Safety and efficacy of combined long-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids vs long-acting beta-agonists monotherapy for stable COPD: a systematic review

Prevention of exacerbation in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD with the intent to modulate respiratory microbiome: a pilot prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Considering the role of bacteria in the onset of acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD), we hypothesized that the use of influenza-Streptococcus pneumoniae vaccination, oral probiotics or inhaled amikacin could prevent AECOPD.

Methods

In this pilot prospective, muti-central, randomized trial, moderate-to-very severe COPD subjects with a history of moderate-to-severe exacerbations in the previous year were enrolled and assigned in a ratio of 1:1:1:1 into 4 groups. All participants were managed based on the conventional treatment recommended by GOLD 2019 report for 3 months, with three groups receiving additional treatment of inhaled amikacin (0.4 g twice daily, 5-7 days monthly for 3 months), oral probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (1 tablet daily for 3 months), or influenza-S. pneumoniae vaccination. The primary endpoint was time to the next onset of moderate-to-severe AECOPD from enrollment. Secondary endpoints included CAT score, mMRC score, adverse events, and survival in 12 months.

Results

Among all 112 analyzed subjects (101 males, 96 smokers or ex-smokers, mean ± SD age 67.19 ± 7.39 years, FEV1 41.06 ± 16.09% predicted), those who were given dual vaccination (239.7 vs. 198.2 days, p = 0.044, 95%CI [0.85, 82.13]) and oral probiotics (248.8 vs. 198.2 days, p = 0.017, 95%CI [7.49, 93.59]) had significantly delayed onset of next moderate-to-severe AECOPD than those received conventional treatment only. For subjects with high symptom burden, the exacerbations were significantly delayed in inhaled amikacin group as compared to the conventional treatment group (237.3 vs. 179.1 days, p = 0.009, 95%CI [12.40,104.04]). The three interventions seemed to be safe and well tolerated for patient with stable COPD.

Conclusion

The influenza-S. pneumoniae vaccine and long-term oral probiotic LGG can significantly delay the next moderate-to-severe AECOPD. Periodically amikacin inhalation seems to work in symptomatic patients. The findings in the current study warrants validation in future studies with microbiome investigation.Clinical trial registration:https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT03449459.

Inhaled β2 Adrenergic Agonists and Other cAMP-Elevating Agents: Therapeutics for Alveolar Injury and Acute Respiratory Disease Syndrome?

Inhaled long-acting β-adrenergic agonists (LABAs) and short-acting β-adrenergic agonists are approved for the treatment of obstructive lung disease via actions mediated by β2 adrenergic receptors (β2-ARs) that increase cellular cAMP synthesis. This review discusses the potential of β2-AR agonists, in particular LABAs, for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We emphasize ARDS induced by pneumonia and focus on the pathobiology of ARDS and actions of LABAs and cAMP on pulmonary and immune cell types. β2-AR agonists/cAMP have beneficial actions that include protection of epithelial and endothelial cells from injury, restoration of alveolar fluid clearance, and reduction of fibrotic remodeling. β2-AR agonists/cAMP also exert anti-inflammatory effects on the immune system by actions on several types of immune cells. Early administration is likely critical for optimizing efficacy of LABAs or other cAMP-elevating agents, such as agonists of other Gs-coupled G protein-coupled receptors or cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterase inhibitors. Clinical studies that target lung injury early, prior to development of ARDS, are thus needed to further assess the use of inhaled LABAs, perhaps combined with inhaled corticosteroids and/or long-acting muscarinic cholinergic antagonists. Such agents may provide a multipronged, repurposing, and efficacious therapeutic approach while minimizing systemic toxicity. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after pulmonary alveolar injury (e.g., certain viral infections) is associated with ∼40% mortality and in need of new therapeutic approaches. This review summarizes the pathobiology of ARDS, focusing on contributions of pulmonary and immune cell types and potentially beneficial actions of β2 adrenergic receptors and cAMP. Early administration of inhaled β2 adrenergic agonists and perhaps other cAMP-elevating agents after alveolar injury may be a prophylactic approach to prevent development of ARDS.

Real-World Evidence: Bridging Gaps in Evidence to Guide Payer Decisions

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are preferred by payers for health technology assessments and coverage decisions. However, the inclusion of a highly selective patient population and the rigorously controlled conditions in RCTs may not be reflective of real-world clinical practice. Real-world evidence (RWE) obtained from an analysis of real-world data (RWD) from observational studies can bridge gaps in evidence not addressed by RCTs and is thus valuable to public and private payers for decision-making. Through a broad literature search to obtain insights into payers' experience, we found that payers have concerns about real-world studies with respect to data quality, poor internal validity, potential bias, and lack of meaningful endpoints. However, they valued RWE to fill evidence gaps not addressed by RCTs, such as high-quality, real-world, long-term effectiveness and safety data; head-to-head drug comparisons; cost analyses for tiering formulary placement; medication use and adherence patterns; identification of relevant responder and non-responder patient subpopulations; and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RWE can be used to assess clinically meaningful endpoints and gauge the impact of interventions on the quality of healthcare. Here, we review how payers use or can use RWD on the comparative effectiveness and safety of treatments, PROs, medication adherence and persistence, prescribing patterns, healthcare resource utilization, and patient characteristics and/or biomarkers associated with treatment response when making health technology assessments and payer coverage decisions across therapeutic areas.

Inhaled corticosteroids and FEV1 decline in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review

Rate of FEV₁ decline in COPD is heterogeneous and the extent to which inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) influence the rate of decline is unclear. The majority of previous reviews have investigated specific ICS and non-ICS inhalers and have consisted of randomised control trials (RCTs), which have specific inclusion and exclusion criteria and short follow up times. We aimed to investigate the association between change in FEV₁ and ICS-containing medications in COPD patients over longer follow up times.

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched and literature comparing change in FEV₁ in COPD patients taking ICS-containing medications with patients taking non-ICS-containing medications were identified. Titles, abstract, and full texts were screened and information extracted using the PICO checklist. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and a descriptive synthesis of the literature was carried out due to high heterogeneity of included studies.

Seventeen studies met our inclusion criteria. We found that the difference in change in FEV₁ in people using ICS and non-ICS containing medications depended on the study follow-up time. Shorter follow-up studies (1 year or less) were more likely to report an increase in FEV₁ from baseline in both patients on ICS and in patients on non-ICS-containing medications, with the majority of these studies showing a greater increase in FEV₁ in patients on ICS-containing medications. Longer follow-up studies (greater than 1 year) were more likely to report a decline in FEV₁ from baseline in patients on ICS and in patients on non-ICS containing medications but rates of FEV₁ decline were similar.

Further studies are needed to better understand changes in FEV₁ when ICS-containing medications are prescribed and to determine whether ICS-containing medications influence rate of decline in FEV₁ in the long term. Results from inclusive trials and observational patient cohorts may provide information more generalisable to a population of COPD patients.

Pharmacological treatment and current controversies in COPD

Bronchodilators, corticosteroids, and antibiotics are still key elements for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the 2019 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommendations and this is due in part to our current inability to discover new drugs capable of decisively influencing the course of the disease. However, in recent years, information has been produced that, if used correctly, can allow us to improve the use of the available therapies.

Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD patients: rationale and algorithms

Observational studies indicate that overutilization of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is common in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Overprescription and the high risk of serious ICS-related adverse events make withdrawal of this treatment necessary in patients for whom the treatment-related risks outweigh the expected benefits. Elaboration of an optimal, universal, user-friendly algorithm for withdrawal of ICS therapy has been identified as an important clinical need. This article reviews the available evidence on the efficacy, risks, and indications of ICS in COPD, as well as the benefits of ICS treatment withdrawal in patients for whom its use is not recommended by current guidelines. After discussing proposed approaches to ICS withdrawal published by professional associations and individual authors, we present a new algorithm developed by consensus of an international group of experts in the field of COPD. This relatively simple algorithm is based on consideration and integrated assessment of the most relevant factors (markers) influencing decision-making, such a history of exacerbations, peripheral blood eosinophil count, presence of infection, and risk of community-acquired pneumonia.

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.

Managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the community setting

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an umbrella term used to describe respiratory diseases characterised by airway obstruction. COPD is now an established and significant chronic disease, killing over 30 000 people in the UK every year. According to the World Health Organization, COPD will become the third biggest killer in the world by 2020. The financial and human cost of the disease is huge. To appreciate the pathophysiology of obstructive pulmonary diseases, it is first necessary to understand a number of important lung concepts. This article discusses the pathophysiology of COPD, highlighting the main mechanisms involved, provides an outline of the associated signs, symptoms and treatment of COPD and explore how health care professionals in the community/residential care settings can help manage and improve the quality of life for patients with COPD.

Use of ICS in COPD: From Blockbuster Medicine to Precision Medicine

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of mortality worldwide, whose burden is expected to increase in the next decades, because of numerous risk factors, including the aging of the population. COPD is both preventable and treatable by an effective management including risk factor reduction, prevention, assessment, and treatment of acute exacerbations and co-morbidities. The available agents approved for COPD treatment are long-acting or ultra-long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) bronchodilators, as well as inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in combination with LABAs. ICS use has been restricted only to selected COPD patients by the most recent documents, mainly based on the risk of exacerbations. However, several observational studies showed a high rate of prescription of ICS in COPD, irrespective of clinical recommendations, questioning the efficacy of these compounds in unselected patients with COPD and leading to possible increase risk of side effects related to ICS use. After examining the low levels of adherence in primary care and in the clinical settings to national and international recommendations for the treatment of COPD in different countries, the most common drivers of the prevailing use of ICS are critically reviewed here by examining their pros and cons, aimed at identifying evidence-based drivers for a proper selection of patients who may benefit from the proper use of ICS.

Impact and prevention of severe exacerbations of COPD: a review of the evidence

Severe exacerbations of COPD, ie, those leading to hospitalization, have profound clinical implications for patients and significant economic consequences for society. The prevalence and burden of severe COPD exacerbations remain high, despite recognition of the importance of exacerbation prevention and the availability of new treatment options. Severe COPD exacerbations are associated with high mortality, have negative impact on quality of life, are linked to cardiovascular complications, and are a significant burden on the health-care system. This review identified risk factors that contribute to the development of severe exacerbations, treatment options (bronchodilators, antibiotics, corticosteroids [CSs], oxygen therapy, and ventilator support) to manage severe exacerbations, and strategies to prevent readmission to hospital. Risk factors that are amenable to change have been highlighted. A number of bronchodilators have demonstrated successful reduction in risk of severe exacerbations, including long-acting muscarinic antagonist or long-acting β2-agonist mono- or combination therapies, in addition to vaccination, mucolytic and antibiotic therapy, and nonpharmacological interventions, such as pulmonary rehabilitation. Recognition of the importance of severe exacerbations is an essential step in improving outcomes for patients with COPD. Evidence-based approaches to prevent and manage severe exacerbations should be implemented as part of targeted strategies for disease management.

Inhaled corticosteroids and the increased risk of pneumonia: what's new? A 2015 updated review

There is a considerable amount of evidence that supports the possibility of an increased risk of pneumonia associated with prolonged use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, as yet, no statistically significant increase in pneumonia-related 30-day mortality in patients on ICS has been demonstrated. The lack of objective pneumonia definitions and radiological confirmations have been a major source of bias, because of the similarities in clinical presentation between pneumonia and acute exacerbations of COPD. One of the newer fluticasone furoate studies overcomes these limitations and also provides an assessment of a range of doses, suggesting that the therapeutic window is quite narrow and that conventional dosing has probably been too high, although the absolute risk may be different compared to other drugs. Newer studies were not able to rule out budesonide as responsible for pneumonia, as previous evidence suggested, and there is still need for evidence from head-to-head comparisons in order to better assess possible intra-class differences. Although the exact mechanisms by which ICS increase the risk of pneumonia are not fully understood, the immunosuppressive effects of ICS on the respiratory epithelium and the disruption of the lung microbiome are most likely to be implicated. Given that COPD represents such a complex and heterogeneous disease, attempts are being made to identify clinical phenotypes with clear therapeutic implications, in order to optimize the pharmacological treatment of COPD and avoid the indiscriminate use of ICS. If deemed necessary, gradual withdrawal of ICS appears to be well tolerated. Vaccination against pneumococcus and influenza should be emphasized in patients with COPD receiving ICS. Physicians should keep in mind that signs and symptoms of pneumonia in COPD patients may be initially indistinguishable from those of an exacerbation, and that patients with COPD appear to be at increased risk of developing pneumonia as a complication of ICS therapy.

Economic evaluations of fluticasone-propionate/salmeterol combination therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a review of published studies

This review identifies and evaluates the comprehensive reporting of peer-reviewed economic evaluations of the effectiveness of fluticasone-propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) therapy for maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Economic evaluations were included if published in English since 2003. Evaluation categories included in the review were cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-consequence analyses. FSC is cost-effective in comparison to short-acting bronchodilators (SABDs). Cost and outcome differences between FSC and other long-acting therapies were modest. Studies exhibited large variations in populations, designs and environment, limiting the ability to draw conclusions. Many new maintenance treatments for COPD have been approved since 2010. Most have yet to be compared to older treatments like FSC. Evaluations are needed that consider costs and outcomes from a societal perspective (e.g., patients' ability to keep working) and evaluations that include subgroup analyses to investigate differential impacts according to clusters of patient characteristics.

Using EMR to improve compliance with clinical practice guidelines for management of stable COPD

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines are underutilized in the outpatient management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We hypothesize that a structured approach using the electronic medical record (EMR) will improve compliance with clinical practice guidelines for the evaluation and management of patients with stable COPD.

METHODS

Clinical records were evaluated in a pre- and post-intervention analysis of patients with COPD seen in our pulmonary clinics at a single tertiary care academic setting. Patient charts were retrospectively screened for the diagnosis of COPD and individually assessed for a diagnosis of COPD by spirometry. We then developed and implemented a COPD Flowsheet based on clinical practice guidelines into each outpatient clinic encounter for COPD with repeat chart review of clinic patients. Improvement in the pre- to post-intervention quality metrics were compared using t-test and Chi squared as indicated. A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients were screened in the pre-intervention period and 347 in the post-intervention period. Of these, 144 (72%) and 267 (77%) met criteria for COPD based on FEV(1)/FVC < 0.70, respectively. There was a significant increase in the use of severity assessment by BODE index (13.2% vs 32.2%, p-value < 0.001), inhaler technique teaching (35.4% vs 65.2%, p-value < 0.001), osteoporosis screening (20.8% vs 44.9%, p-value < 0.001) and influenza vaccination (74.3% vs 83.5%, p-value = 0.03) in post intervention period.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a standardized COPD Flowsheet developed from clinical practice guidelines improves advanced assessment of patients with COPD and other quality of care measures.

Infection in severe asthma exacerbations and critical asthma syndrome

In chronic persistent asthma and severe acute exacerbations of bronchial asthma, infectious agents are the predominant triggers that drive disease and airway pathobiology. In acute exacerbations of bronchial asthma (AEBA) including near fatal and fatal asthma, viral agents, particularly human rhinovirus-C, respiratory syncytial virus and influenza A appear to be the more prevalent and recurring threats. Both viral, and to a lesser extent bacterial agents, can play a role, and co-infection may also be present and worsen prognosis in hospitalized patients, placing a portion at risk for critical asthma syndrome. During severe acute exacerbations, infectious agents must be treated empirically, but the initial treatment regimens can vary and viral coverage may also vary based on seasonality and patient age. Early treatment with ceftriaxone and azithromycin, along with oseltamivir in winter months, should be initiated with all cases of severe exacerbations where infection is suspected, and definitely in critical asthma syndrome until infection is excluded by appropriate diagnostic testing. In this manuscript we will outline the impact of the major viral agents on severe asthma including the data from the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. The role of bacterial infections in acute exacerbations of asthma will also be reviewed as well as the benefit of empiric antibiotics and the role of macrolides in both acute and chronic asthma.

The risk and outcomes of pneumonia in patients on inhaled corticosteroids

Corticosteroids are frequently prescribed anti-inflammatory medications. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are indicated for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and asthma. ICS are associated with a decrease in exacerbations and improved quality of life in COPD, however multiple studies have linked the chronic use of ICSs with an increased risk of developing pneumonia, though the effect on mortality is unclear. We review the association of ICS with the risk of pneumonia and the implications on clinical outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of endobronchial valves for advanced emphysema: a meta analysis

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with endobronchial valves (EBV) for advanced emphysema.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed from PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, Cochrane Library database. Randomized control clinical trials on treatment of emphysema for 3-12 months with the EBV compared with standard medications and sham EBV were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were applied to select patients with advanced emphysema treated with EBV. The primary outcome was the percentage of the forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1%). Secondary outcomes included St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, the distance of the 6-minute walk (6MWD) test, the Modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) dyspnoea score, cycle ergometry workload, and the rate of the six major complications at 3 or 12 months. Fixed- or random-effects models were used and weighted mean differences (WMD), relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Three trials (565 patients) were considered in the meta-analysis. EBV patients yielded greater increases in FEV1% than standard medications (WMD =6.71; 95% CI, 3.31 to 10.10; P=0.0001), EBV patients also demonstrated a significant change for SGRQ score (WMD =-3.64; 95% CI, -5.93 to -1.34; P=0.002), MMRC dyspnoea score (WMD =-0.26; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.08; P=0.004), and cycle ergometry workload (WMD =4.18; 95% CI, 2.14 to 6.22; P<0.0001). A similar level was evident for 6MWD (WMD =11.66; 95% CI, -3.31 to 26.64; P=0.13). EBV may increase the rate of hemoptysis (RR =5.15; 95% CI, 1.16 to 22.86; P=0.03), but didn't increase the adverse events including mortality, respiratory failure, empyema, pneumonia, pneumothrax. The overall rates for complications compared EBV with standard medications and sham EBV was not significant (RR =2.03; 95% CI, 0.98 to 4.21; P=0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

EBV lung volume reduction for advanced emphysema showed superior efficacy and a good safety and tolerability compared with standard medications and sham EBV, further more randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies are needed to pay more attention to the long-term efficacy and safety of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with EBV in advanced emphysema.

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.

"Correct use of inhaled corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease": a consensus document

INTRODUCTION

Indications for inhaled corticosteroids (IC) in combination with long-acting bronchodilators (LABD) are well defined in clinical practice guidelines. However, there are some doubts about their efficacy and safety. The aim of this document is to establish an expert consensus to clarify these issues.

METHOD

A coordinator group was formed, which systematically reviewed the scientific evidence with the aim of identifying areas of uncertainty about the efficacy of ICs, the adverse effects associated with their use and criteria for withdrawal. Their proposals were submitted to a panel of experts and the Delphi technique was used to test the level of consensus.

RESULTS

Twenty-five experts participated in the panel, and consensus was reached on the use of IC in the mixed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-asthma phenotype and in frequent exacerbators, and on not using IC in association with LABD for improving lung function in COPD. There was no general consensus on restricting the use of IC to prevent adverse effects. The panel did agree that IC withdrawal is feasible but should be undertaken gradually, and patients who have discontinued must be evaluated in the short term.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus was reached regarding the indication of IC in mixed COPD-asthma and frequent exacerbator phenotypes. The potential for adverse effects must be taken into consideration, but there is no consensus on whether limiting use is justified. The withdrawal of ICs was uniformly agreed to be feasible.

Fluticasone furoate and vilanterol inhalation powder for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) is a novel inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist (ICS/LABA) fixed dose combination that, by simplifying the dosing schedule, allows, for the first time in a member of the ICS/LABA class, a shift from twice-daily to once-daily treatment. FF/VI is delivered via a novel, single-step activation, multi-dose dry powder inhaler for oral inhalation, Ellipta. Regrettably, there are no head-to-head trials that have shown superiority in the safety or efficacy of FF versus other ICSs, but evidence shows that VI has a quicker onset of effect versus salmeterol. However, the clinical utility of this effect in a maintenance medication is still questionable. Furthermore, benefits of FF/VI over twice-daily ICS/LABA comparator have not been shown yet and, in addition, its adverse event profile is generally consistent with the known class effects of an ICS/LABA fixed dose combination. In particular, there is an increase in the risk of pneumonia among patients treated with FF/VI relative to VI, mainly among those who benefit most from FF/VI. Nevertheless, the interesting pharmacological profiles of both FF and VI, the possibility that FF/VI can be administered once-daily, and the attractive characteristics of Ellipta are important features that could help FF/VI to be a successful combination in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 μg versus salmeterol 50 μg after chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation

BACKGROUND

Inhaled long-acting beta2 agonists used alone and in combination with an inhaled corticosteroid reduce the risk of exacerbations in patients with stable COPD. However, the relative efficacy of these agents in preventing recurrent exacerbations in those recovering from an initial episode is not known. This study compared the rate of COPD exacerbations over the 26 weeks after an initial exacerbation in patients receiving the combination of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FP/SAL) or SAL alone.

METHODS

Patients (n = 639) aged ≥40 years were randomized to either twice-daily inhaled FP/SAL 250/50 μg or SAL 50 μg. Primary, and secondary, endpoints were rates of recurrent severe, and moderate/severe, exacerbations of COPD. Lung function, health outcomes and levels of biomarkers of systemic inflammation were also assessed.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant treatment difference in rates of recurrent severe exacerbations (treatment ratio 0.92 [95% CI: 0.58, 1.45]) and moderate/severe exacerbations (0.82 [0.64, 1.06]) between FP/SAL and SAL in the intent-to-treat population. Pre-dose morning FEV1 change from baseline was greater (0.10 L [0.04, 0.16]) with FP/SAL than SAL. No treatment difference was seen for other endpoints including patient-reported health outcomes and biomarker levels for the full cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant treatment difference between FP/SAL and SAL was seen in COPD exacerbation recurrence for the complete cohort. Treatment benefit with FP/SAL over SAL (treatment ratio 0.68 [0.47, 0.97]) was seen in patients having FEV1 ≥ 30% and prior exposure to ICS. No unexpected safety issues were identified with either treatment. Patients with the most severe COPD may be more refractory to treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT01110200). This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (study number ADC113874).

Long-acting inhaled therapy (beta-agonists, anticholinergics and steroids) for COPD: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is aimed at relieving symptoms, improving quality of life and preventing or treating exacerbations.Treatment tends to begin with one inhaler, and additional therapies are introduced as necessary. For persistent or worsening symptoms, long-acting inhaled therapies taken once or twice daily are preferred over short-acting inhalers. Several Cochrane reviews have looked at the risks and benefits of specific long-acting inhaled therapies compared with placebo or other treatments. However for patients and clinicians, it is important to understand the merits of these treatments relative to each other, and whether a particular class of inhaled therapies is more beneficial than the others.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of treatment options for patients whose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cannot be controlled by short-acting therapies alone. The review will not look at combination therapies usually considered later in the course of the disease.As part of this network meta-analysis, we will address the following issues.1. How does long-term efficacy compare between different pharmacological treatments for COPD?2. Are there limitations in the current evidence base that may compromise the conclusions drawn by this network meta-analysis? If so, what are the implications for future research?

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in existing Cochrane reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). In addition, we ran a comprehensive citation search on the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials (CAGR) and checked manufacturer websites and reference lists of other reviews. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group RCTs of at least 6 months' duration recruiting people with COPD. Studies were included if they compared any of the following treatments versus any other: long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs; formoterol, indacaterol, salmeterol); long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs; aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium); inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs; budesonide, fluticasone, mometasone); combination long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) (formoterol/budesonide, formoterol/mometasone, salmeterol/fluticasone); and placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a network meta-analysis using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for two efficacy outcomes: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (placebo). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within treatment classes (LAMA, LABA, ICS, LABA/ICS). We present estimates of class effects, variability between treatments within each class and individual treatment effects compared with every other.To justify the analyses, we assessed the trials for clinical and methodological transitivity across comparisons. We tested the robustness of our analyses by performing sensitivity analyses for lack of blinding and by considering six- and 12-month data separately.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 71 RCTs randomly assigning 73,062 people with COPD to 184 treatment arms of interest. Trials were similar with regards to methodology, inclusion and exclusion criteria and key baseline characteristics. Participants were more often male, aged in their mid sixties, with FEV1 predicted normal between 40% and 50% and with substantial smoking histories (40+ pack-years). The risk of bias was generally low, although missing information made it hard to judge risk of selection bias and selective outcome reporting. Fixed effects were used for SGRQ analyses, and random effects for Trough FEV1 analyses, based on model fit statistics and deviance information criteria (DIC). SGRQ SGRQ data were available in 42 studies (n = 54,613). At six months, 39 pairwise comparisons were made between 18 treatments in 25 studies (n = 27,024). Combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked intervention, with a mean improvement over placebo of -3.89 units at six months (95% credible interval (CrI) -4.70 to -2.97) and -3.60 at 12 months (95% CrI -4.63 to -2.34). LAMAs and LABAs were ranked second and third at six months, with mean differences of -2.63 (95% CrI -3.53 to -1.97) and -2.29 (95% CrI -3.18 to -1.53), respectively. Inhaled corticosteroids were ranked fourth (MD -2.00, 95% CrI -3.06 to -0.87). Class differences between LABA, LAMA and ICS were less prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and aclidinium were ranked somewhat higher than other members of their classes, and formoterol 12 mcg, budesonide 400 mcg and formoterol/mometasone combination were ranked lower within their classes. There was considerable overlap in credible intervals and rankings for both classes and individual treatments. Trough FEV1 Trough FEV1 data were available in 46 studies (n = 47,409). At six months, 41 pairwise comparisons were made between 20 treatments in 31 studies (n = 29,271). As for SGRQ, combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked class, with a mean improvement over placebo of 133.3 mL at six months (95% CrI 100.6 to 164.0) and slightly less at 12 months (mean difference (MD) 100, 95% CrI 55.5 to 140.1). LAMAs (MD 103.5, 95% CrI 81.8 to 124.9) and LABAs (MD 99.4, 95% CrI 72.0 to 127.8) showed roughly equivalent results at six months, and ICSs were the fourth ranked class (MD 65.4, 95% CrI 33.1 to 96.9). As with SGRQ, initial differences between classes were not so prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and salmeterol/fluticasone were ranked slightly better than others in their class, and formoterol 12, aclidinium, budesonide and formoterol/budesonide combination were ranked lower within their classes. All credible intervals for individual rankings were wide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis compares four different classes of long-acting inhalers for people with COPD who need more than short-acting bronchodilators. Quality of life and lung function were improved most on combination inhalers (LABA and ICS) and least on ICS alone at 6 and at 12 months. Overall LAMA and LABA inhalers had similar effects, particularly at 12 months. The network has demonstrated the benefit of ICS when added to LABA for these outcomes in participants who largely had an FEV1 that was less than 50% predicted, but the additional expense of combination inhalers and any potential for increased adverse events (which has been established by other reviews) require consideration. Our findings are in keeping with current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.

Inhaled corticosteroids and the risk of pneumonia in people with asthma: a case-control study

BACKGROUND

In clinical trials, the use of inhaled corticosteroids is associated with an increased risk of pneumonia in people with COPD, but whether the same is true for people with asthma is not known.

METHODS

With the use of primary care data from The Health Improvement Network, we identified people with asthma, and from this cohort, we identified patients with pneumonia or lower respiratory tract infection and age- and sex-matched control subjects. Conditional logistic regression was used to determine the association between the dose and type of inhaled corticosteroid and the risk of pneumonia or lower respiratory tract infection.

RESULTS

A dose-response relationship was found between the strength of inhaled corticosteroid dose and risk of pneumonia or lower respiratory tract infection (P &lt; .001 for trend) such that after adjusting for confounders, people receiving the highest strength of inhaled corticosteroid (≥ 1,000 μg) had a 2.04 (95% CI, 1.59-2.64) increased risk of pneumonia or lower respiratory tract infection compared with those with asthma who did not have a prescription for inhaled corticosteroids within the previous 90 days.

CONCLUSIONS

People with asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids are at an increased risk of pneumonia or lower respiratory infection, with those receiving higher doses being at greater risk. Pneumonia should be considered as a possible side effect of inhaled corticosteroids, and the lowest possible dose of inhaled corticosteroids should be used in the management of asthma.

Prehospital use of inhaled corticosteroids and point prevalence of pneumonia at the time of hospital admission: secondary analysis of a multicenter cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To address clinical concern regarding the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and the risk for pneumonia, particularly among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A multicentered prospective cohort of patients admitted to the hospital from March 1, 2009, through August 31, 2009, with pneumonia or another risk factor for acute respiratory distress syndrome was analyzed to determine the risk for pneumonia requiring hospitalization among patients taking ICSs. The adjusted risk (odds ratio [OR]) for developing pneumonia because of ICSs was determined in a multiple logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Of the 5584 patients in the cohort, 495 (9%) were taking ICSs and 1234 (22%) had pneumonia requiring hospitalization. In univariate analyses, pneumonia occurred in 222 (45%) of the patients on ICSs vs 1012 (20%) in those who were not (OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.71-3.96; P<.001). After adjusting in the logistic regression model, prehospital ICS use was not significantly associated with pneumonia in the whole cohort (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.93-1.53; P=.162), among the subset of 589 patients with COPD (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.95-2.09; P=.093), among the 440 patients with asthma (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.87; P=.81), nor among the remaining 4629 patients without COPD or asthma (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.88-1.97; P=.179).

CONCLUSION

When adjusted for multiple confounding variables, ICS use was not substantially associated with an increased risk for pneumonia requiring admission in our cohort.

Cardiovascular safety in patients receiving roflumilast for the treatment of COPD

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of cardiovascular safety for new therapies for COPD is important because of a high prevalence of cardiac comorbidities in the COPD population. Hence, we evaluated the effects of roflumilast, a novel oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor developed for the treatment and prevention of COPD exacerbations, on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs).

METHODS

Intermediate- and long-term placebo-controlled clinical trials of roflumilast in COPD were pooled and assessed for potential cardiovascular events. Studies comprised 14 12- to 52-week placebo-controlled trials in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. All deaths and serious nonfatal cardiovascular events were evaluated by an independent adjudication committee blinded to study and treatment. The MACE composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke was analyzed according to treatment group.

RESULTS

Of 6,563 patients receiving roflumilast, 52 experienced MACEs (14.3 per 1,000 patient-years), and of 5,491 patients receiving placebo, 76 experienced MACEs (22.3 per 1,000 patient-years). The MACE composite rate was significantly lower for roflumilast compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.93; P = .019).

CONCLUSIONS

A lower rate of cardiovascular events was observed with roflumilast than with placebo in patients with COPD, indicating the lack of a cardiovascular safety signal when treating patients with COPD. Potential cardiovascular benefits of roflumilast should be evaluated in future controlled clinical trials.

Inhaled corticosteroids for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend the use of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators, inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and their combinations for maintenance treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, it is questionable whether all COPD patients should be treated, as the long-term use of ICSs is accompanied by side effects.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the evidence about the effects of ICSs in the treatment of COPD. It mainly focuses on meta-analyses of published data and pooled analyses of primary data. It also offers an overview of pipeline developments.

EXPERT OPINION

There is now more evidence that there are subsets of patients (mainly, frequent exacerbators with predominant chronic bronchitis and those with overlap between COPD and asthma) with a favorable response to treatment with ICSs (i.e., reduced progression of lung function loss, reduced exacerbation rate and improved health-related quality of life). Therefore, nowadays, the right question is not whether ICSs should not be used at all unless patients have concomitant asthma, but, instead, which COPD patient can benefit from a therapy with ICSs. Unfortunately, however, the number of studies that have investigated the clinical features that might predict corticosteroid response in COPD is still inadequate.

Beclometasone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic obstructive lung condition, diagnosed in patients with dyspnoea, chronic cough or sputum production and/or a history of risk factor exposure, if their postbronchodilator forced expiratory lung volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital lung capacity (FVC) ratio is less than 0.70, according to the international GOLD (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease) criteria.Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) medications are now recommended for COPD only in combination treatment with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs), and only for patients of GOLD stage 3 and stage 4 severity, for both GOLD groups C and D.ICS are expensive and how effective they are is a topic of controversy, particularly in relation to their adverse effects (pneumonia), which may be linked to more potent ICS. It is unclear whether beclometasone dipropionate (BDP), an unlicensed but widely used inhaled steroid, is a safe and effective alternative to other ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety in COPD of inhaled beclometasone alone compared with placebo, and of inhaled beclometasone in combination with LABAs compared with LABAs alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) (includes Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO, and handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts) (February 2013), conference abstracts, ongoing studies and reference lists of articles. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and drug marketing authorisation bodies/ethics committees in 49 countries and obtained licensing information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of BDP compared with placebo, or BDP/LABA compared with LABA, in stable COPD. Minimum trial duration is 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Inclusion, bias assessment and data extraction were conducted by two review authors independently. The analysis was performed by one review author. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

For BDP versus placebo, two studies were included, of which one trial (participants n = 194) was included in the quantitative analysis. This study was a very high-dose trial with stable stage 2 and 3 COPD participants. No statistically significant results in change in lung function, mortality, exacerbations, dyspnoea scores or withdrawal were obtained. The quality of the evidence of all these outcomes was graded low to very low. Data on risk of pneumonia were lacking.The main focus of the review was the more clinically relevant BDP/LABA versus LABA arm. Therefore the findings are reported more fully.For BDP/LABA versus LABA, one study (n = 474) was included, with a further ongoing study identified for future inclusion. The included trial was a high-dose study of stable stage 3 COPD participants. Compared with LABA, people receiving BDP/LABA showed a statistically significant improvement in FEV1 lung function measurements of 0.051 L (95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.102, P = 0.046) (high quality of evidence) and in (self-reported) days without rescue bronchodilators (mean difference 7.05, 95% CI 0.84 to 13.26, P = 0.03) (low quality), both of which are unlikely to be clinically significant. Participants receiving BDP/LABA also had a statistically significant increased rate of exacerbations leading to hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.84, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.90, P = 0.008) (moderate quality), although this finding is debatable as this study's post hoc analysis showed no statistically significant difference when accounting for country-specific differences in hospitalisation policies. We did not find statistically significant differences for mortality (very low quality), pneumonia (low quality), exacerbations, exercise capacity, quality of life and dyspnoea scores, adverse events and withdrawal (all moderate quality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found little evidence to suggest that beclometasone is a safer or more effective treatment option for people with COPD when compared with placebo or when used in combination with LABA; when statistically significant differences were found, they mostly were not clinically meaningful or were based on data from only one study. The review was limited by an inability to obtain data from one study and likely publication bias for BDP versus placebo, and by the inclusion of one study only for BDP/LABA versus LABA. An ongoing study of BDP/LABA versus LABA may have a further impact on these conclusions.

Roflumilast inhibits lipopolysaccharide-induced tumor necrosis factor-α and chemokine production by human lung parenchyma

Background

Roflumilast is the first phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor to have been approved for the treatment of COPD. The anti-inflammatory profile of PDE4 inhibitors has not yet been explored in human lung tissues. We investigated the effects of roflumilast and its active metabolite roflumilast-N-oxide on the lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced release of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and chemokines by human lung parenchymal explants. We also investigated roflumilast’s interaction with the long-acting β₂-agonist formoterol.

Methods

Explants from 25 patients undergoing surgical lung resection were incubated with Roflumilast, Roflumilast-N-oxide and formoterol and stimulated with LPS. Levels of TNF-α, chemokines (in the culture supernatants) and cyclic adenosine monophosphate (in tissue homogenates) were determined with appropriate immunoassays.

Results

Roflumilast and Roflumilast-N-oxide concentration-dependently reduced the release of TNF-α and chemokines CCL2, CCL3, CCL4, CXCL9 and CXCL10 from LPS-stimulated human lung explants, whereas CXCL1, CXCL5 and CXCL8 release was not altered. Formoterol (10 nM) partially decreased the release of the same cytokines and significantly increased the inhibitory effect of roflumilast on the release of the cytokines.

Conclusions

In human lung parenchymal explants, roflumilast and roflumilast-N-oxide reduced the LPS-induced release of TNF-α and chemokines involved in the recruitment of monocytes and T-cells but not those involved in the recruitment of neutrophils. Addition of formoterol to roflumilast provided superior invitro anti-inflammatory activity, which may translate into greater efficacy in COPD.

Influence of previous use of inhaled corticoids on the development of pleural effusion in community-acquired pneumonia

RATIONALE

Previous use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been associated with increased risk of community-acquired pneumonia. However, ICS have been associated with fewer pneumonia complications and decreased risk of pneumonia-related mortality.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to assess the influence of previous use of ICS on the incidence of parapneumonic effusion in patients with different baseline respiratory disorders.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center cohort study of 3,612 consecutively collected patients diagnosed with community-acquired pneumonia. We assessed clinical, radiographic, and pleural-fluid chemistry and microbiologic variables. Patients were classified according to whether or not they received prior ICS treatment.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 633 patients (17%) were treated with corticosteroids before the diagnosis of pneumonia (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 54%; asthma, 13%). Incidence of parapneumonic effusion was lower in patients with ICS use compared with non-ICS patients (5% vs. 12%; P < 0.001). After matching according to propensity scores (n = 640), prior treatment with corticosteroids was still significantly associated with a lower incidence of parapneumonic effusion (odds ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.69; P = 0.001) compared with patients without ICS treatment. Prior ICS treatment was associated with higher levels of glucose (P = 0.003) and pH (P = 0.02), and lower levels of protein (P = 0.01) and lactic acid dehydrogenase (P = 0.007) in the pleural fluid.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior treatment with ICS in a population of patients with different respiratory chronic disorders who develop pneumonia is associated with lower incidence of parapneumonic effusion.

Risk-to-benefit ratio of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COPD

While the pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has evolved from the drugs used to treat asthma, the treatment models are different and the two diseases require clear differential diagnosis in order to determine the correct therapeutic strategy. In contrast to the almost universal requirement for anti-inflammatory treatment of persistent asthma, the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is less well established in COPD and their role in treatment is limited. There is some evidence of a preventive effect of ICS on exacerbations in patients with COPD, but there is little evidence for an effect on mortality or lung function decline. As a result, treatment guidelines recommend the use of ICS in patients with severe or very severe disease (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted) and repeated exacerbations. Patients with frequent exacerbations - a phenotype that is stable over time - are likely to be less common among those with moderate COPD (many of whom are managed in primary care) than in those with more severe disease. The indiscriminate use of ICS in COPD may expose patients to an unnecessary increase in the risk of side-effects such as pneumonia, osteoporosis, diabetes and cataracts, while wasting healthcare spending and potentially diverting attention from other more appropriate forms of management such as pulmonary rehabilitation and maximal bronchodilator use. Physicians should carefully weigh the likely benefits of ICS use against the potential risk of side-effects and costs in individual patients with COPD.

Inhaled corticosteroids and the increased risk of pneumonia

Recently it has been suggested that there is a causal association between the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and the risk of developing pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). An increased risk of pneumonia associated with ICS use has been seen in trials with different design, different study populations and with evidence of a dose-response relationship. However, as none of these clinical trials were originally designed to assess pneumonia risk, radiographic confirmation of pneumonia was not always obtained. The extent to which pneumonia events have been confounded with acute exacerbations of COPD is unclear. As increased pneumonia events were not associated with increased mortality it remains unclear what the clinical significance of these findings are. Further complicating the association between ICSs and pneumonia is that meta-analyses restricted to budesonide trials have not shown an increased risk of pneumonia, and no association has been seen in patients with asthma. A number of mechanisms by which ICSs could increase the risk of pneumonia have been proposed, principally related to their immunosuppressive effect. Well-designed clinical trials with predefined endpoints and objective pneumonia definitions are needed before the real risk of pneumonia conferred by ICSs can be established. In the meantime, it seems reasonable to reduce ICSs given to COPD patients to the lowest effective doses, reduce the risk in individual patients by ensuring appropriate vaccination and to be vigilant for the possibility of pneumonia in patients with COPD on ICSs as they largely overlap with those of an acute exacerbation.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease lost in translation: Why are the inhaled corticosteroids skeptics refusing to go?

A survey of pulmonologists attending a clinical meeting of the Saudi Thoracic Society found that only 55% of responders considered that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) had a positive effect on quality of life in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Why the divergence of opinion when all the guidelines have concluded that ICS improve quality of life and produce significant bronchodilation? ICS unequivocally reduce the rate of exacerbations by a modest 20%, but this does not extend to serious exacerbations requiring hospitalization. Bronchodilatation with ICS is now documented to be restricted to some phenotypes of COPD. Withdrawal of ICS trials reported a modest decline of FEV₁ (<5%) in half the studies and no decline in the other half. In spite of the guidelines statements, there is no concurrence on whether ICS improve the quality of life and there is no conclusive evidence that the combination of long-acting ß2 agonists (LABA) with ICS is superior to LABA alone in that regard. The explanation for these inconclusive results may be related to the fact that COPD consists of three different phenotypes with divergent responses to LABA and ICS. Therapy tailored to phenotype is the future for COPD.

THE PARADOXICAL EFFECT ON PNEUMONIA OF CHRONIC INHALED CORTICOSTEROIDS

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the leading infectious cause of death in developed countries. Several studies have shown that the risk of pneumonia is increased in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) who are receiving chronic inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The impact of ICS On pneumonia prognosis is controversial. Recent studies have shown that COPD patients with prior ICS use have less mortality after developing CAP as compared with patients with COPD without prior ICS use. This review discusses the association of ICS and the risk of CAP and its association with clinical outcomes in patients with COPD and pneumonia.

Abrupt withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids does not result in spirometric deterioration in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Effect of phenotyping?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Some studies show a decline of FEV(1) only one month after withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), while others show no decline. We speculate that the presence of an asthma phenotype in the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) population, and that its exclusion may result in no spirometric deterioration.

METHODS

We performed a prospective clinical observation study on 32 patients who fulfilled the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive lung disease definition of COPD (Grade II-IV). They were divided into two phenotypic groups. 1. Irreversible asthma (A and B) (n = 13): A. Asthma: Bronchial biopsy shows diffuse thickening of basement membrane (≥ 6.6 μm). B. Airflow limitation (AFL) likely to be asthma: KCO > 80% predicted if the patient refused biopsy. 2. COPD (A and B) (n = 19): A. COPD: hypercapneic respiratory failure with raised bicarbonate, panlobular emphysema with multiple bullas, or bronchial biopsy showing squamous metaplasia and epithelial/subepithelial inflammation without thickening of the basement membrane. B. AFL likely to be COPD: KCO < 80% predicted.

RESULTS

The asthma phenotype was significantly younger, had a strong association with hypertrophy of nasal turbinates, and registered a significant improvement of FEV(1) (350 ml) vs a decline of - 26.5 ml in the COPD phenotype following therapy with budesonide/formoterol for one year. Withdrawal of budesonide for 4 weeks in the COPD phenotype resulted in FEV(1) + 1.33% (SD ± 5.71) and FVC + 1.24% (SD ± 5.32); a change of <12% in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We recorded no spirometric deterioration after exclusion of the asthma phenotype from a COPD group.

Pharmacological treatment of COPD

Approximately seven million Brazilians over 40 years of age have COPD. In recent years, major advances have been made in the pharmacological treatment of this condition. We performed a systematic review including original articles on pharmacological treatments for COPD. We reviewed articles written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese; published between 2005 and 2009; and indexed in national and international databases. Articles with a sample size < 100 individuals were excluded. The outcome measures were symptoms, pulmonary function, quality of life, exacerbations, mortality, and adverse drug effects. Articles were classified in accordance with the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease criteria for the determination of the level of scientific evidence (grade of recommendation A, B, or C). Of the 84 articles selected, 40 (47.6%), 18 (21.4%), and 26 (31.0%) were classified as grades A, B, and C, respectively. Of the 420 analyses made in these articles, 236 were regarding the comparison between medications and placebos. Among these 236 analyses, the most commonly studied medications (in 66, 48, and 42 analyses, respectively) were long-acting anticholinergics; the combination of long-acting β(2) agonists and inhaled corticosteroids; and inhaled corticosteroids in isolation. Pulmonary function, adverse effects, and symptoms as outcomes generated 58, 54, and 35 analyses, respectively. The majority of the studies showed that the medications evaluated provided symptom relief; improved the quality of life and pulmonary function of patients; and prevented exacerbations. Few studies analyzed mortality as an outcome, and the role that pharmacological treatment plays in this outcome has yet to be fully defined. The medications studied are safe to use in the management of COPD and have few adverse effects.

Pragmatic research and outcomes in asthma and COPD

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common diseases which cause patients and society considerable difficulties. These are costly diseases which cause substantial morbidity and death. Health care policy makers have made improving outcomes in asthma and COPD a priority. Application of guideline recommended approaches to asthma and COPD care in the real-life setting has been emphasized but outcomes have not improved. Failure to improve outcomes may not be because of inconsistent applications of guideline recommendations, but rather because there are difficulties implementing the Expert Panel Report III (EPR 3) method for categorizing asthma severity and the Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) method for diagnosing COPD. As these serve as the foundation for treatment recommendations for these diseases, alternative approaches should be considered for categorizing asthma severity and identifying COPD patients. Claims-based algorithms provide an intriguing option for identifying persistent asthma patients and symptomatic COPD patients in administrative databases. These methods could be used as the basis for pragmatic research, both retrospective and prospective, on assessing outcomes of guideline recommended treatment approaches in asthma and COPD. Important questions urgently need to be answered about how guideline recommended approaches regarding use of long-acting inhaled β-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) in asthma and long-acting inhaled anti-muscarinic agent (LAMA) and LABA/ICS in COPD affect outcomes in real-life situations.

Efficacy of tiotropium in COPD patients with FEV1 ≥ 60% participating in the UPLIFT® trial

GOLD stage II COPD encompasses patients with FEV₁ 50-80% predicted. A published trials review suggested that benefits of maintenance therapy are limited to patients with FEV₁ <60% predicted. We previously reported data demonstrating the efficacy of tiotropium in GOLD stage II disease in the 4-year UPLIFT® trial, and present here a further analysis of a sub-category of GOLD stage II patients with post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≥60% predicted from UPLIFT®. Outcomes included pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry, exacerbations, SGRQ and mortality. Of the 5,992 UPLIFT® cohort, 1,210 (632 tiotropium, 578 control) had baseline post-bronchodilator FEV₁ ≥60% predicted (range 60-78%), mean age was 64 years, 70% were men, and mean SGRQ total score was 39.9 units. Mean annual rate of post-bronchodilator FEV₁ decline was 41 (tiotropium) and 49 (control) mL/year (P = 0.07); corresponding pre-bronchodilator values were 32 and 37 mL/year (P = 0.24). Morning pre-drug FEV₁ and FVC improvements for tiotropium versus control were 87-127 mL and 139-186 ml, respectively (P < 0.001, all time-points). SGRQ total score improvements (tiotropium-control) were 2.0-3.4 units (P < 0.05 for all); a higher percentage of patients had an improvement of ≥4 units with tiotropium (P <0.05). Tiotropium reduced risk for an exacerbation (HR [95% CI] = 0.83 [0.71, 0.96]) and mortality for the 4-year protocol-defined treatment period (HR [95% CI] = 0.66 [0.45, 0.96]). Tiotropium treatment provides clinical efficacy in patients with GOLD stage II disease with an FEV₁ ≥60% predicted, supporting current GOLD guidelines for COPD treatment. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00144339).

Inhaled corticosteroids versus long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta(2)-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids can be used as maintenance therapy by patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These interventions are often taken together in a combination inhaler. However, the relative added value of the two individual components is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effects of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) compared to long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) on clinical outcomes in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (latest search August 2011) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta(2)-agonists in the treatment of patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality, study outcomes and adverse events. We also contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven randomised trials (5997 participants) of good quality with a duration of six months to three years. All of the trials compared ICS/LABA combination inhalers with LABA and ICS as individual components. Four of these trials included fluticasone and salmeterol monocomponents and the remaining three included budesonide and formoterol monocomponents. There was no statistically significant difference in our primary outcome, the number of patients experiencing exacerbations (odds ratio (OR) 1.22; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.67), or the rate of exacerbations per patient year (rate ratio (RR) 0.96; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.02) between inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta(2)-agonists. The incidence of pneumonia, our co-primary outcome, was significantly higher among patients on inhaled corticosteroids than on long-acting beta(2)-agonists whether classified as an adverse event (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.73) or serious adverse event (Peto OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.93). Results of the secondary outcomes analysis were as follows. Mortality was higher in patients on inhaled corticosteroids compared to patients on long-acting beta(2)-agonists (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.42), although the difference was not statistically significant. Patients treated with beta(2)-agonists showed greater improvements in pre-bronchodilator FEV(1) compared to those treated with inhaled corticosteroids (mean difference (MD) 18.99 mL; 95% CI 0.52 to 37.46), whilst greater improvements in health-related quality of life were observed in patients receiving inhaled corticosteroids compared to those receiving long-acting beta(2)-agonists (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) MD -0.74; 95% CI -1.42 to -0.06). In both cases the differences were statistically significant but rather small in magnitude. There were no statistically significant differences between ICS and LABA in the number of hospitalisations due to exacerbations, number of mild exacerbations, peak expiratory flow, dyspnoea, symptoms scores, use of rescue medication, adverse events, all cause hospitalisations, or withdrawals from studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Placebo-controlled trials have established the benefits of both long-acting beta-agonist and inhaled corticosteroid therapy for COPD patients as individual therapies. This review, which included trials allowing comparisons between LABA and ICS, has shown that the two therapies confer similar benefits across the majority of outcomes, including the frequency of exacerbations and mortality. Use of long-acting beta-agonists appears to confer a small additional benefit in terms of improvements in lung function compared to inhaled corticosteroids. On the other hand, inhaled corticosteroid therapy shows a small advantage over long-acting beta-agonist therapy in terms of health-related quality of life, but inhaled corticosteroids also increase the risk of pneumonia. This review supports current guidelines advocating long-acting beta-agonists as frontline therapy for COPD, with regular inhaled corticosteroid therapy as an adjunct in patients experiencing frequent exacerbations.

Can β2-adrenoceptor agonists, anticholinergic drugs, and theophylline contribute to the control of pulmonary inflammation and emphysema in COPD?

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has become a global epidemic disease with an increased morbidity and mortality in the world. Inflammatory process progresses and contributes to irreversible airflow limitation. However, there is no available therapy to better control the inflammatory progression and therefore to reduce the exacerbations and mortality. Thus, the development of efficient anti-inflammatory therapies is a priority for patients with COPD. β(2) -Adrenoceptor agonists and anticholinergic agents are widely used as first line drugs in management of COPD because of their efficient bronchodilator properties. At present, many studies in vitro and some data obtained in laboratory animals reveal the potential anti-inflammatory effects of these bronchodilators but their protective role against chronic inflammation and the development of emphysema in patients with COPD remains to be investigated. The anti-inflammatory effects of theophylline at low doses have also been identified. Beneficial interactions between glucocorticoids and bronchodilators have been reported, and signaling pathways explaining these synergistic effects begin to be understood, especially for theophylline. Recent data demonstrating interactions between anticholinergics with β(2) -adrenoceptor agonists aiming to better control the pulmonary inflammation and the development of emphysema in animal models of COPD justify the priority to investigate the interactive effects of a tritherapy associating corticoids with the two main categories of bronchodilators.

Inhaled corticosteroids versus long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta(2)-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids can be used as maintenance therapy by patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These interventions are often taken together in a combination inhaler. However, the relative added value of the two individual components is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effects of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) compared to long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) on clinical outcomes in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (latest search August 2011) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta(2)-agonists in the treatment of patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality, study outcomes and adverse events. We also contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven randomised trials (5997 participants) of good quality with a duration of six months to three years. All of the trials compared ICS/LABA combination inhalers with LABA and ICS as individual components. Four of these trials included fluticasone and salmeterol monocomponents and the remaining three included budesonide and formoterol monocomponents. There was no statistically significant difference in our primary outcome, the number of patients experiencing exacerbations (odds ratio (OR) 1.22; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.67), or the rate of exacerbations per patient year (rate ratio (RR) 0.96; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.02) between inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta(2)-agonists. The incidence of pneumonia, our co-primary outcome, was significantly higher among patients on inhaled corticosteroids than on long-acting beta(2)-agonists whether classified as an adverse event (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.73) or serious adverse event (Peto OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.93). Results of the secondary outcomes analysis were as follows. Mortality was higher in patients on inhaled corticosteroids compared to patients on long-acting beta(2)-agonists (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.42), although the difference was not statistically significant. Patients treated with beta(2)-agonists showed greater improvements in pre-bronchodilator FEV(1) compared to those treated with inhaled corticosteroids (mean difference (MD) 18.99 mL; 95% CI 0.52 to 37.46), whilst greater improvements in health-related quality of life were observed in patients receiving inhaled corticosteroids compared to those receiving long-acting beta(2)-agonists (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) MD -0.74; 95% CI -1.42 to -0.06). In both cases the differences were statistically significant but rather small in magnitude. There were no statistically significant differences between ICS and LABA in the number of hospitalisations due to exacerbations, number of mild exacerbations, peak expiratory flow, dyspnoea, symptoms scores, use of rescue medication, adverse events, all cause hospitalisations, or withdrawals from studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Placebo-controlled trials have established the benefits of both long-acting beta-agonist and inhaled corticosteroid therapy for COPD patients as individual therapies. This review, which included trials allowing comparisons between LABA and ICS, has shown that the two therapies confer similar benefits across the majority of outcomes, including the frequency of exacerbations and mortality. Use of long-acting beta-agonists appears to confer a small additional benefit in terms of improvements in lung function compared to inhaled corticosteroids. On the other hand, inhaled corticosteroid therapy shows a small advantage over long-acting beta-agonist therapy in terms of health-related quality of life, but inhaled corticosteroids also increase the risk of pneumonia. This review supports current guidelines advocating long-acting beta-agonists as frontline therapy for COPD, with regular inhaled corticosteroid therapy as an adjunct in patients experiencing frequent exacerbations.

The effect of adding inhaled corticosteroids to tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators comprising long-acting beta(2)-agonists and the anticholinergic agent tiotropium are commonly used, either on their own or in combination, for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who are symptomatic and who suffer repeated exacerbations are recommended to add inhaled corticosteroids to their bronchodilator treatment. However, the benefits and risks of adding inhaled corticosteroid to tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of adding inhaled corticosteroids to tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (February 2011) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy in addition to inhaled tiotropium against tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonist treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

One trial (293 patients) was identified comparing tiotropium in addition to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy to tiotropium plus long-acting beta(2)-agonist. The study was of good methodological quality, however it suffered from high and uneven withdrawal rates between the treatment arms. There is currently insufficient evidence to know how much difference the addition of inhaled corticosteroids makes to people who are taking tiotropium and a long-acting beta(2)-agonist for COPD.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The relative efficacy and safety of adding inhaled corticosteroid to tiotropium and a long-acting beta(2)-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients remains uncertain and additional trials are required to answer this question.

Improvement of Airflow Limitation by Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: What is the Specific Marker?

Backgrounds: Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/inhaled long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA) combination drugs are widely used for the long-term management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, COPD is a heterogeneous condition and treatment with ICS is associated with a higher risk of pneumonia. The identification of a specific marker for predicting the efficacy of ICS/LABA on pulmonary function would be useful in the treatment of COPD. Methods: Fourteen COPD patients receiving tiotropium therapy participated consecutively. The relationship between the baseline exhaled nitric oxide (FE_NO) levels as well as serum markers and changes in pulmonary function by fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol (SAL) were analyzed. Results: FP/SAL therapy significantly improved forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), and the third phase slope of the single nitrogen washout curve (ΔN₂) as well as the FE_NO level. The baseline FE_NO levels and positive specific IgE (atopy+) were significantly associated with airway obstructive changes assessed by FEV₁ and ΔN₂. A baseline FE_NO level >35 ppb yielded 80.0% sensitivity and 66.7% specificity for identifying the subjects with significant improvement in FEV₁ (greater than 200 mL). An atopy+ yielded 60.0% sensitivity and 88.9% specificity for an improvement in FEV₁. When combined with FE_NO > 35 ppb and atopy+, it showed 40% sensitivity and 100.0% specificity for FEV₁ improvement. Alternatively, COPD subjects with FE_NO ≤ 35 ppb and atopy− did not show significant improvement in FEV₁. Conclusion: Combining FE_NO and specific IgE may be a useful marker for predicting the response to ICS/LABA on airflow limitation in COPD.

Inhaled Corticosteroids in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: How Significant is the Risk of Pneumonia and Should It Impact Use of Inhaled Corticosteroids?

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at an increased risk of infections such as pneumonia. Pneumonia among patients with COPD carries a higher risk of mortality. Inhaled corticosteroids are among the most widely used agents in patients with COPD. They are usually indicated in patients with severe COPD in combination with a long-acting β-agonist to reduce the frequency of exacerbations. Apart from their local effects in the lungs, inhaled corticosteroids may be systemically absorbed and have immunosuppressive effects. Although, the strength of the association between inhaled corticosteroids and pneumonia is modest (≈ 60% increased relative risk), this effect is consistent across clinical trials, meta-analyses of clinical trials, and observational studies. Observational studies also confirm a dose-response effect. Whether this increased risk of pneumonia translates into an increased risk of mortality is unknown. Although all the links in the causal chain have yet to be elucidated, converging lines of evidence suggest that clinicians should carefully balance the risk of pneumonia associated with inhaled corticosteroids, along with their benefits on exacerbations, in determining the optimal choice of therapy for patients with COPD.