Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD patients: rationale and algorithms

Withdrawal of Inhaled Corticosteroids from Patients with COPD; Effect on Exacerbation Frequency and Lung Function: A Systematic Review

Background

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations. It should only be prescribed to COPD patients who are not adequately controlled by dual long-acting bronchodilator therapy and who have ≥2 exacerbations per year and a blood eosinophil count ≥300cells/µL. ICS therapy is widely prescribed outside guidelines to COPD patients, making ICS withdrawal an important consideration. This systematic review aims to provide an up-to-date analysis of the effect of ICS withdrawal on exacerbation frequency, change in lung function (FEV1) and to determine the proportion of COPD patients who resume ICS therapy following withdrawal.

Methods

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies which compared ICS withdrawal with ICS continuation treatment were included. Cochrane Central, Web of Science, CINHAL, Embase and OVID Medline were searched. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Quality assessment of RCTs was conducted using GRADE. Meta-analysis of post-hoc analyses of RCTs of ICS withdrawal, stratified by blood eosinophil count (BEC), was undertaken.

Results

Ten RCTs (6642 patients randomised) and 6 observational studies (160,029 patients) were included in the results. When ICS was withdrawn and long-acting bronchodilator therapy was maintained, there was no consistent difference in exacerbation frequency or lung function change between the ICS withdrawal and continuation trial arms. The evidence for these effects was of moderate quality. There was insufficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion on the proportion of patients who resumed ICS therapy following withdrawal (estimated range 12-93% of the participants).

Discussion

Withdrawal of ICS therapy from patients with COPD is safe and feasible but should be accompanied by maintenance of bronchodilation therapy for optimal outcomes.

Investigating the rationale for COPD maintenance therapy prescription across Europe, findings from a multi-country study

This study aims to understand healthcare professionals' thoughts and motivations about optimal management and treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We conducted a DELPHI survey through an online questionnaire distributed to 220 panellists from six European countries and a discrete choice experiment to describe the relationship between selected clinical criteria and the initial COPD treatment of choice. One hundred twenty-seven panellists (general practitioners [GPs] and pulmonologists) completed the survey. Despite the familiarity and use (89.8%) of the GOLD classification for initial treatment selection, a frequent use of LAMA/LABA/ICS was noted. In fact, panellists agreed that inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are over-prescribed in the primary care setting. Our study showed that GPs felt less confident than pulmonologists with ICS withdrawal. This mismatch observed between best practice and behaviour indicates the need to increase awareness and efforts to improve the adherence to guidelines in clinical practice.

Impact of medications on outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Various inhaled bronchodilators have been associated with cardiovascular safety concerns. This study aimed to investigate the long-term impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and the safety of COPD medications in patients after their first acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS

This nationwide cohort study was conducted using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Patients hospitalized between 2000 and 2012 with a primary diagnosis of first AMI were included and divided into three cohorts (AMI, ST-elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI], and non-STEMI [NSTEMI]). Each cohort was propensity score matched (1:1) with patients without COPD. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

A total of 186 112 patients with AMI were enrolled, and COPD was diagnosed in 13 065 (7%) patients. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that patients with COPD had a higher mortality risk than those without COPD in all cohorts (AMI, STEMI, and NSTEMI). The HR of mortality in AMI, STEMI, and NSTEMI patients with COPD was 1.12 (95% CI, 1.09-1.14), 1.20 (95% CI, 1.14-1.25), and 1.07 (95% CI, 1.04-1.10), respectively. Short-acting inhaled bronchodilators and corticosteroids increased mortality risk in all three cohorts. However, long-acting inhaled bronchodilators reduced mortality risk in patients with AMI (long-acting beta-agonist [LABA]: HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94; long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]: HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96) and NSTEMI (LABA: HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97; LAMA: HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.96).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that AMI patients with COPD had higher mortality rates than those without COPD. Using inhaled short-acting bronchodilators and corticosteroids reduced survival, whereas long-acting bronchodilators provided survival benefits in AMI and NSTEMI patients. Therefore, appropriate COPD medication for acute AMI is crucial.

The Impact of Inhaled Corticosteroids on the Prognosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background

A comprehensive analysis of the effects of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) on COPD in a real-world setting is required due to safety concerns regarding ICS in COPD. This study aimed to explore the impact of ICS on the prognosis of Asian COPD patients in the real-life world.

Methods

We examined 978 COPD patients registered in the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) database and with their data linked to Health Insurance and Review Assessment (HIRA) data. The outcome measures were ascertained by HIRA from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2012. This study enrolled two arms; ICS users (N = 85, mean age = 66.7 ± 8.9 years) and non-ICS users (N = 893, mean age = 63.7 ± 9.7 years).

Results

Compared to the non-ICS users, the ICS users had a higher rate of pneumonia, tuberculosis, and acute exacerbations (P<0.05). Hospitalization due to respiratory causes was also higher among ICS users (P<0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that acute exacerbation was independently associated with the development of pneumonia (P<0.05), whereas ICS therapy had a tendency to be associated with pneumonia. Another multivariate analysis demonstrated that old age, FEV₁, ICS therapy, and pneumonia were independently associated with the occurrence of acute exacerbation (P<0.05). The concomitant pneumonia (HR = 3.353, P = 0.004) was independently associated with higher mortality (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Our data demonstrated that the ICS users had a higher rate of pneumonia and tuberculosis and the concomitant pneumonia was independently associated with higher mortality, highlighting the importance of cautious and targeted administration of ICS in 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.

Risk of Tuberculosis Caused by Fluticasone Propionate versus Budesonide in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Nationwide Population-Based Study

Background: In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are recommended for use by patients with frequent exacerbations and blood eosinophilia. However, ICSs are often inappropriately prescribed and overused. COPD studies have reported an increased risk of tuberculosis among ICS users. This study aimed to compare the risk of tuberculosis according to the different ICS components. Methods: This study was conducted using a nationwide, population-based cohort. Patients newly diagnosed with COPD between 2005 and 2018, and treated with either fluticasone propionate or budesonide, were selected. The patients were followed up until the development of tuberculosis. Results: After propensity score matching, 16,514 fluticasone propionate and 16,514 budesonide users were identified. The incidence rate of tuberculosis per 100,000 person-years was 274.73 for fluticasone propionate and 214.18 for budesonide. The hazard ratio of tuberculosis in fluticasone propionate compared with budesonide was 1.28 (95% confidence interval 1.05–1.60). The risk of tuberculosis for fluticasone propionate increased with higher ICS cumulative doses: 1.01 (0.69–1.48), 1.16 (0.74–1.81), 1.25 (0.79–1.97), and 1.82 (1.27–2.62) from the lowest to highest quartiles, respectively. Conclusion: Fluticasone propionate is associated with a higher risk of tuberculosis than budesonide. ICS components can differently affect the risk of tuberculosis in patients with COPD.

A Pooled Analysis of Mortality in Patients with COPD Receiving Dual Bronchodilation with and without Additional Inhaled Corticosteroid

Background

Recent studies report a lower mortality rate during treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) versus LAMA/LABA in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations.

Objective

We compared time to all-cause mortality with LAMA/LABA versus LAMA/LABA/ICS in patients with mild-to-very-severe COPD and a predominantly low exacerbation risk.

Methods

Data were pooled from six randomized controlled trials (TONADO 1/2, DYNAGITO, WISDOM, UPLIFT and TIOSPIR; LAMA/LABA: n = 3156, LAMA/LABA/ICS: n = 11,891). Analysis was on-treatment and data were censored at 52 weeks. Patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS received ICS prior to study entry, which was not withdrawn at randomization. Patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS were propensity score (PS)-matched to patients on LAMA/LABA who had not previously received ICS; covariates included age, sex, geographical region, smoking status, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second percent predicted, exacerbation history in previous year, body mass index and time since diagnosis. Time to all-cause mortality was assessed using Cox proportional hazard regression models.

Results

After PS matching, 3133 patients on LAMA/LABA and 3133 patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS were analyzed. Fewer than 20% of patients reported ≥2 exacerbations in the prior year (LAMA/LABA: 19.1%; LAMA/LABA/ICS: 19.0%). There were 41 (1.3%) deaths on LAMA/LABA and 45 (1.4%) deaths on LAMA/LABA/ICS. No statistically significant difference in time to death was observed between treatment arms (hazard ratio for LAMA/LABA 1.06; 95% confidence intervals 0.68, 1.64; P = 0.806). Sensitivity analyses conducted using different covariates or in an intent-to-treat population showed similar results.

Conclusion

This pooled analysis of over 6000 patients with mild-to-very-severe COPD and predominantly low exacerbation risk showed no differences in mortality with LAMA/LABA versus LAMA/LABA/ICS, suggesting that the survival benefit of triple therapy seen in some recent studies may be specific to a high-risk population. This supports current Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease recommendations that triple therapy should be reserved for the subpopulations of patients who need it the most (eg, those with an eosinophilic phenotype and a high risk of exacerbations) to avoid ICS overuse.

Recommendations for COPD management in Central and Eastern Europe

INTRODUCTION

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy report provides guidance on effective management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) according to local healthcare systems. However, COPD is a heterogenous disease and certain aspects, including prevalence, disease-time course and phenotype distribution, can differ between countries. Moreover, features of clinical practice and healthcare systems for COPD patients can vary widely, even in geographically close and economically similar countries.

AREAS COVERED

Based on an initial workshop of respiratory physicians from eleven countries across Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in December 2018 and subsequent discussions, this article offers region-specific insights from clinical practice and healthcare systems in CEE. Taking GOLD 2020 recommendations into account, we suggest approaches to adapt these into national clinical guidelines for COPD management in CEE.

EXPERT OPINION

Several factors should be considered when optimizing management of COPD in CEE compared with other regions, including differences in smoking status, vaccination uptake, prevalence of tuberculosis and nontuberculous mycobacteria, and variations in healthcare systems. We provide guidance and algorithms for pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic management of COPD for the following scenarios: initial and follow-up treatment, treatment of patients with frequent exacerbations, and withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids where appropriate.

Inhaled Corticosteroid Use Among COPD Patients in Primary Care in Spain

Purpose

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are frequently used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) outside the current recommendations. Our aim was to describe ICS use in COPD patients and to identify factors associated with ICS use among COPD patients treated within primary care in Spain.

Patients and Methods

This was a cross-sectional, non-interventional and multicenter study of patients with COPD treated in primary care. Patient characteristics and exacerbations were described in terms of ICS use among the overall cohort, and among those with spirometry confirmed COPD (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁]/forced vital capacity [FVC] ratio <70%). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with ICS use.

Results

A total of 901 patients were included, of which 47.9% (n = 432) were treated with ICS. A total of 240 patients (26.6%) experienced moderate/severe exacerbations in the prior year, while 309 (34.3%) during the previous two years. History of asthma totaled 11.6% (n = 105). The most frequent phenotype was non-exacerbator (51.6%), and the proportion of patient with moderate or severe exacerbations was significantly higher among ICS treated patients compared to non-treated: 37.5% versus 16.6% during the previous year (p < 0.001), and 46.8% versus 22.8% during the previous 2-years (p < 0.001), respectively. Patient characteristics were similar among spirometry confirmed patients and the overall population. Factors significantly associated with ICS use were a history of asthma (OR = 4.39, 95% CI: 2.67–7.26), the presence of moderate or severe exacerbations in the last year (OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.81–3.49), followed by higher mMRC and higher CAT score.

Conclusion

Nearly half of patients in primary care in Spain are treated with ICS, despite most of them being non-exacerbators. History of asthma, exacerbations, and worse dyspnea and CAT scores are associated with ICS use.

Comparison of Risk of Pneumonia Caused by Fluticasone Propionate versus Budesonide in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) play an important role in lowering the risk of acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, ICSs are known to increase the risk of pneumonia. Moreover, previous studies have shown that the incidence rate of pneumonia varies depending on the type of ICS. In this study, the risk of pneumonia according to the type of ICS was investigated in a population-based cohort.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using claims data of the entire population from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Patients who were newly diagnosed with COPD and prescribed fluticasone propionate or budesonide were enrolled as study subjects. Cumulative doses of ICSs were classified into categorical variables to analyze the risk of pneumonia within identical ICS doses.

Results

A total of 47,473 subjects were identified and allocated as 14,518 fluticasone propionate and 14,518 budesonide users through 1:1 propensity score matching. Fluticasone propionate users were more likely to develop pneumonia than budesonide users (14.22% vs 10.66%, p<0.0001). The incidence rate per 100,000 person-years was 2,914.77 for fluticasone propionate users and 2,102.90 for budesonide users. The hazard ratio (HR) of pneumonia in fluticasone propionate compared to budesonide was 1.34 (95% CI 1.26–1.43, p<0.0001). The risk of pneumonia for fluticasone propionate compared to budesonide increased with higher ICS cumulative doses: 1.06 (0.93–1.21), 1.41 (1.19–1.66), 1.41 (1.23–1.63), and 1.49 (1.33–1.66) from the lowest to highest quartiles, respectively.

Conclusion

ICS types and doses need to be carefully considered during treatment with ICSs in patients with COPD.

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.

Withdrawal of Inhaled Corticosteroids in Patients with COPD - A Prospective Observational Study

Background

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are widely used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but recent studies have raised doubts whether all COPD patients will benefit from ICS. This study evaluates in a real-life setting the effects of ICS withdrawal in patients with COPD.

Methods

The study was a prospective intervention study following patients with COPD for 6 months after abrupt withdrawal of ICS. FEV1 (L), blood eosinophilic count (x10E9/L) and number of exacerbations were measured at baseline, 1, 3 and 6 months after ICS withdrawal.

Results

Ninety-six patients (56 females (57.4%), mean age 70 years (51-94 years)) with COPD were included in the study. Eleven patients were excluded during the study period (7 patients died, 4 patients withdrew their consent during the study period). During the 6 months, 51 patients (60%) had resumed treatment with ICS, of whom 34 patients (68%) experienced an exacerbation during follow-up. No significant decline in FEV1 was seen in this group between baseline and after 6 months (ΔFEV1 0.07 L, p = 0.09). In the remaining 34 patients (40%) without ICS after 6 months of follow-up, 15 patients (44.1%) experienced an exacerbation. No significant decline was seen in FEV1 at baseline and after 6 months (ΔFEV1 0.04 L, p = 0.28). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in age (70.5 vs 69.6 years, p = 0.53), nor between FEV1 at baseline (0.96 L vs 1.00 L, p = 0.63) or eosinophilic count (0.25 x10E9/L vs 0.17 x10E9/L, p = 0.07).

Conclusion

Abrupt withdrawal of ICS was possible in some patients. However, more than half of the patients resumed ICS during follow-up. Based on results from our study we were not able to foresee - from neither history of exacerbations nor eosinophilic count - whom will be able to manage without ICS and who will resume treatment with ICS.

Therapeutic Success of Tiotropium/Olodaterol, Measured Using the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), in Routine Clinical Practice: A Multinational Non-Interventional Study

BACKGROUND

The Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) is a simple patient-reported tool to measure clinical control of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVE

This open-label, single-arm, non-interventional study (NCT03663569) investigated changes in CCQ score during treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol in clinical practice.

METHODS

Data were included from consenting COPD patients, enrolled in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Switzerland and Ukraine, who were receiving a new prescription for tiotropium/olodaterol according to the treating physician in a real-world environment. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of therapeutic success, defined as a 0.4-point decrease in CCQ score after treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol for approximately 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Overall, 4819 patients were treated; baseline and Week 6 CCQ scores were available for 4700 patients, mostly classified as Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) B (51.6%) or D (42.7%). After 6 weeks' treatment, 81.4% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 80.24-82.49) of patients achieved therapeutic success; mean improvement in overall CCQ score was 1.02 points (95% CI 1.00-1.05). Improved CCQ score was seen in 92.2% of patients (95% CI 91.43-92.98), 2.5% had no change and 5.3% showed a worsening. When stratified by prior treatment, the greatest benefit was seen in treatment-naïve patients, with 85.7% achieving therapeutic success, compared with 79.5% of those pretreated with long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and 74.2% of those pretreated with LABA or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy. Overall, rescue medication decreased by 1.25 puffs/day (95% CI 1.19-1.31) versus baseline. In total, 29 patients (0.6%) reported drug-related adverse events and 7 patients reported serious adverse events (0.15%).

CONCLUSION

In 4700 COPD patients, 6 weeks' treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol, as initial treatment or follow-up to LAMA or LABA monotherapy or LABA/ICS, improved CCQ and decreased rescue medication use. The adverse event profile was consistent with the known safety profile of tiotropium/olodaterol.

Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids versus continuation of triple therapy in patients with COPD in real life: observational comparative effectiveness study

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are indicated for prevention of exacerbations in patients with COPD, but they are frequently overprescribed. ICS withdrawal has been recommended by international guidelines in order to prevent side effects in patients in whom ICS are not indicated.

METHOD

Observational comparative effectiveness study aimed to evaluate the effect of ICS withdrawal versus continuation of triple therapy (TT) in COPD patients in primary care. Data were obtained from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD) in the UK.

RESULTS

A total of 1046 patients who withdrew ICS were matched 1:4 by time on TT to 4184 patients who continued with TT. Up to 76.1% of the total population had 0 or 1 exacerbation the previous year. After controlling for confounders, patients who discontinued ICS did not have an increased risk of moderate or severe exacerbations (adjusted HR: 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.15; p = 0.441). However, rates of exacerbations managed in primary care (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.10-1.60; p = 0.003) or in hospital (IRR 1.72, 95% CI 1.03-2.86; p = 0.036) were higher in the cessation group. Unsuccessful ICS withdrawal was significantly and independently associated with more frequent courses of oral corticosteroids the previous year and with a blood eosinophil count ≥ 300 cells/μL.

CONCLUSIONS

In this primary care population of patients with COPD, composed mostly of infrequent exacerbators, discontinuation of ICS from TT was not associated with an increased risk of exacerbation; however, the subgroup of patients with more frequent courses of oral corticosteroids and high blood eosinophil counts should not be withdrawn from ICS. Trial registration European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (EUPAS30851).

Risk of Pneumonia Associated with Inhaled Corticosteroid in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Korean Population-Based Study

Introduction

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are recommended for patients with frequent exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, accumulating evidence has indicated the risk of pneumonia from the use of ICS. This study aimed to investigate the association between ICS and pneumonia in the real-world clinical setting.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed using nationwide population data from the Korea National Health Insurance Service. Subjects who had a new diagnosis of COPD and who received inhaled bronchodilators without a diagnosis of pneumonia before the initiation of bronchodilators were identified. Subjects were followed up until their first diagnosis of pneumonia. The risk of pneumonia in ICS users was compared to that in non-ICS users.

Results

A total of 87,594 subjects were identified and 1:1 matched to 22,161 ICS users and non-ICS users. More ICS users were diagnosed with pneumonia compared to non-ICS users (33.73% versus 24.51%, P<0.0001). The incidence rate per 100,000 person-years was 8904.98 for ICS users and 6206.79 for non-ICS users. The hazard ratio (HR) of pneumonia for ICS users was 1.62 (95% CI 1.54–1.70). The HR of subjects prescribed with the lowest ICS cumulative dose was 1.35 (1.27–1.43). The HR increased to 1.51 (1.42–1.60), 1.96 (1.85–2.09), and 2.03 (1.89–2.18) as the cumulative dose increased. Pneumonia was strongly associated with fluticasone propionate (1.79 (1.70–1.89)) and fluticasone furoate (1.80 (1.61–2.01)) use, compared to the use of other types of ICS.

Conclusion

ICS increases the risk of pneumonia in patients with COPD. Hence, ICS should be carefully prescribed in patients with risk factors for pneumonia while considering the cumulative doses and subtypes of ICS.

Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: a European Respiratory Society guideline

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) combined with bronchodilators can reduce the frequency of exacerbations in some patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There is evidence, however, that ICS are frequently used in patients where their benefit has not been established. Therefore, there is a need for a personalised approach to the use of ICS in COPD and to consider withdrawal of ICS in patients without a clear indication. This document reports European Respiratory Society recommendations regarding ICS withdrawal in patients with COPD.Comprehensive evidence synthesis was performed to summarise all available evidence relevant to the question: should ICS be withdrawn in patients with COPD? The evidence was appraised using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and the results were summarised in evidence profiles. The evidence synthesis was discussed and recommendations formulated by a committee with expertise in COPD and guideline methodology.After considering the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, quality of evidence, and feasibility and acceptability of interventions, the guideline panel made: 1) conditional recommendation for the withdrawal of ICS in patients with COPD without a history of frequent exacerbations, 2) strong recommendation not to withdraw ICS in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 eosinophils·µL^-1 and 3) strong recommendation to treat with one or two long-acting bronchodilators if ICS are withdrawn.A conditional recommendation indicates that there was uncertainty about the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences of the intervention, and that well-informed patients may make different choices regarding whether to have or not have the specific intervention.

[The concept of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease clinical control as a decision - making tool in real clinical practice for optimizing of basic pharmacotherapy]

The main goals of COPD therapy are to achieve clinical stability with minimal clinical manifestations and low risk of relapse. The proposed COPD control concept by analogy with asthma has not been quite well characterized yet. COPD control is defined as "the long - term maintenance of a clinical situation with a low impact of symptoms on the patient's life and absence of exacerbations." The situation of clinical control in COPD is considered desirable and potentially achievable for most patients with COPD. Pharmacotherapeutic options for COPD are constantly expanding. The control concept may be useful when the decision on treatment of COPD is made for dynamic adjustment of the therapy volume.

ERS International Congress, Madrid, 2019: highlights from the Respiratory Intensive Care Assembly

The Respiratory Intensive Care Assembly of the European Respiratory Society is delighted to present the highlights from the 2019 International Congress in Madrid, Spain. We have selected four sessions that discussed recent advances in a wide range of topics: from acute respiratory failure to cough augmentation in neuromuscular disorders and from extra-corporeal life support to difficult ventilator weaning. The subjects are summarised by early career members in close collaboration with the Assembly leadership. We aim to give the reader an update on the most important developments discussed at the conference. Each session is further summarised into a short list of take-home messages.