RESUMEN

The effect of bronchodilators is mainly assessed with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Their impact on oxygenation and lung periphery is less known. Our objective was to compare the action of long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA-olodaterol) and muscarinic antagonists (LAMA-tiotropium) on tissue oxygenation in COPD, considering their impact on proximal and peripheral ventilation as well as lung perfusion. FEV1, Helium slope (SHe) from a single-breath washout test (SHe decreases reflecting a peripheral ventilation improvement), frequency dependence of resistance (R5-R19), area under reactance (AX), lung capillary blood volume (Vc) from double diffusion (DLNO/DLCO), and transcutaneous oxygenation (TcO2) were measured before and 2 h post-LABA (day 1) and LAMA (day 3) in 30 patients with COPD (FEV1 54 ± 18% pred; GOLD A 31%/B 48%/E 21%) after 5-7 days of washout, respectively. We found that TcO2 increased more (P = 0.03) after LAMA (11 ± 12% from baseline, P < 001) compared with LABA (4 ± 11%, P = 0.06) despite a lower FEV1 increase (P = 0.03) and similar SHe (P = 0.98), AX (P = 0.63), and R5-R19 decreases (P = 0.37). TcO2 and SHe changes were negatively correlated (r = -0.47, P = 0.01) after LABA, not after LAMA (r = 0.10, P = 0.65). DLNO/DLCO decreased and Vc increased after LAMA (P = 0.04; P = 0.01, respectively) but not after LABA (P = 0.53; P = 0.24). In conclusion, LAMA significantly improved tissue oxygenation in patients with COPD, while only a trend was observed with LABA. The mechanisms involved may differ between both drugs: LABA increased peripheral ventilation, whereas LAMA increased lung capillary blood volume. Should oxygenation differences persist over time, LAMA could arguably become the first therapeutic choice in COPD.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) significantly improved tissue oxygenation in patients with COPD, while only a trend was observed with ß2-agonists (LABAs). The mechanisms involved may differ between drugs: increased peripheral ventilation for LABA and likely lung capillary blood volume for LAMA. This could argue for LAMA as the first therapeutic choice in COPD.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Allergic bronchopulmonary mycosis (ABPM) is a chronic immune-mediated pulmonary disease, which is caused by fungal infection of the airways. Aspergillus species are the main causative fungi and standard treatment typically comprises systemic corticosteroid therapy with or without adjunct antifungal agents. We describe our experience with a case of ABPM caused by Schizophyllum commune (S. commune), with satisfactory response to treatment with a combination of an inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting ß 2-agonist. The patient was a 61-year-old man who was referred to our hospital with dry cough and abnormal findings on chest radiography. He had peripheral blood eosinophilia and elevated levels of total serum IgE. High-resolution CT showed multiple areas of patchy consolidation with high-attenuation mucus plugs in the right upper lobe. Bronchoscopy revealed mucus plug impaction in the bronchial lumen, and Grocott's staining of the mucus detected fungal hyphae. Bronchioalveolar lavage fluid culture yielded white woolly colonies, which was subsequently identified as S. commune by MALDI-TOF MS and gene sequencing. Serology was positive for S. commune-specific IgE and IgG. We made a definitive diagnosis of ABPM caused by S. commune. Symptoms and chest CT findings improved considerably with inhaled combined fluticasone furoate/vilanterol trifenatate therapy, without the use of systemic corticosteroids or antifungal agents.

RESUMEN

This review addresses outstanding questions regarding initial pharmacological management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Optimizing initial treatment improves clinical outcomes in symptomatic patients, including those with low exacerbation risk. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) dual therapy improves lung function versus LAMA or LABA monotherapy, although other treatment benefits have been less consistently observed. The benefits of dual bronchodilation in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk, and its duration of efficacy and cost effectiveness in this population, are not yet fully established. Questions remain on the impact of baseline symptom severity, prior treatment, degree of reversibility to bronchodilators, and smoking status on responses to dual bronchodilator treatment. Using evidence from EMAX (NCT03034915), a 6-month trial comparing the LAMA/LABA combination umeclidinium/vilanterol with umeclidinium and salmeterol monotherapy in symptomatic patients with COPD at low exacerbation risk who were inhaled corticosteroid-naïve, we describe how these findings can be applied in primary care.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of death worldwide. While two approved fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) triple therapies reduce all-cause mortality (ACM) versus dual LAMA/LABA therapy in patients with COPD, head-to-head studies have not compared the effects of these therapies on ACM. We compared ACM in adults with moderate-to-very severe COPD receiving budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) in ETHOS versus fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) in IMPACT using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified two studies (ETHOS [NCT02465567]; IMPACT [NCT02164513]) of ≥52 weeks reporting ACM as an efficacy endpoint in patients receiving triple therapy. As ETHOS and IMPACT lack a common comparator, an unanchored MAIC compared ACM between licensed doses of BGF (320/18/9.6 µg) from ETHOS and FF/UMEC/VI (100/62.5/25 µg) from IMPACT in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. Using on- and off-treatment data from the final retrieved datasets of the intention-to-treat populations, BGF data were adjusted according to aggregate FF/UMEC/VI data using 11 baseline covariates; a supplementary unadjusted indirect treatment comparison was also conducted. P-values for these post-hoc analyses are not adjusted for Type I error. RESULTS: ACM over 52 weeks was statistically significantly reduced by 39% for BGF versus FF/UMEC/VI in the MAIC (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.38, 0.95], p = 0.030) and unadjusted analysis (HR [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.41, 0.92], p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: In this MAIC, which adjusted for population heterogeneity between ETHOS and IMPACT, ACM was significantly reduced with BGF versus FF/UMEC/VI in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (known as COPD) is a leading cause of death worldwide, being responsible for over 3 million deaths in 2019. People living with COPD are more likely to die. Importantly, a sudden worsening of COPD symptoms (known as an exacerbation) is associated with a higher chance of death from heart-related and breathing-related problems. Therefore, reducing risk of death is an important treatment goal for COPD. Of the three medications approved for treating COPD that combine three drugs in a single-inhaler device, there are two­referred to generically as budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) and fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI)­that can reduce the risk of death in people living with COPD compared with treatments that combine two drugs. However, no studies have directly compared the risk of death in people living with COPD treated with these medicines. We compared the risk of death in people living with moderate-to-very severe COPD who received either BGF during a clinical trial called ETHOS or FF/UMEC/VI during a clinical trial called IMPACT. To make this comparison, we used a method called "matching-adjusted indirect comparison", which used specific features (such as sex, breathing difficulty, and whether they were current smokers) to match patients from the two studies to ensure similar groups were examined. Our analysis showed a 39% decrease in the chance of death in patients who received BGF compared with patients who received FF/UMEC/VI. This finding may be important for doctors to improve patient health and reduce the risk of death in people living with COPD.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate/vilanterol trifenatate (FF/VI) is an inhaled therapy for the treatment of asthma, with a prolonged duration of anti-inflammatory and bronchodilatory action. This study investigated the global metabolomic and lipidomic profile following treatment with FF/VI or placebo and assessed whether changes correlated with exhaled nitric oxide levels as a measure of airway inflammation. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period, crossover, repeat-dose study. Adults with asthma (forced expiratory volume in 1 s ≥ 60% predicted; fraction of exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO] > 40 parts per billion) received once-daily FF/VI 100 µg/25 µg or placebo for 14 days, followed by a 21-day washout period. Serum samples were taken at pre-dose (T1), and 15 and 21 days (T2 and T3, respectively) post dose in each period. The metabolomic and lipidomic profiles were analyzed by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry and polar liquid chromatography platforms, and ions were matched to a library of standards for metabolite identification and quantification. FeNO values at each timepoint were evaluated for correlations with the biochemical data. RESULTS: Of 27 randomized participants (mean age 24.5 years, 63% male), 26 provided serum samples for metabolomic analysis. A total of 1969 metabolites were identified, 1634 of which corresponded to a named structure in a reference library. Treatment-related changes in the metabolome were generally subtle, with a modest increase in metabolite perturbations across timepoints. The percentage of metabolites with significant changes (p < 0.05 for all) (increases↑/decreases↓) versus placebo were: 2.1% (1.1%↑/1.0%↓), 6.7% (0.46%↑/6.2%↓) and 11.8% (0.86%↑/10.9%↓) at T1, T2 and T3, respectively. Treatment with FF/VI reduced FeNO levels by 60%, whereas the systemic intermediates involved in NO biosynthesis remained unaffected. Evidence of systemic anti-inflammatory activity was seen in complex lipid pathways, suggesting reduced phospholipase-A2 activity, but without downstream impact on free fatty acids or inflammatory mediators. Consistent with the pathogenesis of asthma, there was evidence of higher fatty acid ß-oxidation and lower glycolysis in the placebo arm; this pattern was reversed in the treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the prolonged airway anti-inflammatory action of FF/VI, this was accompanied by only subtle systemic metabolomic and lipidomic changes. Trial registration Prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov registry number NCT02712047.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Purpose: There is a high prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States (US). Although guidelines are available for the treatment of COPD, evidence suggests that management of COPD in clinical practice is not always aligned with this guidance. This study aimed to further understand the current use of COPD maintenance medication in the US. Patients and Methods: This study was an analysis of data from the Adelphi Respiratory Disease Specific Programme (DSP™) 2019. Point-in-time data were collected from participating US physicians and their COPD patients. Physicians were either primary care physicians (PCPs) or pulmonologists, with a minimum workload of ≥3 COPD patients per month. Patients were aged ≥18 years with a physician-confirmed diagnosis of COPD. Results: In total, 171 physicians completed the survey (92 PCPs and 79 pulmonologists). Mean patient age was 66.4 years, 45% were female, with moderate COPD in 49.4% of patients and severe/very severe in 19.3%. Pulmonologists more frequently prescribed dual bronchodilation and triple therapy than PCPs, whereas inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist was more frequently prescribed by PCPs than pulmonologists. For both physician types, the most common reason for prescribing their patients' current treatment was 24-hour symptom relief. The majority of PCPs (70.1%) and pulmonologists (71.9%) reported referring to COPD guidelines when making treatment decisions. Conclusion: Prescribing patterns for COPD patients were found to differ between PCPs and pulmonologists. Improved physician understanding of how to tailor treatment for each patient, based on current symptoms and exacerbation risk, could help optimize patient care in COPD.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Recent studies report a lower mortality rate during treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) versus LAMA/LABA in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history of exacerbations. Objective: We compared time to all-cause mortality with LAMA/LABA versus LAMA/LABA/ICS in patients with mild-to-very-severe COPD and a predominantly low exacerbation risk. Methods: Data were pooled from six randomized controlled trials (TONADO 1/2, DYNAGITO, WISDOM, UPLIFT and TIOSPIR; LAMA/LABA: n = 3156, LAMA/LABA/ICS: n = 11,891). Analysis was on-treatment and data were censored at 52 weeks. Patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS received ICS prior to study entry, which was not withdrawn at randomization. Patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS were propensity score (PS)-matched to patients on LAMA/LABA who had not previously received ICS; covariates included age, sex, geographical region, smoking status, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second percent predicted, exacerbation history in previous year, body mass index and time since diagnosis. Time to all-cause mortality was assessed using Cox proportional hazard regression models. Results: After PS matching, 3133 patients on LAMA/LABA and 3133 patients on LAMA/LABA/ICS were analyzed. Fewer than 20% of patients reported ≥2 exacerbations in the prior year (LAMA/LABA: 19.1%; LAMA/LABA/ICS: 19.0%). There were 41 (1.3%) deaths on LAMA/LABA and 45 (1.4%) deaths on LAMA/LABA/ICS. No statistically significant difference in time to death was observed between treatment arms (hazard ratio for LAMA/LABA 1.06; 95% confidence intervals 0.68, 1.64; P = 0.806). Sensitivity analyses conducted using different covariates or in an intent-to-treat population showed similar results. Conclusion: This pooled analysis of over 6000 patients with mild-to-very-severe COPD and predominantly low exacerbation risk showed no differences in mortality with LAMA/LABA versus LAMA/LABA/ICS, suggesting that the survival benefit of triple therapy seen in some recent studies may be specific to a high-risk population. This supports current Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease recommendations that triple therapy should be reserved for the subpopulations of patients who need it the most (eg, those with an eosinophilic phenotype and a high risk of exacerbations) to avoid ICS overuse.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Treatment with fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI), an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist therapy, reduces the risk of severe asthma exacerbations and improves lung function and symptom control in patients with asthma. However, real-world data remain limited among asthma patients in the United States (US). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study propensity score (PS) matched adult asthma patients initiating once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg with patients initiating twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (B/F) 160/4.5 mcg using a US claims database (January 1, 2015-December 31, 2018). Asthma control was measured by the mean number of short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) canisters dispensed per patient-year (PPY) during follow-up. Time to first, and rates of, overall and severe asthma exacerbations were also measured. RESULTS: After PS matching, 18,531 patients receiving FF/VI were matched to 18,531 patients receiving B/F. Mean SABA canisters dispensed PPY was significantly lower for FF/VI users compared with B/F users (FF/VI: 1.47, B/F: 1.64; p < 0.001). FF/VI use resulted in 13% significantly lower risk of having an overall asthma-related exacerbation and 22% lower risk of a severe exacerbation versus B/F use (overall exacerbation hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.87 [0.82-0.92], p < 0.001; severe exacerbation HR [95% CI]: 0.78 [0.63-0.97], p = 0.027). Asthma-related exacerbation rates per 100 patient-days were also significantly lower for the FF/VI group compared with the B/F group (overall: 0.0475 vs. 0.0558, p < 0.001; severe: 0.0026 vs. 0.0033, p = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: In real-world practice, initiation of once-daily FF/VI 100/25 mcg in adults with asthma was associated with lower use of SABA and fewer asthma-related exacerbations, which may indicate better asthma control, when compared with use of twice-daily B/F 160/4.5 mcg.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Severe eosinophilic asthma is associated with a heavy burden and impact on daily living in patients experiencing uncontrolled symptoms, exacerbations, and treatment side effects. This case study reports a 49-year-old woman who presented to the severe asthma center with uncontrolled severe asthma despite multiple maintenance medications and omalizumab treatment. On presentation, the patient had experienced two to three hospitalizations per year, frequent asthma exacerbations requiring courses of oral corticosteroids, and symptoms that impacted her quality of life. Omalizumab was previously discontinued, and bronchial thermoplasty was also unsuccessful. The patient stabilized on injectable steroids and commenced mepolizumab once available on prescription. Owing to continued exacerbations and an inability to reduce steroid treatment without exacerbating, mepolizumab was discontinued and the patient commenced benralizumab (30 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks for the first three doses, every 8 weeks thereafter) under the sole care of the severe asthma center. Benralizumab treatment resulted in a reduction in steroid treatment, zero asthma exacerbations, improved asthma control and lung function, and a marked improvement in activity levels that allowed the patient to participate in a long-distance running event. Additionally, 7 months following the initiation of benralizumab treatment, her blood eosinophils were completely depleted. These findings support the use of benralizumab in patients with refractory uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma despite previous biologic treatment with omalizumab and mepolizumab, as improvements in clinical and patient outcomes, including quality of life, can be achieved in difficult-to-treat cases.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In the phase III, 52-week ETHOS study in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF), at two inhaled corticosteroid dose levels, resulted in significantly lower moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF) and budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF). Here, we report results from the ETHOS pulmonary function test (PFT) sub-study, which assessed lung function in a subset of ETHOS patients. METHODS: ETHOS (NCT02465567) was a randomized, double-blind, multi-center, parallel-group study in patients with moderate to very severe COPD who had experienced ⩾1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. Patients received BGF 320/18/9.6 µg, BGF 160/18/9.6 µg, GFF 18/9.6 µg, or BFF 320/9.6 µg twice daily via a single metered dose Aerosphere inhaler for 52 weeks. A subset of patients participated in the 4-hour PFT sub-study; primary endpoints were change from baseline in morning pre-dose trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) versus GFF and FEV1 area under the curve from 0 to 4 hours (AUC0-4) versus BFF at week 24. RESULTS: The PFT modified intent-to-treat population included 3088 patients (mean age 64.4 years; mean reversibility post-albuterol 16.7%; mean post-albuterol FEV1% predicted 42.8). BGF 320/18/9.6 µg and 160/18/9.6 µg significantly improved morning pre-dose trough FEV1 at week 24 versus GFF (p ⩽ 0.0035 for both). Improvements in trough FEV1 were also observed at week 52 for BGF 320/18/9.6 µg and 160/18/9.6 µg versus GFF (p ⩽ 0.0005 for both). For FEV1 AUC0-4 at week 24, BGF 320/18/9.6 µg and 160/18/9.6 µg showed significant improvements versus BFF (p < 0.0001 for both). Improvements were maintained at week 52 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: BGF 320/18/9.6 µg and 160/18/9.6 µg significantly improved trough FEV1versus GFF and FEV1 AUC0-4versus BFF at week 24. The lung function benefits with both doses of BGF were maintained following 52 weeks of treatment.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction: Aclidinium/formoterol is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) dual bronchodilator used as a maintenance treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy of aclidinium/formoterol has been demonstrated consistently in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD versus placebo and monocomponents, with a comparable safety profile.Areas covered: This review examines recent research findings that expand our understanding of the impact of aclidinium/formoterol on the burden of COPD. Reviewed outcomes include improvements in lung function, respiratory symptoms, health-related quality of life, exercise tolerance, exacerbation rates, and clinically important deteriorations. In addition, the reported cardiovascular safety of aclidinium and current LAMA/LABA treatment recommendations are discussed.Expert opinion: Aclidinium/formoterol reduces disease burden in patients with COPD, including those that are treatment-naïve, without a significant increase in safety risk compared with monotherapies. Furthermore, evidence supports an improvement in lung function over a 24-hour period with aclidinium/formoterol treatment versus monotherapy and placebo, which may offer an advantage over some once-daily LAMA/LABA combinations. In summary, the recent evidence discussed in this review adds weight to the use of LAMA/LABA combinations as an initial therapy for certain patients newly diagnosed with COPD.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who experience further exacerbations or symptoms, despite being prescribed dual long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) or inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA therapies, triple ICS/LAMA/LABA therapy is recommended. A previous network meta-analysis showed comparable efficacy of the ICS/LAMA/LABA, budesonide/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR) 320/18/9.6 µg, to other fixed-dose and open combination triple therapies at 24 weeks in COPD. Subsequently, the ETHOS study was published, including data for 8509 patients, assessing the efficacy and safety of BUD/GLY/FOR over 52 weeks. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the relative efficacy, safety, and tolerability of BUD/GLY/FOR 320/18/9.6 µg with other fixed-dose and open combination triple therapies in COPD over 52 weeks, including data from ETHOS. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify ≥ 10-week randomized controlled trials, including ≥ 1 fixed-dose or open combination triple-therapy arm, in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. The methodologic quality and risk of bias of included studies were assessed. Study results were combined using a three-level hierarchical Bayesian NMA model to assess efficacy and safety outcomes at or over 24 and 52 weeks. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were used to assess heterogeneity across studies. Nineteen studies (n = 37,741 patients) met the inclusion criteria of the review; 15 contributed to the base case network. LAMA/LABA dual combinations were combined as a single treatment group to create a connected network. Across all outcomes for exacerbations, lung function, symptoms, health-related quality of life, safety, and tolerability, the efficacy and safety of BUD/GLY/FOR were comparable to those of other triple ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol and beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol fumarate) and open combinations at or over 24 and 52 weeks. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regression results for exacerbation outcomes were broadly in line with the base case NMA. In this NMA, BUD/GLY/FOR 320/18/9.6 µg showed comparable efficacy versus other ICS/LAMA/LABA fixed-dose or open combination therapies in terms of reducing exacerbation rates and improving lung function, symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD, in line with previously published meta-analysis results of triple combinations in COPD. The safety and tolerability profile of BUD/GLY/FOR was also found to be comparable to other triple combination therapies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Long-acting bronchodilator (LABD) use is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Few studies describe evolving patterns of LABD use in the setting of changing inhaler availability and updated clinical guidelines. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study in New Zealand using the HealthStat general practice database (01/2014 to 04/2018). Eligible patients (aged ≥40 years) had COPD and ≥1 LABD prescription (long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA] and/or long-acting ß2-agonist [LABA]) during the index period (05/2015 to 04/2016). Demographics and clinical characteristics of all LABD users (overall/by treatment) were described at baseline. Patients starting LABD treatment during the index period, termed "new" users, were also described, as was their treatment evolution over 24 months of follow-up. Yearly LABD initiation rates were assessed from 2015 to 2017, covering changes to Pharmaceutical Management Agency criteria and clinical guidelines. RESULTS: Across 2140 eligible patients, the most common index treatments were inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA (59.0%) and open triple therapy (LAMA+LABA+ICS; 26.7%). ICS/LABA therapy was highest in younger patients, with open triple therapy highest in older patients. Prior yearly exacerbation rates were lowest in those receiving monotherapy (LABA: 0.9/year; LAMA: 1.1/year) versus dual therapy (all 1.4/year) and open triple therapy (2.2/year). Of 312 new LABD users, ICS/LABA was the most common index treatment (69.6%), followed by LAMA monotherapy (16.0%). Continuous use with index treatment was 31.1% at 12 months and 13.5% at 24 months; mean time to treatment change was 175.5 and 244.1 days, respectively. Among patients modifying treatment at 24 months, 23.0% augmented, 7.0% switched, 45.6% re-started, and 24.4% discontinued/stepped down. Among patients initiating LABD each year from 2015 to 2017, LAMA prescription increased (17% to 46%) while ICS prescription remained stable (approximately 20%). CONCLUSION: Predominant use of ICS/LABA (05/2015 to 04/2016) reflects available LABDs and previous restrictions on LAMA use in New Zealand.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) received European approval for maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 2014. This study examined prescribing patterns, possible off-label prescribing, potential safety-related outcomes and adherence of these medications in routine clinical practice post-approval. METHODS: This retrospective, multi-database, longitudinal observational study of new users of UMEC, UMEC/VI, or other long-acting bronchodilators (LABD) analyzed data from UK electronic health record databases (primary care cohort), linked to hospital data (linked cohort). Off-label prescribing, safety outcomes (cardiovascular, respiratory, and mortality), treatment patterns, and medication adherence were assessed. RESULTS: In the primary care cohort (new users of UMEC n=3875; UMEC/VI n=2224; other LABD n=32,809), two-thirds of UMEC users were prescribed concomitant inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-agonists. Possible off-label prescribing, defined as use in patients without COPD, was similar for UMEC (7.0%) and UMEC/VI (8.8%), but higher for new users of other LABD (18.0%). There were 547 UMEC users and 512 UMEC/VI users in the linked cohort. In both cohorts, incidence rates (IRs) of cardiovascular outcomes were similar for UMEC and UMEC/VI users (myocardial infarction IR per 1000 person-years [95% CIs]: UMEC 6.9 [4.4, 10.2]; UMEC/VI 6.8 [3.5, 11.9]). IRs of pneumonia and acute COPD exacerbations (AECOPD) were slightly higher among UMEC users compared with UMEC/VI users (AECOPD IR per 1000 person-years [95% CIs]: UMEC 979 [931, 1030]; UMEC/VI 746 [687, 811]). Adherence (medication possession ratio ≥80%) was 64% for UMEC and UMEC/VI. CONCLUSION: Most new users of UMEC were receiving multiple-inhaler triple therapy. Off-label prescribing was uncommon for new users of UMEC and UMEC/VI. Incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes was as expected for these drug classes. This study provides evidence that UMEC and UMEC/VI are being prescribed appropriately and their safety profile remains unchanged.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review clinical evidence supporting the use of fixed-dose combination of tiotropium and olodaterol, a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), respectively, as the initial and follow-up treatment choice in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as per Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2020 recommendations-the impact of this treatment strategy on the reduction in the risk of exacerbations-and the importance of early therapeutic interventions. METHODS: For this narrative review, the available literature was searched to identify studies including patients with COPD receiving tiotropium and olodaterol as either monotherapy or combination therapy and studies including patients with COPD receiving inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in addition to long-acting bronchodilators. Relevant studies were included in the review. RESULTS: Patients with COPD are often prescribed ICS therapy, which, when used over a long term, can be associated with local and systemic adverse effects. The GOLD 2020 report recommends dual bronchodilator therapy as both an initial and follow-up treatment option. A LABA + LAMA combination is mechanistically synergistic, and cumulative evidence surrounding the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination of tiotropium and olodaterol supports therapeutic advantages over monotherapy in most patients with COPD. CONCLUSIONS: The early stages of COPD may represent a "window of therapeutic opportunity" during which initiation of tiotropium and olodaterol dual bronchodilator therapy may improve lung function and quality of life and reduce exacerbations in patients with COPD.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Rationale: In the phase III, 52-week ETHOS (Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease) trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02465567), triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) significantly reduced all-cause mortality compared with glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (GFF). However, 384 of 8,509 patients were missing vital status at Week 52 in the original analyses.Objectives: To assess the robustness of the ETHOS mortality findings after additional data retrieval for patients missing Week 52 vital status in the original analyses.Methods: Patients with moderate to very severe COPD and prior history of exacerbation received twice-daily dosing with 320/18/9.6 µg of BGF (BGF 320), 160/18/9.6 µg of BGF (BGF 160), 18/9.6 µg of GFF, or 320/9.6 µg of budesonide/formoterol fumarate (BFF) (all delivered via a single metered-dose Aerosphere inhaler). Time to death (all-cause) was a prespecified secondary endpoint.Measurements and Main Results: In the final retrieved dataset, which included Week 52 vital status for 99.6% of the intent-to-treat population, risk of death with BGF 320 was significantly lower than GFF (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.80; unadjusted P = 0.0035). There were no significant differences in mortality when comparing BGF 320 with BFF (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.16; P = 0.1721), nor were significant differences observed when comparing BGF 160 against either dual comparator. Results were similar when the first 30, 60, or 90 days of treatment were excluded from the analysis. Deaths from cardiovascular causes occurred in 0.5%, 0.8%, 1.4%, and 0.5% of patients in the BGF 320, BGF 160, GFF, and BFF groups, respectively.Conclusions: Using final retrieved vital status data, triple therapy with BGF 320 reduced the risk of death compared with GFF, but was not shown to significantly reduce the risk of death compared with BFF, in patients with COPD. Triple therapy containing a lower dose of inhaled corticosteroid (BGF 160) was not shown to significantly reduce the risk of death compared with the dual therapy comparators.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Many chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients receiving monotherapy continue to experience symptoms, exacerbations and poor quality of life. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of direct switch from once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg to indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) 110/50 µg once-daily in COPD patients in Korea. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, parallel group, 12-week trial in mild-to-moderate COPD patients who received TIO 18 µg once-daily for ≥12 weeks prior to study initiation. Patients aged ≥40 years, with predicted postbronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≥50%, post-bronchodilator FEV1/forced vital capacity <0.7 and smoking history of ≥10 pack-years were included. Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either IND/GLY or TIO. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of IND/GLY over TIO in pre-dose trough FEV1 at week 12. Secondary endpoints included transition dyspnea index (TDI) focal score, COPD assessment test (CAT) total score, and rescue medication use following the 12-week treatment, and safety assessment. RESULTS: Of the 442 patients screened, 379 were randomized and 347 completed the study. IND/GLY demonstrated superiority in pre-dose trough FEV1 versus TIO at week 12 (least squares mean treatment difference [Δ], 50 mL; p=0.013). Also, numerical improvements were observed with IND/GLY in the TDI focal score (Δ, 0.31), CAT total score (Δ, -0.81), and rescue medication use (Δ, -0.09 puffs/day). Both treatments were well tolerated by patients. CONCLUSION: A direct switch from TIO to IND/GLY provided improvements in lung function and other patient-reported outcomes with an acceptable safety profile in patients with mild-to-moderate airflow limitation.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have utilized 24-h serial spirometry to compare the effects of inhaled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapies on lung function. The FULFIL study previously reported significant lung function improvements with once-daily single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus twice-daily single-inhaler budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. METHODS: This prespecified analysis evaluated 24-h serial spirometry data from a subgroup of 406 patients in FULFIL. BUD/FOR twice-daily dosing was maintained during 24-h spirometry. A post hoc analysis evaluated serial forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at day 1 and week 24 by disease severity at screening (FEV1 < 50% predicted and no moderate or severe exacerbation in prior year, FEV1 < 50% predicted and ≥ 1 moderate or severe exacerbation in prior year, and FEV1 ≥ 50% and < 80% predicted and ≥ 2 moderate or ≥ 1 severe exacerbations in prior year). RESULTS: Odds of achieving a ≥ 100-mL increase from baseline in FEV1 within the first 6 h post dose on day 1 were significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI than BUD/FOR [odds ratio 2.79 (95% confidence interval 1.56-4.98); p < 0.001]. FF/UMEC/VI led to greater improvements in weighted mean FEV1 over 0-6, 0-12, 0-24, and 12-24 h on day 1 and at week 24, with the greatest between-group differences at week 24 (range 196-210 mL; all p < 0.001). Significant between-treatment differences in FEV1 and forced vital capacity (FVC) in favor of FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR were seen at all time points at week 24 (FEV1 range 156-231 mL, all p < 0.001; FVC range 139-309 mL, all p ≤ 0.002). Serial FEV1 results were consistent irrespective of disease severity at screening. CONCLUSION: These findings further demonstrate sustained lung function benefits with once-daily FF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations across a range of disease severities.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction: Training in correct inhaler use, ideally in person or by video demonstration, can minimize errors but is rarely provided in clinics. This open-label, low-intervention study evaluated critical error rates with dry-powder inhalers (DPIs), before and after training, in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Methods: Patients prescribed an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) (ELLIPTA, Turbuhaler, or DISKUS), long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/LABA (ELLIPTA or Breezhaler), or LAMA-only DPI (ELLIPTA, HandiHaler, or Breezhaler) were enrolled. Critical errors were assessed before training (Visit 1 [V1]; primary endpoint) and 6 weeks thereafter (Visit 2 [V2]; secondary endpoint). Logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for between-group comparisons. Results: The intent-to-treat population comprised 450 patients. At V1, fewer patients made ≥1 critical error with ELLIPTA (10%) versus other ICS/LABA DPIs (Turbuhaler: 40%, OR 4.66, P=0.005; DISKUS: 26%, OR 2.48, P=0.114) and other LAMA or LAMA/LABA DPIs (HandiHaler: 34%, OR 3.50, P=0.026; Breezhaler: 33%, OR 3.94, P=0.012). Critical error rates with the primary ICS/LABA DPI were not significantly different between ELLIPTA ICS/LABA (10%) and ICS/LABA plus LAMA groups (12-25%). Critical errors with the primary ICS/LABA DPI occurred less frequently with ELLIPTA ICS/LABA with or without LAMA (11%) versus Turbuhaler ICS/LABA with or without LAMA (39%, OR 3.99, P<0.001) and DISKUS ICS/LABA with or without LAMA (26%, OR 2.18, P=0.069). Simulating single-inhaler versus multiple-inhaler triple therapy, critical error rates were lower with ELLIPTA fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI; 10%) versus ELLIPTA FF/VI plus LAMA (22%), considering errors with either DPI (OR 2.50, P=0.108). At V2, critical error rates decreased for all DPIs/groups, reaching zero only for ELLIPTA. Between-group comparisons were similar to V1. Conclusion: Fewer patients made critical errors with ELLIPTA versus other ICS/LABA, and LAMA or LAMA/LABA DPIs. The effect of "verbal" training highlights its importance for reducing critical errors with common DPIs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Rationale: There is uncertainty on the use of using triple therapy (inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist) inhaler therapy for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance.Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to estimate the safety and efficacy of using triple therapy compared with long-acting ß-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist dual therapy or monotherapy with a single long-acting bronchodilator in patients with stable COPD who complained of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance.Methods: A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials pertaining to the clinical question. A systematic approach was used to screen, abstract, and critically appraise the studies. The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation method was applied to rate the certainty/quality of the evidence.Results: Eleven studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 14,145 patients). Pairwise random-effects meta-analysis revealed an increase in risk of pneumonia (relative risk, 1.47; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.20-1.80; P < 0.001) and decreased risk of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs) (relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.82; P < 0.001) with triple therapy compared with treatment with dual and monotherapy long-acting bronchodilator therapy. No significant difference in dyspnea scores (standardized mean difference, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.19; P = 0.09) or risk of hospitalization (rate ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.06; P = 0.11) was noted. When subgroup analysis based on inhaler class was performed, no significant difference was noted between the groups in any of the critical outcomes studied. For patients with a history of one or more AECOPDs in the past year, triple therapy resulted in 230 fewer AECOPDs and 16 more cases of pneumonia per 1,000 patients.Conclusions: In patients with COPD who complain of dyspnea and/or exercise intolerance, triple therapy is not superior to maintenance long-acting bronchodilator therapy, except in patients with a history of one or more exacerbations in the past year, in whom the benefits of reduction in AECOPD outweigh the increased risk of pneumonia.

Asunto(s)