Efficacy and safety of the direct switch to indacaterol/glycopyrronium from salmeterol/fluticasone in non-frequently exacerbating COPD patients: The FLASH randomized controlled trial

Intraclass comparison of inhaled corticosteroids for the risk of pneumonia in chronic obstructive pulmonary airway disorder: a network meta-analysis and meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Inhalational corticosteroids (ICS) were observed to increase the pneumonia risk in chronic obstructive pulmonary airway disorder (COPD). However, it is unknown whether any differences exist between the drugs within the ICS class.

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the risk of pneumonia associated with different ICS and identify factors that predict pneumonia in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD using a network meta-analysis.

METHOD

Electronic databases (Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL and Google Scholar) were searched for trials comparing ICS in COPD patients. The outcomes were pneumonia and serious pneumonia. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were estimated. Meta-regression was used to identify the predictors. The strength of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach.

RESULTS

Sixty-six studies (103,347 participants) were included. Fluticasone (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.26, 1.7), mometasone (OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.05, 4.6), and beclometasone (OR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.6) were observed with an increased pneumonia risk compared to placebo. Fluticasone (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.3, 1.7) was observed with an increased risk of serious pneumonia. High doses (OR: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.4), BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.2), and history of exacerbations in the preceding year predicted the pneumonia risk. Evidence strength was moderate.

CONCLUSION

ICS class differences in pneumonia risk were observed in terms of pooled effect estimates but it is unlikely that any clinically relevant differences exist. Risk-benefit analysis supports ICS use in moderate-severe COPD.

Withdrawal of Inhaled Corticosteroids from Patients with COPD; Effect on Exacerbation Frequency and Lung Function: A Systematic Review

Background

Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations. It should only be prescribed to COPD patients who are not adequately controlled by dual long-acting bronchodilator therapy and who have ≥2 exacerbations per year and a blood eosinophil count ≥300cells/µL. ICS therapy is widely prescribed outside guidelines to COPD patients, making ICS withdrawal an important consideration. This systematic review aims to provide an up-to-date analysis of the effect of ICS withdrawal on exacerbation frequency, change in lung function (FEV1) and to determine the proportion of COPD patients who resume ICS therapy following withdrawal.

Methods

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies which compared ICS withdrawal with ICS continuation treatment were included. Cochrane Central, Web of Science, CINHAL, Embase and OVID Medline were searched. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Quality assessment of RCTs was conducted using GRADE. Meta-analysis of post-hoc analyses of RCTs of ICS withdrawal, stratified by blood eosinophil count (BEC), was undertaken.

Results

Ten RCTs (6642 patients randomised) and 6 observational studies (160,029 patients) were included in the results. When ICS was withdrawn and long-acting bronchodilator therapy was maintained, there was no consistent difference in exacerbation frequency or lung function change between the ICS withdrawal and continuation trial arms. The evidence for these effects was of moderate quality. There was insufficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion on the proportion of patients who resumed ICS therapy following withdrawal (estimated range 12-93% of the participants).

Discussion

Withdrawal of ICS therapy from patients with COPD is safe and feasible but should be accompanied by maintenance of bronchodilation therapy for optimal outcomes.

Combination therapy with long-acting bronchodilators and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Accumulated high-quality data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) combination therapy significantly improves clinical symptoms and health status in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and reduces exacerbation risk. However, there is a growing concern that LAMA/LABA therapy may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD. The aim of this paper is to determine whether the use of LAMA/LABA combination therapy modifies the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with COPD.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently searched Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library to identify relevant RCTs of LAMA/LABA or LABA/LAMA/inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for the management of patients with COPD that reported on cardiovascular end-points. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 51 RCTs enrolling 91 021 subjects were analysed. Both dual LAMA/LABA (1.6% versus 1.3%; relative risk 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.81) and triple therapy (1.6% versus 1.4%; relative risk 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.61) significantly increased the risk of MACE compared with ICS/LABA. The excess risk was most evident in RCTs in which the average underlying baseline risk for MACE was >1% per year. Compared with LAMA only, LABA only or placebo, dual LAMA/LABA therapy did not significantly increase the risk of MACE, though these comparisons may have lacked sufficient statistical power.

CONCLUSION

Compared with ICS/LABA, dual LAMA/LABA or triple therapy increases cardiovascular risk in patients with COPD. This should be considered in the context of the incremental benefits of these therapies for symptoms and exacerbation rates in patients with COPD, especially in those with a MACE risk of >1% per year.

Association of Inhaled Corticosteroids With All-Cause Mortality Risk in Patients With COPD: A Meta-analysis of 60 Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) have been used widely in the maintenance therapy of COPD. However, whether inhaled therapy containing ICSs can reduce the all-cause mortality risk and the possible benefited patient subgroups is unclear.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does inhaled therapy containing ICSs reduce the all-cause mortality risk in patients with COPD compared with other inhaled therapies not containing ICSs?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Pooled results were calculated using Peto ORs with corresponding 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Sixty RCTs enrolling 103,034 patients were analyzed. Inhaled therapy containing ICSs (Peto OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.97), especially triple therapy (Peto OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91), was associated with a reduction in the all-cause mortality risk among patients with COPD when compared with inhaled therapy without ICSs. Subgroup analyses revealed that treatment duration of > 6 months (Peto OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97), medium-dose ICSs (Peto OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.91), low-dose ICSs (Peto OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97), and budesonide (Peto OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.94) were involved in this association. The predictors of this association included eosinophil counts of ≥ 200/μL or percentage of ≥ 2%, documented history of ≥ 2 moderate and severe exacerbations in the previous year, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease stages III or IV, age younger than 65 years, and BMI of ≥ 25 kg/m2, among which eosinophil counts of ≥ 200/μL (Peto OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95) were the strongest predictor.

INTERPRETATION

Inhaled therapy containing ICSs, especially triple therapy, of longer than 6 months was associated with a reduction in the all-cause mortality risk in patients with COPD. The predictors of this association included medication factors and patient characteristics, among which eosinophil counts of ≥ 200/μL were the strongest predictor.

TRIAL REGISTRY

PROSPERO; No.: CRD42022304725; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Efficacy of ICS versus Non-ICS Combination Therapy in COPD: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Background

Several large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have assessed the efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination regimens versus non-ICS therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at increased risk of exacerbation risk with mixed results.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the effect of ICS-containing combination therapy and non-ICS regimen in patients with COPD.

Results

A total of 54 RCTs (N = 57,333) reported treatment effects on various outcomes and were eligible for inclusion. Overall, the number of patients experiencing moderate/severe exacerbations was significantly lower for ICS-containing combination therapy versus non-ICS therapy (RR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.80-0.93]). The annual rate of exacerbations was also significantly reduced by 22% (0.78 [0.72-0.86]) with ICS-containing versus non-ICS therapy. The annual rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation was reduced by 31% versus non-ICS therapy (0.69 [0.54-0.88]); similar reduction was observed for exacerbations requiring oral steroids (0.69 [0.66-0.73]). Overall, the effect on trough FEV1 was comparable between ICS-containing and non-ICS therapies (follow-up: 6-52 weeks); however, a significant improvement in lung function (trough FEV1) was observed for ICS/LABA versus LABA (MD: +0.04 L [0.03-0.05]) and ICS/LABA/LAMA versus LAMA (MD: +0.09 L [0.05-0.13]) regimens. In addition, a significant improvement in QoL was observed with ICS-containing versus non-ICS therapy (MD in SGRQ score: -0.90 [-1.50, -0.31]).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrated that a wide range of patients with COPD could benefit from dual and triple ICS-containing therapy.

Comparative Efficacy of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Other Bronchodilators for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual maintenance therapies for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus other dual and mono-bronchodilator therapies in symptomatic patients with COPD.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (October 2015-November 2020) was performed to identify RCTs ≥ 8 weeks long in adult patients with COPD that compared LAMA/LABA combinations against any long-acting bronchodilator-containing dual therapy or monotherapy. Data extracted on changes from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score, rescue medication use and moderate/severe exacerbation rate were analysed using an NMA in a frequentist framework. The primary comparison was at 24 weeks. Fixed effects model results are presented.

RESULTS

The NMA included 69 full-length publications (including 10 GSK clinical study reports) reporting 49 studies. At 24 weeks, UMEC/VI provided statistically significant greater improvements in FEV₁ versus all dual therapy and monotherapy comparators. UMEC/VI provided similar improvements in SGRQ total score compared with all other LAMA/LABAs, and significantly greater improvements versus UMEC 125 μg, glycopyrronium 50 μg, glycopyrronium 18 μg, tiotropium 18 μg and salmeterol 50 μg. UMEC/VI also provided significantly better outcomes versus some comparators for TDI focal score, rescue medication use, annualised moderate/severe exacerbation rate, and time to first moderate/severe exacerbation.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI provided generally better outcomes compared with LAMA or LABA monotherapies, and consistent improvements in lung function (measured by change from baseline in trough FEV₁ at 24 weeks) versus dual therapies. Treatment with UMEC/VI may improve outcomes for symptomatic patients with COPD compared with alternative maintenance treatments.

Inhaled Corticosteroids and the Pneumonia Risk in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Whether all types of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) would increase the pneumonia risk in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains controversial. We aimed to assess the association between ICSs treatment and pneumonia risk in COPD patients, and the impact of medication details and baseline characteristics of patients on the association.

Methods: Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials.gov) were searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ICSs treatment with non-ICSs treatment on the pneumonia risk in COPD patients. Pooled results were calculated using Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: A total of 59 RCTs enrolling 103,477 patients were analyzed. All types of ICSs significantly increased the pneumonia risk (Peto OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.34–1.53). Subgroup analysis showed that there was a dose-response relationship between ICSs treatment and pneumonia risk (low-dose: Peto OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.22–1.45; medium-dose: Peto OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.28–1.76; and high-dose: Peto OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.45–1.85). Subgroup analyses based on treatment durations and baseline characteristics (severity, age, and body mass index) of patients were consistant with the above results. Subgroup analysis based on severity of pneumonia showed that fluticasone (Peto OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.44–2.14) increased the risk of serious pneumonia, while budesonide and beclomethasone did not.

Conclusions: ICSs treatment significantly increased the risk of pneumonia in COPD patients. There was a dose-response relationship between ICSs treatment and pneumonia risk. The pneumonia risk was related with COPD severity.

Indacaterol/glycopyrronium affects lung function and cardiovascular events in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bronchodilators are the cornerstone for treating patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD), although some studies have shown that dual bronchodilators may exacerbate incidence of adverse cardiovascular events. Here, we evaluated the cardiopulmonary safety of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) using a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, OVID, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases, using "indacaterol/glycopyrronium", "indacaterol/glycopyrrolate", "IND/GLY", "QVA149", "chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases", "COPD", "chronic obstructive airway disease", "chronic obstructive lung disease" as key words. Acute exacerbation of COPD and FEV₁ as indicators of pulmonary function and occurrence of hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction and heart failure as indicators of cardiovascular safety.

RESULTS

A total of 23 articles, comprising 21,238 participants, were included in the analysis. FEV₁ values were significantly different compared to IND/GLY and single bronchodilator therapy (LABA or LAMA), with the MD 0.11 L (95%CI: 0.10-0.13, P<0.01). Hypertension was more frequent in the IND/GLY, than the single bronchodilator therapy group, although this difference was insignificant (IND/GLY vs LABA, RR=1.88, P = 0.09; IND/GLY vs LAMA, RR=1.42, P = 0.08; IND/GLY vs LABA+ICS, RR=1.85, P = 0.23). In addition, IND/GLY did not significantly increase the risk of myocardial infarction (IND/GLY vs LAMA or double therapy, total RR: 1.49, 95%CI: 0.72-3.08, P = 0.28), atrial fibrillation (IND/GLY vs LAMA, RR: 1.62, 95%CI: 0.64-4.10, P = 0.31) and heart failure (IND/GLY vs LAMA, RR: 0.40, 95%CI: 0.07-2.33, P = 0.31) in COPD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

IND/GLY significantly reduced incidence of acute COPD exacerbations, and slowed down the decline of FEV₁. Adequate safety measures are needed to control incidence of adverse cardiovascular events.

Therapeutic Success of Tiotropium/Olodaterol, Measured Using the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), in Routine Clinical Practice: A Multinational Non-Interventional Study

BACKGROUND

The Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) is a simple patient-reported tool to measure clinical control of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVE

This open-label, single-arm, non-interventional study (NCT03663569) investigated changes in CCQ score during treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol in clinical practice.

METHODS

Data were included from consenting COPD patients, enrolled in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Switzerland and Ukraine, who were receiving a new prescription for tiotropium/olodaterol according to the treating physician in a real-world environment. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of therapeutic success, defined as a 0.4-point decrease in CCQ score after treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol for approximately 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Overall, 4819 patients were treated; baseline and Week 6 CCQ scores were available for 4700 patients, mostly classified as Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) B (51.6%) or D (42.7%). After 6 weeks' treatment, 81.4% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 80.24-82.49) of patients achieved therapeutic success; mean improvement in overall CCQ score was 1.02 points (95% CI 1.00-1.05). Improved CCQ score was seen in 92.2% of patients (95% CI 91.43-92.98), 2.5% had no change and 5.3% showed a worsening. When stratified by prior treatment, the greatest benefit was seen in treatment-naïve patients, with 85.7% achieving therapeutic success, compared with 79.5% of those pretreated with long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and 74.2% of those pretreated with LABA or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy. Overall, rescue medication decreased by 1.25 puffs/day (95% CI 1.19-1.31) versus baseline. In total, 29 patients (0.6%) reported drug-related adverse events and 7 patients reported serious adverse events (0.15%).

CONCLUSION

In 4700 COPD patients, 6 weeks' treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol, as initial treatment or follow-up to LAMA or LABA monotherapy or LABA/ICS, improved CCQ and decreased rescue medication use. The adverse event profile was consistent with the known safety profile of tiotropium/olodaterol.

Dual bronchodilator versus inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA, also known as dual bronchodilator) and inhaled corticosteroid/LABA (ICS/LABA) are the cornerstone of maintenance treatment for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. We aimed to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety of the two maintenance treatment in COPD patients.

METHODS

We searched the database Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Clinical Trials.gov systematically (from inception until September 2020). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dual bronchodilator with ICS/LABA in the treatment of COPD were included. Efficacy and safety endpoints were pooled as mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). This meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO prospectively # CRD42020203314).

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs including 21,496 patients were included. Dual bronchodilator showed a greater improvement in both trough FEV₁ (MD = 0.06 L, 95% CI: 0.04-0.07, P < 0.001) and FVC (FVC: MD = 0.12 L, 95% CI: 0.07-0.16, P < 0.001), and a lower risk of pneumonia (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.53-0.72, P < 0.001) in patients with COPD. There were no significant differences neither in the improvement of exacerbations, symptoms, and quality of life, nor in the incidence of cardiovascular events, serious adverse events, all-cause mortality, and withdrawals due to adverse events of treatment between these two maintenance treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual bronchodilator is superior to ICS/LABA in improving lung function and is associated with a lower risk of pneumonia in patients with COPD. There are no significant differences in other efficacy and safety profiles between these two maintenance treatments.

Direct Switch from Tiotropium to Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients in Korea

Background

Many chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients receiving monotherapy continue to experience symptoms, exacerbations and poor quality of life. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of direct switch from once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg to indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) 110/50 μg once daily in COPD patients in Korea.

Methods

This was a randomized, open-label, parallel group, 12-week trial in mild-to-moderate COPD patients who received TIO 18 μg once daily for ≥12 weeks prior to study initiation. Patients aged ≥40 years, with predicted post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) ≥50%, post-bronchodilator FEV₁/forced vital capacity <0.7 and smoking history of ≥10 pack-years were included. Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either IND/GLY or TIO. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of IND/GLY over TIO in pre-dose trough FEV₁ at week 12. Secondary endpoints included transition dyspnea index (TDI) focal score, COPD assessment test (CAT) total score, and rescue medication use following the 12-week treatment, and safety assessment.

Results

Of the 442 patients screened, 379 were randomized and 347 completed the study. IND/GLY demonstrated superiority in pre-dose trough FEV₁ versus TIO at week 12 (least squares mean treatment difference [Δ], 50 mL; p=0.013). Also, numerical improvements were observed with IND/GLY in the TDI focal score (Δ, 0.31), CAT total score (Δ, −0.81), and rescue medication use (Δ, −0.09 puffs/day). Both treatments were well tolerated by patients.

Conclusion

A direct switch from TIO to IND/GLY provided improvements in lung function and other patient-reported outcomes with an acceptable safety profile in patients with mild-to-moderate airflow limitation.

Adjuvant Treatment with Xiaoqinglong Formula for Bronchial Asthma in Acute Attack: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

XQLF (Xiaoqinglong formula) is the most commonly used prescription of traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of asthma. XQLF combined with western medicine has been used to treat bronchial asthma in more and more cases, and good results have been achieved. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the adjuvant treatment of traditional Chinese medicine classic herbal formula XQLF with bronchial asthma in acute attack.

METHODS

The following electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to April 2019: PubMed, EMBASE database, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, and China Biology Medicine (CBM). Two reviewers searched these databases and independently evaluated all the eligible articles for inclusion. Stata 14.0 was used for data synthesis and analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 33 RCTs (randomized controlled trials) including 2176 patients were enrolled. All of the patients in these studies were in the acute attack stage of asthma. We conducted subgroup analysis according to the duration of treatment, which was 14 days, 10 days, and 7 days, respectively. The overall results show that adjuvant treatment with XQLF significantly improve CER (clinical efficacy rate) (RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.21; P < 0.0001) and promote pulmonary function including FEV1 (WMD = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.43; P < 0.0001), PEF (SMD = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.55; P < 0.0001), and FVC (WMD = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.66; P < 0.0001). The adjuvant treatment of XQLF can also reduce serum IgE concentration (SMD = -1.39; 95% CI, 1.92 to -0.85; P < 0.0001) and serum EOS concentration at 14 days (WMD = -39.85; 95% CI, -56.20 to -23.49; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study finally showed that XQLF has the auxiliary effect of improving the efficiency, promoting the lung function, and reducing the serum IgE in the treatment of acute attack asthma. This trial is registered with CRD42019133549.

Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: a European Respiratory Society guideline

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) combined with bronchodilators can reduce the frequency of exacerbations in some patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There is evidence, however, that ICS are frequently used in patients where their benefit has not been established. Therefore, there is a need for a personalised approach to the use of ICS in COPD and to consider withdrawal of ICS in patients without a clear indication. This document reports European Respiratory Society recommendations regarding ICS withdrawal in patients with COPD.Comprehensive evidence synthesis was performed to summarise all available evidence relevant to the question: should ICS be withdrawn in patients with COPD? The evidence was appraised using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and the results were summarised in evidence profiles. The evidence synthesis was discussed and recommendations formulated by a committee with expertise in COPD and guideline methodology.After considering the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, quality of evidence, and feasibility and acceptability of interventions, the guideline panel made: 1) conditional recommendation for the withdrawal of ICS in patients with COPD without a history of frequent exacerbations, 2) strong recommendation not to withdraw ICS in patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 eosinophils·µL^-1 and 3) strong recommendation to treat with one or two long-acting bronchodilators if ICS are withdrawn.A conditional recommendation indicates that there was uncertainty about the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences of the intervention, and that well-informed patients may make different choices regarding whether to have or not have the specific intervention.

Evaluation of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol for the treatment of COPD: a systematic review

Introduction: Recently, the generic formulation of FP/SAL FDC has been approved in COPD. Although FP/SAL FDC has been the first long-acting FDC approved in COPD, no systematic review assessed the effect of this combination for the treatment of COPD by considering specifically Phase IV studies. The aim of this review was to systematically assess the effect of FP/SAL FDC in COPD patients enrolled in Phase IV studies.Areas covered: The question of this systematic review was to examine the evidence regarding the impact of FP/SAL FDC for the treatment of COPD by searching for Phase IV studies in the ClinicalTrials.gov database.Expert opinion: Generic drugs represent an effective cost-saving step for health-care budgets in the treatment of COPD and should be used in agreement with current recommendations and prescription accuracy. FP/SAL FDC is recommended for the initiation therapy just in a small percentage of symptomatic patients that are at high risk of exacerbation with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells per μl. At follow-up, FP/SAL FDC can be escalated to triple ICS/LABA/LAMA combination or switched to LABA/LAMA combination by considering symptoms, exacerbations, lack of response to ICS, inappropriate original indication, and ICS-related adverse events such as pneumonia.

Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD patients: rationale and algorithms

Observational studies indicate that overutilization of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) is common in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Overprescription and the high risk of serious ICS-related adverse events make withdrawal of this treatment necessary in patients for whom the treatment-related risks outweigh the expected benefits. Elaboration of an optimal, universal, user-friendly algorithm for withdrawal of ICS therapy has been identified as an important clinical need. This article reviews the available evidence on the efficacy, risks, and indications of ICS in COPD, as well as the benefits of ICS treatment withdrawal in patients for whom its use is not recommended by current guidelines. After discussing proposed approaches to ICS withdrawal published by professional associations and individual authors, we present a new algorithm developed by consensus of an international group of experts in the field of COPD. This relatively simple algorithm is based on consideration and integrated assessment of the most relevant factors (markers) influencing decision-making, such a history of exacerbations, peripheral blood eosinophil count, presence of infection, and risk of community-acquired pneumonia.

Association Between Exposure of Ipratropium and Salmeterol and Diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis: A Matched Case-control Study

PURPOSE

Ipratropium and salmeterol were found to stimulate oligodendrocyte differentiation in a high-throughput drug screening assay; thus, they may play a role in the risk reduction of multiple sclerosis (MS). So far, they have not been examined in any clinical data. This study aims at investigating the association between ipratropium and salmeterol and reduced diagnosis of MS with the use of real-world clinical data.

METHODS

We conducted a 1:10 matched case-control study that compared the exposure of ipratropium and salmeterol between patients with MS and control patients over the past 2 years, using the MS Flowsheet Registry of OSF HealthCare Saint Francis Medical Center. Cases were matched to control patients, based on service year/quarter, age, sex, race, and payer type. The relationship was examined with a Poisson regression model and a generalized structural equation model.

FINDINGS

The sample in our analysis included 217 patients with MS and 2164 matched control patients. The mean (SD) age for both patients with MS and control patients was 41 (11.8) years with a range of 18 to 75 years. The MS group had consistently less prescriptions of ipratropium and salmeterol than the control group in the past 1, 2, and 3 years before the index date. Our multivariable analysis found that the control group had 3.2 more prescriptions (95% CI, 1.4-7.1; P = 0.006) of either ipratropium or salmeterol in the past 2 years than the MS group, even if controlling for other confounders. In the generalized structural equation model, we found that use of ipratropium and salmeterol was significantly associated with reduced diagnosis of MS (P = 0.036), whereas smokers and people with family history of MS were more likely to have a diagnosis of MS (P < 0.001).

IMPLICATIONS

The observed association between ipratropium and salmeterol use and reduced diagnosis of MS indicates that they might potentially serve as agents in the treatment of MS.

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.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) plus long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) versus LABA plus inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

Three classes of inhaler medications are used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): long-acting beta-agonists (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). When two classes of medications are required, LAMA plus LABA (LAMA+LABA) and LABA plus ICS (LABA+ICS) are often selected because these combinations can be administered via a single medication device. The previous Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidance recommended LABA+ICS as the first-line treatment for managing stable COPD in high-risk people of categories C and D. However, the updated GOLD 2017 guidance recommends LAMA+LABA over LABA+ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of LAMA+LABA versus LABA+ICS for treatment of people with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an electronic search of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (2 February 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (4 June 2016), and the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Search Portal (4 June 2016), followed by a handsearch (5 June 2016). Two review authors screened and scrutinised the selected articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included individual randomised controlled trials, parallel-group trials, and cross-over trials comparing LAMA+LABA and LABA+ICS for stable COPD. The minimum accepted trial duration was one month and trials should have been conducted in an outpatient setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. We resolved any discrepancies through discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (OR), and continuous data as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence interval (CI) using Review Manager 5. Exacerbations were measured by counting the number of people experiencing one or more exacerbation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 studies comprising 9839 participants in our quantitative analysis. Most studies included people with moderate to severe COPD, without recent exacerbations. One pharmaceutical sponsored trial that included only people with recent exacerbations was the largest study and accounted for 37% of participants. All but one study were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, thus we rated them as having a high risk of 'other bias'. The unsponsored study was at high risk of performance and detection bias, and possible selective reporting.Five studies recruited GOLD Category B participants, one study recruited Category D participants, two studies recruited Category A/B participants, and three studies recruited participants regardless of category. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 52 weeks.Compared to the LABA+ICS arm, the results for the pooled primary outcomes for the LAMA+LABA arm were as follows: exacerbations, OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.96, P = 0.01, I2 = 17%, low quality evidence); serious adverse events (SAE), OR 0.91 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.05, P = 0.18, I2 = 0, moderate quality evidence); St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score change from the baseline, MD -1.22 (95% CI -2.52 to 0.07, P = 0.06, I2 = 71%, low quality evidence); and trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) change from the baseline, MD 0.08 L (95% CI 0.06 to 0.09, P < 0.0001, I2 = 50%, moderate quality evidence). Compared to the LABA+ICS arm, the results for the pooled secondary outcomes for the LAMA+LABA arm were as follows: pneumonia, OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.79, P = 0.0006, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence); all-cause death, OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.67, P = 0.88, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence); and SGRQ total score change from the baseline of 4 points or greater (the minimal clinically important difference for the SGRQ is 4 points), OR 1.25 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.44, P = 0.002, I2 = 0%, moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of COPD, LAMA+LABA has fewer exacerbations, a larger improvement of FEV1, a lower risk of pneumonia, and more frequent improvement in quality of life as measured by an increase over 4 units or more of the SGRQ. These data were supported by low or moderate quality evidence generated from mainly participants with moderate to severe COPD in heterogeneous trials with an observation period of less than one year. Our findings support the recently updated GOLD guidance.