Comparison of Effectiveness Using Different Dual Bronchodilator Agents in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment

[COPD inhaled therapy narrative review]

The basis of COPD maintenance treatment is the long-acting bronchodilators and the inhaled corticosteroids. Faced with the recent modifications in the clinical practice guidelines, we have carried out a review of studies that contrast the various therapeutic alternatives and pharmacological agents within each category, with the fundamental purpose of shedding light on which of these options prove to be more effective. Triple therapy stands out as essential in poorly controlled patients or with an eosinophilic phenotype, surpassing dual therapy. However, among the combinations of LAMA/LABA or LAMA/LABA/IC, no drug is observed to be superior in the reviewed evidence. Although triple therapies include corticosteroids, there does not appear to be a significant increase in side effects or pneumonia. Regarding monotherapy with LAMA, no significant differences are seen between the drugs, but in dual therapy with LABA/IC, the budesonide/formoterol combination seems to offer better control than fluticasone/salmeterol.

Clinical Implications of Peak Inspiratory Flow in COPD: Post Hoc Analyses of the TRONARTO Study

Background

In patients with COPD, inhalation ability should be assessed when considering inhaler choice. To evaluate whether the soft mist inhaler (SMI) is suitable for COPD patients irrespective of inhalation ability, the TRONARTO study investigated the efficacy of dual long-acting bronchodilator therapy delivered via the Respimat® SMI on lung function in patients with COPD stratified by inhalation ability. Tiotropium/olodaterol delivered via the SMI was effective both in patients with peak inspiratory flow (PIF) <60 L/min and PIF ≥60 L/min, measured against medium-low resistance.

Methods

This congress compilation summarizes post hoc analyses from the TRONARTO study presented at the annual American Thoracic Society 2022 and European Respiratory Society 2022 meetings. These analyses evaluated PIF in over 200 patients, with PIF measurements taken daily at home for 4 weeks, and in the clinic at baseline, Weeks 2 and 4.

Results

Overall, 57.9% of patients had a PIF range (difference between lowest and highest PIF measurements) <20 L/min (12.4% of patients had PIF range <10 L/min). At-home PIF range decreased over the study period, suggesting that inhaler training/repeated PIF measurements may help to make patients' inspiratory effort more consistent. Some patient characteristics correlated with lower PIF (female gender, shorter stature, more severe disease, worse airflow obstruction) and lower PIF range (more severe disease). PIF measurements differed between medium-low and high-resistance settings, highlighting the importance of measuring PIF at the resistance of a patient's inhaler. PIF correlated poorly with spirometry measurements.

Conclusion

As indicated in COPD management guidelines, choice of inhaler is essential to optimize pharmacologic therapies for COPD. Poor inspiratory ability should be viewed as a treatable trait that can help to inform inhaler choice. Inhaler training and consideration of PIF (if patients use a dry powder inhaler) can reduce patient-to-inhaler mismatch, with potential consequences for health status and exacerbation risk.

Differences in Pulmonary Function Improvement after Once-Daily LABA/LAMA Fixed-Dose Combinations in Patients with COPD

This real-world study evaluated the efficacy of once-daily long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) for improving lung function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patients with COPD who were treated with once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs for 12 months were included. We evaluated their lung function improvement after 12 months of treatment with different LABA/LAMA FDCs. A total of 198 patients with COPD who were treated with once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs were analyzed. A total of 114 patients were treated with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VIL); 34 patients were treated with indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY); and 50 patients were treated with tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO). The forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) was significantly increased in the patients treated with all three once-daily FDCs (55.2% to 60.9%, p = 0.012 for UMEC/VIL, 58.2% to 63.6%, p = 0.023 for IND/GLY, and 54.1% to 57.7%, p = 0.009 for TIO/OLO). The treatment of COPD patients with TIO/OLO resulted in a significant improvement in both forced vital capacity (FVC%) (71.7% to 77.9%, p = 0.009) and residual volume (RV%) (180.1% to 152.5%, p < 0.01) compared with those treated with UMEC/VIL (FVC%: 75.1% to 81.5%, p < 0.001; RV%:173.8% to 165.2%, p = 0.231) or IND/GLY (FVC%: 73.9% to 79.3%, p = 0.08; RV%:176.8% to 168.3%, p = 0.589). Patients treated with UMEC/VIL or TIO/OLO showed significant improvement in FVC. In addition, those receiving TIO/OLO also showed significant improvement in RV reduction.

Shared Decision-Making Facilitates Inhaler Choice in Patients with Newly-Diagnosed Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Multicenter Prospective Study

Purpose

Inadequate inhaler technique and nonadherence to therapy are associated with poorer clinical outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Shared decision-making (SDM), based on clinical evidence, patient goals and preferences, improves quality of care. This study aims to investigate the initial patients’ choices of inhaler devices in patients with newly-diagnosed COPD after an SDM process.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a prospective, observational, multi-center study in four hospitals in Taiwan from December 2019 to July 2021. All treatment-naïve patients with newly-diagnosed COPD who were able to use three different inhalers of dual bronchodilators (Respimat^®, Ellipta^®, and Breezhaler^®) in the outpatient setting were enrolled. After an SDM process, every patient was prescribed with one inhaler chosen by him- or herself. Errors of using inhalers were recorded after prescription of the inhaler, and at the follow-up visit a month later. The patients’ adherence, satisfaction score, and willingness to keep the initially chosen inhaler were investigated.

Results

In 109 enrolled patients, 43, 45, and 21 patients chose Respimat^®, Ellipta^®, and Breezhaler^®, respectively. Patients chose different inhalers had similar rates of critical error on both visits, while the rates greatly decrease on the follow-up visit, no matter which inhaler devices they chose initially. The majority of patients had good adherence (use as the prescription daily, n = 79, 82%), satisfaction (satisfaction score ≥4, n = 70, 73%), and strong willingness to keep the initial inhaler (n = 89, 93%) on the follow-up visit regardless of disease severity and their comorbidities.

Conclusion

SDM might facilitate inhaler choosing, reduce inhaler errors (versus baseline) with good adherence, satisfaction and strong willingness to keep the initial inhaler in patients with newly-diagnosed COPD.

Dual bronchodilation for the treatment of COPD - From bench to bedside

Because there is a solid pharmacological rationale based on positive interactions between long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) for their ability to relax human airway smooth muscle in vitro alongside several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world observational studies that support the use of LAMA/LABA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) for the treatment of patients with COPD, in this narrative review we discuss the preclinical and clinical proofs supporting the use of LAMA+LABA therapy in COPD and why this therapeutic approach optimises bronchodilation. Robust evidence indicates that all LAMA/LABA FDCs are consistently more effective than LAMA or LABA administered alone in improving lung function, dyspnoea, quality of life, and exercise capacity in patients with COPD. However, the ability of dual bronchodilation with FDCs of LAMA/LABA to prevent or reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations remains unclear due to conflicting data from large RCTs, despite several mechanisms explaining why such combinations should be of value in decreasing the frequency of COPD exacerbations. Both LABAs and LAMAs mechanistically can affect the cardiovascular system, but from clinical studies to date, LAMA/LABA FDCs have an acceptable cardiovascular safety profile, at least in the COPD population enrolled in RCTs. Indirect evidence suggests that some FDCs may even exert a protective role against serious cardiovascular adverse events compared to monotherapies. Consequently, several LAMA/LABA FDCs have been developed and approved for clinical use as treatments for patients with COPD. However, to date, there are unfortunately very few head-to-head studies comparing the safety and efficacy of different LAMA/LABA FDCs making it difficult to choose the most appropriate combination, although the use of meta-analyses has provided some information in this regard.