Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol for COPD management

Comparative Efficacy of Budesonide/Formoterol Versus Fluticasone/Salmeterol in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of budesonide/formoterol (BF) versus fluticasone/salmeterol (FS) in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing BF versus FS in the treatment of COPD from inception to July 17, 2023. Outcomes, including exacerbations, hospitalizations, pneumonia, emergency department (ED) visits for COPD, length of hospitalization, and number of exacerbations, were compared using risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 12.0.

RESULTS

Ten studies comprising a total of 136,369 participants were included. Compared with those treated with FS, patients with COPD treated with BF experienced a reduced number of exacerbations (RR 0.91 [95% CI 0.83-1.00]; p = 0.040), hospitalizations (RR 0.77 [95% CI 0.67-0.88]; p < 0.001), and frequency of pneumonia (RR 0.77 [95% CI 0.64-0.92]; p = 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed between BF and FS in terms of ED visits for COPD (RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.69-1.10]; p = 0.243), length of hospitalization (WMD -0.18 [95% CI -0.62-0.27]; p = 0.437), and number of exacerbations (WMD -0.06 [95% CI -0.28-0.16]; p = 0.602). Notably, no significant heterogeneity was noted in length of hospitalization between the two groups, whereas clear heterogeneity was observed in other outcomes (I2 > 50%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with FS, BF therapy appears to be a more promising treatment strategy for patients with moderate-to-severe COPD; however, this should be verified in further high-quality studies.

Methods to assess COPD medications adherence in healthcare databases: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2023 report recommends medication adherence assessment in COPD as an action item. Healthcare databases provide opportunities for objective assessments; however, multiple methods exist. We aimed to systematically review the literature to describe existing methods to assess adherence in COPD in healthcare databases and to evaluate the reporting of influencing variables.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science and Embase for peer-reviewed articles evaluating adherence to COPD medication in electronic databases, written in English, published up to 11 October 2022 (PROSPERO identifier CRD42022363449). Two reviewers independently conducted screening for inclusion and performed data extraction. Methods to assess initiation (dispensing of medication after prescribing), implementation (extent of use over a specific time period) and/or persistence (time from initiation to discontinuation) were listed descriptively. Each included study was evaluated for reporting variables with an impact on adherence assessment: inpatient stays, drug substitution, dose switching and early refills.

RESULTS

160 studies were included, of which four assessed initiation, 135 implementation and 45 persistence. Overall, one method was used to measure initiation, 43 methods for implementation and seven methods for persistence. Most of the included implementation studies reported medication possession ratio, proportion of days covered and/or an alteration of these methods. Only 11% of the included studies mentioned the potential impact of the evaluated variables.

CONCLUSION

Variations in adherence assessment methods are common. Attention to transparency, reporting of variables with an impact on adherence assessment and rationale for choosing an adherence cut-off or treatment gap is recommended.

Fluticasone-Based versus Budesonide-Based Triple Therapies in COPD: Real-World Comparative Effectiveness and Safety

Triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is recommended for some patients, but the inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may differ in effectiveness and safety. We compared budesonide-based and fluticasone-based triple therapy given in two inhalers on the incidence of exacerbation, mortality and severe pneumonia, using an observational study approach. We identified a cohort of patients with COPD, new users of triple therapy given in two inhalers during 2002-2018, age 50 or older, from the UK's CPRD database, and followed for one year. The hazard ratio (HR) of exacerbation, all-cause death and pneumonia was estimated using the Cox regression model, weighted by fine stratification of the propensity score of treatment initiation. The cohort included 29,716 new users of fluticasone-based triple therapy and 9,646 of budesonide-based. The HR of a first moderate or severe exacerbation with budesonide-based triple therapy was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.94-1.03), relative to fluticasone-based, while for a severe exacerbation it was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.87-1.07). The incidence of all-cause death was lower with budesonide-based therapy among patients with no prior exacerbations (HR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.66-0.98). The HR of severe pneumonia with budesonide-based therapy was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.75-0.95). In a real-world clinical setting of COPD treatment, budesonide-based triple therapy given in two inhalers was generally as effective at reducing exacerbations as fluticasone-based triple therapy. However, the budesonide-based triple therapy was associated with a lower incidence of severe pneumonia and possibly also of all-cause death, especially among patients with no prior exacerbations for whom triple therapy is not recommended.

The efficacy and safety of antibiotics and glucocorticoids in the treatment of elderly patients with chronic obstructive emphysema: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) combined with antibiotics in the treatment of elderly chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, and to provide some reference for the optimization of clinical treatment regimen for elderly COPD patients.

Methods

Combination of perfect search and keywords from the Chinese and foreign language databases, and the Cochrane Collaboration Center provided Review Manger 5.2 software [Cochrane Information Management System (IMS)] for statistical analysis, and the risk ratio (RR) of dichotic variables was adopted. RR and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were used as efficacy and side effects analysis statistics in metaanalysis.

Results

After independent screening by two researchers, 18 studies were included into the meta-analysis. After data analysis and statistics, the results of meta-analysis showed that the observation group (glucocorticoid combined with antibiotic treatment) and the control group (glucocorticoid therapy) first second forced expiratory volume (FEV1%) expected value (OR =1.21; 95% CI: 0.11–2.32; P=0.03), and 6-min walking distances (6-MWDs) (OR =12.92; 95% CI: 4.61–21.22; P=0.002), the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score (OR =3.08; 95% CI: 2.58−3.57; P<0.00001) the improvement was statistically significant; incidence of adverse reactions (OR =1.24; 95% CI: 0.58–2.67; P=0.58), the incidence of acute exacerbation (OR =0.65; 95% CI: 0.39–1.08; P=0.10), FEV1 (OR =0.07; 95% CI: 0.01–0.15; P=0.09). There was no statistical difference.

Discussion

The combination of glucocorticoids and antibiotics in elderly patients with stable COPD can significantly improve their lung function and exercise ability with minimal adverse reactions.

Comparing initial LABA-ICS inhalers in COPD: Real-world effectiveness and safety

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with multiple exacerbations and eosinophilia recommend a long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combined inhaler, with no distinction between different agents. We compared the effectiveness and safety of budesonide-formoterol versus fluticasone-salmeterol on the incidence of exacerbations and pneumonia in a real-world clinical practice setting of COPD, particularly considering eosinophilia, an important marker for ICS effectiveness.

METHODS

We identified a cohort of patients with COPD, new users of a LABA-ICS during 2002-2018, age 50 or older, from the UK's CPRD database, and followed for one year. The hazard ratio (HR) of exacerbation and of pneumonia was estimated using the Cox regression model, weighted by fine stratification of the propensity score of treatment initiation.

RESULTS

The cohort included 24,973 of budesonide-formoterol and 61,251 initiators of fluticasone-salmeterol. The adjusted HR of a first moderate or severe exacerbation with budesonide-formoterol relative to fluticasone-salmeterol was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95-1.01), while for severe exacerbation it was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85-0.99). The HR of severe pneumonia with budesonide-formoterol was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.70-0.83), and was particularly decreased with higher blood eosinophil count, dropping to 0.62 (95% CI: 0.51-0.77) at >300 cells/μL.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world clinical setting of COPD treatment, a budesonide-formoterol inhaler was generally as effective at reducing the incidence of moderate-severe exacerbations as fluticasone-salmeterol. However, budesonide-formoterol was more effective than fluticasone-salmeterol at reducing the incidence of severe exacerbation and the risk of severe pneumonia, particularly in patients with higher blood eosinophil counts.

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.

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.

Effects of long-term high continuity of care on avoidable hospitalizations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effects of high continuity of care (COC) maintained for a longer time on the risk of avoidable hospitalization of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study design was adopted. We used a claim data regarding health care utilization under a universal health insurance in Taiwan. We selected 2199 subjects who were newly diagnosed with COPD. We considered COPD-related avoidable hospitalizations as outcome variables. The continuity of care index (COCI) was used to evaluate COC as short- and long-term COC. A logistic regression model was used to control for sex, age, low-income status, disease severity, and health status.

RESULTS

Long-term COC had stronger effect on health outcomes than short-term COC did. After controlling for covariables, the logistic regression results of short-term COC showed that the medium COCI group had a higher risk of avoidable hospitalizations (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.07-3.33) than the high COCI group did. The results of long-term COC showed that both the medium (AOR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.0-3.94) and low (AOR: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.05-3.94) COCI groups had higher risks of avoidable hospitalizations than did the high COCI group.

CONCLUSIONS

Maintaining long-term high COC effectively reduces the risk of avoidable hospitalizations. To encourage development of long-term patient-physician relationships could improve health outcomes.

A retrospective study to assess clinical characteristics and time to initiation of open-triple therapy among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, newly established on long-acting mono- or combination therapy

INTRODUCTION

An incremental approach using open-triple therapy may improve outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there is little sufficient, real-world evidence available identifying time to open-triple initiation.

METHODS

This retrospective study of patients with COPD, newly initiated on long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy or inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist (ICS/LABA) combination therapy, assessed baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and exacerbations during 12 months prior to first LAMA or ICS/LABA use. Time to initiation of open-triple therapy was assessed for 12 months post-index date. Post hoc analyses were performed to assess the subsets of patients with pulmonary-function test (PFT) information and patients with and without comorbid asthma.

RESULTS

Demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between cohorts in the pre-specified and post hoc analyses. In total, 283 (19.3%) and 160 (10.9%) patients had moderate and severe exacerbations at baseline, respectively, in the LAMA cohort, compared with 482 (21.3%) and 289 (12.8%) patients in the ICS/LABA cohort. Significantly more patients initiated open-triple therapy in the LAMA cohort compared with the ICS/LABA cohort (226 [15.4%] versus 174 [7.7%]; P<0.001); results were similar in the post hoc analyses. Mean (standard deviation) time to open-triple therapy was 79.8 (89.0) days in the LAMA cohort and 122.9 (105.4) days in the ICS/LABA cohort (P<0.001). This trend was also observed in the post hoc analyses, though the difference between cohorts was nonsignificant in the subset of patients with PFT information.

DISCUSSION

In this population, patients with COPD are more likely to initiate open-triple therapy following LAMA therapy, compared with ICS/LABA therapy. Further research is required to identify factors associated with the need for treatment augmentation among patients with COPD.

Risk of pneumonia with budesonide-containing treatments in COPD: an individual patient-level pooled analysis of interventional studies

Background

Concerns have been raised that treatment of COPD with inhaled corticosteroids may increase pneumonia risk. Responding to a request from the European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee, a pooled analysis of interventional studies compared pneumonia risk with inhaled budesonide-containing versus non-budesonide-containing treatments and the impact of other clinically relevant factors.

Methods

AstraZeneca-sponsored, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trials meeting the following criteria were included: >8 weeks’ duration; ≥60 patients with COPD; inhaled budesonide treatment arm (budesonide/formoterol or budesonide); and non-budesonide-containing comparator arm (formoterol or placebo). Primary and secondary outcomes were time to first pneumonia treatment-emergent serious adverse event (TESAE) and treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAEs), respectively, analyzed using Cox regression models stratified by study.

Results

Eleven studies were identified; 10,570 out of 10,574 randomized patients receiving ≥1 dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (budesonide-containing, n=5,750; non-budesonide-containing, n=4,820). Maximum exposure to treatment was 48 months. The overall pooled hazard ratio (HR), comparing budesonide versus non-budesonide-containing treatments, was 1.15 for pneumonia TESAEs (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83, 1.57) and 1.13 for pneumonia TEAEs (95% CI: 0.94, 1.36). The annual incidence of pneumonia TESAEs was 1.9% and 1.5% for budesonide-containing and non-budesonide-containing treatments, respectively. Comparing budesonide/formoterol with non-budesonide-containing treatment, the HRs for pneumonia TESAEs and TEAEs were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.69, 1.44) and 1.21 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.57), respectively. For budesonide versus placebo, HRs were 1.57 for pneumonia TESAEs (95% CI: 0.90, 2.74) and 1.07 for pneumonia TEAEs (95% CI: 0.83, 1.38).

Conclusion

This pooled analysis found no statistically significant increase in overall risk for pneumonia TESAEs or TEAEs with budesonide-containing versus non-budesonide-containing treatments. However, a small increase in risk with budesonide-containing treatment cannot be ruled out; there is considerable heterogeneity in study designs and patient characteristics, particularly in the early budesonide studies, and each study contributes <40 pneumonia TESAEs.

Health Care Utilization and Costs After Initiating Budesonide/Formoterol Combination or Fluticasone/Salmeterol Combination Among COPD Patients New to ICS/LABA Treatment

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects approximately 15 million people in the United States and accounts for approximately $36 billion in economic burden, primarily due to medical costs. To address the increasing clinical and economic burden, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease emphasizes the use of therapies that help prevent COPD exacerbations, including inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate health care costs and utilization among COPD patients newly initiating ICS/LABA combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol (BFC) or fluticasone/salmeterol (FSC) in a managed care system.

METHODS

COPD patients aged 40 years and older who initiated BFC (160/4.5 μg) or FSC (250/50 μg) treatment between March 1, 2009, and March 31, 2012, were identified using claims data from major U.S. health plans. BFC and FSC patients were propensity score matched (1:1) on age, sex, prior asthma diagnosis, prior COPD-related health care utilization, and respiratory medication use. COPD-related, pneumonia-related, and all-cause costs and utilization were analyzed during the 12-month follow-up period. Post-index costs were assessed with generalized linear models (GLMs) with gamma distribution. Health care utilization data were analyzed via logistic regression (any event vs. none) and GLMs with negative binomial distribution (number of visits) and were adjusted for the analogous pre-index variable as well as pre-index characteristics that remained imbalanced after matching.

RESULTS

After matching, each cohort had 3,697 patients balanced on age (mean 64 years), sex (female 52% BFC and 54% FSC), asthma and other comorbid conditions, prior COPD-related health care utilization, and respiratory medication use. During the 12-month follow-up, COPD-related costs averaged $316 less for BFC versus FSC patients ($4,326 vs. $4,846; P = 0.003), reflecting lower inpatient ($966 vs. $1,202; P < 0.001), pharmacy ($1,482 vs. $1,609; P = 0.002), and outpatient/office ($1,378 vs. $1,436; P = 0.048) costs, but higher emergency department ($257 vs. $252; P = 0.033) costs. Pneumonia-related health care costs were also lower on average for BFC patients ($2,855 vs. $3,605; P < 0.001). Similarly, initiating BFC was associated with lower all-use health care costs versus initiating FSC ($21,580 vs. $24,483; P < 0.001, respectively). No differences in health care utilization were found between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, although no difference was observed in rates of health care utilization, COPD patients initiating BFC treatment incurred lower average COPD-related, pneumonia-related, and all-cause costs versus FSC initiators, which was driven by cumulative differences in inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy costs.

Comparative analysis of budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol combinations in COPD patients: findings from a real-world analysis in an Italian setting

AIM

The objective of this study was to evaluate the different outcomes associated with the use of budesonide/formoterol compared to fluticasone/salmeterol in fixed combinations in patients with COPD in a "real-world" setting. The outcomes included exacerbation rates and health care costs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An observational retrospective cohort analysis, based on administrative databases of three local health units, was conducted. Patients with at least one prescription of fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists (budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol), at dosages and formulations approved for COPD in Italy, between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011 (inclusion period), were included. Patients were followed until December 2012, death or end of treatment (follow-up period), whichever occurred first. Patients were included if they were aged ≥40 years and had at least 6 months of follow-up. Propensity score matching was performed to check for confounding effects. Number of hospitalizations for COPD and number of oral corticosteroid and antibiotic prescriptions during follow-up were analyzed using Poisson regression models. The cost analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health System.

RESULTS

After matching, 4,680 patients were analyzed, of which 50% were males with a mean age of 64±13 years. In the Poisson regression models, the incidence rate ratio for budesonide/formoterol as compared to fluticasone/salmeterol was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-0.96, P=0.010) for number of hospitalizations, 0.89 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92, P<0.001) for number of oral corticosteroid prescriptions and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86-0.89, P<0.001) for number of antibiotic prescriptions. The mean annual expenditure for COPD management was €2,436 for patients treated with budesonide/formoterol and €2,784 for patients treated with fluticasone/salmeterol.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with COPD, treatment with a fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol was associated with fewer exacerbations and a lower, but not significant, cost of illness than the treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol. Real-world analyses are requested to ameliorate interventions to address unmet needs, optimizing treatment pathways to improve COPD-related burden and outcomes.

Economic evaluations of fluticasone-propionate/salmeterol combination therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a review of published studies

This review identifies and evaluates the comprehensive reporting of peer-reviewed economic evaluations of the effectiveness of fluticasone-propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) therapy for maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Economic evaluations were included if published in English since 2003. Evaluation categories included in the review were cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-consequence analyses. FSC is cost-effective in comparison to short-acting bronchodilators (SABDs). Cost and outcome differences between FSC and other long-acting therapies were modest. Studies exhibited large variations in populations, designs and environment, limiting the ability to draw conclusions. Many new maintenance treatments for COPD have been approved since 2010. Most have yet to be compared to older treatments like FSC. Evaluations are needed that consider costs and outcomes from a societal perspective (e.g., patients' ability to keep working) and evaluations that include subgroup analyses to investigate differential impacts according to clusters of patient characteristics.

Management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with combination inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists: a review of comparative effectiveness research

The value of combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists (ICS/LABA) is well recognized in the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Despite differences in the pharmacological properties between two well-established ICS/LABA products (budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol), data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses suggest that these two products perform similarly under RCT conditions. In contrast, a few recently reported real-world comparative effectiveness studies have suggested that there are substantial differences between ICS/LABA combination treatments in terms of clinical and healthcare outcomes in patients with asthma or COPD. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief review of the benefits, as well as the limitations, of comparative effectiveness research (CER) in the therapeutic area of asthma and COPD. We conducted a structured literature review of the current CER studies on ICS/LABA combinations in asthma and COPD. These articles were then used to illustrate the unique challenges of CER studies, providing a summary of study results and limitations. We focus particularly on difficult biases and confounding factors that may be introduced before, during, and after the initiation of therapy. Beyond being a review of these two ICS/LABA combination treatments, this article is intended to help those who wish to assess the quality of CER published projects in asthma and COPD, or guide investigators who wish to design new CER studies for chronic respiratory disease treatments.

Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination and fluticasone/salmeterol combination among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients new to controller treatment: a US administrative claims database study

Background

Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combinations (ICS/LABA) have emerged as first line therapies for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with exacerbation history. No randomized clinical trial has compared exacerbation rates among COPD patients receiving budesonide/formoterol combination (BFC) and fluticasone/salmeterol combination (FSC) to date, and only limited comparative data are available. This study compared the real-world effectiveness of approved BFC and FSC treatments among matched cohorts of COPD patients in a large US managed care setting.

Methods

COPD patients (≥40 years) naive to ICS/LABA who initiated BFC or FSC treatments between 03/01/2009-03/31/2012 were identified in a geographically diverse US managed care database and followed for 12 months; index date was defined as first prescription fill date. Patients with a cancer diagnosis or chronic (≥180 days) oral corticosteroid (OCS) use within 12 months prior to index were excluded. Patients were matched 1-to-1 on demographic and pre-initiation clinical characteristics using propensity scores from a random forest model. The primary efficacy outcome was COPD exacerbation rate, and secondary efficacy outcomes included exacerbation rates by event type and healthcare resource utilization. Pneumonia objectives included rates of any diagnosis of pneumonia and pneumonia-related healthcare resource utilization.

Results

Matching of the identified 3,788 BFC and 6,439 FSC patients resulted in 3,697 patients in each group. Matched patients were well balanced on age (mean = 64 years), gender (BFC: 52% female; FSC: 54%), prior COPD-related medication use, healthcare utilization, and comorbid conditions. During follow-up, no significant difference was seen between BFC and FSC patients for number of COPD-related exacerbations overall (rate ratio [RR] = 1.02, 95% CI = [0.96,1.09], p = 0.56) or by event type: COPD-related hospitalizations (RR = 0.96), COPD-related ED visits (RR = 1.11), and COPD-related office/outpatient visits with OCS and/or antibiotic use (RR = 1.01). The proportion of patients diagnosed with pneumonia during the post-index period was similar for patients in each group (BFC = 17.3%, FSC = 19.0%, odds ratio = 0.92 [0.81,1.04], p = 0.19), and no difference was detected for pneumonia-related healthcare utilization by place of service.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated no difference in COPD-related exacerbations or pneumonia events between BFC and FSC treatment groups for patients new to ICS/LABA treatment in a real-world setting.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01921127.

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.

Inhaled steroids and risk of pneumonia for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are anti-inflammatory drugs that have proven benefits for people with worsening symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and repeated exacerbations. They are commonly used as combination inhalers with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) to reduce exacerbation rates and all-cause mortality, and to improve lung function and quality of life. The most common combinations of ICS and LABA used in combination inhalers are fluticasone and salmeterol, budesonide and formoterol and a new formulation of fluticasone in combination with vilanterol, which is now available. ICS have been associated with increased risk of pneumonia, but the magnitude of risk and how this compares with different ICS remain unclear. Recent reviews conducted to address their safety have not compared the relative safety of these two drugs when used alone or in combination with LABA.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of pneumonia associated with the use of fluticasone and budesonide for COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), clinicaltrials.gov, reference lists of existing systematic reviews and manufacturer websites. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies were included if they compared the ICS budesonide or fluticasone versus placebo, or either ICS in combination with a LABA versus the same LABA as monotherapy for people with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, numerical data and risk of bias information for each included study.We looked at direct comparisons of ICS versus placebo separately from comparisons of ICS/LABA versus LABA for all outcomes, and we combined these with subgroups when no important heterogeneity was noted. After assessing for transitivity, we conducted an indirect comparison to compare budesonide versus fluticasone monotherapy, but we could not do the same for the combination therapies because of systematic differences between the budesonide and fluticasone combination data sets.When appropriate, we explored the effects of ICS dose, duration of ICS therapy and baseline severity on the primary outcome. Findings of all outcomes are presented in 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADEPro.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 43 studies that met the inclusion criteria, and more evidence was provided for fluticasone (26 studies; n = 21,247) than for budesonide (17 studies; n = 10,150). Evidence from the budesonide studies was more inconsistent and less precise, and the studies were shorter. The populations within studies were more often male with a mean age of around 63, mean pack-years smoked over 40 and mean predicted forced expiratory volume of one second (FEV1) less than 50%.High or uneven dropout was considered a high risk of bias in almost 40% of the trials, but conclusions for the primary outcome did not change when the trials at high risk of bias were removed in a sensitivity analysis.Fluticasone increased non-fatal serious adverse pneumonia events (requiring hospital admission) (odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50 to 2.12; 18 more per 1000 treated over 18 months; high quality), and no evidence suggested that this outcome was reduced by delivering it in combination with salmeterol or vilanterol (subgroup differences: I(2) = 0%, P value 0.51), or that different doses, trial duration or baseline severity significantly affected the estimate. Budesonide also increased non-fatal serious adverse pneumonia events compared with placebo, but the effect was less precise and was based on shorter trials (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.62; six more per 1000 treated over nine months; moderate quality). Some of the variation in the budesonide data could be explained by a significant difference between the two commonly used doses: 640 mcg was associated with a larger effect than 320 mcg relative to placebo (subgroup differences: I(2) = 74%, P value 0.05).An indirect comparison of budesonide versus fluticasone monotherapy revealed no significant differences with respect to serious adverse events (pneumonia-related or all-cause) or mortality. The risk of any pneumonia event (i.e. less serious cases treated in the community) was higher with fluticasone than with budesonide (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.34); this was the only significant difference reported between the two drugs. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution because of possible differences in the assignment of pneumonia diagnosis, and because no trials directly compared the two drugs.No significant difference in overall mortality rates was observed between either of the inhaled steroids and the control interventions (both high-quality evidence), and pneumonia-related deaths were too rare to permit conclusions to be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide and fluticasone, delivered alone or in combination with a LABA, are associated with increased risk of serious adverse pneumonia events, but neither significantly affected mortality compared with controls. The safety concerns highlighted in this review should be balanced with recent cohort data and established randomised evidence of efficacy regarding exacerbations and quality of life. Comparison of the two drugs revealed no statistically significant difference in serious pneumonias, mortality or serious adverse events. Fluticasone was associated with higher risk of any pneumonia when compared with budesonide (i.e. less serious cases dealt with in the community), but variation in the definitions used by the respective manufacturers is a potential confounding factor in their comparison.Primary research should accurately measure pneumonia outcomes and should clarify both the definition and the method of diagnosis used, especially for new formulations such as fluticasone furoate, for which little evidence of the associated pneumonia risk is currently available. Similarly, systematic reviews and cohorts should address the reliability of assigning 'pneumonia' as an adverse event or cause of death and should determine how this affects the applicability of findings.

Combination of budesonide/formoterol more effective than fluticasone/salmeterol in preventing exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the PATHOS study

OBJECTIVES

Combinations of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting β2 -agonists (LABAs) are recommended for patients with moderate and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it is not known whether different fixed combinations are equally effective. The aim of this study was to investigate exacerbation rates in primary care patients with COPD treated with budesonide/formoterol compared with fluticasone/salmeterol.

METHODS

Patients with physician-diagnosed COPD and a record of postdiagnosis treatment with a fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol were included. Data from primary care medical records were linked to those from Swedish national hospital, drug and cause of death registers. Pairwise (1 : 1) propensity score matching was carried out at the index date (first prescription) by prescribed fixed ICS/LABA combination. Exacerbations were defined as hospitalizations, emergency visits and collection of oral steroids or antibiotics for COPD. Yearly event rates were compared using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Matching of 9893 patients (7155 budesonide/formoterol and 2738 fluticasone/salmeterol) yielded two cohorts of 2734 patients, comprising 19 170 patient-years. The exacerbation rates were 0.80 and 1.09 per patient-year in the budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol groups, respectively (difference of 26.6%; P < 0.0001); yearly rates for COPD-related hospitalizations were 0.15 and 0.21, respectively (difference of 29.1%; P < 0.0001). All other healthcare outcomes were also significantly reduced with budesonide/formoterol versus fluticasone/salmeterol.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with fixed combination budesonide/formoterol was associated with fewer healthcare utilization-defined exacerbations than fluticasone/salmeterol in patients with moderate and severe COPD.