Appropriate use of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: the candidates for safe withdrawal

Withdrawal of Inhaled Corticosteroids from Patients with COPD; Effect on Exacerbation Frequency and Lung Function: A Systematic Review

Background

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations. It should only be prescribed to COPD patients who are not adequately controlled by dual long-acting bronchodilator therapy and who have ≥2 exacerbations per year and a blood eosinophil count ≥300cells/µL. ICS therapy is widely prescribed outside guidelines to COPD patients, making ICS withdrawal an important consideration. This systematic review aims to provide an up-to-date analysis of the effect of ICS withdrawal on exacerbation frequency, change in lung function (FEV1) and to determine the proportion of COPD patients who resume ICS therapy following withdrawal.

Methods

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies which compared ICS withdrawal with ICS continuation treatment were included. Cochrane Central, Web of Science, CINHAL, Embase and OVID Medline were searched. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Quality assessment of RCTs was conducted using GRADE. Meta-analysis of post-hoc analyses of RCTs of ICS withdrawal, stratified by blood eosinophil count (BEC), was undertaken.

Results

Ten RCTs (6642 patients randomised) and 6 observational studies (160,029 patients) were included in the results. When ICS was withdrawn and long-acting bronchodilator therapy was maintained, there was no consistent difference in exacerbation frequency or lung function change between the ICS withdrawal and continuation trial arms. The evidence for these effects was of moderate quality. There was insufficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion on the proportion of patients who resumed ICS therapy following withdrawal (estimated range 12-93% of the participants).

Discussion

Withdrawal of ICS therapy from patients with COPD is safe and feasible but should be accompanied by maintenance of bronchodilation therapy for optimal outcomes.

Inhaled corticosteroid treatment and pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - nationwide development from 1998 to 2018

Background

A decreasing use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with a hospital-registered diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has recently been documented in Denmark. ICS treatment is not recommended in patients with high pneumonia risk, and we aimed to assess the development of ICS treatment in relation to pneumonia occurrence.

Methods

Annual nationwide register-based cross-sectional studies from 1998 to 2018 including all patients ≥40 years of age with a hospital-registered ICD-10 diagnosis of COPD on the 31st of December each year. We calculated the annual proportion of patients with at least one outpatient pneumonia (redeemed prescription of relevant antibiotics) or pneumonia hospitalization (hospitalization or ER visit), and stratified by ICS dose (No ICS, low dose, medium dose, or high dose).

Results

The study population increased from 35,656 patients in 1998 to 99,057 patients in 2018. The annual proportion of patients experiencing a pneumonia decreased from 69.4% to 55.2%. The proportion of patients with at least one outpatient pneumonia, but no hospitalization, decreased (59.2% to 46.2%). The overall proportion of patients with at least one pneumonia hospitalization remained unchanged (10.2% to 9.0%), but this proportion increased in patients in high dose ICS (9.9% to 14.6%). The overall proportion of patients in high dose treatment decreased (12.7% to 5.7%), but not in patients with pneumonia hospitalization (16.5% to 15.1).

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates a nationwide decrease from 1998 to 2018 in the proportion of patients who redeemed a prescription for antibiotics used mainly for respiratory tract infections, which may reflect a decrease in the number of outpatient pneumonias. This decrease was largely caused by an increase in the number of patients without pneumonia. No differences over time were seen regarding hospitalization-requiring pneumonia. High dose ICS treatment was unchanged in patients with hospitalization-requiring pneumonia.

De-Prescribing Inhaled Corticosteroids in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Narrative Review

Objective: Combination therapy, including inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), is often prescribed as initial treatment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) despite limited evidence that ICS therapy is beneficial. Prescribing rates exceed the estimated number of candidates diagnosed with COPD who are eligible for ICS treatment per guideline-directed therapy. Therefore, some patients would benefit from ICS withdrawal due to potentially inappropriate prescribing. This review aims to highlight evidence evaluating ICS withdrawal approaches in COPD. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was performed between June 2021 and March 2022 with assistance from a reference librarian. Sources of literature review include PubMed and Embase. The authors selected randomized controlled trials and articles evaluating ICS withdrawal approaches in patients with COPD. Three clinical trials and one post-hoc analysis are discussed in this review. Pertinent safety, efficacy, and statistical and clinical outcomes are summarized. Conclusions: The most appropriate approach to de-prescribe ICS maintenance therapy in COPD without clear indication remains uncertain. Pharmacists can play a role in optimizing clinical outcomes by analyzing ICS use in practice and identifying potential candidates for ICS withdrawal. The withdrawal protocols discussed in this review offer options for clinicians to help guide therapy decisions.

Rational use of inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of COPD

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the mainstay of treatment for asthma, but their role in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is debated. Recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in patients with COPD and frequent or severe exacerbations demonstrated a significant reduction (~25%) in exacerbations with ICS in combination with dual bronchodilator therapy (triple therapy). However, the suggestion of a mortality benefit associated with ICS in these trials has since been rejected by the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration. Observational evidence from routine clinical practice demonstrates that dual bronchodilation is associated with better clinical outcomes than triple therapy in a broad population of patients with COPD and infrequent exacerbations. This reinforces guideline recommendations that ICS-containing maintenance therapy should be reserved for patients with frequent or severe exacerbations and high blood eosinophils (~10% of the COPD population), or those with concomitant asthma. However, data from routine clinical practice indicate ICS overuse, with up to 50-80% of patients prescribed ICS. Prescription of ICS in patients not fulfilling guideline criteria puts patients at unnecessary risk of pneumonia and other long-term adverse events and also has cost implications, without any clear benefit in disease control. In this article, we review the benefits and risks of ICS use in COPD, drawing on evidence from RCTs and observational studies conducted in primary care. We also provide a practical guide to prescribing ICS, based on the latest global treatment guidelines, to help primary care providers identify patients for whom the benefits of ICS outweigh the risks.

A descriptive cohort study of withdrawal from inhaled corticosteroids in COPD patients

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy is widely prescribed without a history of exacerbations and consensus guidelines suggest withdrawal of ICS in these patients would reduce the risk of side effects and promote cost-effective prescribing. The study describes the prescribing behaviour in the United Kingdom (UK) in relation to ICS withdrawal and identifies clinical outcomes following withdrawal using primary and secondary care electronic health records between January 2012 and December 2017. Patients with a history ≥12 months’ exposure who withdrew ICS for ≥6 months were identified into two cohorts; those prescribed a long-acting bronchodilator maintenance therapy and those that were not prescribed any maintenance therapy. The duration of withdrawal, predictors of restarting ICS, and clinical outcomes were compared between both patient cohorts. Among 76,808 patients that had ≥1 prescription of ICS in the study period, 11,093 patients (14%) withdrew ICS therapy at least once during the study period. The median time without ICS was 9 months (IQR 7–14), with the majority (71%) receiving subsequent ICS prescriptions after withdrawal. Patients receiving maintenance therapy with a COPD review at withdrawal were 28% less likely to restart ICS (HR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.61, 0.85). Overall, 69% and 89% of patients that withdrew ICS had no recorded exacerbation event or COPD hospitalisation, respectively, during the withdrawal. This study provides evidence that most patients withdrawing from ICS do not experience COPD exacerbations and withdrawal success can be achieved by carefully planning routine COPD reviews whilst optimising the use of available maintenance therapies.

A Pooled Analysis of Mortality in Patients with COPD Receiving Dual Bronchodilation with and without Additional Inhaled Corticosteroid

Background

Recent studies report a lower mortality rate during treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) versus LAMA/LABA in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations.

Objective

We compared time to all-cause mortality with LAMA/LABA versus LAMA/LABA/ICS in patients with mild-to-very-severe COPD and a predominantly low exacerbation risk.

Methods

Data were pooled from six randomized controlled trials (TONADO 1/2, DYNAGITO, WISDOM, UPLIFT and TIOSPIR; LAMA/LABA: n = 3156, LAMA/LABA/ICS: n = 11,891). Analysis was on-treatment and data were censored at 52 weeks. Patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS received ICS prior to study entry, which was not withdrawn at randomization. Patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS were propensity score (PS)-matched to patients on LAMA/LABA who had not previously received ICS; covariates included age, sex, geographical region, smoking status, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second percent predicted, exacerbation history in previous year, body mass index and time since diagnosis. Time to all-cause mortality was assessed using Cox proportional hazard regression models.

Results

After PS matching, 3133 patients on LAMA/LABA and 3133 patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS were analyzed. Fewer than 20% of patients reported ≥2 exacerbations in the prior year (LAMA/LABA: 19.1%; LAMA/LABA/ICS: 19.0%). There were 41 (1.3%) deaths on LAMA/LABA and 45 (1.4%) deaths on LAMA/LABA/ICS. No statistically significant difference in time to death was observed between treatment arms (hazard ratio for LAMA/LABA 1.06; 95% confidence intervals 0.68, 1.64; P = 0.806). Sensitivity analyses conducted using different covariates or in an intent-to-treat population showed similar results.

Conclusion

This pooled analysis of over 6000 patients with mild-to-very-severe COPD and predominantly low exacerbation risk showed no differences in mortality with LAMA/LABA versus LAMA/LABA/ICS, suggesting that the survival benefit of triple therapy seen in some recent studies may be specific to a high-risk population. This supports current Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease recommendations that triple therapy should be reserved for the subpopulations of patients who need it the most (eg, those with an eosinophilic phenotype and a high risk of exacerbations) to avoid ICS overuse.

Triple Therapy in COPD: Time for Adaptive Selection Trials

Recent trials reported significant reductions in all-cause mortality with single-inhaler triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, reviews of these trials identified inconsistencies in the findings and methodological issues with the design and analysis, including the "adverse impact of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) withdrawal rather than the addition" of the triple therapy. Indeed, ICS were discontinued in over 70% of the patients in these trials and 40% already using triple therapy, muddying the interpretation of the data. The "adaptive" clinical trial design is an efficient approach that allows continual modification of the study treatment allocation during follow-up. In this article, we propose the "adaptive selection" trial design, which applies the adaptive concept to the selection of patients into the trial by adapting the randomization choices to the treatment already used by the patients. With such a design, patients already on triple therapy would be excluded outright from trials of triple therapy effectiveness, while the others are randomly allocated to specific treatment arms according to their current treatment, avoiding issues of treatment withdrawal effects. Adaptive selection trials should be the norm for studies of COPD therapies. This approach would avoid the vexing effects of treatment withdrawal that have afflicted the recent triple therapy trials. This concept of adaptive selection has been applied in COPD to the question of whether patients can be safely de-escalated from ICS. It is time to also apply it to studies of the effectiveness of treatment escalation.

Improving the risk-to-benefit ratio of inhaled corticosteroids through delivery and dose: current progress and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are known to increase the risk of systemic and local adverse effects, especially with high doses and long-term use. Hence, considerable resources are invested to improve pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) properties of ICS, effective delivery systems and novel combination therapies to enhance the risk-to-benefit ratio of ICS.

AREAS COVERED

There is an unmet need for new solutions to achieve optimal clinical outcomes with minimal dose of ICS. This paper gives an overview of novel treatment strategies regarding the safety of ICS therapy on the basis of the three most recent molecules introduced to our everyday clinical practice - ciclesonide, mometasone furoate, and fluticasone furoate. Advances in aerosol devices and new areas of inhalation therapy are also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Current progress in improving the risk-to-benefit ratio of ICS through dose and delivery probably established pathways for further developments. This applies both to the improvement of the PK/PD properties of ICS molecules but also includes technical aspects that lead to simplified applicability of the device with simultaneous optimal drug deposition in the lungs. Indubitably, the future of medicine lies not only in the development of new molecules but also in technology and digital revolution.

Effectiveness and Safety of COPD Maintenance Therapy with Tiotropium/Olodaterol versus LABA/ICS in a US Claims Database

Introduction

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) combination therapy significantly improves lung function versus LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). To investigate whether LAMA/LABA could provide better clinical outcomes than LABA/ICS, this non-interventional database study assessed the risk of COPD exacerbations, pneumonia, and escalation to triple therapy in patients with COPD initiating maintenance therapy with tiotropium/olodaterol versus any LABA/ICS combination.

Methods

Administrative healthcare claims and laboratory results data from the US HealthCore Integrated Research Database^sm were evaluated for patients with COPD initiating tiotropium/olodaterol versus LABA/ICS treatment (January 2013–March 2019). Patients were aged at least 40 years with a diagnosis of COPD (but not asthma) at cohort entry. A Cox proportional hazard regression model was used (as-treated analysis) to assess risk of COPD exacerbation, community-acquired pneumonia, and escalation to triple therapy, both individually and as a combined risk of any one of these events. Potential imbalance of confounding factors between cohorts was handled using fine stratification, reweighting, and trimming by exposure propensity score (high-dimensional); subgroup analyses were conducted on the basis of blood eosinophil levels and exacerbation history.

Results

The total population consisted of 61,985 patients (tiotropium/olodaterol n = 2684; LABA/ICS n = 59,301); after reweighting, the total was 42,953 patients (tiotropium/olodaterol n = 2600; LABA/ICS n = 40,353; mean age 65 years; female 54.5%). Patients treated with tiotropium/olodaterol versus LABA/ICS experienced a reduction in the risk of COPD exacerbations (adjusted hazard ratio 0.76 [95% confidence interval 0.68, 0.85]), pneumonia (0.74 [0.57, 0.97]), escalation to triple therapy (0.22 [0.19, 0.26]), and any one of these events (0.45 [0.41, 0.49]); the combined risk was similar irrespective of baseline eosinophils and exacerbation history.

Conclusions

In patients with COPD, tiotropium/olodaterol was associated with a lower risk of COPD exacerbations, pneumonia, and escalation to triple therapy versus LABA/ICS, both individually and in combination; the combined risk was reduced irrespective of baseline eosinophils or exacerbation history.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04138758 (registered 23 October 2019).

Graphic Abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01646-5.

Perceptions of COPD patients of the proposed withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids prescribed outside guidelines: A qualitative study

Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines support the prescription of fixed combination inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β-agonists in symptomatic COPD patients with frequent or severe exacerbations, with the aim of preventing them. ICS are frequently also prescribed to COPD patients with mild or moderate airflow limitation, outside guidelines, with the risk of unwanted effects. No investigation to date has addressed the views of these milder COPD patients on ICS withdrawal. The objective is to assess the views of COPD patients with mild or moderate airflow limitation on the staged withdrawal of ICS prescribed outside guidelines. One-to-one semi-structured qualitative interviews exploring COPD patients’ views about ICS use and their attitudes to proposed de-prescription were conducted. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was completed. Seventeen eligible COPD patients were interviewed. Many participants were not aware they were using an ICS. None was aware that prevention of exacerbations was the indication for ICS therapy or the risk of associated side effects. Some were unconcerned by what they perceived as low individual risk. Others expressed fears of worsening symptoms on withdrawal. Most with mild or moderate airflow limitation would have been willing to attempt withdrawal or titration to a lower dosage of ICS if advised by their clinician, particularly if a reasoned explanation were offered. Attitudes in this study to discontinuing ICS use varied. Knowledge of the drug itself, the indications for its prescription in COPD and potential for side effects, was scant. The proposed withdrawal of ICS is likely to be challenging and requires detailed conversations between patients and respiratory healthcare professionals.

Dual versus triple therapy in patients hospitalized for COPD in France: a claims data study

Purposes

Following a hospitalization for COPD, dual and triple therapies were compared in terms of persistence and relations with outcomes (exacerbations, health care resource use and costs).

Methods

This was a historical observational database study. All patients aged ≥45 hospitalized for COPD between 2007 and 2015 were identified in a 1/97^th random sample of French claims data. Patients receiving dual therapy within 60 days after hospitalization were compared to patients receiving triple therapy, after propensity score matching on disease severity.

Results

Of the 3,089 patients hospitalized for COPD, 1,538 (49.8%) received either dual or triple therapy in the 2 months following inclusion, and 1,500 (48.6%) had at least 30 days of follow-up available; 846 (27.4%) received dual therapy, and 654 (21.2%) received triple therapy. After matching, the number of exacerbations was 2.4 per year in the dual vs 2.3 in the triple group (p=0.45). Among newly treated patients (n=206), persistence at 12 months was similar in the dual and triple groups (48% vs 41%, respectively, p=0.37). As compared to patients on dual therapy, more patients on triple therapy received oral corticosteroids (49.1 vs 40.4%, p=0.003) or were hospitalized for any reason (67% vs 55.8%, p=0.0001) or for COPD (35.3 vs 25.1%, p=0.0002) during follow-up. Cost of care was higher for patients on triple than for those on dual therapy (€11,877.1 vs €9,825.1, p=0.01).

Conclusion

Following hospitalizations for COPD, patients on dual and triple therapy experienced recurrent exacerbations, limited adherence to therapies and high cost of care. Patients on triple therapy appeared more severe than those on dual therapy, as reflected by exacerbations and health care resource use.

Outpatient Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Physician Adherence to the 2017 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Guidelines and its Effect on Patient Outcomes

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common and preventable illness that carries significant economic and social burden. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) provides a comprehensive review of the available literature for the diagnosis and management of COPD. Despite being considered the standard of care, adherence to the GOLD guidelines varies among practitioners. In addition, there is yet to be a clear correlation between misalignment with GOLD practicing guidelines and patient outcomes. We studied the outpatient management of COPD, with special attention paid to whether or not adherence to the 2017 GOLD guidelines affected patient outcomes.

Methods

This retrospective electronic medical record review study observed the outpatient management of patients with COPD, aged 18 year or older, who presented to the suburban primary care office. Patients who received treatment according to the GOLD guidelines were compared with the patients who did not. Categorical data were analyzed as frequencies with percentages. Frequencies were compared using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. A P value < 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.

Results

A total of 158 patients were included in this study. Thirty-six percent of the patients were treated according to the GOLD guidelines. There was no significant difference in the mortality, exacerbations or hospitalizations between the patients who were treated according to the GOLD guidelines and those who were not. Comparing prescribing practices for those treated according to the GOLD guidelines versus those who were not, a significant difference in management occurred in regards to long acting beta agonist (P < 0.05) and inhaled corticosteroid therapy (P < 0.001). The differences in the use of other pharmacological and nonpharmacological agents were not significant.

Conclusions

Adherence to the 2017 GOLD guidelines had no statistically significant difference in patient outcomes. GOLD nonadherent patients received long-acting beta agonist and inhaled corticosteroid therapy at a significantly higher frequency compared to GOLD-adherent patients.

Management of COPD within the Brazilian Unified Health Care System in the state of Bahia: an analysis of real-life medication use patterns

Objective:

To describe COPD pharmacological treatment patterns in the state of Bahia, Brazil, and to evaluate the extent to which these patterns conform to clinical guidelines for the management of COPD.

Methods:

This was a cross-sectional study of 441 patients referred from the Public Health Care Network of the state of Bahia to a public referral outpatient clinic of a COPD management program of the Brazilian Unified Health Care System. Individuals with a spirometry-confirmed diagnosis of moderate to very severe COPD were included in the study. Patients were evaluated as to whether they had used any COPD medications in the last seven days. The appropriateness or inappropriateness (undertreatment or overtreatment) of the patient’s pharmacological treatment was evaluated by comparing the patient’s current treatment with that recommended by national and international guidelines.

Results:

A total of 383 individuals were included in the analysis. Approximately half of the patients (49.1%) used long-acting bronchodilators. These patients were older and had had the disease longer. Of the sample as a whole, 63.7% and 83.0% did not receive pharmacological treatment in accordance with international and national recommendations, respectively. Inappropriateness due to undertreatment was indentified in more than half of the patients.

Conclusions:

Long-acting bronchodilators are frequently underused in individuals with moderate to very severe COPD within the Brazilian Unified Health Care System in the state of Bahia. Most patients in our sample were treated inappropriately, and undertreatment predominated. Strategies to improve access to long-acting bronchodilators and the quality of COPD pharmacological management are required.

The dose of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COPD: when less is better

Background

The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in combination with bronchodilators in patients with COPD has been shown to decrease the rate of disease exacerbations and to improve the lung function and patients’ quality of life. However, their use has also been associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.

Materials and methods

We have reviewed existing clinical evidence on the risks and benefits of ICS in COPD, including large randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and clinical reviews.

Results

A large body of evidence supports the clinical benefits of ICS in patients with COPD in terms of exacerbations, symptoms, lung function, and quality of life. The incidence of adverse events related to ICS, including pneumonia, varies strongly among the studies and seems to be dose dependent, with recent well-designed, large studies on low-dose ICS reporting similar safety profiles in ICS and non-ICS groups.

Conclusion

The benefits of ICS in COPD continue to outweigh the risks, especially when lower ICS doses are employed. Given that the data on ICS withdrawal in COPD are scarce and conflicting, we argue that using reduced doses of ICS could be an optimal strategy to manage patients with COPD.

Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the Primary Care Setting: How Can We Achieve More for Our Patients?

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a debilitating and progressive disease that is both underdiagnosed and undertreated, affecting up to 1 in 10 older adults. Common symptoms, including dyspnea, productive cough, chest tightness, and fatigue, can reduce quality of life, the ability to participate in all types of activities, and overall health status in patients. Minimizing the impact of symptoms on patients' quality of life should be a key goal for physicians, and modest changes in current practice could make improvements in patients' lives. Here we review chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, its impact on patients, and how to improve symptom management.

Inhaled therapies in patients with moderate COPD in clinical practice: current thinking

COPD is a complex, heterogeneous condition. Even in the early clinical stages, COPD carries a significant burden, with breathlessness frequently leading to a reduction in exercise capacity and changes that correlate with long-term patient outcomes and mortality. Implementation of an effective management strategy is required to reduce symptoms, preserve lung function, quality of life, and exercise capacity, and prevent exacerbations. However, current clinical practice frequently differs from published guidelines on the management of COPD. This review focuses on the current scientific evidence and expert opinion on the management of moderate COPD: the symptoms arising from moderate airflow obstruction and the burden these symptoms impose, how physical activity can improve disease outcomes, the benefits of dual bronchodilation in COPD, and the limited evidence for the benefits of inhaled corticosteroids in this disease. We emphasize the importance of maximizing bronchodilation in COPD with inhaled dual-bronchodilator treatment, enhancing patient-related outcomes, and enabling the withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD in well-defined patient groups.

Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conflicting findings exist on the benefit of withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We performed a quantitative synthesis in order to assess real impact of ICS discontinuation in COPD patients.

METHODS

We carried out a meta-analysis via random-effects model on the available clinical evidence to evaluate the effect of ICS discontinuation in COPD. Randomized clinical trials and observational real-life studies investigating the effects of ICS withdrawal on the risk of COPD exacerbation, lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV₁]) and quality of life (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]) were identified by searching from published studies and repository databases.

RESULTS

ICS withdrawal did not significantly (P > 0.05) increase the overall rate of COPD exacerbation, although a clinically important increased risk of severe exacerbation was detected (Relative Risk >1.2). ICS withdrawal significantly (P < 0.001) impaired both lung function (-30 ml FEV₁) and quality of life (+1.24 SGRQ units), although in a non-clinically important manner. The time to the first exacerbation was significantly (P < 0.05) shorter in the patients who discontinued ICS.

CONCLUSIONS

The discrepancy between statistical analysis and clinical interpretation of this meta-analytic evaluation demonstrates the strong clinical need in understanding what is the real impact of ICS withdrawal in COPD. ICS discontinuation is a complex procedure that requires a well planned and tailored strategy. Further well designed studies on withdrawal of ICS should be performed by clustering COPD patients with regard to the phenotype characteristics, rate of exacerbations/year, decline of lung function, and quality of life.

Therapeutic approaches to asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap

INTRODUCTION

Patients with features of both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) ('asthma-COPD overlap') experience greater symptom burden and higher risk of adverse health outcomes than those with asthma or COPD alone. However, virtually no pharmacotherapy studies have been performed in this overlap population, leading to confusion amongst clinicians regarding therapeutic approaches. Areas covered: A pragmatic approach is suggested to identify patients with typical asthma, typical COPD, and those with overlap features. Interim clinical guidance on the treatment of asthma-COPD overlap is provided, acknowledging that these recommendations are based on expert opinion given the paucity of available evidence. Expert commentary: There is an urgent need for new studies in patients with asthma-COPD overlap to evaluate the efficacy and safety of existing pharmacotherapeutic options. Multiple underlying mechanisms are likely to contribute to the development of asthma-COPD overlap and a greater understanding of these mechanisms may allow a personalised approach to therapy in the future.