Socioeconomic Status as a Determinant of Health Status Treatment Response in COPD Trials

Health Status Progression Measured Using Weekly Telemonitoring of COPD Assessment Test Scores Over 1 Year and Its Association With COPD Exacerbations

Background

A previous longitudinal study of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Assessment Test (CAT) score changes suggested patients fall into 3 patterns: stable, improving, and worsening. This study assessed the evolution of CAT scores over time and its relationship to exacerbations.

Methods

In total, 84 participants used a telemedicine platform to complete CAT weekly for 52 weeks. Completion rates, annualized change in CAT scores, and learning effects were measured, as well as CAT changes of >4 units during look-back periods of 4 and 8 weeks. In a subgroup of participants with at least a 25% completion rate (adherent group, n=68 [81%]), the relationship between change in CAT score and exacerbations at any time during the study was examined post hoc.

Results

Linear regression showed that 50%, 22%, and 28% of the adherent subgroup had CAT scores indicating worsening, stable, and improving health status, respectively. In the adherent subgroup, 70% (n=7/10) of participants who had an exacerbation during the study had worsening CAT scores, versus 47% (n=27/58) without an exacerbation. The hazard ratio association between CAT score increase and moderate exacerbation was 1.13 (95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.24). Most participants experienced at least one CAT score change of >4 units, and 7% showed an initial learning effect with a median of 2 weeks.

Conclusion

Measuring trends in CAT scores may allow future studies to group patients into 3 defined categories of change over time and quantify CAT change trajectories to assess treatment response and potentially predict medium-term outcomes within individual patients.

Consideration of Sex, Gender, or Age on Outcomes of Digital Technologies for Treatment and Monitoring of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Overview of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

Several systematic reviews have addressed digital technology use for treatment and monitoring of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess if systematic reviews considered the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD through an overview of such systematic reviews. The objectives of this overview were to (1) describe the definitions of sex or gender used in reviews; (2) determine whether the consideration of sex, gender, or age was planned in reviews; (3) determine whether sex, gender, or age was reported in review results; (4) determine whether sex, gender, or age was incorporated in implications for clinical practice in reviews; and (5) create an evidence map for development of individualized clinical recommendations for COPD based on sex, gender, or age diversity.

METHODS

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Web of Science, and the bibliographies of the included systematic reviews were searched to June 2022. Inclusion was based on the PICOS framework: (1) population (COPD), (2) intervention (any digital technology), (3) comparison (any), (4) outcome (any), and (5) study type (systematic review). Studies were independently selected by 2 authors based on title and abstract and full-text screening. Data were extracted by 1 author and checked by another author. Data items included systematic review characteristics; PICOS criteria; and variables related to sex, gender, or age. Systematic reviews were appraised using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of 1439 records, 30 systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2022 were included in this overview. The confidence in the results of 25 of the 30 (83%) reviews was critically low according to AMSTAR 2. The reviews focused on user outcomes that potentially depend on sex, gender, or age, such as efficacy or effectiveness (25/30, 83%) and acceptance, satisfaction, or adherence (3/30, 10%) to digital technologies for COPD. Reviews reported sex or gender (19/30 systematic reviews) or age (25/30 systematic reviews) among primary study characteristics. However, only 1 of 30 reviews included age in a subgroup analysis, and 3 of 30 reviews identified the effects of sex, gender, or age as evidence gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

This overview shows that the effects of sex, gender, or age were rarely considered in 30 systematic reviews of digital technologies for COPD treatment and monitoring. Furthermore, systematic reviews did not incorporate sex, gender, nor age in their implications for clinical practice. We recommend that future systematic reviews should (1) evaluate the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD and (2) better adhere to reporting guidelines to improve the confidence in review results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022322924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=322924.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/40538.

The Influence of Sex, Gender, or Age on Outcomes of Digital Technologies for Treatment and Monitoring of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Protocol for an Overview of Systematic Reviews

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common chronic disease that can be treated and monitored with various digital technologies. Digital technologies offer unique opportunities for treating and monitoring people with chronic diseases, but little is known about whether the outcomes of such technologies depend on sex, gender, or age in people with COPD.

Objective

The general objective of this study is to assess the possible influence of sex, gender, or age on outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD through an overview of systematic reviews.

Methods

The study is planned as an overview of systematic reviews. Study reporting is based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines because guidelines for overviews are not available as of this writing. The information sources for the overview will include 4 bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and Web of Science) as well as the bibliographies of the included systematic reviews. The electronic search strategy will be developed and conducted in collaboration with an experienced database specialist. The search results will be presented in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The eligibility of studies is based on the population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) criteria: (1) people with COPD (population), (2) digital technology intervention for treatment or monitoring (intervention), (3) any control group or no control group (comparison), (4) any outcome, and (5) systematic review of randomized controlled trials or non–randomized controlled trials with or without a meta-analysis (study design). Critical appraisal of the included systematic reviews will be performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Data will be extracted using a standardized data extraction sheet.

Results

The literature search is scheduled for June 2022. We expect to select the relevant systematic reviews, code the data, and appraise the systematic reviews by December 2022.

Conclusions

There is a growing recognition that the influence of sex, gender, or age should be considered in research design and outcome reporting in the context of health care interventions. Our overview will identify systematic reviews of various digital technologies for treatment or monitoring of COPD. The most interesting aspect of the overview will be to investigate if any systematic reviews considered the influence of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of such digital technologies in COPD. Evidence from the overview could be used to guide more individualized (sex, gender, or age-based) recommendations for the use of digital technologies among people with COPD.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022322924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=322924

Benefits of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI) in improving lung function and reducing exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD: a pooled analysis of the PINNACLE studies

Background

The Phase III PINNACLE studies assessed the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI), a dual long-acting bronchodilator for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here we present a pre-specified pooled analysis of PINNACLE-1, PINNACLE-2, and PINNACLE-4.

Methods

PINNACLE-1, -2, and -4 were multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, with no requirement for exacerbation history or a high symptom burden. Patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 μg, glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 18 μg, formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 μg, or placebo MDI, twice-daily for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint of the pooled analysis was the change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at week 24. Secondary endpoints included COPD exacerbations and clinically important deterioration (CID). Adverse events were also assessed.

Results

The pooled intent-to-treat population included 4983 patients; of these, 61.9% had a COPD assessment test (CAT) score ≥15, and 25.0% had experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the past year. At week 24, GFF MDI improved morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ versus GP MDI (least squares mean [LSM] difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 59 mL [43, 75]), FF MDI (65 mL [48, 81]), and placebo MDI (146 mL [125, 166]); all p < 0.0001. GFF MDI reduced the risk of a moderate/severe exacerbation by 18% (p = 0.0168), 15% (p = 0.0628), and 28% (p = 0.0012) compared with GP MDI, FF MDI, and placebo MDI, respectively. In general, exacerbation risk reduction with GFF MDI versus comparators was greater in subgroups of symptomatic patients (CAT ≥15) and those who had an exacerbation history, than in the pooled intent-to-treat population. The risk of CID was also lower with GFF MDI versus GP MDI (23% decrease), FF MDI (17%), and placebo MDI (49%); all p < 0.0001. All treatments were well tolerated, with no unexpected safety signals.

Conclusions

This pooled analysis of the PINNACLE studies demonstrated that GFF MDI improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations compared with monocomponents and placebo in patients with COPD. Exacerbation reductions with GFF MDI versus comparators were generally greater in patients with higher symptom burden and those with exacerbation history.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01854645, NCT01854658, and NCT02343458. Registered 13 May 2013 (NCT01854645, NCT01854658) and 6 January 2015 (NCT02343458).

The Association Between Neighborhood Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Rationale

Individual socioeconomic status has been shown to influence the outcomes of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, contextual factors may also play a role. The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage measured by the area deprivation index (ADI) and COPD-related outcomes.

Methods

Residential addresses of SubPopulations and InteRmediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS) subjects with COPD (FEV₁/FVC <0.70) at baseline were geocoded and linked to their respective ADI national ranking score at the census block group level. The associations between the ADI and COPD-related outcomes were evaluated by examining the contrast between participants living in the most-disadvantaged (top quintile) to the least-disadvantaged (bottom quintile) neighborhood. Regression models included adjustment for individual-level demographics, socioeconomic variables (personal income, education), exposures (smoking status, packs per year, occupational exposures), clinical characteristics (FEV₁% predicted, body mass index) and neighborhood rural status.

Results

A total of 1800 participants were included in the analysis. Participants residing in the most-disadvantaged neighborhoods had 56% higher rate of COPD exacerbation (P<0.001), 98% higher rate of severe COPD exacerbation (P=0.001), a 1.6 point higher CAT score (P<0.001), 3.1 points higher SGRQ (P<0.001), and 24.6 meters less six-minute walk distance (P=0.008) compared with participants who resided in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Conclusion

Participants with COPD who reside in more-disadvantaged neighborhoods had worse COPD outcomes compared to those residing in less-disadvantaged neighborhoods. Neighborhood effects were independent of individual-level socioeconomic factors, suggesting that contextual factors could be used to inform intervention strategies targeting high-risk persons with COPD.

Efficacy and Safety of Budesonide/Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler in Chinese Patients with COPD: A Subgroup Analysis of KRONOS

INTRODUCTION

This pre-specified subgroup analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (BGF MDI) triple therapy versus corresponding dual therapies in the China subgroup of the phase III, double-blind KRONOS study in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

Patients were randomized 2:2:1:1 to BGF MDI 320/18/9.6 μg, glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) MDI 18/9.6 μg, budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) MDI 320/9.6 μg, or budesonide/formoterol fumarate dry powder inhaler (BUD/FORM DPI) 400/12 μg twice daily for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) over weeks 12-24. Secondary endpoints included symptoms, health-related quality of life, and safety. Rate of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations was an additional efficacy endpoint.

RESULTS

In the China subgroup (n = 432; 22.7% of the KRONOS population), BGF MDI demonstrated nominally significant improvements in the primary endpoint versus BFF MDI (least squares mean (LSM) difference 68 mL; P = 0.0035) and BUD/FORM DPI (LSM difference 78 mL; P = 0.0010) but not GFF MDI (LSM difference - 4 mL; P = 0.8316). BGF MDI demonstrated at least numerical improvements versus comparators in secondary lung function and symptom endpoints. BGF MDI reduced the rate of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations versus GFF MDI (rate ratio 0.41; P = 0.0030), with numerical benefits versus BFF MDI and BUD/FORM DPI. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Results demonstrated that BGF MDI showed benefits on lung function (vs inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist), as well as symptoms and exacerbations relative to dual therapies. Findings support BGF MDI use in Chinese patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02497001.

Efficacy And Safety Of Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate Metered Dose Inhaler (GFF MDI) Formulated Using Co-Suspension Delivery Technology In Chinese Patients With COPD

Background

Glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI) is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist fixed-dose combination therapy delivered by MDI, formulated using innovative co-suspension delivery technology. The PINNACLE-4 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of GFF MDI in patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from Asia, Europe, and the USA. This article presents the results from the China subpopulation of PINNACLE-4.

Methods

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group Phase III study (NCT02343458), patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 µg, glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 18 µg, formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 µg, or placebo MDI (all twice daily) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second at Week 24. Secondary lung function endpoints and patient-reported outcome measures were also assessed. Safety was monitored throughout the study.

Results

Overall, 466 patients from China were included in the intent-to-treat population (mean age 63.6 years, 95.7% male). Treatment with GFF MDI improved the primary endpoint compared to GP MDI, FF MDI, and placebo MDI (least squares mean differences: 98, 104, and 173 mL, respectively; all P≤0.0001). GFF MDI also improved daily total symptom scores and time to first clinically important deterioration versus monocomponents and placebo MDI, and Transition Dyspnea Index focal score versus placebo MDI. Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across the active treatment groups and slightly higher in the placebo MDI group.

Conclusion

GFF MDI improved lung function and daily symptoms versus monocomponents and placebo MDI and improved dyspnea versus placebo MDI. All treatments were well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings. Efficacy and safety results were generally consistent with the global PINNACLE-4 population, supporting the use of GFF MDI in patients with COPD from China.

Baseline Severity as Predictor of Change in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire Scores in Trials of Long-acting Bronchodilators with COPD Patients

Background: In trials oflong-acting bronchodilators, health status is an important trial outcome, however the influence of baseline severity on response measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) is not known. We have compared SGRQ changes between patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) of mild-moderate severity or dyspnea (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung disease [GOLD] grades 1 and 2; modified Medical Research Council [mMRC] grades 1 and 2) to those with severe-very severe severity or dyspnea (GOLD grades 3 and 4; mMRC grades 3 and 4). Methods: Combined individual patient data from the COPD Biomarkers Qualification Consortium database (trials of long-acting bronchodilators) were used comprising of patients from short-term (≤1-year duration; n=10802) and medium-term (2-4 years' duration; n=8963) studies. A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the effects of baseline severity (GOLD/mMRC) on SGRQ response to treatment. All treatment arms were combined. Results: In short-term studies, milder patients showed a greater response than those with more severe disease in terms of GOLD grade (partial Eta² = 0.03, p < 0.0001) and mMRC grade (partial Eta² = 0.05, p < 0.0001). Similar results were seen in the medium-term studies (partial Eta² = 0.02, p < 0.0001; mMRC: partial Eta² = 0.05, p < 0.0001,). Conclusions: Patients with less severe airflow limitation and less severe dyspnea showed larger improvements in SGRQ score than more severely obstructed or dyspneic patients. Although these severity influences are small (2%-5% of the variance in SGRQ score), they do suggest that pre-specified separate analyses are warranted to test for differences in response, based on baseline severity.