Effect of inhalers on the development of haemoptysis in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis

Comparative effectiveness and safety of inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting β2-agonist fixed-dose combinations vs. long-acting muscarinic antagonist in bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonists (ICS/LABA) in bronchiectasis.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic medical records of bronchiectasis patients initiating ICS/LABA FDC or LAMA between 2007 and 2021. All bronchiectasis diagnoses were made by radiologists using high-resolution computed tomography.

RESULTS

Of the 1,736 patients, 1,281 took ICS/LABA FDC and 455 LAMA. Among the 694 propensity score matched patients, ICS/LABA FDC had comparable outcomes to LAMA, with HRs of 1.22 (95% CI 0.81-1.83) for hospitalized respiratory infection, 1.06 (95% CI 0.84-1.33) for acute exacerbation, and 1.06 (95% CI 0.66-1.02) for all-cause hospitalization. Beclomethasone/formoterol (BEC/FOR) or budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) led to a lower risk of acute exacerbation compared to fluticasone/salmeterol (FLU/SAL) (BEC/FOR HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43-0.81; BUD/FOR HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.93). BEC/FOR resulted in lower risks of hospitalized respiratory infection (HR 0.48, 95% 0.26-0.86) and all-cause hospitalization (HR 0.55, 95% 0.37-0.80) compared to FLU/SAL.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide important evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ICS/LABA FDC compared with LAMA for bronchiectasis. BEC/FOR and BUD/FOR were associated with better outcomes than FLU/SAL.

Inhaled Corticosteroids in Adults with Non-cystic Fibrosis Bronchiectasis: From Bench to Bedside. A Narrative Review

Due to their potent anti-inflammatory capacity (particularly in predominantly eosinophilic inflammation) and immunosuppressive properties, inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) are widely used in asthmatic patients and also in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who suffer multiple exacerbations or have peripheral eosinophilia. However, there is little evidence for their use in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (hereafter, bronchiectasis). According to data extracted from large databases of bronchiectasis in adults, ICSs are used in more than 50% of patients without any scientific evidence to justify their efficacy and contrary to the recommendations of international guidelines on bronchiectasis that generally advise against their use. Indeed, bronchiectasis is a disease with predominantly neutrophilic inflammation and a high likelihood of chronic bacterial bronchial infection. Furthermore, it is known that due to their immunosuppressive properties, ICSs can induce an increase in bacterial infections. This manuscript aims to review the basic properties of ICSs, how they impact bronchiectasis in adults, the current position of international guidelines on this treatment, and the current indications and future challenges related to ICS use in bronchiectasis.

Rationale and Clinical Use of Bronchodilators in Adults with Bronchiectasis

Currently, there is much controversy surrounding the therapeutic approach to pulmonary function abnormalities in patients with bronchiectasis and, consequently, whether and when to use bronchodilators in these patients. National and international guidelines on the treatment of bronchiectasis in adults do not recommend the routine use of bronchodilators because there is no evidence that a significant response to a bronchodilator or the presence or hyperresponsiveness of the airway are good predictors of future effective clinical response. However, some guidelines recommend them in the presence of airway obstruction and/or special conditions, which vary according to the guideline in question, although there are no recommendations on optimal dosing and bronchodilator treatment combined with or without inhaled corticosteroids. Nonetheless, in contrast with guideline recommendations, bronchodilators are overused in real-world patients with bronchiectasis even in the absence of airway obstruction, as demonstrated by analysis of national and international registries. This overuse can be explained by the awareness of the existence of a solid pharmacological rationale that supports the use of bronchodilators in the presence of chronic airway obstruction independent of its aetiology. We performed a systematic review of the literature and were able to verify that there are no randomised controlled trials (apart from a small study with methodological limitations and a very recent trial involving a not-very-large number of patients), or any long-term observational studies on the short- or long-term effect of bronchodilators in patients with bronchiectasis. Therefore, we believe that it is essential and even urgent to evaluate the effects of bronchodilators in these patients with appropriately designed studies.

Prevalence, causes, and chest sonographic findings of bronchiectasis among admitted patients in tertiary care hospital: 10 years’ experience

Background

Bronchiectasis may be associated and/or co-exist with respiratory diseases as bronchial asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or non-respiratory diseases. However, data about this association and/or co-existence is little. The objectives of the study were to determine the prevalence of bronchiectasis among admitted patients in the Chest Department in 10 years’ period (2008–2018) and to detect associated and/or co-existent respiratory diseases. In a retrospective cohort study, the diagnosis of bronchiectasis was based on chest HRCT. Data included the total number of hospitalized patients during this period, their final diagnosis, co-existing diagnosis associated with bronchiectasis, and sonographic and spirometric findings.

Results

The total number of patients admitted in 2008–2018 was 17,531 patients. The prevalence of bronchiectasis during this period was 9.04%. COPD was the commonest suspected cause (54.1%) followed by post-tuberculosis bronchiectasis (17.1%). On admission, 63.7% had acute type 2 respiratory failure, 21.1% had decompensated cor pulmonale, 3.8% required mechanical ventilation (MV), and 1.3% required non-invasive MV. On discharge, 9.9% required long-term oxygen therapy. The presence of B lines in chest ultrasonography was recorded in 68.2% and air bronchogram in 29.1%.

Conclusions

The prevalence of bronchiectasis among admitted patients was still increasing. COPD with bronchiectasis accounted for more than half of cases. More researches are needed to identify the impact of the COPD-bronchiectasis phenotype.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04101448

Challenges of diagnosing and managing bronchiectasis in resource-limited settings: a case study

Bronchiectasis, once an orphan disease is now gaining renewed attention as a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. It is a morphologic term used to describe abnormal, irreversibly dilated and thick-walled bronchi, with many etiologies. The management of bronchiectasis can be challenging because its pathogenetic mechanisms is still evolving. Its diagnosis and management is particularly more demanding especially in resource-limited settings like Nigeria because of delayed diagnosis and improper management with devastating consequences, hence this case study.

Association between inhaler use and risk of haemoptysis in patients with non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Inhaled medications have been widely applied to patients with airflow limiting non-cystic fibrosis (non-CF) bronchiectasis. However, the association between the use of inhalers and the development of haemoptysis has rarely been explored. The objective of this study was to assess the association between the risk of haemoptysis and the use of inhalers in patients with non-CF bronchiectasis.

METHODS

A nested case-control study was performed using a national claims database from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011. Inhalers including inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), long-acting β2 agonists (LABA), long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), short-acting β2 agonists (SABA), short-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMA) and their combinations were tested for the risk of clinically significant haemoptysis events.

RESULTS

Among the 62 530 eligible new users of inhalers with non-CF bronchiectasis, 6180 patients with haemoptysis and 27 486 strictly matched controls were selected. In the unadjusted analyses, SAMA, LAMA, SABA and ICS/LABA significantly increased the risk of haemoptysis. After adjustment for other inhaled respiratory medications, comorbidities, health-care utilization and concomitant medications, SAMA, SABA and LAMA consistently increased the risk of haemoptysis (SAMA: odds ratio (OR), 1.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-1.4; LAMA: OR, 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1-1.2; SABA: OR, 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1-1.2). The association between anticholinergics (SAMA and LAMA) and risk of haemoptysis showed a dose-dependent trend (P for trend, <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SABA and inhaled anticholinergics in patients with non-CF bronchiectasis increased the risk of haemoptysis. The risk-benefit ratio of inhaled bronchodilators should be considered in the haemoptysis-susceptible population.