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

[New clinical guidelines for COPD - a paradigm shift: A review]

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is now one of the most common noncommunicable diseases and the main causes of morbidity, disability and mortality in the world. In recent years, new approaches to epidemiology, diagnosis, classification (categorization), evaluation of phenotypes, as well as characterization and assessment of the severity of сhronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations have emerged. Modern approaches to starting and subsequent drug therapy have changed significantly. This is largely due to the results of recently conducted major clinical trials, demonstrated high efficacy of triple fixed combinations, including inhaled glucocorticosteroids, long-acting beta-agonists and long-acting anticholinergic drugs. The use of non-medication methods (smoking cessation, physical activity and respiratory rehabilitation) and modern approaches to the treatment of respiratory failure and antibiotic therapy remain important. In terms of their significance, all these updates have a significant impact on real clinical practice and can be considered as a novel paradigm of the approaches to the diagnosis and management of this disease.

Network meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies and traditional conventional dichotomous agents for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Introduction

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against cytokines and chemokines or their receptors promise to be a potential therapeutic option to address chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We aim to provide a comprehensive literature review of the improvement in FEV1 and safety when comparing mAbs with conventional dichotomous agents.

Methods

We systematically searched 3 electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) up to August 1, 2023 to collect eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A frequentist network meta-analysis using a random-effects model was deployed to calculate mean differences (MD) for FEV1, relative risk (RR) of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and estimate the surface under cumulative rankings (SUCRA). A higher SUCRA indicates a better outcome.

Results

This study included 23 RCTs involving a total of 20,853 patients. Overall, except for Dupilumab, mAbs did not significantly improve FEV1 compared to traditional conventional dichotomous agents. Among all the interventions included, Aclidinium bromide/Formoterol (AB/FF) (SUCRA 97.7%) ranked highest, followed by Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) (SUCRA 93.5%), and Glycopyrrolate Formoterol Fumarate (GFF) (SUCRA 84.7%). Dupilumab (SUCRA 66.9%) ranked the fourth among all interventions but ranked the first among all the mAbs. Importantly, all mAbs demonstrated a good safety profile compared with placebo.

Conclusion

Considering the improvement in FEV1 and its safety, the development of mAbs for COPD still holds significant clinical potential.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, CRD42023452714.

Inhaled corticosteroids with combination inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly involves a combination of long-acting bronchodilators including beta2-agonists (LABA) and muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). LABA and LAMA bronchodilators are now available in single-combination inhalers. In individuals with persistent symptoms or frequent exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are also used with combination LABA and LAMA inhalers. However, the benefits and risks of adding ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers as a triple therapy remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of adding an ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase up to 30 November 2022. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP up to 30 November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials of three weeks' duration or longer that compared the treatment of stable COPD with ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers against combination LABA/LAMA inhalers alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were acute exacerbations of COPD, respiratory health-related quality of life, pneumonia and other serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were symptom scores, lung function, physical capacity, and mortality. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for studies that contributed data to our prespecified outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Four studies with a total of 15,412 participants met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of study participants ranged from 64.4 to 65.3 years; the proportion of female participants ranged from 28% to 40%. Most participants had symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test Score ≥ 10) with severe to very severe airflow limitation (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) < 50% predicted) and one or more moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations in the last 12 months. Trial medications differed amongst studies. The duration of follow-up was 52 weeks in three studies and 24 weeks in one study. We assessed the risk of selection, performance, and detection bias to be low in the included studies; one study was at high risk of attrition bias, and one study was at high risk of reporting bias. Triple therapy may reduce rates of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (rate ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.81; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis stratifying by blood eosinophil counts showed there may be a greater reduction in rate of moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations with triple therapy in participants with high-eosinophils (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.75) compared to low-eosinophils (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.93) (test for subgroup differences: P < 0.01) (high/low cut-offs: 150 eosinophils/µL in three studies; 200 eosinophils/µL in one study). However, moderate-to-substantial heterogeneity was observed in both high- and low-eosinophil subgroups. These subgroup analyses are observational by nature and thus results should be interpreted with caution. Triple therapy may be associated with reduced rates of severe COPD exacerbations (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.84; n = 14,131; low-certainty evidence). Triple therapy improved health-related quality of life assessed using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold (4-point decrease) (35.3% versus 42.4%, odds ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.45; n = 14,070; high-certainty evidence). Triple therapy may result in fewer symptoms measured using the Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI) (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.57; n = 3044; moderate-certainty evidence) and improved lung function as measured by change in trough FEV1 (mean difference 38.68 mL, 95% CI 22.58 to 54.77; n = 11,352; low-certainty evidence). However, these benefits fell below MCID thresholds for TDI (1-unit decrease) and trough FEV1 (100 mL), respectively. Triple therapy is probably associated with a higher risk of pneumonia as a serious adverse event compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (3.3% versus 1.9%, OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.18; n = 15,412; moderate-certainty evidence). In contrast, all-cause serious adverse events may be similar between groups (19.7% versus 19.7%, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.03; n = 15,412; low-certainty evidence). All-cause mortality may be lower with triple therapy (1.4% versus 2.0%, OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90; n = 15,397; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that triple therapy may reduce rates of COPD exacerbations (low-certainty evidence) and results in an improvement in health-related quality of life (high-certainty evidence) compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers, but probably confers an increased pneumonia risk as a serious adverse event (moderate-certainty evidence). Triple therapy probably improves respiratory symptoms and may improve lung function (moderate- and low-certainty evidence, respectively); however, these benefits do not appear to be clinically significant. Triple therapy may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers (low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded most frequently for inconsistency or indirectness. Across the four included studies, there were important differences in inclusion criteria, trial medications, and duration of follow-up. Investigation of heterogeneity was limited due to the small number of included studies. We found limited data on the effects of triple therapy compared to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers in patients with mild-moderate COPD and those without a recent exacerbation history.

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.

Inhalation therapies in COPD - adverse drug reactions impact on emergency department presentations

PURPOSE

Inhaled drugs have been cornerstones in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) for decades and show a high prescription volume. Due to the local application, drug safety issues of these therapies are often underestimated by professionals and patients. Data about adverse drug reactions (ADRs) caused by inhaled therapy in patients with COPD and polypharmacy are rare. We aimed to analyze the use and relevance of inhaled therapies in those patients in relation to ADR complaints, which were severe enough to warrant presentation to the emergency department.

METHODS

Emergency department cases due to suspected ADRs of the ADRED database (n = 2939, "Adverse Drug Reactions in Emergency Departments"; DRKS-ID: DRKS00008979, registration date 01/11/2017) were analyzed for inhaled drugs in patients with COPD. ADRs in cases with overdosed inhaled drugs were compared to non-overdosed cases. ADRs, potentially caused by inhaled drugs, were evaluated, clustered into complexes, and assessed for association with inhaled drug classes.

RESULTS

Of the 269 included COPD cases, 67% (n = 180) received inhaled therapy. In 16% (n = 28), these therapies were overdosed. Overdosed cases presented the complexes of malaise and local symptoms more frequently. Related to the use of inhaled anticholinergics, local (dysphagia-like) and related to inhaled beta-2 agonists, local (dysphagia-like) and sympathomimetic-like ADRs presented more frequently.

CONCLUSION

Overdosed inhaled therapies in patients with COPD lead to relevant ADRs and impact on emergency room presentations. These are rarely associated to inhaled therapy by healthcare professionals or patients. Due to the high volume of inhaled drug prescriptions, pharmacovigilance and patient education should be more focused in patients with COPD. German Clinical Trial Register: DRKS-ID: DRKS00008979.

Behaviour change and physical activity interventions for physical activity engagement in community dwelling adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: protocol for a systematic review

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a complex respiratory disease and the third leading cause of death worldwide. Pulmonary rehabilitation is recognised as the gold standard of care in the management of COPD, however engagement with pulmonary rehabilitation is low and maintenance of a physically active lifestyle in community dwelling adults with COPD is poor. Supporting positive behaviour change in people with COPD could help to increase their engagement with physical activity. This systematic review will examine behaviour change and physical activity interventions delivered to community dwelling adults with COPD with the aim of increasing physical activity engagement. Interventions will be mapped against Michie’s theoretical domains framework (TDF) to inform clinical practice and health policy.

Methods: The following databases will be searched from inception until December 2021: Web of Science, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via EBSCO), EMBASE, APA PsychINFO, CINAHL (via EBSCO), AMED, PROSPERO, Cochrane Airways Trials Register. Reference lists of the relevant studies and grey literature will be searched using Grey Literature Report, Open Grey and Google Scholar search engines. Relevant studies will be systematically reviewed and subject to quality appraisal to determine the impact of behaviour change and physical activity interventions on outcomes of community-dwelling adults with COPD. Interventions will be mapped to Michie’s TDF and a narrative synthesis with respect to nature, effectiveness on target population and setting/environment will be provided. Findings will be reported in relation to the generalisability of the primary results and research question, and will include secondary findings on quality of life, self-reported participation in physical activity, exercise capacity, adverse events and intervention adherence. The review will be presented according to the PRISMA guidelines 2020.

Conclusions: This systematic review is necessary to explain the impact of behaviour change and physical activity interventions on outcomes of community dwelling people with COPD.

PROSPERO registration: CRD42021264965 (29.06.2021)

Behaviour change and physical activity interventions for physical activity engagement in community dwelling adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: protocol for a systematic review

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a complex respiratory disease and the third leading cause of death worldwide. Pulmonary rehabilitation is recognised as the gold standard of care in the management of COPD, however engagement with pulmonary rehabilitation is low and maintenance of a physically active lifestyle in community dwelling adults with COPD is poor. Supporting positive behaviour change in people with COPD could help to increase their engagement with physical activity. This systematic review will examine behaviour change and physical activity interventions delivered to community dwelling adults with COPD with the aim of increasing physical activity engagement. Interventions will be mapped against Michie’s theoretical domains framework (TDF) to inform clinical practice and health policy. Methods: The following databases will be searched from inception until December 2021: Web of Science, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (via EBSCO), EMBASE, APA PsychINFO, CINAHL (via EBSCO), AMED, PROSPERO, Cochrane Airways Trials Register. Reference lists of the relevant studies and grey literature will be searched using Grey Literature Report, Open Grey and Google Scholar search engines. Relevant studies will be systematically reviewed and subject to quality appraisal to determine the impact of behaviour change and physical activity interventions on outcomes of community-dwelling adults with COPD. Interventions will be mapped to Michie’s TDF and a narrative synthesis with respect to nature, effectiveness on target population and setting/environment will be provided. Findings will be reported in relation to the generalisability of the primary results and research question, and will include secondary findings on quality of life, self-reported participation in physical activity, exercise capacity, adverse events and intervention adherence. The review will be presented according to the PRISMA guidelines 2020. Conclusions: This systematic review is necessary to explain the impact of behaviour change and physical activity interventions on outcomes of community dwelling people with COPD. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021264965 (29.06.2021)

Romanian clinical guideline for diagnosis and treatment of COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a disease with increasing prevalence and burden for health systems worldwide. Every country collects its own epidemiological data regarding COPD prevalence, morbidity and mortality while taking steps to educate the population and medical community to improve early detection and treatment. The rising COPD prevalence creates a need for comprehensive guidelines. In 2012 and 2017–2018, the Romanian Society of Pneumology (SRP) organised national inquiries for COPD, while lung physicians in Romania began receiving education regarding the correct algorithms for COPD diagnosis and therapy. During 2019, a Romanian clinical guideline for diagnosis and treatment of COPD was published, and a condensed version of key points from this guideline are presented herein. COPD is diagnosed based on the presence of three major components: relevant exposure history, respiratory symptoms, and airway limitation that is not fully reversible. Clinical evaluation of patients diagnosed with COPD should include the level of symptoms, exacerbation rate, the presence of comorbidities and determination of phenotypes. The present abridged guideline is designed to be accessible and practical for assessing and managing patients with COPD. The application of up-to-date COPD guidelines may enhance the optimism of physicians and patients in managing this disease.

Benefit/Risk Profile of Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with major healthcare and socioeconomic burdens. International consortia recommend a personalized approach to treatment and management that aims to reduce both symptom burden and the risk of exacerbations. Recent clinical trials have investigated single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for patients with symptomatic COPD. Here, we review evidence from randomized controlled trials showing the benefits of SITT and weigh these against the reported risk of pneumonia with ICS use. We highlight the challenges associated with cross-trial comparisons of benefit/risk, discuss blood eosinophils as a marker of ICS responsiveness, and summarize current treatment recommendations and the position of SITT in the management of COPD, including potential advantages in terms of improving patient adherence. Evidence from trials of SITT versus dual therapies in symptomatic patients with moderate to very severe airflow limitation and increased risk of exacerbations shows benefits in lung function and patient-reported outcomes. Moreover, the key benefits reported with SITT are significant reductions in exacerbations and hospitalizations, with data also suggesting reduced all-cause mortality. These benefits outweigh the ICS-class effect of higher incidence of study-reported pneumonia compared with LAMA/LABA. Important differences in trial design, baseline population characteristics, such as exacerbation history, and assessment of outcomes, have significant implications for interpreting data from cross-trial comparisons. Current understanding interprets the blood eosinophil count as a continuum that can help predict response to ICS and has utility alongside other clinical factors to aid treatment decision-making. We conclude that treatment decisions in COPD should be guided by an approach that considers benefit versus risk, with early optimization of treatment essential for maximizing long-term benefits and patient outcomes.

Is the use of two versus one long-acting bronchodilator by patients with COPD associated with a higher risk of acute coronary syndrome in real-world clinical practice?

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular comorbidity is common among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and there is concern that long-acting bronchodilators (long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting beta₂ agonists (LABAs)) may further increase the risk of acute coronary events. Information about the impact of treatment intensification on acute coronary syndrome (ACS) risk in real-world settings is limited. We undertook a nationwide nested case-control study to estimate the risk of ACS in users of both a LAMA and a LABA relative to users of a LAMA.

METHODS

We used routinely collected national health and pharmaceutical dispensing data to establish a cohort of patients aged >45 years who initiated long-acting bronchodilator therapy for COPD between 1 February 2006 and 30 December 2013. Fatal and non-fatal ACS events during follow-up were identified using hospital discharge and mortality records. For each case we used risk set sampling to randomly select up to 10 controls, matched by date of birth, sex, date of cohort entry (first LAMA and/or LABA dispensing), and COPD severity.

RESULTS

From the cohort (n=83 417), we identified 5399 ACS cases during 281 292 person-years of follow-up. Compared with current use of LAMA therapy, current use of LAMA and LABA dual therapy was associated with a higher risk of ACS (OR 1.28 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.44)). The OR in an analysis restricted to fatal cases was 1.46 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.91).

CONCLUSION

In real-world clinical practice, use of two versus one long-acting bronchodilator by people with COPD is associated with a higher risk of ACS.

LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations versus LAMA monotherapy in the prevention of COPD exacerbations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy is recommended for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with high risk of exacerbations. It is unclear whether long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/LAMA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) are more effective than LAMAs alone in preventing exacerbations. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to investigate whether LABA/LAMA FDCs are more effective than LAMA monotherapy in preventing exacerbations.

Methods:

We searched several databases and manufacturers’ websites to identify relevant randomized clinical trials comparing LABA/LAMA FDC treatment with LAMAs alone ⩾24 weeks. Outcomes of interest were time to first exacerbation and rates of moderate to severe, severe and all exacerbations.

Results:

We included 10 trials in 9 articles from 2013 to 2018 with a total of 19,369 patients for analysis in this study. Compared with LAMA monotherapy, LABA/LAMA FDCs demonstrated similar efficacy in terms of time to first exacerbation [hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79–1.18; p = 0.71], moderate to severe exacerbations [risk ratio (RR), 0.96; 95% CI 0.90–1.03; p = 0.28], severe exacerbations (RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.81–1.03; p = 0.15), and a marginal superiority in terms of all exacerbations (RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.86–1.00; p = 0.04). The incidence of all exacerbation events was lower in the LABA/LAMA FDC group for the COPD patients with a history of previous exacerbations and those with a longer treatment period (52–64 weeks).

Conclusion:

This study provides evidence that LABA/LAMA FDCs are marginally superior in the prevention of all exacerbations compared with LAMA monotherapy in patients with COPD.

The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Sputum Inflammometry to Manage Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations: Beyond Guidelines

Quantitative sputum cytometry facilitates in assessing the nature of bronchitis associated with exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This is not assessed in most clinical trials that evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to prevent or to treat exacerbations. While up to a quarter of exacerbations may be associated with raised eosinophil numbers, the vast majority of exacerbations are associated with neutrophilic bronchitis that may indicate airway infections. While eosinophilia may be a predictor of response to corticosteroids (oral and inhaled), the limited efficacy of anti-interleukin 5 therapies would suggest that eosinophils may not directly contribute to those exacerbations. However, they may contribute to airspace enlargement in patients with COPD through various mechanisms involving the interleukin 13 and matrix metalloprotease pathways. The absence of eosinophils may facilitate in limiting the unnecessary use of corticosteroids. The presence of neutrophiia could prompt an investigation for the specific pathogens in the airway. Additionally, sputum measurements may also provide insight into the mechanisms of susceptibility to airway infections. Iron within sputum macrophages, identified by hemosiderin staining (and by more direct quantification) may impair macrophage functions while the low levels of immunoglobulins in sputum may also contribute to airway infections. The assessment of sputum at the time of exacerbations thus would facilitate in customizing treatment and treat current exacerbations and reduce future risk of exacerbations.

Many continuous variables should be analyzed using the relative scale: a case study of β2-agonists for preventing exercise-induced bronchoconstriction

BACKGROUND

The relative scale adjusts for baseline variability and therefore may lead to findings that can be generalized more widely. It is routinely used for the analysis of binary outcomes but only rarely for continuous outcomes. Our objective was to compare relative vs absolute scale pooled outcomes using data from a recently published Cochrane systematic review that reported only absolute effects of inhaled β₂-agonists on exercise-induced decline in forced-expiratory volumes in 1 s (FEV₁).

METHODS

From the Cochrane review, we selected placebo-controlled cross-over studies that reported individual participant data (IPD). Reversal in FEV₁ decline after exercise was modeled as a mean uniform percentage point (pp) change (absolute effect) or average percent change (relative effect) using either intercept-only or slope-only, respectively, linear mixed-effect models. We also calculated the pooled relative effect estimates using standard random-effects, inverse-variance-weighting meta-analysis using study-level mean effects.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 187 participants were identified for the IPD analysis. On the absolute scale, β₂-agonists decreased the exercise-induced FEV₁ decline by 28 pp., and on the relative scale, they decreased the FEV₁ decline by 90%. The fit of the statistical model was significantly better with the relative 90% estimate compared with the absolute 28 pp. estimate. Furthermore, the median residuals (5.8 vs. 10.8 pp) were substantially smaller in the relative effect model than in the absolute effect model. Using standard study-level meta-analysis of the same 14 studies, β₂-agonists reduced exercise-induced FEV₁ decline on the relative scale by a similar amount: 83% or 90%, depending on the method of calculating the relative effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the absolute scale, the relative scale captures more effectively the variation in the effects of β₂-agonists on exercise-induced FEV₁-declines. The absolute scale has been used in the analysis of FEV₁ changes and may have led to sub-optimal statistical analysis in some cases. The choice between the absolute and relative scale should be determined based on biological reasoning and empirical testing to identify the scale that leads to lower heterogeneity.

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.

Once daily long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists in a combined inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory condition causing accumulation of mucus in the airways, cough, and breathlessness; the disease is progressive and is the fourth most common cause of death worldwide. Current treatment strategies for COPD are multi-modal and aim to reduce morbidity and mortality and increase patients' quality of life by slowing disease progression and preventing exacerbations. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of a long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA) plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) delivered via a single inhaler are approved by regulatory authorities in the USA, Europe, and Japan for the treatment of COPD. Several LABA/LAMA FDCs are available and recent meta-analyses have clarified their utility versus their mono-components in COPD. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of once-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs versus placebo will facilitate the comparison of different FDCs in future network meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the evidence for once-daily LABA/LAMA combinations (delivered in a single inhaler) versus placebo on clinically meaningful outcomes in patients with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from Cochrane Airways' Specialised Register (CASR) and also conducted a search of the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch). We searched CASR and trial registries from their inception to 3 December 2018; we imposed no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC versus placebo. We included studies reported as full-text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. We excluded very short-term trials with a duration of less than 3 weeks. We included adults (≥ 40 years old) with a diagnosis of stable COPD. We included studies that allowed participants to continue using their ICS during the trial as long as the ICS was not part of the randomised treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results to determine included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Where possible, we used a random-effects model to meta-analyse extracted data. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified and included 22 RCTs randomly assigning 8641 people with COPD to either once-daily LABA/LAMA FDC (6252 participants) or placebo (3819 participants); nine studies had a cross-over design. Studies had a duration of between three and 52 weeks (median 12 weeks). The mean age of participants across the included studies ranged from 59 to 65 years and in 21 of 22 studies, participants had GOLD stage II or III COPD. Concomitant inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use was permitted in all of the included studies (where stated); across the included studies, between 28% to 58% of participants were using ICS at baseline. Six studies evaluated the once-daily combination of IND/GLY (110/50 μg), seven studies evaluated TIO/OLO (2.5/5 or 5/5 μg), eight studies evaluated UMEC/VI (62.5/5, 125/25 or 500/25 μg) and one study evaluated ACD/FOR (200/6, 200/12 or 200/18 μg); all LABA/LAMA combinations were compared with placebo.The risk of bias was generally considered to be low or unknown (insufficient detail provided), with only one study per domain considered to have a high risk of bias except for the domain 'other bias' which was determined to be at high risk of bias in four studies (in three studies, disease severity was greater at baseline in participants receiving LABA/LAMA compared with participants receiving placebo, which would be expected to shift the treatment effect in favour of placebo).Compared to the placebo, the pooled results for the primary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: all-cause mortality, OR 1.88 (95% CI 0.81 to 4.36, low-certainty evidence); all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs), OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.28, high-certainty evidence); acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD), OR 0.53 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.78, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, MD -4.08 (95% CI -4.80 to -3.36, high-certainty evidence); proportion of SGRQ responders, OR 1.75 (95% CI 1.54 to 1.99). Compared with placebo, the pooled results for the secondary outcomes for the once-daily LABA/LAMA arm were as follows: adjusted trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), MD 0.20 L (95% CI 0.19 to 0.21, moderate-certainty evidence); adjusted peak FEV1, MD 0.31 L (95% CI 0.29 to 0.32, moderate-certainty evidence); and all-cause AEs, OR 0.95 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.04; high-certainty evidence). No studies reported data for the 6-minute walk test. The results were generally consistent across subgroups for different LABA/LAMA combinations and doses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, once-daily LABA/LAMA (either IND/GLY, UMEC/VI or TIO/OLO) via a combination inhaler is associated with a clinically significant improvement in lung function and health-related quality of life in patients with mild-to-moderate COPD; UMEC/VI appears to reduce the rate of exacerbations in this population. These conclusions are supported by moderate or high certainty evidence based on studies with an observation period of up to one year.

Fixed-Dose Combinations of Long-Acting Bronchodilators for the Management of COPD: Global and Asian Perspectives

Maintenance bronchodilator therapy with long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) is the cornerstone treatment for patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of LABA/LAMA are recommended for the majority of symptomatic COPD patients by global guidelines; regional guidelines such as the Japanese and Korean guidelines also provide similar recommendations for the use of LABA/LAMA FDCs. This review comprehensively describes the latest clinical evidence from key studies on the efficacy and safety of four approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations: indacaterol/glycopyrronium, vilanterol/umeclidinium, formoterol/aclidinium, and olodaterol/tiotropium. Additionally, in this review we describe the rationale behind the use of LABA/LAMA FDC therapy, key findings from the preclinical and clinical trial evaluation of respective LABA and LAMA monocomponents, and the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA FDCs. Special emphasis is placed on the clinical evidence for the monocomponents and LABA/LAMA FDCs from the Asian population. This detailed overview of the efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA FDCs in global and Asian COPD patients is envisaged to provide a better understanding of the benefits of these therapies and to inform healthcare providers and patients on their appropriate use.Funding: Novartis Pharma K.K.

Effects of baseline symptom burden on treatment response in COPD

RATIONALE

In symptomatic patients with COPD, the decision whether to initiate maintenance treatment with a single agent or a combination of long-acting bronchodilators remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether baseline symptomatic status influences response to tiotropium/olodaterol treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Post hoc analysis of the randomized OTEMTO® studies (NCT01964352; NCT02006732), in which patients with moderate-to-severe COPD received placebo, tiotropium 5 µg, tiotropium/olodaterol 2.5/5 µg, or tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg once daily for 12 weeks via the Respimat® inhaler (Boehringer Ingelheim, Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany). Impact of baseline symptomatic status (modified Medical Research Council [mMRC] score) on response to treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg, tiotropium 5 µg, or placebo at Week 12 was assessed by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and response rate, transition dyspnea index (TDI) focal score and response rate, and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second response.

RESULTS

Tiotropium/olodaterol improved SGRQ total scores and response rates compared with placebo and tiotropium for patients with baseline mMRC scores 0-1 and ≥2. For tiotropium/olodaterol vs tiotropium, greater improvements were observed for patients with mMRC ≥2 (SGRQ score adjusted mean treatment difference -3.44 [95% CI: -5.43, -1.46]; P=0.0007; SGRQ response rate ORs 2.09 [95% CI: 1.41, 3.10]; P=0.0002). Dyspnea, measured by TDI score, was consistently improved with tiotropium/olodaterol vs placebo for patients with mMRC scores 0-1 and ≥2 (adjusted mean treatment difference 1.63 [95% CI: 1.06, 2.20]; P<0.0001 and 1.60 [95% CI: 1.09, 2.10]; P<0.0001, respectively). In patients with mMRC scores 0-1 and ≥2, tiotropium/olodaterol consistently improved TDI response rate and lung function vs placebo and tiotropium.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with COPD with more severe baseline dyspnea appear to derive greater health status benefit with tiotropium/olodaterol compared with tiotropium alone.

Functional status measures for the COPD patient: A practical categorization

The objective of this study is to review available functional status measures (FSMs) validated for use in the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) population and categorizing the measures by their commonalities to formulate a framework that supports clinicians in the selection and application of FSMs. A literature review identifying valid and reliable measures of functional status for people with COPD was undertaken. Measures were thematically analyzed and categorized to develop a framework for clinical application. A variety of measures of activity levels exist, with 35 included in this review. Thematic categorization identified five categories of measures: daily activity, impact, surrogate, performance-based, and disability-based measures. The vast variety of FSMs available for clinicians to apply with people who have COPD may be overwhelming, and selection must be thoughtfully based on the nature of the population being studied/evaluated, and aims of evaluation being conducted, not simply as a standard measure used at the institution. Psychometric testing is a critical feature to a strong instrument and issues of reliability, validity, and responsiveness need to be understood prior to measurement use. Contextual nature of measures such as language used and activities measured is also important. A categorical framework to support clinicians in the selection and application of FSMs has been presented in this article.

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.

Comparison of clinical efficacy between ultra-LABAs and ultra-LAMAs in COPD: a systemic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

A single long-acting bronchodilator, ultra-long acting muscarinic antagonist (ultra-LAMA) or ultra-long acting β₂-agonist (ultra-LABA) is preferred for the initial treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, there are few head-to-head comparative studies between the two. Here, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the clinical efficacy between ultra-LABA and ultra-LAMA in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (to March 1, 2017) to identify all published randomized controlled trials.

Results

Of the 12,906 articles found by searching the databases, we obtained data from 10,591 patients with COPD (LABA, n=5,058; LAMA, n=5,533) in seven published studies. Our results showed that COPD exacerbation were significantly lower in patients taking ultra-LAMA than those taking ultra-LABA (odds ratio =0.857, P=0.0008). However, no significant differences were observed between ultra-LAMA and ultra-LABA patients regarding improvement in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s, the transitional dyspnea index, or St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score.

Conclusions

This study suggests that COPD exacerbation occurred less often in patients taking an ultra-LAMA than in those taking an ultra-LABA with similar efficacy of lung function and quality of life.

Efficacy and safety of tiotropium bromide combined with budesonide/formoterol in the treatment of moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

With the increase of environmental pollution, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has become a serious health threat. In the present study, the efficacy and safety of inhalation therapy of tiotropium bromide combined with budesonide/formoterol were assessed in 180 patients with moderate to severe COPD (clinical trial registry no. ChiCTR1800017584). Patients were treated by inhalation of budesonide/formoterol (control group) or inhalation of tiotropium bromide combined with budesonide/formoterol (intervention group). The results indicated that after the treatment, the forced expiratory volume in 1 sec, the modified Medical Research Council scale, the 6-min walking distance and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores for quality of life were significantly improved in the two groups, while the improvements in the intervention group were more significant (all P<0.05). There was no significant difference in body mass indices between the two groups during the course of the treatment (P=0.302). The difference in the risk of an acute exacerbation between the two groups was also not significant (P=0.238). The median time to the first acute exacerbation from the start of treatment in the intervention group (53 days; 25% quartile, 50 days; 75% quartile, 62 days) was significantly longer than that in the control group (37 days; 25% quartile, 23 days; 75% quartile, 39 days; P=0.042). The adverse reaction rates in the intervention and control groups were 14.4 and 10.0%, respectively, without any significant difference. In conclusion, inhalation treatment of tiotropium bromide combined with budesonide/formoterol significantly improves pulmonary function, exercise capacity and quality of life of patients with COPD compared with budesonide/formoterol inhalation alone, while the effect of reducing the acute attack risk requires further evaluation.

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of US-approved LAMA/LABA therapies versus tiotropium in moderate-to-severe COPD

Dual bronchodilator maintenance therapy may benefit patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) versus long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy. The efficacy and safety of US-approved LAMA/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) combinations versus tiotropium (TIO), a LAMA, were assessed. This systematic review and meta-analysis (GSK: 206938), conducted in MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, and EMBASE following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, identified randomized clinical trials (>8 weeks) in moderate-to-severe COPD (per Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines), receiving LAMA/LABA or TIO. Endpoints: difference in change from baseline in lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV₁]; trough, peak, area under the curve 0–3 h post-dose (AUC_0–3), St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responder rate (≥4-unit improvement), SGRQ total score, and rescue medication use at 12 and 24 weeks. Safety was also assessed. From 5683 citations, the meta-analysis included eight clinical trials. LAMA/LABA significantly improved FEV₁ trough (Week 12: 63.0 mL, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 39.2, 86.8; Week 24: 66.1 mL, 95% CI: 40.0, 92.3), peak (Week 12: 91.5 mL, 95% CI: 70.5, 112.4; Week 24: 92.4 mL, 95% CI: 72.9, 111.9), AUC_0–3 (Week 12: 126.8 mL, 95% CI: 108.1, 145.4), SGRQ responder rate at Week 12 (risk ratio: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.28), mean SGRQ total score (Week 12: −1.87, 95% CI: −2.72, −1.02; Week 24: −1.05, 95% CI: −2.02, −0.09), and rescue medication use (Week 24: −0.47 puffs/day, 95% CI: −0.64, −0.30) versus TIO (all p ≤ 0.03). The SGRQ responder rate at 24 weeks and adverse events were not significantly different between treatments. US-approved LAMA/LABA therapies improved lung function, SGR,Q and rescue medication use versus TIO, without compromising safety.

Dual maintenance therapies combining two types of long-acting bronchodilator appear to be effective and safe for treating moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Given that patients with COPD often have poor quality of life and, in the US, incur substantial healthcare costs, it is vital to provide optimal symptom management to improve lung function and limit exacerbations over time. Beth Hahn at GSK, North Carolina, and co-workers carried out a literature review and meta-analysis of 8 clinical trials, which indicates that combined long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) treatments—currently prescribed in the US—are an effective and safe way of tackling COPD symptoms. The team compared patients using LAMA/LABA for 12 weeks with those on single LAMA (tiotropium) treatment and found LAMA/LABA significantly improved lung function and reduced exacerbation risk.

Determinants of exacerbation risk in patients with COPD in the TIOSPIR study

BACKGROUND

Exacerbation history is used to grade the risk of COPD exacerbation, but its reliability and relationship to other risk factors and prior therapy is unclear. To examine these interrelationships, we conducted a post hoc analysis of patients in the TIOSPIR trial with ≥2 years' follow-up or who died on treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were grouped by their annual exacerbation rate on treatment into nonexacerbators, infrequent, and frequent exacerbators (annual exacerbation rates 0, ≤1, and >1, respectively), and baseline characteristics discriminating among the groups were determined. We used univariate and multivariate analyses to explore the effect of baseline characteristics on risk of exacerbation, hospitalization (severe exacerbation), and death (all causes).

RESULTS

Of 13,591 patients, 6,559 (48.3%) were nonexacerbators, 4,568 (33.6%) were infrequent exacerbators, and 2,464 (18.1%) were frequent exacerbators; 45% of patients without exacerbations in the previous year exacerbated on treatment. Multivariate analysis identified baseline pulmonary maintenance medication as a predictive factor of increased exacerbation risk, with inhaled corticosteroid treatment associated with increased exacerbation risk irrespective of exacerbation history.

CONCLUSION

Our data confirm established risk factors for exacerbation, but highlight the limitations of exacerbation history when categorizing patients and the importance of prior treatment when identifying exacerbation risk.

Efficacy of tiotropium and indacaterol monotherapy and their combination on dynamic lung hyperinflation in COPD: a random open-label crossover study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The difference in efficacy of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) for dynamic lung hyperinflation (DLH) in COPD is unclear. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the difference in efficacy of LAMA and LABA alone and the combination thereof for DLH.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Thirty stable patients were enrolled and randomly divided into two groups following baseline measurements. One group was treated with 5 μg tiotropium (Respimat inhaler) for 4 weeks following a 4-week treatment with 150 μg indacaterol, while the other group was treated with indacaterol for 4 weeks following a 4-week treatment with tiotropium. For both groups, these treatments were followed by a combination of the two drugs for 4 weeks. Pulmonary function tests, including DLH evaluated by metronome-paced incremental hyperventilation and exercise tolerance evaluated by the shuttle-walk test, were performed at the end of each treatment period.

RESULTS

In total, 23 patients completed this study. Both tiotropium and indacaterol alone significantly increased forced expiratory volume in 1 second, exercise tolerance, and improved health status. Tiotropium significantly improved DLH, but indacaterol did not. The combination therapy resulted in further improvements in lung function and exercise tolerance, but not in DLH.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of tiotropium in inhibiting DLH following metronome-paced incremental hyperventilation may be superior to that of 150 μg indacaterol, although the effects on airflow obstruction were the same, and the combination therapy showed further improvement in airflow obstruction, but not in DLH.

Spotlight on glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate inhalation aerosol in the management of COPD: design, development, and place in therapy

Long-acting bronchodilators are the mainstay of the treatment of COPD. With the advent of several combination inhalers with long-acting antimuscarinic agents (LAMAs) and long-acting beta agonists (LABAs), the choice of therapy in the treatment of COPD has been ever expanding. With the focus of COPD management shifting from FEV₁-based treatment escalation to symptoms and risk-based treatment, we are seeing a paradigm shift in COPD treatment with early introduction of LAMA-LABA combination as a single inhaler. Glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate fixed-dose combination formulated in a familiar metered-dose inhaler format using proprietary co-suspension technology is a new option on the market. We purport to discuss the evidence behind the approval of the drug combination and its place in therapy.

Pharmacological Management of People Living with End-Stage Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Supportive care and pharmacological treatment can improve the quality of life of people with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who cope on a daily basis with substantial physical, psychological, social and spiritual morbidity. Smoking cessation is the only intervention that reduces the rate of progression of COPD, but evidence-based drug treatments and non-pharmacological strategies can relieve symptoms and reduce the impact of exacerbations. People with severe COPD live with increasingly troublesome breathlessness and other symptoms such as fatigue, pain, sputum production and weight loss. As breathlessness increases, treatment is stepped up from short-acting to long-acting bronchodilators supplemented by non-pharmacological interventions such as pulmonary rehabilitation. Opiates relieve breathlessness, and referral to a multidisciplinary breathlessness service is an option for those with intractable symptoms. Other smoking-related conditions, such as coronary heart disease and lung cancer as well as depression and anxiety are common and should be treated with conventional pharmacotherapy. Acute exacerbations become more frequent and more severe as the disease reaches end-stage. Inhaled corticosteroids in combination with long-acting bronchodilators can reduce the frequency of exacerbations, and supported self-management aims to facilitate timely treatment of deterioration. Palliative care services have traditionally been predicated on identifying people with end-stage disease-a model that does not resonate with the unpredictable, relapsing trajectory of COPD. Approaches to care that promote a flexible approach to palliation alongside curative care could do much to improve the burden of living with severe COPD.

Double bronchodilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a crude analysis from a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The combination of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) in a single inhaler is a viable treatment option for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here, we systematically review the current knowledge on double bronchodilation for the treatment of COPD, with a specific focus on its efficacy versus placebo and/or monotherapy bronchodilation.

METHODS

A systematic review of clinical trials investigating LABA/LAMA combination therapies was conducted. Articles were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Scopus on June 26, 2016. We specifically selected clinical trials with a randomized controlled or crossover design published in any scientific journal showing the following characteristics: 1) comparison of different LABA/LAMA combinations in a single inhaler for patients with COPD, 2) dose approved in Europe, and 3) focus on efficacy (versus placebo and/or bronchodilator monotherapy) in terms of lung function, respiratory symptoms, or exacerbations.

RESULTS

We analyzed 26 clinical trials conducted on 24,338 patients. All LABA/LAMA combinations were consistently able to improve lung function compared with both placebo and bronchodilator monotherapy. Improvements in symptoms were also consistent versus placebo, showing some lack of correlation for some clinical end points and combinations versus monotherapy bronchodilation. Albeit being an exploratory end point, exacerbations showed an improvement with LABA/LAMA combinations over placebo in some trials; however, scarce information was available in comparison with bronchodilator monotherapy in most studies.

CONCLUSION

Our data show consistent improvements for LABA/LAMA combinations, albeit with some variability (depending on the clinical end point, the specific combination, and the comparison group). Clinicians should be aware that these are average differences. All treatments should be tailored at the individual level to optimize clinical outcomes.

An evaluation of early medication use for COPD: a population-based cohort study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the first initiation, sequence of addition, and appropriate prescribing of COPD medications in Manitoba, Canada.

Patients and methods

A population-based cohort study of COPD medication use was conducted using administrative health care data (1997–2012). Those aged ≥35 years with COPD based on three or more COPD-related outpatient visits over a rolling 24-month window or at least one COPD-related hospitalization were included. The first medication(s) dispensed on or after the date of COPD diagnosis were determined based on pharmacy claims. The next medication(s) in sequence were determined to be additions or switches to the previous regimen. Evaluation of guideline-based appropriateness to receive inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) was based on exacerbation history and past medication use.

Results

Of 13,369 patients dispensed COPD medications after diagnosis, 66.0% were dispensed short-acting bronchodilators as first medications. Although long-acting bronchodilators alone were uncommonly used as first or subsequent medications, ICS were dispensed as first medications in 28.2% of patients. Over the study period, use of short-acting bronchodilators as first medications declined from 70.6% to 59.4% (P<0.0001), whereas the use of ICS as a first medication increased from 23.5% to 34.4% (P<0.0001). Dispensation of an ICS plus a long-acting β-agonist increased dramatically from 1.2% to 27.3% (P<0.0001). By the end of the study period, the majority of patients (53.3%) were being initiated on two or more medications. Of 5,823 patients dispensed an ICS, 52.4% met Canadian guideline criteria for initiating an ICS, whereas 0.3% met Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guideline criteria.

Conclusion

The use of first-line medications has declined over time, replaced primarily by combination inhalers prescribed early without prior trials of appropriate next step medications. This, along with an increasingly predominant use of multiple first medications, indicates a significant degree of medication burden in this already complex patient population.

Randomized controlled trials and real-world observational studies in evaluating cardiovascular safety of inhaled bronchodilator therapy in COPD

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) bronchodilators and their combination are recommended for the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although the efficacy of LAMAs and LABAs has been well established through randomized controlled trials (RCTs), questions remain regarding their cardiovascular (CV) safety. Furthermore, while the safety of LAMA and LABA monotherapy has been extensively studied, data are lacking for LAMA/LABA combination therapy, and the majority of the studies that have reported on the CV safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy were not specifically designed to assess this. Evaluation of CV safety for COPD treatments is important because many patients with COPD have underlying CV comorbidities. However, severe CV and other comorbidities are often exclusion criteria for RCTs, contributing to a lack in external validity and generalizability. Real-world observational studies are another important tool to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COPD therapies in a broader population of patients and can improve upon the external validity limitations of RCTs. We examine what is already known regarding the CV and cerebrovascular safety of LAMA/LABA combination therapy from RCTs and real-world observational studies, and explore the advantages and limitations of data derived from each study type. We also describe an ongoing prospective, observational, comparative post-authorization safety study of a LAMA/LABA combination therapy (umeclidinium/vilanterol) and LAMA monotherapy (umeclidinium) versus tiotropium, with a focus on the relative merits of the study design.

Inhaled corticosteroids with combination inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists and long-acting muscarinic antagonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) commonly involves long-acting bronchodilators including beta-agonists (LABA) and muscarinic antagonists (LAMA). In individuals with persistent symptoms or frequent exacerbations, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are also used. LABA and LAMA bronchodilators are now available in single combination inhalers. However, the benefits and risks of adding ICS to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of adding an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to combination long-acting beta₂-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out searches using the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (searched 20 September 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 December 2015) and MEDLINE (searched 15 December 2015). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organisation (WHO) trials portal and pharmaceutical company clinical trials' databases up to 7 Janurary 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of three weeks' duration or longer which compared treatment of stable COPD with ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers against combination LABA/LAMA inhalers alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified a total of 586 records in our search. Following removal of duplicates, 386 abstracts were assessed for inclusion. Six studies were identified as potentially relevant; however, all failed to meet the inclusion criteria on full-text assessment or after contacting the corresponding author to clarify study characteristics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are currently no studies published assessing the effect of ICS in addition to combination LABA/LAMA inhalers for the treatment of stable COPD. As combination LABA/LAMA inhalers are now widely available, there is a need for well-designed RCTs to investigate whether ICS provides any added therapeutic benefit.