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

[COPD inhaled therapy narrative review]

The basis of COPD maintenance treatment is the long-acting bronchodilators and the inhaled corticosteroids. Faced with the recent modifications in the clinical practice guidelines, we have carried out a review of studies that contrast the various therapeutic alternatives and pharmacological agents within each category, with the fundamental purpose of shedding light on which of these options prove to be more effective. Triple therapy stands out as essential in poorly controlled patients or with an eosinophilic phenotype, surpassing dual therapy. However, among the combinations of LAMA/LABA or LAMA/LABA/IC, no drug is observed to be superior in the reviewed evidence. Although triple therapies include corticosteroids, there does not appear to be a significant increase in side effects or pneumonia. Regarding monotherapy with LAMA, no significant differences are seen between the drugs, but in dual therapy with LABA/IC, the budesonide/formoterol combination seems to offer better control than fluticasone/salmeterol.

How Patient-Centred Are Inhaler Device Choices? A Survey of Canadian Prescribers

Background

The choice of inhaler device type can play a crucial role in managing asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). With various devices available, differences in choice and application may lead to confusion for both prescribers and patients. Furthermore, improper use of a device may lead to suboptimal or inadequate treatment.

Objectives

The primary objective was to identify factors that prescribers consider when selecting an inhaler device for a patient. The secondary objective was to evaluate the rankings of these factors, including identification of which factors had greater importance and frequency for prescribers' choice of inhaler device for patients.

Methods

A 10-question online survey was developed and distributed in late 2021 to prescribers (physicians, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists) in western Canada in an outpatient setting. Prescribers were asked to use their own words to describe the factors they considered important and were then asked to rank the stated factors in order of importance for 2 scenarios: an 83-year-old woman with COPD and a 21-year-old man with asthma. The results were examined qualitatively and quantitatively. Recurring themes were identified, and each response was categorized on the basis of its corresponding theme.

Results

In all, 82 respondents completed the survey (yielding a total of 164 responses across the 2 scenarios). Overall, prescriber experience (84/164, 51%), cost (84/164, 51%), patient ease of use (59/164, 36%), and other patient considerations (49/164, 30%) were the factors most frequently mentioned. The prescriber's experience was most often mentioned as a factor for scenario 1 (COPD), whereas cost was most often mentioned for scenario 2 (asthma). In both scenarios, prescriber experience was the highest-ranked factor.

Conclusions

When determining the appropriate type of inhaler device, respondents frequently prioritized their own experience, as well as cost and ease of use. However, many respondents ranked prescriber experience higher than all other factors.

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.

Mechanism of lnRNA-ICL involved in lung cancer development in COPD patients through modulating microRNA-19-3p/NKRF/NF-κB axis

The incidence of lung cancer (LC) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients is dozens of times higher than that in patients without COPD. Elevated activity of nuclear factor-k-gene binding (NF-κB) was found in lung tissue of patients with COPD, and the continuous activation of NF-κB is observed in both malignant transformation and tumor progression of LC, suggesting that NF-κB and its regulators may play a key role in the progression of LC in COPD patients. Here, we report for the first time that a key long non-coding RNA (lncRNA)-ICL involved in the regulation of NF-κB activity in LC tissues of COPD patients. The analyses showed that the expression of ICL significantly decreased in LC tissues of LC patients with COPD than that in LC tissues of LC patients without COPD. Functional experiments in vitro showed that exogenous ICL only significantly inhibited the proliferation, invasion and migration in primary tumor cells of LC patients with COPD compared to LC patients without COPD. Mechanism studies have shown that ICL could suppress the activation of NF-κB by blocking the hsa-miR19-3p/NKRF/NF-κB pathway as a microRNA sponge. Furthermore, In vivo experiments showed that exogenous ICL effectively inhibited the growth of patient-derived subcutaneous tumor xenografts (PDX) of LC patients with COPD and significantly prolonged the survival time of tumor-bearing mice. In a word, our study shows that the decrease of ICL is associated with an increased risk of LC in patients with COPD, ICL is not only expected to be a new therapeutic target for LC in COPD patients, but also has great potential to be used as a new marker for evaluating the occurrence, severity stratification and prognosis of LC in patients with COPD.

Early COPD diagnosis and treatment: A case report

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) refers to a group of widely diffuse diseases that cause airflow blockage characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms such as dyspnea, chronic cough, recurrent wheezing, chronic sputum production, and progressive restricted airflow associated with exacerbations. COPD is the third leading cause of death worldwide and can only be treated not cured. Pulmonary function tests do not permit the identification of initial obstructive airways disease. Forced expiratory flow (FEF_25-75), which calculates obstruction severity at small and medium bronchial airways levels, allows an early COPD diagnosis. We report a 72-year-old ex-smoker male not exposed to occupational risk with symptoms suggesting early COPD. Baseline pulmonary function tests were normal, except FEF_25-75. The patient did not respond to the first 6 months of treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), whereas he showed a clear clinical and FEF_25-75 response to 1-year treatment with LAMA associated with long-acting β2 agonist (LABA). This clinical case report highlights the usefulness of FEF_25-75 evaluation in early COPD diagnosis and monitoring and confirms the efficacy of LAMA-LABA association for small airways obstruction treatment.

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 of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.

RESULTS

The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV₁ versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV₁ at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.

Which LABA/LAMA should be chosen in COPD patients in real life?

BACKGROUND

Given COPD heterogeneity, we do not know if some LABA/LAMAs are more suitable for some COPD phenotypes. This real-life database study aimed to evaluate retrospectively the 4 LABA/LAMA effectiveness and highlight possible specificities that could better guide us in choosing the right LABA/LAMA to be used.

METHODS

We searched for subjects (1,779) adherent to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UM/VI), indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY), aclidinium/formoterol (ACLI/FOR) and tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) treatments in our prescribing/dispensing database. Prescriptions for systemic corticosteroids (SC), antibiotics and salbutamol during one year of LABA/LAMA treatment were analyzed.

RESULTS

A better adherence was found in individuals taking IND/GLY (10.42 ± 1.86 packages/year) compared with UM/VI (10.09 ± 1.9; p = 0.008), ACLI/FOR (9.8 ± 1.8; p = 0.001) and TIO/OLO (10.1 ± 2.1; p = 0.047). The number of patients that were prescribed at least one package of SC/year and their package numbers/year were similar in males/females, across age groups and in "non-frequent exacerbators" with the 4 LABA/LAMAs. More SC were taken by frequent exacerbators, whereas fewer SC/antibiotic packages were prescribed to subjects aged >80 years with all treatments. In patients treated with ACLI/FOR or TIO/OLO, lower risks to having antibiotic prescriptions were observed when UM/VI (0.698[0.516-0.945] and 0.696[0.491-0.985; p = 0.020 and p = 0.041) and IND/GLY (0.597[0.445-0.802] and 0.595[0.423-0.836]; p = 0.001 and p = 0.003) were considered as landmarks. Lower risks for salbutamol prescriptions were detected with UM/VI (0.678[0.480-0.958]; p = 0.027) and TIO/OLO (0.585[0.365-0.937]; p = 0.026) when ACLI/FOR was used as a reference.

CONCLUSION

According to our retrospective database study, each LABA/LAMA could have a specific efficacy profile in COPD that might be considered for personalized therapy. However, head-to-head targeted trials aimed to assess the impact of different LABA/LAMAs on COPD are needed to confirm/disprove such results.

Cost-effectiveness of the fixed-dose combination tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium monotherapy or a fixed-dose combination of long-acting β2-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid for COPD in Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands: a model-based study

OBJECTIVES

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines advocate treatment with combinations of long-acting bronchodilators for patients with COPD who have persistent symptoms or continue to have exacerbations while using a single bronchodilator. This study assessed the cost-utility of the fixed dose combination of the bronchodilators tiotropium and olodaterol versus two comparators, tiotropium monotherapy and long-acting β2 agonist/inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) combinations, in three European countries: Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands.

METHODS

A previously published COPD patient-level discrete event simulation model was updated with most recent evidence to estimate lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for COPD patients receiving either tiotropium/olodaterol, tiotropium monotherapy or LABA/ICS. Treatment efficacy covered impact on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), total and severe exacerbations and pneumonias. The unit costs of medication, maintenance treatment, exacerbations and pneumonias were obtained for each country. The country-specific analyses adhered to the Finnish, Swedish and Dutch pharmacoeconomic guidelines, respectively.

RESULTS

Treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol gained QALYs ranging from 0.09 (Finland and Sweden) to 0.11 (the Netherlands) versus tiotropium and 0.23 (Finland and Sweden) to 0.28 (the Netherlands) versus LABA/ICS. The Finnish payer's incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of tiotropium/olodaterol was €11 000/QALY versus tiotropium and dominant versus LABA/ICS. The Swedish ICERs were €6200/QALY and dominant, respectively (societal perspective). The Dutch ICERs were €14 400 and €9200, respectively (societal perspective). The probability that tiotropium/olodaterol was cost-effective compared with tiotropium at the country-specific (unofficial) threshold values for the maximum willingness to pay for a QALY was 84% for Finland, 98% for Sweden and 99% for the Netherlands. Compared with LABA/ICS, this probability was 100% for all three countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the simulations, tiotropium/olodaterol is a cost-effective treatment option versus tiotropium or LABA/ICS in all three countries. In both Finland and Sweden, tiotropium/olodaterol is more effective and cost saving (ie, dominant) in comparison with LABA/ICS.

Future concepts in bronchodilation for COPD: dual- versus monotherapy

Most patients with COPD are recommended to initiate maintenance therapy with a single long-acting bronchodilator, such as a long-acting muscarinic antagonist or long-acting β₂-agonist. However, many patients receiving mono-bronchodilation continue to experience high symptom burden, suggesting that patients are frequently not receiving optimal treatment. Treatment goals for COPD are often broad and not individually tailored, making initial treatment response assessments difficult. A personalised approach to initial maintenance therapy, based upon an individual's symptom burden and exacerbation risk, may be more appropriate.An alternative approach would be to maximise bronchodilation early in the disease course of all patients with COPD. Evidence suggests that dual bronchodilation has greater and consistent efficacy for lung function and symptoms than mono-bronchodilation, whilst potentially reducing the risk of exacerbations and disease deterioration, with a similar safety profile to mono-bronchodilators. Improvements in lung function and symptoms between dual- and mono-bronchodilation have also been demonstrated in maintenance-naïve patients, who are most likely to resemble those at first presentation in a clinical setting. Despite promising results, there are several evidence gaps that need to be addressed to allow decision makers to evaluate the merits of a widespread earlier introduction of dual bronchodilation.

An ultrasensitive LC-MS/MS method and application to clinical dose-range finding for glycopyrrolate via an e-Nebulizer

Aim: Glycopyrrolate (GLY) has been widely used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Recent technical advancement significantly improves the drug delivery efficiency. In a clinical dose-range determination study via electronic nebulizer, the starting dose was as low as 3-μg, thus, a bioanalytical method capable of measuring down to sub-pg/ml or fg/ml level was required to characterize pharmacokinetics of GLY. Methods: A straightforward solid-phase extraction coupled with reversed-phase LC-MS/MS method was successfully developed to quantify plasma GLY concentrations of 0.500-250 pg/mL. MS/MS detection was at ESI+ by monitoring m/z 318.3→116.1 for GLY and 321.3→119.1 for the internal standard GLY-d₃. Results and Conclusion: The method was validated with adequate selectivity, intra- and inter-assay precision and accuracy, dilution linearity, and sufficient stability for measuring GLY in human plasma. This method has been used for sample analysis of a clinical dose-range finding study (3-50 µg twice daily doses via an electronic nebulizer). The assay exhibited good precision, accuracy, and robustness. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed good dose proportionality over the studied dose range, where C_max was found to be Y = 1.354*X + 1.968 (r² = 0.9984), and AUC_{0-12 h} was Y = 4.661*X + 23.32 (r² = 0.9976). The study clearly demonstrated the importance of an ultrasensitive (500 fg/ml LLOQ) method.

Efficacy and Safety of Budesonide/Glycopyrronium/Formoterol Fumarate versus Other Triple Combinations in COPD: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience further exacerbations or symptoms, despite being prescribed dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) or inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA therapies, triple ICS/LAMA/LABA therapy is recommended. A previous network meta-analysis showed comparable efficacy of the ICS/LAMA/LABA, budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR) 320/18/9.6 µg, to other fixed-dose and open combination triple therapies at 24 weeks in COPD. Subsequently, the ETHOS study was published, including data for 8509 patients, assessing the efficacy and safety of BUD/GLY/FOR over 52 weeks. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the relative efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BUD/GLY/FOR 320/18/9.6 µg with other fixed-dose and open combination triple therapies in COPD over 52 weeks, including data from ETHOS. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify ≥ 10-week randomized controlled trials, including ≥ 1 fixed-dose or open combination triple-therapy arm, in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. The methodologic quality and risk of bias of included studies were assessed. Study results were combined using a three-level hierarchical Bayesian NMA model to assess efficacy and safety outcomes at or over 24 and 52 weeks. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were used to assess heterogeneity across studies. Nineteen studies (n = 37,741 patients) met the inclusion criteria of the review; 15 contributed to the base case network. LAMA/LABA dual combinations were combined as a single treatment group to create a connected network. Across all outcomes for exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, health-related quality of life, safety, and tolerability, the efficacy and safety of BUD/GLY/FOR were comparable to those of other triple ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol and beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate) and open combinations at or over 24 and 52 weeks. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regression results for exacerbation outcomes were broadly in line with the base case NMA. In this NMA, BUD/GLY/FOR 320/18/9.6 μg showed comparable efficacy versus other ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose or open combination therapies in terms of reducing exacerbation rates and improving lung function, symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, in line with previously published meta-analysis results of triple combinations in COPD. The safety and tolerability profile of BUD/GLY/FOR was also found to be comparable to other triple combination therapies.

Dual bronchodilator versus inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA, also known as dual bronchodilator) and inhaled corticosteroid/LABA (ICS/LABA) are the cornerstone of maintenance treatment for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. We aimed to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of the two maintenance treatment in COPD patients.

METHODS

We searched the database Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Clinical Trials.gov systematically (from inception until September 2020). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dual bronchodilator with ICS/LABA in the treatment of COPD were included. Efficacy and safety endpoints were pooled as mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). This meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO prospectively # CRD42020203314).

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs including 21,496 patients were included. Dual bronchodilator showed a greater improvement in both trough FEV₁ (MD = 0.06 L, 95% CI: 0.04-0.07, P < 0.001) and FVC (FVC: MD = 0.12 L, 95% CI: 0.07-0.16, P < 0.001), and a lower risk of pneumonia (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.53-0.72, P < 0.001) in patients with COPD. There were no significant differences neither in the improvement of exacerbations, symptoms, and quality of life, nor in the incidence of cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, all-cause mortality, and withdrawals due to adverse events of treatment between these two maintenance treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual bronchodilator is superior to ICS/LABA in improving lung function and is associated with a lower risk of pneumonia in patients with COPD. There are no significant differences in other efficacy and safety profiles between these two maintenance treatments.

Reducing and managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations with tiotropium + olodaterol

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review clinical evidence supporting the use of fixed-dose combination of tiotropium and olodaterol, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA), respectively, as the initial and follow-up treatment choice in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as per Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2020 recommendations-the impact of this treatment strategy on the reduction in the risk of exacerbations-and the importance of early therapeutic interventions.

METHODS

For this narrative review, the available literature was searched to identify studies including patients with COPD receiving tiotropium and olodaterol as either monotherapy or combination therapy and studies including patients with COPD receiving inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in addition to long-acting bronchodilators. Relevant studies were included in the review.

RESULTS

Patients with COPD are often prescribed ICS therapy, which, when used over a long term, can be associated with local and systemic adverse effects. The GOLD 2020 report recommends dual bronchodilator therapy as both an initial and follow-up treatment option. A LABA + LAMA combination is mechanistically synergistic, and cumulative evidence surrounding the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination of tiotropium and olodaterol supports therapeutic advantages over monotherapy in most patients with COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

The early stages of COPD may represent a "window of therapeutic opportunity" during which initiation of tiotropium and olodaterol dual bronchodilator therapy may improve lung function and quality of life and reduce exacerbations in patients with COPD.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment and Pharmacist-Led Medication Management

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the fourth leading cause of death across the globe. Its repeated exacerbation will seriously worsen the quality of life, aggravate the patients’ symptoms, and bring a heavy burden on the patients and the society. Understanding the current status of drug therapy and the role of pharmaceutical care is essential for the management of COPD. In addition to the drugs already on the market, recent clinical trials also show that emerging novel drugs for treating COPD are being developed to prevent the symptoms, reduce the frequency of acute exacerbation, and improve the quality of life. Recent progress in new drug research should lead to novel treatment options for COPD patients in future clinical practice. The pharmaceutical care has shown significantly favourable impacts on addressing drug-related problems, supporting its vital role in the management of COPD, especially when there are a wide range of therapeutic agents. This review not only provides an overview of current treatment strategies but also further underlines the importance of new drug development and pharmaceutical care for patients with COPD.

Comparisons of exacerbations and mortality among LAMA/LABA combinations in stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Only few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for head-to-head comparison have been conducted between various combinations of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs). Our study was conducted to compare acute exacerbation and all-cause mortality among different LAMA/LABA regimens using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library (search date: July 1, 2019). We included parallel-group RCTs comparing LAMA/LABA combinations with other inhaled drugs in the stable COPD for ≥ 48 weeks. Two different network geometries were used. The geometry of network (A) had nodes of individual drugs or their combination, while that of network (B) combined all other treatments except LAMA/LABA into each drug class. This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO; CRD42019126753.

RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs involving a total of 39,065 patients with stable COPD. Six combinations of LAMA/LABA were identified: tiotropium/salmeterol, glycopyrrolate/indacaterol, umeclidinium/vilanterol, tiotropium/olodaterol, aclidinium/formoterol, and glycopyrrolate/formoterol. We found that umeclidinium/vilanterol was associated with a lower risk of total exacerbations than other LAMA/LABAs in the NMA using network (A) (level of evidence: low or moderate). However, the significant differences were not present in the NMA of network (B). There were no significant differences among the LAMA/LABA combinations in terms of the number of moderate to severe exacerbations, all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, or pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

The present NMA including all available RCTs provided that there is no strong evidence suggesting different benefits among LAMA/LABAs in patients with stable COPD who have been followed up for 48 weeks or more.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO; CRD42019126753.

Inhaled therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To integrate evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on the efficacy of inhaled treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using network meta-analyses.

METHODS

Systematic searches MEDLINE and Embase based on predetermined criteria. Network meta-analyses of RCTs investigated efficacy on exacerbations (long-term: ≥20 weeks of treatment; short-term: <20 weeks), lung function (≥12 weeks), health-related quality of life, mortality and adverse events. Qualitative comparisons of efficacies between RCTs and observational studies.

RESULTS

212 RCTs and 19 observational studies were included. Compared with combined long-acting beta-adrenoceptor agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LABA+LAMA), triple therapy (LABA+LAMA+inhaled corticosteroid) was significantly more effective at reducing exacerbations (long-term 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78 to 0.94; short-term 0.67 (95% CI: 0.49 to 0.92)) and mortality (0.72 (95% CI: 0.59 to 0.89)) but was also associated with increased pneumonia (1.35 (95% CI: 1.10 to 1.67)). No differences in lung function (0.02 (95% CI: -0.10 to 0.14)), health-related quality of life (-1.12 (95% CI: -3.83 to 1.59)) or other adverse events (1.02 (95% CI: 0.96 to 1.08)) were found. Most of the observational evidence trended in the same direction as pooled RCT data.

CONCLUSION

Further evidence, especially pragmatic trials, are needed to fully understand the characteristics of patient subgroups who may benefit from triple therapy and for those whom the extra risk of adverse events, such as pneumonia, may outweigh any benefits.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018088013.

Compatible Stability and Aerosol Characteristics of Atrovent® (Ipratropium Bromide) Mixed with Salbutamol Sulfate, Terbutaline Sulfate, Budesonide, and Acetylcysteine

(1) Background: It is common practice in the treatment of respiratory diseases to mix different inhalation solutions for simultaneous inhalation. At present, a small number of studies have been published that evaluate the physicochemical compatibility and aerosol characteristics of different inhalation medications. However, none of them studied Atrovent^®. Our work aims to address the lack of studies on Atrovent^®. (2) Methods: Portions of admixtures were withdrawn at certain time intervals after mixing and were tested by pH determination, osmolarity measurement, and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) assay of each active ingredient as measures of physicochemical compatibility. The geometrical and aerosol particle size distribution, active drug delivery rate, and total active drug delivered were measured to characterize aerosol behaviors. (3) Results: During the testing time, no significant variation was found in the pH value, the osmotic pressure, or the active components of admixtures. With the increase in nebulization volume after mixing, fine particle dose (FPD) and total active drug delivered showed statistically significant improvements, while the active drug delivery rate decreased compared to the single-drug preparations. (4) Conclusions: These results endorse the physicochemical compatibility of Atrovent^® over 1 h when mixed with other inhalation medications. Considering aerosol characteristics, simultaneous inhalation is more efficient.

Efficacy and Safety of LAMA/LABA Fixed-Dose Combination Therapies in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review of Direct and Indirect Treatment Comparisons

Background

This literature review assessed comparative efficacy and safety of long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in patients with COPD and moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation, using evidence from direct (head-to-head) and indirect treatment comparisons.

Methods

Two systematic literature reviews were conducted to identify direct comparisons (head-to-head randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) and indirect comparisons (network meta-analyses [NMAs]; indirect treatment comparisons; meta-analyses) in patients with COPD with moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation. Study/Analysis characteristics, eligibility criteria, patient characteristics, and overall conclusions were extracted from relevant publications. The review of indirect comparisons focused on NMAs reporting efficacy outcomes at 12 and 24 weeks of treatment (established durations of symptomatic studies in COPD recommended by regulators).

Results

Direct comparisons: Four RCTs that provided head-to-head comparisons of LAMA/LABA FDCs were identified, and these varied in their study design, included patient population and reported endpoints. While some differences in lung function outcomes were noted, where assessed, LAMA/LABA FDCs had comparable efficacy in improving symptoms, health status, exacerbations, and comparable safety profiles. However, the differences in study methodology and patient characteristics between these studies made it difficult to draw generalizable conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of LAMA/LABA FDCs from the direct comparisons alone. Indirect comparisons: Six NMAs were identified that reported indirect comparisons between LAMA/LABA FDCs; five of these were within the pre-defined scope of this review. Although the scope of each NMA varied, all five concluded that LAMA/LABA FDCs were generally comparable in terms of lung function improvements, patient-reported outcomes, and safety (where assessed).

Conclusion

Although there were some inconsistencies between the outcomes of RCTs and NMAs for lung function, the totality of lung function, symptoms, exacerbations, and safety data suggests that currently available LAMA/LABA FDCs have comparable efficacy and safety in patients with COPD and moderate-to-very severe airflow limitation.

Comparisons of exacerbations and mortality among regular inhaled therapies for patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although exacerbation and mortality are the most important clinical outcomes of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the drug classes that are the most efficacious in reducing exacerbation and mortality among all possible inhaled drugs have not been determined.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We performed a systematic review (SR) and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, and the official websites of pharmaceutical companies (from inception to July 9, 2019). The eligibility criteria were as follows: (1) parallel-design randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) adults with stable COPD; (3) comparisons among long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs), inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), combined treatment (ICS/LAMA/LABA, LAMA/LABA, or ICS/LABA), or a placebo; and (4) study duration ≥ 12 weeks. This study was prospectively registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42017069087). In total, 219 trials involving 228,710 patients were included. Compared with placebo, all drug classes significantly reduced the total exacerbations and moderate to severe exacerbations. ICS/LAMA/LABA was the most efficacious treatment for reducing the exacerbation risk (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.50-0.64; posterior probability of OR > 1 [P(OR > 1)] < 0.001). In addition, in contrast to the other drug classes, ICS/LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA were associated with a significantly higher probability of reducing mortality than placebo (OR = 0.74, 95% CrI 0.59-0.93, P[OR > 1] = 0.004; and OR = 0.86, 95% CrI 0.76-0.98, P[OR > 1] = 0.015, respectively). The results minimally changed, even in various sensitivity and covariate-adjusted meta-regression analyses. ICS/LAMA/LABA tended to lower the risk of cardiovascular mortality but did not show significant results. ICS/LAMA/LABA increased the probability of pneumonia (OR for triple therapy = 1.56; 95% CrI 1.19-2.03; P[OR > 1] = 1.000). The main limitation is that there were few RCTs including only less symptomatic patients or patients at a low risk.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that triple therapy can potentially be the best option for stable COPD patients in terms of reducing exacerbation and all-cause mortality.

Conventional Western Treatment Combined With Chinese Herbal Medicine Alleviates the Progressive Risk of Lung Cancer in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study

Background and purpose: Lung cancer has high global incidence and mortality rates. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is strongly associated with lung cancer and is an independent risk factor for lung cancer with or without smoking. Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) are used to treat COPD. This study sought to determine whether CHM treatment effectively decreases the incidence of lung cancer in COPD patients receiving conventional Western medical treatment.

Methods: Records obtained from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) were used to identify 81,780 adults aged ≥18 years newly diagnosed with COPD in Taiwan between 2000 and 2010. Among them, 11,180 received CHMs after COPD diagnosis and 23,319 did not (non-CHM). After excluding patients with missing basic demographic information, each group consisted of 2,682 patients. Statistical methods analyzed the baseline characteristics for both groups and we performed a Cox proportional hazard regression analysis to examine the incidence of lung cancer. The cumulative incidence of lung cancer in COPD patients with or without CHM treatment was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The association between herbs and formulas was examined by NodeXL to perform a network analysis of CHM.

Results: COPD patients using CHM had a lower risk for lung cancer (adjusted hazards ratio [aHR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24–0.53, p < 0.001). Older age was associated with a higher risk of lung cancer: patients aged 40–59 years (aHR = 5.32, 95% CI = 2.19–12.94, p < 0.001) and those aged ≥60 years (aHR = 16.75, 95% CI = 7.54–37.23, p < 0.001) were at significantly greater risk compared with patients aged 18–39 years. CHM use was associated with a trend for a lower cumulative incidence of lung cancer compared with non-CHM use (p < 0.001). Among the 10 most commonly used single herbs and formulas used to decrease the risk of lung cancer in COPD patients, Fritillariae thunbergii was the most commonly used single herb and Xiao Qing Long Tang the most commonly used formula.

Conclusion: The findings from this nationwide retrospective cohort study indicate that CHM as adjunctive therapy in COPD treatment regimens may reduce the risk of lung cancer in this vulnerable patient population.

The Airways' Mechanical Stress in Lung Disease: Implications for COPD Pathophysiology and Treatment Evaluation

The airway epithelium stretches and relaxes during the normal respiratory cycle, and hyperventilation exaggerates this effect, resulting in changes in lung physiology. In fact, stretching of the airways influences lung function and the secretion of airway mediators, which in turn may cause a potentially injurious inflammatory response. This aim of the present narrative review was to illustrate the current evidence on the importance of mechanical stress in the pathophysiology of lung diseases with a particular focus on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to discuss how this may influence pharmacological treatment strategies. Overall, treatment selection should be tailored to counterpart the effects of mechanical stress, which influences inflammation both in asthma and COPD. The most suitable treatment approach between a long-acting β2-agonists/long-acting antimuscarinic-agonist (LABA/LAMA) alone or with the addition of inhaled corticosteroids should be determined based on the underlying mechanism of inflammation. Noteworthy, the anti-inflammatory effects of the glycopyrronium/indacaterol combination on hyperinflation and mucociliary clearance may decrease the rate of COPD exacerbations, and it may synergistically improve bronchodilation with a double action on both the cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and the acetylcholine pathways.

Analyze and Identify Peiminine Target EGFR Improve Lung Function and Alleviate Pulmonary Fibrosis to Prevent Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease by Phosphoproteomics Analysis

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been a major public health problem and is still a formidable challenge for clinicians. It is urgent to find new compounds for minimizing the risk of disease progression and exacerbation especially in the early phase of COPD. A traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formula, Chuan Bei Pi Pa dropping pills (CBPP), was tested in this study to investigate its potential mechanisms in preventing the exacerbation of COPD. Phosphoproteomics analysis for a smog stimulated early stage COPD mice model was employed to detect the underlying molecular mechanisms of CBPP. In addition, protein–protein interaction (PPI) and bioinformatics analyses were included to analyze the key proteins and predict the key bioactive compounds. The results indicated that peiminine (PEI) target epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) prevented the exacerbation of COPD by inhibiting the EGFR signaling pathway, and ursolic acid (UA) can alleviate inflammation disorders via inhibition of CASP3 on mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway. After in vivo and in vitro evaluations, we revealed that PEI from CBPP, as a lead compound, can improve lung function and alleviate pulmonary fibrosis by acting on the EGFR and MLC2 signaling pathways. Furthermore, the approach described here is an effective way to analyze and identify the bioactive ingredients from a mixture by functional proteomics analysis.

Evidence-based review of data on the combination inhaler umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD

The use of inhaled, fixed-dose, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) combined with long-acting, beta2-adrenergic receptor agonists (LABA) has become a mainstay in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One of the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations is the dry powder inhaler (DPI) of umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) (62.5 µg/25 µg) approved for once-a-day maintenance treatment of COPD. This paper reviews the use of fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA agents focusing on the UMEC/VI DPI inhaler in the maintenance treatment of COPD. The fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA inhaler offers a step beyond a single inhaled maintenance agent but is still a single device for the COPD patient having frequent COPD exacerbations and persistent symptoms not well controlled on one agent. Currently available clinical trials suggest that the once-a-day DPI of UMEC/VI is well-tolerated, safe and non-inferior or better than other currently available inhaled fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations for COPD.

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler in comparison with other long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist fixed-dose combinations in COPD

BACKGROUND

Dual bronchodilation with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) fixed-dose combination (FDC) is an established treatment strategy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The relative efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI 18/9.6 μg) in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, compared with other licensed LAMA/LABA FDCs, was investigated using an integrated Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review and subsequent screening process identified randomized controlled trials of ⩾10 weeks' duration that enrolled patients aged ⩾40 years with moderate-to-very severe COPD and included at least one LAMA/LABA FDC or open LAMA + LABA treatment arm. NMAs were conducted for outcomes including change from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and transition dyspnea index (TDI) parameters, annualized rate of exacerbations, use of rescue medication, adverse events, and all-cause withdrawals. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses accounted for heterogeneity across studies.

RESULTS

In total, 29 studies including 34,617 patients contributed to the NMA for efficacy or safety outcomes at week 24 or exacerbations. For all LAMA/LABA FDCs with data available, significantly greater improvements in FEV1 [trough, peak, and area under the curve (AUC)0-4], SGRQ total score and TDI focal score at week 24, and annualized rate of moderate-to-severe exacerbations, were observed versus placebo. Where indirect comparisons were possible, differences between GFF MDI and other LAMA/LABA FDCs were small relative to established margins of clinical relevance, and not statistically significant. The safety and tolerability profile of GFF MDI was consistent with other LAMA/LABA FDCs and placebo. The results of the meta-regression were generally similar to the base case.

CONCLUSIONS

GFF MDI demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety outcomes to other LAMA/LABA FDCs. Personalization of treatment choice within the class on the basis of other factors such as patient preference may be appropriate.