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

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

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Comparative effectiveness and safety of inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting β2-agonist fixed-dose combinations vs. long-acting muscarinic antagonist in bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonists (ICS/LABA) in bronchiectasis.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic medical records of bronchiectasis patients initiating ICS/LABA FDC or LAMA between 2007 and 2021. All bronchiectasis diagnoses were made by radiologists using high-resolution computed tomography.

RESULTS

Of the 1,736 patients, 1,281 took ICS/LABA FDC and 455 LAMA. Among the 694 propensity score matched patients, ICS/LABA FDC had comparable outcomes to LAMA, with HRs of 1.22 (95% CI 0.81-1.83) for hospitalized respiratory infection, 1.06 (95% CI 0.84-1.33) for acute exacerbation, and 1.06 (95% CI 0.66-1.02) for all-cause hospitalization. Beclomethasone/formoterol (BEC/FOR) or budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) led to a lower risk of acute exacerbation compared to fluticasone/salmeterol (FLU/SAL) (BEC/FOR HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.81; BUD/FOR HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.93). BEC/FOR resulted in lower risks of hospitalized respiratory infection (HR 0.48, 95% 0.26-0.86) and all-cause hospitalization (HR 0.55, 95% 0.37-0.80) compared to FLU/SAL.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide important evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ICS/LABA FDC compared with LAMA for bronchiectasis. BEC/FOR and BUD/FOR were associated with better outcomes than FLU/SAL.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose treatment in patients with COPD

BACKGROUND

Maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/formoterol effectively reduces exacerbations in asthma. We aimed to investigate its efficacy compared with fixed-dose fluticasone/salmeterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

Patients with COPD and ≥1 exacerbation in the previous 2 years were randomly assigned to open-label MART (Spiromax budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 µg 2 inhalations twice daily+1 prn) or fixed-dose therapy (Diskus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) 500/50 µg 1 inhalation twice daily+salbutamol 100 µg prn) for 1 year. The primary outcome was rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, defined by treatment with oral prednisolone and/or antibiotics.

RESULTS

In total, 195 patients were randomised (MART Bud/Form n=103; fixed-dose FSC n=92). No significant difference was seen between MART and FSC therapy in exacerbation rates (1.32 vs 1.32 /year, respectively, rate ratio 1.05 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.39); p=0.741). No differences in lung function parameters or health status were observed. Total ICS dose was significantly lower with MART than FSC therapy (budesonide-equivalent 928 µg/day vs 1747 µg/day, respectively, p<0.05). Similar proportions of patients reported adverse events (MART Bud/Form: 73% vs fixed-dose FSC: 68%, p=0.408) and pneumonias (MART: 5% vs FSC: 1%, p=0.216).

CONCLUSIONS

This first study of MART in COPD found that budesonide/formoterol MART might be similarly effective to fluticasone/salmeterol fixed-dose therapy in moderate to severe patients with COPD, at a lower daily ICS dosage. Further evidence is needed about long-term safety.

May a different kinetic mode explain the high efficacy/safety profile of inhaled budesonide?

The claimed functional basis for ICSs in asthma and COPD is airway selectivity, attained by inhaling a potent, lipophilic compound with long local dissolution/absorption time. The development has been empirically based, resulting in five widely used ICSs. Among them, budesonide (BUD) deviates by being less lipophilic, leading to a more rapid systemic uptake with plasma peaks with some systemic anti-inflammatory activity. By this, BUD fits less well into the current pharmacological dogma of optimal ICS profile. In this review we compared the physicochemical, pharmacological and clinical properties of BUD, fluticasone propionate (FP) and fluticasone furoate (FF), representing different levels of lipophilicity, airway and systemic kinetics, focusing on their long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) combinations, in line with current GINA and GOLD recommendations. We are aware of the differences between formoterol (FORM) and the not rapid acting LABAs such as e.g. salmeterol and vilanterol but our comparisons are based on currently available combination products. A beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP)/FORM combination is also commented upon. Based on clinical comparisons in asthma and COPD, we conclude that the BUD/formoterol (BUD/FORM) combination is as effective and safe as the FP and FF combinations, and is in some cases even better as it can be used as "maintenance plus reliever therapy" (MART) in asthma and as maintenance in COPD. This is difficult to explain by current views of required ICS's/LABAs pharmacokinetic profiles. We propose that BUD achieves its efficacy by a combination of airway and systemic activity. The airway activity is dominating. The systemic activity contributes by plasma peaks, which are high enough for supportive anti-inflammatory actions at the blood and bone marrow levels but not sufficiently long to trigger a similar level of systemic adverse effects. This may be due to BUD's capacity to exploit a systemic differentiation mechanism as programmed for cortisol's various actions. This differentiation prospect can be reached only for an ICS with short plasma half-life. Here we present an alternative mode for an ICS to reach combined efficacy and safety, based on a poorly investigated and exploited physiological mechanism. A preference of this mode is broader versatility, due to that its straighter dose-response should allow a better adaptation to disease fluctuations, and that its rapid activity enables use as "anti-inflammatory reliever".

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

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

Effect of Adding Inhaled Corticosteroid to Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist/Long-Acting Beta-Agonist Therapy Among Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background

The role of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unclear. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ICS as an add-on to long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta 2 agonist (LABA), which was assessed using the impulse oscillation system (IOS), in patients with COPD.

Methodology

We included patients with COPD whose treatment was changed from LAMA/LABA (≥four weeks) to ICS/LAMA/LABA between April 2019 and March 2021. To gain insight into the effect and safety of ICS-containing triple therapy for COPD, pulmonary function; Short-Form 36, St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, and modified Medical Research Council scores; and airway resistance assessed using the IOS from one week before LAMA/LABA was switched to ICS/LAMA/LABA therapy until more than eight but less than twelve weeks after switching were evaluated.

Results

In total, 46 patients with COPD (mean age: 72.28 ± 7.81 years) were included in the study. None of the pulmonary function test parameters significantly changed from baseline values (mean difference in forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV1.0]: +0.032, P = 0.12; percentage FEV1.0 [FEV1.0%]/forced vital capacity [FVC]: −0.58, P = 0.42; and FVC: +0.087, P = 0.058). Meanwhile, the IOS showed that resonant frequency (mean difference from baseline: −2.12, P < 0.0001) and bodily pain scores in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (mean difference: −7.03, P = 0.031) significantly decreased.

Conclusions

Switching from LAMA/LABA to ICS/LAMA/LABA therapy reduces airway elasticity-to-inertial resistance ratios, which may lead to structural airway improvements in patients with COPD.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

[COPD inhaled therapy narrative review]

Inhaled therapy with long-acting bronchodilators is the base of pharmacological treatment in COPD. In order to find out those that offer better control, a search was carried out in Medline (Pubmed). Comparative studies of inhaler therapy in COPD patients were analyzed. The comparison between the fixed combination LABA/LAMA versus LABA/CI in non-exacerbating patients, revealed a better control with LABA/LAMA. Within the LABA/CI combinations, budesonide/formoterol combination offered better control. LAMA inhalers revealed no great differences, but when compared to LABA, it offered a better control. Regarding triple therapy in a single device, was superior to double therapy and to triple therapy in two devices, with no relevant differences among the available combinations.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Different Types of Inhaled Long-Acting β2-Agonist Plus Inhaled Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist vs Inhaled Long-Acting β2-Agonist Plus Inhaled Corticosteroid Fixed-Dose Combinations in COPD A Propensity Score-Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Despite multiple available fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of inhaled long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) plus long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and LABAs plus inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for COPD, uncertainty remains regarding their comparative effects.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Can comparative effectiveness and safety of LABA plus LAMA (LABA/LAMA) and LABA plus ICS (LABA/ICS) FDCs vary by different individual components of the dual combinations in COPD?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a new user, propensity score-inverse probability of treatment weighting cohort study to compare the effectiveness and safety of two frequently used LABA/LAMA FDCs (indacaterol plus glycopyrronium [IND/GLY] and vilanterol plus umeclidinium [VI/UMEC]) vs three commonly prescribed LABA/ICS FDCs (salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate [SAL/FP], formoterol fumarate plus budesonide [FF/BUD], and formoterol fumarate plus beclomethasone dipropionate [FF/BDP]) using the Taiwanese nationwide health-care claims from 2014 through 2017. The primary effectiveness outcome was the annual moderate to severe exacerbation rate, and safety outcomes included risks of severe pneumonia and cardiovascular disease requiring hospitalization. Weighted generalized linear mixed models and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

Patients with COPD initiating IND/GLY and VI/UMEC showed an 11% (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) and 20% (IRR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90) reduced annual rate of moderate to severe exacerbations, respectively, than those initiating SAL/FP, but showed a similar rate as those initiating FF/BUD or FF/BDP. Both LABA/LAMA FDCs, compared with SAL/FP and VI/UMEC vs FF/BDP, were associated with a 27% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90) to 42% (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.70) reduced pneumonia risk. Cardiovascular risk was comparable in five groups. An intraclass difference existed in rates of moderate to severe COPD exacerbation and risks of pneumonia among LABA/ICS FDCs, but not between LABA/LAMA FDCs.

INTERPRETATION

Both LABA/LAMAs vs SAL/FP are associated with a lower exacerbation rate and pneumonia risk, but exhibit similar effectiveness and safety outcomes compared with FF/BDP or FF/BUD, suggesting that comparative effects may differ by individual components of the dual therapies in COPD.

Intraclass Difference in Pneumonia Risk with Fluticasone and Budesonide in COPD: A Systematic Review of Evidence from Direct-Comparison Studies

Background

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are widely used and recommended to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). While generally considered safe, several studies demonstrated an increased risk of pneumonia with the use of ICS in COPD patients. Although all ICS indicated for COPD carry the class labeling warning of increased pneumonia risk, evidence suggests an intraclass difference in the risk of pneumonia between inhaled budesonide and fluticasone. To date, systematic reviews of direct-comparison studies have not been performed to assess if an intraclass difference exists.

Research Question

This review investigated whether there is an intraclass difference in risk of pneumonia between inhaled fluticasone and budesonide, the 2 most commonly used ICS in COPD.

Study Design and Methods

A search of the medical literature was conducted in PubMed and Embase for the time period of 01/01/69–05/31/19. The search strategy combined terms that defined the patient/disease type, exposures, outcome, and the study/publication type. Descriptive and comparative statistics reported for fluticasone- and budesonide-containing products in each study, including data for pneumonia event subgroups, were extracted and reported by dose, seriousness, or practice setting. Controlled clinical trials and observational studies meeting the inclusion criteria were assessed for methodologic quality by using the appropriate tool from the list of study quality assessment tools developed by the National Institutes of Health.

Results

The summary relative risk (RR) ratio across 5 included studies (57,199 patients) was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.09–1.19), representing a 13.5% increased risk of pneumonia among fluticasone users compared to budesonide users. Similarly, summary RR ratio for serious pneumonia implied a 14.4% increased risk of serious pneumonia among fluticasone users compared to budesonide users (pooled RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.09–1.20).

Interpretation

There is likely a clinically important intraclass difference in the risk of pneumonia between fluticasone- and budesonide-containing inhaled medications in COPD.

Natural language processing and machine learning to enable automatic extraction and classification of patients' smoking status from electronic medical records

BACKGROUND

The electronic medical record (EMR) offers unique possibilities for clinical research, but some important patient attributes are not readily available due to its unstructured properties. We applied text mining using machine learning to enable automatic classification of unstructured information on smoking status from Swedish EMR data.

METHODS

Data on patients' smoking status from EMRs were used to develop 32 different predictive models that were trained using Weka, changing sentence frequency, classifier type, tokenization, and attribute selection in a database of 85,000 classified sentences. The models were evaluated using F-score and accuracy based on out-of-sample test data including 8500 sentences. The error weight matrix was used to select the best model, assigning a weight to each type of misclassification and applying it to the model confusion matrices. The best performing model was then compared to a rule-based method.

RESULTS

The best performing model was based on the Support Vector Machine (SVM) Sequential Minimal Optimization (SMO) classifier using a combination of unigrams and bigrams as tokens. Sentence frequency and attributes selection did not improve model performance. SMO achieved 98.14% accuracy and 0.981 F-score versus 79.32% and 0.756 for the rule-based model.

CONCLUSION

A model using machine-learning algorithms to automatically classify patients' smoking status was successfully developed. Such algorithms may enable automatic assessment of smoking status and other unstructured data directly from EMRs without manual classification of complete case notes.

Treatment with inhaled corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in combination with long acting beta-2-agonists (LABA) or LABA/long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) is used in order to reduce exacerbations. Treatment with ICS is, however, associated with side effects such as oropharyngeal candidiasis, skin thinning or easy bruising and pneumonia. The aim of this review was to investigate when to use ICS in COPD and to compare the effectiveness and safety of different ICSs. Studies comparing the effect of ICS/LABA and LABA/LAMA on exacerbations have shown divergent results, whereas most studies comparing ICS/LABA/LAMA (triple therapy) with LABA/LAMA have reported fewer exacerbations with triple therapy. Several investigations have shown that the number of eosinophils in blood predicts whether a patient will benefit from treatment with ICS. There is also data indicating that ICS has a small but significant positive effect on lung function decline and decrease mortality. There are four observational studies showing a better effect on exacerbations with budesonide/formoterol than fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and three observational studies showing less risk of pneumonia with budesonide than fluticasone propionate. Studies comparing the effect and safety of other ICSs such as fluticasone furoate and beclomethasone are too few to draw firm conclusions from. In conclusion, ICS together with LABA or LABA/LAMA reduces the risk of exacerbations in COPD. The indication of using ICS in COPD is stronger if the patient has increased blood eosinophils levels. There are data indicating that the choice of ICS matters, with studies showing a better effect-safety profile with budesonide compared to fluticasone propionate whereas it is not possible to make benefit-risk comparisons between the other licensed ICSs.

Benefit:Risk Profile of Budesonide in Obstructive Airways Disease

Airway inflammation is a major contributing factor in both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and represents an important target for treatment. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) as monotherapy or in combination therapy with long-acting β₂-agonists or long-acting muscarinic antagonists are used extensively in the treatment of asthma and COPD. The development of ICS for their anti-inflammatory properties progressed through efforts to increase topical potency and minimise systemic potency and through advances in inhaled delivery technology. Budesonide is a potent, non-halogenated ICS that was developed in the early 1970s and is now one of the most widely used lung medicines worldwide. Inhaled budesonide's physiochemical and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties allow it to reach a rapid and high airway efficacy due to its more balanced relationship between water solubility and lipophilicity. When absorbed from the airways and lung tissue, its moderate lipophilicity shortens systemic exposure, and its unique property of intracellular esterification acts like a sustained release mechanism within airway tissues, contributing to its airway selectivity and a low risk of adverse events. There is a large volume of clinical evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of budesonide, both alone and in combination with the fast- and long-acting β₂-agonist formoterol, as maintenance therapy in patients with asthma and with COPD. The combination of budesonide/formoterol can also be used as an as-needed reliever with anti-inflammatory properties, with or without regular maintenance for asthma, a novel approach that is already approved by some country-specific regulatory authorities and currently recommended in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines. Budesonide remains one of the most well-established and versatile of the inhaled anti-inflammatory drugs. This narrative review provides a clinical reappraisal of the benefit:risk profile of budesonide in the management of asthma and COPD.

Impact of Comorbidities and Commonly Used Drugs on Mortality in COPD - Real-World Data from a Primary Care Setting

Background

Life expectancy is significantly shorter for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) than the general population. Concurrent diseases are known to infer an increased mortality risk in those with COPD, but the effects of pharmacological treatments on survival are less established. This study aimed to examine any associations between commonly used drugs, comorbidities and mortality in Swedish real-world primary care COPD patients.

Methods

Patients with physician-diagnosed COPD from a large primary care population were observed retrospectively, utilizing primary care records and mandatory Swedish national registers. The time to all-cause death was assessed in a stepwise multiple Cox proportional hazards regression model including demography, socioeconomic factors, exacerbations, comorbidities and medication.

Results

During the observation period (1999-2009) 5776 (32.5%) of 17,745 included COPD patients died. Heart failure (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.74-2.04), stroke (HR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.40-1.64) and myocardial infarction (HR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.24-1.58) were associated with an increased risk of death. Use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS; HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66-0.94), beta-blockers (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76-0.97) and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA; HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.77-0.98) was dose-dependently associated with a decreased risk of death, whereas use of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA; HR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.14-1.55) and N-acetylcysteine (NAC; HR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.08-1.48) were dose-dependently associated with an increased risk of death in COPD patients.

Conclusion

This large, retrospective, observational study of Swedish real-world primary care COPD patients indicates that coexisting heart failure, stroke and myocardial infarction were the strongest predictors of death, underscoring the importance of timely recognition and treatment of comorbidities. A decreased risk of death associated with the use of ICS, beta-blockers and ASA, and an increased risk associated with the use of LAMA and NAC, was also found.

COPD from an everyday primary care point of view

Introduction:

The purpose of this study is to use real world evidence on treatment use to evaluate drug superiority within the same treatment group.

Methods:

Retrospective cohort analysis using the Spanish Database for Pharmacoepidemiological Research in Primary Care (BIFAP). Data includes longitudinal routine clinical data extracted from practice records of 7,890,485 patients. All subjects with an incident diagnosis of COPD in the database BIFAP between January 1 2010 and December 31 2012 were included in the cohort study. Cox regression analysis was performed to compare the hazard of COPD exacerbation outcome of the four principal cohorts (no therapy, monotherapy, double therapies with and without corticoids, and triple therapy) and within each principal cohort between the different treatment combinations.

Results:

27,739 patients with COPD were included in the analysis. The median age was 64 years, male proportion was 69% and 70% were smokers. 58,042.9 person--years of follow-up were obtained for the cohort with a mean follow-up of 2.09 years per subject. The strongest factor associated with an increased risk of exacerbation was suffering an exacerbation the previous year (HR = 1.82[1.76--1.87 95%CI]). No differences were found between the most frequent monotherapies, double therapies without corticoid, or triple therapy. When comparing the different combinations of double therapies with corticoid, salmeterol/fluticasone combination (HR = 1.16[1.08--1.24]) revealed a higher adjusted hazard of exacerbation when compared with formoterol/budesonide.

Conclusions:

Treatment with a combination of budesonide/formoterol was associated with lower exacerbations than the treatment with fluticasone/salmeterol. The analysis did not reveal any differences in terms of exacerbation in monotherapy, double therapy without corticoids, and triple therapy combinations.

Risk of sepsis among patients with COPD treated with fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting Beta2 agonists

This study aimed to compare the effect of budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol on the risk and outcomes of sepsis in COPD patients. We conducted this study using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. We included COPD patients prescribed with budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol between 2004 and 2011. Outcomes including sepsis and mortality were measured. 10,267 COPD patients who received fluticasone/salmeterol and 6,844 patients who received budesonide/formoterol were enrolled into this study and then subsequence were adjusted by propensity score weighting. The incidence of sepsis was 5.74 and 4.99 per 100 person-years for the patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol, respectively. Fluticasone/salmeterol was associated with higher risk of sepsis (aHR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.07-1.24) and septic shock (aHR, 1.14; 95%CI, 1.01-1.29) than budesonide/formoterol. Besides, fluticasone/salmeterol was associated with higher risk of death (aHR, 1.090; 95%CI, 1.01-1.18) than budesonide/formoterol. Patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol had a significant higher risk of sepsis related respiratory organ dysfunction, lower respiratory tract infection, genitourinary tract infection, bacteremia and skin infection. In conclusion, long-term treatment with budesonide/formoterol was associated with lower rates of sepsis and deaths than fluticasone/salmeterol in patients with COPD.

Risk for pneumonia requiring hospitalization or emergency room visit according to delivery device for inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist in patients with chronic airway diseases as real-world evidence

A fixed-dose combination of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta agonist (ICS/LABA) may increase the risk of pneumonia in patients with chronic airway diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. Although lung deposition of ICS/LABA is dependent on the inhaler device and inhalation technique, there have been few studies comparing the risk for pneumonia according to the type of device used to deliver ICS/LABA in real-world practice. A retrospective cohort study was performed using the National Health Insurance Database of the Korean Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. New users who began ICS/LABA were selected and followed-up 180 days after ICS/LABA initiation. The risk for pneumonia requiring emergency room (ER) visit or admission was compared according to inhaler device used—pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) or dry powder inhaler (DPI)—after individual exact matching (1:5). Among the eligible cohort of 245,477 new ICS/LABA users, 7,942 patients who used pMDI only were matched with 39,690 patients who used DPI only. The incidence of pneumonia was higher in the pMDI group (1.6%) than the DPI group (1.1%); the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for pneumonia was 1.6 (95% CI 1.3–2.0; p < 0.0001). In subgroup analyses, a significantly higher risk for pneumonia was found in the pMDI group compared with the DPI group regardless of the presence of history of pneumonia (HR 1.7 [95% CI 1.2–2.3]; p = 0.002), COPD (HR 1.6 [95% CI 1.2–2.0]; p = 0.0007), or asthma (HR 1.6 [95% CI 1.2–2.2]; p = 0.0008). In analyses of real-world data, pMDI users incurred a higher risk for pneumonia requiring hospitalization or ER visit compared with DPI users.

Epidemiology of Pulmonary Fibrosis: A Cohort Study Using Healthcare Data in Sweden

Introduction

Data on the epidemiology of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in Sweden are lacking. This study estimates the incidence and prevalence of IPF in Sweden, and describes the demographic and clinical characteristics and the overall survival of patients with IPF.

Methods

Two cohorts were studied: a national cohort of 17,247 patients with pulmonary fibrosis (ICD-10 code J84.1 with no competing diagnosis) from the Swedish National Patient Register (cohort 1 [C1]); and an electronic medical record-based regional subset of C1 comprising 1755 patients having pulmonary fibrosis and a radiology procedure (C2).

Results

The incidence of pulmonary fibrosis in C1 ranged from 10.4 to 15.4 cases per 100,000 population per year between 2001 and 2015. The prevalence increased from 15.4 to 68.0 cases per 100,000 population per year. Patients ≥ 70 years and men had a higher incidence and prevalence of pulmonary fibrosis. Common comorbidities included respiratory infections and cardiovascular disorders. Approximately one-third of patients in each cohort were hospitalised with pulmonary fibrosis within a year of diagnosis. The median survival time from disease diagnosis was 2.6 years in C1 and 5.2 years in C2. Older patients had a higher risk of hospitalisation and mortality. Women had a better prognosis than men.

Conclusion

This study underscores the importance of pulmonary fibrosis as a cause of respiratory-related morbidity and mortality in Sweden. The stable incidence and increasing prevalence over time suggests longer survival. The higher morbidity and mortality in older patients highlights the importance of early case detection, diagnosis and management for better prognosis.

Funding

F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd./Genentech, Inc.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s41030-019-0087-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Factors influencing treatment escalation from long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapy to triple therapy in patients with COPD: a retrospective THIN-database analysis

Purpose

Inappropriate use of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for COPD has clinical and economic disadvantages. This retrospective analysis of The UK Health Improvement Network (THIN) database identified factors influencing treatment escalation (step-up) from a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to triple therapy (LAMA + long-acting β-agonist-ICS). Secondary objectives included time to step up from first LAMA prescription, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) grouping (2011/2013, 2017), and Medical Research Council (MRC) grade prior to treatment escalation.

Materials and methods

Data were included from 14,866 people ≥35 years old with a COPD diagnosis (June 1, 2010–May 10, 2015) and initiated on LAMA monotherapy. The most commonly used LAMA at baseline was tiotropium (92%).

Results

Multivariate analysis (10,492 patients) revealed that COPD exacerbations, lower forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), “asthma”, MRC grade, proactive and reactive COPD primary care, elective secondary-care contact, cough, and number of short-acting bronchodilator prescriptions were positively associated with treatment escalation (P<0.05). Being older, a current/ex-smoker, or having increased sputum symptom codes were negatively associated with treatment escalation (P<0.05). Median MRC score was 2 at baseline and 3 prior to treatment escalation. Using the last MRC reading and exacerbation history in the year prior to escalation, GOLD 2017 groupings were A 27.4%, B 37.3%, C 15.3%, and D 20%. In patients with available FEV₁ measures, exacerbations, and MRC code (n=1,064), GOLD 2011/2013 groupings were A 20.4%, B 19.2%, C 24.8%, and D 35.6%.

Conclusion

While the presence of COPD exacerbations seems to be the main driver for treatment escalation, according to the 2017 GOLD strategy many patients appear to be overtreated, as they would not be recommended for treatment escalation. Reviewing patients’ treatment in the light of the new GOLD strategy has the potential to reduce inappropriate use of triple therapy.

Efficacy of salmeterol and formoterol combination treatment in mice with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a severe lung disease characterized by progressive airflow limitation. Salmeterol and formoterol are two commonly used drugs in COPD therapy, which act as β2-receptor agonists. In the current study, a mouse model of COPD induced by airway lipopolysaccharide inhalation was established. The therapeutic efficacy of salmeterol and formoterol co-treatment was investigated in this model over a 56-day-long observation period. It was also identified that functional residual capacity and inspiratory resistance were significantly improved after salmeterol and/or formoterol treatment compared with the control group (all P<0.01). Furthermore, histological staining of lung tissue samples indicated that inflammation, thickening of the smooth muscle, goblet cell hyperplasia and pulmonary small vessel obstruction were reduced in the mice treated with salmeterol and/or formoterol, suggesting that salmeterol and formoterol were beneficial for ongoing airway and blood vessel remodeling in mice with COPD. The most common treatment-associated adverse events were hypertension and proteinuria. In conclusion, combined salmeterol and formoterol treatment was more effective compared with either single agent, suggesting that salmeterol and formoterol combined treatment has therapeutic value for the clinical treatment of patients with COPD.

Scientific rationale for the possible inhaled corticosteroid intraclass difference in the risk of pneumonia in COPD

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) treatment combined with long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonists (LABAs) reduces the risk of exacerbations in COPD, but the use of ICSs is associated with increased incidence of pneumonia. There are indications that this association is stronger for fluticasone propionate than for budesonide. We have examined systematic reviews assessing the risk of pneumonia associated with fluticasone propionate and budesonide COPD therapy. Compared with placebo or LABAs, we found that fluticasone propionate was associated with 43%-78% increased risk of pneumonia, while only slightly increased risk or no risk was found for budesonide. We have evaluated conceivable mechanisms which may explain this difference and suggest that the higher pneumonia risk with fluticasone propionate treatment is caused by greater and more protracted immunosuppressive effects locally in the airways/lungs. These effects are due to the much slower dissolution of fluticasone propionate particles in airway luminal fluid, resulting in a slower uptake into the airway tissue and a much longer presence of fluticasone propionate in airway epithelial lining fluid.

Fixed-Dose Combination Inhalers

In asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an important step in simplifying management and improving adherence with prescribed therapy is to reduce the dose frequency to the minimum necessary to maintain disease control. Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy might enhance compliance by decreasing the number of medications and/or the number of daily doses. Furthermore, they have the potential for enhancing, sensitizing, and prolonging the effects of monocomponents. Combination therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting β-agonist (LABA) is considered an important approach for treating patients with asthma and patients with severe COPD who have frequent exacerbations. Several ICS/LABA FDCs are now commercially available or will become available within the next few years for the treatment of COPD and/or asthma. Several studies demonstrate that there are a number of added benefits in using combinations of β₂-agonists and antimuscarinic agents. In particular, LABA/long-acting antimuscarinic agent (LAMA) combination seems to play an important role in optimizing bronchodilation. Several once-daily and twice-daily LABA/LAMA FDCs have been developed or are in clinical development. LAMA/ICS FDCs seem to be useful in COPD and mainly in asthma, in patients with severe asthma and persistent airflow limitation. The rationale behind the ICS/LABA/LAMA FDCs seems logical because all three agents work via different mechanisms on different targets, potentially allowing for lower doses of the individual agents to be used, accompanied by improved side effect profiles. In effect, in clinical practice, concomitant use of all three compounds is common, especially in more severe COPD but also in the treatment of adults with poorly controlled asthma despite maintenance treatment with high-dose ICS and a LABA.

Severe exacerbation and pneumonia in COPD patients treated with fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta2 agonist

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether severe exacerbation and pneumonia of COPD differs between patients treated with budesonide/formoterol and those treated with fluticasone/salmeterol. Therefore, we conducted a comparative study of those who used budesonide/formoterol and those treated with fluticasone/salmeterol for COPD.

METHODS

Subjects in this population-based cohort study comprised patients with COPD who were treated with a fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol. All patients were recruited from the Taiwan National Health Insurance database. The outcomes including severe exacerbations, pneumonia, and pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) were measured.

RESULTS

During the study period, 11,519 COPD patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol and 7,437 patients receiving budesonide/formoterol were enrolled in the study. Pairwise matching (1:1) of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol populations resulted in to two similar subgroups comprising each 7,295 patients. Patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol had higher annual rate and higher risk of severe exacerbation than patients receiving budesonide/formoterol (1.2219/year vs 1.1237/year, adjusted rate ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.07-1.10). In addition, patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol had higher incidence rate and higher risk of pneumonia than patients receiving budesonide/formoterol (12.11 per 100 person-years vs 10.65 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.20). Finally, patients receiving fluticasone/salmeterol had higher incidence rate and higher risk of pneumonia requiring MV than patients receiving budesonide/formoterol (3.94 per 100 person-years vs 3.47 per 100 person-years, aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.24). A similar trend was seen before and after propensity score matching analysis, intention-to-treat, and as-treated analysis with and without competing risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this retrospective observational study, long-term treatment with fixed combination budesonide/formoterol was associated with fewer severe exacerbations, pneumonia, and pneumonia requiring MV than fluticasone/salmeterol in COPD patients.

Inhaled Corticosteroid use and the Risk of Pneumonia and COPD Exacerbations in the UPLIFT Study

RATIONALE

Unlike many other COPD studies, the 4-year UPLIFT trial permitted inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use during run-in and treatment phases. This provided the opportunity to prospectively observe the continuing effects of ICS on respiratory events in closely observed COPD population.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine rate and number of episodes of pneumonia and exacerbations of COPD in patients entering the study on no ICS, fluticasone proprionate (FP), and other ICS.

METHODS

The UPLIFT dataset was examined retrospectively, and patients were divided into three groups based on their medications at entry: no ICS, FP and other ICS. Poisson regression was used to compare the frequency of respiratory adverse events.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

At entry, the groups were well matched apart from a higher FEV1% predicted (38 vs. 41%; ICS vs. no ICS, respectively) and prevalence of current smoking (26 vs. 36%; ICS vs. no ICS, respectively). Incidence rates of pneumonia were significantly higher in patients taking ICS compared to no ICS (0.068 vs. 0.056 respectively; p = 0.012). When the FP group was compared to the other ICS, the event rate was even higher (0.077 vs. 0.058, respectively; p < 0.001). COPD exacerbations were more frequent in patients taking ICS, with significantly greater rate in the FP group compared to that seen with other ICS (0.93 vs. 0.84 respectively; p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

ICS use was associated an increase in respiratory adverse event rates, but whether this was due to more severe illness at entry is unknown. In subgroup analysis, the excess of morbidity in the ICS group appeared to be mainly associated with those receiving FP at randomisation.

Significant pain variability in persons with, or at high risk of, knee osteoarthritis: preliminary investigation based on secondary analysis of cohort data

BACKGROUND

While knee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterised as a slowly progressive disease, acute flares, episodes of severe pain, and substantial fluctuations in pain intensity appear to be part of the natural history for some patients. We sought to estimate what proportion of symptomatic community-dwelling adults might be affected, and to identify patient and problem characteristics associated with higher risk of such variability in pain.

METHODS

We analysed data collected at baseline, 18, 36, 54, and 72 month follow-up of a prospective cohort of symptomatic adults aged over 50 years with current/recent knee pain. At each time point we estimated the proportion of participants reporting 'significant pain variability' (defined as worst pain intensity in the past 6 months ≥5/10 and ≥2 points higher than average pain intensity during the same 6-month period). The associations between significant pain variability and demographic, socioeconomic, lifestyle, clinical, radiographic, and healthcare utilisation factors measured at baseline were estimated by adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (aOR; 95%CI) from multivariable discrete-time survival analysis.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and nineteen participants were included in the final analysis. At each time point, 23-32% of participants were classed as reporting significant pain variability. Associated factors included: younger age (aOR (per year): 0.96; 95% CI 0.94, 0.97), higher BMI (per kg/m2:1.03; 1.01, 1.06), higher WOMAC Pain score (per unit: 1.06; 1.03, 1.10), longer time since onset (e.g. 1-5 years vs < 1 year: 1.79; 1.16, 2.75) and morning stiffness (≤30 min vs none: 1.43; 1.10, 1.85). The models accounting for multiple periods of significant symptom variability found similar associations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings are consistent with studies showing that, for some patients OA symptoms are significantly variable over time. Future prospective studies on the nature and frequency of flare ups are needed to help determine triggers and their underlying pathophysiology in order to suggest new avenues for effective episode management of OA to complement long-term behaviour change.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Evaluation of the use of Swedish integrated electronic health records and register health care data as support clinical trials in severe asthma: the PACEHR study

Background

In the development of new drugs for severe asthma, it is a challenge from an ethical point of view to randomize severe asthma patients to placebo, and to obtain long-term safety data due to discontinuations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using electronic health record (EHR) data to create a real-world reference population of uncontrolled asthmatic patients to supplement the concurrent control/placebo group in long-term studies of asthma.

Methods

EHR data from 36 primary care centres and a University hospital in Sweden were linked to Swedish mandatory health registers (2005–2013), creating a population covering 33 890 asthma patients, including data on co-morbidities, risk factors and laboratory/respiratory measurements. A severe asthma EHR reference cohort was established. We used logistic regression to estimate the propensity score (probability) of each RCT or EHR patient existing in the EHR cohort given their covariates.

Results

We created an EHR-derived reference cohort of 240 patients, matching the placebo group (N = 151) in an RCT of severe asthma. The exacerbation rate during follow-up in the EHR study population was 1.24 (weighted) compared to 0.9 in the RCT placebo group. Patients in the EHR cohort were of similar age as in the RCT placebo group, 50.6 years versus 50.1 years; had slightly higher body mass index 27.0 kg/m² versus 27.3 kg/m²; and consisted of 40% versus 34% males.

Conclusions

The results indicate that EHRs provide an opportunity to supplement the control group in RCTs of severe diseases.

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

AIM

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Optimizing Treatment of Elderly COPD Patients: What Role for Inhaled Corticosteroids?

The most recent international documents on the management and therapy of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in addition to long-acting bronchodilators as maintenance treatment for patients at high risk of exacerbations, namely patients with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of <50% predicted and/or more than one exacerbation per year. However, ICS are widely used in up to 70% of COPD patients, including those at low risk of exacerbations. In recent years, concerns about the potential adverse effects of this drug category have been raised, and both observational and clinical studies have shown that elderly subjects with COPD treated with ICS are at high risk of developing cataracts and diabetes and more severe and life-threatening conditions such as pneumonia and osteoporotic fractures. Moreover, aging is characterized by memory impairment, decline in muscle strength and body mass impaired coordination, as well as alterations in eyesight and hearing that can impede proper use of devices currently available for ICS administration. Thus, regular use of ICS in more elderly patients with COPD should follow guideline recommendations, be considered with caution, and be based upon carefully weighing up expected benefits with the risk of undesired, adverse effects.

A randomized, double-blinded, double-dummy efficacy and safety study of budesonide-formoterol Spiromax® compared to budesonide-formoterol Turbuhaler® in adults and adolescents with persistent asthma

Background

Budesonide and formoterol (BF) Spiromax® is a dry powder inhaler designed to deliver BF with maximum ease of use for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Methods

A phase 3b, 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, controlled trial in patients (≥12 years) with persistent asthma. Primary objective: to demonstrate non-inferiority of twice-daily BF Spiromax 160/4.5 mcg to BF Turbuhaler® 200/6 mcg in change from baseline in weekly average of daily trough morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). Secondary endpoints included: Patient Satisfaction and Preference Questionnaire scores, change from baseline in evening PEF, trough forced expiratory volume in one second, percentage of symptom-free and rescue-free 24-hour periods, and safety.

Results

The analysis was based on the per-protocol population (BF Spiromax, n = 290; BF Turbuhaler, n = 284). The least squares mean change from baseline to week 12 in morning PEF was: BF Spiromax, 18.8 L/min and BF Turbuhaler, 21.8 L/min. Non-inferiority of BF Spiromax vs BF Turbuhaler was demonstrated (the lower limit of the 95 % two-sided confidence interval was −9.02 L/min, which is greater than −15 L/min [the criteria specified for non-inferiority]). The mean difference in the total performance domains scores for BF Spiromax vs BF Turbuhaler were 0.248 at baseline and 0.353 at week 12 (both, p <0.001), indicating statistical superiority for BF Spiromax. No statistical or numerical differences were recorded in the total convenience domain score between the two devices. Scores for ‘device preference’ and ‘willingness to continue’ supported BF Spiromax at baseline and at week 12 (p = 0.0005 vs BF Turbuhaler). No significant between-group differences were observed in the other secondary efficacy endpoints. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences in adverse events or asthma exacerbations.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the non-inferiority of BF Spiromax vs BF Turbuhaler in patients (≥12 years) with asthma. More patients preferred the Spiromax device over Turbuhaler for its performance, and were willing to continue therapy with BF Spiromax beyond the 12-week study period.

Trial registration

NCT01803555; February 28, 2013.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12890-016-0200-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

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

The assessment of new drugs for asthma and COPD: a Delphi study examining the perspectives of Italian payers and clinicians

BACKGROUND

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are disorders of the lungs characterized by airflow obstruction, inflammation and tissue remodeling. Management of patients with these diseases is complex and the improvement of diagnostic-therapeutic strategies represents a critical challenge for the healthcare system. In this context, investigating the criteria and information needed for an appropriate and effective evaluation of incoming treatment options is crucial to ensure that clinicians and policy-makers are provided with the best available evidence to make decisions aimed at improving patient outcomes. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the degree of agreement among Health Technology Assessment (HTA) experts on issues crucial to the evaluation of new drugs for asthma and COPD and to appropriately manage the clinical pathway for patients.

METHOD

This research was conducted using an e-Delphi technique organized in three subsequent rounds and involving a panel of ten experts (six regional and local payers and four clinicians). Panelists were asked to comment in written form on a set of statements, explaining qualitatively the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the assertions. Statements were subsequently modified and resubmitted for assessment.

RESULTS

Panelists expressed their opinions during each round and, after round III, a consensus document was finalized. The degree of consensus was high among experts and concerned five main topics: (a) the need to address current unmet needs of patients with asthma or COPD, (b) the importance of further studies and real-life information in the evaluation of treatments, (c) existing evidence and evidence needed to assess drugs, (d) critical issues in obtaining a positive evaluation from regional and local authorities for new treatments to be included in regional formularies and to have an important place in therapeutic categories, and (e) the major obstacles to the appropriate administration of drugs and management of patients.

CONCLUSION

The final document highlights that no proof of difference among drugs exists, that evidence on final endpoints (and particularly on mortality) should be strengthened and that actions regarding risk factors, appropriate diagnosis, patient staging and adherence to therapy are particularly important for a better clinical management.

Efficacy and tolerability of budesonide/formoterol added to tiotropium compared with tiotropium alone in patients with severe or very severe COPD: A randomized, multicentre study in East Asia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Triple combination therapy with tiotropium plus budesonide/formoterol has improved lung function and reduced exacerbation risk in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Western countries, but no such data exist for East Asian patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of adding budesonide/formoterol to tiotropium compared with tiotropium alone in East Asian patients with severe/very severe COPD.

METHODS

This 12-week, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre, open-label study was conducted in East Asia. After a 14-day run-in period during which patients received tiotropium 18 μg once daily, patients were randomized to tiotropium (18 μg once daily) + budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 μg 2 inhalations twice daily) or tiotropium alone (18 μg once daily). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1 ) to the mean of values measured at Weeks 1, 6 and 12.

RESULTS

Pre-dose FEV1 significantly increased from baseline with tiotropium plus budesonide/formoterol (n = 287) versus tiotropium alone (n = 291) (5.0% vs 0.6%; treatment difference: 4.4% (95% CI: 1.9-6.9), P = 0.0004). Triple therapy also reduced the COPD exacerbation rate by 40.7% (P = 0.0032) and prolonged time to first exacerbation (38.6% risk reduction, P = 0.0167) versus tiotropium alone and markedly improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL), measured using the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire. Incidence of adverse events was 26% for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In East Asian patients with severe/very severe COPD, adding budesonide/formoterol to tiotropium was associated with significant improvements in FEV1 and HRQoL and lower COPD exacerbation rates. Treatment was generally well tolerated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01397890 at Clinicaltrials.gov.

Formoterol is more effective than salmeterol in suppressing neutrophil reactivity

Formoterol suppresses neutrophil reactivity in vitro; in COPD, this may contribute to anti-inflammatory efficacy http://ow.ly/Qr9fE.

Updates in the management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a preventable and treatable disease state characterized by persistent airflow limitation that is usually progressive and associated with an enhanced chronic inflammatory process. It is increasingly recognized as a major public health problem, affecting more than 20 million adults in the US. It is also recognized as a leading cause of hospitalizations and is the fourth leading cause of death in the US. The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) operates to promote evidence-based management of COPD, increase awareness and encourage research. In 2011, GOLD published a consensus report detailing evidence-based management strategies for COPD, which were last updated in 2015. In recent years, newer strategies and a growing number of new pharmacologic agents to treat symptoms of COPD have also been introduced and show promise in improving the management of COPD. We aim to provide an evidence-based review of the available and upcoming pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment options for stable COPD, with continued emphasis on evidence-based management.

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

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01921127.

Management, morbidity and mortality of COPD during an 11-year period: an observational retrospective epidemiological register study in Sweden (PATHOS)

Background:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the most common causes of mortality and a major contributor to morbidity. Longitudinal clinical practice data yielding information on the characteristics of the disease, its natural course, and management are limited.

Aims:

To investigate and describe the COPD population from a nationwide perspective during an 11-year period (1999–2009) with a focus on management, co-morbidity, and mortality.

Methods:

This observational retrospective epidemiological study linked electronic medical records data from patients with COPD in primary care to mandatory Swedish hospital, drug and Cause of Death registry data from 1999 to 2009 (PATHOS).

Results:

A total of 21,361 patients with a COPD diagnosis were included (mean age 68.0 years, 53% females). The proportion of patients diagnosed in primary care increased from 59% in 1999 to 81% in 2009 and the mean age at diagnosis decreased from 73 to 66 years. The number of exacerbations decreased from 3.0 to 1.3 and COPD-related hospitalisations decreased from 1.02 to 0.20 per patient per year. Prescriptions of long-acting muscarinic antagonists and fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist inhalers increased from 0% to 36% and 37%, respectively. The most common co-morbidities were hypertension, heart failure, ischaemic heart disease, and diabetes. Overall life expectancy was 8.3±6.8 years shorter in patients with COPD than in the general population, and all-cause mortality was 3.5 times higher.

Conclusions:

Management of COPD in Sweden has improved during the 11-year study period. Despite this, patients with COPD have a substantially reduced life expectancy than the general population.

Differences in the efficacy and safety among inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) combinations in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): Role of ICS

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are frequently recommended for the treatment of asthma and COPD, often in combination with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA), depending on the severity of the disease and/or on the specific phenotype. Several ICS/LABA combinations are currently available that differ in their pharmacokinetic characteristics and dose of both components. Thus, this review assesses differences in the efficacy and the safety profiles of the ICS components in the two more frequently used ICS/LABA combinations (budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol) for the management of COPD. Whereas the basic mechanism of action is similar for all ICS (binding with the intracellular glucocorticoid receptor, which mediates both genomic and non genomic effects), the pharmacokinetic and characteristics of ICS are quite different in terms of receptor affinity, bioavailability, lipophilicity and drug persistence in the airways. Fluticasone persists longer in airway mucus and requires more time to dissolve in the lining fluid and then enter the airway wall, whereas budesonide is cleared more quickly from the airways. Comparative efficacy of the two major ICS/LABA combinations recommended for the treatment of COPD show similar efficacy in terms of reduction of exacerbations, improvement in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and quality of life. One retrospective cohort study suggested a greater efficacy for the budesonide/formoterol combination on hospital or emergency department admissions, oral corticosteroid courses, and addition of tiotropium, and an observational real-life study reported a greater reduction of COPD exacerbations with budesonide/formoterol than with fluticasom/salmeterol combination. Among the potential side effects of chronic ICS treatment in patients with COPD, recently the use of fluticasone or fluticasone/salmeterol combination has been associated with a higher prevalence of pneumonia in the major long-term studies. On the other hand, no similar increased risk of pneumonia has been reported in patients with COPD treated with the budesonide/formoterol combination. A recent population-based cohort study from the Quebec database showed that the adjusted odds ratio for having severe pneumonia was higher for fluticasone (2.1) than for budesonide (1.17) or other ICS (1.41). Of the ICS studied, only fluticasone demonstrated a dose-related increase in risk of pneumonia in patients with COPD. This difference between fluticasone and budesonide may be explained by the longer retention of fluticasone in the airways, with potentially greater inhibition of type-1 innate immunity. Therefore, the risk:benefit ratio should be evaluated thoroughly when choosing an ICS/LABA combination for patients with COPD.