Effectiveness versus efficacy trials in COPD: how study design influences outcomes and applicability

Eligibility of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for inclusion in randomised control trials investigating triple therapy: a study using routinely collected data

BACKGROUND

Randomised control trials (RCTs) with strict eligibility criteria can lead to trial populations not commonly seen in clinical practice. We described the proportion of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in England eligible for RCTs investigating treatment with triple therapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for RCTs investigating triple therapy and eligibility criteria for each trial were extracted. Using routinely collected primary care data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum linked with Hospital Episode Statistics, we defined a population of COPD patients registered at a general practice in England, who were ≥ 40 years old, and had a history of smoking. Inclusion date was January 1, 2020. Patients who died earlier or left the general practice were excluded. Eligibility criteria for each RCT was applied to the population of COPD patients and the proportion of patients meeting each trial eligibility criteria were described.

RESULTS

26 RCTs investigating triple therapy were identified from the literature. The most common eligibility criteria were post-bronchodilator FEV1% predicted 30-80%, ≥ 2 moderate/≥ 1 severe exacerbations 12-months prior, no moderate exacerbations one-month prior and no severe exacerbations three-months prior, and the use of maintenance therapy or ICS use prior to inclusion. After applying each RCT eligibility criteria to our population of 79,810 COPD patients, a median of 11.2% [interquartile range (IQR) 1.8-17.4] of patients met eligibility criteria. The most discriminatory criteria included the presence exacerbations of COPD and previous COPD related medication use with a median of 67.6% (IQR 8.5-73.4) and 63% (IQR 69.3-38.4) of COPD patients not meeting these criteria, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Data from these RCTs may not be generalisable to the wider population of people with COPD seen in everyday clinical practice and real-world evidence studies are needed to supplement trials to understand effectiveness in all people with COPD.

Inhaled corticosteroids and adverse outcomes among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a population-based cohort study

INTRODUCTION

While inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may increase pneumonia risk in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the impact of ICS on pneumonia outcomes is debated. We examined whether ICS use is associated with adverse outcomes among COPD patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Population-based cohort study of all COPD patients with an incident hospitalization for CAP between 1997 and 2013 in Northern Denmark. Information on medications, COPD severity, comorbidities, complications, and death was obtained from medical databases. Adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) for pleuropulmonary complications, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and 30-day mortality in current and former ICS users were compared with those in non-users, using regression analyzes to handle confounding.

RESULTS

Of 11,368 COPD patients with CAP, 6,073 (53.4%) were current ICS users and 1,733 (15.2%) were former users. Current users had a non-significantly decreased risk of pleuropulmonary complications [2.6%; aRR = 0.82 (0.59-1.12)] compared to non-users (3.2%). This was also observed among former users [2.5%; aRR = 0.77 (0.53-1.12)]. Similarly, decreased risks of ICU admission were observed among current users [aRR = 0.77 (0.57-1.04)] and among former users [aRR = 0.81 (0.58-1.13)]. Current ICS users had significantly decreased 30-day mortality [9.1%; aRR = 0.72 (0.62-0.85)] compared to non-users (12.6%), with a stronger association observed among patients with frequent exacerbations [0.58 (0.39-0.86)]. No significant association was observed among former ICS users [0.89 (0.75-1.05)].

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest a decreased risk of death with ICS use among COPD patients admitted for CAP.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations and Pneumonia Hospitalizations Among New Users of Combination Maintenance Inhalers

Importance

Clinical guidelines on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) recommend inhalers containing long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β-agonists (LABAs) over inhalers containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and LABAs. However, data from randomized clinical trials comparing these combination inhalers (LAMA-LABAs vs ICS-LABAs) have been conflicting and raised concerns of generalizability.

Objective

To assess whether LAMA-LABA therapy is associated with reduced COPD exacerbations and pneumonia hospitalizations compared with ICS-LABA therapy in routine clinical practice.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort study using Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart, a large commercial insurance-claims database. Patients must have had a diagnosis of COPD and filled a new prescription for a combination LAMA-LABA or ICS-LABA inhaler between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019. Patients younger than 40 years were excluded, as were those with a prior diagnosis of asthma. The current analysis was performed from February 2021 to March 2023.

Exposures

Combination LAMA-LABA inhalers (aclidinium-formoterol, glycopyrronium-formoterol, glycopyrronium-indacaterol, tiotropium-olodaterol, or umeclidinium-vilanterol) and combination ICS-LABA inhalers (budesonide-formoterol, fluticasone-salmeterol, fluticasone-vilanterol, or mometasone-formoterol).

Main Outcome

The primary effectiveness outcome was first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation, and the primary safety outcome was first pneumonia hospitalization. Propensity score matching was used to control for confounding between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate propensity scores. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models stratified on matched pairs.

Results

Among 137 833 patients (mean [SD] age, 70.2 [9.9] years; 69 530 [50.4%] female) (107 004 new ICS-LABA users and 30 829 new LAMA-LABA users), 30 216 matched pairs were identified for the primary analysis. Compared with ICS-LABA use, LAMA-LABA use was associated with an 8% reduction in the rate of first moderate or severe COPD exacerbation (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.96) and a 20% reduction in the rate of first pneumonia hospitalization (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.86). These findings were robust across a range of prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

In this cohort study, LAMA-LABA therapy was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with ICS-LABA therapy, suggesting that LAMA-LABA therapy should be preferred for patients with COPD.

Prognosis of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Not Eligible for Major Clinical Trials

Rationale: Randomized controlled trials only include a subset of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) fulfilling strict inclusion criteria. Thus, most patients with COPD in a real-world setting do not have the necessary evidence to support treatment effectiveness. Objectives: To test the hypotheses that most individuals with COPD in the general population are not represented in major clinical trials despite clinically significant disease with exacerbations and early death. Methods: In 105,630 adults from a Danish contemporary population-based cohort, we defined COPD as age 40 or more years, chronic respiratory symptoms, history of smoking exposure, and airflow limitation with FEV₁/FVC < 0.70. Outcomes included acute exacerbations and all-cause mortality. Symptomatic smokers without COPD were used as a reference group. Measurements and Main Results: Of all, 7,516 (7%) and 16,079 (15%) were symptomatic smokers with and without COPD. Only 44% of those with COPD were eligible for major clinical trials when applying FEV₁ < 80% predicted, smoking history of 10 or more pack-years, and no comorbid asthma as common inclusion criteria. During the median 8.9 years of follow-up, we observed 2,130 acute exacerbations and 3,973 deaths in symptomatic smokers. Compared with symptomatic smokers without COPD, multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios for exacerbations were 7.45 (95% confidence interval, 5.41-10.3) and 29.0 (21.1-39.8) in those with COPD, respectively, excluded and eligible for clinical trials. Corresponding hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were 1.21 (1.11-1.31) and 1.67 (1.54-1.81), respectively. Conclusions: More than half of individuals with COPD in the general population are excluded from major clinical trials; however, these individuals have a clinically significant disease with exacerbations and early death compared with symptomatic smokers without COPD.

International Differences in the Frequency of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations Reported in Three Clinical Trials

Rationale: Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are an important endpoint in multinational clinical treatment trials, but the observed event rate is often lower than anticipated and appears to vary between countries. Objectives: We investigated whether systematic differences in national exacerbation rates might explain this observed variation. Methods: We reviewed data from three large multicenter international randomized trials conducted over an 18-year period with different designs and clinical severities of COPD, comparing bronchodilator and/or inhaled corticosteroids with bronchodilators alone and/or placebo. Exacerbations were defined by antibiotic and/or oral corticosteroid use (moderate) or need for hospitalization (severe). We calculated crude exacerbation rates in the 30 countries contributing 30 or more patients to at least two trials. We grouped data by exacerbation rate based on their first study contribution. Measurements and Main Results: For the 29,756 patients in 41 countries analyzed, the mean exacerbation rate was two- to threefold different between the highest and lowest tertiles of the recruiting nations. These differences were not explained by demographic features, study protocol, or reported exacerbation history at enrollment. Of the 18 countries contributing to all trials, half of those in the highest and half in the lowest tertiles of exacerbation history remained in these groups across trials. Severe exacerbations showed a different rank order internationally. Conclusions: Countries contributing to COPD trials differ consistently in their reporting of healthcare-defined exacerbations. These differences help explain why large studies have been needed to show differences between treatments that decrease exacerbation risk.

Development of methodology for assessing steroid-tapering in clinical trials for biologics in asthma

Background

Long-term use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) is associated with a risk of adverse events and comorbidities. As such, a goal in assessing the efficacy of biologics in severe asthma is often to monitor reduction in OCS usage. Importantly, however, OCS dose reductions must be conducted without loss of disease control.

Main body

Herein, we describe the development of OCS-sparing study methodologies for biologic therapies in patients with asthma. In particular, we focus on four randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies of varying sizes (key single-center study [n = 20], SIRIUS [n = 135], ZONDA [n = 220], VENTURE [n = 210]) and one open-label study (PONENTE [n = 598]), which assessed the effect of asthma biologics (mepolizumab, benralizumab or dupilumab) on OCS use using predefined OCS-tapering schedules. In particular, we discuss the evolution of study design elements in these studies, including patient eligibility criteria, the use of tailored OCS dose reduction schedules, monitoring of outcomes, the use of biomarkers and use of repetitive assessments of adrenal function during OCS tapering.

Conclusion

Taken together, these developments have improved OCS-sparing asthma studies in recent years and the lessons learned may help with optimization of further OCS-sparing studies, and potentially clinical practice in the future.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12931-022-01959-1.

Exacerbation history, severity of dyspnoea and maintenance treatment predicts risk of future exacerbations in patients with COPD in the general population

BACKGROUND

Whether risk of exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is influenced by severity of symptoms and maintenance treatment is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that in addition to history of exacerbations of COPD, the severity of dyspnoea and use of maintenance medications are associated with risk of future exacerbations.

METHODS

We included 96,462 adults from the Copenhagen General Population Study and assessed risk of moderate and severe exacerbations from 2003 to 2013 according to exacerbation history, dyspnoea score (mMRC), and presence/absence of maintenance treatment with inhaled long-acting bronchodilators and/or inhaled corticosteroids.

FINDINGS

Among 13,380 individuals with COPD, we observed 1543 moderate and 348 severe exacerbations. In treatment naïve individuals and in those on maintenance treatment, history of previous exacerbations and to a smaller degree also dyspnoea were associated with a higher risk of future exacerbations; 32% of the treatment naïve individuals with mMRC≥2 and a single moderate exacerbation in the previous year experienced a moderate exacerbation during the following year compared with only 3% in the individuals with similar severity of dyspnoea but no exacerbations in the previous year yielding an adjusted hazard ratio of 6.26 (95% confidence interval, 3.70-10.58).

INTERPRETATION

This observational study of the general population suggests that in addition to exacerbation history also the severity of dyspnoea predicts the risk of future COPD exacerbations. In subjects with severe dyspnoea, a history of a single moderate exacerbation is associated with a high risk of future exacerbations, suggesting that this subgroup needs special attention in order to prevent these events.

Safety data in randomised real-world evidence studies: Salford Lung Study learnings

Evidence to support clinical decision making must be based on safety data that have been captured, analysed and interpreted in a robust and reliable way. Randomised real-world evidence (RRWE) studies provide the opportunity to evaluate the use of medicines in patients and settings representative of routine clinical practice. However, elements that underpin the design of RRWE studies can have a significant impact upon the analysis, interpretation and implications of safety data. In this narrative review, we use data from the Salford Lung Study; two prospective, 12-month, open-label, parallel-group, phase III randomised controlled trials conducted in primary care in the UK; to highlight the importance of capturing treatment modifications when attempting to evaluate safety events according to actual treatment exposure. We demonstrate that analysing safety data by actual treatment received (i.e. accounting for the treatment modifications that occur routinely in the primary care setting) provides additional insight beyond analysing according to randomised treatment strategy only. It is therefore proposed that understanding of safety data from RRWE trials can be optimised by analysing both by randomised group and by actual treatment received.

The impact of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol on healthcare resource utilisation in the Salford Lung Study in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

AIM

The Salford Lung Study (SLS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of initiating fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100/25 µg versus continuing usual care (UC) in patients with COPD and a history of exacerbations. Here, we investigate the impact of initiating FF/VI on healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) in SLS COPD.

METHODS

HRU and interventions were determined from patients' electronic health records. Annual rates of on-treatment all-cause and COPD-related secondary care contacts (SCCs) and primary care contacts (PCCs) for FF/VI versus UC were analysed using a general linear model. Costs were derived from national data sources.

RESULTS

Least-squares (LS) mean annual rates of all-cause (9.81 versus 9.36) and COPD-related (1.57 versus 1.48) SCCs were similar for FF/VI and UC, as were rates of all-cause hospitalisations (0.87 versus 0.82). Mean duration of hospital stay/patient was 4.5 and 4.2 days, respectively. COPD-related SCC mean total cost/patient was £484 FF/VI and £475 UC. LS mean annual rates of all-cause PCCs were significantly higher for FF/VI (21.20 versus 18.88 UC; p < 0.001). LS mean annual rates of COPD-related PCCs were similar for FF/VI and UC (2.42 versus 2.46). All-cause PCC mean total cost/patient was £900 FF/VI versus £811 UC, but COPD-related PCC costs were similar (£116 versus £114). Direct COPD-related total medical costs/patient were significantly lower for FF/VI (LS geometric mean £806 versus £963 UC; p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

In patients with COPD and exacerbation history, FF/VI may represent a less costly alternative to current therapies.GlaxoSmithKline plc. study HZC115151; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01551758.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Observational studies assessing the pharmacological treatment of obstructive lung disease: strengths, challenges and considerations for study design

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating treatment efficacy in patients with obstructive lung disease. However, due to strict inclusion criteria and the conditions required for ascertaining statistical significance, the patients included typically represent as little as 5% of the general obstructive lung disease population. Thus, studies in broader patient populations are becoming increasingly important. These can be randomised effectiveness trials or observational studies providing data on real-world treatment effectiveness and safety data that complement efficacy RCTs. In this review we describe the features associated with the diagnosis of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the real-world clinical practice setting. We also discuss how RCTs and observational studies have reported opposing outcomes with several treatments and inhaler devices due to differences in study design and the variations in patients recruited by different study types. Whilst observational studies are not without weaknesses, we outline recently developed tools for defining markers of quality of observational studies. We also examine how observational studies are capable of providing valuable insights into disease mechanisms and management and how they are a vital component of research into obstructive lung disease. As we move into an era of personalised medicine, recent observational studies, such as the NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY (NOVELTY), have the capacity to provide a greater understanding of the value of a personalised healthcare approach in patients in clinical practice by focussing on standardised outcome measures of patient-reported outcomes, physician assessments, airway physiology, and blood and airway biomarkers across both primary and specialist care.

Patient and healthcare professional experiences of the Salford Lung Studies: qualitative insights for future effectiveness trials

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in the routine care setting provide the opportunity to better understand the effectiveness of new medicines but can present recruitment difficulties. An improved understanding of the challenges/opportunities for patient and healthcare professional (HCP) engagement in clinical research is needed to enhance participation and trial experience. In this study, we explored patient and HCP drivers for, and experiences of, participation in the Salford Lung Studies (SLS), and their views on future trial participation and the overall value of such trials.

Methods

This was a qualitative study set in Salford, UK, comprising patient telephone interviews (N = 10) and HCP advisory boards (one with general practitioners [GPs], one with practice managers [PMs]); all individuals had participated in the SLS. Semi-structured telephone interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Advisory board meetings were analysed based on transcriptions of audio recordings and field notes.

Results

For patients, key positive aspects of the SLS were the ease/convenience of study assessments and excellent relationships with study nurses. GPs and PMs considered the SLS to be well-organized and highlighted the value of research nurse support; they also described minor challenges relating to trial systems, initial financial strain on practices and staff turnover. All participants indicated that they were very likely to participate in future trials, citing a design closely aligned with routine care practice as essential. Several strategies to encourage trial participation were suggested, such as clearly communicating benefits to patients and ensuring flexible study assessments.

Conclusions

Patients and HCPs had positive experiences of the SLS. The study design, closely aligned with routine care, was considered important to their high likelihood of participating in future trials. The experiences of patients and HCPs in the SLS provide valuable insights that will help inform future best practice in the design and conduct of future real-world effectiveness RCTs in primary care. The detailed first-hand experiences of HCPs will be of significant value to others considering engaging in clinical research and participating in effectiveness RCTs.

Treatment Eligibility of Real-Life Mepolizumab-Treated Severe Asthma Patients

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe asthma not meeting the strict trial eligibility criteria for mepolizumab are now routinely treated with this biological in clinical practice, but it remains unclear whether these ineligible patients respond differently to mepolizumab treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the extent and reasons for trial ineligibility of real-life, mepolizumab-treated patients with severe asthma and compared the characteristics of these patients with trial populations. Subsequently, therapeutic response in ineligible patients was assessed on the basis of oral corticosteroid (OCS) reduction.

METHODS

Trial eligibility, population differences, and therapeutic response were assessed using the baseline characteristics of mepolizumab-receiving patients with severe asthma treated in the Amsterdam University Medical Centres and OCS dose at 6 months for OCS-dependent patients extracted from patients' electronic health records. Eligibility criteria and population characteristics from trials investigating mepolizumab were extracted from their original publications.

RESULTS

A total of 82.4% of 119 mepolizumab-receiving, real-life patients with severe asthma were ineligible for trial inclusion, wherein 42.9% and 39.5% were excluded on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively. The clinical care population was older, more often male and demonstrating a better lung function under lower OCS maintenance dosages in comparison with trial populations. A total of 50% of 66 ineligible, OCS-dependent mepolizumab-treated patients were able to reduce their maintenance OCS dosage to ≤5 mg prednisone/day.

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion of the real-life, mepolizumab-treated population with severe asthma would be excluded from trial participation, and significant differences in population characteristics exist. Regardless, a large fraction of ineligible patients in clinical care can reduce maintenance OCS dosage under mepolizumab therapy.

ERS International Congress, Madrid, 2019: highlights from the Respiratory Infections Assembly

The European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress organised in Madrid, Spain, in 2019 welcomed >22 000 participants from 134 countries. For each ERS assembly, an impressive number of abstracts were submitted. The topics covered by Assembly 10 (Respiratory Infections and Tuberculosis) were included this year in the top five research areas with the most submitted abstracts, with a total of 424 abstracts accepted for presentation. As it would be difficult for any delegate to stay up to date with all the scientific advances in the field, we wanted to highlight three of the Congress sessions that included presentations on respiratory infections and tuberculosis that we deemed as important and we hope the readers will consider this material of great interest.

Real-World Data and Randomised Controlled Trials: The Salford Lung Study

Traditional efficacy double-blind randomised controlled trials (DBRCTs) measure the benefit a treatment produces under near-ideal test conditions in highly selected patient populations; however, the behaviour of patients and investigators in such trials is highly controlled, highly compliant and adherent, and non-representative of routine clinical practice. Pragmatic effectiveness trials measure the benefit a treatment produces in patients in everyday "real-world" practice. Ideally, effectiveness trials should recruit patients as similar as possible to those who will ultimately be prescribed the medicine, and create freedom within the study design to allow normal behaviours of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) to be expressed. The Salford Lung Study (SLS) was a world-first, prospective, phase III, pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) programme in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma to evaluate the effectiveness of a pre-licensed medication (fluticasone furoate/vilanterol) in real-world practice using electronic health records and through collaboratively engaging general practitioners and community pharmacists in clinical research. The real-world aspect of SLS was unique, requiring careful planning and attention to the goals of maximising the external validity of the trials while maintaining scientific rigour and securing suitable electronic processes for proper interpretation of safety data. Key learnings from SLS that may inform the design of future pragmatic effectiveness RCTs include: (1) ensuring the trial setting and operational infrastructure are aligned with routine clinical care; (2) recruiting a broad patient population with characteristics as close as possible to patients in routine clinical practice, to maximise the generalisability and applicability of trial results; (3) ensuring that patients and HCPs are suitably engaged in the trial, to maximise the chances of successful trial delivery; and (4) careful study design, incorporating outcomes of value to patients, HCPs, policymakers and payers, and using pre-planned analyses to address scientifically valid research hypotheses to ensure robustness of the trial data.

Inhaled corticosteroids and FEV1 decline in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review

Rate of FEV₁ decline in COPD is heterogeneous and the extent to which inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) influence the rate of decline is unclear. The majority of previous reviews have investigated specific ICS and non-ICS inhalers and have consisted of randomised control trials (RCTs), which have specific inclusion and exclusion criteria and short follow up times. We aimed to investigate the association between change in FEV₁ and ICS-containing medications in COPD patients over longer follow up times.

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched and literature comparing change in FEV₁ in COPD patients taking ICS-containing medications with patients taking non-ICS-containing medications were identified. Titles, abstract, and full texts were screened and information extracted using the PICO checklist. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and a descriptive synthesis of the literature was carried out due to high heterogeneity of included studies.

Seventeen studies met our inclusion criteria. We found that the difference in change in FEV₁ in people using ICS and non-ICS containing medications depended on the study follow-up time. Shorter follow-up studies (1 year or less) were more likely to report an increase in FEV₁ from baseline in both patients on ICS and in patients on non-ICS-containing medications, with the majority of these studies showing a greater increase in FEV₁ in patients on ICS-containing medications. Longer follow-up studies (greater than 1 year) were more likely to report a decline in FEV₁ from baseline in patients on ICS and in patients on non-ICS containing medications but rates of FEV₁ decline were similar.

Further studies are needed to better understand changes in FEV₁ when ICS-containing medications are prescribed and to determine whether ICS-containing medications influence rate of decline in FEV₁ in the long term. Results from inclusive trials and observational patient cohorts may provide information more generalisable to a population of COPD patients.

Triple Therapy Versus Dual Bronchodilation and Inhaled Corticosteroids/Long-Acting β-Agonists in COPD: Accumulating Evidence from Network Meta-Analyses

Guidelines are mainly based on evidence of well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but there are limitations to the transferability of conclusions of RCTs to usual care mainly because the patients enrolled in RCTs are selected and not representative of the population encountered in daily practice; moreover, the research environment is substantially different from that of the real world. Because of the scarcity of data generated in large unselected populations in everyday clinical practice, the possibility of using meta-analyses can be considered. Recently, several meta-analyses have attempted to clarify the role of triple therapy containing a long-acting β-agonist (LABA), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) delivered from a single inhaler in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), also considering that there is a big difference in the use of triple therapy between what is recommended by COPD guidelines or strategies and the prescriptive behaviour of clinicians. Taking into account the results of the most recent meta-analyses, we believe that triple therapy provides modest clinical benefit in the general COPD population, but in patients on LABA/LAMA combination therapy, who still experience acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs) and have blood eosinophil counts ≥ 300 cells·μl⁻¹, it is of clinical relevance. On the contrary, adding a LAMA to an ICS/LABA combination elicits relevant clinical benefit in the general COPD population, supporting the role of dual bronchodilation therapy for the treatment of COPD. The quantitative synthesis of the currently available clinical evidence seems to suggest that, in patients with COPD already on ICS/LABA combination, the therapy can be improved without an increase of cardiovascular severe adverse events (SAEs) when a LAMA is added to the combination.

Decline of COPD exacerbations in clinical trials over two decades - a systematic review and meta-regression

Background

An important goal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment is to reduce the frequency of exacerbations. Some observations suggest a decline in exacerbation rates in clinical trials over time. A more systematic understanding would help to improve the design and interpretation of COPD trials.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-regression of the placebo groups in published randomized controlled trials reporting exacerbations as an outcome. A Bayesian negative binomial model was developed to accommodate results that are reported in different formats; results are reported with credible intervals (CI) and posterior tail probabilities (p_B).

Results

Of 1114 studies identified by our search, 55 were ultimately included. Exacerbation rates decreased by 6.7% (95% CI (4.4, 9.0); p_B <  0.001) per year, or 50% (95% CI (36, 61)) per decade. Adjusting for available study and baseline characteristics such as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) did not alter the observed trend considerably. Two subsets of studies, one using a true placebo group and the other allowing inhaled corticosteroids in the “placebo” group, also yielded consistent results.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this meta-regression indicates that the rate of COPD exacerbations decreased over the past two decades to a clinically relevant extent independent of important prognostic factors. This suggests that care is needed in the design of new trials or when comparing results from older trials with more recent ones. Also a considerable effect of adjunct therapy on COPD exacerbations can be assumed.

Registration

PROSPERO 2018 CRD4218118823.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-019-1163-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: friend or foe?

The efficacy, safety and positioning of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in the treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is much debated, since it can result in clear clinical benefits in some patients ("friend") but can be ineffective or even associated with undesired side effects, e.g. pneumonia, in others ("foe"). After critically reviewing the evidence for and against ICS treatment in patients with COPD, we propose that: 1) ICS should not be used as a single, stand-alone therapy in COPD; 2) patients most likely to benefit from the addition of ICS to long-acting bronchodilators include those with history of multiple or severe exacerbations despite appropriate maintenance bronchodilator use, particularly if blood eosinophils are >300 cells·µL^-1, and those with a history of and/or concomitant asthma; and 3) the risk of pneumonia in COPD patients using ICS is higher in those with older age, lower body mass index (BMI), greater overall fragility, receiving higher ICS doses and those with blood eosinophils <100 cells·µL^-1 All these factors must be carefully considered and balanced in any individual COPD patient before adding ICS to her/his maintenance bronchodilator treatment. Further research is needed to clarify some of these issues and firmly establish these recommendations.

Patient-reported outcomes with initiation of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol versus continuing usual care in the Asthma Salford Lung Study

BACKGROUND

The Asthma Salford Lung Study demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of initiating once-daily inhaled fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) versus continuing usual care (UC) in asthma patients in UK primary care [1]. Here, we report a detailed analysis of patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints.

METHODS

Adults with symptomatic asthma maintained on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) ± long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABA) were randomized 1:1 to initiate FF/VI (100 [200]/25 μg) or continue UC. PROs were measured using the Asthma Control Test (ACT), Standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ [S]), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: asthma questionnaire, and EQ-5D-3L (EuroQol 5-Dimensions 3-Levels) questionnaire, at timepoints across the 12-month study period.

RESULTS

The individual components of ACT response (total score ≥20 or improvement from baseline ≥3) both contributed to the composite primary effectiveness endpoint at Week 24, with odds ratios favoring FF/VI over UC in both cases. Patients initiating FF/VI versus continuing UC were more likely to maintain/improve asthma control, regardless of baseline control status. The odds of patients being responders on AQLQ (S) total score and on individual AQLQ domains at Week 52 were significantly higher for FF/VI versus UC (all p < .001). FF/VI was associated with significantly greater reductions in overall work and activity impairment due to asthma (both p < .001), and a significantly greater change from baseline in EQ visual analogue scale score (p = .007), versus UC at Week 52. PRO findings were consistent across baseline ICS and ICS/LABA subsets.

CONCLUSIONS

Initiation of FF/VI versus continuing UC was associated with consistent improvements in PROs.