A randomised, phase III trial of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 μg versus once-daily vilanterol 25 μg to evaluate the contribution on lung function of fluticasone furoate in the combination in patients with COPD

Intraclass comparison of inhaled corticosteroids for the risk of pneumonia in chronic obstructive pulmonary airway disorder: a network meta-analysis and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Inhalational corticosteroids (ICS) were observed to increase the pneumonia risk in chronic obstructive pulmonary airway disorder (COPD). However, it is unknown whether any differences exist between the drugs within the ICS class.

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the risk of pneumonia associated with different ICS and identify factors that predict pneumonia in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD using a network meta-analysis.

METHOD

Electronic databases (Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL and Google Scholar) were searched for trials comparing ICS in COPD patients. The outcomes were pneumonia and serious pneumonia. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were estimated. Meta-regression was used to identify the predictors. The strength of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach.

RESULTS

Sixty-six studies (103,347 participants) were included. Fluticasone (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.26, 1.7), mometasone (OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.05, 4.6), and beclometasone (OR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.6) were observed with an increased pneumonia risk compared to placebo. Fluticasone (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.3, 1.7) was observed with an increased risk of serious pneumonia. High doses (OR: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.4), BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.2), and history of exacerbations in the preceding year predicted the pneumonia risk. Evidence strength was moderate.

CONCLUSION

ICS class differences in pneumonia risk were observed in terms of pooled effect estimates but it is unlikely that any clinically relevant differences exist. Risk-benefit analysis supports ICS use in moderate-severe COPD.

PREVAX: A Phase I Clinical Trial of an EGF-Based Vaccine in Moderate-to-Severe COPD Patients

BACKGROUND

EGFR has been suggested to contribute to COPD development and progression. Excessive ligand activation of the receptor leads to epithelial hyperproliferation and increased production of mucus, together with alterations in the primary cilia. The present study was designed to evaluate the safety and effect of depleting EGF in moderate-to-severe COPD patients, with an EGF-based vaccine.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A phase I trial was conducted in subjects with moderate or severe COPD. The anti-EGF vaccine schedule consisted of 4 biweekly doses followed by 4 monthly boosters. The primary endpoint was the evaluation of the safety and immunogenicity of the vaccine, together with the change in FEV1 and physical function at week 24.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients with moderate or severe COPD were included in the trial. The vaccine was well tolerated and no serious related adverse events were reported. Ninety percent of the individuals developed a protective antibody response. The specific anti-EGF antibodies had high avidity and were able to inhibit EGFR phosphorylation. At the end of vaccination, serum EGF became undetectable. At week 24, there was a clinically significant improvement in lung function, with a mean change in trough FEV1 of 106 mL. Patients also increased their physical functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

The EGF-based vaccine was immunogenic and provoked an EGF exhaustion in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Depleting EGF might result in a meaningful increase in FEV1, with good tolerability. The current results provide new avenues to treat chronic inflammatory lung diseases associated with EGFR aberrant signaling.

Association between inhaled corticosteroid use and risk of hyperglycemia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients have a higher risk of developing diabetes, and studies suggest that inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) use may be associated with a higher risk of diabetes, particularly at higher doses. This study aims to investigate the effects of ICS use on the risk of diabetes and blood glucose levels in COPD patients.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search was carried out on the PubMed, EBSCOhost, and ProQuest databases using the terms "Inhaled Corticosteroids," "Diabetes," and "Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease" for the period between 2013 and 2023. The systematic review adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guideline. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model using the RevMan 5 software.

Results

A total of 14 studies were included in the final analysis, with 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 observational studies. Two observational studies investigated the relationship between ICS dose and diabetes risk. A meta-analysis of the RCTs studies showed a nonstatistically significant tendency toward increased blood glucose (odds ratio [OR] 1.07 and 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.30) after a 52-week follow-up. Whereas the observational studies showed a tendency toward an increased risk of diabetes (OR 1.40 and 95% CI 0.96-2.03). Furthermore, a subgroup meta-analysis of high-dose ICS (>900 μg/day) showed a significant increase in the risk of diabetes (OR 1.20 and 95% CI 1.09-1.32).

Conclusion

Short-term use of ICS does not have a significant effect on blood glucose. However, long-term use, especially at higher doses, can increase the risk of developing diabetes.

Effect of fracture risk in inhaled corticosteroids in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The fracture risk of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treated with inhaled corticosteroids is controversial. And some large-scale randomized controlled trials have not solved this problem. The purpose of our systematic review and meta-analysis including 44 RCTs is to reveal the effect of inhaled corticosteroids on the fracture risk of COPD patients.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently retrieved randomized controlled trials of inhaled corticosteroids or combinations of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of COPD from PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The primary outcome was a fracture event. This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022366778).

RESULTS

Forty-four RCTs were performed in 87,594 patients. Inhaled therapy containing ICSs (RR, 1.19; 95%CI, 1.04-1.37; P = 0.010), especially ICS/LABA (RR, 1.30; 95%CI, 1.10-1.53; P = 0.002) and triple therapy (RR, 1.49; 95%CI, 1.03-2.17; P = 0.04) were significantly associated with the increased risk of fracture in COPD patients when compared with inhaled therapy without ICSs. Subgroup analyses showed that treatment duration ≥ 12 months (RR, 1.19; 95%CI, 1.04-1.38; P = 0.01), budesonide therapy (RR, 1.64; 95%CI., 1.07-2.51; P = 0.02), fluticasone furoate therapy (RR, 1.37; 95%CI, 1.05-1.78; P = 0.02), mean age of study participants ≥ 65 (RR, 1.27; 95%CI, 1.01-1.61; P = 0.04), and GOLD stage III(RR, 1.18; 95%CI, 1.00-1.38; P = 0.04) were significantly associated with an increased risk of fracture. In addition, budesonide ≥ 320 ug bid via MDI (RR, 1.75; 95%CI, 1.07-2.87; P = 0.03) was significantly associated with the increased risk of fracture.

CONCLUSION

Inhalation therapy with ICSs, especially ICS/LABA or triple therapy, increased the risk of fracture in patients with COPD compared with inhaled therapy without ICS. Treatment duration, mean age of participants, GOLD stage, drug dosage form, and drug dose participated in this association. Moreover, different inhalation devices of the same drug also had differences in risk of fracture.

Icenticaftor, a CFTR Potentiator, in COPD: A Multicenter, Parallel-Group, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

Rationale: CFTR (cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator) dysfunction is associated with mucus accumulation and worsening chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) symptoms. Objectives: The aim of this phase IIb dose-finding study was to compare a CFTR potentiator, icenticaftor (QBW251), with placebo in patients with COPD and chronic bronchitis. Methods: Patients with COPD on triple therapy for at least three months were randomized to six treatment arms (icenticaftor 450, 300, 150, 75, or 25 mg or placebo twice daily [b.i.d.]) in a 24-week, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind study. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in trough FEV1 after 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included change from baseline in trough FEV1 and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS) total and cough and sputum scores after 24 weeks. Multiple comparison procedure-modeling was conducted to characterize dose-response relationship. Rescue medication use, exacerbations, and change in serum fibrinogen concentration after 24 weeks were assessed in exploratory and post hoc analyses, respectively. Measurements and Main Results: Nine hundred seventy-four patients were randomized. After 12 weeks of icenticaftor treatment, no dose-response relationship for change from baseline in trough FEV1 was observed; however, it was observed for E-RS cough and sputum score. A dose-response relationship was observed after 24 weeks for trough FEV1, E-RS cough and sputum and total scores, rescue medication use, and fibrinogen. A dose of 300 mg b.i.d. was consistently the most effective. Improvements for 300 mg b.i.d. versus placebo were also seen in pairwise comparisons of these endpoints. All treatments were well tolerated. Conclusions: The primary endpoint was negative, as icenticaftor did not improve trough FEV1 over 12 weeks. Although the findings must be interpreted with caution, icenticaftor improved trough FEV1; reduced cough, sputum, and rescue medication use; and lowered fibrinogen concentrations at 24 weeks. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04072887).

Efficacy and safety of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy for mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a study protocol for a randomised and interventional study

INTRODUCTION

Bronchodilators, including long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and long-acting beta 2 agonists (LABA), are the main treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy of triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroids/LAMA/LABA) has also been reported. However, the effect of triple therapy on patients with mild-to-moderate COPD has not yet been clarified. This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of triple therapy, compared with LAMA/LABA combination therapy, for lung function and health-related quality of life in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD and identify baseline characteristics and biomarkers to predict responders and non-responders to triple therapy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomised, parallel-group study. Mild-to-moderate patients with COPD will be randomised to receive fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol or umeclidinium/vilanterol for 24 weeks. A total of 668 patients will be enrolled from March 2022 to September 2023 from 38 sites in Japan. The primary endpoint is the change in the trough forced expiration volume in 1 s after 12 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints are responder rates based on the COPD assessment test score and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score after 24 weeks of treatment. The safety endpoint is the occurrence of any adverse events. We will also investigate safety in terms of changes in microbial colonisation in sputum and antimycobacterium avium complex antibodies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol and informed consent documents were approved by the Saga University Clinical Research Review Board (approval number: CRB7180010). Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients. Recruitment of the patients began in March 2022. The results will be disseminated through scientific peer-reviewed publications and domestic and international medical conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

UMIN000046812 and jRCTs031190008.

Association of Inhaled Corticosteroids With All-Cause Mortality Risk in Patients With COPD: A Meta-analysis of 60 Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) have been used widely in the maintenance therapy of COPD. However, whether inhaled therapy containing ICSs can reduce the all-cause mortality risk and the possible benefited patient subgroups is unclear.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does inhaled therapy containing ICSs reduce the all-cause mortality risk in patients with COPD compared with other inhaled therapies not containing ICSs?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Pooled results were calculated using Peto ORs with corresponding 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Sixty RCTs enrolling 103,034 patients were analyzed. Inhaled therapy containing ICSs (Peto OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97), especially triple therapy (Peto OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91), was associated with a reduction in the all-cause mortality risk among patients with COPD when compared with inhaled therapy without ICSs. Subgroup analyses revealed that treatment duration of > 6 months (Peto OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97), medium-dose ICSs (Peto OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.91), low-dose ICSs (Peto OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97), and budesonide (Peto OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.94) were involved in this association. The predictors of this association included eosinophil counts of ≥ 200/μL or percentage of ≥ 2%, documented history of ≥ 2 moderate and severe exacerbations in the previous year, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stages III or IV, age younger than 65 years, and BMI of ≥ 25 kg/m2, among which eosinophil counts of ≥ 200/μL (Peto OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95) were the strongest predictor.

INTERPRETATION

Inhaled therapy containing ICSs, especially triple therapy, of longer than 6 months was associated with a reduction in the all-cause mortality risk in patients with COPD. The predictors of this association included medication factors and patient characteristics, among which eosinophil counts of ≥ 200/μL were the strongest predictor.

TRIAL REGISTRY

PROSPERO; No.: CRD42022304725; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Performance of the Cough and Sputum Assessment Questionnaire (CASA-Q) in COPD: Evidence from Clinical and Online Patient Interaction Studies

Introduction

Patient perception of the burden of chronic bronchitis symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be assessed using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The Cough and Sputum Assessment Questionnaire (CASA-Q) was developed and tested for this purpose. This study reviewed the performance of the CASA-Q in published online studies and tested a novel approach to complement traditional methods of qualitative content validation.

Methods

A targeted literature search was performed to identify published clinical studies of COPD using the CASA-Q as an endpoint. The performance of the questionnaire was examined in relation to other study endpoints, including clinical and functional measurements and other PROMs. Assessment of the content validity of the CASA-Q was carried out by comparing the content and structure of the questionnaire with published qualitative patient data from previously conducted online social media listening (SML) and online bulletin board (OBB) studies.

Results

In the interventional clinical trials, CASA-Q change scores were consistent with study objectives and other endpoints, including FEV1 and other PROMs. Two observational studies showed cross-sectional correlations with other PROMs like the St.-George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and COPD assessment test (CAT) scores. Qualitative data from the SML and OBB patient studies were consistent with the content and structure of the CASA-Q, supporting the content validity of the measure.

Conclusion

Results suggest that the CASA-Q is appropriately responsive to changes in cough and sputum symptoms and clinical impact in trials of COPD. The mapping of qualitative findings from online SML and OBB studies to CASA-Q domains and items confirm the content validity of the instrument. These results suggest the CASA-Q can be a valuable tool for evaluating treatment effect in COPD trials.

Efficacy of ICS versus Non-ICS Combination Therapy in COPD: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Background

Several large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have assessed the efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination regimens versus non-ICS therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at increased risk of exacerbation risk with mixed results.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the effect of ICS-containing combination therapy and non-ICS regimen in patients with COPD.

Results

A total of 54 RCTs (N = 57,333) reported treatment effects on various outcomes and were eligible for inclusion. Overall, the number of patients experiencing moderate/severe exacerbations was significantly lower for ICS-containing combination therapy versus non-ICS therapy (RR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.80-0.93]). The annual rate of exacerbations was also significantly reduced by 22% (0.78 [0.72-0.86]) with ICS-containing versus non-ICS therapy. The annual rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation was reduced by 31% versus non-ICS therapy (0.69 [0.54-0.88]); similar reduction was observed for exacerbations requiring oral steroids (0.69 [0.66-0.73]). Overall, the effect on trough FEV1 was comparable between ICS-containing and non-ICS therapies (follow-up: 6-52 weeks); however, a significant improvement in lung function (trough FEV1) was observed for ICS/LABA versus LABA (MD: +0.04 L [0.03-0.05]) and ICS/LABA/LAMA versus LAMA (MD: +0.09 L [0.05-0.13]) regimens. In addition, a significant improvement in QoL was observed with ICS-containing versus non-ICS therapy (MD in SGRQ score: -0.90 [-1.50, -0.31]).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrated that a wide range of patients with COPD could benefit from dual and triple ICS-containing therapy.

Bayesian multiregional clinical trials using model averaging

Multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs) provide the benefit of more rapidly introducing drugs to the global market; however, small regional sample sizes can lead to poor estimation quality of region-specific effects when using current statistical methods. With the publication of the International Conference for Harmonisation E17 guideline in 2017, the MRCT design is recognized as a viable strategy that can be accepted by regional regulatory authorities, necessitating new statistical methods that improve the quality of region-specific inference. In this article, we develop a novel methodology for estimating region-specific and global treatment effects for MRCTs using Bayesian model averaging. This approach can be used for trials that compare two treatment groups with respect to a continuous outcome, and it allows for the incorporation of patient characteristics through the inclusion of covariates. We propose an approach that uses posterior model probabilities to quantify evidence in favor of consistency of treatment effects across all regions, and this metric can be used by regulatory authorities for drug approval. We show through simulations that the proposed modeling approach results in lower MSE than a fixed-effects linear regression model and better control of type I error rates than a Bayesian hierarchical model.

Association between ICS use and risk of hyperglycemia in COPD patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effect of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on risk of hyperglycemia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains ambiguous. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between ICS use and the incidence of hyperglycemia related adverse effects in COPD patients.

METHODS

Medline/PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 25 May 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ICS versus control (non-ICS) treatment for COPD patients reporting on risk of hyperglycemia were included. The Mantel-Haenszel method with fixed-effects modeling was used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs with 43,430 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled results suggested that there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of hyperglycemia between the ICS group and the control group (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90-1.16, P = 0.76). In addition, no significant difference was noted in the effect on glucose level (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.79-1.82, P = 0.40), risk of diabetes progression (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.20-3.51, P = 0.81) and new onset diabetes mellitus (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.88-1.15, P = 0.95) between the ICS group and the control group. These findings also were consistent across all subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of ICS does not have an effect on the blood glucose and is not associated with the risk of new onset diabetes mellitus and diabetes progression in patients with COPD. Further RCTs exploring the association between ICS use and risk of hyperglycemia in COPD patients are still needed to verify our results of this analysis.

Inhaled Corticosteroids and the Pneumonia Risk in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Whether all types of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) would increase the pneumonia risk in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains controversial. We aimed to assess the association between ICSs treatment and pneumonia risk in COPD patients, and the impact of medication details and baseline characteristics of patients on the association.

Methods: Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials.gov) were searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ICSs treatment with non-ICSs treatment on the pneumonia risk in COPD patients. Pooled results were calculated using Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: A total of 59 RCTs enrolling 103,477 patients were analyzed. All types of ICSs significantly increased the pneumonia risk (Peto OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.34–1.53). Subgroup analysis showed that there was a dose-response relationship between ICSs treatment and pneumonia risk (low-dose: Peto OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.22–1.45; medium-dose: Peto OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.28–1.76; and high-dose: Peto OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.45–1.85). Subgroup analyses based on treatment durations and baseline characteristics (severity, age, and body mass index) of patients were consistant with the above results. Subgroup analysis based on severity of pneumonia showed that fluticasone (Peto OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.44–2.14) increased the risk of serious pneumonia, while budesonide and beclomethasone did not.

Conclusions: ICSs treatment significantly increased the risk of pneumonia in COPD patients. There was a dose-response relationship between ICSs treatment and pneumonia risk. The pneumonia risk was related with COPD severity.

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.

Risk of Pneumonia with Different Inhaled Corticosteroids in COPD Patients: A Meta-Analysis

ICS are anti-inflammatory agents which have been suggested to benefit people with worsening symptoms of COPD, by improving lung function, reducing exacerbation of disease, and enhancing overall quality of life. This systematic review and meta-analysis explored the association of the risk of pneumonia in COPD patients that were undergoing treatment using ICS alone or together with LABAs or LAMAs. PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE were systematically searched through August 1, 2019; only double-blinded randomized controlled trials were eligible for this study. Eighteen randomized controlled trials were included. ICS treatment was linked to increased pneumonia incidence (RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.26-1.71; p < 0.001; I2 = 39.6%). Patients treated with salmeterol/fluticasone were more likely to have experience pneumonia-related adverse events than those treated using budesonide/formoterol or beclomethasone/formoterol. In subgroup analyses, pneumonia risk was found to be higher in the subgroups: >65 years old, lowest baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration (FEV1) < 50% of the predicted value, highest ICS dose, and long duration of ICS use. Furthermore, we compared fluticasone propionate with fluticasone furoate and determined that pneumonia incidence was higher in the former group and pneumonia incidence rose as doses rose in these two groups. However, no difference was observed between the budesonide and beclomethasone groups. ICS treatment was linked to an elevated pneumonia risk, different kinds of ICS lead to different rates of pneumonia.

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.