Methodological issues in therapeutic trials of COPD

Airway tree caliber heterogeneity and airflow obstruction among older adults

Smaller mean airway tree caliber is associated with airflow obstruction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We investigated whether airway tree caliber heterogeneity was associated with airflow obstruction and COPD. Two community-based cohorts (MESA Lung, CanCOLD) and a longitudinal case-control study of COPD (SPIROMICS) performed spirometry and computed tomography measurements of airway lumen diameters at standard anatomical locations (trachea-to-subsegments) and total lung volume. Percent-predicted airway lumen diameters were calculated using sex-specific reference equations accounting for age, height, and lung volume. The association of airway tree caliber heterogeneity, quantified as the standard deviation (SD) of percent-predicted airway lumen diameters, with baseline forced expired volume in 1-second (FEV1), FEV1/forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) and COPD, as well as longitudinal spirometry, were assessed using regression models adjusted for age, sex, height, race-ethnicity, and mean airway tree caliber. Among 2,505 MESA Lung participants (means ± SD age: 69 ± 9 yr; 53% female, mean airway tree caliber: 99 ± 10% predicted, airway tree caliber heterogeneity: 14 ± 5%; median follow-up: 6.1 yr), participants in the highest quartile of airway tree caliber heterogeneity exhibited lower FEV1 (adjusted mean difference: -125 mL, 95%CI: -171,-79), lower FEV1/FVC (adjusted mean difference: -0.01, 95%CI: -0.02,-0.01), and higher odds of COPD (adjusted odds ratio: 1.42, 95%CI: 1.01-2.02) when compared with the lowest quartile, whereas longitudinal changes in FEV1 and FEV1/FVC did not differ significantly. Observations in CanCOLD and SPIROMICS were consistent. Among older adults, airway tree caliber heterogeneity was associated with airflow obstruction and COPD at baseline but was not associated with longitudinal changes in spirometry.NEW & NOTEWORTHY In this study, by leveraging two community-based samples and a case-control study of heavy smokers, we show that among older adults, airway tree caliber heterogeneity quantified by CT is associated with airflow obstruction and COPD independent of age, sex, height, race-ethnicity, and dysanapsis. These observations suggest that airway tree caliber heterogeneity is a structural trait associated with low baseline lung function and normal decline trajectory that is relevant to COPD.

Cardiovascular Events According to Inhaler Therapy and Comorbidities in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background

COPD coexists with many concurrent comorbidities. Cardiovascular complications are deemed to be major causes of death in COPD. Although inhaler therapy is the main therapeutic intervention in COPD, cardiovascular events accompanying inhaler therapy require further investigation. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate new development of cardiovascular events according to each inhaler therapy and comorbidities.

Methods

This study analyzed COPD patients (age ≥ 40 years, N = 199,772) from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) database in Korea. The development of cardiovascular events, from the index date to December 31, 2020, was investigated. The cohort was eventually divided into three arms: the LAMA/LABA group (N = 28,322), the ICS/LABA group (N = 11,812), and the triple group (LAMA/ICS/LABA therapy, N = 6174).

Results

Multivariable Cox analyses demonstrated that, compared to ICS/LABA therapy, triple therapy was independently associated with the development of ischemic heart disease (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.04-1.43), heart failure (HR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.14-1.84), arrhythmia (HR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.41-2.09), and atrial fibrillation/flutter (HR: 2.31, 95% CI: 1.64-3.25), whereas the LAMA/LABA therapy did not show a significant association. Furthermore, emergency room visit during covariate assessment window was independently associated with the development of ischemic heart disease, heart failure, arrhythmia, and atrial fibrillation/flutter (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Our data suggest that cardiovascular risk should be considered in COPD patients receiving triple therapy, despite the confounding bias resulting from disparities in each group.

Overuse of long-acting β2-agonist/inhaled corticosteroids in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: time to rethink prescribing patterns

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality globally. In the major revision of the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2023 report, the scientific committee concluded that the use of long-acting β2-agonist/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS) is not encouraged in patients with COPD. However, current prescribing patterns reveal significant use of LABA/ICS. In this paper, the evidence behind the current practice and the latest treatment recommendations is reviewed. We compare the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and LABA vs LABA/ICS and note that LAMA/LABA combinations have reduced the annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, delayed the time to first exacerbation, and increased post-dose FEV1 vs ICS-based regimens. The GOLD 2023 report recommends treatment with LABA and LAMA combination (preferably as a single inhaler) in patients with persistent dyspnea, with initiation of ICS in patients based on the symptoms (dyspnea and exercise intolerance as indicated by modified Medical Research Council [mMRC] score ≥ 2 and COPD Assessment Test [CAT™] > 20), blood eosinophil count (≥ 300 cells/µL), and exacerbation history (history of hospitalizations for exacerbations of COPD and ≥ 2 moderate exacerbations per year despite appropriate long-acting bronchodilator maintenance therapy). We describe practical recommendations for primary care physicians to optimize therapy for their patients and prevent overuse of ICS-based regimens. We advocate adherence to current recommendations and a greater focus on effective treatments to successfully control symptoms, minimize exacerbation risk, preserve lung function, maximize patient outcomes, and reduce the burden of drug-related adverse events.

Rational use of inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of COPD

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

Ten Commandments for Randomized Trials of Pharmacological Therapy for COPD and Other Lung Diseases

The randomized controlled trial is the quintessential scientific tool to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of medications. While early trials of drugs used for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and other respiratory diseases were generally unambiguous, more recent studies have been controversial. It has become evident that the conduct, design and analysis of these trials were highly variable and may have been responsible for incoherencies in results and interpretation. With the advent of new studies, the need for guiding principles for the conduct of future randomized trials has become manifest. We describe the concept of the counterfactual principle as it applies to the treatment of patients and to the randomized trial. We then present ten methodological tenets for the design and statistical aspects of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of drugs used in the treatment of several respiratory diseases. They include eight study design and two statistical analysis principles: 1) Study question; 2) Intervention; 3) Study population; 4) Blinding; 5) Run-in period; 6) Follow-up; 7) Outcome; 8) Safety; 9) Intent-to-treat; 10) Covariate adjustment. These tenets are described using mainly examples from trials of pharmacological treatments for COPD, as well as some from asthma and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, conducted over the last 30 years. The careful application of these principles in the conduct of randomized trials will provide rigorous studies and improve the validity of results. The ensuing clearer interpretation of findings will permit their well-founded contribution to treatment guidelines and optimal clinical management.

Triple Therapy versus Dual or Monotherapy with Long-Acting Bronchodilators for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Rationale: There is uncertainty on the use of using triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist) inhaler therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance.Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to estimate the safety and efficacy of using triple therapy compared with long-acting β-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist dual therapy or monotherapy with a single long-acting bronchodilator in patients with stable COPD who complained of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance.Methods: A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials pertaining to the clinical question. A systematic approach was used to screen, abstract, and critically appraise the studies. The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation method was applied to rate the certainty/quality of the evidence.Results: Eleven studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 14,145 patients). Pairwise random-effects meta-analysis revealed an increase in risk of pneumonia (relative risk, 1.47; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.20-1.80; P < 0.001) and decreased risk of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs) (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82; P < 0.001) with triple therapy compared with treatment with dual and monotherapy long-acting bronchodilator therapy. No significant difference in dyspnea scores (standardized mean difference, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.19; P = 0.09) or risk of hospitalization (rate ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.06; P = 0.11) was noted. When subgroup analysis based on inhaler class was performed, no significant difference was noted between the groups in any of the critical outcomes studied. For patients with a history of one or more AECOPDs in the past year, triple therapy resulted in 230 fewer AECOPDs and 16 more cases of pneumonia per 1,000 patients.Conclusions: In patients with COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance, triple therapy is not superior to maintenance long-acting bronchodilator therapy, except in patients with a history of one or more exacerbations in the past year, in whom the benefits of reduction in AECOPD outweigh the increased risk of pneumonia.

Effects of cigarette smoke exposure on pulmonary physiology, muscle strength and exercise capacity in a retrospective cohort with 30,000 subjects

BACKGROUND

The effects of long-term cigarette smoke exposure on pulmonary physiology and how those effects lead to reduced exercise capacity are not well established.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the spirometry, single-breath gas transfer (DLCO), peripheral muscle strength, and maximum exercise capacity data in patients referred to McMaster University Medical Centre for cardiopulmonary exercise testing between 2000 and 2012.

RESULTS

29,441 subjects underwent CPET and had a recorded smoking history [58% male, mean age 51.1 years (S.D.±19.6), BMI 27.4 kg/m2(±5.8)]. 7081 (24%) were current or former smokers and were divided into 4 categories by packs years (mean ±S.D.): <10 (5.8±3.3), 10-20 (17.1±2.9), 20-30 (27.1±2.8), 30-40 (37.3±2.8), and >40 (53.9±12.8). Patients with greater cigarette smoke exposure had lower expiratory flow rates (FEV1, FEF50, FEF75, PEFR), DLCO, and maximum power output (MPO) during exercise. There was no association between smoke exposure and muscle strength. Modeling MPO (kpm/min) output as a function of demographic and physiologic variables showed that the data are well explained by muscle strength (kg), FEV1 (L), and DLCO (mmHg/min/mL) in similar magnitude (MPO = 42.7*Quads0.34*FEV10.34 * DLCO0.43; r = 0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term cigarette smoke exposure is associated with small airway narrowing and impaired diffusion capacity but not with peripheral muscle weakness. The effects of smoking, age, and gender on maximum power output are mediated by reductions in FEV1, muscle strength and DLCO. Exercise capacity in smokers may benefit from therapies targeting all 3 variables.

Improving the evaluation of COPD exacerbation treatment effects by accounting for early treatment discontinuations: a post-hoc analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical trials aimed at evaluating treatment effects on exacerbations often suffer from early discontinuations of randomized treatment. Treatment discontinuations imply a loss of information and should ideally be considered in the statistical analysis of trial results, particularly if the discontinuations are related to the disease or treatment itself. Here, we explore this issue by investigating (1) whether there exists an association between the risks of exacerbation and treatment discontinuation in COPD clinical trials and (2) whether disregarding this association can cause bias in exacerbation treatment effect estimates. We focus on the hypothetical estimand, i.e. the treatment effect that would have been observed had all subjects completed the trial as planned.

Methods

The association between exacerbation and discontinuation risks was analysed by applying a joint frailty (random effect) model – allowing for the simultaneous analysis of multiple types of correlated events – to data from five Phase III-IV COPD clinical trials. Specifically, the impact of the association on exacerbation treatment effect estimates was assessed by comparing the treatment hazard ratios of the joint frailty model to the rate/hazard ratios of two related statistical models (the negative binomial and shared frailty models), which both assume discontinuations to be unrelated to the trial outcome. The models were also compared using simulated data.

Results

A statistically significant (p < 0.0001), positive association between exacerbation and discontinuation risks was found in all trials. Importantly, simulations confirmed that – with such an association – models disregarding the association risk producing biased results (> 5 percentage point difference in hazard/rate ratio). For some treatment comparisons in the clinical trials, the difference in treatment effect estimates between the joint frailty and the other models was as high as 10–15 percentage points. The difference was affected by the strength of the exacerbation-discontinuation association, the population heterogeneity in exacerbation risk, and the difference in discontinuation rates between treatment arms.

Conclusions

We have identified an association between the risks of exacerbation and treatment discontinuation in five COPD clinical trials. We recommend using the joint frailty model to account for this association when estimating exacerbation treatment effects, particularly when targeting the hypothetical estimand.

Nonrandomized Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision Making: Process for a Randomized Trial Replication Project

Recent legislation mandates that the US Food and Drug Administration issue guidance regarding when real-world evidence (RWE) could be used to support regulatory decision making. Although RWE could come from randomized or nonrandomized designs, there are significant concerns about the validity of RWE assessing medication effectiveness based on nonrandomized designs. We propose an initiative using healthcare claims data to assess the ability of nonrandomized RWE to provide results that are comparable with those from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We selected 40 RCTs, and we estimate that approximately 30 attempted replications will be completed after feasibility analyses. We designed an implementation process to ensure that each attempted replication is consistent, transparent, and reproducible. This initiative is the first to systematically evaluate the ability of nonrandomized RWE to replicate multiple RCTs using a structured process. Results from this study should provide insight on the strengths and limitations of using nonrandomized RWE from claims for regulatory decision making.

Impact of pre-enrolment medication use on clinical outcomes in SUMMIT

In mortality trials including patients with COPD and heightened cardiovascular risk, patients' treatments before entering the trial may affect the effects of inhaled medications during the studyhttp://ow.ly/WRRb30nwyIE

The impact of prior treatment on results of clinical trials in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been debated. We used data from the Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity in COPD Trial to examine the impact of prior treatment on the effects of randomised study drugs on mortality and exacerbations.

We used data on 16 417 patients with moderate COPD and heightened cardiovascular risk and information on prior medications to examine the effects of fluticasone furoate (FF), vilanterol (VI) and combined FF/VI compared to placebo on moderate and severe exacerbation as well as mortality. The study was event-driven with a median study exposure of 1.8 years. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01313676.

There were no consistent associations between treatment prior to study entry and the effects of FF, VI or FF/VI on exacerbations during the study. However, patients taking inhaled corticosteroids and one or more bronchodilators prior to study entry seemed to have a better effect of active treatments than of placebo on mortality (hazard ratio for FF/VI 0.65, 95% CI 0.48–0.89). Survival in those randomised to placebo was independent of treatment prior to study enrolment.

Prior treatment appears to affect treatment effects on mortality but not exacerbations in a randomised controlled trial of patients with COPD and heightened cardiovascular risk.

Use and inhalation technique of inhaled medication in patients with asthma and COPD: data from a randomized controlled trial

Background

The burden of asthma and COPD among patients is high and people affected are frequently hospitalized due to exacerbations. There are numerous reasons for the lack of disease control in asthma and COPD patients. It is associated with non-adherence to guidelines on the part of the health care provider and with poor inhalation technique and/or non-adherence to the prescribed treatment plan by the patient. This study aims to present data on inhaler technique and its impact on quality of life (QoL) and symptom control in a typical population of patients with chronic lung disease from a randomized controlled trial on medication adherence.

Methods

For this cross-sectional analysis, 165 asthma and COPD patients were analyzed. Correct application of inhaler devices was tested using pre-defined checklists for each inhaler type. QoL and symptom control were investigated using COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and Asthma Control Test (ACT). Spirometry was used to measure forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁).

Results

Overall, incorrect inhalation technique ranged from 0 to 53% depending on the type of inhaler. COPD patients with incorrect device application had a higher CAT sum score compared to those with a correct device application (P = .02). Moreover, COPD patients with incorrect device application were more likely to suffer from cough (P = .03) and were more breathless while walking uphill or a flight of stairs (P = .02). While there was no significance found in asthma patients, COPD patients who used their devices correctly had a significantly better mean FEV₁% predicted at baseline compared to those who applied their devices incorrectly (P = .04).

Conclusions

Correct inhalation of prescribed medication is associated with improved health status and lung function. These findings should encourage health professionals to provide instructions on correct inhalation technique and to regularly re-evaluate the patients’ inhalation technique.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0238672, Registered 14 February 2014.

What is a COPD exacerbation? Current definitions, pitfalls, challenges and opportunities for improvement

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic illness that can be periodically punctuated by exacerbations, characterised by acute worsening of symptoms, including increased dyspnoea, cough, sputum production and sputum purulence. COPD exacerbations are common and have important clinical and economic consequences, including lost work productivity, increased utilisation of healthcare resources, temporary or permanent reductions in lung function and exercise capacity, hospitalisation, and sometimes death. Over the past two decades, clinicians and researchers have broadened their treatment goals for COPD to extend beyond improving lung function and symptoms, and have begun to address the importance of preventing and reducing exacerbations. However, despite the best efforts of clinicians and guideline committees, current definitions of COPD exacerbations are imperfect and fraught with problems. The cardinal symptoms of a COPD exacerbation are nonspecific and can result from acute cardiorespiratory illnesses other than COPD. A proposed definition, which may be more specific than current definitions, suggests that COPD exacerbation be defined as an acute or subacute worsening of dyspnoea (≥5 on a visual analogue scale that ranges from 0 to 10) sometimes but not necessarily accompanied by increased cough, sputum volume and/or sputum purulence. Necessary laboratory criteria for an exacerbation include oxygen desaturation ≤4% below that of stable state, elevated levels of circulating blood neutrophils or eosinophils (≥9000 neutrophils·mm^-3 or ≥2% blood eosinophils) and elevated C-reactive protein (≥3 mg·L^-1), without evidence of pneumonia or pulmonary oedema on chest radiography and with negative laboratory test results for other aetiologies. Herein, we discuss the current state of the art with respect to how we define COPD exacerbations, associated pitfalls and challenges, and opportunities for improvement.

Comparative effectiveness of LABA-ICS versus LAMA as initial treatment in COPD targeted by blood eosinophils: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Long-acting β₂ agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are the recommended initial maintenance treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with almost all LABAs dispensed in fixed combination with inhaled corticosteroids (LABA-ICS). We compared the effectiveness and safety of LABA-ICS versus LAMA treatment initiation as a function of blood eosinophilia, a potential biomarker of ICS effectiveness, in a real-world setting.

METHODS

In this population-based cohort study, we identified a cohort of patients with COPD initiating treatment with a LAMA or LABA-ICS during 2002-15, age 55 years or older, from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink. We excluded patients who initiated treatment with both bronchodilators on the same date. All patients required at least 1 year of medical history and a measure of blood eosinophil concentration before cohort entry, defined by the date of the first cohort-defining bronchodilator prescription. Patients initiating a LAMA were matched on high-dimensional propensity scores with patients initiating a LABA-ICS. They were followed up for 1 year for the occurrence of a moderate or severe COPD exacerbation and for severe pneumonia. Sensitivity analyses included, among others, repeating the analysis among patients with two blood eosinophil concentration measures and stratification by concurrent asthma and previous exacerbations.

FINDINGS

The base cohort included 539 643 patients with a prescription for LABAs or LAMAs from Jan 1, 2002, to Dec 31, 2015, of whom 18 500 were initiated on LABA-ICS and 13 870 on LAMAs. Propensity score analysis resulted in 12 366 initiators of LAMAs (mainly tiotropium) matched to 12 366 initiators of LABA-ICS. The hazard ratio (HR) of COPD exacerbation associated with LABA-ICS initiation, relative to LAMA initiation, was 0·95 (95% CI 0·90-1·01). In patients with blood eosinophil concentrations of less than 2% of white blood cell count, the HR was 1·03 (95% CI 0·93-1·13) and for those with eosinophil concentrations of 2-4%, the HR was 1·00 (0·91-1·10). For patients with eosinophil concentrations of more than 4%, the HR was 0·79 (0·70-0·88). The incidence of pneumonia increased with LABA-ICS initiation (HR 1·37 [95% CI 1·17-1·60]) and was similar across all eosinophil concentrations. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with these findings, but the incidence of exacerbation with LABA-ICS among the 2766 (11%) of all 24 732 patients with two or more COPD exacerbations during the baseline year was marginally lower (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·79-0·97]).

INTERPRETATION

In this real-world, clinical practice, observational study, initial COPD treatment with LABA-ICS inhalers was only more effective than with LAMAs in patients with high blood eosinophil concentrations (>4%) or counts (>300 cells per μL) and possibly in frequent exacerbators. Because of the increased risk of pneumonia associated with the ICS component, initiation with a LAMA should be preferred in patients with blood eosinophil concentrations of less than 4%.

FUNDING

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canadian Foundation for Innovation.

Cardiovascular disease and COPD: dangerous liaisons?

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) frequently occur together and their coexistence is associated with worse outcomes than either condition alone. Pathophysiological links between COPD and CVD include lung hyperinflation, systemic inflammation and COPD exacerbations. COPD treatments may produce beneficial cardiovascular (CV) effects, such as long-acting bronchodilators, which are associated with improvements in arterial stiffness, pulmonary vasoconstriction, and cardiac function. However, data are limited regarding whether these translate into benefits in CV outcomes. Some studies have suggested that treatment with long-acting β₂-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists leads to an increase in the risk of CV events, particularly at treatment initiation, although the safety profile of these agents with prolonged use appears reassuring. Some CV medications may have a beneficial impact on COPD outcomes, but there have been concerns about β-blocker use leading to bronchospasm in COPD, which may result in patients not receiving guideline-recommended treatment. However, there are few data suggesting harm with these agents and patients should not be denied β-blockers if required. Clearer recommendations are necessary regarding the identification and management of comorbid CVD in patients with COPD in order to facilitate early intervention and appropriate treatment.

Treatment of exacerbations as a predictor of subsequent outcomes in patients with COPD

Rationale

Exacerbations of COPD are managed differently, but whether treatment of one exacerbation predicts the likelihood of subsequent events is unknown.

Objective

We examined whether the treatment given for exacerbations predicted subsequent outcomes.

Methods

This was a post-hoc analysis of 17,135 patients with COPD from TIOtropium Safety and Performance In Respimat^® (TIOSPIR^®). Patients treated with tiotropium with one or more moderate to severe exacerbations on study were analyzed using descriptive statistics, logistic and Cox regression analysis, and Kaplan–Meier plots.

Results

Of 8,061 patients with moderate to severe exacerbation(s), demographics were similar across patients with exacerbations treated with antibiotics and/or steroids or hospitalization. Exacerbations treated with systemic corticosteroids alone or in combination with antibiotics had the highest risk of subsequent exacerbation (HR: 1.21, P=0.0004 and HR: 1.33, P<0.0001, respectively), and a greater risk of having a hospitalized (severe) exacerbation (HR: 1.59 and 1.63, P<0.0001, respectively) or death (HR: 1.50, P=0.0059 and HR: 1.47, P=0.0002, respectively) compared with exacerbations treated with antibiotics alone. Initial hospitalization led to the highest risk of subsequent hospitalization (all-cause or COPD related [severe exacerbation], HR: 3.35 and 4.31, P<0.0001, respectively) or death (all-cause or COPD related, HR: 3.53 and 5.54, P<0.0001, respectively) versus antibiotics alone.

Conclusion

These data indicate that the way exacerbations are treated initially is a useful guide to the patient’s subsequent clinical course. Factors that clinicians consider when making treatment choices require further clarification.

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

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

When and How Can Real World Data Analyses Substitute for Randomized Controlled Trials?

Regulators consider randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the gold standard for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of medications, but their costs, duration, and limited generalizability have caused some to look for alternatives. Real world evidence based on data collected outside of RCTs, such as registries and longitudinal healthcare databases, can sometimes substitute for RCTs, but concerns about validity have limited their impact. Greater reliance on such real world data (RWD) in regulatory decision making requires understanding why some studies fail while others succeed in producing results similar to RCTs. Key questions when considering whether RWD analyses can substitute for RCTs for regulatory decision making are WHEN one can study drug effects without randomization and HOW to implement a valid RWD analysis if one has decided to pursue that option. The WHEN is primarily driven by externalities not controlled by investigators, whereas the HOW is focused on avoiding known mistakes in RWD analyses.

Optimizing bronchodilation in the prevention of COPD exacerbations

The natural disease course of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is often punctuated by exacerbations: acute events of symptom worsening associated with significant morbidity and healthcare resource utilization; reduced quality of life; and increased risk of hospitalization and death. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommend that patients at risk of exacerbations (GOLD Groups C and D) receive a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/LAMA combination, respectively, as preferred initial treatments. The latter recommendation is based on recent trial evidence demonstrating the superior efficacy of a fixed-dose LABA/LAMA over an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA in exacerbation prevention. ICS in combination with a LABA is also indicated for prevention of exacerbations, but the use of ICS is associated with an increased risk of adverse events such as pneumonia, and offers limited benefits beyond those provided by LABA or LAMA monotherapy. In this review, we examine evidence from a number of pivotal studies of LABAs and LAMAs, administered as monotherapy or as part of dual or triple combination therapy, with a specific focus on their effect on exacerbations. We also discuss a new proposed treatment paradigm for the management of COPD that takes into account this recent evidence and adopts a more cautious approach to the use of ICS. In alignment with GOLD 2017, we suggest that ICS should be reserved for patients with concomitant asthma or in whom exacerbations persist despite treatment with LABA/LAMA.

The effect of COPD severity and study duration on exacerbation outcome in randomized controlled trials

Background

When discontinuation in COPD randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is unevenly distributed between treatments (differential dropout), the capacity to demonstrate treatment effects may be reduced. We investigated the impact of the time of differential dropout on exacerbation outcomes in RCTs, in relation to study duration and COPD severity.

Methods

A post hoc analysis of 2,345 patients from three RCTs of 6- and 12-month duration was performed to compare budesonide/formoterol and formoterol in moderate, severe, and very severe COPD. Outcomes were exacerbation rate, time-to-first exacerbation, or discontinuation; patients were stratified by disease severity. Outcomes were studied by censoring data monthly from 1 to 12 months.

Results

In patients treated with budesonide/formoterol, annualized exacerbation rates (AERs) were comparable for each study duration (rate ratio [RR] =0.6). With formoterol, the AER decreased with study duration (RR =1.20 at 1 month to RR =0.86 at 12 months). There was a treatment-related difference in exacerbation rates of 45%–48% for shorter study durations (≤4 months) and 27% for 12-month duration. This treatment-related difference in exacerbation rates was comparable for the three disease severities in studies ≤4 months (range: 39%–51%), but this difference decreased with longer study durations, especially in more severe groups (22% and 29% at 12 months). There were fewer discontinuations with budesonide/formoterol; the treatment-related difference in time-to-first discontinuation decreased by study duration (35%, 30%, 26%, and 22% at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, respectively). Numbers of differential dropouts increased with increasing disease severity, being greatest during second, third, and fourth months.

Conclusions

COPD severity and study duration impact exacerbation as an outcome in double-blind RCTs. This effect is most obvious in patients with severe/very severe COPD and in studies that are longer than 4 months. Early differential dropout particularly impacts study outcome, producing a “healthy survivor effect,” which reduces estimations of treatment impact on exacerbations.

Inhaled Corticosteroid use and the Risk of Pneumonia and COPD Exacerbations in the UPLIFT Study

RATIONALE

Unlike many other COPD studies, the 4-year UPLIFT trial permitted inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use during run-in and treatment phases. This provided the opportunity to prospectively observe the continuing effects of ICS on respiratory events in closely observed COPD population.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine rate and number of episodes of pneumonia and exacerbations of COPD in patients entering the study on no ICS, fluticasone proprionate (FP), and other ICS.

METHODS

The UPLIFT dataset was examined retrospectively, and patients were divided into three groups based on their medications at entry: no ICS, FP and other ICS. Poisson regression was used to compare the frequency of respiratory adverse events.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

At entry, the groups were well matched apart from a higher FEV1% predicted (38 vs. 41%; ICS vs. no ICS, respectively) and prevalence of current smoking (26 vs. 36%; ICS vs. no ICS, respectively). Incidence rates of pneumonia were significantly higher in patients taking ICS compared to no ICS (0.068 vs. 0.056 respectively; p = 0.012). When the FP group was compared to the other ICS, the event rate was even higher (0.077 vs. 0.058, respectively; p < 0.001). COPD exacerbations were more frequent in patients taking ICS, with significantly greater rate in the FP group compared to that seen with other ICS (0.93 vs. 0.84 respectively; p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

ICS use was associated an increase in respiratory adverse event rates, but whether this was due to more severe illness at entry is unknown. In subgroup analysis, the excess of morbidity in the ICS group appeared to be mainly associated with those receiving FP at randomisation.

The impact of olodaterol on the risk of mortality and serious adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Olodaterol is a novel inhaled long-acting β₂ -agonist (LABA) that showed efficacy as a bronchodilator for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. However, it is unclear whether olodaterol reduces mortality; the safety issues of olodaterol have not been fully evaluated.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials comparing olodaterol with placebo for patients with COPD or asthma, which evaluated mortality or serious adverse events, were included. Eighteen trials reporting mortality and 26 trials reporting nonfatal serious adverse events were included.

RESULTS

Inhaled olodaterol did not reduce the risk of mortality (Peto fixed OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.90-1.89) and had no significant impacts on nonfatal serious adverse events (Peto fixed OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91-1.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled olodaterol has no impact on mortality risk in clinical trials conducted on patients with COPD and asthma. However, the interpretation is limited by a high OR (1.31) and a wide CI that includes the hazardous effect. We could not find any relationship between inhaled olodaterol use and nonfatal serious adverse events.

Translating Pharmacometrics to a Pharmacoeconomic Model of COPD

BACKGROUND

A model-based meta-analysis (MBMA) is a type of meta-regression that uses nonlinear mixed-effects models estimated on trial-level data to relate patient and trial characteristics, dosing, biomarkers, and outcomes of treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To use a pharmacometric MBMA within a pharmacoeconomic model of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

A Markov microsimulation model was developed to estimate monthly changes in the key disease severity metrics of COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁] and exacerbations) to compare a hypothetical drug that increases FEV₁ to usual care. The MBMA was used to predict a baseline exacerbation rate in a group of actual trial patients, given their known baseline FEV₁. The hypothetical drug increased FEV₁, thereby decreasing individuals' predicted exacerbation rates. Individual patient simulations allowed stochastic changes in monthly FEV₁ decline.

RESULTS

In a sample of 1097 trial patients with a mean FEV₁ of 50%, the MBMA predicted 0.93 exacerbations per year on average. The exacerbation rate ranged from 0.52 to 1.3 per year across moderate and severe patient subgroups. A hypothetical anti-inflammatory drug that increased FEV₁ by 50 ml decreased exacerbations by 26%. Given a simplified estimation of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with COPD, a drug with a 50-ml increase priced at €35/mo had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ranging from €13,000/QALY to approximately €207,000/QALY across patient severity subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The synergistic aspects of MBMA and pharmacoeconomic modeling are highlighted in this hypothetical example. Markov microsimulation modeling allows the finer predictions of MBMA to inform parameters. Such an approach has utility in both early-phase cost-effectiveness estimations and trial design.

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

International guidance on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management recommends the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in those patients at increased likelihood of exacerbation. In spite of this guidance, ICS are prescribed in a large number of patients who are unlikely to benefit. Given the evidence of the risks associated with ICS and the limited indications for their use, there is interest in understanding the effects of withdrawing ICS when prescribed inappropriately. In this review, we discuss the findings of large ICS withdrawal trials, with primary focus on the more recent trials using active comparators. Data from these trials indicate that ICS may be withdrawn without adverse impact on exacerbation risk and patient-reported outcomes in patients with moderate COPD and no history of frequent exacerbations. Considering the safety concerns associated with ICS use, these medications should be withdrawn in patients for whom they are not recommended, while maintaining adequate bronchodilator therapy.

Applying the wisdom of stepping down inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COPD: a proposed algorithm for clinical practice

Current guidelines for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend limiting the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to patients with more severe disease and/or increased exacerbation risk. However, there are discrepancies between guidelines and real-life practice, as ICS are being overprescribed. In light of the increasing concerns about the clinical benefit and long-term risks associated with ICS use, therapy needs to be carefully weighed on a case-by-case basis, including in patients already on ICS. Several studies sought out to determine the effects of withdrawing ICS in patients with COPD. Early studies have deterred clinicians from reducing ICS in patients with COPD as they reported that an abrupt withdrawal of ICS precipitates exacerbations, and results in a deterioration in lung function and symptoms. However, these studies were fraught with numerous methodological limitations. Recently, two randomized controlled trials and a real-life prospective study revealed that ICS can be safely withdrawn in certain patients. Of these, the WISDOM (Withdrawal of Inhaled Steroids During Optimized Bronchodilator Management) trial was the largest and first to examine stepwise withdrawal of ICS in patients with COPD receiving maintenance therapy of long-acting bronchodilators (ie, tiotropium and salmeterol). Even with therapy being in line with the current guidelines, the findings of the WISDOM trial indicate that not all patients benefit from including ICS in their treatment regimen. Indeed, only certain COPD phenotypes seem to benefit from ICS therapy, and validated markers that predict ICS response are urgently warranted in clinical practice. Furthermore, we are now better equipped with a larger armamentarium of novel and more effective long-acting β2-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist combinations that can be considered by clinicians to optimize bronchodilation and allow for safer ICS withdrawal. In addition to providing a review of the aforementioned, this perspective article proposes an algorithm for the stepwise withdrawal of ICS in real-life clinical practice.

Why use long acting bronchodilators in chronic obstructive lung diseases? An extensive review on formoterol and salmeterol

Long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonists, formoterol and salmeterol, represent a milestone in the treatments of chronic obstructive lung diseases. Although no specific indications concerning the choice of one molecule rather than another are provided by asthma and COPD guidelines, they present different pharmacological properties resulting in distinct clinical employment possibilities. In particular, salmeterol has a low intrinsic efficacy working as a partial receptor agonist, while formoterol is a full agonist with high intrinsic efficacy. From a clinical perspective, in the presence of low β2-adrenoceptors availability, like in inflamed airways, a full agonist can maintain its bronchodilatory and non-smooth muscle activities while a partial agonist may be less effective. Furthermore, formoterol presents a faster onset of action than salmeterol. This phenomenon, combined with the molecule safety profile, leads to a prompt amelioration of the symptoms, and allows using this drug in asthma as an "as needed" treatment in patients already on regular treatment. The fast onset of action and the full agonism of formoterol need to be considered in order to select the best pharmacological treatment of asthma and COPD.

Role of combined indacaterol and glycopyrronium bromide (QVA149) for the treatment of COPD in Japan

Once-daily dual-bronchodilator therapy with combined indacaterol and glycopyrronium bromide in one device (Ultibro, Breezhaler), often called QVA149, was first approved in 2013 in Japan and Europe. As of November 2014, more than 40 countries had approved this medication except for the USA. This is the first dual bronchodilator in one device. Now, the Breezhaler is the only device that can provide long-acting muscarinic antagonist (glycopyrronium bromide), long-acting beta agonist (indacaterol), and a combination of the two medications (QVA149). The choice among the three medications allows a patient to use the same inhalation device even when the regimen is changed from single-bronchodilator therapy to dual-bronchodilator therapy. In addition, the quick bronchodilation effect and once-daily administration can improve patient adherence to medical treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). To our knowledge, as of November 2014, the safety and the efficacy of QVA149 have been evaluated in 14 randomized controlled trials. The 14 trials generally showed good safety profiles, and there were better or not-inferior bronchodilator effects of QVA149 when compared with placebo, or other inhaled medication. According to the Japanese Respiratory Society guidelines, QVA149 is a combination of the two first-line bronchodilators. Our meta-analysis indicated that QVA149 is superior to the salmeterol-fluticasone combination to treat COPD in respect of the frequency of adverse effects, exacerbation, pneumonia, and improvement of trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). Thus, we believe that QVA149 can be a key medication for COPD treatments.

Inhaled corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pro-con perspective

Current guidelines limit regular use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to a specific subgroup of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in whom the forced expiratory volume in 1 s is <60% of predicted and who have frequent exacerbations. In these patients, there is evidence that ICS reduce the frequency of exacerbations and improve lung function and quality of life. However, a review of the literature suggests that the evidence available may be interpreted to favour or contradict these observations. It becomes apparent that COPD is a heterogeneous condition. Clinicians therefore need to be aware of the heterogeneity as well as having an understanding of how ICS may be used in the context of the specific subgroups of patients with COPD. This review argues for and against the use of ICS in COPD by providing an in-depth analysis of the currently available evidence.

A re-evaluation of the role of inhaled corticosteroids in the management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (in fixed combinations with long-acting β2-agonists [LABAs]) are frequently prescribed for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), outside their labeled indications and recommended treatment strategies and guidelines, despite having the potential to cause significant side effects.

AREAS COVERED

Although the existence of asthma in patients with asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) clearly supports the use of anti-inflammatory treatment (typically an ICS/LABA combination, as ICS monotherapy is usually not indicated for COPD), the current level of ICS/LABA use is not consistent with the prevalence of ACOS in the COPD population. Data have recently become available showing the comparative efficacy of fixed bronchodilator combinations (long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]/LABA with ICS/LABA combinations). Additionally, new information has emerged on ICS withdrawal without increased risk of exacerbations, under cover of effective bronchodilation.

EXPERT OPINION

For patients with COPD who do not have ACOS, a LAMA/LABA combination may be an appropriate starting therapy, apart from those with mild disease who can be managed with a single long-acting bronchodilator. Patients who remain symptomatic or present with exacerbations despite effectively delivered LAMA/LABA treatment may require additional drug therapy, such as ICS or phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors. When prescribing an ICS/LABA, the risk:benefit ratio should be considered in individual patients.

Inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: the clinical evidence

In this article, we focus on the scientific evidence from randomised trials supporting treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), including treatment with combinations of long-acting β-agonist (LABA) bronchodilators and ICS. Our emphasis is on the methodological strengths and limitations that guide the conclusions that may be drawn. The evidence of benefit of ICS and, therefore, of the LABA/ICS combinations in COPD is limited by major methodological problems. From the data reviewed herein, we conclude that there is no survival benefit independent of the effect of long-acting bronchodilation and no effect on FEV1 decline, and that the possible benefit on reducing severe exacerbations is unclear. Our interpretation of the data is that there are substantial adverse effects from the use of ICS in patients with COPD, most notably severe pneumonia resulting in excess deaths. Currently, the most reliable predictor of response to ICS in COPD is the presence of eosinophilic inflammation in the sputum. There is an urgent need for better markers of benefit and risk that can be tested in randomised trials for use in routine specialist practice. Given the overall safety and effectiveness of long-acting bronchodilators in subjects without an asthma component to their COPD, we believe use of such agents without an associated ICS should be favoured.

Update on ultra-long-acting β agonists in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

For the last two decades, long-acting β agonists (LABAs) have been a cornerstone in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). They relax airway smooth muscle and augment expiratory airflow, which reduces hyperinflation and improves dyspnea, functional capacity and quality of life. In recent years, Indacaterol, a LABA with an ultra-long duration of action (ultra-LABA), which only requires once-daily dosing, was approved by the FDA. The clinical efficacy of indacaterol is comparable, and, in some aspects better, than the currently available LABAs.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the pharmacological properties, clinical efficacy, safety and potential role of the ultra-LABAs in COPD management.

EXPERT OPINION

Ultra-LABAs are effective bronchodilators with a prolonged duration of action. By decreasing dosing frequency, ultra-LABAs potentially may improve respiratory medication adherence, which is associated with better survival and less healthcare utilization. In addition to their salubrious benefits, β agonists may produce untoward effects. Increased mortality and hospitalizations among patients with left ventricular heart failure, who were treated with β agonists, has caused concern about their use in patients with COPD and heart disease. Further experience and testing will determine the optimal role of ultra-LABAs in the management of COPD.

Umeclidinium bromide and vilanterol in combination for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Drugs from the two major classes of bronchodilator; umeclidinium, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and vilanterol, a long-acting β2 agonist (LABA), have been combined in a single inhaler device for once-daily use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These drugs have been proven safe and well tolerated in patients with COPD and show an enhanced improvement in FEV1 when compared to either drug in isolation and when compared with an established LAMA drug. In this article, we discuss the data supporting this combination inhaler and also review alternative combined LAMA/LABA options. We discuss where these agents are likely to find a place in the current therapy of COPD and where the future is likely to lead with these and other therapies.

Recent advances in COPD disease management with fixed-dose long-acting combination therapies

Combinations of two long-acting bronchodilators and long-acting bronchodilators with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended therapies in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Three fixed-dose combination products have recently been approved for the treatment of COPD (the long-acting β2-agonist plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LABA/LAMA] combinations glycopyrronium/indacaterol [QVA149] and umeclidinium/vilanterol, and the LABA/ICS fluticasone furoate/vilanterol), with others currently in late-stage development. LABA/LAMA and LABA/ICS combination therapies demonstrate positive effects on both lung function and patient-reported outcomes, with significant improvements observed with LABA/LAMA combinations compared with placebo, each component alone and other comparators in current use. No new safety concerns have been observed with combinations of long-acting bronchodilators. Combinations of two long-acting bronchodilators represent a new and convenient treatment option in COPD. This review summarizes published efficacy and safety data from clinical trials of both LABA/LAMA and novel LABA/ICS combinations in patients with COPD.