The MCID of the transition dyspnea index is a total score of one unit

Nemonoxacin achieved a better symptomatic improvement and a prolonged interval to next exacerbation than moxifloxacin for outpatients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Nemonoxacin is a novel non-fluorinated quinolone with strong antibacterial efficacy, but data of its effect on acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) is rare. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of oral nemonoxacin with moxifloxacin in AECOPD outpatients. In this retrospective observational study, a total of 101 AECOPD outpatients initially treated with nemonoxacin or moxifloxacin from July 2021 to March 2022 were enrolled. We collected COPD assessment test (CAT), Transition Dyspnea Indices (TDI) scores, and exacerbations information during 24 weeks follow-up from the electronic medical records. Kaplan-Meier curve was used to analyze the time to the next moderate/severe exacerbation. Compared to the moxifloxacin group, changes in CAT scores and TDI scores were significantly higher in the nemonoxacin group, and the nemonoxacin group also had a greater probability to reach the minimal clinically important difference of CAT (71.40% vs. 97.80%, p < 0.01) and TDI (40.50% vs. 60.00%, p < 0.05) at week 4. Despite no significant difference in the incidence of exacerbations between two groups, patients treated with nemonoxacin had a significantly prolonged time to next moderate/severe exacerbation than those with moxifloxacin (p < 0.05). Nemonoxacin achieved a better symptomatic improvement and a prolonged interval to next moderate/severe exacerbation for AECOPD outpatients.

Effects of inspiratory muscle training on exertional breathlessness in patients with unilateral diaphragm dysfunction: a randomised trial

Background

Unilateral diaphragm dysfunction (UDD) is an underdiagnosed cause of dyspnoea. Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) is the only conservative treatment for UDD, but the mechanisms of improvement are unknown. We characterised the effects of IMT on dyspnoea, exercise tolerance and respiratory muscle function in people with UDD.

Methods

15 people with UDD (73% male, 61±8 years) were randomised to 6 months of IMT (50% maximal inspiratory mouth pressure (PI,max), n=10) or sham training (10% PI,max, n=5) (30 breaths twice per day). UDD was confirmed by phrenic nerve stimulation and persisted throughout the training period. Symptoms were assessed by the transitional dyspnoea index (TDI) and exercise tolerance by constant-load cycle tests performed pre- and post-training. Oesophageal (Pes) and gastric (Pga) pressures were measured with a dual-balloon catheter. Electromyography (EMG) and oxygenation (near-infrared spectroscopy) of respiratory muscles were assessed continuously during exercise.

Results

The IMT group (from 45±6 to 62±23% PI,max) and sham group (no progression) completed 92 and 86% of prescribed sessions, respectively. PI,max, TDI scores and cycle endurance time improved significantly more after IMT versus sham (mean between-group differences: 28 (95% CI 13-28) cmH2O, 3.0 (95% CI 0.9-5.1) points and 6.0 (95% CI 0.4-11.5) min, respectively). During exercise at iso-time, Pes, Pga and EMG of the scalene muscles were reduced and the oxygen saturation indices of the scalene and abdominal muscles were higher post- versus pre-training only in the IMT group (all p<0.05).

Conclusion

The effects of IMT on dyspnoea and exercise tolerance in UDD were not mediated by an improvement in isolated diaphragm function, but may reflect improvements in strength, coordination and/or oxygenation of the extra-diaphragmatic respiratory muscles.

Ensifentrine, a Novel Phosphodiesterase 3 and 4 Inhibitor for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-controlled, Multicenter Phase III Trials (the ENHANCE Trials)

Rationale: Ensifentrine is a novel, selective, dual phosphodiesterase (PDE)3 and PDE4 inhibitor with bronchodilator and antiinflammatory effects. Replicate phase III trials of nebulized ensifentrine were conducted (ENHANCE-1 and ENHANCE-2) to assess these effects in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of ensifentrine compared with placebo for lung function, symptoms, quality of life, and exacerbations in patients with COPD. Methods: These phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials were conducted between September 2020 and December 2022 at 250 research centers and pulmonology practices in 17 countries. Patients aged 40-80 years with moderate to severe symptomatic COPD were enrolled. Measurements and Main Results: Totals of 760 (ENHANCE-1) and 789 (ENHANCE-2) patients were randomized and treated, with 69% and 55% receiving concomitant long-acting muscarinic antagonists or long-acting β2-agonists, respectively. Post-bronchodilator FEV1 percentage predicted values were 52% and 51% of predicted normal. Ensifentrine treatment significantly improved average FEV1 area under the curve at 0-12 hours versus placebo (ENHANCE-1, 87 ml [95% confidence interval, 55, 119]; ENHANCE-2, 94 ml [65, 124]; both P < 0.001). Ensifentrine treatment significantly improved symptoms (Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms) and quality of life (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire) versus placebo at Week 24 in ENHANCE-1 but not in ENHANCE-2. Ensifentrine treatment reduced the rate of moderate or severe exacerbations versus placebo over 24 weeks (ENHANCE-1, rate ratio, 0.64 [0.40, 1.00]; P = 0.050; ENHANCE-2, rate ratio, 0.57 [0.38, 0.87]; P = 0.009) and increased time to first exacerbation (ENHANCE-1, hazard ratio, 0.62 [0.39, 0.97]; P = 0.038; ENHANCE-2, hazard ratio, 0.58 [0.38, 0.87]; P = 0.009). Adverse event rates were similar to those for placebo. Conclusions: Ensifentrine significantly improved lung function in both trials, with results supporting exacerbation rate and risk reduction in a broad COPD population and in addition to other classes of maintenance therapies. Clinical trial registered with www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov and EudraCT (ENHANCE-1, www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifier NCT04535986, EudraCT identifier 2020-002086-34; ENHANCE-2, www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifier NCT04542057, EudraCT identifier 2020-002069-32).

Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Adults with Chronic Respiratory Disease: An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: Despite the known benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for patients with chronic respiratory disease, this treatment is underused. Evidence-based guidelines should lead to greater knowledge of the proven benefits of PR, highlight the role of PR in evidence-based health care, and in turn foster referrals to and more effective delivery of PR for people with chronic respiratory disease. Methods: The multidisciplinary panel formulated six research questions addressing PR for specific patient groups (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], interstitial lung disease, and pulmonary hypertension) and models for PR delivery (telerehabilitation, maintenance PR). Treatment effects were quantified using systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to formulate clinical recommendations. Recommendations: The panel made the following judgments: strong recommendations for PR for adults with stable COPD (moderate-quality evidence) and after hospitalization for COPD exacerbation (moderate-quality evidence), strong recommendation for PR for adults with interstitial lung disease (moderate-quality evidence), conditional recommendation for PR for adults with pulmonary hypertension (low-quality evidence), strong recommendation for offering the choice of center-based PR or telerehabilitation for patients with chronic respiratory disease (moderate-quality evidence), and conditional recommendation for offering either supervised maintenance PR or usual care after initial PR for adults with COPD (low-quality evidence). Conclusions: These guidelines provide the basis for evidence-based delivery of PR for people with chronic respiratory disease.

Ensifentrine as a Novel, Inhaled Treatment for Patients with COPD

Ensifentrine is a novel, potent, and selective dual inhibitor of phosphodiesterase (PDE)3 and PDE4 designed for delivery by inhalation that combines effects on airway inflammation, bronchodilation and ciliary function in bronchial epithelia. In Phase 2 studies in subjects with COPD, ensifentrine demonstrated clinically meaningful bronchodilation and improvements in symptoms and health-related quality of life when administered alone or in combination with current standard of care therapies. Ensifentrine is currently in late-stage clinical development for the maintenance treatment of patients with COPD. This review summarizes non-clinical data as well as Phase 1 and Phase 2 efficacy and safety results of nebulized ensifentrine relevant to the maintenance treatment of patients with COPD.

Inspiratory muscle training, with or without concomitant pulmonary rehabilitation, for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) aims to improve respiratory muscle strength and endurance. Clinical trials used various training protocols, devices and respiratory measurements to check the effectiveness of this intervention. The current guidelines reported a possible advantage of IMT, particularly in people with respiratory muscle weakness. However, it remains unclear to what extent IMT is clinically beneficial, especially when associated with pulmonary rehabilitation (PR).   OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), as a stand-alone intervention and when combined with pulmonary rehabilitation (PR).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) EBSCO, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 20 October 2021. We also checked reference lists of all primary studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IMT in combination with PR versus PR alone and IMT versus control/sham. We included different types of IMT irrespective of the mode of delivery. We excluded trials that used resistive devices without controlling the breathing pattern or a training load of less than 30% of maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax), or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methods recommended by Cochrane including assessment of risk of bias with RoB 2. Our primary outcomes were dyspnea, functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 55 RCTs in this review. Both IMT and PR protocols varied significantly across the trials, especially in training duration, loads, devices, number/ frequency of sessions and the PR programs. Only eight trials were at low risk of bias. PR+IMT versus PR We included 22 trials (1446 participants) in this comparison. Based on a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of -1 unit, we did not find an improvement in dyspnea assessed with the Borg scale at submaximal exercise capacity (mean difference (MD) 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.42 to 0.79; 2 RCTs, 202 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).   We also found no improvement in dyspnea assessed with themodified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (mMRC) according to an MCID between -0.5 and -1 unit (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.14; 2 RCTs, 204 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Pooling evidence for the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) showed an increase of 5.95 meters (95% CI -5.73 to 17.63; 12 RCTs, 1199 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and failed to reach the MCID of 26 meters. In subgroup analysis, we divided the RCTs according to the training duration and mean baseline PImax. The test for subgroup differences was not significant. Trials at low risk of bias (n = 3) demonstrated a larger effect estimate than the overall. The summary effect of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) revealed an overall total score below the MCID of 4 units (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.93 to 1.20; 7 RCTs, 908 participants; low-certainty evidence).  The summary effect of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) did not show an improvement in the HRQoL (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.80 to 1.06; 2 RCTs, 657 participants; very low-certainty evidence), according to an MCID of -1.6 units.  Pooling the RCTs that reported PImax showed an increase of 11.46 cmH₂O (95% CI 7.42 to 15.50; 17 RCTs, 1329 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) but failed to reach the MCID of 17.2 cmH₂O.  In subgroup analysis, we did not find a difference between different training durations and between studies judged with and without respiratory muscle weakness.  One abstract reported some adverse effects that were considered "minor and self-limited". IMT versus control/sham Thirty-seven RCTs with 1021 participants contributed to our second comparison. There was a trend towards an improvement when Borg was calculated at submaximal exercise capacity (MD -0.94, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.51; 6 RCTs, 144 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Only one trial was at a low risk of bias. Eight studies (nine arms) used the Baseline Dyspnea Index - Transition Dyspnea Index (BDI-TDI). Based on an MCID of +1 unit, they showed an improvement only with the 'total score' of the TDI (MD 2.98, 95% CI 2.07 to 3.89; 8 RCTs, 238 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find a difference between studies classified as with and without respiratory muscle weakness. Only one trial was at low risk of bias. Four studies reported the mMRC, revealing a possible improvement in dyspnea in the IMT group (MD -0.59, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.43; 4 RCTs, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two trials were at low risk of bias. Compared to control/sham, the MD in the 6MWD following IMT was 35.71 (95% CI 25.68 to 45.74; 16 RCTs, 501 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Two studies were at low risk of bias. In subgroup analysis, we did not find a difference between different training durations and between studies judged with and without respiratory muscle weakness.  Six studies reported theSGRQ total score, showing a larger effect in the IMT group (MD -3.85, 95% CI -8.18 to 0.48; 6 RCTs, 182 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded the MCID of -4 units. Only one study was at low risk of bias. There was an improvement in life quality with CAT (MD -2.97, 95% CI -3.85 to -2.10; 2 RCTs, 86 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial was at low risk of bias. Thirty-two RCTs reported PImax, showing an improvement without reaching the MCID (MD 14.57 cmH₂O, 95% CI 9.85 to 19.29; 32 RCTs, 916 participants; low-certainty evidence). In subgroup analysis, we did not find a difference between different training durations and between studies judged with and without respiratory muscle weakness.   None of the included RCTs reported adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

IMT may not improve dyspnea, functional exercise capacity and life quality when associated with PR. However, IMT is likely to improve these outcomes when provided alone. For both interventions, a larger effect in participants with respiratory muscle weakness and with longer training durations is still to be confirmed.

How can the findings of the EMAX trial on long-acting bronchodilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease be applied in the primary care setting?

This review addresses outstanding questions regarding initial pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Optimizing initial treatment improves clinical outcomes in symptomatic patients, including those with low exacerbation risk. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy improves lung function versus LAMA or LABA monotherapy, although other treatment benefits have been less consistently observed. The benefits of dual bronchodilation in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk, and its duration of efficacy and cost effectiveness in this population, are not yet fully established. Questions remain on the impact of baseline symptom severity, prior treatment, degree of reversibility to bronchodilators, and smoking status on responses to dual bronchodilator treatment. Using evidence from EMAX (NCT03034915), a 6-month trial comparing the LAMA/LABA combination umeclidinium/vilanterol with umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapy in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk who were inhaled corticosteroid-naïve, we describe how these findings can be applied in primary care.

Bronchodilators in Tobacco-Exposed Persons with Symptoms and Preserved Lung Function

BACKGROUND

Many persons with a history of smoking tobacco have clinically significant respiratory symptoms despite an absence of airflow obstruction as assessed by spirometry. They are often treated with medications for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but supporting evidence for this treatment is lacking.

METHODS

We randomly assigned persons who had a tobacco-smoking history of at least 10 pack-years, respiratory symptoms as defined by a COPD Assessment Test score of at least 10 (scores range from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms), and preserved lung function on spirometry (ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] to forced vital capacity [FVC] ≥0.70 and FVC ≥70% of the predicted value after bronchodilator use) to receive either indacaterol (27.5 μg) plus glycopyrrolate (15.6 μg) or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was at least a 4-point decrease (i.e., improvement) in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating worse health status) after 12 weeks without treatment failure (defined as an increase in lower respiratory symptoms treated with a long-acting inhaled bronchodilator, glucocorticoid, or antibiotic agent).

RESULTS

A total of 535 participants underwent randomization. In the modified intention-to-treat population (471 participants), 128 of 227 participants (56.4%) in the treatment group and 144 of 244 (59.0%) in the placebo group had at least a 4-point decrease in the SGRQ score (difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.6 to 6.3; adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.37; P = 0.65). The mean change in the percent of predicted FEV1 was 2.48 percentage points (95% CI, 1.49 to 3.47) in the treatment group and -0.09 percentage points (95% CI, -1.06 to 0.89) in the placebo group, and the mean change in the inspiratory capacity was 0.12 liters (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.18) in the treatment group and 0.02 liters (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.08) in the placebo group. Four serious adverse events occurred in the treatment group, and 11 occurred in the placebo group; none were deemed potentially related to the treatment or placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled dual bronchodilator therapy did not decrease respiratory symptoms in symptomatic, tobacco-exposed persons with preserved lung function as assessed by spirometry. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; RETHINC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02867761.).

Discriminative Accuracy of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Screening Instruments in 3 Low- and Middle-Income Country Settings

IMPORTANCE

Most of the global morbidity and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with significant economic effects.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the discriminative accuracy of 3 instruments using questionnaires and peak expiratory flow (PEF) to screen for COPD in 3 LMIC settings.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cross-sectional analysis of discriminative accuracy, conducted between January 2018 and March 2020 in semiurban Bhaktapur, Nepal; urban Lima, Peru; and rural Nakaseke, Uganda, using a random age- and sex-stratified sample of the population 40 years or older.

EXPOSURES

Three screening tools, the COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE; range, 0-6; high risk indicated by a score of 5 or more or score 2-5 with low PEF [<250 L/min for females and <350 L/min for males]), the COPD in LMICs Assessment questionnaire (COLA-6; range, 0-5; high risk indicated by a score of 4 or more), and the Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ; range, 0-25; high risk indicated by a score of 18 or less) were assessed against a reference standard diagnosis of COPD using quality-assured postbronchodilator spirometry. CAPTURE and COLA-6 include a measure of PEF.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was discriminative accuracy of the tools in identifying COPD as measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) with 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.

RESULTS

Among 10 709 adults who consented to participate in the study (mean age, 56.3 years (SD, 11.7); 50% female), 35% had ever smoked, and 30% were currently exposed to biomass smoke. The unweighted prevalence of COPD at the 3 sites was 18.2% (642/3534 participants) in Nepal, 2.7% (97/3550) in Peru, and 7.4% (264/3580) in Uganda. Among 1000 COPD cases, 49.3% had clinically important disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease classification B-D), 16.4% had severe or very severe airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted), and 95.3% of cases were previously undiagnosed. The AUC for the screening instruments ranged from 0.717 (95% CI, 0.677-0.774) for LFQ in Peru to 0.791 (95% CI, 0.770-0.809) for COLA-6 in Nepal. The sensitivity ranged from 34.8% (95% CI, 25.3%-45.2%) for COLA-6 in Nepal to 64.2% (95% CI, 60.3%-67.9%) for CAPTURE in Nepal. The mean time to administer the instruments was 7.6 minutes (SD 1.11), and data completeness was 99.5%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study demonstrated that screening instruments for COPD were feasible to administer in 3 low- and middle-income settings. Further research is needed to assess instrument performance in other low- and middle-income settings and to determine whether implementation is associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Treatment efficacy of LAMA versus placebo for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Four long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), tiotropium, glycopyrronium, aclidinium, and umeclidinium, are currently available for the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, no integrated analysis has sought to determine the effectiveness of these LAMAs. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LAMA versus placebo in patients with stable COPD.

METHODS

A literature search of relevant randomized control trials that administered LAMA to stable COPD patients was conducted, and the exacerbations, quality of life (QoL), dyspnea score, lung function, and adverse event of patients were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies were included in this meta-analysis. LAMA significantly decreased the frequency of exacerbations compared to the placebo (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85; P < 0.001). The mean changes in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (mean difference, -3.61; 95% CI, -4.27 to -2.95; P < 0.00001), transitional dyspnea index score (mean difference 1.00; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.17; P < 0.00001), and trough FEV₁ (mean difference 0.12; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.13; P < 0.0001) indicated significantly greater improvement in the LAMA group than the placebo group. The number of withdrawals due to adverse events in the LAMA group was significantly fewer than that in the placebo group (OR -0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

LAMA is superior to placebo due to lower frequency of exacerbations and adverse events, as well as higher trough FEV₁, QoL, and dyspnea score for stable COPD.

Case-finding and improving patient outcomes for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care: the BLISS research programme including cluster RCT

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a major contributor to morbidity, mortality and health service costs but is vastly underdiagnosed. Evidence on screening and how best to approach this is not clear. There are also uncertainties around the natural history (prognosis) of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and how it impacts on work performance.

Objectives

Work package 1: to evaluate alternative methods of screening for undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care, with clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analyses and an economic model of a routine screening programme. Work package 2: to recruit a primary care chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cohort, develop a prognostic model [Birmingham Lung Improvement StudieS (BLISS)] to predict risk of respiratory hospital admissions, validate an existing model to predict mortality risk, address some uncertainties about natural history and explore the potential for a home exercise intervention. Work package 3: to identify which factors are associated with employment, absenteeism, presenteeism (working while unwell) and evaluate the feasibility of offering formal occupational health assessment to improve work performance.

Design

Work package 1: a cluster randomised controlled trial with household-level randomised comparison of two alternative case-finding approaches in the intervention arm. Work package 2: cohort study – focus groups. Work package 3: subcohort – feasibility study.

Setting

Primary care settings in West Midlands, UK.

Participants

Work package 1: 74,818 people who have smoked aged 40–79 years without a previous chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis from 54 general practices. Work package 2: 741 patients with previously diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from 71 practices and participants from the work package 1 randomised controlled trial. Twenty-six patients took part in focus groups. Work package 3: occupational subcohort with 248 patients in paid employment at baseline. Thirty-five patients took part in an occupational health intervention feasibility study.

Interventions

Work package 1: targeted case-finding – symptom screening questionnaire, administered opportunistically or additionally by post, followed by diagnostic post-bronchodilator spirometry. The comparator was routine care. Work package 2: twenty-three candidate variables selected from literature and expert reviews. Work package 3: sociodemographic, clinical and occupational characteristics; occupational health assessment and recommendations.

Main outcome measures

Work package 1: yield (screen-detected chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and cost-effectiveness of case-finding; effectiveness of screening on respiratory hospitalisation and mortality after approximately 4 years. Work package 2: respiratory hospitalisation within 2 years, and barriers to and facilitators of physical activity. Work package 3: work performance – feasibility and acceptability of the occupational health intervention and study processes.

Results

Work package 1: targeted case-finding resulted in greater yield of previously undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than routine care at 1 year [n = 1278 (4%) vs. n = 337 (1%), respectively; adjusted odds ratio 7.45, 95% confidence interval 4.80 to 11.55], and a model-based estimate of a regular screening programme suggested an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £16,596 per additional quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, long-term follow-up of the trial showed that at ≈4 years there was no clear evidence that case-finding, compared with routine practice, was effective in reducing respiratory admissions (adjusted hazard ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to1.47) or mortality (hazard ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.61). Work package 2: 2305 patients, comprising 1564 with previously diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 741 work package 1 participants (330 with and 411 without obstruction), were recruited. The BLISS prognostic model among cohort participants with confirmed airflow obstruction (n = 1894) included 6 of 23 candidate variables (i.e. age, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test score, 12-month respiratory admissions, body mass index, diabetes and forced expiratory volume in 1 second percentage predicted). After internal validation and adjustment (uniform shrinkage factor 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.02), the model discriminated well in predicting 2-year respiratory hospital admissions (c-statistic 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.79). In focus groups, physical activity engagement was related to self-efficacy and symptom severity. Work package 3: in the occupational subcohort, increasing dyspnoea and exposure to inhaled irritants were associated with lower work productivity at baseline. Longitudinally, increasing exacerbations and worsening symptoms, but not a decline in airflow obstruction, were associated with absenteeism and presenteeism. The acceptability of the occupational health intervention was low, leading to low uptake and low implementation of recommendations and making a full trial unfeasible.

Limitations

Work package 1: even with the most intensive approach, only 38% of patients responded to the case-finding invitation. Management of case-found patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care was generally poor, limiting interpretation of the long-term effectiveness of case-finding on clinical outcomes. Work package 2: the components of the BLISS model may not always be routinely available and calculation of the score requires a computerised system. Work package 3: relatively few cohort participants were in paid employment at baseline, limiting the interpretation of predictors of lower work productivity.

Conclusions

This programme has addressed some of the major uncertainties around screening for undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and has resulted in the development of a novel, accurate model for predicting respiratory hospitalisation in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the inception of a primary care chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cohort for longer-term follow-up. We have also identified factors that may affect work productivity in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as potential targets for future intervention.

Future work

We plan to obtain data for longer-term follow-up of trial participants at 10 years. The BLISS model needs to be externally validated. Our primary care chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cohort is a unique resource for addressing further questions to better understand the prognosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14930255.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol according to the degree of reversibility of airflow limitation at screening: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX trial

Background

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the relationship between short-term bronchodilator reversibility and longer-term response to bronchodilators is unclear. Here, we investigated whether the efficacy of long-acting bronchodilators is associated with reversibility of airflow limitation in patients with COPD with a low exacerbation risk not receiving inhaled corticosteroids.

Methods

The double-blind, double-dummy EMAX trial randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 µg once daily, umeclidinium 62.5 µg once daily, or salmeterol 50 µg twice daily. Bronchodilator reversibility to salbutamol was measured once at screening and defined as an increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) of ≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL 10−30 min post salbutamol. Post hoc, fractional polynomial (FP) modelling was conducted using the degree of reversibility (mL) at screening as a continuous variable to investigate its relationship to mean change from baseline in trough FEV₁ and self-administered computerised-Transition Dyspnoea Index (SAC-TDI) at Week 24, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD (E-RS) at Weeks 21–24, and rescue medication use (puffs/day) over Weeks 1–24. Analyses were conducted across the full range of reversibility (−850–896 mL); however, results are presented for the range −100–400 mL because there were few participants with values outside this range.

Results

The mean (standard deviation) reversibility was 130 mL (156) and the median was 113 mL; 625/2425 (26%) patients were reversible. There was a trend towards greater improvements in trough FEV₁, SAC-TDI, E-RS and rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol with higher reversibility. Improvements in trough FEV₁ and reductions in rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol compared with either monotherapy across the range of reversibility. Greater improvements in SAC-TDI and E-RS total scores were observed with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in the middle of the reversibility range.

Conclusions

FP analyses suggest that patients with higher levels of reversibility have greater improvements in lung function and symptoms in response to bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy across the full range of reversibility, suggesting that the dual bronchodilator umeclidinium/vilanterol may be an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD, regardless of their level of reversibility.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12931-021-01859-w.

Health Related Quality of Life in Interstitial Lung Disease: Can We Use the Same Concepts Around the World?

Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) is increasingly viewed as an important patient-centered outcome by leading health organizations, clinicians, and patients alike. This is especially true in the interstitial lung disease community where patients often struggle with progressive and debilitating disease with few therapeutic options. In order to test the effectiveness of new pharmacologic therapies and non-pharmacologic interventions globally in ILD, this will require expansion of clinical research studies to a multinational level and HRQOL will be an important endpoint to many. In order to successfully expand trials across multiple nations and compare the results of studies between different communities we must recognize that there are differences in the concepts of HRQOL across the world and have strategies to address these differences. In this review, we will describe the different global influences on HRQOL both generally and in the context of ILD, discuss the processes of linguistic translation and cross-cultural adaptation of HRQOL Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), and highlight the gaps and opportunities for improving HRQOL measurement in ILD across the world.

Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Current and Former Smokers with COPD: A Prespecified Analysis of The EMAX Trial

Introduction

Smoking may reduce the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but its impact on bronchodilator efficacy is unclear. This analysis of the EMAX trial explored efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in current or former smokers with COPD.

Methods

The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms, health status, exacerbations, clinically important deterioration, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving ICS. Current and former smoker subgroups were defined by smoking status at screening.

Results

The analysis included 1203 (50%) current smokers and 1221 (50%) former smokers. Both subgroups demonstrated greater improvements from baseline in trough FEV₁ at week 24 (primary endpoint) with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (least squares [LS] mean difference, mL [95% CI]; current: 84 [50, 117]; former: 49 [18, 80]) and salmeterol (current: 165 [132, 198]; former: 117 [86, 148]) and larger reductions in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (LS mean difference [95% CI]; current: − 0.42 [− 0.63, − 0.20]; former: − 0.25 − 0.44, − 0.05]) and salmeterol (current: − 0.28 [− 0.49, − 0.06]; former: − 0.29 [− 0.49, − 0.09]). Umeclidinium/vilanterol increased the odds (odds ratio [95% CI]) of clinically significant improvement at week 24 in Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.16, 2.06]; former: 1.32 [0.99, 1.75]) and salmeterol (current: 1.37 (1.03, 1.82]; former: 1.60 [1.20, 2.13]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms–COPD versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.13, 2.09]; former: 1.50 [1.11, 2.04]) and salmeterol (current: 1.53 [1.13, 2.08]; former: 1.53 [1.12, 2.08]). All treatments were well tolerated in both subgroups.

Conclusions

In current and former smokers, umeclidinium/vilanterol provided greater improvements in lung function and symptoms versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, supporting consideration of dual-bronchodilator therapy in symptomatic patients with COPD regardless of their smoking status.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01855-y.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often require daily medication to control their COPD. Many patients with COPD are smokers, and smoking is one of the most common causes of COPD. This means that it is important to find out whether COPD medications are effective in both smokers and nonsmokers. We analyzed data from a clinical trial (EMAX) that investigated the use of a combination of two bronchodilators, which are inhaled medications that help to open the airways. We compared umeclidinium/vilanterol, a dual-bronchodilator combination, with a single bronchodilator (either umeclidinium or salmeterol) over 6 months. We found that both current and former smokers who were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol had larger improvements in lung function than those receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. Current or former smokers who were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol used their reliever inhaler less than those treated with umeclidinium or salmeterol. Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol were generally less likely to experience disease worsening compared with umeclidinium or salmeterol if they were former smokers, or compared with salmeterol if they were current smokers. Our findings suggest that umeclidinium/vilanterol may be more effective than a single bronchodilator for daily treatment of patients with COPD who are current or former smokers. Physicians should consider prescribing a combination of two bronchodilators to patients who have symptoms, whether or not they currently smoke, as well as encouraging smoking cessation for all patients.

Efficacy and cardiovascular safety of LAMA in patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is at present the third leading cause of death in the world. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) is widely used as a bronchodilator in patients with COPD. However, there is controversy concerning their cardiovascular safety. This meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy and cardiovascular safety of LAMAs versus placebo in patients with COPD. We searched Pub Med, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify studies that compared LAMA with placebo in patients with COPD. Twenty-one studies involving 24,987 participants were finally included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the incidence of all adverse events (risk ratio (RR)=1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02, I²=15.2%) and cardiovascular events (RR=0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09, I²=4.9%) in patients treated with LAMAs versus placebo. LAMAs significantly improved trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (weighted mean difference (WMD)=0.12, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.14, I²=86.6%), Transitional Dyspnea Index (WMD=0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.94, I²=0%), and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (WMD=‒2.50, 95% CI ‒3.32 to ‒1.69, I²=39.8%). Moreover, LAMAs significantly reduced the incidence of exacerbation in patients with COPD (RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.91, I²=69.9%). LAMAs are safe therapy and play a pivotal role in improving lung function, dyspnea, and health status, and reducing the exacerbation in patients with COPD.

Patient-centered Outcomes Research in Interstitial Lung Disease: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: In the past two decades, many advances have been made to our understanding of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the way we approach its treatment. Despite this, many questions remain unanswered, particularly those related to how the disease and its therapies impact outcomes that are most important to patients. There is currently a lack of guidance on how to best define and incorporate these patient-centered outcomes in ILD research. Objectives: To summarize the current state of patient-centered outcomes research in ILD, identify gaps in knowledge and research, and highlight opportunities and methods for future patient-centered research agendas in ILD. Methods: An international interdisciplinary group of experts was assembled. The group identified top patient-centered outcomes in ILD, reviewed available literature for each outcome, highlighted important discoveries and knowledge gaps, and formulated research recommendations. Results: The committee identified seven themes around patient-centered outcomes as the focus of the statement. After a review of the literature and expert committee discussion, we developed 28 research recommendations. Conclusions: Patient-centered outcomes are key to ascertaining whether and how ILD and interventions used to treat it affect the way patients feel and function in their daily lives. Ample opportunities exist to conduct additional work dedicated to elevating and incorporating patient-centered outcomes in ILD research.

Pain in Veterans with COPD: relationship with physical activity and exercise capacity

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common but underappreciated symptom experienced by people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The relationships between pain and physical activity (PA) and exercise capacity are poorly understood.

METHODS

This retrospective secondary analysis includes three cohorts of Veterans with COPD who participated in longitudinal studies evaluating PA and exercise capacity with objective measures of daily step counts and 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance, respectively. Pain was assessed using the bodily pain domain of the Veterans RAND-36. In two cohorts, participants were randomly assigned to a web-based, pedometer-mediated PA intervention which has previously been demonstrated to improve PA.

RESULTS

Three-hundred and seventy-three (373) unique study participants were included in this analysis. Eighty-three percent (n = 311) of the population reported at least mild pain and/or at least a little bit of interference due to pain at baseline. Cross-sectionally, greater bodily pain was associated with lower 6MWT distance (β = 0.51; 95% CI 0.20, 0.82; p = 0.0013). Longitudinally, worsening bodily pain was associated with a decline in 6MWT distance (β = 0.30; 95% CI 0.03, 0.58; p = 0.0312). There was no association between baseline bodily pain and baseline daily step counts, baseline bodily pain and change in PA, or change in bodily pain and change in PA. Compared to usual care, our PA intervention improved bodily pain scores (β = 6.17; 95% CI 1.84, 10.45; p = 0.0054). Bodily pain scores did not affect the impact of the intervention on daily step counts.

CONCLUSION

Pain is highly prevalent and significantly associated with lower exercise capacity among Veterans with COPD. Worsening pain co-occurred with decline in exercise capacity but not PA. Our intervention reduced pain, although pain did not affect the impact of the intervention on PA.

Benefits of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) on symptoms and quality of life in patients with COPD in the ETHOS trial

BACKGROUND

We report the long-term effects of triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) vs glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) and budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) on symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over 52 weeks in the Phase III ETHOS study of patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

METHODS

ETHOS was a randomized, double-blind, multi-center, parallel-group study in symptomatic patients with COPD who experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. Patients received twice-daily BGF 320/18/9.6 μg, BGF 160/18/9.6 μg, GFF 18/9.6 μg, or BFF 320/9.6 μg, administered via a single Aerosphere inhaler, for 52 weeks.

RESULTS

The modified intent-to-treat population included 8509 patients (mean age 64.7 years; 59.7% male; mean COPD Assessment Test score, 19.6). BGF significantly reduced rescue medication use vs GFF and BFF (-0.53 puffs/day [p < 0.0001] and -0.35 puffs/day [p = 0.0002], respectively, with BGF 320 over 52 weeks). BGF 320 also significantly improved St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score over 24 and 52 weeks vs dual therapies, resulting in the greatest proportion of SGRQ responders vs dual therapies over 24 weeks (52.5% vs 42.5% [GFF] and 45.2% [BFF]) and 52 weeks (47.0% vs 37.8% [GFF] and 41.0% [BFF]). Similar results were observed with BGF 160. Benefits were also observed vs dual therapies in symptomatic endpoints including Transition Dyspnea Index focal score, EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool total scores and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD total scores over 24 and 52 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

BGF triple therapy improved symptoms and HRQoL vs dual therapies over 24 and 52 weeks in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

How to Assess Breathlessness in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Activity-related breathlessness is the most problematic symptom of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), arising from complex interactions between peripheral pathophysiology (both pulmonary and non-pulmonary) and central perceptual processing. To capture information on the breathlessness experienced by people with COPD, many different instruments exist, which vary in applicability depending on the purpose and context of assessment. We reviewed common breathlessness assessment instruments, providing recommendations around how to assess the severity of, or change in, breathlessness in people with COPD in daily life or in response to exercise provocation. A summary of 14 instruments for the assessment of breathlessness severity in daily life is presented, with 11/14 (79%) instruments having established minimal clinically importance differences (MCIDs) to assess and interpret breathlessness change. Instruments varied in their scope of assessment (functional impact of breathlessness or the severity of breathlessness during different activities, focal periods, or alongside other common COPD symptoms), dimensions of breathlessness assessed (uni-/multidimensional), rating scale properties and intended method of administration (self-administered versus interviewer led). Assessing breathlessness in response to an acute exercise provocation overcomes some limitations of daily life assessment, such as recall bias and lack of standardized exertional stimulus. To assess the severity of breathlessness in response to an acute exercise provocation, unidimensional or multidimensional instruments are available. Borg's 0-10 category rating scale is the most widely used instrument and has estimates for a MCID during exercise. When assessing the severity of breathlessness during exercise, measures should be taken at a standardized submaximal point, whether during laboratory-based tests like cardiopulmonary exercise testing or field-based tests, such as the 3-min constant rate stair stepping or shuttle walking tests. Recommendations are provided around which instruments to use for breathlessness assessment in daily life and in relation to exertion in people with COPD.

Patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures in interstitial lung disease: where to go from here?

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), tools to assess patient self-report of health status, are now increasingly used in research, care and policymaking. While there are two well-developed disease-specific PROMs for interstitial lung diseases (ILD) and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), many unmet and urgent needs remain. In December 2019, 64 international ILD experts convened in Erice, Italy to deliberate on many topics, including PROMs in ILD. This review summarises the history of PROMs in ILD, shortcomings of the existing tools, challenges of development, validation and implementation of their use in clinical trials, and the discussion held during the meeting. Development of disease-specific PROMs for ILD including IPF with robust methodology and validation in concordance with guidance from regulatory authorities have increased user confidence in PROMs. Minimal clinically important difference for bidirectional changes may need to be developed. Cross-cultural validation and linguistic adaptations are necessary in addition to robust psychometric properties for effective PROM use in multinational clinical trials. PROM burden of use should be reduced through appropriate use of digital technologies and computerised adaptive testing. Active patient engagement in all stages from development, testing, choosing and implementation of PROMs can help improve probability of success and further growth.

PROMs are essential tools for research and care in ILD and IPF. They report patient perceptions of the impact of disease and its treatments on whole-person wellbeing and can guide research to make care more patient-centred.https://bit.ly/3s7Y0a8

Clinical outcomes and quality of life of COVID-19 survivors: A follow-up of 3 months post hospital discharge

BACKGROUND

Over 66 million people worldwide have been diagnosed with COVID-19. Therefore, understanding their clinical evolution beyond hospital discharge is essential not only from an individual standpoint, but from a populational level.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary aim was to assess the impact of COVID-19 on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) 3 months after hospital discharge. Additionally, we screened for anxiety and depression and assessed important clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This was a single-center cohort study performed in Sao Paulo (Brazil), in which participants were contacted by telephone to answer a short survey. EQ-5D-3L was used to assess HRQoL and clinical data from patients' index admission were retrieved from medical records.

RESULTS

We contacted 251 participants (59.8% males, mean age 53 years old), 69.7% of which had presented with severe COVID-19. At 3 months of follow-up, 6 patients had died, 51 (20.3%) had visited the emergency department again and 17 (6.8%) had been readmitted to hospital. Seventy patients (27.9%) persisted with increased dyspnoea and 81 had a positive screening for anxiety/depression. Similarly, patients reported an overall worsening of EQ-5D-3L single summary index at 3 months compared to before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms (0.8012 (0.7368 - 1.0) vs. 1.0(0.7368 - 1.0), p < 0.001). This affected all 5 domains, but especially pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Only female sex and intensive care requirement were independently associated with worsening of HRQoL.

CONCLUSION

Patients hospitalized for COVID-19 frequently face persistent clinical and mental health problems up to 3 months following hospital discharge, with significant impact on patients' HRQoL.

Assessment of dyspnea in sarcoidosis using the Baseline Dyspnea Index (BDI) and the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI)

INTRODUCTION

The Borg and Modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scales have been used to evaluate dyspnea in sarcoidosis. The Baseline Dyspnea Index (BDI) and Transitional Dyspnea Index (TDI) are useful for the assessment of dyspnea in COPD. It is not known if the BDI-TDI accurately assesses dyspnea in sarcoidosis patients.

METHODS

Data was analyzed from the Registry for Advanced Sarcoidosis (ReAS), a multi-national database enrolling patients with advanced sarcoidosis and a comparison group of sarcoidosis patients with non-advanced disease. At baseline, patients completed a BDI questionnaire along with spirometry, 6-min walk distance (6MWD), mMRC, Borg score, fatigue assessment score (FAS) and HRQoL assessments using Kings Sarcoidosis Questionnaire (KSQ) and St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). At 12-months, patients with advanced disease completed a TDI questionnaire along with the other measures. Correlations between BDI and baseline variables, and between TDI and changes in baseline variables were evaluated.

RESULTS

There was significant correlation (p < 0.001 for all) between BDI and baseline 6MWD (rho = 0.336), FVC% (rho = 0.387), FEV1% (rho = 0.285), DLCO% (rho = 0.355), mMRC (rho = -0.721), Borg score (rho = -0.389), FAS (rho = -0.669), SGRQ (rho = -0.785), and KSQ (rho = 0.318 to 0.724). At follow-up, TDI correlated with BDI, but not with changes in pulmonary function or other dyspnea measures.

CONCLUSION

BDI scores correlated with pulmonary function, 6MWD, and other dyspnea measures. TDI scores did not correlate with changes in pulmonary function or other dyspnea measures. BDI may be a useful independent measure of dyspnea in sarcoidosis patients. The role of TDI needs further evaluation in longitudinal studies associated with changes in clinical parameters.

Treatment of COPD with Long-Acting Bronchodilators: Association Between Early and Longer-Term Clinically Important Improvement

Introduction

This post hoc analysis of the “Early MAXimization of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability” (EMAX) trial investigated whether patients achieving early clinically important improvement (CII) sustained longer-term improvements and lower risk of clinically important deterioration (CID).

Methods

Patients were randomized to umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, or salmeterol for 24 weeks. The patient-reported outcomes (PROs) Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI), Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and COPD Assessment Test (CAT) were assessed. CII, defined as attaining minimum clinically important differences (MCID) in ≥2 PROs, was assessed at Weeks 4, 12 and 24. CID was defined as a deterioration in CAT, SGRQ, TDI by the MCID and/or a moderate/severe exacerbation from Day 30.

Results

Of 2425 patients, 50%, 53% and 51% achieved a CII at Weeks 4, 12 and 24, respectively. Patients with a CII at Week 4 versus those without had significantly greater odds of achieving a CII at Weeks 12 and 24 (odds ratio: 5.57 [95% CI: 4.66, 6.66]; 4.09 [95% CI: 3.44, 4.86]). The risk of a CID was higher in patients who did not achieve a CII at Week 4 compared with patients who did (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 2.09 [1.86, 2.34]). Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus either monotherapy had significantly greater odds of achieving CII at Weeks 4, 12 and 24.

Conclusion

Achieving a CII at Week 4 was associated with longer-term improvement in PROs and a reduced risk of deterioration. Further research is required to investigate the importance of an early response to treatment on the long-term disease course.

Efficacy and Safety of Inhaled Glycopyrronium Bromide in COPD: A Randomized, Parallel Group, Dose-Ranging Study (GLIMMER)

This Phase II, randomized, parallel group study was conducted as part of US regulatory requirements to identify the most appropriate dose of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist glycopyrronium bromide (GB) for use in a single-inhaler triple-therapy combination with the inhaled corticosteroid beclomethasone dipropionate plus the long-acting β₂-agonist formoterol fumarate. Eligible subjects were adults with COPD and post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) 40-80% predicted. Subjects were randomized to receive inhaled double-blind GB 6.25, 12.5, 25 or 50 µg or placebo, all twice daily (BID), or open-label tiotropium 18 µg once daily for six weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of GB versus placebo in terms of FEV₁ area under the curve between 0 and 12 h at Week 6. Of 733 subjects randomized, 682 (93.0%) completed the study. For the primary endpoint, all GB doses were superior to placebo (p < 0.05), with a dose-response up to 25 µg BID, and 25 and 50 µg BID both superior to 6.25 µg BID (p < 0.05). Results for the secondary spirometry endpoints were consistent with the primary endpoint. Overall, the efficacy of GB 25 and 50 µg BID was broadly consistent with that of tiotropium. The incidence of adverse events, both overall and for the most common preferred terms, was low and similar in all treatment groups, including placebo (overall, 22.3-29.3%). Based on the totality of the efficacy and safety data, the optimal GB dose is 25 µg BID.

The Effectiveness of 3 Combined Therapeutic Regimens in Egyptian Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Double-Blind Prospective Pilot Study

•

LABA+ICS, LAMA+ICS and LABA+LAMA improved FEV1 % predicted

•

The three therapeutic combinations showed statistically similar safety profiles and efficacy

•

The results of this pilot study suggest that TNF-α, fibrinogen and IL-6 can be used to monitor disease progression or guide therapeutic decisions.

Background

There are differences of opinion about both the most effective combined therapeutic strategy and the clinical benefit of inhaled corticosteroids in nonasthmatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Furthermore, many inflammatory cytokines are reportedly correlated with severity of the disease.

Objectives

To compare the effectiveness of long acting β-agonist + long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA + LAMA) versus LABA + inhaled corticosteroid and LAMA + inhaled corticosteroid in nonasthmatic patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. To assess the changes that occurred in plasma concentrations of tumor necrosis factor α, fibrinogen, and interleukin 6, and correlate these with disease activity.

Methods

In this pilot study, 45 nonasthmatic patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were randomized into 3 groups with 15 patients in each group. Group I (LABA + inhaled corticosteroid) received formoterol/budesonide, group II (LAMA + inhaled corticosteroid) received tiotropium/budesonide and group III (LABA + LAMA) received formoterol/tiotropium for 12 weeks. Patients were assessed initially and then at 4 and 12 weeks by measuring the changes that occurred in forced expiratory volume in 1 second as a percent of predicted and in the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale. Plasma concentrations of tumor necrosis factor α, fibrinogen, and interleukin 6 were simultaneously measured.

Results

The 3 study groups were statistically similar with respect to their demographic data and disease characteristics. All therapeutic options produced an improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second as a percent of predicted and in the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale as well as a reduction in plasma concentrations of the inflammatory markers. The effects produced by the three therapeutic combinations on forced expiratory volume in 1 second as a percent of predicted, plasma tumor necrosis factor α, interleukin 6, and fibrinogen concentrations were statistically similar after 4 and 12 weeks (4 weeks after treatment: P = 0.358, P = 0.284, P = 0.155, and P = 0.155, respectively, and 12 weeks after treatment: P = 0.710, P = 0.773, P = 0.240, and P = 0.076, respectively).

Conclusions

In nonasthmatic patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the 3 therapeutic combinations showed similar effectiveness. The results of this pilot study also suggest that inflammatory markers can be used to track disease activity. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04520230. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2021; 82:XXX–XXX)

Effects of Tiotropium/Olodaterol on Activity-Related Breathlessness, Exercise Endurance and Physical Activity in Patients with COPD: Narrative Review with Meta-/Pooled Analyses

Abstract

One of the most debilitating symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is breathlessness, which leads to avoidance of physical activities in daily living and hastens clinical deterioration. Treatment of patients with COPD with inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) combination therapy improves airflow limitation, reduces breathlessness compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and improves health status and quality of life. A large clinical trial programme focusing on the effects of tiotropium/olodaterol combination therapy demonstrated that this LAMA/LABA combination improves lung function and reduces hyperinflation (assessed by serial inspiratory capacity measurements) compared with either tiotropium alone or placebo in patients with COPD. Tiotropium/olodaterol also increases exercise endurance capacity and improves patient perception of the intensity of breathlessness compared with placebo. In this narrative review, we focus on the relationship between improving symptoms during activity, the ability to remain active in daily life and how this may impact quality of life. We consider the benefits of therapy optimisation by means of dual bronchodilation with tiotropium/olodaterol, and present new data from meta-analyses/pooled analyses showing that tiotropium/olodaterol improves inspiratory capacity compared with placebo and tiotropium and improves exercise endurance time compared with placebo after 6 weeks of treatment. We also discuss the importance of taking a holistic approach to improving physical activity, including pulmonary rehabilitation and exercise programmes in parallel with bronchodilator therapy and psychological programmes to support behaviour change.

Graphic Abstract

Assessing Symptom Burden

Evaluating symptoms is a central part of the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) assessment system as suggested by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). Considering the pros and cons of all currently available tests, GOLD suggests using primarily the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale or the COPD Assessment Test. Based on the test results, patients are categorized as having a low or high level of symptoms. This level then becomes one of the 2 dimensions of the ABCD grading system, which was designed to match the best initial treatment option to the individual patient's needs.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Barthel Index Dyspnea in Patients with COPD

Background

The Barthel Index dyspnea (BId) is responsive to physiological changes and pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has not been established yet.

Aim

To identify the MCID of BId in patients with COPD stratified according to the presence of chronic respiratory failure (CRF) or not.

Materials and Methods

Using the Medical Research Council (MRC) score as an anchor, receiver operating characteristic curves and quantile regression were retrospectively evaluated before and after pulmonary rehabilitation in 2327 patients with COPD (1151 of them with CRF).

Results

The median post-rehabilitation changes in BId for all patients were −10 (interquartile range = −17 to −3, p<0.001), correlating significantly with changes in MRC (r = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.59, p<0.001). Comparing different methods of assessment, the MCID ranged from −6.5 to −9 points for patients without and −7.5 to −12 points for patients with CRF.

Conclusion

The most conservative estimate of the MCID is −9 points in patients with COPD, without and −12 in those with CRF. This estimate may be useful in the clinical interpretation of data, particularly in response to intervention studies.

Symptom Improvement Following Treatment with the Inhaled Dual Phosphodiesterase 3 and 4 Inhibitor Ensifentrine in Patients with Moderate to Severe COPD - A Detailed Analysis

Introduction

Ensifentrine is an inhaled first-in-class dual inhibitor of phosphodiesterase (PDE) 3 and 4. In a four-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), nebulized ensifentrine 0.75 to 6mg twice daily significantly improved bronchodilation and symptoms, with all doses being well tolerated. Here, we report data for a number of prespecified exploratory and post hoc endpoints from this study that help to further profile the effect of ensifentrine on symptoms.

Methods

Eligible patients were males or females aged 40-75 years with COPD, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second 40-80% predicted. Other than being clinically stable for at least four weeks prior to entry, there were no symptomatic inclusion or exclusion criteria. The outcome measures reported in this manuscript are the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms [E-RS™:COPD] questionnaire total score and subscales (breathlessness, cough/sputum and chest symptoms) at Weeks 1-4, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score at Weeks 2 and 4, and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire - COPD Specific (SGRQ-C) total score and domain data (symptoms, activity and impacts) at Week 4.

Results

There was a gradual improvement versus placebo with all ensifentrine doses for all three E-RS™:COPD subscales from Week 1 to Week 4, with the greatest ensifentrine effect on the breathlessness subscale, and all four doses superior to placebo from Week 2 onwards (p<0.05). For TDI focal score, all ensifentrine doses were superior to placebo at Weeks 2 and 4 (p<0.05). In the individual SGRQ-C domains at Week 4, ensifentrine had the greatest effect on the symptoms domain, with ensifentrine 6mg superior to placebo (p<0.05).

Conclusion

In these analyses, ensifentrine demonstrated a notable early and meaningful effect on dyspnea, with this effect observed across two different assessment tools.

Relieving exertional dyspnea during the 3-min constant speed shuttle test in patients with COPD with indacaterol/glycopyrronium versus tiotropium: the RED trial

Background:

Exertional dyspnea is a cardinal feature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a major cause of activity limitation. Although dual bronchodilation is more effective than bronchodilator monotherapy at improving resting pulmonary function, it is unclear to which extent this translates into superior relief of exertional dyspnea.

Methods:

We conducted a randomized controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial comparing indacaterol 110 µg/glycopyrronium 50 µg once daily (OD) with tiotropium 50 µg OD in patients with moderate to severe COPD and resting hyperinflation (functional residual capacity >120% of predicted value). The primary outcome was Borg dyspnea score at the end of a 3-min constant speed shuttle test after 3 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included changes in Borg dyspnea score after the first dose of study medication, expiratory flows and lung volumes. Statistical analysis was conducted using a cross-over analysis of variance model with repeated measurements.

Results:

A total of 50 patients with COPD and a mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s of 54 ± 11% (mean ± SEM) predicted participated in the cross-over phase of the trial. Compared with baseline, there was a decrease in dyspnea after the first dose of medication with indacaterol/glycopyrronium [mean −1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.49 to −0.52] but not with tiotropium alone (mean −0.36, 95% CI −0.81 to 0.08). The reduction in dyspnea after the first dose was statistically significant between the two treatments (mean difference of −0.64, 95% CI −1.11 to −0.17). Despite indacaterol/glycopyrronium providing further bronchodilation and lung deflation throughout the trial, the reduction in dyspnea was not sustained at 3 weeks of treatment (mean between-treatment difference at 3 weeks of 0.09, 95% CI −0.44 to 0.61).

Conclusion:

In comparison with bronchodilator monotherapy, indacaterol/glycopyrronium provided greater immediate exertional dyspnea relief, although this difference was not sustained after 3 weeks of therapy despite evidence of further bronchodilation and lung deflation.

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

Effect of pulmonary rehabilitation programs including lower limb endurance training on dyspnea in stable COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is recommended as an effective treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Previous meta-analyses showed that PR improves exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). However, they did not evaluate the effect of PR on the sensation of dyspnea. We searched six databases in May 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined PR, including supervised lower limb endurance training as a minimal essential component that was continued for 4-12 weeks, in patients with stable COPD, with changes from baseline dyspnea as a primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were changes in exercise capacity, HRQOL, activity of daily life (ADL), physical activity (PA), and adverse events. We calculated the pooled weighted mean difference (MD) using a random effects model. We identified 42 studies with 2150 participants. Compared with the control, PR improved dyspnea, as shown using the British Medical Research Council (MRC) questionnaire (MD, -0.64; 95% CI, -0.99 to -0.30; p = 0.0003), transitional dyspnea index (MD, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.09 to 2.81; p = 0.0001), modified Borg score during exercise (MD, -0.62; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.14; p = 0.01), and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) dyspnea score (MD, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.44; p = 0.0007). PR significantly increased exercise capacity measured by the 6 min walking distance time, peak workload, and peak VO₂. It improved HRQOL measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire and CRQ, but not on PA or ADL. These results indicated that PR programs including lower limb endurance training improve dyspnea, HRQOL, and exercise capacity in patients with stable COPD.

Effect of Zephyr Endobronchial Valves on Dyspnea, Activity Levels, and Quality of Life at One Year. Results from a Randomized Clinical Trial

Rationale: Bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with Zephyr Valves improves lung function, exercise tolerance, and quality of life of patients with hyperinflated emphysema and little to no collateral ventilation.Objectives:Post hoc analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including multidimensional measures of dyspnea, activity, and quality of life, in the LIBERATE (Lung Function Improvement after Bronchoscopic Lung Volume Reduction with Pulmonx Endobronchial Valves used in Treatment of Emphysema) study are reported.Methods: A total of 190 patients with severe heterogeneous emphysema and little to no collateral ventilation in the target lobe were randomized 2:1 to the Zephyr Valve or standard of care. Changes in PROs at 12 months in the two groups were compared: dyspnea with the Transitional Dyspnea Index (TDI), focal score; the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test (CAT; breathlessness on hill/stairs); Borg; the EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool-PRO, dyspnea domain; activity with the TDI, magnitude of task/effort/functional impairment, CAT (limited activities), and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), activity domain; and psychosocial status with the SGRQ, impacts domain, and CAT (confidence and energy).Results: At 12 months, patients using the Zephyr Valve achieved statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in the SGRQ; CAT; and the TDI, focal score, compared with standard of care. Improvements in the SGRQ were driven by the impacts and activity domains (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, respectively). Reduction in CAT was through improvements in breathlessness (P < 0.05), energy level (P < 0.05), activities (P < 0.001), and increased confidence when leaving home (P < 0.05). The TDI measures of effort, task, and functional impairment were uniformly improved (P < 0.001). The EXAcerbations of Chronic Pulmonary Disease Tool (EXACT)-PRO, dyspnea domain, was significantly improved in the Zephyr Valve group. Improvements correlated with changes in residual volume and residual volume/TLC ratio.Conclusions: Patients with severe hyperinflated emphysema achieving lung volume reductions with Zephyr Valves experience improvements in multidimensional scores for breathlessness, activity, and psychosocial parameters out to at least 12 months.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01796392).

Efficacy of revefenacin, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist for nebulized therapy, in patients with markers of more severe COPD: a post hoc subgroup analysis

Background

Revefenacin, a once-daily, long-acting muscarinic antagonist delivered via standard jet nebulizer, increased trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in prior phase 3 trials. We evaluated the efficacy of revefenacin in patients with markers of more severe COPD.

Methods

A post hoc subgroup analysis of two replicate, randomized, phase 3 trials was conducted over 12 weeks. Endpoints included least squares change from baseline in trough FEV₁, St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders, and transition dyspnea index (TDI) responders at Day 85. This analysis included patient subgroups at high risk for COPD exacerbations and compared patients who received revefenacin 175 μg and placebo: severe and very severe airflow limitation (percent predicted FEV₁ 30%–< 50% and < 30%), 2011 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) D, reversibility (≥ 12% and ≥ 200 mL increase in FEV₁) to short-acting bronchodilators, concurrent use of long-acting β agonists and/or inhaled corticosteroids, older age (> 65 and > 75 years), and comorbidity risk factors.

Results

Revefenacin demonstrated significant improvements in FEV₁ versus placebo at Day 85 among the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and all subgroups. Additionally, there was a greater number of SGRQ and TDI responders in the ITT population and the majority of subgroups analyzed among patients who received revefenacin versus placebo. For the SGRQ responders, the odds of response (odds ratio > 2.0) were significantly greater in the revefenacin arm versus the placebo arm among the severe airflow obstruction, very severe airflow obstruction and 2011 GOLD D subgroups. For the TDI responders, the odds of response (odds ratio > 2.0) were significantly greater among the severe airflow obstruction subgroup and patients aged > 75 years.

Conclusions

Revefenacin showed significantly greater improvements in FEV₁ versus placebo in the ITT population and all subgroups. Furthermore, there were a greater number of SGRQ and TDI responders in the ITT population, and in the majority of patient subgroups among patients who received revefenacin versus placebo. Based on the data presented, revefenacin could be a therapeutic option among patients with markers of more severe COPD.

Trial registration

Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (Studies 0126 [NCT02459080; prospectively registered 22 May 2015] and 0127 [NCT02512510; prospectively registered 28 July 2015]).

Efficacy and Safety of Budesonide/Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler in Chinese Patients with COPD: A Subgroup Analysis of KRONOS

INTRODUCTION

This pre-specified subgroup analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI) triple therapy versus corresponding dual therapies in the China subgroup of the phase III, double-blind KRONOS study in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

Patients were randomized 2:2:1:1 to BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 μg, glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) MDI 18/9.6 μg, budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) MDI 320/9.6 μg, or budesonide/formoterol fumarate dry powder inhaler (BUD/FORM DPI) 400/12 μg twice daily for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) over weeks 12-24. Secondary endpoints included symptoms, health-related quality of life, and safety. Rate of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations was an additional efficacy endpoint.

RESULTS

In the China subgroup (n = 432; 22.7% of the KRONOS population), BGF MDI demonstrated nominally significant improvements in the primary endpoint versus BFF MDI (least squares mean (LSM) difference 68 mL; P = 0.0035) and BUD/FORM DPI (LSM difference 78 mL; P = 0.0010) but not GFF MDI (LSM difference - 4 mL; P = 0.8316). BGF MDI demonstrated at least numerical improvements versus comparators in secondary lung function and symptom endpoints. BGF MDI reduced the rate of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations versus GFF MDI (rate ratio 0.41; P = 0.0030), with numerical benefits versus BFF MDI and BUD/FORM DPI. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Results demonstrated that BGF MDI showed benefits on lung function (vs inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist), as well as symptoms and exacerbations relative to dual therapies. Findings support BGF MDI use in Chinese patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02497001.

Efficacy And Safety Of Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler (GFF MDI) Formulated Using Co-Suspension Delivery Technology In Chinese Patients With COPD

Background

Glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI) is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist fixed-dose combination therapy delivered by MDI, formulated using innovative co-suspension delivery technology. The PINNACLE-4 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of GFF MDI in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from Asia, Europe, and the USA. This article presents the results from the China subpopulation of PINNACLE-4.

Methods

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group Phase III study (NCT02343458), patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 µg, glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 18 µg, formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 µg, or placebo MDI (all twice daily) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at Week 24. Secondary lung function endpoints and patient-reported outcome measures were also assessed. Safety was monitored throughout the study.

Results

Overall, 466 patients from China were included in the intent-to-treat population (mean age 63.6 years, 95.7% male). Treatment with GFF MDI improved the primary endpoint compared to GP MDI, FF MDI, and placebo MDI (least squares mean differences: 98, 104, and 173 mL, respectively; all P≤0.0001). GFF MDI also improved daily total symptom scores and time to first clinically important deterioration versus monocomponents and placebo MDI, and Transition Dyspnea Index focal score versus placebo MDI. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across the active treatment groups and slightly higher in the placebo MDI group.

Conclusion

GFF MDI improved lung function and daily symptoms versus monocomponents and placebo MDI and improved dyspnea versus placebo MDI. All treatments were well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings. Efficacy and safety results were generally consistent with the global PINNACLE-4 population, supporting the use of GFF MDI in patients with COPD from China.

Current evidence for COPD management with dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist bronchodilators

Long-acting inhaled bronchodilator medications are recommended as initial maintenance therapy for many patients with COPD. These medications include long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA). Combinations of long-acting bronchodilator agents (LAMA/LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids combined with LABA (ICS/LABA) are also used as initial or follow-up therapy in patients with more severe symptoms or at risk of COPD exacerbations. This review summarizes the position of LAMA/LABA combinations in treatment recommendations, and the evidence supporting their placement relative to LAMA monotherapy and ICS/LABA combination therapy, as well as differences within the LAMA/LABA class. Most studies show that LAMA/LABA treatment leads to greater improvements in lung function and symptoms than LAMA monotherapy or ICS/LABA treatment. There are fewer studies comparing the impact of different medication classes on patients' risk of exacerbations; however, the available evidence suggests that LAMA/LABA treatment and LAMA monotherapy lead to a similar reduction in exacerbation risk, while the effect of LAMA/LABA compared with ICS/LABA remains unclear. The incidence of adverse events is similar with LAMA/LABA and LAMA alone. There is a lower risk of pneumonia with LAMA/LABA compared with ICS/LABA. This evidence supports the use of LAMA/LABA combinations as an initial maintenance therapy option for symptomatic patients with low exacerbation risk and severe breathlessness or patients with severe symptoms who are at risk of exacerbations, and as follow-up treatment in patients with uncontrolled symptoms or exacerbations on bronchodilator monotherapy.

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.

An Evaluation Of Single And Dual Long-Acting Bronchodilator Therapy As Effective Interventions In Maintenance Therapy-Naïve Patients With COPD

Background

Ideally, treatment recommendations for maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD should be based on studies conducted specifically in this population. We have reviewed evidence from previous studies of pharmacological treatments in maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD and performed a new post-hoc analysis of dual bronchodilator treatment in this population, aiming to assess the effectiveness of these interventions.

Materials and methods

A literature review identified clinical trials that included analyses of patients with COPD who were maintenance therapy-naïve with long-acting β2-agonists (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). Additionally, a post-hoc subgroup analysis was conducted for maintenance therapy-naïve patients with COPD in two large phase III, randomized, double-blind, 24-week trials investigating the efficacy of aclidinium bromide/formoterol fumarate (AB/FF) fixed-dose combination versus monotherapy or placebo (ACLIFORM [NCT01462942] and AUGMENT [NCT01437397]).

Results

Treatment-naïve patients with COPD often represent a population of patients at the earliest stage at which most patients seek treatment. Of nine relevant studies identified, all reported positive findings for efficacy of LABA, LAMA, or LABA/LAMA treatment in maintenance therapy-naïve populations. Improvements were observed in lung function, symptoms, and health status versus monotherapy or placebo. Post-hoc analysis of ACLIFORM and AUGMENT demonstrated that AB/FF was effective in improving lung function in patients who had received no prior maintenance therapy. AB/FF showed improvements in 1 hr post-dose FEV1, trough FEV1, and patient-reported outcomes versus placebo and monotherapies. Combined with reviews of previous studies in maintenance therapy-naïve patients, these findings suggest that earlier intervention with a dual bronchodilator maintenance therapy, such as AB/FF, may provide significantly greater benefits than LAMA or LABA mono-bronchodilator therapy as a first maintenance treatment for COPD.

Conclusion

These data show that therapeutic intervention is effective in treatment-naïve patients. Intervention with dual bronchodilator therapy as a first maintenance treatment for COPD may provide greater benefits than LAMA or LABA monotherapy.

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.

The Impact of Twice-Daily Indacaterol/Glycopyrrolate on the Components of Health-Related Quality of Life and Dyspnea in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background

Chronic cough, dyspnea, and excessive sputum production, the characteristic symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), can negatively affect patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The fixed-dose combination of a long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA/LAMA) have been shown to improve HRQoL and COPD symptoms as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) total scores. However, the impact of a LABA/LAMA on the individual components of HRQoL and dyspnea with daily activities is unknown.

Methods

Secondary analysis of pooled data from 2 replicate, phase 3, 12-week, randomized, placebo, and active-controlled trials of twice-daily indacaterol/glycopyrrolate (IND/GLY) were analyzed. Change from baseline in HRQoL and dyspnea was measured by SGRQ and TDI, respectively. Total and component scores were evaluated using linear mixed models. Logistic regression was used to analyze the proportion of patients achieving minimum clinically important difference. Study outcomes were further explored in patient subgroups.

Results

A total of 2038 patients from FLIGHT1/FLIGHT2 studies were evaluated. IND/GLY significantly improved SGRQ component scores (symptoms [-7.3], activity [-3.6], and impacts [-5.0]); all P < 0.001 compared with placebo. IND/GLY also significantly improved symptoms scores compared with IND and GLY (-3.5 and -3.7, respectively; both P < 0.001). Patients treated with IND/GLY also had significant improvements in TDI component scores compared with placebo: functional impairment (0.48), magnitude of task (0.61), and magnitude of effort (0.54); all P < 0.001. All component scores were significantly higher for IND/GLY compared with IND and GLY (P ≤ 0.002 for all).

Conclusions

Twice-daily IND/GLY significantly improved total scores as well as components of HRQoL and dyspnea in patients with COPD. These data demonstrate multiple clinical benefits of LABA/LAMA maintenance therapy in the COPD population. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01727141 and NCT01712516.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy Study of Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler Relative to Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Dry Powder Inhaler in COPD

INTRODUCTION

Glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI), formulated using co-suspension delivery technology, is the only approved fixed-dose combination long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) delivered via MDI. Direct comparisons of GFF MDI versus other LAMA/LABAs have not previously been performed. We assessed the efficacy and safety of GFF MDI relative to umeclidinium/vilanterol dry powder inhaler (UV DPI) in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

In this phase IIIb randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, 24-week study, patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 μg (equivalent to glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate 14.4/10 μg; two inhalations per dose, twice-daily; n = 559) or UV DPI 62.5/25 μg (one inhalation, once-daily; n = 560). Primary endpoints were change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) and peak change from baseline in FEV₁ within 2 h post-dose, both over 24 weeks. Additional lung function, symptom and safety endpoints were also assessed.

RESULTS

For the primary endpoints, GFF MDI was non-inferior to UV DPI (using a margin of - 50 mL) for peak FEV₁ (least squares mean [LSM] difference - 3.4 mL, 97.5% confidence interval [CI] - 32.8, 25.9) but not for trough FEV₁ (LSM difference - 87.2 mL; - 117.0, - 57.4). GFF MDI was nominally superior to UV DPI for onset of action (p < 0.0001) and was nominally non-inferior to UV DPI for all symptom endpoints (Transition Dyspnea Index focal score, Early Morning/Night-Time Symptoms COPD instrument scores, and COPD Assessment Test score). Exacerbation and safety findings were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Over 24 weeks of treatment, GFF MDI was non-inferior to UV DPI for peak FEV₁, but not for morning pre-dose trough FEV₁. GFF MDI had a faster onset of action versus UV DPI. There were no clinically meaningful differences between treatments in symptom endpoints. Both treatments were well tolerated with similar safety profiles.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03162055 (Clinicaltrials.gov) FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Effect of smoking status on lung function, patient-reported outcomes, and safety among patients with COPD treated with indacaterol/glycopyrrolate: Pooled analysis of the FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2 studies

BACKGROUND

Smoking continues to be a major risk factor for COPD and may impact the efficacy of COPD treatments, with guidelines supporting the crucial importance for current smokers of smoking cessation. A post-hoc analysis of the FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2 studies assessed the impact of smoking status on the efficacy and safety of indacaterol/glycopyrrolate (IND/GLY) 27.5/15.6 μg twice daily versus its monocomponents or placebo in patients with COPD.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis of pooled data from the replicate, 12-week, placebo-controlled FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2 studies compared the efficacy and safety of IND/GLY with that of IND, GLY, and placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Baseline data from 2038 patients were pooled and grouped by smoking status (52% were current smokers and 48% were ex-smokers). The effects of treatment on lung function, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and safety were evaluated by baseline smoking status.

RESULTS

Treatment with IND/GLY resulted in significant improvements in lung function measurements compared with placebo, irrespective of smoking status. Improvements in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and transition dyspnea index were significantly greater than placebo in both current and ex-smokers, whereas changes in COPD assessment test were significant only among current smokers. Improvements in lung function and PROs were greater with IND/GLY compared with its monocomponents in current and ex-smokers. The incidences of AEs and SAEs were similar between current and ex-smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

IND/GLY demonstrated significant improvements in lung function and PROs, independent of baseline smoking status. The safety profile of IND/GLY did not differ between current and ex-smokers.

Effect of pulmonary rehabilitation with assistive use of short-acting β2 agonist in COPD patients using long-acting bronchodilators

Background: Assistive use of short-acting β2 agonists (SABAs) reportedly improves exercise tolerance, activities of daily living, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the effect of SABA on physical activity (PA) is unclear.Objective: This study aimed to determine whether assistive use of SABA increases PA and whether additional pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) can aid further improvement.Methods: Twelve outpatients with COPD and dyspnea during daily activities despite regular use of long-acting bronchodilators were enrolled. This study comprised a 2-week pre-intervention investigation, a 12-week investigation of SABA effects, and an 8-week investigation of the additional effects of PR. Assistive use of SABA was allowed up to 4 times per day after the pre-intervention period. PA was measured for 14 consecutive days using an accelerometer sensor. Dyspnea, exercise tolerance, and HRQOL were evaluated at entry, at 4 and 12 weeks after initiating SABA use, and after completing PR.Results: Assistive use of SABA improved breathlessness during daily activities and increased PA (p < .001). PA and HRQOL were also improved following PR (p < .001 and p = .013, respectively).Conclusions: Combined therapy of SABA and PR can increase PA and HRQOL in COPD patients.

Effect of smoking status on lung function, patient-reported outcomes, and safety among COPD patients treated with glycopyrrolate inhalation powder: pooled analysis of GEM1 and GEM2 studies

BACKGROUND

Smoking is a major risk factor for COPD and may impact the efficacy of COPD treatments; however, a large proportion of COPD patients continue to smoke following diagnosis.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis of pooled data from the replicate 12-week, placebo-controlled GEM1 and GEM2 studies assessed the impact of smoking status on the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate 15.6 μg twice daily vs placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Data from 867 patients enrolled in GEM1 and GEM2 were pooled for analysis and grouped by smoking status (57% current smokers, 43% ex-smokers). Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) area under the curve from 0 to 12 h, trough FEV1, forced vital capacity, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, COPD assessment test (CAT) score, transition dyspnea index (TDI) focal score, daily symptom scores, and rescue medication use were assessed in current smokers and ex-smokers. Incidences of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were also assessed.

RESULTS

Treatment with glycopyrrolate resulted in significant improvements in all lung function measures, independent of smoking status. In both current and ex-smokers, changes from baseline in trough FEV1 were less marked in patients taking inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) than those not receiving ICS. Changes from baseline in SGRQ total score and rescue medication use were significantly greater with glycopyrrolate compared with placebo, regardless of smoking status. Changes in the CAT score, TDI focal score, and daily symptom scores significantly improved versus placebo, but only in current smokers. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with glycopyrrolate relative to placebo were numerically greater in current smokers than ex-smokers. The incidences of AEs and SAEs were similar regardless of smoking status.

CONCLUSIONS

In this post-hoc analysis of GEM1 and GEM2, glycopyrrolate use led to significant improvements in lung function, independent of baseline smoking status; improvements were less marked among patients receiving background ICS, regardless of baseline smoking status. Improvements in PROs were greater with glycopyrrolate than placebo, and the magnitude of changes was numerically greater among current smokers. The safety profile of glycopyrrolate was comparable between current smokers and ex-smokers.

Efficacy of Indacaterol/Glycopyrrolate in Patients with COPD by Airway Reversibility at Baseline: A Pooled Analysis of the FLIGHT1 and FLIGHT2 12-Week Studies

Bronchodilator reversibility occurs in patients with COPD. Pooled analysis of two 12-week, placebo-controlled randomised studies (FLIGHT1 [NCT01727141]; FLIGHT2 [NCT01712516]) assessed the effect of bronchodilator reversibility on lung function, patient-reported outcomes, and safety in 2,043 patients with moderate-to-severe COPD treated with indacaterol/glycopyrrolate (IND/GLY) 27.5/15.6 µg twice daily. Reversibility was defined as post-bronchodilator increase in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) of ≥12% and ≥0.200 L. Overall, mean reversibility (mean post-bronchodilator FEV₁ increase) was 22.8%, and 54.5% of patients met reversibility criteria. IND/GLY resulted in significant (p < 0.05) placebo-adjusted improvements from baseline at Week 12 in reversible and non-reversible patients in FEV₁ area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (0.308 L and 0.170 L, respectively), trough FEV₁ (0.260 L and 0.174 L), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score (-6.3 and -3.5), COPD Assessment Test total score (-2.3 and -1.2), daily rescue medication use (-1.52 and -0.79), and daily total symptom score (-0.86 and -0.63); Transition Dyspnoea Index focal score also showed improvements (1.93 and 1.29) at Week 12, irrespective of reversibility status. Improvements in lung function and rescue medication use were significantly (p < 0.05) greater in IND/GLY patients in the reversible subgroup compared with the non-reversible subgroup. The safety profile was similar across treatment groups and reversibility subgroups. Overall, treatment with IND/GLY led to significant improvements in lung function and PROs in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, regardless of reversibility status, with greater improvements in the reversible subgroup. Safety profile was not affected by reversibility status.

Efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate in patients with COPD by reversibility: pooled analysis of GEM1 and GEM2 12-week studies

Purpose

Bronchodilator reversibility has been reported in patients with COPD, although correlations between reversibility and treatment response are unclear. The effect of reversibility on lung function, health status, and dyspnea was assessed in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD receiving glycopyrrolate (GLY) 15.6 µg twice daily vs placebo in the Glycopyrrolate Effect on syMptoms and lung function 1 and 2 (GEM1 and GEM2) replicate, 12-week, placebo-controlled studies.

Patients and methods

Reversibility was defined as a post-bronchodilator increase of ≥12% and ≥0.200 L in FEV₁. FEV₁ area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12 h), trough FEV₁, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, COPD Assessment Test (CAT™) score, Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score, daily symptom scores, and rescue medication use were assessed by reversibility status. Incidences of adverse events and serious adverse events were also assessed.

Results

Data from 846 patients enrolled in GEM1 and GEM2 with known reversibility status were pooled for post hoc analysis. GLY significantly improved FEV₁ AUC0-12 h, trough FEV₁, SGRQ and CAT total scores, and rescue medication use compared with placebo in reversible and nonreversible patients. Significant improvements in TDI focal score and daily symptom scores with GLY over placebo were observed only among reversible patients. Improvements in FEV₁ AUC0-12 h (0.165 vs 0.078 L; P<0.001) and trough FEV₁ (0.173 vs 0.070 L; P<0.001) were clinically relevant (based on minimal clinically important differences) and significantly greater in reversible compared with nonreversible patients receiving GLY. The safety profile of GLY was not affected by reversibility status.

Conclusion

In this post hoc analysis, GLY was associated with significant improvements in lung function and patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo, mostly independent of reversibility status. In patients receiving GLY, improvements in lung function were greater in reversible compared with nonreversible patients. Reversibility status did not meaningfully impact the safety profile of GLY.

Extrafine triple therapy delays COPD clinically important deterioration vs ICS/LABA, LAMA, or LABA/LAMA

Background

Current pharmacological therapies for COPD improve quality of life and symptoms and reduce exacerbations. Given the progressive nature of COPD, it is arguably more important to understand whether the available therapies are able to delay clinical deterioration; the concept of “clinically important deterioration” (CID) has therefore been developed. We evaluated the efficacy of the single-inhaler triple combination beclometasone dipropionate, formoterol fumarate, and glycopyrronium (BDP/FF/G), using data from three large 1-year studies.

Methods

The studies compared BDP/FF/G to BDP/FF (TRILOGY), tiotropium (TRINITY), and indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY; TRIBUTE). All studies recruited patients with symptomatic COPD, FEV₁ <50%, and an exacerbation history. We measured the time to first CID and to sustained CID, an endpoint combining FEV₁, St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), moderate-to-severe exacerbations, and death. The time to first CID was based on the first occurrence of any of the following: a decrease of ≥100 mL from baseline in FEV₁, an increase of ≥4 units from baseline in SGRQ total score, the occurrence of a moderate/severe COPD exacerbation, or death. The time to sustained CID was defined as: a CID in FEV₁ and/or SGRQ total score maintained at all subsequent visits, an exacerbation, or death.

Results

Extrafine BDP/FF/G significantly extended the time to first CID vs BDP/FF (HR 0.61, P<0.001), tiotropium (0.72, P<0.001), and IND/GLY (0.82, P<0.001), and significantly extended the time to sustained CID vs BDP/FF (HR 0.64, P<0.001) and tiotropium (0.80, P<0.001), with a numerical extension vs IND/GLY.

Conclusion

In patients with symptomatic COPD, FEV₁ <50%, and an exacerbation history, extrafine BDP/FF/G delayed disease deterioration compared with BDP/FF, tiotropium, and IND/GLY.

Trial registration

The studies are registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: TRILOGY, NCT01917331; TRINITY, NCT01911364; TRIBUTE, NCT02579850.

Treatment response in COPD: does FEV1 say it all? A post hoc analysis of the CRYSTAL study

The association between clinically relevant changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has rarely been investigated. Using CRYSTAL, a 12-week open-label study in symptomatic, nonfrequently exacerbating patients with moderate COPD, we assessed at baseline the correlations between several PROs (Baseline Dyspnoea Index, modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale, COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ)), and between FEV1 and PROs. Associations between clinically relevant responses in FEV1, CAT, CCQ and Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) at week 12 were also assessed. Using data from 4324 patients, a strong correlation was observed between CAT and CCQ (rs=0.793) at baseline, with moderate or weak correlations between other PROs, and no correlation between FEV1 and any PRO. At week 12, 2774 (64.2%) patients were responders regarding TDI, CAT or CCQ, with 583 (13.5%) responding using all three measures. In comparison, 3235 (74.8%) were responders regarding FEV1, TDI, CAT or CCQ, with 307 (7.1%) responding concerning all four parameters. Increases in lung function were accompanied by clinically relevant improvements of PROs in a minority of patients. Our results also suggest that PROs are not interchangeable. Thus, the observed treatment success in a clinical trial may depend on the selected parameters.

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.