Comparing the Efficacy and Safety Profile of Triple Fixed-Dose Combinations in COPD: A Meta-Analysis and IBiS Score

[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.

Asthma management with triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination to reduce the risk of exacerbation: an umbrella review compliant with the PRIOR statement

INTRODUCTION

According to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) should be considered as add-on therapy in patients with asthma that remains uncontrolled, despite treatment with medium-dose (MD) or high-dose (HD) inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combinations. In patients ≥ 18 years, LAMA may be added in triple combination with an ICS and a LABA. To date, the precise efficacy of triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination remains uncertain concerning the impact on exacerbation risk in patients with uncontrolled asthma. Therefore, an umbrella review was performed to systematically summarize available data on the effect of triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination on the risk of asthma exacerbation.

METHODS

An umbrella review has been performed according to the PRIOR statement.

RESULTS

The overall results obtained from 5 systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination reduces the risk of asthma exacerbation. HD-ICS showed a greater effect particularly in reducing severe asthma exacerbation, especially in patients with evidence of type 2 inflammation biomarkers.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this umbrella review suggest an optimization of ICS dose in triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination, based on the severity of exacerbation and type 2 biomarkers expression.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of triple therapy and non-triple therapy interventions for COPD: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Some systematic reviews (SRs) on triple therapy (consisting of long-acting β2-agonist, long-acting muscarinic antagonist, and inhaled corticosteroid, LABA/LAMA/ICS) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have reported conflicting results. As the number of syntheses increases, the task of identifying and interpreting evidence becomes increasingly complex and demanding.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy and safety of triple therapy for COPD.

DESIGN

Overview of SRs.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers conducted comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant SRs that compared triple therapy with any non-triple therapy for COPD, from the inception of these databases until 1 June 2023. The AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools were utilized to assess the quality of the included studies and the evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

Eighteen SRs encompassing 30 original studies and involving 47,340 participants were analyzed. The overall AMSTAR 2 rating revealed that 3 SRs were of low quality, 13 SRs were of critically low quality, and 2 SRs were of high quality. No high-certainty evidence revealed a significant advantage of triple therapy in improving lung function or reducing acute exacerbations. However, all evidence, including one high certainty, supported the benefits of improving quality of life. Regarding all-cause mortality, no significant difference was found when compared to LAMA or ICS/LABA; however, high-certainty evidence confirmed its effectiveness when compared with LABA/LAMA. Notably, high-certainty evidence indicated that triple therapy was associated with a significant increase in the risk of pneumonia compared to LABA/LAMA.

CONCLUSION

Triple therapy demonstrated notable benefits in improving lung function, reducing exacerbations, improving quality of life, and reducing all-cause mortality. However, it is important to note that it may also significantly increase the risk of pneumonia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This overview protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (No. CRD42023431548).

Bayesian or frequentist: there is no question when comparing single-inhaler triple therapies via network meta-analysis. Focus on fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol fixed-dose combination in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

OBJECTIVES

Single-inhaler triple therapies (SITTs) have never been directly compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cochrane recommends the Bayesian approach for indirect comparisons but a frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) reported superiority of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) over other SITT. We assessed the most appropriate inference method for NMA characterized by between-study heterogeneity on SITT in COPD.

METHODS

Bayesian and frequentist NMA were performed on RCTs investigating the effect of SITT on exacerbations and trough forced expiratory volume in the 1st second (FEV1) in COPD.

RESULTS

The included RCTs (ETHOS, FULFIL, IMPACT, KRONOS 200812) reported significant between-study heterogeneity (I2 > 99%, p < 0.001). The Bayesian random-effect NMA provided unbiased evidence that FF/UMEC/VI was not superior to other SITT on exacerbations and trough FEV1. The frequentist fixed-effect NMA indicated that FF/UMEC/VI was significantly (p < 0.05) more effective than other SITT, although results were affected by dispersion, asymmetry, and significant risk of bias. Frequentist random-effect NMA provided effect estimates rather similar but not equal to those of Bayesian approach.

CONCLUSION

Indirect comparison should be performed via Bayesian approach instead of frequentist inference with a fixed-effect model. Claiming the superiority of a specific medication over other therapies should be confirmed by findings originating from well-designed RCTs.

Impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients

PURPOSE

This review aimed to summarise evidence about the impact of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on survival in COPD patients.

METHODS

We performed a narrative literature review on the effect of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on survival in COPD patients.

RESULTS

Inhaled therapies are central to reduce symptoms in COPD. In particular, inhaled steroids seem to have the greatest effect on mortality. Despite the anti-inflammatory effects attributed to statins, their benefit in COPD has been shown only in cases of combined cardiovascular diseases. The use of beta-blockers in COPD has not been associated with increased COPD-related mortality and a beneficial effect on all-cause mortality has even been shown in COPD patients with cardiovascular diseases. Influenza and pneumococcal vaccination reduced the occurrence of exacerbations and mortality due to COPD. In addition, long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) (≥15h/day) in COPD patients with severe hypoxemia had a positive effect on survival. Regarding non-pharmacological interventions, it has been demonstrated that smoking cessation, treatment compliance and nutritional supplementation for underweight patients also have a positive effect on survival. Non-invasive ventilation results were dependent on patient PaCO2 levels. In patients with advanced COPD, further prospective studies are needed to know the effect of bronchoscopic lung volume reduction and lung transplant on COPD survival. Regarding lung transplant, a survival benefit in patients with a pre-transplant BODE score of ≥7 has been shown in retrospective studies.

CONCLUSION

Most of the studies did not evaluate survival as the main criteria and further long-term studies on the global management of COPD are required.

Mortality risk reduction with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate versus fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol in COPD: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison based on ETHOS and IMPACT

OBJECTIVE

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of death worldwide. While two approved fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) triple therapies reduce all-cause mortality (ACM) versus dual LAMA/LABA therapy in patients with COPD, head-to-head studies have not compared the effects of these therapies on ACM. We compared ACM in adults with moderate-to-very severe COPD receiving budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) in ETHOS versus fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) in IMPACT using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC).

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified two studies (ETHOS [NCT02465567]; IMPACT [NCT02164513]) of ≥52 weeks reporting ACM as an efficacy endpoint in patients receiving triple therapy. As ETHOS and IMPACT lack a common comparator, an unanchored MAIC compared ACM between licensed doses of BGF (320/18/9.6 μg) from ETHOS and FF/UMEC/VI (100/62.5/25 μg) from IMPACT in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Using on- and off-treatment data from the final retrieved datasets of the intention-to-treat populations, BGF data were adjusted according to aggregate FF/UMEC/VI data using 11 baseline covariates; a supplementary unadjusted indirect treatment comparison was also conducted. P-values for these post-hoc analyses are not adjusted for Type I error.

RESULTS

ACM over 52 weeks was statistically significantly reduced by 39% for BGF versus FF/UMEC/VI in the MAIC (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.38, 0.95], p = 0.030) and unadjusted analysis (HR [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.41, 0.92], p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

In this MAIC, which adjusted for population heterogeneity between ETHOS and IMPACT, ACM was significantly reduced with BGF versus FF/UMEC/VI in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Cardiovascular diseases or type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic airway diseases: mutual pharmacological interferences

Chronic airway diseases (CAD), mainly asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are frequently associated with different comorbidities. Among them, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) pose problems for the simultaneous treatment of CAD and comorbidity. Indeed, there is evidence that some drugs used to treat CAD negatively affect comorbidity, and, conversely, some drugs used to treat comorbidity may aggravate CAD. However, there is also growing evidence of some beneficial effects of CAD drugs on comorbidities and, conversely, of the ability of some of those used to treat comorbidity to reduce the severity of lung disease. In this narrative review, we first describe the potential cardiovascular risks and benefits for patients using drugs to treat CAD and the potential lung risks and benefits for patients using drugs to treat CVD. Then, we illustrate the possible negative and positive effects on T2DM of drugs used to treat CAD and the potential negative and positive impact on CAD of drugs used to treat T2DM. The frequency with which CAD and CVD or T2DM are associated requires not only considering the effect that drugs used for one disease condition may have on the other but also providing an opportunity to develop therapies that simultaneously favorably impact both diseases.