Umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol combination in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a review

Features of Changes of Vascular Age and Cardiovascular Risk Level in Patients with Arterial Hypertension and Comorbid Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

The objective: Evaluate changes in vascular age and cardiovascular risk level with reference to the severity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in patients with arterial hypertension (AH) and COPD. Materials and methods. The study included 120 patients with hypertension stage II, grade 2, 3 and 3 in combination with COPD grade II–III and clinical groups A, B, C, D (group 1), 30 patients with AH without COPD (group 2), 30 patients with COPD without AH (group 3) and 30 healthy individuals (control group) representative by age and sex. Results. In the group of patients with AH and comorbid COPD, more than 50% of patients corresponded to moderate CVR, more than a third to high CVR, and a very high risk was found in isolated cases. The analysis of the obtained data revealed a significant increase in vascular age relative to chronological in groups 1, 2 and 3, but in control group there was only a tendency to ahead of vascular age (p>0.05). The diagnostic value of indicators for determining the exacerbation of COPD in patients with hypertension and comorbid COPD was determined using ROC analysis, which showed the presence of prognostic value for the following factors: age (AUC 0.50; CI 0.41–0.59), pack-years (AUC 0.60; CI0.51–0.69), duration of COPD (AUC 0.60; CI 0.51–0.69). Conclusion. The GP of the family medicine must evaluate the CVR on the SCORE scale as a screening technique. In the presence of comorbid COPD, the factor of disease duration becomes significant, which is an additional risk factor and affects the severity of CVR. Regardless of the comorbid pathology of AH and COPD, patients have a discrepancy between vascular and chronological age, which is a predictor of cardiovascular disease.

Clinical effects of lentinan combined with budesonide inhalation in treating acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease under mechanical ventilation

In the present study, the clinical efficacy of the immune modulator lentinan combined with inhalation of the corticosteroid budesonide in treating acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) under mechanical ventilation was assessed. A total of 72 cases of AECOPD treated at Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital (Shanghai, China) between June 2016 and September 2017 were enrolled. The AECOPD patients were randomly divided into an experimental group (n=36) and a control group (n=36). All of the patients received ventilator support and endotracheal intubation was performed. The experimental group was orally administered lentinan and budesonide was administered via atomization inhalation through a Y-tube and the control group received only budesonide via Y-tube. After the treatment, airway pressure, the time of mechanical ventilation and the time of stay at the intensive care unit for the experimental group were significantly lower than those for the control group (P<0.001). The plasma levels of adiponectin, D-dimer, interleukin-17 and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, as well as the pressure of CO₂ in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in control group (P<0.001). Furthermore, the partial O₂ pressure in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P<0.001). After the combined treatment, the proportions of CD3⁺ and CD4⁺T-cells in the blood were elevated, while the proportion of CD8⁺T-cells was decreased, compared with those in the experimental group at baseline or the control group post-treatment. In conclusion, the strategy of lentinan treatment combined with budesonide inhalation for AECOPD patients under mechanical ventilation demonstrated improved clinical efficacy compared with budesonide alone. (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry no. ChiCTR1800019088).

Umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have poor quality of life, reduced survival, and accelerated decline in lung function, especially associated with acute exacerbations, leading to high healthcare costs. Long-acting bronchodilators are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic improvement, and umeclidinium is one of the new long-acting muscarinic antagonists approved for treatment of patients with stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, and the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Clinical Study Register, using prespecified terms, as well as the reference lists of all identified studies. Searches are current to April 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing umeclidinium bromide versus placebo in people with COPD, for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. If we noted significant heterogeneity in the meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies by umeclidinium dose.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies of 12 to 52 weeks' duration, involving 3798 participants with COPD. Mean age of participants ranged from 60.1 to 64.6 years; most were males with baseline mean smoking pack-years of 39.2 to 52.3. They had moderate to severe COPD and baseline mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) ranging from 44.5% to 55.1% of predicted normal. As all studies were systematically conducted according to prespecified protocols, we assessed risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases as low.Compared with those given placebo, participants in the umeclidinium group had a lesser likelihood of developing moderate exacerbations requiring a short course of steroids, antibiotics, or both (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.80; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: high), but not specifically requiring hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.92; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: low). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent an acute exacerbation requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both was 18 (95% CI 13 to 37). Quality of life was better in the umeclidinium group (mean difference (MD) -4.79, 95% CI -8.84 to -0.75; three studies, N = 1119), and these participants had a significantly higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least four units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score compared with those in the placebo group (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.82; three studies, N = 1397; GRADE: moderate). The NNTB to achieve one person with a clinically meaningful improvement was 11 (95% CI 7 to 29). The likelihood of all-cause mortality, non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: moderate), and adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: moderate) did not differ between umeclidinium and placebo groups. The umeclidinium group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in change from baseline in trough FEV₁ compared with the placebo group (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.17; four studies, N = 1381; GRADE: high). Symptomatic improvement was more likely in the umeclidinium group than in the placebo group, as determined by Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.09; three studies, N = 1193), and the chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least one unit improvement was significantly higher with umeclidinium than with placebo (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; three studies, N = 1141; GRADE: high). The NNTB to attain one person with clinically important symptomatic improvement was 8 (95% CI 5 to 14). The likelihood of rescue medication usage (change from baseline in the number of puffs per day) was significantly less for the umeclidinium group than for the placebo group (MD -0.45, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14; four studies, N = 1531).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Umeclidinium reduced acute exacerbations requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both, although no evidence suggests that it decreased the risk of hospital admission due to exacerbations. Moreover, umeclidinium demonstrated significant improvement in quality of life, lung function, and symptoms, along with lesser use of rescue medications. Studies reported no differences in adverse events, non-fatal serious adverse events, or mortality between umeclidinium and placebo groups; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

Tiotropium Bromide in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Bronchial Asthma

Inhaled bronchodilators are the mainstay of pharmacological treatment for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), including β2-agonists and muscarinic antagonists. Tiotropium bromide, a long-acting antimuscarinic bronchodilator (LAMA), is a treatment choice for moderate-to-severe COPD; its efficacy and safety have been demonstrated in recent trials. Studies also point to a beneficial role of tiotropium in the treatment of difficult-to-control asthma and a potential function in the asthma-COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS). Combination of different bronchodilator molecules and addition of inhaled corticosteroids are viable therapeutic alternatives. A condensation of the latest trials and the rationale behind these therapies will be presented in this article.