Safety and efficacy of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol hydrofluoroalkane 134a metered-dose-inhaler compared with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol diskus in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

The Impact of Inhaler Device Regimen in Patients with Asthma or COPD

Many inhaler devices with varying handling requirements for optimal use are available for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patients may be prescribed different device types for reliever and maintenance medications, which may lead to confusion and suboptimal device use. We aimed to understand whether simplifying inhaler regimens by employing a single device type in patients who use multiple devices or prescribing a device with which a patient was already experienced could improve clinical and economic outcomes in asthma and COPD management. A targeted literature search was performed and additional articles were identified through hand searching citations within screened publications. A total of 114 articles were included in the final review. Findings suggest that simplifying inhaler regimens by applying the same type of inhaler for concomitant inhaled medications over time minimizes device misuse, leading to improved clinical outcomes and reduced health care use in patients with asthma or COPD. Physicians should consider a patient's suitability for a device and training needs when prescribing an inhaled medication and before changing the medication type or dose, especially when suboptimal treatment outcomes are observed. Further research is required to determine whether consistent use of the same device type is associated with better treatment adherence and persistence in patients with asthma or COPD. Nevertheless, this literature review identified clinical benefits and reduced health care use with simplified inhaler regimens.

Observational studies assessing the pharmacological treatment of obstructive lung disease: strengths, challenges and considerations for study design

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy in patients with obstructive lung disease. However, due to strict inclusion criteria and the conditions required for ascertaining statistical significance, the patients included typically represent as little as 5% of the general obstructive lung disease population. Thus, studies in broader patient populations are becoming increasingly important. These can be randomised effectiveness trials or observational studies providing data on real-world treatment effectiveness and safety data that complement efficacy RCTs. In this review we describe the features associated with the diagnosis of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the real-world clinical practice setting. We also discuss how RCTs and observational studies have reported opposing outcomes with several treatments and inhaler devices due to differences in study design and the variations in patients recruited by different study types. Whilst observational studies are not without weaknesses, we outline recently developed tools for defining markers of quality of observational studies. We also examine how observational studies are capable of providing valuable insights into disease mechanisms and management and how they are a vital component of research into obstructive lung disease. As we move into an era of personalised medicine, recent observational studies, such as the NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY (NOVELTY), have the capacity to provide a greater understanding of the value of a personalised healthcare approach in patients in clinical practice by focussing on standardised outcome measures of patient-reported outcomes, physician assessments, airway physiology, and blood and airway biomarkers across both primary and specialist care.

Evaluation of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol for the treatment of COPD: a systematic review

Introduction: Recently, the generic formulation of FP/SAL FDC has been approved in COPD. Although FP/SAL FDC has been the first long-acting FDC approved in COPD, no systematic review assessed the effect of this combination for the treatment of COPD by considering specifically Phase IV studies. The aim of this review was to systematically assess the effect of FP/SAL FDC in COPD patients enrolled in Phase IV studies.Areas covered: The question of this systematic review was to examine the evidence regarding the impact of FP/SAL FDC for the treatment of COPD by searching for Phase IV studies in the ClinicalTrials.gov database.Expert opinion: Generic drugs represent an effective cost-saving step for health-care budgets in the treatment of COPD and should be used in agreement with current recommendations and prescription accuracy. FP/SAL FDC is recommended for the initiation therapy just in a small percentage of symptomatic patients that are at high risk of exacerbation with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells per μl. At follow-up, FP/SAL FDC can be escalated to triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination or switched to LABA/LAMA combination by considering symptoms, exacerbations, lack of response to ICS, inappropriate original indication, and ICS-related adverse events such as pneumonia.

Risk for pneumonia requiring hospitalization or emergency room visit according to delivery device for inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist in patients with chronic airway diseases as real-world evidence

A fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta agonist (ICS/LABA) may increase the risk of pneumonia in patients with chronic airway diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. Although lung deposition of ICS/LABA is dependent on the inhaler device and inhalation technique, there have been few studies comparing the risk for pneumonia according to the type of device used to deliver ICS/LABA in real-world practice. A retrospective cohort study was performed using the National Health Insurance Database of the Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. New users who began ICS/LABA were selected and followed-up 180 days after ICS/LABA initiation. The risk for pneumonia requiring emergency room (ER) visit or admission was compared according to inhaler device used-pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) or dry powder inhaler (DPI)-after individual exact matching (1:5). Among the eligible cohort of 245,477 new ICS/LABA users, 7,942 patients who used pMDI only were matched with 39,690 patients who used DPI only. The incidence of pneumonia was higher in the pMDI group (1.6%) than the DPI group (1.1%); the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for pneumonia was 1.6 (95% CI 1.3-2.0; p < 0.0001). In subgroup analyses, a significantly higher risk for pneumonia was found in the pMDI group compared with the DPI group regardless of the presence of history of pneumonia (HR 1.7 [95% CI 1.2-2.3]; p = 0.002), COPD (HR 1.6 [95% CI 1.2-2.0]; p = 0.0007), or asthma (HR 1.6 [95% CI 1.2-2.2]; p = 0.0008). In analyses of real-world data, pMDI users incurred a higher risk for pneumonia requiring hospitalization or ER visit compared with DPI users.

Does device matter for inhaled therapies in advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)? A comparative trial of two devices

Objective

COPD patients have challenges for effective use of inhalers due to advanced age, fixed airflow obstruction and comorbid medical conditions. Published clinical trials investigate drug efficacy but rarely consider the inhaler device. This trial investigates device efficacy, comparing clinical outcomes for the same medication via two different devices. Our intention was to communicate the results and to critically appraise the study protocol to inform planning of future device comparison research. Subjects with spirometry confirming at least moderate COPD were randomly assigned to inhaler sequence; starting with Accuhaler or metered dose inhaler and spacer (MDI/s). After baseline testing, subjects were assigned to fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate (SFC) 500/50 mcg twice daily via the first device for 6 weeks’ duration, then changed to the alternate device for the following 6 weeks. Subjects were reassessed in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQL), exercise endurance and lung function after each exposure period.

Results

The recruitment target was not achieved due to unanticipated developments within the pharmaceutical industry, potentially compromising the study’s power. Study outcomes did not differ significantly according to the allocated inhaler device even after adjusting for baseline lung function or inhaler technique. Recommendations for future device comparison protocols are offered.

Trial registration Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, Current Controlled Trials ACTRN12618000075280, date of registration: 18.01.2018. Retrospectively registered

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-019-4123-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Differences in health care outcomes between postdischarge COPD patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist via dry-powder inhalers and pressurized metered-dose inhalers

Purpose

The aim of this study was to examine real-world differences in health care resource use (HRU) and costs among COPD patients in the USA treated with a dry powder inhaler (DPI) or pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) following a COPD-related hospitalization.

Methods

This retrospective analysis used the Truven MarketScan^® databases. Eligibility criteria included 1) age ≥40 years, 2) COPD diagnosis, 3) inpatient admission with a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation, 4) inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) prescription within 10 days of hospital discharge (index date), and 5) continuous enrollment for 12 months preindex and 90 days postindex. Outcomes included pre- and postindex HRU and costs. DPI and pMDI groups were compared on postindex outcomes via multivariate models controlling for demographic and baseline characteristics.

Results

The sample included 1,960 DPI and 1,086 pMDI ICS/LABA patients. During the preindex period, pMDI patients were significantly more likely to be prescribed a short-acting β-agonist, experienced more COPD exacerbation-related hospital days, and had a greater number of pulmonologist visits compared to DPI patients (P<0.05), all suggestive of greater disease severity. However, multivariate models revealed that pMDI patients incurred 10% lower all-cause postindex costs (predicted mean costs [2016 US dollars]: $2,673 vs $2,956) and 19% lower COPD-related costs (predicted mean costs: $138 vs $169; P<0.05). Additionally, pMDI patients were 28% less likely to experience a COPD exacerbation-related hospital readmission within 60 days postdischarge compared to the DPI patients (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.52–0.99, P<0.05).

Conclusion

Despite greater COPD-related HRU and costs preceding index hospitalization, US patients using a pMDI after hospital discharge incurred significantly lower all-cause and COPD-related health care costs compared with those using a DPI, in addition to a decreased likelihood of a COPD exacerbation-related hospital readmission. Results suggest that inhaler device type may influence COPD outcomes and that COPD patients may derive greater clinical benefit from treatment delivered via pMDI vs DPI.

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 comparative effectiveness of initiating fluticasone/salmeterol combination therapy via pMDI versus DPI in reducing exacerbations and treatment escalation in COPD: a UK database study

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a complex progressive disease, is currently the third leading cause of death worldwide. One recommended treatment option is fixed-dose combination therapy of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β-agonist. Clinical trials suggest pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and dry powder inhalers (DPIs) show similar efficacy and safety profiles in COPD. Real-world observational studies have shown that combination therapy has significantly greater odds of achieving asthma control when delivered via pMDIs. Our aim was to compare effectiveness, in terms of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) prescriptions, for COPD patients initiating fluticasone propionate (FP)/salmeterol xinafoate (SAL) via pMDI versus DPI at two doses of FP (500 and 1,000 μg/d) using a real-life, historical matched cohort study. COPD patients with ≥2 years continuous practice data, ≥2 prescriptions for FP/SAL via pMDI/DPI, and no prescription for ICS were selected from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database. Patients were matched 1:1. Rate of moderate/severe COPD exacerbations and odds of LAMA prescription were analyzed using conditional Poisson and logistic regression, respectively. Of 472 patients on 500 μg/d, we observed fewer moderate/severe exacerbations in patients using pMDI (99 [42%]) versus DPI (115 [49%]) (adjusted rate ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.54, 0.93), an important result since the pMDI is not licensed for COPD in the UK, USA, or China. At 1,000 μg/d, we observed lower LAMA prescription for pMDI (adjusted odds ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.55, 0.91), but no difference in exacerbation rates, potentially due to higher dose of ICS overcoming low lung delivery from the DPI.

Tailoring of corticosteroids in COPD management

This literature review updates the reader on the new studies regarding steroid therapy over the last year in stable COPD and in exacerbations. In stable COPD, we critique the 2011 update and 2013 revision of the GOLD guidelines, discuss why combining inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) (ICS/LABA) is preferable over LABA alone and review the literature for intraclass differences, finding that the evidence does not clearly support superiority of any particular ICS/LABA. We also address other comparisons against ICS/LABA, including triple therapy. We briefly review which type of inhaler should be chosen. For exacerbations, we report the REDUCE trial findings favouring a 5-day course of systemic steroids, and other trials addressing which steroid and route to use, including in an intensive care setting. Lastly, the future lies in new anti-inflammatories and re-phenotyping the heterogeneous amalgamation of COPD. A Spanish guideline recommends distinguishing steroid-responsive eosinophilic exacerbators from other phenotypes.

Use of pressurized metered dose inhalers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: review of evidence

The inhaled route is considered to be the best route to administer drugs for treating respiratory diseases like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), for both safety and efficacy. Inhalation devices are classified into four types - pressuriszed metered dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry powder inhalers, breath actuated inhalers and nebulizers. pMDIs are portable, convenient, multi-dose devices and these advantages have made them very popular with patients. They were introduced in the 1950s as the first portable, multi-dose delivery system for bronchodilators. Even though pMDIs are the most widely used devices for inhalation therapy in asthma and COPD, studies establishing their use and providing clinical data with bronchodilators and combination therapies in patients with COPD are limited. A summary of the use of pMDI with spacers in patients with COPD in terms of lung deposition and impact on lung function are presented in this review article. A review of use of the pMDI device in patients with COPD with different available and prescribed medications (bronchodilators-β2-agonists and anticholinergics, and their combination with inhaled corticosteroids) is discussed.

Influence of delivery devices on efficacy of inhaled fluticasone propionate: a comparative study in stable asthma patients

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids are the preferred treatment for long-term control of all grades of persistent asthma. These are administered by various delivery devices with very little information whether these devices can affect the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids. Fluticasone propionate is a relatively new inhalational corticosteroid compared to older ones like beclomethasone and budesonide. Aims & Objective: To assess the relative efficacy of fluticasone propionate administered from different delivery devices to adult patients of chronic stable bronchial asthma as measured by pulmonary function test parameters.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This prospective study was undertaken to assess the relative efficacy of fluticasone propionate administered from different delivery devices to adult patients of chronic stable bronchial asthma as measured by pulmonary function test parameters. Fourty eight subjects were administered, fluticasone propionate (250 μg) by dry powder inhaler, metered dose inhaler, metered dose inhaler with spacer and fluticasone (1mg) via nebulizer consecutively each week for four weeks under direct supervision. Pulmonary function test was done before and one hour after administration of the drug on each visit.

RESULTS

After excluding nine patients who were lost to follow up, data was analysed for the remaining thirty nine patients and no significant difference in peak expiratory flow rate (p=0.77), forced expiratory volume in one second (p=0.95), forced vital capacity (p=0.24) and forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity ratio (p=0.22) was seen after giving fluticasone by different devices.

CONCLUSION

Fluticasone propionate delivered by different devices like dry powder inhaler, metered dose inhaler, metered dose inhaler with spacer and nebulizer have similar effect on lung function in patients of chronic stable bronchial asthma and may be used interchangeably.

Efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of mometasone furoate and formoterol fumarate in subjects with moderate to very severe COPD: results from a 52-week Phase III trial

BACKGROUND

A clinical trial of mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate (MF/F) administered via a metered-dose inhaler in subjects with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) investigated the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of MF/F.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial had a 26-week treatment period and a 26-week safety extension. Subjects (n = 1055; ≥40 years) were current or ex- smokers randomized to twice-daily treatment with inhaled MF/F 400/10 μg, MF/F 200/10 μg, MF 400 μg, F 10 μg, or placebo. The coprimary endpoints of the trial were mean changes from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) over 0-12 hours (AUC(0-12) FEV(1)) with MF/F versus MF, and in morning predose FEV(1) with MF/F versus F. Key secondary endpoints were quality of life (Saint George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]), symptom-free nights, and partly stable COPD at 26 weeks, as well as time to first COPD exacerbation.

RESULTS

Significant improvements in FEV(1) AUC(0-12) occurred at endpoint with MF/F 400/10 and MF/F 200/10 versus MF 400 (P ≤ 0.007). Significant bronchodilation occurred in 5 minutes with MF/F, and serial spirometry demonstrated sustained FEV(1) improvements with MF/F over the treatment period. Significant improvements in morning predose FEV(1) occurred with both MF/F doses, and these effects were further investigated by excluding results for subjects whose morning FEV(1) data were collected >2 days after the last dose of study treatment. Improvements in SGRQ total scores surpassed the minimum clinically important difference of at least 4 units with MF/F 400/10. MF/F 400/10 significantly reduced the time-to-first COPD exacerbation. Similar proportions of subjects in all five treatment groups reported treatment-emergent adverse events. Rates of pneumonia were low (≤1.0%) across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

MF/F 400/10 μg twice daily was shown to be an effective therapy for patients with moderate to very severe COPD, and both MF/F 400/10 μg twice daily and MF/F 200/10 μg twice daily were well tolerated.