Comparisons of Efficacy and Safety between Triple (Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist/Long-Acting Beta-Agonist) Therapies in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

[COPD inhaled therapy narrative review]

The basis of COPD maintenance treatment is the long-acting bronchodilators and the inhaled corticosteroids. Faced with the recent modifications in the clinical practice guidelines, we have carried out a review of studies that contrast the various therapeutic alternatives and pharmacological agents within each category, with the fundamental purpose of shedding light on which of these options prove to be more effective. Triple therapy stands out as essential in poorly controlled patients or with an eosinophilic phenotype, surpassing dual therapy. However, among the combinations of LAMA/LABA or LAMA/LABA/IC, no drug is observed to be superior in the reviewed evidence. Although triple therapies include corticosteroids, there does not appear to be a significant increase in side effects or pneumonia. Regarding monotherapy with LAMA, no significant differences are seen between the drugs, but in dual therapy with LABA/IC, the budesonide/formoterol combination seems to offer better control than fluticasone/salmeterol.

Effects of triple therapy on disease burden in patients of GOLD groups C and D: results from the observational COPD cohort COSYCONET

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials described beneficial effects of inhaled triple therapy (LABA/LAMA/ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and high risk of exacerbations. We studied whether such effects were also detectable under continuous treatment in a retrospective observational setting.

METHODS

Data from baseline and 18-month follow-up of the COPD cohort COSYCONET were used, including patients categorized as GOLD groups C/D at both visits (n = 258). Therapy groups were defined as triple therapy at both visits (triple always, TA) versus its complement (triple not always, TNA). Comparisons were performed via multiple regression analysis, propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting to adjust for differences between groups. For this purpose, variables were divided into predictors of therapy and outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 258 patients were eligible (TA: n = 162, TNA: n = 96). Without adjustments, TA patients showed significant (p < 0.05) impairments regarding lung function, quality of life and symptom burden. After adjustments, most differences in outcomes were no more significant. Total direct health care costs were reduced but still elevated, with inpatient costs much reduced, while costs of total and respiratory medication only slightly changed.

CONCLUSION

Without statistical adjustment, patients with triple therapy showed multiple impairments as well as elevated treatment costs. After adjusting for differences between treatment groups, differences were reduced. These findings are compatible with beneficial effects of triple therapy under continuous, long-term treatment, but also demonstrate the limitations encountered in the comparison of controlled intervention studies with observational studies in patients with severe COPD using different types of devices and compounds.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of triple therapy and non-triple therapy interventions for COPD: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Some systematic reviews (SRs) on triple therapy (consisting of long-acting β2-agonist, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and inhaled corticosteroid, LABA/LAMA/ICS) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have reported conflicting results. As the number of syntheses increases, the task of identifying and interpreting evidence becomes increasingly complex and demanding.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy and safety of triple therapy for COPD.

DESIGN

Overview of SRs.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers conducted comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant SRs that compared triple therapy with any non-triple therapy for COPD, from the inception of these databases until 1 June 2023. The AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools were utilized to assess the quality of the included studies and the evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

Eighteen SRs encompassing 30 original studies and involving 47,340 participants were analyzed. The overall AMSTAR 2 rating revealed that 3 SRs were of low quality, 13 SRs were of critically low quality, and 2 SRs were of high quality. No high-certainty evidence revealed a significant advantage of triple therapy in improving lung function or reducing acute exacerbations. However, all evidence, including one high certainty, supported the benefits of improving quality of life. Regarding all-cause mortality, no significant difference was found when compared to LAMA or ICS/LABA; however, high-certainty evidence confirmed its effectiveness when compared with LABA/LAMA. Notably, high-certainty evidence indicated that triple therapy was associated with a significant increase in the risk of pneumonia compared to LABA/LAMA.

CONCLUSION

Triple therapy demonstrated notable benefits in improving lung function, reducing exacerbations, improving quality of life, and reducing all-cause mortality. However, it is important to note that it may also significantly increase the risk of pneumonia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This overview protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42023431548).

Asthma and COPD: A Focus on β-Agonists - Past, Present and Future

Asthma has been recognised as a respiratory disorder for millennia and the focus of targeted drug development for the last 120 years. Asthma is one of the most common chronic non-communicable diseases worldwide. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, is caused by exposure to tobacco smoke and other noxious particles and exerts a substantial economic and social burden. This chapter reviews the development of the treatments of asthma and COPD particularly focussing on the β-agonists, from the isolation of adrenaline, through the development of generations of short- and long-acting β-agonists. It reviews asthma death epidemics, considers the intrinsic efficacy of clinical compounds, and charts the improvement in selectivity and duration of action that has led to our current medications. Important β2-agonist compounds no longer used are considered, including some with additional properties, and how the different pharmacological properties of current β2-agonists underpin their different places in treatment guidelines. Finally, it concludes with a look forward to future developments that could improve the β-agonists still further, including extending their availability to areas of the world with less readily accessible healthcare.

Bayesian or frequentist: there is no question when comparing single-inhaler triple therapies via network meta-analysis. Focus on fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol fixed-dose combination in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

OBJECTIVES

Single-inhaler triple therapies (SITTs) have never been directly compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cochrane recommends the Bayesian approach for indirect comparisons but a frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) reported superiority of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) over other SITT. We assessed the most appropriate inference method for NMA characterized by between-study heterogeneity on SITT in COPD.

METHODS

Bayesian and frequentist NMA were performed on RCTs investigating the effect of SITT on exacerbations and trough forced expiratory volume in the 1st second (FEV1) in COPD.

RESULTS

The included RCTs (ETHOS, FULFIL, IMPACT, KRONOS 200812) reported significant between-study heterogeneity (I2 > 99%, p < 0.001). The Bayesian random-effect NMA provided unbiased evidence that FF/UMEC/VI was not superior to other SITT on exacerbations and trough FEV1. The frequentist fixed-effect NMA indicated that FF/UMEC/VI was significantly (p < 0.05) more effective than other SITT, although results were affected by dispersion, asymmetry, and significant risk of bias. Frequentist random-effect NMA provided effect estimates rather similar but not equal to those of Bayesian approach.

CONCLUSION

Indirect comparison should be performed via Bayesian approach instead of frequentist inference with a fixed-effect model. Claiming the superiority of a specific medication over other therapies should be confirmed by findings originating from well-designed RCTs.

Mortality risk reduction with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate versus fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol in COPD: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ETHOS and IMPACT

OBJECTIVE

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of death worldwide. While two approved fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) triple therapies reduce all-cause mortality (ACM) versus dual LAMA/LABA therapy in patients with COPD, head-to-head studies have not compared the effects of these therapies on ACM. We compared ACM in adults with moderate-to-very severe COPD receiving budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) in ETHOS versus fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) in IMPACT using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified two studies (ETHOS [NCT02465567]; IMPACT [NCT02164513]) of ≥52 weeks reporting ACM as an efficacy endpoint in patients receiving triple therapy. As ETHOS and IMPACT lack a common comparator, an unanchored MAIC compared ACM between licensed doses of BGF (320/18/9.6 μg) from ETHOS and FF/UMEC/VI (100/62.5/25 μg) from IMPACT in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Using on- and off-treatment data from the final retrieved datasets of the intention-to-treat populations, BGF data were adjusted according to aggregate FF/UMEC/VI data using 11 baseline covariates; a supplementary unadjusted indirect treatment comparison was also conducted. P-values for these post-hoc analyses are not adjusted for Type I error.

RESULTS

ACM over 52 weeks was statistically significantly reduced by 39% for BGF versus FF/UMEC/VI in the MAIC (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.38, 0.95], p = 0.030) and unadjusted analysis (HR [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.41, 0.92], p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

In this MAIC, which adjusted for population heterogeneity between ETHOS and IMPACT, ACM was significantly reduced with BGF versus FF/UMEC/VI in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Pharmacological therapy for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

In recent years, emphasis has shifted from preventing and treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to early prevention, early treatment, and disease stabilization, with the main goal of improving patients' quality of life and reducing the frequency of acute exacerbations. This review summarizes pharmacological therapies for stable COPD.

Stepwise management of COPD: What is next after bronchodilation?

Inhaled bronchodilator therapy with long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) in combination is currently the mainstay of treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Treatment guidelines recommend the addition of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to LABA/LAMA only in patients with a history of frequent/severe exacerbations and high blood eosinophil counts, or in those with concomitant asthma. Despite this, real-world data suggest that clinicians are not adhering to this guidance and that ICS are frequently overused. This is possibly due to the incorrect assumption that when LABA/LAMA therapy is not sufficient, adding an ICS to the treatment regimen is the logical next step. In this narrative review, we describe global and country-specific guideline recommendations from Germany, Spain, and Japan and compare these with real-world data on LABA/LAMA and ICS use in clinical practice. We also provide a clinical guide to the use of add-on therapies with LABA/LAMA for different patient phenotypes, including (1) patients still symptomatic (but not exacerbating) despite LABA/LAMA treatment; (2) patients still exacerbating despite LABA/LAMA treatment who have high blood eosinophil counts; and (3) patients still exacerbating despite LABA/LAMA treatment who do not have high blood eosinophils or concomitant asthma.

Impulse Oscillometry, Small Airways Disease, and Extra-Fine Formulations in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Windows for New Opportunities

In recent years, the perspective of management of respiratory disease has been gradually changing in light of the increasing evidence of small airways as the major site of airflow obstruction contributing to the development of both COPD and asthma already in early stages of disease. First and foremost, the evidence is redefining disease severity, identifying small airways disease phenotypes and early signs of disease, and revising prevalence and overall epidemiological data as well. Much effort has been put toward the instrumental assessment of small airways’ involvement and early detection. Several clinical trials have evaluated the advantage of extra-fine formulations which can best target the small airways in uncontrolled asthma and severe COPD. Here, we briefly present a practical overview of the role of the small airways in disease, the most appropriate diagnostic methods for quantifying their impairment, and provide some insight into the costs of respiratory management in Italy, especially in sub-optimally controlled disease.

Different inhaled corticosteroid doses in triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis is necessary to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with different doses of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We selected 26 parallel randomized controlled trials (41,366 patients) comparing triple therapy with ICS/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA), LABA/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and LAMA in patients with stable COPD for ≥ 12 weeks from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and clinical trial registries (search from inception to June 30, 2022). Triple therapy with high dose (HD)-ICS exhibited a lower risk of total exacerbation in pre-specified subgroups treated for ≥ 48 weeks than that with low dose (LD)-ICS (odds ratio [OR] = 0.66, 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.52–0.94, low certainty of evidence) or medium dose (MD)-ICS (OR = 0.66, 95% CrI = 0.51–0.94, low certainty of evidence). Triple therapy with HD-ICS exhibited a lower risk of moderate-to-severe exacerbation in pre-specified subgroups with forced expiratory volume in 1 s < 65% (OR = 0.6, 95% CrI = 0.37–0.98, low certainty of evidence) or previous exacerbation history (OR = 0.6, 95% CrI = 0.36–0.999, very low certainty of evidence) than triple therapy with MD-ICS. Triple therapy with HD-ICS may reduce acute exacerbation in patients with COPD treated with other drug classes including triple therapy with LD- or MD-ICS or dual therapies.

Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) Triple Therapy Compared with Other Therapies for the Treatment of COPD: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple therapies (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], long-acting β₂-agonist [LABA], and long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. This network meta-analysis (NMA) investigated the comparative efficacy of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus any triple (ICS/LABA/LAMA) combinations and dual therapies in patients with COPD.

METHODS

This NMA was conducted on the basis of a systematic literature review (SLR), which identified RCTs in adults aged at least 40 years with COPD. The RCTs compared different ICS/LABA/LAMA combinations or an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination with any dual therapy (ICS/LABA or LAMA/LABA). Outcomes of interest included forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), annualized rate of combined moderate and severe exacerbations, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and SGRQ responders, transition dyspnea index focal score, and rescue medication use (RMU). Analyses were conducted at 24 weeks (primary endpoint), and 12 and 52 weeks (if feasible).

RESULTS

The NMA was informed by five trials reporting FEV₁ at 24 weeks. FF/UMEC/VI was statistically significantly more effective at increasing trough FEV₁ (based on change from baseline) than all triple comparators in the network apart from UMEC + FF/VI. The NMA was informed by 17 trials reporting moderate or severe exacerbation endpoints. FF/UMEC/VI demonstrated statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus single-inhaler budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR). At 24 weeks, the NMA was informed by five trials. FF/UMEC/VI showed statistically significant improvements in annualized rate of combined moderate or severe exacerbations versus UMEC + FF/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated improvements in mean SGRQ score versus other triple therapy comparators at 24 weeks, and a significant reduction in RMU compared with BUD/GLY/FOR (160/18/9.6).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this NMA suggest favorable efficacy with single-inhaler triple therapy comprising FF/UMEC/VI. Further analysis is required as additional evidence becomes available.