Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids versus continuation of triple therapy in patients with COPD in real life: observational comparative effectiveness study

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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 When ICS was withdrawn and long-acting bronchodilator therapy was maintained, there was no consistent difference in exacerbation frequency or lung function change between the ICS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

Discussion

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

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

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

Methods to assess COPD medications adherence in healthcare databases: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2023 report recommends medication adherence assessment in COPD as an action item. Healthcare databases provide opportunities for objective assessments; however, multiple methods exist. We aimed to systematically review the literature to describe existing methods to assess adherence in COPD in healthcare databases and to evaluate the reporting of influencing variables.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science and Embase for peer-reviewed articles evaluating adherence to COPD medication in electronic databases, written in English, published up to 11 October 2022 (PROSPERO identifier CRD42022363449). Two reviewers independently conducted screening for inclusion and performed data extraction. Methods to assess initiation (dispensing of medication after prescribing), implementation (extent of use over a specific time period) and/or persistence (time from initiation to discontinuation) were listed descriptively. Each included study was evaluated for reporting variables with an impact on adherence assessment: inpatient stays, drug substitution, dose switching and early refills.

RESULTS

160 studies were included, of which four assessed initiation, 135 implementation and 45 persistence. Overall, one method was used to measure initiation, 43 methods for implementation and seven methods for persistence. Most of the included implementation studies reported medication possession ratio, proportion of days covered and/or an alteration of these methods. Only 11% of the included studies mentioned the potential impact of the evaluated variables.

CONCLUSION

Variations in adherence assessment methods are common. Attention to transparency, reporting of variables with an impact on adherence assessment and rationale for choosing an adherence cut-off or treatment gap is recommended.

Use and persistence of single and multiple inhaler triple therapy prescribed for patients with COPD in France: a retrospective study on THIN database (OPTI study)

INTRODUCTION

From 2018 single inhaler triple therapy (SITT) became available in France to treat moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Given its simplified inhaler use compared with multiple inhaler triple therapy (MITT), this therapeutic option has the potential to offer benefit in terms of improved persistence and adherence. Given the lack of real-world evidence of the effectiveness of triple therapy, this study was designed to evaluate the use of MITT and SITT in France and compare persistence.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients with COPD who initiated triple therapy between 1 July 2017 and 31 December 2019 were included from The Health Improvement Network, a large electronic medical database in France, which includes pharmacy data. A 60-day treatment gap defined discontinuation and thereby persistence.

RESULTS

A total of 3134 patients initiated triple therapy for COPD in the study period, among them 485 with SITT. In 2019, the rate of use of SITT was 28.2%. The mean age (67.3 years) and sex (44.2% female) of patients initiating triple therapy was similar between MITT and SITT, and most patients had escalated from dual therapy (84.1%). However, SITT was more frequently initiated by a pulmonologist (59.8%) and a higher prevalence of comorbid asthma was observed for SITT (47.0% vs 37.9%). Persistence was assessed among patients who did not discontinue after a single dispensation of triple therapy (n=1674). Median persistence was 181 days for SITT and 135 days for MITT, and the covariate-adjusted HR for persistence was 1.47 (p<0.001) and the estimated persistence at 1 year was 33% for SITT compared with 18% for MITT.

DISCUSSION

This study suggests that persistence was higher for the patients treated with SITT compared with MITT in France. Moreover, most patients initiated with triple therapy were previously treated with dual therapy and had exacerbations in the previous year.

Investigating the rationale for COPD maintenance therapy prescription across Europe, findings from a multi-country study

This study aims to understand healthcare professionals' thoughts and motivations about optimal management and treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We conducted a DELPHI survey through an online questionnaire distributed to 220 panellists from six European countries and a discrete choice experiment to describe the relationship between selected clinical criteria and the initial COPD treatment of choice. One hundred twenty-seven panellists (general practitioners [GPs] and pulmonologists) completed the survey. Despite the familiarity and use (89.8%) of the GOLD classification for initial treatment selection, a frequent use of LAMA/LABA/ICS was noted. In fact, panellists agreed that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are over-prescribed in the primary care setting. Our study showed that GPs felt less confident than pulmonologists with ICS withdrawal. This mismatch observed between best practice and behaviour indicates the need to increase awareness and efforts to improve the adherence to guidelines in clinical practice.

Inhaled Corticosteroid Withdrawal and Change in Lung Function in Primary Care Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in England

Rationale: In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are associated with pneumonia, highlighting the importance of investigating subgroups of patients who may benefit from prolonged ICS use. Despite this, the WISDOM (Withdrawal of Inhaled Steroids during Optimized Bronchodilator Management) trial found a greater decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) in patients with COPD who withdrew from ICS compared with patients who remained on triple therapy. Objectives: We investigated the association between ICS withdrawal and the rate of FEV₁ decline in patients with COPD using routinely collected electronic healthcare records. Methods: Using CPRD (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) Aurum and Hospital episode statistics, we included patients with COPD who had been on triple therapy for at least 4 months. Patients were categorized into those who withdrew from ICS and those who remained on triple therapy during follow-up. Three cohorts were created: 1) patients meeting the WISDOM trial eligibility criteria; 2) patients with COPD not restricted by the WISDOM trial eligibility criteria; and 3) patients who would have been excluded from the WISDOM trial on the basis of their comorbidities. Mixed linear regression was used to model the association between ICS withdrawal and the rate of FEV₁ decline (ml/year) adjusted for baseline characteristics. Results: A total of 6,008 patients with COPD met the WISDOM eligibility criteria, of which 9.0% withdrew from ICS. Mean rates of FEV₁ declined -7.8 ml/year (95% confidence interval [CI], -19.7 to 4.1) for withdrawers and -15.2 ml/year (95% CI, -18.7 to -11.8) for those who remained on triple therapy (difference, P = 0.264). A total of 60,645 patients with COPD were not restricted by the WISDOM eligibility criteria. The mean rate of FEV₁ decline was -32.6 ml/year (95% CI, -33.6 to -31.5) for withdrawers and -36.4 ml/year (95% CI, -39.4 to -33.4) for those who remained on triple therapy. A total of 32,882 patients with COPD were included in the last population representing those who would have been excluded from the WISDOM trial because of their comorbidities. The mean rate of FEV₁ decline was -29.4 ml/year (95% CI, -30 to -28.1) in withdrawers and -31.3 ml/year (95% CI, -35 to -27.5) in those who remained on triple therapy. Conclusions: The rate of FEV₁ decline was similar between patients on triple therapy and patients who withdrew from ICS regardless of the specific COPD population studied. In routine clinical practice, few patients with COPD meet WISDOM eligibility criteria, and few patients are withdrawn from ICS.

Clinical and Economic Impact of Long-Term Inhaled Corticosteroid Withdrawal in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treated with Triple Therapy in Spain

Purpose

To determine the clinical and economic impact of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) withdrawal in Spanish patients with COPD receiving triple therapy (TT) with ICS, long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA).

Patients and Methods

This was an observational, retrospective study of BIG-PAC database medical records. Patients aged ≥40 years receiving TT from 2016 to 2018 were followed for 1 year. Two cohorts were identified: patients continuing TT (ICS+LABA+LAMA), and patients receiving TT with ICS withdrawn (LABA+LAMA). Variables included medication, exacerbations (moderate and severe), pneumonia, mortality, health resource use (HRU), and cost per patient/year. Cohorts were compared using propensity score matching (PSM). Multivariate statistical analysis using analysis of covariance and Cox proportional risks was conducted.

Results

Of 6541 patients included, 5740 (87.8%) continued TT and 801 (12.2%) had ICS withdrawn. Patients with ICS withdrawal were younger, had lower disease burden, higher ICS doses, and more exacerbations compared with those continuing ICS. PSM matched 795 patients in each cohort. Mean age was 68.5 years (SD: 11.2), 69.9% were male, and mean Charlson index was 2.0. Patients with ICS withdrawal had more total exacerbations in the 12 months following withdrawal compared with patients continuing TT (36.6% vs 31.4%; p=0.030). No significant differences were found for pneumonia (3.3% vs 3.6%; p=0.583) and mortality (9.9% vs 7.5%; p=0.092). Median time to first exacerbation was shorter in patients with ICS withdrawal compared with those continuing ICS (HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.57–0.83; p<0.001). Mean health cost per patient/year among patients with ICS withdrawal was higher than those continuing TT (€2993 vs €2130; p<0.001).

Conclusion

ICS withdrawal in patients with COPD receiving TT was associated with increased exacerbations, HRU, and costs compared with continuing TT, with health and economic impacts on patients and the Spanish National Healthcare System, respectively. Pneumonia and mortality rates were similar between groups.

Pulmonologists' Opinion on the Use of Inhaled Corticosteroids in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients in Spain: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Introduction

Identifying the variables that guide decision-making in relation to the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) can contribute to the appropriate use of these drugs. The objective of this study was to identify the clinical variables that physicians consider most relevant for prescribing or withdrawing ICS in COPD.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted in Spain from November 2020 to May 2021. Therapeutic decisions on the use of ICS in 11 hypothetical COPD patient profiles were collected using an online survey answered by specialists with experience in the management of patients with COPD. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to analyze the impact of patients' characteristics in the therapeutic decision for prescribing ICS or proceeding to its withdrawal.

Results

A total of 74 pulmonologists agreed to collaborate in the survey and answered the questionnaire. The results showed great variability, with only 2 profiles achieving consensus for starting or withdrawing the treatment. The frequency and severity of exacerbations influenced the decision to prescribe ICS in a dose-response fashion (1 exacerbation odds ratio (OR) = 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 3.43, two exacerbations OR = 11.6, 95% CI: 4.47 to 30.2 and three OR = 123, 95% CI: 25 to 601). Similarly, increasing blood eosinophils and history of asthma were associated with ICS use. On the other hand, pneumonia reduced the probability of initiating treatment with ICS (OR = 0.54 [0.29 to 0.98]). Lung function and dyspnea degree did not influence the clinician's therapeutic decision. The results for withdrawal of ICS were similar but in the opposite direction.

Conclusion

In accordance with guidelines, exacerbations, blood eosinophils and history of asthma or pneumonia are the factors considered by pulmonologist for the indication or withdrawal of ICS. However, the agreement in prescription or withdrawal of ICS when confronted with hypothetical cases is very low, suggesting a great variability in clinical practice.

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

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

Advances in inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: what is their value today?

INTRODUCTION

As of today, there is still a need to determine which COPD patients may benefit from ICS therapy, whether ICSs are useful in COPD patients without chronic bronchitis, and whether long-acting bronchodilators can reduce the risk of exacerbations in frequent exacerbators even if ICSs are not used, and whether combination therapy including ICSs is helpful in infrequent exacerbators to optimise the use of ICSs in COPD. Nevertheless, in recent years, a fair amount of evidence has been produced that, at least in part, can help define the role of ICSs in COPD better.

AREAS COVERED

Herein, the authors provide an overview of current use of ICS in COPD and discuss their value to the current treatment armamentarium. The article includes discussion of which patients will benefit best from the use of ICSs, their potential uses and adverse effects.

EXPERT OPINION

There is growing agreement on why, in whom, and when ICS therapy can be used in COPD, although the consensus is still lacking because of the heterogeneity of COPD. The use of blood eosinophil counts (BECs) is only helpful in T2 inflammation, while there is a lack of biomarkers indicating the presence of T1 and T17 immunity, which is poorly responsive to ICS. Identifying ICS-sensitive endotypes using specific biomarkers that have yet to be identified and validated is likely to demonstrate that ICSs can influence the natural course of COPD in at least a subset of patients.

Impact of switching from triple therapy to dual bronchodilation in COPD: the DACCORD ‘real world’ study

Introduction

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines recommend reserving triple therapy of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) for patients with exacerbations despite dual therapy. However, many patients receive triple therapy without a clear indication. For these patients, it would be useful to know whether ICS can be withdrawn.

Methods

DACCORD was a longitudinal, non-interventional ‘real-world’ study in three cohorts. This manuscript describes the results of Cohort 3, which recruited patients with COPD who had received triple therapy for ≥ 6 months. Prior to entry, each patient’s physician decided to continue triple therapy, or switch to a LABA/LAMA; patients were then followed for 12 months, with exacerbations and COPD Assessment Test (CAT) data recorded every 3 months. The primary endpoint was the time until COPD worsening, defined as the occurrence of a moderate/severe exacerbation or clinically relevant CAT worsening.

Results

Of the 1192 patients recruited into the study, 967 completed the end-of-study visit and ≥ 2 of the three interim visits, 292 and 675 receiving LABA/LAMA and triple therapy, respectively. Most baseline demographics were similar between the two groups. A lower proportion of patients in the LABA/LAMA group had COPD worsening than with triple therapy (32.5% vs 55.7% at 12 months), with the time to worsening extended in the LABA/LAMA group (hazard ratio 2.004, p < 0.001). In addition, a significantly lower proportion of patients in the LABA/LAMA group exacerbated (18.5% vs 28.7%; p < 0.001), accompanied by a greater improvement from baseline in CAT total score. Overall, fewer patients in the LABA/LAMA group reported adverse events than in the triple therapy group (12.9% vs 15.1%).

Conclusions

These results suggest that in a real world setting physicians are able to identify patients who can be ‘stepped down’ from triple therapy to LABA/LAMA. Following step down, there was no overall decline in COPD—indeed, some patients had better outcomes.

Discontinuation of Inhaled Corticosteroids from Triple Therapy in COPD: Effects on Major Outcomes in Real World Clinical Practice

Recent reports provide evidence-based guidelines for the withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in COPD, but data on patients treated with ICS-based triple therapy are sparse and contradictory. We assessed the effect of ICS discontinuation on the incidence of severe exacerbation and pneumonia in a real-world population of patients with COPD who initiated triple therapy. We identified a cohort of patients with COPD treated with LAMA-LABA-ICS triple therapy during 2002-2018, age 50 or older, from the UK's CPRD database. Subjects who discontinued ICS were matched 1:1 on time-conditional propensity scores to those continuing ICS and followed for one year. Hazard ratios (HR) of severe exacerbation and pneumonia were estimated using Cox regression. The cohort included 42,667 patients who discontinued ICS matched to 42,667 who continued ICS treatment. The hazard ratio of a severe exacerbation with ICS discontinuation relative to ICS continuation was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.78-0.95), while for severe pneumonia it was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.88-1.05). The incidence of severe exacerbation after ICS discontinuation was numerically higher than after continuation among patients with two or more exacerbations in the prior year (HR 1.09; 95% CI: 0.94-1.26) and among those with FEV₁ <30% predicted (HR 1.29; 95% CI: 1.04-1.59). This large real-world study in the clinical setting of COPD treatment suggests that certain patients on triple therapy can be safely withdrawn from ICS and remain on bronchodilator therapy. As residual confounding cannot be ruled out, ICS discontinuation is not warranted for patients with multiple exacerbations and with very severe airway obstruction.

Use of single-inhaler triple therapy in the management of obstructive airway disease: Indian medical experts' review

Obstructive airway disease (OAD), which includes COPD and asthma, is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in India. Long-acting bronchodilators (long-acting β2 agonists (LABAs) and/or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs)) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have a vital role in the management of patients with OAD. While symptom burden and exacerbations are common amongst treated patients, poor adherence to inhaler therapy is a frequent challenge. Better treatment options that optimise symptom control, improve quality of life, reduce exacerbation risk and improve adherence are desired. Triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) is recommended in the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2021 guidelines for symptomatic COPD patients on ICS/LABA or LABA/LAMA, and who are at increased risk for frequent or severe exacerbations. Similarly, add-on LAMA is recommended in uncontrolled asthma patients on medium- to high-dose ICS/LABA by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2021 guideline. In the real world, high-risk and overlapping phenotypes exist, which necessitate early initiation of triple therapy. We aim to provide an expert review on the use of single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) for OAD management in global and Indian settings, knowledge from which can be extrapolated for appropriate treatment of Indian patients. The OAD population in India may benefit from early optimisation to SITT characterised by a high burden of exacerbating OAD, nonsmoker COPD and asthma-COPD overlap.

From DREAM to REALITI-A and beyond: Mepolizumab for the treatment of eosinophil-driven diseases

Effective treatment of inflammatory diseases is often challenging owing to their heterogeneous pathophysiology. Understanding of the underlying disease mechanisms is improving and it is now clear that eosinophils play a complex pathophysiological role in a broad range of type 2 inflammatory diseases. Standard of care for these conditions often still includes oral corticosteroids (OCS) and/or cytotoxic immune therapies, which are associated with debilitating side effects. Selective, biological eosinophil‐reducing agents provide treatment options that improve clinical symptoms associated with eosinophilic inflammation and reduce OCS use. Mepolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to and neutralizes interleukin‐5, the major cytokine involved in eosinophil proliferation, activation, and survival. Mepolizumab is approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma, eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis and hypereosinophilic syndrome. Additionally, the efficacy of add‐on mepolizumab has been observed in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with an eosinophilic phenotype. Here, we review the development, approval, and real‐world effectiveness of mepolizumab for the treatment of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, from the DREAM to REALITI‐A studies, and describe how knowledge from this journey extended to the use of mepolizumab and other biologics across a broad spectrum of eosinophilic diseases.