The efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate (250 microg)/salmeterol (50 microg) combined in the Diskus inhaler for the treatment of COPD

Inhaled corticosteroids versus placebo for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

The role of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been the subject of much uncertainty. COPD clinical guidelines currently recommend selective use of ICS. ICS are not recommended as monotherapy for people with COPD, and are only given in combination with long-acting bronchodilators due to greater efficacy of combination therapy. Incorporating and critiquing newly published placebo-controlled trials into the monotherapy evidence base may help to resolve ongoing uncertainties and conflicting findings about their role in this population.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of inhaled corticosteroids, used as monotherapy versus placebo, in people with stable COPD, in terms of objective and subjective outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials comparing any dose of any type of ICS, given as monotherapy, with a placebo control in people with stable COPD. We excluded studies of less than 12 weeks' duration and studies of populations with known bronchial hyper-responsiveness (BHR) or bronchodilator reversibility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our a priori primary outcomes were 1. exacerbations of COPD and 2. quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were 3. all-cause mortality, 4. lung function (rate of decline of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)), 5. rescue bronchodilator use, 6. exercise capacity, 7. pneumonia and 8. adverse events including pneumonia. ]. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-six primary studies with 23,139 participants met the inclusion criteria. Mean age ranged from 52 to 67 years, and females were 0% to 46% of participants. Studies recruited across the severities of COPD. Seventeen studies were of duration longer than three months and up to six months and 19 studies were of duration longer than six months. We judged the overall risk of bias as low.  Long-term (more than six months) use of ICS as monotherapy reduced the mean rate of exacerbations in those studies where pooling of data was possible (generic inverse variance analysis: rate ratio 0.88 exacerbations per participant per year, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; I2 = 48%, 5 studies, 10,097 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; pooled means analysis: mean difference (MD) -0.05 exacerbations per participant per year, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; I2 = 78%, 5 studies, 10,316 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). ICS slowed the rate of decline in quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (MD -1.22 units/year, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.60; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2507 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; minimal clinically importance difference 4 points). There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with COPD (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 16,636 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Long-term use of ICS  reduced the rate of decline in FEV1 in people with COPD (generic inverse variance analysis: MD 6.31 mL/year benefit, 95% CI 1.76 to 10.85; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 9829 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; pooled means analysis: 7.28 mL/year, 95% CI 3.21 to 11.35; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 12,502 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

ADVERSE EVENTS

in the long-term studies, the rate of pneumonia was increased in the ICS group, compared to placebo, in studies that reported pneumonia as an adverse event (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.88; I2 = 55%; 9 studies, 14,831 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was an increased risk of oropharyngeal candidiasis (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.68; 5547 participants) and hoarseness (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.74; 3523 participants). The long-term studies that measured bone effects generally showed no major effect on fractures or bone mineral density over three years. We downgraded the certainty of evidence to moderate for imprecision and low for imprecision and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review updates the evidence base for ICS monotherapy with newly published trials to aid the ongoing assessment of their role for people with COPD. Use of ICS alone for COPD likely results in a reduction of exacerbation rates of clinical relevance, probably results in a reduction in the rate of decline of FEV1 of uncertain clinical relevance and likely results in a small improvement in health-related quality of life not meeting the threshold for a minimally clinically important difference. These potential benefits should be weighed up against adverse events (likely to increase local oropharyngeal adverse effects and may increase the risk of pneumonia) and probably no reduction in mortality. Though not recommended as monotherapy, the probable benefits of ICS highlighted in this review support their continued consideration in combination with long-acting bronchodilators. Future research and evidence syntheses should be focused in that area.

Association between inhaled corticosteroids and upper respiratory tract infection in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the association between inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and the risk of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials.gov were searched from inception to October 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any ICSs vs control for COPD with reporting of URTI as an adverse event were included. The study was registered with PROSPERO prospectively (#CRD42020153134).

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs (20,478 patients) were included. ICSs significantly increased the risk of URTI in COPD patients (RR, 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.24; P = 0.01; heterogeneity: I2 = 7%). Futher subgroup analyses suggested that short-term use of ICSs increased the risk of URTI (RR, 1.29; 95% CI 1.06-1.56; P = 0.01; heterogeneity: I2 = 14%) but not for long-term use (RR, 1.08; 95% CI 0.97-1.2; P = 0.14; heterogeneity: I2 = 0%). Short-term use of high-dose fluticasone increased the risk of URTI (RR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.03-1.71; P = 0.03; heterogeneity: I2 = 0%) but not for long-term use (RR, 1.12; 95% CI 0.97-1.29; P = 0.13; heterogeneity: I2 = 50%). Medium-dose (RR, 0.97; 95% CI 0.71-1.32; P = 0.84; heterogeneity: I2 = 0%) and low-dose (RR, 1.39; 95% CI 0.92-2.1; P = 0.12; heterogeneity: I2 = 30%) fluticasone did not increase the risk of URTI regardless of duration. Neither mometasone (RR, 1.05; 95% CI 0.87-1.26; P = 0.61; heterogeneity: I2 = 0%) nor budesonide (RR, 1.08; 95% CI 0.77-1.5; P = 0.67; heterogeneity: I2 = 46%) increased the risk of URTI, regardless of dosage or duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term use of ICSs does not increase the risk of URTI in patients with COPD. Short-term use of high-dose fluticasone increases the risk of URTI in patients with COPD, but not mometasone or budesonide.

Circulating neutrophils levels are a predictor of pneumonia risk in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have excess risk of developing pneumonia; however, no definitive biomarkers of risk have been established. We hypothesized that blood neutrophils would help predict pneumonia risk in COPD.

Methods

A meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind clinical trials of COPD patients meeting the following criteria were selected from the GlaxoSmithKline trial registry: ≥1 inhaled corticosteroid-containing (ICS) arm (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol or fluticasone furoate/vilanterol), a control arm (non-ICS), pre-randomization blood neutrophil counts, ≥24-week duration. The number of patients with pneumonia events and time to first event (Kaplan–Meier analysis) were evaluated (post-hoc), stratified by baseline blood neutrophil count and ICS use. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR), split by median baseline blood neutrophils.

Results

Ten studies (1998 to 2011) with 11,131 patients were identified. The ICS (n = 6735) and non-ICS (n = 4396) cohorts were well matched in neutrophil distributions and demographics. Increasing neutrophil count was associated with an increased proportion of patients with pneumonia events; patients below the median neutrophil count were at less risk of a pneumonia event (HR, 0.75 [95% confidence interval 0.61–0.92]), and had longer time to a first event, compared with those at/above the median. The increase in pneumonia risk by neutrophil count was similar between the two cohorts.

Conclusions

Increased blood neutrophils in COPD were associated with increased pneumonia risk, independent of ICS use. These data suggest blood neutrophils may be a useful marker in defining treatment pathways in COPD.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-019-1157-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators such as long-acting β-agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations have been used in people with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to control symptoms such as dyspnoea and cough, and prevent exacerbations. A number of LABA/LAMA combinations are now available for clinical use in COPD. However, it is not clear which group of above mentioned inhalers is most effective or if any specific formulation works better than the others within the same group or class.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of available formulations from four different groups of inhalers (i.e. LABA/LAMA combination, LABA/ICS combination, LAMA and LABA) in people with moderate to severe COPD. The review will update previous systematic reviews on dual combination inhalers and long-acting bronchodilators to answer the questions described above using the strength of a network meta-analysis (NMA).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register, which contains several databases. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' websites. The most recent searches were conducted on 6 April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people aged 35 years or older with a diagnosis of COPD and a baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of less than 80% of predicted. We included studies of at least 12 weeks' duration including at least two active comparators from one of the four inhaler groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted NMAs using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method. We considered a study as high risk if recruited participants had at least one COPD exacerbation within the 12 months before study entry and as low risk otherwise. Primary outcomes were COPD exacerbations (moderate to severe and severe), and secondary outcomes included symptom and quality-of-life scores, safety outcomes, and lung function. We collected data only for active comparators and did not consider placebo was not considered. We assumed a class/group effect when a fixed-class model fitted well. Otherwise we used a random-class model to assess intraclass/group differences. We supplemented the NMAs with pairwise meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 101,311 participants from 99 studies (26 studies with 32,265 participants in the high-risk population and 73 studies with 69,046 participants in the low-risk population) in our systematic review. The median duration of studies was 52 weeks in the high-risk population and 26 weeks in the low-risk population (range 12 to 156 for both populations). We considered the quality of included studies generally to be good.The NMAs suggested that the LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations followed by LAMA in the both populations.There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination, LAMA, and LABA in the high-risk population (network hazard ratios (HRs) 0.86 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.76 to 0.99), 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.99), and 0.70 (95% CrI 0.61 to 0.8) respectively), and that LAMA decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA in the high- and low-risk populations (network HR 0.80 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.88) and 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.97), respectively). There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination reduces severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination and LABA in the high-risk population (network HR 0.78 (95% CrI 0.64 to 0.93) and 0.64 (95% CrI 0.51 to 0.81), respectively).There was a general trend towards a greater improvement in symptom and quality-of-life scores with the combination therapies compared to monotherapies, and the combination therapies were generally ranked higher than monotherapies.The LABA/ICS combination was the lowest ranked in pneumonia serious adverse events (SAEs) in both populations. There is evidence that the LABA/ICS combination increases the odds of pneumonia compared to LAMA/LABA combination, LAMA and LABA (network ORs: 1.69 (95% CrI 1.20 to 2.44), 1.78 (95% CrI 1.33 to 2.39), and 1.50 (95% CrI 1.17 to 1.92) in the high-risk population and network or pairwise OR: 2.33 (95% CI 1.03 to 5.26), 2.02 (95% CrI 1.16 to 3.72), and 1.93 (95% CrI 1.29 to 3.22) in the low-risk population respectively). There were significant overlaps in the rank statistics in the other safety outcomes including mortality, total, COPD, and cardiac SAEs, and dropouts due to adverse events.None of the differences in lung function met a minimal clinically important difference criterion except for LABA/LAMA combination versus LABA in the high-risk population (network mean difference 0.13 L (95% CrI 0.10 to 0.15). The results of pairwise meta-analyses generally agreed with those of the NMAs. There is no evidence to suggest intraclass/group differences except for lung function at 12 months in the high-risk population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations although there was some uncertainty in the results. LAMA containing inhalers may have an advantage over those without a LAMA for preventing COPD exacerbations based on the rank statistics. Combination therapies appear more effective than monotherapies for improving symptom and quality-of-life scores. ICS-containing inhalers are associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.Our most comprehensive review including intraclass/group comparisons, free combination therapies, 99 studies, and 20 outcomes for each high- and low-risk population summarises the current literature and could help with updating existing COPD guidelines.

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.

Comparative efficacy of inhaled medications (ICS/LABA, LAMA, LAMA/LABA and SAMA) for COPD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the comparative efficacy of short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMAs), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), LAMA in combination with long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs; LAMA/LABAs) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in combination with LABA (ICS/LABAs) for the maintenance treatment of COPD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed 74 randomized controlled trials (74,832 participants) published up to 15 November 2017, which compared any of the interventions (SAMA [ipratropium], LAMA [aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, umeclidinium], LAMA/LABA [aclidinium/formoterol, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, tiotropium/olodaterol, umeclidinium/vilanterol] and ICS/LABA [fluticasone/vilanterol, budesonide/formoterol, salmeterol/fluticasone]) with each other or with placebo. A random-effects network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence was conducted to examine the change from baseline in trough FEV1, transition dyspnea index, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and frequency of adverse events at weeks 12 and 24.

RESULTS

Inconsistency models were not statistically significant for all outcomes. LAMAs, LAMA/LABAs and ICS/LABAs led to a significantly greater improvement in trough FEV1 compared with placebo and SAMA monotherapy at weeks 12 and 24. All LAMA/LABAs, except aclidinium/formoterol, were statistically significantly better than LAMA monotherapy and ICS/LABAs in improving trough FEV1. Among the LAMAs, umeclidinium showed statistically significant improvement in trough FEV1 at week 12 compared to tiotropium and glycopyrronium, but the results were not clinically significant. LAMA/LABAs had the highest probabilities of being ranked the best agents in FEV1 improvement. Similar trends were observed for the transition dyspnea index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire outcomes. There were no significant differences in the incidences of adverse events among all treatment options.

CONCLUSION

LAMA/LABA showed the greatest improvement in trough FEV1 at weeks 12 and 24 compared with the other inhaled drug classes, while SAMA showed the least improvement. There were no significant differences among the LAMAs and LAMA/LABAs within their respective classes.

Risk of Cardiovascular Events Associated with Inhaled Corticosteroid Treatment in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Background

The cardiovascular (CV) safety of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is controversial because different studies have suggested that ICSs either increase or reduce the risk of CV events in COPD patients. In this meta-analysis, we assess the CV safety of ICS therapy in COPD.

Methods

A meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials of ICS treatment for COPD that include at least 4 weeks of follow-up was performed. A random-effects model was used to evaluate the effects of ICS treatment on CV events. CV events were documented in each trial, and the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ICSs were estimated.

Results

Thirty-one trials were included in this meta-analysis. The risk of CV events was not different between ICS-treated and control groups (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.06; P=0.801). In a subgroup analysis, there were no significant differences in CV events between an ICS combined with long-acting β₂ agonist (LABA) (ICS + LABA) group and an LABA-only group (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.10; P=0.930), as well as between a combination group (ICS + LABA) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) combined with LABA (LAMA + LABA) group (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.39 to 1.55; P=0.473). In addition, there was no difference in the risk of CV events between ICS treatment and control groups (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.09; P=0.872).

Conclusions

These results demonstrate that ICSs do not increase the risk of CV events in COPD patients.

Low-dose Fluticasone Propionate in Combination With Salmeterol in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Inhaled corticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, their use has been questioned for appropriate dose and a possible increased risk of pneumonia. Here, we reviewed patients with COPD who had received fluticasone-salmeterol combination treatment using data from a linked electronic medical record database. A total of 180 patients received salmeterol with 250 µg fluticasone propionate twice daily and 78 received salmeterol and 100 µg fluticasone propionate twice daily. In both groups, there was no difference in the improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second and COPD assessment test score and the proportion of patients with exacerbations. Although the incidence of common toxicity was approximately equal, that of pneumonia was much higher in the 250 µg group (8.9% vs 1.3%, P=.01). The beneficial effects of inhaled corticosteroids might be obtained at lower doses.

Comparative Effectiveness of Long-Acting Beta2 -Agonist Combined with a Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist or Inhaled Corticosteroid in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

INTRODUCTION

Several dual bronchodilator fixed-dose inhaler medications were recently approved for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These products combine a long-acting β₂ -agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA). In clinical trials, the separate mechanisms of the bronchodilators resulted in improved lung function. COPD treatment guidelines currently recommend combination LABA/LAMA as alternative therapy to combination LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). Evidence is limited on the comparative effectiveness of LABA/LAMA and LABA/ICS in COPD. The objective of this study was to compare real-world COPD exacerbation rates among patients treated with LABA/LAMA with those treated with LABA/ICS.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of COPD patients in the United States treated with LABA/LAMA or LABA/ICS combination. Insurance claims from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2014, were used as the data source. Patients were required to have greater than one prescription filled for the combination medications, and they were followed from 30 days after drug initiation. Individuals were censored if they discontinued a study medication, initiated medication from the opposite cohort (LAMA or ICS), lost enrollment eligibility, or at the study period end. Exacerbation rates were compared using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

There were 5384 patients in the LABA/LAMA cohort and 473,388 patients in the LABA/ICS cohort. The LABA/LAMA cohort was older, had more comorbidities, and more severe COPD. Unadjusted annual exacerbation rates were 2.87 events per person-year (standard deviation [SD] 5.14) in the LABA/LAMA cohort and 1.68 (SD 9.82) in the LABA/ICS cohort. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.95-1.01) for LABA/LAMA compared with LABA/ICS.

CONCLUSIONS

The LABA/LAMA combination had similar effectiveness to LABA/ICS as measured by exacerbation rates in COPD patients. As a result, characteristics other than effectiveness, such as symptom control, cost, patient preferences, and adverse events, may be important in selecting between the two regimens.

The comparative effectiveness of initiating fluticasone/salmeterol combination therapy via pMDI versus DPI in reducing exacerbations and treatment escalation in COPD: a UK database study

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a complex progressive disease, is currently the third leading cause of death worldwide. One recommended treatment option is fixed-dose combination therapy of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β-agonist. Clinical trials suggest pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and dry powder inhalers (DPIs) show similar efficacy and safety profiles in COPD. Real-world observational studies have shown that combination therapy has significantly greater odds of achieving asthma control when delivered via pMDIs. Our aim was to compare effectiveness, in terms of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) prescriptions, for COPD patients initiating fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol xinafoate (SAL) via pMDI versus DPI at two doses of FP (500 and 1,000 μg/d) using a real-life, historical matched cohort study. COPD patients with ≥2 years continuous practice data, ≥2 prescriptions for FP/SAL via pMDI/DPI, and no prescription for ICS were selected from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database. Patients were matched 1:1. Rate of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations and odds of LAMA prescription were analyzed using conditional Poisson and logistic regression, respectively. Of 472 patients on 500 μg/d, we observed fewer moderate/severe exacerbations in patients using pMDI (99 [42%]) versus DPI (115 [49%]) (adjusted rate ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.54, 0.93), an important result since the pMDI is not licensed for COPD in the UK, USA, or China. At 1,000 μg/d, we observed lower LAMA prescription for pMDI (adjusted odds ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.55, 0.91), but no difference in exacerbation rates, potentially due to higher dose of ICS overcoming low lung delivery from the DPI.

Effects of inhaled corticosteroids /long-acting agonists in a single inhaler versus inhaled corticosteroids alone on all-cause mortality, pneumonia, and fracture in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A nationwide cohort study 2002-2013

BACKGROUND

Both inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting ?-agonists (LABA) have been recommended for the treatment of severe/moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but mild COPD has not been frequently studied.

METHODS

We performed a prospective cohort study to compare the effect of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and ICS/long-acting ?-agonist (LABA) in a single inhaler on all-cause mortality and adverse events, such as pneumonia and fracture, in patients with newly diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We used representative nationwide cohort data from the Korean National Health Insurance claims database (2002-2013). Patients who were at least 40-years-old, newly diagnosed with COPD, and prescribed ICS or ICS/LABA in a single inhaler (N = 1995). To analyze the data, we utilized a Cox's proportional hazard regression.

RESULTS

Among the total of 1995 patients, 807 had severe COPD (FEV₁ < 50%) and 1188 had mild/moderate COPD (FEV₁ ? 50%). The cumulative incidence and 5-year cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was 59.5% and 29.6% for ICS users, and 35.8% and 20.2% for single inhaler ICS/LABA users, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of all-cause mortality for new ICS/LABA users, compared with that in new ICS users, was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.62-0.95) for the total population. For the severe and non-severe COPD groups, the adjusted HRs of all-cause mortality for new ICS/LABA users were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.65-1.76) and 0.70 (95% CI: 0.55-0.89), respectively. There was no difference in the risk for the first hospitalization due to pneumonia between new ICS and ICS/LABA users among the total population (HR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.79-1.34). The adjusted HR of the first hospitalization for fractures in new ICS/LABA users, compared with that in new ICS users, was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.39-0.92) for the total population.

CONCLUSIONS

Among newly diagnosed COPD patients and new users of ICS or ICS/LABA, use of ICS/LABA in a single inhaler was associated with lowered risk of all-cause mortality and delayed first hospitalization for fracture, as compared with use of ICS alone. However, there was no significant difference in terms of first hospitalization for pneumonia.

Long-term use of inhaled corticosteroids and risk of upper respiratory tract infection in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis

Recent studies have suggested that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may be associated with higher risks of tuberculosis and pneumonia in patients with COPD. However, it is not known whether ICS increases the risk of upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). Aim of this study was to explore the relationship between ICS and URTI. Through a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception to March 2016, we identified randomized controlled trials of ICS therapy lasting at least 6 months. A meta-analysis by the Peto approach was also conducted to generate summary estimates comparing ICS with non-ICS treatment on the risk of URTI. A total of 14 studies involving 19,777 subjects were considered in the meta-analysis. Compared with non-ICS treatment, ICS were associated with a significantly increased risk of URTI (Peto OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.05-1.29; I² = 9%; p = .004). Subgroup analyzes were performed for different dose, high-dose ICS was associated with a significantly increased risk of URTI (Peto OR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.05-1.34; I² = 0%; p = .005), whereas low-dose ICS showed a non-significant increased risk of URTI (Peto OR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.91-1.33; I² = 0%; p = .32). Moreover, fluticasone was observed with an increased risk of URTI but not mometasone; high-dose fluticasone treatment was associated with a significantly higher risk of URTI but not low-dose. These results suggested to us that ICS use may increase the risk of URTI in patients with COPD, but it should be further investigated.

Fluticasone propionate/formoterol for COPD management: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate fluticasone propionate/formoterol (FP/FORM) in COPD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

COPD patients with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ≤50% predicted and ≥1 moderate/severe COPD exacerbation in the last 12 months were randomized to FP/FORM 500/20 or 250/10 µg bid, or formoterol (FORM) 12 µg bid for 52 weeks. The primary outcome was the annualized rate of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations.

RESULTS

In total, 1,765 patients were randomized. There were fewer discontinuations with FP/FORM 500/20 µg (20.6%) and 250/10 µg (24.0%) compared with FORM (26.1%). None of the two FP/FORM doses reduced the moderate/severe exacerbation rate versus FORM (rate ratios [RR]: 0.93; P≤0.402). There was a trend toward a lower moderate/severe exacerbation rate with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM in patients with ≥2 exacerbations in the preceding year (RR: 0.79; P=0.084). Pre- and post-dose FEV1 and forced vital capacity were greater with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM (P≤0.039). There was a trend toward a lower EXAcerbations of Chronic pulmonary disease Tool (EXACT) exacerbation rate with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM (RR: 0.87; P=0.077). There were more St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-C) responders with FP/FORM 500/20 µg than FORM (odds ratios [OR] at weeks 6, 23 and 52 ≥1.28; P≤0.054). EXACT-respiratory symptoms total and breathlessness scores were lower with both FP/FORM 500/20 µg and 250/10 µg versus FORM (P≤0.066). Acute β2-agonist-induced effects and 24-hour Holter findings were similar for all treatments. Mean 24-hour urinary cortisol was similarly reduced with both FP/FORM doses. Radiologically confirmed pneumonia was seen in 2.4%, 3.2% and 1.5% of FP/FORM 500/20 µg, FP/FORM 250/10 µg and FORM-treated patients, respectively. Adverse events were otherwise similar across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

FP/FORM did not reduce exacerbation rates versus FORM. Numerical benefits were observed with FP/FORM 500/20 µg versus FORM for secondary variables, including lung function, EXACT exacerbations, SGRQ-C and EXACT-respiratory symptoms total and breathlessness scores. Few efficacy differences were evident between FP/FORM 250/10 µg and FORM. Pneumonia was more frequent in FP/FORM-treated patients, although the absolute difference was low. Adverse events were otherwise similar between treatments.

Assessment of the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol delivered as a combination dry powder via a capsule-based inhaler versus a multi-dose inhaler in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

This study tested the clinical non-inferiority of the fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination 50/250 μg (FSC) Rotacaps^®/Rotahaler^® system, a single unit dose inhaler, with the multi-dose FSC Diskus^® inhaler in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

This multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, two-way cross-over study compared 12 weeks' treatment of FSC administered twice daily using Rotacaps/Rotahaler or Diskus. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in trough morning forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at Day 85, and the pre-defined non-inferiority criteria was: the lower limit of the confidence interval (CI) for the treatment difference (Rotacaps/Rotahaler-Diskus) in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline, being greater than -45 mL. Secondary endpoints included change in breathlessness (as measured by transition dyspnoea index (TDI)) and COPD-specific health status measures.

RESULTS

The LS mean increase from baseline in trough FEV₁ at Day 85 was 116 mL in the Rotacaps/Rotahaler group and 91 mL in the Diskus group (difference in model-adjusted LS mean change: 25 mL (95% CI 2 mL, 47 mL)), the lower limit of the CI for the treatment difference being greater than the protocol-defined criterion for non-inferiority i.e. -45 mL. Data for breathlessness, COPD-specific health status and safety parameters were similar following FSC treatment via either inhaler.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the clinical non-inferiority of FSC 50/250 μg when administered using Rotacaps/Rotahaler compared with Diskus in patients with COPD. The risk:benefit profile for the two inhalers was comparable.

Comparative efficacy of long-acting β2-agonists as monotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) have demonstrated efficacy in patients with COPD in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to assess the comparative efficacy of all available dosages of all LABA monotherapies using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified 33 randomized controlled trials of LABA monotherapies (salmeterol 50 μg twice daily [BID]; formoterol 12 μg BID; indacaterol 75, 150, and 300 μg once daily [OD]; olodaterol 5 and 10 μg OD, and vilanterol 25 μg OD). Clinical efficacy was evaluated at 12 and 24 weeks in terms of trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), transition dyspnea index focal score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and rate of COPD exacerbations. The relative effectiveness of all LABA monotherapies was estimated by Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

At 12 and 24 weeks, indacaterol 300 and 150 μg OD were associated with statistically significant improvement in trough FEV₁ compared to all other LABA monotherapies; vilanterol 25 μg OD was superior to formoterol 12 μg BID. At 12 weeks, indacaterol 75 μg OD was associated with significant improvement in trough FEV₁ compared to formoterol 12 μg BID and olodaterol (5 and 10 μg OD); salmeterol 50 μg BID was superior to formoterol 12 μg BID and olodaterol 5 μg OD. Indacaterol 300 μg OD was also associated with significant improvement in transition dyspnea index focal score compared to all other LABAs at 12 or 24 weeks. Indacaterol 150 μg OD had significantly better results in exacerbation rates than olodaterol 5 μg and olodaterol 10 μg OD.

CONCLUSION

Indacaterol 300 μg, followed by 150 and 75 μg, were the most effective LABA monotherapies for moderate to severe COPD.

Efficacy of Formoterol Fumarate Delivered by Metered Dose Inhaler Using Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology Versus Foradil® Aerolizer® in Moderate-To-Severe COPD: A Randomized, Dose-Ranging Study

Background: Co-Suspension™ Delivery Technology offers a novel pharmaceutical platform for inhaled drug therapy. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose study (NCT01349868) evaluated the efficacy of a range of doses for formoterol fumarate (FF) delivered using Co-Suspension delivery technology via a pressurized metered dose inhaler (MDI) versus placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Secondary objectives included determination of non-inferior efficacy and systemic exposure compared with open-label Foradil^® 12 μg (Foradil^® Aerolizer^®; formoterol fumarate dry powder inhaler). Methods: Patients received each of the 6 study treatments (FF MDI [7.2, 9.6 and 19.2μg], placebo MDI and open-label Foradil^® [12 and 24µg]), separated by 3-10 days. Spirometry was performed 60 and 30 minutes prior to and at regular intervals up to 12 hours post-administration of study drug. The primary outcome measure was the change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) area under the curve between 0 and 12 hours (AUC_0-12) relative to test day baseline. Results: A total of 50 patients were randomized to study treatment sequences. All doses of FF MDI demonstrated superiority to placebo (p<0.0001) and non-inferiority to Foradil^® 12μg, on bronchodilator outcome measures. No serious adverse events were reported during the study. Conclusions: This study demonstrates non-inferiority of bronchodilator response and bioequivalent exposure of FF MDI 9.6μg to Foradil^® 12μg, with both agents exhibiting a similar safety profile in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. This study supports the selection of FF MDI 9.6µg for further evaluation in Phase III trials.

Preventing Hospitalizations From Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Chronic obstructive lung disease is among the leading causes of adult hospital admissions and readmissions in the United States. Preventing acute exacerbations is the primary approach in therapy. Combinations of smoking cessation, pulmonary rehabilitation, vaccinations and inhaled and oral medications may all reduce the overall risk of acute exacerbations. When prevention is unsuccessful, treatment of exacerbations often does not require hospitalization but can be safely executed in the outpatient setting. In the patient who does not require mechanical ventilation or who manifests respiratory acidosis, oxygen supplementation, frequent short-acting inhaled bronchodilators, oral corticosteroids and often antibiotics can abort the decompensation and sometimes return the patient to his or her pre-attack baseline lung function. Several models exist for delivering this care in the ambulatory setting. Follow-up care after an exacerbation has resolved is important, though there are few hard data suggesting which approach is best in this setting.

Laryngeal Thrush

Superficial fungal infection of the mucous membranes (thrush) isolated to the larynx is neither widely reported nor well recognized clinically. Therefore, it is often associated with ineffective treatment and delay in diagnosis, and sometimes associated with unneeded surgical intervention. Eight cases of thrush isolated to the larynx, with no oral or oropharyngeal manifestations, are presented. Four of these were isolated to the vocal folds alone. All patients were adults, and 4 were smokers. Hoarseness was always present. Pain was present inconsistently, and there was no dysphagia or odynophagia, in contrast to other forms of upper aerodigestive tract candidiasis. On average, diagnosis was not made until 6 months after the onset of symptoms. Possible causative factors included use of systemic steroids (3 cases), broad-spectrum antibiotics (1 case), or inhaled steroids (5 cases); diabetes (2 cases); and neutropenia (1 case). In 3 cases, all with thrush isolated to the vocal folds, inhaled steroids were the only causative factor identifiable — a feature reported only twice previously. Three patients underwent surgical procedures that might have been avoided had an accurate diagnosis been made. All patients responded readily to oral fluconazole and removal of predisposing factors where possible. The signs, symptoms, predisposing factors, and treatment are compared to those of 14 cases reported in the literature over 35 years.

Pharmacological management of breathlessness in COPD: recent advances and hopes for the future

INTRODUCTION

Activity-related breathlessness is often the dominant symptom in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and usually persists despite optimal medical therapy. Currently, our inability to meaningfully alter the pathophysiology of the underlying disease means that we must focus our attention on relieving this distressing symptom so as to improve exercise tolerance and quality of life.

AREAS COVERED

The current review examines the neurobiology of breathlessness and constructs a solid physiological rationale for amelioration of this distressing symptom. We will examine the efficacy of interventions which: 1) reduce the increased central drive to breathe (opioids); 2) improve the respiratory system's ability to appropriately respond to this increased demand (bronchodilators); and 3) address the important affective dimension of breathlessness (anxiolytics). Expert commentary: Advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of activity-related breathlessness in COPD, and its measurement in the clinical domain, now set the stage for the development of effective management strategies on an individual patient basis.

Long-term outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: exploring the effects of inhalatory devices and their influence on the outcome

PURPOSE

Numerous systematic reviews have examined the outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease managed with different therapeutic strategies. However, no such studies have specifically focused on the effect of inhalation devices.

METHODS

A standard PubMed search was carried out in which we identified all randomized placebo-controlled trials conducted in patients with moderate-to-severe or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The clinical end points were exacerbations rate, incidence of pneumonia, and mortality. Meta-regression was employed to assess the effect of the device. For the incidence of exacerbations, an equivalence analysis was also carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 37 studies were analyzed. Four different devices were used across these trials (Respimat(®), HandiHaler(®), Diskus, and Turbuhaler(®)). Our meta-regression analysis failed to show any significant difference between devices with regard to exacerbation rate. Equivalence was shown for some comparisons (HandiHaler(®) vs Respimat(®)), but not for others. In analyzing mortality, Respimat(®) was shown to worsen this end point in comparison with Turbuhaler(®) and HandiHaler(®). Moreover, Turbuhaler(®) showed a protective effect over Diskus in the incidence of pneumonia.

CONCLUSION

The results of our analysis represent the first attempt to explore the effect of the type of device on long-term outcomes. One important limitation was that most drugs were associated with one particular device, and so the effects of drugs and devices could not be reliably differentiated from one another.

Relationship Between FEV1 and Patient-Reported Outcomes Changes: Results of a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials in Stable COPD

Background: This meta-analysis assessed the relationship between change from baseline (CFB) in spirometric measurements (trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁] and FEV₁ area under the curve [AUC]) and patient-reported outcomes (St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score [SGRQ] CFB, Transition Dyspnea Index [TDI] and exacerbation rates) after 6-12 months' follow-up, using study treatment-group level data. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials of ≥24 weeks duration in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Studies reporting ≥1 spirometric measurement and ≥1 patient-reported outcome (PRO) at baseline and at study endpoint were selected. The relationships between PROs and spirometric endpoints were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient and meta-regression. Results: Fifty-two studies (62,385 patients) were included. Primary weighted analysis conducted at the last assessment showed a large significant negative correlation (r, -0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI); -0.77, -0.57]) between trough FEV₁ and SGRQ. Improvement of 100 mL in trough FEV₁ corresponded to a 5.9 point reduction in SGRQ. Similarly, a reduction of 4 points on SGRQ corresponded to 40 mL improvement in trough FEV₁ (p<0.001). The weighted correlation coefficients of trough FEV₁ with TDI, exacerbation rate (all) and exacerbation rate (moderate/severe) at last assessment point were 0.57, -0.69 and -0.57, respectively (all p<0.05). For the analyses excluding placebo groups, the correlations of FEV₁ with SGRQ and TDI were lower but significant. Conclusions: A strong association exists between changes in spirometric measurements and changes in PROs.

Effects of individual and neighborhood socioeconomic status on the risk of all-cause mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A nationwide population-based cohort study, 2002-2013

BACKGROUND

Numerous previous studies have shown that individual socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but few empirical studies have evaluated the effects of individual SES and neighborhood deprivation on mortality in COPD patients.

METHODS

We performed a prospective cohort study to examine the effect of socioeconomic disparity on all-cause mortality in newly diagnosed COPD patients in a setting with universal health care coverage. We used representative population-based nationwide cohort data from the Korean National Health Insurance claims database (2002-2013). We included patients who were at least 40 years old and newly diagnosed with COPD (N = 9275). To analyze the data, we utilized a frailty model and Cox's proportional hazard regression.

RESULTS

A total of 1849 (19.9%) of the 9275 eligible participants died during the study period. Compared to high-income patients from advantaged neighborhoods, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for middle-income COPD patients who lived in advantaged and disadvantaged neighborhoods was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.03-1.43) and 1.36 (95% CI, 1.15-1.60), respectively. For low-income patients, the adjusted HR for patients who lived in disadvantaged neighborhoods was higher than for patients who lived in advantaged neighborhoods (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.17-1.74 vs. HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.11-1.66). There was no difference in the adjusted HRs for high-income patients who lived in advantaged and disadvantaged neighborhoods (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic disparity contributes to all-cause mortality in COPD patients and neighborhood deprivation exacerbates the effect of individual SES on all-cause mortality in COPD patients.

Effect of salmeterol/fluticasone combination on the dynamic changes of lung mechanics in mechanically ventilated COPD patients: a prospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

The combined therapy of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-2 agonists for mechanically ventilated patients with COPD has never been explored. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate their dynamic effects on lung mechanics and gas exchange.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten mechanically ventilated patients with resolution of the causes of acute exacerbations of COPD were included. Four puffs of salmeterol 25 μg/fluticasone 125 μg combination therapy were administered. Lung mechanics, including maximum resistance of the respiratory system (Rrs), end-inspiratory static compliance, peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), plateau pressure, and mean airway pressure along with gas exchange function were measured and analyzed.

RESULTS

Salmeterol/fluticasone produced a significant improvement in Rrs and PIP after 30 minutes. With regard to changes in baseline values, salmeterol/fluticasone inhalation had a greater effect on PIP than Rrs. However, the therapeutic effects seemed to lose significance after 3 hours of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-2 agonist administration.

CONCLUSION

The combination of salmeterol/fluticasone-inhaled therapy in mechanically ventilated patients with COPD had a significant benefit in reducing Rrs and PIP.

Mortality and drug therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence suggests pharmacological treatments may impact on overall survival in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients. Individual clinical trials are rarely powered to detect mortality differences between treatments and may not include all treatment options relevant to healthcare decision makers.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify RCTs of COPD treatments reporting mortality; evidence was synthesised using network meta-analysis (NMA). The analysis included 40 RCTs; a quantitative indirect comparison between 14 treatments using data from 55,220 patients was conducted.

RESULTS

The analysis reported two treatments reducing all-cause mortality; salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (SFC) was associated with a reduction in mortality versus placebo in the fixed effects (HR 0.79; 95 % Crl 0.67, 0.94) but not the random effects model (0.79; 0.56, 1.09). Indacaterol was associated with a reduction in mortality versus placebo in fixed (0.28; 0.08 to 0.85) and random effects (0.29; 0.08, 0.89) models. Mean estimates and credible intervals for hazard ratios for indacaterol versus placebo are based on a small number of events; estimates may change when the results of future studies are included. These results were maintained across a variety of assumptions and provide evidence that SFC and indacaterol may lead to improved survival in COPD patients.

CONCLUSION

Results of an NMA of COPD treatments suggest that SFC and indacaterol may reduce mortality. Further research is warranted to strengthen this conclusion.

Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination and tiotropium bromide among COPD patients new to these controller treatments

Background

Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combinations and/or long-acting muscarinic antagonists are recommended first-line therapies for preventing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation. Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination (BFC, an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combination) vs tiotropium (long-acting muscarinic antagonist) in the US has not yet been studied.

Methods

Using US claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment, COPD patients (with or without comorbid asthma) ≥40 years old initiating BFC or tiotropium between March 1, 2009 and February 28, 2012 and at risk for exacerbation were identified and followed for 12 months. Patients were propensity score matched on demographics and COPD disease severity indicators. The primary outcome was time to first COPD exacerbation. Secondary outcomes included COPD exacerbation rate, health care resource utilization, and costs.

Results

The Cox proportional hazards model for time to first exacerbation yielded a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.78 (95% CI =[0.70, 0.87], P<0.001), indicating a 22% reduction in risk of COPD exacerbation associated with initiation of BFC versus tiotropium. A post hoc sensitivity analysis found similar effects in those who had a prior asthma diagnosis (HR =0.72 [0.61, 0.86]) and those who did not (HR =0.83 [0.72, 0.96]). BFC initiation was associated with lower COPD-related health care resource utilization and costs ($4,084 per patient-year compared with $5,656 for tiotropium patients, P<0.001).

Conclusion

In COPD patients new to controller therapies, initiating treatment with BFC was associated with improvements in health and economic outcomes compared with tiotropium.

Anti-inflammatory effects of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 50/250 mcg combination therapy in Japanese patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

PURPOSE

Using sputum neutrophils as the primary measure, and other inflammation biomarkers, this study evaluated the anti-inflammatory effects of the combination salmeterol 50 mcg and fluticasone propionate 250 mcg (SFC 250) in Japanese patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were treated in a randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial with SFC 250 twice daily (n=26) or placebo (n=26) for 12 weeks. At the start and end of treatment, inflammation biomarkers (sputum and serum), lung function, and health status (COPD Assessment Test [CAT] questionnaire) were measured.

RESULTS

Although a numerical decrease in differential neutrophil count was observed from baseline, SFC 250 did not significantly reduce sputum neutrophils compared with placebo, nor were there significant changes from baseline in the other biomarkers (sputum or serum), lung function, or CAT, versus placebo. Squamous epithelial cell contamination in some sputum samples rendered them unacceptable for analysis, which reduced the sample size to n=19 (SFC 250) and n=10 (placebo). However, inclusion of contaminated samples did not affect the overall trend of the outcome. Ad hoc bootstrap statistical analysis showed a 27.9% (SFC 250) and 1.3% (placebo) decrease in sputum neutrophils. Sputum IL-8 decreased by 43.2% after SFC 250 but increased by 48.3% with placebo. Responder analyses showed 42% of patients had ≥20% decrease in neutrophils from baseline; and 47% of patients had a ≥200 pg/mL change in sputum IL-8 following SFC 250 versus 20% after placebo; both changes are considered clinically relevant.

CONCLUSION

This study provides additional information about inflammation in Japanese COPD patients and is the first to study the anti-inflammatory effects of SFC 250 in this context and population. In the primary analysis, SFC 250 did not produce significant changes from baseline in sputum neutrophil levels or other sputum or serum inflammatory markers compared with placebo. Secondary ad hoc statistical analysis showed that SFC 250 reduced the number of sputum neutrophils and IL-8 compared with placebo.

Role of the fixed combination of fluticasone and salmeterol in adult Chinese patients with asthma and COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma are common airway disorders characterized by chronic airway inflammation and airflow obstruction, and are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the People's Republic of China. These two diseases pose a high economic burden on the family and the whole of society. Despite evidence-based Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease and Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines being available for the diagnosis and management of COPD and asthma, many of these patients are not properly diagnosed or managed in the People's Republic of China. The value of combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists has been established in the management of asthma and COPD globally. Combinations of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists such as fluticasone and salmeterol, have been shown to be effective for improving symptoms, health status, and reducing exacerbations in both diseases. In this review, we discuss the efficacy and safety of this combination therapy from key studies, particularly in the People's Republic of China.

Prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society Guideline

BACKGROUND

COPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States as well as throughout the rest of the world. An exacerbation of COPD (periodic escalations of symptoms of cough, dyspnea, and sputum production) is a major contributor to worsening lung function, impairment in quality of life, need for urgent care or hospitalization, and cost of care in COPD. Research conducted over the past decade has contributed much to our current understanding of the pathogenesis and treatment of COPD. Additionally, an evolving literature has accumulated about the prevention of acute exacerbations.

METHODS

In recognition of the importance of preventing exacerbations in patients with COPD, the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) joint evidence-based guideline (AECOPD Guideline) was developed to provide a practical, clinically useful document to describe the current state of knowledge regarding the prevention of acute exacerbations according to major categories of prevention therapies. Three key clinical questions developed using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format addressed the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: nonpharmacologic therapies, inhaled therapies, and oral therapies. We used recognized document evaluation tools to assess and choose the most appropriate studies and to extract meaningful data and grade the level of evidence to support the recommendations in each PICO question in a balanced and unbiased fashion.

RESULTS

The AECOPD Guideline is unique not only for its topic, the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD, but also for the first-in-kind partnership between two of the largest thoracic societies in North America. The CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee in partnership with the CTS COPD Clinical Assembly launched this project with the objective that a systematic review and critical evaluation of the published literature by clinical experts and researchers in the field of COPD would lead to a series of recommendations to assist clinicians in their management of the patient with COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline is unique because it provides an up-to-date, rigorous, evidence-based analysis of current randomized controlled trial data regarding the prevention of COPD exacerbations.

Salmeterol Xinafoate

Salmeterol xinafoate is a potent and a long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonist. It is prescribed for the treatment of severe persistent asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Different methods were used to prepare (R)-(-)-salmeterol such as: mixing a sample of 4-benzyloxy-3-hydroxymethyl-ω-bromoacetophenone with sodium lauryl sulfate and the mixture was added to the microbial culture of Rhodotorula rubra, treatment of p-hydroxyacetophenone with Eschenmoser's salt and carbonate exchange resin followed by a sequence of supported reagents and scavenging agents or via Rh-catalyzed asymmetric transfer hydrogenation. The enantioselective synthesis of (S)-salmeterol was achieved via asymmetric reduction of the azidoketone 4 by Pichia angusta yeast. Physical characteristics of salmeterol xinafoate were confirmed via: X-ray powder diffraction pattern, thermal analysis and UV, vibrational, nuclear magnetic resonance, and mass spectroscopical data. Initial improvement in asthma control may occur within 30 min following oral inhalation of salmeterol in fixed combination with fluticasone propionate. Clinically important improvements are maintained for up to 12 h in most patients. It is extensively metabolized in the liver by hydroxylation, thus increased plasma concentrations may occur in patients with hepatic impairment.

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.

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).

Comparison of airway dimensions with once daily tiotropium plus indacaterol versus twice daily Advair(®) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend combining long-acting bronchodilators with different modes of action in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated the effects of airway dimensions and pulmonary function with tiotropium plus indacaterol versus Advair(®).

METHODS

Subjects (n = 46) were randomized to receive tiotropium (18 μg once daily) plus indacaterol (150 μg once daily) or Advair(®) (50/250 μg twice daily) for 16 weeks. Airway geometry was determined by quantitative computed tomography (luminal area, Ai; total area of the airway, Ao; wall area, WA; and percentage wall area, WA/Ao and wall thickness, T). Spirometry (forced expiratory volume in 1 s, FEV1; forced vital capacity, FVC and inspiratory capacity, IC) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Tiotropium plus indacaterol significantly increased CT-indices including Ai corrected for body surface area (Ai/BSA), and decreased WA/BSA, WA/Ao and T/√BSA compared with Advair(®) (p < 0.05, respectively). In physiological parameters, mean difference in IC was significantly higher under treatment with tiotropium plus indacaterol than Advair(®) (p < 0.05). The changes in Ai/BSA, WA/BSA, WA/Ao and T/√BSA were significantly correlated with changes in IC (r = 0.535, p = 0.011; r = -0.688, p < 0.001; r = -0.555, p = 0.002 and r = -0.542, p = 0.007; respectively). There were more significant improvements in SGRQ scores after treatment with tiotropium plus indacaterol than Advair(®).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that dual bronchodilation with tiotropium plus indacaterol is superior in airway geometry and lung function compared with Advair(®) in COPD.

Comparative efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta agonist combinations in preventing COPD exacerbations: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) is recommended in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients experiencing frequent exacerbations. Currently, there are five ICS/LABA combination products available on the market. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the efficacy of various ICS/LABA combinations with a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Several databases and manufacturer's websites were searched for relevant clinical trials. Randomized control trials, at least 12 weeks duration, comparing an ICS/LABA combination with active control or placebo were included. Moderate and severe exacerbations were chosen as the outcome assessment criteria. The primary analyses were conducted with a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method.

RESULTS

Most of the ICS/LABA combinations reduced moderate-to-severe exacerbations as compared with placebo and LABA, but none of them reduced severe exacerbations. However, many studies excluded patients receiving long-term oxygen therapy. Moderate-dose ICS was as effective as high-dose ICS in reducing exacerbations when combined with LABA.

CONCLUSION

ICS/LABA combinations had a class effect with regard to the prevention of COPD exacerbations. Moderate-dose ICS/LABA combination therapy would be sufficient for COPD patients when indicated. The efficacy of ICS/LABA combination therapy appeared modest and had no impact in reducing severe exacerbations. Further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of ICS/LABA combination therapy in severely affected COPD patients requiring long-term oxygen therapy.

Real-life use of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a French observational study

BACKGROUND

In Europe, administration of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combined with a long-acting β2 agonist is approved in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with a pre-bronchodilator FEV1 < 60% predicted normal, a history of repeated exacerbations, and who have significant symptoms despite regular bronchodilator therapy. Minimal data are available on the use of the fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate combination (FSC) in the real-life COPD setting and prescription compliance with the licensed specifications.

METHODS

A French observational study was performed to describe the COPD population prescribed with FSC, prescription modalities, and the coherence of prescription practices with the market authorized population. Data were collected for patients initiating FSC treatment (500 μg fluticasone propionate, 50 μg salmeterol, dry powder inhaler) prescribed by a general practitioner (GP) or a pulmonologist, using physician and patient questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 710 patients were included, 352 by GPs and 358 by pulmonologists. Mean age was over 60 years, and 70% of patients were male. More than half were retired, and overweight or obese. Approximately half were current smokers and one-third had cardiovascular comorbidities. According to both physician evaluation and GOLD 2006 classification, the majority of patients (>75%) had moderate to very severe COPD. Strict compliance by prescribing physicians with the market-approved population for dry powder inhaler SFC in COPD was low, notably in ICS-naïve patients; all three conditions were fulfilled in less than a quarter of patients with prior ICS and less than 7% of ICS-naïve patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescription of dry powder inhaler SFC by GPs and pulmonologists has very low conformity with the three conditions defining the licensed COPD population. Prescription practices need to be improved and systematic FEV1 evaluation for COPD diagnosis and treatment management should be emphasized.

The Saudi Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of COPD

The Saudi Thoracic Society (STS) launched the Saudi Initiative for Chronic Airway Diseases (SICAD) to develop a guideline for the diagnosis and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This guideline is primarily aimed for internists and general practitioners. Though there is scanty epidemiological data related to COPD, the SICAD panel believes that COPD prevalence is increasing in Saudi Arabia due to increasing prevalence of tobacco smoking among men and women. To overcome the issue of underutilization of spirometry for diagnosing COPD, handheld spirometry is recommended to screen individuals at risk for COPD. A unique feature about this guideline is the simplified practical approach to classify COPD into three classes based on the symptoms as per COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and the risk of exacerbations and hospitalization. Those patients with low risk of exacerbation (<2 in the past year) can be classified as either Class I when they have less symptoms (CAT < 10) or Class II when they have more symptoms (CAT ≥ 10). High-risk COPD patients, as manifested with ≥2 exacerbation or hospitalization in the past year irrespective of the baseline symptoms, are classified as Class III. Class I and II patients require bronchodilators for symptom relief, while Class III patients are recommended to use medications that reduce the risks of exacerbations. The guideline recommends screening for co-morbidities and suggests a comprehensive management approach including pulmonary rehabilitation for those with a CAT score ≥10. The article also discusses the diagnosis and management of acute exacerbations in COPD.

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.

Extrafine beclomethasone/formoterol compared to fluticasone/salmeterol combination therapy in COPD

Background

The study evaluated the efficacy of beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate (BDP/FF) extrafine combination versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/S) combination in COPD patients.

Methods

The trial was a 12-week multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double dummy study; 419 patients with moderate/severe COPD were randomised to BDP/FF 200/12 μg or FP/S 500/50 μg twice daily. The primary objective was to demonstrate the equivalence between treatments in terms of Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) score and the superiority of BDP/FF in terms of change from pre-dose in the first 30 minutes in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁). Secondary endpoints included lung function, symptom scores, symptom-free days and use of rescue medication, St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, six minute walking test and COPD exacerbations.

Results

BDP/FF was equivalent to FP/S in terms of TDI score and superior in terms of FEV₁ change from pre-dose (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between treatments in secondary outcome measures, confirming overall comparability in terms of efficacy and tolerability. Moreover, a clinically relevant improvement (>4 units) in SGRQ was detected in the BDP/FF group only.

Conclusion

BDP/FF extrafine combination provides COPD patients with an equivalent improvement of dyspnoea and a faster bronchodilation in comparison to FP/S.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01245569

Inhaled steroids and risk of pneumonia for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are anti-inflammatory drugs that have proven benefits for people with worsening symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and repeated exacerbations. They are commonly used as combination inhalers with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) to reduce exacerbation rates and all-cause mortality, and to improve lung function and quality of life. The most common combinations of ICS and LABA used in combination inhalers are fluticasone and salmeterol, budesonide and formoterol and a new formulation of fluticasone in combination with vilanterol, which is now available. ICS have been associated with increased risk of pneumonia, but the magnitude of risk and how this compares with different ICS remain unclear. Recent reviews conducted to address their safety have not compared the relative safety of these two drugs when used alone or in combination with LABA.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of pneumonia associated with the use of fluticasone and budesonide for COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), clinicaltrials.gov, reference lists of existing systematic reviews and manufacturer websites. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies were included if they compared the ICS budesonide or fluticasone versus placebo, or either ICS in combination with a LABA versus the same LABA as monotherapy for people with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, numerical data and risk of bias information for each included study.We looked at direct comparisons of ICS versus placebo separately from comparisons of ICS/LABA versus LABA for all outcomes, and we combined these with subgroups when no important heterogeneity was noted. After assessing for transitivity, we conducted an indirect comparison to compare budesonide versus fluticasone monotherapy, but we could not do the same for the combination therapies because of systematic differences between the budesonide and fluticasone combination data sets.When appropriate, we explored the effects of ICS dose, duration of ICS therapy and baseline severity on the primary outcome. Findings of all outcomes are presented in 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADEPro.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 43 studies that met the inclusion criteria, and more evidence was provided for fluticasone (26 studies; n = 21,247) than for budesonide (17 studies; n = 10,150). Evidence from the budesonide studies was more inconsistent and less precise, and the studies were shorter. The populations within studies were more often male with a mean age of around 63, mean pack-years smoked over 40 and mean predicted forced expiratory volume of one second (FEV1) less than 50%.High or uneven dropout was considered a high risk of bias in almost 40% of the trials, but conclusions for the primary outcome did not change when the trials at high risk of bias were removed in a sensitivity analysis.Fluticasone increased non-fatal serious adverse pneumonia events (requiring hospital admission) (odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50 to 2.12; 18 more per 1000 treated over 18 months; high quality), and no evidence suggested that this outcome was reduced by delivering it in combination with salmeterol or vilanterol (subgroup differences: I(2) = 0%, P value 0.51), or that different doses, trial duration or baseline severity significantly affected the estimate. Budesonide also increased non-fatal serious adverse pneumonia events compared with placebo, but the effect was less precise and was based on shorter trials (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.62; six more per 1000 treated over nine months; moderate quality). Some of the variation in the budesonide data could be explained by a significant difference between the two commonly used doses: 640 mcg was associated with a larger effect than 320 mcg relative to placebo (subgroup differences: I(2) = 74%, P value 0.05).An indirect comparison of budesonide versus fluticasone monotherapy revealed no significant differences with respect to serious adverse events (pneumonia-related or all-cause) or mortality. The risk of any pneumonia event (i.e. less serious cases treated in the community) was higher with fluticasone than with budesonide (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.34); this was the only significant difference reported between the two drugs. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution because of possible differences in the assignment of pneumonia diagnosis, and because no trials directly compared the two drugs.No significant difference in overall mortality rates was observed between either of the inhaled steroids and the control interventions (both high-quality evidence), and pneumonia-related deaths were too rare to permit conclusions to be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide and fluticasone, delivered alone or in combination with a LABA, are associated with increased risk of serious adverse pneumonia events, but neither significantly affected mortality compared with controls. The safety concerns highlighted in this review should be balanced with recent cohort data and established randomised evidence of efficacy regarding exacerbations and quality of life. Comparison of the two drugs revealed no statistically significant difference in serious pneumonias, mortality or serious adverse events. Fluticasone was associated with higher risk of any pneumonia when compared with budesonide (i.e. less serious cases dealt with in the community), but variation in the definitions used by the respective manufacturers is a potential confounding factor in their comparison.Primary research should accurately measure pneumonia outcomes and should clarify both the definition and the method of diagnosis used, especially for new formulations such as fluticasone furoate, for which little evidence of the associated pneumonia risk is currently available. Similarly, systematic reviews and cohorts should address the reliability of assigning 'pneumonia' as an adverse event or cause of death and should determine how this affects the applicability of findings.

Can the anti-inflammatory activities of β2-agonists be harnessed in the clinical setting?

Beta2-adrenoreceptor agonists (β2-agonists) are primarily bronchodilators, targeting airway smooth muscle and providing critical symptomatic relief in conditions such as bronchial asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These agents also possess broad-spectrum, secondary, anti-inflammatory properties. These are mediated largely, though not exclusively, via interactions with adenylyl cyclase-coupled β2-adrenoreceptors on a range of immune and inflammatory cells involved in the immunopathogenesis of acute and chronic inflammatory disorders of the airways. The clinical relevance of the anti-inflammatory actions of β2-agonists, although often effective in the experimental setting, remains contentious. The primary objectives of the current review are: firstly, to assess the mechanisms, both molecular and cell-associated, that may limit the anti-inflammatory efficacy of β2-agonists; secondly, to evaluate pharmacological strategies, several of which are recent and innovative, that may overcome these limitations. These are preceded by a consideration of the various types of β2-agonists, their clinical applications, and spectrum of anti-inflammatory activities, particularly those involving adenosine 3',5'-cyclic adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase-mediated clearance of cytosolic calcium, and altered gene expression in immune and inflammatory cells.

What proportion of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease outpatients is eligible for inclusion in randomized clinical trials?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore to what extent an unselected population of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) outpatients would be eligible for inclusion in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of the clinical records of outpatient subjects with an ascertained diagnosis of COPD. COPD outpatients were assessed against the following inclusion criteria: 40 < age < 80 years, current or former smokers, forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) <70% predicted, no long-term oxygen therapy, no other concomitant lung diseases and absence of major extrapulmonary comorbidities. The study consisted of 2 phases; in phase 1, the criteria for inclusion in RCTs on COPD were selected, and in phase 2, the above criteria were applied to an unselected outpatient COPD population.

RESULTS

A total of 578 subjects (83% of the whole group) failed at least one of the inclusion criteria. Lung diseases other than COPD (occurring in 30% of our population, mostly bronchiectasis), long-term oxygen therapy (31%), FEV1 (19%), age (14%) and extrapulmonary comorbidities such as cognitive impairment (14%), arrhythmias (17%) and congestive heart disease (13%) would have been the most frequent causes for exclusion from RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-life settings, more than 80% of COPD subjects are currently treated by protocols based on results of RCTs for which they would not have been eligible. We encourage a more extensive use of pragmatic trials in COPD to better modulate the application of results of RCTs to patients encountered in daily practice.

Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta₂-agonist in one inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Both long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have been recommended in guidelines for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Their coadministration in a combination inhaler may facilitate adherence to medication regimens and improve efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of combined ICS and LABA for stable COPD in comparison with placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, reference lists of included studies and manufacturers' trial registries. The date of the most recent search was June 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and double-blind studies of at least four weeks' duration. Eligible studies compared combined ICS and LABA preparations with placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data. Dichotomous data were analysed as fixed-effect odds ratios (OR) or rate ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and continuous data as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria (with 10,400 participants randomly assigned, lasting between 4 and 156 weeks, mean 42 weeks). Studies used three different combined preparations (fluticasone/salmeterol, budesonide/formoterol or mometasone/formoterol). The studies were generally at low risk of bias for blinding but at unclear or high risk for attrition bias because of participant dropouts. Compared with placebo, both fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol reduced the rate of exacerbations. Mometasone/formoterol reduced the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbation. Pooled analysis of the combined therapies indicated that exacerbations were less frequent when compared with placebo (Rate Ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.78, 7 studies, 7495 participants); the quality of this evidence when GRADE criteria were applied was rated as moderate. Participants included in these trials had on average one or two exacerbations per year, which means that treatment with combined therapy would lead to a reduction of one exacerbation every two to four years in these individuals. An overall reduction in mortality was seen, but this outcome was dominated by the results of one study (TORCH) of fluticasone/salmeterol. Generally, deaths in the smaller, shorter studies were too few to contribute to the overall estimate. Further longer studies on budesonide/formoterol and mometasone/formoterol are required to clarify whether this is seen more widely. When a baseline risk of death of 15.2% from the placebo arm of TORCH was used, the three-year number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with fluticasone/salmeterol to prevent one extra death was 42 (95% CI 24 to 775). All three combined treatments led to statistically significant improvement in health status measurements, although the mean differences observed are relatively small in relation to the minimum clinically important difference. Furthermore, symptoms and lung function assessments favoured combined treatments. An increase in the risk of pneumonia was noted with combined inhalers compared with placebo treatment (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.94), and the quality of this evidence was rated as moderate, but no dose effect was seen. The three-year NNTH for one extra case of pneumonia was 17, based on a 12.3% risk of pneumonia in the placebo arm of TORCH. Fewer participants withdrew from the combined treatment arms for adverse events or lack of efficacy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combined inhaler therapy led to around a quarter fewer COPD exacerbations than were seen with placebo. A significant reduction in all-cause mortality was noted, but this outcome was dominated by one trial (TORCH), emphasising the need for further trials of longer duration. Increased risk of pneumonia is a concern; however, this did not translate into increased exacerbations, hospitalisations or deaths. Current evidence does not suggest any major differences between inhalers in terms of effects, but nor is the evidence strong enough to demonstrate that all are equivalent. To permit firmer conclusions about the effects of combined therapy, more data are needed, particularly in relation to the profile of adverse events and benefits in relation to different formulations and doses of inhaled ICS. Head-to-head comparisons are necessary to determine whether one combined inhaler is better than the others.