current pharmacological dogma of optimal ICS profile. In this review we compared the physicochemical, pharmacological and clinical properties of BUD, fluticasone propionate (FP) and fluticasone furoate (FF), representing different levels of lipophilicity, airway and systemic kinetics, focusing on their long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combinations, in line with current GINA and GOLD recommendations. We are aware of the differences between formoterol (FORM) and the not rapid acting LABAs such as e.g. salmeterol and vilanterol but our comparisons are based on currently available combination products. A beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP)/FORM combination is also commented upon. Based on clinical comparisons in asthma and COPD, we conclude that the BUD/formoterol (BUD/FORM) combination is as effective and safe as the FP and FF combinations, and is in some cases even better as it can be used as "maintenance plus reliever therapy" (MART) in asthma and as maintenance in COPD. This is difficult to explain by current views of required ICS's/LABAs pharmacokinetic profiles. We propose that BUD achieves its efficacy by a combination of airway and systemic activity. The airway activity is dominating. The systemic activity contributes by plasma peaks, which are high enough for supportive anti-inflammatory actions at the blood and bone marrow levels but not sufficiently long to trigger a similar level of systemic adverse effects. This may be due to BUD's capacity to exploit a systemic differentiation mechanism as programmed for cortisol's various actions. This differentiation prospect can be reached only for an ICS with short plasma half-life. Here we present an alternative mode for an ICS to reach combined efficacy and safety, based on a poorly investigated and exploited physiological mechanism. A preference of this mode is broader versatility, due to that its straighter dose-response should allow a better adaptation to disease fluctuations, and that its rapid activity enables use as "anti-inflammatory reliever".

Dual bronchodilation for the treatment of COPD - From bench to bedside

Because there is a solid pharmacological rationale based on positive interactions between long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) for their ability to relax human airway smooth muscle in vitro alongside several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world observational studies that support the use of LAMA/LABA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) for the treatment of patients with COPD, in this narrative review we discuss the preclinical and clinical proofs supporting the use of LAMA+LABA therapy in COPD and why this therapeutic approach optimises bronchodilation. Robust evidence indicates that all LAMA/LABA FDCs are consistently more effective than LAMA or LABA administered alone in improving lung function, dyspnoea, quality of life, and exercise capacity in patients with COPD. However, the ability of dual bronchodilation with FDCs of LAMA/LABA to prevent or reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations remains unclear due to conflicting data from large RCTs, despite several mechanisms explaining why such combinations should be of value in decreasing the frequency of COPD exacerbations. Both LABAs and LAMAs mechanistically can affect the cardiovascular system, but from clinical studies to date, LAMA/LABA FDCs have an acceptable cardiovascular safety profile, at least in the COPD population enrolled in RCTs. Indirect evidence suggests that some FDCs may even exert a protective role against serious cardiovascular adverse events compared to monotherapies. Consequently, several LAMA/LABA FDCs have been developed and approved for clinical use as treatments for patients with COPD. However, to date, there are unfortunately very few head-to-head studies comparing the safety and efficacy of different LAMA/LABA FDCs making it difficult to choose the most appropriate combination, although the use of meta-analyses has provided some information in this regard.

Quantitative analysis of efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations in the treatment of stable COPD

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to quantitatively compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) for the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), especially in terms of their loss of efficacy in lung function.

METHODS

Randomized controlled clinical trials of LABA/LAMA FDCs for the treatment of stable COPD were comprehensively searched for in public databases. Pharmacodynamic models were established to describe the time course of the primary outcome [trough forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁)]. Secondary outcomes [COPD exacerbations, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI), and rescue medication use] and safety outcomes [mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), and withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs)] were also compared via a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies involving 16,486 participants were included in this study. The results showed that in terms of primary outcome (change from baseline in trough FEV₁), the efficacy of vilanterol/umeclidinium was the highest, while the efficacy of formoterol/aclidinium was the lowest, with a maximum effect value (E_max) of 0.185 L [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.173-0.197 L] and 0.119 L (95% CI: 0.103-0.135 L), respectively. The efficacy of other drugs, such as formoterol/glycopyrronium, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, and olodaterol/tiotropium, were comparable, and their E_max values were 0.150-0.177 L. Except for vilanterol/umeclidinium, the other four LABA/LAMA FDCs showed a certain degree of loss of efficacy. Compared with the efficacy at 2 days, the trough FEV₁ (L) relative to baseline at 24 weeks decreased by 0.029-0.041 L. In terms of secondary outcomes, the efficacy of different LABA/LAMA FDCs was similar in TDI and rescue medication use. However, formoterol/aclidinium was better in preventing the COPD exacerbations, while vilanterol/umeclidinium was the best in terms of SGRQ. In addition, different LABA/LAMA FDCs and placebo had similar safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The present findings may provide necessary quantitative information for COPD medication guidelines.

Which LABA/LAMA should be chosen in COPD patients in real life?

BACKGROUND

Given COPD heterogeneity, we do not know if some LABA/LAMAs are more suitable for some COPD phenotypes. This real-life database study aimed to evaluate retrospectively the 4 LABA/LAMA effectiveness and highlight possible specificities that could better guide us in choosing the right LABA/LAMA to be used.

METHODS

We searched for subjects (1,779) adherent to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UM/VI), indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY), aclidinium/formoterol (ACLI/FOR) and tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) treatments in our prescribing/dispensing database. Prescriptions for systemic corticosteroids (SC), antibiotics and salbutamol during one year of LABA/LAMA treatment were analyzed.

RESULTS

A better adherence was found in individuals taking IND/GLY (10.42 ± 1.86 packages/year) compared with UM/VI (10.09 ± 1.9; p = 0.008), ACLI/FOR (9.8 ± 1.8; p = 0.001) and TIO/OLO (10.1 ± 2.1; p = 0.047). The number of patients that were prescribed at least one package of SC/year and their package numbers/year were similar in males/females, across age groups and in "non-frequent exacerbators" with the 4 LABA/LAMAs. More SC were taken by frequent exacerbators, whereas fewer SC/antibiotic packages were prescribed to subjects aged >80 years with all treatments. In patients treated with ACLI/FOR or TIO/OLO, lower risks to having antibiotic prescriptions were observed when UM/VI (0.698[0.516-0.945] and 0.696[0.491-0.985; p = 0.020 and p = 0.041) and IND/GLY (0.597[0.445-0.802] and 0.595[0.423-0.836]; p = 0.001 and p = 0.003) were considered as landmarks. Lower risks for salbutamol prescriptions were detected with UM/VI (0.678[0.480-0.958]; p = 0.027) and TIO/OLO (0.585[0.365-0.937]; p = 0.026) when ACLI/FOR was used as a reference.

CONCLUSION

According to our retrospective database study, each LABA/LAMA could have a specific efficacy profile in COPD that might be considered for personalized therapy. However, head-to-head targeted trials aimed to assess the impact of different LABA/LAMAs on COPD are needed to confirm/disprove such results.

[COPD inhaled therapy narrative review]

Inhaled therapy with long-acting bronchodilators is the base of pharmacological treatment in COPD. In order to find out those that offer better control, a search was carried out in Medline (Pubmed). Comparative studies of inhaler therapy in COPD patients were analyzed. The comparison between the fixed combination LABA/LAMA versus LABA/CI in non-exacerbating patients, revealed a better control with LABA/LAMA. Within the LABA/CI combinations, budesonide/formoterol combination offered better control. LAMA inhalers revealed no great differences, but when compared to LABA, it offered a better control. Regarding triple therapy in a single device, was superior to double therapy and to triple therapy in two devices, with no relevant differences among the available combinations.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Different Types of Inhaled Long-Acting β2-Agonist Plus Inhaled Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist vs Inhaled Long-Acting β2-Agonist Plus Inhaled Corticosteroid Fixed-Dose Combinations in COPD A Propensity Score-Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Despite multiple available fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of inhaled long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) plus long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and LABAs plus inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for COPD, uncertainty remains regarding their comparative effects.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Can comparative effectiveness and safety of LABA plus LAMA (LABA/LAMA) and LABA plus ICS (LABA/ICS) FDCs vary by different individual components of the dual combinations in COPD?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a new user, propensity score-inverse probability of treatment weighting cohort study to compare the effectiveness and safety of two frequently used LABA/LAMA FDCs (indacaterol plus glycopyrronium [IND/GLY] and vilanterol plus umeclidinium [VI/UMEC]) vs three commonly prescribed LABA/ICS FDCs (salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate [SAL/FP], formoterol fumarate plus budesonide [FF/BUD], and formoterol fumarate plus beclomethasone dipropionate [FF/BDP]) using the Taiwanese nationwide health-care claims from 2014 through 2017. The primary effectiveness outcome was the annual moderate to severe exacerbation rate, and safety outcomes included risks of severe pneumonia and cardiovascular disease requiring hospitalization. Weighted generalized linear mixed models and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

Patients with COPD initiating IND/GLY and VI/UMEC showed an 11% (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and 20% (IRR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90) reduced annual rate of moderate to severe exacerbations, respectively, than those initiating SAL/FP, but showed a similar rate as those initiating FF/BUD or FF/BDP. Both LABA/LAMA FDCs, compared with SAL/FP and VI/UMEC vs FF/BDP, were associated with a 27% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90) to 42% (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.70) reduced pneumonia risk. Cardiovascular risk was comparable in five groups. An intraclass difference existed in rates of moderate to severe COPD exacerbation and risks of pneumonia among LABA/ICS FDCs, but not between LABA/LAMA FDCs.

INTERPRETATION

Both LABA/LAMAs vs SAL/FP are associated with a lower exacerbation rate and pneumonia risk, but exhibit similar effectiveness and safety outcomes compared with FF/BDP or FF/BUD, suggesting that comparative effects may differ by individual components of the dual therapies in COPD.

Airway Redox Homeostasis and Inflammation Gone Awry: From Molecular Pathogenesis to Emerging Therapeutics in Respiratory Pathology

As aerobic organisms, we are continuously and throughout our lifetime subjected to an oxidizing atmosphere and, most often, to environmental threats. The lung is the internal organ most highly exposed to this milieu. Therefore, it has evolved to confront both oxidative stress induced by reactive oxygen species (ROS) and a variety of pollutants, pathogens, and allergens that promote inflammation and can harm the airways to different degrees. Indeed, an excess of ROS, generated intrinsically or from external sources, can imprint direct damage to key structural cell components (nucleic acids, sugars, lipids, and proteins) and indirectly perturb ROS-mediated signaling in lung epithelia, impairing its homeostasis. These early events complemented with efficient recognition of pathogen- or damage-associated recognition patterns by the airway resident cells alert the immune system, which mounts an inflammatory response to remove the hazards, including collateral dead cells and cellular debris, in an attempt to return to homeostatic conditions. Thus, any major or chronic dysregulation of the redox balance, the air-liquid interface, or defects in epithelial proteins impairing mucociliary clearance or other defense systems may lead to airway damage. Here, we review our understanding of the key role of oxidative stress and inflammation in respiratory pathology, and extensively report current and future trends in antioxidant and anti-inflammatory treatments focusing on the following major acute and chronic lung diseases: acute lung injury/respiratory distress syndrome, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pulmonary fibrosis, and cystic fibrosis.

Compatible Stability and Aerosol Characteristics of Atrovent® (Ipratropium Bromide) Mixed with Salbutamol Sulfate, Terbutaline Sulfate, Budesonide, and Acetylcysteine

(1) Background: It is common practice in the treatment of respiratory diseases to mix different inhalation solutions for simultaneous inhalation. At present, a small number of studies have been published that evaluate the physicochemical compatibility and aerosol characteristics of different inhalation medications. However, none of them studied Atrovent^®. Our work aims to address the lack of studies on Atrovent^®. (2) Methods: Portions of admixtures were withdrawn at certain time intervals after mixing and were tested by pH determination, osmolarity measurement, and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) assay of each active ingredient as measures of physicochemical compatibility. The geometrical and aerosol particle size distribution, active drug delivery rate, and total active drug delivered were measured to characterize aerosol behaviors. (3) Results: During the testing time, no significant variation was found in the pH value, the osmotic pressure, or the active components of admixtures. With the increase in nebulization volume after mixing, fine particle dose (FPD) and total active drug delivered showed statistically significant improvements, while the active drug delivery rate decreased compared to the single-drug preparations. (4) Conclusions: These results endorse the physicochemical compatibility of Atrovent^® over 1 h when mixed with other inhalation medications. Considering aerosol characteristics, simultaneous inhalation is more efficient.

Evaluation of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol for the treatment of COPD: a systematic review

Introduction: Recently, the generic formulation of FP/SAL FDC has been approved in COPD. Although FP/SAL FDC has been the first long-acting FDC approved in COPD, no systematic review assessed the effect of this combination for the treatment of COPD by considering specifically Phase IV studies. The aim of this review was to systematically assess the effect of FP/SAL FDC in COPD patients enrolled in Phase IV studies.Areas covered: The question of this systematic review was to examine the evidence regarding the impact of FP/SAL FDC for the treatment of COPD by searching for Phase IV studies in the ClinicalTrials.gov database.Expert opinion: Generic drugs represent an effective cost-saving step for health-care budgets in the treatment of COPD and should be used in agreement with current recommendations and prescription accuracy. FP/SAL FDC is recommended for the initiation therapy just in a small percentage of symptomatic patients that are at high risk of exacerbation with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells per μl. At follow-up, FP/SAL FDC can be escalated to triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination or switched to LABA/LAMA combination by considering symptoms, exacerbations, lack of response to ICS, inappropriate original indication, and ICS-related adverse events such as pneumonia.