Prevention of COPD exacerbations: medications and other controversies

Domiciliary high-flow treatment in patients with COPD and chronic hypoxic failure: In whom can we reduce exacerbations and hospitalizations?

INTRODUCTION

Domiciliary High-flow, humidified, nasal cannula (HFNC) is a possible add-on in patients with chronic respiratory diseases. This post-hoc study investigates benefit of HFNC in subgroups of advanced COPD patients with chronic hypoxic failure on reduction of exacerbations and hospitalizations.

METHODS

One hundred patients were randomized to HFNC in a previous trial. Subgroups with 0-1 (N = 32) respectively two or more (2+) (N = 68) exacerbations 12 months pre-study were investigated. Changes in number of exacerbations and hospitalizations pre- and in study were analyzed, corrected for HFNC days with HFNC.

RESULTS

Patients were comparable at baseline. Exacerbations increased in subgroup 0-1 (p = 0.01) and decreased in subgroup 2+ (p = 0.03). Correcting for HFNC days no correlation was seen in subgroup 0-1 (p = 0.08), but in subgroup 2+ (p<0.001). Number of hospitalizations increased in subgroup 0-1 (p = 0.01) with no change in days of hospitalization (p = 0.08). Number and days of hospitalization decreased in subgroup 2+ (p = 0.002 resp. 0.025). Correcting for HFNC days no correlation was found in number or days of hospitalization in subgroup 0-1 (p = 0.48 and p = 0.65). Positive correlation was found in subgroup 2+ (both p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with advanced COPD, chronic hypoxic failure and two or more exacerbations per year, HFNC significantly reduced exacerbations and hospitalizations.

Care bundles in the management of a COPD exacerbation

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the umbrella term used to describe chronic lung diseases that cause limitations in lung airflow, is predicted to be the third leading cause of death by 2030. COPD is said to affect 3 million people in the UK, resulting in approximately 30 000 deaths each year. Related healthcare costs continue to escalate, not least because of increasing readmission rates associated with COPD emergencies. The use of care bundles to streamline care is becoming more popular in an attempt to tackle this issue. An integrative literature review was carried out to examine the effectiveness of the use of care bundles. The findings highlighted inconsistencies in the components of bundles, leading to inherent difficulties in assessing which specific component of the bundles led to positive outcomes. The results of this attempt to establish the effectiveness of care bundles in reducing readmission rates and quality of care were inconclusive. The authors recommend further research to investigate the individual components in the bundles and to introduce internationally agreed care bundles for the management of COPD.

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

Background

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

Materials and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

COPD and lung cancer in patients with pemphigus- a population based study

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence indicates that autoimmunity may contribute to the pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). COPD was observed at higher frequency in patients with several autoimmune diseases. The association between pemphigus and COPD has not been evaluated in the past.

OBJECTIVES

To study the association between pemphigus and COPD using a large-scale real-life computerized database.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted comparing pemphigus patients with age-, sex- and ethnicity-matched control subjects regarding the prevalence of COPD and lung cancer. Chi-square and t-tests were used for bivariate analysis, and logistic regression model was used for multivariate analysis. The study was performed utilizing the computerized database of Clalit Health Services ensuring 4.4 million subjects.

RESULTS

A total of 1985 pemphigus patients and 9874 controls were included in the study. The prevalence of COPD was greater in patients with pemphigus as compared to the control group (13.4% vs. 10.1%, respectively; P < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis adjusting for smoking and other confounding factors, pemphigus was significantly associated with COPD (OR, 1.312-1. 5) but not with lung cancer. Study findings were robust to sensitivity analysis that included patients under pemphigus-specific treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant association was found between COPD and pemphigus. Physicians treating patients with pemphigus might be aware of this possible association. This observation may further support the hypothesis that COPD has an autoimmune component.

When is dual bronchodilation indicated in COPD?

Inhaled bronchodilator medications are central to the management of COPD and are frequently given on a regular basis to prevent or reduce symptoms. While short-acting bronchodilators are a treatment option for people with relatively few COPD symptoms and at low risk of exacerbations, for the majority of patients with significant breathlessness at the time of diagnosis, long-acting bronchodilators may be required. Dual bronchodilation with a long-acting β2-agonist and long-acting muscarinic antagonist may be more effective treatment for some of these patients, with the aim of improving symptoms. This combination may also reduce the rate of exacerbations compared with a bronchodilator-inhaled corticosteroid combination in those with a history of exacerbations. However, there is currently a lack of guidance on clinical indicators suggesting which patients should step up from mono- to dual bronchodilation. In this article, we discuss a number of clinical indicators that could prompt a patient and physician to consider treatment escalation, while being mindful of the need to avoid unnecessary polypharmacy. These indicators include insufficient symptomatic response, a sustained increased requirement for rescue medication, suboptimal 24-hour symptom control, deteriorating symptoms, the occurrence of exacerbations, COPD-related hospitalization, and reductions in lung function. Future research is required to provide a better understanding of the optimal timing and benefits of treatment escalation and to identify the appropriate tools to inform this decision.

Why choose tiotropium for my patient? A comprehensive review of actions and outcomes versus other bronchodilators

PURPOSE

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma are leading causes of morbidity and mortality. This narrative review provides an appraisal of the pharmacological and clinical characteristics of tiotropium in COPD and asthma, and examines how these compare with other long-acting bronchodilators. The evidence base is placed into context by relating it to factors affecting clinicians' choice of therapy.

MAIN FINDINGS

Desirable attributes of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) maintenance therapy include effective pharmacological bronchodilation, improved lung function, exacerbation efficacy, and positive effects on symptom control, exercise capacity and quality of life across a broad patient population. Tolerability and convenience of use are also important for patient well-being and treatment adherence. Tiotropium shows higher affinity for muscarinic receptors than ipratropium, and prolonged binding to the M₃ receptor compared with other LAMAs. In COPD, tiotropium has demonstrated improved lung function and exacerbation prevention compared with placebo or long-acting β₂-agonists, similar exacerbation efficacy to other LAMAs, and enhanced symptom control and health status versus placebo. UniTinA-asthma^® showed the benefits of add-on tiotropium in patients with uncontrolled mild to moderate and severe asthma. Tiotropium is well tolerated, with an incidence of adverse events similar to placebo, except for known infrequent side effects of anticholinergics. Tiotropium HandiHaler^® and Respimat^® augment inhaler choice in COPD.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS

With over 10 years' prescribing history and 50 million patient-years of use, tiotropium has the benefit of a more extensive clinical evidence base than other long-acting bronchodilators, with demonstrated efficacy and safety in COPD and symptomatic asthma.

Efficacy of tiotropium-olodaterol fixed-dose combination in COPD

Tiotropium-olodaterol, formulated in the Respimat soft-mist inhaler, is an inhaled fixed-dose combination (FDC) of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), commercialized under the name of Spiolto or Stiolto. The efficacy of tiotropium-olodaterol 5-5 μg once daily in adult patients with COPD was documented in eleven large, multicenter trials of up to 52 weeks duration. Tiotropium-olodaterol 5-5 μg not only improved spirometric values to a significantly greater extent than placebo but also resulted in statistically significant beneficial effects on dyspnea, markers of hyperinflation, use of rescue medication, health-related quality of life, and exercise endurance. Improvements exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), dyspnea, and quality of life. Differences between tiotropium-olodaterol 5-5 μg and the respective monocomponents were statistically significant for FEV1, dyspnea, markers of hyperinflation, use of rescue medication, and health-related quality of life, but did not reach the MCID. However, dual bronchodilatation significantly increased the number of patients who exceeded the MCID for dyspnea and quality of life. Moreover, tiotropium-olodaterol 5-5 μg was significantly more effective than salmeterol-fluticasone (FDC) twice daily at improving pulmonary function. Differences between tiotropium-olodaterol and other LAMA/LABA FDCs were not observed for FEV1 or other efficacy markers. Therefore, tiotropium-olodaterol is a valuable option in the treatment of COPD patients who remain symptomatic under monotherapy.

Effect of ELOM-080 on exacerbations and symptoms in COPD patients with a chronic bronchitis phenotype - a post-hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

Background

Treating symptoms and preventing exacerbations are key components of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) long-term management. Recently, a more tailored treatment approach has been proposed, in particular for two well-established clinical phenotypes, frequent exacerbators and chronic bronchitis-dominant COPD. ELOM-080 has demonstrated clinical efficacy in treating symptoms and preventing exacerbations in subjects with chronic bronchitis. However, little is known about the potential effects of ELOM-080 in COPD patients.

Aim

To evaluate the effect on exacerbation, cough sputum, and general state of health of long-term treatment with ELOM-080 in COPD patients with an exacerbation history and chronic bronchitis.

Methods

We performed a post-hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled parallel-group clinical trial of a 6-month treatment with ELOM-080 (3×300 mg) in patients with chronic bronchitis and concomitant COPD. The primary outcome was the proportion of subjects with at least one exacerbation over the 6-month study period. Secondary outcomes included the total number of exacerbations (ie, cumulative occurrence of exacerbations during the study period) and the proportion of acute exacerbations necessitating an antibiotic treatment, monthly evaluations of sputum and cough symptoms, and the general state of health and a safety analysis.

Results

Of 260 randomized subjects, 64 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria for COPD (ELOM-080: 35, placebo: 29). Compared to placebo, ELOM-080 reduced the percentage of subjects with at least one exacerbation (29% versus 55%, P=0.031) and a reduction in the overall occurrence of exacerbations (ELOM-080: 10, placebo: 21, P=0.012) during the winter season. The percentage of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients (sputum/expectoration and cough) was consistently higher in the ELOM-080 group compared to placebo, with statistical significant differences after 2 and 3 months of treatment (2 months: ELOM-080 25%, placebo 11%, P<0.005; 3 months: ELOM-080 26%, placebo 14%, P<0.05). Likewise the subjective rating of general health status was better in the ELOM-080 group with statistically significant superiority after 2 and 3 months of treatment (2-month treatment: P=0.015; 3-month treatment: P=0.024). Tolerability results were comparable between ELOM-080 and placebo.

Conclusion

ELOM-080 is efficacious in patients with COPD and a chronic bronchitis phenotype. Prophylactic use reduces the rate of exacerbations and improves the key symptoms of sputum and cough with a favorable long-term tolerability profile.

Abediterol, a novel long-acting β2-agonist: bronchodilation, safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetic results from a single-dose, dose-ranging, active-comparator study in patients with COPD

BACKGROUND

Abediterol is a novel, once-daily long-acting β2-agonist in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma in combination with an anti-inflammatory agent. This Phase IIa, randomised, double-blind, crossover study investigated the bronchodilation, safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of abediterol in patients with moderate to severe COPD.

METHODS

Seventy patients (aged ≥40 years, Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Stage II/III) were randomised (1:1:1:1:1:1) to single doses of abediterol 0.625, 2.5, 5 or 10 μg, indacaterol 150 μg or placebo. Spirometry was performed up to 36 h post-dose. Pharmacokinetics were assessed in a subset of patients (N = 20). Safety and tolerability were evaluated throughout the study.

RESULTS

Abediterol (all doses) significantly improved change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) compared with placebo (0.102, 0.203, 0.233 and 0.259 L for abediterol 0.625, 2.5, 5 and 10 μg, respectively; all p < 0.0001; primary endpoint). Abediterol 2.5, 5 and 10 μg significantly improved trough FEV1 compared with indacaterol 150 μg (0.092, 0.122 and 0.148 L, respectively; all p < 0.0001). Improvements in bronchodilation were maintained at all time points post-dose versus placebo (all abediterol doses) and from 15 or 30 min post-dose versus indacaterol 150 μg with abediterol 2.5, 5 and 10 μg (all p < 0.05). Abediterol had low systemic exposure; incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

All doses of abediterol (0.625-10 μg) provided clinically and statistically significant, dose-dependent improvements in bronchodilation versus placebo, and abediterol 2.5, 5 and 10 μg gave significant improvements versus indacaterol. All doses of abediterol were safe and well tolerated in patients with COPD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01425814 . Registered 29 August 2011.

Pulmonary rehabilitation and severe exacerbations of COPD: solution or white elephant?

Hospitalisations for severe exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are associated with significant physical and psychological consequences including an increase in symptom severity, severe reductions in physical activity, a deleterious effect on skeletal muscle, impaired exercise tolerance/ability to self-care, decline in quality of life, and increased anxiety and depression. As these consequences are potentially amenable to exercise training, there is a clear rationale for pulmonary rehabilitation in the peri/post-exacerbation setting. Although a 2011 Cochrane review was overwhelmingly positive, subsequent trials have shown less benefit and real-life observational studies have revealed poor acceptability. Qualitative studies have demonstrated that the patient experience is a determining factor while the presence of comorbidities may influence referral, adherence and response to pulmonary rehabilitation. Systematic reviews of less supervised interventions, such as self-management, have shown limited benefits in the post-exacerbation setting. The recent update of the Cochrane review of peri-exacerbation pulmonary rehabilitation showed that benefits were associated with the "comprehensive" nature of the intervention (the number of sessions received, the intensity of exercise training and education delivered, and the degree of supervision) but implementation is demanding. The challenge is to develop interventions that are deliverable and acceptable around the time of an acute exacerbation but also deliver the desired clinical impact.