The role of long-acting bronchodilators in the management of stable COPD

Management of COPD and Comorbidities in COPD patients by Dispensing Pharmaceutical Care following Global Initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease-Guidelines (GOLD guidelines 2020): A study protocol for a Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) is a medical condition that encompasses several chronic, progressive, and severe respiratory illnesses, such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis. COPD is the 4th most deadly disease in the world and its prevalence is expected to increase. Despite the abundance of information on the disease's etiology, pathophysiology, and treatment possibilities, it has long been underdiagnosed and underreported for a long time, particularly in developing countries. The symptoms of COPD result in significant impairments and significant impact on quality of life. COPD is the third leading cause of death in Pakistan. According to the published literature, COPD has been found to be associated with a serious economic burden, either the direct cost to healthcare systems in the form of frequent hospital admissions or indirect costs to patients suffering from COPD. Despite the availability of excellent medication, COPD treatment goals are frequently not achieved resulting in poor management of COPD. The recent studies revealed that due to the missing role of Pharmacists in most of the public sector hospitals of Pakistan, the COPD disease management protocols are not being properly followed. Pharmacists can help the healthcare system by implementing these management protocols that focus on patient education about the disease, prescribed medications, and proper inhalation techniques. Furthermore, the pharmacists as an effective healthcare's team member properly educate the patients about the ongoing assessments and their willingness to follow treatment recommendations and quit smoking, while referring them to smoking cessation programs as needed, following the GOLD guidelines. This aim of this clinical trial is to evaluate the impact of implementing standard treatment guidelines and the role of pharmacists in implementing GOLD guidelines for COPD management.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) plus long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) versus LABA plus inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are inhaled medications used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). When two classes of medications are required, a LAMA plus an ICS (LABA+ICS) were previously recommended within a single inhaler as the first-line treatment for managing stable COPD in people in high-risk categories. However, updated international guidance recommends a LAMA plus a LABA (LAMA+LABA). This systematic review is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of LAMA+LABA versus LABA+ICS for treatment of people with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an electronic search of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Search Portal, followed by handsearches. Two review authors screened the selected articles. The most recent search was run on 10 September 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel or cross-over randomised controlled trials of at least one month's duration, comparing LAMA+LABA and LABA+ICS for stable COPD. We included studies conducted in an outpatient setting and irrespective of blinding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. We resolved any discrepancies through discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs), and continuous data as mean differences (MDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Review Manager 5. Primary outcomes were: participants with one or more exacerbations of COPD; serious adverse events; quality of life, as measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score change from baseline; and trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). We used the GRADE framework to rate our certainty of the evidence in each meta-analysis as high, moderate, low or very low.  MAIN RESULTS: This review updates the first version of the review, published in 2017, and increases the number of included studies from 11 to 19 (22,354 participants). The median number of participants per study was 700. In each study, between 54% and 91% (median 70%) of participants were males. Study participants had an average age of 64 years and percentage predicted FEV1 of 51.5% (medians of study means). Included studies had a generally low risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases. All but two studies were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, which had varying levels of involvement in study design, conduct, and data analysis. Primary outcomes The odds of having an exacerbation were similar for LAMA+LABA compared with LABA+ICS (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06; I2 = 61%; 13 studies, 20,960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The odds of having a serious adverse event were also similar (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15; I2 = 20%; 18 studies, 23,183 participants; high-certainty evidence). Participants receiving LAMA+LABA had a similar improvement in quality of life, as measured by the SGRQ, to those receiving LABA+ICS (MD -0.57, 95% CI -1.36 to 0.21; I2 = 78%; 9 studies, 14,437 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) but showed a greater improvement in trough FEV1 (MD 0.07, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.08; I2 = 73%; 12 studies, 14,681 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  Secondary outcomes LAMA+LABA decreased the odds of pneumonia compared with LABA+ICS from 5% to 3% (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72; I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 21,829 participants; high-certainty evidence) but increased the odds of all-cause death from 1% to 1.4% (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.75; I2 = 0%; 15 studies, 21,510 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The odds of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of four or more points on the SGRQ were similar between LAMA+LABA and LABA+ICS (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.25; I2 = 77%; 4 studies, 13,614 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Combination LAMA+LABA therapy probably holds similar benefits to LABA+ICS for exacerbations and quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, for people with moderate to severe COPD, but offers a larger improvement in FEV1 and a slightly lower risk of pneumonia. There is little to no difference between LAMA+LABA and LAMA+ICS in the odds of having a serious adverse event. Whilst all-cause death may be lower with LABA+ICS, there was a very small number of events in the analysis, translating to a low absolute risk. Findings are based on moderate- to high-certainty evidence from heterogeneous trials with an observation period of less than one year. This review should be updated again in a few years.

Mitochondria-Targeted Antioxidants as a Therapeutic Strategy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Oxidative stress is a major hallmark of COPD, contributing to inflammatory signaling, corticosteroid resistance, DNA damage, and accelerated lung aging and cellular senescence. Evidence suggests that oxidative damage is not solely due to exogenous exposure to inhaled irritants, but also endogenous sources of oxidants in the form of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Mitochondria, the major producers of ROS, exhibit impaired structure and function in COPD, resulting in reduced oxidative capacity and excessive ROS production. Antioxidants have been shown to protect against ROS-induced oxidative damage in COPD, by reducing ROS levels, reducing inflammation, and protecting against the development of emphysema. However, currently available antioxidants are not routinely used in the management of COPD, suggesting the need for more effective antioxidant agents. In recent years, a number of mitochondria-targeted antioxidant (MTA) compounds have been developed that are capable of crossing the mitochondria lipid bilayer, offering a more targeted approach to reducing ROS at its source. In particular, MTAs have been shown to illicit greater protective effects compared to non-targeted, cellular antioxidants by further reducing apoptosis and offering greater protection against mtDNA damage, suggesting they are promising therapeutic agents for the treatment of COPD. Here, we review evidence for the therapeutic potential of MTAs as a treatment for chronic lung disease and discuss current challenges and future directions.

Inhalation therapies in COPD - adverse drug reactions impact on emergency department presentations

PURPOSE

Inhaled drugs have been cornerstones in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) for decades and show a high prescription volume. Due to the local application, drug safety issues of these therapies are often underestimated by professionals and patients. Data about adverse drug reactions (ADRs) caused by inhaled therapy in patients with COPD and polypharmacy are rare. We aimed to analyze the use and relevance of inhaled therapies in those patients in relation to ADR complaints, which were severe enough to warrant presentation to the emergency department.

METHODS

Emergency department cases due to suspected ADRs of the ADRED database (n = 2939, "Adverse Drug Reactions in Emergency Departments"; DRKS-ID: DRKS00008979, registration date 01/11/2017) were analyzed for inhaled drugs in patients with COPD. ADRs in cases with overdosed inhaled drugs were compared to non-overdosed cases. ADRs, potentially caused by inhaled drugs, were evaluated, clustered into complexes, and assessed for association with inhaled drug classes.

RESULTS

Of the 269 included COPD cases, 67% (n = 180) received inhaled therapy. In 16% (n = 28), these therapies were overdosed. Overdosed cases presented the complexes of malaise and local symptoms more frequently. Related to the use of inhaled anticholinergics, local (dysphagia-like) and related to inhaled beta-2 agonists, local (dysphagia-like) and sympathomimetic-like ADRs presented more frequently.

CONCLUSION

Overdosed inhaled therapies in patients with COPD lead to relevant ADRs and impact on emergency room presentations. These are rarely associated to inhaled therapy by healthcare professionals or patients. Due to the high volume of inhaled drug prescriptions, pharmacovigilance and patient education should be more focused in patients with COPD. German Clinical Trial Register: DRKS-ID: DRKS00008979.

Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) 2021: Updated Pharmacological treatment of stable COPD

The Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) were first published in 2012, and since then have undergone a series of updates incorporating new evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of COPD. GesEPOC was drawn up in partnership with scientific societies involved in the treatment of COPD and the Spanish Patients' Forum. Their recommendations are based on an evaluation of the evidence using GRADE methodology, and a narrative description of the evidence in areas in which GRADE cannot be applied. In this article, we summarize the recommendations on the pharmacological treatment of stable COPD based on 9 PICO questions. COPD treatment is a 4-step process: 1) diagnosis, 2) determination of the risk level, 3) initial and subsequent inhaled therapy, and 4) identification and management of treatable traits. For the selection of inhaled therapy, high-risk patients are divided into 3 phenotypes: non-exacerbator, eosinophilic exacerbator, and non-eosinophilic exacerbator. Some treatable traits are general and should be investigated in all patients, such as smoking or inhalation technique, while others affect severe patients in particular, such as chronic hypoxemia and chronic bronchial infection. COPD treatment is based on long-acting bronchodilators with single agents or in combination, depending on the patient's risk level. Eosinophilic exacerbators must receive inhaled corticosteroids, while non-eosinophilic exacerbators require a more detailed evaluation to choose the best therapeutic option. The new GesEPOC also includes recommendations on the withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids and on indications for alpha-1 antitrypsin treatment. GesEPOC offers a more individualized approach to COPD treatment tailored according to the clinical characteristics of patients and their level of complexity.

Development of MDS-Based Predication Model for COPD Severity in Nursing Home Residents

BACKGROUND

Assessing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) severity is challenging in nursing home (NH) residents due to incomplete symptom assessments and exacerbation history.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to predict COPD severity in NH residents using the Minimum Data Set (MDS), a clinical assessment of functional capabilities and health needs.

METHODS

A cohort analysis of prospectively collected longitudinal data was conducted. Residents from geographically varied Medicare-certified NHs with age ≥60 years, COPD diagnosis, and ≥6 months NH residence at enrollment were included. Residents with severe cognitive impairment were excluded. Demographic characteristics, medical history, and MDS variables were extracted from medical records. The care provider-completed COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and COPD exacerbation history were used to categorize residents by Global Initiative for Chronic Lung Disease (GOLD) A to D groups. Multivariate multinomial logit models mapped the MDS to GOLD A to D groups with stepwise selection of variables.

RESULTS

Nursing home residents (N = 175) were 64% women and had a mean age of 77.9 years. Among residents, GOLD B was most common (A = 13.1%; B = 44.0%; C = 5.7%; D = 37.1%). Any long-acting bronchodilator (LABD) use and any dyspnea were significant predictors of GOLD A to D groups. The predicted MDS-GOLD group (A = 6.9%; B = 52.6%; C = 4.6%; D = 36.0%) showed good model fit (correctly predicted = 60.6%). Nursing home residents may underuse group-recommended LABD treatment (no LABD: B = 53.2%; C = 80.0%; D = 40.0%).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

The MDS, completed routinely for US NH residents, could potentially be used to estimate COPD severity. Predicted COPD severity with additional validation could provide a map to evidence-based treatment guidelines and may help to individualize treatment pathways for NH residents.

Recent Advances in Chronotherapy Targeting Respiratory Diseases

Respiratory diseases contribute to a significant percentage of mortality and morbidity worldwide. The circadian rhythm is a natural biological process where our bodily functions align with the 24 h oscillation (sleep-wake cycle) process and are controlled by the circadian clock protein/gene. Disruption of the circadian rhythm could alter normal lung function. Chronotherapy is a type of therapy provided at specific time intervals based on an individual's circadian rhythm. This would allow the drug to show optimum action, and thereby modulate its pharmacokinetics to lessen unwanted or unintended effects. In this review, we deliberated on the recent advances employed in chrono-targeted therapeutics for chronic respiratory diseases.

Nanotechnology based advanced therapeutic strategies for targeting interleukins in chronic respiratory diseases

Both communicable and non-communicable chronic respiratory conditions have accorded for suffering of millions of people of all ages and stated to be leading cause of death, morbidity, economic and social pressures, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) worldwide. These illnesses impair patient's health and negatively impacts families and society, particularly in low and middle-income countries. Chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) affect different organs of respiratory system, involving airways, parenchyma, and pulmonary vasculature. As the number of respiratory diseases are exponentially escalating but still the stakeholders are not paying attention towards its serious complications. Currently, the treatment being used primarily focusses only on alleviating symptoms of these illness rather delivering the therapeutic agent at target site for optimal care and/or prevention. Lately, extensive research is being conducted on airways and systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, airway, or parenchymal rehabilitation. From which macrophages, neutrophils, and T cells, as well as structural cells as fibroblasts, epithelial, endothelial, and smooth muscle cells have been found to be active participants that are involved in these chronic respiratory diseases. The pathogenesis of all these chronic respiratory diseases gets caused differently via mediators and proteins, including cytokines, chemokines, growth factors and oxidants. Presently, the target of prescription therapies is to reduce the inflammation of airways and relieve the airway contraction. In all studies, cytokines have been found to play an imperative role in fostering chronic airway inflammation and remodelling. Owing to the limitations of conventional treatments, the current review aims to summarize the current knowledge about the chronic respiratory disease and discuss further about the various conventional methods that can be used for treating this ailment. Additionally, it also highlights and discusses about the advanced drug delivery system that are being used for targeting the interleukins for the treatment of CRDs.

Current Status of the Treatment of COPD in China: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

Background

There is a large gap in the treatments for patients with COPD according to the Global Initiative for COPD (GOLD) recommendations. Determining the situation of therapies in the real world is necessary. This study aimed to characterize the real-world practical therapies of COPD and prognosis of patients after treatment for 1 year.

Methods

This study was a multicenter prospective observational study performed using a database set up by the Second Xiangya Hospital of Center South University. Detailed usage information for pharmacotherapies and nonpharmacotherapies for patients was collected, as well as the consistency of recommendations and patient adherence. Moreover, the effect of therapies after 1 year was calculated by comparing lung function and symptoms.

Results

Ultimately, 4,796 patients with COPD from 12 hospitals in China were eligible. LAMA (39.1%), LAMA + LABA/ICS (39.0%) and LABA/ICS (14.4%) were the top three inhalants. We found that 42.7% of Group A patients, 61.6% of Group B patients and 30% of Group C patients were following inappropriate therapy, especially overuse of ICS. Only 3.9% (95% CI 2.4, 5.4) of patients used oxygen therapy, and 1.8% (95% CI 1.5, 2.3) used noninvasive positive pressure ventilation at home. Among these patients, 33.2% had poor adherence. A total of 452 patients completed 1 year of follow-up. After 1 year of treatment, the lung function of FEV₁/FVC decreased (P=0.001) and the mMRC score increased (P<0.001). There was no change in CAT scores (P>0.05).

Conclusion

This study highlights a significant discrepancy between recommendations for managing patients with COPD in GOLD report, and in real-world clinical practice in China. Over-prescription of ICS and under-prescription of nonpharmacologic therapy were common. The adherence to treatment of patients was poor, and the real-life treatment effectiveness was unsatisfactory. More attention should be paid to the implementation of recommendations and standardized administration of therapies.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease phenotypes: imprint on pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapy

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Over the past few years, there has been cumulating interest in describing this heterogeneity and using this information to group patients into different COPD phenotypes. The term phenotype is defined as single or combination of disease attributes that describe differences between individuals with COPD as they relate to clinically meaningful outcomes. It describes also the physical appearance or biochemical characteristics which result from the genotype-environment interaction. Furthermore, it clearly identifies subgroups with a significant impact in the prognosis. Recently, approaches to COPD phenotyping have been significantly enhanced in tandem with developments in understanding the disease’s various pathological, clinical and genetic features. This knowledge inspired the researchers to investigate more tailored therapeutic strategies that could not only give a more potent effect but also help to avoid the traditional therapy’s undesirable side effects. Eventually, it could be said that the phenotypic approach to COPD in the last decade had a huge impact on daily practice and management delivered to COPD patients. In this review, we highlight the impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options on COPD outcomes, using a personalized treatment strategy based on different phenotypes.

Bronchodilator efficacy of tiotropium/formoterol (18/12 µg once daily via a Discair inhaler), tiotropium alone (18 µg by Handihaler) or combined with formoterol (12 µg twice daily by Aerolizer) in adults with moderate-to-severe stable COPD

Objectives: The bronchodilator efficacy of a once-daily fixed-dose combination of tiotropium/formoterol (18/12 µg administered via a dry-powder inhaler, Discair) [TIO/FORM_fixed group] vs a single-dose of tiotropium (18 µg) by Handihaler¹ alone [TIO_mono group], or combined with formoterol 12 µg twice-daily by Aerolizer² [TIO/FORM_bid group] was compared in patients with moderate-to-severe stable COPD.Methods: COPD patients were randomized (28 patients/group) to receive TIO/FORM_fixed, TIO_mono, or TIO/FORM_bid. AUC for the changes in FEV₁ and FVC over a 24-h period; bronchodilator response (100 ml improvement in FEV₁) in the first 30 min; maximum changes in FEV₁ and FVC; and safety data were recorded. The primary endpoint was to confirm the non-inferiority of TIO/FORM_fixed vs TIO/FORM_bid in terms of the AUC for the changes in FEV₁ over a 24-h period.Results: Changes in AUC_0-24h for FEV₁ and FVC were similar for TIO/FORM_fixed and TIO/FORM_bid, and were superior to TIO_mono (p < 0.001). A positive bronchodilator response at 30 min was demonstrated in 50%, 64%, and 71% of patients in the TIO_mono, TIO/FORM_bid, and TIO/FORM_fixed groups, respectively (NS). Maximum FEV₁ and FVC changes were measured as 0.25/0.41 L, 0.32/0.49 L, and 0.37/0.53 L, for TIO_mono, TIO/FORM_bid, and TIO/FORM_fixed, respectively (FEV₁: TIO/FORM_fixed vs TIO_mono, p = 0.0017 and TIO/FORM_fixed vs TIO/FORM_bid, p = 0.4846); no differences were recorded between the combination groups.Conclusions: The 24-h bronchodilator efficacy of TIO/FORM_fixed 18/12 µg once-daily by Discair³ was non-inferior to a combination of tiotropium 18 µg by Handihaler plus formoterol 12 µg twice-daily by Aerolizer, and superior to tiotropium 18 µg monotherapy by Handihaler.

[Bronchodilator therapy in the prevention of COPD exacerbations]

The natural course of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease usually includes exacerbations. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients suffer from 1-4 exacerbations per year on average. These are associated with worsening quality of life and increased mortality. Reducing and controlling the number of exacerbations is one of the main goals of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment. Among current treatments, tiotropium is the active substance with the strongest evidence in the reduction of moderate/severe exacerbations, together with a good safety and tolerability profile. The addition of olodaterol to tiotropium offers well-tolerated and effective double bronchodilation for improving lung function, quality of life, and decreased dyspnoea compared to its single components. This also reduces the annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations vs. tiotropium by 7%, although not reaching the pre-specified statistical significance level of P<.01.

Patient-Reported Burden of Illness in a Prevalent COPD Population Treated with Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Monotherapy: A Claims-Linked Patient Survey Study

INTRODUCTION

Symptom burden in inadequately controlled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) considerably impacts quality of life, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and associated costs. This claims-linked cross-sectional survey study assessed symptom burden and HCRU among a prevalent population of COPD patients prescribed long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy.

METHODS

Patients were identified using claims data from the Optum Research Database. Eligible patients were aged ≥ 40 years with 12 months' continuous enrollment in a US health plan, ≥ 2 medical claims containing COPD diagnosis codes ≥ 30 days apart, and ≥ 2 claims for LAMA monotherapy in the latter half of the 12-month sample identification period. Patients were mailed a cross-sectional survey assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) [COPD assessment test (CAT) and modified medical research council dyspnea scale (mMRC)], clinical characteristics, smoking history, and demographics. Patients also completed the Exacerbations of Chronic Pulmonary Disease Tool (EXACT-PRO) daily diary for 7 days. HCRU was assessed from claims data.

RESULTS

The study included 433 patients with a self-reported healthcare provider COPD diagnosis, and both claims-based and self-reported LAMA monotherapy treatment (mean age 71.0 years; 59.8% female). Most patients (85.5%) reported a high symptom burden (CAT score ≥ 10), 45.5% had high levels of dyspnea (mMRC grade ≥ 2), and 64.4% reported more severe daily symptoms by the EXACT-PRO. Most patients (71.6%) reported high scores on ≥ 2 PROs. More patients with high symptom burden had COPD-related emergency department visits than those with lower disease burden (27.6% vs 12.7%, P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, a large proportion of patients with COPD receiving LAMA monotherapy experienced a high symptom burden and may benefit from therapy escalation. Healthcare professionals can use validated PROs to help them assess symptom burden.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK study number: 205862).

Combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta2-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Several dual bronchodilator combinations of long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) have been approved for treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The current GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) recommendations suggest the use of LABA/LAMA combinations in people with group B COPD with persistent symptoms, group C COPD with further exacerbations on LAMA therapy alone and group D COPD with or without inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Fixed-dose combination (FDC) of aclidinium/formoterol is one of the approved LABA/LAMA therapies for people with stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta2-agonists in stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and manufacturers' websites as well as the reference list of published trials up to 12 October 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing combined aclidinium bromide and LABAs in people with stable COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data collection and analysis. The primary outcomes were exacerbations requiring a short course of an oral steroid or antibiotic, or both; quality of life measured by a validated scale and non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs). Where the outcome or study details were not reported, we contacted the study investigators or pharmaceutical company trial co-ordinators (or both) for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified RCTs comparing aclidinium/formoterol FDC versus aclidinium, formoterol or placebo only. We included seven multicentre trials of four to 52 weeks' duration conducted in outpatient settings. There were 5921 participants, whose mean age ranged from 60.7 to 64.7 years, mostly men with a mean smoking pack-years of 46.4 to 61.3 of which 43.9% to 63.4% were current smokers. They had a moderate-to-severe degree of COPD with a mean postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) between 50.5% and 61% of predicted normal and the baseline mean FEV1 of 1.23 L to 1.43 L. We assessed performance and detection biases as low for all studies whereas selection, attrition and reporting biases were either low or unclear.FDC versus aclidiniumThere was no evidence of a difference between FDC and aclidinium for exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.27; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); quality of life measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score (MD -0.92, 95% CI -2.15 to 0.30); participants with significant improvement in SGRQ score (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.41; 2 trials, 2002 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); non-fatal SAE (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.80; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.29; 2 trials, 2156 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or adverse events (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; 3 trials, 2473 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared with aclidinium, FDC improved symptoms (Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score: MD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.68; 2 trials, 2013 participants) with a higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of at least one unit improvement (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.62; high-certainty evidence); the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) being 14 (95% CI 9 to 39).FDC versus formoterolWhen compared to formoterol, combination therapy reduced exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.99; 3 trials, 2694 participants; high-certainty evidence); may decrease SGRQ total score (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.10 to -0.65; 2 trials, 2002 participants; low-certainty evidence; MCID for SGRQ is 4 units); increased TDI focal score (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.72; 2 trials, 2010 participants) with more participants attaining an MCID (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.56; high-certainty evidence) and an NNTB of 16 (95% CI 10 to 60). FDC lowered the risk of adverse events compared to formoterol (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.93; 5 trials, 3140 participants; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 22). However, there was no difference between FDC and formoterol for hospital admissions, all-cause mortality and non-fatal SAEs.FDC versus placeboCompared with placebo, FDC demonstrated no evidence of a difference in exacerbations requiring steroids or antibiotics, or both (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or hospital admissions due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.18; 2 trials, 1960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), although estimates were uncertain. Quality of life measure by SGRQ total score was significantly better with FDC compared to placebo (MD -2.91, 95% CI -4.33 to -1.50; 2 trials, 1823 participants) resulting in a corresponding increase in SGRQ responders who achieved at least four units decrease in SGRQ total score (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.13; high-certainty evidence) with an NNTB of 7 (95% CI 5 to 12). FDC also improved symptoms measured by TDI focal score (MD 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.69; 2 studies, 1832 participants) with more participants attaining at least one unit improvement in TDI focal score (OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.11; high-certainty evidence; NNTB 4). There were no differences in non-fatal SAEs, adverse events and all-cause mortality between FDC and placebo.Combination therapy significantly improved trough FEV1 compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

FDC improved dyspnoea and lung function compared to aclidinium, formoterol or placebo, and this translated into an increase in the number of responders on combination treatment. Quality of life was better with combination compared to formoterol or placebo. There was no evidence of a difference between FDC and monotherapy or placebo for exacerbations, hospital admissions, mortality, non-fatal SAEs or adverse events. Studies reported a lower risk of moderate exacerbations and adverse events with FDC compared to formoterol; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Tiotropium/Olodaterol in Maintenance-Naïve Patients with Moderate Symptomatic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Post Hoc Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Appropriate timing for dual bronchodilator therapy initiation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management is uncertain. Combination therapy is recommended as step-up from monotherapy or first-line treatment in patients with persistent symptoms. In this setting, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) demonstrated improved lung function and reduced rescue medication use over tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO). This subgroup analysis explored efficacy differences between these combinations in patients naïve to COPD maintenance therapy before study entry.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of an 8-week, randomized, open-label, assessor-blind, two-period crossover study (204990; NCT02799784) comparing UMEC/VI 62.5/25 mcg and TIO/OLO 5/5 mcg, focused on maintenance-naïve (MN) patients with moderate COPD and persistent symptoms (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score ≥ 2). Change from baseline (CFB) in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), percentage of FEV1 responders (CFB ≥ 100 ml), rescue medication use and safety were evaluated.

RESULTS

The MN population comprised 63% of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (148/236 patients) and had similar baseline demographics. At week 8, adjusted mean (standard error) improvements in trough FEV1 from baseline were clinically meaningful for both combinations (UMEC/VI: 167 [17] ml; TIO/OLO 110 [18] ml; adjusted mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 57 [23-92] ml; p = 0.001; %CFB: 11 vs. 8%). Proportion of FEV1 responders was greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO at week 8 (60 vs. 42%; odds ratio [95% CI] 1.90 [1.12-3.22]; p = 0.018). Reduction in rescue medication use was 0.20 (95% CI 0.07-0.34) puffs/day greater with UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO over weeks 1-8 (p = 0.003). Adverse events incidence was similar (UMEC/VI: 24%; TIO/OLO: 29%).

CONCLUSIONS

These results highlight that the efficacy difference between UMEC/VI and TIO/OLO demonstrated in the ITT population is maintained in MN patients. Greater lung function improvements with UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO were accompanied by symptom improvements, as reflected in a significantly lower need for supplemental rescue medication.

FUNDING

GSK.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02799784.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg versus tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective

BACKGROUND

A head-to-head study demonstrated the superiority of once-daily umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) versus once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO from a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective, using data from this study and Spanish literature.

METHODS

This analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System with a 3-year horizon as base case. A disease progression model using a linked risk equation approach was used to estimate disease progression and associated healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study was used to develop the statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints, and costs were calculated using a health state approach (by dyspnea severity). Utilities for QALY calculation were estimated using patient baseline characteristics within a regression fit to Spanish observational data. Treatment effect, expressed as change from baseline in FEV1 was obtained from the head-to-head study and used in the model (UMEC/VI minus TIO/OLO difference: + 52 mL [95% confidence interval: 28, 77]). Baseline patient characteristics were sourced from Spanish literature or the head-to-head study if unavailable. A scenario analysis using only the intent-to-treat (ITT) population from the head-to-head study, and sensitivity analyses (including probabilistic sensitivity analyses), were conducted. Direct healthcare costs (2017 Euro) were obtained from Spanish sources and costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum.

RESULTS

UMEC/VI was associated with small improvements in QALYs (+ 0.029) over a 3-year time horizon, compared with TIO/OLO, alongside cost savings of €393/patient. The ITT scenario analysis and sensitivity analyses had similar results. All probabilistic simulations resulted in UMEC/VI being less costly and more effective than TIO/OLO.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI dominated TIO/OLO (more effective and less expensive). These results may aid payers and decision-makers in Spain when making judgements on which long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) treatments can be considered cost effective in Spain.

The effect of delaying initiation with umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD: an observational administrative claims database analysis using marginal structural models

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with high clinical and economic burden. Optimal pharmacological therapy for COPD aims to reduce symptoms and the frequency and severity of exacerbations. Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) is an approved combination therapy for once-daily maintenance treatment of patients with COPD. This study evaluated the impact of delaying UMEC/VI initiation on medical costs and exacerbation risk.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with COPD who initiated UMEC/VI between 4/28/2014 and 7/31/2016 was conducted using the Optum Research Database. The index date was the first COPD visit after UMEC/VI available on US formulary (Commercial 4/28/2014; Medicare Advantage 1/1/2015). Patients were followed for 12 months post-index, and categorized into 12 cohorts corresponding to month (30-day period) of UMEC/VI initiation (i.e. Months 1-12) post-index. The outcomes studied during the follow up period included COPD-related and all-cause medical costs, and risk of COPD exacerbations. Marginal structural models (MSM) were used to control for time-varying confounding due to changes in treatment and severity during follow up.

RESULTS

2,200 patients initiating UMEC/VI were included in the study sample. Patients' average age was 69.3 years, 49.9% were female and 69.7% were Medicare insured. Following MSM analysis, 12-month adjusted COPD-related medical costs increased by 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.1-5.9%; p = 0.044) for each monthly delay in UMEC/VI initiation, with a 37.4% higher adjusted cost for patients initiating UMEC/VI in Month 12 versus Month 1 ($13,087 vs. $9524). The 12-month adjusted all-cause medical costs increased by 2.8% (95% CI: 0.6-5.2%; p = 0.013) for each monthly delay, with a 36.1% higher adjusted cost for patients initiating UMEC/VI at Month 12 versus Month 1 ($22,766 vs. $16,727). The monthly risk of severe exacerbation was significantly higher in patients who had not yet initiated UMEC/VI than those who had (hazard ratio: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.35-2.23; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prompt use of UMEC/VI following a physician visit for COPD appears to result in economic and clinical benefits, with reductions in medical costs and exacerbation risk. Additional research is warranted to assess the benefits of initiating UMEC/VI as a first-line therapy compared with escalation to UMEC/VI from monotherapies.

Preventing Clinically Important Deterioration of COPD with Addition of Umeclidinium to Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting β2-Agonist Therapy: An Integrated Post Hoc Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Assessing clinically important measures of disease progression is essential for evaluating therapeutic effects on disease stability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed whether providing additional bronchodilation with the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) to patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) therapy would improve disease stability compared with ICS/LABA therapy alone.

METHODS

This integrated post hoc analysis of four 12-week, randomized, double-blind trials (NCT01772134, NCT01772147, NCT01957163, NCT02119286) compared UMEC 62.5 µg with placebo added to open-label ICS/LABA in symptomatic patients with COPD (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score ≥ 2). A clinically important deterioration (CID) was defined as: a decrease from baseline of ≥ 100 mL in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), an increase from baseline of ≥ 4 units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, or a moderate/severe exacerbation. Risk of a first CID was evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients stratified by Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification, exacerbation history and type of ICS/LABA therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 1637 patients included in the ITT population received UMEC + ICS/LABA (n = 819) or placebo + ICS/LABA (n = 818). Additional bronchodilation with UMEC reduced the risk of a first CID by 45-58% in the ITT population and all subgroups analyzed compared with placebo (all p < 0.001). Improvements were observed in reducing FEV1 (69% risk reduction; p < 0.001) and exacerbation (47% risk reduction; p = 0.004) events in the ITT population. No significant reduction in risk of a SGRQ CID was observed. AE incidence was similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Symptomatic patients with COPD receiving ICS/LABA experience frequent deteriorations. Additional bronchodilation with UMEC significantly reduced the risk of CID and provided greater short-term stability versus continued ICS/LABA therapy in these patients.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline (study number: 202067). Plain language summary available for this article.

Optimal Bronchodilation for COPD Patients: Are All Long-Acting β₂-Agonist/Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists the Same?

Bronchodilators provide improvements in lung function and reductions in symptoms and exacerbations, and are the mainstay of pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease strategy recommends the use of a combination of long-acting β₂-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LABA/LAMA) as the first-line treatment option in the majority of symptomatic patients with COPD. This review provides an indirect comparison of available LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) through discussion of important efficacy and safety data from the key literature, with the objective of providing physicians with a framework for informed decision-making. LABA/LAMA FDCs provided greater benefits compared with placebo and similar or greater benefits compared with tiotropium and salmeterol/fluticasone in improving lung function, dyspnea, health-related quality of life, reducing rescue medication use and preventing exacerbations, although with some variability in efficacy between individual FDCs; further, tolerability profiles were comparable among LABA/LAMA FDCs. However, there is a disparity in the amount of evidence generated for different LABA/LAMA FDCs. Thus, this review shows that all LABA/LAMA FDCs may not be the same and that care should be taken when extrapolating individual treatment outcomes to the entire drug class. It is important that physicians consider the efficacy gradient that exists among LABA/LAMA FDCs, and factors such as inhaler devices and potential biomarkers, when choosing the optimal bronchodilator treatment for long-term management of patients with COPD.

The Role of the Body Clock in Asthma and COPD: Implication for Treatment

Asthma exhibits a marked time of day variation in symptoms, airway physiology, and airway inflammation. This is also seen in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but to a lesser extent. Our understanding of how physiological daily rhythms are regulated by the circadian clock is increasing, and there is growing evidence that the molecular clock is important in the pathogenesis of these two airway diseases. If time of day is important, then it follows that treatment of asthma and COPD should also be tailored to the most efficacious time of the day, a concept known as 'chronotherapy'. There have been a number of studies to determine the optimal time of day at which to take medications for asthma and COPD. Some of these agents are already used 'chronotherapeutically' in practice (often at night-time). However, several studies investigating systemic and inhaled corticosteroids have consistently shown that the best time of day to take these medications for treating asthma is in the afternoon or early evening and not in the morning, when these medications are often prescribed. Future, large, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of systemic and inhaled corticosteroids in asthma and COPD are needed to inform clinical practice.

The Role of the Body Clock in Asthma and COPD: Implication for Treatment

Asthma exhibits a marked time of day variation in symptoms, airway physiology, and airway inflammation. This is also seen in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but to a lesser extent. Our understanding of how physiological daily rhythms are regulated by the circadian clock is increasing, and there is growing evidence that the molecular clock is important in the pathogenesis of these two airway diseases. If time of day is important, then it follows that treatment of asthma and COPD should also be tailored to the most efficacious time of the day, a concept known as ‘chronotherapy’. There have been a number of studies to determine the optimal time of day at which to take medications for asthma and COPD. Some of these agents are already used ‘chronotherapeutically’ in practice (often at night-time). However, several studies investigating systemic and inhaled corticosteroids have consistently shown that the best time of day to take these medications for treating asthma is in the afternoon or early evening and not in the morning, when these medications are often prescribed. Future, large, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of systemic and inhaled corticosteroids in asthma and COPD are needed to inform clinical practice.

Digital Features

This article is published with a graphical abstract to facilitate understanding of the article. To view digital features for this article go to the Supplementary Information of the article.

Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium compared with tiotropium and glycopyrronium as monotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a UK perspective

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness of once-daily umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) was compared with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) and once-daily glycopyrronium (GLY) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

A linked-equation model was implemented to estimate COPD progression, associated healthcare costs, exacerbations rates, life years (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALYs). Statistical risk equations for endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively. Treatment effects [mean (standard error)] at 12 weeks on forced expiratory volume in 1 s and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score were obtained from the intention-to-treat populations of two head-to-head studies [GSK study identifiers 201316 (NCT02207829) and 201315 (NCT02236611)] which compared UMEC 62.5 mcg with TIO 18 mcg and UMEC 62.5 mcg with GLY 50 mcg, respectively. Treatment costs reflect UK list prices (2016) and NHS unit costs; UMEC and GLY prices being equal and less than TIO. A lifetime horizon, discounted costs and effects at 3.5% were used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of variations in input parameters and assumptions in the model.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, UMEC was predicted to increase LYs (+ 0.195; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.069, 0.356) and QALYs (+ 0.118; 95% CI: 0.055, 0.191) and reduce the number of annual exacerbations (- 0.053; 95% CI: - 0.171, 0.028) compared with TIO, with incremental cost savings of £460/patient (95% CI: - £645, - £240). Compared with GLY, UMEC increased LYs (+ 0.124; 95% CI: 0.015, 0.281) and QALYs (+ 0.101; 95% CI: 0.043, 0.179) and reduced annual exacerbation (- 0.033; 95% CI: - 0.135, 0.017) at an additional cost of £132/patient (95% CI: £12, £330), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1310/QALY (95% CI: £284, £2060). Similar results were observed in alternative time horizons and additional sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

For treatment of patients with COPD in the UK over a lifetime horizon, treatment with UMEC dominates treatment with TIO, providing both improved health outcomes and cost savings. In comparison with GLY, treatment with UMEC achieved improved health outcomes but was associated with a higher cost.Trial registration 201316, NCT02207829; 201315, NCT02236611.

Rates of escalation to triple COPD therapy among incident users of LAMA and LAMA/LABA

BACKGROUND

Improved outcomes have been reported for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receiving combination long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) therapy compared with LAMA monotherapy. However, little is known about the relative characteristics of these patients and their rates of escalation to triple therapy (TT, combining a LAMA, LABA, and inhaled corticosteroid). This study aimed to characterize patients initiating treatment with the LAMA tiotropium (TIO) and the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combination therapy umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), and to compare rates of escalation to TT between patients receiving these therapies.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients with COPD enrolled in a US health insurance plan during 2013-2015 and newly initiated on TIO or UMEC/VI. Patients were ≥40 years of age at index (date of therapy initiation) with continuous enrollment for 12 months pre-index and ≥30 days post-index. LAMA users were propensity score matched 1:1 to LAMA/LABA users, with TT initiation rates reported by cohort using pharmacy claims.

RESULTS

35,357 patients initiating on TIO and 2407 patients initiating on UMEC/VI were identified. After propensity score matching, the rate of TT initiation was significantly higher in new TIO users (n = 1320) than in new UMEC/VI users (n = 1320) (0.92 vs 0.49 per 100 months of exposure, respectively; p < 0.001). Relative to the UMEC/VI cohort, the TIO cohort had an 87% higher risk of TT initiation (hazard ratio: 1.87; 95% confidence interval: 1.4-2.5; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving UMEC/VI progressed to TT more slowly, and were at lower risk of progressing to TT, than patients receiving TIO.

Salmeterol, agonist of β2-aderenergic receptor, prevents systemic inflammation via inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome

β2-Aderenergic receptor (β2AR) agonist, Salmeterol exhibits anti-inflammatory activities. However, the inhibitory effects of Salmeterol on inflammasome activation are elusive and the underlying mechanisms need to be explored. In this study, we established inflammatory model in primary bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMDM) from C57BL/6J mice and β-arrestin2 knockout (β-arrestin2^-/-) mice in vitro. In vivo study by LPS intraperitoneally (i.p.) in C57BL/6J mice was carried out to ascertain its roles in systemic inflammation. We found that Salmeterol (10^-10 M-10^-7 M) prevented the cleavage of caspase-1 and the activation of NLRP3 inflammasome, reduced the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-1β (IL-1β) in vitro. Blockade of adenosine3',5'cyclic monophosphate (cAMP)/protein kinase A (PKA) pathway with cAMP or PKA inhibitors inhibited anti-inflammatory effects of Salmeterol only at 10^-7 M. Depletion of β-arrestin2 compromised the inhibitory effects of Salmeterol at both 10^-10 M and 10^-7 M. Salmeterol increased the interaction of β-arrestin2 and NLRP3. In vivo study showed that Salmeterol decreased the serum concentrations of pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1β and TNF-α, blocked cleavage of caspase-1 and release of IL-1β in BMDM. These findings imply that Salmeterol at low concentrations (10^-10 M-10^-7 M) shows anti-inflammatory effect via inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome. The underlying mechanisms is dosage-dependent: Salmeterol at 10^-10 M shows anti-inflammatory effects through β-arrestin2 pathway, and 10^-7 M Salmeterol inhibits inflammation via both classical G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR)/cAMP pathway and β-arrestin2 pathway. These results provide new ideas for the future treatment of systemic inflammation and other inflammatory diseases.

Relationship between exercise endurance and static hyperinflation in a post hoc analysis of two clinical trials in patients with COPD

Background

Lung hyperinflation and exercise intolerance are hallmarks of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, their relationship remains uncertain. A combined analysis of two placebo-controlled, randomized studies examined the effects of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) and long-acting β₂-agonist vilanterol (VI) separately and in combination on static hyperinflation, exercise endurance time (EET), and their relationship in patients with COPD.

Methods

Patients with moderate-to-severe stable COPD and resting functional residual capacity >120% predicted were randomized to UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg, UMEC 62.5 μg, VI 25 μg, or placebo for 12 weeks. Inspiratory capacity (IC), residual volume (RV), total lung capacity (TLC), and EET in an endurance shuttle-walk test were measured. In this post hoc analysis, IC/TLC, RV/TLC, and IC were used as hyperinflation markers.

Results

After 12 weeks, UMEC/VI and UMEC and VI showed significant improvements in hyperinflation versus placebo when measured by absolute change from baseline in IC/TLC (trough and 3 hours postdose [P≤0.011]). UMEC/VI showed significant improvements versus UMEC and VI in absolute changes in IC/TLC (trough and 3 hours postdose [P≤0.001]). Statistical significance for comparisons with placebo and between treatments for absolute changes in IC and percentage changes in RV/TLC followed similar patterns to those for absolute changes in IC/TLC. UMEC/VI showed significant improvements in EET versus placebo at day 2 and week 12, measured as change from baseline in seconds (P≤0.002) and as a percentage from baseline (P≤0.005). There was a lack of evidence to suggest a correlation between improvements in static hyperinflation and EET at any time point.

Conclusion

Although the dual bronchodilator UMEC/VI demonstrated greater improvements in static hyperinflation markers than UMEC or VI and significant improvements in exercise endurance, no direct relationship was observed between static hyperinflation and exercise endurance.

Russian guidelines for the management of COPD: algorithm of pharmacologic treatment

The high prevalence of COPD together with its high level of misdiagnosis and late diagnosis dictate the necessity for the development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in order to improve the management of this disease. High-quality, evidence-based international CPGs need to be adapted to the particular situation of each country or region. A new version of the Russian Respiratory Society guidelines released at the end of 2016 was based on the proposal by Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease but adapted to the characteristics of the Russian health system and included an algorithm of pharmacologic treatment of COPD. The proposed algorithm had to comply with the requirements of the Russian Ministry of Health to be included into the unified electronic rubricator, which required a balance between the level of information and the simplicity of the graphic design. This was achieved by: exclusion of the initial diagnostic process, grouping together the common pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic measures for all patients, and the decision not to use the letters A-D for simplicity and clarity. At all stages of the treatment algorithm, efficacy and safety have to be carefully assessed. Escalation and de-escalation is possible in the case of lack of or insufficient efficacy or safety issues. Bronchodilators should not be discontinued except in the case of significant side effects. At the same time, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) withdrawal is not represented in the algorithm, because it was agreed that there is insufficient evidence to establish clear criteria for ICSs discontinuation. Finally, based on the Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease statement, the proposed algorithm reflects and summarizes different approaches to the pharmacological treatment of COPD taking into account the reality of health care in the Russian Federation.

Predicting treatable traits for long-acting bronchodilators in patients with stable COPD

Purpose

There is currently no measure to predict a treatability of long-acting β-2 agonist (LABA) or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aimed to build prediction models for the treatment response to these bronchodilators, in order to determine the most responsive medication for patients with COPD.

Methods

We performed a prospective open-label crossover study, in which each long-acting bronchodilator was given in a random order to 65 patients with stable COPD for 4 weeks, with a 4-week washout period in between. We analyzed 14 baseline clinical traits, expression profiles of 31,426 gene transcripts, and damaged-gene scores of 6,464 genes acquired from leukocytes. The gene expression profiles were measured by RNA microarray and the damaged-gene scores were obtained after DNA exome sequencing. Linear regression analyses were performed to build prediction models after using factor and correlation analyses.

Results

Using a prediction model for a LABA, traits found associated with the treatment response were post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second, bronchodilator reversibility (BDR) to salbutamol, expression of three genes (CLN8, PCSK5, and SKP2), and damage scores of four genes (EPG5, FNBP4, SCN10A, and SPTBN5) (R²=0.512, p<0.001). Traits associated with the treatment response to a LAMA were COPD assessment test score, BDR, expression of four genes (C1orf115, KIAA1618, PRKX, and RHOQ) and damage scores of three genes (FBN3, FDFT1, and ZBED6) (R²=0.575, p<0.001). The prediction models consisting only of clinical traits appeared too weak to predict the treatment response, with R²=0.231 for the LABA model and R²=0.121 for the LAMA model.

Conclusion

Adding the expressions of genes and damaged-gene scores to the clinical traits may improve the predictability of treatment response to long-acting bronchodilators.

A Network Meta-Analysis of Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist (LAMA) and Long-Acting β2-Agonist (LABA) Combinations in COPD

INTRODUCTION

Comparative data on the efficacies of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combinations for the treatment of moderate-to-very-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are limited. The aim of this Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) is to assess the relative efficacies of available open combinations (delivered via separate inhalers) and fixed-dose combinations (FDCs, delivered via a single inhaler).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review with the aim of identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ≥8-week duration in adults aged ≥40 years with COPD that compared LAMA + LABA combinations with each other, with tiotropium (TIO), or with placebo. Data on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, the Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score, and rescue medication use at 12 and 24 weeks were extracted from these RCTs and analyzed using a NMA in a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

Data from 44 RCTs were included in the NMA. All FDCs showed improvements relative to placebo in terms of trough FEV1, SGRQ total score, and TDI focal score above clinically relevant thresholds, with the exception of TIO/olodaterol and aclidinium/formoterol, both of which failed to show clinically relevant improvements in SGRQ score at 24 weeks. All FDCs demonstrated reduced rescue medication use versus placebo. Open combinations demonstrated improved efficacy in all outcomes versus placebo, but these improvements did not consistently exceed clinically relevant thresholds for SGRQ and TDI scores. All once-daily FDCs showed improved efficacy versus TIO, but improvements were less consistently observed versus TIO with open dual combinations and combinations containing formoterol or salmeterol administered twice daily. Relative probabilities of improvement between FDCs highlighted potential between-class differences for trough FEV1 but suggested little potential for differences in patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSION

LAMA + LABA combinations generally showed improved outcomes versus placebo and TIO. FDCs appeared to perform better than open dual combinations. A potential effectiveness gradient was observed between FDCs for objectively assessed functional outcomes, although further prospective trials are required to confirm these findings.

FUNDING

GSK.

Comparative Efficacy of Once-Daily Umeclidinium/Vilanterol and Tiotropium/Olodaterol Therapy in Symptomatic Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Study

INTRODUCTION

We report the results of the first direct comparison of the once-daily fixed-dose long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) combinations umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) and tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) in patients with COPD.

METHODS

This was a randomized, two-period crossover open-label study in symptomatic patients with COPD [age 40 years or older, postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of 70% or less and 50% or more of predicted normal values, and modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale score of 2 or greater] not receiving inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Patients were randomized to receive UMEC/VI (62.5/25 µg once daily) via a multidose dry powder inhaler (ELLIPTA) followed by TIO/OLO (5/5 µg once daily) via a soft mist inhaler (Respimat), each for 8 weeks with an interim 3-week washout or vice versa. The primary end point was the change from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 8 with a noninferiority margin of - 50 mL in the per-protocol (PP) population. The incidence of adverse events was also assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 236 patients (mean age 64.4 years, 60% male) were included in the intent-to-treat population and 227 were included in the PP population. UMEC/VI treatment was noninferior in the PP population and superior in the intent-to-treat population to TIO/OLO treatment with regard to trough FEV1 at week 8 [FEV1 change from baseline 180 mL vs 128 mL; difference 52 mL (95% confidence interval 28-77 mL); p < 0.001]. Patients receiving UMEC/VI had twofold increased odds of experiencing a clinically meaningful increase (100 mL or more) from baseline in trough FEV1 at week 8 compared with patients receiving TIO/OLO (odds ratio 2.05; 95% confidence interval 1.34-3.14). Adverse events occurred in 25% of patients in the UMEC/VI group and in 31% of patients in the TIO/OLO group.

CONCLUSION

In this first direct comparison of two once-daily fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations, superiority was observed for the primary end point of trough FEV1 at week 8 with UMEC/VI compared with TIO/OLO in patients with symptomatic COPD. Both treatments had similar safety profiles. These findings confirm the results of previous indirect LAMA/LABA comparisons, and show that an efficacy gradient exists within the LAMA/LABA class.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02799784.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline.

Spanish Guidelines for Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (GesEPOC) 2017. Pharmacological Treatment of Stable Phase

The clinical presentation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) varies widely, so treatment must be tailored according to the level of risk and phenotype. In 2012, the Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) first established pharmacological treatment regimens based on clinical phenotypes. These regimens were subsequently adopted by other national guidelines, and since then, have been backed up by new evidence. In this 2017 update, the original severity classification has been replaced by a much simpler risk classification (low or high risk), on the basis of lung function, dyspnea grade, and history of exacerbations, while determination of clinical phenotype is recommended only in high-risk patients. The same clinical phenotypes have been maintained: non-exacerbator, asthma-COPD overlap (ACO), exacerbator with emphysema, and exacerbator with bronchitis. Pharmacological treatment of COPD is based on bronchodilators, the only treatment recommended in low-risk patients. High-risk patients will receive different drugs in addition to bronchodilators, depending on their clinical phenotype. GesEPOC reflects a more individualized approach to COPD treatment, according to patient clinical characteristics and level of risk or complexity.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) plus long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) versus LABA plus inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Three classes of inhaler medications are used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): long-acting beta-agonists (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). When two classes of medications are required, LAMA plus LABA (LAMA+LABA) and LABA plus ICS (LABA+ICS) are often selected because these combinations can be administered via a single medication device. The previous Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidance recommended LABA+ICS as the first-line treatment for managing stable COPD in high-risk people of categories C and D. However, the updated GOLD 2017 guidance recommends LAMA+LABA over LABA+ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of LAMA+LABA versus LABA+ICS for treatment of people with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an electronic search of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (2 February 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (4 June 2016), and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Search Portal (4 June 2016), followed by a handsearch (5 June 2016). Two review authors screened and scrutinised the selected articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included individual randomised controlled trials, parallel-group trials, and cross-over trials comparing LAMA+LABA and LABA+ICS for stable COPD. The minimum accepted trial duration was one month and trials should have been conducted in an outpatient setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. We resolved any discrepancies through discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (OR), and continuous data as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence interval (CI) using Review Manager 5. Exacerbations were measured by counting the number of people experiencing one or more exacerbation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies comprising 9839 participants in our quantitative analysis. Most studies included people with moderate to severe COPD, without recent exacerbations. One pharmaceutical sponsored trial that included only people with recent exacerbations was the largest study and accounted for 37% of participants. All but one study were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, thus we rated them as having a high risk of 'other bias'. The unsponsored study was at high risk of performance and detection bias, and possible selective reporting.Five studies recruited GOLD Category B participants, one study recruited Category D participants, two studies recruited Category A/B participants, and three studies recruited participants regardless of category. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 52 weeks.Compared to the LABA+ICS arm, the results for the pooled primary outcomes for the LAMA+LABA arm were as follows: exacerbations, OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.96, P = 0.01, I2 = 17%, low quality evidence); serious adverse events (SAE), OR 0.91 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.05, P = 0.18, I2 = 0, moderate quality evidence); St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score change from the baseline, MD -1.22 (95% CI -2.52 to 0.07, P = 0.06, I2 = 71%, low quality evidence); and trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) change from the baseline, MD 0.08 L (95% CI 0.06 to 0.09, P < 0.0001, I2 = 50%, moderate quality evidence). Compared to the LABA+ICS arm, the results for the pooled secondary outcomes for the LAMA+LABA arm were as follows: pneumonia, OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.79, P = 0.0006, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence); all-cause death, OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.67, P = 0.88, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence); and SGRQ total score change from the baseline of 4 points or greater (the minimal clinically important difference for the SGRQ is 4 points), OR 1.25 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.44, P = 0.002, I2 = 0%, moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of COPD, LAMA+LABA has fewer exacerbations, a larger improvement of FEV1, a lower risk of pneumonia, and more frequent improvement in quality of life as measured by an increase over 4 units or more of the SGRQ. These data were supported by low or moderate quality evidence generated from mainly participants with moderate to severe COPD in heterogeneous trials with an observation period of less than one year. Our findings support the recently updated GOLD guidance.

TIOtropium Safety and Performance In Respimat® (TIOSPIRTM ): Analysis of Asian cohort of COPD patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The TIOtropium Safety and Performance In Respimat (TIOSPIR) trial showed similar safety and exacerbation efficacy profiles for tiotropium Respimat and HandiHaler in patients with COPD. The TIOSPIR results for patients in Asia are presented here.

METHODS

TIOSPIR evaluated once-daily tiotropium Respimat 5 and 2.5 µg with HandiHaler 18 µg in patients with COPD. Primary endpoints included time to death and time to first COPD exacerbation. Safety and exacerbation efficacy profiles were determined for the Asian region, and for Asia (all treatment arms pooled) versus the rest of the world (RoW).

RESULTS

In Asia (n = 2356), time to death was similar for Respimat 5 and 2.5 µg versus HandiHaler 18 µg (hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI): 0.96 (0.67, 1.38) and 1.23 (0.87, 1.73)). Risk of COPD exacerbation was similar for Respimat 5 µg, but increased for 2.5 µg versus HandiHaler 18 µg (HR (95% CI): 0.99 (0.85, 1.15) and 1.17 (1.00, 1.35)). Time to death in Asia and RoW was similar (HR (95% CI): 1.15 (0.99, 1.35)). Time to first COPD exacerbation was longer (HR (95% CI): 0.84 (0.78, 0.89)) and exacerbation rates were lower in Asia, but severe exacerbations were more frequent than in the RoW. Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events was similar for both regions.

CONCLUSION

Similar safety and exacerbation efficacy profiles were observed for tiotropium Respimat 5 µg and HandiHaler 18 µg in patients with COPD from Asia, analogous to the global analysis. Asian patients had lower risk of, and fewer exacerbations overall, but a higher proportion of severe exacerbations than in the RoW.

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.

Defining phenotypes in COPD: an aid to personalized healthcare

The diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is based on a post-bronchodilator fixed forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) <70 % ratio and the presence of symptoms such as shortness of breath and productive cough. Despite the simplicity in making a diagnosis of COPD, this morbid condition is very heterogeneous, and at least three different phenotypes can be recognized: the exacerbator, the emphysema-hyperinflation and the overlap COPD-asthma. These subgroups show different clinical and radiological features. It has been speculated that there is an enormous variability in the response to drugs among the COPD phenotypes, and it is expected that subjects with the same phenotype will have a similar response to each specific treatment. We believe that phenotyping COPD patients would be very useful to predict the response to a treatment and the progression of the disease. This personalized approach allows identification of the right treatment for each COPD patient, and at the same time, leads to improvement in the effectiveness of therapies, avoidance of treatments not indicated, and reduction in the onset of adverse effects. The objective of the present review is to report the current knowledge about different COPD phenotypes, focusing on specific treatments for each subgroup. However, at present, COPD phenotypes have not been studied by randomized clinical trials and therefore we hope that well designed studies will focus on this topic.

Newly diagnosed gastroesophageal reflux disease increased the risk of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease during the first year following diagnosis--a nationwide population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

While prior studies have demonstrated that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and that GERD is associated with acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), no study to date has been able to establish temporality in this relationship. The purpose of this cohort study was to explore the impact of a new diagnosis of GERD on the risk of subsequent AECOPD.

METHODS

We used a retrospective population-based cohort design to analyse the data of 1976 COPD subjects with GERD as an exposure cohort and 3936 COPD subjects without GERD as a comparison group. We individually tracked each subject in this study for 12 months and identified those subjects who experienced an episode of AECOPD. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.

RESULTS

The incidence of AECOPD was 4.08 and 2.79 per 100 person-year in individuals with and without GERD, respectively (p = 0.012). Following adjustment for sex, age, ischaemic heart disease, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, osteoporosis, anxiety, diabetes mellitus, angina, stroke, anaemia, dementia, occupational category, monthly insurance premium, number of OPD visits and COPD severity. The stepwise Cox regression analysis revealed that GERD was independently associated with an increased risk of AECOPD (HR = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.10-1.99).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that GERD is an independent risk factor for AECOPD. Caution should be exercised when assessing GERD symptoms in patients with COPD.

Tiotropium HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) in COPD: a pooled safety analysis

INTRODUCTION

Tiotropium is prescribed for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and delivered via HandiHaler(®) (18 μg once daily) or Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ inhaler (5 μg once daily). The recent TIOtropium Safety and Performance In Respimat(®) (TIOSPIR™) study demonstrated that both exhibit similar safety profiles. This analysis provides an updated comprehensive safety evaluation of tiotropium(®) using data from placebo-controlled HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) trials.

METHODS

Pooled analysis of adverse event (AE) data from tiotropium HandiHaler(®) 18 μg and Respimat(®) 5 μg randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, clinical trials in patients with COPD (treatment duration ≥4 weeks). Incidence rates, rate ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined for HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) trials, both together and separately.

RESULTS

In the 28 HandiHaler(®) and 7 Respimat(®) trials included in this analysis, 11,626 patients were treated with placebo and 12,929 with tiotropium, totaling 14,909 (12,469 with HandiHaler(®); 2,440 with Respimat(®)) patient-years of tiotropium exposure. Mean age was 65 years, and mean prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 1.16 L (41% predicted). The risk (RR [95% CI]) of AEs (0.90 [0.87, 0.93]) and of serious AEs (SAEs) (0.94 [0.89, 0.99]) was significantly lower in the tiotropium than in the placebo group (HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) pooled results), and there was a numerically lower risk of fatal AEs (FAEs) (0.90 [0.79, 1.01]). The risk of cardiac AEs (0.93 [0.85, 1.02]) was numerically lower in the tiotropium group. Incidences of typical anticholinergic AEs, but not SAEs, were higher with tiotropium. Analyzed separately by inhaler, the risks of AE and SAE in the tiotropium groups remained lower than in placebo and similarly for FAEs.

CONCLUSION

This analysis indicates that tiotropium is associated with lower rates of AEs, SAEs, and similar rates of FAEs than placebo when delivered via HandiHaler(®) or Respimat(®) (overall and separately) in patients with COPD.

The asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome: pharmacotherapeutic considerations

Asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap syndrome (ACOS) is a commonly encountered yet loosely defined clinical entity. ACOS accounts for approximately 15-25% of the obstructive airway diseases and patients experience worse outcomes compared with asthma or COPD alone. Patients with ACOS have the combined risk factors of smoking and atopy, are generally younger than patients with COPD and experience acute exacerbations with higher frequency and greater severity than lone COPD. Pharmacotherapeutic considerations require an integrated approach, first to identify the relevant clinical phenotype(s), then to determine the best available therapy. The authors discuss the array of existing and emerging classes of drugs that could benefit those with ACOS and share their therapeutic approach. A consensus international definition of ACOS is needed to design prospective, randomized clinical trials to evaluate specific drug interventions on important outcomes such as lung function, acute exacerbations, quality of life and mortality.

[Alveolar epithelial cell injury as an etiopathogenic factor in pulmonary fibrosis]

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is characterized by a progressive accumulation of extracellular matrix and an imbalance between profibrotic and antifibrotic mediators. In the last few years, understanding of the mechanisms of the biology of IPF has increased. One of the most significant discoveries is the finding that alveolar epithelial cell injury plays an important role in the pathogenesis of this disease. In this review, we describe some of the mechanisms involved in alveolar cell injury and their contribution to the development of IPF.

Multidimensional analyses to assess the relations between treatment choices by physicians and patients' characteristics: the example of COPD

Background

In some situations, practice guidelines do not provide firm evidence-based guidance regarding COPD treatment choices, especially when large trials have failed to identify subgroups of particularly good or poor responders to available medications.

Methods

This observational cross-sectional study explored the yield of four types of multidimensional analyses to assess the associations between the clinical characteristics of COPD patients and pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments prescribed by lung specialists in a real-life context.

Results

Altogether, 2494 patients were recruited by 515 respiratory physicians. Multiple correspondence analysis and hierarchical clustering identified 6 clinical subtypes and 6 treatment subgroups. Strong bi-directional associations were found between clinical subtypes and treatment subgroups in multivariate logistic regression. However, although the overall frequency of prescriptions varied from one clinical subtype to the other for all types of pharmacological treatments, clinical subtypes were not associated with specific prescription profiles. When canonical analysis of redundancy was used, the proportion of variation in pharmacological treatments that was explained by clinical characteristics remained modest: 6.23%. This proportion was greater (14.29%) for non-pharmacological components of care.

Conclusion

This study shows that, although pharmacological treatments of COPD are quantitatively very well related to patients’ clinical characteristics, there is no particular patient profile that could be qualitatively associated to prescriptions. This underlines uncertainties perceived by physicians for differentiating the respective effects of available pharmacological treatments. The methodology applied here is useful to identify areas of uncertainty requiring further research and/or guideline clarification.