Do inhaled anticholinergics increase or decrease the risk of major cardiovascular events?: a synthesis of the available evidence

The Coexistence of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Heart Failure

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic illness that is widely prevalent within the United States and has been frequently associated with heart failure (HF). COPD is associated with progressive damage and inflammation of the airways leading to airflow obstruction and inadequate gas exchange. HF represents a decline in the normal functioning of the heart resulting in insufficient pumping of blood through the circulatory system. COPD and HF present with similar signs and symptoms with some variation.

There are many specific diagnostic tests and treatment modalities which we use to diagnose COPD and HF, but it becomes an issue when you come across a patient who has both conditions simultaneously. For example, attempting to use an X-ray to diagnose HF in a COPD patient is next to impossible because the results are manipulated by the COPD disease process. This is the case with many other diagnostic tests such as an electrocardiogram (ECG), chest radiography (X-ray), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), echocardiogram, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), pulmonary function test (PFT), arterial blood gas (ABG), and exercise stress testing.

When a patient has both COPD and HF, it becomes more difficult to treat. Many treatments for HF have negative impacts on COPD patients and vice-versa, whereas some have also shown positive clinical outcomes in both diseases. It is agreeable that treatment has to be patient-centered and it can vary from case to case depending on the severity of the disease. Ultimately, in this review, we discuss COPD and HF and how they interplay in their diagnostic and treatment modalities to gain a better understanding of how to effectively manage patients who have been diagnosed with both conditions.

COPD and heart failure: differential diagnosis and comorbidity

Heart failure (HF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) represent the most important differential diagnoses of dyspnea in elderly people. Heart failure is the inability of the heart to pump sufficient amounts of blood through the cardiovascular system. Pump failure is caused by compromised contractility and/or filling of the ventricles leading to forward and backward failure and subsequently to dyspnea. In COPD, the destruction and remodeling processes of the bronchiolar architecture inhibit proper exhalation of air, thereby leading to exhaustion of the thoracic muscles, insufficient oxygen diffusion, and dyspnea. Despite these fundamental differences in the pathophysiology of both disorders, their clinical presentation may be very similar. This renders accurate and timely diagnosis and therapy, especially in patients with coexisting disease, difficult. This clinical review summarizes typical problems in the diagnosis of COPD, HF, and coincident disease, and describes strategies that help avoid misdiagnosis and ineffective treatment.

Cardiovascular Comorbidities in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)-Current Considerations for Clinical Practice

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular comorbidities are highly prevalent and associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. This coincidence is increasingly seen in context of a “cardiopulmonary continuum” rather than being simply attributed to shared risk factors such as cigarette smoking. Overlapping symptoms such as dyspnea or chest pain lead to a worse prognosis due to missed concomitant diagnoses. Moreover, medication is often withheld as a result of unfounded concerns about side effects. Despite the frequent coincidence, current guidelines are still mostly restricted to the management of the individual disease. Future diagnostic and therapeutic strategies should therefore be guided by an integrative perspective as well as a refined phenotyping of disease entities.

Once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 mcg in COPD: a randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Combination long-acting bronchodilator therapy may be more effective than long-acting bronchodilator monotherapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 125/25 mcg with placebo and UMEC or VI monotherapy in COPD.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. A total of 1493 patients were randomized (3:3:3:2) to 24 weeks of treatment with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg, UMEC 125 mcg, VI 25 mcg, or placebo once-daily via dry powder inhaler.

RESULTS

Primary efficacy endpoint was trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) on Day 169 (23-24 h post-dose). Additional lung-function, symptomatic and health-related quality of life endpoints were also assessed. Safety evaluations included: adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiography and clinical laboratory measurements. All active treatments significantly improved trough FEV1 vs placebo (0.124-0.238 L, all p<0.001). Improvements with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg were significantly greater than for UMEC 125 mcg or VI 25 mcg (0.079 L and 0.114 L; both p≤0.001). Improvements for UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg vs placebo were observed for the transition dyspnea index (1.0 unit; p<0.001), rescue albuterol use at Weeks 1-24 (-1.5 puffs/day) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (-3.60 units, p<0.001). No safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg was well tolerated and provided greater improvements in lung function, health status, and dyspnea scores compared with monotherapy components and placebo over 24 weeks. This study supports the use of UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg for the maintenance treatment of COPD.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

protocol number: DB2113361; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01313637.

Role of anticholinergics in asthma management: recent evidence and future needs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anticholinergic antimuscarinic bronchodilators play a major role in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but their role in asthma has long been limited to acute management. More recently, the role of long-acting antimuscarinic bronchodilators (LAMAs) in chronic asthma management has been explored. This review will examine the pharmacological rationale for use of inhaled anticholinergics in the treatment of asthma, and provide an overview of the current literature supporting this use, as well as describe future research needs in this area.

RECENT FINDINGS

Short-acting anticholinergic bronchodilators have a role as add-on agents in the treatment of acute asthma. Preliminary clinical studies suggest that inhaled LAMAs may be comparable to long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs) as an add-on therapy in patients not controlled by inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, and may also have added benefit in patients not controlled on combined ICS-LABA. Mechanistic studies suggest that apart from their bronchodilator activity, LAMAs may have anti-inflammatory and antiremodeling influences on the airways. Further research is needed to clarify the clinical relevance of these experimental observations.

SUMMARY

Accumulating evidence supports the use of inhaled LAMAs as an add-on therapy in patients with asthma, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-based therapy with ICS with or without LABAs. Further studies are warranted to help define mechanisms of action of LAMAs, apart from their role as bronchodilators, and determine how these other actions impact asthma outcomes over time. Furthermore, future studies need to examine the long-term efficacy and safety of LAMAs in asthma and identify a subgroup of patients who would benefit from such therapies to facilitate early, personalized therapy.

Cardiac safety of tiotropium in patients with cardiac events: a retrospective analysis of the UPLIFT® trial

Background

Tiotropium is an anticholinergic bronchodilator for symptom relief and reducing exacerbations with an established safety profile in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Using data from the 4-year Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT®) study, we re-evaluated the safety of tiotropium HandiHaler® in patients who experienced recent myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure or unstable rhythm disorder during the study.

Methods

A post-hoc analysis of all-cause mortality and serious cardiac adverse events (cardiac SAEs), including cardiac deaths and death unknown, was conducted in patients who had experienced cardiac arrhythmia, MI or cardiac failure during UPLIFT® and who completed the study. Descriptive analyses were performed.

Results

Most patients experiencing cardiac events, for which they would have been excluded at baseline, remained in the trial. Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed a trend to later occurrence of cardiac SAEs with tiotropium HandiHaler® versus placebo. Patients who experienced a cardiac event and continued in UPLIFT® were not found to be at subsequently increased risk of all-cause mortality or cardiac SAEs with tiotropium treatment. Evaluation of deaths by major adverse cardiac events composite endpoints also showed that patients treated with tiotropium were not at increased risk of mortality or cardiac SAEs compared with placebo.

Conclusions

Risk of cardiac events, mortality or SAEs was not increased by tiotropium in patients experiencing cardiac events for which they would have been excluded at study baseline. The findings support the cardiac safety of tiotropium HandiHaler® in patients with COPD.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-015-0216-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Tiotropium HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) in COPD: a pooled safety analysis

INTRODUCTION

Tiotropium is prescribed for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and delivered via HandiHaler(®) (18 μg once daily) or Respimat(®) Soft Mist™ inhaler (5 μg once daily). The recent TIOtropium Safety and Performance In Respimat(®) (TIOSPIR™) study demonstrated that both exhibit similar safety profiles. This analysis provides an updated comprehensive safety evaluation of tiotropium(®) using data from placebo-controlled HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) trials.

METHODS

Pooled analysis of adverse event (AE) data from tiotropium HandiHaler(®) 18 μg and Respimat(®) 5 μg randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, clinical trials in patients with COPD (treatment duration ≥4 weeks). Incidence rates, rate ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined for HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) trials, both together and separately.

RESULTS

In the 28 HandiHaler(®) and 7 Respimat(®) trials included in this analysis, 11,626 patients were treated with placebo and 12,929 with tiotropium, totaling 14,909 (12,469 with HandiHaler(®); 2,440 with Respimat(®)) patient-years of tiotropium exposure. Mean age was 65 years, and mean prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 1.16 L (41% predicted). The risk (RR [95% CI]) of AEs (0.90 [0.87, 0.93]) and of serious AEs (SAEs) (0.94 [0.89, 0.99]) was significantly lower in the tiotropium than in the placebo group (HandiHaler(®) and Respimat(®) pooled results), and there was a numerically lower risk of fatal AEs (FAEs) (0.90 [0.79, 1.01]). The risk of cardiac AEs (0.93 [0.85, 1.02]) was numerically lower in the tiotropium group. Incidences of typical anticholinergic AEs, but not SAEs, were higher with tiotropium. Analyzed separately by inhaler, the risks of AE and SAE in the tiotropium groups remained lower than in placebo and similarly for FAEs.

CONCLUSION

This analysis indicates that tiotropium is associated with lower rates of AEs, SAEs, and similar rates of FAEs than placebo when delivered via HandiHaler(®) or Respimat(®) (overall and separately) in patients with COPD.

Safety and tolerability of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 mcg and umeclidinium 125 mcg in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

The long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of UMEC with the long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) vilanterol (UMEC/VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the US and EU. They are not indicated for the treatment of asthma.

METHODS

In this 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group safety study (GSK study DB2113359; NCT01316887), patients were randomized 2:2:1 to UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg, UMEC 125 mcg, or placebo. Study endpoints included adverse events (AEs), clinical chemistry and hematology parameters, vital signs, 12-lead, and 24-hour Holter electrocardiograms. COPD exacerbations and rescue medication use were assessed as safety parameters; lung function was also evaluated.

RESULTS

The incidence of on-treatment AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), and drug-related AEs was similar between treatment groups (AEs: 52-58%; SAEs: 6-7%; drug-related AEs: 12-13%). Headache was the most common AE in each treatment group (8-11%). AEs associated with the LAMA and LABA pharmacologic classes occurred at a low incidence across treatment groups. No clinically meaningful effects on vital signs or laboratory assessments were reported for active treatments versus placebo. The incidences of atrial arrhythmias with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg were similar to placebo; for UMEC 125 mcg, the incidences of ectopic supraventricular beats, sustained supraventricular tachycardia, and ectopic supraventricular rhythm were ≥2% greater than placebo. With active treatments, COPD exacerbations were fewer (13-15% of patients reporting ≥1 exacerbation) and on average less rescue medication was required (1.6-2.2 puffs/day) versus placebo (24% reporting ≥1 exacerbation, 2.6 puffs/day). Both active treatments improved lung function versus placebo.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg and UMEC 125 mcg were well tolerated over 12 months in patients with COPD.

COPD in chronic heart failure: less common than previously thought?

BACKGROUND

Using a fixed ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 s to forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) < 0.70 instead of the lower limit of normal (LLN) to define chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may lead to overdiagnosis of COPD in elderly patients with heart failure (HF) and consequently unnecessary treatment with possible adverse health effects.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine COPD prevalence in patients with chronic HF according to two definitions of airflow obstruction.

METHODS

Spirometry was performed in 187 outpatients with stable chronic HF without pulmonary congestion who had a left ventricular ejection fraction <40% (mean age 69 ± 10 years, 78% men). COPD diagnosis was confirmed 3 months after standard treatment with tiotropium in newly diagnosed COPD patients.

RESULTS

COPD prevalence varied substantially between 19.8% (LLN-COPD) and 32.1% (GOLD-COPD). Twenty-three of 60 patients (38.3%) with GOLD-COPD were potentially misclassified as having COPD (FEV1/FVC < 0.7 but > LLN). In contrast to patients with LLN-COPD, potentially misclassified patients did not differ significantly from those without COPD regarding respiratory symptoms and risk factors for COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

One fifth, rather than one third, of the patients with chronic HF had concomitant COPD using the LLN instead of the fixed ratio. LLN may identify clinically more important COPD than a fixed ratio of 0.7.

Tiotropium Respimat inhaler and the risk of death in COPD

BACKGROUND

Tiotropium delivered at a dose of 5 μg with the Respimat inhaler showed efficacy similar to that of 18 μg of tiotropium delivered with the HandiHaler inhalation device in placebo-controlled trials involving patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although tiotropium HandiHaler was associated with reduced mortality, as compared with placebo, more deaths were reported with tiotropium Respimat than with placebo.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial involving 17,135 patients with COPD, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of tiotropium Respimat at a once-daily dose of 2.5 μg or 5 μg, as compared with tiotropium HandiHaler at a once-daily dose of 18 μg. Primary end points were the risk of death (noninferiority study, Respimat at a dose of 5 μg or 2.5 μg vs. HandiHaler) and the risk of the first COPD exacerbation (superiority study, Respimat at a dose of 5 μg vs. HandiHaler). We also assessed cardiovascular safety, including safety in patients with stable cardiac disease.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 2.3 years, Respimat was noninferior to HandiHaler with respect to the risk of death (Respimat at a dose of 5 μg vs. HandiHaler: hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.09; Respimat at a dose of 2.5 μg vs. HandiHaler: hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.14) and not superior to HandiHaler with respect to the risk of the first exacerbation (Respimat at a dose of 5 μg vs. HandiHaler: hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.03). Causes of death and incidences of major cardiovascular adverse events were similar in the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Tiotropium Respimat at a dose of 5 μg or 2.5 μg had a safety profile and exacerbation efficacy similar to those of tiotropium HandiHaler at a dose of 18 μg in patients with COPD. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; TIOSPIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01126437.).

Setting the record straight on TIDE: a lost opportunity for patients with diabetes

Much has been written regarding the recently discontinued Thiazolidinedione Intervention with Vitamin D Evaluation (TIDE) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00879970; Diabetologia 55: 36-45) and a variety of opinions have been advanced regarding its purpose, context and design (N Engl J Med 397: 959-964). As such, we deemed it appropriate to clarify TIDE's objectives, research questions and design and the clinical equipoise regarding its research questions.

Inhaled anticholinergic use and all-cause mortality among elderly Medicare beneficiaries with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to examine the association between use of inhaled anticholinergics and all-cause mortality among elderly individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), after controlling for demographic, socioeconomic, health, functional status, smoking, and obesity.

METHODS

We used a retrospective longitudinal panel data design. Data were extracted for multiple years (2002-2009) of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) linked with fee-for-service Medicare claims. Generic and brand names of inhaled anticholinergics were used to identify inhaled anticholinergic utilization from the self-reported prescription medication files. All-cause mortality was assessed using the vital status variable. Unadjusted group differences in mortality rates were tested using the chi-square statistic. Multivariable logistic regressions with independent variables entered in separate blocks were used to analyze the association between inhaled anticholinergic use and all-cause mortality. All analyses accounted for the complex design of the MCBS.

RESULTS

Overall, 19.4% of the elderly Medicare beneficiaries used inhaled anticholinergics. Inhaled anticholinergic use was significantly higher (28.5%) among those who reported poor health compared with those reporting excellent or very good health (12.7%). Bivariate analyses indicated that inhaled anticholinergic use was associated with significantly higher rates of all-cause mortality (18.7%) compared with nonusers (13.6%). However, multivariate analyses controlling for risk factors did not suggest an increased likelihood of all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.67).

CONCLUSION

Use of inhaled anticholinergics among elderly individuals with COPD is potentially safe in terms of all-cause mortality when we adjust for baseline risk factors.

Bronchodilator responsiveness in patients with chronic heart failure

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of inhaled bronchodilators on pulmonary function and dyspnea in patients with chronic heart failure (HF).

BACKGROUND

Conflicting data exist on whether bronchodilators may improve pulmonary function and dyspnea in patients with chronic HF.

METHODS

In this retrospective observational study we analyzed data of 116 chronic HF outpatients with systolic dysfunction who underwent spirometry and Borg dyspnea measurements before and after inhalation of 400 μg salbutamol and 80 μg ipratropium. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma were excluded.

RESULTS

Bronchodilators fully reversed airway obstruction (AO) in 25 of 64 (39.1%) patients with pre-bronchodilator AO. All spirometric measurements, except for forced vital and inspiratory capacities, improved significantly post-bronchodilation. Absolute and percent improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) were more pronounced in patients with persistent AO post-bronchodilation compared to those without AO (0.19 ± 0.18 L and 8.4 ± 7.3% versus 0.11 ± 0.12 L and 4.3 ± 4.0%, p < 0.05). Significant bronchodilator responsiveness of FEV1 (>200 mL and >12%) was noted in 12.1% and was more frequent in patients with persistent AO and fully reversible AO than in those without AO (23.1% and 16.0% versus 1.9%, p < 0.05). We measured a small, albeit significant improvement in dyspnea (0.7 ± 1.2 versus 0.9 ± 1.3, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled bronchodilators may have an additional role in the management of patients with chronic HF because of their potential to improve pulmonary function, especially in those with AO. The clinical usefulness and possible adverse events of bronchodilators need to be further established.

Comparison between ATS/ERS age- and gender-adjusted criteria and GOLD criteria for the detection of irreversible airway obstruction in chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND

Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) criteria (FEV1/FVC <70%) are extensively used for diagnosis of chronic obstructive lung disease in heart failure (HF). The American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) recommends the use of age- and gender-specific lower limit of normal (LLN) for FEV1/FVC. We compared the impact of these definitions on apparent prevalence of airway obstruction in chronic HF.

METHODS

Standardized pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry was performed in HF patients. Airway obstruction was defined by ATS/ERS criteria as diagnostic standard. Additionally, airway obstruction was calculated using the GOLD criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 89 participants who fulfilled the ATS criteria for acceptability and reproducibility, 24.7% met ATS/ERS and 43.8% GOLD criteria for airway obstruction (Chi-square p = 0.007, McNemar <0.001). Sensitivity of GOLD criteria was 100%, specificity 74.6%, positive predictive value 56.4% and negative predictive value 100%. Among all individuals with an FEV1/FVC > LLN, 25.4% were falsely identified when using the GOLD criteria. A majority of false positives qualified for airway obstruction GOLD stage I (FEV1% ≥80%), which was significantly less often observed among true positives (76.5 vs. 31.8%; p < 0.001). Only 31.8% of patients with irreversible airway obstruction detected by the ATS/ERS criteria reported a history of COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

In all HF patients with persistent dyspnoea despite optimal HF treatment, spirometric testing should be performed. Application of the GOLD criteria leads to overdiagnosis of irreversible airway obstruction in patients with HF, which may result in inappropriate medical therapy and health-care decisions.

Risk of stroke associated with inhaled ipratropium bromide in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a population-based nested case-control study

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular safety concerns about inhaled ipratropium bromide have recently been raised. Nonetheless, the specific stroke risk associated with ipratropium use has not been evaluated thoroughly.

METHODS

This was a population-based nested case-control study analyzing data from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. A cohort of 15,396 newly-diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients was included between 2001 and 2007, in which 1477 cases of incident hospitalization for stroke were identified. Each case was individually matched to four randomly-selected controls based on age, sex, and cohort entry date. Conditional logistic regressions were used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) for risk of stroke-related hospitalization associated with ipratropium use.

RESULTS

Any use of ipratropium within the 6 months before the index date was associated with an increased risk of stroke compared with nonuse (adjusted OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.71 to 2.41). The observed risk remained significant regardless of accumulated doses. Additionally, use of ipratropium within 30 days before the index date resulted in the greatest risk (adjusted OR, 2.97 95% CI, 2.27 to 3.88). Furthermore, an increased risk of stroke was found for ipratropium regimens involving concomitant use of inhaled short-acting β(2)-agonists (SABAs; adjusted OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.81 to 2.62) or theophyllines (adjusted OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.42 to 2.26).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of ipratropium is associated with an increased risk of stroke in COPD patients. Clinicians should be alert to that risk when prescribing ipratropium, especially for those receiving ipratropium more recently or those with concomitant use of SABAs or theophyllines.