Triple Therapy versus Dual or Monotherapy with Long-Acting Bronchodilators for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Comparative effectiveness and safety of triple therapy and non-triple therapy interventions for COPD: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Some systematic reviews (SRs) on triple therapy (consisting of long-acting β2-agonist, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and inhaled corticosteroid, LABA/LAMA/ICS) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have reported conflicting results. As the number of syntheses increases, the task of identifying and interpreting evidence becomes increasingly complex and demanding.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy and safety of triple therapy for COPD.

DESIGN

Overview of SRs.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers conducted comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant SRs that compared triple therapy with any non-triple therapy for COPD, from the inception of these databases until 1 June 2023. The AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools were utilized to assess the quality of the included studies and the evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

Eighteen SRs encompassing 30 original studies and involving 47,340 participants were analyzed. The overall AMSTAR 2 rating revealed that 3 SRs were of low quality, 13 SRs were of critically low quality, and 2 SRs were of high quality. No high-certainty evidence revealed a significant advantage of triple therapy in improving lung function or reducing acute exacerbations. However, all evidence, including one high certainty, supported the benefits of improving quality of life. Regarding all-cause mortality, no significant difference was found when compared to LAMA or ICS/LABA; however, high-certainty evidence confirmed its effectiveness when compared with LABA/LAMA. Notably, high-certainty evidence indicated that triple therapy was associated with a significant increase in the risk of pneumonia compared to LABA/LAMA.

CONCLUSION

Triple therapy demonstrated notable benefits in improving lung function, reducing exacerbations, improving quality of life, and reducing all-cause mortality. However, it is important to note that it may also significantly increase the risk of pneumonia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This overview protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42023431548).

Reducing the Risk of Mortality in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease With Pharmacotherapy: A Narrative Review

In 2020, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was the fifth leading cause of death in the United States excluding COVID-19, and its mortality burden has been rising since the 1980s. Smoking cessation, long-term oxygen therapy, noninvasive ventilation, and lung volume reduction surgery have had a beneficial effect on mortality; however, until recently, the effects of pharmacologic therapies on all-cause mortality have been unclear. Inhaled pharmacologic treatments for patients with COPD include combinations of long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMAs), long-acting-β_2-agonists (LABAs), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). The recent IMPACT and ETHOS clinical trials reported mortality benefits with ICS/LAMA/LABA triple therapy compared with LAMA/LABA dual therapy. In IMPACT, fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol therapy significantly reduced the risk of on-/off-treatment all-cause mortality vs umeclidinium/vilanterol (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.99; P=.042). The ETHOS trial found a reduction in the risk of on-/off-treatment all-cause mortality in patients treated with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol vs glycopyrrolate/formoterol (hazard ratio, 0.51 [0.33 to 0.80]; nominal P=.0035). Both trials included populations of patients with symptomatic COPD at high risk of future exacerbations, and a post hoc analysis of the final retrieved vital status data suggested that the observed mortality benefits are conferred by the ICS component. In conclusion, triple therapy reduces the risk of mortality in patients with symptomatic COPD characterized by moderate or severe airflow obstruction and a recent history of moderate or severe exacerbations. This benefit is likely to be driven by reductions in exacerbations. Future research efforts should focus on improving the long-term prognosis of patients living with COPD.

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.

The Impact of 52-Week Single Inhaler Device Triple Therapy versus Dual Therapy on the Mortality of COPD Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

There are more single inhaler device triple therapy available for COPD patients now. However, the effect of long-term triple therapy fixed dose combination (FDC) on mortality remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of one-year single inhaler device triple therapy, including long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs), long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMAs), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), with dual therapies, comprised of either LABA/LAMA or ICS/LABA, on the mortality of patients with COPD. We searched the PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Embase databases, and clinical trial registry of clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared single inhaler device triple and dual therapies for 52 weeks were selected for the meta-analysis. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. A total of 6 RCTs were selected for the meta-analysis, including 10,274 patients who received single inhaler device triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC) and 12,395 patients who received ICS/LABA or LABA/LAMA dual therapy. Risk of death was significantly lower in the ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC group compared to the LABA/LAMA group (RR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.53–0.90, p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in mortality between the ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC and ICS/LABA therapy groups (RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.72–1.24, p = 0.66). In addition, patients receiving ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC therapy had less moderate or severe exacerbations compared with the dual therapy groups (RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.73–0.80, p < 0.001 for LABA/LAMA; RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.78–0.90, p < 0.001 for ICS/LABA). By contrast, the risk of pneumonia in the ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC group was higher than in the LABA/LAMA group (RR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.21–1.68, p < 0.001). In conclusion, ICS/LABA/LAMA FDC therapy could help improve the clinical outcomes of patients with COPD. However, triple therapy could increase the risk of pneumonia in comparison with LABA/LAMA dual therapy.

Beyond Dual Bronchodilation – Triple Therapy, When and Why

Although pharmacological treatment of COPD is codified in different guidelines and strategy documents, there is abundant evidence of discrepancy between what they suggest and what health professionals prescribe, especially in low-risk groups where there is widespread overprescription of triple therapy. It is therefore necessary to clarify when the use of triple therapy is indicated in COPD patients and when it is preferable to maintain treatment with dual bronchodilation. In this article, we discuss our views based on our experience and what is reported in the literature and try to give answers to these two questions. The evidence generated by pivotal RCTs supports the use of triple therapy in patients who present for the first time and have severe airway obstruction, are symptomatic, have had frequent moderate or severe exacerbations in the previous year, and have peripheral eosinophilia. However, it is difficult to determine whether step-up is useful in all other cases because the available data are quite conflicting. It is likely that the inconsistency in the information generated by the various available studies may explain the prescribing behaviour of many physicians who do not adhere to recommendations of guidelines and strategies. However, it is necessary to establish whether and when the addition of an ICS to the LAMA/LABA combination is effective, to determine whether triple therapy can induce an additional clinical benefit over dual bronchodilation, irrespective of a preventive effect on COPD exacerbations, to establish its value, and to examine whether cost differences can support the use of triple therapy over combined LAMA/LABA therapy in real life.

Single-inhaler triple vs single-inhaler dual therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized control trials

BACKGROUND

In some RCTs comparing triple therapy with dual therapy in COPD, there might be a bias resulting from the use of multiple inhaler devices. This meta-analysis included only RCTs that compared ICS/LABA/LAMA vs. LABA/LAMA or ICS/LABA using a single device.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with COPD. We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases to investigate the effect of single-inhaler triple therapy in COPD. The primary end points were the effect of single-inhaler triple therapy compared with single-inhaler dual therapy on all-cause mortality, the risk of acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD), and some safety endpoints. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the quality of each randomized trial and the risk of bias.

RESULTS

A total of 25,171 patients suffering from COPD were recruited for the 6 studies. This meta-analysis indicated that single-inhaler triple therapy resulted in a significantly lower rate of all-cause mortality than LABA/LAMA FDC (risk ratio, 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.88). Single-inhaler triple therapy reduced the risk of exacerbation and prolonged the time to first exacerbation compared with single-inhaler dual therapy. The FEV1 increased significantly more under single-inhaler triple therapy than under ICS/LABA FDC (mean difference, 103.4 ml; 95% CI 64.65-142.15). The risk of pneumonia was, however, significantly higher with ICS/LAMA/LABA FDC than with LABA/LAMA FDC (risk ratio, 1.55; 95% CI 1.35-1.80).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that single-inhaler triple therapy is effective in reducing the risk of death of any cause and of moderate or severe exacerbation in COPD patients. However, the risk of pneumonia is higher with ICS/LAMA/LABA FDC than with LABA/LAMA FDC. Trial registration PROSPERO #CRD42020186726.

Triple versus LAMA/LABA combination therapy for patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Recently, the addition of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) combination therapy has been recommended for patients with COPD who have severe symptoms and a history of exacerbations because it reduces the exacerbations. In addition, a reducing effect on mortality has been shown by this treatment. However, the evidence is mainly based on one large randomized controlled trial IMPACT study, and it remains unclear whether the ICS add-on treatment is beneficial or not. Recently, a large new ETHOS trial has been performed to clarify the ICS add-on effects. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety including ETHOS trial.

Methods

We searched relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life (QOL), dyspnea symptom, lung function and adverse events including pneumonia and mortality, as the outcomes of interest.

Results

We identified a total of 6 RCTs in ICS add-on protocol (N = 13,579). ICS/LAMA/LABA treatment (triple therapy) significantly decreased the incidence of exacerbations (rate ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.64–0.83) and improved the QOL score and trough FEV₁ compared to LAMA/LABA. In addition, triple therapy significantly improved the dyspnea score (mean difference 0.33, 95% CI 0.18–0.48) and mortality (odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.87). However, triple therapy showed a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia (odds ratio 1.52, 95% CI 1.16–2.00). In the ICS-withdrawal protocol including 2 RCTs, triple therapy also showed a significantly better QOL score and higher trough FEV₁ than LAMA/LABA. Concerning the trough FEV₁, QOL score and dyspnea score in both protocols, the differences were less than the minimal clinically important difference.

Conclusion

Triple therapy causes a higher incidence of pneumonia but is a more preferable treatment than LAMA/LABA due to the lower incidence of exacerbations, higher trough FEV₁ and better QOL score. In addition, triple therapy is also superior to LABA/LAMA due to the lower mortality and better dyspnea score. However, these results should be only applied to patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD and a history of exacerbations.

Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO; CRD42020191978.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12931-021-01777-x.

Triple versus LAMA/LABA combination therapy for Japanese patients with COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In symptomatic COPD patients with a history of exacerbations, additional treatment with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) combination therapy is recommended based on the evidence of low incidence of exacerbations but with a caution for pneumonia. However, ethnic differences may affect the response to drugs. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this treatment in the Japanese population (PROSPERO: CRD42020191978).

METHODS

We searched relevant randomized control trials and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life, lung function, and adverse events including pneumonia and mortality as the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

We identified a total of three RCTs (N = 632). Treatment with ICS/LAMA/LABA triple therapy significantly decreased the exacerbations (rate ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.85) and improved the trough FEV₁ (mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.07) compared to LAMA/LABA therapy. However, triple therapy showed a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia compared to LAMA/LABA (odds ratio, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.58 to 7.22). Concerning other adverse events including mortality, there were no significant difference between these therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

In the current meta-analysis of the Japanese population, we confirmed that triple therapy causes a higher incidence of pneumonia than LAMA/LABA treatment but is a more preferable treatment since it showed a lower incidence of exacerbations and higher trough FEV₁ in patients with symptomatic moderate to severe COPD. However, since the sample sizes were not statistically large enough, further trials involving Japanese patients are needed.

Effectiveness and Safety of COPD Maintenance Therapy with Tiotropium/Olodaterol versus LABA/ICS in a US Claims Database

Introduction

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) combination therapy significantly improves lung function versus LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS). To investigate whether LAMA/LABA could provide better clinical outcomes than LABA/ICS, this non-interventional database study assessed the risk of COPD exacerbations, pneumonia, and escalation to triple therapy in patients with COPD initiating maintenance therapy with tiotropium/olodaterol versus any LABA/ICS combination.

Methods

Administrative healthcare claims and laboratory results data from the US HealthCore Integrated Research Database^sm were evaluated for patients with COPD initiating tiotropium/olodaterol versus LABA/ICS treatment (January 2013–March 2019). Patients were aged at least 40 years with a diagnosis of COPD (but not asthma) at cohort entry. A Cox proportional hazard regression model was used (as-treated analysis) to assess risk of COPD exacerbation, community-acquired pneumonia, and escalation to triple therapy, both individually and as a combined risk of any one of these events. Potential imbalance of confounding factors between cohorts was handled using fine stratification, reweighting, and trimming by exposure propensity score (high-dimensional); subgroup analyses were conducted on the basis of blood eosinophil levels and exacerbation history.

Results

The total population consisted of 61,985 patients (tiotropium/olodaterol n = 2684; LABA/ICS n = 59,301); after reweighting, the total was 42,953 patients (tiotropium/olodaterol n = 2600; LABA/ICS n = 40,353; mean age 65 years; female 54.5%). Patients treated with tiotropium/olodaterol versus LABA/ICS experienced a reduction in the risk of COPD exacerbations (adjusted hazard ratio 0.76 [95% confidence interval 0.68, 0.85]), pneumonia (0.74 [0.57, 0.97]), escalation to triple therapy (0.22 [0.19, 0.26]), and any one of these events (0.45 [0.41, 0.49]); the combined risk was similar irrespective of baseline eosinophils and exacerbation history.

Conclusions

In patients with COPD, tiotropium/olodaterol was associated with a lower risk of COPD exacerbations, pneumonia, and escalation to triple therapy versus LABA/ICS, both individually and in combination; the combined risk was reduced irrespective of baseline eosinophils or exacerbation history.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04138758 (registered 23 October 2019).

Graphic Abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01646-5.

[Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the right treatment for the right patient]

In den vergangenen Jahren wurden auf dem Gebiet der chronisch-obstruktiven Lungenerkrankung (COPD) große Therapiestudien publiziert, die 2020 um mehrere Post-hoc-Analysen ergänzt wurden. Die neuen Erkenntnisse flossen in das Update des Global-Initiative-for-Chronic-Obstructive-Lung-Disease(GOLD)-Report 2021 ein. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden die aktualisierten Grundlagen und Empfehlungen zur Therapie der COPD beschrieben. Dabei wird auf die Indikationen von inhalativen Kortikosteroiden (ICS), lang wirksamen Muskarinantagonisten (LAMA) und/oder lang wirksamen β‑Mimetika (LABA) eingegangen. Die Therapie der COPD wird der des Asthma bronchiale gegenübergestellt. Diskutiert wird auch, wie sich eine gleichzeitig bestehende Asthmakomponente auf die Behandlungsstrategie bei COPD auswirkt. Ein Schwerpunkt des Beitrags liegt auf der Triple-Therapie mit LAMA, LABA und ICS. In diesem Zusammenhang werden die Studienlage und die Indikationen beschrieben. Die Bronchodilatation bleibt weiterhin die Grundlage der COPD-Therapie. Für Patienten mit gehäuften Exazerbationen bedeutet eine Triple-Therapie mit LAMA + LABA + ICS einen Mortalitätsvorteil. Weitere Analysen oder Studien sollen klären, ob dieser Effekt für spezifische Subgruppen stärker ausgeprägt ist.

Benefit/Risk Profile of Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with major healthcare and socioeconomic burdens. International consortia recommend a personalized approach to treatment and management that aims to reduce both symptom burden and the risk of exacerbations. Recent clinical trials have investigated single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for patients with symptomatic COPD. Here, we review evidence from randomized controlled trials showing the benefits of SITT and weigh these against the reported risk of pneumonia with ICS use. We highlight the challenges associated with cross-trial comparisons of benefit/risk, discuss blood eosinophils as a marker of ICS responsiveness, and summarize current treatment recommendations and the position of SITT in the management of COPD, including potential advantages in terms of improving patient adherence. Evidence from trials of SITT versus dual therapies in symptomatic patients with moderate to very severe airflow limitation and increased risk of exacerbations shows benefits in lung function and patient-reported outcomes. Moreover, the key benefits reported with SITT are significant reductions in exacerbations and hospitalizations, with data also suggesting reduced all-cause mortality. These benefits outweigh the ICS-class effect of higher incidence of study-reported pneumonia compared with LAMA/LABA. Important differences in trial design, baseline population characteristics, such as exacerbation history, and assessment of outcomes, have significant implications for interpreting data from cross-trial comparisons. Current understanding interprets the blood eosinophil count as a continuum that can help predict response to ICS and has utility alongside other clinical factors to aid treatment decision-making. We conclude that treatment decisions in COPD should be guided by an approach that considers benefit versus risk, with early optimization of treatment essential for maximizing long-term benefits and patient outcomes.