Magnitude of umeclidinium/vilanterol lung function effect depends on monotherapy responses: Results from two randomised controlled trials

Drug-Drug Interactions and Synergy: From Pharmacological Models to Clinical Application

This review explores the concept of synergy in pharmacology, emphasizing its importance in optimizing treatment outcomes through the combination of drugs with different mechanisms of action. Synergy, defined as an effect greater than the expected additive effect elicited by individual agents according to specific predictive models, offers a promising approach to enhance therapeutic efficacy while minimizing adverse events. The historical evolution of synergy research, from ancient civilizations to modern pharmacology, highlights the ongoing quest to understand and harness synergistic interactions. Key concepts, such as concentration-response curves, additive effects, and predictive models, are discussed in detail, emphasizing the need for accurate assessment methods throughout translational drug development. Although various mathematical models exist for synergy analysis, selecting the appropriate model and software tools remains a challenge, necessitating careful consideration of experimental design and data interpretation. Furthermore, this review addresses practical considerations in synergy assessment, including preclinical and clinical approaches, mechanism of action, and statistical analysis. Optimizing synergy requires attention to concentration/dose ratios, target site localization, and timing of drug administration, ensuring that the benefits of combination therapy detected bench-side are translatable into clinical practice. Overall, the review advocates for a systematic approach to synergy assessment, incorporating robust statistical analysis, effective and simplified predictive models, and collaborative efforts across pivotal sectors, such as academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and regulatory agencies. By overcoming critical challenges and maximizing therapeutic potential, effective synergy assessment in drug development holds promise for advancing patient care. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Combining drugs with different mechanisms of action for synergistic interactions optimizes treatment efficacy and safety. Accurate interpretation of synergy requires the identification of the expected additive effect. Despite innovative models to predict the additive effect, consensus in drug-drug interactions research is lacking, hindering the bench-to-bedside development of combination therapies. Collaboration among science, industry, and regulation is crucial for advancing combination therapy development, ensuring rigorous application of predictive models in clinical settings.

A clinician's guide to single vs multiple inhaler therapy for COPD

INTRODUCTION

In the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), inhalation therapy plays a pivotal role. However, clinicians often face the dilemma of choosing between single and multiple inhaler therapies for their patients. This choice is critical because it can affect treatment efficacy, patient adherence, and overall disease management.

AREAS COVERED

This article examines the advantages and factors to be taken into consideration when selecting between single and multiple inhaler therapies for COPD.

EXPERT OPINION

Both single and multiple inhaler therapies must be considered in COPD management. While single inhaler therapy offers simplicity and convenience, multiple inhaler therapy provides greater flexibility and customization. Clinicians must carefully evaluate individual patient needs and preferences to determine the most appropriate inhaler therapy regimen. Through personalized treatment approaches and shared decision-making, clinicians can optimize COPD management and improve patient well-being. Nevertheless, further research is required to compare the effectiveness of single versus multiple inhaler strategies through rigorous clinical trials, free from industry bias, to determine the optimal inhaler strategy. Smart inhaler technology appears to have the potential to enhance adherence and personalized management, but the relative merits of smart inhalers in single inhaler regimens versus multiple inhaler regimens remain to be determined.

Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) 2021: Updated Pharmacological treatment of stable COPD

The Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) were first published in 2012, and since then have undergone a series of updates incorporating new evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of COPD. GesEPOC was drawn up in partnership with scientific societies involved in the treatment of COPD and the Spanish Patients' Forum. Their recommendations are based on an evaluation of the evidence using GRADE methodology, and a narrative description of the evidence in areas in which GRADE cannot be applied. In this article, we summarize the recommendations on the pharmacological treatment of stable COPD based on 9 PICO questions. COPD treatment is a 4-step process: 1) diagnosis, 2) determination of the risk level, 3) initial and subsequent inhaled therapy, and 4) identification and management of treatable traits. For the selection of inhaled therapy, high-risk patients are divided into 3 phenotypes: non-exacerbator, eosinophilic exacerbator, and non-eosinophilic exacerbator. Some treatable traits are general and should be investigated in all patients, such as smoking or inhalation technique, while others affect severe patients in particular, such as chronic hypoxemia and chronic bronchial infection. COPD treatment is based on long-acting bronchodilators with single agents or in combination, depending on the patient's risk level. Eosinophilic exacerbators must receive inhaled corticosteroids, while non-eosinophilic exacerbators require a more detailed evaluation to choose the best therapeutic option. The new GesEPOC also includes recommendations on the withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids and on indications for alpha-1 antitrypsin treatment. GesEPOC offers a more individualized approach to COPD treatment tailored according to the clinical characteristics of patients and their level of complexity.

Drug interaction and chronic obstructive respiratory disorders

Chronic obstructive respiratory disorders uncontrolled by monotherapy should be given combinations of drugs that act by distinct mechanisms of action. The rationale for combining different classes of drugs should be to elicit a synergistic interaction, lower the dose of the single components in the combinations and, thus, reduce the risk of adverse events.

The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the combined effect of drugs acting on human airways, by including studies that used a validated method for assessing the nature of drug interaction.

Current evidence indicates that drug combinations modulating the bronchial contractility induce a synergistic relaxant effect when the individual components are combined at isoeffective concentrations. There are several mechanisms of action underlying drug interactions. Pharmacological research has been directed to elucidate what causes the synergism between long-acting β₂-adrenoceptor (β₂-AR) agonists (LABAs), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMAs), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) administered as dual or triple combination. Conversely, the mechanisms behind the additive interaction between phosphodiesterase 3 and 4 inhibitors and LAMAs, and the synergistic interaction between proliferator-activated receptor gamma ligands and β₂ agonists have been only hypothesized. Overall, the synergism elicited by combined drugs for the treatment of chronic respiratory disorders is an effect of class, rather than specific for drug combinations. Optimal synergy can be achieved only when the single agents are combined at isoeffective concentrations, and when monocomponents are given concurrently to reach together the same levels of the bronchial tree.

•

Drug interaction should be identified with validated pharmacological models.

•

Synergistic efficacy is the rationale for combining drugs for respiratory diseases.

•

Synergy is favored when combined agents act by distinct mechanisms of action.

•

Optimal synergy is achieved when drugs are combined at isoeffective concentrations.

•

Synergy is a class effect and is not specific for single drug combinations.

Step-Up and Step-Down Treatment Approaches for COPD: A Holistic View of Progressive Therapies

Recent advances in inhaled drugs and a clearer definition of the disease have made the task of managing COPD more complex. Different proposals have been put forward which combine all the available treatments and the different clinical presentations in an effort to select the best therapeutic options for each clinical context. As COPD is a chronic progressive disease, the escalation of therapy has traditionally been considered the most natural way to tackle it. However, the notion of COPD as a constantly progressing disease has recently been challenged and, in specific areas, this points to the possibility of a de-escalation in treatment. In this context, the clinician requires simple, specific recommendations to guide these changes in treatment in their daily clinical practice. To accomplish this, the first step must be a correct evaluation and an accurate initial preliminary diagnosis of the patient's condition. Thereafter, the first escalation in therapy must be introduced with caution as the disease progresses, since clinical trials are not designed with clinical decision-making in mind. During this escalation, three possibilities are open to change the current treatment for a different one within the same family, to increase non-pharmacological interventions or to increase the pharmacological therapies. Beyond that point, a patient with persistent symptoms represents a complex clinical scenario which requires a specialized approach, including the evaluation of different respiratory and non-respiratory comorbidities. Unfortunately, there are few de-escalation studies available, and these are mainly observational in nature. The debate on de-escalation in pharmacological treatment, therefore, involves two main discussion points: the withdrawal of bronchodilators and the withdrawal of inhaled steroids. Altogether, the scheme for modifying treatment must be more personalized than just adding molecules, and the therapeutic response and its conditioning factors should be evaluated at each step before proceeding further.

Predictors of Single Bronchodilation Treatment Response for COPD: An Observational Study with the Trace Database Cohort

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients constitute a heterogeneous population in terms of treatment response. Our objective was to identify possible predictive factors of response to treatment with single bronchodilation monotherapy in patients diagnosed with COPD. The Time-based Register and Analysis of COPD Endpoints (TRACE; clinicaltrials.gov NCT03485690) is a prospective cohort of COPD patients who have been attending annual visits since 2012. Patients who were kept on a single bronchodilator during the first year of follow-up were selected. The responders were defined according to all of the following variables: any improvement in morning post-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s or deterioration <100 mL, no change or improvement in dyspnea score, and no occurrence of exacerbations. Significant and plausible variables were analyzed using a proportional hazard Cox regression for single bronchodilator responders. We analyzed 764 cases, of whom 128 (16.8%) were receiving monotherapy with one bronchodilator. Of these, 85 patients (66.4%) were responders. Factors affecting responder status were: female gender (hazard ratio (HR) 0.276; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.089–0.858), dyslipidemia (HR 0.436; 95%CI 0.202–0.939), not performing regular exercise (HR 0.523; 95%CI 0.254–1.076), active smoking (HR 0.413; 95%CI 0.186–0.920), and treatment adherence (HR 2.527; 95%CI 1.271–5.027). The factors associated with a single bronchodilation response are mainly non-pharmacological interventions and comorbidities.

Pharmacological treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Pharmacological treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) aims to alleviate symptoms and reduce the future risk of events such as exacerbations, disease progression and death. The heterogeneity of COPD results in variable responses to pharmacological interventions. COPD treatment has evolved towards a precision medicine approach, integrating clinical and biomarker information in order to optimize treatment decisions for each individual. The evidence supporting the use of blood eosinophil counts to predict responses to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in COPD patients has led to the adoption of this biomarker for use in clinical practice. The development of novel double and triple inhaled combination treatments containing long-acting bronchodilators with or without ICS has involved some landmark randomized controlled trials in COPD patients. These studies have provided valuable evidence to direct the use of different classes of combination treatments. However, there are still some unresolved questions and debates. This review article describes the advances in the pharmacological treatment of COPD, particularly the personalization of treatment. The evidence base for current recommendations is discussed, and controversial issues are dissected.

Ultra Long-Acting β-Agonists in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled β-agonists have been foundational medications for maintenance COPD management for decades. Through activation of cyclic adenosine monophosphate pathways, these agents relax airway smooth muscle and improve expiratory airflow by relieving bronchospasm and alleviating air trapping and dynamic hyperinflation improving breathlessness, exertional capabilities, and quality of life. β-agonist drug development has discovered drugs with increasing longer durations of action: short acting (SABA) (4-6 h), long acting (LABA) (6-12 h), and ultra-long acting (ULABA) (24 h). Three ULABAs, indacaterol, olodaterol, and vilanterol, are approved for clinical treatment of COPD.

PURPOSE

This article reviews both clinically approved ULABAs and ULABAs in development.

CONCLUSION

Indacaterol and olodaterol were originally approved for clinical use as monotherapies for COPD. Vilanterol is the first ULABA to be approved only in combination with other respiratory medications. Although there are many other ULABA's in various stages of development, most clinical testing of these novel agents is suspended or proceeding slowly. The three approved ULABAs are being combined with antimuscarinic agents and corticosteroids as dual and triple agent treatments that are being tested for clinical use and efficacy. Increasingly, these clinical trials are using specific COPD clinical characteristics to define study populations and to begin to develop therapies that are trait-specific.

Long-Acting Bronchodilators for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Which One(S), How, and When?

Long-acting bronchodilators represent the mainstay of maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This state-of-the-art review summarizes currently available data on the safety, efficacy, and clinical effectiveness of long-acting bronchodilators and describes their role in the management of COPD, as defined by current national and international guidelines. Data from extensive clinical trials and real-life studies have demonstrated that long-acting beta-2 agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists can safely reduce the frequency of exacerbations, alleviate symptoms, and improve quality of life, exercise tolerance, and lung function of patients with COPD. They are recommended as first-line maintenance treatment of COPD.

Integrating Comorbidities and Phenotype-Based Medicine in Patient-Centered Medicine in COPD

Despite recent notable innovations in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), no major advances in patient-centered medicine have been achieved. Current guidelines base their proposals on the average results from clinical trials, leading to what could be termed ‘means-based’ medical practice. However, the therapeutic response is variable at the patient level. Additionally, the variability of the clinical presentation interacts with comorbidities to form a complex clinical scenario for clinicians to deal with. Consequently, no consensus has been reached over a practical approach for combining comorbidities and disease presentation markers in the therapeutic algorithm. In this context, from the patients’ first visit, the clinician faces four major dilemmas: (1) establishing the correct diagnosis of COPD as opposed to other airway diseases, such as bronchial asthma; (2) deciding on the initial therapeutic approach based on the clinical characteristics of each case; (3) setting up a study strategy for non-responding patients; (4) pursuing a follow-up strategy with two well-defined periods according to whether close or long-term follow-up is required. Here, we will address these major dilemmas in the search for a patient-centered approach to COPD management and suggest how to combine them all in a single easy-to-use strategy.

Benefits of Tiotropium/Olodaterol Compared with Tiotropium in Patients with COPD Receiving only LAMA at Baseline: Pooled Analysis of the TONADO® and OTEMTO® Studies

INTRODUCTION

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy report recommends long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) or long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA) as first-line treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but many patients remain symptomatic on monotherapy and escalation to dual-bronchodilator therapy may be warranted.

METHODS

TONADO^® 1&2 and OTEMTO^® 1&2 assessed lung function and patient-reported outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe (OTEMTO) or moderate-to-very-severe (TONADO) COPD. This pooled post hoc analysis included patients treated with LAMA monotherapy at baseline who were randomised to receive either 5 µg tiotropium (LAMA) or 5/5 µg tiotropium/olodaterol (LAMA/LABA). We assessed changes from baseline and responder rates for trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and the Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI).

RESULTS

Overall, 151 patients received tiotropium; 148 received tiotropium/olodaterol. Mean differences from baseline with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium were + 0.074 l (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.033, 0.115; P = 0.0004) for trough FEV₁, - 2.675 (95% CI - 5.060, - 0.291; P = 0.0280) for SGRQ and 1.148 (95% CI 0.564, 1.732; P = 0.0001) for TDI. Patients were more likely to respond when treated with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium for trough FEV₁ (odds ratio [OR] 3.14, 95% CI 1.94, 5.06; P < 0.0001), SGRQ (OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.93, 2.40; P = 0.0980) and TDI (OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.71, 4.60; P < 0.0001). Minimum clinically important difference from baseline in any of the analysed outcomes (FEV₁ ≥ 0.1 l, SGRQ ≥ 4.0 points or TDI ≥ 1.0 point) was more likely in patients treated with tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.32, 4.51; P = 0.0046).

CONCLUSION

In patients with COPD receiving only LAMA monotherapy, treatment escalation to tiotropium/olodaterol resulted in statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in lung function, health status and breathlessness. These results support early therapy optimisation to dual bronchodilation with tiotropium/olodaterol in patients receiving tiotropium alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TONADO^® 1 was registered in the US National Library of Medicine on 9 September 2011 (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01431274). TONADO^® 2 was registered in the US National Library of Medicine on 9 September 2011 (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01431287). OTEMTO^® 1 was registered in the US National Library of Medicine on 17 October 2013 (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01964352). OTEMTO^® 2 was registered in the US National Library of Medicine on 10 December 2013 (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02006732).

Triple therapy for COPD: a crude analysis from a systematic review of the evidence

We systematically reviewed the current knowledge on fixed-dose triple therapies for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with a specific focus on its efficacy versus single bronchodilation, double fixed dose combinations, and open triple therapies. Articles were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Scopus up to 3 August 2018. We selected articles with randomized controlled or crossover design conducted in patients with COPD and published as full-length articles or scientific letters, evaluating triple therapy combinations in a single or different inhaler, and with efficacy data versus monocomponents, double combinations, or open triple therapies. Our systematic search reported 108 articles, of which 24 trials were finally selected for the analysis. A total of 7 studies with fixed dose triple therapy combinations, and 17 studies with open triple therapies combinations. Triple therapy showed improvements in lung function [trough forced expiratory volume (FEV₁₎ ranging from not significant (NS) to 147 ml], health status using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire [(SGRQ) from NS to 8.8 points], and exacerbations [risk ratio (RR) from NS to 0.59 for all exacerbations] versus single or double therapies with a variability in the response, depending the specific combination, and the comparison group. The proportion of adverse effects was similar between study groups, the exception being the increase in pneumonia for some inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) containing groups.

The reviews of this paper are available via the supplementary material section.

The clinical implications of triple therapy in fixed-dose combination in COPD: from the trial to the patient

The emergence of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of a long-acting ß₂-agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in a single inhalation device has changed the approach to inhaled therapy. Although clinical trials describe the efficacy and safety of these FDCs, their use in daily clinical practice can present challenges for the clinician in two specific scenarios. In patients who are already receiving triple therapy via different devices, switching to FDCs could confer benefits by reducing critical errors in the management of inhalers, improving therapeutic adherence, and lowering costs, while maintaining the same clinical efficacy. In patients who are not receiving triple therapy in different devices and who require a change in treatment, triple therapy FDC has shown benefits in clinical trials. Although methodological differences among the trials advise against direct comparison, clinical results show good efficacy, but also considerable variability, and a number of clinical outcomes have yet to be explored. In the future, trials must be developed to complete clinical efficacy data. Real-world efficacy trials are needed, and studies must be designed to determine the profile of patients who present a greater therapeutic response to each FDC in order to pave the way towards more personalized treatment.

The Clinical Implications of Triple Therapy in Fixed-Dose Combination in COPD: From the Trial to the Patient

The emergence of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of a long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAS), a long-acting anticholinergic agent (LAMA), and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in a single inhalation device has changed the approach to inhaled therapy. Although clinical trials describe the efficacy and safety of these FDCs, their use in daily clinical practice can present challenges for the clinician in two specific scenarios. In patients who are already receiving triple therapy via different devices, switching to FDCs could confer benefits by reducing critical errors in the management of inhalers, improving therapeutic adherence, and lowering costs, while maintaining the same clinical efficacy. In patients who are not receiving triple therapy in different devices and who require a change in treatment, triple therapy FDC has shown benefits in clinical trials. Although methodological differences among the trials advise against direct comparison, clinical results show good efficacy, but also considerable variability, and a number of clinical outcomes have yet to be explored. In the future, trials must be developed to complete clinical efficacy data. Real-world efficacy trials are needed, and studies must be designed to determine the profile of patients who present a greater therapeutic response to each FDC in order to pave to way towards more personalized treatment.

Impact of baseline COPD symptom severity on the benefit from dual versus mono-bronchodilators: an analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial

RATIONALE

Symptom relief is a key treatment goal in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there are limited data available on the response to bronchodilator therapy in patients at low risk of exacerbations with different levels of symptom severity. This study compared treatment responses in patients with a range of symptom severities as indicated by baseline COPD assessment test (CAT) scores.

METHODS

The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated the benefits of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. This analysis assessed lung function, symptoms, health status, and short-term deterioration outcomes in subgroups defined by a baseline CAT score [<20 (post hoc) and ⩾20 (pre-specified)]. Outcomes were also assessed using post hoc fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline CAT score covariates.

RESULTS

Of the intent-to-treat population (n = 2425), 56% and 44% had baseline CAT scores of <20 and ⩾20, respectively. Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated favourable improvements compared with umeclidinium and salmeterol for the majority of outcomes irrespective of the baseline CAT score, with the greatest improvements generally observed in patients with CAT scores <20. Fractional polynomial analyses revealed consistent improvements in lung function, symptoms and reduction in rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol across a range of CAT scores, with the largest benefits seen in patients with CAT scores of approximately 10-21.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with symptomatic COPD benefit similarly from dual bronchodilator treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol. Fractional polynomial analyses demonstrated the greatest treatment differences favouring dual therapy in patients with a CAT score <20, although benefits were seen up to scores of 30. This suggests that dual bronchodilation may be considered as initial therapy for patients across a broad range of symptom severities, not only those with severe symptoms (CAT ⩾20).Trial registration: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT number).The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Critical Inhaler Handling Error Is an Independent Risk Factor for Frequent Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Interim Results of a Single Center Prospective Study

Objective

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) acute exacerbations are significant causes of morbidity and mortality. “Frequent exacerbator” phenotypes are considered a distinct subgroup and this phenotype has a negative effect on lung function, quality of life, activity, hospital admission, and mortality. We assess inhaler handling technique and adherence, and evaluate risk factors associated with frequent exacerbations in COPD patients.

Methods

This study was a cross-sectional, case-control study. We prospectively enrolled 189 COPD patients from Yeungnam University Hospital from January 2018 to November 2018. Subjects were tested regarding their inhaler technique in face-to-face interviews with an advanced practice nurse of inhaler upon study entry. Frequency of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations were reviewed via electronic medical records during 12 months prior to study entry. Frequent exacerbations were defined as ≥2 moderate to severe exacerbations in the prior 12 months. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for frequent exacerbations.

Results

Among 189 COPD patients, 50 (26.5%) were frequent exacerbators. Based on univariate analyses, body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m², lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), higher mMRC, lower feeling of satisfaction with the inhaler, and any critical errors were potential risk factors for frequent exacerbations. Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that BMI < 25 kg/m² (OR, 2.855, 95% CI, 1.247–6.534; p=0.013), higher mMRC (OR, 1.625, 95% CI, 1.072–2.463; p=0.022), and any critical error (OR, 2.020, 95% CI, 1.021–3.999; p=0.044) were risk factors.

Conclusion

Any critical error, BMI < 25 kg/m² and high mMRC are independent risk factors for frequent exacerbations in COPD patients. Careful monitoring and education around inhaler devices, particularly in frequent exacerbators, are important components of COPD treatment.

Optimizing the Development Strategy of Combination Therapy in Respiratory Medicine: From Isolated Airways to Patients

The current recommendations for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are pushing towards triple combination therapy based on the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) associated with two bronchodilator agents. However, dual bronchodilation remains the cornerstone for the treatment of most COPD patients. Combining a long-acting β₂ adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) induces appreciable synergistic bronchorelaxant effect in human airways, especially when the medications are combined at isoeffective concentrations. Thus, each LABA/LAMA combination is characterized by a specific range of concentration-ratio at which the drug mixture may induce sustained synergistic interaction. Results of a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT, NCT00696020) and evidences from pre-clinical studies in human isolated airways poses the question whether combining tiotropium 5 μg with olodaterol 5 μg is the best combination option: tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 μg has the same efficacy profile of tiotropium/olodaterol 5/2 μg, and it is less effective than tiotropium/olodaterol 5/10 μg. Furthermore, tiotropium/olodaterol 5/2 μg, 5/5 μg, and 5/10 μg combinations are generally characterized by the same safety profile. Indeed tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 μg is effective and safe in COPD, but a different development strategy based on solid data obtained from human isolated airways would have driven towards a better-balanced FDC to be tested in Phase III RCTs. Accurate bench-to-bedside plans are needed also in the development of triple combination therapies for asthma and COPD, in which the presence of an ICS in the formulation may further modulate the beneficial interaction between the LABA and the LAMA.

Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapies in symptomatic patients with COPD not receiving inhaled corticosteroids: the EMAX randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Prospective evidence is lacking regarding incremental benefits of long-acting dual- versus mono-bronchodilation in improving symptoms and preventing short-term disease worsening/treatment failure in low exacerbation risk patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) not receiving inhaled corticosteroids.

METHODS

The 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) trial randomised patients at low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids, to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg once-daily, umeclidinium 62.5 μg once-daily or salmeterol 50 μg twice-daily. The primary endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at Week 24. The study was also powered for the secondary endpoint of Transition Dyspnoea Index at Week 24. Other efficacy assessments included spirometry, symptoms, heath status and short-term disease worsening measured by the composite endpoint of clinically important deterioration using three definitions.

RESULTS

Change from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 was 66 mL (95% confidence interval [CI]: 43, 89) and 141 mL (95% CI: 118, 164) greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, respectively (both p < 0.001). Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated consistent improvements in Transition Dyspnoea Index versus both monotherapies at Week 24 (vs umeclidinium: 0.37 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.68], p = 0.018; vs salmeterol: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.15, 0.76], p = 0.004) and all other symptom measures at all time points. Regardless of the clinically important deterioration definition considered, umeclidinium/vilanterol significantly reduced the risk of a first clinically important deterioration compared with umeclidinium (by 16-25% [p < 0.01]) and salmeterol (by 26-41% [p < 0.001]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Umeclidinium/vilanterol consistently provides early and sustained improvements in lung function and symptoms and reduces the risk of deterioration/treatment failure versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. These findings suggest a potential for early use of dual bronchodilators to help optimise therapy in this patient group.

Isolated airways in equine respiratory pharmacology: They never lie

Pre-clinical studies on human isolated bronchi have relevant translational value in human in vivo, conversely no investigation has been performed to assess whether data resulting from equine isolated airways can have any translational application in asthmatic horses. Thus, a meta-regression analysis via random-effect method was carried out to correlate the pharmacological characteristics of bronchodilators resulting from experiments performed in equine isolated bronchi with their impact on the lung function outcomes in asthmatic horses. Data on the potency of different bronchodilators were extracted from four ex vivo studies involving 68 horses, and related with the maximum change in transpulmonary pressure (ΔPpl_max), pulmonary resistance (R_L), and dynamic lung compliance (C_dyn) resulting from the meta-analysis of clinical trials aimed to assess the effect of different bronchodilator classes, namely antimuscarinic agents and β₂-adrenoreceptor (β₂-AR) agonists, on lung function of asthmatic horses. The potency (pEC₅₀) detected in equine isolated bronchi for each specific bronchodilator did not significantly (P > 0.05) influence the bronchorelaxant effect resulting from clinical trials. R_L was characterized by a flatter meta-regression line (slope 0.01, 95%CI -0.25 - 0.28) with respect to ΔPpl_max (slope 0.90, 95%CI -4.06 - 2.26) and C_dyn (slope 0.09, 95%CI -0.21 - 0.04). The quality of evidence was moderate for R_L and ΔPpl_max and low for C_dyn. This quantitative synthesis provides the indirect evidence that pre-clinical investigations performed by using equine isolated airways may produce useful data to predict the impact of bronchodilators on the R_L of asthmatic horses. Further translational studies are needed to directly confirm the results of this research.

Status of and strategies for improving adherence to COPD treatment

Despite the wide application of adherence as a concept, the definition, evaluation and improvement of the adherence to treatment by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) still present some challenges. First, it is necessary to clearly define the concepts of treatment adherence, compliance and persistence. Second, it is critical to consider the various methods of evaluating and quantifying adherence when interpreting adherence studies. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of the different ways of measuring treatment adherence should be taken into account. Another subject of some debate is the number of variables associated with COPD treatment adherence. Adherence is a complex concept that goes beyond the dosage or the use of inhalation devices, and a number of variables are involved in determining adherence, from the clinical aspects of the disease to the patient's confidence in the doctor's expertise and the level of social support experienced by the patient. Notably, despite these challenges, the importance of adherence has been well established by clinical trials and routine clinical practice. The available evidence consistently shows the substantial impact that a lack of adherence has on the control of the disease and its long-term prognosis. For these reasons, the correct evaluation of therapeutic adherence should be a key objective in clinical interviews of patients. In recent years, various initiatives for improving adherence have been explored. All these initiatives have been based on patient education. Therefore, health care professionals should be aware of the issues pertaining to adherence and take the opportunity to educate patients each time they contact the health care system.

Evidence-based review of data on the combination inhaler umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD

The use of inhaled, fixed-dose, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) combined with long-acting, beta2-adrenergic receptor agonists (LABA) has become a mainstay in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One of the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations is the dry powder inhaler (DPI) of umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) (62.5 µg/25 µg) approved for once-a-day maintenance treatment of COPD. This paper reviews the use of fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA agents focusing on the UMEC/VI DPI inhaler in the maintenance treatment of COPD. The fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA inhaler offers a step beyond a single inhaled maintenance agent but is still a single device for the COPD patient having frequent COPD exacerbations and persistent symptoms not well controlled on one agent. Currently available clinical trials suggest that the once-a-day DPI of UMEC/VI is well-tolerated, safe and non-inferior or better than other currently available inhaled fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations for COPD.

Impact of prior and concurrent medication on exacerbation risk with long-acting bronchodilators in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a post hoc analysis

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and low exacerbation risk still have disease instability, which can be improved with better bronchodilation. We evaluated two long-acting bronchodilators individually and in combination on reducing exacerbation risk and the potential impact of concurrent medication in these patients.

METHODS

Integrated post hoc intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of data from two large 24-week, randomized placebo (PBO)-controlled trials (NCT01313637, NCT01313650). Symptomatic patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD with/without an exacerbation history were randomized (2:3:3:3) to once-daily: PBO, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg [NCT01313650] or 125/25 μg [NCT01313637]), UMEC (62.5 [NCT01313650] or 125 μg [NCT01313637]) or VI (25 μg) via the ELLIPTA inhaler. Medication subgroups were segmented by treatment status at screening: a) maintenance-naïve or on maintenance medications, b) inhaled corticosteroid [ICS]-free or ICS-treated, c) low or high albuterol use based on median run-in use (< 3.6 or ≥ 3.6 puffs/day). Time to first moderate/severe exacerbation (Cox proportional hazard model) and change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1; mixed model repeated measures) were analyzed. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 3021 patients (ITT population; UMEC/VI: n = 816; UMEC: n = 825; VI: n = 825; PBO: n = 555), 36% had a recent exacerbation history, 33% were maintenance-naïve, 51% were ICS-free. Mean baseline albuterol use was 5.1 puffs/day. In the ITT population, UMEC/VI, UMEC, and VI reduced the risk of a first exacerbation versus PBO by 58, 44, and 39%, respectively (all p < 0.05). UMEC/VI provided significant risk reductions versus PBO in all subgroups. VI had no benefit versus PBO in maintenance-naïve, ICS-free, and low rescue use patients and was significantly less effective than UMEC/VI in these subgroups. UMEC had no significant benefit versus PBO in maintenance-naïve and ICS-free patients. All bronchodilators improved FEV1 versus PBO, and UMEC/VI significantly improved FEV1 versus both monotherapies across all populations studied (p < 0.05). All bronchodilators were similarly well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that UMEC/VI reduces exacerbation risk versus PBO more consistently across medication subgroups than UMEC or VI, particularly in patients with no/low concurrent medication use. Confirmed prospectively, these findings may support first-line use of dual bronchodilation therapy in symptomatic low-risk patients.

Once daily long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists in a combined inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory condition causing accumulation of mucus in the airways, cough, and breathlessness; the disease is progressive and is the fourth most common cause of death worldwide. Current treatment strategies for COPD are multi-modal and aim to reduce morbidity and mortality and increase patients' quality of life by slowing disease progression and preventing exacerbations. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of a long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) delivered via a single inhaler are approved by regulatory authorities in the USA, Europe, and Japan for the treatment of COPD. Several LABA/LAMA FDCs are available and recent meta-analyses have clarified their utility versus their mono-components in COPD. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs versus placebo will facilitate the comparison of different FDCs in future network meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the evidence for once-daily LABA/LAMA combinations (delivered in a single inhaler) versus placebo on clinically meaningful outcomes in patients with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from Cochrane Airways' Specialised Register (CASR) and also conducted a search of the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch). We searched CASR and trial registries from their inception to 3 December 2018; we imposed no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC versus placebo. We included studies reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. We excluded very short-term trials with a duration of less than 3 weeks. We included adults (≥ 40 years old) with a diagnosis of stable COPD. We included studies that allowed participants to continue using their ICS during the trial as long as the ICS was not part of the randomised treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results to determine included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Where possible, we used a random-effects model to meta-analyse extracted data. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified and included 22 RCTs randomly assigning 8641 people with COPD to either once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC (6252 participants) or placebo (3819 participants); nine studies had a cross-over design. Studies had a duration of between three and 52 weeks (median 12 weeks). The mean age of participants across the included studies ranged from 59 to 65 years and in 21 of 22 studies, participants had GOLD stage II or III COPD. Concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use was permitted in all of the included studies (where stated); across the included studies, between 28% to 58% of participants were using ICS at baseline. Six studies evaluated the once-daily combination of IND/GLY (110/50 μg), seven studies evaluated TIO/OLO (2.5/5 or 5/5 μg), eight studies evaluated UMEC/VI (62.5/5, 125/25 or 500/25 μg) and one study evaluated ACD/FOR (200/6, 200/12 or 200/18 μg); all LABA/LAMA combinations were compared with placebo.The risk of bias was generally considered to be low or unknown (insufficient detail provided), with only one study per domain considered to have a high risk of bias except for the domain 'other bias' which was determined to be at high risk of bias in four studies (in three studies, disease severity was greater at baseline in participants receiving LABA/LAMA compared with participants receiving placebo, which would be expected to shift the treatment effect in favour of placebo).Compared to the placebo, the pooled results for the primary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: all-cause mortality, OR 1.88 (95% CI 0.81 to 4.36, low-certainty evidence); all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs), OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.28, high-certainty evidence); acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.78, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, MD -4.08 (95% CI -4.80 to -3.36, high-certainty evidence); proportion of SGRQ responders, OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.54 to 1.99). Compared with placebo, the pooled results for the secondary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: adjusted trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), MD 0.20 L (95% CI 0.19 to 0.21, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted peak FEV1, MD 0.31 L (95% CI 0.29 to 0.32, moderate-certainty evidence); and all-cause AEs, OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.04; high-certainty evidence). No studies reported data for the 6-minute walk test. The results were generally consistent across subgroups for different LABA/LAMA combinations and doses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, once-daily LABA/LAMA (either IND/GLY, UMEC/VI or TIO/OLO) via a combination inhaler is associated with a clinically significant improvement in lung function and health-related quality of life in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD; UMEC/VI appears to reduce the rate of exacerbations in this population. These conclusions are supported by moderate or high certainty evidence based on studies with an observation period of up to one year.

The once-daily fixed-dose combination of olodaterol and tiotropium in the management of COPD: current evidence and future prospects

Long-acting bronchodilators are the cornerstone of pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Spiolto® or Stiolto® is a fixed-dose combination (FDC) containing two long-acting bronchodilators, the long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist tiotropium (TIO) and the long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonist olodaterol (OLO), formulated in the Respimat® Soft Mist™ inhaler. A total of 13 large, multicentre studies of up to 52 weeks' duration have documented its efficacy in more than 15,000 patients with COPD. TIO/OLO 5/5 µg FDC significantly increases pulmonary function compared with placebo and its respective constituent mono-components TIO 5 µg and OLO 5 µg. TIO/OLO 5/5 µg also results in statistically and clinically significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes, such as dyspnoea, use of rescue medication, and health status. Addition of OLO 5 µg to TIO 5 µg reduces the rate of moderate-to-severe exacerbations by approximately 10%. Compared with placebo and TIO 5 µg, TIO/OLO 5/5 µg significantly improves exercise capacity (e.g. endurance time) and physical activity, the latter increase being reached by a unique combination behavioural modification intervention, dual bronchodilatation and exercise training. Overall, the likelihood for patients to experience a clinically significant benefit is higher with TIO/OLO 5/5 µg than with its constituent mono-components, which usually yield smaller improvements which do not always reach statistical significance, compared with baseline or placebo. This supports the early introduction of TIO/OLO 5/5 µg in the management of patients with symptomatic COPD.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg versus tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective

BACKGROUND

A head-to-head study demonstrated the superiority of once-daily umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) versus once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO from a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective, using data from this study and Spanish literature.

METHODS

This analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System with a 3-year horizon as base case. A disease progression model using a linked risk equation approach was used to estimate disease progression and associated healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study was used to develop the statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints, and costs were calculated using a health state approach (by dyspnea severity). Utilities for QALY calculation were estimated using patient baseline characteristics within a regression fit to Spanish observational data. Treatment effect, expressed as change from baseline in FEV1 was obtained from the head-to-head study and used in the model (UMEC/VI minus TIO/OLO difference: + 52 mL [95% confidence interval: 28, 77]). Baseline patient characteristics were sourced from Spanish literature or the head-to-head study if unavailable. A scenario analysis using only the intent-to-treat (ITT) population from the head-to-head study, and sensitivity analyses (including probabilistic sensitivity analyses), were conducted. Direct healthcare costs (2017 Euro) were obtained from Spanish sources and costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum.

RESULTS

UMEC/VI was associated with small improvements in QALYs (+ 0.029) over a 3-year time horizon, compared with TIO/OLO, alongside cost savings of €393/patient. The ITT scenario analysis and sensitivity analyses had similar results. All probabilistic simulations resulted in UMEC/VI being less costly and more effective than TIO/OLO.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI dominated TIO/OLO (more effective and less expensive). These results may aid payers and decision-makers in Spain when making judgements on which long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) treatments can be considered cost effective in Spain.

The effect of delaying initiation with umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD: an observational administrative claims database analysis using marginal structural models

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with high clinical and economic burden. Optimal pharmacological therapy for COPD aims to reduce symptoms and the frequency and severity of exacerbations. Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) is an approved combination therapy for once-daily maintenance treatment of patients with COPD. This study evaluated the impact of delaying UMEC/VI initiation on medical costs and exacerbation risk.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with COPD who initiated UMEC/VI between 4/28/2014 and 7/31/2016 was conducted using the Optum Research Database. The index date was the first COPD visit after UMEC/VI available on US formulary (Commercial 4/28/2014; Medicare Advantage 1/1/2015). Patients were followed for 12 months post-index, and categorized into 12 cohorts corresponding to month (30-day period) of UMEC/VI initiation (i.e. Months 1-12) post-index. The outcomes studied during the follow up period included COPD-related and all-cause medical costs, and risk of COPD exacerbations. Marginal structural models (MSM) were used to control for time-varying confounding due to changes in treatment and severity during follow up.

RESULTS

2,200 patients initiating UMEC/VI were included in the study sample. Patients' average age was 69.3 years, 49.9% were female and 69.7% were Medicare insured. Following MSM analysis, 12-month adjusted COPD-related medical costs increased by 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.1-5.9%; p = 0.044) for each monthly delay in UMEC/VI initiation, with a 37.4% higher adjusted cost for patients initiating UMEC/VI in Month 12 versus Month 1 ($13,087 vs. $9524). The 12-month adjusted all-cause medical costs increased by 2.8% (95% CI: 0.6-5.2%; p = 0.013) for each monthly delay, with a 36.1% higher adjusted cost for patients initiating UMEC/VI at Month 12 versus Month 1 ($22,766 vs. $16,727). The monthly risk of severe exacerbation was significantly higher in patients who had not yet initiated UMEC/VI than those who had (hazard ratio: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.35-2.23; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prompt use of UMEC/VI following a physician visit for COPD appears to result in economic and clinical benefits, with reductions in medical costs and exacerbation risk. Additional research is warranted to assess the benefits of initiating UMEC/VI as a first-line therapy compared with escalation to UMEC/VI from monotherapies.

Current controversies in the stepping up and stepping down of inhaled therapies for COPD at the patient level

The implementation of potential new step-up or step-down treatment recommendations in response to current guidelines is one of the main challenges currently faced in actual daily practice settings. In the present narrative review, we aim to discuss the relevance of these step-up and step-down proposals at the patient level in daily clinical practice. In particular, we aim to review the challenges associated with inhaled maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in four clinical scenarios. First, we discuss the step up from single to double bronchodilation, including current controversies regarding the addition of a second bronchodilator versus initial treatment with two bronchodilators. Second, we discuss the step up from double bronchodilation to triple therapy while challenging current indications for inhaled steroid therapy and discussing triple therapy designs. Third, we discuss the step down from triple therapy to double bronchodilation while evaluating the effect of this downshift in risk categories on the patient according to the new classifications. Finally, we discuss the step down from double to single bronchodilation, with a special focus on safety. We believe this review will help to highlight the most relevant discussion points regarding the treatment of COPD in a manner that will stimulate and guide related clinical research.

Beclomethasone dipropionate and formoterol fumarate synergistically interact in hyperresponsive medium bronchi and small airways

Background

Corticosteroids increase the expression of β₂-adrenoceptors (β₂-ARs) and protect them against down-regulation. Conversely, β₂-AR agonists improve the anti-inflammatory action of corticosteroids. Nevertheless, it is still uncertain whether adding a long-acting β₂-AR agonist (LABA) to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) results in an additive effect, or there is true synergy.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to pharmacologically characterize the interaction between the ICS beclomethasone diproprionate (BDP) and the LABA formoterol fumarate (FF) in a validated human ex vivo model of bronchial asthma.

Methods

Human medium and small airways were stimulated by histamine and treated with different concentrations of BDP and FF, administered alone and in combination at concentration-ratio reproducing ex vivo that of the currently available fixed-dose combination (FDC; BDP/FF 100:6 combination-ratio). Experiments were performed in non-sensitized (NS) and passively sensitized (PS) airways. The pharmacological interaction was assessed by using Bliss Independence and Unified Theory equations.

Results

BDP/FF synergistically increased the overall bronchorelaxation in NS and PS airways (+ 15.15% ± 4.02%; P < 0.05 vs. additive effect). At low-to-medium concentrations the synergistic interaction was greater in PS than in NS bronchioles (+ 16.68% ± 3.02% and + 7.27% ± 3.05%, respectively). In PS small airways a very strong synergistic interaction (Combination Index: 0.08; + 20.04% ± 2.18% vs. additive effect) was detected for the total concentrations of BDP/FF combination corresponding to 10.6 ng/ml.

Conclusion

BDP/FF combination synergistically relaxed human bronchi; the extent of such an interaction was very strong at low-to-medium concentrations in PS small airways.

Trial registration

Not applicable.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-018-0770-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Current Approaches for Phenotyping as a Target for Precision Medicine in COPD Management

The study of airway diseases continues to present several challenges for modern medicine. The different disease presentations with variables and overlapping features may result in a real challenge for the clinician. In this context, the concept of precision medicine has started to emerge in order to give answers to some of these challenges from a diagnostic and therapeutic point of view. The main reasons to target for precision medicine in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) include that there is variability in the clinical presentation, there is no correlation between the different clinical variables at the patient level, there are a number of relevant clinical variables associated with outcomes, we do have specific therapies for specific patient types, and that there is variability in the clinical response to different therapies. To bring precision medicine into clinical practice several approaches have been used, including the use of independent variables to identify subjects, the use of multidimensional indexes, the so-called clinical phenotypes, and the approximation by the so-called treatable traits. All these approaches have their strengths and weaknesses which are reviewed in the present document. Although there is no universally accepted proposal, the available initiatives provide us with a framework on which to start working and move toward precision medicine in COPD, with the ultimate goal of bringing the best possible medicine to each patient in particular.

The Role of Tiotropium+Olodaterol Dual Bronchodilator Therapy in the Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Bronchodilator therapy is central to the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and are recommended as the preferred treatment by the Global Obstructive Lung Disease Initiative (GOLD). Long acting anti-muscarinics (LAMA) and long acting β₂ agonists (LABA) are both more effective than regular short-acting drugs but many patients remain symptomatic despite monotherapy with these drugs. Combination therapy with LAMA and LABA increases the therapeutic benefit while minimizing dose-dependent side effects of long-acting bronchodilator therapy. The TOviTO programme has investigated the benefits of treatment with a combination of tiotropium and olodaterol administered via a single inhaler. Tiotropium+olodaterol 5/5 μg significantly improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) area under the curve from 0 to 3 hours, trough FEV₁ health status and breathlessness versus the mono-components and placebo. Tiotropium+olodaterol 5/5 μg also increased endurance time and reduced dynamic hyperinflation during constant work rate cycle ergometry. On the basis of these and other studies the 2017 GOLD report recommends escalating to dual bronchodilator therapy in patients in groups B and C if they remain symptomatic or continue to have exacerbations and as initial therapy for patients in group D.

The impact of dual bronchodilation on cardiovascular serious adverse events and mortality in COPD: a quantitative synthesis

Objective

Long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are burdened by the potential risk of inducing cardiovascular serious adverse events (SAEs) in COPD patients. Since the risk of combining a LABA with a LAMA could be greater, we have carried out a quantitative synthesis to investigate the cardiovascular safety profile of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs).

Methods

A pair-wise and network meta-analysis was performed by using the data of the repository database ClinicalTrials.gov concerning the impact of approved LABA/LAMA FDCs versus monocomponents and/or placebo on cardiovascular SAEs in COPD.

Results

Overall, LABA/LAMA FDCs did not significantly (P>0.05) modulate the risk of cardiovascular SAEs versus monocomponents. However, the network meta-analysis indicated that aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 µg and tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg were the safest FDCs, followed by umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg which was as safe as placebo, whereas glycopyrronium/formoterol 14.9/9.6, glycopyrronium/indacaterol 15.6/27.5 µg, and glycopyrronium/indacaterol 50/110 µg were the least safe FDCs. No impact on mortality was detected for each specific FDC.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis indicates that LABA/LAMA FDC therapy is characterized by an excellent cardiovascular safety profile in COPD patients. However, the findings of this quantitative synthesis have been obtained from populations that participated in randomized clinical trials, and were devoid of major cardiovascular diseases. Thus, post-marketing surveillance and observational studies may help to better define the real impact of specific FDCs with regard to the cardiovascular risk.

When is dual bronchodilation indicated in COPD?

Inhaled bronchodilator medications are central to the management of COPD and are frequently given on a regular basis to prevent or reduce symptoms. While short-acting bronchodilators are a treatment option for people with relatively few COPD symptoms and at low risk of exacerbations, for the majority of patients with significant breathlessness at the time of diagnosis, long-acting bronchodilators may be required. Dual bronchodilation with a long-acting β2-agonist and long-acting muscarinic antagonist may be more effective treatment for some of these patients, with the aim of improving symptoms. This combination may also reduce the rate of exacerbations compared with a bronchodilator-inhaled corticosteroid combination in those with a history of exacerbations. However, there is currently a lack of guidance on clinical indicators suggesting which patients should step up from mono- to dual bronchodilation. In this article, we discuss a number of clinical indicators that could prompt a patient and physician to consider treatment escalation, while being mindful of the need to avoid unnecessary polypharmacy. These indicators include insufficient symptomatic response, a sustained increased requirement for rescue medication, suboptimal 24-hour symptom control, deteriorating symptoms, the occurrence of exacerbations, COPD-related hospitalization, and reductions in lung function. Future research is required to provide a better understanding of the optimal timing and benefits of treatment escalation and to identify the appropriate tools to inform this decision.

How Do Dual Long-Acting Bronchodilators Prevent Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease?

Decreasing the frequency and severity of exacerbations is one of the main goals of treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Several studies have documented that long-acting bronchodilators can reduce exacerbation rate and/or severity, and others have shown that combinations of long-acting β₂-adrenergic agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) provide greater reductions in exacerbation frequency than either their monocomponents or LABA/inhaled corticosteroid combinations in patients at low and high risk for these events. In this review, small groups of experts critically evaluated mechanisms potentially responsible for the increased benefit of LABA/LAMA combinations over single long-acting bronchodilators or LABA/inhaled corticosteroids in decreasing exacerbation. These included effects on lung hyperinflation and mechanical stress, inflammation, excessive mucus production with impaired mucociliary clearance, and symptom severity. The data assembled and analyzed by each group were reviewed by all authors and combined into this manuscript. Available clinical results support the possibility that effects of LABA/LAMA combinations on hyperinflation, mucociliary clearance, and symptom severity may all contribute to decreasing exacerbations. Although preclinical studies suggest LABAs and LAMAs have antiinflammatory effects, such effects have not been demonstrated yet in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Pharmacological characterization of the interaction between tiotropium and olodaterol administered at 5:5 concentration-ratio in equine bronchi

Equine airways represent a suitable ex vivo model to study the functional impact of pharmacological treatments on human chronic obstructive pulmonary disorders, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to characterize the pharmacological interaction between the long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) tiotropium and the long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) olodaterol in equine airways. The effect of tiotropium and olodaterol, administered alone and in combination at the ratio of concentrations reproducing ex vivo the concentration-ratio delivered by the currently available fixed-dose combination (FDC) (5:5), was investigated on the cholinergic contractile tone induced by the parasympathetic activation of equine isolated airways. The drug interaction was analysed by using the Bliss Independence and Unified Theory models. Both tiotropium and olodaterol induced a sub-maximal concentration-dependent inhibition of bronchial contractility (E_max: tiotropium 83.6 ± 14.8%, olodaterol 76.9 ± 17.9%; pEC₅₀: tiotropium 8.2 ± 0.5; olodaterol 8.3 ± 0.6). When administered at 5:5 concentration-ratio, tiotropium plus olodaterol completely inhibited the bronchial contractility (E_max 102.7 ± 8.4%; pEC₅₀ 9.0 ± 0.7). Strong synergistic interaction was detected for tiotropium/olodaterol combination (combination index 0.011). When administered at low concentrations, the drug mixture elicited up to 94.6 ± 9.5% effect that was 36.0 ± 8.1% greater than the expected additive effect. The results of this study demonstrate that the co-administration of tiotropium plus olodaterol at 5:5 concentration-ratio leads to synergistic inhibition of equine bronchial contractility when compared with either drug administered alone. These findings suggest that the currently available LABA/LABA FDC may be effective in delivering tiotropium/olodaterol combination at equipotency concentrations of each monocomponent into the lung and, thus, inducing synergistic effect in the airways.

Pharmacological characterization of the interaction between umeclidinium and vilanterol in human bronchi

The long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) / long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed dose combination (FDC) therapy represents the cornerstone for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Nevertheless, conflicting clinical findings still exist on the real benefit of the LABA/LAMA FDCs. Therefore, we investigated whether combining the LABA vilanterol with the LAMA umeclidinium may induce synergistic bronchorelaxant effect in isolated airways. The effect of umeclidinium and vilanterol, administered alone, in combination at the ratio of concentrations reproducing the doses delivered by Anoro^® Ellipta^® (55:22), or at isoeffective low concentrations, was investigated on the cholinergic contractile tone induced by the parasympathetic activation of human isolated airways. The interaction was analyzed by using the Bliss Independence and Unified Theory models. Umeclidinium and vilanterol induced a concentration-dependent relaxation of isolated bronchi, with umeclidinium significantly (P < 0.05) more potent than vilanterol (E_max at 10Hz: umeclidium 102.6 ± 6.8%, vilanterol 75.1 ± 13.8%; pEC₅₀ at 10Hz: umeclidinium 8.6 ± 0.4, vilanterol 6.9 ± 0.6). When administered at 55:22 concentration-ratio, umeclidinium plus vilanterol completely relaxed the isolated airways (E_max at 10Hz: 99.6 ± 8.0%; pEC₅₀ at 10Hz: 8.2 ± 0.4). No synergistic interaction was detected for umeclidinium/vilanterol combined at 55:22 ratio, whereas strong synergism was elicited when the drugs were administered at low isoeffective concentrations (+ 41.4 ± 5.8% vs. monocomponents), leading to submaximal relaxant effect (81.4 ± 5.8%). Umeclidinium and vilanterol are imbalanced when combined at 55:22 ratio, with umeclidinium over-dosed, or vice versa vilanterol under-dosed. Specific studies are needed to identify the dose ratio of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination to guarantee equipotency concentrations of each component into the lung, and induce synergistic bronchodilation.

Double bronchodilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a crude analysis from a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The combination of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) in a single inhaler is a viable treatment option for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here, we systematically review the current knowledge on double bronchodilation for the treatment of COPD, with a specific focus on its efficacy versus placebo and/or monotherapy bronchodilation.

METHODS

A systematic review of clinical trials investigating LABA/LAMA combination therapies was conducted. Articles were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Scopus on June 26, 2016. We specifically selected clinical trials with a randomized controlled or crossover design published in any scientific journal showing the following characteristics: 1) comparison of different LABA/LAMA combinations in a single inhaler for patients with COPD, 2) dose approved in Europe, and 3) focus on efficacy (versus placebo and/or bronchodilator monotherapy) in terms of lung function, respiratory symptoms, or exacerbations.

RESULTS

We analyzed 26 clinical trials conducted on 24,338 patients. All LABA/LAMA combinations were consistently able to improve lung function compared with both placebo and bronchodilator monotherapy. Improvements in symptoms were also consistent versus placebo, showing some lack of correlation for some clinical end points and combinations versus monotherapy bronchodilation. Albeit being an exploratory end point, exacerbations showed an improvement with LABA/LAMA combinations over placebo in some trials; however, scarce information was available in comparison with bronchodilator monotherapy in most studies.

CONCLUSION

Our data show consistent improvements for LABA/LAMA combinations, albeit with some variability (depending on the clinical end point, the specific combination, and the comparison group). Clinicians should be aware that these are average differences. All treatments should be tailored at the individual level to optimize clinical outcomes.

Umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have poor quality of life, reduced survival, and accelerated decline in lung function, especially associated with acute exacerbations, leading to high healthcare costs. Long-acting bronchodilators are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic improvement, and umeclidinium is one of the new long-acting muscarinic antagonists approved for treatment of patients with stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, and the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Clinical Study Register, using prespecified terms, as well as the reference lists of all identified studies. Searches are current to April 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing umeclidinium bromide versus placebo in people with COPD, for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. If we noted significant heterogeneity in the meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies by umeclidinium dose.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies of 12 to 52 weeks' duration, involving 3798 participants with COPD. Mean age of participants ranged from 60.1 to 64.6 years; most were males with baseline mean smoking pack-years of 39.2 to 52.3. They had moderate to severe COPD and baseline mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) ranging from 44.5% to 55.1% of predicted normal. As all studies were systematically conducted according to prespecified protocols, we assessed risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases as low.Compared with those given placebo, participants in the umeclidinium group had a lesser likelihood of developing moderate exacerbations requiring a short course of steroids, antibiotics, or both (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.80; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: high), but not specifically requiring hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.92; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: low). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent an acute exacerbation requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both was 18 (95% CI 13 to 37). Quality of life was better in the umeclidinium group (mean difference (MD) -4.79, 95% CI -8.84 to -0.75; three studies, N = 1119), and these participants had a significantly higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least four units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score compared with those in the placebo group (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.82; three studies, N = 1397; GRADE: moderate). The NNTB to achieve one person with a clinically meaningful improvement was 11 (95% CI 7 to 29). The likelihood of all-cause mortality, non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: moderate), and adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: moderate) did not differ between umeclidinium and placebo groups. The umeclidinium group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in change from baseline in trough FEV₁ compared with the placebo group (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.17; four studies, N = 1381; GRADE: high). Symptomatic improvement was more likely in the umeclidinium group than in the placebo group, as determined by Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.09; three studies, N = 1193), and the chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least one unit improvement was significantly higher with umeclidinium than with placebo (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; three studies, N = 1141; GRADE: high). The NNTB to attain one person with clinically important symptomatic improvement was 8 (95% CI 5 to 14). The likelihood of rescue medication usage (change from baseline in the number of puffs per day) was significantly less for the umeclidinium group than for the placebo group (MD -0.45, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14; four studies, N = 1531).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Umeclidinium reduced acute exacerbations requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both, although no evidence suggests that it decreased the risk of hospital admission due to exacerbations. Moreover, umeclidinium demonstrated significant improvement in quality of life, lung function, and symptoms, along with lesser use of rescue medications. Studies reported no differences in adverse events, non-fatal serious adverse events, or mortality between umeclidinium and placebo groups; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Is bronchodilator the correct treatment for COPD subjects before EBUS?

Endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a reliable and commonly established technique, enabling real-time guidance of transbronchial needle aspiration of mediastinal and hilar structures and parabronchial lung masses. As EBUS-TBNA became more available and adopted by clinicians, questions emerged about the optimal performance of the procedure. Although EBUS is considered safe, there are few complications that could occur during the test, correlated with both the procedure itself and the patient's characteristics. Moreover, this technique is often addressed to patients with overlapping airways diseases, which might have higher risk of complications during the procedure. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients could experience EBUS-TBNA with a relative high frequency due to their risk of developing lung cancer. The irreversible bronchial constriction characteristic of the disease raises some questions on premedication before bronchoscopic procedures. It is mandatory to optimize every aspect of the procedure in order to minimize the risk of complications, especially for fragile patients. Whether the use of inhaled bronchodilators before the procedure could improve the outcome of the procedure in COPD patients is reviewed in this article. No clear indication emerged from the literature suggesting the need of more studies in order to clarify this point.