Dual bronchodilation with QVA149 versus single bronchodilator therapy: the SHINE study

The optimal dose of indacaterol for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

The optimal dose of indacaterol for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was in debate. We did this network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of three dosages (75, 150, and 300 μg) of indacaterol in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Methods

We searched studies from inception until January 20, 2023 on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science database. All studies comparing different doses of indacaterol for COPD were included in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), exacerbation rate, St. George respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ), transitional dyspnea index (TDI), and adverse events. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible interval (CrI) was calculated by R software with gemtc package.

Results

Finally, a total of 10 studies (4,991 patients) were finally included in this network meta-analysis. Indacaterol 75 μg (WMD: 0.07; 95% CrI: 0.05-0.08), indacaterol 150 μg (WMD: 0.13; 95% CrI: 0.12-0.14), and indacaterol 300 μg (WMD: 0.22; 95% CrI: 0.22-0.23) were all more effective than the placebo, and the difference was statistically significant. Indacaterol 75 μg (OR: 0.80; 95% CrI: 0.53-1.21), indacaterol 150 μg (OR: 0.59; 95% CrI: 0.45-0.78), indacaterol 300 μg (OR: 0.35; 95% CrI: 0.26-0.46) were more effective than the placebo in terms of exacerbation rate, and the difference was statistically significant. The surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) showed that indacaterol 300 μg ranked first, indacaterol 150 μg ranked second, indacaterol 75 μg ranked third, and placebo ranked the last for FEV1, SGRQ, TDI, exacerbation rate. There was no significant difference among the adverse events (P>0.05).

Conclusions

Considering the network meta-analysis and rankings, 300 μg indacaterol is superior to the other two dosages in treating patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. However, the quality of available evidence limits the formation of powerful conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy or safety of different doses of indacaterol used to treat COPD. Higher-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are required for further research in the future.

Clinically Important Deterioration (CID) and Ageing in COPD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis According to PRISMA Statement

Purpose

Clinically important deterioration (CID) is a composite endpoint developed to quantify the impact of pharmacological treatment in clinical trials for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), also showing a prognostic value. CID is defined as any of the following condition: forced expiratory volume in 1 s decrease ≥100 mL from baseline, and/or St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score increase ≥4-unit from baseline, and/or the occurrence of a moderate-to-severe exacerbation of COPD. Although most COPD patients experience a clinical worsening as they get older, to date, no specific studies assessed the correlation between ageing and CID in COPD. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the impact of ageing on CID in COPD patients.

Patients and Methods

Data obtained from 55219 COPD patients were extracted from 17 papers, mostly post-hoc analyses. A pairwise meta-analysis and a meta-regression analysis were performed according to PRISMA-P guidelines to quantify the impact of pharmacological therapy on CID and to determine whether ageing might modulate the risk of CID in COPD patients.

Results

Inhaled treatments resulted generally effective in reducing the risk of CID in COPD (relative risk: 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.79-0.84; P < 0.001). The meta-regression analysis indicated a trend toward significance (P = 0.063) in the linear relationship between age and the risk of CID. Of note, age significantly (P < 0.05) increased the risk of CID when associated with lower post-bronchodilator FEV1. These results were not affected by a significant risk of bias.

Conclusion

This quantitative synthesis suggests that inhaled therapy is effective in reducing the risk of CID in COPD, although such a protective effect may be affected in older patients with impaired lung function. Further studies specifically designed on CID in COPD are needed to confirm these results.

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.

Preoperative inhalation therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease undergoing lung surgery: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Research shows that even the short-term administration of inhaled drugs immediately before surgery can improve respiratory function in surgical candidates with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the long-term efficacies of different types of long-acting inhaled agents when used during a short preoperative period remain unclear. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacies of short-term, preoperative long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), inhaled corticosteroids with long-acting β2-agonists (ICSs/LABAs), and long-acting muscarinic antagonists with long-acting β2-agonists (LAMAs/LABAs) in patients with COPD after lung resection.

METHODS

Patients who underwent anatomical lung resections between April 2010 and March 2020 were divided into the non-COPD (193 patients) and COPD (241 patients) groups. The COPD group underwent preoperative treatment with either a LAMA (51 patients), an ICS/LABA (112 patients), or a LAMA/LABA (78 patients) for almost 1 month, with pulmonary function tests performed initially, just before surgery, and at 1 and 6 months after surgery. Improvement in preoperative respiratory function by inhalation therapy and the maintenance of improvement in respiratory function after surgery were examined in each group.

RESULTS

The COPD group had significantly higher proportions of men, older patients, smokers, and histopathologic types except for adenocarcinoma than the non-COPD group; however, there were neither differences in sex, age, percentage of smokers, or histopathologic type among the inhalant groups within the COPD group nor were there differences in percentage of GOLD stage, preoperative inhalation period, or percentage of resected lobes in lobectomy. Preoperative increases in forced expiratory volume in 1.0 s (FEV1.0) were significantly higher in the COPD group (129.07 ± 11.29 mL) than in the non-COPD group (-2.32 ± 12.93 mL) (p < 0.0001). At 6 months, there was no significant difference in residual FEV1.0 between the COPD-LAMA/LABA (2017.46 ± 62.43 mL) and non-COPD groups (2046.93 ± 40.53 mL). The FEV1.0 reduction rate was more suppressed in the COPD-LAMA/LABA group than in the non-COPD group at 1 and 6 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term, preoperative, inhaled pharmacotherapies, particularly LAMAs/LABAs, were effective at improving respiratory function in patients with COPD; thus, these agents are recommended for use in this population.

Bronchodilators in Tobacco-Exposed Persons with Symptoms and Preserved Lung Function

BACKGROUND

Many persons with a history of smoking tobacco have clinically significant respiratory symptoms despite an absence of airflow obstruction as assessed by spirometry. They are often treated with medications for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but supporting evidence for this treatment is lacking.

METHODS

We randomly assigned persons who had a tobacco-smoking history of at least 10 pack-years, respiratory symptoms as defined by a COPD Assessment Test score of at least 10 (scores range from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms), and preserved lung function on spirometry (ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] to forced vital capacity [FVC] ≥0.70 and FVC ≥70% of the predicted value after bronchodilator use) to receive either indacaterol (27.5 μg) plus glycopyrrolate (15.6 μg) or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was at least a 4-point decrease (i.e., improvement) in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating worse health status) after 12 weeks without treatment failure (defined as an increase in lower respiratory symptoms treated with a long-acting inhaled bronchodilator, glucocorticoid, or antibiotic agent).

RESULTS

A total of 535 participants underwent randomization. In the modified intention-to-treat population (471 participants), 128 of 227 participants (56.4%) in the treatment group and 144 of 244 (59.0%) in the placebo group had at least a 4-point decrease in the SGRQ score (difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.6 to 6.3; adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.37; P = 0.65). The mean change in the percent of predicted FEV1 was 2.48 percentage points (95% CI, 1.49 to 3.47) in the treatment group and -0.09 percentage points (95% CI, -1.06 to 0.89) in the placebo group, and the mean change in the inspiratory capacity was 0.12 liters (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.18) in the treatment group and 0.02 liters (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.08) in the placebo group. Four serious adverse events occurred in the treatment group, and 11 occurred in the placebo group; none were deemed potentially related to the treatment or placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled dual bronchodilator therapy did not decrease respiratory symptoms in symptomatic, tobacco-exposed persons with preserved lung function as assessed by spirometry. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; RETHINC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02867761.).

Efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium/formoterol delivered via a dry powder inhaler in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Results from a multi-centre, open-label, randomised study

Background

We designed this randomised, open-label, parallel group, multi-centre study to investigate the efficacy and safety of glycopyrronium/formoterol, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist fixed dose combination, delivered through a dry powder inhaler (DPI) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Material and Methods

We randomised (1:1) patients with moderate to severe COPD (N = 356) to receive glycopyrronium 25 μg/formoterol 12 μg via DPI twice daily (GF-DPI) or glycopyrronium 50 μg monotherapy via DPI once daily (G-DPI). The primary study endpoint was the mean change from the baseline in pre-dose trough-forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at 12 weeks.

Results

At week 12, the mean increase from the baseline in pre-dose trough FEV1 was higher in the GF-DPI group (120 ml) than in the G-DPI (60 ml) group. The mean difference (MD) between treatment groups was 0.06 L (95% CI: 0.00-0.12 L, P < 0.0001 for non-inferiority). At week 12, the mean pre-dose forced vital capacity (FVC), 1 hour post-dose FEV1, and post-dose FVC increased significantly from the baseline only in the GF-DPI group (p < 0.0001). The reduction in the COPD assessment test score was greater in the GF-DPI group (p = 0.0379). The average daily number of puffs of rescue medication and the reduction in mean modified Medical Research Council scale, COPD, and Asthma Sleep Impact Scale score at week 12 were similar between groups (p > 0.05). Overall, 35 adverse events and two serious adverse events unrelated to study drugs were reported. Both groups had similar results for overall drug safety.

Conclusion

The results demonstrate efficacy and safety of GF-DPI in Indian patients with moderate to severe COPD. Treatment with GF-DPI significantly improved the lung function and quality of life and was well tolerated.

Characterization of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Initiating Single-Inhaler Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist/Long-Acting β2-Agonist Dual Therapy in a Primary Care Setting in England

Purpose

Treatment pathways of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receiving single-inhaler dual therapies remain unclear. We aimed to describe characteristics, prescribed treatments, healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs of patients with COPD who initiated single-inhaler long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy in primary care in England.

Patients and Methods

Retrospective study using linked data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets. Patients with COPD with ≥1 single-inhaler LAMA/LABA prescription between June 2015 and December 2018 (index) were included. Demographic and clinical characteristics, prescribed treatments, HCRU and costs were evaluated in the 12 months pre-index. Data are presented for patients not receiving concomitant inhaled corticosteroids at index (non-triple users).

Results

Of 10,991 patients initiating LAMA/LABA, 9888 were non-triple users, of whom 21.3% (n=2109) received aclidinium bromide/formoterol, 18.1% (n=1785) received indacaterol/glycopyrronium, 12.0% (n=1189) received tiotropium bromide/olodaterol and 48.6% (n=4805) received umeclidinium/vilanterol. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar across indexed therapies. LAMA monotherapy was the most frequently prescribed respiratory therapy at 12 (18.4-25.8% of patients) and 3 months (23.9-33.7% of patients) pre-index across indexed therapies; 42.5-59.0% of patients were prescribed no respiratory therapy at these time points. COPD-related HCRU during the 12 months pre-index was similar across indexed therapies (general practitioner consultations: 62.0-68.6% patients; inpatient stays: 19.3-26.1% patients). Pre-index COPD-related costs were similar across indexed therapies, with inpatient stays representing the highest contribution. Mean total direct annual COPD-related costs ranged from £805-£1187.

Conclusion

Characteristics of patients newly initiating single-inhaler LAMA/LABA dual therapy were highly consistent across indexed therapies. As half of non-triple users were not receiving respiratory therapy one year prior to LAMA/LABA initiation, there may be an opportunity for early optimization of treatment to relieve clinical burden versus current prescribing patterns in primary care in England.

Real-world Safety and Efficacy of Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium in Japanese Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A 52-week Post-marketing Surveillance

Objective To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmorary disease (COPD) in a real-world setting in Japan. Methods This 52-week, multicentre, post-marketing surveillance conducted in Japan between December 2013 and August 2019 included patients using IND/GLY for the first time to relieve airway obstructive disorder-related symptoms. Safety outcomes included the incidence of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and serious ADRs during the 52-week period. The incidence of priority variables, including cardiovascular/cerebrovascular (CCV) AEs, β-adrenergic-related or anticholinergic AEs and cough, was also assessed. Safety outcomes were also evaluated in elderly patients. Efficacy outcomes included a physician's global assessment, COPD assessment test (CAT) and lung function test. Results Of the 1,167 patients registered, 1,108 were included in the safety and efficacy analysis. In the safety analysis population, the incidence of AEs was 13.54%, that of SAEs was 4.69%, that of ADR was 3.61%, and that of serious ADRs was 0.36% over 52 weeks. CCV AEs, β-adrenergic-related and anticholinergic AEs and cough were reported as 2.62%, 1.99% and 0.63%, respectively. The physician's global assessment showed that the overall response rate at the last assessment was 74.19%. The mean (95% confidence interval) CAT scores decreased from the start of treatment to Week 52 with IND/GLY [-6.9 (-7.8 to -6.1)]. The lung function (FEV₁ and FVC) improved over time from the start of IND/GLY to Week 52. Conclusion IND/GLY demonstrated a good long-term safety profile in a real-world setting in Japanese patients with COPD, with beneficial effects in terms of the lung function and symptoms in clinical use.

Indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide/mometasone furoate: a combination therapy for asthma

Abstract:

Despite the wide range of available therapies, asthma remains uncontrolled in 40–65% of patients for a number of different reasons. Treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) is recommended in the Global Initiative for Asthma 2021 report for patients across all asthma severities, with treatment options combining an ICS with a long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) or a LABA and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), depending on disease severity. Based on this, the availability of single inhaler fixed-dose ICS/LABA/LAMA combination is a major need in asthma management. Indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide/mometasone furoate has been developed as a once-daily inhaled asthma treatment that combines an ICS (mometasone furoate), a LABA (indacaterol acetate) and a LAMA (glycopyrronium bromide) in a formulation delivered using the dry powder inhaler Breezhaler®, for patients with uncontrolled asthma on medium- or high-dose ICS/LABA. This article provides an overview of the different and complementary mechanisms of action, and the clinical effectiveness of the monocomponents of the indacaterol/glycopyrronium/mometasone furoate fixed combination, and highlights the benefits of using the three agents in combination in patients with moderate and severe asthma.

Effect of indacaterol/glycopyrronium on ventilation and perfusion in COPD: a randomized trial

RATIONALE

The long-acting β₂-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist combination indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) elicits bronchodilation, improves symptoms, and reduces exacerbations in COPD. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the lung with hyperpolarized gas and gadolinium contrast enhancement enables assessment of whole lung functional responses to IND/GLY.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was assessment of effect of IND/GLY on global ventilated lung volume (%VV) versus placebo in COPD. Lung function, regional ventilation and perfusion in response to IND/GLY were also measured.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study assessed %VV and pulmonary perfusion in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD after 8 days of once-daily IND/GLY treatment (110/50 µg) followed by 8 days of placebo, or vice versa, using inhaled hyperpolarized ³He gas and gadolinium contrast-enhanced MRI, respectively. Lung function measures including spirometry were performed for each treatment after 8 days.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 31 patients randomized, 29 completed both treatment periods. IND/GLY increased global %VV versus placebo (61.73% vs. 56.73%, respectively, least squares means treatment difference: 5.00% [90% CI 1.40 to 8.60]; P = 0.025). IND/GLY improved whole lung index of ventilation volume to perfusion volume (V/Q) ratio versus placebo; 94% (90% CI 83 to 105) versus 86% (90% CI 75 to 97; P = 0.047), respectively. IND/GLY showed a trend to improve diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DL_CO) (+ 0.66 mL/min/mmHg; P = 0.082). By Day 8, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) was increased by 0.32 L versus placebo (90% CI 0.26 to 0.38; P < 0.0001), substantiating earlier findings and providing evidence of assay sensitivity for this trial.

CONCLUSIONS

IND/GLY improved lung ventilation assessed by ³He MRI after 1 week of treatment. This observation may provide mechanistic support for the symptomatic clinical benefit shown with IND/GLY in COPD. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02634983).

Quantitative analysis of efficacy and safety of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations in the treatment of stable COPD

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to quantitatively compare the efficacy and safety of long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) for the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), especially in terms of their loss of efficacy in lung function.

METHODS

Randomized controlled clinical trials of LABA/LAMA FDCs for the treatment of stable COPD were comprehensively searched for in public databases. Pharmacodynamic models were established to describe the time course of the primary outcome [trough forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁)]. Secondary outcomes [COPD exacerbations, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI), and rescue medication use] and safety outcomes [mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), and withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs)] were also compared via a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies involving 16,486 participants were included in this study. The results showed that in terms of primary outcome (change from baseline in trough FEV₁), the efficacy of vilanterol/umeclidinium was the highest, while the efficacy of formoterol/aclidinium was the lowest, with a maximum effect value (E_max) of 0.185 L [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.173-0.197 L] and 0.119 L (95% CI: 0.103-0.135 L), respectively. The efficacy of other drugs, such as formoterol/glycopyrronium, indacaterol/glycopyrronium, and olodaterol/tiotropium, were comparable, and their E_max values were 0.150-0.177 L. Except for vilanterol/umeclidinium, the other four LABA/LAMA FDCs showed a certain degree of loss of efficacy. Compared with the efficacy at 2 days, the trough FEV₁ (L) relative to baseline at 24 weeks decreased by 0.029-0.041 L. In terms of secondary outcomes, the efficacy of different LABA/LAMA FDCs was similar in TDI and rescue medication use. However, formoterol/aclidinium was better in preventing the COPD exacerbations, while vilanterol/umeclidinium was the best in terms of SGRQ. In addition, different LABA/LAMA FDCs and placebo had similar safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The present findings may provide necessary quantitative information for COPD medication guidelines.

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.

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.

Differences Between Men and Women with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

There are many differences between men and women in risk factor vulnerability and impact, symptom development, presentation, clinical manifestations, and outcomes of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These differences have been inadequately explored, which is of particular concern in view of the delay in diagnosis and treatment that occurs for both men and women, and the need to use all therapies in a targeted and tailored way for best clinical gain and least harm. Women are generally underrepresented in randomized trials, as are non-tobacco-related phenotypes of COPD. We must garner the information available to better describe optimal treatment approaches.

Pharmacist involvement in the inhaler choice improves lung function in patients with COPD: a prospective single-arm study

Background

Currently, in Japan, shifting tasks from physician to hospital pharmacist is being developed to reduce physician workload and improve the quality of pharmacotherapy. This study aimed to investigate the effects of pharmacist involvement in the choice of inhaler as the task on the clinical outcomes of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

This prospective, single-center, single-arm study included 36 outpatients with newly diagnosed COPD indicating inhaler therapy. Eligible patients were immediately interviewed by pharmacist. Then, pharmacist assessed patient’s inhalation flow rate, physical function to handle an inhaler, comprehension, and value, and finally recommended a personalized inhaler based on originally developed inhaler choice protocol, and pulmonologist prescribed a pharmacist-selected inhaler. The primary endpoint was the improvement in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) between baseline and week 26. The secondary endpoints were safety, and improvements at week 26 in scores for the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), modified British Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (mMRC), and Adherence Starts with Knowledge-20 (ASK-20).

Results

The pneumonologists completely agreed with the pharmacist-recommended inhaler. Mean FEV₁ significantly increased from baseline to week 26 (1.60, SD 0.54 L vs. 1.98, SD 0.56 L; p < 0.0001). Significant improvements in CAT, mMRC, and ASK-20 scores were also observed. The prevalence of CAT responders as a negative predictor of acute exacerbation, defined as those with a decrease in CAT score of ≥2 points from baseline, was 86%. None of the patients experienced exacerbation during the study period.

Conclusions

Pharmacist involvement in the choice of inhaler for patients with newly diagnosed COPD was associated with improved lung function, health status, clinical symptoms, and adherence to inhaler therapy. Shifting task of choosing appropriate inhaler from physician to hospital pharmacist may be performed effectively and safely with an inhaler choice protocol.

Trial registration number

UMIN000039722, retrospectively registered on March 10, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40780-021-00211-0.

Dose bridging data for mometasone furoate in once-daily fixed-dose inhaled combinations of mometasone furoate/indacaterol and mometasone furoate/ indacaterol/glycopyrronium in patients with asthma

Once-daily (o.d.) fixed-dose combinations of mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate (MF/IND) and mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide (MF/IND/GLY), both delivered via the Breezhaler® device, are approved for the maintenance treatment of asthma. Across these fixed-dose combinations, while the doses of bronchodilators remain the same, the nominal doses of mometasone furoate in micrograms differ. This article presents the steps followed in bridging the mometasone furoate doses at the corresponding dose strengths in the mometasone furoate formulation delivered via the Twisthaler® and mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate and mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide formulations delivered via the Breezhaler®. These were: (i) bridging the mometasone furoate doses in the Twisthaler® (previously approved) to mometasone furoate doses in the Breezhaler®; (ii) bridging the mometasone furoate doses in the Breezhaler® to mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate and mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide formulation. Following this stepwise approach, it was determined that mometasone furoate 80 μg o.d. (medium-dose strength) and 160 μg o.d. (high-dose strength) in mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide formulation provided comparable inhaled corticosteroid efficacy to mometasone furoate 160 μg o.d. (medium-dose strength) and 320 μg o.d. (high-dose strength) in the mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate formulation, respectively. These doses were used in the PLATINUM Phase III clinical program that investigated the efficacy and safety of mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate and mometasone furoate/indacaterol acetate/glycopyrronium bromide combinations in patients with asthma.

Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis of Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium/Mometasone Furoate After Administration of Combination Therapies Using the Breezhaler® Device in Patients with Asthma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Clinical evidence suggests no clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interactions between indacaterol (IND), glycopyrronium (GLY) and mometasone furoate (MF). A population pharmacokinetic (popPK) analysis was conducted to identify structural models describing systemic pharmacokinetic profiles of IND, GLY and MF, and estimate the effect of covariates on their pharmacokinetics following inhalation as IND/GLY/MF.

METHODS

Pharmacokinetic data from 698 patients with asthma were pooled from two Phase III studies that evaluated IND/MF medium- (150/160 µg) and high-dose (150/320 µg), IND/GLY/MF medium- (150/50/80 μg) and high-dose (150/50/160 μg), and a device bridging Phase II study with MF. One popPK model was developed each for IND, GLY and MF using a nonlinear mixed-effect modelling approach. Maximal and trough plasma concentrations were compared across formulations and studies, including data for IND/GLY from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. The effect of predefined covariates on the pharmacokinetics of components was evaluated using a full covariate modelling approach.

RESULTS

The final pharmacokinetic models were two-compartment disposition models with first-order elimination and sequential zero-order/first-order absorption (IND), with bolus administration and first-order elimination (GLY), and with mixed zero-order/first-order absorption and first-order elimination (MF). All model parameters were estimated with good precision (% relative standard error: IND and MF ≤25%; GLY <10%). No clinically relevant covariate effect was observed on the pharmacokinetics of IND, GLY and MF. IND and GLY pharmacokinetic profiles were similar across different formulations.

CONCLUSION

Two-compartment popPK models adequately described the pharmacokinetics of IND, GLY and MF. The effect of covariates was not clinically relevant. The pharmacokinetic profiles of MF were comparable for combination products at corresponding medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids. On a population level, the pharmacokinetics of IND and GLY were comparable between patients with asthma and COPD.

Dual LABA/LAMA Therapy versus LABA or LAMA Monotherapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis in Support of the American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Rationale: There is uncertainty on the optimal first-line therapy for symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Long-acting β₂-receptor agonists (LABAs) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) have long been mainstays of treatment, though it is still not clear if dual therapy with LABA/LAMA is superior to monotherapy for symptomatic COPD.Objectives: To clarify the evidence landscape, we conducted a systematic review to answer the following question: in patients with COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance, is LABA/LAMA combination therapy more effective and equally safe compared with LABA or LAMA monotherapy?Methods: A search of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted by a medical librarian for randomized controlled trials enrolling patients with COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance that compare LABA/LAMA combination therapy to LABA or LAMA monotherapy. A systematic approach was used to screen, abstract, and critically appraise the emerging study evidence. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method was applied to rate the certainty and quality of the evidence.Results: A total of 24 studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 45,441). Pairwise random-effects meta-analysis revealed reductions in hospital admissions (11% reduction; P < 0.01) and acute exacerbations of COPD (20% reduction; P < 0.002), all in favor of LABA/LAMA dual therapy. Although there is reduced dyspnea (0.10 standardized mean difference; P < 0.001) and improved health-related quality of life (-0.13 standardized mean difference; P < 0.001), both values did not meet a clinical meaningful difference threshold. LABA/LAMA combination therapy showed no difference in treatment-emergent adverse effects (risk ratio, 0.99; P = 0.34) when compared with either LAMA or LABA monotherapy.Conclusions: Based on the reviewed evidence, in patients with symptomatic COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance, dual LABA/LAMA therapy is superior to either LABA or LAMA monotherapy based on the reduced risk of exacerbations and hospitalizations.

Narrative review of current COPD status in Japan

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) causes morbidity and mortality worldwide. Due to the improvement in environmental sanitation and medical care, the general life span has increased in the past decades in Japan. However, many older patients with COPD develop a wide range of comorbidities, and the impairments in the activities of daily living result in frailty and increase social and economic burdens. Population-based studies have shown that the prevalence of COPD is approximately 10% among subjects aged ≥40 years, but more than 80% of COPD patients are underdiagnosed. The Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare in Japan proposed the National Health Promotion in the 21st century, termed Health Japan 21 (the second term), in 2013 to prevent the onset and progression of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), including COPD. The government, medical society, and community have been attempting to increase the recognition of COPD and promote smoking cessation. Additionally, Japanese cohorts have revealed distinct clinical features in Japanese patients with COPD, including lower rates of patient-reported exacerbations, less frequent coexisting cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome, and lower use of inhaled corticosteroids in Japan compared to the Western countries. Moreover, the poor adherence to inhaled medications is found in approximately 20% of subjects, and rehabilitation is performed in 26% of hospitalized patients with COPD. Therefore, more efforts should be made to improve adherence and access to pulmonary rehabilitation. Overall, Japanese COPD patients share common clinical and social features with COPD patients in other countries. Further international corroboration may help establish better comprehensive management of the disease.

Early and sustained symptom improvement with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in COPD: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial

Background:

In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both the time needed for patients to gain symptom improvement with long-acting bronchodilator therapy and whether an early response is predictive of a sustained response is unknown. This study aimed to investigate how quickly meaningful symptom responses are seen in patients with COPD with bronchodilator therapy and whether these responses are sustained.

Methods:

Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial that randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), umeclidinium or salmeterol. Daily Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS:COPD) score and rescue salbutamol use were captured via an electronic diary and analysed initially in 4-weekly periods. Post hoc analyses assessed change from baseline in daily E-RS:COPD score and rescue medication use weekly (Weeks 1–8), and association between E-RS:COPD responder status at Weeks 1–4 and later time points.

Results:

In the intent-to-treat population (n = 2425), reductions from baseline in E-RS:COPD scores and rescue medication use were apparent from Day 2 with all treatments. Treatment differences for UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy plateaued by Week 4–8 and were sustained at Weeks 21–24; improvements were consistently greater with UMEC/VI. For all treatments, most patients (60–85%) retained their Weeks 1–4 E-RS:COPD responder/non-responder status at Weeks 21−24. Among patients receiving UMEC/VI who were E-RS:COPD responders at Weeks 1–4, 70% were responders at Weeks 21–24.

Conclusion:

Patients with symptomatic COPD had greater potential for early symptom improvements with UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy. This benefit was generally maintained for 24 weeks. Early monitoring of treatment response can provide clinicians with an early indication of a patient’s likely longer-term response to prescribed bronchodilator treatment and will facilitate appropriate early adjustments in care.

Clinical Trial Registration:

NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT Number).

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

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dual Bronchodilator Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium for COPD Treatment in China

Background

Indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) is a once-daily dual bronchodilator for long-term treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy and safety of IND/GLY have been proved before, but the cost-effectiveness is unknown in China.

Purpose

This study assessed cost-effectiveness of IND/GLY comparing with salmeterol/fluticasone (SAL/FLU) and tiotropium.

Methods

A patient-level simulation model was established from Chinese payer perspective. Patient parameters were randomly simulated through resampling from parameter distributions based on clinical trials and China-specific cost data to represent individual level health state and health state transitions in the model. We simulated patient-level health state, costs, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of whole life horizon to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IND/GLY comparing with SAL/FLU and tiotropium respectively.

Results

Comparing with SAL/FLU, IND/GLY resulted in 0.384 LYs and 0.255 QALYs gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is −35,822 CNY/LY and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) is −53,834 CNY/QALY for IND/GLY versus SAL/FLU. Comparing with tiotropium, IND/GLY resulted in 0.232 LYs and 0.146 QALYs gained. The ICER is 39,729 CNY/LY and the ICUR is 63,246 CNY/QALY for IND/GLY versus tiotropium.

Conclusion

This study found that dual bronchodilator IND/GLY is cost-effective for stable COPD treatment in China from Chinese payer's perspective.

Dual versus monotherapy with bronchodilators in GOLD group B COPD patients according to baseline FEV1 level: a patient-level pooled analysis of phase-3 randomized clinical trials

Background

Which patients should receive dual therapy as initial treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is only loosely defined. We evaluated if a lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) identifies a population more likely to benefit from dual therapy than monotherapy among group B COPD patients in whom Global initiative for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (GOLD) recommends monotherapy as initial treatment.

Methods

This was a patient-level pooled analysis of phase-3 randomized controlled trials involving dual bronchodilators. Study patients were classified into two groups based on the FEV₁ of 50% of the predicted value (GOLD I/II versus GOLD III/IV). We evaluated the efficacy of dual versus monotherapy (long-acting beta-2 agonist [LABA] or long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) between these two groups in the following outcomes: changes in trough FEV₁, the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score, the proportion of SGRQ responders, time to first exacerbation, and risk of adverse events.

Results

A total of 14,449 group B patients from 12 studies were divided into GOLD III/IV (n = 8043) or GOLD I/II group (n = 6406). In the GOLD III/IV group, dual therapy was significantly more effective in improving FEV₁, reducing SGRQ scores, and achieving a higher proportion of SGRQ responders compared with either LABA or LAMA. Dual therapy also showed a significantly longer time to first exacerbation compared with LABA in the GOLD III/IV group. In contrast, in the GOLD I/II group, the benefits of dual therapy over monotherapy were less consistent. Although dual therapy resulted in significantly higher FEV₁ than either LABA or LAMA, it did not show significant differences in the SGRQ score and proportion of SGRQ responders as compared with LABA. The time to first exacerbation was also not significantly different between dual therapy and either LABA or LAMA in the GOLD I/II group.

Conclusions

Dual therapy demonstrated benefits over monotherapy more consistently in patients with lower FEV₁ than those with higher FEV₁.

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.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - diagnosis and management of stable disease; a personalized approach to care, using the treatable traits concept based on clinical phenotypes. Position paper of the Czech Pneumological and Phthisiological Society

This position paper has been drafted by experts from the Czech national board of diseases with bronchial obstruction, of the Czech Pneumological and Phthisiological Society. The statements and recommendations are based on both the results of randomized controlled trials and data from cross-sectional and prospective real-life studies to ensure they are as close as possible to the context of daily clinical practice and the current health care system of the Czech Republic. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a preventable and treatable heterogeneous syndrome with a number of pulmonary and extrapulmonary clinical features and concomitant chronic diseases. The disease is associated with significant mortality, morbidity and reduced quality of life. The main characteristics include persistent respiratory symptoms and only partially reversible airflow obstruction developing due to an abnormal inflammatory response of the lungs to noxious particles and gases. Oxidative stress, protease-antiprotease imbalance and increased numbers of pro-inflammatory cells (mainly neutrophils) are the main drivers of primarily non-infectious inflammation in COPD. Besides smoking, household air pollution, occupational exposure, low birth weight, frequent respiratory infections during childhood and also genetic factors are important risk factors of COPD development. Progressive airflow limitation and airway remodelling leads to air trapping, static and dynamic hyperinflation, gas exchange abnormalities and decreased exercise capacity. Various features of the disease are expressed unequally in individual patients, resulting in various types of disease presentation, emerging as the "clinical phenotypes" (for specific clinical characteristics) and "treatable traits" (for treatable characteristics) concept. The estimated prevalence of COPD in Czechia is around 6.7% with 3,200-3,500 deaths reported annually. The elementary requirements for diagnosis of COPD are spirometric confirmation of post-bronchodilator airflow obstruction (post-BD FEV₁/VCmax <70%) and respiratory symptoms assessement (dyspnoea, exercise limitation, cough and/or sputum production. In order to establish definite COPD diagnosis, a five-step evaluation should be performed, including: 1/ inhalation risk assessment, 2/ symptoms evaluation, 3/ lung function tests, 4/ laboratory tests and 5/ imaging. At the same time, all alternative diagnoses should be excluded. For disease classification, this position paper uses both GOLD stages (1 to 4), GOLD groups (A to D) and evaluation of clinical phenotype(s). Prognosis assessment should be done in each patient. For this purpose, we recommend the use of the BODE or the CADOT index. Six elementary clinical phenotypes are recognized, including chronic bronchitis, frequent exacerbator, emphysematous, asthma/COPD overlap (ACO), bronchiectases with COPD overlap (BCO) and pulmonary cachexia. In our concept, all of these clinical phenotypes are also considered independent treatable traits. For each treatable trait, specific pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies are defined in this document. The coincidence of two or more clinical phenotypes (i.e., treatable traits) may occur in a single individual, giving the opportunity of fully individualized, phenotype-specific treatment. Treatment of COPD should reflect the complexity and heterogeneity of the disease and be tailored to individual patients. Major goals of COPD treatment are symptom reduction and decreased exacerbation risk. Treatment strategy is divided into five strata: risk elimination, basic treatment, phenotype-specific treatment, treatment of respiratory failure and palliative care, and treatment of comorbidities. Risk elimination includes interventions against tobacco smoking and environmental/occupational exposures. Basic treatment is based on bronchodilator therapy, pulmonary rehabilitation, vaccination, care for appropriate nutrition, inhalation training, education and psychosocial support. Adequate phenotype-specific treatment varies phenotype by phenotype, including more than ten different pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. If more than one clinical phenotype is present, treatment strategy should follow the expression of each phenotypic label separately. In such patients, multicomponental therapeutic regimens are needed, resulting in fully individualized care. In the future, stronger measures against smoking, improvements in occupational and environmental health, early diagnosis strategies, as well as biomarker identification for patients responsive to specific treatments are warranted. New classes of treatment (inhaled PDE3/4 inhibitors, single molecule dual bronchodilators, anti-inflammatory drugs, gene editing molecules or new bronchoscopic procedures) are expected to enter the clinical practice in a very few years.

Dual– Versus Mono–Bronchodilator Therapy in Moderate to Severe COPD: A Meta-analysis

Background:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines recommend both long-acting and dual bronchodilator therapy. It is unclear if there are differences in efficacy and safety.

Objective:

This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of dual therapy with long-acting β-agonist (LABA) + long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) compared with monotherapy with LAMA for COPD.

Methods:

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases from inception through March 2020 to identify English-language, prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared dual therapy with monotherapy in adult patients with COPD. Risk of bias was assessed using the Jadad score. Overall analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Treatment effect was determined with the random-effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel method and was reported as mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.

Results:

A total of 18 RCTs were included (n = 6086; median Jadad score 5/5) that compared LAMA + LABA with LAMA. There was a greater improvement in forced expiratory volume at 1 s (FEV1) with dual therapy compared with LAMA: MD = 0.08; 95% CI = [0.05, 0.11]. There was no difference in St George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) scores between groups: OR = −0.85; 95% CI = [−1.83, 0.13]. There were no differences in overall adverse events (OR = 1.00; 95% CI = 0.92, 1.09), serious adverse events (OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.86, 1.18), or cardiovascular events (OR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.58, 1.34).

Conclusion and Relevance:

Dual therapy improves FEV1 and is as safe as LAMA. Dual therapy does not improve SGRQ scores more than LAMA.

Efficiency of Nebulizing Furosemide in the Treatment of Chronic Pulmonary Obstructive Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the most common chronic illnesses in humans. Among both oral and intravenous diuretics, nebulizing furosemide (Lasix) is the most commonly used agent. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the therapeutic effects of nebulizing furosemide compared with placebo in the treatment of COPD using a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This review was performed based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol. The databases of Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus were independently searched by two researchers using MeSH keywords. Studies published between 2002 and 2018 in different parts of the world were considered. The meta-analysis was performed through STATA 14 software and the heterogeneity was assessed using Q statistic or I² index.

RESULTS

From 40 selected articles, 8 articles were finally included in the systematic review process. The analyses were performed considering two groups; nebulizing furosemide treatment (i.e. case) and placebo (i.e. control). Based on the forest plots, the average values of PaCO₂ were 48.3 (39.04-57.56) and 46.56 (39.94-53.18) in the case and control groups, respectively. Also, the mean forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) was 49 (31.32-66.67) and 46.87 (31.44-62.30) in the case and control groups, respectively. Meta-regression analysis showed that both heart and pulse rates in the nebulizing furosemide group decreased by increasing the year of study and sample size (P <0.001). The heterogeneity among the studies was found to be 72.2%, which is classified as severe heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

nebulizing furosemide can improve and normalize the vital signs and other respiratory variables in patients with COPD.

Impact of baseline COPD symptom severity on the benefit from dual versus mono-bronchodilators: an analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial

Rationale:

Symptom relief is a key treatment goal in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there are limited data available on the response to bronchodilator therapy in patients at low risk of exacerbations with different levels of symptom severity. This study compared treatment responses in patients with a range of symptom severities as indicated by baseline COPD assessment test (CAT) scores.

Methods:

The 24-week EMAX trial evaluated the benefits of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium or salmeterol in symptomatic patients at low exacerbation risk who were not receiving inhaled corticosteroids. This analysis assessed lung function, symptoms, health status, and short-term deterioration outcomes in subgroups defined by a baseline CAT score [<20 (post hoc) and ⩾20 (pre-specified)]. Outcomes were also assessed using post hoc fractional polynomial modelling with continuous transformations of baseline CAT score covariates.

Results:

Of the intent-to-treat population (n = 2425), 56% and 44% had baseline CAT scores of <20 and ⩾20, respectively. Umeclidinium/vilanterol demonstrated favourable improvements compared with umeclidinium and salmeterol for the majority of outcomes irrespective of the baseline CAT score, with the greatest improvements generally observed in patients with CAT scores <20. Fractional polynomial analyses revealed consistent improvements in lung function, symptoms and reduction in rescue medication use with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol across a range of CAT scores, with the largest benefits seen in patients with CAT scores of approximately 10–21.

Conclusions:

Patients with symptomatic COPD benefit similarly from dual bronchodilator treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol. Fractional polynomial analyses demonstrated the greatest treatment differences favouring dual therapy in patients with a CAT score <20, although benefits were seen up to scores of 30. This suggests that dual bronchodilation may be considered as initial therapy for patients across a broad range of symptom severities, not only those with severe symptoms (CAT ⩾20).

Trial registration: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT number).

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

Dual Bronchodilator in the Era of Triple Therapy

Pharmacological medications used for the treatment of COPD patients have increased significantly. Long-acting bronchodilators have been recognized as the mainstay of the treatment of stable COPD, while ICS are usually added in patients with COPD who experience exacerbations, despite bronchodilator treatment. In the latest years, several studies have been published showing the beneficial effect of adding ICS on dual bronchodilation in patients suffering from more severe disease comparing triple therapy with several therapeutic regiments including dual bronchodilation and providing a message that this triple therapy might be more appropriate for COPD patients. However, not all COPD patients have a desirable response to ICS treatment while long-term ICS use in COPD is associated with several side effects. In this report, we aimed to provide a review of the current knowledge on the importance of dual bronchodilation on COPD patients and to compare its use with triple therapy, by covering a wide spectrum of topics. Finally, we propose an algorithm on performing treatment step up from dual bronchodilation to triple therapy and step down from triple to double bronchodilation considering the current evidence.

A perspective for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management: six key clinical questions to improve disease treatment

INTRODUCTION

In 2011, the GOLD recommendations for the treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) introduced new clinical elements to classify the severity of the disease and to guide pharmacological choice. For the first time in the GOLD documents, treatment decision was no longer guided only by pulmonary function, but by a more complex combination of pulmonary function and clinical aspects. The recent versions of the GOLD recommendations introduce new aspects for the clinicians and pose new question for the management of the disease. In addition, inflammatory biomarkers and blood eosinophil levels, have been considered to guide treatment selection.

AREA COVERED

The evolution of disease management proposed by the GOLD document opens several areas of debate. A series of roundtable discussions among respiratory physicians took place in Italy to address key clinical questions. Particularly, the role of lung function and the use of biomarkers, the adherence to international guidelines and the possibility to personalize the pharmacological approach in COPD patients have been discussed, summarized and analyzed.

EXPERT OPINION

The authors believe that the development of a precision medicine approach tailoring the specific treatment for each patient is the goal of COPD management and may be achieved by considering the phenotypic classification of COPD patients.

First-Line Treatment with Tiotropium/Olodaterol Improves Physical Activity in Patients with Treatment-Naïve Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background

Comparative effects on physical activity of mono and dual bronchodilators remain unclear in patients with treatment-naïve chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We sought to compare the changes in physical activity before and after tiotropium and tiotropium/olodaterol treatment in treatment-naïve COPD patients.

Methods

A prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-labeled, and parallel interventional study was conducted. Eighty Japanese patients with treatment-naïve COPD were randomized to receive either tiotropium or tiotropium/olodaterol treatment for 12 weeks. Spirometry and dyspnea index were assessed, and COPD assessment test (CAT) and the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) were conducted before and after treatment. Evaluation of physical activity was assessed by a triaxle accelerometer over a 2-week period before and after treatment.

Results

There were no differences in the mean age (69.8 vs 70.4 years), body mass index (BMI) (22.5 vs 22.6 kg/m²) and mean % forced expiratory volume in 1 second (%FEV1) at baseline (61.5 vs 62.6%) between the two groups. Changes in FEV1 (mean±standard error, 242.8±28.8 mL) and transient dyspnea index (TDI) (2.4±0.3 points) before and after tiotropium/olodaterol treatment were greater than with tiotropium treatment (104.1±31.9 mL, p<0.01 and 1.5±0.3, p=0.02, respectively). Changes in the duration of physical activity with 1.0–1.5 metabolic equivalents (METs) estimated in the sedentary position following tiotropium/olodaterol treatment (−38.7±14.7 min) tended to be reduced more than with tiotropium treatment (−4.6±10.6 min) (p=0.06), although those with ≥2.0 METs numerically increased with both treatments (+10.8±7.6 min for tiotropium/olodaterol vs +8.3±7.6 min for tiotropium, p=0.82). Tiotropium/olodaterol treatment reduced the duration of physical activity with 1.0–1.5 METs (regression coefficient, −43.6 [95% CI −84.1, −3.1], p=0.04) in a multiple regression model adjusted for cofounding factors such as age, FEV1, total CAT scores, 6MWD, and TDI.

Conclusion

This is the first study to report the impact of dual bronchodilator on physical activity in treatment-naïve COPD patients of Japanese with low BMI.

COPD Maintenance Therapy with Tiotropium/Olodaterol Compared with Tiotropium: An Analysis in the Absence of Additional ICS Therapy

The American Thoracic Society guidelines recommend long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) dual bronchodilation over LAMA or LABA monotherapy as maintenance therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease suffering from dyspnea or exercise intolerance. Previous studies, which included patients receiving background inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), have shown the benefits of dual bronchodilation over monotherapy. This analysis aimed to confirm the benefits of LAMA/LABA over LAMA alone, without any confounding effects from ICS use. This pooled post hoc analysis compared the efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol with tiotropium alone in patients from the TONADO^® and OTEMTO^® clinical trials who were not receiving ICS at study entry or during the studies. We analyzed change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) score in all patients, by Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stage, baseline SGRQ score, and Baseline Dyspnea Index score. In this analysis of 1596 patients, tiotropium/olodaterol improved trough FEV₁, SGRQ and TDI compared with tiotropium alone. The observed mean differences were: trough FEV₁, 0.054 L (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.036, 0.073; p < 0.001); SGRQ, -1.918 (95% CI -2.994, -0.843; p < 0.001); and TDI, 0.575 (95% CI 0.301, 0.848; p < 0.001). Similar improvements were seen in each of the subgroup analyses. Tiotropium/olodaterol therapy significantly improved lung function, symptoms and health status compared with tiotropium alone. In a population free from ICS treatment, these data confirm the benefits of dual bronchodilation versus monotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler delivered using co-suspension delivery technology in Japanese patients with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

PINNACLE-4 evaluated the efficacy and safety of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β₂-agonist fixed-dose combination glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI) in patients from Asia, Europe, and the USA with moderate-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This pre-specified analysis included Japanese patients in PINNACLE-4.

METHODS

In this double-blind randomized study (NCT02343458), patients received GFF MDI (18/9.6 μg), glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI (18 μg), formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI (9.6 μg), or placebo MDI twice daily for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) over Weeks 12-24. Secondary lung function endpoints, patient-reported outcomes, and safety were assessed. The Japanese subpopulation (n = 150) analyses were exploratory.

RESULTS

GFF MDI improved change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ over Weeks 12-24 versus GP MDI, FF MDI, and placebo MDI (least squares mean [LSM] differences [95% confidence interval]: 69 [8-131], 60 [-1 to 121], and 275 [180-370] mL, respectively). GFF MDI numerically improved Transition Dyspnea Index focal score and change from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score versus placebo MDI (LSM differences 0.19 and -3.78, respectively). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in ≤4.5% of patients in any treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

GFF MDI improved lung function versus monocomponents and placebo MDI in the Japan subpopulation of PINNACLE-4. The efficacy and safety results were generally consistent with those of the global study population, supporting the use of GFF MDI in Japanese patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Navafenterol (AZD8871) in patients with COPD: a randomized, double-blind, phase I study evaluating safety and pharmacodynamics of single doses of this novel, inhaled, long-acting, dual-pharmacology bronchodilator

BACKGROUND

Navafenterol (AZD8871) is a dual-pharmacology muscarinic antagonist β_2-agonist (MABA) molecule in development for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The pharmacodynamics, safety and tolerability of single doses of navafenterol were investigated in patients with moderate to severe COPD.

METHODS

This was a randomized, five-way complete cross-over study. Patients received single doses of navafenterol 400 μg, navafenterol 1800 μg and placebo (all double-blind) and indacaterol 150 μg and tiotropium 18 μg (both open-label active comparators). The primary pharmacodynamic endpoint was change from baseline in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) on day 2. Safety and tolerability were monitored throughout.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients were randomized and 28 (73.7%) completed the study. Navafenterol 400 μg and 1800 μg demonstrated statistically significant improvements vs placebo in change from baseline in trough FEV₁ (least squares mean [95% confidence interval]: 0.111 [0.059, 0.163] L and 0.210 [0.156, 0.264] L, respectively, both P < .0001). The changes were significantly greater with navafenterol 1800 μg vs the active comparators (least squares mean treatment difference: 0.065-0.069 L, both P < .05). The frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for placebo and the active comparators (range 34.4-37.5%), slightly higher for navafenterol 400 μg (52.9%), and lowest for navafenterol 1800 μg (22.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Both doses of navafenterol demonstrated sustained bronchodilation over 24 h. Navafenterol was well tolerated and no safety concerns were raised.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov ; No.: NCT02573155 ; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov . Registered 9th October, 2015.

Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Background: This document provides clinical recommendations for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It represents a collaborative effort on the part of a panel of expert COPD clinicians and researchers along with a team of methodologists under the guidance of the American Thoracic Society.

Methods: Comprehensive evidence syntheses were performed on all relevant studies that addressed the clinical questions and critical patient-centered outcomes agreed upon by the panel of experts. The evidence was appraised, rated, and graded, and recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

Results: After weighing the quality of evidence and balancing the desirable and undesirable effects, the guideline panel made the following recommendations: 1) a strong recommendation for the use of long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) combination therapy over LABA or LAMA monotherapy in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance; 2) a conditional recommendation for the use of triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/LABA/LAMA over dual therapy with LABA/LAMA in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance who have experienced one or more exacerbations in the past year; 3) a conditional recommendation for ICS withdrawal for patients with COPD receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) if the patient has had no exacerbations in the past year; 4) no recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to long-acting bronchodilators in patients with COPD and blood eosinophilia, except for those patients with a history of one or more exacerbations in the past year requiring antibiotics or oral steroids or hospitalization, for whom ICS is conditionally recommended as an additive therapy; 5) a conditional recommendation against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroids in patients with COPD and a history of severe and frequent exacerbations; and 6) a conditional recommendation for opioid-based therapy in patients with COPD who experience advanced refractory dyspnea despite otherwise optimal therapy.

Conclusions: The task force made recommendations regarding the pharmacologic treatment of COPD based on currently available evidence. Additional research in populations that are underrepresented in clinical trials is needed, including studies in patients with COPD 80 years of age and older, those with multiple chronic health conditions, and those with a codiagnosis of COPD and asthma.

Fixed-dose combination of three drugs, i.e. LABA/LAMA/ICS for COPD: Results of a real-world study from India

BACKGROUND

The use of triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting beta-agonist and long-acting antimuscarinics has been shown to be beneficial in COPD patients who continue to have symptoms and exacerbations, despite receiving dual bronchodilator combinations. This study assessed the real-world effectiveness and safety of once-daily, fixed-dose combination of Tiotropium/Formoterol/Ciclesonide (TFC) (18 mcg/12 mcg/400 mcg) via dry powder inhaler (DPI) or metered dose inhaler (MDI) in patients with COPD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this 24-week, open-label, prospective, non-comparative, multicentre, real-world study, COPD patients requiring triple therapy as judged by their physician, were enrolled. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline in pre-dose Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at week 24. Pre and post-dose (30 min) FEV₁, Forced Vital capacity (FVC), COPD Assessment Test (CAT), modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) score and safety were also evaluated. A post-hoc analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of the triple drug combination among smoker and non-smoker COPD patients.

RESULTS

Out of the 297 patients enrolled [mean age 61 ± 10 years; 84.8% males; 55.2% smokers and post-dose FEV₁ (% predicted) 39 ± 16%], 253 completed the study. Mean change in pre-dose FEV₁ from baseline to week 24 increased significantly after administering the triple drug combination [580 ± 600 mL, 95% CI (510, 650 mL), p < 0.0001]. The increase in the pre-dose FEV₁ was significant at all time points (p < 0.0001). Similar improvements were seen in pre-dose FVC, post-dose FEV₁ and post-dose FVC across all time points. CAT scores and the proportion of patients with improved mMRC score improved at all visits. The post-hoc analysis showed that TFC significantly increased pre-dose FEV₁ both among smokers [mean change 200 ± 430 mL, 95% CI (130, 270 mL), p < 0.0001] as well as non-smokers [990 ± 470 mL, 95% CI (900, 1070 mL), p < 0.0001] at week 24. This difference was significant from week 12 onwards. Mean change in pre and post-dose FEV₁ and FVC was significant across all visits between the two groups. At week 24, CAT score reduced significantly from baseline (overall: -6.6 ± 6.07; smokers: -5.17 + 6.96; non-smokers: 8.06 ± 4.44; all p < 0.0001). The mean difference between the two groups was 2.88 (p < 0.0001) at week 24. TFC was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

In this real world, multicentre study in India, TFC significantly improved lung function, symptoms and quality of life among all patients with COPD, but the effect was more pronounced among non-smoker COPD patients.

Stable Clinical Course of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients in the Era of Double Bronchodilator Therapy: A Single Referral Center Experience

Despite clinical benefits of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) double bronchodilator therapy, there has been limited evidence for treatment change from LAMA/LABA to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing therapy. This study aimed to assess the rate of ICS-containing therapy from LAMA/LABA and investigate the factors associated with ICS addition. Between October 2015 and March 2019, consecutive patients prescribed with a LAMA/LABA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) therapy without ICS were retrospectively identified from a single-referral hospital. The primary outcome was addition of ICS. During LAMA/LABA FDCs therapy (median, 12.4 months), 47 (17.7%) out of 266 patients had ICS addition. Most patients maintained bronchodilators without addition of ICS at 12 (86.5%) or 24 (76.8%) months. Patients with dyspnea (mMRC ≥ 2) at baseline, previous ICS use, and exacerbation in the previous year were at a higher risk of ICS addition. Especially, exacerbation in the previous year and dyspnea were associated with the development of frequent exacerbations during LAMA/LABA FDCs therapy, which might have led to ICS addition. Double bronchodilator therapy could be well-maintained in stable COPD patients. However, patients with exacerbation in the previous year, dyspnea, and previous ICS use should be closely approached and monitored with initiation of LAMA/LABA FDCs therapy without ICS.

Early Clinically Important Improvement (ECII) and Exacerbation Outcomes in COPD Patients

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are difficult outcomes to measure in clinical trials. It would be valuable to be able to predict which patients are likely to benefit in terms of exacerbation prevention based on their early response in lung function and symptoms.

Methods

This was a post-hoc analysis from the 52-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority FLAME trial. Early clinically important improvement (ECII) was defined as achievement of minimal clinically important difference in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1; ≥100 mL increase) and one patient-reported outcome (PRO): either St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (≥4-unit reduction; D1), or COPD assessment test (≥2-point reduction; D2) at Week 4 or 12.

Results

Approximately 18-20% of patients achieved ECII at Week 4 or 12 post-randomization according to any of the two definitions. The rate of subsequent exacerbations was lower in patients who achieved ECII at Week 4 (D1: ratio of rates [95% CI], 0.85 [0.74 to 0.98]; D2, 0.88 [0.77 to 1.00]) or at Week 12 (D1, 0.85 [0.74 to 0.98]; D2, 0.86 [0.75 to 1.00]) versus patients not achieving ECII. Patients who achieved ECII experienced longer time-to-first exacerbation between Week 4 or 12 to end of study. More patients achieved ECII with indacaterol/glycopyrronium versus salmeterol/fluticasone according to both definitions at Week 4 (D1, odds ratio [95% CI], 1.69 [1.40 to 2.04]; D2, 1.61 [1.34 to 1.93]), and 12 (D1, 2.01 [1.66 to 2.44]; D2, 1.80 [1.48 to 2.18]).

Conclusion

ECII is a novel composite endpoint, based on clinically relevant improvement in lung function and PROs in the early phase of treatment intervention that may predict subsequent exacerbation risk and may be used in clinical trials.

Relieving exertional dyspnea during the 3-min constant speed shuttle test in patients with COPD with indacaterol/glycopyrronium versus tiotropium: the RED trial

Background:

Exertional dyspnea is a cardinal feature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a major cause of activity limitation. Although dual bronchodilation is more effective than bronchodilator monotherapy at improving resting pulmonary function, it is unclear to which extent this translates into superior relief of exertional dyspnea.

Methods:

We conducted a randomized controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial comparing indacaterol 110 µg/glycopyrronium 50 µg once daily (OD) with tiotropium 50 µg OD in patients with moderate to severe COPD and resting hyperinflation (functional residual capacity >120% of predicted value). The primary outcome was Borg dyspnea score at the end of a 3-min constant speed shuttle test after 3 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included changes in Borg dyspnea score after the first dose of study medication, expiratory flows and lung volumes. Statistical analysis was conducted using a cross-over analysis of variance model with repeated measurements.

Results:

A total of 50 patients with COPD and a mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s of 54 ± 11% (mean ± SEM) predicted participated in the cross-over phase of the trial. Compared with baseline, there was a decrease in dyspnea after the first dose of medication with indacaterol/glycopyrronium [mean −1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.49 to −0.52] but not with tiotropium alone (mean −0.36, 95% CI −0.81 to 0.08). The reduction in dyspnea after the first dose was statistically significant between the two treatments (mean difference of −0.64, 95% CI −1.11 to −0.17). Despite indacaterol/glycopyrronium providing further bronchodilation and lung deflation throughout the trial, the reduction in dyspnea was not sustained at 3 weeks of treatment (mean between-treatment difference at 3 weeks of 0.09, 95% CI −0.44 to 0.61).

Conclusion:

In comparison with bronchodilator monotherapy, indacaterol/glycopyrronium provided greater immediate exertional dyspnea relief, although this difference was not sustained after 3 weeks of therapy despite evidence of further bronchodilation and lung deflation.

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

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

Background:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

Long-acting dual bronchodilator therapy (indacaterol/glycopyrronium) versus nebulized short-acting dual bronchodilator (salbutamol/ipratropium) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Most guidelines recommend long-acting bronchodilators over short-acting bronchodilators for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The available evidence for the guidelines was based on dry powder or pressurized metered dose inhalers, but not nebulizations. Nevertheless, there is considerable, poorly evidenced based, use of short acting nebulized bronchodilators.

METHODS

This was an investigator initiated, randomized, active controlled, cross-over, double-blind and double-dummy single centre study in patients with stable COPD. The active comparators were indacaterol/glycopyrronium 110/50 μg as Ultibro® via Breezhaler® (IND/GLY) and salbutamol/ipratropium 2,5/0,5 mg via air driven nebulization (SAL/IPR), both given as a single dose on separate days. The primary end point was the area under the FEV₁ curve from baseline till 6 h. Secondary end points included change in Borg dyspnoea score, adverse events and change in hyperinflation measured by the inspiratory capacity.

RESULTS

A total of 33 COPD patients completed the trial and were evaluable, most of them were ex-smokers. The difference between the tested regimens for the primary endpoint, FEV₁ AUC 0-6 h, 2965 ± 1544 mL (mean ± SD) for IND/GLY versus 3513 ± 1762 mL for SAL/IPR, was not significant (P = 0.08). The peak in FEV1 was higher and was reached faster with SAL/IPR compared to IND/GLY. No other significant differences were detected for the secondary endpoints including the Borg score, or adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with stable COPD, dry powder long-acting single inhalation of a LABA and a LAMA (IND/GLY) was not superior compared to nebulized short-acting salbutamol plus ipratropium (SAL/IPR) in its bronchodilating effects over 6 h.The effects of the nebulization kicked in faster and peaked higher. The observed differences may be caused by the difference in dosing between the two regimens. The improvement in Borg dyspnoea score did not favour the nebulization. Long-term outcomes were not assessed in this study.

Correlation of Inhaled Long-Acting Bronchodilators With Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Stable COPD: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

A majority of existing studies have focused on the efficacy of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators (ILABs), such as long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs), and LABAs combined with LAMAs in treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The current meta-analysis aimed to investigate the correlation of ILABs with specific cardiovascular adverse events (CAEs). Five electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically retrieved. Finally, 16 randomized controlled trials were enrolled into the current meta-analysis. Typically, the efficacy of 3 major classes of drugs (LABAs, LAMAs, and LABAs combined with LAMAs), and 7 specific drugs (including formoterol, glycopyrrolate, indacaterol, olodaterol, Salmeterol, tiotropium, and vilanterol) for 4 CAEs, including myocardial infarction, cardiac failure (CF), ischemic heart disease (IHD), and stroke in stable COPD patients, was examined. All the pooled results were analyzed through the odds ratios (ORs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The direct meta-analysis results suggested that LABAs could increase the risk of CF in patients with stable COPD compared with placebo controls (OR 1.70, 95% CI, 1.00-2.90). In addition, network meta-analysis results indicated that LAMAs combined with LABAs would result in an increased risk of CF in patients with stable COPD (OR 2.31, 95% CI, 1.10-5.09). According to the ILABs specific drug analysis, formoterol may potentially have protective effects on IHD compared with placebo controls (OR 0.45, 95% CI, 0.18-1.00). In conclusion, among these 3 kinds of ILABs, including LAMAs, LABAs, and LABAs/LAMAs, for stable COPD patients, LAMAs and LABAs are associated with the least possibility to induce myocardial infarction and stroke, respectively. However, the application of LABAs will probably increase the risk of CF; they should be used with caution for stable COPD patients with CF. In addition, in specific-drug analysis, the use of formoterol can reduce the risk of treatment-related IHD. Nevertheless, more studies on different drug doses are needed in the future to further validate this conclusion.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of LABA/LAMA Fixed-Dose Combinations Aclidinium/Formoterol, Glycopyrronium/Indacaterol and Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in the Treatment of COPD in Daily Practice - Results of the Non-Interventional DETECT Study

Background

LABA (long-acting β2-agonists) and/or LAMA (long-acting muscarinic antagonists) represent the first treatment options for patients with symptomatic COPD. Although both display different mechanisms of activity, in combination they have a stronger broncho-dilating effect than monotherapy; hence, a combination of both LABA and LAMA is particularly recommended for patients whose symptoms cannot be sufficiently improved by a single active ingredient. To date, only few data have been collected regarding the therapeutic outcomes of approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) under everyday (real-life) conditions in non-clinical trial settings.

Objective and Methods

The main objective of the DETECT study was to investigate the impact of aclidinium/formoterol (AB/FF, b.i.d.), glycopyrronium/indacaterol (GLY/IND, q.d.) and umeclidinium/vilanterol (UME/VL, q.d.) in patients with COPD in daily clinical practice. Therefore, a prospective, non-randomized, 12-month, observational study was implemented to assess the effectiveness of these treatments in patients who had been switched to FDC within the last 3 months or for whom such a changeover was intended. Changes in lung function were analyzed by the forced expiratory volume (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) measures. Quality of life and well-being were evaluated by the COPD Assessment Test (CAT™). Furthermore, a number of exacerbations and early morning COPD symptoms were documented.

Results

In total, 3653 patients were enrolled. FEV1 and FVC values significantly improved during the study with AB/FF (increase by 0.09 ± 0.40 L and 0.10 ± 0.57 L, respectively; p<0.0001), GLY/IND (0.06±0.38/0.05±0.51 L; p<0.0001 and p=0.0025) and UME/VL (0.12±0.39/0.10±0.52 L; p<0.0001). CAT scores decreased indicating improved COPD (AB/FF, 4.17±8.30; GLY/IND, 3.66±7.88; UME/VL, 4.06±7.96; p<0.0001). Moreover, the number of exacerbations as well as early morning COPD symptoms similarly diminished in all treatment groups. A comparable proportion of patients with adverse drug reactions was recorded: AB/FF, 4.07% of patients; GLY/IND, 3.52%; UME/VL, 3.64%.

Conclusion

In summary, AB/FF, GLY/IND and UME/VL provided clinical benefits in lung function, quality of life and early morning COPD symptoms in a broad cohort of COPD patients under routine medical practice conditions. All three treatments were well tolerated.

Day and Night Control of COPD and Role of Pharmacotherapy: A Review

The topic of 24-hour management of COPD is related to day-to-night symptoms management, specific follow-up and patients’ adherence to therapy. COPD symptoms strongly vary during day and night, being worse in the night and early morning. This variability is not always adequately considered in the trials. Night-time symptoms are predictive of higher mortality and more frequent exacerbations; therefore, they should be a target of therapy. During night-time, in COPD patients the supine position is responsible for a different thoracic physiology; moreover, during some sleep phases the vagal stimulation determines increased bronchial secretions, increased blood flow in the bronchial circulation (enhancing inflammation) and increased airway resistance (broncho-motor tone). Moreover, in COPD patients the circadian rhythm may be impaired. The role of pharmacotherapy in this regard is still poorly investigated. Symptoms can be grossly differentiated according to the different phenotypes of the disease: wheezing recalls asthma, while dyspnea is strongly related to emphysema (dynamic hyperinflation) or obstructive bronchiolitis (secretions). Those symptoms may be different targets of therapy. In this regard, GOLD recommendations for the first time introduced the concept of phenotype distinction suggesting the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) particularly when an asthmatic pattern or eosiophilic inflammations are present, and hypothesized different approaches to target symptoms (ie, dyspnea) or exacerbations. Pharmacotherapy should be evaluated and possibly directed on the basis of circadian variations, for instance, supporting the use of twice-daily rapid-action bronchodilators and evening dose of ICS. Recommendations on day and night symptoms monitoring strategies and choice of the specific drug according to patient’s profile are still not systematically investigated or established. This review is the summary of an advisory board on the topic “24-hour control of COPD and role of pharmacotherapy”, held by five pulmonologists, experts in respiratory pathophysiology, pharmacology and sleep medicine.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/RlA6NHUbnFY

Benefits of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI) in improving lung function and reducing exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD: a pooled analysis of the PINNACLE studies

Background

The Phase III PINNACLE studies assessed the efficacy and safety of glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate metered dose inhaler (GFF MDI), a dual long-acting bronchodilator for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here we present a pre-specified pooled analysis of PINNACLE-1, PINNACLE-2, and PINNACLE-4.

Methods

PINNACLE-1, -2, and -4 were multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trials that enrolled patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, with no requirement for exacerbation history or a high symptom burden. Patients received GFF MDI 18/9.6 μg, glycopyrrolate (GP) MDI 18 μg, formoterol fumarate (FF) MDI 9.6 μg, or placebo MDI, twice-daily for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint of the pooled analysis was the change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at week 24. Secondary endpoints included COPD exacerbations and clinically important deterioration (CID). Adverse events were also assessed.

Results

The pooled intent-to-treat population included 4983 patients; of these, 61.9% had a COPD assessment test (CAT) score ≥15, and 25.0% had experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the past year. At week 24, GFF MDI improved morning pre-dose trough FEV₁ versus GP MDI (least squares mean [LSM] difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 59 mL [43, 75]), FF MDI (65 mL [48, 81]), and placebo MDI (146 mL [125, 166]); all p < 0.0001. GFF MDI reduced the risk of a moderate/severe exacerbation by 18% (p = 0.0168), 15% (p = 0.0628), and 28% (p = 0.0012) compared with GP MDI, FF MDI, and placebo MDI, respectively. In general, exacerbation risk reduction with GFF MDI versus comparators was greater in subgroups of symptomatic patients (CAT ≥15) and those who had an exacerbation history, than in the pooled intent-to-treat population. The risk of CID was also lower with GFF MDI versus GP MDI (23% decrease), FF MDI (17%), and placebo MDI (49%); all p < 0.0001. All treatments were well tolerated, with no unexpected safety signals.

Conclusions

This pooled analysis of the PINNACLE studies demonstrated that GFF MDI improved lung function and reduced the risk of exacerbations compared with monocomponents and placebo in patients with COPD. Exacerbation reductions with GFF MDI versus comparators were generally greater in patients with higher symptom burden and those with exacerbation history.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01854645, NCT01854658, and NCT02343458. Registered 13 May 2013 (NCT01854645, NCT01854658) and 6 January 2015 (NCT02343458).

Treatment with LABA versus LAMA for stable COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Inhaled bronchodilators including long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) play a central role in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it is still unclear whether LABA or LAMA should be used for the initial treatment. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LABA versus LAMA in patients with stable COPD.

Methods

We searched relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) with a period of treatment of at least 12 weeks and analyzed the exacerbations, quality of life, dyspnea score, lung function and adverse events as the outcomes of interest.

Results

We carefully excluded unblinded data and identified a total of 19 RCTs (N = 28,211). LAMA significantly decreased the exacerbations compared to LABA (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.98; P = 0.02). In St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and transitional dyspnoea index score, there were no differences between LABA and LAMA treatment. Compared to LABA, there was a small but significant increase in the trough FEV₁ after LAMA treatment (Mean difference 0.02, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.0006). In the safety components, there was no difference in the serious adverse events between LABA and LAMA. However, LAMA showed a significantly lower incidence of total adverse events compared to LABA (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.98; P = 0.02).

Conclusion

Treatment with LAMA in stable COPD provided a significantly lower incidence of exacerbation and non-serious adverse events, and a higher trough FEV₁ compared to LABA.

Trial registration

(PROSPERO: CRD42019144764)