Inhaled Corticosteroids vs Placebo for Preventing COPD Exacerbations

Model-Based Cost-Utility Analysis of Combined Low-Dose Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Cardiovascular Disease

Introduction

The conditional cost-effectiveness of low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer (LC) screening has been reported. Extending LC screening to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), together with Big-3, could increase health benefits at marginal costs. This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility of Big-3 screening compared with no screening and LC screening in The Netherlands.

Methods

A microsimulation model was built to reflect the care pathway, using individual-level data from the National Lung Screening Trial individual-level data, and aggregated data from the literature. The model includes a simulation of the detection of the Big-3 diseases through screening and standard of care. The model also simulated tumor growth and the effects of smoking cessation and treatment. Hypothetical (former) smokers (aged 55-74 y) were simulated according to the National Lung Screening Trial criteria. Individuals with screening-detected diseases receiving (preventative) treatment experience a reduced risk of events and increased survival. A Dutch health system perspective and lifetime horizon were adopted.

Results

Simultaneous LC and CVD screening was the most cost-effective, with incremental costs and effects of €1937 and 0.22 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) versus no screening, and €595 and 0.08 QALYs versus LC screening, respectively. This yielded incremental cost-utility ratios of €8561 per QALY and €7154 per QALY versus no screening and LC screening, respectively. LC plus COPD screening was dominated by LC + CVD screening, which yielded lower health benefits and higher costs.

Conclusions

Simultaneous screening for LC + CVD in a high-risk population offers health benefits at low costs compared with no screening or LC screening alone. Adding COPD screening cannot yet be justified owing to the limited clinical evidence.

Risk of Pneumonia in Patients with COPD Initiating Fixed Dose Inhaled Corticosteroid (ICS) / Long-Acting Bronchodilator (LABD) Formulations Containing Extrafine Beclometasone Dipropionate versus Patients Initiating LABD Without ICS

Background

Combined ICS and long-acting bronchodilators (LABD) more effectively reduce COPD exacerbations than LABD therapy alone. Corticosteroid-related adverse effects, including pneumonia, limit ICS use. Previous data suggest this risk is lower for extrafine beclometasone (ef-BDP). We compared pneumonia risk among new users of fixed dose ICS/LABD formulations containing ef-BDP, versus patients initiating LABD without any ICS.

Methods

A propensity-matched historical cohort study design used data from OPCRD. COPD patients with ≥1 year of continuous data who initiated LABD or ICS/LABD formulations containing ef-BDP were matched. Primary outcome was time to pneumonia event, as treated, using either sensitive (physician diagnosed) or specific (physician diagnosed and x-ray or hospital admission confirmed) definitions, with non-inferiority boundary of 15%.

Results

23,898 COPD patients were matched, who were 68±11 years, 54.3% male and 56% current-smokers, while 43% were former-smokers. Initiation of ef-BDP/LABD was not associated with an increased risk of pneumonia versus LABD, for either a sensitive 0.89 (0.78-1.02), P = 0.08 or a specific 0.91 (0.78-1.05), P = 0.18 definition of pneumonia. The probability of remaining pneumonia free 1-year after ef-BDP/LABD was 98.4%, which was comparable to LABD at 97.7%, and was sustained up to 6 years of observation; non-inferiority criterion was met for both definitions. Initiation of ef-BDP/LABD was also associated with a reduced risk of developing LRTIs in the propensity matched cohort.

Conclusion

Risk of pneumonia when using ICS for the management of COPD reported in several randomised controlled trials may not be relevant with ef-BDP in a diverse real-world clinical population.

Inhaled Corticosteroids and the Risk of Lung Cancer in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The global prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is increasing, and the risk of lung cancer in these patients is high. The use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in COPD patients could help to decrease potential lung cancer risk. We planned to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the role of ICS in the risk of lung cancer among COPD patients.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library and a manual search of the list of references were conducted. Studies with cohort, case-control, and randomized clinical trial designs for any ICS use reporting the incidence/hazard ratio (HR) of lung cancer were included. The random-effects model was used to pool hazard ratios. Subgroup analysis and metaregression analysis were employed. Funnel plot and Egger regression test were used to assess publication bias.

Results

Combining the results of 14 observations, the pooled HR for cancer risk reduction was 0.69 (95% CI 0.59-0.79), p value ≤ 0.001. The use of ICS in COPD patients showed a 31% reduction in the risk of lung cancer. Subgroup meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in the risk of lung cancer as well.

Conclusion

The use of ICS in COPD patients reduces the risk of lung cancer. The risk reduction was independent of smoking status and latency period. Future studies should focus on the optimum dose and controlling confounders like asthma.

Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids from patients with COPD with mild or moderate airflow limitation in primary care: a feasibility randomised trial

Background

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are frequently prescribed outside guidelines to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with mild/moderate airflow limitation and low exacerbation risk. This primary care trial explored the feasibility of identifying patients with mild/moderate COPD taking ICS, and the acceptability of ICS withdrawal.

Methods

Open feasibility trial. Outcome measures included prevalence of suitable participants, feasibility of their identification, their willingness-to-accept open randomisation to ICS withdrawal or continuation over 6 months follow-up.

Results

392 (13%) of 2967 patients with COPD from 20 practices (209 618 population) identified as eligible for ICS withdrawal by electronic search algorithm. After individual patient record review, 243 (62%) were excluded because of: severe airflow limitation (65, 17%); one or more severe or two or more moderate COPD exacerbations in the previous year (86, 22%); asthma (15, 4%); and severe comorbidities (77, 20%). After exclusion, 149 patients with COPD were invited to participate and 61 agreed to randomisation. At clinical assessment, 10 patients exhibited undocumented airflow reversibility (forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) reversibility >12% and >200 mL); 2 had suffered two or more undocumented, moderate exacerbations in the previous year; 7 had severe airflow limitation; and 2 had normal spirometry. Finally, 40 were randomised. One patient died and one was lost to follow-up. 18 (45%) of the 38 (10 withdrawal and 8 usual care) exhibited previously undocumented FEV₁ variability suggestive of asthma, supported in the withdrawal group by significant associations with elevated fractional exhaled nitric oxide (p=0.04), elevated symptom score (p=0.04), poorer quality of life (p=0.04) and atopic status (p=0.01).

Conclusions

Identifying primary care patients with mild/moderate COPD suitable for ICS withdrawal is feasible but requires real-time verification because of unreliable recording of exacerbations and lung function. Suitable patients accepted randomisation to ICS withdrawal or continuation for the purposes of future studies. Follow-up compliance was high. Nearly 50% of participants with a diagnosis of mild/moderate COPD demonstrated previously undocumented FEV₁ variability during follow-up, mandating monitoring for at least 6 months following withdrawal to exclude undiagnosed asthma.

Association Between Inhaled Corticosteroids and Tracheobronchomalacia

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess any association between use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and tracheobronchomalacia (TBM).

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of patients with asthma and COPD, with and without TBM. Patients were diagnosed with TBM on the basis of CT imaging, flexible bronchoscopy, or both. Patients were deemed to be on ICS if they had been receiving treatment for at least 3 months. Simple logistic regression models were used to assess the association between TBM status and each proposed factor. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to assess the association between TBM and steroid dose.

RESULTS

A total of 463 patients with COPD (n = 153) and asthma (n = 310) were studied. In multivariate analysis, the odds of TBM were 3.5 times higher in patients on high-dose steroids compared with patients not on steroids (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.4-8.5; P = .007). Age (P < .0001), presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (P < .0001), use of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (P < .0001), and type of pulmonary disease (P = .002) were also associated with TBM. In patients using ICS, the odds of having TBM were 2.9 times greater in patients on high-dose inhaled steroids compared with those on low-dose inhaled steroids (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.2-7.1; P = .02). Age (P = .003), presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (P = .002), use of long-acting muscarinic antagonists (P = .004), type of ICS (P = .04), and number of months on ICS (P < .0001) were all associated with TBM.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant association between ICS use in higher doses for a longer duration of time with TBM. Prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to show causality of this observed association.

Asthma-COPD overlap: identification and optimal treatment

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are both highly prevalent conditions that can coexist in the same individual: the so-called ‘asthma -COPD overlap’ (ACO). Its prevalence and prognosis vary widely depending on how ACO is defined in each publication, the severity of bronchial obstruction of patients included and the treatment they are receiving. Although there is a lack of evidence about the biology of ACO, the overlap of both diseases should express a mixture of a Th1 inflammatory pattern (characteristic of COPD) and a Th2 signature (characteristic of asthma). In this review we support a novel algorithm for ACO diagnosis proposed by the Spanish Respiratory Society (SEPAR), based on a sequential evaluation that considers: (a) the presence of chronic airflow limitation in a smoker or ex-smoker patient ⩾35 years old; (b) a current diagnosis of asthma; and (c) the existence of a very positive bronchodilator test (PBT; ⩾15% and ⩾400 ml) or the presence of eosinophilia in blood (⩾300 eosinophils/μl). This algorithm can identify those patients who may benefit from a treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and maybe from biological drugs in a near future. In addition, it is easily applicable in clinical practice. The major disadvantage is that it groups patients with very different characteristics under the ACO’s umbrella. In view of this heterogeneity, we recommend a strategy of defining specific and measurable therapeutic objectives for every single patient and identifying the traits that can be treated to achieve those objectives.

Blood eosinophils and inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COPD: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

COPD is a highly heterogeneous disease. Potential biomarkers to identify patients with COPD who will derive the greatest benefit from inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) treatment are needed. Blood eosinophil count can serve as a predictive biomarker for the efficacy of ICS treatment. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess whether a blood eosinophil count of ≥2% in patients undergoing ICS therapy was associated with a greater reduction in COPD exacerbation rate and pneumonia incidence.

Materials and methods

An electronic search was performed using the keywords "COPD", "eosinophil", and "clinical trial" in the PubMed and EMBASE databases to retrieve articles, up to 2017, relevant to our focus. Data were extracted, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5 (version 5.3.5).

Results

Five studies comprising 12,496 patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD were included. At baseline, 60% of the patients had ≥2% blood eosinophils. Our meta-analysis showed a 17% reduction in exacerbation of moderate/severe COPD in patients with ≥2% blood eosinophils undergoing ICS therapy compared to the non-ICS/ICS withdrawal/placebo group. The difference between the two types of treatment was significant (risk ratio [RR], 0.816; 95% CI, 0.67-0.99; P=0.03). Furthermore, the risk of pneumonia-related events was significantly increased in the subgroup with eosinophil count ≥2% undergoing ICS-containing treatments (RR, 1.969; 95% CI, 1.369-2.833; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the subgroup with eosinophil count <2% (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.888-1.879; P<0.181).

Conclusion

The results of our meta-analysis suggest that the 2% threshold for blood eosinophils could accurately predict ICS treatment response in patients with COPD, but increased the risk of pneumonia.

Inhaled corticosteroids for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: what is their role in therapy?

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are a mainstay of COPD treatment for patients with a history of exacerbations. Initial studies evaluating their use as monotherapy failed to show an effect on rate of pulmonary function decline in COPD, despite improvements in symptoms and reductions in exacerbations. Subsequently, ICS use in combination with long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) was shown to provide improved reductions in exacerbations, lung function, and health status. ICS-LABA combination therapy is currently recommended for patients with a history of exacerbations despite treatment with long-acting bronchodilators alone. The presence of eosinophilic bronchial inflammation, detected by high blood eosinophil levels or a history of asthma or asthma-COPD overlap, may define a population of patients in whom ICSs may be of particular benefit. Prospective clinical studies to determine an appropriate threshold of eosinophil levels for predicting the beneficial effects of ICSs are needed. Further study is also required in COPD patients who continue to smoke to assess the impact of cell- and tissue-specific changes on ICS responsiveness. The safety profile of ICSs in COPD patients is confounded by comorbidities, age, and prior use of systemic corticosteroids. The risk of pneumonia in patients with COPD is increased, particularly with more advanced age and worse disease severity. ICS-containing therapy also has been shown to increase pneumonia risk; however, differences in study design and the definition of pneumonia events have led to substantial variability in risk estimates, and some data indicate that pneumonia risk may differ by the specific ICS used. In summary, treatment with ICSs has a role in dual and triple therapy for COPD to reduce exacerbations and improve symptoms. Careful assessment of COPD phenotypes related to risk factors, triggers, and comorbidities may assist in individualizing treatment while maximizing the benefit-to-risk ratio of ICS-containing COPD treatment.

Predictors of exacerbation risk and response to budesonide in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a post-hoc analysis of three randomised trials

BACKGROUND

The peripheral blood eosinophil count might help identify those patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who will experience fewer exacerbations when taking inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Previous post-hoc analyses have proposed eosinophil cutoffs that are both arbitrary and limited in evaluating complex interactions of treatment response. We modelled eosinophil count as a continuous variable to determine the characteristics that determine both exacerbation risk and clinical response to ICS in patients with COPD.

METHODS

We analysed data from three AstraZeneca randomised controlled trials of budesonide-formoterol in patients with COPD with a history of exacerbations and available blood eosinophil counts. Patients with any history of asthma were excluded. Negative binomial regression analysis was done using splines for modelling of continuous variables to study the primary outcome of annual exacerbation rate adjusted for exposure time and study design. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00206167, NCT00206154, and NCT00419744.

FINDINGS

4528 patients were studied. A non-linear increase in exacerbations occurred with increasing eosinophil count in patients who received formoterol alone. At eosinophil counts of 0·10 × 10⁹ cells per L or more, a significant treatment effect was recorded for exacerbation reduction with budesonide-formoterol compared with formoterol alone (rate ratio 0·75, 95% CI 0·57-0·99; p_interaction=0·015). Interactions were observed between eosinophil count and the treatment effects of budesonide-formoterol over formoterol on St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (p_interaction=0·0043) and pre-bronchodilator FEV₁ (linear effect p<0·0001, p_interaction=0·067). Only eosinophil count and smoking history were independent predictors of response to budesonide-formoterol in reducing exacerbations (eosinophil count, p_interaction=0·013; smoking history, p_interaction=0·015).

INTERPRETATION

In patients with COPD treated with formoterol, blood eosinophil count predicts exacerbation risk and the clinical response to ICS.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

[The effects of inhaled steroids withdrawal in COPD]

The key pathophysiological feature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an abnormal inflammatory bronchial reaction after inhalation of toxic substances. The priority is the avoidance of such toxic inhalations, but the use of anti-inflammatory drugs also seems appropriate, especially corticosteroids that are the sole anti-inflammatory drug available for this purpose in France. The risks associated with the prolonged use of these parenteral drugs are well known. Inhalation is therefore the optimal route, but inhaled drugs may also lead to adverse consequences. In COPD, there is an inhaled corticosteroids overuse, and a non-satisfactory respect of the guidelines. Consequently, their withdrawal should be considered. We reviewed seven clinical studies dealing with inhaled corticosteroids withdrawal in patients with COPD and found that included populations were heterogenous with different concomitant treatments. In non-frequent exacerbators receiving inhaled corticosteroids outside the recommendations, withdrawal appears to be safe under a well-managed bronchodilator treatment. In patients with severe COPD and frequent exacerbations, the risk of acute respiratory event is low when they receive concomitant optimal inhaled bronchodilators. However, other risks may be observed (declining lung function, quality of life) and a discussion of each case should be performed, especially in case of COPD and asthma overlap.

Bringing Stability to the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patient: Clinical and Pharmacological Considerations for Frequent Exacerbators

Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are critical events associated with an accelerated loss of lung function, increased morbidity, and excess mortality. AECOPD are heterogeneous in nature and this may directly impact clinical decision making, specifically in patients with frequent exacerbations. A 'frequent exacerbator' is a sub-phenotype of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and is defined as an individual who experiences two or more moderate-to-severe exacerbations per year. This distinct subgroup has higher mortality and accounts for more than half of COPD-related hospitalizations annually. Thus, it is imperative to identify individuals at risk for frequent exacerbations and choose optimal strategies to minimize risk for these events. New paradigms for using combination inhalers and the introduction of novel oral compounds provide expanded treatment options to reduce the risk and frequency of exacerbations. The goals of managing frequent exacerbators or patients at risk for AECOPD are: (1) maximizing bronchodilation; (2) reducing inflammation; and (3) targeting specific molecular pathways implicated in COPD and AECOPD pathogenesis. Novel inhaler therapies including combination long-acting muscarinic agents plus long-acting beta agonists show promising results compared with monotherapy or a long-acting beta agonist inhaled corticosteroid combination in reducing exacerbation risk among individuals at risk for exacerbations and among frequent exacerbators. Likewise, oral medications including macrolides and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors reduce the risk for AECOPD in select groups of individuals at high risk for exacerbation. Future direction in COPD management is based on the identification of various subtypes or 'endotypes' and targeting therapies based on their pathophysiology. This review describes the impact of AECOPD and the challenges posed by frequent exacerbators, and explores the rationale for different pharmacologic approaches to preventing AECOPD in these individuals.

The Role of Bronchodilators in Preventing Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Bronchodilators are the cornerstone of symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment. They are routinely recommended for symptom reduction, with a preference of long-acting over short-acting drugs. Bronchodilators are classified into two classes based on distinct modes of action, i.e., long-acting antimuscarinics (LAMA, once-daily and twice-daily), and long-acting β2-agonists (LABA, once-daily and twice-daily). In contrast to asthma management, evidence supports the efficacy of both classes of long-acting bronchodilators as monotherapy in preventing COPD exacerbations, with greater efficacy of LAMA drugs versus LABAs. Several novel LAMA/LABA fixed dose combination inhalers are currently approved for COPD maintenance treatment. These agents show superior symptom control to monotherapies, and some of these combinations have also demonstrated superior efficacy in exacerbation prevention versus monotherapies, or combinations of inhaled corticosteroids plus LABA. This review summarizes the current data on clinical effectiveness of bronchodilators alone or in combination to prevent exacerbations of COPD.

Effectiveness using higher inhaled corticosteroid dosage in patients with COPD by different blood eosinophilic counts

BACKGROUND

Blood eosinophil counts have been documented as a good biomarker for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy. However, the effectiveness and safety of prescribing high or medium dose of ICS for patients with different eosinophil counts are unknown.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis of a previous prospective randomized study was performed for COPD patients using higher dose (HD: Fluticasone 1,000 μg/day) or medium dose (MD: Fluticasone 500 μg/day) of ICS combined with Salmeterol (100 μg/day). Patients were classified into two groups: those with high eosinophil counts (HE ≥3%) and those with low eosinophil counts (LE <3%). Lung function was evaluated with forced expiratory volume in 1 second, forced vital capacity, and COPD assessment test. Frequencies of acute exacerbation and pneumonia were also measured.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-eight patients were studied and classified into higher eosinophil (HE) (n=85, 34.3%) and lower eosinophil (LE) groups (n=163, 65.7%). The levels of forced expiratory volume in 1 second were significantly increased in patients of HE group treated with HD therapy, compared with the other groups (HE/HD: 125.9±27.2 mL vs HE/MD: 94.3±23.7 mL, vs LE/HD: 70.4±20.5 mL, vs LE/MD: 49.8±16.7 mL; P<0.05) at the end of the study. Quality of life (COPD assessment test) markedly improved in HE/HD group than in MD/LE group (HE/HD: 9±5 vs LE/MD: 16±7, P=0.02). The frequency of acute exacerbation was more decreased in HE/HD group patients, compared with that in LE/MD group (HE/HD: 13.5% vs LE/MD: 28.7%, P<0.01). Pneumonia incidence was similar in the treatment groups (HE/HD: 3.2%, HE/MD: 2.6%, LE/HD: 3.5%, LE/MD 2.8%; P=0.38).

CONCLUSION

The study results support using blood eosinophil counts as a biomarker of ICS response and show the benefits of greater improvement of lung function, quality of life, and decreased exacerbation frequency in COPD patients with blood eosinophil counts higher than 3%, especially treated with higher dose of ICS.

Pharmacological strategies to reduce exacerbation risk in COPD: a narrative review

Identifying patients at risk of exacerbations and managing them appropriately to reduce this risk represents an important clinical challenge. Numerous treatments have been assessed for the prevention of exacerbations and their efficacy may differ by patient phenotype. Given their centrality in the treatment of COPD, there is strong rationale for maximizing bronchodilation as an initial strategy to reduce exacerbation risk irrespective of patient phenotype. Therefore, in patients assessed as frequent exacerbators (>1 exacerbation/year) we propose initial bronchodilator treatment with a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/ long-acting β2-agonist (LABA). For those patients who continue to experience >1 exacerbation/year despite maximal bronchodilation, we advocate treating according to patient phenotype. Based on currently available data on adding inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to a LABA, ICS might be added to a LABA/LAMA combination in exacerbating patients who have an asthma-COPD overlap syndrome or high blood eosinophil counts, while in exacerbators with chronic bronchitis, consideration should be given to treating with a phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitor (roflumilast) or high-dose mucolytic agents. For those patients who experience frequent bacterial exacerbations and/or bronchiectasis, addition of mucolytic agents or a macrolide antibiotic (e.g. azithromycin) should be considered. In all patients at risk of exacerbations, pulmonary rehabilitation should be included as part of a comprehensive management plan.

Identification of responders to inhaled corticosteroids in a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease population using cluster analysis

OBJECTIVES

To identify clusters of patients who may benefit from treatment with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) versus LABA alone, in terms of exacerbation reduction, and to validate previously identified clusters of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (based on diuretic use and reversibility).

DESIGN

Post hoc supervised cluster analysis using a modified recursive partitioning algorithm of two 1-year randomised, controlled trials of fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) versus VI alone, with the primary end points of the annual rate of moderate-to-severe exacerbations.

SETTING

Global.

PARTICIPANTS

3255 patients with COPD (intent-to-treat populations) with a history of exacerbations in the past year.

INTERVENTIONS

FF/VI 50/25 µg, 100/25 µg or 200/25 µg, or VI 25 µg; all one time per day.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean annual COPD exacerbation rate to identify clusters of patients who benefit from adding an ICS (FF) to VI bronchodilator therapy.

RESULTS

Three clusters were identified, including two groups that benefit from FF/VI versus VI: patients with blood eosinophils >2.4% (RR=0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.79), or blood eosinophils ≤2.4% and smoking history ≤46 pack-years, experienced a reduced rate of exacerbations with FF/VI versus VI (RR=0.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.96), whereas those with blood eosinophils ≤2.4% and smoking history >46 pack-years were identified as non-responders (RR=1.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.58). Clusters of patients previously identified in the fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (SAL) versus SAL trials of similar design were not validated; all clusters of patients tended to benefit from FF/VI versus VI alone irrespective of diuretic use and reversibility.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with COPD with a history of exacerbations, those with greater blood eosinophils or a lower smoking history may benefit more from ICS/LABA versus LABA alone as measured by a reduced rate of exacerbations. In terms of eosinophils, this finding is consistent with findings from other studies; however, the validity of the 2.4% cut-off and the impact of smoking history require further investigation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT01009463; NCT01017952; Post-results.

Long-term outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: exploring the effects of inhalatory devices and their influence on the outcome

PURPOSE

Numerous systematic reviews have examined the outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease managed with different therapeutic strategies. However, no such studies have specifically focused on the effect of inhalation devices.

METHODS

A standard PubMed search was carried out in which we identified all randomized placebo-controlled trials conducted in patients with moderate-to-severe or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The clinical end points were exacerbations rate, incidence of pneumonia, and mortality. Meta-regression was employed to assess the effect of the device. For the incidence of exacerbations, an equivalence analysis was also carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 37 studies were analyzed. Four different devices were used across these trials (Respimat(®), HandiHaler(®), Diskus, and Turbuhaler(®)). Our meta-regression analysis failed to show any significant difference between devices with regard to exacerbation rate. Equivalence was shown for some comparisons (HandiHaler(®) vs Respimat(®)), but not for others. In analyzing mortality, Respimat(®) was shown to worsen this end point in comparison with Turbuhaler(®) and HandiHaler(®). Moreover, Turbuhaler(®) showed a protective effect over Diskus in the incidence of pneumonia.

CONCLUSION

The results of our analysis represent the first attempt to explore the effect of the type of device on long-term outcomes. One important limitation was that most drugs were associated with one particular device, and so the effects of drugs and devices could not be reliably differentiated from one another.

Outcome of Inhaler Withdrawal in Patients Receiving Triple Therapy for COPD

Background

The purpose of this study was to document outcomes following withdrawal of a single inhaler (step-down) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients on triple therapy (long-acting muscarinic antagonist and a combination of long-acting β2-agonists and inhaled corticosteroid), which a common treatment strategy in clinical practice.

Methods

Through a retrospective observational study, COPD patients receiving triple therapy over 2 years (triple group; n=109) were compared with those who had undergone triple therapy for at least 1 year and subsequently, over 9 months, initiated inhaler withdrawal (step-down group, n=39). The index time was defined as the time of withdrawal in the stepdown group and as 1 year after the start of triple therapy in the triple group.

Results

Lung function at the index time was superior and the previous exacerbation frequency was lower in the stepdown group than in the triple group. Step-down resulted in aggravating disease symptoms, a reduced overall quality of life, decreasing exercise performance, and accelerated forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) decline (54.7±15.7 mL/yr vs. 10.7±7.1 mL/yr, p=0.007), but there was no observed increase in the frequency of exacerbations.

Conclusion

Withdrawal of a single inhaler during triple therapy in COPD patients should be conducted with caution as it may impair the exercise capacity and quality of life while accelerating FEV₁ decline.

Azithromycin for the Prevention of COPD Exacerbations: The Good, Bad, and Ugly

Long-term azithromycin therapy has been shown to reduce exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and is recommended by recent society guidelines for use in COPD patients who are at risk for recurrent exacerbations. However, concerns about adverse effects have limited its widespread adoption. Physicians deciding whether to use long-term azithromycin therapy must weigh each patient's individual risk of cardiovascular complications and both the individual and population impact of macrolide resistance against the expected benefit. This review will summarize evidence on the effectiveness and safety of chronic azithromycin for the prevention of COPD exacerbations.

Thiazolidinediones are associated with a reduced risk of COPD exacerbations

BACKGROUND

Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) are oral antihyperglycemic medications that are selective agonists to peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma and have been shown to have potent anti-inflammatory effects in the lung.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess whether exposure to TZDs is associated with a decreased risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation.

METHODS

A cohort study was performed by collecting data on all US veterans with diabetes and COPD who were prescribed oral antihyperglycemic medications during from period of October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2007. Patients who had two or more prescriptions for TZDs were compared with patients who had two or more prescriptions for an alternative oral anti-hyperglycemic medication. Multivariable negative binomial regression was performed with adjustment for potential confounding factors. The primary outcome was COPD exacerbations, including both inpatient and outpatient exacerbations.

RESULTS

We identified 7,887 veterans who were exposed to TZD and 42,347 veterans who were exposed to non-TZD oral diabetes medications. COPD exacerbations occurred in 1,258 (16%) of the TZD group and 7,789 (18%) of the non-TZD group. In multivariable negative binomial regression, there was a significant reduction in the expected number of COPD exacerbations among patients who were exposed to TZDs with an incidence rate ratio of 0.86 (95% CI 0.81-0.92).

CONCLUSION

Exposure to TZDs was associated with a small but significant reduction in risk for COPD exacerbation among diabetic patients with COPD.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of three different combinations of inhalers for severe and very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients at a tertiary care teaching hospital of South India

BACKGROUND

This study aims at simplifying the practical patient management and offers some general indications for pharmacotherapeutic choice by the implementation of (Global Initiative for Chronic Lung Disease) guidelines. This study was designed to evaluate the clinical and economic consequences of salmeterol/fluticasone (SF), formoterol/budesonide (FB), and formoterol/fluticasone (FF) in severe and very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to find out the most cost-effective drug combination between the three combinations (SF/FB/FF) in COPD patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective observational comparative study (cost-effectiveness analysis), in which 90 severe (30 ≤ forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] <50% predicted) and very severe (FEV1 < 30% predicted) COPD patients (outpatients/inpatients) who are prescribed with any one of the following combinations (SF/FB/FF) were selected. In our study, we have divided 90 COPD patients into three groups (Group I, Group II, and Group III) each group consisting of 30 patients. Group I was prescribed with medication SF, Group II with medication FB, and Group III with medication FF. We used five different parameters such as spirometry test (mean FEV1 initial and final visit), number of symptom-free days (SFDs), number of moderate and severe exacerbations, Number of days of hospitalization and direct, indirect, and total cost to assess the cost-effectiveness of SF/FB/FF. Comparison of cost and effects was done during the period of 6 months of using SF/FB/FF.

RESULTS

The average FEV1 for Group I, Group II, and Group III subjects at initial visit was 33.47%, 33.73%, and 33.20% and was increased to 36.60%, 35.8%, and 33.4%, respectively. A 3% increment in FEV1 was reported for Group I subjects (SF) and was highly significant statistically (t = -8.833, P = 0.000) at 95% CI. For Group II subjects (FB), a 2% increment in FEV1 was reported and was highly significant statistically (t = -9.001, P = 0.000) at 95% CI. For Group III (FF) subjects 0.2% increment in FEV1. The overall mean total cost for Group I, Group II, and Group III subjects during the 6 months period was found to be Rs. 29,725/-, Rs. 32,602/- and Rs. 37,155/-. Incremental cost-effectiveness of FB versus SF was Rs. 37,781/- per avoided exacerbation and Rs. 661/-per SFD.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the favorable therapeutic performance of combined inhaled bronchodilators and corticosteroids (SF/FB/FF), thus suggesting that healthcare costs would be also affected positively. Results from our study showed that SF and FB were the most effective strategies in the treatment of COPD, with a slight clinical superiority of SF. The FF strategy was not much effective (i.e. associated with fewer outcomes and higher costs).

Blood eosinophil counts, exacerbations, and response to the addition of inhaled fluticasone furoate to vilanterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a secondary analysis of data from two parallel randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The short-term benefits of inhaled corticosteroids for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are greater in patients with evidence of eosinophilic airway inflammation. We investigated whether blood eosinophil count is a useful biomarker of the long-term effect of the inhaled corticosteroid fluticasone furoate on exacerbation frequency.

METHODS

We did a post-hoc analysis of data from two replicate, randomised, double-blind trials of 12 months' duration (Sept 25, 2009 to Oct 21, 2011 and Oct 17, 2011) in which once a day vilanterol 25 μg was compared with 25 μg vilanterol plus 50 μg, 100 μg, or 200 μg fluticasone furoate in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and a history of one or more exacerbation in the previous year. We compared exacerbation rates according to two baseline eosinophil cell count strata (<2% and ≥2%), and according to four baseline percentage groupings. We also assessed lung function and incidence of pneumonia per strata in treatment groups.

FINDINGS

We included 3177 patients in the analyses, with 2083 patients (66%) having an eosinophil count of 2% or higher at study entry. Across all doses of inhaled corticosteroids, fluticasone furoate and vilanterol reduced exacerbations by 29% compared with vilanterol alone (mean 0·91 vs 1·28 exacerbations per patient per year; p<0·0001) in patients with eosinophil counts of 2% or higher, and by 10% (0·79 vs 0·89; p=0·2827) in patients with eosinophil counts lower than 2%. Reductions in exacerbations with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol, compared with vilanterol alone, were 24% in patients with baseline eosinophil counts of ≥2-<4%, 32% for those with counts of 4-<6%, and 42% for those with eosinophil counts of ≥6%. In patients treated with vilanterol alone, exacerbation rates increased progressively with increasing eosinophil count percentage category. Improvement in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and the increased risk of pneumonia with fluticasone furoate and vilanterol compared with vilanterol alone were not associated with eosinophil count.

INTERPRETATION

Blood eosinophil count is a promising biomarker of response to inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COPD. Blood eosinophil count could potentially be used to stratify patients for different exacerbation rate reduction strategies.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline (study ID 201595).

Prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic Society Guideline

BACKGROUND

COPD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States as well as throughout the rest of the world. An exacerbation of COPD (periodic escalations of symptoms of cough, dyspnea, and sputum production) is a major contributor to worsening lung function, impairment in quality of life, need for urgent care or hospitalization, and cost of care in COPD. Research conducted over the past decade has contributed much to our current understanding of the pathogenesis and treatment of COPD. Additionally, an evolving literature has accumulated about the prevention of acute exacerbations.

METHODS

In recognition of the importance of preventing exacerbations in patients with COPD, the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) joint evidence-based guideline (AECOPD Guideline) was developed to provide a practical, clinically useful document to describe the current state of knowledge regarding the prevention of acute exacerbations according to major categories of prevention therapies. Three key clinical questions developed using the PICO (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) format addressed the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: nonpharmacologic therapies, inhaled therapies, and oral therapies. We used recognized document evaluation tools to assess and choose the most appropriate studies and to extract meaningful data and grade the level of evidence to support the recommendations in each PICO question in a balanced and unbiased fashion.

RESULTS

The AECOPD Guideline is unique not only for its topic, the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD, but also for the first-in-kind partnership between two of the largest thoracic societies in North America. The CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee in partnership with the CTS COPD Clinical Assembly launched this project with the objective that a systematic review and critical evaluation of the published literature by clinical experts and researchers in the field of COPD would lead to a series of recommendations to assist clinicians in their management of the patient with COPD.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline is unique because it provides an up-to-date, rigorous, evidence-based analysis of current randomized controlled trial data regarding the prevention of COPD exacerbations.

Inhaled corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pro-con perspective

Current guidelines limit regular use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to a specific subgroup of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in whom the forced expiratory volume in 1 s is <60% of predicted and who have frequent exacerbations. In these patients, there is evidence that ICS reduce the frequency of exacerbations and improve lung function and quality of life. However, a review of the literature suggests that the evidence available may be interpreted to favour or contradict these observations. It becomes apparent that COPD is a heterogeneous condition. Clinicians therefore need to be aware of the heterogeneity as well as having an understanding of how ICS may be used in the context of the specific subgroups of patients with COPD. This review argues for and against the use of ICS in COPD by providing an in-depth analysis of the currently available evidence.

Prevention of Exacerbations in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Knowns and Unknowns

The 2011 recommendations of the Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) constituted a major paradigm shift in COPD management since they set 2 major goals for the assessment and management of patients: (1) the reduction of their current level of symptoms (i.e., treat the patient today); and (2) the reduction of their risk of exacerbations (i.e., prevent them tomorrow). Exacerbations are not only an important clinical endpoint in patients with COPD, but they are also a risk factor themselves for additional adverse outcomes since they have been shown to increase the risk for mortality, to accelerate the decline in pulmonary function, and to decrease health status and quality of life. Despite their importance, many unanswered questions related to exacerbations remain. The purpose of this review is to discuss: (1)knowns and unknowns in our current understanding of exacerbations, (2) what known factors increase their risk, and (3) how to best prevent them.

Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids can be safe in COPD patients at low risk of exacerbation: a real-life study on the appropriateness of treatment in moderate COPD patients (OPTIMO)

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in COPD patients on maintenance treatment results in deterioration of symptoms, lung function and exacerbations. The aim of this real-life, prospective, multicentric study was to investigate whether withdrawal of ICS in COPD patients at low risk of exacerbation is linked to a deterioration in lung function and symptoms and to a higher frequency of exacerbations.

METHODS

914 COPD patients, on maintenance therapy with bronchodilators and ICS, FEV1>50% predicted, and <2 exacerbations/year were recruited. Upon decision of the primary physicians, 59% of patients continued their ICS treatment whereas in 41% of patients ICS were withdrawn and regular therapy was continued with long-acting bronchodilators mostly (91% of patients). FEV1, CAT (COPD Assessment Test), and occurrence of exacerbations were measured at the beginning (T0) and at the end (T6) of the 6 months observational period.

RESULTS

816 patients (89.3%) concluded the study. FEV1, CAT and exacerbations history were similar in the two groups (ICS and no ICS) at T0 and at T6. We did not observe any deterioration of lung function symptoms, and exacerbation rate between the two groups at T0 and T6.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the withdrawal of ICS, in COPD patients at low risk of exacerbation, can be safe provided that patients are left on maintenance treatment with long-acting bronchodilators.

Lower corticosteroid skin blanching response is associated with severe COPD

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by chronic airflow limitation caused by ongoing inflammatory and remodeling processes of the airways and lung tissue. Inflammation can be targeted by corticosteroids. However, airway inflammation is generally less responsive to steroids in COPD than in asthma. The underlying mechanisms are yet unclear. This study aimed to assess whether skin corticosteroid insensitivity is associated with COPD and COPD severity using the corticosteroid skin blanching test.

METHODS

COPD patients GOLD stage I-IV (n = 27, 24, 22, and 16 respectively) and healthy never-smokers and smokers (n = 28 and 56 respectively) were included. Corticosteroid sensitivity was assessed by the corticosteroid skin blanching test. Budesonide was applied in 8 logarithmically increasing concentrations (0-100 μg/ml) on subject's forearm. Assessment of blanching was performed after 7 hours using a 7-point scale (normal skin to intense blanching). All subjects performed spirometry and body plethysmography.

RESULTS

Both GOLD III and GOLD IV COPD patients showed significantly lower skin blanching responses than healthy never-smokers and smokers, GOLD I, and GOLD II patients. Their area under the dose-response curve values of the skin blanching response were 586 and 243 vs. 1560, 1154, 1380, and 1309 respectively, p<0.05. Lower FEV1 levels and higher RV/TLC ratios were significantly associated with lower skin blanching responses (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004 respectively). GOLD stage I, II, III and IV patients had similar age and packyears.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, severe and very severe COPD patients had lower skin corticosteroid sensitivity than mild and moderate COPD patients and non-COPD controls with comparable age and packyears. Our findings together suggest that the reduced skin blanching response fits with a subgroup of COPD patients that has an early-onset COPD phenotype.

Inhaled steroids and risk of pneumonia for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are anti-inflammatory drugs that have proven benefits for people with worsening symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and repeated exacerbations. They are commonly used as combination inhalers with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) to reduce exacerbation rates and all-cause mortality, and to improve lung function and quality of life. The most common combinations of ICS and LABA used in combination inhalers are fluticasone and salmeterol, budesonide and formoterol and a new formulation of fluticasone in combination with vilanterol, which is now available. ICS have been associated with increased risk of pneumonia, but the magnitude of risk and how this compares with different ICS remain unclear. Recent reviews conducted to address their safety have not compared the relative safety of these two drugs when used alone or in combination with LABA.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of pneumonia associated with the use of fluticasone and budesonide for COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), clinicaltrials.gov, reference lists of existing systematic reviews and manufacturer websites. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration. Studies were included if they compared the ICS budesonide or fluticasone versus placebo, or either ICS in combination with a LABA versus the same LABA as monotherapy for people with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, numerical data and risk of bias information for each included study.We looked at direct comparisons of ICS versus placebo separately from comparisons of ICS/LABA versus LABA for all outcomes, and we combined these with subgroups when no important heterogeneity was noted. After assessing for transitivity, we conducted an indirect comparison to compare budesonide versus fluticasone monotherapy, but we could not do the same for the combination therapies because of systematic differences between the budesonide and fluticasone combination data sets.When appropriate, we explored the effects of ICS dose, duration of ICS therapy and baseline severity on the primary outcome. Findings of all outcomes are presented in 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADEPro.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 43 studies that met the inclusion criteria, and more evidence was provided for fluticasone (26 studies; n = 21,247) than for budesonide (17 studies; n = 10,150). Evidence from the budesonide studies was more inconsistent and less precise, and the studies were shorter. The populations within studies were more often male with a mean age of around 63, mean pack-years smoked over 40 and mean predicted forced expiratory volume of one second (FEV1) less than 50%.High or uneven dropout was considered a high risk of bias in almost 40% of the trials, but conclusions for the primary outcome did not change when the trials at high risk of bias were removed in a sensitivity analysis.Fluticasone increased non-fatal serious adverse pneumonia events (requiring hospital admission) (odds ratio (OR) 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50 to 2.12; 18 more per 1000 treated over 18 months; high quality), and no evidence suggested that this outcome was reduced by delivering it in combination with salmeterol or vilanterol (subgroup differences: I(2) = 0%, P value 0.51), or that different doses, trial duration or baseline severity significantly affected the estimate. Budesonide also increased non-fatal serious adverse pneumonia events compared with placebo, but the effect was less precise and was based on shorter trials (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.62; six more per 1000 treated over nine months; moderate quality). Some of the variation in the budesonide data could be explained by a significant difference between the two commonly used doses: 640 mcg was associated with a larger effect than 320 mcg relative to placebo (subgroup differences: I(2) = 74%, P value 0.05).An indirect comparison of budesonide versus fluticasone monotherapy revealed no significant differences with respect to serious adverse events (pneumonia-related or all-cause) or mortality. The risk of any pneumonia event (i.e. less serious cases treated in the community) was higher with fluticasone than with budesonide (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.34); this was the only significant difference reported between the two drugs. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution because of possible differences in the assignment of pneumonia diagnosis, and because no trials directly compared the two drugs.No significant difference in overall mortality rates was observed between either of the inhaled steroids and the control interventions (both high-quality evidence), and pneumonia-related deaths were too rare to permit conclusions to be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide and fluticasone, delivered alone or in combination with a LABA, are associated with increased risk of serious adverse pneumonia events, but neither significantly affected mortality compared with controls. The safety concerns highlighted in this review should be balanced with recent cohort data and established randomised evidence of efficacy regarding exacerbations and quality of life. Comparison of the two drugs revealed no statistically significant difference in serious pneumonias, mortality or serious adverse events. Fluticasone was associated with higher risk of any pneumonia when compared with budesonide (i.e. less serious cases dealt with in the community), but variation in the definitions used by the respective manufacturers is a potential confounding factor in their comparison.Primary research should accurately measure pneumonia outcomes and should clarify both the definition and the method of diagnosis used, especially for new formulations such as fluticasone furoate, for which little evidence of the associated pneumonia risk is currently available. Similarly, systematic reviews and cohorts should address the reliability of assigning 'pneumonia' as an adverse event or cause of death and should determine how this affects the applicability of findings.

Inhaled corticosteroids for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend the use of inhaled long-acting bronchodilators, inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and their combinations for maintenance treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, it is questionable whether all COPD patients should be treated, as the long-term use of ICSs is accompanied by side effects.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the evidence about the effects of ICSs in the treatment of COPD. It mainly focuses on meta-analyses of published data and pooled analyses of primary data. It also offers an overview of pipeline developments.

EXPERT OPINION

There is now more evidence that there are subsets of patients (mainly, frequent exacerbators with predominant chronic bronchitis and those with overlap between COPD and asthma) with a favorable response to treatment with ICSs (i.e., reduced progression of lung function loss, reduced exacerbation rate and improved health-related quality of life). Therefore, nowadays, the right question is not whether ICSs should not be used at all unless patients have concomitant asthma, but, instead, which COPD patient can benefit from a therapy with ICSs. Unfortunately, however, the number of studies that have investigated the clinical features that might predict corticosteroid response in COPD is still inadequate.

Beclometasone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic obstructive lung condition, diagnosed in patients with dyspnoea, chronic cough or sputum production and/or a history of risk factor exposure, if their postbronchodilator forced expiratory lung volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital lung capacity (FVC) ratio is less than 0.70, according to the international GOLD (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease) criteria.Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) medications are now recommended for COPD only in combination treatment with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs), and only for patients of GOLD stage 3 and stage 4 severity, for both GOLD groups C and D.ICS are expensive and how effective they are is a topic of controversy, particularly in relation to their adverse effects (pneumonia), which may be linked to more potent ICS. It is unclear whether beclometasone dipropionate (BDP), an unlicensed but widely used inhaled steroid, is a safe and effective alternative to other ICS.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety in COPD of inhaled beclometasone alone compared with placebo, and of inhaled beclometasone in combination with LABAs compared with LABAs alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR) (includes Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO, and handsearching of respiratory journals and meeting abstracts) (February 2013), conference abstracts, ongoing studies and reference lists of articles. We contacted pharmaceutical companies and drug marketing authorisation bodies/ethics committees in 49 countries and obtained licensing information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of BDP compared with placebo, or BDP/LABA compared with LABA, in stable COPD. Minimum trial duration is 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Inclusion, bias assessment and data extraction were conducted by two review authors independently. The analysis was performed by one review author. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

For BDP versus placebo, two studies were included, of which one trial (participants n = 194) was included in the quantitative analysis. This study was a very high-dose trial with stable stage 2 and 3 COPD participants. No statistically significant results in change in lung function, mortality, exacerbations, dyspnoea scores or withdrawal were obtained. The quality of the evidence of all these outcomes was graded low to very low. Data on risk of pneumonia were lacking.The main focus of the review was the more clinically relevant BDP/LABA versus LABA arm. Therefore the findings are reported more fully.For BDP/LABA versus LABA, one study (n = 474) was included, with a further ongoing study identified for future inclusion. The included trial was a high-dose study of stable stage 3 COPD participants. Compared with LABA, people receiving BDP/LABA showed a statistically significant improvement in FEV1 lung function measurements of 0.051 L (95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.102, P = 0.046) (high quality of evidence) and in (self-reported) days without rescue bronchodilators (mean difference 7.05, 95% CI 0.84 to 13.26, P = 0.03) (low quality), both of which are unlikely to be clinically significant. Participants receiving BDP/LABA also had a statistically significant increased rate of exacerbations leading to hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR) 1.84, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.90, P = 0.008) (moderate quality), although this finding is debatable as this study's post hoc analysis showed no statistically significant difference when accounting for country-specific differences in hospitalisation policies. We did not find statistically significant differences for mortality (very low quality), pneumonia (low quality), exacerbations, exercise capacity, quality of life and dyspnoea scores, adverse events and withdrawal (all moderate quality).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found little evidence to suggest that beclometasone is a safer or more effective treatment option for people with COPD when compared with placebo or when used in combination with LABA; when statistically significant differences were found, they mostly were not clinically meaningful or were based on data from only one study. The review was limited by an inability to obtain data from one study and likely publication bias for BDP versus placebo, and by the inclusion of one study only for BDP/LABA versus LABA. An ongoing study of BDP/LABA versus LABA may have a further impact on these conclusions.

Guidelines for diagnosis and management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Joint ICS/NCCP (I) recommendations

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major public health problem in India. Although several International guidelines for diagnosis and management of COPD are available, yet there are lot of gaps in recognition and management of COPD in India due to vast differences in availability and affordability of healthcare facilities across the country. The Indian Chest Society (ICS) and the National College of Chest Physicians (NCCP) of India have joined hands to come out with these evidence-based guidelines to help the physicians at all levels of healthcare to diagnose and manage COPD in a scientific manner. Besides the International literature, the Indian studies were specifically analyzed to arrive at simple and practical recommendations. The evidence is presented under these five headings: (a) definitions, epidemiology, and disease burden; (b) disease assessment and diagnosis; (c) pharmacologic management of stable COPD; (d) management of acute exacerbations; and (e) nonpharmacologic and preventive measures. The modified grade system was used for classifying the quality of evidence as 1, 2, 3, or usual practice point (UPP). The strength of recommendation was graded as A or B depending upon the level of evidence.

Systemic steroid exposure is associated with differential methylation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

RATIONALE

Systemic glucocorticoids are used therapeutically to treat a variety of medical conditions. Epigenetic processes such as DNA methylation may reflect exposure to glucocorticoids and may be involved in mediating the responses and side effects associated with these medications.

OBJECTIVES

To test the hypothesis that differences in DNA methylation are associated with current systemic steroid use.

METHODS

We obtained DNA methylation data at 27,578 CpG sites in 14,475 genes throughout the genome in two large, independent cohorts: the International COPD Genetics Network (n(discovery) = 1,085) and the Boston Early Onset COPD study (n(replication) = 369). Sites were tested for association with current systemic steroid use using generalized linear mixed models.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 511 sites demonstrated significant differential methylation by systemic corticosteroid use in all three of our primary models. Pyrosequencing validation confirmed robust differential methylation at CpG sites annotated to genes such as SLC22A18, LRP3, HIPK3, SCNN1A, FXYD1, IRF7, AZU1, SIT1, GPR97, ABHD16B, and RABGEF1. Functional annotation clustering demonstrated significant enrichment in intrinsic membrane components, hemostasis and coagulation, cellular ion homeostasis, leukocyte and lymphocyte activation and chemotaxis, protein transport, and responses to nutrients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses suggest that systemic steroid use is associated with site-specific differential methylation throughout the genome. Differentially methylated CpG sites were found in biologically plausible and previously unsuspected pathways; these genes and pathways may be relevant in the development of novel targeted therapies.

Inhaled corticosteroids for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

The role of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been the subject of much controversy. Major international guidelines recommend selective use of ICS. Recently published meta-analyses have reported conflicting findings on the effects of inhaled steroid therapy in COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids in stable patients with COPD, in terms of objective and subjective outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

A pre-defined search strategy was used to search the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register for relevant literature. Searches are current as of July 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials comparing any dose of any type of inhaled steroid with a placebo control in patients with COPD. Acute bronchodilator reversibility to short-term beta(2)-agonists and bronchial hyper-responsiveness were not exclusion criteria. The a priori primary outcome was change in lung function. We also analysed data on mortality, exacerbations, quality of life and symptoms, rescue bronchodilator use, exercise capacity, biomarkers and safety.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects information from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-five primary studies with 16,154 participants met the inclusion criteria. Long-term use of ICS (more than six months) did not consistently reduce the rate of decline in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) in COPD patients (generic inverse variance analysis: mean difference (MD) 5.80 mL/year with ICS over placebo, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.28 to 11.88, 2333 participants; pooled means analysis: 6.88 mL/year, 95% CI 1.80 to 11.96, 4823 participants), although one major trial demonstrated a statistically significant difference. There was no statistically significant effect on mortality in COPD patients (odds ratio (OR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.16, 8390 participants). Long-term use of ICS reduced the mean rate of exacerbations in those studies where pooling of data was possible (generic inverse variance analysis: MD -0.26 exacerbations per patient per year, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.14, 2586 participants; pooled means analysis: MD -0.19 exacerbations per patient per year, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.08, 2253 participants). ICS slowed the rate of decline in quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (MD -1.22 units/year, 95% CI -1.83 to -0.60, 2507 participants). Response to ICS was not predicted by oral steroid response, bronchodilator reversibility or bronchial hyper-responsiveness in COPD patients. There was an increased risk of oropharyngeal candidiasis (OR 2.65, 95% CI 2.03 to 3.46, 5586 participants) and hoarseness. In the long-term studies, the rate of pneumonia was increased in the ICS group compared to placebo, in studies that reported pneumonia as an adverse event (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.86, 6235 participants). The long-term studies that measured bone effects generally showed no major effect on fractures and bone mineral density over three years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patients and clinicians should balance the potential benefits of inhaled steroids in COPD (reduced rate of exacerbations, reduced rate of decline in quality of life and possibly reduced rate of decline in FEV(1)) against the potential side effects (oropharyngeal candidiasis and hoarseness, and risk of pneumonia).

Pharmacological treatment of COPD

Approximately seven million Brazilians over 40 years of age have COPD. In recent years, major advances have been made in the pharmacological treatment of this condition. We performed a systematic review including original articles on pharmacological treatments for COPD. We reviewed articles written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese; published between 2005 and 2009; and indexed in national and international databases. Articles with a sample size < 100 individuals were excluded. The outcome measures were symptoms, pulmonary function, quality of life, exacerbations, mortality, and adverse drug effects. Articles were classified in accordance with the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease criteria for the determination of the level of scientific evidence (grade of recommendation A, B, or C). Of the 84 articles selected, 40 (47.6%), 18 (21.4%), and 26 (31.0%) were classified as grades A, B, and C, respectively. Of the 420 analyses made in these articles, 236 were regarding the comparison between medications and placebos. Among these 236 analyses, the most commonly studied medications (in 66, 48, and 42 analyses, respectively) were long-acting anticholinergics; the combination of long-acting β(2) agonists and inhaled corticosteroids; and inhaled corticosteroids in isolation. Pulmonary function, adverse effects, and symptoms as outcomes generated 58, 54, and 35 analyses, respectively. The majority of the studies showed that the medications evaluated provided symptom relief; improved the quality of life and pulmonary function of patients; and prevented exacerbations. Few studies analyzed mortality as an outcome, and the role that pharmacological treatment plays in this outcome has yet to be fully defined. The medications studied are safe to use in the management of COPD and have few adverse effects.

Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the emergency department

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs) are a common presentation to emergency departments and are an important cause of respiratory failure. This article discusses the disease process and diagnosis of COPD and AECOPD. A further in-depth discussion is undertaken of evidence-based treatments, palliation, and disposition of patients who present to emergency departments with AECOPD.

Inhaled corticosteroids versus long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta(2)-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids can be used as maintenance therapy by patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These interventions are often taken together in a combination inhaler. However, the relative added value of the two individual components is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effects of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) compared to long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) on clinical outcomes in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (latest search August 2011) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta(2)-agonists in the treatment of patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality, study outcomes and adverse events. We also contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven randomised trials (5997 participants) of good quality with a duration of six months to three years. All of the trials compared ICS/LABA combination inhalers with LABA and ICS as individual components. Four of these trials included fluticasone and salmeterol monocomponents and the remaining three included budesonide and formoterol monocomponents. There was no statistically significant difference in our primary outcome, the number of patients experiencing exacerbations (odds ratio (OR) 1.22; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.67), or the rate of exacerbations per patient year (rate ratio (RR) 0.96; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.02) between inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta(2)-agonists. The incidence of pneumonia, our co-primary outcome, was significantly higher among patients on inhaled corticosteroids than on long-acting beta(2)-agonists whether classified as an adverse event (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.73) or serious adverse event (Peto OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.93). Results of the secondary outcomes analysis were as follows. Mortality was higher in patients on inhaled corticosteroids compared to patients on long-acting beta(2)-agonists (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.42), although the difference was not statistically significant. Patients treated with beta(2)-agonists showed greater improvements in pre-bronchodilator FEV(1) compared to those treated with inhaled corticosteroids (mean difference (MD) 18.99 mL; 95% CI 0.52 to 37.46), whilst greater improvements in health-related quality of life were observed in patients receiving inhaled corticosteroids compared to those receiving long-acting beta(2)-agonists (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) MD -0.74; 95% CI -1.42 to -0.06). In both cases the differences were statistically significant but rather small in magnitude. There were no statistically significant differences between ICS and LABA in the number of hospitalisations due to exacerbations, number of mild exacerbations, peak expiratory flow, dyspnoea, symptoms scores, use of rescue medication, adverse events, all cause hospitalisations, or withdrawals from studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Placebo-controlled trials have established the benefits of both long-acting beta-agonist and inhaled corticosteroid therapy for COPD patients as individual therapies. This review, which included trials allowing comparisons between LABA and ICS, has shown that the two therapies confer similar benefits across the majority of outcomes, including the frequency of exacerbations and mortality. Use of long-acting beta-agonists appears to confer a small additional benefit in terms of improvements in lung function compared to inhaled corticosteroids. On the other hand, inhaled corticosteroid therapy shows a small advantage over long-acting beta-agonist therapy in terms of health-related quality of life, but inhaled corticosteroids also increase the risk of pneumonia. This review supports current guidelines advocating long-acting beta-agonists as frontline therapy for COPD, with regular inhaled corticosteroid therapy as an adjunct in patients experiencing frequent exacerbations.

Inhaled corticosteroids versus long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta(2)-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids can be used as maintenance therapy by patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These interventions are often taken together in a combination inhaler. However, the relative added value of the two individual components is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effects of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) compared to long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) on clinical outcomes in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (latest search August 2011) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta(2)-agonists in the treatment of patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality, study outcomes and adverse events. We also contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven randomised trials (5997 participants) of good quality with a duration of six months to three years. All of the trials compared ICS/LABA combination inhalers with LABA and ICS as individual components. Four of these trials included fluticasone and salmeterol monocomponents and the remaining three included budesonide and formoterol monocomponents. There was no statistically significant difference in our primary outcome, the number of patients experiencing exacerbations (odds ratio (OR) 1.22; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.67), or the rate of exacerbations per patient year (rate ratio (RR) 0.96; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.02) between inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta(2)-agonists. The incidence of pneumonia, our co-primary outcome, was significantly higher among patients on inhaled corticosteroids than on long-acting beta(2)-agonists whether classified as an adverse event (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.73) or serious adverse event (Peto OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.93). Results of the secondary outcomes analysis were as follows. Mortality was higher in patients on inhaled corticosteroids compared to patients on long-acting beta(2)-agonists (Peto OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.42), although the difference was not statistically significant. Patients treated with beta(2)-agonists showed greater improvements in pre-bronchodilator FEV(1) compared to those treated with inhaled corticosteroids (mean difference (MD) 18.99 mL; 95% CI 0.52 to 37.46), whilst greater improvements in health-related quality of life were observed in patients receiving inhaled corticosteroids compared to those receiving long-acting beta(2)-agonists (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) MD -0.74; 95% CI -1.42 to -0.06). In both cases the differences were statistically significant but rather small in magnitude. There were no statistically significant differences between ICS and LABA in the number of hospitalisations due to exacerbations, number of mild exacerbations, peak expiratory flow, dyspnoea, symptoms scores, use of rescue medication, adverse events, all cause hospitalisations, or withdrawals from studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Placebo-controlled trials have established the benefits of both long-acting beta-agonist and inhaled corticosteroid therapy for COPD patients as individual therapies. This review, which included trials allowing comparisons between LABA and ICS, has shown that the two therapies confer similar benefits across the majority of outcomes, including the frequency of exacerbations and mortality. Use of long-acting beta-agonists appears to confer a small additional benefit in terms of improvements in lung function compared to inhaled corticosteroids. On the other hand, inhaled corticosteroid therapy shows a small advantage over long-acting beta-agonist therapy in terms of health-related quality of life, but inhaled corticosteroids also increase the risk of pneumonia. This review supports current guidelines advocating long-acting beta-agonists as frontline therapy for COPD, with regular inhaled corticosteroid therapy as an adjunct in patients experiencing frequent exacerbations.

The effect of adding inhaled corticosteroids to tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Long-acting bronchodilators comprising long-acting beta(2)-agonists and the anticholinergic agent tiotropium are commonly used, either on their own or in combination, for managing persistent symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who are symptomatic and who suffer repeated exacerbations are recommended to add inhaled corticosteroids to their bronchodilator treatment. However, the benefits and risks of adding inhaled corticosteroid to tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the relative effects of adding inhaled corticosteroids to tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists treatment in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (February 2011) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel group, randomised controlled trials of three months or longer comparing inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy in addition to inhaled tiotropium against tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonist treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and then extracted data on trial quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information on adverse effects from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

One trial (293 patients) was identified comparing tiotropium in addition to inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist combination therapy to tiotropium plus long-acting beta(2)-agonist. The study was of good methodological quality, however it suffered from high and uneven withdrawal rates between the treatment arms. There is currently insufficient evidence to know how much difference the addition of inhaled corticosteroids makes to people who are taking tiotropium and a long-acting beta(2)-agonist for COPD.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The relative efficacy and safety of adding inhaled corticosteroid to tiotropium and a long-acting beta(2)-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients remains uncertain and additional trials are required to answer this question.

Withdrawal of inhaled corticosteroids in individuals with COPD--a systematic review and comment on trial methodology

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) reduce COPD exacerbation frequency and slow decline in health related quality of life but have little effect on lung function, do not reduce mortality, and increase the risk of pneumonia. We systematically reviewed trials in which ICS have been withdrawn from patients with COPD, with the aim of determining the effect of withdrawal, understanding the differing results between trials, and making recommendations for improving methodology in future trials where medication is withdrawn. Trials were identified by two independent reviewers using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, citations of identified studies were checked, and experts contacted to identify further studies. Data extraction was completed independently by two reviewers. The methodological quality of each trial was determined by assessing possible sources of systematic bias as recommended by the Cochrane collaboration. We included four trials; the quality of three was adequate. In all trials, outcomes were generally worse for patients who had had ICS withdrawn, but differences between outcomes for these patients and patients who continued with medication were mostly small and not statistically significant. Due to data paucity we performed only one meta-analysis; this indicated that patients who had had medication withdrawn were 1.11 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.46) times more likely to have an exacerbation in the following year, but the definition of exacerbations was not consistent between the three trials, and the impact of withdrawal was smaller in recent trials which were also trials conducted under conditions that reflected routine practice. There is no evidence from this review that withdrawing ICS in routine practice results in important deterioration in patient outcomes. Furthermore, the extent of increase in exacerbations depends on the way exacerbations are defined and managed and may depend on the use of other medication. In trials where medication is withdrawn, investigators should report other medication use, definitions of exacerbations and management of patients clearly. Intention to treat analyses should be used and interpreted appropriately.

Changes in mortality among US adults with COPD in two national cohorts recruited from 1971-1975 and 1988-1994

BACKGROUND

COPD is a major contributor to the global burden of disease. Our objective was to examine changes in the mortality rate among persons with COPD in the United States.

METHODS

We conducted prospective studies using data from 5,185 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) I Epidemiologic Follow-up Study (baseline examination from 1971-1975; follow-up from 1992-1993) and 10,954 participants of the NHANES III Linked Mortality Study (baseline examination from 1988-1994; follow-up through 2006).

RESULTS

The age-adjusted rate (per 1,000 person-years) among participants with moderate or severe COPD (23.9 and 20.2) was about 2.5 to 3 times higher than the rate among participants with normal lung function (10.4 and 6.2) in NHANES I and NHANES III, respectively. Compared with NHANES I, the mortality rate among participants in NHANES III decreased by 15.8% for those with moderate or severe COPD, 25.2% for those with mild COPD, 35.9% for those with respiratory symptoms with normal lung function, 16.6% for those with restrictive impairment, and 40.1% for those with normal lung function. However, the decrease did not reach statistical significance among participants with moderate or severe COPD. The decreases in the mortality rate among men with moderate or severe COPD (-17.8%) or with restrictive impairment (-35.1%) exceeded the changes among women (+3% and -6.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The secular decline in the mortality rate in the United States benefited people with COPD less than those with normal lung function.