The Belgian trial with azithromycin for acute COPD exacerbations requiring hospitalization: an investigator-initiated study protocol for a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Azithromycin Versus Beta-lactams in Hospitalized Patients with Acute Exacerbations of COPD

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of data comparing azithromycin to alternative antibiotic choices in managing COPD exacerbations, making appropriate antibiotic selection controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment failure in hospitalized patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) receiving azithromycin or beta-lactams.

DESIGN

Retrospective, multicenter cohort study using logistic regression for multivariable analysis. Patients were included if they were at least 18 years old, admitted with AECOPD, and received at least two consecutive days of either a beta-lactam or azithromycin. Patients were excluded if they received concomitant azithromycin and beta-lactam antibiotics during the first 2 days, had a history of other severe underlying pulmonary diseases, pregnancy, COVID-19, alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, or received a corticosteroid for a diagnosis other than COPD.

PARTICIPANTS

Five hundred ninety-five patients were included, of which 428 (72%) received azithromycin and 167 patients (28%) received a beta-lactam.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary endpoint was treatment failure rate in patients receiving azithromycin versus beta-lactams, which was a composite endpoint defined as in-hospital mortality, admission to intensive care, initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation, initiation of a new antibiotic, steroid therapy escalation, or readmission due to AECOPD within 30 days.

KEY RESULTS

The composite primary outcome occurred in 84 patients (19.6%) in the azithromycin group and 54 (32.3%) in the beta-lactam group (p<0.01). The difference in the composite outcome was a result of higher rates of new antibiotics during admission (12.6% vs 4.2%; p<0.01) and higher readmission within 30 days (19.3% vs 12.4%; p=0.032). After controlling for potential confounders, beta-lactams continued to demonstrate a higher risk for treatment failure (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.46-3.63). There was no difference in adverse effects between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Azithromycin was associated with less treatment failure in AECOPD which was driven by lower readmission rates and prescription of new antimicrobials.

Effects of azithromycin on treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis in the stable phase

OBJECTIVE

To explore the effects of azithromycinon in treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in patients with acute exacerbation (AE) of chronic bronchitis (CB) in the stable phase.

METHODS

Totally, 60 COPD patients with AE of CB were divided into control group (CG, 30 cases) and experimental group (EG, 30 cases) using the random number residue method. The CG was administered 250 mg salmeterol-fluticasone powder inhalation twice a day combined with 18 µg tiotropium bromide inhalation once a day. The EG was treated with 250 mg azithromycin tablets once a day in addition to the treatment of the CG. We compared the clinical effect, pulmonary function, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide index between two groups after treated for three-months.

RESULTS

Compared with the CG, the EG showed a better clinical effect with a total effective rate at 86.67% after treatment (P<0.05). The EG exhibited better FEV1 and FEV1% than the CG (P<0.05). We also observed the difference between clinically FeNO-invalid patients before and after treatment was significant (P<0.05). After treatment, this difference among groups was statistically significant (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Azithromycin combined with salmeterol-fluticasone powder inhalation and tiotropium bromide inhalation have good effects for treating COPD patients with AE of CB in the stable stage and can improve the pulmonary function. When COPD with AE of CB was exacerbated, the FeNO index increased significantly, indicating a potential increase in the mucosal inflammatory cells and eosinophils of the airway.

Treatment failure and hospital readmissions in severe COPD exacerbations treated with azithromycin versus placebo - a post-hoc analysis of the BACE randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In the BACE trial, a 3-month (3 m) intervention with azithromycin, initiated at the onset of an infectious COPD exacerbation requiring hospitalization, decreased the rate of a first treatment failure (TF); the composite of treatment intensification (TI), step-up in hospital care (SH) and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To investigate the intervention's effect on recurrent events, and (2) to identify clinical subgroups most likely to benefit, determined from the incidence rate of TF and hospital readmissions.

METHODS

Enrolment criteria included the diagnosis of COPD, a smoking history of ≥10 pack-years and ≥ 1 exacerbation in the previous year. Rate ratio (RR) calculations, subgroup analyses and modelling of continuous variables using splines were based on a Poisson regression model, adjusted for exposure time.

RESULTS

Azithromycin significantly reduced TF by 24% within 3 m (RR = 0.76, 95%CI:0.59;0.97, p = 0.031) through a 50% reduction in SH (RR = 0.50, 95%CI:0.30;0.81, p = 0.006), which comprised of a 53% reduction in hospital readmissions (RR = 0.47, 95%CI:0.27;0.80; p = 0.007). A significant interaction between the intervention, CRP and blood eosinophil count at hospital admission was found, with azithromycin significantly reducing hospital readmissions in patients with high CRP (> 50 mg/L, RR = 0.18, 95%CI:0.05;0.60, p = 0.005), or low blood eosinophil count (<300cells/μL, RR = 0.33, 95%CI:0.17;0.64, p = 0.001). No differences were observed in treatment response by age, FEV1, CRP or blood eosinophil count in continuous analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This post-hoc analysis of the BACE trial shows that azithromycin initiated at the onset of an infectious COPD exacerbation requiring hospitalization reduces the incidence rate of TF within 3 m by preventing hospital readmissions. In patients with high CRP or low blood eosinophil count at admission this treatment effect was more pronounced, suggesting a potential role for these biomarkers in guiding azithromycin therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov number. NCT02135354 .

Impact of Macrolide Antibiotics on Hospital Readmissions and Other Clinically Important Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess whether a macrolide-based antibiotic treatment strategy reduces in-hospital mortality, decreases hospital readmissions, or improves other clinically important outcomes compared with a non-macrolide antibiotic treatment strategy in critically ill patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD).

DESIGN

Propensity score-matched pharmacoepidemiologic cohort study.

DATA SOURCE

Premier's Perspective Hospital Database.

PATIENTS

A total of 28,700 adults aged 40 years or older who were admitted to one of 566 United States intensive care units and had the primary diagnosis of AECOPD between January 2010 and December 2014 and received antibiotic treatment within 2 days of hospital admission were included. Patients were divided into macrolide (11,602 patients [40%]) or non-macrolide (17,098 patients [60%]) antibiotic treatment groups. Propensity score analysis successfully matched 8660 patients in each treatment group.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In the matched cohort, the macrolide treatment group was not associated with decreased hospital mortality after day 2 (3.0% vs 3.3%, p=0.28), intensive care unit length of stay (2 days vs 2 days, p=0.12), hospital length of stay (6 days vs 6 days, p=0.86), or length of assisted ventilation (3 days vs 3 days, p=0.71), compared with the non-macrolide treatment group. However, a macrolide-based antibiotic regimen was associated with an overall reduction in 30-day hospital readmissions (7.3% vs 8.8%, p<0.01), increased time to next all-cause (159 vs 130 days, p<0.01) or AECOPD (200 vs 175 days, p=0.03) readmission, and decreased hospital costs ($32,730 vs $34,021, p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that inclusion of a macrolide antibiotic in the treatment regimen may have both acute and sustained benefits in critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit with an AECOPD, including reductions in hospital readmissions and improvements in time to next readmission.

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND

Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Prophylactic antibiotic therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

There has been renewal of interest in the use of prophylactic antibiotics to reduce the frequency of exacerbations and improve quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether or not regular (continuous, intermittent or pulsed) treatment of COPD patients with prophylactic antibiotics reduces exacerbations or affects quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register and bibliographies of relevant studies. The latest literature search was performed on 27 July 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared prophylactic antibiotics with placebo in patients with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard Cochrane methods. Two independent review authors selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by involving a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies involving 3932 participants in this review. We identified two further studies meeting inclusion criteria but both were terminated early without providing results. All studies were published between 2001 and 2015. Nine studies were of continuous macrolide antibiotics, two studies were of intermittent antibiotic prophylaxis (three times per week) and two were of pulsed antibiotic regimens (e.g. five days every eight weeks). The final study included one continuous, one intermittent and one pulsed arm. The antibiotics investigated were azithromycin, erythromycin, clarithromycin, doxycyline, roxithromycin and moxifloxacin. The study duration varied from three months to 36 months and all used intention-to-treat analysis. Most of the pooled results were of moderate quality. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low.The studies recruited participants with a mean age between 65 and 72 years and mostly at least moderate-severity COPD. Five studies only included participants with frequent exacerbations and two studies recruited participants requiring systemic steroids or antibiotics or both, or who were at the end stage of their disease and required oxygen. One study recruited participants with pulmonary hypertension secondary to COPD and a further study was specifically designed to asses whether eradication of Chlamydia pneumoniae reduced exacerbation rates.The co-primary outcomes for this review were the number of exacerbations and quality of life.With use of prophylactic antibiotics, the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbations was reduced (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.78; participants = 2716; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence). This represented a reduction from 61% of participants in the control group compared to 47% in the treatment group (95% CI 39% to 55%). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome with prophylactic antibiotics given for three to 12 months to prevent one person from experiencing an exacerbation (NNTB) was 8 (95% CI 5 to 17). The test for subgroup difference suggested that continuous and intermittent antibiotics may be more effective than pulsed antibiotics (P = 0.02, I² = 73.3%).The frequency of exacerbations per patient per year was also reduced with prophylactic antibiotic treatment (rate ratio 0.67; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; participants = 1384; studies = 5; moderate-quality evidence). Although we were unable to pool the result, six of the seven studies reporting time to first exacerbation identified an increase (i.e. benefit) with antibiotics, which was reported as statistically significant in four studies.There was a statistically significant improvement in quality of life as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) with prophylactic antibiotic treatment, but this was smaller than the four unit improvement that is regarded as being clinically significant (mean difference (MD) -1.94, 95% CI -3.13 to -0.75; participants = 2237; studies = 7, high-quality evidence).Prophylactic antibiotics showed no significant effect on the secondary outcomes of frequency of hospital admissions, change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), serious adverse events or all-cause mortality (moderate-quality evidence). There was some evidence of benefit in exercise tolerance, but this was driven by a single study of lower methodological quality.The adverse events that were recorded varied among the studies depending on the antibiotics used. Azithromycin was associated with significant hearing loss in the treatment group, which was in many cases reversible or partially reversible. The moxifloxacin pulsed study reported a significantly higher number of adverse events in the treatment arm due to the marked increase in gastrointestinal adverse events (P < 0.001). Some adverse events that led to drug discontinuation, such as development of long QTc or tinnitus, were not significantly more frequent in the treatment group than the placebo group but pose important considerations in clinical practice.The development of antibiotic resistance in the community is of major concern. Six studies reported on this, but we were unable to combine results. One study found newly colonised participants to have higher rates of antibiotic resistance. Participants colonised with moxifloxacin-sensitive pseudomonas at initiation of therapy rapidly became resistant with the quinolone treatment. A further study with three active treatment arms found an increase in the degree of antibiotic resistance of isolates in all three arms after 13 weeks treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Use of continuous and intermittent prophylactic antibiotics results in a clinically significant benefit in reducing exacerbations in COPD patients. All studies of continuous and intermittent antibiotics used macrolides, hence the noted benefit applies only to the use of macrolide antibiotics prescribed at least three times per week. The impact of pulsed antibiotics remains uncertain and requires further research.The studies in this review included mostly participants who were frequent exacerbators with at least moderate-severity COPD. There were also older individuals with a mean age over 65 years. The results of these studies apply only to the group of participants who were studied in these studies and may not be generalisable to other groups.Because of concerns about antibiotic resistance and specific adverse effects, consideration of prophylactic antibiotic use should be mindful of the balance between benefits to individual patients and the potential harms to society created by antibiotic overuse. Monitoring of significant side effects including hearing loss, tinnitus, and long QTc in the community in this elderly patient group may require extra health resources.

Acute COPD exacerbation presenting with pronounced intrabullous haemorrhage and haemoptysis

A 54-year-old man with history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presented with subacute onset of chest pain, shortness of breath, productive cough with haemoptysis and night sweats. There were no fever or recent weight loss reported. The chest radiograph showed right upper lobe bullae with adjacent opacification and an emphysematous lung. Due to worsening haemoptysis and persistent chest pain, CT of the chest with contrast was performed, which revealed moderate to severe emphysema and numerous blood-filled bullae. Cardiac work-up for chest pain was negative for myocardial ischaemia and for aortic dissection. Further infectious work-ups for mycobacterial and invasive fungal infection were negative. The patient was treated for acute COPD exacerbation and responded well to the antibiotics with the resolution of haemoptysis. Follow-up CT of the chest revealed the gradual resolution of the haemorrhage, while the patient remained asymptomatic.

Significance of prolonged QTc in acute exacerbations of COPD requiring hospitalization

Background

A prolonged QT interval is associated with increased risk of Torsade de Pointes and cardiovascular death. The prevalence and clinical relevance of QT prolongation in acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), with high risk for cardiac morbidity and mortality, is currently unclear.

Methods

A dual cross-sectional study strategy was therefore designed. A retrospective study evaluated 140 patients with an AECOPD requiring hospitalization, half of which had prolonged QTc on the admission ECG. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine associated factors; Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses to assess prognostic significance. A prospective study evaluated 180 pulmonary patients with acute respiratory problems requiring hospitalization, to determine whether a prolonged QTc at admission represents an AECOPD-specific finding and to investigate the change in QTc-duration during hospitalization.

Results

Retrospectively, hypokalemia, cardiac troponin T and conductance abnormalities on ECG were significantly and independently associated with QTc prolongation. A prolonged QTc was associated with increased all-cause mortality (HR 2.698 (95% CI 1.032–7.055), p=0.043), however, this association was no longer significant when corrected for age, FEV₁ and cardiac troponin T. Prospectively, QTc prolongation was observed in 1/3 of the patients diagnosed with either an AECOPD, lung cancer, pulmonary infection or miscellaneous acute pulmonary disease, and was not more prevalent in AECOPD. The QTc-duration decreased significantly during hospitalization in patients with and without COPD.

Conclusion

A prolonged QTc is a marker of underlying cardiovascular disease during an AECOPD. It is not COPD-specific, but a common finding during the acute phase of a pulmonary disease requiring urgent hospital admission.

Clinical and inflammatory phenotyping by breathomics in chronic airway diseases irrespective of the diagnostic label

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are complex and overlapping diseases that include inflammatory phenotypes. Novel anti-eosinophilic/anti-neutrophilic strategies demand rapid inflammatory phenotyping, which might be accessible from exhaled breath.Our objective was to capture clinical/inflammatory phenotypes in patients with chronic airway disease using an electronic nose (eNose) in a training and validation set.This was a multicentre cross-sectional study in which exhaled breath from asthma and COPD patients (n=435; training n=321 and validation n=114) was analysed using eNose technology. Data analysis involved signal processing and statistics based on principal component analysis followed by unsupervised cluster analysis and supervised linear regression.Clustering based on eNose resulted in five significant combined asthma and COPD clusters that differed regarding ethnicity (p=0.01), systemic eosinophilia (p=0.02) and neutrophilia (p=0.03), body mass index (p=0.04), exhaled nitric oxide fraction (p<0.01), atopy (p<0.01) and exacerbation rate (p<0.01). Significant regression models were found for the prediction of eosinophilic (R²=0.581) and neutrophilic (R²=0.409) blood counts based on eNose. Similar clusters and regression results were obtained in the validation set.Phenotyping a combined sample of asthma and COPD patients using eNose provides validated clusters that are not determined by diagnosis, but rather by clinical/inflammatory characteristics. eNose identified systemic neutrophilia and/or eosinophilia in a dose-dependent manner.

Acute exacerbations of COPD: risk factors for failure and relapse

Acute exacerbations are a leading cause of worsening COPD in terms of lung function decline, quality of life, and survival. They also have a relevant economic burden on the health care system. Determining the risk factors for acute exacerbation and early relapse could be a crucial element for a better management of COPD patients. This review analyzes the current knowledge and underlines the main risk factors for recurrent acute exacerbations. Comprehensive evaluation of COPD patients during stable phase and exacerbation could contribute to prevent treatment failure and relapses.