Combination inhaled steroid and long-acting beta2-agonist versus tiotropium for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Classification of Patients with COPD on LAMA Monotherapy Using the GOLD Criteria: Analysis of a Claims-Linked Patient Survey Study

INTRODUCTION

To address the burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) recommends treatment according to classification of patients by symptom severity and exacerbation risk. This post hoc analysis of a previously reported claims-linked, cross-sectional survey [study 205862 (HO-16-16642)] classified patients with COPD receiving long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy based on the GOLD 2017 categories.

METHODS

Eligible patients who were ≥ 40 years of age, with ≥ 2 claims with International Classification of Diseases-10th Revision-Clinical Modification COPD diagnosis codes J40-J44 ≥ 30 days apart during the 12-month baseline period, and ≥ 2 claims for LAMA monotherapy in the 6 months prior to identification, were identified using claims data from the Optum Research Database. Patients completed a survey assessing modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) Dyspnea Scale and COPD Assessment Test (CAT) scores and demographics; clinical characteristics were assessed from claims and survey data, while exacerbation history was assessed from claims data. GOLD symptom severity classifications were low (groups A and C) for patients with low scores on both the CAT and mMRC scales (scores of < 10 and 0-1, respectively), and high (groups B and D) for patients with high scores on either scale (scores of ≥ 10 and 2-4, respectively).

RESULTS

Of 433 patients included, 85.5% reported a CAT total score ≥ 10, and 45.5% reported mMRC grades 2-4. During the baseline period, 63.7% of patients had ≤ 1 moderate and 0 severe (hospitalized) exacerbations, and 36.3% had ≥ 1 severe or ≥ 2 moderate exacerbation(s). The proportions of patients with each GOLD classification were: A: 9.0%; B: 54.7%; C: 4.6%; D: 31.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population, over 85% of LAMA monotherapy users have symptoms and/or exacerbation risk that may necessitate therapy escalation according to 2017 GOLD guidelines.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline [study 205862 (HO-16-16642)].

Treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: protocol for a systematic review and evidence map

INTRODUCTION

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive lung disease, usually caused by tobacco smoking, but other important risk factors include exposures to combustion products of biomass fuels and environmental pollution. The introduction of several new (combination) inhaler therapies, increasing uncertainty about the role of inhaled corticosteroids and a rapid proliferation of the literature on management of stable COPD in general, call for novel ways of evidence synthesis in this area. A systematic review and evidence map can provide the basis for shared decision-making tools and help to establish a future research agenda.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This systematic review will follow an umbrella systematic review design (also called overview of reviews). We plan to conduct a comprehensive literature search of Ovid MEDLINE (including epub ahead of print, in process and other non-indexed citations), Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus from database inception to the present. We will include systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention on one or more patient-important outcomes and/or lung function in patients with stable COPD. For every intervention/outcome pair, one systematic review will be included. An a priori protocol will guide, which systematic reviews will be chosen, how their credibility will be evaluated, and how the quality of the body of evidence will be rated. Data will be synthesised into an evidence map that will present a matrix that depicts each available treatment for stable COPD with a quantitative estimate on symptoms/outcomes from the patient perspective, along with an indication of the size and certainty in the evidence.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval by a research ethics committee is not required since the review will only include published data. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018095079.

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.

Once-daily long-acting beta₂-agonists/inhaled corticosteroids combined inhalers versus inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Three classes of inhaler medication are used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA); long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA); and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). To encourage patient adherence, two classes of medication are often combined in a single medication device; it seems that once-daily dosing offers greatest convenience to patients and may markedly influence adherence.

OBJECTIVES

To compare a once-daily combination of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta₂-agonist inhalers (ICS/LABA) versus inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists alone (LAMA) for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an electronic search of the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group (14 May 2018), ClinicalTrials.gov (14 May 2018), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (20 September 2017), then a search of other resources, including reference lists of included studies and manufacturers' trial registers (10 October 2017). Two pairs of review authors screened and scrutinised selected articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing once-daily administered ICS/LABA and LAMA in adults with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in each study. We analysed dichotomous data as random-effects odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as mean differences (MDs), both with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), using Review Manager 5.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with 880 participants. We identified one ongoing trial with planned recruitment of 80 participants. Included studies enrolled participants with both partially reversible and non-reversible COPD and baseline mean per cent predicted (%pred) forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) of 43.4 to 49.6. Both studies lasted 12 weeks. Both studies used the same combination of inhaled ICS/LABA (fluticasone furoate and vilanterol 100/25 mcg once daily; FF/VI) versus LAMA (18 mcg tiotropium; TIO). They were published as full articles, and neither study was at low risk of bias in all domains.Compared to the TIO arm, results for pooled primary outcomes for the FF/VI arm were as follows: mortality: OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.73, 880 participants (deaths reported only in the TIO arm), very low-quality evidence; COPD exacerbation (requiring short-burst oral corticosteroids or antibiotics, or both): OR 0.72, 95% Cl 0.35 to 1.50, 880 participants, very low-quality evidence; pneumonia: reported in both studies only during treatment with FF/VI: OR 6.12, 95% Cl 0.73 to 51.24, 880 participants, very low-quality evidence; and total serious adverse events: OR 0.96, 95% Cl 0.50 to 1.83, 880 participants, very low-quality evidence. None of the pneumonias were fatal. Compared to the TIO arm, we found no statistically significant difference for pooled secondary outcomes, including St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) mean total score change; hospital admissions (all-cause); disease-specific adverse events; mean weekly rescue medication use (results available from only one of the studies); and mean weekly percentage of rescue-free days for FF/VI. We found no statistically significant differences between ICS/LABA and LAMA for improvement in symptoms measured by the COPD Assessment Test (CAT score) nor for FEV₁ (change from baseline trough in 24-hour weighted mean on treatment day 84). Many pooled estimates lacked precision. Data for other endpoints such as exacerbations leading to intubation and physical activity measures were not available in included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on analysis of primary and secondary outcomes, we are uncertain whether once-daily ICS/LABA, combined in one inhaler, has a different efficacy or adverse effect profile compared to LAMA for treatment of people with COPD. However, the current review is based on only two trials with the main focus on primary outcomes other than those considered in this review. The short follow-up period and the very low quality of evidence limit our confidence in the result and increase uncertainty. Further trials of longer duration are needed. Current evidence is not strong enough to demonstrate important differences between inhalers in terms of effects, nor to establish that once-daily fluticasone/vilanterol 100/25 mcg and tiotropium 18 mcg are equivalent.

Efficacy of supervised maintenance exercise following pulmonary rehabilitation on health care use: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

The clinical benefit of continued supervised maintenance exercise programs following pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the efficacy of supervised maintenance exercise programs compared to usual care following pulmonary rehabilitation completion on health care use and mortality.

Methods

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and PEDro) and trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and Current Controlled Trials) were searched for randomized trials comparing supervised maintenance exercise programs with usual care following pulmonary rehabilitation completion. Primary outcomes were respiratory-cause hospital admissions, exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics and/or systemic corticosteroids, and mortality.

Results

Eight trials (790 COPD patients) met the inclusion criteria, six providing data for meta-analysis. Continued supervised maintenance exercise compared to usual care following pulmonary rehabilitation completion significantly reduced the risk of experiencing at least one respiratory-cause hospital admission (risk ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47–0.81, P<0.001). Meta-analyses also suggested that supervised maintenance exercise leads to a clinically important reduction in the rate of respiratory-cause hospital admissions (rate ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.50–1.05, P=0.09), overall risk of an exacerbation (risk ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.52–1.19, P=0.25), and mortality (risk ratio 0.57, 95% CI 0.17–1.92, P=0.37).

Conclusion

In the first systematic review of the area, current evidence demonstrates that continued supervised maintenance exercise compared to usual care following pulmonary rehabilitation reduces health care use in COPD. The variance in the quality of the evidence included in this review highlights the need for this evidence to be followed up with further high-quality randomized trials.

Role of Tiotropium in Reducing Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease When Combined With Long-Acting β2 -Agonists and Inhaled Corticosteroids: The OUTPUL Study

Combined inhaled therapy in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is commonly used, but its benefits remain controversial. We assessed the effect of tiotropium in reducing COPD exacerbations when combined with long-acting β2 agonists (LABA) and/or inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This new-user cohort study is based on administrative data from 3 Italian regions. We identified adults hospitalized for COPD from 2006 to 2009 who were newly prescribed a fixed LABA/ICS combination (double therapy). We classified patients according to whether tiotropium was also prescribed (triple therapy), using both intention-to-treat and as-treated approaches, and followed them for 1 year. COPD exacerbations were measured as outcomes. Multivariate and propensity score-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs, 95%CI) were calculated with Cox regression models. We identified 5717 new users of LABA/ICS of which 31.9% initiated triple therapy. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the multivariate adjusted HR for moderate, severe, and any exacerbations were 1.02 (95%CI 0.89-1.16), 0.92 (95%CI 0.76-1.12), and 1.08 (95%CI 0.91-1.28), respectively. The propensity score adjustment produced similar results. In the subcohort of patients with previous exacerbations, triple therapy was significantly associated with reduced risk of moderate exacerbations, compared to double therapy (HR 0.68, 95%CI 0.48-0.98 in intention-to-treat approach). In conclusion, the addition of tiotropium to LABA/ICS did not reduce COPD exacerbations compared to LABA/ICS alone. A protective role for moderate exacerbations was found in patients at risk of frequent exacerbations. Given the impact of exacerbations on health status and prognosis, it is crucial to target COPD patients for optimal treatment.

The impact of adherence to inhaled drugs on 5-year survival in COPD patients: a time dependent approach

Purpose

Whether inhaled medications improve long‐term survival in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is an open question. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of adherence to inhaled drug use on 5‐year survival in COPD.

Methods

A population‐based cohort study in three Italian regions was conducted using healthcare linked datasets (hospitalization, mortality, drugs). Individuals (45+ years) discharged after COPD exacerbation in 2006–2009 were enrolled. Inhaled drug daily use during 5‐year follow‐up was determined through Proportion of Days Covered on the basis of Defined Daily Doses. Five levels of time‐dependent exposure were identified: (i) long‐acting β2 agonists and inhaled corticosteroids (LB/ICS) regular use; (ii) LB/ICS occasional use; (iii) LB regular use; (iv) LB occasional use; and (v) respiratory drugs other than LB. Cox regression models adjusted for baseline (socio‐demographic, comorbidities, drug use) and time‐dependent characteristics (COPD exacerbations, cardiovascular hospitalizations, cardiovascular therapy) were performed.

Results

A total of 12 124 individuals were studied, 46% women, mean age 73,8 years. Average follow‐up time 2,4 year. A total of 3415 subjects died (mortality rate = 11.9 per 100 person years). In comparison to LB/ICS regular use, higher risks of death for all remaining treatments were found, the highest risk for respiratory drugs other than LB category (HR = 1.63, 95%CI 1.43–1.87). Patients with regular LB use had higher survival than those with LB/ICS occasional use (HR = 0.89, 95%CI 0.79–0.99).

Conclusions

These findings support clinical guidelines and recommendations for the regular use of inhaled drugs to improve health status and prognosis among moderate–severe COPD patients. © 2016 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Inhaled corticosteroids and the increased risk of pneumonia: what's new? A 2015 updated review

There is a considerable amount of evidence that supports the possibility of an increased risk of pneumonia associated with prolonged use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, as yet, no statistically significant increase in pneumonia-related 30-day mortality in patients on ICS has been demonstrated. The lack of objective pneumonia definitions and radiological confirmations have been a major source of bias, because of the similarities in clinical presentation between pneumonia and acute exacerbations of COPD. One of the newer fluticasone furoate studies overcomes these limitations and also provides an assessment of a range of doses, suggesting that the therapeutic window is quite narrow and that conventional dosing has probably been too high, although the absolute risk may be different compared to other drugs. Newer studies were not able to rule out budesonide as responsible for pneumonia, as previous evidence suggested, and there is still need for evidence from head-to-head comparisons in order to better assess possible intra-class differences. Although the exact mechanisms by which ICS increase the risk of pneumonia are not fully understood, the immunosuppressive effects of ICS on the respiratory epithelium and the disruption of the lung microbiome are most likely to be implicated. Given that COPD represents such a complex and heterogeneous disease, attempts are being made to identify clinical phenotypes with clear therapeutic implications, in order to optimize the pharmacological treatment of COPD and avoid the indiscriminate use of ICS. If deemed necessary, gradual withdrawal of ICS appears to be well tolerated. Vaccination against pneumococcus and influenza should be emphasized in patients with COPD receiving ICS. Physicians should keep in mind that signs and symptoms of pneumonia in COPD patients may be initially indistinguishable from those of an exacerbation, and that patients with COPD appear to be at increased risk of developing pneumonia as a complication of ICS therapy.

Risk factors for COPD exacerbations in inhaled medication users: the COPDGene study biannual longitudinal follow-up prospective cohort

Background

Despite inhaled medications that decrease exacerbation risk, some COPD patients experience frequent exacerbations. We determined prospective risk factors for exacerbations among subjects in the COPDGene Study taking inhaled medications.

Methods

2113 COPD subjects were categorized into four medication use patterns: triple therapy with tiotropium (TIO) plus long-acting beta-agonist/inhaled-corticosteroid (ICS ± LABA), tiotropium alone, ICS ± LABA, and short-acting bronchodilators. Self-reported exacerbations were recorded in telephone and web-based longitudinal follow-up surveys. Associations with exacerbations were determined within each medication group using four separate logistic regression models. A head-to-head analysis compared exacerbation risk among subjects using tiotropium vs. ICS ± LABA.

Results

In separate logistic regression models, the presence of gastroesophageal reflux, female gender, and higher scores on the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire were significant predictors of exacerbator status within multiple medication groups (reflux: OR 1.62–2.75; female gender: OR 1.53 - OR 1.90; SGRQ: OR 1.02–1.03). Subjects taking either ICS ± LABA or tiotropium had similar baseline characteristics, allowing comparison between these two groups. In the head-to-head comparison, tiotropium users showed a trend towards lower rates of exacerbations (OR = 0.69 [95 % CI 0.45, 1.06], p = 0.09) compared with ICS ± LABA users, especially in subjects without comorbid asthma (OR = 0.56 [95 % CI 0.31, 1.00], p = 0.05).

Conclusions

Each common COPD medication usage group showed unique risk factor patterns associated with increased risk of exacerbations, which may help clinicians identify subjects at risk. Compared to similar subjects using ICS ± LABA, those taking tiotropium showed a trend towards reduced exacerbation risk, especially in subjects without asthma.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00608764, first received 1/28/2008.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12890-016-0191-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

One-year mortality associated with COPD treatment: a comparison of tiotropium and long-acting beta2-agonists in three Italian regions: results from the OUTPUL study

Purpose

Long‐acting bronchodilators, i.e. beta‐2‐agonists (LABA) and tiotropium are commonly used in COPD treatment. Choice of a specific agent is based on effectiveness and safety. Evidence yields controversial results with respect to mortality. The present study compared one‐year mortality associated to treatment with tiotropium versus LABA.

Methods

A population‐based cohort study using data from Italian health information systems was performed. Patients aged 45+ years, discharged with COPD diagnosis in 2006–2009 were identified. Through record linkage with drug claims, patients who received a first prescription of LABA or tiotropium within 6 months after discharge were enrolled. The main analysis was restricted to naïve users (no prior use of either LABA or tiotropium). We used ‘intention to treat’ (ITT) and ‘as treated’ (AT) approaches. We followed patients for a maximum of 12 months. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated by Cox regression including quintiles of propensity score. In sensitivity analysis patients receiving tiotropium + LABA combination were included in the tiotropium group.

Results

Among the 33 891 enrolees, 28% were exposed to Tio, 56% to LABA, 16% to both. Overall mean age was 74 years and the mortality rate was 122/1000 person‐years (py) at the ITT analysis and 108/1000 py at the AT analysis. The adjusted HR for tiotropium only compared with LABA only was 1.06 (95%CI: 0.94–1.20) at the ITT analysis and 1.00 (95%CI: 0.93–1.08) at the AT analysis. Results were robust in sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

In this real‐world study use of tiotropium was not associated with an increased risk of one‐year mortality compared with LABA. © 2016 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol or tiotropium in subjects with COPD at cardiovascular risk

BACKGROUND

Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) is a novel, once-daily, inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist combination approved for the treatment of COPD and asthma. We compared the safety and efficacy of FF/VI and tiotropium (TIO) in subjects with moderate-to-severe COPD with greater risk for comorbid cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS

This randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group study compared a once-daily morning dose of FF/VI 100/25 mcg delivered via ELLIPTA™ with TIO 18 mcg via HandiHaler(®) for 12 weeks in subjects with diagnosed COPD, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 30%-70% predicted, and CVD or CVD risk. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24-hour weighted mean FEV1 on Day 84. Other efficacy endpoints included time to onset of bronchodilation, trough FEV1, other spirometry measures, rescue medication use, symptoms, quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire-COPD [SGRQ-C]), and health status (COPD Assessment Tests [CAT]) measures. Safety endpoints included cardiovascular monitoring, cortisol excretion, COPD exacerbations, and adverse events, including prespecified drug effects.

RESULTS

Both FF/VI and TIO improved the 24-hour weighted mean FEV1 from baseline after 12 weeks with no significant difference between treatments. Other endpoints favored FF/VI for time to onset of bronchodilation, rescue medication use, dyspnea, SGRQ-C and CAT scores, or favored TIO for change from baseline in forced vital capacity and inspiratory capacity. Pneumonia occurred more frequently in the FF/VI group, and two TIO-treated subjects died following cardiovascular events. Other safety measures were similar between groups, and cardiovascular monitoring did not reveal increased CVD risk.

CONCLUSION

Both FF/VI and TIO were efficacious in improving lung function in subjects with COPD and comorbid CVD or CVD risk factors, with minor differences in efficacy and safety profiles.

Comparative safety and effectiveness of long-acting inhaled agents for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of long-acting β-antagonists (LABA), long-acting antimuscarinic agents (LAMA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

SETTING

Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

PARTICIPANTS

208 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) including 134,692 adults with COPD.

INTERVENTIONS

LABA, LAMA and/or ICS, alone or in combination, versus each other or placebo.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

The proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe exacerbations. The number of patients experiencing mortality, pneumonia, serious arrhythmia and cardiovascular-related mortality (CVM) were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

NMA was conducted including 20 RCTs for moderate-to-severe exacerbations for 26,141 patients with an exacerbation in the past year. 32 treatments were effective versus placebo including: tiotropium, budesonide/formoterol, salmeterol, indacaterol, fluticasone/salmeterol, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, tiotropium/fluticasone/salmeterol and tiotropium/budesonide/formoterol. Tiotropium/budesonide/formoterol was most effective (99.2% probability of being the most effective according to the Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking (SUCRA) curve). NMA was conducted on mortality (88 RCTs, 97 526 patients); fluticasone/salmeterol was more effective in reducing mortality than placebo, formoterol and fluticasone alone, and was the most effective (SUCRA=71%). NMA was conducted on CVM (37 RCTs, 55,156 patients) and the following were safest: salmeterol versus each OF placebo, tiotropium and tiotropium (Soft Mist Inhaler (SMR)); fluticasone versus tiotropium (SMR); and salmeterol/fluticasone versus tiotropium and tiotropium (SMR). Triamcinolone acetonide was the most harmful (SUCRA=81%). NMA was conducted on pneumonia occurrence (54 RCTs, 61 551 patients). 24 treatments were more harmful, including 2 that increased risk of pneumonia versus placebo; fluticasone and fluticasone/salmeterol. The most harmful agent was fluticasone/salmeterol (SUCRA=89%). NMA was conducted for arrhythmia; no statistically significant differences between agents were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Many inhaled agents are available for COPD, some are safer and more effective than others. Our results can be used by patients and physicians to tailor administration of these agents.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO # CRD42013006725.

Long-acting beta2-agonist in addition to tiotropium versus either tiotropium or long-acting beta2-agonist alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators, comprising long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) and long-acting anti-muscarinic agents (LAMA, principally tiotropium), are commonly used for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Combining these treatments, which have different mechanisms of action, may be more effective than the individual components. However, the benefits and risks of combining tiotropium and LABAs for the treatment of COPD are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative effects on markers of quality of life, exacerbations, symptoms, lung function and serious adverse events in people with COPD randomised to LABA plus tiotropium versus tiotropium alone; or LABA plus tiotropium versus LABA alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and ClinicalTrials.gov up to July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing treatment with tiotropium in addition to LABA against tiotropium or LABA alone for people with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 10 trials on 10,894 participants, mostly recruiting participants with moderate or severe COPD. All of the trials compared tiotropium in addition to LABA to tiotropium alone, and four trials additionally compared LAMA plus LABA with LABA alone. Four studies used the LABA olodaterol, three used indacaterol, two used formoterol, and one used salmeterol.Compared to tiotropium alone, treatment with tiotropium plus LABA resulted in a slightly larger improvement in mean health-related quality of life (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) (mean difference (MD) -1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.87 to -0.80; 6709 participants; 5 studies). The MD was smaller than the four units that is considered clinically important, but a responder analysis indicated that 7% more participants receiving tiotropium plus LABA had a noticeable benefit (greater than four units) from treatment in comparison to tiotropium alone. In the control arm in one study, which was tiotropium alone, the SGRQ improved by falling 4.5 units from baseline and with tiotropium plus LABA the improvement was a fall of a further 1.3 units (on average). Most of the data came from studies using olodaterol. High withdrawal rates in the trials increased the uncertainty in this result, and the GRADE assessment for this outcome was therefore moderate. There were no significant differences in the other primary outcomes (hospital admission or mortality).The secondary outcome of pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) showed a small mean increase with the addition of LABA over the control arm (MD 0.06, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.07; 9573 participants; 10 studies), which showed a change from baseline ranging from 0.03 L to 0.13 L with tiotropium alone. None of the other secondary outcomes (exacerbations, symptom scores, serious adverse events, and withdrawals) showed any statistically significant differences between the groups. There was moderate heterogeneity for both exacerbations and withdrawals.This review included data on four LABAs: two administered twice daily (salmeterol, formoterol) and two once daily (indacaterol, olodaterol). The results were largely from studies of olodaterol and there was insufficient information to assess whether the other LABAs were equivalent to olodaterol or each other.Comparing LABA plus tiotropium treatment with LABA alone, there was a small but significant improvement in SGRQ (MD -1.25, 95% CI -2.14 to -0.37; 3378 participants; 4 studies). The data came mostly from studies using olodaterol and, although the difference was smaller than four units, this still represented an increase of 10 people with a clinically important improvement for 100 treated. There was also an improvement in FEV1 (MD 0.07, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.09; 3513 participants; 4 studies), and in addition an improvement in exacerbation rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93; 3514 participants; 3 studies).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results from this review indicated a small mean improvement in health-related quality of life and FEV1 for participants on a combination of tiotropium and LABA compared to either agent alone, and this translated into a small increase in the number of responders on combination treatment. In addition, adding tiotropium to LABA reduced exacerbations, although adding LABA to tiotropium did not. Hospital admission and mortality were not altered by adding LABA to tiotropium, although there may not be enough data. While it is possible that this is affected by higher attrition in the tiotropium group, one would expect that participants withdrawn from the study would have had less favourable outcomes; this means that the expected direction of attrition bias would be to reduce the estimated benefit of the combination treatment. The results were largely from studies of olodaterol and there was insufficient information to assess whether the other LABAs were equivalent to olodaterol or each other.

Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination and tiotropium bromide among COPD patients new to these controller treatments

Background

Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combinations and/or long-acting muscarinic antagonists are recommended first-line therapies for preventing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation. Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination (BFC, an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist combination) vs tiotropium (long-acting muscarinic antagonist) in the US has not yet been studied.

Methods

Using US claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment, COPD patients (with or without comorbid asthma) ≥40 years old initiating BFC or tiotropium between March 1, 2009 and February 28, 2012 and at risk for exacerbation were identified and followed for 12 months. Patients were propensity score matched on demographics and COPD disease severity indicators. The primary outcome was time to first COPD exacerbation. Secondary outcomes included COPD exacerbation rate, health care resource utilization, and costs.

Results

The Cox proportional hazards model for time to first exacerbation yielded a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.78 (95% CI =[0.70, 0.87], P<0.001), indicating a 22% reduction in risk of COPD exacerbation associated with initiation of BFC versus tiotropium. A post hoc sensitivity analysis found similar effects in those who had a prior asthma diagnosis (HR =0.72 [0.61, 0.86]) and those who did not (HR =0.83 [0.72, 0.96]). BFC initiation was associated with lower COPD-related health care resource utilization and costs ($4,084 per patient-year compared with $5,656 for tiotropium patients, P<0.001).

Conclusion

In COPD patients new to controller therapies, initiating treatment with BFC was associated with improvements in health and economic outcomes compared with tiotropium.

Current concepts in targeting chronic obstructive pulmonary disease pharmacotherapy: making progress towards personalised management

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common, complex, and heterogeneous disorder that is responsible for substantial and growing morbidity, mortality, and health-care expense worldwide. Of imperative importance to decipher the complexity of COPD is to identify groups of patients with similar clinical characteristics, prognosis, or therapeutic needs, the so-called clinical phenotypes. This strategy is logical for research but might be of little clinical value because clinical phenotypes can overlap in the same patient and the same clinical phenotype could result from different biological mechanisms. With the goal to match assessment with treatment choices, the latest iteration of guidelines from the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease reorganised treatment objectives into two categories: to improve symptoms (ie, dyspnoea and health status) and to decrease future risk (as predicted by forced expiratory volume in 1 s level and exacerbations history). This change thus moves treatment closer to individualised medicine with available bronchodilators and anti-inflammatory drugs. Yet, future treatment options are likely to include targeting endotypes that represent subtypes of patients defined by a distinct pathophysiological mechanism. Specific biomarkers of these endotypes would be particularly useful in clinical practice, especially in patients in which clinical phenotype alone is insufficient to identify the underlying endotype. A few series of potential COPD endotypes and biomarkers have been suggested. Empirical knowledge will be gained from proof-of-concept trials in COPD with emerging drugs that target specific inflammatory pathways. In every instance, specific endotype and biomarker efforts will probably be needed for the success of these trials, because the pathways are likely to be operative in only a subset of patients. Network analysis of human diseases offers the possibility to improve understanding of disease pathobiological complexity and to help with the development of new treatment alternatives and, importantly, a reclassification of complex diseases. All these developments should pave the way towards personalised treatment of patients with COPD in the clinic.

ALAT-2014 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Clinical Practice Guidelines: questions and answers

ALAT-2014 COPD Clinical Practice Guidelines used clinical questions in PICO format to compile evidence related to risk factors, COPD screening, disease prognosis, treatment and exacerbations. Evidence reveals the existence of risk factors for COPD other than tobacco, as well as gender differences in disease presentation. It shows the benefit of screening in an at-risk population, and the predictive value use of multidimensional prognostic indexes. In stable COPD, similar benefits in dyspnea, pulmonary function and quality of life are achieved with LAMA or LABA long-acting bronchodilators, whereas LAMA is more effective in preventing exacerbations. Dual bronchodilator therapy has more benefits than monotherapy. LAMA and combination LABA/IC are similarly effective, but there is an increased risk of pneumonia with LABA/IC. Data on the efficacy and safety of triple therapy are scarce. Evidence supports influenza vaccination in all patients and anti-pneumococcal vaccination in patients <65years of age and/or with severe airflow limitation. Antibiotic prophylaxis may decrease exacerbation frequency in patients at risk. The use of systemic corticosteroids and antibiotics are justified in exacerbations requiring hospitalization and in some patients managed in an outpatient setting.

A re-evaluation of the role of inhaled corticosteroids in the management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (in fixed combinations with long-acting β2-agonists [LABAs]) are frequently prescribed for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), outside their labeled indications and recommended treatment strategies and guidelines, despite having the potential to cause significant side effects.

AREAS COVERED

Although the existence of asthma in patients with asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) clearly supports the use of anti-inflammatory treatment (typically an ICS/LABA combination, as ICS monotherapy is usually not indicated for COPD), the current level of ICS/LABA use is not consistent with the prevalence of ACOS in the COPD population. Data have recently become available showing the comparative efficacy of fixed bronchodilator combinations (long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]/LABA with ICS/LABA combinations). Additionally, new information has emerged on ICS withdrawal without increased risk of exacerbations, under cover of effective bronchodilation.

EXPERT OPINION

For patients with COPD who do not have ACOS, a LAMA/LABA combination may be an appropriate starting therapy, apart from those with mild disease who can be managed with a single long-acting bronchodilator. Patients who remain symptomatic or present with exacerbations despite effectively delivered LAMA/LABA treatment may require additional drug therapy, such as ICS or phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors. When prescribing an ICS/LABA, the risk:benefit ratio should be considered in individual patients.

COPD: maximization of bronchodilation

The most recent guidelines define COPD in a multidimensional way, nevertheless the diagnosis is still linked to the limitation of airflow, usually measured by the reduction in the FEV1/FVC ratio below 70%. However, the severity of obstruction is not directly correlated to symptoms or to invalidity determined by COPD. Thus, besides respiratory function, COPD should be evaluated based on symptoms, frequency and severity of exacerbations, patient's functional status and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Therapy is mainly aimed at increasing exercise tolerance and reducing dyspnea, with improvement of daily activities and HRQoL. This can be accomplished by a drug-induced reduction of pulmonary hyperinflation and exacerbations frequency and severity. All guidelines recommend bronchodilators as baseline therapy for all stages of COPD, and long-acting inhaled bronchodilators, both beta-2 agonist (LABA) and antimuscarinic (LAMA) drugs, are the most effective in regular treatment in the clinically stable phase. The effectiveness of bronchodilators should be evaluated in terms of functional (relief of bronchial obstruction and pulmonary hyperinflation), symptomatic (exercise tolerance and HRQoL), and clinical improvement (reduction in number or severity of exacerbations), while the absence of a spirometric response is not a reason for interrupting treatment, if there is subjective improvement in symptoms. Because LABA and LAMA act via different mechanisms of action, when administered in combination they can exert additional effects, thus optimizing (i.e. maximizing) sustained bronchodilation in COPD patients with severe airflow limitation, who cannot benefit (or can get only partial benefit) by therapy with a single bronchodilator. Recently, a fixed combination of ultra LABA/LAMA (indacaterol/glycopyrronium) has shown that it is possible to get a stable and persistent bronchodilation, which can help in avoiding undesirable fluctuations of bronchial calibre.