Dual LABA/LAMA Therapy versus LABA or LAMA Monotherapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Support of the American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Association of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity with reduction of acute exacerbation in COPD patients using a dual ultra-long-acting bronchodilators

Inhaler therapy and physical activity (PA) are important methods of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management. This study aimed to investigate the additional benefit of moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) in patients with COPD using a long-acting beta-agonists (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) combination. We emulated a target trial to estimate the benefit of MVPA in patients with COPD using a dual ultra-long-acting bronchodilators. We enrolled patients aged ≥ 40 who were diagnosed with COPD between 2014 and 2018, initiated a LABA/LAMA combination, and had not undergone regular MVPA. The main exposure was the initiation of MVPA, defined as vigorous aerobic exercise > 20 min per day on ≥ 3 days/week or moderate aerobic exercise > 30 min per day on ≥ 5 days/week. The main outcomes were the future usage of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and severe exacerbation. We identified 1,526 patients who initiated MVPA and 4,516 who did not. The median follow-up period was 3.0 years. The hazard ratio (HR) for future ICS usage in the MVPA initiation group was 0.83 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.72, 0.97) compared to the control group. The HR for severe exacerbation in the MVPA initiation group was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.96) compared to the control group. Subgroup analyses by age, sex, body mass index, residence area, smoking and drinking status showed consistent benefits in these outcomes. Initiation of MVPA may offer an additional benefit for even COPD patients who use a dual ultra-long-acting bronchodilators.

Benefit of dual bronchodilator therapy on exacerbations in former and current smokers with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in real-world clinical practice: a multicenter validation study (TOReTO)

BACKGROUND

Dual bronchodilator therapy, consisting of a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), has proven effective for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it remains uncertain whether there are efficacy differences between current and former smokers with COPD. This study aims to explore the effectiveness of LABA/LAMA therapies in both these groups.

METHODS

The TOReTO trial assessed lung function, symptoms, health status, the occurrence of exacerbations, clinically significant exacerbations, and the use of LABA/LAMA therapies. These therapies include Tio/Olo, umeclidinium/vilanterol (Umec/Vi), and umeclidinium/vilanterol (Umec/Vi) are used in patients with COPD. The study examined the differences in outcomes between current and former smokers. To balance the baseline characteristics, propensity score matching (PSM) was employed.

RESULTS

Data from 967 patients were collected. After PSM, the time to the first acute exacerbation in current smokers was analyzed separately for the three treatment groups and was significantly different between them (p = 0.0457). Among, there are differences in the occurrence of acute exacerbation between treatment and smoking status in Umec/Vi (p = 0.0114). There is no significant difference in the treatment of former smokers among the three different groups of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations (p = 0.3079). COPD-related symptoms remained stable throughout the treatment period. There were no significant differences in symptom scores, including CAT and mMRC, among the three groups at the end of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The three fixed-dose combinations of LABA/LAMA showed no difference in reducing exacerbations in former smokers but did show differences in current smokers. This trend has clinical significance, and future research will be conducted to control influencing variables to validate this point. However, due to the non-randomized study design, these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Comparing Costs and Healthcare Resource Utilization (HCRU) Using LAMA versus LABA/ICS at Treatment Initiation for COPD: Findings from CITRUS (Comparing the Incidence of Tiotropium and ICS/LABA in Real-World Use in South Korea) Study

Background

COPD causes substantial economic burden on healthcare. Alternative treatment strategies for COPD can be associated with different costs dependent upon their relative safety and effectiveness. We compared costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) associated with LAMA or LABA/ICS initiation.

Methods

Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, we enrolled COPD patients initiating treatment with LAMA or LABA/ICS between January 2005 and April 2015. Propensity score matched individuals were compared on all-cause and COPD-related medical costs and HCRU over a three-year follow-up period.

Results

A total of 2444 patients were enrolled in each treatment group. LAMA group was associated with significantly lower costs than LABA/ICS group, both in all-cause (403.08 vs 474.50 USD per patient per month [PPPM], cost ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.10-1.26, p<0.0001) and COPD-related (216.37 vs 267.32 USD PPPM, cost ratio 1.24, 95% CI=1.13-1.35, p<0.0001) medical costs. All-cause HCRU was not significantly different between groups, while COPD-related HRCU was higher in LAMA group (0.66 vs 0.60 medical visits PPPM, p<0.0001).

Conclusion

COPD patients initiating treatment with LAMA were associated with lower all-cause and COPD-related medical costs than those starting with LABA/ICS despite the similar all-cause HCRU and higher COPD-related HCRU. Initiation with LAMA is a cost-efficient option for the treatment of COPD.

Systemic Manifestations of COPD and the Impact of Dual Bronchodilation with Tiotropium/Olodaterol on Cardiac Function and Autonomic Integrity

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has significant systemic manifestations, including cardiovascular morbidity. The main aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of short-term COPD treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 μg on cardiac function and autonomic integrity. Methods: Twenty-nine patients with newly diagnosed moderate-to-severe COPD were enrolled. We performed pulmonary function tests, cardiac magnetic resonance, cardiac 123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (123I-MIBG) imaging and analysis of blood biomarkers on our study subjects. The correlations between the tests' results were evaluated at baseline. The changes in pulmonary and cardiac parameters from baseline through 12 weeks were assessed. Results: Significant associations between pulmonary function tests' results and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), as well as interleukin-22 (IL-22), were observed at baseline. Treatment with TIO/OLO significantly improved lung function as measured by spirometry and body plethysmography. Moreover, we found that the cardiac index increased from 2.89 (interquartile range (IQR) 1.09) to 3.21 L/min/m2 (IQR 0.78) (p = 0.013; N = 18) and the late heart-to-mediastinum ratio improved from 1.88 (IQR 0.37) to 2 (IQR 0.41) (p = 0.026; N = 16) after 12 weeks of treatment. Conclusions: Treatment with TIO/OLO improves lung function and positively impacts cardiac function and autonomic integrity, suggesting that dual bronchodilation might have a potential in decreasing the risk for cardiac events in COPD. Hs-CRP and IL-22 might be beneficial in determining the intensity of systemic inflammation in COPD. Further research with a larger cohort is needed to enhance the initial results of this study.

When is LABA/LAMA Better than LAMA in GOLD Group B or D Patients for Reducing Acute Exacerbations of COPD?

Long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic-antagonist (LAMA) dual therapy has been found to be more effective than LAMA monotherapy in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, among patients with group B or D COPD, the characteristics of patients for whom LABA/LAMA dual therapy is superior to LAMA monotherapy in minimizing acute exacerbations remain unknown. With data from a prospective COPD cohort, subgroup analyses were conducted to determine whether LABA/LAMA dual therapy was superior to LAMA monotherapy in reducing the rate of acute exacerbations in group B and D COPD patients. Group B and D COPD patients taking LAMA or LABA/LAMA were enrolled according to the 2022 Global initiative for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease guidelines. A total of 737 patients were included in this study: 600 with group B COPD and 137 with group D COPD. Compared with patients taking LAMA monotherapy, those taking LABA/LAMA had a significantly lower incidence of acute exacerbations over 1 year. In the subgroup of patients ≥70 years old, there was a significantly lower risk of severe COPD exacerbations among group B patients taking LABA/LAMA than among those taking LAMA monotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 0.258; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.095-0.703). In contrast, in the subgroup of group D patients with COPD Assessment Test scores ≥25, compared with LAMA monotherapy, LABA/LAMA treatment was associated with lower risk of severe COPD exacerbations (OR, 0.115; 95% CI, 0.018-0.749). The combination of LABA and LAMA was found to be superior to LAMA monotherapy, especially for treating older adults with group B COPD, as well as for group D patients with severe symptoms.

Pathophysiology, Therapeutic Targets, and Future Therapeutic Alternatives in COPD: Focus on the Importance of the Cholinergic System

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive disease characterized by airway limitation and changes in airway structure. It has a high global burden of mortality and morbidity. The etiology of COPD is complex, but exposure to tobacco smoke and other inhaled lung oxidants are major risk factors. Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches are used to manage COPD, but there remains an urgent unmet need for drugs that can modify the course of the disease. This review focuses on the role of acetylcholine and other components of the pulmonary cholinergic system in the pathogenesis of COPD, and the inhaled pharmacological agents that target it. In addition to its role as a neurotransmitter, acetylcholine regulates diverse aspects of COPD pathogenesis including bronchoconstriction, airway remodeling, mucus secretion and inflammation. Inhaled antimuscarinic drugs are a key component of therapy for COPD, as monotherapy or in combination with inhaled β2 agonists or corticosteroids. We review the evidence supporting the use of current anticholinergic agents in COPD and preview novel drugs targeting the cholinergic system and agents from other classes in clinical development, such as phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies targeting inflammatory mediators.

Practical Recommendations for a Selection of Inhaled Corticosteroids in COPD: A Composite ICO Chart

The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for the maintenance of bronchodilator treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is controversial. While some patients achieve clinical benefits, such as fewer exacerbations and improved symptoms, others do not, and some experience undesired side effects, such as pneumonia. Thus, we reviewed the evidence related to predictors of ICS therapy treatment response in patients with COPD. The first priority clinical markers when considering the efficacy of ICS are type 2 inflammatory biomarkers, followed by a history of suspected asthma and recurrent exacerbations. It is also necessary to consider any potential infection risk associated with ICS, and several risk factors for pneumonia when using ICS have been clarified in recent years. In this article, based on the evidence supporting the selection of ICS for COPD, we propose an ICS composite that can be added to the COPD (ICO) chart for use in clinical practice. The chart divided the type 2 biomarkers into three ranges and provided recommendations (recommend, consider, and against) by combining the history of suspected asthma, history of exacerbations, and risk of infection.

Delivery technology of inhaled therapy for asthma and COPD

Inhaled therapy is the cornerstone of the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Drugs such as bronchodilators and corticosteroids are administered directly to the airways for local effect and rapid onset of action while systemic exposure and side effects are minimized. There are four major types of inhaler devices used clinically to generate aerosols for inhalation, namely, pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), nebulizers, Soft Mist™ inhalers (SMIs) and dry powder inhalers (DPIs). Each of them has its own unique characteristics that can target different patient groups. For instance, patients' inhaler technique is critical for pMDIs and SMIs to achieve proper drug deposition in the lung, which could be challenging for some patients. Nebulizers are designed to deliver aerosols to patients during tidal breathing, but they require electricity to operate and are less portable than other devices. DPIs are the only device that delivers aerosols in dry powder form with better stability, but they rely on patients' inspiration effort for powder dispersion, rendering them unsuitable for patients with compromised lung function. Choosing a device that can cater for the need of individual patient is paramount for effective inhaled therapy. This chapter provides an overview of inhaled therapy for the management of asthma and COPD. The operation principles, merits and limitations of different delivery technologies are examined. Looking ahead, the challenges of delivering novel therapeutics such as biologics through the pulmonary route are also discussed.

A scoping review of theories used to investigate clinician adherence to clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Routine utilization of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is an effective strategy to optimize patient care and reduce practice variation. Healthcare professionals' failure to adhere to CPGs introduces risks to both patients and the sustainability of healthcare systems. The integration of theory to investigate adherence provides greater insight into the often complex reasons for suboptimal behaviors.

AIM

To determine the coverage of literature surrounding the use of theory in studies of CPG adherence, report the key findings and identify the knowledge gaps.

METHOD

In April 2021, three bibliographic databases were searched for studies published since January 2010, adopting theory to investigate health professionals' adherence to CPGs. Two reviewers independently screened the articles for eligibility and charted the data. A narrative approach to synthesis was employed.

RESULTS

The review includes 12 articles. Studies were limited to primarily investigations of physicians, quantitative designs, single disease states and few countries. The use of behavioral theories facilitated pooling of data of barriers and facilitators of adherence. The domains and constructs of a number of the reported theories are captured within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF); the most common barriers aligned with the TDF domain of environmental context and resources, fewer studies reported facilitators.

CONCLUSION

There is emerging use of behavioral theories investigating physicians' adherence to CPGs. Although limited in number, these studies present specific insight into common barriers and facilitators, thus providing valuable evidence for refining existing and future implementation strategies. Similar investigations of other health professionals are warranted.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Among Different Fixed-Dose Combinations of Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists and Long-Acting β2-Agonists in Patients With COPD

BACKGROUND

Researchers have yet to obtain conclusive evidence differentiating among fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for COPD in terms of real-world clinical outcomes.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the differences between available LAMA/LABA FDCs on the risk of acute exacerbation (AE) and cardiovascular events?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study based on a national insurance claims database included patients with COPD ≥ 40 years of age who were newly prescribed glycopyrronium (GLY)/indacaterol (IND), umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI), or tiotropium (TIO)/olodaterol (OLO) FDC between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. Propensity score matching and Cox regression models were used to compare outcomes of AE and cardiovascular events associated with LAMA/LABA FDC treatment.

RESULTS

Among the 44,498 patients identified and included, 15,586 received GLY/IND, 20,460 received UMEC/VI, and 8,452 received TIO/OLO. Baseline characteristics were well balanced after 1:1 matching of UMEC/VI and GLY/IND, 2:1 matching of UMEC/VI and TIO/OLO, and 2:1 matching of GLY/IND and TIO/OLO. Risk of severe AE was lower among patients treated with UMEC/VI or GLY/IND than among those who received TIO/OLO (UMEC/VI vs TIO/OLO: 17.85 vs 29.32 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.84; GLY/IND vs TIO/OLO: 15.54 vs 25.53 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88). In addition, GLY/IND users tended to have a lower risk of cardiovascular events than TIO/OLO users, but the difference dissipated when restricting follow up to a shorter duration.

INTERPRETATION

Our results revealed that the risk of severe AE was lower among patients with COPD receiving UMEC/VI or GLY/IND than among those receiving TIO/OLO, whereas the incidence of cardiovascular events was similar across groups but was slightly lower in GLY/IND users when compared with TIO/OLO users. Further research will be required to confirm these findings.

LABA/LAMA as First-Line Therapy for COPD: A Summary of the Evidence and Guideline Recommendations

Inhaled bronchodilators (alone or in combination) are the cornerstone of treatment for symptomatic patients with COPD, either as initial/first-line treatment or for second-line/treatment escalation in patients who experience persistent symptoms or exacerbations on monotherapy. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2022 report recommends initial pharmacological treatment with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) as monotherapy for most patients, or dual bronchodilator therapy (LABA/LAMA) in patients with more severe symptoms, regardless of exacerbation history. The recommendations for LABA/LAMA are broader in the American Thoracic Society treatment guidelines, which strongly recommend LABA/LAMA combination therapy over LAMA or LABA monotherapy in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance. However, despite consistent guideline recommendations, real-world prescribing data indicate that LAMA and/or LABA without an inhaled corticosteroid are not the most widely prescribed therapies in COPD. This article reviews global and regional/national guideline recommendations for the use of LABA/LAMA in COPD, examines the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of LABA/LAMA versus other therapies and offers a practical guide for clinicians to help ensure appropriate use of LABA/LAMA therapy.

Comparative efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium/formoterol fixed-dose combination versus glycopyrronium monotherapy in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD

Background

The safety and efficacy of fixed-dose combination (FDC) of glycopyrronium bromide 12.5 μg/formoterol fumarate 12 μg (GB/FF) twice daily as dry powder inhalers (DPIs) compared to glycopyrronium 50 μg monotherapy (GLY) once daily as DPI in subjects with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were evaluated.

Methods

This was a phase-3, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, superiority study conducted in India. COPD patients aged ≥40 to ≤65 years, current or ex-smokers with FEV1/FVC <0.70, using ICS, LAMA, or LABA for ≥1 month were included. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to GB/FF or GLY for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in peak FEV1 at the end of 12 weeks. The study is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2017/02/007814).

Results

Between March 2017 and July 2018, 331 patients were enrolled and randomized into GB/FF FDC (165 patients) and GLY monotherapy (166 patients) groups. At week 12, the difference in change from baseline in the peak FEV1 for GB/FF DPI versus GLY was 0.115 L (SE = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.061, 0.170; P < 0.0001). Trough FEV1 increased significantly in the GB/FF group compared to the GLY group with a treatment difference of 0.078 L (SE = 0.02; 95% CI = 0.015, 0.14; P = 0.01). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the groups.

Conclusion

FDC of GB/FF (12.5/12 μg twice daily) as a DPI provides superior bronchodilation and lung function improvement over GLY (50 μg once daily) monotherapy. It is safe and well tolerated in symptomatic COPD patients.

Impact of smoking status and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on pulmonary complications post lung cancer surgery

Introduction

Smoking and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are associated with an increased risk of post-operative pulmonary complications (PPCs) following lung cancer resection. It remains unclear whether smoking cessation reduces this risk.

Methods

Retrospective review of a large, prospectively collected database of over 1000 consecutive resections for lung cancer in a quaternary lung cancer centre over a 23-year period.

Results

One thousand and thirteen patients underwent curative-intent lobectomy or pneumonectomy between 1995 and 2018. Three hundred and sixty-two patients (36%) were ex-smokers, 314 (31%) were current smokers and 111 (11%) were never smokers. A pre-operative diagnosis of COPD was present in 57% of current smokers, 57% of ex-smokers and 20% of never smokers. Just over 25% of patients experienced a PPC. PPCs were more frequent in current smokers compared to never smokers (27% vs 17%, p = 0.036), however, no difference was seen between current and ex-smokers (p = 0.412) or between never and ex-smokers (p = 0.113). Those with a diagnosis of COPD, independent of smoking status, had a higher frequency of both PPCs (65% vs 35%, p<0.01) and overall complications (60% vs 40%, p<0.01) as well as a longer length of hospital stay (10 vs 9 days, p<0.01).

Conclusion

Smoking and COPD are both associated with a higher rate of PPCs post lung cancer resection. COPD, independent of smoking status, is also associated with an increased overall post-operative complication rate and length of hospital stay. An emphasis on COPD treatment optimisation, rather than smoking cessation in isolation, may help improve post-operative outcomes.

Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Tiotropium/Olodaterol, Umeclidinium/Vilanterol, and Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium Fixed-Dose Combination Therapy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Taiwan: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Background

Long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) combination therapy improved lung function and health-related quality-of-life and reduced exacerbation rates and dyspnea in symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. We compared the real-world effects of three fixed-dose LABA/LAMA combinations for COPD in Taiwan.

Methods

This multicenter, retrospective study evaluated 1-year outcomes after LABA/LAMA combination therapy in patients with symptomatic COPD. Exacerbations and symptoms of COPD, lung functions, and therapy escalation were compared among patients using tiotropium/olodaterol, umeclidinium/vilanterol and indacaterol/glycopyrronium. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance the baseline characteristics.

Results

Data of 1,617 patients were collected. After PSM, time to first moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation was comparable among three groups, while the annualized rates of the exacerbation (episodes/patient/year) in patients receiving tiotropium/olodaterol (0.19) or umeclidinium/vilanterol (0.17) were significantly lower than those receiving indacaterol/glycopyrronium (0.38). COPD-related symptoms were stable over the treatment period, and there was no significant difference in the changes of symptom scores including CAT and mMRC among three groups at the end of the study period.

Conclusion

This study presented valuable real-world outcome in terms of exacerbation and treatment response of COPD patients treated with fixed-dose LABA/LAMA regimens in Taiwan. The annualized rates of moderate-to-severe exacerbation in patients receiving tiotropium/olodaterol or umeclidinium/vilanterol were significantly lower than those receiving indacaterol/glycopyrronium, though the time to first moderate-to-severe exacerbation was similar among different fixed-dose LABA/LAMA combinations.

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.

Comparison of efficacy and side effects of fixed-dose combination of Aclidinium/Formoterol and Monotherapy of Aclidinium or Formoterol in COPD: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Fixed-dose combination (FDC) of Aclidinium (ACL) and Formoterol (FOR) is a maintenance therapy for patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although the effect of combination of long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) is less compared with the statistical sum of the effects of LABA and LAMA alone, the effect of combination of LABA and LAMA is significantly higher than that of either of the two. Thus, the resulting therapeutic effect in pulmonary function, improvement of dyspnea, quality of life, and incidence of adverse events was analyzed to explore the efficacy of FDC and monotherapy of either ACL or FOR in stable COPD patients.

METHODS

Methods Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), aclidinium or LAMA, formoterol or LABA, randomized controlled trials, or RCT were used as keywords in the search for studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Reference List, and Clinicaltrails.gov databases. Studies that evaluated efficacy and side effects of Fixed-dose combination of Aclidinium/Formoterol and Monotherapy of Aclidinium or Formoterol in COPD published between the establishment period of the database and June 2020 were retrieved. Two independent reviewers extracted the data; Revman 5.3 software was used for data analysis with dose efficacy and side effects were presented as mean difference at 95% confidence interval. Notably, ACL 400 mg / FOR 12ug and ACL 400 mg / 6ug were used as subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies with 7,081 patients were enrolled for analysis. The trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) mean difference (MD) for FDC was 0.01 (95% CI, - 0.01 to 0.03); St George's respiratory COPD specific questionnaire (SGRQ) MD for FDC was - 0.76 (95% CI, - 1.81 to 0.29); transitional dyspnea index (TDI) MD for FDC was 0.33 (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.60) compared to that of ACL. Furthermore, trough FEV1 MD for FDC was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.06); SGRQ MD for FDC was - 1.52 (95% CI, - 2.57 to-0.47); TDI MD for FDC was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.70) compared to that of the FOR. The evidence for each result was accurate and the results were unaffected by the duration of the study.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study showed that, unlike monotherapies, FDC significantly improves lung function, dyspnea, and quality of life. In addition, FDC significantly improves dyspnea compared to ACL alone.

Effectiveness of Nationwide COPD Pay-for-Performance Program on COPD Exacerbations in Taiwan

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. It has also imposed a substantial economic and social burden on the health care system. In Taiwan, a nationwide COPD pay-for-performance (P4P) program was designed to improve the quality of COPD-related care by introducing financial incentives for health care providers and employing a multidisciplinary team to deliver guideline-based, integrated care for patients with COPD, reducing adverse outcomes, especially COPD exacerbation. However, the results of a survey of the effectiveness of the pay-for-performance program in COPD management were inconclusive. To address this knowledge gap, this study evaluated the effectiveness of the COPD P4P program in Taiwan.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study used data from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance claims database and nationwide COPD P4P enrollment program records from June 2016 to December 2018. Patients with COPD were classified into P4P and non-P4P groups. Patients in the P4P group were matched at a ratio of 1:1 based on age, gender, region, accreditation level, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and inhaled medication prescription type to create the non-P4P group. A difference-in-difference analysis was used to evaluate the influence of the P4P program on the likelihood of COPD exacerbation, namely COPD-related emergency department (ED) visit, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or hospitalization.

Results

The final sample of 14,288 patients comprised 7144 in each of the P4P and non-P4P groups. The prevalence of COPD-related ED visits, ICU admissions, and hospitalizations was higher in the P4P group than in the non-P4P group 1 year before enrollment. After enrollment, the P4P group exhibited a greater decrease in the prevalence of COPD-related ED visits and hospitalizations than the non-P4P group (ED visit: −2.98%, p<0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.277 to −0.086; hospitalization: −1.62%, p<0.05, 95% CI: −0.232 to −0.020), whereas no significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of the changes in the prevalence of COPD-related ICU admissions.

Conclusion

The COPD P4P program exerted a positive net effect on reducing the likelihood of COPD exacerbation, namely COPD-related ED visits and hospitalizations. Future studies should examine the long-term cost-effectiveness of the COPD P4P program.

Efficacy and Safety of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Current and Former Smokers with COPD: A Prespecified Analysis of The EMAX Trial

Introduction

Smoking may reduce the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but its impact on bronchodilator efficacy is unclear. This analysis of the EMAX trial explored efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in current or former smokers with COPD.

Methods

The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms, health status, exacerbations, clinically important deterioration, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving ICS. Current and former smoker subgroups were defined by smoking status at screening.

Results

The analysis included 1203 (50%) current smokers and 1221 (50%) former smokers. Both subgroups demonstrated greater improvements from baseline in trough FEV₁ at week 24 (primary endpoint) with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (least squares [LS] mean difference, mL [95% CI]; current: 84 [50, 117]; former: 49 [18, 80]) and salmeterol (current: 165 [132, 198]; former: 117 [86, 148]) and larger reductions in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (LS mean difference [95% CI]; current: − 0.42 [− 0.63, − 0.20]; former: − 0.25 − 0.44, − 0.05]) and salmeterol (current: − 0.28 [− 0.49, − 0.06]; former: − 0.29 [− 0.49, − 0.09]). Umeclidinium/vilanterol increased the odds (odds ratio [95% CI]) of clinically significant improvement at week 24 in Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.16, 2.06]; former: 1.32 [0.99, 1.75]) and salmeterol (current: 1.37 (1.03, 1.82]; former: 1.60 [1.20, 2.13]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms–COPD versus umeclidinium (current: 1.54 [1.13, 2.09]; former: 1.50 [1.11, 2.04]) and salmeterol (current: 1.53 [1.13, 2.08]; former: 1.53 [1.12, 2.08]). All treatments were well tolerated in both subgroups.

Conclusions

In current and former smokers, umeclidinium/vilanterol provided greater improvements in lung function and symptoms versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, supporting consideration of dual-bronchodilator therapy in symptomatic patients with COPD regardless of their smoking status.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01855-y.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often require daily medication to control their COPD. Many patients with COPD are smokers, and smoking is one of the most common causes of COPD. This means that it is important to find out whether COPD medications are effective in both smokers and nonsmokers. We analyzed data from a clinical trial (EMAX) that investigated the use of a combination of two bronchodilators, which are inhaled medications that help to open the airways. We compared umeclidinium/vilanterol, a dual-bronchodilator combination, with a single bronchodilator (either umeclidinium or salmeterol) over 6 months. We found that both current and former smokers who were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol had larger improvements in lung function than those receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. Current or former smokers who were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol used their reliever inhaler less than those treated with umeclidinium or salmeterol. Patients treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol were generally less likely to experience disease worsening compared with umeclidinium or salmeterol if they were former smokers, or compared with salmeterol if they were current smokers. Our findings suggest that umeclidinium/vilanterol may be more effective than a single bronchodilator for daily treatment of patients with COPD who are current or former smokers. Physicians should consider prescribing a combination of two bronchodilators to patients who have symptoms, whether or not they currently smoke, as well as encouraging smoking cessation for all patients.

Dual Bronchodilator Therapy as First-Line Treatment in Maintenance-Naïve Patients with Symptomatic COPD: A Pre-Specified Analysis of the EMAX Trial

Introduction

Limited prospective evidence is available to guide selection of first-line maintenance therapy in patients with COPD. This pre-specified analysis of the EMAX trial explored the efficacy and safety of dual- versus mono-bronchodilator therapy in maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated patients.

Methods

The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated lung function, symptoms (including rescue medication use), exacerbations, and safety with umeclidinium/vilanterol, umeclidinium, and salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Maintenance-naïve and maintenance-treated subgroups were defined by maintenance bronchodilator use 30 days before screening.

Results

The analysis included 749 (31%) maintenance-naïve and 1676 (69%) maintenance-treated patients. For both subgroups, improvements from baseline in trough FEV1 at Week 24 (primary endpoint) were greater with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium (mean difference [95% CI]; maintenance-naïve: 44 mL [1, 87]; maintenance-treated: 77 mL [50, 104]), and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: 128 mL [85, 171]; maintenance-treated: 145 mL [118, 172]), and in rescue medication inhalations/day over 24 weeks versus umeclidinium (maintenance-naïve: -0.44 [-0.73, -0.16]; maintenance-treated: -0.28 [-0.45, -0.12]) and salmeterol (maintenance-naïve: -0.37 [-0.66, -0.09]; maintenance-treated: -0.25 [-0.41, -0.08]). In maintenance-naïve patients, umeclidinium/vilanterol numerically improved scores at Week 24 for Transition Dyspnea Index versus umeclidinium (0.37 [-0.21, 0.96]) and versus salmeterol (0.47 [-0.10, 1.05]) and Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms-COPD versus umeclidinium (-0.26 [-1.04, 0.53]) and versus salmeterol (-0.58 [-1.36, 0.20]), with similar improvements seen in maintenance-treated patients. All treatments were well tolerated across both subgroups.

Conclusion

Similar to maintenance-treated patients, maintenance-naïve patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol showed greater improvements in lung function and symptoms compared with patients receiving umeclidinium or salmeterol. These findings provide support for the consideration of dual bronchodilator treatment in symptomatic maintenance-naïve patients with COPD.

Impact of health technology assessment on prescribing patterns of inhaled fixed-dose combination triple therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background: Evidence suggests that triple therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is being used in a broader range of patients than recommended by guidelines, which may have health and cost implications. Objective: To explore the relationship between national health technology assessment (HTA) agency appraisals and market penetration of two fixed-dose combination (FDC) triple therapies. Study design: HTAs from Q3 2017 to Q1 2020 from 10 countries were evaluated. Intervention: Glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate/beclomethasone (Trimbow®) and umeclidinium/vilanterol/fluticasone furoate (Trelegy™ Ellipta®). Main outcome measure: HTA restrictions and prescribing rates (days of therapy). Results: Seven countries (70%) imposed restrictions on use including prescription only for patients stable on free-combination triple therapy or not controlled on dual therapy, requirement of a specialist prescription or therapeutic plan, prescription only for patients with severe COPD, and use as second-line therapy or later. In general, countries that have imposed restrictions on the use of FDC triple therapies have seen a lower than average uptake. Conclusion: Payer guidance on prescribing FDC triple therapy may potentially support more appropriate prescribing in line with clinical guidelines. It is important for payers to consider which restrictions would ensure the most efficient use of scarce resources.