Efficacy and safety of budesonide and formoterol in one pressurized metered-dose inhaler in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results of a 6-month randomized clinical trial

Network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies and traditional conventional dichotomous agents for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Introduction

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against cytokines and chemokines or their receptors promise to be a potential therapeutic option to address chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aim to provide a comprehensive literature review of the improvement in FEV1 and safety when comparing mAbs with conventional dichotomous agents.

Methods

We systematically searched 3 electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) up to August 1, 2023 to collect eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A frequentist network meta-analysis using a random-effects model was deployed to calculate mean differences (MD) for FEV1, relative risk (RR) of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and estimate the surface under cumulative rankings (SUCRA). A higher SUCRA indicates a better outcome.

Results

This study included 23 RCTs involving a total of 20,853 patients. Overall, except for Dupilumab, mAbs did not significantly improve FEV1 compared to traditional conventional dichotomous agents. Among all the interventions included, Aclidinium bromide/Formoterol (AB/FF) (SUCRA 97.7%) ranked highest, followed by Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) (SUCRA 93.5%), and Glycopyrrolate Formoterol Fumarate (GFF) (SUCRA 84.7%). Dupilumab (SUCRA 66.9%) ranked the fourth among all interventions but ranked the first among all the mAbs. Importantly, all mAbs demonstrated a good safety profile compared with placebo.

Conclusion

Considering the improvement in FEV1 and its safety, the development of mAbs for COPD still holds significant clinical potential.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, CRD42023452714.

Effect of fracture risk in inhaled corticosteroids in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The fracture risk of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treated with inhaled corticosteroids is controversial. And some large-scale randomized controlled trials have not solved this problem. The purpose of our systematic review and meta-analysis including 44 RCTs is to reveal the effect of inhaled corticosteroids on the fracture risk of COPD patients.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently retrieved randomized controlled trials of inhaled corticosteroids or combinations of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of COPD from PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The primary outcome was a fracture event. This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022366778).

RESULTS

Forty-four RCTs were performed in 87,594 patients. Inhaled therapy containing ICSs (RR, 1.19; 95%CI, 1.04-1.37; P = 0.010), especially ICS/LABA (RR, 1.30; 95%CI, 1.10-1.53; P = 0.002) and triple therapy (RR, 1.49; 95%CI, 1.03-2.17; P = 0.04) were significantly associated with the increased risk of fracture in COPD patients when compared with inhaled therapy without ICSs. Subgroup analyses showed that treatment duration ≥ 12 months (RR, 1.19; 95%CI, 1.04-1.38; P = 0.01), budesonide therapy (RR, 1.64; 95%CI., 1.07-2.51; P = 0.02), fluticasone furoate therapy (RR, 1.37; 95%CI, 1.05-1.78; P = 0.02), mean age of study participants ≥ 65 (RR, 1.27; 95%CI, 1.01-1.61; P = 0.04), and GOLD stage III(RR, 1.18; 95%CI, 1.00-1.38; P = 0.04) were significantly associated with an increased risk of fracture. In addition, budesonide ≥ 320 ug bid via MDI (RR, 1.75; 95%CI, 1.07-2.87; P = 0.03) was significantly associated with the increased risk of fracture.

CONCLUSION

Inhalation therapy with ICSs, especially ICS/LABA or triple therapy, increased the risk of fracture in patients with COPD compared with inhaled therapy without ICS. Treatment duration, mean age of participants, GOLD stage, drug dosage form, and drug dose participated in this association. Moreover, different inhalation devices of the same drug also had differences in risk of fracture.

Inhaled corticosteroids versus placebo for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

The role of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been the subject of much uncertainty. COPD clinical guidelines currently recommend selective use of ICS. ICS are not recommended as monotherapy for people with COPD, and are only given in combination with long-acting bronchodilators due to greater efficacy of combination therapy. Incorporating and critiquing newly published placebo-controlled trials into the monotherapy evidence base may help to resolve ongoing uncertainties and conflicting findings about their role in this population.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of inhaled corticosteroids, used as monotherapy versus placebo, in people with stable COPD, in terms of objective and subjective outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was October 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials comparing any dose of any type of ICS, given as monotherapy, with a placebo control in people with stable COPD. We excluded studies of less than 12 weeks' duration and studies of populations with known bronchial hyper-responsiveness (BHR) or bronchodilator reversibility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our a priori primary outcomes were 1. exacerbations of COPD and 2. quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were 3. all-cause mortality, 4. lung function (rate of decline of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁)), 5. rescue bronchodilator use, 6. exercise capacity, 7. pneumonia and 8. adverse events including pneumonia. ]. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-six primary studies with 23,139 participants met the inclusion criteria. Mean age ranged from 52 to 67 years, and females were 0% to 46% of participants. Studies recruited across the severities of COPD. Seventeen studies were of duration longer than three months and up to six months and 19 studies were of duration longer than six months. We judged the overall risk of bias as low.  Long-term (more than six months) use of ICS as monotherapy reduced the mean rate of exacerbations in those studies where pooling of data was possible (generic inverse variance analysis: rate ratio 0.88 exacerbations per participant per year, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 0.94; I² = 48%, 5 studies, 10,097 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; pooled means analysis: mean difference (MD) -0.05 exacerbations per participant per year, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; I² = 78%, 5 studies, 10,316 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). ICS slowed the rate of decline in quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (MD -1.22 units/year, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.60; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 2507 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; minimal clinically importance difference 4 points). There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with COPD (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.07; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 16,636 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Long-term use of ICS  reduced the rate of decline in FEV₁ in people with COPD (generic inverse variance analysis: MD 6.31 mL/year benefit, 95% CI 1.76 to 10.85; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 9829 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; pooled means analysis: 7.28 mL/year, 95% CI 3.21 to 11.35; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 12,502 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

ADVERSE EVENTS

in the long-term studies, the rate of pneumonia was increased in the ICS group, compared to placebo, in studies that reported pneumonia as an adverse event (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.88; I² = 55%; 9 studies, 14,831 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was an increased risk of oropharyngeal candidiasis (OR 2.66, 95% CI 1.91 to 3.68; 5547 participants) and hoarseness (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.74; 3523 participants). The long-term studies that measured bone effects generally showed no major effect on fractures or bone mineral density over three years. We downgraded the certainty of evidence to moderate for imprecision and low for imprecision and inconsistency.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review updates the evidence base for ICS monotherapy with newly published trials to aid the ongoing assessment of their role for people with COPD. Use of ICS alone for COPD likely results in a reduction of exacerbation rates of clinical relevance, probably results in a reduction in the rate of decline of FEV₁ of uncertain clinical relevance and likely results in a small improvement in health-related quality of life not meeting the threshold for a minimally clinically important difference. These potential benefits should be weighed up against adverse events (likely to increase local oropharyngeal adverse effects and may increase the risk of pneumonia) and probably no reduction in mortality. Though not recommended as monotherapy, the probable benefits of ICS highlighted in this review support their continued consideration in combination with long-acting bronchodilators. Future research and evidence syntheses should be focused in that area.

Association of Inhaled Corticosteroids With All-Cause Mortality Risk in Patients With COPD: A Meta-analysis of 60 Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) have been used widely in the maintenance therapy of COPD. However, whether inhaled therapy containing ICSs can reduce the all-cause mortality risk and the possible benefited patient subgroups is unclear.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does inhaled therapy containing ICSs reduce the all-cause mortality risk in patients with COPD compared with other inhaled therapies not containing ICSs?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Pooled results were calculated using Peto ORs with corresponding 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Sixty RCTs enrolling 103,034 patients were analyzed. Inhaled therapy containing ICSs (Peto OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97), especially triple therapy (Peto OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91), was associated with a reduction in the all-cause mortality risk among patients with COPD when compared with inhaled therapy without ICSs. Subgroup analyses revealed that treatment duration of > 6 months (Peto OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97), medium-dose ICSs (Peto OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.91), low-dose ICSs (Peto OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97), and budesonide (Peto OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.94) were involved in this association. The predictors of this association included eosinophil counts of ≥ 200/μL or percentage of ≥ 2%, documented history of ≥ 2 moderate and severe exacerbations in the previous year, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stages III or IV, age younger than 65 years, and BMI of ≥ 25 kg/m2, among which eosinophil counts of ≥ 200/μL (Peto OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95) were the strongest predictor.

INTERPRETATION

Inhaled therapy containing ICSs, especially triple therapy, of longer than 6 months was associated with a reduction in the all-cause mortality risk in patients with COPD. The predictors of this association included medication factors and patient characteristics, among which eosinophil counts of ≥ 200/μL were the strongest predictor.

TRIAL REGISTRY

PROSPERO; No.: CRD42022304725; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

High versus Medium Dose of Inhaled Corticosteroid in Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) combined with bronchodilators have been identified to improve outcomes in COPD but also to be associated with certain adverse effects.

Objective

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compile and summarize data on the efficacy and safety of dosing levels (high versus medium/low) of ICS alongside ancillary bronchodilators following PRISMA guidelines.

Data Sources

Medline and Embase were systematically searched until December 2021. Randomized, clinical trials (RCTs) that met predefined inclusion criteria were included.

Data Extraction

Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted. Any acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) risk was chosen as the primary efficacy outcome, mortality rate as the primary safety outcome, moderate/severe AECOPD risk as the secondary efficacy outcome and pneumonia risk as the secondary safety outcome. Subgroup analyses of individual ICS agents, of patients with baseline moderate/severe/very severe COPD and of patients with recent COPD exacerbation history were also performed. A random-effects model was used.

Results

We included 13 RCTs in our study. No data on low doses were included in the analysis. High dose ICS was not associated with a statistically significant difference in any AECOPD risk (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.91-1.05, I²: 41.3%), mortality rate (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.75-1.32, I²: 0.0%), moderate/severe AECOPD risk (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.96-1.06, I²: 0.0%) or pneumonia risk (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.86 -1.33, I²: 9.3%) compared to medium dose ICS. The same trend was identified with the several subgroup analyses.

Conclusion

Our study collected RCTs investigating the optimal dosing level of ICS prescribed alongside ancillary bronchodilators to patients with COPD. We identified that the high ICS dose neither reduces AECOPD risk and mortality rates nor increases pneumonia risk relative to the medium dose.

Inhaled corticosteroids, COPD, and the incidence of lung cancer: a systematic review and dose response meta-analysis

Background

There has been debate on whether inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) reduce the incidence of lung cancer amongst patients with Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (COPD). We aimed to perform a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis on available observational data.

Methods

We performed both a dose response and high versus low random effects meta-analysis on observational studies measuring whether lung cancer incidence was lower in patients using ICS with COPD. We report relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), as well as risk difference. We use the GRADE framework to report our results.

Results

Our dose–response suggested a reduction in the incidence of lung cancer for every 500 ug/day of fluticasone equivalent ICS (RR 0.82 [95% 0.68–0.95]). Using a baseline risk of 7.2%, we calculated risk difference of 14 fewer cases per 1000 ([95% CI 24.7–3.8 fewer]). Similarly, our results suggested that for every 1000 ug/day of fluticasone equivalent ICS, there was a larger reduction in incidence of lung cancer (RR 0.68 [0.44–0.93]), with a risk difference of 24.7 fewer cases per 1000 ([95% CI 43.2–5.4 fewer]). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low, due to risk of bias and inconsistency.

Conclusion

There may be a reduction in the incidence for lung cancer in COPD patients who use ICS. However, the quality of the evidence is low to very low, therefore, we are limited in making strong claims about the true effect of ICS on lung cancer incidence.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12890-022-02072-1.

Discordant diagnostic criteria for pneumonia in COPD trials: a review

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) have a class effect of increasing pneumonia risk in patients with COPD. However, pneumonia incidence varies widely across clinical trials of ICS use in COPD. This review clarifies methodological differences in defining and recording pneumonia events in these trials and discusses factors that could contribute to the varying pneumonia incidence. Literature searches and screening yielded 40 relevant references for inclusion. Methods used to capture pneumonia events in these studies included investigator-reported pneumonia adverse events, standardised list of signs or symptoms, radiographic confirmation of suspected cases and/or confirmation by an independent clinical end-point committee. In general, more stringent pneumonia diagnosis criteria led to lower reported pneumonia incidence rates. In addition, studies varied in design and population characteristics, including exacerbation history and lung function, factors that probably contribute to the varying pneumonia incidence. As such, cross-trial comparisons are problematic. A minimal set of standardised criteria for diagnosis and reporting of pneumonia should be used in COPD studies, as well as reporting of patients’ pneumonia history at baseline, to allow comparison of pneumonia rates between trials. Currently, within-trial comparison of ICS-containing versus non-ICS-containing treatments is the appropriate method to assess the influence of ICS on pneumonia incidence.

Trials of ICS in COPD use varying methods of reporting pneumonia incidence, which influence the interpretation of results. A minimal set of standardised criteria for pneumonia diagnosis would allow comparison of pneumonia incidence between trials.https://bit.ly/3nbkdoL

Tanimilast, A Novel Inhaled Pde4 Inhibitor for the Treatment of Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Chronic respiratory diseases are the third leading cause of death, behind cardiovascular diseases and cancer, affecting approximately 550 million of people all over the world. Most of the chronic respiratory diseases are attributable to asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with this latter being the major cause of deaths. Despite differences in etiology and symptoms, a common feature of asthma and COPD is an underlying degree of airways inflammation. The nature and severity of this inflammation might differ between and within different respiratory conditions and pharmacological anti-inflammatory treatments are unlikely to be effective in all patients. A precision medicine approach is needed to selectively target patients to increase the chance of therapeutic success. Inhibitors of the phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) enzyme like the oral PDE4 inhibitor roflumilast have shown a potential to reduce inflammatory-mediated processes and the frequency of exacerbations in certain groups of COPD patients with a chronic bronchitis phenotype. However, roflumilast use is dampened by class related side effects as nausea, diarrhea, weight loss and abdominal pain, resulting in both substantial treatment discontinuation in clinical practice and withdrawal from clinical trials. This has prompted the search for PDE4 inhibitors to be given by inhalation to reduce the systemic exposure (and thus optimize the systemic safety) and maximize the therapeutic effect in the lung. Tanimilast (international non-proprietary name of CHF6001) is a novel highly potent and selective inhaled PDE4 inhibitor with proven anti-inflammatory properties in various inflammatory cells, including leukocytes derived from asthma and COPD patients, as well as in experimental rodent models of pulmonary inflammation. Inhaled tanimilast has reached phase III clinical development by showing promising pharmacodynamic results associated with a good tolerability and safety profile, with no evidence of PDE4 inhibitors class-related side effects. In this review we will discuss the main outcomes of preclinical and clinical studies conducted during tanimilast development, with particular emphasis on the characterization of the pharmacodynamic profile that led to the identification of target populations with increased therapeutic potential in inflammatory respiratory diseases.

Personalising add-on treatment with inhaled corticosteroids in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a benefit-harm modelling study

BACKGROUND

Since the benefit-harm balance of adding inhaled corticosteroids to long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is unclear, we evaluated this addition for a range of patient profiles.

METHODS

Analyses considered the effects of low-to-moderate doses of inhaled corticosteroids, LABA, and LAMA compared with LABA and LAMA alone, outcome incidences, and preference weights assigned to averted moderate-to-severe exacerbations (benefit) and severe pneumonia, candidiasis, and dysphonia (harm). Using exponential models, we estimated the preference weight-adjusted 2-year net clinical benefit (ie, benefits outweighing harms) indices. Exacerbation risk thresholds for triggering inhaled corticosteroids, LABA, and LAMA were established when the probability of a 2-year net clinical benefit reached 60%. We estimated the proportion of patients benefiting from added inhaled corticosteroids using an externally validated prediction model for acute exacerbations in primary care.

FINDINGS

Adding low-to-moderate dose inhaled corticosteroids to LABA and LAMA provided a net clinical benefit in patients with a 2-year baseline exacerbation risk of 54-83%. Low-dose inhaled corticosteroids showed a net clinical benefit if the baseline risk was 40-91%, but not at higher doses. The benefit was modified by blood eosinophil count (BEC) and age. Although no net benefit was associated with a BEC of less than 150 cells per μL, patients with a BEC of 150 cells per μL or more had a net benefit from low-dose inhaled corticosteroids with a 2-year exacerbation risk of 32-95% in those aged 40-79 years and 41-93% in those older than 80 years. A moderate dose of inhaled corticosteroids showed a net benefit in patients younger than 80 years with a BEC of 150 cells per μL or more at 52-86% 2-year exacerbation risk. Depending on the subgroups, the proportion of patients with a net benefit from added inhaled corticosteroids ranged from 0 to 68%.

INTERPRETATION

The net clinical benefit of adding different inhaled corticosteroid doses to LABA and LAMA varies greatly with exacerbation risk, BEC, and age. Personalised treatment decisions based on these factors and predicted exacerbation risks might reduce overtreatment and undertreatment with inhaled corticosteroids.

FUNDING

None.

Inhaled Corticosteroids and the Pneumonia Risk in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Whether all types of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) would increase the pneumonia risk in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains controversial. We aimed to assess the association between ICSs treatment and pneumonia risk in COPD patients, and the impact of medication details and baseline characteristics of patients on the association.

Methods: Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials.gov) were searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ICSs treatment with non-ICSs treatment on the pneumonia risk in COPD patients. Pooled results were calculated using Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: A total of 59 RCTs enrolling 103,477 patients were analyzed. All types of ICSs significantly increased the pneumonia risk (Peto OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.34–1.53). Subgroup analysis showed that there was a dose-response relationship between ICSs treatment and pneumonia risk (low-dose: Peto OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.22–1.45; medium-dose: Peto OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.28–1.76; and high-dose: Peto OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.45–1.85). Subgroup analyses based on treatment durations and baseline characteristics (severity, age, and body mass index) of patients were consistant with the above results. Subgroup analysis based on severity of pneumonia showed that fluticasone (Peto OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.44–2.14) increased the risk of serious pneumonia, while budesonide and beclomethasone did not.

Conclusions: ICSs treatment significantly increased the risk of pneumonia in COPD patients. There was a dose-response relationship between ICSs treatment and pneumonia risk. The pneumonia risk was related with COPD severity.

Longitudinal FEV1 and Exacerbation Risk in COPD: Quantifying the Association Using Joint Modelling

BACKGROUND

Lung function, measured as forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and exacerbations are two endpoints evaluated in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical trials. Joint analysis of these endpoints could potentially increase statistical power and enable assessment of efficacy in shorter and smaller clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate joint modelling as a tool for analyzing treatment effects in COPD clinical trials by quantifying the association between longitudinal improvements in FEV1 and exacerbation risk reduction.

METHODS

A joint model of longitudinal FEV1 and exacerbation risk was developed based on patient-level data from a Phase III clinical study in moderate-to-severe COPD (1740 patients), evaluating efficacy of fixed-dose combinations of a long-acting bronchodilator, formoterol, and an inhaled corticosteroid, budesonide. Two additional studies (1604 and 1042 patients) were used for external model validation and parameter re-estimation.

RESULTS

A significant (p<0.0001) association between FEV1 and exacerbation risk was estimated, with an approximate 10% reduction in exacerbation risk per 100 mL improvement in FEV1, consistent across trials and treatment arms. The risk reduction associated with improvements in FEV1 was relatively small compared to the overall exacerbation risk reduction for treatment arms including budesonide (10-15% per 160 µg budesonide). High baseline breathlessness score and previous history of exacerbations also influenced the risk of exacerbation.

CONCLUSION

Joint modelling can be used to co-analyze longitudinal FEV1 and exacerbation data in COPD clinical trials. The association between the endpoints was consistent and appeared unrelated to treatment mechanism, suggesting that improved lung function is indicative of an exacerbation risk reduction. The risk reduction associated with improved FEV1 was, however, generally small and no major impact on exacerbation trial design can be expected based on FEV1 alone. Further exploration with other longitudinal endpoints should be considered to further evaluate the use of joint modelling in analyzing COPD clinical trials.

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.

Formoterol for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Bronchodilators, including long-acting β₂-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists, are the mainstay for treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to prevent exacerbations or reduce symptoms. Formoterol is a highly selective and potent β₂-agonist that relaxes airway smooth muscle to significantly improve lung function. Inhaled formoterol works within 5 minutes of administration and provides improvements in spirometry measurements over 12 hours. The lipophilicity of formoterol allows it to form a depot within the smooth muscle to provide a prolonged duration of action. Following therapeutic doses, plasma concentrations are very low or undetectable. Determination of the pharmacokinetics of formoterol following high-dose administration to healthy volunteers revealed that the drug was rapidly absorbed and excreted unchanged in the urine with a half-life of 10 hours. Inhaled formoterol, as monotherapy or in combination with other agents, is an effective and safe treatment option for patients with moderate to severe COPD. Clinical studies have demonstrated improvements in lung function and COPD symptoms, particularly dyspnea; reductions in the risk of exacerbations; and improvement in patients' health status. The adverse event profile of inhaled formoterol is similar to that of placebo, with few adverse cardiovascular events. Formoterol is a valuable bronchodilator used in the maintenance treatment of COPD. This review describes the mechanism of action, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of inhaled formoterol. It also reviews the results of large, randomized, controlled clinical trials that evaluated the use of formoterol as monotherapy and in combination with inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting muscarinic antagonists, and triple therapy regimens in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe COPD.

Intraclass Difference in Pneumonia Risk with Fluticasone and Budesonide in COPD: A Systematic Review of Evidence from Direct-Comparison Studies

Background

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are widely used and recommended to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). While generally considered safe, several studies demonstrated an increased risk of pneumonia with the use of ICS in COPD patients. Although all ICS indicated for COPD carry the class labeling warning of increased pneumonia risk, evidence suggests an intraclass difference in the risk of pneumonia between inhaled budesonide and fluticasone. To date, systematic reviews of direct-comparison studies have not been performed to assess if an intraclass difference exists.

Research Question

This review investigated whether there is an intraclass difference in risk of pneumonia between inhaled fluticasone and budesonide, the 2 most commonly used ICS in COPD.

Study Design and Methods

A search of the medical literature was conducted in PubMed and Embase for the time period of 01/01/69–05/31/19. The search strategy combined terms that defined the patient/disease type, exposures, outcome, and the study/publication type. Descriptive and comparative statistics reported for fluticasone- and budesonide-containing products in each study, including data for pneumonia event subgroups, were extracted and reported by dose, seriousness, or practice setting. Controlled clinical trials and observational studies meeting the inclusion criteria were assessed for methodologic quality by using the appropriate tool from the list of study quality assessment tools developed by the National Institutes of Health.

Results

The summary relative risk (RR) ratio across 5 included studies (57,199 patients) was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.09–1.19), representing a 13.5% increased risk of pneumonia among fluticasone users compared to budesonide users. Similarly, summary RR ratio for serious pneumonia implied a 14.4% increased risk of serious pneumonia among fluticasone users compared to budesonide users (pooled RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.09–1.20).

Interpretation

There is likely a clinically important intraclass difference in the risk of pneumonia between fluticasone- and budesonide-containing inhaled medications in COPD.

Long-Acting Bronchodilators for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Which One(S), How, and When?

Long-acting bronchodilators represent the mainstay of maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This state-of-the-art review summarizes currently available data on the safety, efficacy, and clinical effectiveness of long-acting bronchodilators and describes their role in the management of COPD, as defined by current national and international guidelines. Data from extensive clinical trials and real-life studies have demonstrated that long-acting beta-2 agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists can safely reduce the frequency of exacerbations, alleviate symptoms, and improve quality of life, exercise tolerance, and lung function of patients with COPD. They are recommended as first-line maintenance treatment of COPD.

COPDCompEx: A novel composite endpoint for COPD exacerbations to enable faster clinical development

BACKGROUND

Frequency of moderate and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations is an important endpoint in clinical trials, but makes them large and lengthy when powered to evaluate it. We aimed to develop a composite endpoint (COPDCompEx) that could predict treatment effect on exacerbations, enabling the design of shorter early phase clinical trials requiring fewer patients.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis, data from 20 randomized controlled trials were used to develop and test COPDCompEx. Diary events were tested against predefined threshold values for peak expiratory flow, reliever medication use, and symptoms. A COPDCompEx event was defined as first occurrence of a diary event, a moderate or severe exacerbation, or a study dropout. Ratios of event frequency, treatment effect and future trial sample size were compared between COPDCompEx and moderate and severe exacerbations.

FINDINGS

At 3 months, the proportion of patients experiencing COPDCompEx events increased over 3-fold versus exacerbations alone. All components contributed to COPDCompEx event rate. Treatment effects at 3 months were closely matched between COPDCompEx and exacerbations, and the large net gain in power substantially reduced the required sample size.

INTERPRETATION

COPDCompEx may be used to predict treatment effect on moderate and severe exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This may enable the design of shorter Phase 2 clinical trials requiring fewer patients when compared with current exacerbation studies, with exacerbations as a key Phase 3 endpoint. This would, therefore, allow more efficient decision-making with reduced burden and risk to study participants.

Efficacy and safety of CHF6001, a novel inhaled PDE4 inhibitor in COPD: the PIONEER study

Background

This study evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of the novel inhaled phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor CHF6001 added-on to formoterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

Randomised, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel-group study. Eligible patients had symptomatic COPD, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) 30–70% predicted, and history of ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation. Patients were randomised to extrafine CHF6001 400, 800, 1200 or 1600 μg twice daily (BID), budesonide, or placebo for 24 weeks. Primary objectives: To investigate CHF6001 dose-response for pre-dose FEV₁ after 12 weeks, and to identify the optimal dose. Moderate-to-severe exacerbations were a secondary endpoint.

Results

Of 1130 patients randomised, 91.9% completed. Changes from baseline in pre-dose FEV₁ at Week 12 were small in all groups (including budesonide), with no CHF6001 dose-response, and no significant treatment–placebo differences. For moderate-to-severe exacerbations, CHF6001 rate reductions versus placebo were 13–28% (non-significant). In post-hoc analyses, CHF6001 effects were larger in patients with a chronic bronchitis phenotype (rate reductions versus placebo 24–37%; non-significant), and were further increased in patients with chronic bronchitis and eosinophil count ≥150 cells/μL (49–73%, statistically significant for CHF6001 800 and 1600 μg BID). CHF6001 was well tolerated with no safety signal (including in terms of gastrointestinal adverse events).

Conclusions

CHF6001 had no effect in the primary lung function analysis, although was well-tolerated with no gastrointestinal adverse event signal. Post-hoc analyses focused on exacerbation risk indicate specific patient subgroups who may receive particular benefit from CHF6001.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02986321). Registered 8 Dec 2016.

Risk of Pneumonia with Different Inhaled Corticosteroids in COPD Patients: A Meta-Analysis

ICS are anti-inflammatory agents which have been suggested to benefit people with worsening symptoms of COPD, by improving lung function, reducing exacerbation of disease, and enhancing overall quality of life. This systematic review and meta-analysis explored the association of the risk of pneumonia in COPD patients that were undergoing treatment using ICS alone or together with LABAs or LAMAs. PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE were systematically searched through August 1, 2019; only double-blinded randomized controlled trials were eligible for this study. Eighteen randomized controlled trials were included. ICS treatment was linked to increased pneumonia incidence (RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.26-1.71; p < 0.001; I2 = 39.6%). Patients treated with salmeterol/fluticasone were more likely to have experience pneumonia-related adverse events than those treated using budesonide/formoterol or beclomethasone/formoterol. In subgroup analyses, pneumonia risk was found to be higher in the subgroups: >65 years old, lowest baseline forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration (FEV1) < 50% of the predicted value, highest ICS dose, and long duration of ICS use. Furthermore, we compared fluticasone propionate with fluticasone furoate and determined that pneumonia incidence was higher in the former group and pneumonia incidence rose as doses rose in these two groups. However, no difference was observed between the budesonide and beclomethasone groups. ICS treatment was linked to an elevated pneumonia risk, different kinds of ICS lead to different rates of pneumonia.

Improving the evaluation of COPD exacerbation treatment effects by accounting for early treatment discontinuations: a post-hoc analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical trials aimed at evaluating treatment effects on exacerbations often suffer from early discontinuations of randomized treatment. Treatment discontinuations imply a loss of information and should ideally be considered in the statistical analysis of trial results, particularly if the discontinuations are related to the disease or treatment itself. Here, we explore this issue by investigating (1) whether there exists an association between the risks of exacerbation and treatment discontinuation in COPD clinical trials and (2) whether disregarding this association can cause bias in exacerbation treatment effect estimates. We focus on the hypothetical estimand, i.e. the treatment effect that would have been observed had all subjects completed the trial as planned.

Methods

The association between exacerbation and discontinuation risks was analysed by applying a joint frailty (random effect) model – allowing for the simultaneous analysis of multiple types of correlated events – to data from five Phase III-IV COPD clinical trials. Specifically, the impact of the association on exacerbation treatment effect estimates was assessed by comparing the treatment hazard ratios of the joint frailty model to the rate/hazard ratios of two related statistical models (the negative binomial and shared frailty models), which both assume discontinuations to be unrelated to the trial outcome. The models were also compared using simulated data.

Results

A statistically significant (p < 0.0001), positive association between exacerbation and discontinuation risks was found in all trials. Importantly, simulations confirmed that – with such an association – models disregarding the association risk producing biased results (> 5 percentage point difference in hazard/rate ratio). For some treatment comparisons in the clinical trials, the difference in treatment effect estimates between the joint frailty and the other models was as high as 10–15 percentage points. The difference was affected by the strength of the exacerbation-discontinuation association, the population heterogeneity in exacerbation risk, and the difference in discontinuation rates between treatment arms.

Conclusions

We have identified an association between the risks of exacerbation and treatment discontinuation in five COPD clinical trials. We recommend using the joint frailty model to account for this association when estimating exacerbation treatment effects, particularly when targeting the hypothetical estimand.

Correlation of Inhaled Long-Acting Bronchodilators With Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Stable COPD: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

A majority of existing studies have focused on the efficacy of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators (ILABs), such as long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs), and LABAs combined with LAMAs in treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The current meta-analysis aimed to investigate the correlation of ILABs with specific cardiovascular adverse events (CAEs). Five electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically retrieved. Finally, 16 randomized controlled trials were enrolled into the current meta-analysis. Typically, the efficacy of 3 major classes of drugs (LABAs, LAMAs, and LABAs combined with LAMAs), and 7 specific drugs (including formoterol, glycopyrrolate, indacaterol, olodaterol, Salmeterol, tiotropium, and vilanterol) for 4 CAEs, including myocardial infarction, cardiac failure (CF), ischemic heart disease (IHD), and stroke in stable COPD patients, was examined. All the pooled results were analyzed through the odds ratios (ORs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The direct meta-analysis results suggested that LABAs could increase the risk of CF in patients with stable COPD compared with placebo controls (OR 1.70, 95% CI, 1.00-2.90). In addition, network meta-analysis results indicated that LAMAs combined with LABAs would result in an increased risk of CF in patients with stable COPD (OR 2.31, 95% CI, 1.10-5.09). According to the ILABs specific drug analysis, formoterol may potentially have protective effects on IHD compared with placebo controls (OR 0.45, 95% CI, 0.18-1.00). In conclusion, among these 3 kinds of ILABs, including LAMAs, LABAs, and LABAs/LAMAs, for stable COPD patients, LAMAs and LABAs are associated with the least possibility to induce myocardial infarction and stroke, respectively. However, the application of LABAs will probably increase the risk of CF; they should be used with caution for stable COPD patients with CF. In addition, in specific-drug analysis, the use of formoterol can reduce the risk of treatment-related IHD. Nevertheless, more studies on different drug doses are needed in the future to further validate this conclusion.

Treatment with inhaled corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in combination with long acting beta-2-agonists (LABA) or LABA/long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) is used in order to reduce exacerbations. Treatment with ICS is, however, associated with side effects such as oropharyngeal candidiasis, skin thinning or easy bruising and pneumonia. The aim of this review was to investigate when to use ICS in COPD and to compare the effectiveness and safety of different ICSs. Studies comparing the effect of ICS/LABA and LABA/LAMA on exacerbations have shown divergent results, whereas most studies comparing ICS/LABA/LAMA (triple therapy) with LABA/LAMA have reported fewer exacerbations with triple therapy. Several investigations have shown that the number of eosinophils in blood predicts whether a patient will benefit from treatment with ICS. There is also data indicating that ICS has a small but significant positive effect on lung function decline and decrease mortality. There are four observational studies showing a better effect on exacerbations with budesonide/formoterol than fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and three observational studies showing less risk of pneumonia with budesonide than fluticasone propionate. Studies comparing the effect and safety of other ICSs such as fluticasone furoate and beclomethasone are too few to draw firm conclusions from. In conclusion, ICS together with LABA or LABA/LAMA reduces the risk of exacerbations in COPD. The indication of using ICS in COPD is stronger if the patient has increased blood eosinophils levels. There are data indicating that the choice of ICS matters, with studies showing a better effect-safety profile with budesonide compared to fluticasone propionate whereas it is not possible to make benefit-risk comparisons between the other licensed ICSs.

Efficacy and safety of two doses of budesonide/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler in COPD

Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combination therapy is a recommended treatment option for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and increased exacerbation risk, particularly those with elevated blood eosinophil levels. SOPHOS (NCT02727660) evaluated the efficacy and safety of two doses of budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate metered dose inhaler (BFF MDI) versus formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FF) MDI, each delivered using co-suspension delivery technology, in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD and a history of exacerbations.

In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, 12–52-week, variable length study, patients received twice-daily BFF MDI 320/10 µg or 160/10 µg, or FF MDI 10 µg. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at week 12. Secondary and other endpoints included assessments of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations and safety.

The primary analysis (modified intent-to-treat) population included 1843 patients (BFF MDI 320/10 µg, n=619; BFF MDI 160/10 µg, n=617; and FF MDI, n=607). BFF MDI 320/10 µg and 160/10 µg improved morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ at week 12 versus FF MDI (least squares mean differences 34 mL [p=0.0081] and 32 mL [p=0.0134], respectively), increased time to first exacerbation (hazard ratios 0.827 [p=0.0441] and 0.803 [p=0.0198], respectively) and reduced exacerbation rate (rate ratios 0.67 [p=0.0001] and 0.71 [p=0.0010], respectively). Lung function and exacerbation benefits were driven by patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥150 cells·mm⁻³. The incidence of adverse events was similar, and pneumonia rates were low (≤2.4%) across treatments.

SOPHOS demonstrated the efficacy and tolerability of BFF MDI 320/10 µg and 160/10 µg in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD at increased risk of exacerbations.

Co-suspension delivery technology budesonide/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler improve lung function and reduce exacerbation risk versus LABA monotherapy in patients with moderate to very severe COPD and an exacerbation history in the prior yearhttp://bit.ly/3aDOvru

Benefit:Risk Profile of Budesonide in Obstructive Airways Disease

Airway inflammation is a major contributing factor in both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and represents an important target for treatment. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as monotherapy or in combination therapy with long-acting β₂-agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists are used extensively in the treatment of asthma and COPD. The development of ICS for their anti-inflammatory properties progressed through efforts to increase topical potency and minimise systemic potency and through advances in inhaled delivery technology. Budesonide is a potent, non-halogenated ICS that was developed in the early 1970s and is now one of the most widely used lung medicines worldwide. Inhaled budesonide's physiochemical and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties allow it to reach a rapid and high airway efficacy due to its more balanced relationship between water solubility and lipophilicity. When absorbed from the airways and lung tissue, its moderate lipophilicity shortens systemic exposure, and its unique property of intracellular esterification acts like a sustained release mechanism within airway tissues, contributing to its airway selectivity and a low risk of adverse events. There is a large volume of clinical evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of budesonide, both alone and in combination with the fast- and long-acting β₂-agonist formoterol, as maintenance therapy in patients with asthma and with COPD. The combination of budesonide/formoterol can also be used as an as-needed reliever with anti-inflammatory properties, with or without regular maintenance for asthma, a novel approach that is already approved by some country-specific regulatory authorities and currently recommended in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines. Budesonide remains one of the most well-established and versatile of the inhaled anti-inflammatory drugs. This narrative review provides a clinical reappraisal of the benefit:risk profile of budesonide in the management of asthma and COPD.

Impact of Single Combination Inhaler versus Multiple Inhalers to Deliver the Same Medications for Patients with Asthma or COPD: A Systematic Literature Review

With increasing choice of medications and devices for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment, comparative evidence may inform treatment decisions. This systematic literature review assessed clinical and economic evidence for using a single combination inhaler versus multiple inhalers to deliver the same medication for patients with asthma or COPD. In 2016, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane library were searched for publications reporting studies in asthma or COPD comparing a single-inhaler combination medicine with multiple inhalers delivering the same medication. Publications included English-language articles published since 1996 and congress abstracts since 2013. Clinical, economic and adherence endpoints were assessed. Of 2031 abstracts screened, 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in asthma and four in COPD, nine retrospective and three prospective observational studies in asthma, and four observational studies in COPD were identified. Of these, five retrospective and one prospective study in asthma, and two retrospective studies in COPD reported greater adherence with a single inhaler than multiple inhalers. Nine observational studies reported significantly (n=7) or numerically (n=2) higher rates of adherence with single- versus multiple-inhaler therapy. Economic analyses from retrospective and prospective studies showed that use of single-inhaler therapies was associated with reduced healthcare resource use (n=6) and was cost-effective (n=5) compared with multiple-inhaler therapies. Findings in 18 asthma RCTs and one prospective study reporting lung function, and six RCTs reporting exacerbation rates, showed no significant differences between a single inhaler and multiple inhalers. This was in contrast to several observational studies reporting reductions in healthcare resource use or exacerbation events with single-inhaler treatment, compared with multiple inhalers. Retrospective and prospective studies showed that single-inhaler use was associated with decreased healthcare resource utilization and improved cost-effectiveness compared with multiple inhalers. Lung function and exacerbation rates were mostly comparable in the RCTs, possibly due to study design.

Inhaled corticosteroid use and the incidence of lung cancer in COPD

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are suggested for potential chemoprevention of lung cancer. Several observational studies in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) reported inconsistent results, either significant reductions in lung cancer incidence with ICS use or no effect. We assessed this association, using an approach that avoided biases affecting some of the studies.

METHODS

A cohort of patients with COPD, new users of long-acting bronchodilators over 2000-2014, was formed using the Quebec healthcare databases, and followed until 2015 for a first diagnosis of lung cancer. A 1-year delay after cohort entry was used to avoid protopathic bias and a 1-year latency period was included after the initiation of ICS use. A time-dependent Cox regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of lung cancer associated with ICS exposure, adjusted for covariates.

RESULTS

The cohort involved 63 276 subjects, including 63% receiving ICS, with 3743 lung cancers occurring during a mean follow-up of 5 years. The adjusted HR of lung cancer associated with any ICS exposure was 1.01 (95% CI 0.94-1.08), relative to no ICS use. The HR with longer time (>4 years) since ICS initiation was 0.92 (95% CI 0.83-1.03), while with higher mean daily ICS dose (>1000 μg fluticasone equivalents) was 1.36 (95% CI 1.03-1.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled corticosteroid use is not associated with a reduction in lung cancer incidence in patients with COPD. Observational studies reporting such reduction may have been affected by time-related biases and the inclusion of patients with asthma. The proposition of a randomised trial warrants some caution.

Budesonide/formoterol therapy: effective and appropriate use in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Aim: Quality, real-world comparative effectiveness (CE) studies of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease therapy efficacy are scarce. We identified and evaluated peer-reviewed CE and appropriate-use evaluations of budesonide/formoterol combination (BFC) maintenance therapy. Materials & methods: Analyses were limited to retrospective, real-world utilization studies of BFC delivered by pressurized metered-dose inhalers. Results: In a CE study of BFC versus fluticasone/salmeterol combinations (FSC) in asthma, BFC users had fewer total exacerbations. In appropriate-use studies of asthma treatment, BFC patients were consistently more likely to meet treatment escalation recommendations. BFC comparisons with FSC or tiotropium for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease found differences in exacerbation rates and rescue inhaler use. Conclusion: We found available, good quality BFC CE and appropriate-use articles; however, all had limitations.

An update on pulmonary rehabilitation techniques for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Introduction: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is one of the core components in the management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In order to achieve the maximal level of independence, autonomy, and functioning of the patient, targeted therapies and interventions based on the identification of physical, emotional and social traits need to be provided by a dedicated, interdisciplinary PR team.Areas covered: The review discusses cardiopulmonary exercise testing in the selection of different modes of training modalities. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation as well as gait assessment and training are discussed as well as add-on therapies as oxygen, noninvasive ventilator support or endoscopic lung volume reduction in selected patients. The potentials of pulsed inhaled nitric oxide in patients with underlying pulmonary hypertension is explored as well as nutritional support. The impact of sleep quality on outcomes of PR is reviewed.Expert opinion: Individualized, comprehensive intervention based on thorough assessment of physical, emotional, and social traits in COPD patients forms a continuous challenge for health-care professionals and PR organizations in order to dynamically implement and adapt these strategies based on dynamic, more optimal understanding of underlying pathophysiological mechanisms.

Reduced risk of clinically important deteriorations by ICS in COPD is eosinophil dependent: a pooled post-hoc analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinically Important Deterioration (CID) is a novel composite measure to assess treatment effect in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We examined the performance and utility of CID in assessing the effect of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in COPD.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis of four budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) studies comprised 3576 symptomatic moderate-to-very-severe COPD patients with a history of exacerbation. Analysis of time to first CID event (exacerbation, deterioration in forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁] or worsening St George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] score) was completed using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with ≥1 CID in the four studies ranged between 63 and 77% and 69-84% with BUD/FORM and FORM, respectively, with an average 25% reduced risk of CID with BUD/FORM. All components contributed to the CID event rate. Experiencing a CID during the first 3 months was associated with poorer outcomes (lung function, quality of life, symptoms and reliever use) and increased risk of later CID events. The effect of BUD/FORM versus FORM in reducing CID risk was positively associated with the blood eosinophil count.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that BUD/FORM offers protective effects for CID events compared with FORM alone, with the magnitude of the effect dependent on patients' eosinophil levels. CID may be an important tool for evaluation of treatment effect in a complex, multifaceted, and progressive disease like COPD, and a valuable tool to allow for shorter and smaller future outcome predictive trials in early drug development.

Asthma control and COPD symptom burden in patients using fixed-dose combination inhalers (SPRINT study)

Previous studies have found suboptimal control of symptom burden to be widespread among patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Phase IV SPRINT study was conducted in 10 countries in Europe to assess asthma disease control and COPD symptom burden in patients treated with a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta agonists (LABAs). SPRINT included 1101 patients with asthma and 560 with COPD; all were receiving treatment with an FDC of ICS/LABA, delivered via various inhalers. Data were obtained over a 3-month period, during a single routine physician’s office visit. Asthma control was defined as Asthma Control Test (ACT) score >19. COPD symptom burden was assessed by COPD Assessment Test (CAT), with a CAT score <10 defining low COPD symptom burden. Among patients using any ICS/LABA FDC, 62% of patients with asthma had achieved disease control (ACT score >19) and 16% of patients with COPD had low symptom burden (CAT score <10).

The efficacy of adding budesonide/formoterol to ipratropium plus theophylline in managing severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an open-label, randomized study in China

Background:

Patients diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in China are commonly prescribed ipratropium plus theophylline (I+T) therapy. Studies have shown that an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β²-agonist (LABA) combination is also efficacious in reducing symptoms and exacerbations. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of adding budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) to I+T in Chinese patients with severe COPD.

Methods:

A randomized, parallel-group, open-label, multicenter phase IV study (Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT01415518) was conducted in China. Patients received either BUD/FORM (160/4.5 µg; two inhalations twice daily [bid] via Turbuhaler^®) + I (20 µg per inhalation, two inhalations four times daily) + T (100 mg bid) or I+T alone for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in predose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁).

Results:

A total of 584 patients were randomized equally between treatment groups. At the end of the study, the BUD/FORM plus I+T group displayed significant improvements in predose FEV₁ versus the I+T group (between-group difference 6.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.3, 9.6; p < 0.0001). Forced vital capacity, inspiratory capacity, peak expiratory flow and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores were significantly improved (all p < 0.0001) and exacerbation frequency was reduced (43.5% reduction; rate ratio 0.565, 95% CI 0.325, 0.981; p = 0.0425) with BUD/FORM plus I+T versus I+T alone.

Conclusion:

Patients with severe COPD in China treated with BUD/FORM plus I+T showed significant improvements in lung function and HRQoL and a reduction in exacerbations compared with I+T alone. Both treatments were well tolerated and no safety concerns were noted.

The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Inhaled corticosteroids and risk of pneumonia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are generally used to treat patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who suffer from repeated exacerbations. Recently, it was reported that ICS treatment increased the risk of pneumonia in COPD patients. But it is controversial.The objective of this paper is to clarify the associations between ICS treatment and the risk of pneumonia in COPD patients.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials.gov, and Embase were searched from February 2019 to June 2019. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were incorporatedthat compared ICS with non-ICS treatment on the risk of pneumonia in COPD patients. Meta-analyses were conducted by the Peto and Mantel-Haenszel approaches with corresponding 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Twenty-five trials (N = 49,982 subjects) were included. Pooled results demonstrated a significantly increased risk of pneumonia with ICS use in COPD patients (RR, 1.59, 95% CI, 1.33-1.90; I² = 51%). ICS treatment also increased the risk of severe pneumonia (RR, 2.17, 95% CI, 1.47-3.22; I² = 29%). The results of subgroup analysis based on doses of ICS were consistent with the above. However, subgroup analyses based on types of ICS revealed that fluticasone therapy was associated with an increased risk of pneumonia but not budesonide. In addition, medium- and low-doses of budesonide treatment also did not increase the risk of pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of ICS increases the risk of pneumonia in patients with COPD. The above is prominent for fluticasone-containing ICSs but not for budesonide-containing ICSs.

Relationship of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators with cardiovascular outcomes among patients with stable COPD: a meta-analysis and systematic review of 43 randomized trials

Background: Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2–agonists (LABAs) are the mainstay of maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although previous studies have supported inhaled long-acting bronchodilators (ILABs) for overall cardiovascular safety, the risk of specific cardiovascular outcomes such as arrhythmia, heart failure and stroke is still unknown.

Materials and methods: We systematically searched from PubMed, the Embase database and the Cochrane Library for published studies on ILABs and COPD, from its inception to November 10, 2018, with no language restrictions. The RRs and corresponding 95% CIs were pooled to evaluate ILAB/placebo.

Results: Finally, 43 randomized controlled trials were included. Compared with placebo, ILABs do not increase the risk of overall and specific cardiovascular adverse events (AEs); on the contrary, they can reduce the incidence of hypertension (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.98;I²19.9%; P= 0.221). However, when stratified according to the specific agents of ILABs, olodaterol might reduce the risk of overall cardiovascular adverse events (OCAEs) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49–0.88;I²27.5%; P= 0.000), and the protective effect of lowing blood pressure disappeared. Similarly, the use of inhaled LABA might increase the risk of cardiac failure (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.04–2.84;I²0%; P= 0.538), but this risk disappeared when stratified according to the specific agents of LABA. Besides, formoterol might decrease the risk of cardiac ischemia (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32–0.91; I²0%; P= 0.676).

Conclusions: Overall, the use of ILABs was not associated with overall cardiovascular AEs in patients with stable COPD. When stratified according to the specific agents of LABA, olodaterol might reduce the risk of OCAE; and formoterol might decrease the risk of cardiac ischemia. LABA might reduce the incidence of hypertension, but might increase the risk of heart failure. Therefore, COPD patients with a history of heart failure should use it with caution.

Risks of budesonide/formoterol for the treatment of stable COPD: a meta-analysis

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the comparative risks of budesonide/formoterol, versus placebo or monotherapies, for the treatment of patients with stable COPD.

Materials and methods

We undertook a systematic search of the literature in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing budesonide/formoterol with control regimens for the treatment of patients with stable COPD and at least 12 weeks of follow-up, meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were reviewed, and OR with corresponding 95% CI was used to pool the results.

Results

A total of eight studies involving 9,254 patients met the inclusion criteria of this meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol was associated with a significantly higher risk of adverse effects including oral candidiasis (OR: 3.09, 95% CI: 1.95–4.91) and dysphonia (OR: 2.76, 95% CI: 1.40–5.44), but not pneumonia (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.64–1.37) or bronchitis (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.95–1.95). A similar pattern was also evident for the comparison of formoterol with budesonide/formoterol, with increased occurrence of oral candidiasis (OR: 2.72, 95% CI: 1.33–5.58) and dysphonia (OR: 4.13, 95% CI: 1.95–8.76); however, there were no significant differences in pneumonia (OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.98–1.74) or bronchitis (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.83–1.31). In contrast, compared with budesonide, combined budesonide/formoterol was associated with similar risks of adverse effects, including pneumonia (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.60–2.39), bronchitis (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.41–2.20), oral candidiasis (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.41–1.53), and dysphonia (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.40–2.47).

Conclusion

Combination therapy does not cause more adverse events, including pneumonia and bronchitis, than control (placebo, formoterol, or budesonide) treatment in patients with stable COPD, while there were higher risks of oral candidiasis and dysphonia compared with the non-inhaled corticosteroid group (placebo, formoterol).

Comparative Efficacy of Budesonide/Formoterol with Budesonide, Formoterol or Placebo for Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Background

The 2018 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease publication suggested that the combination of bronchodilator therapy of inhaled glucocorticoid/long-acting β₂ adrenoceptor agonist is more effective in improving pulmonary function and health status in the treatment of patients with acute exacerbations than the individual components; however, it is not known whether this also the case for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol in the maintenance and relief therapy of patients with stable COPD.

Material/Methods

An electronic search of the literature in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was undertaken to identify published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ≥12 weeks duration comparing the budesonide/formoterol, with budesonide, formoterol, or placebo in the treatment of patients with stable COPD. The identified RCTs were reviewed. The mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to pool the results.

Results

Seven high quality studies with RCTs met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Compared with budesonide alone, the combination therapy of budesonide/formoterol showed significant improvement in the following spirometric indices: pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) (SMD: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.18, 0.34; P=0.000). In addition, versus formoterol alone, budesonide/formoterol was associated with a significant increase in pre-dose FEV₁ (SMD: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.17; P=0.000). A similar pattern was also evident in the comparison to placebo, where budesonide/formoterol yielded greater increase in pre-dose FEV₁ (SMD: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.18, 0.30; P=0.000). Moreover, compared with other controls, the combination of budesonide-formoterol significantly improved morning peak expiratory flow and evening peak expiratory flow, significantly reduced the total score of St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire.

Conclusions

For stable COPD patients, compared with controls (monocomponents or placebo), budesonide/formoterol improved pulmonary function and health status. Future larger long-term RCTs are warranted to assess the beneficial clinical efficacy of budesonide/formoterol in COPD patients.

Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators such as long-acting β-agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combinations have been used in people with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to control symptoms such as dyspnoea and cough, and prevent exacerbations. A number of LABA/LAMA combinations are now available for clinical use in COPD. However, it is not clear which group of above mentioned inhalers is most effective or if any specific formulation works better than the others within the same group or class.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of available formulations from four different groups of inhalers (i.e. LABA/LAMA combination, LABA/ICS combination, LAMA and LABA) in people with moderate to severe COPD. The review will update previous systematic reviews on dual combination inhalers and long-acting bronchodilators to answer the questions described above using the strength of a network meta-analysis (NMA).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies from the Cochrane Airways Specialised Register, which contains several databases. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' websites. The most recent searches were conducted on 6 April 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited people aged 35 years or older with a diagnosis of COPD and a baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of less than 80% of predicted. We included studies of at least 12 weeks' duration including at least two active comparators from one of the four inhaler groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted NMAs using a Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo method. We considered a study as high risk if recruited participants had at least one COPD exacerbation within the 12 months before study entry and as low risk otherwise. Primary outcomes were COPD exacerbations (moderate to severe and severe), and secondary outcomes included symptom and quality-of-life scores, safety outcomes, and lung function. We collected data only for active comparators and did not consider placebo was not considered. We assumed a class/group effect when a fixed-class model fitted well. Otherwise we used a random-class model to assess intraclass/group differences. We supplemented the NMAs with pairwise meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 101,311 participants from 99 studies (26 studies with 32,265 participants in the high-risk population and 73 studies with 69,046 participants in the low-risk population) in our systematic review. The median duration of studies was 52 weeks in the high-risk population and 26 weeks in the low-risk population (range 12 to 156 for both populations). We considered the quality of included studies generally to be good.The NMAs suggested that the LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations followed by LAMA in the both populations.There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination, LAMA, and LABA in the high-risk population (network hazard ratios (HRs) 0.86 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.76 to 0.99), 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.99), and 0.70 (95% CrI 0.61 to 0.8) respectively), and that LAMA decreases moderate to severe exacerbations compared to LABA in the high- and low-risk populations (network HR 0.80 (95% CrI 0.71 to 0.88) and 0.87 (95% CrI 0.78 to 0.97), respectively). There is evidence that the LABA/LAMA combination reduces severe exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS combination and LABA in the high-risk population (network HR 0.78 (95% CrI 0.64 to 0.93) and 0.64 (95% CrI 0.51 to 0.81), respectively).There was a general trend towards a greater improvement in symptom and quality-of-life scores with the combination therapies compared to monotherapies, and the combination therapies were generally ranked higher than monotherapies.The LABA/ICS combination was the lowest ranked in pneumonia serious adverse events (SAEs) in both populations. There is evidence that the LABA/ICS combination increases the odds of pneumonia compared to LAMA/LABA combination, LAMA and LABA (network ORs: 1.69 (95% CrI 1.20 to 2.44), 1.78 (95% CrI 1.33 to 2.39), and 1.50 (95% CrI 1.17 to 1.92) in the high-risk population and network or pairwise OR: 2.33 (95% CI 1.03 to 5.26), 2.02 (95% CrI 1.16 to 3.72), and 1.93 (95% CrI 1.29 to 3.22) in the low-risk population respectively). There were significant overlaps in the rank statistics in the other safety outcomes including mortality, total, COPD, and cardiac SAEs, and dropouts due to adverse events.None of the differences in lung function met a minimal clinically important difference criterion except for LABA/LAMA combination versus LABA in the high-risk population (network mean difference 0.13 L (95% CrI 0.10 to 0.15). The results of pairwise meta-analyses generally agreed with those of the NMAs. There is no evidence to suggest intraclass/group differences except for lung function at 12 months in the high-risk population.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The LABA/LAMA combination was the highest ranked treatment group to reduce COPD exacerbations although there was some uncertainty in the results. LAMA containing inhalers may have an advantage over those without a LAMA for preventing COPD exacerbations based on the rank statistics. Combination therapies appear more effective than monotherapies for improving symptom and quality-of-life scores. ICS-containing inhalers are associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.Our most comprehensive review including intraclass/group comparisons, free combination therapies, 99 studies, and 20 outcomes for each high- and low-risk population summarises the current literature and could help with updating existing COPD guidelines.

The dose of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COPD: when less is better

Background

The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in combination with bronchodilators in patients with COPD has been shown to decrease the rate of disease exacerbations and to improve the lung function and patients’ quality of life. However, their use has also been associated with an increased risk of pneumonia.

Materials and methods

We have reviewed existing clinical evidence on the risks and benefits of ICS in COPD, including large randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and clinical reviews.

Results

A large body of evidence supports the clinical benefits of ICS in patients with COPD in terms of exacerbations, symptoms, lung function, and quality of life. The incidence of adverse events related to ICS, including pneumonia, varies strongly among the studies and seems to be dose dependent, with recent well-designed, large studies on low-dose ICS reporting similar safety profiles in ICS and non-ICS groups.

Conclusion

The benefits of ICS in COPD continue to outweigh the risks, especially when lower ICS doses are employed. Given that the data on ICS withdrawal in COPD are scarce and conflicting, we argue that using reduced doses of ICS could be an optimal strategy to manage patients with COPD.

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

PURPOSE

To assess the comparative efficacy of short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMAs), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), LAMA in combination with long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs; LAMA/LABAs) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in combination with LABA (ICS/LABAs) for the maintenance treatment of COPD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed 74 randomized controlled trials (74,832 participants) published up to 15 November 2017, which compared any of the interventions (SAMA [ipratropium], LAMA [aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium, umeclidinium], LAMA/LABA [aclidinium/formoterol, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, tiotropium/olodaterol, umeclidinium/vilanterol] and ICS/LABA [fluticasone/vilanterol, budesonide/formoterol, salmeterol/fluticasone]) with each other or with placebo. A random-effects network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence was conducted to examine the change from baseline in trough FEV1, transition dyspnea index, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire and frequency of adverse events at weeks 12 and 24.

RESULTS

Inconsistency models were not statistically significant for all outcomes. LAMAs, LAMA/LABAs and ICS/LABAs led to a significantly greater improvement in trough FEV1 compared with placebo and SAMA monotherapy at weeks 12 and 24. All LAMA/LABAs, except aclidinium/formoterol, were statistically significantly better than LAMA monotherapy and ICS/LABAs in improving trough FEV1. Among the LAMAs, umeclidinium showed statistically significant improvement in trough FEV1 at week 12 compared to tiotropium and glycopyrronium, but the results were not clinically significant. LAMA/LABAs had the highest probabilities of being ranked the best agents in FEV1 improvement. Similar trends were observed for the transition dyspnea index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire outcomes. There were no significant differences in the incidences of adverse events among all treatment options.

CONCLUSION

LAMA/LABA showed the greatest improvement in trough FEV1 at weeks 12 and 24 compared with the other inhaled drug classes, while SAMA showed the least improvement. There were no significant differences among the LAMAs and LAMA/LABAs within their respective classes.

Budesonide/formoterol MDI with co-suspension delivery technology in COPD: the TELOS study

TELOS compared budesonide (BD)/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (FF) metered dose inhaler (BFF MDI), formulated using innovative co-suspension delivery technology that enables consistent aerosol performance, with its monocomponents and budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate dry powder inhaler (DPI) in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), without a requirement for an exacerbation history.

In this phase III, double-blind, parallel-group, 24-week study (NCT02766608), patients were randomised to BFF MDI 320/10 µg (n=664), BFF MDI 160/10 µg (n=649), FF MDI 10 µg (n=648), BD MDI 320 µg (n=209) or open-label budesonide/formoterol DPI 400/12 µg (n=219). Primary end-points were change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) and FEV₁ area under the curve from 0–4 h (AUC_0–4). Time to first and rate of moderate/severe exacerbations were assessed.

BFF MDI 320/10 µg improved pre-dose trough FEV₁versus FF MDI (least squares mean (LSM) 39 mL; p=0.0018), and BFF MDI 320/10 µg and 160/10 µg improved FEV₁ AUC_0–4versus BD MDI (LSM 173 mL and 157 mL, respectively; both p<0.0001) at week 24. BFF MDI 320/10 µg and 160/10 µg improved time to first and rate of moderate/severe exacerbations versus FF MDI. Treatments were well tolerated, with pneumonia incidence ranging from 0.5–1.4%.

BFF MDI improved lung function versus monocomponents and exacerbations versus FF MDI in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

TELOS: co-suspension delivery technology budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate in a metered dose inhaler improved lung function and time to first and rate of exacerbations versus monocomponents in patients with moderate to very severe COPDhttp://ow.ly/ffWo30lrJL6

Effect of a spacer on total systemic and lung bioavailability in healthy volunteers and in vitro performance of the Symbicort® (budesonide/formoterol) pressurized metered dose inhaler

INTRODUCTION

Many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma experience difficulties in coordinating inhalation with pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) actuation. The use of a spacer device can improve drug delivery in these patients. The aim of this study was to establish the relative bioavailability of single doses of Symbicort^® (budesonide/formoterol) pMDI 160/4.5 μg/actuation (2 actuations) used with and without a spacer device. In addition, an in vitro study was conducted to characterize performance of the inhaler when used in conjunction with a spacer device.

METHODS

A Phase I, randomized, open-label, single-dose, single-center, crossover study in 50 healthy volunteers (NCT02934607) assessed the relative bioavailability of single-dose Symbicort^® pMDI 160/4.5 μg/actuation (2 actuations) with and without a spacer (AeroChamber Plus^® Flow-Vu^®). Inhaled doses were administered without or with activated charcoal (taken orally) to estimate total systemic exposure and exposure through the lung, respectively. The in vitro study characterized the effect of the spacer with respect to delivered dose, fine particle dose, and dose during simulated breathing of budesonide and formoterol.

RESULTS

In terms of total systemic exposure, use of the spacer increased the relative bioavailability determined by AUC_(0-last) and C_max by 68% (spacer:no spacer treatment ratio, 167.9%; 90% CI, 144.1 to 195.6) and 99% (ratio, 198.7%; 90% CI, 164.4 to 240.2) for budesonide, and 77% (ratio, 176.6%; 90% CI, 145.1 to 215.0) and 124% (ratio, 223.6%; 90% CI, 189.9 to 263.3) for formoterol, respectively, compared with pMDI alone. Similarly, the lung exposure of budesonide and formoterol increased (AUC_(0-last) and C_max by 146% [ratio, 246.0%; 90% CI, 200.7 to 301.6] and 127% [ratio, 226.5%; 90% CI, 186.4 to 275.4] for budesonide, and 173% [ratio, 272.8%; 90% CI, 202.5 to 367.4] and 136% [ratio, 236.2%; 90% CI, 192.6 to 289.6] for formoterol, respectively) when the pMDI was administered through the spacer. When assessed by AUC_(0-last) quartile without spacer, subjects in the lowest exposure quartile (indicating poor inhalation technique) with Symbicort^® pMDI 160/4.5 μg/actuation (2 actuations) had markedly increased total systemic and lung exposure when the same dose was administered with the spacer. In contrast, for subjects in the highest exposure quartile with pMDI alone, total systemic and lung exposure of formoterol and budesonide was similar with and without the spacer. In the in vitro study, the fine particle dose (<5 μm) of both budesonide and formoterol from the spacer at delay time (i.e. pause period after actuation) = 0 s (instantaneous) after actuation was similar to the fine particle dose when not using the spacer. The delivered doses of budesonide and formoterol from the spacer were both lower compared with the doses administered without the spacer. There was also a decrease in delivered dose with increasing delay time.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical study demonstrated that in subjects with poor inhalation technique the use of the AeroChamber Plus^® Flow-Vu^® spacer increased the bioavailability of Symbicort^® pMDI to a level observed in subjects with good inhalation technique without a spacer. The findings from the in vitro study support the fine particle dose characteristics of Symbicort^® pMDI with the AeroChamber Plus^® Flow-Vu^® spacer.

Risk of Cardiovascular Events Associated with Inhaled Corticosteroid Treatment in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Background

The cardiovascular (CV) safety of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is controversial because different studies have suggested that ICSs either increase or reduce the risk of CV events in COPD patients. In this meta-analysis, we assess the CV safety of ICS therapy in COPD.

Methods

A meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trials of ICS treatment for COPD that include at least 4 weeks of follow-up was performed. A random-effects model was used to evaluate the effects of ICS treatment on CV events. CV events were documented in each trial, and the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ICSs were estimated.

Results

Thirty-one trials were included in this meta-analysis. The risk of CV events was not different between ICS-treated and control groups (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.06; P=0.801). In a subgroup analysis, there were no significant differences in CV events between an ICS combined with long-acting β₂ agonist (LABA) (ICS + LABA) group and an LABA-only group (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.10; P=0.930), as well as between a combination group (ICS + LABA) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) combined with LABA (LAMA + LABA) group (RR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.39 to 1.55; P=0.473). In addition, there was no difference in the risk of CV events between ICS treatment and control groups (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.09; P=0.872).

Conclusions

These results demonstrate that ICSs do not increase the risk of CV events in COPD patients.

Efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of budesonide/formoterol fumarate delivered via metered dose inhaler using innovative co-suspension delivery technology in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD

Purpose

This study investigated the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of the inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist fixed-dose combination budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) metered dose inhaler (MDI), compared with the monocomponents budesonide (BD) MDI and formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI, in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Materials and methods

In this Phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, four-period, five-treatment, incomplete-block, crossover study (NCT02196077), all patients received BFF MDI 320/9.6 μg and FF MDI 9.6 μg, and two of either BFF MDI 160/9.6 μg, BFF MDI 80/9.6 μg, or BD MDI 320 μg twice daily for 28 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours on Day 29. Secondary efficacy endpoints included additional lung function assessments, and evaluation of dyspnea and rescue medication use. Safety was monitored throughout. The systemic exposure to budesonide and formoterol was assessed on Day 29.

Results

Overall, 180 patients were randomized. For forced expiratory volume in 1 second area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours on Day 29, all BFF MDI doses showed significant improvements versus BD MDI 320 μg (least squares mean differences 186–221 mL; all p<0.0001), and BFF MDI 320/9.6 μg demonstrated a significant improvement versus FF MDI 9.6 μg (least squares mean difference 56 mL; p=0.0013). Furthermore, all BFF MDI doses showed significant improvements versus BD MDI 320 μg for all lung function, dyspnea, and rescue medication use secondary efficacy endpoints. All BFF MDI doses were well tolerated, and the safety profile was not substantially different from the monocomponents. There was no evidence of clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic interactions when budesonide and formoterol were formulated together in BFF MDI.

Conclusion

The findings presented here confirm that BFF MDI 320/9.6 μg is an appropriate dose to take forward into Phase III studies in patients with COPD.

Efficacy of salmeterol and formoterol combination treatment in mice with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a severe lung disease characterized by progressive airflow limitation. Salmeterol and formoterol are two commonly used drugs in COPD therapy, which act as β2-receptor agonists. In the current study, a mouse model of COPD induced by airway lipopolysaccharide inhalation was established. The therapeutic efficacy of salmeterol and formoterol co-treatment was investigated in this model over a 56-day-long observation period. It was also identified that functional residual capacity and inspiratory resistance were significantly improved after salmeterol and/or formoterol treatment compared with the control group (all P<0.01). Furthermore, histological staining of lung tissue samples indicated that inflammation, thickening of the smooth muscle, goblet cell hyperplasia and pulmonary small vessel obstruction were reduced in the mice treated with salmeterol and/or formoterol, suggesting that salmeterol and formoterol were beneficial for ongoing airway and blood vessel remodeling in mice with COPD. The most common treatment-associated adverse events were hypertension and proteinuria. In conclusion, combined salmeterol and formoterol treatment was more effective compared with either single agent, suggesting that salmeterol and formoterol combined treatment has therapeutic value for the clinical treatment of patients with COPD.

Predictors of exacerbation risk and response to budesonide in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a post-hoc analysis of three randomised trials

BACKGROUND

The peripheral blood eosinophil count might help identify those patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who will experience fewer exacerbations when taking inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Previous post-hoc analyses have proposed eosinophil cutoffs that are both arbitrary and limited in evaluating complex interactions of treatment response. We modelled eosinophil count as a continuous variable to determine the characteristics that determine both exacerbation risk and clinical response to ICS in patients with COPD.

METHODS

We analysed data from three AstraZeneca randomised controlled trials of budesonide-formoterol in patients with COPD with a history of exacerbations and available blood eosinophil counts. Patients with any history of asthma were excluded. Negative binomial regression analysis was done using splines for modelling of continuous variables to study the primary outcome of annual exacerbation rate adjusted for exposure time and study design. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00206167, NCT00206154, and NCT00419744.

FINDINGS

4528 patients were studied. A non-linear increase in exacerbations occurred with increasing eosinophil count in patients who received formoterol alone. At eosinophil counts of 0·10 × 10⁹ cells per L or more, a significant treatment effect was recorded for exacerbation reduction with budesonide-formoterol compared with formoterol alone (rate ratio 0·75, 95% CI 0·57-0·99; p_interaction=0·015). Interactions were observed between eosinophil count and the treatment effects of budesonide-formoterol over formoterol on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (p_interaction=0·0043) and pre-bronchodilator FEV₁ (linear effect p<0·0001, p_interaction=0·067). Only eosinophil count and smoking history were independent predictors of response to budesonide-formoterol in reducing exacerbations (eosinophil count, p_interaction=0·013; smoking history, p_interaction=0·015).

INTERPRETATION

In patients with COPD treated with formoterol, blood eosinophil count predicts exacerbation risk and the clinical response to ICS.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Scientific rationale for the possible inhaled corticosteroid intraclass difference in the risk of pneumonia in COPD

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) treatment combined with long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonists (LABAs) reduces the risk of exacerbations in COPD, but the use of ICSs is associated with increased incidence of pneumonia. There are indications that this association is stronger for fluticasone propionate than for budesonide. We have examined systematic reviews assessing the risk of pneumonia associated with fluticasone propionate and budesonide COPD therapy. Compared with placebo or LABAs, we found that fluticasone propionate was associated with 43%-78% increased risk of pneumonia, while only slightly increased risk or no risk was found for budesonide. We have evaluated conceivable mechanisms which may explain this difference and suggest that the higher pneumonia risk with fluticasone propionate treatment is caused by greater and more protracted immunosuppressive effects locally in the airways/lungs. These effects are due to the much slower dissolution of fluticasone propionate particles in airway luminal fluid, resulting in a slower uptake into the airway tissue and a much longer presence of fluticasone propionate in airway epithelial lining fluid.

Dual Bronchodilation with Indacaterol Maleate/Glycopyrronium Bromide Compared with Umeclidinium Bromide/Vilanterol in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe COPD: Results from Two Randomized, Controlled, Cross-over Studies

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of two long-acting dual bronchodilator combinations: indacaterol/glycopyrrolate (IND/GLY) versus umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI).

METHODS

Studies A2349 and A2350 were replicate, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, cross-over studies in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Patients were randomized to sequential 12-week treatments of twice-daily IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 μg and once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg, each separated by a 3-week washout. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of IND/GLY compared with UMEC/VI in terms of the 24-h forced expiratory volume in 1 s profile at week 12 (FEV₁ AUC_0-24). Rescue medication use, symptom control, and safety were assessed throughout.

RESULTS

Both treatments delivered substantial bronchodilation over 12 weeks, with improvements in FEV₁ AUC_0-24h at week 12 of 232 and 185 mL for IND/GLY, and 244 and 203 mL with UMEC/VI in Studies A2349 and A2350, respectively. The primary efficacy objective of non-inferiority of IND/GLY relative to UMEC/VI was not met as the lower bound of the confidence interval for the LS treatment comparison was below the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -20 mL in both studies: -26.9 and -34.2 mL, respectively (LS mean between-treatment differences: -11.5 and -18.2 mL). Both drugs were well tolerated, with AE profiles consistent with their respective prescribing information.

CONCLUSIONS

IND/GLY and UMEC/VI provided clinically meaningful and comparable bronchodilation. Non-inferiority of IND/GLY to UMEC/VI could not be declared although between-treatment differences were not clinically relevant. The data support the use of IND/GLY as an efficacious and well tolerated treatment option in patients with COPD. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02487446 and NCT02487498).